Oriental Orthodox = Nestorian or even Arianistic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Esdra
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Esdra

Guest
Hi,

in another thread, we’ve been discussing Adventism and there the thought came up that they are Nestorian or even Arian.

My question know is: Aren’t the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Assyrian Oriental Orthodox Church also Nestorian?

Are there also Arian Oriental Orthodox Churches? Or does Arianism not exist anymore?
Code: 
                 Originally Posted by **benidict**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7599993#post7599993)                 
             *Hello my dear friend. I would agree  with you that the Adventist only use scripture at their seminars.  But.......(there is always the proverbial but.) The Adventist use  scripture in LIGHT of E.G. Whites teachings. There whole take on  prophecy is from her vantage point. not independent study.I would have  taken a different tact with the lady in question as to her studies with  the Adventist. To me, it was handled the wrong way. I will not be  critical of the Adventist prophetic views, but I certainly will  challenge them. Just as I will and have Challenged the fundamentalist  dispensationalist on their pre mil views. No E.G. White= No Adventist  movement. Different view of the Trinity from what has been taught for  2000 years= not Christian doctrine. I find more hints of Arianism and  Nestorianism in Adventist views, than I do Christian. Especially in  their Trinitarian view, and Christology. Peace 

 Quote:
                                                                  Originally Posted by **benidict**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7600662#post7600662)                 
             *Hi my friend. I would say its about  honesty. Plain and simple. If you tell me your a Catholic, then I have  an idea where you will probably be coming from. If you tell me your a  Latter Day Saint, then I know you will be coming from a different angle.  If you hide your affiliation, then I have to wonder what your angle is,  and what you are trying to hide. I have over a very long time come to  the conclusion that Adventism is a cult. this has not been easy, because  I had the impression they were a Christian movement for the longest  time. It was not until some Adventist posters here wrote some things,  that Made me start delving deeper into their doctrines and teachings.  They are following Adventist doctrines. *
                             
 Quote:
                                             Adventism is at best , semi Arian. Its views of the Trinity are  based on an ancient heresy. Their views on Christ are heretical as well.  I have had no Adventist come on here and tell me I am mistaken. Im  still waiting.
40.png
Esdra:
But aren’t some Oriental Orthodox Churches as well Nestorian? The Coptic Orthodox is, if I don’t err, as well as the Assyrian Orthodox Church…
If there are still Arianistic Churches, I don’t know. But I think it’s likely that some Oriental Orthodox Churches are Arianistic.
Because otherwise, why should they have abondend the Council of Ephesus (Was it Ephesus where the Oriental schism occured? Not sure! :()
Click to expand...
Code: 
 Quote:
                                             The evidence continues to mount that this is not a Christian  movement at all. But that being said, I do believe there are people  within this system who still hold to the truth about Christ, The  Trinity, Etc. That I can accept them as I do my protestant bretheran. I  will take it on a case by case basis, whenever I meet one. Peace
  • Code: 
                              Quote:
                                                                Originally Posted by **Esdra**                     [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=7600699#post7600699)
But aren’t some Oriental Orthodox Churches as well Nestorian? The Coptic Orthodox is, if I don’t err, as well as the Assyrian Orthodox Church…
If there are still Arianistic Churches, I don’t know. But I think it’s likely that some Oriental Orthodox Churches are Arianistic.
Because otherwise, why should they have abondend the Council of Ephesus (Was it Ephesus where the Oriental schism occured? Not sure! :()

I am going to be very hones my friend. I am not well educated as to the Orthodox. Ive tried…but it seems very complex! I will admit, I really do not understand it enough to make a statement about them. LOL! however there are certain things that they teach, that I could never agree with. I think…We shall have to ask someone else. I will let you start that thread.😛 hopefully they an educate me so I can at least have a working knowledge. Peace 🙂
**
Benedict and I are looking foreword to your answers. ;)** *

Best wishes,
*
 
Hi there Esdra,

The way I understand it is that the Oriental Orthodox churches for a long time were accused of being monophysite, meaning they split from the church due to the Council of Chalcedon in 451 which they could not accept. There’s been a lot of progress in the last 1500 years, and at least some of the Oriental Orthodox can once again receive communion in an Eastern Orthodox church. The Oriental Orthodox have usually only accepted the first 3 councils, but not Chalcedon and those after it.

The Assyrian Church of the East is traditionally termed Nestorian, as they only accept the first two councils. They lived mostly around Iraq, and Iran but their numbers are so few now that it would be difficult to get in contact with a leading metropolitan or bishop to make the same progress that has been made with the Oriental Orthodox.

Sincerely,
Andrew
 
AveChriste11 said:
Hi there Esdra,

The way I understand it is that the Oriental Orthodox churches for a long time were accused of being monophysite, meaning they split from the church due to the Council of Chalcedon in 451 which they could not accept. There’s been a lot of progress in the last 1500 years, and at least some of the Oriental Orthodox can once again receive communion in an Eastern Orthodox church. The Oriental Orthodox have usually only accepted the first 3 councils, but not Chalcedon and those after it.

The Assyrian Church of the East is traditionally termed Nestorian, as they only accept the first two councils. They lived mostly around Iraq, and Iran but their numbers are so few now that it would be difficult to get in contact with a leading metropolitan or bishop to make the same progress that has been made with the Oriental Orthodox.

Sincerely,
Andrew
Click to expand...
Actually, the Assyrian Church of the East (which has a hierarchy located in the United States) and the Roman Catholic Church have issued a joint christological statement.
 
RyanBlack said:
Actually, the Assyrian Church of the East (which has a hierarchy located in the United States) and the Roman Catholic Church have issued a joint christological statement.
Click to expand...
Is there a link for this? I have heard this but haven’t actually seen/read the Popes statement on the subject.
 
The Oriental Orthodox churches are not at all Arian and certainly not Nestorian. St. Cyril of Alexandria, the 24th Pope in the line of St. Mark to the Alexandrian papacy (412-444 AD), was one of the main figures at the Council of Ephesus that deposed Nestorius for his heresy. No Oriental Orthodox Church holds either position (and NONE are “monophysite”…this is a Chalcedonian slander), as if they did they could not be a part of the communion.

The Church of the East, which is Nestorian whether they like the label or not (they embrace the teachings of Nestorius, they just hate the label because they say he follows their church’s Christology, not establishes it…fine, whatever, they’re still heretics), is an entirely other matter. They did sign a common Christological declaration with Rome. I’ll leave it up to you to determine how convincing it is. There doesn’t seem to be any depth to it, in my eyes.
 
Regarding Arianism, St. Athanasius of Alexandria, who became Pope of Alexandria in the wake of the first Council of Nicaea at which he served as a deacon, wrote the incredibly influential and excellent Discourse Against the Arians in response to Arius’ heresy. He was probably the leading Christian theologian writing against Arianism in his day, as he was a contemporary of Arius (he was a deacon in Alexandria at the time that Arius, a Presbyter, came into conflict with the Church) and saw from their beginning his heretical beliefs.
 
I really appreciate this thread. I dont know much about Orthodoxy, and this will clear up alot of misconceptions I may have. Thank you Esdras. Peace 🙂
 
Rolltide said:
Well, it was convincing enough that an entire diocese of the Assyrian Church of the East reunified with the Catholic Church back in 2008…

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2008/05/3000-assyrians-received-into-catholic.html
Click to expand...
What heretics do with the Catholic Church or vice versa is not my concern. I hope that in the process they were required to renounce their Nestorian beliefs, or else frankly I don’t see the point of rejoicing over this. I don’t really see the point, anyway; You know how few CoE there are? Realistically, joining with Rome is probably their last hope for survival rather than an admission that they’d been wrong for ~1800 years.
 
dzheremi said:
The Oriental Orthodox churches are not at all Arian and certainly not Nestorian. St. Cyril of Alexandria, the 24th Pope in the line of St. Mark to the Alexandrian papacy (412-444 AD), was one of the main figures at the Council of Ephesus that deposed Nestorius for his heresy. No Oriental Orthodox Church holds either position (and NONE are “monophysite”…this is a Chalcedonian slander), as if they did they could not be a part of the communion.

The Church of the East, which is Nestorian whether they like the label or not (they embrace the teachings of Nestorius, they just hate the label because they say he follows their church’s Christology, not establishes it…fine, whatever, they’re still heretics), is an entirely other matter. They did sign a common Christological declaration with Rome. I’ll leave it up to you to determine how convincing it is. There doesn’t seem to be any depth to it, in my eyes.
Click to expand...
One might say that the accusations of heresy you direct againt the Church of the East is an Ephesian slander. One might also say that the Oriental Orthodox are Monophysite, whether thy like the label or not (an accusation that I believe plenty of Eastern Orthodox, and no doubt, some “traditionalist” Catholics still employ). By the way, would you reveal your own Church affiliation, so that people might better understand your perspective (it appears to me to be Oriental Orthodox, but I don’t want to assume)?
 
It is good to not assume, since I am not Oriental Orthodox. I don’t list a church affiliation because I don’t have one right now. When I do, I will.

Oriental Orthodox are NOT Monophysite whether they like it or not, because unlike the CoE, they do not affirm the heresy they have been accused of, but repudiate it at every turn. Please see this video from the “Sects of Lebanon” documentary series, on the Assyrians of Lebanon. In it, at ~1:30, Bishop Marsli De Baz confirms that the CoE sides with Nestorius and believes in what he believes in. Later in it, at ~2:50, the researcher Ashur Kiwarkis says “We are not following Nestorius. Nestorius said something we believed in before he was even born. We support the idea he was speaking of, that’s why we were called ‘Nestorians’. We are still proud of Nestorius and his doctrines.”

This is exactly in line with what I wrote earlier, that they reject the term not on theological grounds, but because they want credit for having thought of the heresy first. Fine…they’re first in line for this heresy. It doesn’t make it right.

You will find nothing similar from the non-Chalcedonians that supports the claim that they hold a monophysite position. They will tell you over and over that they follow Cyrilian Christology in his formula of “one nature of the incarnate word”, but that this is miaphysitism (two natures with no separation), not monophysitism (one nature only). The non-Chalcedonians are not monophysites.

By the way, the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox signed an agreed official statement on Christology in 1990 in Geneva. Here is an excerpt of it from Orthodoxwiki. It is a substantial step in the right direction, with the depth that I feel is missing from the earlier statement from the Vatican concerning the CoE.
 
Rolltide said:
Well, it was convincing enough that an entire diocese of the Assyrian Church of the East reunified with the Catholic Church back in 2008…

rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2008/05/3000-assyrians-received-into-catholic.html
Click to expand...
Note that the Chaldeans are essentially Assyrians who have reunified with Rome. There is currently as standing inter-communion between the Assyrians and the Chaldeans as approved by Rome for their territories in the Middle East. They are heavily persecuted especially in Iraq.
 
dzheremi said:
It is good to not assume, since I am not Oriental Orthodox. I don’t list a church affiliation because I don’t have one right now. When I do, I will.

Oriental Orthodox are NOT Monophysite whether they like it or not, because unlike the CoE, they do not affirm the heresy they have been accused of, but repudiate it at every turn. Please see this video from the “Sects of Lebanon” documentary series, on the Assyrians of Lebanon. In it, at ~1:30, Bishop Marsli De Baz confirms that the CoE sides with Nestorius and believes in what he believes in. Later in it, at ~2:50, the researcher Ashur Kiwarkis says “We are not following Nestorius. Nestorius said something we believed in before he was even born. We support the idea he was speaking of, that’s why we were called ‘Nestorians’. We are still proud of Nestorius and his doctrines.”

This is exactly in line with what I wrote earlier, that they reject the term not on theological grounds, but because they want credit for having thought of the heresy first. Fine…they’re first in line for this heresy. It doesn’t make it right.

You will find nothing similar from the non-Chalcedonians that supports the claim that they hold a monophysite position. They will tell you over and over that they follow Cyrilian Christology in his formula of “one nature of the incarnate word”, but that this is miaphysitism (two natures with no separation), not monophysitism (one nature only). The non-Chalcedonians are not monophysites.

By the way, the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox signed an agreed official statement on Christology in 1990 in Geneva. Here is an excerpt of it from Orthodoxwiki. It is a substantial step in the right direction, with the depth that I feel is missing from the earlier statement from the Vatican concerning the CoE.
Click to expand...
BTW, I do not personally consider the Oriental Orthodox to be heretics. With respect to the Assyrian Church of the East, I am very skeptical of the appropriateness of the label “Nestorian.” But for that matter, I’m skeptical as to whether Nestorius himself, and the other other adherents of Antiochene school of Christology were actual adherents of Nestorianism. While I personally accept the teaching of the hypostatic union, for me, the conduct of St. Cyril of Alexandria at the Council (and throughout his tenure as Patriarch for that matter), calls into question the extent to which his writings against his Antiochene opponents ought to be taken at face value. Furthermore, I have studied both St. Cyril’s anathemas, and the replies by Theodoret, and it seems to me that had they been more willing to listen to each other, they might have been able to find common ground.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top