Author Topic: Development of OOy beyond Alexandria  (Read 1059 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Development of OOy beyond Alexandria
« on: August 03, 2010, 08:59:09 PM »
I've been curious for awhile how their came to be staunch Ephesine/Cyrillian Christians in certain areas to the point where they eventually rejected Chalcedon.

How this came to pass in Egypt seems obvious to me, given the reality of such figures as Saint Cyril, Saint Dioscorus, and Saint Timothy as their heads.

How it came to pass in Abyssinia/Ethiopia/Eritrea also appears obvious, them having been ecclesiastically dependent upon the Egyptians for so long.

However, I am led to wonder about the West Syrians and the Armenians.

Given that it would seem that in the first half of the 5th century that the Syrians and/or the Christians of the Diocese of the East and/or the Patriarchate of Antioch appear to have been predominantly Theodorean, I am having a hard time understanding how their came to be such a significant party of Anti-Chalcedonian Cyrillians that they developed their own parallel Patriarchate of Antioch, constituted about more or less half of the Christians in that region, and continue to exist today as the Syriac Orthodox Church. Can anyone explain this?

Also, I don't really know much about how the Armenians came to be so Cyrillian. It doesn't seem that they had the same history with Theodoreanism, but obviously their Christological formulation would have to have been to some degree imported to be so clearly and blatantly Cyrillian. Can someone explain how this came to be?

Offline Father Peter

  • Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,123
    • Coptic Orthodox Church - Patriarchal Diocese
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchal Diocese
Re: Development of OOy beyond Alexandria
« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2010, 06:54:09 AM »
I think that Antioch was a mixture of theological positions. Rabulla of Edessa supported St Cyril and tried to eliminate Theodorean support in his see. Ibas was busy translating the works of Theodore into Syrian. In fact there was a distinction between the Greek and Syriac speaking populations. The homilies of St Severus were translated into Syriac during his patriarchate. When Ibas became bishop it seemed to be only at the instigation of elements of the ruling elite. He faced opposition from the beginning and was eventually unable to stay in Edessa because there was so much resistance to him.

So I don't think that Syria should be thought of as Theodorean, rather that there was a Theodorean party, especially among the ruling elite. During the time of Philoxenus he was clearly at the head of an Orthodox party and with Imperial support was able to elevate St Severus to the patriarchate. There were Cyrillines in Constantinople after all. We should not imagine that just because bishops took a particular stand, often only to preserve their sees, that the people shared those views. In the time around Chalcedon the bishops took one view then another then another then another. Many would sign whatever was put in front of them. Therefore we should not paint a picture of any sort of coherent or consistent opinion in any place.

Father Peter
My ministry and blog -

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington