THANK GOD FOR THIS WEB SITE!

[Anastasios]

you are not yet Orthodox either, so how do you suddenly have the ability to determine that heretics condemned countless times by the Orthodox Church are suddenly Orthodox?

I don't have the ability to make such a decision. But the Orthodox bishops whom I trust have been following a course of reconcilliation which I support. I also do not seek to impose my views on others, however, which was why I was responding to your POV, which was condemnatory. I am not the one condemning.

In answer to your second question, I personally maintained that there might be hope as the monophysites were not referred to as "Oriental Orthodox" as openly and as blatantly as they are now. Like it or not, but by changing the name of the forum to reflect this false and IMO heretical term you have made it policy that the members of the other place have to accept that as the primary term--as that is the primary term used.

No, that is simply not a logical conclusion to be drawn. The words "Oriental Orthodox" were always right under Non-Chalcedonian. I find the term Non-Chalcedonian to be vague and to suggest that one could pick and choose whether to accept Chalcedon, which to me is not possible as the only way to reunion is acceptance of Chalcedon.

anastasios

[Lucian]

Anastasios -

The words "Oriental Orthodox" may have been right under "Non-Chalcedonian" all along, but they weren't very obvious or noticeable, nor was it plain that the OC.net policy was that Non or Anti-Chalcedonians are Orthodox.

I did not realize that you all regard them as Orthodox until quite recently. When I did finally realize it - because you came out and told me in a post - it immediately began to trouble me.

How can any Orthodox Christian regard as Orthodox those who reject all but the first three councils of the Church?

How can any Orthodox Christian regard as Orthodox those who venerate as founders men whom the Orthodox Fathers condemned and anathematized as heretics?

How can any Orthodox Christian regard as Orthodox those who continue to repeat heretical slogans like "one nature" and "one will" and attack the ecumenical councils?

One cannot be Orthodox and do those things.

It is outrageously wrong to call such persons "Orthodox."

[Anastasios]

Lucian,

The Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Antiochian Patriarchate, and the OCA, the Moscow Patriarchate, not to mention some members of ROCOR even, and other Orthodox bodies I am sure, regard the Oriental Orthodox as Orthodox. I trust that they came to this conclusion after studying the issue and praying about it, and that is where I am going to leave it.

I beleive they need to accept Chalcedon but they do not hold to monophysitism, it's as simple as that, and the beliefs that were condemned at Chalcedon simply don't apply to the modern Oriental Orthodox.

I have come to a very important conclusion in my life from this controversy: I need to stop being so concerned with what people online think as I have found a huge disconnect between what is considered "Orthodoxy" online as opposed to what I have experienced as Orthodoxy at St Vladimir's Seminary, Orthodox parishes from New York to North Carolina, speaking to Orthodox from around the world, and books by Orthodox and Non-Orthodox scholars. Such interaction will be much more valuable to me than internet debates that never go anywhere and where anyone with even a completley minority opinion* is on equal footing with the best scholars of the world.

anastasios

• I don't intend that to be a slight against you, although for honesty's sake I think your opinion is a minority among the World's Orthodox today (I am sure numbers do not bother you, however).

[Nektarios14]

As for official policy of OC.net..... A diversity of opinion is allowed and encoraged. I have always made it known that I am opposed to the ecumenical activities towards the monophysites and that I believe in the Athonite position on the whole matter. That doesn't seem to bother the administrators (and consider I do moderate the convert forum). Basicly the admins have opinions and share them. But I've never seen them try to force them on others.

[Aristokles]

anastasios, anastasios...
I really don't think Lucian wishes to continue this here; he could have done so at your forum. However, you have piqued my interest enough to respond.

Lucian,
The Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Antiochian Patriarchate, and the OCA, the Moscow Patriarchate, not to mention some members of ROCOR even, and other Orthodox bodies I am sure, regard the Oriental Orthodox as Orthodox. I trust that they came to this conclusion after studying the issue and praying about it, and that is where I am going to leave it.

All well and good for your to repeat this litany of hierarchs in support of your opinion, but I need better-backed statements. That "Agreed Statements" have been reached on some issues does say something about the minds of those bishops from each side who participated in reaching these interim agreements. But even this does not qualify or follow through to a position that the Oriental churches possess the Orthodox Faith.
Indeed, you repeatedly evoke the opinion of His All Holiness Varthalomeos when in fact he has only stated that he is "most hopeful" of a successfully completed re-union and then, in that same piece, stated ALL Seven Ecumenical Coucils must be accepted. That the Moscow Patriarchate welcomes the dialogue does not mean they have accepted anything as of yet.
It does seem ironic that you cite the EP when you think he supports your contention here, but in other fora, you decry his actions elsewhere. This same EP has stated that he does not feel Orthodoxy in America to be mature enough for autocephalous consideration. Given what you say you are being taught in seminary, I wonder if he is not correct.

I beleive they need to accept Chalcedon but they do not hold to monophysitism, it's as simple as that, and the beliefs that were condemned at Chalcedon simply don't apply to the modern Oriental Orthodox.

The above is quite possibly true. But until they accept the Councils, we'll never know despite whatever extraordinary (and in my opinion, pre-mature and suspect) 'economia' is extended to the Orientals.
I am one who is not particularly offended by the use of the term "Oriental Orthodox" - the word 'orthodox' coming into use in the Catholic Church well before Chalcedon. I do object to being forced to accede this term in theological equivalency until there exists true re-union.

I have come to a very important conclusion in my life from this controversy: I need to stop being so concerned with what people online think as I have found a huge disconnect between what is considered "Orthodoxy" online as opposed to what I have experienced as Orthodoxy at St Vladimir's Seminary, Orthodox parishes from New York to North Carolina, speaking to Orthodox from around the world, and books by Orthodox and Non-Orthodox scholars. Such interaction will be much more valuable to me than internet debates that never go anywhere and where anyone with even a completley minority opinion* is on equal footing with the best scholars of the world.

Interesting comment. My Greek pastor, an archimandrite, lambasts me for even participating in these fora. BTW, when I questioned him on the OO-thing and whether they are indeed "Orthodox" his response was, finally - "Not yet".
My wife's ACROD priest mirrored this with, "We'll see." Opinions all.

• I don't intend that to be a slight against you, although for honesty's sake I think your opinion is a minority among the World's Orthodox today (I am sure numbers do not bother you, however).

What does that have to do with the price of lentils?
Saint Athanasios was in the decided minority; St. Mask of Ephesus was a minority of ONE....and they were right.

Demetri

[Anastasios]

Demetri,

I will respond to only one point now. And that is that if Lucian had not wanted to continue the debate, he would not have come to this forum and continued it. So please do not put the responsibility on me for continuing the debate.

I will try to answer your objections later.

Anastasios

[Lucian]

Demetri,

I will respond to only one point now. And that is that if Lucian had not wanted to continue the debate, he would not have come to this forum and continued it. So please do not put the responsibility on me for continuing the debate.

I will try to answer your objections later.

Anastasios

I did not come here and continue the debate. You did that with your response to Joe Zollars.

I do not buy the argument that most of the hierarchs of the Orthodox Church believe that Non-Chalcedonians are Orthodox.

Even if they did believe that, it would not change the fact that Non-Chalcedonians are not Orthodox, because it is impossible to be Orthodox and reject any of the ecumenical councils, venerate heretics, and regard Orthodox Fathers as heretics.

I disagree that Non-Chalcedonians are not Monophysites. The language they use is still Monophysite and Monothelite, despite claims to the contrary or that we do not understand what it "really means." If the language used by Non-Chalcedonians really does not mean what it says, why don't they simply start saying what they really mean?

If they really mean Chalcedonian Orthodoxy, why not simply say that and accept the councils?

Non-Chalcedonians also venerate as saints and fathers men who were Monophysite heretics and who were anathematized by the Orthodox Fathers for that very reason.

The safest course is not to second guess or contradict the Orthodox Fathers.

What is the standard of Orthodoxy?

Three councils?

The Roman Catholics accept that many and more.

Are they therefore "Occidental Orthodox?"

It's funny how it's always one's opponent who is part of that mass of nuts known as "people online."