Rome no longer applies the labels schismatic and heretic to any of the Eastern Churches then or now. Why is it a double standard for Rome but not the EO/OO when they do the same?
Most prominent EO/OO theologians agree that our churches share the same Faith. That is not the case with Rome. Many of us find it patronizing when Rome tells us that we are in some imperfect way a part of the Roman Church which erroneously regards itself as being the Catholic Church.
At the recent OO/Roman dialogue in India the Romans pretty much said flat out that we have resolved all of the doctrinal differences between us and need to start moving past the dialogue phase and start acting as if we're one Church. The OO delegates weren't convinced. This is where the disconnect is. We - most of us anyway, including our leading theologians - simply don't believe we share the same faith with you.
I know. I wasn't talking about Theodore. I was thinking primarily of Severus, but OOs would say the same about Leo.
So you'd be comfortable some day communing in a Church where Severus is considered to have been in heresy when he rejected Chalcedon as long as you don't have to say that about him? Because that seems to be the situation the Assyrians are currently in with regards to Theodore.
The point is, the Romans are in full on ecumenism mode because of their flawed conception of what their church is and what its role is the Christian East. This St. Gregory thing is just the most recent example of that attitude. Rome wrongly regards itself as being the Catholic Church and as such it thinks it can reconcile all of the disparate elements of Apostolic Christianity whether the rest of us agree or not and hold in tension theological concepts that are mutually contradictory. My Church does not agree
I don't think the EO are going to make some grand gesture of declaring Pope St. Timothy II or St. Severus Pillars of the Church anytime soon to coincide with the commemoration of the 21 Coptic Martyrs of Libya or the commemoration of the Sayfo, and they shouldn't. It would be patronizing. If we (the EO and OO) truly share the same Faith, we don't have make over-the-top schmaltzy gestures to drive that point home.
As for the OO, I'd like to believe they're the same but I'm growing skeptical. It's hardly a universal opinion. The monks of Athos tend to be stridently of the view that the OOs are not Christian.
That's not as true as it once was.http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/news/2014/05/high-level-coptic-orthodox-delegation-pays-historic-visit-to-the-monastic-republic-of-mount-athos/
Brothers in Christ separated by: differences in language and theological outlook, politics both civic and ecclesial. Again, setting aside the additional differences between the West and East
Easier said than done.
why can the EO and OO declare miaphysitism and dyophysitism are compatible but Rome cannot?
It depends on what you mean by "dyophysitism". If your definition of this term is expansive enough to include communities that still commemorate Nestorius, I think that's a bridge too far. Its fantasies aside, Rome will not be the universal arbiter that unites Alexandria and the Church of the East.
That being said, I think the Chalcedonian position was the more Catholic, and therefore is the more correct. (Based on what the Fathers, like Irenaeus and St. Vincent of Lerins say...) Alexandrian Christology was just seemingly not as Catholic as Antiochene Christology, which was upheld by most of the Eastern Churches and by the Western Church.
I couldn't disagree more. I think it's telling that most churches beyond the reach of the Imperium declined to accept the dyophysite formula, but this has been threshed out enough elsewhere on this board, particularly in the private fora.
Saw this article today:
Catholic World Report: St. Gregory of Narek : Was the New Doctor of the Church Catholic?
It contains the following quote:
The question remains of his adherence or rejection of Chalcedon. I do not have any definitive evidence one way or another, but many people are claiming that St. Gregory upheld Chalcedon. Here is one example: “The hieromonks of the monastery of Narek, from among whom we have the remarkable mystic St. Gregory of Narek, are indisputably for the two natures in Jesus Christ” (citing J. Mecerian, La Vierge Marie dans la Littérature médiévale de l’Arménie [Beyrouth, 1954], 9).
The full context of that quote comes from this source:
Under Catholicos Ezr (630-641), at the synod of Karin (633-634), convoked under the patronage of Heraclius, and later, during the patriarchate of Nerses III (641-661), when this hierarch felt himself free of the pressure of the Armenian prince Theodore Restuni, the ecclesiastical communion with the Greeks was re-established.  Later, also the Catholicoi of the second half of the 7th century, Anastasius, Israel, Sahak III, are for Chalcedon. Catholicos John Oznetzi (717-728), declared himself dyophysite though prudently abstaining from using the name of Chalcedon.  No writings or acts against the 4th Council are found in the name of the Catholicoi who governed the Armenian Church during the period from 728 to 855. The hieromonks of the monastery of Narek, from among whom we have the remarkable mystic St. Gregory of Narek, are indisputably for the two natures in Jesus Christ.  During the Catholicossate of Zacharias (855-877), the synod convoked at Shirakavan in 862 with the participation of the delegate of Patriarch Photius of Constantinople, Vahan-Ohan, Archbishop of Nicaea, openly adhered to the formula of Chalcedon of the two natures and one person (prosopon), though it avoided mention of the 4th Council in order not to excite the susceptibilities of the Armenians.
The source is an Armenian Catholic source, and it is therefore going to try to view Armenian Ecclesiastical history through a lens that is favorable toward their own faith. I'm not saying there are no bits of truth in the above statements, but they seem to be stretching things a bit far. Also, some of the statements are vague and seem misleading.
During the period mentioned above, the Armenians at various times came under a great deal of "pressure" to accept Chalcedon. (I'm putting it nicely by saying "pressure" because I don't want to wax polemical. Anyone who wants to get into the details of this should ask for admission to the private forum.) This pressure came from the Imperial powers and it of course resulted in some Church leaders considering the possibility of accepting Chalcedon, or at least making some sort of compromise. The Catholicos Ezr was one such leader. Nothing permanent came of it though, but his willingness to compromise resulted in his reputation being harmed. In fact, I read somewhere that for a long time afterward scribes would write his name with the first letter inverted.
Next, there is a curious statement about St. John Otsnetsi:
Catholicos John Oznetzi (717-728), declared himself dyophysite though prudently abstaining from using the name of Chalcedon.
He was the Catholicos during the time of the Council of Manzikert, which dealt with the issue of Julianism. That council came up with a statement of common faith that was signed by both the Armenians and the Syriac Orthodox. This statement was entirely Miaphysite.
I don't know what the Catholic authors mean by "declared himself dyophysite though prudently abstaining from using the name of Chalcedon." What does that mean? We have no problem acknowledging that Christ is fully human as well as fully divine. Is that what is meant? That doesn't mean St. John was Chalcedonian.
Then there is this statement:
No writings or acts against the 4th Council are found in the name of the Catholicoi who governed the Armenian Church during the period from 728 to 855.
What does that mean? "No writings or acts against" Chalcedon does not necessarily mean the Catholicoi during that period were in favor of Chalcedon. The Armenian Church's opposition to Chalcedon was a settled matter, and there was no need for repeated "writings or acts."
As for the bolded statement:
The hieromonks of the monastery of Narek, from among whom we have the remarkable mystic St. Gregory of Narek, are indisputably for the two natures in Jesus Christ.
This is literally the first time I have heard this. Which hieromonks? When? And again, what is meant by "for the two natures in Jesus Christ?" This is a vague, and therefore misleading, statement. I would, at the very least, like some details. I know I can absolutely say with total confidence that the Monastery of Nareg was not Chalcedonian.
During the Catholicossate of Zacharias (855-877), the synod convoked at Shirakavan in 862 with the participation of the delegate of Patriarch Photius of Constantinople, Vahan-Ohan, Archbishop of Nicaea, openly adhered to the formula of Chalcedon of the two natures and one person (prosopon), though it avoided mention of the 4th Council in order not to excite the susceptibilities of the Armenians.
This is what the website of Holy Etchmiadzin says about the Council of Shirakavan:
The Council of Shirakavan
The primary reason for convening the Council of Shirak was a letter to the Armenians received from Patriarch Photius of Constantinople concerning the adoption of chalcedony. Patriarch Photius had repeatedly tried to convert the Armenians living in his territory to Chalcedony and had unleashed persecution against Armenians. Catholicos Zachariah I of Dzak wrote a letter to Patriarch Photius stating that the Armenian faith was in agreement with the decisions of the first three Ecumenical Councils. In his reply letter Patriarch Photius tried to prove the orthodox character of Chalcedony and once again suggested that the Armenians should adopt Chalcedony. The Council of Shirak renounced Patriarch Photius’ suggestion and after stating the faith of the Armenian Church in 15 anathema, sent the reply to Patriarch Photius.