In reply to post # 158 , by Mina Soliman:
Leo was not Nestorian. Prove to us that Leo was Nestorian.
His Tome, His connections to heretics, his exoneration of heretics, his acceptance of the Three Chapters like the rest of the Chalcedonian cannot be considered orthodox.
St.Cyril in his masterpiece "Unity of Christ" does not make a difference between the heresy of Nestorius (The Two-Son heresy), or the "masked one person heresy" according to Theodret, for example, and puts both together in the same basket with ascribing actions to two different natures, for the logical conclusion for the last two heresies is nothing but the two-Son heresy. Leo of Rome, in his Tome, is guilty of the last version of the heresy. How much Nestorian he was can be debated.
Furthermore, the Tome of Leo of Rome contradicts the Nicene creed in its very core. If you ever get the chance to recite the Creed, pay attention to the following: " Real God of Real God.... descended from heaven and was incarnate .... Crucified and he suffered, died, and was buried, he arose and ascended to heaven
”.... Leo of Rome has attributed the miracles to the Godhead and the lowly actions to the manhood. On this basis itself the council refused to maintain that One of the Holy Trinity suffered and was crucified in direct defiance to Nicea.
The language of the Tome is not biblical. St.Paul teaches:" .... and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross
." St.Paul attributes the shedding of the blood to God himself, the Word, and does not differentiate or divide his actions into separate actions by his humanity and other by his divinity, which is the point EA was making all the time. In relation to Chalcedon, by accepting such Nestorian language, they actually ratified the teachings of Nestorius.
The burden is on you to explain how can a document that contradict the Bible, the Nicene Creed and the established Church Tradition be considered still Orthodox.
Association with heretics, condemned by a lawful church council, and accepting them into communion prompts excommunication and anathema, yet this alliance must have theological and political reasons. Leo of Rome cannot be excused on the basis on negligence, for he knew all along the theological conviction of his best friend, Theodret.
As for the three chapters, these are heretical teachings by three Nestorians that have been found orthodox in Chalcedon. I will pick up this issue somewhere else in this post, but it is sufficient to say that Leo of Rome, through his Roman delegates, pushed for acceptance of these documents. Do you understand the gravity of accepting heresy in a council?
Yet, as you are uncompromising regarding Leo of Rome's Orthodoxy and Chalcedon's Orthodoxy, a simple EO (and in fact any fair observer) would be justified in asking you to accept Chalcedon and the Tome unconditionally. If both are orthodox, why do you refrain from taking the only logical step of accepting both ? To reject an orthodox council is the same as being unorthodox. As long as you do not see any problem with accepting heretical teachings in a council, and you conisder this an orthodox action, and you prefer the Nestorian language of the Tome and find nothing bad about the excommuncation of St.Dioscoros, for all is orthodox and we are a big happy family, go ahead and convert.
HEMB has given a clear message that we have misunderstood one another and that we continue to battle Nestorianism together
NO, H.E. did not, and in no place did he ratify the decision of CHalcedon regarding the three chapters, the acceptance of the Tome, the excommunication of St.Dioscoros. The only clear positive reference is to the 5th council, which rejected the heresies of Theodore and Theodret. How would H.E. defend the orthodoxy of Chalcedon and in the same time refer positively to its abrogation by the 5th council?
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.
And I suggest you actually read his Tome and read St.Severus comments on Chalcedon and the Tome and you will find that he is Nestorian without a doubt. Leo of Rome stood by His Tome, he made it the ultimate defintion of faith and he never, in any subsequent writings, offered any explanation further than his famous Tome. But, if you wish, we can debate the rest of Leo of Rome's writings, although it is a waste of time.
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.
A fact is by definition: a thing done, the quality of being actual , something that has actual existence
... I do not know how you consider your dreams a fact of life, and how can the "future" exoneration of Leo of Rome be considered a fact ?
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.
How can the testimony of St.Dioscoros, for example, in Chalcedon, be confused as Eutychian, if he repeated the words of his and our teacher Cyril ? How can it be mistaken if this language is the established TRADITIONAL language? How can the three chapters, for example, be mistaken as orthodox? You still have to explain how can the alleged Orthodoxy of Chalcedon be reconciled with accepting heretical teachings and how the three chapters could be misunderstood.
And yet, I repeat, these anathemas will be lifted when there is unity
Good luck. There is nothing bad about unity if approached in truth, and not in a group hug mentality or "unity at any cost" approach.
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.
The faith was not the same between 451 a.d. and 553 a.d. and we cannot overlook differences in faith, for what is left then of Orthodoxy. The anathema were mutual, issued by councils led in theory by the Holy Spirit, so on which side was the Holy Spirit absent, or do you think the Holy Spirit contradicted Himself ? If absent from both, and a Church is not led anymore by Christ, the Head, it ceases to be a Church. Some language is tough, and the truth hurts, but it is better than false ecumenism.
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?
You did not offer any dogmatic position regarding how can the branch theory survive the One body of Christ dogma that rejects duality of the Church, and resorted to an example that does not even apply to the situation. St.John Chrysostom was not anathemaized, nor was he questioned for a heresy or dogmatic error. It was an administrative error of reversing a decision by another Holy Synod of an Apostolic See that he was found guilty of. Was his removal harsh ? Yes, it was, but it is irrelevant to the matter. We discuss heresy here. Now, again, does Christ have two bodies or is communion irrelevant to being part of the Body of Christ ?
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.
“Not Fully united” is an empty slogan, for Orthodoxy cannot be divided into parts nor is it a test to pass at 50%. You are either united or you are not.
What in the world are you talking about?
Don't bother. I was just suggesting that you stop guessing the state of people who lived 16 centuries ago as you seem sure that Leo, for example, was confused, and that the Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian were in a state of continuous misunderstanding for 190 years that followed CHalcedon without answering a simple question: How in the world can you judge better than the people who were actually present? How could you possibly understand the words of the CHalcedonian leaders better than St.Timothy, St.Theodosius and St.Severus, who actually listened to them and judged to be unorthodox ?
Since neither side believed in any heresy, these condemnations are obviously a misunderstanding, and this is my objectivity
One side believed in Nestorianism. Besides, this was not the issue in this particular discussion point, it is your approach to any debate in history as a misunderstanding that is questioned. You keep on repeating this misunderstanding and confusion thesis as ground for excusing EO from their acceptance of heresy in CHalcedon, and attribute this to misunderstanding. The memory to St.Severus is insulted by the quick lip service such as "great saint", " an able teacher", while his whole teachings are dismissed as misunderstanding and confusion. All his life was dedicated to fighting against Chalcedon and the Tome. He produced his masterful writings to refute both, and you view it as misunderstanding, yet you call him a saint, and his nemesis as orthodox, and the same state of contradiction continues.
In addition, you claim to judge better than him. He does not surpass you as a valid reference just for his ability and his sainthood; the man was actually present and contributed to direct debates with Chalcedonians, for almost two years. He read the resources that are not available to you, was persecuted for the sake of faith and you mock his struggle as a misunderstanding. We do not venerate saints for their misunderstandings, but for fighting the good fight of faith. Yet he judged the council as unholy and you maintain it is perfectly orthodox.
I will not even bring the question of the millions of martyrs that were butchered by Chalcedonian between 451-641 for the sake of faith, and what will become of them. Are they martyrs of faith or victims of confusion ? Your approach is self-destructive and void of truth.
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.
With one major difference: Chalcedonians did not provide any monophysite writing of out Fathers, while the three chapters are conceded by the EO themselves as a heretical teachings. By the way, what EO currently believe in is not in question, the discussion is centered around Chalcedon.
Not all of Chalcedon accepted the Three Chapters. Only the Roman legates
Wrong. Chalcedon accepted the three Chapters as orthodox documents, and the bishops present signed on the decisions of the council. Do you want to speculate about signing in agreement of the council decisions ?
The Fifth Council adds and clarifies the Fourth Council further
NO. NO. By the definition and the statement of the 5th council itself, the 5th council corrects
. It does not add to the CHalcedon, it rejects CHalcedon for it rejects the documents of faith accepted by Chalcedon. It contradicts, it does not add, it deletes, and does not clarify. I am happy you made the last two arguments, for they just show how far a false ecumenist will go to twist the truth.
The Holy Spirit does not correct Himself.
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 said.
- Are you seriously calling the condemnation of Nestorius by Theodret a condemnation? What did he really condemn? Nothing. He never rejected Nestorianism or his theology, and the writings of a man who was just Nestorian 5 minutes ago have been immediately accepted as orthodox. Did he produce these writings during these five minutes or weeks or were these the writings during his heretical days ?In addition, Theodret remain a venomous heretic as he always was, and the reference to his letter to John of Agae just proves the Nestorianism of the council.
- The council abrogated the council of Ephesus. What exactly did it accept from Ephesus if it abrogated the content, the language and upheld the teachings of Nestorius ? When Theodret examines the council’s synodal letter and the Tome to be in accordance with St.Cyril's teachings, you know it is a robber synod.
- Upholding the title Theotokos while separating Christ in two persons as Leo of Rome did and as the three chapters teach is still a heresy. Orthodoxy is not a relative ideology. It is either 100 % or heresy, if your standard is absolute
So the fact that we must agree upon an Orthodox interpretation means we had the wrong interpretation all along.
You assume too much. You can interpret Arius to maintain the divinity of Christ if you wish, but it is your interpretation, trying to read the minds of people who lived 16 centuries ago.
Nowhere 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.
I will not be able to prove it to an ecumenist, and I will not prove to you that the sun shines in the morning. If you just want unity for the sake of unity at any expense, any discussion regarding obvious facts is a waste of time.
Although it is a fact that whole CHalcedon accepted the Three Chapters, I will again expose your hypocrisy from your own mouth. On whose behalf did the Roman delegates act, and did their master approve their actions ? You defended Leo of Rome's Orthodoxy, now reconcile the three chapter - that you maintain was only accepted by Rome - with Orthodoxy.
You can get too hung up on the Three Chapters all you want
You bet, for till now, you have been ridicules about it and everybody else silent.
In addition, the fact that Theodoret ended up condemning Nestorius (even though hesitantly) puts some credence to Chalcedon
. The man did not condemn Nestorianism at all, nor did he show any sign of remorse for his previous writings or actually reject them openly. Did you actually read the passage of his exoneration?