OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 24, 2014, 06:54:45 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome  (Read 33585 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,224


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


WWW
« Reply #45 on: June 11, 2005, 01:58:58 AM »

Dear ozgeorge,

I totally understand.

What is important in the willing of Christ is the doctrine of "self-emptying," not that He made His divinity disappear, far from it.  But rather, freely, He allows His prosopon to exist fully in the human nature without seperating Himself from the Divine nature.  In that case, we can say His Prosopon/Hypostasis is acting and willing through humanity to be in alignment with the will of the Father.

7th Day Adventists say that when Christ prays in the Garden of Gethsemane, it is his human nature that is praying to the Divine nature.  We reject this in ALL STANDARDS, for that is CLEARLY Nestorianism at its best.  They admit in Christ a seperation of the natures in Christ so as to make His human nature independant from His divine nature.  This is why we stress the prosopic will.  Our OO fathers did not want to seperate wills to sound like Nestorians, as if a man prayed to the Father and the Logos moved the man towards the will of the Logos (all in prosopic manners).

Christ our God the Logos humbled Himself, emptied Himself so that He can experience fully all the human desires, energies, and wills.  If He did not do that, then how is Christ our God the Logos our role model?  It is therefore right to say that the Logos prayed to the Father through His humanity with that natural human feeling of agony.  We do not want to end up saying that the human nature felt an agony aside from the prosopon of the Word, but that the Logos felt agony through His human nature.  Notice, I am not saying His divine nature is feeling agony through His human nature, for that would confuse the natural wills of Christ.  I use the word "Logos" as prosopon (like St. Cyril does), not as nature, as the Tome of Leo uses it.  To use the word "Logos" as prosopon is very powerful, for it affirms that God was born from the Virgin, God suffered, God died, God rose from the dead, but all of this through the flesh, not through His impassible Divine nature.  Again, we do not confuse the humanity and Divinity of Christ, whether by nature or by natural will.  But we affirm that either way, the Prosopon of the Logos suffered agony, suffered pain, suffered hunger, and even went through human free choice (or fee will) so as to follow the Father's will, and here's the key preposition, FOR US.

Quote
From an EO perspective, we would say that Christ was struggling to bring His Human Will in alignment with His Divine Will.

I first like to say I understand the Orthodox intentions in what you say here, and you would rather prefer this wording than any other.  But just as you had trouble with the Prosopic will, we also would have trouble with this sentence, for it's like saying that Christ's human nature prayed to His Divine nature.  How can someone pray to Himself?  I'm not saying this is what you're saying, but it can be misunderstood as such.

The word "will" is a tricky word.  For then this word can either mean "choice" or "desire."  I don't know much about Greek, but would "thelema" mean anything else other than "choice?" ÂÂ

I read for example from the Catholic Encyclopedia, that the word "thelema" can mean many things.  I find this to be interesting:

Quote
The Catholic doctrine is simple, at all events in its main lines. The faculty of willing is an integral part of human nature: therefore, our Lord had a human will, since He took a perfect human nature. His Divine will on the other hand is numerically one with that of the Father and the Holy Ghost. It is therefore necessary to acknowledge two wills in Christ.

But if the word will is taken to mean not the faculty but the decision taken by the will (the will willed, not the will willing), then it is true that the two wills always acted in harmony: there were two wills willing and two acts, but one object, one will willed; in the phrase of St. Maximus, there were duo thelemata though mia gnome. The word will is also used to mean not a decision of the will, but a mere velleity or wish, voluntas ut natura (thelesis) as opposed to voluntas ut ratio (boulesis).

I got this from the article on Monothelitism.

Here, the Catholic Encyclopedia, if I understand correctly, acknowledges the word "will" can mean two different things.  They believe in "duo thelema," which is the desire or wish (sounds to me like natural will), but "one will willed," or "mia gnome" (there's that word "Mia" again) or one "boulesis."  The Catholic Church here, I assume not different Christologically from the EO, uses the word "will" to mean "a mere velleity or wish," "not the desicion of the will."  It is not the natures that decide, but the prosopon that decides. ÂÂ

How then can we acknowledge free will in humanity?  The "self-emptying" of Christ solves this, that is, existing fully in the human, the Logos being fully human experiences everything humanly and deals everything humanly, including "free will". ÂÂ

His choice also not to know when the end of the world is is not diminishing that of the Divine Nature, for the Logos knows when through His divine nature, but through humbling Himself and existing fully in the Human nature, He chooses the human mind to express His humanity of not knowing when. ÂÂ

To grow in wisdom and knowledge is not that the Logos was devoid of any knowledge through His divinity, but that He humbled Himself, and experienced fully through the humanity what it was like to "learn."

So when Christ prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane, He really meant "not my desire" as pertains to the Human nature, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia.  But the human nature alone does not choose, but it is the Prosopon that which the human nature belongs to chooses.

Notice in all of this, the subject of all these desires is Christ, the Logos, in proson, not in divine nature as Leo intended.  I've written earlier why St. Dioscorus condemned the Tome because Cyrillian language doesn't prefer this language written, and the misunderstanding continued and solidified from thereon, with both sides CONVINCED of the heresy that they accuse one another, when in fact, it wasn't believed.

Therefore, to me as an OO, it makes more sense to stick with the Logos in prosopon being the center of all acting and willing.  There is "one desicion" but two "desires."  He aligns these two to unite them as one, to harmonize them, glorifying the human nature, or as St. Maximus the Confessor puts it, Divinizing it, making its desires Godly.

I hope I haven't confused you at all. ÂÂ Please forgive me, and I am open to any questions.  I tried to be careful as possible with my wording, but if you understand what I said, this is no different than St. Cyril's teachings, truthfully.

God bless you. ÂÂ  Smiley
« Last Edit: June 11, 2005, 02:00:26 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.
Stavro
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,114



« Reply #46 on: June 11, 2005, 02:20:41 AM »

Quote
cizinec: You and EA appear to hold that written words must have absolute rule over all meaning, including the intent of the message.  You use definitions as you have defined them and not as defined in Chalcedon or by others when they were discussing the Tome of Leo.
Cizinec,
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. Note that such trends exist already in christian literature and extends to include Arianism as a big fat misunderstanding.
 I believe EA did an excellent job in providing a complete picture about Leo's christology, judged against both, Tradition and Nestorianism, and the rejection of Leo's Tome by the OO cannot be simply attributed to terminology and semantic and it was never the case.

Your personal faith is not challenged nor questioned, for what you say you believe in is what you believe in.We have suffered from the tactics you complain about, and we have the good sense to refrain from reciprocating it out of fairness. Also note that you complain that others guess your faith, while you are trying to guess the intentions of Leo of Rome when he wrote the Tome.

Such threads start with questioning our Orthodoxy based on our rejection of Chalcedon and the Tome, and we are explaining why we cannot accept such council and listing our concerns regarding the Tome and this council. EO who are against the unity always make Chalcedon a condition for unity, together with accepting Leo of Rome's teachings and person, without looking at the content of faith. As such, your concern should be directed to fellow EO.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2005, 02:21:40 AM by Stavro » Logged

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

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
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 #47 on: June 11, 2005, 02:35:30 AM »

“Each nature performs what is proper to it in communion with the other; the Word for instance, performing what is proper to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what is proper to the flesh”
Following the above principle established by Leo, a Leonian would declare that: “The Word performed miracles, and the flesh suffered.” Whilst the Word is portrayed as the subject of divine action, it is the flesh that is portrayed as the subject of human action. How in contrast would the miracles and sufferings of Christ be expressedÂÂ  Orthodox Alexandrian/Cyrillian Christology?
Nonsense! What on Earth is a "Leonian"? The EO "Chalcedonian Churches" are not certainly not "Leonian". as the minutes of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon attest:
EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS SESSION II. "After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there] ? These are the things Dioscorus hid away.
If the Fathers of Chalcedon say that St. Leo is saying the same thing as St. Cyril- and this led the Fathers of Chalcedon to declare that:
"Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same of a rational soul and body, consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same consubstantial with us according to the Manhood... before the ages begotten of the Father according to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos according to the Manhood...."
This is what the Fathers of Chalcedon say that both St. Cyril's and St. Leo's teaching agree with. Do you disagree with this teaching of the Council? If not, then what difference does it make how you interpret Leo's words today? If you do disagree with this teaching of the Council- I hardly see any point in continuing to dialogue about it- the Eastern Orthodox Church will never depart from this teaching.

« Last Edit: June 11, 2005, 02:41:48 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 #48 on: June 11, 2005, 03:21:52 AM »

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

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

The flesh does not suffer; THE WORD suffers according to HIS flesh. The former expression is compatible with Nestorianism whilst the latter is not. Thus we affirm along St Athanasius who states in his Letter to Adelphius:

,"…We neither divide the body, being such, from the Word…but knowing that ‘the Word was made flesh’ we recognize Him as God also, after having come in the flesh. Who, accordingly, is so senseless, as to say to the Lord : “Leave the body that I may worship Thee”, or so impious as to join the senseless Jews in saying, on account of the Body, “why dost Thou, being a man, make Thyself God?”. But the leper was not one of this sort, for he worshipped God in the Body, and recognized that He was God, saying, “Lord if Thou wilt, Thou canst make me clean”

He explains the basis behind this, and further elucidates the matter in his Letter to Epictetus, saying:

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

Not only is this way of expressing Christ’s functions more Orthodox, it is even more Biblically consistent; for where do you ever find the Apostles dividing the actions of Christ, ascribing some to The Word, and others to the flesh?

Quote
Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same of a rational soul and body, consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same consubstantial with us according to the Manhood... before the ages begotten of the Father according to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos according to the Manhood...."

Do you disagree with this teaching of the Council? If not, then what difference does it make how you interpret Leo's words today?

I have no problem with what is positively affirmed in that particular excerpt you pasted. The problem I have with Leo and Chalcedon in general has already been declared and reiterated over and over again. Doctrinally speaking: Weak and questionable in some aspects, superfluous in others — it didn’t contribute to Orthodoxy; it didn’t affirm any fundamental Christological principle that wasn’t already established. Regarding the definitions of Chalcedon itself; as I have implied throughout this thread, the problem is more with regards to what is NOT said, rather than what IS said. No definition of a hypostatic union + no affirmation of The divine person of The Word as the subject of all the incarnational experiences (suffering, hunger, etc.) = bow to Nestorianism. Historically; a politically motivated council of schism; a robbers council, robbing the See of Alexandria of its theological authority.

Peace.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2005, 06:54:45 AM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

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

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #49 on: June 11, 2005, 04:49:13 AM »

On a sidenote: I think an interesting point of distinction to bring up regarding our liturgical traditions, concerns the Trisagion.

In the Eastern Church it Is said: “Holy God, Holy Mighty/Strong, Holy Immortal”, and it stops at that.

In the Coptic liturgy according to St Basil (http://www.coptic.net/prayers/StBasilLiturgy.html) we develop this further, by emphasizing that the divine was the subject of the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection:

Holy God, Holy  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  Agios O the-os:
Mighty, Holy  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  Agios Ees-shiros;
Immortal, who was  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ Agios Athanatos;
born of the Virgin,  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ O ek partheno gennethis:
have mercy upon us.  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ elsison imas.

Holy God, Holy  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  Agios O theos:
Mighty, Holy  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  Agios Ees-shiros;
Immortal, who was  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ Agios Athanatos:
crucified for us,  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ O stavrothis di imas:
have mercy upon us.  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ eleison imas.

Holy God, Holy  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  Agios O theos:
Mighty, Holy  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  Agios Ees-shiros:
Immortal, who arose             Agios Athanatos:
from the dead and  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  O anastas ek ton nekron:
ascended into the heavens  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  Ke anelthon ees toos
have  mercy  upon  us.  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ooranoos:  eleison imas.

But then again, I have heard that the Eastern Church in contrast to the Oriental Church, understands the Trisagion in a Trinitarian context...

Peace.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2005, 04:50:28 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 #50 on: June 11, 2005, 09:47:01 AM »

I'm still not sure what it is about "selfsame" in the Tome that non-Chalcedonians do not understand.ÂÂ  Reading the Tome as a whole--and not yankingÂÂ  one or two sentences out of context to charge, "Nestorian!"--should make it pretty obvious that Leo regarded the Son as the one divine incarnate Subject.ÂÂ  (Is it really necessary for me to list all the quotes again to prove it?).ÂÂ  The Divinity is His from eternity and the humanity is His beginning in time as well.ÂÂ  It's the same "HIS".ÂÂ  He is One Subject.ÂÂ  He is the "Word became flesh".ÂÂ  All those statements by Leo affirming this provide context to the abused passage concerning the distinction between the natural properties of the "Word"(divinity) and "flesh" (and what each are naturally capable of).ÂÂ  Christ who was by nature God became also by nature man...without ceasing to be by nature God. Yet He's the same Subject.ÂÂ  In context, Leo means that the One Subject is capable of experiencing some things through His divine nature that as the "Word" He's had from eternity and others through the "flesh" He took in time.ÂÂ  So while in that controversial passage Leo seems to "personify" the "Word" and the "flesh", the remainder of Tome should make it clear that the selfsame who is from eternity God also in time became man.ÂÂ  It is this selfsame Subject that does all the actions.ÂÂ  This is not "Nestorian"

Getting back to the Definition, it is ONE HYPOSTASIS.ÂÂ  The man Jesus Christ is the same HYPOSTASIS who from Eternity is the Second Person of the Trinity.  This is not "Nestorian".
« Last Edit: June 11, 2005, 09:53:54 AM by Doubting Thomas » Logged

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

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #51 on: June 11, 2005, 10:04:08 AM »

On a sidenote: I think an interesting point of distinction to bring up regarding our liturgical traditions, concerns the Trisagion.

In the Eastern Church it Is said: “Holy God, Holy Mighty/Strong, Holy Immortal”, and it stops at that.

In the Coptic liturgy according to St Basil (http://www.coptic.net/prayers/StBasilLiturgy.html) we develop this further, by emphasizing that the divine was the subject of the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection..

But the Tome affirms the same thing--that the Divine Person, by virture of becoming man, was the subject of the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection:

 He assumed "the form of a servant" without the defilement of sin, enriching what was human, not impairing what was divine: because that "emptying of Himself," whereby the Invisible made Himself visible, and the Creator and Lord of all things willed to be one among mortals, was a stooping down in compassion, not a failure of power.

Accordingly, the Son of God, descending from His seat in heaven, and not departing from the glory of the Father, enters this lower world, born after a new order, by a new mode of birth. After a new order; because He who in his own sphere is invisible, became visible in ours; He who could not be enclosed in space, willed to be enclosed; continuing to be before times, He began to exist in time; the Lord of the universe allowed His infinite majesty to be overshadowed, and took upon Him the form of a servant; the impassible God did not disdain to be passible Man and the immortal One to be subjected to the laws of death."

"For the selfsame who is very God, is also very man; and there is no illusion in this union, while the lowliness of man and the loftiness of Godhead meet together. For as "God" is not changed by the compassion [exhibited], so "Man" is not consumed by the dignity [bestowed]."


"Accordingly, on account of this unity of Person which is to be understood as existing in both the natures, we read, on the one hand, that "the Son of Man came down from heaven," inasmuch as the Son of God took flesh from that Virgin of whom He was born; and on the other hand, the Son of God is said to have been crucified and buried, inasmuch as He underwent this, not in His actual Godhead; wherein the Only-begotten is coeternal and consubstantial with the Father, but in the weakness of human nature. Wherefore we all, in the very Creed, confess that" the only-begotten Son of God was crucified and buried," according to that saying of the Apostle, "for if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Majesty."
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
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 #52 on: June 11, 2005, 10:08:05 AM »

ÂÂ  (Is it really necessary for me to list all the quotes again to prove it?).ÂÂ
"the Self-same Who was the Only-begotten and Everlasting One of the Everlasting Parent, was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. And this birth in time takes away nothing from that divine and eternal birth, nor does it add anything to it...." (Tome of St. Leo)
If anyone can find anything Nestorian in this, or anything that suggests a double hypostasis, I'll eat my hat.







 ÃƒÆ’‚  
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 #53 on: June 11, 2005, 10:18:29 AM »

it didn’t affirm any fundamental Christological principle that wasn’t already established.
The only role of an Orthodox Council is to affirm what is already established. It's purpose is to declare what is believed by all the Church through all time. It shouldn't surprise you therefore tha a Council doesn't affirm Christological principles which are not already established.
No definition of a hypostatic union + no affirmation of The divine person of The Word as the subject of all the incarnational experiences (suffering, hunger, etc.) = bow to Nestorianism.
Well if the Non-chalcedons had stuck around for the other three Ecumenical Councils, would they be satisfied with the Fifth Council's affirmation that "One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh." ?

Historically; a politically motivated council of schism; a robbers council, robbing the See of Alexandria of its theological authority.
Hmmmm...........
« Last Edit: June 11, 2005, 10:36:44 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

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

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #54 on: June 11, 2005, 10:22:04 AM »

EA,

Quote
The Fathers of the OO church say that Leo’s Christology objectively conflicts with that of St Cyril.

And that's fundamentally the problem, which only infrequently slips from the lips (or in this case, finger tips) of the Non-Chalcedonians; which is unfortunate, in the sense that this is really where the problem is.

I fail to see how this is not the equivelent of saying that St.Leo's Christology is "objectively" not Orthodox.

I am glad though, that the discussions here at least have been focusing on what St.Leo said/didn't say in his Tome.  Even avoiding things as essential as "context" (which IMHO, is unfathomable...this is a recipe for division and misunderstanding), I'm simply at a loss to see what is incorrect in St.Leo's Tome, according to the words.  You've yet to convince me of this, nor has anyone from the Non-Chalcedonian side that I've talked to or read from on this topic.  All they can do is cast innuendos or offer "what-if" type arguments, which would require what is written be torn from it's context.

Because if, in context, one still is left believing that St.Leo and/or Chalcedon in whole are "objectively" incorrect or basically describing a "Christ Who doesn't exist", then that for me would indicate that not only is the contemporary EO-OO dialogue and enthusiasm on a poor basis, but also that it's primary argument (that this is fundamentally a semantical issue, and that alone) is incorrect.

Logged
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #55 on: June 11, 2005, 10:28:59 AM »

ozgeorge,

Quote
Quote
Historically; a politically motivated council of schism; a robbers council, robbing the See of Alexandria of its theological authority.

Hmmmm...........

Huh huh...which has been one of my points all along.
Logged
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #56 on: June 11, 2005, 10:46:44 AM »

Re: Apollinarius

From Church historian, J.N.D. Kelly:

"Thus the clearest most succinct epitome of Cyril's doctrine is the famous formula which he took over, in the sincere but mistaken belief that it had the authority of the great Athanasius behind it, from certain treatises of Apollinarian provenance, 'one nature, and that incarnate of the Divine Word'". (p. 319, Early Christian Doctrines)

Also concerning Apollinarius:

"In a phrase which was to become famous he declared [Ad Iov. I] that there was 'one incarnate nature of the divine Word'" (p.293, ib.)

Obviously there were many in the Church who were leary of this phrase given its origins and implications--that Christ lacked a complete manhood.ÂÂ  The fact that Eutyches justified his ideas with this phrase only confirmed this fear of its theological imprecision and ambiguity among many Churchmen.

And, yes, there was initial resistence to homoousion, but there came to be an settlement on homoousion once it was worked out by the Cappadocians there were three hypostases in one ousia thus guarding against both Sabellianism on one hand and Tritheism or Arianism on the other.ÂÂ  So too it was worked out that there was one hypostasis (that of God the Word) with two natures thus gaurding against both Nestorianism on one hand and Apollinarianism or Eutychianism on the other.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2005, 10:51:11 AM by Doubting Thomas » Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,224


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


WWW
« Reply #57 on: June 11, 2005, 10:59:29 AM »

Dear Doubting Thomas and others,

IMHO, to me and I don't know about other OO's, this dialogue is "almost over" so long as you understand our side as well.

Notice the frustration that you guys go through to defend what Leo actually meant than what Leo is accused of.  I want you to take this frustration and realize it on the side of the non-Chalcedonians.  St. Dioscorus, St. Severus of Antioch, and others NEVER were heretics.  They were never the mixers of natures or wills that your fathers accused us of, and understandably, neither was your side being Nestorian and you defend that very well.

We must also learn a lesson on taking things "out of context" for that was what the fathers couldn't stop doing.  They strongly preferred one language over another and condemned one another with the extremes of what a certain terminology means.

Just as you defend that you have yet to find what is so Nestorian about Leo, we say the same to you.  We have yet to find what the OO fathers erred from exactly.  Both sides I think defend their own fathers very well, but both sides also need to admit that there was a misunderstanding, and regardless of how you interpret it, both sides maintained the common Orthodox faith as the modern fathers in the recent EO/OO dialogues have said.

Quote
So while in that controversial passage Leo seems to "personify" the "Word" and the "flesh", the remainder of Tome should make it clear that the selfsame who is from eternity God also in time became man.  It is this selfsame Subject that does all the actions.  This is not "Nestorian"

I think this is the most considerate Chalcedonian statement so long as you admit that our fathers were unjustly condemned by the last four EO councils.

God bless you.

Mina
Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,224


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


WWW
« Reply #58 on: June 11, 2005, 11:00:52 AM »

RE:ÂÂ  Apollinarius

Dear Doubting Thomas,

Regardless of whether or not Apollinarius used it, I believe the Alexandrians kept documents written by St. Athanasius that used this same phrase and meant it in an Orthodox manner.

Some polemics make it seem like St. Athanasius "never" used it, but why would they state such an unsubstantiated claim?

God bless you.

Mina
« Last Edit: June 11, 2005, 11:02:18 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.
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #59 on: June 11, 2005, 12:47:12 PM »

The point is not whether Dioscoros, Severus, et al were heretics.  I never said they were, nor do I necessarily think they were.  (Keep in mind I'm not even Orthodox...not yet, at least).  I do think their refusal to accept Chalcedon's clarification had more to do with a woodenly literal acceptance of (?)Cyril's ambiguous "formula", an acceptance which could be labelled more schismatic rather than "heretical".  The point is that the "christologies" of Apollinarius and Eutyches were both heretical, and it was this potential danger latent in the formula "one nature of the incarnate Word" that Chalcedon was trying to guard against in its clarification of the Hypostatic Union.
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
alexp4uni
Site Supporter
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #60 on: June 11, 2005, 03:16:27 PM »

So who killed J.R. err... I mean who killed Nestorius? Kinda hypocritical to have any council considered to be Holy and then having it's faithful respond with anger and murder?
Logged
idontlikenames
I'm gonna be the next Matthew777 (whatever that means)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 230

You forgot my briefcase


« Reply #61 on: June 11, 2005, 07:05:18 PM »

Stavro:

     Do you think EO's are going to hell?
Logged

laa ilaah illa al-Maal wa Rothschild howa nabeehi
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 #62 on: June 11, 2005, 08:01:52 PM »

So who killed J.R. err... I mean who killed Nestorius? Kinda hypocritical to have any council considered to be Holy and then having it's faithful respond with anger and murder?

An attempt at humour??
Shaumburg must be a very small town.....


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 #63 on: June 11, 2005, 08:03:07 PM »

Stavro:

  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ Do you think EO's are going to hell?

"Send in the clowns,
Where are the clowns?
There ought to be clowns."
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
alexp4uni
Site Supporter
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #64 on: June 11, 2005, 10:18:59 PM »

Quote
An attempt at humour??
Shaumburg must be a very small town.....

OH Well... It was worth a try but bombed miserably. I hope you don't feel embarrassed for me everytime I make a comment. Tongue

Quote
I mean who killed Nestorius? Kinda hypocritical to have any council considered to be Holy and then having it's faithful respond with anger and murder?
What I was trying to scratch at was What happened to Nestorius after he was condemned by the council. Did he practice what he preached or did many of his supporters, after his "murder", continue the heresy? Is it appropriate to call the Assyrian Church as the Oriental Fathers have called them Nestorian since they are in communion with Rome. It would mean their dialogue and unity meant they agreed with the Tome and it reviewed as Nestorian. But as I read the excerpt of the Tome I really don't see any Nestorianism in it without bias (only a little) from other posters.

So can anyone justify why he was killed? To any inquirer to this complex issue it's better for Preservation of the truth to be separate from animosity against Nestorius and Dioscurus and so on. Just spit out truth without "spinning" the debate and stop throw Saints names that would condemn all of us for watching and taking jabs on polemics. We'll all feel better in the morning.


Like I said my stand on the issue has never been condemning both sides or supporting a Definition until faith of confession requires of it. Both sides recognized Christ as a whole human and a whole God that's how I knew it as an "non-denominational". As I started to know more about my former Church I did have bias on "one nature", but a logical explanation of Christ's humanity and Chalcedon definition was the correct answer. It's either accepting it or not. And of course my issues with my former church was mostly animosity, but I had no disagreement withthe OO. I hope people can see me differently that way.
Logged
Stavro
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,114



« Reply #65 on: June 11, 2005, 10:50:12 PM »

DT,
in response to your question about Arius origin:
He was Libyan, and he was a priest in Alexandria, yet I am concerned in tracing back his line of thoughts to its roots. It is Antioch.
Arius developed his heresy in Antioch, being the student of Lucian and the collegue of Eusebius of Nicomedia in the school of Antioch. He was diposed by Alexandria after he preached heresy there several times, and found no place again there although all apostolic Sees and major christian cities at the time fell into the Arian heresy, such as Liberius of Rome, Eusebius of Constantinople (Nicomedia), Antioch, .... . Only Alexandria stood firm and saved the World from Arianism and then Nestorianism.
The culprit is not Arius as much as the heretical school of Antioch that championed the heresies that were centered around the denial of the divinity of Christ and it was only natural that all heretics hail from this school. It was dominated by philosophers,men who treat christianity as the "current best approach", but not men of faith and was not under the control of the church.
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)
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,344


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #66 on: June 11, 2005, 10:54:13 PM »

Forgive me if this has already been raised, but have the Chalcedonians posting on this thread read V. C. Samuel's book The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined?  I think this, more than anything else, does a good job of explaining our position on Chalcedon.  Those who are really interested in this subject and want to understand the issues better should really read it. ÂÂ

It is a long book, but actually a pretty quick and easy read.  I got through it in a couple of weeks and learned so much.  This is partly because the author was not too scholarly in his language, so even a layperson dumbhead like myself could get through it without trouble.  The author assumes the reader has a little background knowlegde, but the people on this thread clearly already have that.

The author was also remarkably nonpolemical in his writing.  He actually discusses Pucharia without once referring to her as "the nun who got married."  For an OO that took remarkable restraint.  Grin  He was pretty balanced in his approach.

We also need to rememeber that the ramifications of Chalcedon were not just theoretical, but very real and tragic.  It was Chalcedon and the resulting persecutions which divided the Christian East and made it easy for the Muslims to conquer so much territory in so little time. ÂÂ

Also, the persecutions were not just something which happened over a thousand years ago.  The last Tsar, in the name of Chalcedon, confiscated Armenian Church property, closed Armenian churches and threw Armenian priests in prison.  A few years back, I met and spoke with an elderly architect who, in the 1960's, was involved in repairing a piece of Armenian Church property which had been taken by the Tsar and returned back to the Armenians by Khruschev.  The story this guy told was that Khruschev was visiting Armenia and some officials there got him roaring drunk.  While he was intoxicated, they got him to sign the paperwork returning the building back to the Armenians.  I think the building had been the residence of the Catholicos and the Tsar had, after putting it under Moscow's control, turned it into a stable. ÂÂ

I don't mean to turn this discussion "nasty" by mentioning the above.  It is just that sometimes I think we take theological discussions to be be "theory," when in fact they have real life ramifications. Unfortunately, these ramifications are happening even today.  I have recently heard that in Georgia many Armenian churches are currently either being closed or taken over by the Georgian Church.  The Georgian Catholicos supposedly has authority over all churches and has recently been taking these steps against the Armenian Orthodox over there.  These church closings and confiscations are of course being done against the wishes of the Armenians and without any compensation. ÂÂ

Can't we all just get along?  I, like many others in this forum, would like to see our differences resolved so we could all be one Orthodox Church.  Not only would we be able to present a more united front to the world (something we unfortunately cound not do during the Muslim invasions of the 7th century) but I think we would all be a lot happier.   ÃƒÆ’‚  

Sorry for running on like this.  Again, I advise the people posting on this thread to get V.C. Samuel's book.  You could get it on Amazon.com.  I think this thread would actually be more constructive and interesting if everyone read it and we discussed the points made by Father Samuel, instead of going on about whether or not Leo of Rome acutally intended to sound Nestorian in his language, etc.
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 #67 on: June 11, 2005, 11:40:10 PM »

Forgive me if this has already been raised, but have the Chalcedonians posting on this thread read V. C. Samuel's book The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined?  I think this, more than anything else, does a good job of explaining our position on Chalcedon. ÂÂ
Thanks for this.
I think a good, pretty balanced summary of the Eastern Orthodox position can be found in the work of Fr. John S. Romanides: "ST. CYRIL'S "ONE PHYSIS OR HYPOSTASIS OF GOD THE LOGOS INCARNATE" AND CHALCEDON" it's available online at: http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.08.en.st._cyrils_one_physis_or_hypostasis_of_god_the_log.htm

We also need to rememeber that the ramifications of Chalcedon were not just theoretical, but very real and tragic. ÂÂ It was Chalcedon and the resulting persecutions which divided the Christian East and made it easy for the Muslims to conquer so much territory in so little time.....Can't we all just get along?ÂÂ  I, like many others in this forum, would like to see our differences resolved so we could all be one Orthodox Church. ÂÂ
Yes, subsequent events are very tragic, and continue to be. But we will always remain at an impasse if we blame the Council of Chalcedon for it. If there are real dogmatic differences between us, these must be acknowledged unlike Nestorios who began a hideous persecution of the Arians, Macedonians, Quartodecimans, and Novatians (earning him the title "The Incendiary" for his burning of their Churches), and then only to end up proclaiming heresy himself, co-existence based on the Love Christ calls us all to is the way forward. However, it would be unreasonable to expect us to become One Orthodox Church if there are real dogmatic differences.
If our differences are not dogmatic we can be One Church, if they are, then we must learn to co-exist in love.
« Last Edit: June 11, 2005, 11:44:12 PM by ozgeorge » Logged

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

Posts: 708

/etc


« Reply #68 on: June 11, 2005, 11:58:27 PM »

I am reminded of one of my favorite Buffy quotes for some reason...

Quote
Giles: "That's why I think we should all keep a level head at this."
Willow: "And I happen to think that mine is the level head and yours is the one things would roll off of."
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,224


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


WWW
« Reply #69 on: June 12, 2005, 12:21:17 AM »

Let us not forget that it's not only what's inside the Tome that got us bugging out, but what was associated with it.ÂÂ  Theodoret and Ibas, Roman legates calling Theodore of Mopsuestia a "doctor" of the Church, St. Dioscorus' house arrest during the council sessions, and the forceful persecutions lead by Marcian on the Miaphysite faithful for rejecting the Tome all are factores into our rejection of the Tome.ÂÂ  We can't just accept it.

However, I understand under the recent agreements that we can accept its Orthodox implications as well as the other councils' Orthodox implications, but we cannot accept it as something binding for the Orthodox Church.ÂÂ  What is left now is the lifting up of anathemas from both families so that this unnecessary schism may end.

Dear ozgeorge,

Quote
If our differences are not dogmatic we can be One Church, if they are, then we must learn to co-exist in love.

I happen to believe since we have no differences in dogma, we are not only "can be" One Church, but we "are" in fact One Church.ÂÂ  I cannot accept a divided Church.ÂÂ  Only man divides, but not the Church.ÂÂ  I believe Christ has not allowed a division in the Orthodox Church, but only a lesson to be learned.  That's my philosophy.

God bless.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2005, 12:24:30 AM by minasoliman » Logged

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

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #70 on: June 12, 2005, 02:29:23 AM »

Doubting Thomas,

Quote
I do think their refusal to accept Chalcedon's clarification had more to do with a woodenly literal acceptance of (?)Cyril's ambiguous "formula", an acceptance which could be labelled more schismatic rather than "heretical".


You’re begging the question here. Let’s assume for arguments sake that the EO and OO at Chalcedon had the same faith, and dispute was over semantics and the terminological/”phraseological” emphasis which should prevail in conveying this faith; the question is: which emphasis was more appropriate? In other words, whose rejection/insistence of particular expressions/terms/phrases is truly to be labelled "schismatic"?

I would argue that those at Chalcedon are the schismatics for their very unjustified treatment of St Dioscorus in the first place; which is really the crux of the division that took place. Furthermore I believe it was Leo’s and the rest of the Roman legate's woodenly literal rejection of St Cyril’s formula, and their woodenly literal rejection of other such formulas i.e. “of two natures”, as well as their woodenly literal insistence concerning the acceptance of Leo’s tome in toto without question (if you read the minutes of Chalcedon, you would discover that many of the Chalcedonian fathers were uncomfortable with the tome in the first place, and felt the need to alter it or add to it, or even replace it entirely) could be labeled schismatic on their behalf. I don’t think there’s any objectivity in your line of thought, it seems you just want to flow with the “mainstream”.

Quote
The point is that the "christologies" of Apollinarius and Eutyches were both heretical

The point is, the former's heresy is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion - it was already dealt with by the Church before Chalcedon, and the latter's adoption of any sort of heresy is questionable, and certainly a shakey and unjustified assumption to base the proceeding events upon.

As I stated before, Apollinarius' heresy was independent of the miaphysis formula; he denied the rational soul of Christ and taught communicatio idiomatum - his affirmation of mia physis (assuming that he did) would not have been for him the corollary of these heresies, nor the implication of these heresies - thus his usage of it, even if it can be proven that he did so, cannot be proven to be heretical in any event - the whole argument that it was, simply because he held to other Christological heresies, is a non-sequitor im afraid. Furthermore, Apollonarius' heresy was already dealt with at The Council of Constantinople 1. Ephesus 1 then reinforced that Christ possessed a rational human soul alongside the miaphysite Christology that was vindicated then. Miaphysis terminology was the standard for Orthodoxy AFTER the whole Apollonarius controversey (it was not compromised nor challenged at the councils dealing with this heresy), which is enough evidence in and of itself to directly refute your implicit claim that the mia physis formula had to be compromised as a safeguard for Apollonarianism - the early Church and councils DIRECTLY DEALING WITH THIS HERESY certainly didnt think so, nor does reason or logic dictate this.

With regards to Eutyches, I repeat: there is no evidence that Eutyches ever held to the heresy ascribed to him. As I have said, and will repeat; the testimony held against him was as inconsistent as his own. Even assuming that he was a heretic, you have not justified Chalcedon by bringing this up. If you think an entire Church needs to reformulate and re-express the Christology that was established by a previous Ecumenical council for the sake of one sole monk who was neither a scholar, nor a theologian, nor anyone of high authority or reputation, then no offense to you sir, but that is a joke.

On a sidenote: Re: “Apollonarian origins” charge — I didn’t ask you to quote scholars who espouse the theory, I asked for evidence of the charge. I know that many scholars are proponents of this claim, I could refer you to more even (R.V. Sellers, Panagiotes N. Trempela), however my position is that it is nothing more than a mere claim, and there is no hardcore evidence to support it.

Quote
it was this potential danger latent in the formula "one nature of the incarnate Word" that Chalcedon was trying to guard against in its clarification of the Hypostatic Union.

Wow, so you admit that the Council of Chalcedon was based on speculation. So let’s get this straight — the Chalcedonian emphasis was based on speculation, concerned with what may or may not have been a potential danger (the historical situation at the time certainly not backing up the former), whereas the non-Chalcedonian emphasis was based on reality, concerned with what already was a real, current, and growing danger in the Church. And who are the schismatics, you say?

Furthermore, on a sidenote: Chalcedon did NOT clarify the hypostatic union. Are you kidding me? Where in any of your quotes does it prove that the Word en-hypostasized his humanity such that its existence and function is dependent on the hypostasis of The Word, as opposed to independent of the Hypostasis of THE WORD — you don’t need to show me those exact words, just show me anything that comes close to clarifying that.

I see a lot of people throwing around the word “context”, however all you have proven is inconsistencies. Your claim is akin to Bob who in an attempt to provide context to Joe’s statement: “It is night-time here, and the sunshine is great”; points out that Joe also said elsewhere that the "moon was bright", to try and clarify that it was indeed night-time. However, that the "moon was bright", does not clarify the statement that "the sunshine is great".ÂÂ  Just as Bob has only pointed out further inconsistencies, so too have the Chalcedonians. Let me prove it:

First you claim that "The Word" in reference to the controversial quotation in question, is simply Leo's way of referring to "the divine nature":

“Each nature performs what is proper to it in communion with the other; the Word for instance, performing what is proper to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what is proper to the flesh” (Leo's tome)

...Yet elsewhere, you give us this:

"...that the one Son of God is both Word and flesh." (Leo's tome)

Let's see what this contextual factor brings to light. According to quote 2: The Son of God = Word + Flesh, yet according to quote 1: The Word acts independently of the flesh; therefore, the clear implication is that The One Son of God is capable of being divided according to his acts, and this is where Nestorius applauds.

Furthermore, nothing in the context you have provided has explained the manner in which leo depicts The Word and flesh operating. NATURES DO NOT OPERATE; clearly, Leo understands natures as operative centres of action. If Leo does not understand these natures as personal subjects, and if the context you provide goes out of its way to prove that Leo understood only one personal subject in Christ, then this is yet another clear contradiction within his own tome, for the very corollary of the understanding of a nature as an operative centre of action, is that it is also a centre of consciousness and rationale i.e. personal.

Let no one be fooled by the word "context" - the "context" doesn't clarify Leo's position, it only proves it confused and inconsistent.

Peace.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2005, 02:47:33 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 #71 on: June 12, 2005, 03:31:23 AM »

St. Leo's one sentance which you seem to be fixated on means simply that the Word Who is Begoten by the Father in Eternity, through Whom all things were created, is Himself, Uncreated. In the latter days, the Word took created flesh from the Theotokos, so in One Person, there was a joining of the Uncreated to the created, the Eternal Word took on human flesh. He is talking about the Dne Nature and the Human Nature. They were not mingled or confused. The Divine Nature is Immutable and Passionless. The Divine Nature did not sleep when Christ slept. The Divine Nature did not eat when Christ ate. The Divine Nature did not empty it's bowels when Christ emptied His bowels. This is what St. Leo means.

Don't try and tell me that you think St. Leo does not recognise the singular Person of Christ when in the same tome he says:
"He is also called the Man from heaven, being perfect in his Divinity and perfect in his Humanity, and considered as in one Person. For one is the Lord Jesus Christ, although the difference of his natures is not unknown, from which we say the ineffable union was made. "
and
"For although in the Lord Jesus Christ there is one Person of God and man, yet that whereby contumely attaches to both is one thing, and that whereby glory attaches to both is another; for from what belongs to us He has that manhood which is inferior to the Father; while from the Father he has equal Godhead with the Father."
« Last Edit: June 12, 2005, 03:34:53 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 #72 on: June 12, 2005, 03:37:36 AM »

Stavro,

Quote
Quote
Quote
Historically; a politically motivated council of schism; a robbers council, robbing the See of Alexandria of its theological authority.

A statement that is not supported by evidence and again, exposes the lack of understanding of theology.

Bro, the above quotation to which you were responding was made by me in reference to the Council of Chalcedon. I know the Chalcedonians often refer to Ephesus 449 as a robber’s council; I was simply appropriately re-directing that label and applying it to Chalcedon.

Since a couple have expressed an “hmmmmmmmm….”’ and “huh huh…” in response to my statement, I will provide an elaborate essay substantiating it when I have the time.

Peace.
Logged

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

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #73 on: June 12, 2005, 03:43:37 AM »

ozgeorge,

Quote
Don't try and tell me that you think St. Leo does not recognise the singular Person of Christ when in the same tome he says:

I don't think you're getting my point. Again, we are not concerned with Leo's subjective intentions. I am approaching his document from an objective perspective and trying to deduce what may be reasonably interpreted.

That he explicitly affirms one personal subject, alongside statements with the corollary implication of two personal subjects, is called an inconsistency. Natures do not act; they provide the means/capacity by which the hypostasis/person possessing the particular nature acts.

Furthermore, I have already proven that the mere affirmation of "One person", does not suffice, for Nestorius could understand this expression to refer to his "prosopic union".

Quote
The Divine Nature did not sleep


The fact of the matter is, neither the divine nature nor the human nature slept. The Word who is Christ who is The Son of God, is the one who slept according to His humanity.

Peace.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2005, 03:45:25 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 #74 on: June 12, 2005, 03:58:56 AM »

The fact of the matter is, neither the divine nature nor the human nature slept. The Word who is Christ who is The Son of God, is the one who slept according to His humanity.
So, the Divine Nature is either mutable or not present in Christ. Either a Gnostic form of Monophysitism or Arianism.
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 #75 on: June 12, 2005, 04:17:45 AM »

Quote
Quote from: EkhristosAnesti on Today at 03:43:37 AM
The fact of the matter is, neither the divine nature nor the human nature slept. The Word who is Christ who is The Son of God, is the one who slept according to His humanity.

So, the Divine Nature is either mutable or not present in Christ. Either a Gnostic form of Monophysitism or Arianism.

Huh? You are reading those implications into my statement; I never mentioned the divine nature sir, since the divine nature has nothing to do with Christ's act of sleeping — I affirmed two principle things a) That The Word was the subject of the human act b) That the human act was possible to be excercised by the personal subject: The Word - due to His possession of a human nature - but it was not ACTUALIZED BY his human nature, only His person - THE WORD.

Let me re-iterate my statement, except replacing the act of sleep with the act of suffering/death, and then we will compare it with the 12th anathema of St Cyril.

I say: “The fact of the matter is, neither the divine nature nor the human nature suffered or died. The Word is the one who suffered and died according to his flesh

St Cyril in his 12th anathema says:

"If anyone does not confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh [or alternativelyt as I have stated “according to His flesh”] and was crucified in the flesh and tasted death in the flesh and became the first born of the dead, although as God he is life and life-giving, let him be anathema."

It's quite simple. St Cyril did not say that the flesh suffered or died; He states that The Word suffered and died in/according-to the flesh. If you have a problem with this, then there is really no discussion - I don't think St Cyril's 12 anathema is up for debate.

Peace.


« Last Edit: June 12, 2005, 04:18:54 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 #76 on: June 12, 2005, 04:27:19 AM »

Stavro,

A statement that is not supported by evidence and again, exposes the lack of understanding of theology.

Bro, the above quotation to which you were responding was made by me in reference to the Council of Chalcedon. I know the Chalcedonians often refer to Ephesus 449 as a robber’s council; I was simply appropriately re-directing that label and applying it to Chalcedon.

Hmmm.........
Perhaps, in actual fact, "the Spirit has spoken through Stavro."
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 #77 on: June 12, 2005, 04:33:36 AM »

Quote
Perhaps, in actual fact, "the Spirit has spoken through Stavro."

Agreed, considering the fact Stavro was responding to it as a Chalcedonian remark in response to Ephesus 449  Wink

Perhaps, the Spirit continued to speaketh through Stavro, saying:

Quote
The authority of the Church and each individual is to confirm the faith and protect the faith against any changes, an authority that no other See exercised better than Alexandria. Period.

and:

Quote
The holy council of Ephesus II was ratified by the fifth council of the Chalcedonian, for the decisions are one and the same. Chalcedon, that allowed Nestorians back to the church and sanctified their teachings, contradicts both.
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 #78 on: June 12, 2005, 04:40:35 AM »

"If anyone does not confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh [or alternativelyt as I have stated “according to His flesh”] and was crucified in the flesh and tasted death in the flesh and became the first born of the dead, although as God he is life and life-giving, let him be anathema."


We are going in circles.
Until you aknowledge that the one use of the word "Word" by St. Leo refers to the Divine Nature and that he understood that the singular Person/hypostasis of Christ is also the Word we will get nowhere.
When I say "The sun is on my shoulders" do I mean that the mass of the Solar Sphere is resting on my shoulders, or do I mean that the rays of the sun are striking my shoulders? Perhaps someone with Asperger's Syndrome would take it literally and call me a liar.
Perhaps it's best we just agree to disagree and strive to co-exist in Christian love.
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 #79 on: June 12, 2005, 04:46:34 AM »

Quote
We are going in circles.
Until you aknowledge that the one use of the word "Word" by St. Leo refers to the Divine Nature and that he understood that the singular Person/hypostasis of Christ is also the Word we will get nowhere.

I have acknowledged that Leo uses the term “Word” to refer to the divine nature in the context of his tome. This is irrelevant to the point im making. Leo says that the flesh PERFORMS human acts. St Cyril anathemizes anyone who does not acknowledge that the personal subject of Christ (which St Cyril identifies as “the Word”) is the one who performs human acts “In” or “According to” his flesh.

Quote
Perhaps it's best we just agree to disagree and strive to co-exist in Christian love.

Agreed.

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 #80 on: June 12, 2005, 05:18:18 AM »

I have acknowledged that Leo uses the term “Word” to refer to the divine nature in the context of his tome. This is irrelevant to the point im making. Leo says that the flesh PERFORMS human acts. St Cyril anathemizes anyone who does not acknowledge that the personal subject of Christ (which St Cyril identifies as “the Word”) is the one who performs human acts “In” or “According to” his flesh.

This may come as a surprise to you, but in fact human flesh does perform human acts.
The nails and spear pierced Christ's created flesh.
Christ's created flesh required sleep- His Divine Nature didn't.
Christ's created flesh needed to eat and drink- His Divine Nature didn't.
Christ's created flesh needed to go to the toilet- His Divine Nature didn't.
So you see, human flesh does perform human acts.
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 #81 on: June 12, 2005, 05:45:18 AM »

Quote
This may come as a surprise to you, but in fact human flesh does perform human acts.

Ozgeorge, we are really running in circles now. Let me make it clear; it is a simple and fundamental metaphysical principle that acts are exercised by intellectual hypostasis, or in other words personal subjects. This is why for example, a human being by virtue of being a human being (which essentially entails the possession of a rational human soul, and hence self/ego/person) can perform functions, but a rock by virtue of its being a rock, for example does not. You do not see a rock rolling itself along a road, or jumping up into the air, or breaking through a glass window. When you do see a rock do these things, it is doing so NOT because it chose to perform these functions, but rather because an external force was applied to it — the rock itself does not perform a function since it possesses no rational principle by which it can do so.

Another simple example which clearly demonstrates this point, is the manner in which we as human beings speak about our performance of certain functions. We say “ozgeorge typed up a response” or “Ozgeorge sat down on a chair” — It is “ozgeorge” who is the subject of these actions. Now the question is what does the name “Ozgeorge” denote? It’s very simple - the name ozgeorge is no more than a reference to your self, your ego, or your person — it says nothing about your essential nature.

Likewise, The divine person of The Word is the subject of all Christ’s actions, which he performs by means of His natures. However His natures do not perform those actions since they lack personality.

Quote
Christ's created flesh required sleep- His Divine Nature didn't.

The Word required sleep by virtue of His possession of a human nature, and consequently slept according to this human nature.

Quote
Christ's created flesh needed to eat and drink- His Divine Nature didn't.

The Word needed to eat and drink by virtue of His possession of a human nature, and consequently ate and drank in the flesh, or according to his human nature.

I am wording my expressions according to St Cyril’s 12th anathema, you are wording yours according to Leo’s tome.

We will have to agree to disagree here; I will stick with my form of expression, and you can stick with yours, but I will certainly not compromise the language of St Cyril the pillar of faith (which was not only the standard of Orthodoxy, but is metaphysically sound), for that employed by Leo of Rome (which is metaphysically unsound and inconsistent). Period. That’s my last response on this issue.

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 #82 on: June 12, 2005, 09:30:04 AM »

Ozgeorge, we are really running in circles now.
I knew that several posts ago!

Let me make it clear; it is a simple and fundamental metaphysical principle that acts are exercised by intellectual hypostasis, or in other words personal subjects. This is why for example, a human being by virtue of being a human being (which essentially entails the possession of a rational human soul, and hence self/ego/person) can perform functions, but a rock by virtue of its being a rock, for example does not. You do not see a rock rolling itself along a road, or jumping up into the air, or breaking through a glass window. When you do see a rock do these things, it is doing so NOT because it chose to perform these functions, but rather because an external force was applied to it — the rock itself does not perform a function since it possesses no rational principle by which it can do so........Another simple example which clearly demonstrates this point, is the manner in which we as human beings speak about our performance of certain functions. We say “ozgeorge typed up a response” or “Ozgeorge sat down on a chair” — It is “ozgeorge” who is the subject of these actions. Now the question is what does the name “Ozgeorge” denote? It’s very simple - the name ozgeorge is no more than a reference to your self, your ego, or your person — it says nothing about your essential nature......Likewise, The divine person of The Word is the subject of all Christ’s actions, which he performs by means of His natures. However His natures do not perform those actions since they lack personality.
You see, this is where you've gone wrong- in three major ways.
The assumption that " it is a simple and fundamental metaphysical principle that acts are exercised by intellectual hypostasis, or in other words personal subjects" is wrong. A rock is performing acts- it exerts force, it occupies space, it breaks the ocean's waves, all without external forces acting on it. In the same way, trees and plants which lack souls and intellects also perform acts- they spread fragrance, grow roots and leaves, provide shade, and some even eat insects , all on their own without the need for external forces, or even the existence of ego/self/person...........need I go on with more examples? You are assuming that "act" and "voluntary act" are the same thing- they are not. You perform acts every day involuntarily. Your autonomic nervous system makes you breath, makes your heart beat, makes you perspire/salivate etc all without the involvement of your will. These are the "functions of the flesh" St. Leo is talking about.
Which leads me to your second big mistake: you are assuming that St. Leo is only talking about the voluntary acts of Christ when he speaks of "performing what belongs to the flesh". Look at the sentance which you have fixated on and the paragraph it belongs to:
"For the selfsame who is very God, is also very man; and there is no illusion in this union, while the lowliness of man and the loftiness of Godhead meet together. For as "God" is not changed by the compassion [exhibited], so "Man" is not consumed by the dignity [bestowed]. For each "form" does the acts which belong to it, in communion with the other; the Word, that is, performing what belongs to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what belongs to the flesh; the one of these shines out in miracles, the other succumbs' to injuries."

The flesh of Christ "succumbed to injury" by His Own, voluntary Divine Will. This in no way contradicts what St. Leo has said, in fact it is exactly what he is saying.

Thirdly, and most importantly, what you are saying is that "act" is a function of personhood only, based on the two false premises that (a) all acts are voluntary, and (b)" Person" does not exist without self/ego. But "self" and "ego" are merely illusions- they are mental constructs only, and not realities. You are applying human mental contructs onto the Divine Personhood. To demonstrate this is simple. Point to your body and say "I own this body"...... Now tell me, where is this "I" that owns your body, can you point to it?ÂÂ  Are you pointing to your body again? But isn't this the object that your "I" owns?
There is no "I" for us humans in reality. When we say "I", we simply mean "this organism" rather than "that organism". Only God has an "I".ÂÂ  This is why God has revealed Himself to Moses as "I AM", because He is "He Who Is", and I am "He Who Is Not", and this is also why the Blessed Apostle says that "In Him we live and move and have our being", and again: "I live, but rather, not I, but Christ lives in me."
The main cause of the neuroses plaguing modern men, women and children can often be traced back to the false belief that "I", "ego", "self" is a reality which exists. "Egoism" and "selfishness" are both the idolatory of this false "I". The word "I" is simply a "map" showing a territory- the map is not the territory.
You are also confusing "Hypostasis" and "Person" in what you are saying, and although it is often translated as "Person", Hypostasis does not mean "Person". "Hypo-stasis" literally meansÂÂ  "under-footing" like the latin "sub-stance". You have become confused by translating it as "person", then making assumptions about what makes a human a "person" and then applying this to God- it doesn't work, and can only lead to heresy.

Finally, as an aside, if Christ did not have a human will, then He was not "a man like us in all things except sin". If Christ did not have a human will, the temptations He experienced in the desert (and elswhere) were not real temptations. If Christ did not have a human will, then He did not have to struggle like us to align it with the Divine Will. Therefore, if Christ did not have a human will, He was not truly human, but merely had the appearance of one as the Docetists claimed.






« Last Edit: June 12, 2005, 10:22:25 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 #83 on: June 12, 2005, 10:41:44 AM »

Quote
The assumption that " it is a simple and fundamental metaphysical principle that acts are exercised by intellectual hypostasis, or in other words personal subjects" is wrong. A rock is performing acts- it exerts force, it occupies space, it breaks the ocean's waves, all without external forces acting on it.

Wrong. That a rock occupies space, and that it passes through substances less dense than it, concern the nature of that rock’s being as it is defined by its essence — i.e. that it possesses a particular mass and density; these are NOT however “performances” of a rock. The same principle applies to the rest of your examples.

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

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

Quote
Which leads me to your second big mistake: you are assuming that St. Leo is talking about the voluntary acts of Christ when he speaks of "performing what belongs to the flesh".

Well now that I’ve shown that it has nothing to do with voluntary vs. involuntary, but rather the fact that a person or hypostasis experiences and performs acts according to the nature of being defined by the very attributes corollary of that being’s essence; the rest of your post is a straw man.

Quote
Thirdly, and most importantly, what you are saying is that "act" is a function of personhood only, based on the false premise that Person does not exist without self/ego.

The person IS the self/ego my friend:

Professor Bittle continues:

"These functions and mental states are phenomena, accidents; and as such they must inhere in an Ego, which is the ultimate reality within man, identical and permanent amidst all changes. The Ego is, thus, a subsisting substance, which exists in itself as a subject and not in another....the Ego is a rational hypostasis. 'Rationale' or ‘Intellectuality’ is the very difference between man and
God, and the lower forms of plant, brute and inorganic body. A ‘person,’ thus, is an intellectual/rational hypostasis." (ibid. 274)

Quote
But "self" and "ego" are merely illusions- they are mental constructs only, and not realities.

Wrong!

Quote
Point to your body and say "I own this body"...... Now tell me, where is this "I" that owns your body, can you point to it?ÂÂ  Are you pointing to your body again? But isn't this the object that your "I" owns?

Come on ozgeorge, just because my person/self/”I” possesses no being per se (such that I can point to it as you request), this does not negate the fact that it is a REAL and intrinsic principle/aspect of my being constituting my very being. Your conclusion is simply a non-sequitor. Existence and reality are two different categories my friend, do not get them confused.

Quote
There is no "I" for us humans in reality. When we say "I", we simply mean "this organism" rather than "that organism". Only God has an "I".ÂÂ  This is why God has revealed Himself to Moses as "I AM"

What you are saying is completely absurd; everyone has an “I” by which they recognize their self throughout history. The “I” principle is the only intellectual principle of our being that remains constant amid all changes. “I” the 19 year old, who is a 1 m 69 cm tall, slim, university student, am the same “I” who was a chubby little 9 year old in primary school. Exodus 3:14 has NOTHING to do with God’s personhood; but rather the nature of the existence of His being per se. I refer you to St Augustine, St Hilary of Potiers, and Origen’s commentary of this passage; it is to do with his being the eternally uncaused self-existent cause of all existence. This is irrelevant to His personhood, since personhood is a principle of being and not a being per se.

Quote
You are also confusing "Hypostasis" and "Person" in what you are saying, and although it is often translated as "Person", Hypostasis does not mean "Person".

Actually I didn’t, and I’d like you to quote my statement in which I regarded person and hypostasis as interchangeable equivalents according to their definitions - and not according to how they apply to a particular subject in which I may have regarded them equivalently, for that is another matter. A person is simply an intellectual/rational hypostasis; such that every person is a hypostasis, but not every hypostasis is a person. This is why human being’s are persons, yet plants are not, though both plants and humans are both hypostases.

Professor Bittle in pondering the question as to what it is that gives a being "Person", continues:

"It cannot be materiality; for God is not a material being, though man obviously has a material body. It cannot be life; for plants possess life, but they are certainly not ‘persons.’ It cannot be the simplicity of nature; for God is simple in nature, however man is aÂÂ  compound of body and soul; yet both are ‘persons.’ ...It cannot be substance, essence, nature or subsistenc; for all individual existences, from inorganic bodies to God Himself, possess these degrees of reality. What then, is it? The only discoverable principle or element which is distinctive to God, Spirits and man yet which is lacking in all other beings below the level of man, is rationale/intellectuality." (ibis. page 269)

Quote
Finally, as an aside, if Christ did not have a human will….

I never denied that Christ had a human will, so I don’t see what the problem is. I just believe that Christ’s human will was both expressed and actualized by His hypostasis through His person. St Athanasius said that what Christ assumed was healed. If Christ did not assume a real human will, then the doctrine of theosis is a fallacy. Christ had a natural human will and a natural divine will, yet ultimately He possesses one personal will, by which he willed "humanly" and willed "divinely", but ultimately it was The Word who willed, and since The Word is one - His hypostasis/person One, therefore this personal will was one.

Peace.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2005, 10:46:15 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
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 #84 on: June 12, 2005, 11:26:10 AM »

You know what ozgeorge, I don’t even know why I bothered delving into metaphysics, when I already proved that St Cyril settled this matter by the Holy Spirit about 1600 years ago.

St Cyril the pillar of faith, in contrast to Leo of Rome, understands “The Word” as a title designating Christ’s person/hypostasis and not His divine nature, and thus according to the 12th of the 12 anathemas vindicated at Ephesus 431 (in accordance with the traits of Athanasian Christology), St Cyril states that he who does not affirm that the divine person/hypostasis of Christ (The Word) is the subject of His incarnate experiences (suffering, death, hunger etc.), then let him be anathema, simple as that.

St Cyril says that the person/hypostasis of Christ suffered in the flesh (performed according to his human nature), yet according to Leo of Rome, the flesh suffered (the human nature performed).

If you want to call St Cyril a gnostic monophysite or an arian, or whatever you wish, just to vindicate the tome, then that is your issue, and in that case there is no further room for discussion.

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 #85 on: June 12, 2005, 11:49:36 AM »

Wrong. That a rock occupies space, and that it passes through substances less dense than it, concern the nature of that rock’s being as it is defined by its essence — i.e. that it possesses a particular mass and density; these are NOT however “performances” of a rock. The same principle applies to the rest of your examples.
Huh? So are you (and Prof. Bittle) saying that "Dionaea muscipula" or the "Venus Fly Trap" has personhood despite being a plant since it traps and digests insects?

Well now that I’ve shown that it has nothing to do with voluntary vs. involuntary, but rather the fact that a person or
hypostasis experiences and performs acts according to the nature of being defined by the very attributes corollary of that being’s essence;
Doesn't a rock have being and essense?

Come on ozgeorge, just because my person/self/”I” possesses no being per se (such that I can point to it as you request), this does not negate the fact that it is a REAL and intrinsic principle/aspect of my being constituting my very being. Your conclusion is simply a non-sequitor. Existence and reality are two different categories my friend, do not get them confused.What you are saying is completely absurd; everyone has an “I” by which they recognize their self throughout history. The “I” principle is the only intellectual principle of our being that remains constant amid all changes. “I” the 19 year old, who is a 1 m 69 cm tall, slim, university student, am the same “I” who was a chubby little 9 year old in primary school. Exodus 3:14 has NOTHING to do with God’s personhood; but rather the nature of the existence of His being per se. I refer you to St Augustine, St Hilary of Potiers, and Origen’s commentary of this passage; it is to do with his being the eternally uncaused self-existent cause of all existence. This is irrelevant to His personhood, since personhood is a principle of being and not a being per se.
Enjoy the illusion.
If I said that I was Napolean Bonaparte (someone who actually existed)- you'd have me commited. Yet if I say that I am an "I" (which even you say doesn't exist), I'm considered sane.

and I’d like you to quote my statement in which I regarded person and hypostasis as interchangeable equivalents according to their definitions - and not according to how they apply to a particular subject in which I may have regarded them equivalently, for that is another matter.
No, it's not "another matter", it's the same matter. It is your claim that "act" is only a function of "person", not nature, therefore (you claim) act is a function of the Hypostasis of Christ, not His Natures.

Professor Bittle in pondering the question as to what it is that gives a being "Person", continues:
"It cannot be materiality; for God is not a material being, though man obviously has a material body. It cannot be life; for plants possess life, but they are certainly not ‘persons.’ It cannot be the simplicity of nature; for God is simple in nature, however man is aÂÂ  compound of body and soul; yet both are ‘persons.’ ...It cannot be substance, essence, nature or subsistenc; for all individual existences, from inorganic bodies to God Himself, possess these degrees of reality. What then, is it? The only discoverable principle or element which is distinctive to God, Spirits and man yet which is lacking in all other beings below the level of man, is rationale/intellectuality." (ibis. page 269)
It's stupid claims such as this which make me furious! Does a child born anacephalic lack personhood because it lacks a brain? Do severely brain damaged individuals who's brains can only sustain their breathing and heartbeat cease to be persons since they lack rationale/intellectuality? Prof. Bittle is dribbling rubbish. We can't even define what human hypostasis consists of- and you presume to define what Divine Hypostasis consists of! This is exactley where I said you went wrong in your logic. Person cannot be defined by intellect, and even if it could, we cannot use this to define the three Hypostasese of the Trinity because they share One Essense (and therefore, one intellect/rationale as this stupid Prof. Brittle puts it).
Do you want a hint where Hypostasis may lie? It exists somewhere in the area of relationship. God is a Trinity of Three Hypostese Who relate to One Another in Eternity- the Father Eternally begets the Son and is the Source of the Eternal Procession of the Spirit- The Perfect Community..

never denied that Christ had a human will, so I don’t see what the problem is. I just believe that Christ’s human will was both expressed and actualized by His hypostasis through His person. St Athanasius said that what Christ assumed was healed. If Christ did not assume a real human will, then the doctrine of theosis is a fallacy. Christ had a natural human will and a natural divine will, yet ultimately He possesses one personal will, by which he willed "humanly" and willed "divinely", but ultimately it was The Word who willed, and since The Word is one - His hypostasis/person One, therefore this personal will was one.
So Christ now has three distinct wills: a divine will, a human will, and a personal will? Or does he only have one personal will which is a "co-mingling" of His Divine and Human Wills to produce a third?  Oh what knots these non-chalcedons tie themselves in!
« Last Edit: June 12, 2005, 12:25:08 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 #86 on: June 12, 2005, 11:53:34 AM »

St Cyril says that the person/hypostasis of Christ suffered in the flesh (performed according to his human nature), yet according to Leo of Rome, the flesh suffered (the human nature performed).
If you want to call St Cyril a gnostic monophysite or an arian, or whatever you wish, just to vindicate the tome, then that is your issue, and in that case there is no further room for discussion.
Oh these circles!
Once again, let me repeat: the fifth Ecumenical Counci Declared that "One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh". And what does S. Cyril say?
St Cyril says that the person/hypostasis of Christ suffered in the flesh (performed according to his human nature)
Isn't this the same thing?

St Cyril the pillar of faith, in contrast to Leo of Rome, understands “The Word” as a title designating Christ’s person/hypostasis and not His divine nature, and thus according to the 12th of the 12 anathemas vindicated at Ephesus 431 (in accordance with the traits of Athanasian Christology), St Cyril states that he who does not affirm that the divine person/hypostasis of Christ (The Word) is the subject of His incarnate experiences (suffering, death, hunger etc.), then let him be anathema, simple as that
Oh good! So we agree then- St. Cyril and St. Leo used the word "Word" differently in one instance- therefore St. Leo is not a heretic and does not fall under St. Cyril's anathema, and they are saying the same thing - (just as the Fathers of Chalcedon said)ÂÂ  and they are enjoying one another's company in Heaven.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2005, 12:11:47 PM 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 #87 on: June 12, 2005, 01:39:58 PM »

Quote
Huh? So are you (and Prof. Bittle) saying that "Dionaea muscipula" or the "Venus Fly Trap" has personhood despite being a plant since it traps and digests insects?

Let’s have a quick look at what Prof. Bittle had to say concerning the act of digestion:

“We thus say…I digest…even though it’s…the stomach that digests” 

The venus fly trap, just like my stomach, is “the ultimate principle by means of which (principium quo) the hypostasis or person performs that very action" In this case, the venus fly trap is a hypostasis not a person. The nature does not perform ozgeorge, it simply defines the operative capacity by which the hypostasis/person performs/operates. PERIOD.

Quote
Doesn't a rock have being and essense?

Yes, but its being or essence is not “the principle which (principium quod) performs the actual action.”

Quote
Enjoy the illusion.

The irony couldn’t be any more obvious right now my friend.

Quote
If I said that I was Napolean Bonaparte (someone who actually existed)- you'd have me commited. Yet if I say that I am an "I" which even you say doesn't exist, I'm considered sane.

What on earth are you talking about? The existence of Napolean Bonaparte’s metaphysical person is as lacking as the existence of anyone’s metaphysical person throughout the history of mankind. All the metaphysical terms we have thus far employed: essence, nature, substance, hypostasis, person, are ALL principles of being; REAL aspects of a being, and NOT being’s in and of themselves.

According to Professor McGlyn and Professor Farley in their book A Metaphysics of Being and God:

“When one considers an individual, existing being, and its perfection and limitation, one is obviously not going to find 2 “things” composing that very being (which would make it 2 beings, that are in some way held together). Rather, whatever composition exists must be a composition of “principles of being.” A “principle of being” is something which makes up that very being, however, which can’t itself exist as a being. Some easily comprehended examples of this are metaphysical “accidents” such as warmth, whiteness and so forth."

The learned men then list all the other metaphysical co-principles of being alongside accident: existence, essence, nature, substance, hypostasis, person, potency, act etc. and they state:

“These metaphysical co-principles of being, constitute finite beings; not as physical parts, but rather as ultimate intrinsic principles. They are’nt “things” in themselves, but rather, principles of things that are incapable of existing apart, yet truly distinct from one another…” (ibid. 65)

We’d have you committed for claiming to be Napolean because you are claiming to possses the same self as the self which constituted an ultimate metaphysical principle of an independent existence from that of yours, and which experienced and performed things according to that independent existence.

Quote
It is your claim that "act" is only a function of "person", not nature, therefore (you claim) act is a function of the Hypostasis of Christ, not His Natures.

Since Christ’s hypostasis is rational/intellectual, His hypostasis is hence personal. When I attribute an act to His hypostasis therefore, I am attributing this act to His person and vice versa.

Quote
Do severely brain damaged individuals who's brains can only sustain their breathing and heartbeat cease to be persons since they lack rationale/intellectuality?

If a particular being discontinues to recognize its self as a result of physical damage; that particular being thus lacks personhood. However, since as Christians we believe in the eternal continuance of the soul regardless of the nature of one’s existence here on earth (whether they be alive, sick, or dead), the metaphysical person of that being continues i.e. His self doesn’t cease; it is simply no longer manifest, experiencing or performing through that being that you see lying on the hospital bed. Where it is, and what it’s doing, only God knows.

Quote
Prof. Bittle is dribbling rubbish.

He makes sense to me, and im sure he makes sense to St Cyril as well. You’re not doing a very good job of undermining his credibility or authority either.

Quote
Person cannot be defined by intellect

Well, they are.

Quote
and even if it could, we cannot use this to define the three Hypostasese of the Trinity because they share One Essense (and therefore, one intellect/rationale as this stupid Prof. Brittle puts it).

This one intellect/rationale is manifest through three differing centers of consciousness. God’s intellect/rationale is One according to the fact that the intellect/rationale possessed and employed by the three persons of the Godhead, are of the same infinite quality and capacity, as a result of the fact that all three persons are consubstantial with each other. God is One mind in three minds so to speak. Intellect is a corollary of personhood, as is self-awareness, will, and act. These are attributes possessed by each person of the Godhead. They are distinct in reality, not independent in existence.

Quote
So Christ now has three distinct wills: a divine will, a human will, and a personal will? Or does he only have one personal will which is a "co-mingling" of His Divine and Human Wills to produce a third? 

 
Christ’s personal will is of a different category to his divine and human will which we classify as “natural”. To argue 1 + 2 = 3 is to commit a categorical fallacy as is the argument that 1 + 1 = 1. We have natural will ‘a’ and personal will ‘b’. Christ possesses 2a + b.

Let me give you an analogy:

Bob possess one natural will according to his one nature, and a personal will according to his one person. When Bob is fasting from food for example, he may hunger and yearn for food according to his natural will. He may make a statement such as “I am so hungry, I want to eat”, and by doing so he vocally manifests his natural human will. However, despite the inclinations of his natural will, he may choose to abstain from food nonetheless — this sir, is Bob’s personal will, and hence he ultimately he states “I am so hungry, I want to eat (x), however I will continue to fast nonetheless (y)”. In such a statement he has revealed his natural human will (x) as well as his personal will to continue abstaining from food regardless of his human inclinations (y).

Likewise, Christ according to His human nature possessed a natural human will, and according to His divine nature possessed a natural divine will, yet according to His one person/hypostasis, possessed one personal will which is simply and plainly: to do the will of the Father, which is in conformity with the natural divine will common to them both. Christ thus voluntarily aligns and submits His personal will which is challenged by His humanity (in the same manner that Bob’s personal will not to eat is challenged by his natural will for food to satisfy his hunger) to follow the divine will of the Father. Christ in contrast to man, manages to voluntarily submit his personal will to the divine; perfectly and consistently, in contrast to Bob for example, who although ultimately willing to abstain from food on one occasion, may fall and submit his personal will to his human will and choose to eat and satisfy his hunger during the next fast.

Quote
Oh these circles!
Once again, let me repeat: the fifth Ecumenical Counci Declared that "One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh". And what does S. Cyril say?

Now this is just a red herring. When did I say I have a problem with the fifth council? The fifth council is fine by me, no problems with it; it filled in all the gaps of Chalcedon and corrected all its errors. We are speaking about the tome, not the fifth council — what I have said remains intact.

Quote
So we agree then- St. Cyril and St. Leo used the word "Word" differently in one instance- therefore St. Leo is not a heretic and does not fall under St. Cyril's anathema

I never claimed that Leo of Rome was a heretic, it has been shown elsewhere that he affirmed that the divine was the subject of the Incarnation. I am claiming that his tome is confused, inconsistent and contradictory. That Leo uses the term “Word” differently to St Cyril is irrelevant to my point. That Leo understands the natures as centers of action, is a contradiction to other aspects of his tome which seem to suggest that the divine is the subject of His incarnate experiences, and in contradiction to St Cyril who without a doubt understands the divine personal subject as the centre of action; functioning according to His natures.

Peace.
Logged

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

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #88 on: June 12, 2005, 01:50:11 PM »

I wasted a whole day on forums today...

ozgeorge, if i dont respond to you by July, don't take it personally. I need to put this computer away for good to control myself.

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,224


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


WWW
« Reply #89 on: June 12, 2005, 06:40:28 PM »

She Enrompi to my Coptic friends.
To everyone else, Happy Sunday (similar meaning really).

I see an uncontrollable system of Venn Diagrams in these arguments.ÂÂ  Yet, in Venn Diagrams we seem to overlap and agree, even if we don't see it.

Someone mentioned "voluntary" and "involuntary."ÂÂ  In plain english, yes, the body can perform things, but once my spirit (or soul) leaves my body, it can no longer perform these things, unless you quickly hook it up to a machine.ÂÂ  But even then, you give the machine the role of a "person" that allows the body to perform its functions.

It's that simple.ÂÂ  Forget about rocks, plants, or animals for one second.ÂÂ  If a human is in a coma, who is there to take care of the body?ÂÂ  DOCTORS AND NURSES, who use IV machines and so forth to sustain the body of this guy until his person snaps out of the coma.

We are then getting into the debate of subsistence.ÂÂ  A spirit of any man is self-subsistent, while his body and soul is non-self-subsistent.ÂÂ  The only exception is Christ, whose subsistence relies on the divinity, since the Word has always been of divine nature.ÂÂ  The human part of Christ, spirit, soul, and body, are all non-self-subsistence, which is why we can never seperate His humanity from His divinity, or this would be true death to salvation.

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  Not only is it metaphysically correct, but it's theologically poetic, or it gives it somewhat of a song.ÂÂ  Otherwise, we would be saying that St. Mary is nothing more than the mother of a human nature.ÂÂ  But it's much more POWERFUL and BEAUTIFUL to say that the Word was born of the Virgin THEOTOKOS St. Mary in the flesh.ÂÂ  For a human nature cannot perform anything without the prosopon of the Word giving it subsistence, whether it be voluntary or involuntary.ÂÂ  And neither does the phrase "the human nature performs" have subsistence unless you allow the Word to be introduced in it.

This is the beauty behind the theology of St. Cyril, that which was preserved by the OO's without going further into meaningless metaphysical analysis.

Finally, the debate of "voluntary" vs. "involuntary" should not have been stressed here.ÂÂ  Now, we have claims of whether Leo talked about the "involuntary" acts only or not.ÂÂ  Are you really going that far to defend Leo's Tome?ÂÂ  Then what happened to the voluntary acts of the humanity?ÂÂ  Who performed those voluntary acts?ÂÂ  Ya sure, the human nature's bowels moved, but did the human nature move Christ's skeletal muscles or did the Christ/Word move them?

"Thelete" as the Catholic Encyclopedia says may mean "desire."ÂÂ  Therefore, all those actions, such as temptation, pain, agony, growing in wisdom, not knowing the end of days, FREE WILL, are not those voluntary?ÂÂ  Did the human nature perform them on their own, or did the Word perform them according to humanity?ÂÂ  The whole issue behind St. Maximus the Confessor, the most important will in humanity that he wanted to study was the free will of the humanity in Christ.ÂÂ  That was ALL that mattered.ÂÂ  Sure all other voluntary and involuntary wills existed, but why did we get into the debate on voluntary vs. involuntary?ÂÂ  In that case, you make a new circle for no reason whatsoever, and for what, to defend Leo's Tome.

And what is this "Gnostism" "Docetism" attack?ÂÂ  Have we not proved that St. Cyril holds a certain terminology over another?ÂÂ  Have we not also shown that other factors, not just the wording of the Tome, but we went through in Chalcedon and outside of Chalcedon, affected our further rejection of it?

The original question was "Why do we reject the Tome?"ÂÂ  I personally do not say that the Tome is wrong, but what the Tome is lacking should be a key in understanding both our Orthodox traditions.ÂÂ  Fr. John Romanides admitted that the Tome can be interpreted in a semi-Nestorian fashion, but he defends that it should be understood in the light of the Council of Ephesus and St. Cyril.ÂÂ  This to me is a very sincere way of reconciliation.ÂÂ  First, he admitted the ambiguities of the Tome (which only one or two non-OO's here have), and second, he promises that the Tome is not binding on its own, but must receive its approval in interpretation through St. Cyril.ÂÂ  In that case, I will assume "one and the same" both died and was incapable of death is the same as saying the Word died according to the flesh and the Word is incapable of death according to the Divinity.

God bless.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2005, 06:41:49 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.
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 0.22 seconds with 72 queries.