Ethiopian Orthodox church

[Damaris]

I understand that, Julia. I'm speaking from my own feelings. I feel the OOC are truly close to us the EOC. We allow OO's to partake of the Holy Eucharist. I would think we're not that divided.

When non-Chalcedonians are allowed to go to communion in Orthodox churches, the understanding is supposed to be that they have converted to Orthodoxy, accept Chalcedon, and won't go back to a non-Chalcedonian church if one is nearby.

Unfortunately, some priests seem to understand this as, "We let them commune, end of story".

 

[Dorothea]

When non-Chalcedonians are allowed to go to communion in Orthodox churches, the understanding is supposed to be that they have converted to Orthodoxy, accept Chalcedon, and won't go back to a non-Chalcedonian church if one is nearby.

Unfortunately, some priests seem to understand this as, "We let them commune, end of story".

I thought it had to do with no OOC's around the state they live in, so they are allowed to commune with the EOC's. At least, that's the case in my church. I also really thought that the understandings of the OOC about the two natures of Christ has been looked into the past several decades, and found that they are believing as the EOC on this now and the EOC and OOC are working on reuniting.

 

[Damaris]

If it was all just a mix up, then where was the Holy Spirit at the 4th Ecumenical Council...and what about the miracle of St Euphemia? If its all just a mix up, does that make the 4th Ecumenical council invalid? Just some thoughts...

Not to mention, sometimes people act as if one little word or one little council is all that divides the non-Chalcedonians from Orthodoxy. What about the non-Chalcedonians who refer to the Tome of Leo as "blasphemous", and Dioscoros and Severus as "saints"? What about monothelitism and St. Maximus the Confessor? What about the fact that the Coptic church's synod deleted prayers for the dead from the service of Pentecost (identical to ones prayed by Orthodox Christians on that day)?

 

[Damaris]

I thought it had to do with no OOC's around the state they live in, so they are allowed to commune with the EOC's. At least, that's the case in my church.

If non-Chalcedonians choose to go to an Orthodox Church and commune there, again, they are supposed to convert to Orthodoxy, and never go back to a non-Chalcedonian church even if one opens up next door. If they want to go to a non-Chalcedonian church once one becomes available, they can attend services but should never be allowed to receive any sacraments, not even the children.

This is why I don't like the confession/communion method of receiving converts: it leads to severe confusion on this point, even among priests.

I also really thought that the understandings of the OOC about the two natures of Christ has been looked into the past several decades, and found that they are believing as the EOC on this now and the EOC and OOC are working on reuniting.

Some theologians have thought that, some. Many emphatically disagree. Unfortunately, the "they believe the same" camp has sort of snowballed from "Maybe they just misunderstood the council" to "We are actually one church divided". That is really dangerous, because the Church is never divided.

 

[Joshua G.]

We do allow them to do that in many cases. But it is generally not in an official capacity. It's generally allowed on the down-low. It's kind of a dont ask dont tell policy for many Orthodox Jurisdictions (including mine, the MP). But, that still says something to your point, I think. We dont do that with Catholics or protestants on the whole.

Josh

 

[christopherdombrowski]

Is the Ethiopian Orthodox church heretical?

Well, from a Chalcedonian perspective, the very least that could be said is that we, the Oriental Orthodox of which the Ethiopians are a part, are not in communion with the Church.

 

[christopherdombrowski]

Are there any ancient racial motivations involved ?

Given that the Oriental Orthodox also include the Copts, Syrians, Armenians, and Malayali Indians, and that the Ethiopians are perhaps the most racially similar of the "black Africans", that is highly unlikely.

 

[christopherdombrowski]

No, it's just that they are in heresy (it's called Monophysitism). The heresy was condemned in all it's forms by the 2nd and 4th Ecumenical Councils. This is a simple overview of what happened Monophysitism - OrthodoxWiki

This is also a pretty good read: Ecumenism Awareness: Monophysites (Non-Chalcedonians)

It is important to offer as a counterpoint that we uphold the 2nd council as fundamental to the faith and uphold its condemnation of Apollinarianism, and that our chief Christologian, Saint Cyril of Alexandria, explicitly taught that Christ had a full instance of humanity including the nous.

 

[christopherdombrowski]

However, many state that the Oriental Orthodox are not Monophysite.

Originally, the difference between "Monophysite" and "Miaphysite" was strictly semantic.

Over time, through propaganda, the term Monophysite came to be associated with heretical forms of Synousianism, such as Apollinarianism, Eutychianism, and Julianism.

In that latter sense we do claim that we are Monophysites. As to the original meaning of Monophysite, however, we certainly do teach that Christ is one according to nature.

 

[christopherdombrowski]

Ethiopia had nothing to do with the schism really,

True. The Copts, the Syrians, and the Armenians were the three major groups who really initiated the rejection of Chalcedon.

other than they went with the theology of Dioscorus of Alexandria.

At that, it is entirely possible that they simply chose to follow their bishop. Before 1950 the Metropolitan of the Ethiopian church was always chosen by the Coptic church. So most likely, because the Non-Chalcedonians composed the majority church in Egypt, they simply received a Non-Chalcedonian bishop from them and went with his teaching which they saw as the continuation of what they always believed.

 

[christopherdombrowski]

...and Dioscorus of Alexandria was deposed and condemned as a heretic during the 4th Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451.

Deposed, yes. But he was not condemned as a heretic at Chalcedon. Most apparently the reason provided for his deposition was because he refused to appear before the council to answer for his supposed ecclesiastical abuses at Ephesus II in 449.

 

[christopherdombrowski]

We are not heretics. Stop referring to us as such, if you wish to use a term Call us Schismatic.

They should be free to call us heretics in their forum if they wish.

 

[christopherdombrowski]

Yes, actually schism is far better than heresy. Schism just means that the group at hand has broken ties with canonical Orthodoxy but still holds on to the true faith. Heresy means the group at hand has broken the true faith by adding to or subtracting from it.

In some sense schism is better because schismatics remain closer in confession. However, in terms of the wickedness of the act, I would think that schism actually would generally be worse. Usually heretics are convinced that their deviant system of thought is actually the truth, and thus that they constitute the Church of Christ. Schismatics, on the other hand, usually break from the Church for much more self-serving and devious reasons.

To put it as my bishop explained it to me when I asked him about working with non-Canonical Orthodox groups in May 2010: The question is not about canonical vs. non-canonical. The question is whether or not the group is Orthodox. If they are Orthodox then it might just be a matter they have divorced themselves from the Church for one reason or another. These things can be healed over time and often are, and we can work with these groups. But if the group is not Orthodox, then we can not work with them.

Again, it is possible for schismatics to have a correct confession. However, to refer to them as Orthodox in a totally unqualified manner is somewhat misleading. On a mystical sense, I think it is safe to say that they do not have the fullness of the life of the Church as non-schismatic churches do.

 

[christopherdombrowski]

I was told schism is just as bad as heresy (by a priest).

I've heard some people say that schism is actually worse than heresy.

I think there is legitimacy to both positions, as they are arguing the point regarding different reasons which are both true.

 

[christopherdombrowski]

Concerning the Copts and the Aethiopian Orthodox Church I heard it from another priest that they are indeed only schismatic. He explained that what happened was that another Ecumenical Council was held in Chalcedon, and the Copts were not present. Their absence was not a statement against anything that was said there, but rather they were simply not there for one reason or another, as it may be, but there was not necessarily any intention as far as we know to create schism.

This is totally untrue. There were 14 Coptic Bishops reported as being present at the Council of Chalcedon. The rejection was explicit.

 

[christopherdombrowski]

that is up for debate because from our point of view, the body that you are in left the True Body of Christ, which is heresy. there is only One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and either we are it and you are in heresy, you are it and we are in heresy, or we are both in heresy.

I think your definition of heresy might be off, because the Fathers often made a strong distinction between schism and heresy.

Otherwise, I agree with your premise that one of us must be the Church of Christ and the other apart from it, or perhaps neither of us are the Church; we cannot both be.

 

[christopherdombrowski]

And with thinking like that we will never be reuinited.

Perhaps thinking like that is the only way we will ever be reunited, that is in a true union, rather than a false one. It does seem that ArmyMatt's thinking about this is more accurate than your own. The Oriental Orthodox Communion is now infested with heretical ecumenists, and it appears you might be one of them.

The fact is the EO are not nestorians and never have be, and the OO and not Monophysites and never have been.

Nonsense. Neither of these are facts. And I would even explicitly argue against the first point. But this is not the proper forum to be discussing whether the Chalcedonians are Nestorians or not.

It was a political issue that God blown massively out of context.

Yeah, yeah. Standard ecumenist clap-trap. Ever heard of the 6 Anathemas of Saint Dioscorus against the Council of Chalcedon?

As for who is in schism, I dont think it matters, We could go on name calling for years, What is important is that we should reunite and just live in peace.

Recognizing that one of us is schismatic and that that party is rejoining the Church will most likely shape the very nature of the reunion itself, in contrast to how it would be if we recognized ourselves as divided members of the Church (which is logically nonsensical).

 

[christopherdombrowski]

1) The debate is to be decided by the council of bishops, not you, me or anyone else individually.

So the fact that Saint Severus of Antioch, while still a lay person, anathematized Pope Peter III of Alexandria for accepting the Henotikon means nothing to you?

 

[musicluvr83]

Deposed, yes. But he was not condemned as a heretic at Chalcedon. Most apparently the reason provided for his deposition was because he refused to appear before the council to answer for his supposed ecclesiastical abuses at Ephesus II in 449.

Well, according to the OCA, Dioscorus was condemned a heretic in Chalcedon. All my quotes are from the OCA website (OCA - Lives of all saints commemorated on this day)...

Dioscorus was a heretic; he followed Eutyches who "said that the Divine nature in Christ had fully swallowed up and absorbed His human nature. This false teaching undermined the very basis of the Church's teaching about the salvation and redemption of humankind [trans. note: Since "what is not assumed is not saved", if Christ has only a Divine nature and not a human nature, then the salvation of humankind, and even the Incarnation of Christ would be rendered heretically docetic]. In the year 449 Dioscorus and his followers convened a heretical "Robber Council" at Ephesus, having received also the support of the emperor."

"Dioscorus, an arch-heretic and Patriarch of Constantinople. He...was condemned by the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and also Ammonius, Eusebius and Euthymius."

Then,
"In 450, at a local Council in Constantinople, St Anatolius condemned the heresy of Eutyches and Dioscorus. "

 

[christopherdombrowski]

and that, indeed, we are and never were Nestorians (is that what they accused us of? I forget.)

Yes, historically we have accused you of having compromised with Theodoreanism (the Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia) at the Council of Chalcedon, and personally I still uphold this teaching.

THEN it seems that we are both saying that at no time was either body in heresy and so with that said, how can we say in such a situation that they were not part of the Church. IF all of that above is true (that neither side was wrong, but that there was some cultural misunderstanding involved) then it would seen we had always been one Church, just failing to realize it within history.

No, this is not the logical conclusion. True, no party would be heretical. But what really is the core condition of the schism? It is our (the OO) rejection of the Council of Chalcedon. If we had not rejected it then we still would have been one. And if both sides were in fact orthodox, primarily we would be the side in the wrong for having rejected your definition of faith. Even if both parties were orthodox all along, we would still technically be schismatics, and you the Church.