OO and EO

[AureateDawn]

What is Oriental Orthodoxy, necessarily? I can't seem to find a lot online about it. How does it majorly differ from Eastern Orthodoxy?

 

[Lotar]

monophysitism and monothelitism

 

[ibba23]

Oriental Orthodoxy has never believed in monophysitism! This is a false accusation by our Eastern Orthodox brothers. The only things which separate Oriental Orthodoxy from Eastern Orthodoxy are semantics and politics. If you would like to find out more on Oriental Orthodoxy, I suggest that you visit the OO forums.

 

[Grigorii]

Eastern Orthodox combine the diophysite (two natures in Christ after the union - Incarnation) terminology of St. Leo the Great with the miaphysite (one nature after the union - Incarnation) terminology of St. Cyril of Alexandria concerning how Jesus Christ is both God and man.

The Oriental Orthodox do not. They stick exclusively to St. Cyril of Alexandria. Until recently it was believed that Oriental Orthodox were monophysite (denying the human nature in Christ affirming only His divinity). Even though St. Cyril denied two nature terminology (though he tolerated some deviation since the Formula of Reunion of 433) and affirmed one nature terminology he did not teach moniphysitism (nor do the Oriental Orthodox). To St. Cyril the two natures of Christ (divine and human) are so closely knitted together that we cannot speak of two natures, but we must speak of one nature consisting of an intact human and an intact divine nature. Humanity and divinity continue to exist in their own properties and are not mixed.

The Oriental Orthodox theologian St. Severus of Antioch later clarified St. Cyril's language by speaking of one composite nature in Christ. The word composite indicating that the unity of nature consists of two, even though we speak of only one. In the Eastern Orthodox Church St. Maximos the Confessor saw himself forced to defend the two natures theology by asserting that there are two wills in Christ, human and divine. He did this because heresies that had sprang up in the Byzantine Empire required this strong defense. In the Oriental Orthodox tradition such a strong defense of two wills is not found. Though Fr. John Behr (prof. of Patristics at St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary) has found passages in St. Severus of Antioch where Severus teaches two wills (and two energies) in Christ.

Here at the seminary, as in many other Eastern Orthodox gatherings, Oriental Orthodox are usually considered to be 'Orthodox' and limited intercommunion agreements between our Churches exist. Though some deviate from this attitude and continue to believe that Oriental Orthodox are monphysite heretics. Likewise some Oriental Orthodox continue to believe that Eastern Orthodox are in fact Nestorian heretics.

Most Orthodox that I know and meet, however believe that Oriental Orthodox are in fact Orthodox. In fact I know an Ethiopian Orthodox priest in Manhattan who is a spiritual son of Fr. Thomas Hopko. So in my experience our relations are getting better and sometimes have already radically improved. I would not be surprised if all of this will result in actual reunion between our Churches.And another interresting tidbit,.. The current Patriarch of the Ethiopian Church is an alumni from St. Vlad's

Gregorios

 

[KATHXOYMENOC]

monophysitism and monothelitism

My understanding is that OO prefer the term miaphysitism. monos = only; mia = one (feminine form of "one" to agree with the feminine noun physis = nature)

 

[ModernDaySpyridon]

Oriental Orthodoxy has never believed in monophysitism! This is a false accusation by our Eastern Orthodox brothers. The only things which separate Oriental Orthodoxy from Eastern Orthodoxy is semantics and politics. If you would like to find more about Oriental Orthodoxy, I suggest that you visit the OO forums.

I heartily agree. This is not the forum to be asking that question in. If you are serious about knowing, go to the horses mouth.

 

[AureateDawn]

Looking in the Congregational forums, I see they have their own little section!

I'll make a thread.

EDIT: Reading Gregorii's reply, I won't make one.

 

[ClementofRome]

Forgive me.

Can this too not be chalked up to "mystery?"

Forgive me. I am ignorant and an infant.

 

[Matrona]

Oriental Orthodoxy has never believed in monophysitism! This is a false accusation by our Eastern Orthodox brothers. The only things which separate Oriental Orthodoxy from Eastern Orthodoxy are semantics and politics. If you would like to find out more on Oriental Orthodoxy, I suggest that you visit the OO forums.

If the so-called Oriental "Orthodox" were really only separated from the ACTUAL Orthodox Church by "politics and semantics", you would rejoin the Orthodox in a heartbeat. We would certainly welcome you back Home. 1500 years is plenty of time for you to square your teachings with ours. We don't share communion with you because you do not share the Orthodox Faith, and we are NOT THE SAME.

 

[Akathist]

Eastern Orthodox combine the diophysite (two natures in Christ after the union - Incarnation) terminology of St. Leo the Great with the miaphysite (one nature after the union - Incarnation) terminology of St. Cyril of Alexandria concerning how Jesus Christ is both God and man.

The Oriental Orthodox do not. They stick exclusively to St. Cyril of Alexandria. Until recently it was believed that Oriental Orthodox were monophysite (denying the human nature in Christ affirming only His divinity). Even though St. Cyril denied two nature terminology (though he tolerated some deviation since the Formula of Reunion of 433) and affirmed one nature terminology he did not teach moniphysitism (nor do the Oriental Orthodox). To St. Cyril the two natures of Christ (divine and human) are so closely knitted together that we cannot speak of two natures, but we must speak of one nature consisting of an intact human and an intact divine nature. Humanity and divinity continue to exist in their own properties and are not mixed.

The Oriental Orthodox theologian St. Severus of Antioch later clarified St. Cyril's language by speaking of one composite nature in Christ. The word composite indicating that the unity of nature consists of two, even though we speak of only one. In the Eastern Orthodox Church St. Maximos the Confessor saw himself forced to defend the two natures theology by asserting that there are two wills in Christ, human and divine. He did this because heresies that had sprang up in the Byzantine Empire required this strong defense. In the Oriental Orthodox tradition such a strong defense of two wills is not found. Though Fr. John Behr (prof. of Patristics at St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary) has found passages in St. Severus of Antioch where Severus teaches two wills (and two energies) in Christ.

Here at the seminary, as in many other Eastern Orthodox gatherings, Oriental Orthodox are usually considered to be 'Orthodox' and limited intercommunion agreements between our Churches exist. Though some deviate from this attitude and continue to believe that Oriental Orthodox are monphysite heretics. Likewise some Oriental Orthodox continue to believe that Eastern Orthodox are in fact Nestorian heretics.

Most Orthodox that I know and meet, however believe that Oriental Orthodox are in fact Orthodox. In fact I know an Ethiopian Orthodox priest in Manhattan who is a spiritual son of Fr. Thomas Hopko. So in my experience our relations are getting better and sometimes have already radically improved. I would not be surprised if all of this will result in actual reunion between our Churches.And another interresting tidbit,.. The current Patriarch of the Ethiopian Church is an alumni from St. Vlad's

Gregorios

Gregorios,

We are so fortunate to have you here at CF.

What you have explained here is what I too firmly believe and have been taught by my Priest about the situation with the OO's.

I honestly wish others would read your words and think about how they may very well be fully accurate discriptions of this situation.

Do you have any suggestions on publications about this?

 

[Petronius]

If the so-called Oriental "Orthodox" were really only separated from the ACTUAL Orthodox Church by "politics and semantics", you would rejoin the Orthodox in a heartbeat. We would certainly welcome you back Home. 1500 years is plenty of time for you to square your teachings with ours. We don't share communion with you because you do not share the Orthodox Faith, and we are NOT THE SAME.

Theological discussions nowadays between EO and OO came to the conclusion that there was really semantics in first row that led to misunderstandings and separation.
Both Churches are now engaged on the road of reuniting and reentering communion. This is for much much much much more advanced than with the Catholic Church.
Theological issues to be overcome:
the OO to accept the post Chalcedon councils and to recognize reciprocally saints after the schism (which in my opinion is not a big deal, knowing that many EO have their own local saints). Both being Orthodox, we know that this is not a question to be done at a deadline.
Administrative issue: unification of jurisdictions. This is let to local arrangements a solution agreed in Syria for ex. is that when one of the local jurisdictional patriarch will die, they move under the jurisdictional pastorship of the living one and all become one Orthodox.

the next could be good for a poll: if you leave in a area where there are Protestant, RC and OO Churches, but no EO churches, which one would you attend ?
I would attend OO. So do some Ethiopians and Armenians in Prague: they attend our EO church.

In my opinion it is a question of yars when full communion and administrative unity will be achieved with the OO Church.

I was told by a lay person from the Czech Orthodox Church, that in throughout black Africa the OO has much more believers and parishes than the EO because they use local language (vernacular) while the EO uses Greek (I am not speaking of Churches under Russian or newer immigrant jusrisdiction). When there, this persons prefer to attend OO.

Nowadays I think it is obvious that we EO have much more in common with the OO than with the RC although the separations took place about 600 years later.

 

[copticorthodoxy]

If you want to know about the Orthodox Church , you should ask about that in the Oriental Orthodox forum .

i really feel sad to see some of EO calls us " monophysitism and monothelitism " because that is not true .

we can do the same and call the EO nestorians in our forum . but we don't do that .

it is nice to see EO seeking the unity between the two Orthodox churches

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Well, I defintely wouldn't go protestant. My mind says OO, but it has been drilled into my head so many times that they are monophysites and, although I really can't defend that claim, I would have to get over that. So, for my first reaction would be to go to a RC Church... even though in my mind I feel like we have much more in common with the OO. Go figure...

John

 

[Xpycoctomos]

double post

 

[Vedant]

Theological discussions nowadays between EO and OO came to the conclusion that there was really semantics in first row that led to misunderstandings and separation.
Both Churches are now engaged on the road of reuniting and reentering communion. This is for much much much much more advanced than with the Catholic Church.
Theological issues to be overcome:
the OO to accept the post Chalcedon councils and to recognize reciprocally saints after the schism (which in my opinion is not a big deal, knowing that many EO have their own local saints). Both being Orthodox, we know that this is not a question to be done at a deadline.
Administrative issue: unification of jurisdictions. This is let to local arrangements a solution agreed in Syria for ex. is that when one of the local jurisdictional patriarch will die, they move under the jurisdictional pastorship of the living one and all become one Orthodox.

the next could be good for a poll: if you leave in a area where there are Protestant, RC and OO Churches, but no EO churches, which one would you attend ?
I would attend OO. So do some Ethiopians and Armenians in Prague: they attend our EO church.

In my opinion it is a question of yars when full communion and administrative unity will be achieved with the OO Church.

I was told by a lay person from the Czech Orthodox Church, that in throughout black Africa the OO has much more believers and parishes than the EO because they use local language (vernacular) while the EO uses Greek (I am not speaking of Churches under Russian or newer immigrant jusrisdiction). When there, this persons prefer to attend OO.

Nowadays I think it is obvious that we EO have much more in common with the OO than with the RC although the separations took place about 600 years later.

Is patriarchal succession another thing to decide about?

 

[zhilan]

I've heard that sometimes intercommunion is allowed between the two churches. How does that work? Is that on an individual level where, say if you were married to an EO/OO the opposite spouse may be allowed to receive, or how does that work?

 

[Petronius]

Is patriarchal succession another thing to decide about?

As I remember from that presentation of the EO-OO discussions toward reunification, no.

 

[Ilian]

I've heard that sometimes intercommunion is allowed between the two churches. How does that work? Is that on an individual level where, say if you were married to an EO/OO the opposite spouse may be allowed to receive, or how does that work?

Yes, it is allowed in the Middle East. The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in Antioch (it's official name) has a formal agreement with its counterpart Non-Chalcedonian Church (sometimes called Jacobite or Syriac). It has a couple of main provisions. One is that conversions are not allowed. Meaning one cannot transfer between churches. When the member of one of the churches is not able to reach a priest of their own church to receive the mysteries, they can receive them from a minister of the counterpart church. Priests or hierarchs of the two two churches don't concelebrate with each other however.

There is a similar arrangement with the Melkites. I have also heard of similar, although unofficial types of things happening in the United States.

 

[Xpycoctomos]

Yes, it is allowed in the Middle East. The Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in Antioch (it's official name) has a formal agreement with its counterpart Non-Chalcedonian Church (sometimes called Jacobite or Syriac). It has a couple of main provisions. One is that conversions are not allowed. Meaning one cannot transfer between churches. When the member of one of the churches is not able to reach a priest of their own church to receive the mysteries, they can receive them from a minister of the counterpart church. Priests or hierarchs of the two two churches don't concelebrate with each other however.

I've heard this and read this agreement. That being said, I would probably be much less reluctant to attend an OO Church being that there are important parts of the Church that see our division as political and not theological. The reluctancy I expressed was/is only based on my lack of knowledge regarding our OO brethern, but not based on any factual reason.

John

 

[DavidBryan]

Even though St. Cyril denied two nature terminology (though he tolerated some deviation since the Formula of Reunion of 433) and affirmed one nature terminology he did not teach moniphysitism (nor do the Oriental Orthodox).

But isn't it true that St. Cyril spoke of the "two natures" of Christ in a letter to John of Antioch?

"With regard to the Evangelical and Apostolic expressions concerning the Lord, we know that men who are skilled in theology make some of them common to the one Person, while they divide others between the two Natures, ascribing those that are fitting to God to Divinity of Christ, and those that are lowly to His Humanity. On reading these sacred utterances of Yours, and finding that we ourselves think along the same lines—for there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism—, we glorified God the Saviour of all."

To St. Cyril the two natures of Christ (divine and human) are so closely knitted together that we cannot speak of two natures, but we must speak of one nature consisting of an intact human and an intact divine nature. Humanity and divinity continue to exist in their own properties and are not mixed.

The emphasized part makes no sense to me, and is the reason I'm perfectly satisfied with and totally supportive of the Chalcedonian statement, and why Non-Chalcedonian terminology--and, yes, I know it's based solely on the terminology of Ss. Cyril and Athanasius--makes me nervous. We can't speak of two ousia in an hypostasis, but we can speak of one ousion that has two separate ousia?? And all that's in the one hypostasis??