I was born into the Eastern Orthodox Church,
I myself am coming from the Byzantine church.
and although I believe that the problems of Chalcedon were for the most part corrected at Constantinople in 553,
So long as people really
hold to Constantinople II. But that doesn't change the heterodox nature of Chalcedon. And it also doesn't stop the faith of believers from being perverted by the definitions of Chalcedon, something that Salpy and I have recently seen in a very blatant fashion on this site. Ultimately the only way to preserve the faith and to maintain its doctrinal continuity is to expunge Chalcedon from Christendom's "doctrinal repertoire", so to speak.
the Tome of Leo will never work for me, and I'll never be able to confess Chalcedon as being ecumenical or the work of the Holy Spirit, so I sought out the Oriental Orthodox Communion.
That is good to hear you say that, but that doesn't seem to be consistent with the Agreed Statements that I have been quoting. After all, they did say "...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...". That seems to me to pretty clearly imply that the Byzantines loyally maintained authentic orthodoxy at Chalcedon and therefore that it was
a work of the Holy Spirit.
All that being said, do you really think it's your place, as a mere "inquirer" into Oriental Orthodoxy, someone who's not yet received the Body and Blood of Christ in an Oriental Orthodox Church, to blast a theologian of Pope Shenouda III's erudition and saintly reputation as if you understood the matter more clearly and have studied it more thoroughly than he has?
I'm really not all that impressed by Pope Shenouda's theological writings. I'm not that interested in questioning his holiness (though honestly his essay on female ordination and (Edit pursuant to moratorium)
seems hateful to me at times). But compared to someone like Fr. V.C. Samuel, for instance, his writings sound to me as if they've been written by a middle school student.
And yes, I do think I'm in the place to be correcting any sort of individual when I see them perverting the faith. After all, as I have pointed out a number of times, Severus of Antioch was a mere layman when he anathematized Pope Peter III of Alexandria for accepting the Henotikon, a document that appears far less offensive to me than the Agreed Statements.
This could seem a trifle disrespectful and, well, arrogant.
It could be, yes. But I don't think it is.
Since the Oriental Orthodox Communion functions with one accord in terms of ecumenical matters (including the dialogue with the EO),
I don't expect that it has been adopted by all bishops of the Oriental tradition, yet, however.
I'm wondering where you'll eventually want to hang your hat. Is there any church out there extreme enough for you in their repudiation of Chalcedon and the Chalcedonian Communion?
I am certainly hoping so and am seeking out those who are willing to truly resist the Chalcedonian heresy.Chris,
While I have my green ink out, I'm going to ask you to 1. remember the moratorium, 2. soften your tone regarding the EO's and their councils, and 3. please look at the thread that was started about the Second Agreed Statement and address your comments about it there. Thanks,