Oriental Orthodox:
(Eastern Christians that have had historical dissent regarding one or more of the first 7 ecumeical councils, and were not “Byzantinzed”)
This gets tricky:
- Coptic, Syrian, Syro-Indian, Armenian:
Pretty much Orthodox, but will not accept definition of Leo’s Tome, or the Council of Chalcedon not so much for doctrinal isues, but probably for wording, expression, etc. Linguistic issues, ancent rivalries (as is the case with the Eastern Orthodox), and variant theological emphases disturbed communion. Thus, they do not share the legacy of the 4th-7th Ecumenical Councils, athough they are more inclined today to accept them as orthodox… its a process) They are accepted as Orthodox by most ecumenical-conscious Eastern Orthodox Christans today (hence, free intermarriage, exchange of seminary professors/students, etc.) to the outrage of hardliners.
Same issues (daughter of the CopticChurch). Alleged use of spiritism in the liturgy may be an issue (or so I’ve vaguely heard). Additional Jewish practices (circumcision, Sabbathkeeing) should pose less of an issue, as they do not view them as necessities, but cultural/religious traditions. Issues here are really historical/cultural (they were an isolated segment of Christianity after the original expansion of Islam separated them from the Mediterranen, diminishing heir contact with the Apostolic patriarchates.)
Pretty much orthodox, but they have a Nestoian-like-accent in their theology/liturgy which, while not necessarily heretical, needs clarification to ensure that they are in agreement with the Catholic-Orthodox world. Though they are sometimes considered Nestorian, it may be better said that they share many of Nestorius’ concerns (and an Aniochene Christology), though if pressed against the wall, most modern theologians agree they’re pretty much saying the same things Chalcedon was (as well as the 5th-7th councils), though they have issue regardng the wording and alleged vagueness of the 3rd council (Ephesus), which is the balance-point to Chalcedon. The largest issues have always been linguistic; Syriac theological vocabulary not readily compatible withour Greek/Latin vocabulary (leads to much misunderstanding).