OO vs. EO

[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.

 

[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.