« Last post by Remnkemi on Yesterday at 04:32:54 PM »
I enjoyed "Orthodoxy and Heresy of the Anti-Chalcedonians according to St John Damascene" by George Martzelos and I corresponded with him and told him so. It was very clear that he found nothing heretical at all in our Christology, and he made it clear that what was required was accepting Chalcedon as a fact, and that whatever was believed didn't really matter as long as the fact of Chalcedon were accepted. It was useful to have such a view presented so clearly.Yes, but he doesn't define what the "fact" of Chalcedon is. If it is the Definition of Christology, then there is no problem. But his article clearly says we have to accept Chalcedon as a whole regardless of what we actually believe.
Positively, I did think that he drew out that sense that a community could be considered Orthodox and heterodox at the same time. That was, to some extent how we also viewed the Chalcedonians.But he didn't say a community can be Orthodox and heterodox. He said a community is Orthodox by dogma but heretical by ecclesiology. I think most will agree that a heretic is more than just a heterodox schismatic. By accusing Sts. Dioscorus' and Severus' of a Christology with natures confused and separated, something that never factually happened, Martzelos and St John Damascene are muddying the waters of what heresy is. How then can Martzelos (or those who take the same position) expect us to accept the "fact" of Chalcedon when he is advocating the opposite for OO Christology?