The Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches represent the two largest liturgical rites in Eastern Christianity. Numbering over 300 million members between them, these sister churches share many core theological beliefs and practices rooted in early ecumenical councils and church fathers.
Yet despite this common ground, the two branches of Orthodoxy have officially been in schism for over 1500 years due to early disputes over the nature of Jesus Christ that led to mutual excommunications and lasting estrangement.
Understanding this historic divide and the prospects for reconciliation requires delving into centuries of complex christological debates around the hypostatic union – the orthodox doctrine of Christ being simultaneously fully human and fully divine.
The Council That Divided Orthodoxy
Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy trace their separation to the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD. This ecumenical gathering, convened by Byzantine Emperor Marcian, was intended to resolve simmering debates over the relationship between Jesus‘ human and divine natures.
The council produced a declaration that endorsed Jesus Christ as a single person uniting two complete, unmerged, and unchangeable natures – one fully God and one fully man. This dyophysite position upheld by the Eastern Orthodox church affirms that the divine and human natures in Christ exist distinctly side-by-side without confusion, yet also in perfect communion with each other.
However, the formulation was considered problematic by many eastern prelates who saw it as diminishing the fullness of the incarnation. This camp, led by the Coptic Pope Dioscorus I, advanced instead a miaphysite christology – asserting Jesus has a single, unified composite nature that is 100% divine and 100% human after the incarnation. They feared that Chalcedon‘s dyophysitism verged on the heresy of Nestorianism by conceptually separating Christ‘s human and divine essences.
When the Council of Chalcedon endorsed dyophysitism in its declaration while deposing and excommunicating Dioscorus, it set off an enduring breach still called the Schism of 451. The resulting upheaval saw rival leaders and clerics denouncing and anathematizing one another for perceived false teachings. This fracturing precipitated the formation of what would become today‘s Oriental Orthodox communion of churches.
Differing Perspectives on Christ‘s Nature
The post-Chalcedon divide centered most prominently on whether to conceive of Christ in line with miaphysitism or dyophysitism – perspectives with very different implications:
Miaphysitism
- Jesus has a single, united nature that is fully divine and fully human.
- Affirms the fullness of Jesus‘ humanity and divinity existing in one hypostasis (essence)
- Championed by Oriental Orthodox churches
Dyophysitism
- Jesus exists in two natures – one fully divine and one fully human.
- The human and divine natures are neither mixed together nor changed after union.
- Endorsed by Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches
Delving deeper, we can see how these technical differences in ontology profoundly impact wider church teachings:
Implications for Christology
Miaphysites emphasize Christ’s indivisible theanthropic nature after the hypostatic union. Dyophysites posit an eternal duality within the Godhead following the Word becoming flesh. This affects notions of redemption and deification.
Soteriology and Anthropology
If Christ’s humanity is fully absorbed into divinity as per strict miaphysitism, implications arise for the redemption of human nature as well as the doctrine of theosis – humans participating in God’s uncreated energies. Dyophysitism avoids this issue.
Grace and Sacraments
A more united christology centered on Christ’s singular theanthropic activity affects conceptions of how divine grace interacts with ecclesial mysteries like baptism, Eucharist and ordination.
Ecclesiology and Authority
Miaphysitism is more associated with a Byzantine outlook tying Christ’s nature to imperial unity and centralized church governance. Dyophysitism allows more flexibility befitting the cultural diversity of global Orthodoxy.
These insights showcase just how much flows from seemingly narrow technical debates about Jesus Christ’s nature. Positions on these questions end up undergirding all other aspects of systematic theology.
Polemics and Personalities Through History
Analysis of church histories reveals the schism also arose from clashing strong personalities and political tensions between competing centers of ecclesial power:
Cyril vs Nestorius – 5th Century
Earlier debates between Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius of Constantinople around Word-flesh Christology anticipated Chalcedon’s conflicts. Cyril’s stress on the unified divine-human physis was labeled heretical by Nestorius and his Antiochene school.
Miaphysites vs Dyophysites – Post 451 AD
Polemical writings by post-Chalcedon miaphysite thinkers like Severus of Antioch and Philoxenus of Mabbug tarred certain Chalcedonian dyophysite authors as essentially Nestorian. Disputes grew increasingly vitriolic.
Byzantines vs Copts – Medieval Era
Theological arguments acquired an added political dimension with power struggles between Greek-led Eastern Orthodox in Byzantium and the Coptic Miaphysites of Egypt, leading to persecution of the latter after Arab conquests.
These post-Chalcedon fractures mirrored wider religious turmoil in the late classical Mediterranean, exacerbated later by Islamic expansionism. Christological disputes frequently served as proxies for socio-cultural tensions.
Unique Philosophical Foundations
Scholarship has also linked the miaphysite-dyophysite controversy to differing intellectual streams undergirding Greek and Syriac theological traditions:
-
Neoplatonist Metaphysics – Dyophysite reasoning arguably relies more on abstract Greco-Roman philosophical categories of nature and substance.
-
Semitic Concrete Thought – Miaphysite christology reflects more Hebraic and Syriac priorities eschewing strict Greek ontological realism – focusing instead on salvation history.
So disputes between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox bear the imprint of contrasting metaphysical visions – Hellenic philosophical speculation versus dynamic Hebrew narrative modes. Like other patristic-era conflicts, deciding whether and how these outlooks can be synthesized remains a towering challenge.
Unifying Saints?
Another obstacle, even amid growing rapprochement, involves disparities between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox churches regarding post-Schism saints:
| Saints | Veneration Status |
|---|---|
| Gregory Palamas (1296 – 1359) | Eastern Orthodox: Yes; Oriental Orthodox: No |
| Ephrem the Syrian (306 – 373) | Eastern Orthodox: Limited; Oriental Orthodox: Yes |
| Isaac the Syrian (7th Century) | Eastern Orthodox: Limited; Oriental Orthodox: Yes |
These discrepancies reflect the divide regarding reception of unique traditions evolving since Chalcedon. While theologians work to address christological differences, reconciling divergent devotional histories developed across more recent centuries poses a further impediment.
Statistics on Division
Current data also underscores just how vast the schism between Eastern and Oriental Orthodox bodies remains despite intermittent progress:
| Church Family | Estimated Global Membership (Millions) |
|---|---|
| Eastern Orthodox | 200-350 |
| Oriental Orthodox | Around 86 |
So even with emerging signs of healing like leader-level declarations, the sheer scale of the estrangement makes full reconciliation a multi-generational process – especially factoring in intricate power dynamics across hundreds of jurisdictions and thousands of dioceses globally.
Recent Reasons for Hope
Nevertheless, several promising high-level pronouncement over the past 50 years indicate the time may be ripening for mending of the millennial miaphysite-dyophysite schism:
1964-1965 – Reciprocal lifting of specific anathemas between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox leaders during Pope Paul VI’s and Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras’ historic meeting. This paved the way for the later joint theological commission.
2015 – Antiochian Orthodox Patriarch John X affirmed the Orthodoxy of Oriental Miaphysite churches, recognizing them as sharing the same Christological faith despite linguistic differences. He proposed a roadmap for full communion.
2016 – Pope Tawadros II of the Coptic Orthodox Church called Patriarch John X’s speech a “historical step” urging concrete actions toward unity between the sister churches rooted in common Eucharistic and apostolic heritage.
2019 – Theenthithara Manual II, head of the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church under the Syriac Miaphysite tradition met with the Eastern Orthodox Catholicos of the East cementing willingness for joint spiritual renewal.
So from the highest offices, messages affirming the close bonds and need for good faith reunification efforts resound ever louder – even if a single united Orthodox communion remains an aspiration for forthcoming generations to fulfill.
The Road Ahead
Theological dialogue is essential, but political realities cannot be ignored either when envisioning how schism spanning more than 15 centuries may finally give way to communion between Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy.
If councils and authorities arbitrarily divided these sister churches based on abstruse metaphysical word-games and geo-ecclesial power politics in the 5th century, present leaders must ensure that any potential unity similarly receives legitimacy from the fullness of the faithful in the next orthodox century soon to come.
The mark of Chalcedon remains too deeply imprinted to erase in a single stroke. Undoing its violent legacy requires not just texts, but experiencing unified divine life as did early apostolic communities – where the mystery of Christ’s singular hypostasis once reigned without quarrel.
And perhaps, such a long hoped-for reconciliation may only arrive mysteriously – as gradual fruit cultivated from the roots of small communities thriving in common prayer and mission across today’s global pan-Orthodox landscape.