Author Topic: Western post-1054 Orthodoxy  (Read 36184 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline erracht

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 313
  • OC.net
Western post-1054 Orthodoxy
« on: January 17, 2004, 08:51:43 AM »
The mutual excommunication of 1054 is seen as the point when East & West split, but from what I've been told, there was heresy before that date, AND there were people in the West who did remain Orthodox for a period afterward. Could I have examples of post-1054 Western Orthodox countries? I'm told that England was Orthodox until 1066 (and that Harold, the king who died that year at Hastings is an Orthodox martyr) when William the Conqueror brought Roman Catholic clergy with him. How do we know England was still Orthodox and who else was after 1054?
NULL

Offline Father Peter

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,202
    • Coptic Orthodox Church - Patriarchal Diocese
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchal Diocese
Re:Western post-1054 Orthodoxy
« Reply #1 on: January 17, 2004, 09:06:48 AM »
To be fair I would think we would have to look at the content of faith in various countries and people.

The West wasn't Orthodox one day and not Orthodox another. Most people didn't even know what had happened in Constantinople.

It's true that some English travelled to Constantinople after the Conquest and that there was an English church there.

What would be necessary would be to list those teachings and practices which might be considered un-Orthodox by 1054 and see which peoples in the West had not adopted them.

The Irish do not seem to have adopted the filioque until late for instance, and St Theodore, though he seems to have introduced the filioque did not accept the universal jurisidiction of the Pope.

So I don't think it's straightforward. Did those in the West who opposed the veneration of icons understand the veneration of icons for instance? On the one hand they were heretic iconoclasts, on the other hand perhaps they were judging something, idolatrous worship of images, which didn't exist in the East.

Even to be fair, did those in the West who taught that the christology of Ibas and Theodoret had been authorised at Chalcedon understand the issues in the East or the language that was used in the East.

So I am torn. On the one hand I want to push the presence of heretical thinking way back before 1054, on the other hand I want to ask questions about what was understood and meant in these controversies.

Whatever others say, Britain was more Orthodox and later than many other places. But even England was more influenced by the Frankish domination of the papacy on the continent than we might like. Fr John Romanides has written extensively on Britain and the Franks and Orthodoxy at www.romanity.org.
My ministry and blog - http://www.stgeorgeministry.com

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington

Offline Linus7

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,780
Re:Western post-1054 Orthodoxy
« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2004, 02:26:01 AM »
Quote
peterfarrington: Even to be fair, did those in the West who taught that the christology of Ibas and Theodoret had been authorised at Chalcedon understand the issues in the East or the language that was used in the East.

I don't think Chalcedon was ever as much of an obsession for Orthodox Christians as it is for Non-Chalcedonians.

It's not like missionaries travelled the West, spreading the "Good News" of the christology of Ibas and Theodoret.

Besides, Chalcedon did not authorize Nestorian christology.




 
« Last Edit: January 18, 2004, 02:28:09 AM by Linus7 »
The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas

Offline Father Peter

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,202
    • Coptic Orthodox Church - Patriarchal Diocese
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchal Diocese
Re:Western post-1054 Orthodoxy
« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2004, 04:45:59 AM »
The West did consider that the Christology of Ibas and Theodoret had been authorised at Chalcedon. That's why so many of them schismed from Rome when it signed up to Constantinople II.

And it is you who seem obsessed by Chalcedon not me. Since it is more important to you that I 'accept' Chalcedon than confess the double consubstantiality of Christ.
My ministry and blog - http://www.stgeorgeministry.com

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington

Offline carpo-rusyn

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 383
Re:Western post-1054 Orthodoxy
« Reply #4 on: January 18, 2004, 09:09:21 PM »
[I'm told that England was Orthodox until 1066 (and that Harold, the king who died that year at Hastings is an Orthodox martyr) when William the Conqueror brought Roman Catholic clergy with him. How do we know England was still Orthodox and who else was after 1054?]

This is a frequently recurring topic it seems.  England was not Orthodox until 1066.  The Abps of Canterbury and York as well as the rest of the heirarchy and clergy of England were very much Roman Catholic being recognized in their respective offices by Rome.   They did have different liturgical usages such as that of Sarum or Hereford but these were just derivations of the Roman rite.  William didn't bring RC clergy with him but rather just brought more Norman clergy with him.  There were Normans in some ecclesiastical posts in England prior to 1066.

As for Harold Godwinsson being a martyr.......what EO church recognizes him as such?  The man was an oath breaker.  He had sworn upon Holy Scripture as well as relics of the saints that after Edward died he would not impede William in claiming the English throne.

[but from what I've been told, there was heresy before that date, AND there were people in the West who did remain Orthodox for a period afterward]

There was heresy before 1054 in both the East and the West to be sure.  I guess to answer your question I'd need to know what you mean by "Orthodox".  Do you mean reciting the Creed with the filioque?  Or that somewhere in the West people were celebrating the Divine Liturgy of St John.

[It's true that some English travelled to Constantinople after the Conquest and that there was an English church there.]

True some English did travel to New Rome and even fought for the emperor after the Conquest. In the same way after the fall of New Rome to the Turk some Byzantines traveled to Venice and took service with Western govt's.  Just because there was an English church in New Rome is it thought that they did the DL?  Rather they probably did whatever version of the Roman rite they'd followed in Jolly Old England.

Carpo-Rusyn


Offline Linus7

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,780
Re:Western post-1054 Orthodoxy
« Reply #5 on: January 19, 2004, 10:52:52 AM »
Quote
peterfarrington:
The West did consider that the Christology of Ibas and Theodoret had been authorised at Chalcedon. That's why so many of them schismed from Rome when it signed up to Constantinople II.

The West did NOT consider that the Nestorian Christology of Ibas and Theodoret had been authorized at Chalcedon.

How could it when the Chalcedonian Christology is clearly stated and Nestorius and his views roundly condemned?

What the West considered is that Ibas and Theodoret themselves had been found to be Orthodox, not their writings.

How many in the West temporarily "schismed" as a result of the Fifth Ecumenical Council?

Certainly not as many as did so in the East as a result of the Fourth, with apparent permanence.

Quote
peterfarrington: And it is you who seem obsessed by Chalcedon not me. Since it is more important to you that I 'accept' Chalcedon than confess the double consubstantiality of Christ.

I am not the one who introduced an off-handed criticism of Chalcedon into a discussion of post-Schism Orthodoxy in the West.

As I have said before, Christology is not all there is to Orthodox Christianity.

I am glad we apparently share the same Christology.

But OOs apparently reject the Church's charism of infallbility and her authority. Thus they reject the Council of Chalcedon and the ecumenical councils that followed it.

In that, how do they differ from the Nestorians, who refused to submit to Ephesus 431?

I don't see how one can get around that, no matter how much he may desire Christian unity.

« Last Edit: January 19, 2004, 11:20:27 AM by Linus7 »
The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas

Offline carpo-rusyn

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 383
Re:Western post-1054 Orthodoxy
« Reply #6 on: January 19, 2004, 12:12:29 PM »
Sbdn Peter

I think if you'd mentioned Ibas or Theodoret to a pre-1066 Saxon priest or bishop they would've said "Who?".  

CR

Offline Father Peter

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,202
    • Coptic Orthodox Church - Patriarchal Diocese
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchal Diocese
Re:Western post-1054 Orthodoxy
« Reply #7 on: January 19, 2004, 12:50:01 PM »
The West did NOT consider that the Nestorian Christology of Ibas and Theodoret had been authorized at Chalcedon.

How many in the West temporarily "schismed" as a result of the Fifth Ecumenical Council?

You need to read some more history Linus. Pelagius could only find two bishops who would consecrate him when he came back from Constantinople II. All the rest considered he had sold Ibas and Theodoret down the river.

Since it was the writings of these two which were condemned at Constantinople II it was these writings which Pelagius was considered wrongly to have abandoned. Some didn't commune with Rome until 150 years later. Ibas' letter and Theodoret's Christology was considered entirely Orthodox by many in the West.

Theodoret himself wrote to Pope Leo saying that his (Theodoret's) Christology had won the day at Chalcedon. The North African province and much of the West agreed.

Sorry for a few questions....

Which bits of Chalcedon do you consider infallible?

And how do you know Chalcedon is an ecumenical council?

Why do you not accept the 8th and 9th Eastern Orthodox ecumenical councils?

Why do you not accept the 1845 encyclical of the Eastern Orthodox patriarchs and bishops as authoritative, since that also was signed by all the patriarchs and many of the bishops?

Since the West do not accept the 8th ecumenical council as ecumenical, or indeed as a true council, where does that leave the West between Photius and 1054? The EO considered it ecumenical, the West didn't. Why was the East in communion with a West that rejected an ecumenical council?

What about the Western rejection of Canon 28? How can the West be Orthodox if it rejects an ecumenical canon?
My ministry and blog - http://www.stgeorgeministry.com

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington

Offline Father Peter

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,202
    • Coptic Orthodox Church - Patriarchal Diocese
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchal Diocese
Re:Western post-1054 Orthodoxy
« Reply #8 on: January 19, 2004, 01:00:13 PM »
I think if you'd mentioned Ibas or Theodoret to a pre-1066 Saxon priest or bishop they would've said "Who?".  

Undoubtedly. But there were many whose job it was to know and they did know. St Columbanus wrote to the Pope's telling them not to put up with the heresies of the East. He supported the Three Chapters, as did many others in the West. I'll dig out his letters.

My point is not to say that the West was heretical, I don't think St Columbanus was. But that different languages and understandings were at play, and that the West was often at odds with the East but wasn't necessarily heretical because of it.

I'm much more interested in the substance of someones faith - even St Leo - and discovering that what was meant is different to what has been heard. I have no time for preserving division when there is none. That's the devils work, and he's been able to do it too easily for too long.

I'd like to know whether St Leo of Rome died a heretic because he rejected Canon 28 of Chalcedon? I don't think he did. But it seems there is a strain of EO thought which insists on external uniformity rather than agreement in substance. If St Leo of Rome rejected an ecumenical canon then I do find it confusing that Linus insists he is a saint in his own terms. He cannot say that Chalcedon is infallible and must be accepted and then venerate someone who rejects an infallible aspect of that council? Surely? I am confused in the logic???
My ministry and blog - http://www.stgeorgeministry.com

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington

Offline Father Peter

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,202
    • Coptic Orthodox Church - Patriarchal Diocese
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchal Diocese
Re:Western post-1054 Orthodoxy
« Reply #9 on: January 19, 2004, 01:09:29 PM »
But OOs apparently reject the Church's charism of infallbility and her authority. Thus they reject the Council of Chalcedon and the ecumenical councils that followed it.

In what way do I reject the latter councils, or indeed the substance of Chalcedon?

Don't you think that your attitude is a little like the big-endian/little-endian dispute in Gulliver's Travels? Do you think it contributes to the witness to Christ in the world.

I confess that Christ is fully God and fully man, without confusion or mixture, divison or seperation. I confess that the Three Chapters are blasphemy and should be utterly rejected. I confess that the humanity of Christ is perfect in will as in all other things pertaining to the fullness of humanity and the the Word of God wills both divinely and humanly. I confess that icons should be used as teaching aids and should be venerated, not as being venerated in themselves but that the veneration passes to that who is venerated.

In what way do I reject the latter councils?

You feel confident that God wants you to preserve division despite the fact that we have the same faith? I certainly don't feel that confidence nor do I feel confident in pointing out all the errors of the Roman Catholic communion or even the Church of the East. I'd much rather work with members of those communions for unity in truth and love than keep finding reasons for division.
My ministry and blog - http://www.stgeorgeministry.com

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,696
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re:Western post-1054 Orthodoxy
« Reply #10 on: January 19, 2004, 01:22:05 PM »
Subdeacon Peter and Linus, please take the current deviation from the topic of this thread (and although it may have started as something related to the topic, it seems like it is not now) to another thread or discuss it via PM.  Thank you.

Offline Ebor

  • Vanyar
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,492
Re:Western post-1054 Orthodoxy
« Reply #11 on: January 19, 2004, 07:28:26 PM »
Harald Godwinson was not fighting the Normans to be a religious martyr.  The swearing an oath to William that he would support the Norman claim to the English throne is rather complicated by whether it was a freely taken oath, or under duress or that Harald was tricked.  If anyone is interested citations from the "Anglo-Saxon Chronicle" in modern English translation can be provided.   However, "Oath-breaking" was a very serious matter in those times.  To be labeled as such was dire.  

Harald, his brother Tostig and his father, Earl Godwin were major players, as it were, in English politics with the aim to be who had the most land and wealth and power.  

I have come across a reference to some body claiming Harald Godwinson as a martyr and I *think* I saw an icon, but I will have to search for it.  But the conquest wasn't a religious conflict. It was who would take over after St. Edward the Confessor's death.  Harald Hardrada also was trying to make a grab and was defeated at the Battle of Stanford Bridge a short time before Hastings.

As to people going to Constantinople/Micklagard.  It was rather common in the North lands for men who did not have land or who wanted to better themselves to go be a sword/ax for hire. The first references I've seen are in the late 900's.  Again, citations from the Norse Sagas can be provided, if desired.  They went there because thats where the money was.  The Emperor had a unit only loyal to him and if one survived the rewards were great.  

So some Anglo-Saxons are booted off their land by the Normans. They have to go somewhere and one place, that pays, is Micklagard.  

Small oddity: on the balustrade in Hagia Sophia survives some runes that are thought to date to around 1100 A.D left by one "Halfdan" a nordic name.

Ebor

"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.

Offline carpo-rusyn

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 383
Re:Western post-1054 Orthodoxy
« Reply #12 on: January 19, 2004, 07:54:59 PM »
[I have come across a reference to some body claiming Harald Godwinson as a martyr and I *think* I saw an icon, but I will have to search for it.]

I'd be interested to know who is claiming Harald as a martyr.  I agree the oath taking is a little murky.

I think that Harald Hardrada is considered a martyr by the Norwegians. I think Garrison Keillor mentioned it recently in Prarie Home Companion.  ;D

Didn't Hardrada serve in the Varangian Guard?  I seem to remember something about that?

Carpo-Rusyn

Offline Ebor

  • Vanyar
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,492
Re:Western post-1054 Orthodoxy
« Reply #13 on: January 20, 2004, 12:41:05 AM »
Well, I did some looking. One of the things making it tricky is that in AS times the name is "Harald" but now many spell it "Harold".  There is a reference to Harald Godwinson on "An English Orthodox Calender" at http://www.russianorthodox-roac.com/4.html as well as references to the "King martyr" from Vladimir Moss.
At http://www.saintandrew.net/fr_josiah/st_alexis.htm on a page about St. Alexis Toth it says, in part,
 "For British descendants today is particulary significant since it is the memorial of the King-Martyr Harold II, and the Battle of Hastings in 1066."

Someone else on a page on various saint says they saw " a listing for "St. Harold, last Orthodox king of England" in the Calendar printed by St. John of Kronstadt Press", but they can't recall any details.  I have no knowledge of this press myself.

The Wikipedia says that "The Orthodox church recently recognised Harold as a martyr with October 14 as his saint's day." but it give no citation or details as to who/where/when.

I was relieved to find out that that the icons I remembered were of earlier A.S. kings such as Edmund and Ethelbert.

A great laugh at the Norwegians considering Harald Hardrada a martyr ;D  I can imagine Garrison Keillor talking about that.

Yes Harald Hardrada ("Hardrede" or Severe Counsellor i.e. Tyrant) did go to the Varangian Guard. It's in the "Heimskringla" by Snorri Sturlison in section 3 of the "Saga of Harald Hardrade" (links provided if interested) Then he came back and was King. Then he tried to take part of England (in conjunction with Tostig (Harald Godwinson's brother) and died at Stamford Bridge.

That also has the saga of King Olaf of Norway, who is St. Olaf, who once won some land by some incredible dicing luck. But that tale is for another time.. :D

Ebor
"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.

Offline Ebor

  • Vanyar
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,492
Re:Western post-1054 Orthodoxy
« Reply #14 on: January 20, 2004, 01:01:34 AM »
Last bit after following one last link before sleep:

 "The English Orthodox today venerate Gytha’s father, St Harold of Hastings, King of England, together with those fallen in battle with him." is from a  site on Urkrainian Orthodoxy:
http://www.unicorne.org/orthodoxy/articles/saints_icons/saints_new/monomakh.htm

So there isn't a lot, but there's some out there claiming Harald Godwinson as an EO martyr.  But it still wasn't a religious conflict.  

Ebor
"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.

Offline Father Peter

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,202
    • Coptic Orthodox Church - Patriarchal Diocese
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchal Diocese
Re:Western post-1054 Orthodoxy
« Reply #15 on: January 20, 2004, 11:11:19 AM »
So some Anglo-Saxons are booted off their land by the Normans. They have to go somewhere and one place, that pays, is Micklagard.  

Well it wasn't quite like that. The entire episcopate was removed and many died in prison. Fr John Romanides of blessed memory has much to say about that. Many English were killed, raped, and brutalised while the Normans settled in. And the bloody history of the Middle Ages is a history of Norman dominance. It was a massive discontinuity.

There were many things which the English church still had in common with the wider and Eastern church before the conquest. Married parish priests were very common for instance. Baptism by immersion survived in places until even the 'reformation'.

In fact one of the reasons for the papal inspired and supported invasion of England was to bring the English church into closer conformity with Rome. Of course it was a Western Catholic church but it wasn't dominated by Rome in the way it came to be in the post-Conquest period. And certainly before the conquest the British churches were not dominated by Rome and Rome's writ did not have unquestioned authority.

This did change at the Conquest.

And of course if the pre-Conquest church wasn't Orthodox then neither was Rome and one might ask why the Eastern Churches were in communion with the West in 1053? If it was Orthodox then of course the English Church was Orthodox.
My ministry and blog - http://www.stgeorgeministry.com

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington

Offline Father Peter

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,202
    • Coptic Orthodox Church - Patriarchal Diocese
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchal Diocese
Re:Western post-1054 Orthodoxy
« Reply #16 on: January 20, 2004, 12:28:12 PM »
Here's an article by Vladimir Moss

http://www.romanitas.ru/eng/The%20Fall%20of%20Orthodox%20England.htm

The Fall of Orthodox England
My ministry and blog - http://www.stgeorgeministry.com

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington

Offline Ebor

  • Vanyar
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,492
Re:Western post-1054 Orthodoxy
« Reply #17 on: January 20, 2004, 02:55:15 PM »
Well, I composed a reply and my computer got the pip and it was gone.  So let's try again.

Taking conquered lands and giving them to people on the "winning side" was not new to the Normans. The Saxons did it in England when they started invading in the mid-400's.  Reading the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle shows that the Saxons were not merely innocent pacifists that the Normans slaughtered indiscriminantly.  They fought back. (In other times, they fought and killed each other.  Harald and his brother Tostig were not examples of brotherly love for instance.)  Some nobles went to Scotland and other places to regroup, gain allies and try to take it back.  Here are the sections recording the years 1052 to 1101.  

http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/OMACL/Anglo/part5.html
http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/OMACL/Anglo/part6.html

Married clergy were not uncommon in the western parts of Christendom either.  Here is a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia on celibacy. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm

Re baptism, I was unaware that immersion was considered only "Eastern". there are references to immersion and there are also fonts  from before 1066. The one in Wells Cathedral is a Saxon font from what I've read. (Never having visited there personally yet.)

In the Chronicle are numerous references to "Bishop so-and-so" going to Rome to recieve his pall from "Pope such-a-one".  St. Dunstan didn't celebrate mass with the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom that I've ever read.  Patrick went to Rome and thence to Ireland.  "Orthodox" and "Catholic" did not have all the connotations that they have here and now.  There was Christendom from the far north and west (Iceland converted by vote in 1000 A.D.) to beyond the Byzantine Empire.  There were many places and customs in between dedicated to worshiping the Trinity.

I have seen Vladimir Moss' writings.  They have been posted by ROAC for example.  

With respect,

Ebor
« Last Edit: January 20, 2004, 02:57:05 PM by Ebor »
"I wish they would remember that the charge to Peter was "Feed my sheep", not "Try experiments on my rats", or even "Teach my performing dogs new tricks". - C. S. Lewis

The Katana of Reasoned Discussion

For some a world view is more like a neighborhood watch.

Offline Father Peter

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,202
    • Coptic Orthodox Church - Patriarchal Diocese
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchal Diocese
Re:Western post-1054 Orthodoxy
« Reply #18 on: January 20, 2004, 02:58:18 PM »
Orthodox doesn't mean Eastern or Oriental Orthodox to me or to many converts in the UK. The Western church was Orthodox or it wasn't Catholic.

None of us, when engaged in evangelism, and using the concept of Orthodox England, mean Eastern Orthodox England.

It's a useful concept in our mission and I'm not sure why is is often attacked.
My ministry and blog - http://www.stgeorgeministry.com

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington

Offline Linus7

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,780
Re:Western post-1054 Orthodoxy
« Reply #19 on: January 20, 2004, 04:11:07 PM »
Quote
peterfarrington:
You need to read some more history Linus.

Perhaps you should try not to put so much of a Non-Chalcedonian spin on the history you read.

You said that many in the West taught that Chalcedon authorized the Christology of Ibas and Theodoret, and by that you meant their early, Nestorian Christology.

That is not true, nor can you prove it from history.

What I believe many in the West objected to was what appeared to them as the condemnation of men who were already dead - and thus not able to appear and defend themselves - in order to appease schismatic Monophysites.

As I understand it, Theodoret and Ibas had repented of their Nestorianism, just as you maintain Eutyches repented at Ephesus 449.

Theodore of Mopsuestia, however, never repented and was himself condemned at Constantinople II and not merely his writings.

You should try to post without being insulting or condescending.

Quote
peterfarrington: Pelagius could only find two bishops who would consecrate him when he came back from Constantinople II. All the rest considered he had sold Ibas and Theodoret down the river.
Since it was the writings of these two which were condemned at Constantinople II it was these writings which Pelagius was considered wrongly to have abandoned. Some didn't commune with Rome until 150 years later. Ibas' letter and Theodoret's Christology was considered entirely Orthodox by many in the West.

Theodoret himself wrote to Pope Leo saying that his (Theodoret's) Christology had won the day at Chalcedon. The North African province and much of the West agreed.

Theodoret was the author of the reunion formulary signed by St. Cyril himself in 433, which stated:

[Christ is] "perfect God and perfect man consisting of rational soul and body, of one substance with the Father in His Godhead, of one substance with us in His Manhood, so that there is a union of two natures; on which ground we confess Christ to be one and Mary to be the mother of God " ( quoted in Chadwick's The Early Church, p. 199).

His written criticisms of St. Cyril (one of the "Chapters" condemned at Constantinople II) predate that and Chalcedon.

Evidently he had altered his Nestorian leanings by 431 when he authored the reunion formulary signed by St. Cyril.

That is why Theodoret was not condemned at Chalcedon.

It was not Theodoret's older, Nestorian Christology which was considered Orthodox in the West. That was hardly possible given the outcome of Chalcedon.

Quote
peterfarrington: Sorry for a few questions....

Which bits of Chalcedon do you consider infallible?

Its dogma, not every minute remark.

But that is a good question.

Quote
peterfarrington: And how do you know Chalcedon is an ecumenical council?

The Orthodox Church tells me it is; I believe it on the authority of the Church.

Those who became the Oriental Orthodox (mainly Egyptians) rejected that authority for what they believed were good reasons, just as the Nestorians rejected the Church's authority regarding Ephesus 431 for what they believed were good reasons.

If it is possible to reject the authority of the Church and still be Orthodox, then are Protestants Orthodox?

Quote
peterfarrington: Why do you not accept the 8th and 9th Eastern Orthodox ecumenical councils?

I was taught that the first Seven Councils were recognized by the Church as ecumenical.

I have not been taught any others have such universal recognition, nor have I read that that is the case.

I know that some regard the Quinisext Council (Trullo 692) as ecumenical, but, as I understand it, that opinion is not universal.

Quote
peterfarrington: Why do you not accept the 1845 encyclical of the Eastern Orthodox patriarchs and bishops as authoritative, since that also was signed by all the patriarchs and many of the bishops?

Encyclicals are not universally regarded as infallible and may contain error. Witness the Encyclion of the Emperor Basilicus (476) that you yourself cited once before. It was signed by how many bishops? 700? Yet it anathematized Chalcedon and declared the Latrocinium a valid council.

Obviously encyclicals are merely human letters and liable to mistakes.

Quote
peterfarrington: Since the West do not accept the 8th ecumenical council as ecumenical, or indeed as a true council, where does that leave the West between Photius and 1054? The EO considered it ecumenical, the West didn't. Why was the East in communion with a West that rejected an ecumenical council?

What about the Western rejection of Canon 28? How can the West be Orthodox if it rejects an ecumenical canon?

What you refer to as the 8th Ecumenical Council is not universally regarded by the Orthodox Church as ecumenical. If it were, I would accept that.

Canons deal with discipline and order and are not dogmatic, as I believe you know. They are subject to change and are not part of the Deposit of Faith.

Obviously there was disagreement over Canon 28, but that is not the same thing as rejection of an ecumenical council and the creation of a 1500-year schism.

How is authority to be exercised by the Church if whole regions and peoples are free to reject her councils and separate themselves from her?

Do you reject the idea of conciliar Church government?





« Last Edit: January 20, 2004, 04:23:46 PM by Linus7 »
The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas

Offline Byzantine Christian

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 96
Re:Western post-1054 Orthodoxy
« Reply #20 on: January 20, 2004, 06:50:38 PM »
I think the EP should have never removed the Anathema against the RCs.

In Christ
BC

Offline carpo-rusyn

  • Elder
  • *****