Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
Difference between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox
Hi all,
I have recently found something that may be a difference between the Eastern Orthodox and us (regarding our faith that is). I was on a mainly Eastern Orthodox site called monachos.net, and stumbled upon a forum talking about how we Orientals are Monothelites and the Eastern are Dyothelites which is what prevents unity. According to the members this means we believe in one nature in Christ and they believe in two.
I have never heard of this term and don't understand whether this is true or a misunderstanding (just as we are sometimes mistakenly called monophysites, though we are miaphysites, and have the same belief on the nature of the Christ as the Eastern Orthodox).
Does anyone know the validity of these statements. Does the Easter Orthodox Church believe in two natures of Christ, and we believe in one?
Please pray for me,
Anba Bola
I have recently found something that may be a difference between the Eastern Orthodox and us (regarding our faith that is). I was on a mainly Eastern Orthodox site called monachos.net, and stumbled upon a forum talking about how we Orientals are Monothelites and the Eastern are Dyothelites which is what prevents unity. According to the members this means we believe in one nature in Christ and they believe in two.
I have never heard of this term and don't understand whether this is true or a misunderstanding (just as we are sometimes mistakenly called monophysites, though we are miaphysites, and have the same belief on the nature of the Christ as the Eastern Orthodox).
Does anyone know the validity of these statements. Does the Easter Orthodox Church believe in two natures of Christ, and we believe in one?
Please pray for me,
Anba Bola
Comments
A good place to start is on the following website:
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/
On the British Orthodox Church website, within the Glastonbury Review Archive, there are some Theological Articles dealing with this question.
http://britishorthodox.org/glastonbury-review-archive/
I could also suggest Father Peter's published collection of articles on Christology called 'Orthodox Christology' published by LULU.
Since this question is intimately linked with events that happened at the Council of Chalcedon, you might also be interested in reading a book by Father V.C Samuel called "The Council of Chalcedon Re-examined" published by the British Orthodox Church as part of the Oriental Orthodox Library. This can also be bought from LULU publishing.
Unless Father Peter has something to contribute on this subject I would suggest starting with the resources mentioned.
Best Wishes
Gerhard
we are one
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state02.php
since the 1990 meeing in chambesy, geneva, switzerland.
we had a disagreement for the previous 1 1/2 thousand years, so some people haven't yet realised we agreed more recently.
;)
we are called miaphysites, (monophysites is a term used by less informed people, and is incorrect) which means we emphasize that Jesus's divine and human natures were united at the time of His incarnation in the womb of the holy virgin saint mary.
the eastern orthodox emphasize the fact that there were 2 natures, this is to make sure there is no mistake in thinking Jesus is only human or only God.
so the 2 ideas ARE compatible, and soon, i pray, we will be able to take communion in each others' churches.
I'll check out many of these links. Hopefully God will help clear this up soon.
It'll take some digging, as the topic of the wills in Christ is not as discussed as the Unity of His Nature, but God willing I'll be able to find what I'm looking for.
Please pray for me,
Anba Bola
Ok in short,
We (Orientals) believe in One Nature as St. Cyril believed; Which means:
Human Nature joined with the Divine Nature without confusion, alteration or separation for a single moment nor a twinkling of an Eye, and the Natures are together in One Will ( Which is the One Nature, St. Cyril taught).
Now the Greeks believe in the same thing (One will of Christ) but they view it as two natures because they focus on the term Human Nature joining Divine Nature, while we focus on the One Will of Christ from the two Natures.
Both are truly Orthodox.
What is false is saying the Christ had both Human and Divine nature but the Divine Nature overpowered the Human nature and took control (Nestorianism)
Also what is false is "Christ received his divine nature after baptism" or Christ was an inferior being to God the father (and thus not God) Arianism.
(What is Green is all Heracy)
God bless.
Those Fathers anathemized the Chalcedonians as Nestorian with all their hearts, and would not be moved one inch because to them, unlike us, the truth is more important than than politics and false charity. They were present at the times of trouble and had a first hand encounter with Chalcedon and what came after. They declared it to be Nestorian.
On what authority and on what basis can we declare the Fathers to be wrong, if they were present and we are not, if they speak the language that we do not, and if they saw and dealt with the evil first hand while we just go over books and try to squeeze anything orthodox out of the Chalcedonians?
Moreover, the Fathers gave their lives up or were multilated for the faith. What an insult to declare that their struggles were in vain and they were just confused! Among all the ages of persecution, the Chalcedonian persecution from 451 to 641 was the most vicious and barbaric of all. Millions, between martyrs and confessors, have confessed the good confession of faith that we are not able to proclaim now because we are so much tangled in politics and were simply dishonest.
Till thrity years ago Chalceodnians were Nestorians. What changed suddenly to exonerate them from heresy? Nothing but politics.
Whoever confesses that Chalcedonians are orthodox falls under the anathema of the Fathers, regardless of his rank (even the Pope himself is not above the Church).
Also, there are many sects within Eastern Orthodoxy, some of which are friendlier than others. Although the Greek Church tends to be a little more hostile towards us, the Russian Church really respects us.
PK
My brother Stavro, we cannot say that the Chalcedonians are Nestorian. This is about as accurate as calling us Eutychian. According to my knowledge the Eastern Orthodox weren't called Nestorian by Dioscorus or St. Severus. We also see from liturgical texts that they use that they can't be Nestorian.
We see in the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom which is used by the Eastern Orthodox this quote: The heresy of Nestorianism, please correct me if I'm wrong, states that Christ was a man who was filled by Divinity, making him then God, and had two separate wills (He was called Theophorus in Nestorianism, meaning God bearer). The quote above shows us that the Eastern Orthodox also believe that he became man. Furthermore we see that Christ here is called God.
We also see in the Creed recited by both the Oriental and the Eastern Orthodox, the following statement: Therefore we see that they cannot be Nestorian as it is said Not Created, and true God of true God
I don't see any way in which we try to force a union or squeeze Orthodoxy out of any one. We, through discussions, find that many so called "differences" between both of us, are only differences in wording. Such as the unity of Christ.
[hr]
Pharoah 714,
That is what I also thought, but as I read down, I found that this issue was adressed by posters and they said that Eastern Orthodox don't say that there is one united will in Christ. None however where priests, so I don't know the accuracy of their statement. In His Holiness' book "The Nature of Christ" he says that there is one will in Christ, so I'm pretty sure I understand our viewpoint. . Now I have to figure out if we share this belief with the Eastern Orthodox
Thanks to all, and please pray that God may help me,
Anba Bola
In the second century, the situation was not different with the presence of Gnostic sects that were like a can of worms. Origen, the true man of the church, and other Fathers, did not compromise nor accept heresy as orthodox for political reason.
It does not matter how far you are from the truth. You are either orthodox (=christian) or not. The nature of Christ is central to our faith and integral to proclaiming the divinity of Christ. There are no stages in the truth. You either have the whole truth, or none of it. I find no similarity whatsoever. They are heretics, we are orthodox, and this is what the Spirit and history proclaim. Their "fathers" are arch-heretics, such as Leo, Theodret, Maximus the Mutilated, Justinian, and a bunch of blood thirsty dogs who have killed the true saints, our Fathers, and mutilated them, to the degree that Islam seemed peaceful when they overtook Egypt compared to the evil of the Chalcedonians.
Our patriarchs did not change and never sold out, it is only one patriarch who has accepted the heresies of Chalcedon as Orthodox and proclaimed it as misunderstandings. Whow cares? The Greek are to be respected more, because, although heretics, they at least do not compromise. The Russians cannot afford to respect other or not because they lack any orthodox history to back such privilage. In both cases, garbage has no color.
The Fathers condemned Chalcedon as heretical. Not by mere quotes only that we can exchange for the sake of backing our behinds, but with their very actions and with blood. I am surprised that you deny that the Fathers ever condemned Chalcedon as heretical. Maybe as an english speaking kid you had no access to books like ABona Menessah Youhanna or Severus ibn El-Mukafa3 and were left prey to Chalcedonian sources.
You will not find one single saint, from the robber synod of Chalcedon till 1971, who would accept Chalcedon as Orthodx. None. Zero. Nill. Null. It was a golden age in which the truth was honored, unlike our days in which politics is superior and deals are cut on the expense of the truth.
Those who compromised, like an Alexandrian Pope in the middle ages and Kyrillos IV, were struck dead by the Lord immediately after they fell into heresy before a deal that tarnishes our legacy was cut.
In the 1950's, a young zealous man by the name of Nazir Gayed wrote an article in the magazine called "madares el a7ad" critizising the beginning of the church involvement in ecumenical councils and union talks. He argued that the Chruch is one and is the Body of Christ, it can never be divided and is only present in the non-Chalcedonian churches, and that the use of the word church in reference to any other "christian" group is heretical. He condmned any participation in those meetings as "anathema" according to the apostles canons.
It was a sound argument indeed that resonated with a knowledgible and spiritual Coptic nation at the time and expressed the same exact sentiments that they had and experienced from their church life.
Young age is sometimes a blessing, for it longs for idealism and does not put to much weight on politics. Old age and colorful ranks sometimes force the person into dealing and wheeling and becoming political, accepting the "no-no" that he once rejected.
Your appeal to liturgical texts to prove the Chalcedonians as Orthodox is meaningless. Your task is:
1) Explain how can the Tome of Leo be interpreted in any Orthodox way, for it is the chief confession of faith of the Chalcedonians.
2) Explain how the Three Chapters in Chalcedon can be accepted as Orthodox. If you prove the chapters orthodox, you are a heretic by the standard of the 5th Chalcedonian council and by our standards as well. If you think they are Nestorian, the please explain how can a council that accepts such garbage be orthodox and their followers be "exactly the same as we are".
3) Explain how can orthodox figures like Diosocors, Severus, Timothy and many others be repeatedly anathemized in the councils of the heathen and you accept these councils as orthodox. In fact, our saints are cursed in their liturgies which means that they reject their teachings.
4) Explain how and why did the enlightened Fathers (above mentioned) miss the point, century after century, for 16 centuries, and whether they deserve to be saints when by your standards they have tore the church apart.
I am not sure you are aware or not, but a false anathema returns to the issuer.
5) Explain how can the two wills in Christ mean anything but two persons of Christ, exactly as Leo and Maximus defined it, for a person is defined by the nature as centre of action, and a nature can only have one will. It is the 6th council that sealed the fate of the Chalcedonians as heretics forever by accepting the two wills in Christ.
6) What do we do about the millions of saints who were martyred because of their rejection of Chalcedon? Once a patriarch was asked this question by a learnt deacon in Alexandria, and the Patriarch, usually eloquent and wise with words, dodged the question for he lacked any explanation.
Too sad we were not present at the time to actually enlighten those poor souls about the Orthodoxy of Chalcedon. Too sad that those people, who lived in the time and had first hand experience with the Nestorianism of Chalcedon, did not understand. Unlike us, who sit 16 centuries later reading about them from newspaper articles and books authored by whoever felt like writing, but understand everything as if we were present more than those who actually lived there. ;D
It is too sad that Severus spent two years in Constantinople discussing the Nature of Christ with Chalcedonians, and was so stupid not to understand in two years that they are Orthodox.
We, on the other hand, although we do not speak the language they spoke in these meetings, nor were we present in these meetings, nor have any idea what we are talking about, but in all vanity can proclaim that we have a better grasp on the truth than Severus and the likes who were actually present. ???
Lord have mercy.
Speaking as a member of a Chalcedonian church it seems to me that the non-Chalcedonians who believe that we adhere to the same faith should go ahead and accept the Council.
There can only be one church so it makes no sense to have two churches believing the same thing but not being in communion.
I hope we can keep our calmness and not let this discussion become a heated argument.
I'm not very knowledgeable in these subjects as I'm not a theologian. I don't yet understand all that occured at Chalcedon, other than general basics. All that I tried to prove is that the Eastern Orthodox were not Nestorian, as for any other issue, it wouldn't be wise for me to try to discuss it, not having known what they believe on the topic, and not having talked to them.
I will leave that to the theologians and those that participate in the talks of union. It is easy for us to look from the outside and criticize another, but it is best to see the fullness of they're belief from them, and then go from there. It is important to note that Pope Shenouda, when he was a layman didn't participate in talks with the other side, and did not know they're faith from their standpoint. We see though that his view on the topic has changed after being able to discuss things with the other side. It is very unfair to say anything about the Eastern Orthodox, unless we are able to give them a chance to explain themselves.
The same could be said about the Eastern Orthodox. I certainly am very saddened when some Eastern Orthodox claim that we are Monophysites. If they refuse to listen to us, and put in their minds that we are monophysites, no matter what we say, because their fathers said we are monophysites.
Once again, I'd like to say that I like to only speak about what I understand. I am sure that they are not Nestorian which is why I spoke about it, and I don't recall any father calling them Nestorian.
In regards to the talks between the two churches, I think (and may very likely be wrong) that the only thing preventing us from being in communion is the matter of the councils. I think that these links: http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state01.php, and http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state02.php, prove that we at least in this current time have the same faith. Now whether it was the same at the councils is not for me to say, as I'm no theologian, nor do I know all that occured during the council.
Please let us refrain from unfounded claims and mantain the Spirit of Love for even if we have the correct faith, but have not Love it means nothing.
Please Pray for me,
Anba Bola
PS. In my first post in the last sentence I meant two wills of Christ, not natures. Sorry!
I found this very important topic which bothered me about 5 years. I got acquainted with Coptic Christians 5 years ago. From the external side of behavior of the Coptic Christians I found that they are true Christians. But in our church (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia) I was told that the Copts are monophysites and that I couldn’t have the Holy communion with them. The same point of view shares the Russian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate. In May 2007 both churches were united (the detailed information about the differences between these 2 Russian churches you will find on: http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Russian_Orthodox_Church_Outside_Russia).
After this union I left in Russian Orthodox Church Abroad - Provisional Supreme Church Authority under Metropolitan Agafangel of Eastern America and New York (you will read about this branch in the above mentioned article in paragraph: Post-reconciliation schism).
At the end of 2009 I went to Egypt to visit my friends and to study the differences between Eastern Orthodox Church and Oriental Orthodox Church. I visited many churches in Alexandria, bought Coptic books and discussed the church issues with my Coptic friend. I found that the rite is the same like in the Russian Orthodox Church, the Christmas and Easter are also the same, the Nicene Creed is also the same. Before coming to Egypt I read on Wikipedia: “In terms of Christology, the Oriental Orthodox (Non-Chalcedonians) understanding is that Christ is "One Nature--the Logos Incarnate," of the full humanity and full divinity. The Chalcedonians' understanding is that Christ is in two natures, full humanity and full divinity”. As I had understood that the idea was the same, it’s just a matter of interpretation.
My friend presented me 2 great books of Fr. Tadros Yacoub Malaty: “Introduction to the Coptic Orthodox Church” & “The Book of Revelation”. So, in the first one I found the answer on my question.
Then in May 2010 I visited Egypt again and I took the Holy communion in the Coptic church. I talked to various priests and monks.
I want to notice that in the Coptic Orthodox Church people know our Russian saints Seraphim Sarovsky (Seraphim of Sarov) & Ioann Kronshtadtsky (John of Kronstadt) and hold them in respect. I want to say that if in our Russian Church before the Revolution in 1917 we had great saints who did miracles, who had their saint relics incorruptible, who could help people when they pray to them; when we had miracles from the Russian icons of St. Virgin Mary – how in this case possible to say that our faith is false and that we are heretics? The same I cannot say about the Copts. I consider we both have the same believe and the same dogma. The only problem was (according to the book of Fr. Tadros Yacoub Malaty) that Rome wanted to rule all Orthodox Christians in V century, and it considered the See of Alexandria as its competitor that why to have the dominion one part was called right the other heretics). But this was from the both sides.
I want to add more. When I asked Coptic priests to pass into the Coptic Orthodox Church, they answered me: “You have your Russian church – go there”. When I told them that there were some things that were unacceptable for me in the modern Russian church, they told me: “Go to the Coptic church in Russia”. When I told them that we didn’t have the Coptic church in Russia and I couldn’t take the Holy communion from the priest who only Christian by the name, they told me: “God is everywhere just if the rites are in norm take the Holy communion and don’t pay attention to the priest”. After these sayings I became very upset.
When I came back to Russia and I wanted to take the Holy communion in my parish (I told my priest before that I took the Holy communion in the Coptic church) my priest excommunicated me from taking the Holy communion till my repentance. He was very eloquent in offending the Copts. And told me: “If we have the same faith why our fathers haven’t united for so many centuries?” In this situation I decided to have the Holy communion and to attend the mass only in the Coptic church.
Then in December 2010 I went to Lebanon. Before I studied the information that the Copts were in the Communion with Syriacs, Armenians etc. I read about Syriacs and Armenians also on Wikipedia. I liked this information, I thought that these churches were true churches. But… When I visited the Syriac church in Beirut I was shocked that they celebrate Christmas on December 25 according to Gregorian calendar. All Christian feasts according to Gregorian calendar. I think you all know why it is not acceptable for Orthodox to celebrate Christian feasts according to Gregorian calendar (you can find the articles on this topic on your Coptic site http://www.copticchurch.net/easter.html ; down the page). The Syriacs told me that it was only in Beirut but in other countries they celebrated according to Julian calendar. But I’m not satisfied with this answer. Then I visited Armenian church. I faced another problem. In their church is allowed to go to any nearest church from the place of living of a person whether it is Catholic or Protestant. Ufff, this answer didn’t satisfied me either. Only in the Coptic church I was comforted and took the Holy communion.
The conclusion is the following. Now all the processes in the churches are led to all union. And whatever borders were between the Christian churches now are lifted step by step. It’s not a secret to everyone that Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kyrill met with Pope Shenouda in April 2010 and that he said that the Copts should remember that they have brothers whom they can rely on. And that he praised the ruling of Hosny Moubarak because he protected Christians. Then in February 2011 our President went to Vatican to discuss the issue of uniting the Russian Orthodox Church with the Roman Catholic Church.
I read http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state01.php. And I will examine this site more. But I want to add that before uniting please study the history of another Christian church or denomination. You know, the issue of two natures it’s a cornerstone. And as you see it is being overcame step by step. Because without it the union can’t be realized. But we in our Eastern Orthodox Church have also many sects and schism. For example there are 5 Old calendarist metropolitans in Greece and also they have New calendarists. In Bulgaria, Romania and Ukraine there are Orthodox Christian denominations that do not recognize each other. The same in Russia. You have to see the spirit of the church but not only the dogma and rites. I’m afraid that the union between EO & OO will lead to mixture of all kinds of believes and rites. Ufffff, it will be the devil's brew.
it is good to see you are sincerely following God and you reject a church where people don't really worship God in their hearts. i understand your concern about church union.
of course, in the church the enemy (satan) works hard to make Christians argue and fight. i have eastern orthodox friends and have learnt a lot about the different EO schisms from EO websites. also many EO churches were very badly affected by communism, where the governments appointed bishops and priests who would do what they say.
one of our oriental orthodox churches is also affected by this problem. the patriarch of eritrea has been removed from office by the state, as he resisted attempts to bring ungodly influences into the church there. for more info see:
http://tasbeha.org/content/community/index.php/topic,9409.0.html
may God have mercy on him and comfort and restore him.
but we must remember that the church belongs to God and it is He who will purify His church.
the way to restore good relationships is by dialogue, love and forgiveness. so i am not worried about what effect the schisms in various parts of the EO churches will have on the OO churches, instead our enemy is worried what (good) effect all that love will have on the people he wants to keep hating each other!
so keep trusting God and following his guidance and He will lead you beside still waters (psalm 22).
:)
And before anyone else misrepresents a heresy, we need to understand that Nestorius taught that Jesus Christ became Divine in Nature at His baptism, because he "could not believe in a God who was a fetus." Arius taught that Jesus Christ was at no point Divine in nature, but was the "highest of all creation, even more so than the angels," but not God Himself. Euthyches taught that Jesus Christ's "Divine nature overtook His human nature," and this is what the EO accuses the OO of believing (at least historically), and this is a blasphemous teaching that the OO has never EVER taught in its history. There were pockets in both the EO and the OO that taught every one of these heresies (and so many more), but were rooted out through Holy Ecumenical Councils and Synodal Councils. This is the beauty of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church of Jesus Christ: She is established and the gates of hell will not overcome Her.
And though I may only be a Junior Member here, I think it needs to be reiterated that any drawn accuations and deliberate theological attacks should be taken to Holy Confession, not to the forum wall of Tasbeha.
"They will know you by your love for one another."
May my EO and OO Brothers and Sisters have a blessed season of repentance this Great Lent, and may the Lord God our Savior grant all your petitions that are unto the salvation of your souls and life eternal.
I'm very glad that you know that in our country the official Orthodox church became the slave of the government after the declaration of 1927 of Soviet pseudo-patriarch Sergy Stragorodsky where he told that all successes and misfortunes of the Soviet government the church considered like they belonged to the church. The Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia demanded from the Moscow Patriarchate to repent in this sin. On this basis they could unite. But they united just because the Communist regime fell. So this sin is still hangs on the Moscow Patriarchate.
I read the information that you suggested me. As I understand the Eritrean Patriarch was slandered. I think he doesn't want any interfering of Protestantism.
Of course I agree that we all have to unite on the basis of Christian love and forgiveness. But at the same time we have to discuss canons and dogmas of the church and to return Her to the pure state of the Apostolic time. I think it can be only in the Triumphant Church in Heaven. But anyway if EO and OO want to unite it's necessary not only to discuss the common dogma but also to see how this or that church is pure.
in 1990, we agreed that we are orthodox. this is the first step. i have family in eastern europe, so i really know about the corruption of the church, not only in russia but across all the communist countries.
i know so many tales of suffering and faith, but also many of ignorance and pride.
however, when you look outside the orthodox church to other churches you can find this combination of victory and defeat also. i think these issues need to be dealt with and not just ignored. one important factor is how the orthodox church dealt with non-orthodox Christian groups. it is often seen that when the orthodox church ignored the suffering of the other groups that they suffered afterwards, and so no longer had anyone to stand with them to help them.
we can not condemn the whole russian orthodox church, when the truth was kept alive in the suffering of the martyrs and the tears and prayers of grandmothers. in some parts of eastern europe, the orthodox church is undergoing a process of purification and repentance, and i pray it is widespread, and that those who are immigrants from the oriental orthodox churches help and pray for the native church to achieve this repentance.
i went to a beautiful russian orthodox liturgy in the czech republic 2 years ago, and when the elderly priest realised i was coptic, he exclaimed 'baba shenouda! i have read his books! very good'. despite our language barrier we had some moments of beautiful fellowship. i know i am an idealist, but so was Jesus Christ our Lord ;)
To answer your question, I would like to request you to read this statement of Patriarch Theodoros II of Alexandria to Anba Bishoy, Metropolitan of Damiette concerning the difference of faith between those two families of the Orthodoxy: see following link:
http://www.theholysynod.copticpope.org/appendix1.htm
I hope that this article will answer your question.
Your blessing, anba Bola;
In Christ;
Hadrian
Feelings towards us are growing colder and more volatile by the day. People are becoming more extreme in view as time continues to go by.
Why can't we summon a Great Ecumenical Council and solve this tragedy once and for all? Wouldn't that be the only logical way to formally lift anathemas on both sides? Haven't previous councils lifted anathemas before (I'm sure they did...)?
Are the monks at Mount Athos the only obstacle?
What is the most recent update on this issue?
If they already agreed that we are Orthodox, then what is the hold up? Are they backsliding?
Do we have to accept their 7 councils? What would be the problem? Don't we essentially agree with councils 5,6, & 7 (excluding the anathemas of St. Severus & others)?
Wouldn't Chalcedon's anathemas have to be amended by another Ecumenical Council?
Can't Ecumenical Councils clarify each other (supposedly 5,6 & 7 further clarified Chalcedon)? If we had another council, can't that clarify the whole dispute?
What in the world are we (or they) waiting for? The Church has enough divisions, and uniting the 2 Orthodox families may be the first step in the right direction. We aren't growing any younger...
Read This:
http://www.svots.edu/content/beyond-dialogue-quest-eastern-and-oriental-orthodox-unity-today
Input from Fathers and layman alike are welcome ;)
Dear Most Reverend anba Bola;
To answer your question, I would like to request you to read this statement of Patriarch Theodoros II of Alexandria to Anba Bishoy, Metropolitan of Damiette concerning the difference of faith between those two families of the Orthodoxy: see following link:
http://www.theholysynod.copticpope.org/appendix1.htm
I hope that this article will answer your question.
Your blessing, anba Bola;
In Christ;
Hadrian
thanks for the link. i would like to say though that I am not a priest or in any of the orders of the Priesthood.
I am an Orthodox [Byzantine] Christian. this topic is most interesting for the Orthodox Byzantine Christians [Greek, Russian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Cyprian, etc] as wel as for the Oriental Orthodox /Pre Chaldonian Churches [Armenian, Coptic, Syrian, Ethiopian, Indian/malabar]
There is a book written by Alexander Belopopsky & Christine Chaillot called: Towards Unity; which stated the theological dialogues & results of the consultation between these two Christian denominations. ISBN-10: 8390695847. ISBN-13: 978-8390695846. The last results for unity have been positively accepted by the Holy Synods of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinopel and Russian Church; and the Coptic Church.
This matter should be definitively endorsed by the upcoming Holy and Great Pan-Orthodox Council of the Orthodox [Byzantine] Church. According to the last consultation at the Anba Bishoy monastery at Wadi al Natroun, all of the theological barriers have been discussed and solved, including those of the heresy of Eutyches. The main issue of the schism in the 5th century was actually Political, not theological.
If you want to know more about this, you can buy that book 'Towards Unity' via the Amazon.com. It has some recommendations to the holy synods of all local churches concerning the unity of the Eastern Orthodox [Byzantine] Churches and the Oriental Orthodox [Pre Chaldonian] Church.
I would be interested to know more about the outcome of this dialog. What has been achieved so far?
What are the show stoppers right now?
The book contains all the agreements and statements which have been made between our Churches by our Patriarchs, and others. It is very interesting and thought provoking.
Bishop Angaelos is not in discussion with the Catholics, not on his own at least. He is a member of the Catholic-Oriental Orthodox Regional Forum together with other bishops. The book contains only the statements issued by the senior hierarchs, it is not a book of agreements created locally and independently.
The book is the first practical outcome of activity in the UK. We have other plans, such as a study day considering a topic of mutual interest, perhaps St George.
What are the agreements made? what do we agree upon?
What do you see as being necessary for complete unity?
If my understanding is correct, there is too much in-fighting between the Byzantines, and Moscow's yearning for primacy over the Ecumenical Patriarch, not to mention the Monks of Mt. Athos. I curious as to the in-roads to this Council at this point.
There has been much talk over decades of a Pan (Byzantine) Orthodox Council to be assembled, but there has never been a time table. I have not heard that there was one upcoming. Is there? When?
If my understanding is correct, there is too much in-fighting between the Byzantines, and Moscow's yearning for primacy over the Ecumenical Patriarch, not to mention the Monks of Mt. Athos. I curious as to the in-roads to this Council at this point.
How is it, ILSM you know all this stuff?