Transcription
Oriental Orthodoxy is based on one thing: being the one United Church founded by Jesus and the apostles and staying the same while all the other churches have changed over the years.
The Oriental Orthodox are at the very top of the church compass because more than anyone, they focus on the unity and importance of the visible church as the visible body of Christ here on earth. They're equally high on the church compass as the Eastern Orthodox because the two of them debate who is the real Orthodox church.
The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches are higher than both Catholics and Protestants on the church compass because they both have a more exclusivist view of the church than the rest of them. They both claim that normatively there is no salvation outside the visible church, but they each claim to be the one true church to the exclusion of the other, and they've been separate for over 1500 years. Let's find out why that is.
The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches agree with each other on seven ecumenical councils that clarified various teachings about Jesus. But the Oriental Orthodox only affirm the first three because they think the fourth council contradicted the third and that the later councils were just a hopeless attempt to try and reconcile the contradictions. So the fundamental debate between the Oriental Orthodox and everyone else is about this council, the Council of Chalcedon, whether it was valid and consistent with the earlier councils.
Chalcedon taught Jesus has two natures, a divine nature and a human nature. And this is what Protestants, Catholics, and the Eastern Orthodox all believe. But the Oriental Orthodox claim this contradicts the Council of Ephesus which taught one incarnate nature of the Word who is Jesus. The Council of Chalcedon was literally a split over how to interpret the Council of Ephesus. So to understand the Council of Chalcedon, you first need to understand the Council of Ephesus.
The Council of Ephesus was called because of this guy, Nestorius, who separated the divine and human natures of Christ. Unlike previous heretics, he admitted that Jesus was truly God and truly man, but he separated Christ's divinity and humanity. He said that the divine nature was called the Word and the human nature was called Jesus, and Christ was the name for the union of them. So he said, "It's more accurate to call Mary the mother of Christ than the mother of God."
"Bro, that's heresy," said Cyril of Alexandria. Cyril rejected the idea of two separate natures in Christ. He said in the incarnation the divine nature put on humanity, kind of like a man putting on a coat. So there is one incarnate nature of the Logos, or Word, which is Jesus. The Council of Ephesus officially sided with Cyril and had many statements condemning Nestorianism.
Theodotus of Ancyra, who was at the council, said there were not two things nor two natures but what was seen was one and the same thing. He also said they did not crucify a mere man nor did they merely nail the visible nature, but they brought their daring to the God who was in it, who had appropriated the sufferings of the united nature. Cyril also said that Christ is one according to nature and he is not twofold, even though he is compounded out of two different elements. And St. Acacius said that we should anathematize the dogmas of Nestorius, especially those who say two natures after the union and those who admit that Jesus isn't two sons but still say two natures. So Cyril was seen as the hero of the Council of Ephesus because he defeated Nestorianism.
So after he died, his student Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria took over for him in fighting Nestorianism. He said Jesus has one nature. "Hold up," said Pope Leo of Rome. "Jesus is one person, but he has two natures." "Dude, we settled this at the Council of Ephesus. That's Nestorian." "No, because we believe Jesus is one person and Mary is the mother of God. So, we're not Nestorian, but we're not Monophysites like you because we believe Jesus has two natures."
So, the Council of Chalcedon officially sided with Pope Leo over Dioscorus and said Jesus has two natures. The Council of Chalcedon condemned Dioscorus, but Dioscorus condemned the Council of Chalcedon because he said it literally sided with Nestorianism. "No, the Council of Chalcedon isn't Nestorian at all," said Pope Leo of Rome. "Sup guys," uh, "Nestorius, what are you doing?" "Well, I agree with the Council of Chalcedon." You see what I mean?
From the Oriental Orthodox perspective, the early church taught Miaphysitism, which is that Jesus is one nature out of two. And that's what was affirmed by the Council of Ephesus. They think the Council of Chalcedon departed from that by saying Jesus has two natures after the union. Then the Fifth Council tried to course-correct and distinguish their view from Nestorianism. But then the Sixth Council doubled down on it by saying Jesus has two wills. And then Chalcedonianism split into a million pieces.
There are indeed hundreds of Chalcedonian denominations because all future splits in the church were on the Chalcedonian side of the schism. The Oriental Orthodox Church has never schismed. They think that's because Chalcedon split the natures of Christ, which led to future splits in the body of Christ, which is the church. They actually agree with the Nestorian Church that the Council of Ephesus was messy and that the Council of Chalcedon was Nestorian.
Also, on most of the issues that divide Eastern and Western Chalcedonianism, the Oriental Orthodox have kind of a middle position. For example, they don't agree with the Filioque, but they're not as aggressively against it as the Eastern Orthodox. They're not as rationalistic as Catholics and Protestants, but they're also skeptical of the radical mysticism and Hesychasm in Eastern Orthodoxy. They have more of a Western view of original sin, where infants are guilty of sin from the moment of conception, even if they're not as extreme as Augustine. They do affirm a distinction between God's essence and God's energies, but only a formal distinction, not a real distinction like in some Eastern Orthodox Palamite theology. They also believe in some form of theosis. But Pope Shenouda III, a recent Oriental Orthodox Pope, clarified that they don't agree with the Eastern Orthodox version of theosis. They're more comfortable talking about Christ's sacrifice as a penal substitution than the Eastern Orthodox are. They're also between the Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox on the papacy. They do have a Pope, and he's the highest patriarch, but they don't think he's ever infallible, kind of like how it was during the times of the councils.
The spirit of Oriental Orthodoxy is holding true to the traditions of the early church even when they're persecuted for doing so. Not only have they faced opposition from Chalcedonians, who make up the vast majority of Christendom, but also from Islam, because they've spent most of their history as islands of Christianity in a vast sea of Islam. And that's why the different Oriental Orthodox communities, like the Copts, Ethiopians, Armenians, and Syriacs, have developed distinct identities even though they've all always been united as one church. And because they've been refined by centuries of persecution, Oriental Orthodox saints are often the most humble people you'll ever meet.
They're still heavily persecuted to this day. Lots of Coptic Orthodox martyrs were killed by ISIS in 2015. The Ethiopian Orthodox have faced lots of ethnic violence recently, and millions of Armenian Orthodox were killed in the Armenian Genocide in World War I. But despite constant persecution, the Oriental Orthodox still have an amazing heritage. For example, Armenia was the first country to make Christianity the official religion, and they've been Oriental Orthodox ever since. The Coptic Church comes from Alexandria, which produced theologians that all the denominations agree are the best, including Athanasius himself. And the Ethiopian Orthodox Church supposedly has the Ark of the Covenant from the Old Testament.
Now, let's talk about their relations with other churches. As we know, Oriental Orthodoxy is actually a community of autocephalous churches that have always been in communion with each other and have never schismed. They're probably closest these days to the Eastern Orthodox because in recent years they've talked about reuniting after 1500 years of schism. Both sides have theologians and leaders who think the Council of Chalcedon was mainly a schism about language and not of substance. But even so, both sides also have other theologians who think it was a division in substance and that reunion would be impossible without compromising on core theological tenets.
Even though they greatly disagree with the Christology of the Assyrian Church of the East, they still share a bit of a common heritage of being Eastern Christians that have always been islands of Christianity in a sea of Islam. They're pretty close to Catholics as well because they've done some ecumenical dialogue with Catholics recently, especially because there are some Armenian Rite and Alexandrian Rite Catholics who are liturgically very similar to the Oriental Orthodox, but also in communion with Rome. And as far as the Protestants go, their favorite Protestants are probably the Lutherans because the Lutherans have closest to a Miaphysite Christology. And very briefly, the Oriental Orthodox Ethiopian Church was once sort of in communion with the Lutheran Church when a deacon from the Ethiopian Orthodox Church visited Martin Luther, and they realized they had the exact same view of the Eucharist.
In short, Oriental Orthodoxy is committed to unconditional perseverance and consistency, even in the face of the greatest opposition. Through centuries of persecution, they've remained loyal to the faith of the early church.