It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
In my experience we are actually a little bit more confused about the Ethiopian Church than about any other OO Church.
I did not get what you mean by bit confusion about the Ethiopian Church?
The main difference between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox is the way they interpret Christ's Nature. Christ's Divinity and Humanity.
In 431, the First Council of Ephesus held that Jesus, while both divine and human, is only one being or person. Both the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox accept these three councils.
Twenty years later, however, the Council of Chalcedon declared that Jesus is one person in two complete natures, one divine and the other human.
The Oriental Orthodox churches considered this to be heresy and likened it to the beliefs of Nestoria, Patriarch of Constantinople from 428 to 431, who said that Christ was two distinct beings, one divine (the Logos) and one human (the man Jesus).
While the terminology caused the main point of contention, the refusal of the Oriental Orthodox churches to accept the declarations at Chalcedon was coupled with political and imperial issues.
One problem, of course, is that emperors of this and every age tend to become impatient when their initiatives are not immediately crowned with success. In Christian antiquity imperially sponsored dialogue too often alternated with imperially sponsored persecution of dissidents. No doubt some churchmen were happy to go along with the persecutions, just as they went along with the dialogues. But there also were those who rejected force. One such was John the Faster, a sixth-century patriarch of Constantinople. “What did the dissidents do or say that deserves persecutions?” he asked. “If pagans have been justified and amnestied, how can I persecute Christians who are blameless in their Christianity and, so it seems to me, have more faith than we?” Another noteworthy figure is John the Merciful, Chalcedonian patriarch of Alexandria, who is honored as a saint by both sides because of his even-handed charity.
According to the 1990 agreed statement of the Joint Commission, “Both families agree that all the anathemas and condemnations of the past which now divide us should be lifted by the Churches in order that the last obstacle to the full unity and communion of our two families can be removed by the grace and power of God. Both families agree that the lifting of anthemas and condemnations will be consummated on the basis that the Councils and fathers previously anathematized or condemned are not heretical.” (para. 10) But so far this has not been done.
The Joint Commission in 1993 urged that “the lifting of anathemas should be made unanimously and simultaneously by the heads of all churches of both sides.” But are “the heads of the all the churches” the juridically competent body? Not according to the memorandum from Mount Athos, which denounces this “decision of the Joint Commission concerning the possibility of lifting an anathema placed by an ecumenical council.” According to the memorandum, this is “alien to the sound mind of the Church” and “offends the fundamental consciousness of the Church concerning the authority of the ecumenical councils.”
Symposium on 1700th Anniversary of Christian Armenia October 27-28, 2000