The difference between Oriental and Eastern Orthodox is purely a semantic distinction, and does not concern the substance of dogma (which in contrast to the RCC, we both have the same conception of: the understanding is constant and preserved, as opposed to the RCC idea of it evolving). This is made clear by the Fifth Ecumenical Council, which issued an anathema against the criticisms directed against Saint Cyril of Alexandria's Twelve Anathemas (in chapter 3 of the work, Saint Cyril of Alexandria uses the term "natural union"--"union" here being "henosin", literally " one"--to describe Christ's Nature: "If anyone shall after the [hypostatic] union divide the hypostases in the one Christ, joining them by that connection alone, which happens according to worthiness, or even authority and power, and not rather by a coming together (συνόδῳ), which is made by natural union (ἕνωσιν φυσιkὴν): let him be anathema."). This means that the mia physis formula was approved. The Fifth Ecumenical Council was not uncontroversial, however (since it made the Oriental Orthodox Christology valid), Pope Vigilius refused to attend on the grounds that it conflicted with the Council of Chalcedon, and after it proceeded without him, the Pope refused to accept its conclusions, and excommunicated Patriarch Menas, the Pope protesting that he spoke from Peter's Chair, which was the final authority in all matters;
cont
>>1104499
Pope Vigilius was then excommunicated by Patriarch Menas, and imprisoned by Emperor Justinian I, but the Pope eventually recanted and was reinstated. If you want to understand the distinction between miaphysitism (which the Oriental Orthodox subscribe to) and monophysitism (which both Eastern and Oriental agree is heretical), look as the differences in the prefixes: "mono" means "alone", "solitary", it's used in Luke 4:4 and 4:8. "Mia" is the feminine form of "heis", which just the adjective for "one" ("hen" when used as a noun); see John 17:21 for an example of its use. Not only is this formula acceptable, it is heresy to say it is not, and not just because of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (which merely witnessed dogma, it did not create it), but because henosis describes the communion between us and Christ: if we say Christ's humanity does not have henosis with his divinity, then that says his Body and Blood do not have communion with his divinity, and to say such a thing seriously impacts theology of communion, and is ultimately Nestorian. Likewise it is absolutely heretical to suggest that it is invalid to describe Christ as having two natures, insofar as the phrase "two natures" is used strictly and solely to mean that Christ is both fully human and fully divine and that his humanity and divinity are not confused or "mixed", like with a pagan demigod.
FINIS
>>1104499
>>1104500
You just posted a copypasta, when you posted this last time an actual Oriental Orthodox chimed in and said that your churches were not in full communion.
Catholics do not believe that dogma evolves, as far as they are concerned there dogma has always been part of the church, councils and papal decrees simply clarify and affirm.
>>1104541
And the only reason we're not in full communion is because we haven't lifted the anathemas, which neither side wants to do without the other But we do fully recognize each other's sacraments (whereas neither of us recognizes RCC sacraments) and allow partaking of communion at each other's parishes under numerous circumstances.
RCC thinks understanding of dogma evolves: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/can-dogma-develop
>>1104551
From the page:
"It’s important to understand that the Church does not, indeed cannot, change the doctrines God has given it, nor can it "invent" new ones and add them to the deposit of faith that has been "once for all delivered to the saints." New beliefs are not invented, but obscurities and misunderstandings regarding the deposit of faith are cleared up"
This is essentially what I was taught in school
>>1104558
Right, they believe that dogma is like the natural world, you grow in understanding and the understanding of the current year is better than that of yesteryear's. In the EOC and OOC, there is no dichotomy between dogma and understanding of dogma, the understanding is part of the dogma, and that the Church's job is to PRESERVE understanding, not to "develop" it.
>>1104499
any oriental christians here? what do you think of 4chan?
>>1104569
I think your twisting words to shed their interpretation is as unfavorable light as possible.
One of the first things we were taught about dogma is that it must pertain to faith or morals and the church has to have always held it true.
>>1104582
Guessing you missed Vatican II: http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
>>1104624
>This tradition which comes from the Apostles develop in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. (5) For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.
>>1104630
I am no theologian, in fact I am not Catholic anymore, but I think by develop they mean that older teachings are clarified, and affirmed as infallible, not that they make up new doctrines and declare them infallible dogma.
For instance they would claim that the dogma of papal supremacy was always part of the church, but Vatican I only clarified and affirmed it.
Now you will disagree with that, but we should not misrepresent their stance on the issue
>>1104638
You can see the position elucidated here
>the Church facilitates the development or maturing of doctrines.
>However, when we read Scripture in the light of the apostles’ authentic teachings, we sometimes forget that some central doctrines (such as the Trinity and the hypostatic union) were not always understood or as clearly expounded in the Church’s early days the way they are now. Understanding grew and deepened over time. As an example, consider the Holy Spirit’s divinity. In Scripture, references to it seem to jump out at us. But if we imagine ourselves as ancient pagans or as present-day non-Christians reading the Bible for the first time, we realize, for them, the Holy Spirit’s status as a divine person is not as clearly present in Scripture, since they are less likely to notice details pointing to it.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/can-dogma-develop
They obviously can't claim Papal supremacy was always understood the same way, since 1 Peter 5:1 casts that in extreme doubt, Peter addresses presbyters as merely "a fellow presbyters" not as their father.
