Why not convert to Oriental Orthodoxy?

[Fr. David]

CORRECTIVE POST: TOPIC REMERGED. 

My personal apologies to all offended parties.

After looking at all the posts in context (which was not done prior to split), I honestly don't think there's anything to split.  Zebu made some inaccurate comments re: the OO communion, and EA and others corrected him; if he (zebu) is going to have reasons for choosing EO over OO, they need to be accurate ones.  And, in the midst of the accuracy of terms and intercommunion discussion, there were actually individual posts (iirc) that dealt with the OP.  So I agree w/EA here, really, y'all.  Embarrassing for me, I know, since I did all that out of ignorance.  I'm gonna make this call as GM to remerge it and leave it alone, continuing the thread as it was.  Again, I apologize for splitting what didn't need to be split; let's bring all this back to the OP now that terms have been/are being clarified.

Sorry, y'all.

[Fr. David]

Like other posters here, I became EO because there were EO parishes around.  I personally like the Council of Chalcedon, so I'm pretty comfortable as an EO.  But, I don't think the OO's mean to say anything re: christology that the EO's don't also mean to say (and vice versa), so attending an OO parish would pose no problem for me.

Intercommunion is out until our hierarchs get back together--which is a necessary formality.  In my book, we (EO and OO) have already attained unity of faith.  Now we just need to recognize it formally.

[FrChris]

Intercommunion is out until our hierarchs get back together--which is a necessary formality.ÂÂ  In my book, we (EO and OO) have already attained unity of faith.ÂÂ  Now we just need to recognize it formally.

Indeed! The situation reminds me of when you're about to buy a house (at least, here in the US): both you and the seller have agreed upon the price and all other external details, but there is still a gap of time until you have a closing date, sign the papers, and get the keys.

[EkhristosAnesti]

Pedro,

I appreciate your re-consideration to splitting/moving this thread. I'll be the first to admit that i've shamefully erred with respect to my approach and attitude to the issues in question on many occasions in the past such as to warrant my posts/threads being moderated, but I have sincerely attempted to rectify that approach/attitude for quite some time now. I thank you for your understanding on this occasion and apologise to you and all other moderators/administrators involved if I reacted inappropriately.

[Dismus]

Why not convert to OO?

All I can come up with is I like Greek food better.
And food is important.

[Matthew777]

Why not convert to OO?

All I can come up with is I like Greek food better.
And food is important.

If you haven't tried Indian and Ethiopian food, then you haven't made an informed decision. Muy deliciosos!

[FrChris]

If you haven't tried Indian and Ethiopian food, then you haven't made an informed decision.

While I agree that Ethiopian and Indian food is great, I would hardly consider you as a 'paragon of informed decision making', Matthew. 

[StBrigid]

I ended up in the Coptic church mostly because my fiance' was already there.  He ended up there because a) it was in the neighborhood, b) it was Orthodox, and c) the Copts were warm and friendly.  It was a little more involved than that, but basically that's it.

As I was investigating Orthodoxy, like most converts I was learning from the Antiochians and visiting one of their parishes as well as my then-boyfriend's.  As others have said, I could have happily gone either way.

As for "why not the OO," I think the question itself reveals that the EO won the propaganda wars.    Not to downplay the substance of Chalcedon and what came after, but a lot of what came after was politics and posturing.  There's still some of that today, and it does tend to cloud the real issues.  (Lord, have mercy on us.)  So I imagine for the inquirer who's just starting out and not too certain about things, the EO seems a safer bet.

[Elisha]

As for "why not the OO," I think the question itself reveals that the EO won the propaganda wars.

Kinda...but I had never heard of OO Churches until a few years ago.  Also, it seems like only the past several years that many EO and OO seem to agree on the Christological issues.

[Matthew777]

While I agree that Ethiopian and Indian food is great, I would hardly consider you as a 'paragon of informed decision making', Matthew.ÂÂ  

I am when it comes to good food, my friend.

[Matthew777]

It's quite possible that many converts to Oriental Orthodoxy from Protestantism or Catholicism still believe in Chalcedon, maybe without even knowing it.

[Elisha]

It's quite possible that many converts to Oriental Orthodoxy from Protestantism or Catholicism still believe in Chalcedon, maybe without even knowing it.

That doesn't make any sense.  I'm sure many Prots/Catholics have no idea what Chalcedon is.

[Matthew777]

That doesn't make any sense.ÂÂ  I'm sure many Prots/Catholics have no idea what Chalcedon is.

But they still believe, unlike the non-Chalcedonians, that Jesus is two natures united in one person. Even in converting to Oriental Orthodoxy, many will still hold to their previous Christological position.

[StBrigid]

Kinda...but I had never heard of OO Churches until a few years ago.ÂÂ  Also, it seems like only the past several years that many EO and OO seem to agree on the Christological issues.

And your first phrase proves my point. 

It is in the past 20 years or so that the churches have come to realize that they always have essentially agreed on christology.  It doesn't represent "new christology" for either side, but a different historical understanding.

[StBrigid]

It's quite possible that many converts to Oriental Orthodoxy from Protestantism or Catholicism still believe in Chalcedon, maybe without even knowing it.

This is possible for those who are converting simply to marry an OO person, but otherwise I would find it highly unlikely.ÂÂ  As with all converts, we are catechized, and it can scarcely escape the notice of a person that we are in communion with other OO churches but not EO.ÂÂ  I have talked to cradles in our parish who didn't know it, but converts are more likely to be aware of the differences and of what caused them.

Of the converts in our parish, a couple of us converted to Orthodoxy and chose the Coptic Church for practical reasons (considering it essentially the same as EO), a couple converted specifically to Oriental Orthodoxy because of the Chalcedon issues, and the rest converted from various backgrounds in order to marry cradles.

BTW, your sentence rather awkwardly assumes that EO still "believe in Chalcedon."ÂÂ  They do, but only with the anti-Nestorian clarifications that came in later councils, which arguably brought the EO closer to the same position the OO held all along.

[Matthew777]

BTW, your sentence rather awkwardly assumes that EO still "believe in Chalcedon."ÂÂ  They do, but only with the anti-Nestorian clarifications that came in later councils, which arguably brought the EO closer to the same position the OO held all along.

Where is there Nestorianism in the Confession of Chalcedon? It looks like a middleground between Nestorianism and monophysitism to me.

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood;

truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body;

consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood;

in all things like unto us, without sin;

begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood;

one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably;

the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ;

as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

[Salpy]

Matthew, please read Fr. V.C. Samuel's book, The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined.  In spite of its size, it is actually an interesting, quick read.  It can't hurt, and I think you'll enjoy it.  It will give you more insight into the issues surrounding Chalcedon.  You can find it on amazon.com.

[Matthew777]

Yes, that is something that I could consider. But what of the Chalcedonian Confession itself is there for which to have disagreement? If you'd rather PM me on the topic, that's fine.

Peace.

[EkhristosAnesti]

Matthew,

This thread already came close to being moved due to certain exchanges being misinterpreted as discussion of the sort that you are attempting to induce here. I recommend you take Salpy's advice; Fr. V.C. Samuel's book has the answer to all your questions - it's a rather thorough treatment of the general subject.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Convert Issues (Moderator: Thomas) > Topic: Why not convert to Oriental Orthodoxy?