OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 03, 2014, 03:18:14 AM *
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  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Latins accept Chalcedon for the same reasons OO's reject it?  (Read 3732 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #45 on: September 30, 2011, 03:49:41 AM »

^Yes, but many of those at the council (Ibas, Theodoret, etc.) believed that St. Cyril "repented" when he signed the formulary of reunion with Patr. John of Antioch and accepted Theodore's heretical Christology. So it really depends on what you mean by "Cyrilline Christology", that is, St. Cyril's actual Christology or the Christology Theodoret thought he had adopted.

In terms of my response to Fr. Peter, this is largely irrelevant. We all know that OO's don't agree that Chalcedon was legitimately Cyrillian. My point was that in arguing that Chalcedon was 'Cyrillian', Fr. Romanides is not depending on some modern reinterpretation but is rather expressing the general EO understanding which runs back to the Council of Chalcedon itself.

As a statement in its own right, the problem with it, is that in their synodical definition, the Fathers of Chalcedon didn't say 'the Christology of the Blessed Cyril as expressed in the Formula of Reunion' much less 'the Christology of St. Cyril after he repented'. They affirmed Ephesus itself, placing it in the same category as the 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Councils and then specifically acknowledge St. Cyril's synodical letters to Nestorius (i.e., the writings you are saying some people thought he had repented of) as doctrinal authorities.

You can argue that the Fathers of Chalcedon didn't understand St. Cyril's theology (and therefore didn't understand what they were affirming)--but you can't argue that they affirmed anything less than the fulllest and most aggressive statements of that theology St. Cyril ever made.


Witega,

Do you really want to go there?  Do you really think this is going to work?  I think you belong to the private forum.  Take another look down there and see where these arguments always end up.  Aside from the fact that polemical arguments about Chalcedon are forbidden in the public forum (not just in the OO section,) you should know that this will go nowhere and no one will be convinced of the other's position.

Please explain how my posts have been 'polemical' (particularly as compared with those of your co-religionists)? I have acknowledged several times that the Oriental Orthodox do not believe the Fathers of Chalcedon were correct when they claimed their decisions were consistent with the teaching of St. Cyril, and I have not said a single word to dispute that OO interpretation. I have stated the apparent fact (based on a direct quote from a scholarly translation that belongs to neither of our Churches) that the Fathers of Chalcedon claimed that they acknowledged the authority of Ephesus and St. Cyril's synodical letters, and the fact that Fr. Romanides in particular and EO in general accept this claim as true. But I have consciously not engaged any of the multiple OO posts arguing that these claims themselves are false. The one exception to that is my question to minasoliman, and that is what it is, a question, because I'm genuinely curious about his response and the logic behind it.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #46 on: September 30, 2011, 10:26:30 AM »

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

This is not entirely accurate, because while technically both Latins and Orientals have issues with Chalcedon Council, the Latins are clearly Chalcedonian in their Christology, and especially agree more often with the EO rather than the OO in Christological matters.  The only unison opinions mutually held by the OO and the RC which are different from the EO is the concept of the distinction between the Essence and Energy of God in Palamas theology which I understand both the OO and RCs reject. 

Aside from that, we in the OO generally think of the RCs as Chalcedon.  In Ethiopian history, the RCs under the Portuguese came to Ethiopia and even temporarily succeeded in converting the Emperor Susenyos to Catholicism, and their influence sparked several indigenous Christological heresies based on the confusions causes by the introduction of Chalcedonian theology to the Oriental Ethiopian Orthodox communities.  It is in this 200 year process that the real, concrete differences between the RCs and the Ethiopian Orthodox (and generally OO) were outlined and elucidated.  Even if the RCs and the EOs have formally split, from the Ethiopia perspective both are mutually Chalcedonian.  The Ethiopians only interest in RCs was politico-economic ties with Latin Europe to counterbalance the Ottoman push into the Red Sea.
In fact, the classic Unctionist and Adoptionist heresies which plagued the Early Church resurfaced almost by coincidence in Ethiopia a thousand years later sparked by the dialogue and discussion with the Catholics regarding Mary, Christology, the new Calendar, the Liturgy, the Saints, etc etc The OOs have always accused Chalcedon of Nestorianism because of our own Christological language and interpretation, and these interpretations rightfully came back after the introduction of the Catholics.  Ethiopians developed on their own the same kind of heresies that others had developed based upon the same line of thinking, and the same misinterpretations of Chalcedon.  We in the OO tradition particularly reject Chalcedon because we feel its language opens up the potential for these Unctionist and Adoptionist heresies in the potentiality of splitting the Nature(s) of the Incarnate Christ.

 

stay blessed,
habte selassie

I think you may be misunderstanding the point of the quotation. Its not saying the RCs and OOs agree. Rather, it seems to say that RCs accept Chalcedon, but just barely, so to speak, while OOs reject it, because they see it as insufficiently Cyrilian.

Fr. Romanides seems to suggest that EO theology is and always has been fundamentally Cyrilian, and the fact that the EO ended up on the same side as the crypto-Nestorian Latin West was a sort of historical accident. Or something like that seems, at least to me, to be implied.
Not really.

He is making the point that the Vatican claims that the Fathers of Chalcedon adopted the Tome of Leo as their own because the Pope of Rome said so.  The Acts say otherwise: the Council was not held in the West like Pope St. Leo wanted, nor was the Tome rubberstamped, as he wanted, on the basis of who wrote it.  The Fathers examined the Tome and judged (not accepted, judged) it as Orthodox, but they made their own definition which, unlike the Tome, is infallible.  The OO's, on the other had, judge Pope St. Leo as a crypto-Nestorian, and since they claim the Fathers of Chalcedon just rubber stamped the Tome, like the Vatican claims, making them crypto-Nestorian with Pope St. Leo as their heresiarch, they are approaching it from the same angle as the Vatican.

EO theology isn't fundamentally Cyrillian.  It is fundamentally Orthodox, as was/is Pope St. Cyril.

That makes sense. Thank you.
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #47 on: September 30, 2011, 10:45:19 AM »

What is the specific issue the OOs have with St. Leo's Tome?
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Father Peter
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,631



WWW
« Reply #48 on: September 30, 2011, 10:50:56 AM »

It seems to divide Christ into two.

It speaks, for instance, about the Word receiving glory while the flesh receives insults, and this rather sounds to non-Chalcedonians as if he is describing the Word of God and someone else. If the Word does not suffer then who does? - we would perhaps ask.

The fact that Nestorius agreed with the Tome suggests at least that its language was not of a type to gain the acceptance of those with a Cyrilline Christology.
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,111


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


WWW
« Reply #49 on: September 30, 2011, 11:02:15 AM »

It seems perhaps for the good sake of EO's that Nestorius never made it to the council, which makes it that much easier to put their own interpretations to it as vague as all these interpretations together make the council out to be.

As an EO I certainly wouldn't object to the possibility that Divine Providence played a role in who did and did not show up at Chalcedon. But this post raises a question for me: What if Nestorius had shown up at Chalcedon.? And having done so, what if he had been reconciled to the Church by subscribing to the full definition of the Council as it actually exists--that is, acknowledging the authority and judgment of Ephesus and accepting St. Cyril's writings against him as authoritative statements of Orthodox doctrine (with the recanting of his heresy that would have entailed). Wouldn't that have been a good thing?

I take it that you are implying that had Nestorius shown up all those Fathers who in actual historical fact reaffirmed his condemnation at Ephesus, declared the 12 anathemas to be authoritative Orthodox teaching, adopted language I'm told originally came from Patriarch Dioscorus, etc, would have changed their minds/shown their true colors and done something even more objectionable to OO's than what they actually did--but I can't see the reasonable path by which you get to this assumption.

There was a letter somewhere where the "Ephesus" that was accepted was not the same Ephesus many had thought in their minds.  It seems that when Ibas thought that St. Cyril repented, that the Formula of Reunion seemed to approve John of Antioch's Ephesus, not St. Cyril's Ephesus.  I can't find this letter, but someone posted it a while back.  But the 12 anathemas?  I'm not so sure that Chalcedon really accepted that at all.

But entertaining the idea that Nestorius does accept the council of Ephesus and St. Cyril's 12 anathemas (which Fr. Peter mentioned haven't been mentioned), then that would be interesting indeed, and probably a good thing.  Nestorius however was too stubborn to really accept that though.  To his dying breathe, it seemed Nestorius continued with his heresy.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2011, 11:10:17 AM 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.
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #50 on: September 30, 2011, 11:14:39 AM »

It seems to divide Christ into two.

It speaks, for instance, about the Word receiving glory while the flesh receives insults, and this rather sounds to non-Chalcedonians as if he is describing the Word of God and someone else. If the Word does not suffer then who does? - we would perhaps ask.

The fact that Nestorius agreed with the Tome suggests at least that its language was not of a type to gain the acceptance of those with a Cyrilline Christology.

Thanks for your response.

Quote
So again He showed the wound in His side, the marks of the nails, and all the signs of His quite recent suffering, saying, See My hands and feet, that it is I. Handle Me and see that a spirit has not flesh and bones, as you see Me have ; in order that the properties of His Divine and human nature might be acknowledged to remain still inseparable: and that we might know the Word not to be different from the flesh, in such a sense as also to confess that the one Son of God is both the Word and flesh.
...
and let him not disbelieve Him man with a body like ours, since he acknowledges Him to have been able to suffer: seeing that the denial of His true flesh is also the denial of His bodily suffering.

ISTM St. Leo rather consistently speaks of one and only one subject, the Word, the Lord, the Son of God, etc., and never "someone else". When he says

Quote
the Word performing what appertains to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what appertains to the flesh. One of them sparkles with miracles, the other succumbs to injuries. And as the Word does not cease to be on an equality with His Father's glory, so the flesh does not forego the nature of our race. For it must again and again be repeated that one and the same is truly Son of God and truly son of man.

ISTM he is saying merely that the humanity of Christ is known to be real when Christ is seen to suffer. Not that another subject suffers. In stressing that the flesh does not "forego" our nature, his concern seems to be "what is not assumed is not healed".

Not to say I don't see why you'd have a problem with the above text: the seeming contrast between "the Word" and "the flesh" could be taken to imply two subjects. But when you read the next sentence, "For it must again and again be repeated that one and the same is truly Son of God and truly son of man", that interpretation seems to be ruled out, no?

---

BTW Protestants 'agree' with "I believe in one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church". Does that suggest the language of the Nicene Creed lends itself to their false ecclesiology? No.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2011, 11:22:33 AM by JLatimer » Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
Father Peter
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,631



WWW
« Reply #51 on: September 30, 2011, 11:21:56 AM »

Hi

The trouble is that Theodore of Mopsuestia and Theodoret and Nestorius all use the same language of one person, but they do not mean by it the same as St Cyril.

It is possible to say that Christ is one person in two natures and be a Nestorian. It is necessary to ask what is meant. At the time of the writing of the Tome those who said that Christ was in two natures were Theodoreans, while the language of St Cyril spoke always of Christ being 'of two natures'. It is also a fact that Theodore, Ibas, and Theodoret could not say that the Wors suffered, and this seems to be what is found in the Tome, I mean a separation of the Word from suffering. Does Leo say that the Word suffered? I can't see that he does. He does seem to set the humanity up as a subject on its own. This is certainly how it sounded to those who were Cyrilline in their Christology.

This does not mean that the Tome MUST be in error, but in the context of the time it had all the hallmarks of siding with the heresy of Theodore, Ibas, Theodoret and Nestorius.
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #52 on: September 30, 2011, 12:19:15 PM »

Isa,

How do you know they didn't compare the Tome of Leo to the Ibasian concept of St. Cyril,
Easy.  If they had, then Ibas wouldn't have had to insist on his reinstatement, as all the decisions taken at Ephesus II not affirmed by Chalcedon (i.e. the establishment of Jerusalem as a patriarchate seperate from Antioch) were vacated.  Ibas should have been, by rights, able to just retake his see.  He wasn't.  The Fathers insisted on reviewing the case, adjourning to the next day to further investigate his aquital at Tyre:When the papal legate called for the bishops opinion on the case of Ibas, they remained silent.  Although he held Ephesus II as null and void, nonetheless the Emperor Marcian refused to reinstate him, handing his case over to Chalcedon.  If they followed Ibas' opinion of Pope St. Cyril, they would have treated him as exonerated like EP St. Flavian. Nothing of the sort occured.
especially since that letter too was proclaimed as Orthodox by pretty much the main players of the council?
By whom? (somewhat rhetorical.  If you answer, I'll answer back, as I'll take it that that signals it isn't off limits here.  We can always go to the private fora
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,21742.msg600438/topicseen.html#msg600438

Certainly this type of ambiguity did not exist in Nicea, Constantinople, or Ephesus.
Wrong again. In the case of Nicea and Constantinople, none of the Acts survive.  Nicea I spilled over into several synods that reworded the Creed (which we have to reconstruct, as it has only been handed down in the Church in the form that the Fathers of Constantinople left it) and ravaged the Church for decades (the five exiles of Pope St. Athanasius and "Athanasius contra mundi"), partly from its use of the term "homoousios," which had been discredited at the Council of 268 which condemned Paul of Samosata and his use of it, after Pope Dionysius of Alexandria had condemned the use of the term and had defended that condmenation to Pope Dionysius of Rome.  Constantine, who presided over Nicea, at Tyre recalled Arius and exild Athanasius over Nicea within a decade of Nicea, and Eusebius, a bishop of Nicea and crypto/semi-Arian and anti-Nicean was now bishop of the capital of New Rome, ready to receive Arius back into communion.  As St. Jerome stated, the whole world awoke and found itself Arian.

Constantinople was the height of ambiguity, as the Fathers were not in communion with Rome over the semi-Arian Pat. St. Meletios of Antioch opening the Council at the insistence of the staunch Nicean EP St. Gregory Nazianzus, the resignation of the latter in face of the support of Pope Timothy of Alexandria for the anti-patriarch Maximus, whose episcopal acts the Council found null and void, and electing over Rome's objection another candidate to Antioch, in addition to granting Constantinople (in Rome's jurisdiction, although Rome was not represented at Constantinople I) autocephaly. Communion of all the patriachates was not restored for decades later, and even then, Pope Diosocorus at Ephesus II disputed deposing someone for contradicting Constantinople's wording of the Nicene Creed, and Pope Leo was claiming at Chalcedon that Rome was never informed of the actions of Constantinople.

As for Ephesus, you are contradicting yourself: you say it was unambigous, but then claimed there was some "Ibasian concept of St. Cyril" (the Letter to Maris attributed to him dates from around Ephesus)

And if you notice in the minutes, Rome still had considerable power.
Yes, so much that canon 28 was accepted and followed over its strenous objection and insistence that it had "annulled it."

And then there is the session of Ibas, where Rome's legate called for the acquital (rather, gentleman's agreement) of Tyre and the bishops insisted that his accusers be brought in to make their case against him.

The fact that the Roman legates were threatening to leave because of the use of "of two natures" in the original Chalcedonian definition, leading to bent arms to affirm instead the "in two natures" still shows the open possibility that the Tome of Leo was an upheld primary document for the council, and that Rome still was respected.
No one says Rome wasn't respected, and it isn't an open possiblity that the Tome was upheld as a primary document of the Council: it explicitely was. One can do that without accepting the Vatican's claims.  Again, you are proving Fr. Romanides' point.

I don't have time right now to look for the incident you are refering to.  At what session are you talkng about the threat to leave?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #53 on: September 30, 2011, 12:19:15 PM »

^Yes, but many of those at the council (Ibas, Theodoret, etc.) believed that St. Cyril "repented" when he signed the formulary of reunion with Patr. John of Antioch and accepted Theodore's heretical Christology. So it really depends on what you mean by "Cyrilline Christology", that is, St. Cyril's actual Christology or the Christology Theodoret thought he had adopted.
"the most devout bishops exclaimed 'He is a heretic! He is a Nestorian!  Drive out the heretic!" until Theodoret said "anathema to Nestorius and to whoever does not say that the Holy Virgin Mary is Theotokos..."
http://books.google.com/books?id=6IUaOOT1G3UC&pg=RA1-PA255&dq=Theodoret+have+been+resolved.+For+he+has+anathematized+Nestorius%22&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Theodoret%20have%20been%20resolved.%20For%20he%20has%20anathematized%20Nestorius%22&f=false

yeah, that is ambiguous as to what Christology is being attributed to Pope St. Cyril. Not.


Yes, it was ambiguous.  Even as they were condemning Nestorius, they were accepting Ibas' letter as Orthodox.  Ibas' letter, as you know, praised Theodore of Mopsuestia as a doctor of the Church and said that St. Cyril eventually changed his Christology to that of Theodore.  

In other threads, you have characterized the acceptance of Ibas' letter as a peripheral matter that was not central to the council.  However, not everyone viewed it that way.  A century later, Justinian had a horrible time trying to get his Chalcedonian bishops to condemn Ibas' letter.  They would not condemn it willingly because they thought doing so would undermine Chalcedon.  Also, there were Chalcedonian bishops who would not condemn Theodore of Mopsuestia, not only because he was already dead, but because Ibas' letter praised him and they thought the letter was that authoritative.

http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=11539

I don't want to start a polemical debate about this in the public forum.
 
You just did. How am I to respond?
I am just bringing all this up because I think there is a strong argument to be made that Chalcedon was ambiguous.  The fact that it has been given so many interpretations by so many people over the centuries is evidence of that.  The Assyrians, for example, state in their catechism that Chalcedon upholds their Christology.  Of course the EO's would vehemently disagree with that.  Everyone sees it their own way.
As strong an argument that can be made against Nicea I, Constantinople I and Ephesus (I).

The important thing, of course, is that Constantiple II eliminated any ambiguity, and the Chalcedonian Churches now hold a Christology that the OO's can agree with and call Orthodox.

Going back to the OP, I recall a German Protestant theologian coming on our website a while back.  He wrote something that seemed to support the idea that there are those in the West who view Chalcedon as quasi-Nestorian.  I don't know if that would reflect the feelings of our Catholic members here.  Probably not.
There are plenty of Protestants who are quasi-arian.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Father Peter
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,631



WWW
« Reply #54 on: September 30, 2011, 12:30:25 PM »

The letter of Ibas was read out at Chalcedon and its Orthodoxy was confirmed. The Fathers of the Council said..

We have read the letter of Ibas and it is Orthodox.

The letter clearly shows that Ibas was never a supporter of Nestorius, therefore his condemnation of Nestorius was of no value. He WAS, and continued to be, a staunch supporter of the heretic Theodore of Mopsuestia. In this letter which was declared Orthodox at Chalcedon he says..

"Cyril has been found to fall into the error of Apollinarius.."

"He has written 12 chapters... how impious such statements are your piety will be already persuaded"

"[At Ephesus] they adopted, confirmed and assented to the 12 Chapters written by Cyril as if they were consonant with, while they are in reality adverse to, the True Faith"

"those who had departed to the Lord, amongst whom is the Blessed Theodore (of Mopsuestia), that preacher of the Truth, that Doctor of the Church".

"[Cyril] has become abashed, apologising for his folly, and teaching the very opposite to their former doctrine. For no man ventures now to affirm that there is one nature of the Divinity and humanity, but men avow the Temple and Him who dwells in it to be the One Son Jesus Christ"

All of these false and heretical (later described as blasphemous by the Chalcedonians) statements were read out in the letter of Ibas which was then declared Orthodox.

This is certainly problematic for the non-Chalcedonians, since it seems to show that these Theodorean positions were accepted at Chalcedon. As I said, the issue of Nestorius is a red-herring. Even while Ibas was praising Theodore of Mopsuestia he was quite happy to condemn Nestorius. He was never asked to repudiate Theodore of Mopsuestia at Chalcedon. He was notorious for translating the writings of Theodore into Syriac and propagating them in his see. It was well known to all what he believed, but he was never asked to repudiate, and the things he said in his letter, which are pure Theodoreanism, were described as Orthodox.

This has proved to be problematic from that moment and the reception of Ibas without him being required to repudiate his error was the subject of one of the anathemas immediately issued against Chalcedon.

Father Peter
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,111


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


WWW
« Reply #55 on: September 30, 2011, 02:05:55 PM »

In any case, I think this answers the OP  Wink

Concerning the death of Nestorius, pp. 601-605 of this shows some credence to the idea that Nestorius was on his way to Chalcedon when he died:

http://books.google.com/books?id=BUFKAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA602&lpg=PA602&dq=nestorius+summoned+to+chalcedon&source=bl&ots=lM8RQxVDa2&sig=3xaPPdW5Fo5LmZqLGxbY_jAQBz0&hl=en&ei=Sj2FToWEDeLq0QGhtpmkAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDMQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=nestorius%20summoned%20to%20chalcedon&f=false
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.
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #56 on: September 30, 2011, 02:58:57 PM »

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

In regards to the OO criticisms of the Tome of Leo, it is really just with the Tome itself.  I have read other writings of Pope Leo, and while he sometimes is as bungling as Eutyches, generally I have no beef with his works, they often agree, albeit confusingly, with much of the OO fathers.  That being said, when I read his Tome from Chalcedon, I find the errors which were mentioned, the Tome (especially in the context of Cyrillian language) suggests at several levels a pseudo-Nestorianism with separations between the human and divine faculties of the Word.  True, he always refers to One Lord Jesus Christ, and One Word, however in his analogies, expounding, and explanations sometimes his words can be open to such interpretations, especially in the Tome.  I think the confusion might be in the translation, Latin of that time was a bit more precise in its theological implications than the Eastern Greek, which has been discussed in the Ousia thread.

When you say Yeshua, do you mean God the Word incarnate? or someone else?
Mar-Yehoshuah ben Yosef, who was given a symbolic sonship from YHWH at his baptism by Mar-Yohannah the scrubbing bubbler.

It's bad enough NicholasMyra that you say Jesus, which is NOT the name of God incarnate & flesh on Earth ANY credible historian will tell you that his name in his native tongue was either pronounced -
1) Yeshua
2) Yehushua

and that "Jesus" came from "iesus" out of the Greek.

You are actually making fun of the name of Yeshua, the baptism of our God (I think it's your God) the son of the trinity, and denying the divinity by calling YHWH's incarnation "symbolic".  I for one see that as very blasphemous.

You can hate me all you want, but your blasphemy stands as your own testimony.


Two things,

A) I used to give into this kind of self-defeating historical argument regarding the name "Ieyesus" and I also used to militantly enforce the name "Yehoshua" as you are, but then I realized that I was duped by a bunch of Pentecostals and Jews for Jesus with a particular agenda to bolster their own position within the confused American Christian communities.  Yes, "Ieyesus" is Greek, the New Testament and the Septuagent which Jesus Christ Himself read were written in Greek, it was the intellectual, theological, scientific, and literary language of that time (and in its evolution into modern English it still realistically serves as such), and so when we are speaking in English, "Ieyesus" or "Jesus" is appropriate.  The only validity in your argument is not so much that "Ieyesus" is historically inaccurate, but perhaps to argue that "Jesus" is , because I understand that "Jesus" only originated into the English language as part of the translations which led to the King James Version and was used to make an Olde English distinction between Joshua and Jesus.  "Ieyesus" on the other hand, has been used historically in the Church since its very beginnings in the 1st century.

B) YWHW is equally questionable in etymology and historicity.  The Hebrew actually used is "Ehyah" ( to-exist) for "LORD" and it is shortened from "Ehyah Asher Ehyah" which is construed as "I exist because I exist" as revealed in Exodus 3.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
« Last Edit: September 30, 2011, 03:10:34 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
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,570


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #57 on: September 30, 2011, 08:44:18 PM »

^Yes, but many of those at the council (Ibas, Theodoret, etc.) believed that St. Cyril "repented" when he signed the formulary of reunion with Patr. John of Antioch and accepted Theodore's heretical Christology. So it really depends on what you mean by "Cyrilline Christology", that is, St. Cyril's actual Christology or the Christology Theodoret thought he had adopted.

In terms of my response to Fr. Peter, this is largely irrelevant. We all know that OO's don't agree that Chalcedon was legitimately Cyrillian. My point was that in arguing that Chalcedon was 'Cyrillian', Fr. Romanides is not depending on some modern reinterpretation but is rather expressing the general EO understanding which runs back to the Council of Chalcedon itself.

As a statement in its own right, the problem with it, is that in their synodical definition, the Fathers of Chalcedon didn't say 'the Christology of the Blessed Cyril as expressed in the Formula of Reunion' much less 'the Christology of St. Cyril after he repented'. They affirmed Ephesus itself, placing it in the same category as the 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Councils and then specifically acknowledge St. Cyril's synodical letters to Nestorius (i.e., the writings you are saying some people thought he had repented of) as doctrinal authorities.

You can argue that the Fathers of Chalcedon didn't understand St. Cyril's theology (and therefore didn't understand what they were affirming)--but you can't argue that they affirmed anything less than the fulllest and most aggressive statements of that theology St. Cyril ever made.


Witega,

Do you really want to go there?  Do you really think this is going to work?  I think you belong to the private forum.  Take another look down there and see where these arguments always end up.  Aside from the fact that polemical arguments about Chalcedon are forbidden in the public forum (not just in the OO section,) you should know that this will go nowhere and no one will be convinced of the other's position.

Please explain how my posts have been 'polemical' (particularly as compared with those of your co-religionists)? I have acknowledged several times that the Oriental Orthodox do not believe the Fathers of Chalcedon were correct when they claimed their decisions were consistent with the teaching of St. Cyril, and I have not said a single word to dispute that OO interpretation. I have stated the apparent fact (based on a direct quote from a scholarly translation that belongs to neither of our Churches) that the Fathers of Chalcedon claimed that they acknowledged the authority of Ephesus and St. Cyril's synodical letters, and the fact that Fr. Romanides in particular and EO in general accept this claim as true. But I have consciously not engaged any of the multiple OO posts arguing that these claims themselves are false. The one exception to that is my question to minasoliman, and that is what it is, a question, because I'm genuinely curious about his response and the logic behind it.

Your post was not polemical?  My mistake.  Then I guess responding to the substance of the points you make would also not be polemical.   Smiley
Logged

Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,570


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #58 on: September 30, 2011, 09:02:51 PM »

Because it's the public forum, I'll try to behave and just address a couple of points:

^Yes, but many of those at the council (Ibas, Theodoret, etc.) believed that St. Cyril "repented" when he signed the formulary of reunion with Patr. John of Antioch and accepted Theodore's heretical Christology. So it really depends on what you mean by "Cyrilline Christology", that is, St. Cyril's actual Christology or the Christology Theodoret thought he had adopted.

In terms of my response to Fr. Peter, this is largely irrelevant. We all know that OO's don't agree that Chalcedon was legitimately Cyrillian. My point was that in arguing that Chalcedon was 'Cyrillian', Fr. Romanides is not depending on some modern reinterpretation but is rather expressing the general EO understanding which runs back to the Council of Chalcedon itself.

As a statement in its own right, the problem with it, is that in their synodical definition, the Fathers of Chalcedon didn't say 'the Christology of the Blessed Cyril as expressed in the Formula of Reunion' much less 'the Christology of St. Cyril after he repented'. They affirmed Ephesus itself, placing it in the same category as the 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Councils and then specifically acknowledge St. Cyril's synodical letters to Nestorius (i.e., the writings you are saying some people thought he had repented of) as doctrinal authorities.

You can argue that the Fathers of Chalcedon didn't understand St. Cyril's theology (and therefore didn't understand what they were affirming)

If they didn't understand St. Cyril's theology when they affirmed it, that means they could have been affirming a belief that was really heresy, rather than what St. Cyril actually taught.

Thank you for that.

Quote
--but you can't argue that they affirmed anything less than the fulllest and most aggressive statements of that theology St. Cyril ever made.

You mean Chalcedon affirmed "of two natures" as well as "one incarnate nature?"   Shocked   I must have missed that.

And here all along I thought Chalcedon rejected those statements, and instead affirmed "in two natures," which was the fullest and most aggressive statements of that theology Theodore of Mopsuestia ever made.
« Last Edit: September 30, 2011, 09:23:56 PM by Salpy » Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #59 on: October 01, 2011, 01:05:44 AM »

No, it only shows the possibility that Nestorius may have survived to Chalcedon, and that only to counter the report current at the Council that he was dead.
Quote
The belief that Nestorius was actually summoned to the Council might easily be entertained by one who thought that it was the teaching of Nestorius that the
Council affirmed....we might dismiss it at once...Zacharias was at least right in believing that Nestorius was alive on the eve of the Council.  The letter of Eustathius of Berytus, however, seems to shew clearly that the report of his recent death was current at the time of the Council...
http://books.google.com/books?id=BUFKAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA603&dq=The+belief+that+Nestorius+was+actually+summoned+to+the+Council+might+easily+be+entertained+by+one+who+thought+it+was+the+teaching+of+Nestorius+that+the+Council+affirmed%22++%22we+might+dismiss+it+at+once%22&hl=en#v=onepage&q=The%20belief%20that%20Nestorius%20was%20actually%20summoned%20to%20the%20Council%20might%20easily%20be%20entertained%20by%20one%20who%20thought%20it%20was%20the%20teaching%20of%20Nestorius%20that%20the%20Council%20affirmed%22%20%20%22we%20might%20dismiss%20it%20at%20once%22&f=false

Zacharias' characature of the Emperor Marcian is laughable, having him lament Nestorius dying before the Council, which Zacharias then contradicts by saying Nestorius was still alive.  The contemproary evidence states "those who were going to fetch the remains of Nestorius came again and cried out against the Council [of Chalcedon], saying, Why are holy men anathematized? so that the Emperor was indignant and ordered his guards to drive them off to a distance'."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #60 on: October 01, 2011, 01:05:44 AM »

btw, on your source's source, Pseudo-Zachrias
Quote
This recall of Nestorius is generally regarded as a Miaphysite fiction aimed at emphasising the Nestorian nature of the decisions taken at Chalcedon
The Chronicle of Pseudo-Zachariah Rhetor: Church and War in Late Antiquity By Geoffrey Greatrex, Robert R. Phenix, Cornelia B. Horn
http://books.google.com/books?id=lCzF996VTGUC&pg=PA102&dq=%22This+recall+of+Nestorius+is+generally+regarded+as+a+Miaphysite+fiction+aimed+at+emphasising+the+Nestorian+nature+of+the+decisions+taken+at+Chalcedon%22&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22This%20recall%20of%20Nestorius%20is%20generally%20regarded%20as%20a%20Miaphysite%20fiction%20aimed%20at%20emphasising%20the%20Nestorian%20nature%20of%20the%20decisions%20taken%20at%20Chalcedon%22&f=false
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #61 on: October 01, 2011, 05:33:21 PM »

^Yes, but many of those at the council (Ibas, Theodoret, etc.) believed that St. Cyril "repented" when he signed the formulary of reunion with Patr. John of Antioch and accepted Theodore's heretical Christology. So it really depends on what you mean by "Cyrilline Christology", that is, St. Cyril's actual Christology or the Christology Theodoret thought he had adopted.
"the most devout bishops exclaimed 'He is a heretic! He is a Nestorian!  Drive out the heretic!" until Theodoret said "anathema to Nestorius and to whoever does not say that the Holy Virgin Mary is Theotokos..."
http://books.google.com/books?id=6IUaOOT1G3UC&pg=RA1-PA255&dq=Theodoret+have+been+resolved.+For+he+has+anathematized+Nestorius%22&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Theodoret%20have%20been%20resolved.%20For%20he%20has%20anathematized%20Nestorius%22&f=false

yeah, that is ambiguous as to what Christology is being attributed to Pope St. Cyril. Not.
Yes, it was ambiguous.  Even as they were condemning Nestorius, they were accepting Ibas' letter as Orthodox.
Yes, so you keep saying.  But the Fathers of Chalcedon did not.  Of the 370-600 bishops (there is dispute as to how many, but Chalcedon was easily by far the most attended Council. See Gaddis and Price's appendix), judging from the attendence lists of the Nineth Session (of which the Tenth, the one that you are refering to, was the continuence to allow for an investigation (which, however, didn't happen)) and Elventh Session, only 57 bishops attended, a session which Ibas insisted on, on the basis of the vacature of Epheus II.  Of those, only 18 signed the restoration of Ibas, of which 10 had condemned him at Ephesus II under Pope Dioscoros. Of these, only three (four, if you include the Latin priest Boniface) said anything about a letter.  Luccentius (and the priest Boniface) spoke through Paschasinus in Latin, none of them understanding Greek (they signed the various Acts, in Latin, to "what was read out in Greek at the Council"). Julian of Cos, the only Greek speaker among the Roman legates and the one entrusted with translating the Acts into Latin (which he never succeeded in doing, and years after the Council Pope St. Leo complained to Julian that he (Leo) still knew very little of what happened at Chalcedon, which delayed the official reception of Rome of the decrees.  A century later, Pope Vigilius still had no Latin Acts nor Latin translation of the Letter to Maris attributed to Ibas, and couldn't judge its contents for himself.  Most of the Latin West were even more steeped in ignorance to its contents, and the actual judgements of Chalcedon.

Julian of Cos, the only Greek speaking legate of Rome, objected to the reading of the proceedings of Ephesus II against Ibas, joining the other legates in speaking through Paschasinus, but was noticibly absent when Paschasinus said "we know from the verdict of the most devout bishops [at Tyre, where the Letter of Maris was NOT read] that that most devout Ibas has been proven innocent, and from the reading of his letter we have found him to be Orthodox."  Ibas', however had requested that the bishop "order that the letter from the clergy of Edess be read, so that you may learn that I am a stranger to the charges brought against me and have suffered violence," which was done: said letter denying that he had uttered heretical and blasphemous things.

The only other bishop to say anything was Patriarch Maximus of Antioch, a creature of Pope Dioscoros and his council of Ephesus, which deposed Patriarch Domnus and put Maximus in his place: it was Pope Dioscoros' own idea, which he had the Emperor put in force, to put a cleric from Constantinople on the throne of Antioch, rather than let the Antiochians chose someone (something uncanonical IIRC). He said "From what has been read it has become clear that the most devout Ibas is guiltless of everything charged against him; and from the reading of the transcript of the letter produced by his adversary his writing has been seen to be Orthodox." The transcript they produced, however, shows Ibas denying the charges of him anathematizing Pope St. Cyril etc.

Ibas' letter,
to be technically correct "the Letter attributed to Ibas" if you are refering to the heretical one, and not the one he produced from the clergy of Edessa: we have  those claiming that he admitted to it, but no admission from him, that he wrote it.

as you know, praised Theodore of Mopsuestia as a doctor of the Church and said that St. Cyril eventually changed his Christology to that of Theodore.  

In other threads, you have characterized the acceptance of Ibas' letter as a peripheral matter that was not central to the council.
No, I characterize the reinstatement of Ibas as a peripheral matter, one that the Fathers at Chalcedon were reluctant to do and had to be brought to it kicking and screaming.  I have denied that there is any such acceptance of the Letter attributed to Ibas at the Council.

However, not everyone viewed it that way.  A century later, Justinian had a horrible time trying to get his Chalcedonian bishops to condemn Ibas' letter.  They would not condemn it willingly because they thought doing so would undermine Chalcedon.  Also, there were Chalcedonian bishops who would not condemn Theodore of Mopsuestia, not only because he was already dead, but because Ibas' letter praised him and they thought the letter was that authoritative.

http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=11539
Even Facundus, who most went on a limb to defend the Three Chapters, included in his defense the allegation that one could not condemn those who died in peace with the Church, and the presumption that condemning the writings of Theodoret and Ibas, as opposed to their persons, reinstated at Chalcedon, entailed repudiation of Chalcedon.

Pope St. Cyril did not condemn Theodore of Mopsuestia at Ephesus, when he could have.  Nor did Pope Dioscoros condemn Thedore of Mopsuestia at Ephesus, when he could have.  Given that, I don't think that there is much to the criticism that Chalcedon did not condemn Theodore of Mopsuestia.

I don't want to start a polemical debate about this in the public forum.  I am just bringing all this up because I think there is a strong argument to be made that Chalcedon was ambiguous.  The fact that it has been given so many interpretations by so many people over the centuries is evidence of that.  The Assyrians, for example, state in their catechism that Chalcedon upholds their Christology.  Of course the EO's would vehemently disagree with that.  Everyone sees it their own way.
Given the many interpretations by contemporaries including its participants, the same argument for ambiguity can be made for the Ecumenical Council of Nicea I.

The important thing, of course, is that Constantiple II eliminated any ambiguity, and the Chalcedonian Churches now hold a Christology that the OO's can agree with and call Orthodox.
Amen! But even Price and Gaddis admit, while claiming that "The condemnations of 553 are hard to reconcile with the proceedings in the eight [Theodoret] and tenth [Ibas] sessions of Chalcedon," that "they served to secure what the Fathers of 451 had intended when they approved the Definition."

Going back to the OP, I recall a German Protestant theologian coming on our website a while back.  He wrote something that seemed to support the idea that there are those in the West who view Chalcedon as quasi-Nestorian.  I don't know if that would reflect the feelings of our Catholic members here.  Probably not.
That would be odd, as the Protestants are quasi-Nestorian, and the Nestorian Catholicos was wont to say that the Nestorians were Protestants and all Protestants were Nestorians.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #62 on: October 01, 2011, 07:27:46 PM »

witega, the 12 anathemas were not accepted at Chalcedon as far as I and many scholars can see.
Witega has placed the locus on point, Father: Chalcedon held Ephesus up as the equal of Nicea and Constantinople.  On that, Schaff summarizes on the 12 anathemas:
Quote
There has been some difference of opinion among the learned as to whether St. Cyril’s Synodal letter which has at its end the anathemas against Nestorius, which hereafter follow, was formally approved at the Council of Ephesus.  The matter is one only of archeological and historical interest, for from a theological point of view the question is entirely uninteresting, since there is no possible doubt that the synod endorsed St. Cyril’s teaching and for that express reason proceeded at their first session to excommunicate Nestorius.  Further there is no one that disputes that the anathematisms were received at the next General Council. i.e., of Chalcedon, only twenty years later, and that Theodoret was condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council because he wrote against these very Anathemas.  This being the case, to those who value the decrees of Ecumenical Councils because of their ecumenical character, it is quite immaterial whether these anathematisms were received and approved by the third Council or no, provided, which is indisputably the case, they have been approved by some one council of ecumenical authority, so as to become thereby part and parcel of the ecumenical faith of the Church.

But the historical question is one of some interest, and I shall very briefly consider it.  We have indeed the “Acta” of this council, but I cannot but agree with the very learned Jesuit Petavius and the Gallican Tillemont in thinking them in a very unsatisfactory condition.  I am fully aware of the temerity of making such a suggestion, but I cannot help feeling that in the remarks of the Roman representatives, especially in those of the presbyter-legate, there is some anachronism.  Be this as it may, it is a fact that the Acts do not recite that this letter of Cyril’s was read, nor do they state that the Anathemas were received.  I would suggest, however, that for those who defend John of Antioch, and criticise the action of St. Cyril, it is the height of inconsistency to deny that the Council adopted the Anathemas.  If it was the bitterly partisan assembly that they would have us believe, absolutely under the control of Cyril, there is nothing that, ὰ priori, they would have been more sure to do than adopt the Anathemas which were universally looked upon as the very fulcrum on which the whole matter turned.

Bishop Hefele was at first of opinion that the letter was merely read, being led to this conclusion by the silence of the Acts with regard to any acceptance of it, and indeed at first wrote on that side, but he afterwards saw grounds to change his mind and expresses them with his usual clearness, in the following words:

Hefele, Hist. of Councils. Vol. III., p. 48, note 2.)

We were formerly of opinion that these anathematisms were read at Ephesus, but not expressly confirmed, as there is hardly anything on the subject in the Acts.  But in the Fifth Ecumenical Council (collatio vj.) it is said:  “The holy Council at Chalcedon approved this teaching of Cyril of blessed memory, and received his Synodical letters, to one of which are appended the xij. anathemas” (Mansi, t. ix., p. 341; Hardouin, t. iij., p. 167).  If, however, the anathematisms of Cyril were expressly confirmed at Chalcedon, there was even more reason for doing so at Ephesus.  And Ibas, in his well-known letter to Maris, says expressly that the Synod of Ephesus confirmed the anathematisms of Cyril, and the same was asserted even by the bishops of Antioch at Ephesus in a letter to the Emperor.

From all these considerations it would seem that Tillemont’s conclusion is well founded that the Synod certainly discussed the anathemas of Cyril in detail, but that here, as in many other places, there are parts of the Acts lacking.  I shall add the opinion of Petavius.

(Petavius, De Incarnatione, Lib. VI., cap. xvij.)

The Acts do not tell us what judgment the Synod of Ephesus gave with respect to the third letter of Cyril, and with regard to the anathemas attached to it.  But the Acts in other respects also have not come down to us in their integrity.  That that third letter was received and approved by the Ephesine Council there can be no doubt, and this the Catholics shewed in their dispute with the Acephali in the Collation held at Constantinople under the Emperor Justinian in the year of Christ 811.  For at that memorable meeting something was shewn forth concerning this letter and its anathemas, which has a connexion with the matter in hand, and therefore must not be omitted.  At that meeting the Opposers, that is the Acephali, the enemies of the Council of Chalcedon, made this objection against that Council:  “The [letter] of the Twelve Anathemas which is inserted in the holy Council of Ephesus, and which you cannot deny to be synodical, why did not Chalcedon receive it?” etc., etc.

From this it is evident that the prevailing opinion, then as now, was that the Twelve Anathemas were defined as part of the faith by the Council of Ephesus.  Perhaps I may close this treatment of the subject in the words of Denziger, being the caption he gives the xij. Anathematisms in his Enchiridion, under “Decrees of the Third Ecumenical Council, that of Ephesus.”  “The Third Synod received these anathematisms; the Fourth Synod placed them in its Acts and styled the Epistles of Cyril ‘Canonical’; the Fifth Synod defended them."[size]
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.vii.html

Then the contemporary witness of the infamous Letter to Maris:"Two days after [Nestorius'] deposition, we arrived at Ephesus.  When we learnt that on the occasion of the deposition of Nestorius, carried out by them, they had also proclaimed and confirmed the Twelve Chapters composed by Cyril..and expressed agreement with them as...in harmony with the True Faith."  In response the Nestorian, semi-Nestorian and Antiochian bishop sympathetic to the two "deposed Cyril himself and decreed a sentence of excommunication on the other bishops who had endoresed the Chapters."

So there can be no question, the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus adopted the 12 anathemas as its own.

I think that had Nestorius turned up at the council then there would have been a settlement made on a more explicitly semi-Nestorian position, which is what the emperor wanted as far as I can see.
No, Father, that would only be the case if Theodosius, Pope Dioscoros patron, still reigned: he had to be brought to condemn Nestorius, while his sister Pulcheria supported Pope St. Cyril.  Marcian came to the throne by marriage to the anti-Nestorian Pulcheria, and despite the anti-Chalcedonian propaganda of the likes of Pseudo-Zacharias etc., the Emperor Marcian expressed no Nestorian leanings, nor sympathy for Nestorius.  The Emperor got a Council full of anathematization of Nestorius.  I see no evidence that that is not what he wanted.

Btw, Father, how can something "semi-" be more explicit?

Chalcedon was a carefully managed event.

Not that carefully managed: it was summoned to Nicea, but had to be moved.  Even Gaddis and Price characterize the Emperor Marcian as also having as "his constance preference to act through the bishops."

Constantinople II even more so

Not so much: despite dragging Pope Vigilius of Rome to Constantinople and placing him under arrest then imprisionment, Justinian could not get him to cooperate and participate in the Council.

(at that council the fathers just adopted what the emperor had said with no discussion).

IIRC that is a bit of overstatement, Father, but I'd have to reread the Acts (at present I'm hopeing to scrap together the money for the complete acts).

But even at Chalcedon there was no discussion of theology allowed.
Was there at Ephesus under Pope St. Cyril?

If no discussion was allowed, Father, the Fathers of Chalcedon would have rubberstamped the Tome of the Pope of Rome as his legates wanted, instead of hammering out their own definition.

I do know that Theodoret wanted to have a discussion of theology, but was told by the Fathers of the Council to shut up and anathematize Nestorius and his doctrines.  Is that the stiffling of theological discusion you were thinking of, Father?

It was well known, for instance, that Ibas disagreed with Nestorius, and so it was easy for him to anathematise him, but he was not asked to repudiate Theodore of Mopsuestia, who was his Teacher.
Pope St. Cyril didn't condemn Theodore as Nestorius' teacher at Ephesus, nor did Pope Dioscoros condemn Ibas for his adherence to Theodore-praised in the Letter attributed to Ibas, read to the full (as opposed to partial session at Chalcedon) Council at Ephesus II.  So this can hardly be faulted against the Fathers of Chalcedon.

Likewise with Theodoret.
Likewise indeed.

Many of them thought Nestorius was foolish and could be sacrificed. The fact that they anathematised him does not mean anything at all in relation to what they believed because none were questioned on their faith or asked to repudiate the source of their error (which was never Nestorius).
Then, Father, you should first find fault with Pope St. Cyril and the Fathers of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus for that oversight, now, shouldn't you?

But I think the main issue, for my POV, is that it is indeed fair to Chalcedon to say that it was a variety of different councils going on at once.
and that would distinguish from other councils how, Father?

But it was always going to have the outcome the emperor wanted. Both Marcian and Pulcheria had visited Dioscorus before the council offering inducements to accept their position. Likewise the Roman legates had a fixed agenda. Juvenal was determined to get what he could for himself out of the council and broke a solemn oath. And there were plenty of bishops who probably weren't sure what was going on or what to do or say.

But as I said, I don't believe, and nor do most modern scholars I have read, that the 12 anathemas were accepted at Chalcedon.
Quote
...And, on account of those who have taken in hand to corrupt the mystery of the dispensation [i.e. the Incarnation] and who shamelessly pretend that he who was born of the holy Virgin Mary was a mere man, it receives the synodical letters of the Blessed Cyril, Pastor of the Church of Alexandria, addressed to Nestorius and the Easterns, judging them suitable, for the refutation of the frenzied folly of Nestorius, and for the instruction of those who long with holy ardour for a knowledge of the saving symbol...
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #63 on: October 01, 2011, 07:27:46 PM »

^Yes, but many of those at the council (Ibas, Theodoret, etc.) believed that St. Cyril "repented" when he signed the formulary of reunion with Patr. John of Antioch and accepted Theodore's heretical Christology. So it really depends on what you mean by "Cyrilline Christology", that is, St. Cyril's actual Christology or the Christology Theodoret thought he had adopted.

In terms of my response to Fr. Peter, this is largely irrelevant. We all know that OO's don't agree that Chalcedon was legitimately Cyrillian. My point was that in arguing that Chalcedon was 'Cyrillian', Fr. Romanides is not depending on some modern reinterpretation but is rather expressing the general EO understanding which runs back to the Council of Chalcedon itself.

As a statement in its own right, the problem with it, is that in their synodical definition, the Fathers of Chalcedon didn't say 'the Christology of the Blessed Cyril as expressed in the Formula of Reunion' much less 'the Christology of St. Cyril after he repented'. They affirmed Ephesus itself, placing it in the same category as the 1st and 2nd Ecumenical Councils and then specifically acknowledge St. Cyril's synodical letters to Nestorius (i.e., the writings you are saying some people thought he had repented of) as doctrinal authorities.

You can argue that the Fathers of Chalcedon didn't understand St. Cyril's theology (and therefore didn't understand what they were affirming)--but you can't argue that they affirmed anything less than the fulllest and most aggressive statements of that theology St. Cyril ever made.


Witega,

Do you really want to go there?  Do you really think this is going to work?  I think you belong to the private forum.  Take another look down there and see where these arguments always end up.  Aside from the fact that polemical arguments about Chalcedon are forbidden in the public forum (not just in the OO section,) you should know that this will go nowhere and no one will be convinced of the other's position.

Maybe we need to get back to the OP and try to more thoroughly explore the RC position on Chalcedon and why they really accepted it.
Why Orthodox Rome accepted it, or why the Vatican accepts it now?  The latter, as the "RC position of Chalcedon," is simple: Pope St. Leo said so.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #64 on: October 01, 2011, 07:27:46 PM »

Isa,

Are you saying you don't believe St. Cyril was Orthodox?

 Shocked Huh

No, I've repeatedly said Pope St. Cyril is Orthodox.  In fact, so Orthodox that he is not Cyrillian.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,570


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #65 on: October 01, 2011, 08:00:05 PM »

^Yes, but many of those at the council (Ibas, Theodoret, etc.) believed that St. Cyril "repented" when he signed the formulary of reunion with Patr. John of Antioch and accepted Theodore's heretical Christology. So it really depends on what you mean by "Cyrilline Christology", that is, St. Cyril's actual Christology or the Christology Theodoret thought he had adopted.
"the most devout bishops exclaimed 'He is a heretic! He is a Nestorian!  Drive out the heretic!" until Theodoret said "anathema to Nestorius and to whoever does not say that the Holy Virgin Mary is Theotokos..."
http://books.google.com/books?id=6IUaOOT1G3UC&pg=RA1-PA255&dq=Theodoret+have+been+resolved.+For+he+has+anathematized+Nestorius%22&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Theodoret%20have%20been%20resolved.%20For%20he%20has%20anathematized%20Nestorius%22&f=false

yeah, that is ambiguous as to what Christology is being attributed to Pope St. Cyril. Not.
Yes, it was ambiguous.  Even as they were condemning Nestorius, they were accepting Ibas' letter as Orthodox.
Yes, so you keep saying.  But the Fathers of Chalcedon did not.  Of the 370-600 bishops (there is dispute as to how many, but Chalcedon was easily by far the most attended Council. See Gaddis and Price's appendix), judging from the attendence lists of the Nineth Session (of which the Tenth, the one that you are refering to, was the continuence to allow for an investigation (which, however, didn't happen)) and Elventh Session, only 57 bishops attended, a session which Ibas insisted on, on the basis of the vacature of Epheus II.  Of those, only 18 signed the restoration of Ibas, of which 10 had condemned him at Ephesus II under Pope Dioscoros. Of these, only three (four, if you include the Latin priest Boniface) said anything about a letter.  Luccentius (and the priest Boniface) spoke through Paschasinus in Latin, none of them understanding Greek (they signed the various Acts, in Latin, to "what was read out in Greek at the Council"). Julian of Cos, the only Greek speaker among the Roman legates and the one entrusted with translating the Acts into Latin (which he never succeeded in doing, and years after the Council Pope St. Leo complained to Julian that he (Leo) still knew very little of what happened at Chalcedon, which delayed the official reception of Rome of the decrees.  A century later, Pope Vigilius still had no Latin Acts nor Latin translation of the Letter to Maris attributed to Ibas, and couldn't judge its contents for himself.  Most of the Latin West were even more steeped in ignorance to its contents, and the actual judgements of Chalcedon.

Steeped in ignorance as to its contents?  They knew enough of the letter to say they did not want to condemn Theodore of Mopsuestia due to the letter--approvingly read aloud at Chalcedon --praising him
Logged

Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,570


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #66 on: October 01, 2011, 08:10:10 PM »

to be technically correct "the Letter attributed to Ibas" if you are refering to the heretical one, and not the one he produced from the clergy of Edessa: we have  those claiming that he admitted to it, but no admission from him, that he wrote it.

I'm talking about the letter of Ibas that was read aloud at Chalcedon and declared Orthodox.  I'm talking about the letter that condemned St. Cyril, praised the heretic Theodore (whom your Church condemned a century later,) and reported that St. Cyril had repented of his original Christology and adopted that of Theodore.  I'm talking about the letter that the bishops of your Church--both East and West--did not want to condemn a century later because they were convinced it was accepted by Chalcedon and that condemning it would undermine that council.  I'm talking about that letter. 
Logged

Severian
God save Egypt, Syria & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Christians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #67 on: October 01, 2011, 08:14:27 PM »

Isa,

Are you saying you don't believe St. Cyril was Orthodox?

 Shocked Huh

No, I've repeatedly said Pope St. Cyril is Orthodox.  In fact, so Orthodox that he is not Cyrillian.
You know what we mean by "Cyrillian". Wink
Logged

On hiatus from posting. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact. Note that some of my older posts -especially those prior to late 2012- may not reflect my current views. In the meantime, please pray for my sinful self as I am in a critical and unsure juncture in my life. Thank you.
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,570


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #68 on: October 01, 2011, 08:15:17 PM »

No, I characterize the reinstatement of Ibas as a peripheral matter, one that the Fathers at Chalcedon were reluctant to do and had to be brought to it kicking and screaming.

The kicking and screaming is not in the minutes.

Quote
I have denied that there is any such acceptance of the Letter attributed to Ibas at the Council.

The Chalcedonian bishops--both East and West--who lived close in time to the event would disagree with you.  That is why Justinian had such a hard time getting the letter condemned just a century later.
Logged

Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,570


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #69 on: October 01, 2011, 08:26:37 PM »

Pope St. Cyril did not condemn Theodore of Mopsuestia at Ephesus, when he could have.  Nor did Pope Dioscoros condemn Thedore of Mopsuestia at Ephesus, when he could have.  Given that, I don't think that there is much to the criticism that Chalcedon did not condemn Theodore of Mopsuestia.


The main criticism is not that Chalcedon failed to condemn Theodore;  Rather the criticism is that Justinian had a difficult time getting his bishops to condemn Theodore a century later, and that the reluctance of his bishops was at least partially based on what happened at Chalcedon.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #70 on: October 02, 2011, 03:18:00 AM »

^Yes, but many of those at the council (Ibas, Theodoret, etc.) believed that St. Cyril "repented" when he signed the formulary of reunion with Patr. John of Antioch and accepted Theodore's heretical Christology. So it really depends on what you mean by "Cyrilline Christology", that is, St. Cyril's actual Christology or the Christology Theodoret thought he had adopted.
"the most devout bishops exclaimed 'He is a heretic! He is a Nestorian!  Drive out the heretic!" until Theodoret said "anathema to Nestorius and to whoever does not say that the Holy Virgin Mary is Theotokos..."
http://books.google.com/books?id=6IUaOOT1G3UC&pg=RA1-PA255&dq=Theodoret+have+been+resolved.+For+he+has+anathematized+Nestorius%22&hl=en#v=onepage&q=Theodoret%20have%20been%20resolved.%20For%20he%20has%20anathematized%20Nestorius%22&f=false

yeah, that is ambiguous as to what Christology is being attributed to Pope St. Cyril. Not.
Yes, it was ambiguous.  Even as they were condemning Nestorius, they were accepting Ibas' letter as Orthodox.
Yes, so you keep saying.  But the Fathers of Chalcedon did not.  Of the 370-600 bishops (there is dispute as to how many, but Chalcedon was easily by far the most attended Council. See Gaddis and Price's appendix), judging from the attendence lists of the Nineth Session (of which the Tenth, the one that you are refering to, was the continuence to allow for an investigation (which, however, didn't happen)) and Elventh Session, only 57 bishops attended, a session which Ibas insisted on, on the basis of the vacature of Epheus II.  Of those, only 18 signed the restoration of Ibas, of which 10 had condemned him at Ephesus II under Pope Dioscoros. Of these, only three (four, if you include the Latin priest Boniface) said anything about a letter.  Luccentius (and the priest Boniface) spoke through Paschasinus in Latin, none of them understanding Greek (they signed the various Acts, in Latin, to "what was read out in Greek at the Council"). Julian of Cos, the only Greek speaker among the Roman legates and the one entrusted with translating the Acts into Latin (which he never succeeded in doing, and years after the Council Pope St. Leo complained to Julian that he (Leo) still knew very little of what happened at Chalcedon, which delayed the official reception of Rome of the decrees.  A century later, Pope Vigilius still had no Latin Acts nor Latin translation of the Letter to Maris attributed to Ibas, and couldn't judge its contents for himself.  Most of the Latin West were even more steeped in ignorance to its contents, and the actual judgements of Chalcedon.

Steeped in ignorance as to its contents?  They knew enough of the letter to say they did not want to condemn Theodore of Mopsuestia due to the letter--approvingly read aloud at Chalcedon --praising him

Care to quote them? And I mean "quote them."  Not your or someone else's interpretation of what they did, but their actual defense of Theodore.  I do know that Fecundus cited Pope St. Cyril's praise of Theodore's work (viii 6), besides claiming that heretics had tampered with his writings to implicate him.  Theodore's contemporary Marius Mercator had condemned him in 431 as the author of Pelagianism (Theodore had given sanctuary to Julian and written a defense of his views.  Marius' refutal was instrumental to the Council of Ephesus condemning Julian and Pelatigianism), and then translated Theodore blaiming him for Nestorianism as well.  I don't know about any other translator of Theodore's work under his name (some of Theodore's works were passed off as Ambrose's later). A bishop Pontian told Justinian that they were being asked to condemn someone whose writings they didn't know.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,570


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #71 on: October 02, 2011, 03:26:48 AM »

I got it from a Chalcedonian source:

http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=11539

Quote
The leading Eastern bishops were coerced, after a short resistance, into subscribing. Mennas, Patriarch of Constantinople, first protested that to sign was to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, and then yielded on the distinct understanding, as he told Stephen the Roman apocrisarius at Constantinople, that his subscription should be returned to him if the Apostolic See disapproved of it. Stephen and Dacius, Bishop of Milan, who was then at Constantinople, broke off communion with him. Mennas had next to coerce his suffragans. They also yielded, but lodged protests with Stephen to be transmitted to the pope, in which they declared that they acted under compulsion. Ephraim, Patriarch of Alexandria, resisted, then yielded and sent a message to Vigilius, who was in Sicily, affirming that he had signed under compulsion. Zoilus, Patriarch of Antioch, and Peter, Bishop of Jerusalem, made a like resistance and then yielded (Facundus, "Def.", IV, 4). Of the other bishops those who subscribed were rewarded, those who refused were deposed or had to "conceal themselves" (Liberatus, "Brev.", 24; Facundus, "Def.", II, 3 and "Cont. Moc.", in Gallandi, XI, 813). While the resistance of the Greek-speaking bishops collapsed, the Latin, even those like Dacius of Milan and Facundus, who were then at Constantinople, stood firm. Their general attitude is represented in two letters still extant. The first is from an African bishop named Pontianus, in which he entreats the emperor to withdraw the Three Chapters on the ground that their condemnation struck at Chalcedon. The other is that of the Carthaginian deacon, Ferrandus; his opinion as a most learned canonist was asked by the Roman deacons Pelagius (afterwards pope, at this time a strong defender of the Three Chapters) and Anatolius. He fastened on the epistle of Ibas –if this was received at Chalcedon, to anathematize it now was to condemn the council. An even stronger use of the benevolence of the council towards this epistle was made by Facundus at one of the conferences held by Vigilius before he issued his "Judicatum". He wished it to protect the memory of Theodore of Mopsuestia because Ibas had spoken of him in terms of commendation (Cont. Moc., loc. cit.). When in January, 547, Vigilius arrived at Constantinople while Italy, Africa, Sardinia, Sicily, and the countries of Illyricum and Hellas through which he journeyed were up in arms against the condemnation of the Three Chapters, it was clear that the Greek-speaking bishops as a whole were not prepared to withstand the emperor.
Logged

Father Peter
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,631



WWW
« Reply #72 on: October 02, 2011, 03:47:00 AM »

There are many modern scholars who are sure that Nestorius was intended to attend Chalcedon. They are all professors etc and not OO.

I have one of their papers on my desk in front of me.

It is also a fact that in the context of the councils the leading figures would set the tone and the junior bishops would be expected to consent. The fact that the senior bishops representing Rome and Constantinople both accepted Ibas as Orthodox was always enough. The idea that a majority of the bishops had to consent in writing is a fiction which is not supported by any of the modern scholarship of the council I am aware of.

That was not how councils worked.

As for Ibas, he was absolutely an infamous Theodorean. How was he reconciled only by condemning Nestorius? How was it possible that his letter could be read and he could be accepted as Orthodox, and then read again 100 years later and described as blasphemy?
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #73 on: October 02, 2011, 11:25:00 AM »

Isa,

Are you saying you don't believe St. Cyril was Orthodox?

 Shocked Huh

Where did you get that interpretation of what Isa said?

Whenever someone makes a reference to Orthodox Christology as "Cyrillian," he says it is not Cyrillian, but Orthodox.  I hope I'm not misrepresenting him.  I think I know what he is getting at, but I'm not sure.
NM got it.
That there is no Sola Cyril when it comes to Christology.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #74 on: October 02, 2011, 02:54:02 PM »

I got it from a Chalcedonian source:

http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=11539

Quote
The leading Eastern bishops were coerced, after a short resistance, into subscribing. Mennas, Patriarch of Constantinople, first protested that to sign was to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, and then yielded on the distinct understanding, as he told Stephen the Roman apocrisarius at Constantinople, that his subscription should be returned to him if the Apostolic See disapproved of it. Stephen and Dacius, Bishop of Milan, who was then at Constantinople, broke off communion with him. Mennas had next to coerce his suffragans. They also yielded, but lodged protests with Stephen to be transmitted to the pope, in which they declared that they acted under compulsion. Ephraim, Patriarch of Alexandria, resisted, then yielded and sent a message to Vigilius, who was in Sicily, affirming that he had signed under compulsion. Zoilus, Patriarch of Antioch, and Peter, Bishop of Jerusalem, made a like resistance and then yielded (Facundus, "Def.", IV, 4). Of the other bishops those who subscribed were rewarded, those who refused were deposed or had to "conceal themselves" (Liberatus, "Brev.", 24; Facundus, "Def.", II, 3 and "Cont. Moc.", in Gallandi, XI, 813). While the resistance of the Greek-speaking bishops collapsed, the Latin, even those like Dacius of Milan and Facundus, who were then at Constantinople, stood firm. Their general attitude is represented in two letters still extant. The first is from an African bishop named Pontianus, in which he entreats the emperor to withdraw the Three Chapters on the ground that their condemnation struck at Chalcedon. The other is that of the Carthaginian deacon, Ferrandus; his opinion as a most learned canonist was asked by the Roman deacons Pelagius (afterwards pope, at this time a strong defender of the Three Chapters) and Anatolius. He fastened on the epistle of Ibas –if this was received at Chalcedon, to anathematize it now was to condemn the council. An even stronger use of the benevolence of the council towards this epistle was made by Facundus at one of the conferences held by Vigilius before he issued his "Judicatum". He wished it to protect the memory of Theodore of Mopsuestia because Ibas had spoken of him in terms of commendation (Cont. Moc., loc. cit.). When in January, 547, Vigilius arrived at Constantinople while Italy, Africa, Sardinia, Sicily, and the countries of Illyricum and Hellas through which he journeyed were up in arms against the condemnation of the Three Chapters, it was clear that the Greek-speaking bishops as a whole were not prepared to withstand the emperor.
An Ultramontanist one
Quote
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
proving Fr. Romanides' point yet again.  That same source of yours also states
Quote
The matter was further complicated by the fact that the Latins, Vigilius among them, were for the most part ignorant of Greek and therefore unable to judge the incriminated writings for themselves. Pelagius II in his third epistle to Elias, probably drawn up by St. Gregory the Great, ascribes all the trouble to this ignorance. All they had to go upon was the general attitude of the Fathers of Chalcedon. These facts should be remembered in judging the conduct of Vigilius. He came to Constantinople in a very resolute frame of mind, and his first step was to excommunicate Mennas. But he must have felt the ground was being cut from under his feet when he was supplied with translations of some of the worst passages in the writings of Theodore. In 548 he issued his "Judicatum" in which the Three Chapters were condemned, and then temporarily withdrew it when the storm it raised showed how ill-prepared the Latins were for it.
As Price and Gaddis point out
Quote
In March of 453 Leo wrote to Julian of Cos, who had represented him at the council, and complained that he still knew very little about what had actually taken place at Chalcedon.  These linguistic difficulties-along with his opposition to the twenty-eighth canon-help explain Leo's long hesitency (much to the consternation of Marcian and Anatolius) to endorse the  council's decrees. He asked Julian to arrange for a full translation of the acts, but there is no evidence that this task was ever begun or that subsequent popes of the late fifth and early sixth centuries had access to a Latin translation.
Extant Latin translationa of the complete acts seems to have been produced not at the pope's court but in Constantinople itself...prepared during the middle decades of the sixth century, probably in connection with the on going disputes between Rome and Constantinople over the Three Chapters.
http://books.google.com/books?id=6IUaOOT1G3UC&pg=PA83&lpg=PA83&dq=%22In+March+of+453+Leo%22&source=bl&ots=xr8A8yJnMT&sig=-U-z08Wm-wxzAXglEPg_nGi4CDw&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22In%20March%20of%20453%20Leo%22&f=false
I've brought this up before
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=21742.msg330863#msg330863


Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #75 on: October 02, 2011, 07:56:34 PM »

Lol! I didn't quite get that impression. But it did come over like I used to speak when I was a non-denominational evangelical - I am just a Christian.
Father, I prefer the Arabic expression "ana 'ala din al-masiiH" "I am on the religion of Christ." I don't even like saying I'm Christian. Too presumptuous.

That is fine unless what a person is asking requires greater definition.
Actually the definition is fine.  It is how much the person is living up to it that is in question.

There is a Christology of Leo which is not expressed in the same way as that of St Cyril, but there is also a Christology of Severus, or of Proclus, or of St John Chrysostom etc etc.
One can definitely distinguish Matthean, Markan, Lukan and Iohannine Christologies, but I would think it heretical to differ them.

Cyrillian Christology and Popes St. Cyrill's Christology are not the same thing, just as St. Augustine differs with Augustunianism. That is why heresies are names after their heresiarchs: their theology begins with their founder, and build on, expounded, elaborated and developed by their followers.  Nestorians are Nestorians because they deny the hypostatic union as he did their founder.  The Orthodox do not believe in the hypostatic union because Pope St. Cyrill said so.  Rather, we know that we Orthodox are right in our understanding of the Lord we know because Pope St. Cyrill witnessed to that same understanding, particularly at Ephesus, as did Pope St. Athanasius before him, EP Gregory Nazianzus and the Cappadocians, Patriarch St. Ignatius etc. It is the fact that we can point to such witnesses to the Orthodox Faith in unbroken succession from the Apostles to this day, to such witnesses as Patriarch St. Ignatius, Pope St. Athanasius, Pope St. Cyril etc. in every generation from the Apostles until today who could come to our communion-because they and we are in communion-and would not commune with Ultramontanists, Nestorians, Protestants, etc. that makes us and them Orthodox.

To say that there is only Orthodoxy is to deny that it is possible to either have some degree of variation within the bounds of Orthodoxy which can describe the Christology of a particular Father, or that a particular Father can make his own contribution to Orthodoxy.
It is a question of authority: do the Fathers reflect Orthodoxy, or are they the foundations of it?  I would say that Pope St. Cyril and the rest of the Fathers would say the former.  The latter is only proof-texting from more texts.

To ask how "Cyrillian" the Fathers of Chalcedon were with their Definition of Faith makes about as much sense as asking how "Cyrillian" the Fathers of Nicea I and Constantinople I were with their, i.e. our, Creed.  Pope St. Cyril forms part of the Consensus of the Fathers, but he does not embody it.  He is not the yardstick by which all Orthodoxy is measured, although all Orthodoxy conforms to his work at Ephesus and his Twelve Chapters.  I would say that all Orthodoxy conforms to his treatise "On the Unity of Christ," but I can't say it must, as it doesn't have the same Ecumenical stamp of authority.

To say that something is Cyrilline has a particular, real and substantial meaning.
Evidently not:we are told that there is a Ibasian Cyril that was accepted at Chalcedon which didn't agree with the Dioscorean Cyril, but the supporters of the Leonide Cyril outnumbered them.

If it has a particular, real and substantial meaning, then it would follow that all those Fathers stating that they agreed with Cyril couldn't have agreed with the opinions on Pope St. Cyril expressed in the Letter attributed to Ibas, now could they?

And what criteria would there be for "Cyrillian"? His terminology? Then how is Pope St. Athansius the hero of Nicea I, and not Paul of Samostata?

ISTM that denying such usage is not only unreasonable but seems to be unwittingly and unnecessarily discussion-stifling.
Not at all.  Quite the opposite.  Only when we can let Pope St. Cyril speak for himself, rather than making the Fathers speak through him, can there be any discussion.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #76 on: October 03, 2011, 12:14:07 AM »

To say that there is only Orthodoxy is to deny that it is possible to either have some degree of variation within the bounds of Orthodoxy
That's basically what Isa meant.

That there is no Sola Cyril when it comes to Christology.

True, but "Cyrillian" gives precision in a discussion where "Orthodox" may have different meaning depending on who is using it.  I seem to recall reading an Assyrian source that approvingly described Chalcedon as "Orthodox."  I don't think, however, that they mean the same thing as the EO's when they call it that.  It's situations like that when "Cyrillian" comes in handy.
Evidently not, as we are told that the Fathers of Chalcedon found Ibas' Cyrillianism Orthodox. So when the 450+ bishops sign the Definition of Faith saying "on account of those who have taken in hand to corrupt the mystery of the dispensation [i.e. the Incarnation] and who shamelessly pretend that he who was born of the holy Virgin Mary was a mere man, it receives the synodical letters of the Blessed Cyril, Pastor of the Church of Alexandria, addressed to Nestorius and the Easterns, judging them suitable, for the refutation of the frenzied folly of Nestorius, and for the instruction of those who long with holy ardour for a knowledge of the saving symbol," it was only to hide their crypto-Nestorianism (or Theodoreanism, if you prefer).

Btw, for Nestorianians, Nestorianism is Orthodox, and they do use that term to describe their Nestorianian (and "Theodorean") dogmas.  So no, they definitely don't mean the same thing as the EO.  I don't recall any Assyrians listing three Ecumenical Councils, nor did Pope St. Leo make it on their list of saints.  Nor a Syrian translation of his Tome or the Definition of Chalcedon (two different, distinct documents): the anathema in the middle of the later of Nestorius I should think would cause them problems, as they consider him a saint, doctor and confessor.

I say that Chalcedon is more "Cyrillian" than Ephesus was. Yet I suspect you will still say Chalcedon was "ambiguous." So much for the term "'Cyrillian' giving precision."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,111


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


WWW
« Reply #77 on: October 03, 2011, 07:45:40 PM »

Isa,

Do you acknowledge that there were some issues with Chalcedon?  I was talking to another EO on facebook that mentioned that Leonine Christology is indeed Theodorean (which is why they were able to accept the letter of Ibas), but Chalcedon is Cyrillian (based on your arguments).  In other words, the West favored Theodorean Christology even until today, and virtually ignores the 5th to 7th ecumenical councils in their research.  It is why Rome today can easily find common grounds with the Assyrian Church, whereas EOs and OOs can't.

And this might be a little off from the topic, but how do you feel there should be union between EO's and OO's?  I know you support the Joint Commissions, but here it sounds like that there should be no reason why OO's shouldn't accept Chalcedon as ecumenical.  Do you accept the possibility that we can unite on grounds of faith despite differences in interpretation of the events that divide us?

Also, concerning Nicea.  How was "homosious" a problem?  I understand the Arians wanted "homoisious" which St. Athanasius and Nicea completely rejected, and left no grounds for ambiguity in language or understanding there?  In fact, if anything, later councils by Arians would try to move away from this Nicean language, not compromise with it.  In other words, I still can't understand the parallel with Chalcedon.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2011, 07:48:24 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.
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Christians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #78 on: October 03, 2011, 08:34:42 PM »

Isa,

Do you acknowledge that there were some issues with Chalcedon?  I was talking to another EO on facebook that mentioned that Leonine Christology is indeed Theodorean (which is why they were able to accept the letter of Ibas), but Chalcedon is Cyrillian (based on your arguments).  In other words, the West favored Theodorean Christology even until today, and virtually ignores the 5th to 7th ecumenical councils in their research.  It is why Rome today can easily find common grounds with the Assyrian Church, whereas EOs and OOs can't.

And this might be a little off from the topic, but how do you feel there should be union between EO's and OO's?  I know you support the Joint Commissions, but here it sounds like that there should be no reason why OO's shouldn't accept Chalcedon as ecumenical.  Do you accept the possibility that we can unite on grounds of faith despite differences in interpretation of the events that divide us?

Also, concerning Nicea.  How was "homosious" a problem?  I understand the Arians wanted "homoisious" which St. Athanasius and Nicea completely rejected, and left no grounds for ambiguity in language or understanding there?  In fact, if anything, later councils by Arians would try to move away from this Nicean language, not compromise with it.  In other words, I still can't understand the parallel with Chalcedon.
Yes ialmisry, I too am curious how you would define "accepting" councils 4-7. I would not mind accepting their definitions as orthodox statements of faith (so long as the Tome is further explained and the anathemas off of our Fathers are lifted), but I don't want to commemorate them liturgically and I don't feel the OOs can accept these councils (particularly Chalcedon) "as they were" ecumenical.

You input is always appreciated! Smiley
« Last Edit: October 03, 2011, 08:37:21 PM by Severian » Logged

On hiatus from posting. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact. Note that some of my older posts -especially those prior to late 2012- may not reflect my current views. In the meantime, please pray for my sinful self as I am in a critical and unsure juncture in my life. Thank you.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,483



« Reply #79 on: October 04, 2011, 12:56:40 AM »

Isa,

Do you acknowledge that there were some issues with Chalcedon?
Sure. The Fathers of Constantinople II said as much.

I was talking to another EO on facebook that mentioned that Leonine Christology is indeed Theodorean (which is why they were able to accept the letter of Ibas),
I have seen no evidence that Pope St. Leo, who did not speak Greek, ever even heard of the letter of Ibas.  Given how he complains, years later, of how he didn't have a clear picture in general of what happened at Chalcedon, let alone a specific part of a committee session on Ibas, and given the fact that the Acts wouldn't be translated into Latin until a century later, and then at New, not Old, Rome, I don't know that Pope St. Leo was in a position to praise or damn the Letter attributed to Ibas (although I don't doubt it was his, there is still no conviction nor admission he wrote it).

No, reading Pope St. Leo, beyond the Tome, he was no Nestorian, Thedorean, Diodorean and anything else one might want to attribute to him that he did not understand the hypostatic union as Pope St. Cyril did (or, for that matter Pope Dioscoros).

but Chalcedon is Cyrillian (based on your arguments).  In other words, the West favored Theodorean Christology even until today, and virtually ignores the 5th to 7th ecumenical councils in their research.  It is why Rome today can easily find common grounds with the Assyrian Church, whereas EOs and OOs can't.
No, I can't attribute such an attitude to the Vatican: it names Pope St. Cyril as one of its "doctors," one of only 33 among all its Fathers, as Doctor Incarnationis "Doctor of the Incarnation"
http://www.doctorsofthecatholicchurch.com/CA.html
how well they understand Pope St. Cyril is another matter.  There common ground with the Assyrians comes from the Vatican's crushing the whole of the faith into the singularity of the dogma of the papacy:as long as one accepts that, the Vatican will pratically overlook anything.  On the Assyrian side, their theologian Babai revised their dogmas back into a direction towards Orthodoxy, unfortunately not reaching it though.  On the Vatican side, their excessive Mariology verging, if not reaching, Mariolatry depends on the refutation of the ideas of Nestorius, Diodore and Theodore.

The 5th Council they ignore because it becomes quite an embarrassment to explain Pope Vigilius' actions, and squaring the proceedings of that Council with their dogma on the pope's role in Councils.  The 6th, which anathematized a pope of Rome, is one they, for that reason, would rather forget.  The 7th Council, because of a poor Latin translation, got invovled into a protracted struggle between factions in the West, and then into the controversy over EP St. Photios, which touches on the Vatican's dogmas on the pope and its indictment for heresy over the filioque.

And this might be a little off from the topic, but how do you feel there should be union between EO's and OO's?  I know you support the Joint Commissions, but here it sounds like that there should be no reason why OO's shouldn't accept Chalcedon as ecumenical.  Do you accept the possibility that we can unite on grounds of faith despite differences in interpretation of the events that divide us?
Alexandria and Constantinople did over EP St. John Chrysostom and the Synod of the Oak, so we have the precedent.

Also, concerning Nicea.  How was "homosious" a problem? 
It was condemned as heretical in the synod of 268, which condemned Paul of Samostata's use of it, a condemnation approved by both Rome and Alexandria in conjunction with the synod at Antioch.
http://books.google.com/books?id=feZlXkjwQW4C&pg=PA218&dq=%22condemned+the+Samosatene+also+stated+in+writing+that+%22the+Son+is+not+consubstantial%22%22&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22condemned%20the%20Samosatene%20also%20stated%20in%20writing%20that%20%22the%20Son%20is%20not%20consubstantial%22%22&f=false
Formation of Christian Theology, Volume 1 By John Behr

I understand the Arians wanted "homoisious" which St. Athanasius and Nicea completely rejected, and left no grounds for ambiguity in language or understanding there?
Actually, it did, as Popes Dionysios of Alexandria and Rome in their correspondence had associated the term with heresy, in addition they themselves refusing to use it as it was not biblical, and then a few years later the Synod of Antioch condemned the Patriarch Paul of Samostata for using it to express its heresy.  Its heretical association was still lingering seven decades later at Nicea, and Pope St. Athanasius decades later had to defend its adoption because of its heretical association (modalism).

In fact, if anything, later councils by Arians would try to move away from this Nicean language, not compromise with it.
No, there were those who would compromise with it, and they had their synods.

In other words, I still can't understand the parallel with Chalcedon.
Look at the dozens of synods held over the language of Nicea I following it.  Eusebius of Nicomedia, for instance, finally signed off at Nicea, but with the hand not the heart, and he did not break off contact with Arius.  He managed to get the Orthodox EP St. Paul the Confessor expelled from Constantinople and take his place, filling the state and Church posts with Arian sympathizers and outright Arians, all the while convincing the court that Arius' views didn't conflict with the Nicene Faith.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #80 on: October 04, 2011, 02:17:54 PM »

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

Isa,

Do you acknowledge that there were some issues with Chalcedon?  I was talking to another EO on facebook that mentioned that Leonine Christology is indeed Theodorean (which is why they were able to accept the letter of Ibas), but Chalcedon is Cyrillian (based on your arguments).  In other words, the West favored Theodorean Christology even until today, and virtually ignores the 5th to 7th ecumenical councils in their research.  It is why Rome today can easily find common grounds with the Assyrian Church, whereas EOs and OOs can't.

And this might be a little off from the topic, but how do you feel there should be union between EO's and OO's?  I know you support the Joint Commissions, but here it sounds like that there should be no reason why OO's shouldn't accept Chalcedon as ecumenical.  Do you accept the possibility that we can unite on grounds of faith despite differences in interpretation of the events that divide us?

Also, concerning Nicea.  How was "homosious" a problem?  I understand the Arians wanted "homoisious" which St. Athanasius and Nicea completely rejected, and left no grounds for ambiguity in language or understanding there?  In fact, if anything, later councils by Arians would try to move away from this Nicean language, not compromise with it.  In other words, I still can't understand the parallel with Chalcedon.
Yes ialmisry, I too am curious how you would define "accepting" councils 4-7. I would not mind accepting their definitions as orthodox statements of faith (so long as the Tome is further explained and the anathemas off of our Fathers are lifted), but I don't want to commemorate them liturgically and I don't feel the OOs can accept these councils (particularly Chalcedon) "as they were" ecumenical.

You input is always appreciated! Smiley

No disrespect, and y'all know I'm an outspoken Ecumenist, however, have you read all the articles of these later Councils? There are several specific articles and anathemas specifically against the language, theology, and persons of the Oriental tradition.  As much as I hate to admit it, the only way we in OO could logically accept any of these Councils is in the same pick and choose dissection which seems to be the method of the US Legislature Wink

stay blessed,
habte selassie
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
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #81 on: October 04, 2011, 09:17:06 PM »

Your post was not polemical?  My mistake.  Then I guess responding to the substance of the points you make would also not be polemical.   Smiley

Again, please explain how my posts were polemical? According to the rules of this forum even non-Christians are allowed to correctly state their beliefs, particularly if someone has mis-stated them. My posts have made the following points

Chalcedon said it followed St. Cyril
EO, particularly Fr. Romanides who was the supposed subject of this thread believe that Chalcedon was consistent with Ephesus and St. Cyril (with acknowledgment that OO disagree)
Per a standard, scholarly translation, Chalcedon included acclamation of St. Cyril's synodical letters against Nestorius (which include his 12 anathemas) in its own formal definition.

If I argued that we were right and you were wrong (as ialmisry's been doing) or that we were wrong and you were right (as multiple OO have done on this thread), I'd accept your judgments of the posts as polemical and agree they belong in the private forum. But I have not done this.



If they didn't understand St. Cyril's theology when they affirmed it, that means they could have been affirming a belief that was really heresy, rather than what St. Cyril actually taught.

Thank you for that.

I have no idea what you are thanking me for. Oriental Orthodox do not believe that Chalcedon was consistent with St. Cyril. I no more agreed or disagreed with the proposition than I did with the beliefs of my own Church. I simply acknowledge that the OO make such an argument.

Quote
Quote
--but you can't argue that they affirmed anything less than the fulllest and most aggressive statements of that theology St. Cyril ever made.

You mean Chalcedon affirmed "of two natures" as well as "one incarnate nature?"   Shocked   I must have missed that.

And here all along I thought Chalcedon rejected those statements, and instead affirmed "in two natures," which was the fullest and most aggressive statements of that theology Theodore of Mopsuestia ever made.

Given that you are not the only one to question this statement, I will point out (again) that all I did was quote the Definition of Chalcedon as given in the Post-Nicene Fathers series, a standard (if somewhat old) scholarly translation, and then restated it when Severian seemed to be completely ignoring it.

If Fr. Peter is implying (and it's not clear to me that he is saying this, but perhaps he is) that more recent scholarship and/or Oriental Orthodox sources have brought that standard text into question, that's fine. If it's true that would be as much a statement of fact as my own, and I certainly think that debate over disputable passages should be taken to the private forum. But other than that, the response in this thread to the *fact* that the standard text of Chalcedon accepted by EO and the West for centuries contains an explicit affirmation of the 12 Anathemas and the rest of St. Cyril's synodical letters against Nestorius has been to pretend it doesn't exist.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2011, 09:18:02 PM by witega » Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


In solidarity with Iraqi and Syrian Christians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #82 on: October 04, 2011, 09:24:18 PM »

Quote
Given that you are not the only one to question this statement, I will point out (again) that all I did was quote the Definition of Chalcedon as given in the Post-Nicene Fathers series, a standard (if somewhat old) scholarly translation, and then restated it when Severian seemed to be completely ignoring it.
Sorry if I seem to be "ignoring" it. I am not, forgive me. I must study for my exams so I do not have time to engage in debates about/research Chalcedon anymore. I will try to answer you tomorrow or maybe even at the end of the week.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2011, 09:24:37 PM by Severian » Logged

On hiatus from posting. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact. Note that some of my older posts -especially those prior to late 2012- may not reflect my current views. In the meantime, please pray for my sinful self as I am in a critical and unsure juncture in my life. Thank you.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,117


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #83 on: October 04, 2011, 09:33:50 PM »

Good luck with your exams.  angel
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,111


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


WWW
« Reply #84 on: October 04, 2011, 11:45:36 PM »

And this might be a little off from the topic, but how do you feel there should be union between EO's and OO's?  I know you support the Joint Commissions, but here it sounds like that there should be no reason why OO's shouldn't accept Chalcedon as ecumenical.  Do you accept the possibility that we can unite on grounds of faith despite differences in interpretation of the events that divide us?
Alexandria and Constantinople did over EP St. John Chrysostom and the Synod of the Oak, so we have the precedent.

I think in the end, this is the important issue.  Hence, when I think the theologians of the Joint Commissions  in Geneva in 1990 (which included Fr. John Romanides) felt they were getting no where with the honest interpretations of the issues, they concluded:

Quote
Both families  accept the first  three  ecumenical councils, which form our
common  heritage.   In relation  to the four  later councils of  the  Orthodox
Church,  the Orthodox   state that  for  them the   above  points 1-7  are the
teachings also of the four later  councils of the  Orthodox  Church, while the
Oriental  Orthodox   consider this  statement  of    the  Orthodox   as  their
interpretation.  With this understanding, the Oriental  Orthodox respond to it
positively.

And that's the important thing that needs to be honestly discussed.  Are we ready to admit that faith trumps the persons/councils that held/teach it?

One day, perhaps, we'll slowly move towards that idea, but I don't think my grandchildren will be alive on that day.
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.
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #85 on: October 05, 2011, 12:09:05 AM »

Quote
Given that you are not the only one to question this statement, I will point out (again) that all I did was quote the Definition of Chalcedon as given in the Post-Nicene Fathers series, a standard (if somewhat old) scholarly translation, and then restated it when Severian seemed to be completely ignoring it.
Sorry if I seem to be "ignoring" it. I am not, forgive me. I must study for my exams so I do not have time to engage in debates about/research Chalcedon anymore. I will try to answer you tomorrow or maybe even at the end of the week.

As I said to Salpy, if you have information that contests the historicity of the passage I quoted from the definition of Chalcedon, I certainly think you should post it here as a balance to what I posted and because its actually on point to the OP. On the other hand, if it's simply more argument about what the Fathers of Chalcedon 'meant' when they talked about St. Cyril's Christology, I do think that should be taken over to the private forum.

As to my comment about ignoring, it should be obvious. I had just quoted a passage that specifically referred to the 'synodical letters against Nestorius' (i.e., even before Ephesus) and you responded (at least I presume the '^' meant you were directly responding to my post immediately above yours) with a post about interpretations of the Formula of Reunion being some kind of 'repentence' of St. Cyril's earlier positions--i.e., the synodical letters just referenced.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,570


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #86 on: October 05, 2011, 12:20:07 AM »

As I said to Salpy, if you have information that contests the historicity of the passage I quoted from the definition of Chalcedon, I certainly think you should post it here as a balance to what I posted and because its actually on point to the OP. On the other hand, if it's simply more argument about what the Fathers of Chalcedon 'meant' when they talked about St. Cyril's Christology, I do think that should be taken over to the private forum.


What do you mean by contesting "the historicity of the passage I quoted from the definition of Chalcedon?"  Which passage are you talking about?  And do you mean whether that passage was actually a part of the definition of Chalcedon?  I'm trying to understand what you mean by "historicity."

And why is contesting that fit for the public forum, while discussing what the Chalcedonians meant when they talked about St. Cyril's Christology is not?

I'm just trying to understand what you are getting at.
Logged

witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #87 on: October 05, 2011, 12:49:53 AM »

And this might be a little off from the topic, but how do you feel there should be union between EO's and OO's?  I know you support the Joint Commissions, but here it sounds like that there should be no reason why OO's shouldn't accept Chalcedon as ecumenical.  Do you accept the possibility that we can unite on grounds of faith despite differences in interpretation of the events that divide us?
Alexandria and Constantinople did over EP St. John Chrysostom and the Synod of the Oak, so we have the precedent.

I think in the end, this is the important issue.  Hence, when I think the theologians of the Joint Commissions  in Geneva in 1990 (which included Fr. John Romanides) felt they were getting no where with the honest interpretations of the issues, they concluded:

Quote
Both families  accept the first  three  ecumenical councils, which form our
common  heritage.   In relation  to the four  later councils of  the  Orthodox
Church,  the Orthodox   state that  for  them the   above  points 1-7  are the
teachings also of the four later  councils of the  Orthodox  Church, while the
Oriental  Orthodox   consider this  statement  of    the  Orthodox   as  their
interpretation.  With this understanding, the Oriental  Orthodox respond to it
positively.

And that's the important thing that needs to be honestly discussed.  Are we ready to admit that faith trumps the persons/councils that held/teach it?

One day, perhaps, we'll slowly move towards that idea, but I don't think my grandchildren will be alive on that day.

I think you have pegged it exactly minasoliman. I've tried to say something similar before but have obviously not said it so clearly. It seems clear that at this point in time, we (EO and OO) are never going to agree on St. Flavian's conduct of the condemnation of Eutyches, of Patriarch Dioscuros' conduct of Ephesus II, or what the Fathers of Chalcedon 'really' meant when they talked about St. Cyril. And yet (as evidenced quite clearly here any time an actual Nestorian or semi-Nestorian shows up) we recognize in each other currently the same Orthodox faith.

Ialmisry is on point with the Synod of Oak, but that is by no means the only example. It is very much within the Holy Tradition that both our churches share that when the faith is the same, a schism can and should be healed without needing to settle which side was 'right' and who was to blame in the past. 200 years after the healing, scholars who no longer have a personal stake in who was right and who was wrong can try to reasses the matter with actual dispassion since it won't matter--the Church will still be one and Flavian, Dioscuros, Leo, Severus, et al will be right where they are now regardless of our opinions--in the hands of the Righteous and All-Merciful Judge.

I'm somewhat more optimistic than you--but I'm also not holding my breath.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #88 on: October 05, 2011, 01:29:54 AM »

As I said to Salpy, if you have information that contests the historicity of the passage I quoted from the definition of Chalcedon, I certainly think you should post it here as a balance to what I posted and because its actually on point to the OP. On the other hand, if it's simply more argument about what the Fathers of Chalcedon 'meant' when they talked about St. Cyril's Christology, I do think that should be taken over to the private forum.


What do you mean by contesting "the historicity of the passage I quoted from the definition of Chalcedon?"  Which passage are you talking about?  And do you mean whether that passage was actually a part of the definition of Chalcedon?  I'm trying to understand what you mean by "historicity."

And why is contesting that fit for the public forum, while discussing what the Chalcedonians meant when they talked about St. Cyril's Christology is not?

I'm just trying to understand what you are getting at.


Let me try to put this in a way that does not engage Orthodox (either E or O passions):
If a Latin says, "We believe that the modern Papacy is a Petrine institution," that is not, per se, polemical. It is a simple statement of fact.

And if a Latin says, "Christ said to Peter, "You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church'" or "The Donations of Constantine say 'xyz'" these again are simple statements of fact. And if I point out 'various Fathers interpret 'this rock' in various ways' or 'modern scholars consider the Donations of Constantine to be a late forgery." we're certainly getting closer to debate/argument/polemic territory. But it only crosses over from simple statement of facts to the latter when we go beyond facts--when the Latin says, "Christ said to Peter, etc, and *therefore* you must be in communion with the Roman pontiff." or I say "Christ did not *mean* Peter and he certainly didn't mean the bishops that follow after Peter."

The first statements are not polemical because they are not disputable. People can (and continually do) argue over what Christ meant; at one time scholars argued over whether the Donations of Constantine were authentic or not. But no one can dispute that Scripture says Christ said those words or that the Donations of Constantine exist or that most (I think all, but that might be disputable) modern scholars considers the Donations to be a forgery. It only becomes a debate when I try to convince you to change your position based on reasoning from or interpretation of that fact.

By the same token, it is an indisputable fact that the Definition of Chalcedon, at least in the version historically received by Chalcedonians, contains an affirmation of St. Cyril's synodical letters as a standard of Orthodoxy. If there is a parallel historical fact (that I am unaware of) that Oriental Orthodox have historically received a different version of the Definition without that affirmation; or if it is an actual fact that some modern scholars question the authenticity of that part of the Definition, then it would obviously be appropriate to lay that fact down next to mine. But if we are going to debate whose version (again, assuming there is more than one) is the correct one, or are going to argue about what that affirmation 'really' means then that would seem to be the 'arguing about Chalcedon' I am given to understand is not allowed in the public parts of this forum.



Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Father Peter
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,631



WWW
« Reply #89 on: October 05, 2011, 04:40:22 AM »

I agree with witega.

When we describe the basis of the faith we find we are in agreement. When we discuss the meaning of historical events we are less likely to be in such agreement.

At all the early reunion conferences the faith was understood to be in close enough agreement. The widespread acceptance of the Henoitkon also shows this. It was always the status of Chalcedon as an event which caused the process to fail. Both sides had given it mutually incompatible polemical value.

This is why I am convinced that we must continue to examine and seek to understand what we believe now. And then see how much of the conciliar material is already mutually acceptable. Then discover what needs to be said about the remaining material. And finally, when there is agreement, it will be necessary to decide what we do about historical attitudes to history and some people.

I would find it pretty much impossible to consider Leo a saint, but that doesn't mean I have to consider him an ogre. I am quite able to reflect on the whole of his Christology, put it in context etc. Indeed I would consider his views on papal supremacy to be much more problematic. But I also find Augustine of Hippo problematic.

The fact is that if someone said to me that they thought or did not think that Augustine was a saint then I would not immediately consider breaking communion with them. If they said, I believe that God has created the majority of people just to punish them for eternity, then I would have a problem. But this would be based on what that person believed not who they commemorated.

St Cyril took the same view, not wishing to split the whole Church just because some commemorated the names of those with dodgy views. What mattered to him was what those who were alive believed. I think we must take the same view, while allowing neutral accounts of some of these controversial figures to be developed.

But in the end I do not believe any of them, if they are saints, would wish for those who believe the same to be divided over the matter of their veneration.
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Tags: Chalcedon Cyril of Alexandria Nestorius Tome Papal Infallibility Ibas Yeshuaisiamism Three Chapters I like cheese 
Pages: « 1 2  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 0.25 seconds with 73 queries.