What is the main difference?

[SumTinWong]

I guess I will be first and ask the Coptic and Oriental Orthodox what are the differences between you and the Eastern Orthodox. And welcome :)

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Coptics are not in communion with us, and are still monophysites if I'm not mistaken.

[Orthosdoxa]

Hi Unc! :D

BI is on the right track - basically, the OO's split from the EO's in 431 (I think) as a result of a dispute over the divinity of Christ - whether or not he was 100% God and 100% man (EO) or whether He just had one nature (I think that explains it right - OO"s, correct me please?). They have preserved the rest of the same ancient traditions as us, and honestly, that dispute seems nowadays to have been more of a political and language problem than anything. They are not in communion with us, but I believe that schism is going to be healed - maybe even within my lifetime.

[Yeznik]

I guess I will be first and ask the Coptic and Oriental Orthodox what are the differences between you and the Eastern Orthodox. And welcome :) The Armenian Church, which is Oriental Orthodox, accept the first 3 councils as Ecumenical Counsels, the Eastern Orthodox accepts an additional 4 counsels.

[orthedoxy]

The main Difference is Oriental Orthodox reject the council of Chalcedon and EO say they accept the council of Chalcedon.
There is no such thing as Eastern Orthodox, some like the Antioch Orthodox claim they have one and the same faith as OO, yet others so called eastern Orthodox condemn OO as heretics. The EO doesn’t all believe the same thing.

[orthedoxy]

Hi Unc! :D

BI is on the right track - basically, the OO's split from the EO's in 431 (I think) as a result of a dispute over the divinity of Christ - whether or not he was 100% God and 100% man (EO) or whether He just had one nature (I think that explains it right - OO"s, correct me please?). They have preserved the rest of the same ancient traditions as us, and honestly, that dispute seems nowadays to have been more of a political and language problem than anything. They are not in communion with us, but I believe that schism is going to be healed - maybe even within my lifetime.

I think it was more like OO believed Jesus was 100% God 100% man. Byzantine Orthodox believed he was 50% God and 50% man.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

There is no such thing as Eastern Orthodox, some like the Antioch Orthodox claim they have one and the same faith as OO, yet others so called eastern Orthodox condemn OO as heretics. The EO doesn’t all believe the same thing.
We usually refer to the Orthodox Church as EO. And, we are in agreement on all important doctrines.

[orthedoxy]

Coptics are not in communion with us, and are still monophysites if I'm not mistaken.
who is the "us"? EO don't all share the same believes.
Here is an oficial statment do you believe such statment?


Official Statements
On the Unity of the Faith
Joint Declaration of the Patriarchs of the Middle East

We give thanks to God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit for the joy of the spiritual communion which has been granted to us from on high, and which has allowed our meeting in the holy monastery of St Bishoy, Egypt, on the occasion of the Executive Committee meeting of the Middle East Council of Churches (MECC), 16-19 November 1987, on the invitation of our sister Coptic Orthodox Church which has welcomed us with goodwill.

It is the first time that we, the Primates of the Byzantine and Oriental churches, that are members of the MECC and that have their seat in the Middle East, meet to reflect together on our common task in the current situation in the Middle East.

While reflecting once more on the deeply-rooted inner unity of faith existing between our two families of Churches, we rejoice in realizing how much we have advanced in our rediscovery and in the growing consciousness among our people of that inner unity of Faith in the incarnate Lord.

Attempts by theologians of both families aimed at overcoming the misunderstandings inherited from the past centuries of alienation towards one another have happily reached the same conclusion that fundamentally and essentially we on both sides have preserved the same Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, in spite of diverse formulations and resulting controversies.

We welcome all the efforts made on the international or regional levels, and noting in particular that which has been done on the regioal level, in the meetings of Balamand, Lebanon in 1972, and of Pendeli, Greece in 1978, we affirm our togetherness in the true understanding of the Person of Christ, who being God of God, only-begotten Son of the Father, became truly man, fully assumed our human nature without losing or diminishing or changing His DIvine Nature. Being perfect God, He became perfect man, without confusion, without separation.

In the light of this conviction we recommend that the official dialogue on both the regional (Middle East) and the international levels be pursued through common endeavours in the healthy process of clarifying and enhancing our commonness in faith and dispelling the misapprehensions of the past, thus preparing the way towards the full recovery of our communion.

We urge our people to continue to deepen their consciousness in the deep commonality of faith and to relate to one another as brothers and sisters who share the same Gospel, the same faith and the sae commission entrusted to them by their common Lord.

Thanks be to God that ancient controversies and rivalries have given way to a new era of sincere and open dialogue and new communal brotherhood. We pray that these most difficult and crucial times in the Middle East may stimulate all of us to see more clearly the command of our Lord Jesus Christ so that we may be one according to his will (John 10) and His prayer (John 17).

Pope Shenouda III, Coptic Orthodox Church
Patriarch Parthenios III, Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria
Patriarch Ignatios IV, Orthodox Church of Antioch
Catholicos Karekin II, Armenian Apostolic Church of Cilicia

Patriarch Mor Ignatius Zakka I. Iwas, Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch,
Not present at the meeting, also expressed is accord with the statement

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Pope Shenouda III, Coptic Orthodox Church
Patriarch Parthenios III, Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria
Patriarch Ignatios IV, Orthodox Church of Antioch
Catholicos Karekin II, Armenian Apostolic Church of Cilicia

Patriarch Mor Ignatius Zakka I. Iwas, Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch,
Not present at the meeting, also expressed is accord with the statement
Coptics certainly aren't in communion with the Orthodox Church, and Syrians and Armenians are monophysites as well if I'm not mistaken. Don't know if thats the Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria, or if they're in communion with the Coptic Pope.

I think you are mistaking the Coptic Church for the Orthodox Church.

[Yeznik]

Coptics certainly aren't in communion with the Orthodox Church, and Syrians and Armenians are monophysites as well if I'm not mistaken. Don't know if thats the Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria, or if they're in communion with the Coptic Pope.

I think you are mistaking the Coptic Church for the Orthodox Church.
The Eutychian monophysite heresy was condemned by the Armenian, Georgian, and the Caspio Albanian Church at the council of Dvin in 506 AD. The Armenians were battling the Persians at the time of the counsel of Chalcedon.

[orthedoxy]

Coptics certainly aren't in communion with the Orthodox Church, and Syrians and Armenians are monophysites as well if I'm not mistaken. Don't know if thats the Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria, or if they're in communion with the Coptic Pope.

I think you are mistaking the Coptic Church for the Orthodox Church.

That used to be the Patriarch of Alexandria.
http://www.christianforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=10700559
How can you say EO are not in communion with the Coptic Pope?
The thing is there is no such thing as this is what the EO believe.

[orthedoxy]

We usually refer to the Orthodox Church as EO. And, we are in agreement on all important doctrines.

I have to disagree with you. EO are not united.
OO are in agreement with EO on all important doctrines so are Catholics.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

How can you say EO are not in communion with the Coptic Pope?
The thing is there is no such thing as this is what the EO believe.
Ask any Orthodox. They will tell you the same thing.

http://www.christianforums.com/t1143853-coptic-and-ethiopian-church.html has a lot of info

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

I have to disagree with you. EO are not united.
OO are in agreement with EO on all important doctrines so are Catholics.
Hmm, well I really suggest you read up on church history. The RCC believes in the infalliability of the Pope and the filioque, you I'm sure don't use the filioque, and we believe in Seven Ecumenical Councils. There are major differences. I encourage you to come ask these questions in TAW, where more Orthodox can answer as well :)

(Or ask in OBOB if you like, they will say OO and EO are not in communion with the RCC as well)

[orthedoxy]

Ask any Orthodox. They will tell you the same thing.

http://www.christianforums.com/t1143853-coptic-and-ethiopian-church.html has a lot of info

Are these people more credible then the Alexandrian pope?
What if rick of wessex believes he is not in communion with OO and his church the Antioch Orthodox believes they are, who should we believe?
This is why I say you are divided. How can you speak for the EO church?

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Are these people more credible then the Alexandrian pope?
What if rick of wessex believes he is not in communion with OO and his church the Antioch Orthodox believes they are, who should we believe?
This is why I say you are divided. How can you speak for the EO church?
You should talk to a bishop of the Antiochan Orthodox Church then. Or an Archbishop even. You will get the same answer.

[prodromos]

Byzantine Orthodox believed he was 50% God and 50% man.
Not even close, not then and not now :(

If you are going to post stuff like this then I'm going to have to ask you to back it up with primary sources. Personally, I have never heard this accusation from OO. We have been accused of being Nestorian (which OO now readily agree we are not) but that is nothing like what you posted above.

John.

[orthedoxy]

Hmm, well I really suggest you read up on church history. The RCC believes in the infalliability of the Pope and the filioque, you I'm sure don't use the filioque, and we believe in Seven Ecumenical Councils. There are major differences. I encourage you to come ask these questions in TAW, where more Orthodox can answer as well :)

(Or ask in OBOB if you like, they will say OO and EO are not in communion with the RCC as well)
I'm not saying you are in communion with RC. I'm saying you both accept the trinity and so on.
EO did accept the primacy of the Roman Pope at the council of Chalcedon
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ235.HTM
In regard to the filioque some EO see it as not a problem and some do.
Here is a link that shows EO have no problem with the filioque.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/celticorthodox/3648.html
Can you tell me what makes the RC councils not Ecumenical Councils?

I'm not going to ask in the TAW because they don't treat OO with respect.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

I'm not saying you are in communion with RC. I'm saying you both accept the trinity and so on.
EO did accept the primacy of the Roman Pope at the council of Chalcedon
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ235.HTM
In regard to the filioque some EO see it as not a problem and some do.
Here is a link that shows EO have no problem with the filioque.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/celticorthodox/3648.html
Can you tell me what makes the RC councils not Ecumenical Councils?

I'm not going to ask in the TAW because they don't treat OO with respect.
We accepted the Primacy of Rome, until the Great Schism

That is not EO

RC Councils aren't Ecumenical because they aren't in communion with us.

I really really really suggest you read up on church history and doctrines...

[orthedoxy]

Not even close, not then and not now :(

If you are going to post stuff like this then I'm going to have to ask you to back it up with primary sources. Personally, I have never heard this accusation from OO. We have been accused of being Nestorian (which OO now readily agree we are not) but that is nothing like what you posted above.

John.

One nature means 100%of his nature God and 100% of his nature man with in the one nature.
If you are saying two natures, why doesn't that mean 50% man 50% God?
How can you have two natures and not say 50/50?
I might be wrong correct me.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

One nature means 100%of his nature God and 100% of his nature man with in the one nature.
If you are saying two natures, why doesn't that mean 50% man 50% God?
How can you have two natures and not say 50/50?
I might be wrong correct me.
Say you have a box of only hydrogen. You can say that your box is 100% full of atoms and 100% full of subatomic particles, and both correctly so. You could also do it the easy way and say your box is 100% full of hydrogen, which is laso true. Silly example, but it makes the point I think :P

So, it's not impossible for Jesus to be 100% God and 100% man

[orthedoxy]

You should talk to a bishop of the Antiochan Orthodox Church then. Or an Archbishop even. You will get the same answer.
Here is what the Antioch Church say.

Official Statements
Statement of the Orthodox Church of Antioch on the Theological Dialogue
On the Relations between the Eastern and Syrian Orthodox Churches, November 1991

A Synodal and Patriarchal Letter

To All Our Children, Protected by God, of the Holy See of Antioch

Beloved:

You must have heard of the continuous efforts for decades by our Church with the sister Syrian Orthodox Church to foster a better knowledge and understanding of both Churches, whether on the dogmatic or pastoral level. These attempts are nothing but a natural expression that the Orthodox Churches, and especially those within the Holy See of Antioch, are called to articulate the will of the Lord that all may be obe, just as the Son is One with the Heavenly Father (John 10:30).

It is our duty and that of our brothers in the Syrian Orthodox Church to witness to Christ in our Eastern region where He was born, preached, suffered, was buried and rose from the dead, ascended into Heaven, and sent down His Holy and Life Giving Spirit upon His holy Apostles.

All the meetings, the fellowship, the oral and written declarations meant that we belong to One Faith even though history had manifested our division more than the aspects of our unity.

All this has called upon our Holy Synod of Antioch to bear witness to the progress of our Church in the See of Antioch towards unity that preserves for each Church its authentic Oriental heritage whereby the one Antiochean Church benefits from its sister Church and is enriched in its traditions, literature and holy rituals.

Every endeavour and pursuit in the direction of the coming together of the two Churches is based on the conviction that this orientation is from the Holy Spirit, and it will give the Eastern Orthodox image more light and radiance, that it has lacked for centuries before.

Having recognised the efforts done in the direction of unity between the two Churches, and being convinced that this direction was inspired by the Holy Spirit and projects a radiant image of Eastern Christanity overshadowed during centuries, the Holy Synod of the Church of Antioch saw the need to give a concrete expression of the close fellowship between the two Churches, the Syrian Orthodox Church and the Eastern Orthodox for the edification of their faithful.

Thus, the following decisions were taken:

1. We affirm the total and mutual respect of the spirituality, heritage and Holy Fathers of both Churches. The integrity of both the Byzantine and Syriac liturgies is to be preserved.

2. The heritage of the Fathers in both Churches and their traditions as a whole should be integrated into Christian education curricula and theological studies. Exchanges of professors and students are to be enhanced.

3. Both Churches shall refrain from accepting any faithful from accepting any faithful from one Church into the membership of the other, irrespective of all motivations or reasons.

4. Meetings between the two Churches, at the level of their Synods, according to the will of the two Churches, will be held whenever the need arsies.

5. Every Church will remain the reference and authority for its faithful, pertaining to matters of persoanl status (marriage, divorce, adoption etc.).

6. If bishops of the two Churches participate at a holy baptism or funeral service, the one belonging to the Church of the baptized or deceased will preside. In case of a holy matrimony service, the bishop of the bridegroom's Church will preside.

7. The above mentioned is not applicable to the concelebration in the Divine Liturgy.

8. What applies to bishops equally applies to the priests of both Churches.

9. In localities where there is only one priest, from either Church, he will celebrate services for the faithful of both Churches, including the Divien Liturgy, pastoral duties, and holy matrimony. He will keep an independent record for each Church and transmit that of the sister Church to its authorities.

10. If two priests of the two Churches happen to be in a locality where there is only one Church, they take turns in making use of its facilities.

11. If a bishop from one Church and a priest from the sister Church happen to concelebrate a service, the first will preside even when it is the priest's parish.

12. Ordinations into the holy orders are performed by the authorities of each Church for its own members. It would be advisable to invite the faithful of the sister Church to attend.

13. Godfathers, godmothers (in baptism) and witnesses in holy matrimony can be chosen from the members of the sister Church.

14. Both Churches will exchange visits and will co-operate in the various areas of social, cultural and educational work.

We ask God's help to continue strengthening our relations with the sister Church, and with other Churches, so that we all become one community under one Shepherd.

12.11.1991
Patriarch Ignatios IV
Damascus


Now who should we believe?

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

:)

[orthedoxy]

And they are still not in communion. Close, yes, but not there yet. Some of the churches have yet to accept the Seven Ecumenical Councils, which is necessary for unity.
We just read that Antioch and Syrian Orthodox were united how can you disagree with that? That seems to say they were in communion with each other don't you agree? Have the Antioch Church changed since?
This is why I say you can't say this is what the EO church believes because they differ among themselves.

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

:)

[orthedoxy]

You are thinking that a push for unity automatically puts us in communion with someone. Not so.
This is not a push for unity the Antioch Patriarch said they are one and the same faith and communion is given to Syrian Orthodox.
How can you disagree and still consider yourself to be EO?
Do you think you are more credible then the Patriarch?

[Suzannah]

/mod hat on:

Suggest that everyone read the rules that are now stickied in this forum. ;)
They weren't posted in a timely manner and we apologize for that. But henceforth, they'll be enforced.

/mod hat off.

[Rick of Wessex]

Orthedoxy,

The agreement between the Antiochian Orthodox Church and the Syriac Church is nothing but a pastoral agreement, regarding iinterfeiath marriage between Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonians from both Patriarchates.

And if you ask my personal opinion, I think this goes too far. It's no small wonder the Holy Monks of Athos have criticized it.

Anyway, Antiochians cannot receive communion in Syriac churches, and vice-versa. Concelebration is also forbidden.

Check item 7 from that agreement.

7. The above mentioned is not applicable to the concelebration in the Divine Liturgy.

That includes intercommunion.

In XC,
Rick

[Rick of Wessex]

Hi, Yeznik! :wave:

The Armenian Church, which is Oriental Orthodox, accept the first 4 councils as Ecumenical Counsels, the Eastern Orthodox accepts an additional 3 counsels after the 4th counsel.

By "4th Council" you mean Chalcedon? I thought the Armenians rejected it. Or is there any other Council you regard as the 4th Ecumenical Council.

Caspio Albanian Church

I've never heard about them. Could you elaborate?

Thanks.
Your brother in XC,
Rick

[Rick of Wessex]

Orthedoxy,

We just read that Antioch and Syrian Orthodox were united how can you disagree with that? That seems to say they were in communion with each other don't you agree? Have the Antioch Church changed since?
This is why I say you can't say this is what the EO church believes because they differ among themselves.

You might know that the Roman Catholic Pope, John Paul II also signed many statements of faith with the Armenian Patriachs of Etchmiadzim Karekin I (http://www15.dht.dk/~2westh/common-dec.htm) and Karekin II (http://www.lpj.org/Nonviolence/Harry/Armenia.htm) (by the time of JPII's visit to Armenia in 2001) and Aram I of Cilicia (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/anc-orient-ch-docs/rc_pc_christuni_doc_19970125_jp-ii-aram-i_en.html) in which both Churches stated that they share the same faith.

However, Copts and Ethiopians haven't signed such statements with the Vatican.

And at the same time, JPII signed another identical declaration of faith with Mar Dinkha IV, the Patriarch of the Assyrian (Nestorian) Church of the East (http://church-of-the-east.org/library/CATHOLIC%20AND%20ASSYRIAN%20CHURCH%20OF%20THE%20EAST.txt).

So, if the Armenian Church and the Pope stated that both churches believe in the same things and share the same faith but express it in a different way, and the Pope and the Assyrians stated that they believe in the same things and share the same faith but express it in a different way... So Non-Chalcedonians and Assyrians share the same faith?

Help me, I'm confused... :confused:

Rick

[Orthosdoxa]

You are thinking that a push for unity automatically puts us in communion with someone. Not so.
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Bizzlebin Imperatoris again.


stinkin' rep nazis....

[Yeznik]

Hi, Yeznik! :wave:



By "4th Council" you mean Chalcedon? I thought the Armenians rejected it. Or is there any other Council you regard as the 4th Ecumenical Council.



I've never heard about them. Could you elaborate?

Thanks.
Your brother in XC,
Rick Thanks Rick, I made the correction. :thumbsup:
And the Armenians and the Oriental Orthodox, don't regard the counsel of Chalcedon as an Ecumenical Counsel.

The Caspio-Albanians are the Caucasian Albanians,


The kingdom started to expand and reached its peak during the reign of Tigran II, also called Tigran the Great (95-55 BC). Under Tigran, Armenia ascended to a pinnacle of power unique in its history and became the strongest state in Asia Minor. Extensive territories were taken from Parthia, which was compelled to sign a treaty of alliance. Iberia (Georgia), Caucasian Albania, and Atropatene had already accepted Tigran' suzerainty when the Syrians offered him their crown (83 BC). Tigran penetrated as far south as Ptolemais (modern Akko in Israel). As a result, the empire of Tigran II stretched from the Caspian Sea in the East to the Mediterranean Sea in West, and from Mesopotamia in the South to the river Kura in North. Political strengthening and territorial expansion of Armenia was accompanied also by unprecedented cultural development, with rich cultural heritage of Urartu intermixing with Hellenistic features. As a result Armenia during the Artashesian period became one of the most Hellenized and culturally advanced countries of Asia Minor.

http://www.littlearmenia.com/html/little_armenia/armenian_history.asp

I know that there is a an Albania north of Greece. I don't know in what context they are connected, I will do some more research if you want and I will let you know.

The Azeri-Turks are tryinging to claim that the Caucasian Albanians are there ancestors.

[Rick of Wessex]

Yeznik,

Thanks for the info and for the site. I'd never heard about Caspio-Albanians before. Very interesting.

In XC,
Rick

[Yeznik]

Hello Rick,

Here is an article that was written a couple of years ago.


http://www.hairenik.com/armenianweekly/october/history004.html

Unfortunately there is very little information about them. The Armenians were responsible to converting the Georgians and the Caucasian Albanians to Christianity. But since the Azeri-Turks have been running the country, all their history is re-written to accommadate a pro Turkish agenda.

[Marjorie]

Here is a link that shows EO have no problem with the filioque.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/celticorthodox/3648.htmlNo offense, but did you even read that article, which I posted on TAW? It does not say that the Western dogma of the Filioque is acceptable. What it says is that the filioque *as such* (i.e. proceeding from the Father *through* the Son, which basically all Orthodox theologians agree on) could be accepted, but not as it has been elaborated upon by the West.


Finally, the last part: the West originally, obviously, held to this Orthodox interpretation of the Filioque. The Filioque was first added to the Creed by the Council of Toledo in 675 (adding ANYTHING to the Creed was forbidden by all the Ecumenical Councils - so, they did wrong to add this to the Creed, even though they interpreted it correctly). The Filioque is expressed in the Athanasian Creed as well, without incident. Yet this doctrine would be "developed" in the Carolingian school of theologians, especially by Alcuin of York. Pope St. Leo III, who crowned Charlemagne, took issue with the innovations of Charlemagne's court, and discouraged their addition of the Filioque to the Nicene creed and also disputed their novel interpretation. Charlemagne's theology and policies, however, made their way into Germanic theological schools, and from thence into the Papacy (when German Emperor Otto III emerged victorious over the Italian powers and reserved the right to install the Pope himself). The novel, heterodox Western interpretation of the Filioque was fully articulated at the Council of Florence, in which an attempt at reunion was made between between East and West. The Roman Catholic teaching is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son "as from one principle." That is, the Holy Spirit cannot be said to proceed from One without reference to the Other, but can only be conceived of as proceeding from them both simultaneously as from one principle in one spiration. For the Orthodox Fathers of both East and West, this teaching would be unacceptable.In IC XC,
Marjorie

[orthedoxy]

Orthedoxy,

The agreement between the Antiochian Orthodox Church and the Syriac Church is nothing but a pastoral agreement, regarding iinterfeiath marriage between Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonians from both Patriarchates.

And if you ask my personal opinion, I think this goes too far. It's no small wonder the Holy Monks of Athos have criticized it.

Anyway, Antiochians cannot receive communion in Syriac churches, and vice-versa. Concelebration is also forbidden.

Check item 7 from that agreement.



That includes intercommunion.

In XC,
Rick

I thought I was on your ignore list?

Do you believe working towards a false, politically correct union would be nothing but blasphemy against Gods Church?

What about this quote from the Antioch Church statement?
“All the meetings, the fellowship, the oral and written declarations meant that we belong to One Faith even though history had manifested our division more than the aspects of our unity.”

Are you telling me a non chelcedonian priest could give Communion at your church but can't partake of it? :scratch:
Even if this is just a pastoral agreement(which is not). Do you allow A RC priest or a Jehovah witness giving your liturgy?
When your Church (the Antioch church) accept a non Chalcedonian as the same faith why wouldn’t they accept Armenian non Chalcedonian as your sister or one faith?

[orthedoxy]

Orthedoxy,



You might know that the Roman Catholic Pope, John Paul II also signed many statements of faith with the Armenian Patriachs of Etchmiadzim Karekin I (http://www15.dht.dk/~2westh/common-dec.htm) and Karekin II (http://www.lpj.org/Nonviolence/Harry/Armenia.htm) (by the time of JPII's visit to Armenia in 2001) and Aram I of Cilicia (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/anc-orient-ch-docs/rc_pc_christuni_doc_19970125_jp-ii-aram-i_en.html) in which both Churches stated that they share the same faith.

However, Copts and Ethiopians haven't signed such statements with the Vatican.

And at the same time, JPII signed another identical declaration of faith with Mar Dinkha IV, the Patriarch of the Assyrian (Nestorian) Church of the East (http://church-of-the-east.org/library/CATHOLIC%20AND%20ASSYRIAN%20CHURCH%20OF%20THE%20EAST.txt).

So, if the Armenian Church and the Pope stated that both churches believe in the same things and share the same faith but express it in a different way, and the Pope and the Assyrians stated that they believe in the same things and share the same faith but express it in a different way... So Non-Chalcedonians and Assyrians share the same faith?

Help me, I'm confused... :confused:

Rick
I'm not sure what the assyrians of the east believe or if they are still nestorian. I guess if OO accept EO as same faith i don't see a problem with accepting nestorians as same faith.

[Rick of Wessex]

Hi, Yeznik.

Hello Rick,

Here is an article that was written a couple of years ago.


http://www.hairenik.com/armenianweekly/october/history004.html

Thanks. It's very good.

But since the Azeri-Turks have been running the country, all their history is re-written to accommadate a pro Turkish agenda.

You know, that doesn't surprise me, since Turkey won't admit to this day the slaughter of one and a half million Armenians and still claims that the invasion of Cyprus - a sovereign, independent state - was somehow justifiable. Terrible, isn't it? :sigh:

In XC,
Rick

[Yeznik]

Hi, Yeznik.



Thanks. It's very good.



You know, that doesn't surprise me, since Turkey won't admit to this day the slaughter of one and a half million Armenians and still claims that the invasion of Cyprus - a sovereign, independent state - was somehow justifiable. Terrible, isn't it? :sigh:

In XC,
Rick
Hello Rick,

Please refer to the slaughter as Genocide. Many people (and I am not saying you) try to dimiss the Genocide as something else besides a Genocide. If we look back historically, one have of "Turkey" is part of the historical Byzantine Empire and the other half is the Armenian Empire.

[orthedoxy]

No offense, but did you even read that article, which I posted on TAW? It does not say that the Western dogma of the Filioque is acceptable. What it says is that the filioque *as such* (i.e. proceeding from the Father *through* the Son, which basically all Orthodox theologians agree on) could be accepted, but not as it has been elaborated upon by the West.

In IC XC,
Marjorie
Marjoire
Some EO churches teach and say there is no problem with saying The Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and The Spirit and some EO reject that and say total opposite of the link you provided.
Here is a link that condemns the teaching "proceed from the Father and The son"
http://www.orthodox.clara.net/belief.htm
After reading both the link you gave and the one I provided you see not all Orthodox theologians agree.
This brings forth a question do all EO have the same method of worship? :scratch:
Marjore is the only problem you have with the Felioque is that one shouldn't change the creed?
If that is so, you should have a problem with changing one nature of Christ in the council of Ephesus to two natures in the council of Chalcedon.

[SaintGeorge]

Hello, orthedoxy.

Christ has only one nature: His own. He is perfect God and perfect man incarnate.:crossrc:

[orthedoxy]

Hello, orthedoxy.

Christ has only one nature: His own. He is perfect God and perfect man incarnate.:crossrc:
That is not what EO and the council of Chalcedon believes.
EO believe Christ has two nature OO believe one nature.
This is the main objection EO have to OO.

[SaintGeorge]

:scratch: You've got that vice-versa.

Uhhh...no we don't. We believe Christ has one nature. Nestorians believe he has two.

Of course, then again, why am I worried? You also think the mods are involved in a conspiracy against Coptics.:D ;)

Yeznik, help me out here!

[Yeznik]

:scratch: You've got that vice-versa.

Uhhh...no we don't. We believe Christ has one nature. Nestorians believe he has two.

Of course, then again, why am I worried? You also think the mods are involved in a conspiracy against Coptics.:D ;)

Yeznik, help me out here!
Yes Christ has One Nature. We can all agree on this right?

[Bushido216]

I think it was more like OO believed Jesus was 100% God 100% man. Byzantine Orthodox believed he was 50% God and 50% man.
That appears to be a mostly linguistical issue. When you're talking relativity both statements mean the same thing.

Please tell me that this wasn't the main cause of your split?

[SaintGeorge]

No, it was people who caused the split. The root cause of all schisms is human nature.:(

[Yeznik]

No, it was people who caused the split. The root cause of all schisms is human nature.:(
Excellent point.:thumbsup:

[Jason of Wyoming]

Ok...help me out here.

I would appreciate a detailed list of where the Coptic Churches differ from the Orthodox Churches (EO).

I'd really like to understand. Thanks.

[Zacharias]

I always thought that EO believed that Jesus is 100% human and 100% God. :confused:

[Lotar]

Nestorian: One person - Two Seperable Natures
EO: One Person - Two Inseperable Natures
OO: One Person - One Nature

[Yeznik]

Nestorian: One person - Two Seperable Natures
EO: One Person - Two Inseperable Natures
OO: One Person - One Nature
In the OO the One Nature is God and man. In the EO they consider this the "Inseperable Two Natures".

[SaintGeorge]

Which means "One Nature.":)

But you know us EO always have to say it in the longest, most confusing way possible.;)

[Zacharias]

Which means "One Nature.":)

But you know us EO always have to say it in the longest, most confusing way possible.;)

You are incorect.


Christ is a God-man. He is perfect God and perfect man. And at the same time He is one person; that is, one essence with two natures, the Godly and the human. "Dual in nature but one in essence." These two natures are unconfusedly united, so that they form one person but at the same time are not confused

As taken from Orthodox Catechism: http://orthodoxcatechism.org/

[prodromos]

Which means "One Nature.":)

But you know us EO always have to say it in the longest, most confusing way possible.;)No it doesn't and no we don't. Sorry Esran but you are wrong here.

[prodromos]

Do Copts and Oriental Orthodox believe that Christ has two wills, a divine and a human?

John.

[Rick of Wessex]

Moderators, :wave:

Please delete this post.

[Rick of Wessex]

Esran,

Uhhh...no we don't. We believe Christ has one nature. Nestorians believe he has two.

As John stated below, Orthodox believe this:

Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all with one voice teach that it should be confessed that our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same Son, the Same perfect in Godhead, the Same perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, the Same [consisting] of a rational soul and a body; homoousios (consubstantial) with the Father as to His Godhead, and the Same homoousios (consubstantial) with us as to His manhood; in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of the Father before ages as to His Godhead, and in the last days, the Same, for us and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to His manhood;

One and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, made known in two natures which exist without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the difference of the natures having been in no wise taken away by reason of the union, but rather the properties of each being preserved, and [both] concurring into one prosopon [individual] and one hypostasis [person] — not parted or divided into two prosopa, but one and the Same Son and Only-begotten, the divine Logos, the Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from of old [have spoken] concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers (the Nicene Creed) has delivered to us (quoted from Aloys Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. I, p. 524).


Non-Chalcedonians believe that His human and divine nature merged into one Nature. This definition is closer to the Chalcedonian oros, but theologically speaking, it is not the same thing.

Nestorians (i.e., the Assyrian Church of the East), following Nestorius Christology to this day, hold to an eschizophrenic theology - they believe there are two distinct "Christs" [two prosopa - individuals] "living" in the same body. For instance, they believe that only Christ the God performed miracles and only Christ the man died on the Cross (as if both Natures could be separated... go figure).

Assyrians still believe this, venerate Nestorius as a saint, claim that he was unjustly anathemized in Ephesus and Chalcedon and that this condemnation was the result of "semantical" misunderstandings. Because of this they anathematized St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Fathers of Ephesus. They accept only the first two Ecumenical Councils.

If you want more details, just post on TAW.

Rick

[Yeznik]

Do Copts and Oriental Orthodox believe that Christ has two wills, a divine and a human?

John.
The Armenians believe that Christ has one will (God/Man).

[Yeznik]

Esran,



As John stated below, Orthodox believe this:

Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all with one voice teach that it should be confessed that our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same Son, the Same perfect in Godhead, the Same perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, the Same [consisting] of a rational soul and a body; homoousios (consubstantial) with the Father as to His Godhead, and the Same homoousios (consubstantial) with us as to His manhood; in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of the Father before ages as to His Godhead, and in the last days, the Same, for us and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to His manhood;

One and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, made known in two natures which exist without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the difference of the natures having been in no wise taken away by reason of the union, but rather the properties of each being preserved, and [both] concurring into one prosopon [individual] and one hypostasis [person] — not parted or divided into two prosopa, but one and the Same Son and Only-begotten, the divine Logos, the Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from of old [have spoken] concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers (the Nicene Creed) has delivered to us (quoted from Aloys Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. I, p. 524).


Non-Chalcedonians believe that His human and divine nature merged into one Nature. This definition is closer to the Chalcedonian oros, but theologically speaking, it is not the same thing.

Nestorians (i.e., the Assyrian Church of the East), following Nestorius Christology to this day, hold to an eschizophrenic theology - they believe there are two distinct "Christs" [two prosopa - individuals] "living" in the same body. For instance, they believe that only Christ the God performed miracles and only Christ the man died on the Cross (as if both Natures could be separated... go figure).

Assyrians still believe this, venerate Nestorius as a saint, claim that he was unjustly anathemized in Ephesus and Chalcedon and that this condemnation was the result of "semantical" misunderstandings. Because of this they anathematized St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Fathers of Ephesus. They accept only the first two Ecumenical Councils.

If you want more details, just post on TAW.

Rick
Hello Rick,

Do the EO confess Christ as two Natures ? And Two Wills?

[Lotar]

Yes, 2 Natures and 2 Wills.

[Yeznik]

Ok...help me out here.

I would appreciate a detailed list of where the Coptic Churches differ from the Orthodox Churches (EO).

I'd really like to understand. Thanks.
Hello Jason,

Try this link I posted in the Coptic section.

http://www.christianforums.com/t1158956-coptic-links.html

[Grand_Duchess-Elizaveta]

I didn't read through all the previous posts, so please forgive me if someone asked this already....but can someone make the distinction between "essence" and "nature" and "will"? We sing "The Trinity One in essence and undivided.." in the liturgy, so apparently being "One in essence" differs from "One in nature", right?

[Marjorie]

Marjoire
Some EO churches teach and say there is no problem with saying The Holy Spirit proceed from the Father and The Spirit and some EO reject that and say total opposite of the link you provided.
Here is a link that condemns the teaching "proceed from the Father and The son"
http://www.orthodox.clara.net/belief.htm
After reading both the link you gave and the one I provided you see not all Orthodox theologians agree.
This brings forth a question do all EO have the same method of worship? :scratch:
Marjore is the only problem you have with the Felioque is that one shouldn't change the creed?
If that is so, you should have a problem with changing one nature of Christ in the council of Ephesus to two natures in the council of Chalcedon.Not all Orthodox theologians agree on emphasis and how to phrase things, but in dogma they are all the same.

That is NOT the only objection I have to the Filioque as taught by the RCs. Read the link, or even the passage I quoted. It clearly states that the CATHOLIC DOCTRINE of the Filioque is unacceptable. What *IS* acceptable is saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, which all Orthodox theologians agree on.

Not all Oriental Orthodox Christians state things exactly the same way either-- you can even see that in the differences between Yeznik's and your posts.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[SaintGeorge]

Oooops!!! I tripped up on my words.:sorry:

Semantics is hard online.:scratch:

And that "most confusing way possible" thing was just a bad joke. Sorry.:(

[Jason of Wyoming]

Hello Jason,

Try this link I posted in the Coptic section.

http://www.christianforums.com/t1158956-coptic-links.html
Thanks for the link. I love history stuff like this! :thumbsup:

[Farid]

I guess I will be first and ask the Coptic and Oriental Orthodox what are the differences between you and the Eastern Orthodox. And welcome :)
In terms of doctrine, both groups are coming to realize that there are no differences. However, some tradition and rituals differ, and this is expected since the 2 families of churches were no in communion for a long times, i.e. centuries. Both have the same believes about the Nature of Christ, although the some terminology caused the initial separation. Also their view on Salvation, the Apostolic Succession, Veneration of saints, Tradition and Bible authority...etc are the same. There are many dialogues among the Heads of these Churches and common declarations are being examined and signed. We shall pray that one day soon, we get together again.

[Farid]

I didn't read through all the previous posts, so please forgive me if someone asked this already....but can someone make the distinction between "essence" and "nature" and "will"? We sing "The Trinity One in essence and undivided.." in the liturgy, so apparently being "One in essence" differs from "One in nature", right?
Nature and Essence are the same. When we talk about the Lord Christ for example, we say He has the Divine Nature, or He has the Essence of Divinity, meaning He is of the same Substance of Divinity. We say the Lord Jesus is Con-substancial with the Father, meaning He has the Same Substance as the Father. That is, He has Fullness of Divinity as the Father does. We also say of Him He is Con-substantial with us humans, meaning He had Full Human Nature, like us. This is without sin of course.
Hope that made it a bit clear.

[Rilian]

Nature and Essence are the same.

I think this was one of the problems that occurred in the dialogues that preceded the split. My very simple understanding is that St. Cyril of Alexandria saw things very much in this light (nature and essence being the same) and often used the Greek words physis and ousia interchangeably. I think many in the East, especially the Antiochene party, saw these as two different things. Usually more focused on ousia and hypostasis.

[Yeznik]

I think this was one of the problems that occurred in the dialogues that preceded the split. My very simple understanding is that St. Cyril of Alexandria saw things very much in this light (nature and essence being the same) and often used the Greek words physis and ousia interchangeably. I think many in the East, especially the Antiochene party, saw these as two different things. Usually more focused on ousia and hypostasis.
I will check out these words in Ancient Armenian and let you know.

[Rick of Wessex]

I think this was one of the problems that occurred in the dialogues that preceded the split. My very simple understanding is that St. Cyril of Alexandria saw things very much in this light (nature and essence being the same) and often used the Greek words physis and ousia interchangeably. I think many in the East, especially the Antiochene party, saw these as two different things. Usually more focused on ousia and hypostasis.

Rilian,

St. Cyril used the term nature (physis) early on in the way that Person or hypostasis came to be used later. He understood that and was able to come to an agreement with John of Antioch and Theodoret of Cyrus on that subject.

He did not mean that Christ had or has only one nature. He meant that Christ is a unified, yet composite Hypostasis (Person) in two physeis (natures), divine and human.


Rick

[Rick of Wessex]

Hello, Farid! :wave:

Nature and Essence are the same.

In Orthodox theology, there's a clear distinction between Nature (physis) and Essence (ousia). See below.

Four Key Terms
Prosopon, (plural: prosopa) had the basic meaning of face or countenance. Thus, it was also used to mean a character (in a play), mask, outward appearance or expression, role, an individual self or person, a particular individual, or a person in the legal sense.

Hypostasis (plural: hypostaseis) comes from the Greek verb uphistemi, which is a compound of upo (under) and istemi (stand); thus the basic meaning of uphistemi is to stand (or be placed) under as a support or foundation. Etymologically, hypostasis is the equivalent of the Latin substantio (substance). In my dictionary of Patristic Greek, the definitions of hypostasis go on for 7 pages, but in general we can say that the range of meanings included the substance, stuff or material (out of which something is made); the foundation (of a building or of a line of reasoning); the substantive existence of a being, or also the one who has this substantive existence (approximating the meaning of person); it could be used as an equivalent to ousia (essence), or it could refer to a concrete instance of an abstract essence, that is, nature realized in a particular individual. As you will note, in this paper I use the Greek word hypostasis rather than the word "person"; it is only after Chalcedon that "person" becomes a reliable translation for hypostasis.

Physis (plural: physeis) could refer to nature as manifest in the physical world; theologically, it signified "nature" with the meaning of an essence with the attributes proper to it; thus it referred to a concrete reality, whether a specific kind or species of being (such as the race of men) or, more specifically, to a particular being with its attributes—as we might, in English, on the one hand speak of "the nature of men" or "the nature of God," and on the other hand say, "He is of a shy nature, while she is of an outgoing nature." It is helpful to keep in mind that, before Chalcedon, many people felt that "to be anything more than a mental abstraction a physis must be realized in a concrete, independent entity, a hypostasis" (Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, p. 1500). Thus, to many people, speaking of two physeis necessarily implied the existence of two hypostaseis.

Ousia (plural: ousiai) is a participle of the verb "to be"; it could be translated "substance" (as in homoousios—consubstantial), but still with a wide range of meanings: one's property, possessions or substance; the material substance out of which a thing is made; immutable, stable being, ultimate reality; a real thing as opposed to a name or symbol of the thing; the true nature of a thing or the possession of such a nature; the primary real which underlies all change and process in nature.

As we have seen, each of these terms could be used in many ways (think of all the ways we use the word "nature" in English). This could, and did, cause difficulties when the Church tried to express in human language the fullness of truth which had been given to Her on the day of Pentecost. For example, the word prosopon had a rather weak meaning for the idea of "person" — to say that the one God had three prosopa could be interpreted in an Orthodox way, but it could also be intrepreted in a Sabellian or modalistic way: one God with three faces, one God Who played the three "roles" of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Likewise, to say that Jesus Christ had one prosopon could be interpreted in an Orthodox way, but it was also the way in which the Nestorians expressed their heretical idea that in Jesus Christ the Word of God was united to a specific man in a kind of moral union.

Another problem arose in the use of the three terms hypostasis, physis, and ousia. Although physis and hypostasis were usually used to refer to a concrete reality, while ousia usually had a more general and abstract sense, yet all three could be used interchangeably in many cases. Thus, in the First Council of Nicea, hypostasis and ousia were used more-or-less synonymously. In the theological language available to the Church in the 4th-5th centuries, there were simply no clear and obvious terms to express the theological ideas of "person" and "nature."

In the course of the Trinitarian controversies of the fourth century, it became clear that the Church needed more precise language with which to express the unity and distinction within the Trinity, and the three Cappadocian Fathers brilliantly solved this problem by narrowing and clarifying the meaning of these terms, expressing the unity of God by speaking of one ousia and the distinctions between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit by speaking of three hypostasis. It was not, however, immediately clear how the terms used by the Cappadocians in Trinitarian theology could or should be applied in Christology—for example, to speak of the divine ousia united with the human ousia in Christ could sound as though the entire Trinity had become incarnate. A clear and Orthodox way to apply these terms to the Incarnation still had to be worked out. And thus we enter the Christological controversies of the fifth century.

As you can see, these are crucial differences between Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonian churches. That's why I disagree when you say

In terms of doctrine, both groups are coming to realize that there are no differences.

Granted, Non-Chacedonians are much closer to the Orthodox than, let's say, the Roman Catholics. But there are many deep doctrinal and ontological differences between us.

In XC,
Rick

[orthedoxy]

The council of Ephesus says
" ONE NATURE OF GOD ; THE WORD INCARNATE." The actual litreral formulation in the Greek " MIAPHYSIS TOW THEO : LOGO SESARKOMENE "
The EO and the council of Chalcedon teaches two nature of Christ. This is why the main reason we rejected the council, also EO see anyone that holds to the defenition of the council of ephesus is wrong. their disagreement is with the council of Ephesus.
I'm not sure if Rick is trying to say one nature means two nature.

[orthedoxy]

Not all Orthodox theologians agree on emphasis and how to phrase things, but in dogma they are all the same.

That is NOT the only objection I have to the Filioque as taught by the RCs. Read the link, or even the passage I quoted. It clearly states that the CATHOLIC DOCTRINE of the Filioque is unacceptable. What *IS* acceptable is saying that the Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, which all Orthodox theologians agree on.

Not all Oriental Orthodox Christians state things exactly the same way either-- you can even see that in the differences between Yeznik's and your posts.

In IC XC,
Marjorie
You see a problem with the filioque but not with the words "two nature" of the council of Chalcedon?
What i was saying is some EO believe the RC method of worship is wrong because they say the Spirit proceeds from the Father and through the Son. that would be the same as saying some EO see other EO worship method wrong because they don't see a problem with the spirit proceeds from the Fathere through the son.
Me and Yeznik don't disagree with each other.

[Marjorie]

What i was saying is some EO believe the RC method of worship is wrong because they say the Spirit proceeds from the Father and through the Son. that would be the same as saying some EO see other EO worship method wrong because they don't see a problem with the spirit proceeds from the Fathere through the son.Do you have a problem with the Oriental Orthodox who don't have a problem with the Eastern Orthodox? Many OO Christians believe that EO Christians are not truly separated from them in belief. Do you then have a problem with them?

If I should have a problem with the Orthodox who do not see an inherent problem in the Filioque, then you should have a problem with the OOs who do not see an inherent problem in the Eastern Orthodox beliefs.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[orthedoxy]

Do you have a problem with the Oriental Orthodox who don't have a problem with the Eastern Orthodox? Many OO Christians believe that EO Christians are not truly separated from them in belief. Do you then have a problem with them?

If I should have a problem with the Orthodox who do not see an inherent problem in the Filioque, then you should have a problem with the OOs who do not see an inherent problem in the Eastern Orthodox beliefs.

In IC XC,
Marjorie
I don't have a problem with EO believes. I believe we should not interfere with other cultures or try to rule over them.
I can't understand why one have to believe in seven councils no more no less?
EO don't even have a Pope that would say this is what we believe. I'm confused some EO believe they have one faith with OO other EO say OO are heretics. Who are we to believe? How can one say this is what EO believe?

[Marjorie]

I can't understand why one have to believe in seven councils no more no less?
EO don't even have a Pope that would say this is what we believe. I'm confused some EO believe they have one faith with OO other EO say OO are heretics. Who are we to believe? How can one say this is what EO believe?You missed the point of my question. There are some OOs who say that EOs are heretics, and there are some that say that EOs have the same faith as they do. So if it is contradictory for us to have different opinions, it is contradictory for OOs to have different opinions on EOs. And they do.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

[orthedoxy]

You missed the point of my question. There are some OOs who say that EOs are heretics, and there are some that say that EOs have the same faith as they do. So if it is contradictory for us to have different opinions, it is contradictory for OOs to have different opinions on EOs. And they do.

In IC XC,
Marjorie

When we disagree with something we go and find out what our patriarch says about the issue. I assume the Antiochs and Greeks etc..do the same. This is why I think EO should identify what kind of Orthodox they are so we can find out what their Church believes.
I think we are one and the same faith we believe the same things. We differ very little. The only issue that EO have with OO is EO say they accept the council of Chalcedon and OO don't accept it.