Why seperate forums?

[HumbleMan]

I'm posting this here because you guys have a lot more traffic.

Why does CF have two seperate congregational forums for EO and OO? Is there a big difference in history/theology/ecclesia?

[E.C.]

Yes and no.

EO and OO have been in schism since the 5th century. Although we are very similar.

I think when CF was born, this place was for EO and OO. I'm not sure.

[Kristos]

We are not in Communion at present.

[Sothron]

The division between EO and OO is IMO of such academic differences that there really should be some kind of Transorthodox council to resolve them and bring us back in Communion.

[buzuxi02]

Dear Humble,

The EO, are the churches which accept the 7 ecumenical councils. The 00 broke away after the 4th council of chalcedon in 451 ad which concerned itself with the human and divine in the person of Jesus Christ. (theoretically the OO only accept 3 councils as ecumenical, but they do not outright reject the dogmas of the 5-7th councils)

Thus, we EO believe Christ had two natures, Divine and Human, he was fully God and fully man. This is also the belief of the RC and majority of protestants

The OO do not accept this definition for various reasons and have their own.

[Kristos]

They must be on vacation - I expected someone to drop and correct us - that they believe just like we do, it's just different terminology - you which I would reply: welcome back brother:)

If only it were that easy! I blame Arius!

Thank God that ROCOR came back after only 90 years - the longer they wait, the harder it gets...

[E.C.]

The Monophysite label is incorrect with their theology.

I believe they are known as "Miaphysite" because IIRC, they believe that Christ has one nature, but it is a divine-human nature. Something like that.

One of the real causes of the schism was language. In Greek you have "physis" which means "nature" and something else which means "person". Unfortunately, this is not so in the Coptic language where you just had one word which means "person". Rocks were thrown, and in the end some OOs consider us to be Nestorians.

[Orthosdoxa]

Why separate knob?! Why separate knob?!

[Qoheleth]

They must be on vacation - I expected someone to drop and correct us - that they believe just like we do, it's just different terminology - you which I would reply: welcome back brother


Yes, I would even say that the difference in terminology is philosophical and not theological.


Q

[xristos.anesti]

Chalcedonian: One person in two natures - theanthropic (= of Godman) -

Non-chalcedonian: One person in one - twonatured nature - theanthropic (=of Godman) -

We say, as the fathers teach - that our Lord and Saviour - Christ Jesus incarnated of the Holy Spirit and the all-pure Virgin is fully God and fully Man, One person of two natures and two wills - not half God nor half man - not more God nor more man - but Godman fully God and fully Man - in essence same as the Father in Divinity and as we are in all but the sin - Who for us and our salvation and the mystery of Trinity presenting Love - thus God Lord Jesus Christ being the second Divine Person of the Most Holy Three having been incarnated presented to us - the fallen the new mystery of unity of natures and wills without confusion and without separation - fully God and fully Man - the Christ - Son of God - our sweetest Lord through Whose Body and Blood we live.

Having insisted upon correct teaching we teach that there are two natures and two wills in One person -

neither we - northerners - teach that He is Divine but not fully human - like the damned Docetist teach, nor we teach that there are two natures in two persons - like the damned Nestorians, nor we teach that He is more human but not fully Divine - like the damned Adoptionist Arians -

nor do they teach that He is Divine but not fully human - like the damned Docetist teach, nor we teach that there are two natures in two persons - like the damned Nestorians, nor we teach that He is more human but not fully Divine - like the damned Adoptionist Arians -

We speak of two natures and two wills of Christ as they do - but having been a new nature - theanthropic - not two natures in two persons - but two natures in one person having thenathropic nature without confusion and without separation - so do they teach that there are two natures and two wills in one new nature - theanthropic.

Many years.

[copticorthodoxy]

WE are not in communion together but i don't see any diffrence between us ..we should act as one family even if we are not in communion ...we should work harder to sport the EO/OO unity because that is the Lord's will ..we should have the unity of love between us before seeking the Eucharistic unity .
We can learn from each others , we all have a great spirtual treasures , we can get learn from each others alot of things .

[Qoheleth]

WE are not in communion together but i don't see any diffrence between us

I may be mistaken, but I believe that there exists a dispensation for an Orthodox priest to commune a Coptic-Orthodox when no Coptic-Orthodox parish is available.


Q

[copticorthodoxy]

I may be mistaken, but I believe that there exists a dispensation for an Orthodox priest to commune a Coptic-Orthodox when no Coptic-Orthodox parish is available.


Q

I heared about that and also the vice versa

[cassc]

I may be mistaken, but I believe that there exists a dispensation for an Orthodox priest to commune a Coptic-Orthodox when no Coptic-Orthodox parish is available.


Q
Isn't that also occasionally allowed between EO and RC? Of course being not so common now as it is easier to find EO churches??

[Mary of Bethany]

Isn't that also occasionally allowed between EO and RC? Of course being not so common now as it is easier to find EO churches??

I think that's only from the RC point of view, not the EO.


Mary