Eastern Orthodox vs Oriental Orthodox - What's the Difference?

when we discuss some of the largest divisions in christendom today often the divisions cut along these lines there are the catholics protestants and the orthodox however just like the catholics and the orthodox had a schism in 1054 the orthodox churches today are also in schism and there are two separate wings that are not in communion this stretches even further back than the east west schism of 1054 back to the 400s as a result of the schism today we have the eastern orthodox church and the oriental orthodox church these titles are used to distinguish them as both groups view themselves as the orthodox church we'll discuss whether they view the other side as being orthodox later the oriental orthodox are made up of six autocephalous churches the coptic orthodox church of alexandria the syriac orthodox church of antioch the armenian apostolic church the malinkara orthodox syrian church the ethiopian orthodox tewahedo church and the eritrean orthodox tewahero church altogether there are about 62 million members in these churches the eastern orthodox communion has at least 14 autocephalous member churches the ecumenical patriarchate of constantinople the patriarchate of alexandria patriarchate of antioch patriarchate of jerusalem russian orthodox church serbian orthodox church bulgarian orthodox church romanian orthodox church georgian orthodox church church of cyprus church of greece orthodox church of albania polish orthodox church and the orthodox church of the czech lands and slovakia additionally there are two member churches which some of the other 14 recognizes autocephalous and others don't accept the orthodox church in america and the orthodox church of ukraine a little note to make here is that americans especially think of the word oriental as referring to the far east places like japan or china but in reality oriental is just another word for eastern both the eastern orthodox and oriental orthodox are really two terms that mean the same thing representing the eastern church separate from the western church which normally refers to the catholic church and sometimes includes protestantism also unlike the differences between orthodox churches and catholic churches or the differences between catholics and protestants the differences between the two sides of the eastern orthodox church are fewer and more difficult to isolate many members and churches of both eastern and oriental orthodox churches know very little about the differences and we're not referring to slight differences and liturgies used or differences brought about by different culture or language but rather to the church dividing differences that caused the separation in the first place and so to understand these differences we must go back to the time of separation and in fact before it also in 325 a.d the eastern oriental and western churches were together and held in that year the first council of nicaea in 381 they held the first council of constantinople and in 431 they held the council of ephesus here's where things begin to go off the rails in 449 a fourth council was held the second council of ephesus today this council is still held to as the fourth council by oriental orthodox churches two years later in 451 the council of calcidon was held which invalidated the second council of ephesus it was at this council that the schism took place between the eastern orthodox and oriental orthodox churches the oriental orthodox churches rejected chalcedon and still do to this day meanwhile the eastern orthodox churches and western churches as one body would go on to have three more ecumenical councils to which the oriental orthodox churches were not invited so what happened that caused the schism at the time of the council of calcidon within the churches and in the first three councils heresies were being addressed as a response to these heresies sometimes certain bishops or teachers would swing even further in the opposite direction and land in an equal and opposite heresy doctrines were being affirmed or denied as church teachings at each council and politics would come into play too the issue that would come to be the defining one and the pretense for the split was the question of the hypostatic union jesus christ was understood to be both god and man but how is it that he could be both the churches condemned adoptionism that jesus was born simply a human that had been adopted by god and made divine they rejected also the idea that jesus had only a divine nature or that his divine nature had drowned out his human nature a view known as monophysitism as a heresy the churches rejected what has been termed nestorianism that there were two persons the man jesus and the divine lagos both dwelling in one body and that some things jesus did he did as god and others were done as man that's a quick and dirty definition and there's doubt whether nistorius himself actually taught that but that discussion is for another time these discussions on the relation of christ's divinity to his humanity would soon lead to a split because of a few key factors one is that the different orthodox churches had different theological schools and as a result things would often be explained in one way at some schools and differently at others often the same thing was meant but different terminology was used another issue was that language itself can vary and certain terms meant different things to the different churches at a time when anathemas were being handed out it was important to have the same definitions but this was not always the case cyril of alexandria the patriarch of the alexandrian church had been instrumental in the condemnation of nestorius and was viewed by all as being orthodox in the year 446 two years after cyril's death a controversy was stirred up over accusations of various persons teaching nestorianism within this controversy both sides accused the other of heresy and both claimed to be followers of the orthodox teachings of cyril here's the way that the theological argument went cyril had said that there is only one physicist since it is the incarnation of god the word those who would become called the eastern orthodox and those who become known as oriental orthodox agreed that jesus was fully divine and also fully human note the greek word physis which is taken to mean different things by different people the eastern orthodox side said that jesus was in two natures a divine and human nature the oriental orthodox rejected the into nature's wording and said that jesus was of two natures that's the simple version but since this is an important point let's dig just a bit deeper for a moment the view that would be accepted at calcodon the eastern orthodox view which the oriental orthodox reject is called diophysitism while the view of the oriental orthodox is called meophysitism diaphysitism as we said affirms christ into natures meophysism affirms christ of two natures the view of meaphocites was that saying into physics or two natures was to say that christ was in two persons an obvious heresy one person has one nature two persons have two natures since christ is one person he had one nature since he was both human and divine and since he is not a separate human person and separate divine person but only one he must have one nature that is both human and divine numbering christ's natures in the miaphysite view was an improper division a diaphysite response to meophysism is that for christ to have this one nature is to say that he isn't god like god is or man like man is but instead that he has some new hybrid nature the miaphysite response to that is that jesus is perfect in his divinity and perfect in his humanity he made his humanity one with his divinity without mixture nor mingling nor confusion part of the disagreement that the miaphysites had with diaphysism is that the miaphysites viewed the term of christ in two natures as if christ was dumped into two natures dividing him like we might say apples in two baskets the meatphysites viewed christ of two natures as a unifying term that there are two natures divine and human inseparably united in the one nature and person of christ the theological disagreement here can be summed up this way the oriental orthodox viewed the eastern orthodox terminology as dividing jesus's natures in a way that made it sound like there were two persons the eastern orthodox viewed the oriental orthodox terminology as uniting jesus's natures in a way that made it sound like he didn't have the full and unique qualities of each at the risk of getting ahead of myself let me explain that much of and i believe in fact the majority of both eastern orthodox and oriental orthodox theologians no longer view the differences between the eastern orthodox church and oriental orthodox church views of the natures of christ to be substantially different essentially they view each other as using different terms to refer to the same thing what seems to have happened is that due to politics and other underlying issues the matter of the natures of christ came to a head in the four hundreds and after one side condemned and anathematized people on the other soon each side had anathematized the leaders of the opposing side and there was a formal schism at calcedon pope diascorus the first of alexandria was deposed technically for rejecting thrice summons and not for theological reasons although it all did come back to the same issue the alexandrian bishops rejected this and they along with the other churches mentioned rejected the council of chalcedon and now for over 1500 years they've been apart from the other orthodox churches another term therefore for the oriental orthodox and others who rejected the council of calcidon is non-chalcedonian it's easy to break a vase but to put it back together is not so easy in a moment i'll discuss the efforts toward the reunification between the two branches of orthodoxy but first let me discuss a few other differences that are often overlooked in this discussion the ethiopian and eritrean churches have an 81-book biblical canon and also a wider canon that includes books not accepted by the rest of orthodoxy nor by catholics or protestants they prohibit the eating of pork and observe both the sabbath that is saturday and also sunday as holy days additionally they have a few other practices that may appear judaistic to the rest of orthodoxy the armenian apostolic church doesn't mix water with the wine like the rest of orthodoxy and they use unleavened bread while the rest of orthodox churches use leavened this has been a sticking point even within oriental orthodoxy and is bound to come up if reunification with eastern orthodoxy is approved so now let's talk about the reunification as i mentioned most theologians from both sides have come to the conclusion that the theological issue of meophysism versus diaphysitism is in language only and not an actual theological difference that is not to say that all theologians bishops or laymen see things the same way after we discuss the reunification efforts we'll also take a look at what some of the detractors have had to say in 1961 leaders from eastern orthodox churches met together in the pan orthodox council in rhodes greece a council of this type the first and 12th centuries set the stage for discussion on the eastern orthodox relation to other church bodies three years later in 1964 15 theologians from both sides met in rs denmark in an unofficial capacity to discuss the division between the two sides of the orthodox churches a joint statement that they made set in part in our common study of the council of calcidon the well-known phrase used by our common father in christ saint cyril of alexandria mia physicists or mio hypostasis tom thiologon cesar coming the one physicist or hypostasis of god's word incarnate with its implications was at the center of our conversations this dialogue would be followed by three more unofficial dialogues one in 1967 in bristol england one in 1970 in geneva switzerland and one in 1971 in addis ababa ethiopia official dialogues began with a 1985 meeting in kanbacy switzerland the second official dialogue in 1989 at wadi el nitron egypt brought the first official agreed statement from both the eastern orthodox and oriental orthodox churches in addition to affirming cyril's statement like was affirmed at denmark in the unofficial dialogue another part of their statement was as follows when we speak of the one composite synthetos hypostasis of our lord jesus christ we do not say that in him a divine hypostasis and a human hypothesis came together it is that the one eternal hypostasis of the second person of the trinity has assumed our created human nature in that act uniting it with his own uncreated divine nature to form an inseparably and unconfusedly united real divine human being the natures being distinguished from each other in contemplation theoria only further than making a joint statement in new terminology the third official dialogue which took place once again in cambodi switzerland in 1990 provided an opportunity for the eastern orthodox and oriental orthodox to affirm the validity of each other's historic views on the hypostetic union the orthodox agree that the oriental orthodox will continue to maintain their traditional cerulean terminology of one nature of the incarnate lagos since they acknowledged the double consubstantiality of the lagos which uticus denied the orthodox also used this terminology the oriental orthodox agree that the orthodox are justified in their use of the two natures formula since they acknowledge that the distinction is in thought alone something that you may not have immediately noticed in that statement is the fact that the eastern orthodox are referred to as simply the orthodox and the oriental orthodox are referred to as oriental orthodox this wording is a bit of a sore spot and something that many oriental orthodox thinks needs to be properly resolved as part of union 2. if the two were to come together the oriental orthodox don't want it to be viewed as the unruly oriental orthodox coming back into the orthodox fold instead they desire that both sides accept that the other has been through the centuries though divided a proper and true representative of true orthodox churches the eastern orthodox being referred to as just the orthodox could imply that the oriental orthodox aren't truly the orthodox and that is a barrier to unity despite this and the fact that all of the official and unofficial dialogues were worded in this way the oriental orthodox have continued to participate and in fact the same 1990 agreed statement by both sides recognized that both groups are orthodox in the light of our agreed statement on christology as well as of the above common affirmations we have now clearly understood that both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic orthodox christological faith and the unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition though they have used christological terms in different ways it is this common faith and continuous loyalty to the apostolic tradition that should be the basis for our unity and communion additionally the joint statement recognized that both groups accept the first three ecumenical councils the oriental orthodox also accepted the conclusions of the seventh council additionally both agreed that the anathemas and condemnations of each other should be lifted the agreed statement following the 1993 dialogue in canbacy added that the lifting of anathemas should be unanimous and simultaneous and then stated the following the lifting of the anathemas should imply that restoration of full communion for both sites is to be immediately implemented and that no past condemnation cynical or personal against each other is applicable it seemed at the time that things were really moving along some of the church bodies from both sides signed proposals for union based on the dialogues further discussions have taken place in an unofficial way even through 2019. but the last official dialogue was in 1993. what has happened in the last quarter century part of the explanation for why there is still division is that it takes time for a church divided fifteen hundred years to come back together slowly might be better than quickly but another reason is that there is real opposition to the union and there are also difficult decisions that need to be worked out one of the strongest expressions of opposition to the union came from the eastern orthodox monastic community of mount athos who in 1995 made the statement concerning the dialogue between the orthodox and non-calcedonian churches the statement in its entirety is too long to be quoted here but it is definitely worth a read the entire statement refers to the oriental orthodox only by the title of non-calcedonians near the beginning it is stated it is well known that a hurried union is being forced upon the orthodox and the non-calcedonians in spite of the yet existing dogmatic differences and of unsettled ecclesiological problems such as for example the unconditional acceptance of the decrees of the ecumenical councils and of their sacredness and universality by the non-calcedonians and then following a long list of reasons why the merger should not take place the statement concludes as follows all of the above by denouncing them to the venerable ecumenical patriarchate the venerable hierarchies of the orthodox churches the sacred clergy and the pious people we seek the swiftest possible re-establishment of the theological dialogue on the right principles so that the orthodox will preserve for themselves the orthodox faith unspoiled but also for the non-chalcedonians so that they will have the possibility of return to the true church of christ from which they have been cut off for 15 centuries we believe that with the grace of christ the unremitting endeavors of all the members of the church will bring positive results in the event however that the union will come about outside of the only truth god forbid we declare expressly and categorically that the holy mountain will not accept such a false union so what are the main issues brought up for rejecting the union by mount athos and others of course the first issue is that many believe the theological question on the natures of christ is not settled many of those who criticize union call the oriental orthodox menophasites as opposed to meaphasites the oriental orthodox reject that label being miaphysite refers to believing in one united nature as opposed to one singular nature meiphicites reject the concept of one nature alone and believe in one composite nature the next issue is the number of accepted councils those critiquing union believe that the oriental orthodox are trying to pick and choose which ecumenical councils they accept for many anything less than a full acceptance of all seven councils including calcidon will not suffice then there is the issue of the anathemas that were issued at councils historically you can't just undo something that a council has said unless you reject the council altogether so undoing the anathemas from calciton should take a new ecumenical council not just a formal agreement but that council would have the impossible task of rejecting the anathemas while affirming the doctrine of calcidon in the 1500 years since the split there have been new doctrines that have been settled or clarified that need to be shown to be consistent between the two sides eastern orthodox refer to theosis which is not the primary term of the oriental orthodox who would rather say sanctification without careful handling though this small dispute could turn into the same type of dispute that the nature of christ dispute is additionally some doctrinal alignment seems to need to take place over the matters of some who teach universal restoration and there needs to be discussions on atonement theology and the inspiration of the scripture plus in geographical areas where there is a presence of both churches who will be bishop after the merger what liturgy will be used so is union going to happen if you ask the orthodox you'll get different answers some people are optimistic saying we've already signed the agreements we just need to take a few more steps some churches are already allowing the sharing of communion between the two sides others think the obstacles will never be overcome the oriental orthodox will never accept calcidon and the eastern orthodox will neither give it up nor accept those who reject it and there are some on both sides that are fully committed to their own church and view the other side as heretics they don't want reunion at all and likely if some kind of union would come they would reject the union from within so in the end what's the difference between the eastern orthodox and the oriental orthodox they're both still trying to figure that out and some try to minimize the differences while others try to maximize them only as the years go by will we see which differences weren't so big after all and what ones may remain church dividing matters

Channel: Ready To Harvest

Views: 52,845

Rating: 4.9110641 out of 5

Keywords:

Id: YffPLPfe4Jk

Length: 20min 6sec (1206 seconds)

Published: Sun Aug 16 2020