OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 29, 2014, 06:23:07 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Saint Athanasius and "One Incarnate Nature"  (Read 3125 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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
« on: October 21, 2011, 09:24:46 PM »

Now, it is a common claim that the Cyrilline formula "one incarnate nature" is not authentically Athanasian but an Apollinarian forgery. What is the OO view of this? Is there any concrete evidence "one incarnate nature" is of Apollinarian origin? Do any of St. Athanasius' extant primary works contain this formula? I know Zachariah of Mitylene's History attributes this formula to him and other great Fathers, but was it used by them?

EOs can participate on this thread, but please do not be polemical.
« Last Edit: October 21, 2011, 09:30:31 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.
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 #1 on: October 22, 2011, 11:10:22 AM »

NVM!
« Last Edit: October 22, 2011, 11:20:00 AM 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.
Aram
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Armenian Church
Posts: 216


« Reply #2 on: October 22, 2011, 11:17:30 AM »

Just a meta question, is it necessary to bump a thread from yesterday that hasn't gone more than ten slots down the page?
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 #3 on: October 22, 2011, 11:19:27 AM »

Just a meta question, is it necessary to bump a thread from yesterday that hasn't gone more than ten slots down the page?
Yes! Grin
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.
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #4 on: October 22, 2011, 12:55:22 PM »

NVM!

does thsi mean u found an answer to your question?
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 #5 on: October 22, 2011, 12:56:51 PM »

NVM!

does thsi mean u found an answer to your question?
No, it means I "NVM'd" my post.
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.
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 #6 on: October 24, 2011, 03:57:41 PM »

--bump--
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.
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,630



WWW
« Reply #7 on: October 24, 2011, 04:20:02 PM »

I have wanted to research this.

I believe it is a mistake for it to be assumed, now or in the past, that any particular father or heretic has a monopoly on a particular term, or that it has ever only one meaning.

The Chalcedonians use 'in two natures' which is clearly of a Theodorean heritage, but we don't say that the Chalcedonian Definitio relies on Theodorean Forgeries. We accept that there is a certain lexicon which is floating around and which is used in a variety of ways.

My own thinking at present is that St Cyril would have a very clear idea of the lexicon used in Alexandria and by St Athanasius. St Cyril was born just a couple of years after St Athanasius died. He would have had access to all of the documentary archive of the Archbishops office.

I would want to know the date of the purported Apollinarian forgeries. Could they have drawn on a lexicon used by St Athanasius? Is there are reason why St Athanasius should not have used a lexicon that had been used by Apollinarius? Chalcedon clearly used a lexicon that had been used by heretics, why should that be problematic? Is there any reason that St Cyril should not have used a lexicon which had a varied history and put it to good use.

The idea that he accidentally developed an entire Christology (with the implication that it was defective) simply because he had picked up a phrase that Apollinarius might have used in an entirely different manner is frankly bogus. If such a view were taken then all of the Fathers have used phrases and terms that were used by heretics and heterodox in inadequate ways and so should all be considered to have failed to promote an Orthodox Christology.

St Cyril knew what he was teaching. And his Christology remains the bedrock of our Orthodoxy. The use of a term such as 'Apollinarian forgeries' is designed, just as 'Robber Synod', to claim a certain ground and deny it to others. It is no surprise that we should resist forcefully such attempts to control the use of language.

But I need to study this much more for my own benefit.
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
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #8 on: October 24, 2011, 04:41:25 PM »

Now, it is a common claim that the Cyrilline formula "one incarnate nature" is not authentically Athanasian but an Apollinarian forgery. What is the OO view of this? Is there any concrete evidence "one incarnate nature" is of Apollinarian origin? Do any of St. Athanasius' extant primary works contain this formula? I know Zachariah of Mitylene's History attributes this formula to him and other great Fathers, but was it used by them?

EOs can participate on this thread, but please do not be polemical.

The way I understand it, but I can't quote any sources right now, this is just anecdotal Church info floating around spontaneously in my recollections, Apollinarus did in fact author the original drafts of the Cyrilline formula.  Further, I also understand that on a personal level, in the OO jurisdictions Apollinarus as an individual was exonerated in the same manner as Eutyches, and that only the heretical teachings attributed to him were continually and rightfully condemned. As Father Peter has explained, Cyril and other fathers fully understood the depth of their Christological teachings, and so they could not have been duped by forgeries or mistranslations, because they like all scholar would have been working with multiple sources of evidence.  The way I recall it, Apolinarus may have has a Christological misundertanding which is heresy, but other works of his were consistently Orthodox, and if he was involved in the drafts of the Cyrilline formula, I would say it would be more so evidence to suggest that like Eutyches, Apollinarus was more so misunderstood than a full-fledged heresiarch, though again, I could be completely mistaken.

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
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: 37,456



« Reply #9 on: October 24, 2011, 06:41:14 PM »

I have wanted to research this.

I believe it is a mistake for it to be assumed, now or in the past, that any particular father or heretic has a monopoly on a particular term, or that it has ever only one meaning.

The Chalcedonians use 'in two natures' which is clearly of a Theodorean heritage,
Oh?  I've seen no pedigree.

but we don't say that the Chalcedonian Definitio relies on Theodorean Forgeries. We accept that there is a certain lexicon which is floating around and which is used in a variety of ways.

My own thinking at present is that St Cyril would have a very clear idea of the lexicon used in Alexandria and by St Athanasius. St Cyril was born just a couple of years after St Athanasius died. He would have had access to all of the documentary archive of the Archbishops office.
Despite Pope St. Cyril's prolonged access to the papal archives in Alexandria (his uncle Theophilos, serving as Pope and having Pope St. Cyril at his side, unfortunately even at the Synod of the Oak), I'm not sure it would be determinative, given that Pope St. Athanasius spent over a third of his papacy in exile far from Alexandria (as far as Trier, Germany).  Hence the Gallic forgery "The Athansian Creed."

I would want to know the date of the purported Apollinarian forgeries. Could they have drawn on a lexicon used by St Athanasius? Is there are reason why St Athanasius should not have used a lexicon that had been used by Apollinarius? Chalcedon clearly used a lexicon that had been used by heretics, why should that be problematic? Is there any reason that St Cyril should not have used a lexicon which had a varied history and put it to good use.

Putting aside the issue of Chalcedon (my disagreement is clear), Nicea I used a heretical (Sabellian) term, "homoousios", as is well known and documented, as is its modification for Orthodox use.

The idea that he accidentally developed an entire Christology (with the implication that it was defective) simply because he had picked up a phrase that Apollinarius might have used in an entirely different manner is frankly bogus. If such a view were taken then all of the Fathers have used phrases and terms that were used by heretics and heterodox in inadequate ways and so should all be considered to have failed to promote an Orthodox Christology.

St Cyril knew what he was teaching. And his Christology remains the bedrock of our Orthodoxy. The use of a term such as 'Apollinarian forgeries' is designed, just as 'Robber Synod', to claim a certain ground and deny it to others. It is no surprise that we should resist forcefully such attempts to control the use of language.

But I need to study this much more for my own benefit.
Just as there are reasons why Ephesus II is called a 'Robber Synod,' there is a reason why the 'Apollinarian forgeries' are so called: they are forgeries that originated in Apollinarian circles.  It means no more than that:they are cited as the words of Pope St. Athanasius, when he did not say them, and evidently would put in his mouth by the Apollinarians.  They were cited, however, as the words of Pope St. Athansius, by not only the Apollinarians, but also the Eutychians and the Orthodox.  That, of course, would be the source of a problem, as the forgeries would be used in common, but would not be developed in common.  More dangerous would be the practice of passing a heretics work under an Orthodox name, cf. Gaddis and Price:
Quote
Followers of Apollinarius (condemned at the Council of Constantinople of 381) attempted to maintain the authority of his writings by attributing them to orthodox Fathers such as Athanasius and various bishops of Rome. Cyril himself was deceived by these forgeries: he used an edition of Athanasius' Letter to Epictetus which may well have contained Apollinarian interpolations (see I. 246 fin., with our note), and had approved at Ephesus I a patristic florilegium containing excerpts from Apollinarian forgeries (L 944.7-8).
http://books.google.com/books?id=6IUaOOT1G3UC&pg=RA2-PA155&lpg=RA2-PA155&dq=athanasius+apollinarian+forgeries&source=bl&ots=xr8C7AHiPR&sig=Mk_QxQX_mLkUnWdU5aRZ8h6tuwM&hl=en#v=onepage&q=athanasius%20apollinarian%20forgeries&f=false
that is only a problem if how "Cyrillian" something is is the touchstone of Orthodoxy.  Pope St. Athanasius believed in Orthodoxy, and Pope St. Cyril believed in Orthodoxy, and that is based on the content of their writings, not the name on them.  Within the context of Orthodoxy, heretical interpolations stand out, as heretical terms ammendable to Orthodox use blend in.
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
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,969


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #10 on: October 24, 2011, 08:58:30 PM »

Just a meta question, is it necessary to bump a thread from yesterday that hasn't gone more than ten slots down the page?
Yes! Grin

Only for those whose special purpose is to compare OO and EO theologian saints. (Really, Severian, the All Holy Inquisition has nominated you for this task. If you do not do it, no one will.)
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,630



WWW
« Reply #11 on: October 25, 2011, 04:13:25 AM »

Hi Ialmisry,

All you have done is taken Farher Richard Price's comments about the 'Apollinarian Forgeries' (in speech marks because they are under consideration not because they may well not be) and have acted as though his reference to common opinion is therefore authoritative. That doesn't make the view authoritative at all since it doesn't say anything about the authority for making such a claim. You suggest that St Cyril was absent fron Alexandria for a third of his papcy, but obviously that means he was present for two thirds of it. I don't see that your suggestion that he didn't have time to use the archives has any weight.

Also the 'Robber Synod' was only so called by Leo of Rome, which is why it is also often given the name of 'Latrocinium', a Latin term. There are clear historical reasons for him doing so, mostly based on his own view of the issues in the East, which has been shown to be gravely deficient, and also based on the evidence he received about the Council, which was gravely biased. Again, just because a term has been used does not mean it has authority unless there is justification for it to be used.

Quite clearly, how Cyrilline something is entirely the measure of Christological Orthodoxy. If you want to turn to Father Richard Price again he believes very strongly that Chalcedon is Orthodox because it was Cyrilline.

In regard to Theodore, I will quote Grillmeier who says...

The authentic Theodore always speaks of one person in two natures.

I can find the relevant primary quotations if required, from both Theodore and others. It was well known at Chalcedon that 'Theodore always speaks of one person in two natures', which is why it was impossible for St Dioscorus to accept the term, especially after the first draft of the Definitio, which had used the Cyrilline 'from two natures' had been rejected.
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: 37,456



« Reply #12 on: October 25, 2011, 09:43:01 AM »

Hi Ialmisry,

All you have done is taken Farher Richard Price's comments about the 'Apollinarian Forgeries' (in speech marks because they are under consideration not because they may well not be) and have acted as though his reference to common opinion is therefore authoritative.
Father Price?  I wasn't aware he was a priest.

As you know, Father, such a judgement is not unique to (Fr.) Price.  As you reference, it is common opinion.  That it is commonly held doesn't make it correct, of course (hence (Fr.) Price's use of the word "may").  It does, however, disqualify it for off the wall status, and does allow a conversation to proceed while mentioning it and not having to first stop to mount a full fledged defense.  That will come.

That doesn't make the view authoritative at all since it doesn't say anything about the authority for making such a claim.
That comes from the many, many other authorities who share the same judgement.

You suggest that St Cyril was absent fron Alexandria for a third of his papcy, but obviously that means he was present for two thirds of it.
No, Pope St. Athanasius.  And I didn't suggest it. I stated it as the fact it is.

I don't see that your suggestion that he didn't have time to use the archives has any weight.
I suggested no such thing.  In fact, the opposite: taken under the wing of his uncle Pope Theophilos, I suggest Pope St. Cyril had practically all his life to use the archives. The question I posed is what use there would be for the archives to document definitely Pope Athanasius' writings, as much of his papacy was spent no where near the archives.  He (and his successor Pope Peter II) spent a good amount of time in exile at Rome, from where he (they) wrote much, and were well known world wide, rather than just Alexandria.  It would be like trying to give priority of King Henry III's interpretation of King Richard the Lion-hearted's policies because of his access to the royal archives, ignoring how little time King Richard spent in England (though less extreme in the case of the Popes of Alexandria. Like you said, Father, Pope St. Athanasius was able to stay in the metropolis for two thirds of his papacy).

Unlike Antioch, where much of its "school" was dispersed in the hinterland, Alexandria's school was quite centralized and in immediate contact with the rest of the world, further diluting the determitive power of the archives of the papal office.

Also the 'Robber Synod' was only so called by Leo of Rome,
Pope St. Leo coined the term, but he was far from the only one to call it that, then or now.

which is why it is also often given the name of 'Latrocinium', a Latin term.
the Greek term is Ληστρική Σύνοδος, used also, for instance, for the "headless council" of the Iconoclasts. 

There are clear historical reasons for him doing so, mostly based on his own view of the issues in the East, which has been shown to be gravely deficient, and also based on the evidence he received about the Council, which was gravely biased. Again, just because a term has been used does not mean it has authority unless there is justification for it to be used.
There is, but that can be discussed on another thread.

Quite clearly, how Cyrilline something is entirely the measure of Christological Orthodoxy.
No, Father, it is not.  Orthodox Christology did not start c. 376, or even 431, nor was it consumated by 444.

This does provide an intriguing contrast:OO have asked the EO here is it important to recognize the Seven Ecumenical Councils or just hold the Faith, but here we are told that it is the authorship of Pope St. Cyril (and Pope St. Athanasius) holds primacy over the Faith expressed in the works attributed to them.

For the sake of argument, let us say that the Letter to Epictetus is entirely, not just interpolated, a forgery, and not a single word comes from Pope St. Athanasius' pen.  Does that matter for Orthodoxy?  No, not at all.  The Orthodox Church, in Ecumenical Council under Pope St. Cyril, recognized it as an Orthodox statement of the Faith, and the Orthodox Church at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon affirmed that.  Even if the historical accuracy as a work of Pope St. Athanasius is totally disproven and discredited, its theological Truth remains.

Pope St. Athanasius' authorship only matters in studies devoted to the development of his thought, or maybe the development of the school of Alexandria. After its reception as Pope St. Athanasius' work, the veracity of that claim looses any importance, i.e. it's importance is confined only to Pope St. Athanasius' lifetime and those in immediate contact with him.  Beyond that, even as a historical question, true authorship looses any importance except for a revisionist.

Satan's citation of scripture in the wilderness doesn't nullify its Truth.  Orthodox statements by heretics do not nullify their (the statements') Orthodoxy.

If you want to turn to Father Richard Price again he believes very strongly that Chalcedon is Orthodox because it was Cyrilline.
I was confirmed in the belief of Chalcedon's Orthodoxy long before (Fr.) Price came along, even before I read a word of Pope St. Cyril, though I don't get the same impression of (Fr.) Price's beliefs as you do, Father, but I think the only thing I have read of his on the matter is his translation of the Acts.  Though I would say that Chalcedon was was the most "Cyrillian" Ecumenical Council.

In regard to Theodore, I will quote Grillmeier who says...

The authentic Theodore always speaks of one person in two natures.
So?

I can find the relevant primary quotations if required, from both Theodore and others.

If you can find someone at Chalcedon or Constantinople 431-51 or the Patriarchate of Rome 431-698 quoting Theodore, that would be relevant.

It was well known at Chalcedon that 'Theodore always speaks of one person in two natures',
Oh? Proof?

which is why it was impossible for St Dioscorus to accept the term, especially after the first draft of the Definitio, which had used the Cyrilline 'from two natures' had been rejected.
IIRC, by the time the Definition was being drafted, Pope Dioscoros was not in a position to accept or reject anything.
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
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,630



WWW
« Reply #13 on: October 25, 2011, 10:03:11 AM »

Lol! I have never heard anyone dispute that the language of 'in two natures' originates with Diodore and Theodore, and was controversial entirely because of that.

It was you yourself who insisted that there was no audit trail of the expression leading to Theodore, I quoted Grillmeier to show that clearly there is such an audit trail, and it was well known to those who rejected this phrase as being Nestorian.

I am not sure why you keep putting Father as (Fr) in reference to Father Richard Price. Since he is a Catholic priest it seems respectful to reference him as such.

Orthodox Christology is clearly Cyrilline because it is not possible to conceive of Orthodox Christology without the contribution of St Cyril. We don't live in the 3rd century, we live in the 21st century, and for us, where and when we are, Orthodox Christology is and must be Cyrilline.

In regard to the 'Appolinarian Forgeries' I don't think anyone has suggested that such a description is off the wall, only you have done so. But you did take the conclusion of a modern writer and present it as if it was conclusive. I think that this thread is requiring an investigation of this conclusion, that is all.

Your introduction of King Richard seems rather bogus, as you admit, since St Athanasius spent 2/3 of his papacy in Alexandria while King Richard spent only months as king in England, didn't speak any English, and said he would happily have sold the country. On the contrary the papal court at Alexandria was well organised, and highly literate and would have preserved carefully all official documentation which it had access to. The fact is that more and more early documents are becoming available to us which had been lost. As an example, the Histoire de Dioscore references a letter to Pope Julius of Rome which it had been thought was bogus, but a copy of the letter has turned up in the West and proved the authenticity of the reference.
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: 37,456



« Reply #14 on: October 25, 2011, 12:49:54 PM »

Lol! I have never heard anyone dispute that the language of 'in two natures' originates with Diodore and Theodore, and was controversial entirely because of that.
and you have not heard it here, at least not yet, Father.  But before we get into that, how is it that Diodore and Thedore died at peace in the Church?

It was you yourself who insisted that there was no audit trail of the expression leading to Theodore, I quoted Grillmeier to show that clearly there is such an audit trail, and it was well known to those who rejected this phrase as being Nestorian.
LOL. Don't you mean "Theodorean," Father?  Unfortunately, many who rejected this phrase as Nestorian had a nasty habit of reading Nestorianism into a lot of places where it wasn't, and worse yet, some of them did so to hide their own heresies.

No audit trail has been traced.  As your authority Card. Grillmeier warns "In this context of Theodore's christological thought we must now examine the formula in which he summed it up. The one explains and supports the other. If we look at his terminology against the background of this thought, the deficiencies of which we already know, we must, of course, concede that the wording of the formula stands closer to the Council of Chalcedon than the ideas to which it gives expression...There is still a hard road before we have a clear terminological distinction between what is of the 'person' and what is of the 'nature'. It would be wrong to misunderstand Theodore's contribution to the Chalcedonian formula."
http://books.google.be/books?id=LH-cBwmmY2cC&pg=PA439&dq=%22There+is+still+a+hard+road+before+we+have+a+clear%22&hl=nl#v=onepage&q=%22There%20is%20still%20a%20hard%20road%20before%20we%20have%20a%20clear%22&f=false

Card. Grillmeier points out, on Theodore's use of the term hypostasis "He took it over from Apollinarius, but had to interpret it in his own way."
http://books.google.be/books?id=LH-cBwmmY2cC&pg=PA437&dq=%22He+took+it+over+from+Apollinarius,60+but+had+to+interpret+it+in+his+own+way%22&hl=nl#v=onepage&q=%22He%20took%20it%20over%20from%20Apollinarius%2C60%20but%20had%20to%20interpret%20it%20in%20his%20own%20way%22&f=false
a most unOthodox (and non-Chalcedonian) way at that.

I am not sure why you keep putting Father as (Fr) in reference to Father Richard Price. Since he is a Catholic priest it seems respectful to reference him as such.
I've never seen him so identified before. That's all.

Orthodox Christology is clearly Cyrilline because it is not possible to conceive of Orthodox Christology without the contribution of St Cyril.

Sure it is.  Just read Pope St. Athanasius' "On the Incarnation," which owes nothing to Pope St. Cyril but remains a classic expression of Orthodox Christology.  The importance of Pope St. Cyril's Christological works arises from him expressing the same Orthodox Christology, not from his authorship. No Father stands outside and above the Consensus of the Fathers, not even Pope St. Athanasius.  

Cyril's Christology is clearly Orthodox because it expresses the mind of the Church, not because it expresses Pope St. Cyril's thoughts.

We don't live in the 3rd century, we live in the 21st century, and for us, where and when we are, Orthodox Christology is and must be Cyrilline.
I would say that for 21 centuries Christology does not have to be Matthean, Marcan, Lucan, or Johannine-let alone "Cyrilline"-to be Orthodox.  I would not hold SS. Matthew, Mark, Luke or John as Orthodox had the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church not told me so, and I am quite sure Pope St. Cyril would not condone me holding him above the Evangelists.

The whole of the Faith need not be filtered through Pope St. Cyril.  Indeed, it cannot be.  Holding otherwise may lay at the difference between the OO and EO.

In regard to the 'Appolinarian Forgeries' I don't think anyone has suggested that such a description is off the wall, only you have done so. But you did take the conclusion of a modern writer and present it as if it was conclusive.
It would have to be a modern writer.  Like most ancient forgeries not immediately exposed, no ancient writer seems to have quetioned the attribution, although the ancient writers display a familiarity with interpolation and forgery. In the case in point, the forger's would resemble more money forgers than check forgers.

I think that this thread is requiring an investigation of this conclusion, that is all.
Father, you are the one who introduced the idea that the term "Apollinarian forgeries" imputes Pope St. Cyril's Christology as "defective" if such forgery was quoted by Pope St. Cyril, and indeed you issued the call that "we should resist forcefully such attempts to control the use of language," imputing the motive of using the term "Apollinarian forgies" as to claim a certain ground and deny it to others."  No such motive arises from necessity: it can just be to ascertain the true authorship of the work in question. Date, provinance, thought etc. are of relevance, but Orthodoxy is not: if Apollinarius himself forged them, it will not make Pope St. Cyril a heretic, nor make Apollinarius Orthodox.

Your introduction of King Richard seems rather bogus, as you admit, since St Athanasius spent 2/3 of his papacy in Alexandria while King Richard spent only months as king in England, didn't speak any English, and said he would happily have sold the country. On the contrary the papal court at Alexandria was well organised, and highly literate and would have preserved carefully all official documentation which it had access to.
Leaving aside for the moment how much of the charecterization is assumed, and how much documented, the fact remains that during that 1/3 of his papacy Alexandria was in control of his enemies, despite the overwhelming support he had from the Faithful.  I don't see Gregory the Cappadocian archiving Pope St. Athanasius' festal encyclicals, or any other Orthodox refutations of Arianism, the creed that Gregory was sent to Alexandria to enforce.  As we know elsewhere (and perhaps even here?), the ancients were not above destroying and information cleansing a library or archive of records they didn't agree with.  I'm sure Pope St. Athanasius would bring back with him what he could from Rome and Trier, but not everything. Nor is there a guarentee that everything that made it "back" to Alexandria really originated there or from Pope St. Athanasius' pen.

Btw, it seems King Henry III was as Franco-centric as his uncle King Richard, and English didn't replace French at the English court until over a century after Henry III.  Being highly literate at Alexandria at the time meant in Greek, and in engaged with the literati of the Mediterrean littoral, as the English court was with France, so no "on the contrary" or "bogus" about it.

The fact is that more and more early documents are becoming available to us which had been lost.
Indeed, that is how we have the forgotten OO memory of Ephesus II, in a unique manuscript from the Scetis.  And Nestorius' apologia.

As an example, the Histoire de Dioscore references a letter to Pope Julius of Rome which it had been thought was bogus, but a copy of the letter has turned up in the West and proved the authenticity of the reference.
yes, and?  Are you suggesting, Father, that we may be lucky enough to uncover the autograph of the manuscripts in quesiton?
« Last Edit: October 25, 2011, 12:52:53 PM by ialmisry » 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
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,019


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


WWW
« Reply #15 on: October 25, 2011, 02:08:49 PM »

Isa and Fr. Peter, I think both of you agree to a certain extent.

What Fr. Peter is conveying is that at the heart of EO/OO discussions for unity and the avoidance of heresies, especially Nestorianism, Cyrillian Christology has been used as the uniting force of our two families.  This is of course not to exclude other church fathers or to say that St. Cyril is the sole source, but in agreement with Isa, St. Cyril is Orthodox not because he's St. Cyril, but because he is in agreement with the Orthodox tradition and faith of the Church.

I think where we differ is simply the interpretations of the Chalcedonian question, but the faith being more important is where we may be able to unite.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2011, 02:09:51 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.
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: 37,456



« Reply #16 on: October 25, 2011, 02:44:58 PM »

Isa and Fr. Peter, I think both of you agree to a certain extent.

What Fr. Peter is conveying is that at the heart of EO/OO discussions for unity and the avoidance of heresies, especially Nestorianism, Cyrillian Christology has been used as the uniting force of our two families.  This is of course not to exclude other church fathers or to say that St. Cyril is the sole source, but in agreement with Isa, St. Cyril is Orthodox not because he's St. Cyril, but because he is in agreement with the Orthodox tradition and faith of the Church.

I think where we differ is simply the interpretations of the Chalcedonian question, but the faith being more important is where we may be able to unite.
yes, I would say that anyone who disagrees with Pope St. Cyril's "On the Unity of Christ," for instance, had better have a d****d good explanation of why, a position I think both EO and OO would agree with.
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
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,630



WWW
« Reply #17 on: October 25, 2011, 02:46:38 PM »

We are in agreement.
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
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,019


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


WWW
« Reply #18 on: February 14, 2013, 05:33:05 PM »

Forgive me for resurrecting this topic, but I wanted to bring this to forefront simply because there is a question that has not been answered.  After searching for the source, I wonder if anyone with good Latin and/or Greek skills would take a look at this small, approximately 2 pages in length writing of the allegedly "pseudo-Athanasian" De Incarnatione Dei Verbi, and I wonder if there is anything in this writing that is indicative of it being Apollinarian in character?  Was there anything in this that indicated that Christ had no nous?  Was there even no mention of Christ's full humanity?  What does it say about Christ's humanity?

I think this is valid to reassess the theory that this is an Apollinarian forgery, because if it truly is, at the very least, it should at least be "compatible" with Apollinarian belief, and yet, I can't find any translation of this whole passage to confirm or refute the claim.

Looking forward to our scholars here for help.

It starts in page 25 here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=5r0UAAAAQAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
« Last Edit: February 14, 2013, 05:35:04 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.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,053


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #19 on: February 14, 2013, 06:00:42 PM »

I'll look into it for you.
Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,019


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


WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 14, 2013, 06:09:14 PM »

I'll look into it for you.

Thank you  Smiley
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.
zekarja
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 745


O Holy Prophet Zechariah, intercede to God for us!


« Reply #21 on: February 14, 2013, 11:19:10 PM »

Regardless as whether Papa Abba St Cyril quoted a forged letter, his usage of "one nature" was accepted by the Third Ecumenical Council:

"...it is also said that in Christ dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; but we understand that he became flesh, not just as he is said to dwell in the saints, but we define that that tabernacling in him was according to equality. But being made one in nature, and not converted into flesh, he made his indwelling in such a way, as we may say that the soul of man does in his own body." - Council of Ephesus, Session I, The Epistle of St Cyril of Alexandria to Nestorius

[emphasis mine]
Logged

minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,019


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


WWW
« Reply #22 on: February 15, 2013, 12:23:42 AM »

Oh yes...whatever the results of this research, it doesn't change that fact, I agree!

The point is, the claim is always made that this is an Apollinarian forgery, and no one ever delved deeply into that claim, at least to the best of my knowledge.  Scholars seem to take a sentence for granted sometimes without challenging it.  Consider the fact that scholars for centuries have looked for elaborate ways to figure out what exactly the heresy of the anti-Chalcedonians were until recently when Oriental Orthodox scholars decided to join the mix and challenge the views being made.

I've also argued that even if Apollinarius may have been the first to write such a phrase, it certainly does not mean he's the first to teach it.  I could imagine that Apollinarius when writing the phrase, wrote it without giving it a thought of it being written for granted.  He never explained what this phrase meant, or gave it an exposition on the phrase "one nature".  It seems that when writing this phrase, people around knew exactly what this phrase meant, and never questioned it.  It therefore was probably an Alexandrian tradition that was taught, of which St. Athanasius might have also not had a problem to confess, or at least heard it without having it cross his mind.

Consider the fact that very early Church fathers used the word "Theotokos" without really giving it much thought.  It seems that once it was St. Cyril's time, both the terms "Theotokos" and "Mia Physis" needed expositions and defenses.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2013, 12:28:30 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.
zekarja
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 745


O Holy Prophet Zechariah, intercede to God for us!


« Reply #23 on: February 15, 2013, 12:39:40 AM »

The point is, the claim is always made that this is an Apollinarian forgery, and no one ever delved deeply into that claim, at least to the best of my knowledge.  Scholars seem to take a sentence for granted sometimes without challenging it.  Consider the fact that scholars for centuries have looked for elaborate ways to figure out what exactly the heresy of the anti-Chalcedonians were until recently when Oriental Orthodox scholars decided to join the mix and challenge the views being made.

I agree. It is definitely used as a defense for rejecting the Orthodoxy of "one nature".
Logged

Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,053


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #24 on: February 15, 2013, 03:53:33 AM »

It says that Christ is God according to the Spirit (κατὰ πνεῦμα) and Man according to the flesh (κατὰ σάρκα) and again that he suffered "according to the flesh". This could be interpreted Apollinarian but for the rest it sounds OK (unless you think that the μία φύσις τοῦ Θεοῦ Λογού σεσαρκομένη formula is Apollinarian). Nowhere does the pseudo-Athanasian work explicitly deny that Christ has a nous, though.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2013, 04:19:21 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
vasnTearn
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Church
Posts: 191



« Reply #25 on: February 15, 2013, 05:32:54 AM »

I don't know if this may shed some light on the matter or not, but for both St Athanasius, St Cyril and OO Christology the word "hypostasis" was synonymous with "nature". So "hypostatic union" or "union according to hypostasis" of St Cyril was nothing but that one united nature. That is why, for example, the Armenians, who had the same understanding, translated that expression found in the letters of St Cyril as "union by nature". St Athanasius should've understood it in the same way, because he says:

Quote
"...Now subsistence (hypostasis) is essense, and means nothing else but very being, which Jeremiah calls existence, in the words, "and they heard not the voice of existence." For subsistence, and essense, is existence"
St Athanasius, To the bishops of Africa, Chapter 4

I mean, even if St Athanasius didn't use the "formula" which we're now searching for, if he made such a formula, it wouldn't be different in essence, because his understanding of the terms was the same with that of St Cyril and other Alexandrians and miaphysites.

If I'm wrong, you may correct me.
 
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,053


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #26 on: February 15, 2013, 06:13:05 AM »

I translated the work. Judge for yourself. I was under time pressure so it might not be a nice to read.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2013, 06:19:56 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #27 on: February 15, 2013, 07:13:10 AM »

There's one sentence and - in it - one word only which clearly smacks of Apollinarianism:

Ὁ τοίνυν γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τῆς Παρθένου Μαρίας, Υἱὸς Θεοῦ φύσει, καὶ Θεὸς ἀληθινὸς, καὶ οὐ χάριτι, καὶ οὐ μετουσίᾳ, κατὰ σάρκα μόνον, τὴν ἐκ Μαρίας, ἄνθρωπος.   

"So he who was born of the Virgin Mary [is] the Son of God by nature and true God, and not by grace, and not by participation; according to the flesh from Mary alone - man."

If that μόνον were deleted or "the flesh alone/only" could be stretched to include mind and soul, then the text can pass for Orthodox.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2013, 07:39:13 AM by Romaios » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,019


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


WWW
« Reply #28 on: February 15, 2013, 12:58:51 PM »

I translated the work. Judge for yourself. I was under time pressure so it might not be a nice to read.

You are awesome, man!  Thank you!

My take on this.  This is very inconclusive.  It could go either way.  Nevertheless, if I was to be really objective, really really objective, I might have to consider a third option.  That it's neither Apollinarian nor Athanasian.  The wording of this whole thing sounds very anti-Nestorian, and puts one to wonder whether someone who wrote this listened to Nestorius and wrote it against him.

Unless this was a writing against Paul of Samasota or early Adoptionist.  But honestly, the way this is written makes it look as if it was directed against Nestorius himself.  I'm not saying St. Cyril wrote this, but it could probably be someone not far from him.

If we were to analyze the word "flesh", we would know that this is not a conclusive answer.  St. Cyril presented also a letter of St. Athanasius to Epictetus, where St. Athanasius, the alleged author, defines flesh as including a rational soul, thus destroying any implication that this was an Apollinarian document.  Therefore, if we consistently use the alleged Athanasian definition of "flesh", it would certainly seem anti-Apollinarian.  But then what was Apollinarius' definition of "flesh"?  If he felt it meant simply man's body without nous, then this document can still go either way.  The word "only", I'm not sure if that really changes anything in the document on the implications of the word "flesh."

Finally, I noticed this document does not use the term "Theotokos", so I might be wrong that this document was strictly against Nestorius.  Nevertheless, it's something to consider.

What do you think?
« Last Edit: February 15, 2013, 12:59:15 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.
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: 37,456



« Reply #29 on: February 15, 2013, 01:37:36 PM »

I translated the work. Judge for yourself. I was under time pressure so it might not be a nice to read.

You are awesome, man!  Thank you!

My take on this.  This is very inconclusive.  It could go either way.  Nevertheless, if I was to be really objective, really really objective, I might have to consider a third option.  That it's neither Apollinarian nor Athanasian.  The wording of this whole thing sounds very anti-Nestorian, and puts one to wonder whether someone who wrote this listened to Nestorius and wrote it against him.

Unless this was a writing against Paul of Samasota or early Adoptionist.  But honestly, the way this is written makes it look as if it was directed against Nestorius himself.  I'm not saying St. Cyril wrote this, but it could probably be someone not far from him.

If we were to analyze the word "flesh", we would know that this is not a conclusive answer.  St. Cyril presented also a letter of St. Athanasius to Epictetus, where St. Athanasius, the alleged author, defines flesh as including a rational soul, thus destroying any implication that this was an Apollinarian document.  Therefore, if we consistently use the alleged Athanasian definition of "flesh", it would certainly seem anti-Apollinarian.  But then what was Apollinarius' definition of "flesh"?  If he felt it meant simply man's body without nous, then this document can still go either way.  The word "only", I'm not sure if that really changes anything in the document on the implications of the word "flesh."

Finally, I noticed this document does not use the term "Theotokos", so I might be wrong that this document was strictly against Nestorius.  Nevertheless, it's something to consider.

What do you think?
The problem I think comes from the lack of distinction of pneuma=immaterial and pneuma=divine substance.  Sarx includes body as as the seat of the emotions etc. (and hence including nous) while soma is body in contrast to soul/spirit.  In Semitic, bsr means flesh and humanity.
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
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,053


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #30 on: February 15, 2013, 01:43:51 PM »

There's one sentence and - in it - one word only which clearly smacks of Apollinarianism:

Ὁ τοίνυν γεννηθεὶς ἐκ τῆς Παρθένου Μαρίας, Υἱὸς Θεοῦ φύσει, καὶ Θεὸς ἀληθινὸς, καὶ οὐ χάριτι, καὶ οὐ μετουσίᾳ, κατὰ σάρκα μόνον, τὴν ἐκ Μαρίας, ἄνθρωπος.   

"So he who was born of the Virgin Mary [is] the Son of God by nature and true God, and not by grace, and not by participation; according to the flesh from Mary alone - man."

If that μόνον were deleted or "the flesh alone/only" could be stretched to include mind and soul, then the text can pass for Orthodox.

You are quite right, but the word sarx, flesh, was often used as a pars pro toto for human nature, which would again make it orthodox.
Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,053


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #31 on: February 15, 2013, 01:49:21 PM »


Finally, I noticed this document does not use the term "Theotokos", so I might be wrong that this document was strictly against Nestorius.  Nevertheless, it's something to consider.

What do you think?

It does use the term, actually.

"He himself, not another, was born from Mary according to the flesh in the last of days, as the angel said to Mary the Theotokos:"

But it could have been written against Diodore of Tarsus or Theodore of Mopsuestia which might place this document in the later years of St. Athanasius' reign. At least St. Cyril, who lived in that time, thought it was written at that time.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2013, 01:52:11 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #32 on: February 15, 2013, 01:51:00 PM »

If we were to analyze the word "flesh", we would know that this is not a conclusive answer.  St. Cyril presented also a letter of St. Athanasius to Epictetus, where St. Athanasius, the alleged author, defines flesh as including a rational soul, thus destroying any implication that this was an Apollinarian document.  Therefore, if we consistently use the alleged Athanasian definition of "flesh", it would certainly seem anti-Apollinarian.  But then what was Apollinarius' definition of "flesh"?  If he felt it meant simply man's body without nous, then this document can still go either way.  The word "only", I'm not sure if that really changes anything in the document on the implications of the word "flesh."

In Scripture language "flesh and blood" (basar vedam, sarx kai haima) means "merely human", unaided by the grace or Spirit of God:

"My spirit shall not remain in man for ever, because he is flesh." (Gen. 6:3)

"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." (Eph. 6:12)

“Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven" (Mt. 16:17)

"Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable." (1 Cor. 15).

It's more like a metaphor for the corruptible, irrational part of man - that which we share with beasts. Only once is it used in a christological context:

"Since, therefore, the children share flesh and blood, he himself likewise shared the same things, so that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by the fear of death. For it is clear that he did not come to help angels, but the descendants of Abraham. Therefore he had to become like his brothers and sisters in every respect." (Heb. 2:14-17)

I'm not sure that "flesh alone" = "complete human", if applied to Christ though. Not when the text says "human according to the flesh only".
« Last Edit: February 15, 2013, 01:59:26 PM by Romaios » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,019


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


WWW
« Reply #33 on: February 15, 2013, 01:54:38 PM »


Finally, I noticed this document does not use the term "Theotokos", so I might be wrong that this document was strictly against Nestorius.  Nevertheless, it's something to consider.

What do you think?

It does use the term, actually.

"He himself, not another, was born from Mary according to the flesh in the last of days, as the angel said to Mary the Theotokos:"

But it could have been written against Diodore of Tarsus or Theodore of Mopsuestia which might place this document in the later years of St. Athanasius' reign. At least St. Cyril, who lived in that time, thought it was written at that time.
I highly doubt it.  St. Athanasius spoke very highly of Diodore in his letter to him.  Diodore after all was one of the 318 at Nicea.

Can't believe I missed that.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2013, 01:56:59 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.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,053


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #34 on: February 15, 2013, 01:56:19 PM »

St. Athanasius liked and respected Apollinaris too but he wrote some treatises against him without naming him. And even then it might have been written at that time by someone else than St. Athanasius.
Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,019


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


WWW
« Reply #35 on: February 15, 2013, 02:00:43 PM »

Perhaps the use of the word "only" was to show that the humanity is not divine in substance, as Docetists would believe, but flesh only.
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.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,019


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


WWW
« Reply #36 on: February 15, 2013, 02:02:08 PM »

St. Athanasius liked and respected Apollinaris too but he wrote some treatises against him without naming him. And even then it might have been written at that time by someone else than St. Athanasius.
Well, if we look at the context, indeed, it was far after St. Athanasius that many people started writing against Apollinarius, probably when St. Athanasius was still alive.  Nevertheless, the doctrines of Diodore never crossed anyone's minds, probably because it wasn't popular except among the "Antiochian school".
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.
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #37 on: February 15, 2013, 02:09:36 PM »

Perhaps the use of the word "only" was to show that the humanity is not divine in substance, as Docetists would believe, but flesh only.

Highly unlikely since there are no (other) traces of anti-Docetist polemics in the text. The polemic is against Nestorianism.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,019


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


WWW
« Reply #38 on: February 15, 2013, 02:43:14 PM »

Perhaps the use of the word "only" was to show that the humanity is not divine in substance, as Docetists would believe, but flesh only.

Highly unlikely since there are no (other) traces of anti-Docetist polemics in the text. The polemic is against Nestorianism.

Yes there is...the last paragraph:

If someone teaches something different than the Divine Scripture on these things, saying that the Son of God is one and the man from Mary, made son according to grace as we are, is another, that there are two sons, one the Son of God according to nature, the other, the man from Mary, according to grace; or if anyone shall say that the flesh of our Lord is from above and not from the Virgin Mary, or if someone thinks the godhead in the flesh reverted, confused, or changeable or if someone shall not adore the flesh of our Lord and, as being that of a man, deem it not to be adored as the flesh of the Lord and God, that one the Catholic Church anathematizes


That's not to say this isn't an anti-Nestorian document.  It still is.  It just refutes Nestorius' attack of the Alexandrian tradition as one that "confuses" the natures of Christ, as if Alexandrian Christology was docetist.
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.
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #39 on: February 15, 2013, 02:55:07 PM »

If someone teaches something different than the Divine Scripture on these things, saying that the Son of God is one and the man from Mary, made son according to grace as we are, is another, that there are two sons, one the Son of God according to nature, the other, the man from Mary, according to grace; or if anyone shall say that the flesh of our Lord is from above and not from the Virgin Mary, or if someone thinks the godhead in the flesh reverted, confused, or changeable or if someone shall not adore the flesh of our Lord and, as being that of a man, deem it not to be adored as the flesh of the Lord and God, that one the Catholic Church anathematizes


That's not to say this isn't an anti-Nestorian document.  It still is.  It just refutes Nestorius' attack of the Alexandrian tradition as one that "confuses" the natures of Christ, as if Alexandrian Christology was docetist.

Sorry, I didn't look again so I missed that.

I still don't see how monon there could make a case against Docetism. An antonym might do the trick, but not monon. It only makes sense in an Apollinarian christology.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2013, 03:25:45 PM by Romaios » Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,053


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #40 on: February 15, 2013, 02:56:27 PM »

Perhaps ps.-Athanatius meant to say that with the word Theotokos he meant that only the flesh of Christ - i.e. human nature - came from Mary but not the divine nature. I'm just thinking out loud.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2013, 02:58:39 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
CoptoGeek
of Alexandria, the Christ-loving City
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,417



« Reply #41 on: February 15, 2013, 03:12:33 PM »

Sheenj linked to this in another thread, but it also includes some info relevant to this topic.

Quote
The little treatise or rather Confession of S. Athanasius from which S. Cyril cites in his Book against Theodore 61 is put by Montfaucon, S. Athanasius' Editor, among the dubia. Montfaucon's grounds for doing so are twofold; 1, that the very famous expression, One Incarnate Nature of the Word 62, seems to contradict what S. Athanasius says in other writings; 2, that the treatise was objected to by Leontius of Byzantium, at the beginning of the seventh Century.

Of the first ground of doubt, no one but a student of S. Athanasius has any right to speak. The second dwindles to nothing. Leontius says,

"They [the party of Severus, the great Monophysite Bishop of Antioch] put forward another passage as S. Athanasius', from his treatise on the Incarnation. It is on this wise, 'And that the Same is Son of God after the Spirit, Son of man after the flesh; not that the one Son is two natures, the one to be worshipped, the other not to be worshipped, but One Nature Incarnate of God the Word.' To this we say, that first it in no wise opposes us, for neither do we hold two natures, one to be worshipped, the other not, but we hold One Nature Incarnate of God the Word. Next it is not S. Athanasius'. For when they are asked by us, where it is, and cannot easily shew it, in their perplexity they put forward some small treatise, about two leaves, in which this passage is: but it is evident to all, that all S. Athanasius' writings are very large.

"But what can we say, when they put forward blessed Cyril, citing this against Theodore, as being S. Athanasius?' To this we say, that it does indeed lie in the blessed Cyril's utterings against Theodore, yet it is an old error. For Dioscorus succeeding blessed Cyril, and finding his works, would perchance not have minded adding what he pleased: we might even conjecture that the blessed Cyril did not cite it against Theodore; and that it is so, is clear from this. For Theodoret speaking in behalf of Theodore, overturning all the passages which blessed Cyril cited against him from the holy Fathers, has no where mentioned this. To this they say that Theodoret passed it over craftily: for not able to answer it as patent, he of purpose passed it by. To this we say that so far from passing it by if it had been there, when S. Cyril said elsewhere, One Nature Incarnate of God the Word, if he had known that this passage had been put by blessed Cyril as cited from S. Athanasius, he would not so unlearnedly have said, 'Who of the Fathers said, the One Nature Incarnate of God the Word?' But they say again that he knew so certainly that it was said by S. Athanasius that he said, 'As the Fathers have said.' To this we say that every one is anxious to shew that the Fathers said what he says, if not word for word, yet in sense 63."


It is clear that no serious objection could be founded on a treatise or Confession of Faith being short, and that the fact of one's opponent passing over an objection would be no proof that the objection, which is confessedly there, was not made. The remainder of Leontius' objection lies in the, "perhaps Dioscorus added something."

This confession was very well known by S. Cyril; for besides citing it here, he cites (as Montfaucon observes) almost the whole of it in the beginning of his Treatise de recta Fide to the Princesses Arcadia and Marina, to shew that S. Athanasius used the term, Mother of God; S. Cyril also cited two pieces of it, to shew that in his eighth chapter in which he says, that 'Emmanuel must be worshipped with one worship, he had but said what S. Athanasius too had said 64. In all three citations occur the words, One Nature Incarnate of the Word, and in the case of S. Cyril's defence of his eighth chapter, the whole passage is extant in the latin translation (believed to be by S. Cyril's contemporary, Marius Mercator) which leaves no room for possible monophysite insertion: besides that the citation forms an integral part of S. Cyril's Defence of his chapter.

It is then proved that the words were cited as S. Athanasius' by S. Cyril, the same S. Cyril who had had his own mind moulded and taught by the writings of S. Athanasius, and who in A. D. 431, produced from the archives, probably of his own Church of S. Mark, an authentic copy of S. Athanasius' Letter to Epictetus.


If this Confession is not genuine, it is but an illustration of how, being but men, we make mistakes in what we know best.

Montfaucon sums up, "I would not venture to say whether the extracts were added in the writings of Cyril after his decease or whether before Cyril a little book of this sort was made up and ascribed to Athanasius."


-Cyril of Alexandria, Five Tomes Against Nestorius.  Oxford (1881) Introduction by P.E & E.B. Pusey. pp.i-cv.
A library of fathers of the holy Catholic church: anterior to the division of the East and West, vol. 47
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_against_nestorius_00_intro.htm
Logged

"Be oppressed, rather than the oppressor. Be gentle, rather than zealous. Lay hold of goodness, rather than justice." -St. Isaac of Nineveh

“I returned to the Coptic Orthodox Church with affection, finding in her our tormented and broken history“. -Salama Moussa
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: 37,456



« Reply #42 on: February 15, 2013, 03:19:23 PM »

Btw, from the Tome to the Antiochians from the Synod of Alexandria held under Pope St. Athanasius in 362:
Quote
5. The creed of Sardica not an authorised formula. Question of 'hypostasis.'

And prohibit even the reading or publication of the paper, much talked of by some, as having been drawn up concerning the Faith at the synod of Sardica. For the synod made no definition of the kind. For whereas some demanded, on the ground that the Nicene synod was defective, the drafting of a creed, and in their haste even attempted it , the holy synod assembled in Sardica was indignant, and decreed that no statement of faith should be drafted, but that they should be content with the Faith confessed by the fathers at Nicæa, inasmuch as it lacked nothing but was full of piety, and that it was undesirable for a second creed to be promulged, lest that drafted at Nicæa should be deemed imperfect, and a pretext be given to those who were often wishing to draft and define a creed. So that if a man propound the above or any other paper, stop them, and persuade them rather to keep the peace. For in such men we perceive no motive save only contentiousness. For as to those whom some were blaming for speaking of three Subsistences , on the ground that the phrase is unscriptural and therefore suspicious, we thought it right indeed to require nothing beyond the confession of Nicæa, but on account of the contention we made enquiry of them, whether they meant, like the Arian madmen, subsistences foreign and strange, and alien in essence from one another, and that each Subsistence was divided apart by itself, as is the case with creatures in general and in particular with those begotten of men, or like different substances, such as gold, silver, or brass—or whether, like other heretics, they meant three Beginnings and three Gods, by speaking of three Subsistences.

They assured us in reply that they neither meant this nor had ever held it. But upon our asking them 'what then do you mean by it, or why do you use such expressions?' they replied, Because they believed in a Holy Trinity, not a trinity in name only, but existing and subsisting in truth, 'both a Father truly existing and subsisting, and a Son truly substantial and subsisting, and a Holy Spirit subsisting and really existing do we acknowledge,' and that neither had they said there were three Gods or three beginnings, nor would they at all tolerate such as said or held so, but that they acknowledged a Holy Trinity but One Godhead, and one Beginning, and that the Son is coessential with the Father, as the fathers said; while the Holy Spirit is not a creature, nor external, but proper to and inseparable from the Essence of the Father and the Son.

6. The question of one Subsistence (Hypostasis) or three, not to be pressed.

Having accepted then these men's interpretation and defence of their language, we made enquiry of those blamed by them for speaking of One Subsistence, whether they use the expression in the sense of Sabellius, to the negation of the Son and the Holy Spirit, or as though the Son were non-substantial, or the Holy Spirit impersonal. But they in their turn assured us that they neither meant this nor had ever held it, but 'we use the word Subsistence thinking it the same thing to say Subsistence or Essence;' 'But we hold that there is One, because the Son is of the Essence of the Father, and because of the identity of nature. For we believe that there is one Godhead, and that it has one nature, and not that there is one nature of the Father, from which that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit are distinct.' Well, thereupon they who had been blamed for saying there were three Subsistences agreed with the others, while those who had spoken of One Essence, also confessed the doctrine of the former as interpreted by them. And by both sides Arius was anathematised as an adversary of Christ, and Sabellius, and Paul of Samosata, as impious men, and Valentinus and Basilides as aliens from the truth, and Manichæus as an inventor of mischief. And all, by God's grace, and after the above explanations, agree together that the faith confessed by the fathers at Nicæa is better than the said phrases, and that for the future they would prefer to be content to use its language.

7. The human Nature of Christ complete, not Body only.

But since also certain seemed to be contending together concerning the fleshly Economy of the Saviour, we enquired of both parties. And what the one confessed, the others also agreed to, that the Word did not, as it came to the prophets, so dwell in a holy man at the consummation of the ages, but that the Word Himself was made flesh, and being in the Form of God, took the form of a servant , and from Mary after the flesh became man for us, and that thus in Him the human race is perfectly and wholly delivered from sin and quickened from the dead, and given access to the kingdom of the heavens. For they confessed also that the Saviour had not a body without a soul, nor without sense or intelligence; for it was not possible, when the Lord had become man for us, that His body should be without intelligence: nor was the salvation effected in the Word Himself a salvation of body only, but of soul also. And being Son of God in truth, He became also Son of Man, and being God's Only-begotten Son, He became also at the same time 'firstborn among many brethren Romans 8:29.' Wherefore neither was there one Son of God before Abraham, another after Abraham John 8:58: nor was there one that raised up Lazarus, another that asked concerning him; but the same it was that said as man, 'Where does Lazarus lie ;' and as God raised him up: the same that as man and in the body spat, but divinely as Son of God opened the eyes of the man blind from his birth ; and while, as Peter says 1 Peter 4:1, in the flesh He suffered, as God opened the tomb and raised the dead. For which reasons, thus understanding all that is said in the Gospel, they assured us that they held the same truth about the Word's Incarnation and becoming Man.

8. Questions of words must not be suffered to divide those who think alike.

These things then being thus confessed, we exhort you not hastily to condemn those who so confess, and so explain the phrases they use, nor to reject them, but rather to accept them as they desire peace and defend themselves, while you check and rebuke, as of suspicious views, those who refuse so to confess and to explain their language. But while you refuse toleration to the latter, counsel the others also who explain and hold aright, not to enquire further into each other's opinions, nor to fight about words to no useful purpose, nor to go on contending with the above phrases, but to agree in the mind of piety. For they who are not thus minded, but only stir up strife with such petty phrases, and seek something beyond what was drawn up at Nicæa, do nothing except 'give their neighbour turbid confusion to drink Habakkuk 2:15,' like men who grudge peace and love dissensions. But do ye, as good men and faithful servants and stewards of the Lord, stop and check what gives offense and is strange, and value above all things peace of that kind, faith being sound. Perhaps God will have pity on us, and unite what is divided, and, there being once more one flock John 10:16, we shall all have one leader, even our Lord Jesus Christ.

9. The above terms unanimously agreed upon.

These things, albeit there was no need to require anything beyond the synod of Nicæa, nor to tolerate the language of contention, yet for the sake of peace, and to prevent the rejection of men who wish to believe aright, we enquired into. And what they confessed, we put briefly into writing, we namely who are left in Alexandria, in common with our fellow-ministers, Asterius and Eusebius. For most of us had gone away to our dioceses. But do you on your part read this in public where you are wont to assemble, and be pleased to invite all to you there. For it is right that the letter should be there first read, and that there those who desire and strive for peace should be re-united. And then, when they are re-united, in the spot where all the laity think best, in the presence of your courtesy, the public assemblies should be held, and the Lord be glorified by all together. The brethren who are with me greet you. I pray that you may be well, and remember us to the Lord; both I, Athanasius, and likewise the other bishops assembled, sign, and those sent by Lucifer, bishop of the island of Sardinia, two deacons, Herennius and Agapetus; and from Paulinus, Maximus and Calemerus, deacons also. And there were present certain monks of Apolinarius the bishop, sent from him for the purpose.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxiii.ii.html
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
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 9,053


Ceci n'est pas une pipe


« Reply #43 on: February 15, 2013, 03:28:39 PM »

Ah, so he did write against the Apollinarians!
Logged

"Copiare il vero può essere una buona cosa, ma inventare il vero è meglio, molto meglio. "
-Giuseppe Verdi
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,019


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


WWW
« Reply #44 on: February 15, 2013, 03:43:05 PM »

Coptogeek,

Indeed!  Leontius seems to be a forgotten Chalcedonian figure, but was indeed a major person defending Chalcedon, along with people like Nephalius the Alexandrian and John the Grammarian.  Nevertheless, the one person that stands out as the defender of Chalcedon in its form today is Justinian the Emperor, who never makes such strange mistakes (he seemed to have been theologically shrewd and intelligent in these discussions he had).  The failure of Leontius to realize that St. Cyril quoted this document, and not St. Dioscorus or St. Severus shows a desperate attempt to attack anti-Chalcedonian sources at the time.

Isa,

Thank you for that quote.  I should be ashamed for not having read this Tome in full, as it is frequently quoted to encourage EO/OO unity, and has a lot of valuable theological information before St. Athanasius' death.

I think it is telling that a clear Athanasian document shows that "flesh" = body+rational soul, which is consistent with the conspicuous Letter to Epictetus.

« Last Edit: February 15, 2013, 03:44:42 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.
Tags:
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 0.35 seconds with 72 queries.