OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 23, 2014, 08:32:27 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 2  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: the basics  (Read 8813 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
srenalds
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 43



« Reply #45 on: February 21, 2004, 07:18:50 PM »

Greetings,

I logged on when I heard Linus was disheartened by the conversation here.  My opinions probably wouldn't be much welcome here either.

A 5th century schism that hasn't been totally resolved...  A disagreement over the 7 ecumenical councils that are considered the foundation of the Eastern Orthodox Church.  I would say that Linus was right in offering an alternate view, given the controversial arrangement between the two separate churches.  If this is an Orthodox website and we must have both churches here, then it's totally appropriate to offer both viewpoints on ALL FORUMS.

What exactly are you afraid of if you consider your own point of view the truth?  Are you afraid the readers of this forum aren't smart enough to find the truth for themselves?

Certainly we can all agree: There is no such thing as psuedo-orthodox and both churches can't be equally right.  Simply calling oneself orthodox does not make one orthodox.  Why then is Linus forbidden to mention the odd relationship between two churches that share the name "orthodox", but are not in full communion?  We've had similarly agitated discussions regarding ROCOR, but I don't remember anyone being so censory there.

I found it a bit hypocritical for some to berate Linus for using references that call one Church heretical and then turning around and calling that website heretical.  Even if the people who wrote the Orthodox Info website would call me a heretic, they still have some very good resources that those who are Eastern Orthodox would agree with.  I think it would be more constructive for those who have such strong opinions against Linus to review his resources and point out where they are in error.  Otherwise, I will agree with Linus that your own posts are self-defeating.

In conclusion, I recommend you create two or three different websites so we don't tear each other apart with the confusion over who has the right to use the word "orthodox" in their name.  While I don't have blessing to commune with Coptics, I also don't have blessing to argue with them.

Srenalds

PS. I visited a Coptic Church a few years ago and have to report I thought it weird to be banging the bongos while people were receiving the body and blood of Christ.  It almost seemed westernized, moreso than any organ playing.  As if there needed to be some measure of entertainment so people could "get into the spirit"... What spirit?  I think that's an appropriate question.  Still, I don't know if this happens in all Coptic Churches.  There were a few other things I saw I would have asked questions about, but I won't dwell on these primarily because I don't understand the language or what was going on during the liturgy.  It was nice bongo playing though.
Logged

NULL
Stavro
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,114



« Reply #46 on: February 21, 2004, 08:09:35 PM »

Quote
I visited a Coptic Church a few years ago and have to report I thought it weird to be banging the bongos while people were receiving the body and blood of Christ.  It almost seemed westernized, moreso than any organ playing.
The Coptic Church westernized, haa. !!!!
By the way,  this "weird" banging you are talking about has been there for 2000 years. It is the heritage of the Coptic Church since the Copts embraced Christianity. That it does sound weird to you does not make it weird.  And these are definitly not western tones or melody. The music and devices used ( Tirianto for example) are from the time of the Pharaohs. So I see it hard to find it westernized, unless you consider the Copts since the First Century and before "westernized".

If I enter an RC church or Greek Orthodox church, it will be also very different to me, but I am enlightened enough not to judge others as weird because it is a different culture.

One thing we all know is that we did not succumb to "liberal" values as other did.

Quote
.  As if there needed to be some measure of entertainment so people could "get into the spirit
That is your interpretation, maybe influenced by what you see in your church.

Quote
What spirit?  I think that's an appropriate question
It is an approriate question. It is the spirit which kept us Orthodox in face of the persecution of the Roman Emperors, pagans like Deucletian and christians like the Justinian Murderer. The same spirit that kept christianity in Egypt under the very severe persecution for 2000 years.  The same spirit which was passed from St.Mark to St.Athanasius, if you happen to know him, and St. Cyril the Pillar of Faith, St. Discorous and till now still living in H.H. Pope Shenouda. By the way, these are Alexandrian Fathers, not Byzantine. It is the spirit which will keep the church according to THE LORD's word in Isiah 19:19. We don't compromise.

 "You know them from their fruits".Judging by our fruits, we are sure that we are right.

Quote
A 5th century schism that hasn't been totally resolved...  A disagreement over the 7 ecumenical councils that are considered the foundation of the Eastern Orthodox Church

There are tons of questions which your dear friend Linus could not answer and just passed by in other topics, maybe you can lend a hand in answering them. Three chapter, Theodret, not holding a trial against St.Dioscorous, The TOme of Leo, Leo's connection to Theodret, ..... and many others. Please let us know your perspective.

Quote
I would say that Linus was right in offering an alternate view, given the controversial arrangement between the two separate churches
He never did. He just reposted lies. If I am discussing an issue with Catholics, I will not resort to Catholic-hate.com site. These are empty slogans, aimed to stop any unity efforts. He had the chance to reply in many other topics, never did. He was just aiming to scare any truth seekers away.

In any case, if your patriarchs so not see a problem with OO theology, but you find some, you have two options:
1- There are problems with our theology, and we would be happy if you can point them out. But in this case, your patriarchs are ignorant.
2- You are wrong, and therefore you are disobedient to your hierachs. Many EO churches, recognizing that no problems in Faith exist, give communion to OO. That is serious business.

Quote
I think it would be more constructive for those who have such strong opinions against Linus to review his resources and point out where they are in error.
Go search the topics and you find many of the topics discussed. There has been specific points asked by Deacon peter and Antonius, Mor , Raouf, and others and Linus could or would not reply.

In the end, Linus, in a discussion in the Orthodox-Catholics forum, wanted OO  specifically to get out of the discussion and go to their little plot, this forum. When somebody shows interest in knowing the Oriental Orthodox Churches, he immediatly intrudes and propagates his repeated articles from this hateful sites he gets his info from.

The topics Linus opened are discussed in plenty of other topics, why reposting it here again ?
If you are interested in a real discussion, you will find many topics discussing the differences between EO and OO.

Peace,
Stavro.



Logged

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. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #47 on: February 22, 2004, 12:39:04 AM »

Stavro -

I believe I did deal with the things you mentioned.

Theodoret and Ibas repented of their earlier Nestorianism and were accepted as Orthodox. Theodore of Mopsuestia was already dead, so that option was not open for him.

The "Three Chapters" were likewise not condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431, yet Non-Chalcedonians accept that council, and that was the council that specifically dealt with Nestorianism.

Why did neither Ephesus nor Chalcedon condemn the "Three Chapters?" Because ferreting out heretical documents was not the purpose of either council. Both councils condemned Nestorius. Both promulgated Orthodox doctrine.

Making a big deal out of the "Three Chapters" was a tactic suggested to the Emperor Justinian by an Origenist bishop in order to divert attention from the Origenists, whom Justinian disliked.

As I pointed out before, there were at least 7 Arian bishops at Nicea I. They were allowed to participate in the council because they professed the Orthodox faith. All 7 later relapsed into Arianism.  Yet no one that I know of insists that Nicea I was an invalid council because those bishops and their writings were not condemned there.
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
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #48 on: February 22, 2004, 12:52:31 AM »

A note of correction.

Ibas' Letter to Maris may not have predated Ephesus, nor were all of Theodoret's writings in opposition to St. Cyril complete by that time.

However, Theodore of Mopsuestia's writings were all certainly complete by the Council of Ephesus, and they were a significant part of what was condemned at the Fifth Council (553) as the "Three Chapters."

So, if the council (Ephesus) that was specifically tasked with dealing with the Nestorian heresy did not ferret out Theodore's Nestorian writings for condemnation, why is Chalcedon, a council that had a different task, faulted for the same thing?
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
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #49 on: February 22, 2004, 01:28:16 AM »

Greetings,

<snipped>
...
Certainly we can all agree: There is no such thing as psuedo-orthodox and both churches can't be equally right.  Simply calling oneself orthodox does not make one orthodox.  Why then is Linus forbidden to mention the odd relationship between two churches that share the name "orthodox", but are not in full communion?  We've had similarly agitated discussions regarding ROCOR, but I don't remember anyone being so censory there.

There does seem to be an undertone of 'undefined standards' being variously applied both in this current imbroglio and others in recent past.

Quote
I found it a bit hypocritical for some to berate Linus for using references that call one Church heretical and then turning around and calling that website heretical.  Even if the people who wrote the Orthodox Info website would call me a heretic, they still have some very good resources that those who are Eastern Orthodox would agree with.  I think it would be more constructive for those who have such strong opinions against Linus to review his resources and point out where they are in error.  Otherwise, I will agree with Linus that your own posts are self-defeating.

As I tried to politely point out, this now challenged website is on this site's very own portal list without disclaimer.

Quote

In conclusion, I recommend you create two or three different websites so we don't tear each other apart with the confusion over who has the right to use the word "orthodox" in their name.  While I don't have blessing to commune with Coptics, I also don't have blessing to argue with them.

Srenalds

Certainly more easily said than done as to two websites. But the basic problem is that, despite this being a "pan-Orthodox" forum, I and many others in the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church of the East feel that entering here of late is to be set up as a target. Statements to the effect that 'most of our membership is EO" I suspect are not entirely true and if true by some unknown quantity in registration, certainly not in number of posters. Indeed we EO's seem to have no "home" here. The OO's have their own board under apparently protected status. Elsewhere we find that to converse (or even argue among ourselves) we EOs must dodge too much heterdox interference. It gets tiresome.
I have attempted to convince no less than 5 Eastern Orthodox clerics to join us over the last year. Three indeed have registered and never posted. Why?
I understand Linus7's frustration; he has said nothing that his own bishop or patriarch would condemn or call inaccurate as far as I can see (and I intend to ask both as soon as I can). If his zeal seems excessive, I see his vehemence  in equal measure to similarly zealous statements from his antagonist. Yet, he alone merits the rebuke?

Quote
PS. I visited a Coptic Church a few years ago and have to report I thought it weird ...

I thought the same thing the first time I heard the Divine Liturgy in English  Wink

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #50 on: February 22, 2004, 01:58:06 AM »

First of all, I did not set up the portal page, but Nik did who since has left us.  Perhaps in the revision I will take it off.

The Orthodoxinfo website--I have mixed feelings about it.  Yeah they have some good stuff but they have a lot of bad stuff mixed in.

"There is no safe haven for Eastern Orthodox here." Sure there is.  The Faith and Convert issues forums exist solely for discussion of Orthodoxy.

If you try to create a board where non-Orthodox are chased off every time they post, then you end up with a board with no discussion.  Orthodoxy is the true faith so what is there to worry about? You have to be ready to give an answer to the non-Orthodox.  When they ask questions or want to politely debate stuff, we are not going to ban them.  When they attack unjustly, we do warn them.  The quote about "dodging too much heterodox interference" is not right.  How can you call people who have questions about Orthodoxy and are participating "interferers"? Should we just ban all non-Orthodox and have a small, secluded club where nothing controversial ever gets posted? If you want to see the result of that, go to www.yourcatholic.com where only strict Catholic stuff is posted. See how much participation they have.  Now go to forums.catholic-convert.com and see the vibrant Catholic discussion there, even with Protestants arguing. It's HEALTHY to debate. This is a DISCUSSION forum, so there needs to be discussion, even heated.

I am a busy guy so sometimes I don't catch everything. Right now we admins are contemplating hiring some more moderators to cope with the volume of posts so attacks and the like don't slip through the cracks.

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #51 on: February 22, 2004, 02:00:15 AM »

Quote
I visited a Coptic Church a few years ago and have to report I thought it weird to be banging the bongos while people were receiving the body and blood of Christ.  It almost seemed westernized, moreso than any organ playing.  As if there needed to be some measure of entertainment so people could "get into the spirit"... What spirit?  I think that's an appropriate question.  Still, I don't know if this happens in all Coptic Churches.  There were a few other things I saw I would have asked questions about, but I won't dwell on these primarily because I don't understand the language or what was going on during the liturgy.  It was nice bongo playing though.

1) Was it Coptic or Ethiopian? No one plays a bongo in a Coptic Church. They use cymbals and triangles, and I love it--comes right out of the psalm "praise him with trimble...praise him with clashing cymbals"

2) Why is it "Westernized"? I don't see the relation at all to the West.

3) What are you talking about, "getting in the spirit"?  Have you thought that maybe they have always done that? That this is merely their ancient custom that serves a function for them?

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #52 on: February 22, 2004, 02:13:09 AM »

The Portal no longer has links to Orthodoxinfo.com or the TOC.
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
hbmincey
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


OC.net


« Reply #53 on: February 22, 2004, 04:31:24 AM »

I have to say that I loved the cymbal playing at the OO service I went to recently. I thought that it added a certain mystical element to the Liturgy. The music, hymns and all other aspects of the Liturgy flowed and blended perfectly  together, and even though I could not understand all of the Liturgy and what was going on, I was totally entranced and taken away with it-which if I am not mistaken is the point-that is to exit the profane and enter the sacred. I definately do not see how it could be termed "modern" or "westernized". People have after all been "praising the Lord" with music and song since Old Testament times. All in all, I came away if anything hungry for more. I just wish that  there was more than a once monthly service here.

Peace,
Ben
Logged
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #54 on: February 22, 2004, 11:33:43 AM »

I would have no problem with Linus presenting a contrary view if he were fair. He has not responded to the quote of mine from the Acts of Chalcedon showing that the Letter of Ibas was received as Orthodox.

He has not responded to the fact that far from being an obscure set of documents the Three Chapters were vigourously defended by Chalcedonians in the West and North Africa who excommunicated Vigilius some 10 years before Constantinople II.

He has not responded to repeated requests to identify his jurisdiction, a not unreasonable request when someones background does have a bearing on their argument.

He has refused to take account of the substance of the faith of the Oriental Orthodox and continues, even in the last posts, to take the point of view that he knows best what we believe.

If he is criticised it is because of his faulty methodology and lack of transparency and fairness, not at all because he has a different opinion. I have myself been challenged by Deacon Lance's posts to seek to understand the position of the Assyrian Church more fairly and in a more detailed manner, I have not merely told him that the Assyrians are heretics and nothing more needs saying about them.

Then we have posts that decribe the 'weirdness' and 'modernity' of the Coptic Church. Again, nothing that is actually worthy of a real discussion. And material that would be laughable to anyone who actually knew what Coptic Orthodoxy was like.

I continue to be discouraged by Linus approach but am encouraged by contact with folk on other forums and lists who are considering converting to Orthodoxy in the Coptic Orthodox Church, and even priests who have joined us from Eastern Orthodoxy. It is not a contest, but I know too many Eastern bishops, priests, and lay folk who do not share Linus' narrow and a-historical position.

I am currently reading the Defense of the Three Chapters by the Chalcedonian Facundus. My French is coming along well now, its in an excellent translation, and I am reading it quite fluently. It's an eye opener as he writes as a Chalcedonian more than a decade before Constantinople II and is in complete support of the Three Chapters together with his North African colleagues and the Metropolitanate of Milan.
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: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #55 on: February 22, 2004, 11:43:23 AM »

As I pointed out before, there were at least 7 Arian bishops at Nicea I. They were allowed to participate in the council because they professed the Orthodox faith. All 7 later relapsed into Arianism.  Yet no one that I know of insists that Nicea I was an invalid council because those bishops and their writings were not condemned there.

Admitting the human element to a council is not to make it invalid. That is why I find a certain EO approach to exhibit a fragile faith.

St Severus of Antioch confessed repeatedly the perfect humanity and perfect divinity of Christ. Nicaea III says condemns him for failing to. This is an error. It doesn't mean that what was said about icons is not true and useful and authoritative. But what was written about St Severus was wrong. All of his writings had been burnt in Greek in the Empire 200 years previously. It is not surprising that no-one at Nicaea III actually knew what he taught.

If the EO were willing to accept that mistakes in the application of condemnations had been made, though all agree that anyone who denies the perfect humanity and perfect Divinity of Christ should be condemned, then there would be more liklihood of that which is true being received as an Orthodox statement. While a patent error, and I have been reading and studying St Severus for 10 years, is defended as immutable then the positive and Orthodox substance of most of the document cannot easily be accepted since the error is, by many EO, especially converts, bound up with the main content.

Here is the excerpt from the full set of Acts, which are not present in the ccel version,

"....the representatives of Leo, who had become prelate of the church of the Romans, pronounced him blameless, making the following declaration -½Pascasinus and Lucentius the reverend bishops and Boniface the presbyter representing the apostolic throne said by the mouth of Pascasinus, 'From the reading of the documents , and from the statement of the reverend bishops we know that the reverend Hiba has been shown to be innocent. For, when his letter was read, we recognised that it is orthodox and therefore our decision is that the episcopal rank also and the church from which he was wrongfully ejected in his absence be restored'-+. And to these things the whole synod assented; and they promulgated the same decision."
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 #56 on: February 22, 2004, 12:16:42 PM »

I do not know which translation of Chalcedon Peter is using, but I believe he is misquoting it. The Council did not endorse Ibas' letter and call "it" orthodox. The papal legates said they had read Ibas' letter and had found him orthodox.

They also found Theodoret of Cyrus orthodox despite his previous writings, some of which contained things that were not orthodox.

No individual's writings are expressly endorsed by the Council of Chalcedon except St. Leo's Tome,those of St. Cyril, and - if I recall correctly - the formula of reunion signed by the Antiochenes and St. Cyril, the last of which was authored by Theodoret himself.

It is a misrepresentation of the facts to say that the Three Chapters were endorsed at Chalcedon.

Severus of Antioch claimed to believe in the full humanity of Christ, as did many of the other Monophysite leaders. Yet he so submerged it in Christ's divinity that he attributed to our Lord one will, one energy, and one activity. In other words, his belief in one divine nature led him into Monothelitism.

If failing to ferret out heretical writings renders a council invalid, then Ephesus 431 is invalid because the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia were not condemned there, nor was Theodoret's initial work in opposition to St. Cyril, Pentalogium.

And the purpose of the Council of Ephesus was to deal with Nestorianism.

If the council that dealt with Nestorianism did not root out and condemn all Nestorian writings, then why is Chalcedon faulted for not doing so, especially when Chalcedon was called not to deal with Nestorianism but with Eutychianism?

If Chalcedon is faulted for the presence of Theodoret - who had repented and confessed the orthodox doctrine of the Incarnation - then why is Nicea I not faulted for the presence of multiple Arian bishops, bishops who - unlike Theodoret, who died in the peace of the Church - relapsed following the council?
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
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #57 on: February 22, 2004, 12:31:47 PM »

Here are a couple of quotes from Non-Chalcedonian leaders critical of St. Cyril.

Quote
Timothy Aelurus:
"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 Aelurus, "Epistles to Kalonymos," Patrologia Graeca, Vol LXXXVI, Col. 276; quoted in The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 13).

Severus of Antioch:
"The formulae used by the Holy Fathers concerning two Natures united in Christ should be set aside, even if they be Cyril's" (Severus of Antioch, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. LXXXIX, Col. 103D; quoted in The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 12)

I realize that both quotes come from an anti-Non-Chalcedonian work, but perhaps someone would like to explain them.
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
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #58 on: February 22, 2004, 12:34:53 PM »

And Ephesus II then which received Eutyches on the basis of an Orthodox confession?
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 #59 on: February 22, 2004, 12:44:26 PM »

And Ephesus II then which received Eutyches on the basis of an Orthodox confession?

Do you really want to divert this thread into a discussion of the "Robber Synod?"

What you call "Ephesus II" was not a legitimate council of the Church.
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
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #60 on: February 22, 2004, 12:50:12 PM »

Linus, this is laughable. This merely highlights that you have read nothing by any Non-Chalcedonians except two sentences from a book written by fanatics.

I have read most of the materials left to us by St Timothy Aelurus and in fact have just written a lengthy article about him. I have also got most of the materials by St Severus in my house, though I'm on holiday right now.

Are you aware that after the Formularly of Reunion in 433 St Cyril wrote against the Antiocheans because they were trying to say that he had accepted Theodore's defective Christology? Are you aware that the concessions he had allowed to John of Antioch were twisted by heretics such as Theodoret to show that he had accepted their heresy as his own.

The words are proved to be true. It would have been better if St Cyril had not allowed so many concessions since in fact it allowed Chlacedonian monks in Constantinople to celebrate a feast of Nestorius, and it allowed the Three Chapters to be accepted as Orthodox in the West and North Africa.

You have told me of all your qualifications, I would have thought that you would have studied the primary sources in some detail rather than relying on two sentences taken out of context that don't actually prove anything.

I will not bother plucking sentences out of context from EO writers to prove which heresies they may have endorsed.

It is completely laughable that you would think St Timothy and St Severus were anything other than devoted disciples of St Cyril. if you read their writings you will see that they constantly depend on him.

I would be interested to see the sources of these quotes, they are perfectly reasonable because OO do not invest Divine infallibility in their Fathers. All of the Fathers did make errors of judgement. To deny that is not only not OO, it isn't Orthodox at all
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: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #61 on: February 22, 2004, 12:53:27 PM »

Do you really want to divert this thread into a discussion of the "Robber Synod?"

What you call "Ephesus II" was not a legitimate council of the Church.

I think that an open minded, balanced, self-critical EO or RC would look at Ephesus II and seek to compare it's reception with that of Chalcedon and seek to draw some conclusions. Fr John Romanides says that Eutyches reception at Ephesus II was perfectly reasonable based on his confession of Orthodoxy, and certainly more reasonable than Leo of Rome's friendship with a Theodoret who refused to anathematise Nestorius or accept Ephesus I.

I don't think I expect you to take such a view, which is sad.
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 #62 on: February 24, 2004, 11:12:56 AM »

Were you aware that some of what is claimed by Non-Chalcedonians to be the work of St. Cyril is actually the product of Apollinarian forgers?

I don't believe you have any evidence that after Chalcedon Theodoret relapsed into heresy or that the Antiochenes continued to advance Nestorianism.

You dismiss the criticisms of St. Cyril by Timothy Aelurus and Severus of Antioch as "laughable," yet you do not deny them.

Those criticisms reflect the fact that St. Cyril accepted the formula of the two natures in the one divine Person of Christ, and those whom you regard as "saints" and "fathers" did not and criticized him for it.

What is "laughable" is the contention that "Chalcedonian" monks celebrated a feast of Nestorius. They could hardly be "Chalcedonian" if they revered Nestorius, since that council reiterated the condemnation of Nestorius pronounced by the Council of Ephesus in 431.

Frankly, I would be extremely surprised if Fr. John Romanides or any truly Orthodox author advocated union with Non-Chalcedonians apart from the acceptance by the latter of the full Orthodox teaching, including the ecumenical councils.

Many of those whom you characterize as "open-minded EO and RC" should close their minds for repairs.
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: Troll policy Chalcedon polemics Chalcedon cheval mort Ephesus II Fr. John Romanides 
Pages: « 1 2  All   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 0.097 seconds with 45 queries.