The OO wants full communion with the EO!

Started this thread to clarify some things. In many posts and threads the OO church is labelled outside of the church (which I can understand that viewpoint) because we are not in communion with the church of the East.

I would like to start by making a few points:

1) Our Christology is that of St Cyril's. the "One Nature" formula was his.
2) St Dioscorus was not disposed for heresy, rather because he didnt appear when summoned. It was later he was labelled a heretic.
3) the Fight between St Cyril and The Heretic Nestorius Influenced the 4th council to somewhat adjust the Wording (although the Meaning stayed exactly the same, and any OO who calls the EO nestorian doesnt know how to use his brain).
4) the Fight between St Dioscorus and St Leo the Great was more a personal fight then theological.
5) The Robber council, in my opinion, should never have taken place. For this reason it is not viewed as an Ecuminical council in the OO church, even though it was called as one.
6) We never followed Eutycees in his heresy, he stated that Christ was solely God which is Heresy. Let him be declared Anathema.

Now I have written these things to begin I would like to inform our EO bretheren of the stand the OO church has in regards to the EO. The OO, as a whole, Considers the EO valid and orthodox!! This has not always been the case, but in the last 2 decades, especially under the Pontification of HH Pope Shenuda III, Ties between our churches are getting stronger and stronger.

In Egypt, in cases of marriage, Members of the Coptic Orthodox church can get married to Greek Orthodox Egyptians in a Greek Orthodox Church and Vice Versa. Also An agreement was made between our churches in Egypt.

Pastoral Agreement between the Coptic Orthodox and Greek Orthodox Patriarchates of Alexandria (2001 - OrthodoxWiki)

In Antiochian and Syrian Orthodox churches ties are even stronger. From what I have heard, I am not sure on this, an OO can recieve Euchrist in the Antiochian church. Also They also have marriage agreements and baptism recognition as far as I am aware.

I dont know much about the Armenian Church, as they are very small. I do however know about the Ethiopian church. In the nicest possible way many ethipian orthodox church members are trouble makers. Their overzealousness has caused much damage since they became their own Patriachate. For example the Schism between the Ethiopian Orthodox church and the Holy Synod of the Ethiopian Orthodox church in Exile. I do know that many in the Ethiopian orthodox church would oppose a union, however they still have much respect for the Coptic church and would follow the Coptic patriach where he lead.

HH Pope Shenuda has said on many occasions that he will lift the Anathamas and Excommunications, but that the Greeks and the EO must agree to do the same at exactly the same time. We are still waiting from A response regarding this. In fact nothing seems to be happening, if anything things are getting worse, with the Coptic Church being Insulted by the Greek Orthodox Church Bishop at the Middle East Council of Churches.

The Coptic Orthodox Church pulls out of the Middle East Council of Churches « Biblicus Semitae

We in the OO want reunification, but when we jump on the websites of the EO that call us heretics and non-christians it makes it very hard for this to occur.

I pray that God will continue to bring our churches closer.

Macarius said:

We likewise hope for union, and (generally) recognize the christology of the OO as being within the bounds of orthodoxy.

We also agree that the 449 robber council is not ecumenical - it is nice to hear the OO say that, too.

Click to expand...

Well this is good to hear. The Robber council has never been viewed as Ecuminical By the OO church. There were just too many Canonical Issues with it, something I would agree with.

Macarius said:

We do think, though, that Dioscorus represented a somewhat extreme / uncompromising position in adherence to St. Cyril on a formulaic level (rather than on the essence of St. Cyril's concern - which was to preserve the single subjectivity of Christ). St. Cyril accepted language that described "two natures" in his later language, and the Council of Chalcedon mirrors / adopts much of his language in the christology he forwarded while negotiating with the Orthodox Syrians (not the Nestorians).

Click to expand...

I am not sure where I stand on this myself. I believe the Christology of Both St Leo and St Dioscorus is fully Orthodox and in line with St Cyril. It was due to the Attacks from both sides things got screwed (aka the OO called you Nestorians and you called us Monophysites). The point St Dioscorus had was that He believed saying Two Natures compramised the unity of the natures. you must remember alot of heresies either Started in Egypt or ended up there.

Macarius said:

So we can also claim to follow St. Cyril - that isn't at all to say the OO doesn't follow him. We just emphasize different parts / periods of his writing, and to different degrees of rigor (we also accept other wordings of christology, like those of Leo). I think this, along with the 5th council, can provide the theological grounds for the kind of mutual recognition that Buz describes.

Click to expand...

I would agree, the EO do follow St Cyril's theology, although I personally believe St Cyril himself prefered "One Nature of the Incarnated Logos".

Macarius said:

I don't know what happens with Dioscorus, though. You say he was only condemned for not showing up at his defense, but so far as I'm aware his condemnation stemmed from his refusal to put Eutyches away in submission to the local councils of Rome and (I think) Constantinople. It was the same thing that got the Syrians in trouble for a bit after the Council of Ephesus (refusal to put away Nestorius), even though they weren't Nestorian.

Click to expand...

according to tradition of the OO, during the 4th Council St Disocrus was put under house arrest. He could not appear when summoned. This is why he was disposed if you look at the records and writings of the council. As for not putting away Eutyches, please remember that Eutyches wasn't even egyptian, but rather was from Constantinople (If i remember my history correctly). We have always viewed him as a heretic when holding his bad christology, he was reinstated because he told the church he had repented and later went back to his heresy. Is that our fault?

Macarius said:

I think the same thing that worked there could work here. Cyril and the Syrians engaged in mutual recognition through jointly written documents and recommunion. You already (now) agree that Eutyches is indeed a heretic. Did Dioscorus ever do the same, or did he continue to commune with the heretic?

Click to expand...

He never communed with a Known heretic. Eutyches pretended to repent and later went back to his heresy and was disposed a second time by the Coptic Orthodox church. you say now for agreeing that he was a heretic? I find this strange. Eutyches has NEVER been venerated as a saint in our church, he has always been considered heretical. Even St Dioscorus believed him to be a heretic. the only reason he was reinstated was because he claimed to have repented of his errors.

Macarius said:

Regardless, such an issue is beyond me - I trust the guidance of the Holy Spirit on bishops in council on smaller matters like that. We also deeply hope for union, but (like you) recognize that it must be authentic union. If the Copts are willing to re-enter communion (de-faco accepting Chalcedon and Constantinople II and III, as we aren't being asked to deny those council's orthodoxy), then I see little to no barrier.

Click to expand...

We cannot accept the 4 other ecumincal Councils at this stage. The wording MUST be changed to allow our Christology interpritation, which currently it does not. Not only that, it pronounces St Dioscorus as a heretic, which is quite funny cause now alot in the EO say he isn't. I will ask my EO brothers and sisters, which is correct? The Athanames pronounced at the councils against us MUST be lifted before we accept anything. The only way this could be done is to hold another Ecuminical Council.

Macarius said:

I would hope the Ethiopians and Armenians would join in as well. Given the antiquity of their church, I can hardly blame the Ethiopians for wanting independence from the Coptic Pope, but they also constitute the firm majority of the OO in the world (being some 30 million of the 50 - 60 million OO in the world). Unity without them would be joyous, but would feel incomplete in some way.

Click to expand...

The Armenians would certainly reunite. They are spiritually and ritually closer to the EO then the Copts are. The chanting is so similar and some of the practises also. I must say i find it strange though that they dont have an Iconostasis, anyway thats a discussion for another time.

As For the Ethiopians, they WOULD follow the Coptic church. Garantee it.

Macarius said:

As a side question, how to the OO talk about Christ's will(s)? We speak of two wills, with the human submitting to the Divine, similarly to how we (in rejecting Apollinarius) demand that Christ's humanity had a rational soul like any other human. That could be another barrier, though I think it is (again) semantic, as St. Cyril was not Apollinarian - he also spoke of Christ having a complete humanity (which would include a rational soul and human will).

Click to expand...

This is where I personally like the EO terminology better in some cases. In the OO we believe Christ was fully God and Fully Human. What is the main atribute of being fully human? Having free will. What is free will? Free choice from God. Do not misinterpret what I just wrote. For Jesus to have been Fully Man he had to of had the same choice Adam Had. Otherwise he is not completely Human. The Incarnated Logos Chose in his Humanity to complete the Task. Explains it a bit better? Also like the One Nature of the Incarnated Logos Christology, we Say One Will of the Incarnated Logos, with all the Atribues of Divine and Human. For If he wasnt full divine and Full Human we better pack up and Go home cause we are screwed lol.

Kristos said:

I hate to be the Debbie Downer here - but I seriously doubt this will happen. That doesn't mean we can't and shouldn't prayer for it, but I'm not holding my breath...

Click to expand...

And that is exactly why we have not reunited yet. We hold this mystical belief of "leaving it up to God to do". God gives us free will. We gotta use it to heal it, not just sit on our Arses waiting for the Mystical Smoke to come.

Thekla said:

It was also my understanding (per my research) that this was directed at a particular person who had been accused of financial impropriety. Unfortunately, the Council itself has not commented on the matter - at least as far as I could find - which certainly would be helpful.

Click to expand...

agreed. Nobody knows exactly what was said, only that it started over the dismissal of the Bad finiancer.