OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 16, 2014, 07:46:37 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome  (Read 34343 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,636


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #315 on: June 18, 2012, 04:29:29 PM »

Con. II was in the sixth century.

I think you are thinking of Con. III, which was in the seventh century.
Logged

Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,636


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #316 on: June 18, 2012, 04:31:48 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.

Read what Fr. Peter has to say here:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,25645.0.html
Logged

Carefree T
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 43


« Reply #317 on: June 18, 2012, 09:51:54 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
Huh, thank you for the info. I was expecting a simple "Because the Eastern Orthodox Church requires acceptance of all their Ecumenical Councils," which would be a ridiculous reason to me if that's all it is, so I'm almost glad it's more nuanced than that on a theological level and not just somewhat of a political matter. That's not to say I'm glad that resumption of communion won't be/isn't simple.
Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #318 on: June 18, 2012, 10:41:18 PM »

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

I don't think you did so intentionally but quoting only a portion--and not even a full sentence at that--of the 8th anathema of the 5th Ecumenical Council is very misleading.
Quote
If anyone uses the expression “of two natures,” confessing that a union was made of the Godhead and of the humanity, or the expression “the one nature made flesh of God the Word,” and shall not so understand those expressions as the holy Fathers have taught, to wit:  that of the divine and human nature there was made an hypostatic union, whereof is one Christ; but from these expressions shall try to introduce one nature or substance [made by a mixture] of the Godhead and manhood of Christ; let him be anathema.  For in teaching that the only-begotten Word was united hypostatically to humanity we do not mean to say that there was made a mutual confusion of natures, but rather each remaining what it was, we understand that the Word was united to the flesh.  Wherefore there is one Christ, both God and man, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood.  Therefore they are equally condemned and anathematized by the Church of God, who divide or part the mystery of the divine dispensation of Christ, or who introduce confusion into that mystery.

The anathema does not apply simply to anyone who speaks of “the one nature made flesh of God the Word,” as the partial quote implies, but only to those who use the prhrase in a Eutychian sense involving a confusion of the two natures. So long as one uses it in the sense the Fathers (particularly and obviously in this case St. Cyril but also Patriarch Dioscorus whether the Fathers of Constantinople had him in mind or not) it is perfectly acceptable. Just as 'in two natures' is acceptable as long as, and only as long as the speaker understands it without 'division'.

Quoted in full, the anathema in no way contradicts the one that proceeds, but is rather a matched pair (as the last sentence makes explicit)--'in two natures' is allowed as long as it not interpreted in a Nestorian way; 'of two natures' is allowed as long as it not interpreted in a Eutychian way. Either phrase is allowed so long as it is undertood in an Orthodox manner--undivided and unconfused.
« Last Edit: June 18, 2012, 10:44:23 PM by witega » Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,412


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


WWW
« Reply #319 on: June 19, 2012, 11:33:45 PM »

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

I don't think you did so intentionally but quoting only a portion--and not even a full sentence at that--of the 8th anathema of the 5th Ecumenical Council is very misleading.
Quote
If anyone uses the expression “of two natures,” confessing that a union was made of the Godhead and of the humanity, or the expression “the one nature made flesh of God the Word,” and shall not so understand those expressions as the holy Fathers have taught, to wit:  that of the divine and human nature there was made an hypostatic union, whereof is one Christ; but from these expressions shall try to introduce one nature or substance [made by a mixture] of the Godhead and manhood of Christ; let him be anathema.  For in teaching that the only-begotten Word was united hypostatically to humanity we do not mean to say that there was made a mutual confusion of natures, but rather each remaining what it was, we understand that the Word was united to the flesh.  Wherefore there is one Christ, both God and man, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood.  Therefore they are equally condemned and anathematized by the Church of God, who divide or part the mystery of the divine dispensation of Christ, or who introduce confusion into that mystery.

The anathema does not apply simply to anyone who speaks of “the one nature made flesh of God the Word,” as the partial quote implies, but only to those who use the prhrase in a Eutychian sense involving a confusion of the two natures. So long as one uses it in the sense the Fathers (particularly and obviously in this case St. Cyril but also Patriarch Dioscorus whether the Fathers of Constantinople had him in mind or not) it is perfectly acceptable. Just as 'in two natures' is acceptable as long as, and only as long as the speaker understands it without 'division'.

Quoted in full, the anathema in no way contradicts the one that proceeds, but is rather a matched pair (as the last sentence makes explicit)--'in two natures' is allowed as long as it not interpreted in a Nestorian way; 'of two natures' is allowed as long as it not interpreted in a Eutychian way. Either phrase is allowed so long as it is undertood in an Orthodox manner--undivided and unconfused.
That's how I've interpreted it as well.  I think Constantinople II included the "one nature" language as a valid language so long as it's understood in the correct context.
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.
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 0.06 seconds with 31 queries.