OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 19, 2014, 10:22:28 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 3 4 5 6 7 8 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome  (Read 36364 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


« Reply #135 on: June 14, 2005, 06:19:23 AM »

Ozgeorge,

a)   NEITHER of our posts were removed, regardless of Anastasios' comments. Your blasphemy is still existent here: (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=6373.msg82865#msg82865)

b)   The comment you are referring to in that particular post was NOT an anathema, it was simply a remark made by St Cyril in his letter to Bishop Succensus, concerning ignoramus’s who choose to derive monophysitism from the mere declaration of one physis . Obviously you know nothing about St Cyril; his Christology, his works etc. etc. so I don’t blame you for your ignorance.

c) I never asked for your post to be deleted btw...it can remain as a badge of honour worn in the name of justice( http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:10-12;&version=31; ) i.e. as opposed to in the name of evil, deceit, ignorance, etc. etc.

Peace.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2005, 06:21:00 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
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #136 on: June 14, 2005, 07:16:15 AM »

My response:
http://www.hymnsite.com/lyrics/umh710.sht
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
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 #137 on: June 14, 2005, 07:30:48 AM »

My response:

Communion hymn: My Coptic Church

My Coptic Church; the church of the Lord
Ancient and strong; I wish a long life
In the early years; after the birth of Christ
Saint Mark came bearing; light of the true faith
He dwelt in the land; proclaiming salvation
In the Name of our Redeemer; Christ who removed our
sins.

The Copts then believed; in the Lord Jesus
And joy filled all; the cities of Egypt.
In a very short time; He abolished all idols
The Cross was exalted; the sign of the faith
Satan quickly rose; toward the Son the God
He stirred the rulers; emperors and armies
He then declared war; on the sons of the faith
"Deny your Christ; or be thrown in the fire"
Our honored fathers; elders, and youngsters
Were not moved by pain; distress, nor dishonor
But said courageously; forward, no turning back
"We don't fear fire; our Lord is Jesus Christ"

They were beaten and imprisoned; they lived in oppression
They were burned and killed; and tasted every pain
By the power of their faith; they overcame their pains
And remained believing in; the King of Peace
With blood and suffering; they the bought the faith
And preserved it for us; in the Name of our Savior

Let us all rise; from our laziness
With diligence seeking; the heavenly reward
The Church of our fathers; you are our bride
To her success; let us all join together
My Coptic Church; their faith is Orthodox
Forever strong; Egypt is Christ's


Isaiah 19:

19 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. 20 It will be a sign and witness to the LORD Almighty in the land of Egypt....Blessed be Egypt my people"

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
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #138 on: June 14, 2005, 09:05:44 AM »

If Chalcedon was a reaffirmation or restoration of Nestorianism, why are we separated from Nestorians?ÂÂ  Why wasn’t there a joyful reunion?

Sorry, I'm still curious about this one.

Please try to answer this one before we all get upset and the thread gets locked.  I'd really like to hear an explanation for this.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2005, 09:06:33 AM by cizinec » Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #139 on: June 14, 2005, 09:10:04 AM »

I wouldn't bother, unless you enjoy merry-go-rounds.
On second thought, I think you are right...I won't bother.   Roll Eyes
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
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 #140 on: June 14, 2005, 09:17:54 AM »

czinec,

I think our position is quite clear. Chalcedon was ambiguous in that the expressions and terminology employed allowed Nestorianism to creep in via a backdoor - this is simply a historical fact; Nestorius didn't applaud the tome because he was stupid, inept or a simpelton; he simply found that he could twist what was said in a manner such that he could conform his doctrine with the expressions used, and consequently squeeze Nestorianism in there. The Chalcedonians however were not intentionally ascribing to the Nestorian heresy; they viewed Nestorians as the enemy as much as the Oriental Orthodox Church - we just feel they were careless in the manner in which they chose to define and express a perfeclt Orthodox two-nature Christology. That's why there was no EO-Nestorian party going on...

If you study the subsequent councils, you will find that your own Church did some serious qualifying and correcting of Chalcedon to make sure it was more clearer in intent such that the Nestorian Church would have no way of further misrepresenting it.

Like ozgeorge pointed out before; your fifth council declared that "One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh" - This is the kind of language which vindicates Chalcedon. However we cannot look at Chalcedon anachronistically; we study it in its immediate context to understand the reactions to it, by both the heretics (Nestorians) and the Orthodox ("non-Chalcedonians")

It's late, and my exams start next week - remember me in your prayers, Goodnight...

Peace.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2005, 09:19:44 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
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #141 on: June 14, 2005, 10:17:58 AM »

George,

My point was I did not remove it and I was inferring that maybe another moderator did or you yourself might have removed it.  I don't make it a point of removing posts, especially after I have spent time commenting on them Smiley

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,963


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


« Reply #142 on: June 14, 2005, 10:23:57 AM »

Dear George,

I was hoping this discussion would be of a scholarly basis, criticizing the quotes that have been given to you.  However, you remain to follow the "faith of your Fathers" as if we really were Monophysites.  But I affirm, that the faith of your Fathers are right only that it is the right doctrine, but the anathemas against us is null and void.  God knows we are innocent of the anathemas you've given us.  Likewise, God knows you are innocent of the anathemas we've given you.

I ask once more, PLEASE take the time to read the quotes I've given you (which are written by "Raouf" in another thread) and with an open mind like Fr. John Romanides, comment on them.

God bless you, brother.

Mina
« Last Edit: June 14, 2005, 10:25:08 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #143 on: June 14, 2005, 11:24:38 AM »

Dear George,

I was hoping this discussion would be of a scholarly basis, criticizing the quotes that have been given to you.ÂÂ

Friend,
I have done that- using your own sources as requested.

However, you remain to follow the "faith of your Fathers" as if we really were Monophysites.ÂÂ
Friend,
Again, I repeat, I am not commenting on what all contemporary non-chalcedonians believe.

But I affirm, that the faith of your Fathers are right only that it is the right doctrine,
Friend,
again I say, this is not about what you affirm.

but the anathemas against us is null and void.ÂÂ  God knows we are innocent of the anathemas you've given us.ÂÂ  Likewise, God knows you are innocent of the anathemas we've given you.
My friend,
We will all answer to God who alone knows the hearts of men. I personally have pronounced no anathemas on any of you, nor invoked any anathema's of any of the Fathers against you.

I ask once more, PLEASE take the time to read the quotes I've given you (which are written by "Raouf" in another thread) and with an open mind like Fr. John Romanides, comment on them.
Friend,
I have said this privatley to EA and I am saying it to you now. I have no desire to scandalise anyone. I gave my opinion because I was placed in a position that to remain silent in the face of a particular charge would have given the impression that I believe something which I give no assent of faith to. I have said my peace. Please do not ask me to comment on Raouf's posts (which I in fact did read when you first asked me). This can only lead to further discord and the "merry-go-round" which I (and at least one other) have opted to jump off from. Let's just agree to disagree.

George


Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #144 on: June 14, 2005, 12:31:45 PM »

Quote
terminology employed allowed Nestorianism to creep in via a backdoor - this is simply a historical fact.

Actually, I think this is what is at question in the current debate.ÂÂ  You take it as an absolute fact.

Quote
he simply found that he could twist what was said in a manner such that he could conform his doctrine with the expressions used, and consequently squeeze Nestorianism in there.

And so, therefore, you deny the council.ÂÂ  And yet Holy Scripture is twisted into saying that we should drink poison and allow snakes to bite us and we do not reject Scripture as heretical.ÂÂ  It seems to me that just because some heretic can use a document outside its context, that which comes before AND after it is written, does not make that document ipso facto heretical.

Quote
The Chalcedonians however were not intentionally ascribing to the Nestorian heresy; they viewed Nestorians as the enemy as much as the Oriental Orthodox Church . . .

RIGHT!ÂÂ  Because we were not, in fact, ascribing to Nestorianism, nor were we attempting to placate them in any way.ÂÂ  If we were, we would have at least attempted to commune with them.ÂÂ  We saw them as heretics.ÂÂ  Therefore we must not have ascribed to their theology.  The "Chalcedonians" at the time were not unintentionally ascribing to Nestorianism either.  How can one believe something accidentally while rejecting it?

Quote
we study it in its immediate context to understand the reactions to it, by both the heretics (Nestorians) and the Orthodox ("non-Chalcedonians").

Yes, but context includes what comes before, during AND AFTER the council.ÂÂ  All through this thread it has been insinuated and outright stated that Chalcedon taught something Nestorian.ÂÂ  Yet the Nestorians were never restored.ÂÂ  The anathemas were retained.ÂÂ  When it was seen that the Nestorians were abusing the language of Chalcedon, just as many abuse the language of Scripture, new councils clarified what was at issue, just as councils clarified Scripture.ÂÂ  These new councils are a PART of the context.ÂÂ  You can't say, "Well, I don't like Chalcedon because it says such and such," and then say, "The authors of Chalcedon had to go back and clarify that they didn't say what we are accusing them of saying."ÂÂ  The intent behind Chalcedon was not Nestorianism, but to correct certian issues.  Did the council succeed?  You say no, but what about all the councils together?  Did they?

Quote
- we just feel they were careless in the manner in which they chose to define and express a perfectly Orthodox two-nature Christology. That's why there was no EO-Nestorian party going on...

The theology behind the council was correct but the language was sloppy.ÂÂ  Is that your reason for schism, brother?
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
coptic orthodox boy
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #145 on: June 14, 2005, 12:48:46 PM »

IC XC NIKA
Dearest to Christ, cizinec
First off, I just want to state, I have nothing against you.ÂÂ  You're a nice fellow, so, take my words as a friend talking to a friend.
Second, this is just my opinion.
After following this thread since the beginning (and, with my lack of a large vocabulary, trying to understand "metaphysics" from EA and George), I agree with minosoliman, that it was a misunderstanding.ÂÂ  Plan and simple.ÂÂ  
However, the historical fact is, that St. Dioscorus was eventually condemned for being a heterodox Patriarch; which has still not been proven (in fact, it seems 100% clear that he was completely Orthodox).ÂÂ  Now how many Ecumenical councils condemn an Orthodox bishop?ÂÂ  I can't think of one.
So, in the end, we reject Chalcedon for the "politics" behind it all.ÂÂ  Let's face it, Leo was really the creator, in my opinion, of Papal Infalliblity, Supremacy, etc.ÂÂ  Once more, we don't need councils 4-7 to hold the Orthodox Faith, since me never left the Faith; once more a fact that so many EO are slow to admit.ÂÂ  
We are man enough to say there was a misunderstanding.ÂÂ  Are your hierarchs?
Once more, cizinec, I'm not trying to attack you.ÂÂ  We've never failed to get along on this site.ÂÂ  So I hope you read it, as I said, from one friend to another.
in Christ
copticorthodoxboy
« Last Edit: June 14, 2005, 12:51:37 PM by coptic orthodox boy » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,963


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


« Reply #146 on: June 14, 2005, 12:54:39 PM »

Dear George,

We answered back and explained to you why the Synexarium said what it said.  We defend that there is nothing heretical in what the Synexarium said as you thought it said.  I've also offered you further sources by Raouf (qualified as "our" sources like the Synexarium) only to show you that it is not only those who are contemporary who are Orthodox, but the fathers that have been condemned by the EO's in the past have also been Orthodox in faith, such as St. Dioscorus.

I can agree to disagree only if we truly believe in different faiths, and only if both our fathers in each Orthodox tradition believe in different faiths.  I find no reason to agree to disagree.  Otherwise, I will be lying to myself and to my conscience.

God bless you bother.  If you wish to not debate, then so be it, but you have not proven St. Dioscorus as a heretic as of yet.

Mina
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
coptic orthodox boy
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 448


« Reply #147 on: June 14, 2005, 12:58:38 PM »

IC XC NIKA
Dearest to Christ, to all:
As you can see from my last post, I'm not the best with English.  Replace all the "once mores" with "what's more."
in Christ
copticorthodoxboy
Logged
Stavro
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,236



« Reply #148 on: June 14, 2005, 01:36:19 PM »

Cizinec,
thank you for your post.
Quote
If Chalcedon was a reaffirmation of Nestorianism, why are we separated from Nestorians? ÂÂ Why was’t there a joyful reunion?
There was indeed a joyful reunion between Chalcedonians and Nestorians after a brief separation from Ephesus to Chalcedon. This reunion lasted till 553. You can consult the letters of congratulation between Leo of Rome and his dear friend Theodret, a condemned heretic and a Nestorian, after Chalcedon. In fact, even before the decisions of Chalcedon and the official exoneration of the leaders of the Nestorian party, Leo of Rome accepted them in your church , exercising his Papal claims, Supremacy and Infallibility, which are his other dear dogmatic positions that he invented.

Chalcedon produced Nestorian writings such as the Tome and accepted the heretical teachings of three condemned Nestorians after careful examination. Refer to the decision regarding the letter of Ibas. Move beyond the Tome, which I maintain to be Nestorian in clear terms and not only in vague language, for I prefer honesty over false ecumenism, you will not be able to reconcile the writings of Theodore and Theodret and Ibas with orthodoxy. Not because Chalcedonian lack apologetic tactics, but because it is another council of yours that condemns their writings.

A council that produces heretical teachings and embraces/accepts other heretical teachings cannot be anything but heretical, and the Chalcedonian side has still to answer for the clear contradiction between the 4th and 5th councils. It insults the divinity of Holy Spirit to ascribe self-correction to its inspirations and revelations.

Again, the EO act susurprised because OO cannot accept a council that admits heretical teachings such as the Three Chapters, asking the OO to believe in the heresies of Theodret, Ibas and Theodore.ÂÂ  
« Last Edit: June 14, 2005, 01:39:24 PM 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)
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #149 on: June 14, 2005, 01:46:30 PM »

Stavro,

AHHHHH!ÂÂ  Now I feel like I'm getting somewhere.ÂÂ  I do wish that we had a Nestorian on board here.ÂÂ  That would shed a bit more light on things for me.ÂÂ  I just don't think we can fully discuss these things without some of their input as it's all tied up together.ÂÂ  Since we don't have one, we'll just have to go on.

I don't have time to post a reasonable response right now, though.

coptic orthodox boy,

I don't think you have anything against me.ÂÂ  Trust me, you can debate very aggressively with me and I won't take it personally.ÂÂ  You can call me whatever you think I am, I won't mind.ÂÂ  My family thinks I'm a heretical nut case, so you won't be alone if that's your opinion.   GrinÂÂ  
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #150 on: June 14, 2005, 02:00:31 PM »

1) Nestorians deny the title Theotokos. We don't.  The Chalcedonians of 451-553 didn't either.
2) Nestorians deny communicatio idomatum. We don't. The Chalcedonians of 451-553 didn't either.
3) Nestorians deny the Council of Ephesus. We don't.  The Chalcedonians of 451-553 didn't either.
4) Nestorians honor "St" Nestorius. We don't. The Chalcedonians of 451-553 didn't either.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,963


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


« Reply #151 on: June 14, 2005, 03:05:43 PM »

I disagree with some points made by Stavro.ÂÂ  While Chalcedon confused us with the acceptance of the Three Chapters by the Roman legates, it is clear as Anastasios showed that Chalcedon was not ULTIMATELY Nestorian.ÂÂ  What Stavro says is not what our heirarchs have agreed upon.

As H.E. COPTIC Metropolitan Bishoy wrote:

Quote
   When we come to the issue of the four later councils of the Orthodox: How can we see it together, away from condemnations of the past against the fathers and councils of the Oriental Orthodox?
   We can notice that those councils have equally condemned the Nestorian and the Eutychian heresies which the Oriental Orthodox have also condemned.
   The condemnation of the person and teachings of Theodore of Mopsuestia which was conductedÂÂ  in the second Council of Constantinople (533) was a monumental historical event which became an important support to the continuing struggle of Orthodoxy against Nestorianism.
   Today in the Nestorian controversy there is a severe attack against that council, and many Western theologians are trying to eliminate its teaching and cancel its decisions against the Nestorians. The Oriental Orthodox are presently defending those decisions perhaps more than some of the Orthodox.

and later

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.
   It is also clear that the Orthodox interpretation of the teachings of the four later councils of the Orthodox are the same as the doctrine of the Oriental Orthodox who have always refused both the Nestorians and Eutychian heresies. The two families are called to reinforce each other in their struggle against heresies and to complete each other as one body of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.
   The positive response of the Oriental Orthodox to the Orthodox interpretation is identified by the lifting of anathemas against Orthodox Fathers and Councils, as well as taking use of every positive element in the teaching and acts of the four later councils of the Orthodox.

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

Therefore, it is ultimately agreed that Chalcedon was not Nestorian.ÂÂ  Although some ambiguities and politics occured, it is clear the Doctrinal intentions of Chalcedon were none other than Orthodox.

I speak as a non-Chalcedonian who upholds true and objective conclusions.

God bless.

Mina
« Last Edit: June 14, 2005, 03:13:32 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Deacon Lance
Warned
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,054


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #152 on: June 14, 2005, 03:16:51 PM »

Cizinec,

I am not Assyrian but will present their position:

Holy Apostolic and Catholic Assyrian Church of the East

What does it believe?

The teaching of the  Church of the East is based on the faith of the universal Church as set forth in the Nicene Creed. The mystery of the Holy Trinity and the mystery of the Incarnation are central to its teaching. The church believes in One Triune God:  Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It also believes and teaches that the  Only-begotten Son of God, God the Word, became incarnate for us men and for our  salvation and became man. The same God the Word, begotten of his Father before  all worlds without beginning according to his divinity, was begotten of a mother without a father in the last times according to his humanity, in a body of flesh, with a rational, intelligent, and immortal soul which he took from the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary and united to himself, making it his very own at the moment of conception. The humanity which he took for his own was assumed by God the Word, who was, thenceforth and for ever, the personal subject of the  divine and human natures. His divine and human natures retain their own properties, faculties, and operations unconfusedly, immutably, undividedly, and inseparably.

Therefore, because the divinity and humanity are united in the Person of the same and only Son of God and Lord Jesus Christ, the Church of  the East rejects any teaching which suggests that Christ is an "ordinary man" whom God the Word inhabited, like the righteous men and the prophets of old. The  Church of the East further rejects any teaching that explicitly or implicitly  suggests that there are two Sons, or two Lords, or two Christs in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, but we confess one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who  is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The same, through his passion, death, burial, and resurrection, redeemed humanity from the bondage of sin and death, and secured the hope of resurrection and new life for all who put their faith in him, to whom, with his Father and the Holy Spirit, belongs confession, worship,  and adoration unto ages of ages. Amen.

http://www.cired.org/aceov.html


Synod of Mar Isho`yahb , AD 587

. . . to "one Lord" they added "Jesus Christ", and revealed that which is one in common with the qnome of the Trinity . . . but they did not add "one Lord, the Son," as in "one God, the Father." Instead, they altered the order of their words and said "in one Lord, Jesus Christ," not forgetting those correct matters which relate to the manhood of God the Word, magnificently explained and wisely proclaimed in one unity of the Godhead and manhood of Christ, even though those of the company of Eutyches babble and reject the manhood of the Son of God. For the title "Anointed One" is indicative of his Godhead, which is from the Father, and of his manhood, which is indisputably from the mother, even though Eutyches and the offspring of his error speak foolishly and deceive, denying the taking of our manhood, or affirming the obliteration of the manhood of Christ. Indeed, the fathers consequently continued, saying, "the Only-begotten and First-born of all creatures," as it is written.

Again, they added, "by whose hands the worlds were established and everything was created," revealing (that) he was the Cause and Maker of all with his Father. Again, they made known concerning his Essence that he was "begotten of his Father before all ages and was not made - Light from Light, true God from true God" - Jesus Christ in his Godhead. Again, they continued, as it were, for the destruction of Arius, setting forth the word "homoousion," that is, "connatural" and "co-essential" with the Father, by whose hand everything came to be - Jesus Christ in his Godhead. And struggling in the invincible armor of true teaching, with which they clothed themselves against the phantoms and apparitions of the worthless teachings of the Simonians and Manicheans, they said, "who for us men and for our salvation descended from Heaven and became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and by the Virgin Mary and became man" - Jesus Christ, in the union of his natures, in his revelation [in the flesh, and in his incarnation - for this indicates the uniting of the natures of Godhead and manhood, in that he descended, became incarnate, and became man. It makes known the assumption of our manhood indisputably, so that from every side the hallucinations of the company of Simon and Mani might be removed, who deny his incarnation, and the taking of a body, and the revelation] of God the Word, who took our manhood and dwelt in it - as it is written, "The Word became flesh and dwelt in us" - and that, even more, the greatness of the lovingkindness of him who descended and dwelt in us might be revealed.

The impious Arius, because he ascribed things exalted and lowly to the nature of the Godhead of the Word, and did not know to apply them separately or conjointly, as the truth requires, for this reason was weighed (in the balances), and fell, and erred, and deceived, and was anathematized and excommunicated. But the fathers added to and completed the saying concerning the dispensation, and after the teaching concerning the divine nature of the Only-begotten, and after the teaching concerning the unity of the natures of Christ, that is, of his Godhead, which does not change and does not die, and his manhood, which is not rejected or forgotten, they added teaching concerning his manhood. As they had revealed clearly by way of exalted things concerning his Godhead, (so) they would reveal clearly concerning his manhood, which was taken for us and for our salvation and for the renewal of all creatures, saying, "He was crucified for us in the days of Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and died, and was buried, and rose after three days," as the Holy Scriptures say - Jesus Christ in his manhood. That is - let us speak the truth - in his corporeal state he accepted the death of the cross for us, in that it is clear to all the upright in their confession that, as the nature of his Godhead does not suffer and die, so neither did his soul receive the sentence of death, for it is not possible for the soul to be subject to the limitation of death. Our Lord bore witness, "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul." And the reality bore witness (to this), for after our Lord was crucified, and died, and his holy body was buried, he went in his soul to Paradise.

Again, the blessed fathers added, "And ascended to Heaven and sat down at the right hand of his father" - Jesus Christ in his manhood. For in his manhood he received exaltation and session at the right hand, not in his Godhead, which exists eternally and indestructibly with his Father. "And he is coming in glory to judge the living and the dead, whose kingdom has no end" - Jesus Christ in his Godhead and in his manhood. . . .

This is the faith which does not corrupt, and this is its meaning, briefly, according to the sequence of its statements, by which the pars\opa of Christ is proclaimed fully - and the natures of his Godhead and manhood - against those who acknowledge his Godhead but deny his manhood, and against those [who acknowledge his manhood but deny his Godhead, and against those] who deny his Godhead and confess that the manhood is ordinary or like one of the righteous. . . .

After they had thus richly and fully proclaimed the truth, they turned thereafter to the anathematization of Arius and the children of his error. "But to those who say that there was (a time) when he did not exist, or before he was begotten he did not exist, or he was made from nothing, or say he was from some other qnoma or essence, or reckon the Son of God changeable and mutable, such the catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes." The heretics, that is, in their stubbornness, venture to ascribe the properties and sufferings of the nature of the manhood of Christ to the nature and qnoma of the Godhead and Essence of the Word, things which occasionally, because of the perfect union which the manhood of Christ had with his Godhead, are ascribed to God economically, but not naturally. (Synod of Mar Is°o`yahb, AD 587)

http://www.cired.org/faith/christ.html
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #153 on: June 14, 2005, 04:28:18 PM »

Though I'm discussing this very issue elsewhere with EkhristosAnesti (to which I just recently posted...sorry for the delay, but I was traveling for most the time), I guess I'll weigh in on a couple things here at risk of being pulled into this more emotionally heated debate.

First, the Orthodoxy of Dioscorus was never actually addressed by Chalcedon, though it was at Constantinople II. Dioscorus was deposed for reasons of Canonical Order. He was summoned before the Most Holy and Oecumenical Synod to defend his Posistion, he refused to attend though he was in the City, after repeated summons and repeated refusals to attend, he was deposed in accordance with the Holy Canons. The deposistion was perfectly justifyable, but it had nothing to do with theology or faith and everything to do with Order in the Church. But with that said, the fact that he presided over Ephesus 449, and declared with that Synod that the Teachings of Eutyches were Orthodox does give great creedance to his own Orthodoxy, IF he truly was Orthodox in Theology (I have not read enough of him to form an informed opinion on my own) and the later Anathemas against him truly are Misplaced, on account of the aforesaid Historical events, the logic and conclusions that lead to these Anathemas were far from Unreasonable.


Secondly, I find the insistance that the Language of Chalcedon was sloppy to be unsubstantiated. It was Cyril who used Nature in two different manners inorder to reconcile his Orthodox Theology with an Apollinarian Document written in the name of the Great Athanasios, resulting in a (in some instances) poorly expressed, though perfectly Orthodox, Theology. The Cappadocians, on the other hand, had written many volumes of works defining their terms, thus their notions of Person and Nature, which were adopted by Chalcedon, were well defined terms...though some heretics decided to ignore these volumes of works in their attempts to redefine the terms of Chalcedon to fit theire heresies. Chalcedon, using the well established terms of Person and Nature, distinguished Orthodoxy from Nestorius by Saying that Christ was One Person, not two. And clearly distinguished themselves from Eutyches by Saying that Christ had Two Natures and not One; the latter decision had nothing to do with the Nestorian Controversy, as it was addressing the issue of Natures and not of Persons, two distinct and formerly defined terms.
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
Timos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Posts: 856



« Reply #154 on: June 14, 2005, 04:33:45 PM »

Hi, these articles were on www.orthodoxinfo.com which is a traditionalist old calendarist orthodox website. Here is what it has to say:

1. Eastern Orthodoxy and "Oriental Orthodoxy"

The superficial theological milieu of our era has proven most advantageous for ecumenical ideology, which seeks to gloss over the fundamental and abiding differences which distinguish the heterodox confessions from the Orthodox Faith. All too often, such differences are now conveniently dismissed as merely long-standing miscommunications of alternative, yet equally valid, terminological emphases. This perfunctory approach has been eagerly employed by Orthodox modernists in their theological dialogues with the so-called "Oriental Orthodox" churches. 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—a world view which lumps together such mutually exclusive ecclesiastical entities as the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Assyrian Church of the East (i.e., Nestorians), "Oriental Orthodox" churches, and Eastern Rite Papists (i.e., Uniates, such as Melkites and Maronites) under the umbrella term "Eastern Christians"—, masks the intransigent heresies held for centuries by three main groups: 1) Armenians, 2) Copts and Ethiopians (Abyssinians), and 3) Syrian and Malabarese Jacobites.

The adjective Oriental is synonymous with the adjective Eastern. There is thus no real distinction between the term Eastern Orthodox (which identifies the only True Church) and the term "Oriental Orthodox" (which denotes several false churches). More importantly, although the "Oriental Orthodox" have appropriated the title Orthodox for themselves (e.g., the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch, etc.), it was precisely their failure to embrace the Christology of the Holy Fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod in 451 that led to their departure from the domain of Orthodoxy to the hinterlands of heresy. They are therefore correctly and accurately designated either as Non-Chalcedonians, reflecting their rejection of this Divinely-inspired Ecumenical Synod, or Monophysites, characterizing their specific heterodox confession of Christianity.

These three groups of Non-Chalcedonians are united in their common profession of Monophysitism, as well as its logical consequents, Monotheletism and Monoenergism—the doctrines that in Christ there are, respectively, only one nature, one will, and one energy. The Fourth Ecumenical Synod anathematized Monophysitism, the Fifth Ecumenical Synod confirmed this decision, the Sixth Ecumenical Synod condemned Monotheletism and Monoenergism, and the Seventh Ecumenical Synod reaffirmed all of the foregoing. Therefore, in addition to being Non-Chalcedonians, the "Oriental Orthodox" are also Non-Second Constantinopolitans, Non-Third Constantinopolitans, and Non-Second Nicaeans. Their unyielding opposition to four of the seven Ecumenical Synods makes it not just a little difficult for us to consider the Monophysite churches Orthodox. After all, even the Latins, not to mention some Protestants, ostensibly abide by all seven of the Ecumenical Synods, and they are never referred to as "Orthodox" churches.

To bear the name Orthodox, one must confess—without equivocation—the Ecumenical Christology of the Catholic and Apostolic Tradition: Jesus Christ united without confusion within His Own Hypostasis His Divine Nature and His Human Nature, His Divine will and His Human will, and His Divine energy and His Human energy. There is no room here for semantic sidestepping. A recent study of Non-Chalcedonianism by the Monastery of Saint Gregory (Gregoriou) on Mt. Athos, The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics: A Contribution to the Dialogue Concerning the "Orthodoxy" of the Non-Chalcedonians, came to this same conclusion (see "Publications" at the back of this issue):

A great ecclesiological chasm exists between us and the Non-Chalcedonians, which only the explicit confession of the holiness and ecumenicity of the Fourth and the following three Holy Ecumenical Synods on the part of the Non-Chalcedonians can bridge. Any manifest or hidden deviation whatsoever from Orthodox dogma, for the sake of some union contrary to the truth, will occasion only harm to immortal souls and suffering for the Church [p. 41].

Because of their subconscious ecclesiastical insecurities, the New Calendarists in America have a pathological craving for worldly recognition, making them only too willing to accept the "harm to immortal souls and suffering for the Church" already occasioned by dialogues between the "official" Orthodox and the Monophysites. For example, as reported in an earlier issue of Orthodox Tradition, several modernist theologians recently participated in an "Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Symposium" co-sponsored by St. Vladimir’s Theological Seminary and St. Nersess Armenian Seminary, a symposium obviously mimicking the union dialogues held in Europe in 1989 and 1990. On the Orthodox side, the symposium included representatives from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, the Orthodox Church in America, and the Romanian Orthodox Church in America; on the Monophysite side, it included representatives from the Armenian Apostolic Church of America, the Coptic Orthodox Church, and the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch.

As reported by Solia (Vol. 60, No. 6 [June 1995]), the symposium, in heinous violation of the ecclesiological self-definition of the Orthodox Church as the One and Only Church of Christ, blasphemously referred to "‘the two Orthodox Churches’" as "‘one Orthodox family,’" to quote the heretical phrase of one Coptic priest (p. 16). Relying on the results achieved by past conferences and commissions which have examined the "Orthodoxy" of the Monophysites, the participants glibly concluded "that there exists full agreement on the substance of the faith of the two churches, notwithstanding the differences in terms" (p. 13)—and this, apparently, notwithstanding the Divine Grace which enlightened such God-bearing Fathers as Saints Flavian of Constantinople, Leo the Great, and Proterios of Alexandria (all of whom struggled against and suffered because of the Monophysite heresy) to develop and to refine a precise Christological nomenclature delineating the Orthodox Faith.

Having thus summarily disposed of the insuperable dogmatic barrier between the Truth of Orthodoxy and the falsehood of Non-Chalcedonianism, the symposium quickly turned its attention to the "practical steps...which could be implemented at the global and local levels to ultimately achieve [sic] unity," and "this includes among other things, a statement of reconciliation, academic cooperation, and common catechesis of young people" (ibid.). Deciphering this "ecumenically correct" jargon and restating it in plain Orthodox language, this symposium embraced the renunciation of Patristic Tradition, the scholarly prostitution of sacred theology, and the sacrifice of the next generation of Orthodox to appease the Moloch of Monophysitism. And for this, we have to thank "the great contribution of modern scholarship and the current worldwide ecumenical movement" (ibid.)! The words of the Savior ring with prophetic force: "Ye shall know them by their fruits" (St. Matthew 7:16).

In contrast to our ecumenist counterparts, who—to the detriment of their fellow man—reinforce the Monophysites in their error, we traditionalists, out of love both for the Truth and for those who have deviated from it, challenge the Monophysites to accept the standard of True Orthodox Christianity. Let the Non-Chalcedonian heretics become truly Oriental Orthodox: Let their spiritual orientation turn eastward, facing the Chalcedonian sunrise that dawns universally from the noetic Anatolia of Eastern Orthodoxy, where the Theanthropic One, "Whose Name is Orient" (Zechariah 6:12 [LXX]), the God-Man Christ Jesus, rises in Truth. Only then, when they have renounced their heterodox beliefs, can we genuinely address these theologically disoriented Easterners as Orthodox brethren.


2. ÂÂ  Copts and Orthodoxy

A priest that I know says that the Copts are Orthodox, that they have been the victims of a theological misunderstanding by the Orthodox Church, and that they have a valid priesthood. He communes them and says that they are part of our Faith....You seem to think differently. Can you explain your position, which this priest says is old and outdated. He gave me an article by Bishop Maximos of Pittsburgh of the Greek Archdiocese. He says that Bishop Maximos is a great Patristic scholar and that his word, which supports the Copts as Orthodox, is final. (M.K., NY)

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. Indeed, now that most Copts have rejected the errors of the Monophysite heresy, this is a time for their reunion with Orthodoxy. Here is a place for true ecumenism. But despite the fact that the time seems ripe, we must still rest on the Providence of God and restore the Copts to Orthodoxy in a proper way. One cannot say that he is Orthodox simply because he believes correctly and recites the Creed. He must be received into the Church by Chrismation or Baptism. The fact that the Copts were once Orthodox, fell away, and have now come to right belief is neither here nor there. Grace does not withstand generations of heresy and separation from the Church.

Anyone who believes that the Orthodox Fathers were wrong in condemning the Monophysites, and that the Copts have always been Orthodox, is guilty of blasphemy against the Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Synod at Chalcedon, which condemned the Monophysite heresy. He is also guilty of heresy, in that such a proposition presupposes not only that the Fathers of the Church were in error and that this error entered into the conscience of the Church, but that the Orthodox Church has for centuries been "divided" between the two "families" of right-believing Orthodox and the supposedly "right-believing" Copts. Moreover, such a view presumes that our Orthodox Fathers, ignorant of the truth, "divided" the Church over semantics and over word games.

There are even some conservative Orthodox, insufficiently familiar with the primary historical materials and following Western historiographical views of the events surrounding the Council of Chacedon (which have often shown, as Father Florovsky has observed, sympathies both for Monophysitism and the Nestorian heresy which provoked it), who imagine that misinterpretation, misunderstanding, and intransigence are the sources of the Chalcedonian schism. This mimicking of Western scholarship, however popular, breeds an un-Orthodox approach to the Christological debate between the Orthodox and heterodox parties. The Orthodox party was staunchly defending the truth, the non-Orthodox party staunchly defending a false view of Christ. While "objective" historians may thus attribute to the two sides in this debate "intransigence," it is obviously not consistent with Orthodox piety to accuse those who defend the truth of intransigence. It is heresy, a resistance to the truth, which actually has its roots in, and which is defined by, intransigence.

What, too, can we say of the Monophysite Churchmen and theologians who condemned our Orthodox Fathers as heretics and who are today revered by the Copts? Are we to praise and honor them along with the Monophysite "Saints" whose intercession the Copts invoke? Are we to commemorate together the memories of Churchmen who stood diametrically opposed to one another and pretend that such commemorations are consistent with the "one mind" of the Apostolic Church? And must we now reject the counsel of the great Abba Evthymios, who warned St. Gerasimos of the Jordan against the Monophysite heresy, bringing the latter to bitter tears for his former errors?

Theologians and Churchmen who do not read the Fathers, who do not lead spiritual lives, and who see the union of men as something more important than our union with God in the unity of Faith have no business conducting dialogues between the Orthodox and the Copts. They are not acting in a spiritual way, and the results which they achieve will not be spiritual. They are too weak to speak the truth and to lead the Copts, as they must be led, back to the Church in humble submission.

We deeply respect and admire Coptic piety. Many Copts far exceed Orthodox in their dedication to God and fidelity to their faith. But our respect must not impede us from telling them the truth, bringing them into the Church properly, and offering them bread, rather than the stone of cheap ecumenical politics. Spiritual men pine for unity in the truth. Ecumenical politicians seek to exalt themselves by great feats of human prowess. Those spiritual men who have been misled by their understandable enthusiasm for Church unity should reflect seriously on who is leading them into this false unity and what their motives are. When the Copts, too, reflect on this, we will undoubtedly see a cooling in what is now unfounded enthusiasm. And as the Copts grow in their desire to return to Orthodoxy, they will themselves wish to do so in an orderly way and not through the back door which has been opened to them by ecumenical politicians and spiritually irresponsible clergymen.

Bishop Maximos' article on the Monophysites (The Illuminator, Vol. XII, No. 86) rests wholly on the theological opinion of Jean Lebon, A Roman Catholic Priest and scholar, who wrote an interesting thesis on a Monophysite figure. His Grace suggests that all "serious scholars and patrologists" follow the writings of this "great professor and scholar of our century" and find no ultimately essential differences, save those of terminology, between Orthodoxy and Monophysitism. "It is only ignorant and narrow[-]minded[,] irreponsible people who can oppose the work of God's Holy Spirit" and such views, he argues. I doubt, given the prevailing hatred for traditionalists in his jurisdiction, that His Grace would apologize to me and other Old Calendarists under this umbrella of condemnation, but he certainly owes an apology to other theologians who think as we do: the late Protopresbyter Georges Florovsky, the Blessed Archimandrite Justin (Popovich), Professor P. Trembelas, and others.

As for Bishop Maximos' suggestion that "church politicians" and "administrators" settle this question, res ipsa loquitur. Whenever the Church's conscience is violated, we turn to church politicians and administrators—the source and product of modernism and innovation. When that conscience is defended, we look to the Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils, and Church Tradition. And these have already spoken, as we have noted.

We are astonished at and deeply saddened by Bishop Maximos' ill-advised words.

From Orthodox Tradition, VOL. IX, NO. 1, pp. 8-10.

+ + +
Excerpt from a letter from Bishop Auxentios regarding my question about the Copts and their claim to be Orthodox:

The short answer, Patrick, is, what do you really expect them to proclaim, that they are heretics? Sorry for my tone in this, but you have to step back and look beyond the particulars, which have been complicated by centuries of self-justification on the parts of the various monophysite groups. The basic questions are really quite simple (even though the professional ecumenists think we are "simple minded" for seeing things in this way): Do we believe in a branch theory of the Church or not? Is the Divine Bridegroom of the Church—Who assures us that not even a sparrow falls to the ground without the will of our Heavenly Father—incapable of maintaining the integrity of His Body, or does He allow it to fracture, for the various components to anathematize one another, and yet for all portions/branches to maintain their unity with Him (and separation with one another) over centuries? In some way or another, the Copts do presume this in their contemporary argumentation for the "Orthodoxy" of their confession. Stange as it may sound, if they had a truly Orthodox mentality, they would be arguing for our un-Orthodoxy (based on the centuries of our separation from them), rather than trying to prove that we are one and the same. If the historical descendants of the monophysite heresy have come full circle and rejected the heretical components of their ancient confessions, this is for them to prove and for them to correct in a contrite spirit. There is a blasphemous disregard for the divinely-inspired conciliar polity of the Church and for the well-known consequences of schism hidden within their argumentation. For the right-reasoning Orthodox believer, this is proof enough that they have lost the fullness of Grace and that, as Father Florovsky so wisely observed, "the history of the Christian divisions can...not be deduced from or built on the basis of the principle of intolerance, nor the principles of pride, lust for power, concupiscence or meanness [and one can certainly add 'cultural' and 'linguistic' idiosyncrasies to this list]. Of course, human passion in all its power is 'decked out' and exposed in the divisions of Christianity. But the initial source of these Christian schisms was not moral depravity or human weakness, but delusion."

...The Monophysite's fundamentalistic insistence on one formula ["one nature of the Word incarnate"]—to the exclusion of another that even St. Cyril had come to understand as synonymous [dual consubstantiality]—reflects an un-Orthodox view of dogma. Those of Orthodox spirit know that dogma is imperfect symbols describing Revelation, but not Revelation itself. What is critical for Orthodox is the integrity of that Revelation, not terminological rigidity.

3.A Humorous and Instructive Reply to a Question Concerning the Monophysites

 Dear Father xxx,

I think the question has less to do with "apologies" (and I basically agree with your position on that) and more to do with ecclesial matters:  if, hypothetically, it were determined that there were no doctrinal impediments to communion between the Chalcedonian Church and the Copts, what do we do with the veneration of saints who were persecuted and martyred by the other side, and who were each other's sworn enemies?  Would we give them a list of saints that had to be removed from their calendar?  Would they present us with such a list?  Or do you overlook everything while everyone continues to venerate whom they have always venerated?  And what about Coptic saints who may have been indisputably radical Monophysites for whom the Coptic Church has a continuing attachment?

I certainly do not presume to know the answers; however, these are, as I understand them, some of the questions.

With love in Christ,

Fr. xxx

+ + +
Dear xxx:

May God bless you.

I came up with a fantastic solution to this dilemma. It is amazingly clever and novel. Let us pretend that Bishops of spiritual vision, meeting together in the belief that the Holy Spirit guides those who are gathered in Christ's name and among whom He thus dwells, were to conclude, in conformity with the confession of the Fathers before them, that the Monophysites taught something contrary to the Orthodox Faith preserved within the boundaries of the Church.

Let us then pretend that the Orthodox Church is characterized by its fidelity to these Bishops and that the Fathers of the Church would never have cut off for untold centuries people who really were of correct faith; but rather, that they would have acted only responsibly and in a way pleasing to the Holy Spirit. And let us pretend that we are not more spiritual and more learned than these Fathers, or that the Fathers and believers and Saints in the many centuries after them were not simply cretins and sycophants blindly accepting the errors of the Å’cumenical Synods, waiting for our enlightened contemporaries bravely to open our eyes.

Then let us pretend that we are bound by our Baptisms and Confession of Faith to follow the infallible statements of the Å’cumenical Synods which these Bishops convened. Let us pretend that the very conscience of the Church and Her self-identity lie in these Synods. And let us pretend that one of these Synods actually condemned the Non-Chacedonians and removed them from the bosom of Orthodoxy. And finally, let us pretend that these Bishops represent the True Church established by Christ, from which all in error have been removed, and that fidelity to their pronouncements makes us True Orthodox Christians. And let us pretend that contemporary Orthodox ecumenists, men (at least of late) of rather obviously limited intellectual gifts and little spiritual prowess, are not wiser than the Fathers before us. Would this not be a wonderful solution to the dilemma of our relationship to those in heresy, and specifically the heresy of Monophysitism?

Now, going beyond the foregoing game of "pretend," let us further pretend that Christians live in love and that, because of this, they would never want others to believe that what is false is true, but always wish to bring people to the Truth. Let us pretend that we could teach the Monophysites that they are wrong, rather than apologizing to them for the Truth and for human historical errors that have nothing to do with the criterion of Truth itself. Let us pretend that we could bring the Copts into the Church, rather than prostitute the Truth by conforming it to error. Would this not add much to the wonderful solution that I proposed in the paragraph above?

On second thought, all of this would entail faith in the Truth, the authority of the Church, the inspiration of the Fathers, the infallibility of the Å’cumenical Synods, and the primacy of the Orthodox Faith.

How foolish I am! A mere fundamentalist!

I apologize.

Least Among Monks,

+ Archbishop Chrysostomos

____________________________________________________________________

Right now I'm quite confused because I believe that the Oriental Orthodox are truly Orthodox but I just can't understand one thing. If the Copts now truly believe that Chalcedon is Orthodox then why won't they accept it? It would make things so much more less complicated. On the other hand, if the Eastern Othodox truly believe that the Oriental Orthodox are truly Orthodox then why won't they just let them be and accept them without having them to accept the other 3 councils??
Furthermore on the other hand, both churches believe that the Holy Spirit directly influences the councils so therefore even if the copts use the argument that "these councils did not affect us" wouldn't they be automatically obliged to accept the councils since they are ecumenical and therefore inspired by God??"
 
 
Logged
alexp4uni
Site Supporter
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: kinda practicing theist
Jurisdiction: ecumenical kind
Posts: 329


« Reply #155 on: June 14, 2005, 04:39:05 PM »

Dont piss of EA by showing him that. He knows all too well about that....
Logged
Stavro
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,236



« Reply #156 on: June 14, 2005, 04:42:55 PM »

Statements in bold are excerpts from posts by Mina Soliman.

- I speak as a non-Chalcedonian who upholds true and objective conclusions

So do I. One fundamental difference between us is that you want unity for the sake of unity. Instead of stating that Leo of Rome is indeed Nestorian, you refer to him as "confused", trying to convince us that you actually know the state of Leo of Rome when he wrote the Tome or his intentions. I prefer a unity based onn truth and free of false ecumenism.

Consider your statement in post # 69:
 
"I happen to believe since we have no differences in dogma, we are not only "can be" One Church, but we "are" in fact One Church.  I cannot accept a divided Church.  Only man divides, but not the Church.  I believe Christ has not allowed a division in the Orthodox Church, but only a lesson to be learned.  That's my philosophy."

Your philosophy is self-contradictory, and I did not want to comment on it until we finish the discussion with Chalcedonians. Here you are:

- We are two different groups, and we have been out of communion with the Chalcedonian side for the past 16 centuries. This is a fact of life. If you cannot accept it, that is too bad (for you). ÂÂ
- Mutual Anathema still stands, and as much as you want to spin around this fact, it still stands. Our orthodox fathers such as St.Dioscoros and St.Severus are anathemized by the EO, and their leaders are as well. Leo of Rome, Theodret, Ibas, Eusebius, Flavian, and others are still under anathema. You either neglect a fact that is obvious, for you do not want to face reality, or you do not understand what anathema means.
- We do not anathemize people for the sake of it, there are reasons that prompted "the spiritual execution verdict" against certain individuals. It is their teachings and blasphemies. EO anathemize our Fathers for their teachings did not agree with theirs and they considered them heretics, and we anathemize the the Chalcedonian leaders for they taught heresy. There is no other reason for anathema.
- The branch theory is a heresy, plain and simple. The Church is one and remains one, for Christ has only one Body. I respect an EO who would say the same thing, for at least he is honest with himself and consistent with his belief. The only way you can become part of the Body of Christ is by Communion, which is not established between OO and EO, and therefore, we cannot both be the Church. ÂÂ
- What is up with this repeated "confusion" excuse ? You have no way of telling the personal state of any theologian, and specially when his personal connections were very suspecious, but we can definitely judge the writings that survived or the references to their teachings from valid resources. If you claim to be objective, and you are to a large extent, refrain from judging the mental, psychological and other state attributes of the theologians that are totally unknown to you. You were not there.
- You ask us to believe that St.Severus, for example, who lived in the immediate post-Chalcedon era and played a pivotal role in discussions with the Chalcedonian leaders, was also confused, yet you understand better. Although you were not there and the Great Patriarch of Antioch was attending, you understand better the language and the intentions of his opponents. Although you only read about it, and imagined what happened, you can still judge better than a magnificent saint who was present. You did not debate the Chalcedonian leaders to judge their intentions, yet the great saint debated them for about a year and a half. St.Severus had all resources in front of him, and nothing was lost from the historical documents and it was still a hot issue, and he judged Chalcedon as unholy, yet you have no access to his resources but still claim to understand better. No.
- You ask us to believe that the history of the Church is nothing but a series of misunderstandings and confusions, supporting the case of pagans and unbelievers in their criticism of the Faith as a whole. We can extend the same logic to embrace Nestorius, the heretic, Arius, the blasphemers, and any other heretic you wish, for there is no absolute standard anymore and theology to you is nothing but a ideology and the current best approach, and not a confirmation of faith. While you might not want to go so far, it becomes the question of how far you want to go, rather than where is the truth. Truth is absolute.

Your reference to HEM Bishoy just proves my point further:

The condemnation of the person and teachings of Theodore of Mopsuestia which was conducted  in the second Council of Constantinople (533) was a monumental historical event which became an important support to the continuing struggle of Orthodoxy against Nestorianism.

Which is what I maintained from the beginning. Did I ever criticize the 5th council ? Yet the reference to the struggle is amputated, for the 5th council also anathemizes the teachings of Ibas and blessed Thedoret as well, which have been found orthodox by Chalcedon. ÂÂ

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.

They are not currently Nestorians, and ever since 553 a.d., but those who adhered to the Tome between 451 and 553 and the three chapters are Nestorians. Did HEMB ratify the decision regarding the Three Chapters by Chalcedon or concur on it ? Did the OO holy synods agree to accept the decisions of Chalcedon unconditionally ? If they still reject it, then there must be heresy implied in these decisions.

It is also clear that the Orthodox interpretation of the teachings of the four later councils of the Orthodox are the same as the doctrine of the Oriental Orthodox who have always refused both the Nestorians and Eutychian heresies.

Emphasis on interpretation, for the EO cannot leave the Tome, for example, stand alone but add to it and read it in the light of Cyril's chapters.
Faith documents do not need just twisting and extensive excuse.

Now to another statement of yours:
While Chalcedon confused us with the acceptance of the Three Chapters by the Roman legates

The Three chapters were accepted by the whole council, and not by Leo of Rome alone through his delegation. Whereas EO, through their silence on the matter, cannot defend the contradiction between the 4th and 5th council, you are trying to excuse them based on misrepresentation of history. CHALCEDON ACCEPTED THE THREE HERETICAL CHAPTERS. Face it. There is no confusion here or misunderstanding, for the Chalcedonian themselves anathemize these writings.

What Stavro says is not what our heirarchs have agreed upon.

What the hierarchs agreed upon is to have a declaration of faith, which is a Traditional way and accepted by the OO. It does not imply to confess Chalcedon or the later councils as orthodox.

 it is clear as Anastasios showed that Chalcedon was not ULTIMATELY Nestorian

Anastasios argued for the Orthodoxy of the Chalcedonians between 451-553, and he made valid points that were not disputed by me, yet the question of the Three Chapters remains unanswered. I will leave the Tome aside, for the references and standards are different and as such, no agreement will take place. A council embraced heretical teachings, and upon careful examination, found them representing the faith the council wants to proclaim and includes it in the accepted teachings of the council, yet the same teachings are anathemized by another council by the same group. ÂÂ

Again, a common declaration of faith on the faith-related issues (and they are not christological alone as we are led to believe) is sufficient for reunion. ÂÂ
« Last Edit: June 14, 2005, 05:11:46 PM 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)
Stavro
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,236



« Reply #157 on: June 14, 2005, 04:53:08 PM »

Quote
Secondly, I find the insistance that the Language of Chalcedon was sloppy to be unsubstantiated.
I agree. Chalcedon was very clear about the version of faith they wanted to proclaim, Leo's Tome is very clear in ascribing actions to two separate persons in Christ, and the language of Theodret, Ibas and Theodore in their writings is very clear in its Nestorian content, and all was accepted in Chalcedon. St.Dioscoros confession (exact words used by St.Cyril) was rejected for its Orthodoxy. 

« Last Edit: June 14, 2005, 05:13:20 PM 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)
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,963


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


« Reply #158 on: June 14, 2005, 05:26:36 PM »

Timos,

Quote
Right now I'm quite confused because I believe that the Oriental Orthodox are truly Orthodox but I just can't understand one thing. If the Copts now truly believe that Chalcedon is Orthodox then why won't they accept it? It would make things so much more less complicated. On the other hand, if the Eastern Othodox truly believe that the Oriental Orthodox are truly Orthodox then why won't they just let them be and accept them without having them to accept the other 3 councils??
Furthermore on the other hand, both churches believe that the Holy Spirit directly influences the councils so therefore even if the copts use the argument that "these councils did not affect us" wouldn't they be automatically obliged to accept the councils since they are ecumenical and therefore inspired by God??"

We simply cannot accept the last four councils for two main reasons:

1.  We weren't represented.
2.  Our fathers have been unjustly condemned.

We've misunderstood Chalcedon's doctrinal intentions, that is all.  Orthodoxinfo.com has failed to judge the essence of the faith of our OO fathers.

Dear Stavro,

Quote
So do I. One fundamental difference between us is that you want unity for the sake of unity. Instead of stating that Leo of Rome is indeed Nestorian, you refer to him as "confused", trying to convince us that you actually know the state of Leo of Rome when he wrote the Tome or his intentions. I prefer a unity based onn truth and free of false ecumenism.


No, Stavro.  Leo was not Nestorian.  Prove to us that Leo was Nestorian.  HEMB has given a clear message that we have misunderstood one another and that we continue to battle Nestorianism together.  I suggest you go to ccel.org and read Leo's letters, and you will find out that Leo was not a Nestorian at all.

Quote
We are two different groups, and we have been out of communion with the Chalcedonian side for the past 16 centuries. This is a fact of life. If you cannot accept it, that is too bad (for you).


One day, we'll be back in communion, and anathemas will be lifted, and you will just have to live with the fact of life that Leo wasn't Nestorian.

Quote
Mutual Anathema still stands, and as much as you want to spin around this fact, it still stands. Our orthodox fathers such as St.Dioscoros and St.Severus are anathemized by the EO, and their leaders are as well. Leo of Rome, Theodret, Ibas, Eusebius, Flavian, and others are still under anathema. You either neglect a fact that is obvious, for you do not want to face reality, or you do not understand what anathema means.


And yet, I repeat, these anathemas will be lifted when there is unity.  They anathematized our fathers because they thought they were Eutychians.  We anathematized their fathers because we thought they were Nestorians.  We were (and for some of us, are) both wrong.

Quote
The branch theory is a heresy, plain and simple. The Church is one and remains one, for Christ has only one Body. I respect an EO who would say the same thing, for at least he is honest with himself and consistent with his belief. The only way you can become part of the Body of Christ is by Communion, which is not established between OO and EO, and therefore, we cannot both be the Church.


When St. John Chrysostom broke out of communion from us, was the Church the Church where St. Theophilus was or was St. John Chrysostom and his supporters the Church?  It comes to show that some anathemas are null and void in Christ's eyes, and only men divide if there is truly one faith.  "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism."  If we accept one another's baptisms, we might as well say that one another's sacraments are valid even though we are not fully united under them.

Quote
What is up with this repeated "confusion" excuse ? You have no way of telling the personal state of any theologian, and specially when his personal conections were very suspecious, but we can definitely judge the writings that survived or the references to their teachings from valid resources. If you claim to be objective, and you are to a large extent, refrain from judging the mental, psychological and other state attributes of the theologians that are totally unknown to you. You were not there.

What in the world are you talking about?

Quote
You ask us to believe that St.Severus, for example, who lived in the immediate post-Chalcedon era and played a pivotal role in discussions with the Chalcedonian leaders, was also confused, yet you understand better. Although you were not there and the Great Patriarch of Antioch was attending, you understand better the language and the intentions of his opponents. Although you only read about it, and imagined what happened, you can still judge better than a magnificent saint who was present. You did not debate the Chalcedonian leaders to judge their intentions, yet the great saint debated them for about a year and a half. St.Severus had all resources in front of him, and nothing was lost from the historical documents and it was still a hot issue, and he judged Chalcedon as unholy, yet you have no access to his resources but still claim to understand better. No.


St. Severus is a great saint who wrote much.  He understood Chalcedon to be Nestorian, and that is why he condemned it.  The condemnation of St. Dioscorus was also of great suspicion to him and his party.  Consider St. Maximus the Confessor of the EO's.  He condemned St. Severus' teachings as if they were Eutychian (and there were also some who condemned St. Severus of Nestorianism!).  Since neither side believed in any heresy, these condemnations are obviously a misunderstanding, and this is my objectivity.

Quote
You ask us to believe that the history of the Church is nothing but a series of misunderstandings and confusions, supporting the case of pagans and unbelievers in their criticism of the Faith as a whole. We can extend the same logic to embrace Nestorius, the heretic, Arius, the blasphemers, and any other heretic you wish, for there is no absolute standard anymore and theology to you is nothing but a ideology and the current best approach, and not a confirmation of faith. While you might not want to go so far, it becomes the question of how far you want to go, rather than where is the truth. Truth is absolute.


By that logic, then the Chalcedonians are also justified in calling us Eutychians, and we will forever uphold the Chalcedonians as heretics and Nestorians regardless of what they believe.  I don't call that objectivity at all.

Quote
Which is what I maintained from the beginning. Did I ever criticize the 5th council ? Yet the reference to the struggle is amputated, for the 5th council also anathemizes the teachings of Ibas and blessed Thedoret as well, which have been found orthodox by Chalcedon.

Not all of Chalcedon accepted the Three Chapters.  Only the Roman legates.  Consider the conclusive definition of the Council of Chalcedon as ultimate dogma of the Council of Chalcedon.  The Fifth Council adds and clarifies the Fourth Council further.  My God, I'm sounding like an EO.

Quote
They are not currently Nestorians, and ever since 553 a.d., but those who adhered to the Tome between 451 and 553 and the three chapters are Nestorians. Did HEMB ratify the decision regarding the Three Chapters by Chalcedon or concur on it ? Did the OO holy synods agree to accept the decisions of Chalcedon unconditionally ? If they still reject it, then there must be heresy implied in these decisions.


I tell you though, it's AMAZING that the same people who accepted the Tome are the same people who:
1.  Upheld the title "Theotokos"
2.  Did not deny communicato idiomatum
3.  Who had to accept the Council of Ephesus
4.  Who condemn and forced Theodoret and Ibas to condemn Nestorius both in dogma and person.
(as Anastasios) said.

Furthermore, Stavro, you make my point when you write:

Quote
Quote
It is also clear that the Orthodox interpretation of the teachings of the four later councils of the Orthodox are the same as the doctrine of the Oriental Orthodox who have always refused both the Nestorians and Eutychian heresies.
Emphasis on interpretation, for the EO cannot leave the Tome, for example, stand alone but add to it and read it in the light of Cyril's chapters.
Faith documents do not need just twisting and extensive excuse.

Indeed, "interpretation" is the key.  For along with the four points made by Anastasios as I restated, Chalcedon and the Tome canNOT be interpreted Nestorian.  So the fact that we must agree upon an Orthodox interpretation means we had the wrong interpretation all along.

Quote
The Three chapters were accepted by the whole council, and not by Leo of Rome alone through his delegation. Whereas EO, through their silence on the matter, cannot defend the contradiction between the 4th and 5th council, you are trying to excuse them based on misrepresentation of history. CHALCEDON ACCEPTED THE THREE HERETICAL CHAPTERS. Face it. There is no confusion here or misunderstanding, for the Chalcedonian themselves anathemize these writings.

No where in the definition of Chalcedon did the WHOLE SYNOD agree upon the Three Chapters as dogmatic.  Only the Papal legates.  However you want to interpret the "silence" of the Synod is open for discussion.  But there is no proof that the whole Synod accepted the Three Chapters.  Face it.  You can't prove it.

Quote
What the hierarchs agreed upon is to have a declaration of faith, which is a Traditional way and accepted by the OO. It does not imply to confess Chalcedon or the later councils as orthodox.

You are right, but we must also lift our anathemas against these councils and agree upon an Orthodox interpretation of it, as HEMB said.

Quote
Anastasios argued for the Orthodoxy of the Chalcedonians between 451-553, and he made valid points that were not disputed by me, yet the question of the Three Chapters remains unanswered. I will leave the Tome aside, for the references and standards are different and as such, no agreement will take place. A council embraced heretical teachings, and upon careful examination, found them representing the faith the council wants to proclaim and includes it in the accepted teachings of the council, yet the same teachings are anathemized by another council by the same group.


You can get too hung up on the Three Chapters all you want.  But it is still very clear from HEMB that the "last four councils" (since EO has seven councils, that includes Chalcedon) will be interpreted as Orthodox.  No longer will we continue to spit condemnations at one another.  Regardless of the opinions of the Roman Legates (and not the whole Synod), the Chalcedonians through Constantinople 553 condemned the Three Chapters.  I think Anastasios or any other EO will say the same.

In addition, the fact that Theodoret ended up condemning Nestorius (even though hesitantly) puts some credence to Chalcedon.  Similarly, the fact that Eutyches confessed at the Second Ephesine Council that Christ is "consubstantial with His mother" should also put some credence on Ephesus.  I still maintain semantics and misunderstandings and politics.  This is the most honest thing I can say on a personal basis.  To say that we did not misunderstand each other would be a contradiction to what I've read and concluded from documents of both Orthodox families.

God bless.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
idontlikenames
I'm gonna be the next Matthew777 (whatever that means)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 230

You forgot my briefcase


« Reply #159 on: June 14, 2005, 07:04:22 PM »

[place erudite and obscurantist sentence here]blah di blah di blah blah blah[/place erudite and obscurantist sentence here]

[bloviate and try to humiliate other posters with my intelligence here] yadda yadda yadda [/bloviate and try to humiliate other posters with my intelligence here]

*obscure trivial fact*......*elegant sentence with lots of commas and not very many periods*......*eloquent hog-wash*......

etc.....etc....etc...
Logged

laa ilaah illa al-Maal wa Rothschild howa nabeehi
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,963


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


« Reply #160 on: June 14, 2005, 07:31:00 PM »

Dear Timos,

When I have the time tonight, I will answer the claims you have quoted from Orthodoxinfo.com.

God bless you.

Mina
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #161 on: June 14, 2005, 09:53:28 PM »

I can agree to disagree only if we truly believe in different faiths, and only if both our fathers in each Orthodox tradition believe in different faiths. ÂÂ
Again, you are confusing the issues. The issue is not whether you and I believe the same doctrine today.
you have not proven St. Dioscorus as a heretic as of yet.
This is what we disagree about. And of all the people who have presented the Non-Chalcedonian position in this thread, I have the most respect for Stavro, because at least he is honest enough to face what the impasse is about.
And whether Dioscorus misunderstood Leo or not is again not the issue. Nestorianism can also be seen as a well intentioned over-reaction to Arianism, but it is still a heresy. Dioscorus' intentions are not in question, his teaching is.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,892


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #162 on: June 14, 2005, 10:27:13 PM »

guys,

I really do not want to get caught up in this polemical discussion, nor say something that may be construed as contentious.  Therefore I beg that all the EO's here take my following questions as only questions motivated by curiosity and not as arguments.  All I want is clarification on the following:

1.  The "Sleeping Brothers":  This was a monastic order in Constantinople during and after the Council of Chalcedon.  They accepted Chalcedon. It is also my understanding that they considered Nestorius a saint and celebrated his feast day.  It wasn't until after the 5th council that they were squelched.  Until then, the authorities had no problem with them.  How do the EO's reconcile this with the claim that no Chalcedonians ever interpreted Chalcedon in a Nestorian manner?

2.  Someone above asked why the Church of the East today is separate from the EO's.  It was my understanding that this was a schism which occurred after the 5th council, not before.  I thought this was pretty well documented and that the Assyrians will attest that this is the case.  Is there any evidence that you were two different churches prior to the 5th council?

3.  It was my understanding that Pope Vigilus (sp?) anathematized the EO's after they rejected the three chapters at the 5th council.  He did this because he thought the three chapters were accepted by Chalcedon and to reject them undermined Chalcedon.  I think this schism lasted for 50 years.  If the EO's always clearly rejected the three chapters, why were they anathematized only after the 5th council?  Why were they not anathematized earlier?  Also, if the three chapters were not really accepted by the Council of Chalcedon, why did they need to be rejected at the 5th?

4.  Do the EO's believe that when Christ was on the cross His Divine nature left Him and that is why He cried, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?"  In other words, do you believe that was the human Christ crying out to his Divine nature, which had just left him?  I know that was a belief of Nestorius and that the Catholics, even today, believe that, supposedly thanks to Pope Leo. Do the EO's believe that too?

5.  What is "neo-Chalcedonianism?"  It is my understanding that it describes Chalcedonian Christology after the 5th council.  I understand it means that after the 5th council the Chalcedonians shifted their Christology to be more in line with us OO's.  That, I thought, was the reason for the schism between the Church of the East and the present day EO's.  Is my understanding wrong?  If so, what is "neo-Chalcedonianism" and how does it differ from the Chalcedonianism which existed prior to the 5th council?

Again, please do not think I am presenting arguments or that I am trying to be contentious.  I really do want to hear the Chalcedonian side to the above issues, and that is why I am raising them here.  Also, please forgive me if these things have already been addressed.  It's a long thread and I've tried to read through it as best as I could.

Thanks for your patience. ÂÂ Please don't anathematize me or call me a heretic. ÂÂ I'm rather sensitive. ÂÂ  Smiley
Logged

yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #163 on: June 14, 2005, 10:34:45 PM »

Quote
4.  Do the EO's believe that when Christ was on the cross His Divine nature left Him and that is why He cried, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me?"  In other words, do you believe that was the human Christ crying out to his Divine nature, which had just left him?  I know that was a belief of Nestorius and that the Catholics, even today, believe that, supposedly thanks to Pope Leo. Do the EO's believe that too?

Uh, I don't know about the Assyrians, but the Catholics definitely don't believe this. Where did you hear that they did?

And the EOx don't believe this either.
Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,892


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #164 on: June 14, 2005, 10:39:58 PM »

Beayf,

I've heard that from a number of sources, not just OO sources.  I'll be happy to hear if I have been misinformed.

Correction to my above post:  It's not "sleeping brothers," but "sleepless brothers."  Perhaps their lack of sleep was the cause of their problems.  Grin
Logged

ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #165 on: June 14, 2005, 10:59:31 PM »

I've heard that from a number of sources, not just OO sources.ÂÂ  I'll be happy to hear if I have been misinformed.

Yes, you have been misinformed.
Here is the Eastern Orthodox teaching regarding the Two Natures as taught by our Ecumenical Councils:

God is one essence but three different persons. The Son has the same essence or nature as the Father and the Holy Spirit, but He is a distinct person. He is equal to the Father and the Holy Spirit. All three co-exist simultaneously. They all possess the attributes of omnipresence and omniscience. They are all associated in the act of creation and redemption. This is called the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, that there are 3 persons in one God.

An example in human nature, is the relationship between our mind, its ideas and the expression of these ideas in words.

Christ is one person, yet has two natures. His Divine nature is united with his human nature - without change, confusion or division. "Without change", means neither the Divine nor the human nature was altered, that is, neither the Divine nature became human, nor did the human nature lose its distinct attributes. "Without confusion", means that the Divine nature performs all things Divine and the human nature performs all things human. "Without division", means that the two natures never separated, so when Christ did what was Divine, His human nature followed, and when the human acted, His Divine nature co-operated. Each nature acted "in communication with the other".

For example, in the Garden of Gethsemane, Christ expresses fear in the face of His passion. He began to be sorrowful and deeply depressed" (Matthew 26:37-38). Because He took on a mortal body He was naturally afraid. He knew he was about to die. The soul's natural fear of death is due to the fact that there is a close connection between the soul and body and therefore when the soul is being prepared to leave the body, it is natural to be deeply distressed. Christ's Divine will yielded to His human nature to fear death. As man He was troubled by the memory of death, but as God He transforms the fear at once into boldness and through His authoritative power He invited death to come. In Christ it was a natural fear and not a supernatural fear.

Example 2, Jesus wept at the death of Lazarus because He loved him and also because He saw the corruption of human nature after sin and penetration of death. Man was not created to die, but sin introduced mortality. Christ is not only God by nature, but also man. Therefore His human nature suffered.

Example 3, Why did Jesus need to pray? Christ did not need to pray as He was always united with His Father, but He did so to identify Himself with our person and to teach us to pray and in this way to achieve communion with God. Also by His prayer, He shows that He honours His Father. Christ's human nature always obeyed and submitted to the Divine will -"Nevertheless not as I will, but as you will". While His human will differs from the Father in essence, nevertheless, it follows the Divine will and so becomes the will of the Father. Similarly, Christ teaches us to apply God's will, even if it is different from our own human will.

Example 4, Since Christ is one person with two natures, whenever one question is asked about him it must be separated into two questions, one applying to each nature:

(a) Did Christ get tired, hungry, thirsty? - in His Divine nature, no! In His human nature, yes!

(b) Did Christ die? - in His human nature He did die. But in His Divine nature He did not die.

(c) Did Christ know everything? - As God He did, since God is omniscient. But as man Jesus said that He did not know the time of the Second Coming. {Mat 24:36].

(d) Could Jesus Sin? - As God He could not have sinned; but as man He could have sinned but He did not. Jesus was "in ail points tempted as we are, yet without sin" (Hebrews 4:15), that is to say, while He never sinned, He was really tempted and therefore it was possible for Him to sin - otherwise His temptation would have been a charade. Jesus possessed the power of free choice, which means whatever moral choice He made, He could have done otherwise. This means that He chose not to sin (which was always), He could have sinned as man but He did not.

Christ's Divinity did not leave him at any point, ever. But His Divinity did not die when He died on the Cross.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,892


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #166 on: June 14, 2005, 11:09:25 PM »

I'm glad the EO's don't believe Christ's divinity ever left Him on the cross.

About the sleepless ones again:  The name may have been "sleepless monks."  I'll eventually get it right.

Another question:  It is my understanding that it wasn't just Pope Vigilus who objected to the three chapters being rejected at the fifth council.  I thought the main EO patriarchs initially objected also, and for the same reasons.  At least the EO patriarch in Alexandria did.  The Catholic Encyclopedia seems to back that up:

 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14707b.htm

If that is the case, then how can it be said that the EO's always rejected, or even never accepted, the three chapters?

Logged

Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,831



WWW
« Reply #167 on: June 14, 2005, 11:45:07 PM »

Good stuff, ozgeorge, but I gotta take issue with one thing you said, for two reasons:

(c) Did Christ know everything? - As God He did, since God is omniscient. But as man Jesus said that He did not know the time of the Second Coming. {Mat 24:36].

1) Actually, the verse says that not even the Son--the Logos iow--knew this, "but only the Father."  So it seems as though the divine Father knew this, but not the Son, according to the Scripture.  So Christ did not "know" this even in His divinity, apparently...

2) When you get into the realm of "knowing" things, you come dangerously close to setting up two "consciousnesses" within Christ, or two independent and sentient centers in the one Christ, which we can't have.  There's no way, really, that a human could know the things Christ knew (for example, knowing that St. Photini had had five husbands), but the Logos incarnate was not hindered from this aspect of His divine nature by His also possessing a human nature.  Different natures can will different things--and thus can act against each other (not that those of our Lord ever did this)--but to say that one nature was conscious of something while another nature was unconscious of it borders Nestorianism.

It is when we give the natures of Christ their own consciousnesses that we run the risk of going over into Nestorianism.  Such a thing is NOT the belief of Chalcedon.  Or St. Leo!   Grin

Pedro, reopening THAT can of worms...
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)
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #168 on: June 15, 2005, 12:09:56 AM »

1) Actually, the verse says that not even the Son--the Logos iow--knew this, "but only the Father."ÂÂ  So it seems as though the divine Father knew this, but not the Son, according to the Scripture.ÂÂ  So Christ did not "know" this even in His divinity, apparently...
"Apparently", but not in actuality. As He relates to His Father, He does "know", as He relates to us, He "does not know".  Christ knows the "Day and the hour" , he just will not tell us.

2) When you get into the realm of "knowing" things, you come dangerously close to setting up two "consciousnesses" within Christ, or two independent and sentient centers in the one Christ, which we can't have.ÂÂ  There's no way, really, that a human could know the things Christ knew (for example, knowing that St. Photini had had five husbands), but the Logos incarnate was not hindered from this aspect of His divine nature by His also possessing a human nature.ÂÂ  Different natures can will different things--and thus can act against each other (not that those of our Lord ever did this)--but to say that one nature was conscious of something while another nature was unconscious of it borders Nestorianism.
When Christ slept, and when He died, in His humanity, He was "not conscious" in the sense that His "five senses" were not recieving data. In His Divinity however, He remained conscious and omniscient.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,963


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


« Reply #169 on: June 15, 2005, 12:17:09 AM »

[size=20pt]Refuting some of Orthodoxinfo.com's assertions:[/size]

WARNING:  If you are an intellect and someone who likes truth based on writings and belief of the Fathers, reading this is a waste in time, but enjoyable to laugh at.

1. Eastern Orthodoxy and "Oriental Orthodoxy"

Quote
The superficial theological milieu of our era has proven most advantageous for ecumenical ideology, which seeks to gloss over the fundamental and abiding differences which distinguish the heterodox confessions from the Orthodox Faith. All too often, such differences are now conveniently dismissed as merely long-standing miscommunications of alternative, yet equally valid, terminological emphases. This perfunctory approach has been eagerly employed by Orthodox modernists in their theological dialogues with the so-called "Oriental Orthodox" churches.

If they are debating against terminological differences, then not only do they contradict some Orthodox fathers (the common ones that we share) but we get into the most childish fight of "My terminology is more Orthodox than your terminology."

Quote
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—a world view which lumps together such mutually exclusive ecclesiastical entities as the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Assyrian Church of the East (i.e., Nestorians), "Oriental Orthodox" churches, and Eastern Rite Papists (i.e., Uniates, such as Melkites and Maronites) under the umbrella term "Eastern Christians"—, masks the intransigent heresies held for centuries by three main groups: 1) Armenians, 2) Copts and Ethiopians (Abyssinians), and 3) Syrian and Malabarese Jacobites.

To be an OO is to uphold a faith that is not at all different from the Holy Fathers.  We are justified calling ourselves "Orthodox."  As for the whole "Eastern Christians" complaint, well, that's just as childish as fighting of terminology that confesses the same faith.

Quote
The adjective Oriental is synonymous with the adjective Eastern. There is thus no real distinction between the term Eastern Orthodox (which identifies the only True Church) and the term "Oriental Orthodox" (which denotes several false churches).


Well, then there is a question that is begging to be asked.  Do Byzantines, Russians, and Slavs consider themselves "Oriental"?

Quote
More importantly, although the "Oriental Orthodox" have appropriated the title Orthodox for themselves (e.g., the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch, etc.), it was precisely their failure to embrace the Christology of the Holy Fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod in 451 that led to their departure from the domain of Orthodoxy to the hinterlands of heresy.

Throughout 10+ pages of debates, I think I don't need to repeat my defense here.  The only thing left is a challenge to them to find anything that is "heterodox" in our faith.  I defend we aren't in the "hinterlands of heresy" but proudly in the gardens of martyrdom and Orthodox faith.

Quote
They are therefore correctly and accurately designated either as Non-Chalcedonians, reflecting their rejection of this Divinely-inspired Ecumenical Synod, or Monophysites, characterizing their specific heterodox confession of Christianity.

I can accept non-Chalcedonian, for that is the truth after all, but to call us Monophysites (i.e. as if we confuse the natures of Christ) is very simply wrong.  There is no way you can prove we confuse the ousias of Christ.

Quote
These three groups of Non-Chalcedonians are united in their common profession of Monophysitism, as well as its logical consequents, Monotheletism and Monoenergism—the doctrines that in Christ there are, respectively, only one nature, one will, and one energy. The Fourth Ecumenical Synod anathematized Monophysitism, the Fifth Ecumenical Synod confirmed this decision, the Sixth Ecumenical Synod condemned Monotheletism and Monoenergism, and the Seventh Ecumenical Synod reaffirmed all of the foregoing. Therefore, in addition to being Non-Chalcedonians, the "Oriental Orthodox" are also Non-Second Constantinopolitans, Non-Third Constantinopolitans, and Non-Second Nicaeans.


This was also exhausted already.  We do not confuse the natures, natural wills, or natural energies.  We like to affirm more than anything else the prosopon as subject to all willing, acting, and energies.

Quote
Their unyielding opposition to four of the seven Ecumenical Synods makes it not just a little difficult for us to consider the Monophysite churches Orthodox. After all, even the Latins, not to mention some Protestants, ostensibly abide by all seven of the Ecumenical Synods, and they are never referred to as "Orthodox" churches.

Here is what Fr. John Romanides says about us:

Quote
One must emphasize that acceptance of the Three or Seven Ecumenical Councils does not in itself entail agreement in faith. The Franco-Latin Papacy accepts these Councils, but in reality accepts not one of them. In like manner there are Orthodox, since Peter the Great, who in reality do not accept the soteriological and Old Testament presuppositions of these Councils. On the other hand those of the Oriental Orthodox, who have not been Franco-Latinised in important parts of their theology, accept the first three of the Ecumenical Councils, but in reality accept all Seven, a fact which has now become clear in recent agreements.

Thank you Fr. John.  In this same article, he vindicates St. Dioscorus of any heresy.  The lifting of anathemas must happen ONLY on the presupposition that the person was never heretical.  Fr. John, a Chalcedonian, makes a good case here, and shows that whether you accept three or seven ecumenical councils, the faith was never different.

Quote
To bear the name Orthodox, one must confess—without equivocation—the Ecumenical Christology of the Catholic and Apostolic Tradition: Jesus Christ united without confusion within His Own Hypostasis His Divine Nature and His Human Nature, His Divine will and His Human will, and His Divine energy and His Human energy. There is no room here for semantic sidestepping. A recent study of Non-Chalcedonianism by the Monastery of Saint Gregory (Gregoriou) on Mt. Athos, The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics: A Contribution to the Dialogue Concerning the "Orthodoxy" of the Non-Chalcedonians, came to this same conclusion (see "Publications" at the back of this issue):

According to the Agreed Statements:

1989:

Quote
This is the mystery of the hypostatic union we confess in humble adoration - the real union of the divine with the human, with all the properties and functions of the uncreated divine nature, including natural will and natural energy, inseparably and unconfusedly united with the created human nature with all its properties and functions, including natural will and natural energy. It is the Logos Incarnate Who is the subject of all the willing and acting of Jesus Christ.


1990:

Quote
4. Both families agree that the natures with their proper energies and wills are united hypostatically and naturally without confusion, without change, without division and without separation, and that they are distinguished in thought alone (th qewria monh).

from http://www.monachos.net/patristics/christology/orthodox_and_oriental.shtml

Quote
A great ecclesiological chasm exists between us and the Non-Chalcedonians, which only the explicit confession of the holiness and ecumenicity of the Fourth and the following three Holy Ecumenical Synods on the part of the Non-Chalcedonians can bridge. Any manifest or hidden deviation whatsoever from Orthodox dogma, for the sake of some union contrary to the truth, will occasion only harm to immortal souls and suffering for the Church [p. 41].

We can't accept the ecumenicity of the last four EO councils because:

1.  We weren't represented.  How can it be ecumenical if we weren't represented?
2.  Our fathers are unjustly anathematized.  It's like condemning an innocent man with murder, and that you want us to accept that.

Quote
Because of their subconscious ecclesiastical insecurities, the New Calendarists in America have a pathological craving for worldly recognition, making them only too willing to accept the "harm to immortal souls and suffering for the Church" already occasioned by dialogues between the "official" Orthodox and the Monophysites. For example, as reported in an earlier issue of Orthodox Tradition, several modernist theologians recently participated in an "Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Symposium" co-sponsored by St. Vladimir’s Theological Seminary and St. Nersess Armenian Seminary, a symposium obviously mimicking the union dialogues held in Europe in 1989 and 1990. On the Orthodox side, the symposium included representatives from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, the Orthodox Church in America, and the Romanian Orthodox Church in America; on the Monophysite side, it included representatives from the Armenian Apostolic Church of America, the Coptic Orthodox Church, and the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch.

Is "New Calendarism" some type of heresy?  This is obviously an insult not only to us as "heretics" and "Monophysites" but to EO's in America.  I do like however the cooperation between our Orthodox families, and this is encouraging for unity.

Notice Orthodoxinfo.com so far hasn't even got into the meat of the whole situation.  There is no dogmatic criticism.  Only thing is because we're non-Chalcedonians, we're heretics.  That's the only thing they can think of.  This is nothing but close-mindedness.

Quote
As reported by Solia (Vol. 60, No. 6 [June 1995]), the symposium, in heinous violation of the ecclesiological self-definition of the Orthodox Church as the One and Only Church of Christ, blasphemously referred to "‘the two Orthodox Churches’" as "‘one Orthodox family,’" to quote the heretical phrase of one Coptic priest (p. 16). Relying on the results achieved by past conferences and commissions which have examined the "Orthodoxy" of the Monophysites, the participants glibly concluded "that there exists full agreement on the substance of the faith of the two churches, notwithstanding the differences in terms" (p. 13)—and this, apparently, notwithstanding the Divine Grace which enlightened such God-bearing Fathers as Saints Flavian of Constantinople, Leo the Great, and Proterios of Alexandria (all of whom struggled against and suffered because of the Monophysite heresy) to develop and to refine a precise Christological nomenclature delineating the Orthodox Faith.

I respect the defense of their fathers (I'm glad they're not defending Theodoret and Ibas), but there is no "two Orthodox Churches" but "One Church" and this is not the "branching heresy" as I have been accused of, but because we have always been one and the same faith, and since our fathers were not the heretics you thought they were, then we are automatically vindicated as Orthodox, and our unity has always existed regardless of what men did.  Anathemas are useless if they weren't heretical.

I do not believe that the One Church includes Catholics and Protestants.  The faith is clearly different.  But the Orthodox is a unique situation, whether you are Oriental or Eastern.

Quote
Having thus summarily disposed of the insuperable dogmatic barrier between the Truth of Orthodoxy and the falsehood of Non-Chalcedonianism, the symposium quickly turned its attention to the "practical steps...which could be implemented at the global and local levels to ultimately achieve [sic] unity," and "this includes among other things, a statement of reconciliation, academic cooperation, and common catechesis of young people" (ibid.). Deciphering this "ecumenically correct" jargon and restating it in plain Orthodox language, this symposium embraced the renunciation of Patristic Tradition, the scholarly prostitution of sacred theology, and the sacrifice of the next generation of Orthodox to appease the Moloch of Monophysitism. And for this, we have to thank "the great contribution of modern scholarship and the current worldwide ecumenical movement" (ibid.)! The words of the Savior ring with prophetic force: "Ye shall know them by their fruits" (St. Matthew 7:16).


These are complaints as a result of the conclusion they reached that we are Monophysites.  blablabla...
Oh and the last sentence I will agree with.  Indeed, "Ye shall know them by their fruits."  So far, I see nothing but growth and suffering in service of Orthodoxy and upholding the Orthodox faith which both our fathers have professed.  As one famous Jew said of the Christians, "If God is with them, then we might have been against God all along."

Quote
In contrast to our ecumenist counterparts, who—to the detriment of their fellow man—reinforce the Monophysites in their error, we traditionalists, out of love both for the Truth and for those who have deviated from it, challenge the Monophysites to accept the standard of True Orthodox Christianity. Let the Non-Chalcedonian heretics become truly Oriental Orthodox: Let their spiritual orientation turn eastward, facing the Chalcedonian sunrise that dawns universally from the noetic Anatolia of Eastern Orthodoxy, where the Theanthropic One, "Whose Name is Orient" (Zechariah 6:12 [LXX]), the God-Man Christ Jesus, rises in Truth. Only then, when they have renounced their heterodox beliefs, can we genuinely address these theologically disoriented Easterners as Orthodox brethren.

The last paragraph in this article and this whole article proves NOTHING against non-Chalcedonians.  Instead, we challenge them to find anything heretical in what we say.  It is evident in this whole article, which is nothing but complaints and moans and groans, they couldn't.

2. ÂÂ  Copts and Orthodoxy

Quote
A priest that I know says that the Copts are Orthodox, that they have been the victims of a theological misunderstanding by the Orthodox Church, and that they have a valid priesthood. He communes them and says that they are part of our Faith....You seem to think differently. Can you explain your position, which this priest says is old and outdated. He gave me an article by Bishop Maximos of Pittsburgh of the Greek Archdiocese. He says that Bishop Maximos is a great Patristic scholar and that his word, which supports the Copts as Orthodox, is final. (M.K., NY)

This person has been informed very well.  Big props to those with objective minds and knowing the real truth of history.

Quote
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.

Already refuted.  We are not Monophysite and thus we are not heretics.  Our mysteries are valid, and we are already part of the Orthodox Church.

Quote
Indeed, now that most Copts have rejected the errors of the Monophysite heresy, this is a time for their reunion with Orthodoxy.

What a blessed and lovely sentence.  But now the burden is to defend and vindicate our fathers from heresy.

Quote
Here is a place for true ecumenism. But despite the fact that the time seems ripe, we must still rest on the Providence of God and restore the Copts to Orthodoxy in a proper way. One cannot say that he is Orthodox simply because he believes correctly and recites the Creed. He must be received into the Church by Chrismation or Baptism. The fact that the Copts were once Orthodox, fell away, and have now come to right belief is neither here nor there. Grace does not withstand generations of heresy and separation from the Church.

I think grace vindicated our Fathers from the wrong anathemas that were given to them.  St. John Chrysostom died anathematized, and yet hailed as a great saint and doctor of the Orthodox Church.

Quote
Anyone who believes that the Orthodox Fathers were wrong in condemning the Monophysites, and that the Copts have always been Orthodox, is guilty of blasphemy against the Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Synod at Chalcedon, which condemned the Monophysite heresy.

If your father was a judge who condemned someone innocent for murder, and it was later found out that this man was innocent, and you have very good and irrefutable proof, will not you believe that your father was wrong to condemn this someone.  Although calling someone "wrong" does not necessarily mean you are blaspheming your own father.  You believe in your own faith that your father had good intentions, and it was all a big fat misunderstanding.  This not only goes for the EO's but also for the OO's.

Quote
He is also guilty of heresy, in that such a proposition presupposes not only that the Fathers of the Church were in error and that this error entered into the conscience of the Church, but that the Orthodox Church has for centuries been "divided" between the two "families" of right-believing Orthodox and the supposedly "right-believing" Copts. Moreover, such a view presumes that our Orthodox Fathers, ignorant of the truth, "divided" the Church over semantics and over word games.

See, now this is surprising.  Showing that your Holy Fathers condemned Orthodox faithful wrongly is considered "heresy."  But "heresy" is defined as a deviance of faith, not a deviance of Holy Fathers' desicions.  For that, they would have to believe in the heresy of "Holy Father infallibility."  We are not of Paul or Cephas, but we are of Christ.  Again, fathers misunderstood one another.  It's possible that there can be misunderstanding.  It happened before with John of Antioch and St. Cyril, although the wisdom of St. Cyril brought him to compromise terminology without compromising faith to unite the split.

Quote
There are even some conservative Orthodox, insufficiently familiar with the primary historical materials and following Western historiographical views of the events surrounding the Council of Chacedon (which have often shown, as Father Florovsky has observed, sympathies both for Monophysitism and the Nestorian heresy which provoked it), who imagine that misinterpretation, misunderstanding, and intransigence are the sources of the Chalcedonian schism. This mimicking of Western scholarship, however popular, breeds an un-Orthodox approach to the Christological debate between the Orthodox and heterodox parties.

I guess "Western scholarly" sources are automatically null and void since they're from the "West."  And the "mimicking" of such is also null and void.  Since it's unorthodox, then mimicking "Western scholars" is, I guess, a heresy.

Quote
The Orthodox party was staunchly defending the truth, the non-Orthodox party staunchly defending a false view of Christ.

Again, prove it.  So far they can't.

Quote
While "objective" historians may thus attribute to the two sides in this debate "intransigence," it is obviously not consistent with Orthodox piety to accuse those who defend the truth of intransigence. It is heresy, a resistance to the truth, which actually has its roots in, and which is defined by, intransigence.

"Intransigenced" such that you call one terminology heresy and the other Orthodox, while the faith confessed is the same.

Quote
What, too, can we say of the Monophysite Churchmen and theologians who condemned our Orthodox Fathers as heretics and who are today revered by the Copts?


It was only done on the assumption that they were Nestorians.  Our theologians were wrong.

Quote
Are we to praise and honor them along with the Monophysite "Saints" whose intercession the Copts invoke? Are we to commemorate together the memories of Churchmen who stood diametrically opposed to one another and pretend that such commemorations are consistent with the "one mind" of the Apostolic Church? And must we now reject the counsel of the great Abba Evthymios, who warned St. Gerasimos of the Jordan against the Monophysite heresy, bringing the latter to bitter tears for his former errors?

First let us look at the essence of faith.  So far, they haven't proved that wrong.  Once we finish with that then we can worry about other questions.

Quote
Theologians and Churchmen who do not read the Fathers, who do not lead spiritual lives, and who see the union of men as something more important than our union with God in the unity of Faith have no business conducting dialogues between the Orthodox and the Copts. They are not acting in a spiritual way, and the results which they achieve will not be spiritual. They are too weak to speak the truth and to lead the Copts, as they must be led, back to the Church in humble submission.

What about the theologians who do lead spiritual lives, who do read the Orthodox fathers, and who sees the union of men crucial to affirm our One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church?  If I had a conviction that EO's were Nestorians, I would not be here defending unity.  People like Fr. John Romanides who is very well versed in the Holy Fathers have himself lead to an objective conclusion like mine.

Quote
We deeply respect and admire Coptic piety. Many Copts far exceed Orthodox in their dedication to God and fidelity to their faith. But our respect must not impede us from telling them the truth, bringing them into the Church properly, and offering them bread, rather than the stone of cheap ecumenical politics. Spiritual men pine for unity in the truth. Ecumenical politicians seek to exalt themselves by great feats of human prowess. Those spiritual men who have been misled by their understandable enthusiasm for Church unity should reflect seriously on who is leading them into this false unity and what their motives are. When the Copts, too, reflect on this, we will undoubtedly see a cooling in what is now unfounded enthusiasm. And as the Copts grow in their desire to return to Orthodoxy, they will themselves wish to do so in an orderly way and not through the back door which has been opened to them by ecumenical politicians and spiritually irresponsible clergymen.

All complaints and no substance of faith that says we are heretics.  We have not received the "stone of cheap ecumenical politics" and we do not enter "through the back door" of ecumenical politicians.  We understand the situation of "ecumenism" very well, and the issue between the EO and the OO is a very unique one.  I suggest this article by Subdeacon Peter Theodore:

http://www.britishorthodox.org/107d.php

This article vindicates the ecumenical talks taken between the EO's and the OO's as opposed to the other churches in the WCC who are childishly looking for unity just for the sake of unity.

Quote
Bishop Maximos' article on the Monophysites (The Illuminator, Vol. XII, No. 86) rests wholly on the theological opinion of Jean Lebon, A Roman Catholic Priest and scholar, who wrote an interesting thesis on a Monophysite figure. His Grace suggests that all "serious scholars and patrologists" follow the writings of this "great professor and scholar of our century" and find no ultimately essential differences, save those of terminology, between Orthodoxy and Monophysitism. "It is only ignorant and narrow[-]minded[,] irreponsible people who can oppose the work of God's Holy Spirit" and such views, he argues. I doubt, given the prevailing hatred for traditionalists in his jurisdiction, that His Grace would apologize to me and other Old Calendarists under this umbrella of condemnation, but he certainly owes an apology to other theologians who think as we do: the late Protopresbyter Georges Florovsky, the Blessed Archimandrite Justin (Popovich), Professor P. Trembelas, and others

I would love to read Bishop Maximos' article.  Perhaps, since there's such a split of agreement on the OO's, such that the "Old Traditionalist" group is a huge minority and the objective, yet Orthodox group is a majority, and that both sides of the EO believe(d) in the ecumenicity of the seven councils before the EO-OO dialogues, then there had to have been something that changed their minds about us OO's.

Quote
As for Bishop Maximos' suggestion that "church politicians" and "administrators" settle this question, res ipsa loquitur. Whenever the Church's conscience is violated, we turn to church politicians and administrators—the source and product of modernism and innovation. When that conscience is defended, we look to the Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils, and Church Tradition. And these have already spoken, as we have noted.

We are astonished at and deeply saddened by Bishop Maximos' ill-advised words.

I am deeply saddened at the article's failure to prove that Copts are heretics.  I wonder who then is "ill-advised" if they cannot give a satisfactory answer to this person.

Quote
The short answer, Patrick, is, what do you really expect them to proclaim, that they are heretics? Sorry for my tone in this, but you have to step back and look beyond the particulars, which have been complicated by centuries of self-justification on the parts of the various monophysite groups. The basic questions are really quite simple (even though the professional ecumenists think we are "simple minded" for seeing things in this way): Do we believe in a branch theory of the Church or not? Is the Divine Bridegroom of the Church—Who assures us that not even a sparrow falls to the ground without the will of our Heavenly Father—incapable of maintaining the integrity of His Body, or does He allow it to fracture, for the various components to anathematize one another, and yet for all portions/branches to maintain their unity with Him (and separation with one another) over centuries?

With that mentality, then logically, the non-Chalcedonian churches are the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, since indeed the Holy Fathers were wrong in condemning us with the heresies that we also condemned.

Quote
In some way or another, the Copts do presume this in their contemporary argumentation for the "Orthodoxy" of their confession. Stange as it may sound, if they had a truly Orthodox mentality, they would be arguing for our un-Orthodoxy (based on the centuries of our separation from them), rather than trying to prove that we are one and the same.

We have done that for centuries, but we finally had the guts to realize that we misunderstood one another.  Should "centuries" or "months" make a difference in God's eyes?  Obviously, there was some sort of schism when St. John Chrysostom was anathematized and when John of Antioch thought that St. Cyril taught Monophysitism.  Is it not therefore that a condemnation against a group that is unjust automatically null and void to God who knows all truth?

Quote
If the historical descendants of the monophysite heresy have come full circle and rejected the heretical components of their ancient confessions, this is for them to prove and for them to correct in a contrite spirit. There is a blasphemous disregard for the divinely-inspired conciliar polity of the Church and for the well-known consequences of schism hidden within their argumentation.

Already proven that the OO fathers such as St. Dioscorus were not Monophysites.  It is for them to prove we are actually Monophysites.  The burden is on them to have the guts to face the facts that we are innocent of the anathemas we received.

Quote
For the right-reasoning Orthodox believer, this is proof enough that they have lost the fullness of Grace and that

If that is the only proof they rest upon, then they are indeed ignorant and narrow-minded of the facts.

Quote
as Father Florovsky so wisely observed, "the history of the Christian divisions can...not be deduced from or built on the basis of the principle of intolerance, nor the principles of pride, lust for power, concupiscence or meanness [and one can certainly add 'cultural' and 'linguistic' idiosyncrasies to this list]. Of course, human passion in all its power is 'decked out' and exposed in the divisions of Christianity. But the initial source of these Christian schisms was not moral depravity or human weakness, but delusion."

So they affirm that it's not the faith they condemn, but the terminologies they condemn as heterodox.  In that case, to be consistent, they might as well condemn St. Cyril, which means that Chalcedon will stand alone, and may be interpreted as Nestorian.  In that case, I have no problem to agree with Stavro on the condemnation of the loss of grace on the EO's, since the only proof I can stand on is that they "left the One Church" and "lost the grace."  I feel just as "open-minded" as Orthodoxinfo.com.

Quote
...The Monophysite's fundamentalistic insistence on one formula ["one nature of the Word incarnate"]—to the exclusion of another that even St. Cyril had come to understand as synonymous [dual consubstantiality]—reflects an un-Orthodox view of dogma. Those of Orthodox spirit know that dogma is imperfect symbols describing Revelation, but not Revelation itself. What is critical for Orthodox is the integrity of that Revelation, not terminological rigidity.

Is that all they can prove?  That we believe in "one nature."  Yet, the context of which this was believed is no different from St. Cyril.  Again, the burden of proof is on them to find anything in our OO fathers' faith (like St. Dioscorus) to see if we contradict St. Cyril or not.

3.A Humorous and Instructive Reply to a Question Concerning the Monophysites

Quote
Dear Father xxx,

I think the question has less to do with "apologies" (and I basically agree with your position on that) and more to do with ecclesial matters:  if, hypothetically, it were determined that there were no doctrinal impediments to communion between the Chalcedonian Church and the Copts, what do we do with the veneration of saints who were persecuted and martyred by the other side, and who were each other's sworn enemies?  Would we give them a list of saints that had to be removed from their calendar?  Would they present us with such a list?  Or do you overlook everything while everyone continues to venerate whom they have always venerated?  And what about Coptic saints who may have been indisputably radical Monophysites for whom the Coptic Church has a continuing attachment?

I certainly do not presume to know the answers; however, these are, as I understand them, some of the questions.

With love in Christ,

Fr. xxx

Very good question.  The answer is very simple.  Each Chuch will continue to hold their "local" saints so long as they were never heretical.  There is no obligation in holding the other church's saints as our saints.  Let us examine Fr. xxx's humorous answer:

Quote
I came up with a fantastic solution to this dilemma. It is amazingly clever and novel. Let us pretend that Bishops of spiritual vision, meeting together in the belief that the Holy Spirit guides those who are gathered in Christ's name and among whom He thus dwells, were to conclude, in conformity with the confession of the Fathers before them, that the Monophysites taught something contrary to the Orthodox Faith preserved within the boundaries of the Church.

No Fr.  Let us not pretend and face the facts.  The OO's were never Monophysites, and NEVER taught something contrary to the Orthodox faith, with was preserved by the Holy Fathers of both the OO and the EO, which proves we are One Church.

Quote
Let us then pretend that the Orthodox Church is characterized by its fidelity to these Bishops and that the Fathers of the Church would never have cut off for untold centuries people who really were of correct faith; but rather, that they would have acted only responsibly and in a way pleasing to the Holy Spirit.

Again, let's face the facts.  Since the first half of the argument is incorrect, that they truly did condemn people of correct faith, that they therefore have not acted responsibly in a way pleasing to the Holy Spirit.  With that mentality Fr., then you are in the wrong church, for we can prove you that our fathers were not Monophysites.

Quote
And let us pretend that we are not more spiritual and more learned than these Fathers, or that the Fathers and believers and Saints in the many centuries after them were not simply cretins and sycophants blindly accepting the errors of the Å’cumenical Synods, waiting for our enlightened contemporaries bravely to open our eyes.

Let us indeed not pretend to be more spiritual and learned in faith than our Fathers, but that where truth is, truth must be upheld, and the truth is that our fathers were not heretics.

Quote
Then let us pretend that we are bound by our Baptisms and Confession of Faith to follow the infallible statements of the Å’cumenical Synods which these Bishops convened. Let us pretend that the very conscience of the Church and Her self-identity lie in these Synods. And let us pretend that one of these Synods actually condemned the Non-Chacedonians and removed them from the bosom of Orthodoxy. And finally, let us pretend that these Bishops represent the True Church established by Christ, from which all in error have been removed, and that fidelity to their pronouncements makes us True Orthodox Christians.

Indeed, you strip our names from the "bosom of Orthodoxy" just as much as St. John Chrysostom was stripped out of his patriarchal seat from St. Theophilus.  I'd rather sleep on the pillow of a skull (as St. Antonious did), then live in luxury and condemn my own fathers unjustly.

Quote
And let us pretend that contemporary Orthodox ecumenists, men (at least of late) of rather obviously limited intellectual gifts and little spiritual prowess, are not wiser than the Fathers before us. Would this not be a wonderful solution to the dilemma of our relationship to those in heresy, and specifically the heresy of Monophysitism?

I wonder then, where is the "intellectual gifts" of orthodoxinfo.com who have not proven the OO's are Monophysites?  Where is the "spiritual prowess" for those who throw insults at "contemporary Ortohdox ecumenists" and not consider that these men, well studied in the Holy Fathers, have indeed faced with the fact that the OO's and their fathers weren't, aren't, nor ever will be Monophysites.

Quote
Now, going beyond the foregoing game of "pretend," let us further pretend that Christians live in love and that, because of this, they would never want others to believe that what is false is true, but always wish to bring people to the Truth.


No, let us face it, Father "xxx," that we are truly not heretics and that we always bring people to the Truth.

Quote
Let us pretend that we could teach the Monophysites that they are wrong, rather than apologizing to them for the Truth and for human historical errors that have nothing to do with the criterion of Truth itself.


As of yet Father, you and anyone else have not proved that we are "wrong."  Therefore, apology accepted.

Quote
Let us pretend that we could bring the Copts into the Church, rather than prostitute the Truth by conforming it to error. Would this not add much to the wonderful solution that I proposed in the paragraph above?

No Father, let us once again face the facts that it is you who is murdering the Truth by conforming it to infallibility of every single Holy Fathers' words, for we are not prostituting the Truth, but affirming it with all honesty and righteousness.  There is no error in us, and so far you haven't proved it, and you fail to do so because you can't.

Quote
On second thought, all of this would entail faith in the Truth,


Truth is we are not Monophysites.

Quote
the authority of the Church,


The only authority I know of is Christ and not Leo or Dioscorus.

Quote
the inspiration of the Fathers,

To keep a certain terminology over another.  Indeed, a fool!

Quote
the infallibility of the Å’cumenical Synods,

If you believe that every single word of an Ecumenical Synod is infallible, then you have a problem with Chalcedon and the "Holy" legates of the "Holy Father" Leo who were "inspired" to affirm and embrace the Three Chapters, which contradict the fifth Council.

Quote
and the primacy of the Orthodox Faith.

The same faith to which we have always upheld.

Quote
How foolish I am! A mere fundamentalist!

Indeed, a fool!  A blind fundamentalist.

Quote
I apologize.

How thoughtful!  You simply lie in apologizing for your spirit does not apologize in your so-called "pretends."

Quote
Least Among Monks,

+ Archbishop Chrysostomos

aka "Fr. xxx"

In conclusion, my dear Timos, nothing that you have given us proven that we are Monophysite heretics.  They are in fact, failures, since they fail to be scholars and intellects and instead become like children, complaining, moaning, and groaning.

In Christ always,

Mina Soliman,

Most humble and faithful servant to the faith of St. Cyril and St. Dioscorus
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
yBeayf
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #170 on: June 15, 2005, 12:33:06 AM »

Quote
I'm glad the EO's don't believe Christ's divinity ever left Him on the cross.

And just to re-iterate, the Catholics don't believe that His divinity left him, either.

Quote
If that is the case, then how can it be said that the EO's always rejected, or even never accepted, the three chapters?

1. The EOx Patriarch of Alexandria != all EOx hierarchs
2. Even if some of the EOx hierarchs initially accepted the Three Chapters (which I am not saying they did or did not), the 3C did not find themselves in the final definition of faith produced by Chalcedon, and so their acceptance or non-acceptance by some of the participants is irrelevant.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,963


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


« Reply #171 on: June 15, 2005, 12:52:57 AM »

Dear George,

Quote
And of all the people who have presented the Non-Chalcedonian position in this thread, I have the most respect for Stavro, because at least he is honest enough to face what the impasse is about.

Well, I would then be very interested if you can answer Stavro's claims against your fathers as Nestorians.  For he believes that Leo was Nestorian, and I know he certainly doesn't believe that St. Dioscorus was a Monophysite.  I won't be surprised if Stavro even calls Leo a "murderer" and "arch-heretic" and that Flavian and Eusebius likewise were all Nestorian heretics.  As a matter of fact, I wish to read the debates between both of you, since I am not of most respect to you.

Quote
And whether Dioscorus misunderstood Leo or not is again not the issue.

And yet you complain that Dioscorus refuted "two natures" with "one nature" and use that as heretical intentions, but you haven't proved it.  You even haven't proven the word "fuse" is in passage of the Synexarium you've quoted.  I like Salpy's honest questions without condemnation.  If Pope Vigilus, the successor of Pope Leo, anathematized the EO's for rejecting the Three Chapters, then shouldn't you start questioning the intentions of Leo?  I don't want to end up like Stavro condemning a non-Nestorian, but I do question his "inspiration" of the Holy Spirit, which contradicts the Spirit of Fifth EO Council.

Quote
Nestorianism can also be seen as a well intentioned over-reaction to Arianism, but it is still a heresy.

Not according to OO polemics, which can also be an over-reaction to Cyrillianism, like Nestorius and Theodoret, and acceptance of the Three Chapters.

Quote
Dioscorus' intentions are not in question, his teaching is.

And thus far, my friend, you still fail to show us that his teaching is heretical.  It was at least that Pope Dioscorus' successors found it not hard at all to condemn Eutyches, which Pope Vigilus hesitated to do to the Three Chapters.

God bless, my friend.

In Christ always,

Mina
« Last Edit: June 15, 2005, 12:59:43 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,892


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #172 on: June 15, 2005, 01:10:19 AM »

It is my understanding, however, that the EO patriarchs didn't just accept the three chapters on a personal, individual level.  It is my understanding that they believed the council of Chalcedon accepted them.  That is the reason they initially objected to rejecting the chapters. They felt that would undermine Chalcedon.  If this is the case, how can the EO's say the eastern Chalcedonians never accepted the three chapters, that it was just a Western thing?  Of course, you can say the EO patriarchs were mistaken in their belief that Chalcedon accepted the chapters.  However, wouldn't they have been in a better position to know than people living today?  They were much closer in time to the council than we are.  Also, being patriarchs, they would have been pretty authoritative and knowledgeable on these matters.

I disagree with you on whether this is relevent.  It is very relevent to the issue of whether there were Chalcedonians prior to the 5th council who were of a Nestorian bent (even if they condemned Nestorius himself.)  That would have bearing on whether the OO's were justified in rejecting Chalcedon.

Anyway, I'm sorry if I am not making sense.  It is late and I am not sleeping.

Say, speaking of not sleeping, I have another question relating to the sleepless monks.  (I know it sounds like I am obsessing.)

They may have actually been condemned and suppressed a little before the 5th council.  It may have been over the issue of whether it was O.K. to say that "One of the Holy Trinity suffered in the flesh."  They, of course, did not like this phrase.

Do EO's today agree with that phrase, or do you have problems with it?

Thanks for bearing with me.  It's always good to hear the other side of the story.
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 #173 on: June 15, 2005, 02:11:32 AM »

Ozgeorge,

Quote
And whether Dioscorus misunderstood Leo or not is again not the issue.

Obviously IT IS, for if St Dioscorus understood leo’s two-nature Christology in a Nestorian context, then it was essentially NESTORIANISM which St Dioscorus was rejecting and refuting. Please learn to adopt the logic of a 12 year old, for the sake of God alone.

Furthermore, Im GLAD you respect Stavro, since he has FIRMLY established the fact that it was absolutely REASONABLE for Leo to be understood in a Nestorian context — he used Nestorian expressions, he was best friends with Nestorian heretics KNOWING they were supporters of Nestorius. What more do you want? Use your head George...show the due respect to Stavro by dealing with his arguments, don't just pay lip service.

Quote
Dioscorus' intentions are not in question, his teaching is.

I will list all the quotes again. To put it bluntly: Deal with these quotes, or shut up. You’re twice my age, yet you approach this issue like a kid; having a cry when we critically evaluate Leo’s tome and prove objectively that his expression concerning the natures of Christ acting falls under the 12th anathema of St Cyril which anathemizes those who do not affirm the divine person/hypostasis as the subject of all Christ’s incarnate experiences , yet you obviously have neither the objectivity nor the capacity of mind to deal with the following very explicit quotes from St Dioscorus himself. When I show you a quote from St Cyril himself where he criticizes ignorants for deriving monophysitism from the mere declaration of One Physis, you deny that the quote exists, even when I reference it for you! What a laugh you are my friend; how embarrassing you must be for the Chalcedonians on this board.

Quotes that ozgeorge is yet to deal with and explain; and which prove beyond reasonable doubt that St Dioscorus affirmed One physis after the union IN THE SAME MANNER AND CONTEXT as his predecessor the blessed St Cyril:


1) ozgeorge quoted St Cyril before, in which St Cyril implicitly affirmed the faith of John of Antioch — the faith as declared in the re-union formula which affirms the two distinct natures (natures being used in the sense of ousia). St Dioscorus implicitly affirmed the Re-union formula ALSO - THUS BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS ST DIOSCORUS IS VINDICATED ACCORDING TO THIS ALONE, SINCE THIS WAS ENOUGH FOR YOU TO VINDICATE ST CYRIL:


(From Raoufs post) Dioscorus to Domnus of Antioch:

"Now I come back to you, O Christ loving bishop of Antioch, my brother, observe that John did not spare any effort to strengthen the unity of the Church at your end and ours. A unity that they cannot disrupt, they dispatched their forces against it, and without feeling it, they were about to destroy the time of peace. How glorious is the time of peace!"

2) St Dioscorus affirms that Christ acts accordingly to his two distinct natures (natures being understood in the sense of ousia):

First Letter of St. Dioscorus to his Monks:

"I know Him, and with faith I transcend. He was born God of the Father, and I know Him to be born man from the Virgin. I see Him walking as a man on earth and behold to heavenly Angels as God. I envisage Him sleeping in the ship as a man and He himself walks on the water as God. As a human He experiences hunger, and as God He feeds. He, as human, was stoned by the Jews and He himself is worshipped by the Angels as God. He was tempted as a human, but expels devils as God....I confess He is one; while He Himself is
God and Savior, he became man because of His goodness..."

IF ST DIOSCORUS BELIEVED THAT CHRIST ONLY HAD ONE NATURE (IN THE ESSENTIALISTIC SENSE), HOW COULD HE ACT ACCORDING TO ONE NATURE (ESSENCE) AT TIMES AND ANOTHER NATURE (ESSENCE) AT OTHER TIMES?

3) St Dioscorus explicitly affirms that Christ is CONSUBSTANTIAL WITH MANKIND — DIRECT REFUTATION OF MONOPHYSITISM:

"No one dare say that the Holy body taken from the Virgin by our Lord is not consubstantial with ours, as it is known, and as it is so."

AND:

“God the Logos, consubstantial with the Father, at the end of the ages for our redemption became consubstantial with man in the flesh, remaining what he was before.” (Sellers, R.V. The Council of Chalcedon p31. n1. S.P.C.K. 1953)

AND:

Letter to Secundinus:

"The phrase is "in everything". It does not exclude any part of our nature at all . It includes nerves, hair, bones, veins, belly, heart, kidneys, liver, and lungs. That flesh of our Savior, which was born of Mary and which was ensouled with a rational soul, was constituted of every element of which we are composed, but through male seed, sleep, and sensual gratification...For He was with us, like us, and for us. "

AND:

"Omitting many urgent matters, this I declare: that no man shall say that the holy flesh which our Lord took from the Virgin Mary by the operation of the Holy Spirit, in a manner which he himself knows, was different from and foreign to our body...For Paul has said...'It was right that in everything he should be made like unto his brethren' (Heb. 2:16,17) and that word, 'in everything', does not suffer the subtraction of any part of our nature; ...the flesh which was born of Mary was compacted with the soul of the
Redemmer, that reasonable and intelligent soul, without the seed of man...For he was like us, for us, and with us, not in phantasy, not in mere semblence, according the heresy of the Manichaeans, but rather in actual reality from the 'Theotokos'. To comfort the desolate, and to repair the vessel that had been broken, he came to us new...He became by the dispensation like us, that we by his tender mercy might be like him.ÂÂ  He became man...that we by grace might become the sons of God. This I think and believe; and if any man does not think this, he is a stranger to the faith of the apostles".

4) Even those at Chalcedon understood the fact that St Dioscorus' faith was Orthodox:

I will repeat for you what I stated to another failed Chalcedonian on this board a while ago in another thread, regarding St Dioscorus:

I recall for you the incident [during the Council[ 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 its evident theological weaknesses. The Roman Legates feeling insulted that anyone dared to challenge any aspect of Leo's tome, and being suspicious that Anatolius's 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's 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 (AND USED BEFORE HIM BY ST CYRIL). What we find is that the Roman legates tried to object to the Orthodoxy Anatolius's 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, arrogant and ignorant 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.

1, 2, 3, 4 Issues to deal with George. DON'T RUN AWAY - either do the Christian thing and concede to the fact you have blasphemed against the blessed St Dioscorus by bearing false testimony against him like the Jews of the sanhedrin did to Christ, or continue parroting your same crap in self-denial so we can keep repeating and shoving the evidence in your face to further reduce your credibility which has already stooped below zero - no more patience with you my friend, it's crunch time.

Peace.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From the moving of Al-Mokattam mountain, to the blood of the Coptic 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.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
« Last Edit: June 15, 2005, 10:47:43 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 #174 on: June 15, 2005, 02:49:48 AM »

Greekischristian,

First of all; welcome back, and congratulations on your graduation. May God continue to bless you with much success. I appreciate your response in the other thread; I have read it, however, at the moment I’m only doing rough 2 minute responses during my study breaks since my exams are next week (remember me in your prayers) so I will wait till my exams are over so I can respond to you properly. Just some quick comments for now.

Quote
The deposistion was perfectly justifiable

That proposition lies upon various presuppositions that need to be objectively justified; the legitimacy of the council itself for one. We have already started to raise various issues in the other thread which delve into the question of the council's legitimacy - so hopefully we can progress from there.

Quote
the fact that he presided over Ephesus 449, and declared with that Synod that the Teachings of Eutyches were Orthodox doesn't [sic?] give great creedance to his own Orthodoxy

It is well known that a) St Dioscorus took in Eutyches only because Eutyches had confessed Christ’s consubstantiality with his mother - furthermore he wasn't taken in whilst under anathema - you have presupposed the validity of Ephesus 448 (which anathemized Eutyches) and the invalidity of Ephesus 449 (which anathemized Leo's companion - Theodoret) - another matter that needs to be objectively discussed b) I am yet to find any hardcore explicit evidence regarding the heresy ascribed to Eutyches, the ambiguity of the matter is in itself a very significant issue - not only when regarding St Dioscorus' relationship with him, but also because Eutyches's being a Eutychian is the very assumption that Chalcedon stands on (I explored this a bit further in my response to Pedro in the same thread you and I have been discussing EO-OO issues)ÂÂ  c) There is an inherent double standard in your reasoning for you should be able to likewise conclude that Leo of Rome’s ill-association with Theodoret (an enemy of St Cyril the great, who was vehemently opposed to St Cyril's Orthodox Christology and who was a supporter of Nestorius) doesn’t therefore give much credence to his Orthodoxy either.

Furthermore, even the parallel between St Dioscorus-Eutyches and Leo-Theodoret is a flawed one.

I refer you to Stavro’s post on this issue: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=5867.msg78985#msg78985

And I refer you to an article by Fr. Romanides of the Eastern Orthodox Church on this issue also: http://romanity.org/htm/ro4enfm.htm

Quote
IF he truly was Orthodox in Theology (I have not read enough of him to form an informed opinion on my own)


Please see my last post to ozgeorge, which contains the relevant quotations which have been pasted for ozgeorge about 10 times now, and which he is as of yet unable to address. St Dioscorus explicitly affirmed the dual consubstantiality of Christ to the Father and mankind, he implicitly affirmed the re-union formula which incorporates the Antiochene's two nature (ousia) concerns, and he affirms that Christ performed as a man at times, and God at other times.

Quote
and the later Anathemas against him truly are Misplaced, on account of the aforesaid Historical events, the logic and conclusions that lead to these Anathemas were far from Unreasonable.

If you were to be consistent regarding the reasoning which lead you to such a conclusion (which I don’t agree with nonetheless, yet have no time to address right now), you should also therefore conclude, that our rejection of and anathemiszation of Leo was likewise “far from unreasonable”.

Peace.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2005, 02:53:15 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
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #175 on: June 15, 2005, 06:11:11 AM »

Are you really this stupid? Obviously IT IS, for if St Dioscorus understood leo’s two-nature Christology in a Nestorian context, then it was essentially NESTORIANISM which St Dioscorus was rejecting and refuting.....
Completeion of sentance: "....By resorting to monophysitism."
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
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 #176 on: June 15, 2005, 06:25:37 AM »

Quote
Quote from: EkhristosAnesti on Today at 02:11:32 AM
Are you really this stupid? Obviously IT IS, for if St Dioscorus understood leo’s two-nature Christology in a Nestorian context, then it was essentially NESTORIANISM which St Dioscorus was rejecting and refuting.....
Completeion of sentance: "....By resorting to monophysitism."

lol You know what ozgeorge, I don't think you even take yourself seriously, let alone expect anyone else to take you seriously...Why are you afraid to the confront the quotes? The truth doesn't bite my friend, your fathers got it wrong. The Lord has preserved the evidence which vindicates a true Orthodox confessor of the faith, please deal with it sir.

You complain about merry-go-rounds? Then grow up, and get off the merry go round; face the facts ozgeorge, don't be a kid:

Repition #8, and still waiting for ozgeorge to face the music:

Quote
I will list all the quotes again. To put it bluntly: Deal with these quotes, or shut up. You’re twice my age, yet you approach this issue like a kid; having a cry when we critically evaluate Leo’s tome and prove objectively that his expression concerning the natures of Christ acting falls under the 12th anathema of St Cyril which anathemizes those who do not affirm the divine person/hypostasis as the subject of all Christ’s incarnate experiences , yet you obviously have neither the objectivity nor the capacity of mind to deal with the following very explicit quotes from St Dioscorus himself. When I show you a quote from St Cyril himself where he criticizes ignorants for deriving monophysitism from the mere declaration of One Physis, you deny that the quote exists, even when I reference it for you! What a laugh you are my friend; how embarrassing you must be for the Chalcedonians on this board.

Quotes that ozgeorge is yet to deal with and explain; and which prove beyond reasonable doubt that St Dioscorus affirmed One physis after the union IN THE SAME MANNER AND CONTEXT as his predecessor the blessed St Cyril:


1) ozgeorge quoted St Cyril before, in which St Cyril implicitly affirmed the faith of John of Antioch — the faith as declared in the re-union formula which affirms the two distinct natures (natures being used in the sense of ousia). St Dioscorus implicitly affirmed the Re-union formula ALSO - THUS BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS ST DIOSCORUS IS VINDICATED ACCORDING TO THIS ALONE, SINCE THIS WAS ENOUGH FOR YOU TO VINDICATE ST CYRIL:


(From Raoufs post) Dioscorus to Domnus of Antioch:

"Now I come back to you, O Christ loving bishop of Antioch, my brother, observe that John did not spare any effort to strengthen the unity of the Church at your end and ours. A unity that they cannot disrupt, they dispatched their forces against it, and without feeling it, they were about to destroy the time of peace. How glorious is the time of peace!"

2) St Dioscorus affirms that Christ acts accordingly to his two distinct natures (natures being understood in the sense of ousia):

First Letter of St. Dioscorus to his Monks:

"I know Him, and with faith I transcend. He was born God of the Father, and I know Him to be born man from the Virgin. I see Him walking as a man on earth and behold to heavenly Angels as God. I envisage Him sleeping in the ship as a man and He himself walks on the water as God. As a human He experiences hunger, and as God He feeds. He, as human, was stoned by the Jews and He himself is worshipped by the Angels as God. He was tempted as a human, but expels devils as God....I confess He is one; while He Himself is
God and Savior, he became man because of His goodness..."

IF ST DIOSCORUS BELIEVED THAT CHRIST ONLY HAD ONE NATURE (IN THE ESSENTIALISTIC SENSE), HOW COULD HE ACT ACCORDING TO ONE NATURE (ESSENCE) AT TIMES AND ANOTHER NATURE (ESSENCE) AT OTHER TIMES?

3) St Dioscorus explicitly affirms that Christ is CONSUBSTANTIAL WITH MANKIND — DIRECT REFUTATION OF MONOPHYSITISM:

"No one dare say that the Holy body taken from the Virgin by our Lord is not consubstantial with ours, as it is known, and as it is so."

AND:

“God the Logos, consubstantial with the Father, at the end of the ages for our redemption became consubstantial with man in the flesh, remaining what he was before.” (Sellers, R.V. The Council of Chalcedon p31. n1. S.P.C.K. 1953)

AND:

Letter to Secundinus:

"The phrase is "in everything". It does not exclude any part of our nature at all . It includes nerves, hair, bones, veins, belly, heart, kidneys, liver, and lungs. That flesh of our Savior, which was born of Mary and which was ensouled with a rational soul, was constituted of every element of which we are composed, but through male seed, sleep, and sensual gratification...For He was with us, like us, and for us. "

AND:

"Omitting many urgent matters, this I declare: that no man shall say that the holy flesh which our Lord took from the Virgin Mary by the operation of the Holy Spirit, in a manner which he himself knows, was different from and foreign to our body...For Paul has said...'It was right that in everything he should be made like unto his brethren' (Heb. 2:16,17) and that word, 'in everything', does not suffer the subtraction of any part of our nature; ...the flesh which was born of Mary was compacted with the soul of the
Redemmer, that reasonable and intelligent soul, without the seed of man...For he was like us, for us, and with us, not in phantasy, not in mere semblence, according the heresy of the Manichaeans, but rather in actual reality from the 'Theotokos'. To comfort the desolate, and to repair the vessel that had been broken, he came to us new...He became by the dispensation like us, that we by his tender mercy might be like him.ÂÂ  He became man...that we by grace might become the sons of God. This I think and believe; and if any man does not think this, he is a stranger to the faith of the apostles".

4) Even those at Chalcedon understood the fact that St Dioscorus' faith was Orthodox:

I will repeat for you what I stated to another failed Chalcedonian on this board a while ago in another thread, regarding St Dioscorus:

I recall for you the incident [during the Council[ 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 its evident theological weaknesses. The Roman Legates feeling insulted that anyone dared to challenge any aspect of Leo's tome, and being suspicious that Anatolius's 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's 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 (AND USED BEFORE HIM BY ST CYRIL). What we find is that the Roman legates tried to object to the Orthodoxy Anatolius's 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, arrogant and ignorant 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.

1, 2, 3, 4 Issues to deal with George. DON'T RUN AWAY - either do the Christian thing and concede to the fact you have blasphemed against the blessed St Dioscorus by bearing false testimony against him like the Jews of the sanhedrin did to Christ, or continue parroting your same crap in self-denial so we can keep repeating and shoving the evidence in your face to further reduce your credibility which has already stooped below zero - no more patience with you my friend, it's crunch time.

Peace.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From the moving of Al-Mokattam mountain, to the blood of the Coptic 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.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
« Last Edit: June 15, 2005, 06:26:42 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
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #177 on: June 15, 2005, 06:30:20 AM »

1) Actually, the verse says that not even the Son--the Logos iow--knew this, "but only the Father."ÂÂ  So it seems as though the divine Father knew this, but not the Son, according to the Scripture.ÂÂ  So Christ did not "know" this even in His divinity, apparently...

This question has been settled in the Orthodox Church for sixteen hundred years by the doctrine of the Two Natures proclaimed at Chalcedon, and now, suddenly sixteen hundred years later this is up for question in the Church in the Americas. Why? Why are the Councils of our Fathers suddenly in question in the Church in the Americas? Could it possibly be because some of you seek union with some outside the Church who have no desire to affirm the Teachings of theEcumenical  Councils?
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #178 on: June 15, 2005, 06:33:41 AM »

You complain about merry-go-rounds? Then grow up, and get off the merry go round; face the facts ozgeorge, don't be a kid:
I think I did jump off, and I think I said so. Perhaps you missed that post?
Thanks once again for expressing yourself in such a Christian way.
Quote
« Last Edit: June 15, 2005, 06:34:24 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
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 #179 on: June 15, 2005, 06:51:37 AM »

Quote
I think I did jump off, and I think I said so. Perhaps you missed that post?

Everytime you openly lie concerning St Dioscorus, regardless of the very explicit and blatant quotes given to you which you choose to disregard out of a voluntary wilful hardness of the heart; you are in effect jumping back on the very merry-go-round that you yourself constructed in the first place.

Quote
Thanks once again for expressing yourself in such a Christian way.

I rebuke and admonish you for your dishonesty and blasphemy; this is my Christian love for you. There is nothing Christian about leaving you to spread lies about The Orthodox Church ("non-Chalcedonian") and her Orthodox Saints. A love that comrpomises truth and justice is a farce.

...I'm still waiting for you to deal with St Dioscorus' quotations.

Peace.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2005, 06:52:29 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
Tags: Pope Leo Tome of Leo Chalcedon Chalcedon polemics St. Cyril Three Chapters 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 »   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 0.292 seconds with 71 queries.