Racists don’t get it that...

Page 12 of 12 [ 188 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Joined: 27 Apr 2018
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Posts: 598
Location: Narnia

01 Aug 2020, 12:20 pm

I understand that the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox Churches are not in communion.

Oriental Orthodox Christians that I know and am friends with, as well as Oriental Orthodox scholars (and Eastern Orthodox scholars) have stated that both of our faiths believe Christ to be both man and God. The way He is both man and God is essentially the same, it's just been articulated differently.

Yeah I know there is also an Old Calendar-New Calendar schism. December 25th vs January 7th.

Here's a link from an Armenian Orthodox (Oriental Orthodox) source:

link

Quote:

Unlike the formulation at Chalcedon, the Armenian Church’s Christology is based on what is known as the Alexandrian school of theology. St. Cyril of Alexnadria’s formula of ‘One Nature of the Incarnate Word’ is the basis of this Christology. It teaches that at the moment of Christ’s Incarnation, divine nature and human nature are united inseparably in a single nature, that is, ‘in a single person’. Catholicos Karekin I explains: “The two natures haven’t lost their own characteristics or their integrity, but they do not act separately; otherwise, we would have a dualism, and the Incarnation would not have taken place”. Furthermore, “‘One Nature’ is never interpreted in the Armenian Christology as a numerical one, but always a united one,” adds Abp. Keshishian. “Second, the term ‘nature’ (Greek ousia, Armenian bnut’iun) is used in Armenian theological literature in three different senses: (a) as essence, an abstract notion, (b) as substance, a concrete reality, (c) as person. In the context of anti-Chalcedonian Christology ‘one nature’ is used in a sense of ‘one person’ composed of two natures”.

The followers of Cyril of Alexandria and those who adopted his formulation became known as monophysites (those advocating ‘one nature’) because they rejected the formulation of Chalcedon on the basis that the Council spoke of two natures (Diophysites). This is why the Armenian and the other Oriental Churches are also known as Non-Chalcedonian Churches and are sometimes erroneously referred to as Monophysite Churches.

These Christological terminology and debates might seem trivial to the laymen, but the theological controvery continued for centuries, often becoming a matter of political influence and expediency. But, in 1990, the theologians and official representatives of both Eastern (Byzantine) and Oriental Orthodox Churches ― after years of dialogue and consultations ― agreed in a formal statement that their theological understanding, especially their Christology, is “orthodox.” The statement called for unity and communion between the two branches of Orthodox Churches. The document was sent to the respective leaders of the participating churches for review and formal approval.

_________________
AQ: 36 (last I checked :p)

vermontsavant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,110
Location: Left WP forever

01 Aug 2020, 12:40 pm

^^^
You may be right I've read otherwise.
I have read there Creed is "Jesus is Divine in one person"

However that statement could be interpreted different ways.

_________________
Forever gone
Sorry I ever joined

QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

01 Aug 2020, 2:18 pm

Whale_Tuune wrote:

The way He is both man and God is essentially the same, it's just been articulated differently.

Yeah, thats how it seemed to me as well. But I keep wondering if I am missing something. I mean what if the member of either of these two churches were to explain trinity in their own words, would that be bad? I was assuming that its normal to explain what you know in whatever words you like, as long as the meaning doesn't change. So I am suspecting maybe there "is" a slight change in meaning, the one I am not catching?

Its true though that both churches have to be trinitarian, since both churches accept the Council of Nicea, and trinity was articulated in that council.

Whale_Tuune
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Apr 2018
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Posts: 598
Location: Narnia

01 Aug 2020, 2:44 pm

So our patriarchs did agree that we are saying the same thing in our own words in the 1990s... Then OO/EO groups spoke out against that. (We are prone to schisms...)

For the most part, the Christology may be reconcilable, but the other big thing is that Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox have disagreements on saints/heretics. We may venerate a saint, they call him a heretic. And vice versa.

But tbh the Orthodox are flexible about sainthood period. Some venerate Augustine and regard him as a Church Father, others consider him a heretic. A saint is anyone in heaven, and you can't really know who's in heaven and who isn't, so we understand that many of the saints are "canonized" for political rather than spiritual reasons. "Canonization" is more of a Catholic thing. Historically, saints were saints when certain communities treated them like saints.

That means that we ought to be able to view "sainthood" more fluidly.

_________________
AQ: 36 (last I checked :p)

QFT
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Jun 2019
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,456

01 Aug 2020, 3:44 pm

Whale_Tuune wrote:

So our patriarchs did agree that we are saying the same thing in our own words in the 1990s... Then OO/EO groups spoke out against that. (We are prone to schisms...)

What were the arguments of the groups that spoke against it?

Whale_Tuune wrote:

But tbh the Orthodox are flexible about sainthood period.

But I thought that the difference between Orthodox and Protestant is that Orthodox doctrine is based not only in the Bible but also on the teaching of the saints. But, if thats the case, how can you really be flexible about who is a saint? I mean the choice of saints will ultimately alter the doctrine since it will alter whose writings to take seriously.

Whale_Tuune wrote:

A saint is anyone in heaven

That feels a bit weird. Intuitively, there are very few saits, while a lot more people are in heaven. If a given person happens to go to heaven, they are still not a saint, unless they made very significant contributions to the church.

Incidentally, I heard Protestants articulate that all true believers are saints. Even though I am Protestant myself, I never felt comfortable with this particular aspect of this: it just places too much burden on any individual who wants to go to heaven. In fact, this is one of the things that make me feel drawn to Catholicism and Orthodoxy since I was assuming they don't hold that belief.

But perhaps I am misunderstanding something?

Whale_Tuune
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Apr 2018
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Posts: 598
Location: Narnia

01 Aug 2020, 4:07 pm

I'll have to pull up what some dissenters said.

One, we (EO) base our understanding of the Bible on Church Tradition as articulated by Church Fathers. Church Fathers are generally thought of as saints, but saints are not necessarily Church Fathers. Who a Church Father is can also vary, but in general, they include those such as Saint Basil, Saint Gregory of Nyssa, John Chrysostom, and Isaac of Nineveh (who was in fact Church of the East, aka part of the "Nestorian Church")... There are many, many more saints. Church Fathers could theoretically not be in Heaven, but their ideas are incorporated into Church Tradition.

Maybe we have different understandings of sainthood... A saint is someone who is in Heaven, close to God, and can intervene with God on your behalf. Known, named saints that many people know of are usually doers of spectacular works of mercy and love, which is why they're so famous. You and I can't know who is truly a "saint" though, as in, is in Heaven... In a sense, Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox agree then that saints are "true Christians" who emulate Christ well and go to Heaven. Catholics and Orthodox though actively document and venerate saints they consider to be close with God, though who is and who isn't is more of a subjective opinion.

_________________
AQ: 36 (last I checked :p)

naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 70
Gender: Male
Posts: 35,189
Location: temperate zone

01 Aug 2020, 4:50 pm

There is one church that says ALL of it's members are "saints", which is why they call themselves "the Church of Latter Day Saints". Everyone else calls them "The Mormons".

Whale_Tuune
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Apr 2018
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Posts: 598
Location: Narnia

01 Aug 2020, 5:04 pm

"Saint" was a term (along with "friend" and "brother/sister") that early Christians did use before "Christian" became popular.

_________________
AQ: 36 (last I checked :p)

RightGalaxy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,145

01 Aug 2020, 5:31 pm

These types of people are raised to feel superior and believe the racist stereotypes that they were taught as a child. It's hard to get them to change. When they feel threatened, they will always attack low. I had a white friend who got a little mad about my son doing well in school and made a comment that his merit was due to him being half white. It hurt.

Whale_Tuune
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Apr 2018
Age: 26
Gender: Female
Posts: 598
Location: Narnia

01 Aug 2020, 5:39 pm

Ew.

_________________
AQ: 36 (last I checked :p)

funeralxempire
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 27 Oct 2014
Age: 40
Gender: Non-binary
Posts: 30,796
Location: Right over your left shoulder

01 Aug 2020, 7:46 pm

RightGalaxy wrote:

It's interesting the sorts of assumptions so-called friends will make.

_________________
The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.
They have a name for Nazis that were only Nazis because of economic anxiety or similar issues. They're called Nazis.

cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

02 Aug 2020, 12:19 am

Should they remain friends is the question?

Page 12 of 12 [ 188 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12

Jump to:

Racists don’t get it that... Post Reply New Topic

Racists don’t get it that...