EDIT: I just realized I missed the second question. I was mainly asking about the article because, how I read it, they seem to be interpreting their own view of their christology as being roughly the same as the Orthodox Church's position (though, admittedly, I may be misunderstanding something about the article, EO christology, or both).
I don't believe that this is at all the case. Let me point out to you what I find to be contrary to what I generally here from the Byzantines:
-"
This was over the definition of the Union in the Messiah of God the Word and the man, Jesus of Nazareth." First of all, the "Eastern Orthodox" would usually be quite hesitant to say something like this, if not downright condemn it as heresy. Referring to the divine being of God the Word, on the one hand, and the man Jesus of Nazareth, on the other hand, very much seems to imply that one regards the Logos and Jesus as distinguishable beings. However, for those churches who swear allegiance to the First Council of Ephesus, it is traditionally understood that the man Jesus actually
is the Logos who became human.
-"
impossible and unthinkable things, such as that God died, suffered, thirsted, tired, slept, etc." Here they betray that they also have pretty much no understanding of the
communicatio idiomatum; they don't realize that we can speak of God as having died, suffered, thirsted, tired, and slept because the Logos is God and the Logos became human. For all we know they don't even believe that the Logos actually became human in the same sense.
-"
In other words, those characteristics and properties of manhood in the Messiah were being thoughtlessly ascribed to his Godhead" This is a typical East Syrian misunderstanding of the hypostatic union. Whether it is done conveniently to be able to dismiss it or whether they legitimately do not understand, I do not know. They don't realize in saying that God suffered that we are not saying that the Godhead suffered but rather than one who is God suffered.
-"
The opponents of Nestorius were more concerned with preserving the theological insistence upon "one subject" in the Messiah." Their placing "one subject" in quotes would seem to suggest that they reject the Tradition of understanding Jesus and the Logos as one subject.
-"
Qa'numa is regularly viewed in the Church of the East as "the essence of a nature which differentiates it from other natures" (a nature being an abstraction unless individuated and its properties defined which characterize it against other natures, whether like or unlike itself). Thus God the Word is a qa'numa of the nature of Godhead, and Jesus of Mary is a qa'numa of the nature of manhood." This quotation betrays the typical weakness in the East Syrian understanding of the Syriac term
qnoma and
parsopa. They do not appear to be able to conceive of a difference between the concrete and objective individuation of a species of being and the concept of individuality and subject, such that in Ephesine theology we can conceive of there being an individuation of humanity and an individuation of divinity in Christ but both of them being that of the Logos and thus one in subject.
If they do in fact see themselves that way, I also wonder if there's been any discussions with the Assyrian Church as there have been with the RC's and OO's because, aside from christology and icons, I don't myself know of any other heresies that the EO Church believes they espouse (though they may very well be some), whereas the RC Church has many, many, many doctrinal differences.
There were attempts at ecumenical dialogue between the OO and the ACE, but those ultimately turned out poorly and were discontinued. As far as I know there have been no attempts at dialogue between the EO and the ACE. However, I do agree with you that they are bound to be closer to us (either EO or OO for that matter) than the Romanists and it would be a good idea to make a move to engage in dialogue again. Unfortunately, on the other hand, from what I've read of the ecumenical dialogues of the ACE recently they are getting closer and closer to capitulating to union with Rome.
