Oriental vs Eastern Orthodox?

  • Thread starter Thread starter questions_here
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Q

questions_here

Guest
According to Wiki:
Oriental Orthodoxy is the faith of those Eastern Christian Churches that recognize only three ecumenical councils — the First Council of Nicaea, the First Council of Constantinople and the First Council of Ephesus. They rejected the dogmatic definitions of the Council of Chalcedon (451). Hence, these Oriental Orthodox Churches are also called Old Oriental Churches or Non-Chalcedonian Churches. These churches are generally not in communion with Eastern Orthodox Churches but they are in dialogue for a return to unity

But I find it hard to believe that today these Oriental Churches don’t accept the next 4 councils. Is this just a historical distinction that has no meaning today?

According to “Principles and Norms for Ecumenism”
www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/general-docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930325_directory_en.html

it says in footnote 28:

28 Cf. UR, nn. 14-18. Those to whom the term “Orthodox” is generally applied are those Eastern Churches which accept the decisions of the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. In recent times, however, it has also been applied, for historical reasons, to those Churches which did not accept the dogmatic formulae of one or other of these Councils (cf. UR, n. 13). To avoid confusion, the general term “Eastern Churches” will be used throughout this Directory to designate all of those Churches of the various Eastern traditions which are not in full communion with the Church of Rome.

so my questions are:
  1. do these Oriental churches accept first 7 councils?
  2. If so, this Oriental vs Eastern is now Obsolete: True or False?
 
No, they don’t accept them. With the exception of the fourth I’m not sure if they have any specific opposition to them, but the councils themselves have no importance within their faith.

There is still a distinction between Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, but we’re working on it. The Orientals I’ve talked to all seem to agree with the Orthodox that it is an administrative issue more than anything at this point.
 
Its not an issue of acceptance, it just isn’t thought of.

For example, the seventh council dealt with iconoclasm, and they certainly agree with the outcome of that council, but they weren’t there, they didn’t put (name removed by moderator)ut into it, so to say they “accept” the council isn’t quite right, even if they don’t take issue with it.

I have no idea what the Oriental opinion is on the other councils. I’ve never heard any opposition to any other than Chalcedon though.
 
questions_here said:
can you tell me what is not accepted?
Click to expand...
The Orientals are sometimes known as the non-Chalcedonian churches, because of their rejection of the in two natures formula from Chalcedon. The other thing they would traditionally also reject would be dyothelitism as a result of their rejection of Chalcedon. It seems that in the modern era, there has been more understanding between the non-Chalcedonians and the Chalcedonian Churches, with some on both sides coming to the conclusion that the two sides share the same Christology.
 
Cavaradossi said:
The Orientals are sometimes known as the non-Chalcedonian churches, because of their rejection of the in two natures formula from Chalcedon. The other thing they would traditionally also reject would be dyothelitism as a result of their rejection of Chalcedon. It seems that in the modern era, there has been more understanding between the non-Chalcedonians and the Chalcedonian Churches, with some on both sides coming to the conclusion that the two sides share the same Christology.
Click to expand...
“two natures formula” = en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union ?
 
questions_here said:
“two natures formula” = en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union ?
Click to expand...
Not the Hypostatic union, per se, because St. Cyril and the Council of Ephesus also held to the Hypostatic union, but rather the Chalcedonian definition, which expounds upon the Hypostatic union, stating that even after the union, the person of Jesus Christ is in two natures, human and divine, while St. Cyril confessed only to one nature, theanthropic, after the union.

See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcedonian_Definition
 
Nine_Two said:
No, they don’t accept them. With the exception of the fourth I’m not sure if they have any specific opposition to them, but the councils themselves have no importance within their faith.

There is still a distinction between Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, but we’re working on it. The Orientals I’ve talked to all seem to agree with the Orthodox that it is an administrative issue more than anything at this point.
Click to expand...
Right this is their postion today in regards to the other Apostolic Churchs. They feel their was a lack of communication and a error was made. Probly happened more than we would like to believe back in a period with no mass communication and the written word was all done by hand.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top