A question for the Orthodox-both kinds

[VARC]

My wife and I were interested in Orthodoxy. But I found that there are two communions that claim to be the Orthodox church: the Byzantine and the Oriental.

Roman Catholics generally view both groups as schismatics and so not apart of the Church. Do byzantines view the nonchalcedonians as heretics/schismatics or vice versa? I assume that both view the Roman Catholic Church as heretical because of papal infallibility among other things.

 

[Volodymyr]

Yes, there are Orthodox churches and then Churches which are monofisite (you are a difisite), and some that are so-called Nestorian. Such monofisite churches include Coptic and especially (at least here in Ukraina, Armenian). Nestorians are in middle east (Irak, Turkia) and many have joined themsleves to Catolic and now called Chaldian.

Ukrainian Orthodox Church (my church) accepts all seven original ecumenical councils, including those rejected by such above churches. To know more about such Orthodox church (accepting all Ecumenical Councils) many on this site recommend various books in English including books by Antony Blum, John Meyendorff.

I am not sure why you care if I think your church is schismatical, heretical or such. Please do not be offended, but I also do not care what Catolics think of my Church. I can share what I know about my church and find out about yours - let us only be friends and not name-callers.

 

[VARC]

Yes, there are Orthodox churches and then Churches which are monofisite (you are a difisite), and some that are so-called Nestorian. Such monofisite churches include Coptic and especially (at least here in Ukraina, Armenian). Nestorians are in middle east (Irak, Turkia) and many have joined themsleves to Catolic and now called Chaldian.

Ukrainian Orthodox Church (my church) accepts all seven original ecumenical councils, including those rejected by such above churches. To know more about such Orthodox church (accepting all Ecumenical Councils) many on this site recommend various books in English including books by Antony Blum, John Meyendorff.

I am not sure why you care if I think your church is schismatical, heretical or such. Please do not be offended, but I also do not care what Catolics think of my Church. I can share what I know about my church and find out about yours - let us only be friends and not name-callers.

I was really wondering what Byzantines(you) think of the nonchacedonians(Armenians). I am not trying to instigate a fight. Whenever I discern Orthodoxy, I inevitably come to this fork in the road. After reading the writings of Fr. Justin Popovich, I have had trouble maintaining faith in papal infallibility. However, I don’t know how the 2 Orthodox groups view each other. Can someone help me out?

 

[Alexius]

I was really wondering what Byzantines(you) think of the nonchacedonians(Armenians). I am not trying to instigate a fight. Whenever I discern Orthodoxy, I inevitably come to this fork in the road. After reading the writings of Fr. Justin Popovich, I have had trouble maintaining faith in papal infallibility. However, I don’t know how the 2 Orthodox groups view each other. Can someone help me out?

It really depends on the area. You could compare relations to those between the Eastern Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, albeit a lot better. Some are so friendly that there are occassional intercommunion and intersacramental dispensations (esp. in Africa), but others do not talk to each other. It really depends. In general, relations are good. There is generally more respect there than between EC’s and EO’s.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[VARC]

It really depends on the area. You could compare relations to those between the Eastern Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox, albeit a lot better. Some are so friendly that there are occassional intercommunion and intersacramental dispensations (esp. in Africa), but others do not talk to each other. It really depends. In general, relations are good. There is generally more respect there than between EC’s and EO’s.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

But do the Byzantines believe the Coptics are heretics that are outside the church? Do the Coptics think this of the Byzantines? Do the chacedonian orthodox view the nonchacedonians as member of the body of Christ and vice versa?

My thinking on this subject may be too Latin. The Roman catholic church simplfies who is in the church and who is not by declaring all christians not in communion with the Pope of Rome as schismatics.

There may be some Orthodox on both sides that view roman catholics as members of the church. But because papal infallibility, the idea of an infallible man as head of Christ’s church, is considered so blatantly heretical by the Orthodox, most view catholics as not members of the body of Christ and catholic converts must be charismated to have their baptisms be effectual. The ROCOR even baptizes catholic converts.

If a Catholic wants to convert to Orthodoxy, does it matter which particular church to join?

 

[Alexius]

But do the Byzantines believe the Coptics are heretics that are outside the church? Do the Coptics think this of the Byzantines? Do the chacedonian orthodox view the nonchacedonians as member of the body of Christ and vice versa?

My thinking on this subject may be too Latin. The Roman catholic church simplfies who is in the church and who is not by declaring all christians not in communion with the Pope of Rome as schismatics.

There may be some Orthodox on both sides that view roman catholics as members of the church. But because papal infallibility, the idea of an infallible man as head of Christ’s church, is considered so blatantly heretical by the Orthodox, most view catholics as not members of the body of Christ and catholic converts must be charismated to have their baptisms be effectual. The ROCOR even baptizes catholic converts.

If a Catholic wants to convert to Orthodoxy, does it matter which particular church to join?

Unfortunately, there is no clear cut declaration on how the Orientals are to be viewed. They are not part of the Orthodox Church, but they are not declared with such blanket statements as “heretic” or “schismatic.” Some do in fact consider them as such, but it depends. Generally, you seem to want a clear cut delineation where there is none.

Your second question: It comes down to how the priest and/or bishop desires to receive you. Most do so by Chrismation. Some require Baptism and Chrismation. Others (in Ukraine) accept Byzantine Catholics by simple Profession of Faith. Generally, you will be received by Chrismation, though. Also consider that you will go through Catechesis, and for how long depends on how prepared the priest feels you are…It will probably take at least 6 months. I hope this doesn’t discourage you…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I was really wondering what Byzantines(you) think of the nonchacedonians(Armenians). I am not trying to instigate a fight. Whenever I discern Orthodoxy, I inevitably come to this fork in the road. After reading the writings of Fr. Justin Popovich, I have had trouble maintaining faith in papal infallibility. However, I don’t know how the 2 Orthodox groups view each other. Can someone help me out?

I have to go (Vespers) but just a quick note.

Some EO do consider OO heretics, not just schismatics.

Others consider them the same as the EO.

For the most part the Copts, Ethiopians, Syriacs, and Armenians that I have met consider the EO Orthodox.

Most of those of the EO who do not accept the OO are ones in places (e.g. Greece, or more specifically Athos) without OO.

There are agreements for intercommunion in the patriarchate of Antioch, for intermarriage (and implicite intercommunion) in the patriarchate of Alexandria. Since EO do not recognize marriages, for instance, done by other Church (e.g. an Orthodox married in a Latin church is unmarried in the Orthodox eyes), we do recognize the OO sacraments.

The hang up is on how to undo a lot of history. Theologically, we are the same.

orthodoxchristianity.net has some forums for OO and EO.

Btw, this does NOT include Nestorians/Assyrians, except those who joined to the ROC after adopting Orthodox theology.

 

[VARC]

Generally, you seem to want a clear cut delineation where there is none.

I guess Roman catholics are just used to those clear cut delineations. It’s kind of hard to convert to orthodoxy when there are 2 church’s claiming to be the orthodox church. What makes the Byzantines claim they have the orthodox faith and and Coptics don’t and vice versa? If they both have the orthodox faith, why aren’t they in communion with each other?

Rome answers this question by stating that their faith is the orthodox faith because their Bishop is the infallible leader of the whole church. That answer sounds almost too simple the more I learn about early christian history but at least it is an answer.

 

[Frank_J]

Hi

I was Roman Catholic and converted to Eastern Orthodox Christian 7 years ago today. When I became Orthodox Christian I had to receive Chrismation but was not rebaptized.

Hope this helps some to know what happen when one joins the Orthodox Church. My Church is an OCA Church just in case you needed to know.

Have a nice day.

Frank J.

 

[Alexius]

I guess Roman catholics are just used to those clear cut delineations. It’s kind of hard to convert to orthodoxy when there are 2 church’s claiming to be the orthodox church. What makes the Byzantines claim they have the orthodox faith and and Coptics don’t and vice versa? If they both have the orthodox faith, why aren’t they in communion with each other?

Rome answers this question by stating that their faith is the orthodox faith because their Bishop is the infallible leader of the whole church. That answer sounds almost too simple the more I learn about early christian history but at least it is an answer.

Well, because the Copts and other Orientals were out of communion with the other Patriarchates after the Council of Chalcedon. There was confusion over the dual nature of Christ with the Copts arguing a single nature Christ. This was called monophysitism, but was really a misunderstanding. In fact, the Copts didn’t deny Christ’s full humanity and full Divinity, but like St. Cyril, they believe in one incarnate nature. They are not monophysite, but rather miaphysite. As such, they were absent from the remaining Ecumenical Councils (at least the ones accepted by the others). The “orthodox” definition of Christ is that He is of two natures, not one. Both Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics believe this.

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius

 

[Alexius]

I have to go (Vespers) but just a quick note.

Some EO do consider OO heretics, not just schismatics.

Others consider them the same as the EO.

For the most part the Copts, Ethiopians, Syriacs, and Armenians that I have met consider the EO Orthodox.

Most of those of the EO who do not accept the OO are ones in places (e.g. Greece, or more specifically Athos) without OO.

There are agreements for intercommunion in the patriarchate of Antioch, for intermarriage (and implicite intercommunion) in the patriarchate of Alexandria. Since EO do not recognize marriages, for instance, done by other Church (e.g. an Orthodox married in a Latin church is unmarried in the Orthodox eyes), we do recognize the OO sacraments.
The hang up is on how to undo a lot of history. Theologically, we are the same.

orthodoxchristianity.net has some forums for OO and EO.

Btw, this does NOT include Nestorians/Assyrians, except those who joined to the ROC after adopting Orthodox theology.

Don’t you mean “…we do not recognize the OO sacraments?”

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Don’t you mean “…we do not recognize the OO sacraments?”

No, the point is, we do. I should have said “although” rather than “Since.”

On orthodoxchristianity.net a serb posted on an Ethiopian family that was chrismated in the Serbian Church, which upset the OO. However, the Serb pointed out that the Serbian Church baptizes anyone who comes to her, so the fact that this family, with the bishop’s instruction, was NOT rebaptized, was a sign of unity. Perspective.

As for the “differences”

The miaphysites held Ephesus II, which exonerated Eutyches but condemned the Three Chapters. The dyphisites (i.e. EO) condemened Eutyches at Chalcedon, and avoided the issue of the Three Chapters. Later the miaphysites condemned Eutyches (as did Chalcedon) and we condemned the Three Chapters in the Fifth Ecumenical Council (as did Ephesus II), so same Faith, but out of sinc.

 

[Alexius]

No, the point is, we do. I should have said “although” rather than “Since.”

On orthodoxchristianity.net a serb posted on an Ethiopian family that was chrismated in the Serbian Church, which upset the OO. However, the Serb pointed out that the Serbian Church baptizes anyone who comes to her, so the fact that this family, with the bishop’s instruction, was NOT rebaptized, was a sign of unity. Perspective.

As for the “differences”

The miaphysites held Ephesus II, which exonerated Eutyches but condemned the Three Chapters. The dyphisites (i.e. EO) condemened Eutyches at Chalcedon, and avoided the issue of the Three Chapters. Later the miaphysites condemned Eutyches (as did Chalcedon) and we condemned the Three Chapters in the Fifth Ecumenical Council (as did Ephesus II), so same Faith, but out of sinc.

I know of an OCA parish that has many members from Ethiopia. It is interesting to see that…

Prayers and petitions,
Alexius