Ethiopian & Armenian church.

[GoodShepherd]

I was given a church history book by my priest earlier this year and It mentioned that the Ethiopian and Armenian church were cut off sometime in the 4th century but it didnt go into details about it. Does anybody here know why this excommunication took place? It seems like it had to do with how they saw the nature of God the Father and God the Son.

Im aware that Roosh originally belonged to the Armenian Church but was baptised into the Russian Church recently, a few years ago.

The very little underatanding I have about these 2 churches is that they fall under the oriental Orthodox church.

 

[Samseau]

It was a fairly ridiculous situation resulting from translation issues back in the day. God willing this issue will be fixed within our lifetimes. The copts are already sending their seminarians to Balamand (Antiochian seminary) for instruction, so that's an extremely positive sign.

I think most people are on board with reconciliation, however, the issue of Severus of Antioch being a Saint in the Orientals and not the rest of Orthodoxy remains a thorny issue.

 

[KulturedKaveman]

I mentioned this to someone a while back. Assyrian Church of the East, Orientals, and Armenians are just what happens when you have Armenian, Aramaic, and Arabic speakers trying to discuss theology in Greek. They’re really the same faith imho. Even Catholicism… somewhat. I’ve spoken to Catholics who try to talk about the Filioque the same way and would say things like “wow, unlike Latin the Greek has unfortunate implications if you say “and the son.” I could buy it, but it doesn’t end there. Papal infallibility, temporal punishment in the afterlife, clerical celibacy, venial vs mortal sin can’t be worked out as easily as the stuff with the Orientals and Assyrians.

I’m aware the Assyrians are called Nestorians but I don’t think they actually believe what Nestor taught.

 

[GoodShepherd]

But I asked my priest if we are in communion with them and he said no, but we havent talked further, but since this is currently the case Im obviously not gonna visit and worship in an oriental church, Roosh left the Armenian church remember? He said they had the look inside but werent the real thing, something along those lines

 

[Narekatsi]

It was a fairly ridiculous situation resulting from translation issues back in the day. God willing this issue will be fixed within our lifetimes. The copts are already sending their seminarians to Balamand (Antiochian seminary) for instruction, so that's an extremely positive sign.

I mentioned this to someone a while back. Assyrian Church of the East, Orientals, and Armenians are just what happens when you have Armenian, Aramaic, and Arabic speakers trying to discuss theology in Greek. They’re really the same faith imho.

It is indeed the same faith. We have way too much in common to be calling each other heretics and heterodox, and banning each other from our places of worship. I've noticed this predominantly among new converts to EO, or EO in the west.

There is an early 16th century Armenian Orthodox monastery/church complex in Romania (Oriental Orthodox, not EO). Romania is a very devout EO nation, and yet this monastery has become so popular among the EO faithful of the region, that they arrange [almost weekly] pilgrimages to visit the monastery and pray alongside the Armenians – the pilgrims are comprised of Romanian laymen and EO priests. It has had such traffic in recent times that the Armenian Apostolic Church has arranged for an Armenian priest to always be on-site and offer prayers in Armenian and Romanian. Are all those devout and faithful Romanian EO members destined to hell for identifying a fellow Apostolic Christian Holy site and choosing to pray with them to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ? Are they grave sinners for what Fr. Peter Heers (himself, a convert to EO) would call “praying with the heterodox?” This was the same mindset that drove Roosh to ban or warn anyone who did not fully align with his branch of EO. A lifelong EO faithful in Romania has no immediate fear of falling away and demonstrates more love and charity for fellow Apostolic Christians who are essentially following the same faith.

But back to the topic at hand. While I agree with @KulturedKaveman on us essentially having the same faith, I do disagree on the language aspect. St. Cyril of Alexandria who formulated the Christological doctrine, wrote and preached in Greek. The School of Alexandria spoke and worshiped in Greek. The Copts are the heirs of Alexandrian Christianity and they are OO, in full communion with the Armenian Apostolic Church.

St. Cyril of Alexandria, whom we all venerate as a Saint, clearly defined the nature of Christ after the incarnation/union, and it was accepted at the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431 AD. St. Cyril introduced his 12 Anathemas (accepted by our Church), which clearly defines the incarnate nature of our Lord. The dissent in the west arose after the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Ephesus was called in 449 AD by Emperor Theodosius II and presided by Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria (himself, a protégé of St. Cyril) to reaffirm the Miaphysite doctrine of St. Cyril and to reaffirm his 12 Anathemas. Leo, the Bishop of Rome, who is not a considered a Saint in our Church, either through political motives or a complete misunderstanding of the matter, rejected the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Ephesus and persuaded Emperor Marcian (who had just ascended to the imperial throne) to convoke a new council at Chalcedon.

Now, why do we believe that Leo may have misunderstood St. Cyril’s Christology? Here is an excerpt from the Tome of Leo:

When, however, Eutyches said in reply to the interrogation of your hearing, ‘I profess that our Lord was from two natures before the union, but after the union I profess one nature’, I am amazed that so absurd and so distorted a profession was not deemed reprehensible by any rebuke of the judges, and that so senseless a statement was passed over as if what had been heard had offended no one, when it is just as impious to say that the only-begotten Son of God is from two natures before the incarnation as it is unlawful to assert that after the Word became flesh there is one nature in him.

That paragraph, ends with a footnote explanation by Rev. Dr. Richard Price, a retired Catholic Priest and a prominent Roman Catholic scholar:

Leo misunderstands the teaching, developed by Cyril of Alexandria, that in Christ there are two natures ‘before’ the union and one nature ‘after’ it, in the sense that, in the context of the Christological model that conceives of the two natures as two entities that ‘came together’ to form the one Christ, there are two distinct elements ‘before’ the union (although in reality the human nature did not, of course, pre-exist the union) and one reality ‘after’ it. See Cyril, Letter to Acacius 12, in Cyril of Alexandria, Select Letters, 48, ‘In respect of the elements from which is the one and only Son and Lord Jesus Christ, as we accept them in thought, we say that two natures have been united, but after the union, when the division into two has now been removed, we believe that the nature of the Son is one, as of one [person], though made man and incarnate.’ It is strange that Leo criticizes the Home Synod for tolerating Eutyches’ denial of two natures after the union (made at I. 527), since, although the Synod did not respond instantly, it proceeded to insist that Eutyches acknowledge this doctrine (I. 543–5, 549), and it was his refusal to do so that led to his condemnation.

The above texts are from the English translation of the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Volume 2, Second Session, Page 23).

Another one, post-Ephesus I, and prior to Ephesus II and Chalcedon. This shows that Leo’s misunderstanding was bordering on Nestorius’ definition, rather that of Cyril’s – here is from Leo’s Sermon 54, given on Palm Sunday in the year 442 AD:

Each nature expresses its own truth in its own distinct actions, but neither separates itself from its connection with the other. Neither one lacks anything there, but the whole lowliness is in his majesty, while the whole majesty in his lowliness. Unity brings no confusion, nor does the distinctiveness ruin the unity. One is subject to suffering, the other inviolable.

Source is the book “Sermons - St. Leo the Great” published by the Catholic University of America Press.

Because neither Eutychus, nor Leo, appeared well-versed in correct Christological argumentation, we ended up with this division, whereby the (current-day) OO communion saw Chalcedon as departing from established Orthodoxy and rejected the council. The OO churches continued dialogue with the Byzantines to arrive at a common understanding, but geopolitics and the arrival of Islam on the scene and in the area pretty much put an end to it.

So it was most likely Leo either didn't grasp the theological formula in Greek, or he was trying to recapture the Nestorian exiles of the time by appeasing them (as in the quote, above). We'll never truly know. However, there are hard-liners who have dug in trying to defend their positions.

@GoodShepherd I just wanted to note that I greatly admire your zeal and passion for the faith. I love the excitement which is apparent from your posts as you continue to learn and expand your knowledge. God Bless You, Brother.

 

[GoodShepherd]

It is indeed the same faith. We have way too much in common to be calling each other heretics and heterodox, and banning each other from our places of worship. I've noticed this predominantly among new converts to EO, or EO in the west.

There is an early 16th century Armenian Orthodox monastery/church complex in Romania (Oriental Orthodox, not EO). Romania is a very devout EO nation, and yet this monastery has become so popular among the EO faithful of the region, that they arrange [almost weekly] pilgrimages to visit the monastery and pray alongside the Armenians – the pilgrims are comprised of Romanian laymen and EO priests. It has had such traffic in recent times that the Armenian Apostolic Church has arranged for an Armenian priest to always be on-site and offer prayers in Armenian and Romanian. Are all those devout and faithful Romanian EO members destined to hell for identifying a fellow Apostolic Christian Holy site and choosing to pray with them to our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ? Are they grave sinners for what Fr. Peter Heers (himself, a convert to EO) would call “praying with the heterodox?” This was the same mindset that drove Roosh to ban or warn anyone who did not fully align with his branch of EO. A lifelong EO faithful in Romania has no immediate fear of falling away and demonstrates more love and charity for fellow Apostolic Christians who are essentially following the same faith.

But back to the topic at hand. While I agree with @KulturedKaveman on us essentially having the same faith, I do disagree on the language aspect. St. Cyril of Alexandria who formulated the Christological doctrine, wrote and preached in Greek. The School of Alexandria spoke and worshiped in Greek. The Copts are the heirs of Alexandrian Christianity and they are OO, in full communion with the Armenian Apostolic Church.

St. Cyril of Alexandria, whom we all venerate as a Saint, clearly defined the nature of Christ after the incarnation/union, and it was accepted at the Third Ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431 AD. St. Cyril introduced his 12 Anathemas (accepted by our Church), which clearly defines the incarnate nature of our Lord. The dissent in the west arose after the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Ephesus was called in 449 AD by Emperor Theodosius II and presided by Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria (himself, a protégé of St. Cyril) to reaffirm the Miaphysite doctrine of St. Cyril and to reaffirm his 12 Anathemas. Leo, the Bishop of Rome, who is not a considered a Saint in our Church, either through political motives or a complete misunderstanding of the matter, rejected the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Ephesus and persuaded Emperor Marcian (who had just ascended to the imperial throne) to convoke a new council at Chalcedon.

Now, why do we believe that Leo may have misunderstood St. Cyril’s Christology? Here is an excerpt from the Tome of Leo:



That paragraph, ends with a footnote explanation by Rev. Dr. Richard Price, a retired Catholic Priest and a prominent Roman Catholic scholar:



The above texts are from the English translation of the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (Volume 2, Second Session, Page 23).

Another one, post-Ephesus I, and prior to Ephesus II and Chalcedon. This shows that Leo’s misunderstanding was bordering on Nestorius’ definition, rather that of Cyril’s – here is from Leo’s Sermon 54, given on Palm Sunday in the year 442 AD:



Source is the book “Sermons - St. Leo the Great” published by the Catholic University of America Press.

Because neither Eutychus, nor Leo, appeared well-versed in correct Christological argumentation, we ended up with this division, whereby the (current-day) OO communion saw Chalcedon as departing from established Orthodoxy and rejected the council. The OO churches continued dialogue with the Byzantines to arrive at a common understanding, but geopolitics and the arrival of Islam on the scene and in the area pretty much put an end to it.

So it was most likely Leo either didn't grasp the theological formula in Greek, or he was trying to recapture the Nestorian exiles of the time by appeasing them (as in the quote, above). We'll never truly know. However, there are hard-liners who have dug in trying to defend their positions.

@GoodShepherd I just wanted to note that I greatly admire your zeal and passion for the faith. I love the excitement which is apparent from your posts as you continue to learn and expand your knowledge. God Bless You, Brother.

So what Im getting from you is that the differences are so minor that it shouldnt have been an issue, yet here we are and still not in communion with each other, so without me reading an entire book in your own words what would you say is the Ethiopian churches view on the incarnation of Christ and how does it differ to our view of the nature of the incarnation of Christ? Also what would you say is the way forward for our churches to once again have communion with each other in the correct non heretical way? I havent really looked into this topic its quite new to me.

 

[Rodion]

Interesting video series on the topic.

I often feel a bit cautious of the “hey come on guys, we are all basically the same! This is just some translation issues!”

 

[GoodShepherd]

Interesting video series on the topic.

I often feel a bit cautious of the “hey come on guys, we are all basically the same! This is just some translation issues!”

Yip, if my priest says we not in communion with them then who am I as an individual to say otherwise? I do hope the issue with the oriental Orthodox to get resolved some day but it must be done the correct way I would like us all to be united with God and against the forces of darkness, so far from the outside it does seem like the differences with the Oriental will be easier to iron out than with the Roman Catholics although I do notice a lot of the Roman Catholica turning to Orthodoxy but would be nice to see the change up there with the leadership, thanks for the youtube video I will have a look at it

 

[Narekatsi]

The OO are not evangelizing to the EO. So, @GoodShepherd please do listen to your priest. He is ordained and a better man than I am.

So what Im getting from you is that the differences are so minor that it shouldnt have been an issue, yet here we are and still not in communion with each other, so without me reading an entire book in your own words what would you say is the Ethiopian churches view on the incarnation of Christ and how does it differ to our view of the nature of the incarnation of Christ? Also what would you say is the way forward for our churches to once again have communion with each other in the correct non heretical way? I havent really looked into this topic its quite new to me.

I cannot speak for the Ethiopian Church as I have no first-hand experience with their clergy. Nor can I make concrete declarations on behalf of the Armenian Church as it is not my place to do so – I have no ordination. I’m speaking as a layman, based on the teachings I’ve received as part of my involvement in the Church and my studies of history.

Now, the difference in the historical theological sense is not minor, in the context of its time. Let me put it this way – if @GoodShepherd , me, @Samseau , @KulturedKaveman , and @Rodion were meeting in-person and discussing the incarnate nature of Christ, without the tags “Eastern Orthodox” and “Oriental Orthodox” hanging around our necks, chances are we’ll exhibit the same understanding and belief of who the incarnate Christ is.

The issue here revolves around the inerrancy of ecumenical councils. We hold to the belief that ecumenical councils are guided by the Holy Spirit and cannot err. Since we hold to the Christological formula of St. Cyril of Alexandria, agreed upon at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus I, then Leo’s shifting Christological terminology and the inconsistencies that introduces via Chalcedon is unacceptable.

John McGuckin, an Eastern Orthodox Priest, Theologian and renowned author states:

...the Byzantine Orthodox tradition, offering as its confession of Christological faith a synthesis of the synodical teachings from Ephesus 431 to Chalcedon 451 and Constantinople 553 (the three can never be separated in the confession of the Byzantine Orthodox, since all are regarded as the authentic exegesis of the others) is that the Miaphysite doctrine of St. Cyril is as correct as the Dyophysite doctrine of Chalcedon.

Source is his paper titled “St. Cyril of Alexandria’s Miaphysite Christology and Chalcedonian Dyophysitism”

The idea here being that both are correct – and while that may be true in spirit, as in you and I having the same understanding of the incarnate nature of Christ, it created issues when St. Cyril of Alexandria already wrote “Mia physis...” and it was accepted at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus.

Again, we are in this situation because of the Tome of Leo, and his intentional or unintentional misrepresentation of the already accepted Christological formula (I had additional quotes in my earlier post in this thread). Immediately after Chalcedon (which we do not recognize as an authoritative/ecumenical council), it was realized what they had created, so an attempt was made to reconcile via the Henotikon introduced by the Byzantine Emperor Zeno in 482 AD by the advice of St. Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople. Long story short, it did not satisfy all sides, as it tried to reaffirm the decisions of Chalcedon, while also reaffirming St. Cyril of Alexandria’s 12 Anathemas.

Interesting video series on the topic.

I often feel a bit cautious of the “hey come on guys, we are all basically the same! This is just some translation issues!”

As I noted above, it's not that it's some translation issue and you should take communion at an OO church, instead. It's whether or not we have the same, true, core faith. I sincerely believe we do - you, or anyone else may disagree and that's fine. I love my EO brethren.

After watching those refutations, you may also watch this debate between Mr. Erhan and Mr. Kakish (a sub-Deacon at the OO Syriac Orthodox Church):



Anyways, here are a couple of references to an existing pastoral agreement regarding the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. Based on internet content creator definitions and red lines, it would seem the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and all Africa has committed "the heresy of ecumenism", but I digress (second URL is a PDF):

https://syriacorthodoxresources.org/Ecumenism/20010317oomtg4.html

https://orthodoxjointcommission.fil...reek-orthodox-patriarchates-of-alexandria.pdf

 

[GoodShepherd]

The OO are not evangelizing to the EO. So, @GoodShepherd please do listen to your priest. He is ordained and a better man than I am.



I cannot speak for the Ethiopian Church as I have no first-hand experience with their clergy. Nor can I make concrete declarations on behalf of the Armenian Church as it is not my place to do so – I have no ordination. I’m speaking as a layman, based on the teachings I’ve received as part of my involvement in the Church and my studies of history.

Now, the difference in the historical theological sense is not minor, in the context of its time. Let me put it this way – if @GoodShepherd , me, @Samseau , @KulturedKaveman , and @Rodion were meeting in-person and discussing the incarnate nature of Christ, without the tags “Eastern Orthodox” and “Oriental Orthodox” hanging around our necks, chances are we’ll exhibit the same understanding and belief of who the incarnate Christ is.

The issue here revolves around the inerrancy of ecumenical councils. We hold to the belief that ecumenical councils are guided by the Holy Spirit and cannot err. Since we hold to the Christological formula of St. Cyril of Alexandria, agreed upon at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus I, then Leo’s shifting Christological terminology and the inconsistencies that introduces via Chalcedon is unacceptable.

John McGuckin, an Eastern Orthodox Priest, Theologian and renowned author states:


Source is his paper titled “St. Cyril of Alexandria’s Miaphysite Christology and Chalcedonian Dyophysitism”

The idea here being that both are correct – and while that may be true in spirit, as in you and I having the same understanding of the incarnate nature of Christ, it created issues when St. Cyril of Alexandria already wrote “Mia physis...” and it was accepted at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus.

Again, we are in this situation because of the Tome of Leo, and his intentional or unintentional misrepresentation of the already accepted Christological formula (I had additional quotes in my earlier post in this thread). Immediately after Chalcedon (which we do not recognize as an authoritative/ecumenical council), it was realized what they had created, so an attempt was made to reconcile via the Henotikon introduced by the Byzantine Emperor Zeno in 482 AD by the advice of St. Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople. Long story short, it did not satisfy all sides, as it tried to reaffirm the decisions of Chalcedon, while also reaffirming St. Cyril of Alexandria’s 12 Anathemas.



As I noted above, it's not that it's some translation issue and you should take communion at an OO church, instead. It's whether or not we have the same, true, core faith. I sincerely believe we do - you, or anyone else may disagree and that's fine. I love my EO brethren.

After watching those refutations, you may also watch this debate between Mr. Erhan and Mr. Kakish (a sub-Deacon at the OO Syriac Orthodox Church):



Anyways, here are a couple of references to an existing pastoral agreement regarding the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony. Based on internet content creator definitions and red lines, it would seem the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and all Africa has committed "the heresy of ecumenism", but I digress (second URL is a PDF):

https://syriacorthodoxresources.org/Ecumenism/20010317oomtg4.html

https://orthodoxjointcommission.fil...reek-orthodox-patriarchates-of-alexandria.pdf

Im new to this topic so not an expert on it just getting a feel from the Oriental Orthodox church to see how they respond and their stance, so I have noticed that they dont see us Eastern Orthodox to be different to the OO, then I would have to ask do you see the Romans different to you guys? And why dont you guys accept that church council as valid and what about the rest of the Christians what percentage accepted that council as valid?

Also if our churches are not in communion with each other at present isnt that kind of bad for the OO to accept us as we are because that would be ecumenism arent you guys concerned about ecumenism?

 

[Rodion]

It’s such a minor, insignificant difference but you absolutely won’t consider just joining the Orthodox Church because it’s of no consequence? I just don’t buy this. When we Orthodox make the sign of the cross, our thumb, forefinger and middle finger represent the trinity, and our ring and pinky fingers represent the two natures of Christ.

Regarding the Monophysites' sympathizers and their fervent supporters among the Orthodox, he observed, "They don't say that the Monophysites didn't understand the holy fathers - they say that the holy fathers didn't understand them. In other words, they talk as if they're right, and the fathers misunderstood them."

He considered proposals to erase from the liturgical books statements identifying Dioscorus and Severus as heretics to be a blasphemy against the holy fathers. He said, "So many divinely enlightened holy fathers who were there at the time didn't understand them, took them the wrong way, and now we come along after so many centuries to correct the holy fathers? And they don't take the miracle of Saint Euphemia into account? Did she misunderstand the heretics' tome too?"

Concerning heretics in general he said:
"There's no need for us to tell Christians who aren't Orthodox that they're going to hell or that they're antichrists; but we also mustn't tell them that they'll be saved, because that's giving them false reassurances, and we'll be judged for it. We have to give them a good kind of uneasiness - we have to tell them that they're in error."

This is Saint Paisios on the Oriental Orthodox. Many Athonite monks have been far less charitable

The Holy Fathers and saints of the Church just didn’t get it, unlike us. Come on.

 

[Samseau]

Interesting video series on the topic.

I often feel a bit cautious of the “hey come on guys, we are all basically the same! This is just some translation issues!”

It is fundamentally a translation issue, and the last slide of the video shows it without realizing it;

The word "nature" and "essence" are translated into the same word in Ethopian and other OO languages. So they read "Out of two natures comes one nature," which made no sense back in the day.

That doesn't change the fact that those who DID understand the language, such as Severus, are heretics who must be rejected in order for OO to rejoin the Church. But heretics such as Severus and Nestorius would not have found their audiences without these translation issues.

This is why Copts are slowly coming around in the English age. Once they rejoin I predict a domino effect for the other OO Churches to come back.

 

[Narekatsi]

Im new to this topic so not an expert on it just getting a feel from the Oriental Orthodox church to see how they respond and their stance, so I have noticed that they dont see us Eastern Orthodox to be different to the OO, then I would have to ask do you see the Romans different to you guys? And why dont you guys accept that church council as valid and what about the rest of the Christians what percentage accepted that council as valid?

Also if our churches are not in communion with each other at present isnt that kind of bad for the OO to accept us as we are because that would be ecumenism arent you guys concerned about ecumenism?

I think the debate I linked above answers parts of your first question - it's fairly well balanced, with an EO moderator/host and an EO vs OO debate.

As for it being bad, ecumenism, etc... The Armenian Apostolic Church has always been an autocephalous Church organization within the Body of Christ. My being charitable, loving and accepting towards my brothers in Christ who profess the same true Trinitarian beliefs has nothing to do with looking bad. That has been my point, all along.

It’s such a minor, insignificant difference but you absolutely won’t consider just joining the Orthodox Church because it’s of no consequence? I just don’t buy this. When we Orthodox make the sign of the cross, our thumb, forefinger and middle finger represent the trinity, and our ring and pinky fingers represent the two natures of Christ.

I am already a member of the Orthodox Church.

This is Saint Paisios on the Oriental Orthodox. Many Athonite monks have been far less charitable

The Holy Fathers and saints of the Church just didn’t get it, unlike us. Come on.

Strictly from my perspective, it's either misquoted, mistranslated, or - and I do not mean any disrespect - he is incorrectly identifying the OO communion with the Eutychian heresy. I think I was fairly humble in my previous response where I clarified that I'm a nobody. If anything you see or read online is questionable or uncomfortable to you, always listen to your spiritual father.

It is fundamentally a translation issue, and the last slide of the video shows it without realizing it;

The word "nature" and "essence" are translated into the same word in Ethopian and other OO languages. So they read "Out of two natures comes one nature," which made no sense back in the day.

That doesn't change the fact that those who DID understand the language, such as Severus, are heretics who must be rejected in order for OO to rejoin the Church. But heretics such as Severus and Nestorius would not have found their audiences without these translation issues.

This is why Copts are slowly coming around in the English age. Once they rejoin I predict a domino effect for the other OO Churches to come back.

Translation issue, possibly on the part of Leo. The OO disagreement with Calcedon was based on St. Cyril of Alexandria's Christological formula and his successor St. Dioscorus the Great's arguments, both writing, preaching, and fluent in the Greek of the time. To keep ascribing the mistranslation and misunderstanding to the various OO communion languages and not Leo, is not acceptable in my view. I've tried to establish this here by quoting from Roman Catholic sources, no less, who have the most to gain by upholding the infallibility of Pope Leo I.

 

[Lawrence87]

I don't really know the intricacies but it would make sense to me that this schism is the one that both EO and OO should work towards healing as we share the most in common. It is something we should pray for

 

[GoodShepherd]

I think the debate I linked above answers parts of your first question - it's fairly well balanced, with an EO moderator/host and an EO vs OO debate.

As for it being bad, ecumenism, etc... The Armenian Apostolic Church has always been an autocephalous Church organization within the Body of Christ. My being charitable, loving and accepting towards my brothers in Christ who profess the same true Trinitarian beliefs has nothing to do with looking bad. That has been my point, all along.




I am already a member of the Orthodox Church.



Strictly from my perspective, it's either misquoted, mistranslated, or - and I do not mean any disrespect - he is incorrectly identifying the OO communion with the Eutychian heresy. I think I was fairly humble in my previous response where I clarified that I'm a nobody. If anything you see or read online is questionable or uncomfortable to you, always listen to your spiritual father.



Translation issue, possibly on the part of Leo. The OO disagreement with Calcedon was based on St. Cyril of Alexandria's Christological formula and his successor St. Dioscorus the Great's arguments, both writing, preaching, and fluent in the Greek of the time. To keep ascribing the mistranslation and misunderstanding to the various OO communion languages and not Leo, is not acceptable in my view. I've tried to establish this here by quoting from Roman Catholic sources, no less, who have the most to gain by upholding the infallibility of Pope Leo I.

I will go through the videos with time, so I get that you guys dont have any issues with is etc but the fact remains that we are not in communion with each other so in my eyes it would be wrong for us as the laymen to ignore that and also wrong for you guys as individuals to worship together with us without the leadership first ironing things out thats the way Im looking at this, I do agrea with @Lawrence87 that this should be resolved between the OO and EO and probably before we sort things out with Rome since our similarities are much greater than with Rome.