I have been taking catechism classes at a Greek Orthodox Church. My priest said that the current division between the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church (Coptic, Armenian, Syriac, Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Malankara) is a great tragedy, and that the division really occurred because of problems in language and semantics, and that there is no substantive difference in Christology. The Chalcedonians feared the Orientals were Monophysites (which they have always denied - they say they are Miaphysites), while the Orientals feared the Chalcedonians were closet Nestorians (which they have always denied).

Both sides now seemingly recognize that each position presents a correct view of Christology, even though it uses a slightly different formula / set of language to describe it.

Now if there are significant numbers of people on both sides who believe there still is a substantive difference in Christology, then let me know who these parties are. However, if the vast majority on both sides concede there is no substantive difference in Christology, why some 1550+ years after Chalcedon, are we not united? Our Coptic brothers and sisters in Christ are being persecuted in Egypt, and yet we are not in communion with them. Seems tragic to me. What's the hold up!?

  • That answer seems to suggest that there is a real substantive difference in the two christologies, and that there a great number of people on both sides still think this is true, and therefore why there is no unification. Is that what you are saying?
    – David P
    Nov 22 '17 at 15:23
  • 1
    Yes. Only a minority of those of each side think there are no real differences.
    – curiousdannii
    Nov 22 '17 at 15:26
  • @curiousdannii, the question posed in the supposed duplicate asks, "What current issues prevent the churches from being in full communion" and the question was posed in May 2015. There was only one answer, posted in August 2015. Closing the question presumes that there have been no new thoughts on the subject from either side for over two years, which I don't believe is true.
    – guest37
    Nov 22 '17 at 16:00
  • 1
    One substantial difference: Eastern Orthodox insist Christ has two wills precisely because He has two natures. The two wills are essential to Eastern Christology and Soteriology. This seems to be irreconcilable with the Oriental idea of one nature. While the original dispute might have once be semantic, the implications and conclusions are not.
    – bradimus
    Nov 22 '17 at 16:35
  • @guest37 Of course there have been new thoughts, people have new thoughts all the time. That's irrelevant to a 1600 year old major theological dispute.
    – curiousdannii
    Nov 22 '17 at 17:08