Who are the Oriental Orthodox?

[Seraphim73]

It reminds me of how the protestants try to pretend that the differences between their sects just boil down to church governance and that there’s still some kind of “mere Christianity” they share.

Then you really are not well versed in OO and EO beliefs. In fact it would be difficult to imagine a more inaccurate characterization. Both Churches share the fullness of the Apostolic faith. Both Churches recognize there is no difference in faith between us.

Our mutual agreement is not limited to Christology, but encompasses the whole faith of the one undivided church of the early centuries. We are agreed also in our understanding of the Person and Work of God the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father alone, and is always adored with the Father and the Son.- 1989 Orthodox-Oriental Orthodox First Agreed Statement on Christology

I’m sure many would like your statement to be true. As it stands, two ancient Churches sharing a faith that you do not share is a, shall we say, inconvenient truth to have to explain. Much easier to try and dismiss it out of hand.

 

[Seraphim73]

From the common declaration of Pope John Paul II and HH Mar Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, June 23, 1984

“The confusions and schisms that occurred between their Churches in the later centuries, they realize today, in no way affect or touch the substance of their faith, since these arose only because of differences in terminology and culture and in the various formulae adopted by different theological schools to express the same matter. Accordingly, we find today no real basis for the sad divisions and schisms that subsequently arose between us concerning the doctrine of Incarnation. In words and life we confess the true doctrine concerning Christ our Lord, notwithstanding the differences in interpretation of such a doctrine which arose at the time of the Council of Chalcedon.”

That is how the EO and OO feel as well.

We have inherited from our fathers in Christ the one apostolic faith and tradition, though as Churches we have been separated from each other for centuries. As two families of Orthodox Churches long out of communion with each other we now pray and trust in God to restore that communion on the basis of the common apostolic faith of the undivided church of the first centuries which we confess in our common creed. What follows is a simple reverent statement of what we do believe on our way to restore communion between our two families of Orthodox Churches.

Our mutual agreement is not limited to Christology, but encompasses the whole faith of the one undivided church of the early centuries. We are agreed also in our understanding of the Person and Work of God the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father alone, and is always adored with the Father and the Son. - 1989 Orthodox-Oriental Orthodox First Agreed Statement on Christology

 

[SteveVH]

That is how the EO and OO feel as well.

We have inherited from our fathers in Christ the one apostolic faith and tradition, though as Churches we have been separated from each other for centuries. As two families of Orthodox Churches long out of communion with each other we now pray and trust in God to restore that communion on the basis of the common apostolic faith of the undivided church of the first centuries which we confess in our common creed. What follows is a simple reverent statement of what we do believe on our way to restore communion between our two families of Orthodox Churches.

Our mutual agreement is not limited to Christology, but encompasses the whole faith of the one undivided church of the early centuries. We are agreed also in our understanding of the Person and Work of God the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father alone, and is always adored with the Father and the Son. - 1989 Orthodox-Oriental Orthodox First Agreed Statement on Christology

The point is that unity is not impossible between any of us.

 

[Seraphim73]

The point is that unity is not impossible between any of us.

I think it is. The EO, OO and Catholic Church agree on Christology 100%. That’s not where the differences occur. And the points of divergence are going to be the same between the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox. For the Oriental and Catholic Churches to enter communion either the Catholic Church will have to repudiate:

• Papal Infallibility
• Papal supremacy
• Universal jurisdiction
• Immaculate Conception
• Purgatory
• Non-immersive baptisms as normative
• Separation of chismation/baptism
• Offering under one species
• Appointment of bishops
• The filioque

Or the Oriental Churches will have to accept them even though they have never previously. It requires one of the two Church to admit they have not held the Apostolic faith. Neither Church is going to do that. On the other hand EO/OO reunification doesn’t require the acceptance or repudiation of any teaching currently held by either Church.

 

[SteveVH]

On the other hand EO/OO reunification doesn’t require the acceptance or repudiation of any teaching currently held by either Church.

Then where is the separation?

 

[Seraphim73]

Then where is the separation?

There is no separation in faith. There is already intercommunion between the two at the lay level with the blessing of hierarchs. But the way forward isn’t simple. Both Churches will have to ratify the other’s councils. A joint clarification of Chalcedon would have to be agreed upon and issued. And the mutual anathemas would have to be lifted. There are also a maze of jurisdictional issues to solve. Who will be the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch etc.

The ratification of councils should be fairly easy. Both Churches accept that the contents of those councils are orthodox. But it still requires a formal ratification. Chalcedon is a little more difficult. The OO will have to accept it but first the EO would have to issue a clarification probably during a joint EO/OO council. As a matter of fact the OO already do accept that Chalcedon can be understood in an orthodox manner. Both Churches would have to accept that the contention at Chalcedon was simply a matter of disputing over words, not over actual beliefs. They could then lift the anathemas. As to the jurisdictional issues that is simply going to require some humility from both sides and an awful lot of discussion and planning. In my opinion that would require the Greek patriarchs to step aside in areas where the OO are predominate, such as in Alexandria and Antioch, and would require the OO to step aside in Constantinople. And that says nothing of all the areas in the world where EO and OO currently have bishops in the same areas. That is a very complex and difficult problem to solve.

By the way if you want to read some of the agreed statements they are listed here.

Where intercommunion is authorized: Pastoral Agreement between the Coptic Orthodox and Greek Orthodox Patriarchates of Alexandria

 

[SteveVH]

I think it is. The EO, OO and Catholic Church agree on Christology 100%. That’s not where the differences occur. And the points of divergence are going to be the same between the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox. For the Oriental and Catholic Churches to enter communion either the Catholic Church will have to repudiate:

• Papal Infallibility
• Papal supremacy
• Universal jurisdiction
• Immaculate Conception
• Purgatory
• Non-immersive baptisms as normative
• Separation of chismation/baptism
• Offering under one species
• Appointment of bishops
• The filioque

Or the Oriental Churches will have to accept them even though they have never previously. It requires one of the two Church to admit they have not held the Apostolic faith. Neither Church is going to do that. On the other hand EO/OO reunification doesn’t require the acceptance or repudiation of any teaching currently held by either Church.

Well, I would simply disagree that most of what you have offered as insurmountable differences are really insurmountable. Leaving aside the issues concerning the power and jurisdiction of the pope and the filioque (I agree that these are big) the EO have never made a pronouncement on the Immaculate Conception and, in fact, had no issues with it until it was defined by the Pope. As for purgatory, the EO couch the same thing in terms of “toll houses”. Both purge us from our sins.

Non-immersive and immersive baptisms are accepted by the Catholic Church and this is not a matter of doctrine.

Separation of chrismation(Confirmation) and baptism is not a matter of doctrine but of practice.

Offering under one species is not a doctrine.

Appointments of bishops? Not sure where you’re going with this.

Now, I do not claim to be any sort of expert concerning the EO, but it seems that we are making a lot of the differences more important then they really are. Feel free to correct me.

 

[Estevao]

Then you really are not well versed in OO and EO beliefs. In fact it would be difficult to imagine a more inaccurate characterization. Both Churches share the fullness of the Apostolic faith. Both Churches recognize there is no difference in faith between us.

Yep I’ve noticed that’s how you post, us Catholics are a bunch of ignorant pew lumps who need to be enlightened. It’s pretty laughable, but I guess it makes sense that a follower of Photius would post like this (Photius means enlightened).

I’m sure many would like your statement to be true. As it stands, two ancient Churches sharing a faith that you do not share is a, shall we say, inconvenient truth to have to explain. Much easier to try and dismiss it out of hand.

Who is this “we”? It’s just you, mate, no need for the royal we.

I know it’s true, that’s why I posted it. I don’t dismiss this supposed unity of faith out of hand, it’s just simple math (there’s that rationalistic latin mind at work I guess). If this supposed shared faith has anything to do with the Council of Nicea, it’s pretty clear that it’s not there. Remember: “one, holy, catholic and apostolic”? Seventeen doesn’t equal one. Not to mention baptism or divorce and contraception. This is what happens when you reject he papacy: schism. It’s the same with the Protestants, although they have split into more groups. But many apologists will try to white wash the differences to pluck some sheep away from the Catholic Church.

 

[Seraphim73]

Well, I would simply disagree that most of what you have offered as insurmountable differences are really insurmountable. Leaving aside the issues concerning the power and jurisdiction of the pope and the filioque (I agree that these are big) the EO have never made a pronouncement on the Immaculate Conception and, in fact, had no issues with it until it was defined by the Pope.

The EO hold that Mary was without personal sin but not without our fallen condition. She needed a Savior just like the rest of us. We would affirm that her conception was just like anyone else’s. The difference is most clearly shown by the fact that Catholics leave open the question of whether or not Mary even died, since in the teaching death is due to original sin and Mary did not have it. There is no such speculation in Orthodoxy. She died because she was in a fallen condition just like the rest of us.

As for purgatory, the EO couch the same thing in terms of “toll houses”. Both purge us from our sins.

They are not really the same at all. Purgatory is a dogma that says there is a fire in which we receive the temporal punishment for our sins. The Toll Houses are an analogy to illustrate that we will be tested after our death as to whether or not we can let go of earthly attachments. It’s not a dogma, it’s not punishment, there is no concept at all of applying merits to remit punishment.

Non-immersive and immersive baptisms are accepted by the Catholic Church and this is not a matter of doctrine.

The Apostolic practice is full immersion. We would insist on following the Apostolic pattern. Lex orandi lex credini.

Separation of chrismation(Confirmation) and baptism is not a matter of doctrine but of practice.

The Apostolic practice is to baptize and then seal the gift of the Holy Spirit immediately, thereby bringing the infant into full communion with Christ. We again would insist on following the Apostolic pattern.

Offering under one species is not a doctrine.

Christ commanded us to eat His Body and drink His Blood. We would insist on following this command.

Appointments of bishops? Not sure where you’re going with this.

Today the pope appoints bishops and moves and deposes them at will. We would insist on following the ancient practice of synodal election.

Now, I do not claim to be any sort of expert concerning the EO, but it seems that we are making a lot of the differences more important then they really are. Feel free to correct me.

Well I’m far from an expert my friend. But I am afraid you misunderstand our teachings and why we insist on consistency in things such as immersion and chrismation and Communion under both species. What we pray is what we believe. Even small changes in practice can lead to major deviations in belief. This things are not new in the Latin Church. Before the 9th century you had the same practices we did in these things.

 

[Seraphim73]

Yep I’ve noticed that’s how you post, us Catholics are a bunch of ignorant pew lumps who need to be enlightened. It’s pretty laughable, but I guess it makes sense that a follower of Photius would post like this (Photius means enlightened).

If someone has a misunderstanding I’m going to point it out.

Who is this “we”? It’s just you, mate, no need for the royal we.

I know it’s true, that’s why I posted it. I don’t dismiss this supposed unity of faith out of hand, it’s just simple math (there’s that rationalistic latin mind at work I guess). If this supposed shared faith has anything to do with the Council of Nicea, it’s pretty clear that it’s not there. Remember: “one, holy, catholic and apostolic”? Seventeen doesn’t equal one. Not to mention baptism or divorce and contraception. This is what happens when you reject he papacy: schism. It’s the same with the Protestants, although they have split into more groups. But many apologists will try to white wash the differences to pluck some sheep away from the Catholic Church.

We (the EO and OO) would say again this is a misunderstanding. Do the 21 Catholic Churches not equal one? Did the Churches (plural) referred to in Scripture not equal one?

 

[SteveVH]

The EO hold that Mary was without personal sin but not without our fallen condition. She needed a Savior just like the rest of us. We would affirm that her conception was just like anyone else’s. The difference is most clearly shown by the fact that Catholics leave open the question of whether or not Mary even died, since in the teaching death is due to original sin and Mary did not have it. There is no such speculation in Orthodoxy. She died because she was in a fallen condition just like the rest of us.

The Catholic Church believes that Mary needed a Savior just like the rest of us as well. However, she was not saved from quick sand by being pulled out of it, but rather by being prevented from ever stepping into it. Mary was saved by her Son’s saving grace just as we are, just in a different manner. Anyway, as much as I would love to continue this discussion I fear we are getting away from the thread topic and focusing on differences between the EO and CC rather than the OO.

They are not really the same at all. Purgatory is a dogma that says there is a fire in which we receive the temporal punishment for our sins. The Toll Houses are an analogy to illustrate that we will be tested after our death as to whether or not we can let go of earthly attachments. It’s not a dogma, it’s not punishment, there is no concept at all of applying merits to remit punishment.

Yeah, after thinking this through a little more I would agree that they are not the same, but only from this aspect. The “Toll House” position allows for one to still be condemned to hell, whereas from the Catholic position if one reaches purgatory he is saved and will reach heaven after he has been purified. We do not believe it is a punishment. We will suffer however, from the realization of how we have offended God, and this has been likened to a purifying fire, not the flames of hell.

The Apostolic practice is full immersion. We would insist on following the Apostolic pattern. Lex orandi lex credini.

I’m not so sure that is actually the case, however yes, it is a practice, therefore no one has to change doctrinal beliefs concerning baptism.

The Apostolic practice is to baptize and then seal the gift of the Holy Spirit immediately, thereby bringing the infant into full communion with Christ. We again would insist on following the Apostolic pattern.

Once again, practice, not doctrine. I actually like the EO tradition, personally.

Christ commanded us to eat His Body and drink His Blood. We would insist on following this command.

Where do we have a difference here? The Eucharist is the source and summit of our faith. If you believe, however, that Christ is not present whole and entire in both species then yes, we would have a major difference there. In fact the very reason that the Church, for a time, went to receiving only one species was to refute the heresy that Christ was not entirely present in both species.

Today the pope appoints bishops and moves and deposes them at will. We would insist on following the ancient practice of synodal election.

Well, you don’t have much choice as you have no unifying leader. And if you think the pope does any of this in a vacuum you are mistaken.

Well I’m far from an expert my friend. But I am afraid you misunderstand our teachings and why we insist on consistency in things such as immersion and chrismation and Communion under both species. What we pray is what we believe. Even small changes in practice can lead to major deviations in belief. This things are not new in the Latin Church. Before the 9th century you had the same practices we did in these things.

Again, these are practices, which require no one to change their beliefs from a doctrinal standpoint. It just seems to me that we should be looking for ways to unify rather than doing our best to find differences to keep us separated. When this comes to doctrinal issues, that is one thing. When it comes to different practices that is quite another and these should not be used to prevent unity.

Peace.

Steve

 

[Seraphim73]

Again, these are practices, which require no one to change their beliefs from a doctrinal standpoint. It just seems to me that we should be looking for ways to unify rather than doing our best to find differences to keep us separated. When this comes to doctrinal issues, that is one thing. When it comes to different practices that is quite another and these should not be used to prevent unity.

Peace.

Steve

I think that is actually one of the biggest differences. Practice reflects belief. You can’t, as an example, say that one Church gives the the Body and Blood and the other gives only the Body but they believe the same thing about the Eucharist. If we believed the same thing we would do the same thing. I’m not trying to be argumentative I’m just pointing out the different way of thinking.

 

[SteveVH]

I think that is actually one of the biggest differences. Practice reflects belief. You can’t, as an example, say that one Church gives the the Body and Blood and the other gives only the Body but they believe the same thing about the Eucharist. If we believed the same thing we would do the same thing. I’m not trying to be argumentative I’m just pointing out the different way of thinking.

What is your belief? Do you believe that only Jesus’ body is present under the appearance of bread and only his blood is present in the cup? This is not a matter of practice, but of doctrine.

 

[Seraphim73]

What is your belief? Do you believe that only Jesus’ body is present under the appearance of bread and only his blood is present in the cup? This is not a matter of practice, but of doctrine.

I believe honestly that it is a pointless syllogism. One that is only necessary in order to explain the deviation in practice from the ancient, undivided Latin and Eastern Churches. The issue is Jesus said unless you eat my Body and drink my Blood you have no life in you. The bread and the cup are both sacred. The are both efficacious for our salvation and Christ commanded it.

 

[Peter_J]

I think it is. The EO, OO and Catholic Church agree on Christology 100%. That’s not where the differences occur. And the points of divergence are going to be the same between the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox. For the Oriental and Catholic Churches to enter communion either the Catholic Church will have to repudiate:

• Papal Infallibility
• Papal supremacy
• Universal jurisdiction
• Immaculate Conception
• Purgatory
• Non-immersive baptisms as normative
• Separation of chismation/baptism
• Offering under one species
• Appointment of bishops
• The filioque

Or the Oriental Churches will have to accept them even though they have never previously. It requires one of the two Church to admit they have not held the Apostolic faith. Neither Church is going to do that. On the other hand EO/OO reunification doesn’t require the acceptance or repudiation of any teaching currently held by either Church.

Yes I believe I see you’re point. EO and OO are very close to each other, and not close to Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Calvinists, Baptists or Pentecostals.

At the same time, though, I think some Orthodox exaggerate that point. (Which is not to deny that there are non-Orthodox who downplay the same point too much.)

 

[Seraphim73]

At the same time, though, I think some Orthodox exaggerate that point. (Which is not to deny that there are non-Orthodox who downplay the same point too much.)

Some definitely do I agree.

 

[SteveVH]

I believe honestly that it is a pointless syllogism. One that is only necessary in order to explain the deviation in practice from the ancient, undivided Latin and Eastern Churches. The issue is Jesus said unless you eat my Body and drink my Blood you have no life in you. The bread and the cup are both sacred. The are both efficacious for our salvation and Christ commanded it.

Okay, Seraphim, I’m not going to press this, but I would be interested to know the answer to my question. What is it that you believe concerning the substance of each species? This would be a doctrinal question and, as important as you think the other issues are, if it is not a matter of doctrine then, IMHO, it is another wound to unity that can be healed.

The reality is that I, as a Catholic, receive under both species each and every time I attend Mass, even though I believe that I receive the entire body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus in either species. If that is true then we are fulfilling Christ’s command to eat his body and drink his blood even if receiving under one species. This becomes a matter of practice and discipline rather than one of doctrine. Today it appears that we do indeed share the same practice of receiving under both species.

 

[Seraphim73]

Okay, Seraphim, I’m not going to press this, but I would be interested to know the answer to my question. What is it that you believe concerning the substance of each species? This would be a doctrinal question and, as important as you think the other issues are, if it is not a matter of doctrine then, IMHO, it is another wound to unity that can be healed.

The reality is that I, as a Catholic, receive under both species each and every time I attend Mass, even though I believe that I receive the entire body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus in either species. If that is true then we are fulfilling Christ’s command to eat his body and drink his blood even if receiving under one species. This becomes a matter of practice and discipline rather than one of doctrine. Today it appears that we do indeed share the same practice of receiving under both species.

The bread is His Body and the wine is His Blood. The bread is not His Blood and the wine is not His Body. Bread is not wine and wine is not bread. The fact is He is present in even the tiniest particle of bread or wine. But that’s not an excuse or reason to not do what Christ commanded.

 

[gmcbroom]

While it is impressive that the OO and EO have much in common it’s a stretch to say they’d reunify easily if at all. However I am interested in seeing how the Pan Orthodox council will play out even it happens in a few years. I don’t think the EO and RO will get along well even if the OO and EO do. It should be noted that there is some intercommunion among Catholics and orthodox specifically in war torn areas of the Middle East where mutual survival depends on cooperation even if it’s frowned upon.

Also I’m not trying to throw gas on the Fire as I am a maronite catholic but the Latin church has been right more often than wrong doctrinally. Case in point, more heresies have arisen from Constantinople than Rome.

The big issue is definitions and language I think. In the eastern churches the sacraments are known as the mysteries. The Latin church had to combat the political situation as well the rise of the Age of Enlightenment. This is much later than the topic at hand but because of issues like this it required the church to define what was always considered and still is considered a mystery.

 

[Seraphim73]

While it is impressive that the OO and EO have much in common it’s a stretch to say they’d reunify easily if at all. However I am interested in seeing how the Pan Orthodox council will play out even it happens in a few years. I don’t think the EO and RO will get along well even if the OO and EO do. It should be noted that there is some intercommunion among Catholics and orthodox specifically in war torn areas of the Middle East where mutual survival depends on cooperation even if it’s frowned upon.

Also I’m not trying to throw gas on the Fire as I am a maronite catholic but the Latin church has been right more often than wrong doctrinally. Case in point, more heresies have arisen from Constantinople than Rome.

The big issue is definitions and language I think. In the eastern churches the sacraments are known as the mysteries. The Latin church had to combat the political situation as well the rise of the Age of Enlightenment. This is much later than the topic at hand but because of issues like this it required the church to define what was always considered and still is considered a mystery.

It matters little where a heresy arises. What matters is whether or not it is ultimately rejected.