The Confession of Chalcedon: A Stumbling Back to Unity?

[SpyridonOCA]

Yes, I do agree with you. Otherwise, I wouldn't seek unity.

I respectfully assert that unity will only be possible when the Creed of Chalcedon is formally and publicly accepted by both sides.

 

[minasoliman]

I respectfully assert that unity will only be possible when the Creed of Chalcedon is formally and publicly accepted by both sides.

We shall see what happens. I hope you accept whatever Creed of Ephesus 449 we have as well in that case.

God bless.

 

[copticorthodoxy]

I respectfully assert that unity will only be possible when the Creed of Chalcedon is formally and publicly accepted by both sides.

I really like the Eastern Orthodox church .but We don't want false unity based on a council has been rejected by our fathers

 

[SpyridonOCA]

I really like the Eastern Orthodox church .but We don't want false unity based on a council has been rejected by our fathers

I really like non-Chalcedonians, and I hope for there to be full unity and reconciliation as soon as possible. But I don't see how we could be the same Church without first accepting the same Ecumenical Councils and the same Christology. Hopefully the young generation will repair the mistakes of our fathers.

 

[copticorthodoxy]

I really like non-Chalcedonians, and I hope for there to be full unity and reconciliation as soon as possible. But I don't see how we could be the same Church without first accepting the same Ecumenical Councils and the same Christology. Hopefully the young generation will repair the mistakes of our fathers.

we could call you Chalcedonians or may be Nestorians as you call us non chalcedonians but we don't like this way

 

[SpyridonOCA]

we could call you Chalcedonians or may be Nestorians as you call us non chalcedonians but we don't like this way

I consider "Non-Chalcedonian" to be a much more respectful and accurate term than "Monophysite". I would never call you a "Monophysite".

 

[Yeznik]

Just for clarities sake I would like to change but one thing of the truth you have spoken: Byzantine Orthodoxy is not hellenized Orthodoxy but rather Orthodoxized hellenism. I presume something similar holds true for the cultural worlds the Oriental Orthodox have found themselves in. Orthodoxy is not changed by the culture it incarnates in, rather the culture in which Orthodoxy is incarnated changes (either Byzantine or Oriental).

Agreed.

Not necessarily, ROCOR (now re-united with Moscow) still celebrates Christmas on Jan. 6th using the Old (Julian) Calendar - such accommodations are not only possible but have already been made in the re-unification of ROCOR and Moscow. But other liturgical expressions may be more challenging on the EO part toward the OO. I am not sure if there are similar hurdles from an OO perspective toward the EO - and if so, what they in fact are. It may be interesting and educational to become more aware of each others liturgucal (and other) traditions by increased common prayer (such as we have at Saint Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary).

I can only create a primitive analogy of how the OO look at differences in traditions. Take for example the rose (flower). There are different kinds of flowers, such as color, shapes, petals, scents etc. but yet they are still classified as rose. We would look at tradition the same way as we would study roses, to approach and learn the differences between each individual flower, its history, and to appreciate its attributes and what that flower has contributed to the rose family.

In the matter of ROCOR reuniting with the ROC, praise God! The death and destruction brought about by Communism in all Orthodox Churches was horrendous and unfortunate. The Churches behind “the iron curtain” are the only ones that know about the sufferings of our clergy and we must refer to them as point in commonality between our Churches, first in order to emphasize with what our clergies have experienced, secondly to use this experience as a channel for unifying discussions. I remember once having a conversation with a person who was amazed at the number of Armenians that lived and were buried in Siberia; I explained they were mainly clergy sent there to be exiled and they were worked to death.

As a historical note, the discussions that were held from 5th century until the 13th century required the Armenian Church to accept the holidays and services designated by the Byzantine Church in order to establish Communion between Churches. Due to the re-unification of the ROCOR with ROC being something accomplished by recent events, I hope that all orthodox continue to seek unity in the same spirit, in the discussions between our Churches.

I have been to St. Vlad’s in NY, I use to visit the Saint Nerses Armenian Seminary when I was living in New York and have met and spoken with Professor Terian, Fr. Findikyan on several occasions. I also know that there is a combined effort between St. Vlad’s and St. Nerses in regards to publishing Armenian literature into English as a part the Avant series of books. If you are interested, I would recommend a recent book, specifically in regards to the Armenian tradition that has been published by St. Vlad’s press titled “Worship Traditions in Armenia and the Neighboring Christian East” edited by Roberta R. Ervine. You can read more about it here: http://www.stnersess.edu/currentEvents/pressRelease/pr.php?id=176
I would ask kindly ask if the other OO member of this forum to suggest other books. In return, I would also appreciate EO literature that you might suggest for reading.

The mutual treason, backbiting, and other such hurtful things is a fact. These acts must be recognized, indeed, but at all costs the "blame game" is to be avoided. As soon as fingers start pointing the intent to unite becomes an intent to be right at the cost of ecclesial relations and an atmosphere of forgiveness. Sins are only to be confessed to be forgiven, never to be condemned (for an inspiring story of something along these lines see Letter 8 from Pseudo-Dionysius to the monk Demophilos - the story of Carpos).

What also needs to be realized is that some of the theological conclusions were also drawn out by the political circumstances. This is the 21st century and “blame game” will not create any results for unity from either side, but rather it would stir animosity. The discussions need to continue on theological bases, and each side would need to accept the validity of the Sacraments of Baptism and Communion, in order to establish unity rather quickly. If these discussions start to dwell on more of the ecclesiastical structures rather the Sacramental unity between Churches, then these discussions will be short lived and the unification delayed.
You have brought up critical point, which is a process of the resolution, the process of forgiveness between the Churches. What are your thoughts?

I am not sure I understand what you mean. Can you please explain? Perhaps an example?

A basic comparison I would give is the writings of His Holiness Pope Shenouda III and Bishop Kalistos Ware in explaining orthodoxy to the non-orthodox. They explain orthodoxy in a spiritual and mystical approach to God, rather than a logistical and legalistic approach. The explanations of Salvation, Communion, Baptism and other practices for the orthodox are basically the same, when dealing with people from a non-orthodox background. And in regards to us being our own biggest adversaries, during this time in history we have been given the biggest opportunity for a resolution and to establish unity that we have had over the last 1600 years.

In Christ,

Yeznik

 

[Grigorii]

Agreed.


I can only create a primitive analogy of how the OO look at differences in traditions. Take for example the rose (flower). There are different kinds of flowers, such as color, shapes, petals, scents etc. but yet they are still classified as rose. We would look at tradition the same way as we would study roses, to approach and learn the differences between each individual flower, its history, and to appreciate its attributes and what that flower has contributed to the rose family.

In the matter of ROCOR reuniting with the ROC, praise God! The death and destruction brought about by Communism in all Orthodox Churches was horrendous and unfortunate. The Churches behind “the iron curtain” are the only ones that know about the sufferings of our clergy and we must refer to them as point in commonality between our Churches, first in order to emphasize with what our clergies have experienced, secondly to use this experience as a channel for unifying discussions. I remember once having a conversation with a person who was amazed at the number of Armenians that lived and were buried in Siberia; I explained they were mainly clergy sent there to be exiled and they were worked to death.

Indeed - truly the Lord is glorified in His martyrs!

As a historical note, the discussions that were held from 5th century until the 13th century required the Armenian Church to accept the holidays and services designated by the Byzantine Church in order to establish Communion between Churches. Due to the re-unification of the ROCOR with ROC being something accomplished by recent events, I hope that all orthodox continue to seek unity in the same spirit, in the discussions between our Churches.

But at some point - this I would affirm with Fr. Sergius Bulgakov - discussion alone becomes spiritually dangerous if an already accomplished intimacy between our two bodies is not acted upon. How will I as an Eastern Orthodox get to know the spiritual heart of my Oriental brethren if we do not act and pray as brothers? I know that initiatives are taken by both our bodies but the theological agreements underpinning such initiatives are often poorly understood by Orthodox Christians (especially on the web it seems). One such blessed initiative was a couple of years ago when an Armenian Priest was not available to do the commemoration of the dead for the remembrance of the Genocide committed against the Armenians, the Russian (MOSPAT) priest did the service assisted by an Armenian Deacon.

I have been to St. Vlad’s in NY, I use to visit the Saint Nerses Armenian Seminary when I was living in New York and have met and spoken with Professor Terian, Fr. Findikyan on several occasions. I also know that there is a combined effort between St. Vlad’s and St. Nerses in regards to publishing Armenian literature into English as a part the Avant series of books. If you are interested, I would recommend a recent book, specifically in regards to the Armenian tradition that has been published by St. Vlad’s press titled “Worship Traditions in Armenia and the Neighboring Christian East” edited by Roberta R. Ervine. You can read more about it here: http://www.stnersess.edu/currentEvents/pressRelease/pr.php?id=176
I would ask kindly ask if the other OO member of this forum to suggest other books. In return, I would also appreciate EO literature that you might suggest for reading.

I was actually present at the book presentation when it came out here at SVS - and bought it then and there! I haven't had a chance to read it yet though.

What also needs to be realized is that some of the theological conclusions were also drawn out by the political circumstances. This is the 21st century and “blame game” will not create any results for unity from either side, but rather it would stir animosity.

Indeed!

The discussions need to continue on theological bases, and each side would need to accept the validity of the Sacraments of Baptism and Communion, in order to establish unity rather quickly.

Since this is already practiced in local communities perhaps a theological justification could be phrased for an already present practice of limited intercommunion as a response to the direction the Spirit of God is leading His Church into? Instead more theology and speculation, perhaps we need to practice the theology we already have in common which will then lead us to the next step? What is theology after all but prayerful union with all in/withChrist our God, His Spirit and His Father?

If these discussions start to dwell on more of the ecclesiastical structures rather the Sacramental unity between Churches, then these discussions will be short lived and the unification delayed.

The problem, I think, has been identified by Fr. Nicholas Afanasieff as universal ecclesiology which is not the only traditional ecclesiology (though, thanks to St. Cyprian of Carthage) it is the dominant one. A eucharistic / baptismal ecclesiology is (I believe) more Scriptural and more in line with other traditions (at least in the EOC).

You have brought up critical point, which is a process of the resolution, the process of forgiveness between the Churches. What are your thoughts?

Let me think and pray about that. It is a vital question.

A basic comparison I would give is the writings of His Holiness Pope Shenouda III and Bishop Kalistos Ware in explaining orthodoxy to the non-orthodox. They explain orthodoxy in a spiritual and mystical approach to God, rather than a logistical and legalistic approach. The explanations of Salvation, Communion, Baptism and other practices for the orthodox are basically the same, when dealing with people from a non-orthodox background. And in regards to us being our own biggest adversaries, during this time in history we have been given the biggest opportunity for a resolution and to establish unity that we have had over the last 1600 years

.

True,.. and food for thought.

Fr. Deacon Gregory

 

[DarkNLovely]

Uh-oh! This thread is kinda heated! Time for Protestant interjection! Let's hug!

 

[zhilan]

As one of the monastics at my Church pointed out to me, the Copts were the conservatives at Chalcedon - they were holding up the tradition.

We can debate and theorize, but I believe down to my core that if God blesses me with a full lifespan, I will see reunion.

 

[buzuxi02]

Oh brother, this is the most liberal post ive read in a loong time. Maybe its time Foru.ms sets up the "post chalcedonian" congregation.

 

[Yeznik]

Oh brother, this is the most liberal post ive read in a loong time. Maybe its time Foru.ms sets up the "post chalcedonian" congregation.

, I don't understand your comment, this is the most liberal post (singular) that you have read.

 

[zhilan]

, I don't understand your comment, this is the most liberal post (singular) that you have read.

Ahha! Confusion with words and meaning between the OO and EO....where has this come up before?

 

[buzuxi02]

Ahha! Confusion with words and meaning between the OO and EO....where has this come up before?

oops, post=thread. foregive my semantics

 

[Anglian]

I rather thought Yeznik's posting one of the most deeply-thought through and sensitive comments on this very difficult issue.

None of what I have read here is of the kind of false ecumenism which tries to play down issues that may still divide us; it is the positive and honest sort which, whilst facing up to the remaining differences, also has something to say about the many things that unite us.

It is worth remembering that there has never been an example of this sort of schism being healed, so, as sinful mankind we have no hope save in He who gives hope to the world. So, of course, we none of us would abandon the heritage left us by our forefathers - but if it falls to this generation to build on it constructively and in true faith, then, humbled though we would be by the challenge, we have His command to 'be one' to obey.

Constructive and thoughtful dialogue - and Yeznik's comments were both - has a role to play in this.

In Christ,

Anglian