OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 21, 2014, 12:32:11 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 3 4 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: OO Monophysite or Miaphysite?  (Read 3857 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
psalm110
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christianity
Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Posts: 369


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #45 on: February 14, 2013, 10:43:43 PM »

Why does the schism still continue today since EO views and OO views are the same:
Miaphysist- Christ Divine & Human (yet is one)
Dyophsist - Christ Divine & Human (yet is one)


Are schismatics heretics ?.


Logged
zekarja
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 745


O Holy Prophet Zechariah, intercede to God for us!


« Reply #46 on: February 14, 2013, 10:48:58 PM »

There was a thread about it on here some months ago, which revealed the man to be very, very confused, accusing us of somehow being Monophysites and Nestorians at the same time!)? Fat chance.

Historically, being called a Monophysite and a Nestorian is a reference to the idea that Miaphysites are:

1. Monophysites that believe that Christ's divinity swallowed his humanity like a drop of vinegar in the sea. Therefore, Christ is not a man.
2. Nestorians that believe that there are two persons one is divine and the other is human. Therefore, Christ is not a man.

So, the Miaphysites are actually being told, "You don't believe that Christ became man."
« Last Edit: February 14, 2013, 10:50:47 PM by zekarja » Logged

psalm110
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christianity
Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Posts: 369


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #47 on: February 14, 2013, 11:00:20 PM »

There was a thread about it on here some months ago, which revealed the man to be very, very confused, accusing us of somehow being Monophysites and Nestorians at the same time!)? Fat chance.

Historically, being called a Monophysite and a Nestorian is a reference to the idea that Miaphysites are:

1. Monophysites that believe that Christ's divinity swallowed his humanity like a drop of vinegar in the sea. Therefore, Christ is not a man.
2. Nestorians that believe that there are two persons one is divine and the other is human. Therefore, Christ is not a man.

So, the Miaphysites are actually being told, "You don't believe that Christ became man."

So in conclusion OO-Miaphysists do accept the council of chalcedon or agree in some what way to it?.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,841


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


WWW
« Reply #48 on: February 14, 2013, 11:01:03 PM »

I think we should start calling each other Monophysites and ban non-OOs for saying it:

Where my Monophysites at!  Monophysite please!  You know you always be my Monophysite!  Word! (Incarnate)

You can get Chris Rock to do a standup routine, "I looove Non-Chalcedonians but I haaaate Monophysites"

LOL!  Or the Chris Rock conditions of allowing a non-OO to call an OO a Monophysite..."If it's Christmas eve, between 4:30 and 4:49 in the morning..."
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
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,841


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


WWW
« Reply #49 on: February 14, 2013, 11:04:48 PM »

There was a thread about it on here some months ago, which revealed the man to be very, very confused, accusing us of somehow being Monophysites and Nestorians at the same time!)? Fat chance.

Historically, being called a Monophysite and a Nestorian is a reference to the idea that Miaphysites are:

1. Monophysites that believe that Christ's divinity swallowed his humanity like a drop of vinegar in the sea. Therefore, Christ is not a man.
2. Nestorians that believe that there are two persons one is divine and the other is human. Therefore, Christ is not a man.

So, the Miaphysites are actually being told, "You don't believe that Christ became man."

So in conclusion OO-Miaphysists do accept the council of chalcedon or agree in some what way to it?.

Yes and No...

Most of us OO are willing to unite based on the EO interpretation of Chalcedon that agrees with our faith, not necessarily our interpretation of it., which is not a pleasing interpretation, but nevertheless an interpretation that even EOs will at least agree is not what they believe, faith-wise.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2013, 11:06:36 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.
zekarja
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 745


O Holy Prophet Zechariah, intercede to God for us!


« Reply #50 on: February 14, 2013, 11:06:15 PM »

There was a thread about it on here some months ago, which revealed the man to be very, very confused, accusing us of somehow being Monophysites and Nestorians at the same time!)? Fat chance.

Historically, being called a Monophysite and a Nestorian is a reference to the idea that Miaphysites are:

1. Monophysites that believe that Christ's divinity swallowed his humanity like a drop of vinegar in the sea. Therefore, Christ is not a man.
2. Nestorians that believe that there are two persons one is divine and the other is human. Therefore, Christ is not a man.

So, the Miaphysites are actually being told, "You don't believe that Christ became man."

So in conclusion OO-Miaphysists do accept the council of chalcedon or agree in some what way to it?.

What minasoliman said. I was just explaining why OOs are called Monophysites and Nestorians at the same time. Smiley
Logged

dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,039


« Reply #51 on: February 14, 2013, 11:09:09 PM »

There was a thread about it on here some months ago, which revealed the man to be very, very confused, accusing us of somehow being Monophysites and Nestorians at the same time!)? Fat chance.

Historically, being called a Monophysite and a Nestorian is a reference to the idea that Miaphysites are:

1. Monophysites that believe that Christ's divinity swallowed his humanity like a drop of vinegar in the sea. Therefore, Christ is not a man.
2. Nestorians that believe that there are two persons one is divine and the other is human. Therefore, Christ is not a man.

So, the Miaphysites are actually being told, "You don't believe that Christ became man."

Well...that's stupid. Cheesy
Logged

Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Crypto-Miaphysite
Posts: 4,206



« Reply #52 on: February 14, 2013, 11:09:42 PM »

Are schismatics heretics ?.

Those separated by schism, at least from what I know, are not necessarily by definition also heretics.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2013, 11:09:57 PM by Nephi » Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
zekarja
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 745


O Holy Prophet Zechariah, intercede to God for us!


« Reply #53 on: February 14, 2013, 11:10:46 PM »

There was a thread about it on here some months ago, which revealed the man to be very, very confused, accusing us of somehow being Monophysites and Nestorians at the same time!)? Fat chance.

Historically, being called a Monophysite and a Nestorian is a reference to the idea that Miaphysites are:

1. Monophysites that believe that Christ's divinity swallowed his humanity like a drop of vinegar in the sea. Therefore, Christ is not a man.
2. Nestorians that believe that there are two persons one is divine and the other is human. Therefore, Christ is not a man.

So, the Miaphysites are actually being told, "You don't believe that Christ became man."

Well...that's stupid. Cheesy

I agree but, sadly, it is what is meant by that phrase.  Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: February 14, 2013, 11:11:15 PM by zekarja » Logged

psalm110
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christianity
Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Posts: 369


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #54 on: February 14, 2013, 11:31:52 PM »

There was a thread about it on here some months ago, which revealed the man to be very, very confused, accusing us of somehow being Monophysites and Nestorians at the same time!)? Fat chance.

Historically, being called a Monophysite and a Nestorian is a reference to the idea that Miaphysites are:

1. Monophysites that believe that Christ's divinity swallowed his humanity like a drop of vinegar in the sea. Therefore, Christ is not a man.
2. Nestorians that believe that there are two persons one is divine and the other is human. Therefore, Christ is not a man.

So, the Miaphysites are actually being told, "You don't believe that Christ became man."

So in conclusion OO-Miaphysists do accept the council of chalcedon or agree in some what way to it?.

Yes and No...

Most of us OO are willing to unite based on the EO interpretation of Chalcedon that agrees with our faith, not necessarily our interpretation of it., which is not a pleasing interpretation, but nevertheless an interpretation that even EOs will at least agree is not what they believe, faith-wise.

Is not both interpretations of the EO and the OO the same and mean the same thing ?.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,841


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


WWW
« Reply #55 on: February 14, 2013, 11:58:03 PM »

There was a thread about it on here some months ago, which revealed the man to be very, very confused, accusing us of somehow being Monophysites and Nestorians at the same time!)? Fat chance.

Historically, being called a Monophysite and a Nestorian is a reference to the idea that Miaphysites are:

1. Monophysites that believe that Christ's divinity swallowed his humanity like a drop of vinegar in the sea. Therefore, Christ is not a man.
2. Nestorians that believe that there are two persons one is divine and the other is human. Therefore, Christ is not a man.

So, the Miaphysites are actually being told, "You don't believe that Christ became man."

So in conclusion OO-Miaphysists do accept the council of chalcedon or agree in some what way to it?.

Yes and No...

Most of us OO are willing to unite based on the EO interpretation of Chalcedon that agrees with our faith, not necessarily our interpretation of it., which is not a pleasing interpretation, but nevertheless an interpretation that even EOs will at least agree is not what they believe, faith-wise.

Is not both interpretations of the EO and the OO the same and mean the same thing ?.

When I say interpretation, I mean how one perceives Chalcedon to teach.  For instance, OOs will argue Chalcedon was far from Orthodox, in fact, it had heretical elements and it showed instability.  EOs will disagree with that interpretation.  Nevertheless, more important than interpretation is faith.  If the interpretation leads to the same faith, then the interpretation should not matter, should it?  If through Chalcedon or the rejection of Chalcedon, we still are Orthodox, then one can interpret it as despite not having literally accepted Chalcedon, by our Orthodox faith, it's as if we accepted it all along.  If that is what "accepting Chalcedon" means, then we are more than happy to unite. 

At the same time, I'm convinced, it's going to be very difficult to change minds on how to interpret these events.  In the end, the Orthodox faith, before persons or councils, matters more, at least from an OO stand point.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2013, 11:59:50 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.
psalm110
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christianity
Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Posts: 369


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #56 on: February 15, 2013, 06:03:31 AM »

There was a thread about it on here some months ago, which revealed the man to be very, very confused, accusing us of somehow being Monophysites and Nestorians at the same time!)? Fat chance.

Historically, being called a Monophysite and a Nestorian is a reference to the idea that Miaphysites are:

1. Monophysites that believe that Christ's divinity swallowed his humanity like a drop of vinegar in the sea. Therefore, Christ is not a man.
2. Nestorians that believe that there are two persons one is divine and the other is human. Therefore, Christ is not a man.

So, the Miaphysites are actually being told, "You don't believe that Christ became man."

So in conclusion OO-Miaphysists do accept the council of chalcedon or agree in some what way to it?.

Yes and No...

Most of us OO are willing to unite based on the EO interpretation of Chalcedon that agrees with our faith, not necessarily our interpretation of it., which is not a pleasing interpretation, but nevertheless an interpretation that even EOs will at least agree is not what they believe, faith-wise.

Is not both interpretations of the EO and the OO the same and mean the same thing ?.

When I say interpretation, I mean how one perceives Chalcedon to teach.  For instance, OOs will argue Chalcedon was far from Orthodox, in fact, it had heretical elements and it showed instability.  EOs will disagree with that interpretation.  Nevertheless, more important than interpretation is faith.  If the interpretation leads to the same faith, then the interpretation should not matter, should it?  If through Chalcedon or the rejection of Chalcedon, we still are Orthodox, then one can interpret it as despite not having literally accepted Chalcedon, by our Orthodox faith, it's as if we accepted it all along.  If that is what "accepting Chalcedon" means, then we are more than happy to unite. 

At the same time, I'm convinced, it's going to be very difficult to change minds on how to interpret these events.  In the end, the Orthodox faith, before persons or councils, matters more, at least from an OO stand point.

You mention The Council was far from Orthodox, is not all ecumenical councils inspired by the Holy Spirit thus eliminating any misunderstanding, if that council was divinely inspired then rejecting the Chalcedon teaching is rejecting divine teaching ??.

Sorry don't mean to offend you or any OO, I would just like to know how Do the OO Churches know they are adhering correctly to God and know for certain even though rejecting the Teaching of Chalcedon God still sends the Holy Spirit to the OO Churches?.

If God does still send his Holy Spirit to the OO Churches that means the OO Church is still part of the True Vine.

« Last Edit: February 15, 2013, 06:23:24 AM by psalm110 » Logged
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,039


« Reply #57 on: February 15, 2013, 06:56:01 AM »

You mention The Council was far from Orthodox, is not all ecumenical councils inspired by the Holy Spirit thus eliminating any misunderstanding, if that council was divinely inspired then rejecting the Chalcedon teaching is rejecting divine teaching ??.

Yes. Of course, this also applies to every Council ever, including ones like those of the Arians or the Nestorians that neither of us accept. So the mere fact of some body accepting them (whether it be large like the EO, or small like the Nestorians) does not really say anything for whether or not it is divinely inspired.

Quote
Sorry don't mean to offend you or any OO, I would just like to know how Do the OO Churches know they are adhering correctly to God and know for certain even though rejecting the Teaching of Chalcedon God still sends the Holy Spirit to the OO Churches?.

We could ask you the same thing regarding your communion's acceptance of Chalcedon, so it doesn't really matter (see above). How is this a profitable way to approach this discussion?

Quote
If God does still send his Holy Spirit to the OO Churches that means the OO Church is still part of the True Vine.

We do not believe in the Branch Theory, and as far as I know of EO ecclesiology, you guys don't either.
Logged

psalm110
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Christianity
Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Posts: 369


Orthodox Christian


« Reply #58 on: February 15, 2013, 08:42:52 AM »

You mention The Council was far from Orthodox, is not all ecumenical councils inspired by the Holy Spirit thus eliminating any misunderstanding, if that council was divinely inspired then rejecting the Chalcedon teaching is rejecting divine teaching ??.

Yes. Of course, this also applies to every Council ever, including ones like those of the Arians or the Nestorians that neither of us accept. So the mere fact of some body accepting them (whether it be large like the EO, or small like the Nestorians) does not really say anything for whether or not it is divinely inspired.

Quote
Sorry don't mean to offend you or any OO, I would just like to know how Do the OO Churches know they are adhering correctly to God and know for certain even though rejecting the Teaching of Chalcedon God still sends the Holy Spirit to the OO Churches?.

We could ask you the same thing regarding your communion's acceptance of Chalcedon, so it doesn't really matter (see above). How is this a profitable way to approach this discussion?

Quote
If God does still send his Holy Spirit to the OO Churches that means the OO Church is still part of the True Vine.

We do not believe in the Branch Theory, and as far as I know of EO ecclesiology, you guys don't either.

Just thought I'd let you everyone know my stance on the OO Church is that it is divinely inspired just as the EO, but I do come across a few EO extremist zealous people who consider OO to be in the wrong. Why do I ask the above cause that's what I hear from them and I want to find out completely For myself and be absolute that the OO Church is not in the wrong.

I ask myself that question also how do the EO's know whether the Coucil of Chalcedon was divinely inspired ?.
 
Logged
Pericles
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Archdiocese of Thyateira & Great Britain.
Posts: 178



WWW
« Reply #59 on: February 15, 2013, 08:46:29 AM »

Why does the schism still continue today since EO views and OO views are the same:
It exists more in popular imagination than in reality, since the lifting of mutual anathemas in 1993. Orthodox Unity
Logged

Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit.
Pericles
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople. Archdiocese of Thyateira & Great Britain.
Posts: 178



WWW
« Reply #60 on: February 15, 2013, 08:51:16 AM »

I ask myself that question also how do the EO's know whether the Coucil of Chalcedon was divinely inspired ?
I find Chalcedon to be very problematic, some say it introduced an entirely new faith.
Logged

Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit.
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Crypto-Miaphysite
Posts: 4,206



« Reply #61 on: February 15, 2013, 09:18:01 AM »

if that council was divinely inspired then rejecting the Chalcedon teaching is rejecting divine teaching ??.

From an EO perspective I don't think that rejecting Chalcedon (even if guarded by the Holy Spirit) necessarily equates to rejecting "divine teaching." The Holy Spirit may guard truth against heresy through the council, but that doesn't mean that all other ways of guarding that same truth are wrong. Of course this applies even though an OO obviously might reject it and claims of its inspiration altogether.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2013, 09:18:39 AM by Nephi » Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #62 on: February 15, 2013, 09:25:11 AM »

From an EO perspective I don't think that rejecting Chalcedon (even if guarded by the Holy Spirit) necessarily equates to rejecting "divine teaching."

Do you think St. Maxim the Confessor or St. John of Damascus would agree? Or maybe theirs wasn't the EO perspective...
Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Crypto-Miaphysite
Posts: 4,206



« Reply #63 on: February 15, 2013, 09:35:04 AM »

From an EO perspective I don't think that rejecting Chalcedon (even if guarded by the Holy Spirit) necessarily equates to rejecting "divine teaching."

Do you think St. Maxim the Confessor or St. John of Damascus would agree? Or maybe theirs wasn't the EO perspective...

Did I say "the" EO perspective?
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #64 on: February 15, 2013, 09:38:49 AM »

Did I say "the" EO perspective?

Forgive me, I assumed the Church has but one phronema, "the mind of Christ" as St. Paul puts it.
Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Crypto-Miaphysite
Posts: 4,206



« Reply #65 on: February 15, 2013, 09:49:52 AM »

Did I say "the" EO perspective?

Forgive me, I assumed the Church has but one phronema, "the mind of Christ" as St. Paul puts it.

Then does that mean that Cyrillian/Ephesian Christological language has been abrogated by Chalcedon, and no longer part of the "one phronema?"
« Last Edit: February 15, 2013, 09:56:03 AM by Nephi » Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #66 on: February 15, 2013, 09:58:13 AM »

Then does that mean that Cyrillian/Ephesian Christology has been abrogated by Chalcedon, and no longer part of the "one phronema?"

I am not competent to answer this question. I would say no, but I am convinced that St. Cyrill, St. Maxim and St. John of Damascus all had "the mind of Christ" and the phronema of the Church.
Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Crypto-Miaphysite
Posts: 4,206



« Reply #67 on: February 15, 2013, 10:11:14 AM »

Then does that mean that Cyrillian/Ephesian Christology has been abrogated by Chalcedon, and no longer part of the "one phronema?"

I am not competent to answer this question. I would say no, but I am convinced that St. Cyrill, St. Maxim and St. John of Damascus all had "the mind of Christ" and the phronema of the Church.

I just believe - personally, and not representatively - that it's possible to still have the "phronema of the Church" without ascribing to Chalcedon, in the same way that St. Cyril and St. Leo can have the phronema of the Church while dogmatically using different Christological language.
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
Orthodox11
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,999


« Reply #68 on: February 15, 2013, 10:19:11 AM »

LOL!  Or the Chris Rock conditions of allowing a non-OO to call an OO a Monophysite..."If it's Christmas eve, between 4:30 and 4:49 in the morning..."

"Monophysites always want credit for some stuff they're just supposed to do. "I ain't never mingled the natures of Christ" What do you want? A cookie? You're not SUPPOSED to mingle the natures of Christ you low-expectation-having...."
Logged
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #69 on: February 15, 2013, 10:54:30 AM »

I just believe - personally, and not representatively - that it's possible to still have the "phronema of the Church" without ascribing to Chalcedon, in the same way that St. Cyril and St. Leo can have the phronema of the Church while dogmatically using different Christological language.

It's possible to express different thoughts/phronemas in different ways/languages.

It's possible to express the same thought/phronema in different ways/languages.

It's possible to express different thoughts/phronemas in the same way/language.

Church Councils were designed to gather people so as to express the one phronema of the Church in one way/language, and so to clearly distinguish Orthodoxy from heresy.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2013, 11:02:25 AM by Romaios » Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Crypto-Miaphysite
Posts: 4,206



« Reply #70 on: February 15, 2013, 11:06:10 AM »

Church Councils were designed to gather people so as to express the one phronema of the Church in one way/language, so as to distinguish Orthodoxy from heresy.

If it's the case that Chalcedon's language is the "one phronema" expressed in "one way," then either Ephesus was not the "one phronema" or has been abrogated.

If Ephesus was not the "one phronema," then councils aren't expressing the "one phronema" (defeats claim of councils).

If Ephesus was abrogated, then there is not "one way" to express the "one phronema" (councils defend Orthodoxy against heresy in a non-exclusive way).
« Last Edit: February 15, 2013, 11:07:03 AM by Nephi » Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« Reply #71 on: February 15, 2013, 11:14:23 AM »

If your most strict Chalcedonian is willing to call St. Cyril by the same terminology, then I don't mind being called whatever he's called, even a "Monosesarkomeniphysite" if that's what you want to call him.

I like it.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« Reply #72 on: February 15, 2013, 11:23:26 AM »

Church Councils were designed to gather people so as to express the one phronema of the Church in one way/language, so as to distinguish Orthodoxy from heresy.

If it's the case that Chalcedon's language is the "one phronema" expressed in "one way," then either Ephesus was not the "one phronema" or has been abrogated.

If Ephesus was not the "one phronema," then councils aren't expressing the "one phronema" (defeats claim of councils).

If Ephesus was abrogated, then there is not "one way" to express the "one phronema" (councils defend Orthodoxy against heresy in a non-exclusive way).

The Council of Chalcedon affirmed the Council of Ephesus.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #73 on: February 15, 2013, 11:24:16 AM »

Before Nicaea, NT authors and some Early Church Fathers employed language that could be easily given a heretical (Arian/adoptionist) interpretation: "the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 1:3-4).

Now one couldn't say that Nicaea abrogated the NT, or didn't share the same phronema with St. Paul, despite using a different/clarified christological language.

The same I believe to be true regarding the relationship of Chalcedon to Ephesus. Christological language was progressively clarified/refined so as to better reflect the one phronema of the Church (Orthodoxy).
Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Crypto-Miaphysite
Posts: 4,206



« Reply #74 on: February 15, 2013, 11:28:44 AM »

The Council of Chalcedon affirmed the Council of Ephesus.

But did not use the same language as used in Ephesus, which is the point at hand.
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,401


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #75 on: February 15, 2013, 11:31:44 AM »

Before Nicaea, NT authors and some Early Church Fathers employed language that could be easily given a heretical (Arian/adoptionist) interpretation: "the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 1:3-4).

Now one couldn't say that Nicaea abrogated the NT, or didn't share the same phronema with St. Paul, despite using a different/clarified christological language.

The same I believe to be true regarding the relationship of Chalcedon to Ephesus. Christological language was progressively clarified/refined so as to better reflect the one phronema of the Church (Orthodoxy).

But why did it need to be changed? Surely the ravings of a senile old monk and his few followers did not necessitate changing the integral language describing the Incarnation, did it?
Logged
Nephi
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Crypto-Miaphysite
Posts: 4,206



« Reply #76 on: February 15, 2013, 11:35:06 AM »

Before Nicaea, NT authors and some Early Church Fathers employed language that could be easily given a heretical (Arian/adoptionist) interpretation: "the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 1:3-4).

Now one couldn't say that Nicaea abrogated the NT, or didn't share the same phronema with St. Paul, despite using a different/clarified christological language.

The same I believe to be true regarding the relationship of Chalcedon to Ephesus. Christological language was progressively clarified/refined so as to better reflect the one phronema of the Church (Orthodoxy).

This causes even more problems. If it's anathema to exclusively retain the pre-Chalcedonian Christological language, then doctrine develops (i.e. the post-Chalcedonian is NOT the same as the pre-Chalcedonian), or the pre-Chalcedonian Christological language was not part of the phronema to begin with, or there are degrees of phronema (not "one" phronema).
Logged

Liberalochian: Unionist-Ecumenism Lite™
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« Reply #77 on: February 15, 2013, 11:38:42 AM »

Chalcedon anathematized "those who imagine two natures of the Lord before the union but invent one after the union." Is that "pre-Chalcedonian Christological language"?
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
Remnkemi
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 122


« Reply #78 on: February 15, 2013, 11:40:41 AM »

You mention The Council was far from Orthodox, is not all ecumenical councils inspired by the Holy Spirit thus eliminating any misunderstanding,
Maybe in theory but not in reality. If this was true, then why did Rome reject Canon 28 of Chalcedon? Why doesn't everyone celebrate Easter according to the new calculation set by the Church of Alexandria, as promulagated by Nicaea? If misunderstanding was eliminated, why did Pope Damasus I reject the elevation of Constintople above Alexandria and Antioch in Constantinople I? Why did Pope Vigilius of Rome refuse to immediately accept Constantinople II because he supported the Three Chapters?

This thread is a perfect example of how misunderstanding continues. If the Holy Spirit eliminated all misunderstanding in Chalcedon, why are we still arguing about the definition of monophysitism nearly 1500 years later?

Quote
if that council was divinely inspired then rejecting the Chalcedon teaching is rejecting divine teaching ??.
What is or isn't divine teaching in Chalcedon (or any council for that matter) is a matter of interpretation, as Mina alluded to. Claiming all decision of Chalcedon is diviniely inspired, means Rome has rejected Chalcedon since they never accepted canon 28. Then ask yourself, does the Holy Spirit really care who is the New Rome or the Seventeenth Rome? Did Dioscorus actually believe in any Euthycian heresy or was he defending St Cyril's formula of "One nature of God the Word Incarnate"?
Logged
Remnkemi
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 122


« Reply #79 on: February 15, 2013, 11:48:51 AM »

Chalcedon anathematized "those who imagine two natures of the Lord before the union but invent one after the union." Is that "pre-Chalcedonian Christological language"?
Of course not. St Cyril's pre-Chalcedonian Christological language included "One Nature of God the Word Incarnate".

Besides, the statement "Those who imagine two nature of the Lord before the union but invent one after the union" assumes (1) that the word "nature" means the same thing to everyone, (2) the "post-union" one nature must mean one nature wins over or defeats the other nature, or (3) the "post-union" one nature is a mixture of two natures. Did Chalcedon conceive a "post-union one nature" that does not include these three assumptions? No.

By this definition ("those who imagine two nature of the Lord before the union but invent one after the union"), Chalcedon anathemizes St Cyril.
Logged
Remnkemi
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 122


« Reply #80 on: February 15, 2013, 11:55:27 AM »

This phrase is always translated so badly. It should be, "one incarnate nature." The standard interpretation according to the Chalcedonians, like the Leontioi, Maximus the Confessor, and John of Damascus is that this formula is not monophysite at all.
Sorry this seems wrong. I don't know Greek and I hope someone corrects me if I'm wrong. As I understand it, "mia" is a feminine adjective, "physis" is a feminine noun. Mia is an adjective that modifies the noun physis, not the nominal phrase "incarnate nature". According to TLG, "sesarkomene" is the perfect participle mid-pass fem nom/voc sg. Doesn't it make more linguistic sense that "theou" is modifying "sesarkomene" (Incarnate God) instead of "mia" modifying "sesarkomen"?

If it were "one incarnate nature", wouldn't the Greek be "Mia sesarkomen physis tou theou" or "Mia physis sesarkomen to theou"?
Since no one with Greek language proficiency responded, I can only assume (1) no one knows the answer, (2) no one cares to respond, or (3) Leontioi, Maximinus and John Damascus (if they really interpreted St Cyril's Miaphysis formula as described) are wrong.

I would like to get some input from others.
Logged
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #81 on: February 15, 2013, 11:55:53 AM »

This causes even more problems. If it's anathema to exclusively retain the pre-Chalcedonian Christological language, then doctrine develops (i.e. the post-Chalcedonian is NOT the same as the pre-Chalcedonian), or the pre-Chalcedonian Christological language was not part of the phronema to begin with, or there are degrees of phronema (not "one" phronema).

Doctrine does develop. Post-Chalcedonian Christology is the same in some respects/different in others from pre-Chalcedonian Christology, just as the post-Nicene is the same/different from the pre-Nicene. The phronema of the Church is but one - because "Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever" and the Church has "his mind".
Logged
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #82 on: February 15, 2013, 12:45:03 PM »

This phrase is always translated so badly. It should be, "one incarnate nature." The standard interpretation according to the Chalcedonians, like the Leontioi, Maximus the Confessor, and John of Damascus is that this formula is not monophysite at all.
Sorry this seems wrong. I don't know Greek and I hope someone corrects me if I'm wrong. As I understand it, "mia" is a feminine adjective, "physis" is a feminine noun. Mia is an adjective that modifies the noun physis, not the nominal phrase "incarnate nature". According to TLG, "sesarkomene" is the perfect participle mid-pass fem nom/voc sg. Doesn't it make more linguistic sense that "theou" is modifying "sesarkomene" (Incarnate God) instead of "mia" modifying "sesarkomen"?

If it were "one incarnate nature", wouldn't the Greek be "Mia sesarkomen physis tou theou" or "Mia physis sesarkomen to theou"?

The problem is that St. Cyrill himself offers different variants in different writings. Just as he uses hypostasis instead of physis at times, he also writes sesarkomenou in stead of sesarkomene. Here's an example:

Μία πρὸς ἡμῶν ὁμολογοῖτο φύσις Υἱοῦ σεσαρκωμένου τε καὶ ἐνηνθρωπηκότος - "one nature of the Son incarnate and made human should be confessed by us." (Quod unus sit Christus)

So mia agrees with physis, but not necessarily/always with sesarkomenos.

"One incarnated nature/hypostasis of God the Word" or "one nature/hypostasis of the Son incarnate" - didn't seem to make much of a difference to St. Cyrill.   
« Last Edit: February 15, 2013, 12:52:05 PM by Romaios » Logged
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« Reply #83 on: February 15, 2013, 12:55:38 PM »

By this definition ("those who imagine two nature of the Lord before the union but invent one after the union"), Chalcedon anathemizes St Cyril.

Please quote when Cyril used this sort of terminology.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,841


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


WWW
« Reply #84 on: February 15, 2013, 01:05:37 PM »

LOL!  Or the Chris Rock conditions of allowing a non-OO to call an OO a Monophysite..."If it's Christmas eve, between 4:30 and 4:49 in the morning..."

"Monophysites always want credit for some stuff they're just supposed to do. "I ain't never mingled the natures of Christ" What do you want? A cookie? You're not SUPPOSED to mingle the natures of Christ you low-expectation-having...."

LOL!!!  I haven't listened to Chris Rock in ages, and it's amazing I still remember some of this stuff.
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
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,841


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


WWW
« Reply #85 on: February 15, 2013, 01:14:01 PM »

You mention The Council was far from Orthodox, is not all ecumenical councils inspired by the Holy Spirit thus eliminating any misunderstanding, if that council was divinely inspired then rejecting the Chalcedon teaching is rejecting divine teaching ??.

Yes. Of course, this also applies to every Council ever, including ones like those of the Arians or the Nestorians that neither of us accept. So the mere fact of some body accepting them (whether it be large like the EO, or small like the Nestorians) does not really say anything for whether or not it is divinely inspired.

Quote
Sorry don't mean to offend you or any OO, I would just like to know how Do the OO Churches know they are adhering correctly to God and know for certain even though rejecting the Teaching of Chalcedon God still sends the Holy Spirit to the OO Churches?.

We could ask you the same thing regarding your communion's acceptance of Chalcedon, so it doesn't really matter (see above). How is this a profitable way to approach this discussion?

Quote
If God does still send his Holy Spirit to the OO Churches that means the OO Church is still part of the True Vine.

We do not believe in the Branch Theory, and as far as I know of EO ecclesiology, you guys don't either.

Just thought I'd let you everyone know my stance on the OO Church is that it is divinely inspired just as the EO, but I do come across a few EO extremist zealous people who consider OO to be in the wrong. Why do I ask the above cause that's what I hear from them and I want to find out completely For myself and be absolute that the OO Church is not in the wrong.

I ask myself that question also how do the EO's know whether the Coucil of Chalcedon was divinely inspired ?.
 

The reason why I'm being vague is because once I get into specifics, this will go to the private forum.  OOs here have avoided getting into polemics, and it's interesting that it's turning into an EO vs. EO battle now.

The point is this.  There are countless arguments, sometimes made by me or anyone else unintentionally hurting EOs feelings about their councils and their saints in the private EO/OO forum.  Things like the language used in the Tome, the documents that were deemed "Orthodox" in the council itself, and the violence sustained as a result of the council, all of which are factors that go into the OO rejection of the council of Chalcedon itself.

I think it should be noted that Chalcedon is quite unique in that the minutes have been remarkably preserved almost in its entirety.  It is why this is a never-ending debate.  You'll get both sides to fight over minutiae of detail in the council that leads no where if one side says "you must accept" or "you must reject."  Simply put, we see in the council (which also preserves the minutes of Ephesus 449 and Constantinople 448 almost in full) that there seems to be plenty of blame going around on both sides.  That's what happened in Aarhus, Bristol, Geneva, Addis Ababa, Chambesy, etc., when both EO and OO theologians and clergy decided to discuss the polemics and search for the truth.
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
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,841


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


WWW
« Reply #86 on: February 15, 2013, 01:28:14 PM »

By this definition ("those who imagine two nature of the Lord before the union but invent one after the union"), Chalcedon anathemizes St Cyril.

Please quote when Cyril used this sort of terminology.


In respect of the elements from which is the one and only Son and Lord Jesus Christ, as we accept them in thought, we say that two natures have been united, but after the union, when the division into two has now been removed, we believe that the nature of the Son is one.

St. Cyril of Alexandria, Select Letters, 48
Quoted from Fr. Peter Farrington's paper "Eutyches and the Oriental Orthodox Tradition"
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.
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,401


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #87 on: February 15, 2013, 01:41:59 PM »

By this definition ("those who imagine two nature of the Lord before the union but invent one after the union"), Chalcedon anathemizes St Cyril.

Please quote when Cyril used this sort of terminology.

Quote
neither do we say Two christs, even though we believe that out of perfect man and out of God the Word has been wrought the concurrence unto unity of Emmanuel

I believe this is from his Treatise to the Emperor Theodosius.

Source: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_against_nestorius_00_intro.htm
Search for "Two Christs" to find the exact passage.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2013, 01:45:42 PM by sheenj » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,359



« Reply #88 on: February 15, 2013, 02:22:09 PM »

Before Nicaea, NT authors and some Early Church Fathers employed language that could be easily given a heretical (Arian/adoptionist) interpretation: "the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 1:3-4).

Now one couldn't say that Nicaea abrogated the NT, or didn't share the same phronema with St. Paul, despite using a different/clarified christological language.

The same I believe to be true regarding the relationship of Chalcedon to Ephesus. Christological language was progressively clarified/refined so as to better reflect the one phronema of the Church (Orthodoxy).
yes, that was one of the issues over Nicea, that it used the term homoousios, which had originated in heretical circles and was not used in the NT.  It did, however, once refined and defined by the Orthodox, counter Arianism quite well.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2013, 02:22:58 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
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,841


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


WWW
« Reply #89 on: February 15, 2013, 02:46:13 PM »

Before Nicaea, NT authors and some Early Church Fathers employed language that could be easily given a heretical (Arian/adoptionist) interpretation: "the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord" (Romans 1:3-4).

Now one couldn't say that Nicaea abrogated the NT, or didn't share the same phronema with St. Paul, despite using a different/clarified christological language.

The same I believe to be true regarding the relationship of Chalcedon to Ephesus. Christological language was progressively clarified/refined so as to better reflect the one phronema of the Church (Orthodoxy).
yes, that was one of the issues over Nicea, that it used the term homoousios, which had originated in heretical circles and was not used in the NT.  It did, however, once refined and defined by the Orthodox, counter Arianism quite well.
Was there any Church father before Nicea that used the word "homoiousios" in an Orthodox manner?
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 3 4 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.165 seconds with 71 queries.