+
I think the position of the Oriental Orthodox Church is quite clear, and such a position is clearly in conflict with the Eastern Orthodox Church.
+ Doctrinally speaking, we have no dispute, we essentially hold to the same Christological principles. We both confess:
1) That Christ is One hypostasis/person
2) The Word was the subject of the Incarnation.
3) The divinity of Christ united with His humanity, without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration (hence the continuing reality of their existence and distinctness)
4) His divinity - consubstantial with The Father. His humanity - consubstantial with mankind.
4) His divinity never separated from His humanity for a single moment, nor the twinkling of an eye.
5) Christ has a natural human will and a natural divine will, however ultimately He possesses one personal will, for it is always The Word who wills.
+ With regards to the councils, we have major disputes. The Oriental Orthodox Church cannot and will never subscribe to councils 4-7 as Ecumenical Councils, but merely acknowledge them as local Orthodox councils for the EO Church.
1) They did not represent universal Orthodoxy - and we obviously understand ourselves as a legitimate part of the universal Orthodox Church, who have maintained the Orthodox faith handed down to us by our fathers, without the need of councils 4-7. This is a historical fact.
2) Chalcedon was a council of schism.
3) Chalcedon was not Ecumenically motivated - It wasn't facing any real threat to the Church.
4) Chalcedon's achievements were destructive to the ontology of the Church as opposed to productive.
5) Chalcedon did not provide a well-balanced Orthodox Christology in and of itself - only when it is anachronistically studied in a sixth century context.
6) Chalcedon's regression from Strong Alexandrian Christology (which was sound in and of itself - hence the fact it was never taken to it wasnt capable of practically being take to its heretical extreme to any significant extent) and its lean towards Antiochene Christology (which was defective and prone to Nestorianism) finds no justification in its historical context.
7) Councils 4-7 falsely condemned and anathemized Saints and Teachers of The Orthodox Faith.
One Church's position regarding the status of the councils in question, is correct and justified, the other isn't. I see no other reasonable instrument for discernment, other than reasoning through dialogue. Both Church's have blessed Saints and Martyrs, and both Church's have been blessed with miracles - weeping icons, apparitions etc. So I see no other reasonable way to discern the truth of the matter except by reason. It seems the EO do not want to dialogue, and do not want to consider that they may have got it wrong - reason is dropped - our Church's will remain in dissonance, and I guess we can just all be happy and comfortable with our own respective positions.
I'm sure setfree is able to make up his mind on this issue, through much contemplation, prayer and fasting. When he first PM'd me (and I hope you dont mind me mentioning this SetFree) before he decided to accept Coptic Orthododxy, I recommended that he attend the divine liturgies of both the EO and OO Church, to consult their respective priests, to pray often, and to ultimately choose the Church he feels most at peace with and the Church Christ ultimately leads his heart towards. I do not deny the Orthoodxy of the Eastern Orthodox Church, nor the validity of their sacraments. I wouldnt have advised him in such a manner if it were otherwise.
(Okay I know I said it before, but I am SERIOUSLY finished with this forum now for the next month or so...geez im so tired of saying that)
Remember me in your prayers,
Peace.
