OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 18, 2014, 05:45:54 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Eastern Orthodox Orthodoxy?  (Read 727 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Ghazar
Byzantine Armenian Christian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 215


"Ghazaros, toors yegoor:" "Lazarus, come forth."


WWW
« on: May 16, 2005, 08:48:25 PM »

Dear Oriental Orthodox brethren,

I have two questions for you:

1.  Have you read the joint Christological statements made by the Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches*?

2.  If so, what more needs to be affirmed and/or condemned, in your estimation, by the Eastern Orthodox to prove their Orthodoxy?

note:  before you post, to save a lot of wasted time, please READ the statements before you comment.  They are fairly indepth and comprehensive in what they affirm and condemn.

*Members of the Joint Commission included official representatives of the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East, the Supreme Catholicosate of All Armenians at Etchmiadzin, the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia, the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church of the East and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church from the Oriental Orthodox family; the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, the Russian Patriarchate, the Romanian Patriarchate, the Serbian Patriarchate, the Bulgarian Patriarchate, the Georgian Patriarchate, the Church of Cyprus, the Church of Greece, the Church of Albania, the Czechoslovakian Orthodox Church, the Polish Orthodox Church and the Finnish Orthodox Church from the Byzantine Orthodox family.

First Agreed Statement 1989:  http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state01.html

Other Official Statements:  http://www.orthodoxunity.org/statements.html
Logged

Trusting in Christ's Inextinguishable Light,
Rev. Sub-Deacon Lazarus Der-Ghazarian,
Byzantine Catholic Church, Eparchy of Parma
St. Gregory the Illuminator Institute:
www.looys.net
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #1 on: May 16, 2005, 09:42:22 PM »

Hi Ghazaros,

Quote
1. Have you read the joint Christological statements made by the Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches*?

2. If so, what more needs to be affirmed and/or condemned, in your estimation, by the Eastern Orthodox to prove their Orthodoxy?

I have tried as objectively and impartially to consider this issue, and it seems that the only matter that needs to be clarified (for me personally at least, such that I can come to my own conclusion on this matter) concerns the making of the distinction between personal will/energy/act and natural will/energy/act.

In the First Agreed Statement (1989) there is a point made which needs to be clarified even further and elaborated upon:

“It is the Logos Incarnate Who is the subject of all the willing and acting of Jesus Christ.”

It needs to be emphasized, that the Logos was indeed the subject of all the willing and acting of Christ - even those performed according to His humanity; such that the Logos becomes the subject of all His incarnational experiences. Though this seems to be the obvious implication, it also clearly contradicts leo’s tome which explicitly depicts two subjects and centers of Christ’s acts and wills; one being The Word and the other being the flesh. Would the EO church really agree with the OO church on the above statement which is clearly in conflict with leo’s tome, if I have indeed interpreted it correctly?

If the EO Church can accept and admit to the fact that it is more correct, appropriate, and reasonable, to understand that The Word is the one who suffered for us according to His humanity, as opposed to the humanity or flesh suffering for us as opposed to The Word (the implication of leo’s tome), then it is clear to me and should be clear to anyone, that there is indeed no doctrinal dissonance when our respective Christologies are understood in their appropriate context.

In this case, what I believe needs to be dropped and addressed now, is the peculiar emphasis adhered to by each church regarding a peculiar aspect of Christology, over and above the others, which has lead to the unfortunate consequence of simpletons fallaciously interpreting such a peculiar emphasis on one aspect of Christology, as a denial of others.

Since neither Nestorianism nor Eutychism or any associated heresies, are of any significant or real danger to today’s universal Orthodox Church (EO and OO), then we should be willing to come to a mutual agreement concerning expressions and formulas which compromise our extreme accentuation of differing aspects of Christology, yet still manage to nonetheless incorporate our respective concerns.

Peace.
 


« Last Edit: May 16, 2005, 09:44:08 PM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Tags: Christology unity 
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.049 seconds with 28 queries.