What is the difference between the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church?

[Leevo]

What are the doctrinal differences, specifically?

I know it has mostly to do with the Council of Chalcedon but I am not very learned on the subject...

 

[ArmyMatt]

well, from our POV, we believe that Chalcedon preserves both the Unity of the One Person, and that He is in Two Natures that are distinct and unconfused, but inseparable. This is especially in light of the Reunion and the Constantinople II. there are too many canons and such to write on here, but the OO reject the Formula of Reunion and Constantinople II. so from our POV, the difference is that the OO hold onto a rigorist view of certain teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria as the only way to define the Incarnation (none of which are technically wrong, by the way). the whole point of Constantinople 2 was to show that Chalcedon is NOT Nestorian.

what adds to this is there were persecutions and bloodshed on both sides, and Severus of Antioch's language to allow for duality in Christ (Selfsubsisting, Non-Selfsubsisting, and United Selfsubsisting hypostases) actually looks Nestorian from our POV.

so, in the technical sense, both sides view the other as Nestorian.

and they are not Monophystites, since they anathematized Monophysitism. tis silly to call them that.

 

[Leevo]

well, from our POV, we believe that Chalcedon preserves both the Unity of the One Person, and that He is in Two Natures that are distinct and unconfused, but inseparable. This is especially in light of the Reunion and the Constantinople II. there are too many canons and such to write on here, but the OO reject the Formula of Reunion and Constantinople II. so from our POV, the difference is that the OO hold onto a rigorist view of certain teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria as the only way to define the Incarnation (none of which are technically wrong, by the way). the whole point of Constantinople 2 was to show that Chalcedon is NOT Nestorian.

what adds to this is there were persecutions and bloodshed on both sides, and Severus of Antioch's language to allow for duality in Christ (Selfsubsisting, Non-Selfsubsisting, and United Selfsubsisting hypostases) actually looks Nestorian from our POV.

so, in the technical sense, both sides view the other as Nestorian.

and they are not Monophystites, since they anathematized Monophysitism. tis silly to call them that.

Is it mainly just semantics then?

I assume worship style is almost exactly the same...

 

[ArmyMatt]

Is it mainly just semantics then?

if it was merely semantics, I think Constantinople 2 would have fixed that. because that Ecumenical Council basically accepted what the OO were rejecting. Nestorianism is a heresy, the question is who are the Nestorians? it's really complicated.

I assume worship style is almost exactly the same...

pretty much, although I went to an OO Malankara Matins, and they used a changed Creed and I was able to see some Nestorianism in their worship.

 

[Leevo]

if it was merely semantics, I think Constantinople 2 would have fixed that. because that Ecumenical Council basically accepted what the OO were rejecting. Nestorianism is a heresy, the question is who are the Nestorians? it's really complicated.



pretty much, although I went to an OO Malankara Matins, and they used a changed Creed and I was able to see some Nestorianism in their worship.

Ah, I understand...

 

[ArmyMatt]

Ah, I understand...

ja, and that is from our POV. what I would do is to look at Ephesus, the Formula of Reunion, Chalcedon, and Constantinople 2 and see if they do or do not express the same faith

 

[Leevo]

ja, and that is from our POV. what I would do is to look at Ephesus, the Formula of Reunion, Chalcedon, and Constantinople 2 and see if they do or do not express the same faith

Ah okay. This caught my interest because I was watching a BBC documentary called "A History of Christianity" and he kept mentioning the different Orthodox Churches and I got curious, haha!

 

[ArmyMatt]

yep, check them all out in order if you wanna know

 

[Leevo]

yep, check them all out in order if you wanna know

Will do! Thanks!

 

[ArmyMatt]

Will do! Thanks!

no probs!

 

[jckstraw72]

i don't see any problem in calling them Monophysites as there were many flavors of Monophysitism. They rejected Eutychianism, sure, but that's not the only Monophysitism.

 

[Antoninus]

if it was merely semantics, I think Constantinople 2 would have fixed that. because that Ecumenical Council basically accepted what the OO were rejecting. Nestorianism is a heresy, the question is who are the Nestorians? it's really complicated.



pretty much, although I went to an OO Malankara Matins, and they used a changed Creed and I was able to see some Nestorianism in their worship.

Matt,

Can you elaborate some on what was Nestorian in the Malankara OO Matins? I'd be interested as I never heard of Oriental Orthodox having Nestorian elements in their worship or teachings. Thank you.

 

[Wgw]

Matt,

Can you elaborate some on what was Nestorian in the Malankara OO Matins? I'd be interested as I never heard of Oriental Orthodox having Nestorian elements in their worship or teachings. Thank you.

Indeed, I myself would like to know.

 

[Wgw]

i don't see any problem in calling them Monophysites as there were many flavors of Monophysitism. They rejected Eutychianism, sure, but that's not the only Monophysitism.

If the OOs are Monophysite, so too was St. Cyril. I reject that St. Cyril was a Monophysite; I cannot fault the OO for using his mia physis formula.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Can you elaborate some on what was Nestorian in the Malankara OO Matins?

their description of the priesthood of Christ, coming from Aaron to John the Baptist, and then somehow to Christ. His priesthood being eternal of Melchisedek is NOT the Aaronic priesthood through John. this is an odd dual priesthood to Christ, which implies that there is a human priesthood for Christ, and the Divine priesthood for the Logos.

it makes sense though, since for a while I think they were under the Nestorians.

 

[ArmyMatt]

i don't see any problem in calling them Monophysites as there were many flavors of Monophysitism. They rejected Eutychianism, sure, but that's not the only Monophysitism.

true, but in mia there is some kind of duality in there, whereas in monos there is none. so I don't think monophysite is accurate, and the fact that there can be some duality in there explains how Severus' Nestorian Self Subisting hypostasis stuff creeps in.

 

[dzheremi]

Leevo,

Were the OO subforum a place that uh...is alive, I would recommend that you should also ask your question on the OO board, to get our perspective (as we are not allowed to teach here against the EO faith, obviously). Perhaps you still should, if interested, although me and Gxg seem to be the only active members around there as of late (ArmenianJohn is an active OO poster, too, though I haven't seen him on the OO board as much as on other sections lately).

General comment:

I'm not going to tell ArmyMatt that he didn't hear what he heard, but I will say that it would be mighty odd for them to be Nestorian in any fashion, as they also venerate the great and fiercely anti-Nestorian OO saints such as Philoxenos of Mabbug (d. 523, who wrote I think half a dozen works against Nestorius and Barsoma of Nisbis), honoring him as one of their fathers placed alongside St. Ignatius, St. Basil, St. Gregory, St. Kyrillos, St. Discoros, and St. Severus in the hymn "Orthodukso Viswasam", for instance.

And, yes, they were under the East Syrians for anywhere from about 500 to 1500 years, depending on what you make of the fragmentary evidence from c. 6th century of Syriac inscriptions in India bearing the title Yoldath Aloho (West Syriac for "Theotokos", a term which the Nestorians obviously abhor), and some clues from sources such as The History of the Syriac Dioceses, which covers the period of the Coonan Cross Oath and before, that suggest that there was a Syriac Orthodox presence there prior to the aforementioned Oath (1653) by which the majority came into communion with the SOC.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I'm not going to tell ArmyMatt that he didn't hear what he heard, but I will say that it would mighty odd for them to be Nestorian in any fashion, as they also venerate the great and fiercely anti-Nestorian OO saints such as Philoxenos of Mabbug

I just meant that they were Nestorian historically. I should have pointed out that I don't know how long ago that was or how long they were under that influence.

 

[NonTheologian]

What are the doctrinal differences, specifically?

I know it has mostly to do with the Council of Chalcedon but I am not very learned on the subject...

I think this summary is fairly concise. I don't know if an Oriental Orthodox would see it as accurate, but I offer it for what it is:

http://orthodoxwiki.org/Oriental_Orthodox

 

[dzheremi]

It is not the worst I've ever seen, but it could use some updating and revision. For instance, the British Orthodox Church is no longer in communion with any other church, OO or otherwise, following the recent decision of their metropolitan Seraphim to leave Orthodoxy and return to their pre-1994 status (though not everyone followed him in that decision, so there are now British priests who have their roots in that union who are in the Coptic Orthodox Church).