Flavian's death

[Ben]

I was wondering the OO opinion on Flavian's death.

According to my encyclopedia he "was brutally treated, kicked, and beaten by the agents of Dioscorus, and even, we are told, by Dioscorus himself ( Evagr. i. 1; Niceph. xiv. 47). He was then imprisoned, and sentenced to be exiled, but died from the effect of his injuries three days after his deposition (Liberatus, Brev. 19), on August 11, 449. He was regarded as a martyr for the doctrine of "the two natures in the one person" of Christ. Anatolius, who had been the agent (apocrisiariuV) of Dioscorus at Constantinople, was appointed his successor."

Just anti-Dioscorus propaganda, which I find a lot of, or truth?

[Father Peter]

He was still writing letters months later.

The imperial observers of the council reported to the Emperor that everything had taken place decently and in order.

The Emperor refused Leo of Rome's demand for another council saying that a godly one had taken place.

There is no mention at Chalcedon of Flavian being attacked in this way. How would this have failed to be mentioned? The only accusations made against Dioscorus at Chalcedon were raised by a couple of minor clerics with grudges - and these also never mentioned Flavian and Dioscorus being implicated in his death.

The Acts of the latter sessions of Ephesus II which I have show Dioscorus consistently calling the bishops to order and do not at all describe a violent person.

Grillmeier and Chadwick both assert that Flavian probably died in Feb 450, over 6 months later and when in Imperial custody.

I am sure that this thread will be hijacked but please bear in mind you asked OO opinion, not for more EO propaganda.

If you read Chalcedon Re-examined, which I have had the blessing of republishing - you will see that the author, Father V.C. Samuel considers that pressing the argument at Ephesus II against Flavian was probably not wise, but in the troubled circumstances of the time was probably only to be expected, as later Chalcedon made sure it got rid of Dioscorus.

Does this help?

I can produce bibliographic details.

I really would recommend Chalcedon Re-Examined - available at Amazon and Barnes etc. It's very unbiased and is able to be critical of the OO as well as the EO.

Peter

[Αριστοκλής]

I am sure that this thread will be hijacked but please bear in mind you asked OO opinion, not for more EO propaganda.

Amazing. You are quick to protest snide remarks, Peter, then seed your own post with the same, assuring further discord. And then you lament that your posts are not well received by us EOs.

If you read Chalcedon Re-examined, which I have had the blessing of republishing -
 It's very unbiased and is able to be critical of the OO as well as the EO.

Which, naturally, means it's not OO propaganda but only balanced opinion?

Ben asked for the OO opinion, not the OO's opinion of the EO  opinion of the OO opinion.

[Linus7]

Ben -

Check out this article on St. Flavian from The Catholic Encyclopedia.

You may also want to read this article on the Latrocinium ("Ephesus II").

[Father Peter]

Demetri

It wasn't a snide remark, just a statement of what would happen. And it has.

Look below your post. It HAS been hijacked by Linus.

There was NO NEED for him to post at all.

Peter

[Linus7]

Demetri

It wasn't a snide remark, just a statement of what would happen. And it has.

Look below your post. It HAS been hijacked by Linus.

There was NO NEED for him to post at all.

Peter

I don't think I hijacked this thread at all.

However, whenever someone makes a reference to "EO propaganda," someone needs to respond.

Where did Ben say this thread is closed to all who might disagree with you, Peter?

[Ben]

Peter thank you for your response, however, what I quoted claimed that Flavian was "beaten by the agents of Dioscorus, and even, we are told, by Dioscorus himself ( Evagr. i. 1; Niceph. xiv. 47)". If Dioscorus himself tells of this, then how can you deny it? I am asking not to attack you or the OO, I just want the truth.

Linus, thank you once again, I am going to read those articles from the Catholic Encyclopedia ASAP. I am concerned though, becuse that Catholic Encyclopedia is from 1914, I am sure there are things we know now, that we didn't know back in 1914, but maybe not, I dunno.

[Linus7]

Ben :Linus, thank you once again, I am going to read those articles from the Catholic Encyclopedia ASAP. I am concerned though, becuse that Catholic Encyclopedia is from 1914, I am sure there are things we know now, that we didn't know back in 1914, but maybe not, I dunno.

You're welcome, Ben.

I'm not sure we have learned anything new about the events of the Latrocinium and St. Flavian's martyrdom, but who knows?

I think the old Catholic Encyclopedia is still pretty good scholarship.

Some of the stuff we have learned in recent years has more to do with the machinations of the WCC than it does with the faith of the Fathers, I'm afraid.

[mourad]

Really though, what is there to be said to the fact that the imperial report was that the council was conclued decently and in order? What about the Bishop Flavian's deah six months later?

please tell me what you think of these things,

all my Love,
mourad

[Ben]

My Roman Catholic History Book, published in 1940, states the following:

"Eutyches was deposed and excommunicated. But he refused to submit, and he was confirmed in his obstinacy by Dioscurus, St. Cyrl's successor in Alexandria. Dioscurus prevailed upon Emperor Theodosius to summon a council. Only 130 bishops were present when it opned at Ephesus on the 8th of August, 449. It was completely dominated by Dioscurus. Eutyches was acquited of heresy and reinstated in his office. Flavian and other bishops were deposed, the legates of the Pope grossly insulted, and all opposition was overborne by intimidation or acutal violence. Flavian dies on the way back to Constantinople as a result, it is said, of injuries recieved in the synod. When Pope Leo the Great (440-461) heard of what had happened at Ephesus, he called the synod a latrocinium, a "Robber Synod," a name which has clung to it ever since."

And in Vladimir Soloviev's Russian and the Universal Church thus is said of Flavian's death and the "Robber Synod":

"Flavian had to submit to a farcial trial. Some of the bishops threw themselves at Dioscorus' feet and implored his indulgence for the accused. The Egyptians handled them roughly amid deafening cries of "Hack asunder those who would devide Christ!" The orthodox bishops were given tablets on which nothing was written and to which they were compelled to put their signatures, knowing that a heretical formla would be immediately inscribed upon them. The majority signed without a murmur. A few desired to sign with certain reservations, but the Egyptian clergy tore the tablets from their hands, breaking their fingers with blows from their staffs. Finally, Dioscorus arose and in the name of the council pronounced sentence of condemnation against Flavian, who was deposed, excommunicated, and handed over to the secular arm. Flavian tried to protest, but Dioscorus' clerics fell on him and handled him so roughly that he dies within two days."

As to both of these quotes...fact or fiction? Linus? Peter? Comments?

[mourad]

What i don not understand is how the imperial officials there present would allow something like that to happen without it being handled by Emperor Theodosius himself(if not some immediate charges laid out; why or how on earth would the goverment allow for such violence to be not handled for 2 years? If not to Abba Dioscorus alone, but even Bishops Juvenal and Thalssius as well? (until Chalcedon - which - when i reread the minutes, i find no mention of violence attributed to Archbishop Dioscorus)

As for the empty tablets that were signed, when Abba Dioscorus was asked about these things when Bishop Eusebius of Dorylaeum accused him of it, he replied "I would reqest your excellency to order them to state what their words imply" ... from there, you immediately see a change of subject, the issue was never brought up again!!

Besides all of this though, i take it for granted that you - Ben and Linus7 - go and check these facts out for yourselves in the actual minutes, documents, and correspondnces of the time between and revolving around these central figures. It is one thing to read history books and another to actually return to the sources: not in a proud spirit that looks down or does not trust our holy fathers, but in humble curiosity, one that aims at sincerly seeks out truth; an attitude seeking understanding, not one seeking justification or support to a belief.

May both your prayers be for me.
Love,
mourad

[Father Peter]

None of these matters raised in the quotations Ben are found in any documents from the time nor even raised at Chalcedon. They are part of the elaboration of what 'must' have happened written by polemicists long after the time.

Ben, Dioscorus never mentions a beating of Flavian. I think you have misread the comment.

"Flavian was "beaten by the agents of Dioscorus, and even, we are told, by Dioscorus himself "

The comment is trying to say that Dioscorus HIMSELF may have beaten Flavian. Again, none of this is mentioned in any contemporary materials and MUST have come up at Chalcedon if it had any basis - it didn't.

Peter

[Stavro]

Peace Peter,
thanks for your amazing posts which are always well documented with the valid references. Although not your intent, it exposes the ignorance of many.

Linus: Ben asked for the OO opinion, not the OO's opinion of the EO  opinion of the OO opinion

So why did The Chalcedonian Linus post on this thread ? I understand that he is ashamed to tell us which church he follows, but he is sure no Oriental Orthodox.

Peace,
Stavro

[Mor Ephrem]

Stavro,

The inability of people to discuss this issue in a civil tone is forcing me to take a hardline approach to moderation.  Refrain from commenting on Linus or other individuals with whom you disagree, and comment merely on what you think is right and what you think is wrong.  Stick with the issue, and not those arguing it.  If you cannot do this, I will have to take further action.  

[Stavro]

Mor Ephrem,
the inability of people to see the truth and their bias is forcing me also to expose them for what they are, including very honored moderators like yourself.
Take whatever actions you like. You meet my expectations for you. But before you do, let me know how did you miss so much insult by Linus.
I am sure many have told you that before, but I have to repeat it: This forum is a complete failure, and you are not doing anything to help.  

Take care. May the Lord forgive you.
Stavro

[mourad]

Bah, going as far as calling this forum a failure is kinda outta line IMHO.

I think you guys are doing a great job. I've been extremely motivated to learn more about the EO / OO issue since i've started reading the threads here. Besides, this is not a he said she said bash, no matter how harsh things get, theres silver lining of thought that is profitable for edification. If it wasn't for Linus' conviction Subdeacon Peter would not have typed so much and vice-versa, the Lord keep you both!

Great Job Moderators, keep up the hard (and i'm sure it is) work

[Anastasios]

Thank you for your words of enouragement, from all of us!

anastasios & Moderating crew

[Ben]

I am honestly sick of this! I just wanted to know about Flavian's death, and the OO opinion of what is said about him being beaten and as a result of his injuries dieing. Peter, thank you so much, you have always been a great help, and Linus though you do come off as a little aggressive, I would also like to thank you, for you have also been a great help. Starvo, your comments are totally out of place, you have hijacked this thread to insult Linus and Mor, please stop, I am not a admin or a mod, but I am asking you nicely don't post here unless you have something to say about he topic at hand. You make OO Christians really look bad when you display such unneccesary and unwanted agression.

Anyway, back to the topic....if what I have read didn't happen at the "Robber Synod"...what did?

[Ben]

Bah, going as far as calling this forum a failure is kinda outta line IMHO.

I think you guys are doing a great job. I've been extremely motivated to learn more about the EO / OO issue since i've started reading the threads here. Besides, this is not a he said she said bash, no matter how harsh things get, theres silver lining of thought that is profitable for edification. If it wasn't for Linus' conviction Subdeacon Peter would not have typed so much and vice-versa, the Lord keep you both!

Great Job Moderators, keep up the hard (and i'm sure it is) work
 

I totally agree!

Great Job Moderators! Thank you so much and God bless!

And thank you Peter and Linus for keeping this forum so interesting and active!

[Father Peter]

Anyway, back to the topic....if what I have read didn't happen at the "Robber Synod"...what did?

Flavian was condemned for semi-Nestorianism. He had previously said that it was heresy to speak of one nature after the union - which of course St Cyril had done. Almost definitely he was talking at cross purposes with those who meant only what Flavian would have agreed with as one hypostasis.

Chalcedon Re-Examined goes into great detail on all of this with over 800 footnotes.

After the session in which Flavian was condemned the council continued and condemned the heretics Ibas, Theodore and Theodoret and some of their followers. Many Chalcedonians, especially in the West believed that Chalcedon had rehabilitated the teachings as well as these persons and therefore in the West there was strenuous opposition to the condemnation of the Three Chapters. But in fact Ephesus II had already condemned them. I think there were 4 or 5 sessions which went through the documentary evidence which suggested these people were heretics. I have the Acts of these latter sessions and it goes on for a couple of hundred pages, of well organised reports from witnesses, reading of documents and then judgements from the bishops present.

Indeed the Acts recall Dioscorus several times interveening when things were getting excited and reminding people to remain calm and conduct themselves in good order.

Eutyches had been received back into the church only on the basis of having presented what was on the face of it an Orthodox confession - surely the same basis on which heretics like Ibas and Theodoret were allowed back into the Church at Chalcedon. God knows the hearts of people.

Again Chalcedon Re-Examined goes into this. There is criticism there of the condemnation of Flavian since some discretion could have been extended to him, although there was also a basis for his condemnation, but there is no evidence in the Acts that there was violence, more than just the shouting which took place at all councils and seems to have been the way in which bishops participated in that culture and time, nor that Eutyches was received on any other basis than through presenting an Orthodox confession - which is the manner in which any person may be received back into communion.

The council had been called by the Emperor because Eutyches, an important and respected Constantinopolitan aged and not theologically well equipped archimandrite had been deposed by the synod of Flavian and had then appealed against his sentence because he claimed that the minutes had been tampered with, and even that his deposition had been signed and sealed even before the synod took place.

Ephesus II found that there had been some tampering, and also found that Flavian had rejected the Cyrilline phraselogy and would not allow any mention of 'one nature' at all. Of course Ephesus II would not allow any use of 'two natures' and this shows clearly the two schools and terminologies which were active at the time. Later on Chalcedon appeared to swing back to the other extreme and use the 'two nature' terminology. The phrase 'one incarnate nature' had been in the draft Definitio, and might have been enough to draw both sides into agreement but it was taken out on Roman orders, and in fact since Theodoret who had been declared a heretic at Ephesus II was sitting on the committe drawing it up it would have probably always been compromised.

So we have at Ephesus II - the restoration of Eutyches based on his presenting an Orthodox confession, the condemnation of Flavian for rejecting Cyrilline terminology and thereby appearing to be a semi-Nestorian and for apparently unjustly condemning Eutyches, and the condemnation of several other figures after careful and documented consideration whose writings were indeed considered the worse blasphemy over 100 years later at the 5th EO council.

Why did it get such a bad press?

The Tome of Leo was not read - but Dioscorus is minuted as having asked for it to be read twice and other people and events having obstructed its reading, also everyone knew what it said and in fact it sounded quite Nestorian in places and therefore it must have seemed wise not to read it out to the council.

Flavian was condemned - probably a political mistake, but there is no evidence that he was beaten - this would definitely have come up at Chalcedon as a prize piece of evidence against Dioscorus - but NOT A WORD OF IT is heard.

Theodoret and others were condemned - and Theodoret was a close friend of Leo of Rome, but he would not anathematise Nestorius. He kept up a warm and friendly correspondence with Leo and Fr John Romanides says:

"Here we are faced with a Pope Leo who knowingly or willfully or unknowingly supported a heretical and yet unrepentant Theodoret of Cyrus. Theodoret was allowed by unknown means to quietly manifest his 'repentance' for the first time, even though attending the Council only as an accuser, by becoming a member of the committee which was appointed to examine the Tome of Leo to see if it indeed agrees with the Twelve Chapters of St. Cyril. "

So there is no reference in the Acts of Chalcedon to Theodoret repudiating Nestorius. It seems certain not to have taken place in a public session, yet he formed part of the committee to draft a Definitio - here is the influence of Leo of Rome through his legates, and since Ephesus II he must have been annoyed that his friend had been deposed - yet all the while Theodoret would not anthematise Nestorius.

Finally - Leo of Rome had expected that the East would simply read his Tome and not need a council at all - he had spoken. Leo was certainly one of the first and most committed proponents of Papal Supremacy and even Universal Jurisidiction - this is at least what the RCC considers, as does the OO.

So there were plenty of reasons for Leo of Rome not to like Ephesus II and to promote the idea that it had been a place of violence. The violence he was most concerned with was the seeming failure to submit to his authority.

As I say, I have the Acts of all the sessions after the first. They are very interesting reading. Especially the very detailed consideration of the condemnation of Ibas and Theodoret. There was no haste, they must have taken a long time going through all the evidence.

I would really recommend getting Chalcedon Re-Examined it will help provide a framework for the whole period and looks at things from all sides. It was a PhD thesis rather than a work of polemics.

Peter

[Ben]

Wow Peter! Thank you for all of the information!

I would really like to get my hands on a book about all of this, I have considered "Chalcedon Re-exmained", but my EO friends who have read it, said it was a little too biased, and a little too in support of the OO. But I am planning on picking it up ASAP, or borrowing it from one of my friends.

Thanks!

[Mor Ephrem]

LOL.  Traditionalist EO authors appear to us to be "a little too biased and a little too in support of" the EO.  
 
As I said in another thread, every author has his bias, and any reader who has a bias of his own will read a work through that lens and see if it confirms or conflicts that bias.  A serious student tries to get all the information possible from all sides and come to his own conclusion based on the evidence.  That's really all that anyone can do, after all.

[Linus7]

My Roman Catholic History Book, published in 1940, states the following:

"Eutyches was deposed and excommunicated. But he refused to submit, and he was confirmed in his obstinacy by Dioscurus, St. Cyrl's successor in Alexandria. Dioscurus prevailed upon Emperor Theodosius to summon a council. Only 130 bishops were present when it opned at Ephesus on the 8th of August, 449. It was completely dominated by Dioscurus. Eutyches was acquited of heresy and reinstated in his office. Flavian and other bishops were deposed, the legates of the Pope grossly insulted, and all opposition was overborne by intimidation or acutal violence. Flavian dies on the way back to Constantinople as a result, it is said, of injuries recieved in the synod. When Pope Leo the Great (440-461) heard of what had happened at Ephesus, he called the synod a latrocinium, a "Robber Synod," a name which has clung to it ever since."

And in Vladimir Soloviev's Russian and the Universal Church thus is said of Flavian's death and the "Robber Synod":

"Flavian had to submit to a farcial trial. Some of the bishops threw themselves at Dioscorus' feet and implored his indulgence for the accused. The Egyptians handled them roughly amid deafening cries of "Hack asunder those who would devide Christ!" The orthodox bishops were given tablets on which nothing was written and to which they were compelled to put their signatures, knowing that a heretical formla would be immediately inscribed upon them. The majority signed without a murmur. A few desired to sign with certain reservations, but the Egyptian clergy tore the tablets from their hands, breaking their fingers with blows from their staffs. Finally, Dioscorus arose and in the name of the council pronounced sentence of condemnation against Flavian, who was deposed, excommunicated, and handed over to the secular arm. Flavian tried to protest, but Dioscorus' clerics fell on him and handled him so roughly that he dies within two days."

As to both of these quotes...fact or fiction? Linus? Peter? Comments?

Ben -

One of Soloviev's sources was Mansi's Sacrorum Conciliorum, a 31-volume compendium of conciliar documents and papal and patristic letters, etc.

I have not looked into Sacrorum Conciliorum on this issue, although the set is at the Library of Congress (about 2 hours away from where I live, out in the sticks).

As I recall, the only records of the acts of the Latrocinium are contained in the records of the Council of Chalcedon and in a Syriac translation. The Syriac translation does not have the records of the first session of the Latrocinium, possibly because its Monophysite translator was embarassed by the rehabilitation of Eutyches that occurred during that session.

There were witnesses, however, who transmitted their testimony of what took place. Pope St. Leo the Great learned of the goings-on through his legates and especially through the Deacon Hilary, who would later become Pope St. Hilary.

St. Hilary, as you know, is the one who bravely pronounced the "Contradicitur!" condemning the actions of Dioscorus and his council.

Remember the book Peter Farrington recommends is as much a secondary source as those you quoted above. Also remember that it seems to run counter to the consensus of scholarly accounts of the Latrocinium and that it has been revived and published by Peter Farrington himself, who evidently regards the Latrocinium as a legitimate council of the Church.

[Ben]

St. Hilary, as you know, is the one who bravely pronounced the "Contradicitur!" condemning the actions of Dioscorus and his council.

Oh yes, Soloviev's words on that moment are very powerful, as I am sure you know!

[Linus7]

Oh yes, Soloviev's words on that moment are very powerful, as I am sure you know!

Amen!

He was as powerful a writer of historical fact as his friend Dostoyevsky was of fiction.

[Ben]

Amen Linus! Amen! I totally agree.

[Father Peter]

Hi Ben

The facts show:

i. That Flavian was writing letters which were delivered to their recipients 6 or 8 months after the council,

ii. That the latter sessions are all taking place in perfectly good order,

iii. That the Emperor insists to Pope Leo that the council had taken place in good order,

iv. That Pope Leo of Rome makes no mention of the death of Flavian in his several letters to the Emperor

v. That no mention of violence being perpetrated upon the person of Flavian is raised as an accusation against Pope Dioscorus at Chalcedon

vi. And the accusation that the bishops at Ephesus II signed by force is shown to be completely false both by the minutes of the latter council, the evidence of the Emperor, and the fact that at Chalcedon this accusation was withdrawn and the bishops asked for forgiveness for trying to hide behind such an excuse. No mention of broken fingers appears at Chalcedon.

As far as I can see the accusation that a violent death had befallen Flavian arises much later, is not based on any facts, and is to be expected of such a polemically heated context.

In fact both Grillmeier and Chadwick suggest that Anatolius may have had a hand in the death of Flavian.

Peter

[Linus7]

Hi Ben

The facts show:

i. That Flavian was writing letters which were delivered to their recipients 6 or 8 months after the council,

ii. That the latter sessions are all taking place in perfectly good order,

iii. That the Emperor insists to Pope Leo that the council had taken place in good order,

iv. That Pope Leo of Rome makes no mention of the death of Flavian in his several letters to the Emperor

v. That no mention of violence being perpetrated upon the person of Flavian is raised as an accusation against Pope Dioscorus at Chalcedon

vi. And the accusation that the bishops at Ephesus II signed by force is shown to be completely false both by the minutes of the latter council, the evidence of the Emperor, and the fact that at Chalcedon this accusation was withdrawn and the bishops asked for forgiveness for trying to hide behind such an excuse. No mention of broken fingers appears at Chalcedon.

As far as I can see the accusation that a violent death had befallen Flavian arises much later, is not based on any facts, and is to be expected of such a polemically heated context.

In fact both Grillmeier and Chadwick suggest that Anatolius may have had a hand in the death of Flavian.

Peter

We haven't seen any evidence that "the facts show" what you are asserting above.

Your sole support for these claims seems to be a book written (correct me if I am wrong) by a man from the Caribbean who became an Ethiopian priest.

It is hardly reassuring that "In fact both Grillmeier and Chadwick suggest that Anatolius may have had a hand in the death of Flavian," since Anatolius (who replaced St. Flavian as Patriarch of Constantinople) was one of Dioscorus' presbyters.

Why would one expect the "minutes of the latter council" (the Latrocinium) to record the violent crimes of its president and his partisans? Should its minutes be expected to record that many of the bishops present were forced to sign its decrees against their will or that, in fact, many of them were forced to sign blank documents to which decrees were added later?

Are we to imagine Dioscorus leaning over to his secretary and saying, "Be sure you get all this!" ?

Those who perpetrate crimes usually try to conceal them.

No, the goings-on at the Latrocinium were reported by eye-witnesses like the papal legates and St. Hilary, men who were not under the control of Dioscorus, Eutyches, and the court eunuch Chrysaphius.

Why would one expect anything of "the evidence of the Emperor" Theodosius II? He is the one who called the Latrocinium, the one who favored his court eunuch Chrysaphius, who was the godson of none other than Eutyches.

It wasn't until Pulcheria and Marcian ascended the throne in 450 that the injustices perpetrated at the Latrocinium could be fully brought to light and a new and truly ecumenical council summoned.

[Father Peter]

As I said - and this has nothing to do with any man from the Caribbean (do you not know his name? What does his coming from the Carribean have to do with anything? That sounds rather racist. If you mean Father V.C. Samuel he was of the Indian Orthodox Church not the Ethiopian, if not then I have no idea who you mean and why his ethnic origin is important)

As I said - Leo of Rome doesn't mention the death of Flavian and Chalcedon doesn't mention the death of Flavian.

It wasn't until Pulcheria and Marcian ascended the throne in 450 that the injustices perpetrated at the Latrocinium could be fully brought to light and a new and truly ecumenical council summoned.

So why wasn't it mentioned as an accusation at Chalcedon?

Seems pretty certain to me it didn't happen as you assert.

As for Anatolius - you really are trying to have it every way. Are you know suggesting that Anatolius, murdered Flavian on orders from Dioscorus and then became a respected Chalcedonian bishop? That's not really very likely either. And is just speculation.

The facts that we know are that

Leo doesn't mention Flavian's death

Flavian is writing letters which are recieved by recipients up to 8 months after Ephesus II

Flavian's death is not mentioned at Chalcedon

The Emperor doesn't mention Flavian's death

No-one mentions Flavian's death until long after the event.

This has nothing to do with any OO books, or one's written by Caribbeans if that troubles you, but it is based on primary materials.

Peter

[Linus7]

Oh, brother!

Now you accuse me of racism, a groundless charge you apparently use as a cloak for an argument without actual evidence.

Soloviev's account of the Latrocinium and the martyrdom of St. Flavian is based in part on the primary documents contained in Mansi's Sacrorum Conciliorum, a 31-volume collection of conciliar documents, papal letters, and patristic writings. He cites specific volumes and page numbers in his footnotes.

Your assertions that St. Flavian somehow came to be accounted a saint and martyr of the Orthodox Church without having actually been martyred is based on a book written by a modern Non-Chalcedonian and is, frankly, rather unconvincing.

[mourad]

Linus7,

He's a very highly respected Indian Orthodox priest and scholar, a scholar who was shown much respect and honour by Eastern Orthodox Bishops and scholars who shared in his opinions and those who did not. With all due respect to you, sir, would it be too much to ask the same respect, if not christian, then at least scholarly respect?

Without any offense meant, your quote regarding Father Samuel's nationality lacks class, something i am sure you can show as you have in many other threads,

apologizing to you if any of this offends you, brother, that is not at all my intention.

all my Love, (inasmuch as an OO can have Love) (just kidding with you)
mourad

[Linus7]

Linus7,

He's a very highly respected Indian Orthodox priest and scholar, a scholar who was shown much respect and honour by Eastern Orthodox Bishops and scholars who shared in his opinions and those who did not. With all due respect to you, sir, would it be too much to ask the same respect, if not christian, then at least scholarly respect?

Without any offense meant, your quote regarding Father Samuel's nationality lacks class, something i am sure you can show as you have in many other threads,

apologizing to you if any of this offends you, brother, that is not at all my intention.

all my Love, (inasmuch as an OO can have Love) (just kidding with you)
mourad

I realize now that I mixed Fr. Samuel up with another man. After reading some of his bio (at a link provided by Peter Farrington) I see that he was a well-educated man, a scholar. It is important to note, as well, that Fr. Samuel was a Non-Chalcedonian and thus hardly as "unbiased" as Peter Farrington presents him.

On the other hand, my reference to the man I mistook for Fr. Samuel was not meant to be insulting. I could not recall his name, so, in order to identify him, I referred to him as "a man from the Caribbean who became an Ethiopian priest."

How does such a reference "lack class?"

How does it warrant Peter's insinuation of racism?

Such groundless - in fact, ridiculous -  charges are the marks of those who are running out of anything substantive to say.

[Ben]

Well Linus, according to Stavro, over in the other thread on if a Ecumenical Council would be neccesary for EO/OO union, you have clearly shown you're racist inclinations over and over again.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Oriental Orthodox Discussion (Moderator: Salpy) > Topic: Flavian's death