Oriental Orthodox history thread

Thanks, OrthodoxBrit, for starting this. I was wondering about the history of the Oriental Orthodox Churches. I understand only a little bit as of now and would like to know more.

I have a bit about it in a book, but there is Church of the East mixed as well. Were you thinking of Council of Chalcedon as well or just the history after that?

The Council of Chalcedon content in the book is about the language so it's not something "bad" for a forum where we are all together. The book is written by the forefront professor on everything Syriac/Aramaic so he has a very good understanding of the language.

Either way I'll post from it in the future.

Sebastian Brock. It has post-Chalcedon content as well, like for example the "Jacobite" thing.

I wouldn't say there is animosity, just some issues between the churches which have existed in the past. I will try and summarise the best I can. (edit: just seen you only wanted the modern relationship. Skip to "in 1861..." for it.

The issue of Chalcedon itself is a very complex one which is why I didn't want to cover it whilst looking at oriental orthodox history. 2 years before the council a synod was held with the blessing of the Roman Emperor to examine the teaching of Eutyches, whose extreme-cyrilline views has led him into heresy. It was led by Dioscorus, the patriarch of Alexandria.

The council was condemned by Rome as a 'Robber Council' as it was led by Alexandria without a presence from Rome. There was already issues between Alexandria and Rome at this point so it just exasperated the situation.

Chalcedon, held 450-451, discussed the issue of Eutyches' monophysitism and led to the Chalcedonian Christological Formula as expressed in Leo of Rome's Tome (usually called the Tome of Leo) many there rejected the Tome calling it Nestorian, since part f the council was led by Theodret, a follower of Nestorius who had been told to make a proclamation of the Nicene faith and condemn Nestorius. He was a friend of Leo's so it was seen as suspicious. Eventually the council condemned the term 'One nature' and the Dioscorus interpretation of Cyril's Christology which led to a schism where Rome and Constantinople (with the Newly enthroned Patriarch Juvenal of Jerusalem) accepted the Tome and Antioch, Alexandria and the Jerusalem monastics and clergy rejected it (Jerusalem rejected their Juvenal on his return but he was returned to his seat through military intervention). Afterwards, the Armenians also decided against the formula, though they were not present at the council.

Generally the Chalcedon Schism is now seen as a matter of Alexandrian and Antiochian schools using the same terms with different meanings which is why the EO claim OO are Monophysite, believing in "one (in singular) nature" when we say we are Miaphysite, believing in "one (combined) nature". There was also a fair amount of politics involved in the council, as is known from Juvenal telling his people to reject him if he accepted Leo's tome, then him accepting it after the council made Jerusalem an Apostolic See. Council led to Chalcedonians being labelled by Non Chalcedonians as 'Nestorian' and Non Chalcedonians being labelled by their opposition as Monophysites. Key thinkers on the Christological debate were anathematised on both sides and they effectively became entities with two completely seperate christologies.

This was followed by an Imperial persecution of Non-Chalcedons, which continued for close to 100 years, with a mixed succession of chalcedonian and non-chalcedonian emperors in Constantinople and Patriarchs across the church. During this time many were martyred for rejection of Chalcedon and some were martyred on the other side also. The church had basically fallen into a mess, christologically infighting causing problems even amongst the imperial family and patriarchs. Attempts at reconciliation would be formed (including the heretical monothelite Christology) though nothing solid emerged.

After a while it led to two seperate Patriarchates being formed in Alexandria and Antioch, one chalcedonian and the other non- chalcedonian (as there were many disputed patriarchs, with each side claiming their candidate to be the correct one) This is why Antioch has the Antiochian (Greek) and Syriac Orthodox Patriarchs and Alexandria has both Coptic and Greek Orthodox Patriarchates.

After the Islamic invasion there was not much communication between the Churches and the Muslims were actually welcomed as heroes by the vast majority of OO as respite from persecution, so the separation continued. There were times when the churches were close in a pastoral sense, with the Greek Patriarch of Alexandria putting his flock in Coptic care when he went to Constantinople but there was no sense of reconciliation.

In 1861 there was almost a merging of the Greek patriarch of Alexandria into the Coptic Church, to reform the singular Alexandrian patriarchate. This failed when Pope Kyrillos IV was assassinated by the British and Ottomans who feared Russian influence in the country.

In more modern times discussion has happened and plans for reconciliation have been drawn, only to stumble on the issue of Chalcedon (councils 4-7 are not accepted as ecumenical by the OO) and the anathemas (if you remove the anathema of the opposition, you pose the idea that your thinker was incorrect.) but there has been much progress. Intermarriages are allowed in Alexandria and Antioch, and communion amongst Syrians of only one tradition has a priest present, so the sacraments are seen as valid by both. The only problem remaining is Chalcedon, as there are some in both camps who see the other as heretical and would prevent recommunion.

What i have said here is a very simplified version of events. The political and Christological arguments have tons written on them, looking from all angles, so it is a very complex issue which led to so mich anguish and suffering kn the churcn. It is a sad history but the progression in recent years in positive.

I pray for reunion in my lifetime.

Looks good. I'll see what I can find.