Nofri! When the first church split occurred the Copts (well, at least most of them) chose to become Oriental Orthodoxes instead of being Catholics or Eastern Orthodoxes. Why?
what made the copts become oriental orthodoxes when the western christians chose catholicism? Did culture, geography or something else have anything to do with this?
[quote author=henrik.hank link=topic=11766.msg140727#msg140727 date=1309646038] what made the copts become oriental orthodoxes when the western christians chose catholicism? Did culture, geography or something else have anything to do with this?
They didn't 'become' Oriental Orthodox (whatever that means). Oriental just refers to the region and is a label to distinguish the non-Chalcedonian family of Churches from the Chalcedonian family (or the 'Eastern' Orthodox).
It is important to remember/realize that the positions we now refer to as "Oriental Orthodox" or "Catholic" (really more clearly stated as "non-Chalcedonian" and "Chalcedonian", respectively) were not then and are not now chosen in opposition to each other, as there there was no such division in the early church, prior to the Council. What I mean by that is that the non-Chalcedonians were always non-Chalcedonian, in that their Christology did not admit the kind of division of the two natures inherent in the Chalcedonian definition (the Nestorians say similar things about Nestorius: "We are not Nestorians; we believed in what Nestorius taught before he was even born"). So it's a bit ahistorical to read today's acrimony (such that it exists) into the past like that. That would be a bit like asking why the rest of the Church didn't follow the Nestorians in calling the Theotokos "Christokos". They didn't do it because from their perspective the Nestorians are wrong, so it was natural to oppose them on that account, rather than to ascribe it all to cultural differences. It is apparently acknowledged now by many that the Melkites were originally a section of the Syriac church, who upon accepting the imperial position on Chalcedon were apparently given that moniker by partisans of the other view. Hence we have now two separate churches not necessarily springing from separate cultural milieus, but from very definite decisions made in accordance with what each side saw as the orthodox position.
So if anything you should ask why the Chalcedonians chose to become Chalcedonians, since their stance is the (relative) newer one. ;) (With its own theological antecedents, I suppose.) I wouldn't think that this is necessarily the place to ask that, though.
[quote author=dzheremi link=topic=11766.msg140730#msg140730 date=1309647052] It is important to remember/realize that the positions we now refer to as "Oriental Orthodox" or "Catholic" (really more clearly stated as "non-Chalcedonian" and "Chalcedonian", respectively) were not then and are not now chosen in opposition to each other, as there there was no such division in the early church, prior to the Council. What I mean by that is that the non-Chalcedonians were always non-Chalcedonian, in that their Christology did not admit the kind of division of the two natures inherent in the Chalcedonian definition (the Nestorians say similar things about Nestorius: "We are not Nestorians; we believed in what Nestorius taught before he was even born"). So it's a bit ahistorical to read today's acrimony (such that it exists) into the past like that. That would be a bit like asking why the rest of the Church didn't follow the Nestorians in calling the Theotokos "Christokos". They didn't do it because from their perspective the Nestorians are wrong, so it was natural to oppose them on that account, rather than to ascribe it all to cultural differences. It is apparently acknowledged now by many that the Melkites were originally a section of the Syriac church, who upon accepting the imperial position on Chalcedon were apparently given that moniker by partisans of the other view. Hence we have now two separate churches not necessarily springing from separate cultural milieus, but from very definite decisions made in accordance with what each side saw as the orthodox position.
So if anything you should ask why the Chalcedonians chose to become Chalcedonians, since their stance is the (relative) newer one. ;) (With its own theological antecedents, I suppose.) I wouldn't think that this is necessarily the place to ask that, though.
What does "were not then and are not now chosen in opposition to each other" mean?
Something like what Cephas wrote: The Oriental Orthodox didn't "become" Oriental Orthodox, just as the Eastern Orthodox didn't "become" Eastern Orthodox. These terms were applied years later to distinguish the differing stances taken by each communion.
[quote author=henrik.hank link=topic=11766.msg140689#msg140689 date=1309613572] Nofri! When the first church split occurred the Copts (well, at least most of them) chose to become Oriental Orthodoxes instead of being Catholics or Eastern Orthodoxes. Why?
As others have said, they did not choose to become that, it is just a name that evolved. To answer your question though, they chose to stay with their Coptic Patriarch and not with the External Roman position out of both thological suport for their Patriarch and for their nation as copts. I think this is about right, if not could someone correct me.
[quote author=henrik.hank link=topic=11766.msg140727#msg140727 date=1309646038] what made the copts become oriental orthodoxes when the western christians chose catholicism? Did culture, geography or something else have anything to do with this?
As for Western Europe following the Bishp of Rome, they didn't have much of a choice. There were no Greek Bishops in the Western European states in 1054, Rome had already made sure of this in the 250 years before as they took claim of all of the Bishoprics. It was not like today when you would have the diaspora communities with their own Bishops, it was the whole area under a single Bishop who followed whichever Patriarch had rule over that See. In the case of Western Europe, that was Rome.
Comments
Read about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodoxy
[quote author=henrik.hank link=topic=11766.msg140727#msg140727 date=1309646038]
what made the copts become oriental orthodoxes when the western christians chose catholicism? Did culture, geography or something else have anything to do with this?
They didn't 'become' Oriental Orthodox (whatever that means). Oriental just refers to the region and is a label to distinguish the non-Chalcedonian family of Churches from the Chalcedonian family (or the 'Eastern' Orthodox).
So if anything you should ask why the Chalcedonians chose to become Chalcedonians, since their stance is the (relative) newer one. ;) (With its own theological antecedents, I suppose.) I wouldn't think that this is necessarily the place to ask that, though.
It is important to remember/realize that the positions we now refer to as "Oriental Orthodox" or "Catholic" (really more clearly stated as "non-Chalcedonian" and "Chalcedonian", respectively) were not then and are not now chosen in opposition to each other, as there there was no such division in the early church, prior to the Council. What I mean by that is that the non-Chalcedonians were always non-Chalcedonian, in that their Christology did not admit the kind of division of the two natures inherent in the Chalcedonian definition (the Nestorians say similar things about Nestorius: "We are not Nestorians; we believed in what Nestorius taught before he was even born"). So it's a bit ahistorical to read today's acrimony (such that it exists) into the past like that. That would be a bit like asking why the rest of the Church didn't follow the Nestorians in calling the Theotokos "Christokos". They didn't do it because from their perspective the Nestorians are wrong, so it was natural to oppose them on that account, rather than to ascribe it all to cultural differences. It is apparently acknowledged now by many that the Melkites were originally a section of the Syriac church, who upon accepting the imperial position on Chalcedon were apparently given that moniker by partisans of the other view. Hence we have now two separate churches not necessarily springing from separate cultural milieus, but from very definite decisions made in accordance with what each side saw as the orthodox position.
So if anything you should ask why the Chalcedonians chose to become Chalcedonians, since their stance is the (relative) newer one. ;) (With its own theological antecedents, I suppose.) I wouldn't think that this is necessarily the place to ask that, though.
What does "were not then and are not now chosen in opposition to each other" mean?
Nofri!
When the first church split occurred the Copts (well, at least most of them) chose to become Oriental Orthodoxes instead of being Catholics or Eastern Orthodoxes. Why?
As others have said, they did not choose to become that, it is just a name that evolved. To answer your question though, they chose to stay with their Coptic Patriarch and not with the External Roman position out of both thological suport for their Patriarch and for their nation as copts. I think this is about right, if not could someone correct me.
[quote author=henrik.hank link=topic=11766.msg140727#msg140727 date=1309646038]
what made the copts become oriental orthodoxes when the western christians chose catholicism? Did culture, geography or something else have anything to do with this?
As for Western Europe following the Bishp of Rome, they didn't have much of a choice. There were no Greek Bishops in the Western European states in 1054, Rome had already made sure of this in the 250 years before as they took claim of all of the Bishoprics. It was not like today when you would have the diaspora communities with their own Bishops, it was the whole area under a single Bishop who followed whichever Patriarch had rule over that See. In the case of Western Europe, that was Rome.