THANK GOD FOR THIS WEB SITE!

[TomS]

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

I have the same question.

[Reader Michael]

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.

Such "regard"s are the basis by which many declare that they are compromising with falsehood, and one of many reasons to wall off from (as they say in Etna, Ca), and cease communion with these undiscerning bishops who do not "rightly divide."

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.

This is simply not true. Yes, that's what they say, but they never precisely speak about the nature of Christ in a strictly Orthodox way. There is always a door open to their own interpretation. Don't be gullible.

[Anastasios]

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

Then you should not have made your post about "other sites falling into heresy" my friend. I would not have just dreamed up another opportunity to enter into a debate with you.

anastasios

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

That's fine. You can believe whatever you want. Me being at seminary though has exposed me to more Orthodox hierarchs and their opinions than I feel you have had exposure to. I also read the official publications of these churches and if you do that you will see where they stand.

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.

1) That's why I said, "I am sure numbers do not mean anything to you."

2) The consensus of the Church does matter.

3) Those people that are regarded as heretics may and can have their anathemas removed.

4) The Non-Chalcedonians are moving towards ending the anathemas against Leo: the Indian Orthodox already dropped the anathemas at their episcopal consecrations

5) I agree that Non-Chalcedonians need to accept Chalcedon, but they not having rejected it THEMSELVES (since they inherited the separation from their fathers) are less responsible for not accepting it and thus can still be called Orthodox, in my opinion.

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?

I have read several scholarly articles by Orthodox priests and professors who disagree with what you are saying. I will trust them.

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

Many are ready to, the process of changing an entire communion takes time. It takes baby steps. The official consultation is still ongoing.

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.

No, that's not true, and anyone who was mistakenly condemned will be rehabilitated in a church union. The Chalecdonian Orthodox already venerate Non-Chalcedonian saints: c.f. St David of Georgia, and even an Arian saint: St Nilus the Goth. Check it out.

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

We are part of their church, too, and there are fathers alive in this generation. Slavish copying of the Fathers is itself monophysitism according to Florovsky, because it does not allow the Spirit to cooperate with human freedom NOW. What is needed is to obtain the mind of the fathers and not deviate from that.

What is the standard of Orthodoxy?

Nine ecumenical councils. No less.

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

I have never said you are a nut, so that would be an uncharitable thing for you to accuse me of. I said that I personally need to stop being so concerned with online debate since it seems so detracted from what I experience every day in real-life Orthodoxy.

anastasios

[Anastasios]

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.

Such "regard"s are the basis by which many declare that they are compromising with falsehood, and one of many reasons to wall off from (as they say in Etna, Ca), and cease communion with these undiscerning bishops who do not "rightly divide."

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.

This is simply not true. Yes, that's what they say, but they never precisely speak about the nature of Christ in a strictly Orthodox way. There is always a door open to their own interpretation. Don't be gullible.

I am not gullible. I actually take the time to sit down with real Non-Chalcedonian clerics and ask them what they believe. Then I read their liturgical texts and theological texts. I don't rely on documents produced about them but go directly to the source.

anastasios

[Anastasios]

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.

There are books containing speeches and writings given by Orthodox Churches, so-called official records. One such book is the official record of the election of His Holiness Patriarch Pimen of Russia. And in that book, in 1971, there is a speech by the chairman of the department of external affairs for the Moscow Patriarchate where he says that it was all a big misunderstanding and the two families of Orthodox must come together again. This is one example of many. I do not feel particularly obliged to spend 3 hours citing things I have read in the past 5 years that confirm my point of view. If you don't accept what I am saying, that is ok.

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.

Again, there is much more written down than just agreed statements.

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.

That is a slick attempt to try and paint me as a hypocrite, but it won't work. I am a nuanced person and I think some of what Pat. Bartholemew does is good, and some bad. That doesn't make me a hypocrite, it just means that I evaluate him differently depending on the circumstances. For instance, I supported his position in the Northern Territories dispute.

That was a nice slight at the seminary system but that's fine. I don't take such things personally. At the seminary there are multiple points of view expressed and great opportunities for discussion. I am glad to be here.

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

Nestorius thought he was the last bastion of Orthodoxy as did the Old Believers. The fact is, that everyone thinks he is right, and the consensus of the Church does matter.

anastasios

[Anastasios]

I would like to thank everyone for expressing his point of view freely. I have found this discussion to be rewarding.

anastasios

[Lucian]

Anastasios -

Calling Non-Chalcedonians "Orthodox" is not "the consensus of the Church."

How can it be when it contradicts what the Fathers said?

How can it be "the consensus of the Church" to call persons Orthodox who have not yet accepted the Orthodox faith?

No, the present "consensus" (if there is one, which I doubt) is simply another of the recurring episodes of unacceptable bending over backwards into heresy to accomodate the Monophysites.

Shall I recount the prior episodes?

I think you already know about them.

Each one could boast a majority or at least a plurality of Eastern bishops.

Each such effort broke on the Rock of Orthodoxy as represented by those few who refused to compromise.

Even Arianism at one time had a majority of Eastern bishops behind it and thus might have appeared to be "the consensus of the Church."

The Holy Spirit is alive and operating in the Church, but He is not going to be behind something that contradicts what He did and said and wrote through the Fathers who came before us . . .

no matter how many bishops say otherwise.