Author Topic: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)  (Read 10598 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #45 on: February 06, 2017, 04:33:05 PM »


The term "OO" is anachronistic but Constantinople and Georgia were both certainly anti-Chalcedonian during the period of the Henotikon.


I received a lot of disagreement with that on another thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,64758.new.html#new

Iconodule - who you are quoting - was a part of that thread and presumably knows this already.
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #46 on: February 06, 2017, 07:16:38 PM »
I would need to do more research before I could "flat out deny" what one side says. Anyway, there are two separate questions involved--whether the catholicos attended monophysite councils as a monophysite, and whether it necessarily followed that, because of this, all the members of the Georgian Church were monophysites. As I said earlier, the status of the acceptance of Chalcedon in Georgia was fluid for a time.

This is a red herring, because no one in the Armenian or other Oriental Orthodox churches is a Monophysite, nor was the Council of Dvin a "Monophysite Council."

The actual monophysites were a small sect, which formed into Tritheist and other breakway groups, following the doctrines of Eutyches.  John Philloponus, the 6th century philosopher, was probably a monophysite (one reason why the Coptic Church does not regard him as a saint).
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #47 on: February 06, 2017, 07:19:44 PM »
The correct term for Oriental Orthodox Christology is "miaphysite."  We believe in precisely the Christology taught by St. Cyril in opposition to Nestorius.

That said, I personally am of the view that Chalcedonian terminology is not a problem as long as one accepts "Theotokos" and theopaschitism.  The hymn Ho Monoges, which both EOs and OOs use, is a good test for Christological Orthodoxy.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #48 on: February 06, 2017, 07:20:32 PM »
The founding monastic saints of the Georgian Church were all Syrian non-Chalcedonians, and the great Georgian saint Peter the Iberian was a non-Chalcedonian.

And St. Nino was an Armenian princess, right?
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #49 on: February 06, 2017, 09:05:50 PM »
Do you consider Fr Georges Florovsky to be a pseudo-historian/theologian?
This depends on what  meaning you put into the word "theologian". If you define it based on current definition of theology and theologian then even atheists fall under this definition and some of them even claim to be theologian. I, when using this term, mean what our God-bearing Fathers and Theologians meant under this term. I mean a perfect person, holy man, cleansed and perfected by God’s grace who holds God’s vision and who speaks about God through revelation. Anybody else who talks about God and Godly things without this vision is pseudo-theologian (some God-bearing fathers call such a theology demoniacally inspired one). So, I have no idea whether fr Florovsky had reached theosis and thus he spoke. There’s no way for me to know it. I can only speculate about it. And based on his writings (and being ecumenist) I doubt he is theologian in this true and Orthodox sense of the word.

On the other hand saint Giorgi Hagiorite was God-bearing father. He was consecrated into monkhood and then in lesser schema by a saint Ilarion (who was also st Georges first spiritual father). Later st Giorgi found another God-bearing father st Giorgi God-bearer and hesychast about whom it is said in st Giorgi’s vita "a man of The Heaven and an Angel of the earth". This heavenly man had tonsured st Giorgi into great schema and st Giorgi was under his spiritual study for three years. Thus for me, there’s unbroken line of saints composed of true theologians right here.  And st Giorgi the Hagiorite, true theologian, tells us that Peter the Iberian was saint. Who should I believe and trust? No doubt, this is going to be God-bearing and enlightened father and not book educated man being called theologian just because the meaning of this term has changed.

In any case I can at least read with interest what fr Florosvsky wrote. BTW, Are you referring to this book: Byzantine Fathers of the VI-VIII century by fr Georges Florovsky.


Quote
I was referring to Ativan's post above where he characterizes as "pseudo-theologians" those who said that Peter the Iberian was an anti-Chalcedonian.
I did not call that person pseudo-theologian because he said Peter is anti-Chalcedonian - I meant a particular secular person the name of which I did not want to mention. I characterized this person as pseudo-theologian because he is pseudo-theologian based on the teachings of Orthodox saints and theologians about theology and theologian.

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #50 on: February 06, 2017, 10:13:52 PM »
Since we are discussing God (Christology) and Godly things (the Orthodox church) in this thread, are you claiming to be a theologian in the sense of St. Gregory Nazianzus, Ativan?

Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #51 on: February 07, 2017, 07:12:08 PM »
are you claiming to be a theologian in the sense of St. Gregory Nazianzus, Ativan?
No, I'm not claiming to be theologian in any sense.

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #52 on: February 07, 2017, 07:14:25 PM »
Bishop Anania has published an article which deals with a council of Ghrtila. This council has been called in XI century possibly around the ear of 1046 by the king Bagrat IV. Council was military and secular in its nature. But n Armenian priest Sosthenes who was a head of the monastery of Marmashen was present at that time and attended the council. He was bragging about Armenia’s faith and was denouncing Orthodox faith. He was very educated and tried to convert some Georgians. To oppose his teachings Georgian side brought a monk from Jerusalem (actually he was Georgian in origin and was visiting his country for a time). His name was Euthymius the tall. Here’s what historical sources from that time says. First of all these sources repeat what is said in "on the division of Kartli and Armenia" above. Euthymius the tall narrates to the council a history of Armenian church exactly as it was laid down in the treatise of Arsen Katholikos that till the end of V century Armenians were Orthodox and that in the VI century Persians annexed Armenia and they separated from Greeks, that during the rule of Persian king Khosrow council of Dvin (in 551) was held where by the help of Abdisho Assyrian they accepted Jacobite faith and so on. In fact Euthymius names the source from which he got his history. This source is named as “patmontha”. Bishop Anania informs us that this source was created by Chalcedonian Armenians and it describes the history of Armenian Church till the VIII century. This document was translated into Georgian long time ago. A Georgian copy of this document was re-written by a Georgian bishop of Matskhveri in XVI century and this copy was studied and published by T Jordania (a historian). It seams that Katholikos Arsen could have used the same “patmontha” as one of the sources. Armenian Sosthenes has used two Armenian treatises “the vision of Gregory the illuminator” and “the vision of Catholicos Sahak”. Both of these “visions” were translated in Georgian by that time. What is interesting is that in the “the vision of Catholicos Sahak” (this Sahak is st Isaac of Armenia) this is what was prophesied by st Isaac (based on Georgian translation): that after Armenians abandon true faith “from the North will shine out great prince from the seed of David. He will be raised in God’s Spirit and will investigate correctly everything in your patimot’in”. Fortunately I was so lucky that trying to find out a little bit more about this vision I stumbled upon a book “The Armenian Apocalyptic Tradition: A Comparative Perspective”. There is some more information in here which appears to be interesting.
Thus referring to this vision Georgian monk tries to prove his point that this prophesy has come true and that Armenia has abandoned true faith. And afterwards when he loses the battle Sosthenes leaves Georgia and goes back to Armenia.

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #53 on: February 07, 2017, 08:38:23 PM »
Here’s nice book by Metropolitan Anania about Peter the Iberian. For English readers it is also interesting because in this book starting from the page 121 there’s English introduction and Georgian version of life of st Peter in English as well. Besides, all the pictures, icons and images of manuscripts have legends in English.

Document presented here leaves not doubt that Peter the Iberian was venerated as an Orthodox saint and very important one with that. I'll mention all of them below:

Page 4- Frescos from st Katherine monastery on Mount Sinai (where lots of Georgian were enlightened). The legend in English pretty much describes a lot. Here st Peter is imaged without a doubt as a saint.

Page 6 - here it is mentioned that 1710 edition of prayers of the hours commemorates Peter as a saint.

Page 8 - a page from the manuscript Q-661 which is a Thveni (basically monthly calendar containing the lives of saints) from XVI century. This determines the commemoration date of st Peter on December 2.

Page 9 - One of the earliest mentioning of st Peter in XI century "great synaxarium". This the synaxarium that was translated by great saint Giorgi the Hagiorite.

Page 10-11 - here it is mentioned that both Kirion II and Ambrosius of Georgia (saintly Patriarchs of Georgia) tried to re-establish Peter's commemoration date. In fact, one of the editions of this book has a copy of st Ambrosius' writing where he says: "Georgian saint will not sin if She re-establishes December 2 as the commemoration day of saint Peter Bishop of Majuma as this was in effect for centuries".

Page 19 - this shows the location of and st Peter's fresco itself in the Holy Cross monastery of Jerusalem.

Page 47 and 48 – these pages have 2 miniatures both containing image of st Peter. These miniatures are from a manuscript written in Georgian and Greek. This manuscript was found in St Petersburg, national library of Russia. It has been preserved at this location since 1913. This manuscript is dated from from XIV-XV century. Metropolitan Anania mentions that some of the scientist have dated it even earlier to XI century but most of them said it’s from XIV-XV century.

Page 50 – 94 – Georgian Orthodox version of his life in Georgian. You can read English version of it as well. See below.

Page 56 – this is a miniature from st Peter’s life and English legend pretty much explains about what is this miniature (see page 145). This miniature is from the book of the lives and martyrdom’s of Georgian saints which was published in XVIII century by Katholicos Besarion.

Page 67 – this fresco is from Holy Cross monastery in Jerusalem. The inscriptions are in Georgian and Greek as with most of the frescos there. BTW, I was fortunate enough to visit this monastery built by my ancestors which I proudly claim. I have nothing to be proud of myself except for ancestry.  Georgian inscription says “Let your loins be girded about, and your lights burning” (Luke 12:35). Text in Georgian next to fresco says that historian Kaukhchishvili had speculated this could have been fresco of John the Lazi, spiritual teacher of st Peter. This speculation s based on the fact that st’s vita describe John got a scar on his face which led to his blindness.

Page 71 – the English legend pretty much explains this miniature.

Page 89 – miniature from XVIII century depicting saint Hylarion the Great, st Peter the Iberian, st and martyr king Archil and st and martyr king Luarsab.

Page 95 - Fresco of st Peter in Holy Cross monastery.

Page 120 – st Peter’s fresco’s image by Chubinashvili

Page 110-119 – in 1742 somebody by name Demetre Epitashvili copied this “sadghesastsaulo” (or prayers said on the feast day of a saint).

Page 106 – 109 – st Peter’s short reading (first published by Korneli Kekelidze base on S3269 and H1672 manuscripts.

Page 96 – 105 – “sagalobeli” for st. Peter. Korneli Kekelidze published this based on certain manuscripts described (including the identification numbers) in the notes section of page 96.

***

Based on all of these documents there's no doubt that Peter the Iberian was venerated as very important saint.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,000
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #54 on: February 08, 2017, 02:38:35 PM »
I am no expert of Armenian and Georgian histories.  From my cursory reading, St. Peter the Iberian is responsible for people like John Rufus, Zacharias Rhetor, Severus of Antioch, and a lot of the acephalii who opposed the anti-Chalcedonians that accepted the Henotikon of Zeno.  The monastic communities in Gaza were very much responsible for the upbringing of Severus of Antioch as a staunch anti-Chalcedonian.

I feel that the Georgian research given by Ativan seems to me the same type of research that would justify the sainthood of St. Isaac the Syrian, who was in all intents and purposes "Nestorian", but many people want to hide that fact from him and make him look like as a Chalcedonian (or non-Chalcedonian).  Just because you have Georgian manuscripts dating late does not mean you have lack of understanding in earlier centuries.  Peter the Iberian's biographers were actually his contemporaries, who were staunch anti-Chalcedonians.  We do not have Chalcedonian contemporaries of Peter the Iberian to vouch for him.  That makes his case as an anti-Chalcedonian very strong.

Furthermore, all serious scholars agree that St. Cyril of Alexandria is a Miaphysite.  No one is saying he accepted or rejected Chalcedon, since it NEVER happened in his life.  The question of Peter the Iberian as a Chalcedonian or non-Chalcedonian does not compare to the question of St. Cyril as Miaphysite or not.  I don't understand why the comparison.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2017, 02:41:17 PM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,471
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #55 on: February 08, 2017, 02:44:23 PM »
Thus for me, there’s unbroken line of saints composed of true theologians right here.  And st Giorgi the Hagiorite, true theologian, tells us that Peter the Iberian was saint.

I'm not denying that he was a saint. But he also happened to be anti-Chalcedonian. This seems to be undeniable. If he is a saint, he would not be the only anti-Chalcedonian saint we have- see the Empress Theodora.

Quote
In any case I can at least read with interest what fr Florosvsky wrote. BTW, Are you referring to this book: Byzantine Fathers of the VI-VIII century by fr Georges Florovsky.

Yeah, that's the one. And Fr. Georges is certainly not a secularist; whatever else one might say about him, he was a serious and pious Orthodox scholar.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2017, 02:46:40 PM by Iconodule »
Quote
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop
- GK Chesteron, "Lepanto"

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #56 on: February 08, 2017, 05:42:14 PM »
Thus for me, there’s unbroken line of saints composed of true theologians right here.  And st Giorgi the Hagiorite, true theologian, tells us that Peter the Iberian was saint.
I'm not denying that he was a saint. But he also happened to be anti-Chalcedonian. This seems to be undeniable. If he is a saint, he would not be the only anti-Chalcedonian saint we have- see the Empress Theodora.
Are you saying that Georgian Church venerated him as anti-Chalcedonian saint?

Quote
Quote
In any case I can at least read with interest what fr Florosvsky wrote. BTW, Are you referring to this book: Byzantine Fathers of the VI-VIII century by fr Georges Florovsky.

Yeah, that's the one. And Fr. Georges is certainly not a secularist; whatever else one might say about him, he was a serious and pious Orthodox scholar.
To me it is clear that this Florovsky has proven nothing about Peter's "anti-Chalcedonianity". He has only several lines "proving" Peter being anti-Chalcedonian. He does not have even enough decency to call him Iberian Prince and calls him barbarian prince. I guess for him Iberia was and is barbarian country.

We have Chalcedonian saints who have been consecrated as bishops by anti-Chalcedonians or who have consecrated anti-Chalcedonians. This is no way a proof of anti-CHalcedonian stance of somebody. This can be explained by other circumstances without referring to person's anti-Chalcedonian position. And this is all his "proof".

Anyways, on one side of the scale we have God-bearing fathers and Martyr Patriarchs of Georgia and on the other side ecumenist book educated Florovsky. For me the choice is clear.

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,471
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #57 on: February 08, 2017, 05:51:07 PM »
Florovsky was not aiming to prove a point. He has no axe to grind against Peter the Iberian, the Church of Georgia, etc. He is simply recounting theological history using the sources he has, and the contemporary sources all indicate that Peter the Iberian was anti-Chalcedonian and in fact was instrumental in keeping the anti-Chalcedonian movement afloat. He was not some relatively peripheral figure that both sides claim, but who didn't have a major role in the dispute (like Saint Symeon the Stylite) but a pretty core figure. If Peter the Iberian was pro-Chalcedon, why would Severus of Antioch credit him with galvanizing him against Chalcedon?
Quote
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop
- GK Chesteron, "Lepanto"

Offline WPM

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,520
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #58 on: February 08, 2017, 07:00:07 PM »
Must be quite a Cathedral.
Learn meditation.

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #59 on: February 08, 2017, 07:33:33 PM »
Anyways, on one side of the scale we have God-bearing fathers and Martyr Patriarchs of Georgia and on the other side ecumenist book educated Florovsky. For me the choice is clear.

Must be quite a Cathedral.

Right now, you two are neck-and-neck in the ridiculous post contest.  Keep going!
« Last Edit: February 08, 2017, 07:37:00 PM by Antonious Nikolas »
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Online rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,518
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #60 on: February 08, 2017, 07:39:42 PM »
Ativan,
Can you read Russian?

The  hrono.ru  site has an article on Peter  I've saying:

" Его житие, сохранившееся до наших дней, было написано около 500 г. преемником Петра на епископской кафедре — антихалкидонитом Иоанном Руфом, сознательно принизившим роль в судьбе Петра Ивера императрицы Евдокии, принявшей в 456 г. Халкидонское вероисповедание."

I am not sure how to translate the second half of that sentence.
The article explains that eudochia was peter's patron and she accepted chalcedon, but Bp. John Ruf wrote peter's biography and was antichalcedonian.
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,000
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #61 on: February 08, 2017, 07:50:56 PM »
Not just St. Severus would mention St. Peter of Iberia, but St. Peter's disciple and successor in Majuma John Rufus and Severus's longtime friend, Zacharias the Rhetor and Historian, all document St. Peter on their side against Chalcedon.  Evagrius Scholasticus IN THE SAME CENTURY, a Chalcedonian, seems to agree with this assessment, which means that there did not live a Chalcedonian in the sixth century who would witness to Peter as in their side.  St. Peter was recorded as being consecrated by the anti-Chalcedonian patriarch of Jerusalem Theodosius (implied as part of the anti-Chalcedonian movement in Palestine), and consecrated the anti-Chalcedonian patriarch Timothy Aelurus while Proterius was still alive.  (Book 2, Chapters 5 and 8 )

It seems based on Ativan's research, the idea that St. Peter was a Chalcedonian didn't show up until the 10th century from Georgian sources.  That doesn't look like a strong case.  I would rather go with those who actually knew and witnessed Peter than those who did not know him personally.  The Georgian Church seems to the only Chalcedonian church that thinks St. Peter is Chalcedonian.
« Last Edit: February 08, 2017, 07:59:38 PM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Online rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,518
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #62 on: February 08, 2017, 08:15:59 PM »
Russian materials I checked don't seem to have a strong consensus on Peter of iberia.
One Russian theory was that he was antichalcedonian but reconciled with Chalcedon like his patron eudochia herself did. She was rebelling against Chalcedons church but then she changed her position and joined the chalcedonion church, one russian article explained.
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #63 on: February 08, 2017, 11:09:58 PM »
The Georgian Church seems to the only Chalcedonian church that thinks St. Peter is Chalcedonian.

+1

Seems like they're trying a bit too hard to prove their pedigree.
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #64 on: February 09, 2017, 12:40:04 PM »
Florovsky was not aiming to prove a point. He has no axe to grind against Peter the Iberian, the Church of Georgia, etc. He is simply recounting theological history using the sources he has, and the contemporary sources all indicate that Peter the Iberian was anti-Chalcedonian and in fact was instrumental in keeping the anti-Chalcedonian movement afloat. He was not some relatively peripheral figure that both sides claim, but who didn't have a major role in the dispute (like Saint Symeon the Stylite) but a pretty core figure. If Peter the Iberian was pro-Chalcedon, why would Severus of Antioch credit him with galvanizing him against Chalcedon?
In any case Florovsky is very partial and mentions nothing about what was known to Georgian Church about him. Everything I have brought here is the other side of the coin which is mentioned nowhere. And it seems to me (I may be wrong though) that the only proof of Peter's anti-Chalcedonian position is him consecrating an anti-Chalcedonian bishop and being consecrated by an anti-Chalcedonian bishop?

Can you point me to (if you know) all the sources known that supposedly proves Peter's anti-Chalcedonian position? I'd love to look at all of them including Severus of Antioch's. I will appreciate that.

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #65 on: February 09, 2017, 02:30:11 PM »
Florovsky was not aiming to prove a point. He has no axe to grind against Peter the Iberian, the Church of Georgia, etc. He is simply recounting theological history using the sources he has, and the contemporary sources all indicate that Peter the Iberian was anti-Chalcedonian and in fact was instrumental in keeping the anti-Chalcedonian movement afloat. He was not some relatively peripheral figure that both sides claim, but who didn't have a major role in the dispute (like Saint Symeon the Stylite) but a pretty core figure. If Peter the Iberian was pro-Chalcedon, why would Severus of Antioch credit him with galvanizing him against Chalcedon?
Let me ask you one more question: if we only had Georgian sourses on Peter's life and all the data I have presented here would the be any doubt that Peter was as much Chalcedonian saint as any other saint we venerate in Orthodox Church?

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,471
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #66 on: February 09, 2017, 02:32:45 PM »
In any case Florovsky is very partial and mentions nothing about what was known to Georgian Church about him. Everything I have brought here is the other side of the coin which is mentioned nowhere.

Maybe I'm missing something, but the sources you give all seem to be centuries later than the life of Peter the Iberian. The sources Florovsky relied on were accounts by Peter's contemporaries, some of whom were his disciples- John Rufus, Severus of Antioch, Evagrius Scholasticus.

Quote
And it seems to me (I may be wrong though) that the only proof of Peter's anti-Chalcedonian position is him consecrating an anti-Chalcedonian bishop and being consecrated by an anti-Chalcedonian bishop?

That's not the only proof, but it's very significant. If Peter was pro-Chalcedon, why would he consecrate Timothy whom the Chalcedonians blame for the murder of his predecessor, Proterius?

Quote
Can you point me to (if you know) all the sources known that supposedly proves Peter's anti-Chalcedonian position? I'd love to look at all of them including Severus of Antioch's. I will appreciate that.

I'm not an expert at all, but in one of his letters ("to John and John the presbyters") he says: "...the communion that now prevails in the persecuted church of the East and in all the Egyptian church, and is pure in the proclamation of the faith, and in the rejection of the evil Chalcedonian impiety, and in purging itself of heretics and holding no association with them, this communion I so hold and to it I so draw near, as I drew near in it with the highest assurance and a fixed mind, when our holy father Peter the bishop from Iberia was offering, and was performing the rational sacrifice."
Quote
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop
- GK Chesteron, "Lepanto"

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,471
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #67 on: February 09, 2017, 02:43:46 PM »
Florovsky was not aiming to prove a point. He has no axe to grind against Peter the Iberian, the Church of Georgia, etc. He is simply recounting theological history using the sources he has, and the contemporary sources all indicate that Peter the Iberian was anti-Chalcedonian and in fact was instrumental in keeping the anti-Chalcedonian movement afloat. He was not some relatively peripheral figure that both sides claim, but who didn't have a major role in the dispute (like Saint Symeon the Stylite) but a pretty core figure. If Peter the Iberian was pro-Chalcedon, why would Severus of Antioch credit him with galvanizing him against Chalcedon?
Let me ask you one more question: if we only had Georgian sourses on Peter's life and all the data I have presented here would the be any doubt that Peter was as much Chalcedonian saint as any other saint we venerate in Orthodox Church?

I guess not, but one would have to wonder why there were no contemporary sources attesting to his life.
Quote
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop
- GK Chesteron, "Lepanto"

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #68 on: February 09, 2017, 06:29:53 PM »
In any case Florovsky is very partial and mentions nothing about what was known to Georgian Church about him. Everything I have brought here is the other side of the coin which is mentioned nowhere.

Maybe I'm missing something, but the sources you give all seem to be centuries later than the life of Peter the Iberian. The sources Florovsky relied on were accounts by Peter's contemporaries, some of whom were his disciples- John Rufus, Severus of Antioch, Evagrius Scholasticus.
I don't agree with that. This is why. Florovsky never mentions Georgian documents. If he argued that "here we have Georgian side and here we have anti-Chalcedonian side. Here's why Georgian side is not reliable and here's why anti-Chalcedonian side is reliable" or something like that. He is totally silent on Goergian documents. And I doubt he did not know Peter once was venerated in Georgian Church. Consequently, he is biased. Besides, there's also Georgian version (earliest known manuscript dated from XIII or XIV century) of Peter's life English translation of which I have linked in a previous post. This version is known since 1898. It was found in one of the foreign Georgian hearths of monasticism in Bulgaria. It was known as Petritsoni monastery or nowadays Bachokovo monastery. The author of this vita clearly states that he was his contemporary and his pupil. It is also clear from this manuscript that Peter is presented as a Chalcedonian and not anti-Chalcedonian. Thus, any argument claiming Peter's myaphisitism based on data presented in his vita's Assyrian version will apply to Georgian version too. Otherwise we will be partial and biased.

Quote
Quote
And it seems to me (I may be wrong though) that the only proof of Peter's anti-Chalcedonian position is him consecrating an anti-Chalcedonian bishop and being consecrated by an anti-Chalcedonian bishop?

That's not the only proof, but it's very significant. If Peter was pro-Chalcedon, why would he consecrate Timothy whom the Chalcedonians blame for the murder of his predecessor, Proterius?
What are other proofs? And how reliable is that particular proof? Do you not think that in that particular hectic epoch there could have been many priest, deacons, monks of maybe even some bishops of Chalcedonian creed who have consecrated others of non-Chalcedonian creed or they've been Consecrated by non-Chalcedonians? For example, Bishop Anania mentions 2 Orthodox saints and hierarchs who were consecrated as bishops by heretics (from Chalcedonian standpoint). I tried to find more infromation on this but so far I was unsuccessful and I can't vouch for it.  But I have no reason to doubt the bishop. He says that st Cyril of Alexandria and st Meletius of Antioch were consecrated as bishops by monophysite heresiarch Dioscorus. St Germanus of Constantinople was consecrated as a bishop by a monothelite. Besides this happened after the third council of Constantinople that has already denounced this heresy. So, I don't think this argument has any weight. One has to know a lot of details regarding this situation to claim that this type of argument counts. And it is virtually impossible to know all of these. Otherwise, I can offer multiple explanations why a Chalcedonia bishop could have or could have been consecrated as a bishop by a heresiarch.

Quote
Quote
Can you point me to (if you know) all the sources known that supposedly proves Peter's anti-Chalcedonian position? I'd love to look at all of them including Severus of Antioch's. I will appreciate that.

I'm not an expert at all, but in one of his letters ("to John and John the presbyters") he says: "...the communion that now prevails in the persecuted church of the East and in all the Egyptian church, and is pure in the proclamation of the faith, and in the rejection of the evil Chalcedonian impiety, and in purging itself of heretics and holding no association with them, this communion I so hold and to it I so draw near, as I drew near in it with the highest assurance and a fixed mind, when our holy father Peter the bishop from Iberia was offering, and was performing the rational sacrifice."
How do you rule out the possibility that Severus did not use Peter's name just to make his creed look correct? Or how do you rule out the possibility that he mus-understood Peter? Or really what does  he mean by saying Peter “was offering, and was performing the rational sacrifice”?

You see, to give you my position clearly, when I have a faith that this or that particular person is a saint and he says this or that person is a saint then I have no doubt that that person is a saint. I believe that God reveals this to saints and a saint will not say somebody is a saint if he does not know it for sure. Now, Georgian saints I've mentioned and who say Peter is saint are  saying Peter is Chalcedonian in creed. This in itself is most reliable proof of Peter's sainthood (and thus being Chalcedonian) for me. If we had no other proof of Peter's sainthood than saints' statements I would have just said so. I would have said that I just have belief and I would not have argued at all. But this is not the case. In fact those who argue Peter was anti-Chalcedonian Peter can be proved to be Chalcedonian as well based on their own argument. I don't need to allude to anything else other than their own line of reasoning. They have no stronger case than Georgians do.

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #69 on: February 09, 2017, 06:35:52 PM »
Florovsky was not aiming to prove a point. He has no axe to grind against Peter the Iberian, the Church of Georgia, etc. He is simply recounting theological history using the sources he has, and the contemporary sources all indicate that Peter the Iberian was anti-Chalcedonian and in fact was instrumental in keeping the anti-Chalcedonian movement afloat. He was not some relatively peripheral figure that both sides claim, but who didn't have a major role in the dispute (like Saint Symeon the Stylite) but a pretty core figure. If Peter the Iberian was pro-Chalcedon, why would Severus of Antioch credit him with galvanizing him against Chalcedon?
Let me ask you one more question: if we only had Georgian sourses on Peter's life and all the data I have presented here would the be any doubt that Peter was as much Chalcedonian saint as any other saint we venerate in Orthodox Church?

I guess not, but one would have to wonder why there were no contemporary sources attesting to his life.
As I said there's also Georgian version of his life. Even if we did not it could have been because such a document was lost. In all cases, when one claims Peter's anti-Chalcedonianity the other side should also be presented if it makes such a difference. Otherwise all discussions will be unbalanced.

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #70 on: February 09, 2017, 06:52:52 PM »
It seems based on Ativan's research, the idea that St. Peter was a Chalcedonian didn't show up until the 10th century from Georgian sources.
No it does not seem so. From what I have found and presented here it only is clear that we for sure know he was venerated in X-XI century - that's all. It is impossible to claim, based on this data alone, that he was first announced to be saint  in X-XI century. There's no indication that this was the century he was first started to be venerated as a saint.

Moreover in all likelihood he had been venerated as a saint long before that time. We just don't have extant documents on this today because they were probably lost. We have st Peter's life in Georgian though which by author's claim was written by Peter's disciple Zacharia the Georgian (Zacharia Kartveli). If you won't count this vita as a proof that Peter was likely venerated by Georgian Church even after his death than you can't argue same thing (I mean, you can't present Assyrian vita as a proof) to support your position.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,000
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #71 on: February 09, 2017, 07:26:18 PM »
It seems based on Ativan's research, the idea that St. Peter was a Chalcedonian didn't show up until the 10th century from Georgian sources.
No it does not seem so. From what I have found and presented here it only is clear that we for sure know he was venerated in X-XI century - that's all. It is impossible to claim, based on this data alone, that he was first announced to be saint  in X-XI century. There's no indication that this was the century he was first started to be venerated as a saint.

Moreover in all likelihood he had been venerated as a saint long before that time. We just don't have extant documents on this today because they were probably lost. We have st Peter's life in Georgian though which by author's claim was written by Peter's disciple Zacharia the Georgian (Zacharia Kartveli). If you won't count this vita as a proof that Peter was likely venerated by Georgian Church even after his death than you can't argue same thing (I mean, you can't present Assyrian vita as a proof) to support your position.

There's no such figure in the sixth century called "Zechariah the Georgian".  I gave you the references to a Chalcedonian historian of the same century Evagrius Scholasticus, who considered St. Peter an anti-Chalcedonian.

Not only do I trust the saintly and holy man St. Severus of Antioch for his witness, but also the successor to St. Peter in Majuma, St. John Rufus, whose vita has been translated and can be read from amazon, along with his vita on St. Theodosius of Jerusalem, as well as St. Zacharias of Mytilene.  Evagrius Scholasticus mentioned these names along with St. Peter the Iberian, and also confirmed their stories.  He never mentioned anyone called "Zechariah the Georgian" nor any Chalcedonian who supported St. Peter.

Furthermore, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are quoting your Georgian sources, but I ask you that when you give titles like "Monophysite heresiarch", if it is not your own words, that you quote these for us.  If it is your own words, you are in violation of forum rules.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2017, 07:30:06 PM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,000
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #72 on: February 09, 2017, 07:31:28 PM »
Quote
He says that st Cyril of Alexandria and st Meletius of Antioch were consecrated as bishops by monophysite heresiarch Dioscorus.

Please provide the source to this.  Thank you!

Mina
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #73 on: February 09, 2017, 07:33:48 PM »
Ativan, I've read through your last three voluminous posts and saw nothing in there to dispute Mina and Iconodule's assertions that there are no extant documents from the period in question which identify St. Peter the Iberian as anything other than Non-Chalcedonian.  All you seem to have are documents from a much later period which make it seem as if certain figures in the Georgian Church were interested in re-writing history.
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,471
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #74 on: February 09, 2017, 07:37:13 PM »
Quote
He says that st Cyril of Alexandria and st Meletius of Antioch were consecrated as bishops by monophysite heresiarch Dioscorus.

Please provide the source to this.  Thank you!

Mina


Source or no source, it makes no historical sense. Meletius of Antioch was bishop before Dioscorus was born. Cyril of Alexandria was patriarch before Dioscorus and died before Chalcedon. If Bishop Anania really said this then he is not a trustworthy guide to this period.
Quote
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop
- GK Chesteron, "Lepanto"

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,000
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #75 on: February 09, 2017, 07:39:49 PM »
Well, before I comment, I am waiting to see whether this is Ativan's own words, a real quote from Bishop Anania, or a misquote from Bishop Anania, which for all intents and purposes, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt for the sake of that last one.
« Last Edit: February 09, 2017, 07:40:59 PM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #76 on: February 09, 2017, 09:11:26 PM »
I am not particilarly thrilled to see St. Dioscorus being referred to as a "monophysite heresiarch" in the OO forum in any case.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #77 on: February 09, 2017, 11:11:19 PM »
I am not particilarly thrilled to see St. Dioscorus being referred to as a "monophysite heresiarch" in the OO forum in any case.

+1
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #78 on: February 10, 2017, 06:28:49 AM »
Quote
He says that st Cyril of Alexandria and st Meletius of Antioch were consecrated as bishops by monophysite heresiarch Dioscorus.

Please provide the source to this.  Thank you!

Mina

Why are you asking me for a source? Did not I say "I tried to find more infromation on this but so far I was unsuccessful and I can't vouch for it"?

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #79 on: February 10, 2017, 07:05:19 AM »
There's no such figure in the sixth century called "Zechariah the Georgian".
To claim such a thing one has to be omniscient. Zachariah himself writes the vita (based on the Georgian vita) and there he says clearly that he accompanied Peter, was his disciple and was Georgian. I trust this source. He never mentions anybody by the name of John Rufus. Thus John Rufus must be non-existent.

Quote
I gave you the references to a Chalcedonian historian of the same century Evagrius Scholasticus, who considered St. Peter an anti-Chalcedonian.
What does he say about st Peter? And how do we now that he personally new st Peter or his theology and he was not judging st Peter based on anti-Chalcedonian's writings about him?

Quote
Furthermore, I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are quoting your Georgian sources, but I ask you that when you give titles like "Monophysite heresiarch", if it is not your own words, that you quote these for us.  If it is your own words, you are in violation of forum rules.
This book, page 14, start at line 6, 4th and 5th words.

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #80 on: February 10, 2017, 07:18:32 AM »
Source or no source, it makes no historical sense. Meletius of Antioch was bishop before Dioscorus was born. Cyril of Alexandria was patriarch before Dioscorus and died before Chalcedon. If Bishop Anania really said this then he is not a trustworthy guide to this period.
I do agree after checking dates that there must be an error. Bishop Anania is also historian and very good one at that. There must be a typo there. I will find out more about it. I also made a typo. He mentioned not Cyril of Alexandria but Cyril of Jerusalem. Since both Cyril of Jerusalem and Meletius of Antioch lived around the same time when Arian heresy was prominent most likely he meant some Arian bishop. I hypothesize again.

Anyways, this is besides the point. What I was asking to you is: can you say that in the history of Church there never was an Orthodox bishop who was consecrated by an Arian or monothelite or monophysite or myaphisite bishop?

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #81 on: February 10, 2017, 07:27:09 AM »
I am not particilarly thrilled to see St. Dioscorus being referred to as a "monophysite heresiarch" in the OO forum in any case.
I quoted EO bishop. I did not mean to humiliate either Dioscorus or anybody on this forum.

BTW, anti-Chalcedonians, that are considered to be saints by OO, call Chalcedonians, that are considered to be saints by EO, heretics, aren't they?

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,000
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #82 on: February 10, 2017, 10:00:43 AM »
Not just St. Severus would mention St. Peter of Iberia, but St. Peter's disciple and successor in Majuma John Rufus and Severus's longtime friend, Zacharias the Rhetor and Historian, all document St. Peter on their side against Chalcedon.  Evagrius Scholasticus IN THE SAME CENTURY, a Chalcedonian, seems to agree with this assessment, which means that there did not live a Chalcedonian in the sixth century who would witness to Peter as in their side.  St. Peter was recorded as being consecrated by the anti-Chalcedonian patriarch of Jerusalem Theodosius (implied as part of the anti-Chalcedonian movement in Palestine), and consecrated the anti-Chalcedonian patriarch Timothy Aelurus while Proterius was still alive.  (Book 2, Chapters 5 and 8 )

It seems based on Ativan's research, the idea that St. Peter was a Chalcedonian didn't show up until the 10th century from Georgian sources.  That doesn't look like a strong case.  I would rather go with those who actually knew and witnessed Peter than those who did not know him personally.  The Georgian Church seems to the only Chalcedonian church that thinks St. Peter is Chalcedonian.
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,000
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #83 on: February 10, 2017, 10:05:42 AM »
Despite the fact that Bishop Anania is a "great historian", he made a very simple error to which you unfortunately quoted as knowledge.  If you knew anything about fourth, fifth, and sixth century histories, you wouldn't make such simple mistakes as confusing histories with Arius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, Meletius of Antioch, and Dioscorus.  Bishop Anania may be a great and righteous saint, a holy man we should seek guidance from, but sometimes a saint can be wrong in history.  That's nothing new.  Saints often disagreed with one another and were wrong at times.

Furthermore, there is a level of respect in the public forum where we do not address your fathers as heretics unless we provide a quote to which we do not use our own words.

Your case so far is based on an emotional attachment with late Georgian sources.  I have given you names that are actually well known, especially the Chalcedonian Evagrius Scholasticus.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2017, 10:07:33 AM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,471
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #84 on: February 10, 2017, 10:11:55 AM »
Anyways, this is besides the point. What I was asking to you is: can you say that in the history of Church there never was an Orthodox bishop who was consecrated by an Arian or monothelite or monophysite or myaphisite bishop?

In this specific instance- Peter the Iberian consecrating Timothy Ailouros- we have someone knowingly consecrating an anti-Chalcedonian Patriarch after this person (Timothy) allegedly engineered the murder of his Chalcedonian predecessor (Proterius) and was a well-known agitator against the Council of Chalcedon. So, I ask you again, if Peter the Iberian was a Chalcedonian, why on earth would he consecrate as bishop someone who was a well-known enemy of Chalcedon, and who had caused the downfall of his Chalcedonian predecessor?
Quote
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop
- GK Chesteron, "Lepanto"

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,471
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #85 on: February 10, 2017, 11:09:34 AM »
Looking back over the history, it looks like I have some things out of order. Timothy Ailouros was consecrated patriarch while Proterius was still alive. So the question really is- if Peter the Iberian was Chalcedonian, why would he consecrate an anti-Chalcedonian to a patriarchal throne that was already occupied by a Chalcedonian?
Quote
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop
- GK Chesteron, "Lepanto"

Offline CoptoGeek

  • of Alexandria, the Christ-loving City
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,518
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #86 on: February 10, 2017, 03:58:22 PM »
ativan, do you have any non-Georgian sources re. St. Peter the Iberian, specifically Greek Chalcedonian and within late antiquity?
"Be oppressed, rather than the oppressor. Be gentle, rather than zealous. Lay hold of goodness, rather than justice." -St. Isaac of Nineveh

“I returned to the Coptic Orthodox Church with affection, finding in her our tormented and broken history“. -Salama Moussa

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,000
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #87 on: February 10, 2017, 05:56:00 PM »
So, I am intrigued at the translation of "the Life of Peter the Iberian" here:
http://meufeanania.info/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/petre_iberi_4.pdf

I have the book for John Rufus's "The Life of Peter the Iberian":
https://www.amazon.com/John-Rufus-Theodosius-Jerusalem-Greco-Roman/dp/1589832000

According to Cornelia Horn on page lx-lxi:


In addition to the Syriac Life of Peter the Iberian, there is extant a work in Georgian entitled C‘xovreba Petre Iverisa. 157 The monk Makarios wrote that he translated from the Syriac Life of Peter the Iberian written by a certain Zachariah, “a disciple of Peter the Georgian.” 158 Under Makarios’s hand, Peter becomes a Chalcedonian saint, and the entire story is retold with a pro- Chalcedonian interpretation. The family names of Peter’s lineage are also altered. Most striking is that Peter’s name from birth in the Syriac Life of Peter the Iberian was Nabarnugios, which Makarios alters to Murvanos. 159 Makarios’s work also contains an introduction and conclusion not found in the Syriac Life of Peter the Iberian. The Syriac and Georgian texts are obviously more closely related than either one to the details unique to Zachariah’s Chronicle. Makarios’s attribution of the Syriac Life of Peter the Iberian to Zachariah could be the result of confusion, the same manner of mistake that assigned to Zachariah Rhetor the books of the Chronicle other than those he contributed. The date of the C‘xovreba Petre Iverisa is at least from the period following the acceptance of Chalcedon and the break with the Armenian church undertaken by the Georgian Catholicos Kyrion II in 606. This distance between the time of Peter and the completion of the C‘xovreba and the complex circumstances in which it was written could account for the attribution to Zachariah, aided by Zachariah’s favorable inclination toward Chalcedon toward the end of his life. Given that the essential anti-Chalcedonian interpretation tying together the Syriac Life of Peter the Iberian has been reversed in the Georgian C‘xovreba Petre Iverisa, such a work would not have been attributed to an anti-Chalcedonian such as John Rufus. While Zachariah Rhetor displayed anti-Chalcedonian inclinations in his earlier work, he concluded his life as Chalcedonian bishop of Melitene, and thus Zachariah would have been a favorable choice for a Chalcedonian Georgian in search of a possible author. In the end, these data can neither rule out John Rufus as author of the text underlying the “Georgian Life of Peter the Iberian” nor suggest conclusively a more plausible option.

157 See Lolashvili, Areopagituli krebuli. The Georgian text had been al- ready edited and translated into Russian by Nikola(i) Y. Marr, ed. and trans., " [Life of Peter the Iberian]," Pravoslavnyy Palestinskiy Sbornik, 47 = 16.2 (1896): 1–78 (Georgian text), 81–115 (Russian translation).

158 Marr, 53. See also Marr’s introduction, 20.

159 For a discussion of this name, see p. xxiv above.


Something doesn't make sense here.  Where did Horn get the information that Zacharias became Chalcedonian?  According to Hamilton and Brooks (1899), there was an assumption that Zacharias became bishop of Mitylene from imperial favor:


Now Zachariah of Mitylene was present at the Synod of 536, but in 553 the see was occupied by Palladius. Hence we may infer that Zachariah, a rhetor ,or scholastic of Gaza, residing in Constantinople, between 491 and 518 wrote an Ecclesiastical History of the years 450-491, and also between 511 and 518 wrote a Life of Severus,14 at a later time, conforming perhaps to the Chalcedonian faith,15 was made bishop of Mitylene, and died or was deposed between 536 and 553.16 The courtier Eupraxius, to whom the History is dedicated, is mentioned also in the Life of Severus in terms which imply that he was dead,17 from which it seems to follow that the History was written before the Life. He is no doubt the same as Eupraxius the chamberlain, to whom a letter of Severus is addressed.18

15. His name is not among the signatures to the decree of the Synod of 536, and he may possibly have been a nominee of Anthimus.

16. There are some notices of Zachariah in the Plerophoriae of John of Majuma, lately published in a translation by M. Nau, chs. 70, 73. From ch. 70 it appears that he gave up his secular career before 519. (Revue de l'Orient Chrétien, 1898, Suppl. trim. pp. 375, 377.)

17. Vit. Sev. p. 28, l. I, 2, "Eupraxius of illustrious memory."

18. Wright, Cat. Syr. MSS. Brit. Mus. p. 944.


However Evagrius Scholasticus quotes him as if he was anti-Chalcedonian, and criticizes his anti-Chalcedonian position.  So this assumption came about so far from 1899 AD.  Nevertheless, Horn suggests that the Georgian monk Makarios in attributing the authorship to "Zachariah" seems to assume this is the same Zachariah.

Going back to the Georgian "Life of Peter", Horn says that it is almost the same as the Syriac translation by John Rufus, with the exception of the introduction and conclusion, as well as the minor details that put St. Peter's life through Chalcedonian lens.  Therefore, whether or not the author is "Zachariah" becomes beside the point.  The original translation, which is considered by John Rufus paints St. Peter as anti-Chalcedonian, and the details are confirmed by the Chalcedonian Evagrius Scholasticus.

Nevertheless, this is interesting.  I'm going to read more about this and compare the translations myself.  Horn fails to mention which century Makarios is from, but she describes him as a Chalcedonian Georgian.  Ativan, do you know about this "Makarios"?
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Online rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,518
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #88 on: February 10, 2017, 06:27:37 PM »
It's an interesting topic.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2017, 10:02:33 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,000
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #89 on: February 10, 2017, 06:33:29 PM »
Just to add to Horn's introduction, on p. lxxiv, she writes:

The Life of Peter the Iberian preserved in Syriac translation is the oldest of the extant versions [she mentions the versions in the previous page], a translation from the Greek original. 193

193 In light of Hist. eccl. 2.5, 8; 3.33 (Bidez and Permantier, 56; Whitby, 85), Evagrius Scholasticus appears to have had access to the Greek text.


This seems to put the Georgian translation in question as a much later translation and a change in the original Syriac and Greek stories.
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.