Author Topic: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches  (Read 19550 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,603
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #45 on: July 04, 2010, 07:55:12 AM »
Quote
And, as much as I accept the use of icons and their veneration, I don't know that I view the issue as fundamental to the nature of the Church in the same way that it seems the EO tradition does.

To deny the veneration of icons as proper is tantamount to denying the Incarnation of Christ.

So I've been told. I haven't really seen that proven to be the case. And I don't really believe it. I could imagine fairly easily how one could truly believe in the Incarnation and not the veneration of icons.

For starters, read St John of Damascus' treatise In Defense of the Holy Images, perhaps the most authoritative exposition of the propriety and necessity of icons in Orthodox worship, with particular emphasis on the relationship between icons and Christology. Here's a link:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/johndamascus-images.html#PART%20I
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #46 on: July 06, 2010, 10:43:47 AM »
but if I am correct, then all who receive from the altar at an Orthodox Church, whether miaphysite or dyophysite, or from the Church of the East, are part of the Body of the one and the same Christ.

Careful my friend. The Catholic Church does recoginze that those in other Apostolic bodies have partial communion with the Church, which is identified as the Body of Christ, but those not within the visible Catholic Church do not have full communion with the Church.

Regardless of the lack of full communion between the churches, because of the validity of the sacraments of all these churches, we are unwittingly united because of the Body and Blood, despite our human divisions. Our communion is more full with them than with the Protestants, some of whom we are united with by common baptism, although because of the lack of all other sacraments the union is much less complete than with the churches that retain valid sacraments.

However, I do not think that His Eminence Cardinal Humbert excommunicating His All-Holiness Michael Cærularius and the reciprocation can cause a humble parish priest in Bulgaria to cease to be part of the same Catholic Church that a humble parish priest in Spain is a part of. Hence, the issue of how deep our communion is gets much more complicated than, "They're in schism! Anathema!"
Well, His the excommunication of Patriarch Caeulius by Cardinal Humbert was invalid anyway because the Pope that the Cardinal represented had already passed away. Real schism didn't occur until the Patriarch "excommunicateed" the Pope.  That being said, I understand where you are coming from and sympathize with your view. But please do be careful and keep in mind the teachings of the Popes on this matter. Read the Encyclical "The Mystical Body of Christ". This document makes it quite clear that the Catholic Church is the Church and those outside of her bounds are not members of the Church, even though they possess partial communion.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #47 on: July 06, 2010, 10:46:05 AM »
If Nestorianism is such a fundamental heresy, then in what sense are they apostolic? I mean, was it because there were Nestorian bishops who split off? That would make Anglicanism no less apsotolic.
They are not really Nestorians.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline GregoryLA

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 377
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #48 on: July 06, 2010, 06:14:53 PM »
Well, His the excommunication of Patriarch Caeulius by Cardinal Humbert was invalid anyway because the Pope that the Cardinal represented had already passed away. Real schism didn't occur until the Patriarch "excommunicateed" the Pope. 

May I ask you where you got this from?  Or is this something original from you?

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,602
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #49 on: July 06, 2010, 07:46:51 PM »
but if I am correct, then all who receive from the altar at an Orthodox Church, whether miaphysite or dyophysite, or from the Church of the East, are part of the Body of the one and the same Christ.

Careful my friend. The Catholic Church does recoginze that those in other Apostolic bodies have partial communion with the Church, which is identified as the Body of Christ, but those not within the visible Catholic Church do not have full communion with the Church.

Regardless of the lack of full communion between the churches, because of the validity of the sacraments of all these churches, we are unwittingly united because of the Body and Blood, despite our human divisions. Our communion is more full with them than with the Protestants, some of whom we are united with by common baptism, although because of the lack of all other sacraments the union is much less complete than with the churches that retain valid sacraments.

However, I do not think that His Eminence Cardinal Humbert excommunicating His All-Holiness Michael Cærularius and the reciprocation can cause a humble parish priest in Bulgaria to cease to be part of the same Catholic Church that a humble parish priest in Spain is a part of. Hence, the issue of how deep our communion is gets much more complicated than, "They're in schism! Anathema!"
Well, His the excommunication of Patriarch Caeulius by Cardinal Humbert was invalid anyway because the Pope that the Cardinal represented had already passed away. Real schism didn't occur until the Patriarch "excommunicateed" the Pope.  That being said, I understand where you are coming from and sympathize with your view. But please do be careful and keep in mind the teachings of the Popes on this matter. Read the Encyclical "The Mystical Body of Christ". This document makes it quite clear that the Catholic Church is the Church and those outside of her bounds are not members of the Church, even though they possess partial communion.
No, schism occured when the pope of Rome obeyed the ruler of the Franks and inserted the filioque, and was per Constantinople IV stricken from the diptychs.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #50 on: July 06, 2010, 08:40:44 PM »
Quote
And, as much as I accept the use of icons and their veneration, I don't know that I view the issue as fundamental to the nature of the Church in the same way that it seems the EO tradition does.

To deny the veneration of icons as proper is tantamount to denying the Incarnation of Christ.

So I've been told. I haven't really seen that proven to be the case. And I don't really believe it. I could imagine fairly easily how one could truly believe in the Incarnation and not the veneration of icons.

Well, the question is, why would you reject the veneration of icons if you truly believe in the Incarnation? The arguments that were made by the iconoclasts (e.g., icons evince a confusion of Christ's two natures) revealed a faulty Christology.

I could have sworn that the Byzantine Iconoclasts criticized icons as being Nestorian, because of only depicting Christ's human nature, rather than Synousiast.

At that time their motivation may or may not have been an indication of a faulty Christology. But that doesn't mean that that would be the reason for any school of iconoclasm.

I think I remember hearing the criticism that it is improper to depict a person whom we don't know what they look like. I think this is a reasonable criticism, and obviously not one that expresses a deficient Christology, though I obviously don't agree with it.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #51 on: July 06, 2010, 08:42:13 PM »
What is ACE? Aquarius Church of Enlightenment?

Assyrian Church of the East.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #52 on: July 06, 2010, 08:45:11 PM »
What is ACE? Aquarius Church of Enlightenment?
Ancient Church of the East, i.e. the Assyrians/Nestorians.

Be careful that you not confuse the Assyrian Church of the East, which is headed by Mar Dinkha IV, and the Ancient Church of the East, which is headed by Mar Addai II.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #53 on: July 06, 2010, 08:48:45 PM »
If Nestorianism is such a fundamental heresy, then in what sense are they apostolic? I mean, was it because there were Nestorian bishops who split off? That would make Anglicanism no less apsotolic.

The "four Apostolic churches" is simply the POV of WetCatechumen.

He and his church are at an understanding of the ACE not really teaching a heterodox Christology.

They are also at an understanding that the ACE has maintained the proper form of Apostolic Succession, and that the Anglican Communion has not.

I'm sure that not many people here would not agree with his theory and only espouse two (EO & OO) or one (their own).

On the other hand, I did point out that technically the Old Catholics should make the cut of his theory as well and their thus being technically 5 Apostolic churches.


Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #54 on: July 06, 2010, 08:51:56 PM »
Quote
And, as much as I accept the use of icons and their veneration, I don't know that I view the issue as fundamental to the nature of the Church in the same way that it seems the EO tradition does.

To deny the veneration of icons as proper is tantamount to denying the Incarnation of Christ.

So I've been told. I haven't really seen that proven to be the case. And I don't really believe it. I could imagine fairly easily how one could truly believe in the Incarnation and not the veneration of icons.

For starters, read St John of Damascus' treatise In Defense of the Holy Images, perhaps the most authoritative exposition of the propriety and necessity of icons in Orthodox worship, with particular emphasis on the relationship between icons and Christology. Here's a link:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/johndamascus-images.html#PART%20I

Although John of Damascus is a Chalcedonian and thus, in my mind, not a member of the Orthodox Church, he may very well have sufficient reasoning in his explanation of icons, and as such I will try to get to reading this sometime soon.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #55 on: July 06, 2010, 08:53:42 PM »
If Nestorianism is such a fundamental heresy, then in what sense are they apostolic? I mean, was it because there were Nestorian bishops who split off? That would make Anglicanism no less apsotolic.
They are not really Nestorians.

So you and your religious community say. I hope you realize that a great number of posters on here do not agree with you.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #56 on: July 06, 2010, 08:54:38 PM »
Well, His the excommunication of Patriarch Caeulius by Cardinal Humbert was invalid anyway because the Pope that the Cardinal represented had already passed away. Real schism didn't occur until the Patriarch "excommunicateed" the Pope. 

May I ask you where you got this from?  Or is this something original from you?

It's not a novelty of his own. It seems quite a common claim, actually; I have seen it on the internet numerous times.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,602
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #57 on: July 06, 2010, 09:16:43 PM »
What is ACE? Aquarius Church of Enlightenment?
Ancient Church of the East, i.e. the Assyrians/Nestorians.

Be careful that you not confuse the Assyrian Church of the East, which is headed by Mar Dinkha IV, and the Ancient Church of the East, which is headed by Mar Addai II.

The distinction important for us is what?
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #58 on: July 06, 2010, 09:36:26 PM »
What is ACE? Aquarius Church of Enlightenment?
Ancient Church of the East, i.e. the Assyrians/Nestorians.

Be careful that you not confuse the Assyrian Church of the East, which is headed by Mar Dinkha IV, and the Ancient Church of the East, which is headed by Mar Addai II.

The distinction important for us is what?

They are distinct jurisdictions with two different Patriarchs and not in communion with each other.

You said that we were talking about the Ancient Church of the East, the name implying that church under Mar Addai II, though you yourself were probably thinking of the Assyrian Church of the East under Mar Dinkha IV.

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,603
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #59 on: July 07, 2010, 03:40:09 AM »
I could have sworn that the Byzantine Iconoclasts criticized icons as being Nestorian, because of only depicting Christ's human nature, rather than Synousiast.

At that time their motivation may or may not have been an indication of a faulty Christology. But that doesn't mean that that would be the reason for any school of iconoclasm.

I think I remember hearing the criticism that it is improper to depict a person whom we don't know what they look like. I think this is a reasonable criticism, and obviously not one that expresses a deficient Christology, though I obviously don't agree with it.

My dear deusveritasest:

1. You wrote: it is improper to depict a person whom we don't know what they look like.

Have you not heard of the Mandylion, or, as it is also called, Acheiropoeitos, or, as translated from the Greek, the Image Not Made By Hands? The Orthodox Church indeed liturgically commemorates this holy image, which many, including St John of Damascus, have regarded as the prototype and justification of all icons. This image has been part of Orthodox tradition since long before the fifth century. Forgive me for my bluntness here, but I have observed your posts at length here and elsewhere, over several years. I am led to conclude that when you are faced with contradictions to your view of how things should be in Orthodoxy, you seek solace elsewhere. However, because of this behavior, you have, unfortunately, painted yourself into an ever-shrinking corner.

2. You wrote: I think this is a reasonable criticism, and obviously not one that expresses a deficient Christology, though I obviously don't agree with it.

See my comments above.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2010, 03:44:58 AM by LBK »
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #60 on: July 07, 2010, 10:10:41 AM »
but if I am correct, then all who receive from the altar at an Orthodox Church, whether miaphysite or dyophysite, or from the Church of the East, are part of the Body of the one and the same Christ.

Careful my friend. The Catholic Church does recoginze that those in other Apostolic bodies have partial communion with the Church, which is identified as the Body of Christ, but those not within the visible Catholic Church do not have full communion with the Church.

Regardless of the lack of full communion between the churches, because of the validity of the sacraments of all these churches, we are unwittingly united because of the Body and Blood, despite our human divisions. Our communion is more full with them than with the Protestants, some of whom we are united with by common baptism, although because of the lack of all other sacraments the union is much less complete than with the churches that retain valid sacraments.

However, I do not think that His Eminence Cardinal Humbert excommunicating His All-Holiness Michael Cærularius and the reciprocation can cause a humble parish priest in Bulgaria to cease to be part of the same Catholic Church that a humble parish priest in Spain is a part of. Hence, the issue of how deep our communion is gets much more complicated than, "They're in schism! Anathema!"
Well, His the excommunication of Patriarch Caeulius by Cardinal Humbert was invalid anyway because the Pope that the Cardinal represented had already passed away. Real schism didn't occur until the Patriarch "excommunicateed" the Pope.  That being said, I understand where you are coming from and sympathize with your view. But please do be careful and keep in mind the teachings of the Popes on this matter. Read the Encyclical "The Mystical Body of Christ". This document makes it quite clear that the Catholic Church is the Church and those outside of her bounds are not members of the Church, even though they possess partial communion.
No, schism occured when the pope of Rome obeyed the ruler of the Franks and inserted the filioque, and was per Constantinople IV stricken from the diptychs.
LOL
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Papist

  • Patriarch of Pontification
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,758
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #61 on: July 07, 2010, 10:11:50 AM »
If Nestorianism is such a fundamental heresy, then in what sense are they apostolic? I mean, was it because there were Nestorian bishops who split off? That would make Anglicanism no less apsotolic.
They are not really Nestorians.

So you and your religious community say. I hope you realize that a great number of posters on here do not agree with you.
I am well aware of that.
"For, by its immensity, the divine substance surpasses every form that our intellect reaches. Thus we are unable to apprehend it by knowing what it is. Yet we are able to have some knowledge of it by knowing what it is not." - St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa contra gentiles, I, 14.

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,515
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #62 on: July 07, 2010, 02:06:51 PM »
If Nestorianism is such a fundamental heresy, then in what sense are they apostolic? I mean, was it because there were Nestorian bishops who split off? That would make Anglicanism no less apsotolic.
They are not really Nestorians.

No, they're not Nestorians, they just have the same theology as Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia, both of whom they venerate. I guess there is no such thing as a Nestorian.
Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,602
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #63 on: July 07, 2010, 03:20:40 PM »
What is ACE? Aquarius Church of Enlightenment?
Ancient Church of the East, i.e. the Assyrians/Nestorians.

Be careful that you not confuse the Assyrian Church of the East, which is headed by Mar Dinkha IV, and the Ancient Church of the East, which is headed by Mar Addai II.

The distinction important for us is what?

They are distinct jurisdictions with two different Patriarchs and not in communion with each other.

A schism between Nestorians. What difference is that to us?
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Online augustin717

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,748
  • Faith: Higher Criticism
  • Jurisdiction: Dutch
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #64 on: July 07, 2010, 04:13:14 PM »
If Nestorianism is such a fundamental heresy, then in what sense are they apostolic? I mean, was it because there were Nestorian bishops who split off? That would make Anglicanism no less apsotolic.
They are not really Nestorians.

No, they're not Nestorians, they just have the same theology as Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia, both of whom they venerate. I guess there is no such thing as a Nestorian.
As most people here are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the Armenian, Syriac, Indian and Coptic churches and not label them as 'monophysites" as they have traditionally been, in our Church, I guess, you could extend the same charity to the Assyrian Church, for God's sake. The canons do not make any difference between a "Nestorian" and a "Monophysite" as if the former were somehow more Orthodox than the latter, from a Chalcedonian perspective.
"I saw a miracle where 2 people entered church one by baptism and one by chrismation. On pictures the one received by full baptism was shinning in light the one by chrismation no."

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #65 on: July 07, 2010, 06:49:20 PM »
My dear deusveritasest:

You are free to call me Christopher, the name I was given when I was born, or Cyril, the name I was given when I was baptized.

1. You wrote: it is improper to depict a person whom we don't know what they look like.

Have you not heard of the Mandylion, or, as it is also called, Acheiropoeitos, or, as translated from the Greek, the Image Not Made By Hands? The Orthodox Church indeed liturgically commemorates this holy image, which many, including St John of Damascus, have regarded as the prototype and justification of all icons. This image has been part of Orthodox tradition since long before the fifth century. Forgive me for my bluntness here, but I have observed your posts at length here and elsewhere, over several years. I am led to conclude that when you are faced with contradictions to your view of how things should be in Orthodoxy, you seek solace elsewhere. However, because of this behavior, you have, unfortunately, painted yourself into an ever-shrinking corner.

2. You wrote: I think this is a reasonable criticism, and obviously not one that expresses a deficient Christology, though I obviously don't agree with it.

See my comments above.

Yes, I have heard of the Mandylion. The person I heard the criticism from (Rafa), from what I remember actually accepts the veneration of the Mandylion, but from what I can tell does not promote the veneration of any other icon (or at least at the time did not).

Again, I don't see how this opinion necessarily indicates a deficient Christology (though I would certainly recognize his church as having one). It doesn't seem like you even touched on the point in your last post.

Finally, I don't see how your personal comment is relevant to this thread. I don't see how my acceptance of icons as appropriate but not necessary would really result in my being excluded from any of the major episcopal traditions.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #66 on: July 07, 2010, 06:50:21 PM »
What is ACE? Aquarius Church of Enlightenment?
Ancient Church of the East, i.e. the Assyrians/Nestorians.

Be careful that you not confuse the Assyrian Church of the East, which is headed by Mar Dinkha IV, and the Ancient Church of the East, which is headed by Mar Addai II.

The distinction important for us is what?

They are distinct jurisdictions with two different Patriarchs and not in communion with each other.

A schism between Nestorians. What difference is that to us?

It means that they're distinct religious communities. Confusing the two is obviously unhelpful.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #67 on: July 07, 2010, 06:51:43 PM »
If Nestorianism is such a fundamental heresy, then in what sense are they apostolic? I mean, was it because there were Nestorian bishops who split off? That would make Anglicanism no less apsotolic.
They are not really Nestorians.

No, they're not Nestorians, they just have the same theology as Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia, both of whom they venerate. I guess there is no such thing as a Nestorian.
As most people here are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the Armenian, Syriac, Indian and Coptic churches and not label them as 'monophysites" as they have traditionally been, in our Church, I guess, you could extend the same charity to the Assyrian Church, for God's sake. The canons do not make any difference between a "Nestorian" and a "Monophysite" as if the former were somehow more Orthodox than the latter, from a Chalcedonian perspective.

It's not a matter of "benefit of the doubt".

It's a matter of a number of people having done significant enough studies of the two traditions that they are lead to believe that the Orientals were not really heterodox but the East Assyrians were.

Offline rakovsky

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,000
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #68 on: July 07, 2010, 07:16:19 PM »
Finally, I don't see how your personal comment is relevant to this thread. I don't see how my acceptance of icons as appropriate but not necessary would really result in my being excluded from any of the major episcopal traditions.

You can read Kallistos Ware's "On the Orthodox Church," where he describes Icons as one of 7 sources of Church tradition. Denial of Icons (ancient paintings portraying the church's understanding of its religion) as a source of church tradition, appears to contradicts a basic teachings of the Orthodox Church.

I am not sure that you are doing this though.

« Last Edit: July 07, 2010, 07:17:45 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #69 on: July 07, 2010, 07:26:37 PM »
Finally, I don't see how your personal comment is relevant to this thread. I don't see how my acceptance of icons as appropriate but not necessary would really result in my being excluded from any of the major episcopal traditions.

You can read Kallistos Ware's "On the Orthodox Church," where he describes Icons as one of 7 sources of Church tradition. Denial of Icons (ancient paintings portraying the church's understanding of its religion) as a source of church tradition, appears to contradicts a basic teachings of the Orthodox Church.

I am not sure that you are doing this though.



I think the Church can and does convey its faith through icons, but I also think that it could still sufficiently convey its faith without them.

Offline rakovsky

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,000
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #70 on: July 07, 2010, 07:29:23 PM »
Finally, I don't see how your personal comment is relevant to this thread. I don't see how my acceptance of icons as appropriate but not necessary would really result in my being excluded from any of the major episcopal traditions.

You can read Kallistos Ware's "On the Orthodox Church," where he describes Icons as one of 7 sources of Church tradition. Denial of Icons (ancient paintings portraying the church's understanding of its religion) as a source of church tradition, appears to contradicts a basic teachings of the Orthodox Church.

I am not sure that you are doing this though.



I think the Church can and does convey its faith through icons, but I also think that it could still sufficiently convey its faith without them.

OK, the church could convey its faith without them, but it has chosen to convey its faith using them.

What is your point?
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #71 on: July 07, 2010, 07:31:02 PM »
Finally, I don't see how your personal comment is relevant to this thread. I don't see how my acceptance of icons as appropriate but not necessary would really result in my being excluded from any of the major episcopal traditions.

You can read Kallistos Ware's "On the Orthodox Church," where he describes Icons as one of 7 sources of Church tradition. Denial of Icons (ancient paintings portraying the church's understanding of its religion) as a source of church tradition, appears to contradicts a basic teachings of the Orthodox Church.

I am not sure that you are doing this though.



I think the Church can and does convey its faith through icons, but I also think that it could still sufficiently convey its faith without them.

OK, the church could convey its faith without them, but it has chosen to convey its faith using them.

What is your point?

That as such they are not fundamental to the nature of the Church.

Offline rakovsky

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,000
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #72 on: July 07, 2010, 07:39:48 PM »
What is your point?

That they are not fundamental to the nature of the Church.

Kallistos Ware says they are one of the seven fundamental sources of the church's teaching.

Holy Scripture, Holy Councils, Holy Ikons. Read Ware's chapter on Ikons, online, and get back to me.

The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #73 on: July 07, 2010, 07:41:51 PM »
What is your point?

That they are not fundamental to the nature of the Church.

Kallistos Ware says they are one of the seven fundamental sources of the church's teaching.

Holy Scripture, Holy Councils, Holy Ikons. Read Ware's chapter on Ikons, online, and get back to me.



That's not logical. You just admitted that the Church could have conveyed its faith sufficiently without them. Anything that the Church could have conveyed the faith sufficiently without cannot be regarded as fundamental to its nature.

Online augustin717

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,748
  • Faith: Higher Criticism
  • Jurisdiction: Dutch
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #74 on: July 07, 2010, 07:47:49 PM »
If Nestorianism is such a fundamental heresy, then in what sense are they apostolic? I mean, was it because there were Nestorian bishops who split off? That would make Anglicanism no less apsotolic.
They are not really Nestorians.

No, they're not Nestorians, they just have the same theology as Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia, both of whom they venerate. I guess there is no such thing as a Nestorian.
As most people here are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the Armenian, Syriac, Indian and Coptic churches and not label them as 'monophysites" as they have traditionally been, in our Church, I guess, you could extend the same charity to the Assyrian Church, for God's sake. The canons do not make any difference between a "Nestorian" and a "Monophysite" as if the former were somehow more Orthodox than the latter, from a Chalcedonian perspective.

It's not a matter of "benefit of the doubt".

It's a matter of a number of people having done significant enough studies of the two traditions that they are lead to believe that the Orientals were not really heterodox but the East Assyrians were.
In our canonical tradition at least, Nestorians and Monophysites were regarded  as the two faces of the same coin. They are received in the same way into the OC.
Plus, we have one or two saints that belonged to the Church of the East.
I do not know if we  have any that belonged to the Orientals.
"I saw a miracle where 2 people entered church one by baptism and one by chrismation. On pictures the one received by full baptism was shinning in light the one by chrismation no."

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #75 on: July 07, 2010, 07:52:25 PM »
In our canonical tradition at least, Nestorians and Monophysites were regarded  as the two faces of the same coin. They are received in the same way into the OC.

Many now believe that the Orientals never believed in the Monophysitism that was condemned by the Byzantine church.

Anyway, the point it appears you are trying to make is that both are officially condemned by the canons.

OK, but that's not exactly what we're addressing. We're discussing whether both actually had a deficient Christology or not. And after a certain amount of study, a number of those of the Byzantine tradition are now concluding that the East Assyrians did have a deficient Christology, but that the Orientals did not. Through study, not through "the benefit of the doubt".

Offline rakovsky

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,000
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #76 on: July 07, 2010, 08:02:11 PM »
What is your point?

That they are not fundamental to the nature of the Church.

Kallistos Ware says they are one of the seven fundamental sources of the church's teaching.

Holy Scripture, Holy Councils, Holy Ikons. Read Ware's chapter on Ikons, online, and get back to me.



That's not logical. You just admitted that the Church could have conveyed its faith sufficiently without them. Anything that the Church could have conveyed the faith sufficiently without cannot be regarded as fundamental to its nature.

Yes, I admit the church could technically have conveyed its faith sufficiently without icons. The church could have conveyed its faith sufficiently without letters, writings of church fathers, and only used one source, the Bible, which it could have modified year by year.

The church did not do this.

The Church fathers wrote letters, pamplets, ikons, declarations of synods. They hold the basic teachings of our faith and are the sources we use.

You should read some of Kallistos Ware. It will be more helpful to understand why we consider ikons to be one of 7 basic sources of church teachings.

The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline rakovsky

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,000
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #77 on: July 07, 2010, 08:03:46 PM »

Plus, we have one or two saints that belonged to the Church of the East.


How did this happen?

The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline rakovsky

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,000
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #78 on: July 07, 2010, 08:06:27 PM »
In our canonical tradition at least, Nestorians and Monophysites were regarded  as the two faces of the same coin. They are received in the same way into the OC.

Many now believe that the Orientals never believed in the Monophysitism that was condemned by the Byzantine church.

Anyway, the point it appears you are trying to make is that both are officially condemned by the canons.

OK, but that's not exactly what we're addressing. We're discussing whether both actually had a deficient Christology or not. And after a certain amount of study, a number of those of the Byzantine tradition are now concluding that the East Assyrians did have a deficient Christology, but that the Orientals did not. Through study, not through "the benefit of the doubt".

Deus,

With due respect, I would highly like it if you would explain the basics of Oriental Miaphysist Christology and show how it compares to that allowed by Byzantium. I invite you to do this on my post about Occam's razor.

Regards.
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #79 on: July 07, 2010, 08:11:07 PM »
What is your point?

That they are not fundamental to the nature of the Church.

Kallistos Ware says they are one of the seven fundamental sources of the church's teaching.

Holy Scripture, Holy Councils, Holy Ikons. Read Ware's chapter on Ikons, online, and get back to me.



That's not logical. You just admitted that the Church could have conveyed its faith sufficiently without them. Anything that the Church could have conveyed the faith sufficiently without cannot be regarded as fundamental to its nature.

Yes, I admit the church could technically have conveyed its faith sufficiently without icons. The church could have conveyed its faith sufficiently without letters, writings of church fathers, and only used one source, the Bible, which it could have modified year by year.

The church did not do this.

The Church fathers wrote letters, pamplets, ikons, declarations of synods. They hold the basic teachings of our faith and are the sources we use.

Then they are not fundamental or necessary.

Could the Church have conveyed its faith without confessing that Jesus Christ is the Only-Begotten Son of God?

No, it couldn't have.

So that is fundamental and necessary.

See the distinction?

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,515
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #80 on: July 07, 2010, 08:56:07 PM »
If Nestorianism is such a fundamental heresy, then in what sense are they apostolic? I mean, was it because there were Nestorian bishops who split off? That would make Anglicanism no less apsotolic.
They are not really Nestorians.

No, they're not Nestorians, they just have the same theology as Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia, both of whom they venerate. I guess there is no such thing as a Nestorian.
As most people here are willing to give the benefit of the doubt to the Armenian, Syriac, Indian and Coptic churches and not label them as 'monophysites"...

Nothing wrong with that label. As for "Nestorian," what else do you call someone who follows the teaching of "Mar Nestorius" and venerates him as a saint?

Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline rakovsky

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,000
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #81 on: July 07, 2010, 09:13:55 PM »
What is your point?

That they are not fundamental to the nature of the Church.

Kallistos Ware says they are one of the seven fundamental sources of the church's teaching.

Holy Scripture, Holy Councils, Holy Ikons. Read Ware's chapter on Ikons, online, and get back to me.



That's not logical. You just admitted that the Church could have conveyed its faith sufficiently without them. Anything that the Church could have conveyed the faith sufficiently without cannot be regarded as fundamental to its nature.

Yes, I admit the church could technically have conveyed its faith sufficiently without icons. The church could have conveyed its faith sufficiently without letters, writings of church fathers, and only used one source, the Bible, which it could have modified year by year.

The church did not do this.

The Church fathers wrote letters, pamplets, ikons, declarations of synods. They hold the basic teachings of our faith and are the sources we use.

Then they are not fundamental or necessary.

Could the Church have conveyed its faith without confessing that Jesus Christ is the Only-Begotten Son of God?

No, it couldn't have.

So that is fundamental and necessary.

See the distinction?

Wrong, Deus. The Church made the Bible so it could technically have included in the Bible some writings "confessing that Jesus Christ is the Only-Begotten Son of God". It could technically put every teaching of the faith in long-winded Synod-ratified sessions.

The Church fathers wrote letters, pamplets, ikons, declarations of synods. They state the fundamental teachings of our faith and are the sources we use. Such letters and synods, and ikons of the incarnation show "confess that Jesus Christ is the Only-Begotten Son of God"

ICONOGRAPHY is an important tool that our church uses to express certain basic truths. If you want to actively ignore them based on an Oriental church's view that icons are somehow unimportant, go ahead, but it severely contradicts our Orthodox Church's teaching that icons are one of seven basic sources that contain the teachings of our Church.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2010, 09:16:09 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,602
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #82 on: July 07, 2010, 09:16:14 PM »
What is ACE? Aquarius Church of Enlightenment?
Ancient Church of the East, i.e. the Assyrians/Nestorians.

Be careful that you not confuse the Assyrian Church of the East, which is headed by Mar Dinkha IV, and the Ancient Church of the East, which is headed by Mar Addai II.

The distinction important for us is what?

They are distinct jurisdictions with two different Patriarchs and not in communion with each other.

A schism between Nestorians. What difference is that to us?

It means that they're distinct religious communities. Confusing the two is obviously unhelpful.
Distinct religious communities: two communities claiming to be the true branch of a heretical Church.  Their schism from each other doesn't effect the heresy that seperates them from Orthodoxy.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,603
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #83 on: July 07, 2010, 09:58:40 PM »
Quote
I don't see how my acceptance of icons as appropriate but not necessary would really result in my being excluded from any of the major episcopal traditions.

The first Sunday of Great Lent is known as the Triumph of Orthodoxy, and it commemorates the final defeat of the iconoclasts. The Orthodox Church has seen it fit to commemorate this event liturgically, in perpetuity. The defeat of the iconoclasts wasn't merely a victory over the right to use a visual medium in worship and prayer, but a victory over yet another form of Christological heresy, no less destructive than Arianism, or the denial that the Virgin Mary was indeed the Mother of God (Theotokos), not simply the Mother of Christ (Christotokos). Some selections from the Vigil of the Sunday of Orthodoxy:

Uncircumscribed, Master, in Your divine nature, and incarnate in the last times, You were pleased to be circumscribed; for in assuming flesh, You also took on all its properties. Therefore, depicting the form of Your likeness, we give it veneration, and are exalted to love of You, and following the godly traditions of the apostles, we draw from it the grace of healings.

The Church of Christ has received a precious adornment: the radiant restoration of the venerable and holy ikons of Christ the Saviour, of God’s Mother and of all the saints. Through this she is made bright and resplendent with grace and rejects the throng of heretics as she drives them out and joyfully gives glory to God who loves mankind, and who for her sake endured His voluntary sufferings.

The kontakion of the feast is, in effect, a summary of the economy of our salvation, of the invisible, unknowable God becoming incarnate for our salvation:

No one could describe the Word of the Father; but when He took flesh from you, O Mother of God, He consented to be described, and restored the fallen image to its former state by uniting it to divine beauty. We confess and proclaim our salvation in word and images.

And, if there was any doubt as to whether icons are an "optional extra" in Orthodox worship and devotion, here is an extract from the Synodikon of the Sunday of Orthodoxy:

On those who accept with their reason the incarnate economy of God the Word, but will not allow that this can be beheld through images, and therefore affect to receive our salvation in words, but deny it in reality:

Anathema!

On those who wickedly make play with the word ‘uncircumscribed’ and therefore refuse to depict in images Christ, our true God, who likewise shared our flesh and blood, and therefore show themselves to be fantasiasts:

Anathema!

On those who admit, even against their will, the prophetic visions, but will not accept the making of images of what they saw—O wonder!—even before the Incarnation of the Word, but emptily say that the incomprehensible and unseen essence itself was seen by those who beheld it, or conclude that these things make manifest images, figures and forms of the truth to those who see them, but will not accept that the Word become man, and his sufferings for our sake, may be depicted in icons:

Anathema!

On those who hear and understand the Lord saying, If you believed Moses, you would have believed Me, and the rest, and Moses saying, The Lord our God will raise up for you from your brothers a prophet like me, and then say that the prophet is received, but that they will not represent the grace of the prophet and the salvation he brought for the whole world through images, even though He was seen and lived among men and women, and cured sufferings and sickness with mighty acts of healing, and was crucified, and buried, and rose again, and did and suffered all this for our sake; on those who will not accept that these works of salvation, accomplished for the whole world, may be seen in icons, nor honoured and venerated in them:

Anathema!

On those who remain in the icon-fighting heresy, or rather the Christ-fighting apostasy, and neither wish to be led to their salvation through the Mosaic legislation, nor choose to live piously in accordance with apostolic teaching, nor are persuaded to turn from their error by the advice and exhortations of the Fathers, nor are abashed by the harmony of every part of the ecumenical Church of God, but once and for all have subjected themselves to the lot of the Jews and the pagans; for immediately they have uttered blasphemies against the Archetype, and have not blushed to dare to make the image of the archetype identical with the archetype Himself.  On those, therefore, who have heedlessly accepted this error, and have stuffed their ears against very divine word and spiritual teaching, as they are already putrefied, and cut themselves off from the common body of the Church:

Anathema!


No wiggle-room here, my friend.

In an earlier post, you remarked that St John of Damascus was a Chalcedonian, therefore implying that you might not be receptive to what he was written. Yet St John, in his treatise, draws extensively from Fathers who greatly predate the council of Chalcedon, such as Sts Basil the Great, Epiphanius of Cyprus, John Chrysostom, Ambrose of Milan, Gregory the Theologian, and Dionysius the Areopagite. Even your own patron saint, Cyril of Alexandria, is quoted.
« Last Edit: July 07, 2010, 10:30:57 PM by LBK »
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Online augustin717

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,748
  • Faith: Higher Criticism
  • Jurisdiction: Dutch
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #84 on: July 07, 2010, 10:03:05 PM »
What is ACE? Aquarius Church of Enlightenment?
Ancient Church of the East, i.e. the Assyrians/Nestorians.

Be careful that you not confuse the Assyrian Church of the East, which is headed by Mar Dinkha IV, and the Ancient Church of the East, which is headed by Mar Addai II.

The distinction important for us is what?

They are distinct jurisdictions with two different Patriarchs and not in communion with each other.

A schism between Nestorians. What difference is that to us?

It means that they're distinct religious communities. Confusing the two is obviously unhelpful.
Distinct religious communities: two communities claiming to be the true branch of a heretical Church.  Their schism from each other doesn't effect the heresy that seperates them from Orthodoxy.
In your opinion, is there a heresy that severs the orientals from Orthodoxy?
« Last Edit: July 07, 2010, 10:09:05 PM by augustin717 »
"I saw a miracle where 2 people entered church one by baptism and one by chrismation. On pictures the one received by full baptism was shinning in light the one by chrismation no."

Offline rakovsky

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,000
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #85 on: July 07, 2010, 10:21:20 PM »
Some selections from the Vigil of the Sunday of Orthodoxy:

Very powerful
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,602
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #86 on: July 07, 2010, 10:49:04 PM »
What is ACE? Aquarius Church of Enlightenment?
Ancient Church of the East, i.e. the Assyrians/Nestorians.

Be careful that you not confuse the Assyrian Church of the East, which is headed by Mar Dinkha IV, and the Ancient Church of the East, which is headed by Mar Addai II.

The distinction important for us is what?

They are distinct jurisdictions with two different Patriarchs and not in communion with each other.

A schism between Nestorians. What difference is that to us?

It means that they're distinct religious communities. Confusing the two is obviously unhelpful.
Distinct religious communities: two communities claiming to be the true branch of a heretical Church.  Their schism from each other doesn't effect the heresy that seperates them from Orthodoxy.
In your opinion, is there a heresy that severs the orientals from Orthodoxy?
No.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Online augustin717

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,748
  • Faith: Higher Criticism
  • Jurisdiction: Dutch
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #87 on: July 07, 2010, 10:50:45 PM »
Well, then you differ from the common opinion in our Church.
"I saw a miracle where 2 people entered church one by baptism and one by chrismation. On pictures the one received by full baptism was shinning in light the one by chrismation no."

Offline Shlomlokh

  • 主哀れめよ!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,356
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Bulgarian/GOA
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #88 on: July 07, 2010, 10:53:14 PM »
Some selections from the Vigil of the Sunday of Orthodoxy:

Very powerful
Amen! I teared up during the Sunday of Orthodoxy Divine Liturgy this past year. It is amazing to see that we are blessed with such continuity in the Apostolic Faith. :)

In Christ,
Andrew
"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,602
Re: On Full Communion Between the Four Apostolic Churches
« Reply #89 on: July 08, 2010, 12:02:12 AM »
Well, then you differ from the common opinion in our Church.
Not even from the common opinion of the Phanariots.  The ones at Chambesy-EP are on board.  The ones in Palestine arent', but then they don't recognize the local EO either. Alexandria and Antioch, where we have actual OO (and not theological constructs which have no existence outside of polemic) are fully behind it, particularly the later, i.e. the jurisdiction where I now found myself.

Quote
Second Agreed Statement (1990)

The first Agreed Statement on Christology adopted by the Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches, at our historic meeting at the Anba Bishoy Monastery, Egypt, from 20th to 24th June 1989 forms the basis of this Second Agreed Statement on the following affirmations of our common faith and understanding, and recommendations on steps to be taken for the communion of our two families of Churches in Jesus Christ our Lord, Who prayed "that they all may be one".

1. Both families agree in condemning the Eutychian heresy. Both families confess that the Logos, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, only begotten of the Father before the ages and consubstantial with Him, was incarnate and was born from the Virgin Mary Theotokos; fully consubstantial with us, perfect man with soul, body and mind (nouj); He was crucified, died, was buried, and rose from the dead on the third day, ascended to the Heavenly Father, where He sits on the right hand of the Father as Lord of all Creation. At Pentecost, by the coming of the Holy Spirit He manifested the Church as His Body. We look forward to His coming again in the fullness of His glory, according to the Scriptures.

2. Both families condemn the Nestorian heresy and the crypto-Nestorianism of Theodoret of Cyrus. They agree that it is not sufficient merely to say that Christ is consubstantial both with His Father and with us, by nature God and by nature man; it is necessary to affirm also that the Logos, Who is by nature God, became by nature Man, by His Incarnation in the fullness of time.

3. Both families agree that the Hypostasis of the Logos became composite (sunqetoj) by uniting to His divine uncreated nature with its natural will and energy, which He has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit, created human nature, which He assumed at the Incarnation and made His own, with its natural will and energy.

4. Both families agree that the natures with their proper energies and wills are united hypostatically and naturally without confusion, without change, without division and without separation, and that they are distinguished in thought alone (th qewria monh). 20

5. Both families agree that He Who wills and acts is always the one Hypostasis of the Logos incarnate.

6. Both families agree in rejecting interpretations of Councils which do not fully agree with the Horos of the Third Ecumenical Council and the letter (433) of Cyril of Alexandria to John of Antioch.

7. The Orthodox agree that the Oriental Orthodox will continue to maintain their traditional Cyrillian terminology of "one nature of the incarnate Logos" ("mia fusij tou qeou Logou sesarkwmenh"), since they acknowledge the double consubstantiality of the Logos which Eutyches denied. The Orthodox also use this terminology. The Oriental Orthodox agree that the Orthodox are justified in their use of the two-natures formula, since they acknowledge that the distinction is "in thought alone" (th qewria monh). Cyril interpreted correctly this use in his letter to John of Antioch and his letters to Acacius of Melitene (PG 77, 184-201), to Eulogius (PG 77, 224-228) and to Succensus (PG 77, 228-245).

8. Both families accept the first three Ecumenical Councils, which form our common heritage. In relation to the four later Councils of the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox state that for them the above points 1-7 are the teachings also of the four later Councils of the Orthodox Church, while the Oriental Orthodox consider this statement of the Orthodox as their interpretation. With this understanding, the Oriental Orthodox respond to it positively.

In relation to the teaching of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of the Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox agree that the theology and practice of the veneration of icons taught by that Council are in basic agreement with the teaching and practice of the Oriental Orthodox from ancient times, long before the convening of the Council, and that we have no disagreement in this regard.

9. In the light of our Agreed Statement on Christology as well as of the above common affirmations, we have now clearly understood that both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and the unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition, though they have used Christological terms in different ways. It is this common faith and continuous loyalty to the Apostolic Tradition that should be the basis for our unity and communion.

10. Both families agree that all the anathemas and condemnations of the past which now divide us should be lifted by the Churches in order that the last obstacle to the full unity and communion of our two families can be removed by the grace and power of God. Both families agree that the lifting of anathemas and condemnations will be consummated on the basis that the Councils and Fathers previously anathematized or condemned are not heretical.

We therefore recommend to our Churches the following practical steps :

A. The Orthodox should lift all anathemas and condemnations against all Oriental Orthodox Councils and Fathers whom they have anathematised or condemned in the past.

B. The Oriental Orthodox should at the same time lift all anathemas and condemnations against all Orthodox Councils and fathers, whom they have anathematised or condemned in the past.

C. The manner in which the anathemas are to be lifted should be decided by the Churches individually.

Trusting in the power of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, Unity and Love, we submit this Agreed Statement and Recommendations to our venerable Churches for their consideration and action, praying that the same Spirit will lead us to that unity for which our Lord prayed and prays.
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state02.php

As for your neck of the woods:
Quote
Statement of the Romanian Orthodox Church on the Theological Dialogue
Decisions of the Holy Synod, Bucharest, Romania, 8-9 December 1994

Following the meeting in Bucharest on the 25th October 1994 of the two co-Presidents of the Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches with the members of the Commission of the Romanian Orthodox Church for the theological dialogue between the two families of Churches, the Holy Synod of our Church, in its session of 8-9 December 1994, analyzing the conclusions of that meeting, and based on the documents elaborated during the official meetings of the Joint Commission for the dialogue, has decided:

1. To take note of and to approve the conclusions of the dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, as the result of the talks held at the Patriarchal Residence in Bucharest by the members of the Commission of the Romanian Orthodox Church for the theological dialogue with the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the two co-Presidents of the Joint Commission of the dialogue;

2. To take into consideration, on the one hand, the special context in which the anathemas were pronounced, a context which was characterised by division, by the absence of a consensus in the formulation of the confession of the faith, as well as by the absence of fraternal charity, and on the other hand, the current context in which the lifting of anathemas is discussed, and which is characterised by a spirit of reconciliation, of mutual forgiveness and of the common confession of the same content of the common faith;

3. To consider that the equivalent of the canonical authority of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon can today be represented by the consenus of the Churches organised in Holy Local Councils (national, autocephalous and autonomous), belonging to the Byzantine Orthodox family as well as to the Oriental Orthodox family. Consequently, the possibility of the real lifting of the anathemas is to be studied, through the consensus of the Holy Local Councils expressed by the signatures placed on common agreed texts, and then, by a ceremonial concelebration and Eucharistic communion of the Primates of these Churches, gathered together in a joint Orthodox conference;

4. To give the professors of Universal Church History and Patristics of the Faculties of Theology of the Romanian Orthodox Patriarchate the task of studying the results of the theological dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches with a view to revising the chapters concerning the family of the Oriental Orthodox Churches;

5. To present the results of the dialogue between the two families of Orthodox Churches to gatherings of clergy in order to inform the priests and to contribute to the creation of a favourable opinion of these results within our Church.

6. To communicate all these decisions to the Secretariat of the Joint Commission for the International Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, in Geneva.

It is our hope that the decisions taken by the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church will help to advance us on the way which is opening before us and which leads ot the fulfillment of complete communion between the two families of Orthodox Churches.
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state10.php

Such posits the problem of a false seperation:In the rite of reception converts, the particular heresy is supposed to be renounced.  In the case of the Vatican and the Protestants, what is renounced is things that they actually teach and believe.  In the case of the Non-Chalcedonians they are told to renounce something that they do not believe, have never believed, and have never taught:
Quote
Do you renounce the erroneous belief that in Our Lord Jesus Christ there are not two natures, Divine and human, but one ony; the human nature being swallowed up by the Divine?
http://books.google.com/books?id=fBk9AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA456&dq=Service+Book+Orthodox+Reception+Converts+Armenian+Confession+swallowed&cd=1#v=onepage&q&f=false

Since they the converts are being told to renounce their error which seperates them from Orthodoxy, the fact that the Miaphysites are told to renounce an error they do not hold is problematic
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth