OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 24, 2014, 07:17:43 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: Orthodoxinfo.com's take on Non-Chalcedonians  (Read 10015 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« on: April 02, 2005, 10:43:12 PM »

Greekischristian,

Quote
The 'Orthodox Christian Information Center' may have information on a wide range of topics, but it too often represents the fringe of Orthodoxy.

I’ve had big beef with that website, ever since someone referred me to an article from there, in which it dared to compare St Mary’s apparition in Zeitun - one of the greatest events in Coptic Orthodox history where St Mary appeared on the church of Zeitun in front of millions of Christians, Muslims, and Jews (see: http://www.zeitun-eg.org/) - to the various alleged apparitions of aliens/Ufo's. It disgusted me to say the least.

But to be honest, my dialogue with Eastern Orthodox Christians with regards to our “differences” and our understanding of each other has been negligible to none, i've never considered it an issue worth considering - and im not acquianted with many EO Christians either. However, I would like to take this opportunity, to truly know the essence of EO thought.

So out of pure curiosity, would you greekischristian, or any other EO believer here, slot the following statements that I have randomly picked out from various articles on this website, as representative of the “fringe of Orthodoxy” as you say, or would it be considered “mainstream” thought?

1) http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/copts_orth.aspx

The Copts are Monophysites and thus heretics. Their Mysteries are invalid and, should they join the Orthodox Church, they must be received as non-Orthodox.

2) http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/east_orth.aspx

The designation "Oriental Orthodox" itself clearly illustrates the ecumenistic tendency to obfuscate essential theological differences with euphemisms. This deceptive appellation, popularized by the defective world view of Western Christian thought

3) http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/mono_share.aspx

Isn't it possible, some say, that the Chalcedonians are using the word physis in one way, and the non-Chalcedonians in another way — that they are simply using different language to express the incomprehensible mystery of the union of human and divine in the Incarnate Christ? If this is so, then we all believe the same thing but we are simply expressing it in different ways. This is the line of reasoning followed by the Chalcedonian/non-Chalcedonian dialogues of recent years. It seems convincing, but it is false

4) And everything in this article: http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/mono_athos.aspx

Peace.
« Last Edit: April 02, 2005, 10:45:28 PM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #1 on: April 03, 2005, 02:08:23 AM »

EkhristosAnesti,

You really asked me two questions, what do I mean by 'the fringe'? and what is my posistion on the Oriental Orthodox and the Oecumenical Dialogue between us? And I shall do my best to answer them both.

I’ve had big beef with that website, ever since someone referred me to an article from there, in which it dared to compare St Mary’s apparition in Zeitun - one of the greatest events in Coptic Orthodox history where St Mary appeared on the church of Zeitun in front of millions of Christians, Muslims, and Jews (see: http://www.zeitun-eg.org/) - to the various alleged apparitions of aliens/Ufo's. It disgusted me to say the least.

These fundamentalist posistions are certainly an element of what I mean by 'fringe orthodoxy,' the unwillingness to admit that there is any grace outside the canonical boundaries of the Orthodox Church, and, in essence, an attempt to confine the activity of the Holy Spirit to their sect.

So out of pure curiosity, would you greekischristian, or any other EO believer here, slot the following statements that I have randomly picked out from various articles on this website, as representative of the “fringe of Orthodoxy” as you say, or would it be considered “mainstream” thought?

I'll comment on them, trying to both define my posistion, and where I believe my opinion and the statement in question to be within the political continuum of Orthodoxy (though I confess I may be a little biased towards my opinion, I will try to speak objectively on this matter).

1) http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/copts_orth.aspx

The Copts are Monophysites and thus heretics. Their Mysteries are invalid and, should they join the Orthodox Church, they must be received as non-Orthodox.

We cannot deny the existance of Chalcedon, and its status as an Oecumenical Synod within the Eastern Orthodox Church, thus the OO Church is outside the Canonical Bounds of the Orthodox Church, so reception of Converts would be the reception of those outside the canonical bounds of the Orthodox Church. However, since this is orthodoxinfo.com I'm presuming that they're insisting on rebaptism, on account of their statement about the invalidity of Coptic Sacraments. This is following the +¦+¦-ü+»+¦+¦+¦ (strictness) of St. Cyprian's Ecclesiology and the decrees of his Council of Carthage, that anyone outside the Church, be it for apostasy, heresy, or schism must be rebaptized, as their sacraments are invalid; of course, if this canon was actually followed, ROCOR members who were received into a Canonical Orthodox Jurisdiction would have to be Rebaptized, as the sacraments of a Schismatic Group such as ROCOR are invalid according to this Council. With that said, the Canons of the Oecumenical Synods and St. Basil bear witness to the fact that this is not how the Orthodox Church has always operated, but rather we have accepted the Baptisms, Chrismations, and Ordinations of others outside the Orthodox Church at times, for example, even the Arians were accepted into Orthodoxy with nothing more than a Statement of Faith, their Baptism and Chrismation and (I believe) Ordination were Recognized as valid by the Orthodox Church, even though they Rejected the Divinity of Christ. Thus, while these fringe groups (who are often outside the canonical bounds of Orthodoxy themselves) as well as the monks of Mt. Athos would probably insist on Rebaptizing Copts (they'd probably also insist on rebaptizing ROCOR members as well), but the opinion of mainline Orthodoxy (including myself) is that such Sacraments preformed in the Coptic Church are acceptable and valid, despite doctrinal disagreements.

2) http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/east_orth.aspx

The designation "Oriental Orthodox" itself clearly illustrates the ecumenistic tendency to obfuscate essential theological differences with euphemisms. This deceptive appellation, popularized by the defective world view of Western Christian thought

In dialogue you dont simply call the other person 'the heretics' or 'the heterodox party,' EO and OO are terms that were agreed upon as mutually acceptable for use in the dialogue, and this level of civility is appropriate in this context regardless of the theological details. The reason that this is even being used as a complaint is because the author of that site is unwilling for us to even discuss the theological and try to resolve our differences. The unwillingness to dialogue is symptomatic of a 'fringe' fundamentalist ideology (which you will, of course, find in both the EO and OO).

3) http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/mono_share.aspx

Isn't it possible, some say, that the Chalcedonians are using the word physis in one way, and the non-Chalcedonians in another way — that they are simply using different language to express the incomprehensible mystery of the union of human and divine in the Incarnate Christ? If this is so, then we all believe the same thing but we are simply expressing it in different ways. This is the line of reasoning followed by the Chalcedonian/non-Chalcedonian dialogues of recent years. It seems convincing, but it is false

There are some on both sides who espouse this view; however, I doubt any of them really know what the other side espouses (and many probably dont know what they believe, or are supposed to believe), and thus it is a knee jerk reaction to stand up and proclaim that it is all false and a lie. This too is attributable to this 'fringe' mentality; a willingness to make proclamations and condemn but an unwillingness to listen, learn, and understand. At the same time, though, I believe that many who adopt this notion of us having essentially the same dogma often are too ideological, and often they too are unwilling to look at the other side of the argument. Within mainstream Orthodoxy I would say that there are two views, the ideological view of unity that I stated above, and a more conservative, cautious approach, which I maintain.

4) And everything in this article: http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/mono_athos.aspx

Though I only skimmed through this article, I believe that in large part it is reflective of a the cautious approach to the issue that I mentioned above I support, though at times it did seem to go a bit too far and start pontificating (but they're Monks from Mt. Athos writing a Dogmatic opinion, so what do you expect? Wink ).

The truth of the matter is that there are unresolved differences found in the anathemas of our Oecumenical Synods, whether they're actually dogmatic differences or semantic differences they must be resolved before unity can even be considered; Christological Issues are too fundamental to the Orthodox Faith to ignore. We claim we simply speak different languages, so perhaps we need to dig deeper, Chalcedon states that Christ has Two Natures, Constantinople III states that Will and Energy are manifestations of Natures, hence there are two Wills and two Energies in Christ. The OO have stated that they believe there are two Wills and two Energies using the Chalcedonian formula; however, they have said they come from the one -å-à -â+¦-é of Christ. But, the Oriental Orthodox claim to equate -å-à -â+¦-é and -à -Ç++-â-ä+¦-â+¦-é, whereas the greeks differentiate between the two. Perhaps the OO could say that Christ has two ++-à -â+¦+¦, perhaps some other term needs to be developed and defined without the historical baggage of -å-à -â+¦-é. Perhaps we need to further discuss the distinction between person and nature. The EO need to try and state their theology in the termonology of the OO, and the OO in the termonology of the EO, or we need to develop an entirely new set of termonology. Of course, if we develop new termonology, and new definitions to define our theologies, this would require a new Oecumenical Synod to accept it. I agree with the Oecumenists that that path toward unity must be taken, but I also urge caution and patience; and I dont believe the solution is to deny our histories and our differences inorder to create a false union, but any eventual real union must accept, in full understanding, our cultural and historical differences, and be based on complete understanding (not the vagueness we see in dialogue today) and unconditional acceptance (not the partial, conditional acceptance we see in current dialogue) of a common Christology.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2005, 02:29:00 PM by Pedro » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Ghazar
Armenian Orthodox Christian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 214


"Ghazaros, toors yegoor:" "Lazarus, come forth."


WWW
« Reply #2 on: April 03, 2005, 09:23:31 AM »

Thanks for the suggestions.  I'm not a big fan of the above mentioned controversial website as it obviously condemns my own Church as heretical.  But I have found some useful material on the site.  So I don't deny it can be useful sometimes.  But I would never offer a link to it on my own site.  I'm trying to develope a page for those interested in becoming Orthodox and want to leave open for them either option of being Oriental or Byzantine Orthodox.  So I'm looking for pages conducive to this goal.  Once a person gets a basic gist of what Orthodoxy is all about, then they can move on to worry about things like Chalcedon.  Thanks for the help.

Btw, speaking of Chalcedon (if I'm not violating any forum rules by asking this question), how do you Eastern Orthodox handle the quesiton of Papal Supremecy and Infallibillity as a heresy, in light of Pope Leo of Rome's teaching about the power of his papal office (who, of course, is a canonized saint on your calendar)?

Exempli gratia:
http://www.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/leo.htm

Thanks for any feedback on this question
Logged

Trusting in Christ's Inextinguishable Light,
Rev. Sub-Deacon Ghazaros Der-Ghazarian,
Holy Apostolic Orthodox Church of Armenia, Eastern Diocese USA
The Armenian Orthodox Evangelization Mission: www.looys.net
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #3 on: April 03, 2005, 02:23:13 PM »

Btw, speaking of Chalcedon (if I'm not violating any forum rules by asking this question), how do you Eastern Orthodox handle the quesiton of Papal Supremecy and Infallibillity as a heresy, in light of Pope Leo of Rome's teaching about the power of his papal office (who, of course, is a canonized saint on your calendar)?

Exempli gratia:
http://www.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/leo.htm

Leo's Dogmatic Tome was accepted as a starting point for the Decrees of Chalcedon, this doesnt mean we accept everything Leo claimed as infallible. Infact Chalcedon, through her 28th Canon, essentially undermined any claims of papal supremacy by Constantinople the Equal of Old Rome.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Schism Jumper
Christian
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 4



« Reply #4 on: April 03, 2005, 05:41:46 PM »

I admit that if I was Oriental Orthodox and thought that I believed the same as the Eastern Orthodox or that I was Orthodox and maybe the EO were not then I might have a problem with the site.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2005, 05:43:57 PM by Schism Jumper » Logged

"Show me a free man who is not a slave!  One is a slave to lust, another to greed, another to ambition, and all men are slaves to fear... No servitude is more disgraceful than that which is self-imposed" (Seneca)
Ghazar
Armenian Orthodox Christian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 214


"Ghazaros, toors yegoor:" "Lazarus, come forth."


WWW
« Reply #5 on: April 03, 2005, 05:51:35 PM »

Dear GreekisChristian,

Thanks for fielding my question on Pope Leo.  Leaving the question of Chalcedon asisde, I guess I am asking, if the doctrine of Papal Supremacy is regarded as heresy by Eastern Orthodox, how can Pope Leo who is a great defender of Papal Supremacy be considered a Saint?  Perhaps some will think that because I am not a part of your Communion, I just can't understand.  But I certainly am willing to give it a try.  Surely I'm not be the first to recognize this seeming contradiction.  If anyone knows of any articles or websites which speak to this question, please point me to them.
Logged

Trusting in Christ's Inextinguishable Light,
Rev. Sub-Deacon Ghazaros Der-Ghazarian,
Holy Apostolic Orthodox Church of Armenia, Eastern Diocese USA
The Armenian Orthodox Evangelization Mission: www.looys.net
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #6 on: April 03, 2005, 08:02:38 PM »

Greekischristian,

If you don’t mind, I want to continue this dialogue (without it regressing into a "debate" - i'm sick of debates) with you at much more in-depth level, if its not too much trouble. Before we progress however, I would like to do my own sufficient research on this issue - it should save us both some time.

Peace.
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #7 on: April 03, 2005, 08:08:54 PM »

Schismjumper,

Quote
I admit that if I was Oriental Orthodox and thought that I believed the same as the Eastern Orthodox or that I was Orthodox and maybe the EO were not then I might have a problem with the site.

I don’t know whether you were intentionally trying to be a smart a** or not, so I will give you the benefit of the doubt, especially considering that my life-long exposure to polemics of all kind may have me paranoid at this stage.

My problem sir, is with people trying to tell me what I do and do not believe. It’s nothing more than a joke - I’ve had Muslims do it, I’ve had Jews do it, I’ve had atheists do it, and now im being thrown into a whole other arena - one ive never thought I would have to delve into; where now those whom I thought were my closest brothers are doing it - I guess ignorance was bliss, but now i'm learning.

I know what I believe, I know what my church believes. My church has explicated her beliefs and non-beliefs numerously over the past years, to correct the misinformations, misinterpretations and misrepresentations of others. Show me one OO document where we have ever proclaimed or acknowledged the heresies you impose on us, which differentiate our church's on a doctrinal level. I want something explicit - I don’t want an inferred argument from silence, which would obviously be motivated by the bias of those who actually have some sort of a desire to hurt us. I don’t think that’s too much to ask, my church has been explicit on many things - maybe you have heard it 100 times over, but I will repeat it again, we are not/never-have-been monophysites (in the sense that we ever denied Christ’s humanity or even the fullness thereof), we are/always-have-been miaphysites (in the sense that we have always recognized that the uncompromising union of the perfect divine nature and human nature, constitute the ultimate nature of Christ), we do not/never-have accepted the teachings of Eutyches we reject/have-always-rejected him as strongly as we reject/and-have-always-rejected the teachings of Nestorius. We confess/and-have-always-confessed the two natures of Christ united in His person without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration, without this negating, or contradicting the Cyrillian/Athanasian formula affirmed by the blessed St. Dioscorus and stressed by him purely for the sake of not wanting to regress back into any sort of Nestorian heresy; that Christ did ultimately possess the One nature of God incarnate. It is explicated in our liturgy, our Pope has explicated it in a book titled “The nature of Christ” (His Holiness Pope Shenouda III, 1997), and it has been explicated for you people in numerous ecumenical dialogues - why don’t others want to listen? I can think of no other reason as to why some people will continue with all their effort and might to lie and manipulate and set up straw men concerning the OO such to prevent any real movement forward, other than the spirit of the anti-Christ influencing them.

But apparently, my affirmations are not enough, it seems that according to people like you as implied in your above quoted comment - regardless of my actual subjective beliefs, I still only think that I believe the same as you - as if it’s some fantasy or something that I will never achieve unless I actually become EO - a movement which would be nothing more than a charade, for it would change absolutely nothing in reality.

For the record, I would never say that an EO is not Orthodox. But after all, what does my opinion matter, I’m just a heretic, who - to slightly modify your own words, merely *thinks* im Orthodox, and who according to another *am* Orthodox as long as im in *dialogue*. Give me a break.

Peace.
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,404


« Reply #8 on: April 03, 2005, 08:21:32 PM »

GiC,
goarch.org seems to have been broken for months now, as I haven't been able to access for a while (your link as well).
Logged
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #9 on: April 03, 2005, 08:27:29 PM »

GiC,
goarch.org seems to have been broken for months now, as I haven't been able to access for a while (your link as well).

That's odd; his link worked just fine for me.  Huh
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #10 on: April 03, 2005, 08:37:26 PM »

EkhristosAnesti,
Greekischristian,

If you don’t mind, I want to continue this dialogue (without it regressing into a "debate" - i'm sick of debates) with you at much more in-depth level, if its not too much trouble. Before we progress however, I would like to do my own sufficient research on this issue - it should save us both some time.

Peace.


That's fine with me, start a thread or send me a pm (or both) when you're ready. I would actually quite enjoy discussing this in the context of dialogue...I already know where debate goes Wink


Elisha,
GiC,
goarch.org seems to have been broken for months now, as I haven't been able to access for a while (your link as well).

That's strange, I have no problem accessing it, I was even just able to access it using Lynx and rejecting cookies, thus the site is quite accessable. There could be a problem with loading timeouts, how fast is your connection? what browser are you using? and which error message do you get?
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #11 on: April 03, 2005, 08:38:53 PM »

For me, too. Daily, four or five times a day...no problem.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,404


« Reply #12 on: April 03, 2005, 10:51:25 PM »

Elisha,


That's strange, I have no problem accessing it, I was even just able to access it using Lynx and rejecting cookies, thus the site is quite accessable. There could be a problem with loading timeouts, how fast is your connection? what browser are you using? and which error message do you get?

I have SBCYahoo DSL.  It works neither from work (T-1, but horribly slow for that - half the speed of my home DSL connection) using IE or from home using Mozilla Firefox.  Times out and doesn't recognize the site.  I search from google and click on the GOA link and get nada as well.  This has never happened in the past.
Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #13 on: April 03, 2005, 11:40:17 PM »

I have SBCYahoo DSL. It works neither from work (T-1, but horribly slow for that - half the speed of my home DSL connection) using IE or from home using Mozilla Firefox. Times out and doesn't recognize the site. I search from google and click on the GOA link and get nada as well. This has never happened in the past.

Last time the Archdiocese upgraded their site (I believe they got a large grant from Leadership 100), they added they added many different graphics and scripts to make the site more 'appealing' and eat up more bandwidth (an unfortunate trend on the internet to improve appearances at the expense of accessibility and content...if it can't be viewed in a text-based web browser, you're probably just wasting bandwidth (there's a reason I could never programme outside academia) Wink ). So because of this the timeout error could just be that the settings on the web browser no not allow sufficient time to download the page. In firefox, you can adjust the amount of time before a timeout by changing the network.http.request.timeout value under about:config (default is 120 seconds), there's also a timeout reload mod here:

http://users-guide.org/index.php?c=text&id=100


To make sure it's not a problem with your ISP you could always download and install lynx and try to visit the site using that browser, a good win32 compilation with installer (you dont come across those too often in the world of open source  Shocked ) can be found at the bottom of the page here:

http://csant.info/lynx.htm

I dont know how much you've used text-based browsers but Lynx is pretty easy, once you open it after installing simply type 'g' (without quotes) and then the website www.goarch.org. It will prompt you (at the bottom) to ask if you want to accept cookies from that site, respond and it should load.

Hope this helps.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
SetFree
King of Kings
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox (Catechumen)
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church
Posts: 116

Christ, Our God, To Earth Descendeth...


« Reply #14 on: May 05, 2005, 05:24:24 PM »

This is probably a dead topic, but, but in light of recent conversation I have had with some, would like SchismJumper (or those who feel as he does) to provide writings from OO Church Fathers or any hard and fast evidence that OO were ever monophysite or are really the heretics that they claim them to be.  As one observing from the outside, longing to be Orthodox (not biased by being either cradle EO or OO), I saw no difference in faith and very little in Liturgical worship.  It wasn't until I got into ecclesiastical reading and the academia of the Orthodox world that "differences" were made known to me.  An outsider sees no difference.  Why do insiders???  And where is the hard-and-fast proof (not implied, as EA said, by silence) for such differences???  All of this infighting does nothing but hamper the Church in her mission to evangelize the world.

In Christ,
Adrian Davila
Logged

At His Feet The Six-Winged Seraph, Cherubim, With Sleepless Eye, Veil Their Faces To His Presence As With Ceasless Voice They Cry:ÂÂ  Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia!ÂÂ  Lord Most High! --From the Liturgy of St. James (Translated by Gerard Moultrie)
SaintShenouti
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 224


« Reply #15 on: May 05, 2005, 05:53:51 PM »

Chalcedon should not be considered an Ecumenical Council because it was not ecumenical in nature. Certain bishops (especially those from Rome) sought to claim superiority over the See of Alexandria, which was seen as the center of the Christian world. Constantinople and Rome were merely political centers. Pope Dioscorus of blessed memory was unjustly accused of heresy and criminal acts, and thus banished by Marcian. He was placed under house arrest by imperial forces, and ultimately exiled to Gangra. The emperor Marcian and bishops of Chalcedon then sent Proterius, the alien "patriarch" to take Abba Dioscorus' place. The Egyptian (Alexandrian) synod and people collectively rejected this authority, and thus remained loyal to their true Pope Dioscorus. After the death of Dioscorus, the Alexandrian synod then elected Pope Timothy II (Aelurus) as proper successor to the throne of St. Mark. Pope Timothy II, together with the Egyptian bishops, excommunicated the Tome of Leo and the Chalcedonian decrees as well as those that held to them.

What was later known as the "Henoticon" repaired some of the political disruptions as a result of these events. Also, the emperors of Constantinople relented from sending alien patriarchs to Alexandria following Pope Timothy II.

In several texts I've searched, authors are quick to state how through Chalcedon, what was seen as the dominating "Alexandrian theology" was defeated at Chalcedon, and a heirarchy of sees forming, creating a political dillema within the church.

How foolish are these that glory in vainglory.

It's almost, and I say ALMOST, as stupid as the debates over homosexuality and the church. Extremely gay.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2005, 05:56:19 PM by SaintShenouti » Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,247



« Reply #16 on: May 05, 2005, 06:40:46 PM »

After years of foolish words and rash posts on my part, I've decided to simplify my stance on the issue. When the OO and EO have worked out a compromise that brings us to official agreement regarding the status of the Fourth through Seventh Ecumenical Councils, St. Leo, etc., then I'll never speak on the matter again. Until then, I will only say, as St. Gregory the Theologian said, that " admire your life, but do not altogether approve your doctrine." (Oration 41, 8 ).
« Last Edit: May 05, 2005, 08:27:24 PM by Paradosis » Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #17 on: May 05, 2005, 11:19:31 PM »

This is the cold truth as I understand it, a truth to which no Eastern Orthodox Christian has been able to provide a rebuttal. Here's the deal.:

The christology of the Oriental Orthodox Churches is the exact same christology as expounded by St. Cyril of Alexandria and accepted by the Council of Ephesus.
In Chalcedon, the Latin and Byzantine Churches decided to overturn a previous council with a new christology. Given that the Oriental Orthodox Churches hold to the pre-Chalcedonian christology, the "heretical" group would be the one which rejected a previous council with a new (perhaps Nestorian-influenced) christology.
The fact that certain Eastern Christians are so defensive of Chalcedon and denounce any Oriental Christian as a heretic is a defense mechanism to mask their own neglect of history. It's like the pot calling the kettle black.
« Last Edit: May 05, 2005, 11:23:56 PM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Sabbas
Drink from your own wells
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 503

St. Glicherie True Orthodox Church of Romania


« Reply #18 on: May 06, 2005, 07:07:29 PM »

EkhristosAnesti
Have you tried contacting Patrick Barnes? If you have not I would suggest that you try. Also I cannot understand how you and GiC draw the conclusion that because his site features an article denying the Zeitun apparition that he is denying Grace exists anywhere outside the Church. Let me just say this so it is clear: We believe that that God's general Salvific Grace is constantly given to everyone and we believe the Ecclesial Grace of the Mysteries is only present in the Orthodox Church. This is not limiting God but an affirmation of what He has revealed.
Would you be mad at me for telling you the Fatima visions were in the same league with UFO sightings? Just because someone does not agree with you does not mean they are attacking you.
Having said that I must say I have always liked you and particularly the helpful discussion you started on Redemption and the Penal Substitution doctrine.
Again I disagree with the claims that OO are Orthodox but that does not mean I am against you personally. If I were personally against those who are non-Orthodox I would have to hate all my relatives and childhood friends. But I am not insane nor am I on the fringe as GiC might claim. GiC that is nothing against you either. I am glad that you support the validity of the Fourth Ecumenical Council when it seems to be in vogue to deny it.
Dear GreekisChristian,

Thanks for fielding my question on Pope Leo. Leaving the question of Chalcedon asisde, I guess I am asking, if the doctrine of Papal Supremacy is regarded as heresy by Eastern Orthodox, how can Pope Leo who is a great defender of Papal Supremacy be considered a Saint? Perhaps some will think that because I am not a part of your Communion, I just can't understand. But I certainly am willing to give it a try. Surely I'm not be the first to recognize this seeming contradiction. If anyone knows of any articles or websites which speak to this question, please point me to them.
Brother Ghazaros I would look at Chapter 4 in Abbe Guettee's The Papacy. Yes a lot of RC's have done everything to deny what he wrote but the simple fact is that Guettee is right, Pope Leo is a Saint and he was not a Papal Supremacist.
I am glad you are willing to see the EO POV when so few are willing to. I also like your website which is very helpful and interesting. It is heartening to know someone in the OO who is willing to hear St.Leo out!
After years of foolish words and rash posts on my part, I've decided to simplify my stance on the issue. When the OO and EO have worked out a compromise that brings us to official agreement regarding the status of the Fourth through Seventh Ecumenical Councils, St. Leo, etc., then I'll never speak on the matter again. Until then, I will only say, as St. Gregory the Theologian said, that " admire your life, but do not altogether approve your doctrine." (Oration 41, 8 ).
I agree entirely with that but would say that the 2004 Conference at Thessaloniki has affirmed Orthodox Church's position and come to the conclusion that dialogue with OO has led no where. Can't we just get along without trying to haphazardly 'reunite?' Just because I don't think the Oriental churches are Orthodox does not mean that there can be no meaningful cooperation.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2005, 07:08:38 PM by Sabbas » Logged

www.hungersite.com  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  www.freedonation.com you can donate up to 20 times at freedonation.  http://www.pomog.org/ has online 1851 Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton English translation of Septuagint.http://www.cnrs.ubc.ca/greekbible/ Original Koine Septuagint and New Testament.
Stavro
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,118



« Reply #19 on: May 06, 2005, 07:41:46 PM »

Dear Sabbas,
I believe what EA objected to is to misrepresentation of the OO faith and the use of descriptions such as "monophysites" or "Eutychians" without actually proving how we relate to such heresy. It is only fair to ask to show us the sources for such claims. If you can back it up, that is fine, if not, then it is only fair to refrain from using incorrect labels.

As for history, which includes Chalcedon, it has been discussed many times before on the site. Here, we have to refer to common references to be able to draw conclusions. I believe this provides a healthy basis for discussion.

To deny the apparitions of St.Mary is normal to come from a non OO, yet it is an event that took place for a year, each and every night, in front of hundred of thousands of people who waited for her apparition each night, and they were muslims and christians alike. The islamic newspaper, who never ever say anything uplifting about the christians, had to concede this fact at the time. The president Gamal Abd El-Nasser went himself with his family.
Many healing miracles was performed by the lady of us all.

If this apparition is denied, the miracles of the saints of Egypt are numerous and cannot be denied, latest of which are the miracles of H.H. the Pope St.Kyrillos the 6th, (1959-1971).

Many OO do not look at the EO faith with much appreciation either as you do, without taking it to a personal level. But one thing to be noticed is that the OO follow their hierarchs more than EO. For example, there has been a christological agreement on the faith from both side, yet many EO do not adhere to it and still label OO with misconeptions that have been cleared long time ago. It is either that the EO hierarchs were wrong to sign this christological agreement, which is an internal problem for the EO, or they were right, and you would have to stop using the term monophysites.

If you have issues with other OO expression of faith other than christology, please bring them forth and we can discuss them.

Peace.
Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #20 on: May 06, 2005, 10:50:56 PM »

Umm...why is it that I have no re-collection of actually creating this thread?

Anastasios? Robert? Someone else? I remember the issues discussed in my posts - but i dont recall creating a whole new thread to discuss these issues. If someone else did it, I would have liked to at least been notified....

Peace.
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #21 on: May 06, 2005, 10:53:40 PM »

I didn't do it but it is within the pervue of the moderators to split topics.  It probably would have been better had the moderator mentioned that is what he or she was doing.

Anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #22 on: May 06, 2005, 10:59:19 PM »

Sabbas,

Quote
Just because someone does not agree with you does not mean they are attacking you.

To deny one of the most important events in Coptic Church history (one which strengthened the faith and re-enforced the hope of a persecuted and minority people in a land dominated by pagans, and which also lead to many conversions), and to try to implicitly attribute it’s origin or inspiration to Satan himself, is one of the most insulting things I’ve ever heard in my life, and you’re attempt to water it down is pathetic - but I on behalf of the Coptic Church thank them (and their supporters) for the false charges nonetheless, because it is nothing short of a blessing to be counted along with Christ who Himself was accused of performing miracles by the power of the enemy.

This isn’t a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, it’s a matter of prideful EO’s who think they’re God’s special gift such that only they can receive divine revelation, and such that only they are worthy of an apparition from the Theotokos (Oh by the way, every time you say Theotokos please remember St Cyril, our blessed Patriarch, the champion of Christology - the one we maintained the strongest of allegiance to, even to the point of suffering persecution and discrimination).

May the Lord have mercy on the authors of that article, and all who promote it, who will surely be held accountable for their deceit, ignorance and negligence, in insulting Him and His Mother. May the Lord continue to shine through the Coptic Church, the church of the land which was prophesied in the Holy Bible according to the blessing it would give to the world, as well as the land which was blessed by the visit of the Holy Family, in whose footsteps lay the Holy Altars of the Coptic Church. From the moving of Al-Mokattam mountain, to the blood of the martyrs, and to the Apparition in Zeitoun; the Lord and the Theotokos and all the saints will continue to bless and strengthen the Coptic church, no matter how many vein things the enemy wishes to conspire against her.

From St Basil's Liturgy:
"All offenses and their instigators, abolish. May all dissension of corrupt heresies cease. The enemies of Your Holy Church, O Lord, as at all times, now also humiliate. Strip their vanity, show them their weakness speedily. Bring to naught their envy, their intrigues, their madness, their wickedness and their slander which they commit against us, O Lord, bring them all to avail; disperse their counsel, O God, who dispersed the counsel of Ahithopel." Amen, Kyrie Eleison.

Insha'allah, I hope to expose the inconsistencies and double standards of that article, by doing a little ufo fantasizing of my own. Do you have any personal favourite apparations or miracles you would like me to shoot down? I have a brilliant account of a hindu miracle that im just dying to strenuously compare to something.

Quote
Again I disagree with the claims that OO are Orthodox but that does not mean I am against you personally.

To disagree is one thing, to arrogantly and condescendingly assert it as a self-evident fact without any substance is another (as you did on the other thread). This is the line of thought I get with most of the EO’s ive spoken to so far: “You aren’t Orthodox because we say so” - “Orthodoxy is an adherence to the 7 councils as ecumenical because we say so”. Please learn to validate your claim with reason, and then maybe I won’t sound so pi**ed off, even if you arrive at the same conclusion.

Peace.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2005, 11:03:09 PM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #23 on: May 06, 2005, 11:13:41 PM »

I didn't do it but it is within the pervue of the moderators to split topics.  It probably would have been better had the moderator mentioned that is what he or she was doing.

Heh, heh...whoops...this thread was split off from this thread...and I thought I had left a notification in that thread.  I didn't.  Sorry.

As it is, whoever writes the earliest post among all the posts that get split off from a former thread is credited with having "started" the thread.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2005, 11:13:58 PM by Pedro » Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
optxogokcoc
orthodoxos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


« Reply #24 on: May 07, 2005, 12:02:39 AM »

I for one, can not but hold ALL seven councils as Orthodox.

I for one, can not but hold ALL Oriental Orthodox as brothers and sister...

Do I have a problem?
Logged
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #25 on: May 07, 2005, 07:59:04 AM »

Optxcogokcoc

Quote
Do I have a problem?

Well for one; your profile says that you’re from Perth, and so generally speaking your opinion is irrelevant and on par with those from HobartGǪand Adelaide... especially MelbourneGǪand basically all capital cities minus Sydney. Wink

I don’t think you have a problem.

Quote
I for one, can not but hold ALL seven councils as Orthodox.

I likewise hold to all seven councils as Orthodox, just not Ecumenical. Fr Tadros Malaty outlines the general gist of our rejection of a council as Ecumenical in his book titled Ecumenical councils and the Trinitarian Faith, in which he argues that Ecumenicity should be understood as first and foremost an ontological quality pertaining to the life of the Church with regards to it's unity and coherence. I will quote from this book in due time when I get the chance to start my response to GiC in the other thread.

Quote
I for one, can not but hold ALL Oriental Orthodox as brothers and sister...

I not only regard EO’s as brothers and sisters, but I think as Christians we are supposed to extend that title, and practice that sort of relationship with all those created in the image of God, regardless of denomination, sect, or religion. The issue that concerns me, is the right of one to tell another “You are not Orthodox” or in other words “You are not following the straight path” especially to a church which is in separation, not because of any divergence from the straight path, but precisely because of it’s satisfaction with the direction and distance that that straight path had already accomplished with regards to Christological issues by 433 A.D.; wishing to remain comfortably at home parked in St Cyril’s street, rather than to leave home into foreign territory and make an unnecessary and unwarranted left turn into Leo’s Street.

Peace.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2005, 08:01:40 AM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Copt
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #26 on: May 07, 2005, 01:02:26 PM »

Dearest EkhristosAnesti,

I came across your thread on islam and Judaism when a friend referred me to it and I was very impressed. I would just like to recommend you discontinue this discussion with sabbas because it sounds like you’re starting to get hostile and I would hate to see you banned from this forum.
Please take no offense to what im saying because I really do admire you for defending the faith and i love reading your posts, I would just hate to see your arguments being distorted by your attitude. I would have sent this personally to you but your email is hidden so I couldn’t contact you. Keep up the great posts im looking forward to reading more from you.
God Bless.

In Christ
Copt.
Logged
Sabbas
Drink from your own wells
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 503

St. Glicherie True Orthodox Church of Romania


« Reply #27 on: May 07, 2005, 01:13:23 PM »

Sabbas,

To deny one of the most important events in Coptic Church history (one which strengthened the faith and re-enforced the hope of a persecuted and minority people in a land dominated by pagans, and which also lead to many conversions), and to try to implicitly attribute it’s origin or inspiration to Satan himself, is one of the most insulting things I’ve ever heard in my life, and you’re attempt to water it down is pathetic - but I on behalf of the Coptic Church thank them (and their supporters) for the false charges nonetheless, because it is nothing short of a blessing to be counted along with Christ who Himself was accused of performing miracles by the power of the enemy.

This isn’t a matter of agreeing or disagreeing, it’s a matter of prideful EO’s who think they’re God’s special gift such that only they can receive divine revelation, and such that only they are worthy of an apparition from the Theotokos (Oh by the way, every time you say Theotokos please remember St Cyril, our blessed Patriarch, the champion of Christology - the one we maintained the strongest of allegiance to, even to the point of suffering persecution and discrimination).

May the Lord have mercy on the authors of that article, and all who promote it, who will surely be held accountable for their deceit, ignorance and negligence, in insulting Him and His Mother. May the Lord continue to shine through the Coptic Church, the church of the land which was prophesied in the Holy Bible according to the blessing it would give to the world, as well as the land which was blessed by the visit of the Holy Family, in whose footsteps lay the Holy Altars of the Coptic Church. From the moving of Al-Mokattam mountain, to the blood of the martyrs, and to the Apparition in Zeitoun; the Lord and the Theotokos and all the saints will continue to bless and strengthen the Coptic church, no matter how many vein things the enemy wishes to conspire against her.

From St Basil's Liturgy:
"All offenses and their instigators, abolish. May all dissension of corrupt heresies cease. The enemies of Your Holy Church, O Lord, as at all times, now also humiliate. Strip their vanity, show them their weakness speedily. Bring to naught their envy, their intrigues, their madness, their wickedness and their slander which they commit against us, O Lord, bring them all to avail; disperse their counsel, O God, who dispersed the counsel of Ahithopel." Amen, Kyrie Eleison.

Insha'allah, I hope to expose the inconsistencies and double standards of that article, by doing a little ufo fantasizing of my own. Do you have any personal favourite apparations or miracles you would like me to shoot down? I have a brilliant account of a hindu miracle that im just dying to strenuously compare to something.



To disagree is one thing, to arrogantly and condescendingly assert it as a self-evident fact without any substance is another (as you did on the other thread). This is the line of thought I get with most of the EO’s ive spoken to so far: “You aren’t Orthodox because we say so” - “Orthodoxy is an adherence to the 7 councils as ecumenical because we say so”. Please learn to validate your claim with reason, and then maybe I won’t sound so pi**ed off, even if you arrive at the same conclusion.

Peace.

EkhristosAnesti I do not know much about the Zeitoun apparition and will not weigh in on either side. However I can see why some would question it and I do not think we should attack people for being skeptical. Also consider the Fatima visions. My RC grandmother took those very seriously and believed that they were genuine visions till the day she died. However I think that the Fatima visions were most likely the result of demonic influence even though hundreds of people were there when the sun was supposed to have moved in the sky and reported actually seeing the sun moving. Of course RCs will not usually tell you that many people who were there reported seeing UFOs and a few said they didn't see anything. Many people converted because of these visions or deepened their faith but does that necessarily mean these visions were genuine? I don't think they were. Does that mean I am attacking RCs who believe they were genuine? No! and I am not attacking Copts by being skeptical about the Zeitoun apparitions.

Quote
Insha'allah, I hope to expose the inconsistencies and double standards of that article, by doing a little ufo fantasizing of my own. Do you have any personal favourite apparations or miracles you would like me to shoot down? I have a brilliant account of a hindu miracle that im just dying to strenuously compare to something.
Good for you! I always like scholarly debates. If you are interested in some really odd phenomena that still endlessly puzzles and frightens me read The Mothman Prophecies by John Keel. If is a nonfiction account of some very strange phenomena that took place in West Virginia, here is an excerpt http://www.tor.com/samplemothman.html
But if you want to take a shot at Orthodox miracles try the bleeding Icons of Belarus http://www.visionsofjesuschrist.com/weeping623.htm

Quote
To disagree is one thing, to arrogantly and condescendingly assert it as a self-evident fact without any substance is another (as you did on the other thread). This is the line of thought I get with most of the EO’s ive spoken to so far: “You aren’t Orthodox because we say so” - “Orthodoxy is an adherence to the 7 councils as ecumenical because we say so”. Please learn to validate your claim with reason, and then maybe I won’t sound so pi**ed off, even if you arrive at the same conclusion.
Actually I think that there are 9 Ecumenical Councils. The 8th during 879-880 and the 9th being during 1341. In fact until recently many Orthodox did consider the 8th and 9th to be Ecumenical and the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs (1848) repeatedly references the 8th Council for obvious reasons.
Also I am sorry if I sounded arrogant. I said that I am not going to debate the Council of Chalcedon which includes believing that the Oriental churches are not part of the Church. If that bothers you I am sorry but I really do not see the point of debating this as I long ago researched this when I converted to Orthodoxy. The conclusion of my research was that the Council of Chalcedon was legit and a lot of the arguments by Oriental churches revolve around semantics and defending men condemned as heretics by the Chalcedon. I currently hold the opinion that the dialogue between the Oriental churches and the Orthodox Church have been fruitless. I believe problem lies with the Oriental churches not wanting to join themselves to the Orthodox Church but instead wanting the Orthodox Church to condemn itself for having ever anathematized Severos and denying the Orthodoxy of the Oriental churches. That simply is not going to happen and it is ridiculous for people to think it should.

Once again I will say that I am not attacking you personally but merely disagree with you. Please respect my right to believe what the Orthodox Church teaches as I respect your right to believe in the Orthodoxy of the Oriental churches.

Quote
If this apparition is denied, the miracles of the saints of Egypt are numerous and cannot be denied, latest of which are the miracles of H.H. the Pope St.Kyrillos the 6th, (1959-1971).
I have heard a lot about this man recently and will probably read more about him after Finals this week. But as I am Orthodox and believe in the Church I do not venerate anyone who was not a visible member of the Church during their life no matter how amazing that person might be.
For example Padre Pio was an amazing man who is said to have cured many people but I am not about to say that the RCs are Orthodox nor would I say that Padre Pio is an Orthodox Saint. Just because miraculous events happen to people outside the Church and amazing people are outside the Church does not mean that the Orthodox Church ceases to be visible and one. There are many Protestant churches where miracles have happened but I am not about to say they are Orthodox!

Quote
But one thing to be noticed is that the OO follow their hierarchs more than EO. For example, there has been a christological agreement on the faith from both side, yet many EO do not adhere to it and still label OO with misconeptions that have been cleared long time ago. It is either that the EO hierarchs were wrong to sign this christological agreement, which is an internal problem for the EO, or they were right, and you would have to stop using the term monophysites.
It is not the duty of a member of the Church to follow their hierarchs when they go against the Faith. Yes you are supposed to be obedient but I am not going to say the Oriental churches are Orthodox just because a few Orthodox hierarchs say they are. By the way there are many Orthodox bishops who do not believe in blurring the Faith and do not teach that the Oriental churches are Orthodox.
Simply put I will adhere to what the Church teaches not what misguided bishops teach.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2005, 01:14:38 PM by Sabbas » Logged

www.hungersite.com  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  www.freedonation.com you can donate up to 20 times at freedonation.  http://www.pomog.org/ has online 1851 Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton English translation of Septuagint.http://www.cnrs.ubc.ca/greekbible/ Original Koine Septuagint and New Testament.
optxogokcoc
orthodoxos
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 132


« Reply #28 on: May 07, 2005, 01:55:44 PM »

EkhristosAnesti, and where are you from? You stink of Opera House or am I mistaken Smiley .... You know I am sharpening my knives right now Smiley Thats ok.. you never know what you never know... Perth, my friend is the Fourth Rome! Smiley

Seriously now, I am doing much research on OUR problem, and in good time, will say more.

Indeed He is risen!
« Last Edit: May 07, 2005, 02:16:00 PM by optxogokcoc » Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #29 on: May 07, 2005, 02:06:59 PM »



The christology of the Oriental Orthodox Churches is the exact same christology as expounded by St. Cyril of Alexandria and accepted by the Council of Ephesus.
In Chalcedon, the Latin and Byzantine Churches decided to overturn a previous council with a new christology. Given that the Oriental Orthodox Churches hold to the pre-Chalcedonian christology, the "heretical" group would be the one which rejected a previous council with a new (perhaps Nestorian-influenced) christology.
The fact that certain Eastern Christians are so defensive of Chalcedon and denounce any Oriental Christian as a heretic is a defense mechanism to mask their own neglect of history. It's like the pot calling the kettle black.


Could anyone please provide a rebuttal? I understand that this is a very divisive issue but from where I am coming from, the "heretical" group would be those who rejected a previous council with a new christology.
Any sort of reconciliation between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches will have to include a careful attention to history.
« Last Edit: May 07, 2005, 02:09:57 PM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Sabbas
Drink from your own wells
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 503

St. Glicherie True Orthodox Church of Romania


« Reply #30 on: May 07, 2005, 04:39:44 PM »

Matthew I am sure that you have read this elsewhere but try looking at the dialogue between St.Cyril and the Antiochene bishops. The Formula of Reunion makes it pretty clear for me http://www.monachos.net/patristics/christology/cyril_johnantioch.shtml This was read during the Council of Chalcedon
Also perhaps you can enlighten us as to what is so Nestorian about the Tome of St.Leo? Also there was no attempt on the part of any in the Roman Empire whether in Rome, Constantinople, or Antioch to overturn the Council of Ephesus at the Council of Chalcedon. To say so is to be unfamiliar with what went on at the Council http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/chalcedon.html
Forgive me! I know I said I would not debate this and I do not want to but Matthew has repeatedly asked for people to help him with this.
Logged

www.hungersite.com  Ãƒâ€šÃ‚  www.freedonation.com you can donate up to 20 times at freedonation.  http://www.pomog.org/ has online 1851 Sir Lancelot C.L. Brenton English translation of Septuagint.http://www.cnrs.ubc.ca/greekbible/ Original Koine Septuagint and New Testament.
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #31 on: May 07, 2005, 05:10:26 PM »

The christology of the Oriental Orthodox Churches is the christology of Ephesus, what St. Cyril defined as "the one incarnate nature of God the Word".
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #32 on: May 07, 2005, 09:47:17 PM »

Quote
The christology of the Oriental Orthodox Churches is the christology of Ephesus, what St. Cyril defined as "the one incarnate nature of God the Word".

But do you consider Chalcedon, and especially the Tome, to be heretical?
Logged
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #33 on: May 07, 2005, 10:23:23 PM »

I think to understand why the Non-Chalcedonians view the Tome as Nestorian one should read the book by V.C. Samuel (of which I have only skimmed) entitled Chalcedon Re-Examined.  I personally think the Oros of Chalcedon follows Cyril closely (except for using in two natures instead of from; the rest is straight out of Cyril's reunion formula with the Antiochene bishops), and I am a Chalcedonian, but at the same time, the Non-Chalcedonian position is not well known on the internet and that book gives it pretty well.

Just a suggested reading.

Anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #34 on: May 07, 2005, 10:47:25 PM »

But do you consider Chalcedon, and especially the Tome, to be heretical?

I do not like to use the word "heretical". Just consider this:
The Council of Ephesus accepted the christology of the one incarnate nature of God the Word.
In Chalcedon, the Byzantine and Latin Churches accepted a conflicting christology in which Christ exists in two natures.
What would the "heretical" group be, the one which held to the Council of Ephesus or the one which rejected it with a new christology? This is a simple matter of history.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Faith: BZZT
Posts: 29,247



« Reply #35 on: May 07, 2005, 11:00:24 PM »

I must admit to being a bit confused. One of the OO's participating on this thread talked to me elsewhere and got me to thinking about this subject in a different way, and I was ready to pursue the avenue of thought he suggested as a solution. However, Matthew, also an OO, seems to be saying the opposite, that there in fact IS a difference in faith, and that it is significant and not just semantical, cultural, political or whatever. Matthew does not like to use the word heretical, so he instead remains vague and implicative, setting up his post so that the EO being in heresy seems to be the logical conclusion of the information he lays out. I put the book Anastasios suggested in my Amazon.com cart and will get it sooner rather than later, but I'm interested what Mor, Ekhristos, and others think of Matthew's thinking on this point.
Logged
coptic orthodox boy
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 447


« Reply #36 on: May 07, 2005, 11:51:31 PM »

IC XC NIKA
Paradosis,
As a member of the OO Church, I can only give my personal and humble opinion.  I am not an expert on the Councils (mostly because I have trouble remembering names and the heresy that goes along with it), so, I'll give my views.
I agree with EA, who I believe stated that the OO Churches don't deny the Orthodoxy of councils 4-7, but that they must be accepted as Ecumenical. 
I also agree with Stavro, who I also believe stated, that for the OO Churches to accept councils 4-7, would be like a healthy man being forced to take a sick man's medicine; in other words, we didn't fall into the heresies that led to the gathering of councils 4-7, though the EO "force" us to take this "medicine" to be truly Orthodox.
I've never been a fan of one man trying to explain another man's faith.  In other words, I find it almost vain to read an article on the Christology of the EO Church from an OO writer, or vise-versa.  I always wish to go to the source.  So, through my own personal readings, I find that both the EO and the OO Churches Christology's are truly Orthodox, when explained by the respected members of these Churches.
However, being apart of the OO Church, I must stand by my Church Fathers (willfully) rejection of the 4th council, as well as councils 5-7 (or 9 if you will).
Well, I'm sure I've only brought more confusion to the topic.
copticorthodoxboy 
Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #37 on: May 08, 2005, 12:29:38 AM »

However, Matthew, also an OO, seems to be saying the opposite, that there in fact IS a difference in faith, and that it is significant and not just semantical, cultural, political or whatever.

Our differences are merely cultural, semantical, and political.
The fact that certain Eastern Orthodox Christians insist that the Oriental Orthodox Churches are heretical is absurd because if one of us is "heretical", it would be the group which rejected a previous council with a new christology.
However, I do not find Chalcedon heretical in and of itself, it is only its implications that I find dangerous.
Please consider Oneness Pentecostals, for example. They belive that the human nature of Jesus is the Son and the divine nature is the Father and that in the Gospels, when the Son speaks to the Father,  it is His human nature speaking with His divine nature.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #38 on: May 08, 2005, 12:44:49 AM »

Copt,

I appreciate your concern and thank you for your kind comments; but I do not believe that I am being "hostile", nor do I believe I have done or said anything of a nature that the administrators would feel the need to ban me, else I would have at least already been warned or PM'd.

Peace.
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #39 on: May 08, 2005, 01:04:28 AM »

Sabbas,

Quote
However I can see why some would question it and I do not think we should attack people for being skeptical.

I will attack people based on their apparent motivations. There is no genuine or warranted skepticism from the authors of that article - they just feel that their self-attributed exclusive right to Orthodoxy is being threatened by the fact that the Theotokos appeared in her glory to the very church which is responsible and to thank, for the very veneration that is given to her universally as the Theotokos - Mother of God (you do remember St Cyril of Alexandria right?).

Quote
Also consider the Fatima visions.

I don’t know much about the Fatima visions, but I don’t see any relevant connection between Fatima and Zeitoun nor did you even make any, so I don’t know what your point is exactly.

As far as I know, no Orthodox church (and yes i refer to OO and EO as the Orthodox Church) has taken an official position with regards to Fatima. Here is an Orthodox apologetic article defending Fatima as genuine, and taking a polemical stance against the RC interpretation of the events in question: http://www.unicorne.org/orthodoxy/articles/alex_roman/marionology.htm

The denied authenticity of certain apparitions that occur within the RC church are based on valid reasoning - either St Mary is promoting some heretical RC doctrine such as the Immaculate Conception, or she is drawing attention to and hence seeking glory for herself rather than her Son. In the absence of such features, I would have no problem in accepting any apparitions or miracles within the RC church as divinely inspired - so your implicit attempt to prove a double standard has failed.

On many occasions the Coptic Church has denounced certain Marian apparitions within her own church, based on the context of these apparitions. Once a lady claimed that St Mary visited her house whilst she was sick and told her that she never needed to pray again or go to the liturgy, and that she (St Mary) would heal her and visit her (the lady’s) home weekly and serve her the Eucharist personally. The lady rang the local priest and notified him of her experience. She also told him that St Mary promised her as a sign that her (the lady) hands would start pouring oil. The priest visited her house, and indeed the ladys' hands started pouring oil in front of him. When she told him more about the apparition - how the alleged St Mary told her to stop praying and to stop attending Liturgy - he realized straight away that it was satanic and tried to persuade her of this. She being deluded refused to believe him. On his way out of her home, the priest saw a man on the street selling cooked food and who was loudly complaining that someone kept stealing his oil. It was revealed to the priest by God at that moment, that satan took the oil from this man's store and entered the lady’s house pouring it on her hands. So even the Coptic Church does not just accept purported apparitions at face value.

The main point is however, that there is NO valid reason motivating that ridiculous article at orthodoxinfo.com, nor have you proven anything by bringing up Fatima. The skepticism against Zeitoun is motivated by a presupposed idea that the OO church is not really Orthodox and that it is thus impossible for such divine revelation to occur within the church, and hence the authors of the article feel the need to strain in finding an alternative explanation. Valid skepticism is prompted by consideration of the apparent motives and purpose behind the apparitions.

Quote
But if you want to take a shot at Orthodox miracles try the bleeding Icons of Belarus http://www.visionsofjesuschrist.com/weeping623.htm

Bleeding and weeping icons are too easy. The Coptic Church is replete with them.

In any event, I have decided not to (and was recommended by a friend not to) stoop as low as the authors at orthodoxinfo.com did, by even attempting to discredit an apparition made to the EO church simply for the sake of argument. It would only serve to outrageously offend people in the same manner I was as I read through that anti-Christ article.

Quote
Quote
To disagree is one thing, to arrogantly and condescendingly assert it as a self-evident fact without any substance is another (as you did on the other thread). This is the line of thought I get with most of the EO’s ive spoken to so far: “You aren’t Orthodox because we say so” - “Orthodoxy is an adherence to the 7 councils as ecumenical because we say so”. Please learn to validate your claim with reason, and then maybe I won’t sound so pi**ed off, even if you arrive at the same conclusion.

Quote
Actually I think that there are 9 Ecumenical Councils. The 8th during 879-880 and the 9th being during 1341. In fact until recently many Orthodox did consider the 8th and 9th to be Ecumenical and the Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs (1848) repeatedly references the 8th Council for obvious reasons.

Your response is a red herring as it is absolutely irrelevant to the point I was making which is namely; you define Ecumenicity arbitrarily, and you arbitrarily define Orthodoxy as an adherence to your already arbitrary understanding of an Ecumenical Council. As such, your declaration that I am not Orthodox holds no water in the objective world - you can and surely have the right to continue holding onto it as a personal belief however.

Quote
Also I am sorry if I sounded arrogant. I said that I am not going to debate the Council of Chalcedon which includes believing that the Oriental churches are not part of the Church.

Don’t apologise for your arrogance - there is no one who is more arrogant than myself. Just show me that you have good enough reason to be arrogant. In other words, if you want to be arrogant, at least prove you can get away with it.

Quote
The conclusion of my research was that the Council of Chalcedon was legit and a lot of the arguments by Oriental churches revolve around semantics and defending men condemned as heretics by the Chalcedon.

Im wandering how much of an objective research you have truly performed - did you consider Chalcedon Re-examined by V.C. Samuel or The Council of Chalcedon and the Armenian Church by Karekin Sarkissian? The former is sitting on my bookshelf waiting to be opened; I am 3/4 of the way through the latter. I have heard many good things about the former, and it was highly recommended. In fact I was told that if there was just one book I had to read on Chalcedon that presents a most well-balanced and objective viewpoint based on brillitantly reasoned arguments and historical fact; then that was the one to get.

You state in the above quotation that the Oriental Church defends men who were condemned as heretics by Chacledon - please let me notify you of the fact that this is not true. The men condemned for heresy at Chalcedon were Nestorius and Eutychus. We defend neither. The blessed St Dioscorus was not condemned for heresy at Chalcedon, the condemnation against him was rather of an ecclesial-juridical nature.

I recall for you the incident in which Anatolius of Constantinople proposed a new formula - the aim of which was to meet the criticisms made by the many who attended Chalcedon and who were initially quite embarrassed by the tome of Leo due to it’s evident theological weaknesses. The Roman Legates feeling insulted that anyone dared to challenge any aspect of Leo’s tome, and being suspicious that Anatolius’ formula may compromise the tome’s ultimate authority or even overshadow it (due ultimately and probably to their concept of papal supremacy and/or their adamant position to assert the superiority of Rome over the true theological centre of the Orthodox Christian world - Alexandria), threatened to abandon the council at this point, which alarmed the imperial commissioners.

Although the text of the formula was lost, we need to take note of a very small change in the text which is significant to the point im trying to ultimately make. There is no doubt that the re-constructed form of Anatolius’ formula as “in two natures” must have been “from two natures” - the latter of which, as recognized by the council was used by the blessed St Dioscorus. What we find is that the Roman legates tried to object to the Orthodoxy Anatolius’ formula which employed the expression “from two natures”, on the basis that such an expression was one adopted by the blessed St Dioscorus. In response, Anatolius reminds the forgetful Romans that the blessed St Dioscorus was not condemned for heresy but rather (and even still so, falsely) for disciplinary reasons.

The Orthodoxy of the blessed St Dioscorus remained unchallenged, and he was only unjustly and falsely condemned as a heretic over a hundred years later (533, 680, and 787), by men who were never acquainted with him and who probably never even read a word he said. Unless you can prove otherwise, then you have no valid case against the Orthodoxy of St Dioscorus who was simply staying faithful to the true champion of Christology, his predecessor St Cyril.

Quote
Please respect my right to believe what the Orthodox Church teaches

I respect your right to believe what you want - but since you feel the need to present your belief to others as axiomatic, then please respect my right to challenge them.

Quote
I currently hold the opinion that the dialogue between the Oriental churches and the Orthodox Church have been fruitless.

Would you like to be specific; which dialogue for example and why? Please take some time to visit www.orthodoxunity.org and http://www.monachos.net/patristics/christology/orthodox_and_oriental.shtml which prove that fruitful progress has already been accomplished between the two churches whether you like it or not.

The church’s have managed to agree on the substance of our respective faith’s: The OO church acknowledging the Orthodoxy of the doctrine presented in the EO councils and the EO church acknowledging that the OO church have managed to maintain the Orthodox position on Christological issues regardless of the absence of their contributions to councils 4-7. Both church’s also seem to be willing to lift the anathemas of the figures they respectively condemned: see Proposals for Lifting of Anathemas agreed at Chambesy, Geneva, 1st-6th November 1993 at one of the above links.

Peace.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2005, 01:21:07 AM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #40 on: May 08, 2005, 01:09:35 AM »

Beayf,

Quote
But do you consider Chalcedon, and especially the Tome, to be heretical?

No I don’t. Since I have already briefly covered this with GiC, allow me to quote myself with regards to my thoughts on this issue from the other thread:

Quote
I believe the tome of Leo if understood in its appropriate context, can be interpreted as Orthodox, but I do not want to be bound by such a weak Christology, nor do I accept that it is an infallible, close to infallible, or even a reasonable explication of  Orthodox  Christology - OO is more than content with the Christology that was affirmed by 433 A.D. Nor do I believe that the council of Chalcedon achieved anything productive; as I said before it was tainted by overzealous polemics, and it merely used a double condemnation (i.e. that of Nestorius and Eutyches) as it’s positive affirmation of Orthodox doctrine, and as such, failed to provide any clarity or focal point for Orthodox Christology, but rather left open a vast spectrum in between two extremes.

And:

Quote
Though some extreme OO’s would mistakingly consider Chalcedon a Nestorian council (just as some extreme EO’s would mistakingly consider those OO who reject Chalcedon as “monophysites” in the Eutychian sense of the word), my belief is that it certainly cannot be Nestorian since it officially condemned Nestorianism, however it is a “bow to Nestorianism” in the sense that it left many gaps and loopholes for Nestorianism to creep in via some backdoor - which is why Nestorians were generally content with the tome of Leo in the first place, and why it took the later councils to patch up the gaps.

Peace.
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #41 on: May 08, 2005, 01:17:42 AM »

Paradosis,

I would personally ask Matthew to reconsider some of the things he is saying (that is ofcourse if I have interpreted him correctly). Here are my brief thoughts on certain statements he made:

Quote
In Chalcedon, the Byzantine and Latin Churches accepted a conflicting christology in which Christ exists in two natures.

That Christ exists in two nature is not a problem for us - we clearly affirm that the divinity of Christ (consubstantial with the Father) united with His humanity (consubstantial with us), without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration; when the Logos became the subject of the Incarnation.

The problem we do have, is speaking of the distinction of the two natures of Christ after the union, as pertaining to His reality. We, as St Cyril did, maintain that any distinction between the two natures of Christ AFTER the union is to be spoken of in thought alone. This qualification is challenged for example, when Leo speaks about one nature of Christ acting out certain things pertaining to the properties of that individual nature, whilst the other nature acts out other things pertaining to the properties of it’s nature - for such talk pertains to the reality of Christ i.e. concrete actions, which should not be attributed exclusively to either the divinity or humanity of Christ, but rather to Christ the God-Man. More serious however, is the fact he distinguishes the human nature from the The Word, as opposed to distinguishing the human nature from the divine nature - in this sense Leonian Christology line of thought would for example, express the nature of the sufferings of Christ by stating that “the humanity of Christ suffered as opposed to The Word” whereas we would prefer to say “The Word suffered according to His humanity” for the latter clearly stresses the unity of Christ, without dividing The Word from His humanity; a humanity which became intrinsic to the Logos after the hypostatic union. Furthermore, It was not the divinity of Christ that healed the leper, it was the God-man Christ who healed the leper according to His divinity (which was united with His humanity without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration, to ultimately constitute the One Nature of God the Logos Incarnate - the God-Man).

So what we have here is not a doctrinal conflict - but rather conflicting methods of expressing or conveying that very doctrine, in manners which may over-emphasize one aspect over and above the other.

Considering the sensitive atmosphere in which the Council of Chalcedon was held (i.e. Nestorianism still holding strong and strongly expanding and gaining influence to the extent that the Persian empire later accepted and proclaimed it as the official confession of faith), as well as the efforts of St Cyril and the lengths he went through in order to emphasize the unity of Christ in the face of the Nestorians - our proponents including St Dioscorus could not in all good consciousness risk compromising this, by accepting expressions and formulas - which though not heretical in their intended context, and thus technically speaking Orthodox, would leave open room for a Nestorian misinterpretation - and indeed many faithful Nestorians as well as Nestorius himself misconstrued Leo’s intentions and twisted his tome, and hence happily welcomed it.

Quote
What would the "heretical" group be, the one which held to the Council of Ephesus or the one which rejected it with a new christology?

I don’t believe Chalcedon rejected The Council of Ephesus, I simply believe it regressed from the overall accomplishment and contribution made by 433 A.D.

I will quote myself from a previous thread:

Quote
We believe a balance in Christology was already resolved by A.D. 433, and that Chalcedon did nothing but shake that balance due to it’s being tainted by overzealous polemics, the Roman legate’s insistence on the tome of Leo being accepted in toto without its Orthodoxy being questioned (probably because of the Roman idea of papal supremacy, of which Leo was of course a major proponent), and other political factors. While I would not label Leo’s tome as heterodox, I still believe it to be weak and full of holes, and would prefer to accept it merely as a theologoumenon, in contrast to the Alexandrian Christology of St Cyril that was explicated in his 12 chapters, and which was further refined in his clarification and elaboration of the reunion formula between himself and John of Antioch, which I would consider doctrinally binding.

Peace.

« Last Edit: May 08, 2005, 01:26:20 AM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Stavro
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,118



« Reply #42 on: May 08, 2005, 04:13:28 AM »

Quote
The problem we do have, is speaking of the distinction of the two natures of Christ after the union, as pertaining to His reality. We, as St Cyril did, maintain that any distinction between the two natures of Christ AFTER the union is to be spoken of in thought alone. This qualification is challenged for example, when Leo speaks about one nature of Christ acting out certain things pertaining to the properties of that individual nature, whilst the other nature acts out other things pertaining to the properties of it’s nature - for such talk pertains to the reality of Christ i.e. concrete actions, which should not be attributed exclusively to either the divinity or humanity of Christ, but rather to Christ the God-Man. More serious however, is the fact he distinguishes the human nature from the The Word, as opposed to distinguishing the human nature from the divine nature - in this sense Leonian Christology line of thought would for example, express the nature of the sufferings of Christ by stating that “the humanity of Christ suffered as opposed to The Word” whereas we would prefer to say “The Word suffered according to His humanity” for the latter clearly stresses the unity of Christ, without dividing The Word from His humanity; a humanity which became intrinsic to the Logos after the hypostatic union. Furthermore, It was not the divinity of Christ that healed the leper, it was the God-man Christ who healed the leper according to His divinity (which was united with His humanity without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration, to ultimately constitute the One Nature of God the Logos Incarnate - the God-Man).

So what we have here is not a doctrinal conflict - but rather conflicting methods of expressing or conveying that very doctrine, in manners which may over-emphasize one aspect over and above the other.
I agree with the assessment of the Tome as stated in the first paragraph, but I do not see how it could be concluded that the conflict in Chalcedon was not a doctrinal one, unless you were refering to the current EO position. If the reference was to CHalcedon, we need to examine the council more closely. It was wrapped in politics and emperial influence, yet christology was at the very heart of it. For to accept the Tome, you have to accept what comes with it. Nestorius would certainly never object to the language of the Tome, he actually agreed with it from his exile.

The intenions of Leo of Rome were to confirm his Papal claim, which is a heresy as well. He is labeled the Father of Papacy for a good reason. What came with it was a grave christological error, abrogating Ephesus I and the Tradition established by the Apostles and confirmed by St.Cyril.

Also, the relation of Leo of Rome to Theodret, a confirmed heretic and Nestorian and a blasphemer aganist the divinity fo the Lord, casts serious doubts over his christological convictions. Either he was totally confused, and then he should have left the whole matter to the Coptic Orthodox Curch as the tradition and theological knowledge dictates, or what he presents in the Tome are his genuine thoughts. He never backed off the Tome. He accepted a confirmed heretic (Theodret) in communion while under anathema from a lawful church council, a council that has not been yet rejected by the Church and is still upheld in the OO Tradition. What is puzzling that the EO know the deficiency in the Tome, as Grillmeier, the ultra Chalcedonian "historian", noted, yet they insist on its acceptance among the other conditions.

St.Severus of Antioch made reference to the letter of Theodret , who was on the synodal committee in Chalcedon minutes after this council exonerated him, to John of Agae. John of Agae, a fanatical Nestorian, objected to the vague language of the council. John of Agae thought that Theodret would insert a phrase that denies the Union in clear terms. Theodret, in a masterful reply, explained to his friend what was meant by one person in Chalcedon. The expression :"One person" does not necessarily confirm the Orthodox understanding of the Union in Christ, for Theodore would make it a union like in matrimony. It might reject the Tw-Son heresy, yet it does not say anything about the Union. So we have to appeal to the other documents accepted in the gathering at Chalcedon. The Tome is Nestorian in language. Writings of Ibas, Theodret and Theodore which were exonerated under the pressure of the Roman delegation, are blasphemy in its pure sense. We have to believe that this council was nothing but a misunderstanding after another to be able to excuse all the above. This is left to common sense to judge.

The let us move on to the next council, which is closely related to Chalcedon :
Constantinople II rejected the Three Chapters, which are the writings of Ibas, Theodret and Theodore, in unmistakable terms. Read the decision regarding Theodore , for example. The same writings were accepted in Chalcedon with the persons exonerated. The Holy Spirit does not (in OO understanding) contradict himself. One council has to be wrong, for it corrected, and did not add, it abrogated, and did not explain as the EO would excuse the apparent contradiction. In fact, Constaninople II upheld by its decisions the decisions of Ephesus II under St.Dioscoros, the holy council which is refered to by Leo of Rome and the Chalcedonians as the synod of robbers. Identical decisions and conclusion on both councils.
What the EO are asking for in confessing councils 4 and 5 (among other councils) is to confess that one thing and its oppoiste, a statment and its abrogation, an argument and a counter argument are all the same.

One final word:
OO churches do not need the confession of the Chalcedonian to be a church. It appears to me that the concessions made by the OO were understood as a petition for recognition. NOT TRUE. The persecution between 451-641 a.d. under Marcian, under Justin I, St.Justinian (killed millions), Hercules and many other emperors, inistigated by the different Chalcedonian churches, does not only cast doubt about the Orthodoxy of such churches that are protected by the sword, it cannot be even considered christian. Because the goal is bigger, the OO churches were willing to overlook the crimes of the Chalcedonians to achieve. Such a spirit should be accepted with admiration.
« Last Edit: May 09, 2005, 02:28:55 AM by Stavro » Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #43 on: May 08, 2005, 10:00:11 AM »

Stavro,

Quote
I agree with the assessment of the Tome as stated in the first paragraph, but I do not see how it could be concluded that the conflict in Chalcedon was not a doctrinal one

The doctrines subjectively intended by each party were not conflicting, only there were too many factors clouding an honest, objective and reasonable interpretation of such subjective intention that it could not be properly discerned at the time. We can see it now however, in retrospect.

Quote
Also, the relation of Leo of Rome to Theodret, a confirmed heretic and Nestorian and a blasphemer aganist the divinity fo the Lord, casts serious doubts over his christological convictions.

Let’s just be careful to charge someone guilty by association, especially considering Eutyches’ relationship with St Dioscorus which was restored when Eutyches deceptively lied to and duped St Dioscorus into thinking he had renounced his monophysite heresy. If Theodoret truly renounced his own heresies at Chalcedon, then we can’t exactly say that the council acted inappropriately on this point by accepting him into communion - since this was what St Dioscorus had initially demanded of him in the first place. He is still under anathema from our church only because we don’t accept Chalcedon as Ecumenical, and hence the anathema initially placed upon him before he renounced his heresies is still binding - since we dont consider any decisions made at Chalcedon binding.

Quote
The Tome is Nestorian in language. Writings of Ibas, Theodret and Theodore which were exonerated under the pressure of the Roman delegation, are blasphemy in its pure sense.

I agree that the tome of Leo is weak to the extent it can be easily misconstrued as a Nestorian document, especially in relation to it’s understanding of the two natures of Christ as “two centres of action” so to speak, each nature acting out it’s own individual action according to it’s own capacity, but I think two vital elements to be considered in the overall context, prevent us from an honest condemnation of Leo as Nestorian - the fact he clearly anathemized Nestorius, and the fact he affirmed that the Logos was the subject of the Incarnation - the latter being the dividing line between Cyrillian and Nestorian Christology.

I’d like you to consider the following statement made by His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy when he expresses what I have just said in more or less the same words:

Quote
“To conclude, our Oriental Orthodox people should realise that the Orthodox can never be Nestorians since they have condemned the Nestorian teaching of the union of two persons in an external union in Jesus Christ and confessed that the Word of God came in His Own person.”

http://metroplit-bishoy.org/files/Dialogues/Byzantine/CHRSTAGR.doc

Notice the qualifying points for HEMB in recognising that one is not nestorian, which were indeed inherent in Leo's tome, regardless of any other apparent inconsistencies upon which you and I agree make the tome of Leo a weak document that can never be considered a doctrinally binding one by our church, and can certainly never be compared or put on par with the 12 chapters of St Cyril or the Christological declarations made at the Council of Ephesus.

Quote
What the EO are asking for in confessing councils 4 and 5 (among other councils) is to confess that one thing and its oppoiste, a statment and its abrogation, an argument and a counter argument are all the same.

That’s a fair point to make - as is your final word.

Peace.
« Last Edit: May 08, 2005, 10:11:47 AM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #44 on: May 08, 2005, 10:39:35 PM »

We, as St Cyril did, maintain that any distinction between the two natures of Christ AFTER the union is to be spoken of in thought alone.
I agree.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Tags: Chalcedon Pope Leo Chalcedon polemics ecumenical councils 
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 0.199 seconds with 73 queries.