Linus is just plain wrong. I'm afraid his posts are not historically accurate at all.
No, Linus disagrees with peterfarrington, and that is the problem peterfarrington has with Linus' posts.
Linus has a degree in history and is a member of Phi Alpha Theta
, the international honor society for historians.
peterfarrington: I have read a great many of the writings of the OO Fathers from the 5th-7th centuries and the deposition of St Dioscorus is not an issue at all. The issue is always, in these writings, that Chalcedon leaves the way open for Nestorianism.
What did you expect them to write?
"We started a schism for political reasons and because we don't like Greeks"?
Chalcedon does not leave "the way open for Nestorianism."
To say that it does is a pretext.
peterfarrington: This seems to me to be a fact, despite the actual Christology of the majority of Easterns at the time, since it is a matter of historical fact that Chalcedonian monks in Constantinople DID keep a feast of Nestorius, and the Three Chapters were received almost universally in the West such that as soon as Vigilius started showing any willingness to oppose them almost all the bishops of the West, and his own personal deacon who later became Pope Pelagius excommunicated him.
If Nestorius had some devoted loyalists in Constantinople that is not surprising. After all, he was Patriarch of Constantinople.
But anyone who would keep a feast to him cannot be described as a "Chacledonian" anymore than someone who would celebrate Arius could be called a Trinitarian or a true subscriber to Nicea I.
peterfarrington: It is also a plain fact that for 100 years after the condemnation of the Three Chapters by the non-Chalcedonians those who follwoed Chalcedon did not see any heresy in those documents and teachers, yet when they came to examine them they said that the heresy was plain to see and an affront to all Christians.
Chalcedon does not endorse or approve the Three Chapters.
The human beings Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa were found to be Orthodox.
Theodoret was the author of the Formula of Reunion
that was signed by St. Cyril himself.
Dredging up the Three Chapters in order to publicly condemn them was the brainchild of the Emperor Justinian, who hoped that by so doing he could placate the Monophysites and bring them back into the Church.
peterfarrington: Whatever Chalcedon was meant to do it is a plain fact of history that a great many bishops, priests and people believed that the teachings of Theodoret, Theodore and Ibas were consistent with Chalcedon.
I think you greatly exaggerate the importance of the Three Chapters.
Had they been as influential as you seem to think, Nestorius would have never been condemned.
peterfarrington: I have just purchased a three volume set of writings by the leading bishop of North Africa who wrote strongly supporting the Three Chapters and excommunicating Vigilius. He was a strong supporter of Chalcedon. He considered, as did his fellow bishops who joined in excommunicating Vigilius, that Chalcedon not only allowed these things but had ecumenically received them.
He must not have read Chalcedon.
It's Christology is plainly stated and renders Nestorianism impossible.
peterfarrington: It is plain wrong to say that Dioscurus was ever the issue.
The riots in Egypt following the deposition of Dioscorus, they were inspired by the "latent Nestorianism" of Chalcedon, then?
The Orthodox bishop who was torn to pieces by the mob when he attempted to ascend the chair of the Alexandrian patriarchate, that was because he was cauight reading the Three Chapters?
peterfarrington: Linus has not read enough history at all.
Translation: Linus disagrees with me and I don't like it.
I don't get my history from the BOC web site or the Coptic Church, at any rate.
peterfarrington: If he had he would know why the OO rejected Chalcedon and why they continued to insist that Chalcedon needed to be dealt with. If he was interested he could ask. There is nothing more irritating than being told what I believe when it is patently false. It means that my opinion doesn't matter at all. Nor that of my fellow Orthodox.
The rejection of Chalcedon was largely political, ethnic, and cultural and only partly theological.
I never said anything about what you
I was talking about the original reaction to Chalcedon.
peterfarrington: Linus fails to deal with the hundreds of thousands of OO Christians killed by the Byzantines.
I do not approve of the persecution of anyone because of his religion.
Persecuting the OO was wrong.
But it doesn't make their schism right by default.
peterfarrington: Of course that had an effect, but throughout the writings of St Severus, even when he had been driven from Antioch and was threatened with having his tongue pulled out, the issue of Dioscorus was not raised. Even when a large proportion of the Alexandrian Synod had been killed it was not an issue with St Timothy either. In fact his writings are full of efforts to deal eirenically with Chalcedonians.
Severus became OO Patriarch of Antioch in 512, some 61 years after Chalcedon, and he was a Syrian, not an Egyptian.
Besides, what would you expect him to write?
What would you expect Timothy to write, as well?
"The reason I am in schism is because I don't like Greeks"?
peterfarrington: The Alexandrian Church has suffered persecution from Byzantines and then from Muslims for 1500 years. It is to the credit of the Alexandrians that they do not mention the great suffering caused by Byzantine Chalcedonians - but I need to now in the face of revisionist history. Why did the Alexandrians welcome the Arabs who freed them from the persecution of their fellow Christians? Such treatment created a separate jurisdiction, it was the only way to survive efforts to exterminate the Church.
Religious persecution is always shameful.
The Anabaptists were persecuted, too.
Does that make them right?
The Byzantine Empire was never truly Christian, not in its government, anyway.
BTW, what I have presented is not "revisionist history."
It is mainstrean history.
What you are presenting is a partisan spin on history, with all of the guys in the white hats in your corner, and all of the bad guys on the other side.
peterfarrington: But the cause of the division was Christological, never to do with St Dioscorus.
For the Egyptians Dioscorus was extremely important.
The supposed Christological problems with Chalcedon were and are trumped up.
peterfarrington: For the rest I am afraid I don't care what Linus thinks any more. I find his approach the same as I'd expect from a member of ROAC.
I disagree with you, and that's the problem.
If the members of ROAC also disagree with you, then in that I'm with them.
Otherwise you associate me with ROAC in a feeble attempt to insult me.
peterfarrington: I feel just now I'd rather see a reconciliation with Roman Catholicism based on Orthodox truth if the majority of the EO think like him.
I am all for the reunion of Christians in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
But you seem to want that through our agreement to your version of history.
Ain't gonna happen.
'Cause you're wrong.
peterfarrington: I shall try my hardest not to participate in this discussion any more, especially as Great Lent is soon upon us.
That sounds good to me.
peterfarrington: I love the EO very much, but we don't need reconciliation to be Orthodox and if a reconciliation isn't wanted then I guess we'll have to carry on as we are.
And I don't really have anything against the OO, either.
If you carry on as you are then there will not be any reconciliation.
You cannot expect us to want a reconciliation based on an admission of your correctness and our error.
We would have to lie to do that.