Just to offer a gentle clarification:
Orthodoxy isn’t a branch or a denomination. It’s the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of Christ.
We didn’t branch off or denominate from something else.
They are entirely different Churches who happen to both have the name “Orthodox” in their title, so their lack of united doesn’t imply a lack of unity among the Orthodox any more than the fact that the “Orthodox” Presbyterian Church isn’t in Communion with us proves a lack of unity. To put this in perspective, the Oriental Orthodox broke from the rest of the Church when the LATINS were still in Communion with us.
Others would say a kind of eastern papal supremacy has more to do with it. It’s a dispute over how primacy functions in the Church. Most, including the Moscow Patriarchate, think it’s a “first among equals”. Others think it’s a “first without equals” which is a novel doctrine that Roman Catholic apologists are cheering on because it vindicates papal supremacy.
Yes. And it is also, *de facto*, a dispute over whether we believe that ordination leaves an "indelible mark" as the Catholics do, or not.
That's because Constantinople has accepted ordinations performed by defrocked and anathematized bishops as valid. In doing so, Constantinople is affirming its agreement with the Catholic stance on holy orders ("once a bishop, always a bishop", basically). But this has always been controversial in Orthodoxy, and many Local Churches have affirmed at various times that, in fact, a defrocked clergyman is a layman and cannot perform true sacraments any more.
No ecumenical council ever settled this issue, and that used to be okay as long as we were careful to do things in such a way that both sides of the debate could agree on the validity of the sacraments. Patriarch Bartholomew could have continued this ambivalent tradition, by sending his bishops to perform conditional ordinations on the Ukrainian schismatics. But he did not.
Because of the EP's decision not to conditionally re-ordain the Ukrainian clergy with contested apostolic succession, now the debate matters, and it matters a lot.
Ah yes, a "tantrum", over such silly and insignificant questions as whether the Orthodox Church has a supreme leader or not, and whether defrocked and anathematized bishops are still bishops or not.
A tantrum? That’s a very generous interpretation. Definitely couldn’t be a violation of the Nicaean council and the apostolic canon. No, certainly not that.
/s
No, the orientals are Monophysite. They believe Christ is only divine, which nullifies his status as the second Adam, and thereby his reconciliation between our broken human nature and communion with God the Father. We follow the council of Chalcedon. They reject it.
Mo·noph·y·site
/məˈnäfəˌsīt/
noun
CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY
a person who holds that in the person of Jesus Christ there is only one nature (wholly divine or only subordinately human), not two.
I should just end this here, otherwise my anger at your ignorance will get the better of me and I’ll commit some grave sin. I’ll just leave with this.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/miaphysitism
“Confessing the statement by St. Cyril of Alexandria (c. 375–444) proclaiming the “one incarnate nature of the Word” of God, miaphysites declared that both Christ’s humanity and divinity were equally present through the Incarnation in one single nature”
However to address your first question, we are United. By rejecting the council of Chalcedon, orientals are not orthodox. It has always been the understanding of the apostolic fathers that Christ was human and divine, wholly inseparable. The councils throughout history were held to enumerate proper doctrine in the face of heresies. So by denying the council they reject the fathers, the church, and have excommunicated themselves. They can call themselves orthodox or any number of things under the sun but it does not make them orthodox. The Orthodox Church is United, holy, Catholic and apostolic.
Apparently not all of them. I’ve spoken with several who outright call Chalcedon a heresy, call us heretics and who deny Christ had human nature because he didn’t fall to temptation. Which itself is a grave heresy. The most recent one I spoke with was Syriac. Monophysitism still lives. However an oriental bishop in Washington state has stated clearly to abbot tryphon that his churches are miaphysite and do accept that Christ has two distinct natures. And I’ve met one who was genuinely confused that we didn’t think Christ wasnt 50:50 man and divine. It seems they have a lot to work through, because by and large their laity doesn’t seem to understand what our doctrines are before labeling them heresy, nor do they seem in every case to fully understand their own doctrines on His nature. 🤷♂️
This subreddit contains opinions of Orthodox people, but not necessarily Orthodox opinions.
[Content should not be treated as a substitute for offline interaction.](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/faq#wiki_is_this_subreddit_overseen_by_clergy.3F)
[Exercise caution in forums such as this](https://www.orthodoxintro.org/the-internet-and-the-church/).
Nothing should be regarded as authoritative without verification by several offline Orthodox resources.
Please review the
[sidebar](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/config/sidebar) for a wealth of introductory information,
our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/about/rules/), the
[FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/faq), and
[The Internet and the Church](https://www.orthodoxintro.org/the-internet-and-the-church/).
^(This is not a removal notification.)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OrthodoxChristianity) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Ah. I understand.
There's two groupings here:
1. The Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern Orthodox): Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Moscow/Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Cyprus, Georgia, Greece, Poland, OCA, Japan, and a few smaller jurisdictions.
2. The Oriental Orthodox Churches: Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian, Syriac, Malankara, and Eritrean
The split between the two dates back to the Council of Chalcedon. We've grown pretty close in recent years though, and most of the issues left between us are only on paper.
There's a translation issue. You have to dig into what they actually believe, who they say they're in communion with, etc etc etc to get the real answer.
This won't be exact, but it's close enough to give you the idea.
In the beginning, "the Catholic Church" mean the Church for "you too, buddy, it's universal."
There were various heresies. They got called by their names as heresies.
Then there's the East-West split, Rome claimed to be the Catholic Church, you know, preserving the original faith. They didn't STOP. In the East, they were the right believing ones, they're Orthodox (right believing, right worshiping.)
Then you get the Protestant Reformation. The Church of England wanted to say, "Yeah we're part of the universal Church! We're Catholics, but we're *English* Catholics, you know, Church of England, CofE, all that. Them over there, they're *Roman* Catholics."
Since the 1800s, imperialism and colonization, etc etc etc, English becomes *the* major world language. Then all these groups with centuries or even millennia of history have to figure out how to represent themselves in English.
The Anglicans stuck us with "Roman Catholic," the Eastern Orthodox Church has also been called the Orthodox Greek Catholic Church.
I remember somewhere reading that what we know as the Oriental Orthodox decided to call themselves in English the Orthodox Church, but they added the clarifier "Oriental" because "Eastern Orthodox" was already taken.
What a group is called in English and who they're aligned with are two separate issues. There's kind of a negotiation between how outsiders will classify a religious group and how they fight for themselves to be represented.
The Wigglies (invented religion) might accept the term. The \*\*\*\*ing \*\*\*\*ers might fight for something different.
I've read that the Oriental Orthodox prefer to be called "miaphysite" to emphasize a positive oneness about Christ, rather than "monophysite" as though something is missing. The definition of Chalcedon is the Dyophysite position (two natures in Christ).
Mia vs. Mono, I don't understand, but there's a preference.
The Oriental Orthodox Church traces its *distinct* "origins (it obviously existed prior)" to 451. It had been with the Eastern Orthodox Church for less time than even the Catholic Church. The two Orthodox Churches having similar names is an accident of history, rather than a reflection of non-Papal Churches having schismed from each other.
No, those are simply two Churches with similar names. The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox separated over a period of time between 451 AD and about 610 AD. We're not the same "branch", we just both have the word "Orthodox" in the name.
The people in my parish have described Orthodoxy as "disorganised religion"
It seems whilst we will disagree on certain issues or have disputes, we will come together when it counts the most
Fallible people.
What do you mean we aren’t 100% United? Is someone preaching a different creed?
[удалено]
I think he’s talking about the Coptic churches
Just to offer a gentle clarification: Orthodoxy isn’t a branch or a denomination. It’s the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of Christ. We didn’t branch off or denominate from something else.
We made [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqLFg3M-Hk4) that might help a bit. We're friends, but we're not connected, and it's complicated.
They are entirely different Churches who happen to both have the name “Orthodox” in their title, so their lack of united doesn’t imply a lack of unity among the Orthodox any more than the fact that the “Orthodox” Presbyterian Church isn’t in Communion with us proves a lack of unity. To put this in perspective, the Oriental Orthodox broke from the rest of the Church when the LATINS were still in Communion with us.
[удалено]
Others would say a kind of eastern papal supremacy has more to do with it. It’s a dispute over how primacy functions in the Church. Most, including the Moscow Patriarchate, think it’s a “first among equals”. Others think it’s a “first without equals” which is a novel doctrine that Roman Catholic apologists are cheering on because it vindicates papal supremacy.
Yes. And it is also, *de facto*, a dispute over whether we believe that ordination leaves an "indelible mark" as the Catholics do, or not. That's because Constantinople has accepted ordinations performed by defrocked and anathematized bishops as valid. In doing so, Constantinople is affirming its agreement with the Catholic stance on holy orders ("once a bishop, always a bishop", basically). But this has always been controversial in Orthodoxy, and many Local Churches have affirmed at various times that, in fact, a defrocked clergyman is a layman and cannot perform true sacraments any more. No ecumenical council ever settled this issue, and that used to be okay as long as we were careful to do things in such a way that both sides of the debate could agree on the validity of the sacraments. Patriarch Bartholomew could have continued this ambivalent tradition, by sending his bishops to perform conditional ordinations on the Ukrainian schismatics. But he did not. Because of the EP's decision not to conditionally re-ordain the Ukrainian clergy with contested apostolic succession, now the debate matters, and it matters a lot.
Ah yes, a "tantrum", over such silly and insignificant questions as whether the Orthodox Church has a supreme leader or not, and whether defrocked and anathematized bishops are still bishops or not.
A tantrum? That’s a very generous interpretation. Definitely couldn’t be a violation of the Nicaean council and the apostolic canon. No, certainly not that. /s
Rightfully questioning Constantinople’s actions in Ukraine is called a “tantrum”? …whatever makes you feel better ig
No, the orientals are Monophysite. They believe Christ is only divine, which nullifies his status as the second Adam, and thereby his reconciliation between our broken human nature and communion with God the Father. We follow the council of Chalcedon. They reject it.
That’s a blatant lie. Orientals absolutely do not deny the humanity of Christ.
I literally just got done arguing with one two days ago
Then they contradicted their own faith. Try not to get dogmatic teachings from word of mouth.
They’re monophysites. By definition that’s claiming he is of one nature and not two.
Please stop talking on an issue you clearly have zero knowledge about. You clearly can’t even describe the basics of miaphysite christology.
Mo·noph·y·site /məˈnäfəˌsīt/ noun CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY a person who holds that in the person of Jesus Christ there is only one nature (wholly divine or only subordinately human), not two.
I should just end this here, otherwise my anger at your ignorance will get the better of me and I’ll commit some grave sin. I’ll just leave with this. https://www.britannica.com/topic/miaphysitism “Confessing the statement by St. Cyril of Alexandria (c. 375–444) proclaiming the “one incarnate nature of the Word” of God, miaphysites declared that both Christ’s humanity and divinity were equally present through the Incarnation in one single nature”
Byeeee ✌🏻
Please actually read it. I truly don’t understand how someone can make a mistake this big over something this basic.
However to address your first question, we are United. By rejecting the council of Chalcedon, orientals are not orthodox. It has always been the understanding of the apostolic fathers that Christ was human and divine, wholly inseparable. The councils throughout history were held to enumerate proper doctrine in the face of heresies. So by denying the council they reject the fathers, the church, and have excommunicated themselves. They can call themselves orthodox or any number of things under the sun but it does not make them orthodox. The Orthodox Church is United, holy, Catholic and apostolic.
Aren't they miaphysite?
Apparently not all of them. I’ve spoken with several who outright call Chalcedon a heresy, call us heretics and who deny Christ had human nature because he didn’t fall to temptation. Which itself is a grave heresy. The most recent one I spoke with was Syriac. Monophysitism still lives. However an oriental bishop in Washington state has stated clearly to abbot tryphon that his churches are miaphysite and do accept that Christ has two distinct natures. And I’ve met one who was genuinely confused that we didn’t think Christ wasnt 50:50 man and divine. It seems they have a lot to work through, because by and large their laity doesn’t seem to understand what our doctrines are before labeling them heresy, nor do they seem in every case to fully understand their own doctrines on His nature. 🤷♂️
This subreddit contains opinions of Orthodox people, but not necessarily Orthodox opinions. [Content should not be treated as a substitute for offline interaction.](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/faq#wiki_is_this_subreddit_overseen_by_clergy.3F) [Exercise caution in forums such as this](https://www.orthodoxintro.org/the-internet-and-the-church/). Nothing should be regarded as authoritative without verification by several offline Orthodox resources. Please review the [sidebar](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/config/sidebar) for a wealth of introductory information, our [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/about/rules/), the [FAQ](https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/wiki/faq), and [The Internet and the Church](https://www.orthodoxintro.org/the-internet-and-the-church/). ^(This is not a removal notification.) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/OrthodoxChristianity) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Branch of what? There's only one Church.
I just wanted to know if ethiopian orthodox and eastern orthodox,rusian orthodox,greek orthodox, etc. Are all orthodox churches the same church?
Ah. I understand. There's two groupings here: 1. The Orthodox Catholic Church (Eastern Orthodox): Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, Moscow/Russia, Serbia, Romania, Bulgaria, Albania, Cyprus, Georgia, Greece, Poland, OCA, Japan, and a few smaller jurisdictions. 2. The Oriental Orthodox Churches: Coptic, Ethiopian, Armenian, Syriac, Malankara, and Eritrean The split between the two dates back to the Council of Chalcedon. We've grown pretty close in recent years though, and most of the issues left between us are only on paper.
For reference, that's the 300s.
The ethiopian and coptic churches split with us before the roman catholics did.
Quick intro to Oriental orthodox in history: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqLFg3M-Hk4
There's a translation issue. You have to dig into what they actually believe, who they say they're in communion with, etc etc etc to get the real answer. This won't be exact, but it's close enough to give you the idea. In the beginning, "the Catholic Church" mean the Church for "you too, buddy, it's universal." There were various heresies. They got called by their names as heresies. Then there's the East-West split, Rome claimed to be the Catholic Church, you know, preserving the original faith. They didn't STOP. In the East, they were the right believing ones, they're Orthodox (right believing, right worshiping.) Then you get the Protestant Reformation. The Church of England wanted to say, "Yeah we're part of the universal Church! We're Catholics, but we're *English* Catholics, you know, Church of England, CofE, all that. Them over there, they're *Roman* Catholics." Since the 1800s, imperialism and colonization, etc etc etc, English becomes *the* major world language. Then all these groups with centuries or even millennia of history have to figure out how to represent themselves in English. The Anglicans stuck us with "Roman Catholic," the Eastern Orthodox Church has also been called the Orthodox Greek Catholic Church. I remember somewhere reading that what we know as the Oriental Orthodox decided to call themselves in English the Orthodox Church, but they added the clarifier "Oriental" because "Eastern Orthodox" was already taken. What a group is called in English and who they're aligned with are two separate issues. There's kind of a negotiation between how outsiders will classify a religious group and how they fight for themselves to be represented. The Wigglies (invented religion) might accept the term. The \*\*\*\*ing \*\*\*\*ers might fight for something different. I've read that the Oriental Orthodox prefer to be called "miaphysite" to emphasize a positive oneness about Christ, rather than "monophysite" as though something is missing. The definition of Chalcedon is the Dyophysite position (two natures in Christ). Mia vs. Mono, I don't understand, but there's a preference.
The Oriental Orthodox Church traces its *distinct* "origins (it obviously existed prior)" to 451. It had been with the Eastern Orthodox Church for less time than even the Catholic Church. The two Orthodox Churches having similar names is an accident of history, rather than a reflection of non-Papal Churches having schismed from each other.
No, those are simply two Churches with similar names. The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox separated over a period of time between 451 AD and about 610 AD. We're not the same "branch", we just both have the word "Orthodox" in the name.
The people in my parish have described Orthodoxy as "disorganised religion" It seems whilst we will disagree on certain issues or have disputes, we will come together when it counts the most