Author Topic: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)  (Read 10526 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #90 on: February 12, 2017, 04:02:20 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 )
I found Evagrius' book online here. There's no indication whatsoever that Evagrius agreed with other's assessment. Evagrius has expressed no opinion on Peter's creed. There's even not a hint that would enable us to conclude that Evagrius thought Peter was anti-Chalcedonian or anti-diophysite. In fact when describing events around Peter he refers to John Rufus' "life of Peter". I checked every reference  Peter the Iberian in Evagrius' book. I can copy all of them here if needed. If I have missed such a reference than you can bring it.

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #91 on: February 12, 2017, 04:06:09 PM »
seems to put the Georgian translation in question as a much later translation and a change in the original Syriac and Greek stories.
I anticipated this objection of yours. While in General this is used in historical research as a valid point there's many cases when later dated sources are historically more accurate than earlier ones. Even I mentioned in my previous post that Georgian version is likely from XIV or XV century.

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #92 on: February 12, 2017, 04:26:22 PM »
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.
This is beyond the point and proves nothing as you want to make us believe. Even if bishop Anania made a mistake there are probably cases when anti-Chalcedonians consecrated Chalcedonians and visa versa. If such a case can be found then this type of argument (Peter being anti-Chalcedonian since he was ordained by anti-Chalcedonian) is not strong. In Evagrius' "history" on page 85 and note 98 it is said "Timothy had been appointed an elder by Cyril." Is this not Cyril of Alexandria?

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #93 on: February 12, 2017, 04:44:08 PM »
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"?
Not much is known about Makari Meskhi (Macarius of Meskheti). He lived in XIII or XIV century, some say XV.

I doubt that Zachariah (the author of Georgian version) and Zahariah Rhetor are the same person. Zachariah clearly says that he is Georgian. Zachariah Rhetor was born near Gaza.

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #94 on: February 12, 2017, 05:16:15 PM »
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?
Maybe, because this never happened and st Peter never consecrated Timothy Aelurus? It could be that John Rufus to make it sound like Peter was anti-Chalcedonian and Timothy was right candidate since saintly Peter was on his side. Peter was not a bishop in Egypt. How could he participate in Timothy's consecration?

Evagrius Scholasticus writes: "And after scarcely a day had elapsed, when Proterius most beloved of God was as normal staying in the bishop’s palace, Timothy took with him the two bishops who had been lawfully deposed, and clergy who had been similarly condemned to live in exile, as we have said, as if indeed to receive ordination from the two, although no one whatsoever of the orthodox bishops in the Egyptian diocese was present, as is normal for such ordinations of the bishop of Alexandria; he took possession, as he thought, of the sacerdotal seat, having blatantly dared adultery against the Church which had its own bridegroom, while the latter was celebrating the sacred offices in it and canonically occupying his own throne." He does not mention Peter in this regard. Those 2 bishops were from Egyptian diocese and were deposed. Peter was neither Egyptian bishop nor deposed that time.

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 #95 on: February 12, 2017, 05:27:16 PM »
From Book 2, Chapter V:

And when Juvenalis, after obtaining restitution to his see, had been compelled to return to the imperial city, by the violence of the party who claimed the right to supersede and anathematise in their own province, those who, as we have already mentioned, were opposed to the acts of the council of Chalcedon, assembled in the church of the Resurrection, and appointed Theodosius, who had especially caused confusion in the council, and been the first to bring a report of its proceedings, and respecting whom, at a subsequent period, the monks of Palestine alleged, in letters to Alcison, that having been convicted of malpractices in relation to his own bishop, he had been expelled from his monastery: and that at Alexandria he had impugned the conduct of Dioscorus, and, after having been severely scourged as a seditious person, had been conveyed round the city on a camel, as is usual with malefactors. To him many of the cities of Palestine made application, with a view to the ordination of bishops. Among these was Peter the Iberian ; to whom was committed the episcopal helm of the city called Majumas, in the neighbourhood of Gaza.

To "him" meant to Archbishop Theodosius.  The implication is that Archbishop increased non-Chalcedonian bishops in Palestine.  The whole chapter is about the spread and ordination of those who opposed Chalcedon.  Evagrius writes Peter in an unfavorable manner.

From Chapter VIII:

The people of Alexandria, accordingly, taking advantage of the prolonged absence of Dionysius, commander of the legions, in Upper Egypt, decree the elevation to the highest priestly grade, of Timotheus, surnamed Aelurus, who had formerly followed the monastic life, but had subsequently been admitted among the presbyters of the church of Alexandria; and, conducting him to the great church, styled that of Caesar, elect him their bishop, though Proterius was still alive and discharged the functions of his office. There were present at the election, Eusebius, president of the church of Pelusium, and Peter the Iberian, bishop of the town of Majumas, according to the account given of the transaction by the writer of the life of Peter, who also says that Proterius was not killed by the populace, but by one of the soldiers.

Again, Evagrius writes unfavorably on the people of Alexandria going against the imperial government by ordaining a rival archbishop of Alexandria in Upper Egypt, and Peter the Iberian was present ordaining Timothy, "though Proterius was still alive".  If he was a staunch Chalcedonian, Peter would support Proterius and wouldn't ordain Timothy.

From Book 3, Chapter XXXIII:

FLAVIAN having been thus ejected, Severus ascends the episcopal throne of Antioch, in the five hundred and sixty-first year of the era of that city, in the month Dius, the sixth year of the Indiction; the year in which I am now writing being the six hundred and forty-first of that era. He was a native of Sozopolis, a city of Pisidia, and had applied himself to the profession of a pleader at Berytus; but immediately on his abandoning the practice of the law, having participated in holy baptism in the sacred precinct of the divine martyr Leontius, who is revered at Tripolis, a city of Phoenicia Maritima, he assumed the monastic life in a certain monastery situated between the city of Gaza and the town called Majumas; in which latter place Peter the Iberian, who had been bishop of the same Gaza, and had been banished with Timotheus Aelurus, passed through the same discipline, and left behind him a famous memory.

Again, Evagrius writes about how Flavian, the Chalcedonian archbishop of Antioch, was ejected, and Severus replaced him as anti-Chalcedonian.  A brief biography shows that he received monastic training and formation of his anti-Chalcedonian beliefs from Peter the Iberian, who was "banished with Timotheus Aelurus".  Evagrius records here, once again unfavorably, that Peter and Timothy being both against Chalcedon were banished together.

Let's not deceive ourselves.  Evagrius the Chalcedonian is very clear he believed Peter was against Chalcedon.  This is sixth century, which is the same century Peter died.  Much more reliable than your 13th century resources.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2017, 05:27:47 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 ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #96 on: February 12, 2017, 05:29:05 PM »
There are also other things in Peter's life by John Rufus. He mentions that Juvenal wanted to consecrate Peter as a bishop before anti-Chalcedonian Theodosius did it. So, if we claim Theodosius consecrating Peter is an argument for Peter being anti-Chalcedonian then by the same token Juvenal's intention to Consecrate him as bishop makes Peter Chalcedonian.

Plus, when Juvenal was restored to Patriarchal throne they deposed all the anti-Chalcedonian bishops except Peter. This only makes sense in the light of Peter being Chalcedonian. Saying that Peter could use political connection and thus stayed as bishop is doubtful. We know that he was consecrated as a bishop forcefully. He was not the type of man looking for attention and fame.

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 #97 on: February 12, 2017, 05:33:42 PM »
There are also other things in Peter's life by John Rufus. He mentions that Juvenal wanted to consecrate Peter as a bishop before anti-Chalcedonian Theodosius did it. So, if we claim Theodosius consecrating Peter is an argument for Peter being anti-Chalcedonian then by the same token Juvenal's intention to Consecrate him as bishop makes Peter Chalcedonian.

Plus, when Juvenal was restored to Patriarchal throne they deposed all the anti-Chalcedonian bishops except Peter. This only makes sense in the light of Peter being Chalcedonian. Saying that Peter could use political connection and thus stayed as bishop is doubtful. We know that he was consecrated as a bishop forcefully. He was not the type of man looking for attention and fame.

But if you keep reading John Rufus' account, he went into exile with the non-Chalcedonian clergy, joining them and traveling with them to Upper Egypt.

John Rufus included the fact that he was not dealt with harshly precisely because of his virtues.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2017, 05:37:20 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 #98 on: February 12, 2017, 05:44:46 PM »
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.
This is beyond the point and proves nothing as you want to make us believe. Even if bishop Anania made a mistake there are probably cases when anti-Chalcedonians consecrated Chalcedonians and visa versa. If such a case can be found then this type of argument (Peter being anti-Chalcedonian since he was ordained by anti-Chalcedonian) is not strong. In Evagrius' "history" on page 85 and note 98 it is said "Timothy had been appointed an elder by Cyril." Is this not Cyril of Alexandria?

Being ordained by St. Cyril is a moot point, since St. Cyril is neither Chalcedonian or anti-Chalcedonian.  He died in 444 AD!
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 #99 on: February 12, 2017, 06:13:32 PM »
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?
Maybe, because this never happened and st Peter never consecrated Timothy Aelurus? It could be that John Rufus to make it sound like Peter was anti-Chalcedonian and Timothy was right candidate since saintly Peter was on his side. Peter was not a bishop in Egypt. How could he participate in Timothy's consecration?

Evagrius Scholasticus writes: "And after scarcely a day had elapsed, when Proterius most beloved of God was as normal staying in the bishop’s palace, Timothy took with him the two bishops who had been lawfully deposed, and clergy who had been similarly condemned to live in exile, as we have said, as if indeed to receive ordination from the two, although no one whatsoever of the orthodox bishops in the Egyptian diocese was present, as is normal for such ordinations of the bishop of Alexandria; he took possession, as he thought, of the sacerdotal seat, having blatantly dared adultery against the Church which had its own bridegroom, while the latter was celebrating the sacred offices in it and canonically occupying his own throne." He does not mention Peter in this regard. Those 2 bishops were from Egyptian diocese and were deposed. Peter was neither Egyptian bishop nor deposed that time.

Actually, the quote you posted proves the opposite, that the two bishops with Timothy were NOT bishops in the Egyptian diocese.
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 #100 on: February 12, 2017, 06:27:56 PM »
The thought of a bishop with the name of the author of the Satires amuses me endlessly. 
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 #101 on: February 12, 2017, 11:05:13 PM »
From Book 2, Chapter V:

And when Juvenalis, after obtaining restitution to his see, had been compelled to return to the imperial city, by the violence of the party who claimed the right to supersede and anathematise in their own province, those who, as we have already mentioned, were opposed to the acts of the council of Chalcedon, assembled in the church of the Resurrection, and appointed Theodosius, who had especially caused confusion in the council, and been the first to bring a report of its proceedings, and respecting whom, at a subsequent period, the monks of Palestine alleged, in letters to Alcison, that having been convicted of malpractices in relation to his own bishop, he had been expelled from his monastery: and that at Alexandria he had impugned the conduct of Dioscorus, and, after having been severely scourged as a seditious person, had been conveyed round the city on a camel, as is usual with malefactors. To him many of the cities of Palestine made application, with a view to the ordination of bishops. Among these was Peter the Iberian ; to whom was committed the episcopal helm of the city called Majumas, in the neighbourhood of Gaza.

To "him" meant to Archbishop Theodosius.  The implication is that Archbishop increased non-Chalcedonian bishops in Palestine.  The whole chapter is about the spread and ordination of those who opposed Chalcedon.  Evagrius writes Peter in an unfavorable manner.

From Chapter VIII:

The people of Alexandria, accordingly, taking advantage of the prolonged absence of Dionysius, commander of the legions, in Upper Egypt, decree the elevation to the highest priestly grade, of Timotheus, surnamed Aelurus, who had formerly followed the monastic life, but had subsequently been admitted among the presbyters of the church of Alexandria; and, conducting him to the great church, styled that of Caesar, elect him their bishop, though Proterius was still alive and discharged the functions of his office. There were present at the election, Eusebius, president of the church of Pelusium, and Peter the Iberian, bishop of the town of Majumas, according to the account given of the transaction by the writer of the life of Peter, who also says that Proterius was not killed by the populace, but by one of the soldiers.

Again, Evagrius writes unfavorably on the people of Alexandria going against the imperial government by ordaining a rival archbishop of Alexandria in Upper Egypt, and Peter the Iberian was present ordaining Timothy, "though Proterius was still alive".  If he was a staunch Chalcedonian, Peter would support Proterius and wouldn't ordain Timothy.

From Book 3, Chapter XXXIII:

FLAVIAN having been thus ejected, Severus ascends the episcopal throne of Antioch, in the five hundred and sixty-first year of the era of that city, in the month Dius, the sixth year of the Indiction; the year in which I am now writing being the six hundred and forty-first of that era. He was a native of Sozopolis, a city of Pisidia, and had applied himself to the profession of a pleader at Berytus; but immediately on his abandoning the practice of the law, having participated in holy baptism in the sacred precinct of the divine martyr Leontius, who is revered at Tripolis, a city of Phoenicia Maritima, he assumed the monastic life in a certain monastery situated between the city of Gaza and the town called Majumas; in which latter place Peter the Iberian, who had been bishop of the same Gaza, and had been banished with Timotheus Aelurus, passed through the same discipline, and left behind him a famous memory.

Again, Evagrius writes about how Flavian, the Chalcedonian archbishop of Antioch, was ejected, and Severus replaced him as anti-Chalcedonian.  A brief biography shows that he received monastic training and formation of his anti-Chalcedonian beliefs from Peter the Iberian, who was "banished with Timotheus Aelurus".  Evagrius records here, once again unfavorably, that Peter and Timothy being both against Chalcedon were banished together.

Let's not deceive ourselves.  Evagrius the Chalcedonian is very clear he believed Peter was against Chalcedon.  This is sixth century, which is the same century Peter died.  Much more reliable than your 13th century resources.
Evagrius has never expressed any unfavourable opinion regarding st Peter. And the quotes you have brought are witnessing to that. He actually does not say much about him. While he writes much more about Timothy Aelurus, Theodosius and other anti-Chalcedonians and openly expresses his negative attitude against these people he does not do the same with regard to st Peter. It appears that he did not have any other source then the life of st Peter. He did not know st Peter personally and he did not know st Peter's creed and faith. He does not say that st Peter was teaching anything against Chalcedon.

Quote
Actually, the quote you posted proves the opposite, that the two bishops with Timothy were NOT bishops in the Egyptian diocese.
How come? Did Evagrius not mention that one of the bishops according to the writer Peter's life was Eusebius of Pelusium was present there? Pelusium is in Egypt, isn't it?

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 #102 on: February 12, 2017, 11:36:19 PM »
From your quote, I'm copying and pasting:

although no one whatsoever of the orthodox bishops in the Egyptian diocese was present

That merely means that the two bishops with him were not any of the Chalcedonian Egyptian bishops.  It didn't say the two bishops were Egyptian, at all.

If this is not clear to you, it will be pointless to discuss the context clues in Evagrius' writing.  I can respect your argument that Evagrius knew only anti-Chalcedonian sources of Peter (the only issue with this argument is that this is the same century when Peter died; that means if there was another view regarding Peter, he would have wrote it down, just like he wrote down both views on the death of Proterius), but to say that he says nothing of Peter's belief shows you can't tell implicative data
« Last Edit: February 12, 2017, 11:45:53 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 ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #103 on: February 14, 2017, 09:16:42 PM »
From your quote, I'm copying and pasting:

although no one whatsoever of the orthodox bishops in the Egyptian diocese was present

That merely means that the two bishops with him were not any of the Chalcedonian Egyptian bishops.  It didn't say the two bishops were Egyptian, at all.
I misunderstood Evagrius' statement. So, I should not continue to defend my point.

Quote
I can respect your argument that Evagrius knew only anti-Chalcedonian sources of Peter (the only issue with this argument is that this is the same century when Peter died; that means if there was another view regarding Peter, he would have wrote it down, just like he wrote down both views on the death of Proterius), but to say that he says nothing of Peter's belief shows you can't tell implicative data
Again, you are reading too much into what Evagrius said. If I was an impartial historian of that church and I only had anti-Chalcedonian author's writing I would merely state what was said about a person in that writing and I would have pointed out to the source without further criticizing that given person, without stating that person's creed or faith as does Evagrius. This is honest statement of mine. What would you write about Peter in this situation if you had no other source of his life other than that of anti-Chalcedonian author? Would you go beyond what could have been stated based on this and say Peter was of this and that creed, he was anti-Chalcedonian?

Offline ativan

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 399
  • Fr. Gabrieli Of Mtskheta
Re: Georgian Orthodox Church (Oriental to Eastern)
« Reply #104 on: February 14, 2017, 09:30:09 PM »
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.
This is beyond the point and proves nothing as you want to make us believe. Even if bishop Anania made a mistake there are probably cases when anti-Chalcedonians consecrated Chalcedonians and visa versa. If such a case can be found then this type of argument (Peter being anti-Chalcedonian since he was ordained by anti-Chalcedonian) is not strong. In Evagrius' "history" on page 85 and note 98 it is said "Timothy had been appointed an elder by Cyril." Is this not Cyril of Alexandria?

Being ordained by St. Cyril is a moot point, since St. Cyril is neither Chalcedonian or anti-Chalcedonian.  He died in 444 AD!
I use this term "anti-Chalcedonian" to denote a miaphysite vs a diophysite and Chalcedonian to denote a diophysite. Whether st Cyril died before or after Chalcedon it does not matter. For an EO christian  he expressed Christology that was formulated at Chalcedon. As an OO christian do you think if he was alive by that time he would support Chalcedon or go against it?

Plus, this point I bring especially for EO christians who use such logic to prove st Peter's anti-Chalcedonian stance. Even if it was not valid point for OO christian it is improtant point for EO christians and they should not bring this in.

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 #105 on: February 14, 2017, 11:28:22 PM »
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.
This is beyond the point and proves nothing as you want to make us believe. Even if bishop Anania made a mistake there are probably cases when anti-Chalcedonians consecrated Chalcedonians and visa versa. If such a case can be found then this type of argument (Peter being anti-Chalcedonian since he was ordained by anti-Chalcedonian) is not strong. In Evagrius' "history" on page 85 and note 98 it is said "Timothy had been appointed an elder by Cyril." Is this not Cyril of Alexandria?

Being ordained by St. Cyril is a moot point, since St. Cyril is neither Chalcedonian or anti-Chalcedonian.  He died in 444 AD!
I use this term "anti-Chalcedonian" to denote a miaphysite vs a diophysite and Chalcedonian to denote a diophysite. Whether st Cyril died before or after Chalcedon it does not matter. For an EO christian  he expressed Christology that was formulated at Chalcedon. As an OO christian do you think if he was alive by that time he would support Chalcedon or go against it?

Plus, this point I bring especially for EO christians who use such logic to prove st Peter's anti-Chalcedonian stance. Even if it was not valid point for OO christian it is improtant point for EO christians and they should not bring this in.

That's a completely different question, which has absolutely nothing to do with the subject.

St. Cyril's theology can be discussed elsewhere, and with your specific question, preferably in the private forum.  After Chalcedon, you have a completely different case, where ordination was also associated with either confessing or condemning the council of Chalcedon.  That's why your use of St. Cyril makes no sense at all.  Any Chalcedonian would agree with that.

If you want to read about St. Cyril's theology in relation to Chalcedon, there's a whole lot of discussion on that point.  In fact, the discussion is endless.  I can direct you to some writings, and I will be fair, giving you both Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian scholarships on the question.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2017, 11:29:42 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 #106 on: February 15, 2017, 12:47:23 AM »
From your quote, I'm copying and pasting:

although no one whatsoever of the orthodox bishops in the Egyptian diocese was present

That merely means that the two bishops with him were not any of the Chalcedonian Egyptian bishops.  It didn't say the two bishops were Egyptian, at all.
I misunderstood Evagrius' statement. So, I should not continue to defend my point.

Quote
I can respect your argument that Evagrius knew only anti-Chalcedonian sources of Peter (the only issue with this argument is that this is the same century when Peter died; that means if there was another view regarding Peter, he would have wrote it down, just like he wrote down both views on the death of Proterius), but to say that he says nothing of Peter's belief shows you can't tell implicative data
Again, you are reading too much into what Evagrius said. If I was an impartial historian of that church and I only had anti-Chalcedonian author's writing I would merely state what was said about a person in that writing and I would have pointed out to the source without further criticizing that given person, without stating that person's creed or faith as does Evagrius. This is honest statement of mine. What would you write about Peter in this situation if you had no other source of his life other than that of anti-Chalcedonian author? Would you go beyond what could have been stated based on this and say Peter was of this and that creed, he was anti-Chalcedonian?

I'm not sure I understand your questions.  It seems to me if there was no other source than anti-Chalcedonian, then yea, I would guess even the Chalcedonian Evagrius would not be very favorable to Peter the Iberian.  Evagrius even names "Eusebius of Pelusium".  If you look up who he is, he's not someone who is liked at all, a man of bad character, and only John Rufus mentions him (Zacharias of Mitylene and Severus of Antioch do not mention his name at all), to which Evagrius seems to be glad to record this name.  So, not only is the association with Timothy, but even with an infamous Eusebius.  Evagrius also records the letter of the Chalcedonian Egyptian bishops to Emperor Leo, where they also record about "two uncanonical bishops".  This is all in the same chapter VIII of Book 2 in Evagrius.  I would suggest if you read the whole chapter, it sets the tone very clearly.

If you disagree, then perhaps we agree to disagree at this point.

God bless you.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2017, 12:52:06 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 rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,516
  • 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 #107 on: February 16, 2017, 10:02:42 PM »
Ativan,
You would also want to check if Peter the Iberian was not just a clear anti-Chalcedonian, but also did not accept Chalcedon later in his life like his Patriarch Juvenal and his personal patron Eudochia both switched to doing themselves.

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  hrono.ru  site has an article on Peter Iver saying:
Quote
" 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."
Here is how I would translate that:
Quote
His saint-biography, saved up to our days, was written in about 500 AD by Peter's successor on the episcopal throne - by the antichalcedonian John Rufus, who was intentionally taking a negative role in the fate of Peter Iver's empress, who accepted the Chalcedonian confession of faith in 456 AD.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2017, 10:10:12 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