OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 01, 2014, 02:05:33 AM *
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 33754 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
jckstraw72
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,174



« Reply #270 on: December 20, 2010, 01:13:35 AM »

ok, so i read through most of this thread, its really helped me understand the non-Chalcedonian position better, but i have some questions:

1. Although Leo's Tome does sound slightly Nestorian at the end, elsewhere he also explicitly affirms one Person:
Quote
Thus the properties of each nature adn substance were preserved entire, and came together to form one person

and i know it was said that Nestorius could accept this as a "prosopic union," but i think that continuing in Leo's Tome, that possibility is ruled out:
Quote
And so, to fulfil the conditions of our healing, the man Jesus Christ, one and the same mediator between God and man, was able to die in respect of the one, unable to die in respect of the other.

here the natures are clearly not the seat of action, but that the one Person acts "in respect" to one or the other.

2. Its been said that Dioscorus was simply following in the line of St. Cyril, but he was not happy with St. Cyril's acceptance of the Formula of Reunion because he wanted to restore an emphasis on "one nature" and because the Formula had not affirmed St. Cyril's 12 Anathemas, and because he believed the double consubstantiality of the Son language was inspired/influenced by the "inspired man" theology of Antioch. If Dioscorus and St. Cyril are perfectly aligned, why can he not accept the Formula if St. Cyril could?

3. it has been said in this thread that Chalcedon accepted the theology of Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas, but my understanding was that it only accepted back into their Sees, upon condemnation of Nestorius/Nestorianism, those who had been deposed in 449, without affirming their earlier works.

4. EA said Christ has two natural wills and one Personal will. my understanding is that we do not say He has the personal, gnomic will (St. Maximus the Confessor)
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #271 on: December 23, 2010, 07:42:03 PM »

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

Well, if that's what your catechism says I think it has the formulas mixed up, as I have never heard it phrased that way before.
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
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 319



« Reply #272 on: September 07, 2011, 05:04:12 PM »

As if this topic hadn't already been done enough . . . I encountered a couple side by side passages that I found intriguing as per their contrast.

St Cyril
‘In respect of the elements from which is the one and only Son and Lord Jesus Christ, as we accept them in thought, we say that two natures have been united, but after the union, when the division into two has now been removed, we believe that the nature of the Son is one’.
Cyril of Alexandria Select Letters, 48

Leo Bishop of Rome to his beloved brother Flavian
‘It is just as impious to say that the only-begotten Son of God is from two natures before the incarnation as it is unlawful to assert that after the Word became flesh there is one nature in him’
Price, R. Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (2005). University of
Liverpool Press. Vol II p.23

Comments would be welcome from both parties Smiley
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #273 on: September 07, 2011, 05:08:57 PM »

As if this topic hadn't already been done enough . . . I encountered a couple side by side passages that I found intriguing as per their contrast.

St Cyril
‘In respect of the elements from which is the one and only Son and Lord Jesus Christ, as we accept them in thought, we say that two natures have been united, but after the union, when the division into two has now been removed, we believe that the nature of the Son is one’.
Cyril of Alexandria Select Letters, 48

Leo Bishop of Rome to his beloved brother Flavian
‘It is just as impious to say that the only-begotten Son of God is from two natures before the incarnation as it is unlawful to assert that after the Word became flesh there is one nature in him’
Price, R. Acts of the Council of Chalcedon (2005). University of
Liverpool Press. Vol II p.23

Comments would be welcome from both parties Smiley

They're both right.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #274 on: September 07, 2011, 05:35:47 PM »

St Cyril
‘In respect of the elements from which is the one and only Son and Lord Jesus Christ, as we accept them in thought, we say that two natures have been united, but after the union, when the division into two has now been removed, we believe that the nature of the Son is one’.
Cyril of Alexandria Select Letters, 48

Against Nestorianism.

Quote
Leo Bishop of Rome to his beloved brother Flavian
‘It is just as impious to say that the only-begotten Son of God is from two natures before the incarnation as it is unlawful to assert that after the Word became flesh there is one nature in him’

Against Eutychianism.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 319



« Reply #275 on: September 07, 2011, 05:59:42 PM »

Care to elaborate?
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #276 on: September 07, 2011, 06:18:30 PM »

Care to elaborate?

Nestorianism denies the unity of the human and divine natures in Christ. St Cyril is defending the complete unity of humanity and divinity in Christ.

Eutychianism asserts that Christ's humanity had been absorbed by His divinity. St Leo was affirming that Christ is both fully human and fully divine possessing everything belonging to both natures.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 319



« Reply #277 on: September 07, 2011, 09:42:13 PM »

Care to elaborate?

Nestorianism denies the unity of the human and divine natures in Christ. St Cyril is defending the complete unity of humanity and divinity in Christ.

Eutychianism asserts that Christ's humanity had been absorbed by His divinity. St Leo was affirming that Christ is both fully human and fully divine possessing everything belonging to both natures.

Sorry, not exactly what I meant.  I know what each of the heresies entail.  I was hoping for a little more dialogue, as at face value it would appear that Cyril is a heretic according to Leo's statement and vice versa. 
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #278 on: September 07, 2011, 09:47:56 PM »

Sorry, not exactly what I meant.  I know what each of the heresies entail.  I was hoping for a little more dialogue, as at face value it would appear that Cyril is a heretic according to Leo's statement and vice versa.

Neither one was a response to the other. They have to be understood in their proper context.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #279 on: September 07, 2011, 09:59:43 PM »

I have a friend who is a Protestant preacher. After discussing how we relate to God in the use of our will, I can say he believes that our relationship is synergistic, yet in response to the "make a decision for Jesus" message that includes OSAS, which he also rejects, he still preaches from his pulpit "you don't choose Jesus".  Makes me cringe whenever I hear those words, even though it is affirmation of God's initiative in our salvation and that we follow Him and not vice versa and not any kind of predestination.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 319



« Reply #280 on: September 07, 2011, 10:07:55 PM »

Sorry, not exactly what I meant.  I know what each of the heresies entail.  I was hoping for a little more dialogue, as at face value it would appear that Cyril is a heretic according to Leo's statement and vice versa.

Neither one was a response to the other. They have to be understood in their proper context.

Yes I understand that they were not made in direct response to one another, but there are no additional qualifying statements by either that make these declarations contingent.
Logged
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #281 on: September 08, 2011, 08:28:04 AM »

Yes I understand that they were not made in direct response to one another, but there are no additional qualifying statements by either that make these declarations contingent.

There is the historical fact that those gathered at Chalcedon that said that "Peter has spoken through Leo", did not make such a statement until after they found the Tome to be in line with what St Cyril taught.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,513



« Reply #282 on: September 08, 2011, 10:07:56 AM »

According to Bernard Green the Tomos does not represent the typical thinking of St. Leo. He argues that the Tomos should be read in context of his latter texts which Leo produced to counter the accusations of Nestorianism since they represent more typical thinking of St. Leo on the issue. IIRC, in particular he claims that this letter reprepsents more mainline thoughts of his.

I wonder whether any of OOs in here has read this letter? What do you think of it? Is it as bad as the Tomos?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #283 on: September 08, 2011, 10:43:48 AM »

Care to elaborate?

Nestorianism denies the unity of the human and divine natures in Christ. St Cyril is defending the complete unity of humanity and divinity in Christ.

Eutychianism asserts that Christ's humanity had been absorbed by His divinity. St Leo was affirming that Christ is both fully human and fully divine possessing everything belonging to both natures.

Sorry, not exactly what I meant.  I know what each of the heresies entail.  I was hoping for a little more dialogue, as at face value it would appear that Cyril is a heretic according to Leo's statement and vice versa. 
Not according to the Fathers of Chalcedon.  After the reading of the Tome of Pope St. Leo into the Acts of Chalcedon, after the Fathers had examined it, they exclaimed

Quote
After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out:  This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles.  So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe.  Anathema to him who does not thus believe.  Peter has spoken thus through Leo.  So taught the Apostles.  Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril.  Everlasting be the memory of Cyril.  Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe.  This is the true faith.  Those of us who are orthodox thus believe.  This is the faith of the fathers.  Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there]?  These are the things Dioscorus hid away.[/quote]
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.viii.html
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
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 319



« Reply #284 on: September 08, 2011, 12:54:53 PM »

I guess the question would be whether or not they were mistaken by making such an affirmation for they also affirmed the, the letter of Ibas to Maris three times as being Orthodox:

From the letter of Ibas to Maris
"For no man ventures now to affirm that there is One Nature only of the Divinity and humanity of Christ, but men openly avow the Temple and Him who dwells in it to be the One Only Son Jesus Christ"

I refrain from making too many remarks, so that this doesn't end up being moved to the private forum.
Logged
Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 319



« Reply #285 on: September 08, 2011, 01:01:36 PM »

According to Bernard Green the Tomos does not represent the typical thinking of St. Leo. He argues that the Tomos should be read in context of his latter texts which Leo produced to counter the accusations of Nestorianism since they represent more typical thinking of St. Leo on the issue. IIRC, in particular he claims that this letter reprepsents more mainline thoughts of his.

I wonder whether any of OOs in here has read this letter? What do you think of it? Is it as bad as the Tomos?

I haven't read the letter, but I think it would be interesting.  A link would be appreciated.  I think it quite possible that Leo could appreciate that his tome sounded a little Nestorian.
Logged
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #286 on: September 08, 2011, 01:46:58 PM »

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

Yes I understand that they were not made in direct response to one another, but there are no additional qualifying statements by either that make these declarations contingent.

There is the historical fact that those gathered at Chalcedon that said that "Peter has spoken through Leo", did not make such a statement until after they found the Tome to be in line with what St Cyril taught.
Millions of folks just might disagree with this statement, in fact we have been arguing against it for 1500 years and it is one of the clinching arguments we have against the Chalcedon Council in that we find it very hard to bridge Leo III and Saint Cyril.  This should not discredit the EO reverence of Saint Cyril, historically the father is from the unified era of the Church and so rightfully belongs to all jurisdictions. 

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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #287 on: September 08, 2011, 02:41:36 PM »

I guess the question would be whether or not they were mistaken by making such an affirmation for they also affirmed the, the letter of Ibas to Maris three times as being Orthodox:

From the letter of Ibas to Maris
"For no man ventures now to affirm that there is One Nature only of the Divinity and humanity of Christ, but men openly avow the Temple and Him who dwells in it to be the One Only Son Jesus Christ"

I refrain from making too many remarks, so that this doesn't end up being moved to the private forum.

To be as brief as to also not move the thread

The acclamations about Popes St. Cyril and St. Leo were of the whole Council, the whole Council (over Pope St. Leo's objection, btw) had a committee of 100 or so look over the Tome, which had been widely disseminated before hand, and were accepting the results of that investigation.  In contrast, the sessions on Ibas had been convened at his insistence, consisted of only a fraction of the bishops at the Council, it is questionable whether his letter was read and certainly not studied, and at the insistence of the bishops Ibas anathematized Nestorius, his teaching, his doctrine, his friends, etc.  No one anathematized Pope St. Cyril at Chalcedon.  Quite the opposite.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2011, 02:42:42 PM by ialmisry » 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
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #288 on: September 08, 2011, 09:20:05 PM »

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

There is the historical fact that those gathered at Chalcedon that said that "Peter has spoken through Leo", did not make such a statement until after they found the Tome to be in line with what St Cyril taught.
Millions of folks just might disagree with this statement, in fact we have been arguing against it for 1500 years and it is one of the clinching arguments we have against the Chalcedon Council in that we find it very hard to bridge Leo III and Saint Cyril.  This should not discredit the EO reverence of Saint Cyril, historically the father is from the unified era of the Church and so rightfully belongs to all jurisdictions. 

stay blessed,
habte selassie

What I am saying is that the bishops gathered at Chalcedon, and everyone who accepts the councils decision, finds continuity. his isn't like Protestantism where someone will say something lines up with St Paul but has a gap of 1500+years accounted for, Chalcedon was only 20 years after Ephesus and the bishops would remember Ephesus as being within their own lifetime.

The fact is that the two quotes given here are written in two entirely different contexts. It's misleading to pull two quotes entirely out of context and put them against each other when that was not the original intent for which they were written.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,444


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #289 on: September 08, 2011, 09:22:32 PM »

I guess the question would be whether or not they were mistaken by making such an affirmation for they also affirmed the, the letter of Ibas to Maris three times as being Orthodox:

From the letter of Ibas to Maris
"For no man ventures now to affirm that there is One Nature only of the Divinity and humanity of Christ, but men openly avow the Temple and Him who dwells in it to be the One Only Son Jesus Christ"

I refrain from making too many remarks, so that this doesn't end up being moved to the private forum.

To be as brief as to also not move the thread

The acclamations about Popes St. Cyril and St. Leo were of the whole Council, the whole Council (over Pope St. Leo's objection, btw) had a committee of 100 or so look over the Tome, which had been widely disseminated before hand, and were accepting the results of that investigation.  In contrast, the sessions on Ibas had been convened at his insistence, consisted of only a fraction of the bishops at the Council, it is questionable whether his letter was read and certainly not studied, and at the insistence of the bishops Ibas anathematized Nestorius, his teaching, his doctrine, his friends, etc.  No one anathematized Pope St. Cyril at Chalcedon.  Quite the opposite.

And yet a century later, Chalcedonians viewed the acceptance of Ibas and his letter as essential enough to Chalcedon, that several bishops opposed condemning the letter.  It was not a marginal matter to those who lived closer in time to the council.

And Ibas' letter did condemn St. Cyril, as well as contain the rumor that St. Cyril had repented of his Christology and accepted that of Theodore of Mopsuestia.  Of course that brings up the question of which St. Cyril everyone was saying they and the documents at Chalcedon agreed with.

We will never resolve this debate.

This is why it is often asserted down in the private forum that Chalcedon was ambiguous.  Things were said and done that could support a Cyrilian Christology, or a Theodorean one.  There were people who interpreted it both ways during the century following the council, which is why Justinian had to hold another council to preclude the Theodorean interpretation of Chalcedon.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2011, 09:30:32 PM by Salpy » Logged

Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,444


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #290 on: September 08, 2011, 09:28:17 PM »

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

There is the historical fact that those gathered at Chalcedon that said that "Peter has spoken through Leo", did not make such a statement until after they found the Tome to be in line with what St Cyril taught.
Millions of folks just might disagree with this statement, in fact we have been arguing against it for 1500 years and it is one of the clinching arguments we have against the Chalcedon Council in that we find it very hard to bridge Leo III and Saint Cyril.  This should not discredit the EO reverence of Saint Cyril, historically the father is from the unified era of the Church and so rightfully belongs to all jurisdictions. 

stay blessed,
habte selassie

What I am saying is that the bishops gathered at Chalcedon, and everyone who accepts the councils decision, finds continuity. his isn't like Protestantism where someone will say something lines up with St Paul but has a gap of 1500+years accounted for, Chalcedon was only 20 years after Ephesus and the bishops would remember Ephesus as being within their own lifetime.

The fact is that the two quotes given here are written in two entirely different contexts. It's misleading to pull two quotes entirely out of context and put them against each other when that was not the original intent for which they were written.

Nestorius also read the Tome only 20 years after Ephesus, and I am sure he had a good memory of Ephesus.  And he praised the Tome, thinking it agreed with him.

Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #291 on: September 08, 2011, 09:52:11 PM »

I guess the question would be whether or not they were mistaken by making such an affirmation for they also affirmed the, the letter of Ibas to Maris three times as being Orthodox:

From the letter of Ibas to Maris
"For no man ventures now to affirm that there is One Nature only of the Divinity and humanity of Christ, but men openly avow the Temple and Him who dwells in it to be the One Only Son Jesus Christ"

I refrain from making too many remarks, so that this doesn't end up being moved to the private forum.

To be as brief as to also not move the thread

The acclamations about Popes St. Cyril and St. Leo were of the whole Council, the whole Council (over Pope St. Leo's objection, btw) had a committee of 100 or so look over the Tome, which had been widely disseminated before hand, and were accepting the results of that investigation.  In contrast, the sessions on Ibas had been convened at his insistence, consisted of only a fraction of the bishops at the Council, it is questionable whether his letter was read and certainly not studied, and at the insistence of the bishops Ibas anathematized Nestorius, his teaching, his doctrine, his friends, etc.  No one anathematized Pope St. Cyril at Chalcedon.  Quite the opposite.

And yet a century later, Chalcedonians viewed the acceptance of Ibas and his letter as essential enough to Chalcedon, that several bishops opposed condemning the letter.

The Latin bishops who a) didn't have a Latin translation of the letter, b) did not have a complete copy of the Acts of Chalcedon, c) did not have a copy of the session on Ibas at all.  Pope Vigilius, once he got a translation, had to recant and reverse himself on his prior opinion on the matter.  IOW all they knew about Ibas was that he had been restored to his see at Chalcedon.

It was not a marginal matter to those who lived closer in time to the council.


And Ibas' letter did condemn St. Cyril, as well as contain the rumor that St. Cyril had repented of his Christology and accepted that of Theodore of Mopsuestia.  Of course that brings up the question of which St. Cyril everyone was saying they and the documents at Chalcedon agreed with.
Theodore of Mopsuestia wasn't brought up at all at Chalcedon.  Pope St. Cyril is mentioned all the time.  Btw, the Letter Attributed to Ibas is not one of the documents at Chalcedon agreed with.

We will never resolve this debate.

This is why it is often asserted down in the private forum that Chalcedon was ambiguous.  Things were said and done that could support a Cyrilian Christology, or a Theodorean one.
 

Cyrilian?  Theodorean?  There's St. Cyril's presentation of Orthodox Christology, alongside other presenters of Orthodox Christology, and various heretical Christologies, whether Theodore's, Ibas', Theodoret's, Etyches', whatever.  One could posit an opposition between an Athanasian Christology versus an Arian Christology. The Church doesn't, either saying Orthodox (to which Pope St. Athanasius was witnessing) or Nicene (after the Council where the Church definitely reaffirmed its Orthodoxy). Talking about Athanasian, Gregorian, Basilian, Damascene, Petrine...Christology doesn't make any sense.

There were people who interpreted it both ways during the century following the council, which is why Justinian had to hold another council to preclude the Theodorean interpretation of Chalcedon.
sort of, tying up loose ends.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2011, 09:53:07 PM by ialmisry » 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
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #292 on: September 08, 2011, 09:53:47 PM »

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

There is the historical fact that those gathered at Chalcedon that said that "Peter has spoken through Leo", did not make such a statement until after they found the Tome to be in line with what St Cyril taught.
Millions of folks just might disagree with this statement, in fact we have been arguing against it for 1500 years and it is one of the clinching arguments we have against the Chalcedon Council in that we find it very hard to bridge Leo III and Saint Cyril.  This should not discredit the EO reverence of Saint Cyril, historically the father is from the unified era of the Church and so rightfully belongs to all jurisdictions. 

stay blessed,
habte selassie

What I am saying is that the bishops gathered at Chalcedon, and everyone who accepts the councils decision, finds continuity. his isn't like Protestantism where someone will say something lines up with St Paul but has a gap of 1500+years accounted for, Chalcedon was only 20 years after Ephesus and the bishops would remember Ephesus as being within their own lifetime.

The fact is that the two quotes given here are written in two entirely different contexts. It's misleading to pull two quotes entirely out of context and put them against each other when that was not the original intent for which they were written.

Nestorius also read the Tome only 20 years after Ephesus, and I am sure he had a good memory of Ephesus.  And he praised the Tome, thinking it agreed with him.
He also praised the Gospel, thinking it agreed with him.
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
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,444


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #293 on: September 08, 2011, 09:54:50 PM »

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

There is the historical fact that those gathered at Chalcedon that said that "Peter has spoken through Leo", did not make such a statement until after they found the Tome to be in line with what St Cyril taught.
Millions of folks just might disagree with this statement, in fact we have been arguing against it for 1500 years and it is one of the clinching arguments we have against the Chalcedon Council in that we find it very hard to bridge Leo III and Saint Cyril.  This should not discredit the EO reverence of Saint Cyril, historically the father is from the unified era of the Church and so rightfully belongs to all jurisdictions. 

stay blessed,
habte selassie

What I am saying is that the bishops gathered at Chalcedon, and everyone who accepts the councils decision, finds continuity. his isn't like Protestantism where someone will say something lines up with St Paul but has a gap of 1500+years accounted for, Chalcedon was only 20 years after Ephesus and the bishops would remember Ephesus as being within their own lifetime.

The fact is that the two quotes given here are written in two entirely different contexts. It's misleading to pull two quotes entirely out of context and put them against each other when that was not the original intent for which they were written.

Nestorius also read the Tome only 20 years after Ephesus, and I am sure he had a good memory of Ephesus.  And he praised the Tome, thinking it agreed with him.
He also praised the Gospel, thinking it agreed with him.

Well even a broken clock is correct twice a day.   Smiley
Logged

Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,444


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #294 on: September 08, 2011, 10:00:45 PM »

I guess the question would be whether or not they were mistaken by making such an affirmation for they also affirmed the, the letter of Ibas to Maris three times as being Orthodox:

From the letter of Ibas to Maris
"For no man ventures now to affirm that there is One Nature only of the Divinity and humanity of Christ, but men openly avow the Temple and Him who dwells in it to be the One Only Son Jesus Christ"

I refrain from making too many remarks, so that this doesn't end up being moved to the private forum.

To be as brief as to also not move the thread

The acclamations about Popes St. Cyril and St. Leo were of the whole Council, the whole Council (over Pope St. Leo's objection, btw) had a committee of 100 or so look over the Tome, which had been widely disseminated before hand, and were accepting the results of that investigation.  In contrast, the sessions on Ibas had been convened at his insistence, consisted of only a fraction of the bishops at the Council, it is questionable whether his letter was read and certainly not studied, and at the insistence of the bishops Ibas anathematized Nestorius, his teaching, his doctrine, his friends, etc.  No one anathematized Pope St. Cyril at Chalcedon.  Quite the opposite.

And yet a century later, Chalcedonians viewed the acceptance of Ibas and his letter as essential enough to Chalcedon, that several bishops opposed condemning the letter.

The Latin bishops who a) didn't have a Latin translation of the letter, b) did not have a complete copy of the Acts of Chalcedon, c) did not have a copy of the session on Ibas at all.  Pope Vigilius, once he got a translation, had to recant and reverse himself on his prior opinion on the matter.  IOW all they knew about Ibas was that he had been restored to his see at Chalcedon.

Justinian wasn't asking for the condemnation of Ibas, only his letter.  And many eastern bishops who read Greek opposed condemning the letter also, thinking it would undermine Chalcedon.

Quote
It was not a marginal matter to those who lived closer in time to the council.


And Ibas' letter did condemn St. Cyril, as well as contain the rumor that St. Cyril had repented of his Christology and accepted that of Theodore of Mopsuestia.  Of course that brings up the question of which St. Cyril everyone was saying they and the documents at Chalcedon agreed with.
Theodore of Mopsuestia wasn't brought up at all at Chalcedon.  Pope St. Cyril is mentioned all the time.  Btw, the Letter Attributed to Ibas is not one of the documents at Chalcedon agreed with.

A number of bishops at the time of Justinian felt otherwise.

Quote
We will never resolve this debate.

This is why it is often asserted down in the private forum that Chalcedon was ambiguous.  Things were said and done that could support a Cyrilian Christology, or a Theodorean one.
 

Cyrilian?  Theodorean?  There's St. Cyril's presentation of Orthodox Christology, alongside other presenters of Orthodox Christology, and various heretical Christologies, whether Theodore's, Ibas', Theodoret's, Etyches', whatever.  One could posit an opposition between an Athanasian Christology versus an Arian Christology. The Church doesn't, either saying Orthodox (to which Pope St. Athanasius was witnessing) or Nicene (after the Council where the Church definitely reaffirmed its Orthodoxy). Talking about Athanasian, Gregorian, Basilian, Damascene, Petrine...Christology doesn't make any sense.


There were people who interpreted it both ways during the century following the council, which is why Justinian had to hold another council to preclude the Theodorean interpretation of Chalcedon.
sort of, tying up loose ends.
[/quote]

Very loose ends.   Smiley
Logged

Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,444


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #295 on: September 08, 2011, 10:04:09 PM »

I just want to say that my intention in posting in this thread is to point out that the matter of Chalcedon is much more complicated than most people realize.  I think the exchange I just had with Isa demonstrates that.   Smiley

In any event, I don't want a heated debate here, as that is what the private forum is for.

People have to realize that any discussion about Chalcedon is not going to be easy.  It is not a situation where one can simply say, "Everyone said they agreed with St. Cyril, so they cannot have been heretics," or "Pope Leo used Nestorian language, so he must have been a Nestorian."  There are people on both sides who want to make it that simple, but it doesn't work.  It is way more complicated than that. 

People who want to get into Chalcedon really have to study what was going on at that time, as well as the events leading up to it.  And then they have to be prepared to listen to what the people on the other side have to say.  That's probably the hardest part, but it's essential if we are to ever again be one Church.   Smiley
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #296 on: September 08, 2011, 10:26:53 PM »

I guess the question would be whether or not they were mistaken by making such an affirmation for they also affirmed the, the letter of Ibas to Maris three times as being Orthodox:

From the letter of Ibas to Maris
"For no man ventures now to affirm that there is One Nature only of the Divinity and humanity of Christ, but men openly avow the Temple and Him who dwells in it to be the One Only Son Jesus Christ"

I refrain from making too many remarks, so that this doesn't end up being moved to the private forum.

To be as brief as to also not move the thread

The acclamations about Popes St. Cyril and St. Leo were of the whole Council, the whole Council (over Pope St. Leo's objection, btw) had a committee of 100 or so look over the Tome, which had been widely disseminated before hand, and were accepting the results of that investigation.  In contrast, the sessions on Ibas had been convened at his insistence, consisted of only a fraction of the bishops at the Council, it is questionable whether his letter was read and certainly not studied, and at the insistence of the bishops Ibas anathematized Nestorius, his teaching, his doctrine, his friends, etc.  No one anathematized Pope St. Cyril at Chalcedon.  Quite the opposite.

And yet a century later, Chalcedonians viewed the acceptance of Ibas and his letter as essential enough to Chalcedon, that several bishops opposed condemning the letter.

The Latin bishops who a) didn't have a Latin translation of the letter, b) did not have a complete copy of the Acts of Chalcedon, c) did not have a copy of the session on Ibas at all.  Pope Vigilius, once he got a translation, had to recant and reverse himself on his prior opinion on the matter.  IOW all they knew about Ibas was that he had been restored to his see at Chalcedon.

Justinian wasn't asking for the condemnation of Ibas, only his letter.  And many eastern bishops who read Greek opposed condemning the letter also, thinking it would undermine Chalcedon.
Those Greek bishops would be who?

It was not a marginal matter to those who lived closer in time to the council.


And Ibas' letter did condemn St. Cyril, as well as contain the rumor that St. Cyril had repented of his Christology and accepted that of Theodore of Mopsuestia.  Of course that brings up the question of which St. Cyril everyone was saying they and the documents at Chalcedon agreed with.
Theodore of Mopsuestia wasn't brought up at all at Chalcedon.  Pope St. Cyril is mentioned all the time.  Btw, the Letter Attributed to Ibas is not one of the documents at Chalcedon agreed with.

A number of bishops at the time of Justinian felt otherwise.
Yes, those who hadn't read it, nor the Acts of Chalcedon.

Quote
We will never resolve this debate.

This is why it is often asserted down in the private forum that Chalcedon was ambiguous.  Things were said and done that could support a Cyrilian Christology, or a Theodorean one.
 

Cyrilian?  Theodorean?  There's St. Cyril's presentation of Orthodox Christology, alongside other presenters of Orthodox Christology, and various heretical Christologies, whether Theodore's, Ibas', Theodoret's, Etyches', whatever.  One could posit an opposition between an Athanasian Christology versus an Arian Christology. The Church doesn't, either saying Orthodox (to which Pope St. Athanasius was witnessing) or Nicene (after the Council where the Church definitely reaffirmed its Orthodoxy). Talking about Athanasian, Gregorian, Basilian, Damascene, Petrine...Christology doesn't make any sense.


There were people who interpreted it both ways during the century following the council, which is why Justinian had to hold another council to preclude the Theodorean interpretation of Chalcedon.
sort of, tying up loose ends.

Very loose ends.   Smiley
I'll give you that.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2011, 10:28:35 PM by ialmisry » 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 #297 on: September 08, 2011, 10:40:40 PM »

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

I just want to say that my intention in posting in this thread is to point out that the matter of Chalcedon is much more complicated than most people realize.  I think the exchange I just had with Isa demonstrates that.   Smiley

In any event, I don't want a heated debate here, as that is what the private forum is for.

People have to realize that any discussion about Chalcedon is not going to be easy.  It is not a situation where one can simply say, "Everyone said they agreed with St. Cyril, so they cannot have been heretics," or "Pope Leo used Nestorian language, so he must have been a Nestorian."  There are people on both sides who want to make it that simple, but it doesn't work.  It is way more complicated than that. 

People who want to get into Chalcedon really have to study what was going on at that time, as well as the events leading up to it.  And then they have to be prepared to listen to what the people on the other side have to say.  That's probably the hardest part, but it's essential if we are to ever again be one Church.   Smiley
Amen Amen. Whether we agree or disagree with the Council of Chalcedon (or any Ecumenical Councils) folks should always do their homework and take into consideration historical, political, and social context.

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
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,444


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #298 on: September 08, 2011, 11:06:28 PM »

I guess the question would be whether or not they were mistaken by making such an affirmation for they also affirmed the, the letter of Ibas to Maris three times as being Orthodox:

From the letter of Ibas to Maris
"For no man ventures now to affirm that there is One Nature only of the Divinity and humanity of Christ, but men openly avow the Temple and Him who dwells in it to be the One Only Son Jesus Christ"

I refrain from making too many remarks, so that this doesn't end up being moved to the private forum.

To be as brief as to also not move the thread

The acclamations about Popes St. Cyril and St. Leo were of the whole Council, the whole Council (over Pope St. Leo's objection, btw) had a committee of 100 or so look over the Tome, which had been widely disseminated before hand, and were accepting the results of that investigation.  In contrast, the sessions on Ibas had been convened at his insistence, consisted of only a fraction of the bishops at the Council, it is questionable whether his letter was read and certainly not studied, and at the insistence of the bishops Ibas anathematized Nestorius, his teaching, his doctrine, his friends, etc.  No one anathematized Pope St. Cyril at Chalcedon.  Quite the opposite.

And yet a century later, Chalcedonians viewed the acceptance of Ibas and his letter as essential enough to Chalcedon, that several bishops opposed condemning the letter.

The Latin bishops who a) didn't have a Latin translation of the letter, b) did not have a complete copy of the Acts of Chalcedon, c) did not have a copy of the session on Ibas at all.  Pope Vigilius, once he got a translation, had to recant and reverse himself on his prior opinion on the matter.  IOW all they knew about Ibas was that he had been restored to his see at Chalcedon.

Justinian wasn't asking for the condemnation of Ibas, only his letter.  And many eastern bishops who read Greek opposed condemning the letter also, thinking it would undermine Chalcedon.
Those Greek bishops would be who?

See below.

Quote
It was not a marginal matter to those who lived closer in time to the council.


And Ibas' letter did condemn St. Cyril, as well as contain the rumor that St. Cyril had repented of his Christology and accepted that of Theodore of Mopsuestia.  Of course that brings up the question of which St. Cyril everyone was saying they and the documents at Chalcedon agreed with.
Theodore of Mopsuestia wasn't brought up at all at Chalcedon.  Pope St. Cyril is mentioned all the time.  Btw, the Letter Attributed to Ibas is not one of the documents at Chalcedon agreed with.

A number of bishops at the time of Justinian felt otherwise.
Yes, those who hadn't read it, nor the Acts of Chalcedon.


Here is a Chalcedonian source on how the Eastern bishops reacted when they were asked to subscribe to the condemnation of Ibas' blasphemous letter:

Quote
Mennas, Patriarch of Constantinople, first protested that to sign was to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, and then yielded on the distinct understanding, as he told Stephen the Roman apocrisarius at Constantinople, that his subscription should be returned to him if the Apostolic See disapproved of it. Stephen and Dacius, Bishop of Milan, who was then at Constantinople, broke off communion with him. Mennas had next to coerce his suffragans. They also yielded, but lodged protests with Stephen to be transmitted to the pope, in which they declared that they acted under compulsion. Ephraim, Patriarch of Alexandria, resisted, then yielded and sent a message to Vigilius, who was in Sicily, affirming that he had signed under compulsion. Zoilus, Patriarch of Antioch, and Peter, Bishop of Jerusalem, made a like resistance and then yielded (Facundus, "Def.", IV, 4). Of the other bishops those who subscribed were rewarded, those who refused were deposed or had to "conceal themselves" (Liberatus, "Brev.", 24; Facundus, "Def.", II, 3 and "Cont. Moc.", in Gallandi, XI, 813).

http://www.catholic.org/encyclopedia/view.php?id=11539


So to answer your question, the Eastern bishops at the time of Justinian who objected to condemning Ibas' letter included, but were not limited to:

Mennas, Patriarch of Constantinople;

Ephraim, Patriarch of Alexandria;

Zoilus, Patriarch of Antioch; and

Peter, Bishop of Jerusalem.

I would think those bishops would have read Greek.
« Last Edit: September 08, 2011, 11:08:11 PM by Salpy » Logged

Marc Hanna
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox - Coptic/Armenian
Jurisdiction: Canada
Posts: 319



« Reply #299 on: September 08, 2011, 11:18:16 PM »

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

There is the historical fact that those gathered at Chalcedon that said that "Peter has spoken through Leo", did not make such a statement until after they found the Tome to be in line with what St Cyril taught.
Millions of folks just might disagree with this statement, in fact we have been arguing against it for 1500 years and it is one of the clinching arguments we have against the Chalcedon Council in that we find it very hard to bridge Leo III and Saint Cyril.  This should not discredit the EO reverence of Saint Cyril, historically the father is from the unified era of the Church and so rightfully belongs to all jurisdictions. 

stay blessed,
habte selassie

What I am saying is that the bishops gathered at Chalcedon, and everyone who accepts the councils decision, finds continuity. his isn't like Protestantism where someone will say something lines up with St Paul but has a gap of 1500+years accounted for, Chalcedon was only 20 years after Ephesus and the bishops would remember Ephesus as being within their own lifetime.

The fact is that the two quotes given here are written in two entirely different contexts. It's misleading to pull two quotes entirely out of context and put them against each other when that was not the original intent for which they were written.

While I agree that the quotes are from different contexts, I do not believe that the context is lost or that the meaning is distorted.  These are emphatic statements whose meanings stand on their own.
Logged
CoptoGeek
of Alexandria, the Christ-loving City
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,381



« Reply #300 on: September 14, 2011, 09:20:32 AM »

Also, the very next Patriarch of Constantinople after Anatolius was Gennadius; a Saint in the Chalcedonian Churches. Here is what Fr. Meyendorff says of him:

Quote
Patriarch Gennadius of Constantinople (458-471), who after Ephesus had published a violent refutation of the Anathematisms of Cyril, and who succeeded Anatolius as bishop of the Capitol, was another typical representative of that tendancy. Like Theodoret, he was in correspondance with the Nestorians.  In a Praise of St. Leo's letter to Flavian, obviously destined to defend Chalcedonian orthodoxy as he understodd it, Gennadius translated the essential terms in such a way that it was impossible for the strict desciples of Cyril to accept them. While rejecting formal Nestorianism, the Patriarch avoided the term Theotokos, and hypostatic union; in discussing the two natures of Christ and in emphasizing the particular identity of each one of them, he spoke of union only as "in a simgle prosopon." Undoubtly, for Gennadius Antiochiene Christology has lost none of its force and he used it abundantly in his commentaries on Scripture.

- Fr. John Meyendorff, "Christ in Eastern Christian Thought"

http://books.google.com/books?id=aQtp7oB5U_kC&pg=PA33&dq=patriarch+Gennadius+chalcedon&hl=en#v=onepage&q=patriarch%20Gennadius%20chalcedon&f=false

According to Wkipedia (for whatever its worth), his writings were used by Facundus in denouncing Constantinople II.

Quote
His first public writing was quoted by Facundus (Defensio, II, iv) against Saint Cyril of Alexandria in two works, probably in 431 or 432, including a passage to show that his work was more violent even than the letter of Ibas. The Anathemas of Cyril and Two Books to Parthenius were criticized. In the latter he exclaims, "How many times have I heard blasphemies from Cyril of Egypt? Woe to the scourge of Alexandria!".[2] In 433 Gennadius probably reconciled with Cyril.[3] If Saint Cyril's letter of 434 (Ep. lvi) is to the same Gennadius, they were friends in that year

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gennadius_of_Constantinople#CITEREFSinclair1911


Quote
Gennadius (10), 21st bp. of Constantinople, 458–471. between Anatolius and Acacius. His first public appearance was in an attack on Cyril, in two works, c. 431 or 432, Against the Anathemas of Cyril, and Two Books to Parthenius. In the latter he exclaims, "How many times have I heard blasphemies from Cyril of Egypt? Woe to the scourge of Alexandria!" In 433 Gennadius was probably one of those who became reconciled with Cyril.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_Christian_Biography_and_Literature_to_the_End_of_the_Sixth_Century/Gennadius_(10),_bp._of_Constantinople
Logged

"Be oppressed, rather than the oppressor. Be gentle, rather than zealous. Lay hold of goodness, rather than justice." -St. Isaac of Nineveh

“I returned to the Coptic Orthodox Church with affection, finding in her our tormented and broken history“. -Salama Moussa
CoptoGeek
of Alexandria, the Christ-loving City
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Church
Posts: 1,381



« Reply #301 on: September 14, 2011, 10:03:47 AM »

My point above that I couldn't include for some reason, was that it wasn't just the Tome alone that was at issue, there were also people involved and events surrounding the council that made it unacceptable for our fathers at the time.
Logged

"Be oppressed, rather than the oppressor. Be gentle, rather than zealous. Lay hold of goodness, rather than justice." -St. Isaac of Nineveh

“I returned to the Coptic Orthodox Church with affection, finding in her our tormented and broken history“. -Salama Moussa
Von Döllinger
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8



« Reply #302 on: May 23, 2012, 07:44:54 AM »

Quote
If the Fathers of Chalcedon say that St. Leo is saying the same thing as St. Cyril

The Fathers of the OO church say that Leo’s Christology objectively conflicts with that of St Cyril. I think the evidence supports them, and I believe ive sufficiently proven that. Leo adopted an exclusively Antiochene trait which divides the actions of Christ between two subjects: “The Word” and “the flesh”. St Cyril in following the great St Athanasius attributes ALL the actions of Christ to ONE subject: “The Word”.

The flesh does not suffer; THE WORD suffers according to HIS flesh. The former expression is compatible with Nestorianism whilst the latter is not.

"5. In what way the Word of God is said to have been emptied.

God the Word full by nature and in every way Perfect, and distributing out of His own Fullness His own goods to the creature, we say was emptied: in no wise wronged in His own Proper Nature, nor changed so as to become otherwise, nor made in ought inferior, for inconvertible and unchangeable is Himself also even as He Who begat Him, and never may He be capable of passion. But when He was made Flesh, i.e. Man, He made (as He said, I will pour forth of My Spirit upon all flesh) the poverty of human nature His own; first, in that He was once made man, albeit He remained God; next in that He took the form of a servant, Who is in His own Nature free, as Son, and while He is Himself the Lord of glory He is said to receive glory: Himself Life, He is said to be quickened: and receives power over all, Himself King of all and with God, and Ho was obedient to the Father, suffered the Cross and so on. But these things befit the measure of the human nature, yet He makes them His own with flesh and fulfils the economy, remaining what He was."

" yet we do not say that Jesus Christ was mere man 8, nor do we conceive of God the Word apart from His human nature but, we say that He was made One out of both, as God made Man, the Same begotten Divinely out of the Father as Word, and humanly out of woman as Man: not as though called to a second beginning of being then when He is said to have been born after the flesh: but begotten indeed before all ages, yet when the time came wherein He must fulfil the economy, born also of a woman after the flesh. "


"Hence the union of the Word with the human nature may be not unaptly compared with our condition. Foras the body is of other nature than the soul, yet is one man |194 produced and said to be of both; so too out of the Perfect Person of God the Word, and of manhood perfect in its own mode, is One Christ, the Same God and Man in the Same. And the Word (as I said) makes its own the sufferings of Its own Flesh, because Its own is the Body and not another's: and It shares with Its own Flesh the operation of the God-befitting might that is within It; so that it should be able both to quicken the dead and to heal the sick."


"Alone God the Father. He is said to have been sanctified through the Spirit and moreover to sanctify 39 those who come to Him; He was baptized according to the Flesh and was baptizing in the Holy Ghost; how then doth the Same both sanctify and is sanctified, baptizeth and is baptized? After one manner and another; for He is sanctified humanly, and thus is He baptized: He sanctifies Divinely and baptizeth in the Holy Ghost.


Himself raising the dead was raised from the dead, and being Life by Nature is said to quicken. And how again? After one manner and another. For the Same was raised from the dead and is said to be quickened after the Flesh, yet quickens and raises the dead as God. He suffers and does not suffer 40, after one manner and another: for He |229 suffers humanly in the Flesh as Man, He is impassible Divinely as God."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/cyril_scholia_incarnation_01_text.htm#C36  Cyril of Alexandria, Scholia on the incarnation of the Only-Begotten.  LFC 47, Oxford (1881) pp.185-236.

 
433: St. Cyril explicitly accepts two natures after the hypostatic union in his "Epistle to John of Antioch" (the Agreements of 433):

 "With regard to the Evangelical and Apostolic expressions concerning the Lord, we know that men who are skilled in theology make some of them common to the one Person, while they divide others between the two Natures, ascribing those that are fitting to God to Divinity of Christ, and those that are lowly to His Humanity. On reading these sacred utterances of Yours, and finding that we ourselves think along the same lines—for there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism—, we glorified God the Saviour of all" [John Karmiris, Dogmatic and Creedal Statements of the Orthodox Church, Vol. 1 [Athens:1960]. p. 154], quoted in The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics, p 11]

451: The Fourth Ecumenical Synod adopts all the teachings of St. Cyril, and condemns those who selectively choose some of them and reject others as heretical. St. Flavian is vindicated and the Robber Synod Annulled.

 

457: Timothy Ailouros (another Monophysite "saint") condemns Saint Cyril on account of the agreements:

 

"Cyril... having excellently articulated the wise proclamation of Orthodoxy, showed himself to be fickle and is to be censured for teaching contrary doctrine: after previously proposing that we should speak of one nature of God the Word, he destroyed the dogma that he had formulated and is caught professing two Natures of Christ" [Timothy Ailouros, "Epistles to Kalonymos," Patrologia Graeca, Vol LXXXVI, Col. 276; quoted in The Non Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 13].

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/mono_history.aspx  The History of the Persistant Monophysite Rejection of St. Cyril of Alexandria's Teaching on the Two Natures of Christ




Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,534



« Reply #303 on: May 23, 2012, 07:57:28 AM »

Quote
If the Fathers of Chalcedon say that St. Leo is saying the same thing as St. Cyril

The Fathers of the OO church say that Leo’s Christology objectively conflicts with that of St Cyril. I think the evidence supports them, and I believe ive sufficiently proven that. Leo adopted an exclusively Antiochene trait which divides the actions of Christ between two subjects: “The Word” and “the flesh”. St Cyril in following the great St Athanasius attributes ALL the actions of Christ to ONE subject: “The Word”.

The flesh does not suffer; THE WORD suffers according to HIS flesh. The former expression is compatible with Nestorianism whilst the latter is not.

"5. In what way the Word of God is said to have been emptied.

God the Word full by nature and in every way Perfect, and distributing out of His own Fullness His own goods to the creature, we say was emptied: in no wise wronged in His own Proper Nature, nor changed so as to become otherwise, nor made in ought inferior, for inconvertible and unchangeable is Himself also even as He Who begat Him, and never may He be capable of passion. But when He was made Flesh, i.e. Man, He made (as He said, I will pour forth of My Spirit upon all flesh) the poverty of human nature His own; first, in that He was once made man, albeit He remained God; next in that He took the form of a servant, Who is in His own Nature free, as Son, and while He is Himself the Lord of glory He is said to receive glory: Himself Life, He is said to be quickened: and receives power over all, Himself King of all and with God, and Ho was obedient to the Father, suffered the Cross and so on. But these things befit the measure of the human nature, yet He makes them His own with flesh and fulfils the economy, remaining what He was."

" yet we do not say that Jesus Christ was mere man 8, nor do we conceive of God the Word apart from His human nature but, we say that He was made One out of both, as God made Man, the Same begotten Divinely out of the Father as Word, and humanly out of woman as Man: not as though called to a second beginning of being then when He is said to have been born after the flesh: but begotten indeed before all ages, yet when the time came wherein He must fulfil the economy, born also of a woman after the flesh. "


"Hence the union of the Word with the human nature may be not unaptly compared with our condition. Foras the body is of other nature than the soul, yet is one man |194 produced and said to be of both; so too out of the Perfect Person of God the Word, and of manhood perfect in its own mode, is One Christ, the Same God and Man in the Same. And the Word (as I said) makes its own the sufferings of Its own Flesh, because Its own is the Body and not another's: and It shares with Its own Flesh the operation of the God-befitting might that is within It; so that it should be able both to quicken the dead and to heal the sick."


"Alone God the Father. He is said to have been sanctified through the Spirit and moreover to sanctify 39 those who come to Him; He was baptized according to the Flesh and was baptizing in the Holy Ghost; how then doth the Same both sanctify and is sanctified, baptizeth and is baptized? After one manner and another; for He is sanctified humanly, and thus is He baptized: He sanctifies Divinely and baptizeth in the Holy Ghost.


Himself raising the dead was raised from the dead, and being Life by Nature is said to quicken. And how again? After one manner and another. For the Same was raised from the dead and is said to be quickened after the Flesh, yet quickens and raises the dead as God. He suffers and does not suffer 40, after one manner and another: for He |229 suffers humanly in the Flesh as Man, He is impassible Divinely as God."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/cyril_scholia_incarnation_01_text.htm#C36  Cyril of Alexandria, Scholia on the incarnation of the Only-Begotten.  LFC 47, Oxford (1881) pp.185-236.

 
433: St. Cyril explicitly accepts two natures after the hypostatic union in his "Epistle to John of Antioch" (the Agreements of 433):

 "With regard to the Evangelical and Apostolic expressions concerning the Lord, we know that men who are skilled in theology make some of them common to the one Person, while they divide others between the two Natures, ascribing those that are fitting to God to Divinity of Christ, and those that are lowly to His Humanity. On reading these sacred utterances of Yours, and finding that we ourselves think along the same lines—for there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism—, we glorified God the Saviour of all" [John Karmiris, Dogmatic and Creedal Statements of the Orthodox Church, Vol. 1 [Athens:1960]. p. 154], quoted in The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics, p 11]

451: The Fourth Ecumenical Synod adopts all the teachings of St. Cyril, and condemns those who selectively choose some of them and reject others as heretical. St. Flavian is vindicated and the Robber Synod Annulled.

 

457: Timothy Ailouros (another Monophysite "saint") condemns Saint Cyril on account of the agreements:

 

"Cyril... having excellently articulated the wise proclamation of Orthodoxy, showed himself to be fickle and is to be censured for teaching contrary doctrine: after previously proposing that we should speak of one nature of God the Word, he destroyed the dogma that he had formulated and is caught professing two Natures of Christ" [Timothy Ailouros, "Epistles to Kalonymos," Patrologia Graeca, Vol LXXXVI, Col. 276; quoted in The Non Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 13].

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/mono_history.aspx  The History of the Persistant Monophysite Rejection of St. Cyril of Alexandria's Teaching on the Two Natures of Christ






In all fairness, what the Orientals tend to find objectionable about the Tome of Leo is not the dyophysite language, but the way Leo of Rome seems to speak of the two natures as if they are two separate subjects
« Last Edit: May 23, 2012, 08:15:22 AM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Von Döllinger
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8



« Reply #304 on: May 23, 2012, 12:04:29 PM »

Quote
If the Fathers of Chalcedon say that St. Leo is saying the same thing as St. Cyril

The Fathers of the OO church say that Leo’s Christology objectively conflicts with that of St Cyril. I think the evidence supports them, and I believe ive sufficiently proven that. Leo adopted an exclusively Antiochene trait which divides the actions of Christ between two subjects: “The Word” and “the flesh”. St Cyril in following the great St Athanasius attributes ALL the actions of Christ to ONE subject: “The Word”.

The flesh does not suffer; THE WORD suffers according to HIS flesh. The former expression is compatible with Nestorianism whilst the latter is not.

"5. In what way the Word of God is said to have been emptied.

God the Word full by nature and in every way Perfect, and distributing out of His own Fullness His own goods to the creature, we say was emptied: in no wise wronged in His own Proper Nature, nor changed so as to become otherwise, nor made in ought inferior, for inconvertible and unchangeable is Himself also even as He Who begat Him, and never may He be capable of passion. But when He was made Flesh, i.e. Man, He made (as He said, I will pour forth of My Spirit upon all flesh) the poverty of human nature His own; first, in that He was once made man, albeit He remained God; next in that He took the form of a servant, Who is in His own Nature free, as Son, and while He is Himself the Lord of glory He is said to receive glory: Himself Life, He is said to be quickened: and receives power over all, Himself King of all and with God, and Ho was obedient to the Father, suffered the Cross and so on. But these things befit the measure of the human nature, yet He makes them His own with flesh and fulfils the economy, remaining what He was."

" yet we do not say that Jesus Christ was mere man 8, nor do we conceive of God the Word apart from His human nature but, we say that He was made One out of both, as God made Man, the Same begotten Divinely out of the Father as Word, and humanly out of woman as Man: not as though called to a second beginning of being then when He is said to have been born after the flesh: but begotten indeed before all ages, yet when the time came wherein He must fulfil the economy, born also of a woman after the flesh. "


"Hence the union of the Word with the human nature may be not unaptly compared with our condition. Foras the body is of other nature than the soul, yet is one man |194 produced and said to be of both; so too out of the Perfect Person of God the Word, and of manhood perfect in its own mode, is One Christ, the Same God and Man in the Same. And the Word (as I said) makes its own the sufferings of Its own Flesh, because Its own is the Body and not another's: and It shares with Its own Flesh the operation of the God-befitting might that is within It; so that it should be able both to quicken the dead and to heal the sick."


"Alone God the Father. He is said to have been sanctified through the Spirit and moreover to sanctify 39 those who come to Him; He was baptized according to the Flesh and was baptizing in the Holy Ghost; how then doth the Same both sanctify and is sanctified, baptizeth and is baptized? After one manner and another; for He is sanctified humanly, and thus is He baptized: He sanctifies Divinely and baptizeth in the Holy Ghost.


Himself raising the dead was raised from the dead, and being Life by Nature is said to quicken. And how again? After one manner and another. For the Same was raised from the dead and is said to be quickened after the Flesh, yet quickens and raises the dead as God. He suffers and does not suffer 40, after one manner and another: for He |229 suffers humanly in the Flesh as Man, He is impassible Divinely as God."
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/cyril_scholia_incarnation_01_text.htm#C36  Cyril of Alexandria, Scholia on the incarnation of the Only-Begotten.  LFC 47, Oxford (1881) pp.185-236.

 
433: St. Cyril explicitly accepts two natures after the hypostatic union in his "Epistle to John of Antioch" (the Agreements of 433):

 "With regard to the Evangelical and Apostolic expressions concerning the Lord, we know that men who are skilled in theology make some of them common to the one Person, while they divide others between the two Natures, ascribing those that are fitting to God to Divinity of Christ, and those that are lowly to His Humanity. On reading these sacred utterances of Yours, and finding that we ourselves think along the same lines—for there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism—, we glorified God the Saviour of all" [John Karmiris, Dogmatic and Creedal Statements of the Orthodox Church, Vol. 1 [Athens:1960]. p. 154], quoted in The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics, p 11]

451: The Fourth Ecumenical Synod adopts all the teachings of St. Cyril, and condemns those who selectively choose some of them and reject others as heretical. St. Flavian is vindicated and the Robber Synod Annulled.

 

457: Timothy Ailouros (another Monophysite "saint") condemns Saint Cyril on account of the agreements:

 

"Cyril... having excellently articulated the wise proclamation of Orthodoxy, showed himself to be fickle and is to be censured for teaching contrary doctrine: after previously proposing that we should speak of one nature of God the Word, he destroyed the dogma that he had formulated and is caught professing two Natures of Christ" [Timothy Ailouros, "Epistles to Kalonymos," Patrologia Graeca, Vol LXXXVI, Col. 276; quoted in The Non Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 13].

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/mono_history.aspx  The History of the Persistant Monophysite Rejection of St. Cyril of Alexandria's Teaching on the Two Natures of Christ






In all fairness, what the Orientals tend to find objectionable about the Tome of Leo is not the dyophysite language, but the way Leo of Rome seems to speak of the two natures as if they are two separate subjects

Yes, that i understand, but st cyril does the same here, " for He |229 suffers humanly in the Flesh as Man, He is impassible Divinely as God"
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,534



« Reply #305 on: May 23, 2012, 12:49:47 PM »


In all fairness, what the Orientals tend to find objectionable about the Tome of Leo is not the dyophysite language, but the way Leo of Rome seems to speak of the two natures as if they are two separate subjects

Yes, that i understand, but st cyril does the same here, " for He |229 suffers humanly in the Flesh as Man, He is impassible Divinely as God"

Yes, but that is a rather far cry from what Leo wrote in his Tome: 'For each form performs what is proper to it in association with the other, the Word achieving what is the Word’s, while the body accomplishes what is the body’s; the one shines with miracles while the other has succumbed to outrages.' What is objectionable about Leo's famous statement is that he speaks of the two natures acting, in such a fashion that they seem to be reified and become quasi-personal. Worse still, Leo's separation of the Word from the body is (likely unwittingly on his part) close to what Nestorius taught.

Nestorius taught that the Word and the human (whom he called Jesus) were two different prosopa who were united in a prosopon of union (called Son, Son of God, son of man, or the Christ). For Nestorius, it would be incorrect to say that the Word succumbed to outrages (just as Leo implies in this line), although it would be possible to say that the prosopon of union or Jesus succumbed to outrages. Likewise, Nestorius would have said that it is proper only to say that the prosopon of the Word or the prosopon of union worked miracles, but that is improper to say that the Prosopon Jesus worked miracles. Thus, when Leo says that the Word shines with miracles, while the body succumbs to outrages, it is understandable that some bishops, for whom Nestorianism was not some distant memory but a real threat, interrupted the reading of the Tome in order to raise an objection.

That is not to say that the Tome of Leo cannot be interpreted in an Orthodox way (I obviously believe that it can, or else I would not be Eastern Orthodox), but at the same time, I think we need to recognize that there are some real problems with the language it uses, which leave it open to possibly heretical interpretations.
« Last Edit: May 23, 2012, 12:53:40 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #306 on: May 23, 2012, 02:13:13 PM »

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

The writings of our father Saint Cyril are almost 1600 years old. There are no surprises, no rugs to pull, to "gotcha!" moments to uncover.  Saint Cyril teaches exclusively the teaching of One Nature of Christ, a Miaphysis, (not a monophysis). Mia implies a plurality albeit in full union, in the same context as the word communion.  Mia then encompasses the plurality of Christ being God and Man and yet perfectly preserves the sanctity and singularity of the Union of the Incarnation.  The Divine Nature of God the Word is unchanged through the Union, but the exists in unity with the Human Nature of Jesus Christ in the flesh of His Person (hypostasis).  Now here is the real crux of the debate, which separates Oriental and Orthodox/Latin Fathers interpretations.  Saint Cyril implied in his use of the term hypostasis at once to by synonomous with the term physis or nature. Hypostasis and nature are one concept in Cyrillian thought, though two aspects or perspectives.  The physis describes the nature or function, while the concept of hypostasis describes the form or under-lying reality.  Only later did Orthodox and Latin theologians decide to further clarify these terms by inserting a clear distinction in their uses, so that they are no longer considered synonomous.  When reading Cyril speak of One Nature, he is equally speaking of One Person.  Oriental Fathers explain after that this is because there is no abstract nature or physis, everything must exist hypostatically, that is in reality ( hypostasis can be translated as "that which has actual existence").  In this same way, obviously nothing that really exists (i.e., has a hypostasis or an underlying reality) lacks a design (i.e. a nature, physis).  Hence the term hypo (under) and stasis (reality, form, substance), which at once describes to actual form of something which exists while at once also implying how it exists or its underlying principles of existence.  For example, God is Divine, this is His Nature, however He does not abstractly exist, He actually exists, and so the Cyrillian fathers also describe God has having a spiritual hypostasis (form/person) which is the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, Three Persons with One Nature.  I know I am kind of stumbling like Eutyches here, but this is how it has been explained to me.  Saint Cyril always considered the term hypostasis (Person) to inherently include nature.  Hence the union of Natures as one.  They mutually exist together, they define each other.  The nature defines the manifested form (hypostasis) and the form is in perfect accordance with the nature (physis). This why the term is the hypo (under) stasis (reality) which is what Saint Cyril implies when he was quoted above

Quote
Himself raising the dead was raised from the dead, and being Life by Nature is said to quicken. And how again? After one manner and another. For the Same was raised from the dead and is said to be quickened after the Flesh, yet quickens and raises the dead as God. He suffers and does not suffer 40, after one manner and another: for He |229 suffers humanly in the Flesh as Man, He is impassible Divinely as God."

Since there is a Union of the human and divine, they exist for ever as one.  The original form and function of each remains, however they exist fully united as a miaphysis (a composite nature) through a singular hypostasis (the Person of Jesus Christ in the flesh). The Divine Word gives life to His own flesh (because human nature is not self-existing) while He exists forever through Human flesh because flesh is the hypostasis of His Human nature.  He has the qualities of both simultaneously existing and mutually interacting as a single composite.  The human is perfectly human, and remains such, but is united with the Divine, and the Divine remains perfectly divine while united to the human.  The objections which Oriental Fathers have with the Orthodox and Latins is the later distinctions theologically between the terms nature and person.  When the Oriental mind hears "two" in the context of natures, it automatically implies two persons (hypostases) which is Nestorianism.  Further, when Orthodox/Latins after the separation of the terms in the 400s hear to term one in the context of natures it cries of Apollinarianism or Eutychianism because they misunderstand Oriental conception of the Union as a miaphysis, a composite.  Of course in the past 150 years of ecumenical dialogue, we've sorted all this out so that today (a) many Oriental fathers seem to accept that the Latins and Orthodox are not suggesting Nestorianism in their language and (b) many Latins and Orthodox seem to accept that Orientals are not monophysites but are miaphysites, a term which they also seem to agree with.  Essentially, we've figured out how to bridge the semantic divide which was the crux of the problem all the way back with Saint Cyril and Pope Leo's Tome.

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,428


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


WWW
« Reply #307 on: May 25, 2012, 07:22:40 PM »

Bi-'Khristos af-ton-f!
Could you please provide me with any links or resources where I can read about what previous Saints have said in regards to the issues I have brought up? I'd particularly like to read what the Saints said directly concerning the Schism of 1054, and the Coptic/ Orthodox Schism.
 
This work provides a very important examination of Non-Chalcedonian Christology based on the Fathers, and particularly on the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria, who they misquote and distort to support their false teachings.

Speaking of misquoting and distorting to support slander, if not false teachings:

Regarding St. Cyril, read the following:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/mono_history.aspx
Quote
457: Timothy Ailouros (another Monophysite "saint") condemns Saint Cyril on account of the agreements:

"Cyril... having excellently articulated the wise proclamation of Orthodoxy, showed himself to be fickle and is to be censured for teaching contrary doctrine: after previously proposing that we should speak of one nature of God the Word, he destroyed the dogma that he had formulated and is caught professing two Natures of Christ" [Timothy Ailouros, "Epistles to Kalonymos," Patrologia Graeca, Vol LXXXVI, Col. 276; quoted in The Non Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 13].
This not the Epistle of Timothy: it is what his opponent Leontius of Jerusalem/Constantinople says he says, without it being clear which are Timothy's words, and which are the ones Leontius is putting in his mouth.
Quote
499: Philoxenos of Hierapolis convenes a synod in Constantinople and deposes the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch (Flavian), and Severos, a Disciple of Timothy Ailouros (and another Monophysite "saint") is installed in his place [Ibid., p 14].

Severos also condemns St. Cyril's Agreements:

"The formulae used by the Holy Fathers concerning two Natures united in Christ should be set aside, even if they be Cyril's" [Patrologia Graeca, Vol. LXXXIX, Col. 103D. Saint Anastasios of Sinai preserves this quote of Severos in his works; quoted in The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 12].
Somewhat problematic, as St. Anastasios openly advocating forging proof texts.

The time line is also missing some things:
Quote
433: St. Cyril explicitly accepts two natures after the hypostatic union in his "Epistle to John of Antioch" (the Agreements of 433):

"With regard to the Evangelical and Apostolic expressions concerning the Lord, we know that men who are skilled in theology make some of them common to the one Person, while they divide others between the two Natures, ascribing those that are fitting to God to Divinity of Christ, and those that are lowly to His Humanity. On reading these sacred utterances of Yours, and finding that we ourselves think along the same lines—for there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism—, we glorified God the Saviour of all" [John Karmiris, Dogmatic and Creedal Statements of the Orthodox Church, Vol. 1 [Athens:1960]. p. 154], quoted in The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics, p 11]

Saint Cyril replies to extremists who questioned the Agreements:

"We have not gone so mad as to anathematize our own views; but we abide by what we have written and by our way of thinking" [Epistle XXXVII, to Theognostos, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. LXXVII, Col. 169C; quote in The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 12].

448: The Permanent Synod of Constantinople under Patriarch Flavian condemns Eutyches who rejects St. Cyrils Agreements.

449: Dioscoros presides over the Robber Synod and exonerates Eutyches, and deposes St. Flavian (who is beaten to death and replaced by an Alexandrian), and condemns all who accept the Agreements and anathematizes all who confess two natures [Fr. Geoges Florovsky, The Byzantine Fathers of the Fifth Century (Thessaloniki:1992), p 470; referenced in The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 13].
449: Dioscoros and the Synod depose Theodoret for reading Nestorianism into St. Cyril's writings, and depose Ibas for writing a letter claiming that St. Cyril adopted Nestorianism in St. Cyrils Agreements.

Quote
451: The Fourth Ecumenical Synod adopts all the teachings of St. Cyril, and condemns those who selectively choose some of them and reject others as heretical. St. Flavian is vindicated and the Robber Synod Annulled.
451 The Fourth Ecumenical Synod restores Theodoret and Ibas, and does not condemn their writings.

553 The Fifthe Ecumenical Synod anathematizes Theodoret's anti-Cyrillian writings, and the letter attributed to Ibas.

The following article covers the Orthodox S. John of Damascus on the Non-Chalcedonians:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/zisis.pdf
Very little citation of St. John in it, and some of that is just plain wrong:Eutyches was not Egyptian, so the heresy of Monophysitism couldn't have orginated in Egypt.  Nor was Dioscoros deposed for heresy, a fact the article does try to get around. And it seems to not know that Pope Dioscoros did anathematize Eutyches and his heresy.


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.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #308 on: May 25, 2012, 08:59:27 PM »



Not sure if bad quote tags or just a large requote.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,428


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


WWW
« Reply #309 on: May 26, 2012, 12:19:25 AM »



Not sure if bad quote tags or just a large requote.

Just click on the link where the quote comes from:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,35565.msg561137.html#msg561137

Isa does have a way with quotes, but it's well worth the read.

I also had my own reply to these quotes, which at the time were failed to be explained to me. So I gave some possibilities:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,12278.msg166933.html#msg166933
« Last Edit: May 26, 2012, 12:23:04 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.
Carefree T
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 43


« Reply #310 on: June 18, 2012, 12:47:41 PM »

Reading this thread, I've come to understand that the non-Chalcedonian faithful have no problem at all with Constantinople II, having "corrected," "clarified" or "tied up the loose ends of" Chalcedon (depending on your perspective). So why didn't that council do anything to resolve the schism (as I think it was intended to do)?
Logged
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #311 on: June 18, 2012, 03:31:15 PM »

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

Reading this thread, I've come to understand that the non-Chalcedonian faithful have no problem at all with Constantinople II, having "corrected," "clarified" or "tied up the loose ends of" Chalcedon (depending on your perspective). So why didn't that council do anything to resolve the schism (as I think it was intended to do)?

That is not true, actually some of our bigger theological beefs are actually with Constantinople II.  There are revisions and clarifications which help to bridge the Chalcedon gap, true, but there are entirely bigger fish to fry which emerged at Constantinople II such as the dithelete formula and also further emphasizing the language of Pope Leo who kicked the Oriental bee hive in the first place : /

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
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,444


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #312 on: June 18, 2012, 04:10:55 PM »

^I have absolutely never heard that.
Logged

William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« Reply #313 on: June 18, 2012, 04:19:11 PM »

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

Reading this thread, I've come to understand that the non-Chalcedonian faithful have no problem at all with Constantinople II, having "corrected," "clarified" or "tied up the loose ends of" Chalcedon (depending on your perspective). So why didn't that council do anything to resolve the schism (as I think it was intended to do)?

That is not true, actually some of our bigger theological beefs are actually with Constantinople II.  There are revisions and clarifications which help to bridge the Chalcedon gap, true, but there are entirely bigger fish to fry which emerged at Constantinople II such as the dithelete formula and also further emphasizing the language of Pope Leo who kicked the Oriental bee hive in the first place : /

stay blessed,
habte selassie

I've always wondered why the non-Chalcedonians ignore Orthodoxy's dytheletism.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #314 on: June 18, 2012, 04:25:44 PM »

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


I've always wondered why the non-Chalcedonians ignore Orthodoxy's dytheletism.

It was a charged debate of the 7th century, but as with the Union, Oriental thought is always starkly uncomfortable with the Eastern use of the language of di/two, where as we prefer mia/one and not mono Smiley

Existentially speaking, Oriental thought finds it hard to use the term di/two and not imply two concretely different things.  Our language asserts the word di/two as a "division" and "distinction" which we inherently reject in our existential theology.

Quote
If anyone, when speaking about the two natures, does not confess a belief in our one lord Jesus Christ, understood in both his divinity and his humanity, so as by this to signify a difference of natures of which an ineffable union has been made without confusion, in which neither the nature of the Word was changed into the nature of human flesh, nor was the nature of human flesh changed into that of the Word (each remained what it was by nature, even after the union, as this had been made in respect of subsistence); and if anyone understands the two natures in the mystery of Christ in the sense of a division into parts, or if he expresses his belief in the plural natures in the same lord Jesus Christ, God the Word made flesh, but does not consider the difference of those natures, of which he is composed, to be only in the onlooker's mind, a difference which is not compromised by the union (for he is one from both and the two exist through the one) but uses the plurality to suggest that each nature is possessed separately and has a subsistence of its own: let him be anathema.
Constantinople II
This could have had the potential to bridge the gap..

of course, the immediately following anathema clearly is a dagger to reunion and even seems to the Oriental ears to contradict the previous quoted anathema..

Quote
If anyone confesses a belief that a union has been made out of the two natures divinity and humanity, or speaks about the one nature of God the Word made flesh, ... let him be anathema
Constantinople II


 Undecided
stay blessed,
habte selassie
« Last Edit: June 18, 2012, 04:36:01 PM 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 0.227 seconds with 71 queries.