OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 22, 2014, 07:56:22 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 35804 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 #225 on: June 17, 2005, 06:26:56 AM »

I'm sorry, I just can't help myself; I will just quickly respond to those issues that will take the least of my time to respond to:

greekischristian,

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

The issues is this: The reasonableness of our rejection of the expression “in two natures” in the name of Orthodoxy vs. the reasonableness of your employment of “in two natures” in the name of Orthodoxy.

The expression itself finds its origins in Nestorianism, and before Chalcedon ever adopted it, never was it employed in the name of Orthodox Christology (not even in the re-union formula, as Mina correctly pointed out), but rather predominantly employed to convey heresy. The fact of the matter is, that semantically speaking its very implications are Nestorian EVEN WHEN the term physis is understood essentialistically as opposed to in a hypostatic sense; such that there is no parallel between the misunderstanding of “One physis” and “in two physis” — since heresy can only be read into the former if the term physis is defined in a manner disconnected from the context that it is employed, whereas the corollary implications of the latter are heretical regardless of how the context demands us to define the term “physis”. I will quickly explain why:

The first thing to note is that the definition in Chalcedon starts with the clause that one must confess Christ “to be in…” or synonymously confess that Christ “exists in…” — at this stage any reasonable person will understand that whatever follows is essentially a qualification of Christ’s state of existence. That it is qualified with “two natures” gives the very clear implication that Christ’s two natures are two grounds of His existence i.e. Christ exists IN the human nature (One ground of existence) AND Christ exists IN the divine nature (Another - Second - ground of existence) — this is why Nestorius employed it, since he regarded Christ’s two essences/natures as two centers/grounds of existence for Christ. Christ does not “exist IN” His natures — this is the worst and most unreasonable manner to manner to attempt to convey the essential Orthodox concept that Christ “possesses” two complete and perfect natures/ousias. The Incarnate Word is only ONE existence — this ONE existence came about “from” the unconfused union of His two natures/ousias; for as the ground of His existence was one prior to the Incarnation, so it remained One after the Incarnation due to the fact His humanity became inextricably intrinsic to His One ground of existence as opposed to independent of it.

Professor Frances Young states in his book From Nicea to Chalcedon:

The ‘prosopic union’…becomes Nestorius’ attempt to provide a metaphysical account of Christ’s unity of person which did not involve the difficiulties of a ‘natural’ or ‘substantial’ union, and Nestorius meant to convey a ‘real union’. The One Christ has ‘two grounds of being’, he exists ‘in two natures’, as Chalcedon was later to confirm.” (page 237)

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

One is directly relevant to the other; they’re not two independent issues. If Christ’s natures were confused into one, then the consubstantiality of both is compromised, for He now has a new "super-human nature" so to speak, which is not the same as that possessed by any other being. However, in the historical context of what was understood as “monphysitism”; the divine nature did not cease to be consubstantial, but rather by virtue of this “confusion”, it "dissolved" or "consumed" the real humanity of Christ and as such, Christ’s humanity ceased to be real/complete/perfect i.e. ceased to be consubstantial with mankind. Regardless of the different types of “confusion” that can be conceived, the ultimate result is certain — His consubstantiality with mankind no longer remains. This is simply the direct logical consequence.

Eutyches never affirmed confusion however; the monophysite doctrine is one ascribed to him by his enemies. If you can find for me in the minutes of Ephesus 448 or 449, or anywhere else, any quotation from Eutyches in which he affirms monophysitism, I would like to see it. As was said before, Eutyches was simply a confused old man who became the centre of controversy for reasons that were far from doctrinal. He was hesitant in affirming the consubstantiality of Christ to mankind only on the basis that he really had no idea what the fathers taught, and feared straying from a tradition he was oblivious to in the first place. If you read the things he said (which I have), you would understand that ignorance was the only basis of his hesitancy; however ultimately he did in fact implicitly confess Christ's consubtantially with mankind, and he explicitly confessed it to St Dioscorus after. If we were to make any reasonable conclusions based on his positive affirmations or even on his silence, we would conclude that this old man who was neither a scholar nor a theologian, was placed into a sensitive position which he simply did not know how to handle. He wanted to affirm the faith of the fathers, but unfortunately he did not know what that faith entailed.

Eutyches is still under anathema by our Church (anathemized by St Dioscours personally)ÂÂ  as he is by yours, however this is based on the assumption that he ascribed to monphysitism. This assumption I believe, was a false one to make, and the only direct bearing that such a conclusion has on anything, is the legitimacy of Chalcedon itself.

Quote
communion between us and the Non-Chalcedonians is unrealistic and, in all probability, undesirable for both sides.

I absolutely agree. However, I hold the historical event of Chalcedon responsible for this, and not our historical or even continued rejection of it.

Okay I solemnly vow that from this moment I will not return to this forum until July! [/u] (I feel so badÂÂ  Embarrassed)...lol

Peace.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2005, 06:31:04 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
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #226 on: June 17, 2005, 06:52:05 AM »


Okay I solemnly vow that from this moment I will not return to this forum until July! [/u] (I feel so badÂÂ  Embarrassed)...lol

Peace.

Alright, any takers on how long EA will actually refrain from posting?   Shocked

(I'll give him til noon...seriously, EA, best wishes for your finals  Smiley )
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #227 on: June 17, 2005, 11:44:22 AM »

Quote
No one here is challenging your faith; we are challenging your history.

Well, I list that in my top 5 reasons for schism.

The other four are:

1.  Disagreement on the shape of priests' hats
2.  Sarma or Haluski?  Are they the same?
3.  Priestly ownership of cats - should it be allowed?
4.  Disagreements on the location of vestibules in church halls
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,820


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #228 on: June 17, 2005, 07:49:48 PM »

I have another question. Forgive me if it has already been addressed, or if I am misreading the prior posts I am basing this on.  It's a long thread and I am trying to read it as best I can.

Question:  I think someone in this thread used Christ's prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane as evidence of two wills or natures.  In other words, when Christ prayed "not as I will, but as you will," it showed a conflict between His two wills, with the human will eventually and reluctantly giving in to the divine. 

Doesn't this analysis violate the 6th council?  This quote is from about two thirds into the 6h council:



 And these two natural wills are not contrary the one to the other (God forbid!) as the impious heretics assert, but his human will follows and that not as resisting and reluctant, but rather as subject to his divine and omnipotent will. For it was right that the flesh should be moved but subject to the divine will, according to the most wise Athanasius. For as his flesh is called and is the flesh of God the Word, so also the natural will of his flesh is called and is the proper will of God the Word, as he himself says: "I came down from heaven, not that I might do mine own will but the will of the Father which sent me!" where he calls his own will the will of his flesh, inasmuch as his flesh was also his own. For as his most holy and immaculate animated flesh was not destroyed because it was deified but continued in its own state and nature (orw te kai logw), so also his human will,
although deified, was not suppressed, but was rather preserved according to the saying of Gregory Theologus: "His will [i.e., the Saviour's] is not contrary to God but altogether deified."



According to this, His human will should not even be spoken of as "reluctant" in following His divine will, much less conflicting with it, but rather it should be spoken of as being completely subject to the divine. 

I think this is actually what the OO's are referring to when we speak of Christ having "one will."   His will, like His nature, is fully human and fully divine, but is only "one" because the humanity and divinity never act separately. Or something like that.  I am not a theologian, just a layperson trying to understand these things.

This is where I got the quote:

 http://www.orthodoxnet.com/orthodoxy/

Like I said, it's about two thirds down, on page 345.

I am just asking about this because the analysis about Christ's prayer in the garden seemed a little odd to me, perhaps separating the divine from the human a little too much.

Thanks for bearing with me.

Logged

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

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #229 on: June 17, 2005, 08:57:24 PM »

According to this, His human will should not even be spoken of as "reluctant" in following His divine will, much less conflicting with it, but rather it should be spoken of as being completely subject to the divine.ÂÂ  

Salpy,
There is no contradiction. The Divine Will and the Human Will have the same thing as their goal- the same eschaton for the Saints.
 In the Agony, Christ's Human Will, which has it's natural, God-created (and therefore, good) inclination to self-preservation asks "If it is possible, let this cup pass from Me, however, not my will, but Thine be done". In other words, "if this goal  can be possibly be achieved  another way (other than My Death), let it be so, however, only if this is in accordance with the Divine Will."  The two Wills are distinct, yet working in Synergy.
The distinction of the Wills is not opposition of the Wills.

Unless Christ had a Human Will, then He was not "a man like us in all things except sin", and His Human Nature would be incapable of sin, which would mean His temptations were a farce, and His Human Flesh was simply an "automaton" which is "infused" with the Divine Nature. This is just another form of Docetism.

The main idea of Docetism is not that Christ's body was a "phantasm" as some claim. Docetism believes that the Divinity is irreconcilaqble with Christ being born in Human Flesh. The Docetist idea that Christ only appeared to suffer is based on this notion. If Christ has only one will, then He only appears to suffer in the Garden, and this is just a farce- this is Docetism.
Logged

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,674


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


« Reply #230 on: June 17, 2005, 11:57:21 PM »

Dear all,

Due to some life-changing situations, I won't be spending much time on the internet, but I'll stop by a couple of times to give my feedback.

God bless.

Mina

Pray for me.
Logged

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

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,820


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #231 on: June 18, 2005, 01:12:23 AM »

ozgeorge,

I can't help but think that the people attending the 6th council had a little more unity in mind than the divine and human wills sharing the same goals.  If that were the case, then the relationship between Christ and God would be roughly the same as that between God and certain saints, since I am sure there have been saints who shared the same goals as God.

Logged

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

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #232 on: June 18, 2005, 01:57:04 AM »

I can't help but think that the people attending the 6th council had a little more unity in mind than the divine and human wills sharing the same goals.ÂÂ  

Dear Salpy,
You probably can't help thinking this because this is the very difference between miaphysitism and the Two Natures working in Synergy as understood by the Chalcedonian Churches.
The Two Wills are distinct, yet work in synergy. There is neither confusion (mixing) of the Two Natures, nor confusion (mixing) of the Two Wills.

Think of it this way: The life of an Orthodox Christian is an ordinary (natural) life lived in an extraordinary (supernatural) way. Christ lived this life on Earth in this way par excellence. The reason for this is simple- the voluntary kenosis (self-emptying) of Christ. You and I have no choice in whether we were born human or not, and therefore have no choice as to whether we experience human experiences or not. On the other hand, Christ voluntarily took on Humanity, and thus, all His human experiences (hunger, thirst, pain, temptation) were all voluntarily taken on by Him. When we say "voluntarily" here, we mean, the Divine Will initially (pre-incarnation) and then the Human Will in synergy with the Divine Will (post-incarnation). The Incarnate Christ, therefore, is the Human par excellence, because His humanity, unlike ours, was voluntary.
 Thus, St. Maximos the Confessor writes:
"These natural things of the will are present in Him, but not exactly in the same manner as they are in us. He verily did hunger and thirst, not in a mode similar to ours, but in a mode which surpasseth us, in other words, voluntarily. Thus, He was truly afraid [in Gethsemane], not as we are, but in a mode surpassing us. To put it concisely: all things that are natural in Christ have both the rational principle proper to human nature, but a super-natural mode of existence, in order that both the [human] nature, by means of its rational principle, and the Economy, by means of its super-natural mode of existence, might be believed."
Logged

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

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #233 on: June 18, 2005, 12:30:54 PM »

Perhaps one of the most important things underlined (by Ozgeorge, to hsi credit) in this discussion, is the difference between hypostasis (substance, or alternatively though not as precisely translated as "Person") and the intellect or rational power of the soul.

This is a distinction that I've also read in other works, unrelated to this controversy.  It is also something which bears itself out in human experience - that the intellect is not the person, but rather an energy of the soul.  Ozgeorge was 100% correct in identifying the confusion of the intellect with the "person" as the basic reason why modern westerners are so miserable, and as something the Orthodox Tradition seeks to heal in men.  Indeed, it's not even the intellect which is the primary "portal" or spiritual advancement or enlightenment - that is the nous, which is something else altogether.  If we can tie the intellect to the physical brain, than the nous would be associated with the heart (and hence why the two are so often associated together - ex. "prayer of the heart" aka. "noetic prayer")

I also think the description of the term "I" as a linguistic trap (if taken the wrong way) and resulting in a false egotism (which is again, part of our sickness - even the pagan savants recognized this, hence the existance of forms of ascesis, however flawed and imperfect, in their religions and traditions) was particularly good.  The description of "I" as a map of a place, rather than something fundamental like the "I" of "I AM that I AM" which can only be said of God, was very good too.  I also think it has direct implications to the teaching on Christ having saved the entirity of the mankind in His great feat - such is only comprehensible as being something other than a "pious metaphore" if one steps away from false egotism and is thus able to see how we are all connected to one another, and to Christ in this respect.

Thus, the famous maxim of Descartes needs to be turned on it's head, if it is to have any truth at all... it's not "I think therefore I am", but "I exist, therefore I think."

Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,820


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #234 on: June 18, 2005, 11:06:09 PM »

I guess I misunderstood the 6th council.ÂÂ  I thought it really said the human and divine in Christ did not disagree on anything, but were always in perfect harmony.ÂÂ  What ozgeorge is saying is that the council only meant they needed to agree on the ultimate goal in order to be one person.ÂÂ  Again, it is hard to see the difference between that and a saint who had the same goals as God.

Something else that confuses me is the implication in ozgeorge's last post that the difference between us and Christ is that He lived the Christian life in a more perfect way.  This reminds me of something that Ibas (the one exonerated by Chalcedon) said.  He said something to the effect that he did not envy Christ, because he had the possibility of becoming what Christ was.  I understood Nestorius, Ibas and Theodoret to believe that the relationship between the divine and human in Christ was like the relationship between God and a saint, except that whereas the saint only experienced God in a temporary and imperfect way, Christ had the divine with Him all the time.  ÃƒÆ’‚Â

Again, what ozgeorge is saying in his last couple of posts just seems a little too close to what the above three taught.ÂÂ  I hope I am mistaken in my reading of what ozgeorge is saying.


Another question:ÂÂ  Do the Chalcedonians believe that Christ has one soul or two souls?

I hope I am not being too annoying in asking all these questions.  It is just that I rarely get the chance to ask questions like this of real live Chalcedonians.  ÃƒÆ’‚ Smiley  Thanks for being patient with me.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2005, 11:09:08 PM by Salpy » Logged

minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,674


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


« Reply #235 on: June 18, 2005, 11:37:01 PM »

Quick tidbit,

Quote
You probably can't help thinking this because this is the very difference between miaphysitism and the Two Natures working in Synergy as understood by the Chalcedonian Churches.

Miaphysitism has no problem with the synergy of Christ's natural wills, but without kenosis, as you rightly pointed out, it is Chalcedonian Christology that makes it seem there's a contradiction of wills.

We treat St. Cyril's every single word as precious and God-inspired.  Whatever St. Cyril taught is what I defended and what our OO fathers have defended.  St. Cyril even defended synergy, and using Miaphysitism, he made the prosopon the center of all that is being willed, so as not to confuse Chalcedonian Christology with the Christology of 7th Day Adventists, as if Jesus was praying to His own divinity.  The problem with Chalcedonian christology while not confusing the natures, have distinguished them so much, it seems like they seperate and divide.

The best way to understand Christ's prayer at Gethsamene is the voluntary kenosis of Christ, just as George mentioned, a teaching taught by the Apostles and expanded by St. Cyril.

God bless.

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 #236 on: June 19, 2005, 01:12:22 AM »

Again, what ozgeorge is saying in his last couple of posts just seems a little too close to what the above three taught.
How is it the same? For us to be like Christ according to His Two Natures, we must, at the momemnt of conception, have both a Divine and Human Nature. Christ is like us according to His Human Nature, but we are not like Christ according to His Divine Nature. I think the problem is that you guys take the Fathers too literally, in the same way that evangelical protestants take the Scriptures literally and fall into the Chilianist error. For example: 
We treat St. Cyril's every single word as precious and God-inspired. 
St. Athanasios says that "we become through grace what Christ is by Nature". Isn't St. Athanasios also a Coptic Father? Why is it that you guys don't take him literally and accuse him of bordering on heresy? Wink Furthermore, not everything Nestorios, Ibas and Theodoret taught was heresy.
Perhaps rather than focusing on individual words, you would do better to try and see what ineffable mysteries the Fathers were attempting to express in feeble, human words.

Another question:ÂÂ  Do the Chalcedonians believe that Christ has one soul or two souls?
Christ has One, created Human Soul since he has only One Human Nature.
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 #237 on: June 19, 2005, 01:29:41 AM »

Augustine,

Quote
Ozgeorge was 100% correct in identifying the confusion of the intellect with the "person"

If this was ozgeorge’s argument, then he was setting up a straw man — for this was neither what I or the renowned professors of metaphysics whom I quoted, stated or even implied. "Intellect" is a corollary secondary characteristic of a person, but it is not identified with one's person.

However, I don’t recall this being George’s essential argument - he wasn't setting up a straw man. I realize that George and I’s discussion on this issue panned over a some-what hostile (which I do apologise for) 3-4 post exchange, but I advise you to go back and read it again in its entirety, since most of your post seems to have been made inÂÂ  “unawareness of” (for use of a kinder expression) what was actually being argued.

Quote
The description of "I" as a map of a place, rather than something fundamental like the "I" of "I AM that I AM" which can only be said of God, was very good too.

The description of “I” as a map of place was erroneous, and committed the categorical fallacy by confusing the category of 'being' and 'principle of being' due to a lack of understanding of the metaphysical distinction between the former and the latter (essentially the distinction between something that "exists" and something that is "real", respectively). The reference to Exodus 3:14 was also based on the above mentioned logical fallacy, since the expression itself relates to God’s being and not His personhood. This is not only the patristic conclusion as I pointed out, but it is the conclusion that the linguistic context demands (regardless of whether you are considering the Hebrew or the Greek).

===================================================================================
Re: Christ’s wills

No one handles this issue better than St Severus of Antioch — I will delve into his Christology thoroughly when I have the time after my exams. Salpy is also quite correct in his conclusions concerning George’s interpretation of the sixth council. We have no problem with affirming the synergy of Christ’s two natural distinct and real wills, however if this is merely and solely attributed to a “voluntary surpassing” with regards to Christ's human will, then the Chalcedonians have left themselves open to the possibility of separation and division, and cannot in reality confirm with the Oriental Orthodox the inseparability of Christ’s natures (ousias).

St Severus’ notion of the will(s) in Christ, is integral to his understanding of the hypostatic union. Again, it all comes down to clarifying and explicating the nature of the hypostatic union. It was the Chalcedonians inability to do this alongside their employment of expressions previously employed to convey heresy, as well as their exoneration of heretical figures and documents, which left them open to a reasonable heretical interpretation of their Christology in the first place - not only by the very heretics who saw their heresies being supported, but also by the Orthodox Church (non-C). As far as I know, it is only until we get to St John of Damascus, that we find any real clarification and insight from the Chalcedonian perspective regarding the nature of the hypostatic union: the en-hypostasization of the humanity of Christ to the hypostasis of The Word.  ÃƒÆ’‚Â

Peace.
« Last Edit: June 19, 2005, 01:39:58 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 #238 on: June 19, 2005, 01:48:54 AM »

Okay I solemnly vow that from this moment I will not return to this forum until July! [/u] (I feel so bad  Embarrassed)...lol
Alright, any takers on how long EA will actually refrain from posting?  ÃƒÆ’‚ Shocked

(I'll give him til noon...seriously, EA, best wishes for your finalsÂÂ  Smiley )

I knew I should have started a betting book!!!!
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 #239 on: June 19, 2005, 01:52:31 AM »

EA,
Your exams are more important than whether I am right or wrong. Go and study!!!!
George
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 #240 on: June 19, 2005, 01:53:52 AM »

Quote
I knew I should have started a betting book!!!!

 Cheesy

Well, I decided i'd sacrafice TV time and replace it with forum time today. I think i'll survive not knowing the latest evictee of aussie big brother.

Peace.
Logged

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

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #241 on: June 19, 2005, 01:56:00 AM »

Quote
EA,
Your exams are more important than whether I am right or wrong. Go and study!!!!

 Undecided You make it sound like I'm on a mission to prove you wrong. Nothing like that George.

Okay back to study...please remember me in your prayers.

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
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 #242 on: June 19, 2005, 02:55:26 AM »

The reference to Exodus 3:14 was also based on the above mentioned logical fallacy, since the expression itself relates to God’s being and not His personhood. This is not only the patristic conclusion as I pointed out, but it is the conclusion that the linguistic context demands (regardless of whether you are considering the Hebrew or the Greek).

I hope you have prepared better than this for your exams! Wink
In the Greek, the Second Person of the Trinity says to Moses from the Unburning Bush:
"έγώ είμι ό Ών"
The first word in this phrase, "έγώ" ("I") is superfluous, since "είμι" is the first person singular verb to be, and therefore on it's own means "I am". The phrase would literally translate into english as "I, I am the Being". If it does not relate to the Personhood of the Second Person of the Trinity, why does He repeat the personal pronoun twice with the word "έγώ"?
It was the inclusion of this superfluous "έγώ" in Christ's phrase in John 8:58: "before Abraham was, I AM" (Greek "πρίν Άβραάμ γενέσθαι έγώ είμί") unmistakably identifies Him as the One Who spoke to Moses from the Unburning Bush. He could have omitted "έγώ" and the sentence would be grammatically correct.
Finally "ό Ών" can only be translated as "The Being" or "The One Who Is". It does not mean "Being-ness". Thus, the phrase does not simply mean "I am the only God who Exists" nor simply "I am the Source of Existence". It emphasises: "I, I am The One Who Exists."
So it's not about "reality vs. existence". What it's about is that God's "I" exists in reality. Whereas our "I" does not exists in reality, it is an illusion.
There is no "I" for us, there is only "Other".
The Scriptures have more in mind than ascesis when they say "Deny thyself." Part of ascesis is the path to finding the truth that "God is He Who Is- I am he who is not."

"If any man  wants to come after Me, let him deny himself,  take up his cross daily and follow Me (continually)"  (Luke 9:23)
Look at the Cross- it is the english letter "I" crossed out. Wink
« Last Edit: June 19, 2005, 03:32:12 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #243 on: June 19, 2005, 03:35:04 AM »

Quote
If it does not relate to the Personhood of the Second Person of the Trinity, why does He repeat the personal pronoun twice with the word "έγώ"?

When He employs the personal pronoun (which is obviously not a unique feature of the Greek), it is obvious that He is referring to the person of His being, not the being of His person. When I say “I eat”, I confirm that my person is the subject of the action of eating, even though the food itself enters and is digested by my physical body. Just as my person remains the real subject of eating, despite the fact it does not literally consume and digest food, likewise God’s person is the real subject of existence without being existent itself per se.

All the metaphysical terms used by our fathers (hypostasis, person, essence) simply go to qualify the type of being, but they are not independent being’s per se, only real principles of that being. The reality of these principles abide as long as the being which they qualify, has being; and they cease once that being ceases to be. Since God's being is eternal, the reality of His person is eternal - and THIS is the only difference between His person and ours which can be interpreted from Exodus 3:14.

Here is part of a past university essay that I wrote which related to this verse:

Quote
In response to the inquiry of Moses as to what name He should identify Him with to the Israelites, God responds: “'I am that I am'…’Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: I am hath sent me unto you.'” (JPS) The Hebrew transliteration reads: “ehyeh asher ehyeh”, where ehyeh is a first person singular imperfect of the verb hayah which means ‘to be’. “I will be, what I will be” is also a possible translation , however both translations are nonetheless flawed considering that the “I am” translation denotes present tense, whilst the “I will be” translation denotes future tense, according to an expression which in its Hebrew context possesses no “tense”, but rather the imperfect form. It is interesting to note that the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translation of the Old Testament renders God’s response to Moses as: ‘“ego eimi ho on [‘I am the one who is’, or ‘I am the existent one’]”; tell them that “ho on [‘the existent one’, or ‘the one who is’]” has sent you.’

According to many Christian, and some Jewish commentators, the name signifies God’s being the eternally uncaused pre-existent cause of all creation. Gregory of Nazianzus understands the title as one relating to the nature of God’s existence, noting that it is a special name “of his essence” signifying His absoluteness.

Eusebius elaborates further by stating that “Everything that has ever existed or now exists derives its being from the One, the only existent and preexistent being, who also said, ‘I am the existent.’…As the only being and the eternal being, he is himself the cause of existence to all those to whom he has imparted existence from himself by his will and his power and gives existence to all things and their powers and forms, richly and ungrudgingly from himself” (Proof of the Gospel 4.1)

Hilary of Poitiers affirms that the name relates to the essence of God, by speaking of His admiration for the fact that God chose language most suitable in order to clearly define for man His incomprehensible nature, stating that “he [God] has revealed to us in a fitting manner this fact alone, that he is, in order to render testimony to his everlasting eternity.” According to Hilary of Poitiers the name not only points towards God’s eternal existence, but also to the corollary of that; His self-subsistence or self-sustenance, saying that “It is known that there is nothing more characteristic of God than to be, because that itself which is does not belong to those things which will one day end or to those which had a beginning…” (On the Trinity 1.5)

Augustine takes the implications of the name even further, by understanding it to also denote His immutability. He Interprets the name as: “That I abide forever, that I cannot change”, and reasons that “things which change are not, because they do not last. What is, abides. But whatever changes, was something and will be something; yet you cannot say it is, because it is changeable. So the unchangeableness of God was prepared to suggest itself by this phrase “I am who I am.” (Sermon 6.4)

Prominent Jewish Rabbi Moses ben Maimon also interpreted the title as a reference to the eternal existence of God, understanding that God states “I will be” because He “always has been” . The Rambam in keeping with the root meaning of ehyeh; havayah, which is the Hebrew verb for ‘existence’ states that "He is the existing Being which is the existing Being, that is to say, Whose existence is absolute. The proof which Moses was to give to the elders of Israel consisted in demonstrating that there is a Being of absolute existence, that has never been and never will be without existence."


Peace.
Logged

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

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #244 on: June 19, 2005, 03:36:12 AM »

Quote
"If any man  wants to come after Me, let him deny himself,  take up his cross daily and follow Me (continually)"  (Luke 9:23)
Look at the Cross- it is the english letter "I" crossed out.


Nice Wink

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
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 #245 on: June 19, 2005, 04:25:00 AM »

That's it! I'm not responding until your exams are over!
Logged

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,674


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


« Reply #246 on: June 19, 2005, 11:16:45 PM »

George,

Quote
St. Athanasios says that "we become through grace what Christ is by Nature".  Isn't St. Athanasios also a Coptic Father? Why is it that you guys don't take him  literally and accuse him of bordering on heresy? Wink Furthermore, not everything Nestorios, Ibas and Theodoret taught was heresy.

I don't get it.  What is heretical in St. Athanasius's quote?  It talks about being children of God; it's very clear.  And are you saying that we shouldn't take Nestorius literally when he says "two prosopa"?  Are you saying that some things that St. Athanasius or St. Cyril wrote are heretical?  What's your intentions exactly?

God bless you.
Logged

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

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

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #247 on: June 19, 2005, 11:50:26 PM »

Quote
I don't get it.  What is heretical in St. Athanasius's quote?

Nothing, when taken in context. But pulled out of context, it could be interpreted to imply apotheosis, or that we will become one with the divine essence and therefore equal to God.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,674


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


« Reply #248 on: June 20, 2005, 12:02:48 AM »

Nothing, when taken in context. But pulled out of context, it could be interpreted to imply apotheosis, or that we will become one with the divine essence and therefore equal to God.

Taken in context, there's still nothing wrong.  It's clear he said we take it "by grace" not "by Nature" as Christ is.

God bless.
Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
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 #249 on: June 20, 2005, 07:26:19 AM »

Taken in context, there's still nothing wrong.ÂÂ  

Beayf answered well for me. There is nothing heretical in St. Athanasios' quote, just as there is nothing heretical in the Tomos of Leo. But even in context, St. Athanasios' quote can be misunderstood to mean union with the Divine Essence. Think about it. St. Athanasios said: "We become by grace what Christ is by Nature."  By Nature, Christ is One in Essence with the Father. Is St. Athanasios saying that by grace we also become One in Essence with the Father? Of course not! So why is Leo rejected on the basis of a "lack of clarity" and Athanasios not rejected on the same basis of a "lack of clarity"? The point is, as I said before, the Fathers used feeble human words to try and describe the indescribable and ineffable. We cannot fixate on specific words in what they have said, believing that they contain the sum total of a particular doctrine about the mysteries of the Faith. This is why Tradition is the teaching of The Fathers and not a Father. We need the united voice of the Fathers to understand Holy Tradition.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #250 on: June 20, 2005, 08:01:43 AM »


"If any manÂÂ  wants to come after Me, let him deny himself,ÂÂ  take up his cross daily and follow Me (continually)"ÂÂ  (Luke 9:23)
Look at the Cross- it is the english letter "I" crossed out. Wink


So, am I to take it that the Russians have an especially strong aversion to egocentrism? Their crosses (and the non-slanted Romanian 3-bar crosses - see icon to left) seem to be rather vehemently crossed out 'I's  Wink

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
Stavro
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,230



« Reply #251 on: June 21, 2005, 12:54:05 AM »

Greekchristian in reply # 224:
Quote
You will never adopt it as an Oecumenical Synod, and we will never allow it to be anything less.
I believe this is a realistic view and a good assessment of the matter. Some questions:

- Do EO believe Chalcedon is infallible ? If yes, and I believe the answer must be yes, is it infallible in its enitre content or just in part of it ? Can we pick and choose what we want from a holy council ?
 
The question is justified by the fact that Leo of Rome rejected Canon 28 of Chalcedon. Was the Holy Spirit absent during the discussion of Canon 28 or is Leo of Rome, by rejecting a decision of a holy synod, outside the Church defacto ? Can we follow the example set by Leo of Rome and reject the council "partially" ?
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)
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 #252 on: June 21, 2005, 07:58:20 AM »

- Do EO believe Chalcedon is infallible ? If yes, and I believe the answer must be yes, is it infallible in its enitre content or just in part of it ? Can we pick and choose what we want from a holy council ?

A very loaded question! There is no need for "infallibility" in the Orthodox Church, since no Synod (or anyone else for that matter) can ever introduce a new doctrine into Orthodox Christianity.The doctrines expressed in the Ecumenical Synods are the doctrines which the Church has always held. And parts of the Synods are not doctrine (for example, the canons). And yes, the Church has the right to excersise "Economia" in the application of her canons. For example, Canon 101 of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod forbids the use of an impliment to administer Holy Communion, but, aside from when the Liturgy of St. James is celebrated, all Eastern Orthodox Churches today administer Holy Communion with a Spoon (see the photo under my name), and have done so for a few centuries. Canon 101 of the sixth Ecumenical Synod does not touch on doctrine, but refers to established custom. Other Canons forbid clerics to grow long hair and beards- these are certainly not observed in recent history! Again, these Canons do not deal with doctrine, but with customs, and we do not turn the customs of men into the Commandments of God.
But when an Ecumenical Synod speaks on matters of dogma, this is different. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit in accordance with the promise of Christ. This is not the same as "infallability" as understood in the Roman Catholic Church. An Ecumenical Synod simply proclaims what Holy Tradition has always taught. Thus an Ecumenical Synod proclaims doctrines in accordance with the test of Saint Vincent of Lerins "Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est"ÂÂ  — what has been believed by all, at all times and in all places. So you see, there is no need for "infallibility" in Orthodoxy.
 
The question is justified by the fact that Leo of Rome rejected Canon 28 of Chalcedon. Was the Holy Spirit absent during the discussion of Canon 28 or is Leo of Rome, by rejecting a decision of a holy synod, outside the Church defacto ? Can we follow the example set by Leo of Rome and reject the council "partially" ?
Canon 28 does not deal with doctrine, as discussed previously in this post, and even we do not follow all the non-doctrinal Canons of the Ecumenical Councils.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2005, 08:02:29 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,990


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #253 on: June 21, 2005, 08:43:55 AM »

"And are you saying that we shouldn't take Nestorius literally when he says "two prosopa"?"

Nestorius did not say two prosopa.  He said one prosopa and two qnoma.

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
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,674


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


« Reply #254 on: June 22, 2005, 10:35:15 PM »

George,

If "through grace" doesn't mean anything to anyone, then yes, it would be gravely misunderstood.

Deacon Lance,

I don't have the book with me, but I remember reading from the Bazaar of Herecleides many indications that Nestorius believed in a unity of prosopa, and not just one prosopon.  Some scholars in defending Nestorius "redefine" Nestorius' "prosopon" to make it look like he's professing Orthodoxy.  There's proof enough at least that Nestorius confessed the terminology, and I believe, contrary to these "scholars" knew exactly what "prosopa" meant when writing it, such that he also confessed the "prosopa of God" in the Trinity.  Either he knew what he was talking about, or he is just making a mockery out of theology as Fr. John Romanides suggested.

God bless.
Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
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 #255 on: June 23, 2005, 07:17:18 PM »

If "through grace" doesn't mean anything to anyone, then yes, it would be gravely misunderstood.

 Huh

Why do you say this?
Whether by grace or not, the relevant part of St. Athanasios' quote for potential heretics is: "become what Christ is by Nature".
 He doesn't say "we become like Christ by grace".  He says "through grace, we become what Christ is by Nature".

Whether we get there by grace or not isn't the point.
Logged

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,674


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


« Reply #256 on: June 23, 2005, 07:25:41 PM »

George, I quote you:

Quote
St. Athanasios says that "we become through grace what Christ is by Nature".
 

Instead you invert the quote to make it sound heretical:

Quote
Through grace, we become what Christ is by Nature.

You haven't proved anything to me but turned an Orthodox statement into a heretical statement.

It's like the Jehovah's Witnesses who invert Christ's salvific statement to one of the thieves on the cross.  Rather than "Truly I tell you, Today you will be with me in Paradise" they write "Today I truly tell you, you will be with me in paradise."

It's clear that when St. Athanasius says we become what we become "through grace," not by nature.

God bless you.
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.
SaintShenouti
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 224


« Reply #257 on: June 23, 2005, 07:44:35 PM »

It's a good thing to pay attention to the political situation during Chalcedon, 451.  Everyone wanted a piece of Alexandria.  Both old and new Romes wanted primary honor.  An honor that was previously given to Alexandria by default because she was the great theological center of the world.

Why would there be a need for a Tome from Patriarch Leo?  We already had the Orthodox Creed and numerous writings from the great fathers.

Rome had no significant role during previous church councils, and Constantinople was only about political honor, being the imperial capital.

And suddenly the patriarch of Rome calls himself "pope."  We, Alexandria, had one since the beginning.  They suddenly realize that since St. Peter was the so called "chief Apostle," the one who thrice denied the Lord and was rebuked by St. Paul for acting a hypocrite before the Jews, gave them the right to primacy- a concept that was foreign to the early church. 
« Last Edit: June 23, 2005, 07:45:32 PM by SaintShenouti » Logged
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #258 on: June 24, 2005, 12:27:01 AM »

ozgeorge,

Quote
So why is Leo rejected on the basis of a "lack of clarity"…

First of all, as we have shown, it is a lot more than just a mere “lack of clarity”; and in any event even if it was just a mere "lack of clarity", this suffices in undermining its authority since documents promoted as pronouncing the standard of Orthodoxy at valid Ecumenical Councils are supposed to be clear and precise in their Orthodoxy; not ambiguous and prone to the very heresies that a) they’re supposed to be dealing with or b) that have already sufficiently been dealt with.

In any event, there is an inherent double standard in your attempt to question our rejection of Leo; for before Mina, Stavro, or I ever quoted to you the works of St Dioscorus, you condemned him as a heretic on the sole basis of the testimony of your fathers; it was a blind bias towards this false testimony that eventually led you to ignore and disregard all the quotations thence provided which go to vindicate his Orthodoxy beyond all reasonable doubt. Since our Orthodox Fathers condemned Leo as a heretic; why do you expect us to take our Orthodox Church tradition any less serious than you take yours?

St Theodosius of Alexandria states in relation to the Council of Chalcedon:

"This perfidious and damnable synod taught unlawfully among its other blasphemies that Christ is to be known “in two natures”, and against the best valid canons it set up a different definition of faith and called the Tome of Leo a pillar of Orthodoxy, which openly affirmed the godless teachings of Nestorius and two natures and hypostases, as well as two forms and activities and characteristics ..."

Note that St Theodosius’ Christological stance is perfectly Orthodox; his rejection of Leo and Chalcedon is NOT due to any adherence to “monophysitism” or a denial of two natures PER SE, for he also states (amongst many quotations that affirm the reality of the distinction between Christ’s divinity and humanity):

"The hypostatic union did not falsify the distinction of natures that marks the united and also left no place for division and separation; rather, for us it created from two the one and indivisible Emmanuel; one is His nature or composite hypostasis; this means the same as when we say: the nature of the God-Logos Himself and His hypostasis has become flesh and perfectly human being..."

St Theodosius of Alexandria, was as Orthodox as he predecessors up until St Dioscorus of Alexandria, who was as Orthodox as his predecessor St Cyril of Alexandria.

The fact of the matter is ozgeorge, that to condemn the Christology of my fathers, is to condemn the great St Cyril himself, and ultimately to undermine Ephesus 431; there is no way you can escape this. Every principle adopted and every expression used, finds its roots in the one and only who was chosen by God to preside over the Holy Ecumenical Synod of Ephesus 431 to establish and set his works as the standard of Orthodox Christology.

It is for this reason that when we consult the opinions and perspectives of those officials of both our Church’s who participated in achieving the “Agreed statements” (http://metroplit-bishoy.org/files/Dialogues/Byzantine/ORIENT1.DOC, http://metroplit-bishoy.org/files/Dialogues/Byzantine/ORITNT2.DOC, http://metroplit-bishoy.org/files/Dialogues/Byzantine/ORITNT3.DOC, http://metroplit-bishoy.org/files/Dialogues/Byzantine/ORITNT4.DOC ) that we find that, His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy of the Coptic Orthodox Church for example, does not accept the Chalcedonian two-nature Christology, he merely re-interprets it within a miaphysite framework i.e. he accepts the Chalcedonian dualistic Christology on his terms, not on the Chalcedonians terms. On the other hand, we find in the EO reactions to the Agreed statements, that they DO accept miaphysitism on its own terms without having to re-interpret it into a two-nature Christology.

P.S. I read in your response to Stavro, that you adhere to a concept of Church councils, according to which those canons that do not "touch doctrine" need not be considered as binding or infallible. Since the condemnations of St Dioscorus and other Orthodox Saints (made at Councils that you consider "Ecumenical") are polemical statements which are not substantial to matters of faith or doctrine, but are merely historical artefacts which are part of historical context, would you then be willing to un-presuppose their absolute truth, and consider that the assumptions under which they were made are false?

Peace.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2005, 12:34:55 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
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,674


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


« Reply #259 on: July 01, 2005, 01:48:03 PM »

Sorry to bring this up again, but real quickly:

GiC, I think you asked if I can verify that St. Dioscorus was under house arrest.  Fr. VC Samuel cites from ancient sources of the clergy who went to summon St. Dioscorus that the bishops told the council that St. Dioscorus was indeed held under custody.

However, as it was brought to my attention on Fr. VC Samuel's objective research, the second summons received permission for St. Dioscorus to be released.  St. Dioscorus however on the second summons asked that the five men accused with him and the commissioners be present at the council.  So the bishops hoping to grant the request back to the council was denied by Eusebius and others in the council, wanting St. Dioscorus "alone."  The third summons simply was a disapproval by St. Dioscorus that his request was denied, and therefore could not appear.

The question then comes is why weren't the commissioners present on this early reconvening of the council?  And why didn't the council bring St. Dioscorus with his five accusers collectively as was requested?  It was later noted that the five accusers of the council were easily forgiven, but they never were summoned to appear after St. Dioscorus was deposed.  Is that just?

There's just too much information concerning the Council of Chalcedon, but Fr. VC Samuel's "The Council of Chalcedon Re-examined" is an EXCELLENT read and very objective, bases almost all of the information concerning the council on the actual minutes of the council provided by Mansi, a very reliable primary source.  It should be noted that Fr. VC Samuel seems to also believe that Nestorius was nothing more than an strict Antiochian theologian as well, which is another issue.

God bless.
Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
holdencaulfield
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Russian Orthodox
Posts: 244


« Reply #260 on: June 20, 2008, 09:08:41 PM »

Precisely quoting the specific parts of the Tomos of Pope Leo of Rome, where does he espouse Nestorianism?

Quote
"There is nothing unreal about this oneness, since both the lowliness of the man and the grandeur of the divinity are in mutual relation. As God is not changed by showing mercy, neither is humanity devoured by the dignity received. The activity of each form is what is proper to it in communion with the other: that is, the Word performs what belongs to the Word, and the flesh accomplishes what belongs to the flesh. One of these performs brilliant miracles the other sustains acts of violence. As the Word does not lose its glory which is equal to that of the Father, so neither does the flesh leave the nature of its kind behind. We must say this again and again: one and the same is truly Son of God and truly son of man." (St. Leo the Great; The Tome of St. Leo)

Oh sorry, I thought you said condemn Nestorianism. The quote above condemns Nestorianism.
« Last Edit: June 20, 2008, 09:09:45 PM by holdencaulfield » Logged

"For better is a laudable war than a peace which severs a man from God" - St Gregory the Theologian
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #261 on: December 15, 2010, 03:40:32 PM »

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

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


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

Ah, was this back in the day when Greeky made sense?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #262 on: December 15, 2010, 04:12:00 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Much much thanks for digging up this thread for me! I have always struggled to understand what exactly was so bad in Leo's Tome, because it has separated the Church at so many levels, and yet often times we all seem to be saying the same things, whether it is Orthodox talking with Miaphysite Oriental Orthodox, or Orthodox discussing with the Latin rites, or the Protestants talking about all of it from the sidelines..

It seems the crux of the debate is that is Jesus Christ "Two Persons IN one nature" or Two Persons From one nature"..

I will read over these immense posts as soon as I get the time, there seems to be some serious invaluable material and perspectives here discussing this very evasive topic!

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,899


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #263 on: December 16, 2010, 01:01:48 AM »

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

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


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

Ah, was this back in the day when Greeky made sense?
Was your idea of resurrecting this thread in this way supposed to make any sense? Huh
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #264 on: December 16, 2010, 01:35:17 AM »

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

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


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

Ah, was this back in the day when Greeky made sense?
Was your idea of resurrecting this thread in this way supposed to make any sense? Huh
We're Orthodox Christians. We're big on Resurrection.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,899


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #265 on: December 16, 2010, 01:50:57 AM »

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

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


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

Ah, was this back in the day when Greeky made sense?
Was your idea of resurrecting this thread in this way supposed to make any sense? Huh
We're Orthodox Christians. We're big on Resurrection.
Grin
Logged
Alveus Lacuna
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,951



« Reply #266 on: December 16, 2010, 02:10:12 AM »

It seems the crux of the debate is that is Jesus Christ "Two Persons IN one nature" or Two Persons From one nature"..

Wait! Jesus is two persons???
Logged
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #267 on: December 16, 2010, 03:03:56 AM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

It seems the crux of the debate is that is Jesus Christ "Two Persons IN one nature" or Two Persons From one nature"..

Wait! Jesus is two persons???

In a moment of temporary dyslexia from multi-tasking too many tabs/windows at once, I do believe I meant to say, "Jesus Christ: Two Natures IN one person" and "Jesus Christ: Two Natures FROM one person"

sorry for the mix up Smiley

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #268 on: December 16, 2010, 10:50:33 PM »

Habte,

I think you've still got it mixed up.

It's more like "one person in two natures" vs. "one person from two natures".
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #269 on: December 18, 2010, 02:06:22 AM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
Habte,

I think you've still got it mixed up.

It's more like "one person in two natures" vs. "one person from two natures".

No, I fixed it, and now were are saying the exact same thing.  The way I quoted it in my post was the way it appears in my Catechism text and other places I have found in study.  I was clear on what the orthodox point is, and also the roman point, but where even after a huge effort was how the roman doctrine which prevailed and caused the non-Chalcedon churches which i am a part of to split away was even drawn from Leo's tome.  I have read it and did not see clearly how the Chalcedon conclusion was even drawn, but many of the posts here gave me some new insight.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
« Last Edit: December 18, 2010, 02:15:01 AM by HabteSelassie » Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
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 0.19 seconds with 71 queries.