Elsewhere on the Orthodox Web...

[Jakub]

Brother Mor,

Glad to see you are well.

james

PS- Brother Mor is not a heretic, no quite the opposite.

[Savva24]

We Orthodox Christians have many saints showing how the monophysites are wrong. The monophysites disagreed with the OEcumenical Council of Chalcedon and broke away. Your church broke away from Orthodox Christianity by denying Chalcedon and calling it heretical.

As far as I can tell, no one in the Eastern Orthodox world has demonstrated, from our "monophysite" liturgies, prayers, patristic writings, theological treatises, etc. that our Christology is in error, and that Chalcedonian Christology alone is correct. You appeal to Chalcedon, but you also acknowledge that we don't accept it. Prove to me from all of the things I mentioned that our theology is heretical. Prove to me from all that came before Chalcedon that both Eastern Orthodox and "the monophysites" hold in common that our theology is heretical, and only yours is correct. If that can be established, I'd convert. quote]

Dear Mor Ephraim,

Greetings! First, let me say how much respect I have for the Oriental Orthodox. For the most part they put us to shame in terms of piety, fasting, prayer life and overall ascetic dedication to Christ. We would do very well to imitate you all in many ways! Every Oriental Orthodox I have ever met has been a wonderful person. In fact some of my only friends at the Cathedral I go to in Tokyo (when I occasionally don't go to the church in the city I live in) are Ethiopians. It is the saddest things that our churches are not together being as close as we are in so many ways. And nothing would make me more pleased than our union.

Code: Select all

 However, having said that, I do think we have to be honest with ourselves and history  instead of letting our opinions be colored by our own world view or wishful thinking.  I am not sure if there is no monophositism in the Oriental Orhodox now or before as you (and almost every other Oriental I have talked to) claim.  I do not have the intellectual ability or time to do the study of your history, but I have known some Oriental Orthodox who have said some pretty strange things, such as:  ''Christ didn't really suffer on the cross as he is God and God cannont suffer''.  I don't know about you but these kind of sayings sound awfully close to Monophisite thinking, or at least an unOrthodox  balance of the nature(s) of Christ.  Where would one learn this kind of thinking but from actually living (rather than academicaly studying) the ''liturgies, prayers, patristic writings, theological treatises, etc.'' that make up your faith.

However, even if those Oriental Orthodox that said those things are freek exceptions (which somehow I doubt), even if, let us say, the Oriental Orhtodox do not beleive hereticaly about Christ or have come over time to a correct beleif, there is still 1500( :shock: !!!!) years separating us since Chaldecon with anathemas and all throughout.  As there is only one Church and not different branches, how can they both be Orthodox and not have communion with each other for so many centuries?  Even if the Catholics or Anglicans tomorrow threw away all of their heresies, would they be Orthodox without doing anything else like having to be joined to the Church.  So it is not only about correct faith is it?  It is about being a living member of the Church of Christ.  So, the way I see it, if we are honest and not projecting our own view on the matter, either the Eastern Orthodox are in the true Church or the Orentals are, it can't honestly be both with a sacramental separation for that long (unless, of course, one is an advocate of the Branch Theory).

I have one more question for all those who think the Orientals are just as Orthodox as the Easterners. How is it that the Orientals cannot recieve the Holy Fire in Jerusalem if they are members of the Orthodox Church? If you don't know, the Armenians and Copts must get permission from the Patriarch of Jerusalem to recieve it from him every year. And in fact, several ceturies ago, when the Armenians manipulated permission from the Muslims to perform the rite of the Holy Fire and went into the seplucre while the Greeks waited in the courtyard, the fire broke through a pillar and came out to the Eastern Orthodox while the Armenians could not recieve anything. If both are equally Orthodox, why would this happen?

Awaiting your responses and corrections all,

In Christ,

Nicholas

P.S. I read once something by a Coptic priest which said that the Malankara Indian Orthodox Church is Schismatic (or heretical I forgot which) according to the rest of the Oriental Orthodox world. Could someone tell me about this and if it true?

[Julianna]

Brother Mor,

Glad to see you are well.

james

PS- Brother Mor is not a heretic, no quite the opposite.

Why'd you say this?

[Julianna]

Awaiting your responses and corrections all,

In Christ,

Nicholas

No corrections're needed to your clear message of truth.

[Julianna]

the monophysites asked the same questions as Mor Ephrem did 1500 years ago and so the Orthodox Church called an Ecumenical council to make a decision The monophysites did not like that decision and rebelled against Chalcedon which was based on the tradition and teachings of the truth of the Church They left the church in order to keep teaching their heresy. There is 1500 years of proof since the monophysites left the Church worth of writing and proof unless one believes in the branch theory that seperate branches can be true and teach opposite things

[Julianna]

please stop the fighting and the arguments. what kind of Orthodox board is this?? sorry, but its true.

Truth must always be defended and heresy must be fought. I apologize if I've acted unChristian in this

[Mor Ephrem]

Dear Nicholas,

It is refreshing to read your post, because it seems atypical of most here when it comes to this subject. Thank you.

However, having said that, I do think we have to be honest with ourselves and history instead of letting our opinions be colored by our own world view or wishful thinking. I am not sure if there is no monophositism in the Oriental Orhodox now or before as you (and almost every other Oriental I have talked to) claim. I do not have the intellectual ability or time to do the study of your history, but I have known some Oriental Orthodox who have said some pretty strange things, such as: ''Christ didn't really suffer on the cross as he is God and God cannont suffer''. I don't know about you but these kind of sayings sound awfully close to Monophisite thinking, or at least an unOrthodox balance of the nature(s) of Christ. Where would one learn this kind of thinking but from actually living (rather than academicaly studying) the ''liturgies, prayers, patristic writings, theological treatises, etc.'' that make up your faith.

I'm sorry that you heard that from Oriental Orthodox Christians, because it is wrong. But to ask where one would learn that kind of thinking if not from living our faith, from imbibing from the sources of our faith, is not the right question. I have a Coptic friend who has debated privately with "learned" traditionalist Eastern Orthodox Christians over Christology, and he has told me that, when pushed, their defences of Chalcedonian Christology, and their attacks on our Cyrillian Christology, sound very Nestorian (certainly, I have read some EO things that have given me pause, although I admit I am definitely not a theologian). Some have told me that Nestorius himself acclaimed the Tome of Leo and the Council of Chalcedon as perfectly expressing his faith; and yet, you accept the latter and denounce (with us) the former. I do not deny that you heard what you heard from your Oriental Orthodox friends; nor do I deny what my Coptic friend heard from his Eastern Orthodox friends. What I am hesitant to accept as fact is that this came about through each person living his faith, and I am more prone to thinking that each was simply mistaken in some aspect of it. Is this not possible?

However, even if those Oriental Orthodox that said those things are freek exceptions (which somehow I doubt)

Should I doubt that those Eastern Orthodox who sound Nestorian are not exceptions to the norm, following your example?

even if, let us say, the Oriental Orhtodox do not beleive hereticaly about Christ or have come over time to a correct beleif, there is still 1500( :shock: !!!!) years separating us since Chaldecon with anathemas and all throughout. As there is only one Church and not different branches, how can they both be Orthodox and not have communion with each other for so many centuries? Even if the Catholics or Anglicans tomorrow threw away all of their heresies, would they be Orthodox without doing anything else like having to be joined to the Church. So it is not only about correct faith is it? It is about being a living member of the Church of Christ. So, the way I see it, if we are honest and not projecting our own view on the matter, either the Eastern Orthodox are in the true Church or the Orentals are, it can't honestly be both with a sacramental separation for that long (unless, of course, one is an advocate of the Branch Theory).

I don't know. I am not advocating the branch theory when I believe that both the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox are indeed Orthodox. It probably sounds that way, but that's not how I mean it. What I do know is that there's a lot of stuff involved in the current situation, and it's going to take time to work that stuff out so that communion can formally be re-established. In the meanwhile, I know enough of Oriental Orthodox Christology and Eastern Orthodox Christology to know that they are not as incompatible as those here seem to think (and this, often in ignorance of what we actually teach). I also have faith that the Holy Spirit is guiding the Church in all ages, and so if our bishops, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, are dealing with these things now, then God will guide them into all truth if they are willing to heed Him. Whether you (and this is not directed at you personally, Nicholas, but to the general readership) have faith in the Holy Spirit to guide the episcopate of the Eastern Orthodox Church, however, is another story, and sometimes I wonder if some here have lost that faith (unless they admit that the entirety of "world Orthodoxy" has fallen away, and only a "faithful remnant" preserves true Orthodoxy these days...any other attitude makes no sense).

I have one more question for all those who think the Orientals are just as Orthodox as the Easterners. How is it that the Orientals cannot recieve the Holy Fire in Jerusalem if they are members of the Orthodox Church? If you don't know, the Armenians and Copts must get permission from the Patriarch of Jerusalem to recieve it from him every year. And in fact, several ceturies ago, when the Armenians manipulated permission from the Muslims to perform the rite of the Holy Fire and went into the seplucre while the Greeks waited in the courtyard, the fire broke through a pillar and came out to the Eastern Orthodox while the Armenians could not recieve anything. If both are equally Orthodox, why would this happen?

Of course, the question could be asked: why does the Greek Patriarch of Jerusalem allow his flock to pray with heretics on that day?

Seriously, though, miracles prove nothing when it comes to the faith. Even if the Holy Fire ceased to descend on Holy Saturday, Orthodoxy would still be true. Even the Roman Catholics have miracles, but that doesn't automatically mean that they are correct.

P.S. I read once something by a Coptic priest which said that the Malankara Indian Orthodox Church is Schismatic (or heretical I forgot which) according to the rest of the Oriental Orthodox world. Could someone tell me about this and if it true?

This is an interesting (and very sad) situation. To be quick about it (I don't think an in-depth analysis of the situation is appropriate in this thread): the Indian Orthodox Church is not heretical. It is regarded as schismatic by the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch. However, who exactly broke away from whom in the late sixties/early seventies is debatable. Furthermore, neither side is heretical, and the rest of Oriental Orthodoxy (Copts, Ethiopians, Armenians, and Eritreans) is in communion with both the Indian Orthodox Church and the Syrian Orthodox Church in India. Formally, excommunications exist between the rival factions in India, but they are rarely respected by anyone. Formally, there is an excommunication between Antioch and the IOC, and this is respected mostly because we don't generally go to churches other than our own most of the time, but even this has been known to have exceptions. If you have any specific questions, please don't hesitate to contact me privately; I believe my email address is in my profile.