OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Faith Issues => Topic started by: Silouan on June 08, 2005, 07:00:09 PM

Title: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Silouan on June 08, 2005, 07:00:09 PM
Since this issue has been brought up and the accusation made I would like a precise recounting of the position of those rejecting the council of Chalcedon -

Precisely quoting the specific parts of the Tomos of Pope Leo of Rome, where does he espouse Nestorianism?

The accusation is hurled very frequently, but I have seen little to back it up.

Thanks,

Silouan
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: idontlikenames on June 08, 2005, 07:03:32 PM
that's just it: he doesn't
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Matthew777 on June 08, 2005, 07:06:08 PM
There are specific passages which can be quoted but I have to catch the bus in a few minutes and don't really have the time to look it up for you. Oftentimes, when I am confronted with such a question, I look it up for myself.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: coptic orthodox boy on June 08, 2005, 07:56:32 PM
IC XC NIKA
From what I understand, our holy Father St. Dioscorus agreed with most of the Tome of Leo.  This is where he saw the Nestorian influence:

"There is nothing unreal about this oneness, since both the lowliness of the man and the grandeur of the divinity are in mutual relation. As God is not changed by showing mercy, neither is humanity devoured by the dignity received. The activity of each form is what is proper to it in communion with the other: that is, the Word performs what belongs to the Word, and the flesh accomplishes what belongs to the flesh. One of these performs brilliant miracles; the other sustains acts of violence. As the Word does not lose its glory which is equal to that of the Father, so neither does the flesh leave the nature of its kind behind." - Tome of Pope Leo

in Christ,
copticorthodoxboy
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: idontlikenames on June 08, 2005, 08:37:26 PM
The only way I can see how someone would insist that this must be interpreted "Nestorianically" is if the  phrase "the Word performs that which is appropriate to the Word" is qualified by the adverbial phrase: "....acting in separation from the flesh".  Or if the phrase, "the flesh accomplishes what is appropriate to the flesh" (or whatever it says, sorry not exact quote) is qualified by the adverbial phrase: "....acting in separation from the Word".
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Sabbas on June 08, 2005, 08:41:41 PM
IC XC NIKA
From what I understand, our holy Father St. Dioscorus agreed with most of the Tome of Leo. This is where he saw the Nestorian influence:

"There is nothing unreal about this oneness, since both the lowliness of the man and the grandeur of the divinity are in mutual relation. As God is not changed by showing mercy, neither is humanity devoured by the dignity received. The activity of each form is what is proper to it in communion with the other: that is, the Word performs what belongs to the Word, and the flesh accomplishes what belongs to the flesh. One of these performs brilliant miracles; the other sustains acts of violence. As the Word does not lose its glory which is equal to that of the Father, so neither does the flesh leave the nature of its kind behind." - Tome of Pope Leo

in Christ,
copticorthodoxboy
What specifically is wrong with this?
Quote
One of these performs brilliant miracles; the other sustains acts of violence.
This sentence seems especially important to a proper understanding of our Lord.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: idontlikenames on June 08, 2005, 08:44:52 PM
Who's to say you can't interpret that as referring to the two natures in the abstract rather than in the concrete?....i.e. He performs miracles by virtue of his being the Word.....He sustains violence by virtue of his being human.....what necessity drives someone from being able to interpret that sentence in this sense?
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: coptic orthodox boy on June 08, 2005, 09:37:59 PM
IC XC NIKA
To Sabbas and David,
Forgive me, for I am not as learned as EA and Stavro on this topic, but I will try my best to shed my understanding on the topic.
First, lets take a look at what happened at the 3rd Ecumenical Council:ÂÂ  Taken from Fr. Tadros Yacoub Malaty's "Introduction to the Coptic Orthodox Church."
"On the 22nd of June A.D. 431, the 3rd Ecumenical Council was held in Ephesus, at the order of Emperor Theodosius the Lesser.ÂÂ  It was attended by 200 bishops, and St. Cyril the Great, Pope of Alexandria, chaired the council.ÂÂ  The Council convened to try Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, for he divided Christ into two separate persons: the Son of God and the Son of Man.ÂÂ  St. Cyril stressed on the unity of the Godhead and the manhood without mixing or mingling.ÂÂ  He also stressed on the title "Theotokos," i.e. "the mother of God" for St. Mary, in order to clarify that who was born from her is truly God the Incarnate Word and not an ordinary man on whom the Godhead descended subsequently.


Now, let's take a look at what our holy Father St. Dioscorus found fault with in Pope Leo's Tome:
The activity of each form is what is proper to it in communion with the other: that is, the Word performs what belongs to the Word, and the flesh accomplishes what belongs to the flesh. One of these performs brilliant miracles; the other sustains acts of violence. As the Word does not lose its glory which is equal to that of the Father, so neither does the flesh leave the nature of its kind behind

What is lacking here, from the words of Pope Leo, is a concrete stance on the hypostatic union.ÂÂ  This is why our holy Father St. Dioscorus found fault, for Nestorios stated, "I distinguish between the two natures" as Pope Leo seems to imply from his tome.ÂÂ  And Sabbas, you are correct that we need to understand that Christ is from 2 Natures, but to speak of the 2 Natures acting independently after the hypostatic union, not only goes against the teachings of St. Cyril, but also the Council of Ephesus.ÂÂ  This is also why Nestorius agreed with the Tome, at face level.ÂÂ  This is why, and I agree with EA deeply on this, that the Tome of Leo can be seen in an Orthodox understanding, but it is very weak at doing so.

Well, just my 2 cents.
copticorthodoxboy

p.s.  I also want to state, I consider myself an Orthodox Christian, and not just an OO Christian, or a Coptic Christian (though my name implies it).  I believe that the Christological misunderstandings of the past have been better understood from each family of Orthodox Churches, and that we truly have the same Christology. 




 
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Silouan on June 09, 2005, 02:11:27 AM
Again how is this precisely Nestorian?   

Saint Leo always confessed THEOtokos not Christotokos - so to say that he held to a Nestorian division of the natures in Christ is dishonest. 

In the same tomos Saint Leo does say "in the Lord Jesus Christ God and man is one person."  How can that be twisted to mean Nestorianism.  If that is what Pope Leo confesses in his tomos, would it not make sense to infer that throughout the tomos he is speaking of Christ as a single person?
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Matthew777 on June 09, 2005, 05:05:23 AM
Again how is this precisely Nestorian?   

The problem with the language of the Tomos is not that it is specifically Nestorian but that its language can be so easily be accepted by Nestorianism, which is exactly what happened. The christology of St. Cyril, on the other hand, does not have this problem.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Fr. David on June 09, 2005, 07:51:30 AM
The problem with the language of the Tomos is not that it is specifically Nestorian but that its language can be so easily be accepted by Nestorianism, which is exactly what happened. The christology of St. Cyril, on the other hand, does not have this problem.

Yet we would say that accepting St. Cyril apart from Chalcedon (which he accepted) is insufficient, as it doesn't make enough of a distinction between the two natures.  Read what I just wrote (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=5907.msg82415#msg82415) in the long-since-sidetracked Thessoloniki thread.

This is why our holy Father St. Dioscorus found fault, for Nestorios stated, "I distinguish between the two natures" as Pope Leo seems to imply from his tome.

Well, good for Nestorius; he should distinguish between the two natures.  It doesn't then follow, however, that he should distinguish between two persons or separate the natures into contradictory actions (that italicized word is important!). 

Quote
And Sabbas, you are correct that we need to understand that Christ is from 2 Natures, but to speak of the 2 Natures acting independently after the hypostatic union, not only goes against the teachings of St. Cyril, but also the Council of Ephesus.

Acting independently?  Hmm...not sure this is bad in and of itself.  The divine is the divine, and there are certain things the human cannot do.  Likewise, the human is what was destined to receive certain things.  Like idontlikenames has said, the one Person of the Logos merely performed these things through the appropriate nature.  It doesn't mean that there are two, conscious Christs doing different things at different times.  This would be bad, as would saying that the natures acted against each other (which would divide the natures) rather than for each other, complementing each other (which unites the Person).
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Mor Ephrem on June 09, 2005, 07:56:47 AM
Yet we would say that accepting St. Cyril apart from Chalcedon (which he accepted)...

Very quickly before I go to Liturgy and work...how could St. Cyril accept Chalcedon when he died seven years or so before it? 
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Fr. David on June 09, 2005, 07:59:07 AM
Very quickly before I go to Liturgy and work...how could St. Cyril accept Chalcedon when he died seven years or so before it? 

Whoops!  Crap, you're right...I was correcting stuff and forgot to edit that to say that he stated acceptance of the understanding of the two natures therein.

Happy Ascension!
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Matthew777 on June 09, 2005, 08:30:28 AM
Yet we would say that accepting St. Cyril apart from Chalcedon (which he accepted) is insufficient, as it doesn't make enough of a distinction between the two natures. 

If it were insufficient, why did the Council of Ephesus accept it before Chalcedon?
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: jmbejdl on June 09, 2005, 08:45:43 AM
If it were insufficient, why did the Council of Ephesus accept it before Chalcedon?

That's a pretty daft question. I think you need to look at it as insufficient for some purpose not just insufficient per se. The Creed, after all, was sufficient at the time of the Council of Nicea, then became insufficient and was revised at Constantinople - that's how such things work - you can't see all possible future insufficiencies in a theological text until something happens to point them out to you.

James
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: coptic orthodox boy on June 09, 2005, 09:58:04 AM
IC XC NIKA
Silouan,
Peace, and you state:
Again how is this precisely Nestorian?

Saint Leo always confessed THEOtokos not Christotokos - so to say that he held to a Nestorian division of the natures in Christ is dishonest.

In the same tomos Saint Leo does say "in the Lord Jesus Christ God and man is one person." How can that be twisted to mean Nestorianism. If that is what Pope Leo confesses in his tomos, would it not make sense to infer that throughout the tomos he is speaking of Christ as a single person?

First off, I'll leave all the history to those more learned.ÂÂ  I know this is a cheap way out, but I'll confess, I'm not the best historian on the subject.ÂÂ  However, you bring up a good point.

*Pope Leo always confessed Theotokos and not Christotokos, as well as St. Dioscorus.
*Pope Leo condemned the views of Eutyches, and so did St. Dioscorus (though, some would like to re-write history, and say otherwise).ÂÂ  
*It is true Pope Leo speaks of "one person (prosopon)" of Christ but this term does not suffice, for the Nestorians used it to mean "mask," i.e. external unity.ÂÂ  There was a need to confirm the unity as a true and "hypostatic" union, which the tome lacks.

in Christ,
copticorthodoxboy
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Augustine on June 09, 2005, 10:28:17 AM
First, to my fellow ("Chalcedonian") Orthodox brothers...

I've found that as I've read up on this topic (and the early Christological controversies in general),ÂÂ  that while on one hand there is much more room for toleration than most (including myself) would have ever imagined, I've also found that we (Orthodox, who accept the Seven Ecumenical Synods) are typically so conditioned by our conflicts with heterodox westerners, so as to be largely ignorant on this topic.

Because of this ignorance, we basically get our lunch eaten by Non-Chalcedonians who, for obvious reasons, are very pre-occupied by this issue (since they tend to view us the way we view the Roman Catholics).  Thus, as I've read and read, I've discovered that far from having a particularly impressive case, this is just a case of us being sloppy and ignorant of our own sources and of the controversies as they occured (and the situation of the Councils themselves.)  Upon looking at these controversies as a whole (and not just that which surrounded the Council of Chalcedon), it's quite clear where the truly catholic position lies, as opposed to a narrowness which actually supports that which is less complete (which is how I've more or less come to view the Non-Chalcedonian position.)  I've read one Orthodox author refer to this narrowness as "Cyprianic fundamentalism"; a sort of delusion which believes the entire universe revolved around Alexandria and the "school" which had erected itself there.

Coptic Orthodox Boy,

Quote
"There is nothing unreal about this oneness, since both the lowliness of the man and the grandeur of the divinity are in mutual relation. As God is not changed by showing mercy, neither is humanity devoured by the dignity received. The activity of each form is what is proper to it in communion with the other: that is, the Word performs what belongs to the Word, and the flesh accomplishes what belongs to the flesh. One of these performs brilliant miracles; the other sustains acts of violence. As the Word does not lose its glory which is equal to that of the Father, so neither does the flesh leave the nature of its kind behind."

There is nothing "Nestorian" about the passage, particularly when one reads the Tome of St.Leo whole and entire - and even less so, when one reads it as a part of the Ecumenical Synod of Chalcedon.  This is, frankly, looking for excuses to not be in communion with the Orthodox-Catholic Church.

Quote
What is lacking here, from the words of Pope Leo, is a concrete stance on the hypostatic union.

Bullocks.  What more than "one person" do you need?  While only God knows exactly why Dioscoros agitated on this matter, the logical deduction that such a rejection leaves us with is that one understands St.Cyril's "one physis" in a manner fundamentally different than either he or the consensus of the Holy Fathers would have it.  Personally, I'm inclined to believe that save for radicals like Eutyces (who were eventually found to be too out to lunch even by his fellow anti-Chalcedonians, at least from what I understand), few of the anti-Chalcedonians were in fact genuine mixers or diminishers of Christ's true and real humanity.  However, this begs the question of why reject Chalcedon...frankly, I think it was sour grapes and pride - a sectarian spirit which is the hallmark of schism.  This is probably why according to the canons, the anti-Chalcedonians can be received via economia (which generally is reserved for schismatics, or those whose errors while real, do not amount to the adoration of an alien "god").

Quote
And Sabbas, you are correct that we need to understand that Christ is from 2 Natures, but to speak of the 2 Natures acting independently after the hypostatic union, not only goes against the teachings of St. Cyril, but also the Council of Ephesus.

But who is saying "independent"?  That there was only one hypostasis involved here was made clear enough, and it's quite clear upon a careful reading of St.Cyril (particularly when one reads his letter to John of Antioch) that his usage of "one physis" is equivelent to this.

A problem which too few people are willing to appreciate, is that all of the terms we throw around in these discussions (nature, essense, "hypostasis", persona, etc.) not only were understood in a different sense by different parties at the same time, but also underwent some development in the time between the early Ecumenical Synods.  For example, this is why you'll find great Fathers (like Sts.Basil or Gregory of Nyssa) who were only threadbare adherants to Nicea - precisely because they were uncomfortable with it's language (which some of them saw as leaning toward Sabellianism - and it is precisely because of differing ways of speaking, that Eastern Christendom long suspected the West of this as well).

The fundamental error of the Non-Chalcedonians, IMHO, is utterly failing to appreciate this historical reality.  They don't seem to want to consider for a moment that anyone outside of their local theological tradition could have possibly had anything to contribute in terms of a corrective to the real ambiguities latent in St.Cyril's formula.  Keep in mind, that real "confusers" of the Divine & human like Eutyces, considered themselves faithful adherants of St.Cyril (though they in fact were not.)

Quote
This is also why Nestorius agreed with the Tome, at face level.  This is why, and I agree with EA deeply on this, that the Tome of Leo can be seen in an Orthodox understanding, but it is very weak at doing so.

It's also worth considering that in one sense, the Antiochenes (including those who would later proudly grab hold of full blown "Nestorianism", and end up being, oddly enough, "more Nestorian than Nestorius!") were correct, in sensing something fishy and "Apollinarian" in St.Cyril's formula.  While it is clear in context what St.Cyril meant, he took his formula of "one physis of God the Word Incarnate" from a text he thought belonged to St.Athanasios (and hence of great authority).  However, even in the sixth century it had become well known (and is accepted in any modern source I've read on the topic, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, or secular) that the text was not in fact from St.Athanasios, but was from the hated (by St.Cyril) Apollinaris.  This is not to say this would be the first time something was taken from heterodox folks and distilled and "baptized" by giving a phrase a thoroughly Orthodox meaning - but it does point to a weakness in St.Cyril's definition, not against the excesses of those who would make Christ into "two", but against those unstable men who would make Him either only Divine or diminish His humanity to the point of being a footnote.

Matthew,

Quote
The problem with the language of the Tomos is not that it is specifically Nestorian but that its language can be so easily be accepted by Nestorianism, which is exactly what happened. The christology of St. Cyril, on the other hand, does not have this problem.

The problem with St.Cyril's language is not that it's specifically neo-Apollinarian/Monophysitic, but that its language can be so easily accepted by neo-Apollinarianism/Monophysitism, which is exactly what happened.

Just as Constantinople I was the continuation of Nicea I, so too was Chalcedon the continuation of Ephesus.

Quote
If it were insufficient, why did the Council of Ephesus accept it before Chalcedon?

That's like asking why the Council of Nicea thought it sufficient to end the Creed by simply saying "And the Holy Spirit. (Period)." ÂÂ That's because the circumstances which brought on Constantinople I had not yet occured.  Constantinople I was called, precisely because the "Cappadocian" school suffered a split, between those who understood rightly, and those who essentially held an Arianesque view of the Holy Spirit.

The same is true of Ephesus - it was fine as a safeguard against those who would try to portray Christ as simply a really inspired man, who was really "close" to God or anything similar to this.  However, it did not of itself address (as it would turn out) genuine concerns of those who felt it could be twisted towards a sort of neo-Apollinarianism, which is precisely what happened.  Hardcore monophysites like Eutyces were, as far as they were concerned, "good Cyrillians".  This was not true, and Chalcedon saught to set this straight.

Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Augustine on June 09, 2005, 10:41:32 AM
Coptic Orthodox Boy,

Quote
*It is true Pope Leo speaks of "one person (prosopon)" of Christ but this term does not suffice, for the Nestorians used it to mean "mask," i.e. external unity.  There was a need to confirm the unity as a true and "hypostatic" union, which the tome lacks.

This to me, is another example of "fishing for excuses".  To be fair, it is true that the East in general held some suspicions (to varying degrees) of the West, particularly as it became more "Latin" (and St.Leo is certainly part of that period, after the Roman Church moved from being primarily Greek-speaking to Latin-speaking), that it was secretly Sabellian.  This was because the Latins had baptized the word "persona" and used it as the equivelent of "hypostasis" when speaking of the Holy Trinity.  Unfortunately, in it's pagan etymology the word simply meant "mask", and it was precisely the Sabellian heresy, that the Holy Trinity was simply three "states" or "appearances" God somehow took on when dealing with mankind.  However in context, it's very clear what the Orthodox Latins meant by their usage of this term.

In the same sense, St.Cyril's definition read in isolation, could be easily accused of being in error.  I stress "accused as opposed to "demonstrated to be in", since the latter is not possible if one approaches the matter with good intentions and not being hell-bent to find fault.  The die-hard hold outs in Antioch are guilty of at least this in regard to St.Cyril, the die hard hold outs in Alexandrian are guilty of at least this in regard to St.Leo.

Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 09, 2005, 02:28:15 PM
I see there’s going to be a lot of homework waiting for me here when I'm "officially" back. I’ve briefly skimmed through this thread, and I most certainly have a lot to say; however, I thought I would simply interject on at least one issue to temporarily carry some weight off the shoulders of my Orthodox brother coptic orthodox boy.

coptic orthodox boy,

Please allow me to demonstrate for you how to effectively strip the rhetoric and red herrings from a Chaledonian’s argument, in order to get to the base and substance of that very argument, such that your reader's focus is not distracted into thinking that your arguments have actually been addressed, simply because there is a chunk of text following a quotation of your argument. Let not anyone be fooled. You are on the right path my brother, you're doing well.

Allow me to quote a particular paragraph from Augustine's response to you; I will strike out the rhetoric and red herrings, so we are left with his essential argument, which is in itself an evasion of the issue at hand in any event.

Augustine states:

Quote
This to me, is another example of "fishing for excuses".ÂÂ  To be fair, it is true that the East in general held some suspicions (to varying degrees) of the West, particularly as it became more "Latin" (and St.Leo is certainly part of that period, after the Roman Church moved from being primarily Greek-speaking to Latin-speaking), that it was secretly Sabellian.ÂÂ  This was because the Latins had baptized the word "persona" and used it as the equivelent of "hypostasis" when speaking of the Holy Trinity.ÂÂ  Unfortunately, in it's pagan etymology the word simply meant "mask", and it was precisely the Sabellian heresy, that the Holy Trinity was simply three "states" or "appearances" God somehow took on when dealing with mankind. ÂÂ  However in context, it's very clear what the Orthodox Latins meant by their usage of this term.

As you can see coptic orthodox boy; you’re left with a cop-out. We are given a speech concerning how the term may have been used and understood (which is not even entirely historically accurate mind you, but I don’t have the time to elaborate on that right now, nor is it of any significance or relevance to the point you were making), and then we are left with a cop-out argument that ambiguously refers to some sort of contextual data which supposedly saves the chalcedonian from the charge that Leo’s tome was Nestorian-prone. Essentially what Augustine is saying above, is: “well, some may have used the term 'person' heretically; however in the context of the tome, it is orthodox.”

This alleged context is neither specified, nor provided, precisely because the necessary context (which you correctly pointed out i.e. the defining of the hypostatic union) simply does not exist. Let us take a moment to recap what instigated coptic orthodox boy’s response to this issue in the first place; for it was Leo’s mere affirmation of the “one person” of Christ which was initially given to coptic orthodox boy by a Chalcedonian as an example of SUFFICIENT context which had its purpose to vindicate another prima facie heretical quote from the tome (the dividing of his two natures as to two subjects/centres of actions and hence consciousness) from its obvious heretical implications. By mere virtue of the fact that Augustine feels compelled to try and jump through another hoop in order to refer you to yet another contextual reference point to validate that which was supposedly sufficient context in and of itself, is evidence of the fact that the affirmation of "One person" does NOT suffice; and since this was essentially your claim, you have not been refuted and interestingly enough, behind the surface of Augustine's response to you, he has in effect implicitly proven your point for you!

I would like however to add to Augustine's great job in proving your case, by further validating the crux of this matter, which is; that regardless of Leo's subjective intentions, the fact of the matter is that both The Orthodox Church (“non-Chalcedonians”) and the Nestorian Church reasonably interpreted Nestorianism in Leo’s tome. When there is a dispute in terms of interpretation, as often happens with regards to legal contracts; the document must be analysed by the courts according to an objective criterion, such that the question to be answered becomes: “What would the reasonable person have reasonably interpreted from leo’s tome?”

With regard's to this, coptic orthodox boy’s argument essentially remains intact: Nestorianism can reasonably be interpreted from the tome, since the affirmation of Christ’s “one person” does NOT suffice in refuting Nestorianism if there is no clear definition regarding the hypostatic union. The fact of the matter is that Nestorius had no problem plainly affirming that Christ is “one person” per se. According to Professor Frances Young in his work From Nicaea to Chalcedon (pages 237-239), Nestorius defined the term prosopon as a thing’s “concrete manifestation, its external presentation”, such that Nestorius was thus able to affirm “one person” as it pertains to “Christ’s unity of person”, or in other words the "prosopic union". Whether Nestorius' "prosopic union" was a reference to One Person in Christ with two underlying 'grounds of being' or whether it was in reference to a third prosopon arising the uniting of two prosopa; ultimately one prosopon was confessed by Nestorius.

As has been mentioned on many occasions; Nestorius read over leo’s tome, and had only kind and generous things to say about it; the affirmation of "one person" was not overlooked by Nestorius, it was simply compatible with his doctrine, and neither he and his church, nor The Orthodox Church (Oriental) found anything in the context of leo's tome to reasonably negate this; and hence the consequent “reasonable” acceptance and rejection of it, respectively. Furthermore, Leo’s ill-association with Nestorian heretics did not help his case either.

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Fr. David on June 09, 2005, 02:58:59 PM
EA,

This is "unofficially" back?  ::)

...the question to be answered becomes: “What would the reasonable person have reasonably interpreted from leo’s tome?”...since the affirmation of Christ’s “one person” does NOT suffice in refuting Nestorianism if there is no clear definition regarding the hypostatic union.[/b]...The fact of the matter is that Nestorius had no problem plainly affirming that Christ is “one person” per se.

Well, good for Nestorius.  Kidding, of course, but only a bit...

Sigh...I'll say it again: it does not matter what Nestorius thought of us.  Nor does it matter, in and of itself, what word is used to define a thing.  Whereas you, EA, see what you did to Augustine's quote as "getting rid of red herrings" and the like, I see as the quick dismissal of a very valid point: that words have many connotations to them and have had many different ones throughout history, and it is these connotations--along with their development over time--which must be addressed, not simply the word itself, as if it were the be-all-end-all.

Therefore, some conclusions I'd come to (not for EA specifically, as I know he's "away"  ;))

Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 09, 2005, 03:27:53 PM
Quote
This is "unofficially" back?

2 hours of an exclusive 3 hour break throughout this entire day were dedicated to this forum, so don't you roll your eyes at me! lol

Pedro, my response to your last post will be quite simple, and no more than a reiteration of what I already said in my last post:

Quote
Regardless of Leo's subjective intentions, the fact of the matter is that both The Orthodox Church (“non-Chalcedonians”) and the Nestorian Church reasonably interpreted Nestorianism in Leo’s tome. When there is a dispute in terms of interpretation, as often happens with regards to legal contracts; the document must be analysed by the courts according to an objective criterion, such that the question to be answered becomes: “What would the reasonable person have reasonably interpreted from leo’s tome?”

There is nothing in the tome that clarifies a specific interpretation/connotation/implication of the expression “one person” over another. The alleged “context” which Augustine claims doesn’t exist; for the necessary context required is an appropriate definition of the hypostatic union in order to negate Nestorius “prosopic union” doctrine; just as St Cyril did before Chalcedon ever came into play. Leo's subjective intentions are irrelevant, for the documents received, and faith declared at an Ecumenical Council, are not only supposed to have some positive contribution to the Christological/Theological "developements" of the Church (and I contend Chalcedon did not nonetheless), but they're supposed to be a sword against the heretics.

Affirming that Christ is one person is simply an open blanket statement that allows Nestorians to get away with their heresy via a loophole; especially when many other statements made by Leo are certainly questionable and portray clear Nestorian implications; such that a mere affirmation of one person does not really vindicate the really questionable aspects of his tome. Why, for the life of me, would a legitimate Church council accept a document which employs language so confused and ambiguous, that a declared heretic and his entire heretical church are able to affirm acceptance of it along with the Chalcedonians? Take into account also, the point I’ve hammered in more than once now on this forum; that during this time it was NESTORIANISM that was STILL the ONLY real threatening heresy to the Church.ÂÂ  By the mid fifth century it was STILL influential and growing fast DESPITE St Cyril’s Christology which was the Church’s strongest immune system to it. Chalcedon basically took down St Cyril’s shields, and gave them leo’s tome as their own weapon against us. Who knows where your Church would have ended up had it not called upon the latter councils to correct your Church’s errors made at Chalcedon?

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Fr. David on June 09, 2005, 03:38:56 PM
Leo's subjective intentions are irrelevant, for the documents received, and faith declared at an Ecumenical Council, are not only supposed to have some positive contribution to the Christological/Theological "developements" of the Church (and I contend Chalcedon did not nonetheless), but they're supposed to be a sword against the heretics.

I would call the anathamatizing of Nestorius and Eutyches both positive for the Church and a definitive sword against the heretics, wouldn't you?  A council, or any of the document associated with it, that formally condemns a certain heresy cannot, then, be said to adhere to said heresy.  One must always look at Chalcedon and the Tome through this lens as a starting point.

As for the split with your church and the oversimplified view of your beliefs, these are lamentable in the extreme.  Were there--I'm sure you do know, O poster with infinite time on his hands--attempts on the part of your church to straighten out our faulty understanding of your belief?

Quote
Who knows where your Church would have ended up had it not called upon the latter councils to correct your Church’s errors?

Well...we'd be missing out on a dynamic relationship with the Holy Spirit which eventually corrects such things, I guess!  :P
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Deacon Lance on June 09, 2005, 04:09:07 PM
"It is true Pope Leo speaks of "one person (prosopon)" of Christ but this term does not suffice, for the Nestorians used it to mean "mask," i.e. external unity.  There was a need to confirm the unity as a true and "hypostatic" union, which the tome lacks."

I do not believe the Assyrians used Prosopon as "mask" but used it because following the Antiochian School they used what they found in Scritpure.  Prosopon is used in scripture, Hypostases is not.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on June 09, 2005, 08:03:21 PM
Please allow me to try to give my objective understanding of the situation.

Both OO and EO are very "picky" in words and associated heresies towards them.ÂÂ  I've read EO polemics that mentioned that St. Cyril "stopped" using "one physis" because "blessed Theodoret" corrected him and from that point onwards, his formulary of reunion with John of Antioch, which used two natures, became Cyrillian.

Obviously, this argument is nothing but an ignorant appeasement on the Chalcedonian side, and it's false in so many ways.ÂÂ  Until death, St. Cyril continued to use "one nature."ÂÂ  He was open-minded to different terminologies as long as the essence of faith was taught.ÂÂ  Theodoret and St. Cyril were enemies up to St. Cyril's death, so it's HIGHLY unlikely St. Cyril took Theodoret's suggestions.ÂÂ  Observe this letter that St. Cyril wrote to Acacius, bishop of Melitene:

Quote
But the brethren at Antioch, understanding in simple thoughts only those from which Christ is understood to be, have maintained a difference of natures, because, as I said, divinity and humanity are not the same in natural quality, but proclaimed one Son and Christ and Lord as being truly one; they say His person is one, and in no manner do they separate what has been united. Neither do they admit the natural division as the author of the wretched inventions was pleased to think, but they strongly maintain that only the sayings concerning the Lord are separated, not that they say that some of them separately are proper to the son, the Word of God the Father and others are proper to another one again, the one from a woman, but they say that some are proper to His divinity and others are proper to His humanity. For the same one is God and man. But they say that there are others which have been made common in a certain way and, as it were, look towards both, I mean both the divinity and the humanity.
   Therefore, is it not clear to all that they do not separate into two the one Lord Jesus Christ, when they say that it is necessary to apply the sayings proper to God to His divinity, and again the human ones to His humanity? They affirm, as I said, that he is the Word of God the Father, begotten before ages, and was born in recent daysÂÂ  according to the flesh from the holy Virgin.


Notice the TERMINOLOGY used by St. Cyril.ÂÂ  He mentions that the Word of God both was eternally begotten and born according to the flesh.ÂÂ  He used the word "Word" as in case of prosopon.ÂÂ  He saw the Antiochenes use the words "divinity" and "humanity" rather than "Word" and "man" or "Word" and "flesh."ÂÂ  The misunderstanding in Chalcedon is precisely this.ÂÂ  I always thought in the Tome that rather than saying this:

Quote
The activity of each form is what is proper to it in communion with the other: that is, the Word performs what belongs to the Word, and the flesh accomplishes what belongs to the flesh. One of these performs brilliant miracles; the other sustains acts of violence.

Perhaps, the Cyrillians in the council, including St. Dioscorus would be happy with this:

Quote
The activity of each form is what is proper to it in communion with the other: that is, the [divinity] performs what belongs to the [divinity], and the [humanity] accomplishes what belongs to the [humanity]. One of these performs brilliant miracles; the other sustains acts of violence.

May I add that even this alone does not suffice.ÂÂ  For the party of Alexandria likes to stress what the prosopon does.ÂÂ  Rather than saying "the divinity does this," we go further in saying "He does this through the divinity."ÂÂ  Rather than "the humanity does this," it is preferrable for us to hear "He does this through the humanity."ÂÂ  It is always the prosopon that is the center of all willing and acting, but to confess two centers of action is understood by us as serperation and therefore Nestorianism, which is obviously a misunderstanding.

Again, both EO and OO understandably prefer differing terminologies, but see the same faith professed.

Happy Ascension Feast!ÂÂ  ;D

God bless.

Mina
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: idontlikenames on June 09, 2005, 08:27:32 PM

Acting independently?ÂÂ  Hmm...not sure this is bad in and of itself.ÂÂ  The divine is the divine, and there are certain things the human cannot do.ÂÂ  Likewise, the human is what was destined to receive certain things.ÂÂ  

hmmm....yeah....I'm not so sure that that first sentence in the quote above sounds very good......Christ was not a bipolar schizophrenic......He was ONE.  Everything that Christ's Human flesh did, His ENTIRE Person did.....Everything that Christ's Divinity did, His ENTIRE Person did.  When Christ died, a PERSON died, not a nature (natures don't "die", for it is an abstract....that's like saying the number 2 or "goodness" "dies" or "does such-and-such").  When Christ performed miracles, a PERSON performed miracles, not a nature.....for it is not in the "nature" of natures do "do" something, for abstract ideas cannot "do" something per se.....only HYPOSTASES can "do" something.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Augustine on June 10, 2005, 08:51:04 AM
EA, EA, EA!

Quote
As you can see coptic orthodox boy; you’re left with a cop-out. We are given a speech concerning how the term may have been used and understood (which is not even entirely historically accurate mind you, but I don’t have the time to elaborate on that right now, nor is it of any significance or relevance to the point you were making), and then we are left with a cop-out argument that ambiguously refers to some sort of contextual data which supposedly saves the chalcedonian from the charge that Leo’s tome was Nestorian-prone. Essentially what Augustine is saying above, is: “well, some may have used the term 'person' heretically; however in the context of the tome, it is orthodox.”

First, I have to wonder...are you capable of being anything but rude?  I've tried so hard with you, forced myself to treat you like anything but a brat, and apologized profusely for my every failing...yet here you go again, being well...you!

Secondly, you're wrong here, plain and simple.  One of the problems with your (and your fellow non-Chalcedonians) argument, is that it just assumes a "Cyrillian supremecy"; that Christendom was not in a terribly confused state throughout this period (going right back to Nicea), and that there were indeed men which hindsight tells us were very much in agreement, yet who because of semantical differences (and the real errors of others, who they were confounded with by their misunderstanding opponents) found themselves in this or that "party" or "school".  I honestly have to wonder how broad your reading on the pre and early post Nicean period is, since it would appear to me everything is "Alexandria or bust".  And in this, you're woefully wrong, and this is fundamentally what is wrong with those non-Eutycian, but nonetheless anti-Chalcedonian Christians; they've made narrowness a cause for schism, whatever the sins of the Emperor or others may have been.

Quote
I would like however to add to Augustine's great job in proving your case, by further validating the crux of this matter, which is; that regardless of Leo's subjective intentions, the fact of the matter is that both The Orthodox Church (“non-Chalcedonians”) and the Nestorian Church reasonably interpreted Nestorianism in Leo’s tome.

Yes yes, and people also read Sabellianism into Nicea, and tri-theism/quasi-Arianism into the Capadoccians, etc. etc.  It became clear, eventually, that such fears were incorrect, and with time things got sorted out.  Unfortunately, this has yet to happen with the anti-Chalcedonians, who never seem to get tired of insisting St.Leo was a crypto-Nestorian.  Can't you just admit "hey, we goofed", and do what the rightly dividing Asiatic Fathers did regarding Nicea, and say "we accept it when rightly divided", and move on?

Of course not, because St.Leo had the nerve to not be a slave to Alexandrian definitions, even when it turns out their origins indeed were questionable (ex. the phrase "one physis of God the Word Incarnate" is not from an authentic Athanasian document, but as even a quick investigation on this topic will reveal, was in fact Apollinarian in origin - hence why there were sincere, rightly understanding Christians who had reservations about St.Cyril's definition, at least to the point that it did little to safeguard against the views of men like Eutyces, etc.)

Also, something is left out of all of this - St.Leo, and Chalcedon affirmed Ephesus!  Thus, they were not alien statements, but understood to be part of the same catholic-tradition by those who accepted both.

One temptation which most are prone to (wherever they're coming from), is this very neat, candy-coated understanding of the history of the Fathers, and in particular, of the Ecumenical Councils.  Many, perhaps conditioned by the experience of Papism (where their later so called "Ecumenical Councils" were basically consultation sessions for the Pope, and once promulgated had all of the force of a dictate from on high), and believe that the "genuine" Councils were somehow received by all of right faith in an undifferentiated way.  This is not the case!  I cannot emphasize that enough - there are great Saints we all accept (or at least ought to), Fathers living near the time of the great Synods, for whom they did not have an appreciable effect, or even who met them with some serious reservations (though eventually, accepting them as rightly divided...though it was clear they were not particularly "happy" about the language utilized.)

Unfortunately, in our dialogue we have the problem of a clear rejection and schism over this matter, which did not persist for a few years, or a generation, but now for over 1000 years.  Sadly, it's my experience that while the "Chalcedonian" side has it's share of beligerance and ignorance, it's the "non-Chalcedonians" who are very inflexible in all of this - being "Cyrillian integrists" as it were, they simply have to find heresy where it's not.  I'm insisting on this appraisal, because it's one I've been guilty of in times past...it's a proud, evil spirit, and a fundamentally sectarian (and non-catholic) outlook.  If you find yourself having to justify schisms, secretly rejoicing in the sins of others, or anything like this, then you have a problem.  This is precisely why, as much as they have my sympathy in certain matters, I fled from the whole "Old Calendarist" milieu - because they're ultimatly schisms in search of a rationale, the original causes of their division no longer justifiable in light of how things have developed, or when examined in a historical context.

This is why, on a subliminal level perhaps, I find a lot similar between the Russian "Old Believers", modern Old Calendarists, and the anti-Chalcedonians.  While on a human level I can commend the faithfulness involved, it's counter to reality, and anti-catholic ("catholic" understood in the authentic sense, not as an alternative title for "papism".)

Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Doubting Thomas on June 10, 2005, 10:02:06 AM
I've avoided this discussion since I admittedly haven't studied this issue as much as others here, but I thought I'd throw in my 2 cents.

First, one must realize that the Tome wasn't accepted uncritically, but was studied by the bishops present at Chalcedon who concluded that the faith of the Tome and that of St. Cyril were in substantial agreement despite differences in terminology.

Second, as pointed out by others, the council of Chalcedon explicitly reaffirmed Ephesus and condemned Nestorianism.

Third, the Definition of Chalcedon specifcally states that the two natures exist in one Person and subsistence (hypostasis).ÂÂ  (Not merely a union in one "prosopon")

Finally,ÂÂ  here's some other quotes from the Tome itself to provide some context:


"Accordingly while the distinctness of both natures and substances was preserved, and both met in one Person, lowliness was assumed by majesty, weakness by power, mortality by eternity; and, in order to pay the debt of our condition, the inviolable nature was united to the passible, so that as the appropriate remedy for our ills, one and the same "Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus," might from one element be capable of dying and also from the other be incapable. Therefore in the entire and perfect nature of very man was born very God, whole in what was his, whole in what was ours

 He assumed "the form of a servant" without the defilement of sin, enriching what was human, not impairing what was divine: because that "emptying of himself," whereby the Invisible made himself visible, and the Creator and Lord of all things willed to be one among mortals, was a stooping down in compassion, not a failure of power.

Accordingly, the Son of God, descending from his seat in heaven, and not departing from the glory of the Father, enters this lower world, born after a new order, by a new mode of birth. After a new order; because he who in his own sphere is invisible, became visible in ours; He who could not be enclosed in space, willed to be enclosed; continuing to be before times, he began to exist in time; the Lord of the universe allowed his infinite majesty to be overshadowed, and took upon him the form of a servant; the impassible God did not disdain to be passible Man and the immortal One to be subjected to the laws of death."

"For the selfsame who is very God, is also very man; and there is no illusion in this union, while the lowliness of man and the loftiness of Godhead meet together. For as "God" is not changed by the compassion [exhibited], so "Man" is not consumed by the dignity [bestowed]."


"Accordingly, on account of this unity of Person which is to be understood as existing in both the natures, we read, on the one hand, that "the Son of Man came down from heaven," inasmuch as the Son of God took flesh from that Virgin of whom he was born; and on the other hand, the Son of God is said to have been crucified and buried, inasmuch as he underwent this, not in his actual Godhead; wherein the Only-begotten is coeternal and consubstantial with the Father, but in the weakness of human nature. Wherefore we all, in the very Creed, confess that" the only-begotten Son of God was crucified and buried," according to that saying of the Apostle, "for if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Majesty."

"Not undeservedly, therefore, was he pronounced blessed by the Lord, and derived from the original Rock that solidity which belonged both to his virtue and to his name, who through revelation from the Father confessed the selfsame to be both the Son of God and the Christ."

"...that the properties of the Divine and the human nature might be acknowledged to remain in him without causing a division, and that we might in such sort know that the Word is not what the flesh is, as to confess that the one Son of God is both Word and flesh."

--It seems that these quotes, despite lacking some of the more precise Greek terminology, would be hard to reconcile with Nestorianism emphasizing as they do the unity of the Incarnate Divine Subject.

Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: cizinec on June 10, 2005, 10:23:15 AM
First, EA, I'd like to say "thanks" for your posts.  I think they are interesting.

I must, however, disagree with your method of textual analysis.  I think you've fallen prey to Derrida's trap.  He believed that readers should look only at the text on the page and not try to understand what the writer was trying to communicate.  He had a very unhealthy distrust of communication through written language, but that's another topic.

I don't agree that the Tome says what you claim it says.  If you want to completely ignore the context, as you do, then I wouldn't have enough knowledge of what Pope Leo was saying to make a decision.  Context is incredibly important for even the most inane statements.

Quote
Why, for the life of me, would a legitimate Church council accept a document which employs language so confused and ambiguous, that a declared heretic and his entire heretical church are able to affirm acceptance of it along with the Chalcedonians?

Using this logic we are required to condemn the parts of canonical Scripture which heretics have used.  Since the heretics affirm Scripture we must reject it. ÂÂ

Obviously that's not what you're arguing, but if heretics' understanding of Scripture can be twisting the meaning of the text, why can't heretics' understanding of the Tome of Leo be just as twisted?

What in the end are we trying to get at here.  The OOs say that the Tome of Leo says and means A and that, therefore, everyone who holds to the Tome of Leo believes A.  EOs say the Tome of Leo does not say A and that they don't believe A. ÂÂ

Regardless of what the Tome actually says, can the OOs here, then, agree that EOs don't believe A because they expressly denounce A?
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Anastasios on June 10, 2005, 11:34:54 AM
Ah, finally what I have always wanted for this board, a real EO-OO debate. This is great. I am enjoying this one immensely. It's too bad that the other two guys who used to debate this issue could never handle this level of maturity and instead resorted to trying to silence the other poster via administrative complaints and lots of insults. I've got to hand it to you guys, you are really making me proud. Thanks!!

Anastasios
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ania on June 10, 2005, 12:37:56 PM
I agree Anastasios, I was reading this thread just wondering where it was going to turn nasty.  Hasn't yet... makes my job easier.  :-)
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Fr. David on June 10, 2005, 02:15:03 PM
Mina,

May I add that even this alone does not suffice.  For the party of Alexandria likes to stress what the prosopon does.  Rather than saying "the divinity does this," we go further in saying "He does this through the divinity."  Rather than "the humanity does this," it is preferrable for us to hear "He does this through the humanity."  It is always the prosopon that is the center of all willing and acting, but to confess two centers of action is understood by us as serperation and therefore Nestorianism, which is obviously a misunderstanding.

This is, quite possibly, the most thoughtful and considerate non-chalcedonian statement on the subject I've read.  The words in bold are especially important, as this is what Chalcedonians confess.  There is one person--though I worded it poorly above (thanks for calling me on that, idontlikenames)--who is the center of action, but it's important to stress His movement through one of His natures (or, as you put it, his humanity) at certain tmes, and His movement through His other nature (his divinity) at other times.

Ah, finally what I have always wanted for this board, a real EO-OO debate. This is great. I am enjoying this one immensely. It's too bad that the other two guys who used to debate this issue could never handle this level of maturity and instead resorted to trying to silence the other poster via administrative complaints and lots of insults. I've got to hand it to you guys, you are really making me proud. Thanks!!

::Sniff::  I luv you, too, man!!   ;)
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Stavro on June 10, 2005, 02:19:57 PM
- The Tome:

- The text that Doubting Thomas provided , although contributing positively to the discussion, does not provide anything to excuse for Leo of Rome for opting to use a Nestorian language that has been received very positively by the Nestorian party. In no place does Leo of Rome affirm more than what Nestorius "invented" before, and nor does "one person" say anything about the type of union that existed in the one incarnate nature of the Lord. Again, and as EA indicated in previous posts, Nestorians do not object to the use one person in reference to the Lord as long as it means a mask or a union such as in marriage. Such is the blasphemy of Theodore, Diodore and Theodret.

- What makes matters worse, is the fact that the Tome confirm the separation of the persons with separate everything. One takes torture, and the other is glorfied by miracles. It leaves no doubt that the Tome of Leo of Rome, refusing to affirm the one incarnate nature, in words or by explanation, and then separating the Lord in two persons,is not orthodox. Even Grillmeier, the man who rewrote history in the favor of Chalcedonians, confessed the miserable job by Leo of Rome.

Leo of Rome Orthodoxy:

To counter the remaining claim of the EO that Leo of Rome was just confused, to excuse him of Nestorianism, let us see how far this confusion goes:

- Leo of Rome was associated with heretics, and heretics gained exoneration by his aid and support. Theodret is a condemned heretic, and his case needs more attention than that of Theodore and Ibas, although he is no more dangerous than the last two blasphemers.
Theodret:- ÂÂ
- Is a clear Nestorian before CHalcedon, and his attack on the twelve chapters of St.Cyril, the true Pillar of Faith, does not lack publicity.

- The anathema against him was renewed by a LAWFUL church council, whose decisions has to be reversed by another church council. Because Leo of Rome is the inventor of Papal infallability and Roman SUpremacy, he abrogated Tradition as he did in his Tome and accepted Theodret in coomunion while under anathema. EO claim they reject Papal Supremacy and Infallability, while they defacto accept it by supporting the actions and teachings of Leo unconditionally. Leo did not intend to have any discussion regarding his Tome, he intended it to be the words of St.Peter and those of the Vicar of Christ.

- After Chalcedon, Thedoret remained Nestorian and his letter to John of Agae just explain it beautifully. He once again confirms that his christology won the day ( which christology is it, do you think ?) and explains that the synodal letter that affirm one person is in accordance to their heretical belief. It shows that the exoneration he obtained is nothing but a joke that came into reality by the pressure of the Roman delegation and a vicious emperor and his bedcompanion, Pulcharia. It is worth mentioning that Theodret, the Nestorian, was part of the synodal committee after his entertaining exoneration. .
 
- Leo of Rome, after he sealed his victory in Chalcedon by admitting Ibas, Theodore, Thedoret and their teaching back into the church, sends a very gentle letter to Thedoret, rebuking him for being so slow in renouncing Nestorianism. Leo of Rome knew all along that his best friend is a Nestorian, yet he took it upon himself to admit him back into the church while he knew he was a Nestorian.

- In reference to the part of the exoneration of Thedoret in CHalcedon, the minutes of the council are better consulted. It is entertaining. During the first days Thedoret refused in unmistakable terms to anathemize Nestorius or Nestorianism. He refused to do so during the whole council, yet he was admitted to the council in the capacity of an accuser of St.Dioscoros, later martyred by the Chalcedonians. The council in this case took the model of the council of Tyre that admitted heretics to accuse St.Athanasius.

- The highlight of the Theodret case is his actual exoneration. Just seconds before he rejected Nestoirus in a half-hearted anathema, he refused to do so and confirmed his Nestorian beliefs. Desparate to be admitted to the council, he utters a vague anathema against Nestorius without actually explaining what he anathamized, and immediately he is part of the synodal committee that examined the Tome to be in accordance to St. Cyril's teachings and that drafts the synodal letters and renders the synod's theological decisions .

Sorry, too much to condemn Leo of Rome. Whether by his Tome or by his association with heretics, Leo of Rome has left himself without excuses by his teachings and his actions. ÂÂ
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: cizinec on June 10, 2005, 02:41:35 PM
Quote
I was reading this thread just wondering where it was going to turn nasty.

Well, there's a lunchbox in the fridge at my office that has so much mold growing on it, it has grown outside the box and onto the strap and onto everything else in the fridge.  The cleaning people refuse to clean it.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Stavro on June 10, 2005, 03:26:45 PM
Quote
One of the problems with your (and your fellow non-Chalcedonians) argument, is that it just assumes a "Cyrillian supremecy"; that Christendom was not in a terribly confused state throughout this period (going right back to Nicea), and that there were indeed men which hindsight tells us were very much in agreement, yet who because of semantical differences (and the real errors of others, who they were confounded with by their misunderstanding opponents) found themselves in this or that "party" or "school".

- As evident from this part, the problem with the forum member Augustine and with many Chalcedonian, is that they treat christianity as an ideology and not as the truth. To Augustine and others, Orthodoxy is nothing but competing ideologies and ideas, lacking the true understanding of what Orthodoxy really means. We confirm the Apostolic Faith, we do not try to reconcile what we do not understand with rhetorical statements and ideological efforts that produces in the end Arianism ( courtesy of Antioch ) , Macdonianism (courtesy of Antioch) and Nestorianism ( courtesy of Antioch), the school with which the Chalcedonian identify after Chalcedon totally eliminated the Alexandrian theology from its books.

- Your hatred and disrespect to the Alexandrian, although unfounded, is understood. Arius, Macedonius, Eusebius, Nestorius hated Alexandria. The lack of understanding of history and how the school of Alexandria was managed manifests itself in the posts of yours. Antioch was dominated by some philosophers outside the control of any church, while Alexandria was under the direct supervision of the Church, leading to exclusion of any non-Orthodox teaching. As for Rome and the West in general, there is no prominent theologians who emerged from there. As long as Rome followed Alexandria, it was orthodox. ÂÂ

- What does the phrase " and the real errors of others, who they were confounded with by their misunderstanding opponents " mean and who does it refer to ? How can a heretic who committs a real error be confounded by somebody's else misunderstanding ? What about his error and how was it misunderstood ? It is either a sound teaching that is misunderstood, or an error that is understood and then confronted.

- The christology of St.Cyril is indeed supreme to all other christological attempts such as those of the school of Antioch or the christology of Leo of Rome. The reason is not the supreme thought and genius of St.Cyril, who is a genius in his own right who rivals Athanasius in glory, it is only because he was expressing the Apostolic Faith, confirming it without any new inventions or human efforts to explain what no human kind can grasp. God reveals such mysteries, and we just confirm them.

Quote
I honestly have to wonder how broad your reading on the pre and early post Nicean period is, since it would appear to me everything is "Alexandria or bust". ÂÂ
It is Orthodoxy or bust. Would you please indicate where in pre or early Nicean period, or even during or after the council  of Chalcedon, the Alexandrian fell into heresy ? If not, and you will not be able to produce one single piece of evidence, then Orthodoxy is one and the same with what Alexandria always expressed.

Quote
they've made narrowness a cause for schism, whatever the sins of the Emperor or others may have been.
You are not familiar with the current OO/EO relations. The OO are ready for a union once your patriarchs and bishops can agree on oneÂÂ  position. Is it too much to ask to have one representative position for the EO? Fairness, not narrowness, should prompt the EO to apologize for their crimes and massacres against the OO, yet this was forgiven in an effort to reconcile the two parties. Note the apology that is requested for the sack of 1204. It is the arrogance and the internal divisions of the EO that makes any union impossible, yet you ignore your own state and opt to label us as narrow minded.

St.Cyril accepted the repentence of John of Antioch, and allowed him liberity in using terms as long as they are checked by many Orthodox terminology and as long as the content is the same. We follow the example of the great Cyril, the man who saved the World from Nestorianism before Chalcedon brought it back.

Quote
Of course not, because St.Leo had the nerve to not be a slave to Alexandrian definitions,
.... he opted out to be a follower of Theodret, a confirmed Nestorian. I agree that he wanted to make a unique theology for himself, a copy-paste one from Antiochian theologians, for it would not fit his Papal claims and views, being the father of Roman Papacy and Infallability, to follow Alexandria. Whatever his reasons were, we ended up with the Tome. Again, Orthodoxy is not a pool of ideologies in which you go fish, it is one truth that has been delivered once and only once to the apostles ( Jude 3).

Let us also examine the effect of refusing to follow Alexandria. Blessed Julius, as long as he followed Alexandria, conquered Arianism. Blssed Sextus and Celestine, as long as they followed Alexandria, maintained the unity of the christian world and defeated Nestorianism. Liberius drifted, and fell into Arianism, Leo choose to follow Theodret, and caused the schism.

Quote
Also, something is left out of all of this - St.Leo, and Chalcedon affirmed Ephesus
No, it did not, it abroagted Ephesus. For you info, Ephesus was summoned to take the case of Nestorianism and ended with an anathema against him and all those who shared his views and teach his blasphemy. Chalcedon abroagted Ephesus by the following actions:

- Exonerated heretics such as Thedoret, Theodore and Ibas and accepted their teachings as perfectly orthodox. These men are Nestorian, and their teachings Nestorian as well. Your own ancestors in the 5th council of Constaninople admitted the mistakes of CHalcedon and anathemized the writings of these three Nestorians, one of them you call blessed. Till now, you could not defend CHalcedon on this issue and this obvious contradiction in your history ? Which one of your holy councils, the 4th or the 5th, is wrong ?

- Admitted heretics into the synodal committee to render theological decisions.

- Accepted the Tome of Leo of Rome which invited back Nestorianism. Theodret, a champion of Nestorianism and friend of Leo of Rome, was among the committee that examined the Tome's orthodoxy. ÂÂ

Quote
yet who because of semantical differences
It is not a case of semantic differences, it is a case of genuine differences in christology. This is beyond the EO/OO debate, it is a rejection of the revisionist attempts to portray the history of the church as nothing but misunderstandings and ideological debates, void of truth.
CHalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians understood each other perfectly, and they continued in discussions long after Chalcedon. Leaders from both sides were men of intelligence and knowledge and understood each other perfectly.

For example, Chalcedon , after careful examination of the letter of Ibas of Edissa , found it to be orthodox. The same letter, after careful examination by the 5th council, was found heretical. Semantics is not the culprit here in this obvious contradiction that is amplified by the acceptance of the writings of Theodret and Theodore and then rejecting them as well. The letter is the same in both councils, and those who judged it spoke the same language and shared the same "tradition".

The only possible conclusion is that one of the councils is wrong, and because the Holy Spirit does not err or fall into heresy and correct Himself after 102 years, one of the councils is unholy. Do not ask Non-Chalcedonians to accept a council that accepted heretical teachings and that your own church rejected afterwards, and I cannot understand how EO can act surprised because Orthodox would not accept SUCH blasphemy in 451 a.d., when your church did reject it afterwards .
 
Now, if you want to move beyond "confessing" councils and actually examining the content of faith of each group, then the approach it totally different and the results more promising.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Doubting Thomas on June 10, 2005, 04:29:51 PM
Didn't Arius hail from Alexandria?
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Doubting Thomas on June 10, 2005, 04:48:47 PM
- The Tome:

- The text that Doubting Thomas provided , although contributing positively to the discussion, does not provide anything to excuse for Leo of Rome for opting to use a Nestorian language that has been received very positively by the Nestorian party. In no place does Leo of Rome affirm more than what Nestorius "invented" before, and nor does "one person" say anything about the type of union that existed in the one incarnate nature of the Lord.
I don't see how it's Nestorian when Leo kept reaffirming the unity of the Divine Subject (eg. "selfsame", etc--re-read the other bolded words).ÂÂ  The comments distinguishing the two natures was in response to the Eutychian errors. So despite not using the phrase "one hypostasis", those who read the Tome--and ratified the Definition of Chalcedon--understood that is what Leo meant.
Quote
Again, and as EA indicated in previous posts, Nestorians do not object to the use one person in reference to the Lord as long as it means a mask or a union such as in marriage. Such is the blasphemy of Theodore, Diodore and Theodret.
But as I stated above, the Definition of Chalcedon explicitly states that the two natures exist in "one person and subsistence (hypostasis).ÂÂ  "One hypostasis" is not "Nestorian", but is instead a repudiation of Nestorius.

Quote
What makes matters worse, is the fact that the Tome confirm the separation of the persons with separate everything. One takes torture, and the other is glorfied by miracles.
No, it confirms the distinction of natures, not the "separation of persons". No where does the Tome discuss "two persons".
Quote
It leaves no doubt that the Tome of Leo of Rome, refusing to affirm the one incarnate nature, in words or by explanation, and then separating the Lord in two persons,is not orthodox.ÂÂ  
But you're begging the question that "one incarnate nature" was actually the best formula, when in fact it may not have been considering its Apollinarian origins and its abuse at the hands of Eutyches.ÂÂ  (I think Augustine has more than adequately pointed that out).ÂÂ  

Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: cizinec on June 10, 2005, 05:23:39 PM
Stavro,

You and EA appear to hold that written words must have absolute rule over all meaning, including the intent of the message.  You use definitions as you have defined them and not as defined in Chalcedon or by others when they were discussing the Tome of Leo.

Is this the case?

I think I could understand what you were saying if you claimed that the Tome of Leo is Nestorian, but Chalcedon failed to understand what he was saying and defined words differently than Pope Leo and were, therefore, fooled.  Okay.  That's a point of discussion.  Saying, "You guys are Nestorians even though you don't believe anything Nestorian" is just weirdly argumentative. 

Do you think that I believe in calling the Theotokos only Christotokos and that Christ had two hypostases because I am not OO?  I'm telling you that we don't believe that.  You sound like you are telling me that we do, in fact, believe what we are telling you we don't. 

If what you say is true and Chalcedon put the approval on Nestorianism, then why wasn't there a big hugging session with the Assyrian Church?  Why wasn't there recommunion with them?
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on June 10, 2005, 07:06:02 PM
Personally, as an OO, I would like to give my personal and humble opinion that this was in fact a misunderstanding and that both families remained Orthodox even if there was a "failure" to understand one another and solidify the schism, but before I go on explaining how I interpret history, I like to ask Augustine something.

Dear Augustine,

Earlier you said that some anti-Chalcedonians were in fact "mixers" of the natures of Christ.ÂÂ  But then you go on saying that we should not be stuck on the pride of each school of thought.

I want to get the record straight here, brother.ÂÂ  Do you believe that some of our OO fathers, such as Dioscorus, Timothy Aelurius, Severus, Philoxenos, etc. were Eutychians or heretics in some way or do you believe that the non-Chalcedonians have misunderstood the Chalcedonians, but remained Orthodox in faith up until today?

Answering this question may help me to try to understand the debate without further getting into polemics.

Thank you and God bless.

Mina
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 10, 2005, 10:24:38 PM
Quote
First, I have to wonder...are you capable of being anything but rude?

I’m sorry you interpret it like that; you shouldn’t. I just have an intolerance towards flawed arguments; it’s nothing personal, believe me. Calling me a Cyrillian snob isn't very tasteful either; I consider that disrespectful and rude. It's best just to deal with the arguments without taking it personally, because I dont want to sit here and point out hypocricy as well.

I have no other reason to be a faithful adherent of Cyrillian Christology, apart from the fact that it was his Christology that was vindicated at a true and genuine Ecumenical Council. I have no other reason to be a faithful adherent to Alexandrian Christology other than the fact that such Christology has proven its stability and strength against heresy throughout history; being developed by the great Alexandrian father St Cyril, who based his Christology on the great Alexandrian father St Athanasius, who in turn based his Christology on the great Alexandrian fatherÂÂ  Origen...it was this Christology that was vindicated at a true and  genuine Ecumenical council.ÂÂ  Ecumenical councils don't undermine each other; The Holy Spirit does not reconsider His position; He does not dicard or compromise that which He already established as the standard by which the Church's Orthodoxy would be measured.

I will stop here before I get into an essay...

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 11, 2005, 12:30:53 AM
Just to quickly answer Doubting Thomas,

Quote
But as I stated above, the Definition of Chalcedon explicitly states that the two natures exist in "one person and subsistence (hypostasis).ÂÂ  "One hypostasis" is not "Nestorian", but is instead a repudiation of Nestorius.

As long as the terms aren’t defined or made in an express context which clarifies their intended implication for all, then there is really nothing in the Chalcedonian definition that repudiates Nestorianism.

Regarding the term “hypostasis”, Nestorius didn’t generally employ it; his three basic terms were ousia, physis, and prosopon. Of these three terms, Nestorius could only conceive of a union of prosopon, and not ousia or physis. Regarding the manner in which Nestorius could manipulate the term hypostasis, Professor Frances Young states: “[Nestorius] recognizes that the term is ambiguous, even stating that Cyril’s phrase ‘hypostatic union’ could be acceptable if it meant…a union of prosopon.” (From Nicea to Chalcedon, page 236)

Employing a term that is in itself ambiguous to the heretic, such that the heretic is given leeway with regards to how he can interpret it, to the extent he can still conform such ambiguous expressions with his vile heresy; is simply a bow to that heresy. That's what Chalcedon was; a bow to Nestorianism.

The two vital and significant features absent from Chalcedon, which would refute Nestorianism beyond reasonable doubt are:

a)   Affirming that The Word is the subject of Christ’s Incarnate experiences. This is directly CONTRADICTED by Leo, who divides “The Word” from "the flesh", regarding them as separate centres of action and hence consciousness.
b)   The defining of the hypostatic union in the same manner St Cyril did in his defense against Nestorians misinterpretation of the “hypostatic union” phrase. The "One physis" formula, despite the arguments of the ignorant; has implications regarding NOT the confusion of ousia's, but rather the nature of the hypostatic union.

Quote
No, it confirms the distinction of natures, not the "separation of persons". No where does the Tome discuss "two persons".

I’m sorry, Leo doesn’t need to be so explicit as to express the phrase “two persons”; for it is an obvious implication of the quotation to which Stavro was responding. Natures DO NOT PERFORM ACTION. The performance of an action recquires a PERSONAL SUBJECT. Leo depicts The Word as the centre of one independent set of actions (divine), and depicts the flesh as the centre of another independent set of actions (human) — the practical effects of this are clearly not simply a "distinction of natures”.

Quote
But you're begging the question that "one incarnate nature" was actually the best formula, when in fact it may not have been considering its Apollinarian origins and its abuse at the hands of Eutyches.

Re: The oft repeated “Apollinarian origin” charge:

This is a mere claim sir. Please provide us with your evidence.

Assuming for arguments sake that it were true, homoousion was used by the Gnostic heretics way before the Council of Nicea ever adopted it to explain that Christ was “of the same substance (homoousion) with the father”. It was even conciliarly condemned (council of Antioch) in A.D. 268 because it was then used in a heretical context by Paul of Samosata. Regardless of all this, the homoousion expression now stands as a pillar of Orthodoxy regardless of its past misuse.

Furthermore, Apollinarian’s only heresies were a denial of Christ’s soul, and communicatio idiomatum, however he did NOT teach that the humanity of Christ was somewhat divine as many claim — and so again, assuming for arguments sake that he did adopt the formula; his heresies were not a result or the corollary of the mia physis forumula, but rather independent of it.

Re: Eutyches — I’m stil waiting for someone to prove for me where Eutyches ever affirmed the One physis formula in an heretical context. The testimony of his enemies was as inconsistent as his own. They had an agenda, and he was just old, confused, and delirious.

Furthermore, if you only have ONE sole figure whom you can refer to, with regards to the manipulation of the mia physis formula, then you have indeed proven that it is a strong Orthodox formula. Can you even see the irony in your argument here? In case you didn't get it, allow me to reiterate; ONE SOLE FIGURE out of hundreds and hundreds of thousands (millions?) throughout the period in which the term was employed in an Orthodox context; manipulates the formula, and you think this is evidence of its weakness, rather than its strength? You mean, as opposed to the expressions employed at Chalcedon, which were manipulated by an ENTIRE heretical church for centuries? Come on now, give us a break here...

In his letter to Bishop Succensus, Saint Cyril wrote:

For not only in the case of those who are simple by nature is the term ‘one’ truly used, but also in respect to what has been brought together according to a synthesis, as man is one being, who is of soul and body. For soul and body are of different species and are not consubstantial to each other, but united they produce one Physis of man, even though in the considerations of the synthesis the difference exist according to the nature of those which have been brought together into a unity. Accordingly they are speaking in vain who say that, if there should be one incarnate Physis  ‘of the Word’ in every way and in every manner it would follow that a mixture and a confusion occurred as if lessening and taking away the nature of man.’

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 11, 2005, 12:34:28 AM
ÂÂ  It is always the prosopon that is the center of all willing and acting, but to confess two centers of action is understood by us as serperation and therefore Nestorianism, which is obviously a misunderstanding.

Dear Mina,
I have great difficulty with this. If thelema (will) is an attribute of hypostasis (person) and not ousia (nature) then what was happening in the Agony in the Garden (I know, I have asked this before, but it still hasn't been answered in a way which supports the notion that Christ had only One Will.)

"And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,
Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.
And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground."
ÂÂ  

If Christ's One Hypostasis had only "one personal Will" (as the Anglican-Oriental Orthodox agreed statement says), then it must have been in perfect harmony with the will of the Father. But the repulsion He expresses towards His coming death in this passage shows that He struggled to align His Will with the Will of the Father. This is all the more stark in the original Koine where the phrase "if Thou be willing" uses the word "boulei" which is more correctly translated as "wishing", but the phrase "not my will but Thine be done" uses the word "thelema" which is the exact same word Christ uses in the Lord's Prayer "Thy will (thelema) be done on earth as it is in Heaven."
From an EO perspective, we would say that Christ was struggling to bring His Human Will in alignment with His Divine Will. It was explained on another thread that the OO position is that Christ had only one will, but his "natural human desire" didn't want to die......however, the "natural human desire" would best be described as "boulei" (wishing), but Christ used this word to ask the Father that if HE (the Father) was "wishing" ("boulei") to let this cup pass, however, not in accordance with the will (thelema) of Christ's human nature  The EO position of the Two Wills therefore makes more sense.
Yes, Christ is One Hypostasis in Two Natures but the EO position is that these Two Natures are united without co-mingling or confusion. So when Christ was asleep, it was His Human Nature which slept- the Divine Nature does not sleep. The unity of the Two Natures does not mean that they were identical or acted identically. It means that they perfectly complemented each other and worked in synergy.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 11, 2005, 12:53:46 AM
Employing a term that is in itself ambiguous to the heretic, such that the heretic is given leeway with regards to how he can interpret it,
Is the Evangeslist St. John the Apostle therefore guilty of this since the "Thousand Years" of the Apocalypse has been misunderstood by a vast number of millinarians/chilianists?


The two vital and significant features absent from Chalcedon, which would refute Nestorianism beyond reasonable doubt are:
a)   Affirming that The Word is the subject of Christ’s Incarnate experiences. This is directly CONTRADICTED by Leo, who divides “The Word” from "the flesh", regarding them as separate centres of action and hence consciousness.
"In the beginning, there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.....and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." says the Apostle St. John.
"What was assumed from the Lord's mother was nature, not fault; nor does the wondrousness of the nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, as born of a Virgin's womb, imply that his nature is unlike ours. For the selfsame who is very God, is also very man; and there is no illusion in this union, while the lowliness of man and the loftiness of Godhead meet together." says the Tome of St. Leo.
Where is the contradiction?

b)   The defining of the hypostatic union in the same manner St Cyril did in his defense against Nestorians misinterpretation of the “hypostatic union” phrase. The "One physis" formula, despite the arguments of the ignorant; has implications regarding NOT the confusion of ousia's, but rather the nature of the hypostatic union.
Perhaps I am one of the "ignorant", but aren't "One physis", "miaphysis" and "monophysis" all synonyms?

Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Fr. David on June 11, 2005, 01:02:54 AM
Employing a term that is in itself ambiguous to the heretic, such that the heretic is given leeway with regards to how he can interpret it, to the extent he can still conform such ambiguous expressions with his vile heresy; is simply a bow to that heresy. That's what Chalcedon was; a bow to Nestorianism.

Dude, if this is honestly where you're determined to stand on the issue, then I guess I'm done.  It's been stated by me and several others that words are more fluid that what you're willing to concede, and until some flexibility is shown by the non-chalcedonians on this issue, there's nothing more that we could say that would bear any fruit.  You think it was a bow to Nestorianism, fine.  You're wrong, but nothing I can say will convince you of this, so fine.

Ozgeorge,

First of all, good stuff re: the wills of Christ.  But one physis has been interpreted in MANY ways within the Church and without, from "only one divine nature" to "one composite nature."  So that first term really needs a context.

"Monophysite" generally refers specifically to the heresy of Eutyches, who (somewhat) said that Christ's humanity was "swallowed" by His divinity, making Him only as human as He "needed" to be.  This is not the opinion of the non-chalcedonian communions.

"Miaphysite" is a better term for their belief, as it describes a composite nature of Christ which, as one nature, is both fully human and fully divine at the same time.

Just FYI.

Pedro, bowing out of this thread (and possibly all future Chalcedon threads until further notice).
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 11, 2005, 01:36:29 AM
Grrrr...no respect for students with exams I tell ya...(joking, I have only myself to blame)

Quote
Is the Evangeslist St. John the Apostle therefore guilty of this since the "Thousand Years" of the Apocalypse has been misunderstood by a vast number of millinarians/chilianists?

This analogy is weak…

St John the Evangelist wasn’t writing a polemical defense; nor did his work have an apologetic purpose; he wasn’t concerned about employing specific terms/formulas/expressions in order to refute certain heretics; St John was not even writing at a time when millenarians even existed.

Let’s take a look at the contrast:

Chalcedon was a council called “allegedly” to fight the heresy of the Chalcedonian fathers’ own imaginations (monphysitism). The historical context of the councils is this: Monophysitism did not exist; it was strenuously applied to one sole figure — Eutyches, but apart from him it wasn’t an idea that gained any significant support from anyone i.e. it was not even an itch let alone a disease. OTOH, Nestorianism was still a disease in the Church - a cancer if you will, which was still strongly influential, especially in the Persian empire. Chalcedon had the responsibility of maintaining Church unity and Orthodoxy if it were truly to be considered an Ecumenical council, however, Chalcedon stripped the Church from its Cyrillian shields against the cancer, by compromising such an immune system for expressions and formulas employed to scratch an itch, and in doing so allowing the cancer to spread.

Quote
Where is the contradiction?

“Each nature performs what is proper to it in communion with the other; the Word for instance, performing what is proper to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what is proper to the flesh”

Following the above principle established by Leo, a Leonian would declare that: “The Word performed miracles, and the flesh suffered.” Whilst the Word is portrayed as the subject of divine action, it is the flesh that is portrayed as the subject of human action. How in contrast would the miracles and sufferings of Christ be expressed  Orthodox Alexandrian/Cyrillian Christology?

Professor Frances Young, who states in his book From Nicaea to Chalcedon:

Who was the subject of the incarnate experiences of Jesus Christ? For the Alexandrians the subject remained The Word, who though transcendent accommodated himself to the conditions of human nature; for the Antiochenes…the Word could not possibly be regarded as the immediate subject of the incarnate experiences…naturally this produced a dualistic Christology in which the unity of Christ as The Word Incarnate was dangerously undermined.(page 180, bold emphasis mine)

Therefore according to true Orthodox Christology; “The Word performed miracles according to His divinity, whilst The Word suffered according to His humanity/flesh”

Quote
Perhaps I am one of the "ignorant", but aren't "One physis", "miaphysis" and "monophysis" all synonyms?

It is not I who calls you ignorant if you argue that the miaphysis formula is heretical; rather this is the implications of the great St Cyril, who states: “Accordingly they are speaking in vain who say that, if there should be one incarnate Physis  ‘of the Word’ in every way and in every manner it would follow that a mixture and a confusion occurred as if lessening and taking away the nature of man.’” (St Cyril to Succensus)

Regarding the three above phrases; the Greek as with the Hebrew language has various different words that can equally translate to the English word “One”; each word possessing differing nuances in their linguistic context. The greek “mia” as with the Hebrew “Echad” are words for “One” which denote a composite unity, where as the greek “mono” as with the Hebrew “yachid” denotes strict singularity.

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 11, 2005, 01:49:15 AM
Quote
It's been stated by me and several others that words are more fluid that what you're willing to concede

I don’t think you're understanding my point. That words are fluid in meaning and interpretation is not a proposition that I’m opposing, rather it is one that is fundamental to my very position; for it is I who is arguing that the mere affirmation of One person/hypostasis is not itself sufficient to “repudiate Nestorianism” (as DT states), precisely because if a proper context is not provided for such express affirmations, the phrase “one person/hypostasis” can still be abused.

Chalcedon does not teach Nestorianism, it simply took down St Cyril’s shields which had the Church well-guarded against Nestorianism. As I stated in my response above to ozgeorge, it compromised the cure of a cancerous disease in order to scratch an itch.

Quote
Dude, if this is honestly where you're determined to stand on the issue, then I guess I'm done

Dude, this is where my fathers stood on this issue; the saintly men, confessors and teachers of the Orthodox faith, (whom your councils falsely condemned) and I believe the evidence accessible to us today clearly supports their position.

I am content with the fact that the Oriental Orthodox Church's rejection of Chalcedon was more ecumenically motivated than the council itself, and am more than confident to stand as a deacon in the altar of the Coptic Orthodox Church, praying for my Church saying: "Pray for the peace of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Orthodox Church of God".

We can agree to disagree, I have no problem with that.

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on June 11, 2005, 01:58:58 AM
Dear ozgeorge,

I totally understand.

What is important in the willing of Christ is the doctrine of "self-emptying," not that He made His divinity disappear, far from it.  But rather, freely, He allows His prosopon to exist fully in the human nature without seperating Himself from the Divine nature.  In that case, we can say His Prosopon/Hypostasis is acting and willing through humanity to be in alignment with the will of the Father.

7th Day Adventists say that when Christ prays in the Garden of Gethsemane, it is his human nature that is praying to the Divine nature.  We reject this in ALL STANDARDS, for that is CLEARLY Nestorianism at its best.  They admit in Christ a seperation of the natures in Christ so as to make His human nature independant from His divine nature.  This is why we stress the prosopic will.  Our OO fathers did not want to seperate wills to sound like Nestorians, as if a man prayed to the Father and the Logos moved the man towards the will of the Logos (all in prosopic manners).

Christ our God the Logos humbled Himself, emptied Himself so that He can experience fully all the human desires, energies, and wills.  If He did not do that, then how is Christ our God the Logos our role model?  It is therefore right to say that the Logos prayed to the Father through His humanity with that natural human feeling of agony.  We do not want to end up saying that the human nature felt an agony aside from the prosopon of the Word, but that the Logos felt agony through His human nature.  Notice, I am not saying His divine nature is feeling agony through His human nature, for that would confuse the natural wills of Christ.  I use the word "Logos" as prosopon (like St. Cyril does), not as nature, as the Tome of Leo uses it.  To use the word "Logos" as prosopon is very powerful, for it affirms that God was born from the Virgin, God suffered, God died, God rose from the dead, but all of this through the flesh, not through His impassible Divine nature.  Again, we do not confuse the humanity and Divinity of Christ, whether by nature or by natural will.  But we affirm that either way, the Prosopon of the Logos suffered agony, suffered pain, suffered hunger, and even went through human free choice (or fee will) so as to follow the Father's will, and here's the key preposition, FOR US.

Quote
From an EO perspective, we would say that Christ was struggling to bring His Human Will in alignment with His Divine Will.

I first like to say I understand the Orthodox intentions in what you say here, and you would rather prefer this wording than any other.  But just as you had trouble with the Prosopic will, we also would have trouble with this sentence, for it's like saying that Christ's human nature prayed to His Divine nature.  How can someone pray to Himself?  I'm not saying this is what you're saying, but it can be misunderstood as such.

The word "will" is a tricky word.  For then this word can either mean "choice" or "desire."  I don't know much about Greek, but would "thelema" mean anything else other than "choice?" ÂÂ

I read for example from the Catholic Encyclopedia, that the word "thelema" can mean many things.  I find this to be interesting:

Quote
The Catholic doctrine is simple, at all events in its main lines. The faculty of willing is an integral part of human nature: therefore, our Lord had a human will, since He took a perfect human nature. His Divine will on the other hand is numerically one with that of the Father and the Holy Ghost. It is therefore necessary to acknowledge two wills in Christ.

But if the word will is taken to mean not the faculty but the decision taken by the will (the will willed, not the will willing), then it is true that the two wills always acted in harmony: there were two wills willing and two acts, but one object, one will willed; in the phrase of St. Maximus, there were duo thelemata though mia gnome. The word will is also used to mean not a decision of the will, but a mere velleity or wish, voluntas ut natura (thelesis) as opposed to voluntas ut ratio (boulesis).

I got this from the article on Monothelitism.

Here, the Catholic Encyclopedia, if I understand correctly, acknowledges the word "will" can mean two different things.  They believe in "duo thelema," which is the desire or wish (sounds to me like natural will), but "one will willed," or "mia gnome" (there's that word "Mia" again) or one "boulesis."  The Catholic Church here, I assume not different Christologically from the EO, uses the word "will" to mean "a mere velleity or wish," "not the desicion of the will."  It is not the natures that decide, but the prosopon that decides. ÂÂ

How then can we acknowledge free will in humanity?  The "self-emptying" of Christ solves this, that is, existing fully in the human, the Logos being fully human experiences everything humanly and deals everything humanly, including "free will". ÂÂ

His choice also not to know when the end of the world is is not diminishing that of the Divine Nature, for the Logos knows when through His divine nature, but through humbling Himself and existing fully in the Human nature, He chooses the human mind to express His humanity of not knowing when. ÂÂ

To grow in wisdom and knowledge is not that the Logos was devoid of any knowledge through His divinity, but that He humbled Himself, and experienced fully through the humanity what it was like to "learn."

So when Christ prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane, He really meant "not my desire" as pertains to the Human nature, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia.  But the human nature alone does not choose, but it is the Prosopon that which the human nature belongs to chooses.

Notice in all of this, the subject of all these desires is Christ, the Logos, in proson, not in divine nature as Leo intended.  I've written earlier why St. Dioscorus condemned the Tome because Cyrillian language doesn't prefer this language written, and the misunderstanding continued and solidified from thereon, with both sides CONVINCED of the heresy that they accuse one another, when in fact, it wasn't believed.

Therefore, to me as an OO, it makes more sense to stick with the Logos in prosopon being the center of all acting and willing.  There is "one desicion" but two "desires."  He aligns these two to unite them as one, to harmonize them, glorifying the human nature, or as St. Maximus the Confessor puts it, Divinizing it, making its desires Godly.

I hope I haven't confused you at all. ÂÂ Please forgive me, and I am open to any questions.  I tried to be careful as possible with my wording, but if you understand what I said, this is no different than St. Cyril's teachings, truthfully.

God bless you. ÂÂ  :)
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Stavro on June 11, 2005, 02:20:41 AM
Quote
cizinec: You and EA appear to hold that written words must have absolute rule over all meaning, including the intent of the message.  You use definitions as you have defined them and not as defined in Chalcedon or by others when they were discussing the Tome of Leo.
Cizinec,
stretching this logic a little more, we will excuse Nestorius of heresy as long as we are playing the guessing game of what he really meant, although his writings are clear and obvious and did not lack clarity in rejecting Orthodox dogmas. Note that such trends exist already in christian literature and extends to include Arianism as a big fat misunderstanding.
 I believe EA did an excellent job in providing a complete picture about Leo's christology, judged against both, Tradition and Nestorianism, and the rejection of Leo's Tome by the OO cannot be simply attributed to terminology and semantic and it was never the case.

Your personal faith is not challenged nor questioned, for what you say you believe in is what you believe in.We have suffered from the tactics you complain about, and we have the good sense to refrain from reciprocating it out of fairness. Also note that you complain that others guess your faith, while you are trying to guess the intentions of Leo of Rome when he wrote the Tome.

Such threads start with questioning our Orthodoxy based on our rejection of Chalcedon and the Tome, and we are explaining why we cannot accept such council and listing our concerns regarding the Tome and this council. EO who are against the unity always make Chalcedon a condition for unity, together with accepting Leo of Rome's teachings and person, without looking at the content of faith. As such, your concern should be directed to fellow EO.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 11, 2005, 02:35:30 AM
“Each nature performs what is proper to it in communion with the other; the Word for instance, performing what is proper to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what is proper to the flesh”
Following the above principle established by Leo, a Leonian would declare that: “The Word performed miracles, and the flesh suffered.” Whilst the Word is portrayed as the subject of divine action, it is the flesh that is portrayed as the subject of human action. How in contrast would the miracles and sufferings of Christ be expressedÂÂ  Orthodox Alexandrian/Cyrillian Christology?
Nonsense! What on Earth is a "Leonian"? The EO "Chalcedonian Churches" are not certainly not "Leonian". as the minutes of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon attest:
EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS SESSION II. "After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there] ? These are the things Dioscorus hid away.
If the Fathers of Chalcedon say that St. Leo is saying the same thing as St. Cyril- and this led the Fathers of Chalcedon to declare that:
"Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same of a rational soul and body, consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same consubstantial with us according to the Manhood... before the ages begotten of the Father according to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos according to the Manhood...."
This is what the Fathers of Chalcedon say that both St. Cyril's and St. Leo's teaching agree with. Do you disagree with this teaching of the Council? If not, then what difference does it make how you interpret Leo's words today? If you do disagree with this teaching of the Council- I hardly see any point in continuing to dialogue about it- the Eastern Orthodox Church will never depart from this teaching.

Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 11, 2005, 03:21:52 AM
Quote
If the Fathers of Chalcedon say that St. Leo is saying the same thing as St. Cyril

The Fathers of the OO church say that Leo’s Christology objectively conflicts with that of St Cyril. I think the evidence supports them, and I believe ive sufficiently proven that. Leo adopted an exclusively Antiochene trait which divides the actions of Christ between two subjects: “The Word” and “the flesh”. St Cyril in following the great St Athanasius attributes ALL the actions of Christ to ONE subject: “The Word”.

The flesh does not suffer; THE WORD suffers according to HIS flesh. The former expression is compatible with Nestorianism whilst the latter is not. Thus we affirm along St Athanasius who states in his Letter to Adelphius:

,"…We neither divide the body, being such, from the Word…but knowing that ‘the Word was made flesh’ we recognize Him as God also, after having come in the flesh. Who, accordingly, is so senseless, as to say to the Lord : “Leave the body that I may worship Thee”, or so impious as to join the senseless Jews in saying, on account of the Body, “why dost Thou, being a man, make Thyself God?”. But the leper was not one of this sort, for he worshipped God in the Body, and recognized that He was God, saying, “Lord if Thou wilt, Thou canst make me clean”

He explains the basis behind this, and further elucidates the matter in his Letter to Epictetus, saying:

the incorporeal Word made His own the properties of the Body, as being His own Body. Why, when the Body was struck by the attendant, as suffering Himself He asked, “Why smittest thou Me?”. And being by nature intangible, the Word yet said, “I gave My back to the stripes, and My cheeks to blows, and did not turn My face from shame and spitting”. For what the Human body of the Word suffered, this the Word, dwelling in the Body, ascribed to Himself... And verily it is strange that He it was Who suffered and yet suffered not. Suffered, because His own body suffered; suffered not, because the Word, being by nature God, is impassible” .

Not only is this way of expressing Christ’s functions more Orthodox, it is even more Biblically consistent; for where do you ever find the Apostles dividing the actions of Christ, ascribing some to The Word, and others to the flesh?

Quote
Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same of a rational soul and body, consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same consubstantial with us according to the Manhood... before the ages begotten of the Father according to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos according to the Manhood...."

Do you disagree with this teaching of the Council? If not, then what difference does it make how you interpret Leo's words today?

I have no problem with what is positively affirmed in that particular excerpt you pasted. The problem I have with Leo and Chalcedon in general has already been declared and reiterated over and over again. Doctrinally speaking: Weak and questionable in some aspects, superfluous in others — it didn’t contribute to Orthodoxy; it didn’t affirm any fundamental Christological principle that wasn’t already established. Regarding the definitions of Chalcedon itself; as I have implied throughout this thread, the problem is more with regards to what is NOT said, rather than what IS said. No definition of a hypostatic union + no affirmation of The divine person of The Word as the subject of all the incarnational experiences (suffering, hunger, etc.) = bow to Nestorianism. Historically; a politically motivated council of schism; a robbers council, robbing the See of Alexandria of its theological authority.

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 11, 2005, 04:49:13 AM
On a sidenote: I think an interesting point of distinction to bring up regarding our liturgical traditions, concerns the Trisagion.

In the Eastern Church it Is said: “Holy God, Holy Mighty/Strong, Holy Immortal”, and it stops at that.

In the Coptic liturgy according to St Basil (http://www.coptic.net/prayers/StBasilLiturgy.html) we develop this further, by emphasizing that the divine was the subject of the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection:

Holy God, Holy  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  Agios O the-os:
Mighty, Holy  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  Agios Ees-shiros;
Immortal, who was  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ Agios Athanatos;
born of the Virgin,  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ O ek partheno gennethis:
have mercy upon us.  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ elsison imas.

Holy God, Holy  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  Agios O theos:
Mighty, Holy  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  Agios Ees-shiros;
Immortal, who was  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ Agios Athanatos:
crucified for us,  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ O stavrothis di imas:
have mercy upon us.  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ eleison imas.

Holy God, Holy  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  Agios O theos:
Mighty, Holy  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  Agios Ees-shiros:
Immortal, who arose             Agios Athanatos:
from the dead and  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  O anastas ek ton nekron:
ascended into the heavens  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  Ke anelthon ees toos
have  mercy  upon  us.  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ooranoos:  eleison imas.

But then again, I have heard that the Eastern Church in contrast to the Oriental Church, understands the Trisagion in a Trinitarian context...

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Doubting Thomas on June 11, 2005, 09:47:01 AM
I'm still not sure what it is about "selfsame" in the Tome that non-Chalcedonians do not understand.ÂÂ  Reading the Tome as a whole--and not yankingÂÂ  one or two sentences out of context to charge, "Nestorian!"--should make it pretty obvious that Leo regarded the Son as the one divine incarnate Subject.ÂÂ  (Is it really necessary for me to list all the quotes again to prove it?).ÂÂ  The Divinity is His from eternity and the humanity is His beginning in time as well.ÂÂ  It's the same "HIS".ÂÂ  He is One Subject.ÂÂ  He is the "Word became flesh".ÂÂ  All those statements by Leo affirming this provide context to the abused passage concerning the distinction between the natural properties of the "Word"(divinity) and "flesh" (and what each are naturally capable of).ÂÂ  Christ who was by nature God became also by nature man...without ceasing to be by nature God. Yet He's the same Subject.ÂÂ  In context, Leo means that the One Subject is capable of experiencing some things through His divine nature that as the "Word" He's had from eternity and others through the "flesh" He took in time.ÂÂ  So while in that controversial passage Leo seems to "personify" the "Word" and the "flesh", the remainder of Tome should make it clear that the selfsame who is from eternity God also in time became man.ÂÂ  It is this selfsame Subject that does all the actions.ÂÂ  This is not "Nestorian"

Getting back to the Definition, it is ONE HYPOSTASIS.ÂÂ  The man Jesus Christ is the same HYPOSTASIS who from Eternity is the Second Person of the Trinity.  This is not "Nestorian".
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Doubting Thomas on June 11, 2005, 10:04:08 AM
On a sidenote: I think an interesting point of distinction to bring up regarding our liturgical traditions, concerns the Trisagion.

In the Eastern Church it Is said: “Holy God, Holy Mighty/Strong, Holy Immortal”, and it stops at that.

In the Coptic liturgy according to St Basil (http://www.coptic.net/prayers/StBasilLiturgy.html) we develop this further, by emphasizing that the divine was the subject of the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection..

But the Tome affirms the same thing--that the Divine Person, by virture of becoming man, was the subject of the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection:

 He assumed "the form of a servant" without the defilement of sin, enriching what was human, not impairing what was divine: because that "emptying of Himself," whereby the Invisible made Himself visible, and the Creator and Lord of all things willed to be one among mortals, was a stooping down in compassion, not a failure of power.

Accordingly, the Son of God, descending from His seat in heaven, and not departing from the glory of the Father, enters this lower world, born after a new order, by a new mode of birth. After a new order; because He who in his own sphere is invisible, became visible in ours; He who could not be enclosed in space, willed to be enclosed; continuing to be before times, He began to exist in time; the Lord of the universe allowed His infinite majesty to be overshadowed, and took upon Him the form of a servant; the impassible God did not disdain to be passible Man and the immortal One to be subjected to the laws of death."

"For the selfsame who is very God, is also very man; and there is no illusion in this union, while the lowliness of man and the loftiness of Godhead meet together. For as "God" is not changed by the compassion [exhibited], so "Man" is not consumed by the dignity [bestowed]."


"Accordingly, on account of this unity of Person which is to be understood as existing in both the natures, we read, on the one hand, that "the Son of Man came down from heaven," inasmuch as the Son of God took flesh from that Virgin of whom He was born; and on the other hand, the Son of God is said to have been crucified and buried, inasmuch as He underwent this, not in His actual Godhead; wherein the Only-begotten is coeternal and consubstantial with the Father, but in the weakness of human nature. Wherefore we all, in the very Creed, confess that" the only-begotten Son of God was crucified and buried," according to that saying of the Apostle, "for if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Majesty."
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 11, 2005, 10:08:05 AM
ÂÂ  (Is it really necessary for me to list all the quotes again to prove it?).ÂÂ
"the Self-same Who was the Only-begotten and Everlasting One of the Everlasting Parent, was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. And this birth in time takes away nothing from that divine and eternal birth, nor does it add anything to it...." (Tome of St. Leo)
If anyone can find anything Nestorian in this, or anything that suggests a double hypostasis, I'll eat my hat.







 ÃƒÆ’‚  
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 11, 2005, 10:18:29 AM
it didn’t affirm any fundamental Christological principle that wasn’t already established.
The only role of an Orthodox Council is to affirm what is already established. It's purpose is to declare what is believed by all the Church through all time. It shouldn't surprise you therefore tha a Council doesn't affirm Christological principles which are not already established.
No definition of a hypostatic union + no affirmation of The divine person of The Word as the subject of all the incarnational experiences (suffering, hunger, etc.) = bow to Nestorianism.
Well if the Non-chalcedons had stuck around for the other three Ecumenical Councils, would they be satisfied with the Fifth Council's affirmation that "One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh." ?

Historically; a politically motivated council of schism; a robbers council, robbing the See of Alexandria of its theological authority.
Hmmmm...........
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Augustine on June 11, 2005, 10:22:04 AM
EA,

Quote
The Fathers of the OO church say that Leo’s Christology objectively conflicts with that of St Cyril.

And that's fundamentally the problem, which only infrequently slips from the lips (or in this case, finger tips) of the Non-Chalcedonians; which is unfortunate, in the sense that this is really where the problem is.

I fail to see how this is not the equivelent of saying that St.Leo's Christology is "objectively" not Orthodox.

I am glad though, that the discussions here at least have been focusing on what St.Leo said/didn't say in his Tome.  Even avoiding things as essential as "context" (which IMHO, is unfathomable...this is a recipe for division and misunderstanding), I'm simply at a loss to see what is incorrect in St.Leo's Tome, according to the words.  You've yet to convince me of this, nor has anyone from the Non-Chalcedonian side that I've talked to or read from on this topic.  All they can do is cast innuendos or offer "what-if" type arguments, which would require what is written be torn from it's context.

Because if, in context, one still is left believing that St.Leo and/or Chalcedon in whole are "objectively" incorrect or basically describing a "Christ Who doesn't exist", then that for me would indicate that not only is the contemporary EO-OO dialogue and enthusiasm on a poor basis, but also that it's primary argument (that this is fundamentally a semantical issue, and that alone) is incorrect.

Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Augustine on June 11, 2005, 10:28:59 AM
ozgeorge,

Quote
Quote
Historically; a politically motivated council of schism; a robbers council, robbing the See of Alexandria of its theological authority.

Hmmmm...........

Huh huh...which has been one of my points all along.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Doubting Thomas on June 11, 2005, 10:46:44 AM
Re: Apollinarius

From Church historian, J.N.D. Kelly:

"Thus the clearest most succinct epitome of Cyril's doctrine is the famous formula which he took over, in the sincere but mistaken belief that it had the authority of the great Athanasius behind it, from certain treatises of Apollinarian provenance, 'one nature, and that incarnate of the Divine Word'". (p. 319, Early Christian Doctrines)

Also concerning Apollinarius:

"In a phrase which was to become famous he declared [Ad Iov. I] that there was 'one incarnate nature of the divine Word'" (p.293, ib.)

Obviously there were many in the Church who were leary of this phrase given its origins and implications--that Christ lacked a complete manhood.ÂÂ  The fact that Eutyches justified his ideas with this phrase only confirmed this fear of its theological imprecision and ambiguity among many Churchmen.

And, yes, there was initial resistence to homoousion, but there came to be an settlement on homoousion once it was worked out by the Cappadocians there were three hypostases in one ousia thus guarding against both Sabellianism on one hand and Tritheism or Arianism on the other.ÂÂ  So too it was worked out that there was one hypostasis (that of God the Word) with two natures thus gaurding against both Nestorianism on one hand and Apollinarianism or Eutychianism on the other.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on June 11, 2005, 10:59:29 AM
Dear Doubting Thomas and others,

IMHO, to me and I don't know about other OO's, this dialogue is "almost over" so long as you understand our side as well.

Notice the frustration that you guys go through to defend what Leo actually meant than what Leo is accused of.  I want you to take this frustration and realize it on the side of the non-Chalcedonians.  St. Dioscorus, St. Severus of Antioch, and others NEVER were heretics.  They were never the mixers of natures or wills that your fathers accused us of, and understandably, neither was your side being Nestorian and you defend that very well.

We must also learn a lesson on taking things "out of context" for that was what the fathers couldn't stop doing.  They strongly preferred one language over another and condemned one another with the extremes of what a certain terminology means.

Just as you defend that you have yet to find what is so Nestorian about Leo, we say the same to you.  We have yet to find what the OO fathers erred from exactly.  Both sides I think defend their own fathers very well, but both sides also need to admit that there was a misunderstanding, and regardless of how you interpret it, both sides maintained the common Orthodox faith as the modern fathers in the recent EO/OO dialogues have said.

Quote
So while in that controversial passage Leo seems to "personify" the "Word" and the "flesh", the remainder of Tome should make it clear that the selfsame who is from eternity God also in time became man.  It is this selfsame Subject that does all the actions.  This is not "Nestorian"

I think this is the most considerate Chalcedonian statement so long as you admit that our fathers were unjustly condemned by the last four EO councils.

God bless you.

Mina
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on June 11, 2005, 11:00:52 AM
RE:ÂÂ  Apollinarius

Dear Doubting Thomas,

Regardless of whether or not Apollinarius used it, I believe the Alexandrians kept documents written by St. Athanasius that used this same phrase and meant it in an Orthodox manner.

Some polemics make it seem like St. Athanasius "never" used it, but why would they state such an unsubstantiated claim?

God bless you.

Mina
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Doubting Thomas on June 11, 2005, 12:47:12 PM
The point is not whether Dioscoros, Severus, et al were heretics.  I never said they were, nor do I necessarily think they were.  (Keep in mind I'm not even Orthodox...not yet, at least).  I do think their refusal to accept Chalcedon's clarification had more to do with a woodenly literal acceptance of (?)Cyril's ambiguous "formula", an acceptance which could be labelled more schismatic rather than "heretical".  The point is that the "christologies" of Apollinarius and Eutyches were both heretical, and it was this potential danger latent in the formula "one nature of the incarnate Word" that Chalcedon was trying to guard against in its clarification of the Hypostatic Union.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: alexp4uni on June 11, 2005, 03:16:27 PM
So who killed J.R. err... I mean who killed Nestorius? Kinda hypocritical to have any council considered to be Holy and then having it's faithful respond with anger and murder?
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: idontlikenames on June 11, 2005, 07:05:18 PM
Stavro:

     Do you think EO's are going to hell?
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 11, 2005, 08:01:52 PM
So who killed J.R. err... I mean who killed Nestorius? Kinda hypocritical to have any council considered to be Holy and then having it's faithful respond with anger and murder?

An attempt at humour??
Shaumburg must be a very small town.....


Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 11, 2005, 08:03:07 PM
Stavro:

  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ Do you think EO's are going to hell?

"Send in the clowns,
Where are the clowns?
There ought to be clowns."
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: alexp4uni on June 11, 2005, 10:18:59 PM
Quote
An attempt at humour??
Shaumburg must be a very small town.....

OH Well... It was worth a try but bombed miserably. I hope you don't feel embarrassed for me everytime I make a comment. :P

Quote
I mean who killed Nestorius? Kinda hypocritical to have any council considered to be Holy and then having it's faithful respond with anger and murder?
What I was trying to scratch at was What happened to Nestorius after he was condemned by the council. Did he practice what he preached or did many of his supporters, after his "murder", continue the heresy? Is it appropriate to call the Assyrian Church as the Oriental Fathers have called them Nestorian since they are in communion with Rome. It would mean their dialogue and unity meant they agreed with the Tome and it reviewed as Nestorian. But as I read the excerpt of the Tome I really don't see any Nestorianism in it without bias (only a little) from other posters.

So can anyone justify why he was killed? To any inquirer to this complex issue it's better for Preservation of the truth to be separate from animosity against Nestorius and Dioscurus and so on. Just spit out truth without "spinning" the debate and stop throw Saints names that would condemn all of us for watching and taking jabs on polemics. We'll all feel better in the morning.


Like I said my stand on the issue has never been condemning both sides or supporting a Definition until faith of confession requires of it. Both sides recognized Christ as a whole human and a whole God that's how I knew it as an "non-denominational". As I started to know more about my former Church I did have bias on "one nature", but a logical explanation of Christ's humanity and Chalcedon definition was the correct answer. It's either accepting it or not. And of course my issues with my former church was mostly animosity, but I had no disagreement withthe OO. I hope people can see me differently that way.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Stavro on June 11, 2005, 10:50:12 PM
DT,
in response to your question about Arius origin:
He was Libyan, and he was a priest in Alexandria, yet I am concerned in tracing back his line of thoughts to its roots. It is Antioch.
Arius developed his heresy in Antioch, being the student of Lucian and the collegue of Eusebius of Nicomedia in the school of Antioch. He was diposed by Alexandria after he preached heresy there several times, and found no place again there although all apostolic Sees and major christian cities at the time fell into the Arian heresy, such as Liberius of Rome, Eusebius of Constantinople (Nicomedia), Antioch, .... . Only Alexandria stood firm and saved the World from Arianism and then Nestorianism.
The culprit is not Arius as much as the heretical school of Antioch that championed the heresies that were centered around the denial of the divinity of Christ and it was only natural that all heretics hail from this school. It was dominated by philosophers,men who treat christianity as the "current best approach", but not men of faith and was not under the control of the church.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Salpy on June 11, 2005, 10:54:13 PM
Forgive me if this has already been raised, but have the Chalcedonians posting on this thread read V. C. Samuel's book The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined?  I think this, more than anything else, does a good job of explaining our position on Chalcedon.  Those who are really interested in this subject and want to understand the issues better should really read it. ÂÂ

It is a long book, but actually a pretty quick and easy read.  I got through it in a couple of weeks and learned so much.  This is partly because the author was not too scholarly in his language, so even a layperson dumbhead like myself could get through it without trouble.  The author assumes the reader has a little background knowlegde, but the people on this thread clearly already have that.

The author was also remarkably nonpolemical in his writing.  He actually discusses Pucharia without once referring to her as "the nun who got married."  For an OO that took remarkable restraint.  ;D  He was pretty balanced in his approach.

We also need to rememeber that the ramifications of Chalcedon were not just theoretical, but very real and tragic.  It was Chalcedon and the resulting persecutions which divided the Christian East and made it easy for the Muslims to conquer so much territory in so little time. ÂÂ

Also, the persecutions were not just something which happened over a thousand years ago.  The last Tsar, in the name of Chalcedon, confiscated Armenian Church property, closed Armenian churches and threw Armenian priests in prison.  A few years back, I met and spoke with an elderly architect who, in the 1960's, was involved in repairing a piece of Armenian Church property which had been taken by the Tsar and returned back to the Armenians by Khruschev.  The story this guy told was that Khruschev was visiting Armenia and some officials there got him roaring drunk.  While he was intoxicated, they got him to sign the paperwork returning the building back to the Armenians.  I think the building had been the residence of the Catholicos and the Tsar had, after putting it under Moscow's control, turned it into a stable. ÂÂ

I don't mean to turn this discussion "nasty" by mentioning the above.  It is just that sometimes I think we take theological discussions to be be "theory," when in fact they have real life ramifications. Unfortunately, these ramifications are happening even today.  I have recently heard that in Georgia many Armenian churches are currently either being closed or taken over by the Georgian Church.  The Georgian Catholicos supposedly has authority over all churches and has recently been taking these steps against the Armenian Orthodox over there.  These church closings and confiscations are of course being done against the wishes of the Armenians and without any compensation. ÂÂ

Can't we all just get along?  I, like many others in this forum, would like to see our differences resolved so we could all be one Orthodox Church.  Not only would we be able to present a more united front to the world (something we unfortunately cound not do during the Muslim invasions of the 7th century) but I think we would all be a lot happier.   ÃƒÆ’‚  

Sorry for running on like this.  Again, I advise the people posting on this thread to get V.C. Samuel's book.  You could get it on Amazon.com.  I think this thread would actually be more constructive and interesting if everyone read it and we discussed the points made by Father Samuel, instead of going on about whether or not Leo of Rome acutally intended to sound Nestorian in his language, etc.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 11, 2005, 11:40:10 PM
Forgive me if this has already been raised, but have the Chalcedonians posting on this thread read V. C. Samuel's book The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined?  I think this, more than anything else, does a good job of explaining our position on Chalcedon. ÂÂ
Thanks for this.
I think a good, pretty balanced summary of the Eastern Orthodox position can be found in the work of Fr. John S. Romanides: "ST. CYRIL'S "ONE PHYSIS OR HYPOSTASIS OF GOD THE LOGOS INCARNATE" AND CHALCEDON" it's available online at: http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.08.en.st._cyrils_one_physis_or_hypostasis_of_god_the_log.htm

We also need to rememeber that the ramifications of Chalcedon were not just theoretical, but very real and tragic. ÂÂ It was Chalcedon and the resulting persecutions which divided the Christian East and made it easy for the Muslims to conquer so much territory in so little time.....Can't we all just get along?ÂÂ  I, like many others in this forum, would like to see our differences resolved so we could all be one Orthodox Church. ÂÂ
Yes, subsequent events are very tragic, and continue to be. But we will always remain at an impasse if we blame the Council of Chalcedon for it. If there are real dogmatic differences between us, these must be acknowledged unlike Nestorios who began a hideous persecution of the Arians, Macedonians, Quartodecimans, and Novatians (earning him the title "The Incendiary" for his burning of their Churches), and then only to end up proclaiming heresy himself, co-existence based on the Love Christ calls us all to is the way forward. However, it would be unreasonable to expect us to become One Orthodox Church if there are real dogmatic differences.
If our differences are not dogmatic we can be One Church, if they are, then we must learn to co-exist in love.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: yBeayf on June 11, 2005, 11:58:27 PM
I am reminded of one of my favorite Buffy quotes for some reason...

Quote
Giles: "That's why I think we should all keep a level head at this."
Willow: "And I happen to think that mine is the level head and yours is the one things would roll off of."
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on June 12, 2005, 12:21:17 AM
Let us not forget that it's not only what's inside the Tome that got us bugging out, but what was associated with it.ÂÂ  Theodoret and Ibas, Roman legates calling Theodore of Mopsuestia a "doctor" of the Church, St. Dioscorus' house arrest during the council sessions, and the forceful persecutions lead by Marcian on the Miaphysite faithful for rejecting the Tome all are factores into our rejection of the Tome.ÂÂ  We can't just accept it.

However, I understand under the recent agreements that we can accept its Orthodox implications as well as the other councils' Orthodox implications, but we cannot accept it as something binding for the Orthodox Church.ÂÂ  What is left now is the lifting up of anathemas from both families so that this unnecessary schism may end.

Dear ozgeorge,

Quote
If our differences are not dogmatic we can be One Church, if they are, then we must learn to co-exist in love.

I happen to believe since we have no differences in dogma, we are not only "can be" One Church, but we "are" in fact One Church.ÂÂ  I cannot accept a divided Church.ÂÂ  Only man divides, but not the Church.ÂÂ  I believe Christ has not allowed a division in the Orthodox Church, but only a lesson to be learned.  That's my philosophy.

God bless.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 12, 2005, 02:29:23 AM
Doubting Thomas,

Quote
I do think their refusal to accept Chalcedon's clarification had more to do with a woodenly literal acceptance of (?)Cyril's ambiguous "formula", an acceptance which could be labelled more schismatic rather than "heretical".


You’re begging the question here. Let’s assume for arguments sake that the EO and OO at Chalcedon had the same faith, and dispute was over semantics and the terminological/”phraseological” emphasis which should prevail in conveying this faith; the question is: which emphasis was more appropriate? In other words, whose rejection/insistence of particular expressions/terms/phrases is truly to be labelled "schismatic"?

I would argue that those at Chalcedon are the schismatics for their very unjustified treatment of St Dioscorus in the first place; which is really the crux of the division that took place. Furthermore I believe it was Leo’s and the rest of the Roman legate's woodenly literal rejection of St Cyril’s formula, and their woodenly literal rejection of other such formulas i.e. “of two natures”, as well as their woodenly literal insistence concerning the acceptance of Leo’s tome in toto without question (if you read the minutes of Chalcedon, you would discover that many of the Chalcedonian fathers were uncomfortable with the tome in the first place, and felt the need to alter it or add to it, or even replace it entirely) could be labeled schismatic on their behalf. I don’t think there’s any objectivity in your line of thought, it seems you just want to flow with the “mainstream”.

Quote
The point is that the "christologies" of Apollinarius and Eutyches were both heretical

The point is, the former's heresy is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion - it was already dealt with by the Church before Chalcedon, and the latter's adoption of any sort of heresy is questionable, and certainly a shakey and unjustified assumption to base the proceeding events upon.

As I stated before, Apollinarius' heresy was independent of the miaphysis formula; he denied the rational soul of Christ and taught communicatio idiomatum - his affirmation of mia physis (assuming that he did) would not have been for him the corollary of these heresies, nor the implication of these heresies - thus his usage of it, even if it can be proven that he did so, cannot be proven to be heretical in any event - the whole argument that it was, simply because he held to other Christological heresies, is a non-sequitor im afraid. Furthermore, Apollonarius' heresy was already dealt with at The Council of Constantinople 1. Ephesus 1 then reinforced that Christ possessed a rational human soul alongside the miaphysite Christology that was vindicated then. Miaphysis terminology was the standard for Orthodoxy AFTER the whole Apollonarius controversey (it was not compromised nor challenged at the councils dealing with this heresy), which is enough evidence in and of itself to directly refute your implicit claim that the mia physis formula had to be compromised as a safeguard for Apollonarianism - the early Church and councils DIRECTLY DEALING WITH THIS HERESY certainly didnt think so, nor does reason or logic dictate this.

With regards to Eutyches, I repeat: there is no evidence that Eutyches ever held to the heresy ascribed to him. As I have said, and will repeat; the testimony held against him was as inconsistent as his own. Even assuming that he was a heretic, you have not justified Chalcedon by bringing this up. If you think an entire Church needs to reformulate and re-express the Christology that was established by a previous Ecumenical council for the sake of one sole monk who was neither a scholar, nor a theologian, nor anyone of high authority or reputation, then no offense to you sir, but that is a joke.

On a sidenote: Re: “Apollonarian origins” charge — I didn’t ask you to quote scholars who espouse the theory, I asked for evidence of the charge. I know that many scholars are proponents of this claim, I could refer you to more even (R.V. Sellers, Panagiotes N. Trempela), however my position is that it is nothing more than a mere claim, and there is no hardcore evidence to support it.

Quote
it was this potential danger latent in the formula "one nature of the incarnate Word" that Chalcedon was trying to guard against in its clarification of the Hypostatic Union.

Wow, so you admit that the Council of Chalcedon was based on speculation. So let’s get this straight — the Chalcedonian emphasis was based on speculation, concerned with what may or may not have been a potential danger (the historical situation at the time certainly not backing up the former), whereas the non-Chalcedonian emphasis was based on reality, concerned with what already was a real, current, and growing danger in the Church. And who are the schismatics, you say?

Furthermore, on a sidenote: Chalcedon did NOT clarify the hypostatic union. Are you kidding me? Where in any of your quotes does it prove that the Word en-hypostasized his humanity such that its existence and function is dependent on the hypostasis of The Word, as opposed to independent of the Hypostasis of THE WORD — you don’t need to show me those exact words, just show me anything that comes close to clarifying that.

I see a lot of people throwing around the word “context”, however all you have proven is inconsistencies. Your claim is akin to Bob who in an attempt to provide context to Joe’s statement: “It is night-time here, and the sunshine is great”; points out that Joe also said elsewhere that the "moon was bright", to try and clarify that it was indeed night-time. However, that the "moon was bright", does not clarify the statement that "the sunshine is great".ÂÂ  Just as Bob has only pointed out further inconsistencies, so too have the Chalcedonians. Let me prove it:

First you claim that "The Word" in reference to the controversial quotation in question, is simply Leo's way of referring to "the divine nature":

“Each nature performs what is proper to it in communion with the other; the Word for instance, performing what is proper to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what is proper to the flesh” (Leo's tome)

...Yet elsewhere, you give us this:

"...that the one Son of God is both Word and flesh." (Leo's tome)

Let's see what this contextual factor brings to light. According to quote 2: The Son of God = Word + Flesh, yet according to quote 1: The Word acts independently of the flesh; therefore, the clear implication is that The One Son of God is capable of being divided according to his acts, and this is where Nestorius applauds.

Furthermore, nothing in the context you have provided has explained the manner in which leo depicts The Word and flesh operating. NATURES DO NOT OPERATE; clearly, Leo understands natures as operative centres of action. If Leo does not understand these natures as personal subjects, and if the context you provide goes out of its way to prove that Leo understood only one personal subject in Christ, then this is yet another clear contradiction within his own tome, for the very corollary of the understanding of a nature as an operative centre of action, is that it is also a centre of consciousness and rationale i.e. personal.

Let no one be fooled by the word "context" - the "context" doesn't clarify Leo's position, it only proves it confused and inconsistent.

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 12, 2005, 03:31:23 AM
St. Leo's one sentance which you seem to be fixated on means simply that the Word Who is Begoten by the Father in Eternity, through Whom all things were created, is Himself, Uncreated. In the latter days, the Word took created flesh from the Theotokos, so in One Person, there was a joining of the Uncreated to the created, the Eternal Word took on human flesh. He is talking about the Dne Nature and the Human Nature. They were not mingled or confused. The Divine Nature is Immutable and Passionless. The Divine Nature did not sleep when Christ slept. The Divine Nature did not eat when Christ ate. The Divine Nature did not empty it's bowels when Christ emptied His bowels. This is what St. Leo means.

Don't try and tell me that you think St. Leo does not recognise the singular Person of Christ when in the same tome he says:
"He is also called the Man from heaven, being perfect in his Divinity and perfect in his Humanity, and considered as in one Person. For one is the Lord Jesus Christ, although the difference of his natures is not unknown, from which we say the ineffable union was made. "
and
"For although in the Lord Jesus Christ there is one Person of God and man, yet that whereby contumely attaches to both is one thing, and that whereby glory attaches to both is another; for from what belongs to us He has that manhood which is inferior to the Father; while from the Father he has equal Godhead with the Father."
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 12, 2005, 03:37:36 AM
Stavro,

Quote
Quote
Quote
Historically; a politically motivated council of schism; a robbers council, robbing the See of Alexandria of its theological authority.

A statement that is not supported by evidence and again, exposes the lack of understanding of theology.

Bro, the above quotation to which you were responding was made by me in reference to the Council of Chalcedon. I know the Chalcedonians often refer to Ephesus 449 as a robber’s council; I was simply appropriately re-directing that label and applying it to Chalcedon.

Since a couple have expressed an “hmmmmmmmm….”’ and “huh huh…” in response to my statement, I will provide an elaborate essay substantiating it when I have the time.

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 12, 2005, 03:43:37 AM
ozgeorge,

Quote
Don't try and tell me that you think St. Leo does not recognise the singular Person of Christ when in the same tome he says:

I don't think you're getting my point. Again, we are not concerned with Leo's subjective intentions. I am approaching his document from an objective perspective and trying to deduce what may be reasonably interpreted.

That he explicitly affirms one personal subject, alongside statements with the corollary implication of two personal subjects, is called an inconsistency. Natures do not act; they provide the means/capacity by which the hypostasis/person possessing the particular nature acts.

Furthermore, I have already proven that the mere affirmation of "One person", does not suffice, for Nestorius could understand this expression to refer to his "prosopic union".

Quote
The Divine Nature did not sleep


The fact of the matter is, neither the divine nature nor the human nature slept. The Word who is Christ who is The Son of God, is the one who slept according to His humanity.

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 12, 2005, 03:58:56 AM
The fact of the matter is, neither the divine nature nor the human nature slept. The Word who is Christ who is The Son of God, is the one who slept according to His humanity.
So, the Divine Nature is either mutable or not present in Christ. Either a Gnostic form of Monophysitism or Arianism.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 12, 2005, 04:17:45 AM
Quote
Quote from: EkhristosAnesti on Today at 03:43:37 AM
The fact of the matter is, neither the divine nature nor the human nature slept. The Word who is Christ who is The Son of God, is the one who slept according to His humanity.

So, the Divine Nature is either mutable or not present in Christ. Either a Gnostic form of Monophysitism or Arianism.

Huh? You are reading those implications into my statement; I never mentioned the divine nature sir, since the divine nature has nothing to do with Christ's act of sleeping — I affirmed two principle things a) That The Word was the subject of the human act b) That the human act was possible to be excercised by the personal subject: The Word - due to His possession of a human nature - but it was not ACTUALIZED BY his human nature, only His person - THE WORD.

Let me re-iterate my statement, except replacing the act of sleep with the act of suffering/death, and then we will compare it with the 12th anathema of St Cyril.

I say: “The fact of the matter is, neither the divine nature nor the human nature suffered or died. The Word is the one who suffered and died according to his flesh

St Cyril in his 12th anathema says:

"If anyone does not confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh [or alternativelyt as I have stated “according to His flesh”] and was crucified in the flesh and tasted death in the flesh and became the first born of the dead, although as God he is life and life-giving, let him be anathema."

It's quite simple. St Cyril did not say that the flesh suffered or died; He states that The Word suffered and died in/according-to the flesh. If you have a problem with this, then there is really no discussion - I don't think St Cyril's 12 anathema is up for debate.

Peace.


Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 12, 2005, 04:27:19 AM
Stavro,

A statement that is not supported by evidence and again, exposes the lack of understanding of theology.

Bro, the above quotation to which you were responding was made by me in reference to the Council of Chalcedon. I know the Chalcedonians often refer to Ephesus 449 as a robber’s council; I was simply appropriately re-directing that label and applying it to Chalcedon.

Hmmm.........
Perhaps, in actual fact, "the Spirit has spoken through Stavro."
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 12, 2005, 04:33:36 AM
Quote
Perhaps, in actual fact, "the Spirit has spoken through Stavro."

Agreed, considering the fact Stavro was responding to it as a Chalcedonian remark in response to Ephesus 449  ;)

Perhaps, the Spirit continued to speaketh through Stavro, saying:

Quote
The authority of the Church and each individual is to confirm the faith and protect the faith against any changes, an authority that no other See exercised better than Alexandria. Period.

and:

Quote
The holy council of Ephesus II was ratified by the fifth council of the Chalcedonian, for the decisions are one and the same. Chalcedon, that allowed Nestorians back to the church and sanctified their teachings, contradicts both.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 12, 2005, 04:40:35 AM
"If anyone does not confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh [or alternativelyt as I have stated “according to His flesh”] and was crucified in the flesh and tasted death in the flesh and became the first born of the dead, although as God he is life and life-giving, let him be anathema."


We are going in circles.
Until you aknowledge that the one use of the word "Word" by St. Leo refers to the Divine Nature and that he understood that the singular Person/hypostasis of Christ is also the Word we will get nowhere.
When I say "The sun is on my shoulders" do I mean that the mass of the Solar Sphere is resting on my shoulders, or do I mean that the rays of the sun are striking my shoulders? Perhaps someone with Asperger's Syndrome would take it literally and call me a liar.
Perhaps it's best we just agree to disagree and strive to co-exist in Christian love.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 12, 2005, 04:46:34 AM
Quote
We are going in circles.
Until you aknowledge that the one use of the word "Word" by St. Leo refers to the Divine Nature and that he understood that the singular Person/hypostasis of Christ is also the Word we will get nowhere.

I have acknowledged that Leo uses the term “Word” to refer to the divine nature in the context of his tome. This is irrelevant to the point im making. Leo says that the flesh PERFORMS human acts. St Cyril anathemizes anyone who does not acknowledge that the personal subject of Christ (which St Cyril identifies as “the Word”) is the one who performs human acts “In” or “According to” his flesh.

Quote
Perhaps it's best we just agree to disagree and strive to co-exist in Christian love.

Agreed.

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 12, 2005, 05:18:18 AM
I have acknowledged that Leo uses the term “Word” to refer to the divine nature in the context of his tome. This is irrelevant to the point im making. Leo says that the flesh PERFORMS human acts. St Cyril anathemizes anyone who does not acknowledge that the personal subject of Christ (which St Cyril identifies as “the Word”) is the one who performs human acts “In” or “According to” his flesh.

This may come as a surprise to you, but in fact human flesh does perform human acts.
The nails and spear pierced Christ's created flesh.
Christ's created flesh required sleep- His Divine Nature didn't.
Christ's created flesh needed to eat and drink- His Divine Nature didn't.
Christ's created flesh needed to go to the toilet- His Divine Nature didn't.
So you see, human flesh does perform human acts.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 12, 2005, 05:45:18 AM
Quote
This may come as a surprise to you, but in fact human flesh does perform human acts.

Ozgeorge, we are really running in circles now. Let me make it clear; it is a simple and fundamental metaphysical principle that acts are exercised by intellectual hypostasis, or in other words personal subjects. This is why for example, a human being by virtue of being a human being (which essentially entails the possession of a rational human soul, and hence self/ego/person) can perform functions, but a rock by virtue of its being a rock, for example does not. You do not see a rock rolling itself along a road, or jumping up into the air, or breaking through a glass window. When you do see a rock do these things, it is doing so NOT because it chose to perform these functions, but rather because an external force was applied to it — the rock itself does not perform a function since it possesses no rational principle by which it can do so.

Another simple example which clearly demonstrates this point, is the manner in which we as human beings speak about our performance of certain functions. We say “ozgeorge typed up a response” or “Ozgeorge sat down on a chair” — It is “ozgeorge” who is the subject of these actions. Now the question is what does the name “Ozgeorge” denote? It’s very simple - the name ozgeorge is no more than a reference to your self, your ego, or your person — it says nothing about your essential nature.

Likewise, The divine person of The Word is the subject of all Christ’s actions, which he performs by means of His natures. However His natures do not perform those actions since they lack personality.

Quote
Christ's created flesh required sleep- His Divine Nature didn't.

The Word required sleep by virtue of His possession of a human nature, and consequently slept according to this human nature.

Quote
Christ's created flesh needed to eat and drink- His Divine Nature didn't.

The Word needed to eat and drink by virtue of His possession of a human nature, and consequently ate and drank in the flesh, or according to his human nature.

I am wording my expressions according to St Cyril’s 12th anathema, you are wording yours according to Leo’s tome.

We will have to agree to disagree here; I will stick with my form of expression, and you can stick with yours, but I will certainly not compromise the language of St Cyril the pillar of faith (which was not only the standard of Orthodoxy, but is metaphysically sound), for that employed by Leo of Rome (which is metaphysically unsound and inconsistent). Period. That’s my last response on this issue.

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 12, 2005, 09:30:04 AM
Ozgeorge, we are really running in circles now.
I knew that several posts ago!

Let me make it clear; it is a simple and fundamental metaphysical principle that acts are exercised by intellectual hypostasis, or in other words personal subjects. This is why for example, a human being by virtue of being a human being (which essentially entails the possession of a rational human soul, and hence self/ego/person) can perform functions, but a rock by virtue of its being a rock, for example does not. You do not see a rock rolling itself along a road, or jumping up into the air, or breaking through a glass window. When you do see a rock do these things, it is doing so NOT because it chose to perform these functions, but rather because an external force was applied to it — the rock itself does not perform a function since it possesses no rational principle by which it can do so........Another simple example which clearly demonstrates this point, is the manner in which we as human beings speak about our performance of certain functions. We say “ozgeorge typed up a response” or “Ozgeorge sat down on a chair” — It is “ozgeorge” who is the subject of these actions. Now the question is what does the name “Ozgeorge” denote? It’s very simple - the name ozgeorge is no more than a reference to your self, your ego, or your person — it says nothing about your essential nature......Likewise, The divine person of The Word is the subject of all Christ’s actions, which he performs by means of His natures. However His natures do not perform those actions since they lack personality.
You see, this is where you've gone wrong- in three major ways.
The assumption that " it is a simple and fundamental metaphysical principle that acts are exercised by intellectual hypostasis, or in other words personal subjects" is wrong. A rock is performing acts- it exerts force, it occupies space, it breaks the ocean's waves, all without external forces acting on it. In the same way, trees and plants which lack souls and intellects also perform acts- they spread fragrance, grow roots and leaves, provide shade, and some even eat insects , all on their own without the need for external forces, or even the existence of ego/self/person...........need I go on with more examples? You are assuming that "act" and "voluntary act" are the same thing- they are not. You perform acts every day involuntarily. Your autonomic nervous system makes you breath, makes your heart beat, makes you perspire/salivate etc all without the involvement of your will. These are the "functions of the flesh" St. Leo is talking about.
Which leads me to your second big mistake: you are assuming that St. Leo is only talking about the voluntary acts of Christ when he speaks of "performing what belongs to the flesh". Look at the sentance which you have fixated on and the paragraph it belongs to:
"For the selfsame who is very God, is also very man; and there is no illusion in this union, while the lowliness of man and the loftiness of Godhead meet together. For as "God" is not changed by the compassion [exhibited], so "Man" is not consumed by the dignity [bestowed]. For each "form" does the acts which belong to it, in communion with the other; the Word, that is, performing what belongs to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what belongs to the flesh; the one of these shines out in miracles, the other succumbs' to injuries."

The flesh of Christ "succumbed to injury" by His Own, voluntary Divine Will. This in no way contradicts what St. Leo has said, in fact it is exactly what he is saying.

Thirdly, and most importantly, what you are saying is that "act" is a function of personhood only, based on the two false premises that (a) all acts are voluntary, and (b)" Person" does not exist without self/ego. But "self" and "ego" are merely illusions- they are mental constructs only, and not realities. You are applying human mental contructs onto the Divine Personhood. To demonstrate this is simple. Point to your body and say "I own this body"...... Now tell me, where is this "I" that owns your body, can you point to it?ÂÂ  Are you pointing to your body again? But isn't this the object that your "I" owns?
There is no "I" for us humans in reality. When we say "I", we simply mean "this organism" rather than "that organism". Only God has an "I".ÂÂ  This is why God has revealed Himself to Moses as "I AM", because He is "He Who Is", and I am "He Who Is Not", and this is also why the Blessed Apostle says that "In Him we live and move and have our being", and again: "I live, but rather, not I, but Christ lives in me."
The main cause of the neuroses plaguing modern men, women and children can often be traced back to the false belief that "I", "ego", "self" is a reality which exists. "Egoism" and "selfishness" are both the idolatory of this false "I". The word "I" is simply a "map" showing a territory- the map is not the territory.
You are also confusing "Hypostasis" and "Person" in what you are saying, and although it is often translated as "Person", Hypostasis does not mean "Person". "Hypo-stasis" literally meansÂÂ  "under-footing" like the latin "sub-stance". You have become confused by translating it as "person", then making assumptions about what makes a human a "person" and then applying this to God- it doesn't work, and can only lead to heresy.

Finally, as an aside, if Christ did not have a human will, then He was not "a man like us in all things except sin". If Christ did not have a human will, the temptations He experienced in the desert (and elswhere) were not real temptations. If Christ did not have a human will, then He did not have to struggle like us to align it with the Divine Will. Therefore, if Christ did not have a human will, He was not truly human, but merely had the appearance of one as the Docetists claimed.






Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 12, 2005, 10:41:44 AM
Quote
The assumption that " it is a simple and fundamental metaphysical principle that acts are exercised by intellectual hypostasis, or in other words personal subjects" is wrong. A rock is performing acts- it exerts force, it occupies space, it breaks the ocean's waves, all without external forces acting on it.

Wrong. That a rock occupies space, and that it passes through substances less dense than it, concern the nature of that rock’s being as it is defined by its essence — i.e. that it possesses a particular mass and density; these are NOT however “performances” of a rock. The same principle applies to the rest of your examples.

Professor Bittle, in his book The Domain of Being: Ontology says:

"Actions belong to the person or hypoastasis. The ‘nature’ of a being is the principle of all that being's actions. But the nature of an individual, concrete being, as it actually exists...is always a hypostasis and, if it is rational, a person. This fact is clearly expressed in our judgments and statements about certain things. We seldom refer our actions to the faculties or parts from which they proceed immediately, but rather to the ultimate possessor of the nature. We thus say ‘I see, I digest, I think, or I drive the car,’ even though
it's the eyes that see, and the stomach that digest, and the intellect that thinks, and the hands that steer the wheell. Actions are thus
ascribed to the hypostasis or person. The hypostasis or person is the very principle which (principium quod) performs the actual action, whilst the nature is simply the ultimate principle by means of which (principium quo) the hypostasis or person performs that very action" (1939, page 271)

Quote
Which leads me to your second big mistake: you are assuming that St. Leo is talking about the voluntary acts of Christ when he speaks of "performing what belongs to the flesh".

Well now that I’ve shown that it has nothing to do with voluntary vs. involuntary, but rather the fact that a person or hypostasis experiences and performs acts according to the nature of being defined by the very attributes corollary of that being’s essence; the rest of your post is a straw man.

Quote
Thirdly, and most importantly, what you are saying is that "act" is a function of personhood only, based on the false premise that Person does not exist without self/ego.

The person IS the self/ego my friend:

Professor Bittle continues:

"These functions and mental states are phenomena, accidents; and as such they must inhere in an Ego, which is the ultimate reality within man, identical and permanent amidst all changes. The Ego is, thus, a subsisting substance, which exists in itself as a subject and not in another....the Ego is a rational hypostasis. 'Rationale' or ‘Intellectuality’ is the very difference between man and
God, and the lower forms of plant, brute and inorganic body. A ‘person,’ thus, is an intellectual/rational hypostasis." (ibid. 274)

Quote
But "self" and "ego" are merely illusions- they are mental constructs only, and not realities.

Wrong!

Quote
Point to your body and say "I own this body"...... Now tell me, where is this "I" that owns your body, can you point to it?ÂÂ  Are you pointing to your body again? But isn't this the object that your "I" owns?

Come on ozgeorge, just because my person/self/”I” possesses no being per se (such that I can point to it as you request), this does not negate the fact that it is a REAL and intrinsic principle/aspect of my being constituting my very being. Your conclusion is simply a non-sequitor. Existence and reality are two different categories my friend, do not get them confused.

Quote
There is no "I" for us humans in reality. When we say "I", we simply mean "this organism" rather than "that organism". Only God has an "I".ÂÂ  This is why God has revealed Himself to Moses as "I AM"

What you are saying is completely absurd; everyone has an “I” by which they recognize their self throughout history. The “I” principle is the only intellectual principle of our being that remains constant amid all changes. “I” the 19 year old, who is a 1 m 69 cm tall, slim, university student, am the same “I” who was a chubby little 9 year old in primary school. Exodus 3:14 has NOTHING to do with God’s personhood; but rather the nature of the existence of His being per se. I refer you to St Augustine, St Hilary of Potiers, and Origen’s commentary of this passage; it is to do with his being the eternally uncaused self-existent cause of all existence. This is irrelevant to His personhood, since personhood is a principle of being and not a being per se.

Quote
You are also confusing "Hypostasis" and "Person" in what you are saying, and although it is often translated as "Person", Hypostasis does not mean "Person".

Actually I didn’t, and I’d like you to quote my statement in which I regarded person and hypostasis as interchangeable equivalents according to their definitions - and not according to how they apply to a particular subject in which I may have regarded them equivalently, for that is another matter. A person is simply an intellectual/rational hypostasis; such that every person is a hypostasis, but not every hypostasis is a person. This is why human being’s are persons, yet plants are not, though both plants and humans are both hypostases.

Professor Bittle in pondering the question as to what it is that gives a being "Person", continues:

"It cannot be materiality; for God is not a material being, though man obviously has a material body. It cannot be life; for plants possess life, but they are certainly not ‘persons.’ It cannot be the simplicity of nature; for God is simple in nature, however man is aÂÂ  compound of body and soul; yet both are ‘persons.’ ...It cannot be substance, essence, nature or subsistenc; for all individual existences, from inorganic bodies to God Himself, possess these degrees of reality. What then, is it? The only discoverable principle or element which is distinctive to God, Spirits and man yet which is lacking in all other beings below the level of man, is rationale/intellectuality." (ibis. page 269)

Quote
Finally, as an aside, if Christ did not have a human will….

I never denied that Christ had a human will, so I don’t see what the problem is. I just believe that Christ’s human will was both expressed and actualized by His hypostasis through His person. St Athanasius said that what Christ assumed was healed. If Christ did not assume a real human will, then the doctrine of theosis is a fallacy. Christ had a natural human will and a natural divine will, yet ultimately He possesses one personal will, by which he willed "humanly" and willed "divinely", but ultimately it was The Word who willed, and since The Word is one - His hypostasis/person One, therefore this personal will was one.

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 12, 2005, 11:26:10 AM
You know what ozgeorge, I don’t even know why I bothered delving into metaphysics, when I already proved that St Cyril settled this matter by the Holy Spirit about 1600 years ago.

St Cyril the pillar of faith, in contrast to Leo of Rome, understands “The Word” as a title designating Christ’s person/hypostasis and not His divine nature, and thus according to the 12th of the 12 anathemas vindicated at Ephesus 431 (in accordance with the traits of Athanasian Christology), St Cyril states that he who does not affirm that the divine person/hypostasis of Christ (The Word) is the subject of His incarnate experiences (suffering, death, hunger etc.), then let him be anathema, simple as that.

St Cyril says that the person/hypostasis of Christ suffered in the flesh (performed according to his human nature), yet according to Leo of Rome, the flesh suffered (the human nature performed).

If you want to call St Cyril a gnostic monophysite or an arian, or whatever you wish, just to vindicate the tome, then that is your issue, and in that case there is no further room for discussion.

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 12, 2005, 11:49:36 AM
Wrong. That a rock occupies space, and that it passes through substances less dense than it, concern the nature of that rock’s being as it is defined by its essence — i.e. that it possesses a particular mass and density; these are NOT however “performances” of a rock. The same principle applies to the rest of your examples.
Huh? So are you (and Prof. Bittle) saying that "Dionaea muscipula" or the "Venus Fly Trap" has personhood despite being a plant since it traps and digests insects?

Well now that I’ve shown that it has nothing to do with voluntary vs. involuntary, but rather the fact that a person or
hypostasis experiences and performs acts according to the nature of being defined by the very attributes corollary of that being’s essence;
Doesn't a rock have being and essense?

Come on ozgeorge, just because my person/self/”I” possesses no being per se (such that I can point to it as you request), this does not negate the fact that it is a REAL and intrinsic principle/aspect of my being constituting my very being. Your conclusion is simply a non-sequitor. Existence and reality are two different categories my friend, do not get them confused.What you are saying is completely absurd; everyone has an “I” by which they recognize their self throughout history. The “I” principle is the only intellectual principle of our being that remains constant amid all changes. “I” the 19 year old, who is a 1 m 69 cm tall, slim, university student, am the same “I” who was a chubby little 9 year old in primary school. Exodus 3:14 has NOTHING to do with God’s personhood; but rather the nature of the existence of His being per se. I refer you to St Augustine, St Hilary of Potiers, and Origen’s commentary of this passage; it is to do with his being the eternally uncaused self-existent cause of all existence. This is irrelevant to His personhood, since personhood is a principle of being and not a being per se.
Enjoy the illusion.
If I said that I was Napolean Bonaparte (someone who actually existed)- you'd have me commited. Yet if I say that I am an "I" (which even you say doesn't exist), I'm considered sane.

and I’d like you to quote my statement in which I regarded person and hypostasis as interchangeable equivalents according to their definitions - and not according to how they apply to a particular subject in which I may have regarded them equivalently, for that is another matter.
No, it's not "another matter", it's the same matter. It is your claim that "act" is only a function of "person", not nature, therefore (you claim) act is a function of the Hypostasis of Christ, not His Natures.

Professor Bittle in pondering the question as to what it is that gives a being "Person", continues:
"It cannot be materiality; for God is not a material being, though man obviously has a material body. It cannot be life; for plants possess life, but they are certainly not ‘persons.’ It cannot be the simplicity of nature; for God is simple in nature, however man is aÂÂ  compound of body and soul; yet both are ‘persons.’ ...It cannot be substance, essence, nature or subsistenc; for all individual existences, from inorganic bodies to God Himself, possess these degrees of reality. What then, is it? The only discoverable principle or element which is distinctive to God, Spirits and man yet which is lacking in all other beings below the level of man, is rationale/intellectuality." (ibis. page 269)
It's stupid claims such as this which make me furious! Does a child born anacephalic lack personhood because it lacks a brain? Do severely brain damaged individuals who's brains can only sustain their breathing and heartbeat cease to be persons since they lack rationale/intellectuality? Prof. Bittle is dribbling rubbish. We can't even define what human hypostasis consists of- and you presume to define what Divine Hypostasis consists of! This is exactley where I said you went wrong in your logic. Person cannot be defined by intellect, and even if it could, we cannot use this to define the three Hypostasese of the Trinity because they share One Essense (and therefore, one intellect/rationale as this stupid Prof. Brittle puts it).
Do you want a hint where Hypostasis may lie? It exists somewhere in the area of relationship. God is a Trinity of Three Hypostese Who relate to One Another in Eternity- the Father Eternally begets the Son and is the Source of the Eternal Procession of the Spirit- The Perfect Community..

never denied that Christ had a human will, so I don’t see what the problem is. I just believe that Christ’s human will was both expressed and actualized by His hypostasis through His person. St Athanasius said that what Christ assumed was healed. If Christ did not assume a real human will, then the doctrine of theosis is a fallacy. Christ had a natural human will and a natural divine will, yet ultimately He possesses one personal will, by which he willed "humanly" and willed "divinely", but ultimately it was The Word who willed, and since The Word is one - His hypostasis/person One, therefore this personal will was one.
So Christ now has three distinct wills: a divine will, a human will, and a personal will? Or does he only have one personal will which is a "co-mingling" of His Divine and Human Wills to produce a third?  Oh what knots these non-chalcedons tie themselves in!
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 12, 2005, 11:53:34 AM
St Cyril says that the person/hypostasis of Christ suffered in the flesh (performed according to his human nature), yet according to Leo of Rome, the flesh suffered (the human nature performed).
If you want to call St Cyril a gnostic monophysite or an arian, or whatever you wish, just to vindicate the tome, then that is your issue, and in that case there is no further room for discussion.
Oh these circles!
Once again, let me repeat: the fifth Ecumenical Counci Declared that "One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh". And what does S. Cyril say?
St Cyril says that the person/hypostasis of Christ suffered in the flesh (performed according to his human nature)
Isn't this the same thing?

St Cyril the pillar of faith, in contrast to Leo of Rome, understands “The Word” as a title designating Christ’s person/hypostasis and not His divine nature, and thus according to the 12th of the 12 anathemas vindicated at Ephesus 431 (in accordance with the traits of Athanasian Christology), St Cyril states that he who does not affirm that the divine person/hypostasis of Christ (The Word) is the subject of His incarnate experiences (suffering, death, hunger etc.), then let him be anathema, simple as that
Oh good! So we agree then- St. Cyril and St. Leo used the word "Word" differently in one instance- therefore St. Leo is not a heretic and does not fall under St. Cyril's anathema, and they are saying the same thing - (just as the Fathers of Chalcedon said)ÂÂ  and they are enjoying one another's company in Heaven.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 12, 2005, 01:39:58 PM
Quote
Huh? So are you (and Prof. Bittle) saying that "Dionaea muscipula" or the "Venus Fly Trap" has personhood despite being a plant since it traps and digests insects?

Let’s have a quick look at what Prof. Bittle had to say concerning the act of digestion:

“We thus say…I digest…even though it’s…the stomach that digests” 

The venus fly trap, just like my stomach, is “the ultimate principle by means of which (principium quo) the hypostasis or person performs that very action" In this case, the venus fly trap is a hypostasis not a person. The nature does not perform ozgeorge, it simply defines the operative capacity by which the hypostasis/person performs/operates. PERIOD.

Quote
Doesn't a rock have being and essense?

Yes, but its being or essence is not “the principle which (principium quod) performs the actual action.”

Quote
Enjoy the illusion.

The irony couldn’t be any more obvious right now my friend.

Quote
If I said that I was Napolean Bonaparte (someone who actually existed)- you'd have me commited. Yet if I say that I am an "I" which even you say doesn't exist, I'm considered sane.

What on earth are you talking about? The existence of Napolean Bonaparte’s metaphysical person is as lacking as the existence of anyone’s metaphysical person throughout the history of mankind. All the metaphysical terms we have thus far employed: essence, nature, substance, hypostasis, person, are ALL principles of being; REAL aspects of a being, and NOT being’s in and of themselves.

According to Professor McGlyn and Professor Farley in their book A Metaphysics of Being and God:

“When one considers an individual, existing being, and its perfection and limitation, one is obviously not going to find 2 “things” composing that very being (which would make it 2 beings, that are in some way held together). Rather, whatever composition exists must be a composition of “principles of being.” A “principle of being” is something which makes up that very being, however, which can’t itself exist as a being. Some easily comprehended examples of this are metaphysical “accidents” such as warmth, whiteness and so forth."

The learned men then list all the other metaphysical co-principles of being alongside accident: existence, essence, nature, substance, hypostasis, person, potency, act etc. and they state:

“These metaphysical co-principles of being, constitute finite beings; not as physical parts, but rather as ultimate intrinsic principles. They are’nt “things” in themselves, but rather, principles of things that are incapable of existing apart, yet truly distinct from one another…” (ibid. 65)

We’d have you committed for claiming to be Napolean because you are claiming to possses the same self as the self which constituted an ultimate metaphysical principle of an independent existence from that of yours, and which experienced and performed things according to that independent existence.

Quote
It is your claim that "act" is only a function of "person", not nature, therefore (you claim) act is a function of the Hypostasis of Christ, not His Natures.

Since Christ’s hypostasis is rational/intellectual, His hypostasis is hence personal. When I attribute an act to His hypostasis therefore, I am attributing this act to His person and vice versa.

Quote
Do severely brain damaged individuals who's brains can only sustain their breathing and heartbeat cease to be persons since they lack rationale/intellectuality?

If a particular being discontinues to recognize its self as a result of physical damage; that particular being thus lacks personhood. However, since as Christians we believe in the eternal continuance of the soul regardless of the nature of one’s existence here on earth (whether they be alive, sick, or dead), the metaphysical person of that being continues i.e. His self doesn’t cease; it is simply no longer manifest, experiencing or performing through that being that you see lying on the hospital bed. Where it is, and what it’s doing, only God knows.

Quote
Prof. Bittle is dribbling rubbish.

He makes sense to me, and im sure he makes sense to St Cyril as well. You’re not doing a very good job of undermining his credibility or authority either.

Quote
Person cannot be defined by intellect

Well, they are.

Quote
and even if it could, we cannot use this to define the three Hypostasese of the Trinity because they share One Essense (and therefore, one intellect/rationale as this stupid Prof. Brittle puts it).

This one intellect/rationale is manifest through three differing centers of consciousness. God’s intellect/rationale is One according to the fact that the intellect/rationale possessed and employed by the three persons of the Godhead, are of the same infinite quality and capacity, as a result of the fact that all three persons are consubstantial with each other. God is One mind in three minds so to speak. Intellect is a corollary of personhood, as is self-awareness, will, and act. These are attributes possessed by each person of the Godhead. They are distinct in reality, not independent in existence.

Quote
So Christ now has three distinct wills: a divine will, a human will, and a personal will? Or does he only have one personal will which is a "co-mingling" of His Divine and Human Wills to produce a third? 

 
Christ’s personal will is of a different category to his divine and human will which we classify as “natural”. To argue 1 + 2 = 3 is to commit a categorical fallacy as is the argument that 1 + 1 = 1. We have natural will ‘a’ and personal will ‘b’. Christ possesses 2a + b.

Let me give you an analogy:

Bob possess one natural will according to his one nature, and a personal will according to his one person. When Bob is fasting from food for example, he may hunger and yearn for food according to his natural will. He may make a statement such as “I am so hungry, I want to eat”, and by doing so he vocally manifests his natural human will. However, despite the inclinations of his natural will, he may choose to abstain from food nonetheless — this sir, is Bob’s personal will, and hence he ultimately he states “I am so hungry, I want to eat (x), however I will continue to fast nonetheless (y)”. In such a statement he has revealed his natural human will (x) as well as his personal will to continue abstaining from food regardless of his human inclinations (y).

Likewise, Christ according to His human nature possessed a natural human will, and according to His divine nature possessed a natural divine will, yet according to His one person/hypostasis, possessed one personal will which is simply and plainly: to do the will of the Father, which is in conformity with the natural divine will common to them both. Christ thus voluntarily aligns and submits His personal will which is challenged by His humanity (in the same manner that Bob’s personal will not to eat is challenged by his natural will for food to satisfy his hunger) to follow the divine will of the Father. Christ in contrast to man, manages to voluntarily submit his personal will to the divine; perfectly and consistently, in contrast to Bob for example, who although ultimately willing to abstain from food on one occasion, may fall and submit his personal will to his human will and choose to eat and satisfy his hunger during the next fast.

Quote
Oh these circles!
Once again, let me repeat: the fifth Ecumenical Counci Declared that "One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh". And what does S. Cyril say?

Now this is just a red herring. When did I say I have a problem with the fifth council? The fifth council is fine by me, no problems with it; it filled in all the gaps of Chalcedon and corrected all its errors. We are speaking about the tome, not the fifth council — what I have said remains intact.

Quote
So we agree then- St. Cyril and St. Leo used the word "Word" differently in one instance- therefore St. Leo is not a heretic and does not fall under St. Cyril's anathema

I never claimed that Leo of Rome was a heretic, it has been shown elsewhere that he affirmed that the divine was the subject of the Incarnation. I am claiming that his tome is confused, inconsistent and contradictory. That Leo uses the term “Word” differently to St Cyril is irrelevant to my point. That Leo understands the natures as centers of action, is a contradiction to other aspects of his tome which seem to suggest that the divine is the subject of His incarnate experiences, and in contradiction to St Cyril who without a doubt understands the divine personal subject as the centre of action; functioning according to His natures.

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 12, 2005, 01:50:11 PM
I wasted a whole day on forums today...

ozgeorge, if i dont respond to you by July, don't take it personally. I need to put this computer away for good to control myself.

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on June 12, 2005, 06:40:28 PM
She Enrompi to my Coptic friends.
To everyone else, Happy Sunday (similar meaning really).

I see an uncontrollable system of Venn Diagrams in these arguments.ÂÂ  Yet, in Venn Diagrams we seem to overlap and agree, even if we don't see it.

Someone mentioned "voluntary" and "involuntary."ÂÂ  In plain english, yes, the body can perform things, but once my spirit (or soul) leaves my body, it can no longer perform these things, unless you quickly hook it up to a machine.ÂÂ  But even then, you give the machine the role of a "person" that allows the body to perform its functions.

It's that simple.ÂÂ  Forget about rocks, plants, or animals for one second.ÂÂ  If a human is in a coma, who is there to take care of the body?ÂÂ  DOCTORS AND NURSES, who use IV machines and so forth to sustain the body of this guy until his person snaps out of the coma.

We are then getting into the debate of subsistence.ÂÂ  A spirit of any man is self-subsistent, while his body and soul is non-self-subsistent.ÂÂ  The only exception is Christ, whose subsistence relies on the divinity, since the Word has always been of divine nature.ÂÂ  The human part of Christ, spirit, soul, and body, are all non-self-subsistence, which is why we can never seperate His humanity from His divinity, or this would be true death to salvation.

So now, what is more powerful?ÂÂ  To say that the human nature performs on its own, or to say that the Word performs through the human nature.ÂÂ  To say that the "human nature performs" is empty, void of any powerful theological language and only puts things down, as we see here, to a metaphysical analysis.ÂÂ  But to say that the "Word performs through the flesh or in the flesh" is much more powerful.ÂÂ  Not only is it metaphysically correct, but it's theologically poetic, or it gives it somewhat of a song.ÂÂ  Otherwise, we would be saying that St. Mary is nothing more than the mother of a human nature.ÂÂ  But it's much more POWERFUL and BEAUTIFUL to say that the Word was born of the Virgin THEOTOKOS St. Mary in the flesh.ÂÂ  For a human nature cannot perform anything without the prosopon of the Word giving it subsistence, whether it be voluntary or involuntary.ÂÂ  And neither does the phrase "the human nature performs" have subsistence unless you allow the Word to be introduced in it.

This is the beauty behind the theology of St. Cyril, that which was preserved by the OO's without going further into meaningless metaphysical analysis.

Finally, the debate of "voluntary" vs. "involuntary" should not have been stressed here.ÂÂ  Now, we have claims of whether Leo talked about the "involuntary" acts only or not.ÂÂ  Are you really going that far to defend Leo's Tome?ÂÂ  Then what happened to the voluntary acts of the humanity?ÂÂ  Who performed those voluntary acts?ÂÂ  Ya sure, the human nature's bowels moved, but did the human nature move Christ's skeletal muscles or did the Christ/Word move them?

"Thelete" as the Catholic Encyclopedia says may mean "desire."ÂÂ  Therefore, all those actions, such as temptation, pain, agony, growing in wisdom, not knowing the end of days, FREE WILL, are not those voluntary?ÂÂ  Did the human nature perform them on their own, or did the Word perform them according to humanity?ÂÂ  The whole issue behind St. Maximus the Confessor, the most important will in humanity that he wanted to study was the free will of the humanity in Christ.ÂÂ  That was ALL that mattered.ÂÂ  Sure all other voluntary and involuntary wills existed, but why did we get into the debate on voluntary vs. involuntary?ÂÂ  In that case, you make a new circle for no reason whatsoever, and for what, to defend Leo's Tome.

And what is this "Gnostism" "Docetism" attack?ÂÂ  Have we not proved that St. Cyril holds a certain terminology over another?ÂÂ  Have we not also shown that other factors, not just the wording of the Tome, but we went through in Chalcedon and outside of Chalcedon, affected our further rejection of it?

The original question was "Why do we reject the Tome?"ÂÂ  I personally do not say that the Tome is wrong, but what the Tome is lacking should be a key in understanding both our Orthodox traditions.ÂÂ  Fr. John Romanides admitted that the Tome can be interpreted in a semi-Nestorian fashion, but he defends that it should be understood in the light of the Council of Ephesus and St. Cyril.ÂÂ  This to me is a very sincere way of reconciliation.ÂÂ  First, he admitted the ambiguities of the Tome (which only one or two non-OO's here have), and second, he promises that the Tome is not binding on its own, but must receive its approval in interpretation through St. Cyril.ÂÂ  In that case, I will assume "one and the same" both died and was incapable of death is the same as saying the Word died according to the flesh and the Word is incapable of death according to the Divinity.

God bless.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 12, 2005, 07:38:20 PM

So now, what is more powerful?ÂÂ  To say that the human nature performs on its own, or to say that the Word performs through the human nature.ÂÂ  To say that the "human nature performs" is empty, void of any powerful theological language and only puts things down, as we see here, to a metaphysical analysis.ÂÂ  But to say that the "Word performs through the flesh or in the flesh" is much more powerful.ÂÂ [
You mean like St Leo says when he says in his Tome: "Accordingly, He who, as man, is tempted by the devil's subtlety, is the same to whom, as God, angels pay duteous service."?

What is becoming increasingly apparent to me is that no matter how many "Ven Diagrams" there are, and no matter how misunderstood St. Leo is- there will be no Communion between us until we reject St. Leo. The old "my enemy's enemy is my friend" mentality.



Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 12, 2005, 08:11:47 PM
Is not liking how something is said a worthy reason for a schism?
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on June 12, 2005, 08:20:17 PM
Quote
What is becoming increasingly apparent to me is that no matter how many "Ven Diagrams" there are, and no matter how misunderstood St. Leo is- there will be no Communion between us until we reject St. Leo. The old "my enemy's enemy is my friend" mentality.

I didn't think anyone said that you should reject the Tome of Leo for reunion, neither do we say that we should accept the Tome of Leo either.ÂÂ  We only like to show where he interpret its faults and we want you to understand the circumstances behind the Tome that lead us to a conviction that we reject it as an Orthodox document.ÂÂ  Fr. John Romanides wasn't ready to reject anything in the EO tradition, except in regards to anathemas, in which he agrees that they may be lifted.ÂÂ  You can keep your councils, but we are not bound by it.ÂÂ  We unite as Orthodox, not as Byzantine or Oriental, not Chalcedonian or non-Chalcedonian.

As to your question, whether how something is said is a worthy reason for a schism, the answer in my opinion is "No."

God bless.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 12, 2005, 08:39:58 PM
I didn't think anyone said that you should reject the Tome of Leo for reunion, neither do we say that we should accept the Tome of Leo either.ÂÂ  We only like to show where he interpret its faults and we want you to understand the circumstances behind the Tome that lead us to a conviction that we reject it as an Orthodox document.ÂÂ
This only makes it worse! So for us to be in Communion, we must say that Chalcedon is an Unorthodox Council proclaiming unorthodox dogma based on unorthodox documents?
Fr. John Romanides wasn't ready to reject anything in the EO tradition, except lifting up of anathemas.ÂÂ  You can keep your councils, but we are not bound by it.ÂÂ  We unite as Orthodox, not as Byzantine or Oriental.
So not only must we say that Chalcedon does not proclaim Orthodox doctrine-, we must now also say that none of the Ecumenical Councils after it proclaim Orthodox doctrine either..... It just just gets better doesn't it? ;)
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 12, 2005, 08:50:28 PM
And you still haven't answered my original question:

So now, what is more powerful?  To say that the human nature performs on its own, or to say that the Word performs through the human nature.  To say that the "human nature performs" is empty, void of any powerful theological language and only puts things down, as we see here, to a metaphysical analysis.  But to say that the "Word performs through the flesh or in the flesh" is much more powerful. [
Do you mean like St Leo says when he says in his Tome: "Accordingly, He who, as man, is tempted by the devil's subtlety, is the same to whom, as God, angels pay duteous service."?
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on June 12, 2005, 10:20:31 PM
Quote
This only makes it worse! So for us to be in Communion, we must say that Chalcedon is an Unorthodox Council proclaiming unorthodox dogma based on unorthodox documents?

Okay, tell me exactly where I said this because I know I didn't.  I said you are not obligated to reject the Tome or Chalcedon.  However, the Tome or Chalcedon is not necessary for us to accept as a reunion.  What is necessary is the lifting of anathemas.  We are ready to lift anathemas of Leo et al, just as you would lift anathemas from Dioscorus et al.  The faith and doctrines stay THE SAME, as has always been.

Quote
So not only must we say that Chalcedon does not proclaim Orthodox doctrine-, we must now also say that none of the Ecumenical Councils after it proclaim Orthodox doctrine either..... It just just gets better doesn't it?


No, I did not say that.  Again, where did I say that?  Please don't put words in my mouth.  The Agreed Statements state that it is not necessary to accept the additional councils for communion.  Nowhere does it say that this or that council should be rejected either.  We've also believed that the last four EO councils have no difference in its Orthodox interpretation of faith as our OOxy after careful and objective studies on both our traditions.  We will be glad to defend its Orthodoxy, but these councils are not necessary to accept for reunion between both our families.

Quote
Do you mean like St Leo says when he says in his Tome: "Accordingly, He who, as man, is tempted by the devil's subtlety, is the same to whom, as God, angels pay duteous service."?

Yes, I would interpret it as Orthodox, since the fruits of EOxy is true faith, and since this is, as I've read in Leo's other letters, that Leo's intention is Orthodox.  But I must stress, nowhere in this sentence does it state that the Word in prosopon did both.  It only says that the man and God are both the same "He".  Slight difference in terminology, and can be misconstrued as Nestorian, as Nestorius gladly agreed, since he believed that the two prosopa of Christ are the "same Image".  I suggest you read the "Bazaar of Heracleides" by Nestorius.

God bless you.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 12, 2005, 10:38:00 PM
Yes, I would interpret it as Orthodox, since the fruits of EOxy is true faith, and since this is, as I've read in Leo's other letters, that Leo's intention is Orthodox.ÂÂ  But I must stress, nowhere in this sentence does it state that the Word in prosopon did both.ÂÂ  It only says that the man and God are both the same "He".ÂÂ  Slight difference in terminology, and can be misconstrued as Nestorian, as Nestorius gladly agreed, since he believed that the two prosopa of Christ are the "same Image".ÂÂ  I suggest you read the "Bazaar of Heracleides" by Nestorius.

Dear Friend,
Nestorius could just as easily twist the Pre-Incarnate and Incarnate Word as two prosopa of Christ that are the same image. If you have anathemised St. Leo because you think his teaching can be misunderstood, then you must also anathamise St. Cyril for the same reason.

What is necessary is the lifting of anathemas.
Agreed. The Anathemas must be lifted for there to be Communion between us.

We are ready to lift anathemas of Leo et al, just as you would lift anathemas from Dioscorus et al.ÂÂ  The faith and doctrines stay THE SAME, as has always been.
But why was Dioscorsus anathemized
The Seventh Ecumenical Council says:
"Anathema to those who spurn the teachings of the holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church, taking as a pretext and making their own the arguments of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, that unless we were evidently taught by the Old and New Testaments, we should not follow the teachings of the holy Fathers and of the holy Ecumenical Synods, and the tradition of the Catholic Church."

Unless we all follow the Ecumenical Synods, there can be no Communion.




Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Stavro on June 13, 2005, 12:54:04 AM
Dear EA,
I apologize sincerely for the confusion on my part. I intended to reply to a statement by a Chalcedonian about the Ephesus II, yet I was not careful to quote the complete post and the post looked like a criticism to yours, which cannot be my intention in any case. I will modify the post accordingly. I fully agree with your statements and posts. 
Peace. 
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on June 13, 2005, 12:57:17 AM
Quote
Nestorius could just as easily twist the Pre-Incarnate and Incarnate Word as two prosopa of Christ that are the same image. If you have anathemised St. Leo because you think his teaching can be misunderstood, then you must also anathamise St. Cyril for the same reason.

Dearest Ozgeorge,

I have shown you the reasons and factors to which we rejected the Tome.ÂÂ  Perhaps, there may have not been a schism if:
1.ÂÂ  Theodoret and Ibas were not associated with Leo
2.ÂÂ  The Roman Legates that represented Leo did not say that Theodore of Mopsuestia was a "doctor of the Church"
3.ÂÂ  If discussion and debate was allowed with Imperial authorities threatening sides
4.ÂÂ  If Imperial authorities did not house arrest St. Dioscorus
5.ÂÂ  If we weren't persecuted for not accepting the Tome

These are the factors to which we proceeded to call the Tome heretical.ÂÂ  Yes, it can be misunderstood, but if the first four of the five factors really did never happen, perhaps the brotherhood in Chalcedon could have given certain consideration for Orthodoxy in Chalcedon rather than the violence and yelling that erupted there.

For example, THEORETICALLY SPEAKING, if St. Cyril was associated with Apollinarians and sent legates that represented him that said Appollinarius was a "doctor of the Church," then shouldn't I proceed with caution to read any of St. Cyril's Tome as probably not Orthodox since he associates himself with heretics?

Quote
But why was Dioscorsus anathemized...
etc. etc. etc.

By asking this question and making other statements after it, you imply a couple of things:
1.ÂÂ  By lifting anathemas, you expect us to condemn our own Orthodox fathers.
2.ÂÂ  By lifting anathemas, you expect us to accept councils that condemn our own Orthodox fathers.
3.ÂÂ  You assume that St. Dioscorus et al were heretics.

If these are not what you assumed then you shouldn't have asked that last question.

So now that I assume I know what you believe, let us talk about St. Dioscorus.ÂÂ  Why was St. Dioscorus anathematized?
The answer:ÂÂ  because he did not come to the council after a triple summons.ÂÂ  Nowhere in the Council of Chalcedon in its sentences and definitions does it accuse St. Dioscorus of heresy.ÂÂ  It's only a tradition in your Church that Leo, who wasn't present to hear St. Dioscorus' defenses, call him a Eutychian, while never even have met the man himself, and his legates took Leo's words as words of infallibility, and thuse became an EO tradition.ÂÂ  Meanwhile, we called Leo a Nestorian and have not met Leo himself to know what he actually believes.ÂÂ  While there were factors into our suspicions to him, today since we have the internet, and sources in reading all his letters, I know he is Orthodox in Christology (but that goes also the same way St. Dioscorus.ÂÂ  Read his stuff, and you'll find it DRENCHED with Orthodoxy).

So far, I'm speaking objectively.

Second Answer:ÂÂ  Because imperial authorities hate Alexandria.ÂÂ  It's obvious with the house arrest and the persecutions we suffered through.ÂÂ  Is it right to force someone to be Chalcedonian?ÂÂ  That's no different from being a Muslim in the Islamically ruled countries, to accept Islam or to die (or pay Jizya, but that wasn't even offered from the CHRISTIAN Imperial authorities).

Now, that I've answered your question, I like to ask you and Augustine and others:

Do you think that St. Dioscorus et al were all heretics?ÂÂ  If so, can you quote for us the source of their heresy from their own writings and sayings?

I can assure you that what you and your councils accuse St. Dioscorus et al of is the same heresy that St. Dioscorus et al all have condemned themselves.

Let us then look objectively at what your councils said.ÂÂ  I can tell you honestly that the Holy Spirit at least worked through you to uphold the Orthodox faith, but you did not heed the Holy Spirit's call that certain men you condemn were not the heretics you think they were.ÂÂ  Your and our councils have had councils for good intentions of condemning heresies, but if the supposed persons you've condemned did not hold these heresies, then theoretically, it is not wrong to lift anathemas against us, since they never even believed in the heresy you condemned them with. (this statement not only holds for you only, but us as well)

It is right to uphold the faith, but it is wrong to say that St. Dioscorus erred from the faith.ÂÂ  I challenge you to read the OO fathers and find anything heretical, and we can challenge it here.ÂÂ  Perhaps, we should create a thread on why you reject St. Dioscorus, now that we have discussed and exhausted the Tome of Leo.

God bless you.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Anastasios on June 13, 2005, 01:06:20 AM
I believe that St John Chrysostom also once publicly called Theodore of Mopsuestia "my teacher" since he died in communion with the Orthodox Church and was actually a big influence on St John Chrysostom.  I will have to ask my former patristics professor though if he can give me the citation for that.  At any rate, it just goes to show that before a person is officially condemned, people can have varying opinions about him, such as how St. Basil the Great called Origen his teacher and edited his works (the first Philokalia).

Anastasios
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 13, 2005, 01:16:40 AM
For example, THEORETICALLY SPEAKING, if St. Cyril was associated with Apollinarians and sent legates that represented him that said Appollinarius was a "doctor of the Church," then shouldn't I proceed with caution to read any of St. Cyril's Tome as probably not Orthodox since he associates himself with heretics?
Yes, I wouldn't blame you for proceeding with caution. But circumspection is one thing, and "finding" heresy where there is no heresy is quite another.
Why the non-chalcedon insistence on accusing St. Leo of confusing the issue when he clealy does not? For example:
But I must stress, nowhere in this sentence does it state that the Word in prosopon did both.
The sentence in question reads: "Accordingly, He who, as man, is tempted by the devil's subtlety, is the same to whom, as God, angels pay duteous service."
St. Leo says that "He...is the same..."
"He" is a personal pronoun and can only possibly refer to an hypostasis/prosopon/person, not a nature. St. Leo clearly says He did both. Why do the non-chalcedons insist that this is not what he says?

In the same way, not everything Origen said was heresy, not everything Nestorios said was heresy. We treat Origen's works with caution, but we do not reject everything he says, and more importantly, we do not accuse him of heresy in the Orthodox things that he said.

So now that I assume I know what you believe, let us talk about St. Dioscorus.ÂÂ  Why was St. Dioscorus anathematized?
The answer:ÂÂ  because he did not come to the council after a triple summons.ÂÂ
No, he was anathemised for rejecting the teachings of an Ecumenical Council. I repeat (ojectively):
"The Seventh Ecumenical Council says: "Anathema to those who spurn the teachings of the holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church, taking as a pretext and making their own the arguments of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, that unless we were evidently taught by the Old and New Testaments, we should not follow the teachings of the holy Fathers and of the holy Ecumenical Synods, and the tradition of the Catholic Church."

So far, I'm speaking objectively.
So am I, so I will not give you my subjective opinion on the rest of your questions.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on June 13, 2005, 01:35:35 AM
Sigh,

I have talked enough about Leo.  The point is that I agree we misunderstood Leo's intentions, but because of one or two vague sentences, and more because of what we suffered through unjustly, we just rejected the whole thing.  We made that mistake, and you made the mistake of taking things out of context on our side as well.  We were persecuted by Imperial authorites and we put this as if Leo was with the authorities.  Later on, saints like Maximus in the EO were being persecuted by Imperial authorities and as a result we were somewhat to blame.  We misunderstood one another.  The discussion was supposed to be open-hearted and not just to criticize one another.  For that, we can go in circles and show you how your councils were wrong in condemning St. Dioscorus for taking him out of context as well and misunderstanding his words.  Can you believe it?  Orthodoxinfo.com states that St. Dioscorus was condemned for saying "from two natures" and not "of two natures."  I ask, what's the difference?  See how much they take things out of context to justify their claims of heresy against St. Dioscorus.

Nothing is truly justified if that is what you're getting at.  You are right, we must examine everything, and not every heretic's writing we just reject because it was written by a heretic.  But because of certain political situations, both sides took things out of context.  I am not proving that Chalcedonians are wrong and that they should repent.  I am only showing how we interpreted things.

I hope this is the end of it for the Tome of Leo.

Next, why is that you write "objectively" like me?  Is it really "objective" what you wrote or are you just joking?

Quote
No, he was anathemised for rejecting the teachings of an Ecumenical Council.  I repeat (ojectively):

With all due respect there is nothing objective in what you quoted.  I asked you to show me from St. Dioscorus' writings where he erred, and you have not done so.  Instead you quote an "ecumenical" council for me.  I can use the same "objective" tactic and quote Ephesus III and say that "Chalcedon and Leo erred from the faith of the Apostolic Fathers".

If this was a joke, please add a "j/k" because I'm bad at jokes and usually don't get them.

So now that we have proven that Leo was Orthodox, and that his Tome was misunderstood, I also ask you to show the same courtesy of our OO fathers, including St. Dioscorus, for he was also Orthodox and misunderstood.  Do not quote from your sources, but quote from our sources and show us where we've erred.  So far, we have not quoted from our councils to prove that Leo was a heretic.  I ask you, truly objectively with no joke, to do the same.

God bless you and good night.

I'll post tomorrow if necessary.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on June 13, 2005, 01:43:51 AM
One more thing:

Quote
But circumspection is one thing, and "finding" heresy where there is no heresy is quite another.

I like this, and I very much agree.  I contend that this goes the same with St. Dioscorus.

God bless and good night.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 13, 2005, 02:20:09 AM
ÂÂ  Orthodoxinfo.com states that St. Dioscorus was condemned for saying "from two natures" and not "of two natures."ÂÂ  I ask, what's the difference?ÂÂ  ..... I also ask you to show the same courtesy of our OO fathers, including St. Dioscorus, for he was also Orthodox and misunderstood.ÂÂ  Do not quote from your sources, but quote from our sources and show us where we've erred.ÂÂ  So far, we have not quoted from our councils to prove that Leo was a heretic.ÂÂ  I ask you, truly objectively with no joke, to do the same.

The Coptic Synaxarion for Tout 7 quotes Discorus as saying:"The Hypostatic Union of the Word of God with the flesh is like the union of the soul with the body and like the union of fire and iron: even as they are of two different natures, by their union they became one. Likewise, our Lord Christ is one Messiah, one Lord, and one Nature."
Dioscorus says that Christ's Two Natures, by virtue of their union become "One Nature".
"our Lord Christ is one Messiah, one Lord, and one Nature".... Just like "One Lord, one Faith, one baptism".  In Christ, Two Natures become One Nature, (not two) according to Dioscorus. How else can this be interpreted? Since, according to Dioscorus, the Two Natures become One in the Hypostasis of the Incarnate Christ, this must have taken place at the instant of His Incarnation. Therefore, according to Dioscorus, the Incarnate Christ never had Two Natures, He only ever had One Nature. Whether he knew it or not, Dioscorus was teaching monophysitism.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Stavro on June 13, 2005, 02:23:46 AM
Hmmm.........
Perhaps, in actual fact, "the Spirit has spoken through Stavro."
No, it was mistake and a misunderstanding on my behalf, and my reply was in fact directed to you in your reference to St.Dioscoros, yet I misplaced a quote. ÂÂ
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Stavro on June 13, 2005, 02:47:38 AM
Quote
our Lord Christ is one Messiah, one Lord
You emphasized one Messiah and one Lord .....
Do you contest the fact that Christ is one Lord and one Messiah? Be aware that you are falling in the worst possible form of Nestorianism, the" two-son " or "two-person" heresy, if you reject this clear Orthodox teaching.
Quote
Two Natures become One Nature, (not two) according to Dioscorus
The text out of the synaxerium reads "one incarnate nature", and we might excuse you based on possible poor translation.  As such, St.Dioscoros is faithful to his teacher, St.Cyril, in case the latter still means anything to Chalcedonians. This is the expression St.Cyril used throughout his writings.
In addition, while Leo of Rome was clear about separation of the natures of Christ and falling into Nestorianism, there is no single hint of any confusion or mingling between the divine and human nature in the person of Christ in this text. Where is monophysicism expressed exactly ?

St.Dioscoros was not charged with such heresy in Chalcedon, he was excommunicated because he could not go to the council while under house arrest by the council leading figures recommendations to the imperial court, as others explained. If St.Dioscoros was never charged with heresy, and Anatolius of Constantinople - a Chalcedonian leader - expressed it clearly in his reply to the emperial officer who resided over the council, it does not make sense to accuse St.Dioscoros of such heresy. This accusation surfaced later to counter the fact that Chalcedon was received as a Nestorian council by the East.


Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 13, 2005, 02:53:54 AM
Where is monophysicism expressed exactly ?


Dioscorus says: "one Messiah, one Lord, and one Nature". I'm not sure how much clearer it needs to be.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 13, 2005, 02:55:02 AM
ozgeorge,

This is too easy:

Quote
Dioscorus says that Christ's Two Natures, by virtue of their union become "One Nature"………………..

………. Whether he knew it or not, Dioscorus was teaching monophysitism.

Here is what the blessed St Cyril convicts you of concerning the conclusion you have drawn with regards to the blessed St Dioscorus:

"For not only in the case of those who are simple by nature is the term ‘one’ truly used, but also in respect to what has been brought together according to a synthesis, as man is one being, who is of soul and body. For soul and body are of different species and are not consubstantial to each other, but united they produce one Physis of man, even though in the considerations of the synthesis the difference exist according to the nature of those which have been brought together into a unity. Accordingly they are speaking in vain who say that, if there should be one incarnate Physis ÂÂ ‘of the Word’ in every way and in every manner it would follow that a mixture and a confusion occurred as if lessening and taking away the nature of man.’

Please; if you want to commit the obvious and common Chalcedonian logical fallacy of non-sequitor in order to dishonestly label the blessed and holy St Dioscorus a monophysite by virtue of his affirming the One physis of Christ after the union; then at least be consistent in your inept reasoning and do likewise for St Cyril, otherwise you are not only logically incapable, but you are dishonest also.

St Dioscorus in affirming the One Physis of God the Logos incarnate does not deny the continuing reality of the two natures of Christ anymore than St Cyril does; rather the both of them are affirming the individual state of Christ’s existence after the hypostatic union, due to the very en-hypostasization of Christ's humanity by the hypostasis of The Word. Therefore, as the blessed St Cyril accuses you ozgeorge, then so do i: You speak in vain.

St Dioscorus also stated:

“God the Logos, consubstantial with the Father, at the end of the ages for our redemption became consubstantial with man in the flesh, remaining what he was before.” (Sellers, R.V. The Council of Chalcedon p31. n1. S.P.C.K. 1953)

Clearly therefore, St Dioscorus did not deny the continuing reality of the two natures of Christ after the union. The above quotation could not be any more explicit. St Dioscorus also says:

“I know full well, having been brought up in the faith, that he has been begotten of the Father as God, and that the Same has been begotten of Mary as man. See Him walking on the sea as man, and Creator of the heavenly hosts as God; see him sleeping in the boat as man, and walking on the seas as God; see Him hungry as man, and bestowing nourishment as God; see him thirsty as man, and giving drink as God; see him stoned by the Jews as man, and worshipped by angels as God; see him tempted as man, and driving away the demons as God; and similarly of many instances.” (Sellers, R.V. The Council of Chalcedon p32. S.P.C.K. 1953)

On behalf of the great St Cyril, I urge you ozgeorge: do not speak in vain.

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 13, 2005, 03:33:19 AM
Clearly therefore, St Dioscorus did not deny the continuing reality of the two natures of Christ after the union.

Quote
From the Coptic Synaxarion

Tout 7

The Departure of St. Dioscorus, 25th Pope of Alexandria.
On this day of the year 451 A.D., the blessed father and the great champion of Orthodoxy, Saint Dioscorus, 25th Pope of Alexandria, departed. His departure took place on the island of Gagra after he had fought the good fight defending the Orthodox faith.

When he was summoned to the Council of Chalcedon by the order of Emperor Marcianus, he saw a great assembly of 630 bishops. Saint Dioscorus asked, "In whom is the faith lacking that it was necessary to gather this great assembly?" They told him, "This assembly has been convened by the emperor's command." He replied, "If this assembly has been convened by the command of our Lord Jesus Christ I shall stay and speak with what God may give me to say; but if this assembly has been convened by the emperor's command, let the emperor manage his assembly as he pleases."

When he saw that Leo, Archbishop of Rome, was teaching that Christ has two natures and two wills after the Union, he took the charge to refute this new belief. He stated that our Lord Jesus Christ is one, He who was invited to the wedding as a man and changed the water into wine as a God, and that the two natures were not separated in all of His works. Quoting Pope Cyril, he said, "The Hypostatic Union of the Word of God with the flesh is like the union of the soul with the body and like the union of fire and iron: even as they are of two different natures, by their union they became one. Likewise, our Lord Christ is one Messiah, one Lord, and one Nature." .......
Source: http://www.copticchurch.net/classes/synex.php?month=1&day=7&btn=View&lang=

If Dioscorus was not holding to monophysitism, why does your own synaxarion say that he "refuted" this "new" teaching of the "Two Natures" and "Two Wills" after union? Because Dioscorus held that Christ had only One Nature after union as he himself puts it: "even as they are of two different natures by their union they became one.... Likewise, our Lord Christ is one Messiah, one Lord, and one Nature." .......
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 13, 2005, 03:50:44 AM
Quote
If Dioscorus was not holding to monophysitism, why does your own synaxarion say that he "refuted" this "new" teaching of the "Two Natures" and "Two Wills" after union

Because this was understood by the blessed St Dioscorus as a teaching of Christ’s being existent in two independent states of existence; capable of being separated according to action and will, yet also capable of uniting again according to a prosopic union; which is a Nestorian teaching. The expression "in two natures" was an expression unheard of in Orthodox Christology at the time; it was employed exclusively by the Antiochene school which had heretical tendencies, and it was specifically employed by Nestorius and Nestorians in general, to convey the Nestorian heresy. This is the context of St Dioscorus' rejection of this expression.

Ozgeorge, you basically ignored my whole post, in which I quoted for you ST CYRIL’S very explicit statement regarding the matter of One physis; AS WELL AS DIRECT QUOTES FROM ST DIOSCORUS HIMSELF concerning Christ’s acting certain acts according to His divinity (which he affirmed is consubstantial with the Father) and acting other acts according to his humanity (which He affirmed is consubstantial with mankind.)

If you want to remain blissfully and voluntarily ignorant to everything I quoted for you in my previous post; if YOU want to undermine the authority of St Cyril and ridicule him and the letter of his which I quoted for you in which essentially argues that to conclude monophysitism from a declaration of Christ’s One physis is a classic non-sequitor; then this is your problem from here on. The issue is no longer between you and I, or you and minasoliman, or even you and the authoritative professors of metaphysics which you struggled and failed to undermine. This is now between you and your conscious.

I have nothing further to say; im not going to repeat myself over and over again as if I’m speaking to a kid.

St Cyril the great:
“Accordingly they [i.e. ozgeorge] are speaking in vain who say that, if there should be one incarnate PhysisÂÂ  ‘of the Word’ in every way and in every manner it would follow that a mixture and a confusion occurred as if lessening and taking away the nature of man.’”

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: alexp4uni on June 13, 2005, 04:04:53 AM
Quote
When he was summoned to the Council of Chalcedon by the order of Emperor Marcianus..."In whom is the faith lacking that it was necessary to gather this great assembly?" They told him, "This assembly has been convened by the emperor's command." He replied, "If this assembly has been convened by the command of our Lord Jesus Christ I shall stay and speak with what God may give me to say; but if this assembly has been convened by the emperor's command, let the emperor manage his assembly as he pleases."

Also another point is It seems Dioscorus has a bit of arrogance when he responds to the message of the Emperor. Doesn't a council need to be deemed by a ruler to bring together not of specific of Christ to the individual but of the Holy Spirit under of one group of people to decide? So this is to say that many people under Byzantium have been irritated by Emperors ruling factor in the decision making. (I don't know of what decision they have declared perhaps someone can say some thought on the deciding factors of a Council when it comes to the result)
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 13, 2005, 04:28:28 AM
St Cyril the great:
“Accordingly they [i.e. ozgeorge] are speaking in vain who say that, if there should be one incarnate PhysisÂÂ  ‘of the Word’ in every way and in every manner it would follow that a mixture and a confusion occurred as if lessening and taking away the nature of man.’”

From St. Cyril's Epistle to John of Antioch.
"With regard to the Evangelical and Apostolic expressions concerning the Lord, we know that men who are skilled in theology make some of them common to the one Person, while they divide others between the two Natures, ascribing those that are fitting to God to Divinity of Christ, and those that are lowly to His Humanity. On reading these sacred utterances of Yours, and finding that we ourselves think along the same lines—for there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism—, we glorified God the Saviour of all"

St. Cyril clearly neither espouses monophysitism, nor what you would call "miaphysitism".
So you see EA, the only "anathema" I am under is Dioscorus' who anathemised all who confess the Two Natures (and, possibly, your anathema).

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 13, 2005, 05:15:47 AM
Ozgeorge,

It seems that you’ve gone bankrupt.

John of Antioch was initially a supporter of Nestorius and in direct opposition to St Cyril and the Council of Ephesus. St Cyril being the righteous saint that he is, and thus a peacemaker, decided to develop the reunion formula which incorporated the Antiochene concerns and hence brought John of Antioch back into the Orthodox fold upon his acquiescence of it. There was still a large faction of the Antiochene’s who were not satisfied, even with the re-union formula; especially the Nestorians - the "in two natures" expression was dominant in their school of thought. Obviously you are unable of having due regard or consideration for the historical circumstances at the time; it seems you would rather do a kindergarten historical analysis by considering the historical actions/reactions or sayings of a figure in a vacuum, ripped out of their historical context.

St Cyril affirmed One Physis. Period. Are you going to deny this? If you are not going to deny this, then are you going to call St Cyril a monophysite? If you are not going to call St Cyril a monophysite, then why do you do the same concerning his lawful successors St Dioscorus and St Timothy; especially when it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that they affirm One physis after the union in faithful adherence to their predecessors' Christololgy, and in the same context , for in the same breath they declare the very consubstantiality of Christ to mankind, which directly contradicts the notion of a co-mingling or confusion of the two ousias.

In short, Miaphysis Christology is not in contradiction to a two nature Christology PER SE when the term physis is understood according to different contexts - two natures according to the reality of Christ's existence, and One nature according to the state of Christ's existence. To affirm that there is a contradiction is to commit the categorical fallacy: http://www.flipsideshow.com/IIF1--LogicalFallacyList.htm Please study this list of logical fallacies, so that you may refrain from falling into any again. I don’t want to keep correcting you.

Quote
So you see EA, the only "anathema" I am under is Dioscorus' who anathemised all who confess the Two Natures (and, possibly, yours).

How many times do we have to run around in circles? The anathema placed on Leo and all those who adhere to his Christology, is done so according to the assumption that Leo’s two nature Christology was a crypto-Nestorian one; an affirmation and understanding of Christ’s two natures in the sense that they are two independent states of existence. Though we have been arguing that this assumption may have been an objectively reasonable one to make, our hierarchs being the honest and righteous men of God that they are, have affirmed that they are ready to lift the anathemas upon recognition, that in the context of the subsequent councils to Chalcedon, the subjective intentions of the Eastern Church have been clarified such that in the context of these latter councils, no form of Nestorianism can even be objectively interpreted.

LIKEWISE, ozgeorge mr. double standards, YOU and YOUR church will have to recognize that the assumption upon which the blessed St Dioscorus confessor of the Orthodox faith, was anathemized, was likewise a FALSE ASSUMPTION. I have proven this to you; you cannot deny what is written in black and white; the quotes of St Dioscorus which I pasted for you were even taken from a pro-Chalcedonian textbook!

I repeat through the words of St Cyril; your attempt to derive monophysitism from a mere declaration of the One physis of Christ after the union is IN VAIN, it is a NON-SEQUITOR. Period. I am not calling you names any more than St Cyril is; we are simply declaring a fact.

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 13, 2005, 05:53:13 AM
I am not calling you names

Really? Then I must have misunderstood you when you accused me of :

kindergarten historical analysis.....you’ve gone bankrupt
and called me:
mr. double standards
all in the same post and placed me under St. Cyril’s anathema in your previous one.

Why should anyone believe your arguments when you can't you even tell the truth in the face of contemporary facts? You are calling me names EA, despite your denial. (A bit like your denial that St. Cyril pre-emptively affirmed the Faith of Chalcedon.)

John of Antioch was initially a supporter of Nestorius and in direct opposition to St Cyril and the Council of Ephesus. St Cyril being the righteous saint that he is, and thus a peacemaker, decided to develop the reunion formula which incorporated the Antiochene concerns and hence brought John of Antioch back into the Orthodox fold upon his acquiescence of it. There was still a large faction of the Antiochene’s who were not satisfied, even with the re-union formula; especially the Nestorians - the "in two natures" expression was dominant in their school of thought. Obviously you are unable of having due regard or consideration for the historical circumstances at the time;

Oh, I see. So you are saying that St. Cyril was only making concessions to the Nestorians when he agrees in his letter to St John of Antioch that Christ has Two distinct Natures with different attributes….St. Cyril is not pre-emptively affirming the faith of Chalcedon in his letter, he is simply agreeing with Nestorians…….
Give me a break! Sounds like a bit of a "kindergarten historical analysis" to me.

ozgeorge,
This is too easy:
Really? then why the need for all the mental acrobatics and resorting to your own unsubstantiated version of historical contexts. The statement "this is too easy" has as much basis in fact as "I am not calling you names mr. double standards".

The Truth will set you free.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 13, 2005, 07:09:16 AM
Quote
Really? Then I must have misunderstood you when you accused me of :
Quote from: EkhristosAnesti on Today at 05:15:47 AM
kindergarten historical analysis.....you’ve gone bankrupt

Applying metaphors which appropriately and reasonably describe the nature of one’s failed arguments; arguments which have been employed in a vain attempt to prove that The One Holy Universal and Apostolic Orthodox Church (“non-chalcedonian church”) ever ascribed to any sort of heresy, is not the same as name calling. It’s not like I called you an idiot. There was no reference made to your person sir; I accused you of double standards and shoddy research; this does not classify as ad hominem for I have the right to point out and prove the fallacies of anothers argument.ÂÂ  

In kindergarten I doubt they expect you to take historical context into consideration; likewise you felt the need to rip the mere affirmation of “One physis” and the rejection of “two physis”; not only out of its historical context, but its Christological, and linguistic context. Since in a particular context, physis was understood by St Cyril and his legitimate successors in a hypostatic sense, I could likewise rip your affirmation of two physis out of context and conclude exclusively from that, that your fathers were affirming two hypostasis in Christ; and by doing so I would be doing nothing more than arguing consistently with your flawed approach to this whole issue.

Quote
Oh, I see. So you are saying that St. Cyril was only making concessions to the Nestorians when he agrees in his letter to St John of Antioch that Christ has Two distinct Natures with different attributes….

First of all, I never said that St Cyril was making concessions to the Nestorians. It seems like putting words into the mouths of others is common for you. Not only have you done it to me before, but minsasoliman rebuked you for doing it to him previously also. The Antiochene’s stressed the two natures of Christ beyond what is reasonable. St Cyril made concessions for their concerns that the unity of Christ was being over-stressed; not for their abuse of a two-nature Christology.

That St Cyril agrees with the fact that Christ possesses two distinct natures with different attributes per se is not an issue. I agree with this, my Church agrees with this, as did St Dioscorus. If St Dioscorus did not agree that there were to two distinct natures in Christ, he would not and most importantly COULD NOT have affirmed that Christ was consubstantial with the Father and mankind simultaneously, for the corollary of this is that Christ possesses a complete and perfect divine nature and a complete perfect human nature simultaneously. In your vain attempt to discredit the blessed St Dioscorus, you overlooked a particular sentence in the synaxarium:

“He [St Dioscorus] stated…the two natures were not separated in all of His works.” In order to declare that the two natures could not be separated in all of His works, is to first presuppose the possession of two natures. St Cyril stressed many times that two natures were to be spoken of in contemplation/thought alone; those who were faithful to his Christology were sensitive with regards to the manner in which one declares two natures after the union; not because of a denial that Christ possessed a complete divine and complete human nature, but because the unity of Christ was the Orthodox emphasis, and the only appropriate emphasis according to the historical period in question when Nestorianism was still influential and an immediate threat to the Church.

His affirmation of One physis after the union simply entails (as it did with St Cyril) that these two distinct natures constituted one individual concrete state of existence in Christ, once the distinct humanity of Christ was en-hypostasized by the hypostasis of The Word.

Quote
A bit like your denial that St. Cyril pre-emptively affirmed the Faith of Chalcedon.)

If you think St Cyril’s affirmation of two natures per se (which he affirmed WITH AN AFFIRMATION OF ONE PHYSIS) automatically entails an acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon, then……no comment — I’ll rub things in when I have the time for it....Its funny how you have to resort to wild unwarranted speculations. I suggest you do a study of St Cyril's Christology and compare it side by side with the Tome of Leo and the Nestorian Three Chapters; both documents which were vindicated at Chalcedon.

I realise that ever since I proved a few posts ago, that your manner of expressing the actions of Christ falls under the 12th anathema of St Cyril, that you've been getting a bit defensive, and this has distorted your ability to be reasonable. I will promise to make a stop here, I don't want to upset you further. Be happy with Chalcedon; I am happy without it - It was a superflous historical error. I don't need a council of schism to affirm the two essences/natures of Christ which constitue His Mia Physis, my Church adopted these principles before Chalcedon and maintained them without it.

Peace.

Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 13, 2005, 08:01:12 AM
Applying metaphors which appropriately and reasonably describe the nature of one’s failed arguments; arguments which have been employed in a vain attempt to prove that The One Holy Universal and Apostolic Orthodox Church (“non-chalcedonian church”) ever ascribed to any sort of heresy, is not the same as name calling. It’s not like I called you an idiot. There was no reference made to your person sir; I accused you of double standards and shoddy research; this does not classify as ad hominem for I have the right to point out and prove the fallacies of anothers argument.
Yes, and you have the right to call me names, just admit that you are doing it!ÂÂ  "mr. double standards" is name-calling. I don't care what you call me, just don't say things like "I'm not name calling" and then call people names, and then deny that you are doing it! This is called denial, and denial stands for:
Don't
Even
Notice
I
Am
Lying

That St Cyril agrees with the fact that Christ possesses two distinct natures with different attributes per se is not an issue. I agree with this, my Church agrees with this, as did St Dioscorus.
So why did he deny it when asked at the Council of Chalcedon?

If St Dioscorus did not agree that there were to two distinct natures in Christ, he would not and most importantly COULD NOT have affirmed that Christ was consubstantial with the Father and mankind simultaneously, for the corollary of this is that Christ possesses a complete and perfect divine nature and a complete perfect human nature simultaneously. In your vain attempt to discredit the blessed St Dioscorus, you overlooked a particular sentence in the synaxarium:“He [St Dioscorus] stated…the two natures were not separated in all of His works.”
And you have overlooked the fact that although he says Christ has Two Natures, they became One Nature. So his statement that "the two natures were not separated in all of His works" simply reaffirms his belief that the One Nature operated in all His works. The same sort of non-committal stuff I hear in the dialogues between the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians: "of course we believe the faith as expressed in the Seven Ecumenical Councils, but we refuse to aknowledge them or submit to them." Is this mere politics, or do we in fact not share the same faith?


In order to declare that the two natures could not be separated in all of His works, is to first presuppose the possession of two natures.
I think you'll find I've aknowledged this in all my posts.......Let me repeat again, Dioscorsus said the Two Distinct Natures became one nature and functioned as one nature....what you now call "miaphysis".

St Cyril stressed many times that two natures were to be spoken of in contemplation/thought alone;
.
Of course he did, because we are talking about ineffable mysteries. He was trying to prevent people from taking things literally and applying their own mental concepts on to Divine Truths (a bit like you trying to tell me earlier in this threadr that "Personhood" is defined by "intellect/rationale".)

His affirmation of One physis after the union simply entails (as it did with St Cyril) that these two distinct natures constituted one individual concrete state of existence in Christ, once the distinct humanity of Christ was en-hypostasized by the hypostasis of The Word.
......
Which he calls "One Nature" or "miaphysis"....
I know.....how many times do I have to tell you? This is exactly why your Synaxarion says he refuted the faith of Chalcedon, because (as he himself said) there is only One Nature. This is why you consider him a confessor for your faith- because he refuted the "new" dogmas of Chalcedon as your Synaxarion puts it. He denied that Christ has Two Natures and Two Wills. Let me again repeat what your Synaxarion says about him:
"When he saw that Leo, Archbishop of Rome, was teaching that Christ has two natures and two wills after the Union, he took the charge to refute this new belief. " Do you see what your Synaxaion says? He refuted the dogma of the Two Wills and the Two Natures.

If you think St Cyril’s affirmation of two natures per se (which he affirmed WITH AN AFFIRMATION OF ONE PHYSIS) automatically entails an acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon, then……no comment — I’ll rub things in when I have the time for it....
Shaking in my boots.

I realise that ever since I proved a few posts ago, that your manner of expressing the actions of Christ falls under the 12th anathema of St Cyril, that you've been getting a bit defensive,
How uncannily like Ahmed Deedat this sounds who said "I can smell your fear"..........it's almost as if.....
Quote
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 13, 2005, 08:43:56 AM
Quote
"mr. double standards" is name-calling. I don't care what you call me, just don't say things like "I'm not name calling" and then call people names

It is not a reference to your person; a "double standard" is not an adjective that can qualify one's person, it is a noun denoting a logical fallacy. Simple as that. Take it as you wish, i realise you're desparate for anything you can get at the moment. I have the patience for you my friend, believe me.

Quote
So why did he deny it when asked at the Council of Chalcedon?

Do you even read my posts?

Quote
Quote
Quote
If Dioscorus was not holding to monophysitism, why does your own synaxarion say that he "refuted" this "new" teaching of the "Two Natures" and "Two Wills" after union

Because this was understood by the blessed St Dioscorus as a teaching of Christ’s being existent in two independent states of existence; capable of being separated according to action and will, yet also capable of uniting again according to a prosopic union; which is a Nestorian teaching. The expression "in two natures" was an expression unheard of in Orthodox Christology at the time; it was employed exclusively by the Antiochene school which had heretical tendencies, and it was specifically employed by Nestorius and Nestorians in general, to convey the Nestorian heresy. This is the context of St Dioscorus' rejection of this expression.

Quote
And you have overlooked the fact that although he says Christ has Two Natures, they became One Nature.

Round and round we go:

And you have overlooked the fact that a) St Cyril affirmed that after the union Christ possessed One physis and that b) St Dioscorus affirmed Christ’s mia physis IN THE SAME CONTEXT AS ST CYRIL DID, alongside an affirmation of the consubstantiality of Christ to mankind and the Father and hence the ultimate corollary of that; i.e. that Christ possesses a complete humanity and complete divinity.

a)   St Cyril says:

"For not only in the case of those who are simple by nature is the term ‘one’ truly used, but also in respect to what has been brought together according to a synthesis, as man is one being, who is of soul and body. For soul and body are of different species and are not consubstantial to each other, but united they produce one Physis of man, even though in the considerations of the synthesis the difference exist according to the nature of those which have been brought together into a unity. Accordingly they are speaking in vain who say that, if there should be one incarnate NATURE/PHYSIS ‘of the Word’ in every way and in every manner it would follow that a mixture and a confusion occurred as if lessening and taking away the nature of man.’

b)   “God the Logos, consubstantial with the Father, at the end of the ages for our redemption became consubstantial with man in the flesh, remaining what he was before.” (Sellers, R.V. The Council of Chalcedon p31. n1. S.P.C.K. 1953)

and:

“I know full well, having been brought up in the faith, that he has been begotten of the Father as God, and that the Same has been begotten of Mary as man. See Him walking on the sea as man, and Creator of the heavenly hosts as God; see him sleeping in the boat as man, and walking on the seas as God; see Him hungry as man, and bestowing nourishment as God; see him thirsty as man, and giving drink as God; see him stoned by the Jews as man, and worshipped by angels as God; see him tempted as man, and driving away the demons as God; and similarly of many instances.” (Sellers, R.V. The Council of Chalcedon p32. S.P.C.K. 1953)

The affirmation of Mia physis in the context of St Cyril and St Dioscorus concerns the state of Christ’s existence, the nature of the hypostatic union. St Cyril says to ozgeorge: "Accordingly [ozgeorge is] speaking in vain  who say that, if there should be one incarnate NATURE/PHYSIS ‘of the Word’ in every way and in every manner it would follow that a mixture and a confusion occurred as if lessening and taking away the nature of man."

Quote
Let me repeat again, Dioscorsus said the Two Distinct Natures became one nature and functioned as one nature....what you now call "miaphysis".

In His letter to Succensus Bishop of Diocaesarea in Isauria, Saint Cyril of Alexandria wrote: “…and as the holy Fathers have said, there is one nature/physis of the Word (of God) made flesh.”

Let me repeat again:

a) St Cyril affirmed that after the union Christ possessed One physis and that b) St Dioscorus affirmed Christ’s mia physis alongside an affirmation of the consubstantiality of Christ to mankind and the Father and hence the ultimate corollary of that; i.e. that Christ possesses a complete humanity and complete divinity.

a)   St Cyril states:

"For not only in the case of those who are simple by nature is the term ‘one’ truly used, but also in respect to what has been brought together according to a synthesis, as man is one being, who is of soul and body. For soul and body are of different species and are not consubstantial to each other, but united they produce one Physis of man, even though in the considerations of the synthesis the difference exist according to the nature of those which have been brought together into a unity. Accordingly they are speaking in vain who say that, if there should be one incarnate PhysisÂÂ  ‘of the Word’ in every way and in every manner it would follow that a mixture and a confusion occurred as if lessening and taking away the nature of man.’

b)   “God the Logos, consubstantial with the Father, at the end of the ages for our redemption became consubstantial with man in the flesh, remaining what he was before.” (Sellers, R.V. The Council of Chalcedon p31. n1. S.P.C.K. 1953)

and:

“I know full well, having been brought up in the faith, that he has been begotten of the Father as God, and that the Same has been begotten of Mary as man. See Him walking on the sea as man, and Creator of the heavenly hosts as God; see him sleeping in the boat as man, and walking on the seas as God; see Him hungry as man, and bestowing nourishment as God; see him thirsty as man, and giving drink as God; see him stoned by the Jews as man, and worshipped by angels as God; see him tempted as man, and driving away the demons as God; and similarly of many instances.” (Sellers, R.V. The Council of Chalcedon p32. S.P.C.K. 1953)

The affirmation of Mia physis in the context of St Cyril and St Dioscorus concerns the state of Christ’s existence, the nature of the hypostatic union.

Quote
I know.....how many times do I have to tell you? This is exactly why your Synaxarion says he refuted the faith of Chalcedon, because (as he himself said) there is only One Nature.

This is under the assumption that Chalcedon’s affirmation of two natures pertains to the state of his existence; one that can be read into Chalcedon as a result of it’s ambiguity as has been shown to you already. Remmeber....your conception of the flesh as the subject of Christ's action...talk that was anathemized in St Cyril's 12th chapter, when he declared that he who does not affirm the Divine Person as the subject of Christ's incarnate experiences, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA?

The same synaxarium which you quote from, proves that St Dioscorus did not deny the continuing reality of the two natures; he simply affirmed ALONG WITH ST CYRIL that their union constitutes mia physis which is similar to affirming one hypostasis after the union, yet in terminology that is understood explicitly by Nestorius, the heretic who had a party over your council. The faith which the synaxarium assumes he refutes, is not the affirmation of two natures in its essentialistic sense, but the understanding of two natures in its dynamic sense which has the corollary implications that Christ's humanity possessed hypostatic qualities, in and of itself.

Again I remind you of St Cyril’s Christology. Here is quote of St Cyril from another letter:

In His letter to Succensus Bishop of Diocaesarea in Isauria, Saint Cyril of Alexandria wrote: and as the holy Fathers have said, there is one NATURE/physis of the Word (of God) made flesh.”

Quote
How uncannily like Ahmed Deedat this sounds who said "I can smell your fear"

Again, you find it necessary to put words into my mouth. I understand your position. I never mentioned fear - I said you were getting defensive. I simply made an observation which I believe can be verified by anyone for themselves; that from the moment I proved that St Cyril anathemized your heretical speech, you have had a change in tone, and strenuously tried to pick out anything and everything to respond to, even to the point where I have to repeat myself such that consequently you end up looking.....(now if i had completed THAT sentence, then we could have called it "name-calling")

Quote
........it's almost as if.....

Almost as if what ozgeorge? As if I and ahmed_deedat are a team? Or maybe I'm pschizophrenic, an Orthodox Christian one day, and an Orthodox muslim under the name of Deedat another day, such that I argue against myself without even knowing it! Now thats what I call spiritual warfare! Oooh the conspiracy theories ozgeorge! You are onto something my friend...

Now you've turned from defensive --> desparate and delusional. Nice, what's next? Can't wait to find out...

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Doubting Thomas on June 13, 2005, 09:02:18 AM
Dear Friend,
Nestorius could just as easily twist the Pre-Incarnate and Incarnate Word as two prosopa of Christ that are the same image. If you have anathemised St. Leo because you think his teaching can be misunderstood, then you must also anathamise St. Cyril for the same reason.

And this was my point exactly.  (I've been out of town--I'll try to respond to EA and Stavro's responses to my last post later on today if I can).
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 13, 2005, 09:18:22 AM
Ozgeorge,

Wasn’t it you that recommended the following article: http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.08.en.st._cyrils_one_physis_or_hypostasis_of_god_the_log.htm

In which it states:

Quote
Dioscoros, however, claimed that Flavian contradicted himself by accepting two natures after the union. The strange thing is that both were correct, since for Flavian physis meant ousia, whereas for Dioscoros it meant hypostasis.

So according to this article which you espouse, St Dioscorus’ stress on the One physis after the union, pertains to the fact that after the hypostasis of The Word assumed humanity; the ultimate result was ONE hypostasis, since the humanity of Christ was not a separate hypostasis added to the hypostasis of The Word, but was rather en-hypostasized by the hypostasis of the Word. This is the context to St Dioscorus' affirmation of One in contrast to two physis after the union, which you insist on deceptively and dishonestly disregarding as you have done so for the past 5 posts. Shame on you.

Do I have to do ALL your homework for you, including the reading of your OWN articles? And if you DID read this article and DO espouse it, then WHY do you keep insisting that St Dioscorus' stress of the Cyrillian forumula is heretical?

What a joke…

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 13, 2005, 09:23:14 AM
I'll try to respond to EA and Stavro's responses to my last post later on today if I can).
I wouldn't bother, unless you enjoy merry-go-rounds.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 13, 2005, 09:27:11 AM
Wasn’t it you that recommended the following article:
Yes, it was....
and I also distinctly remember saying that Fr. Romanides is the Voice for the entire Eastern Orthodox Church and is infallible and ........
Wasn;t it you who's arguments depend on the inane theories of one Prof. Bittle that have been debunked? Do I have to do all your homework for you?
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 13, 2005, 09:48:40 AM
Quote
and I also distinctly remember saying that Fr. Romanides is the Voice for the entire Eastern Orthodox Church and is infallible and ........

LOL what a cop out. Just admit you are absolutely clueless with regards to this whole issue - the history, the logic, the facts, all of it; and that despite your recommendation of the article as a “pretty good summary of the Eastern Orthodox position” it’s obvious you did not even read it FOR THE UNDERLYING PRESUPPOSITION TO THE WHOLE ARTICLE is that physis in its Alexandrian context i.e. as employed by St Cyril and St Dioscorus, is synonymous with HYPOSTASIS.

Fr. Romanides view is historically accurate and honest. Yours has no substance, it is desparate and delusional. 

You want to call St Dioscorus a monophysite for affirming one nature, yet you’re not man enough to be consistent and apply the same title to his immediate predecessor who used the title before him. We provide you with direct and explicit quotations of St Dioscorus from a pro-Chalcedonian textbook, proving that he didn’t understand the ultimate one nature of Christ in its essentialistic sense, but rather in its dynamic sense such that it’s synonymous to hypostasis, yet you continue to ignore this, and blindly continue to purport argumentum ad ignoratium which consequently undermines the great St Cyril whom you supposedly commemorated a few days ago.

Don’t let satan play you ozgeorge.

Quote
Wasn;t it you who's arguments depend on the inane theories of one Prof. Bittle that have been debunked?

My arguments weren’t dependent on anything in the first place, they’re supported by St Cyril's 12th anathema first and foremost which declares that the PERSON of Christ acted according to or "in" His NATURES, which is simply common sense. Obviously St Cyril was not authoritative enough for you, so I thought I would bring in authorities in the field of metaphysics to further elucidate the issue. Unfortunately you invented your own version of metaphysics in your own little world. How nice.

Quote
Prof. Bittle that have been debunked

Prof. Bittle was debunked? You mean when you said “Stupid Prof. Bittle!” lol I refer everyone and anyone to the relevant discussion that began here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=6373.msg82787#msg82787

I’m sure they can make up their minds for themselves  ;)

Peace. 
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 13, 2005, 10:01:31 AM
You want to call St Dioscorus a monophysite for affirming one nature, yet you’re not man enough to be consistent and apply the same title to his immediate predecessor who used the title before him.
Nice attempt to twist it. If you remember, what I am saying is that Dioscorus is not saying the same thing as St. Cyril. St. Cyril is not Dioscorus' predessesor- you and Dioscorua just think he is. Of course I can say publically that Dioscorus' predessesor is a heretic, because his predessesor is not St. Cyril, its Eutyches.
Let me therefore solemly declare that Dioscorus and his predessesor are both heretics.

Is that "man enough" for you?

I'm off to bed..... Goodnight.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 13, 2005, 10:16:26 AM
Quote
If you remember, what I am saying is that Dioscorus is not saying the same thing as St. Cyril.

Yes, yes, we know that all you have is baseless assertions. We are still waiting for the evidence. Constantly pointing out that St Dioscorus insisted on one physis after the union tells us nothing about what he meant by this; obviously in your satanic agenda to undermine an Orthodox confessor of the faith, you need to regress into the logical fallacy known as non-sequitor by which you conclude a proposition which does not necessarily follow from the premise. We have provided you with the context of St Dioscorus’ statement, we are still waiting for you to deal with the direct quotes from St Dioscorus which have been pasted for you repeatedly:
 
St Cyril confirms One physis after the union.
St Dioscorus confirms One physis after the union.

St Cyril says that Christ is consubstantial with mankind.
St Dioscorus says that Christ is consubstantial with mankind.

St Cyril says that Christ acts according to His divinity at times and according to His humanity at times.
St Dioscorus says that Christ acts according to His divinity at times and according to His humanity at times.

St Cyril says that Christ's two essences cannot be separated after the union; thereby presupposing a possession of two essences - since the human essence only came into being at the hypostatic union anyway.
St Dioscorus says that Christ's two essences cannot be separated after the union; thereby presupposing a possession of two essences - since the human essence only came into being at the hypostatic union anyway.

Conclusion:
St Cyril and St Dioscorus declared the same faith in the same context.

Quote
Let me therefore solemly declare that Dioscorus and his predessesor are both heretics.

May God forgive and have mercy on you, through the intercessions of the blessed St Dioscorus. May he pray for you like he did for those who persecuted him.

Amen, Kyrie Eleison.

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Anastasios on June 13, 2005, 11:35:14 AM
I have just warned ozgeorge for his comments about Dioscorus of Alexandria and I have warned EkhristosAnesti for statements that ozgeorge and others found to be ad hominem. Please fellows, keep discussing the facts and do not get so wrapped up in emotionalism. These kinds of serious debates are necessary and good, and I don't want to have to close this thread.

Anastasios
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on June 13, 2005, 11:40:39 AM
Good morning everyone.

Dear ozgeorge,

I really hope that you are this time joking.  After all the proof exhausted by EA, I have a feeling that you only want to do this to make us feel the same frustration you felt when defending the Tome of Leo.  If that's the case, then you've sure taught us the lesson.

But seriously, come on now?  Where in the Synexarium did it declare that there was a confusion of natures and wills?  "One nature" is simply anonymous to "one hypostasis."  For example, the three natures of man (spirit, soul, and body) are united as one nature without mixing or division.  St. Cyril used that analogy to explain his "one incarnate nature."  As for the "one will" I showed you before this means that the prosopon is the center of all decision making.  Two natures don't make "two simultaneous decisions" for that would be Nestorian, but there would be "two desires."  St. Dioscorus thought Leo taught two hypostases and two decisions.  That is all.  We misunderstood one another.  The EO councils misunderstood St. Dioscorus.  Fr. John Romanides writes in this website:

http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.06.en.orthodox_and_oriental_orthodox_consultation.htm

Quote
We take Leo of Rome as representative of the problems of unity between us which were created on the Chalcedonian side and Dioscoros as representative of what had been done on the Oriental side. It is around these persons that the central events revolved which produced the final division which we have inherited between us. The point in history where we seem to be at present is that of the lifting of the anathemas against Leo and the Council of Chalcedon, which means the cleaning of the slate on the Chalcedonian side, with the same holding true about Dioscoros and his followers on the Oriental Orthodox side. To clear Dioscoros of doctrinal error should mean the clearing of the slate for those of his followers to be rehabilitated also, as far as the patristic period is concerned. Leo of Rome has no followers so to speak of on the Orthodox side in need of being cleared. It would also seem that agreement that both Leo and Dioscoros were doctrinally Orthodox would then put the problem of their restoration on a non-Christological doctrinal plane, but on a canonical plane. In such a case the reversal of condemnations by Ecumenical and local Councils can be dealt with as canonical, rather than doctrinal problems.


I remember earlier you recommended another article by him.  This is why I believe you are joking, that you are only frustrating us, instead of proving St. Dioscorus a heretic.

But please let us stop joking.  Let us be serious.  Fr. John has a spirit of understanding.  This whole article explains very well a vindication of both sides.  This is what I call objective.  He does not take things out of context (as both our side showed on the Tome and you showed on the Synexarium), but tries to find the essence of what these things meant, and no doubt, with great evidence as both our sides showed in this dizzying debate, we both speak the same faith.

God bless you, brother.

In Christ always,

Mina

PS  some people get confused and think I'm a girl...let the record be clear "Mina" is an Egyptian guy :) (some people did this mistake to me online in other websites before)
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: cizinec on June 13, 2005, 12:36:33 PM
Stavro,

I haven’t had time to read this entire thread, so be a little patient.  I just wanted to respond to a couple of things before I get too far behind.

Quote
stretching this logic a little more, we will excuse Nestorius of heresy as long as we are playing the guessing game of what he really meant, although his writings are clear and obvious and did not lack clarity in rejecting Orthodox dogmas.

Well, I wish we had a “Nestorian” posting on this board.  They hold argue that they and Nestorius never taught “Nestorianism” and that Nestorianism was just a ploy.  If I’m going to be fair, I’m not going to take your charge as axiomatic if you want me to not take the charges against OOs as axiomatic.

Quote
Note that such trends exist already in christian literature and extends to include Arianism as a big fat misunderstanding.

. . . so we should reject that conclusion without any discussion.  Arianism is an extreme case compared to the divisions between “Nestorians,” OOs and EOs.  There were definitely linguistic misunderstandings involved in all these cases. 

In any case, current Nestorians reject Nestorianism, OOs reject monophysitism and EOs reject Nestorianism.

Quote
the rejection of Leo's Tome by the OO cannot be simply attributed to terminology and semantic

Since I don’t reject the Tome, I can’t attribute the OO rejection to anything.  If it’s because they say the Tome says something than the EOs say it doesn’t say, then language is a pretty prominent suspect.

I still don’t have one question that’s bugging me answered.

If Chalcedon was a reaffirmation of Nestorianism, why are we separated from Nestorians?  Why wasn’t there a joyful reunion?
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Anastasios on June 13, 2005, 12:57:18 PM
Dioscorus says: "one Messiah, one Lord, and one Nature". I'm not sure how much clearer it needs to be.


George,

While I am a Chalcedonian, I can't believe you actually said this.  I think it's clear from the context that Dioscorus is using the term nature the way we use person.

Anastasios
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: cizinec on June 13, 2005, 01:57:51 PM
Wow.  I don't think I read my last post before I posted it.  Look at that grammar.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 13, 2005, 06:26:58 PM
While I am a Chalcedonian, I can't believe you actually said this.ÂÂ  I think it's clear from the context that Dioscorus is using the term nature the way we use person.

I don't think this is at all clear from the context. The context (which is the Coptic Synaxarion) is this:

1) The Council of Chalcedon introduces a "new" doctrine that Christ has "Two Natures" and "Two Wills"
2) Dioscorus is summoned and asked whether he accepts this "new" doctrine.
3) Dioscorus refutes it saying that Christ has One Nature resulting from the fusion of two.
"When he saw that Leo, Archbishop of Rome, was teaching that Christ has two natures and two wills after the Union, he took the charge to refute this new belief. "

I am not saying that this is what all non-Chalcedon's today believe. I am saying this is what Dioscorus' publically said he believed.
However, when I denied this doctrine of Dioscorus and affirmed the doctrine of the Two Natures, I am placed under the (non-existent) anathema of St. Cyril by a non-chalcedonian......
"Accordingly they are speaking in vain who say that, if there should be one incarnate PhysisÂÂ  ‘of the Word’ in every way and in every manner it would follow that a mixture and a confusion occurred as if lessening and taking away the nature of man."
While St. Cyril can be understood to be using "Nature" in the sense of "person" (a fact which is clear from his acceptance of the Two Natures in his letter to John of Antioch), Dioscorus cannot, since his statement was in response to a direct question as to whether Christ has Two Natures.
And again, when I pointed St. Cyril's letter to John of Antioch out, one particular non-chalcedon dismissed it as a "concession".

So I disagree. It is not as clear as you think.

btw, just FYI, If you sent me a warning by pm, I haven't received it. The only pm I have is from EA.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: idontlikenames on June 13, 2005, 07:13:34 PM
As I've seen countless times on OC.net, this is just another thread where we try to prove how erudite and intelligent each one of us is (a game I can easily play as well, but am mature enough not to).....apparently some of us are not comfortable with our looks or organ-size or what-have-you....or cannot simply rest self-assured in the 10-year-college-education that our rich, doctor daddies paid for.

Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on June 13, 2005, 07:23:22 PM
Dear ozgeorge,

What you quote has nothing to do with what St. Dioscorus believed, but with what St. Dioscorus thought Leo believed (i.e. Nestorianism).  We showed you the circumstances upon which we rejected one another.

Quotes like "He taught something new" and "He refuted it with one nature" does not say anything about what St. Dioscorus believed.  Please, you haven't found anything explicitly heretical as of yet from St. Dioscorus' claims and writings.  Publicly in Chalcedon, no one could convict him of heresy to his face because he said nothing different from St. Cyril.

So the author of the Synexarium is obviously wrong and misunderstood Leo's intentions in the faith.  That's all.

Here are some real life quotes from OC.net member "Raouf" who is a very knowledgeable person:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,798.45.html

He quotes some of the famous OO fathers, the first couple of quotes being those of St. Dioscorus himself.  Any of those you find offensive to the Orthodox faith, then let us know.

God bless you, brother.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 13, 2005, 07:36:01 PM
Ozgeorge,


Quote
1)   The Council of Chalcedon introduces a "new" doctrine that Christ has "Two Natures" and "Two Wills"

The Coptic Synaxarium was written under the assumption that the Chalcedonian two-nature Christology was in reference to two independent states of existence i.e. hypostasis. St Dioscorus was not rejecting a two-nature Christology as it is understood in the context of the latter councils, or as you would have us believe, in the context of Chalcedon itself which according to you is sufficient in itself — but we can agree to disagree on that — rather he was rejecting it in the manner that he understood it, in a Nestorian context; the manner in which I have argued can be reasonably misinterpreted (whether you disagree with that fact or not is irrelevant to the point im making) as it was done so by the great King of Nestorians, Nestorius himself.


Quote
2)   Dioscorus refutes it saying that Christ has One Nature resulting from the fusion of two.

“Fusion”? Really? Where does it say “fusion”? Ozgeorge enough of the deceit, ENOUGH. This is a non-sequitor that has been debunked a hundred times, and I will do it a hundred more if I have to. I have shown you an EXPLICIT quote from St Dioscorus himself in which he EXCPLICITLY affirms that Christ is consubstantial with both the Father and mankind. You do know what the term homoousion means right? If you did, you would understand that the implications of this contradict any “fusion” doctrine that you feel the need (under the inspiration of the father of all liars) to desperately and deceptively read into this blessed Saints Christology, for fusion necessarily leads to a compromise of one or the two natures, and hence one or the other CEASES TO BE CONSUBSTANTIAL as a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE. However:

St Dioscorus says: “God the Logos, consubstantial with the Father, at the end of the ages for our redemption became consubstantial with man in the flesh, remaining what he was before.”  (Sellers, R.V. The Council of Chalcedon p31. n1. S.P.C.K. 1953)

If at the point of incarnation he was consubstantial with man according to His humanity remaining what He was before - then obviously there was no fusion. PERIOD.

Furthermore, it has already been proven from the Synaxarium itself, that St Dioscorus presupposed two distinct natures (in the ousia sense) in Christ; for If St Dioscorus believed the two natures (ousias) had fused into one nature in its essentialistic sense (ousia) as opposed to their synthesis resulting in One nature in a dynamic sense (hypostasis), he would not have made the statement that the “the two natures cannot be separated in all his acts” since two distinct natures would not have existed to be separated in the first place. The “One nature” resulting from the “two natures” happened at the very point of union, for in reality Christ never had two natures which came together into "one" at a certain point in time such that we can speak of a time "before" and "after" the union in a chronological sense; His humanity came into being at the very point of union — thus it either came into being as a distinct and complete/perfect essence (i.e. consubstantial with mankind), or as an imperfect/dissolved essence, but there was never a “process” such that St Dioscorus could affirm the existence of two distinct natures in Christ that cannot be separated as if they in-time then became One nature (ousia) such that separation is no longer a possibility. The fact he affirms that the two natures (ousias) in Christ are inseparable, is a presupposition of these two natures (ousias) in Christ in the first place, and that they became Mia Physis (hypostasis) according to their union, is simply St Cyrils Miaphysite Christology in a nutshell. That these two natures were consubstantial with the Father and mankind respectively, is an explicit most blatant statement with the undeniable logical consequence that they underwent no alteration or confusion.

St Dioscorus states: “God the Logos, consubstantial with the Father, at the end of the ages for our redemption became consubstantial with man in the flesh, remaining what he was before.” (Sellers, R.V. The Council of Chalcedon p31. n1. S.P.C.K. 1953)

Quote
However, when I denied this doctrine of Dioscorus and affirmed the doctrine of the Two Natures, I am placed under the (non-existent) anathema of St. Cyril by a non-chalcedonian......

Don’t twist everything to such a dramatic extent, and think that I will sit here and let you get away with it. First of all, St Dioscorus’ doctrine is that of St Cyril’s — The natures of the hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ ultimately means that He possesses One physis (hypostasis), due to the very fact the humanity of Christ is en-hypostasized by his divinity — if you deny this, and then may you be anathema.

HOWEVER, the anathema I referred you to is very explicit and has nothing to do with the affirmation of one or two natures in whatever sense the term may be understood. The anathema pertained to the fact that If you do not confess that it is the personal subject or Hypostasis of Christ which suffered and died "in the flesh" or "according to His flesh", then you are an anathema. After the first time I showed quoted you St Cyril’s 12th anathema, you continued in defiance to insist that the flesh suffered and died; that it was the NATURE that was the subject of action and not the person. People only need to go back a couple of pages in this forum to see for themselves.

Listen to your fifth council ozgeorge, wasn’t it you who quoted that “One of the Trinity suffered and died in the flesh” (or something along those lines). Stick with that and don’t go back on it, and you’ll be safely away from St Cyril’s 12th anathema.

Quote
Dioscorus cannot, since his statement was in response to a direct question as to whether Christ has Two Natures.

It’s obvious that St Dioscorus taught two natures in the manner that the Eastern Church understands these two natures in the context of the subsequent councils. HISTORICALLY however, St Dioscorus interpreted your two nature Christology in the same manner the rest of the Oriental Orthodox Church, as well as Nestorius and the Nestorian church interpreted it; as if physis was in its hypostatic sense and NOT its essentialistic sense - since the context was ambiguous and did not sufficiently clarify the intentions of the one making such statements; they are the FACTS ozgeorge — please read the very article which you highly recommended, because the proposition that physis=hypostasis to Alexandrian and Nestorian ears is not some peripheral point made, it is the very CRUX of that whole article which you recommended yourself.

Quote
And again, when I pointed St. Cyril's letter to John of Antioch out, one particular non-chalcedon dismissed it as a "concession".

I affirmed that it WAS a concession; St Cyril obviously didn't think his Christology that was vindicated at Ephesus 431 was defective or lacking; he simply recognized that some were feeble-minded and needed their concerns to be incorporated more explicitly, HOWEVER I didn’t “dismiss” it. When will you stop mispreresenting everyone’s position? From the blessed St Dioscorus, to the blessed St Cyril, to minasoliman and myself — it’s getting ridiculous now. It WAS a concession, however not one to be dismissed SINCE WE AFFIRM THE RE-UNION FORMULA as doctrinally binding in the Oriental Orthodox Church and it has ALWAYS been regarded as such. St Cyril’s affirmation of the concept of two natures was no different to the manner in which St Dioscorus affirmed it. The issue here is language and terminology, and not concept — St Cyril said he had the same faith (concept) as John of Antioch — this he declared upon John’s asfirmation of two natures in their essentialistic sense, and upon his rejection of Nestorius whom he formerly supported.

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Anastasios on June 13, 2005, 07:37:03 PM
George,

I posted a warning in this thread on the post where you anathematized Dioscorus personally. I don't see that post anymore; maybe it was deleted? Warnings for specific posts appear below the post in question so that is where it would be.

Anastasios
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 14, 2005, 05:51:21 AM
George,
I posted a warning in this thread on the post where you anathematized Dioscorus personally. I don't see that post anymore; maybe it was deleted? Warnings for specific posts appear below the post in question so that is where it would be.
Anastasios

Anastasios,
I note that EA's anathema of me who upholds the teachings of Chalcedon has not been removed ( http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=6373.msg82842#msg82842 ).
Please do not remove it, I consider this to be a badge of honour. http://www.hymnsite.com/lyrics/umh710.sht (Having said that, this post will probably be removed!)
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 14, 2005, 06:19:23 AM
Ozgeorge,

a)   NEITHER of our posts were removed, regardless of Anastasios' comments. Your blasphemy is still existent here: (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=6373.msg82865#msg82865)

b)   The comment you are referring to in that particular post was NOT an anathema, it was simply a remark made by St Cyril in his letter to Bishop Succensus, concerning ignoramus’s who choose to derive monophysitism from the mere declaration of one physis . Obviously you know nothing about St Cyril; his Christology, his works etc. etc. so I don’t blame you for your ignorance.

c) I never asked for your post to be deleted btw...it can remain as a badge of honour worn in the name of justice( http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:10-12;&version=31; ) i.e. as opposed to in the name of evil, deceit, ignorance, etc. etc.

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 14, 2005, 07:16:15 AM
My response:
http://www.hymnsite.com/lyrics/umh710.sht
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 14, 2005, 07:30:48 AM
My response:

Communion hymn: My Coptic Church

My Coptic Church; the church of the Lord
Ancient and strong; I wish a long life
In the early years; after the birth of Christ
Saint Mark came bearing; light of the true faith
He dwelt in the land; proclaiming salvation
In the Name of our Redeemer; Christ who removed our
sins.

The Copts then believed; in the Lord Jesus
And joy filled all; the cities of Egypt.
In a very short time; He abolished all idols
The Cross was exalted; the sign of the faith
Satan quickly rose; toward the Son the God
He stirred the rulers; emperors and armies
He then declared war; on the sons of the faith
"Deny your Christ; or be thrown in the fire"
Our honored fathers; elders, and youngsters
Were not moved by pain; distress, nor dishonor
But said courageously; forward, no turning back
"We don't fear fire; our Lord is Jesus Christ"

They were beaten and imprisoned; they lived in oppression
They were burned and killed; and tasted every pain
By the power of their faith; they overcame their pains
And remained believing in; the King of Peace
With blood and suffering; they the bought the faith
And preserved it for us; in the Name of our Savior

Let us all rise; from our laziness
With diligence seeking; the heavenly reward
The Church of our fathers; you are our bride
To her success; let us all join together
My Coptic Church; their faith is Orthodox
Forever strong; Egypt is Christ's


Isaiah 19:

19 In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. 20 It will be a sign and witness to the LORD Almighty in the land of Egypt....Blessed be Egypt my people"

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: cizinec on June 14, 2005, 09:05:44 AM
If Chalcedon was a reaffirmation or restoration of Nestorianism, why are we separated from Nestorians?ÂÂ  Why wasn’t there a joyful reunion?

Sorry, I'm still curious about this one.

Please try to answer this one before we all get upset and the thread gets locked.  I'd really like to hear an explanation for this.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Doubting Thomas on June 14, 2005, 09:10:04 AM
I wouldn't bother, unless you enjoy merry-go-rounds.
On second thought, I think you are right...I won't bother.   ::)
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 14, 2005, 09:17:54 AM
czinec,

I think our position is quite clear. Chalcedon was ambiguous in that the expressions and terminology employed allowed Nestorianism to creep in via a backdoor - this is simply a historical fact; Nestorius didn't applaud the tome because he was stupid, inept or a simpelton; he simply found that he could twist what was said in a manner such that he could conform his doctrine with the expressions used, and consequently squeeze Nestorianism in there. The Chalcedonians however were not intentionally ascribing to the Nestorian heresy; they viewed Nestorians as the enemy as much as the Oriental Orthodox Church - we just feel they were careless in the manner in which they chose to define and express a perfeclt Orthodox two-nature Christology. That's why there was no EO-Nestorian party going on...

If you study the subsequent councils, you will find that your own Church did some serious qualifying and correcting of Chalcedon to make sure it was more clearer in intent such that the Nestorian Church would have no way of further misrepresenting it.

Like ozgeorge pointed out before; your fifth council declared that "One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh" - This is the kind of language which vindicates Chalcedon. However we cannot look at Chalcedon anachronistically; we study it in its immediate context to understand the reactions to it, by both the heretics (Nestorians) and the Orthodox ("non-Chalcedonians")

It's late, and my exams start next week - remember me in your prayers, Goodnight...

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Anastasios on June 14, 2005, 10:17:58 AM
George,

My point was I did not remove it and I was inferring that maybe another moderator did or you yourself might have removed it.  I don't make it a point of removing posts, especially after I have spent time commenting on them :)

Anastasios
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on June 14, 2005, 10:23:57 AM
Dear George,

I was hoping this discussion would be of a scholarly basis, criticizing the quotes that have been given to you.  However, you remain to follow the "faith of your Fathers" as if we really were Monophysites.  But I affirm, that the faith of your Fathers are right only that it is the right doctrine, but the anathemas against us is null and void.  God knows we are innocent of the anathemas you've given us.  Likewise, God knows you are innocent of the anathemas we've given you.

I ask once more, PLEASE take the time to read the quotes I've given you (which are written by "Raouf" in another thread) and with an open mind like Fr. John Romanides, comment on them.

God bless you, brother.

Mina
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 14, 2005, 11:24:38 AM
Dear George,

I was hoping this discussion would be of a scholarly basis, criticizing the quotes that have been given to you.ÂÂ

Friend,
I have done that- using your own sources as requested.

However, you remain to follow the "faith of your Fathers" as if we really were Monophysites.ÂÂ
Friend,
Again, I repeat, I am not commenting on what all contemporary non-chalcedonians believe.

But I affirm, that the faith of your Fathers are right only that it is the right doctrine,
Friend,
again I say, this is not about what you affirm.

but the anathemas against us is null and void.ÂÂ  God knows we are innocent of the anathemas you've given us.ÂÂ  Likewise, God knows you are innocent of the anathemas we've given you.
My friend,
We will all answer to God who alone knows the hearts of men. I personally have pronounced no anathemas on any of you, nor invoked any anathema's of any of the Fathers against you.

I ask once more, PLEASE take the time to read the quotes I've given you (which are written by "Raouf" in another thread) and with an open mind like Fr. John Romanides, comment on them.
Friend,
I have said this privatley to EA and I am saying it to you now. I have no desire to scandalise anyone. I gave my opinion because I was placed in a position that to remain silent in the face of a particular charge would have given the impression that I believe something which I give no assent of faith to. I have said my peace. Please do not ask me to comment on Raouf's posts (which I in fact did read when you first asked me). This can only lead to further discord and the "merry-go-round" which I (and at least one other) have opted to jump off from. Let's just agree to disagree.

George


Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: cizinec on June 14, 2005, 12:31:45 PM
Quote
terminology employed allowed Nestorianism to creep in via a backdoor - this is simply a historical fact.

Actually, I think this is what is at question in the current debate.ÂÂ  You take it as an absolute fact.

Quote
he simply found that he could twist what was said in a manner such that he could conform his doctrine with the expressions used, and consequently squeeze Nestorianism in there.

And so, therefore, you deny the council.ÂÂ  And yet Holy Scripture is twisted into saying that we should drink poison and allow snakes to bite us and we do not reject Scripture as heretical.ÂÂ  It seems to me that just because some heretic can use a document outside its context, that which comes before AND after it is written, does not make that document ipso facto heretical.

Quote
The Chalcedonians however were not intentionally ascribing to the Nestorian heresy; they viewed Nestorians as the enemy as much as the Oriental Orthodox Church . . .

RIGHT!ÂÂ  Because we were not, in fact, ascribing to Nestorianism, nor were we attempting to placate them in any way.ÂÂ  If we were, we would have at least attempted to commune with them.ÂÂ  We saw them as heretics.ÂÂ  Therefore we must not have ascribed to their theology.  The "Chalcedonians" at the time were not unintentionally ascribing to Nestorianism either.  How can one believe something accidentally while rejecting it?

Quote
we study it in its immediate context to understand the reactions to it, by both the heretics (Nestorians) and the Orthodox ("non-Chalcedonians").

Yes, but context includes what comes before, during AND AFTER the council.ÂÂ  All through this thread it has been insinuated and outright stated that Chalcedon taught something Nestorian.ÂÂ  Yet the Nestorians were never restored.ÂÂ  The anathemas were retained.ÂÂ  When it was seen that the Nestorians were abusing the language of Chalcedon, just as many abuse the language of Scripture, new councils clarified what was at issue, just as councils clarified Scripture.ÂÂ  These new councils are a PART of the context.ÂÂ  You can't say, "Well, I don't like Chalcedon because it says such and such," and then say, "The authors of Chalcedon had to go back and clarify that they didn't say what we are accusing them of saying."ÂÂ  The intent behind Chalcedon was not Nestorianism, but to correct certian issues.  Did the council succeed?  You say no, but what about all the councils together?  Did they?

Quote
- we just feel they were careless in the manner in which they chose to define and express a perfectly Orthodox two-nature Christology. That's why there was no EO-Nestorian party going on...

The theology behind the council was correct but the language was sloppy.ÂÂ  Is that your reason for schism, brother?
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: coptic orthodox boy on June 14, 2005, 12:48:46 PM
IC XC NIKA
Dearest to Christ, cizinec
First off, I just want to state, I have nothing against you.ÂÂ  You're a nice fellow, so, take my words as a friend talking to a friend.
Second, this is just my opinion.
After following this thread since the beginning (and, with my lack of a large vocabulary, trying to understand "metaphysics" from EA and George), I agree with minosoliman, that it was a misunderstanding.ÂÂ  Plan and simple.ÂÂ  
However, the historical fact is, that St. Dioscorus was eventually condemned for being a heterodox Patriarch; which has still not been proven (in fact, it seems 100% clear that he was completely Orthodox).ÂÂ  Now how many Ecumenical councils condemn an Orthodox bishop?ÂÂ  I can't think of one.
So, in the end, we reject Chalcedon for the "politics" behind it all.ÂÂ  Let's face it, Leo was really the creator, in my opinion, of Papal Infalliblity, Supremacy, etc.ÂÂ  Once more, we don't need councils 4-7 to hold the Orthodox Faith, since me never left the Faith; once more a fact that so many EO are slow to admit.ÂÂ  
We are man enough to say there was a misunderstanding.ÂÂ  Are your hierarchs?
Once more, cizinec, I'm not trying to attack you.ÂÂ  We've never failed to get along on this site.ÂÂ  So I hope you read it, as I said, from one friend to another.
in Christ
copticorthodoxboy
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on June 14, 2005, 12:54:39 PM
Dear George,

We answered back and explained to you why the Synexarium said what it said.  We defend that there is nothing heretical in what the Synexarium said as you thought it said.  I've also offered you further sources by Raouf (qualified as "our" sources like the Synexarium) only to show you that it is not only those who are contemporary who are Orthodox, but the fathers that have been condemned by the EO's in the past have also been Orthodox in faith, such as St. Dioscorus.

I can agree to disagree only if we truly believe in different faiths, and only if both our fathers in each Orthodox tradition believe in different faiths.  I find no reason to agree to disagree.  Otherwise, I will be lying to myself and to my conscience.

God bless you bother.  If you wish to not debate, then so be it, but you have not proven St. Dioscorus as a heretic as of yet.

Mina
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: coptic orthodox boy on June 14, 2005, 12:58:38 PM
IC XC NIKA
Dearest to Christ, to all:
As you can see from my last post, I'm not the best with English.  Replace all the "once mores" with "what's more."
in Christ
copticorthodoxboy
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Stavro on June 14, 2005, 01:36:19 PM
Cizinec,
thank you for your post.
Quote
If Chalcedon was a reaffirmation of Nestorianism, why are we separated from Nestorians? ÂÂ Why was’t there a joyful reunion?
There was indeed a joyful reunion between Chalcedonians and Nestorians after a brief separation from Ephesus to Chalcedon. This reunion lasted till 553. You can consult the letters of congratulation between Leo of Rome and his dear friend Theodret, a condemned heretic and a Nestorian, after Chalcedon. In fact, even before the decisions of Chalcedon and the official exoneration of the leaders of the Nestorian party, Leo of Rome accepted them in your church , exercising his Papal claims, Supremacy and Infallibility, which are his other dear dogmatic positions that he invented.

Chalcedon produced Nestorian writings such as the Tome and accepted the heretical teachings of three condemned Nestorians after careful examination. Refer to the decision regarding the letter of Ibas. Move beyond the Tome, which I maintain to be Nestorian in clear terms and not only in vague language, for I prefer honesty over false ecumenism, you will not be able to reconcile the writings of Theodore and Theodret and Ibas with orthodoxy. Not because Chalcedonian lack apologetic tactics, but because it is another council of yours that condemns their writings.

A council that produces heretical teachings and embraces/accepts other heretical teachings cannot be anything but heretical, and the Chalcedonian side has still to answer for the clear contradiction between the 4th and 5th councils. It insults the divinity of Holy Spirit to ascribe self-correction to its inspirations and revelations.

Again, the EO act susurprised because OO cannot accept a council that admits heretical teachings such as the Three Chapters, asking the OO to believe in the heresies of Theodret, Ibas and Theodore.ÂÂ  
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: cizinec on June 14, 2005, 01:46:30 PM
Stavro,

AHHHHH!ÂÂ  Now I feel like I'm getting somewhere.ÂÂ  I do wish that we had a Nestorian on board here.ÂÂ  That would shed a bit more light on things for me.ÂÂ  I just don't think we can fully discuss these things without some of their input as it's all tied up together.ÂÂ  Since we don't have one, we'll just have to go on.

I don't have time to post a reasonable response right now, though.

coptic orthodox boy,

I don't think you have anything against me.ÂÂ  Trust me, you can debate very aggressively with me and I won't take it personally.ÂÂ  You can call me whatever you think I am, I won't mind.ÂÂ  My family thinks I'm a heretical nut case, so you won't be alone if that's your opinion.   ;DÂÂ  
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Anastasios on June 14, 2005, 02:00:31 PM
1) Nestorians deny the title Theotokos. We don't.  The Chalcedonians of 451-553 didn't either.
2) Nestorians deny communicatio idomatum. We don't. The Chalcedonians of 451-553 didn't either.
3) Nestorians deny the Council of Ephesus. We don't.  The Chalcedonians of 451-553 didn't either.
4) Nestorians honor "St" Nestorius. We don't. The Chalcedonians of 451-553 didn't either.

Anastasios
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on June 14, 2005, 03:05:43 PM
I disagree with some points made by Stavro.ÂÂ  While Chalcedon confused us with the acceptance of the Three Chapters by the Roman legates, it is clear as Anastasios showed that Chalcedon was not ULTIMATELY Nestorian.ÂÂ  What Stavro says is not what our heirarchs have agreed upon.

As H.E. COPTIC Metropolitan Bishoy wrote:

Quote
   When we come to the issue of the four later councils of the Orthodox: How can we see it together, away from condemnations of the past against the fathers and councils of the Oriental Orthodox?
   We can notice that those councils have equally condemned the Nestorian and the Eutychian heresies which the Oriental Orthodox have also condemned.
   The condemnation of the person and teachings of Theodore of Mopsuestia which was conductedÂÂ  in the second Council of Constantinople (533) was a monumental historical event which became an important support to the continuing struggle of Orthodoxy against Nestorianism.
   Today in the Nestorian controversy there is a severe attack against that council, and many Western theologians are trying to eliminate its teaching and cancel its decisions against the Nestorians. The Oriental Orthodox are presently defending those decisions perhaps more than some of the Orthodox.

and later

Quote
   To conclude our Oriental Orthodox people should realise that the Orthodox can never be Nestorians since they have condemned the Nestorian teaching of the union of two persons in an external union in Jesus Christ and confessed that the Word of God came in His Own person.
   It is also clear that the Orthodox interpretation of the teachings of the four later councils of the Orthodox are the same as the doctrine of the Oriental Orthodox who have always refused both the Nestorians and Eutychian heresies. The two families are called to reinforce each other in their struggle against heresies and to complete each other as one body of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.
   The positive response of the Oriental Orthodox to the Orthodox interpretation is identified by the lifting of anathemas against Orthodox Fathers and Councils, as well as taking use of every positive element in the teaching and acts of the four later councils of the Orthodox.

from http://metroplit-bishoy.org/files/Dialogues/Byzantine/CHRSTAGR.doc

Therefore, it is ultimately agreed that Chalcedon was not Nestorian.ÂÂ  Although some ambiguities and politics occured, it is clear the Doctrinal intentions of Chalcedon were none other than Orthodox.

I speak as a non-Chalcedonian who upholds true and objective conclusions.

God bless.

Mina
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Deacon Lance on June 14, 2005, 03:16:51 PM
Cizinec,

I am not Assyrian but will present their position:

Holy Apostolic and Catholic Assyrian Church of the East

What does it believe?

The teaching of the  Church of the East is based on the faith of the universal Church as set forth in the Nicene Creed. The mystery of the Holy Trinity and the mystery of the Incarnation are central to its teaching. The church believes in One Triune God:  Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It also believes and teaches that the  Only-begotten Son of God, God the Word, became incarnate for us men and for our  salvation and became man. The same God the Word, begotten of his Father before  all worlds without beginning according to his divinity, was begotten of a mother without a father in the last times according to his humanity, in a body of flesh, with a rational, intelligent, and immortal soul which he took from the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary and united to himself, making it his very own at the moment of conception. The humanity which he took for his own was assumed by God the Word, who was, thenceforth and for ever, the personal subject of the  divine and human natures. His divine and human natures retain their own properties, faculties, and operations unconfusedly, immutably, undividedly, and inseparably.

Therefore, because the divinity and humanity are united in the Person of the same and only Son of God and Lord Jesus Christ, the Church of  the East rejects any teaching which suggests that Christ is an "ordinary man" whom God the Word inhabited, like the righteous men and the prophets of old. The  Church of the East further rejects any teaching that explicitly or implicitly  suggests that there are two Sons, or two Lords, or two Christs in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, but we confess one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who  is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The same, through his passion, death, burial, and resurrection, redeemed humanity from the bondage of sin and death, and secured the hope of resurrection and new life for all who put their faith in him, to whom, with his Father and the Holy Spirit, belongs confession, worship,  and adoration unto ages of ages. Amen.

http://www.cired.org/aceov.html


Synod of Mar Isho`yahb , AD 587

. . . to "one Lord" they added "Jesus Christ", and revealed that which is one in common with the qnome of the Trinity . . . but they did not add "one Lord, the Son," as in "one God, the Father." Instead, they altered the order of their words and said "in one Lord, Jesus Christ," not forgetting those correct matters which relate to the manhood of God the Word, magnificently explained and wisely proclaimed in one unity of the Godhead and manhood of Christ, even though those of the company of Eutyches babble and reject the manhood of the Son of God. For the title "Anointed One" is indicative of his Godhead, which is from the Father, and of his manhood, which is indisputably from the mother, even though Eutyches and the offspring of his error speak foolishly and deceive, denying the taking of our manhood, or affirming the obliteration of the manhood of Christ. Indeed, the fathers consequently continued, saying, "the Only-begotten and First-born of all creatures," as it is written.

Again, they added, "by whose hands the worlds were established and everything was created," revealing (that) he was the Cause and Maker of all with his Father. Again, they made known concerning his Essence that he was "begotten of his Father before all ages and was not made - Light from Light, true God from true God" - Jesus Christ in his Godhead. Again, they continued, as it were, for the destruction of Arius, setting forth the word "homoousion," that is, "connatural" and "co-essential" with the Father, by whose hand everything came to be - Jesus Christ in his Godhead. And struggling in the invincible armor of true teaching, with which they clothed themselves against the phantoms and apparitions of the worthless teachings of the Simonians and Manicheans, they said, "who for us men and for our salvation descended from Heaven and became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and by the Virgin Mary and became man" - Jesus Christ, in the union of his natures, in his revelation [in the flesh, and in his incarnation - for this indicates the uniting of the natures of Godhead and manhood, in that he descended, became incarnate, and became man. It makes known the assumption of our manhood indisputably, so that from every side the hallucinations of the company of Simon and Mani might be removed, who deny his incarnation, and the taking of a body, and the revelation] of God the Word, who took our manhood and dwelt in it - as it is written, "The Word became flesh and dwelt in us" - and that, even more, the greatness of the lovingkindness of him who descended and dwelt in us might be revealed.

The impious Arius, because he ascribed things exalted and lowly to the nature of the Godhead of the Word, and did not know to apply them separately or conjointly, as the truth requires, for this reason was weighed (in the balances), and fell, and erred, and deceived, and was anathematized and excommunicated. But the fathers added to and completed the saying concerning the dispensation, and after the teaching concerning the divine nature of the Only-begotten, and after the teaching concerning the unity of the natures of Christ, that is, of his Godhead, which does not change and does not die, and his manhood, which is not rejected or forgotten, they added teaching concerning his manhood. As they had revealed clearly by way of exalted things concerning his Godhead, (so) they would reveal clearly concerning his manhood, which was taken for us and for our salvation and for the renewal of all creatures, saying, "He was crucified for us in the days of Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and died, and was buried, and rose after three days," as the Holy Scriptures say - Jesus Christ in his manhood. That is - let us speak the truth - in his corporeal state he accepted the death of the cross for us, in that it is clear to all the upright in their confession that, as the nature of his Godhead does not suffer and die, so neither did his soul receive the sentence of death, for it is not possible for the soul to be subject to the limitation of death. Our Lord bore witness, "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul." And the reality bore witness (to this), for after our Lord was crucified, and died, and his holy body was buried, he went in his soul to Paradise.

Again, the blessed fathers added, "And ascended to Heaven and sat down at the right hand of his father" - Jesus Christ in his manhood. For in his manhood he received exaltation and session at the right hand, not in his Godhead, which exists eternally and indestructibly with his Father. "And he is coming in glory to judge the living and the dead, whose kingdom has no end" - Jesus Christ in his Godhead and in his manhood. . . .

This is the faith which does not corrupt, and this is its meaning, briefly, according to the sequence of its statements, by which the pars\opa of Christ is proclaimed fully - and the natures of his Godhead and manhood - against those who acknowledge his Godhead but deny his manhood, and against those [who acknowledge his manhood but deny his Godhead, and against those] who deny his Godhead and confess that the manhood is ordinary or like one of the righteous. . . .

After they had thus richly and fully proclaimed the truth, they turned thereafter to the anathematization of Arius and the children of his error. "But to those who say that there was (a time) when he did not exist, or before he was begotten he did not exist, or he was made from nothing, or say he was from some other qnoma or essence, or reckon the Son of God changeable and mutable, such the catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes." The heretics, that is, in their stubbornness, venture to ascribe the properties and sufferings of the nature of the manhood of Christ to the nature and qnoma of the Godhead and Essence of the Word, things which occasionally, because of the perfect union which the manhood of Christ had with his Godhead, are ascribed to God economically, but not naturally. (Synod of Mar Is°o`yahb, AD 587)

http://www.cired.org/faith/christ.html
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: GiC on June 14, 2005, 04:28:18 PM
Though I'm discussing this very issue elsewhere with EkhristosAnesti (to which I just recently posted...sorry for the delay, but I was traveling for most the time), I guess I'll weigh in on a couple things here at risk of being pulled into this more emotionally heated debate.

First, the Orthodoxy of Dioscorus was never actually addressed by Chalcedon, though it was at Constantinople II. Dioscorus was deposed for reasons of Canonical Order. He was summoned before the Most Holy and Oecumenical Synod to defend his Posistion, he refused to attend though he was in the City, after repeated summons and repeated refusals to attend, he was deposed in accordance with the Holy Canons. The deposistion was perfectly justifyable, but it had nothing to do with theology or faith and everything to do with Order in the Church. But with that said, the fact that he presided over Ephesus 449, and declared with that Synod that the Teachings of Eutyches were Orthodox does give great creedance to his own Orthodoxy, IF he truly was Orthodox in Theology (I have not read enough of him to form an informed opinion on my own) and the later Anathemas against him truly are Misplaced, on account of the aforesaid Historical events, the logic and conclusions that lead to these Anathemas were far from Unreasonable.


Secondly, I find the insistance that the Language of Chalcedon was sloppy to be unsubstantiated. It was Cyril who used Nature in two different manners inorder to reconcile his Orthodox Theology with an Apollinarian Document written in the name of the Great Athanasios, resulting in a (in some instances) poorly expressed, though perfectly Orthodox, Theology. The Cappadocians, on the other hand, had written many volumes of works defining their terms, thus their notions of Person and Nature, which were adopted by Chalcedon, were well defined terms...though some heretics decided to ignore these volumes of works in their attempts to redefine the terms of Chalcedon to fit theire heresies. Chalcedon, using the well established terms of Person and Nature, distinguished Orthodoxy from Nestorius by Saying that Christ was One Person, not two. And clearly distinguished themselves from Eutyches by Saying that Christ had Two Natures and not One; the latter decision had nothing to do with the Nestorian Controversy, as it was addressing the issue of Natures and not of Persons, two distinct and formerly defined terms.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Timos on June 14, 2005, 04:33:45 PM
Hi, these articles were on www.orthodoxinfo.com which is a traditionalist old calendarist orthodox website. Here is what it has to say:

1. Eastern Orthodoxy and "Oriental Orthodoxy"

The superficial theological milieu of our era has proven most advantageous for ecumenical ideology, which seeks to gloss over the fundamental and abiding differences which distinguish the heterodox confessions from the Orthodox Faith. All too often, such differences are now conveniently dismissed as merely long-standing miscommunications of alternative, yet equally valid, terminological emphases. This perfunctory approach has been eagerly employed by Orthodox modernists in their theological dialogues with the so-called "Oriental Orthodox" churches. The designation "Oriental Orthodox" itself clearly illustrates the ecumenistic tendency to obfuscate essential theological differences with euphemisms. This deceptive appellation, popularized by the defective world view of Western Christian thought—a world view which lumps together such mutually exclusive ecclesiastical entities as the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Assyrian Church of the East (i.e., Nestorians), "Oriental Orthodox" churches, and Eastern Rite Papists (i.e., Uniates, such as Melkites and Maronites) under the umbrella term "Eastern Christians"—, masks the intransigent heresies held for centuries by three main groups: 1) Armenians, 2) Copts and Ethiopians (Abyssinians), and 3) Syrian and Malabarese Jacobites.

The adjective Oriental is synonymous with the adjective Eastern. There is thus no real distinction between the term Eastern Orthodox (which identifies the only True Church) and the term "Oriental Orthodox" (which denotes several false churches). More importantly, although the "Oriental Orthodox" have appropriated the title Orthodox for themselves (e.g., the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch, etc.), it was precisely their failure to embrace the Christology of the Holy Fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod in 451 that led to their departure from the domain of Orthodoxy to the hinterlands of heresy. They are therefore correctly and accurately designated either as Non-Chalcedonians, reflecting their rejection of this Divinely-inspired Ecumenical Synod, or Monophysites, characterizing their specific heterodox confession of Christianity.

These three groups of Non-Chalcedonians are united in their common profession of Monophysitism, as well as its logical consequents, Monotheletism and Monoenergism—the doctrines that in Christ there are, respectively, only one nature, one will, and one energy. The Fourth Ecumenical Synod anathematized Monophysitism, the Fifth Ecumenical Synod confirmed this decision, the Sixth Ecumenical Synod condemned Monotheletism and Monoenergism, and the Seventh Ecumenical Synod reaffirmed all of the foregoing. Therefore, in addition to being Non-Chalcedonians, the "Oriental Orthodox" are also Non-Second Constantinopolitans, Non-Third Constantinopolitans, and Non-Second Nicaeans. Their unyielding opposition to four of the seven Ecumenical Synods makes it not just a little difficult for us to consider the Monophysite churches Orthodox. After all, even the Latins, not to mention some Protestants, ostensibly abide by all seven of the Ecumenical Synods, and they are never referred to as "Orthodox" churches.

To bear the name Orthodox, one must confess—without equivocation—the Ecumenical Christology of the Catholic and Apostolic Tradition: Jesus Christ united without confusion within His Own Hypostasis His Divine Nature and His Human Nature, His Divine will and His Human will, and His Divine energy and His Human energy. There is no room here for semantic sidestepping. A recent study of Non-Chalcedonianism by the Monastery of Saint Gregory (Gregoriou) on Mt. Athos, The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics: A Contribution to the Dialogue Concerning the "Orthodoxy" of the Non-Chalcedonians, came to this same conclusion (see "Publications" at the back of this issue):

A great ecclesiological chasm exists between us and the Non-Chalcedonians, which only the explicit confession of the holiness and ecumenicity of the Fourth and the following three Holy Ecumenical Synods on the part of the Non-Chalcedonians can bridge. Any manifest or hidden deviation whatsoever from Orthodox dogma, for the sake of some union contrary to the truth, will occasion only harm to immortal souls and suffering for the Church [p. 41].

Because of their subconscious ecclesiastical insecurities, the New Calendarists in America have a pathological craving for worldly recognition, making them only too willing to accept the "harm to immortal souls and suffering for the Church" already occasioned by dialogues between the "official" Orthodox and the Monophysites. For example, as reported in an earlier issue of Orthodox Tradition, several modernist theologians recently participated in an "Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Symposium" co-sponsored by St. Vladimir’s Theological Seminary and St. Nersess Armenian Seminary, a symposium obviously mimicking the union dialogues held in Europe in 1989 and 1990. On the Orthodox side, the symposium included representatives from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, the Orthodox Church in America, and the Romanian Orthodox Church in America; on the Monophysite side, it included representatives from the Armenian Apostolic Church of America, the Coptic Orthodox Church, and the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch.

As reported by Solia (Vol. 60, No. 6 [June 1995]), the symposium, in heinous violation of the ecclesiological self-definition of the Orthodox Church as the One and Only Church of Christ, blasphemously referred to "‘the two Orthodox Churches’" as "‘one Orthodox family,’" to quote the heretical phrase of one Coptic priest (p. 16). Relying on the results achieved by past conferences and commissions which have examined the "Orthodoxy" of the Monophysites, the participants glibly concluded "that there exists full agreement on the substance of the faith of the two churches, notwithstanding the differences in terms" (p. 13)—and this, apparently, notwithstanding the Divine Grace which enlightened such God-bearing Fathers as Saints Flavian of Constantinople, Leo the Great, and Proterios of Alexandria (all of whom struggled against and suffered because of the Monophysite heresy) to develop and to refine a precise Christological nomenclature delineating the Orthodox Faith.

Having thus summarily disposed of the insuperable dogmatic barrier between the Truth of Orthodoxy and the falsehood of Non-Chalcedonianism, the symposium quickly turned its attention to the "practical steps...which could be implemented at the global and local levels to ultimately achieve [sic] unity," and "this includes among other things, a statement of reconciliation, academic cooperation, and common catechesis of young people" (ibid.). Deciphering this "ecumenically correct" jargon and restating it in plain Orthodox language, this symposium embraced the renunciation of Patristic Tradition, the scholarly prostitution of sacred theology, and the sacrifice of the next generation of Orthodox to appease the Moloch of Monophysitism. And for this, we have to thank "the great contribution of modern scholarship and the current worldwide ecumenical movement" (ibid.)! The words of the Savior ring with prophetic force: "Ye shall know them by their fruits" (St. Matthew 7:16).

In contrast to our ecumenist counterparts, who—to the detriment of their fellow man—reinforce the Monophysites in their error, we traditionalists, out of love both for the Truth and for those who have deviated from it, challenge the Monophysites to accept the standard of True Orthodox Christianity. Let the Non-Chalcedonian heretics become truly Oriental Orthodox: Let their spiritual orientation turn eastward, facing the Chalcedonian sunrise that dawns universally from the noetic Anatolia of Eastern Orthodoxy, where the Theanthropic One, "Whose Name is Orient" (Zechariah 6:12 [LXX]), the God-Man Christ Jesus, rises in Truth. Only then, when they have renounced their heterodox beliefs, can we genuinely address these theologically disoriented Easterners as Orthodox brethren.


2. ÂÂ  Copts and Orthodoxy

A priest that I know says that the Copts are Orthodox, that they have been the victims of a theological misunderstanding by the Orthodox Church, and that they have a valid priesthood. He communes them and says that they are part of our Faith....You seem to think differently. Can you explain your position, which this priest says is old and outdated. He gave me an article by Bishop Maximos of Pittsburgh of the Greek Archdiocese. He says that Bishop Maximos is a great Patristic scholar and that his word, which supports the Copts as Orthodox, is final. (M.K., NY)

The Copts are Monophysites and thus heretics. Their Mysteries are invalid and, should they join the Orthodox Church, they must be received as non-Orthodox. Indeed, now that most Copts have rejected the errors of the Monophysite heresy, this is a time for their reunion with Orthodoxy. Here is a place for true ecumenism. But despite the fact that the time seems ripe, we must still rest on the Providence of God and restore the Copts to Orthodoxy in a proper way. One cannot say that he is Orthodox simply because he believes correctly and recites the Creed. He must be received into the Church by Chrismation or Baptism. The fact that the Copts were once Orthodox, fell away, and have now come to right belief is neither here nor there. Grace does not withstand generations of heresy and separation from the Church.

Anyone who believes that the Orthodox Fathers were wrong in condemning the Monophysites, and that the Copts have always been Orthodox, is guilty of blasphemy against the Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Synod at Chalcedon, which condemned the Monophysite heresy. He is also guilty of heresy, in that such a proposition presupposes not only that the Fathers of the Church were in error and that this error entered into the conscience of the Church, but that the Orthodox Church has for centuries been "divided" between the two "families" of right-believing Orthodox and the supposedly "right-believing" Copts. Moreover, such a view presumes that our Orthodox Fathers, ignorant of the truth, "divided" the Church over semantics and over word games.

There are even some conservative Orthodox, insufficiently familiar with the primary historical materials and following Western historiographical views of the events surrounding the Council of Chacedon (which have often shown, as Father Florovsky has observed, sympathies both for Monophysitism and the Nestorian heresy which provoked it), who imagine that misinterpretation, misunderstanding, and intransigence are the sources of the Chalcedonian schism. This mimicking of Western scholarship, however popular, breeds an un-Orthodox approach to the Christological debate between the Orthodox and heterodox parties. The Orthodox party was staunchly defending the truth, the non-Orthodox party staunchly defending a false view of Christ. While "objective" historians may thus attribute to the two sides in this debate "intransigence," it is obviously not consistent with Orthodox piety to accuse those who defend the truth of intransigence. It is heresy, a resistance to the truth, which actually has its roots in, and which is defined by, intransigence.

What, too, can we say of the Monophysite Churchmen and theologians who condemned our Orthodox Fathers as heretics and who are today revered by the Copts? Are we to praise and honor them along with the Monophysite "Saints" whose intercession the Copts invoke? Are we to commemorate together the memories of Churchmen who stood diametrically opposed to one another and pretend that such commemorations are consistent with the "one mind" of the Apostolic Church? And must we now reject the counsel of the great Abba Evthymios, who warned St. Gerasimos of the Jordan against the Monophysite heresy, bringing the latter to bitter tears for his former errors?

Theologians and Churchmen who do not read the Fathers, who do not lead spiritual lives, and who see the union of men as something more important than our union with God in the unity of Faith have no business conducting dialogues between the Orthodox and the Copts. They are not acting in a spiritual way, and the results which they achieve will not be spiritual. They are too weak to speak the truth and to lead the Copts, as they must be led, back to the Church in humble submission.

We deeply respect and admire Coptic piety. Many Copts far exceed Orthodox in their dedication to God and fidelity to their faith. But our respect must not impede us from telling them the truth, bringing them into the Church properly, and offering them bread, rather than the stone of cheap ecumenical politics. Spiritual men pine for unity in the truth. Ecumenical politicians seek to exalt themselves by great feats of human prowess. Those spiritual men who have been misled by their understandable enthusiasm for Church unity should reflect seriously on who is leading them into this false unity and what their motives are. When the Copts, too, reflect on this, we will undoubtedly see a cooling in what is now unfounded enthusiasm. And as the Copts grow in their desire to return to Orthodoxy, they will themselves wish to do so in an orderly way and not through the back door which has been opened to them by ecumenical politicians and spiritually irresponsible clergymen.

Bishop Maximos' article on the Monophysites (The Illuminator, Vol. XII, No. 86) rests wholly on the theological opinion of Jean Lebon, A Roman Catholic Priest and scholar, who wrote an interesting thesis on a Monophysite figure. His Grace suggests that all "serious scholars and patrologists" follow the writings of this "great professor and scholar of our century" and find no ultimately essential differences, save those of terminology, between Orthodoxy and Monophysitism. "It is only ignorant and narrow[-]minded[,] irreponsible people who can oppose the work of God's Holy Spirit" and such views, he argues. I doubt, given the prevailing hatred for traditionalists in his jurisdiction, that His Grace would apologize to me and other Old Calendarists under this umbrella of condemnation, but he certainly owes an apology to other theologians who think as we do: the late Protopresbyter Georges Florovsky, the Blessed Archimandrite Justin (Popovich), Professor P. Trembelas, and others.

As for Bishop Maximos' suggestion that "church politicians" and "administrators" settle this question, res ipsa loquitur. Whenever the Church's conscience is violated, we turn to church politicians and administrators—the source and product of modernism and innovation. When that conscience is defended, we look to the Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils, and Church Tradition. And these have already spoken, as we have noted.

We are astonished at and deeply saddened by Bishop Maximos' ill-advised words.

From Orthodox Tradition, VOL. IX, NO. 1, pp. 8-10.

+ + +
Excerpt from a letter from Bishop Auxentios regarding my question about the Copts and their claim to be Orthodox:

The short answer, Patrick, is, what do you really expect them to proclaim, that they are heretics? Sorry for my tone in this, but you have to step back and look beyond the particulars, which have been complicated by centuries of self-justification on the parts of the various monophysite groups. The basic questions are really quite simple (even though the professional ecumenists think we are "simple minded" for seeing things in this way): Do we believe in a branch theory of the Church or not? Is the Divine Bridegroom of the Church—Who assures us that not even a sparrow falls to the ground without the will of our Heavenly Father—incapable of maintaining the integrity of His Body, or does He allow it to fracture, for the various components to anathematize one another, and yet for all portions/branches to maintain their unity with Him (and separation with one another) over centuries? In some way or another, the Copts do presume this in their contemporary argumentation for the "Orthodoxy" of their confession. Stange as it may sound, if they had a truly Orthodox mentality, they would be arguing for our un-Orthodoxy (based on the centuries of our separation from them), rather than trying to prove that we are one and the same. If the historical descendants of the monophysite heresy have come full circle and rejected the heretical components of their ancient confessions, this is for them to prove and for them to correct in a contrite spirit. There is a blasphemous disregard for the divinely-inspired conciliar polity of the Church and for the well-known consequences of schism hidden within their argumentation. For the right-reasoning Orthodox believer, this is proof enough that they have lost the fullness of Grace and that, as Father Florovsky so wisely observed, "the history of the Christian divisions can...not be deduced from or built on the basis of the principle of intolerance, nor the principles of pride, lust for power, concupiscence or meanness [and one can certainly add 'cultural' and 'linguistic' idiosyncrasies to this list]. Of course, human passion in all its power is 'decked out' and exposed in the divisions of Christianity. But the initial source of these Christian schisms was not moral depravity or human weakness, but delusion."

...The Monophysite's fundamentalistic insistence on one formula ["one nature of the Word incarnate"]—to the exclusion of another that even St. Cyril had come to understand as synonymous [dual consubstantiality]—reflects an un-Orthodox view of dogma. Those of Orthodox spirit know that dogma is imperfect symbols describing Revelation, but not Revelation itself. What is critical for Orthodox is the integrity of that Revelation, not terminological rigidity.

3.A Humorous and Instructive Reply to a Question Concerning the Monophysites

 Dear Father xxx,

I think the question has less to do with "apologies" (and I basically agree with your position on that) and more to do with ecclesial matters:  if, hypothetically, it were determined that there were no doctrinal impediments to communion between the Chalcedonian Church and the Copts, what do we do with the veneration of saints who were persecuted and martyred by the other side, and who were each other's sworn enemies?  Would we give them a list of saints that had to be removed from their calendar?  Would they present us with such a list?  Or do you overlook everything while everyone continues to venerate whom they have always venerated?  And what about Coptic saints who may have been indisputably radical Monophysites for whom the Coptic Church has a continuing attachment?

I certainly do not presume to know the answers; however, these are, as I understand them, some of the questions.

With love in Christ,

Fr. xxx

+ + +
Dear xxx:

May God bless you.

I came up with a fantastic solution to this dilemma. It is amazingly clever and novel. Let us pretend that Bishops of spiritual vision, meeting together in the belief that the Holy Spirit guides those who are gathered in Christ's name and among whom He thus dwells, were to conclude, in conformity with the confession of the Fathers before them, that the Monophysites taught something contrary to the Orthodox Faith preserved within the boundaries of the Church.

Let us then pretend that the Orthodox Church is characterized by its fidelity to these Bishops and that the Fathers of the Church would never have cut off for untold centuries people who really were of correct faith; but rather, that they would have acted only responsibly and in a way pleasing to the Holy Spirit. And let us pretend that we are not more spiritual and more learned than these Fathers, or that the Fathers and believers and Saints in the many centuries after them were not simply cretins and sycophants blindly accepting the errors of the Å’cumenical Synods, waiting for our enlightened contemporaries bravely to open our eyes.

Then let us pretend that we are bound by our Baptisms and Confession of Faith to follow the infallible statements of the Å’cumenical Synods which these Bishops convened. Let us pretend that the very conscience of the Church and Her self-identity lie in these Synods. And let us pretend that one of these Synods actually condemned the Non-Chacedonians and removed them from the bosom of Orthodoxy. And finally, let us pretend that these Bishops represent the True Church established by Christ, from which all in error have been removed, and that fidelity to their pronouncements makes us True Orthodox Christians. And let us pretend that contemporary Orthodox ecumenists, men (at least of late) of rather obviously limited intellectual gifts and little spiritual prowess, are not wiser than the Fathers before us. Would this not be a wonderful solution to the dilemma of our relationship to those in heresy, and specifically the heresy of Monophysitism?

Now, going beyond the foregoing game of "pretend," let us further pretend that Christians live in love and that, because of this, they would never want others to believe that what is false is true, but always wish to bring people to the Truth. Let us pretend that we could teach the Monophysites that they are wrong, rather than apologizing to them for the Truth and for human historical errors that have nothing to do with the criterion of Truth itself. Let us pretend that we could bring the Copts into the Church, rather than prostitute the Truth by conforming it to error. Would this not add much to the wonderful solution that I proposed in the paragraph above?

On second thought, all of this would entail faith in the Truth, the authority of the Church, the inspiration of the Fathers, the infallibility of the Å’cumenical Synods, and the primacy of the Orthodox Faith.

How foolish I am! A mere fundamentalist!

I apologize.

Least Among Monks,

+ Archbishop Chrysostomos

____________________________________________________________________

Right now I'm quite confused because I believe that the Oriental Orthodox are truly Orthodox but I just can't understand one thing. If the Copts now truly believe that Chalcedon is Orthodox then why won't they accept it? It would make things so much more less complicated. On the other hand, if the Eastern Othodox truly believe that the Oriental Orthodox are truly Orthodox then why won't they just let them be and accept them without having them to accept the other 3 councils??
Furthermore on the other hand, both churches believe that the Holy Spirit directly influences the councils so therefore even if the copts use the argument that "these councils did not affect us" wouldn't they be automatically obliged to accept the councils since they are ecumenical and therefore inspired by God??"
 
 
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: alexp4uni on June 14, 2005, 04:39:05 PM
Dont piss of EA by showing him that. He knows all too well about that....
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Stavro on June 14, 2005, 04:42:55 PM
Statements in bold are excerpts from posts by Mina Soliman.

- I speak as a non-Chalcedonian who upholds true and objective conclusions

So do I. One fundamental difference between us is that you want unity for the sake of unity. Instead of stating that Leo of Rome is indeed Nestorian, you refer to him as "confused", trying to convince us that you actually know the state of Leo of Rome when he wrote the Tome or his intentions. I prefer a unity based onn truth and free of false ecumenism.

Consider your statement in post # 69:
 
"I happen to believe since we have no differences in dogma, we are not only "can be" One Church, but we "are" in fact One Church.  I cannot accept a divided Church.  Only man divides, but not the Church.  I believe Christ has not allowed a division in the Orthodox Church, but only a lesson to be learned.  That's my philosophy."

Your philosophy is self-contradictory, and I did not want to comment on it until we finish the discussion with Chalcedonians. Here you are:

- We are two different groups, and we have been out of communion with the Chalcedonian side for the past 16 centuries. This is a fact of life. If you cannot accept it, that is too bad (for you). ÂÂ
- Mutual Anathema still stands, and as much as you want to spin around this fact, it still stands. Our orthodox fathers such as St.Dioscoros and St.Severus are anathemized by the EO, and their leaders are as well. Leo of Rome, Theodret, Ibas, Eusebius, Flavian, and others are still under anathema. You either neglect a fact that is obvious, for you do not want to face reality, or you do not understand what anathema means.
- We do not anathemize people for the sake of it, there are reasons that prompted "the spiritual execution verdict" against certain individuals. It is their teachings and blasphemies. EO anathemize our Fathers for their teachings did not agree with theirs and they considered them heretics, and we anathemize the the Chalcedonian leaders for they taught heresy. There is no other reason for anathema.
- The branch theory is a heresy, plain and simple. The Church is one and remains one, for Christ has only one Body. I respect an EO who would say the same thing, for at least he is honest with himself and consistent with his belief. The only way you can become part of the Body of Christ is by Communion, which is not established between OO and EO, and therefore, we cannot both be the Church. ÂÂ
- What is up with this repeated "confusion" excuse ? You have no way of telling the personal state of any theologian, and specially when his personal connections were very suspecious, but we can definitely judge the writings that survived or the references to their teachings from valid resources. If you claim to be objective, and you are to a large extent, refrain from judging the mental, psychological and other state attributes of the theologians that are totally unknown to you. You were not there.
- You ask us to believe that St.Severus, for example, who lived in the immediate post-Chalcedon era and played a pivotal role in discussions with the Chalcedonian leaders, was also confused, yet you understand better. Although you were not there and the Great Patriarch of Antioch was attending, you understand better the language and the intentions of his opponents. Although you only read about it, and imagined what happened, you can still judge better than a magnificent saint who was present. You did not debate the Chalcedonian leaders to judge their intentions, yet the great saint debated them for about a year and a half. St.Severus had all resources in front of him, and nothing was lost from the historical documents and it was still a hot issue, and he judged Chalcedon as unholy, yet you have no access to his resources but still claim to understand better. No.
- You ask us to believe that the history of the Church is nothing but a series of misunderstandings and confusions, supporting the case of pagans and unbelievers in their criticism of the Faith as a whole. We can extend the same logic to embrace Nestorius, the heretic, Arius, the blasphemers, and any other heretic you wish, for there is no absolute standard anymore and theology to you is nothing but a ideology and the current best approach, and not a confirmation of faith. While you might not want to go so far, it becomes the question of how far you want to go, rather than where is the truth. Truth is absolute.

Your reference to HEM Bishoy just proves my point further:

The condemnation of the person and teachings of Theodore of Mopsuestia which was conducted  in the second Council of Constantinople (533) was a monumental historical event which became an important support to the continuing struggle of Orthodoxy against Nestorianism.

Which is what I maintained from the beginning. Did I ever criticize the 5th council ? Yet the reference to the struggle is amputated, for the 5th council also anathemizes the teachings of Ibas and blessed Thedoret as well, which have been found orthodox by Chalcedon. ÂÂ

To conclude our Oriental Orthodox people should realise that the Orthodox can never be Nestorians since they have condemned the Nestorian teaching of the union of two persons in an external union in Jesus Christ and confessed that the Word of God came in His Own person.

They are not currently Nestorians, and ever since 553 a.d., but those who adhered to the Tome between 451 and 553 and the three chapters are Nestorians. Did HEMB ratify the decision regarding the Three Chapters by Chalcedon or concur on it ? Did the OO holy synods agree to accept the decisions of Chalcedon unconditionally ? If they still reject it, then there must be heresy implied in these decisions.

It is also clear that the Orthodox interpretation of the teachings of the four later councils of the Orthodox are the same as the doctrine of the Oriental Orthodox who have always refused both the Nestorians and Eutychian heresies.

Emphasis on interpretation, for the EO cannot leave the Tome, for example, stand alone but add to it and read it in the light of Cyril's chapters.
Faith documents do not need just twisting and extensive excuse.

Now to another statement of yours:
While Chalcedon confused us with the acceptance of the Three Chapters by the Roman legates

The Three chapters were accepted by the whole council, and not by Leo of Rome alone through his delegation. Whereas EO, through their silence on the matter, cannot defend the contradiction between the 4th and 5th council, you are trying to excuse them based on misrepresentation of history. CHALCEDON ACCEPTED THE THREE HERETICAL CHAPTERS. Face it. There is no confusion here or misunderstanding, for the Chalcedonian themselves anathemize these writings.

What Stavro says is not what our heirarchs have agreed upon.

What the hierarchs agreed upon is to have a declaration of faith, which is a Traditional way and accepted by the OO. It does not imply to confess Chalcedon or the later councils as orthodox.

 it is clear as Anastasios showed that Chalcedon was not ULTIMATELY Nestorian

Anastasios argued for the Orthodoxy of the Chalcedonians between 451-553, and he made valid points that were not disputed by me, yet the question of the Three Chapters remains unanswered. I will leave the Tome aside, for the references and standards are different and as such, no agreement will take place. A council embraced heretical teachings, and upon careful examination, found them representing the faith the council wants to proclaim and includes it in the accepted teachings of the council, yet the same teachings are anathemized by another council by the same group. ÂÂ

Again, a common declaration of faith on the faith-related issues (and they are not christological alone as we are led to believe) is sufficient for reunion. ÂÂ
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Stavro on June 14, 2005, 04:53:08 PM
Quote
Secondly, I find the insistance that the Language of Chalcedon was sloppy to be unsubstantiated.
I agree. Chalcedon was very clear about the version of faith they wanted to proclaim, Leo's Tome is very clear in ascribing actions to two separate persons in Christ, and the language of Theodret, Ibas and Theodore in their writings is very clear in its Nestorian content, and all was accepted in Chalcedon. St.Dioscoros confession (exact words used by St.Cyril) was rejected for its Orthodoxy. 

Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on June 14, 2005, 05:26:36 PM
Timos,

Quote
Right now I'm quite confused because I believe that the Oriental Orthodox are truly Orthodox but I just can't understand one thing. If the Copts now truly believe that Chalcedon is Orthodox then why won't they accept it? It would make things so much more less complicated. On the other hand, if the Eastern Othodox truly believe that the Oriental Orthodox are truly Orthodox then why won't they just let them be and accept them without having them to accept the other 3 councils??
Furthermore on the other hand, both churches believe that the Holy Spirit directly influences the councils so therefore even if the copts use the argument that "these councils did not affect us" wouldn't they be automatically obliged to accept the councils since they are ecumenical and therefore inspired by God??"

We simply cannot accept the last four councils for two main reasons:

1.  We weren't represented.
2.  Our fathers have been unjustly condemned.

We've misunderstood Chalcedon's doctrinal intentions, that is all.  Orthodoxinfo.com has failed to judge the essence of the faith of our OO fathers.

Dear Stavro,

Quote
So do I. One fundamental difference between us is that you want unity for the sake of unity. Instead of stating that Leo of Rome is indeed Nestorian, you refer to him as "confused", trying to convince us that you actually know the state of Leo of Rome when he wrote the Tome or his intentions. I prefer a unity based onn truth and free of false ecumenism.


No, Stavro.  Leo was not Nestorian.  Prove to us that Leo was Nestorian.  HEMB has given a clear message that we have misunderstood one another and that we continue to battle Nestorianism together.  I suggest you go to ccel.org and read Leo's letters, and you will find out that Leo was not a Nestorian at all.

Quote
We are two different groups, and we have been out of communion with the Chalcedonian side for the past 16 centuries. This is a fact of life. If you cannot accept it, that is too bad (for you).


One day, we'll be back in communion, and anathemas will be lifted, and you will just have to live with the fact of life that Leo wasn't Nestorian.

Quote
Mutual Anathema still stands, and as much as you want to spin around this fact, it still stands. Our orthodox fathers such as St.Dioscoros and St.Severus are anathemized by the EO, and their leaders are as well. Leo of Rome, Theodret, Ibas, Eusebius, Flavian, and others are still under anathema. You either neglect a fact that is obvious, for you do not want to face reality, or you do not understand what anathema means.


And yet, I repeat, these anathemas will be lifted when there is unity.  They anathematized our fathers because they thought they were Eutychians.  We anathematized their fathers because we thought they were Nestorians.  We were (and for some of us, are) both wrong.

Quote
The branch theory is a heresy, plain and simple. The Church is one and remains one, for Christ has only one Body. I respect an EO who would say the same thing, for at least he is honest with himself and consistent with his belief. The only way you can become part of the Body of Christ is by Communion, which is not established between OO and EO, and therefore, we cannot both be the Church.


When St. John Chrysostom broke out of communion from us, was the Church the Church where St. Theophilus was or was St. John Chrysostom and his supporters the Church?  It comes to show that some anathemas are null and void in Christ's eyes, and only men divide if there is truly one faith.  "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism."  If we accept one another's baptisms, we might as well say that one another's sacraments are valid even though we are not fully united under them.

Quote
What is up with this repeated "confusion" excuse ? You have no way of telling the personal state of any theologian, and specially when his personal conections were very suspecious, but we can definitely judge the writings that survived or the references to their teachings from valid resources. If you claim to be objective, and you are to a large extent, refrain from judging the mental, psychological and other state attributes of the theologians that are totally unknown to you. You were not there.

What in the world are you talking about?

Quote
You ask us to believe that St.Severus, for example, who lived in the immediate post-Chalcedon era and played a pivotal role in discussions with the Chalcedonian leaders, was also confused, yet you understand better. Although you were not there and the Great Patriarch of Antioch was attending, you understand better the language and the intentions of his opponents. Although you only read about it, and imagined what happened, you can still judge better than a magnificent saint who was present. You did not debate the Chalcedonian leaders to judge their intentions, yet the great saint debated them for about a year and a half. St.Severus had all resources in front of him, and nothing was lost from the historical documents and it was still a hot issue, and he judged Chalcedon as unholy, yet you have no access to his resources but still claim to understand better. No.


St. Severus is a great saint who wrote much.  He understood Chalcedon to be Nestorian, and that is why he condemned it.  The condemnation of St. Dioscorus was also of great suspicion to him and his party.  Consider St. Maximus the Confessor of the EO's.  He condemned St. Severus' teachings as if they were Eutychian (and there were also some who condemned St. Severus of Nestorianism!).  Since neither side believed in any heresy, these condemnations are obviously a misunderstanding, and this is my objectivity.

Quote
You ask us to believe that the history of the Church is nothing but a series of misunderstandings and confusions, supporting the case of pagans and unbelievers in their criticism of the Faith as a whole. We can extend the same logic to embrace Nestorius, the heretic, Arius, the blasphemers, and any other heretic you wish, for there is no absolute standard anymore and theology to you is nothing but a ideology and the current best approach, and not a confirmation of faith. While you might not want to go so far, it becomes the question of how far you want to go, rather than where is the truth. Truth is absolute.


By that logic, then the Chalcedonians are also justified in calling us Eutychians, and we will forever uphold the Chalcedonians as heretics and Nestorians regardless of what they believe.  I don't call that objectivity at all.

Quote
Which is what I maintained from the beginning. Did I ever criticize the 5th council ? Yet the reference to the struggle is amputated, for the 5th council also anathemizes the teachings of Ibas and blessed Thedoret as well, which have been found orthodox by Chalcedon.

Not all of Chalcedon accepted the Three Chapters.  Only the Roman legates.  Consider the conclusive definition of the Council of Chalcedon as ultimate dogma of the Council of Chalcedon.  The Fifth Council adds and clarifies the Fourth Council further.  My God, I'm sounding like an EO.

Quote
They are not currently Nestorians, and ever since 553 a.d., but those who adhered to the Tome between 451 and 553 and the three chapters are Nestorians. Did HEMB ratify the decision regarding the Three Chapters by Chalcedon or concur on it ? Did the OO holy synods agree to accept the decisions of Chalcedon unconditionally ? If they still reject it, then there must be heresy implied in these decisions.


I tell you though, it's AMAZING that the same people who accepted the Tome are the same people who:
1.  Upheld the title "Theotokos"
2.  Did not deny communicato idiomatum
3.  Who had to accept the Council of Ephesus
4.  Who condemn and forced Theodoret and Ibas to condemn Nestorius both in dogma and person.
(as Anastasios) said.

Furthermore, Stavro, you make my point when you write:

Quote
Quote
It is also clear that the Orthodox interpretation of the teachings of the four later councils of the Orthodox are the same as the doctrine of the Oriental Orthodox who have always refused both the Nestorians and Eutychian heresies.
Emphasis on interpretation, for the EO cannot leave the Tome, for example, stand alone but add to it and read it in the light of Cyril's chapters.
Faith documents do not need just twisting and extensive excuse.

Indeed, "interpretation" is the key.  For along with the four points made by Anastasios as I restated, Chalcedon and the Tome canNOT be interpreted Nestorian.  So the fact that we must agree upon an Orthodox interpretation means we had the wrong interpretation all along.

Quote
The Three chapters were accepted by the whole council, and not by Leo of Rome alone through his delegation. Whereas EO, through their silence on the matter, cannot defend the contradiction between the 4th and 5th council, you are trying to excuse them based on misrepresentation of history. CHALCEDON ACCEPTED THE THREE HERETICAL CHAPTERS. Face it. There is no confusion here or misunderstanding, for the Chalcedonian themselves anathemize these writings.

No where in the definition of Chalcedon did the WHOLE SYNOD agree upon the Three Chapters as dogmatic.  Only the Papal legates.  However you want to interpret the "silence" of the Synod is open for discussion.  But there is no proof that the whole Synod accepted the Three Chapters.  Face it.  You can't prove it.

Quote
What the hierarchs agreed upon is to have a declaration of faith, which is a Traditional way and accepted by the OO. It does not imply to confess Chalcedon or the later councils as orthodox.

You are right, but we must also lift our anathemas against these councils and agree upon an Orthodox interpretation of it, as HEMB said.

Quote
Anastasios argued for the Orthodoxy of the Chalcedonians between 451-553, and he made valid points that were not disputed by me, yet the question of the Three Chapters remains unanswered. I will leave the Tome aside, for the references and standards are different and as such, no agreement will take place. A council embraced heretical teachings, and upon careful examination, found them representing the faith the council wants to proclaim and includes it in the accepted teachings of the council, yet the same teachings are anathemized by another council by the same group.


You can get too hung up on the Three Chapters all you want.  But it is still very clear from HEMB that the "last four councils" (since EO has seven councils, that includes Chalcedon) will be interpreted as Orthodox.  No longer will we continue to spit condemnations at one another.  Regardless of the opinions of the Roman Legates (and not the whole Synod), the Chalcedonians through Constantinople 553 condemned the Three Chapters.  I think Anastasios or any other EO will say the same.

In addition, the fact that Theodoret ended up condemning Nestorius (even though hesitantly) puts some credence to Chalcedon.  Similarly, the fact that Eutyches confessed at the Second Ephesine Council that Christ is "consubstantial with His mother" should also put some credence on Ephesus.  I still maintain semantics and misunderstandings and politics.  This is the most honest thing I can say on a personal basis.  To say that we did not misunderstand each other would be a contradiction to what I've read and concluded from documents of both Orthodox families.

God bless.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: idontlikenames on June 14, 2005, 07:04:22 PM
[place erudite and obscurantist sentence here]blah di blah di blah blah blah[/place erudite and obscurantist sentence here]

[bloviate and try to humiliate other posters with my intelligence here] yadda yadda yadda [/bloviate and try to humiliate other posters with my intelligence here]

*obscure trivial fact*......*elegant sentence with lots of commas and not very many periods*......*eloquent hog-wash*......

etc.....etc....etc...
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on June 14, 2005, 07:31:00 PM
Dear Timos,

When I have the time tonight, I will answer the claims you have quoted from Orthodoxinfo.com.

God bless you.

Mina
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 14, 2005, 09:53:28 PM
I can agree to disagree only if we truly believe in different faiths, and only if both our fathers in each Orthodox tradition believe in different faiths. ÂÂ
Again, you are confusing the issues. The issue is not whether you and I believe the same doctrine today.
you have not proven St. Dioscorus as a heretic as of yet.
This is what we disagree about. And of all the people who have presented the Non-Chalcedonian position in this thread, I have the most respect for Stavro, because at least he is honest enough to face what the impasse is about.
And whether Dioscorus misunderstood Leo or not is again not the issue. Nestorianism can also be seen as a well intentioned over-reaction to Arianism, but it is still a heresy. Dioscorus' intentions are not in question, his teaching is.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Salpy on June 14, 2005, 10:27:13 PM
guys,

I really do not want to get caught up in this polemical discussion, nor say something that may be construed as contentious.  Therefore I beg that all the EO's here take my following questions as only questions motivated by curiosity and not as arguments.  All I want is clarification on the following:

1.  The "Sleeping Brothers":  This was a monastic order in Constantinople during and after the Council of Chalcedon.  They accepted Chalcedon. It is also my understanding that they considered Nestorius a saint and celebrated his feast day.  It wasn't until after the 5th council that they were squelched.  Until then, the authorities had no problem with them.  How do the EO's reconcile this with the claim that no Chalcedonians ever interpreted Chalcedon in a Nestorian manner?

2.  Someone above asked why the Church of the East today is separate from the EO's.  It was my understanding that this was a schism which occurred after the 5th council, not before.  I thought this was pretty well documented and that the Assyrians will attest that this is the case.  Is there any evidence that you were two different churches prior to the 5th council?

3.  It was my understanding that Pope Vigilus (sp?) anathematized the EO's after they rejected the three chapters at the 5th council.  He did this because he thought the three chapters were accepted by Chalcedon and to reject them undermined Chalcedon.  I think this schism lasted for 50 years.  If the EO's always clearly rejected the three chapters, why were they anathematized only after the 5th council?  Why were they not anathematized earlier?  Also, if the three chapters were not really accepted by the Council of Chalcedon, why did they need to be rejected at the 5th?

4.  Do the EO's believe that when Christ was on the cross His Divine nature left Him and that is why He cried, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?"  In other words, do you believe that was the human Christ crying out to his Divine nature, which had just left him?  I know that was a belief of Nestorius and that the Catholics, even today, believe that, supposedly thanks to Pope Leo. Do the EO's believe that too?

5.  What is "neo-Chalcedonianism?"  It is my understanding that it describes Chalcedonian Christology after the 5th council.  I understand it means that after the 5th council the Chalcedonians shifted their Christology to be more in line with us OO's.  That, I thought, was the reason for the schism between the Church of the East and the present day EO's.  Is my understanding wrong?  If so, what is "neo-Chalcedonianism" and how does it differ from the Chalcedonianism which existed prior to the 5th council?

Again, please do not think I am presenting arguments or that I am trying to be contentious.  I really do want to hear the Chalcedonian side to the above issues, and that is why I am raising them here.  Also, please forgive me if these things have already been addressed.  It's a long thread and I've tried to read through it as best as I could.

Thanks for your patience. ÂÂ Please don't anathematize me or call me a heretic. ÂÂ I'm rather sensitive. ÂÂ  :)
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: yBeayf on June 14, 2005, 10:34:45 PM
Quote
4.  Do the EO's believe that when Christ was on the cross His Divine nature left Him and that is why He cried, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?"  In other words, do you believe that was the human Christ crying out to his Divine nature, which had just left him?  I know that was a belief of Nestorius and that the Catholics, even today, believe that, supposedly thanks to Pope Leo. Do the EO's believe that too?

Uh, I don't know about the Assyrians, but the Catholics definitely don't believe this. Where did you hear that they did?

And the EOx don't believe this either.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Salpy on June 14, 2005, 10:39:58 PM
Beayf,

I've heard that from a number of sources, not just OO sources.  I'll be happy to hear if I have been misinformed.

Correction to my above post:  It's not "sleeping brothers," but "sleepless brothers."  Perhaps their lack of sleep was the cause of their problems.  ;D
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 14, 2005, 10:59:31 PM
I've heard that from a number of sources, not just OO sources.ÂÂ  I'll be happy to hear if I have been misinformed.

Yes, you have been misinformed.
Here is the Eastern Orthodox teaching regarding the Two Natures as taught by our Ecumenical Councils:

God is one essence but three different persons. The Son has the same essence or nature as the Father and the Holy Spirit, but He is a distinct person. He is equal to the Father and the Holy Spirit. All three co-exist simultaneously. They all possess the attributes of omnipresence and omniscience. They are all associated in the act of creation and redemption. This is called the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, that there are 3 persons in one God.

An example in human nature, is the relationship between our mind, its ideas and the expression of these ideas in words.

Christ is one person, yet has two natures. His Divine nature is united with his human nature - without change, confusion or division. "Without change", means neither the Divine nor the human nature was altered, that is, neither the Divine nature became human, nor did the human nature lose its distinct attributes. "Without confusion", means that the Divine nature performs all things Divine and the human nature performs all things human. "Without division", means that the two natures never separated, so when Christ did what was Divine, His human nature followed, and when the human acted, His Divine nature co-operated. Each nature acted "in communication with the other".

For example, in the Garden of Gethsemane, Christ expresses fear in the face of His passion. He began to be sorrowful and deeply depressed" (Matthew 26:37-38). Because He took on a mortal body He was naturally afraid. He knew he was about to die. The soul's natural fear of death is due to the fact that there is a close connection between the soul and body and therefore when the soul is being prepared to leave the body, it is natural to be deeply distressed. Christ's Divine will yielded to His human nature to fear death. As man He was troubled by the memory of death, but as God He transforms the fear at once into boldness and through His authoritative power He invited death to come. In Christ it was a natural fear and not a supernatural fear.

Example 2, Jesus wept at the death of Lazarus because He loved him and also because He saw the corruption of human nature after sin and penetration of death. Man was not created to die, but sin introduced mortality. Christ is not only God by nature, but also man. Therefore His human nature suffered.

Example 3, Why did Jesus need to pray? Christ did not need to pray as He was always united with His Father, but He did so to identify Himself with our person and to teach us to pray and in this way to achieve communion with God. Also by His prayer, He shows that He honours His Father. Christ's human nature always obeyed and submitted to the Divine will -"Nevertheless not as I will, but as you will". While His human will differs from the Father in essence, nevertheless, it follows the Divine will and so becomes the will of the Father. Similarly, Christ teaches us to apply God's will, even if it is different from our own human will.

Example 4, Since Christ is one person with two natures, whenever one question is asked about him it must be separated into two questions, one applying to each nature:

(a) Did Christ get tired, hungry, thirsty? - in His Divine nature, no! In His human nature, yes!

(b) Did Christ die? - in His human nature He did die. But in His Divine nature He did not die.

(c) Did Christ know everything? - As God He did, since God is omniscient. But as man Jesus said that He did not know the time of the Second Coming. {Mat 24:36].

(d) Could Jesus Sin? - As God He could not have sinned; but as man He could have sinned but He did not. Jesus was "in ail points tempted as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15), that is to say, while He never sinned, He was really tempted and therefore it was possible for Him to sin - otherwise His temptation would have been a charade. Jesus possessed the power of free choice, which means whatever moral choice He made, He could have done otherwise. This means that He chose not to sin (which was always), He could have sinned as man but He did not.

Christ's Divinity did not leave him at any point, ever. But His Divinity did not die when He died on the Cross.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Salpy on June 14, 2005, 11:09:25 PM
I'm glad the EO's don't believe Christ's divinity ever left Him on the cross.

About the sleepless ones again:  The name may have been "sleepless monks."  I'll eventually get it right.

Another question:  It is my understanding that it wasn't just Pope Vigilus who objected to the three chapters being rejected at the fifth council.  I thought the main EO patriarchs initially objected also, and for the same reasons.  At least the EO patriarch in Alexandria did.  The Catholic Encyclopedia seems to back that up:

 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14707b.htm

If that is the case, then how can it be said that the EO's always rejected, or even never accepted, the three chapters?

Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Fr. David on June 14, 2005, 11:45:07 PM
Good stuff, ozgeorge, but I gotta take issue with one thing you said, for two reasons:

(c) Did Christ know everything? - As God He did, since God is omniscient. But as man Jesus said that He did not know the time of the Second Coming. {Mat 24:36].

1) Actually, the verse says that not even the Son--the Logos iow--knew this, "but only the Father."  So it seems as though the divine Father knew this, but not the Son, according to the Scripture.  So Christ did not "know" this even in His divinity, apparently...

2) When you get into the realm of "knowing" things, you come dangerously close to setting up two "consciousnesses" within Christ, or two independent and sentient centers in the one Christ, which we can't have.  There's no way, really, that a human could know the things Christ knew (for example, knowing that St. Photini had had five husbands), but the Logos incarnate was not hindered from this aspect of His divine nature by His also possessing a human nature.  Different natures can will different things--and thus can act against each other (not that those of our Lord ever did this)--but to say that one nature was conscious of something while another nature was unconscious of it borders Nestorianism.

It is when we give the natures of Christ their own consciousnesses that we run the risk of going over into Nestorianism.  Such a thing is NOT the belief of Chalcedon.  Or St. Leo!   ;D

Pedro, reopening THAT can of worms...
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 15, 2005, 12:09:56 AM
1) Actually, the verse says that not even the Son--the Logos iow--knew this, "but only the Father."ÂÂ  So it seems as though the divine Father knew this, but not the Son, according to the Scripture.ÂÂ  So Christ did not "know" this even in His divinity, apparently...
"Apparently", but not in actuality. As He relates to His Father, He does "know", as He relates to us, He "does not know".  Christ knows the "Day and the hour" , he just will not tell us.

2) When you get into the realm of "knowing" things, you come dangerously close to setting up two "consciousnesses" within Christ, or two independent and sentient centers in the one Christ, which we can't have.ÂÂ  There's no way, really, that a human could know the things Christ knew (for example, knowing that St. Photini had had five husbands), but the Logos incarnate was not hindered from this aspect of His divine nature by His also possessing a human nature.ÂÂ  Different natures can will different things--and thus can act against each other (not that those of our Lord ever did this)--but to say that one nature was conscious of something while another nature was unconscious of it borders Nestorianism.
When Christ slept, and when He died, in His humanity, He was "not conscious" in the sense that His "five senses" were not recieving data. In His Divinity however, He remained conscious and omniscient.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on June 15, 2005, 12:17:09 AM
[size=20pt]Refuting some of Orthodoxinfo.com's assertions:[/size]

WARNING:  If you are an intellect and someone who likes truth based on writings and belief of the Fathers, reading this is a waste in time, but enjoyable to laugh at.

1. Eastern Orthodoxy and "Oriental Orthodoxy"

Quote
The superficial theological milieu of our era has proven most advantageous for ecumenical ideology, which seeks to gloss over the fundamental and abiding differences which distinguish the heterodox confessions from the Orthodox Faith. All too often, such differences are now conveniently dismissed as merely long-standing miscommunications of alternative, yet equally valid, terminological emphases. This perfunctory approach has been eagerly employed by Orthodox modernists in their theological dialogues with the so-called "Oriental Orthodox" churches.

If they are debating against terminological differences, then not only do they contradict some Orthodox fathers (the common ones that we share) but we get into the most childish fight of "My terminology is more Orthodox than your terminology."

Quote
The designation "Oriental Orthodox" itself clearly illustrates the ecumenistic tendency to obfuscate essential theological differences with euphemisms. This deceptive appellation, popularized by the defective world view of Western Christian thought—a world view which lumps together such mutually exclusive ecclesiastical entities as the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Assyrian Church of the East (i.e., Nestorians), "Oriental Orthodox" churches, and Eastern Rite Papists (i.e., Uniates, such as Melkites and Maronites) under the umbrella term "Eastern Christians"—, masks the intransigent heresies held for centuries by three main groups: 1) Armenians, 2) Copts and Ethiopians (Abyssinians), and 3) Syrian and Malabarese Jacobites.

To be an OO is to uphold a faith that is not at all different from the Holy Fathers.  We are justified calling ourselves "Orthodox."  As for the whole "Eastern Christians" complaint, well, that's just as childish as fighting of terminology that confesses the same faith.

Quote
The adjective Oriental is synonymous with the adjective Eastern. There is thus no real distinction between the term Eastern Orthodox (which identifies the only True Church) and the term "Oriental Orthodox" (which denotes several false churches).


Well, then there is a question that is begging to be asked.  Do Byzantines, Russians, and Slavs consider themselves "Oriental"?

Quote
More importantly, although the "Oriental Orthodox" have appropriated the title Orthodox for themselves (e.g., the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch, etc.), it was precisely their failure to embrace the Christology of the Holy Fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod in 451 that led to their departure from the domain of Orthodoxy to the hinterlands of heresy.

Throughout 10+ pages of debates, I think I don't need to repeat my defense here.  The only thing left is a challenge to them to find anything that is "heterodox" in our faith.  I defend we aren't in the "hinterlands of heresy" but proudly in the gardens of martyrdom and Orthodox faith.

Quote
They are therefore correctly and accurately designated either as Non-Chalcedonians, reflecting their rejection of this Divinely-inspired Ecumenical Synod, or Monophysites, characterizing their specific heterodox confession of Christianity.

I can accept non-Chalcedonian, for that is the truth after all, but to call us Monophysites (i.e. as if we confuse the natures of Christ) is very simply wrong.  There is no way you can prove we confuse the ousias of Christ.

Quote
These three groups of Non-Chalcedonians are united in their common profession of Monophysitism, as well as its logical consequents, Monotheletism and Monoenergism—the doctrines that in Christ there are, respectively, only one nature, one will, and one energy. The Fourth Ecumenical Synod anathematized Monophysitism, the Fifth Ecumenical Synod confirmed this decision, the Sixth Ecumenical Synod condemned Monotheletism and Monoenergism, and the Seventh Ecumenical Synod reaffirmed all of the foregoing. Therefore, in addition to being Non-Chalcedonians, the "Oriental Orthodox" are also Non-Second Constantinopolitans, Non-Third Constantinopolitans, and Non-Second Nicaeans.


This was also exhausted already.  We do not confuse the natures, natural wills, or natural energies.  We like to affirm more than anything else the prosopon as subject to all willing, acting, and energies.

Quote
Their unyielding opposition to four of the seven Ecumenical Synods makes it not just a little difficult for us to consider the Monophysite churches Orthodox. After all, even the Latins, not to mention some Protestants, ostensibly abide by all seven of the Ecumenical Synods, and they are never referred to as "Orthodox" churches.

Here is what Fr. John Romanides says about us:

Quote
One must emphasize that acceptance of the Three or Seven Ecumenical Councils does not in itself entail agreement in faith. The Franco-Latin Papacy accepts these Councils, but in reality accepts not one of them. In like manner there are Orthodox, since Peter the Great, who in reality do not accept the soteriological and Old Testament presuppositions of these Councils. On the other hand those of the Oriental Orthodox, who have not been Franco-Latinised in important parts of their theology, accept the first three of the Ecumenical Councils, but in reality accept all Seven, a fact which has now become clear in recent agreements.

Thank you Fr. John.  In this same article, he vindicates St. Dioscorus of any heresy.  The lifting of anathemas must happen ONLY on the presupposition that the person was never heretical.  Fr. John, a Chalcedonian, makes a good case here, and shows that whether you accept three or seven ecumenical councils, the faith was never different.

Quote
To bear the name Orthodox, one must confess—without equivocation—the Ecumenical Christology of the Catholic and Apostolic Tradition: Jesus Christ united without confusion within His Own Hypostasis His Divine Nature and His Human Nature, His Divine will and His Human will, and His Divine energy and His Human energy. There is no room here for semantic sidestepping. A recent study of Non-Chalcedonianism by the Monastery of Saint Gregory (Gregoriou) on Mt. Athos, The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics: A Contribution to the Dialogue Concerning the "Orthodoxy" of the Non-Chalcedonians, came to this same conclusion (see "Publications" at the back of this issue):

According to the Agreed Statements:

1989:

Quote
This is the mystery of the hypostatic union we confess in humble adoration - the real union of the divine with the human, with all the properties and functions of the uncreated divine nature, including natural will and natural energy, inseparably and unconfusedly united with the created human nature with all its properties and functions, including natural will and natural energy. It is the Logos Incarnate Who is the subject of all the willing and acting of Jesus Christ.


1990:

Quote
4. Both families agree that the natures with their proper energies and wills are united hypostatically and naturally without confusion, without change, without division and without separation, and that they are distinguished in thought alone (th qewria monh).

from http://www.monachos.net/patristics/christology/orthodox_and_oriental.shtml

Quote
A great ecclesiological chasm exists between us and the Non-Chalcedonians, which only the explicit confession of the holiness and ecumenicity of the Fourth and the following three Holy Ecumenical Synods on the part of the Non-Chalcedonians can bridge. Any manifest or hidden deviation whatsoever from Orthodox dogma, for the sake of some union contrary to the truth, will occasion only harm to immortal souls and suffering for the Church [p. 41].

We can't accept the ecumenicity of the last four EO councils because:

1.  We weren't represented.  How can it be ecumenical if we weren't represented?
2.  Our fathers are unjustly anathematized.  It's like condemning an innocent man with murder, and that you want us to accept that.

Quote
Because of their subconscious ecclesiastical insecurities, the New Calendarists in America have a pathological craving for worldly recognition, making them only too willing to accept the "harm to immortal souls and suffering for the Church" already occasioned by dialogues between the "official" Orthodox and the Monophysites. For example, as reported in an earlier issue of Orthodox Tradition, several modernist theologians recently participated in an "Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Symposium" co-sponsored by St. Vladimir’s Theological Seminary and St. Nersess Armenian Seminary, a symposium obviously mimicking the union dialogues held in Europe in 1989 and 1990. On the Orthodox side, the symposium included representatives from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, the Orthodox Church in America, and the Romanian Orthodox Church in America; on the Monophysite side, it included representatives from the Armenian Apostolic Church of America, the Coptic Orthodox Church, and the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch.

Is "New Calendarism" some type of heresy?  This is obviously an insult not only to us as "heretics" and "Monophysites" but to EO's in America.  I do like however the cooperation between our Orthodox families, and this is encouraging for unity.

Notice Orthodoxinfo.com so far hasn't even got into the meat of the whole situation.  There is no dogmatic criticism.  Only thing is because we're non-Chalcedonians, we're heretics.  That's the only thing they can think of.  This is nothing but close-mindedness.

Quote
As reported by Solia (Vol. 60, No. 6 [June 1995]), the symposium, in heinous violation of the ecclesiological self-definition of the Orthodox Church as the One and Only Church of Christ, blasphemously referred to "‘the two Orthodox Churches’" as "‘one Orthodox family,’" to quote the heretical phrase of one Coptic priest (p. 16). Relying on the results achieved by past conferences and commissions which have examined the "Orthodoxy" of the Monophysites, the participants glibly concluded "that there exists full agreement on the substance of the faith of the two churches, notwithstanding the differences in terms" (p. 13)—and this, apparently, notwithstanding the Divine Grace which enlightened such God-bearing Fathers as Saints Flavian of Constantinople, Leo the Great, and Proterios of Alexandria (all of whom struggled against and suffered because of the Monophysite heresy) to develop and to refine a precise Christological nomenclature delineating the Orthodox Faith.

I respect the defense of their fathers (I'm glad they're not defending Theodoret and Ibas), but there is no "two Orthodox Churches" but "One Church" and this is not the "branching heresy" as I have been accused of, but because we have always been one and the same faith, and since our fathers were not the heretics you thought they were, then we are automatically vindicated as Orthodox, and our unity has always existed regardless of what men did.  Anathemas are useless if they weren't heretical.

I do not believe that the One Church includes Catholics and Protestants.  The faith is clearly different.  But the Orthodox is a unique situation, whether you are Oriental or Eastern.

Quote
Having thus summarily disposed of the insuperable dogmatic barrier between the Truth of Orthodoxy and the falsehood of Non-Chalcedonianism, the symposium quickly turned its attention to the "practical steps...which could be implemented at the global and local levels to ultimately achieve [sic] unity," and "this includes among other things, a statement of reconciliation, academic cooperation, and common catechesis of young people" (ibid.). Deciphering this "ecumenically correct" jargon and restating it in plain Orthodox language, this symposium embraced the renunciation of Patristic Tradition, the scholarly prostitution of sacred theology, and the sacrifice of the next generation of Orthodox to appease the Moloch of Monophysitism. And for this, we have to thank "the great contribution of modern scholarship and the current worldwide ecumenical movement" (ibid.)! The words of the Savior ring with prophetic force: "Ye shall know them by their fruits" (St. Matthew 7:16).


These are complaints as a result of the conclusion they reached that we are Monophysites.  blablabla...
Oh and the last sentence I will agree with.  Indeed, "Ye shall know them by their fruits."  So far, I see nothing but growth and suffering in service of Orthodoxy and upholding the Orthodox faith which both our fathers have professed.  As one famous Jew said of the Christians, "If God is with them, then we might have been against God all along."

Quote
In contrast to our ecumenist counterparts, who—to the detriment of their fellow man—reinforce the Monophysites in their error, we traditionalists, out of love both for the Truth and for those who have deviated from it, challenge the Monophysites to accept the standard of True Orthodox Christianity. Let the Non-Chalcedonian heretics become truly Oriental Orthodox: Let their spiritual orientation turn eastward, facing the Chalcedonian sunrise that dawns universally from the noetic Anatolia of Eastern Orthodoxy, where the Theanthropic One, "Whose Name is Orient" (Zechariah 6:12 [LXX]), the God-Man Christ Jesus, rises in Truth. Only then, when they have renounced their heterodox beliefs, can we genuinely address these theologically disoriented Easterners as Orthodox brethren.

The last paragraph in this article and this whole article proves NOTHING against non-Chalcedonians.  Instead, we challenge them to find anything heretical in what we say.  It is evident in this whole article, which is nothing but complaints and moans and groans, they couldn't.

2. ÂÂ  Copts and Orthodoxy

Quote
A priest that I know says that the Copts are Orthodox, that they have been the victims of a theological misunderstanding by the Orthodox Church, and that they have a valid priesthood. He communes them and says that they are part of our Faith....You seem to think differently. Can you explain your position, which this priest says is old and outdated. He gave me an article by Bishop Maximos of Pittsburgh of the Greek Archdiocese. He says that Bishop Maximos is a great Patristic scholar and that his word, which supports the Copts as Orthodox, is final. (M.K., NY)

This person has been informed very well.  Big props to those with objective minds and knowing the real truth of history.

Quote
The Copts are Monophysites and thus heretics. Their Mysteries are invalid and, should they join the Orthodox Church, they must be received as non-Orthodox.

Already refuted.  We are not Monophysite and thus we are not heretics.  Our mysteries are valid, and we are already part of the Orthodox Church.

Quote
Indeed, now that most Copts have rejected the errors of the Monophysite heresy, this is a time for their reunion with Orthodoxy.

What a blessed and lovely sentence.  But now the burden is to defend and vindicate our fathers from heresy.

Quote
Here is a place for true ecumenism. But despite the fact that the time seems ripe, we must still rest on the Providence of God and restore the Copts to Orthodoxy in a proper way. One cannot say that he is Orthodox simply because he believes correctly and recites the Creed. He must be received into the Church by Chrismation or Baptism. The fact that the Copts were once Orthodox, fell away, and have now come to right belief is neither here nor there. Grace does not withstand generations of heresy and separation from the Church.

I think grace vindicated our Fathers from the wrong anathemas that were given to them.  St. John Chrysostom died anathematized, and yet hailed as a great saint and doctor of the Orthodox Church.

Quote
Anyone who believes that the Orthodox Fathers were wrong in condemning the Monophysites, and that the Copts have always been Orthodox, is guilty of blasphemy against the Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Synod at Chalcedon, which condemned the Monophysite heresy.

If your father was a judge who condemned someone innocent for murder, and it was later found out that this man was innocent, and you have very good and irrefutable proof, will not you believe that your father was wrong to condemn this someone.  Although calling someone "wrong" does not necessarily mean you are blaspheming your own father.  You believe in your own faith that your father had good intentions, and it was all a big fat misunderstanding.  This not only goes for the EO's but also for the OO's.

Quote
He is also guilty of heresy, in that such a proposition presupposes not only that the Fathers of the Church were in error and that this error entered into the conscience of the Church, but that the Orthodox Church has for centuries been "divided" between the two "families" of right-believing Orthodox and the supposedly "right-believing" Copts. Moreover, such a view presumes that our Orthodox Fathers, ignorant of the truth, "divided" the Church over semantics and over word games.

See, now this is surprising.  Showing that your Holy Fathers condemned Orthodox faithful wrongly is considered "heresy."  But "heresy" is defined as a deviance of faith, not a deviance of Holy Fathers' desicions.  For that, they would have to believe in the heresy of "Holy Father infallibility."  We are not of Paul or Cephas, but we are of Christ.  Again, fathers misunderstood one another.  It's possible that there can be misunderstanding.  It happened before with John of Antioch and St. Cyril, although the wisdom of St. Cyril brought him to compromise terminology without compromising faith to unite the split.

Quote
There are even some conservative Orthodox, insufficiently familiar with the primary historical materials and following Western historiographical views of the events surrounding the Council of Chacedon (which have often shown, as Father Florovsky has observed, sympathies both for Monophysitism and the Nestorian heresy which provoked it), who imagine that misinterpretation, misunderstanding, and intransigence are the sources of the Chalcedonian schism. This mimicking of Western scholarship, however popular, breeds an un-Orthodox approach to the Christological debate between the Orthodox and heterodox parties.

I guess "Western scholarly" sources are automatically null and void since they're from the "West."  And the "mimicking" of such is also null and void.  Since it's unorthodox, then mimicking "Western scholars" is, I guess, a heresy.

Quote
The Orthodox party was staunchly defending the truth, the non-Orthodox party staunchly defending a false view of Christ.

Again, prove it.  So far they can't.

Quote
While "objective" historians may thus attribute to the two sides in this debate "intransigence," it is obviously not consistent with Orthodox piety to accuse those who defend the truth of intransigence. It is heresy, a resistance to the truth, which actually has its roots in, and which is defined by, intransigence.

"Intransigenced" such that you call one terminology heresy and the other Orthodox, while the faith confessed is the same.

Quote
What, too, can we say of the Monophysite Churchmen and theologians who condemned our Orthodox Fathers as heretics and who are today revered by the Copts?


It was only done on the assumption that they were Nestorians.  Our theologians were wrong.

Quote
Are we to praise and honor them along with the Monophysite "Saints" whose intercession the Copts invoke? Are we to commemorate together the memories of Churchmen who stood diametrically opposed to one another and pretend that such commemorations are consistent with the "one mind" of the Apostolic Church? And must we now reject the counsel of the great Abba Evthymios, who warned St. Gerasimos of the Jordan against the Monophysite heresy, bringing the latter to bitter tears for his former errors?

First let us look at the essence of faith.  So far, they haven't proved that wrong.  Once we finish with that then we can worry about other questions.

Quote
Theologians and Churchmen who do not read the Fathers, who do not lead spiritual lives, and who see the union of men as something more important than our union with God in the unity of Faith have no business conducting dialogues between the Orthodox and the Copts. They are not acting in a spiritual way, and the results which they achieve will not be spiritual. They are too weak to speak the truth and to lead the Copts, as they must be led, back to the Church in humble submission.

What about the theologians who do lead spiritual lives, who do read the Orthodox fathers, and who sees the union of men crucial to affirm our One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church?  If I had a conviction that EO's were Nestorians, I would not be here defending unity.  People like Fr. John Romanides who is very well versed in the Holy Fathers have himself lead to an objective conclusion like mine.

Quote
We deeply respect and admire Coptic piety. Many Copts far exceed Orthodox in their dedication to God and fidelity to their faith. But our respect must not impede us from telling them the truth, bringing them into the Church properly, and offering them bread, rather than the stone of cheap ecumenical politics. Spiritual men pine for unity in the truth. Ecumenical politicians seek to exalt themselves by great feats of human prowess. Those spiritual men who have been misled by their understandable enthusiasm for Church unity should reflect seriously on who is leading them into this false unity and what their motives are. When the Copts, too, reflect on this, we will undoubtedly see a cooling in what is now unfounded enthusiasm. And as the Copts grow in their desire to return to Orthodoxy, they will themselves wish to do so in an orderly way and not through the back door which has been opened to them by ecumenical politicians and spiritually irresponsible clergymen.

All complaints and no substance of faith that says we are heretics.  We have not received the "stone of cheap ecumenical politics" and we do not enter "through the back door" of ecumenical politicians.  We understand the situation of "ecumenism" very well, and the issue between the EO and the OO is a very unique one.  I suggest this article by Subdeacon Peter Theodore:

http://www.britishorthodox.org/107d.php

This article vindicates the ecumenical talks taken between the EO's and the OO's as opposed to the other churches in the WCC who are childishly looking for unity just for the sake of unity.

Quote
Bishop Maximos' article on the Monophysites (The Illuminator, Vol. XII, No. 86) rests wholly on the theological opinion of Jean Lebon, A Roman Catholic Priest and scholar, who wrote an interesting thesis on a Monophysite figure. His Grace suggests that all "serious scholars and patrologists" follow the writings of this "great professor and scholar of our century" and find no ultimately essential differences, save those of terminology, between Orthodoxy and Monophysitism. "It is only ignorant and narrow[-]minded[,] irreponsible people who can oppose the work of God's Holy Spirit" and such views, he argues. I doubt, given the prevailing hatred for traditionalists in his jurisdiction, that His Grace would apologize to me and other Old Calendarists under this umbrella of condemnation, but he certainly owes an apology to other theologians who think as we do: the late Protopresbyter Georges Florovsky, the Blessed Archimandrite Justin (Popovich), Professor P. Trembelas, and others

I would love to read Bishop Maximos' article.  Perhaps, since there's such a split of agreement on the OO's, such that the "Old Traditionalist" group is a huge minority and the objective, yet Orthodox group is a majority, and that both sides of the EO believe(d) in the ecumenicity of the seven councils before the EO-OO dialogues, then there had to have been something that changed their minds about us OO's.

Quote
As for Bishop Maximos' suggestion that "church politicians" and "administrators" settle this question, res ipsa loquitur. Whenever the Church's conscience is violated, we turn to church politicians and administrators—the source and product of modernism and innovation. When that conscience is defended, we look to the Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils, and Church Tradition. And these have already spoken, as we have noted.

We are astonished at and deeply saddened by Bishop Maximos' ill-advised words.

I am deeply saddened at the article's failure to prove that Copts are heretics.  I wonder who then is "ill-advised" if they cannot give a satisfactory answer to this person.

Quote
The short answer, Patrick, is, what do you really expect them to proclaim, that they are heretics? Sorry for my tone in this, but you have to step back and look beyond the particulars, which have been complicated by centuries of self-justification on the parts of the various monophysite groups. The basic questions are really quite simple (even though the professional ecumenists think we are "simple minded" for seeing things in this way): Do we believe in a branch theory of the Church or not? Is the Divine Bridegroom of the Church—Who assures us that not even a sparrow falls to the ground without the will of our Heavenly Father—incapable of maintaining the integrity of His Body, or does He allow it to fracture, for the various components to anathematize one another, and yet for all portions/branches to maintain their unity with Him (and separation with one another) over centuries?

With that mentality, then logically, the non-Chalcedonian churches are the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, since indeed the Holy Fathers were wrong in condemning us with the heresies that we also condemned.

Quote
In some way or another, the Copts do presume this in their contemporary argumentation for the "Orthodoxy" of their confession. Stange as it may sound, if they had a truly Orthodox mentality, they would be arguing for our un-Orthodoxy (based on the centuries of our separation from them), rather than trying to prove that we are one and the same.

We have done that for centuries, but we finally had the guts to realize that we misunderstood one another.  Should "centuries" or "months" make a difference in God's eyes?  Obviously, there was some sort of schism when St. John Chrysostom was anathematized and when John of Antioch thought that St. Cyril taught Monophysitism.  Is it not therefore that a condemnation against a group that is unjust automatically null and void to God who knows all truth?

Quote
If the historical descendants of the monophysite heresy have come full circle and rejected the heretical components of their ancient confessions, this is for them to prove and for them to correct in a contrite spirit. There is a blasphemous disregard for the divinely-inspired conciliar polity of the Church and for the well-known consequences of schism hidden within their argumentation.

Already proven that the OO fathers such as St. Dioscorus were not Monophysites.  It is for them to prove we are actually Monophysites.  The burden is on them to have the guts to face the facts that we are innocent of the anathemas we received.

Quote
For the right-reasoning Orthodox believer, this is proof enough that they have lost the fullness of Grace and that

If that is the only proof they rest upon, then they are indeed ignorant and narrow-minded of the facts.

Quote
as Father Florovsky so wisely observed, "the history of the Christian divisions can...not be deduced from or built on the basis of the principle of intolerance, nor the principles of pride, lust for power, concupiscence or meanness [and one can certainly add 'cultural' and 'linguistic' idiosyncrasies to this list]. Of course, human passion in all its power is 'decked out' and exposed in the divisions of Christianity. But the initial source of these Christian schisms was not moral depravity or human weakness, but delusion."

So they affirm that it's not the faith they condemn, but the terminologies they condemn as heterodox.  In that case, to be consistent, they might as well condemn St. Cyril, which means that Chalcedon will stand alone, and may be interpreted as Nestorian.  In that case, I have no problem to agree with Stavro on the condemnation of the loss of grace on the EO's, since the only proof I can stand on is that they "left the One Church" and "lost the grace."  I feel just as "open-minded" as Orthodoxinfo.com.

Quote
...The Monophysite's fundamentalistic insistence on one formula ["one nature of the Word incarnate"]—to the exclusion of another that even St. Cyril had come to understand as synonymous [dual consubstantiality]—reflects an un-Orthodox view of dogma. Those of Orthodox spirit know that dogma is imperfect symbols describing Revelation, but not Revelation itself. What is critical for Orthodox is the integrity of that Revelation, not terminological rigidity.

Is that all they can prove?  That we believe in "one nature."  Yet, the context of which this was believed is no different from St. Cyril.  Again, the burden of proof is on them to find anything in our OO fathers' faith (like St. Dioscorus) to see if we contradict St. Cyril or not.

3.A Humorous and Instructive Reply to a Question Concerning the Monophysites

Quote
Dear Father xxx,

I think the question has less to do with "apologies" (and I basically agree with your position on that) and more to do with ecclesial matters:  if, hypothetically, it were determined that there were no doctrinal impediments to communion between the Chalcedonian Church and the Copts, what do we do with the veneration of saints who were persecuted and martyred by the other side, and who were each other's sworn enemies?  Would we give them a list of saints that had to be removed from their calendar?  Would they present us with such a list?  Or do you overlook everything while everyone continues to venerate whom they have always venerated?  And what about Coptic saints who may have been indisputably radical Monophysites for whom the Coptic Church has a continuing attachment?

I certainly do not presume to know the answers; however, these are, as I understand them, some of the questions.

With love in Christ,

Fr. xxx

Very good question.  The answer is very simple.  Each Chuch will continue to hold their "local" saints so long as they were never heretical.  There is no obligation in holding the other church's saints as our saints.  Let us examine Fr. xxx's humorous answer:

Quote
I came up with a fantastic solution to this dilemma. It is amazingly clever and novel. Let us pretend that Bishops of spiritual vision, meeting together in the belief that the Holy Spirit guides those who are gathered in Christ's name and among whom He thus dwells, were to conclude, in conformity with the confession of the Fathers before them, that the Monophysites taught something contrary to the Orthodox Faith preserved within the boundaries of the Church.

No Fr.  Let us not pretend and face the facts.  The OO's were never Monophysites, and NEVER taught something contrary to the Orthodox faith, with was preserved by the Holy Fathers of both the OO and the EO, which proves we are One Church.

Quote
Let us then pretend that the Orthodox Church is characterized by its fidelity to these Bishops and that the Fathers of the Church would never have cut off for untold centuries people who really were of correct faith; but rather, that they would have acted only responsibly and in a way pleasing to the Holy Spirit.

Again, let's face the facts.  Since the first half of the argument is incorrect, that they truly did condemn people of correct faith, that they therefore have not acted responsibly in a way pleasing to the Holy Spirit.  With that mentality Fr., then you are in the wrong church, for we can prove you that our fathers were not Monophysites.

Quote
And let us pretend that we are not more spiritual and more learned than these Fathers, or that the Fathers and believers and Saints in the many centuries after them were not simply cretins and sycophants blindly accepting the errors of the Å’cumenical Synods, waiting for our enlightened contemporaries bravely to open our eyes.

Let us indeed not pretend to be more spiritual and learned in faith than our Fathers, but that where truth is, truth must be upheld, and the truth is that our fathers were not heretics.

Quote
Then let us pretend that we are bound by our Baptisms and Confession of Faith to follow the infallible statements of the Å’cumenical Synods which these Bishops convened. Let us pretend that the very conscience of the Church and Her self-identity lie in these Synods. And let us pretend that one of these Synods actually condemned the Non-Chacedonians and removed them from the bosom of Orthodoxy. And finally, let us pretend that these Bishops represent the True Church established by Christ, from which all in error have been removed, and that fidelity to their pronouncements makes us True Orthodox Christians.

Indeed, you strip our names from the "bosom of Orthodoxy" just as much as St. John Chrysostom was stripped out of his patriarchal seat from St. Theophilus.  I'd rather sleep on the pillow of a skull (as St. Antonious did), then live in luxury and condemn my own fathers unjustly.

Quote
And let us pretend that contemporary Orthodox ecumenists, men (at least of late) of rather obviously limited intellectual gifts and little spiritual prowess, are not wiser than the Fathers before us. Would this not be a wonderful solution to the dilemma of our relationship to those in heresy, and specifically the heresy of Monophysitism?

I wonder then, where is the "intellectual gifts" of orthodoxinfo.com who have not proven the OO's are Monophysites?  Where is the "spiritual prowess" for those who throw insults at "contemporary Ortohdox ecumenists" and not consider that these men, well studied in the Holy Fathers, have indeed faced with the fact that the OO's and their fathers weren't, aren't, nor ever will be Monophysites.

Quote
Now, going beyond the foregoing game of "pretend," let us further pretend that Christians live in love and that, because of this, they would never want others to believe that what is false is true, but always wish to bring people to the Truth.


No, let us face it, Father "xxx," that we are truly not heretics and that we always bring people to the Truth.

Quote
Let us pretend that we could teach the Monophysites that they are wrong, rather than apologizing to them for the Truth and for human historical errors that have nothing to do with the criterion of Truth itself.


As of yet Father, you and anyone else have not proved that we are "wrong."  Therefore, apology accepted.

Quote
Let us pretend that we could bring the Copts into the Church, rather than prostitute the Truth by conforming it to error. Would this not add much to the wonderful solution that I proposed in the paragraph above?

No Father, let us once again face the facts that it is you who is murdering the Truth by conforming it to infallibility of every single Holy Fathers' words, for we are not prostituting the Truth, but affirming it with all honesty and righteousness.  There is no error in us, and so far you haven't proved it, and you fail to do so because you can't.

Quote
On second thought, all of this would entail faith in the Truth,


Truth is we are not Monophysites.

Quote
the authority of the Church,


The only authority I know of is Christ and not Leo or Dioscorus.

Quote
the inspiration of the Fathers,

To keep a certain terminology over another.  Indeed, a fool!

Quote
the infallibility of the Å’cumenical Synods,

If you believe that every single word of an Ecumenical Synod is infallible, then you have a problem with Chalcedon and the "Holy" legates of the "Holy Father" Leo who were "inspired" to affirm and embrace the Three Chapters, which contradict the fifth Council.

Quote
and the primacy of the Orthodox Faith.

The same faith to which we have always upheld.

Quote
How foolish I am! A mere fundamentalist!

Indeed, a fool!  A blind fundamentalist.

Quote
I apologize.

How thoughtful!  You simply lie in apologizing for your spirit does not apologize in your so-called "pretends."

Quote
Least Among Monks,

+ Archbishop Chrysostomos

aka "Fr. xxx"

In conclusion, my dear Timos, nothing that you have given us proven that we are Monophysite heretics.  They are in fact, failures, since they fail to be scholars and intellects and instead become like children, complaining, moaning, and groaning.

In Christ always,

Mina Soliman,

Most humble and faithful servant to the faith of St. Cyril and St. Dioscorus
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: yBeayf on June 15, 2005, 12:33:06 AM
Quote
I'm glad the EO's don't believe Christ's divinity ever left Him on the cross.

And just to re-iterate, the Catholics don't believe that His divinity left him, either.

Quote
If that is the case, then how can it be said that the EO's always rejected, or even never accepted, the three chapters?

1. The EOx Patriarch of Alexandria != all EOx hierarchs
2. Even if some of the EOx hierarchs initially accepted the Three Chapters (which I am not saying they did or did not), the 3C did not find themselves in the final definition of faith produced by Chalcedon, and so their acceptance or non-acceptance by some of the participants is irrelevant.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on June 15, 2005, 12:52:57 AM
Dear George,

Quote
And of all the people who have presented the Non-Chalcedonian position in this thread, I have the most respect for Stavro, because at least he is honest enough to face what the impasse is about.

Well, I would then be very interested if you can answer Stavro's claims against your fathers as Nestorians.  For he believes that Leo was Nestorian, and I know he certainly doesn't believe that St. Dioscorus was a Monophysite.  I won't be surprised if Stavro even calls Leo a "murderer" and "arch-heretic" and that Flavian and Eusebius likewise were all Nestorian heretics.  As a matter of fact, I wish to read the debates between both of you, since I am not of most respect to you.

Quote
And whether Dioscorus misunderstood Leo or not is again not the issue.

And yet you complain that Dioscorus refuted "two natures" with "one nature" and use that as heretical intentions, but you haven't proved it.  You even haven't proven the word "fuse" is in passage of the Synexarium you've quoted.  I like Salpy's honest questions without condemnation.  If Pope Vigilus, the successor of Pope Leo, anathematized the EO's for rejecting the Three Chapters, then shouldn't you start questioning the intentions of Leo?  I don't want to end up like Stavro condemning a non-Nestorian, but I do question his "inspiration" of the Holy Spirit, which contradicts the Spirit of Fifth EO Council.

Quote
Nestorianism can also be seen as a well intentioned over-reaction to Arianism, but it is still a heresy.

Not according to OO polemics, which can also be an over-reaction to Cyrillianism, like Nestorius and Theodoret, and acceptance of the Three Chapters.

Quote
Dioscorus' intentions are not in question, his teaching is.

And thus far, my friend, you still fail to show us that his teaching is heretical.  It was at least that Pope Dioscorus' successors found it not hard at all to condemn Eutyches, which Pope Vigilus hesitated to do to the Three Chapters.

God bless, my friend.

In Christ always,

Mina
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Salpy on June 15, 2005, 01:10:19 AM
It is my understanding, however, that the EO patriarchs didn't just accept the three chapters on a personal, individual level.  It is my understanding that they believed the council of Chalcedon accepted them.  That is the reason they initially objected to rejecting the chapters. They felt that would undermine Chalcedon.  If this is the case, how can the EO's say the eastern Chalcedonians never accepted the three chapters, that it was just a Western thing?  Of course, you can say the EO patriarchs were mistaken in their belief that Chalcedon accepted the chapters.  However, wouldn't they have been in a better position to know than people living today?  They were much closer in time to the council than we are.  Also, being patriarchs, they would have been pretty authoritative and knowledgeable on these matters.

I disagree with you on whether this is relevent.  It is very relevent to the issue of whether there were Chalcedonians prior to the 5th council who were of a Nestorian bent (even if they condemned Nestorius himself.)  That would have bearing on whether the OO's were justified in rejecting Chalcedon.

Anyway, I'm sorry if I am not making sense.  It is late and I am not sleeping.

Say, speaking of not sleeping, I have another question relating to the sleepless monks.  (I know it sounds like I am obsessing.)

They may have actually been condemned and suppressed a little before the 5th council.  It may have been over the issue of whether it was O.K. to say that "One of the Holy Trinity suffered in the flesh."  They, of course, did not like this phrase.

Do EO's today agree with that phrase, or do you have problems with it?

Thanks for bearing with me.  It's always good to hear the other side of the story.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 15, 2005, 02:11:32 AM
Ozgeorge,

Quote
And whether Dioscorus misunderstood Leo or not is again not the issue.

Obviously IT IS, for if St Dioscorus understood leo’s two-nature Christology in a Nestorian context, then it was essentially NESTORIANISM which St Dioscorus was rejecting and refuting. Please learn to adopt the logic of a 12 year old, for the sake of God alone.

Furthermore, Im GLAD you respect Stavro, since he has FIRMLY established the fact that it was absolutely REASONABLE for Leo to be understood in a Nestorian context — he used Nestorian expressions, he was best friends with Nestorian heretics KNOWING they were supporters of Nestorius. What more do you want? Use your head George...show the due respect to Stavro by dealing with his arguments, don't just pay lip service.

Quote
Dioscorus' intentions are not in question, his teaching is.

I will list all the quotes again. To put it bluntly: Deal with these quotes, or shut up. You’re twice my age, yet you approach this issue like a kid; having a cry when we critically evaluate Leo’s tome and prove objectively that his expression concerning the natures of Christ acting falls under the 12th anathema of St Cyril which anathemizes those who do not affirm the divine person/hypostasis as the subject of all Christ’s incarnate experiences , yet you obviously have neither the objectivity nor the capacity of mind to deal with the following very explicit quotes from St Dioscorus himself. When I show you a quote from St Cyril himself where he criticizes ignorants for deriving monophysitism from the mere declaration of One Physis, you deny that the quote exists, even when I reference it for you! What a laugh you are my friend; how embarrassing you must be for the Chalcedonians on this board.

Quotes that ozgeorge is yet to deal with and explain; and which prove beyond reasonable doubt that St Dioscorus affirmed One physis after the union IN THE SAME MANNER AND CONTEXT as his predecessor the blessed St Cyril:


1) ozgeorge quoted St Cyril before, in which St Cyril implicitly affirmed the faith of John of Antioch — the faith as declared in the re-union formula which affirms the two distinct natures (natures being used in the sense of ousia). St Dioscorus implicitly affirmed the Re-union formula ALSO - THUS BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS ST DIOSCORUS IS VINDICATED ACCORDING TO THIS ALONE, SINCE THIS WAS ENOUGH FOR YOU TO VINDICATE ST CYRIL:


(From Raoufs post) Dioscorus to Domnus of Antioch:

"Now I come back to you, O Christ loving bishop of Antioch, my brother, observe that John did not spare any effort to strengthen the unity of the Church at your end and ours. A unity that they cannot disrupt, they dispatched their forces against it, and without feeling it, they were about to destroy the time of peace. How glorious is the time of peace!"

2) St Dioscorus affirms that Christ acts accordingly to his two distinct natures (natures being understood in the sense of ousia):

First Letter of St. Dioscorus to his Monks:

"I know Him, and with faith I transcend. He was born God of the Father, and I know Him to be born man from the Virgin. I see Him walking as a man on earth and behold to heavenly Angels as God. I envisage Him sleeping in the ship as a man and He himself walks on the water as God. As a human He experiences hunger, and as God He feeds. He, as human, was stoned by the Jews and He himself is worshipped by the Angels as God. He was tempted as a human, but expels devils as God....I confess He is one; while He Himself is
God and Savior, he became man because of His goodness..."

IF ST DIOSCORUS BELIEVED THAT CHRIST ONLY HAD ONE NATURE (IN THE ESSENTIALISTIC SENSE), HOW COULD HE ACT ACCORDING TO ONE NATURE (ESSENCE) AT TIMES AND ANOTHER NATURE (ESSENCE) AT OTHER TIMES?

3) St Dioscorus explicitly affirms that Christ is CONSUBSTANTIAL WITH MANKIND — DIRECT REFUTATION OF MONOPHYSITISM:

"No one dare say that the Holy body taken from the Virgin by our Lord is not consubstantial with ours, as it is known, and as it is so."

AND:

“God the Logos, consubstantial with the Father, at the end of the ages for our redemption became consubstantial with man in the flesh, remaining what he was before.” (Sellers, R.V. The Council of Chalcedon p31. n1. S.P.C.K. 1953)

AND:

Letter to Secundinus:

"The phrase is "in everything". It does not exclude any part of our nature at all . It includes nerves, hair, bones, veins, belly, heart, kidneys, liver, and lungs. That flesh of our Savior, which was born of Mary and which was ensouled with a rational soul, was constituted of every element of which we are composed, but through male seed, sleep, and sensual gratification...For He was with us, like us, and for us. "

AND:

"Omitting many urgent matters, this I declare: that no man shall say that the holy flesh which our Lord took from the Virgin Mary by the operation of the Holy Spirit, in a manner which he himself knows, was different from and foreign to our body...For Paul has said...'It was right that in everything he should be made like unto his brethren' (Heb. 2:16,17) and that word, 'in everything', does not suffer the subtraction of any part of our nature; ...the flesh which was born of Mary was compacted with the soul of the
Redemmer, that reasonable and intelligent soul, without the seed of man...For he was like us, for us, and with us, not in phantasy, not in mere semblence, according the heresy of the Manichaeans, but rather in actual reality from the 'Theotokos'. To comfort the desolate, and to repair the vessel that had been broken, he came to us new...He became by the dispensation like us, that we by his tender mercy might be like him.ÂÂ  He became man...that we by grace might become the sons of God. This I think and believe; and if any man does not think this, he is a stranger to the faith of the apostles".

4) Even those at Chalcedon understood the fact that St Dioscorus' faith was Orthodox:

I will repeat for you what I stated to another failed Chalcedonian on this board a while ago in another thread, regarding St Dioscorus:

I recall for you the incident [during the Council[ in which Anatolius of Constantinople proposed a new formula, the aim of which was to meet the criticisms made by the many who attended Chalcedon and who were initially quite embarrassed by the tome of Leo due to its evident theological weaknesses. The Roman Legates feeling insulted that anyone dared to challenge any aspect of Leo's tome, and being suspicious that Anatolius's formula may compromise the tome's ultimate authority or even overshadow it (due ultimately and probably to their concept of papal supremacy and/or their adamant position to assert the superiority of Rome over the true theological centre of the Orthodox Christian world Alexandria), threatened to abandon the council at this point, which alarmed the imperial commissioners.

Although the text of the formula was lost, we need to take note of a very small change in the text which is significant to the point im trying to ultimately make. There is no doubt that the re-constructed form of Anatolius's formula as "in two natures" must have been "from two natures" the latter of which, as recognized by the council was used by the blessed St Dioscorus (AND USED BEFORE HIM BY ST CYRIL). What we find is that the Roman legates tried to object to the Orthodoxy Anatolius's formula which employed the expression "from two natures", on the basis that such an expression was one adopted by the blessed St Dioscorus. In response, Anatolius reminds the forgetful, arrogant and ignorant Romans that the blessed St Dioscorus was not condemned for heresy but rather (and even still so, falsely) for disciplinary reasons.

The Orthodoxy of the blessed St Dioscorus remained unchallenged, and he was only unjustly and falsely condemned as a heretic over a hundred years later (533, 680, and 787), by men who were never acquainted with him and who probably never even read a word he said. Unless you can prove otherwise, then you have no valid case against the Orthodoxy of St Dioscorus who was simply staying faithful to the true champion of Christology, his predecessor St Cyril.

1, 2, 3, 4 Issues to deal with George. DON'T RUN AWAY - either do the Christian thing and concede to the fact you have blasphemed against the blessed St Dioscorus by bearing false testimony against him like the Jews of the sanhedrin did to Christ, or continue parroting your same crap in self-denial so we can keep repeating and shoving the evidence in your face to further reduce your credibility which has already stooped below zero - no more patience with you my friend, it's crunch time.

Peace.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From the moving of Al-Mokattam mountain, to the blood of the Coptic martyrs, and to the Apparition in Zeitoun; the Lord and the Theotokos and all the saints will continue to bless and strengthen the Coptic church, no matter how many vein things the enemy wishes to conspire against her.

From St Basil's Liturgy:
"All offenses and their instigators, abolish. May all dissension of corrupt heresies cease. The enemies of Your Holy Church, O Lord, as at all times, now also humiliate. Strip their vanity, show them their weakness speedily. Bring to naught their envy, their intrigues, their madness, their wickedness and their slander which they commit against us, O Lord, bring them all to avail; disperse their counsel, O God, who dispersed the counsel of Ahithopel." Amen, Kyrie Eleison.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 15, 2005, 02:49:48 AM
Greekischristian,

First of all; welcome back, and congratulations on your graduation. May God continue to bless you with much success. I appreciate your response in the other thread; I have read it, however, at the moment I’m only doing rough 2 minute responses during my study breaks since my exams are next week (remember me in your prayers) so I will wait till my exams are over so I can respond to you properly. Just some quick comments for now.

Quote
The deposistion was perfectly justifiable

That proposition lies upon various presuppositions that need to be objectively justified; the legitimacy of the council itself for one. We have already started to raise various issues in the other thread which delve into the question of the council's legitimacy - so hopefully we can progress from there.

Quote
the fact that he presided over Ephesus 449, and declared with that Synod that the Teachings of Eutyches were Orthodox doesn't [sic?] give great creedance to his own Orthodoxy

It is well known that a) St Dioscorus took in Eutyches only because Eutyches had confessed Christ’s consubstantiality with his mother - furthermore he wasn't taken in whilst under anathema - you have presupposed the validity of Ephesus 448 (which anathemized Eutyches) and the invalidity of Ephesus 449 (which anathemized Leo's companion - Theodoret) - another matter that needs to be objectively discussed b) I am yet to find any hardcore explicit evidence regarding the heresy ascribed to Eutyches, the ambiguity of the matter is in itself a very significant issue - not only when regarding St Dioscorus' relationship with him, but also because Eutyches's being a Eutychian is the very assumption that Chalcedon stands on (I explored this a bit further in my response to Pedro in the same thread you and I have been discussing EO-OO issues)ÂÂ  c) There is an inherent double standard in your reasoning for you should be able to likewise conclude that Leo of Rome’s ill-association with Theodoret (an enemy of St Cyril the great, who was vehemently opposed to St Cyril's Orthodox Christology and who was a supporter of Nestorius) doesn’t therefore give much credence to his Orthodoxy either.

Furthermore, even the parallel between St Dioscorus-Eutyches and Leo-Theodoret is a flawed one.

I refer you to Stavro’s post on this issue: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=5867.msg78985#msg78985

And I refer you to an article by Fr. Romanides of the Eastern Orthodox Church on this issue also: http://romanity.org/htm/ro4enfm.htm

Quote
IF he truly was Orthodox in Theology (I have not read enough of him to form an informed opinion on my own)


Please see my last post to ozgeorge, which contains the relevant quotations which have been pasted for ozgeorge about 10 times now, and which he is as of yet unable to address. St Dioscorus explicitly affirmed the dual consubstantiality of Christ to the Father and mankind, he implicitly affirmed the re-union formula which incorporates the Antiochene's two nature (ousia) concerns, and he affirms that Christ performed as a man at times, and God at other times.

Quote
and the later Anathemas against him truly are Misplaced, on account of the aforesaid Historical events, the logic and conclusions that lead to these Anathemas were far from Unreasonable.

If you were to be consistent regarding the reasoning which lead you to such a conclusion (which I don’t agree with nonetheless, yet have no time to address right now), you should also therefore conclude, that our rejection of and anathemiszation of Leo was likewise “far from unreasonable”.

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 15, 2005, 06:11:11 AM
Are you really this stupid? Obviously IT IS, for if St Dioscorus understood leo’s two-nature Christology in a Nestorian context, then it was essentially NESTORIANISM which St Dioscorus was rejecting and refuting.....
Completeion of sentance: "....By resorting to monophysitism."
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 15, 2005, 06:25:37 AM
Quote
Quote from: EkhristosAnesti on Today at 02:11:32 AM
Are you really this stupid? Obviously IT IS, for if St Dioscorus understood leo’s two-nature Christology in a Nestorian context, then it was essentially NESTORIANISM which St Dioscorus was rejecting and refuting.....
Completeion of sentance: "....By resorting to monophysitism."

lol You know what ozgeorge, I don't think you even take yourself seriously, let alone expect anyone else to take you seriously...Why are you afraid to the confront the quotes? The truth doesn't bite my friend, your fathers got it wrong. The Lord has preserved the evidence which vindicates a true Orthodox confessor of the faith, please deal with it sir.

You complain about merry-go-rounds? Then grow up, and get off the merry go round; face the facts ozgeorge, don't be a kid:

Repition #8, and still waiting for ozgeorge to face the music:

Quote
I will list all the quotes again. To put it bluntly: Deal with these quotes, or shut up. You’re twice my age, yet you approach this issue like a kid; having a cry when we critically evaluate Leo’s tome and prove objectively that his expression concerning the natures of Christ acting falls under the 12th anathema of St Cyril which anathemizes those who do not affirm the divine person/hypostasis as the subject of all Christ’s incarnate experiences , yet you obviously have neither the objectivity nor the capacity of mind to deal with the following very explicit quotes from St Dioscorus himself. When I show you a quote from St Cyril himself where he criticizes ignorants for deriving monophysitism from the mere declaration of One Physis, you deny that the quote exists, even when I reference it for you! What a laugh you are my friend; how embarrassing you must be for the Chalcedonians on this board.

Quotes that ozgeorge is yet to deal with and explain; and which prove beyond reasonable doubt that St Dioscorus affirmed One physis after the union IN THE SAME MANNER AND CONTEXT as his predecessor the blessed St Cyril:


1) ozgeorge quoted St Cyril before, in which St Cyril implicitly affirmed the faith of John of Antioch — the faith as declared in the re-union formula which affirms the two distinct natures (natures being used in the sense of ousia). St Dioscorus implicitly affirmed the Re-union formula ALSO - THUS BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS ST DIOSCORUS IS VINDICATED ACCORDING TO THIS ALONE, SINCE THIS WAS ENOUGH FOR YOU TO VINDICATE ST CYRIL:


(From Raoufs post) Dioscorus to Domnus of Antioch:

"Now I come back to you, O Christ loving bishop of Antioch, my brother, observe that John did not spare any effort to strengthen the unity of the Church at your end and ours. A unity that they cannot disrupt, they dispatched their forces against it, and without feeling it, they were about to destroy the time of peace. How glorious is the time of peace!"

2) St Dioscorus affirms that Christ acts accordingly to his two distinct natures (natures being understood in the sense of ousia):

First Letter of St. Dioscorus to his Monks:

"I know Him, and with faith I transcend. He was born God of the Father, and I know Him to be born man from the Virgin. I see Him walking as a man on earth and behold to heavenly Angels as God. I envisage Him sleeping in the ship as a man and He himself walks on the water as God. As a human He experiences hunger, and as God He feeds. He, as human, was stoned by the Jews and He himself is worshipped by the Angels as God. He was tempted as a human, but expels devils as God....I confess He is one; while He Himself is
God and Savior, he became man because of His goodness..."

IF ST DIOSCORUS BELIEVED THAT CHRIST ONLY HAD ONE NATURE (IN THE ESSENTIALISTIC SENSE), HOW COULD HE ACT ACCORDING TO ONE NATURE (ESSENCE) AT TIMES AND ANOTHER NATURE (ESSENCE) AT OTHER TIMES?

3) St Dioscorus explicitly affirms that Christ is CONSUBSTANTIAL WITH MANKIND — DIRECT REFUTATION OF MONOPHYSITISM:

"No one dare say that the Holy body taken from the Virgin by our Lord is not consubstantial with ours, as it is known, and as it is so."

AND:

“God the Logos, consubstantial with the Father, at the end of the ages for our redemption became consubstantial with man in the flesh, remaining what he was before.” (Sellers, R.V. The Council of Chalcedon p31. n1. S.P.C.K. 1953)

AND:

Letter to Secundinus:

"The phrase is "in everything". It does not exclude any part of our nature at all . It includes nerves, hair, bones, veins, belly, heart, kidneys, liver, and lungs. That flesh of our Savior, which was born of Mary and which was ensouled with a rational soul, was constituted of every element of which we are composed, but through male seed, sleep, and sensual gratification...For He was with us, like us, and for us. "

AND:

"Omitting many urgent matters, this I declare: that no man shall say that the holy flesh which our Lord took from the Virgin Mary by the operation of the Holy Spirit, in a manner which he himself knows, was different from and foreign to our body...For Paul has said...'It was right that in everything he should be made like unto his brethren' (Heb. 2:16,17) and that word, 'in everything', does not suffer the subtraction of any part of our nature; ...the flesh which was born of Mary was compacted with the soul of the
Redemmer, that reasonable and intelligent soul, without the seed of man...For he was like us, for us, and with us, not in phantasy, not in mere semblence, according the heresy of the Manichaeans, but rather in actual reality from the 'Theotokos'. To comfort the desolate, and to repair the vessel that had been broken, he came to us new...He became by the dispensation like us, that we by his tender mercy might be like him.ÂÂ  He became man...that we by grace might become the sons of God. This I think and believe; and if any man does not think this, he is a stranger to the faith of the apostles".

4) Even those at Chalcedon understood the fact that St Dioscorus' faith was Orthodox:

I will repeat for you what I stated to another failed Chalcedonian on this board a while ago in another thread, regarding St Dioscorus:

I recall for you the incident [during the Council[ in which Anatolius of Constantinople proposed a new formula, the aim of which was to meet the criticisms made by the many who attended Chalcedon and who were initially quite embarrassed by the tome of Leo due to its evident theological weaknesses. The Roman Legates feeling insulted that anyone dared to challenge any aspect of Leo's tome, and being suspicious that Anatolius's formula may compromise the tome's ultimate authority or even overshadow it (due ultimately and probably to their concept of papal supremacy and/or their adamant position to assert the superiority of Rome over the true theological centre of the Orthodox Christian world Alexandria), threatened to abandon the council at this point, which alarmed the imperial commissioners.

Although the text of the formula was lost, we need to take note of a very small change in the text which is significant to the point im trying to ultimately make. There is no doubt that the re-constructed form of Anatolius's formula as "in two natures" must have been "from two natures" the latter of which, as recognized by the council was used by the blessed St Dioscorus (AND USED BEFORE HIM BY ST CYRIL). What we find is that the Roman legates tried to object to the Orthodoxy Anatolius's formula which employed the expression "from two natures", on the basis that such an expression was one adopted by the blessed St Dioscorus. In response, Anatolius reminds the forgetful, arrogant and ignorant Romans that the blessed St Dioscorus was not condemned for heresy but rather (and even still so, falsely) for disciplinary reasons.

The Orthodoxy of the blessed St Dioscorus remained unchallenged, and he was only unjustly and falsely condemned as a heretic over a hundred years later (533, 680, and 787), by men who were never acquainted with him and who probably never even read a word he said. Unless you can prove otherwise, then you have no valid case against the Orthodoxy of St Dioscorus who was simply staying faithful to the true champion of Christology, his predecessor St Cyril.

1, 2, 3, 4 Issues to deal with George. DON'T RUN AWAY - either do the Christian thing and concede to the fact you have blasphemed against the blessed St Dioscorus by bearing false testimony against him like the Jews of the sanhedrin did to Christ, or continue parroting your same crap in self-denial so we can keep repeating and shoving the evidence in your face to further reduce your credibility which has already stooped below zero - no more patience with you my friend, it's crunch time.

Peace.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From the moving of Al-Mokattam mountain, to the blood of the Coptic martyrs, and to the Apparition in Zeitoun; the Lord and the Theotokos and all the saints will continue to bless and strengthen the Coptic church, no matter how many vein things the enemy wishes to conspire against her.

From St Basil's Liturgy:
"All offenses and their instigators, abolish. May all dissension of corrupt heresies cease. The enemies of Your Holy Church, O Lord, as at all times, now also humiliate. Strip their vanity, show them their weakness speedily. Bring to naught their envy, their intrigues, their madness, their wickedness and their slander which they commit against us, O Lord, bring them all to avail; disperse their counsel, O God, who dispersed the counsel of Ahithopel." Amen, Kyrie Eleison.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 15, 2005, 06:30:20 AM
1) Actually, the verse says that not even the Son--the Logos iow--knew this, "but only the Father."ÂÂ  So it seems as though the divine Father knew this, but not the Son, according to the Scripture.ÂÂ  So Christ did not "know" this even in His divinity, apparently...

This question has been settled in the Orthodox Church for sixteen hundred years by the doctrine of the Two Natures proclaimed at Chalcedon, and now, suddenly sixteen hundred years later this is up for question in the Church in the Americas. Why? Why are the Councils of our Fathers suddenly in question in the Church in the Americas? Could it possibly be because some of you seek union with some outside the Church who have no desire to affirm the Teachings of theEcumenical  Councils?
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 15, 2005, 06:33:41 AM
You complain about merry-go-rounds? Then grow up, and get off the merry go round; face the facts ozgeorge, don't be a kid:
I think I did jump off, and I think I said so. Perhaps you missed that post?
Thanks once again for expressing yourself in such a Christian way.
Quote
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 15, 2005, 06:51:37 AM
Quote
I think I did jump off, and I think I said so. Perhaps you missed that post?

Everytime you openly lie concerning St Dioscorus, regardless of the very explicit and blatant quotes given to you which you choose to disregard out of a voluntary wilful hardness of the heart; you are in effect jumping back on the very merry-go-round that you yourself constructed in the first place.

Quote
Thanks once again for expressing yourself in such a Christian way.

I rebuke and admonish you for your dishonesty and blasphemy; this is my Christian love for you. There is nothing Christian about leaving you to spread lies about The Orthodox Church ("non-Chalcedonian") and her Orthodox Saints. A love that comrpomises truth and justice is a farce.

...I'm still waiting for you to deal with St Dioscorus' quotations.

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 15, 2005, 07:03:24 AM
Quote from: Pedro on Yesterday at 11:45:07 PM
Quote
1) Actually, the verse says that not even the Son--the Logos iow--knew this, "but only the Father."ÂÂ  So it seems as though the divine Father knew this, but not the Son, according to the Scripture.ÂÂ  So Christ did not "know" this even in His divinity, apparently...

Pedro, I think this brings up an interesting point. "The Son" and "The Logos" are titles pertaining to Christ's divine person/hypostasis and not to a particular nature/essence of His. The fact that Christ ascribed a human limitation (i.e. limited knowledge) to the title of His divine person, is consistent with a fundamental principle of Athanasian-Cyrillian Christology; that the divine person/hypostasis is the subject of ALL HIS INCARNATE EXPERIENCES - hunger, suffering, and even ignorance - which are possible according to His human nature/essence which was en-hypostasized by the person/hypostasis of The Word.

On a sidenote, I think an interesting thing to note concerns St Basil's commentary on this passage. He argues that Christ DID in fact know the hour of his second coming, however he was trying to divert the focus of his disciples from this issue, since He wanted it to be of no concern to them.

If Christ did not know something according to His divinity that His Father DID know, this would contradict the affirmation of Christ's consubtantiality with the Father. I think the fact that the hour of His coming simply did not register with his human mind is the most plausible explanation for the verse in question; especially considering the many Biblical references pertaining to Christ's omniescence.

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Fr. David on June 15, 2005, 07:40:10 AM
Thanks for the response, EA.

And guys, I'm not putting on my mod hat here, just speaking as a fellow poster: Let's try to keep it civil like it started out, huh?  It's getting personal, names are being called ("stupid, afraid, monophysite, heretic, fundamentalist, fool, etc.") -- honest questions were asked.  Let us not resort to inflammatory responses--nor respond in kind to said inflammation--rather, lets maybe take a step back.  Breathe.  This has been going on for sixteen hundred years without our help; we ain't gonna solve it here.

May Christ our God, through the prayers of St. Cyril, pray for us all.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 15, 2005, 10:01:31 AM
I know this is going off topic, but I guess we could do with a little distraction. In my previous concerning Matt. 24:36. I stated:

Quote
On a sidenote, I think an interesting thing to note concerns St Basil's commentary on this passage. He argues that Christ DID in fact know the hour of his second coming, however he was trying to divert the focus of his disciples from this issue, since He wanted it to be of no concern to them.

I just want to clarify something regarding St Basil’s commentary in relation to the verse in question, in order to do it the justice it deserves. Prima facie, some may think that St Basil’s interpretation is completely absurd and that it leads to the necessary conclusion that Christ was a liar (for telling His disciples He did not know the hour, when in fact He did).

However, let us not underestimate St Basil; who was not only an enlightened and blessed father of the Church, but obviously also more closely socio-historically connected to Christ’s era than us, and hence capable of understanding Christ’s sayings in a social-cultural context that he was probably sufficiently familiar with.

According to their book Handbook of Biblical Social Values, biblical scholars Malina and Pilch explain the nature of rhetorical criticism in the ANE (Ancient Near East) as well as ancient concepts of honor. As such, ritual etiquette in that day entailed that one in public, may deliberately be indirect or incomplete in their speech (what we would call “deceptive” today in the west), in order to prevent conflict or to achieve a greater purpose in the interest of others. Christ therefore, in knowing the hour of his second coming; nonetheless remained “silent concerning the season of judgment because it was not expedient for men to hear. For constant expectation kindles a warmer zeal for true religion. The knowledge that a long time interval of time was to elapse would have made men more careless about true religion, from the hope of being saved by a subsequent change of life. So he denied the hour, though He indeed know, for How could He who had known everything up to this time (for so He said) not know the hour also? If so, the Apostle vainly said “In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge”. (St Basil — Letter VIII — On Matt. 24:36 Of Knowledge of that Day and of that Hour?)

Ofcourse, the obvious should not need to be pointed out; that Christ's knowing of the hour of his second coming does not entail that He knows everything according to his human mind - yet I will make that explicit in case some wish to misrepresent me and argue that I am denying any sort of ignorance in Christ per se. He who is Wisdom according to His divinity, grew in Wisdom according to his humanity (both facts explicated in the book of Luke: 11:49 and 2:52, respectively), however, that He did not know the hour of his own second coming, is not a necessary conclusion to draw, and indeed St Basil's interpretation is plausible when considered in the appropriate context.

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 15, 2005, 10:28:06 AM
Do EO's today agree with that phrase, or do you have problems with it?
The Fifth Ecumenical Council affirmed that "One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh."
EO's believe what the Ecumenical Councils teach.
False ecumenists believe whatever is expedient.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 15, 2005, 10:42:27 AM
Quote
The Fifth Ecumenical Council affirmed that "One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh."

I assume therefore that you will finally agree that it is the divine person/hypostasis as opposed to the human nature (ousia), that is the subject of Christ’s Incarnate experiences, right? i.e. no more of this “the human nature slept” nonsense, and more of “One of the Trinity, the Son of God The Logos, slept in the flesh (or alternatively 'according to His humanity')” right?

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on June 15, 2005, 11:24:41 AM
Not one fanatic EO from there has bothered to answer back against the quotes we provided them with.ÂÂ  Either that or not one EO admitted the Orthodoxy of St. Dioscorus, like Fr. John Romanides did.ÂÂ  I don't know whether this is out of ignorance or fear, but I am saddened people here continue to ignore irrefutable proof of St. Dioscorus' Orthodoxy and proceed to confess blindly without conviction that St. Dioscorus is a monophysite heretic.

It's futile to continue to debate here if people do not want to have an honest debate.ÂÂ  I came here to have an intellectual discussion, not to act like a child.  I don't care anymore if I don't have the last word.ÂÂ  I pray that the Lord may have mercy on the EO's here who continue to spread lies against the OO fathers.

God bless you all, and good bye.

Mina

Humble and most faithful servant of the faith of Christ defended through St. Cyril and St. Dioscorus.

Glory be to God forever.ÂÂ  Amen!
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 15, 2005, 11:50:27 AM
Quote
It's futile to continue to debate here if people do not want to have an honest debate.ÂÂ  I came here to have an intellectual discussion, not to act like a child.ÂÂ  I don't care anymore if I don't have the last word.ÂÂ  I pray that the Lord may have mercy on the EO's here who continue to spread lies against the OO fathers.

God bless you all, and good bye.

Don’t go bro; I obviously feel your frustration, it is evident in my posts. However, realize that those on this forum who have continued to deny and cop-out regardless of our repetitive request for objective and critical investigation, are in fact doing us a service. They’re proving the truth for us through their blatant blind denial, more than we do in our positive and reasoned arguments.

Our liturgical prayers do not go unanswered:
 
"All offenses and their instigators, abolish. May all dissension of corrupt heresies cease. The enemies of Your Holy Church, O Lord, as at all times, now also humiliate. Strip their vanity, show them their weakness speedily. Bring to naught their envy, their intrigues, their madness, their wickedness and their slander which they commit against us, O Lord, bring them all to avail; disperse their counsel, O God, who dispersed the counsel of Ahithopel." Amen, Kyrie Eleison. - St Basil's Liturgy

Please stay a while longer, at least until July, since I have just vowed to Anastasios not to visit this forum again until my exams are officially over.

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on June 15, 2005, 12:03:31 PM
I will stay up until July, but if we continue in vain after July, I can no longer do anything more to convince people.

At that time, I will just shake the dust off my feet and move along.

In Christ,

Mina
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Anastasios on June 15, 2005, 12:29:57 PM
I will stay up until July, but if we continue in vain after July, I can no longer do anything more to convince people.

At that time, I will just shake the dust off my feet and move along.

In Christ,

Mina

How about just staying and having fun :) That's what the rest of us do :)

Anastasios
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Augustine on June 15, 2005, 12:45:39 PM
Some thoughts from a man who realizes he is totally out of his depth in a debate like this!

1) On a practical level, I'm quite certain that Chalcedonians and Non-Chalcedonians here and now, materially believe the same things.  Of this, I have little doubt.

2) As I've said previously on this board (though perhaps not in this thread), theological terminology, particularly in the early period of the Church, was in constant development and varied across Christendom.  It was very easy to find two people who meant the same thing, but expressed it in different ways.

3) While we rightly call them "Ecumenical Councils", they were also to start, Imperial Councils.  And why did the Emperors have an interest in these topics?  Because they, as rulers and believers, had an interest in seeing discord in the Empire and amongst believers be resolved.  Part of the tasks of Councils then, was to formulate language which all who rightly believed could agree upon, both as common ground and to avoid future confusion - and importantly, to exclude heresy.

4) While I've not read enough of Dioscoros himself to form a personally arrived at conclusion, I can say unhesitatingly that the doctrine of Chalcedon is true, and agrees with what came beforehand - with the Divine Scriptures, the Holy Fathers and Saints of all lands, and significantly, the previous three Ecumenical Councils (including Ephesos.)  Nothing I've read in this thread thus far has given me so much as a moment of reconsideration on this point, and if anything the attempts to find Nestorianism in Chalcedon strike me as "fishing".

5) Both before and after Chalcedon (though focusing on "before" I think is more beneficial to this discussion, as it's something we all share in common), you'll find holy fathers who say things in an unfortunate way, or even perhaps entertain ideas in some matters (even significant ones) which later Ecumenical collbaration and witness would make clear were a departure from truth and the ancient consensus.  I've been reading a lot about St.Hillary of Poitiers lately, and what becomes clear is that at some points he made miscalculated alliances, and at least on the point of Christ's human nature stated an incorrect view (which hailed from Alexandria btw.) that Christ's humanity was "impassible" - that He didn't really need to eat, or sleep, that He didn't really experience pain, hunger etc., though the suffering of His flesh was real, etc.  Though it's obvious St.Hillary struggled with such ideas, and was really trying to be clear and faithful, in hindsight his wording is unfortunate in these matters, to say the least.  Btw. "logically" speaking, the view of Christ's humanity being totally impassible is not totally without merit - for such is the condition of those who are in the state of theoria.  So it's not like he's totally out to lunch - but it does point in a direction that is unsavory, and does not adequately recognize that though true God, His kenosis was such that it also included the experience of the blameless passions and this was not something utterly unworthy of Him let alone impossible for Him.

6) If the language of "two natures" is obnoxious for many 'Alexandrians' because it has Antiochene roots (and they are a suspicious bunch!), so was the language of homoousios smacked of Sabellianism to many who dissented from Nicea (and they were not totally incorrect - it was a favoured term of the Sabellians, and a Sabellian slant to it would be only removed once terminology about hypostasis became sufficiently clear later on), and one physis of the Incarnate Logos smacked of Apollinarianism and neo-Doceticism to many who dissented from Ephesus (and every scholar I've seen who has written on this topic, acknowledges that the term is not originally Athanasian, which is what St.Cyril sincerely thought, but was in fact taken from the heretic Apollinaris).  The point is, if we look at the "heritage" of terms, apart from their context, then we're getting nowhere fast and will continue to find excuses to be away from one another.

Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Deacon Lance on June 15, 2005, 01:11:08 PM
EA,

"I assume therefore that you will finally agree that it is the divine person/hypostasis as opposed to the human nature (ousia), that is the subject of Christ’s Incarnate experiences, right? i.e. no more of this “the human nature slept” nonsense, and more of “One of the Trinity, the Son of God The Logos, slept in the flesh (or alternatively 'according to His humanity')” right?"

Christ's human physis died on the cross.  One cannot say that his divine physis died or suffered as this would offend the impassibility of the divine substance.  It is precisely becasue Christ is one divine person with two natures, human and divine that we can say Christ died for us and what is meant by "One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh."  It is also why saying the one composite nature of Christ died is unacceptable to Chalcedonians.  It implies either the impassable divinity suffered and died (impossible) or Christ didn't really die or at least not in the same way we do, which would mean he did not assume everything which was ours.

"When your body was in the tomb, when your soul was in Hades, when you were in Paradise with the thief, you were at the same time, O Christ as God, upon your throne with Father and the Sipirt, infinite and filling all things" (Prayer said at the first incensing of the altar during Divine Liturgy).

Fr. Deacon Lance

Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on June 15, 2005, 01:30:09 PM
Dear Fr. Deacon Lance,

I don't think EA was saying that the Divine Nature died on the Cross, for that would be heresy.ÂÂ  He was saying that the Prosopon who is divine was the one who died in the flesh.ÂÂ  So long as it is the same prosopon who died on the Cross, then we like to give the willing to the Prosopon.ÂÂ  Otherwise, then you'll have to say that "One of the Trinity died" is vague, since it talks about "one of the Trinity" in assumption to nature, and not to prosopon, according to your argument.

"One Incarnate Nature" is preferrable because it's very similar to humanity's "one nature."ÂÂ  If I eat solid food, did my soul and spirit eat the food and digest it?ÂÂ  No, for that would be metaphysically impossible.ÂÂ  Yet, we give humanity the appelation "one nature" although we don't confuse the three natures in it.

Otherwise, I have no trouble with either what you or EA believe.

God bless.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Deacon Lance on June 15, 2005, 01:56:57 PM
Mina,

Please understand that I do not consider the Orientals to be Monophysites.  However, I also do not consider the Assyrians to be Nestorians.  Both, it seems to me, believe the same as Chalcedonians and depart from us only in the teminology they employ to speak of the same truth.  Also both seem to emphasisze different points.  The Orientals seek to guard Christ's personal unity, while the Assyrians seeks to guard the unconfusedness of His divinity and humanity.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 15, 2005, 01:57:21 PM
Okay last post, I promise!  :D (Nice work Anastasios)

Fr. Deacon Lance,

Quote
Christ's human physis died on the cross.  One cannot say that his divine physis died or suffered as this would offend the impassibility of the divine substance.

I think you misunderstand my point; I am perfectly aware of the impassibility of the divine nature (ousia), my point is that a “nature” (physis in the sense of ousia) cannot be regarded as the centre or subject of action; for not only does this contradict the teachings of St Athanasius and St Cyril, but it is also metaphysically unsound in an Orthodox context, for the logical implications of regarding a nature in such a manner, are Nestorian.

It is the divine hypostasis/person of Christ who dies according to his human nature (physis/ousia) or in the flesh. We always regard the prospon or hypostasis/physis as the subject of action, and not the ousia/physis.

Patristic evidence:

In his Letter to Epictetus St Athanasius says:

“the incorporeal Word made His own the properties of the Body, as being His own Body. Why, when the Body was struck by the attendant, as suffering Himself He asked, “Why smittest thou Me?”. And being by nature intangible, the Word yet said, “I gave My back to the stripes, and My cheeks to blows, and did not turn My face from shame and spitting”. For what the Human body of the Word suffered, this the Word, dwelling in the Body, ascribed to Himself... And verily it is strange that He it was Who suffered and yet suffered not. Suffered, because His own body suffered; suffered not, because the Word, being by nature God, is impassible”.

The highlight in bold essentially conveys my point quite clearly; the “human actions” of Christ are ascribed to the personal subject — The divine hypostasis of The Word (NOT his divine nature/ousia), even though such actions were only possible according to His human nature (ousia). The flesh of The Word is not what suffers; rather, The Word is the One who suffers according to, or in His flesh.

Furthermore according to the 12th anathema of St Cyril:

"If anyone does not confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh and was crucified in the flesh and tasted death in the flesh and became the first born of the dead, although as God he is life and life-giving, let him be anathema."

Basic Metaphysics:

Professor Bittle, in his book The Domain of Being: Ontology says:

"Actions belong to the person or hypoastasis. The ‘nature’ of a being is the principle of all that being's actions. But the nature of an individual, concrete being, as it actually exists...is always a hypostasis and, if it is rational, a person. This fact is clearly expressed in our judgments and statements about certain things. We seldom refer our actions to the faculties or parts from which they proceed immediately, but rather to the ultimate possessor of the nature. We thus say ‘I see, I digest, I think, or I drive the car,’ even though
it's the eyes that see, and the stomach that digest, and the intellect that thinks, and the hands that steer the wheell. Actions are thus ascribed to the hypostasis or person. The hypostasis or person is the very principle which (principium quod) performs the actual action, whilst the nature is simply the ultimate principle by means of which (principium quo) the hypostasis or person performs that very action" (1939, page 271)

Quote
It is also why saying the one composite nature of Christ died is unacceptable to Chalcedonians.

As has been repeated numerously on this forum, the one composite physis as affirmed by the Oriental Orthodox Church is simply the ultimate hypostasis of Christ after the incarnation (as opposed to the hypostasis of The Word prior to the Incarnation) when the hypostasis of The Word en-hypostasized His humanity, such that it became His very own. Do you notice how I’ve constantly qualified the term “nature” in parenthesis whenever it is employed? We cannot just throw the term "nature" around carelessly in a dialogue of this sort.

Thus, when we say that the One composite physis of Christ died, we are essentially saying that the "new" hypostasis of The Word (i.e. according to the state of His existence after the Incarnation) died according to His humanity which is intrinsic to His very hypostasis — for as His humanity was intrinsic to His self after the Incarnation, so it is that He became the subject of the death of his own body. This is perfectly in line, not only with the above quotations, but also with the affirmation that “One of the Holy Trinity died” — for the Holy Trinity is three hypostasis/persons, and not three ousia/nature, thus the “One of the Holy Trinity” being referred must be the hypostasis/person of The Word.

What is essential is the understanding that the physis/ousia provides the means/capacity by which the personal subject — the prosopon or the physis/hypostasis, ultimately acts.

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: cizinec on June 15, 2005, 03:52:47 PM
Quote
Someone above asked why the Church of the East today is separate from the EO's.  It was my understanding that this was a schism which occurred after the 5th council, not before.  ÃƒÆ’‚ I thought this was pretty well documented and that the Assyrians will attest that this is the case.  Is there any evidence that you were two different churches prior to the 5th council?

Well concerning the extant Assyrian churches, that question is easy to answer.ÂÂ  The “Nestorians” or Assyrians were cut off from the rest of Christianity for obvious political reasons.ÂÂ  Don’t forget that these folks were in Persia, suffering severe persecution under their government, which was constantly at war with Rome.ÂÂ  The Persians viewed Christianity as a Roman religion and, therefore, all Christians were Roman sympathizers.ÂÂ  They didn’t even accept the Nicene Creed until 410, after the Second Council was over, when they heard about it.ÂÂ  

They had apparently never heard of Nestorius while he was alive.ÂÂ  Soon after his death they heard of the controversy and sided with Nestorius, but no one knows what they heard of the arguments.ÂÂ  I know they were linked to Theodore of Mopsuestia and the Nisibis and Edessa schools.

All throughout the period the “Romans” were closing down the Nestorian schools and the theologians were fleeing to Persia.ÂÂ  I doubt they were closing down their schools because they thought they were teaching Orthodoxy and they were being all chummy.

In 544 the Assyrians agreed to Chalcedon.  The Chalcedonians, however, did not see this as meaningful because they did not accept Ephesus.  That's why in 553, barely a blink of an eye for our own period to organize this size of a response to the statement in 544, the Fifth Ecumenical Council said, “Hey, if you don’t get it, here you go.  You can’t ignore Ephesus.”  The “Romans” continued to export their Nestorians to Persia.

That the Persian Nestorians were not at least somewhat aware that they were being cut off is impossible because of the number of Nestorian refugees showing up in Persia.ÂÂ  

However, there appear to be monasteries that were not informed of any condemnation of Nestorius until quite late.ÂÂ  Certainly the Fifth Ecumenical Council did communicate to the Nestorians what their position was.ÂÂ  

Quote
Notice Orthodoxinfo.com so far hasn't even got into the meat of the whole situation.ÂÂ  There is no dogmatic criticism.

Yeah, their logic is pretty specious.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 15, 2005, 06:03:15 PM
I assume therefore that you will finally agree that it is the divine person/hypostasis as opposed to the human nature (ousia), that is the subject of Christ’s Incarnate experiences, right? i.e. no more of this “the human nature slept” nonsense, and more of “One of the Trinity, the Son of God The Logos, slept in the flesh (or alternatively 'according to His humanity')” right?

Why should I reject the formula of Chalcedon, when even you needed to use the formula of Chalcedon?

If Christ did not know something according to His divinity that His Father DID know, this would contradict the affirmation of Christ's consubtantiality with the Father. I think the fact that the hour of His coming simply did not register with his human mind is the most plausible explanation for the verse in question; especially considering the many Biblical references pertaining to Christ's omniescence.
EA, are you saying that the two Natures acted independantly? I assume therefore that you reject the teachings of Dioscorus?

Never presume to know what I think, and I won't assume anything about you.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 15, 2005, 06:43:29 PM
one fanatic EO

Thanks! Another badge of honour! :)
Now rejoining the silence of the Holy Mountain on this issue.
George
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on June 15, 2005, 07:31:43 PM
Thanks! Another badge of honour! :)
Now rejoining the silence of the Holy Mountain on this issue.
George

Sigh ::)
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Fr. David on June 15, 2005, 07:35:32 PM
If Christ did not know something according to His divinity that His Father DID know, this would contradict the affirmation of Christ's consubtantiality with the Father. I think the fact that the hour of His coming simply did not register with his human mind is the most plausible explanation for the verse in question; especially considering the many Biblical references pertaining to Christ's omniescence.

I have to agree with ozgeorge here; if indeed the human mind of Christ did not perceive something which the Second Member of the Trinity must know, and if the actions of one nature necessarily presuppose an identical action on behalf of the other--or, if you prefer, the humanity and the divinity of the One Logos are always to move as one nature, for one they are (in your mind)...

 

For you to say that the mind of the Logos knew something that did not register with His human mind seems to me to be a concession to the idea that the humanity and divinity can indeed move in different courses within the Second Member of the Trinity, who is the one Christ, the Logos.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 15, 2005, 10:45:11 PM
ozgeorge,

Quote
Quote from: EkhristosAnesti on Today at 07:03:24 AM
If Christ did not know something according to His divinity that His Father DID know, this would contradict the affirmation of Christ's consubtantiality with the Father. I think the fact that the hour of His coming simply did not register with his human mind is the most plausible explanation for the verse in question; especially considering the many Biblical references pertaining to Christ's omniescence.

EA, are you saying that the two Natures acted independantly? I assume therefore that you reject the teachings of Dioscorus?

What a perfect instrument God has given me in order to vindicate the blessed St Dioscorus:

St Dioscorus says in his first letter to his monks:

“I envisage Him sleeping in the ship as a man and He himself walks on the water as God. As a human He experiences hunger, and as God He feeds.”

Along with the blessed St Dioscorus, I speak concerning this matter: “I envisage Him knowing all things as God, and not knowing all things as a man”

This is no more than a simple reformulation of the only acceptable formula: “He knew all things according to His divinity, yet knew not all things according to His humanity or ‘in the flesh’

Sorry ozgeorge to burst your bubble, but there is no natures acting independently, I attribute both knowing and not-knowing to the same personal subject, unlike yourself who wished to remain defiant to the tradition of our fathers by continuing to employ heretical language anathemized by St Cyril who is obviously merely a stranger to you in reality, as much as he was a stranger to Leo, by saying “the human mind did not know” just as you said “the human nature slept” — notice that I said it did not register with HIS human mind. Nice try ozgeorge, but if God is for us, vain attempts and weak logic could never be against us.

Likewise I affirm with the blessed St Dioscorus:

"No one dare say that the Holy body taken from the Virgin by our Lord is not consubstantial with ours, as it is known, and as it is so”

For being consubstantial with us, he must have acquired a human mind like us; one which grows in knowledge and wisdom and acquires facts through human experience, or through revelation from the Father; but not that this mind in and of itself contains the infinite knowledge as is encapsulated by The Word according to His divinity.

Quote
Never presume to know what I think, and I won't assume anything about you.

No, please continue assuming much, you give me great opportunity to prove just how desparate and weak your position is. Remember ozgeorge, discard Leo's concept of the human nature acting/performing, and please adhere to your fifth council's declaration that the hypostasis/person acted according to his human nature - the two are not compatible - one is perfectly Orthodox, the other no more than heresy.

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 15, 2005, 10:59:39 PM
Pedro,

Quote
If indeed the human mind of Christ did not perceive something which the Second Member of the Trinity must know, and if the actions of one nature necessarily presuppose an identical action on behalf of the other

You are confusing yourself here. First of all, I have repeatedly stated that Christ’s natures (ousias) do not “act”, let alone “the actions of one” presupposing “an identical action on behalf of the other”. Christ hypostasis/person, is the centre and subject of all His actions and attributes, which he performs and possesses respectively according to His respective nartures (ousias). Christ possesses infinite knowledge according to His divinity and finite knowledge according to His human mind which is an aspect of His humanity.

St Athansius said: "And verily it is strange that He it was Who suffered and yet suffered not"

Likewise: "And verily it is strange that He it was who knew all things yet did not know all things"

This is simply the paradox of the Incarnation.

His mind being consubstantial with us, means that it does not by nature possesses infinite knowledge. It acquires such knowledge through experience or direct divine revelation.

Quote
the humanity and the divinity of the One Logos are always to move as one nature, for one they are (in your mind)

Where are you reading this from? What does it mean that the natures “move”? You are using language too equivocative for me to clearly interpret in order to respond to. The Divine Word — The hypostasis/person of Christ, en-hypostasized a human nature/ousia at the Incarnation. The one composite physis of St Cyril and St Dioscorus, is simply this “new hypostasis”, the new individual state of existence that Christ entered into once He assumed humanity — a humanity which became intrinsic to His hypostasis and not independent from it. As such the hypostasis becomes the subject of all the incarnate experiences of Christ in acting according to His humanity. This subject is One and the same with the one who is the subject of His divine experiences, according to His divinity which He possessed since time eternity.

Thus the infinite facts of the universe register with The Word according to His divinity, yet do not register with The Word according to His humanity, unless they are revealed.

Quote
Christ did not know in His divinity and diverted from the knowledge of the Father or

It is possible that Christ - the name of His person, knew both according to His divinity, yet did know according to His humanity - as St Athanasius would have us say: "And verily it is strange that He it was who knew all things yet did not know all things". Speaking in His capacity as man, He tells the disciples the direct truth; He did not know the hour, though in actuality He did know and did not know, simultaneously. This is simply the paradox of the Incarnation.

Quote
He did know in His humanity and lied about it.

I a;ready explained St Basil’s commentary on this verse in order to prove that even if Christ did know as St Basil argues, that we cannot appropriately conclude that He was lying according to the context in which He made such a declaration. I'm not sure if you missed that, but here it is:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=6373.msg83200#msg83200

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: GiC on June 16, 2005, 05:04:21 AM
Greekischristian,

First of all; welcome back, and congratulations on your graduation. May God continue to bless you with much success. I appreciate your response in the other thread; I have read it, however, at the moment I’m only doing rough 2 minute responses during my study breaks since my exams are next week (remember me in your prayers) so I will wait till my exams are over so I can respond to you properly. Just some quick comments for now.

Thank you, and I wish you well for your final exams and will keep you in my prayers.

Quote
That proposition lies upon various presuppositions that need to be objectively justified; the legitimacy of the council itself for one. We have already started to raise various issues in the other thread which delve into the question of the council's legitimacy - so hopefully we can progress from there.

As he was present in the City, Summoned by the Synod, and Summoned by the Imperial Authority, I do not see any justification for his failure to attend. Even if the Council was heretical, which by your own statements you seem to deny, Dioscorus still owed the Honour and Respect to his Emperor to present his case before one of the Imperial Synods. It should be noted that not even Arius attempted to flaunt the Imperial Authority in such a way.

Quote
It is well known that a) St Dioscorus took in Eutyches only because Eutyches had confessed Christ’s consubstantiality with his mother - furthermore he wasn't taken in whilst under anathema - you have presupposed the validity of Ephesus 448 (which anathemized Eutyches) and the invalidity of Ephesus 449 (which anathemized Leo's companion - Theodoret) - another matter that needs to be objectively discussed b) I am yet to find any hardcore explicit evidence regarding the heresy ascribed to Eutyches, the ambiguity of the matter is in itself a very significant issue - not only when regarding St Dioscorus' relationship with him, but also because Eutyches's being a Eutychian is the very assumption that Chalcedon stands on (I explored this a bit further in my response to Pedro in the same thread you and I have been discussing EO-OO issues)ÂÂ  c) There is an inherent double standard in your reasoning for you should be able to likewise conclude that Leo of Rome’s ill-association with Theodoret (an enemy of St Cyril the great, who was vehemently opposed to St Cyril's Orthodox Christology and who was a supporter of Nestorius) doesn’t therefore give much credence to his Orthodoxy either.

It is also well known that a) Theodoret's theology was regarded as Orthodox by even Cyril himself (as he wrote the agreement between John of Antioch and Cyril that resulted in their reunification) and only refused to enter into communion with them because he believed that Nestorius had not professed the theology he was accused of professing by Ephesus 431. Making the only disagreements literary and personal, not theological. b) Theodoret eventually did sign an anathema against Nestorius while he was present at Chalcedon. c) Even your fathers agreed that Eutyches was a heretic

Quote
Furthermore, even the parallel between St Dioscorus-Eutyches and Leo-Theodoret is a flawed one.

Here we agree, though I'm certain that agreement is with different conclusions. As previously stated, Theodoret's theological statement was even believed Orthodoxy by Cyril, as well as the rest of the Church, and had been in communion with the Church since 435 and died in communion with the Church, in this light it seems perfectly reasonable, and furthermore expected, that Leo would consult with such an eminent theologian of the Church on these matters. That Leo accepted Theodoret into communion without the blessing of a Synod, and against the will of the Imperial Authority, was incorrect procedure; however, as Chalcedon declared Ephesus 449 to be Heretical, Leo was vindicated of any fault, for the anathemas and other decrees of a heretical synod are without effect; furthermore, it should be noted that these procedural issues have no bearing on the Orthodoxy of his Tome.

The worrysome nature of the Relationship between Dioscorus and Eutyches was not on account the procedural elements, but rather Dioscorus' willingness to ignore his theological errors, errors according to the fathers of your church, for what was apparently little more than an attempt to try to procure the authority of his See over that of the Imperial See.

Quote
Please see my last post to ozgeorge, which contains the relevant quotations which have been pasted for ozgeorge about 10 times now, and which he is as of yet unable to address. St Dioscorus explicitly affirmed the dual consubstantiality of Christ to the Father and mankind, he implicitly affirmed the re-union formula which incorporates the Antiochene's two nature (ousia) concerns, and he affirms that Christ performed as a man at times, and God at other times.

You argue that Dioscorus affirms all that Chalcedon Championed, and yet the fact still remains that he refused to even address the Imperial Synod, which essentially formally asserted that which was agreed upon in the reunion formula. As I have not had the opportunity to study the context of the quotes you have put forward, nor do I believe I will in the near future, I cannot directly comment on them. However, if his Theology was Orthodox, the fact still remains that he prefered to mock the Authority of the Holy Imperial and Oecumenical Synod rather than submit to it and profess his beliefs in accordance with it, such schismatic actions would be no less serious an offence, perhaps an even great offence, than heresy.

Quote
If you were to be consistent regarding the reasoning which lead you to such a conclusion (which I don’t agree with nonetheless, yet have no time to address right now), you should also therefore conclude, that our rejection of and anathemiszation of Leo was likewise “far from unreasonable”.

The Justifications I have heard here for your anathemas against Leo seem purely political in nature, though I believe the justifications your fathers used were theological, as they rejected the Theology of Chalcedon along with the Tome of Leo. In that context I can certainly see the reasonableness of your anathema against Leo, but the very fact that such an anathema was reasonable is why we are not in communion.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on June 16, 2005, 10:44:25 AM
Dear GreekisChristian,

Quote
As he was present in the City, Summoned by the Synod, and Summoned by the Imperial Authority, I do not see any justification for his failure to attend. Even if the Council was heretical, which by your own statements you seem to deny, Dioscorus still owed the Honour and Respect to his Emperor to present his case before one of the Imperial Synods. It should be noted that not even Arius attempted to flaunt the Imperial Authority in such a way.

In our tradition, it was known that St. Dioscorus was under house arrest by the same Imperial authorities, and we felt there was a conspiracy against him.

Quote
a) Theodoret's theology was regarded as Orthodox by even Cyril himself (as he wrote the agreement between John of Antioch and Cyril that resulted in their reunification) and only refused to enter into communion with them because he believed that Nestorius had not professed the theology he was accused of professing by Ephesus 431. Making the only disagreements literary and personal, not theological.

This is quite interesting.ÂÂ  It seems highly unlikely that Cyril knew Theodoret wrote this agreementand furthermore, and I have very little faith that Theodoret wrote it either.ÂÂ  When St. Cyril wrote back with the Formula of Reunion, Theodoret wrote to John of Antioch saying that they have examined the letter and agree that not only it is Orthodox, but it "contradicts Cyril's 12 Chapters."ÂÂ  Furthermore, both Cyril and Theodoret anathematized one another even up to Cyril's death, as is shown in Theodoret's letter calling the departed Cyril, a "villain."ÂÂ  Therefore, you can say that Theodoret did not think Nestorius was guilty of heresy, but he did think Ephesus and St. Cyril were heretical also.ÂÂ  But I happen to personally believe that Theodoret, a qualified theologian himself, understood exactly what Nestorius was writing.

Quote
b) Theodoret eventually did sign an anathema against Nestorius while he was present at Chalcedon.

And very hesitantly, might I add.ÂÂ  It was this hesitancy that got us wondering.

Quote
c) Even your fathers agreed that Eutyches was a heretic

Yes, on the basis that he taught that the humanity was absorbed and nonexistent.ÂÂ  But St. Dioscorus received a confession from Ephesus 449 that Christ was "consubstantial with His mother."ÂÂ  St. Dioscorus and Ephesus 449 had no theological error.

Quote
As previously stated, Theodoret's theological statement was even believed Orthodoxy by Cyril, as well as the rest of the Church, and had been in communion with the Church since 435

I disagree.ÂÂ  There was a personal anathema given by St. Cyril to Theodoret up to Cyril's death.ÂÂ  After all, Theodoret was a huge supporter of "Theodorum et Dioodorum."

Quote
That Leo accepted Theodoret into communion without the blessing of a Synod, and against the will of the Imperial Authority, was incorrect procedure

I would agree to that.

Quote
however, as Chalcedon declared Ephesus 449 to be Heretical, Leo was vindicated of any fault, for the anathemas and other decrees of a heretical synod are without effect; furthermore, it should be noted that these procedural issues have no bearing on the Orthodoxy of his Tome.

Well, the question is then what is heretical about Ephesus 449?ÂÂ  The belief of the double consubstantiality of Christ was still professed.ÂÂ  And the Tome was examined by Theodoret among the group, and the legates, who said that Theodore of Mopsuestia was a doctor of the Church, already contradicting St. Cyril's anathemas against this person (and the Fifth EO Council).ÂÂ  The Tome can be interpreted Orthodox, but the examination by such persons make it suspicious.

Quote
The worrysome nature of the Relationship between Dioscorus and Eutyches was not on account the procedural elements, but rather Dioscorus' willingness to ignore his theological errors, errors according to the fathers of your church, for what was apparently little more than an attempt to try to procure the authority of his See over that of the Imperial See.

What was worrysome about it?ÂÂ  If someone who is accused told you that Christ was consubstantial with His mother, can this be interpreted as "His mother's humanity was non-existent."ÂÂ  I don't even think this guy Eutyches knew what he was talking about in the first place, since he was not ever close to a theologian.ÂÂ  St. Dioscorus deposed others for professing "in" two natures, a new profession that was interpreted as Nestorian, since Nestorius used the same terminology.ÂÂ  In addition, Flavian, Eusebius, and Theodoret, anathematized anyone who confessed "one nature" not knowing that "one nature" can be interpreted Orthodox as St. Cyril did.ÂÂ  To St. Dioscorus' eyes, these three men anathematized St. Cyril, and thus were counted as Nestorian, not knowing that Eutyches believed in a heretical interpretation.

Quote
You argue that Dioscorus affirms all that Chalcedon Championed, and yet the fact still remains that he refused to even address the Imperial Synod, which essentially formally asserted that which was agreed upon in the reunion formula.

Except the "in" two natures part, which was not in the Formula of Reunion, but rather "of" two natures was used, something that St. Dioscorus professed in the Synod, which was indeed in accordance with the Formula of Reunion.ÂÂ  Might I add it was St. Dioscorus who was the first person in the Council of Chalcedon in front of 600 bishops to use the four adverbs "without commixture, without alteration, without division, without seperation."

Quote
However, if his Theology was Orthodox, the fact still remains that he prefered to mock the Authority of the Holy Imperial and Oecumenical Synod rather than submit to it and profess his beliefs in accordance with it, such schismatic actions would be no less serious an offence, perhaps an even great offence, than heresy.

Since someone was under house arrest, it justifies why this someone couldn't come.ÂÂ  He first sent a message that he was under arrest, and then because he knew he couldn't get out, knowing that this was all a scam, he challenged them to see if anything he said in the Council was heterodox by sending a message "I have said enough."ÂÂ  Indeed, the best thing the Council could do was depose him for "not appearing" but couldn't challenge the Orthodoxy of his statements.ÂÂ  Meanwhile, the Imperial authorities got what they wanted, taking St. Dioscorus away and beating him up like they planned.ÂÂ  Deception by the Imperial authorities to Chalcedon and Dioscorus is Satanic, the greatest offence of all.

Quote
The Justifications I have heard here for your anathemas against Leo seem purely political in nature, though I believe the justifications your fathers used were theological, as they rejected the Theology of Chalcedon along with the Tome of Leo. In that context I can certainly see the reasonableness of your anathema against Leo, but the very fact that such an anathema was reasonable is why we are not in communion.

I would like to add this was on the assumption that we didn't take Chalcedon in the light of Ephesus and thus we interpreted it as Nestorian.ÂÂ  Call it misunderstanding or political or "true" as some profess is open for discussion.ÂÂ  But the fact of the matter is St. Dioscorus rejected it not because he was a heretic.

God bless you.

Mina

PSÂÂ  Sorry to barge in, but on the assumption that EA is studying, I guess I can do my best to answer some claims.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 16, 2005, 11:13:24 AM
Greekischristian,

I will let my Copt brother minasoliman take over for now until I finish my exams. I would like to take your and Augustine’s responses more seriously when I have the time to properly do so.

Just a quick remark on one of Mina’s comments:
 
Quote
Theodoret wrote to John of Antioch saying that they have examined the letter and agree that not only it is Orthodox, but it "contradicts Cyril's 12 Chapters."


This is true. Theodoret did not accept the reunion formula in the manner that St Cyril understood it. Even though the re-union formula is the perfect balance between Alexandrian-Antiochene Christology according to the Oriental Orthodox Church's understanding of it (which is why we believe that even the need for Chalcedon was superflous in the first place - even presupposing its legitimacy), it did not resolve the whole Alexandrian vs. Antioch dispute. There now existed the Antiochene interpretation of the re-union formula vs. the Alexandrian interpretation of the re-union formula: the latter being compatible with St Cyril’s 12 Chapters and Ephesus 431, and hence understanding the reunion formula as a mere extra clarification of Cyrillian Christology as vindicated at Ephesus 431; the former being contradictory to St Cyril’s 12 chapters and Ephesus 431 and hence understanding the reunion formula as an abrogation or correction of Cyrillian Christology as vindicated at Ephesus 431.

As Fr. V.C Samuel argues in his book Chalcedon Re-examined (which Im barely a quarter of the way through yet); the home synod of 448 was essentially the ratification of the Antiochene interpretation of the reunion formula. Ephesus 449 was in turn the ratification of the Alexandrian interpretation of the reunion formula as St Cyril would have understood it. Chalcedon was a regression back into the Antiochene twist of the reunion formula… - This was the Oriental Orthodox Church's essential theological conflict with Chalcedon - it understood it as a regression of all that Ephesus 431 had established.

I will stop for now before I get into an essay......oh boy, I only planned to write a 2-3 sentence remark…

I’ll take over from (or more preferably co-respond with) my fellow Copt Mina once my exams are over…

P.S. Did you read Fr. Romanides paper concerning the Dioscorus-Eutyches Leo-Theodoret parallel?

http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.06.en.orthodox_and_oriental_orthodox_consultation.htm

It is a very well balanced objective and critical analysis which I think you should consider (If I were to respond properly to your remarks concerning this parallel now, I’d essentially be reiterating many of his observations and conclusions, since I absolutely agree with them)...

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: SouthSerb99 on June 16, 2005, 12:13:31 PM
To the whole lot of you posting here...

I offer you my congratulations (sincerely).  This has been an excellent education for many of us.  Yes, things have been heated and I think some of you have probably said some things you'd probably like to reconsider, but as whole, it has been excellent.

Just hope you guys can keep it civil.  It's been very informative. 
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Stavro on June 16, 2005, 01:34:25 PM
In reply to post # 158 , by Mina Soliman:

Dear Mina,
Quote
Leo was not Nestorian.  Prove to us that Leo was Nestorian.

His Tome, His connections to heretics, his exoneration of heretics, his acceptance of the Three Chapters like the rest of the Chalcedonian cannot be considered orthodox.
St.Cyril in his masterpiece "Unity of Christ" does not make a difference between the heresy of Nestorius (The Two-Son heresy), or the "masked one person heresy" according to Theodret, for example, and puts both together in the same basket with ascribing actions to two different natures, for the logical conclusion for the last two heresies is nothing but the two-Son heresy. Leo of Rome, in his Tome, is guilty of the last version of the heresy. How much Nestorian he was can be debated.
 
Furthermore, the Tome of Leo of Rome contradicts the Nicene creed in its very core. If you ever get the chance to recite the Creed, pay attention to the following: "  Real God of Real God.... descended from heaven and was incarnate .... Crucified and he suffered, died, and was buried, he arose and ascended to heaven ”.... Leo of Rome has attributed the miracles to the Godhead and the lowly actions to the manhood. On this basis itself the council refused to maintain that One of the Holy Trinity suffered and was crucified in direct defiance to Nicea.

The language of the Tome is not biblical. St.Paul teaches:" .... and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross." St.Paul attributes the shedding of the blood to God himself, the Word, and does not differentiate or divide his actions into separate actions by his humanity and other by his divinity, which is the point EA was making all the time. In relation to Chalcedon, by accepting such Nestorian language, they actually ratified the teachings of Nestorius.

The burden is on you to explain how can a document that contradict the Bible, the Nicene Creed and the established Church Tradition be considered still Orthodox.

Association with heretics, condemned by a lawful church council, and accepting them into communion prompts excommunication and anathema, yet this alliance must have theological and political reasons. Leo of Rome cannot be excused on the basis on negligence, for he knew all along the theological conviction of his best friend, Theodret.

As for the three chapters, these are heretical teachings by three Nestorians that have been found orthodox in Chalcedon. I will pick up this issue somewhere else in this post, but it is sufficient to say that Leo of Rome, through his Roman delegates, pushed for acceptance of these documents. Do you understand the gravity of accepting heresy in a council?

Yet, as you are uncompromising regarding Leo of Rome's Orthodoxy and Chalcedon's Orthodoxy, a simple EO (and in fact any fair observer) would be justified in asking you to accept Chalcedon and the Tome unconditionally. If both are orthodox, why do you refrain from taking the only logical step of accepting both ? To reject an orthodox council is the same as being unorthodox. As long as you do not see any problem with accepting heretical teachings in a council, and you conisder this an orthodox action, and you prefer the Nestorian language of the Tome and find nothing bad about the excommuncation of St.Dioscoros, for all is orthodox and we are a big happy family, go ahead and convert.

Quote
HEMB has given a clear message that we have misunderstood one another and that we continue to battle Nestorianism together

NO, H.E. did not, and in no place did he ratify the decision of CHalcedon regarding the three chapters, the acceptance of the Tome, the excommunication of St.Dioscoros. The only clear positive reference is to the 5th council, which rejected the heresies of Theodore and Theodret. How would H.E. defend the orthodoxy of Chalcedon and in the same time refer positively to its abrogation by the 5th council?
Quote
I suggest you go to ccel.org and read Leo's letters, and you will find out that Leo was not a Nestorian at all.

And I suggest you actually read his Tome and read St.Severus comments on Chalcedon and the Tome and you will find that he is Nestorian without a doubt. Leo of Rome stood by His Tome, he made it the ultimate defintion of faith and he never, in any subsequent writings, offered any explanation further than his famous Tome. But, if you wish, we can debate the rest of Leo of Rome's writings, although it is a waste of time.

Quote
One day, we'll be back in communion, and anathemas will be lifted, and you will just have to live with the fact of life that Leo wasn't Nestorian.

A fact is by definition: a thing done, the quality of being actual , something that has actual existence ... I do not know how you consider your dreams a fact of life, and how can the "future" exoneration of Leo of Rome be considered a fact ?
Quote
They anathematized our fathers because they thought they were Eutychians.  We anathematized their fathers because we thought they were Nestorians.  We were (and for some of us, are) both wrong.
How can the testimony of St.Dioscoros, for example, in Chalcedon, be confused as Eutychian, if he repeated the words of his and our teacher Cyril ? How can it be mistaken if this language is the established TRADITIONAL language? How can the three chapters, for example, be mistaken as orthodox? You still have to explain how can the alleged Orthodoxy of Chalcedon be reconciled with accepting heretical teachings and how the three chapters could be misunderstood.

Quote
And yet, I repeat, these anathemas will be lifted when there is unity

Good luck. There is nothing bad about unity if approached in truth, and not in a group hug mentality or "unity at any cost" approach.

Quote
It comes to show that some anathemas are null and void in Christ's eyes, and only men divide if there is truly one faith.

The faith was not the same between 451 a.d. and 553 a.d. and we cannot overlook differences in faith, for what is left then of Orthodoxy.  The anathema were mutual, issued by councils led in theory by the Holy Spirit, so on which side was the Holy Spirit absent, or do you think the Holy Spirit contradicted Himself ? If absent from both, and a Church is not led anymore by Christ, the Head, it ceases to be a Church. Some language is tough, and the truth hurts, but it is better than false ecumenism.

Quote
When St. John Chrysostom broke out of communion from us, was the Church the Church where St. Theophilus was or was St. John Chrysostom and his supporters the Church?


You did not offer any dogmatic position regarding how can the branch theory survive the One body of Christ dogma that rejects duality of the Church, and resorted to an example that does not even apply to the situation. St.John Chrysostom was not anathemaized, nor was he questioned for a heresy or dogmatic error. It was an administrative error of reversing a decision by another Holy Synod of an Apostolic See that he was found guilty of. Was his removal harsh ? Yes, it was, but it is irrelevant to the matter. We discuss heresy here.

Now, again, does Christ have two bodies or is communion irrelevant to being part of the Body of Christ ?

Quote
If we accept one another's baptisms, we might as well say that one another's sacraments are valid even though we are not fully united under them.

“Not Fully united” is an empty slogan, for Orthodoxy cannot be divided into parts nor is it a test to pass at 50%. You are either united or you are not.

Quote
What in the world are you talking about?


Don't bother. I was just suggesting that you stop guessing the state of people who lived 16 centuries ago as you seem sure that Leo, for example, was confused, and that the Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian were in a state of continuous misunderstanding for 190 years that followed CHalcedon without answering a simple question: How in the world can you judge better than the people who were actually present? How could you possibly understand the words of the CHalcedonian leaders better than St.Timothy, St.Theodosius and St.Severus, who actually listened to them and judged to be unorthodox ?

Quote
Since neither side believed in any heresy, these condemnations are obviously a misunderstanding, and this is my objectivity

One side believed in Nestorianism. Besides, this was not the issue in this particular discussion point, it is your approach to any debate in history as a misunderstanding that is questioned. You keep on repeating this misunderstanding and confusion thesis as ground for excusing EO from their acceptance of heresy in CHalcedon, and attribute this to misunderstanding. The memory to St.Severus is insulted by the quick lip service such as "great saint", " an able teacher", while his whole teachings are dismissed as misunderstanding and confusion. All his life was dedicated to fighting against Chalcedon and the Tome. He produced his masterful writings to refute both, and you view it as misunderstanding, yet you call him a saint, and his nemesis as orthodox, and the same state of contradiction continues.

In addition, you claim to judge better than him. He does not surpass you as a valid reference just for his ability and his sainthood; the man was actually present and contributed to direct debates with Chalcedonians, for almost two years. He read the resources that are not available to you, was persecuted for the sake of faith and you mock his struggle as a misunderstanding. We do not venerate saints for their misunderstandings, but for fighting the good fight of faith. Yet he judged the council as unholy and you maintain it is perfectly orthodox.

I will not even bring the question of the millions of martyrs that were butchered by Chalcedonian between 451-641 for the sake of faith, and what will become of them. Are they martyrs of faith or victims of confusion ? Your approach is self-destructive and void of truth. 

Quote
By that logic, then the Chalcedonians are also justified in calling us Eutychians, and we will forever uphold the Chalcedonians as heretics and Nestorians regardless of what they believe.

With one major difference: Chalcedonians did not provide any monophysite writing of out Fathers, while the three chapters are conceded by the EO themselves as a heretical teachings. By the way, what EO currently believe in is not in question, the discussion is centered around Chalcedon.

Quote
Not all of Chalcedon accepted the Three Chapters.  Only the Roman legates

Wrong. Chalcedon accepted the three Chapters as orthodox documents, and the bishops present signed on the decisions of the council. Do you want to speculate about signing in agreement of the council decisions ?

Quote
The Fifth Council adds and clarifies the Fourth Council further

NO. NO. By the definition and the statement of the 5th council itself, the 5th council corrects. It does not add to the CHalcedon, it rejects CHalcedon for it rejects the documents of faith accepted by Chalcedon. It contradicts, it does not add, it deletes, and does not clarify. I am happy you made the last two arguments, for they just show how far a false ecumenist will go to twist the truth.
The Holy Spirit does not correct Himself.

Quote
I tell you though, it's AMAZING that the same people who accepted the Tome are the same people who:
1.  Upheld the title "Theotokos"
2.  Did not deny communicato idiomatum
3.  Who had to accept the Council of Ephesus
4.  Who condemn and forced Theodoret and Ibas to condemn Nestorius both in dogma and person said.

- Are you seriously calling the condemnation of Nestorius by Theodret a condemnation? What did he really condemn? Nothing. He never rejected Nestorianism or his theology, and the writings of a man who was just Nestorian 5 minutes ago have been immediately accepted as orthodox. Did he produce these writings during these five minutes or weeks or were these the writings during his heretical days ?In addition, Theodret remain a venomous heretic as he always was, and the reference to his letter to John of Agae just proves the Nestorianism of the council.

- The council abrogated the council of Ephesus. What exactly did it accept from Ephesus if it abrogated the content, the language and upheld the teachings of Nestorius ? When Theodret examines the council’s synodal letter and the Tome to be in accordance with St.Cyril's teachings, you know it is a robber synod.

- Upholding the title Theotokos while separating Christ in two persons as Leo of Rome did and as the three chapters teach is still a heresy. Orthodoxy is not a relative ideology. It is either 100 % or heresy, if your standard is absolute

Quote
So the fact that we must agree upon an Orthodox interpretation means we had the wrong interpretation all along.

You assume too much. You can interpret Arius to maintain the divinity of Christ if you wish, but it is your interpretation, trying to read the minds of people who lived 16 centuries ago.

Quote
Nowhere in the definition of Chalcedon did the WHOLE SYNOD agree upon the Three Chapters as dogmatic.  Only the Papal legates.  However you want to interpret the "silence" of the Synod is open for discussion.  But there is no proof that the whole Synod accepted the Three Chapters.  Face it.  You can't prove it.

I will not be able to prove it to an ecumenist, and I will not prove to you that the sun shines in the morning. If you just want unity for the sake of unity at any expense, any discussion regarding obvious facts is a waste of time.
Although it is a fact that whole CHalcedon accepted the Three Chapters, I will again expose your hypocrisy from your own mouth. On whose behalf did the Roman delegates act, and did their master approve their actions ? You defended Leo of Rome's Orthodoxy, now reconcile the three chapter - that you maintain was only accepted by Rome - with Orthodoxy.

Quote
You can get too hung up on the Three Chapters all you want

You bet, for till now, you have been ridicules about it and everybody else silent.
Quote
In addition, the fact that Theodoret ended up condemning Nestorius (even though hesitantly) puts some credence to Chalcedon
;D . The man did not condemn Nestorianism at all, nor did he show any sign of remorse for his previous writings or actually reject them openly. Did you actually read the passage of his exoneration?

God bless.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: cizinec on June 16, 2005, 02:04:35 PM
Quote
Furthermore, the Tome of Leo of Rome contradicts the Nicene creed in its very core. If you ever get the chance to recite the Creed . . .

I never say the Creed.  We stopped saying it at our church because it offended our Nestorian sensibilities. 

If Chalcedon denies the Creed, then why didn't they say, "Oh, by the way, stop saying that Creed we gave you.  It's all messed up and stupid?"

Quote
The language of the Tome is not biblical.

Yeah, your right.  In fact, I've heard some Protestant quotes from the Bible that aren't biblical. 

Quote
they actually ratified the teachings of Nestorius.

 . . all the while they are closing down the Nestorian schools and booting them to Persia.  Yeah, boy, we were giving them two thumbs up!  I'll tell you why in a minute!

Quote
Association with heretics

Well, I thought St. Cyril's parents were pagans, so he's associated with pagans.  We'd better blow him off, just in case.

Quote
a simple EO (and in fact any fair observer) would be justified in asking you to accept Chalcedon and the Tome unconditionally

You forgot to add in context.  Kind of a little oops omission there.  thought i'd just add it.

Quote
But, if you wish, we can debate the rest of Leo of Rome's writings, although it is a waste of time.

That's why we do it.

Quote
The faith was not the same between 451 a.d. and 553 a.d.

Dude, my whole freaking family was pagan between 451 and 553 a.d.  Please don't hold it against me if we agree on something now.

Quote
One side believed in Nestorianism.

Yeah, I'm sure you're right.  Of course, they condemned Nestorianism and persecuted the Assyrian Church, but that was all a show for you non-Chalcedonians to keep you from going.  Sorry about that little deception.

Quote
NO. NO. By the definition and the statement of the 5th council itself, the 5th council corrects. It does not add to the CHalcedon, it rejects CHalcedon for it rejects the documents of faith accepted by Chalcedon.

I think you're right here too.  You see, even though we've rejected other so-called "ecumenical" councils in the past, we decided, and this is the really funny part, we decided to completely do away with the Third Council without saying so just to make you non-Chalcedonians mad!  Boy, we EOs sure are a naughty bunch!

Quote
the writings of a man who was just Nestorian 5 minutes ago have been immediately accepted as orthodox.

Yeah, and you'd probably be better off to consider anything I write here as being Pentecostal.  I grew up Pentecostal and, you know, people don't change.

Quote
You can interpret Arius to maintain the divinity of Christ if you wish, but it is your interpretation, trying to read the minds of people who lived 16 centuries ago.

Yeah.  Thank goodness you don't do that.  You, at least, KNOW that, even though they said they rejected nestorianism and persecuted Nestorians, they were really just trying to fool ya.

Good catch!
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: cizinec on June 16, 2005, 02:13:14 PM
Stavro,

Feel free to slap me any time!   ;D

I'm in a playfully sarcastic (most of my co-workers think of it as painfully sarcastic) mood today.

That reminds me of something we say here in Texas.  If something is really good we call it "slap grandma good."  It usually relates to food, for some reason.  I'm hungry.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Doubting Thomas on June 16, 2005, 03:14:44 PM


How in the world can you judge better than the people who were actually present?
Indeed.  ;D

Quote
How could you possibly understand the words of the CHalcedonian leaders better than St.Timothy, St.Theodosius and St.Severus, who actually listened to them and judged to be unorthodox ?
Or better than the saints who judged Chalcedon to be, in fact, orthodox?  :P


Quote
You can interpret Arius to maintain the divinity of Christ if you wish, but it is your interpretation, trying to read the minds of people who lived 16 centuries ago.

Are you sure he's the only one here trying to read the minds of people who lived 16 centuries ago?  ;)

Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Stavro on June 16, 2005, 04:49:29 PM
Quote
Or better than the saints who judged Chalcedon to be, in fact, orthodox
Which saints ? The only saint attending was excommunicated early in this gathering, and replaced by Nestorians.
Quote
Are you sure he's the only one here trying to read the minds of people who lived 16 centuries ago?
Sure not. All EO make reading Leo of Rome mind their excuse to exonerate him. Do you maintain there was a misunderstanding ?
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on June 16, 2005, 05:31:44 PM
Dear ozgeorge,

Stavro is all yours.  I'm not going to bother since there are EO's that can defend themselves.

Just one comment that pertains to us Copts that I must answer to Stavro:

Quote
NO, H.E. did not, and in no place did he ratify the decision of CHalcedon regarding the three chapters, the acceptance of the Tome, the excommunication of St.Dioscoros. The only clear positive reference is to the 5th council, which rejected the heresies of Theodore and Theodret. How would H.E. defend the orthodoxy of Chalcedon and in the same time refer positively to its abrogation by the 5th council?

Please don't be ignorant of what HEMB wrote:

Quote
When we come to the issue of the four later councils of the Orthodox: How can we see it together, away from condemnations of the past against the fathers and councils of the Oriental Orthodox?
   We can notice that those councils have equally condemned the Nestorian and the Eutychian heresies which the Oriental Orthodox have also condemned.

and

Quote
It is also clear that the Orthodox interpretation of the teachings of the four later councils of the Orthodox are the same as the doctrine of the Oriental Orthodox who have always refused both the Nestorians and Eutychian heresies. The two families are called to reinforce each other in their struggle against heresies and to complete each other as one body of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.

You see Stavro, rather than using your own flawed interpretations of what HEMB wrote, it is very clear that HEMB wrote the last "four" councils, NOT the last "three" (i.e. including Chalcedon).  If you want to blame anyone who wants to unite for the sake of unity, you're going to have to condemn HEMB before you actually condemn me.  I assume HEMB knows much more than you and I.

So going back to whether Chalcedon ULTIMATELY accepted Chalcedon or not, according to HEMB, a Coptic Metropolitan, that council "has equally condemned both the Nestorian and Eutychian heresies."  If ALL OF CHALCEDON accepted the Three Chapters, then I await what the EO says in response to this.  Otherwise, I think it was only limited in word of mouth from the Roman legates.  The Roman legates are not the "whole" council.

And if there is no "Orthodox interpretation" of Chalcedon, then HEMB is simply wrong, and he should be questioned for his ecumenist activities, No?

God bless you brother.

Mina
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 16, 2005, 07:17:37 PM
The Divine Word — The hypostasis/person of Christ, en-hypostasized a human nature/ousia at the Incarnation.

And Dioscorus thought Leo sounded Nestorian!
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 16, 2005, 10:58:43 PM
Quote
Quote from: EkhristosAnesti on Yesterday at 10:59:39 PM
The Divine Word — The hypostasis/person of Christ, en-hypostasized a human nature/ousia at the Incarnation.

And Dioscorus thought Leo sounded Nestorian!

Ozgeorge, you're obviously as ignorant of Nestorianism, as you are ignorant of St Cyril's & St Dioscorus's Christologies. In no way could Nestorius affirm the "en-hypostasization of the human nature/ousia"....this principle is in itself a refutation of Nestorianism (in that it essentially confirms that Chtist's humanity became inextricably intrinsic to His hypostasis - which contradicts the Nestorian principle that Christ's humanity is an independent ground of being); it is the very principle which if explicated or declared at Chalcedon, would have been a vital contextual factor in vindicating Chalcedon from the Nestorian charge. Furthermore, your own EO father St John of Damascus affirmed the en-hypostasization of the human nature by the hypostasis of The Word, along with other great figures like the OO Church father St Severus of Antioch - another Orthodox Saint who your own council anathemized out of ignorance.

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Stavro on June 16, 2005, 11:19:34 PM
In reply to minasoliman post # 210:

Quote
I'm not going to bother since there are EO's that can defend themselves.
The last posts were directed towards your attitude of false ecumenism which is more dangerous than Chalcedonian claims, and not to pick up a fight with EO.ÂÂ  
But the misrepresentation of the Coptic Church position on your behalf cannot go without a clarifcation. We take great pride in consistency of the Church and our Traditional approach to the Faith, which you undermine by the misrepresentation of Coptic Church position on this matter. It is our Contra Mundum attitude that amazes many, and to seek a unity based on accepting Chalcedon smashes our legacy.
Quote
We can notice that those councils have equally condemned the Nestorian and the Eutychian heresies which the Oriental Orthodox have also condemned.

We can all notice that, and we can also notice that Chalcedon also accepted heretical teachings and exonderated heretics after careful examination and excommunicated our orthodox Pope. Are the writings of Thedoret, Theodore, Ibad Nestorian or orthodox ?
Quote
It is also clear that the Orthodox interpretation of the teachings of the four later councils
As they currently confess their faith, they are Orthodox. Please understand the issue at hand. We are not examining the faith of the EO, we examine the faith of Leo and Chalcedon from the writings that we have. There is a reason why the two groups referred to St.Cyril for common ground, for the other documents cannot provide any common declaration of faith.
You are mixing the issues here.
Quote
If you want to blame anyone who wants to unite for the sake of unity, you're going to have to condemn HEMB before you actually condemn me.ÂÂ  I assume HEMB knows much more than you and I.
I am not condemning you, I am exposing the danger of your approach to unity on our Faith. A unity void of truth will never last, but will leave a black mark in the history of the Church that hurts the coming generations. There is a reason why three attempts in the immediate era after Chalcedon failed, and circumstances are not very much different now.

OO have approached this unity talks from the beginning with one goal in mind: Issue a common declaration of faith that is the basis for the unity, without any mutual confession of councils or documents. Nothing more is needed.

God bless you as well, brother.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Stavro on June 17, 2005, 12:35:14 AM
In reference to post # 154 by Timos:

Quote
If the Copts now truly believe that Chalcedon is Orthodox then why won't they accept it?
It would be a logical question if this was the case, yet we do not accept the Orthodoxy of Chalcedon for the reasons explained in many posts in this thread. Chalcedon minus the Tome, the exoneration of Thedoret & co., the Three Chapters and reading the synodal defintion of faith in the light of St.Cyril's teachings would be accepted, but what is left of Chalcedon ?
Quote
On the other hand, if the Eastern Othodox truly believe that the Oriental Orthodox are truly Orthodox then why won't they just let them be and accept them without having them to accept the other 3 councils??
I doubt whether many EO believe this or not. The first three councils are the ones that confirmed the faith through the creed, and nothing was added to the Creed after. The last three councils of the EO, in my opinion, were unnecessary if Chalcedon did not take place.

In any case, what is wrong with having a common declaration of faith ?

Quote
Furthermore on the other hand, both churches believe that the Holy Spirit directly influences the councils so therefore even if the copts use the argument that "these councils did not affect us"wouldn't they be automatically obliged to accept the councils since they are ecumenical
The last three councils were called to fight heresies that appeared on the Chalcedonian side. We never had to go through this process nor did we suffer from such heresies, so why should we take the medicine for an illness we never faced ? The teachings of the last three councils (5-7) and specially the 5th council have been part of the Faith in our church way before the Chalcedonian faced this challenge. Yet the anathemas against our saints will not be accepted.

Away from the debate about Chalcedon, there are other factors that will make unity difficult. Will the EO risk divisions within their own church for the sake of a unity with OO ? It seems to me, and I might be wrong, that it is H.H. the Ecumenical Patriarch who is in favor of the unity, but is he powerful enough ? H.H. the EP is leading a heroic struggle with a small congregation in Asia Minor, and this is worthy of all respect regardless of disagreements, but can H.H. the EP risk being cut off by Greece, for example, and survive with his congregation ? The Mountain of Athos is not very friendly to the unity talks, as far as I understand.

On the other hand, and from a political point of view, what gain is there to unite with the OO, whose congregations are living under persecution and they have little political power anywhere ? We are not Rome.

Should we unite, who will pick up the dioceses in the West, and what will become of the dioscese of each Church established already with many churches ? While the strongholds of each side will not be disputed, the dioceses in the West are "fair-game".

Now to faith issues. While christology is settled, at least in agrred statements, there are other aspects of the faith that must be examined. Mixed marriage in the EO church for example is not accepted by the OO, and we can discuss this difference in more detail elsewhere and how it relates to difference in the approach to sacraments. It is a practical problem too, and must be discussed before such union is established. It is not a trivial matter.

Supremacy and Primacy will come next, and they have been the root for many problem in the old days.

Salvation after death is another faith issue we disagree on. We differ in our views, and it cannot be reconciled easily, specially as the Coptic Church for example has emphasized its rejection of this teaching lately. It shows the different paths of thoughts that both sides have taken during the long schism.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Stavro on June 17, 2005, 12:45:30 AM
Stavro,
Feel free to slap me any time!  ÃƒÆ’‚ ;D
I'm in a playfully sarcastic (most of my co-workers think of it as painfully sarcastic) mood today.
That reminds me of something we say here in Texas.ÂÂ  If something is really good we call it "slap grandma good."ÂÂ  It usually relates to food, for some reason.ÂÂ  I'm hungry.
I will wait till you eat and respond afterwards.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on June 17, 2005, 01:27:04 AM
Dear Stavro,

My attitude towards the matter is nothing more that what the Church has agreed to show, a more sympathizing attitude without continuing to condemn one another.  I am not saying we should accept Chalcedon or Leo.  Have you read my arguments?  I bring out the flaws in them also, but understand that they continued to uphold Orthodoxy from that point on.

Quote
But the misrepresentation of the Coptic Church position on your behalf cannot go without a clarifcation. We take great pride in consistency of the Church and our Traditional approach to the Faith, which you undermine by the misrepresentation of Coptic Church position on this matter. It is our Contra Mundum attitude that amazes many, and to seek a unity based on accepting Chalcedon smashes our legacy.

I've given you clear quotes from HEMB.  It seems you continue to ignore them.  If I'm "misrepresenting the Church" so is HEMB.

Quote
We can all notice that, and we can also notice that Chalcedon also accepted heretical teachings and exonderated heretics after careful examination and excommunicated our orthodox Pope. Are the writings of Thedoret, Theodore, Ibad Nestorian or orthodox ?

Then I suppose HEMB is wrong and misrepresenting the Church.  If he said that Chalcedon was condemned the Nestorian heresy, but did not mention that Chalcedon accepted Nestorian documents, then perhaps both HEMB and I are both ecumenist heretics.

Quote
As they currently confess their faith, they are Orthodox. Please understand the issue at hand. We are not examining the faith of the EO, we examine the faith of Leo and Chalcedon from the writings that we have. There is a reason why the two groups referred to St.Cyril for common ground, for the other documents cannot provide any common declaration of faith.
You are mixing the issues here.

I'm not mixing issues here at all.  Be consistent with yourself.  HEMB said we can interpret the last four councils as Orthodox.  Either Chalcedon is Orthodox or is Nestorian.  Pick one and choose a position without appeasing yourself to think you agree with HEMB.  If HEMB meant something else, then he should have been clearer, but according to your arguments, then we can move on to accuse HEMB and the Church he represents as vague in their statements, just as vague as Chalcedon when it stands alone.

Quote
I am not condemning you, I am exposing the danger of your approach to unity on our Faith. A unity void of truth will never last, but will leave a black mark in the history of the Church that hurts the coming generations. There is a reason why three attempts in the immediate era after Chalcedon failed, and circumstances are not very much different now.

Then, it seems we have an ecumenist problem in our Church Stavro, according to you.  I have not failed to disagree with councils, neither did I fail to show flaws in councils and show we will and should not accept them.  But I have also not failed to accept an Orthodox interpretation of them.

Quote
OO have approached this unity talks from the beginning with one goal in mind: Issue a common declaration of faith that is the basis for the unity, without any mutual confession of councils or documents. Nothing more is needed.

You seem to misrepresent my arguments as some sort of confession of the councils.  All I am saying is that the councils were never heretical, but I never said that we should accept them.  HUGE DIFFERENCE Stavro. 

The difference between you and I Stavro is that you continue to condemn Chalcedon and Leo while I try to act out on the Agreed Statements and refrain from condemning them without even accepting them.  But in that case, Stavro, since you feel you uphold and believe to agree with what the OO has been doing, I wonder then if the OO heirarchs bases themselves on false unity. 

If truly Leo and Chalcedon were heretical, THEN WE ARE WRONG IN AGREEING TO LIFT ANATHEMAS, AND THEREFORE HE Metropolitan Bishoy is doing a GRAVE mistake, an Ecumenical HERESY as orthodoxinfo.com would put it.  In that case Stavro, I don't know what to say, but to pray for you and for the Church.  You probably know more than me and HEMB.

I'm sorry that I agree with HEMB on the matter.  I guess I am an ecumenist heretic, and I'll probably consistently continue to do so.

Pray for me since I have erred from the Contra Mondum faith of the Church.

God bless you.

Mina

PS If it is ever proven that Chalcedon was in fact a heretical council, not only would I agree with you Stavro, but I would probably develop a website called orientalorthodoxinfo.com rebuking my Church for such false unity.  That is consistency, my friend.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: alexp4uni on June 17, 2005, 02:16:57 AM
Lets pickup the facts since no one on the Chalcedonian side has aimed the arrows outside the fort correctly. From what I picked up:

Leo -a Nestorian who allowed people with blind faith walk in to receive communion. The 3rd Council had anathematized Nestorius yet Leo restates old arguments and defied this HOLY council. Theodoret a small but crucial person who influenced John of Antioch to state Two Natures. Nestorius did not die during the time of Chalcedon and agreed with what Leo said was Nestorian in his Tome. Hence the Theology would be continued and represented of Victory in Chalcedon. The unity of Christ is a confused and not fused person like it was intended it to be.

With the power of his appointing, Leo the "GREAT" could persecute anyone who he felt couldn't learn a lesson. Hence Dioscoros needed to be isolated from confessing Christ was fully God and fully man. Non-C anathematizes Leo like a dirty scoundrel and hence Non-Chalcedonians reject him for his flagrant character to be undignified to a dignified Church of Alexandria. Constantinople had the same "Roman Empire" mentality to persecute and call non-Greeks "Barbarians". As well as Leo's mentality would be the same as of Pontius Pilate's to kill MILLIONS of people, RE-emphasizing MILLIONS!!! Spiritually blind soldiers and forced agreements placed Marcian the Emperor to establish a new church of alexandria, instead of appropriate titles that needed to be given. So hardship and struggle defines the term "Coptic" and stating with profundity "that Masked Men cannot fool anyone" and to a God that is just and powerful over any empire.

Though this wasn't stated in the specific topic, but during John Paul II funeral The HISTORY CHANNEL showed a documentary on the many popes successions. And one must realize that this pope that is being supported is declaration of Roman papacy. Hence the Western Church including Constantinople have been lead into heresy to this very day. Ok so concerning the old and spiritually blind heretics of previous Councils, political power plays a ROLE in THIS Council that becomes indecent and exposed weak faith.

I'm just trying to keep up with this post and fill EA's EGO like a balloon because every one on this forum loves to hate him for the others issues.

But this has no affect on me I'm continuing to be apart of the Eastern Orthodox faithful because the Coptics at the Hour of the Lords Coming will receive receive Resurrection of Righteous and the EO's will receive resurrection of Judgement  :o

Darn that Holy Spirit! OH the wrongs that could've been right but hence Non-C's puts the Persecutors in a category as being Judged by a God who can put EO together with the Roman West and Protestants who burned heretics alive during the Reformation era as being the same. And also other side of Constantinople has been a ugly one which flagrantly walked away from their faith during 451 A.D. all the way too 550 A.D and even until now.

Thank you EA, MINA and Stavro for doing such a theatrical spectacle that makes people question the faith of the True Church to be weak.=) Let me get some sleep, restart my praying and continued to be filled with error of the Philokalia. Because God know his Divine Wills and Energies will not be of the same voiding me of any strong faith that I was trying to strive for.  :'(
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: sin_vladimirov on June 17, 2005, 02:41:09 AM
Lets pickup the facts since no one on the Chalcedonian side has aimed the arrows outside the fort correctly. From what I picked up:

Leo -a Nestorian who allowed people with blind faith walk in to receive communion. The 3rd Council had anathematized Nestorius yet Leo restates old arguments and defied this HOLY council. Theodoret a small but crucial person who influenced John of Antioch to state Two Natures. Nestorius did not die during the time of Chalcedon and agreed with what Leo said was Nestorian in his Tome. Hence the Theology would be continued and represented of Victory in Chalcedon. The unity of Christ is a confused and not fused person like it was intended it to be.

With the power of his appointing, Leo the "GREAT" could persecute anyone who he felt couldn't learn a lesson. Hence Dioscoros needed to be isolated from confessing Christ was fully God and fully man. Non-C anathematizes Leo like a dirty scoundrel and hence Non-Chalcedonians reject him for his flagrant character to be undignified to a dignified Church of Alexandria. Constantinople had the same "Roman Empire" mentality to persecute and call non-Greeks "Barbarians". As well as Leo's mentality would be the same as of Pontius Pilate's to kill MILLIONS of people, RE-emphasizing MILLIONS!!! Spiritually blind soldiers and forced agreements placed Marcian the Emperor to establish a new church of alexandria, instead of appropriate titles that needed to be given. So hardship and struggle defines the term "Coptic" and stating with profundity "that Masked Men cannot fool anyone" and to a God that is just and powerful over any empire.

Though this wasn't stated in the specific topic, but during John Paul II funeral The HISTORY CHANNEL showed a documentary on the many popes successions. And one must realize that this pope that is being supported is declaration of Roman papacy. Hence the Western Church including Constantinople have been lead into heresy to this very day. Ok so concerning the old and spiritually blind heretics of previous Councils, political power plays a ROLE in THIS Council that becomes indecent and exposed weak faith.

I'm just trying to keep up with this post and fill EA's EGO like a balloon because every one on this forum loves to hate him for the others issues.

But this has no affect on me I'm continuing to be apart of the Eastern Orthodox faithful because the Coptics at the Hour of the Lords Coming will receive receive Resurrection of Righteous and the EO's will receive resurrection of Judgement  :o

Darn that Holy Spirit! OH the wrongs that could've been right but hence Non-C's puts the Persecutors in a category as being Judged by a God who can put EO together with the Roman West and Protestants who burned heretics alive during the Reformation era as being the same. And also other side of Constantinople has been a ugly one which flagrantly walked away from their faith during 451 A.D. all the way too 550 A.D and even until now.

Thank you EA, MINA and Stavro for doing such a theatrical spectacle that makes people question the faith of the True Church to be weak.=) Let me get some sleep, restart my praying and continued to be filled with error of the Philokalia. Because God know his Divine Wills and Energies will not be of the same voiding me of any strong faith that I was trying to strive for.  :'(




 ??? I GOT NO IDEA WHAT YOU SAID.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 17, 2005, 02:43:32 AM
Mina & Stavro,

Let’s agree on the fundamentals, and agree to disagree on the rest:

1)   Our Church will never accept Chalcedon as a legitimate Ecumenical Council for the sake of unity.
2)   Regardless of whether Chalcedon was heretical or not, the main issue we can all agree upon is that in its immediate fifth century context, it could reasonably be interpreted as such and hence the reasonable reaction to Chalcedon by our fathers.
3)   Regardless of any heresy in Chalcedon, it was a council of schism motivated by dirty politics, envy, greed, and hatred; one instigated with an hidden agenda to undermine Alexandria as the theological centre of the world, for as St Gregory of Nazianzus would put it: “The head of the Church of Alexandria is the head of the world.”
4)   “You shall know them by their fruits” — Chalcedonian Crusaders persecuted and mass-slaughtered many of our faithful; to agree to Chalcedon would be to implicitly condone the consequent fruits of injustice and evil committed against us.

I hope you guys can allow the above 4 points to be a “common declaration of faith” to resolve the Stavro vs. Mina dispute, and to just agree to disagree on the rest.

With that said, I am personally at the stage where I believe that unity is practically and in reality impossible, though theoretically it is warranted since it is obvious we share the same faith. The conflicting and opposing mindsets within each Church’s congregations is an issue which in itself suffices in drawing this conclusion — you would have people like ozgeorge adamant in declaring our fathers heretics regardless of the facts vs. people like greekischristian who are open to reasonable and objective consideration of the facts at hand vs. people like Anastasios who have objectively considered the facts and understood that our fathers were never heretics; thus ultimately such a unity could ironically potentially divide the Church even further via the severe tension that I believe it would create. ÂÂ

What I would like to see however, and what I do hope for, is simply an acknowledged official and common declaration of faith as Stavro mentioned; drawn between our Church’s respective patriarchs acknowledging that both Church’s today adhere to, and are loyal to the Orthodox faith which has been received from our Holy Fathers which they in turn received from Blessed Apostles who in turn received from the Lord Himself.

I believe the EP H. H. Bartholomew has already declared: “The Copts are as Orthodox as we are!” and our Patriarch H.H. Pope Shenouda III has likewise declared the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Church.

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 17, 2005, 02:45:23 AM
Alexp4uni,

Quote
But this has no affect on me I'm continuing to be apart of the Eastern Orthodox faithful because the Coptics at the Hour of the Lords Coming will receive receive Resurrection of Righteous and the EO's will receive resurrection of Judgement


Please refrain from such stupidity. No one said or implied anything of the sort.

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: sin_vladimirov on June 17, 2005, 02:53:30 AM
I personally (me, myself) have no reasons to consider Copts anything but Orthodox. I just think that words that you (well some of you) use like HATRED, ENVY, GREED... HIDDEN AGENDAS etc do not help us that are Orthodox  and who see Copts the same way. That is that kind of phrazeology is not helping at all when if we are to convince those of our brethren that are not seing it that way to change their minds.

It would be really appreciated if that kind of talk would at least be toned down to words like MISUNDERSTANDING and so on, unless of course, you just do not care what we think of you. If that is the case just say so. At least it would be easy to know where we all stand.

Than we can start throwing at each other frazes as used by Alex and finish with it all.

Many years.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 17, 2005, 03:11:21 AM
Alexp4uni,

One last response regarding the following comment:

Quote
Thank you EA, MINA and Stavro for doing such a theatrical spectacle that makes people question the faith of the [Eastern Orthodox Church] to be weak

No one here is challenging your faith; we are challenging your history. A while ago I had a prospective Orthodox convert on this forum who PM’d me regarding his struggle to decide between joining the Coptic Orthodox Church or the Orthodox Church of America. I told him that I concur with the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Church and the validity of her sacraments, and simply advised him to continue attending the liturgies and consulting the priests of both Church’s; to fast, pray and to ultimately follow his heart.

I am not the enemy you are making me out to be.

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: GiC on June 17, 2005, 03:55:58 AM
These Discussions over Chalcedon seem to take a disproportionate amount of my time on these boards, but alas, I shall do my best to continue, though I think EA and I have already discussed much of this.

Dear GreekisChristian,

In our tradition, it was known that St. Dioscorus was under house arrest by the same Imperial authorities, and we felt there was a conspiracy against him.

Are you arguing that he was forbidden by our Emperor from attending the Synod? If so, I would be curious to know your sources.

Quote
This is quite interesting.ÂÂ  It seems highly unlikely that Cyril knew Theodoret wrote this agreementand furthermore, and I have very little faith that Theodoret wrote it either.ÂÂ  When St. Cyril wrote back with the Formula of Reunion, Theodoret wrote to John of Antioch saying that they have examined the letter and agree that not only it is Orthodox, but it "contradicts Cyril's 12 Chapters."ÂÂ  Furthermore, both Cyril and Theodoret anathematized one another even up to Cyril's death, as is shown in Theodoret's letter calling the departed Cyril, a "villain."ÂÂ  Therefore, you can say that Theodoret did not think Nestorius was guilty of heresy, but he did think Ephesus and St. Cyril were heretical also.

I fear that I would have to do some research that I dont have time (or resources) to do right now to give you sources, but in most of what I have read on the subject, Theodoret is said to be the author of the Agreement. Furthermore, considering Cyril's insistance on Apollinarian language (which he wrongly believed to be Athanasian), it is not surprising that Theodoret would have reservations about his expression of Theology, fortunately such misunderstandings were clarified, and all was set right at Chalcedon.

Quote
But I happen to personally believe that Theodoret, a qualified theologian himself, understood exactly what Nestorius was writing.

And I'm will to guess that if we had Nestorians on this Board, I'd be having a very similar discussion with them, but discussing what is meant by person as opposed to nature. The fact that neither the Nestorians nor the Eutychians, representing the two extremes of the Schools of Theological thought, were happy with the Decrees and decisions of Chalcedon seems to me to be evidence in and of itself of the Synod's great theological success.

Quote
And very hesitantly, might I add.ÂÂ  It was this hesitancy that got us wondering.

Of course it was hesitantly, he was anathematizing an old friend who he had long stood by. But in the end he put the will of the Synod above this Loyality and was thus vindicated. If he still had theological reservations, which I doubt, his action is all the more admirable for submitting to the Synod even against his own conscience.

Quote
Yes, on the basis that he taught that the humanity was absorbed and nonexistent.ÂÂ  But St. Dioscorus received a confession from Ephesus 449 that Christ was "consubstantial with His mother."ÂÂ  St. Dioscorus and Ephesus 449 had no theological error.

More than Consubstantiality is at issue, the Two Natures could be confused and Consubstantiality with God and Man could be maintained; many of Eutyches statements demonstrate a confusion of the natures.

Quote
I disagree.ÂÂ  There was a personal anathema given by St. Cyril to Theodoret up to Cyril's death.ÂÂ  After all, Theodoret was a huge supporter of "Theodorum et Dioodorum."

The Personal Anathemas of Cyril, or of any father, are of little consequence as he had no claim to jurisdiction in the matter.

Quote
Well, the question is then what is heretical about Ephesus 449?ÂÂ  The belief of the double consubstantiality of Christ was still professed.ÂÂ  And the Tome was examined by Theodoret among the group, and the legates, who said that Theodore of Mopsuestia was a doctor of the Church, already contradicting St. Cyril's anathemas against this person (and the Fifth EO Council).ÂÂ  The Tome can be interpreted Orthodox, but the examination by such persons make it suspicious.

What is heretical? A rejection of the Tome of Leo, a Denial that Christ is IN Two Natures. As a tangent, what exactly do the non-chalcedonians object to in Leo's tome...it's been mentioned in passing a few times, but never systematically in any of the discussions I've been involved in.

Quote
What was worrysome about it?ÂÂ  If someone who is accused told you that Christ was consubstantial with His mother, can this be interpreted as "His mother's humanity was non-existent."ÂÂ  I don't even think this guy Eutyches knew what he was talking about in the first place, since he was not ever close to a theologian.ÂÂ  St. Dioscorus deposed others for professing "in" two natures, a new profession that was interpreted as Nestorian, since Nestorius used the same terminology.ÂÂ  In addition, Flavian, Eusebius, and Theodoret, anathematized anyone who confessed "one nature" not knowing that "one nature" can be interpreted Orthodox as St. Cyril did.ÂÂ  To St. Dioscorus' eyes, these three men anathematized St. Cyril, and thus were counted as Nestorian, not knowing that Eutyches believed in a heretical interpretation.

The issue was more one of Confusion and Change of the natures than Consubstantiality.

Quote
Except the "in" two natures part, which was not in the Formula of Reunion, but rather "of" two natures was used, something that St. Dioscorus professed in the Synod, which was indeed in accordance with the Formula of Reunion.ÂÂ  Might I add it was St. Dioscorus who was the first person in the Council of Chalcedon in front of 600 bishops to use the four adverbs "without commixture, without alteration, without division, without seperation."

Yet a rejection of the 'IN' two natures is a confusion or change of the natures from our perspective.

Quote
Since someone was under house arrest, it justifies why this someone couldn't come.ÂÂ  He first sent a message that he was under arrest, and then because he knew he couldn't get out, knowing that this was all a scam, he challenged them to see if anything he said in the Council was heterodox by sending a message "I have said enough."ÂÂ  Indeed, the best thing the Council could do was depose him for "not appearing" but couldn't challenge the Orthodoxy of his statements.ÂÂ  Meanwhile, the Imperial authorities got what they wanted, taking St. Dioscorus away and beating him up like they planned.ÂÂ  Deception by the Imperial authorities to Chalcedon and Dioscorus is Satanic, the greatest offence of all.

According to the Canons, one would have to be summoned thrice, and refuse to go before the synod thrice, before they could be excommunicated, was Dioscorus thrice denied attendence to the Synod by the Imperial Authority? If so, as I said before, I would like to know your sources.

Quote
I would like to add this was on the assumption that we didn't take Chalcedon in the light of Ephesus and thus we interpreted it as Nestorian.ÂÂ  Call it misunderstanding or political or "true" as some profess is open for discussion.ÂÂ  But the fact of the matter is St. Dioscorus rejected it not because he was a heretic.

As I said before, if Didoscorus agreed with the Synod's theology but rejected it, it is no less serious than a theological disagreement; it is still schism.

Quote
PSÂÂ  Sorry to barge in, but on the assumption that EA is studying, I guess I can do my best to answer some claims.

You are, of course, welcome in on our discussion, though my adversaries seem to increase and active allies decrease ;) I simply ask your indulgance as I may not be able to reply in as timely a manner as would be ideal.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: GiC on June 17, 2005, 04:03:04 AM
Mina & Stavro,

Let’s agree on the fundamentals, and agree to disagree on the rest:

1)   Our Church will never accept Chalcedon as a legitimate Ecumenical Council for the sake of unity.
2)   Regardless of whether Chalcedon was heretical or not, the main issue we can all agree upon is that in its immediate fifth century context, it could reasonably be interpreted as such and hence the reasonable reaction to Chalcedon by our fathers.
3)   Regardless of any heresy in Chalcedon, it was a council of schism motivated by dirty politics, envy, greed, and hatred; one instigated with an hidden agenda to undermine Alexandria as the theological centre of the world, for as St Gregory of Nazianzus would put it: “The head of the Church of Alexandria is the head of the world.”
4)   “You shall know them by their fruits” — Chalcedonian Crusaders persecuted and mass-slaughtered many of our faithful; to agree to Chalcedon would be to implicitly condone the consequent fruits of injustice and evil committed against us.

I know that this was meant to address an internal dispute, but I would like to bring these up as better evidence than I could ever construct by logical argument that communion between us and the Non-Chalcedonians is unrealistic and, in all probability, undesirable for both sides. I, and probably most (non-Protestant) Chalcedonians with me, regard the Definition of Chalcedon to be Equal to, if not above, the words of Scripture themselves and could not conceive of our Faith without it. The proposistion of reunification without an unconditional acceptance of that Synod is as unrealistic to us as the proposistoin of reunification with unconditional acceptance of Chalcedon is to you. You will never adopt it as an Oecumenical Synod, and we will never allow it to be anything less.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 17, 2005, 06:26:56 AM
I'm sorry, I just can't help myself; I will just quickly respond to those issues that will take the least of my time to respond to:

greekischristian,

Quote
Yet a rejection of the 'IN' two natures is a confusion or change of the natures from our perspective.

The issues is this: The reasonableness of our rejection of the expression “in two natures” in the name of Orthodoxy vs. the reasonableness of your employment of “in two natures” in the name of Orthodoxy.

The expression itself finds its origins in Nestorianism, and before Chalcedon ever adopted it, never was it employed in the name of Orthodox Christology (not even in the re-union formula, as Mina correctly pointed out), but rather predominantly employed to convey heresy. The fact of the matter is, that semantically speaking its very implications are Nestorian EVEN WHEN the term physis is understood essentialistically as opposed to in a hypostatic sense; such that there is no parallel between the misunderstanding of “One physis” and “in two physis” — since heresy can only be read into the former if the term physis is defined in a manner disconnected from the context that it is employed, whereas the corollary implications of the latter are heretical regardless of how the context demands us to define the term “physis”. I will quickly explain why:

The first thing to note is that the definition in Chalcedon starts with the clause that one must confess Christ “to be in…” or synonymously confess that Christ “exists in…” — at this stage any reasonable person will understand that whatever follows is essentially a qualification of Christ’s state of existence. That it is qualified with “two natures” gives the very clear implication that Christ’s two natures are two grounds of His existence i.e. Christ exists IN the human nature (One ground of existence) AND Christ exists IN the divine nature (Another - Second - ground of existence) — this is why Nestorius employed it, since he regarded Christ’s two essences/natures as two centers/grounds of existence for Christ. Christ does not “exist IN” His natures — this is the worst and most unreasonable manner to manner to attempt to convey the essential Orthodox concept that Christ “possesses” two complete and perfect natures/ousias. The Incarnate Word is only ONE existence — this ONE existence came about “from” the unconfused union of His two natures/ousias; for as the ground of His existence was one prior to the Incarnation, so it remained One after the Incarnation due to the fact His humanity became inextricably intrinsic to His One ground of existence as opposed to independent of it.

Professor Frances Young states in his book From Nicea to Chalcedon:

The ‘prosopic union’…becomes Nestorius’ attempt to provide a metaphysical account of Christ’s unity of person which did not involve the difficiulties of a ‘natural’ or ‘substantial’ union, and Nestorius meant to convey a ‘real union’. The One Christ has ‘two grounds of being’, he exists ‘in two natures’, as Chalcedon was later to confirm.” (page 237)

Quote
The issue was more one of Confusion and Change of the natures than Consubstantiality.

One is directly relevant to the other; they’re not two independent issues. If Christ’s natures were confused into one, then the consubstantiality of both is compromised, for He now has a new "super-human nature" so to speak, which is not the same as that possessed by any other being. However, in the historical context of what was understood as “monphysitism”; the divine nature did not cease to be consubstantial, but rather by virtue of this “confusion”, it "dissolved" or "consumed" the real humanity of Christ and as such, Christ’s humanity ceased to be real/complete/perfect i.e. ceased to be consubstantial with mankind. Regardless of the different types of “confusion” that can be conceived, the ultimate result is certain — His consubstantiality with mankind no longer remains. This is simply the direct logical consequence.

Eutyches never affirmed confusion however; the monophysite doctrine is one ascribed to him by his enemies. If you can find for me in the minutes of Ephesus 448 or 449, or anywhere else, any quotation from Eutyches in which he affirms monophysitism, I would like to see it. As was said before, Eutyches was simply a confused old man who became the centre of controversy for reasons that were far from doctrinal. He was hesitant in affirming the consubstantiality of Christ to mankind only on the basis that he really had no idea what the fathers taught, and feared straying from a tradition he was oblivious to in the first place. If you read the things he said (which I have), you would understand that ignorance was the only basis of his hesitancy; however ultimately he did in fact implicitly confess Christ's consubtantially with mankind, and he explicitly confessed it to St Dioscorus after. If we were to make any reasonable conclusions based on his positive affirmations or even on his silence, we would conclude that this old man who was neither a scholar nor a theologian, was placed into a sensitive position which he simply did not know how to handle. He wanted to affirm the faith of the fathers, but unfortunately he did not know what that faith entailed.

Eutyches is still under anathema by our Church (anathemized by St Dioscours personally)ÂÂ  as he is by yours, however this is based on the assumption that he ascribed to monphysitism. This assumption I believe, was a false one to make, and the only direct bearing that such a conclusion has on anything, is the legitimacy of Chalcedon itself.

Quote
communion between us and the Non-Chalcedonians is unrealistic and, in all probability, undesirable for both sides.

I absolutely agree. However, I hold the historical event of Chalcedon responsible for this, and not our historical or even continued rejection of it.

Okay I solemnly vow that from this moment I will not return to this forum until July! [/u] (I feel so badÂÂ  :-[)...lol

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Doubting Thomas on June 17, 2005, 06:52:05 AM

Okay I solemnly vow that from this moment I will not return to this forum until July! [/u] (I feel so badÂÂ  :-[)...lol

Peace.

Alright, any takers on how long EA will actually refrain from posting?   :o

(I'll give him til noon...seriously, EA, best wishes for your finals  :) )
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: cizinec on June 17, 2005, 11:44:22 AM
Quote
No one here is challenging your faith; we are challenging your history.

Well, I list that in my top 5 reasons for schism.

The other four are:

1.  Disagreement on the shape of priests' hats
2.  Sarma or Haluski?  Are they the same?
3.  Priestly ownership of cats - should it be allowed?
4.  Disagreements on the location of vestibules in church halls
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Salpy on June 17, 2005, 07:49:48 PM
I have another question. Forgive me if it has already been addressed, or if I am misreading the prior posts I am basing this on.  It's a long thread and I am trying to read it as best I can.

Question:  I think someone in this thread used Christ's prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane as evidence of two wills or natures.  In other words, when Christ prayed "not as I will, but as you will," it showed a conflict between His two wills, with the human will eventually and reluctantly giving in to the divine. 

Doesn't this analysis violate the 6th council?  This quote is from about two thirds into the 6h council:



 And these two natural wills are not contrary the one to the other (God forbid!) as the impious heretics assert, but his human will follows and that not as resisting and reluctant, but rather as subject to his divine and omnipotent will. For it was right that the flesh should be moved but subject to the divine will, according to the most wise Athanasius. For as his flesh is called and is the flesh of God the Word, so also the natural will of his flesh is called and is the proper will of God the Word, as he himself says: "I came down from heaven, not that I might do mine own will but the will of the Father which sent me!" where he calls his own will the will of his flesh, inasmuch as his flesh was also his own. For as his most holy and immaculate animated flesh was not destroyed because it was deified but continued in its own state and nature (orw te kai logw), so also his human will,
although deified, was not suppressed, but was rather preserved according to the saying of Gregory Theologus: "His will [i.e., the Saviour's] is not contrary to God but altogether deified."



According to this, His human will should not even be spoken of as "reluctant" in following His divine will, much less conflicting with it, but rather it should be spoken of as being completely subject to the divine. 

I think this is actually what the OO's are referring to when we speak of Christ having "one will."   His will, like His nature, is fully human and fully divine, but is only "one" because the humanity and divinity never act separately. Or something like that.  I am not a theologian, just a layperson trying to understand these things.

This is where I got the quote:

 http://www.orthodoxnet.com/orthodoxy/

Like I said, it's about two thirds down, on page 345.

I am just asking about this because the analysis about Christ's prayer in the garden seemed a little odd to me, perhaps separating the divine from the human a little too much.

Thanks for bearing with me.

Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 17, 2005, 08:57:24 PM
According to this, His human will should not even be spoken of as "reluctant" in following His divine will, much less conflicting with it, but rather it should be spoken of as being completely subject to the divine.ÂÂ  

Salpy,
There is no contradiction. The Divine Will and the Human Will have the same thing as their goal- the same eschaton for the Saints.
 In the Agony, Christ's Human Will, which has it's natural, God-created (and therefore, good) inclination to self-preservation asks "If it is possible, let this cup pass from Me, however, not my will, but Thine be done". In other words, "if this goal  can be possibly be achieved  another way (other than My Death), let it be so, however, only if this is in accordance with the Divine Will."  The two Wills are distinct, yet working in Synergy.
The distinction of the Wills is not opposition of the Wills.

Unless Christ had a Human Will, then He was not "a man like us in all things except sin", and His Human Nature would be incapable of sin, which would mean His temptations were a farce, and His Human Flesh was simply an "automaton" which is "infused" with the Divine Nature. This is just another form of Docetism.

The main idea of Docetism is not that Christ's body was a "phantasm" as some claim. Docetism believes that the Divinity is irreconcilaqble with Christ being born in Human Flesh. The Docetist idea that Christ only appeared to suffer is based on this notion. If Christ has only one will, then He only appears to suffer in the Garden, and this is just a farce- this is Docetism.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on June 17, 2005, 11:57:21 PM
Dear all,

Due to some life-changing situations, I won't be spending much time on the internet, but I'll stop by a couple of times to give my feedback.

God bless.

Mina

Pray for me.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Salpy on June 18, 2005, 01:12:23 AM
ozgeorge,

I can't help but think that the people attending the 6th council had a little more unity in mind than the divine and human wills sharing the same goals.  If that were the case, then the relationship between Christ and God would be roughly the same as that between God and certain saints, since I am sure there have been saints who shared the same goals as God.

Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 18, 2005, 01:57:04 AM
I can't help but think that the people attending the 6th council had a little more unity in mind than the divine and human wills sharing the same goals.ÂÂ  

Dear Salpy,
You probably can't help thinking this because this is the very difference between miaphysitism and the Two Natures working in Synergy as understood by the Chalcedonian Churches.
The Two Wills are distinct, yet work in synergy. There is neither confusion (mixing) of the Two Natures, nor confusion (mixing) of the Two Wills.

Think of it this way: The life of an Orthodox Christian is an ordinary (natural) life lived in an extraordinary (supernatural) way. Christ lived this life on Earth in this way par excellence. The reason for this is simple- the voluntary kenosis (self-emptying) of Christ. You and I have no choice in whether we were born human or not, and therefore have no choice as to whether we experience human experiences or not. On the other hand, Christ voluntarily took on Humanity, and thus, all His human experiences (hunger, thirst, pain, temptation) were all voluntarily taken on by Him. When we say "voluntarily" here, we mean, the Divine Will initially (pre-incarnation) and then the Human Will in synergy with the Divine Will (post-incarnation). The Incarnate Christ, therefore, is the Human par excellence, because His humanity, unlike ours, was voluntary.
 Thus, St. Maximos the Confessor writes:
"These natural things of the will are present in Him, but not exactly in the same manner as they are in us. He verily did hunger and thirst, not in a mode similar to ours, but in a mode which surpasseth us, in other words, voluntarily. Thus, He was truly afraid [in Gethsemane], not as we are, but in a mode surpassing us. To put it concisely: all things that are natural in Christ have both the rational principle proper to human nature, but a super-natural mode of existence, in order that both the [human] nature, by means of its rational principle, and the Economy, by means of its super-natural mode of existence, might be believed."
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Augustine on June 18, 2005, 12:30:54 PM
Perhaps one of the most important things underlined (by Ozgeorge, to hsi credit) in this discussion, is the difference between hypostasis (substance, or alternatively though not as precisely translated as "Person") and the intellect or rational power of the soul.

This is a distinction that I've also read in other works, unrelated to this controversy.  It is also something which bears itself out in human experience - that the intellect is not the person, but rather an energy of the soul.  Ozgeorge was 100% correct in identifying the confusion of the intellect with the "person" as the basic reason why modern westerners are so miserable, and as something the Orthodox Tradition seeks to heal in men.  Indeed, it's not even the intellect which is the primary "portal" or spiritual advancement or enlightenment - that is the nous, which is something else altogether.  If we can tie the intellect to the physical brain, than the nous would be associated with the heart (and hence why the two are so often associated together - ex. "prayer of the heart" aka. "noetic prayer")

I also think the description of the term "I" as a linguistic trap (if taken the wrong way) and resulting in a false egotism (which is again, part of our sickness - even the pagan savants recognized this, hence the existance of forms of ascesis, however flawed and imperfect, in their religions and traditions) was particularly good.  The description of "I" as a map of a place, rather than something fundamental like the "I" of "I AM that I AM" which can only be said of God, was very good too.  I also think it has direct implications to the teaching on Christ having saved the entirity of the mankind in His great feat - such is only comprehensible as being something other than a "pious metaphore" if one steps away from false egotism and is thus able to see how we are all connected to one another, and to Christ in this respect.

Thus, the famous maxim of Descartes needs to be turned on it's head, if it is to have any truth at all... it's not "I think therefore I am", but "I exist, therefore I think."

Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Salpy on June 18, 2005, 11:06:09 PM
I guess I misunderstood the 6th council.ÂÂ  I thought it really said the human and divine in Christ did not disagree on anything, but were always in perfect harmony.ÂÂ  What ozgeorge is saying is that the council only meant they needed to agree on the ultimate goal in order to be one person.ÂÂ  Again, it is hard to see the difference between that and a saint who had the same goals as God.

Something else that confuses me is the implication in ozgeorge's last post that the difference between us and Christ is that He lived the Christian life in a more perfect way.  This reminds me of something that Ibas (the one exonerated by Chalcedon) said.  He said something to the effect that he did not envy Christ, because he had the possibility of becoming what Christ was.  I understood Nestorius, Ibas and Theodoret to believe that the relationship between the divine and human in Christ was like the relationship between God and a saint, except that whereas the saint only experienced God in a temporary and imperfect way, Christ had the divine with Him all the time.  ÃƒÆ’‚Â

Again, what ozgeorge is saying in his last couple of posts just seems a little too close to what the above three taught.ÂÂ  I hope I am mistaken in my reading of what ozgeorge is saying.


Another question:ÂÂ  Do the Chalcedonians believe that Christ has one soul or two souls?

I hope I am not being too annoying in asking all these questions.  It is just that I rarely get the chance to ask questions like this of real live Chalcedonians.  ÃƒÆ’‚ :)  Thanks for being patient with me.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on June 18, 2005, 11:37:01 PM
Quick tidbit,

Quote
You probably can't help thinking this because this is the very difference between miaphysitism and the Two Natures working in Synergy as understood by the Chalcedonian Churches.

Miaphysitism has no problem with the synergy of Christ's natural wills, but without kenosis, as you rightly pointed out, it is Chalcedonian Christology that makes it seem there's a contradiction of wills.

We treat St. Cyril's every single word as precious and God-inspired.  Whatever St. Cyril taught is what I defended and what our OO fathers have defended.  St. Cyril even defended synergy, and using Miaphysitism, he made the prosopon the center of all that is being willed, so as not to confuse Chalcedonian Christology with the Christology of 7th Day Adventists, as if Jesus was praying to His own divinity.  The problem with Chalcedonian christology while not confusing the natures, have distinguished them so much, it seems like they seperate and divide.

The best way to understand Christ's prayer at Gethsamene is the voluntary kenosis of Christ, just as George mentioned, a teaching taught by the Apostles and expanded by St. Cyril.

God bless.

Mina
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 19, 2005, 01:12:22 AM
Again, what ozgeorge is saying in his last couple of posts just seems a little too close to what the above three taught.
How is it the same? For us to be like Christ according to His Two Natures, we must, at the momemnt of conception, have both a Divine and Human Nature. Christ is like us according to His Human Nature, but we are not like Christ according to His Divine Nature. I think the problem is that you guys take the Fathers too literally, in the same way that evangelical protestants take the Scriptures literally and fall into the Chilianist error. For example: 
We treat St. Cyril's every single word as precious and God-inspired. 
St. Athanasios says that "we become through grace what Christ is by Nature". Isn't St. Athanasios also a Coptic Father? Why is it that you guys don't take him literally and accuse him of bordering on heresy? ;) Furthermore, not everything Nestorios, Ibas and Theodoret taught was heresy.
Perhaps rather than focusing on individual words, you would do better to try and see what ineffable mysteries the Fathers were attempting to express in feeble, human words.

Another question:ÂÂ  Do the Chalcedonians believe that Christ has one soul or two souls?
Christ has One, created Human Soul since he has only One Human Nature.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 19, 2005, 01:29:41 AM
Augustine,

Quote
Ozgeorge was 100% correct in identifying the confusion of the intellect with the "person"

If this was ozgeorge’s argument, then he was setting up a straw man — for this was neither what I or the renowned professors of metaphysics whom I quoted, stated or even implied. "Intellect" is a corollary secondary characteristic of a person, but it is not identified with one's person.

However, I don’t recall this being George’s essential argument - he wasn't setting up a straw man. I realize that George and I’s discussion on this issue panned over a some-what hostile (which I do apologise for) 3-4 post exchange, but I advise you to go back and read it again in its entirety, since most of your post seems to have been made inÂÂ  “unawareness of” (for use of a kinder expression) what was actually being argued.

Quote
The description of "I" as a map of a place, rather than something fundamental like the "I" of "I AM that I AM" which can only be said of God, was very good too.

The description of “I” as a map of place was erroneous, and committed the categorical fallacy by confusing the category of 'being' and 'principle of being' due to a lack of understanding of the metaphysical distinction between the former and the latter (essentially the distinction between something that "exists" and something that is "real", respectively). The reference to Exodus 3:14 was also based on the above mentioned logical fallacy, since the expression itself relates to God’s being and not His personhood. This is not only the patristic conclusion as I pointed out, but it is the conclusion that the linguistic context demands (regardless of whether you are considering the Hebrew or the Greek).

===================================================================================
Re: Christ’s wills

No one handles this issue better than St Severus of Antioch — I will delve into his Christology thoroughly when I have the time after my exams. Salpy is also quite correct in his conclusions concerning George’s interpretation of the sixth council. We have no problem with affirming the synergy of Christ’s two natural distinct and real wills, however if this is merely and solely attributed to a “voluntary surpassing” with regards to Christ's human will, then the Chalcedonians have left themselves open to the possibility of separation and division, and cannot in reality confirm with the Oriental Orthodox the inseparability of Christ’s natures (ousias).

St Severus’ notion of the will(s) in Christ, is integral to his understanding of the hypostatic union. Again, it all comes down to clarifying and explicating the nature of the hypostatic union. It was the Chalcedonians inability to do this alongside their employment of expressions previously employed to convey heresy, as well as their exoneration of heretical figures and documents, which left them open to a reasonable heretical interpretation of their Christology in the first place - not only by the very heretics who saw their heresies being supported, but also by the Orthodox Church (non-C). As far as I know, it is only until we get to St John of Damascus, that we find any real clarification and insight from the Chalcedonian perspective regarding the nature of the hypostatic union: the en-hypostasization of the humanity of Christ to the hypostasis of The Word.  ÃƒÆ’‚Â

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 19, 2005, 01:48:54 AM
Okay I solemnly vow that from this moment I will not return to this forum until July! [/u] (I feel so bad  :-[)...lol
Alright, any takers on how long EA will actually refrain from posting?  ÃƒÆ’‚ :o

(I'll give him til noon...seriously, EA, best wishes for your finalsÂÂ  :) )

I knew I should have started a betting book!!!!
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 19, 2005, 01:52:31 AM
EA,
Your exams are more important than whether I am right or wrong. Go and study!!!!
George
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 19, 2005, 01:53:52 AM
Quote
I knew I should have started a betting book!!!!

 :D

Well, I decided i'd sacrafice TV time and replace it with forum time today. I think i'll survive not knowing the latest evictee of aussie big brother.

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 19, 2005, 01:56:00 AM
Quote
EA,
Your exams are more important than whether I am right or wrong. Go and study!!!!

 :-\ You make it sound like I'm on a mission to prove you wrong. Nothing like that George.

Okay back to study...please remember me in your prayers.

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 19, 2005, 02:55:26 AM
The reference to Exodus 3:14 was also based on the above mentioned logical fallacy, since the expression itself relates to God’s being and not His personhood. This is not only the patristic conclusion as I pointed out, but it is the conclusion that the linguistic context demands (regardless of whether you are considering the Hebrew or the Greek).

I hope you have prepared better than this for your exams! ;)
In the Greek, the Second Person of the Trinity says to Moses from the Unburning Bush:
"έγώ είμι ό Ών"
The first word in this phrase, "έγώ" ("I") is superfluous, since "είμι" is the first person singular verb to be, and therefore on it's own means "I am". The phrase would literally translate into english as "I, I am the Being". If it does not relate to the Personhood of the Second Person of the Trinity, why does He repeat the personal pronoun twice with the word "έγώ"?
It was the inclusion of this superfluous "έγώ" in Christ's phrase in John 8:58: "before Abraham was, I AM" (Greek "πρίν Άβραάμ γενέσθαι έγώ είμί") unmistakably identifies Him as the One Who spoke to Moses from the Unburning Bush. He could have omitted "έγώ" and the sentence would be grammatically correct.
Finally "ό Ών" can only be translated as "The Being" or "The One Who Is". It does not mean "Being-ness". Thus, the phrase does not simply mean "I am the only God who Exists" nor simply "I am the Source of Existence". It emphasises: "I, I am The One Who Exists."
So it's not about "reality vs. existence". What it's about is that God's "I" exists in reality. Whereas our "I" does not exists in reality, it is an illusion.
There is no "I" for us, there is only "Other".
The Scriptures have more in mind than ascesis when they say "Deny thyself." Part of ascesis is the path to finding the truth that "God is He Who Is- I am he who is not."

"If any man  wants to come after Me, let him deny himself,  take up his cross daily and follow Me (continually)"  (Luke 9:23)
Look at the Cross- it is the english letter "I" crossed out. ;)
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 19, 2005, 03:35:04 AM
Quote
If it does not relate to the Personhood of the Second Person of the Trinity, why does He repeat the personal pronoun twice with the word "έγώ"?

When He employs the personal pronoun (which is obviously not a unique feature of the Greek), it is obvious that He is referring to the person of His being, not the being of His person. When I say “I eat”, I confirm that my person is the subject of the action of eating, even though the food itself enters and is digested by my physical body. Just as my person remains the real subject of eating, despite the fact it does not literally consume and digest food, likewise God’s person is the real subject of existence without being existent itself per se.

All the metaphysical terms used by our fathers (hypostasis, person, essence) simply go to qualify the type of being, but they are not independent being’s per se, only real principles of that being. The reality of these principles abide as long as the being which they qualify, has being; and they cease once that being ceases to be. Since God's being is eternal, the reality of His person is eternal - and THIS is the only difference between His person and ours which can be interpreted from Exodus 3:14.

Here is part of a past university essay that I wrote which related to this verse:

Quote
In response to the inquiry of Moses as to what name He should identify Him with to the Israelites, God responds: “'I am that I am'…’Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: I am hath sent me unto you.'” (JPS) The Hebrew transliteration reads: “ehyeh asher ehyeh”, where ehyeh is a first person singular imperfect of the verb hayah which means ‘to be’. “I will be, what I will be” is also a possible translation , however both translations are nonetheless flawed considering that the “I am” translation denotes present tense, whilst the “I will be” translation denotes future tense, according to an expression which in its Hebrew context possesses no “tense”, but rather the imperfect form. It is interesting to note that the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation of the Old Testament renders God’s response to Moses as: ‘“ego eimi ho on [‘I am the one who is’, or ‘I am the existent one’]”; tell them that “ho on [‘the existent one’, or ‘the one who is’]” has sent you.’

According to many Christian, and some Jewish commentators, the name signifies God’s being the eternally uncaused pre-existent cause of all creation. Gregory of Nazianzus understands the title as one relating to the nature of God’s existence, noting that it is a special name “of his essence” signifying His absoluteness.

Eusebius elaborates further by stating that “Everything that has ever existed or now exists derives its being from the One, the only existent and preexistent being, who also said, ‘I am the existent.’…As the only being and the eternal being, he is himself the cause of existence to all those to whom he has imparted existence from himself by his will and his power and gives existence to all things and their powers and forms, richly and ungrudgingly from himself” (Proof of the Gospel 4.1)

Hilary of Poitiers affirms that the name relates to the essence of God, by speaking of His admiration for the fact that God chose language most suitable in order to clearly define for man His incomprehensible nature, stating that “he [God] has revealed to us in a fitting manner this fact alone, that he is, in order to render testimony to his everlasting eternity.” According to Hilary of Poitiers the name not only points towards God’s eternal existence, but also to the corollary of that; His self-subsistence or self-sustenance, saying that “It is known that there is nothing more characteristic of God than to be, because that itself which is does not belong to those things which will one day end or to those which had a beginning…” (On the Trinity 1.5)

Augustine takes the implications of the name even further, by understanding it to also denote His immutability. He Interprets the name as: “That I abide forever, that I cannot change”, and reasons that “things which change are not, because they do not last. What is, abides. But whatever changes, was something and will be something; yet you cannot say it is, because it is changeable. So the unchangeableness of God was prepared to suggest itself by this phrase “I am who I am.” (Sermon 6.4)

Prominent Jewish Rabbi Moses ben Maimon also interpreted the title as a reference to the eternal existence of God, understanding that God states “I will be” because He “always has been” . The Rambam in keeping with the root meaning of ehyeh; havayah, which is the Hebrew verb for ‘existence’ states that "He is the existing Being which is the existing Being, that is to say, Whose existence is absolute. The proof which Moses was to give to the elders of Israel consisted in demonstrating that there is a Being of absolute existence, that has never been and never will be without existence."


Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 19, 2005, 03:36:12 AM
Quote
"If any man  wants to come after Me, let him deny himself,  take up his cross daily and follow Me (continually)"  (Luke 9:23)
Look at the Cross- it is the english letter "I" crossed out.


Nice ;)

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 19, 2005, 04:25:00 AM
That's it! I'm not responding until your exams are over!
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on June 19, 2005, 11:16:45 PM
George,

Quote
St. Athanasios says that "we become through grace what Christ is by Nature".  Isn't St. Athanasios also a Coptic Father? Why is it that you guys don't take him  literally and accuse him of bordering on heresy? Wink Furthermore, not everything Nestorios, Ibas and Theodoret taught was heresy.

I don't get it.  What is heretical in St. Athanasius's quote?  It talks about being children of God; it's very clear.  And are you saying that we shouldn't take Nestorius literally when he says "two prosopa"?  Are you saying that some things that St. Athanasius or St. Cyril wrote are heretical?  What's your intentions exactly?

God bless you.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: yBeayf on June 19, 2005, 11:50:26 PM
Quote
I don't get it.  What is heretical in St. Athanasius's quote?

Nothing, when taken in context. But pulled out of context, it could be interpreted to imply apotheosis, or that we will become one with the divine essence and therefore equal to God.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on June 20, 2005, 12:02:48 AM
Nothing, when taken in context. But pulled out of context, it could be interpreted to imply apotheosis, or that we will become one with the divine essence and therefore equal to God.

Taken in context, there's still nothing wrong.  It's clear he said we take it "by grace" not "by Nature" as Christ is.

God bless.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 20, 2005, 07:26:19 AM
Taken in context, there's still nothing wrong.ÂÂ  

Beayf answered well for me. There is nothing heretical in St. Athanasios' quote, just as there is nothing heretical in the Tomos of Leo. But even in context, St. Athanasios' quote can be misunderstood to mean union with the Divine Essence. Think about it. St. Athanasios said: "We become by grace what Christ is by Nature."  By Nature, Christ is One in Essence with the Father. Is St. Athanasios saying that by grace we also become One in Essence with the Father? Of course not! So why is Leo rejected on the basis of a "lack of clarity" and Athanasios not rejected on the same basis of a "lack of clarity"? The point is, as I said before, the Fathers used feeble human words to try and describe the indescribable and ineffable. We cannot fixate on specific words in what they have said, believing that they contain the sum total of a particular doctrine about the mysteries of the Faith. This is why Tradition is the teaching of The Fathers and not a Father. We need the united voice of the Fathers to understand Holy Tradition.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: jmbejdl on June 20, 2005, 08:01:43 AM

"If any manÂÂ  wants to come after Me, let him deny himself,ÂÂ  take up his cross daily and follow Me (continually)"ÂÂ  (Luke 9:23)
Look at the Cross- it is the english letter "I" crossed out. ;)


So, am I to take it that the Russians have an especially strong aversion to egocentrism? Their crosses (and the non-slanted Romanian 3-bar crosses - see icon to left) seem to be rather vehemently crossed out 'I's  ;)

James
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Stavro on June 21, 2005, 12:54:05 AM
Greekchristian in reply # 224:
Quote
You will never adopt it as an Oecumenical Synod, and we will never allow it to be anything less.
I believe this is a realistic view and a good assessment of the matter. Some questions:

- Do EO believe Chalcedon is infallible ? If yes, and I believe the answer must be yes, is it infallible in its enitre content or just in part of it ? Can we pick and choose what we want from a holy council ?
 
The question is justified by the fact that Leo of Rome rejected Canon 28 of Chalcedon. Was the Holy Spirit absent during the discussion of Canon 28 or is Leo of Rome, by rejecting a decision of a holy synod, outside the Church defacto ? Can we follow the example set by Leo of Rome and reject the council "partially" ?
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 21, 2005, 07:58:20 AM
- Do EO believe Chalcedon is infallible ? If yes, and I believe the answer must be yes, is it infallible in its enitre content or just in part of it ? Can we pick and choose what we want from a holy council ?

A very loaded question! There is no need for "infallibility" in the Orthodox Church, since no Synod (or anyone else for that matter) can ever introduce a new doctrine into Orthodox Christianity.The doctrines expressed in the Ecumenical Synods are the doctrines which the Church has always held. And parts of the Synods are not doctrine (for example, the canons). And yes, the Church has the right to excersise "Economia" in the application of her canons. For example, Canon 101 of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod forbids the use of an impliment to administer Holy Communion, but, aside from when the Liturgy of St. James is celebrated, all Eastern Orthodox Churches today administer Holy Communion with a Spoon (see the photo under my name), and have done so for a few centuries. Canon 101 of the sixth Ecumenical Synod does not touch on doctrine, but refers to established custom. Other Canons forbid clerics to grow long hair and beards- these are certainly not observed in recent history! Again, these Canons do not deal with doctrine, but with customs, and we do not turn the customs of men into the Commandments of God.
But when an Ecumenical Synod speaks on matters of dogma, this is different. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit in accordance with the promise of Christ. This is not the same as "infallability" as understood in the Roman Catholic Church. An Ecumenical Synod simply proclaims what Holy Tradition has always taught. Thus an Ecumenical Synod proclaims doctrines in accordance with the test of Saint Vincent of Lerins "Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est"ÂÂ  — what has been believed by all, at all times and in all places. So you see, there is no need for "infallibility" in Orthodoxy.
 
The question is justified by the fact that Leo of Rome rejected Canon 28 of Chalcedon. Was the Holy Spirit absent during the discussion of Canon 28 or is Leo of Rome, by rejecting a decision of a holy synod, outside the Church defacto ? Can we follow the example set by Leo of Rome and reject the council "partially" ?
Canon 28 does not deal with doctrine, as discussed previously in this post, and even we do not follow all the non-doctrinal Canons of the Ecumenical Councils.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Deacon Lance on June 21, 2005, 08:43:55 AM
"And are you saying that we shouldn't take Nestorius literally when he says "two prosopa"?"

Nestorius did not say two prosopa.  He said one prosopa and two qnoma.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on June 22, 2005, 10:35:15 PM
George,

If "through grace" doesn't mean anything to anyone, then yes, it would be gravely misunderstood.

Deacon Lance,

I don't have the book with me, but I remember reading from the Bazaar of Herecleides many indications that Nestorius believed in a unity of prosopa, and not just one prosopon.  Some scholars in defending Nestorius "redefine" Nestorius' "prosopon" to make it look like he's professing Orthodoxy.  There's proof enough at least that Nestorius confessed the terminology, and I believe, contrary to these "scholars" knew exactly what "prosopa" meant when writing it, such that he also confessed the "prosopa of God" in the Trinity.  Either he knew what he was talking about, or he is just making a mockery out of theology as Fr. John Romanides suggested.

God bless.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ozgeorge on June 23, 2005, 07:17:18 PM
If "through grace" doesn't mean anything to anyone, then yes, it would be gravely misunderstood.

 ???

Why do you say this?
Whether by grace or not, the relevant part of St. Athanasios' quote for potential heretics is: "become what Christ is by Nature".
 He doesn't say "we become like Christ by grace".  He says "through grace, we become what Christ is by Nature".

Whether we get there by grace or not isn't the point.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on June 23, 2005, 07:25:41 PM
George, I quote you:

Quote
St. Athanasios says that "we become through grace what Christ is by Nature".
 

Instead you invert the quote to make it sound heretical:

Quote
Through grace, we become what Christ is by Nature.

You haven't proved anything to me but turned an Orthodox statement into a heretical statement.

It's like the Jehovah's Witnesses who invert Christ's salvific statement to one of the thieves on the cross.  Rather than "Truly I tell you, Today you will be with me in Paradise" they write "Today I truly tell you, you will be with me in paradise."

It's clear that when St. Athanasius says we become what we become "through grace," not by nature.

God bless you.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: SaintShenouti on June 23, 2005, 07:44:35 PM
It's a good thing to pay attention to the political situation during Chalcedon, 451.  Everyone wanted a piece of Alexandria.  Both old and new Romes wanted primary honor.  An honor that was previously given to Alexandria by default because she was the great theological center of the world.

Why would there be a need for a Tome from Patriarch Leo?  We already had the Orthodox Creed and numerous writings from the great fathers.

Rome had no significant role during previous church councils, and Constantinople was only about political honor, being the imperial capital.

And suddenly the patriarch of Rome calls himself "pope."  We, Alexandria, had one since the beginning.  They suddenly realize that since St. Peter was the so called "chief Apostle," the one who thrice denied the Lord and was rebuked by St. Paul for acting a hypocrite before the Jews, gave them the right to primacy- a concept that was foreign to the early church. 
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: EkhristosAnesti on June 24, 2005, 12:27:01 AM
ozgeorge,

Quote
So why is Leo rejected on the basis of a "lack of clarity"…

First of all, as we have shown, it is a lot more than just a mere “lack of clarity”; and in any event even if it was just a mere "lack of clarity", this suffices in undermining its authority since documents promoted as pronouncing the standard of Orthodoxy at valid Ecumenical Councils are supposed to be clear and precise in their Orthodoxy; not ambiguous and prone to the very heresies that a) they’re supposed to be dealing with or b) that have already sufficiently been dealt with.

In any event, there is an inherent double standard in your attempt to question our rejection of Leo; for before Mina, Stavro, or I ever quoted to you the works of St Dioscorus, you condemned him as a heretic on the sole basis of the testimony of your fathers; it was a blind bias towards this false testimony that eventually led you to ignore and disregard all the quotations thence provided which go to vindicate his Orthodoxy beyond all reasonable doubt. Since our Orthodox Fathers condemned Leo as a heretic; why do you expect us to take our Orthodox Church tradition any less serious than you take yours?

St Theodosius of Alexandria states in relation to the Council of Chalcedon:

"This perfidious and damnable synod taught unlawfully among its other blasphemies that Christ is to be known “in two natures”, and against the best valid canons it set up a different definition of faith and called the Tome of Leo a pillar of Orthodoxy, which openly affirmed the godless teachings of Nestorius and two natures and hypostases, as well as two forms and activities and characteristics ..."

Note that St Theodosius’ Christological stance is perfectly Orthodox; his rejection of Leo and Chalcedon is NOT due to any adherence to “monophysitism” or a denial of two natures PER SE, for he also states (amongst many quotations that affirm the reality of the distinction between Christ’s divinity and humanity):

"The hypostatic union did not falsify the distinction of natures that marks the united and also left no place for division and separation; rather, for us it created from two the one and indivisible Emmanuel; one is His nature or composite hypostasis; this means the same as when we say: the nature of the God-Logos Himself and His hypostasis has become flesh and perfectly human being..."

St Theodosius of Alexandria, was as Orthodox as he predecessors up until St Dioscorus of Alexandria, who was as Orthodox as his predecessor St Cyril of Alexandria.

The fact of the matter is ozgeorge, that to condemn the Christology of my fathers, is to condemn the great St Cyril himself, and ultimately to undermine Ephesus 431; there is no way you can escape this. Every principle adopted and every expression used, finds its roots in the one and only who was chosen by God to preside over the Holy Ecumenical Synod of Ephesus 431 to establish and set his works as the standard of Orthodox Christology.

It is for this reason that when we consult the opinions and perspectives of those officials of both our Church’s who participated in achieving the “Agreed statements” (http://metroplit-bishoy.org/files/Dialogues/Byzantine/ORIENT1.DOC, http://metroplit-bishoy.org/files/Dialogues/Byzantine/ORITNT2.DOC, http://metroplit-bishoy.org/files/Dialogues/Byzantine/ORITNT3.DOC, http://metroplit-bishoy.org/files/Dialogues/Byzantine/ORITNT4.DOC ) that we find that, His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy of the Coptic Orthodox Church for example, does not accept the Chalcedonian two-nature Christology, he merely re-interprets it within a miaphysite framework i.e. he accepts the Chalcedonian dualistic Christology on his terms, not on the Chalcedonians terms. On the other hand, we find in the EO reactions to the Agreed statements, that they DO accept miaphysitism on its own terms without having to re-interpret it into a two-nature Christology.

P.S. I read in your response to Stavro, that you adhere to a concept of Church councils, according to which those canons that do not "touch doctrine" need not be considered as binding or infallible. Since the condemnations of St Dioscorus and other Orthodox Saints (made at Councils that you consider "Ecumenical") are polemical statements which are not substantial to matters of faith or doctrine, but are merely historical artefacts which are part of historical context, would you then be willing to un-presuppose their absolute truth, and consider that the assumptions under which they were made are false?

Peace.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on July 01, 2005, 01:48:03 PM
Sorry to bring this up again, but real quickly:

GiC, I think you asked if I can verify that St. Dioscorus was under house arrest.  Fr. VC Samuel cites from ancient sources of the clergy who went to summon St. Dioscorus that the bishops told the council that St. Dioscorus was indeed held under custody.

However, as it was brought to my attention on Fr. VC Samuel's objective research, the second summons received permission for St. Dioscorus to be released.  St. Dioscorus however on the second summons asked that the five men accused with him and the commissioners be present at the council.  So the bishops hoping to grant the request back to the council was denied by Eusebius and others in the council, wanting St. Dioscorus "alone."  The third summons simply was a disapproval by St. Dioscorus that his request was denied, and therefore could not appear.

The question then comes is why weren't the commissioners present on this early reconvening of the council?  And why didn't the council bring St. Dioscorus with his five accusers collectively as was requested?  It was later noted that the five accusers of the council were easily forgiven, but they never were summoned to appear after St. Dioscorus was deposed.  Is that just?

There's just too much information concerning the Council of Chalcedon, but Fr. VC Samuel's "The Council of Chalcedon Re-examined" is an EXCELLENT read and very objective, bases almost all of the information concerning the council on the actual minutes of the council provided by Mansi, a very reliable primary source.  It should be noted that Fr. VC Samuel seems to also believe that Nestorius was nothing more than an strict Antiochian theologian as well, which is another issue.

God bless.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: holdencaulfield on June 20, 2008, 09:08:41 PM
Precisely quoting the specific parts of the Tomos of Pope Leo of Rome, where does he espouse Nestorianism?

Quote
"There is nothing unreal about this oneness, since both the lowliness of the man and the grandeur of the divinity are in mutual relation. As God is not changed by showing mercy, neither is humanity devoured by the dignity received. The activity of each form is what is proper to it in communion with the other: that is, the Word performs what belongs to the Word, and the flesh accomplishes what belongs to the flesh. One of these performs brilliant miracles the other sustains acts of violence. As the Word does not lose its glory which is equal to that of the Father, so neither does the flesh leave the nature of its kind behind. We must say this again and again: one and the same is truly Son of God and truly son of man." (St. Leo the Great; The Tome of St. Leo)

Oh sorry, I thought you said condemn Nestorianism. The quote above condemns Nestorianism.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ialmisry on December 15, 2010, 03:40:32 PM
Though I'm discussing this very issue elsewhere with EkhristosAnesti (to which I just recently posted...sorry for the delay, but I was traveling for most the time), I guess I'll weigh in on a couple things here at risk of being pulled into this more emotionally heated debate.

First, the Orthodoxy of Dioscorus was never actually addressed by Chalcedon, though it was at Constantinople II. Dioscorus was deposed for reasons of Canonical Order. He was summoned before the Most Holy and Oecumenical Synod to defend his Posistion, he refused to attend though he was in the City, after repeated summons and repeated refusals to attend, he was deposed in accordance with the Holy Canons. The deposistion was perfectly justifyable, but it had nothing to do with theology or faith and everything to do with Order in the Church. But with that said, the fact that he presided over Ephesus 449, and declared with that Synod that the Teachings of Eutyches were Orthodox does give great creedance to his own Orthodoxy, IF he truly was Orthodox in Theology (I have not read enough of him to form an informed opinion on my own) and the later Anathemas against him truly are Misplaced, on account of the aforesaid Historical events, the logic and conclusions that lead to these Anathemas were far from Unreasonable.


Secondly, I find the insistance that the Language of Chalcedon was sloppy to be unsubstantiated. It was Cyril who used Nature in two different manners inorder to reconcile his Orthodox Theology with an Apollinarian Document written in the name of the Great Athanasios, resulting in a (in some instances) poorly expressed, though perfectly Orthodox, Theology. The Cappadocians, on the other hand, had written many volumes of works defining their terms, thus their notions of Person and Nature, which were adopted by Chalcedon, were well defined terms...though some heretics decided to ignore these volumes of works in their attempts to redefine the terms of Chalcedon to fit theire heresies. Chalcedon, using the well established terms of Person and Nature, distinguished Orthodoxy from Nestorius by Saying that Christ was One Person, not two. And clearly distinguished themselves from Eutyches by Saying that Christ had Two Natures and not One; the latter decision had nothing to do with the Nestorian Controversy, as it was addressing the issue of Natures and not of Persons, two distinct and formerly defined terms.

Ah, was this back in the day when Greeky made sense?
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: HabteSelassie on December 15, 2010, 04:12:00 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Much much thanks for digging up this thread for me! I have always struggled to understand what exactly was so bad in Leo's Tome, because it has separated the Church at so many levels, and yet often times we all seem to be saying the same things, whether it is Orthodox talking with Miaphysite Oriental Orthodox, or Orthodox discussing with the Latin rites, or the Protestants talking about all of it from the sidelines..

It seems the crux of the debate is that is Jesus Christ "Two Persons IN one nature" or Two Persons From one nature"..

I will read over these immense posts as soon as I get the time, there seems to be some serious invaluable material and perspectives here discussing this very evasive topic!

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: PeterTheAleut on December 16, 2010, 01:01:48 AM
Though I'm discussing this very issue elsewhere with EkhristosAnesti (to which I just recently posted...sorry for the delay, but I was traveling for most the time), I guess I'll weigh in on a couple things here at risk of being pulled into this more emotionally heated debate.

First, the Orthodoxy of Dioscorus was never actually addressed by Chalcedon, though it was at Constantinople II. Dioscorus was deposed for reasons of Canonical Order. He was summoned before the Most Holy and Oecumenical Synod to defend his Posistion, he refused to attend though he was in the City, after repeated summons and repeated refusals to attend, he was deposed in accordance with the Holy Canons. The deposistion was perfectly justifyable, but it had nothing to do with theology or faith and everything to do with Order in the Church. But with that said, the fact that he presided over Ephesus 449, and declared with that Synod that the Teachings of Eutyches were Orthodox does give great creedance to his own Orthodoxy, IF he truly was Orthodox in Theology (I have not read enough of him to form an informed opinion on my own) and the later Anathemas against him truly are Misplaced, on account of the aforesaid Historical events, the logic and conclusions that lead to these Anathemas were far from Unreasonable.


Secondly, I find the insistance that the Language of Chalcedon was sloppy to be unsubstantiated. It was Cyril who used Nature in two different manners inorder to reconcile his Orthodox Theology with an Apollinarian Document written in the name of the Great Athanasios, resulting in a (in some instances) poorly expressed, though perfectly Orthodox, Theology. The Cappadocians, on the other hand, had written many volumes of works defining their terms, thus their notions of Person and Nature, which were adopted by Chalcedon, were well defined terms...though some heretics decided to ignore these volumes of works in their attempts to redefine the terms of Chalcedon to fit theire heresies. Chalcedon, using the well established terms of Person and Nature, distinguished Orthodoxy from Nestorius by Saying that Christ was One Person, not two. And clearly distinguished themselves from Eutyches by Saying that Christ had Two Natures and not One; the latter decision had nothing to do with the Nestorian Controversy, as it was addressing the issue of Natures and not of Persons, two distinct and formerly defined terms.

Ah, was this back in the day when Greeky made sense?
Was your idea of resurrecting this thread in this way supposed to make any sense? ???
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ialmisry on December 16, 2010, 01:35:17 AM
Though I'm discussing this very issue elsewhere with EkhristosAnesti (to which I just recently posted...sorry for the delay, but I was traveling for most the time), I guess I'll weigh in on a couple things here at risk of being pulled into this more emotionally heated debate.

First, the Orthodoxy of Dioscorus was never actually addressed by Chalcedon, though it was at Constantinople II. Dioscorus was deposed for reasons of Canonical Order. He was summoned before the Most Holy and Oecumenical Synod to defend his Posistion, he refused to attend though he was in the City, after repeated summons and repeated refusals to attend, he was deposed in accordance with the Holy Canons. The deposistion was perfectly justifyable, but it had nothing to do with theology or faith and everything to do with Order in the Church. But with that said, the fact that he presided over Ephesus 449, and declared with that Synod that the Teachings of Eutyches were Orthodox does give great creedance to his own Orthodoxy, IF he truly was Orthodox in Theology (I have not read enough of him to form an informed opinion on my own) and the later Anathemas against him truly are Misplaced, on account of the aforesaid Historical events, the logic and conclusions that lead to these Anathemas were far from Unreasonable.


Secondly, I find the insistance that the Language of Chalcedon was sloppy to be unsubstantiated. It was Cyril who used Nature in two different manners inorder to reconcile his Orthodox Theology with an Apollinarian Document written in the name of the Great Athanasios, resulting in a (in some instances) poorly expressed, though perfectly Orthodox, Theology. The Cappadocians, on the other hand, had written many volumes of works defining their terms, thus their notions of Person and Nature, which were adopted by Chalcedon, were well defined terms...though some heretics decided to ignore these volumes of works in their attempts to redefine the terms of Chalcedon to fit theire heresies. Chalcedon, using the well established terms of Person and Nature, distinguished Orthodoxy from Nestorius by Saying that Christ was One Person, not two. And clearly distinguished themselves from Eutyches by Saying that Christ had Two Natures and not One; the latter decision had nothing to do with the Nestorian Controversy, as it was addressing the issue of Natures and not of Persons, two distinct and formerly defined terms.

Ah, was this back in the day when Greeky made sense?
Was your idea of resurrecting this thread in this way supposed to make any sense? ???
We're Orthodox Christians. We're big on Resurrection.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: PeterTheAleut on December 16, 2010, 01:50:57 AM
Though I'm discussing this very issue elsewhere with EkhristosAnesti (to which I just recently posted...sorry for the delay, but I was traveling for most the time), I guess I'll weigh in on a couple things here at risk of being pulled into this more emotionally heated debate.

First, the Orthodoxy of Dioscorus was never actually addressed by Chalcedon, though it was at Constantinople II. Dioscorus was deposed for reasons of Canonical Order. He was summoned before the Most Holy and Oecumenical Synod to defend his Posistion, he refused to attend though he was in the City, after repeated summons and repeated refusals to attend, he was deposed in accordance with the Holy Canons. The deposistion was perfectly justifyable, but it had nothing to do with theology or faith and everything to do with Order in the Church. But with that said, the fact that he presided over Ephesus 449, and declared with that Synod that the Teachings of Eutyches were Orthodox does give great creedance to his own Orthodoxy, IF he truly was Orthodox in Theology (I have not read enough of him to form an informed opinion on my own) and the later Anathemas against him truly are Misplaced, on account of the aforesaid Historical events, the logic and conclusions that lead to these Anathemas were far from Unreasonable.


Secondly, I find the insistance that the Language of Chalcedon was sloppy to be unsubstantiated. It was Cyril who used Nature in two different manners inorder to reconcile his Orthodox Theology with an Apollinarian Document written in the name of the Great Athanasios, resulting in a (in some instances) poorly expressed, though perfectly Orthodox, Theology. The Cappadocians, on the other hand, had written many volumes of works defining their terms, thus their notions of Person and Nature, which were adopted by Chalcedon, were well defined terms...though some heretics decided to ignore these volumes of works in their attempts to redefine the terms of Chalcedon to fit theire heresies. Chalcedon, using the well established terms of Person and Nature, distinguished Orthodoxy from Nestorius by Saying that Christ was One Person, not two. And clearly distinguished themselves from Eutyches by Saying that Christ had Two Natures and not One; the latter decision had nothing to do with the Nestorian Controversy, as it was addressing the issue of Natures and not of Persons, two distinct and formerly defined terms.

Ah, was this back in the day when Greeky made sense?
Was your idea of resurrecting this thread in this way supposed to make any sense? ???
We're Orthodox Christians. We're big on Resurrection.
;D
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Alveus Lacuna on December 16, 2010, 02:10:12 AM
It seems the crux of the debate is that is Jesus Christ "Two Persons IN one nature" or Two Persons From one nature"..

Wait! Jesus is two persons???
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: HabteSelassie on December 16, 2010, 03:03:56 AM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

It seems the crux of the debate is that is Jesus Christ "Two Persons IN one nature" or Two Persons From one nature"..

Wait! Jesus is two persons???

In a moment of temporary dyslexia from multi-tasking too many tabs/windows at once, I do believe I meant to say, "Jesus Christ: Two Natures IN one person" and "Jesus Christ: Two Natures FROM one person"

sorry for the mix up :)

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: deusveritasest on December 16, 2010, 10:50:33 PM
Habte,

I think you've still got it mixed up.

It's more like "one person in two natures" vs. "one person from two natures".
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: HabteSelassie on December 18, 2010, 02:06:22 AM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
Habte,

I think you've still got it mixed up.

It's more like "one person in two natures" vs. "one person from two natures".

No, I fixed it, and now were are saying the exact same thing.  The way I quoted it in my post was the way it appears in my Catechism text and other places I have found in study.  I was clear on what the orthodox point is, and also the roman point, but where even after a huge effort was how the roman doctrine which prevailed and caused the non-Chalcedon churches which i am a part of to split away was even drawn from Leo's tome.  I have read it and did not see clearly how the Chalcedon conclusion was even drawn, but many of the posts here gave me some new insight.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: jckstraw72 on December 20, 2010, 01:13:35 AM
ok, so i read through most of this thread, its really helped me understand the non-Chalcedonian position better, but i have some questions:

1. Although Leo's Tome does sound slightly Nestorian at the end, elsewhere he also explicitly affirms one Person:
Quote
Thus the properties of each nature adn substance were preserved entire, and came together to form one person

and i know it was said that Nestorius could accept this as a "prosopic union," but i think that continuing in Leo's Tome, that possibility is ruled out:
Quote
And so, to fulfil the conditions of our healing, the man Jesus Christ, one and the same mediator between God and man, was able to die in respect of the one, unable to die in respect of the other.

here the natures are clearly not the seat of action, but that the one Person acts "in respect" to one or the other.

2. Its been said that Dioscorus was simply following in the line of St. Cyril, but he was not happy with St. Cyril's acceptance of the Formula of Reunion because he wanted to restore an emphasis on "one nature" and because the Formula had not affirmed St. Cyril's 12 Anathemas, and because he believed the double consubstantiality of the Son language was inspired/influenced by the "inspired man" theology of Antioch. If Dioscorus and St. Cyril are perfectly aligned, why can he not accept the Formula if St. Cyril could?

3. it has been said in this thread that Chalcedon accepted the theology of Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas, but my understanding was that it only accepted back into their Sees, upon condemnation of Nestorius/Nestorianism, those who had been deposed in 449, without affirming their earlier works.

4. EA said Christ has two natural wills and one Personal will. my understanding is that we do not say He has the personal, gnomic will (St. Maximus the Confessor)
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: deusveritasest on December 23, 2010, 07:42:03 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
Habte,

I think you've still got it mixed up.

It's more like "one person in two natures" vs. "one person from two natures".

No, I fixed it, and now were are saying the exact same thing.  The way I quoted it in my post was the way it appears in my Catechism text and other places I have found in study.  I was clear on what the orthodox point is, and also the roman point, but where even after a huge effort was how the roman doctrine which prevailed and caused the non-Chalcedon churches which i am a part of to split away was even drawn from Leo's tome.  I have read it and did not see clearly how the Chalcedon conclusion was even drawn, but many of the posts here gave me some new insight.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

Well, if that's what your catechism says I think it has the formulas mixed up, as I have never heard it phrased that way before.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Marc Hanna on September 07, 2011, 05:04:12 PM
As if this topic hadn't already been done enough . . . I encountered a couple side by side passages that I found intriguing as per their contrast.

St Cyril
‘In respect of the elements from which is the one and only Son and Lord Jesus Christ, as we accept them in thought, we say that two natures have been united, but after the union, when the division into two has now been removed, we believe that the nature of the Son is one’.
Cyril of Alexandria Select Letters, 48

Leo Bishop of Rome to his beloved brother Flavian
‘It is just as impious to say that the only-begotten Son of God is from two natures before the incarnation as it is unlawful to assert that after the Word became flesh there is one nature in him’
Price, R. Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (2005). University of
Liverpool Press. Vol II p.23

Comments would be welcome from both parties :)
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Iconodule on September 07, 2011, 05:08:57 PM
As if this topic hadn't already been done enough . . . I encountered a couple side by side passages that I found intriguing as per their contrast.

St Cyril
‘In respect of the elements from which is the one and only Son and Lord Jesus Christ, as we accept them in thought, we say that two natures have been united, but after the union, when the division into two has now been removed, we believe that the nature of the Son is one’.
Cyril of Alexandria Select Letters, 48

Leo Bishop of Rome to his beloved brother Flavian
‘It is just as impious to say that the only-begotten Son of God is from two natures before the incarnation as it is unlawful to assert that after the Word became flesh there is one nature in him’
Price, R. Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (2005). University of
Liverpool Press. Vol II p.23

Comments would be welcome from both parties :)

They're both right.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Melodist on September 07, 2011, 05:35:47 PM
St Cyril
‘In respect of the elements from which is the one and only Son and Lord Jesus Christ, as we accept them in thought, we say that two natures have been united, but after the union, when the division into two has now been removed, we believe that the nature of the Son is one’.
Cyril of Alexandria Select Letters, 48

Against Nestorianism.

Quote
Leo Bishop of Rome to his beloved brother Flavian
‘It is just as impious to say that the only-begotten Son of God is from two natures before the incarnation as it is unlawful to assert that after the Word became flesh there is one nature in him’

Against Eutychianism.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Marc Hanna on September 07, 2011, 05:59:42 PM
Care to elaborate?
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Melodist on September 07, 2011, 06:18:30 PM
Care to elaborate?

Nestorianism denies the unity of the human and divine natures in Christ. St Cyril is defending the complete unity of humanity and divinity in Christ.

Eutychianism asserts that Christ's humanity had been absorbed by His divinity. St Leo was affirming that Christ is both fully human and fully divine possessing everything belonging to both natures.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Marc Hanna on September 07, 2011, 09:42:13 PM
Care to elaborate?

Nestorianism denies the unity of the human and divine natures in Christ. St Cyril is defending the complete unity of humanity and divinity in Christ.

Eutychianism asserts that Christ's humanity had been absorbed by His divinity. St Leo was affirming that Christ is both fully human and fully divine possessing everything belonging to both natures.

Sorry, not exactly what I meant.  I know what each of the heresies entail.  I was hoping for a little more dialogue, as at face value it would appear that Cyril is a heretic according to Leo's statement and vice versa. 
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Melodist on September 07, 2011, 09:47:56 PM
Sorry, not exactly what I meant.  I know what each of the heresies entail.  I was hoping for a little more dialogue, as at face value it would appear that Cyril is a heretic according to Leo's statement and vice versa.

Neither one was a response to the other. They have to be understood in their proper context.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Melodist on September 07, 2011, 09:59:43 PM
I have a friend who is a Protestant preacher. After discussing how we relate to God in the use of our will, I can say he believes that our relationship is synergistic, yet in response to the "make a decision for Jesus" message that includes OSAS, which he also rejects, he still preaches from his pulpit "you don't choose Jesus".  Makes me cringe whenever I hear those words, even though it is affirmation of God's initiative in our salvation and that we follow Him and not vice versa and not any kind of predestination.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Marc Hanna on September 07, 2011, 10:07:55 PM
Sorry, not exactly what I meant.  I know what each of the heresies entail.  I was hoping for a little more dialogue, as at face value it would appear that Cyril is a heretic according to Leo's statement and vice versa.

Neither one was a response to the other. They have to be understood in their proper context.

Yes I understand that they were not made in direct response to one another, but there are no additional qualifying statements by either that make these declarations contingent.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Melodist on September 08, 2011, 08:28:04 AM
Yes I understand that they were not made in direct response to one another, but there are no additional qualifying statements by either that make these declarations contingent.

There is the historical fact that those gathered at Chalcedon that said that "Peter has spoken through Leo", did not make such a statement until after they found the Tome to be in line with what St Cyril taught.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Alpo on September 08, 2011, 10:07:56 AM
According to Bernard Green (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,39414.0.html) the Tomos does not represent the typical thinking of St. Leo. He argues that the Tomos should be read in context of his latter texts which Leo produced to counter the accusations of Nestorianism since they represent more typical thinking of St. Leo on the issue. IIRC, in particular he claims that this (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3604124.htm) letter reprepsents more mainline thoughts of his.

I wonder whether any of OOs in here has read this letter? What do you think of it? Is it as bad as the Tomos?
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ialmisry on September 08, 2011, 10:43:48 AM
Care to elaborate?

Nestorianism denies the unity of the human and divine natures in Christ. St Cyril is defending the complete unity of humanity and divinity in Christ.

Eutychianism asserts that Christ's humanity had been absorbed by His divinity. St Leo was affirming that Christ is both fully human and fully divine possessing everything belonging to both natures.

Sorry, not exactly what I meant.  I know what each of the heresies entail.  I was hoping for a little more dialogue, as at face value it would appear that Cyril is a heretic according to Leo's statement and vice versa. 
Not according to the Fathers of Chalcedon.  After the reading of the Tome of Pope St. Leo into the Acts of Chalcedon, after the Fathers had examined it, they exclaimed

Quote
After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out:  This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles.  So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe.  Anathema to him who does not thus believe.  Peter has spoken thus through Leo.  So taught the Apostles.  Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril.  Everlasting be the memory of Cyril.  Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe.  This is the true faith.  Those of us who are orthodox thus believe.  This is the faith of the fathers.  Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there]?  These are the things Dioscorus hid away.[/quote]
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.viii.html
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Marc Hanna on September 08, 2011, 12:54:53 PM
I guess the question would be whether or not they were mistaken by making such an affirmation for they also affirmed the, the letter of Ibas to Maris three times as being Orthodox:

From the letter of Ibas to Maris
"For no man ventures now to affirm that there is One Nature only of the Divinity and humanity of Christ, but men openly avow the Temple and Him who dwells in it to be the One Only Son Jesus Christ"

I refrain from making too many remarks, so that this doesn't end up being moved to the private forum.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Marc Hanna on September 08, 2011, 01:01:36 PM
According to Bernard Green (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,39414.0.html) the Tomos does not represent the typical thinking of St. Leo. He argues that the Tomos should be read in context of his latter texts which Leo produced to counter the accusations of Nestorianism since they represent more typical thinking of St. Leo on the issue. IIRC, in particular he claims that this (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3604124.htm) letter reprepsents more mainline thoughts of his.

I wonder whether any of OOs in here has read this letter? What do you think of it? Is it as bad as the Tomos?

I haven't read the letter, but I think it would be interesting.  A link would be appreciated.  I think it quite possible that Leo could appreciate that his tome sounded a little Nestorian.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: HabteSelassie on September 08, 2011, 01:46:58 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Yes I understand that they were not made in direct response to one another, but there are no additional qualifying statements by either that make these declarations contingent.

There is the historical fact that those gathered at Chalcedon that said that "Peter has spoken through Leo", did not make such a statement until after they found the Tome to be in line with what St Cyril taught.
Millions of folks just might disagree with this statement, in fact we have been arguing against it for 1500 years and it is one of the clinching arguments we have against the Chalcedon Council in that we find it very hard to bridge Leo III and Saint Cyril.  This should not discredit the EO reverence of Saint Cyril, historically the father is from the unified era of the Church and so rightfully belongs to all jurisdictions. 

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ialmisry on September 08, 2011, 02:41:36 PM
I guess the question would be whether or not they were mistaken by making such an affirmation for they also affirmed the, the letter of Ibas to Maris three times as being Orthodox:

From the letter of Ibas to Maris
"For no man ventures now to affirm that there is One Nature only of the Divinity and humanity of Christ, but men openly avow the Temple and Him who dwells in it to be the One Only Son Jesus Christ"

I refrain from making too many remarks, so that this doesn't end up being moved to the private forum.

To be as brief as to also not move the thread

The acclamations about Popes St. Cyril and St. Leo were of the whole Council, the whole Council (over Pope St. Leo's objection, btw) had a committee of 100 or so look over the Tome, which had been widely disseminated before hand, and were accepting the results of that investigation.  In contrast, the sessions on Ibas had been convened at his insistence, consisted of only a fraction of the bishops at the Council, it is questionable whether his letter was read and certainly not studied, and at the insistence of the bishops Ibas anathematized Nestorius, his teaching, his doctrine, his friends, etc.  No one anathematized Pope St. Cyril at Chalcedon.  Quite the opposite.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Melodist on September 08, 2011, 09:20:05 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

There is the historical fact that those gathered at Chalcedon that said that "Peter has spoken through Leo", did not make such a statement until after they found the Tome to be in line with what St Cyril taught.
Millions of folks just might disagree with this statement, in fact we have been arguing against it for 1500 years and it is one of the clinching arguments we have against the Chalcedon Council in that we find it very hard to bridge Leo III and Saint Cyril.  This should not discredit the EO reverence of Saint Cyril, historically the father is from the unified era of the Church and so rightfully belongs to all jurisdictions. 

stay blessed,
habte selassie

What I am saying is that the bishops gathered at Chalcedon, and everyone who accepts the councils decision, finds continuity. his isn't like Protestantism where someone will say something lines up with St Paul but has a gap of 1500+years accounted for, Chalcedon was only 20 years after Ephesus and the bishops would remember Ephesus as being within their own lifetime.

The fact is that the two quotes given here are written in two entirely different contexts. It's misleading to pull two quotes entirely out of context and put them against each other when that was not the original intent for which they were written.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Salpy on September 08, 2011, 09:22:32 PM
I guess the question would be whether or not they were mistaken by making such an affirmation for they also affirmed the, the letter of Ibas to Maris three times as being Orthodox:

From the letter of Ibas to Maris
"For no man ventures now to affirm that there is One Nature only of the Divinity and humanity of Christ, but men openly avow the Temple and Him who dwells in it to be the One Only Son Jesus Christ"

I refrain from making too many remarks, so that this doesn't end up being moved to the private forum.

To be as brief as to also not move the thread

The acclamations about Popes St. Cyril and St. Leo were of the whole Council, the whole Council (over Pope St. Leo's objection, btw) had a committee of 100 or so look over the Tome, which had been widely disseminated before hand, and were accepting the results of that investigation.  In contrast, the sessions on Ibas had been convened at his insistence, consisted of only a fraction of the bishops at the Council, it is questionable whether his letter was read and certainly not studied, and at the insistence of the bishops Ibas anathematized Nestorius, his teaching, his doctrine, his friends, etc.  No one anathematized Pope St. Cyril at Chalcedon.  Quite the opposite.

And yet a century later, Chalcedonians viewed the acceptance of Ibas and his letter as essential enough to Chalcedon, that several bishops opposed condemning the letter.  It was not a marginal matter to those who lived closer in time to the council.

And Ibas' letter did condemn St. Cyril, as well as contain the rumor that St. Cyril had repented of his Christology and accepted that of Theodore of Mopsuestia.  Of course that brings up the question of which St. Cyril everyone was saying they and the documents at Chalcedon agreed with.

We will never resolve this debate.

This is why it is often asserted down in the private forum that Chalcedon was ambiguous.  Things were said and done that could support a Cyrilian Christology, or a Theodorean one.  There were people who interpreted it both ways during the century following the council, which is why Justinian had to hold another council to preclude the Theodorean interpretation of Chalcedon.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Salpy on September 08, 2011, 09:28:17 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

There is the historical fact that those gathered at Chalcedon that said that "Peter has spoken through Leo", did not make such a statement until after they found the Tome to be in line with what St Cyril taught.
Millions of folks just might disagree with this statement, in fact we have been arguing against it for 1500 years and it is one of the clinching arguments we have against the Chalcedon Council in that we find it very hard to bridge Leo III and Saint Cyril.  This should not discredit the EO reverence of Saint Cyril, historically the father is from the unified era of the Church and so rightfully belongs to all jurisdictions. 

stay blessed,
habte selassie

What I am saying is that the bishops gathered at Chalcedon, and everyone who accepts the councils decision, finds continuity. his isn't like Protestantism where someone will say something lines up with St Paul but has a gap of 1500+years accounted for, Chalcedon was only 20 years after Ephesus and the bishops would remember Ephesus as being within their own lifetime.

The fact is that the two quotes given here are written in two entirely different contexts. It's misleading to pull two quotes entirely out of context and put them against each other when that was not the original intent for which they were written.

Nestorius also read the Tome only 20 years after Ephesus, and I am sure he had a good memory of Ephesus.  And he praised the Tome, thinking it agreed with him.

Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ialmisry on September 08, 2011, 09:52:11 PM
I guess the question would be whether or not they were mistaken by making such an affirmation for they also affirmed the, the letter of Ibas to Maris three times as being Orthodox:

From the letter of Ibas to Maris
"For no man ventures now to affirm that there is One Nature only of the Divinity and humanity of Christ, but men openly avow the Temple and Him who dwells in it to be the One Only Son Jesus Christ"

I refrain from making too many remarks, so that this doesn't end up being moved to the private forum.

To be as brief as to also not move the thread

The acclamations about Popes St. Cyril and St. Leo were of the whole Council, the whole Council (over Pope St. Leo's objection, btw) had a committee of 100 or so look over the Tome, which had been widely disseminated before hand, and were accepting the results of that investigation.  In contrast, the sessions on Ibas had been convened at his insistence, consisted of only a fraction of the bishops at the Council, it is questionable whether his letter was read and certainly not studied, and at the insistence of the bishops Ibas anathematized Nestorius, his teaching, his doctrine, his friends, etc.  No one anathematized Pope St. Cyril at Chalcedon.  Quite the opposite.

And yet a century later, Chalcedonians viewed the acceptance of Ibas and his letter as essential enough to Chalcedon, that several bishops opposed condemning the letter.

The Latin bishops who a) didn't have a Latin translation of the letter, b) did not have a complete copy of the Acts of Chalcedon, c) did not have a copy of the session on Ibas at all.  Pope Vigilius, once he got a translation, had to recant and reverse himself on his prior opinion on the matter.  IOW all they knew about Ibas was that he had been restored to his see at Chalcedon.

It was not a marginal matter to those who lived closer in time to the council.


And Ibas' letter did condemn St. Cyril, as well as contain the rumor that St. Cyril had repented of his Christology and accepted that of Theodore of Mopsuestia.  Of course that brings up the question of which St. Cyril everyone was saying they and the documents at Chalcedon agreed with.
Theodore of Mopsuestia wasn't brought up at all at Chalcedon.  Pope St. Cyril is mentioned all the time.  Btw, the Letter Attributed to Ibas is not one of the documents at Chalcedon agreed with.

We will never resolve this debate.

This is why it is often asserted down in the private forum that Chalcedon was ambiguous.  Things were said and done that could support a Cyrilian Christology, or a Theodorean one.
 

Cyrilian?  Theodorean?  There's St. Cyril's presentation of Orthodox Christology, alongside other presenters of Orthodox Christology, and various heretical Christologies, whether Theodore's, Ibas', Theodoret's, Etyches', whatever.  One could posit an opposition between an Athanasian Christology versus an Arian Christology. The Church doesn't, either saying Orthodox (to which Pope St. Athanasius was witnessing) or Nicene (after the Council where the Church definitely reaffirmed its Orthodoxy). Talking about Athanasian, Gregorian, Basilian, Damascene, Petrine...Christology doesn't make any sense.

There were people who interpreted it both ways during the century following the council, which is why Justinian had to hold another council to preclude the Theodorean interpretation of Chalcedon.
sort of, tying up loose ends.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ialmisry on September 08, 2011, 09:53:47 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

There is the historical fact that those gathered at Chalcedon that said that "Peter has spoken through Leo", did not make such a statement until after they found the Tome to be in line with what St Cyril taught.
Millions of folks just might disagree with this statement, in fact we have been arguing against it for 1500 years and it is one of the clinching arguments we have against the Chalcedon Council in that we find it very hard to bridge Leo III and Saint Cyril.  This should not discredit the EO reverence of Saint Cyril, historically the father is from the unified era of the Church and so rightfully belongs to all jurisdictions. 

stay blessed,
habte selassie

What I am saying is that the bishops gathered at Chalcedon, and everyone who accepts the councils decision, finds continuity. his isn't like Protestantism where someone will say something lines up with St Paul but has a gap of 1500+years accounted for, Chalcedon was only 20 years after Ephesus and the bishops would remember Ephesus as being within their own lifetime.

The fact is that the two quotes given here are written in two entirely different contexts. It's misleading to pull two quotes entirely out of context and put them against each other when that was not the original intent for which they were written.

Nestorius also read the Tome only 20 years after Ephesus, and I am sure he had a good memory of Ephesus.  And he praised the Tome, thinking it agreed with him.
He also praised the Gospel, thinking it agreed with him.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Salpy on September 08, 2011, 09:54:50 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

There is the historical fact that those gathered at Chalcedon that said that "Peter has spoken through Leo", did not make such a statement until after they found the Tome to be in line with what St Cyril taught.
Millions of folks just might disagree with this statement, in fact we have been arguing against it for 1500 years and it is one of the clinching arguments we have against the Chalcedon Council in that we find it very hard to bridge Leo III and Saint Cyril.  This should not discredit the EO reverence of Saint Cyril, historically the father is from the unified era of the Church and so rightfully belongs to all jurisdictions. 

stay blessed,
habte selassie

What I am saying is that the bishops gathered at Chalcedon, and everyone who accepts the councils decision, finds continuity. his isn't like Protestantism where someone will say something lines up with St Paul but has a gap of 1500+years accounted for, Chalcedon was only 20 years after Ephesus and the bishops would remember Ephesus as being within their own lifetime.

The fact is that the two quotes given here are written in two entirely different contexts. It's misleading to pull two quotes entirely out of context and put them against each other when that was not the original intent for which they were written.

Nestorius also read the Tome only 20 years after Ephesus, and I am sure he had a good memory of Ephesus.  And he praised the Tome, thinking it agreed with him.
He also praised the Gospel, thinking it agreed with him.

Well even a broken clock is correct twice a day.   :)
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Salpy on September 08, 2011, 10:00:45 PM
I guess the question would be whether or not they were mistaken by making such an affirmation for they also affirmed the, the letter of Ibas to Maris three times as being Orthodox:

From the letter of Ibas to Maris
"For no man ventures now to affirm that there is One Nature only of the Divinity and humanity of Christ, but men openly avow the Temple and Him who dwells in it to be the One Only Son Jesus Christ"

I refrain from making too many remarks, so that this doesn't end up being moved to the private forum.

To be as brief as to also not move the thread

The acclamations about Popes St. Cyril and St. Leo were of the whole Council, the whole Council (over Pope St. Leo's objection, btw) had a committee of 100 or so look over the Tome, which had been widely disseminated before hand, and were accepting the results of that investigation.  In contrast, the sessions on Ibas had been convened at his insistence, consisted of only a fraction of the bishops at the Council, it is questionable whether his letter was read and certainly not studied, and at the insistence of the bishops Ibas anathematized Nestorius, his teaching, his doctrine, his friends, etc.  No one anathematized Pope St. Cyril at Chalcedon.  Quite the opposite.

And yet a century later, Chalcedonians viewed the acceptance of Ibas and his letter as essential enough to Chalcedon, that several bishops opposed condemning the letter.

The Latin bishops who a) didn't have a Latin translation of the letter, b) did not have a complete copy of the Acts of Chalcedon, c) did not have a copy of the session on Ibas at all.  Pope Vigilius, once he got a translation, had to recant and reverse himself on his prior opinion on the matter.  IOW all they knew about Ibas was that he had been restored to his see at Chalcedon.

Justinian wasn't asking for the condemnation of Ibas, only his letter.  And many eastern bishops who read Greek opposed condemning the letter also, thinking it would undermine Chalcedon.

Quote
It was not a marginal matter to those who lived closer in time to the council.


And Ibas' letter did condemn St. Cyril, as well as contain the rumor that St. Cyril had repented of his Christology and accepted that of Theodore of Mopsuestia.  Of course that brings up the question of which St. Cyril everyone was saying they and the documents at Chalcedon agreed with.
Theodore of Mopsuestia wasn't brought up at all at Chalcedon.  Pope St. Cyril is mentioned all the time.  Btw, the Letter Attributed to Ibas is not one of the documents at Chalcedon agreed with.

A number of bishops at the time of Justinian felt otherwise.

Quote
We will never resolve this debate.

This is why it is often asserted down in the private forum that Chalcedon was ambiguous.  Things were said and done that could support a Cyrilian Christology, or a Theodorean one.
 

Cyrilian?  Theodorean?  There's St. Cyril's presentation of Orthodox Christology, alongside other presenters of Orthodox Christology, and various heretical Christologies, whether Theodore's, Ibas', Theodoret's, Etyches', whatever.  One could posit an opposition between an Athanasian Christology versus an Arian Christology. The Church doesn't, either saying Orthodox (to which Pope St. Athanasius was witnessing) or Nicene (after the Council where the Church definitely reaffirmed its Orthodoxy). Talking about Athanasian, Gregorian, Basilian, Damascene, Petrine...Christology doesn't make any sense.


There were people who interpreted it both ways during the century following the council, which is why Justinian had to hold another council to preclude the Theodorean interpretation of Chalcedon.
sort of, tying up loose ends.
[/quote]

Very loose ends.   :)
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Salpy on September 08, 2011, 10:04:09 PM
I just want to say that my intention in posting in this thread is to point out that the matter of Chalcedon is much more complicated than most people realize.  I think the exchange I just had with Isa demonstrates that.   :)

In any event, I don't want a heated debate here, as that is what the private forum is for.

People have to realize that any discussion about Chalcedon is not going to be easy.  It is not a situation where one can simply say, "Everyone said they agreed with St. Cyril, so they cannot have been heretics," or "Pope Leo used Nestorian language, so he must have been a Nestorian."  There are people on both sides who want to make it that simple, but it doesn't work.  It is way more complicated than that. 

People who want to get into Chalcedon really have to study what was going on at that time, as well as the events leading up to it.  And then they have to be prepared to listen to what the people on the other side have to say.  That's probably the hardest part, but it's essential if we are to ever again be one Church.   :)
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: ialmisry on September 08, 2011, 10:26:53 PM
I guess the question would be whether or not they were mistaken by making such an affirmation for they also affirmed the, the letter of Ibas to Maris three times as being Orthodox:

From the letter of Ibas to Maris
"For no man ventures now to affirm that there is One Nature only of the Divinity and humanity of Christ, but men openly avow the Temple and Him who dwells in it to be the One Only Son Jesus Christ"

I refrain from making too many remarks, so that this doesn't end up being moved to the private forum.

To be as brief as to also not move the thread

The acclamations about Popes St. Cyril and St. Leo were of the whole Council, the whole Council (over Pope St. Leo's objection, btw) had a committee of 100 or so look over the Tome, which had been widely disseminated before hand, and were accepting the results of that investigation.  In contrast, the sessions on Ibas had been convened at his insistence, consisted of only a fraction of the bishops at the Council, it is questionable whether his letter was read and certainly not studied, and at the insistence of the bishops Ibas anathematized Nestorius, his teaching, his doctrine, his friends, etc.  No one anathematized Pope St. Cyril at Chalcedon.  Quite the opposite.

And yet a century later, Chalcedonians viewed the acceptance of Ibas and his letter as essential enough to Chalcedon, that several bishops opposed condemning the letter.

The Latin bishops who a) didn't have a Latin translation of the letter, b) did not have a complete copy of the Acts of Chalcedon, c) did not have a copy of the session on Ibas at all.  Pope Vigilius, once he got a translation, had to recant and reverse himself on his prior opinion on the matter.  IOW all they knew about Ibas was that he had been restored to his see at Chalcedon.

Justinian wasn't asking for the condemnation of Ibas, only his letter.  And many eastern bishops who read Greek opposed condemning the letter also, thinking it would undermine Chalcedon.
Those Greek bishops would be who?

It was not a marginal matter to those who lived closer in time to the council.


And Ibas' letter did condemn St. Cyril, as well as contain the rumor that St. Cyril had repented of his Christology and accepted that of Theodore of Mopsuestia.  Of course that brings up the question of which St. Cyril everyone was saying they and the documents at Chalcedon agreed with.
Theodore of Mopsuestia wasn't brought up at all at Chalcedon.  Pope St. Cyril is mentioned all the time.  Btw, the Letter Attributed to Ibas is not one of the documents at Chalcedon agreed with.

A number of bishops at the time of Justinian felt otherwise.
Yes, those who hadn't read it, nor the Acts of Chalcedon.

Quote
We will never resolve this debate.

This is why it is often asserted down in the private forum that Chalcedon was ambiguous.  Things were said and done that could support a Cyrilian Christology, or a Theodorean one.
 

Cyrilian?  Theodorean?  There's St. Cyril's presentation of Orthodox Christology, alongside other presenters of Orthodox Christology, and various heretical Christologies, whether Theodore's, Ibas', Theodoret's, Etyches', whatever.  One could posit an opposition between an Athanasian Christology versus an Arian Christology. The Church doesn't, either saying Orthodox (to which Pope St. Athanasius was witnessing) or Nicene (after the Council where the Church definitely reaffirmed its Orthodoxy). Talking about Athanasian, Gregorian, Basilian, Damascene, Petrine...Christology doesn't make any sense.


There were people who interpreted it both ways during the century following the council, which is why Justinian had to hold another council to preclude the Theodorean interpretation of Chalcedon.
sort of, tying up loose ends.

Very loose ends.   :)
I'll give you that.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: HabteSelassie on September 08, 2011, 10:40:40 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

I just want to say that my intention in posting in this thread is to point out that the matter of Chalcedon is much more complicated than most people realize.  I think the exchange I just had with Isa demonstrates that.   :)

In any event, I don't want a heated debate here, as that is what the private forum is for.

People have to realize that any discussion about Chalcedon is not going to be easy.  It is not a situation where one can simply say, "Everyone said they agreed with St. Cyril, so they cannot have been heretics," or "Pope Leo used Nestorian language, so he must have been a Nestorian."  There are people on both sides who want to make it that simple, but it doesn't work.  It is way more complicated than that. 

People who want to get into Chalcedon really have to study what was going on at that time, as well as the events leading up to it.  And then they have to be prepared to listen to what the people on the other side have to say.  That's probably the hardest part, but it's essential if we are to ever again be one Church.   :)
Amen Amen. Whether we agree or disagree with the Council of Chalcedon (or any Ecumenical Councils) folks should always do their homework and take into consideration historical, political, and social context.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Salpy on September 08, 2011, 11:06:28 PM
I guess the question would be whether or not they were mistaken by making such an affirmation for they also affirmed the, the letter of Ibas to Maris three times as being Orthodox:

From the letter of Ibas to Maris
"For no man ventures now to affirm that there is One Nature only of the Divinity and humanity of Christ, but men openly avow the Temple and Him who dwells in it to be the One Only Son Jesus Christ"

I refrain from making too many remarks, so that this doesn't end up being moved to the private forum.

To be as brief as to also not move the thread

The acclamations about Popes St. Cyril and St. Leo were of the whole Council, the whole Council (over Pope St. Leo's objection, btw) had a committee of 100 or so look over the Tome, which had been widely disseminated before hand, and were accepting the results of that investigation.  In contrast, the sessions on Ibas had been convened at his insistence, consisted of only a fraction of the bishops at the Council, it is questionable whether his letter was read and certainly not studied, and at the insistence of the bishops Ibas anathematized Nestorius, his teaching, his doctrine, his friends, etc.  No one anathematized Pope St. Cyril at Chalcedon.  Quite the opposite.

And yet a century later, Chalcedonians viewed the acceptance of Ibas and his letter as essential enough to Chalcedon, that several bishops opposed condemning the letter.

The Latin bishops who a) didn't have a Latin translation of the letter, b) did not have a complete copy of the Acts of Chalcedon, c) did not have a copy of the session on Ibas at all.  Pope Vigilius, once he got a translation, had to recant and reverse himself on his prior opinion on the matter.  IOW all they knew about Ibas was that he had been restored to his see at Chalcedon.

Justinian wasn't asking for the condemnation of Ibas, only his letter.  And many eastern bishops who read Greek opposed condemning the letter also, thinking it would undermine Chalcedon.
Those Greek bishops would be who?

See below.

Quote
It was not a marginal matter to those who lived closer in time to the council.


And Ibas' letter did condemn St. Cyril, as well as contain the rumor that St. Cyril had repented of his Christology and accepted that of Theodore of Mopsuestia.  Of course that brings up the question of which St. Cyril everyone was saying they and the documents at Chalcedon agreed with.
Theodore of Mopsuestia wasn't brought up at all at Chalcedon.  Pope St. Cyril is mentioned all the time.  Btw, the Letter Attributed to Ibas is not one of the documents at Chalcedon agreed with.

A number of bishops at the time of Justinian felt otherwise.
Yes, those who hadn't read it, nor the Acts of Chalcedon.


Here is a Chalcedonian source on how the Eastern bishops reacted when they were asked to subscribe to the condemnation of Ibas' blasphemous letter:

Quote
Mennas, Patriarch of Constantinople, first protested that to sign was to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, and then yielded on the distinct understanding, as he told Stephen the Roman apocrisarius at Constantinople, that his subscription should be returned to him if the Apostolic See disapproved of it. Stephen and Dacius, Bishop of Milan, who was then at Constantinople, broke off communion with him. Mennas had next to coerce his suffragans. They also yielded, but lodged protests with Stephen to be transmitted to the pope, in which they declared that they acted under compulsion. Ephraim, Patriarch of Alexandria, resisted, then yielded and sent a message to Vigilius, who was in Sicily, affirming that he had signed under compulsion. Zoilus, Patriarch of Antioch, and Peter, Bishop of Jerusalem, made a like resistance and then yielded (Facundus, "Def.", IV, 4). Of the other bishops those who subscribed were rewarded, those who refused were deposed or had to "conceal themselves" (Liberatus, "Brev.", 24; Facundus, "Def.", II, 3 and "Cont. Moc.", in Gallandi, XI, 813).

http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=11539


So to answer your question, the Eastern bishops at the time of Justinian who objected to condemning Ibas' letter included, but were not limited to:

Mennas, Patriarch of Constantinople;

Ephraim, Patriarch of Alexandria;

Zoilus, Patriarch of Antioch; and

Peter, Bishop of Jerusalem.

I would think those bishops would have read Greek.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Marc Hanna on September 08, 2011, 11:18:16 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

There is the historical fact that those gathered at Chalcedon that said that "Peter has spoken through Leo", did not make such a statement until after they found the Tome to be in line with what St Cyril taught.
Millions of folks just might disagree with this statement, in fact we have been arguing against it for 1500 years and it is one of the clinching arguments we have against the Chalcedon Council in that we find it very hard to bridge Leo III and Saint Cyril.  This should not discredit the EO reverence of Saint Cyril, historically the father is from the unified era of the Church and so rightfully belongs to all jurisdictions. 

stay blessed,
habte selassie

What I am saying is that the bishops gathered at Chalcedon, and everyone who accepts the councils decision, finds continuity. his isn't like Protestantism where someone will say something lines up with St Paul but has a gap of 1500+years accounted for, Chalcedon was only 20 years after Ephesus and the bishops would remember Ephesus as being within their own lifetime.

The fact is that the two quotes given here are written in two entirely different contexts. It's misleading to pull two quotes entirely out of context and put them against each other when that was not the original intent for which they were written.

While I agree that the quotes are from different contexts, I do not believe that the context is lost or that the meaning is distorted.  These are emphatic statements whose meanings stand on their own.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: CoptoGeek on September 14, 2011, 09:20:32 AM
Also, the very next Patriarch of Constantinople after Anatolius was Gennadius; a Saint in the Chalcedonian Churches. Here is what Fr. Meyendorff says of him:

Quote
Patriarch Gennadius of Constantinople (458-471), who after Ephesus had published a violent refutation of the Anathematisms of Cyril, and who succeeded Anatolius as bishop of the Capitol, was another typical representative of that tendancy. Like Theodoret, he was in correspondance with the Nestorians.  In a Praise of St. Leo's letter to Flavian, obviously destined to defend Chalcedonian orthodoxy as he understodd it, Gennadius translated the essential terms in such a way that it was impossible for the strict desciples of Cyril to accept them. While rejecting formal Nestorianism, the Patriarch avoided the term Theotokos, and hypostatic union; in discussing the two natures of Christ and in emphasizing the particular identity of each one of them, he spoke of union only as "in a simgle prosopon." Undoubtly, for Gennadius Antiochiene Christology has lost none of its force and he used it abundantly in his commentaries on Scripture.

- Fr. John Meyendorff, "Christ in Eastern Christian Thought"

http://books.google.com/books?id=aQtp7oB5U_kC&pg=PA33&dq=patriarch+Gennadius+chalcedon&hl=en#v=onepage&q=patriarch%20Gennadius%20chalcedon&f=false

According to Wkipedia (for whatever its worth), his writings were used by Facundus in denouncing Constantinople II.

Quote
His first public writing was quoted by Facundus (Defensio, II, iv) against Saint Cyril of Alexandria in two works, probably in 431 or 432, including a passage to show that his work was more violent even than the letter of Ibas. The Anathemas of Cyril and Two Books to Parthenius were criticized. In the latter he exclaims, "How many times have I heard blasphemies from Cyril of Egypt? Woe to the scourge of Alexandria!".[2] In 433 Gennadius probably reconciled with Cyril.[3] If Saint Cyril's letter of 434 (Ep. lvi) is to the same Gennadius, they were friends in that year

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gennadius_of_Constantinople#CITEREFSinclair1911


Quote
Gennadius (10), 21st bp. of Constantinople, 458–471. between Anatolius and Acacius. His first public appearance was in an attack on Cyril, in two works, c. 431 or 432, Against the Anathemas of Cyril, and Two Books to Parthenius. In the latter he exclaims, "How many times have I heard blasphemies from Cyril of Egypt? Woe to the scourge of Alexandria!" In 433 Gennadius was probably one of those who became reconciled with Cyril.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_Christian_Biography_and_Literature_to_the_End_of_the_Sixth_Century/Gennadius_(10),_bp._of_Constantinople
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: CoptoGeek on September 14, 2011, 10:03:47 AM
My point above that I couldn't include for some reason, was that it wasn't just the Tome alone that was at issue, there were also people involved and events surrounding the council that made it unacceptable for our fathers at the time.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Von Döllinger on May 23, 2012, 07:44:54 AM
Quote
If the Fathers of Chalcedon say that St. Leo is saying the same thing as St. Cyril

The Fathers of the OO church say that Leo’s Christology objectively conflicts with that of St Cyril. I think the evidence supports them, and I believe ive sufficiently proven that. Leo adopted an exclusively Antiochene trait which divides the actions of Christ between two subjects: “The Word” and “the flesh”. St Cyril in following the great St Athanasius attributes ALL the actions of Christ to ONE subject: “The Word”.

The flesh does not suffer; THE WORD suffers according to HIS flesh. The former expression is compatible with Nestorianism whilst the latter is not.

"5. In what way the Word of God is said to have been emptied.

God the Word full by nature and in every way Perfect, and distributing out of His own Fullness His own goods to the creature, we say was emptied: in no wise wronged in His own Proper Nature, nor changed so as to become otherwise, nor made in ought inferior, for inconvertible and unchangeable is Himself also even as He Who begat Him, and never may He be capable of passion. But when He was made Flesh, i.e. Man, He made (as He said, I will pour forth of My Spirit upon all flesh) the poverty of human nature His own; first, in that He was once made man, albeit He remained God; next in that He took the form of a servant, Who is in His own Nature free, as Son, and while He is Himself the Lord of glory He is said to receive glory: Himself Life, He is said to be quickened: and receives power over all, Himself King of all and with God, and Ho was obedient to the Father, suffered the Cross and so on. But these things befit the measure of the human nature, yet He makes them His own with flesh and fulfils the economy, remaining what He was."

" yet we do not say that Jesus Christ was mere man 8, nor do we conceive of God the Word apart from His human nature but, we say that He was made One out of both, as God made Man, the Same begotten Divinely out of the Father as Word, and humanly out of woman as Man: not as though called to a second beginning of being then when He is said to have been born after the flesh: but begotten indeed before all ages, yet when the time came wherein He must fulfil the economy, born also of a woman after the flesh. "


"Hence the union of the Word with the human nature may be not unaptly compared with our condition. Foras the body is of other nature than the soul, yet is one man |194 produced and said to be of both; so too out of the Perfect Person of God the Word, and of manhood perfect in its own mode, is One Christ, the Same God and Man in the Same. And the Word (as I said) makes its own the sufferings of Its own Flesh, because Its own is the Body and not another's: and It shares with Its own Flesh the operation of the God-befitting might that is within It; so that it should be able both to quicken the dead and to heal the sick."


"Alone God the Father. He is said to have been sanctified through the Spirit and moreover to sanctify 39 those who come to Him; He was baptized according to the Flesh and was baptizing in the Holy Ghost; how then doth the Same both sanctify and is sanctified, baptizeth and is baptized? After one manner and another; for He is sanctified humanly, and thus is He baptized: He sanctifies Divinely and baptizeth in the Holy Ghost.


Himself raising the dead was raised from the dead, and being Life by Nature is said to quicken. And how again? After one manner and another. For the Same was raised from the dead and is said to be quickened after the Flesh, yet quickens and raises the dead as God. He suffers and does not suffer 40, after one manner and another: for He |229 suffers humanly in the Flesh as Man, He is impassible Divinely as God."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/cyril_scholia_incarnation_01_text.htm#C36  Cyril of Alexandria, Scholia on the incarnation of the Only-Begotten.  LFC 47, Oxford (1881) pp.185-236.

 
433: St. Cyril explicitly accepts two natures after the hypostatic union in his "Epistle to John of Antioch" (the Agreements of 433):

 "With regard to the Evangelical and Apostolic expressions concerning the Lord, we know that men who are skilled in theology make some of them common to the one Person, while they divide others between the two Natures, ascribing those that are fitting to God to Divinity of Christ, and those that are lowly to His Humanity. On reading these sacred utterances of Yours, and finding that we ourselves think along the same lines—for there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism—, we glorified God the Saviour of all" [John Karmiris, Dogmatic and Creedal Statements of the Orthodox Church, Vol. 1 [Athens:1960]. p. 154], quoted in The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics, p 11]

451: The Fourth Ecumenical Synod adopts all the teachings of St. Cyril, and condemns those who selectively choose some of them and reject others as heretical. St. Flavian is vindicated and the Robber Synod Annulled.

 

457: Timothy Ailouros (another Monophysite "saint") condemns Saint Cyril on account of the agreements:

 

"Cyril... having excellently articulated the wise proclamation of Orthodoxy, showed himself to be fickle and is to be censured for teaching contrary doctrine: after previously proposing that we should speak of one nature of God the Word, he destroyed the dogma that he had formulated and is caught professing two Natures of Christ" [Timothy Ailouros, "Epistles to Kalonymos," Patrologia Graeca, Vol LXXXVI, Col. 276; quoted in The Non Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 13].

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/mono_history.aspx  The History of the Persistant Monophysite Rejection of St. Cyril of Alexandria's Teaching on the Two Natures of Christ




Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Cavaradossi on May 23, 2012, 07:57:28 AM
Quote
If the Fathers of Chalcedon say that St. Leo is saying the same thing as St. Cyril

The Fathers of the OO church say that Leo’s Christology objectively conflicts with that of St Cyril. I think the evidence supports them, and I believe ive sufficiently proven that. Leo adopted an exclusively Antiochene trait which divides the actions of Christ between two subjects: “The Word” and “the flesh”. St Cyril in following the great St Athanasius attributes ALL the actions of Christ to ONE subject: “The Word”.

The flesh does not suffer; THE WORD suffers according to HIS flesh. The former expression is compatible with Nestorianism whilst the latter is not.

"5. In what way the Word of God is said to have been emptied.

God the Word full by nature and in every way Perfect, and distributing out of His own Fullness His own goods to the creature, we say was emptied: in no wise wronged in His own Proper Nature, nor changed so as to become otherwise, nor made in ought inferior, for inconvertible and unchangeable is Himself also even as He Who begat Him, and never may He be capable of passion. But when He was made Flesh, i.e. Man, He made (as He said, I will pour forth of My Spirit upon all flesh) the poverty of human nature His own; first, in that He was once made man, albeit He remained God; next in that He took the form of a servant, Who is in His own Nature free, as Son, and while He is Himself the Lord of glory He is said to receive glory: Himself Life, He is said to be quickened: and receives power over all, Himself King of all and with God, and Ho was obedient to the Father, suffered the Cross and so on. But these things befit the measure of the human nature, yet He makes them His own with flesh and fulfils the economy, remaining what He was."

" yet we do not say that Jesus Christ was mere man 8, nor do we conceive of God the Word apart from His human nature but, we say that He was made One out of both, as God made Man, the Same begotten Divinely out of the Father as Word, and humanly out of woman as Man: not as though called to a second beginning of being then when He is said to have been born after the flesh: but begotten indeed before all ages, yet when the time came wherein He must fulfil the economy, born also of a woman after the flesh. "


"Hence the union of the Word with the human nature may be not unaptly compared with our condition. Foras the body is of other nature than the soul, yet is one man |194 produced and said to be of both; so too out of the Perfect Person of God the Word, and of manhood perfect in its own mode, is One Christ, the Same God and Man in the Same. And the Word (as I said) makes its own the sufferings of Its own Flesh, because Its own is the Body and not another's: and It shares with Its own Flesh the operation of the God-befitting might that is within It; so that it should be able both to quicken the dead and to heal the sick."


"Alone God the Father. He is said to have been sanctified through the Spirit and moreover to sanctify 39 those who come to Him; He was baptized according to the Flesh and was baptizing in the Holy Ghost; how then doth the Same both sanctify and is sanctified, baptizeth and is baptized? After one manner and another; for He is sanctified humanly, and thus is He baptized: He sanctifies Divinely and baptizeth in the Holy Ghost.


Himself raising the dead was raised from the dead, and being Life by Nature is said to quicken. And how again? After one manner and another. For the Same was raised from the dead and is said to be quickened after the Flesh, yet quickens and raises the dead as God. He suffers and does not suffer 40, after one manner and another: for He |229 suffers humanly in the Flesh as Man, He is impassible Divinely as God."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/cyril_scholia_incarnation_01_text.htm#C36  Cyril of Alexandria, Scholia on the incarnation of the Only-Begotten.  LFC 47, Oxford (1881) pp.185-236.

 
433: St. Cyril explicitly accepts two natures after the hypostatic union in his "Epistle to John of Antioch" (the Agreements of 433):

 "With regard to the Evangelical and Apostolic expressions concerning the Lord, we know that men who are skilled in theology make some of them common to the one Person, while they divide others between the two Natures, ascribing those that are fitting to God to Divinity of Christ, and those that are lowly to His Humanity. On reading these sacred utterances of Yours, and finding that we ourselves think along the same lines—for there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism—, we glorified God the Saviour of all" [John Karmiris, Dogmatic and Creedal Statements of the Orthodox Church, Vol. 1 [Athens:1960]. p. 154], quoted in The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics, p 11]

451: The Fourth Ecumenical Synod adopts all the teachings of St. Cyril, and condemns those who selectively choose some of them and reject others as heretical. St. Flavian is vindicated and the Robber Synod Annulled.

 

457: Timothy Ailouros (another Monophysite "saint") condemns Saint Cyril on account of the agreements:

 

"Cyril... having excellently articulated the wise proclamation of Orthodoxy, showed himself to be fickle and is to be censured for teaching contrary doctrine: after previously proposing that we should speak of one nature of God the Word, he destroyed the dogma that he had formulated and is caught professing two Natures of Christ" [Timothy Ailouros, "Epistles to Kalonymos," Patrologia Graeca, Vol LXXXVI, Col. 276; quoted in The Non Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 13].

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/mono_history.aspx  The History of the Persistant Monophysite Rejection of St. Cyril of Alexandria's Teaching on the Two Natures of Christ






In all fairness, what the Orientals tend to find objectionable about the Tome of Leo is not the dyophysite language, but the way Leo of Rome seems to speak of the two natures as if they are two separate subjects
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Von Döllinger on May 23, 2012, 12:04:29 PM
Quote
If the Fathers of Chalcedon say that St. Leo is saying the same thing as St. Cyril

The Fathers of the OO church say that Leo’s Christology objectively conflicts with that of St Cyril. I think the evidence supports them, and I believe ive sufficiently proven that. Leo adopted an exclusively Antiochene trait which divides the actions of Christ between two subjects: “The Word” and “the flesh”. St Cyril in following the great St Athanasius attributes ALL the actions of Christ to ONE subject: “The Word”.

The flesh does not suffer; THE WORD suffers according to HIS flesh. The former expression is compatible with Nestorianism whilst the latter is not.

"5. In what way the Word of God is said to have been emptied.

God the Word full by nature and in every way Perfect, and distributing out of His own Fullness His own goods to the creature, we say was emptied: in no wise wronged in His own Proper Nature, nor changed so as to become otherwise, nor made in ought inferior, for inconvertible and unchangeable is Himself also even as He Who begat Him, and never may He be capable of passion. But when He was made Flesh, i.e. Man, He made (as He said, I will pour forth of My Spirit upon all flesh) the poverty of human nature His own; first, in that He was once made man, albeit He remained God; next in that He took the form of a servant, Who is in His own Nature free, as Son, and while He is Himself the Lord of glory He is said to receive glory: Himself Life, He is said to be quickened: and receives power over all, Himself King of all and with God, and Ho was obedient to the Father, suffered the Cross and so on. But these things befit the measure of the human nature, yet He makes them His own with flesh and fulfils the economy, remaining what He was."

" yet we do not say that Jesus Christ was mere man 8, nor do we conceive of God the Word apart from His human nature but, we say that He was made One out of both, as God made Man, the Same begotten Divinely out of the Father as Word, and humanly out of woman as Man: not as though called to a second beginning of being then when He is said to have been born after the flesh: but begotten indeed before all ages, yet when the time came wherein He must fulfil the economy, born also of a woman after the flesh. "


"Hence the union of the Word with the human nature may be not unaptly compared with our condition. Foras the body is of other nature than the soul, yet is one man |194 produced and said to be of both; so too out of the Perfect Person of God the Word, and of manhood perfect in its own mode, is One Christ, the Same God and Man in the Same. And the Word (as I said) makes its own the sufferings of Its own Flesh, because Its own is the Body and not another's: and It shares with Its own Flesh the operation of the God-befitting might that is within It; so that it should be able both to quicken the dead and to heal the sick."


"Alone God the Father. He is said to have been sanctified through the Spirit and moreover to sanctify 39 those who come to Him; He was baptized according to the Flesh and was baptizing in the Holy Ghost; how then doth the Same both sanctify and is sanctified, baptizeth and is baptized? After one manner and another; for He is sanctified humanly, and thus is He baptized: He sanctifies Divinely and baptizeth in the Holy Ghost.


Himself raising the dead was raised from the dead, and being Life by Nature is said to quicken. And how again? After one manner and another. For the Same was raised from the dead and is said to be quickened after the Flesh, yet quickens and raises the dead as God. He suffers and does not suffer 40, after one manner and another: for He |229 suffers humanly in the Flesh as Man, He is impassible Divinely as God."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/cyril_scholia_incarnation_01_text.htm#C36  Cyril of Alexandria, Scholia on the incarnation of the Only-Begotten.  LFC 47, Oxford (1881) pp.185-236.

 
433: St. Cyril explicitly accepts two natures after the hypostatic union in his "Epistle to John of Antioch" (the Agreements of 433):

 "With regard to the Evangelical and Apostolic expressions concerning the Lord, we know that men who are skilled in theology make some of them common to the one Person, while they divide others between the two Natures, ascribing those that are fitting to God to Divinity of Christ, and those that are lowly to His Humanity. On reading these sacred utterances of Yours, and finding that we ourselves think along the same lines—for there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism—, we glorified God the Saviour of all" [John Karmiris, Dogmatic and Creedal Statements of the Orthodox Church, Vol. 1 [Athens:1960]. p. 154], quoted in The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics, p 11]

451: The Fourth Ecumenical Synod adopts all the teachings of St. Cyril, and condemns those who selectively choose some of them and reject others as heretical. St. Flavian is vindicated and the Robber Synod Annulled.

 

457: Timothy Ailouros (another Monophysite "saint") condemns Saint Cyril on account of the agreements:

 

"Cyril... having excellently articulated the wise proclamation of Orthodoxy, showed himself to be fickle and is to be censured for teaching contrary doctrine: after previously proposing that we should speak of one nature of God the Word, he destroyed the dogma that he had formulated and is caught professing two Natures of Christ" [Timothy Ailouros, "Epistles to Kalonymos," Patrologia Graeca, Vol LXXXVI, Col. 276; quoted in The Non Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 13].

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/mono_history.aspx  The History of the Persistant Monophysite Rejection of St. Cyril of Alexandria's Teaching on the Two Natures of Christ






In all fairness, what the Orientals tend to find objectionable about the Tome of Leo is not the dyophysite language, but the way Leo of Rome seems to speak of the two natures as if they are two separate subjects

Yes, that i understand, but st cyril does the same here, " for He |229 suffers humanly in the Flesh as Man, He is impassible Divinely as God"
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Cavaradossi on May 23, 2012, 12:49:47 PM

In all fairness, what the Orientals tend to find objectionable about the Tome of Leo is not the dyophysite language, but the way Leo of Rome seems to speak of the two natures as if they are two separate subjects

Yes, that i understand, but st cyril does the same here, " for He |229 suffers humanly in the Flesh as Man, He is impassible Divinely as God"

Yes, but that is a rather far cry from what Leo wrote in his Tome: 'For each form performs what is proper to it in association with the other, the Word achieving what is the Word’s, while the body accomplishes what is the body’s; the one shines with miracles while the other has succumbed to outrages.' What is objectionable about Leo's famous statement is that he speaks of the two natures acting, in such a fashion that they seem to be reified and become quasi-personal. Worse still, Leo's separation of the Word from the body is (likely unwittingly on his part) close to what Nestorius taught.

Nestorius taught that the Word and the human (whom he called Jesus) were two different prosopa who were united in a prosopon of union (called Son, Son of God, son of man, or the Christ). For Nestorius, it would be incorrect to say that the Word succumbed to outrages (just as Leo implies in this line), although it would be possible to say that the prosopon of union or Jesus succumbed to outrages. Likewise, Nestorius would have said that it is proper only to say that the prosopon of the Word or the prosopon of union worked miracles, but that is improper to say that the Prosopon Jesus worked miracles. Thus, when Leo says that the Word shines with miracles, while the body succumbs to outrages, it is understandable that some bishops, for whom Nestorianism was not some distant memory but a real threat, interrupted the reading of the Tome in order to raise an objection.

That is not to say that the Tome of Leo cannot be interpreted in an Orthodox way (I obviously believe that it can, or else I would not be Eastern Orthodox), but at the same time, I think we need to recognize that there are some real problems with the language it uses, which leave it open to possibly heretical interpretations.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: HabteSelassie on May 23, 2012, 02:13:13 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

The writings of our father Saint Cyril are almost 1600 years old. There are no surprises, no rugs to pull, to "gotcha!" moments to uncover.  Saint Cyril teaches exclusively the teaching of One Nature of Christ, a Miaphysis, (not a monophysis). Mia implies a plurality albeit in full union, in the same context as the word communion.  Mia then encompasses the plurality of Christ being God and Man and yet perfectly preserves the sanctity and singularity of the Union of the Incarnation.  The Divine Nature of God the Word is unchanged through the Union, but the exists in unity with the Human Nature of Jesus Christ in the flesh of His Person (hypostasis).  Now here is the real crux of the debate, which separates Oriental and Orthodox/Latin Fathers interpretations.  Saint Cyril implied in his use of the term hypostasis at once to by synonomous with the term physis or nature. Hypostasis and nature are one concept in Cyrillian thought, though two aspects or perspectives.  The physis describes the nature or function, while the concept of hypostasis describes the form or under-lying reality.  Only later did Orthodox and Latin theologians decide to further clarify these terms by inserting a clear distinction in their uses, so that they are no longer considered synonomous.  When reading Cyril speak of One Nature, he is equally speaking of One Person.  Oriental Fathers explain after that this is because there is no abstract nature or physis, everything must exist hypostatically, that is in reality ( hypostasis can be translated as "that which has actual existence" (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=5287)).  In this same way, obviously nothing that really exists (i.e., has a hypostasis or an underlying reality) lacks a design (i.e. a nature, physis).  Hence the term hypo (under) and stasis (reality, form, substance), which at once describes to actual form of something which exists while at once also implying how it exists or its underlying principles of existence.  For example, God is Divine, this is His Nature, however He does not abstractly exist, He actually exists, and so the Cyrillian fathers also describe God has having a spiritual hypostasis (form/person) which is the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, Three Persons with One Nature.  I know I am kind of stumbling like Eutyches here, but this is how it has been explained to me.  Saint Cyril always considered the term hypostasis (Person) to inherently include nature.  Hence the union of Natures as one.  They mutually exist together, they define each other.  The nature defines the manifested form (hypostasis) and the form is in perfect accordance with the nature (physis). This why the term is the hypo (under) stasis (reality) which is what Saint Cyril implies when he was quoted above

Quote
Himself raising the dead was raised from the dead, and being Life by Nature is said to quicken. And how again? After one manner and another. For the Same was raised from the dead and is said to be quickened after the Flesh, yet quickens and raises the dead as God. He suffers and does not suffer 40, after one manner and another: for He |229 suffers humanly in the Flesh as Man, He is impassible Divinely as God."

Since there is a Union of the human and divine, they exist for ever as one.  The original form and function of each remains, however they exist fully united as a miaphysis (a composite nature) through a singular hypostasis (the Person of Jesus Christ in the flesh). The Divine Word gives life to His own flesh (because human nature is not self-existing) while He exists forever through Human flesh because flesh is the hypostasis of His Human nature.  He has the qualities of both simultaneously existing and mutually interacting as a single composite.  The human is perfectly human, and remains such, but is united with the Divine, and the Divine remains perfectly divine while united to the human.  The objections which Oriental Fathers have with the Orthodox and Latins is the later distinctions theologically between the terms nature and person.  When the Oriental mind hears "two" in the context of natures, it automatically implies two persons (hypostases) which is Nestorianism.  Further, when Orthodox/Latins after the separation of the terms in the 400s hear to term one in the context of natures it cries of Apollinarianism or Eutychianism because they misunderstand Oriental conception of the Union as a miaphysis, a composite.  Of course in the past 150 years of ecumenical dialogue, we've sorted all this out so that today (a) many Oriental fathers seem to accept that the Latins and Orthodox are not suggesting Nestorianism in their language and (b) many Latins and Orthodox seem to accept that Orientals are not monophysites but are miaphysites, a term which they also seem to agree with.  Essentially, we've figured out how to bridge the semantic divide which was the crux of the problem all the way back with Saint Cyril and Pope Leo's Tome.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on May 25, 2012, 07:22:40 PM
Bi-'Khristos af-ton-f!
Could you please provide me with any links or resources where I can read about what previous Saints have said in regards to the issues I have brought up? I'd particularly like to read what the Saints said directly concerning the Schism of 1054, and the Coptic/ Orthodox Schism.
 
This work provides a very important examination of Non-Chalcedonian Christology based on the Fathers, and particularly on the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria, who they misquote and distort to support their false teachings.

Speaking of misquoting and distorting to support slander, if not false teachings:

Regarding St. Cyril, read the following:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/mono_history.aspx
Quote
457: Timothy Ailouros (another Monophysite "saint") condemns Saint Cyril on account of the agreements:

"Cyril... having excellently articulated the wise proclamation of Orthodoxy, showed himself to be fickle and is to be censured for teaching contrary doctrine: after previously proposing that we should speak of one nature of God the Word, he destroyed the dogma that he had formulated and is caught professing two Natures of Christ" [Timothy Ailouros, "Epistles to Kalonymos," Patrologia Graeca, Vol LXXXVI, Col. 276; quoted in The Non Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 13].
This not the Epistle of Timothy: it is what his opponent Leontius of Jerusalem/Constantinople says he says, without it being clear which are Timothy's words, and which are the ones Leontius is putting in his mouth.
Quote
499: Philoxenos of Hierapolis convenes a synod in Constantinople and deposes the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch (Flavian), and Severos, a Disciple of Timothy Ailouros (and another Monophysite "saint") is installed in his place [Ibid., p 14].

Severos also condemns St. Cyril's Agreements:

"The formulae used by the Holy Fathers concerning two Natures united in Christ should be set aside, even if they be Cyril's" [Patrologia Graeca, Vol. LXXXIX, Col. 103D. Saint Anastasios of Sinai preserves this quote of Severos in his works; quoted in The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 12].
Somewhat problematic, as St. Anastasios openly advocating forging proof texts.

The time line is also missing some things:
Quote
433: St. Cyril explicitly accepts two natures after the hypostatic union in his "Epistle to John of Antioch" (the Agreements of 433):

"With regard to the Evangelical and Apostolic expressions concerning the Lord, we know that men who are skilled in theology make some of them common to the one Person, while they divide others between the two Natures, ascribing those that are fitting to God to Divinity of Christ, and those that are lowly to His Humanity. On reading these sacred utterances of Yours, and finding that we ourselves think along the same lines—for there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism—, we glorified God the Saviour of all" [John Karmiris, Dogmatic and Creedal Statements of the Orthodox Church, Vol. 1 [Athens:1960]. p. 154], quoted in The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics, p 11]

Saint Cyril replies to extremists who questioned the Agreements:

"We have not gone so mad as to anathematize our own views; but we abide by what we have written and by our way of thinking" [Epistle XXXVII, to Theognostos, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. LXXVII, Col. 169C; quote in The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 12].

448: The Permanent Synod of Constantinople under Patriarch Flavian condemns Eutyches who rejects St. Cyrils Agreements.

449: Dioscoros presides over the Robber Synod and exonerates Eutyches, and deposes St. Flavian (who is beaten to death and replaced by an Alexandrian), and condemns all who accept the Agreements and anathematizes all who confess two natures [Fr. Geoges Florovsky, The Byzantine Fathers of the Fifth Century (Thessaloniki:1992), p 470; referenced in The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 13].
449: Dioscoros and the Synod depose Theodoret for reading Nestorianism into St. Cyril's writings, and depose Ibas for writing a letter claiming that St. Cyril adopted Nestorianism in St. Cyrils Agreements.

Quote
451: The Fourth Ecumenical Synod adopts all the teachings of St. Cyril, and condemns those who selectively choose some of them and reject others as heretical. St. Flavian is vindicated and the Robber Synod Annulled.
451 The Fourth Ecumenical Synod restores Theodoret and Ibas, and does not condemn their writings.

553 The Fifthe Ecumenical Synod anathematizes Theodoret's anti-Cyrillian writings, and the letter attributed to Ibas.

The following article covers the Orthodox S. John of Damascus on the Non-Chalcedonians:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/zisis.pdf
Very little citation of St. John in it, and some of that is just plain wrong:Eutyches was not Egyptian, so the heresy of Monophysitism couldn't have orginated in Egypt.  Nor was Dioscoros deposed for heresy, a fact the article does try to get around. And it seems to not know that Pope Dioscoros did anathematize Eutyches and his heresy.


Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Aindriú on May 25, 2012, 08:59:27 PM
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/006/026/futuramafry.jpg)

Not sure if bad quote tags or just a large requote.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on May 26, 2012, 12:19:25 AM
(http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/original/000/006/026/futuramafry.jpg)

Not sure if bad quote tags or just a large requote.

Just click on the link where the quote comes from:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,35565.msg561137.html#msg561137

Isa does have a way with quotes, but it's well worth the read.

I also had my own reply to these quotes, which at the time were failed to be explained to me. So I gave some possibilities:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,12278.msg166933.html#msg166933
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Carefree T on June 18, 2012, 12:47:41 PM
Reading this thread, I've come to understand that the non-Chalcedonian faithful have no problem at all with Constantinople II, having "corrected," "clarified" or "tied up the loose ends of" Chalcedon (depending on your perspective). So why didn't that council do anything to resolve the schism (as I think it was intended to do)?
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: HabteSelassie on June 18, 2012, 03:31:15 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Reading this thread, I've come to understand that the non-Chalcedonian faithful have no problem at all with Constantinople II, having "corrected," "clarified" or "tied up the loose ends of" Chalcedon (depending on your perspective). So why didn't that council do anything to resolve the schism (as I think it was intended to do)?

That is not true, actually some of our bigger theological beefs are actually with Constantinople II.  There are revisions and clarifications which help to bridge the Chalcedon gap, true, but there are entirely bigger fish to fry which emerged at Constantinople II such as the dithelete formula and also further emphasizing the language of Pope Leo who kicked the Oriental bee hive in the first place : /

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Salpy on June 18, 2012, 04:10:55 PM
^I have absolutely never heard that.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: William on June 18, 2012, 04:19:11 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Reading this thread, I've come to understand that the non-Chalcedonian faithful have no problem at all with Constantinople II, having "corrected," "clarified" or "tied up the loose ends of" Chalcedon (depending on your perspective). So why didn't that council do anything to resolve the schism (as I think it was intended to do)?

That is not true, actually some of our bigger theological beefs are actually with Constantinople II.  There are revisions and clarifications which help to bridge the Chalcedon gap, true, but there are entirely bigger fish to fry which emerged at Constantinople II such as the dithelete formula and also further emphasizing the language of Pope Leo who kicked the Oriental bee hive in the first place : /

stay blessed,
habte selassie

I've always wondered why the non-Chalcedonians ignore Orthodoxy's dytheletism.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: HabteSelassie on June 18, 2012, 04:25:44 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!


I've always wondered why the non-Chalcedonians ignore Orthodoxy's dytheletism.

 It  (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27788.msg655564.html#msg655564) was a charged debate of the 7th century, but as with the Union, Oriental thought is always starkly uncomfortable with the Eastern use of the language of di/two, where as we prefer mia/one and not mono :)

Existentially speaking, Oriental thought finds it hard to use the term di/two and not imply two concretely different things.  Our language asserts the word di/two as a "division" and "distinction" which we inherently reject in our existential theology.

Quote
If anyone, when speaking about the two natures, does not confess a belief in our one lord Jesus Christ, understood in both his divinity and his humanity, so as by this to signify a difference of natures of which an ineffable union has been made without confusion, in which neither the nature of the Word was changed into the nature of human flesh, nor was the nature of human flesh changed into that of the Word (each remained what it was by nature, even after the union, as this had been made in respect of subsistence); and if anyone understands the two natures in the mystery of Christ in the sense of a division into parts, or if he expresses his belief in the plural natures in the same lord Jesus Christ, God the Word made flesh, but does not consider the difference of those natures, of which he is composed, to be only in the onlooker's mind, a difference which is not compromised by the union (for he is one from both and the two exist through the one) but uses the plurality to suggest that each nature is possessed separately and has a subsistence of its own: let him be anathema.
Constantinople II
This could have had the potential to bridge the gap..

of course, the immediately following anathema clearly is a dagger to reunion and even seems to the Oriental ears to contradict the previous quoted anathema..

Quote
If anyone confesses a belief that a union has been made out of the two natures divinity and humanity, or speaks about the one nature of God the Word made flesh, ... let him be anathema
Constantinople II


 :-\
stay blessed,
habte selassie
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Salpy on June 18, 2012, 04:29:29 PM
Con. II was in the sixth century.

I think you are thinking of Con. III, which was in the seventh century.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Salpy on June 18, 2012, 04:31:48 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Reading this thread, I've come to understand that the non-Chalcedonian faithful have no problem at all with Constantinople II, having "corrected," "clarified" or "tied up the loose ends of" Chalcedon (depending on your perspective). So why didn't that council do anything to resolve the schism (as I think it was intended to do)?

That is not true, actually some of our bigger theological beefs are actually with Constantinople II.  There are revisions and clarifications which help to bridge the Chalcedon gap, true, but there are entirely bigger fish to fry which emerged at Constantinople II such as the dithelete formula and also further emphasizing the language of Pope Leo who kicked the Oriental bee hive in the first place : /

stay blessed,
habte selassie

I've always wondered why the non-Chalcedonians ignore Orthodoxy's dytheletism.

Read what Fr. Peter has to say here:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25645.0.html
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: Carefree T on June 18, 2012, 09:51:54 PM
Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!


I've always wondered why the non-Chalcedonians ignore Orthodoxy's dytheletism.

 It  (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27788.msg655564.html#msg655564) was a charged debate of the 7th century, but as with the Union, Oriental thought is always starkly uncomfortable with the Eastern use of the language of di/two, where as we prefer mia/one and not mono :)

Existentially speaking, Oriental thought finds it hard to use the term di/two and not imply two concretely different things.  Our language asserts the word di/two as a "division" and "distinction" which we inherently reject in our existential theology.

Quote
If anyone, when speaking about the two natures, does not confess a belief in our one lord Jesus Christ, understood in both his divinity and his humanity, so as by this to signify a difference of natures of which an ineffable union has been made without confusion, in which neither the nature of the Word was changed into the nature of human flesh, nor was the nature of human flesh changed into that of the Word (each remained what it was by nature, even after the union, as this had been made in respect of subsistence); and if anyone understands the two natures in the mystery of Christ in the sense of a division into parts, or if he expresses his belief in the plural natures in the same lord Jesus Christ, God the Word made flesh, but does not consider the difference of those natures, of which he is composed, to be only in the onlooker's mind, a difference which is not compromised by the union (for he is one from both and the two exist through the one) but uses the plurality to suggest that each nature is possessed separately and has a subsistence of its own: let him be anathema.
Constantinople II
This could have had the potential to bridge the gap..

of course, the immediately following anathema clearly is a dagger to reunion and even seems to the Oriental ears to contradict the previous quoted anathema..

Quote
If anyone confesses a belief that a union has been made out of the two natures divinity and humanity, or speaks about the one nature of God the Word made flesh, ... let him be anathema
Constantinople II


 :-\
stay blessed,
habte selassie
Huh, thank you for the info. I was expecting a simple "Because the Eastern Orthodox Church requires acceptance of all their Ecumenical Councils," which would be a ridiculous reason to me if that's all it is, so I'm almost glad it's more nuanced than that on a theological level and not just somewhat of a political matter. That's not to say I'm glad that resumption of communion won't be/isn't simple.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: witega on June 18, 2012, 10:41:18 PM
Quote
If anyone, when speaking about the two natures, does not confess a belief in our one lord Jesus Christ, understood in both his divinity and his humanity, so as by this to signify a difference of natures of which an ineffable union has been made without confusion, in which neither the nature of the Word was changed into the nature of human flesh, nor was the nature of human flesh changed into that of the Word (each remained what it was by nature, even after the union, as this had been made in respect of subsistence); and if anyone understands the two natures in the mystery of Christ in the sense of a division into parts, or if he expresses his belief in the plural natures in the same lord Jesus Christ, God the Word made flesh, but does not consider the difference of those natures, of which he is composed, to be only in the onlooker's mind, a difference which is not compromised by the union (for he is one from both and the two exist through the one) but uses the plurality to suggest that each nature is possessed separately and has a subsistence of its own: let him be anathema.
Constantinople II
This could have had the potential to bridge the gap..

of course, the immediately following anathema clearly is a dagger to reunion and even seems to the Oriental ears to contradict the previous quoted anathema..

Quote
If anyone confesses a belief that a union has been made out of the two natures divinity and humanity, or speaks about the one nature of God the Word made flesh, ... let him be anathema
Constantinople II


 :-\
stay blessed,
habte selassie

I don't think you did so intentionally but quoting only a portion--and not even a full sentence at that--of the 8th anathema of the 5th Ecumenical Council is very misleading.
Quote
If anyone uses the expression “of two natures,” confessing that a union was made of the Godhead and of the humanity, or the expression “the one nature made flesh of God the Word,” and shall not so understand those expressions as the holy Fathers have taught, to wit:  that of the divine and human nature there was made an hypostatic union, whereof is one Christ; but from these expressions shall try to introduce one nature or substance [made by a mixture] of the Godhead and manhood of Christ; let him be anathema.  For in teaching that the only-begotten Word was united hypostatically to humanity we do not mean to say that there was made a mutual confusion of natures, but rather each remaining what it was, we understand that the Word was united to the flesh.  Wherefore there is one Christ, both God and man, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood.  Therefore they are equally condemned and anathematized by the Church of God, who divide or part the mystery of the divine dispensation of Christ, or who introduce confusion into that mystery.

The anathema does not apply simply to anyone who speaks of “the one nature made flesh of God the Word,” as the partial quote implies, but only to those who use the prhrase in a Eutychian sense involving a confusion of the two natures. So long as one uses it in the sense the Fathers (particularly and obviously in this case St. Cyril but also Patriarch Dioscorus whether the Fathers of Constantinople had him in mind or not) it is perfectly acceptable. Just as 'in two natures' is acceptable as long as, and only as long as the speaker understands it without 'division'.

Quoted in full, the anathema in no way contradicts the one that proceeds, but is rather a matched pair (as the last sentence makes explicit)--'in two natures' is allowed as long as it not interpreted in a Nestorian way; 'of two natures' is allowed as long as it not interpreted in a Eutychian way. Either phrase is allowed so long as it is undertood in an Orthodox manner--undivided and unconfused.
Title: Re: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome
Post by: minasoliman on June 19, 2012, 11:33:45 PM
Quote
If anyone, when speaking about the two natures, does not confess a belief in our one lord Jesus Christ, understood in both his divinity and his humanity, so as by this to signify a difference of natures of which an ineffable union has been made without confusion, in which neither the nature of the Word was changed into the nature of human flesh, nor was the nature of human flesh changed into that of the Word (each remained what it was by nature, even after the union, as this had been made in respect of subsistence); and if anyone understands the two natures in the mystery of Christ in the sense of a division into parts, or if he expresses his belief in the plural natures in the same lord Jesus Christ, God the Word made flesh, but does not consider the difference of those natures, of which he is composed, to be only in the onlooker's mind, a difference which is not compromised by the union (for he is one from both and the two exist through the one) but uses the plurality to suggest that each nature is possessed separately and has a subsistence of its own: let him be anathema.
Constantinople II
This could have had the potential to bridge the gap..

of course, the immediately following anathema clearly is a dagger to reunion and even seems to the Oriental ears to contradict the previous quoted anathema..

Quote
If anyone confesses a belief that a union has been made out of the two natures divinity and humanity, or speaks about the one nature of God the Word made flesh, ... let him be anathema
Constantinople II


 :-\
stay blessed,
habte selassie

I don't think you did so intentionally but quoting only a portion--and not even a full sentence at that--of the 8th anathema of the 5th Ecumenical Council is very misleading.
Quote
If anyone uses the expression “of two natures,” confessing that a union was made of the Godhead and of the humanity, or the expression “the one nature made flesh of God the Word,” and shall not so understand those expressions as the holy Fathers have taught, to wit:  that of the divine and human nature there was made an hypostatic union, whereof is one Christ; but from these expressions shall try to introduce one nature or substance [made by a mixture] of the Godhead and manhood of Christ; let him be anathema.  For in teaching that the only-begotten Word was united hypostatically to humanity we do not mean to say that there was made a mutual confusion of natures, but rather each remaining what it was, we understand that the Word was united to the flesh.  Wherefore there is one Christ, both God and man, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood.  Therefore they are equally condemned and anathematized by the Church of God, who divide or part the mystery of the divine dispensation of Christ, or who introduce confusion into that mystery.

The anathema does not apply simply to anyone who speaks of “the one nature made flesh of God the Word,” as the partial quote implies, but only to those who use the prhrase in a Eutychian sense involving a confusion of the two natures. So long as one uses it in the sense the Fathers (particularly and obviously in this case St. Cyril but also Patriarch Dioscorus whether the Fathers of Constantinople had him in mind or not) it is perfectly acceptable. Just as 'in two natures' is acceptable as long as, and only as long as the speaker understands it without 'division'.

Quoted in full, the anathema in no way contradicts the one that proceeds, but is rather a matched pair (as the last sentence makes explicit)--'in two natures' is allowed as long as it not interpreted in a Nestorian way; 'of two natures' is allowed as long as it not interpreted in a Eutychian way. Either phrase is allowed so long as it is undertood in an Orthodox manner--undivided and unconfused.
That's how I've interpreted it as well.  I think Constantinople II included the "one nature" language as a valid language so long as it's understood in the correct context.