Author Topic: more ?'s about Manzikert  (Read 1627 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
more ?'s about Manzikert
« on: August 08, 2010, 11:03:07 PM »
For one, I am wondering if what happened at the Council of Manzikert is generally understood as a restoration of full communion between the Syriac Orthodox Church and the Armenian Apostolic Church or if it is understood that full communion was never really broken and that it was rather a clarification and confirmation of full communion that existed despite lack of visible interaction (like what the Maronites claim with Rome). While in the past I had thought it was the former, I am beginning now to think that it was the latter. So far as I understand it, the Armenian church started out dependent on the Cappadocian/Pontian church, in 370 established autocephaly (which was probably rightfully theirs in the first place, not being part of the Roman Empire at the time), spent the next few centuries in conflict with the Byzantines, and then finally settled with communion with the West Syrians. Nowhere in this do I see a formal breach of communion between the two before Manzikert. Can someone explain if I've got the right understanding? Or is there something about the conflict hinted at at Manzikert that I'm not seeing?

The other thing I am wondering about is if the Armenians and Syrians actually had truly divergent understandings of the nature of Christ that they worked out at Manzikert, or if they had simply developed a misunderstanding of what the other believed because of using different language. Did the Armenians believe that Christ did not suffer the "blameless corruptions" that Severus wrote about, for what he meant by them? Was the understanding of what "corruption" meant fundamentally different? Was the Armenian conception of "corruption" inherently tied into sin, thus rendering "blameless corruptions" unintelligible?

Offline Salpy

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,429
  • Holy Martyrs of the Armenian Genocide pray for us!
Re: more ?'s about Manzikert
« Reply #1 on: August 08, 2010, 11:36:21 PM »
I don't think we had a breach of communion.  I think Manzikert was about the Armenians and Syriac Orthodox getting together and having a "meeting of the minds" over Christology and the issue of corruptibility.  I think they just wanted to clarify with each other what each Church believed and come up with a list of common statements, or anathemas.

Offline vasnTearn

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 192
Re: more ?'s about Manzikert
« Reply #2 on: August 09, 2010, 04:24:46 AM »
The other thing I am wondering about is if the Armenians and Syrians actually had truly divergent understandings of the nature of Christ that they worked out at Manzikert, or if they had simply developed a misunderstanding of what the other believed because of using different language. Did the Armenians believe that Christ did not suffer the "blameless corruptions" that Severus wrote about, for what he meant by them? Was the understanding of what "corruption" meant fundamentally different? Was the Armenian conception of "corruption" inherently tied into sin, thus rendering "blameless corruptions" unintelligible?
Yes, you are right. The Armenians did not and do not call the "blameless PASSIONS" of the Lord "corruption". That is, hunger, thirst etc that our Lord experienced and experienced truly, not in semblance, were not corruption but voluntary acts of economy of salvation. Because, according to the Armenian Fathers, the term "corruption" is always negative and corruption is the result of sin, while in the Lord there was not sin. He took the sinful and corruptible nature of man and the mortal body but by uniting this fallen humanity to His incorruptible and immortal Divinity, he made his humanity incorruptible and immortal too, by this union already and not after the resurrection only, as most of others teach. The resurrection of the Lord brought incorruptibility to OUR bodies by grace and hope, not to the Lord's body which was the same both before and after death and resurrection. He experienced weaknesses and suffered death because He Himself wanted to, He did all those things VOLUNTARILY, not being subject to. That is, if it were His will not to experience those things, He would not allow His humanity to experience those things which were natural for it (the humanity). If He wanted not to die, He would not die. (One of the examples that the Armenian Fathers bring is Lord's feeling hunger after the 40 days and not earlier or later. He hungered only after 40 days, because it was His will to do so. Otherwise, it is not natural for us, simple humans, to feel hunger so late. They also quote John 10:18 ("No man takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again."). Also the words of the Lord after the Resurrection, "Behold my hands and my feet that it is I myself" (Luke 24:39), because the Classical Armenian translation of this verse translates the Greek "autos" here as the "same": "Behold... that I am the same".)
When considering the Lord's actions, the Armenian Fathers never allow any thought that could divide this union of the Lord's humanity and divinity.  They consider nothing outside this union. Every moment and every act of the Lord's life on earth had as its beginning and source this union and not separately His divinity or humanity. And the result of this understanding is the teaching of incorruptibility. Because we can't consider only His humanity, separating it from His divinity. Only in this latter case could we allow the thought of corruptibility ascribed to the Lord in any way. But this contradicts to the true "miaphysitism".
Writings on this issue by the Armenian Fathers were composed not only before the times of the Council of Manazkert ("Seal of Faith" comprised by Catholicos Komitas (VII century) is devoted mainly to this subject), but later too. What I wrote above is based on one of the treatises of Hovhannes Sarkavag (John the Deacon) who lived in the 11th-12th centuries. St Nerses the Grace-filled also had this teaching. Some centuries later St Gregory of Tathev taught the same. So this teaching of the Armenian Church is very stable and hasn't changed during centuries.



« Last Edit: August 09, 2010, 04:28:54 AM by vasnTearn »

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: more ?'s about Manzikert
« Reply #3 on: August 09, 2010, 05:38:54 PM »
I don't think we had a breach of communion.  I think Manzikert was about the Armenians and Syriac Orthodox getting together and having a "meeting of the minds" over Christology and the issue of corruptibility.  I think they just wanted to clarify with each other what each Church believed and come up with a list of common statements, or anathemas.

I would imagine that given the origins of the Armenian church with the Cappadocian/Pontian church, which later went Chalcedonian, that it probably formed a particular partnership with the West Syrians that had not been in its origins?

Offline deusveritasest

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,521
Re: more ?'s about Manzikert
« Reply #4 on: August 11, 2010, 10:26:42 PM »
Another thing is that pretty much all the perspectives I have heard about Manzikert have been Armenian. Does anyone know of any resources for Syriac Orthodox explanations of Manzikert?

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,116
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: more ?'s about Manzikert
« Reply #5 on: February 10, 2017, 11:34:05 AM »
I'm resurrecting this old thread because this seems to be a topic demanding more discussion. And please, Rakovsky, do not derail it. I would really like to see a discussion from the OO's about this.

The Armenians did not and do not call the "blameless PASSIONS" of the Lord "corruption". That is, hunger, thirst etc that our Lord experienced and experienced truly, not in semblance, were not corruption but voluntary acts of economy of salvation. Because, according to the Armenian Fathers, the term "corruption" is always negative and corruption is the result of sin, while in the Lord there was not sin. He took the sinful and corruptible nature of man and the mortal body but by uniting this fallen humanity to His incorruptible and immortal Divinity, he made his humanity incorruptible and immortal too, by this union already and not after the resurrection only, as most of others teach. The resurrection of the Lord brought incorruptibility to OUR bodies by grace and hope, not to the Lord's body which was the same both before and after death and resurrection. He experienced weaknesses and suffered death because He Himself wanted to, He did all those things VOLUNTARILY, not being subject to. That is, if it were His will not to experience those things, He would not allow His humanity to experience those things which were natural for it (the humanity). If He wanted not to die, He would not die. (One of the examples that the Armenian Fathers bring is Lord's feeling hunger after the 40 days and not earlier or later. He hungered only after 40 days, because it was His will to do so. Otherwise, it is not natural for us, simple humans, to feel hunger so late. They also quote John 10:18 ("No man takes it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again."). Also the words of the Lord after the Resurrection, "Behold my hands and my feet that it is I myself" (Luke 24:39), because the Classical Armenian translation of this verse translates the Greek "autos" here as the "same": "Behold... that I am the same".)

I am comparing this with Mina's presentation on the debate between Severus and Julian here:

https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2016/08/17/st-severus-of-antioch-and-the-julianist-heresy/

I may very well be misunderstanding this, but what VasnTearn describes above as the Armenian position seems to me substantially the same as Julianism, i.e. that corruptibility is the result of sin and the Fall, and not a feature inherent to human (and any created) nature. Likewise, the usage of the term "voluntary" with regards to the Lord's passions seem to veer toward that side, though this is a rather ambiguous topic to be sure. In fact I am not sure if any traditional orthodox (EO or OO) account of the Lord's passions is entirely proof against this problem.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2017, 11:39:50 AM by Iconodule »
Quote
“A goose to hatch the Crystal Egg after an Eagle had half-hatched it! Aye, aye, to be sure, that’s right,” said the Old Woman of Beare. “And now you must go find out what happened to it. Go now, and when you come back I will give you your name.”
- from The King of Ireland's Son, by Padraic Colum

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,852
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: more ?'s about Manzikert
« Reply #6 on: February 10, 2017, 03:18:53 PM »
I went to drive to a Syriac Archdiocesan center a couple of months ago in North Jersey to buy a book not available easily online, "The Syriac Chronicle of Michael Rabo" translated by Matti Moosa.  The reason for buying this book, besides adding it to my Oriental Orthodox Syriac collection, is that it does go through a Syriac perspective of the council of Manzikert and gives a Syriac set of ten doctrinal anathemas agreed by both the Syriacs and the Armenians in this unifying council.  To be quite honest, after reading the account and the anathemas, I left more confused about this council.

First off, it seems in this council, some people claim that neither the name of Severus or Julian was mentioned as condemned or venerated (since up to this time, the Armenians actually anathematized Severus).  So the question of veneration was left open to each church without enforcement.  However, based on the background story by Michael Rabbo, Julian was a heretic and condemned.

Even when you read the contexts of the story leading up to this council (pp. 497-9), there might be some confusion for this discrepancy.  Apparently, the whole issue fired up again with an archimandrite named Gabriel of the Sassonian's monastery.  According to this, he "duped" the Armenians into thinking that the Syriacs believed that Christ's body was susceptible to corruption and that Severus and Jacob Baradaeus also believed this.  The issue of "duped" is interesting.  When I kept reading, it seems that Gabriel was telling the Armenians that Syriacs believed that Christ's flesh was corruptible even after Resurrection.

When Gabriel was summoned in the council, they asked him to anathematize Julian.  He refused, so "they tore up his stole and expelled him according to their custom."  The Armenian and Syriac bishops then continued to deliberate on the word "corruption" and try to give an understanding of the terminology so that no confusion ensues.  The Armenians seem to have defined "corruption" as death and decay.  Whereas the Syriacs tried to prove first using nature concerning the fact that a body susceptible to death is corruptible, and then when resurrected, is incorruptible.  The Armenians wanted Scriptural proof only.  So the Syriac replied used Acts 13:34 and Philippians 3:21.  This seemed to corroborate with the Armenian translation of the Scriptures, and the Armenians were thus convinced afterwards.  Now here's the interesting part, and I will quote Michael Rabo on this point:

"They reformulated the doctrinal passages that needed rectification in a manner that satisfied the two sides of the Syrians and the Armenians.  However, they compromised a little lest they relapse to the former disputation.  They resolved that anything that does not mar the truth refutes the vicious teaching of the heretics.  In this manner, they achieved the union between them."  And then they went on to say that they celebrated the Eucharist together.  Then the document of Manazkert, which contains the name of the bishops,  statement of faith of Manazkert, and the 10 anathemas.

It seems therefore, that some "compromising" language was left, but Julian was still condemned as a heretic and therefore, the doctrine of Severus prevailed afterwards.  So the words of the ten anathemas written in Manazkert should be understood as the teachings of Severus, despite the confusion of the language given in the anathemas.  This is why a lot of scholars like Fr. VC Samuel would say that the Armenians after this council accepted the doctrines of St. Severus despite what Seda S. says.

Now, earlier I mentioned the possibility that Severus and Julian were not mentioned by name for veneration or condemnation.  If you only have the document of Manazkert with the statement of faith and anathemas, this is true.  But if you accept also the background story given by Michael Rabo, we have what seems to be the missing minutes and details of the council that seems to show a condemnation of Julian as a heretic that Armenians like vasnTearn and Seda S. seem to not have readily available to them.  So this needs to be addressed as well.  And why did Michael Rabo mention a "little compromise" in theological language?  That also needs explanation.  Was Gabriel the archimandrite condemned for Julianist views as Michael Rabo said, or was he merely condemned for being deceptive in explaining the doctrine of the Syriac Church?  These are questions that need to be investigated in depth.

Second, the 10 anathemas, which I'll type down now (Book 11, Chapter 20, pp. 499-500) (the question marks are my emphasis):

1.  Who does not confess that the consubstantial Holy Trinity is one nature, one Godhead, three qnume (hypostases) and three adored persons, and they are equal and perfect, let him be anathema.

2.  Who does not confess that the Word of God has been truly incarnated from the Holy Virgin, that he took from her a created and finite, that is, limited body, or in other words, he took a body, soul, and mind, but who say that Christ was manifested in an imaginary and a not real form, let him be anathema.

3.  Who says that the Word of God did not take a body subjected to death, sin (?) and corruption, but took a body like the body of Adam before the fall, and by grace was not subject to sin and corruption, let him be anathema.

4.  Who does not confess the one nature of the divinity and the humanity, that is of the incarnated Christ who is a union of ht divinity and the humanity, in an incomprehensible and ineffable manner, without the mixture or division or confusion of the two (natures), let him be anathema.

5.  Who does not confess that Christ is one that is God and man, but divides him saying that God is one thing and man is another thing, let him be anathema.

6.  Who does not say that the body of Christ is subject to corruption and not glorified since since he was in the womb until the resurrection, contrary to what the prophets, the Apostles, and the father doctor say, that he became incorruptible, glorified and perfect after the Resurrection, let him be anathema.

7.  Who does not confess that the personal body of Christ is impassible (?) and subject to death by its nature, but say that it is passible and subject to death by virtue of the divine nature, let him be anathema.

8.  Who does not confess that Christ suffered in the body the human passions, save sin, but says that he suffered in the divinity, or says that his body did not take a part in the human passions, and that the corruptible (?) body endured these passions, let him be anathema.

9.  Who does not believe that Christ endured sufferings in an incorruptible (?) manner, or attribute corruption (?) to the passions, and does not say same as the prophets, Apostles, and the Orthodox fathers said, let him be anathema.

10.  We anathematize all heresies and what is written about them by so and so, and we accept the testimonies of the holy fathers.


Now compare this to a translation from Syriac made by "Seda S." (an Armenian) of the monachos forum (he only translated the relevant ones):

2. If someone does not confess the Word of God being inhominated from the holy Virgin, uniting to Himself a created and distinct body, that is, saying more precisely, body, soul and mind, but says Christ was manifest in semblance and likeness and not in truth, let him be anathema.

3. If someone says God the Word did not unite to Himself from our mortal, sinful and corruptible body, but from the body that Adam had before his transgression, and that was, by grace, immortal, sinless and incorruptible, let him be anathema.

6. Anyone who says the flesh of Christ is corriptible and not glorified and imperfect according to the union, and thinks He was corruptible, unglorified and imperfect from the womb of His Mother until the resurrection, in another sense than it was used by the prophets, the apostles, the fathers and the teachers*, and that He became incorruptible, glorified and perfect first after the resurrection, let him be anathema.

*) The Armenian version doesn't have the words, 'in another sense than it was used by the prophets, the apostles, the fathers and the teachers'.

7. Anyone who does not confess that the true (?) body of Christ according to nature is passible and mortal, that since He is God, He is impassible and immortal, but says He is passible and mortal in the divine nature and is impassible and immortal in the human nature, let him be anathema.

8. Anyone who does not confess that Christ in the human body bore all human passions, except for sin, but says He is fallen under passions according to the divinity, or says that His body did not experience human passions and a corruptible body experienced them, let him be anathema.

9. Anybody who does not confess that Christ experienced the passions incorruptibly, or considers that the passions are corruption for Him, and <does> not <confess>, as the prophets, the apostles and the orthodox teachers taught, let him be anathema. [/I]


Soooo.....yea, in some parts, it seems to support Severus, and in other parts it seems to either be grammatically nonsensical, or possibly a compromise towards Julianism in some sense. 

Anathema number 3 is very clearly pro-Severian and anti-Julian, anathematizing anyone who believes that Christ has a prelapsarian flesh, and not a flesh susceptible to death and corruption. 

Anathema number 6 from Matti Moosa's translation is also very pro-Severian and anti-Julian, that Christ had a corruptible flesh from the womb until the Resurrection.  But Seda S's translation is missing the negative from the beginning, "Anyone who does not say..."  So that makes Seda S's translation completely opposite from that of Matti Moosa. 

Moosa's anathema number 7 is very confusing, but Seda S's translation seems to make more sense and it is Seda S's translation that makes it pro-Severian and anti-Julian.  My question mark on Moosa is on the word "impassible".  If that was a mistake by Moosa, that the word should be "passible", it would generally agree with Seda S's translation. 

The only thing that may be a compromise towards Julian would be anathemas numbers 8 and 9, which is seems to have agreement between Moosa and Seda S, the idea that the passions are experienced by Christ in an "incorruptible manner" is interesting in addition to the denial that the corruptible flesh experienced passions.  Does it take into account the idea from Michael Rabo's background story that "corruption" is death and decay, that passions are not "death and decay"?  I don't know, but certainly there seems to be confusion in definitions, and maybe it's this anathema that was given a "compromise".

That's my little research that I have thus far regarding this interesting council in 726 AD.  The confusion of this subject is why I did not discuss this in my essay in Fr. Aidan's blog.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2017, 03:23:51 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: 19,852
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: more ?'s about Manzikert
« Reply #7 on: February 10, 2017, 03:57:45 PM »
Just to answer a point made earlier.  "Voluntary acts" do not necessarily mean the passions are corruptible or incorruptible.  Both Severus and Julian agreed that the passions are voluntary acts, but the former defined the acts were done were corruptible, and the latter defined them as incorruptible.
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 Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,116
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: more ?'s about Manzikert
« Reply #8 on: February 10, 2017, 04:20:24 PM »
Thanks, mina. A very interesting post, even if it doesn't necessarily clarify everything.

Just to answer a point made earlier.  "Voluntary acts" do not necessarily mean the passions are corruptible or incorruptible.  Both Severus and Julian agreed that the passions are voluntary acts, but the former defined the acts were done were corruptible, and the latter defined them as incorruptible.

I get that. But I guess the question is, are we saying voluntary in terms of the Lord's overall voluntary kenosis, in adopting corruptible/ passible human nature, or are we saying that he consented at particular junctures for certain passions to affect him? E.g., "I'm going to be hungry now," "I'm going to be sad now," "I'm going to experience pain now," as if these experiences were otherwise blocked by the union of his humanity and divinity? The latter interpretation seems to me to be very problematic in terms of the authenticity of Christ's humanity, though I do see it implied in the work of many orthodox fathers.
Quote
“A goose to hatch the Crystal Egg after an Eagle had half-hatched it! Aye, aye, to be sure, that’s right,” said the Old Woman of Beare. “And now you must go find out what happened to it. Go now, and when you come back I will give you your name.”
- from The King of Ireland's Son, by Padraic Colum

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,001
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: more ?'s about Manzikert
« Reply #9 on: February 10, 2017, 04:34:14 PM »
I went to drive to a Syriac Archdiocesan center a couple of months ago in North Jersey to buy a book not available easily online, "The Syriac Chronicle of Michael Rabo" translated by Matti Moosa.  The reason for buying this book, besides adding it to my Oriental Orthodox Syriac collection, is that it does go through a Syriac perspective of the council of Manzikert and gives a Syriac set of ten doctrinal anathemas agreed by both the Syriacs and the Armenians in this unifying council.  To be quite honest, after reading the account and the anathemas, I left more confused about this council.

First off, it seems in this council, some people claim that neither the name of Severus or Julian was mentioned as condemned or venerated (since up to this time, the Armenians actually anathematized Severus).  So the question of veneration was left open to each church without enforcement.  However, based on the background story by Michael Rabbo, Julian was a heretic and condemned.

Even when you read the contexts of the story leading up to this council (pp. 497-9), there might be some confusion for this discrepancy.  Apparently, the whole issue fired up again with an archimandrite named Gabriel of the Sassonian's monastery.  According to this, he "duped" the Armenians into thinking that the Syriacs believed that Christ's body was susceptible to corruption and that Severus and Jacob Baradaeus also believed this.  The issue of "duped" is interesting.  When I kept reading, it seems that Gabriel was telling the Armenians that Syriacs believed that Christ's flesh was corruptible even after Resurrection.

When Gabriel was summoned in the council, they asked him to anathematize Julian.  He refused, so "they tore up his stole and expelled him according to their custom."  The Armenian and Syriac bishops then continued to deliberate on the word "corruption" and try to give an understanding of the terminology so that no confusion ensues.  The Armenians seem to have defined "corruption" as death and decay.  Whereas the Syriacs tried to prove first using nature concerning the fact that a body susceptible to death is corruptible, and then when resurrected, is incorruptible.  The Armenians wanted Scriptural proof only.  So the Syriac replied used Acts 13:34 and Philippians 3:21.  This seemed to corroborate with the Armenian translation of the Scriptures, and the Armenians were thus convinced afterwards.  Now here's the interesting part, and I will quote Michael Rabo on this point:

"They reformulated the doctrinal passages that needed rectification in a manner that satisfied the two sides of the Syrians and the Armenians.  However, they compromised a little lest they relapse to the former disputation.  They resolved that anything that does not mar the truth refutes the vicious teaching of the heretics.  In this manner, they achieved the union between them."  And then they went on to say that they celebrated the Eucharist together.  Then the document of Manazkert, which contains the name of the bishops,  statement of faith of Manazkert, and the 10 anathemas.

It seems therefore, that some "compromising" language was left, but Julian was still condemned as a heretic and therefore, the doctrine of Severus prevailed afterwards.  So the words of the ten anathemas written in Manazkert should be understood as the teachings of Severus, despite the confusion of the language given in the anathemas.  This is why a lot of scholars like Fr. VC Samuel would say that the Armenians after this council accepted the doctrines of St. Severus despite what Seda S. says.

Now, earlier I mentioned the possibility that Severus and Julian were not mentioned by name for veneration or condemnation.  If you only have the document of Manazkert with the statement of faith and anathemas, this is true.  But if you accept also the background story given by Michael Rabo, we have what seems to be the missing minutes and details of the council that seems to show a condemnation of Julian as a heretic that Armenians like vasnTearn and Seda S. seem to not have readily available to them.  So this needs to be addressed as well.  And why did Michael Rabo mention a "little compromise" in theological language?  That also needs explanation.  Was Gabriel the archimandrite condemned for Julianist views as Michael Rabo said, or was he merely condemned for being deceptive in explaining the doctrine of the Syriac Church?  These are questions that need to be investigated in depth.

Second, the 10 anathemas, which I'll type down now (Book 11, Chapter 20, pp. 499-500) (the question marks are my emphasis):

1.  Who does not confess that the consubstantial Holy Trinity is one nature, one Godhead, three qnume (hypostases) and three adored persons, and they are equal and perfect, let him be anathema.

2.  Who does not confess that the Word of God has been truly incarnated from the Holy Virgin, that he took from her a created and finite, that is, limited body, or in other words, he took a body, soul, and mind, but who say that Christ was manifested in an imaginary and a not real form, let him be anathema.

3.  Who says that the Word of God did not take a body subjected to death, sin (?) and corruption, but took a body like the body of Adam before the fall, and by grace was not subject to sin and corruption, let him be anathema.

4.  Who does not confess the one nature of the divinity and the humanity, that is of the incarnated Christ who is a union of ht divinity and the humanity, in an incomprehensible and ineffable manner, without the mixture or division or confusion of the two (natures), let him be anathema.

5.  Who does not confess that Christ is one that is God and man, but divides him saying that God is one thing and man is another thing, let him be anathema.

6.  Who does not say that the body of Christ is subject to corruption and not glorified since since he was in the womb until the resurrection, contrary to what the prophets, the Apostles, and the father doctor say, that he became incorruptible, glorified and perfect after the Resurrection, let him be anathema.

7.  Who does not confess that the personal body of Christ is impassible (?) and subject to death by its nature, but say that it is passible and subject to death by virtue of the divine nature, let him be anathema.

8.  Who does not confess that Christ suffered in the body the human passions, save sin, but says that he suffered in the divinity, or says that his body did not take a part in the human passions, and that the corruptible (?) body endured these passions, let him be anathema.

9.  Who does not believe that Christ endured sufferings in an incorruptible (?) manner, or attribute corruption (?) to the passions, and does not say same as the prophets, Apostles, and the Orthodox fathers said, let him be anathema.

10.  We anathematize all heresies and what is written about them by so and so, and we accept the testimonies of the holy fathers.


Now compare this to a translation from Syriac made by "Seda S." (an Armenian) of the monachos forum (he only translated the relevant ones):

2. If someone does not confess the Word of God being inhominated from the holy Virgin, uniting to Himself a created and distinct body, that is, saying more precisely, body, soul and mind, but says Christ was manifest in semblance and likeness and not in truth, let him be anathema.

3. If someone says God the Word did not unite to Himself from our mortal, sinful and corruptible body, but from the body that Adam had before his transgression, and that was, by grace, immortal, sinless and incorruptible, let him be anathema.

6. Anyone who says the flesh of Christ is corriptible and not glorified and imperfect according to the union, and thinks He was corruptible, unglorified and imperfect from the womb of His Mother until the resurrection, in another sense than it was used by the prophets, the apostles, the fathers and the teachers*, and that He became incorruptible, glorified and perfect first after the resurrection, let him be anathema.

*) The Armenian version doesn't have the words, 'in another sense than it was used by the prophets, the apostles, the fathers and the teachers'.

7. Anyone who does not confess that the true (?) body of Christ according to nature is passible and mortal, that since He is God, He is impassible and immortal, but says He is passible and mortal in the divine nature and is impassible and immortal in the human nature, let him be anathema.

8. Anyone who does not confess that Christ in the human body bore all human passions, except for sin, but says He is fallen under passions according to the divinity, or says that His body did not experience human passions and a corruptible body experienced them, let him be anathema.

9. Anybody who does not confess that Christ experienced the passions incorruptibly, or considers that the passions are corruption for Him, and <does> not <confess>, as the prophets, the apostles and the orthodox teachers taught, let him be anathema. [/I]


Soooo.....yea, in some parts, it seems to support Severus, and in other parts it seems to either be grammatically nonsensical, or possibly a compromise towards Julianism in some sense. 

Anathema number 3 is very clearly pro-Severian and anti-Julian, anathematizing anyone who believes that Christ has a prelapsarian flesh, and not a flesh susceptible to death and corruption. 

Anathema number 6 from Matti Moosa's translation is also very pro-Severian and anti-Julian, that Christ had a corruptible flesh from the womb until the Resurrection.  But Seda S's translation is missing the negative from the beginning, "Anyone who does not say..."  So that makes Seda S's translation completely opposite from that of Matti Moosa. 

Moosa's anathema number 7 is very confusing, but Seda S's translation seems to make more sense and it is Seda S's translation that makes it pro-Severian and anti-Julian.  My question mark on Moosa is on the word "impassible".  If that was a mistake by Moosa, that the word should be "passible", it would generally agree with Seda S's translation. 

The only thing that may be a compromise towards Julian would be anathemas numbers 8 and 9, which is seems to have agreement between Moosa and Seda S, the idea that the passions are experienced by Christ in an "incorruptible manner" is interesting in addition to the denial that the corruptible flesh experienced passions.  Does it take into account the idea from Michael Rabo's background story that "corruption" is death and decay, that passions are not "death and decay"?  I don't know, but certainly there seems to be confusion in definitions, and maybe it's this anathema that was given a "compromise".

That's my little research that I have thus far regarding this interesting council in 726 AD.  The confusion of this subject is why I did not discuss this in my essay in Fr. Aidan's blog.

Mina, you are a goldmine.  :)
Now accepting brief PMs.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,852
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: more ?'s about Manzikert
« Reply #10 on: February 10, 2017, 05:08:43 PM »
Thanks, mina. A very interesting post, even if it doesn't necessarily clarify everything.

Just to answer a point made earlier.  "Voluntary acts" do not necessarily mean the passions are corruptible or incorruptible.  Both Severus and Julian agreed that the passions are voluntary acts, but the former defined the acts were done were corruptible, and the latter defined them as incorruptible.

I get that. But I guess the question is, are we saying voluntary in terms of the Lord's overall voluntary kenosis, in adopting corruptible/ passible human nature, or are we saying that he consented at particular junctures for certain passions to affect him? E.g., "I'm going to be hungry now," "I'm going to be sad now," "I'm going to experience pain now," as if these experiences were otherwise blocked by the union of his humanity and divinity? The latter interpretation seems to me to be very problematic in terms of the authenticity of Christ's humanity, though I do see it implied in the work of many orthodox fathers.

The answer to this question is not very clear.  There's room for both interpretations it seems to me, whether from EO or OO sources, whether pre or post Chalcedonian.  Consider the question regarding the fasting of Christ for 40 days.  You might get some pre-Chalcedonian readings that Christ chose to be hungry after 40 days
« Last Edit: February 10, 2017, 05:10:12 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.