The heretic threat is resurgent and prevalent. Dualism of all types, modalism, and various combination heresys abound. In fact, I would wager that you will not find very many traditions in which heresy is not preached.

While it may be politcally correct not to call monophysites, monophysites when the official representatives refuse, as Scott points out to accept any Council after the 3rd and do so in a forceful manner, it is pretty hard not to believe they are monophysite. The general attitude of the Oriental representatives in the position papers I’ve read was one of non-compromise. If any changes had to be made, it was Chalcedon and its adherents who needed to change.

What that means in practical terms is that we are not in communion but that we have cordial relations. We are not likely to be in communion.

No questions that Chalcedon was and is a clear dividing line that many people struggle with even today, Orthodox included. That being said, I don’t think it behooves us to repudiated it because it is not comfortable–just the opposite in fact.

While it is tempting to rationalize out of existence doctrinal differences. Giving into such temptations does no one any good.

Anil,

The Oriental Orthodox continue to refuse to accept the Council of Chalcedon. Either Chalcedon was or was not an Ecumenical Council. Even if at some point they accepted that, they remain resolutely Monothelites and would not accept the Sixth Ecumenical Council because it anathematized “saints” that they hold dear. Any rumors of imminent reunion are not accurate.

Michael, whatever the past differences (if they existed) the modern Coptics and Orientals refused to be called monosophites and wording that is acceptable to the Orthodox and Orientals and Coptics can live with has been found. Read up yourself to see if you believe the formulation is faithful to Orthodoxy.

From my understanding, the Coptics and Orientals fell in love with St. Cyril of Alexandria’s formulation of the Trinity. They thought this was the one true way to express it, and the rest of the church got entrenched in another formulation. Both sides seemed “zealous for the truth” as they saw it.

I 100% agree that “Schism comes when love is lax”. But one must also look at the council with love. Realize that that was a very dangerous time. Arianism appeared to almost win out. Heretics were rampant. When you’re desperately fighting for your life, “friendly fire” is inevitable. IMO, it’s more excusable than the current mess in North American where we don’t have schism, but we don’t have unity either and there is no immediate external threat threating us.

What is inexcusable on both sides was that even after the heretic threat eased off, both sides refused to talk until now and kept petty anathemas relating to foods that may be eaten during a fast. Thankfully, that seems to be all but repented of on both sides.

Anil, I don’t buy for a minute that the Chalcedonian schism was just a matter of wording. I’ve read some of the documents from the reunion conferences and a number of Coptic web sites. The monophsytism is strong and proud. Just as we are proud of our Orthodoxy. Sorry.

If it were just a matter of wording don’t you think that those who actually thought and spoke in the langauges in question could have worked it out much better than we in our modern presentistic arrogance can?

Schism comes when love is lax, when we lose the understanding that Christ’s deep mystery is so much more than we can put into words. Councils and the cannons and the specified doctrines are a clear indication that we have lost a part of the mystery of God with us. We have to codify and separate rather than love.

Some of these discernments and articulations are absolutely necessary, but that does not mean we should glory in them. We should only do them when absolutely necessary, like war. Once a war is declared there is no peace short of surrender.

Chalcedon is the standard:

Wherefore, following the holy Fathers, we all with one voice confess our Lord Jesus Christ one and the same Son, the same perfect in Godhead, the same perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, the same consisting of a reasonable soul and a body, of one substance with the Father as touching the Godhead, the same of one substance with us as touching the manhood, like us in all things apart from sin; begotten of the Father before the ages as touching the Godhead, the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born from the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, as touching the manhood, one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, with out confusion, without change, without division, without separtion; the distinction of natures being in no way abolished because of the union, but rather the characteristic property of each nature being preserved, and concurring into one Person and one subsistence, not as if Christ were parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as the Prophets from the beginning spoke concerning him, and our Lord Jesus Christ instructed us, and the Creed of the Fathers has handed down to us.

But to answer your question, what will stop the Orthodox from going the way of the Protestants? The monks. More than once, Orthodoxy *did* become too worldly, but the monks kept pulling it back to Holy Tradition.

Protestant denominations have no monastic orders, so when they go wrong, they can’t recover. The trend is very clear. Calvin and Luther were much more Catholic than modern Calvinists and Lutherans. First the sacraments were cheapened. Then the deuterocanonicals were dropped. Then liturgy was made more worldly (if it exists at all). Then sacraments were cheapened again. Then it didn’t matter what denomination you belonged to because all denominations taught the same thing (even if their statements of faiths contradicted each other). Then long held doctrines were dropped. Then those doctrines were declared immoral (e.g. ban on gay clergy). And so on.

While the RCC does have monastic orders and it has fallen into error, it has not fallen anywhere near the above, and it does seem that the RCC (at least under Benedict) is starting to recover. I am certain that the monastics have a hand in this renewal, somehow, and hope that eventually the RCC returns to the fullness of the faith.

That is why I regretfully believe that there will be such a split in the U.S. between those who hold to a more conservative praxis and those who want to loosen the rules.

Of course, all of these splits are ultimately man-centered rather than Christ centered. The defenders of the incarnational approach in the 3rd and 4th centuries did not split the Church until a council had ruled and expressed the mind of the Church.

Without local, national and international synods (which, IMO none of the bishops really want because it would require them to be accountable to each other), we are left with a maddening assortment of pastoral even liturgical variances within what is supposedly one Church.

I keep asking myself if we are functionally any different that the Protestants?

There is a Presbyterian Church (PCUSA) and a Presbyterian Church (PCA). The PCA is generally more conservative than the PCUSA group from whom they separated.

The church itself is conservative and missional and does a good job at caring for and reaching out to the youth (especially since it is near a non-Christian University) and getting people involved in church life and study.

That being said, the process for selecting a new Reverend (at least the public facing process) has been eye opening. First a moderator was selected. Then a survey was done to find out people’s needs. Then the moderator gave a sermon on servant leadership that could have come from a Dale Carnegie seminar. Then the survey results were gathered and strengths and weaknesses were determined and a plan based on that was made, with focus on staying true to scripture. I’m not sure what the next steps are (since I haven’t gotten that information yet), but there will be a vote of elders and appoint of new elders some time in the future.

The whole process makes sense from a business point of view…too much sense from my perspective. It sounds like something a group of devoted smart people would come up with. Given the break from apostolic tradition I don’t know what else they could do. But it does seem to place the emphasis in the wrong place. Look at the resume of St Paul. It includes being repeatedly thrown in jail, starting riots, persecuting Christians, confronting authorities within the church, among other things. Would such a person be selected under this process? Of course not. Only a fool would hire him. Yet this is how our God works. Sometimes “Credo quia absurdum” makes a whole lot of sense. Apostolic tradition provides room for that absurdity.

Cynthia, I agree with your last statement. Such living requires, IMO, bishops who are doing it: teaching it by modeling it. We need bishops who are willing to speak the truth in love to those that embrace heretical teachings–especially those within the Church.

I pray God to raise up such men. Lord come quickly or we perish.

NO, my mind reels at such claims. I must move a little further from the heat of the fire, it burns.

Failure on the part of we Orthodox to heed these words will leave us in the same boat.

One Lord, Jesus Christ, fully God and fully man
One Church, one faith.

The holding of the Holy Mysteries as a unique trust found no where else.

There are beliefs and thoughts as well as actions that should not be honored becasue they lead to damnation, i.e. a persistent rejection of the love of God, worshiping the created thing more than the create thing. Our own mind most of all.

We have to hold to these truths in love otherwise we will shut the doors to people rather than opening them and be twice damned ourselves.

That is my great disquite, we dither and moan and proclaim past glories and present dilemas while thousands around us are falling into the pit. I see no urgency for our mission. We don’t equip lay people to carryout the mission locally because we seem to lack the capacity for spiritual formation.

Have we no shame? But perhaps I am just showing my impatience? How can any man proclaim there is only one way to salvation. That is discrimination! Not to be tolerated! If you dialog on an equal footing with those caught in the web of heresy, blasphemey and demonic deceit, reason will allow them to see!