Difference Between OO and EO (Tradition or Beleifs )

kiro_sheno

Hello

My friend and i have been up all night arguing about the differences between the OO and the EO church ..He believes that it is only tradition and the council Chalcedon ...I beleive that it is the above plus Beleifs ... I know there has been probably been another Forum about this but can u please Clairfy the difference...weither it is beliefs or tradition

Please pray for me

Your Bro kiro

PS can u clairfy also what happen at Chalcedon and the great Schism

Christ4Life

I have no idea what the OO and EO are so please clarify...

kiro_sheno

Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox

Unknown

I beleive that it is the above plus Beleifs ...

It has been proven through the latest mutual agreements between our two Church's that we share the same essential and substantial faith.

Our differences are purely historical, and consequently ecclesiastical, since we are no longer in communion with them, nor do we adhere to any subsequent councils post-Ephesus-431, as Ecumenical.

For the mutual agreements between our two Church's, please see: www.orthodoxunity.org

Regarding historical differences, I have already discussed a couple of our semantical differences in "CopticJames'" thread here: http://tasbeha.org/content/community/index.php?board=4;action=display;threadid=1977

Peace.

nardin

we r oriental
yes of corse there is 2 we oriental which is coptic, sryian, armenian, british, indian etc. and eastern there r lots like greek, macedonian etc etc. we blive that His divinity never parted from His humanity and they think it did that sums it up


GB ALL
+FROG+
GOD IS GREAT!!

kiro_sheno

So there is difference in Beliefs as will ........since we believe that jesus' divinity never parted from his humanity and they believe it did in some parts of jesus' life ?

Iqbal help me out ...u seem to knw alot about this

nardin

yar they blive that wen He was on teh cross He was man and wen healing ppl and so forth He was God

Unknown

FROG,

we blive that His divinity never parted from His humanity and they think it did that sums it up

Wrong. They may have left themselves vulnerable to such an interpretation from 451 - 553 AD, but this is not their current belief, nor can we conclude with any certainty that they ever believed such a thing.

Please see my previous post.

Peace.

Unknown

So there is difference in Beliefs as will ........since we believe that jesus' divinity never parted from his humanity and they believe it did in some parts of jesus' life ?

Iqbal help me out ...

Please see my previous post,

Peace.

Safaa

Hello Kiro_shino,

Iqbal mentioned to you that there is now mutual agreement between the two Families of Orthodoxy. On September 1990, the two families of Orthodox signed an agreement on Christology, thus ending the controversy regarding Christology which has lasted for more than fifteen centuries. " Fr. Matthias F. Wahbba " Here is the agreement:

Agreed Statment On

Christology

“ We believe that our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ, the incarnate- Logos is perfect in His Divinity and perfect in His Humanity. He made His humanity One with His Divinity without Mixture, nor Mingling, nor Confusion. His Divinity was not separated from His Humanity even for a moment or twinkling of an eye.

At the same time, we anathematize the Doctrines of both Nestorius and Eutyches. “

CopticPete

Well if wat safaa says is right, then there really is no difference betwwen the two religions right?

-Pete

Safaa

After both families of Orthodoxy signed the Christological agreement, recommendations were presented to the different Orthodox Churches, to left the anathemas and enemity of the past." Fr.Matthias F. Wahba "

As for its part, the Coptic Orthodox Church Synod, presided by H.H. Pope Shenouda III has agreed to left the anathemas, but this will not take place unless this is performed bilaterally, possibly by holding a joint ceremony. " H. E. Metropolitan Bishoy "

Unknown

[quote author=FULLY RELY ON GOD link=board=4;threadid=1996;start=0#msg30578 date=1120483096]
we r oriental
yes of corse there is 2 we oriental which is coptic, sryian, armenian, british, indian etc. and eastern there r lots like greek, macedonian etc etc. we blive that His divinity never parted from His humanity and they think it did that sums it up


GB ALL
+FROG+
GOD IS GREAT!!


That's not actually true. The EO does not believe that Christ's divinity was ever seperated from His humanity. The Council of Chalcedon stated of Christ that He is "...One and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten (composed) of two natures unconfusably, inconvertibly, indivisibly, inseparably identifiable, there being nowhere anything removed or annulled in the difference of the natures on account of the union, but rather on the contrary the peculiarity of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one person and one substance. Not being divided or parted into two persons..."

The dissagreement was over the language used. Those who opposed Chalcedon felt that the term "two natures" was too Nestorian, suggesting "two persons" (even though the above text explicitly denies that Christ existed in two persons). The pro-Chalcedonians did not interpret the term in this view.

However, this was only the icing on a cake that was 100% political and had nothing at all to do with theological dissagreements.

nardin

yep sorry mate i learnt it sumwhere but sum1 else told me it was rong. sorry guys and thanks orthodox11 for correcting me GBU


GB ALL+FROG+

Stavro

They may have left themselves vulnerable to such an interpretation from 451 - 553 AD

The EO Church was in fact Nestorian between 451 a.d. and 553 a.d., although Constantinople had some brief instances of Orthodoxy in between when orthodox Patriarchs such as St. Acacius was consecrated there.
Chalcedon was a purely Nestorian council, headed by Nestorians and managed by Emperors, not Bishops.

They present themselves as Orthodox now, and the only basis for unity with them is a common declaration of faith. Yet the EO ask for more concessions like the anathema of our saints such as Dioscoros and Severus, Timothy Aurelus and Philoxenos, and the admission of the councils 4-7 as ecumenical. I believe no OO Synod can ever agree to this, selling off the heritage so easily.

There is also the questions of millions of martyrs on the OO side between 451 a.d. and 641 a.d. . The Chalcedonians have brutally persecuted the Orthodox, our ancestors. No apology has been issued by them for that, and it seems like a forgotten issue. How can we unite with a Church that features Pulcharia, the Empress, among its saints? This Pulcharia is the one who sent St.Dioscoros into exile and tortured the old saint. They also have Leo of Rome as a saint, who on top of being a Nestorian heretic, is the worst bishops to ever "reign" in any church. He initiated the attacks on the Orthodox, inistigating their persecutions, he divided the Church and he invented Papal Infallability and Roman Supremacy heresies. They also have Justinian Emperor as a saint. Justinain is a butcher no better than Hitler, Ghangis Khan or Tymor Lenk, having butchered many non-Chalcedonians. EO take pride in his deeds and found it worthy to make him a saint in their church.

Although the faith is NOW the same, there are so many obstacles that will prevent the unity to happen. In fact, one could argue that it unity is not a must, as it does not affect the salvation of the OO Church, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church.

There are also many issues that are overlooked or maybe delayed to later stages in the unity discussion. Universalism, Apokastasis, marriage between EO and non-orthodox and the general liberal trend in theology and on social issues in the EO church is a matter of concern in case of unity.

Unknown

Chalcedon was a purely Nestorian council, headed by Nestorians

Whilst this is a position that may be plausibly argued to an extent, I don't think it's one that can be conclusively proven. In light of everything I have read on the matter, especially in consideration of Fr. V.C. Samuel's Chalcedon Re-examined, it seems to me that there were indeed Nestorian Chalcedonians (or to be more accurate Theodorian/Theodoretarian Chalcedonians), but I believe that there were also Orthodox Chalcedonians, and it was the latter who "won out" at Constantinople 533. It certainly seems more reasonable to view Constantinople 533 as the vindication of a competing interpretation of Chalcedon, rather than an arbitrary and out of the blue transofrmation of interpretation. Chalcedon's problem was more its ambiguity which allowed for such a Nestorian interpretation by some (and a reasonable interpretation at that), rather than its being explicitly Nestorian. Since nothing can conclusively can be proven, I find that for the sake of peace, benefit of the doubt can, and according to our Christian principles, should be given. I personally tend to avoid giving this benefit of the doubt when engaged in brutal polemics with EO's who tend to take the hardline "monophysite" stance against us - but that's another issue, for one must also be tactful when it comes to discussing such issues. I tend to find that upon taking a polemical stance with hardline EO's, that they humble themselves and in turn seek to better understand, and maybe even respect us and our position.

Yet the EO ask for more concessions like the anathema of our saints such as Dioscoros and Severus, Timothy Aurelus and Philoxenos

I guess it depends who your asking. According to the heirarchs involved in the dialogues and agreements as documented at orthodoxunity.org, there has been mutual agreement to lift all anathemas of each others Saints and Councils. This is the condition our Patriarch and esteemed Bishops and theologians have most happily welcomed.

They also have Leo of Rome as a saint, who on top of being a Nestorian heretic

I personally have argued along these lines on many occasions, but must admit that such a position has been influenced by polemical bias. I think here too we may give Leo of Rome the benefit of the doubt by understanding him in the context of the Latin Christological tradition. Our heirarchs would not have agreed to lift our anathemas off Leo had we considered him a heretic beyond all reasonable doubt. Instead, we would have expected the EO's to anathematise him themselves, as we expected of the Assyrian Church with respect to Nestorius.