Why Arent We Orthodox!

[lankyknight1990]

salem. Opening A New Discussion. Why do some in the EO consider our sacraments invalid and our apostolic succession invalid?

 

[88Devin07]

I think there is a misunderstanding here. While EO don't consider anyone elses sacraments/mysteries to be valid, we still view the OO to be Orthodox. We can never receive communion in an OO Church, we can't receive any of the mysteries of the OO Church either. To do so would be to apostatize from the EO faith.
It isn't about us not viewing the Oriental Church as not being Orthodox, it's about our two Churches not being in communion with one another.

We believe that our two Churches (EO & OO) essentially share the same faith. But because we aren't in communion, and because (from our perspective) the OO Church is in schism from our Church, then it's mysteries aren't valid.

This goes for groups like the Old Calendarists (only those that are in schism) and the Old Believers. Even though they are pretty much identical to the EO Church, they are still in schism, and so we can never go to one of their Churches and receive their mysteries without separating ourselves from the EO Church.

Our Church had a man who was formerly a member of the Indian Orthodox (Malankara Orthodox Church - Oriental) Church. I think he was chrismated & confessed into the Eastern Orthodox faith. In our view, at that point, he became Eastern Orthodox and ceased to be a member of the Oriental Orthodox Church. This view is reciprocated by the Orientals. If I were to go to an Oriental Church and be chrismated/confessed into it so that I could receive the mysteries, then I will have left the Eastern Orthodox Church completely and converted to the Oriental Orthodox Church. It is just the simple fact that our two Churches aren't in communion with each other.

As I pointed out, it isn't an issue of your Church being Orthodox or not. It's just the simple fact that schism divides our two Churches, and because of that, we cannot receive your sacraments/mysteries.

I hope this is a good explanation.

 

[Macarius]

salem. Opening A New Discussion. Why do some in the EO consider our sacraments invalid and our apostolic succession invalid?

Traditionally, it has been the reverse of that which has been concerning. We've always considered St. Cyril's christology as the authentic and Orthodox - it was the Chalcedonian definition that the OO found troubling and, as such, they rejected us. I might, again, ask if you realize we are not heretics why continue to reject us?

For my part, I agree with Devin. The sacraments are the realization of our unity - until that unity exists in a formal way, there cannot be intercommunion. The sacraments are not means to an end (making us look more alike while we are still separate) - they are, rather, the capstone of the reunification process.

Think of it this way: spouses do not have intercourse until after marriage. We are like two divorced spouses realizing that our reasons were probably not so great for getting divorced. I think the EO realized that in the 5th ecumenical council, though our continued mistreatment of the Copts in the 7th c. suggests that this doctrinal realization wasn't taken to heart. I pray we are now in a place to move past that. Similarly, though the heart of the Copts is in the right place, they've not gotten past the doctrinal issues resolved at the 5th council (Chalcedon and the other 3 councils remain unaccepted).

So we see each other and think, like devorcees, "yeah, we should give that marriage another chance" - but it would be wrong to start acting like we were married (i.e. physical union) before actually being married again. The physical union does not CREATE the unity - it is the product and capstone of that unity. Married people don't have sex to get married, they get married and the sex confirms, finalizes, and completes the marriage.

To be sharing communion now would be pre-mature. Rather, we should remain out of communion so that our disunity BURNS in our hearts and FORCES us to see the tragedy of our disunity. Perhaps, by this, by being FORCED to see the reality of the mistakes of the past, we can move past them into REAL and AUTHENTIC and FULL unity - which is what we all desire.

So it isn't out of hatred for the OO, or because we think you're heretics (we don't); it's out of patience and a desire for the truth. Nothing more.

Your brother in Christ,
Macarius

 

[lankyknight1990]

This is a little narrow minded towards eo viewpoint. We are not in communion cause the EO dont want to be. Simple as that.

 

[88Devin07]

This is a little narrow minded towards eo viewpoint. We are not in communion cause the EO dont want to be. Simple as that.

It's not exactly that simple. As EO, you must realize that we are very cautious. We know that there had to be a reason for the schism. For union to occur, we have to affirm the truth of the Council of Chalcedon, while also accepting that the OO hold the same Christology of Chalcedon.

The EO Church has Saints that the OO Church considers either heretics, or people that are far from being Saints. This is also the same in the converse between OO & EO.

Also, as we know, both the EO and the OO work on conciliarity. Therefore, for any union to occur, every Church in both the EO and the OO are going to have to agree to the union. I believe this is more complex when it comes to the EO because of how many autocephalous/autonomous Churches we actually have.

What we as EO require, is that the OO essentially have to become EO. However, what I think is happening, is that the EO & OO are finding that both are Orthodox and believe essentially the same things. Therefore, conversion & total reform isn't entirely necessary by either Church.

Again, this is an extremely complex issue, more-so than just a simple affirmation that we believe the same thing.

 

[Andrew21091]

Union has to happen when all of the churches agree to a union. On the EO side, the Russian Church would be cautious when approaching union with the OO. I've heard that the Ethiopians do not fully support union either. It can't just be a decision made by Alexandria and Antioch but it has to be confirmed by everyone.

 

[buzuxi02]

The Coptic church has baptised all who came to her whether RC or EO, up until a few decades ago, also an agreement between the 2 alexandrian patriarchates were made a few years ago to not (re)baptise. The EO has never baptised OR chrismated OO coming to orthodoxy except in sporadic cases where the bishop believed the seeker needed it. The canon of the EO church as recieved in the 6th ecumenical council requires either Assyrians or OO looking to be recieved into the EO to simply renounce nestorianism or monophysitism and its teachers, recite a confession of faith and be immediately communed without baptism or chrismation. It jas always been the norm in Orthodoxy as stated by our canons to not baptise or chrismate OO coming to us.
The EO church does not believe sacraments or offices of the church can exist independantly of it or outside of it.

 

[lankyknight1990]

If you dont mind me asking why should we have to convert to EO? Our Christology is completely Orthodox. And has always been. I will tell you why the Schism happened. THe Council Of Chalecodon Condemned true Orthodox Christians without Cause or reason. This is why we reject it. How can the Council nOf Chalecedon be an ecuminical council if there was a mistake made?

 

[88Devin07]

If you dont mind me asking why should we have to convert to EO? Our Christology is completely Orthodox. And has always been. I will tell you why the Schism happened. THe Council Of Chalecodon Condemned true Orthodox Christians without Cause or reason. This is why we reject it. How can the Council nOf Chalecedon be an ecuminical council if there was a mistake made?

That is one of the problems between our Churches, we always have, and we always will affirm the Council of Chalcedon as being an Ecumenical Council. I also haven't read the actual decrees of Chalcedon, but wasn't only individual men anathematized and not entire groups/churches? (other than the monophysites, and I think we've proven that the OO aren't monophysites)

 

[buzuxi02]

If you dont mind me asking why should we have to convert to EO? Our Christology is completely Orthodox. And has always been. I will tell you why the Schism happened. THe Council Of Chalecodon Condemned true Orthodox Christians without Cause or reason. This is why we reject it. How can the Council nOf Chalecedon be an ecuminical council if there was a mistake made?

The schism happened because Dioscorus was power hungry. Nothing really new, just read the actions of past alexandrian bishops, they were notorious for holding false councils and making political alliances with the emperors. Theophilus was notorius for this. Even St Cyril himself is at fault for intentionally starting the council of Ephesus before the Antiochan party can arrive which caused a violent rift for 2 years with the Antiochans.
The 4th council condemned Eutyches, whom the robber synod under Dioscorus exhonerated, in that council Pope Leo's tome in defence of Flavian was not read and Flavian was beaten at that synod and died a few days later. Following the 4th council, the monophysite party in egypt began playing the race card pitting ethnic egyptians against their fellow roman citizens, they also gathered others who were at odds with the empire such as the armenians. Read the history of the Antiochan school and see whether the syriac church represents the theological school of antioch. The syriac OO theology is completely foreign to the tradition of Antioch. It is a product of Severus and Peter the Fuller who targeted the non-greek speaking natives for conversion playing the race card once again.

 

[JeremiahsBulldog]

If we EO are the schismatics and you OO are the true orthodox, why is it so important to you that we accept your sacraments and apostolic succession? After all, you don't need us.

Just like we don't gripe to the Lutherans or Baptists about accepting our EO sacraments, you don't need to gripe to us.