[quote author=Hizz_chiilld link=topic=5684.msg77476#msg77476 date=1190680716] [quote author=bballdude23 link=topic=5684.msg77475#msg77475 date=1190680395] [quote author=Hizz_chiilld link=topic=5684.msg77448#msg77448 date=1190633526] [quote author=Orthodox11 link=topic=5684.msg77435#msg77435 date=1190595257] While it would be heresy to speak of two separate natures that later united (Nestorianism), it is not wrong to say Christ is from two natures (humanity and divinity), which is the faith of our Fathers.
Before the Incarnation, as Severus (I'm referring to the poster) rightly said, there was but one nature: the divinity. It was not until the all-holly Theotokos was overshadowed with the Holy Spirit that Christ assumed also a human nature.
There was never a time that the humanity of Christ was separated from His divinity. The two natures are not the same - never confused - yet they are inseparably united in a single hypostasis of the Incarnate Word, so much so that St. Cyril refers not to two natures, but to one composite nature.
Two inseperable natures is a belief of the eastern orthodox church.. the oriental orthodox believes that the Lords Humanity and divinity form one nature, as St. Cyril taught... Therefore we cannot speak of them as two inseperable natures.
In case you didn't know, St. Cyril the Great made a little conversion mistake when he was saying this because he believed that the Greek word physis and the Latin word persona mean the same thing, while physis means nature and persona means person.
No I didn't know.. But how does that affect the one/two nature difference?
It affected them by saying that the OO Churches were first led by St. Cyril the Great, who ended up dying, they had to be led by Eutyches, who ended up lying and saying that he was a faithful follower of Cyril. Eutyches ended up making the OO Churches look Monophysitistic while the COC really believed in Miaphysistic doctrines (as well as the Roman Catholics).
Yes, we believe in Miaphysis.. Humanity and Divinity of Christ combining to form one nature.. the EO churches, however, believe in Diophysis.. two, inseperable natures of Christ. I'm not 100% sure about the Roman Catholics, but I'm about 90% sure that they are a Chalcedonian church, which means they believe Diophysis..
[quote author=Hizz_chiilld link=topic=5684.msg77486#msg77486 date=1190707625] Yes, we believe in Miaphysis.. Humanity and Divinity of Christ combining to form one nature.. the EO churches, however, believe in Diophysis.. two, inseperable natures of Christ. I'm not 100% sure about the Roman Catholics, but I'm about 90% sure that they are a Chalcedonian church, which means they believe Diophysis..
You are definitely correct that the Roman Catholic Church is a Chalcedonian. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church is one of the only Churches that actually believes in all seven Ecumenical Councils because they were the hosts of each one. Chalcedonian does not mean Diophysite, but rather means Miaphysite. Nestorianism was Diophysite, not Catholicism. The Chalcedonian Council thought that the OO was a Monophysite and so they became immediately kicked out because of Eutyches' lie. Also, the Roman Catholic Church has even tried to establish unions with the OO because they realized that we are truly Miaphysites. This is a quote from a common declaration from the Late Pope John Paul II (Pope of the Roman Catholic Church) to H.H. Mar Ignatius Zakka I Iwas (Pope of the Syrian Orthodox Church) on June 23, 1984, "The confusions and schisms that ocurred between their Churches in the later centuries, they realize today, in no way affect or touch the substance of their faith, since these arose only because of differences in terminology and culture and in the matter. Accordingly, we find today no real basis for the sad divisions and schisms that subsequently arose between us concerning the doctrine of Incarnation. IN words and life we confess the true doctrine concerning Christ our Lord, notwithstanding the differences in interpretation of such a doctrine which arose at the time of the Council of Chalcedon."
An excerpt from The Nature of Christ By His Holiness Pope Shenouda.
When I participated in the dialogue arranged by the ProOriente group in Vienna, Austria in September 1971 between the Roman Catholic Church and the ancient Oriental Orthodox Churches concerning the Nature of Christ, the point of discussion was St. Cyril's expression "One Nature of God the Incarnate Logos" (Mia Physis Tou Theou Logou Sesarkwmene). After the schism which took place in the year 451 AD, when the Coptic Orthodox Church rejected the motions of the Council of Chalcedon and its theological struggles, we were called "Monophysites" that is, those who believe in the "One Nature". Sharing our belief are the Syrians, the Armenians, the Ethiopians and the Indians; who were also called "NonChalcedonian" Orthodox Churches. On the other hand, the Chalcedonian Catholic and Greek Churches "The Roman Orthodox" believe in the two natures of Christ; the Protestant Churches also hold this belief. Consequently, these churches are known as "Diophysites" - believers in the two natures of Christ.
Yes, you have a point by saying this, but then tell me why then the OO, of which was thought as a Monophysite but is currently a Miaphysite, change to a Dyophysite view? It doesn't make sense.
The Oriental Orthodox Churches are not Monophysite, and the Eastern Orthodox Churches are not Dyophysite. Both Churches are Miaphysite. The cause of the split in 451 was mainly due to semantics and misunderstandings about certain word choices and uses. However, it is clear at present, that both branches of Orthodoxy confess the same belief in Christ, that He is the perfect God-man, the Incarnate Word of God, who, having two natures, made them one in His person 'without confusion, without alteration'.
I think we can see already in this thread how confusing it can be- and it is just that confusion which, in the past, led to the schism, as our brother Κηφᾶς reminds us.
Just to put something straight. Eutyches was never a leader of the non-Chalcedonians, the Pope who succeeded St. Cyril was St. Dioscoros. St, Cyril pointed out that we believe in two natures before the union but only speak of one nature after union. We believe and confess that Our Lord was fully-human and fully-divine, and that there was no mingling of the two natures. We do not believe that the two natures remained separate, or that they combined to make something else, or that His human nature was subsumed by His divine nature. All these things our enemies accused us of of old; they were wrong then, then are wrong now.
this is the agreed statement on Christolgy with the Chalchedonians
We believe that our Lord , God and Saviour Jesus Christ , the Incarnate-Logos is perfect in His Divinity and perfect inn 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 anathemise The Doctrines of both Nestorius and Eutyches.
Source: The Nature Of Christ by H.H. Pope Shenouda III
What do you mean by that? You have just gotten a written statement by H.H. If you wish further evidence that the OO and the EO do in fact share the same Christology, here is an article by H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy.
Please, please be careful how you say this. I think what you mean is that before the union there was no humanity, which is true. However, that does not mean there were two natures. There was one nature; divinty before the union. After the union, we still remain with one nature consisting of two: humanity and divinity. This may confuse people up, and we do not want to end up with another schism (only kidding) because of semantics again...
I agree Κηφᾶς but I never said that I didn't. I just disagreed with smile4ever saying that Chalcedonian Churches were Dyophysistic because Nestorianism was dyophysistic, yet they rejected that. Although what smile4ever said is reasonable.
[quote author=smile4ever link=topic=5684.msg77622#msg77622 date=1191014259] this is the agreed statement on Christolgy with the Chalchedonians
We believe that our Lord , God and Saviour Jesus Christ , the Incarnate-Logos is perfect in His Divinity and perfect inn 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 anathemise The Doctrines of both Nestorius and Eutyches.
Source: The Nature Of Christ by H.H. Pope Shenouda III
BTW..this is an official satatement signed by both representaives of the oriental orthodox church and the catholic church in 1988..
Please, please be careful how you say this. I think what you mean is that before the union there was no humanity, which is true. However, that does not mean there were two natures. There was one nature; divinty before the union. After the union, we still remain with one nature consisting of two: humanity and divinity. This may confuse people up, and we do not want to end up with another schism (only kidding) because of semantics again...
actually the expression of St.Dioscoros was "one nature (mia physis) from two natures after the union"..
Yeah, I should not have tried to mess with one of HH's documents. I knew I shouldn't have tried because I am pretty sure that he knows a lot more theologically than I do and that is one of the reasons that God selected him to be our incumbent pope.
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=5684.msg77608#msg77608 date=1190986479] [coptic]+ Iryny nem `hmot>[/coptic]
The Oriental Orthodox Churches are not Monophysite, and the Eastern Orthodox Churches are not Dyophysite. Both Churches are Miaphysite. The cause of the split in 451 was mainly due to semantics and misunderstandings about certain word choices and uses. However, it is clear at present, that both branches of Orthodoxy confess the same belief in Christ, that He is the perfect God-man, the Incarnate Word of God, who, having two natures, made them one in His person 'without confusion, without alteration'.
I don't understand your point, I NEVER SAID THAT THE ORIENTAL ORTHODOX CHURCHES WERE MONOPHYSITES, I SAID THAT THE CHALCEDONIAN CHURCHES THOUGHT THEY WERE!!! But, yes you are correct about me thinking that the Eastern Orthodox Churches are dyophysite because they are a Chalcedonian Church, and I concluded that all Chalcedonian Churches believe in the same thing (Dyophysitism). Maybe I am wrong about this. And when you explained that both Churches had a misunderstanding about translations, I KNOW ALREADY, I MENTIONED THIS EARLIER!!! I said that the only reason that the Greek Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox Churches are not one is because of the 30 monasteries on Mount Athos.
[quote author=bballdude23 link=topic=5684.msg77687#msg77687 date=1191189833] I said that the only reason that the Greek Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox Churches are not one is because of the 30 monasteries on Mount Athos.
Which is incorrect. The opposition by the Athonite monks, not to reunion per se, but reunion on the terms put forth by many involved in the dialogue, is but a very small part of this vastly complicated issue.
[quote author=Orthodox11 link=topic=5684.msg77688#msg77688 date=1191190784] [quote author=bballdude23 link=topic=5684.msg77687#msg77687 date=1191189833] I said that the only reason that the Greek Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox Churches are not one is because of the 30 monasteries on Mount Athos.
Which is incorrect. The opposition by the Athonite monks, not to reunion per se, but reunion on the terms put forth by many involved in the dialogue, is but a very small part of this vastly complicated issue.
Then, can you please tell me who or what is forcing th Greek Orthodox Church from reuniting with the Coptic Orthodox Church if their Christology is the same?
Please, please be careful how you say this. I think what you mean is that before the union there was no humanity, which is true. However, that does not mean there were two natures. There was one nature; divinty before the union. After the union, we still remain with one nature consisting of two: humanity and divinity. This may confuse people up, and we do not want to end up with another schism (only kidding) because of semantics again...
actually the expression of St.Dioscoros was "one nature (mia physis) from two natures after the union"..
Exactly. One nature from two after the union, not before.
[quote author=bballdude23 link=topic=5684.msg77689#msg77689 date=1191191576] Then, can you please tell me who or what is forcing th Greek Orthodox Church from reuniting with the Coptic Orthodox Church if their Christology is the same?
The exact same things that are "forcing" the Coptic Church from reuniting with the EO: acceptance/rejection of Ecumenical Councils, the anathema/veneration of different saints, etc.
That and the fact that the Greek/Roman/Byzantine Orthodox Churches (Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Greece, Cyprus, Jerusalem, etc.) represent only a small minority of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Slavic churches which represent the majority of EOs have not been part of the dialogue on any significant level.
So assuming all other problems were dealt with, Greek churches would obviously not break communion with the Slavic churches in order to reunite with the Copts. That would be rather absurd, don't you think?
[quote author=Orthodox11 link=topic=5684.msg77696#msg77696 date=1191194866] Do you really think the Greek churches would break communion with the Slavic churches in order to reunite with the Copts? That would be rather absurd, don't you think?
Yes, I agree it would be absurd, but how can we get the Slavs to talk. You mentioned that they have not been part of the dialogue on any significant level. So, maybe if we can get them to talk, then maybe (but unlikely) we may convince the Slavic Churches to reunite with our Church. It might sound crazy, but it could work.
[quote author=bballdude23 link=topic=5684.msg77697#msg77697 date=1191195212] Yes, I agree it would be absurd, but how can we get the Slavs to talk. You mentioned that they have not been part of the dialogue on any significant level. So, maybe if we can get them to talk, then maybe (but unlikely) we may convince the Slavic Churches to reunite with our Church. It might sound crazy, but it could work.
Well given recent history, the Slavic churches have been occupied by rather more urgent matters. However, I would not look away from the possibility that the Slavs will begin to take an active role in, and perhaps even lead, the OO-EO dialogue in the not too distant future.
[quote author=Orthodox11 link=topic=5684.msg77698#msg77698 date=1191195598] [quote author=bballdude23 link=topic=5684.msg77697#msg77697 date=1191195212] Yes, I agree it would be absurd, but how can we get the Slavs to talk. You mentioned that they have not been part of the dialogue on any significant level. So, maybe if we can get them to talk, then maybe (but unlikely) we may convince the Slavic Churches to reunite with our Church. It might sound crazy, but it could work.
Well given recent history, the Slavic churches have been occupied by rather more urgent matters. However, I would not look away from the possibility that the Slavs will begin to take an active role in, and perhaps even lead, the OO-EO dialogue in the not too distant future.
That would be really good if that happens so then maybe the all of the World's Churches except for the Protestants and Lutherist Churches will all unite.
[quote author=bballdude23 link=topic=5684.msg77699#msg77699 date=1191197064] [quote author=Orthodox11 link=topic=5684.msg77698#msg77698 date=1191195598] [quote author=bballdude23 link=topic=5684.msg77697#msg77697 date=1191195212] Yes, I agree it would be absurd, but how can we get the Slavs to talk. You mentioned that they have not been part of the dialogue on any significant level. So, maybe if we can get them to talk, then maybe (but unlikely) we may convince the Slavic Churches to reunite with our Church. It might sound crazy, but it could work.
Well given recent history, the Slavic churches have been occupied by rather more urgent matters. However, I would not look away from the possibility that the Slavs will begin to take an active role in, and perhaps even lead, the OO-EO dialogue in the not too distant future.
That would be really good if that happens so then maybe the all of the World's Churches except for the Protestants and Lutherist Churches will all unite.
You could say that it would be great if we could get all of the Orthodox to unite, but to have the Catholics join would be a huge task that only God could manage. They believe that they are the only true Church and that others are only in partial true communion with Our Lord. Such statements bewilder me to no end...it seems like they don't want to even try to promote unity!
[quote author=Severus link=topic=5684.msg77703#msg77703 date=1191199814] [quote author=bballdude23 link=topic=5684.msg77699#msg77699 date=1191197064] [quote author=Orthodox11 link=topic=5684.msg77698#msg77698 date=1191195598] [quote author=bballdude23 link=topic=5684.msg77697#msg77697 date=1191195212] Yes, I agree it would be absurd, but how can we get the Slavs to talk. You mentioned that they have not been part of the dialogue on any significant level. So, maybe if we can get them to talk, then maybe (but unlikely) we may convince the Slavic Churches to reunite with our Church. It might sound crazy, but it could work.
Well given recent history, the Slavic churches have been occupied by rather more urgent matters. However, I would not look away from the possibility that the Slavs will begin to take an active role in, and perhaps even lead, the OO-EO dialogue in the not too distant future.
That would be really good if that happens so then maybe the all of the World's Churches except for the Protestants and Lutherist Churches will all unite.
You could say that it would be great if we could get all of the Orthodox to unite, but to have the Catholics join would be a huge task that only God could manage. They believe that they are the only true Church and that others are only in partial true communion with Our Lord. Such statements bewilder me to no end...it seems like they don't want to even try to promote unity!
Yeah, it was a lot more likely when Pope John Paul II was pope.
I'm glad that we have cleared up the Christology - as far as we can.
Union is a different matter. Long divisions cannot be healed overnight, and even if we can all agree that we confess the same Christology, there are, as Orthodox11 says, many other differences.
We also need to remember that in all Churches there are those who sincerely believe that only their Church is THE Church and that the rest of us are heretics; such folk are not likely to be persuaded by anything.
For those who see the real enemy of the Faith as aggressive secularism and expansionist Islam, these Christian divisions are not only a source of sadness, but of danger. The historically-minded will know how much damage the Chalcedonian divisions did to the unity of the Roman Empire in the face of the threat posed by Islam; those who refuse to learn the lessons of history may well have to repeat them. But, as the history of the Ottoman Empire showed, not even Islamic domination could persuade Christians to forgo their ancient divisions.
Comments
[quote author=bballdude23 link=topic=5684.msg77475#msg77475 date=1190680395]
[quote author=Hizz_chiilld link=topic=5684.msg77448#msg77448 date=1190633526]
[quote author=Orthodox11 link=topic=5684.msg77435#msg77435 date=1190595257]
While it would be heresy to speak of two separate natures that later united (Nestorianism), it is not wrong to say Christ is from two natures (humanity and divinity), which is the faith of our Fathers.
Before the Incarnation, as Severus (I'm referring to the poster) rightly said, there was but one nature: the divinity. It was not until the all-holly Theotokos was overshadowed with the Holy Spirit that Christ assumed also a human nature.
There was never a time that the humanity of Christ was separated from His divinity. The two natures are not the same - never confused - yet they are inseparably united in a single hypostasis of the Incarnate Word, so much so that St. Cyril refers not to two natures, but to one composite nature.
Two inseperable natures is a belief of the eastern orthodox church.. the oriental orthodox believes that the Lords Humanity and divinity form one nature, as St. Cyril taught... Therefore we cannot speak of them as two inseperable natures.
In case you didn't know, St. Cyril the Great made a little conversion mistake when he was saying this because he believed that the Greek word physis and the Latin word persona mean the same thing, while physis means nature and persona means person.
No I didn't know.. But how does that affect the one/two nature difference?
It affected them by saying that the OO Churches were first led by St. Cyril the Great, who ended up dying, they had to be led by Eutyches, who ended up lying and saying that he was a faithful follower of Cyril. Eutyches ended up making the OO Churches look Monophysitistic while the COC really believed in Miaphysistic doctrines (as well as the Roman Catholics).
Yes, we believe in Miaphysis.. Humanity and Divinity of Christ combining to form one nature.. the EO churches, however, believe in Diophysis.. two, inseperable natures of Christ. I'm not 100% sure about the Roman Catholics, but I'm about 90% sure that they are a Chalcedonian church, which means they believe Diophysis..
You are definitely correct that the Roman Catholic Church is a Chalcedonian. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church is one of the only Churches that actually believes in all seven Ecumenical Councils because they were the hosts of each one. Chalcedonian does not mean Diophysite, but rather means Miaphysite. Nestorianism was Diophysite, not Catholicism. The Chalcedonian Council thought that the OO was a Monophysite and so they became immediately kicked out because of Eutyches' lie. Also, the Roman Catholic Church has even tried to establish unions with the OO because they realized that we are truly Miaphysites. This is a quote from a common declaration from the Late Pope John Paul II (Pope of the Roman Catholic Church) to H.H. Mar Ignatius Zakka I Iwas (Pope of the Syrian Orthodox Church) on June 23, 1984, "The confusions and schisms that ocurred between their Churches in the later centuries, they realize today, in no way affect or touch the substance of their faith, since these arose only because of differences in terminology and culture and in the matter. Accordingly, we find today no real basis for the sad divisions and schisms that subsequently arose between us concerning the doctrine of Incarnation. IN words and life we confess the true doctrine concerning Christ our Lord, notwithstanding the differences in interpretation of such a doctrine which arose at the time of the Council of Chalcedon."
The Oriental Orthodox Churches are not Monophysite, and the Eastern Orthodox Churches are not Dyophysite. Both Churches are Miaphysite. The cause of the split in 451 was mainly due to semantics and misunderstandings about certain word choices and uses. However, it is clear at present, that both branches of Orthodoxy confess the same belief in Christ, that He is the perfect God-man, the Incarnate Word of God, who, having two natures, made them one in His person 'without confusion, without alteration'.
Just to put something straight. Eutyches was never a leader of the non-Chalcedonians, the Pope who succeeded St. Cyril was St. Dioscoros. St, Cyril pointed out that we believe in two natures before the union but only speak of one nature after union. We believe and confess that Our Lord was fully-human and fully-divine, and that there was no mingling of the two natures. We do not believe that the two natures remained separate, or that they combined to make something else, or that His human nature was subsumed by His divine nature. All these things our enemies accused us of of old; they were wrong then, then are wrong now.
In Christ,
Anglian
What do you mean by that? You have just gotten a written statement by H.H. If you wish further evidence that the OO and the EO do in fact share the same Christology, here is an article by H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy.
this is the agreed statement on Christolgy with the Chalchedonians Source: The Nature Of Christ by H.H. Pope Shenouda III
BTW..this is an official satatement signed by both representaives of the oriental orthodox church and the catholic church in 1988..
[quote author=Christ4Life link=topic=5684.msg77632#msg77632 date=1191034505] Please, please be careful how you say this. I think what you mean is that before the union there was no humanity, which is true. However, that does not mean there were two natures. There was one nature; divinty before the union. After the union, we still remain with one nature consisting of two: humanity and divinity. This may confuse people up, and we do not want to end up with another schism (only kidding) because of semantics again...
actually the expression of St.Dioscoros was "one nature (mia physis) from two natures after the union"..
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=5684.msg77608#msg77608 date=1190986479]
[coptic]+ Iryny nem `hmot>[/coptic]
The Oriental Orthodox Churches are not Monophysite, and the Eastern Orthodox Churches are not Dyophysite. Both Churches are Miaphysite. The cause of the split in 451 was mainly due to semantics and misunderstandings about certain word choices and uses. However, it is clear at present, that both branches of Orthodoxy confess the same belief in Christ, that He is the perfect God-man, the Incarnate Word of God, who, having two natures, made them one in His person 'without confusion, without alteration'.
I don't understand your point, I NEVER SAID THAT THE ORIENTAL ORTHODOX CHURCHES WERE MONOPHYSITES, I SAID THAT THE CHALCEDONIAN CHURCHES THOUGHT THEY WERE!!! But, yes you are correct about me thinking that the Eastern Orthodox Churches are dyophysite because they are a Chalcedonian Church, and I concluded that all Chalcedonian Churches believe in the same thing (Dyophysitism). Maybe I am wrong about this. And when you explained that both Churches had a misunderstanding about translations, I KNOW ALREADY, I MENTIONED THIS EARLIER!!! I said that the only reason that the Greek Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox Churches are not one is because of the 30 monasteries on Mount Athos.
I said that the only reason that the Greek Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox Churches are not one is because of the 30 monasteries on Mount Athos.
Which is incorrect. The opposition by the Athonite monks, not to reunion per se, but reunion on the terms put forth by many involved in the dialogue, is but a very small part of this vastly complicated issue.
[quote author=bballdude23 link=topic=5684.msg77687#msg77687 date=1191189833]
I said that the only reason that the Greek Orthodox and Coptic Orthodox Churches are not one is because of the 30 monasteries on Mount Athos.
Which is incorrect. The opposition by the Athonite monks, not to reunion per se, but reunion on the terms put forth by many involved in the dialogue, is but a very small part of this vastly complicated issue.
Then, can you please tell me who or what is forcing th Greek Orthodox Church from reuniting with the Coptic Orthodox Church if their Christology is the same?
actually the expression of St.Dioscoros was "one nature (mia physis) from two natures after the union"..
Exactly. One nature from two after the union, not before.
Then, can you please tell me who or what is forcing th Greek Orthodox Church from reuniting with the Coptic Orthodox Church if their Christology is the same?
The exact same things that are "forcing" the Coptic Church from reuniting with the EO: acceptance/rejection of Ecumenical Councils, the anathema/veneration of different saints, etc.
That and the fact that the Greek/Roman/Byzantine Orthodox Churches (Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Greece, Cyprus, Jerusalem, etc.) represent only a small minority of the Eastern Orthodox Church. The Slavic churches which represent the majority of EOs have not been part of the dialogue on any significant level.
So assuming all other problems were dealt with, Greek churches would obviously not break communion with the Slavic churches in order to reunite with the Copts. That would be rather absurd, don't you think?
Do you really think the Greek churches would break communion with the Slavic churches in order to reunite with the Copts? That would be rather absurd, don't you think?
Yes, I agree it would be absurd, but how can we get the Slavs to talk. You mentioned that they have not been part of the dialogue on any significant level. So, maybe if we can get them to talk, then maybe (but unlikely) we may convince the Slavic Churches to reunite with our Church. It might sound crazy, but it could work.
Yes, I agree it would be absurd, but how can we get the Slavs to talk. You mentioned that they have not been part of the dialogue on any significant level. So, maybe if we can get them to talk, then maybe (but unlikely) we may convince the Slavic Churches to reunite with our Church. It might sound crazy, but it could work.
Well given recent history, the Slavic churches have been occupied by rather more urgent matters. However, I would not look away from the possibility that the Slavs will begin to take an active role in, and perhaps even lead, the OO-EO dialogue in the not too distant future.
[quote author=bballdude23 link=topic=5684.msg77697#msg77697 date=1191195212]
Yes, I agree it would be absurd, but how can we get the Slavs to talk. You mentioned that they have not been part of the dialogue on any significant level. So, maybe if we can get them to talk, then maybe (but unlikely) we may convince the Slavic Churches to reunite with our Church. It might sound crazy, but it could work.
Well given recent history, the Slavic churches have been occupied by rather more urgent matters. However, I would not look away from the possibility that the Slavs will begin to take an active role in, and perhaps even lead, the OO-EO dialogue in the not too distant future.
That would be really good if that happens so then maybe the all of the World's Churches except for the Protestants and Lutherist Churches will all unite.
[quote author=Orthodox11 link=topic=5684.msg77698#msg77698 date=1191195598]
[quote author=bballdude23 link=topic=5684.msg77697#msg77697 date=1191195212]
Yes, I agree it would be absurd, but how can we get the Slavs to talk. You mentioned that they have not been part of the dialogue on any significant level. So, maybe if we can get them to talk, then maybe (but unlikely) we may convince the Slavic Churches to reunite with our Church. It might sound crazy, but it could work.
Well given recent history, the Slavic churches have been occupied by rather more urgent matters. However, I would not look away from the possibility that the Slavs will begin to take an active role in, and perhaps even lead, the OO-EO dialogue in the not too distant future.
That would be really good if that happens so then maybe the all of the World's Churches except for the Protestants and Lutherist Churches will all unite.
You could say that it would be great if we could get all of the Orthodox to unite, but to have the Catholics join would be a huge task that only God could manage. They believe that they are the only true Church and that others are only in partial true communion with Our Lord. Such statements bewilder me to no end...it seems like they don't want to even try to promote unity!
[quote author=bballdude23 link=topic=5684.msg77699#msg77699 date=1191197064]
[quote author=Orthodox11 link=topic=5684.msg77698#msg77698 date=1191195598]
[quote author=bballdude23 link=topic=5684.msg77697#msg77697 date=1191195212]
Yes, I agree it would be absurd, but how can we get the Slavs to talk. You mentioned that they have not been part of the dialogue on any significant level. So, maybe if we can get them to talk, then maybe (but unlikely) we may convince the Slavic Churches to reunite with our Church. It might sound crazy, but it could work.
Well given recent history, the Slavic churches have been occupied by rather more urgent matters. However, I would not look away from the possibility that the Slavs will begin to take an active role in, and perhaps even lead, the OO-EO dialogue in the not too distant future.
That would be really good if that happens so then maybe the all of the World's Churches except for the Protestants and Lutherist Churches will all unite.
You could say that it would be great if we could get all of the Orthodox to unite, but to have the Catholics join would be a huge task that only God could manage. They believe that they are the only true Church and that others are only in partial true communion with Our Lord. Such statements bewilder me to no end...it seems like they don't want to even try to promote unity!
Yeah, it was a lot more likely when Pope John Paul II was pope.
Union is a different matter. Long divisions cannot be healed overnight, and even if we can all agree that we confess the same Christology, there are, as Orthodox11 says, many other differences.
We also need to remember that in all Churches there are those who sincerely believe that only their Church is THE Church and that the rest of us are heretics; such folk are not likely to be persuaded by anything.
For those who see the real enemy of the Faith as aggressive secularism and expansionist Islam, these Christian divisions are not only a source of sadness, but of danger. The historically-minded will know how much damage the Chalcedonian divisions did to the unity of the Roman Empire in the face of the threat posed by Islam; those who refuse to learn the lessons of history may well have to repeat them. But, as the history of the Ottoman Empire showed, not even Islamic domination could persuade Christians to forgo their ancient divisions.
In Christ,
Anglian