OO vs. EO

[Macarius]

In saying that the OO and RCC are closer in terms of union, would the OO run into the same roadblock as the EO in terms of papal primacy?

That is to say, would the Pope have to agree not to exercise jurisdiction over the East for their to be communion, and to repent of the doctrine of papal infallibility, first?

Or the other side of the coin, would (and would the OO be willing) you have to accept papal primacy and infallibility as defined by the RCC in order for their to be communion?

If that roadblock exists between the OO and RCC, then it would seem like the EO and OO would unite first.

There is a lot of goodwill in the American Orthodox churches towards the OO - mostly due to the wide influence of St. Vladimir's Seminary in New York. They are big advocates of re-union. As I understand it, most of the Western Orthodox Churches are in favor of it. Given his attitude towards the Pope, I would assume that the Patriarch of Constantinople would be as well.

Orthedoxy - why do you say the EO can't hold an ecumenical council? We certainly could! We just haven't had reason to for about 1100 years. I think an attempt at reunification between the OO and EO bishops would be cause for a genuine ecumenical council, to settle once and for all, without misunderstanding, the jointly held belief in a fully divine, fully human Christ.

Either way, it seems to me that if the OO are able to hash out an acceptable re-unification with the RCC, it could serve as a model for the EO in their own attempts at reunification. God willing, within this century all three will be one (God willing tomorrow!).

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Yeznik]

Greetings Maracius and welcome,

In regards to the OO and the RCC, the RCC as an entire organization is pushing for a reunion and resolutions. When Pope John Paul II visited Armenia, he was the first Pope in 2000 years of Christendom to come to Armenia in person, and he came to promote brotherhood and get a better understanding of the Armenian Church. The RCC know that the OO will not submit to the Pope and the RCC are well aware of this.

As you mentioned the greatest goodwill is being set forth by American Orthodox Church. I remember attending a graduation of several Armenian students from Saint Vlad’s and the environment was very friendly and receptive, and I have been to services where there was a representative from the American Orthodox Church were present. But the attitudes and approach of all the EO are not the same, especially the Greek and those from eastern block countries. I have read the attempts being made with the Greek Churches (EO) from 5 century till about 13th century. And the major part of the failure was due to the politics being imposed in theological matters and discussions between the Armenian Church and the Greek Churches. Basically, the Greeks wanted to chose the bishops, priests and the Catholicos of the Armenians. This problem was perpetual throughout the Byzantine Empire and not specifically toward the Armenians. The EO were forcing the Hellenized Christianity throughout the empire, basically, everything needed to be done in Greek and governed by the Greeks, which included vestments, services etc.

The main problem exists in the EO Churches. Let me give you and example:

The American Orthodox Churches allows Armenians to attend its seminaries as an exercise of good will and a step toward reunification. But, in other countries, such as Greece and the Eastern block countries are less inclined to accept an Armenian into its seminaries, even for academic purposes. Now here is the difference, the Western Orthodox Church would say, “let’s sit and discuss matters of doctrine and theology”, the Greek and Eastern Orthodox churches say, “First, you must accept our councils, and you must meet our approval in matters of clergy, then we can have a discussion”, same Church, two different attitudes. Now here is the issue within the EO Church, if the Western Orthodox “approves” the OO being orthodox, then the rest of the EO would call the Western Orthodox Churches heterodox and declare them as anathema, so that’s why all meetings between EO and OO are declared unofficial.


Also the issue between the EO and the OO is mainly politics. Even if an agreement is reached and all sides are orthodox then, it turns into who governs who in countries where both churches exist.

 

[Dorothea]

Very interesting thread, I am trying to understand all the theology, is some complicated.

You're not kidding. LOL I was trying to read over all the history and I don't think my mind could absorb it all and comprehend it. It was over my head in many parts. *blush* I'd heard about the OO, but I really didn't know the distinct differences. From the little I was able to comprehend of the information supplied, I did get one thing....that the Two Natures of Christ is not a belief shared by the OO. Is that right???

 

[Dorothea]

There is a lot of goodwill in the American Orthodox churches towards the OO - mostly due to the wide influence of St. Vladimir's Seminary in New York. They are big advocates of re-union. As I understand it, most of the Western Orthodox Churches are in favor of it. Given his attitude towards the Pope, I would assume that the Patriarch of Constantinople would be as well.

Orthedoxy - why do you say the EO can't hold an ecumenical council? We certainly could! We just haven't had reason to for about 1100 years. I think an attempt at reunification between the OO and EO bishops would be cause for a genuine ecumenical council, to settle once and for all, without misunderstanding, the jointly held belief in a fully divine, fully human Christ.

Either way, it seems to me that if the OO are able to hash out an acceptable re-unification with the RCC, it could serve as a model for the EO in their own attempts at reunification. God willing, within this century all three will be one (God willing tomorrow!).

In Christ,
Macarius

Wouldn't that be great?!!

 

[SaintPhotios]

I don't think we could unite with the whole EO. That is because they are not even united among themselves and can't hold ecumenical council. How can they accept us? is it by some archbishop declaring we have the same faith? They don't have a pope to declare we are united.
We are a lot closer to RC then EO, RC have declared that what happened at the council of Chelcedon was a misunderstanding therefore we should work together toward a unity with them, EO can't make such claim because they have no one voice that speaks for them.

I first want to say the many Eastern Orthodox Christians are very enthusiastic to reunite with the Oriental Orthodox Churches. And those of us who actually understand the issues realize that Oriental Orthodoxy is not guilty of the monophysite heresy, and that the primary division of one of terminology.

But I have to strongly disagree with this post. Reunification isn't about shaking hands and playing nice. It's about sharing the one true apostolic faith. The Roman Church has absolutely no trace of this left. I could spend all week trying to list all of the heretical innovations they've come up with since they're betrayal of the East. Papal primacy doesn't even scatch the surface. They have been utterly destroyed by modernism, Freemasonry, and occultism. They come to your ancient Churches and greet you with what appeared to be brotherly love. But they do the exact same thing to Jewish synagogues, the Hindu shrines, and the far eastern mystics. Reunification with Rome will be enrolling in the World Church of New Age Humanism. They have stripped their Churches of altars and replaced them with Protestant tables. They have dancers entertaining the masses. This sounds out there, but I regret to say that as much as I would like to hope for the See of Peter, I'm afraid there is no Church left in Rome.

There may be rocky relations between our Churches... but that is because we both strongly value apostolic tradition and would do anything to keep it from being compromised. I respect and honor for the mutual love of the faith that we both share. I would never want to be quick to judge another Christian Church, but I left Rome a year ago, and I can say without a doubt that She has lost the tradition and the apostolic faith entirely. Be very suspicious of of Bishop with no appearence of concern considering the faith.

 

[zhilan]

From everything I've read and learned and from my personal experiences with Copts, I am 100% convinced that they are completely Orthodox in their theology and that we are ONE Church that is sadly divided because of our own sins and pride. It really pains me whenever I see either side questioning the others Orthodoxy. The Coptic Church had a lot of influence in my conversion to the Orthodox Church and I feel very much that they are part of my faith and my faith journey. One of my most prized possessions is a Coptic cross that a Coptic friend gave me at my Chrismation and my priests laid on the altar to bless. I know that we will be united one day.

 

[SpyridonOCA]

From everything I've read and learned and from my personal experiences with Copts, I am 100% convinced that they are completely Orthodox in their theology and that we are ONE Church that is sadly divided because of our own sins and pride.

That might be true, yet we are unable to know. It raises the question of how Christ can be divided. I do not say "Non-Chalcedonians aren't Orthodox" because it isn't my right to do so. I cannot make a statement to the affirmative either.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

It raises the question of how Christ can be divided.

How indeed....

 

[minasoliman]

I contend that there is quite a simple answer. Indeed, there is wisdom in understanding that we know where the Church is, but not where it isn't. In this moment, we have to understand therefore that if we don't make such judgments, then there must be more than just mere ecclesiology that binds the Church together. It is the Orthodox faith.

I must reiterate this again and again. Unless you believe in Roman Catholic theology, one does not think Christ was referring to St. Peter as the "rock of the Church." Neither does Christ make it clear about any council as the "rock of the Church." In fact, this would assume that a council actually defines dogma. It's however the other way around: it is the Orthodox dogmatic faith that would define the council's validity. Nicea is not the rock, but what it teaches is the rock. Many other Arian councils afterwards called and approved by Constantine was successfully rejected because of its heretical teaching, even though the whole world seemed to have accepted them. Thanks to St. Athanasius, the correct dogma, the rock of the Church contained in Nicea was preserved.

Therefore, the rock of the Church is neither Peter nor Paul nor Apollo, neither Leo nor Dioscorus, neither Ephesus 449 or Chalcedon 451 literally, but it's what they represent, the ORTHODOX FAITH. The OO's and EO's have not talked with one another for 1500 years, and yet nothing separates us, not even ecclesiology, not even rejection of RC or Protestant dogmas, not even iconography, not even spirituality and theosis. Praise be the Lord! The rock of the Church exists in both EO's and OO's.

When Christ promised St. Peter that the gates of Hades shall not prevail against this rock, what happened later? St. Peter denied Christ three times. The Apostles scattered to hide from persecution. Christ was all alone with John and the three Mary's. Has Hades truly prevailed against the rock? NO! Peter was not this rock, but like the rest of the Apostles, the rock and the keys of heaven was entrusted to him. This rock, the Orthodox faith and spirituality, Satan can never prevail against it because he forever chooses to continue his own blasphemy and heresy against the Christian faith. But as light destroys darkness, true faith can always destroy Satan.

This promise is forever to any Christian who keeps the faith and the Apostolic succession. This Church exists in both the EO's and the OO's. If a new ecumenical council is convened to unite the two, it is not that the council has defined a new dogma, but has confirmed what has been true for the past 1500 years, the EO and the OO churches are the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church. To say otherwise would be inconsistency.

God bless.

 

[zhilan]

If we were not the same faith we could not have exceptions made for inter-communion and marriage in the other church could not be accepted. An Orthodox in an all Catholic country cannot get permission to receive Catholic communion, but between our Churches is can. An Orthodox cannot be married in a Catholic Church or he/she will be excommunicated, and yet OO and EO are free to marry in either Church and the other will recognize it.

Either we are one faith or we must lose faith in our Church leaders.

 

[SpyridonOCA]

This Church exists in both the EO's and the OO's.

You might be correct, but I'm not allowed to say that much. It raises the question of how Christ can be divided.

 

[Anglian]

Broken but not divided?

Anglian

 

[SpyridonOCA]

Given that Eastern and Oriental are synonymous, my heart and mind tell me to not make a distinction between the two. I don't believe that the Oriental Orthodox would have lasted this long if God had not willed it.

 

[Christos Anesti]

How do you folks (OO) feel about St Maximus the Confessors teaching on two will in Christ? Do you believe in miathelitism rather then monothelitism? Can a reproachment be made between the OO teaching and that of St Maximus?

 

[Apophatic80]

I'm EO (western convert), yet I've always been fascinated by the Copts whom I learned of in my undergrad studies. I admire you all very much, and I hope the situation improves in Egypt for all of the Copts there. You're all in my prayers! It's too bad were not in communion with one another.

 

[Anglian]

I'm EO (western convert), yet I've always been fascinated by the Copts whom I learned of in my undergrad studies. I admire you all very much, and I hope the situation improves in Egypt for all of the Copts there. You're all in my prayers! It's too bad were not in communion with one another.

Amen to that brother.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Aner]

Thus, the crucifixion was the choice of the Divine as well as the human nature. Had it not been One Will, it would not have been said that Christ died by His Own Will for our sake. Since the Will is One, the Act is necessarily One. Here we do not distinguish between the two natures.

I appreciate the thorough discussion here - enchanted actually - and I know this thread is long dead so my bit of a an addemndum will likely be lost but here it is in case someone makes it back around this way.

Where I get lost with this one is the "not MY will but THY will be done"? Whose will the is contrary to the Will of the Father??? If Jesus was not a human person, it would have to be the will of the 2nd Person/Logos (surely He had a will beforehand...) and we have God at odds with God. This is where the pattern breaks down. Any help for this one??

Thanks
Aner

 

[Aner]

Alexandra - Cute reason....

My last point was really quite pointed.... I was surprised with how good it was - I forget these things after awhile unfortunately...

Best,
Greg

 

[Basil the Great]

It is unfortunate that the EO and the OO have been unable to merge. Perhaps someday? Then again, maybe the OO and the EO will never merge unless the RCC and the EO unite?

 

[Aner]

Basil,

It is unfortunate that all of them have denied the human person which obviously includes the human will of Jesus.... thus denying the very Lord that bought us....

Aner