Question on EO and OO

[ArmyMatt]

Well, I'm assuming that apart from the Council of Chalcedon, there's no other reason why the EO and the OO should be separate, right?

yeah basically I think. but that's a tough sticking point for a lot of OOs. many agree with Chalcedon theologically, and many do not. it depends on who you talk to. of all the non EO out there, I personally can see the OO and EO coming back into communion. time will tell.

 

[WisdomTree]

yeah basically I think. but that's a tough sticking point for a lot of OOs. many agree with Chalcedon theologically, and many do not. it depends on who you talk to. of all the non EO out there, I personally can see the OO and EO coming back into communion. time will tell.

I don't know about you, but OO theology seems to be somewhere in between RC and EO, if their was to be some kind of theological spectrum.

Also, doesn't OO accept the Second and Third Council of Ephesus, the latter explicitly condemning the Council of Chalcedon?

 

[ArmyMatt]

no, OO is just about as far from Rome as the EO. it's one of the evidences that Rome changed the faith.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

We had a couple of Coptic students in each class year at Holy Cross. There were even a couple of Coptic priests there getting advanced degrees.

 

[Nephi]

Just to expand upon what's been said - the reason for the Oriental Orthodox rejection of the Council of Chalcedon is a perceived letting-in-the-back-door of Nestorianism, or an outright proclamation of it however the degree is not universal (e.g. recent Pope Shenouda III's writings are more of the former, St. Severus of Antioch's are more of the latter).

This is why the writings of the Oriental Orthodox stress the unity and oneness of Christ to avoid a perceived division of Christ - hence, Monophysite. However, Chalcedonians have almost always attributed Eutyches' Christology as Monophysitism (in short, that Christ's humanity is unequal to Christ's divinity in some way), and so perceive the Oriental Orthodox as doing the same but they do not. They emphatically condemn Eutyches and his ilk, and instead assert that within Christ's one Nature is both his Divinity and his Humanity in their undiluted completeness (i.e. without mingling, without change, without confusion, etc. etc.). As such contemporary Oriental Orthodox will refer to themselves as Miaphysite to distinguish their views from the heretical Eutychian Monophysites.

The specific part that effectively caused the entire fiasco is the Tome of Leo, which was dogmatically affirmed by the Council of Chalcedon. This is generally the main point of contention by major non-Chalcedonians that write on the subject.

Interestingly as an aside, if you read the Canons of the post-Chalcedonian Councils anathemizing the Monophysites you'll see that they are always condemning the Eutychian Christology and never once mentioning a Christology that could rightly be understood as that confessed by the Oriental Orthodox.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Also, doesn't OO accept the Second and Third Council of Ephesus, the latter explicitly condemning the Council of Chalcedon?

I dunno if they do or not. those are not the 7 that the EO recognize.

 

[WisdomTree]

I dunno if they do or not. those are not the 7 that the EO recognize.

Of course the EO does not recognize these, Ephesus II was declared latrocinium by Chalcedon while Ephesus III explicitly condemned Chalcedon.

I don't think the OO considers them ecumenical, but I think they do agree with the council findings.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Of course the EO does not recognize these, Ephesus II was declared latrocinium by Chalcedon while Ephesus III explicitly condemned Chalcedon.

I don't think the OO considers them ecumenical, but I think they do agree with the council findings.

not following, why would you bring up non Ecumenical Councils? if the OO has a council that is deemed Ecumencial, or something that would unite them with the EO, then those would be seen as false.

sorry, not following why you would ask about those

 

[WisdomTree]

not following, why would you bring up non Ecumenical Councils? if the OO has a council that is deemed Ecumencial, or something that would unite them with the EO, then those would be seen as false.

sorry, not following why you would ask about those

I wasn't asking about those, just merely bringing them up to make a point in regards to what the OO believes which contradicts the EO. The only thing I was specifically asking was other than the Council of Chalcedon, is there any differences between the EO and the OO.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I wasn't asking about those, just merely bringing them up to make a point in regards to what the OO believes which contradicts the EO. The only thing I was specifically asking was other than the Council of Chalcedon, is there any differences between the EO and the OO.

oh yeah, I am sure it won't be just a blanket accepting of Chalcedon, but from our POV that's the biggie.

 

[WisdomTree]

It would be interesting to here this from the OO perspective...

 

[88Devin07]

EO & OO are two of the closest Christian groups in terms of theology and practice.

We aren't in communion because of the disagreement over Christ's natures.

We, as Eastern Orthodox, say that Christ has two natures, a human nature and divine nature which are united in one hypostasis, or one in substinence.
They, as Oriental Orthodox, say that Christ has one nature, which is both human and divine.

This, arguably, is the only real separation between us, the other differences could probably be worked out once we are in communion with each other.

____________________

Whereas, the difference between Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics, or Oriental Orthodox and Roman Catholics are numerous and the degree at which we are separated has greatly worsened over the last 1,000 years with the many innovations that the Roman Catholics have made to their faith. Originally our dispute began over the authority of the Pope, who was trying to extend his authority over the whole Church (which was an authority he never had) and a dispute over the addition of the word "filioque" to the Creed.
However, since that time, the Roman Catholics have added so much to their faith that never existed in the Church, such as the idea of Purgatory, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, the Assumption of Mary (as opposed to her Dormition), Papal Infallibility, Papal Supremacy and Universal Jurisdiction, Original Sin (as opposed to the Orthodox idea) and many other innovations.

So for us, and from our perspective, the Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodox Church are both the most pure representations of the Original Church. Obviously also, as Eastern Orthodox, we know that our Church is the Church founded by Christ and his Apostles. We would also say that the Oriental Orthodox are extremely close to us in faith, probably closer than any other two Christian communions out there.

 

[ArmyMatt]

So for us, and from our perspective, the Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodox Church are both the most pure representations of the Original Church. Obviously also, as Eastern Orthodox, we know that our Church is the Church founded by Christ and his Apostles. We would also say that the Oriental Orthodox are extremely close to us in faith, probably closer than any other two Christian communions out there.

I would have to slightly disagree here. the EO and OO are not the most pure representations. the EO is the pure representation, and while the OO is very close, they are still lacking.

I do agree that of all other confessions, the OO is the closest and we actually do have hope of them coming back into communion with us.

 

[88Devin07]

I would have to slightly disagree here. the EO and OO are not the most pure representations. the EO is the pure representation, and while the OO is very close, they are still lacking.

I do agree that of all other confessions, the OO is the closest and we actually do have hope of them coming back into communion with us.

There is a difference between saying we are "the most pure representations" and then saying that as EO, we are "the pure representation".

One can actually say both, which you and I would both say, I think.

It's like if I were to say that traditional Catholicism, traditional Anglicanism, as well as Eastern and Oriental Orthodox are the four traditions which are closest in practice and belief to the ancient Church. But then, saying that only the Eastern Orthodox Church is that Ancient Church.

For us, Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy are indeed the most pure representations of the ancient faith. However, also for us, Eastern Orthodox is the pure ancient faith.

By saying "the most", I'm not suggesting that both of us have the pure ancient faith, rather that both of us represent that faith the most out of any group. Yet, at the same time, in Eastern Orthodoxy, we aren't just the most pure representation, we are & have the pure faith.

 

[ArmyMatt]

yeah but I would not say that EO is closest, or one of many that are closest, because that implies that we are not the early Church, we are just extremely close, which is false. we do not represent the faith most out of any group, we are the faith.

 

[88Devin07]

yeah but I would not say that EO is closest, or one of many that are closest, because that implies that we are not the early Church, we are just extremely close, which is false. we do not represent the faith most out of any group, we are the faith.

I don't necessarily see how that implies that we aren't the Early Church, especially when I said in the next sentence that we are the Church and we are the faith.

That sort of semantics is like the Greek Old Calendarists who say we are guilty of Ecumenism if we refer to non-Orthodox groups as "churches" because we are making them equal to ourselves and therefore saying we aren't the only true church, which of course, is hogwash.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I don't necessarily see how that implies that we aren't the Early Church, especially when I said in the next sentence that we are the Church and we are the faith.

That sort of semantics is like the Greek Old Calendarists who say we are guilty of Ecumenism if we refer to non-Orthodox groups as "churches" because we are making them equal to ourselves and therefore saying we aren't the only true church, which of course, is hogwash.

I dunno, it's just the wording. if we are the most pure representation of the pure faith, then it is implied that we are not the pure representation of the pure faith. I get what you are saying, just sounds off to me is all.

two, if you read any previous posts I have put up on here, especially concerning other churches, you would know how unecessary your second paragraph is.

 

[88Devin07]

I dunno, it's just the wording. if we are the most pure representation of the pure faith, then it is implied that we are not the pure representation of the pure faith. I get what you are saying, just sounds off to me is all.

two, if you read any previous posts I have put up on here, especially concerning other churches, you would know how unecessary your second paragraph is.

I'm not accusing you of sharing the sentiment, beliefs and attitudes of the uncanonical Greek Old Calendarists, I was just saying that demanding we use certain semantics/wording is just a bit ridiculous in my opinion.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I'm not accusing you of sharing the sentiment, beliefs and attitudes of the uncanonical Greek Old Calendarists, I was just saying that demanding we use certain semantics/wording is just a bit ridiculous in my opinion.

no demand was made, me saying I don't like the wording is not me demanding my way of describing it should be used, especially after I said I understand where you are coming from. I just personally don't like the wording. so no "ridiculous demand" was made. I don't see how you made that connection.

 

[88Devin07]

no demand was made, me saying I don't like the wording is not me demanding my way of describing it should be used, especially after I said I understand where you are coming from. I just personally don't like the wording. so no "ridiculous demand" was made. I don't see how you made that connection.

True enough I suppose, I apologize for my misunderstanding