OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 22, 2014, 11:05:01 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Personhood of Christ in relation to the Theotokos  (Read 8786 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #90 on: January 05, 2011, 02:11:55 AM »

He's saying the Logos is begotten of the Father (ie: the Son is uncreated) and the humanity is born of the Virgin.

That is technically impossible given the language. Read the pronouns:

"as His eternal birth from the Father is wonderful, so also is His temporal birth from Mary."

The repetition of only the same pronoun as the subject indicates referring to the same subject.
Yes, it is the fact that the incarnate Logos is a single divine subject (i.e., one divine hypostasis) that makes it possible for us to refer to the Virgin Mary by the conciliar title "Theotokos."


Read this, it will clear up some things :

http://nestorian.org/book_of_marganitha_part_iii.html#part3chap4
I have no problem with a person making a mental distinction (tei theoria monei) between the divine and human natures in Christ; instead, the difficulty arises when a person denies that Mary is Theotokos because they have failed to accept that she is the mother of the eternal and uncreated hypostasis of the Logos made man.  Christ, as Chalcedon taught, is one hypostasis and one prosopon in two natures.

read the link I gave
I read the link, but I disagree with it.  I reject Nestorius' views as heretical.


Did you read the last part that the ACOE had nothing to do with Nestorius and that people started knocking on it's door to accept some things the Apostles never taught ?


Quote
I follow the Cappadocians in holding that hypostasis means subsistence.  That said, the incarnate Christ is one person (prosopon) and one subsistence (hypostasis), and Mary gave birth to the divine person and subsistence of the eternal Logos, who assumed human nature from her.

If you follow the Cappadocian Fathers, you might benefit in knowing that the Western Father the ACOE gave the title of "Interpreter" to (Mar Theodore of Mopsuestia) was taught by Diodorus of Tarsus and thus is of the school of the Cappadocian Fathers. There is no Greek word seperating person from Qnuma as Mar Odisho said.


An example of a TRUE heresy is that of papism which changes what a Bishop is by usurping the role of the Head of the Church (Christ). This heresy actually endangers sacraments since somebody changed the role of what a Bishop is, an essential office of the church. So please stop worrying about fictitious heresies like what Mar Nestorius who suffered for the Truth supposedly said and worry about something actually dangerous.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 02:43:04 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,420


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #91 on: January 05, 2011, 02:32:09 AM »

I read the link, but I disagree with it.  I reject Nestorius' views as heretical.
Did you read the last part that the ACOE had nothing to do with Nestorius and that people started knocking on it's door to accept some things the Apostles never taught ?
Whether it has a direct connection to Nestorius or not is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that the modern ACOE seems to reject that doctrine of the incarnation by refusing to admit that Mary is the Theotokos.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #92 on: January 05, 2011, 12:37:09 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
Can someone answer me a question : how is it orthodox to say the Divinity of Christ is a person which is given "birth" to when in fact God is not a "person"? How can we speak of a Spirit as something which is given birth to when it is not subject to the physical world, when it is immortal and in the case of God without beginning ? Would it not be much more orthodox to say that the Virgin gave birth to the humanity of Christ which was subject to the things implied by birth ?

Perhaps you should dive a bit deeper into the Patristic writings and sprinkle this with some Hindu theological texts which can perhaps animate and give a more detailed language to help understand and describe that which can not be described.  As Jesus Christ told us, "If I tell you physical things and you can not understand, how will you be understanding when I tell you spiritual things?"

It is fundamental that we understand the doctrine of the Incarnation in the Orthodox concept, that Jesus Christ is mutually and eternally a human being and God.  He is not a God who became a man, He is not a man who became a God.  He was always a God, and always a Man, perfect God and perfect Man, Two Natures FROM One Person, and that unified person of Jesus Christ is both God and Man, in perfect hypostasis. This is not necessarily easy to understand, but here is a Patristic analogy.  In purely scientific terms, Adam is the first sequence of purely homo sapien DNA, and Eve is that mother of us all who we share the exact same mitochondrial DNA.  Jesus Christ's humanity always followed this same pattern of Adam's DNA, and this is the mathematical concept of His humanity, that He shares our own DNA and subsequent physicality.Some of the Hindu mystics have wonderful dialogue explaining in poetry and symbolism the idea of humanity itself being a condensate of the Divine Source.   In Hinduism, ALL human beings are like Jesus Christ, a composite mix perfectly of the Divine and the Human forms.  While that is not specifically the Orthodox doctrine, the language and manner in which the Hindus explain this can serve usefully to explain our own Orthodox concept of the Incarnation.


The Father is the Sun (ie, the origin/source), the Son is the Light (ie, the material manifestation of the Essence of the Origin) and the Holy Spirit is the Heat (ie, the reaction to the Origin)

Jesus Christ's Divinity is the fire, and His Humanity is the heat (ie, the manifestation of this fire), but its in unison, just as you can not take away the heat from the fire in nature.  In Ethiopian Orthodox we call this Tewahedo (literally, "Made into one, composite form") which is both a concept and a word derived from the Hebrew "ahkhad" ("made-one from many") which is exactly the term used by Jesus Christ and Moses when they said and quoted, "Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is ONE (ie, made into one) God."

(from the Strong's Concordance/Lexicon)

In the Virgin Mary, the humanness of Jesus Christ condensed in Her own purely human flesh and became God-Man, as His Divinity was always from the Father, before the beginning, and His humanity also always existed, in fact He is the origin of all humanity.  When God created Man, He created ALL mankind in the proto-type of Adam, and we are also of this same origin. This is also part of the concept of the Body of Christ which is taught in the Epistles and the Patristic writings, but a bit more obscurely and mystically explained.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 12:39:36 PM by HabteSelassie » Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,426


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #93 on: January 05, 2011, 03:46:22 PM »

I read the link, but I disagree with it.  I reject Nestorius' views as heretical.
Did you read the last part that the ACOE had nothing to do with Nestorius and that people started knocking on it's door to accept some things the Apostles never taught ?
Whether it has a direct connection to Nestorius or not is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that the modern ACOE seems to reject that doctrine of the incarnation by refusing to admit that Mary is the Theotokos.
Do you really believe that?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,426


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #94 on: January 05, 2011, 03:48:53 PM »

I know this:

1) She needed a Saviour.
2) The Eastern Church (ACOE) never taught her ascending to heaven and never dying.



The ACOE teaches the following concerning the virgin birth :

And I replied to his Majesty in the following manner: "That He was born without breaking the virginal seals of His mother we have evidence from Book and nature. From Book there is the example of Eve who was born from the side of Adam without having rent it or fractured it, and the example of Jesus Christ who ascended to Heaven without having torn and breached the firmament. In this way He was born of Mary without having broken her virginal seals or fractured them. This can also be illustrated from nature: all fruits are born of trees without breaking or tearing them, and sight is born of the eye while the latter is not broken or torn, and the perfume of apples and all aromatic substances is bora of their respective trees or plants without breaking and tearing them, and the rays are bora of the sun without tearing or breaking its spheric form. As all these are bora of their generators without tearing them or rending them, so also Christ was born of Mary without breaking her virginal seals; as His eternal birth from the Father is wonderful, so also is His temporal birth from Mary."
-Timothy I, Apology for Christianity

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/timothy_i_apology_01_text.htm


If the one born from the Mary was also truly eternally born/begotten from the Father, as this Timothy fellow indicates, then logically that necessitates the one being born from Mary being God, and thus ascribing the title of Theotokos to her being accurate.

The one born was the humanity of Christ, not the Divinity. God is not a person obviously, In the ACOE there is no mention of "Divine persons"- EVER. Only Qnume. This also proves the allegations of "nestorianism" wrong since nobody ever taught "two persons in Christ". Mar Nestorius was persecuted for the Truth.
ummm. A person is born, not a nature. The Divine Logos was born by means of his human nature, not his Divine Nature.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,420


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #95 on: January 05, 2011, 04:30:20 PM »

Whether it has a direct connection to Nestorius or not is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that the modern ACOE seems to reject that doctrine of the incarnation by refusing to admit that Mary is the Theotokos.
Do you really believe that?
Yes, I believe what I wrote, and I am basing what I said upon Rafa's posts and on the links he has provided.

I know this:

1) She needed a Saviour.
2) The Eastern Church (ACOE) never taught her ascending to heaven and never dying.



The ACOE teaches the following concerning the virgin birth :

And I replied to his Majesty in the following manner: "That He was born without breaking the virginal seals of His mother we have evidence from Book and nature. From Book there is the example of Eve who was born from the side of Adam without having rent it or fractured it, and the example of Jesus Christ who ascended to Heaven without having torn and breached the firmament. In this way He was born of Mary without having broken her virginal seals or fractured them. This can also be illustrated from nature: all fruits are born of trees without breaking or tearing them, and sight is born of the eye while the latter is not broken or torn, and the perfume of apples and all aromatic substances is bora of their respective trees or plants without breaking and tearing them, and the rays are bora of the sun without tearing or breaking its spheric form. As all these are bora of their generators without tearing them or rending them, so also Christ was born of Mary without breaking her virginal seals; as His eternal birth from the Father is wonderful, so also is His temporal birth from Mary."
-Timothy I, Apology for Christianity

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/timothy_i_apology_01_text.htm


If the one born from the Mary was also truly eternally born/begotten from the Father, as this Timothy fellow indicates, then logically that necessitates the one being born from Mary being God, and thus ascribing the title of Theotokos to her being accurate.

The one born was the humanity of Christ, not the Divinity. God is not a person obviously, In the ACOE there is no mention of "Divine persons"- EVER. Only Qnume. This also proves the allegations of "nestorianism" wrong since nobody ever taught "two persons in Christ". Mar Nestorius was persecuted for the Truth.
ummm. A person is born, not a nature. The Divine Logos was born by means of his human nature, not his Divine Nature.
You have expressed the key point in the dispute.  No mother gives birth to a nature; instead, a mother always gives birth to a person, and in the incarnation Mary gave birth to the divine person / subsistence of the Logos when He took human nature from her through the power of the Holy Spirit.  The ACOE seems to be confusing person (understood as prosopon and hypostasis) with nature, which is - to be honest - a form of the Nestorian error.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #96 on: January 05, 2011, 05:30:47 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

You have expressed the key point in the dispute.  No mother gives birth to a nature; instead, a mother always gives birth to a person, and in the incarnation Mary gave birth to the divine person / subsistence of the Logos when He took human nature from her through the power of the Holy Spirit.  The ACOE seems to be confusing person (understood as prosopon and hypostasis) with nature, which is - to be honest - a form of the Nestorian error.

I am sorry but that is not entirely accurate, even from a purely scientific standpoint.  Our specific combinations of DNA and physical features are what make us uniquely human from something both physically and genetically similar in structure as say a Chimpanzee.  So yes, we not only receive our physical bodies, but our human nature from our mothers, for if we were not born human beings in the recombined DNA of our parents and literally using their flesh and blood in the form of the inseminated egg cell and the genetic material from the sperm gamete, this is what defines us as specifically human beings.  So yes, Jesus Christ, through the Incarnation, did take on an aspect of His human nature from the Virgin birth, and it is in fact precisely why He was born of a human birth through the typical human mechanisms of egg and DNA.  Otherwise, Jesus Christ could have simply appeared, rather than having been physically made and born in the womb of the Virgin.  But perhaps you are referring to the more metaphorical aspect of nature and humanity, which we loosely classify as the "soul" or the "spirit" which is also human.  I think in terms of the eternity and inseparability of Jesus Christ's human nature and divine nature is in this context, as aside from it we would have to get heretical and claim that Jesus Christ became human nature only after the Incarnation of the egg cell in Virgin Mary's womb.  But we know this is a continuous process, just as melting ice becomes water, or vaporizing water becomes steam, but in each manifestation the fundamental nature (ie, H2O or water) remains the same, even as it takes on different physical forms.  Jesus Christ was and is always human and divine, and in fact He was indeed fully human BEFORE the Incarnation in the womb of the Virgin, but it is precisely this process of Incarnation which completed the process to finality, to consummation, to our Salvation.  

stay blessed,
habte selassie



Fixed quote tags and nothing more... -PtA
« Last Edit: January 08, 2011, 02:52:31 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #97 on: January 05, 2011, 05:33:05 PM »

Look Apoth, I was kind enough to provide a link on how the Greek "hypostasis" became identified with person and that this was never accepted in the East. I also don't care AT ALL what so forth so forth Western individual in so forth council the ACOE did not attend said about this issue centuries later after the teaching was set in the ACOE, especially since Salvation proceeded from the East--->Westwards, not the other way round, and if this understanding of yours was demonstrably never taught in the East that's all that matters. It was never taught in the East. A Qnume is not a person. You insist in anthropomorphising the Divinity of Christ (especially for the incarnation), there's a name for this idea in the semitic mind : it's called paganism.

Man-god = pagan

Man / God = Orthodox


Quote
The Father is the Sun (ie, the origin/source), the Son is the Light (ie, the material manifestation of the Essence of the Origin) and the Holy Spirit is the Heat (ie, the reaction to the Origin)

The analogy of the Father being the Sun, the Son the Light, and the Warmth the Holy Spirit is interestingly taught in the Assyrian Church of the East.

Quote
He was indeed fully human BEFORE the Incarnation in the womb of the Virgin

Habte, that is not orthodox.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 05:58:22 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #98 on: January 05, 2011, 05:56:22 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
Look, I was kind enough to provide a link on how the Greek "hypostasis" became identified with person and that this was never accepted in the East. I also don't care AT ALL what so forth so forth Western individual in so forth council the ACOE did not attend said about this issue centuries later after the teaching was set in the ACOE, especially since Salvation proceeded from the East--->Westwards, not the other way round, and if this understanding of yours was demonstrably never taught in the East that's all that matters. It was never taught in the East. A Qnume is not a person. You insist in anthropomorphising the Divinity of Christ (especially for the incarnation), there's a name for this idea in the semitic mind : it's called paganism.

Man-god = pagan

Man / God = Orthodox


Quote
The Father is the Sun (ie, the origin/source), the Son is the Light (ie, the material manifestation of the Essence of the Origin) and the Holy Spirit is the Heat (ie, the reaction to the Origin)

The analogy of the Father being the Sun, the Son the Light, and the Warmth the Holy Spirit is interestingly taught in the Assyrian Church of the East.




Well, that is a difference of doctrinal opinion, but it is not a Western versus Eastern issue, because most of the Eastern and also Oriental Orthodox jurisdictions fully embrace the First Three Ecumenical Councils which fully define and elaborate on both the humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ.  So you are on you own if your parish or jurisdiction does not follow the humanizing of Our Savior, but for the rest of us Orthodox folks it is  fundamental article of faith to accept mutually the humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ, it is not anthropomorphizing.  That would only be applicable if Jesus Christ NEVER took any human or physical form in the first place. So if we are merely anthropomorphizing, explain then the human manifestation of Jesus Christ in the 1st century? Was He merely a spiritual apparition, a vision, a metaphoric representation in physical terms of a purely spiritual being?  Please explain Smiley

stay blessed,
habte selassie
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 06:02:42 PM by HabteSelassie » Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #99 on: January 05, 2011, 06:09:32 PM »

It is a Western versus Eastern issue since the ACOE is the only Church which was not under the Byzantine-Roman ecclesiastical structure. It is also the earliest Eastern Church to receive the teaching of the Apostles. East to West, that is the path of the teachings, not the reverse.

Quote
So if we are merely anthropomorphizing, explain then the human manifestation of Jesus Christ in the 1st century? Was He merely a spiritual apparition, a vision, a metaphoric representation in physical terms of a purely spiritual being?

No, he assumed the humanity created from the Virgin's womb by the Holy Spirit. His humanity did not pre-exist.

Quote
Eastern and also Oriental Orthodox jurisdictions fully embrace the First Three Ecumenical Councils which fully define and elaborate on both the humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ.

The third council (ephesus) was not ecumenical. This comes as a shock to many people, but they forget that the definition of ecumenical is if the entire Church of the Apostles agreed to the council. The Assyrian Church of the East did not even attend this council, and it never accepted it's conclusions when people suddenly appeared knocking on it's door a long time after it happened.


Quote
you are on you own if your parish or jurisdiction does not follow the humanizing of Our Savior

If that were true then so be it. Let anybody who present another Gospel than the one delivered be accursed. It is a narrow road indeed. Fortunately this is not the case since the Western Church believes that the humanity and Divinity of Christ are 100% seperate and with no mixture. Unfortunately in the West they use language not accepted in the East to explain this seperateness of the Two natures of Christ.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 06:11:50 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #100 on: January 05, 2011, 06:21:56 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

It is a Western versus Eastern issue since the ACOE is the only Church which was not under the Byzantine-Roman ecclesiastical structure. It is also the earliest Eastern Church to recieve the teaching of the Apostles. East to West, that is the path of the teachings, not the reverse.

Then please explain the Alexandrian Coptic Church, the Syrian Church and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church who were never under any kind of historical Byzantine/Roman supremacy or large influence, in fact quite the contrary, during the first four centuries of Christianity the Apostolic Tradition and Orthodoxy were formed and canonized in Egypt, Jerusalem and Ethiopia.  The first monarchy to fully and exclusively embrace Orthodox or any Christianity was in Ethiopia, and the Egyptians are the longest continuous stream of Christian thought available.  All the "lost" texts of Christianity are in Egypt and Ethiopia, not necessarily the ACOE, and further, Egypt and Ethiopia fully embrace the first three Councils and their respective Canons as articles of Apostolic Faith.  Again, it is hardly then an East vs West issue..

Quote
So if we are merely anthropomorphizing, explain then the human manifestation of Jesus Christ in the 1st century? Was He merely a spiritual apparition, a vision, a metaphoric representation in physical terms of a purely spiritual being?

No, he assumed the humanity created from the Virgin's womb by the Holy Spirit. His humanity did not pre-exist.

And what is this "assumed" you are speaking of specifically, if it is not anthropomorphism by your own limited definition? Whether or not His humanity pre-existed is irrelevant to your wrongful claims of anthropomorphism in the Incarnation doctrines.

Quote
Eastern and also Oriental Orthodox jurisdictions fully embrace the First Three Ecumenical Councils which fully define and elaborate on both the humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ

The third council (ephesus) was not ecumenical. This comes as a shock to many people, but they forget that the definition of ecumenical is if the entire Church of the Apostles agreed to the council. The Assyrian Church of the East did not even attend this council, and it never accepted it's conclusions when people suddenly appeared knocking on it's door a long time after it happened.


you are on you own if your parish or jurisdiction does not follow the humanizing of Our Savior

Again, you can split hairs all you like, but we in the Oriental Orthodox embrace the First Three, and that is all I can say on the matter.  We can easily agree to disagree, but then again if your jurisdiction rejects the Third Council which the rest of Oriental and Eastern Orthodoxy accepts fully, how can you say that your perspective is strictly Eastern, when many of the Eastern churches blatantly disagree with you on the matter? You are free to accept any Councils you like, but you can not speak for other jurisdictions so forcefully when what you are saying is hardly representative of the whole region/traditions.
Quote
If that were true then so be it. Let anybody who present another Gospel thsan the one delivered be accursed. It is a narrow road indeed. Fortunately this is not the case since the Western Church believes that the humanity and Divinity of Christ are 100% seperate and with no mixture. Unfortunately in the West they use language not accepted in the East to explain this seperateness of the Two natures of Christ.

You are creating a straw man fallacy about Western Christianity, talk with some Catholics sometime, you might be surprised that when we elucidate our respective beliefs clearly, with open communication and a listening, conciliatory heart, then you might find that many of us are saying the same things in different ways.    The Roman Church today does not in fact teach of any separation, in fact they specifically say that there is "no distinction or separation" just as we do.  The difference in doctrine is not a matter of separation, it is  manner of mechanics/logistics.  The issue the divides is to say that Jesus Christ is Two Natures FROM One Person (Orthodox) or Two Natures IN One Person (Roman Catholic) but the Roman Church does go out of its way extensively to combat this misconception of a doctrine of separation, which quite honestly does not exist and further please show me where the Roman Church specifically teaches the doctrine of separation, I am unfamiliar with this teaching.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 06:25:11 PM by HabteSelassie » Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #101 on: January 05, 2011, 06:25:03 PM »


....in fact He was indeed fully human BEFORE the Incarnation in the womb of the Virgin....
This would solve some problems, but it raises many new ones. Shocked
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,426


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #102 on: January 05, 2011, 07:43:29 PM »

Whether it has a direct connection to Nestorius or not is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that the modern ACOE seems to reject that doctrine of the incarnation by refusing to admit that Mary is the Theotokos.
Do you really believe that?
Yes, I believe what I wrote, and I am basing what I said upon Rafa's posts and on the links he has provided.

I know this:

1) She needed a Saviour.
2) The Eastern Church (ACOE) never taught her ascending to heaven and never dying.



The ACOE teaches the following concerning the virgin birth :

And I replied to his Majesty in the following manner: "That He was born without breaking the virginal seals of His mother we have evidence from Book and nature. From Book there is the example of Eve who was born from the side of Adam without having rent it or fractured it, and the example of Jesus Christ who ascended to Heaven without having torn and breached the firmament. In this way He was born of Mary without having broken her virginal seals or fractured them. This can also be illustrated from nature: all fruits are born of trees without breaking or tearing them, and sight is born of the eye while the latter is not broken or torn, and the perfume of apples and all aromatic substances is bora of their respective trees or plants without breaking and tearing them, and the rays are bora of the sun without tearing or breaking its spheric form. As all these are bora of their generators without tearing them or rending them, so also Christ was born of Mary without breaking her virginal seals; as His eternal birth from the Father is wonderful, so also is His temporal birth from Mary."
-Timothy I, Apology for Christianity

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/timothy_i_apology_01_text.htm


If the one born from the Mary was also truly eternally born/begotten from the Father, as this Timothy fellow indicates, then logically that necessitates the one being born from Mary being God, and thus ascribing the title of Theotokos to her being accurate.

The one born was the humanity of Christ, not the Divinity. God is not a person obviously, In the ACOE there is no mention of "Divine persons"- EVER. Only Qnume. This also proves the allegations of "nestorianism" wrong since nobody ever taught "two persons in Christ". Mar Nestorius was persecuted for the Truth.
ummm. A person is born, not a nature. The Divine Logos was born by means of his human nature, not his Divine Nature.
You have expressed the key point in the dispute.  No mother gives birth to a nature; instead, a mother always gives birth to a person, and in the incarnation Mary gave birth to the divine person / subsistence of the Logos when He took human nature from her through the power of the Holy Spirit.  The ACOE seems to be confusing person (understood as prosopon and hypostasis) with nature, which is - to be honest - a form of the Nestorian error.
I agree with you that ACE theology is confused, but I would not go so far as to claim that they deny the Incarnation.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #103 on: January 05, 2011, 07:57:24 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

It is a Western versus Eastern issue since the ACOE is the only Church which was not under the Byzantine-Roman ecclesiastical structure. It is also the earliest Eastern Church to recieve the teaching of the Apostles. East to West, that is the path of the teachings, not the reverse.

Then please explain the Alexandrian Coptic Church, the Syrian Church and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church who were never under any kind of historical Byzantine/Roman supremacy or large influence, in fact quite the contrary, during the first four centuries of Christianity the Apostolic Tradition and Orthodoxy were formed and canonized in Egypt, Jerusalem and Ethiopia.  The first monarchy to fully and exclusively embrace Orthodox or any Christianity was in Ethiopia, and the Egyptians are the longest continuous stream of Christian thought available.  All the "lost" texts of Christianity are in Egypt and Ethiopia, not necessarily the ACOE, and further, Egypt and Ethiopia fully embrace the first three Councils and their respective Canons as articles of Apostolic Faith.  Again, it is hardly then an East vs West issue..

Quote
So if we are merely anthropomorphizing, explain then the human manifestation of Jesus Christ in the 1st century? Was He merely a spiritual apparition, a vision, a metaphoric representation in physical terms of a purely spiritual being?

No, he assumed the humanity created from the Virgin's womb by the Holy Spirit. His humanity did not pre-exist.

And what is this "assumed" you are speaking of specifically, if it is not anthropomorphism by your own limited definition? Whether or not His humanity pre-existed is irrelevant to your wrongful claims of anthropomorphism in the Incarnation doctrines.

Quote
Eastern and also Oriental Orthodox jurisdictions fully embrace the First Three Ecumenical Councils which fully define and elaborate on both the humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ

The third council (ephesus) was not ecumenical. This comes as a shock to many people, but they forget that the definition of ecumenical is if the entire Church of the Apostles agreed to the council. The Assyrian Church of the East did not even attend this council, and it never accepted it's conclusions when people suddenly appeared knocking on it's door a long time after it happened.


you are on you own if your parish or jurisdiction does not follow the humanizing of Our Savior

Again, you can split hairs all you like, but we in the Oriental Orthodox embrace the First Three, and that is all I can say on the matter.  We can easily agree to disagree, but then again if your jurisdiction rejects the Third Council which the rest of Oriental and Eastern Orthodoxy accepts fully, how can you say that your perspective is strictly Eastern, when many of the Eastern churches blatantly disagree with you on the matter? You are free to accept any Councils you like, but you can not speak for other jurisdictions so forcefully when what you are saying is hardly representative of the whole region/traditions.
Quote
If that were true then so be it. Let anybody who present another Gospel thsan the one delivered be accursed. It is a narrow road indeed. Fortunately this is not the case since the Western Church believes that the humanity and Divinity of Christ are 100% seperate and with no mixture. Unfortunately in the West they use language not accepted in the East to explain this seperateness of the Two natures of Christ.

You are creating a straw man fallacy about Western Christianity, talk with some Catholics sometime, you might be surprised that when we elucidate our respective beliefs clearly, with open communication and a listening, conciliatory heart, then you might find that many of us are saying the same things in different ways.    The Roman Church today does not in fact teach of any separation, in fact they specifically say that there is "no distinction or separation" just as we do.  The difference in doctrine is not a matter of separation, it is  manner of mechanics/logistics.  The issue the divides is to say that Jesus Christ is Two Natures FROM One Person (Orthodox) or Two Natures IN One Person (Roman Catholic) but the Roman Church does go out of its way extensively to combat this misconception of a doctrine of separation, which quite honestly does not exist and further please show me where the Roman Church specifically teaches the doctrine of separation, I am unfamiliar with this teaching.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

Shlama Habte !

Quote
Then please explain the Alexandrian Coptic Church, the Syrian Church and the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church who were never under any kind of historical Byzantine/Roman supremacy or large influence

That is a joke right? Egypt which originated the miaphysite worldview (Cyril's doctrine) was part of the Roman empire just for starters.

Quote
The first monarchy to fully and exclusively embrace Orthodox or any Christianity was in Ethiopia

No, the first Kingdom to embrace Christianity was Edessa under King Abgar Ukama.

Quote
.  All the "lost" texts of Christianity are in Egypt and Ethiopia

Many apocryphal texts full of unreliable and dangerous fables in Egypt yes.

Quote
And what is this "assumed" you are speaking of specifically, if it is not anthropomorphism by your own limited definition?

Assumed man is actually what I meant to say. Word and assumed flesh sounds too dangerous, Word and assumed man like Saint Theodore wrote is much better.

Quote
We can easily agree to disagree, but then again if your jurisdiction rejects the Third Council which the rest of Oriental and Eastern Orthodoxy accepts fully, how can you say that your perspective is strictly Eastern, when many of the Eastern churches blatantly disagree with you on the matter?

First Roman Catholics have 21 "ecumenical councils" you have five or so, and the EO has 7. I think the Assyrian Church of the East is right therefore in saying only two councils were universally agreed upon and that a third (Chalcedon) is pious but not infallible or ecumenical.

Second, the Greeks (Eastern orthodox)  were never considered "Eastern"- they are Westerners if such a thing as a Western ever existed. So that's a straw man. Also everything from Syria to the British isles was Roman, the only Church outside this domain and the ecclesiastical structure set up under Roman influece was the Assyrian Church of the East. Everybody else had the interference of Christian Kings for good or for worse. Therefore the ACOE perspective is strictly Eastern. It was under the Magians, not Western Roman emperors intervening in the Church continuosly. The only history it can compare itself to is it's own, the same cannot be said of say the Coptic Church or the GOC, or the RCC. The ACOE is thus a representative of Eastern tradition.


The RCC signed a common Christology with the ACOE. Therefore it says at least on paper that Christ's humanity and Divinity were seperate (ie: no mixture).
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,426


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #104 on: January 05, 2011, 08:02:08 PM »



The RCC signed a common Christology with the ACOE. Therefore it says at least on paper that Christ's humanity and Divinity were seperate (ie: no mixture).

We also signed a common Christology with the OOs stating that Christ is only one person and the two natures, while distinct, are not separate, but united in the one person of Christ. In fact, even our agreement with the ACE points out that there is only one Christ, and not two.

Do you understand that RCs, EOs, and OOs all profess that there is no confusion between the humanity and Divinity of Christ?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #105 on: January 05, 2011, 08:10:37 PM »



The RCC signed a common Christology with the ACOE. Therefore it says at least on paper that Christ's humanity and Divinity were seperate (ie: no mixture).

We also signed a common Christology with the OOs stating that Christ is only one person and the two natures, while distinct, are not separate, but united in the one person of Christ. In fact, even our agreement with the ACE points out that there is only one Christ, and not two.

Do you understand that RCs, EOs, and OOs all profess that there is no confusion between the humanity and Divinity of Christ?

they are saying His humanity and Divinity was never seperated "even for the twinkling of an eye", that is not orthodox, also read their Trisagion hymn :

Holy God, Holy and Strong, Holy and Immortal, crucified for us, have mercy on us

 Shocked

They are repeating this thing in Church, this blasphemy that Christ never died on the Cross for us. The Assyrian Fathers were shocked with this hymn a very bad person wrote for them. It is mocking...
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 08:12:54 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,426


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #106 on: January 05, 2011, 08:17:49 PM »



The RCC signed a common Christology with the ACOE. Therefore it says at least on paper that Christ's humanity and Divinity were seperate (ie: no mixture).

We also signed a common Christology with the OOs stating that Christ is only one person and the two natures, while distinct, are not separate, but united in the one person of Christ. In fact, even our agreement with the ACE points out that there is only one Christ, and not two.

Do you understand that RCs, EOs, and OOs all profess that there is no confusion between the humanity and Divinity of Christ?

they are saying His humanity and Divinity was never seperated "even for the twinkling of an eye", that is not orthodox, also read their Trisagion hymn :

Holy God, Holy and Strong, Holy and Immortal, crucified for us, have mercy on us

 Shocked

They are repeating this thing in Church, this blasphemy that Christ never died on the Cross for us. The Assyrian Fathers were shocked with this hymn a very bad person wrote for them. It is mocking...
It's not blasphemy. It's the truth. Christ is the Holy and Immortal God, and he died on the cross for us. This is not to say that Christ suffered through his Divine nature or that his Divinity was changed in anyway.
Do you deny that the person who died on the cross for us is God?
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 08:18:08 PM by Papist » Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #107 on: January 05, 2011, 08:22:54 PM »



The RCC signed a common Christology with the ACOE. Therefore it says at least on paper that Christ's humanity and Divinity were seperate (ie: no mixture).

We also signed a common Christology with the OOs stating that Christ is only one person and the two natures, while distinct, are not separate, but united in the one person of Christ. In fact, even our agreement with the ACE points out that there is only one Christ, and not two.

Do you understand that RCs, EOs, and OOs all profess that there is no confusion between the humanity and Divinity of Christ?

they are saying His humanity and Divinity was never seperated "even for the twinkling of an eye", that is not orthodox, also read their Trisagion hymn :

Holy God, Holy and Strong, Holy and Immortal, crucified for us, have mercy on us

 Shocked

They are repeating this thing in Church, this blasphemy that Christ never died on the Cross for us. The Assyrian Fathers were shocked with this hymn a very bad person wrote for them. It is mocking...
It's not blasphemy. It's the truth. Christ is the Holy and Immortal God, and he died on the cross for us. This is not to say that Christ suffered through his Divine nature or that his Divinity was changed in anyway.


They said Immortal God died on the Cross, that is blasphemy. The humanity of Christ was crucified for us. God is not subject to suffering or death. The hymn was purposely changed in the OO by a certain person in Antioch to suggest the false doctrine that God can die. To say God can die is in semitic tradition unthinkable, Jewish scribes would actually sign their work with "As surely as YHWH lives" ("as surely as God lives"). If God dies the universe stops.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 08:23:58 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,426


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #108 on: January 05, 2011, 08:26:19 PM »



The RCC signed a common Christology with the ACOE. Therefore it says at least on paper that Christ's humanity and Divinity were seperate (ie: no mixture).

We also signed a common Christology with the OOs stating that Christ is only one person and the two natures, while distinct, are not separate, but united in the one person of Christ. In fact, even our agreement with the ACE points out that there is only one Christ, and not two.

Do you understand that RCs, EOs, and OOs all profess that there is no confusion between the humanity and Divinity of Christ?

they are saying His humanity and Divinity was never seperated "even for the twinkling of an eye", that is not orthodox, also read their Trisagion hymn :

Holy God, Holy and Strong, Holy and Immortal, crucified for us, have mercy on us

 Shocked

They are repeating this thing in Church, this blasphemy that Christ never died on the Cross for us. The Assyrian Fathers were shocked with this hymn a very bad person wrote for them. It is mocking...
It's not blasphemy. It's the truth. Christ is the Holy and Immortal God, and he died on the cross for us. This is not to say that Christ suffered through his Divine nature or that his Divinity was changed in anyway.


They said Immortal God died on the Cross, that is blasphemy. The humanity of Christ was crucified for us. God is not subject to suffering or death. The hymn was purposely changed in the OO by a certain person in Antioch to suggest the false doctrine that God can die. To say God can die is in semitic tradition one of the ultimate blasphemies, Jewish scribes would actually sign their work with "As surely as YHWH lives". If God dies the universe stops.
Yes, they did say that, because "humanity" cannot die, because "humanity" is not a subject of action. Only a Person can die. The person who died on the Cross who died was God. Yes, it is a great mystery, but know that he died by means of his human nature and not his Divine Nature. Ask any OO if they believe that Christ's Divinity was changed or experienced death. The answer will be a resounding "no" for the reasons that you enumerated above.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #109 on: January 05, 2011, 08:27:55 PM »

You are anthropomorphising the Divinity of Christ. Divinity cannot do these things you say, only the man Christ can. If the Divinity had a part in any of these things our salvation would be void. Therefore it is ALWAYS wrong to say "God died".
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 08:29:20 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,426


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #110 on: January 05, 2011, 08:29:19 PM »

You are anthropomorphising the Divinity of Christ. Divinity cannot do these things you say, only the man Christ can. If the Divinity had a part in any of these things our salvation would be void.
I never said the Divinity could die. Find one place where I have said this.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,981


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« Reply #111 on: January 05, 2011, 08:57:42 PM »


....in fact He was indeed fully human BEFORE the Incarnation in the womb of the Virgin....
This would solve some problems, but it raises many new ones. Shocked

I must agree, that sounds like a borderline Origenistic Christology, the idea that Christ's soul was eternal as all souls, and that later took flesh from the Virgin.

I believe the Church fathers said that the Logos did not become incarnate until the conception in the womb of the Virgin Theotokos.

Dear Habte,

The issue that divides OO's from the EO's/RC is that OO's believe Christ is "of two natures" or "one nature" while the EO's/RC's believe Christ is "in two natures."
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 08:59:38 PM by minasoliman » Logged

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.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,420


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #112 on: January 05, 2011, 09:17:13 PM »

Whether it has a direct connection to Nestorius or not is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that the modern ACOE seems to reject that doctrine of the incarnation by refusing to admit that Mary is the Theotokos.
Do you really believe that?
Yes, I believe what I wrote, and I am basing what I said upon Rafa's posts and on the links he has provided.

I know this:

1) She needed a Saviour.
2) The Eastern Church (ACOE) never taught her ascending to heaven and never dying.



The ACOE teaches the following concerning the virgin birth :

And I replied to his Majesty in the following manner: "That He was born without breaking the virginal seals of His mother we have evidence from Book and nature. From Book there is the example of Eve who was born from the side of Adam without having rent it or fractured it, and the example of Jesus Christ who ascended to Heaven without having torn and breached the firmament. In this way He was born of Mary without having broken her virginal seals or fractured them. This can also be illustrated from nature: all fruits are born of trees without breaking or tearing them, and sight is born of the eye while the latter is not broken or torn, and the perfume of apples and all aromatic substances is bora of their respective trees or plants without breaking and tearing them, and the rays are bora of the sun without tearing or breaking its spheric form. As all these are bora of their generators without tearing them or rending them, so also Christ was born of Mary without breaking her virginal seals; as His eternal birth from the Father is wonderful, so also is His temporal birth from Mary."
-Timothy I, Apology for Christianity

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/timothy_i_apology_01_text.htm


If the one born from the Mary was also truly eternally born/begotten from the Father, as this Timothy fellow indicates, then logically that necessitates the one being born from Mary being God, and thus ascribing the title of Theotokos to her being accurate.

The one born was the humanity of Christ, not the Divinity. God is not a person obviously, In the ACOE there is no mention of "Divine persons"- EVER. Only Qnume. This also proves the allegations of "nestorianism" wrong since nobody ever taught "two persons in Christ". Mar Nestorius was persecuted for the Truth.
ummm. A person is born, not a nature. The Divine Logos was born by means of his human nature, not his Divine Nature.
You have expressed the key point in the dispute.  No mother gives birth to a nature; instead, a mother always gives birth to a person, and in the incarnation Mary gave birth to the divine person / subsistence of the Logos when He took human nature from her through the power of the Holy Spirit.  The ACOE seems to be confusing person (understood as prosopon and hypostasis) with nature, which is - to be honest - a form of the Nestorian error.
I agree with you that ACE theology is confused, but I would not go so far as to claim that they deny the Incarnation.
Well if they do hold a basically Nestorian Christology, which remains an open question, that would entail a denial on their part of the full reality of the incarnation.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 09:18:26 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,420


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #113 on: January 05, 2011, 09:23:40 PM »

I must agree, that sounds like a borderline Origenistic Christology, the idea that Christ's soul was eternal as all souls, and that later took flesh from the Virgin.

I believe the Church fathers said that the Logos did not become incarnate until the conception in the womb of the Virgin Theotokos.

Dear Habte,

The issue that divides OO's from the EO's/RC is that OO's believe Christ is "of two natures" or "one nature" while the EO's/RC's believe Christ is "in two natures."
The oneness of the subject (i.e., the person and subsistence) of the Logos must remain the focus of an Orthodox Christology.  It is the eternal and uncreated hypostasis of the Logos who assumed human nature from the Virgin Theotokos and became man.  In other words, the human nature assumed by the second person of the Holy Trinity has no independent existence of its own, but has its proper existence through its assumption by the hypostasis of the Logos.  Anything theological theory that predicates an existence for the human nature of Christ that is separate from the hypostasis of the eternal Logos is Nestorian, and as such it must be rejected as heterodox.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 09:25:54 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,426


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #114 on: January 05, 2011, 09:26:44 PM »

Whether it has a direct connection to Nestorius or not is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that the modern ACOE seems to reject that doctrine of the incarnation by refusing to admit that Mary is the Theotokos.
Do you really believe that?
Yes, I believe what I wrote, and I am basing what I said upon Rafa's posts and on the links he has provided.

I know this:

1) She needed a Saviour.
2) The Eastern Church (ACOE) never taught her ascending to heaven and never dying.



The ACOE teaches the following concerning the virgin birth :

And I replied to his Majesty in the following manner: "That He was born without breaking the virginal seals of His mother we have evidence from Book and nature. From Book there is the example of Eve who was born from the side of Adam without having rent it or fractured it, and the example of Jesus Christ who ascended to Heaven without having torn and breached the firmament. In this way He was born of Mary without having broken her virginal seals or fractured them. This can also be illustrated from nature: all fruits are born of trees without breaking or tearing them, and sight is born of the eye while the latter is not broken or torn, and the perfume of apples and all aromatic substances is bora of their respective trees or plants without breaking and tearing them, and the rays are bora of the sun without tearing or breaking its spheric form. As all these are bora of their generators without tearing them or rending them, so also Christ was born of Mary without breaking her virginal seals; as His eternal birth from the Father is wonderful, so also is His temporal birth from Mary."
-Timothy I, Apology for Christianity

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/timothy_i_apology_01_text.htm


If the one born from the Mary was also truly eternally born/begotten from the Father, as this Timothy fellow indicates, then logically that necessitates the one being born from Mary being God, and thus ascribing the title of Theotokos to her being accurate.

The one born was the humanity of Christ, not the Divinity. God is not a person obviously, In the ACOE there is no mention of "Divine persons"- EVER. Only Qnume. This also proves the allegations of "nestorianism" wrong since nobody ever taught "two persons in Christ". Mar Nestorius was persecuted for the Truth.
ummm. A person is born, not a nature. The Divine Logos was born by means of his human nature, not his Divine Nature.
You have expressed the key point in the dispute.  No mother gives birth to a nature; instead, a mother always gives birth to a person, and in the incarnation Mary gave birth to the divine person / subsistence of the Logos when He took human nature from her through the power of the Holy Spirit.  The ACOE seems to be confusing person (understood as prosopon and hypostasis) with nature, which is - to be honest - a form of the Nestorian error.
I agree with you that ACE theology is confused, but I would not go so far as to claim that they deny the Incarnation.
Well if they do hold a basically Nestorian Christology, which remains an open question, that would entail a denial on their part of the full reality of the incarnation.
Agreed. But are you willing to go so far as to assert that they do in fact hold a truely Nestorian Christology?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,420


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #115 on: January 05, 2011, 09:32:48 PM »

The issue that divides OO's from the EO's/RC is that OO's believe Christ is "of two natures" or "one nature" while the EO's/RC's believe Christ is "in two natures."
N.B., The canons of Constantinople II make it clear that the decree of Chalcedon must be read in a Cyrillian manner; so the difference of the two natures can only be taken in a "theoretical manner" (see Canon 7 of Constantinople II).
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,420


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #116 on: January 05, 2011, 09:37:28 PM »

Whether it has a direct connection to Nestorius or not is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that the modern ACOE seems to reject that doctrine of the incarnation by refusing to admit that Mary is the Theotokos.
Do you really believe that?
Yes, I believe what I wrote, and I am basing what I said upon Rafa's posts and on the links he has provided.

I know this:

1) She needed a Saviour.
2) The Eastern Church (ACOE) never taught her ascending to heaven and never dying.



The ACOE teaches the following concerning the virgin birth :

And I replied to his Majesty in the following manner: "That He was born without breaking the virginal seals of His mother we have evidence from Book and nature. From Book there is the example of Eve who was born from the side of Adam without having rent it or fractured it, and the example of Jesus Christ who ascended to Heaven without having torn and breached the firmament. In this way He was born of Mary without having broken her virginal seals or fractured them. This can also be illustrated from nature: all fruits are born of trees without breaking or tearing them, and sight is born of the eye while the latter is not broken or torn, and the perfume of apples and all aromatic substances is bora of their respective trees or plants without breaking and tearing them, and the rays are bora of the sun without tearing or breaking its spheric form. As all these are bora of their generators without tearing them or rending them, so also Christ was born of Mary without breaking her virginal seals; as His eternal birth from the Father is wonderful, so also is His temporal birth from Mary."
-Timothy I, Apology for Christianity

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/timothy_i_apology_01_text.htm


If the one born from the Mary was also truly eternally born/begotten from the Father, as this Timothy fellow indicates, then logically that necessitates the one being born from Mary being God, and thus ascribing the title of Theotokos to her being accurate.

The one born was the humanity of Christ, not the Divinity. God is not a person obviously, In the ACOE there is no mention of "Divine persons"- EVER. Only Qnume. This also proves the allegations of "nestorianism" wrong since nobody ever taught "two persons in Christ". Mar Nestorius was persecuted for the Truth.
ummm. A person is born, not a nature. The Divine Logos was born by means of his human nature, not his Divine Nature.
You have expressed the key point in the dispute.  No mother gives birth to a nature; instead, a mother always gives birth to a person, and in the incarnation Mary gave birth to the divine person / subsistence of the Logos when He took human nature from her through the power of the Holy Spirit.  The ACOE seems to be confusing person (understood as prosopon and hypostasis) with nature, which is - to be honest - a form of the Nestorian error.
I agree with you that ACE theology is confused, but I would not go so far as to claim that they deny the Incarnation.
Well if they do hold a basically Nestorian Christology, which remains an open question, that would entail a denial on their part of the full reality of the incarnation.
Agreed. But are you willing to go so far as to assert that they do in fact hold a truely Nestorian Christology?
So far I can only say that Rafa's comments, and the text at the link he provided, seem to support a Nestorian Christology, but are his comments and the linked text the official position of the ACOE?  That remains open to debate.  If a person really believes that Mary only gave birth to the human nature of Christ, and not to the divine person of the Logos made man, that person would be advocating a Nestorian division in Christ, which would be unacceptable to both Chalcedonians and Miaphysites alike.

(n.b., when I use the term "divine person" I mean both prosopon and hypostasis, and not merely prosopon, since I reject a mere prosopic union, as opposed to a hypostatic union, as Orthodox.)
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 09:40:51 PM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #117 on: January 05, 2011, 09:38:23 PM »

The issue that divides OO's from the EO's/RC is that OO's believe Christ is "of two natures" or "one nature" while the EO's/RC's believe Christ is "in two natures."
N.B., The canons of Constantinople II make it clear that the decree of Chalcedon must be read in a Cyrillian manner; so the difference of the two natures can only be taken in a "theoretical manner" (see Canon 7 of Constantinople II).
So, the differences of the two natures are only theoretical, not "actual"?
Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,426


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #118 on: January 05, 2011, 09:41:05 PM »

The issue that divides OO's from the EO's/RC is that OO's believe Christ is "of two natures" or "one nature" while the EO's/RC's believe Christ is "in two natures."
N.B., The canons of Constantinople II make it clear that the decree of Chalcedon must be read in a Cyrillian manner; so the difference of the two natures can only be taken in a "theoretical manner" (see Canon 7 of Constantinople II).
You don't think that Christ's two natures were really two natures?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #119 on: January 05, 2011, 09:46:09 PM »

Constantinople II was an appeasement council for miaphysites.

By the way some in the West vehemently disagreed with this "council"...

Quote
When Pope Silverius refused Theodora's demand that he remove the anathema of Pope Agapetus I from Anthimus, she sent Belisarius instructions to find a pretext to remove Silverius. When this was accomplished, Virgilius was appointed in his stead.

...

Quote
Justinian's chief interest, however, was in the matter of the Three Chapters, and as Vigilius was not ready to make concessions of this point and wavered frequently in his measures, he had much to suffer.

Taken from wikipedia
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 09:52:28 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,420


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #120 on: January 05, 2011, 09:49:09 PM »

The issue that divides OO's from the EO's/RC is that OO's believe Christ is "of two natures" or "one nature" while the EO's/RC's believe Christ is "in two natures."
N.B., The canons of Constantinople II make it clear that the decree of Chalcedon must be read in a Cyrillian manner; so the difference of the two natures can only be taken in a "theoretical manner" (see Canon 7 of Constantinople II).
You don't think that Christ's two natures were really two natures?
Yes, they are two distinct natures, but they can only be thought of distinctly after the union "in the onlooker's mind," and that is what Canon 7 means when it uses the phrase "tei theoria monei."
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,420


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #121 on: January 05, 2011, 09:52:07 PM »

Constantinople II was an appeasement council intended to bring the OO back in.
Constantinople II merely insures that Chalcedon is read in a Cyrillian fashion.  I don't see that council's decrees as appeasement, but as a further reiteration and protection of orthodox Christology.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #122 on: January 05, 2011, 09:54:35 PM »

Constantinople II was an appeasement council intended to bring the OO back in.
Constantinople II merely insures that Chalcedon is read in a Cyrillian fashion.  I don't see that council's decrees as appeasement, but as a further reiteration and protection of orthodox Christology.

Yes, I'm sure it's not an appeasement council when the Bishop of Rome had to be deposed for not wanting to sign a series of pro-miaphysite documents, and then later his succesor had to be bullied to do so. Who was in Byzantium at the time...oh wait I forgot! It was a person known for hiding miaphysites in her palace!
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 09:56:43 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,420


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #123 on: January 05, 2011, 09:57:26 PM »

Constantinople II was an appeasement council intended to bring the OO back in.
Constantinople II merely insures that Chalcedon is read in a Cyrillian fashion.  I don't see that council's decrees as appeasement, but as a further reiteration and protection of orthodox Christology.

Yes, I'm sure it's not an appeasement council when the Bishop of Rome had to be deposed for not wanting to sign a series of pro-miaphysite documents, and then later his succesor had to be bullied to do so. Who was in Byzantium at the time...oh wait I forgot! It was a person known for hiding miaphysites!
By that reckoning Chalcedon would be an appeasement council because Dioscorus was deposed, but of course I don't agree with that proposition either.

Chalcedon condemns Nestorianism, and Constantinople II merely reaffirms that condemnation and gives further clarification in connection with the decree of Chalcedon in order to insure that the decree is read in a Cyrillian fashion.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #124 on: January 05, 2011, 10:03:14 PM »

Constantinople II was an appeasement council intended to bring the OO back in.
Constantinople II merely insures that Chalcedon is read in a Cyrillian fashion.  I don't see that council's decrees as appeasement, but as a further reiteration and protection of orthodox Christology.

Yes, I'm sure it's not an appeasement council when the Bishop of Rome had to be deposed for not wanting to sign a series of pro-miaphysite documents, and then later his succesor had to be bullied to do so. Who was in Byzantium at the time...oh wait I forgot! It was a person known for hiding miaphysites!
By that reckoning Chalcedon would be an appeasement council because Dioscorus was deposed, but of course I don't agree with that proposition either.

Chalcedon condemns Nestorianism, and Constantinople II merely reaffirms that condemnation and gives further clarification in connection with the decree of Chalcedon in order to insure that the decree is read in a Cyrillian fashion.


Difference is Dioscorus was deposed by the Bishops of the Western Church not the arbitrary decision of one person sending some thugs in to depose him and reinstate some new person so he would agree with a fake council.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 10:04:31 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,420


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #125 on: January 05, 2011, 10:06:49 PM »

Constantinople II was an appeasement council intended to bring the OO back in.
Constantinople II merely insures that Chalcedon is read in a Cyrillian fashion.  I don't see that council's decrees as appeasement, but as a further reiteration and protection of orthodox Christology.

Yes, I'm sure it's not an appeasement council when the Bishop of Rome had to be deposed for not wanting to sign a series of pro-miaphysite documents, and then later his succesor had to be bullied to do so. Who was in Byzantium at the time...oh wait I forgot! It was a person known for hiding miaphysites!
By that reckoning Chalcedon would be an appeasement council because Dioscorus was deposed, but of course I don't agree with that proposition either.

Chalcedon condemns Nestorianism, and Constantinople II merely reaffirms that condemnation and gives further clarification in connection with the decree of Chalcedon in order to insure that the decree is read in a Cyrillian fashion.


Difference is Dioscorus was deposed by the Bishops of the Western Church not the arbitrary decision of one person sending some thugs in to depose him and reinstate some new person so he would agree with a fake council.
There weren't very many Western bishops at Chalcedon, so Dioscorus was deposed by Eastern and a few Western bishops.  I still see no reason to hold that Constantinople II was anything else but a sacred council that taught the truth about Christ's incarnation.  Nestorianism is a heresy which I will never profess.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #126 on: January 05, 2011, 10:15:00 PM »

We make our destinies. This theology you are giving me was never taught in the East. That is indisputable.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,981


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


« Reply #127 on: January 05, 2011, 10:51:46 PM »

The issue that divides OO's from the EO's/RC is that OO's believe Christ is "of two natures" or "one nature" while the EO's/RC's believe Christ is "in two natures."
N.B., The canons of Constantinople II make it clear that the decree of Chalcedon must be read in a Cyrillian manner; so the difference of the two natures can only be taken in a "theoretical manner" (see Canon 7 of Constantinople II).

I don't mean to argue our differences (or different aspects of the truth depending on how you see it), I'm just correcting something Habte wrote in a previous post.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 10:56:16 PM by minasoliman » Logged

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.
Shlomlokh
主哀れめよ!
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Bulgarian
Posts: 1,302



« Reply #128 on: January 06, 2011, 07:16:34 PM »

You are anthropomorphising the Divinity of Christ. Divinity cannot do these things you say, only the man Christ can. If the Divinity had a part in any of these things our salvation would be void.
I never said the Divinity could die. Find one place where I have said this.
Right, St. Athanasios says in his On the Incarnation that because Divinity could not die, the Logos took on human flesh to redeem our kind.

Quote
Chapter 4: the Death of ChristHe Who suffered thereon in the body was not man only, but Son of God and Savior of all. The sun veiled his face, the earth quaked, the mountains were rent asunder, all men were stricken with awe. These things showed that Christ on the cross was God, and that all creation was His slave and was bearing witness by its fear to the presence of its Master.

Our friend, Rafa, might want to check out St. Athanasios's words in this chapter of his book especially to get a sense of what the Orthodox (pun!) teaching is and reassess his views accordingly. Smiley

In Christ,
Andrew
Logged

"I will pour out my prayer unto the Lord, and to Him will I proclaim my grief; for with evils my soul is filled, and my life unto hades hath drawn nigh, and like Jonah I will pray: From corruption raise me up, O God." -Ode VI, Irmos of the Supplicatory Canon to the Theotokos
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #129 on: January 06, 2011, 08:06:17 PM »

I read the link, but I disagree with it.  I reject Nestorius' views as heretical.
Did you read the last part that the ACOE had nothing to do with Nestorius and that people started knocking on it's door to accept some things the Apostles never taught ?
Whether it has a direct connection to Nestorius or not is irrelevant.  What is relevant is that the modern ACOE seems to reject that doctrine of the incarnation by refusing to admit that Mary is the Theotokos.
Do you really believe that?

I do.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #130 on: January 06, 2011, 08:13:22 PM »

Look Apoth, I was kind enough to provide a link on how the Greek "hypostasis" became identified with person and that this was never accepted in the East.

Yet you claim to adhere to the First Council of Constantinople of 381. The shift in meaning of hypostasis occurred between Nicaea I and Constantinople I. The use began with the Cappadocians, the "New Nicenes", who began to use hypostasis to mean subsistence, or individuation. It was divergent from the "Old Nicenes" represented by Saint Athanasios, who had used hypostasis as a synonymn of ousia. They were reconciled at a 362 council in Alexandria, and the use of the Cappadocians was recognized as acceptable. Finally, it was ratified at the 381 council in the formula: "three hypostases, one ousia". So if you really accept Constantinople I, there is no reason you should not accept the Cappadocian shift in the meaning of hypostasis.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #131 on: January 06, 2011, 08:16:59 PM »

especially since Salvation proceeded from the East--->Westwards

If you are attempting to use this to suggest that the faith originated from "the East" in the sense that it is used in "the Church of the East", i.e. east of the Euphrates, then that is utter nonsense. The faith originated in Jerusalem, from there proceeded north to Antioch, and then from there spread out in all directions. The faith came to your "East" from your "West".
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #132 on: January 06, 2011, 08:36:21 PM »

Quote
He was indeed fully human BEFORE the Incarnation in the womb of the Virgin

Habte, that is not orthodox.

I will register my agreement with you here Rafa. It is not orthodox to say that the Logos was human before the conception of Christ.

A number of things Habte has said throughout these forums I have found wanting, and I have challenged him on it before, but so far he has unfortunately not heeded my advice.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #133 on: January 06, 2011, 08:46:49 PM »

It is also the earliest Eastern Church to receive the teaching of the Apostles. East to West, that is the path of the teachings, not the reverse.

Ah, no. The earliest Eastern church to receive the teaching of the Apostles was Jerusalem.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #134 on: January 06, 2011, 08:53:08 PM »

The third council (ephesus) was not ecumenical. This comes as a shock to many people, but they forget that the definition of ecumenical is if the entire Church of the Apostles agreed to the council.

No, that is not the definition of an Ecumenical Council. The most common definition of the "Oicumene" at the time was "the inhabited world", and the most common identification of what encompassed "the inhabited world" was the Roman Empire. An Ecumenical Council, thus, was understood at the time to mean a council called by the Empire, to define the faith of the Empire, and being ratified by the Empire. Ephesus I thus qualifies as an Ecumenical Council, as did Ephesus II at one point, though it shortly lost its Imperial ratification.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Tags: Assyrian Church of the East 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.222 seconds with 71 queries.