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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?