Overcoming gridlock between EOs and OOs over Chalcedon's Formula

[rakovsky]

The deacon Stylianus, copying in 932 the manuscript of Cyril's controversy with Theodoret over the Twelve Chapters, wrote the marginal note: "To speak candidly, they attack each other erroneously saying the same thing about the same thing and working themselves up into a disagreement like people differing over a number if one says so many units are "eleven" and the other "ten and one".
http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/content/59/2/810.extract

It is hard to see what is the difference in substance between the EO and OO position on the topic of natures once each side agrees to a certain definition.
If the term means essences or categories, OOs agree in substance it means there are two "natures" after the incarnation.

Paul tells us to unite as one body and to avoid factionalism. What is a constructive way to do this?
Wouldn't it be helpful to define natures and then prove to each other that we mean the shared same belief on the topic in substance?

 

[Sirlanky]

Of course it's a moot point. I stated my position, not that of the Church.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Yes but as the Oriental Orthodox Church doesn't accept the councils nor the anathemas it is a moot point.

right, so for communion to happen, they would have to or we would have to reject them. there is no other way.

 

[ArmyMatt]

What is a constructive way to do this?
Wouldn't it be helpful to define natures and then prove to each other that we mean the shared same belief on the topic in substance?

the only constructive way is to submit to what is true, no water stuff down for the sake of some external unity. if we have the same experience in Christ, they would have no issue anathematizing Severus, or we would have no issue accepting him as a saint.

 

[dzheremi]

I agree with Matt's first sentence, but I'm not so sure that the second follows. The Armenians have never venerated HH St. Dioscorus, for instance, but I think they have the same experience of Christ as any other OO Christians. I'm not sure how having the same saints or anathematizing the same people means that you have the same experience of Christ. Surely both the EO and the RCC anathematize Nestorius (though the RCC has admittedly wavered on this, as on most things, in recent centuries, I'm going to assume as a concession to the Chaldean and Syro-Malabar uniates who came from the Nestorian Church), in addition to sharing many early saints in common, but I kind of doubt that most EO would say that they and the RCC have the same experience of Christ as a result.

This demand for absolute uniformity from EOs in the fashion described in the post above this one is another reason why unity is a complete pipe dream. I don't even want to be in union with people who conceive of Christianity in this fashion, and I'm neither shy about it nor alone in seeing things this way (as plenty of talks with other OO have shown me; our mindsets really are different than yours when it comes to this sort of thing). We don't give up our traditions or our saints to satisfy the demands of others (certain converts like Sirlankyknight excepted, I guess), much less for the sake of appearing to be unified when we cannot actually agree. What good would that even do? It wouldn't last, so what would be the point?

 

[rakovsky]

This demand for absolute uniformity from EOs in the fashion described in the post above this one is another reason why unity is a complete pipe dream. I don't even want to be in union with people who conceive of Christianity in this fashion, and I'm neither shy about it nor alone in seeing things this way (as plenty of talks with other OO have shown me; our mindsets really are different than yours when it comes to this sort of thing). We don't give up our traditions or our saints to satisfy the demands of others (certain converts like Sirlankyknight excepted, I guess), much less for the sake of appearing to be unified when we cannot actually agree. What good would that even do? It wouldn't last, so what would be the point?

Some EOs want that, others like the Joint Commission don't see it as needed. This rigidity can be found by some on the OO side in a parallel way.

In truth, if in "two natures" is a normal statement, then the Creed of Chalcedon is OK too. If OOs accept the Creed of Chalcedon and everything except for anathematizing Dioscorus and Severus as heretics, it would look bad for both sides that they could not agree when they accepted the same Councils, minus two anathemas, when churches don't even follow all their own anathemas, like anathematizing anyone who doesn't accept unwritten traditions.

I would recommend everyone who is actually orthodox to look for unity and trying to achieve it like Paul says, rather than looking for ways to keep Christians who have the same beliefs divided. If you can't list any specific, explicit belief that is different and you agree on everything when terms are defined correctly, then you have the same beliefs.

 

[rakovsky]

I don't know if you guys are familiar with Trot groups, but after about WWII they started splitting up over nothing. They would have faction battles based on personalities, and then split hairs on doctrine to justify their fights. It's like what Stylanius said:
""To speak candidly, they attack each other erroneously saying the same thing about the same thing and working themselves up into a disagreement like people differing over a number if one says so many units are "eleven" and the other "ten and one"."

I think people should work together to solve problems, like the two natures v one natures one and unite, if Paul says that they should.

 

[dzheremi]

Some EOs want that, others like the Joint Commission don't see it as needed. This rigidity can be found by some on the OO side in a parallel way.

Yes, fine. As you all see, we have people like Sirlankyknight in our church who somehow hold opinions that they recognize are at variance with us, and yet they keep showing up anyway. Individually, you can find all kinds of wacky opinions (not to imply that ArmyMatt's opinion is out of the ordinary, as I don't think it is, just that I recognize that there is a range). The point is that it's not like either of us can ignore that significant portions of our communions would immediately cry foul just because the joint commission has found or recommended this or that. The joint commission is not a Holy Synod. Its findings are not binding in any fashion.

In truth, if in "two natures" is a normal statement, then the Creed of Chalcedon is OK too. If OOs accept the Creed of Chalcedon and everything except for anathematizing Dioscorus and Severus as heretics, it would look bad for both sides that they could not agree when they accepted the same Councils, minus two anathemas, when churches don't even follow all their own anathemas, like anathematizing anyone who doesn't accept unwritten traditions.

But this is not reality, my friend. Again, the Armenians have never venerated HH St. Dioscorus. They object to Chalcedon because they recognized separately, at the Council of Dvin in 506, that this is not the faith of our fathers. And we agree with them. We don't care to 'save' individual personalities from condemnation if it is deserved (hence when Eutyches returned to his vomit, we cast him out too), but about the substance of the faith.

We're not playing a game of cards here. It's not about "I'll give up this, if you give up that, and then we can play together." One or the other side would have to change its approach to this matter in ways that I don't think either are willing or perhaps capable of doing.

I would recommend everyone who is actually orthodox to look for unity and trying to achieve it like Paul says, rather than looking for ways to keep Christians who have the same beliefs divided. If you can't list any specific, explicit belief that is different and you agree on everything when terms are defined correctly, then you have the same beliefs.

And I would have no problem with that as a general statement of how things should be approached, with the caveat that saying that this is how things should be doesn't actually make them be that way. As dumb as it is to put it this way, we aren't in communion until/unless we're actually in communion. EOs can admire our people like Abba Matthew the Poor, or even chant some of our hymns composed by St. Severus (that they attribute to Justinian, according to their tradition), and still call us heretics. Heck, I see it online all the time. Bob Marley was "Orthodox" when convenient for them, and part of a heretical cabal of Ethiopian God-haters as necessary, too. And we have similarly mush-headed people in the OO Church too, I am sad to say, who are loathe to say before the Chalcedonians that we, and not them, are the true Church. Lord have mercy on us all. Agreement is one thing, and I think there are substantial areas where we do agree (you and I in particular have been over this a lot recently, so I would hope that you agree), but they don't rise to level of sustaining open communion without precondition as already exists between, say, the Serbian Orthodox Church and the Georgian Orthodox Church on the EO side, or the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church on the OO side. Why? Because we really are not the same. We really are not.

That's not looking for division. That's recognizing the obvious. And if you believe in where you are, then there's no shame in it. It doesn't mean I hate you, or think you're all damned, or anything like that. It means that I don't believe that you have maintained the faith as we have. And for your part, your churchmen return the sentiment ten-fold. Glory be to God that at least we are dealing with serious people on some level, rather than the mess that usually passes for 'ecumenism', which is a race to the bottom at the expense of the truth. Lord have mercy.

 

[rakovsky]

we really are not the same. We really are not.

What is the theological difference between EOs who accept "in two natures" in the dictionary, Biblical sense of categories/essences/collections of properties etc. and OOs like Mina, Mor Ephrem, Fr. Peter Farrington (who you respect), the Joint Commission, and Sirlanky who openly accept "in two natures" in that sense?

Why would one prefer to have schism when every time things are defined one agrees?

 

[dzheremi]

Why are you taking the opinions of three OOs you've met on the internet and the joint commission as though this means that the schism is over or not real or whatever your point is?

And why do you apparently think that ability to agree is at this point sufficient enough to end the schism? It can be understood in an Orthodox fashion, therefore there are no problems? You yourself have said that some Chalcedonians apparently accept our traditional miaphysitism as Orthodox (I haven't seen that, but I'll take your word for it), and yet you are not in communion with us. Should I ask why? Or is it obvious already?

I think it's obvious already. Communion is not just the lifting of anathemas or any other largely symbolic gesture taken in isolation from the rest of history and practice (recall your own Patriarch Athenagoras and the Roman Pope of his day lifting the anathemas of 1054 back in the 1960s), but a recognition of the same faith by both sides. That is not where we are, no matter how well or not well we might get along at an individual or any other level.

It's not that I'd prefer it. I don't prefer it. But it is what's happening, and you ignore that at your peril.

 

[rakovsky]

Why are you taking the opinions of three OOs you've met on the internet and the joint commission as though this means that the schism is over or not real or whatever your point is?

Four. I included Fr Peter Farrington, whom you respect and who has an upcoming essay in a Coptic magazine on reunion aims.

Why not try to think constructively?

And why do you apparently think that ability to agree is at this point sufficient enough to end the schism?

If both groups are faithful good Christians, ideally why shouldn't it be?

It can be understood in an Orthodox fashion, therefore there are no problems?

Just like "Theotokos."
If it says "two natures and one person", then the normal reasonable understanding of the sentence itself is natures are not in the sense of person.

You yourself have said that some Chalcedonians apparently accept our traditional miaphysitism as Orthodox (I haven't seen that, but I'll take your word for it), and yet you are not in communion with us. Should I ask why? Or is it obvious already?

Sure. Chalcedon's main creed says "in two natures", a grammatically correct sentence. The central point of disagreement was this normal phrase that Dioscorus wrongly deposed Flavian for and rejected in the Council's central formula. Since the Formula was correct, I go with the Formula, not with the party opposed to it. Nor do I go with the deposal of Flavian, which was the first schism between the parties.

Had the obverse occurred and Chalcedon had stated Cyril's "miaphysia" phrase in its main formula and then EOs (1) rejected the formula and (2) also made the first rupture by deposing an OO for (A) saying "Miaphysia" and for (B) deposing Nestorius, I would go with the OO side. But instead, the EOs openly accepted the writings of Cyril and the Tome. I don't necessarily agree with every sentence those writings say, although I could read Leo's Tome with a correct meaning in context. But nor do I have to agree to every sentence spoken everywhere at every Council.

I am not an absolutist. I would like to explore whether at one time the Palestinian Christian people were mostly conscious Syriac OOs. Maybe you know more about this? Their Pat. Juvenaly switched from the OO side to the EO one at Chalcedon and there was resistance to him, although the Palestinian monks were EO. But just because people whose culture I admire mostly support or resist a decision doesn't necessarily make them right. Likewise, when some EOs disagree with the idea of one whole composite nature, I disagree with them, and I doubt that every anathema must be or is actually accepted by every EO Church, since some canons aren't, while others have fallen out of use. So just because EOs and OOs anathematize each others' readings is not fully determinative for me either. The main reasons are what I gave in my first two underlined paragraphs above.

 

[dzheremi]

Four. I included Fr Peter Farrington, whom you respect and who has an upcoming essay in a Coptic magazine on reunion aims.

Reunion aims, sure. I don't think Fr. Peter Farrington or any of our priests would therefore say that the schism is healed, though. We are very clearly not in communion.

Why not try to think constructively?

Context matters. In the context in which we are told "either you have to give up these saints and submit to these foreign councils or we won't have communion with you", then we say "okay; then we won't have communion with you, because those are not things that we will do." Who is being constructive here and who is not? Both sides are agreeing to stay apart for the sake of what they believe.

If both groups are faithful good Christians, ideally why shouldn't it be?

Because the ability to agree intellectually about this or that specific matter isn't enough to sustain open communion. Why are you not in communion with the RCC? After all, your patriarch Athenagoras lifted the anathemas of 1054 jointly with the Roman Pope of his day back in the 1960s. Why isn't that enough for your EO church to be in communion with the RCC? The answer to that should be obvious (or at least it's obvious to me, and I'm not even EO or RC), as the answer with regard to OO and EO is similarly obvious: We don't bilaterally agree that we share the same faith, even after many good steps have been taken towards rapprochement.

With respect, the rest of your post is answers to rhetorical questions that aren't profitable to get into here, and an additional question about the changing religious demographics of Palestine following Chalcedon, which is also not appropriate to get into here, so I'm going to leave it be.

 

[rakovsky]

Context matters. In the context in which we are told "either you have to give up these saints and submit to these foreign councils or we won't have communion with you", then we say "okay; then we won't have communion with you, because those are not things that we will do." Who is being constructive here and who is not? Both sides are agreeing to stay apart for the sake of what they believe.

If nobody is putting a path forward to resolve the schism, then no one is being constructive.

Because the ability to agree intellectually about this or that specific matter isn't enough to sustain open communion. Why are you not in communion with the RCC? After all, your patriarch Athenagoras lifted the anathemas of 1054 jointly with the Roman Pope of his day back in the 1960s. Why isn't that enough for your EO church to be in communion with the RCC?

RCs want Papal supremacy, which we can't accept.
Schism is not only based on a question of faith, there can be church politics reasons. I am not sure whether all our disagreements with RCs are just politics though.

But in the case of 1500+ years of division over "natures" if one side can't put forward a definition of natures to show a substantive disagreement outside using the word itself, it doesn't look like they are fighting over a substantive issue. It looks like they are schismating just because they want to schismate rather than actually look critically at substantive issues and make reunion a real goal like Paul asked people to do.

You stated previously that Dioscorus was not deposed for heresy, but for his mistreatment of Flavian. The same principle can apply to schism, where two groups can agree to the same principles in substance, but for some baseless mistaken reason stay apart.

If RCs and EOs and OOs are all good faithful Christians, then they should constructively seek to end their divisions in a correct way. And it is a failure if they can't.

What is the constructive way forward, or is it better to try to schismate over a difference nobody can show is real?

 

[dzheremi]

If nobody is putting a path forward to resolve the schism, then no one is being constructive.

Okay then.

RCs want Papal supremacy, which we can't accept.

The EO want Chalcedonianism, which we can't accept. We want to keep our miaphysitism and our saints and everything intact, which the EO can't accept.

Schism is not only based on a question of faith, there can be church politics reasons. I am not sure whether all our disagreements with RCs are just politics though.

Of course.

But in the case of 1500+ years of division over "natures" if one side can't put forward a definition of natures to show a substantive disagreement outside using the word itself, it doesn't look like they are fighting over a substantive issue. It looks like they are schismating just because they want to schismate rather than actually look critically at substantive issues and make reunion a real goal like Paul asked people to do.

And which side can't do that? I think the EO do, and I think the OO do. If you say "two natures after the union" and anathematize anyone who will not say that, and we say "one nature after the union", and will not say two, then I don't see how that's not a substantive disagreement. Yes, there are ways to be able to say that they dyophysite Christology is reconcilable with miaphysite Christology (as you can argue that St. Cyril did in his reconciliation with John of Antioch, and St. Nerses Shnorhali did in the 12th century, etc.), but what good is that in the context in which we are told "confess two natures after the union and accept Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo as we do or we won't commune with you"? We are still at an impasse because of this. And certainly, if these are your terms, these are your terms. Don't try to make them something other than that just because you can if the rest of your church is not of the same mind.

You stated previously that Dioscorus was not deposed for heresy, but for his mistreatment of Flavian. The same principle can apply to schism, where two groups can agree to the same principles in substance, but for some baseless mistaken reason stay apart.

No I didn't. I stated previously that what he was convicted of at Chalcedon is refusing to answer the thrice-sent summons, and having conducted Ephesus II improperly, as this is what the record as preserved at Chalcedon shows. This is of course a Chalcedonian point of view that transforms "conducted Ephesus II improperly" (a Chalcedonian accusation in the first place) into "mistreatment of Flavian". I know well enough the kinds of accusations put forth against our teacher HH St. Dioscorus at Chalcedon and forever afterwards, and I won't dignify them with a response but to say that we in the OO Church have a different view on Ephesus II and do not believe the accusations to be true.

So no, it doesn't show that. It shows that deliberately vague charges put forth in a highly partisan atmosphere (which admittedly Ephesus II also was) are enough to convict a bishop who is not proven to have done anything when those judging him are of the mind that he did. Coptic sources tell us that this is the whole reason why HH St. Dioscorus eventually pointedly rejected the summons, as he knew in advance that he would not be getting anything like a fair trial there. And he was right.

This is all so much water under the bridge, however. As HH St. Dioscorus himself is recorded to have said regarding Eutyches we would also regarding HH: our concern is not with one man, but with the faith.

If RCs and EOs and OOs are all good faithful Christians, then they should constructively seek to end their divisions in a correct way. And it is a failure if they can't.

We all agree that we should be one church. The question is: According to whose model? Do we become the church of 20+ councils with Papal supremacy and all the other errors of the Romans? Do we (OO, and I suppose also RCs) become the church of 7 councils with Byzantine/Greek/Constantinopolitan practices and theology, even if those were never part of our practice and are not part of our traditions? Or do the Greco-Roman Chalcedonians become non-Chalcedonians even though our practices and theology are likewise alien to them? I believe that all concerned have their own answer (roughly, "of course you should do what my church says you should do"), but they don't lead to agreement. I don't really see how that can be characterized as failure, though. I mean, do you want to be a non-Chalcedonian? If so, the doors of the church are open to you. If not, why belabor this point? I already know that I don't want to be EO (I could have been one, if things had gone differently; plenty of people make that choice), no matter if even HAH Bartholomew himself were to knock on my door today and explain to me why it's the only way to go. I would tell him, and all of you, thank you but no thank you. I assume that you all would do the same no matter who attempted to persuade you to give up Chalcedon for whatever reason. So I don't wonder these things.

What is the constructive way forward, or is it better to try to schismate over a difference nobody can show is real?

I disagree that it isn't real, though whether or not it is real and surmountable remains an open question being tackled by people much, much smarter than me. So I'm not sure how to answer that question.

 

[rakovsky]

But in the case of 1500+ years of division over "natures" if one side can't put forward a definition of natures to show a substantive disagreement outside using the word itself, it doesn't look like they are fighting over a substantive issue.​

And which side can't do that? I think the EO do, and I think the OO do.

OK, so what are those two definitions that show a substantive disagreement?
What does "natures" mean, such that it's always impossible to assert "in two natures".

The EOs define it as categories/essences/collections of properties and use it that way. OOs agree that there are two of these things. "Natures" in the substance of the word per the EO definition is accepted in OO theology. Thus, there is not a substantive difference from the EO position.

Why schismate when there is not a substantive difference? If what Flavian said was fine under the Formula of Reunion, why did Flavian get deposed?

Yes, there are ways to be able to say that they dyophysite Christology is reconcilable with miaphysite Christology (as you can argue that St. Cyril did in his reconciliation with John of Antioch, and St. Nerses Shnorhali did in the 12th century, etc.),

Good sincere Christian communities should be able to move ahead and reconcile at this point.

but what good is that in the context in which we are told "confess two natures after the union and accept Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo as we do or we won't commune with you"?

Because it shows there is no substantive disagreement, and that Christians should still work together to reunite like Paul said.
If we don't try, then we are just putting regional divisive traditions over Paul.

"confess two natures after the union and accept Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo" is somebody's set of conditions that I think are only partly needed.

Obstacle 1 is the gridlock situation where "dyophysite Christology is reconcilable with miaphysite Christology ", but in OO tradition this reconciliation has been denied by major figures, due to a failure to understand this truth.

Obstacle 2 is the fact that EOs have a ecumenical council with the above mentioned correct statement and don't want to give up a council being ecumenical, and so want its formula to be accepted. I consider this desire reasonable.

Obstacle 3 is the question of whether you need to accept the Tome and anathemas. I can see that EOs can be divided on this question, but in truth EOs only require main formulas to be accepted from each council, as there have been cases where some canons and decisions of councils were not accepted by all EO churches.

I think that if we do want reunion like Paul says, we should go through these obstacles one by one. If OOs can accept "in two natures", then we should get through Obstacles 1-2. At that point if we accept everything openly, it will be obvious that the anathema question is not a real issue unless people like the church being in schism.

As for your other questions, it's OK and you are smart, but we have talked alot on this same topic already, so my suggestion is that you please put some questions in bold when you ask them so I will know what to focus on.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The Armenians have never venerated HH St. Dioscorus, for instance, but I think they have the same experience of Christ as any other OO Christians. I'm not sure how having the same saints or anathematizing the same people means that you have the same experience of Christ. Surely both the EO and the RCC anathematize Nestorius (though the RCC has admittedly wavered on this, as on most things, in recent centuries, I'm going to assume as a concession to the Chaldean and Syro-Malabar uniates who came from the Nestorian Church), in addition to sharing many early saints in common, but I kind of doubt that most EO would say that they and the RCC have the same experience of Christ as a result.

well, I meant there is a difference between veneration of a saint locally (such as your point with Dioscorus) and one that is anathematized. holding someone who is a named heretic by a confession as a saint does show a different vision of Christ.

This demand for absolute uniformity from EOs in the fashion described in the post above this one is another reason why unity is a complete pipe dream. I don't even want to be in union with people who conceive of Christianity in this fashion, and I'm neither shy about it nor alone in seeing things this way (as plenty of talks with other OO have shown me; our mindsets really are different than yours when it comes to this sort of thing).

well, if we believe our Church to be true, then it follows that all dogmatic beliefs must be accepted (note, not practice or local custom). which is why I understand and respect your position. and I know you would feel the same way (at least I think so based on talking to you).

We don't give up our traditions or our saints to satisfy the demands of others (certain converts like Sirlankyknight excepted, I guess), much less for the sake of appearing to be unified when we cannot actually agree. What good would that even do? It wouldn't last, so what would be the point?

and neither would we. I don't want unity for unity's sake, but unity because we agree on the Truth in Christ 100%. that is the only way unity will occur.

 

[dzheremi]

well, I meant there is a difference between veneration of a saint locally (such as your point with Dioscorus) and one that is anathematized. holding someone who is a named heretic by a confession as a saint does show a different vision of Christ.

Fair enough, though that's slightly different than the context in which I wrote that reply (when you had written that if you guys had the same experience of Christ as we do, you'd have no trouble recognizing HH St. Dioscorus as a saint in your communion, thereby implying that the recognition of a saint in common should necessarily say something about Christology, when it doesn't).

well, if we believe our Church to be true, then it follows that all dogmatic beliefs must be accepted (note, not practice or local custom). which is why I understand and respect your position. and I know you would feel the same way (at least I think so based on talking to you).

As you see it. From where I sit there is a vast difference in relative autonomy and development and preservation of local/national traditions that I am under no illusions that your church would actually seek to respect or even understand (and that's from talking to many EO, too, though by no means all hold such views) before simply declaring them heterodox for violating the norms of EO/Byzantine practice, but again...as you see it.

and neither would we. I don't want unity for unity's sake, but unity because we agree on the Truth in Christ 100%. that is the only way unity will occur.

Agreed. That's why all of this is moot. We have unity in our Christology of μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη and the various indigenous practices and expressions of faith of the non-Hellenized/semi-Hellenized churches of the East, and you have unity in your acceptance of Chalcedon and whatever else it is that marks you as distinct from us and your fellow Chalcedonians the Latins. And these do not make for one and the same church.

Rakovsky: When/if you and your communion can come to see Orthodoxy as equally manifest in Byzantium and Holy Etchmiadzin, the God-loving city of Axum, the Mountain of Worshipers at Tur Abdin, and the Coptic monasteries that are the heart of my own church, then reunion will be infinitely more plausible to me than it currently is. But I don't hold my breath for this, for many, many reasons.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Fair enough, though that's slightly different than the context in which I wrote that reply (when you had written that if you guys had the same experience of Christ as we do, you'd have no trouble recognizing HH St. Dioscorus as a saint in your communion, thereby implying that the recognition of a saint in common should necessarily say something about Christology, when it doesn't).

right, I just wanted to point out that there is a difference between an unrecognized saint, and an anathematized heretic.

As you see it. From where I sit there is a vast difference in relative autonomy and development and preservation of local/national traditions that I am under no illusions that your church would actually seek to respect or even understand (and that's from talking to many EO, too, though by no means all hold such views) before simply declaring them heterodox for violating the norms of EO/Byzantine practice, but again...as you see it.

no I think we would. the Nestorian churches have been dialoguing with Russia, and Russia's take is to let them keep their practice and renounce their heresy. so the heresy, and anything heretical would be the only things to go. you can see this as well in the Canonical Old Believers, the Alaskan Orthodox, the Western Rite, etc.

Agreed. That's why all of this is moot. We have unity in our Christology of μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη and the various indigenous practices and expressions of faith of the non-Hellenized/semi-Hellenized churches of the East, and you have unity in your acceptance of Chalcedon and whatever else it is that marks you as distinct from us and your fellow Chalcedonians the Latins. And these do not make for one and the same church.

and I would agree here, and in our vision that the Chalcedonian Christology IS the Cyrillian Christology, since Chalcedon began with him.

 

[rakovsky]

Rakovsky: When/if you and your communion can come to see Orthodoxy as equally manifest in Byzantium and Holy Etchmiadzin, the God-loving city of Axum, the Mountain of Worshipers at Tur Abdin, and the Coptic monasteries that are the heart of my own church, then reunion will be infinitely more plausible to me than it currently is. But I don't hold my breath for this, for many, many reasons.

Hello, Dzheremi!
EOs recognize deep spirituality in OO Churches, as shown in visits to monasteries in Egypt and Ethiopia and cooperation between churches in Syria. There are EO and OO saints who are recognized in each others' churches like St John Damascene. There are EOs like myself who wish to have a process of reconciliation, like we did with the churches that Matt listed, like the Old Believers. This is a reason I started the thread.

In the case of reconciliation and recognizing orthodoxy or right faith of OOs, for EOs the main hurdle is OO institutional rejection of Chalcedon's formula "in two natures". As you said, the Joint Commission unfortunately does not speak formally for OOs. I think you cited to me an OO hymn before saying that Christ does not have two natures? Forgive me if I am mistaken. Since in common speech we speak of single beings having two natures, defined as categories or essences, it is confusing for most EOs like Matt, or for that matter St. John Damascene, why OOs would object to this. It commonly creates the impression that you deny one of of the two natures, ie. categories, since that is the logical conclusion in common speech.

Since we have people like myself and the Joint Commission who would prefer to resolve the conflict like Paul asks us to, and since there is a decent degree of respect for each others' spirituality, can you think of positive, constructive steps for reconciliation?

It seems to me that the best thing would be to tackle this as a mutual problem together, in an unbiased way. And the first philosophical step in analyzing the conceptual problem should be to define the meaning of "nature", which is the center of the disagreement. What do you think about that?

 

[dzheremi]

right, I just wanted to point out that there is a difference between an unrecognized saint, and an anathematized heretic.

Indeed.

no I think we would. the Nestorian churches have been dialoguing with Russia, and Russia's take is to let them keep their practice and renounce their heresy. so the heresy, and anything heretical would be the only things to go. you can see this as well in the Canonical Old Believers, the Alaskan Orthodox, the Western Rite, etc.

See, but the reason why I don't believe this is actually the case is that you guys see heresy in things and people that we see as Orthodox (obviously), so in practice there is no such separation between seeing something as different and seeing something as heretical. Hence there are frankly silly-sounding passages like in the rubric for Cheesefare Sunday that say of the Armenians (I imagine as shorthand for all OO, as we call all EO "Greeks" in conversation in the Coptic Orthodox Church) “During this week the accursed Armenians fast from eggs and cheese, but we, to refute their damnable heresy, do eat both eggs and cheese for the entire week." I can't for the life of me understand how I'm supposed to take such things seriously. I just can't, and while I have yet to find anything so seemingly petty on its face in our own books, if it's there I wouldn't take it seriously, either. I've had this discussion several times with EO people, including those claiming to be archpriests in your church (and one EO monk, a convert from the American South living at one of your monasteries in Egypt), and the attitude is very much as I've described: What you (OO) do does not match exactly what we (EO) do/the traditions of Constantinople, so it's heresy, end of story." And that's what needs to go, in our view -- the attitude that Orthodoxy in toto is whatever you guys inherited from Constantinople/Byzantium, and any other 'foreign' practice is by definition heresy for not exactly matching that. That's what I meant when I said I don't want to be in union with people who think like this. You essentially behave exactly as you rightly condemn the Latins for behaving towards you (submit to Rome or else), but it's justified and even to be commended in your case since you're 'Orthodox'. Fair enough, as far as it goes (read: I can see why that would be the attitude, since you after all are convinced that you are right), but that's why I'm not convinced of any such talk from EO (and of course as someone who does not see Chalcedonianism as Orthodox in the first place, such arrogance and myopia is entirely baseless). For centuries, and to some extent currently (though it's less popular today), it was traditional that we treat all Chalcedonians the same because they were all the imperial church, and this was their attitude towards us all. I see wisdom in this approach, and I continue it myself. While it may grieve or irritate some to read it, since we are talking about our respective views that obviously aren't in harmony anyway, I will say that from a certain OO perspective it is absolutely right to see the RCC and the EO as being essentially the same, in a manner similar to how it is common to hear some EO call RCism and Protestantism two sides of the same coin. You are, if you will, the 'Eastern' side of the Roman coin, and not just geographically. It is only subsequent events involving only the Western and Eastern Chalcedonians that happened long after we were cast out that have caused any kind of reevaluation of this view, and sometimes it seems that the older view is more correct, as when we are looking at things at this level.

And I don't believe that common attitude will change, as it is part and parcel of your status as an imperial church and the way that your church views councils and history and other matters, all of which are at variance with OO views of the same.

and I would agree here, and in our vision that the Chalcedonian Christology IS the Cyrillian Christology, since Chalcedon began with him.

And I respect that this is your view, even as I disagree with it. Really, I would not expect anything other than what we get from EO, because again I recognize that obviously this all comes from a sincere conviction that you have chosen the historically and presently correct path. It's not maliciousness or rigor for the sake of it. And that conviction is also what we believe about our own Church, even as we express it somewhat differently. The bottom line is that we will never grovel or beg that anyone 'accept' us as Orthodox as though we aren't already, hence I already wrote directly to Rakovsky that the only way that true, lasting union will be achieved is with a change of the EO mindset so that you see our churches as equal bastions of Orthodoxy together with your own.

But you don't believe they are, and we will not change our Orthodox confession to suit anybody's definitions to the contrary, so once again this is all a moot point.