Not exactly, that Chalcedon is an Oecumenical Synod is an conclusion based on the Assumption that the Emperor is the Guardian and Protector of the Church and her Synods.
And that is exactly why your argument is logically inept as you continue to pursue a circular argument; you’re drawing a conclusion based on an unwarranted assumption that is presupposed to be self-evident in its truth, as opposed to its truth being derived or proven. The Church existed for approximately three centuries without imperial support; its existence or validity was, and is, thus neither dependent nor contingent upon imperial support. I have already officially disproved your argument using the valid method of reductio ad absurdum; allow me to reiterate it for you: If we assume for arguments sake the Orthodox Church’s position i.e. that Chalcedon was not an Ecumenical Council but rather a council of schism, then it necessarily follows that the imperial authorities thenceforth, ceased to be the “guardians and protectors of the Church and her synods” for they had apostatized and become schismatic heteredox. Therefore, to appeal to the authority of the schismatic heteredox and their conception of their own schismatic heterdox council as Ecumenical in order to prove their Ecumenicity is to beg the question; it is clearly and obviously absurd, and hence your argument crumbles down to the ground.
The claims of your imperial authorities, thenceforth become no more valid to, or binding upon the Church, as the claims of the pre-Constantinian pagan emperors such as Diocletian. The Chalcedonian imperial authorities conception of Chalcedon as an Ecumenical Council becomes no more valid than the pre-Constantinian emperors conception of their pagan idols as gods, and their imperial decrees that everyone submit to the council of schism that is Chalcedon becomes no longer binding upon the Church any more than the pre-Constantinian imperial decrees that everyone offer incense to rock gods.
My argument may lack objectivity from your point of view
Objectivity doesn’t arise out of ones point of view, it arises from the material presuppositions adopted and the reasoning employed, and whether or not they should be reasonably considered acceptable to both parties, such that the conclusion that is hence drawn should be reasonably acceptable to both parties.
If I asked a Muslim to prove for me that the Quran is the word of God, and he pointed to the fact that Muhammed proclaimed it as such, this would not be an objective argument, for its inherent presuppositions (that Muhammed is a valid prophet), which consequently negate the logical coherence of the argument (for whether or not the Quran is the word of God has a direct bearing on whether or not Muhammed is a prophet in the first place, and hence the whole argument is begging the question), are not acceptable to me, nor should they reasonably be regarded as such. The same applies to you, and I have already spelt out how for you in my last post.
Oecumenical Synods define true Doctrine, and hence must be above it,
True doctrine precedes an Oecumenical Synod and is not contingent upon it. The truth of Christ’s divinity and equality with the Father existed before Nicaea; it was a part of the already revealed Tradition located in the Holy Scriptures and the universal patristic witness. Nicaea did no more than confirm that truth in concordance with the already revealed pre-Nicaean Tradition, by establishing and concreting it clearly and explicitly in creedal form, for the benefit of the unity of the Church against those who had opposed this pre-Nicaean truth.
if doctrine is an essential element of making a Synod Oecumenical, then we would be free to pick and choose not only what Councils we regard as Oecumenical
Huh? NoÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦because if that doctrine departs from the already revealed and established Tradition of the Church (such that it is an heretical council), or at least reasonably appears to have done so (such that it is a schismatic council), then we have a duty and responsibility to reject it as Ecumenical. If the converse, we have the duty and responsibility to submit to it.
, I could probably even give a pretty good defence of Arianism based on Scripture and early Church fathers, just as Arius did, to defend this posistion.
Just because Arius appealed to the Scriptures to defend a position already distorted by philosophical presuppositions, does not mean the Scriptures support his fallacious position.
If you have regressed to such a level of chalcedonian desperation, such that in order to support Chalcedon, you will argue Arianism to prove a point, then all I can say is that I feel really sorry for you.
Insofar as the Nestorians agreed with Chalcedon they were Orthodox
Insofar as Chalcedon agreed, or reasonably appeared to agree, with Nestorianism, it was either heteredox or schismatic, respectively.
but if they had adopted the formula of One Person in Two Natures and confessed that Mary was truly the 'Theotokos' and not simply 'Christokos,' they're not really Nestorians as condemned by Ephesus, now are they?
Actually they are, because the very expression of “in two natures” as I have already proven to you, was, before Chalcedon (and possibly even at Chalcedon) employed to prove that Christ’s two natures were two grounds of being; Nestorius could affirm a prosopic union or an "external mask", but he could not accept the substantial or natural union between Christ's divinity and humanity.
I could have sworn that there was one sect out there that believes that Christ has only One (mono) Nature (physis)...but of course, my memory could be failing me.
Your kindergarten semantics are not very impressive. Since, as I’m sure you are aware, there exists more than one Greek word capable of being translated to “one”, then he who is academically honest will employ the one which bears the appropriate connotation for the persons being labeled according to their doctrinal beliefs. The prefix “mono” denotes singularity, and hence its qualification of the term physis implies that Christ possessed either a singular human or a singular divine nature. The prefix “mia” denotes composite unity and hence does not contradict the fundamental principle that Christ’s divinity and humanity were united without mingling, without confusion and without alteration, each retaining its consubstantiality with the Father and mankind respectively.
Actually it was fighting a real heresy that denied Christ had two Natures.
Actually it wasn’t, and I challenge you to find and prove that there was even one soul prior to, or at Chalcedon who denied that Christ possessed a real and perfect humanity and divinity simultaneously. Ephesus II investigated the matter and lawfully acquitted Eutyches of heresy for he had presented an Orthodox Confession of faith. Chalcedon did not even investigate the matter, it proceeded upon the unwarranted and unproven assumption that Eutyches was a heretic and that Ephesus II got it wrong.
Ah yes, what better way to vindicate Nestorius than to pronounce additional anathemas on him...I'm having a hard time seeing how anathematizing someone is vindicating him, but it must just be my lack of logical abilities.
Although his person was anathematized at Chalcedon, his Christology was vindicated either by virtue of its actual or apparent adoption; the only reflection this has on anything, is the deformity of your own council. Nestorian could not say of Ephesus 431, or any document vindicated at Ephesus 431: “I thanked God because the Church of Alexandria held to an orthodox confession of faith”, as when he said of a representative of the Chalcedonian Church: “I thanked God because the Church of Rome held to an orthodox confession of faith.” Nor could he say of St Cyril, what he said of your leo. I am too tired to open any of my books right now, nor have you even given me much reason to take you seriously to go out of my way to open my books in the first place, but I am quite certain the quote from Nestorius was something along the lines of: “This is my doctrine!....Leo has my doctrine!” lol I will be more than happy to get the exact quote for you if you wish.
Well, in that case, perhaps the question we should be considering is whether or not we made a mistake in Anathematizing Nestorius at Ephesus...could have all just been a big misunderstanding. (It's just as likely as Chalcedon being just a misunderstanding).
No, you see, that’s the question YOU should be considering, it is YOUR problem, not “ours”. We (the true Orthodox Church of Alexandria and all in communion with her) already believe that Chalcedon undermined Ephesus 431, and spit on its decisions and results, henceÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦.*drum roll*ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦.we do not acknowledge Chalcedon as an Ecumenical Council. You on the other hand, accept Ephesus 431 which refuted Nestorianism and made Nestorius cry + Chalcedon 451 which regressed (either actually, or apparently with respect to how it was more than reasonably interpreted) into Nestorianism — exonerating figures, documents, and expressions which made Nestorius smile. So, yes, you really should be reconsidering in the light of Chalcedon, whether St Cyril had erred with regards to his decisions and Christology vindicated at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus 431, because you cannot have your cake and eat it.
Conspiracy Theories, I like these...but please tell me you have a better apologetic against our God-Appointed Emperors.
First of all, your Chalcedonian emperors are about as God-appointed as Diocletian et al. Second of all, we have both so far merely made assertions regarding the intentions of the Imperial authorities at Chalcedon, the only difference between us, is that I have evidence to suggest their bias against Alexandria, whereas you have no specific evidence indicating they honestly sought the unity of the Church, this is just a baseless assumption.
Because the Church is defined by Communion and Not Doctrine.
What does this have to do with anything I said?:We’re still waiting for you to justify the absurd and unwarranted presupposition that what the “majority of the patriarchates” decide or say, becomes the standard of the Church, such that where the “majority of the patriarchates” go, the Church is also. The very question that is the subject of our discussion is 1) “Was Chalcedon an Ecumenical Council?” which can essentially be re-worded 2) “Did those who supported Chalcedon get it right, and understand it correctly throughout history?” which in turn essentially asks 3) “Did the majority of the patriarchates in their support of Chalcedon break communion with the Church?”. When we look at the inter-relationship and inter-dependency of these three questions which are inextricably connected, it becomes clear to the prudent minded observer, that you have once again presupposed what you have yet to prove.
The question obviously becomes, “communion with who”? If 4 patriarchates divide from 1, then with whom is communion necessary or essential to be part of “The Church?” You conclude one party over another merely by pointing to the fact it has the support of the “majority of the patriarchates”. One breaks communion with a Church either through schism or heresy, and I submit that Chalcedon was possibly either heretical or schismatic, such that those who advocated, supported, and submitted to it in opposition to the Orthodox Church, whether they be a minority or majority of the patriarchates, had apostatized from the Church.
Thus if 4/5 Patriarchates persevere in a Belief, then it is, by definition, Truth.
LOL No, you see, let me remind you that this is what you should be attempting to prove, this is not a mutually assumed truth. If your whole argument relies upon your own imported and presupposed axioms, such as the above which are not capable of proof or reasonably validation, then you have no argument, so do yourself a favour and admit it, and stop wasting both our time.
It is written that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth...not that Truth is the Pillar and Foundation of the Church.
Indeed the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, and hence it is indeed defined by that Truth; for if a group departs from that Truth, then it no longer upholds it, for it is now the pillar and foundation of falsehood.
Dioscorus was not deposed for heresy, because he would not present himself to the Synod to Defend his Posistion, it was not clear what he believed;
St Dioscorus made it explicitly clear what he believed. He explicitly acknowledged the perfect and distinct reality of Christ’s humanity; he explicitly acknowledged the consubstantiality of His humanity with mankind; he explicitly acknowledged that certain acts were performed by virtue of His humanity, and others by virtue of His divinity, and he explicitly acknowledged the unconfused union between Christ’s divinity and humanity. Is it that St Dioscorus was not clear, or that your fathers were working for the enemy against Christ’s true servant?
but he was condemned, according to the Canons, for failure to appear.
The Canons do not serve their intended purpose if they are applied legalistically without any regard for contextual circumstances. Christ was not a legalist; the Church He entrusted to preserve His truth did not operate upon legalism. Christ may have instituted commandments, and the Church may have adopted rules and regulations to govern it, however just as those who approached His commandments legalistically produced absurd and unjust results unwarranted according to the very giver of those Laws, so too is the case with your assembly of schism. Mina is sufficiently in the process of dealing with that, so I will let him continue with you.
Later, at Constantinople II, when his posistion was quite clear, he was anathematized as a Heretic.
Your fathers at Constantinople were either ignorant or deceptive; they were neither acquainted with the Saint nor is it evident that they based their polemical statements on any hardcore evidence. St Dioscorus’ position was made quite clear and obvious almost 80 years before your council. To repeat myself: He explicitly acknowledged the perfect and distinct reality of Christ’s humanity; he explicitly acknowledged the consubstantiality of His humanity with mankind; he explicitly acknowledged that certain acts were performed by virtue of His humanity, and others by virtue of His divinity, and he explicitly acknowledged the unconfused union between Christ’s divinity and humanity. Is it that St Dioscorus was not clear, or that your fathers were working for the enemy against Christ’s true servant?
No, actually it's not possible for the event to transpire;
Well that is not a proposition capable of proof; it is simply a cop out.
; the belief that the Gates of Hell will not Prevail against the Church leads us to the Conclusion that the Holy Spirit will Guide the Church and will not allow Heretics to persevere in the Church.
What does this definition prove? Assuming my scenario for arguments sake, the four Arian patriarchates + the Arian imperial authorities would not be considered part of “The Church”, by virtue of their breaking communion with the Church upon adopting heresy, and hence they did not “persevere in the Church”, though they persevered in existence and number with the support of state authority. If we presuppose that it is communion with the majority of the patriarchates which defines membership to the Church, then we may conclude the impossibility of such an event transpiring, but so far you have merely imported this as your own presupposed axiom — you have yet to prove to anyone that it is a proposition based upon any sound or reasonable evidence — I mean is there a verse in the Bible about this matter? Did any of the pre-Chalcedonian fathers mention anything about this issue? What is it that you are basing this “majority of the patriarchates” argument on?
A Roman Catholic can easily use a majority type argument, by pointing to the fact Roman Catholicism has persevered as a majority group in the Christian world. Such an argument would be no more or less stupid than the one you are attempting to make.
But as I said before, it was not reasonably misinterpreted...
You can say what you want, for however long you want, but your mere asserted opinions do not qualify as reasonable arguments.
Allow me to generally reiterate the very factors which prove beyond reasonable doubt that it was more than reasonable for the Orthodox Church to interpret Nestorianism at Chalcedon, as it was for Nestorians to interpret their own doctrines at Chalcedon also: a) it exonerated the Nestorian arch-enemies of the Orthodox St Cyril b) it exonerated documents which were either later condemned for their Nestorianism, or were easily compatible and suggestive of Nestorianism c) it did not affirm those principles which explicitly refute Nestorianism e.g. the nature of the hypostatic union d) it employed expressions which had been used to promote Nestorianism against Orthodoxy.
and the Heretics that tried to Insist that Christ had only One Nature, whatever you want to call them.
I know of the Orthodox who insisted quite appropriately and in concordance with the blessed St Cyril and other Orthodox Fathers, on the One Nature of God the Logos Incarnate, but I know of no heretics who insisted that Christ only had one nature in its essentialistic context — not even Eutyches, and I challenge you to prove me wrong.
Actually, they are summoned by the Imperial Authority when the Emperor believes there is an issue that warrents one.
Fighting a non-heresy to undermine the only remaining Orthodox See, does not warrant the summoning of a council of schism.
The Council of Chalcedon was primarily facing Monophysitism
Actually there is no suggestion that this was its primary concern. Assuming that its purpose was legitimate for arguments sake, its purpose was to investigate the matter of Constantinople 448 vs Ephesus II which surrounded the whole Nestorianism vs. Orthodoxy debate, and to find a resolution to the continuing conflict between the Alexandrian and Antiochian school of thought. Hence, regardless of the fact that monophysites did not exist, it would have been concerned with monophysitism as a theoretical heresy representing one extreme end of the spectrum (which I submit could not have practically arisen from sound Alexandrian Christology nonetheless), as equally as it would have been concerned with Nestorianism as representing the other extreme at the other end of the spectrum (which easily arose from weak and susceptible Antiochene Christology). Furthermore, the only real, imminent, and expanding threat to the Church wasÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦Nestorianism - this is simply history — and hence it had a duty not to regress into Nestorianism or crypto-Nestorianism, nor to allow itself to be susceptible to Nestorianism.
That the Nestorians could interpret 'dio physis' for their own purposes, is not a reflection of its improper usage.
The problem is not so much with ‘dio physis’ as it is with ‘en dio physis’. Nestorians used ‘en dio physis’ to promote the heresy that Christ’s two essences were two grounds of being before Chalcedon ever saw daylight. This is how the expression was understood at that time; thus Chalcedon’s employment of it, indeed reflected improper usage, especially in considering the absence of a clearly defined focal point for Orthodox Christology. It was so improper in fact, that your church even implicitly and subtly, though surely, anathematized this very expression at a later council.
and its usage in both contexts is Orthodox in any event.
The usage of “in two natures” was, in the context of Nestorianism, heretical. I have explained this to you briefly above and more indepth in previous threads. Whether or not it was employed in an heretical context at Chalcedon is not something you can conclusively determine. Whether or not it could reasonably be interpreted in an heretical context, is an easily determined: yes, it could.
As I stated to you in a previous thread, to which you could not reply:
The fact of the matter is, that semantically speaking its very implications are Nestorian EVEN WHEN the term physis is understood essentialistically as opposed to in a hypostatic sense; such that there is no parallel between the misunderstanding of “One physis” and “in two physis” — since heresy can only be read into the former if the term physis is defined in a manner disconnected from the context that it is employed, whereas the corollary implications of the latter are heretical regardless of how the context demands us to define the term “physis”. I will quickly explain why:
The first thing to note is that the definition in Chalcedon starts with the clause that one must confess Christ “to be inÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦” or synonymously confess that Christ “exists inÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦” — at this stage any reasonable person will understand that whatever follows is essentially a qualification of Christ’s state of existence. That it is qualified with “two natures” gives the very clear implication that Christ’s two natures are two grounds of His existence i.e. Christ exists IN the human nature (One ground of existence) AND Christ exists IN the divine nature (Another - Second - ground of existence) — this is why Nestorius employed it, since he regarded Christ’s two essences/natures as two centers/grounds of existence for Christ. Christ does not “exist IN” His natures — this is the worst and most unreasonable manner to manner to attempt to convey the essential Orthodox concept that Christ “possesses” two complete and perfect natures/ousias. The Incarnate Word is only ONE existence — this ONE existence came about “from” the unconfused union of His two natures/ousias; for as the ground of His existence was one prior to the Incarnation, so it remained One after the Incarnation due to the fact His humanity became inextricably intrinsic to His One ground of existence as opposed to independent of it.
Professor Frances Young states in his book From Nicea to Chalcedon
“The ‘prosopic union’ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦becomes Nestorius’ attempt to provide a metaphysical account of Christ’s unity of person which did not involve the difficiulties of a ‘natural’ or ‘substantial’ union, and Nestorius meant to convey a ‘real union’. The One Christ has ‘two grounds of being’, he exists ‘in two natures’, as Chalcedon was later to confirm.” (page 237)
was Anathematize the Heretical belief that Christ has only one Nature.
Let us not be equivocal here. That Christ has one nature in its essentialistic sense is a Heretical belief, but unless you want to anathematize St Cyril, St Athanasius, and St Gregory the wonder-worker, then condemning a belief in “One Nature” per se, is no less valid than condemning “Two Natures” per se. If you are incapable of dealing with the subtle distinctions of theological semantics, and want to discuss “One vs. Two natures” like a child, then I don’t have time for you; you’ve already wasted enough of my time.
. In Two Natures is perfectly Orthodox, and was understood at the time in the Same way it always has been understood by the Orthodox
I have already quoted a reputable scholar with regards to the origins of “in two natures” and the context of its usage; It was used by heretics to convey a heretical principle, unlike homoousios which was used by heretics to convey an Orthodox principle. It was never “always understood” as Orthodox, and Chalcedon’s employment of it was in such an ambiguous and questionable context such that Chalcedon was indeed either a) heretical b) crypto-heretical or c) theological impotent and distorted by unholy agendas such that it was more than reasonably interpreted as heretical.
what is heretical and cannot be reasonably interpreted as Orthodox is the Profession of 'One Nature’.
St Cyril the Doctor of Christology, mocks and refutes theological simpletons who make such claims, and who being heterodox schismatics outside the bounds of The One Holy and Apostolic Orthodox Church, fail to understand what the mia physis formula denotes:
ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢ In his second letter to Bishop Succensus, Saint Cyril wrote:
“For not only in the case of those who are simple by nature is the term ‘one’ truly used, but also in respect to what has been brought together according to a synthesis, as man is one being, who is of soul and body. For soul and body are of different species and are not consubstantial to each other, but united they produce one physis of man, even though in the considerations of the synthesis the difference exist according to the nature of those which have been brought together into a unity. Accordingly they are speaking in vain who say that, if there should be one incarnate physis ‘of the Word’ in every way and in every manner it would follow that a mixture and a confusion occurred as if lessening and taking away the nature of man.’
If it is overturned by an Oecumenical Synod, then obviously it is not the Work of the Holy Spirit, but it is false doctrine and hence the work of demons.
What’s new? Chalcedonian logic can’t steep any lower than this. The testimony of the Bible, the Fathers, and the previous Ecumenical Synods now become the work of demons simply because they refute your ungodly assembly of schism.