For Eastern Orthodox Christians

[Nine_Two]

Let me conclude by saying that I do not hold any contempt for the Orthodox nor do I have any desire to engage in “anti-Orthodox polemic”. However, I am asking hard questions because, duh, I am a Catholic who expects others to be Catholic, also, in accordance with Christ’s original intent for the Church as I understand it.

You come off as quite anti-Orthodox and you don’t ask hard questions, you make fallacious arguments that have no business in serious discussion.

Specifically regarding your argument on the spread of Catholicism. You are either arguing - as has been pointed out - that which party is correct can change based on demographics, or you are thoroughly ignorant of the historical situation between us - something which is necessary for a good discussion.

 

[Casilda]

When on the fence considering eastern Orthodox or going back to the Catholic church lots of things kept popping up that bothered me about Orthodoxy. One thing I found especially disturbing was a fight amongst monks at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, these were Orthodox monks. I do not understand that rivalry between ‘jurisdictions’…is there another side to this story?

religionnewsblog.com/22913/church-of-the-holy-sepulcher

 

[andrewstx]

I wonder what Paul would write about both of your bickering.

Anyways, I’ll give my experience that happened this past summer as I was looking into Apostolic Churches.

There was a Greek festival and my girlfriend at the time (now fiance) decided to check it out and eat some sweet Greek food. Little did we know it was being run by a Greek Orthodox Church so I asked her if we should check it out. We both went inside and were knocked off our feet at how beautiful the place was. One of the men that runs the Church (not the Priest equivalent but someone else involved; forgive my ignorance of Orthodoxy) approached us and explained everything on the walls and on the roof. He explained every picture and was extremely friendly, I absolutely loved everything about the Church. My only issue was that I could barely understand him, and I got looking around and noticed everything was written in English and Greek. I asked the man if the services are done in Greek and he said much of them are.

I never did go back because I don’t think it’s a Church that could work for us due to the language barrier, but I did love the people we met.

Too bad you could not have visited an Antiochian or OCA parish. Both of those have liturgy in English and are composed to a great deal of converts.

The Greek church (with due respect to the Greeks reading) sometimes and in some places seem to put Greek first and Orthodox second. It was that way in a Greek church I visited in a small Texas town. But when I became Orthodox by chrismation they became friendly, and even invited me to lunch at a Greek café after liturgy. And I came in through an OCA and not Greek parish.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

When on the fence considering eastern Orthodox or going back to the Catholic church lots of things kept popping up that bothered me about Orthodoxy. One thing I found especially disturbing was a fight amongst monks at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, these were Orthodox monks. I do not understand that rivalry between ‘jurisdictions’…is there another side to this story?

religionnewsblog.com/22913/church-of-the-holy-sepulcher

I read your article link. It says it was a fight between Orthodox and Armenians. The Armenians use the term “Orthodox” in the name of their Church, but they now follow a different religion altogether. The Armenians followed the Monophysite beliefs rather than the Orthodoxy and split from canonical Orthodoxy before the 6th century.

I’m sorry that the decision the Orthodox monks made on how to respond when placed in that situation by the Armenians is one of the things that disturbed you from continuing in the Orthodox Faith. I hope that by looking at it in a different light, you may be able to at least understand what happen - so I have a question for you: What would you & your fellow parishioners do if let’s say a hundred Wiccans or Muslims or Hindus or Jews or Baptists or members of any other religion paid the local authorities off and then invaded the parish you attend to try to occupy it? Would you try to get them out? After all the holy Eucharist is there and should be protected from desecration from non-Orthodox. What if they refused to go? What if they were being aggressive against you verbally & physically? Would you physically fight back to defend yourself, those around you and the Eucharist? Would you run away? I think in the situation there are no good options.

 

[andrewstx]

When reading the Latin boasts about all the people who were converted to the Latin faith that so many were converted at the point of the sword or gun, baptized but not catechized, just to a great deal abandoned.

I was born in New Mexico and still live right across the border in Texas.

And that is what happened in New Mexico with the Native Americans in the pueblos. They were baptised and left on their own. To this day they still practice a pagan/Christian mixture. They have their dances to the pagan gods and after they file into the mission church for Mass.

 

[Nine_Two]

When on the fence considering eastern Orthodox or going back to the Catholic church lots of things kept popping up that bothered me about Orthodoxy. One thing I found especially disturbing was a fight amongst monks at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, these were Orthodox monks. I do not understand that rivalry between ‘jurisdictions’…is there another side to this story?

religionnewsblog.com/22913/church-of-the-holy-sepulcher

The problem is those fights are fairly common and there are three sides who get into them. Eastern Orthodox (Church of Jerusalem), Oriental Orthodox (Armenian Orthodox), and Roman Catholics.

The fight in that story just happened to be between the first two.

But I agree, those fights damage our reputation in front of the world.

 

[Casilda]

I read about a lot of ‘fights’ within Orthodoxy, here is one within a holy place, Mount Athos. This stunned me as well, greece.greekreporter.com/2013/07/18/mount-athos-monks-wont-move-out-for-eu/

I find what Catholics say about our eastern brothers to be more in line with what Christ wants us to say, brother. I do not find that same kindness from the Orthodox.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

I read about a lot of ‘fights’ within Orthodoxy, here is one within a holy place, Mount Athos. This stunned me as well, greece.greekreporter.com/2013/07/18/mount-athos-monks-wont-move-out-for-eu/

I find what Catholics say about our eastern brothers to be more in line with what Christ wants us to say, brother. I do not find that same kindness from the Orthodox.

I’m not going to move on to another article your read that disturbed you because you haven’t yet answered the questions I posed to you in # 43 which may help to give you another perspective:

“What would you & your fellow parishioners do if let’s say a hundred Wiccans or Muslims or Hindus or Jews or Baptists or members of any other religion paid the local authorities off and then invaded the parish you attend to try to occupy it? Would you try to get them out? After all the holy Eucharist is there and should be protected from desecration from non-Orthodox. What if they refused to go? What if they were being aggressive against you verbally & physically? Would you physically fight back to defend yourself, those around you and the Eucharist? Would you run away? I think in the situation there are no good options.”

In post # 45, Nine_Two makes a good point that usually those fights at the Orthodox Church in the Holy Land are 3 sided and include Roman Catholics as well.

 

[Casilda]

I’m not going to move on to another article your read that disturbed you because you haven’t yet answered the questions I posed to you in # 43 which may help to give you another perspective:

“What would you & your fellow parishioners do if let’s say a hundred Wiccans or Muslims or Hindus or Jews or Baptists or members of any other religion paid the local authorities off and then invaded the parish you attend to try to occupy it? Would you try to get them out? After all the holy Eucharist is there and should be protected from desecration from non-Orthodox. What if they refused to go? What if they were being aggressive against you verbally & physically? Would you physically fight back to defend yourself, those around you and the Eucharist? Would you run away? I think in the situation there are no good options.”

In post # 45, Nine_Two makes a good point that usually those fights at the Orthodox Church in the Holy Land are 3 sided and include Roman Catholics as well.

I have over half a century under my belt and have been going to church all my life, I have never witnessed that hypothetical situation. My family however has when communism took over and churches were closed. There was no fight, it just happened. Similar to what happened in Russia, they just kept to their prayers, and the churches are open again.

 

[RyanBlack]

Let me conclude by saying that I do not hold any contempt for the Orthodox nor do I have any desire to engage in “anti-Orthodox polemic”.

It would be a great deal easier for me to believe these claims if you would back off the use of insults towards the Orthodox.

However, I am asking hard questions because, duh, I am a Catholic who expects others to be Catholic, also, in accordance with Christ’s original intent for the Church as I understand it.

If you “expect” others to be Catholic, I suggest that you find another approach. The one you’re using now will only push people further away from Catholicism.

 

[RyanBlack]

However, after quite a bit of “dialogue” with Lutherans and the EO (as well as a bit of outside reading), it has become clear to me that Catholics are much closer to Lutherans (or vice-versa) than I ever realized and that we are much further from the Orthodox than I would have guessed. The Orthodox do NOT share the sentiments expressed in the quote above.

You should be rather circumspect about making such a general statement about the Orthodox, particularly on the basis of dialogue between you and other laypersons. There is not one single, definitive Orthodox position about their relationship to the Catholic Church. Some Orthodox do not hold Catholics in high regard at all, some do.

In any case, the attitudes, speech, and actions of individual Orthodox (or of groups of them) have nothing whatsoever to do with our obligations to deal with them charitably, and to avoid giving offense unnecessarily. I would add that relatively recently, the passage you quoted from the CCC about our relationship to the Orthodox was not what was emphasized by the Catholic Church in her dealings with the Orthodox; rather, what was historically emphasized was terms such as “schismatics” and “heretics.” Indeed, there are many Catholics who persist in the use of such rhetoric, in spite of the fact that our bishops are not leading us in that direction, and have not for several decades now. So there’s little wonder why some Orthodox approach us as using similar rhetoric. I’m not saying that I like it or that when I was Orthodox I approved of it, but again, given the unfortunate history, as well as the ongoing use by some Catholics of such rhetoric, it’s not at all surprising.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

I have over half a century under my belt and have been going to church all my life, I have never witnessed that hypothetical situation. My family however has when communism took over and churches were closed. There was no fight, it just happened. Similar to what happened in Russia, they just kept to their prayers, and the churches are open again.

As the article you linked points out, it’s not hypothetical. The Armenians did just that to the Orthodox Church in the Holy Land and the Orthodox Monks responded in a way you didn’t like, I believe you said it was very disturbing.

I asked the questions to see if getting you to think about how you personally would respond to the situation if it happened at your own parish in case it may allow you to understand their reaction in a different light and less disturbing.

I am curious though, how do you think the Orthodox Monks *should *have acted when this happened to them?

I’m glad in Russia the Churches are again open. I hope Agia Sophia will open again soon! Communists and Islam have repeatedly tried very hard to crush the Orthodox Faith, but will ultimately fail.

 

[Cavaradossi]

You may have the last word. I am out.

How gracious.

Either that or no Patriarch has the authority to call a Council. But okay.

Numerous pan-Orthodox synods have been called by Patriarchs, which have ruled definitively on certain issues.

Yeah, we certainly wouldn’t want young people getting fired up for Jesus or anything.

When it involves the use of passion-inciting modern music which does not conform to the models of music left to us by the Holy Fathers, or the use of things within the liturgy which do not conform to the liturgical inheritance we received from the Holy Fathers, that is precisely true. We wish to have the youths fired up for the Jesus which our Holy Fathers knew through the liturgical treasures of our hymnology, the public reading of the scriptures in the year-long liturgical cycle, and exactitude in following the liturgical rubrics, which have been left to us as an inheritance. We meet Christ in the stillness of our hearts, not in excitement and passion. I do not mean to pass judgment on the many laymen and clergy who attended or ministered at World Youth Day, who I have no doubt were sincere in their participation, but events like WYD are just not for us Orthodox Christians, who seek out Christ as our Holy Fathers encountered him, through fasting, prayer, participation in the liturgical life of the Church, the rooting out of passions, and finding stillness within our hearts.

Right. In the old days, no one had a clue that there was a Bishop in Rome who occasionally called councils, etc. Would that explain why the eastern Church stopped showing up? We wondered what happened…

But in the olden days it was not widely recognized that the Bishop of Rome had the authority to call an ecumenical council on his own. This was in fact one of the arguments at Florence, because the emperor would not recognize this (after all, every ecumenical council in the First Millennium had been convoked by an Emperor).

Also, I think now you are moving your goalposts, for originally, you had asked how it is that the Pope is known world over, even by ‘non-Catholics’. My answer to you is that but 1000 years ago, he definitely was not known world over. The Chinese, the Japanese, the Koreans, the Southeast Asians, and the inhabitants of the Indian Subcontinent, I am certain, had very little knowledge, if any of a pope in Rome. So if knowledge amongst the non-faithful is an indicator of the truth of one’s religion, then this would not bode well for the papacy of 1000 years ago.

Or is it simply because you can read their works online for free? :compcoff:

A majority of the works of the Fathers are not available online in English translation. In fact, most of their works have not even been translated into English

Laugh as you will, but if you cannot see how Anglophone-centric consumerism is inimical to the Spirit of Christ, then you have very little occasion for mirth.

Could it be that none of the Patriarchs have written anything important in recent memory? Or that very few people care what any of them have to say?

Many of them have written rather good theological works in recent memory. But they do not have the benefit of a fabulously wealthy multi-national organization which can help grease the wheels with money, so that translations can be churned out in English. As shocking as this may be, the world is broader than most Anglophone consumerists give it credit for being.

Why does this not surprise me?

I am glad that you are not surprised that Orthodox Christians hold to what has been passed down to us by the Holy Fathers.

Okay. I’ll follow the example of St. Seraphim of Sarov as well as St. Paul who wrote:

Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord (Heb. 12:14).

Striving for peace with all does not preclude one from speaking the truth in love. Just as the Roman Catholics, I am sure, strive for peace with all men without letting that prevent them from speaking on issues which displease many, or just as you may say to an Anglican that you do not believe that his priests have valid holy orders, and that he worships a piece of bread when he kneels at the consecration, so too I am obliged to speak of the baptismal theology of the Holy Fathers, which denies the saving efficacy of baptisms performed by those outside of the Church. I do not do so out of hatred or ill-will or a desire for strife, but only out of a desire to speak the truth of what we believe.

Different faiths? Really?

Yes. You believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and that the Bishop of Rome, when speaking in virtue of his office to all the faithful on matters of faith and morals, is infallible. We do not believe in either of those things. Thus our faiths differ. I do not mean that in some sort of judgmental way, but only to state it as a matter of fact.

 

[ScottEH]

I read your article link. It says it was a fight between Orthodox and Armenians. The Armenians use the term “Orthodox” in the name of their Church, but they now follow a different religion altogether. The Armenians followed the Monophysite beliefs rather than the Orthodoxy and split from canonical Orthodoxy before the 6th century.

I’m sorry that the decision the Orthodox monks made on how to respond when placed in that situation by the Armenians is one of the things that disturbed you from continuing in the Orthodox Faith. I hope that by looking at it in a different light, you may be able to at least understand what happen - so I have a question for you: What would you & your fellow parishioners do if let’s say a hundred Wiccans or Muslims or Hindus or Jews or Baptists or members of any other religion paid the local authorities off and then invaded the parish you attend to try to occupy it? Would you try to get them out? After all the holy Eucharist is there and should be protected from desecration from non-Orthodox. What if they refused to go? What if they were being aggressive against you verbally & physically? Would you physically fight back to defend yourself, those around you and the Eucharist? Would you run away? I think in the situation there are no good options.

Monophysite? I was under the impression that Armenians followed Miaphysite Christology. I could be mistaken, but I’m pretty sure about that. Monophysitism is a heresy, so I hope you didn’t mean to conflate the two.

Oriental Orthodox are commonly accused of this, but from what I understand, they are not Monophysite.

Just fyi

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

Monophysite? I was under the impression that Armenians followed Miaphysite Christology. I could be mistaken, but I’m pretty sure about that. Monophysitism is a heresy, so I hope you didn’t mean to conflate the two.

Oriental Orthodox are commonly accused of this, but from what I understand, they are not Monophysite.

Just fyi

Mono = Only One
Mia = One
Physis = Nature

Armenians originally considered themselves Monophysite when they left Orthodoxy by rejecting the 4th Ecumenical Council, but you’re right, they now they consider themselves Miaphysite. Whether or not Armenians today follow Monophysite or Miaphysite Teachings, either way they are NOT following Orthodox Teachings.

The 4th Ecumenical Council aka the Council of Chalcedon in 481 officially condemned as heresy Monophysite while affirming as Truth the Two Natures of Christ (having both a Divine Nature and a Human Nature). The decisions of this Ecumenical Council were rejected by the Armenians, Coptics and Orientals.

Armenia was Orthodox for about 180 yrs. It was the very first Kingdom to accept Orthodox Christianity in 301 after the conversion of their King through the missionary work of St. Gregory. Although Armenians have Not been Orthodox for anywhere from 1,459 years to 1,532 years (depending on if you want to use their rejection of the 4th Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 481 or if you want to use their own council of Dvin in 554 as the starting date of there official “divorce” from the Orthodox Church), but like Oriental & Coptic, they still continue to use the term Orthodox in the title of their Church - go figure?

 

[ScottEH]

Mono = Only One
Mia = One
Physis = Nature

Armenians originally considered themselves Monophysite when they left Orthodoxy by rejecting the 4th Ecumenical Council, but you’re right, they now they consider themselves Miaphysite. Whether or not Armenians today follow Monophysite or Miaphysite Teachings, either way they are NOT following Orthodox Teachings.

The 4th Ecumenical Council aka the Council of Chalcedon in 481 officially condemned as heresy Monophysite while affirming as Truth the Two Natures of Christ (having both a Divine Nature and a Human Nature). The decisions of this Ecumenical Council were rejected by the Armenians, Coptics and Orientals.

Armenia was Orthodox for about 180 yrs. It was the very first Kingdom to accept Orthodox Christianity in 301 after the conversion of their King through the missionary work of St. Gregory. Although Armenians have Not been Orthodox for anywhere from 1,459 years to 1,532 years (depending on if you want to use their rejection of the 4th Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 481 or if you want to use their own council of Dvin in 554 as the starting date of there official “divorce” from the Orthodox Church), but like Oriental & Coptic, they still continue to use the term Orthodox in the title of their Church - go figure?

I’m aware of the history

I didn’t want to derail the thread; I’m just clarifying they aren’t Monophysite, a term they probably find to be an inaccurate misinterpretation of their Christology.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

I’m aware of the history

I didn’t want to derail the thread; I’m just clarifying they aren’t Monophysite, a term they probably find to be an inaccurate misinterpretation of their Christology.

Right, they did change their stance from Monophysite (Only One Nature) to Miaphysite (One Nature), BUT they still deny the Truth about Christ ~ He has Two Natures.

I suppose on the positive side, since they’ve changed their beliefs already, perhaps they’ll change it again to Orthodoxy? There is always HOPE, no?

 

[Reuben_J]

Wow, I must say it’s not gone that far before. That is so terrible though! I mean, I don’t see where you would have done anything wrong. I wouldn’t go back either, and that’s another reason why I never went back to the one I used to live by. The people and Priest weren’t welcoming at all towards me, and I just couldn’t take it. I pray that his soul is at peace, as well.

I hope that was an isolated incident but I was at an impressive age and the rejection was with me perhaps for a very long time. I have never set foot in the Orthodox churches ever since. I really don’t know what to expect there; all I know that if I was not an Orthodox, then their church was not for me.

What really hurt was the manner in how the priest chased us out from the church. It was said and done in disgust as if we were intruding. It really dampened our spirit to say the least. We were out of town for a conference that time. In between sessions we decided to look at the city and saw a decent church. We went inside, three of us, silently and prayed. In the midst of our prayer, the priest interjected and that was how it came about. We were practically shaken and one of my friends was closed to tears.

I went to Eucharistic Adoration in a Catholic Church a few months back, and my Priest there was so happy and excited that I was going to go/went, even though I hadn’t (still haven’t) converted yet. And that’s another thing about Catholics; all the ones I have met and know, and most of you guys on here, have all been so welcoming to me, and it’s something I’ve never felt in a Church/faith before.

Yes, that was the background from where we came. Anyone can just go inside a church to pray if the church is not closed. Nobody would ask for your religious affiliation. You could just pray. Usually the priests are not around if it is not during a mass but if he is, he can be approached. He does not have to talk to you. Goodness, a church is a house of worship, why anyone would want to stop you from worshiping the Lord.

I do travel a lot internationally and I would always make it a point to seek a church (Catholic) in the city. Often times if I see a priest around I would come up to him to chat and perhaps to take pictures.

 

[dzheremi]

Frankly, it doesn’t seem that any of you know the history regarding the Armenian Orthodox and Chalcedon. Chalcedon was officially rejected by the Armenian Orthodox at Dvin in 506, but their rejection had nothing to do with “monophysitism” (which they never, ever subscribed to, EO polemics notwithstanding), but with their experience with preexisting the Assyrian dyophysite Christology in their midst. This is not a modernist reading that would deny heresy on the part of Armenians, either, if one had existed; this is actually mentioned in the “Letter of the Armenians to the Orthodox in Persia” written by Catholicos Babgen I (ruled 490-516), which mentions that the Catholicos and assembled bishops were presented with a statement of faith from the faithful in Persia during “Eighteenth year of Kawad” (506 AD) in response to the heretical doctrine they had heard from the Nestorians in Persia, who condemned the Orthodox in Persia on the account of the faith which they hold. This is followed by Babgen I condemning the Assyrians directly, because “they assert that it is right to separate” (the natures), listing a long list of blasphemies that come from the Assyrians and their dyophysite Christology. This is all in Karekin Sarkissian’s The Council of Chalcedon and the Armenian Church (1965), by the way (p.196 and following).

In a second follow-up letter, also titled “From the Armenians to the Orthodox in Persia”, Babgen is compelled to write again after the previous letter does not settle the disputes between the Orthodox and the Assyrians, the Assyrians “being strengthened by the Council of Chalcedon” (as it says in the letter). This letter officially condemns Eutyches among other heretics, but it also points out that the Nestorians took Chalcedon to be a confirmation of their preexisting Christology. In this context, the reasoning for the Armenian rejection of Chalcedon should be clear – it had to do with anti-dyophysitism, not pro-Eutychianism. If this were not the case, why would the second of the post-Chalcedon documents written by their Catholicos of that period concerning Christology explicitly condemn Eutyches? That wouldn’t make sense. They didn’t like Chalcedon because they saw it as a triumph of Nestorian Christology over Orthodox Cyrillian Christology.

I must say I am getting mighty tired of the offensive and ignorant Byzantine polemic peddled and swallowed as real history by some of our resident EOs and Catholics who don’t know any better. Disagree with Oriental Orthodoxy all you want, but don’t post whatever garbage you want and expect to not be called on it. There is no Monophysitism in the Oriental Orthodox communion, and the ancient documents of all our churches attest to the condemnation of Eutyches, the Nestorians, and Chalcedon. Enough with your senseless baloney. I’m guessing that Karekin Sarkissian (who, at the time of writing the referenced text, was prelate of the Armenian Apostolic Church in the USA…not a position they would hand out to anyone, I’m guessing) probably knows Armenian language and history just a bit better than you, so please think before you type about these things, 1Tim215Mommy, et al.

 

[ScottEH]

Frankly, it doesn’t seem that any of you know the history regarding the Armenian Orthodox and Chalcedon. Chalcedon was officially rejected by the Armenian Orthodox at Dvin in 506, but their rejection had nothing to do with “monophysitism” (which they never, ever subscribed to, EO polemics notwithstanding), but with their experience with preexisting the Assyrian dyophysite Christology in their midst. This is not a modernist reading that would deny heresy on the part of Armenians, either, if one had existed; this is actually mentioned in the “Letter of the Armenians to the Orthodox in Persia” written by Catholicos Babgen I (ruled 490-516), which mentions that the Catholicos and assembled bishops were presented with a statement of faith from the faithful in Persia during “Eighteenth year of Kawad” (506 AD) in response to the heretical doctrine they had heard from the Nestorians in Persia, who condemned the Orthodox in Persia on the account of the faith which they hold. This is followed by Babgen I condemning the Assyrians directly, because “they assert that it is right to separate” (the natures), listing a long list of blasphemies that come from the Assyrians and their dyophysite Christology. This is all in Karekin Sarkissian’s The Council of Chalcedon and the Armenian Church (1965), by the way (p.196 and following).

In a second follow-up letter, also titled “From the Armenians to the Orthodox in Persia”, Babgen is compelled to write again after the previous letter does not settle the disputes between the Orthodox and the Assyrians, the Assyrians “being strengthened by the Council of Chalcedon” (as it says in the letter). This letter officially condemns Eutyches among other heretics, but it also points out that the Nestorians took Chalcedon to be a confirmation of their preexisting Christology. In this context, the reasoning for the Armenian rejection of Chalcedon should be clear – it had to do with anti-dyophysitism, not pro-Eutychianism. If this were not the case, why would the second of the post-Chalcedon documents written by their Catholicos of that period concerning Christology explicitly condemn Eutyches? That wouldn’t make sense. They didn’t like Chalcedon because they saw it as a triumph of Nestorian Christology over Orthodox Cyrillian Christology.

I must say I am getting mighty tired of the offensive and ignorant Byzantine polemic peddled and swallowed as real history by some of our resident EOs and Catholics who don’t know any better. Disagree with Oriental Orthodoxy all you want, but don’t post whatever garbage you want and expect to not be called on it. There is no Monophysitism in the Oriental Orthodox communion, and the ancient documents of all our churches attest to the condemnation of Eutyches, the Nestorians, and Chalcedon. Enough with your senseless baloney. I’m guessing that Karekin Sarkissian (who, at the time of writing the referenced text, was prelate of the Armenian Apostolic Church in the USA…not a position they would hand out to anyone, I’m guessing) probably knows Armenian language and history just a bit better than you, so please think before you type about these things, 1Tim215Mommy, et al.

Just to be clear, I was trying to defend you without derailing the thread. I’m well aware that certain EO individuals often regard the OO as heretics. These same people often say similar things about Catholicism, or anything outside of the Byzantine understanding of theology. For what its worth, the Catholic Church does not regard Miaphysitism as heretical. Its just a different way of expressing the same viewpoint. Its completely understandable why the OO reacted the way they did after Chalcedon, considering the recent council at Ephesus.

This reaction by some EO probably goes hand in hand with what the OP brought up regarding hospitality. However, my experience at an EO parish recently was nothing but positive, so I cannot say I’ve encountered this hostility personally. The EO I’ve met have been friendly and charitable