Is the Orthodox Church the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church"?

[Nagomirov]

 

[The Liturgist]

I consider the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox to represent the most exemplary part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (the schism that exists between them having been partially healed already, and also being uncanonical, owing to a historic confusion in which many Eastern Orthodox mistakenly came to believe the Oriental Orthodox churches were Eutychian Monophysites (when in reality this group descended into Tritheism in Egypt and later disappeared after the Saracens conquered Egypt and added it to their Caliphate, so the modern day Monophysites are actually the Mormons, who are Tritheists (or indeed, more than that, since their theology contains a kind of hierarchical henotheism), and likewise many of the Oriental Orthodox mistakenly came to believe that the Eastern Orthodox were Nestorians. A lot of this was exacerbated by whatever caused Emperor Justinian to go from embracing the Oriental Orthodox, pursuing a reconciliation with them, marrying one (St. Theodora) and embracing the Theopaschitism taught by St. Severus of Antioch, whose hymn “Ho Monogenes” Justinian personally added to the Synaxis of the Orthodox divine liturgy (causing some Eastern Orthodox to mistakenly call this “The Hymn of Justinian”; I believe that the Armenians, who separately developed an objection to St. Severus, attributed it to St. Athanasius, which is a nice thought but there is no trace of this hymn existing before the late fifth century, when it became the introit hymn for all liturgies of the Oriental Orthodox of Antioch, who today survive as the Syriac Orthodox, and also appeared in the Coptic Orthodox liturgy for Great and Holy Friday, where it remains.

 

[Nagomirov]

Я считаю, что Восточное Православие и Восточное Православие представляют собой наиболее образцовую часть Единой Святой Соборной и Апостольской Церкви (раскол, существующий между ними, уже частично уврачевал, а также является неканоническим из-за исторической путаницы, в которой многие восточные православные церкви ошибочно полагали, что восточные православные церкви были евтихианскими монофизитами (хотя на самом деле эта группа впала в тритеизм в Египте и позже исчезла после завоевания сарацинами Таким образом, современные монофизиты на самом деле являются мормонами, которые являются тритеистами (или даже более того, поскольку их богословие содержит своего рода иерархический генотеизм), и точно так же многие из восточных православных ошибочно полагали, что восточные православные были несторианами. Многое из этого усугублялось тем, что заставило императора Юстиниана отказаться от принятия восточных православных, стремления к примирению с ними, женитьбы на одной из них (святой Феодоры) и принятия теопасхитства, которому учил святой Север Антиохийский, чей гимн «Ho Monogenes» Юстиниан лично добавил в Собор православной божественной литургии (из-за чего некоторые восточные православные ошибочно называют его «Гимном Юстиниана»); Я полагаю, что армяне, которые отдельно развили возражение против святого Севера, приписали его святому Афанасию, что является хорошей мыслью, но нет никаких следов этого гимна, существовавшего до конца пятого века, когда он стал вступительным гимном для всех литургий восточных православных Антиохии, которые сегодня сохранились как сиро-православные. а также появился в коптской православной литургии на Великую и Великую Пятницу, где и остается.

1) Копты являются севирианами в Христологии. Придерживаются богословия Севира Антиохийского в том, что Божественное руководит человеческим в плане воли (монергизм). Мы же с вами, будучи православными, исповедуем две воли во Христе, где человеческая воля добровольно подчиняется Божественной. По коптскому богословию найдите книгу "Христология и Халкидонский Собор" за авторством коптского священника Шенуды Исхака (о. Шенуда М. Исхак). Копты могут говорить, что они не монофизиты, но тут стоит изучить, как они смотрят на волю Христа, свободна ли Его человеческая воля. Мы исповедуем, что она послушна, севирианское богословие исповедует, что она подобна управляемому роботу, или кукле-марионетке.

2) Теперь что касается Ассирийской Церкви Востока. С Несторием и Феодором Мопсуестийским, что будем делать? Они ведь в лике святых в Ассирийской Церкви Востока и не только святые, но и учителя их церкви. В пунктах 1 и 2 Шамбезийских соглашений, стороны осуждали учение Нестория. Вы хоть понимаете, что для Ассирийской Церкви Востока, это как себе в ногу стрельнуть? Ну ладно там копты, их монофизитство не очевидно, но вот в отношении Ассирийской Церкви Востока, несторианство очевидно хотя бы даже из слов их митрополита Илии Нисивинского, который вёл собеседование с визирем Абу-л-Касима ал-Магриби, и в этом собеседовании отчетливо прослеживается несторианская христология. Несторианство Ассирийской Церкви Востока очевидно, просто она умалчивает и скрывает своё исконное богословие. Вот слова митрополита Ассирийской Церкви Востока Илии Нисивинского (родился во второй половине X века), который прекрасно нашёл общий язык с мусульманином, объяснив ему, во что на самом деле верят "христиане", т.е. он сам, митрополит Ассирийской Церкви Востока, и его единоверцы:

"... мы исповедуем, что сей Иисус, который есть человек, воспринятый от Марии, не видел Господа, каковой есть Слово, и не увидит Его".

Что мы видим в этих словах? А видим в них исповедание двух сынов, двух отдельных ипостасей, каждая из которых сама по себе - человек Иисус не видел Господа, каковой есть Слово и не увидит. Слово воспринимает человека Иисуса, отсюда кстати и их неприятие термина "Богородица". Мы же исповедуем сложную ипостась. Митрополит Илия выразил настоящее учение Ассирийской Церкви Востока. А нынешними членами Ассирийской Церкви Востока, оно попросту скрывается. Кроме того, сегодня официально они исповедуют "две природы и две кномы в одном лице и одной воле Христа". Аналога кномы в греческом нет. Они определяют это как " конкретная реализация природы", но тогда это - ипостась. Они говорят, "нет, это не ипостась, это другое". Но вместе с тем, во Христе у них - две кномы. А в Троице - три кномы. То есть, митрополит Илия выразил подлинное учение Ассирийской Церкви Востока. И таким оно осталось и сегодня, просто он его выражал предельно открыто, а сегодня его пытаются сглаживать, упирая на различие в сирийской и греческой терминологии. Уж, что-что, а несториан не надо пожалуйста приплетать, они действительно еретики. Это жуткая ересь!

Мы верим в распятого Бога плотью, мы верим в умершего Бога плотью (теопасхитские выражения). Несториане же верят, что на Кресте страдал человек Иисус, а не Бог плотью, что умер человек, а не Бог плотью. А причина в том, что мы исповедуем сложную ипостась по Воплощении, что субъектом ипостаси Христа есть Бог-Слово. Поэтому Мария родила Бога, и исповедуем мы Её Богородицей. Страдала Личность Христа по человеческой природе. Поскольку Личность Христа есть Личность второго Лица Святой Троицы – Сына Божьего, постольку мы можем говорить, что страдал на Кресте, как это ни парадоксально, Сам Бог. Пятый Вселенский Собор: «Если кто-либо не исповедует, что Тот, Кто был распят во плоти, Господь наш Иисус Христос, есть истинный Бог, Господь славы и один из Святой Троицы, да будет отлучен от сообщества верных». Святой Кирилл Александрийский: «Кто не исповедует Бога Слова пострадавшим плотью, распятым плотью, принявшим смерть плотью и, наконец, ставшим первородным из мертвых, так как Он есть жизнь и животворящ как Бог, — да будет анафема». Это православное учение, оно отличается от несторианского.

 

[Nagomirov]

I consider the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox to represent the most exemplary part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (the schism that exists between them having been partially healed already, and also being uncanonical, owing to a historic confusion in which many Eastern Orthodox mistakenly came to believe the Oriental Orthodox churches were Eutychian Monophysites (when in reality this group descended into Tritheism in Egypt and later disappeared after the Saracens conquered Egypt and added it to their Caliphate, so the modern day Monophysites are actually the Mormons, who are Tritheists (or indeed, more than that, since their theology contains a kind of hierarchical henotheism), and likewise many of the Oriental Orthodox mistakenly came to believe that the Eastern Orthodox were Nestorians. A lot of this was exacerbated by whatever caused Emperor Justinian to go from embracing the Oriental Orthodox, pursuing a reconciliation with them, marrying one (St. Theodora) and embracing the Theopaschitism taught by St. Severus of Antioch, whose hymn “Ho Monogenes” Justinian personally added to the Synaxis of the Orthodox divine liturgy (causing some Eastern Orthodox to mistakenly call this “The Hymn of Justinian”; I believe that the Armenians, who separately developed an objection to St. Severus, attributed it to St. Athanasius, which is a nice thought but there is no trace of this hymn existing before the late fifth century, when it became the introit hymn for all liturgies of the Oriental Orthodox of Antioch, who today survive as the Syriac Orthodox, and also appeared in the Coptic Orthodox liturgy for Great and Holy Friday, where it remains.

1) Copts are Sevirians in Christology. They adhere to the theology of Sevier of Antioch in that the Divine guides the human in terms of will (monergism). You and I, being Orthodox, profess two wills in Christ, where the human will voluntarily submits to the Divine one. For Coptic theology, find the book "Christology and the Council of Chalcedon" by the Coptic priest Shenouda Ishaq (fr. Shenouda M. Ishaq). Copts may say that they are not Monophysites, but it is worth studying how they look at the will of Christ, whether His human will is free. We profess that she is obedient, Sevirian theology professes that she is like a controlled robot, or a puppet.

2) Now as for the Assyrian Church of the East. With Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia, what are we going to do? After all, they are saints in the Assyrian Church of the East and not only saints, but also teachers of their church. In paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Chambesian Agreements, the parties condemned the teachings of Nestorius. Do you even realize that for the Assyrian Church of the East, it's like shooting yourself in the foot? Well, the Copts are there, their monophysitism is not obvious, but with regard to the Assyrian Church of the East, Nestorianism is obvious even from the words of their Metropolitan Elijah of Nisibis, who conducted an interview with the vizier Abu'l-Qasim al-Maghribi, and Nestorian Christology is clearly traced in this interview. The Nestorianism of the Assyrian Church of the East is obvious, it just keeps silent and hides its original theology. Here are the words of Metropolitan Elijah Nisivinsky of the Assyrian Church of the East (born in the second half of the 10th century), who perfectly found a common language with a Muslim, explaining to him what "Christians" really believe, i.e. himself, the metropolitan of the Assyrian Church of the East, and his co-religionists:

"... we confess that this Jesus, who is a man received from Mary, has not seen the Lord, which is the Word, and will not see Him."

What do we see in these words? And we see in them the confession of two sons, two separate hypostases, each of which in itself - the man Jesus did not see the Lord, which is the Word and will not see. The word perceives the man Jesus, hence, by the way, their rejection of the term "Theotokos". We profess a complex hypostasis. Metropolitan Elijah expressed the true teaching of the Assyrian Church of the East. And by the current members of the Assyrian Church of the East, it is simply hiding. In addition, today they officially profess "two natures and two gnomes in one person and one will of Christ." There is no equivalent of knoma in Greek. They define it as a "concrete realization of nature," but then it is an hypostasis. They say, "No, it's not a hypostasis, it's different." But at the same time, they have two gnomes in Christ. And in Trinity there are three dwarfs. That is, Metropolitan Elijah expressed the true teaching of the Assyrian Church of the East. And so it remains today, he just expressed it very openly, and today they are trying to smooth it out, emphasizing the difference in Syrian and Greek terminology. Oh, well, please don't drag in the Nestorians, they really are heretics. This is a terrible heresy!

We believe in a crucified God in the flesh, we believe in a dead God in the flesh (Theophysitic expressions). Nestorians, on the other hand, believe that the man Jesus suffered on the Cross, and not God in the flesh, that man died, and not God in the flesh. And the reason is that we profess a complex hypostasis after the Incarnation, that the subject of the hypostasis of Christ is God the Word. Therefore, Mary gave birth to God, and we confess Her to be the Mother of God. The Person of Christ suffered by human nature. Since the Person of Christ is the Person of the second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Son of God, we can say that, paradoxically, God Himself suffered on the Cross. The Fifth Ecumenical Council: "If anyone does not confess that the One who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is the true God, the Lord of glory and one of the Holy Trinity, let him be excommunicated from the community of the faithful." St. Cyril of Alexandria: "Whoever does not confess the God of the Word to those who suffered in the flesh, crucified in the flesh, accepted death in the flesh and finally became the firstborn from the dead, since He is life and life—giving as God, let him be anathema." This is an Orthodox teaching, it differs from the Nestorian one.

 

[The Liturgist]

2) Now as for the Assyrian Church of the East.

I did not even mention the Assyrian Church of the East, although I will say it has improved, but I am extremely opposed to Nestorianism, however, the Assyrians claim that they do not adhere to a Nestorian Christology, and the evidence that they have renounced Nestorius is compelling. However, they still venerate Nestorius, which I find highly objectionable. Nestorianism is nonetheless alive and well among less traditional Protestants and especially Restorationist churches.

The Assyrian Church of the East is not an Oriental Orthodox church and I have no idea why you included a commentary on them, since I did not mention them in my OP, unless you are confusing them with the Syriac Orthodox Church, which is sometimes called the Assyrian Orthodox Church, but it really serves a different set of ethnolinguistic tribes than the Assyrian Church of the East (the Syriac Orthodox who still speak Aramaic speak a Western dialect, whereas the Assyrians speak an Eastern dialect, and likewise the Syriac Orthodox pronounce Classical Syriac Aramaic with a distinct West Syriac accent).

So in summary, the Assyrian Church of the East is not an Oriental Orthodox church and while my position is that the continuation of this offensive schism, which was based on mistaken identity and confusion sown by Ibas, a crypto-Nestorian, after the Council of Chalcedon, and which is no longer really even a schism thanks to the ecumenical agreements between the Syriacs and Antiochians and the Copts and Alexandrian Greeks, is a violation of our canon law insofar as it persists and insofar as some misguided people continue to try to keep the schism alive (such as Nicholas Marinides), I would not say that the Assyrians are ready to enter into communion with the Orthodox. Indeed if the Eastern Orthodox entered into communion with the Assyrian Church of the East in its present state, the ecumenical arrangement with the Coptic Orthodox would collapse and a full restoration of EO-OO communion, which should be everyone’s goal, would be made impossible. The Assyrian Church of the East first has to reconcile its own internal schism with the Ancient Church of the East, and then it also has to address the fact that some of its members believe the church is iconoclastic, despite their own canons requiring the presence of an icon of Christ on the altar table, but these canons aren’t being followed, and there is a need for these canons to be followed and for a clear rejection of iconoclasm on the part of the Church of the East. And finally I see the continued veneration of Nestorius as an impediment to the restoration of full communion.

 

[The Liturgist]

Copts are Sevirians in Christology. They adhere to the theology of Sevier of Antioch in that the Divine guides the human in terms of will (monergism). You and I, being Orthodox, profess two wills in Christ, where the human will voluntarily submits to the Divine one. For Coptic theology, find the book "Christology and the Council of Chalcedon" by the Coptic priest Shenouda Ishaq (fr. Shenouda M. Ishaq). Copts may say that they are not Monophysites, but it is worth studying how they look at the will of Christ, whether His human will is free. We profess that she is obedient, Sevirian theology professes that she is like a controlled robot, or a puppet.

You are confusing the issue of Physis with that of Monothelitism (the issue of wills). The Copts and Syriac Orthodox, like the Eastern Orthodox, reject Monothelitism as a heresy.

Regarding Mor Severus of Antioch, those who follow him are not called “Severians”, for that refers rather to the adherents of Severian, a second century heretic, who was of the same school of thought as Tatian and Bardesanes. I venerate Mor Severus as a saint because he taught the Theopaschite Christology we embrace, and also wrote the hymn Ho Monogenes (some say St. Athanasius wrote this hymn, but this is highly unlikely since there is no record of its existence before the fifth century; others say Emperor Justinian wrote it, but given that it opens the Syriac Orthodox divine liturgy, and given that Justinian brutally persecuted the Syriac Orthodox and killed or imprisoned all of their bishops except for Mor Jacob bar Addai, it is fabulously unlikely that the Syriac Orthodox wrote it; it would be a bit like the UK adopting La Marseillaise as their national anthem.

At any rate, if your objections had any validity, then the Russian Orthodox Church would have severed communion with the Antiochian Orthodox Church in 1993 when they entered into a full ecumenical partnership with the Syriac Orthodox Church, but no Orthodox church broke communion with Antioch and indeed Antioch is one of the closest allies of the Moscow Patriarchate. And indeed Moscow has helped reconcile Antioch with the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, which invaded Antioch’s canonical territory in 2014 resulting in Antioch severing communion with Jerusalem and with the Ecumenical Patriarchate after the EP refused to do anything about it under Canon 28 of Constantinople.

 

[Bob Carabbio]

Is the Orthodox Church the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church"?​

Nope. It's just another denomination among many, but as Catholic based religions are concerned, it's a good deal closer to actual Christianity, than the Roman Catholic religious system.

The "ONE TRUE CHURCH" is a Spiritual body comprised exclusively of ALL Born Again Christians both physically alive, and physically dead from the beginning all the way to the present. I'm a member as a Born Again Christian, and presently also a member of the "Assemblies of God" denominational system, who's "official beliefs" I find to be acceptable.

NO "religio/political religious business entity" (church denomination) is, or has ever been "the one true church". The visible church was already fragmenting and being corrupted even during Paul's ministry. Some visible churches are closer to the Biblical truth than others, but none are, or have ever been "PERFECT".

 

[The Liturgist]

@Bob Carabbio - what is your definition of “Catholic based religions?”

Are you aware the Nicene Creed contains the phrase “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church”? Of course, the definition of Catholicity is up for debate; the notes in the statement of faith stress this point. The word “Catholic” literally means “according to the whole” in ancient Greek, and it refers to the One True Church, however one defines it, and the field which focuses on what the Catholic Church is, is called ecclesiology. Most theologians who regard themselves as born again evangelical Christians adhere to either an Invisible Church ecclesiology, similar to the one you expressed, although its rare that this ecclesiology is exclusivist and does not recognize other churches, or a Local Church ecclesiology, which is predominant among Congregationalist, Baptists, and the Churches of Christ branch of the Stone/Campbell movement, among other denominations.

Orthodox Christianity, both Eastern and Oriental, is actual Christianity, and so is Roman Catholicism, and for that matter so are other traditional churches which do not meet your criteria of “Born Again Christians.”

I would also note that none of the fragments or corrupt branches from the ministry of the Holy Apostle Paul are still extant, although in recent years there have appeared contemporary analogues.

The correct response to the OP is an objection to the provocative sectarian sentiment, and not more sectarianism.

My position is that if someone believes their form of Christianity is the only legitimate form, they should either keep it to themselves, which some do, or limit themselves to their denominational sub forum.