I'm currently split between Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy
Currently I'm deciding whether I should become Eastern or Oriental Orthodox. I have looked at many debates and many arguments from both sides, and it seems to me that both sides have extremely strong cases. However, I'm currently more leaning towards EO for a couple of reasons. I'll name just some of them:
- Miaphysitism has its origins with Apollinarius, who "forged" some letters and attributed them to St Athanasius. It is safe to say that St Cyril used those letters not knowing they were forgeries.
- Council of Chalcedon was accepted by Antioch [officially], Constantinople, Rome and Jerusalem. Now I know Jerusalem wasn't a Patriarchate yet, but it was a very important episcopal center, so I cannot simply ignore its authority. Chalcedon was rejected by Alexandrian See officially, and half of Antioch rejected it also. Reception of Chalcedon was very wide, ranging from Rome to Jerusalem, while rejection of it was mostly regional, but the rejection was overwhelming.
I would say that reason #2 is the main one, since all previous councils were considered ecumenical primarily because the large Sees [Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch] accepted them over time (not necessarily right away).
I'm always looking for the truth, and if the truth leads me to OO, so be it. Can someone give me reasons why these 2 points I presented don't really hold up? God bless!
Edit: for point #1, I don't mean that theology of Miaphysitism originates with Apollinarius, but the phrase itself (mia physis), but St Cyril interpreted it in an Orthodox way where humanity and divinity are distinct within one incarnate nature.