oriental orthodoxy

[OrthodoxDavid]

Hello im new to orthodoxy i am a roman catholic leaning towards orhtodoxy after reading some of the fathers of the church mainly the apostolic fathers and st cyril of alexandria and st athanasius and st basil .

can someone give me some information on the oriental orthodox churches they seem very interesting to me.


can someone please explain to me the differences bewteen the eastern orthodox chruch and the oriental orthodox church.

Any awnser would be nice thanks have a good day .

[Thomas Daniel (Reji)]

The Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451 resulted in the schism of Christendom into two groups. The Catholic (Rome) and Greek (Byzantine) Churches accepted the Council, while the Syrian (Antioch) and Coptic (Alexandria) Churches rejected it. The former group adopted the doctrine that Christ is in two natures, human and divine, while the latter adopted the doctrine that Christ has one incarnate nature from two natures. It is worth noting that the drafts of the Council were according to the position of the Syrian and Coptic Churches. The final resolution, however, was according to the doctrine of the Western Churches. The difference lies in one preposition as explained. One word split the Church for centuries and the schism continues to this day

Oriental Orthodox Church are not monophysite church. The monophysite dogma is an extreme version of the one nature Christological doctrine put forth by Eutyches. It claims that Christ has one nature only and that the divine nature subsumed the human nature. Adversaries have accused the Oriental Orthodox Church of the monophysite position. However this dogma has always been rejected by the Oriental Orthodox Church. It is unfortunate that this term is still used by some scholars. Prof. Sebastian Brock of Oxford University has correctly suggested using the term miaphysite which more accurately describes the Oriental Orthodox position.

[Anastasios]

I just deleted a post due to its violation of the forum rules, but emailed the poster a copy of it so he can clean it up if he so chooses.

Anastasios

[Anastasios]

Isaac,

I have sent you a private message to explain the rules. They are also stickied here:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/newboard/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=3758

You may express your idea that Non-Chalcedonians are not Orthodox since there is not a consensus among Eastern Orthodox on this issue. However, this folder is not the place for it--this folder is for Non-Chalcedonians (Oriental Orthodox) to be able to discuss their Church and for interested parties to ask them questions.  All discussions of contention between the two sides must take place in the faith folder and without recourse to the term "Monophysite" just as Non-Chalcedonians may not refer to Eastern Orthodox as "Nestorians" (a term which one finds in the literature from time to time).

The goal is not to squash viewpoints but to allow for dialogue without people calling each other names, or more importantly, claiming for themselves the approval of the entire Orthodox Church on an issue that is still being debated.

Anastasios

[paul2004]

The Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451 resulted in the schism of Christendom into two groups. The Catholic (Rome) and Greek (Byzantine) Churches accepted the Council, while the Syrian (Antioch) and Coptic (Alexandria) Churches rejected it.

I would like to add that it was not just a section of the Antiochian and Alexandrian churches rejecting Chalcedon. There was a section in Constantinople and the Church of the East rejecting the council.
Non-Chalcedonians in the East were later organized, but in Constantinople the Church was suppressed.
The whole of Armenian Church also rejected the council. Also, the Churches were not known as Coptic and Syrian Orthodox then. It was Church of Antioch and Church of Alexandria (please refer to the writings of St. Severus for evidence).

St. Anthimus 1, Patriarch of Constantinople ( c. 535-536. ) was Orthodox (non-chalcedonian). Thus the Orthodox or non-chalcedonian movement was not confined to Antioch or Alexandria, it was an universal movement against the Nestorian error accepted in Chalcedon.

There is an official committee setup for dialogue with the RC church. All OO churches and the RC are part of this committee.

-Paul

[Αριστοκλής]

I would like to add that it was not just a section of the Antiochian and Alexandrian churches rejecting Chalcedon.

Perhaps,  Paul2004.
But you must follow this through. Not ALL Antioch and not ALL Alexandria rejected Chalcedon. Indeed the situation was much more complex.

Demetri

[SaintShenouti]

Heheh, Chalcedon, Chalcedon, Chalcedon...

[SaintShenouti]

OrthodoxDavid, I would say that there were many political subtexts to Chalcedon, as well as misunderstandings.  Excellent arguments are made by the old discussions (heated as they were) between Linus7 and PeterFarrington on this board.  Look them up.  Personally, PeterFarrington (Oriental- British Orthodox) was/is the better man.

[Anastasios]

First of all there is no discussion of Chalcedon in this forum; it exists for specifically Oriental Orthodox discussion.  If Chalcedon is to be discussed, it is to be discussed in the faith forum.

Second of all, I take exception to referring to people who no longer post on this board and judging who was better. Neither has posted on this site for half a year so it's better to let others just figure out for themselves who was "the better man."  In my estimation they were both devoted to the faith as they saw it.  In the end one may have been right but I don't think there is any point in discussing this after the fact.

Anastasios

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Oriental Orthodox Discussion (Moderator: Salpy) > Topic: oriental orthodoxy