Author Topic: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole  (Read 11906 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Samn!

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 595
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #90 on: April 17, 2016, 04:58:01 PM »
Quote
the most important current text.

That would probably be Vasilje Vranic's The Constancy and Development in the Christology of Theodoret of Cyrrhus...

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #91 on: April 17, 2016, 04:58:22 PM »
So, is Theodoret a Saint among the EO? I've not been able to find any concrete information on that.
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline Father Peter

  • Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,175
    • Coptic Orthodox Church - Patriarchal Diocese
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchal Diocese
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #92 on: April 17, 2016, 05:25:15 PM »
I prefer Clayton to Vasilje Vranic but both are interesting and I have both and both deserve to be read.
My ministry and blog - http://www.stgeorgeministry.com

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington

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 #93 on: April 17, 2016, 05:27:05 PM »
I would suggest that you read the whole work by Clayton, who is the current expert, and then you will get a clearer view tan from a few phrases posted here. Clayton shows very clearly that Theodoret was always a Theodorean and he died a Theodorean and he was supported by Leo of Rome while being a Theodorean and was restored to his see while being a Theodorean.

Nestorius was expendable. He was never questioned or challenged about Theodore.

You do need to read the whole book otherwise you will just dispute everything I say. He didn't accept the Chalcedonian definition, unless you mean accepting some form of words is all that is required. He accepted a formula of words on his own Theodorean terms. That is something very different.

Theodore of Mopsuestia was wildly popular in the West; recall the Three Chapters Controversy, an actual schsim that erupted largely over his anathematization.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,773
  • 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 #94 on: April 17, 2016, 07:15:33 PM »
Since Ephesus 449 essentially anathematised the Three Chapters it is not clear why it should be rejected, though I don't see any great need for the EO to accept it either. Much of the problem with Chalcedon was that those disciplined at Ephesus were all exonerated at Chalcedon before being disciplined again at Constantinople. Ibas was an infamous supporter of Theodore of Mopsuestia and was busy translating and distributing his writings in the East. Theodoret wrote to his followers that Chalcedon should be understood in accorsance with the teaching of Theodore. So as far as I can see their condemnations were entirely justified at Ephesus 449 and their reception at  Chalcedon was problematic and reasonably led to a sense that it was ambiguous in its rejection of Theodoreanism, which was the elephant in the room that Chalcedon deliberately failed to address. Any one could condemn Nestorius. He was unimportant and had made himself unpopular. But Theodoret and Ibas would never condemn the real master, Theodore of Mopsuestia.
Fr Peter
Are you asserting here that the Antiochene party including Theodoret had a heretical Christology when they talked about two natures after the union, regardless of whether they anathematized Nestorius?

If so, what are we to make of Cyril's reunion with them and his decision that they were not heretical because they rejected Nestorius? Cyril mentioned that some of his allies attacked him for reunion.

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: 10,773
  • 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 #95 on: April 17, 2016, 07:16:49 PM »
So, is Theodoret a Saint among the EO? I've not been able to find any concrete information on that.
He is called Blessed and he wrote a lengthy Bible commentary that is among those I've seen in Russian commentary collections.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2016, 07:17:57 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 rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,773
  • 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 #96 on: April 17, 2016, 07:22:13 PM »
Quote
the most important current text.

That would probably be Vasilje Vranic's The Constancy and Development in the Christology of Theodoret of Cyrrhus...
Yes and he differs from Clayton's assessment IIRC.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2016, 07:22:59 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 rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,773
  • 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 #97 on: April 17, 2016, 07:26:11 PM »
I am very clear about Theodret. It is pretty impossible to have a conversation when you have not read the most important current text. That is not a criticism. But everything I say based on my studies you will just deny, and if I post a quote, you will say that you have a different interpretaton.

If you want to refute Clayton then you need to have read him.

In brief, Theodoret, and the Alexandrians, and Theodore, understand physis to mean a concrete identity in this context. Theodoret is insisting to his followers that he has not given up the Theodorean insistance on two identities which are united by a prosopic union of will and honour. He is just using other terms, so that physis represents the two hypostases and hypostasis the one prosopon of union. Otherwise, he is saying, I am sticking to our tried and tested Theodorean Christology.

If you want to disagree you really need to read the book.
I read reviews of it and found Vranic to be reasonable.
I am happy to read quotes from Clayton's  book.
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,656
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #98 on: April 17, 2016, 08:02:44 PM »
So, is Theodoret a Saint among the EO? I've not been able to find any concrete information on that.
He is called Blessed and he wrote a lengthy Bible commentary that is among those I've seen in Russian commentary collections.

Origin's Bible commentaries get quoted a lot as well.

This is the closest I can find to an official claim that Thedoret is a Saint. The Orthodoxwiki article on him just seems to contradict itself.

This thread does refer to some sources, including St. Photios, claiming him to be a Saint, but I don't have access to those sources.

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=54243.25
« Last Edit: April 17, 2016, 08:03:13 PM by Volnutt »
Christ my God, set my heart on fire with love in You, that in its flame I may love You with all my heart, with all my mind, and with all my soul and with all my strength, and my neighbor as myself, so that by keeping Your commandments I may glorify You the Giver of every good and perfect gift. Amen.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,773
  • 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 #99 on: April 17, 2016, 08:59:59 PM »


Quote
Theodorit Kirsky is one of the most remarkable exegetes of ancient times, able to join the best sides of Antiochian and Alexandrian approaches. His historical works represent meaningful value. He wrote in clear and pure language.  ...
http://predanie.ru/feodorit-kirskiy-blazhennyy/

The site links to Fr. Meyendorff's and Fr. Florovsky's discussions on him.

Fr. Meyendorff writes:
Quote
As a moderate person , he took part in attempts of reconciliation and possibly namely he in 433 was the composer of the formula of peace with Alexandria and antioch, which by the way didn't condemn Nestorius. In all appearance, gradually Theodorit really began to agree with some of Cyril's conclusions...

Eutyches had everywhere influential ties, he was supported by .... Dioscorus. Dioscorus achieved the emperor's calling of a new "ecumenical" council in Ephesus ...
[At Chalcedon] in theological relations the  fathers of the Council were mostly adherents of St Cyrill. So they were... judging Dioscorus.. not for heresy, but for breaking church order.... What to do about Theodortt? ... his reputation was hopelessly darkened by polemics against St Cyril. .... With the definition of the Virgin Mary as mother of God he agreed, understanding it as a pious exaggeration.

On the 5th Council in Constantinople 553 AD, another attempt was made at reconciling with monophysites, for which sake posthumously was condemned... writings by Thodoret against St Cyril... Thus in Church memory Theodoret lives not as holy father, but as Blessed Theodoret.... The condemnation of a number of essays of Blessed Theodoret by the 5th Council doesn't lower the fact that he literally saved the Church from ...Eutyches and prepared the way for Chalcedon.
http://predanie.ru/lib/book/read/70915/#toc72
« Last Edit: April 17, 2016, 09:28:01 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 Father Peter

  • Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,175
    • Coptic Orthodox Church - Patriarchal Diocese
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchal Diocese
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #100 on: April 18, 2016, 03:13:42 AM »
Meyendorff was greatly mistaken. He was not a moderate. This is sort of what I mean. You need to read the actual scholarship otherwise you are just going to find quotes to support what you think. Meyendorff also had not studied Theodoret in any detail. The idea that he saved the Church is frankly bizarre.

Until the day he died he was a supporter of Theodore of Mopsuestia.
My ministry and blog - http://www.stgeorgeministry.com

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington

Offline WPM

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,915
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #101 on: April 18, 2016, 09:59:52 AM »
I don't really know if I get the friendly vibe because of the religious stuff.
The Sign and Prayers to the Blessed Virgin Mary

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,773
  • 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 #102 on: April 18, 2016, 11:23:07 AM »
Meyendorff was greatly mistaken. He was not a moderate. ....You need to read the actual scholarship otherwise you are just going to find quotes to support what you think. Meyendorff also had not studied Theodoret in any detail.

I see. I was just using it to illustrate the EO Church's view of Theodoret. Perhaps Meyendorff may consider Theodoret moderate because he was willing to accept Theotokos, accept the one hypostasis and one person, participate in the reconciliation with St Cyril, and anathematize Nestorius?

Vranic writes about Theodoret:
Quote
However, his tone in the Refutation itself is much more moderate. In the text of the Refutation, Theodoret did not make harsh, direct, or personal accusations of heresy against Cyril, but simply pointed out the inadequacy of his Christological [views].

Speaking of the time after the reunion but before Chalcedon, Kelly writes in his book Early Christian Doctrines:
Quote
On the one hand, Cyril's rightwing allies viewed his acceptance of the Two Natures doctrine with unconcealed dis,ay. In selfdefense he was obliged to muster arguments to show that, for all the at first sight objectionable language in which it was expressed, it was essentially the teaching he had always supported. On the Antiochene side there was an extremist Cilician group which persisted in declaring Cyril a heretic. More important, the sentence passed on NEstorius rankled in the consciences of even those mdoerate Antiochenes who had come to recognize Cyril's orthodoxy. Theodoret of Cyrus, for example, absolutely refused to endorse it.
Does it appear that since he participated in the reunion and did not declare Cyril a heretic despite having polemics with Cyril before the reunion, Kelly sees Theodoret as a moderate compared to the parties that denounced Cyril from the Alexandrian right for the reunion and from the left from the Cilicans, and compared to Nestorius' party?
« Last Edit: April 18, 2016, 11:23:48 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 Father Peter

  • Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,175
    • Coptic Orthodox Church - Patriarchal Diocese
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchal Diocese
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #103 on: April 18, 2016, 01:33:48 PM »
Theodoret did not accept one hypostasis, that is the point. Unless a mere acceptance of a phrase is all that is required. He denied the one hypostasis by re-interpreting it as one prosopon of the union.

Accepting the term Theotokos was never an indication of Orthodoxy. Ibas accepted it and thought Nestorius was stupid for kicking up a fuss, but he was also a Theodorean. He was quite happy calling the Virgin Theotokos in his own non-Orthodox terminology. Lots of people were happy rejecting Nestorius. He was entirely expendable and not a very good theologian at all. But Theodore, they never rejected Theodore.

But.... I don't see this as a fruitful way forward at all. What matters is what you actually believe about Christ. I am happy for all manner of other historical things to be held by you but objected to by me. But I will be happy to call you Orthodox if you yourself confess the true Christology, not in slogans, but in substance. This is where we have to begin.

For the entire period between Chalcedon and the Muslim invasion it was clear to both sides that the majority held substantially the same Christology. The idea that there was a great difference is a modern pseudo-Traditional innovation.

Meyendorrf, is also incorrect in suggesting that Constantinople 553 was intended to reconcile the non-Chalcedonians. None of the modern scholarly work I am aware of supports that any more.
My ministry and blog - http://www.stgeorgeministry.com

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington

Offline Father Peter

  • Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,175
    • Coptic Orthodox Church - Patriarchal Diocese
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchal Diocese
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #104 on: April 18, 2016, 01:35:20 PM »
Kelly is useful. He is on my shelf. But he is not a modern scholarly voice.

Try to get hold of Clayton.
My ministry and blog - http://www.stgeorgeministry.com

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington

Offline Tonedawg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 225
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #105 on: April 18, 2016, 01:52:29 PM »
Theodoret did not accept one hypostasis, that is the point. Unless a mere acceptance of a phrase is all that is required. He denied the one hypostasis by re-interpreting it as one prosopon of the union.

Accepting the term Theotokos was never an indication of Orthodoxy. Ibas accepted it and thought Nestorius was stupid for kicking up a fuss, but he was also a Theodorean. He was quite happy calling the Virgin Theotokos in his own non-Orthodox terminology. Lots of people were happy rejecting Nestorius. He was entirely expendable and not a very good theologian at all. But Theodore, they never rejected Theodore.

But.... I don't see this as a fruitful way forward at all. What matters is what you actually believe about Christ. I am happy for all manner of other historical things to be held by you but objected to by me. But I will be happy to call you Orthodox if you yourself confess the true Christology, not in slogans, but in substance. This is where we have to begin.

For the entire period between Chalcedon and the Muslim invasion it was clear to both sides that the majority held substantially the same Christology. The idea that there was a great difference is a modern pseudo-Traditional innovation.

Meyendorrf, is also incorrect in suggesting that Constantinople 553 was intended to reconcile the non-Chalcedonians. None of the modern scholarly work I am aware of supports that any more.

Quick question regarding the 5th council, why weren't the non-Chalcedonian leaders invited to it, if it was indeed meant to reconcile the two parties?
“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 Iconodule

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 15,054
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Johnstown
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #106 on: April 18, 2016, 02:17:19 PM »
It seems in the decades before Constantinople II there had been some conferences with Severus and other anti-Chalcedonian leaders. When the Patriarch Anthimus was persuaded by Severus to reject Chalcedon, 3 out of the 5 patriarchates were anti-Chalcedonian. The anti-Chalcedonians had been busy establishing parallel hierarchies but a complete break wasn't in effect yet. The appeasement of Rome, however, seems to have been an overriding concern for Justinian and eventually talks broke down and he secured the condemnation of Severus in 536, and launched attacks against anti-Chalcedonian monasteries in Syria. Judging from this, it seems Constantinople II might have had more to do with placating Chalcedonians who interpreted Chalcedon in a Cyrilline way.
Quote
When a time revolts against eternity, the only thing to set against it is genuine eternity itself, and not some other time which has already roused, and not without reason, a violent reaction against itself.
- Berdyaev

If you would like a private forum for non-polemical topics, comment here.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,773
  • 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 #107 on: April 18, 2016, 02:54:58 PM »
Theodoret did not accept one hypostasis, that is the point. Unless a mere acceptance of a phrase is all that is required. He denied the one hypostasis by re-interpreting it as one prosopon of the union.

...
But.... I don't see this as a fruitful way forward at all. What matters is what you actually believe about Christ. I am happy for all manner of other historical things to be held by you but objected to by me. But I will be happy to call you Orthodox if you yourself confess the true Christology, not in slogans, but in substance. This is where we have to begin.

For the entire period between Chalcedon and the Muslim invasion it was clear to both sides that the majority held substantially the same Christology. The idea that there was a great difference is a modern pseudo-Traditional innovation.


Is your position that Theodoret who reconciled with Cyril did not hold orthodox Christology because he was confessing two subjects and never confessing one subject? If so, how was he never confessing one subject, when he confessed one person?

Then when it comes to Dioscorus who deposed Flavian and rejected " in two natures," is your position that he does share the same orthodox faith as Flavian and not Eutyches whom he restored, because Dioscorus' rejection of the natures was only a semantic dispute, since it is hard to show that he rejected both the divine and human qualities?

As I understand it, Clayton said that Theoretically spoke in language suggesting two subjects, by dividing actions between Christ the man and the Logos. Yet as I understand it OOS have a longstanding opposition to dividing the actions between one or the other sets of properties, based on my conversation with Dzheremi. Is your position that the problem with Theodoret was not just language but an actual belief in two separated subjects, while with Dioscorus the problem was only semantic, or in fact no problem at all as you consider his denial based a correct definition of physis?

« Last Edit: April 18, 2016, 02:59:37 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 rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,773
  • 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 #108 on: April 18, 2016, 03:02:38 PM »
Kelly is useful. He is on my shelf. But he is not a modern scholarly voice.

His book is from 1960. I think Vranic is 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: 10,773
  • 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 #109 on: April 18, 2016, 03:36:49 PM »
Theodoret did not accept one hypostasis, that is the point. Unless a mere acceptance of a phrase is all that is required. He denied the one hypostasis by re-interpreting it as one prosopon of the union.
Fr Peter,
I can see how in his letter in Clayton's book Theodoret told his audience that hypostasis to Chalcedon meant prosopon instead of natures. This is one way that hypostasis is commonly explained to lay EOs before they get into details.

However, this leaves open the question of what nature means. Cyril himself had used the phrase "in our nature" when discussing Christology. In such a case nature does not mean subject or entity. One of the more recent scholars on Theodoret also said that Theodoret used natures as a flexible term.

The main issue for reunion is, as you said above, not what Theodoret himself thought. For EO'S the main issue in practice is whether OOS can be flexible and accept Chalcedon's formula. It may mean giving nature a different meaning than what you often call it, but Theodoret was able to successfully see different meanings in words, and after all, categories is a normal meaning for natures, and what we see Chalcedon as having meant by natures. When Chalcedon said Christ was in one hypostasis, wouldn't that be using the Cappadocian sense of the word hypostasis in the way that you consider correct? If so, then what did the authors mean in saying two natures and one hypostasis?

In case your proposition is just to reunite without accepting Chalcedon on the OO side, the personally I am ok with that if that is what the EO'S want to do.  But I think that in practice the 7 councils are important enough to them that they don't want to give them up as being ecumenical for the whole Church unless shown that Chalcedon's formula was wrong. I understand your criticism that this is sloganeering and I partly sympathize when you say that. But this sloganeering seems to be important to EO'S when it comes to main council statements.

It seems that they would expect you, based on what you've told me, to argue that nature in Chalcedon's formula probably means hypostasis in the sense of entity, like body or soul in Cyril's letter to Succensus, and to then state that a person cannot be in two entities or natures in that sense of "nature".  If I try to follow that approach, then what do I do with the times mentioned by the joint commission where Cyril said that Christ was in two natures, indivisibly?


« Last Edit: April 18, 2016, 03:54:46 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 rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,773
  • 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 #110 on: April 18, 2016, 03:46:11 PM »

Quick question regarding the 5th council, why weren't the non-Chalcedonian leaders invited to it, if it was indeed meant to reconcile the two parties?

Justinian had in fact been in cooperation with Syriac OOs. They attended a council, maybe not an ecumenical one, under Justinian's rule.
Canons from Chalcedon were also partly accepted by the Syriac church.
« Last Edit: April 18, 2016, 03:51:13 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 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 #111 on: April 18, 2016, 06:30:08 PM »

Quick question regarding the 5th council, why weren't the non-Chalcedonian leaders invited to it, if it was indeed meant to reconcile the two parties?

Justinian had in fact been in cooperation with Syriac OOs. They attended a council, maybe not an ecumenical one, under Justinian's rule.
Canons from Chalcedon were also partly accepted by the Syriac church.

Source?  I believe you, it makes sense based on our praxis, Id just like to see the source for reference purposes.
Axios and many years to you, Fr. Trenham!

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,773
  • 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 #112 on: April 18, 2016, 07:23:53 PM »

Quick question regarding the 5th council, why weren't the non-Chalcedonian leaders invited to it, if it was indeed meant to reconcile the two parties?

Justinian had in fact been in cooperation with Syriac OOs. They attended a council, maybe not an ecumenical one, under Justinian's rule.
Canons from Chalcedon were also partly accepted by the Syriac church.

Source?  I believe you, it makes sense based on our praxis, Id just like to see the source for reference purposes.
With Chalcedon, you have the miaphysites rejecting all of it, Rome rejecting the last canon and everyone else accepting the whole thing. 

Not "all of it".  Among the canons recognised as "binding" in the Syriac Orthodox tradition are the first twenty-seven canons of the council of Chalcedon, at least according to Arthur Voobus' work.   
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,530
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #113 on: April 19, 2016, 03:23:10 PM »
All,

I am unlocking this thread after having spent quite a bit of time reading this thread and using my discretion in determining which posts were better off in their own thread. 

I realise that some may disagree with some (most? all?) of my choices, but a split was necessitated by deviations introduced by other posters.  I hope I have contained those deviations. 

You are free to engage in discussion of the topic(s) in this thread subject to the forum rules governing this section.  Further violations will be addressed with strictness. 

Mor Ephrem, section moderator 

Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,385
  • Excelsior
    • Archive of Our Own works
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #114 on: April 19, 2016, 03:46:52 PM »
Rakovsky, thank you for the pictures. :)
https://archiveofourown.org/users/Parakeetist


Warning: stories have mature content.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 34,530
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Mercenary Freudianism
  • Jurisdiction: Texas Feminist Coptic
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #115 on: April 19, 2016, 03:59:35 PM »
Rakovsky, thank you for the pictures. :)

The pictures would've been more appropriate in another thread.  As it is, they were off-topic, and arguably made light of a serious issue.  I would not have been offended by them elsewhere, but in their original context I definitely was offended. 

It is better not to encourage such things except where they are more appropriate

Offline FatherGiryus

  • Don't Ask
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,195
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #116 on: April 19, 2016, 04:11:42 PM »
You can't find wisdom in the mirror.

Offline Orest

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,495
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #117 on: April 19, 2016, 04:26:40 PM »
So, is Theodoret a Saint among the EO? I've not been able to find any concrete information on that.
He is called Blessed and he wrote a lengthy Bible commentary that is among those I've seen in Russian commentary collections.
Yes, and Origen is quotes at length too in Orthodox writing.  His non-heretical writings.

Offline Father Peter

  • Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,175
    • Coptic Orthodox Church - Patriarchal Diocese
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchal Diocese
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #118 on: April 20, 2016, 02:49:48 AM »
Again, recent scholarship, not least that of Richard Price, does not consider that Constantinople II was intended to reconcile the non-Chalcedonians. He had his own problems at that time with division in the Chalcedonian community which was his primary focus by 553.
My ministry and blog - http://www.stgeorgeministry.com

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,773
  • 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 #119 on: April 20, 2016, 08:39:05 AM »
Wikipedia hardly counts as scholarship, but in any case what do you think about its claim in its article on Constantinople  II :
Quote
Justinian hoped that this would contribute to a reunion between the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians or m-----physites in the eastern provinces of the Empire. Various attempts at reconciliation between the m-----------e and orthodox parties within the Byzantine Empire were made by many emperors over the four centuries following the Council of Ephesus, none of them successful. Some attempts at reconciliation, such as this one, the condemnation of the Three Chapters and the unprecedented posthumous anathematization of Theodore – who had once been widely esteemed as a pillar of orthodoxy – causing further schisms and heresies to arise in the process, such as the aforementioned schism of the Three Chapters and the emergent semi-m-------physite compromises of monoenergism and monotheletism.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2016, 08:41:16 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: 20,196
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #120 on: April 20, 2016, 09:04:43 AM »
He just answered that question
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 CoptoGeek

  • of Alexandria, the Christ-loving City
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,522
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #121 on: April 20, 2016, 09:52:46 AM »
Again, recent scholarship, not least that of Richard Price, does not consider that Constantinople II was intended to reconcile the non-Chalcedonians. He had his own problems at that time with division in the Chalcedonian community which was his primary focus by 553.

Father Peter, have you had chance to read "Justinian and the Making of the Syrian Orthodox Church" by Volker Menze?

Kissing your right hand.
"Be oppressed, rather than the oppressor. Be gentle, rather than zealous. Lay hold of goodness, rather than justice." -St. Isaac of Nineveh

“I returned to the Coptic Orthodox Church with affection, finding in her our tormented and broken history“. -Salama Moussa

Offline CoptoGeek

  • of Alexandria, the Christ-loving City
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,522
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #122 on: April 20, 2016, 01:01:26 PM »
Theodoret did not accept one hypostasis, that is the point. Unless a mere acceptance of a phrase is all that is required. He denied the one hypostasis by re-interpreting it as one prosopon of the union.

Accepting the term Theotokos was never an indication of Orthodoxy. Ibas accepted it and thought Nestorius was stupid for kicking up a fuss, but he was also a Theodorean. He was quite happy calling the Virgin Theotokos in his own non-Orthodox terminology. Lots of people were happy rejecting Nestorius. He was entirely expendable and not a very good theologian at all. But Theodore, they never rejected Theodore.


Here is an excerpt from Rev. Clayton's Conclustion in his text, "The Christology of Theodoret of Cyrus", which goes with Fr. Peter's point.

"I conclude, therefore, that Theodoret's Christology remains a two-subject one to the end. Chalcedon, whose formula of two physeis in one prosopon and hypostasis he signed, meant to him only the justification of his own prosopic union Christology. He was apparently unable to understand what Cyril and the Alexandrines were getting at, and he simply ignored the reality that the bishops at Chalcedon plainly and repeatedly stated that they understood Leo's Tome in Cyril's sense, in the sense of a one-subject Christological model, that subject being the Word, and that they accepted Theodoret as orthodox, not by accepting his own theological definitions, to which they refused to listen, but because he confessed the Virgin as Theotokos and renounced his old friend Nestorius.

Furthermore, Theodoret's Christological model with its emphasis on two subjects, the Word and the human, is precisely what the Cyrillians condemned as a Christology of two Sons, and I cannot see what else Ephesus meant in 431 as Nestorianism. To me, Theodoret was perfectly consistent in refusing to condemn Nestorius, and when he did condemn Nestorianism, it was always a straw man that he had set up. For him, the Nestorianism condemned at Ephesus and then Chalcedon meant refusing to attribute the title Theotokos to the Virgin, and it meant a simple kind of Adoptionism which he preferred to attribute to the likes of Paul of Samosata or the Ebionites."

"Be oppressed, rather than the oppressor. Be gentle, rather than zealous. Lay hold of goodness, rather than justice." -St. Isaac of Nineveh

“I returned to the Coptic Orthodox Church with affection, finding in her our tormented and broken history“. -Salama Moussa

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,773
  • 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 #123 on: April 20, 2016, 01:58:18 PM »
Here is an excerpt from Rev. Clayton's Conclustion in his text, "The Christology of Theodoret of Cyrus", which goes with Fr. Peter's point.

"I conclude, therefore, that Theodoret's Christology remains a two-subject one to the end. Chalcedon, whose formula of two physeis in one prosopon and hypostasis he signed, meant to him only the justification of his own prosopic union Christology. He was apparently unable to understand what Cyril and the Alexandrines were getting at, and he simply ignored the reality that the bishops at Chalcedon plainly and repeatedly stated that they understood Leo's Tome in Cyril's sense, in the sense of a one-subject Christological model, that subject being the Word, and that they accepted Theodoret as orthodox, not by accepting his own theological definitions, to which they refused to listen, but because he confessed the Virgin as Theotokos and renounced his old friend Nestorius.
Doesn't this distinction between Theodoret's christology and the Chalcedonian bishops' Cyrilline christology of two natures and one hypostasis mean that the Chalcedonian bishops were in fact Cyrilline in Christology and that they did not in fact teach two subjects at Chalcedon?

Does Clayton explain why "in two natures" did not mean "two subjects" to the authors of Chalcedon, just as it did not mean "two subjects" years later at Constantinople II?

Furthermore, Theodoret's Christological model with its emphasis on two subjects, the Word and the human, is precisely what the Cyrillians condemned as a Christology of two Sons,
Could this model in fact have been a matter of speech and abstract concepts, as opposed to actually thinking that Jesus had two separated subjects?Take for example when St John Chrysostom wrote:
Quote
    Christ, finding the holy body and soul of the Virgin, builds for Himself a living temple, and as He had willed, formed there a man from the Virgin; and, putting Him on, this day came forth; unashamed of the lowliness of our nature.
http://www.antiochian.org/node/21955
This does not mean that before the incarnation there were actually two people and then one put on the other. This kind of language could be used by Theodoret too, with the same thinking that is not an actual teaching of two separated subjects.

Quote
and I cannot see what else Ephesus meant in 431 as Nestorianism.
Could it be that Nestorius taught two persons (prosopa), but Theodoret taught one person?

The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline CoptoGeek

  • of Alexandria, the Christ-loving City
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,522
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #124 on: April 20, 2016, 03:02:14 PM »
Trying not to get this kicked to the private forum, the author is a Chalcedonian and sees the council as in agreement with St. Cyril. That's debatable. To me, it only confirms how muddled things were there.

Yet, with that, the author acknowledges Theodoret continued in his error even while being accepted as "orthodox". 
"Be oppressed, rather than the oppressor. Be gentle, rather than zealous. Lay hold of goodness, rather than justice." -St. Isaac of Nineveh

“I returned to the Coptic Orthodox Church with affection, finding in her our tormented and broken history“. -Salama Moussa

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,773
  • 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 #125 on: April 20, 2016, 03:24:13 PM »
the author is a Chalcedonian and sees the council as in agreement with St. Cyril.

Yet, with that, the author acknowledges Theodoret continued in his error even while being accepted as "orthodox".
Is this author correct in drawing a distinction between Theodoret's christology and the christology of the Chalcedonian bishops?

Fr. Peter seems to be saying that Clayton is correct about this distinction. If Fr. Peter and Clayton are right, does this not mean that the Chalcedonian bishops' christology was orthodox?
« Last Edit: April 20, 2016, 03:24:53 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 minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,196
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #126 on: April 20, 2016, 03:32:45 PM »
Rakovsky, don't push it.  The answer to your question should suffice.  If you want to debate whether it's correct or not, take it the private forum.

You need to learn to have limits.  Start learning them now.

Mina
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 Remnkemi

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 410
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #127 on: April 20, 2016, 07:59:48 PM »

Specifically, I am concerned about what appears to be a Judaizing tendency,
I'm a little confused. Has anyone in the Ethiopian Orthodox Tawehedo Church claimed anything judaizing? Has anyone in the EOTC claimed we need circumcision or that Christ is a liar or any other famous judaizing statements that the Church fathers fought against? What exactly are you concerned that the EOTC are doing? And are these acts that concern you officially allowed in the EOTC, or are they being done by laity without any approval from the EOTC? We really need to ask someone here from the EOTC or the hierarchy of the EOTC when we have a better idea of what these judaizing tendencies are.

Quote
and their claims to have the Ark of the Covenant, and what soteriologocal meaning this has;
Since I am Coptic and not EOTC, I can't speak or represent the Ethiopians, but as far as I know, the EOTC does not claim to have the Ark of the Covenant, rather a specific city in Ethiopia claims it. I don't know if they are actually Oriental Orthodox. But even if some claim to have the Ark of the Covenant, is it necessarily a soteriological issue? I would simply view this be a pious understanding of an Old Testament tradition. It's not much different than Copts who say that the Wadi al Natrun monasteries form a cross in the heart of Egypt mentioned in Isaiah 19:19. Maybe this is not a perfect example but even if some Ethiopians claim to have the Ark of the Covenant, it doesn't automatically make them judaizers. And it definitely doesn't imply the EOTC has judaizing tendencies.

Quote
they also have some very strange anaphorae inclusing one addressed primarily to the Theotokos,
I find a lot of things the EO and RC do in their anaphorae strange. If liturgical practice is proof of a variance of acceptable Chalcedonian theology, then we are heading down a really long rabbit hole that has nothing to do with Rakovsky.

Quote
and a Coptic monk told me that Pope Shenouda had, shortly after his election, prohibited Coptic priests from serving any of the Ethiopian anaphora over concerns as to their Orthopraxy.
This is a reflection of Pope Shenouda's leadership for the Coptic Church, not a broad disapproval of Ethiopian liturgical rites.

Quote
Also there is the issue of how they interpret some of the books in their Broader Canon, for example, 1 Enoch (yes, St. Jude may well have quoted from it in his canonical epistle, but there is also some pretty strange stuff in there, so in the case of 1 Enoch, I think we really need to know how the Ethiopian Church reads and interprets it theologically).
Inclusion in a canon is not proportional to theological interpretation. The EO accept the Book of Revelation but I'm told that it is avoided and proof of this comes from the fact that no liturgical EO practice uses any scripture from Revelation. Am I supposed to conclude that the EO interpretation of Revelation is an obstacle to reunion? In addition, if we are going to question their interpretation of some books in the Canon, are we going to also question fathers and manuscripts that dispute NT canonical books? (Another rabbit hole)

Quote
  With Armenia, there is the issue of the Council of Trullo forbidding unleavened bread;
Since you opened the door... Trullo Canon 11 says, "Let no one in the priestly order nor any layman eat the unleavened bread of the Jews," Again, I can't represent the Armenians but I'm pretty sure their unleavened bread did not come from the Jews. And if you're going to insist that this canon is a problem for reconciliation, then we should examine if any EO layman or clergy have Jewish doctors or pharmacists. The second half of Canon 11 says "nor have any familiar intercourse with them [Jews], nor summon them in illness, nor receive medicines from them, nor bathe with them; but if anyone shall take in hand to do so, if he is a cleric, let him be deposed, but if a layman let him be cut off." Why use canons against the Armenians and ignore how they are not used by the EO?

I fail to see how any of these matters that you say need clarification should be a prerequisite for restoration.



Offline biro

  • Site Supporter
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 21,385
  • Excelsior
    • Archive of Our Own works
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #128 on: April 21, 2016, 01:23:57 AM »
"The Church of Our Lady Mary of Zion (Amharic: ርዕሰ አድባራት ቅድስተ ቅዱሳን ድንግል ማሪያም ፅዮን Re-ese Adbarat Kidiste Kidusan Dingel Maryam Ts’iyon) is the most important church in Ethiopia, and claims to contain the Ark of the Covenant. It is located in the town of Axum in the Tigray Province. The original church is believed to have been built during the reign of Ezana, the first Christian ruler of the Kingdom of Axum (Present-day Eritrea and Ethiopia), during the 4th century AD, and has been rebuilt several times since then."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_Our_Lady_Mary_of_Zion
https://archiveofourown.org/users/Parakeetist


Warning: stories have mature content.

Offline Father Peter

  • Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,175
    • Coptic Orthodox Church - Patriarchal Diocese
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchal Diocese
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #129 on: April 21, 2016, 08:27:19 AM »
Clayton published in 2007, so it is very recent scholarship. I'm dropping him an email and hope he will respond.
My ministry and blog - http://www.stgeorgeministry.com

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,773
  • 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 #130 on: April 21, 2016, 08:40:12 AM »
Clayton published in 2007, so it is very recent scholarship. I'm dropping him an email and hope he will respond.

Ok.

Do you have access to the EO OO discussion section so that we can discuss his response and the topic further, Fr. Peter?
« Last Edit: April 21, 2016, 09:00:29 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 Father Peter

  • Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,175
    • Coptic Orthodox Church - Patriarchal Diocese
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchal Diocese
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #131 on: April 21, 2016, 10:43:18 AM »
I don't go there. I've done my share of arguing. I took a leading part in the great Flame Wars of 2003/2004 and they led no-where.

I believe what is important is to consider what we know that we ourselves believe, and work from there. It is the only honest, generous and respectful process it seems to me.
My ministry and blog - http://www.stgeorgeministry.com

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,773
  • 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 #132 on: April 21, 2016, 12:00:15 PM »
I believe what is important is to consider what we know that we ourselves believe, and work from there.
I see.

Since you have researched the Joint Commission in depth, do you have a sense of how much acceptance the Joint Commission has among the OO churches? For example, what portion of OO clergy or hierarchs would say that they approve its conclusions or can openly accept the phrase "in two natures" in some meaning of the term?

I don't have much sense of this myself, but would like to imagine that support is widespread. I know that there is close cooperation between the EO and OO churches in Syria. This will help me better understand the OO position.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2016, 12:08:08 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 Father Peter

  • Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,175
    • Coptic Orthodox Church - Patriarchal Diocese
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchal Diocese
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #133 on: April 21, 2016, 02:27:54 PM »
"In two natures" is not our usual terminology I don;t usually use it myself. The issue is not what terminology we will use, but whether we accept that modern EO do not mean to use the phrase in an erroneous manner.

I am sure there are not well educated or ecumenically exposed clergy who have read poorly researched articles about the EO. I also know a few people who are very anti, but they tend to have other problems as well in my opinion. Of the English speaking and educated clergy I know, I'd say that all are accepting of the EO as being Orthodox. Likewise all the educated clergy in Egypt that I know personally, and I don't mean liberal minded people, but traditionally minded people.

I don't think there is enough exposure to the issue at all levels, But those who are literate in the issues are in the main entirely accepting of the EO as being Orthodox.

Where there is ignorance on all sides there is always scope for misunderstanding, misrepresentation, deception and fear.
My ministry and blog - http://www.stgeorgeministry.com

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington

Offline Father Peter

  • Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,175
    • Coptic Orthodox Church - Patriarchal Diocese
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchal Diocese
Re: Wherein Rakovsky Takes Us Down the Rabbit Hole
« Reply #134 on: April 21, 2016, 02:29:25 PM »
Again, you seem to be avoiding asking whether what we believe is the same, and what we mean by various statements, and are just turning to polemical; terms and asking that they be accepted.

I don't mean that you are being polemical. But repeating phrases doesn't actually lead to an exploration of what we mutually believe.
« Last Edit: April 21, 2016, 02:30:22 PM by Father Peter »
My ministry and blog - http://www.stgeorgeministry.com

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington