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

[buzuxi02]

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.

This is correct, all of Indian christianity was Nestorian until the Portuguese arrived and wreaked havoc. Now theres a bunch of varieties.

 

[buzuxi02]

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. ...

For the OP the above statement answers your question. Chalcedonian Christology affirms one person IN two natures. The OO communion affirms Christ is one person FROM two natures.

 

[jckstraw72]

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.

but for St. Cyril the miaphysite formula was in harmony with the duaphysite formula, which the OO refuse to confess -- same words, different understanding

 

[Wgw]

but for St. Cyril the miaphysite formula was in harmony with the duaphysite formula, which the OO refuse to confess -- same words, different understanding

Alas, no. St. Cyril described our Lord as From two natures. St. Cyril also achieved a reconciliation with Patriarch John of Antioch. Both of these are accepted by the Oriental Orthodox.

What they reject is the Tome of Leo, which does appear at first glance to disagree with St. Cyril. There was an outbreak of crypto-Nestorianism following Chalcedon, albeit not in what is now the Eastern Orthodox Church; Chalcedon correctly anathematized Eutyches, as did the OO, but the poltiics became ugly. The crypto-Nestorianism ended with the Fifth Ecumenical Council, which in turn caused a brief schism in the Roman Church: the Three Chapters Controversy, which was in a sense the last hurrah of the crypto-Nestorians.

Unfortunately, by the time of Justinian, a state of unease existed between the EO and OO, and what wound up happening was an ethnic divide: Eastern Orthodoxy wound up with the Greek speaking halves of the Antiochian and Alexandrian patriarchates, whereas the Syriac and Coptic portions became Oriental Orthodox. The Ethiopians wound up under the omophorion of the Coptic Pope, and the Armenians were Oriental Orthodox, and for a brief time, there were pro-OO elements in the Georgian church.

So, ultimately, it became an ethnic divide, with "bad blood" existing on ethnic lines. The Chalcedonian Syrians I think were the last hold out, but with the rise of the Arabic vernacular, they wound uo becoming fully Byzantinized liturgically by the 13th century.

~

There were for a time oddities in the Armenian church, and an Armenian-Syriac Orthodox schism. I expect this was related to the controversy involving the Armenian use of unleavened bread, and an unmixed chalice; all other OO churches use leavened prosphora closely resembling that used by the EO, with similiar preparation rites. This was resolved, fortunately. I believe unleavened bread is not inherently unorthodox, and if we do reunite with Rome, which I hope for, I think the Armenian-OO reconciliation provides a model for doing it (I believe our first priority should be reunion with the OO, followed by reunion with Rome and the de-Nestorianization of the Assyrian Church).

~

In summary, at present, my view is that the OO are essentially Orthodox; the theological dispute separating us has been irrelevant since Justinian, but the schism was artificially prolongued by certain persecutions, bad blood, and the Oriental church becoming the church of ethnic Copts and Syriacs, and the Eastern church becoming the church of ethnic Alexandrian Greeks and Arabs (with the exception of some Syriac speaking communities in Syria which are Antiochian and presumably have Arabic or Greek liturgy, including the victims of persecution in Mallala).

As a ray of hope, consider also St. Isaac the Syrian: an Assyrian monk of the Church of the East, venerated by the OO and EO.

Also, I know Oriental Orthodox who venerate St. John of Damascus despite his criticism of them (which in fact primarily applies to tritheists, and to John Philoponus, who the Copts regard as a heretic). A Coptic parish I have visited has laminated cards in every row containing the pre-communion prayers of the Damascene saint in English and Arabic.

I have read reports of a ROCOR priest in Canada who served the Eucharist to Copts, oddly enough, given ROCOR's anti-ecumenism, a limited intercommuniom without concelebration exists betweem the Greek amd Syriac Patriarchates of Antioch in the Middle East, but not so much in the US.

So clearly, we are moving closer to ecumenical reconciliation. We are still a ways off from full Eucharistic communion, but as Metropolitan Kallistos Ware and others have pointed out, the main apparent theological barriers have been, by and large, overcome.

Most of the people I encounter ardently opposed to ecumenical reconciliation, by the way, are either converts or old calendarists. There remains some opposition among the Athonite monks, who I respect, however, recently, some Coptic monks were warmly welcomed there.

 

[ArmyMatt]

For the OP the above statement answers your question. Chalcedonian Christology affirms one person IN two natures. The OO communion affirms Christ is one person FROM two natures.

Which is why you gotta look at Constantinople 2. Originally, it was in two Natures and of two Natures. That council affirms both and we would not have an issue with from two Natures with proper understanding.

 

[ArmyMatt]

St. Cyril also achieved a reconciliation with Patriarch John of Antioch. Both of these are accepted by the Oriental Orthodox.

I am pretty sure they reject the Formula of Reunion.

 

[Wgw]

This is correct, all of Indian christianity was Nestorian until the Portuguese arrived and wreaked havoc. Now theres a bunch of varieties.

This is untrue, actually. The Nestorian hierarchy arrived in India only in the confusion of the 19th century. The historical records of the Malankara church indicate it was an Orthodox church using the East Syriac Rite, but with some differences compared to Assyrian or Chaldean praxis; the Uniate portion became heavily Latinized and later Chaldeanized.

There is a reason why the Indian Orthodox appealed to the Patriarch of Antioch, and not to the Nestorian Catholicos.

~

I myself am of the view that the so-called Church of the East was divided between a Nestorian and an Orthodox hierarchy throughout; the perseuction of Timur the Lame left only the Assyrian Nestorian hierarchy in Mesopotamia and Persia, and the Orthodox hierarchy in India.

The history of the Church of the East in those lands where it was vanquished, like China, is sufficiently obscure, that calling it Nestorian is IMO, irresponsible.

~

I would also note that, in the grand scheme of things, the Nestorians are not very Nestorian; their own Christology was moderated by Mar Balai. However, Nestorius and the crypto-Nestorians of the fifth amd sixth century were very disagreeable.

 

[Wgw]

I am pretty sure they reject the Formula of Reunion.

Not according to a Coptic biography I have of St. Cyril, assuming you are talking about the reconciliation between St. Cyril and John of Antioch.

On the other hand, if you are talking about the Henotikon, everyone rejected that, including the Byzantine church.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Well it is a known fact that he did that with John, but they reject it on grounds that he was bullied into it or something by the powers that be. So while they accept him, they do not accept the formula. At least that's my understanding

 

[dzheremi]

This is the first I've heard of it, and I am disinclined to believe it. In his treatment of it on the LA Dioceses' website, for instance, HG Bishop Serapion treats the reunion of 433 as a triumph, as has every Coptic person I've ever talked to. What we do say (see for instance, Fr. Matthias F. Wahba Coptic Interpretations of the Fourth Ecumenical Council) is that the formula of reunion did not somehow change the miaphysite formula from being the Orthodox and preferred one (as St. Cyril himself still clearly preferred his own formula to that of John, even if he was willing to accept it if it were properly understood). This is an important point, as the reason why the formula could not produce a lasting union between the two parties is that some among those who had been in opposition to St. Cyril (e.g., Ibas) saw it as St. Cyril giving up his Orthodox Christology and adopting theirs. Obviously that won't do, so we are where we are now. (Similarly with the Henotikon: those on the OO side such as St. Severus and his biographer Zacharias of Mytilene clearly thought that the Henotikon annulled Chalcedon -- I'm pretty sure one of the surviving works of Zacharias even says so explicitly -- yet it would be hard to imagine that this is what the Chalcedonians thought it was doing. So we weren't reunited by that, either.)

 

[Wgw]

Well it is a known fact that he did that with John, but they reject it on grounds that he was bullied into it or something by the powers that be. So while they accept him, they do not accept the formula. At least that's my understanding

It is not a "known fact" according to any of the Coptic or Syriac Orthodox clergy known to me personally. The OOs dislike John of Antioch, but they do not regard St. Cyril's reconciliation woth him as in any way inappropriate or coerced.

 

[Wgw]

I would btw @ArmyMatt like to ask you where you read that, so that I can send them a letter to correct it.

 

[Sirlanky]

Most of the bad attitudes on the part of orientals comes from patriotic members who hold that ethnicity. Pretty much every convert I've met in orientak orthodoxy believes we need to move on. But it's easy for us, we don't have heritage involved in this. At the time of Chalcedon my ancestors were likely running around naked chasing neighbouring nations women.

Sometimes I want the orientals to build a bridge and move on. But it will take time. From my readings, I can't tell the difference between the two definitions. However, some. Copts I know accept John of Antioch as orthodox, and even some now are starting to accept criticisms of St Cyril. There is even some who wish to try and reconcile with the Assyrians, although that's unlikely to happen until metropolitan Bishoy goes to jesus

 

[dzheremi]

Most of the bad attitudes on the part of orientals comes from patriotic members who hold that ethnicity.

I'm not so sure that that's fair, but maybe you know different people than I do.

Pretty much every convert I've met in orientak orthodoxy believes we need to move on.

Alright, then...I'll go sit in the corner. I know when I'm not wanted.

But it's easy for us, we don't have heritage involved in this. At the time of Chalcedon my ancestors were likely running around naked chasing neighbouring nations women.

Hey, hey...it's not my fault that Mayan women are attractive.

Sometimes I want the orientals to build a bridge and move on. But it will take time. From my readings, I can't tell the difference between the two definitions. However, some. Copts I know accept John of Antioch as orthodox, and even some now are starting to accept criticisms of St Cyril. There is even some who wish to try and reconcile with the Assyrians, although that's unlikely to happen until metropolitan Bishoy goes to jesus

He may be an easy target due his hard-headedness and bouts of foot-in-mouth disease, but it wasn't just HE Metropolitan Bishoy who stopped the talks with the Assyrians, was it? As I understand it, they were asked to cease veneration of and propagation of the teachings of Nestorius as a precondition for reunion, responded by whining about how they don't ask us to cease venerating St. Cyril even though they don't like him, and so the talks were ended. So we don't always meet with others to exchange bland pleasantries, but to see actual progress be made (or not, in this case). What's wrong with that? Frankly I'd like to see more of that, particularly with regard to some of the confusing ecclesiological messages sent out by HH Pope Tawadros II and the recent meetings with the RCC and the Anglicans, but okay.

I think it's more accurate to say that there are some OO who are shamefully loathe to call our Church the one true Church when it comes to talking with the Chalcedonians (because we want them to like us, for some reason, or because there are people who have studied at their seminaries and such who believe that this was all a big misunderstanding for 1500 years), but these people apparently have no problem affirming so in the Creed that we say every liturgy, or in the diptych, or anywhere else. So who's really saying what? The thing is you can read the formula of reunion in more than one way, and it seems like the majority opinion of our Church is that we ought to do what our father St. Cyril did -- accept the dyophysite formula if it is understood properly (particularly in light of the fifth council, which clarified a lot of issues that had existed in the wake of Chalcedon and its adoption of the Tome), but without any budging on our Orthodox mia physis (not mono physis) formula.

And this is what I would say too, but it's not good enough for the faction of the Chalcedonians who would crucify us on their Tome and particular understanding of how councils work, which is alien to our Church (the "Orthodoxy = 7, not 3" crowd). So be it. You either believe our way is the right way, or you don't. I do, and I don't believe that makes me an extremist in the least.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It is not a "known fact" according to any of the Coptic or Syriac Orthodox clergy known to me personally. The OOs dislike John of Antioch, but they do not regard St. Cyril's reconciliation woth him as in any way inappropriate or coerced.

I just meant his biography was the known fact. I may have been mistaken and if the OO do accept the formula of Reunion, then I apologize for being mistaken. as I looked at this comment over my Church history book, I misspoke concerning this. so I am the only one that needs correction on this, and my bad for it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

What we do say (see for instance, Fr. Matthias F. Wahba Coptic Interpretations of the Fourth Ecumenical Council) is that the formula of reunion did not somehow change the miaphysite formula from being the Orthodox and preferred one (as St. Cyril himself still clearly preferred his own formula to that of John, even if he was willing to accept it if it were properly understood). This is an important point, as the reason why the formula could not produce a lasting union between the two parties is that some among those who had been in opposition to St. Cyril (e.g., Ibas) saw it as St. Cyril giving up his Orthodox Christology and adopting theirs. Obviously that won't do, so we are where we are now. (Similarly with the Henotikon: those on the OO side such as St. Severus and his biographer Zacharias of Mytilene clearly thought that the Henotikon annulled Chalcedon -- I'm pretty sure one of the surviving works of Zacharias even says so explicitly -- yet it would be hard to imagine that this is what the Chalcedonians thought it was doing. So we weren't reunited by that, either.)

this begs me to ask then what is the issue with Chalcedon in light of Constantinople 2? especially since in the acts from the Council, Cyril was used as the standard for St Leo's Tome (they began with his writings), because to many Fathers there the Tome initially sounded Nestorian, and Chalcedon affirmed Nestorius' condemnation.

and that Constantinople affirmed the mia physis formula of St. Cyril, both saying Christ is "in" and "of" two Natures, affirmed the Theopaschite formula and stuck it in the Liturgy, and anathematized heresy in the writings of Ibas and Theodoret, and Theodore of Mopsuestia

 

[Wgw]

this begs me to ask then what is the issue with Chalcedon in light of Constantinople 2?

I think the better question to ask is: what was the issue? And I think the answer is, unpleasantly enough, Imperial politics and nationalism.

 

[Wgw]

I pray and believe that there will be one reunited Orthodox Church in my lifetime. Bonus points if we restore Rome to her former splendour.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I think the better question to ask is: what was the issue? And I think the answer is, unpleasantly enough, Imperial politics and nationalism.

I cannot say I agree and that would be worse than theology. it is much better that the OO and EO broke over theology, because it at least shows that both parties were searching for Truth

 

[ArmyMatt]

I pray and believe that there will be one reunited Orthodox Church in my lifetime. Bonus points if we restore Rome to her former splendour.

there is, the Church is one, and always has been. there is no such thing as a divided Church.