Matthew,
The Antiochian Church is in full communion with the Oriental Orthodox Churches and considers us neither schismatic nor heretical.
Mmmm...it's not as simple as this. Nor is it as uncontroversial a matter as you're making it seem.
From what I understand, the Patriarchate of Antioch is quite favorable to the "Non-Chalcedonians", and has made some agreements with them relating to helping out with each other's flocks. It's not quite reached "full communion" (concelebrations), but I agree they've come pretty darn close to this.
For various reasons, there is going to be an obvious hesitancy on the part of other local Orthodox Churches to simply strike the venerable Patriarch of Antioch from their diptychs (lists of heirarchs one is in communion with, in particular presidents of local synods of bishops). Part of this is the political environment we're in (which is increasingly relativistic and individualistic, which makes "irenic approaches" preferred, perhaps even well beyond they can be rationally justified), part of it is that in some key circles in other local Churches, the views espoused by those in power in the Antiochian Church are held in favour (regarding the "Non-Chalcedonians".)
However, I suspect if these activities did reach the level of "full communion" the other local Churches would be
forced (however grudgingly) by those circumstances to break communion with the Patriarch of Antioch and those with him. I think it's precisely because of this, that things have not progressed perhaps the way more "enthusiastic" ecumenists in the Antiochian fold would like. Certainly the fervor has slowed down in this regard.
As for what has been done so far, while it reflects a common reality in many parts of the Middle East (people communing in Churche's they're not in fact members of - whether it be Orthodox Christians, "Non-Chalcedonians", or Uniates), this does not change the principle that such activities are wrong and in a sense show contempt for the dogmatic issues which separate all of these groups - as if they were all somehow much about nothing, which is very much the "ecumenistic" attitude.
The case of the "Non-Chalcedonians" is different than the Uniates though, in so far as there is at least the possibility of
arguing (whether that argument is persuasive is another matter) that the "Non-Chalcedonians" are in fact somehow "materially Orthodox", just using a different set of vocabulary. OTOH, this can't be said of the Uniates, who officially are at least in league with heterodoxy, if not enthusiastic endorsers of it (ex. running around espousing their love for papal aggrandizement, filioquism, creatureliness of grace, etc.)
Personally, I just wish the "Non-Chalcedonians" would accept Chalcedon,
if it is in fact the case that they
materially agree with it's theology. However, if they refuse to do such precisely because deep down they
do not, then all of what the Antiochians are doing is a waste, and is doing incredible harm to both them and the "Non-Chalcedonians" themselves.
On the surface however, the "Non-Chalcedonians",
are heretics, in the sense that the formulas they cling to (and this is the key part)
while rejecting Chalcedon result not simply in a teaching which is "fuzzier" than Orthodoxy, but is actually false. This is not to say that I think most "Non-Chalcedonians" today are running around believing that Christ our God is somehow a confused mix between God and Man, not fully each, without any diminishing of either or mixture. Rather, I think most of them mean well, but are stubbornly clinging to a way of speaking (and a history of rejection) which if
examined logically and
critically cannot help but lead to all sorts of other bad (and perhaps more obviously) heretical conclusions (ex. monothelitism).
Either way, I'd perhaps prefer to be Russian Orthodox, given that it seems to be the most traditional of the Orthodox Churches.
Well if you want to be "traditional", that means dogma as well, not simply smells and bells. As others have pointed out to you, if you joined
any Church from the Russian tradition (OCA, MP, and most especially ROCOR), you'd
at least be received by
economia, with the Church's understanding that She is overlooking the anti-canonical nature of the initiation you'd received from the heterodox, and supplying the grace lacking in them (namely, the grace of Holy Baptism and Chrismation). That could mean being
at least expected to repent and confess the Orthodox faith, or more likely, this plus be Chrismated. If you were go to ROCOR, you
might even simply be Baptized, as they're generally in the habit of not practicing "economy" in this matter (though it's not unheard of - particularly for someone coming from a "Non-Chalcedonian" background.)
I do not mind accepting Chalcedon but I definitely would not allow myself to be "re-baptized".
Well, the Church is kind, and will tolerate a lot in many circumstances, with the hope that those who are received into the Church will come to develop a thoroughly Orthodox mind about these things. Hence, part of the reason why "economy" in these matters has been a policy in many times and places wherever possible. However you should know, that as far as the Church is concerned, even if you were received without being "re"-baptized, She would be supply the "grace of Baptism" at the time of your Chrismation, or if you were to be received by the "third rite", at the time of your confession and Communion.
The Greek Orthodox and Antiochian churches in my town have intercommunion with my church.
And if this is true it is a scandal. While I highly doubt the clergy of these Church's in your town concelebrate (between the canonical Orthodox and "Non-Chalcedonians" I mean), I wouldn't doubt that they turn a blind eye (or otherwise permit) those not of their Churches to receive communion. Sadly in some parts (particularly in the west) this happens, and ultimatly the Orthodox Priests involved in this will be answerable. However what this or that Priest is doing, has no bearing on what the dogmas of the Church instruct and require.
Only hardlining anti-OE congregations find our Church to be heretical.
And what does this mean? How is one hardline "anti-OE"? Is this the state of simply not liking Copts or Ethiopians "just because"? Hardly. I think it's very unfair. The reality is, Chalcedon is an Ecumenical Council of the Church, and those who reject it are heretics, whether they be malicious or not. Period. Saying this has nothing to do with a lack of affection for "Non-Chalcedonians" or their clergy.
It is not that ridiculous. We believe that Christ is fully divine and fully human and thus we are not guilty of monophysitism.
Well, if words mean anything, you are - in fact you'll often jazz it up by calling it "miaphysitism" which I'm sorry to say means
the exact same thing "mia" "mono", we're still talking about "one", as in "one nature."
Often this teaching is dressed up in Cyrillian (St.Cyril) authority, but this is mistaken. A careful examination of St.Cyril reveals that while he did chamption (against Nestorios) the unity of God and Man in Christ Jesus, he...
a) lived and reposed prior to the Council of Chalcedon (hence by default, did not reject what it had to say on the matter)
b) made it quite clear in his own teaching that he was not materially opposed to the doctrine of Chalcedon, in fact practically stating as much, such as in his writings to his opponents.
OTOH, it's another matter entirely to speak of things like "one Incarnate nature of Christ" while
at the same time rejecting the important qualifications of Chalcedon. By doing so, what one ends up with
at least implicitly is a falsehood. Certainly this is what unavoidably/logically flows from such a rejection. Yet for various reasons (I suspect a lot of it being political - by then historical animosity between Alexandria and Constantinople, and the Egyptian people and their Roman rulers), this persistance continued.
I must re-iterate, I'm not saying you're walking around with some crazy idea of the Incarnation. However, there is a serious problem in rejecting the doctrine taught at Chalcedon - it puts you outside of the visible unity of the Church.
Furthermore, there is ecumenism between the Antiochian and Greek churches in my town with my church. We are allowed to receive communion at the EO churches in Spokane and vise versa.
And if this is true, the Orthodox Priests involved are publically sinning. Lord have mercy.
