OO vs. EO

[michaeldimmickjr]

Hello! :wave:

Could someone kindly explain the main differences between Oriental & Eastern Orthodox? I'm not trying to get either side arguing against the other so please, for the sake of the origional question don't do so. :)

Your Brother in Christ,

Michael

[minasoliman]

OO are made up of Coptic, Syrian, Armenian, Indian (two churches), Ethiopian, and Eritrean churches.

EO have 15 Churches, and can be seen in http://www.oca.org/OCworldindex.asp?SID=2

EO and OO have the same faith, but were split to due differing opinions and misunderstandings at the council of Chalcedon in 451 AD.

EO accept seven councils as ecumenical, while we only accept the first three (the fourth being Chalcedon, which was the cause of a sad schism).

EO's was the Church that split from the RCC, but we were always split anyway, yet amazingly, the Holy Spirit has preserved the essence of faith of both Churches. While many polemic EO's disagree, I can debate that they are wrong, and that they can "second-guess" the fallible Holy Fathers, who regardless of the misunderstandings, continued to preserve the faith, as we know them by their fruits.

Here's an OO article about the two families of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church:

http://www.paulosmargregorios.info/English%20Articles/orthodox_churches.html

http://www.paulosmargregorios.info/English%20Articles/3.htm

Now, small other differences can be cultural, ecclesiastical, and traditional (holy father wise). And extra EO councils mean extra canons, which are not part of our Church canons.

Xrictoc anecti!

[erinipassi]

Hi Michael,


Welcome to the Oriental Orthodox Forum :) ! Mina gave a great summary of the difference between the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox and I would like to elaborate on what actually split the two churches in the Council of Chalcedon in 459. Bits and pieces were mentioned in the thread called, "Why the Copts are not Monophysites" and I have copied and pasted some of the things that I mentioned in that thread for the sake of making things simple. :)


In order to elaborate on what happened in the Council of Chalcedon, allow me to go back to the third Ecumenical Council which was headed by St. Cyril who was the 24th Patriarch of the Coptic Orthodox Church after St. Mark in the 5th Century. In that Ecumenical Council all the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Fathers were present.


"St. Cyril the Great is the hero of faith against the Nestorians. He exposed the heresy of Nestorius who was the Patriarch of Constantinople the Capital of the Eastern Roman Empire. St. Cyril explained to him the faith, but as he disobeyed and continued in his heresy, St. Cyril wrote against him twelve Anathemas which have become part of the Church Laws. Nestorius was then ex-communicated by the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus which was convened in 431 AD and headed by St. Cyril of Alexandria."
http://www.copticcentre.com/article18.html (http://www.copticcentre.com/article18.html)



Here is a brief description of the Nestorian Heresy:


"According to the Nestorian concept, Christ was two separate persons, the one divine and beyond the reach of human frailty, and the other human and susceptible to all the fragility of the flesh. The divine Christ could neither suffer or die, and therefore, on the Cross it was the human Christ alone who suffered and died apart from the divine Christ."

"Thus the opinion of Nestorus was that the relation between the human nature of Christ and the Divine nature started just after His Birth from the Virgin and it was not a Hypostatic union. He explicitly said: "I distinguish between the two natures"".
http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/theology/nature_of_christ.pdf


Nestorius had spoken out against calling the blessed Virgin Mary the 'Theotokos''.....Abba Cyril strongly contested these views expounding the Orthodox doctrine of the indivisible union of the divine and human natures of Christ [calling it The One Nature of God the Incarnate Logos"], and arguing that if Jesus Christ is God, it follows that his mother is the ``Mother-of-God'' who bore Him forever. This is what the Apostles taught us and the doctrine of our Fathers. .......Just as Saint Athanasius had saved the Faith concerning the Logos in the Nicene Creed, so did Saint Cyril in defending the Theotokos maintaining the Orthodox Doctrine concerning the incarnation of the Logos in the Introduction to the Creed which he wrote in this regard.'' http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/synexarion/cyril1.html (http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/synexarion/cyril1.html)


Now in order to understand what St. Cyril meant by The One Nature of God the Incarnate Logos, here is an extract from H. H. Pope Shenouda III:

The Divine nature (God the Word) was united with the human nature which He took of the Virgin Mary by the action of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit purified and sanctified the Virgin’s womb so that the Child to whom she gave birth would inherit nothing of the original sin; the flesh formed of her blood was united with the Only-Begotten Son. This Unity took place from the first moment of the Holy Pregnancy in the Virgin’s womb. As a result of the unity of both natures-the Divine and the human-inside the Virgin’s womb, one nature was formed out of both: "The One Nature of God the Incarnate Logos" as St. Cyril called it.






The expression "One Nature" does not indicate the Divine nature alone nor the human nature alone, but it indicates the unity of both natures into One Nature which is "The Nature of the Incarnate Logos". The same applies when we speak about our human nature which comprises two united natures: the soul and the body. Thus, man’s nature is not the soul alone nor the body alone, but their union in one nature called human nature. St. Cyril the Great taught us not to talk about two natures after their unity.





So we can say that the Divine nature united hypostatically with the human ture within the Virgin’s womb, but after this unity we do not ever speak again about two natures of Christ. In fact, the expression "two natures" implies in itself division or separation, and although those who believe in "the two natures" admit unity, the tone of separation was obvious in the Council of Chalcedon - a matter which prompted us to reject the Council and caused the exile of St. Dioscorus of Alexandria.


The detail of what actually happened in the Council of Chalcedon is followed in the next post.


love and blessings
erini

[erinipassi]

In 451, a man called Eutyches started a heresy which taught that Christ has only one nature because his humanity dissolved in his Divinity and he was only divine. So in other words, he taught the heresey of Monophytism. The problem with Eutyches was that he was extremely cunning and although he was excommunicated for teaching this heresy, he later pretended that he was preaching what St. Cyril taught by saying he is teaching the One Nature of God the Incarnate Logos.


The major difference which Eutyches ommitted was the fact that according to Eutyches Christ's humanity dissolved in his Divinity forming only one nature, while St. Cyril taught us that there is a distinction between Christ's humanity and Divinity but they are hypostatically united and are not separated and are combined in one nature called The Incarnate Logos. This combination does not mean that the humanity and Divinity became dissolved into one, but it means that in this combined nature there co-exists Christ's Humanity and the Divinity along side one another. Just like the soul co-exists with the body to form one human nature.

So Eutychus appealed to the Eastern and Oriental Patriarches, in particularly, to St Dioscorus who was the 25th Patriarch of the Coptic Orthodox Church, on the pretext that he is teaching the doctorine of the "The One Nature of God the Incarnate Logos". So Pope Disocorus absolved Eutychus' excommunication because Eutyches did not tell him the real truth of his heresy. Later, Pope Disocorus discovered that Eutyches has lied to him and was teaching a heresy and excommunicated Eutyches in a local Coptic Council.


"At the Council of Chalcedon, the Coptic Church was misquoted and its teachings were wrongly deemed as being Eutychean. The Patriarch of Alexandria was accused of being Eutychean, because he had presided over the second Council of Ephesus which had absolved Eutyches........When Pope Dioscorus' Orthodoxy could not be questioned, other accusations were raised, centring around material issues such as the question of preventing Egyptian corn from being sent to other parts of the Empire. Neither Pope Dioscorus nor the civil judges were present when the council handed down the verdict deposing him, mainly for having excommunicated the bishop of Rome and not appearing at the Council session when summoned three times, although he was under house arrest at the time. Because of his Orthodoxy, Pope Dioscorus could neither be degraded of Ecclesiastic honour nor excommunicated." http://www.copticcentre.com/two.html (http://www.copticcentre.com/two.html)



"In spite of the fact that the Council of Ephesus had excommunicated Nestorus, the Nestorian roots extended to influence the council of Chalcedon where the trend to separate the two natures became so apparent that it was said that Christ is two persons......Following the same trend, Lee, the Bishop of Rome, accordingly declared his famous Tome which was rejected by the Coptic Church and [the Oriental Churches]. But the Council accepted and voted for it, thus confirming that two natures existed in Christ after their unity." http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/theology/nature_of_christ.pdf



So to sum it up, the Coptic Orthodox Church has faithfully preserved what was passed down by St. Cyril who headed the 3rd Ecumenical Council and who taught us "One Nature of God the Incarnate Logos" (Mia Physis Tou Theou Logou Sesarkwmene). That is why we call ourselves Miaphysite and it comes directly from St. Cyril's teachings.

But we are wrongly accused of being Monophysites which I explained before is a totally different and is a heresy. Now we don't view the Eastern Orthodox as heretical because after much Dialogue, as Mina said, we found that, the Eastern Orthodox are stating that there is unity between Christ's Divinity and Humanity and is not separated. But the Coptic Church will not change the expression and terminology which was handed down by St.Cyril that is One Nature of God the Incarnate Logos. So this is where the main difference lies.


I hope this explains it to you Michael, please feel free to ask more questions.:thumbsup:


love and blessings
erini :)

[feo]

I clicked on this thread because of the title! "OE VS. OO!"!!

Sounded like a match to me!
Kinda like... boxing.
WHO WILL WIN!@()#$

[michaeldimmickjr]

I clicked on this thread because of the title! "OE VS. OO!"!!

Sounded like a match to me!
Kinda like... boxing.
WHO WILL WIN!@()#$

LOL!

Your Brother in Christ,

Michael

[feo]

I just checked the time stamp on my last post... and I wrote that @ 3 AM! I need to stay away from these when I'm half asleep due to my weird'ness

[ExOrienteLux]

You mentioned that you acknowledge Dioscorus as a saint. Do you do the same to Timothy Ailouros?

What is your church's position on Pope Leo of Rome? Pope Hilary of Rome? Flavian of Constantinople? The council of Ephesus in 449?

-Philip.

[minasoliman]

You mentioned that you acknowledge Dioscorus as a saint. Do you do the same to Timothy Ailouros?

Yes! Naturally, your Church would accuse them of Eutychianism, but as the air of misunderstanding clears up, the truth is known these Miaphysite fathers are not heretics, but simply Cyrillian. All they did was repeat what St. Cyril wrote.

What is your church's position on Pope Leo of Rome? Pope Hilary of Rome? Flavian of Constantinople? The council of Ephesus in 449?

Again, naturally they used to be accused of Nestorianism, but now as misunderstandings are lifted, we see (or some of us see) the Orthodoxy in them.

But as usual, there are still those who will not relent from polemics, whether it be EO or OO.

While the status of EO and OO fathers are still anathematized from one another, there will come a time, and I pray, where these anathemas be lifted because in reality, their theologies do not contradict, but compliment.

Ephesus 449 is not confessed as an ecumenical council, since the whole Church did not accept it. However, we used to defend it to find nothing wrong with it. As the truth is revealed, Ephesus 449 was similar to Chalcedon. Both councils were hasty in condemning the other party without careful investigation.

God bless.

[ExOrienteLux]

Interesting post, Mina. One more quick question, though.

What is the Non-Chalcedonian Churches' view on Christ's will?

-Philip.

[erinipassi]

Hi Phillip,

To answer your question, here is what H.H. Pope Shenouda explains about Christ's will from a book called "The Nature of Christ" (http://www.copticchurch.org/Texts/Spirituals/Natofchr.pdf)

Has the Lord Christ two wills and two actions, that is a Divine will and a human will, as well as two actions, that is, a divine act and a human act? As we believe in the One Nature of the Incarnate Logos, as St. Cyril the Great called it, likewise:

We believe in One Will and One Act:
Naturally, as long as we consider that this Nature is One, the Will and the Act must also each be one. What the Divine nature Chooses is undoubtedly the same as that chosen by the human Nature because there is not any contradiction or conflict whatever between the will and the action of both. The Lord Jesus Christ said: "My meat is to do the Will of Him that sent Me to finish His work. " (John. 4:34). This proves that His Will is the same as that of the Father. In this context, He said about Himself " the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner." (John. 5:19).

He does not seek for Himself a will that is independent of that of the Father. Consequently He Says "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me.” (John 6:38). It is obvious that the Father and the Son in the Holy Trinity have One Will, for the Lord Jesus Christ said: "I and My Father are One. " (John. 10:30).

Hence, since He is one with Him in the Godhead, then He is essentially one with Him concerning the Will. Again, the Son, in His Incarnation on earth, was fulfilling the Will of the heavenly Father.

Thus it must be that He Who united with the manhood had One Will. In fact, Sin is nothing but a conflict between man's will and God's.

But remember that our Lord Jesus Christ had no sin at all. He challenged the Jews saying: "Which of you convicts Me of Sin?. " (John. 8:46). Therefore, His Will was that of the Father. The Saints who are perfect in their behaviour achieve complete agreement between their will and the Will of God, so that their will becomes that of God, and the Will of God becomes their will.

And St. Paul the Apostle said "But we have the mind of Christ. " (1 Cor. 2:16). He did not say that our thoughts are in accord with the mind of Christ, but that "we have the mind of Christ", and here the unity is stressed. If this is said about those with whom and in whom God works, then how much more the unity between the Son and His Own manhood would be in all that is related to the will, the mind and the power to act! He, in Whom the Divine nature has united with the human nature, a Hypostatic and Essential union without separation-not for a second nor a twinkle of an eye.

If there was not unity between the Will of the Divine nature of Christ and His human nature, this would have resulted in internal conflict. Far be it from Him! How then could Christ be our guide and our example... to follow in His footsteps (1 John.2:6)?. The complete righteousness which marked the life of our Lord Jesus was due to His Divine as well as His Human will. The same is true of the salvation of mankind, the message for which Christ came and said: "For the Son of Man has come to save that which was." (Matt. 18:11). This is the same Will of the Father who "He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. " (1 John. 4:10).

Thus, the crucifixion was the choice of the Divine as well as the human nature. Had it not been One Will, it would not have been said that Christ died by His Own Will for our sake. Since the Will is One, the Act is necessarily One. Here we do not distinguish between the two natures.




love and blessings
erini

[ExOrienteLux]

Thanks for the reply. It definitely answered something that I was wondering about.

+IC XC NIKA+
-Philip.

[orthedoxy]

Thanks for the reply. It definitely answered something that I was wondering about.

+IC XC NIKA+
-Philip.
Why do you have the name ExOrientalux Where you Chinese before? :)

[ExOrienteLux]

It's Latin. Ex Oriente, Lux. "Out of the East, Light."

+IC XC NIKA+
-Philip.

[minasoliman]

Dear Philip,

Please keep in mind that we are not confusing the actions and desires of each ousia in Christ. But we tend to look at what is "chosen." Even St. Maximus believed in a "mia gnome," or the "one will willed." When we saw "two wills" being confessed we misunderstood that as two different choices or two centers of willing, which implies two prosopa in Christ.

So there is a difference between the faculty of the willing and the decision made by the faculty. Here, His Holiness only stresses the decision and never delved into the faculty, as St. Maximus the Confessor did. At one point, St. Maximus even confessed "one energy" (mono energia) and interpreted it in an Orthodox fashion, and he even defended and interpreted St. Dionysius the Aeropagite's "one theandric will" as Orthodox as well (St. Dionysius lived at the time of St. Paul the Apostolic who wrote the Pauline Epistles we have in our Bibles). According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:


But if the word will is taken to mean not the faculty but the decision taken by the will (the will willed, not the will willing), then it is true that the two wills always acted in harmony: there were two wills willing and two acts, but one object, one will willed; in the phrase of St. Maximus, there were duo thelemata though mia gnome. The word will is also used to mean not a decision of the will, but a mere velleity or wish, voluntas ut natura (thelesis) as opposed to voluntas ut ratio (boulesis).


So if you read HH's words in this light, there is nothing heretical in what he said. He simply believed as any Orthodox would believe what is chosen rather than what is desired. It is obvious that Christ had a human will and a divine will, but united without confusion, without mixture, without division, and without seperation.

God bless.

[minasoliman]

To clarify things of what HH the Pope wrote, here is what HE Metropolitan Bishoy, famously known as the right hand of our Pope, wrote:

from his fourth Christological lecture which can be found in http://www.metroplit-bishoy.org/files/lectures/Lecture%204.doc :

Question:

About wills issue.

Answer:

In our agreement with the Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches, a point was mentioned concerning the will of the Logos. In our Interpretation of the First Agreed Statement on Christology on page 6 you find the following:

The Will of the Incarnate Logos: The real union of the divine with the human. The agreed statement gave a very clear solution for the debate concerning will of Jesus Christ as follows. The real union of the divine with the human with all properties and functions of the uncreated divine nature, including natural will and natural energy, inseparably and unconfusedly united with created human nature with its properties and functions, including natural will and natural energy. It is the Logos incarnate Who is the subject of all willing and acting of Jesus Christ.

Jesus said to the Father, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” (Mat. 27:46), and in His prayer in the Mount of Olives he said, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.” (Mat. 26:39).

We have to make a distinction between what we can call natural will and personal will. The natural will is the desire, while the personal will is the decision. We all believe that Jesus Christ is one single person not a composite person from two persons, but only one single person Who is the Person of the Word of God, the Logos. It is not normal for one person to have two personal wills, otherwise he will be two persons; and this is a Nestorian concept. The monothelites, are those who believe in a single will in Jesus Christ, they were anathematized by the Chalcedonian churches.

Our church also does not accept this concept that the natural human will was dissolved. The natural divine will, natural human will were united without confusion and without mixture. To say ‘without confusion’, means that the natural human will of Jesus Christ was not eliminated because of the union. Does this mean that Jesus Christ had two wills? It is impossible to say that He had two wills, otherwise He is going to be considered two persons. That’s why we should define what we mean by the word ‘will’. The same problem concerning the natures emerges with ‘will’. He has His natural divine will united to His natural human will, but the two natural wills continued to exist in the union, in complete harmony without contradiction.

What is the natural will and what is the personal will?

The natural will is the desire; the personal will is the decision.

You can say, ‘I want to drink, but I don’t want to drink’; ‘I have a will to go, but I don’t will to go.’ What does this mean? If you are fasting you say ‘I am willing to drink, but I shall not drink’? It means that ‘I desire to drink but I decided not to drink’. So, there is difference between the natural will and personal will. The personal will works with the decision, while the natural will works with the desire.

As a human being Jesus Christ felt hunger and thirst while He was fasting on the mount. He naturally desired to drink or to eat, because His divinity did not eliminate the properties of His humanity; the energies and the natural will were not eliminated. Only tendency to sin was absolutely not in Him. He never had a desire for sin - not to desire and resist; no never. He was absolutely holy and infallible. However, all the other human desires were in Him. One of these desires as any human being was that he does not like to die. This normal desire was present in Him when He was approaching the cross. But, obeying the Father, as a person He is the second Person of the Holy Trinity; He is free, but He has input to His personal decision from His human desire and divine desire. His divine desire is identical with the desire of the Father. The three hypostaseis are three persons, three in their will, loving each other, but they have the same will and the same desire. Three in number, but one in nature. Naturally, whatever the Father desires, the Son desires, and the Holy Spirit desires.

Are the natural wills identical? No, because if they are identical this means that we are Eutychean and that there is confusion, since the natural desire of His humanity was absorbed in His divinity. This is the heresy of Monotheletism. If the two natural energies and natural wills are reduced to one natural will, this is the Eutychean heresy. Saint Cyril of Alexandria said that the differences of the properties of the two natures were not destroyed because of the union.

“O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.”. In other words: O Father if You want You may let this cup pass from Me, but not as I desire but as Your will which is also My will, As You and Me decided. Let it not be My desire but Yours which is Your decision and My decision.

Jesus Christ has one personal will because He is one person. Concerning the natural will we can say that they are two in one, since the two natural wills are not mixed or cancelled, but they are in a perfect union, thus they are not separated. His human desire and His divine desire are not separated. Why? Because He never followed His human desires unless it was accepted by His divine desire; and that is the full obedience of Jesus Christ to the Father. Why do we say ‘to the Father’ and not ‘to His divinity’? Because if we say that He is obedient to His divinity, this will mean that He is two personalities. When I say, ‘He’, this refers to the person. So I cannot say that He is obedient to Himself; that is illogical. When we mention His obedience, we always refer to the Father; and the Father is automatically has the same desire and the same will of the Son. It is wrong theologically to say that He was obedient to His divinity. This is a Nestorian expression which is already condemned by Saint Cyril of Alexandria in his twelve anathemas. Anything that leads to the concept of two persons, is Nestorian. We should be very careful when we tackle this issue. In the Greek text it is: “Let it be not My desire, but Yours.” In Arabic it is, “Not My desire, but Your desire” In Greek the word was not repeated when he was referring to the Father but said, “But Yours”. The core of the problem is that He said, “My will”. The Greek term has two meanings, desiredecision.[1] (http://#_ftn1) So scientifically speaking, the Greek text allows this interpretation.

In the first agreement the following is stated:

and The real union of the divine with the human, with all properties and functions of the uncreated divine nature, including natural will and natural energy inseparably and unconfusedly united with the created human nature with all its properties and functions, including natural will and natural energy…It is the Logos incarnate[2] (http://#_ftn2) Who is the subject of all willing and acting of Jesus Christ.

In the second agreement, it is more clear:

The one hypostasis of the Logos incarnate is always Who is acting and willing..

It is the Logos incarnate Who is the subject of all willing and acting of Jesus Christ. In other words all willing and acting are from one person. But, sometimes He acts according to His divinity; and sometimes according to His humanity. Thus the human natural will did not cease to exist, and also divine energies and human energies did not cease to exist.

What does this mean? It means that sometimes He did things from His divine energy and sometimes He did things from His human energy. When He accepted death, He accepted it according to His humanity. When He destroyed Hades, He destroyed it according to His divinity, and so on. The source of the energy was continuous in Him. What is human was present and that’s why He fell under the cross; because His human energy continued in the union, without being separated from His divine energy. When He raised the dead from the tombs, after His crucifixion, this was done through His divine energy. So, the two energies continued to exist in the union.

Simply, the two natural wills continued to exist in the union. The two natural energies continued to exist in the union, without being separated. One person was willing and acting – the same person. Sometimes His will according to His humanity is to eat, and according to His divinity with the Father He is content to do it, so He eats according to His human desire with the consent of the Father. The motive of eating comes from His human desire, not His divine; because divinity does not hunger.

God bless.

[ExOrienteLux]

Interesting....

One question more: how do the Copts/Armenians/Ethiopians fold their fingers when they cross themselves?

+IC XC NIKA+
-Philip.

[erinipassi]

Hi Phillip,

The finger configuration in the Coptic Orthodox is the same as the Eastern Orthodox, the first three finger including the thumb symbolise the Trinity (Three in one) and are held together to the forehead and the last two fingers are folded together to the palm.

love and blessings
erini

[ExOrienteLux]

Thanks.

+IC XC NIKA+
-Philip.

[ExOrienteLux]

Wait. If the three fingers raised represent the Most-Holy Trinity, what do the two fingers folded to the palm represent?

-Philip.

[minasoliman]

humanity and divinity of Christ

God bless.

[minasoliman]

Dear Phillip,

I thank you for posting our answers to TAW. It just proves that the people in TAW ignore Orthodox interpretations and go on to ridicule us as people with beards who are no different to the Hassidic Jews.

I also want to show you something else that is "interesting" Phillip. The Miaphysitism that they condemn was actually defended knowingly and consciously by St. Cyril, the Pillar of the Faith himself.

In His letter to Succensus Bishop of Diocaesarea in Isauria, Saint Cyril of Alexandria wrote:

‘Considering, therefore, as I said, the manner of His incarnation we see that His two natures came together with each other in an indissoluble union, without blending and without change, for His flesh is flesh and not divinity, even though his flesh became the flesh of God, and likewise the Word also is God and not flesh, even though He made the flesh His own according to the dispensation. Therefore, whenever we have these thoughts in no way do we harm the joining into a unity by saying that he was of two natures, but after the union we do not separate the natures from one another, nor do we cut the one and indivisible Son into two sons but we say that there is one Son, and as the holy Fathers have said, there is one fusiV of the Word (of God) made flesh.


In his next letter to Bishop Succensus, Saint Cyril wrote:

‘But although the body united to him is not consubstantial to the Word begotten of God the Father, even though it is united with a rational soul, still our thoughts certainly presents to our mind the difference of the two natures which have been united, and yet we confess one Son, Christ and Lord, since the Word was made flesh. And whenever we say flesh, we are saying man...

For not only in the case of those who are simple by nature is the term ‘one’ truly used, but also in respect to what has been brought together according to a synthesis, as man is one being, who is of soul and body. For soul and body are of different species and are not consubstantial to each other, but united they produce one fusiV of man, even though in the considerations of the synthesis the difference exist according to the nature of those which have been brought together into a unity. Accordingly they are speaking in vain who say that, if there should be one incarnate fusiV ‘of the Word’ in every way and in every manner it would follow that a mixture and a confusion occurred as if lessening and taking away the nature of man.’



I also suggest another famous work written by St. Cyril "On the Unity of Christ," in which St. Cyril wrote near his death, and unhesitantly teaches "one nature:"

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=15862689&postcount=103

Please also read posts 104 and 105, where I quote documents like the Henoticon, letters from St. Dioscorus (the one who was condemned from Chalcedon), St. Timothy Aelurius, St. Theodosius, and St. Severus. These writings refute the beliefs by polemical EO's like "Rick of Wessex" who believed that "Miaphysitism" wasn't developed until the 10th Century, while ignoring that fathers like St. Timothy and St. Severus anathematized Eutyches and Eutychians.

Coptic Church was always Orthodox. Chalcedon was a Latrocinium of our Alexandrian theology, robbing St. Cyril's thoughts from Ephesus 431. Read Mansi's minutes of Chalcedon, and you will find some valuable information that you can never escape.

I also suggest you read Fr. V.C. Samuel's book "The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined" based solely on valuable primary resources, not the secondary resources that people like Rick and Maximus uses.

Perhaps, rather than having you keep Chalcedon, I can assist in showing you that the Church didn't cease to exist in the Oriental Churches, and if polemical EO's like Maximus and Rick still believe in One Church that comprises of the "ecumenical councils" perhaps I can persuade them that they are not in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, simply because I am confident and I know that the fathers that they condemn as heretics are innocent, and no Holy Spirit can make such a mistake.

God bless you. I hope this finds TAW members of more interest.

In Christ always,

Mina Soliman

[AngCath]

How likely is that someday the EO and OO will reunite?

[minasoliman]

I've been told "We're almost there," but some of us are trying to talk to the Monks of Mt. Athos, at least HE Metropolitan Bishoy. I don't know how that's turning out.

Other rumors I heard was "very very soon" like, I was actually given a timeline, but I won't give that timeline here, since I can't verify.

God bless.

[AngCath]

That's essentially what I have heard, that reunification is not far off.. but nothing specific. I pray that it happens soon.

[orthedoxy]

I don't think we could unite with the whole EO. That is because they are not even united among themselves and can't hold ecumenical council. How can they accept us? is it by some archbishop declaring we have the same faith? They don't have a pope to declare we are united.
We are a lot closer to RC then EO, RC have declared that what happened at the council of Chelcedon was a misunderstanding therefore we should work together toward a unity with them, EO can't make such claim because they have no one voice that speaks for them.

[Aristokles]

I don't think we could unite with the whole EO. That is because they are not even united among themselves and can't hold ecumenical council. How can they accept us? is it by some archbishop declaring we have the same faith? They don't have a pope to declare we are united.
We are a lot closer to RC then EO, RC have declared that what happened at the council of Chelcedon was a misunderstanding therefore we should work together toward a unity with them, EO can't make such claim because they have no one voice that speaks for them.


orthodoxy,
Please forgive me if I offend, but this a most confusing post. I am not going to protest your view of my church, but I AM going to question your view of your own church (with respect).
Are you telling us that all "Oriental" Orthodox are subservient to the Coptic Pope of Alexandria? I am not sure that the heads of the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Syria Orthodox Church of Antioch, the Malankara Orthodox Church of India, and the Ethiopian Orthodox (not sure about the Eritreans) would agree with this.
If you don't mind I will await some more input here from your own sisters and brothers about this.

[Yeznik]

orthodoxy,
Please forgive me if I offend, but this a most confusing post. I am not going to protest your view of my church, but I AM going to question your view of your own church (with respect).
Are you telling us that all "Oriental" Orthodox are subservient to the Coptic Pope of Alexandria? I am not sure that the heads of the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Syria Orthodox Church of Antioch, the Malankara Orthodox Church of India, and the Ethiopian Orthodox (not sure about the Eritreans) would agree with this.
If you don't mind I will await some more input here from your own sisters and brothers about this.

If you have honest and legitimate questions by all means ask away. The head of the Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church is the Catholicos or Katholicos, and she is not subservient to the Coptic Pope. Also please be sensitive in using quotes "" while addressing the Oriental Churches. May I also remind you that the Georgian Church was a part of the Oriental Churches for several hundred years. The term orient was used by the western churches to address the eastern churches in the early centuries. The phrased wasn't "coined" until the recently.

[Photini]

We are a lot closer to RC then EO....

Just out of curiousity....is this an opinion of the majority here? I've never heard an OO say this before.

[CopticGirl]

H.H. Pope Shenouda III, is only head of the Coptic Orthodox Church, so I'm not sure what orthedoxy is getting at.

But to an extent I do think that we have better relations with some RC's. I get nothing but animosity from a whole lot of EO's, whereas the RC's show a more loving Christian attitude. Obviously this will vary from person to person, but that has been my experience with these forums.

God Bless,
Elizabeth

[Yeznik]

Just out of curiousity....is this an opinion of the majority here? I've never heard an OO say this before.

The Armenian Church and the Roman Catholic Church have signed a Common Delcaration;

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/ARMENDEC.HTM

and a additional article regarding The Nature of Christ.

There are no significant differences between Roman Catholics and the ArmenianApostolicChurch, which belongs to the group of churches called pre-Chalcedonian, in that they did not participate in the Council of Chalcedon which defined the doctrine of the two natures of Christ against the Monophysite heresy. Various common declarations, signed by the Pope and by Patriarchs of Armenia, state that the faith is the same and that Jesus Christ is “true God and true man.” Catholikos Karekin II, another precedent, allowed John Paul II to celebrate on the great open-air altar which had just been inaugurated in front of the Cathedral of the Holy See of Etchmiadzin.

Excerpt taken from http://www.traces-cl.com/otto01/aroad.htm

[orthedoxy]

orthodoxy,
Please forgive me if I offend, but this a most confusing post. I am not going to protest your view of my church, but I AM going to question your view of your own church (with respect).
Are you telling us that all "Oriental" Orthodox are subservient to the Coptic Pope of Alexandria? I am not sure that the heads of the Armenian Apostolic Church, the Syria Orthodox Church of Antioch, the Malankara Orthodox Church of India, and the Ethiopian Orthodox (not sure about the Eritreans) would agree with this.
If you don't mind I will await some more input here from your own sisters and brothers about this.
I only speak for The Armenian Church If The Coptic Church says they are one faith with The EO and the Armenian Church says we are not. Then we can't say The Oriental Orthodox believes we are one faith with The EO.
The same way if The Antioch Bishop claims they are one with the Syrian Orthodox faith and some other EO bishop says they are not. How can you say the EO are not one with the Syrian Church?
I think we have to label each EO so we can know what their Bishop believes.
Do you believe all EO bishops are in agreement amongst themselves? If not how can we know what EO believe in regard to an issue? This is why we have to label each Orthodox by saying for example Serbian Orthodox or Greek Orthodox and so on.
EO don't have one Pope they can't hold councils any more so how can OO and EO unite???
Let me ask you a question do you think there were misunderstanding at the council of Chelcedon? If not why do some EO Churches say there were? How do we find out EO position on this issue? The answer is we can't there is no such thing as this is what the EO position.
I would have to agree with Yeznik we are closer to RC because RC realized our separation was a misunderstanding and EO can't make up their mind among themselves whether it was a misunderstanding.

[Aristokles]

Well, orthodoxy, I am afraid you have left me still confused. But don't worry about it. I personally see no, or very little, difference in the way the Oriental communion and the Eastern communion view their respective local churches. I am not here to argue. I could just as easily point out issues where I see differences in the way your churches view things among themselves with respect to us, but I won't. The assumption seems to be that I am trying to prove a point...not so.

And Yeznik, my friend, I am part Laz from NE Turkey (Lazika or Lazistan) and related to the Georgians and am well aware of Church history. In terms of RC v EO in relation to the OO, well, it is a moot point to me unless you wish to explain how the RC's 18 further Ecumenical Councils make them closer to you than our 7 (which are among their 18).
This is just a discussion , not a war, friends.

[Aristokles]

P.S. Yeznik
I forgot...note my avatar. Flag of the Republic of Georgia!

[minasoliman]

In my humble opinion, we are closest in theology, if not THE exact theology, to the EO's. To the RC's we are closest to them in a spirit of love and understanding, but I still put my bets on uniting with the EO's first before any other Church, even if it causes a slight schism.

EO heirarchs who are against us is no different than those who are against the fact that man went on the moon. The truth can be easily known by reading ancient manuscripts.

God bless.

[cygnusx1]

humanity and divinity of Christ

God bless.

http://www.hwcn.org/link/hmm/nkn/images/NoCaresOval035.jpg :wave:

[erinipassi]

Just brining this Thread up for those who would like to know more about it!

love and blessings
erini

[minasoliman]

Peace and love of Jesus Christ be with you.

http://catechumen-memoirs.blogspot.com/2005/10/5th-annual-orthodox-prayer-service-for.html

A symbol of unity of Orthodox brethren.

God bless.

[InnerPhyre]

The more I read about this issue, the more I start to think it was all a huge misunderstanding that needs to be corrected.

[Yeznik]

The more I read about this issue, the more I start to think it was all a huge misunderstanding that needs to be corrected.

Greeting InnerPhyre

Actually if you read about the history of the Council of Chalcedon as well, you will see it also had to do with establishing primacy, which to the Armenian, Egyptian, Ethiopian, Syrian, and Indian Churches rejected. Basically, Rome tried to establish itself as the primacy of the western churches and Constantinople tried to establish itself as the primacy of the eastern churches. Another major issue of the council of Chalcedon is that Rome rejected the primacy of Constantinople. Only in the later centuries when the Church of Rome took over Constantinople, Constantinople was recognized but as a Church of Rome.



Here is a quote from the book the Orthodox Church by Kallistos Ware:



But Chalcedon was more than a defeat for Alexandrian theology: it was a defeat for Alexandrian claims to rule supreme in the east. Canon 28 of Chalcedon confirmed Canon 3 of Constantinople, assigning to New Rome the place next in honor after Old Rome. Leo repudiated this Canon, but the east has ever since recognized its validity. The Council also freed Jerusalem from the jurisdiction of Caesarea and gave it the fifth place among the great sees. The system later known among Orthodox as the Pentarchy was now complete, whereby five great sees in the Church were held in particular honor, and a settled order of precedence was established among them: in order of rank, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem. All five claimed Apostolic foundation. The first four were the most important cities in the Roman Empire; the fifth was added because it was the place where Christ had suffered on the Cross and risen from the dead. The bishop in each of these cities received the title Patriarch. The five Patriarchates between them divided into spheres of jurisdiction the whole of the known world, apart from Cyprus, which was granted independence by the Council of Ephesus and has remained self-governing ever since.



This ordering of the Sees neglected some the Sees of Oriental Orthodox Churches, additionally the OO churches were opposed of being a part of the jurisdiction not to mention their own Apostolic succession was made secondary compared to the 5 great Sees. This is why in OO churches we all have our own Primates and our own Sees.



The naming of the OO have basically stayed the same since the 1st century. In the beginning all churches were named according to where they were established; for example in the New Testament Paul writes to the Church of Corinth, this church is not named the EO or the RC or the OO church but to a specific geographical point. That is why the OO churches have this naming convention.

[lionroar0]

This is great thread. Maybe it should be made into a sticky thread.


Peace

[PaladinValer]

Please sticky this indeed! I've found this to the a wealth of knowledge about the Oriental Orthodox Church. :)

[Akathist]

I think that this may be made into a sticky next week for you if you are willing to be patient we are a bit short staffed at the moment.

[Yeznik]

Here is some more detail regarding the Armenian Church and the Byzantine Church.

An Excerpt from
The Orthodox Church in the Byzantine Empire
By J. M. Hussey


The Emperor also attempted to promote monenergism in Armenia where Ezra had become Catholicos. Greek, Syrian, and Armenian sources vary in their accounts of relations between Byzantium and the Armenian Church but it is likely that Armenian opposition to Chalcedon arose not so much from doctrinal dissent from a council where they had not been present as from hostility towards the subordination of Armenia to the ecclesiastical jurisdiction of Constantinople. In Syria and Palestine Heraclius did rather better in getting support, and monotheletism was to survive under Muslim domination.

[RobNJ]

Being that I have some influence with the new Forum Mod, I'll see what I can do about making this a sticky ;)

[Yeznik]

Regarding the the "two natures" of Christ and the "one nature".


The EO has defined Christ having two natures while the OO state that Christ has one nature.

One point I would like to bring up, is regarding grammer.

In Armenian the term two natures doesn't make sense grammatically, its like saying;



I need to get a hairs cut. Or my left feets hurt. Or I have a bad heads ache.

[Matthew777]

http://www.coptic.net/articles/MonophysitismReconsidered.txt (http://www.coptic.net/articles/MonophysitismReconsidered.txt)

Peace.

[crusader4peace]

interesting links. but i prefer to keep away from debating over differences.

but its interesting to read the views by all in here.

[Franze]

Very interesting thread, I am trying to understand all the theology, is some complicated.

[copticorthodoxy]

in my opinion there is no diffrence between the OO & EO

[copticorthodoxy]

We are a lot closer to RC then EO, RC have declared that what happened at the council of Chelcedon was a misunderstanding therefore we should work together toward a unity with them, EO can't make such claim because they have no one voice that speaks for them.

we are a lot closer to RC !! ofcourse you mean closer in the relations
but not in theology or traditions
we don't agree with the RC in alot of things and the EO don't agree about those things too
if you put the 4th council problem aside , we are very closer to the EO

[Vedant]

I've been extremely interested in participating and perhaps joining OO, EO, or RCC, although I have a strong personal bias against the Roman Catholic Church for personal reasons. Anyway, the fact that the EO churches and OO churches have pretty much stayed the same without any major schisms or reformations since about 1000 and 1500 years ago respectively is the most compelling case for me to participate more in those faith traditions. The one key difference I see between coptic churches and eastern orthodox churches is papal primacy. While the RCC and the OO have popes, the EO doesn't. For some reason, this makes me more inclined to explore the EO first. If it wasn't for Christian Forums, I'd have kept living in oblivion of Christian church history.... sigh

we shall see.

[minasoliman]

I've been extremely interested in participating and perhaps joining OO, EO, or RCC, although I have a strong personal bias against the Roman Catholic Church for personal reasons. Anyway, the fact that the EO churches and OO churches have pretty much stayed the same without any major schisms or reformations since about 1000 and 1500 years ago respectively is the most compelling case for me to participate more in those faith traditions. The one key difference I see between coptic churches and eastern orthodox churches is papal primacy. While the RCC and the OO have popes, the EO doesn't. For some reason, this makes me more inclined to explore the EO first. If it wasn't for Christian Forums, I'd have kept living in oblivion of Christian church history.... sigh

we shall see.

Within the OO Church, there is the Indian Orthodox Church, since I see you are from India:thumbsup:

As for the Pope, a Coptic Pope is different from a Roman Pope. I've explained this in the other forum.

God bless.

PS By the way, the EO Church does in fact have a Pope. The Greek Patriarch of Alexandria is also called "Pope."

[Vedant]

Within the OO Church, there is the Indian Orthodox Church, since I see you are from India:thumbsup:

As for the Pope, a Coptic Pope is different from a Roman Pope. I've explained this in the other forum.

God bless.

PS By the way, the EO Church does in fact have a Pope. The Greek Patriarch of Alexandria is also called "Pope."

Could you point me to where you explained the difference?

Also, I thought the patriarch of constantine was the pope equivalent in the EO.

[Vedant]

nevermind i just read it.

[Xpycoctomos]

i'd like to read it. I kjnow there is a difference... but I am interested in the details of that difference. can anyone link it, or, (as this sticky is a bit old) re-explain this difference?

[copticorthodoxy]

i'd like to read it. I kjnow there is a difference... but I am interested in the details of that difference. can anyone link it, or, (as this sticky is a bit old) re-explain this difference?

we believe in same thing about our lord Jesus Christ but we explain our views in diffrent ways

[Xpycoctomos]

Coptic,

my post was in reference to the issue being discussed above which was not about the natures of Christ. it's regarding the difference between how the Catholics view their pope and how you view their pope. I know that you do not view your pope as supreme leader of the Church, but there was apparently some intresting details in some "other forum" as mentioned by minasoliman. But I have no idea where the thread is and what "other forum" this is. So I am interested in reading aobut that.

John

[Alchemist]

Coptic,

my post was in reference to the issue being discussed above which was not about the natures of Christ. it's regarding the difference between how the Catholics view their pope and how you view their pope. I know that you do not view your pope as supreme leader of the Church, but there was apparently some intresting details in some "other forum" as mentioned by minasoliman. But I have no idea where the thread is and what "other forum" this is. So I am interested in reading aobut that.

John

Hi Xpycoctomos,

Basically the Patriarch of the Coptic Orthodox Church is called a "Pope" in English, as opposed to a "Patriarch". But apart from the difference in terminology, the concept is exactly the same as in the Eastern Orthodox churches.

Peace,
Nick

[Xpycoctomos]

Thanks. It just seems like there was a bit more of an emphasis on Pope Shenouda than we might put on a particular Patriarch in the EOC. Not a wrong emphasis by any means. Not as if he has any special powers that other patriarchs don't have (I know you don't believe this). So relaly I was just curious, and not at all trying to find some "fatal flaw" in you system.

Thanks for the response!

John

[Macarius]

In saying that the OO and RCC are closer in terms of union, would the OO run into the same roadblock as the EO in terms of papal primacy?

That is to say, would the Pope have to agree not to exercise jurisdiction over the East for their to be communion, and to repent of the doctrine of papal infallibility, first?

Or the other side of the coin, would (and would the OO be willing) you have to accept papal primacy and infallibility as defined by the RCC in order for their to be communion?

If that roadblock exists between the OO and RCC, then it would seem like the EO and OO would unite first.

There is a lot of goodwill in the American Orthodox churches towards the OO - mostly due to the wide influence of St. Vladimir's Seminary in New York. They are big advocates of re-union. As I understand it, most of the Western Orthodox Churches are in favor of it. Given his attitude towards the Pope, I would assume that the Patriarch of Constantinople would be as well.

Orthedoxy - why do you say the EO can't hold an ecumenical council? We certainly could! We just haven't had reason to for about 1100 years. I think an attempt at reunification between the OO and EO bishops would be cause for a genuine ecumenical council, to settle once and for all, without misunderstanding, the jointly held belief in a fully divine, fully human Christ.

Either way, it seems to me that if the OO are able to hash out an acceptable re-unification with the RCC, it could serve as a model for the EO in their own attempts at reunification. God willing, within this century all three will be one (God willing tomorrow!).

In Christ,
Macarius

[Yeznik]

Greetings Maracius and welcome,

In regards to the OO and the RCC, the RCC as an entire organization is pushing for a reunion and resolutions. When Pope John Paul II visited Armenia, he was the first Pope in 2000 years of Christendom to come to Armenia in person, and he came to promote brotherhood and get a better understanding of the Armenian Church. The RCC know that the OO will not submit to the Pope and the RCC are well aware of this.

As you mentioned the greatest goodwill is being set forth by American Orthodox Church. I remember attending a graduation of several Armenian students from Saint Vlad’s and the environment was very friendly and receptive, and I have been to services where there was a representative from the American Orthodox Church were present. But the attitudes and approach of all the EO are not the same, especially the Greek and those from eastern block countries. I have read the attempts being made with the Greek Churches (EO) from 5 century till about 13th century. And the major part of the failure was due to the politics being imposed in theological matters and discussions between the Armenian Church and the Greek Churches. Basically, the Greeks wanted to chose the bishops, priests and the Catholicos of the Armenians. This problem was perpetual throughout the Byzantine Empire and not specifically toward the Armenians. The EO were forcing the Hellenized Christianity throughout the empire, basically, everything needed to be done in Greek and governed by the Greeks, which included vestments, services etc.

The main problem exists in the EO Churches. Let me give you and example:

The American Orthodox Churches allows Armenians to attend its seminaries as an exercise of good will and a step toward reunification. But, in other countries, such as Greece and the Eastern block countries are less inclined to accept an Armenian into its seminaries, even for academic purposes. Now here is the difference, the Western Orthodox Church would say, “let’s sit and discuss matters of doctrine and theology”, the Greek and Eastern Orthodox churches say, “First, you must accept our councils, and you must meet our approval in matters of clergy, then we can have a discussion”, same Church, two different attitudes. Now here is the issue within the EO Church, if the Western Orthodox “approves” the OO being orthodox, then the rest of the EO would call the Western Orthodox Churches heterodox and declare them as anathema, so that’s why all meetings between EO and OO are declared unofficial.


Also the issue between the EO and the OO is mainly politics. Even if an agreement is reached and all sides are orthodox then, it turns into who governs who in countries where both churches exist.

[Dorothea]

Very interesting thread, I am trying to understand all the theology, is some complicated.
You're not kidding. LOL I was trying to read over all the history and I don't think my mind could absorb it all and comprehend it. It was over my head in many parts. *blush* I'd heard about the OO, but I really didn't know the distinct differences. From the little I was able to comprehend of the information supplied, I did get one thing....that the Two Natures of Christ is not a belief shared by the OO. Is that right???

[Dorothea]

There is a lot of goodwill in the American Orthodox churches towards the OO - mostly due to the wide influence of St. Vladimir's Seminary in New York. They are big advocates of re-union. As I understand it, most of the Western Orthodox Churches are in favor of it. Given his attitude towards the Pope, I would assume that the Patriarch of Constantinople would be as well.

Orthedoxy - why do you say the EO can't hold an ecumenical council? We certainly could! We just haven't had reason to for about 1100 years. I think an attempt at reunification between the OO and EO bishops would be cause for a genuine ecumenical council, to settle once and for all, without misunderstanding, the jointly held belief in a fully divine, fully human Christ.

Either way, it seems to me that if the OO are able to hash out an acceptable re-unification with the RCC, it could serve as a model for the EO in their own attempts at reunification. God willing, within this century all three will be one (God willing tomorrow!).

In Christ,
Macarius
Wouldn't that be great?!! :)

[SaintPhotios]

I don't think we could unite with the whole EO. That is because they are not even united among themselves and can't hold ecumenical council. How can they accept us? is it by some archbishop declaring we have the same faith? They don't have a pope to declare we are united.
We are a lot closer to RC then EO, RC have declared that what happened at the council of Chelcedon was a misunderstanding therefore we should work together toward a unity with them, EO can't make such claim because they have no one voice that speaks for them.


I first want to say the many Eastern Orthodox Christians are very enthusiastic to reunite with the Oriental Orthodox Churches. And those of us who actually understand the issues realize that Oriental Orthodoxy is not guilty of the monophysite heresy, and that the primary division of one of terminology.

But I have to strongly disagree with this post. Reunification isn't about shaking hands and playing nice. It's about sharing the one true apostolic faith. The Roman Church has absolutely no trace of this left. I could spend all week trying to list all of the heretical innovations they've come up with since they're betrayal of the East. Papal primacy doesn't even scatch the surface. They have been utterly destroyed by modernism, Freemasonry, and occultism. They come to your ancient Churches and greet you with what appeared to be brotherly love. But they do the exact same thing to Jewish synagogues, the Hindu shrines, and the far eastern mystics. Reunification with Rome will be enrolling in the World Church of New Age Humanism. They have stripped their Churches of altars and replaced them with Protestant tables. They have dancers entertaining the masses. This sounds out there, but I regret to say that as much as I would like to hope for the See of Peter, I'm afraid there is no Church left in Rome.

There may be rocky relations between our Churches... but that is because we both strongly value apostolic tradition and would do anything to keep it from being compromised. I respect and honor for the mutual love of the faith that we both share. I would never want to be quick to judge another Christian Church, but I left Rome a year ago, and I can say without a doubt that She has lost the tradition and the apostolic faith entirely. Be very suspicious of of Bishop with no appearence of concern considering the faith.

[zhilan]

From everything I've read and learned and from my personal experiences with Copts, I am 100% convinced that they are completely Orthodox in their theology and that we are ONE Church that is sadly divided because of our own sins and pride. It really pains me whenever I see either side questioning the others Orthodoxy. The Coptic Church had a lot of influence in my conversion to the Orthodox Church and I feel very much that they are part of my faith and my faith journey. One of my most prized possessions is a Coptic cross that a Coptic friend gave me at my Chrismation and my priests laid on the altar to bless. I know that we will be united one day.

[SpyridonOCA]

From everything I've read and learned and from my personal experiences with Copts, I am 100% convinced that they are completely Orthodox in their theology and that we are ONE Church that is sadly divided because of our own sins and pride.

That might be true, yet we are unable to know. It raises the question of how Christ can be divided. I do not say "Non-Chalcedonians aren't Orthodox" because it isn't my right to do so. I cannot make a statement to the affirmative either.

[GabrielWithoutWings]

It raises the question of how Christ can be divided.

How indeed.... (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,10415.0.html)

[minasoliman]

I contend that there is quite a simple answer. Indeed, there is wisdom in understanding that we know where the Church is, but not where it isn't. In this moment, we have to understand therefore that if we don't make such judgments, then there must be more than just mere ecclesiology that binds the Church together. It is the Orthodox faith.

I must reiterate this again and again. Unless you believe in Roman Catholic theology, one does not think Christ was referring to St. Peter as the "rock of the Church." Neither does Christ make it clear about any council as the "rock of the Church." In fact, this would assume that a council actually defines dogma. It's however the other way around: it is the Orthodox dogmatic faith that would define the council's validity. Nicea is not the rock, but what it teaches is the rock. Many other Arian councils afterwards called and approved by Constantine was successfully rejected because of its heretical teaching, even though the whole world seemed to have accepted them. Thanks to St. Athanasius, the correct dogma, the rock of the Church contained in Nicea was preserved.

Therefore, the rock of the Church is neither Peter nor Paul nor Apollo, neither Leo nor Dioscorus, neither Ephesus 449 or Chalcedon 451 literally, but it's what they represent, the ORTHODOX FAITH. The OO's and EO's have not talked with one another for 1500 years, and yet nothing separates us, not even ecclesiology, not even rejection of RC or Protestant dogmas, not even iconography, not even spirituality and theosis. Praise be the Lord! The rock of the Church exists in both EO's and OO's.

When Christ promised St. Peter that the gates of Hades shall not prevail against this rock, what happened later? St. Peter denied Christ three times. The Apostles scattered to hide from persecution. Christ was all alone with John and the three Mary's. Has Hades truly prevailed against the rock? NO! Peter was not this rock, but like the rest of the Apostles, the rock and the keys of heaven was entrusted to him. This rock, the Orthodox faith and spirituality, Satan can never prevail against it because he forever chooses to continue his own blasphemy and heresy against the Christian faith. But as light destroys darkness, true faith can always destroy Satan.

This promise is forever to any Christian who keeps the faith and the Apostolic succession. This Church exists in both the EO's and the OO's. If a new ecumenical council is convened to unite the two, it is not that the council has defined a new dogma, but has confirmed what has been true for the past 1500 years, the EO and the OO churches are the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church. To say otherwise would be inconsistency.

God bless.

[zhilan]

If we were not the same faith we could not have exceptions made for inter-communion and marriage in the other church could not be accepted. An Orthodox in an all Catholic country cannot get permission to receive Catholic communion, but between our Churches is can. An Orthodox cannot be married in a Catholic Church or he/she will be excommunicated, and yet OO and EO are free to marry in either Church and the other will recognize it.

Either we are one faith or we must lose faith in our Church leaders.

[SpyridonOCA]

This Church exists in both the EO's and the OO's.

You might be correct, but I'm not allowed to say that much. It raises the question of how Christ can be divided.

[Anglian]

Broken but not divided?

Anglian

[SpyridonOCA]

Given that Eastern and Oriental are synonymous, my heart and mind tell me to not make a distinction between the two. I don't believe that the Oriental Orthodox would have lasted this long if God had not willed it.