OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 20, 2014, 05:54:38 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 35059 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 #180 on: June 15, 2005, 07:03:24 AM »

Quote from: Pedro on Yesterday at 11:45:07 PM
Quote
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...

Pedro, I think this brings up an interesting point. "The Son" and "The Logos" are titles pertaining to Christ's divine person/hypostasis and not to a particular nature/essence of His. The fact that Christ ascribed a human limitation (i.e. limited knowledge) to the title of His divine person, is consistent with a fundamental principle of Athanasian-Cyrillian Christology; that the divine person/hypostasis is the subject of ALL HIS INCARNATE EXPERIENCES - hunger, suffering, and even ignorance - which are possible according to His human nature/essence which was en-hypostasized by the person/hypostasis of The Word.

On a sidenote, I think an interesting thing to note concerns St Basil's commentary on this passage. He argues that Christ DID in fact know the hour of his second coming, however he was trying to divert the focus of his disciples from this issue, since He wanted it to be of no concern to them.

If Christ did not know something according to His divinity that His Father DID know, this would contradict the affirmation of Christ's consubtantiality with the Father. I think the fact that the hour of His coming simply did not register with his human mind is the most plausible explanation for the verse in question; especially considering the many Biblical references pertaining to Christ's omniescence.

Peace.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2005, 07:09:27 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
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #181 on: June 15, 2005, 07:40:10 AM »

Thanks for the response, EA.

And guys, I'm not putting on my mod hat here, just speaking as a fellow poster: Let's try to keep it civil like it started out, huh?  It's getting personal, names are being called ("stupid, afraid, monophysite, heretic, fundamentalist, fool, etc.") -- honest questions were asked.  Let us not resort to inflammatory responses--nor respond in kind to said inflammation--rather, lets maybe take a step back.  Breathe.  This has been going on for sixteen hundred years without our help; we ain't gonna solve it here.

May Christ our God, through the prayers of St. Cyril, pray for us all.
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)
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 #182 on: June 15, 2005, 10:01:31 AM »

I know this is going off topic, but I guess we could do with a little distraction. In my previous concerning Matt. 24:36. I stated:

Quote
On a sidenote, I think an interesting thing to note concerns St Basil's commentary on this passage. He argues that Christ DID in fact know the hour of his second coming, however he was trying to divert the focus of his disciples from this issue, since He wanted it to be of no concern to them.

I just want to clarify something regarding St Basil’s commentary in relation to the verse in question, in order to do it the justice it deserves. Prima facie, some may think that St Basil’s interpretation is completely absurd and that it leads to the necessary conclusion that Christ was a liar (for telling His disciples He did not know the hour, when in fact He did).

However, let us not underestimate St Basil; who was not only an enlightened and blessed father of the Church, but obviously also more closely socio-historically connected to Christ’s era than us, and hence capable of understanding Christ’s sayings in a social-cultural context that he was probably sufficiently familiar with.

According to their book Handbook of Biblical Social Values, biblical scholars Malina and Pilch explain the nature of rhetorical criticism in the ANE (Ancient Near East) as well as ancient concepts of honor. As such, ritual etiquette in that day entailed that one in public, may deliberately be indirect or incomplete in their speech (what we would call “deceptive” today in the west), in order to prevent conflict or to achieve a greater purpose in the interest of others. Christ therefore, in knowing the hour of his second coming; nonetheless remained “silent concerning the season of judgment because it was not expedient for men to hear. For constant expectation kindles a warmer zeal for true religion. The knowledge that a long time interval of time was to elapse would have made men more careless about true religion, from the hope of being saved by a subsequent change of life. So he denied the hour, though He indeed know, for How could He who had known everything up to this time (for so He said) not know the hour also? If so, the Apostle vainly said “In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge”. (St Basil — Letter VIII — On Matt. 24:36 Of Knowledge of that Day and of that Hour?)

Ofcourse, the obvious should not need to be pointed out; that Christ's knowing of the hour of his second coming does not entail that He knows everything according to his human mind - yet I will make that explicit in case some wish to misrepresent me and argue that I am denying any sort of ignorance in Christ per se. He who is Wisdom according to His divinity, grew in Wisdom according to his humanity (both facts explicated in the book of Luke: 11:49 and 2:52, respectively), however, that He did not know the hour of his own second coming, is not a necessary conclusion to draw, and indeed St Basil's interpretation is plausible when considered in the appropriate context.

Peace.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2005, 10:18:17 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 #183 on: June 15, 2005, 10:28:06 AM »

Do EO's today agree with that phrase, or do you have problems with it?
The Fifth Ecumenical Council affirmed that "One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh."
EO's believe what the Ecumenical Councils teach.
False ecumenists believe whatever is expedient.
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 #184 on: June 15, 2005, 10:42:27 AM »

Quote
The Fifth Ecumenical Council affirmed that "One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh."

I assume therefore that you will finally agree that it is the divine person/hypostasis as opposed to the human nature (ousia), that is the subject of Christ’s Incarnate experiences, right? i.e. no more of this “the human nature slept” nonsense, and more of “One of the Trinity, the Son of God The Logos, slept in the flesh (or alternatively 'according to His humanity')” right?

Peace.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2005, 10:48:35 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
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,064


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


WWW
« Reply #185 on: June 15, 2005, 11:24:41 AM »

Not one fanatic EO from there has bothered to answer back against the quotes we provided them with.ÂÂ  Either that or not one EO admitted the Orthodoxy of St. Dioscorus, like Fr. John Romanides did.ÂÂ  I don't know whether this is out of ignorance or fear, but I am saddened people here continue to ignore irrefutable proof of St. Dioscorus' Orthodoxy and proceed to confess blindly without conviction that St. Dioscorus is a monophysite heretic.

It's futile to continue to debate here if people do not want to have an honest debate.ÂÂ  I came here to have an intellectual discussion, not to act like a child.  I don't care anymore if I don't have the last word.ÂÂ  I pray that the Lord may have mercy on the EO's here who continue to spread lies against the OO fathers.

God bless you all, and good bye.

Mina

Humble and most faithful servant of the faith of Christ defended through St. Cyril and St. Dioscorus.

Glory be to God forever.ÂÂ  Amen!
« Last Edit: June 15, 2005, 11:26:38 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.
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 #186 on: June 15, 2005, 11:50:27 AM »

Quote
It's futile to continue to debate here if people do not want to have an honest debate.ÂÂ  I came here to have an intellectual discussion, not to act like a child.ÂÂ  I don't care anymore if I don't have the last word.ÂÂ  I pray that the Lord may have mercy on the EO's here who continue to spread lies against the OO fathers.

God bless you all, and good bye.

Don’t go bro; I obviously feel your frustration, it is evident in my posts. However, realize that those on this forum who have continued to deny and cop-out regardless of our repetitive request for objective and critical investigation, are in fact doing us a service. They’re proving the truth for us through their blatant blind denial, more than we do in our positive and reasoned arguments.

Our liturgical prayers do not go unanswered:
 
"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. - St Basil's Liturgy

Please stay a while longer, at least until July, since I have just vowed to Anastasios not to visit this forum again until my exams are officially over.

Peace.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2005, 11:51:53 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
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,064


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


WWW
« Reply #187 on: June 15, 2005, 12:03:31 PM »

I will stay up until July, but if we continue in vain after July, I can no longer do anything more to convince people.

At that time, I will just shake the dust off my feet and move along.

In Christ,

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.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

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


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #188 on: June 15, 2005, 12:29:57 PM »

I will stay up until July, but if we continue in vain after July, I can no longer do anything more to convince people.

At that time, I will just shake the dust off my feet and move along.

In Christ,

Mina

How about just staying and having fun Smiley That's what the rest of us do 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.
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #189 on: June 15, 2005, 12:45:39 PM »

Some thoughts from a man who realizes he is totally out of his depth in a debate like this!

1) On a practical level, I'm quite certain that Chalcedonians and Non-Chalcedonians here and now, materially believe the same things.  Of this, I have little doubt.

2) As I've said previously on this board (though perhaps not in this thread), theological terminology, particularly in the early period of the Church, was in constant development and varied across Christendom.  It was very easy to find two people who meant the same thing, but expressed it in different ways.

3) While we rightly call them "Ecumenical Councils", they were also to start, Imperial Councils.  And why did the Emperors have an interest in these topics?  Because they, as rulers and believers, had an interest in seeing discord in the Empire and amongst believers be resolved.  Part of the tasks of Councils then, was to formulate language which all who rightly believed could agree upon, both as common ground and to avoid future confusion - and importantly, to exclude heresy.

4) While I've not read enough of Dioscoros himself to form a personally arrived at conclusion, I can say unhesitatingly that the doctrine of Chalcedon is true, and agrees with what came beforehand - with the Divine Scriptures, the Holy Fathers and Saints of all lands, and significantly, the previous three Ecumenical Councils (including Ephesos.)  Nothing I've read in this thread thus far has given me so much as a moment of reconsideration on this point, and if anything the attempts to find Nestorianism in Chalcedon strike me as "fishing".

5) Both before and after Chalcedon (though focusing on "before" I think is more beneficial to this discussion, as it's something we all share in common), you'll find holy fathers who say things in an unfortunate way, or even perhaps entertain ideas in some matters (even significant ones) which later Ecumenical collbaration and witness would make clear were a departure from truth and the ancient consensus.  I've been reading a lot about St.Hillary of Poitiers lately, and what becomes clear is that at some points he made miscalculated alliances, and at least on the point of Christ's human nature stated an incorrect view (which hailed from Alexandria btw.) that Christ's humanity was "impassible" - that He didn't really need to eat, or sleep, that He didn't really experience pain, hunger etc., though the suffering of His flesh was real, etc.  Though it's obvious St.Hillary struggled with such ideas, and was really trying to be clear and faithful, in hindsight his wording is unfortunate in these matters, to say the least.  Btw. "logically" speaking, the view of Christ's humanity being totally impassible is not totally without merit - for such is the condition of those who are in the state of theoria.  So it's not like he's totally out to lunch - but it does point in a direction that is unsavory, and does not adequately recognize that though true God, His kenosis was such that it also included the experience of the blameless passions and this was not something utterly unworthy of Him let alone impossible for Him.

6) If the language of "two natures" is obnoxious for many 'Alexandrians' because it has Antiochene roots (and they are a suspicious bunch!), so was the language of homoousios smacked of Sabellianism to many who dissented from Nicea (and they were not totally incorrect - it was a favoured term of the Sabellians, and a Sabellian slant to it would be only removed once terminology about hypostasis became sufficiently clear later on), and one physis of the Incarnate Logos smacked of Apollinarianism and neo-Doceticism to many who dissented from Ephesus (and every scholar I've seen who has written on this topic, acknowledges that the term is not originally Athanasian, which is what St.Cyril sincerely thought, but was in fact taken from the heretic Apollinaris).  The point is, if we look at the "heritage" of terms, apart from their context, then we're getting nowhere fast and will continue to find excuses to be away from one another.

Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,941


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #190 on: June 15, 2005, 01:11:08 PM »

EA,

"I assume therefore that you will finally agree that it is the divine person/hypostasis as opposed to the human nature (ousia), that is the subject of Christ’s Incarnate experiences, right? i.e. no more of this “the human nature slept” nonsense, and more of “One of the Trinity, the Son of God The Logos, slept in the flesh (or alternatively 'according to His humanity')” right?"

Christ's human physis died on the cross.  One cannot say that his divine physis died or suffered as this would offend the impassibility of the divine substance.  It is precisely becasue Christ is one divine person with two natures, human and divine that we can say Christ died for us and what is meant by "One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh."  It is also why saying the one composite nature of Christ died is unacceptable to Chalcedonians.  It implies either the impassable divinity suffered and died (impossible) or Christ didn't really die or at least not in the same way we do, which would mean he did not assume everything which was ours.

"When your body was in the tomb, when your soul was in Hades, when you were in Paradise with the thief, you were at the same time, O Christ as God, upon your throne with Father and the Sipirt, infinite and filling all things" (Prayer said at the first incensing of the altar during Divine Liturgy).

Fr. Deacon Lance

Logged

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,064


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


WWW
« Reply #191 on: June 15, 2005, 01:30:09 PM »

Dear Fr. Deacon Lance,

I don't think EA was saying that the Divine Nature died on the Cross, for that would be heresy.ÂÂ  He was saying that the Prosopon who is divine was the one who died in the flesh.ÂÂ  So long as it is the same prosopon who died on the Cross, then we like to give the willing to the Prosopon.ÂÂ  Otherwise, then you'll have to say that "One of the Trinity died" is vague, since it talks about "one of the Trinity" in assumption to nature, and not to prosopon, according to your argument.

"One Incarnate Nature" is preferrable because it's very similar to humanity's "one nature."ÂÂ  If I eat solid food, did my soul and spirit eat the food and digest it?ÂÂ  No, for that would be metaphysically impossible.ÂÂ  Yet, we give humanity the appelation "one nature" although we don't confuse the three natures in it.

Otherwise, I have no trouble with either what you or EA believe.

God bless.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2005, 01:30:28 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
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,941


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #192 on: June 15, 2005, 01:56:57 PM »

Mina,

Please understand that I do not consider the Orientals to be Monophysites.  However, I also do not consider the Assyrians to be Nestorians.  Both, it seems to me, believe the same as Chalcedonians and depart from us only in the teminology they employ to speak of the same truth.  Also both seem to emphasisze different points.  The Orientals seek to guard Christ's personal unity, while the Assyrians seeks to guard the unconfusedness of His divinity and humanity.

Fr. Deacon Lance
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
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 #193 on: June 15, 2005, 01:57:21 PM »

Okay last post, I promise!  Cheesy (Nice work Anastasios)

Fr. Deacon Lance,

Quote
Christ's human physis died on the cross.  One cannot say that his divine physis died or suffered as this would offend the impassibility of the divine substance.

I think you misunderstand my point; I am perfectly aware of the impassibility of the divine nature (ousia), my point is that a “nature” (physis in the sense of ousia) cannot be regarded as the centre or subject of action; for not only does this contradict the teachings of St Athanasius and St Cyril, but it is also metaphysically unsound in an Orthodox context, for the logical implications of regarding a nature in such a manner, are Nestorian.

It is the divine hypostasis/person of Christ who dies according to his human nature (physis/ousia) or in the flesh. We always regard the prospon or hypostasis/physis as the subject of action, and not the ousia/physis.

Patristic evidence:

In his Letter to Epictetus St Athanasius says:

“the incorporeal Word made His own the properties of the Body, as being His own Body. Why, when the Body was struck by the attendant, as suffering Himself He asked, “Why smittest thou Me?”. And being by nature intangible, the Word yet said, “I gave My back to the stripes, and My cheeks to blows, and did not turn My face from shame and spitting”. For what the Human body of the Word suffered, this the Word, dwelling in the Body, ascribed to Himself... And verily it is strange that He it was Who suffered and yet suffered not. Suffered, because His own body suffered; suffered not, because the Word, being by nature God, is impassible”.

The highlight in bold essentially conveys my point quite clearly; the “human actions” of Christ are ascribed to the personal subject — The divine hypostasis of The Word (NOT his divine nature/ousia), even though such actions were only possible according to His human nature (ousia). The flesh of The Word is not what suffers; rather, The Word is the One who suffers according to, or in His flesh.

Furthermore according to the 12th anathema of St Cyril:

"If anyone does not confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh and was crucified in the flesh and tasted death in the flesh and became the first born of the dead, although as God he is life and life-giving, let him be anathema."

Basic Metaphysics:

Professor Bittle, in his book The Domain of Being: Ontology says:

"Actions belong to the person or hypoastasis. The ‘nature’ of a being is the principle of all that being's actions. But the nature of an individual, concrete being, as it actually exists...is always a hypostasis and, if it is rational, a person. This fact is clearly expressed in our judgments and statements about certain things. We seldom refer our actions to the faculties or parts from which they proceed immediately, but rather to the ultimate possessor of the nature. We thus say ‘I see, I digest, I think, or I drive the car,’ even though
it's the eyes that see, and the stomach that digest, and the intellect that thinks, and the hands that steer the wheell. Actions are thus ascribed to the hypostasis or person. The hypostasis or person is the very principle which (principium quod) performs the actual action, whilst the nature is simply the ultimate principle by means of which (principium quo) the hypostasis or person performs that very action" (1939, page 271)

Quote
It is also why saying the one composite nature of Christ died is unacceptable to Chalcedonians.

As has been repeated numerously on this forum, the one composite physis as affirmed by the Oriental Orthodox Church is simply the ultimate hypostasis of Christ after the incarnation (as opposed to the hypostasis of The Word prior to the Incarnation) when the hypostasis of The Word en-hypostasized His humanity, such that it became His very own. Do you notice how I’ve constantly qualified the term “nature” in parenthesis whenever it is employed? We cannot just throw the term "nature" around carelessly in a dialogue of this sort.

Thus, when we say that the One composite physis of Christ died, we are essentially saying that the "new" hypostasis of The Word (i.e. according to the state of His existence after the Incarnation) died according to His humanity which is intrinsic to His very hypostasis — for as His humanity was intrinsic to His self after the Incarnation, so it is that He became the subject of the death of his own body. This is perfectly in line, not only with the above quotations, but also with the affirmation that “One of the Holy Trinity died” — for the Holy Trinity is three hypostasis/persons, and not three ousia/nature, thus the “One of the Holy Trinity” being referred must be the hypostasis/person of The Word.

What is essential is the understanding that the physis/ousia provides the means/capacity by which the personal subject — the prosopon or the physis/hypostasis, ultimately acts.

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 #194 on: June 15, 2005, 03:52:47 PM »

Quote
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.  ÃƒÆ’‚ 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?

Well concerning the extant Assyrian churches, that question is easy to answer.ÂÂ  The “Nestorians” or Assyrians were cut off from the rest of Christianity for obvious political reasons.ÂÂ  Don’t forget that these folks were in Persia, suffering severe persecution under their government, which was constantly at war with Rome.ÂÂ  The Persians viewed Christianity as a Roman religion and, therefore, all Christians were Roman sympathizers.ÂÂ  They didn’t even accept the Nicene Creed until 410, after the Second Council was over, when they heard about it.ÂÂ  

They had apparently never heard of Nestorius while he was alive.ÂÂ  Soon after his death they heard of the controversy and sided with Nestorius, but no one knows what they heard of the arguments.ÂÂ  I know they were linked to Theodore of Mopsuestia and the Nisibis and Edessa schools.

All throughout the period the “Romans” were closing down the Nestorian schools and the theologians were fleeing to Persia.ÂÂ  I doubt they were closing down their schools because they thought they were teaching Orthodoxy and they were being all chummy.

In 544 the Assyrians agreed to Chalcedon.  The Chalcedonians, however, did not see this as meaningful because they did not accept Ephesus.  That's why in 553, barely a blink of an eye for our own period to organize this size of a response to the statement in 544, the Fifth Ecumenical Council said, “Hey, if you don’t get it, here you go.  You can’t ignore Ephesus.”  The “Romans” continued to export their Nestorians to Persia.

That the Persian Nestorians were not at least somewhat aware that they were being cut off is impossible because of the number of Nestorian refugees showing up in Persia.ÂÂ  

However, there appear to be monasteries that were not informed of any condemnation of Nestorius until quite late.ÂÂ  Certainly the Fifth Ecumenical Council did communicate to the Nestorians what their position was.ÂÂ  

Quote
Notice Orthodoxinfo.com so far hasn't even got into the meat of the whole situation.ÂÂ  There is no dogmatic criticism.

Yeah, their logic is pretty specious.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2005, 03:55:39 PM by cizinec » Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
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 #195 on: June 15, 2005, 06:03:15 PM »

I assume therefore that you will finally agree that it is the divine person/hypostasis as opposed to the human nature (ousia), that is the subject of Christ’s Incarnate experiences, right? i.e. no more of this “the human nature slept” nonsense, and more of “One of the Trinity, the Son of God The Logos, slept in the flesh (or alternatively 'according to His humanity')” right?

Why should I reject the formula of Chalcedon, when even you needed to use the formula of Chalcedon?

If Christ did not know something according to His divinity that His Father DID know, this would contradict the affirmation of Christ's consubtantiality with the Father. I think the fact that the hour of His coming simply did not register with his human mind is the most plausible explanation for the verse in question; especially considering the many Biblical references pertaining to Christ's omniescence.
EA, are you saying that the two Natures acted independantly? I assume therefore that you reject the teachings of Dioscorus?

Never presume to know what I think, and I won't assume anything about you.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2005, 06:19:07 PM by ozgeorge » 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 #196 on: June 15, 2005, 06:43:29 PM »

one fanatic EO

Thanks! Another badge of honour! Smiley
Now rejoining the silence of the Holy Mountain on this issue.
George
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
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,064


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


WWW
« Reply #197 on: June 15, 2005, 07:31:43 PM »

Thanks! Another badge of honour! Smiley
Now rejoining the silence of the Holy Mountain on this issue.
George

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

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



WWW
« Reply #198 on: June 15, 2005, 07:35:32 PM »

If Christ did not know something according to His divinity that His Father DID know, this would contradict the affirmation of Christ's consubtantiality with the Father. I think the fact that the hour of His coming simply did not register with his human mind is the most plausible explanation for the verse in question; especially considering the many Biblical references pertaining to Christ's omniescence.

I have to agree with ozgeorge here; if indeed the human mind of Christ did not perceive something which the Second Member of the Trinity must know, and if the actions of one nature necessarily presuppose an identical action on behalf of the other--or, if you prefer, the humanity and the divinity of the One Logos are always to move as one nature, for one they are (in your mind)...

  • Christ did not know in His divinity and diverted from the knowledge of the Father or
  • He did know in His humanity and lied about it.
 

For you to say that the mind of the Logos knew something that did not register with His human mind seems to me to be a concession to the idea that the humanity and divinity can indeed move in different courses within the Second Member of the Trinity, who is the one Christ, the Logos.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2005, 07:37:28 PM by Pedro » Logged

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

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
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 #199 on: June 15, 2005, 10:45:11 PM »

ozgeorge,

Quote
Quote from: EkhristosAnesti on Today at 07:03:24 AM
If Christ did not know something according to His divinity that His Father DID know, this would contradict the affirmation of Christ's consubtantiality with the Father. I think the fact that the hour of His coming simply did not register with his human mind is the most plausible explanation for the verse in question; especially considering the many Biblical references pertaining to Christ's omniescence.

EA, are you saying that the two Natures acted independantly? I assume therefore that you reject the teachings of Dioscorus?

What a perfect instrument God has given me in order to vindicate the blessed St Dioscorus:

St Dioscorus says in his first letter to his monks:

“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.”

Along with the blessed St Dioscorus, I speak concerning this matter: “I envisage Him knowing all things as God, and not knowing all things as a man”

This is no more than a simple reformulation of the only acceptable formula: “He knew all things according to His divinity, yet knew not all things according to His humanity or ‘in the flesh’

Sorry ozgeorge to burst your bubble, but there is no natures acting independently, I attribute both knowing and not-knowing to the same personal subject, unlike yourself who wished to remain defiant to the tradition of our fathers by continuing to employ heretical language anathemized by St Cyril who is obviously merely a stranger to you in reality, as much as he was a stranger to Leo, by saying “the human mind did not know” just as you said “the human nature slept” — notice that I said it did not register with HIS human mind. Nice try ozgeorge, but if God is for us, vain attempts and weak logic could never be against us.

Likewise I affirm with the blessed St Dioscorus:

"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”

For being consubstantial with us, he must have acquired a human mind like us; one which grows in knowledge and wisdom and acquires facts through human experience, or through revelation from the Father; but not that this mind in and of itself contains the infinite knowledge as is encapsulated by The Word according to His divinity.

Quote
Never presume to know what I think, and I won't assume anything about you.

No, please continue assuming much, you give me great opportunity to prove just how desparate and weak your position is. Remember ozgeorge, discard Leo's concept of the human nature acting/performing, and please adhere to your fifth council's declaration that the hypostasis/person acted according to his human nature - the two are not compatible - one is perfectly Orthodox, the other no more than heresy.

Peace.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2005, 11:01:01 PM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

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

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
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 #200 on: June 15, 2005, 10:59:39 PM »

Pedro,

Quote
If indeed the human mind of Christ did not perceive something which the Second Member of the Trinity must know, and if the actions of one nature necessarily presuppose an identical action on behalf of the other

You are confusing yourself here. First of all, I have repeatedly stated that Christ’s natures (ousias) do not “act”, let alone “the actions of one” presupposing “an identical action on behalf of the other”. Christ hypostasis/person, is the centre and subject of all His actions and attributes, which he performs and possesses respectively according to His respective nartures (ousias). Christ possesses infinite knowledge according to His divinity and finite knowledge according to His human mind which is an aspect of His humanity.

St Athansius said: "And verily it is strange that He it was Who suffered and yet suffered not"

Likewise: "And verily it is strange that He it was who knew all things yet did not know all things"

This is simply the paradox of the Incarnation.

His mind being consubstantial with us, means that it does not by nature possesses infinite knowledge. It acquires such knowledge through experience or direct divine revelation.

Quote
the humanity and the divinity of the One Logos are always to move as one nature, for one they are (in your mind)

Where are you reading this from? What does it mean that the natures “move”? You are using language too equivocative for me to clearly interpret in order to respond to. The Divine Word — The hypostasis/person of Christ, en-hypostasized a human nature/ousia at the Incarnation. The one composite physis of St Cyril and St Dioscorus, is simply this “new hypostasis”, the new individual state of existence that Christ entered into once He assumed humanity — a humanity which became intrinsic to His hypostasis and not independent from it. As such the hypostasis becomes the subject of all the incarnate experiences of Christ in acting according to His humanity. This subject is One and the same with the one who is the subject of His divine experiences, according to His divinity which He possessed since time eternity.

Thus the infinite facts of the universe register with The Word according to His divinity, yet do not register with The Word according to His humanity, unless they are revealed.

Quote
Christ did not know in His divinity and diverted from the knowledge of the Father or

It is possible that Christ - the name of His person, knew both according to His divinity, yet did know according to His humanity - as St Athanasius would have us say: "And verily it is strange that He it was who knew all things yet did not know all things". Speaking in His capacity as man, He tells the disciples the direct truth; He did not know the hour, though in actuality He did know and did not know, simultaneously. This is simply the paradox of the Incarnation.

Quote
He did know in His humanity and lied about it.

I a;ready explained St Basil’s commentary on this verse in order to prove that even if Christ did know as St Basil argues, that we cannot appropriately conclude that He was lying according to the context in which He made such a declaration. I'm not sure if you missed that, but here it is:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=6373.msg83200#msg83200

Peace.
« Last Edit: June 15, 2005, 11:03:53 PM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

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

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

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #201 on: June 16, 2005, 05:04:21 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.

Thank you, and I wish you well for your final exams and will keep you in my prayers.

Quote
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.

As he was present in the City, Summoned by the Synod, and Summoned by the Imperial Authority, I do not see any justification for his failure to attend. Even if the Council was heretical, which by your own statements you seem to deny, Dioscorus still owed the Honour and Respect to his Emperor to present his case before one of the Imperial Synods. It should be noted that not even Arius attempted to flaunt the Imperial Authority in such a way.

Quote
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.

It is also well known that a) Theodoret's theology was regarded as Orthodox by even Cyril himself (as he wrote the agreement between John of Antioch and Cyril that resulted in their reunification) and only refused to enter into communion with them because he believed that Nestorius had not professed the theology he was accused of professing by Ephesus 431. Making the only disagreements literary and personal, not theological. b) Theodoret eventually did sign an anathema against Nestorius while he was present at Chalcedon. c) Even your fathers agreed that Eutyches was a heretic

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

Here we agree, though I'm certain that agreement is with different conclusions. As previously stated, Theodoret's theological statement was even believed Orthodoxy by Cyril, as well as the rest of the Church, and had been in communion with the Church since 435 and died in communion with the Church, in this light it seems perfectly reasonable, and furthermore expected, that Leo would consult with such an eminent theologian of the Church on these matters. That Leo accepted Theodoret into communion without the blessing of a Synod, and against the will of the Imperial Authority, was incorrect procedure; however, as Chalcedon declared Ephesus 449 to be Heretical, Leo was vindicated of any fault, for the anathemas and other decrees of a heretical synod are without effect; furthermore, it should be noted that these procedural issues have no bearing on the Orthodoxy of his Tome.

The worrysome nature of the Relationship between Dioscorus and Eutyches was not on account the procedural elements, but rather Dioscorus' willingness to ignore his theological errors, errors according to the fathers of your church, for what was apparently little more than an attempt to try to procure the authority of his See over that of the Imperial See.

Quote
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.

You argue that Dioscorus affirms all that Chalcedon Championed, and yet the fact still remains that he refused to even address the Imperial Synod, which essentially formally asserted that which was agreed upon in the reunion formula. As I have not had the opportunity to study the context of the quotes you have put forward, nor do I believe I will in the near future, I cannot directly comment on them. However, if his Theology was Orthodox, the fact still remains that he prefered to mock the Authority of the Holy Imperial and Oecumenical Synod rather than submit to it and profess his beliefs in accordance with it, such schismatic actions would be no less serious an offence, perhaps an even great offence, than heresy.

Quote
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”.

The Justifications I have heard here for your anathemas against Leo seem purely political in nature, though I believe the justifications your fathers used were theological, as they rejected the Theology of Chalcedon along with the Tome of Leo. In that context I can certainly see the reasonableness of your anathema against Leo, but the very fact that such an anathema was reasonable is why we are not in communion.
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
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,064


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


WWW
« Reply #202 on: June 16, 2005, 10:44:25 AM »

Dear GreekisChristian,

Quote
As he was present in the City, Summoned by the Synod, and Summoned by the Imperial Authority, I do not see any justification for his failure to attend. Even if the Council was heretical, which by your own statements you seem to deny, Dioscorus still owed the Honour and Respect to his Emperor to present his case before one of the Imperial Synods. It should be noted that not even Arius attempted to flaunt the Imperial Authority in such a way.

In our tradition, it was known that St. Dioscorus was under house arrest by the same Imperial authorities, and we felt there was a conspiracy against him.

Quote
a) Theodoret's theology was regarded as Orthodox by even Cyril himself (as he wrote the agreement between John of Antioch and Cyril that resulted in their reunification) and only refused to enter into communion with them because he believed that Nestorius had not professed the theology he was accused of professing by Ephesus 431. Making the only disagreements literary and personal, not theological.

This is quite interesting.ÂÂ  It seems highly unlikely that Cyril knew Theodoret wrote this agreementand furthermore, and I have very little faith that Theodoret wrote it either.ÂÂ  When St. Cyril wrote back with the Formula of Reunion, Theodoret wrote to John of Antioch saying that they have examined the letter and agree that not only it is Orthodox, but it "contradicts Cyril's 12 Chapters."ÂÂ  Furthermore, both Cyril and Theodoret anathematized one another even up to Cyril's death, as is shown in Theodoret's letter calling the departed Cyril, a "villain."ÂÂ  Therefore, you can say that Theodoret did not think Nestorius was guilty of heresy, but he did think Ephesus and St. Cyril were heretical also.ÂÂ  But I happen to personally believe that Theodoret, a qualified theologian himself, understood exactly what Nestorius was writing.

Quote
b) Theodoret eventually did sign an anathema against Nestorius while he was present at Chalcedon.

And very hesitantly, might I add.ÂÂ  It was this hesitancy that got us wondering.

Quote
c) Even your fathers agreed that Eutyches was a heretic

Yes, on the basis that he taught that the humanity was absorbed and nonexistent.ÂÂ  But St. Dioscorus received a confession from Ephesus 449 that Christ was "consubstantial with His mother."ÂÂ  St. Dioscorus and Ephesus 449 had no theological error.

Quote
As previously stated, Theodoret's theological statement was even believed Orthodoxy by Cyril, as well as the rest of the Church, and had been in communion with the Church since 435

I disagree.ÂÂ  There was a personal anathema given by St. Cyril to Theodoret up to Cyril's death.ÂÂ  After all, Theodoret was a huge supporter of "Theodorum et Dioodorum."

Quote
That Leo accepted Theodoret into communion without the blessing of a Synod, and against the will of the Imperial Authority, was incorrect procedure

I would agree to that.

Quote
however, as Chalcedon declared Ephesus 449 to be Heretical, Leo was vindicated of any fault, for the anathemas and other decrees of a heretical synod are without effect; furthermore, it should be noted that these procedural issues have no bearing on the Orthodoxy of his Tome.

Well, the question is then what is heretical about Ephesus 449?ÂÂ  The belief of the double consubstantiality of Christ was still professed.ÂÂ  And the Tome was examined by Theodoret among the group, and the legates, who said that Theodore of Mopsuestia was a doctor of the Church, already contradicting St. Cyril's anathemas against this person (and the Fifth EO Council).ÂÂ  The Tome can be interpreted Orthodox, but the examination by such persons make it suspicious.

Quote
The worrysome nature of the Relationship between Dioscorus and Eutyches was not on account the procedural elements, but rather Dioscorus' willingness to ignore his theological errors, errors according to the fathers of your church, for what was apparently little more than an attempt to try to procure the authority of his See over that of the Imperial See.

What was worrysome about it?ÂÂ  If someone who is accused told you that Christ was consubstantial with His mother, can this be interpreted as "His mother's humanity was non-existent."ÂÂ  I don't even think this guy Eutyches knew what he was talking about in the first place, since he was not ever close to a theologian.ÂÂ  St. Dioscorus deposed others for professing "in" two natures, a new profession that was interpreted as Nestorian, since Nestorius used the same terminology.ÂÂ  In addition, Flavian, Eusebius, and Theodoret, anathematized anyone who confessed "one nature" not knowing that "one nature" can be interpreted Orthodox as St. Cyril did.ÂÂ  To St. Dioscorus' eyes, these three men anathematized St. Cyril, and thus were counted as Nestorian, not knowing that Eutyches believed in a heretical interpretation.

Quote
You argue that Dioscorus affirms all that Chalcedon Championed, and yet the fact still remains that he refused to even address the Imperial Synod, which essentially formally asserted that which was agreed upon in the reunion formula.

Except the "in" two natures part, which was not in the Formula of Reunion, but rather "of" two natures was used, something that St. Dioscorus professed in the Synod, which was indeed in accordance with the Formula of Reunion.ÂÂ  Might I add it was St. Dioscorus who was the first person in the Council of Chalcedon in front of 600 bishops to use the four adverbs "without commixture, without alteration, without division, without seperation."

Quote
However, if his Theology was Orthodox, the fact still remains that he prefered to mock the Authority of the Holy Imperial and Oecumenical Synod rather than submit to it and profess his beliefs in accordance with it, such schismatic actions would be no less serious an offence, perhaps an even great offence, than heresy.

Since someone was under house arrest, it justifies why this someone couldn't come.ÂÂ  He first sent a message that he was under arrest, and then because he knew he couldn't get out, knowing that this was all a scam, he challenged them to see if anything he said in the Council was heterodox by sending a message "I have said enough."ÂÂ  Indeed, the best thing the Council could do was depose him for "not appearing" but couldn't challenge the Orthodoxy of his statements.ÂÂ  Meanwhile, the Imperial authorities got what they wanted, taking St. Dioscorus away and beating him up like they planned.ÂÂ  Deception by the Imperial authorities to Chalcedon and Dioscorus is Satanic, the greatest offence of all.

Quote
The Justifications I have heard here for your anathemas against Leo seem purely political in nature, though I believe the justifications your fathers used were theological, as they rejected the Theology of Chalcedon along with the Tome of Leo. In that context I can certainly see the reasonableness of your anathema against Leo, but the very fact that such an anathema was reasonable is why we are not in communion.

I would like to add this was on the assumption that we didn't take Chalcedon in the light of Ephesus and thus we interpreted it as Nestorian.ÂÂ  Call it misunderstanding or political or "true" as some profess is open for discussion.ÂÂ  But the fact of the matter is St. Dioscorus rejected it not because he was a heretic.

God bless you.

Mina

PSÂÂ  Sorry to barge in, but on the assumption that EA is studying, I guess I can do my best to answer some claims.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2005, 11:24:01 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.
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 #203 on: June 16, 2005, 11:13:24 AM »

Greekischristian,

I will let my Copt brother minasoliman take over for now until I finish my exams. I would like to take your and Augustine’s responses more seriously when I have the time to properly do so.

Just a quick remark on one of Mina’s comments:
 
Quote
Theodoret wrote to John of Antioch saying that they have examined the letter and agree that not only it is Orthodox, but it "contradicts Cyril's 12 Chapters."


This is true. Theodoret did not accept the reunion formula in the manner that St Cyril understood it. Even though the re-union formula is the perfect balance between Alexandrian-Antiochene Christology according to the Oriental Orthodox Church's understanding of it (which is why we believe that even the need for Chalcedon was superflous in the first place - even presupposing its legitimacy), it did not resolve the whole Alexandrian vs. Antioch dispute. There now existed the Antiochene interpretation of the re-union formula vs. the Alexandrian interpretation of the re-union formula: the latter being compatible with St Cyril’s 12 Chapters and Ephesus 431, and hence understanding the reunion formula as a mere extra clarification of Cyrillian Christology as vindicated at Ephesus 431; the former being contradictory to St Cyril’s 12 chapters and Ephesus 431 and hence understanding the reunion formula as an abrogation or correction of Cyrillian Christology as vindicated at Ephesus 431.

As Fr. V.C Samuel argues in his book Chalcedon Re-examined (which Im barely a quarter of the way through yet); the home synod of 448 was essentially the ratification of the Antiochene interpretation of the reunion formula. Ephesus 449 was in turn the ratification of the Alexandrian interpretation of the reunion formula as St Cyril would have understood it. Chalcedon was a regression back into the Antiochene twist of the reunion formula… - This was the Oriental Orthodox Church's essential theological conflict with Chalcedon - it understood it as a regression of all that Ephesus 431 had established.

I will stop for now before I get into an essay......oh boy, I only planned to write a 2-3 sentence remark…

I’ll take over from (or more preferably co-respond with) my fellow Copt Mina once my exams are over…

P.S. Did you read Fr. Romanides paper concerning the Dioscorus-Eutyches Leo-Theodoret parallel?

http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.06.en.orthodox_and_oriental_orthodox_consultation.htm

It is a very well balanced objective and critical analysis which I think you should consider (If I were to respond properly to your remarks concerning this parallel now, I’d essentially be reiterating many of his observations and conclusions, since I absolutely agree with them)...

Peace.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2005, 11:13:50 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
SouthSerb99
Archbishop of Shlivo, Patriarch of All Vodkas & Defender Against All Overstepping!
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 2,800


Now Internet Forum Friendly


WWW
« Reply #204 on: June 16, 2005, 12:13:31 PM »

To the whole lot of you posting here...

I offer you my congratulations (sincerely).  This has been an excellent education for many of us.  Yes, things have been heated and I think some of you have probably said some things you'd probably like to reconsider, but as whole, it has been excellent.

Just hope you guys can keep it civil.  It's been very informative. 
Logged

"Wherever you go, there you are."
 Guy from my office

Orthodox Archbishopric of Ohrid
Hungry? Click Here
Stavro
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,211



« Reply #205 on: June 16, 2005, 01:34:25 PM »

In reply to post # 158 , by Mina Soliman:

Dear Mina,
Quote
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.

Quote
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?
Quote
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.

Quote
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 ?
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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 ?

Quote
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.

Quote
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 ?

Quote
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. 

Quote
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.

Quote
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 ?

Quote
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.

Quote
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

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Quote
In addition, the fact that Theodoret ended up condemning Nestorius (even though hesitantly) puts some credence to Chalcedon
Grin . 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?

God bless.
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 #206 on: June 16, 2005, 02:04:35 PM »

Quote
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 . . .

I never say the Creed.  We stopped saying it at our church because it offended our Nestorian sensibilities. 

If Chalcedon denies the Creed, then why didn't they say, "Oh, by the way, stop saying that Creed we gave you.  It's all messed up and stupid?"

Quote
The language of the Tome is not biblical.

Yeah, your right.  In fact, I've heard some Protestant quotes from the Bible that aren't biblical. 

Quote
they actually ratified the teachings of Nestorius.

 . . all the while they are closing down the Nestorian schools and booting them to Persia.  Yeah, boy, we were giving them two thumbs up!  I'll tell you why in a minute!

Quote
Association with heretics

Well, I thought St. Cyril's parents were pagans, so he's associated with pagans.  We'd better blow him off, just in case.

Quote
a simple EO (and in fact any fair observer) would be justified in asking you to accept Chalcedon and the Tome unconditionally

You forgot to add in context.  Kind of a little oops omission there.  thought i'd just add it.

Quote
But, if you wish, we can debate the rest of Leo of Rome's writings, although it is a waste of time.

That's why we do it.

Quote
The faith was not the same between 451 a.d. and 553 a.d.

Dude, my whole freaking family was pagan between 451 and 553 a.d.  Please don't hold it against me if we agree on something now.

Quote
One side believed in Nestorianism.

Yeah, I'm sure you're right.  Of course, they condemned Nestorianism and persecuted the Assyrian Church, but that was all a show for you non-Chalcedonians to keep you from going.  Sorry about that little deception.

Quote
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.

I think you're right here too.  You see, even though we've rejected other so-called "ecumenical" councils in the past, we decided, and this is the really funny part, we decided to completely do away with the Third Council without saying so just to make you non-Chalcedonians mad!  Boy, we EOs sure are a naughty bunch!

Quote
the writings of a man who was just Nestorian 5 minutes ago have been immediately accepted as orthodox.

Yeah, and you'd probably be better off to consider anything I write here as being Pentecostal.  I grew up Pentecostal and, you know, people don't change.

Quote
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.

Yeah.  Thank goodness you don't do that.  You, at least, KNOW that, even though they said they rejected nestorianism and persecuted Nestorians, they were really just trying to fool ya.

Good catch!
Logged

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

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #207 on: June 16, 2005, 02:13:14 PM »

Stavro,

Feel free to slap me any time!   Grin

I'm in a playfully sarcastic (most of my co-workers think of it as painfully sarcastic) mood today.

That reminds me of something we say here in Texas.  If something is really good we call it "slap grandma good."  It usually relates to food, for some reason.  I'm hungry.
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 #208 on: June 16, 2005, 03:14:44 PM »



How in the world can you judge better than the people who were actually present?
Indeed.  Grin

Quote
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 ?
Or better than the saints who judged Chalcedon to be, in fact, orthodoxTongue


Quote
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.

Are you sure he's the only one here trying to read the minds of people who lived 16 centuries ago?  Wink

Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
Stavro
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,211



« Reply #209 on: June 16, 2005, 04:49:29 PM »

Quote
Or better than the saints who judged Chalcedon to be, in fact, orthodox
Which saints ? The only saint attending was excommunicated early in this gathering, and replaced by Nestorians.
Quote
Are you sure he's the only one here trying to read the minds of people who lived 16 centuries ago?
Sure not. All EO make reading Leo of Rome mind their excuse to exonerate him. Do you maintain there was a misunderstanding ?
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
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,064


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


WWW
« Reply #210 on: June 16, 2005, 05:31:44 PM »

Dear ozgeorge,

Stavro is all yours.  I'm not going to bother since there are EO's that can defend themselves.

Just one comment that pertains to us Copts that I must answer to Stavro:

Quote
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?

Please don't be ignorant of what HEMB 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.

and

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. 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.

You see Stavro, rather than using your own flawed interpretations of what HEMB wrote, it is very clear that HEMB wrote the last "four" councils, NOT the last "three" (i.e. including Chalcedon).  If you want to blame anyone who wants to unite for the sake of unity, you're going to have to condemn HEMB before you actually condemn me.  I assume HEMB knows much more than you and I.

So going back to whether Chalcedon ULTIMATELY accepted Chalcedon or not, according to HEMB, a Coptic Metropolitan, that council "has equally condemned both the Nestorian and Eutychian heresies."  If ALL OF CHALCEDON accepted the Three Chapters, then I await what the EO says in response to this.  Otherwise, I think it was only limited in word of mouth from the Roman legates.  The Roman legates are not the "whole" council.

And if there is no "Orthodox interpretation" of Chalcedon, then HEMB is simply wrong, and he should be questioned for his ecumenist activities, No?

God bless you brother.

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 #211 on: June 16, 2005, 07:17:37 PM »

The Divine Word — The hypostasis/person of Christ, en-hypostasized a human nature/ousia at the Incarnation.

And Dioscorus thought Leo sounded Nestorian!
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 #212 on: June 16, 2005, 10:58:43 PM »

Quote
Quote from: EkhristosAnesti on Yesterday at 10:59:39 PM
The Divine Word — The hypostasis/person of Christ, en-hypostasized a human nature/ousia at the Incarnation.

And Dioscorus thought Leo sounded Nestorian!

Ozgeorge, you're obviously as ignorant of Nestorianism, as you are ignorant of St Cyril's & St Dioscorus's Christologies. In no way could Nestorius affirm the "en-hypostasization of the human nature/ousia"....this principle is in itself a refutation of Nestorianism (in that it essentially confirms that Chtist's humanity became inextricably intrinsic to His hypostasis - which contradicts the Nestorian principle that Christ's humanity is an independent ground of being); it is the very principle which if explicated or declared at Chalcedon, would have been a vital contextual factor in vindicating Chalcedon from the Nestorian charge. Furthermore, your own EO father St John of Damascus affirmed the en-hypostasization of the human nature by the hypostasis of The Word, along with other great figures like the OO Church father St Severus of Antioch - another Orthodox Saint who your own council anathemized out of ignorance.

Peace.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2005, 12:26:36 AM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,211



« Reply #213 on: June 16, 2005, 11:19:34 PM »

In reply to minasoliman post # 210:

Quote
I'm not going to bother since there are EO's that can defend themselves.
The last posts were directed towards your attitude of false ecumenism which is more dangerous than Chalcedonian claims, and not to pick up a fight with EO.ÂÂ  
But the misrepresentation of the Coptic Church position on your behalf cannot go without a clarifcation. We take great pride in consistency of the Church and our Traditional approach to the Faith, which you undermine by the misrepresentation of Coptic Church position on this matter. It is our Contra Mundum attitude that amazes many, and to seek a unity based on accepting Chalcedon smashes our legacy.
Quote
We can notice that those councils have equally condemned the Nestorian and the Eutychian heresies which the Oriental Orthodox have also condemned.

We can all notice that, and we can also notice that Chalcedon also accepted heretical teachings and exonderated heretics after careful examination and excommunicated our orthodox Pope. Are the writings of Thedoret, Theodore, Ibad Nestorian or orthodox ?
Quote
It is also clear that the Orthodox interpretation of the teachings of the four later councils
As they currently confess their faith, they are Orthodox. Please understand the issue at hand. We are not examining the faith of the EO, we examine the faith of Leo and Chalcedon from the writings that we have. There is a reason why the two groups referred to St.Cyril for common ground, for the other documents cannot provide any common declaration of faith.
You are mixing the issues here.
Quote
If you want to blame anyone who wants to unite for the sake of unity, you're going to have to condemn HEMB before you actually condemn me.ÂÂ  I assume HEMB knows much more than you and I.
I am not condemning you, I am exposing the danger of your approach to unity on our Faith. A unity void of truth will never last, but will leave a black mark in the history of the Church that hurts the coming generations. There is a reason why three attempts in the immediate era after Chalcedon failed, and circumstances are not very much different now.

OO have approached this unity talks from the beginning with one goal in mind: Issue a common declaration of faith that is the basis for the unity, without any mutual confession of councils or documents. Nothing more is needed.

God bless you as well, brother.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2005, 11:20:36 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: 1,211



« Reply #214 on: June 17, 2005, 12:35:14 AM »

In reference to post # 154 by Timos:

Quote
If the Copts now truly believe that Chalcedon is Orthodox then why won't they accept it?
It would be a logical question if this was the case, yet we do not accept the Orthodoxy of Chalcedon for the reasons explained in many posts in this thread. Chalcedon minus the Tome, the exoneration of Thedoret & co., the Three Chapters and reading the synodal defintion of faith in the light of St.Cyril's teachings would be accepted, but what is left of Chalcedon ?
Quote
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??
I doubt whether many EO believe this or not. The first three councils are the ones that confirmed the faith through the creed, and nothing was added to the Creed after. The last three councils of the EO, in my opinion, were unnecessary if Chalcedon did not take place.

In any case, what is wrong with having a common declaration of faith ?

Quote
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
The last three councils were called to fight heresies that appeared on the Chalcedonian side. We never had to go through this process nor did we suffer from such heresies, so why should we take the medicine for an illness we never faced ? The teachings of the last three councils (5-7) and specially the 5th council have been part of the Faith in our church way before the Chalcedonian faced this challenge. Yet the anathemas against our saints will not be accepted.

Away from the debate about Chalcedon, there are other factors that will make unity difficult. Will the EO risk divisions within their own church for the sake of a unity with OO ? It seems to me, and I might be wrong, that it is H.H. the Ecumenical Patriarch who is in favor of the unity, but is he powerful enough ? H.H. the EP is leading a heroic struggle with a small congregation in Asia Minor, and this is worthy of all respect regardless of disagreements, but can H.H. the EP risk being cut off by Greece, for example, and survive with his congregation ? The Mountain of Athos is not very friendly to the unity talks, as far as I understand.

On the other hand, and from a political point of view, what gain is there to unite with the OO, whose congregations are living under persecution and they have little political power anywhere ? We are not Rome.

Should we unite, who will pick up the dioceses in the West, and what will become of the dioscese of each Church established already with many churches ? While the strongholds of each side will not be disputed, the dioceses in the West are "fair-game".

Now to faith issues. While christology is settled, at least in agrred statements, there are other aspects of the faith that must be examined. Mixed marriage in the EO church for example is not accepted by the OO, and we can discuss this difference in more detail elsewhere and how it relates to difference in the approach to sacraments. It is a practical problem too, and must be discussed before such union is established. It is not a trivial matter.

Supremacy and Primacy will come next, and they have been the root for many problem in the old days.

Salvation after death is another faith issue we disagree on. We differ in our views, and it cannot be reconciled easily, specially as the Coptic Church for example has emphasized its rejection of this teaching lately. It shows the different paths of thoughts that both sides have taken during the long schism.
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: 1,211



« Reply #215 on: June 17, 2005, 12:45:30 AM »

Stavro,
Feel free to slap me any time!  ÃƒÆ’‚ Grin
I'm in a playfully sarcastic (most of my co-workers think of it as painfully sarcastic) mood today.
That reminds me of something we say here in Texas.ÂÂ  If something is really good we call it "slap grandma good."ÂÂ  It usually relates to food, for some reason.ÂÂ  I'm hungry.
I will wait till you eat and respond afterwards.
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
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,064


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


WWW
« Reply #216 on: June 17, 2005, 01:27:04 AM »

Dear Stavro,

My attitude towards the matter is nothing more that what the Church has agreed to show, a more sympathizing attitude without continuing to condemn one another.  I am not saying we should accept Chalcedon or Leo.  Have you read my arguments?  I bring out the flaws in them also, but understand that they continued to uphold Orthodoxy from that point on.

Quote
But the misrepresentation of the Coptic Church position on your behalf cannot go without a clarifcation. We take great pride in consistency of the Church and our Traditional approach to the Faith, which you undermine by the misrepresentation of Coptic Church position on this matter. It is our Contra Mundum attitude that amazes many, and to seek a unity based on accepting Chalcedon smashes our legacy.

I've given you clear quotes from HEMB.  It seems you continue to ignore them.  If I'm "misrepresenting the Church" so is HEMB.

Quote
We can all notice that, and we can also notice that Chalcedon also accepted heretical teachings and exonderated heretics after careful examination and excommunicated our orthodox Pope. Are the writings of Thedoret, Theodore, Ibad Nestorian or orthodox ?

Then I suppose HEMB is wrong and misrepresenting the Church.  If he said that Chalcedon was condemned the Nestorian heresy, but did not mention that Chalcedon accepted Nestorian documents, then perhaps both HEMB and I are both ecumenist heretics.

Quote
As they currently confess their faith, they are Orthodox. Please understand the issue at hand. We are not examining the faith of the EO, we examine the faith of Leo and Chalcedon from the writings that we have. There is a reason why the two groups referred to St.Cyril for common ground, for the other documents cannot provide any common declaration of faith.
You are mixing the issues here.

I'm not mixing issues here at all.  Be consistent with yourself.  HEMB said we can interpret the last four councils as Orthodox.  Either Chalcedon is Orthodox or is Nestorian.  Pick one and choose a position without appeasing yourself to think you agree with HEMB.  If HEMB meant something else, then he should have been clearer, but according to your arguments, then we can move on to accuse HEMB and the Church he represents as vague in their statements, just as vague as Chalcedon when it stands alone.

Quote
I am not condemning you, I am exposing the danger of your approach to unity on our Faith. A unity void of truth will never last, but will leave a black mark in the history of the Church that hurts the coming generations. There is a reason why three attempts in the immediate era after Chalcedon failed, and circumstances are not very much different now.

Then, it seems we have an ecumenist problem in our Church Stavro, according to you.  I have not failed to disagree with councils, neither did I fail to show flaws in councils and show we will and should not accept them.  But I have also not failed to accept an Orthodox interpretation of them.

Quote
OO have approached this unity talks from the beginning with one goal in mind: Issue a common declaration of faith that is the basis for the unity, without any mutual confession of councils or documents. Nothing more is needed.

You seem to misrepresent my arguments as some sort of confession of the councils.  All I am saying is that the councils were never heretical, but I never said that we should accept them.  HUGE DIFFERENCE Stavro. 

The difference between you and I Stavro is that you continue to condemn Chalcedon and Leo while I try to act out on the Agreed Statements and refrain from condemning them without even accepting them.  But in that case, Stavro, since you feel you uphold and believe to agree with what the OO has been doing, I wonder then if the OO heirarchs bases themselves on false unity. 

If truly Leo and Chalcedon were heretical, THEN WE ARE WRONG IN AGREEING TO LIFT ANATHEMAS, AND THEREFORE HE Metropolitan Bishoy is doing a GRAVE mistake, an Ecumenical HERESY as orthodoxinfo.com would put it.  In that case Stavro, I don't know what to say, but to pray for you and for the Church.  You probably know more than me and HEMB.

I'm sorry that I agree with HEMB on the matter.  I guess I am an ecumenist heretic, and I'll probably consistently continue to do so.

Pray for me since I have erred from the Contra Mondum faith of the Church.

God bless you.

Mina

PS If it is ever proven that Chalcedon was in fact a heretical council, not only would I agree with you Stavro, but I would probably develop a website called orientalorthodoxinfo.com rebuking my Church for such false unity.  That is consistency, my friend.
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.
alexp4uni
Site Supporter
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #217 on: June 17, 2005, 02:16:57 AM »

Lets pickup the facts since no one on the Chalcedonian side has aimed the arrows outside the fort correctly. From what I picked up:

Leo -a Nestorian who allowed people with blind faith walk in to receive communion. The 3rd Council had anathematized Nestorius yet Leo restates old arguments and defied this HOLY council. Theodoret a small but crucial person who influenced John of Antioch to state Two Natures. Nestorius did not die during the time of Chalcedon and agreed with what Leo said was Nestorian in his Tome. Hence the Theology would be continued and represented of Victory in Chalcedon. The unity of Christ is a confused and not fused person like it was intended it to be.

With the power of his appointing, Leo the "GREAT" could persecute anyone who he felt couldn't learn a lesson. Hence Dioscoros needed to be isolated from confessing Christ was fully God and fully man. Non-C anathematizes Leo like a dirty scoundrel and hence Non-Chalcedonians reject him for his flagrant character to be undignified to a dignified Church of Alexandria. Constantinople had the same "Roman Empire" mentality to persecute and call non-Greeks "Barbarians". As well as Leo's mentality would be the same as of Pontius Pilate's to kill MILLIONS of people, RE-emphasizing MILLIONS!!! Spiritually blind soldiers and forced agreements placed Marcian the Emperor to establish a new church of alexandria, instead of appropriate titles that needed to be given. So hardship and struggle defines the term "Coptic" and stating with profundity "that Masked Men cannot fool anyone" and to a God that is just and powerful over any empire.

Though this wasn't stated in the specific topic, but during John Paul II funeral The HISTORY CHANNEL showed a documentary on the many popes successions. And one must realize that this pope that is being supported is declaration of Roman papacy. Hence the Western Church including Constantinople have been lead into heresy to this very day. Ok so concerning the old and spiritually blind heretics of previous Councils, political power plays a ROLE in THIS Council that becomes indecent and exposed weak faith.

I'm just trying to keep up with this post and fill EA's EGO like a balloon because every one on this forum loves to hate him for the others issues.

But this has no affect on me I'm continuing to be apart of the Eastern Orthodox faithful because the Coptics at the Hour of the Lords Coming will receive receive Resurrection of Righteous and the EO's will receive resurrection of Judgement  Shocked

Darn that Holy Spirit! OH the wrongs that could've been right but hence Non-C's puts the Persecutors in a category as being Judged by a God who can put EO together with the Roman West and Protestants who burned heretics alive during the Reformation era as being the same. And also other side of Constantinople has been a ugly one which flagrantly walked away from their faith during 451 A.D. all the way too 550 A.D and even until now.

Thank you EA, MINA and Stavro for doing such a theatrical spectacle that makes people question the faith of the True Church to be weak.=) Let me get some sleep, restart my praying and continued to be filled with error of the Philokalia. Because God know his Divine Wills and Energies will not be of the same voiding me of any strong faith that I was trying to strive for.  :'(
Logged
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #218 on: June 17, 2005, 02:41:09 AM »

Lets pickup the facts since no one on the Chalcedonian side has aimed the arrows outside the fort correctly. From what I picked up:

Leo -a Nestorian who allowed people with blind faith walk in to receive communion. The 3rd Council had anathematized Nestorius yet Leo restates old arguments and defied this HOLY council. Theodoret a small but crucial person who influenced John of Antioch to state Two Natures. Nestorius did not die during the time of Chalcedon and agreed with what Leo said was Nestorian in his Tome. Hence the Theology would be continued and represented of Victory in Chalcedon. The unity of Christ is a confused and not fused person like it was intended it to be.

With the power of his appointing, Leo the "GREAT" could persecute anyone who he felt couldn't learn a lesson. Hence Dioscoros needed to be isolated from confessing Christ was fully God and fully man. Non-C anathematizes Leo like a dirty scoundrel and hence Non-Chalcedonians reject him for his flagrant character to be undignified to a dignified Church of Alexandria. Constantinople had the same "Roman Empire" mentality to persecute and call non-Greeks "Barbarians". As well as Leo's mentality would be the same as of Pontius Pilate's to kill MILLIONS of people, RE-emphasizing MILLIONS!!! Spiritually blind soldiers and forced agreements placed Marcian the Emperor to establish a new church of alexandria, instead of appropriate titles that needed to be given. So hardship and struggle defines the term "Coptic" and stating with profundity "that Masked Men cannot fool anyone" and to a God that is just and powerful over any empire.

Though this wasn't stated in the specific topic, but during John Paul II funeral The HISTORY CHANNEL showed a documentary on the many popes successions. And one must realize that this pope that is being supported is declaration of Roman papacy. Hence the Western Church including Constantinople have been lead into heresy to this very day. Ok so concerning the old and spiritually blind heretics of previous Councils, political power plays a ROLE in THIS Council that becomes indecent and exposed weak faith.

I'm just trying to keep up with this post and fill EA's EGO like a balloon because every one on this forum loves to hate him for the others issues.

But this has no affect on me I'm continuing to be apart of the Eastern Orthodox faithful because the Coptics at the Hour of the Lords Coming will receive receive Resurrection of Righteous and the EO's will receive resurrection of Judgement  Shocked

Darn that Holy Spirit! OH the wrongs that could've been right but hence Non-C's puts the Persecutors in a category as being Judged by a God who can put EO together with the Roman West and Protestants who burned heretics alive during the Reformation era as being the same. And also other side of Constantinople has been a ugly one which flagrantly walked away from their faith during 451 A.D. all the way too 550 A.D and even until now.

Thank you EA, MINA and Stavro for doing such a theatrical spectacle that makes people question the faith of the True Church to be weak.=) Let me get some sleep, restart my praying and continued to be filled with error of the Philokalia. Because God know his Divine Wills and Energies will not be of the same voiding me of any strong faith that I was trying to strive for.  :'(




 Huh I GOT NO IDEA WHAT YOU SAID.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2005, 02:41:31 AM by sin_vladimirov » Logged

Lord have mercy.
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 #219 on: June 17, 2005, 02:43:32 AM »

Mina & Stavro,

Let’s agree on the fundamentals, and agree to disagree on the rest:

1)   Our Church will never accept Chalcedon as a legitimate Ecumenical Council for the sake of unity.
2)   Regardless of whether Chalcedon was heretical or not, the main issue we can all agree upon is that in its immediate fifth century context, it could reasonably be interpreted as such and hence the reasonable reaction to Chalcedon by our fathers.
3)   Regardless of any heresy in Chalcedon, it was a council of schism motivated by dirty politics, envy, greed, and hatred; one instigated with an hidden agenda to undermine Alexandria as the theological centre of the world, for as St Gregory of Nazianzus would put it: “The head of the Church of Alexandria is the head of the world.”
4)   “You shall know them by their fruits” — Chalcedonian Crusaders persecuted and mass-slaughtered many of our faithful; to agree to Chalcedon would be to implicitly condone the consequent fruits of injustice and evil committed against us.

I hope you guys can allow the above 4 points to be a “common declaration of faith” to resolve the Stavro vs. Mina dispute, and to just agree to disagree on the rest.

With that said, I am personally at the stage where I believe that unity is practically and in reality impossible, though theoretically it is warranted since it is obvious we share the same faith. The conflicting and opposing mindsets within each Church’s congregations is an issue which in itself suffices in drawing this conclusion — you would have people like ozgeorge adamant in declaring our fathers heretics regardless of the facts vs. people like greekischristian who are open to reasonable and objective consideration of the facts at hand vs. people like Anastasios who have objectively considered the facts and understood that our fathers were never heretics; thus ultimately such a unity could ironically potentially divide the Church even further via the severe tension that I believe it would create. ÂÂ

What I would like to see however, and what I do hope for, is simply an acknowledged official and common declaration of faith as Stavro mentioned; drawn between our Church’s respective patriarchs acknowledging that both Church’s today adhere to, and are loyal to the Orthodox faith which has been received from our Holy Fathers which they in turn received from Blessed Apostles who in turn received from the Lord Himself.

I believe the EP H. H. Bartholomew has already declared: “The Copts are as Orthodox as we are!” and our Patriarch H.H. Pope Shenouda III has likewise declared the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Church.

Peace.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2005, 02:46:56 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 #220 on: June 17, 2005, 02:45:23 AM »

Alexp4uni,

Quote
But this has no affect on me I'm continuing to be apart of the Eastern Orthodox faithful because the Coptics at the Hour of the Lords Coming will receive receive Resurrection of Righteous and the EO's will receive resurrection of Judgement


Please refrain from such stupidity. No one said or implied anything of the sort.

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
sin_vladimirov
ANAXIOS!
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 477

ICXC NIKA


« Reply #221 on: June 17, 2005, 02:53:30 AM »

I personally (me, myself) have no reasons to consider Copts anything but Orthodox. I just think that words that you (well some of you) use like HATRED, ENVY, GREED... HIDDEN AGENDAS etc do not help us that are Orthodox  and who see Copts the same way. That is that kind of phrazeology is not helping at all when if we are to convince those of our brethren that are not seing it that way to change their minds.

It would be really appreciated if that kind of talk would at least be toned down to words like MISUNDERSTANDING and so on, unless of course, you just do not care what we think of you. If that is the case just say so. At least it would be easy to know where we all stand.

Than we can start throwing at each other frazes as used by Alex and finish with it all.

Many years.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2005, 02:55:21 AM by sin_vladimirov » Logged

Lord have mercy.
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 #222 on: June 17, 2005, 03:11:21 AM »

Alexp4uni,

One last response regarding the following comment:

Quote
Thank you EA, MINA and Stavro for doing such a theatrical spectacle that makes people question the faith of the [Eastern Orthodox Church] to be weak

No one here is challenging your faith; we are challenging your history. A while ago I had a prospective Orthodox convert on this forum who PM’d me regarding his struggle to decide between joining the Coptic Orthodox Church or the Orthodox Church of America. I told him that I concur with the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Church and the validity of her sacraments, and simply advised him to continue attending the liturgies and consulting the priests of both Church’s; to fast, pray and to ultimately follow his heart.

I am not the enemy you are making me out to be.

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
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #223 on: June 17, 2005, 03:55:58 AM »

These Discussions over Chalcedon seem to take a disproportionate amount of my time on these boards, but alas, I shall do my best to continue, though I think EA and I have already discussed much of this.

Dear GreekisChristian,

In our tradition, it was known that St. Dioscorus was under house arrest by the same Imperial authorities, and we felt there was a conspiracy against him.

Are you arguing that he was forbidden by our Emperor from attending the Synod? If so, I would be curious to know your sources.

Quote
This is quite interesting.ÂÂ  It seems highly unlikely that Cyril knew Theodoret wrote this agreementand furthermore, and I have very little faith that Theodoret wrote it either.ÂÂ  When St. Cyril wrote back with the Formula of Reunion, Theodoret wrote to John of Antioch saying that they have examined the letter and agree that not only it is Orthodox, but it "contradicts Cyril's 12 Chapters."ÂÂ  Furthermore, both Cyril and Theodoret anathematized one another even up to Cyril's death, as is shown in Theodoret's letter calling the departed Cyril, a "villain."ÂÂ  Therefore, you can say that Theodoret did not think Nestorius was guilty of heresy, but he did think Ephesus and St. Cyril were heretical also.

I fear that I would have to do some research that I dont have time (or resources) to do right now to give you sources, but in most of what I have read on the subject, Theodoret is said to be the author of the Agreement. Furthermore, considering Cyril's insistance on Apollinarian language (which he wrongly believed to be Athanasian), it is not surprising that Theodoret would have reservations about his expression of Theology, fortunately such misunderstandings were clarified, and all was set right at Chalcedon.

Quote
But I happen to personally believe that Theodoret, a qualified theologian himself, understood exactly what Nestorius was writing.

And I'm will to guess that if we had Nestorians on this Board, I'd be having a very similar discussion with them, but discussing what is meant by person as opposed to nature. The fact that neither the Nestorians nor the Eutychians, representing the two extremes of the Schools of Theological thought, were happy with the Decrees and decisions of Chalcedon seems to me to be evidence in and of itself of the Synod's great theological success.

Quote
And very hesitantly, might I add.ÂÂ  It was this hesitancy that got us wondering.

Of course it was hesitantly, he was anathematizing an old friend who he had long stood by. But in the end he put the will of the Synod above this Loyality and was thus vindicated. If he still had theological reservations, which I doubt, his action is all the more admirable for submitting to the Synod even against his own conscience.

Quote
Yes, on the basis that he taught that the humanity was absorbed and nonexistent.ÂÂ  But St. Dioscorus received a confession from Ephesus 449 that Christ was "consubstantial with His mother."ÂÂ  St. Dioscorus and Ephesus 449 had no theological error.

More than Consubstantiality is at issue, the Two Natures could be confused and Consubstantiality with God and Man could be maintained; many of Eutyches statements demonstrate a confusion of the natures.

Quote
I disagree.ÂÂ  There was a personal anathema given by St. Cyril to Theodoret up to Cyril's death.ÂÂ  After all, Theodoret was a huge supporter of "Theodorum et Dioodorum."

The Personal Anathemas of Cyril, or of any father, are of little consequence as he had no claim to jurisdiction in the matter.

Quote
Well, the question is then what is heretical about Ephesus 449?ÂÂ  The belief of the double consubstantiality of Christ was still professed.ÂÂ  And the Tome was examined by Theodoret among the group, and the legates, who said that Theodore of Mopsuestia was a doctor of the Church, already contradicting St. Cyril's anathemas against this person (and the Fifth EO Council).ÂÂ  The Tome can be interpreted Orthodox, but the examination by such persons make it suspicious.

What is heretical? A rejection of the Tome of Leo, a Denial that Christ is IN Two Natures. As a tangent, what exactly do the non-chalcedonians object to in Leo's tome...it's been mentioned in passing a few times, but never systematically in any of the discussions I've been involved in.

Quote
What was worrysome about it?ÂÂ  If someone who is accused told you that Christ was consubstantial with His mother, can this be interpreted as "His mother's humanity was non-existent."ÂÂ  I don't even think this guy Eutyches knew what he was talking about in the first place, since he was not ever close to a theologian.ÂÂ  St. Dioscorus deposed others for professing "in" two natures, a new profession that was interpreted as Nestorian, since Nestorius used the same terminology.ÂÂ  In addition, Flavian, Eusebius, and Theodoret, anathematized anyone who confessed "one nature" not knowing that "one nature" can be interpreted Orthodox as St. Cyril did.ÂÂ  To St. Dioscorus' eyes, these three men anathematized St. Cyril, and thus were counted as Nestorian, not knowing that Eutyches believed in a heretical interpretation.

The issue was more one of Confusion and Change of the natures than Consubstantiality.

Quote
Except the "in" two natures part, which was not in the Formula of Reunion, but rather "of" two natures was used, something that St. Dioscorus professed in the Synod, which was indeed in accordance with the Formula of Reunion.ÂÂ  Might I add it was St. Dioscorus who was the first person in the Council of Chalcedon in front of 600 bishops to use the four adverbs "without commixture, without alteration, without division, without seperation."

Yet a rejection of the 'IN' two natures is a confusion or change of the natures from our perspective.

Quote
Since someone was under house arrest, it justifies why this someone couldn't come.ÂÂ  He first sent a message that he was under arrest, and then because he knew he couldn't get out, knowing that this was all a scam, he challenged them to see if anything he said in the Council was heterodox by sending a message "I have said enough."ÂÂ  Indeed, the best thing the Council could do was depose him for "not appearing" but couldn't challenge the Orthodoxy of his statements.ÂÂ  Meanwhile, the Imperial authorities got what they wanted, taking St. Dioscorus away and beating him up like they planned.ÂÂ  Deception by the Imperial authorities to Chalcedon and Dioscorus is Satanic, the greatest offence of all.

According to the Canons, one would have to be summoned thrice, and refuse to go before the synod thrice, before they could be excommunicated, was Dioscorus thrice denied attendence to the Synod by the Imperial Authority? If so, as I said before, I would like to know your sources.

Quote
I would like to add this was on the assumption that we didn't take Chalcedon in the light of Ephesus and thus we interpreted it as Nestorian.ÂÂ  Call it misunderstanding or political or "true" as some profess is open for discussion.ÂÂ  But the fact of the matter is St. Dioscorus rejected it not because he was a heretic.

As I said before, if Didoscorus agreed with the Synod's theology but rejected it, it is no less serious than a theological disagreement; it is still schism.

Quote
PSÂÂ  Sorry to barge in, but on the assumption that EA is studying, I guess I can do my best to answer some claims.

You are, of course, welcome in on our discussion, though my adversaries seem to increase and active allies decrease Wink I simply ask your indulgance as I may not be able to reply in as timely a manner as would be ideal.
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
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #224 on: June 17, 2005, 04:03:04 AM »

Mina & Stavro,

Let’s agree on the fundamentals, and agree to disagree on the rest:

1)   Our Church will never accept Chalcedon as a legitimate Ecumenical Council for the sake of unity.
2)   Regardless of whether Chalcedon was heretical or not, the main issue we can all agree upon is that in its immediate fifth century context, it could reasonably be interpreted as such and hence the reasonable reaction to Chalcedon by our fathers.
3)   Regardless of any heresy in Chalcedon, it was a council of schism motivated by dirty politics, envy, greed, and hatred; one instigated with an hidden agenda to undermine Alexandria as the theological centre of the world, for as St Gregory of Nazianzus would put it: “The head of the Church of Alexandria is the head of the world.”
4)   “You shall know them by their fruits” — Chalcedonian Crusaders persecuted and mass-slaughtered many of our faithful; to agree to Chalcedon would be to implicitly condone the consequent fruits of injustice and evil committed against us.

I know that this was meant to address an internal dispute, but I would like to bring these up as better evidence than I could ever construct by logical argument that communion between us and the Non-Chalcedonians is unrealistic and, in all probability, undesirable for both sides. I, and probably most (non-Protestant) Chalcedonians with me, regard the Definition of Chalcedon to be Equal to, if not above, the words of Scripture themselves and could not conceive of our Faith without it. The proposistion of reunification without an unconditional acceptance of that Synod is as unrealistic to us as the proposistoin of reunification with unconditional acceptance of Chalcedon is to you. You will never adopt it as an Oecumenical Synod, and we will never allow it to be anything less.
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
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 0.221 seconds with 71 queries.