OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 22, 2014, 07:57:25 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What's wrong with this?  (Read 4601 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,781


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« on: December 09, 2003, 05:24:58 PM »

In the now locked thread partially entitled "Graceless Heretics", Subdeacon Peter of the British Orthodox Church posted the following Confession of Faith:

Quote
For what its worth, to you, here is what I believe about Christ:

I believe that God the Word, eternal, invisible, consubstantial with the Father and with the Holy Spirit, took flesh of the Virgin Mary and became consubstantial with us in all things save sin. The humanity which he took from the Virgin Mary is complete and perfect in every way, with mind, soul, will and body. His humanity became His own so that we may rightly say that 'the Word became flesh'. But I do not believe that the divinity of Christ suffered any change or confusion or mixture in the union with the humanity which he took. Rather the nature or ousia of the divinity is completely other than the nature or ousia of the humanity. But Christ is 'one incarnate hypostasis of the Word', that is to say that the divine hypostasis of the Word has become incarnate and though Christ is truly divine and truly human, without confusion, change, mixture, separation or division, nonetheless it is the Word who has become incarnate and there is not a man together with the Word, for Christ is both human and divine without confusion Himself and has not united to Himself the hypostasis and person of a man, as Nestorius taught. And I believe that we see Christ walking as a man and raising the dead as God, yet not one moment God and another moment man, but rather the one Word of God incarnate acting humanly according to His perfect and complete humanity and divinely according to His perfect and unchanged Divinity. And one of the Holy Trinity, even God the Word, suffered on the cross, but according to the humanity which He made His own and not according to His Divinity which is beyond all suffering and change. And I believe that though the human will of Christ was in conformity to His Divine Will the human will was perfect and complete but as in the life of a saint so the will is brought into conformity with the will of God through great ascetic effort so it was proper that from the moment of the perfect and complete union of humanity and Divinity the human will should delight in being in union and agreement with the will of God, such that the will of Christ was one, not on in substance, for what is human is utterly different from what is Divine, but in purpose and desire.

Do please point out where I am not clear or where I am professing a heresy. If there is no substantial disagreement in the substance of what is confessed then I believe we are under the most severe and merited judgement of God if we fail to do all that is possible to be reconciled. As a matter of interest I have been a serious student of the Christology of the Oriental Orthodox for 10 years and this confession is the same as has always been confessed from the 5th century onwards.

If we believe the same about Christ but you merely produce obstacles and arguments then the judgement of God will be upon you. As for me I will do all I can in the years I have left to be reconciled with those who believe the same as me but are in the EO communion.

Peter Theodore

Since the original thread is locked, I have taken the liberty of quoting from his post and starting a new thread so that any interested parties (including Seraphim Reeves, to whom it was originally addressed) can demonstrate how, if at all, this confession deviates from what Eastern Orthodox believe.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #1 on: December 10, 2003, 12:15:22 AM »

What Peter wrote is what I, too, believe.

I can't find any fault with it.
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Jakub
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,748



« Reply #2 on: December 10, 2003, 12:21:48 AM »

This is deep and I must ponder on it. Excusa moi, time for meds, fresh lemon, orange, lime and anejos.


james
Logged

An old timer is a man who's had a lot of interesting experiences -- some of them true.

Grant me the senility to forget the people I never liked anyway, the good fortune to run into the ones I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,781


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 10, 2003, 12:25:03 AM »

It gave me a headache the first time I read it, but that's how you know it's good!
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #4 on: December 10, 2003, 12:29:25 AM »

It gave me a headache the first time I read it, but that's how you know it's good!

It was very well written and thorough.

Nestorius would have hated it!

Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,781


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 10, 2003, 12:35:56 AM »

And concise, too!  So much good information in a very small space, all things considered.  Hence the headache!
« Last Edit: December 10, 2003, 12:36:54 AM by Mor Ephrem » Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #6 on: December 10, 2003, 05:23:35 AM »

And concise, too!  So much good information in a very small space, all things considered.  Hence the headache!  

Distilled Orthodox doctrine, mmm potent stuff Grin
Logged
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 10, 2003, 06:17:49 AM »

What I try to do is understand the objections and emotional difficulties which an EO might raise and feel and address myself with those in mind so that I actually communicate what I believe and not merely reinforce misunderstanding through polemics.

With this aim in mind I have been reseraching and writing for a while to see if the documents and canons of the latter 3 councils can be expressed in a manner which is consistent with both the EO and OO understanding of Christology. I mean that most of these documents are not impossibly controversial if what is meant is made clear. I hope to be able to produce an extended paper which tries to find the 95% of the content which is uncontroversial and then addresses the remaining matter in an eirenic approach.

The fathers of the OO have agreed that the EO have maintained an Orthodox Christology even though separated from us. This means that it must be possible to understand the theology of the latter councils in an Orthodox manner otherwise it would be impossible for the EO to be considered Orthodox.

I'd like to follow that line of reasoning.

It would be very positive in the process of reconciliation I think if at some time the OO were able to synodically say that though there were still issues with the historical events and with the contexts in which the councils took place nevertheless document A, B and C were to be written into the record with certain explanatory glosses to make plain how document A, B and C were to be understood and what was rejected as an understanding.

It would not make the OO a 7 council Church but it would make plain that in rejecting the authority of certain events the theology which the EO now state these events were determining is not rejected at the same time.

As an example:

At the 5th Council in 553 AD the Three Chapters were condemned. But the anti-Chalcedonians had rejected these over 100 years earlier. So what is most important? The council or the faith?

I think we need to be working on the relatively straightforward matter of establishing whether we have the same faith. Whether or not we have the same understanding of history seems a secondary issue. When John of Antioch was reconciled with St Cyril he didn't change his opinion about what had happened at Ephesus I. He still thought that St Cyril was wrong to start the council without him and he probably continued to object to having been arrested. But they were reconciled on the basis of a shared faith.

This is why I get frustrated and grieved in my spirit when some folk are more determined to accuse me of all manner of blasphemies rather than hear what I confess and be glad that we are in substantial agreement.

From Seraphim's posts he seemed inclined to accept me as a schismatic - which is a start. But if all that separates folk is schism then it seems to me even more a divine duty to strive for reconciliation.

I am always willing to explain what I believe and will always try to use language that communicates. I thank you for your kind reception of what I wrote. It is rather dense but I was trying to cover all bases.

I have actually had some folk tell me that though the Copts do have a right faith there is a group of bishops who are all Eutychian heretics. I would laugh if it wasn't so sad. Where do people think we get our right faith from?

Seeking your prayers

Peter Theodore
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #8 on: December 10, 2003, 11:45:36 AM »

I enjoy your posts, Peter.

I hope you will continue to contribute to this web site.

May God unite all those who share the Orthodox Catholic faith!
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,941


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #9 on: December 10, 2003, 12:20:55 PM »

I will preface this with the statement that I do not believe the Non-Chalcedonians to be heretics, monophysites or otherwise.

The problem from the Latin/Greek Chalcedonian view, with Subdeacon Peter's statement is " But Christ is 'one incarnate hypostasis of the Word',". What he describes is actually miaphysitism, Christ has one nature that is perfectly human and perfectly divine.  However, to the Latin/Greek mind this comes off as Christ is 50% human and 50% divine, which is unacceptable.  Christ must be 100% human and 100% divine.  The only way to formulate this from the Latin/Greek perspective is to say Christ is one divine person with two natures, human and divine.  The philosophical barrier has caused Latin/Greek to call the Non-Chalcedonians Monophysites, in the Eutychian sense that Christ has only a divine nature, which they are not, and the Non-Chalcedonians to call the Chalcedonians semi-Nestorians, which they are not.  The Churches today seem to be recognizing that the both hold the same faith although using different language and methods to describe it.  However, I do wonder whether some of the hardline Orthodox will accept the non-Chalcedonians if they do not adhere to Chalcedon.

In Christ,
Fr. Deacon Lance
« Last Edit: December 10, 2003, 01:33:21 PM by Deacon Lance » Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 10, 2003, 12:45:12 PM »

The problem from the Latin/Greek Chalcedonian view, with Subdeacon Peter's statement is "one hypostasis". What he describes is actually miaphysitism, Christ has one nature that is perfectly human and perfectly divine.  

The trouble is that this IS the teaching of St Cyril. I didn't invent 'one incarnate hypostasis of the Word'.

Of course I don't believe that Christ is 50% human and 50% divine. He is perfectly and completely both. But are you saying that Christ has two hypostases? That is, he is two individuals? This is what the Nestorian Church of the East still teaches.

Surely the 5th council also says that Christ is one hypostasis:

"If anyone understands the expression "one only hypostasis of our Lord Jesus Christ" in this sense, that it is the union of many hypostases, and if he attempts thus to introduce into the mystery of Christ two hypostases, or two Persons, and, after having intro- duced two persons, speaks of one Person only out of dignity, honour or worship, as both Theodorus and Nestorius insanely have written; if anyone shall calumniate the holy Council of Chalcedon, pretending that it made use of this expression [one hypostasis] in this impious sense, and if he will not recognize rather that the Word of God is united with the flesh hypostatically, and that therefore there is but one hypostasis or one only Person, and that the holy Council of Chalcedon has professed in this sense the one Person of our Lord Jesus Christ: let him be anathema. For since one of the Holy Trinity has been made man, viz.: God the Word, the Holy Trinity has not been increased by the addition of another person or hypostasis."

If I may briefly quote a few other Chalcedonian sources:

Aquinas says:

"in Christ there are two natures and one hypostasis"

Fr John Romanides says:

"To speak about two natures in Christ [for a non-Chalcedonian] would be somewhat equivalent to a Chalcedonian speaking about two Hypostases in Christ. In this respect 'a Chalcedonian would accept and does accept everything Cyril says but would use Cyril's One Hypostasis of God the Logos Incarnate, since for him Physis means Ousia."

Fr Luke Holden - Greek O priest

"In a period when it was becoming common to speak of Christ as one because His human and divine natures are the natures of the one hypostasis of the person, Nestorius spoke of a union kat’ eudokian, a union in will. "

Catholic site:

"The Catholic Church defended Christ: One person, one hypostasis, two natures."

Statement of the 6th Council

"believing our Lord Jesus Christ, our true God, to be one of the holy Trinity even after the taking of flesh, we declare that his two natures shine forth in his one hypostasis, in which he displayed both the wonders and the sufferings through the whole course of his dispensation, not in phantasm but truly, the difference of nature being recognized in the same one hypostasis by the fact that each nature wills and works what is proper to it, in communion with the other. "

I'll stop there. I'm just trying to suggest that what you posit as a point of possible misunderstanding, which I can accept, nevertheless is entirely in accord with EO and RC documents. Since the latter councils all speak of 'one hypostasis' I think I might ask why you (and any others) have a problem with the phrase.

If I cannot confess my faith in Christ using the language of the latter EO councils then how can I at all?

Peter Theodore
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 10, 2003, 12:47:26 PM »

The problem from the Latin/Greek Chalcedonian view, with Subdeacon Peter's statement is "one hypostasis". What he describes is actually miaphysitism, Christ has one nature that is perfectly human and perfectly divine.  

Sorry to jump straight back in. But where did I mention 'one nature'. I deliberately didn't. So why have you mentioned 'miaphysitism'? What I describe seems entirely in accord with the 5th and 6th councils. Are you suggesting that THEY are at fault.

Peter Theodore
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Moderator
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 17,781


The Pope Emeritus reading OCNet


WWW
« Reply #12 on: December 10, 2003, 01:53:44 PM »

The problem from the Latin/Greek Chalcedonian view, with Subdeacon Peter's statement is " But Christ is 'one incarnate hypostasis of the Word',". What he describes is actually miaphysitism, Christ has one nature that is perfectly human and perfectly divine.  However, to the Latin/Greek mind this comes off as Christ is 50% human and 50% divine, which is unacceptable.  Christ must be 100% human and 100% divine.  The only way to formulate this from the Latin/Greek perspective is to say Christ is one divine person with two natures, human and divine.  

Does the Latin/Greek Chalcedonian mind find itself unable to understand what "perfect" means?  That certainly seems to be an implication, if not the implication, of this statement.
Logged

Apolytikion, Tone 1, by Antonis

An eloquent crafter of divine posts
And an inheritor of the line of the Baptist
A righteous son of India
And a new apostle to the internet
O Holy Mor Ephrem,
Intercede for us, that our forum may be saved.


Mor Ephrem > Justin Kissel
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,941


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #13 on: December 10, 2003, 02:00:01 PM »

Subdeacon Peter,

You posted:"But Christ is one incarnate hypostasis of the Word"
I should have posted the enitre sentence to be more clear, I have edited my original post to reflect this.

However, these are not the words of St. Cyril.  He did not use the word hypostasis.
He said:"Mia physis tou Theou Logou sesarkomene/One nature of God the Word incarnate"
This statement is what I was referencing in my original post.  St. Cyril used the term miaphysis and the Fathers of Chalcedon deemed this term inadequate.

You ask:"But are you saying that Christ has two hypostases? That is, he is two individuals?"

No. Christ is one divine person with two natures, one human one divine

The Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East teaches exactly what we all profess:
http://www.cired.org/faith/christ.html
http://www.cired.org/cat/03_Common_Christological_Dec.pdf

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,941


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #14 on: December 10, 2003, 02:04:30 PM »

Phil,

I believe the whole thing is a case of: 6 one way, half a dozen the other.  Two ways of saying the same thing.  Why Chalcedonians cannot accept miaphysis is beyond me.  Why Non-Chalcedonians cannot accept diophysis is also beyond me.  It would seem though that our hierarchs have recognized that it was language /philosophical barrier and are trying to get past it.

Fr. Deacon Lance
« Last Edit: December 10, 2003, 02:22:08 PM by Deacon Lance » Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Seraphim Reeves
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 450



WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 10, 2003, 03:04:12 PM »

Honestly, I didn't see anything objectionable in Peter's confession (particularly since he replaced, if memory serves "one nature" with "one hypostasis"; were it otherwise, I could not agree.)

But this raises an interesting problem - if the non-Chalcedonians on the whole materially believe the same as Orthodox Christians do on this subject (which I've found in my exchanges with them online seems to be the case; though I phrase this carefully), then why the continued rejection of the Council of Chalcedon?

A second point (more an observation than a question) is this - if it is in fact the case that they simply use the term "nature" the way the Orthodox use the term "hypostasis", this creates a problem in terms of how this dimension of Christology, relates the the Church's Triadological teaching.  For when speaking of the Holy Trinity, we certainly speak of "three hypostases" and not "three natures".  Yet, if it is just as valid to speak of Christ being of "one Incarnate Nature" with a long list of qualifications (which such a definition demands to be materially "Orthodox") as it is to speak of Him as being of "two natures, one hypostasis" (which does not require this incredible amount of qualification), then we should be free to speak of the Holy Trinity as being of "Three Natures".

At the very least, this is the enduring problem with how the non-Chalcedonians speak of Christ; it's a less than clear formulation, which is by it's nature liable to be misleading, particularly if read in parallel to the Church's teaching on the Holy Trinity.  It's imprudent language, particularly in light of the clear language which the Council of Chalcedon accepted as being the genuine Orthodox manner of speaking of the Incarnate God.

And a last point - while the term "monophysite" obviously upsets the non-Chalcedonians here, is it not true that their chosen manner of speaking on this issue does speak of "one nature" (even with all of the qualifications)?  OTOH, if I was called a "diophysite", I wouldn't object to this, since it accurately describes what I confess.

Seraphim
« Last Edit: December 10, 2003, 03:07:45 PM by Seraphim Reeves » Logged

Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,481


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 10, 2003, 03:22:13 PM »

Slava Isusu Christu!

I think that the term "monophysite" has perjorative connotations to it, while "diophysite" most certainly does not.  

And from we've learned, I don't think EO and OO share the same concept of "physis", or am I not getting what I've been reading?
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,941


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #17 on: December 10, 2003, 03:24:01 PM »

Seraphim,

It is wrong to call Non-Chalcedonians Monophysites becasue they condemn Eutyches and do not hold that Christ had only a divine nature.  They hold to St. Cyril 's definition which states miaphysis (one composite nature) not monophysis (one single nature).

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #18 on: December 10, 2003, 03:57:20 PM »

I believe the whole thing is a case of: 6 one way, half a dozen the other.  Two ways of saying the same thing.  Why Chalcedonians cannot accept miaphysis is beyond me.  Why Non-Chalcedonians cannot accept diophysis is also beyond me.  It would seem though that our hierarchs have recognized that it was language /philosophical barrier and are trying to get past it.

Deacon Lance

Why do you say that the non-Chalcedonians cannot accept the term dio-physis? I can and so can most theologically literate OO's. What matters is the content of that term.

If by dio-physis you mean two self-subsistent hypostasese then it is unacceptable and Nestorian. If you mean by it to describe the double consubstantiality of Christ who is perfect God and perfect man then it is unobjectionable.

What is also necessary is that the EO seek to understand what is meant by the terms and phrases which the OO use in a vareity of contexts. The Cyrilline phrase is both 'one incarnate physis of the Word' and 'one incarnate hypostasis of the Word'. St Cyril used both as synonymous, and the non-Chalcedonian fathers also understand this sense as synonymous. If we speak of 'one incarnate nature', and we never speak of 'one nature', then we mean 'one incarnate hypostasis'.

It is clear as we deal with EO now in the 21st century that you mean by 'in two natures' what we mean by 'of two natures'.

Peter Theodore
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 10, 2003, 04:09:56 PM »

But this raises an interesting problem - if the non-Chalcedonians on the whole materially believe the same as Orthodox Christians do on this subject (which I've found in my exchanges with them online seems to be the case; though I phrase this carefully), then why the continued rejection of the Council of Chalcedon?

Hi Seraphim

Have you not investigated why Chalcedon has an historical event is rejected by the non-Chalcedonians. It has nothing at all to do with the present agreement which can be easily shown in our Christologies. I am not sure that this thread will benefit from deviating into why Chalcedon was and is rejected, though I am happy to discuss it in another thread if we can be eirenic.

Quote
A second point (more an observation than a question) is this - if it is in fact the case that they simply use the term "nature" the way the Orthodox use the term "hypostasis", this creates a problem in terms of how this dimension of Christology, relates the the Church's Triadological teaching.  For when speaking of the Holy Trinity, we certainly speak of "three hypostases" and not "three natures".  Yet, if it is just as valid to speak of Christ being of "one Incarnate Nature" with a long list of qualifications (which such a definition demands to be materially "Orthodox") as it is to speak of Him as being of "two natures, one hypostasis" (which does not require this incredible amount of qualification), then we should be free to speak of the Holy Trinity as being of "Three Natures".

If you mean by physis what is meant by hypostasis in this context - three self-subsistents - then you can use physis. But it has not been used very much in that context and is therefore deprecated like HTML tags on their way out. The issue with teh Chalcedonian language is that it failed to represent the use of St Cyril and used language which was acceptable to Nestorians.

The fact that after 1500 years I can read any documents produced by the non-Chalcedonians with no problems or misunderstanding at all suggests that it is not an issue. It is an unwillingness to listen and understand which is an issue.

Quote
At the very least, this is the enduring problem with how the non-Chalcedonians speak of Christ; it's a less than clear formulation, which is by it's nature liable to be misleading, particularly if read in parallel to the Church's teaching on the Holy Trinity.  It's imprudent language, particularly in light of the clear language which the Council of Chalcedon accepted as being the genuine Orthodox manner of speaking of the Incarnate God.

How can the language of St Cyril be imprudent? And how can any language be considered a 'genuine Orthodox manner of speaking' if in fact it required great qualification at Constantinople II and the West and North Africa considered that Chalcedon had established the Three Chapters as a doctrinal standard, and the non-Chalcedonians considered that it had failed to exclude Nestorianism. In fact there were Chalcedonians celebrating a feast of Nestorius in Constantinople in the decades after Chalcedon.

What is clear is the the non-Chalcedonians moved quickly to exclude the Eutychians and were more than 100 years in advance of the Chalcedonians in anathematising the Three Chapters.

How can a Chacledonian Church which failed to anathematise the Three Chapters in the mid-5th century and yet considered them full of open blasphemy 100 years later be considered to have been exact in its langauage when it had allowed this heretical sore to remain. In fact after Constantinople II only two bishops could be found who would consecrate the new Pope elect who made his way back to the West, and large parts of the West remained in schism from the Papacy and in acceptance of the Three Chapters until 700 AD.

This is not meant to be polemical but to show that it is false to suggest that Chalcedon was exact in its language. In fact it was ambiguous and Constantinople II had to tighten a lot of loopholes.

Peter Theodore
And a last point - while the term "monophysite" obviously upsets the non-Chalcedonians here, is it not true that their chosen manner of speaking on this issue does speak of "one nature" (even with all of the qualifications)?  OTOH, if I was called a "diophysite", I wouldn't object to this, since it accurately describes what I confess.

Seraphim

Quote
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #20 on: December 10, 2003, 04:20:42 PM »

I think that the term "monophysite" has perjorative connotations to it, while "diophysite" most certainly does not.  

And from we've learned, I don't think EO and OO share the same concept of "physis", or am I not getting what I've been reading?

This is where 1500 years of mutual schism is still evident. Of course you don't find diophysite perjorative, it's a phrase you use. But if I were to use it in other contexts it would definitely be perjorative. Nestorius was a diophysite etc etc.

We need to stop thinking of what we know and understand by terms and language and seek to understand what the other means.

If I say that the President of the USA wears suspenders it would mean different things in our respective countries. If I insist that only my use of the word is correct and tell everyone I meet that the President is a cross dresser then I may feel satisfied in myself because I always knew Americans were strange. But if I actually took the time to discover what Americans meant by suspenders then perhaps what is described is not so objectionable after all.

It doesn't matter if anyone uses physis in any of a hundred ways. What matters is that we go beyond words and terms and seek to find the substance of what is believed.

"The President wears suspenders? I'm sorry can you explain what YOU mean by that term. Oh. Now I understand."

We should not let words and terms divide us. Nor move the argument from the untenable assertion that I am a heretic to the equally untenable argument that EO ways and words must be qualitiatively better. After 1500 years of being walled off from heresy and suffering persecution my Church is revealed as not having changed the faith at all. This should be a matter of rejoicing and celebration.

Discovering that we have the same faith is NOT hard to work out.

PT
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #21 on: December 10, 2003, 04:24:04 PM »

And a last point - while the term "monophysite" obviously upsets the non-Chalcedonians here, is it not true that their chosen manner of speaking on this issue does speak of "one nature" (even with all of the qualifications)?  OTOH, if I was called a "diophysite", I wouldn't object to this, since it accurately describes what I confess.

You would object to it if I insisted that you meant Christ was two persons, and every time you said that you didn't mean that I said that I knew better what you meant. You accept the term based on your own interpretation of it - which is fine. I am accused of various blasphemies and have the misuse of a term foisted upon me. Rightly understood there is no problem with mono-physis - although this term itself originated as a term of abuse by the EO. The Christological term we use is mia physis or mis hypostasis. Again, if I insisted that diophysis meant you were a Nestorian then you would object because I would be substituting MY interpretation of the term for yours which is invalid if I am criticising YOUR position.

PT
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,481


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #22 on: December 10, 2003, 04:29:23 PM »

We should not let words and terms divide us. Nor move the argument from the untenable assertion that I am a heretic to the equally untenable argument that EO ways and words must be qualitiatively better. After 1500 years of being walled off from heresy and suffering persecution my Church is revealed as not having changed the faith at all. This should be a matter of rejoicing and celebration.

Discovering that we have the same faith is NOT hard to work out.

PT


Slava Isusu Christu!

Peter,

How glad I am that you've joined us!  I wholeheartedly agree with you.  Your posts are eloquent and easily understood, written simply and with knowledge.  

Although I wouldn't be surprised if President Bush wore sock suspenders, but I really can't see him in braces Wink.

Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,656



WWW
« Reply #23 on: December 10, 2003, 04:56:08 PM »

Quote
How glad I am that you've joined us!  I wholeheartedly agree with you.  Your posts are eloquent and easily understood, written simply and with knowledge.  

Slava Na Viky!

This is a pleasant and refreshing place and I am glad that even the folk like Seraphim are willing to engage in genuine discussion.

There is nothing to fear from honest talking and listening, even disagreement, as long as it is based on what the other folk REALLY think and not what we are sure they think.

Thank you from the depths of my heart for your kind words of encouragement.

Peter Theodore
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
mourad
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


Mia, not mono!


« Reply #24 on: June 16, 2004, 06:12:16 AM »

Good old Linus7, where have you gone brother? Look at the PATRISTIC attitude you had towards truth, and now... you seem to be so much more dogmatic in a very unsettled way. I pray you take this in the right way i mean it, and not in any offensive way.

yours in Him,
moe
Logged
spiros
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 158

OC.net


« Reply #25 on: June 17, 2004, 12:02:44 AM »

I am no scholar, and I get confused when it gets much past "fully   Man, fully God"
I am even a little embarrassed to post here.

I do however recognize the same faith as my EO Church in a lot of OO writings.
Orthodoxy is religion of the Heart and its seems that Heart beats strong in HH Pope SHENOUDA and many others. I pray that God Blesses your reconciliation through research  Peter!
Logged

Official Resident of 5th Century Cyprus
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #26 on: June 17, 2004, 12:38:24 PM »

Good old Linus7, where have you gone brother? Look at the PATRISTIC attitude you had towards truth, and now... you seem to be so much more dogmatic in a very unsettled way. I pray you take this in the right way i mean it, and not in any offensive way.

yours in Him,
moe

Why resurrect a thread from the back pages when we already have enough polemic between us?

I made my earlier comment based simply on what Mor Ephrem quoted and before I knew what I now know.

I agree with what Seraphim Reeves posted at the top of this page.

I don't wish to participate further in this thread and widen an already hemorrhoidal conflagration.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2004, 12:40:57 PM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
ambrosemzv
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 185


Pray unto God for us, Holy Ambrose of Optino!


« Reply #27 on: June 17, 2004, 03:21:42 PM »

hemorrhoidal conflagration.

Ewww!   Tongue  Did you mean hemorrhaging?   Grin
Logged

Le coeur a ses raisons que la raison ne comprend pas.  -Pascal
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #28 on: June 17, 2004, 08:38:42 PM »

Ewww!   Tongue  Did you mean hemorrhaging?   Grin

Nope.

I meant a serious pain in the ____ .
Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Tags:
Pages: 1   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.107 seconds with 56 queries.