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.
I also really thought that the understandings of the OOC about the two natures of Christ
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)?
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)...
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]
For one thing, they identify him as the Patriarch of Constantinople!
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.
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.
Chalcedon was able to synthesize what was legitmate in both the Alexandrian and Antiochian christological traditions. I see that as great evidence of its catholic perspective. I think we owe a lot to the Patriarchate of Rome as a moderating influence in the debate too. I wouldn't be surprised if despite anathematizing Theodore that he and Diodore didn't have at least some influence in the thought process of the Fathers of Chalcedon. Then again so did St Cyril of Alexandria. I guess we get the best of both worlds and reject some the more extreme "exaggerations" found on both sides.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.
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.
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.
So we condemned your definition first and you rejected ours. But since we had the magic gavel then you are the one in schism. But if you had the gavel then we would be in schism.
I am sure there is a more perfect logic to your argument than my position. However, I think in the end, it all proves to be silly because now we insist on seeing who was in schism.
So, if we were to come together through reconciliation, it would be absolutely essential that you say sorry for having rejected what our council said. But we're cool in having implicitly included you among the list of heretical groups.
I guess you're right. It's essential we know where to point the blame. That is really key to all of this.
Irony off- there comes a point where we need to take our heads out of our ---s and say "look, what are we really still arguing about? Do you accept this? Do we accept you? Can we act like brothers now? good."
Josh
A priest explained to me that when there is no other proper alternative available in the area, Coptic Orthodox and Aethiopian Orthodox can commune with Orthodox (or "Eastern Orthodox") Christians (and still be what they already were, of course).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.
It was not intended by what said priest said.Unfortunately, some priests seem to understand this as, "We let them commune, end of story".
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 see your point, for sure. However, I do have to say that I felt like the Church was pretty divided in the days when I was barred from communing with ROCOR by my Patriarch.Sometheologians 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.
The Armenian Church was not present at the Council of Chalcedon; the Armenians were defending Armenia against the Persians because the Persian King Yazdagert was trying to force Armenians back to Zoroastrianism. The battle is known as the Battle of Vartanantz. Due to turbulent times in Armenia it took nearly 50 years after the Council of Chalcedon for the Armenian bishops to gather and discuss the decrees which they later rejected.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...
The general tradition regarding theological issues is resolved by a council of bishops. That doesnt mean the bishops do not listen to what their constituents have to say. If I recall correctly, we can look to the example of Saint Athanasius, while a deacon, gave the apology against the Arians.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?
If there is a council, led by the Holy Spirit, between the EO and OO and a resolution is made according to the Will of God. Then those who oppose the decision, on either side, can be considered schematics.That all is nice, but you need to be aware that not all "EO" agree that non-Chalcedonian beliefs can be reconciled with Orthodoxy.
I am confused about the above post, are you stating that a group of EO bishops would not pray with the OCA for the statement made? Or they didnt sign such a statement? Retreating out to the fields to pray is beautifully poetic, but this would need to be done before and during a council.We are the ones who would not pray with bishops who had signed such an agreement, but would retreat to the fields to pray there instead.
Yeah...a Patriarch who was deposed 'cause he was in heresy,
And he isn't a saint...
He was not personally mentioned in Chalcedon
(a heresy which Dioscorus believed and followed)
But as I said previously, he was condemned right along with everyone else who follows Eutyches heresy in 475.
So we condemned your definition first and you rejected ours.
But since we had the magic gavel then you are the one in schism. But if you had the gavel then we would be in schism.
However, I think in the end, it all proves to be silly because now we insist on seeing who was in schism.
So, if we were to come together through reconciliation, it would be absolutely essential that you say sorry for having rejected what our council said.
But we're cool in having implicitly included you among the list of heretical groups.
I guess you're right. It's essential we know where to point the blame. That is really key to all of this.
there comes a point where we need to take our heads out of our ---s and say "look, what are we really still arguing about? Do you accept this? Do we accept you? Can we act like brothers now? good."
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.
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.
Chalcedon was able to synthesize what was legitmate in both the Alexandrian and Antiochian christological traditions.
I think we owe a lot to the Patriarchate of Rome as a moderating influence in the debate too.
By the way, I wanted to add to my little rant (that I still stand behind, at least in content, lol) that, of course, we would only need to do the bolded part if indeed we come to the point where we realize that we never truly disagreed in the past but rather misunderstood each other, rightly condemning heresies that neither of us actually stood for.
If tomorrow our Churches (EO and OO) decided that indeed we are one and open up to intercommunion (and therefore recognize each other as One Church), this would not be to my chagrin and I would gladly accept this without a second thought or doubt in the world.
Interestingly, I totally know how Mr. Dombrowski sees me and my lefty views. He sees me and some others here as one who simply wants to sweep things under the rug, hold hands and sing kumbaya.
I know that can't change his mind because his posts demonstrate him as one who is solidified in his perspective no matter what.
However, to others (and Christopher if he wishes to hear) I want to reiterate that I am not interested in cheap reunification as he publically denounced his own sister in Christ of doing (in a "heterodox" forum on top of it), and quite harshly.
I am not into reconciliation for the sake of good feelings. I am into reconciliation if indeed we are saying the same thing in different ways. I'm not an expert, but that's how things seem to me so far whenever I read up on this theological issue from both points of view.
A priest explained to me that when there is no other proper alternative available in the area, Coptic Orthodox and Aethiopian Orthodox can commune with Orthodox (or "Eastern Orthodox") Christians (and still be what they already were, of course).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?