OrthodoxChristianity.net
September 22, 2014, 12:19:05 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 34454 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #90 on: June 12, 2005, 07:38:20 PM »


So now, what is more powerful?ÂÂ  To say that the human nature performs on its own, or to say that the Word performs through the human nature.ÂÂ  To say that the "human nature performs" is empty, void of any powerful theological language and only puts things down, as we see here, to a metaphysical analysis.ÂÂ  But to say that the "Word performs through the flesh or in the flesh" is much more powerful.ÂÂ [
You mean like St Leo says when he says in his Tome: "Accordingly, He who, as man, is tempted by the devil's subtlety, is the same to whom, as God, angels pay duteous service."?

What is becoming increasingly apparent to me is that no matter how many "Ven Diagrams" there are, and no matter how misunderstood St. Leo is- there will be no Communion between us until we reject St. Leo. The old "my enemy's enemy is my friend" mentality.



« Last Edit: June 12, 2005, 07:55:44 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #91 on: June 12, 2005, 08:11:47 PM »

Is not liking how something is said a worthy reason for a schism?
Logged

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,442


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


WWW
« Reply #92 on: June 12, 2005, 08:20:17 PM »

Quote
What is becoming increasingly apparent to me is that no matter how many "Ven Diagrams" there are, and no matter how misunderstood St. Leo is- there will be no Communion between us until we reject St. Leo. The old "my enemy's enemy is my friend" mentality.

I didn't think anyone said that you should reject the Tome of Leo for reunion, neither do we say that we should accept the Tome of Leo either.ÂÂ  We only like to show where he interpret its faults and we want you to understand the circumstances behind the Tome that lead us to a conviction that we reject it as an Orthodox document.ÂÂ  Fr. John Romanides wasn't ready to reject anything in the EO tradition, except in regards to anathemas, in which he agrees that they may be lifted.ÂÂ  You can keep your councils, but we are not bound by it.ÂÂ  We unite as Orthodox, not as Byzantine or Oriental, not Chalcedonian or non-Chalcedonian.

As to your question, whether how something is said is a worthy reason for a schism, the answer in my opinion is "No."

God bless.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2005, 08:37:59 PM by minasoliman » Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #93 on: June 12, 2005, 08:39:58 PM »

I didn't think anyone said that you should reject the Tome of Leo for reunion, neither do we say that we should accept the Tome of Leo either.ÂÂ  We only like to show where he interpret its faults and we want you to understand the circumstances behind the Tome that lead us to a conviction that we reject it as an Orthodox document.ÂÂ
This only makes it worse! So for us to be in Communion, we must say that Chalcedon is an Unorthodox Council proclaiming unorthodox dogma based on unorthodox documents?
Fr. John Romanides wasn't ready to reject anything in the EO tradition, except lifting up of anathemas.ÂÂ  You can keep your councils, but we are not bound by it.ÂÂ  We unite as Orthodox, not as Byzantine or Oriental.
So not only must we say that Chalcedon does not proclaim Orthodox doctrine-, we must now also say that none of the Ecumenical Councils after it proclaim Orthodox doctrine either..... It just just gets better doesn't it? Wink
« Last Edit: June 12, 2005, 08:41:38 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #94 on: June 12, 2005, 08:50:28 PM »

And you still haven't answered my original question:

So now, what is more powerful?  To say that the human nature performs on its own, or to say that the Word performs through the human nature.  To say that the "human nature performs" is empty, void of any powerful theological language and only puts things down, as we see here, to a metaphysical analysis.  But to say that the "Word performs through the flesh or in the flesh" is much more powerful. [
Do you mean like St Leo says when he says in his Tome: "Accordingly, He who, as man, is tempted by the devil's subtlety, is the same to whom, as God, angels pay duteous service."?
Logged

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,442


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


WWW
« Reply #95 on: June 12, 2005, 10:20:31 PM »

Quote
This only makes it worse! So for us to be in Communion, we must say that Chalcedon is an Unorthodox Council proclaiming unorthodox dogma based on unorthodox documents?

Okay, tell me exactly where I said this because I know I didn't.  I said you are not obligated to reject the Tome or Chalcedon.  However, the Tome or Chalcedon is not necessary for us to accept as a reunion.  What is necessary is the lifting of anathemas.  We are ready to lift anathemas of Leo et al, just as you would lift anathemas from Dioscorus et al.  The faith and doctrines stay THE SAME, as has always been.

Quote
So not only must we say that Chalcedon does not proclaim Orthodox doctrine-, we must now also say that none of the Ecumenical Councils after it proclaim Orthodox doctrine either..... It just just gets better doesn't it?


No, I did not say that.  Again, where did I say that?  Please don't put words in my mouth.  The Agreed Statements state that it is not necessary to accept the additional councils for communion.  Nowhere does it say that this or that council should be rejected either.  We've also believed that the last four EO councils have no difference in its Orthodox interpretation of faith as our OOxy after careful and objective studies on both our traditions.  We will be glad to defend its Orthodoxy, but these councils are not necessary to accept for reunion between both our families.

Quote
Do you mean like St Leo says when he says in his Tome: "Accordingly, He who, as man, is tempted by the devil's subtlety, is the same to whom, as God, angels pay duteous service."?

Yes, I would interpret it as Orthodox, since the fruits of EOxy is true faith, and since this is, as I've read in Leo's other letters, that Leo's intention is Orthodox.  But I must stress, nowhere in this sentence does it state that the Word in prosopon did both.  It only says that the man and God are both the same "He".  Slight difference in terminology, and can be misconstrued as Nestorian, as Nestorius gladly agreed, since he believed that the two prosopa of Christ are the "same Image".  I suggest you read the "Bazaar of Heracleides" by Nestorius.

God bless you.
Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #96 on: June 12, 2005, 10:38:00 PM »

Yes, I would interpret it as Orthodox, since the fruits of EOxy is true faith, and since this is, as I've read in Leo's other letters, that Leo's intention is Orthodox.ÂÂ  But I must stress, nowhere in this sentence does it state that the Word in prosopon did both.ÂÂ  It only says that the man and God are both the same "He".ÂÂ  Slight difference in terminology, and can be misconstrued as Nestorian, as Nestorius gladly agreed, since he believed that the two prosopa of Christ are the "same Image".ÂÂ  I suggest you read the "Bazaar of Heracleides" by Nestorius.

Dear Friend,
Nestorius could just as easily twist the Pre-Incarnate and Incarnate Word as two prosopa of Christ that are the same image. If you have anathemised St. Leo because you think his teaching can be misunderstood, then you must also anathamise St. Cyril for the same reason.

What is necessary is the lifting of anathemas.
Agreed. The Anathemas must be lifted for there to be Communion between us.

We are ready to lift anathemas of Leo et al, just as you would lift anathemas from Dioscorus et al.ÂÂ  The faith and doctrines stay THE SAME, as has always been.
But why was Dioscorsus anathemized
The Seventh Ecumenical Council says:
"Anathema to those who spurn the teachings of the holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church, taking as a pretext and making their own the arguments of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, that unless we were evidently taught by the Old and New Testaments, we should not follow the teachings of the holy Fathers and of the holy Ecumenical Synods, and the tradition of the Catholic Church."

Unless we all follow the Ecumenical Synods, there can be no Communion.




« Last Edit: June 12, 2005, 10:40:15 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Stavro
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,164



« Reply #97 on: June 13, 2005, 12:54:04 AM »

Dear EA,
I apologize sincerely for the confusion on my part. I intended to reply to a statement by a Chalcedonian about the Ephesus II, yet I was not careful to quote the complete post and the post looked like a criticism to yours, which cannot be my intention in any case. I will modify the post accordingly. I fully agree with your statements and posts. 
Peace. 
Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,442


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


WWW
« Reply #98 on: June 13, 2005, 12:57:17 AM »

Quote
Nestorius could just as easily twist the Pre-Incarnate and Incarnate Word as two prosopa of Christ that are the same image. If you have anathemised St. Leo because you think his teaching can be misunderstood, then you must also anathamise St. Cyril for the same reason.

Dearest Ozgeorge,

I have shown you the reasons and factors to which we rejected the Tome.ÂÂ  Perhaps, there may have not been a schism if:
1.ÂÂ  Theodoret and Ibas were not associated with Leo
2.ÂÂ  The Roman Legates that represented Leo did not say that Theodore of Mopsuestia was a "doctor of the Church"
3.ÂÂ  If discussion and debate was allowed with Imperial authorities threatening sides
4.ÂÂ  If Imperial authorities did not house arrest St. Dioscorus
5.ÂÂ  If we weren't persecuted for not accepting the Tome

These are the factors to which we proceeded to call the Tome heretical.ÂÂ  Yes, it can be misunderstood, but if the first four of the five factors really did never happen, perhaps the brotherhood in Chalcedon could have given certain consideration for Orthodoxy in Chalcedon rather than the violence and yelling that erupted there.

For example, THEORETICALLY SPEAKING, if St. Cyril was associated with Apollinarians and sent legates that represented him that said Appollinarius was a "doctor of the Church," then shouldn't I proceed with caution to read any of St. Cyril's Tome as probably not Orthodox since he associates himself with heretics?

Quote
But why was Dioscorsus anathemized...
etc. etc. etc.

By asking this question and making other statements after it, you imply a couple of things:
1.ÂÂ  By lifting anathemas, you expect us to condemn our own Orthodox fathers.
2.ÂÂ  By lifting anathemas, you expect us to accept councils that condemn our own Orthodox fathers.
3.ÂÂ  You assume that St. Dioscorus et al were heretics.

If these are not what you assumed then you shouldn't have asked that last question.

So now that I assume I know what you believe, let us talk about St. Dioscorus.ÂÂ  Why was St. Dioscorus anathematized?
The answer:ÂÂ  because he did not come to the council after a triple summons.ÂÂ  Nowhere in the Council of Chalcedon in its sentences and definitions does it accuse St. Dioscorus of heresy.ÂÂ  It's only a tradition in your Church that Leo, who wasn't present to hear St. Dioscorus' defenses, call him a Eutychian, while never even have met the man himself, and his legates took Leo's words as words of infallibility, and thuse became an EO tradition.ÂÂ  Meanwhile, we called Leo a Nestorian and have not met Leo himself to know what he actually believes.ÂÂ  While there were factors into our suspicions to him, today since we have the internet, and sources in reading all his letters, I know he is Orthodox in Christology (but that goes also the same way St. Dioscorus.ÂÂ  Read his stuff, and you'll find it DRENCHED with Orthodoxy).

So far, I'm speaking objectively.

Second Answer:ÂÂ  Because imperial authorities hate Alexandria.ÂÂ  It's obvious with the house arrest and the persecutions we suffered through.ÂÂ  Is it right to force someone to be Chalcedonian?ÂÂ  That's no different from being a Muslim in the Islamically ruled countries, to accept Islam or to die (or pay Jizya, but that wasn't even offered from the CHRISTIAN Imperial authorities).

Now, that I've answered your question, I like to ask you and Augustine and others:

Do you think that St. Dioscorus et al were all heretics?ÂÂ  If so, can you quote for us the source of their heresy from their own writings and sayings?

I can assure you that what you and your councils accuse St. Dioscorus et al of is the same heresy that St. Dioscorus et al all have condemned themselves.

Let us then look objectively at what your councils said.ÂÂ  I can tell you honestly that the Holy Spirit at least worked through you to uphold the Orthodox faith, but you did not heed the Holy Spirit's call that certain men you condemn were not the heretics you think they were.ÂÂ  Your and our councils have had councils for good intentions of condemning heresies, but if the supposed persons you've condemned did not hold these heresies, then theoretically, it is not wrong to lift anathemas against us, since they never even believed in the heresy you condemned them with. (this statement not only holds for you only, but us as well)

It is right to uphold the faith, but it is wrong to say that St. Dioscorus erred from the faith.ÂÂ  I challenge you to read the OO fathers and find anything heretical, and we can challenge it here.ÂÂ  Perhaps, we should create a thread on why you reject St. Dioscorus, now that we have discussed and exhausted the Tome of Leo.

God bless you.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2005, 01:00:59 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.
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,445


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #99 on: June 13, 2005, 01:06:20 AM »

I believe that St John Chrysostom also once publicly called Theodore of Mopsuestia "my teacher" since he died in communion with the Orthodox Church and was actually a big influence on St John Chrysostom.  I will have to ask my former patristics professor though if he can give me the citation for that.  At any rate, it just goes to show that before a person is officially condemned, people can have varying opinions about him, such as how St. Basil the Great called Origen his teacher and edited his works (the first Philokalia).

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #100 on: June 13, 2005, 01:16:40 AM »

For example, THEORETICALLY SPEAKING, if St. Cyril was associated with Apollinarians and sent legates that represented him that said Appollinarius was a "doctor of the Church," then shouldn't I proceed with caution to read any of St. Cyril's Tome as probably not Orthodox since he associates himself with heretics?
Yes, I wouldn't blame you for proceeding with caution. But circumspection is one thing, and "finding" heresy where there is no heresy is quite another.
Why the non-chalcedon insistence on accusing St. Leo of confusing the issue when he clealy does not? For example:
But I must stress, nowhere in this sentence does it state that the Word in prosopon did both.
The sentence in question reads: "Accordingly, He who, as man, is tempted by the devil's subtlety, is the same to whom, as God, angels pay duteous service."
St. Leo says that "He...is the same..."
"He" is a personal pronoun and can only possibly refer to an hypostasis/prosopon/person, not a nature. St. Leo clearly says He did both. Why do the non-chalcedons insist that this is not what he says?

In the same way, not everything Origen said was heresy, not everything Nestorios said was heresy. We treat Origen's works with caution, but we do not reject everything he says, and more importantly, we do not accuse him of heresy in the Orthodox things that he said.

So now that I assume I know what you believe, let us talk about St. Dioscorus.ÂÂ  Why was St. Dioscorus anathematized?
The answer:ÂÂ  because he did not come to the council after a triple summons.ÂÂ
No, he was anathemised for rejecting the teachings of an Ecumenical Council. I repeat (ojectively):
"The Seventh Ecumenical Council says: "Anathema to those who spurn the teachings of the holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church, taking as a pretext and making their own the arguments of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, that unless we were evidently taught by the Old and New Testaments, we should not follow the teachings of the holy Fathers and of the holy Ecumenical Synods, and the tradition of the Catholic Church."

So far, I'm speaking objectively.
So am I, so I will not give you my subjective opinion on the rest of your questions.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2005, 01:19:47 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,442


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


WWW
« Reply #101 on: June 13, 2005, 01:35:35 AM »

Sigh,

I have talked enough about Leo.  The point is that I agree we misunderstood Leo's intentions, but because of one or two vague sentences, and more because of what we suffered through unjustly, we just rejected the whole thing.  We made that mistake, and you made the mistake of taking things out of context on our side as well.  We were persecuted by Imperial authorites and we put this as if Leo was with the authorities.  Later on, saints like Maximus in the EO were being persecuted by Imperial authorities and as a result we were somewhat to blame.  We misunderstood one another.  The discussion was supposed to be open-hearted and not just to criticize one another.  For that, we can go in circles and show you how your councils were wrong in condemning St. Dioscorus for taking him out of context as well and misunderstanding his words.  Can you believe it?  Orthodoxinfo.com states that St. Dioscorus was condemned for saying "from two natures" and not "of two natures."  I ask, what's the difference?  See how much they take things out of context to justify their claims of heresy against St. Dioscorus.

Nothing is truly justified if that is what you're getting at.  You are right, we must examine everything, and not every heretic's writing we just reject because it was written by a heretic.  But because of certain political situations, both sides took things out of context.  I am not proving that Chalcedonians are wrong and that they should repent.  I am only showing how we interpreted things.

I hope this is the end of it for the Tome of Leo.

Next, why is that you write "objectively" like me?  Is it really "objective" what you wrote or are you just joking?

Quote
No, he was anathemised for rejecting the teachings of an Ecumenical Council.  I repeat (ojectively):

With all due respect there is nothing objective in what you quoted.  I asked you to show me from St. Dioscorus' writings where he erred, and you have not done so.  Instead you quote an "ecumenical" council for me.  I can use the same "objective" tactic and quote Ephesus III and say that "Chalcedon and Leo erred from the faith of the Apostolic Fathers".

If this was a joke, please add a "j/k" because I'm bad at jokes and usually don't get them.

So now that we have proven that Leo was Orthodox, and that his Tome was misunderstood, I also ask you to show the same courtesy of our OO fathers, including St. Dioscorus, for he was also Orthodox and misunderstood.  Do not quote from your sources, but quote from our sources and show us where we've erred.  So far, we have not quoted from our councils to prove that Leo was a heretic.  I ask you, truly objectively with no joke, to do the same.

God bless you and good night.

I'll post tomorrow if necessary.
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.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,442


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


WWW
« Reply #102 on: June 13, 2005, 01:43:51 AM »

One more thing:

Quote
But circumspection is one thing, and "finding" heresy where there is no heresy is quite another.

I like this, and I very much agree.  I contend that this goes the same with St. Dioscorus.

God bless and good night.
Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #103 on: June 13, 2005, 02:20:09 AM »

ÂÂ  Orthodoxinfo.com states that St. Dioscorus was condemned for saying "from two natures" and not "of two natures."ÂÂ  I ask, what's the difference?ÂÂ  ..... I also ask you to show the same courtesy of our OO fathers, including St. Dioscorus, for he was also Orthodox and misunderstood.ÂÂ  Do not quote from your sources, but quote from our sources and show us where we've erred.ÂÂ  So far, we have not quoted from our councils to prove that Leo was a heretic.ÂÂ  I ask you, truly objectively with no joke, to do the same.

The Coptic Synaxarion for Tout 7 quotes Discorus as saying:"The Hypostatic Union of the Word of God with the flesh is like the union of the soul with the body and like the union of fire and iron: even as they are of two different natures, by their union they became one. Likewise, our Lord Christ is one Messiah, one Lord, and one Nature."
Dioscorus says that Christ's Two Natures, by virtue of their union become "One Nature".
"our Lord Christ is one Messiah, one Lord, and one Nature".... Just like "One Lord, one Faith, one baptism".  In Christ, Two Natures become One Nature, (not two) according to Dioscorus. How else can this be interpreted? Since, according to Dioscorus, the Two Natures become One in the Hypostasis of the Incarnate Christ, this must have taken place at the instant of His Incarnation. Therefore, according to Dioscorus, the Incarnate Christ never had Two Natures, He only ever had One Nature. Whether he knew it or not, Dioscorus was teaching monophysitism.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Stavro
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,164



« Reply #104 on: June 13, 2005, 02:23:46 AM »

Hmmm.........
Perhaps, in actual fact, "the Spirit has spoken through Stavro."
No, it was mistake and a misunderstanding on my behalf, and my reply was in fact directed to you in your reference to St.Dioscoros, yet I misplaced a quote. ÂÂ
Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
Stavro
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,164



« Reply #105 on: June 13, 2005, 02:47:38 AM »

Quote
our Lord Christ is one Messiah, one Lord
You emphasized one Messiah and one Lord .....
Do you contest the fact that Christ is one Lord and one Messiah? Be aware that you are falling in the worst possible form of Nestorianism, the" two-son " or "two-person" heresy, if you reject this clear Orthodox teaching.
Quote
Two Natures become One Nature, (not two) according to Dioscorus
The text out of the synaxerium reads "one incarnate nature", and we might excuse you based on possible poor translation.  As such, St.Dioscoros is faithful to his teacher, St.Cyril, in case the latter still means anything to Chalcedonians. This is the expression St.Cyril used throughout his writings.
In addition, while Leo of Rome was clear about separation of the natures of Christ and falling into Nestorianism, there is no single hint of any confusion or mingling between the divine and human nature in the person of Christ in this text. Where is monophysicism expressed exactly ?

St.Dioscoros was not charged with such heresy in Chalcedon, he was excommunicated because he could not go to the council while under house arrest by the council leading figures recommendations to the imperial court, as others explained. If St.Dioscoros was never charged with heresy, and Anatolius of Constantinople - a Chalcedonian leader - expressed it clearly in his reply to the emperial officer who resided over the council, it does not make sense to accuse St.Dioscoros of such heresy. This accusation surfaced later to counter the fact that Chalcedon was received as a Nestorian council by the East.


Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #106 on: June 13, 2005, 02:53:54 AM »

Where is monophysicism expressed exactly ?


Dioscorus says: "one Messiah, one Lord, and one Nature". I'm not sure how much clearer it needs to be.
Logged

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #107 on: June 13, 2005, 02:55:02 AM »

ozgeorge,

This is too easy:

Quote
Dioscorus says that Christ's Two Natures, by virtue of their union become "One Nature"………………..

………. Whether he knew it or not, Dioscorus was teaching monophysitism.

Here is what the blessed St Cyril convicts you of concerning the conclusion you have drawn with regards to the blessed St Dioscorus:

"For not only in the case of those who are simple by nature is the term ‘one’ truly used, but also in respect to what has been brought together according to a synthesis, as man is one being, who is of soul and body. For soul and body are of different species and are not consubstantial to each other, but united they produce one Physis of man, even though in the considerations of the synthesis the difference exist according to the nature of those which have been brought together into a unity. Accordingly they are speaking in vain who say that, if there should be one incarnate Physis ÂÂ ‘of the Word’ in every way and in every manner it would follow that a mixture and a confusion occurred as if lessening and taking away the nature of man.’

Please; if you want to commit the obvious and common Chalcedonian logical fallacy of non-sequitor in order to dishonestly label the blessed and holy St Dioscorus a monophysite by virtue of his affirming the One physis of Christ after the union; then at least be consistent in your inept reasoning and do likewise for St Cyril, otherwise you are not only logically incapable, but you are dishonest also.

St Dioscorus in affirming the One Physis of God the Logos incarnate does not deny the continuing reality of the two natures of Christ anymore than St Cyril does; rather the both of them are affirming the individual state of Christ’s existence after the hypostatic union, due to the very en-hypostasization of Christ's humanity by the hypostasis of The Word. Therefore, as the blessed St Cyril accuses you ozgeorge, then so do i: You speak in vain.

St Dioscorus also stated:

“God the Logos, consubstantial with the Father, at the end of the ages for our redemption became consubstantial with man in the flesh, remaining what he was before.” (Sellers, R.V. The Council of Chalcedon p31. n1. S.P.C.K. 1953)

Clearly therefore, St Dioscorus did not deny the continuing reality of the two natures of Christ after the union. The above quotation could not be any more explicit. St Dioscorus also says:

“I know full well, having been brought up in the faith, that he has been begotten of the Father as God, and that the Same has been begotten of Mary as man. See Him walking on the sea as man, and Creator of the heavenly hosts as God; see him sleeping in the boat as man, and walking on the seas as God; see Him hungry as man, and bestowing nourishment as God; see him thirsty as man, and giving drink as God; see him stoned by the Jews as man, and worshipped by angels as God; see him tempted as man, and driving away the demons as God; and similarly of many instances.” (Sellers, R.V. The Council of Chalcedon p32. S.P.C.K. 1953)

On behalf of the great St Cyril, I urge you ozgeorge: do not speak in vain.

Peace.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2005, 02:55:35 AM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

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

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #108 on: June 13, 2005, 03:33:19 AM »

Clearly therefore, St Dioscorus did not deny the continuing reality of the two natures of Christ after the union.

Quote
From the Coptic Synaxarion

Tout 7

The Departure of St. Dioscorus, 25th Pope of Alexandria.
On this day of the year 451 A.D., the blessed father and the great champion of Orthodoxy, Saint Dioscorus, 25th Pope of Alexandria, departed. His departure took place on the island of Gagra after he had fought the good fight defending the Orthodox faith.

When he was summoned to the Council of Chalcedon by the order of Emperor Marcianus, he saw a great assembly of 630 bishops. Saint Dioscorus asked, "In whom is the faith lacking that it was necessary to gather this great assembly?" They told him, "This assembly has been convened by the emperor's command." He replied, "If this assembly has been convened by the command of our Lord Jesus Christ I shall stay and speak with what God may give me to say; but if this assembly has been convened by the emperor's command, let the emperor manage his assembly as he pleases."

When he saw that Leo, Archbishop of Rome, was teaching that Christ has two natures and two wills after the Union, he took the charge to refute this new belief. He stated that our Lord Jesus Christ is one, He who was invited to the wedding as a man and changed the water into wine as a God, and that the two natures were not separated in all of His works. Quoting Pope Cyril, he said, "The Hypostatic Union of the Word of God with the flesh is like the union of the soul with the body and like the union of fire and iron: even as they are of two different natures, by their union they became one. Likewise, our Lord Christ is one Messiah, one Lord, and one Nature." .......
Source: http://www.copticchurch.net/classes/synex.php?month=1&day=7&btn=View&lang=

If Dioscorus was not holding to monophysitism, why does your own synaxarion say that he "refuted" this "new" teaching of the "Two Natures" and "Two Wills" after union? Because Dioscorus held that Christ had only One Nature after union as he himself puts it: "even as they are of two different natures by their union they became one.... Likewise, our Lord Christ is one Messiah, one Lord, and one Nature." .......
Logged

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #109 on: June 13, 2005, 03:50:44 AM »

Quote
If Dioscorus was not holding to monophysitism, why does your own synaxarion say that he "refuted" this "new" teaching of the "Two Natures" and "Two Wills" after union

Because this was understood by the blessed St Dioscorus as a teaching of Christ’s being existent in two independent states of existence; capable of being separated according to action and will, yet also capable of uniting again according to a prosopic union; which is a Nestorian teaching. The expression "in two natures" was an expression unheard of in Orthodox Christology at the time; it was employed exclusively by the Antiochene school which had heretical tendencies, and it was specifically employed by Nestorius and Nestorians in general, to convey the Nestorian heresy. This is the context of St Dioscorus' rejection of this expression.

Ozgeorge, you basically ignored my whole post, in which I quoted for you ST CYRIL’S very explicit statement regarding the matter of One physis; AS WELL AS DIRECT QUOTES FROM ST DIOSCORUS HIMSELF concerning Christ’s acting certain acts according to His divinity (which he affirmed is consubstantial with the Father) and acting other acts according to his humanity (which He affirmed is consubstantial with mankind.)

If you want to remain blissfully and voluntarily ignorant to everything I quoted for you in my previous post; if YOU want to undermine the authority of St Cyril and ridicule him and the letter of his which I quoted for you in which essentially argues that to conclude monophysitism from a declaration of Christ’s One physis is a classic non-sequitor; then this is your problem from here on. The issue is no longer between you and I, or you and minasoliman, or even you and the authoritative professors of metaphysics which you struggled and failed to undermine. This is now between you and your conscious.

I have nothing further to say; im not going to repeat myself over and over again as if I’m speaking to a kid.

St Cyril the great:
“Accordingly they [i.e. ozgeorge] are speaking in vain who say that, if there should be one incarnate PhysisÂÂ  ‘of the Word’ in every way and in every manner it would follow that a mixture and a confusion occurred as if lessening and taking away the nature of man.’”

Peace.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2005, 03:52:08 AM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

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

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
alexp4uni
Site Supporter
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #110 on: June 13, 2005, 04:04:53 AM »

Quote
When he was summoned to the Council of Chalcedon by the order of Emperor Marcianus..."In whom is the faith lacking that it was necessary to gather this great assembly?" They told him, "This assembly has been convened by the emperor's command." He replied, "If this assembly has been convened by the command of our Lord Jesus Christ I shall stay and speak with what God may give me to say; but if this assembly has been convened by the emperor's command, let the emperor manage his assembly as he pleases."

Also another point is It seems Dioscorus has a bit of arrogance when he responds to the message of the Emperor. Doesn't a council need to be deemed by a ruler to bring together not of specific of Christ to the individual but of the Holy Spirit under of one group of people to decide? So this is to say that many people under Byzantium have been irritated by Emperors ruling factor in the decision making. (I don't know of what decision they have declared perhaps someone can say some thought on the deciding factors of a Council when it comes to the result)
Logged
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #111 on: June 13, 2005, 04:28:28 AM »

St Cyril the great:
“Accordingly they [i.e. ozgeorge] are speaking in vain who say that, if there should be one incarnate PhysisÂÂ  ‘of the Word’ in every way and in every manner it would follow that a mixture and a confusion occurred as if lessening and taking away the nature of man.’”

From St. Cyril's Epistle to John of Antioch.
"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"

St. Cyril clearly neither espouses monophysitism, nor what you would call "miaphysitism".
So you see EA, the only "anathema" I am under is Dioscorus' who anathemised all who confess the Two Natures (and, possibly, your anathema).

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2005, 05:01:08 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #112 on: June 13, 2005, 05:15:47 AM »

Ozgeorge,

It seems that you’ve gone bankrupt.

John of Antioch was initially a supporter of Nestorius and in direct opposition to St Cyril and the Council of Ephesus. St Cyril being the righteous saint that he is, and thus a peacemaker, decided to develop the reunion formula which incorporated the Antiochene concerns and hence brought John of Antioch back into the Orthodox fold upon his acquiescence of it. There was still a large faction of the Antiochene’s who were not satisfied, even with the re-union formula; especially the Nestorians - the "in two natures" expression was dominant in their school of thought. Obviously you are unable of having due regard or consideration for the historical circumstances at the time; it seems you would rather do a kindergarten historical analysis by considering the historical actions/reactions or sayings of a figure in a vacuum, ripped out of their historical context.

St Cyril affirmed One Physis. Period. Are you going to deny this? If you are not going to deny this, then are you going to call St Cyril a monophysite? If you are not going to call St Cyril a monophysite, then why do you do the same concerning his lawful successors St Dioscorus and St Timothy; especially when it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that they affirm One physis after the union in faithful adherence to their predecessors' Christololgy, and in the same context , for in the same breath they declare the very consubstantiality of Christ to mankind, which directly contradicts the notion of a co-mingling or confusion of the two ousias.

In short, Miaphysis Christology is not in contradiction to a two nature Christology PER SE when the term physis is understood according to different contexts - two natures according to the reality of Christ's existence, and One nature according to the state of Christ's existence. To affirm that there is a contradiction is to commit the categorical fallacy: http://www.flipsideshow.com/IIF1--LogicalFallacyList.htm Please study this list of logical fallacies, so that you may refrain from falling into any again. I don’t want to keep correcting you.

Quote
So you see EA, the only "anathema" I am under is Dioscorus' who anathemised all who confess the Two Natures (and, possibly, yours).

How many times do we have to run around in circles? The anathema placed on Leo and all those who adhere to his Christology, is done so according to the assumption that Leo’s two nature Christology was a crypto-Nestorian one; an affirmation and understanding of Christ’s two natures in the sense that they are two independent states of existence. Though we have been arguing that this assumption may have been an objectively reasonable one to make, our hierarchs being the honest and righteous men of God that they are, have affirmed that they are ready to lift the anathemas upon recognition, that in the context of the subsequent councils to Chalcedon, the subjective intentions of the Eastern Church have been clarified such that in the context of these latter councils, no form of Nestorianism can even be objectively interpreted.

LIKEWISE, ozgeorge mr. double standards, YOU and YOUR church will have to recognize that the assumption upon which the blessed St Dioscorus confessor of the Orthodox faith, was anathemized, was likewise a FALSE ASSUMPTION. I have proven this to you; you cannot deny what is written in black and white; the quotes of St Dioscorus which I pasted for you were even taken from a pro-Chalcedonian textbook!

I repeat through the words of St Cyril; your attempt to derive monophysitism from a mere declaration of the One physis of Christ after the union is IN VAIN, it is a NON-SEQUITOR. Period. I am not calling you names any more than St Cyril is; we are simply declaring a fact.

Peace.
Logged

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

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #113 on: June 13, 2005, 05:53:13 AM »

I am not calling you names

Really? Then I must have misunderstood you when you accused me of :

kindergarten historical analysis.....you’ve gone bankrupt
and called me:
mr. double standards
all in the same post and placed me under St. Cyril’s anathema in your previous one.

Why should anyone believe your arguments when you can't you even tell the truth in the face of contemporary facts? You are calling me names EA, despite your denial. (A bit like your denial that St. Cyril pre-emptively affirmed the Faith of Chalcedon.)

John of Antioch was initially a supporter of Nestorius and in direct opposition to St Cyril and the Council of Ephesus. St Cyril being the righteous saint that he is, and thus a peacemaker, decided to develop the reunion formula which incorporated the Antiochene concerns and hence brought John of Antioch back into the Orthodox fold upon his acquiescence of it. There was still a large faction of the Antiochene’s who were not satisfied, even with the re-union formula; especially the Nestorians - the "in two natures" expression was dominant in their school of thought. Obviously you are unable of having due regard or consideration for the historical circumstances at the time;

Oh, I see. So you are saying that St. Cyril was only making concessions to the Nestorians when he agrees in his letter to St John of Antioch that Christ has Two distinct Natures with different attributes….St. Cyril is not pre-emptively affirming the faith of Chalcedon in his letter, he is simply agreeing with Nestorians…….
Give me a break! Sounds like a bit of a "kindergarten historical analysis" to me.

ozgeorge,
This is too easy:
Really? then why the need for all the mental acrobatics and resorting to your own unsubstantiated version of historical contexts. The statement "this is too easy" has as much basis in fact as "I am not calling you names mr. double standards".

The Truth will set you free.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2005, 06:46:37 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #114 on: June 13, 2005, 07:09:16 AM »

Quote
Really? Then I must have misunderstood you when you accused me of :
Quote from: EkhristosAnesti on Today at 05:15:47 AM
kindergarten historical analysis.....you’ve gone bankrupt

Applying metaphors which appropriately and reasonably describe the nature of one’s failed arguments; arguments which have been employed in a vain attempt to prove that The One Holy Universal and Apostolic Orthodox Church (“non-chalcedonian church”) ever ascribed to any sort of heresy, is not the same as name calling. It’s not like I called you an idiot. There was no reference made to your person sir; I accused you of double standards and shoddy research; this does not classify as ad hominem for I have the right to point out and prove the fallacies of anothers argument.ÂÂ  

In kindergarten I doubt they expect you to take historical context into consideration; likewise you felt the need to rip the mere affirmation of “One physis” and the rejection of “two physis”; not only out of its historical context, but its Christological, and linguistic context. Since in a particular context, physis was understood by St Cyril and his legitimate successors in a hypostatic sense, I could likewise rip your affirmation of two physis out of context and conclude exclusively from that, that your fathers were affirming two hypostasis in Christ; and by doing so I would be doing nothing more than arguing consistently with your flawed approach to this whole issue.

Quote
Oh, I see. So you are saying that St. Cyril was only making concessions to the Nestorians when he agrees in his letter to St John of Antioch that Christ has Two distinct Natures with different attributes….

First of all, I never said that St Cyril was making concessions to the Nestorians. It seems like putting words into the mouths of others is common for you. Not only have you done it to me before, but minsasoliman rebuked you for doing it to him previously also. The Antiochene’s stressed the two natures of Christ beyond what is reasonable. St Cyril made concessions for their concerns that the unity of Christ was being over-stressed; not for their abuse of a two-nature Christology.

That St Cyril agrees with the fact that Christ possesses two distinct natures with different attributes per se is not an issue. I agree with this, my Church agrees with this, as did St Dioscorus. If St Dioscorus did not agree that there were to two distinct natures in Christ, he would not and most importantly COULD NOT have affirmed that Christ was consubstantial with the Father and mankind simultaneously, for the corollary of this is that Christ possesses a complete and perfect divine nature and a complete perfect human nature simultaneously. In your vain attempt to discredit the blessed St Dioscorus, you overlooked a particular sentence in the synaxarium:

“He [St Dioscorus] stated…the two natures were not separated in all of His works.” In order to declare that the two natures could not be separated in all of His works, is to first presuppose the possession of two natures. St Cyril stressed many times that two natures were to be spoken of in contemplation/thought alone; those who were faithful to his Christology were sensitive with regards to the manner in which one declares two natures after the union; not because of a denial that Christ possessed a complete divine and complete human nature, but because the unity of Christ was the Orthodox emphasis, and the only appropriate emphasis according to the historical period in question when Nestorianism was still influential and an immediate threat to the Church.

His affirmation of One physis after the union simply entails (as it did with St Cyril) that these two distinct natures constituted one individual concrete state of existence in Christ, once the distinct humanity of Christ was en-hypostasized by the hypostasis of The Word.

Quote
A bit like your denial that St. Cyril pre-emptively affirmed the Faith of Chalcedon.)

If you think St Cyril’s affirmation of two natures per se (which he affirmed WITH AN AFFIRMATION OF ONE PHYSIS) automatically entails an acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon, then……no comment — I’ll rub things in when I have the time for it....Its funny how you have to resort to wild unwarranted speculations. I suggest you do a study of St Cyril's Christology and compare it side by side with the Tome of Leo and the Nestorian Three Chapters; both documents which were vindicated at Chalcedon.

I realise that ever since I proved a few posts ago, that your manner of expressing the actions of Christ falls under the 12th anathema of St Cyril, that you've been getting a bit defensive, and this has distorted your ability to be reasonable. I will promise to make a stop here, I don't want to upset you further. Be happy with Chalcedon; I am happy without it - It was a superflous historical error. I don't need a council of schism to affirm the two essences/natures of Christ which constitue His Mia Physis, my Church adopted these principles before Chalcedon and maintained them without it.

Peace.

« Last Edit: June 13, 2005, 07:14:15 AM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

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

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #115 on: June 13, 2005, 08:01:12 AM »

Applying metaphors which appropriately and reasonably describe the nature of one’s failed arguments; arguments which have been employed in a vain attempt to prove that The One Holy Universal and Apostolic Orthodox Church (“non-chalcedonian church”) ever ascribed to any sort of heresy, is not the same as name calling. It’s not like I called you an idiot. There was no reference made to your person sir; I accused you of double standards and shoddy research; this does not classify as ad hominem for I have the right to point out and prove the fallacies of anothers argument.
Yes, and you have the right to call me names, just admit that you are doing it!ÂÂ  "mr. double standards" is name-calling. I don't care what you call me, just don't say things like "I'm not name calling" and then call people names, and then deny that you are doing it! This is called denial, and denial stands for:
Don't
Even
Notice
I
Am
Lying

That St Cyril agrees with the fact that Christ possesses two distinct natures with different attributes per se is not an issue. I agree with this, my Church agrees with this, as did St Dioscorus.
So why did he deny it when asked at the Council of Chalcedon?

If St Dioscorus did not agree that there were to two distinct natures in Christ, he would not and most importantly COULD NOT have affirmed that Christ was consubstantial with the Father and mankind simultaneously, for the corollary of this is that Christ possesses a complete and perfect divine nature and a complete perfect human nature simultaneously. In your vain attempt to discredit the blessed St Dioscorus, you overlooked a particular sentence in the synaxarium:“He [St Dioscorus] stated…the two natures were not separated in all of His works.”
And you have overlooked the fact that although he says Christ has Two Natures, they became One Nature. So his statement that "the two natures were not separated in all of His works" simply reaffirms his belief that the One Nature operated in all His works. The same sort of non-committal stuff I hear in the dialogues between the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians: "of course we believe the faith as expressed in the Seven Ecumenical Councils, but we refuse to aknowledge them or submit to them." Is this mere politics, or do we in fact not share the same faith?


In order to declare that the two natures could not be separated in all of His works, is to first presuppose the possession of two natures.
I think you'll find I've aknowledged this in all my posts.......Let me repeat again, Dioscorsus said the Two Distinct Natures became one nature and functioned as one nature....what you now call "miaphysis".

St Cyril stressed many times that two natures were to be spoken of in contemplation/thought alone;
.
Of course he did, because we are talking about ineffable mysteries. He was trying to prevent people from taking things literally and applying their own mental concepts on to Divine Truths (a bit like you trying to tell me earlier in this threadr that "Personhood" is defined by "intellect/rationale".)

His affirmation of One physis after the union simply entails (as it did with St Cyril) that these two distinct natures constituted one individual concrete state of existence in Christ, once the distinct humanity of Christ was en-hypostasized by the hypostasis of The Word.
......
Which he calls "One Nature" or "miaphysis"....
I know.....how many times do I have to tell you? This is exactly why your Synaxarion says he refuted the faith of Chalcedon, because (as he himself said) there is only One Nature. This is why you consider him a confessor for your faith- because he refuted the "new" dogmas of Chalcedon as your Synaxarion puts it. He denied that Christ has Two Natures and Two Wills. Let me again repeat what your Synaxarion says about him:
"When he saw that Leo, Archbishop of Rome, was teaching that Christ has two natures and two wills after the Union, he took the charge to refute this new belief. " Do you see what your Synaxaion says? He refuted the dogma of the Two Wills and the Two Natures.

If you think St Cyril’s affirmation of two natures per se (which he affirmed WITH AN AFFIRMATION OF ONE PHYSIS) automatically entails an acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon, then……no comment — I’ll rub things in when I have the time for it....
Shaking in my boots.

I realise that ever since I proved a few posts ago, that your manner of expressing the actions of Christ falls under the 12th anathema of St Cyril, that you've been getting a bit defensive,
How uncannily like Ahmed Deedat this sounds who said "I can smell your fear"..........it's almost as if.....
Quote
« Last Edit: June 13, 2005, 08:05:03 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #116 on: June 13, 2005, 08:43:56 AM »

Quote
"mr. double standards" is name-calling. I don't care what you call me, just don't say things like "I'm not name calling" and then call people names

It is not a reference to your person; a "double standard" is not an adjective that can qualify one's person, it is a noun denoting a logical fallacy. Simple as that. Take it as you wish, i realise you're desparate for anything you can get at the moment. I have the patience for you my friend, believe me.

Quote
So why did he deny it when asked at the Council of Chalcedon?

Do you even read my posts?

Quote
Quote
Quote
If Dioscorus was not holding to monophysitism, why does your own synaxarion say that he "refuted" this "new" teaching of the "Two Natures" and "Two Wills" after union

Because this was understood by the blessed St Dioscorus as a teaching of Christ’s being existent in two independent states of existence; capable of being separated according to action and will, yet also capable of uniting again according to a prosopic union; which is a Nestorian teaching. The expression "in two natures" was an expression unheard of in Orthodox Christology at the time; it was employed exclusively by the Antiochene school which had heretical tendencies, and it was specifically employed by Nestorius and Nestorians in general, to convey the Nestorian heresy. This is the context of St Dioscorus' rejection of this expression.

Quote
And you have overlooked the fact that although he says Christ has Two Natures, they became One Nature.

Round and round we go:

And you have overlooked the fact that a) St Cyril affirmed that after the union Christ possessed One physis and that b) St Dioscorus affirmed Christ’s mia physis IN THE SAME CONTEXT AS ST CYRIL DID, alongside an affirmation of the consubstantiality of Christ to mankind and the Father and hence the ultimate corollary of that; i.e. that Christ possesses a complete humanity and complete divinity.

a)   St Cyril says:

"For not only in the case of those who are simple by nature is the term ‘one’ truly used, but also in respect to what has been brought together according to a synthesis, as man is one being, who is of soul and body. For soul and body are of different species and are not consubstantial to each other, but united they produce one Physis of man, even though in the considerations of the synthesis the difference exist according to the nature of those which have been brought together into a unity. Accordingly they are speaking in vain who say that, if there should be one incarnate NATURE/PHYSIS ‘of the Word’ in every way and in every manner it would follow that a mixture and a confusion occurred as if lessening and taking away the nature of man.’

b)   “God the Logos, consubstantial with the Father, at the end of the ages for our redemption became consubstantial with man in the flesh, remaining what he was before.” (Sellers, R.V. The Council of Chalcedon p31. n1. S.P.C.K. 1953)

and:

“I know full well, having been brought up in the faith, that he has been begotten of the Father as God, and that the Same has been begotten of Mary as man. See Him walking on the sea as man, and Creator of the heavenly hosts as God; see him sleeping in the boat as man, and walking on the seas as God; see Him hungry as man, and bestowing nourishment as God; see him thirsty as man, and giving drink as God; see him stoned by the Jews as man, and worshipped by angels as God; see him tempted as man, and driving away the demons as God; and similarly of many instances.” (Sellers, R.V. The Council of Chalcedon p32. S.P.C.K. 1953)

The affirmation of Mia physis in the context of St Cyril and St Dioscorus concerns the state of Christ’s existence, the nature of the hypostatic union. St Cyril says to ozgeorge: "Accordingly [ozgeorge is] speaking in vain who say that, if there should be one incarnate NATURE/PHYSIS ‘of the Word’ in every way and in every manner it would follow that a mixture and a confusion occurred as if lessening and taking away the nature of man."

Quote
Let me repeat again, Dioscorsus said the Two Distinct Natures became one nature and functioned as one nature....what you now call "miaphysis".

In His letter to Succensus Bishop of Diocaesarea in Isauria, Saint Cyril of Alexandria wrote: “…and as the holy Fathers have said, there is one nature/physis of the Word (of God) made flesh.”

Let me repeat again:

a) St Cyril affirmed that after the union Christ possessed One physis and that b) St Dioscorus affirmed Christ’s mia physis alongside an affirmation of the consubstantiality of Christ to mankind and the Father and hence the ultimate corollary of that; i.e. that Christ possesses a complete humanity and complete divinity.

a)   St Cyril states:

"For not only in the case of those who are simple by nature is the term ‘one’ truly used, but also in respect to what has been brought together according to a synthesis, as man is one being, who is of soul and body. For soul and body are of different species and are not consubstantial to each other, but united they produce one Physis of man, even though in the considerations of the synthesis the difference exist according to the nature of those which have been brought together into a unity. Accordingly they are speaking in vain who say that, if there should be one incarnate PhysisÂÂ  ‘of the Word’ in every way and in every manner it would follow that a mixture and a confusion occurred as if lessening and taking away the nature of man.’

b)   “God the Logos, consubstantial with the Father, at the end of the ages for our redemption became consubstantial with man in the flesh, remaining what he was before.” (Sellers, R.V. The Council of Chalcedon p31. n1. S.P.C.K. 1953)

and:

“I know full well, having been brought up in the faith, that he has been begotten of the Father as God, and that the Same has been begotten of Mary as man. See Him walking on the sea as man, and Creator of the heavenly hosts as God; see him sleeping in the boat as man, and walking on the seas as God; see Him hungry as man, and bestowing nourishment as God; see him thirsty as man, and giving drink as God; see him stoned by the Jews as man, and worshipped by angels as God; see him tempted as man, and driving away the demons as God; and similarly of many instances.” (Sellers, R.V. The Council of Chalcedon p32. S.P.C.K. 1953)

The affirmation of Mia physis in the context of St Cyril and St Dioscorus concerns the state of Christ’s existence, the nature of the hypostatic union.

Quote
I know.....how many times do I have to tell you? This is exactly why your Synaxarion says he refuted the faith of Chalcedon, because (as he himself said) there is only One Nature.

This is under the assumption that Chalcedon’s affirmation of two natures pertains to the state of his existence; one that can be read into Chalcedon as a result of it’s ambiguity as has been shown to you already. Remmeber....your conception of the flesh as the subject of Christ's action...talk that was anathemized in St Cyril's 12th chapter, when he declared that he who does not affirm the Divine Person as the subject of Christ's incarnate experiences, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA?

The same synaxarium which you quote from, proves that St Dioscorus did not deny the continuing reality of the two natures; he simply affirmed ALONG WITH ST CYRIL that their union constitutes mia physis which is similar to affirming one hypostasis after the union, yet in terminology that is understood explicitly by Nestorius, the heretic who had a party over your council. The faith which the synaxarium assumes he refutes, is not the affirmation of two natures in its essentialistic sense, but the understanding of two natures in its dynamic sense which has the corollary implications that Christ's humanity possessed hypostatic qualities, in and of itself.

Again I remind you of St Cyril’s Christology. Here is quote of St Cyril from another letter:

In His letter to Succensus Bishop of Diocaesarea in Isauria, Saint Cyril of Alexandria wrote: and as the holy Fathers have said, there is one NATURE/physis of the Word (of God) made flesh.”

Quote
How uncannily like Ahmed Deedat this sounds who said "I can smell your fear"

Again, you find it necessary to put words into my mouth. I understand your position. I never mentioned fear - I said you were getting defensive. I simply made an observation which I believe can be verified by anyone for themselves; that from the moment I proved that St Cyril anathemized your heretical speech, you have had a change in tone, and strenuously tried to pick out anything and everything to respond to, even to the point where I have to repeat myself such that consequently you end up looking.....(now if i had completed THAT sentence, then we could have called it "name-calling")

Quote
........it's almost as if.....

Almost as if what ozgeorge? As if I and ahmed_deedat are a team? Or maybe I'm pschizophrenic, an Orthodox Christian one day, and an Orthodox muslim under the name of Deedat another day, such that I argue against myself without even knowing it! Now thats what I call spiritual warfare! Oooh the conspiracy theories ozgeorge! You are onto something my friend...

Now you've turned from defensive --> desparate and delusional. Nice, what's next? Can't wait to find out...

Peace.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2005, 08:50:10 AM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

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

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #117 on: June 13, 2005, 09:02:18 AM »

Dear Friend,
Nestorius could just as easily twist the Pre-Incarnate and Incarnate Word as two prosopa of Christ that are the same image. If you have anathemised St. Leo because you think his teaching can be misunderstood, then you must also anathamise St. Cyril for the same reason.

And this was my point exactly.  (I've been out of town--I'll try to respond to EA and Stavro's responses to my last post later on today if I can).
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #118 on: June 13, 2005, 09:18:22 AM »

Ozgeorge,

Wasn’t it you that recommended the following article: http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.08.en.st._cyrils_one_physis_or_hypostasis_of_god_the_log.htm

In which it states:

Quote
Dioscoros, however, claimed that Flavian contradicted himself by accepting two natures after the union. The strange thing is that both were correct, since for Flavian physis meant ousia, whereas for Dioscoros it meant hypostasis.

So according to this article which you espouse, St Dioscorus’ stress on the One physis after the union, pertains to the fact that after the hypostasis of The Word assumed humanity; the ultimate result was ONE hypostasis, since the humanity of Christ was not a separate hypostasis added to the hypostasis of The Word, but was rather en-hypostasized by the hypostasis of the Word. This is the context to St Dioscorus' affirmation of One in contrast to two physis after the union, which you insist on deceptively and dishonestly disregarding as you have done so for the past 5 posts. Shame on you.

Do I have to do ALL your homework for you, including the reading of your OWN articles? And if you DID read this article and DO espouse it, then WHY do you keep insisting that St Dioscorus' stress of the Cyrillian forumula is heretical?

What a joke…

Peace.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2005, 09:19:59 AM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

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

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #119 on: June 13, 2005, 09:23:14 AM »

I'll try to respond to EA and Stavro's responses to my last post later on today if I can).
I wouldn't bother, unless you enjoy merry-go-rounds.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #120 on: June 13, 2005, 09:27:11 AM »

Wasn’t it you that recommended the following article:
Yes, it was....
and I also distinctly remember saying that Fr. Romanides is the Voice for the entire Eastern Orthodox Church and is infallible and ........
Wasn;t it you who's arguments depend on the inane theories of one Prof. Bittle that have been debunked? Do I have to do all your homework for you?
Logged

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #121 on: June 13, 2005, 09:48:40 AM »

Quote
and I also distinctly remember saying that Fr. Romanides is the Voice for the entire Eastern Orthodox Church and is infallible and ........

LOL what a cop out. Just admit you are absolutely clueless with regards to this whole issue - the history, the logic, the facts, all of it; and that despite your recommendation of the article as a “pretty good summary of the Eastern Orthodox position” it’s obvious you did not even read it FOR THE UNDERLYING PRESUPPOSITION TO THE WHOLE ARTICLE is that physis in its Alexandrian context i.e. as employed by St Cyril and St Dioscorus, is synonymous with HYPOSTASIS.

Fr. Romanides view is historically accurate and honest. Yours has no substance, it is desparate and delusional. 

You want to call St Dioscorus a monophysite for affirming one nature, yet you’re not man enough to be consistent and apply the same title to his immediate predecessor who used the title before him. We provide you with direct and explicit quotations of St Dioscorus from a pro-Chalcedonian textbook, proving that he didn’t understand the ultimate one nature of Christ in its essentialistic sense, but rather in its dynamic sense such that it’s synonymous to hypostasis, yet you continue to ignore this, and blindly continue to purport argumentum ad ignoratium which consequently undermines the great St Cyril whom you supposedly commemorated a few days ago.

Don’t let satan play you ozgeorge.

Quote
Wasn;t it you who's arguments depend on the inane theories of one Prof. Bittle that have been debunked?

My arguments weren’t dependent on anything in the first place, they’re supported by St Cyril's 12th anathema first and foremost which declares that the PERSON of Christ acted according to or "in" His NATURES, which is simply common sense. Obviously St Cyril was not authoritative enough for you, so I thought I would bring in authorities in the field of metaphysics to further elucidate the issue. Unfortunately you invented your own version of metaphysics in your own little world. How nice.

Quote
Prof. Bittle that have been debunked

Prof. Bittle was debunked? You mean when you said “Stupid Prof. Bittle!” lol I refer everyone and anyone to the relevant discussion that began here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=6373.msg82787#msg82787

I’m sure they can make up their minds for themselves  Wink

Peace. 
Logged

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

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #122 on: June 13, 2005, 10:01:31 AM »

You want to call St Dioscorus a monophysite for affirming one nature, yet you’re not man enough to be consistent and apply the same title to his immediate predecessor who used the title before him.
Nice attempt to twist it. If you remember, what I am saying is that Dioscorus is not saying the same thing as St. Cyril. St. Cyril is not Dioscorus' predessesor- you and Dioscorua just think he is. Of course I can say publically that Dioscorus' predessesor is a heretic, because his predessesor is not St. Cyril, its Eutyches.
Let me therefore solemly declare that Dioscorus and his predessesor are both heretics.

Is that "man enough" for you?

I'm off to bed..... Goodnight.
Logged

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #123 on: June 13, 2005, 10:16:26 AM »

Quote
If you remember, what I am saying is that Dioscorus is not saying the same thing as St. Cyril.

Yes, yes, we know that all you have is baseless assertions. We are still waiting for the evidence. Constantly pointing out that St Dioscorus insisted on one physis after the union tells us nothing about what he meant by this; obviously in your satanic agenda to undermine an Orthodox confessor of the faith, you need to regress into the logical fallacy known as non-sequitor by which you conclude a proposition which does not necessarily follow from the premise. We have provided you with the context of St Dioscorus’ statement, we are still waiting for you to deal with the direct quotes from St Dioscorus which have been pasted for you repeatedly:
 
St Cyril confirms One physis after the union.
St Dioscorus confirms One physis after the union.

St Cyril says that Christ is consubstantial with mankind.
St Dioscorus says that Christ is consubstantial with mankind.

St Cyril says that Christ acts according to His divinity at times and according to His humanity at times.
St Dioscorus says that Christ acts according to His divinity at times and according to His humanity at times.

St Cyril says that Christ's two essences cannot be separated after the union; thereby presupposing a possession of two essences - since the human essence only came into being at the hypostatic union anyway.
St Dioscorus says that Christ's two essences cannot be separated after the union; thereby presupposing a possession of two essences - since the human essence only came into being at the hypostatic union anyway.

Conclusion:
St Cyril and St Dioscorus declared the same faith in the same context.

Quote
Let me therefore solemly declare that Dioscorus and his predessesor are both heretics.

May God forgive and have mercy on you, through the intercessions of the blessed St Dioscorus. May he pray for you like he did for those who persecuted him.

Amen, Kyrie Eleison.

Peace.
Logged

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

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,445


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #124 on: June 13, 2005, 11:35:14 AM »

I have just warned ozgeorge for his comments about Dioscorus of Alexandria and I have warned EkhristosAnesti for statements that ozgeorge and others found to be ad hominem. Please fellows, keep discussing the facts and do not get so wrapped up in emotionalism. These kinds of serious debates are necessary and good, and I don't want to have to close this thread.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,442


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


WWW
« Reply #125 on: June 13, 2005, 11:40:39 AM »

Good morning everyone.

Dear ozgeorge,

I really hope that you are this time joking.  After all the proof exhausted by EA, I have a feeling that you only want to do this to make us feel the same frustration you felt when defending the Tome of Leo.  If that's the case, then you've sure taught us the lesson.

But seriously, come on now?  Where in the Synexarium did it declare that there was a confusion of natures and wills?  "One nature" is simply anonymous to "one hypostasis."  For example, the three natures of man (spirit, soul, and body) are united as one nature without mixing or division.  St. Cyril used that analogy to explain his "one incarnate nature."  As for the "one will" I showed you before this means that the prosopon is the center of all decision making.  Two natures don't make "two simultaneous decisions" for that would be Nestorian, but there would be "two desires."  St. Dioscorus thought Leo taught two hypostases and two decisions.  That is all.  We misunderstood one another.  The EO councils misunderstood St. Dioscorus.  Fr. John Romanides writes in this website:

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

Quote
We take Leo of Rome as representative of the problems of unity between us which were created on the Chalcedonian side and Dioscoros as representative of what had been done on the Oriental side. It is around these persons that the central events revolved which produced the final division which we have inherited between us. The point in history where we seem to be at present is that of the lifting of the anathemas against Leo and the Council of Chalcedon, which means the cleaning of the slate on the Chalcedonian side, with the same holding true about Dioscoros and his followers on the Oriental Orthodox side. To clear Dioscoros of doctrinal error should mean the clearing of the slate for those of his followers to be rehabilitated also, as far as the patristic period is concerned. Leo of Rome has no followers so to speak of on the Orthodox side in need of being cleared. It would also seem that agreement that both Leo and Dioscoros were doctrinally Orthodox would then put the problem of their restoration on a non-Christological doctrinal plane, but on a canonical plane. In such a case the reversal of condemnations by Ecumenical and local Councils can be dealt with as canonical, rather than doctrinal problems.


I remember earlier you recommended another article by him.  This is why I believe you are joking, that you are only frustrating us, instead of proving St. Dioscorus a heretic.

But please let us stop joking.  Let us be serious.  Fr. John has a spirit of understanding.  This whole article explains very well a vindication of both sides.  This is what I call objective.  He does not take things out of context (as both our side showed on the Tome and you showed on the Synexarium), but tries to find the essence of what these things meant, and no doubt, with great evidence as both our sides showed in this dizzying debate, we both speak the same faith.

God bless you, brother.

In Christ always,

Mina

PS  some people get confused and think I'm a girl...let the record be clear "Mina" is an Egyptian guy Smiley (some people did this mistake to me online in other websites before)
« Last Edit: June 13, 2005, 11:42:32 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.
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #126 on: June 13, 2005, 12:36:33 PM »

Stavro,

I haven’t had time to read this entire thread, so be a little patient.  I just wanted to respond to a couple of things before I get too far behind.

Quote
stretching this logic a little more, we will excuse Nestorius of heresy as long as we are playing the guessing game of what he really meant, although his writings are clear and obvious and did not lack clarity in rejecting Orthodox dogmas.

Well, I wish we had a “Nestorian” posting on this board.  They hold argue that they and Nestorius never taught “Nestorianism” and that Nestorianism was just a ploy.  If I’m going to be fair, I’m not going to take your charge as axiomatic if you want me to not take the charges against OOs as axiomatic.

Quote
Note that such trends exist already in christian literature and extends to include Arianism as a big fat misunderstanding.

. . . so we should reject that conclusion without any discussion.  Arianism is an extreme case compared to the divisions between “Nestorians,” OOs and EOs.  There were definitely linguistic misunderstandings involved in all these cases. 

In any case, current Nestorians reject Nestorianism, OOs reject monophysitism and EOs reject Nestorianism.

Quote
the rejection of Leo's Tome by the OO cannot be simply attributed to terminology and semantic

Since I don’t reject the Tome, I can’t attribute the OO rejection to anything.  If it’s because they say the Tome says something than the EOs say it doesn’t say, then language is a pretty prominent suspect.

I still don’t have one question that’s bugging me answered.

If Chalcedon was a reaffirmation of Nestorianism, why are we separated from Nestorians?  Why wasn’t there a joyful reunion?
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,445


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #127 on: June 13, 2005, 12:57:18 PM »

Dioscorus says: "one Messiah, one Lord, and one Nature". I'm not sure how much clearer it needs to be.


George,

While I am a Chalcedonian, I can't believe you actually said this.  I think it's clear from the context that Dioscorus is using the term nature the way we use person.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #128 on: June 13, 2005, 01:57:51 PM »

Wow.  I don't think I read my last post before I posted it.  Look at that grammar.
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #129 on: June 13, 2005, 06:26:58 PM »

While I am a Chalcedonian, I can't believe you actually said this.ÂÂ  I think it's clear from the context that Dioscorus is using the term nature the way we use person.

I don't think this is at all clear from the context. The context (which is the Coptic Synaxarion) is this:

1) The Council of Chalcedon introduces a "new" doctrine that Christ has "Two Natures" and "Two Wills"
2) Dioscorus is summoned and asked whether he accepts this "new" doctrine.
3) Dioscorus refutes it saying that Christ has One Nature resulting from the fusion of two.
"When he saw that Leo, Archbishop of Rome, was teaching that Christ has two natures and two wills after the Union, he took the charge to refute this new belief. "

I am not saying that this is what all non-Chalcedon's today believe. I am saying this is what Dioscorus' publically said he believed.
However, when I denied this doctrine of Dioscorus and affirmed the doctrine of the Two Natures, I am placed under the (non-existent) anathema of St. Cyril by a non-chalcedonian......
"Accordingly they are speaking in vain who say that, if there should be one incarnate PhysisÂÂ  ‘of the Word’ in every way and in every manner it would follow that a mixture and a confusion occurred as if lessening and taking away the nature of man."
While St. Cyril can be understood to be using "Nature" in the sense of "person" (a fact which is clear from his acceptance of the Two Natures in his letter to John of Antioch), Dioscorus cannot, since his statement was in response to a direct question as to whether Christ has Two Natures.
And again, when I pointed St. Cyril's letter to John of Antioch out, one particular non-chalcedon dismissed it as a "concession".

So I disagree. It is not as clear as you think.

btw, just FYI, If you sent me a warning by pm, I haven't received it. The only pm I have is from EA.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2005, 06:28:39 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
idontlikenames
I'm gonna be the next Matthew777 (whatever that means)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 230

You forgot my briefcase


« Reply #130 on: June 13, 2005, 07:13:34 PM »

As I've seen countless times on OC.net, this is just another thread where we try to prove how erudite and intelligent each one of us is (a game I can easily play as well, but am mature enough not to).....apparently some of us are not comfortable with our looks or organ-size or what-have-you....or cannot simply rest self-assured in the 10-year-college-education that our rich, doctor daddies paid for.

« Last Edit: June 13, 2005, 07:23:22 PM by idontlikenames » Logged

laa ilaah illa al-Maal wa Rothschild howa nabeehi
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,442


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


WWW
« Reply #131 on: June 13, 2005, 07:23:22 PM »

Dear ozgeorge,

What you quote has nothing to do with what St. Dioscorus believed, but with what St. Dioscorus thought Leo believed (i.e. Nestorianism).  We showed you the circumstances upon which we rejected one another.

Quotes like "He taught something new" and "He refuted it with one nature" does not say anything about what St. Dioscorus believed.  Please, you haven't found anything explicitly heretical as of yet from St. Dioscorus' claims and writings.  Publicly in Chalcedon, no one could convict him of heresy to his face because he said nothing different from St. Cyril.

So the author of the Synexarium is obviously wrong and misunderstood Leo's intentions in the faith.  That's all.

Here are some real life quotes from OC.net member "Raouf" who is a very knowledgeable person:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,798.45.html

He quotes some of the famous OO fathers, the first couple of quotes being those of St. Dioscorus himself.  Any of those you find offensive to the Orthodox faith, then let us know.

God bless you, brother.
Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #132 on: June 13, 2005, 07:36:01 PM »

Ozgeorge,


Quote
1)   The Council of Chalcedon introduces a "new" doctrine that Christ has "Two Natures" and "Two Wills"

The Coptic Synaxarium was written under the assumption that the Chalcedonian two-nature Christology was in reference to two independent states of existence i.e. hypostasis. St Dioscorus was not rejecting a two-nature Christology as it is understood in the context of the latter councils, or as you would have us believe, in the context of Chalcedon itself which according to you is sufficient in itself — but we can agree to disagree on that — rather he was rejecting it in the manner that he understood it, in a Nestorian context; the manner in which I have argued can be reasonably misinterpreted (whether you disagree with that fact or not is irrelevant to the point im making) as it was done so by the great King of Nestorians, Nestorius himself.


Quote
2)   Dioscorus refutes it saying that Christ has One Nature resulting from the fusion of two.

“Fusion”? Really? Where does it say “fusion”? Ozgeorge enough of the deceit, ENOUGH. This is a non-sequitor that has been debunked a hundred times, and I will do it a hundred more if I have to. I have shown you an EXPLICIT quote from St Dioscorus himself in which he EXCPLICITLY affirms that Christ is consubstantial with both the Father and mankind. You do know what the term homoousion means right? If you did, you would understand that the implications of this contradict any “fusion” doctrine that you feel the need (under the inspiration of the father of all liars) to desperately and deceptively read into this blessed Saints Christology, for fusion necessarily leads to a compromise of one or the two natures, and hence one or the other CEASES TO BE CONSUBSTANTIAL as a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE. However:

St Dioscorus says: “God the Logos, consubstantial with the Father, at the end of the ages for our redemption became consubstantial with man in the flesh, remaining what he was before.” (Sellers, R.V. The Council of Chalcedon p31. n1. S.P.C.K. 1953)

If at the point of incarnation he was consubstantial with man according to His humanity remaining what He was before - then obviously there was no fusion. PERIOD.

Furthermore, it has already been proven from the Synaxarium itself, that St Dioscorus presupposed two distinct natures (in the ousia sense) in Christ; for If St Dioscorus believed the two natures (ousias) had fused into one nature in its essentialistic sense (ousia) as opposed to their synthesis resulting in One nature in a dynamic sense (hypostasis), he would not have made the statement that the “the two natures cannot be separated in all his acts” since two distinct natures would not have existed to be separated in the first place. The “One nature” resulting from the “two natures” happened at the very point of union, for in reality Christ never had two natures which came together into "one" at a certain point in time such that we can speak of a time "before" and "after" the union in a chronological sense; His humanity came into being at the very point of union — thus it either came into being as a distinct and complete/perfect essence (i.e. consubstantial with mankind), or as an imperfect/dissolved essence, but there was never a “process” such that St Dioscorus could affirm the existence of two distinct natures in Christ that cannot be separated as if they in-time then became One nature (ousia) such that separation is no longer a possibility. The fact he affirms that the two natures (ousias) in Christ are inseparable, is a presupposition of these two natures (ousias) in Christ in the first place, and that they became Mia Physis (hypostasis) according to their union, is simply St Cyrils Miaphysite Christology in a nutshell. That these two natures were consubstantial with the Father and mankind respectively, is an explicit most blatant statement with the undeniable logical consequence that they underwent no alteration or confusion.

St Dioscorus states: “God the Logos, consubstantial with the Father, at the end of the ages for our redemption became consubstantial with man in the flesh, remaining what he was before.” (Sellers, R.V. The Council of Chalcedon p31. n1. S.P.C.K. 1953)

Quote
However, when I denied this doctrine of Dioscorus and affirmed the doctrine of the Two Natures, I am placed under the (non-existent) anathema of St. Cyril by a non-chalcedonian......

Don’t twist everything to such a dramatic extent, and think that I will sit here and let you get away with it. First of all, St Dioscorus’ doctrine is that of St Cyril’s — The natures of the hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ ultimately means that He possesses One physis (hypostasis), due to the very fact the humanity of Christ is en-hypostasized by his divinity — if you deny this, and then may you be anathema.

HOWEVER, the anathema I referred you to is very explicit and has nothing to do with the affirmation of one or two natures in whatever sense the term may be understood. The anathema pertained to the fact that If you do not confess that it is the personal subject or Hypostasis of Christ which suffered and died "in the flesh" or "according to His flesh", then you are an anathema. After the first time I showed quoted you St Cyril’s 12th anathema, you continued in defiance to insist that the flesh suffered and died; that it was the NATURE that was the subject of action and not the person. People only need to go back a couple of pages in this forum to see for themselves.

Listen to your fifth council ozgeorge, wasn’t it you who quoted that “One of the Trinity suffered and died in the flesh” (or something along those lines). Stick with that and don’t go back on it, and you’ll be safely away from St Cyril’s 12th anathema.

Quote
Dioscorus cannot, since his statement was in response to a direct question as to whether Christ has Two Natures.

It’s obvious that St Dioscorus taught two natures in the manner that the Eastern Church understands these two natures in the context of the subsequent councils. HISTORICALLY however, St Dioscorus interpreted your two nature Christology in the same manner the rest of the Oriental Orthodox Church, as well as Nestorius and the Nestorian church interpreted it; as if physis was in its hypostatic sense and NOT its essentialistic sense - since the context was ambiguous and did not sufficiently clarify the intentions of the one making such statements; they are the FACTS ozgeorge — please read the very article which you highly recommended, because the proposition that physis=hypostasis to Alexandrian and Nestorian ears is not some peripheral point made, it is the very CRUX of that whole article which you recommended yourself.

Quote
And again, when I pointed St. Cyril's letter to John of Antioch out, one particular non-chalcedon dismissed it as a "concession".

I affirmed that it WAS a concession; St Cyril obviously didn't think his Christology that was vindicated at Ephesus 431 was defective or lacking; he simply recognized that some were feeble-minded and needed their concerns to be incorporated more explicitly, HOWEVER I didn’t “dismiss” it. When will you stop mispreresenting everyone’s position? From the blessed St Dioscorus, to the blessed St Cyril, to minasoliman and myself — it’s getting ridiculous now. It WAS a concession, however not one to be dismissed SINCE WE AFFIRM THE RE-UNION FORMULA as doctrinally binding in the Oriental Orthodox Church and it has ALWAYS been regarded as such. St Cyril’s affirmation of the concept of two natures was no different to the manner in which St Dioscorus affirmed it. The issue here is language and terminology, and not concept — St Cyril said he had the same faith (concept) as John of Antioch — this he declared upon John’s asfirmation of two natures in their essentialistic sense, and upon his rejection of Nestorius whom he formerly supported.

Peace.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2005, 07:41:08 PM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

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

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,445


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #133 on: June 13, 2005, 07:37:03 PM »

George,

I posted a warning in this thread on the post where you anathematized Dioscorus personally. I don't see that post anymore; maybe it was deleted? Warnings for specific posts appear below the post in question so that is where it would be.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

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


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #134 on: June 14, 2005, 05:51:21 AM »

George,
I posted a warning in this thread on the post where you anathematized Dioscorus personally. I don't see that post anymore; maybe it was deleted? Warnings for specific posts appear below the post in question so that is where it would be.
Anastasios

Anastasios,
I note that EA's anathema of me who upholds the teachings of Chalcedon has not been removed ( http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=6373.msg82842#msg82842 ).
Please do not remove it, I consider this to be a badge of honour. http://www.hymnsite.com/lyrics/umh710.sht (Having said that, this post will probably be removed!)
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
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 0.198 seconds with 71 queries.