Author Topic: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole  (Read 12615 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,997
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« on: April 12, 2016, 11:53:17 PM »
Note: This topic was split from this thread.

Mor Ephrem, section moderator


The gridlock overall seems to be between some OOs rejecting "in two natures", the Chalcedon formula, and EOs generally having a very hard time giving up the ecumenicity of a Church Council whose main formula, as the joint commission has said, is acceptable as a matter of speech.

Yup, it's all our fault.
Cyril and John Antiochene had made a good reconciliation. Pat. Flavian asserted both miaphysia per Cyril as Fr. Romanides said, and two natures after the union as the Antiochenes had before the reconciliation. As I understand it, Pat. Flavian's deposal by Pope Dioscorus at Ephesus II was the first break after that reconciliation by the parties under Cyril.

Was this first break, the deposal of Pat. Flavian for asserting two natures after the union, justified?

Since Ephesus II professed itself to be an ecumenical council, if the eos wanted to overturn it, wouldn't the EOs' natural response be to call another Council that would declare "two natures" to be a correct statement?
« Last Edit: April 19, 2016, 03:15:24 PM by Mor Ephrem »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,997
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #1 on: April 13, 2016, 04:58:55 AM »
I like to have a reason post her cool avatar though in text.
















« Last Edit: April 13, 2016, 05:16:02 AM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,997
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #2 on: April 14, 2016, 04:50:14 AM »
Simple relevant question.

If a major Trinitarian group rejects the Nicene Creed only  because  they think that the words NOT MADE  in it deny the incarnation even though in fact that was not the authors' intent, does that make the group heretics?
« Last Edit: April 14, 2016, 04:50:55 AM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #3 on: April 14, 2016, 06:04:56 AM »
Simple relevant question.

If a major Trinitarian group rejects the Nicene Creed only  because  they think that the words NOT MADE  in it deny the incarnation even though in fact that was not the authors' intent, does that make the group heretics?

Yes, thrynwould be heretics, or alternately, guilty lf gross ignorance or midunerstanding, but let me now explain why this Nicene analogy is not an Apples to Apples Comparison for the Chalcedonian schism; nor is it Apples to Dells or Apples to Sun Microsystems, if I might geek out a cliche; its more like Apples to catboxes.  1980s vintage catboxes were made of the same beige plastic as the original Apple Macintosh, and even had a similiar appearance, but were obviouly incapable of computation.

Let me explain why this is a flawed analogy:

1. Begotten, not made, is required to express the incarnation; God could not have become Incarnate were the Logos a creature; it is also required in order to ensure consistency with John 1:3.
2. The incarnation is furthermore explicitly affirmed in the next verse, "for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man"
3. Thus, it would be impossible for anyone to rationally claim the Nicene Creed denied the reality of the incarnation.

On the other hand, the Tome of Leo uses different terminology from what was used by St. Cyril in his polemics against the Nestorius; the alarm that led to the initial schism was the fear that the Tome of Leo represented a partial capitulation to Nestorianism.   As it happens, I think it has since become clear that St. Leo was trying to sail the narrow waters between Nestorianism amd Eutychianism, but as Fr. Peter points out, St. Cyril's own miaphysis formula also does this, and the OO also added additional defenses against the Eutychian position by anathematizing Eutyches in his person and adding, in the Coptic Rite, to their actual pre-communion prayers, a confession of Orthodoxy that repudiates monophysitism and Chalcedonianism, and indeed this confession and the ohrase "until my last breath" are what primarily makes the Coptic confiteor ante communionem different from its Byzantine counterpart.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,997
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #4 on: April 14, 2016, 10:56:45 AM »
Yes, thrynwould be heretics, or alternately, guilty lf gross ignorance or midunerstanding,
OK, WGW, so which would it be in the hypothetical?
If you pick the latter, then you can say that it was such from the EO POV, ie that EOs need not consider them heretics.
This is the potential criticism of the article I see.


Let me explain why this is a flawed analogy:
1. Begotten, not made, is required to express the incarnation; God could not have become Incarnate were the Logos a creature; it is also required in order to ensure consistency with John 1:3.
"eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father."
He was not "made before all ages". He was "made" at the incarnation.
The Nicene Creed does not specify and just says "not made". We have to go with authors' intent to clarify.
In the hypothetical, the Trinitarian anti-Nicene group fails too understand this and infers wrong intent.


2. The incarnation is furthermore explicitly affirmed in the next verse, "for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man"
Correct.
In the EO view, the unity of Christ is affirmed with our formula "one hypostasis" and "indivisibly, unseparably".

3. Thus, it would be impossible for anyone to rationally claim the Nicene Creed denied the reality of the incarnation.
I agree. Some religious groups are not rational in their arguments.


On the other hand, the Tome of Leo uses different terminology from what was used by St. Cyril in his polemics against the Nestorius; the alarm that led to the initial schism was the fear that the Tome of Leo represented a partial capitulation to Nestorianism.   As it happens, I think it has since become clear that St. Leo was trying to sail the narrow waters between Nestorianism amd Eutychianism, but as Fr. Peter points out,
Sure.
Also, the main issue is not the Tome but the Chalcedon formula "in two natures", which Dioscorus rejected.
Affirming the Tome was one of many decisions in the Council, but not all EO churches accept every decision or canon by every Ecumenical Council.

I don't think EOs need to accept every statement made by the Tome or in Cyril's writings or for that matter Athanasius'. These writings are broadly accepted but  are not the Bible.

St. Cyril's own miaphysis formula also does this, and the OO also added additional defenses against the Eutychian position by anathematizing Eutyches in his person and adding, in the Coptic Rite, to their actual pre-communion prayers, a confession of Orthodoxy that repudiates monophysitism and Chalcedonianism, and indeed this confession and the ohrase "until my last breath" are what primarily makes the Coptic confiteor ante communionem different from its Byzantine counterpart.
Sure.
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Father Peter

  • Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,215
    • Coptic Orthodox Church - Patriarchal Diocese
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchal Diocese
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #5 on: April 14, 2016, 11:00:03 AM »
We don't like "in two natures" because of what I am sure you are aware it meant to some at the time, if not most. But you must also surely know that the dual consubstantiality was never ever in doubt and never ever denied.
My ministry and blog - http://www.stgeorgeministry.com

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,997
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #6 on: April 14, 2016, 11:29:02 AM »
We don't like "in two natures" because of what I am sure you are aware it meant to some at the time, if not most. But you must also surely know that the dual consubstantiality was never ever in doubt and never ever denied.
Hello, Fr. Peter!
Is it ever clearly defined what it meant at that time?
In the Bible, shared by EOs and OOs, it means categories or kinds as in the Epistle of James - God made man the master of every nature of beast.

For the definition that Cyril used, isn't it still acceptable to use the expression in "two natures and one hypostasis", as the Joint Commission said:
Quote
The Oriental Orthodox agree that the Orthodox are justified in their use of the two-natures formula, since they acknowledge that the distinction is “in thought alone” (th qewria monh). Cyril interpreted correctly this use in his letter to John of Antioch and his letters to Acacius of Melitene (PG 77, 184-201), to Eulogius (PG 77, 224-228) and to Succensus (PG 77, 228-245).
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Father Peter

  • Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,215
    • Coptic Orthodox Church - Patriarchal Diocese
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchal Diocese
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #7 on: April 14, 2016, 11:37:28 AM »
Physis also meant a concrete individual. This is how the Nestorians understood it. This is how Theodoret explained the Chalcedonian Definition should be understood by his disciples. This is how the Cyrillians understood it.

"In two natures" meant to many people at the time, "in two concrete individuals".
My ministry and blog - http://www.stgeorgeministry.com

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,471
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #8 on: April 14, 2016, 11:51:00 AM »
It seems to me that the phrase "in two natures", in Leo's case, was not taken from the Nestorians or any Antiochene source (could Leo read Greek?). The most likely source for it was John Cassian's book "On the Incarnation of Christ," which John had written at Leo's request when Leo was still archdeacon in Rome. I think this is the first instance of the phrase appearing in Latin and it was in an anti-Nestorian context. It was this book along with Cyril's testimony that Leo then forwarded to Pope Celestine which secured Rome's condemnation of Nestorius.

That the phrase overlapped with the terminology of the Nestorians seems to be have been an unfortunate coincidence.
Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,997
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #9 on: April 14, 2016, 11:58:14 AM »
Physis also meant a concrete individual. This is how the Nestorians understood it. This is how Theodoret explained the Chalcedonian Definition should be understood by his disciples.
Would you be able to provide an explicit quote for this?

This is how the Cyrillians understood it.

Cyril writes:
Quote
He took it on himself to become man and was made like us in the flesh, from out of a woman, and yet he remained a single Son, though indeed no longer without the flesh as he was of old before the time of his incarnation, but now clothed as it were in our nature.
https://orthodoxjointcommission.wordpress.com/2013/12/15/second-letter-of-cyril-to-succensus/

Was Christ clothed "in our concrete individual", Fr. Peter?

I think category - the meaning in James' Epistle, or collection of properties - the meaning in common speech, is easier for me to use.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2016, 12:04:26 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline wgw

  • All scorpions must DIE!!!
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 5,816
  • This icon is of St. Athansius.
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #10 on: April 14, 2016, 12:02:46 PM »
Yes, thrynwould be heretics, or alternately, guilty lf gross ignorance or midunerstanding,
OK, WGW, so which would it be in the hypothetical?
If you pick the latter, then you can say that it was such from the EO POV, ie that EOs need not consider them heretics.
This is the potential criticism of the article I see.


Let me explain why this is a flawed analogy:
1. Begotten, not made, is required to express the incarnation; God could not have become Incarnate were the Logos a creature; it is also required in order to ensure consistency with John 1:3.
"eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, one in Being with the Father."
He was not "made before all ages". He was "made" at the incarnation.
The Nicene Creed does not specify and just says "not made". We have to go with authors' intent to clarify.
In the hypothetical, the Trinitarian anti-Nicene group fails too understand this and infers wrong intent.


2. The incarnation is furthermore explicitly affirmed in the next verse, "for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man"
Correct.
In the EO view, the unity of Christ is affirmed with our formula "one hypostasis" and "indivisibly, unseparably".

3. Thus, it would be impossible for anyone to rationally claim the Nicene Creed denied the reality of the incarnation.
I agree. Some religious groups are not rational in their arguments.


On the other hand, the Tome of Leo uses different terminology from what was used by St. Cyril in his polemics against the Nestorius; the alarm that led to the initial schism was the fear that the Tome of Leo represented a partial capitulation to Nestorianism.   As it happens, I think it has since become clear that St. Leo was trying to sail the narrow waters between Nestorianism amd Eutychianism, but as Fr. Peter points out,
Sure.
Also, the main issue is not the Tome but the Chalcedon formula "in two natures", which Dioscorus rejected.
Affirming the Tome was one of many decisions in the Council, but not all EO churches accept every decision or canon by every Ecumenical Council.

I don't think EOs need to accept every statement made by the Tome or in Cyril's writings or for that matter Athanasius'. These writings are broadly accepted but  are not the Bible.

St. Cyril's own miaphysis formula also does this, and the OO also added additional defenses against the Eutychian position by anathematizing Eutyches in his person and adding, in the Coptic Rite, to their actual pre-communion prayers, a confession of Orthodoxy that repudiates monophysitism and Chalcedonianism, and indeed this confession and the ohrase "until my last breath" are what primarily makes the Coptic confiteor ante communionem different from its Byzantine counterpart.
Sure.

I am not willimg to debate with you about a hypothetical group of heretics that does not exist; all Trinitarian Christians in the fourth century understood and accepted the Nicene Creed, and to this day there has been no controversy of the sort you are talkimg about.  What you are doing, I fear, is seeking to imply that the Oriental Orthodox are like a hypothetical group of Christians who would deny the Creed based on a misunderstanding of it, and that is unacceptable, because no one ever made that kind of mistake, and the only people who have ever objected to the Nicene Creed are either Arian heretics, Pneumatomachian/Macedonian heretics, and some modern day Chiliast Protestants who (ironically unaware that the creed condemns their premillenarianism in most cases) think the Catholic Church means Rome.   Also our "friend" Mr. Gaviria, who if you recall was trying to establish his own cult on another site, and you did some superb apologetical work with us against him, rejected the Creed for, it turned out, four reasons: he was a polytheist, believing YHWH, our Lord, Moses and we ourselves, to be lesser Gods; he believed Jesus Christ was a creature; He denied the Holy Spirit was an individual perspn (and thus "the Lord, the giver of life"), and He insisted that Catholic Church meant Rome.

In the case of Chalcedon on the other hand, you had the publication of the Tome of Leo which appears to in some respects backtrack from what St. Cyril wrote.  I don't think St. Leo intended this, but I can't fault St. Dioscorus or St. Severus for rejecting it (note that I refer to everyone involved as a saint; Chalcedon makes me weep because it was in my view an epic miscommunication between pious and holy men, who in their zeal for the truth, talked past each other driven by a sense of urgency in the need to deal with both Eutychianism and Nestorianism; for that matter, I also believe St. Cyril rushed the Council of Ephesus and committed a procedural irregularity by not waiting for the Persian bishops to arrive; had he included them in the council, I have no doubt they would have come around to anathematize Nestorius, and thus the Nestorian Schism could have been avoided, but the saints aren't perfect; every council has its flaws, even Nicea, which was marred at times by a sense of overwhelming disgust with Arius and the removal of certain pro-Arian bishops, whose numbers were so small they would not have affected the outcome of the council; to St. Constantine's credit however he did reprimand severely St. Nicholas for striking Arius; had that not been allowed the legitimacy of Nicea would have been cast into doubt.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,997
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #11 on: April 14, 2016, 12:19:16 PM »
I am not willimg to debate with you about a hypothetical group of heretics that does not exist; all Trinitarian Christians in the fourth century understood and accepted the Nicene Creed, and to this day there has been no controversy of the sort you are talkimg about.
Earlier on OC.net someone said that I was Arian because I asserted that God made Christ.
When I used this expression, I was not denying Jesus' preincarnate-ness.
In that conversation, was one of us a heretic or did we just misunderstand another?

I am aware that I gave you a nonexistent hypothetical about rejecting Nicea. I consider it apt, even if it didn't happen. I can ask you what you would do if you had lost your keys yesterday, and you can say that you have a spare. It doesn't mean I am asking you a trick question.

Simply I was providing an avenue to criticize the article. Namely, if EOs are right and OOs just misunderstood words and mistakenly rejected a correct formula, that wouldn't make them heretics because they accepted the substance of faith, right?
Same thing if a creedless Restorationist today fails to accept the Nicene Creed and makes a mistaken grammatical criticism of it, it doesn't make him a nonTrinitarian right?

In the case of Chalcedon on the other hand, you had the publication of the Tome of Leo which appears to in some respects backtrack from what St. Cyril wrote.
What if in the hypothetical the non-Nicene Restorationists claimed that Athanasius or Constantine had backtracked from the Christian Tradition, because they misunderstood some phrases he made? Athanasius asserted that Christ was "made" at the Incarnation.

Nowadays we hear occasional grumbling from some Trinitarian Protestants about Nicea and Constantine. At one lecture I attended a Presbyterian theologian complained in her talk that Nicea was faulty, but she gave no substance that I remember disputing christology or the Nicene Creed.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2016, 12:24:00 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,471
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #12 on: April 14, 2016, 12:21:36 PM »
It seems to me that the phrase "in two natures", in Leo's case, was not taken from the Nestorians or any Antiochene source (could Leo read Greek?). The most likely source for it was John Cassian's book "On the Incarnation of Christ," which John had written at Leo's request when Leo was still archdeacon in Rome. I think this is the first instance of the phrase appearing in Latin and it was in an anti-Nestorian context. It was this book along with Cyril's testimony that Leo then forwarded to Pope Celestine which secured Rome's condemnation of Nestorius.

That the phrase overlapped with the terminology of the Nestorians seems to be have been an unfortunate coincidence.

On closer inspection of the Latin texts, it looks like the phrases weren't the same. John Cassian says "geminae substantiae" whereas Leo used "utraque natura" or phrases like that. I think the phrases are still interchangeable though.
Mencius said, “Instruction makes use of many techniques. When I do not deign to instruct someone, that too is a form of instruction.”

Come look at my lame blog

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,997
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
« Last Edit: April 14, 2016, 12:35:57 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline NicholasMyra

  • Antivoluntarist evangelist
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,811
    • Hyperdox Herman
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Partially-overlapping
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #14 on: April 14, 2016, 01:10:30 PM »
Was Christ clothed "in our concrete individual", Fr. Peter?

I think category - the meaning in James' Epistle, or collection of properties - the meaning in common speech, is easier for me to use.
Finally, Metaphysics is dead.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2016, 01:10:44 PM by NicholasMyra »
Quote from: Fr. Thomas Hopko, dystopian parable of the prodigal son
...you can imagine so-called healing services of the pigpen. The books that could be written, you know: Life in the Pigpen. How to Cope in the Pigpen. Being Happy in the Pigpen. Surviving in the Pigpen. And then there could be counselling, for people who feel unhappy in the pigpen, to try to get them to come to terms with the pigpen, and to accept the pigpen.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,997
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #15 on: April 14, 2016, 01:12:58 PM »
Was Christ clothed "in our concrete individual", Fr. Peter?

I think category - the meaning in James' Epistle, or collection of properties - the meaning in common speech, is easier for me to use.
Finally, Metaphysics is dead.
Quote
met·a·phys·ics
metaphysics

    the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
Google Definitions
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Online Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,825
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #16 on: April 14, 2016, 01:22:00 PM »
Simple relevant question.

Take it elsewhere, and leave this thread for discussion of the article in the OP. 

Mor Ephrem, section moderator
I think you can say ~ In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and post with charitable and prayerful intentions.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,198
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #17 on: April 14, 2016, 02:34:41 PM »
It seems to me that the phrase "in two natures", in Leo's case, was not taken from the Nestorians or any Antiochene source (could Leo read Greek?). The most likely source for it was John Cassian's book "On the Incarnation of Christ," which John had written at Leo's request when Leo was still archdeacon in Rome. I think this is the first instance of the phrase appearing in Latin and it was in an anti-Nestorian context. It was this book along with Cyril's testimony that Leo then forwarded to Pope Celestine which secured Rome's condemnation of Nestorius.

That the phrase overlapped with the terminology of the Nestorians seems to be have been an unfortunate coincidence.
and St. Cassian may have received the same terminology from St. Augustine I think
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.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,997
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #18 on: April 15, 2016, 06:58:08 PM »
All we are asking for is that the issues of the past be dealt with in a honest way, not brushed aside. The facts are pretty clear from the Minutes of Chalcedon; Ibas of Edessa was brought back and his letter was declared Orthodox. the 5th council, 102 years later said this didn't occur. Does that make the Fathers in the 5th council liars? of course not, it could have been simply a mistake. But this is what happens when one is forced to take extreme positions in defending something that is deemed "infallible".
Can you provide a few direct quotes from Chalcedon saying that the whole letter was declared "orthodox"?
If it was "pretty clear", then why would the 5th Council as well as modern scholars disagree that the whole letter was accepted?
This was not my own conclusion from the minutes.
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Tonedawg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 226
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #19 on: April 15, 2016, 07:06:25 PM »
All we are asking for is that the issues of the past be dealt with in a honest way, not brushed aside. The facts are pretty clear from the Minutes of Chalcedon; Ibas of Edessa was brought back and his letter was declared Orthodox. the 5th council, 102 years later said this didn't occur. Does that make the Fathers in the 5th council liars? of course not, it could have been simply a mistake. But this is what happens when one is forced to take extreme positions in defending something that is deemed "infallible".
Can you provide a few direct quotes from Chalcedon saying that the whole letter was declared "orthodox"?
If it was "pretty clear", then why would the 5th Council as well as modern scholars disagree that the whole letter was accepted?
This was not my own conclusion from the minutes.

Please visit the comments section from Nicholas's response to Mina.

Father Moses provided the following:

"Ibas, for example, was rehabilitated at the 10th Session of Chalcedon. Here is the relevant transcript from the Acts of Chalcedon:

9. Paschasinus and the other most devout men said through [Boniface] the presbyter of the apostolic see: ‘Let the most holy bishops who by their own sentence declared Ibas guiltless and clear of every accusation say now if they acknowledge their own verdict.’

10. Photius the most devout bishop of Tyre said: ‘Yes, this is our verdict.’

11. Eustathius the most devout bishop of Berytus said: ‘This is my composition.’

12. Paschasinus and the other most devout bishops exclaimed: ‘Your beatitude has heard what is contained in the judgement of the most holy bishops. Likewise may your holinesses deign to express your view also on the case of Ibas.’

13. As all the most devout bishops remained silent, the most magnificent officials said: ‘The holy council will express its opinion tomorrow.’

On the very next day, we read the following after a long discussion:

161. Paschasinus and Lucentius the most devout bishops and Boniface the presbyter, representing the apostolic see, said through Paschasinus: ‘Now that the documents have been read, we know from the verdict of the most devout bishops that the most devout Ibas has been proved innocent, and from the reading of his letter we have found him to be orthodox. We therefore decree that both the honour of the episcopate and the church from which he was unjustly ejected in his absence should be restored to him. As for the most holy Bishop Nonnus who occupied his place for a short time, it is for the most devout bishop of the church of Antioch to decide what ought to be decreed about the matter.’"

“How needful the human being is of service of the spirit, in an age where materialism, atheism, apostasy and deviant intellectual trends prevail. How needful people are to see Christ in our lives and to smell His sweet fragrance in us." St. Kyrillos (Cyril) VI

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,997
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #20 on: April 15, 2016, 07:35:22 PM »
161. Paschasinus and Lucentius the most devout bishops and Boniface the presbyter, representing the apostolic see, said through Paschasinus: ‘Now that the documents have been read, we know from the verdict of the most devout bishops that the most devout Ibas has been proved innocent, and from the reading of his letter we have found him to be orthodox. We therefore decree that both the honour of the episcopate and the church from which he was unjustly ejected in his absence should be restored to him. As for the most holy Bishop Nonnus who occupied his place for a short time, it is for the most devout bishop of the church of Antioch to decide what ought to be decreed about the matter.’"
1. Was the underlined statement the opinion of the full Council or just of "Paschasinus and Lucentius the most devout bishops and Boniface the presbyter, representing the apostolic see"?

New Advent says " At the Council of Chalcedon the Patriarch Maximus of Antioch and the Roman legates declared: "Having read his letter again, we declare that he is orthodox." But the Fathers did not adopt that opinion unanimously."

In other words, this is not necessarily some official position of the council.

2.It doesn't specify which letter was shown to prove him Orthodox,

3. It doesn't say every sentence in the letter was Orthodox.

So finding enough of it acceptable at one council they accepted him, but finding some problems at a later council, they rejected the letter.

4. It says "from the reading of his letter we have found him to be orthodox", not "from the reading of his letter we have found his letter to be orthodox"

Thus at that time the letter wasn't found bad enough to condemn him. For example, Theodoret's letters were at one point condemned, but Theodoret was not in his person. The same thing can be said of Origen, whose writings were read and some of them were found to be Orthodox but Origen was not banned himself as unorthodox/heretical.
 
5. As I've mentioned elsewhere, not every sentence or claim of every Ecumenical Council must be accepted in the EO practice toward Councils.  There are some canons that some EO church accepts that some other EO church does not, one example being rebaptism of heterodox Trinitarians.

My own opinion is that some OOs who reject Chalcedon use the issue of the letter of Ibas to reject the whole council and overemphasize the role of that letter to the council.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2016, 07:56:13 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline FatherGiryus

  • Don't Ask
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,195
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #21 on: April 15, 2016, 08:23:31 PM »
IIRC, Ibas of Edessa was restored on the condition he accepted the Tome of Leo and condemned both Nestorius and Eutyches.
You can't find wisdom in the mirror.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,997
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #22 on: April 15, 2016, 08:38:32 PM »
IIRC, Ibas of Edessa was restored on the condition he accepted the Tome of Leo and condemned both Nestorius and Eutyches.
Yes.
Some OOs make the following polemic:

Constantinople II rejected one of Ibas' letters, but at Chalcedon some delegates said that they (ie some delegates) used an unspecific letter by Ibas to declare Ibas Orthodox. Therefore some OOs conclude that this is grounds to reject Chalcedon as a whole.
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Tonedawg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 226
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #23 on: April 15, 2016, 11:21:42 PM »
IIRC, Ibas of Edessa was restored on the condition he accepted the Tome of Leo and condemned both Nestorius and Eutyches.
Yes.
Some OOs make the following polemic:

Constantinople II rejected one of Ibas' letters, but at Chalcedon some delegates said that they (ie some delegates) used an unspecific letter by Ibas to declare Ibas Orthodox. Therefore some OOs conclude that this is grounds to reject Chalcedon as a whole.

My friend it was the same letter, the letter to Mari the Persian!
“How needful the human being is of service of the spirit, in an age where materialism, atheism, apostasy and deviant intellectual trends prevail. How needful people are to see Christ in our lives and to smell His sweet fragrance in us." St. Kyrillos (Cyril) VI

Offline Tonedawg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 226
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #24 on: April 15, 2016, 11:22:33 PM »
161. Paschasinus and Lucentius the most devout bishops and Boniface the presbyter, representing the apostolic see, said through Paschasinus: ‘Now that the documents have been read, we know from the verdict of the most devout bishops that the most devout Ibas has been proved innocent, and from the reading of his letter we have found him to be orthodox. We therefore decree that both the honour of the episcopate and the church from which he was unjustly ejected in his absence should be restored to him. As for the most holy Bishop Nonnus who occupied his place for a short time, it is for the most devout bishop of the church of Antioch to decide what ought to be decreed about the matter.’"
1. Was the underlined statement the opinion of the full Council or just of "Paschasinus and Lucentius the most devout bishops and Boniface the presbyter, representing the apostolic see"?


New Advent says " At the Council of Chalcedon the Patriarch Maximus of Antioch and the Roman legates declared: "Having read his letter again, we declare that he is orthodox." But the Fathers did not adopt that opinion unanimously."

In other words, this is not necessarily some official position of the council.

2.It doesn't specify which letter was shown to prove him Orthodox,

3. It doesn't say every sentence in the letter was Orthodox.

So finding enough of it acceptable at one council they accepted him, but finding some problems at a later council, they rejected the letter.

4. It says "from the reading of his letter we have found him to be orthodox", not "from the reading of his letter we have found his letter to be orthodox"

Thus at that time the letter wasn't found bad enough to condemn him. For example, Theodoret's letters were at one point condemned, but Theodoret was not in his person. The same thing can be said of Origen, whose writings were read and some of them were found to be Orthodox but Origen was not banned himself as unorthodox/heretical.
 
5. As I've mentioned elsewhere, not every sentence or claim of every Ecumenical Council must be accepted in the EO practice toward Councils.  There are some canons that some EO church accepts that some other EO church does not, one example being rebaptism of heterodox Trinitarians.

My own opinion is that some OOs who reject Chalcedon use the issue of the letter of Ibas to reject the whole council and overemphasize the role of that letter to the council.

And yet the Letter of Ibas is but one of many issues with the council!
“How needful the human being is of service of the spirit, in an age where materialism, atheism, apostasy and deviant intellectual trends prevail. How needful people are to see Christ in our lives and to smell His sweet fragrance in us." St. Kyrillos (Cyril) VI

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,997
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #25 on: April 15, 2016, 11:27:07 PM »
My friend it was the same letter, the letter to Mari the Persian!
My guess is that it is, but...
Where does it specify that it was the same exact letter judged many years later?
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,997
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #26 on: April 15, 2016, 11:29:55 PM »
And yet the Letter of Ibas is but one of many issues with the council!
If the letter of Ibas turns out not to be a real problem, maybe the other issues alleged by some OOs have the same power/weakness as it did.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2016, 11:30:12 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Online Mor Ephrem

  • A highly skilled and trained Freudian feminist slut
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,825
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #27 on: April 15, 2016, 11:30:54 PM »
And yet the Letter of Ibas is but one of many issues with the council!
If the letter of Ibas turns out not to be a real problem, maybe the other issues alleged by some OOs have the same power/weakness as it did.

Maybe if "The sun never sets on the British Empire", it is never night anywhere. 
I think you can say ~ In the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and post with charitable and prayerful intentions.

Offline Tonedawg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 226
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #28 on: April 15, 2016, 11:34:31 PM »
IIRC, Ibas of Edessa was restored on the condition he accepted the Tome of Leo and condemned both Nestorius and Eutyches.

Dear Father Giryus, blessed lent to you,

I was skimming over Father George Florovsky's The Byzantine Fathers Of the Sixth to Eighth Century and found this interesting quote by Philoxenus of Mabbug.

"Trouble broke out again in Antioch in 498. Flavian, formerly the apocrisiarius of the patriarch of Antioch in Constantinople, became patriarch of Antioch. He is described as a man of "feeble and vacillating character." At his election he was a declared Monophysite but he later changed sides and announced his defense of the Council of Chalcedon. The growing Monophysite party in Antioch was alarmed and quickly reacted. Philoxenus took charge of the opposition to Flavian, denouncing him as a Nestorian. Flavian responded by anathematizing Nestorius which led Philoxenus to demand that he anathematize not only Nestorius but also Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas. The very raising of these three names together is interesting. Philoxenus is reported to have declared: "If you do not condemn these, you may anathematize Nestorius ten thousand times and still be a Nestorian." Flavian was forced by imperial pressure to anathematize Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas. Philoxenus then demanded that Flavian condemn the Council of Chalcedon. He flatly refused and Philoxenus and his followers withdrew from communion with Flavian. Another schism in Antioch."

As we can see the problem wasn't anathematizing Nestorius. I would think that if Ibas and Theodoret were asked to anathematize Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodorus of Tarsus then they most likely wouldn't have complied.
“How needful the human being is of service of the spirit, in an age where materialism, atheism, apostasy and deviant intellectual trends prevail. How needful people are to see Christ in our lives and to smell His sweet fragrance in us." St. Kyrillos (Cyril) VI

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,997
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #29 on: April 16, 2016, 12:18:07 AM »
IIRC, Ibas of Edessa was restored on the condition he accepted the Tome of Leo and condemned both Nestorius and Eutyches.

Dear Father Giryus, blessed lent to you,

I was skimming over Father George Florovsky's The Byzantine Fathers Of the Sixth to Eighth Century and found this interesting quote by Philoxenus of Mabbug.

"Trouble broke out again in Antioch in 498. Flavian, formerly the apocrisiarius of the patriarch of Antioch in Constantinople, became patriarch of Antioch. He is described as a man of "feeble and vacillating character." At his election he was a declared Monophysite but he later changed sides and announced his defense of the Council of Chalcedon. The growing Monophysite party in Antioch was alarmed and quickly reacted. Philoxenus took charge of the opposition to Flavian, denouncing him as a Nestorian. Flavian responded by anathematizing Nestorius which led Philoxenus to demand that he anathematize not only Nestorius but also Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas. The very raising of these three names together is interesting. Philoxenus is reported to have declared: "If you do not condemn these, you may anathematize Nestorius ten thousand times and still be a Nestorian." Flavian was forced by imperial pressure to anathematize Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas. Philoxenus then demanded that Flavian condemn the Council of Chalcedon. He flatly refused and Philoxenus and his followers withdrew from communion with Flavian. Another schism in Antioch."

As we can see the problem wasn't anathematizing Nestorius.
I don't know how that shows that the condemnation of Nestorius wouldn't clear matters up about a figure such as Ibas and Theodoret.

St Cyril said that since the Antiochene Diophysites opposed Nestorius, therefore the Antiochenes weren't Nestorians.
Based on Cyril's logic, the debate could have ended right there when Flavian, Ibas and Theodoret anathematized Nestorius instead of looking for more ways to condemn these EO figures as crypto-Nestorians.
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Samn!

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 660
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchaat van Erps-Kwerps
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #30 on: April 16, 2016, 12:20:03 AM »
Quote
I would think that if Ibas and Theodoret were asked to anathematize Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodorus of Tarsus then they most likely wouldn't have complied.

Would John Chrysostom have? These sorts of questions aren't very helpful.

Offline Tonedawg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 226
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #31 on: April 16, 2016, 12:22:14 AM »
My friend it was the same letter, the letter to Mari the Persian!
My guess is that it is, but...
Where does it specify that it was the same exact letter judged many years later?

More golden quotes by Father Moses:

"At the beginning of 451 the deposed and banished bishops were allowed to return from exile, but the question of their restoration was reserved for the fourth general council which met at Chalcedon A.D. 451. In the 9th session, Oct. 26, the case of Ibas came before the assembled bishops. On his demand to be restored in accordance with the verdict of Photius and Eustathius at Berytus and Tyre, the Acts of that synod were read, and the next day the pope’s legates gave their opinion that Ibas, being unlawfully deposed, should be at once restored. After much discussion this was carried unanimously. The legates led the way, declaring his letter to Maris orthodox, and commanding his restitution. All the prelates agreed in this verdict, the condition being that he should anathematize Nestorius and Eutyches and accept the tome of Leo. Ibas consented without any difficulty. — Henry Wace, A Dictionary of Christian Biography

The most important of these later sessions for subsequent church history were the eighth and tenth at which (respectively) Bishop Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Bishop Ibas of Edessa were restored to their sees. Anti-Chalcedonians were to claim repeatedly that these decisions betrayed Nestorian leanings that discredited the council 449 It is true that Theodoret and Ibas were only restored after they had anathematized Nestorius in the presence of the council fathers, but Theodoret did so with obvious reluctance, and neither bishop was required to withdraw the writings in which a decade or two ago he had fiercely criticized Cyril of Alexandria. This omission was understandable in the context of 451, since they had specifically attacked the Twelve Chapters contained in Cyril’s Third Letter to Nestorius, whose authority was not recognized at Chalcedon. By the middle of the sixth century, however, when this Third Letter was presumed to be one of the ‘conciliar’ letters connected to Ephesus I and acclaimed by Chalcedon, it had come to appear that the council had treated Theodoret and Ibas too leniently. — Richard Price, The Council of Chalcedon: A Narrative


"Approved at Chalcedon, Ibas’ letter to Mari was to become a major object of delighted hate to critics of the Chalcedonian Definition, and therefore an issue in the sixth-century controversy concerning the ‘Three Chapters’ (Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret, and Ibas’ letter). In that controversy the approval given to Ibas’ letter at Chalcedon required the fiction that the fourth general council had approved a different document from the letter to Mari which was not the authentic work of Ibas. At the council of Ephesus in August Ibas was condemned, and needed rehabilitation at Chalcedon. — Henry Chadwick, The Church in Ancient Society

Rather, [there] was a policy [at Constantinople II] which could both provide a compromise for the Monophysites and maintain Chalcedon by rejecting and condemning the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia, the works of Theodoret against St. Cyril, and the letter of Ibas to the priest Maris. By condemning these three theologians who were opposed to Origen, Theodore Askidas thought it would be an acknowledgment of Alexandrian theology, something which might please the moderate Monophysites. It would give a clear signal to the Monophysites that, although the Council of Chalcedon had vindicated Theodoret and Ibas, the Council had not endorsed all their writings. Indeed, [they] had been imploring for half a century to have these three theologians condemned — at the conference of 532/533 [they] had pointedly declared that one of the walls preventing a union had been Chalcedon’s approval of the writings of Ibas and Theodoret against St. Cyril…"


I'm not sure why this is such a hard concept to comprehend, Chalcedon accepted Ibas's letter as Orthodox, Constantinople II rejected it and declared it heretical. Same letter to Maris the Persian. Would Nicaea accept the works of an arian as Orthodox?
Now please don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying that Chalcedon is Nestorian.  I in good conscious cannot label it as such but I see many issues with it and so did my ancestors and they rejected it out of good conscious as well, and because Cyril did not teach them to confess Christ "In two Natures".
“How needful the human being is of service of the spirit, in an age where materialism, atheism, apostasy and deviant intellectual trends prevail. How needful people are to see Christ in our lives and to smell His sweet fragrance in us." St. Kyrillos (Cyril) VI

Offline Tonedawg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 226
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #32 on: April 16, 2016, 12:31:06 AM »
Quote
I would think that if Ibas and Theodoret were asked to anathematize Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodorus of Tarsus then they most likely wouldn't have complied.

Would John Chrysostom have? These sorts of questions aren't very helpful.

The point that I'm trying to make is that we could all anathematize Nestorius over and over, but if we are spreading the teachings of his teachers then we are basically Nestorians without knowing it. I'm also trying to highlight this problem, even St. Cyril wanted to anathematize them and he wrote against them, but it was John of Antioch who didn't want to fan the flames anymore, and probably rightfully so, as they had just agreed to the formula of reunion. This was all discovered of course way after Ephesus I, when Cyril visited Jerusalem with the Empress, he was told by the congregation there; "They are willing to anathematize Nestorius but they are basically saying the same thing" (my own translation). Upon reading their works, he found out that they were the initial problem. In that sense you could argue that the see of Alexandria was way ahead of its time and wanted to do what the Chalcedonians ended up doing a hundred years later!
“How needful the human being is of service of the spirit, in an age where materialism, atheism, apostasy and deviant intellectual trends prevail. How needful people are to see Christ in our lives and to smell His sweet fragrance in us." St. Kyrillos (Cyril) VI

Offline Tonedawg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 226
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #33 on: April 16, 2016, 12:32:04 AM »
Also, please forgive me if I sound a little polemical. I promise its not my intention to trash anyone's tradition or history!
“How needful the human being is of service of the spirit, in an age where materialism, atheism, apostasy and deviant intellectual trends prevail. How needful people are to see Christ in our lives and to smell His sweet fragrance in us." St. Kyrillos (Cyril) VI

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,198
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #34 on: April 16, 2016, 12:47:55 AM »
Quote
I would think that if Ibas and Theodoret were asked to anathematize Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodorus of Tarsus then they most likely wouldn't have complied.

Would John Chrysostom have? These sorts of questions aren't very helpful.

I do want to point your attention to Fr. John Behr's recent publication "The Case Against Theodore and Diodore".  He makes the case, support Christopher Beeley's recent research, that Diodore was implicitly condemned while he was alive by Gregory the Theologian himself, but Diodore was already the emperor's official theologian at the time, and difficult to confront.

It has also been argued John Chrysostom was theologically more influenced by the Cappadocians than by his own Antiochian teachers.  Otherwise, Cyril would have no problem putting Chrysostom together with other "forerunners" of Nestorius in his writings against them.
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.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,997
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #35 on: April 16, 2016, 12:55:44 AM »
The point that I'm trying to make is that we could all anathematize Nestorius over and over, but if we are spreading the teachings of his teachers then we are basically Nestorians without knowing it.
That is like saying that some 1st century heretics were students of the gospels and the apostles, so therefore if we spread the docetists' teachers' teachings, then we are basically heretical without knowing it.

This is basically the kind of guilt by association claim that some less ecumenical EOs make about OOs when they call them implicit "mono--------s" because Ephesus II promoted the monophysite Eutyches as Orthodox. ...

What's good for the goose is good for the... Private thread.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,68782.msg1393292.html#msg1393292

See the rest of my response to you there, please.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2016, 01:00:24 AM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,198
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #36 on: April 16, 2016, 01:02:15 AM »
This is basically the kind of guilt by association claim that some less ecumenical EOs make about OOs...

That's actually the point Rakovsky.  You're not far from that.  When you have the less ecumenical EOs make something about OOs, you have OOs in turn show the opposite.  You don't realize that because you're getting very defensive, and...

And you're treading closely into being offensive because you are not seeing the point.  Don't forget which forum section you're in.
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.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,997
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #37 on: April 16, 2016, 01:02:27 AM »
Also, please forgive me if I sound a little polemical. I promise its not my intention to trash anyone's tradition or history!
I understand. Both EOs and OOs have a mirror range of more and less ecumenical, more and less flexible.
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline FatherGiryus

  • Don't Ask
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,195
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #38 on: April 16, 2016, 01:08:01 AM »
IIRC, Ibas of Edessa was restored on the condition he accepted the Tome of Leo and condemned both Nestorius and Eutyches.

Dear Father Giryus, blessed lent to you,

I was skimming over Father George Florovsky's The Byzantine Fathers Of the Sixth to Eighth Century and found this interesting quote by Philoxenus of Mabbug.

"Trouble broke out again in Antioch in 498. Flavian, formerly the apocrisiarius of the patriarch of Antioch in Constantinople, became patriarch of Antioch. He is described as a man of "feeble and vacillating character." At his election he was a declared Monophysite but he later changed sides and announced his defense of the Council of Chalcedon. The growing Monophysite party in Antioch was alarmed and quickly reacted. Philoxenus took charge of the opposition to Flavian, denouncing him as a Nestorian. Flavian responded by anathematizing Nestorius which led Philoxenus to demand that he anathematize not only Nestorius but also Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas. The very raising of these three names together is interesting. Philoxenus is reported to have declared: "If you do not condemn these, you may anathematize Nestorius ten thousand times and still be a Nestorian." Flavian was forced by imperial pressure to anathematize Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas. Philoxenus then demanded that Flavian condemn the Council of Chalcedon. He flatly refused and Philoxenus and his followers withdrew from communion with Flavian. Another schism in Antioch."

As we can see the problem wasn't anathematizing Nestorius. I would think that if Ibas and Theodoret were asked to anathematize Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodorus of Tarsus then they most likely wouldn't have complied.

Well, I think this underscores the confusion of the time.  The topic was still in play even after his death, and it seems that there was more confusion than clarity.

I've been looking for the text itself, but can't find it online.  Have you read it?  Do you know where I can find it?   
You can't find wisdom in the mirror.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,997
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #39 on: April 16, 2016, 01:10:27 AM »
This is basically the kind of guilt by association claim that some less ecumenical EOs make about OOs...

That's actually the point Rakovsky.  You're not far from that.  When you have the less ecumenical EOs make something about OOs, you have OOs in turn show the opposite.  You don't realize that because you're getting very defensive, and...

And you're treading closely into being offensive because you are not seeing the point.  Don't forget which forum section you're in.
No, Mina, I am seeing the point that you are referring to.
I want such EOs to be more ecumenical, the best I can think to do is discuss with them, say the same thing I say to OOs, eg. asking them if they can show an actual quote by Severus or Chalcedon that is explicitly affirming the divine nature only or teaching two persons, respectively. or eg. asking them how can they demand OOs anathematize Dioscorus if we ourselves don't follow every council decision.

 This schism stuff makes me and WGW both frustrated.  For all his verbosity, I think WGW is on the right track.
 
« Last Edit: April 16, 2016, 01:12:25 AM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,198
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #40 on: April 16, 2016, 01:20:59 AM »
Okay, thank you for your concern, but I think you're still missing the point.
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.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,997
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #41 on: April 16, 2016, 01:24:27 AM »
Okay, thank you for your concern, but I think you're still missing the point.

I agree with everything you said in this post, Mina:
Quote
    This is basically the kind of guilt by association claim that some less ecumenical EOs make about OOs...


That's actually the point Rakovsky.  You're not far from that.  When you have the less ecumenical EOs make something about OOs, you have OOs in turn show the opposite.  You don't realize that because you're getting very defensive, and...
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Tonedawg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 226
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #42 on: April 16, 2016, 01:51:04 AM »
The point that I'm trying to make is that we could all anathematize Nestorius over and over, but if we are spreading the teachings of his teachers then we are basically Nestorians without knowing it.
That is like saying that some 1st century heretics were students of the gospels and the apostles, so therefore if we spread the docetists' teachers' teachings, then we are basically heretical without knowing it.

This is basically the kind of guilt by association claim that some less ecumenical EOs make about OOs when they call them implicit "mono--------s" because Ephesus II promoted the monophysite Eutyches as Orthodox. ...

What's good for the goose is good for the... Private thread.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,68782.msg1393292.html#msg1393292

See the rest of my response to you there, please.

I don't agree, were there councils and decisions made on an ecumenical basis in the 1st century (besides that of Jerusalem?)
In regards to Eutyches at Ephesus II, if you have the time for it, I would refer you to this excellent podcast by Father Peter Farrington. http://orthodoxfaith.podbean.com/e/the-reception-of-eutyches-at-ephesus/

Nevertheless I understand what you mean and my goal is not to guilt anyone by association.
“How needful the human being is of service of the spirit, in an age where materialism, atheism, apostasy and deviant intellectual trends prevail. How needful people are to see Christ in our lives and to smell His sweet fragrance in us." St. Kyrillos (Cyril) VI

Offline Tonedawg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 226
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #43 on: April 16, 2016, 01:52:13 AM »
IIRC, Ibas of Edessa was restored on the condition he accepted the Tome of Leo and condemned both Nestorius and Eutyches.

Dear Father Giryus, blessed lent to you,

I was skimming over Father George Florovsky's The Byzantine Fathers Of the Sixth to Eighth Century and found this interesting quote by Philoxenus of Mabbug.

"Trouble broke out again in Antioch in 498. Flavian, formerly the apocrisiarius of the patriarch of Antioch in Constantinople, became patriarch of Antioch. He is described as a man of "feeble and vacillating character." At his election he was a declared Monophysite but he later changed sides and announced his defense of the Council of Chalcedon. The growing Monophysite party in Antioch was alarmed and quickly reacted. Philoxenus took charge of the opposition to Flavian, denouncing him as a Nestorian. Flavian responded by anathematizing Nestorius which led Philoxenus to demand that he anathematize not only Nestorius but also Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas. The very raising of these three names together is interesting. Philoxenus is reported to have declared: "If you do not condemn these, you may anathematize Nestorius ten thousand times and still be a Nestorian." Flavian was forced by imperial pressure to anathematize Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas. Philoxenus then demanded that Flavian condemn the Council of Chalcedon. He flatly refused and Philoxenus and his followers withdrew from communion with Flavian. Another schism in Antioch."

As we can see the problem wasn't anathematizing Nestorius. I would think that if Ibas and Theodoret were asked to anathematize Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodorus of Tarsus then they most likely wouldn't have complied.

Well, I think this underscores the confusion of the time.  The topic was still in play even after his death, and it seems that there was more confusion than clarity.

I've been looking for the text itself, but can't find it online.  Have you read it?  Do you know where I can find it?   


Yes its here: http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/fathers_florovsky_3.htm
“How needful the human being is of service of the spirit, in an age where materialism, atheism, apostasy and deviant intellectual trends prevail. How needful people are to see Christ in our lives and to smell His sweet fragrance in us." St. Kyrillos (Cyril) VI

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,997
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #44 on: April 16, 2016, 08:55:11 AM »

That is like saying that some 1st century heretics were students of the gospels and the apostles, so therefore if we spread the docetists' teachers' teachings, then we are basically heretical without knowing it.

This is basically the kind of guilt by association claim that some less ecumenical EOs make about OOs when they call them implicit "mono--------s" because Ephesus II promoted the monophysite Eutyches as Orthodox. ...

What's good for the goose is good for the... Private thread.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,68782.msg1393292.html#msg1393292

See the rest of my response to you there, please.

I don't agree, were there councils and decisions made on an ecumenical basis in the 1st century (besides that of Jerusalem?)
In regards to Eutyches at Ephesus II, if you have the time for it, I would refer you to this excellent podcast by Father Peter Farrington. http://orthodoxfaith.podbean.com/e/the-reception-of-eutyches-at-ephesus/


What is it that you don't agree with, that Eutyches was monophysite?

I critiqued Fr Peter's essay on Eutyches several times on OCNET,  like here:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,64652.msg1323536.html#msg1323536
« Last Edit: April 16, 2016, 08:58:12 AM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20