Author Topic: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"  (Read 9954 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Remnkemi

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 309
Re: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #45 on: December 26, 2016, 05:21:20 PM »
Or maybe Pope Dioscorus has become the scapegoat for Chalcedon and the cause of division and upheaval of the Church is imperial politics.
Do you think Dioscorus was scapegoated for the deposal of Pat. Flavian when Flavian deposed Eutyches?
Yes.

Let's put it this way. An appeal of a lower court fell into the lap of an appellate judge and that appellate judge finds no cause to affirm the lower court's judgment. Now suppose there was a law that stated if the lower court acted unjustly, then the punishment they placed on the plaintiff becomes their own punishment. Would such an appellate judge be considered unjust for the punishment of the lower court justices? No. He was carrying out the law. Now if this appellate judge is condemned in the court of public opinion, then one can only conclude that the public wants the appellate judge to be the scapegoat for their resentment of the law.

This also applies to ecclesial canon law. The Pedalion (Rudder) states on page 49
"But according to the Nomicon of Photius, Title and ch. 9, and the commentator Balsamon, if by chance a bishop or presbyter should excommunicate anyone from communion (whether it be that of the mysteries, according to Balsamon and Blastark, or even from
standing together with the faithful and from prayer in church) without any canonical and reasonable cause, the excommunication is to be removed by the senior priest, while the bishop or presbyter who imposed the excommunication is to be excommunicated by his superior for as long a period of time as the latter deems sufficient. This is to be done so that he may suffer justly that same punishment which he inflicted upon the other man unjustly."
Now I'm going to assume you believe the Pedalion is an adequate understanding of Eastern Orthodox canon law and late antique ecclesial customs. This was not the only part of the Pedalion that may apply to our context. Other canons like Nicaea Canon 5, Apostolic Canons 37, Constantinople I Canon 1, Carthage Canon 38, etc, may apply but I think the above quote is adequate to make my point. (Remember it was taken out of an EO source)

Eutyches is deposed by Flavian. Eutyches legitimately secures an appeal which the Emperor grants. In this appellate synod (aka Ephesus II), Eutyches does a complete 180, rejecting his own heresy and confessing an Orthodox statement of faith. Pope Dioscorus, who legitimately was called to preside over the synod by the Emperor, finds in favor of Eutyches. Following the above referenced canon Patriarch Flavian is excommunicated. Just because Pope Leo and others didn't like the outcome, it doesn't mean Pope Dioscorus did anything wrong. If public opinion is that Pope Dioscorus did do something wrong by excommunicating Patriarch Flavian, well then he is being scapegoated for their resentment of the canon enforcement.

As I said before, the issue of Chalcedon is complicated. Eutyches does another 180, returning to his heresy and Pope Dioscorus condemns him at Chalcedon. The issue can not simply be reduced to historical and juridical proceedings. There is definitely more to the issue. But given the facts above and the fact that people accuse Pope Dioscorus of unjustly deposing Patriarch Flavian and/or causing Chalcedon, it's not hard to see how Pope Dioscorus was scapegoated for lots of things.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,568
  • 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: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #46 on: December 26, 2016, 07:39:04 PM »
Thank you for your response, Remnkemi!

Do you think Dioscorus was scapegoated for the deposal of Pat. Flavian when Flavian deposed Eutyches?
Yes.

Let's put it this way. An appeal of a lower court fell into the lap of an appellate judge and that appellate judge finds no cause to affirm the lower court's judgment. Now suppose there was a law that stated if the lower court acted unjustly, then the punishment they placed on the plaintiff becomes their own punishment.
Interesting issue with the law. There is probably some law in the US banning corruption of the judges. They could be disbarred as judges. Maybe there is worse. Almost always what happens when the lower court makes an unjust decision is that the decision is reversed, rather than penalties put on the judge. It would have to be a pretty extreme abuse of discretion or corruption.

Quote
Would such an appellate judge be considered unjust for the punishment of the lower court justices? No. He was carrying out the law.
He could be considered unjust, depending on the scenario, as the enforcer of an unjust law.

So let's say that a low court sentenced someone to jail for 10 years for drug trafficking, but the decision turned out to be unjust, since the person was only an accomplice and it later turned out he was innocent, unknown to the judge. The appellate judge could easily be considered unjust for punishing the lower court judge with 10 years' imprisonment for the oversight, even though he was carrying out the law.

Quote
This also applies to ecclesial canon law. The Pedalion (Rudder) states on page 49
"But according to the Nomicon of Photius, Title and ch. 9, and the commentator Balsamon, if by chance a bishop or presbyter should excommunicate anyone from communion (whether it be that of the mysteries, according to Balsamon and Blastark, or even from
standing together with the faithful and from prayer in church) without any canonical and reasonable cause, the excommunication is to be removed by the senior priest, while the bishop or presbyter who imposed the excommunication is to be excommunicated by his superior for as long a period of time as the latter deems sufficient.

This is to be done so that he may suffer justly that same punishment which he inflicted upon the other man unjustly."
OK, although the rest of the church might have disagreements about whether there was a canonical/reasonable cause or how long a time is sufficient.

Quote
Now I'm going to assume you believe the Pedalion is an adequate understanding of Eastern Orthodox canon law and late antique ecclesial customs. This was not the only part of the Pedalion that may apply to our context. Other canons like Nicaea Canon 5, Apostolic Canons 37, Constantinople I Canon 1, Carthage Canon 38, etc, may apply but I think the above quote is adequate to make my point. (Remember it was taken out of an EO source)

Eutyches is deposed by Flavian. Eutyches legitimately secures an appeal which the Emperor grants.
Sure.

Let me follow up by asking you about your next sentence.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2016, 07:58:04 PM by rakovsky »

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,568
  • 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: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #47 on: December 26, 2016, 07:43:19 PM »
Let me ask you about your next sentence:
Quote
In this appellate synod (aka Ephesus II), Eutyches does a complete 180,

rejecting his own heresy


and confessing an Orthodox statement of faith.
OK. You and I are in agreement that Eutyches had been a heretic before Ephesus II.
For example, Price notes on p. 116 of the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon v.1 that Eutyches had rejected Christ's dual consubstantiality.

As I understand it, EOs and OOs also agree that monophysism means that Christ has one nature that is fully divine and is not human.

And you and I also agree that in order to reverse his status as a heretic, Eutyches needed to confess Orthodoxy. As I understand it, Eutyches' heresy in the eyes of EOs and OOs has been that he considered Christ to be in only a divine "nature". He was gave assent to Christ's body being "consubstantial" with us (ie. the body had a human "essence"), since he had said at Flavian's synod:
Quote
"I have never yet presumed to dispute about the nature of my God; that He is consubstantial with us, have I never said. 
....
If you wish me to add that His body is consubstantial with ours, I will do so, but I cannot use the word consubstantial in such a manner as to deny that He is the son of God"

Eutyches replied that he would if the synod desired it make use of language (consubstantial with us and of two natures) which, in his opinion, was very open to question...

A Dictionary of Christian Biography, Volume 1, p. 407
In other words, he was concerned that saying Christ was "consubstantial" with us could effectively deny that Christ was the Son of God, but could accept this while remaining openly skeptical. So the main issue was his monophysitism, rather than his weak position on dual consubstantiality.

Here are my two questions for you:

I. May you please show me where in Ephesus II Eutyches rejected his own heresy, either by acknowledging himself to have been in heresy or by confessing that Christ's nature(s) is/are both fully divine and fully human as EOs and OOs today agree?

His declaration to Ephesus II was:
Quote
while I was living in this faith and persevering in prayer, I was subjected as a result of intrigue to an accusation by Eusebius bishop of Dorylaeum... he insolently called me a heretic...

When in response to an order to make a personal profession of faith I declared that my beliefs accorded with the decree issued by the 318 holy fathers at Nicaea and confirmed at the holy council of Ephesus, he required me to make certain statements that went beyond the definitions at Nicaea... and at the previous council at Ephesus.

SOURCE: The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Volume 1

R. Price notes in the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon:
Quote
Eutyches' supporters charged Flavian's notaries with falsification and corruption, alleging that they had altered the record in order to manufacture incriminating statements that Eutyches now denied having made.
So Eutyches' supporters saw the accusations of heresy as made up.

Eutyches' declaration at Ephesus II was:
Quote
I was subjected to extreme danger because...I refused to hold an opinion contrary to the faith defined by the holy fathers at Nicea... I have always striven, to the best of my power, on behalf of the orthodox faith and against the heretics.

II. Do you think that making an elementary faith statement like the Nicene Creed is enough to show whether someone is an actual monophysite, like Severus of Antioch considered Eutyches to have originally and ultimately been?

Richard Price writes about in Acts of the Council of Chalcedon:
Quote
When the bishops demanded a statement from him of his own beliefs, Eutyches demurred, claiming that it was enough to profess faith in the creed of Nicea and in the teachings of Cyril and Ephesus I
One of the complaints recorded by Eutyches' opponents was:
Quote
"Dioscorus was negligent in not requiring Eutyches to confess that the Word was of the same nature as us in the flesh".
SOURCE: Studies in Syriac Christianity: History, Literature, and Theology by Sebastian P. Brock - 1992

At Ephesus II, Eutyches' supporters were not allowed to question Eutyches to check if he reversed his heresy, rather he simply provided a pre-prepared very elementary faith statement that you can read on p. 156 of the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, v.1.
https://books.google.com/books?id=6IUaOOT1G3UC&pg=PA277&dq=%22ephesus+ii%22+eutyches++faith&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjT5YnR8JLRAhXMxYMKHRfdAQkQ6AEIKTAC#v=snippet&q=%22ephesus%22%20eutyches%20%20faith&f=false

I would like discuss more about whether Dioscorus got scapegoated for deposing Flavian, but it's better for the Polemics section.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2016, 08:13:02 PM by rakovsky »

Offline mcarmichael

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 855
  • Faith: Christian
Re: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #48 on: December 26, 2016, 08:01:46 PM »

This also applies to ecclesial canon law. The Pedalion (Rudder) states on page 49
"But according to the Nomicon of Photius, Title and ch. 9, and the commentator Balsamon, if by chance a bishop or presbyter should excommunicate anyone from communion (whether it be that of the mysteries, according to Balsamon and Blastark, or even from
standing together with the faithful and from prayer in church) without any canonical and reasonable cause, the excommunication is to be removed by the senior priest, while the bishop or presbyter who imposed the excommunication is to be excommunicated by his superior for as long a period of time as the latter deems sufficient. This is to be done so that he may suffer justly that same punishment which he inflicted upon the other man unjustly."


Verrrry interesting!  Sometimes it is only temporary, in other words.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2016, 08:16:50 PM by mcarmichael »
Sun Tzu said:
This is war.
It is the most important skill in the nation.
It is the basis of life and death.
It is the philosophy of survival or destruction.
You must know it well.

"Mouth make trouble. Mouth make no trouble." - Sun Tzu

Offline Remnkemi

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 309
Re: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #49 on: December 26, 2016, 09:03:26 PM »
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt but you are far from understanding my point.

Interesting issue with the law. There is probably some law in the US banning corruption of the judges. They could be disbarred as judges. Maybe there is worse. Almost always what happens when the lower court makes an unjust decision is that the decision is reversed, rather than penalties put on the judge. It would have to be a pretty extreme abuse of discretion or corruption.
Maybe my example was too hypothetical for you. I said "SUPPOSE there was a law" that said a penalty for unjust judges was to impose their own judgment on themselves. I didn't say the appellate judge was corruptly imposing an unjust punishment in addition to reversing the lower court's decision. I am saying in this hypothetical legal situation, the appellate judge is enforcing the law, not abusing the law.

Quote
Quote
Would such an appellate judge be considered unjust for the punishment of the lower court justices? No. He was carrying out the law.
He could be considered unjust, depending on the scenario, as the enforcer of an unjust law.
No he can't be considered unjust for enforcing a law, regardless of the scenario. If you consider a particular law unjust, you have to address with the legislature, not the court. The appellate judge must carry out the law, not counter-legislate from the bench.

Quote
So let's say that a low court sentenced someone to jail for 10 years for drug trafficking, but the decision turned out to be unjust, since the person was only an accomplice and it later turned out he was innocent, unknown to the judge. The appellate judge could easily be considered unjust for punishing the lower court judge with 10 years' imprisonment for the oversight, even though he was carrying out the law.
It's a good thing you're not an appellate judge or a judiciary review member of the bar. If there is a law that reverses the punishment to the lower court justices, then it would never be unjust for a higher judge to enforce that law. The legislature would be considered unjust for passing the law, but not the judge. The judge could be considered unjust for ignoring or not enforcing that law.

Quote
Quote
Now if this appellate judge is condemned in the court of public opinion, then one can only conclude that the public wants the appellate judge to be the scapegoat for their resentment of the law.
If the public condemns someone for enforcing an unjust law, it does not mean the enforcer is scapegoated, depending on the circumstances.
I didn't say scapegoating is the only conclusion. I said it can be concluded that the public wants to scapegoat the judge.  We can't ignore the fact that politics plays a role here. If the public condemns a person for doing their job, then (one possible reason is) the political climate wanted a scapegoat to transfer attention away from their resentment of the rightful legal process.

I'll address the rest later.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,568
  • 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: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #50 on: December 26, 2016, 09:51:19 PM »
Hello, Remnkemi!
If the public condemns a person for doing their job, then (one possible reason is) the political climate wanted a scapegoat to transfer attention away from their resentment of the rightful legal process.
I think that the judicial scenario you present is more debatable than you realize (take for instance Nazi or medieval Sharia judges enforcing brutal military laws that violate recognized internationally recognized fundamental human rights).

But this is not really a crucial issue of contention. We both agree that (1) the Church has a rule about excommunicating for excommunications where there is neither canonical nor reasonable cause, and it says that (2) the excommunication is imposed as long as the bishop's  superior deems sufficient.

So you would need to show:
1. Flavian had no "canonical cause" to excommunicate the monophysite Eutyches

2. Flavian had no "reasonable cause" to excommunicate the monophysite Eutyches

3. (A) Dioscorus or (B) his Council were Flavian's superior.
Since they were both Patriarchs, I think that this would require proving (B) Ephesus II's status a legitimate council. To do this you would want to address its rejection by Rome and its claims made later by bishops who approved Flavian's deposal that they were forced to do so.

4. Dioscorus was not abusing his judgment in the magnitude of the penalty. In the EOs' records of Ephesus II, Dioscorus was demanding that Flavian, who died not long after in exile, be cut in half for "dividing" Christ. I don't know if that is in the OOs' version of the records.

Regards.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2016, 09:59:30 PM by rakovsky »

Offline Remnkemi

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 309
Re: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #51 on: December 27, 2016, 10:59:08 AM »

So you would need to show:
1. Flavian had no "canonical cause" to excommunicate the monophysite Eutyches
Directly, I don't have evidence to show that Flavian had no "canonical cause" to excommunicate Eutyches. I would have to research some more. However, in the Pedalion I did find a passage explaining a canon saying something to the effect that if a frivolous complaint about a bishop comes to the ears of the Emperor, such a person has disgraced the canons and punishments will fall on him. Thus, if the Emperor Theodosius did grant Eutyches an appeal, then we can assume there was sufficient canonical cause. 

If there was absolutely no canonical cause then Emperor Theodosius and his advisers are more complicit than Pope Dioscorus. Any of the 198 bishops who attended Ephesus II should have objected before the council if there was no canonical cause against Flavian's excommunication of Eutyches. There were only complaints after the council.

I understand this is just circumstantial at best.

Quote
2. Flavian had no "reasonable cause" to excommunicate the monophysite Eutyches.
The canons are clear on this. A person who is excommunicated - if he desires to repent - he must go to the bishop who excommunicated him for repentance. If Flavian refused to absolve Eutyches, then that is sufficient "reasonable cause". Canon 1 of Nicaea made it a requirement to have a local synods meet biannually to examine troublesome bishops who act unjustly. The assumption here is that there were sufficient troublesome bishops to create Nicaea Canon 1. We can also assume that since Eutyches did "repent" and confess an Orthodox theology at Ephesus II, then he should have been absolved and restored by Flavian sooner. Again, this is circumstantial at best. But it is plausible that Eutyches had to go through an appeal process because Flavian refused to listen to Eutyches any longer. It is also understandable since Eutyches was a trouble maker himself

Quote
3. (A) Dioscorus or (B) his Council were Flavian's superior.
Since they were both Patriarchs, I think that this would require proving (B) Ephesus II's status a legitimate council. To do this you would want to address its rejection by Rome and its claims made later by bishops who approved Flavian's deposal that they were forced to do so.
Again, the canons clearly allowed Pope Dioscorus and Ephesus II to adjudicate the matter. I already mentioned Canon 1 of Nicaea. There are other canons too. I don't have to prove that Pope Dioscorus himself was Flavian's superior. I only have to show the canons allow neighboring patriarchs to resolve the conflict of Eutyches, which agree is true. I also don't need to address Rome's claim since they do not have the canonical authority to ignore or invalidate a council allowed by the Church and commissioned by the Emperor. They can reject to ratify the council for Rome, but they cannot claim it did not follow "due process" and call it a Robber council. Regarding later bishops, this is a matter of historical evidence and politics. It says more about those bishops than it says about Ephesus II. I'll leave it at that.

Quote
4. Dioscorus was not abusing his judgment in the magnitude of the penalty. In the EOs' records of Ephesus II, Dioscorus was demanding that Flavian, who died not long after in exile, be cut in half for "dividing" Christ. I don't know if that is in the OOs' version of the records.
I already showed that the canons allowed for the penalty. Pope Dioscorus simply followed the canons. If you continue to claim Pope Dioscorus abused his authority, you are showing contempt for the canon, not Pope Dioscorus. I don't pay much attention to polemical history. It's nothing more than folklore. One thing I do know for sure: The most effectual Alexandrian popes were all accused of being murders and riot mongers, whether it was Sts Athanasius, Theophilus, Cyril, Dioscorus, Timothy II, Peter, Damian, and Pope Shenouda III. It's nothing more than a polemical propaganda tool.

Additionally, even if this Chalcedonian story is true (which I doubt), are you sure Pope Dioscorus was calling to cut Flavian because of a personal vendetta for Flavian or could it be that he was talking more generically? Maybe he meant anyone who "divides Christ" should be punished in the same manner. Exactly like the canons that reverse punishment on troublesome bishops. I know for us it is a cruel thing to say or even think. We don't justify murder. But I see it as allegorical, not an actual call for murder.

« Last Edit: December 27, 2016, 11:14:52 AM by Remnkemi »

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,568
  • 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: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #52 on: December 27, 2016, 01:50:40 PM »

So you would need to show:
1. Flavian had no "canonical cause" to excommunicate the monophysite Eutyches
in the Pedalion I did find a passage explaining a canon saying something to the effect that if a frivolous complaint about a bishop comes to the ears of the Emperor, such a person has disgraced the canons and punishments will fall on him. Thus, if the Emperor Theodosius did grant Eutyches an appeal, then we can assume there was sufficient canonical cause. 

If there was absolutely no canonical cause then Emperor Theodosius and his advisers are more complicit than Pope Dioscorus. Any of the 198 bishops who attended Ephesus II should have objected before the council if there was no canonical cause against Flavian's excommunication of Eutyches. There were only complaints after the council.
Dear Remnkemi:

You are saying that if Emperor Theodosius gave Eutyches an appeal, it means the Emperor had sufficient cause to call Ephesus II.

However, what I was asking in #1 was not whether Emperor Theodosius had cause to call Ephesus II, but whether Flavian had  "canonical cause" to excommunicate the monophysite Eutyches.

These are two different things, I think you will agree.

A local council like Flavian's can decide that someone like Eutyches is a heretic, and then the accused can appeal for a later council to review his case. The granting of a council to hear the appeal does not itself mean that the appellant (Eutyches here) was wrongly called a heretic in the first place.

I fully replied to the rest of your message in the Private Section where I made a new thread about it. I invite you:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,70659.msg1438353.html#msg1438353

I think that OOs should not feel compelled to defend Dioscorus' actions, since I read that at the Fifth Council, the Syriac OO delegation said that they disagreed that Dioscorus was a monophysite, but they did agree that Dioscorus was wrong to excommunicate Flavian.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2016, 01:53:30 PM by rakovsky »

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,568
  • 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: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #53 on: December 27, 2016, 02:18:14 PM »
Remnkemi,

The reason I take the discussion to the Private Forum is that any discussion on Chalcedon risks getting labeled as polemical and incurring warnings on the Public Forum.

My taking it there does not mean I intend to have hostility to you.

You are entitled to your idea that Dioscorus was scapegoated for his excommunication of Flavian for excommunicating the monophysite Eutyches. So I want to have a full discussion on why you think this.
« Last Edit: December 27, 2016, 02:18:28 PM by rakovsky »

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 40,755
Re: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #54 on: January 09, 2017, 03:54:04 PM »
Indeed. Is this the sole criticism that would make Chalcedon "Nestorian" or "the council of schism"?

No. The major issues were 1) the talk of two natures after the union, at a time when for many people, the terms "nature" and "hypostasis" were interchangeable; 2) Leo's tome, which discusses the two natures acting in union with one another, also raised alarms for those who associated such language with Nestorianism. The reinstatement of Ibas as orthodox, on the basis of his letter attacking Cyril, simply confirmed the suspicions aroused by the language used in the definitions.
It was on the basis of his letter from the clergy of Edessa exonerating him (or at least claiming to). But then, like now, that fact was lost, not the least because Ibas' sincerity in confession is questioned as much as Eutyches'.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline RaphaCam

  • Holy Martyr Mercurius
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,924
  • Please pray for my family and for myself
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #55 on: January 09, 2017, 04:29:48 PM »
Just leaving it here without any insinuation (I found this after debating with a Nestorian who believed St. Leo was a Nestorian alike):

Quote from: Sermon 21
A royal Virgin of the stem of David is chosen, to be impregnated with the sacred seed and to conceive the Divinely-human offspring in mind first and then in body. And lest in ignorance of the heavenly counsel she should tremble at so strange a result , she learns from converse with the angel that what is to be wrought in her is of the Holy Ghost. Nor does she believe it loss of honour that she is soon to be the Mother of God.
"He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty." (Psalm 90:1)

Check my blog "Em Espírito e em Verdade" (in Portuguese). Last article: Fontes de fé da Igreja Ortodoxa

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,461
  • Searching for the mystery of faith.
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #56 on: January 09, 2017, 04:45:05 PM »
Yeah, I've been eyeing St. Leo's sermons too. I don't know how you can get Nestorianism from him at all.
"Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." (St. Manuel II Palaiologos)

"Do not be ashamed to enter again into the Church. Be ashamed when you sin. Do not be ashamed when you repent." (St. John Chrysostom)

"Now one cannot be a half-hearted Christian, but only entirely or not at all." (Fr. Seraphim Rose)

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,133
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #57 on: January 09, 2017, 04:53:13 PM »
Would you both like a letter written by St. Dioscorus "without insinuation", or do you really like to cut it out?

The ONLY writing available to OOs written by Pope Leo was the Tome.  His other writings were not made available.  Any further arguments I would have made would be better suited in the private forum.

If you are sincere about a question of the OP being asked without feeling defensive, then stop playing these argumentative games.  If you wish to make an argument against OO accusations, make it in the private forum.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2017, 04:54:52 PM by minasoliman »
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 RaphaCam

  • Holy Martyr Mercurius
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,924
  • Please pray for my family and for myself
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #58 on: January 09, 2017, 05:09:09 PM »
Would you both like a letter written by St. Dioscorus "without insinuation", or do you really like to cut it out?

The ONLY writing available to OOs written by Pope Leo was the Tome.  His other writings were not made available.  Any further arguments I would have made would be better suited in the private forum.

If you are sincere about a question of the OP being asked without feeling defensive, then stop playing these argumentative games.  If you wish to make an argument against OO accusations, make it in the private forum.
No games or nitpicking, I didn't even read all the rest of the thread, I just had the excerpt in hand and thought it could be appropriate to post it here instead of opening a whole new thread just to post something that probably most people here already knew (that St. Leo wasn't a Nestorian).
« Last Edit: January 09, 2017, 05:12:18 PM by RaphaCam »
"He that dwelleth in the secret place of the most High shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty." (Psalm 90:1)

Check my blog "Em Espírito e em Verdade" (in Portuguese). Last article: Fontes de fé da Igreja Ortodoxa

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,568
  • 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: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #59 on: January 09, 2017, 05:32:48 PM »
The reinstatement of Ibas as orthodox, on the basis of his letter attacking Cyril, simply confirmed the suspicions aroused by the language used in the definitions.
It was on the basis of his letter from the clergy of Edessa exonerating him (or at least claiming to). But then, like now, that fact was lost,

Isa,

Can you please check my last messages in this thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,67844.0.html

I got a PM from an OO showing me what looks be decent evidence that the letter in question was not a letter from Edessa's clergy, but a later-condemned letter by Ibas.

(Of course, making a condemned letter does not necessarily make one considered a heretic in their person, like in the case of Blessed Theodoret, depending on what exactly the problem with the letter was, as I explained in that thread.)


Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,568
  • 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: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #60 on: January 09, 2017, 05:56:59 PM »
Would you both like a letter written by St. Dioscorus "without insinuation"
Not sure what you mean. I have read at least one post-Chalcedon letter by Dioscorus.

Quote

The ONLY writing available to OOs written by Pope Leo was the Tome.  His other writings were not made available. 
What about his letter to the publicly-known council at Ephesus:
Quote
Leo, bishop, to the holy Synod which is assembled at Ephesus

the Lord said, "whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am ?" and the disciples mentioned various people's opinion: but, when He asked what they themselves believed, the chief of the apostles, embracing the fullness of the Faith in one short sentence, said, "You are the Christ, the son of the living God :" that is, You who truly is Son of man is also truly Son of the living God: You, I say, true in Godhead, true in flesh and one altogether , the properties of the two natures being kept intact.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3604033.htm

I guess P. Leo's way of talking, like his statements "You who truly is Son of man is also truly Son of the living God" is the kind of thing they would read into as Leo teaching the Son of Man is an individual separated from the Son of God. P.Leo makes a lot of these kinds of phrases in the Tome, talking about the human Christ and also talking about the divine Son of God.

Based on the dialogues (not EO-OO ones) we have had on other sections of the forum about interpreting Christological texts, I can see how these kinds of things would go on and on.

Leo's letter to the council of Ephesus also says:
Quote
II. The heresy of Eutyches is to be condemned, though his full repentance may lead to his restitution.

[Leo demands that] the pestilential error may be first condemned, and then the restitution of him[Eutyches], who has so unwisely erred, discussed, but only if embracing the true doctrine he fully and openly with his own voice and signature condemns those heretical opinions in which his ignorance has been ensnared: for this he has promised in the appeal which he sent to us, pledging himself to follow our judgment in all things.

On receiving our brother and fellow bishop Flavian's letter, we have replied to him at some length on the points which he seems to have referred to us : that when this error which seems to have arisen, has been destroyed, there may be one Faith and one and the same confession throughout the whole world
I think OO bishops were at this council of Ephesus, weren't they, and would have known of the letter?
P. Leo is saying Eutyches should be reinstated if he rejects his heretical opinions, which EOs and OOs are in agreement he had.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2017, 05:59:33 PM by rakovsky »

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,133
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #61 on: January 09, 2017, 06:05:58 PM »
Would you both like a letter written by St. Dioscorus "without insinuation"
Not sure what you mean. I have read at least one post-Chalcedon letter by Dioscorus.

Quote

The ONLY writing available to OOs written by Pope Leo was the Tome.  His other writings were not made available. 
What about his letter to the publicly-known council at Ephesus:
Quote
Leo, bishop, to the holy Synod which is assembled at Ephesus

the Lord said, "whom do men say that I, the Son of man, am ?" and the disciples mentioned various people's opinion: but, when He asked what they themselves believed, the chief of the apostles, embracing the fullness of the Faith in one short sentence, said, "You are the Christ, the son of the living God :" that is, You who truly is Son of man is also truly Son of the living God: You, I say, true in Godhead, true in flesh and one altogether , the properties of the two natures being kept intact.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3604033.htm

I guess P. Leo's way of talking, like his statements "You who truly is Son of man is also truly Son of the living God" is the kind of thing they would read into as Leo teaching the Son of Man is an individual separated from the Son of God. P.Leo makes a lot of these kinds of phrases in the Tome, talking about the human Christ and also talking about the divine Son of God.

Based on the dialogues (not EO-OO ones) we have had on other sections of the forum about interpreting Christological texts, I can see how these kinds of things would go on and on.

Leo's letter to the council of Ephesus also says:
Quote
II. The heresy of Eutyches is to be condemned, though his full repentance may lead to his restitution.

[Leo demands that] the pestilential error may be first condemned, and then the restitution of him[Eutyches], who has so unwisely erred, discussed, but only if embracing the true doctrine he fully and openly with his own voice and signature condemns those heretical opinions in which his ignorance has been ensnared: for this he has promised in the appeal which he sent to us, pledging himself to follow our judgment in all things.

On receiving our brother and fellow bishop Flavian's letter, we have replied to him at some length on the points which he seems to have referred to us : that when this error which seems to have arisen, has been destroyed, there may be one Faith and one and the same confession throughout the whole world
I think OO bishops were at this council of Ephesus, weren't they, and would have known of the letter?
P. Leo is saying Eutyches should be reinstated if he rejects his heretical opinions, which EOs and OOs are in agreement he had.

It's not a very deep letter.  Nestorius also believed that the Son of Man is also the Son of God.  Read his Bazaar and open up a new blog thread about the theology of Nestorius.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2017, 06:06:33 PM by minasoliman »
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: 8,568
  • 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: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #62 on: January 09, 2017, 06:42:35 PM »
It's not a very deep letter.  Nestorius also believed that the Son of Man is also the Son of God. 
There's quite a long list of P.Leo's letters, sermons, and writings available at least today, many written on topic and before and after Chalcedon, like lengthy ones to Pat.Flavian. It seems only natural that during his own defense, Pat.Flavian would have tried to show them to OOs to keep himself from getting deposed/exiled/died. Plus, those recorded papal sermons would also be publicly heard. Are you saying that only two of Leo's letters on the topic were for a long time publicly known by OOs, by which he was judged Nestorian?

(Long list of) Writings of P.Leo
http://biblehub.com/library/leo/writings_of_leo_the_great

As I understand it, Juvenal of Jerusalem changed from OO to EO during the course of the Council of Chalcedon. It would be interesting to have Juvenal's writings when he was OO and EO on the question, but I expect he didn't discuss the christological issue much and in detail, since he was not one of the main combatants(Dioscorus v. Leo & Flavian), was not a Patriach at the time(hence not expected as much to lead on the split), and switched his position (hence probably shallow).

Leo's letter to Pat.Juvenal is here:
http://biblehub.com/library/leo/writings_of_leo_the_great/letter_cxxxix_to_juvenal_bishop.htm
Quote
For the condemnation of Flavian of blessed memory, and the acceptance of the most unholy Eutyches, what was it but the denial of our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh?
..
In your country was it that His boyhood grew, His youth ripened, and His true man's nature reached to perfect manhood by the increase of the body, not without food for hunger, not without sleep for rest, not without tears of pity, not without fear and dread: for He is one and the same Person, who in the form of God wrought great miracles of power, and in the form of a slave underwent the cruelty of the passion.
Aren't these phrases "in the form of God ___" "and" "in the form of a slave ___" the kind of thing some OOs have seen as implying to them two separated "persons", disregarding that Leo has said the two forms are "one and the same person"?

Also, in the underlined part of Leo's letter above, you can see a reflection of some EOs' perception/claim of OOs denying the human nature (as opposed to the divine nature) in particular. He repeats this throughout the rest of his letter, where he doesn't address the theory of Christ having one combined nature that is both fully divine and human, but rather dedicates his teaching to the idea of Christ being not just divine but a human with a human nature, essence and set of properties in particular. It's like the real issue for P.Leo is not two natures v. a dual nature, but rather two natures remaining vs. one divine nature only remaining.

[[Leo's main (or only) mentioned evidence of what came to be known as his opponents' m---physitism is their acceptance of Eutyches.]]

Can you please tell me who was the Pat. of Antioch and how he came down on the EO-OO split at Chalcedon?
« Last Edit: January 09, 2017, 07:12:46 PM by rakovsky »

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,568
  • 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: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #63 on: January 09, 2017, 07:13:55 PM »
CORRECTION:
[[Leo's main (or only) mentioned evidence of what came to be known as his opponents' m---physitism in some Chalcedonians' eyes is his opponents' acceptance of Eutyches at Ephesus II.]]
« Last Edit: January 09, 2017, 07:14:12 PM by rakovsky »

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,133
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #64 on: January 09, 2017, 07:44:44 PM »
Quote
Are you saying that only two of Leo's letters on the topic were for a long time publicly known by OOs, by which he was judged Nestorian?

Yes

Quote
Aren't these phrases "in the form of God ___" "and" "in the form of a slave ___" the kind of thing some OOs have seen as implying to them two separated "persons", disregarding that Leo has said the two forms are "one and the same person"?

No

Quote
Can you please tell me who was the Pat. of Antioch and how he came down on the EO-OO split at Chalcedon?

No
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 ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 40,755
Re: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #65 on: January 09, 2017, 08:18:55 PM »
The reinstatement of Ibas as orthodox, on the basis of his letter attacking Cyril, simply confirmed the suspicions aroused by the language used in the definitions.
It was on the basis of his letter from the clergy of Edessa exonerating him (or at least claiming to). But then, like now, that fact was lost,

Isa,

Can you please check my last messages in this thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,67844.0.html

I got a PM from an OO showing me what looks be decent evidence that the letter in question was not a letter from Edessa's clergy, but a later-condemned letter by Ibas.

(Of course, making a condemned letter does not necessarily make one considered a heretic in their person, like in the case of Blessed Theodoret, depending on what exactly the problem with the letter was, as I explained in that thread.)
Condemned by whom?

Later than what?
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,568
  • 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: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #66 on: January 09, 2017, 08:53:54 PM »
Hello, Isa.
I request if you get a chance to check the info PMed to me by an OO about the Letter of Ibas.
It was on the basis of his letter from the clergy of Edessa exonerating him (or at least claiming to). But then, like now, that fact was lost,

Isa,

Can you please check my last messages in this thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,67844.0.html

I got a PM from an OO showing me what looks be decent evidence that the letter in question was not a letter from Edessa's clergy, but a later-condemned letter by Ibas.

(Of course, making a condemned letter does not necessarily make one considered a heretic in their person, like in the case of Blessed Theodoret, depending on what exactly the problem with the letter was, as I explained in that thread.)

A. Condemned by whom?

B. Later than what?
A. The letter I refer to was one condemned by the 5th Council and the PM I got and posted fon the thread I showed you made a decent case it was written by Ibas.

B. The Council that condemned the letter was the 5th Council, the 5th Council was later than Chalcedon.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,568
  • 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: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #67 on: January 09, 2017, 08:59:51 PM »
Quote
Are you saying that only two of Leo's letters on the topic were for a long time publicly known by OOs, by which he was judged Nestorian?

Yes
What makes you think this, since he was involved in numerous correspondence on the topic with major figures involved in this disputes on both sides, ranging from Eutyches (correspondence in the database), Flavian (in database), Juvenaly (in database), and numerous others?

The only issue like it that comes to mind is I kind of remember some issue about whether Leo's Tome was allowed to be read publicly at Ephesus II.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2017, 09:00:48 PM by rakovsky »

Offline Remnkemi

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 309
Re: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #68 on: January 09, 2017, 09:23:00 PM »
Quote
(Of course, making a condemned letter does not necessarily make one considered a heretic in their person, like in the case of Blessed Theodoret, depending on what exactly the problem with the letter was, as I explained in that thread.)
How convenient for Ibas and Theodoret. Can you name anyone else whose letter or writing was condemned but not the person? Didn't happen for Origen, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Arius, Apollonarius, Nestorius, etc. If a person was condemned heretic, his writings were condemned too...until Justinian decided not to follow this concept.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,133
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #69 on: January 09, 2017, 09:34:36 PM »
Quote
Are you saying that only two of Leo's letters on the topic were for a long time publicly known by OOs, by which he was judged Nestorian?

Yes
What makes you think this, since he was involved in numerous correspondence on the topic with major figures involved in this disputes on both sides, ranging from Eutyches (correspondence in the database), Flavian (in database), Juvenaly (in database), and numerous others?

The only issue like it that comes to mind is I kind of remember some issue about whether Leo's Tome was allowed to be read publicly at Ephesus II.

To be politically involved does not mean the person shared his theology in depth in every single letter.  Remember, the Tome was an important theological document that was sent to be a decider of Orthodoxy in Ephesus 449, which the leaders of the council decided that it should not be read for reasons already answered.

The questions for this thread is not if Leo or other supporters of Chalcedon "Nestorian", but in what way did the OOs see Nestorianism in the Tome and Chalcedon.  The answers were given already in this thread.

Now, I want to make a statement, and this goes for OOs in this thread.  Please be careful what you say.  This is not a thread for polemics or arguments.  It's a thread, assuming it was made in good faith despite the sophomoric OP, is about the OO view of the situation, and not about an argument or an "impromptu" sharing of information that indirectly challenges the questions asked and invites debate.

So please tread carefully in this thread.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2017, 09:36:23 PM by minasoliman »
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: 8,568
  • 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: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #70 on: January 09, 2017, 09:55:47 PM »
How convenient for Ibas and Theodoret. Can you name anyone else whose letter or writing was condemned but not the person? Didn't happen for Origen, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Arius, Apollonarius, Nestorius, etc. If a person was condemned heretic, his writings were condemned too...
St. Cyril Alexandrine opposed Theodore M's teachings but is known to oppose declaring Theodore M. a heretic in his person.

I think St. Cyril had a good spirit and understood the importance of reconciliation, hence his successful work with John Antiochene.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,568
  • 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: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #71 on: January 09, 2017, 10:20:00 PM »
Yes
What makes you think this, since he was involved in numerous correspondence on the topic with major figures involved in this disputes on both sides, ranging from Eutyches (correspondence in the database), Flavian (in database), Juvenaly (in database), and numerous others?

The only issue like it that comes to mind is I kind of remember some issue about whether Leo's Tome was allowed to be read publicly at Ephesus II.

To be politically involved does not mean the person shared his theology in depth in every single letter. 
I understand and agree. I see P.Leo making the case that there was no reasonable explanation for Dioscorus to be politically involved in punishing Flavian for Flavian's expulsion of Eutyches, unless Dioscorus believed Eutyches to be orthodox at the moment Flavian expelled him.

The reason I bring this up is I have a bit of a hard time with the EO idea of OO "monophysitism" that sees OOs as accepting only the divine nature after the incarnation. I am pointing out (sympathetically to OOs) that this is really the only evidence he mentions to Juvenaly.

Quote
Remember, the Tome was an important theological document that was sent to be a decider of Orthodoxy in Ephesus 449, which the leaders of the council decided that it should not be read for reasons already answered.
Isn't that the same kind of issue Remnkemi is bringing up about treating writings as heretical but not people as heretical?
The leadership of Ephesus II considered Leo's letter as heretical and effectively censored it from the Church represented ecumenically at the Council, and yet they still allowed Leo to be a participant of the council via his delegates without censoring him as heretical?

Quote
The questions for this thread is not if Leo or other supporters of Chalcedon "Nestorian", but in what way did the OOs see Nestorianism in the Tome and Chalcedon.  The answers were given already in this thread.
Did those OOs take the view that the Nestorianism was isolated to the Tome and the documents of Chalcedon?
It seems you are saying they didn't know about any other documents by P. Leo, so I wanted to see why you thought this.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,133
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #72 on: January 09, 2017, 10:58:09 PM »
I'm only going to answer what you made clear as questions:

The Tome was not condemned at Ephesus II.  It was ignored completely.  The Latin representatives who were requesting that it be read were ignored.  That was obvious in the minutes.

Most of the OO arguments are in fact isolated to the Tome and everything in Chalcedon was interpreted according to the Tome in OO polemical history.  The EOs have a different view of course where the Tome is interpreted according to Chalcedon, not the other way around (minus the Three Chapters, which were to the OOs a sort of smoking gun in the ancient debates).

The reason why I say they didn't have any other documents by Pope Leo in hand because Pope Leo's writings were predominantly Latin, divorced completely from the Greek East.  In fact, it is clear that Latin Chalcedonians and Greek Chalcedonians seem to view the events and theology of Chalcedon with slight nuances, and this is at least according to Price, but every scholar seems to notice this as well, including Fr John Romanides.

You can also tell that writings from St. John Cassian and St. Augustine were also not readily available to the East either.  The whole issue on grace and free will and Pelagianism seem to be absent in the East, even if they may have heard about it.  You could tell that when Julian of Halicarnassus was condemned by St. Severus, an Augustinian system was actually condemned, but St. Severus seems to never heard or Augustine or read his writings.  Only Syriac and Greek writings were available to him.  When he condemned Julian, he didn't mention Augustine.  And when he quoted or even mentioned ancient fathers, he could go back to Origen, Irenaeus, Ignatius, but never mentioned Tertullian.  This is an indication that the Latin West was already beginning to become divorced from the East theologically due to a linguistic divide.

Therefore, YES, Pope Leo's writings weren't made readily available in the polemical debates.  The only thing OOs (and most Greek EOs) in the fifth and sixth centuries knew of Pope Leo was the Tome and maybe a few here and there that were of no major theological significance (in other words the arguments would not have changed).  Understandably, Pope Leo did write a clarification letter to Palestinians and interestingly enough asked for their forgiveness on a poor translation of one of his letters, which might be his Tome.  I read this letter and, yes, theologically, it's better than the Tome, and echoes one of St. Dioscorus' letters he wrote in exile.  But this letter for better or worse was not even used by Greek Chalcedonians as an argument against OOs, and so even that seems to be lost to the Greek world.


So, that's why I said yes.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2017, 11:02:23 PM by minasoliman »
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: 8,568
  • 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: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #73 on: January 10, 2017, 04:45:30 PM »
I forgot another claim of EO "Nestorianism".

Fr. Peter (the Coptic forum user) took the position that Nestorius was the student of Theodore Mopsuestia, who was condemned as heretical (for Nestorianism or something like it IIRC) at the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and drew broader implications from this. Theodore M. was a major figure in the school or theological tradition of Antioch. Fr. Peter proposed that Theodore M. therefore provided the basis for Blessed Theodoret's theology. One might point out that John Chrysostom had intense admiration for Theodore M. all his life.

Quote
The exiled patriarch [John Chrysostom] "can never forget the love of Theodore, so genuine and warm, so sincere and guileless, a love maintained from early years, and manifested but now."
Chrysostom (Ep. 204) thanks him profoundly for frequent though ineffectual efforts to obtain his release, and praises their friendship in such glowing terms that Theodore's enemies at the fifth Ecumenical Council made unsuccessful efforts to deny the identity of Chrysostom's correspondent with the bishop of Mopsuestia.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_of_Mopsuestia

So Fr. Peter was laying out a kind of like guilt by association and by theological implication. Namely: Theodore M. was condemned at Council V, Theodore M. was a major theological figure, Nestorius was a student of Theodore M., therefore Theodore M. was a foundational figure for the Antiochians' (ie. Eastern EOs') basic theology, and based on these premises, then therefore others who learned from and theologically respected Theodore M. must have received his imputed "Nestorianism".

Main counterarguments I see to these kinds of accusations include some of the same kinds of ones I would use to defend OOs. Namely:
A. Someone being a major figure in your church does not automatically mean everyone or most people have the fine points of your theology that later came in controversy. So to give an example: if one of Nestorius' big problems was to disagree with the term Theotokos, but Blessed Theodoret accepted the term, then how do we automatically impute Nestorius' teaching about this to Bl. Theodoret.

B. Maybe the decision to reject Theodore M. as heretical Nestorian should be reexamined, just like the official rejection of OOs as monophysite is being reexamined. Just as OOs may be wrongly imputed as teaching monophysitism based on their rejection of the duality of natures remaining after the union, maybe Theodore M. who explicitly taught only one Person of Christ is wrongly accused of teaching two Persons of Christ because of his idea of the two hypostases, a concept in flux at the time. St. Cyril Alexandrine defended Theodore M. against formal condemnation.

C. Maybe the same can be said of Nestorius in Nestorius' own defense as I put above, since he also explicitly taught there being only one person.

D. If Theodore M. was rejected at Council 5, and Nestorius was rejected at Chalcedon, it puts in question whether either Council could legitimately be accused of Nestorianism, since one of St. Cyril's major arguments in defense of the Antiochians was that they rejected Nestorius.

E. St. Cyril reconciled with the Antiochians as sufficiently orthodox, and this action by him has been accepted by OOs, so how can we say they were collectively "Nestorian", since at that point Theodore M. had already become the major figure in their theology?

I think in the course of dialogues of reconciliation today we have a chance to bring out these kinds of defenses on both sides.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2017, 04:46:26 PM by rakovsky »

Offline Iconodule

  • Professor of Cryptopatristics at Miskatonic University
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,161
  • Monsters from the Id
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #74 on: January 10, 2017, 05:24:19 PM »
I would advise you to take a peek at Theodore of Mopsuestia's De Incarnatione because he says some pretty blatantly monstrous things. It's true that the incarnation is such a unfathomable mystery that differences of language  and imprecisions are bound to crop up, but the Christology of Theodore can definitely not be construed as orthodox. It's actually refreshing, after parsing the perplexing semantic quibbles between Chalcedonians and anti-Chalcedonians, to read something which is so obviously wrong.

Conversely I think Theodoret used problematic language but was basically orthodox.

I agree that guilt by association is a weak line of argument to take but it is easy to see continuity of language as also a continuity in thought, even if the language is trying to express different thoughts. Regarding "the Antiochians," keep in mind that the Church of Antioch was in quite a state of flux. The high respect for Theodore doesn't seem to have been unanimous, and not every Antiochian was an "Antiochene" by default. Some of the biggest opponents of Chalcedon came out of Antioch too.

Even within the School of Edessa there was some shuffling as to who was the "master"- perhaps Ephraim the Syrian, or John Chrysostom. Tragically they finally settled on Theodore.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2017, 05:25:18 PM by Iconodule »
Quote
But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."
Thomas Hardy, Tess of the D'Urbervilles

Offline Remnkemi

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 309
Re: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #75 on: January 10, 2017, 06:53:20 PM »
Quote
Remember, the Tome was an important theological document that was sent to be a decider of Orthodoxy in Ephesus 449, which the leaders of the council decided that it should not be read for reasons already answered.
Isn't that the same kind of issue Remnkemi is bringing up about treating writings as heretical but not people as heretical?
The leadership of Ephesus II considered Leo's letter as heretical and effectively censored it from the Church represented ecumenically at the Council, and yet they still allowed Leo to be a participant of the council via his delegates without censoring him as heretical?
There is a major difference between censoring a letter out of theological concerns and having an ecumenical council declare a specific letter as heretic. Ephesus II never condemned Leo's Tome officially. No one ever condemned (to the best of my knowledge) Leo's Tome without condemning Leo. Constantinople II on the other hand officially condemned Ibas' letter and not Ibas. It is not even close to the same issue I brought up.

Quote
Quote
The questions for this thread is not if Leo or other supporters of Chalcedon "Nestorian", but in what way did the OOs see Nestorianism in the Tome and Chalcedon.  The answers were given already in this thread.
Did those OOs take the view that the Nestorianism was isolated to the Tome and the documents of Chalcedon?
No it was not isolated to Leo's Tome. Anyone who understood natures as synonymous with hypostases will see Nestorianism in any document that mentions two natures in one hypostasis. Since Leo's Tome was designed (by Leo himself) to be the self declared definition of Orthodoxy, without addressing how natures should be defined, it is not difficult to see Nestorianism in Leo's Tome for OOs at that time. Now that the nuances of natures are fully explained, OOs no longer see Nestorianism in the phrase two natures in one hypostasis. Leo's mistake is that he expected everyone to think his way without any effort to dive deep into his theology (a necessary requirement since Latin was divorced from the Greek East). It's also clear to see that Leo's later writings clarify the shortcomings of his Tome. Now if you're asking what specific parts in the Tome were viewed as Nestorianism, well as Mina said, that answer has already been given in many threads.

Quote
It seems you are saying they didn't know about any other documents by P. Leo, so I wanted to see why you thought this.
Yes, they didn't know about any other documents by Leo. And it does not matter anyway since Leo wanted his tome to be the end all document.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2017, 06:53:39 PM by Remnkemi »

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,568
  • 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: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #76 on: January 10, 2017, 07:36:04 PM »
Yes, they didn't know about any other documents by Leo.
What makes you think that OOs didn't know about other documents besides the Tome, since Leo had lengthy correspondence with numerous figures on both side of the issue, before and after Chalcedon - Flavian, Eutyches, Juvenal, the whole Council at Ephesus, and others?

I mean, is there someplace that OOs have asserted what you are saying here about never seeing anything else by P.Leo?

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,568
  • 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: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #77 on: January 10, 2017, 07:47:39 PM »
I would advise you to take a peek at Theodore of Mopsuestia's De Incarnatione because he says some pretty blatantly monstrous things. It's true that the incarnation is such a unfathomable mystery that differences of language  and imprecisions are bound to crop up, but the Christology of Theodore can definitely not be construed as orthodox. It's actually refreshing, after parsing the perplexing semantic quibbles between Chalcedonians and anti-Chalcedonians, to read something which is so obviously wrong.

Conversely I think Theodoret used problematic language but was basically orthodox.
What I meant in B. and C. above is that even if someone says something obviously wrong and "blatantly monstrous", I am still open to reexamining whether to label them in their person as someone who things Jesus is two separate people, or that Jesus only had a divine nature. This is how I am about to see a path forward with OOs and the A.C.E. Many EOs, including numerous clergy found Abp. Petrosian to be saying things obviously/blatantly wrong, to the point where people were saying I was making him sound heretical by my translation. Yet I am actually still open to seeing him as basically orthodox and not actually denying that Christ's nature remains a human one. Likewise, in B. and C. I was suggesting maybe considering that Theodore M. didn't actually believe Jesus was two separate persons, due to his denial of that, even though he wrote things blatantly wrong that would in turn by themselves lead one to think he taught two separate persons.

Do you see what I am saying about using a strategy for reconciliation that can address these issues even when language is still blatantly wrong? It's not just an issue of Abp. Petrosian, either - St. Cyril thought the same thing that Theodore M. shouldn't be declared a heretic himself, even if some of the things he wrote were blatantly wrong.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Hoplitarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 18,133
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #78 on: January 10, 2017, 08:33:20 PM »
Yes, they didn't know about any other documents by Leo.
What makes you think that OOs didn't know about other documents besides the Tome, since Leo had lengthy correspondence with numerous figures on both side of the issue, before and after Chalcedon - Flavian, Eutyches, Juvenal, the whole Council at Ephesus, and others?

I mean, is there someplace that OOs have asserted what you are saying here about never seeing anything else by P.Leo?

Unless Rem has a different answer, I answered that question for you.  You seem to prove my point in other threads how repetitive and tiring you may be.
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 Iconodule

  • Professor of Cryptopatristics at Miskatonic University
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,161
  • Monsters from the Id
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #79 on: January 10, 2017, 09:15:45 PM »
I would advise you to take a peek at Theodore of Mopsuestia's De Incarnatione because he says some pretty blatantly monstrous things. It's true that the incarnation is such a unfathomable mystery that differences of language  and imprecisions are bound to crop up, but the Christology of Theodore can definitely not be construed as orthodox. It's actually refreshing, after parsing the perplexing semantic quibbles between Chalcedonians and anti-Chalcedonians, to read something which is so obviously wrong.

Conversely I think Theodoret used problematic language but was basically orthodox.
What I meant in B. and C. above is that even if someone says something obviously wrong and "blatantly monstrous", I am still open to reexamining whether to label them in their person as someone who things Jesus is two separate people, or that Jesus only had a divine nature. This is how I am about to see a path forward with OOs and the A.C.E. Many EOs, including numerous clergy found Abp. Petrosian to be saying things obviously/blatantly wrong, to the point where people were saying I was making him sound heretical by my translation. Yet I am actually still open to seeing him as basically orthodox and not actually denying that Christ's nature remains a human one. Likewise, in B. and C. I was suggesting maybe considering that Theodore M. didn't actually believe Jesus was two separate persons, due to his denial of that, even though he wrote things blatantly wrong that would in turn by themselves lead one to think he taught two separate persons.

Do you see what I am saying about using a strategy for reconciliation that can address these issues even when language is still blatantly wrong? It's not just an issue of Abp. Petrosian, either - St. Cyril thought the same thing that Theodore M. shouldn't be declared a heretic himself, even if some of the things he wrote were blatantly wrong.

He says, for instance, that Jesus is only fully united to the Word after his crucifixion. The personal unity is basically a moral alignment, like with the prophets and righteous of the Old Testament, only more perfect. There is really no way to make this not heretical.
Quote
But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."
Thomas Hardy, Tess of the D'Urbervilles

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • "Mor has a huge ego"
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 30,060
  • Abp Yeznik Petrosian Defender of the Faith
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #80 on: January 10, 2017, 10:05:56 PM »
I would advise you to take a peek at Theodore of Mopsuestia's De Incarnatione because he says some pretty blatantly monstrous things. It's true that the incarnation is such a unfathomable mystery that differences of language  and imprecisions are bound to crop up, but the Christology of Theodore can definitely not be construed as orthodox. It's actually refreshing, after parsing the perplexing semantic quibbles between Chalcedonians and anti-Chalcedonians, to read something which is so obviously wrong.

Conversely I think Theodoret used problematic language but was basically orthodox.
What I meant in B. and C. above is that even if someone says something obviously wrong and "blatantly monstrous", I am still open to reexamining whether to label them in their person as someone who things Jesus is two separate people, or that Jesus only had a divine nature. This is how I am about to see a path forward with OOs and the A.C.E. Many EOs, including numerous clergy found Abp. Petrosian to be saying things obviously/blatantly wrong, to the point where people were saying I was making him sound heretical by my translation. Yet I am actually still open to seeing him as basically orthodox and not actually denying that Christ's nature remains a human one. Likewise, in B. and C. I was suggesting maybe considering that Theodore M. didn't actually believe Jesus was two separate persons, due to his denial of that, even though he wrote things blatantly wrong that would in turn by themselves lead one to think he taught two separate persons.

Do you see what I am saying about using a strategy for reconciliation that can address these issues even when language is still blatantly wrong? It's not just an issue of Abp. Petrosian, either - St. Cyril thought the same thing that Theodore M. shouldn't be declared a heretic himself, even if some of the things he wrote were blatantly wrong.

He says, for instance, that Jesus is only fully united to the Word after his crucifixion. The personal unity is basically a moral alignment, like with the prophets and righteous of the Old Testament, only more perfect. There is really no way to make this not heretical.

Rakovsky will certainly try. 
Mor has spoken through George... this is the faith of the fathers!

The Church's bridegroom was never the Byzantine Empire.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,568
  • 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: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #81 on: January 10, 2017, 10:35:05 PM »
Quote
Do you see what I am saying about using a strategy for reconciliation that can address these issues even when language is still blatantly wrong? It's not just an issue of Abp. Petrosian, either - St. Cyril thought the same thing that Theodore M. shouldn't be declared a heretic himself, even if some of the things he wrote were blatantly wrong.

He says, for instance, that Jesus is only fully united to the Word after his crucifixion. The personal unity is basically a moral alignment, like with the prophets and righteous of the Old Testament, only more perfect. There is really no way to make this not heretical.
I understand that some statements themselves might not be made not heretical. What I am saying is that the overall path I am seeing for reconciliation is to see that there are opposite statements made by a writer that counter the ones that you can't make not heretical, and then we go with the orthodox beliefs they have instead. So if some OOs have said Christ is not in nor has two natures, rejects dyophysitism, and says Christ's nature is divine and not human, then based on Chalcedon, the rejections are basically heretical. But instead, what I see alot of people doing instead is to look to the opposing statements where they still make other assertions that as a matter of logic imply still having two natures. And then the end conclusion is that the writer himself may still be orthodox.

So for example, on Theodore M.:
Quote
He insisted that Christ was fully divine but also fully human. Furthermore, this humanity and divinity existed together in one person according to Theodore. [67] Theodore understood this emphasis on full humanity and full divinity as an attempt to combat the theological errors that he believed threatened the idea that God had truly become human in a way that could guarantee the availability of salvation.
http://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/5817

Theodore M. writes a lot about the one person of Christ in On the Nicene Creed:
Quote
The "Only Begotten Son," the "first-born" of all creatures. With these two words they alluded to the two natures, and by the difference between the words they made us understand the difference between the natures. From the fact also that they referred both words to the one person of the Son they showed us the close union between the two natures.
...
He is rightly called the first-born of all the creatures, because He was first renewed, and then He renewed the creatures, while He is higher in honour than all of them. This is how we understand the difference between the two names. Our Fathers, who took their wisdom from Holy Writ, referred this difference to one person and said: In the Only Begotten Son, the first-born of all creatures, in order to show us, as I said previously, the close union of the two natures. It is with justice, therefore, that they first said, "an only Son" and then, "the first-born." Indeed they had first to show us who was the one who was in the form of God,75 and who, because of His grace, took upon Him our nature, and afterwards to speak of that form of a servant which was assumed for our salvation. In this way and by the change in the terms that they used, they made manifest to us the two natures and differences, and also the unity of sonship arising out of the closeness of the union of the natures, which was effected by the will of God
Calling the one person of the Son the first born of creatures does not sound like he thinks the divine only-begotten Son is fundamentally actually a whole different Person. It also does not sound like he is just talking about the crucifixion, since Jesus' birth was the incarnation when the Son became a creature. "The taking on of our nature" by God was not at the crucifixion, but at the incarnation.

Theodore M. writes in On the Incarnation:
Quote
It is an indwelling in which he united the one who was being assumed wholly to himself and prepared him to share all the honour which he, the indweller, who is a son by nature, shares. Thereby he has constituted a single person by union with him and has made him a partner in all his authority. So everything he does he does in him, effecting even the ultimate testing and judgement through him and through his coming. The difference of course [i.e. between the Word and the man] is one that we can recognise by the distinguishing characteristics of each nature.
In other words, the difference is one of distinguishing characters of natures, while instead the Word and Person are united as one single person.

Quote
St. Paul [Theodore M. says,] begins by speaking of Christ Jesus as of one person. ... The words being in the form of God are understood of the person of Christ... In speaking entirely about one person, he makes the union quite clear. In fact, in the whole of his argument about Christ, he speaks generally as of one person; and sums up the different properties, that he may preserve the inseperable unity of the person.

...
Did Theodore believe in the unity of our Lord's incarnate person? There seems to be no doubt that he did, though the expression of his belief may sometimes be ambiguious and unsatisfactory. He affirms in many passages his belief in the distinction... of... natures, and the unity of person... but there is one improtant passage which needs careful investigation, because Theodore appears at first sight to teach that there were two persons combined into one person. [the one where the two natures combining to make a person are like a man and woman combining to make one flesh]

Theodore of Mopsuestia and Modern Thought
by L. Patterson

I found many other scholarly sources and citations on this topic.

If you want to make the argument that no OO writers have made any obviously heretical statements or that Theodore M. made no statements teaching that Christ God was fundamentally a single person, it's OK, but I would like to ask you to discuss it with me in the private section:

On the Theology of Theodore of Mopsuestia
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,68927.0.html

I recognize that this is not a debate thread.
The issue was to see in what way the Chalcedonians were considered Nestorian, and I gave reasons based on principles of reconciliation to address those views. Some of my defenses you agree with, it looks like others you don't. OK.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2017, 10:35:52 PM by rakovsky »

Offline Iconodule

  • Professor of Cryptopatristics at Miskatonic University
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,161
  • Monsters from the Id
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #82 on: January 11, 2017, 01:51:06 PM »
Rakovsky, do you really still not understand the different permutations of the term "person" in Christological discourse? You conveniently omitted the two paragraphs immediately following your quotation from Theodore:

Although it is in the future that we shall be perfectly controlled in body and soul by the Spirit, yet even now we have a partial foretaste of this in that we are so assisted by the Spirit that we are not forced to succumb to the reasonings of the soul. In the same way although it was in the end that the Lord had God the Word working in him so perfectly and completely that they were inseparably joined in every action, yet even before that he had the Word bringing to perfection in him to the highest possible degree all that he must do; in that period before the cross he was being given free room because of the necessity to achieve virtue on our behalf by his own will, though even then he was being stirred on by the Word and was being strengthened for the perfect fulfilment of what needed to be done. He had received union with him right from the start at the moment of his formation in the womb. Then at the age when men normally begin to be able to distinguish between good and bad, indeed even before that age, he demonstrated far more rapidly and quickly than other people this power of discrimination. This ability to discriminate does not arise in the same way and at the same moment for each person. Some with greater insight achieve the goal more quickly; others acquire it with the help of training over a longer period. He was exceptional in comparison with all others and it came to him at an earlier age than is normal; this is not surprising since even at the human level he was bound to have something extra by virtue of the fact that even his birth was not by the normal method of intercourse between a man and a woman but he was formed by the divine working of the Spirit.

 Thanks to his union with God the Word, which by foreknowledge he was deemed worthy to receive when God the Word from above united him to himself, he had an outstanding inclination to the good. For all these reasons, as soon as he was in a position to discriminate, he had a great antipathy to evil and attached himself to the good with unqualified affection. In this he received the cooperative help of God the Word proportionate to his own native will and so remained thereafter unaffected by any change to the worse. On the one hand this was the set of his own mind, but it was also a matter of this purpose of his being preserved by the cooperative help of God the Word. So he proceeded with the utmost ease to the highest peak of virtue, whether it were a matter of keeping the law before his baptism or of living the life of grace after it; in doing so he provided a type of that life for us also, becoming a path to that goal for us. Then in the end after his resurrection and assumption into heaven, he showed himself worthy of the union even on the basis of his own will, though he had received the union even before this by the good pleasure of his Maker at the time of his very creation. Thus finally he provides a perfect demonstration of the union; he has no activity separate or cut off from God the Word, but he has God the Word as the effective agent of all his actions by virtue of the Word’s union with him.


This is a different Jesus Christ, a different gospel. It is simply heresy. I fervently hope that the contemporary ACOE does not believe this.  How come you are willing to give this a pass while you meticulously grill Abp Petrosian for every slight turn of phrase?
Quote
But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."
Thomas Hardy, Tess of the D'Urbervilles

Offline Remnkemi

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 309
Re: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #83 on: January 11, 2017, 05:15:00 PM »
Yes, they didn't know about any other documents by Leo.
What makes you think that OOs didn't know about other documents besides the Tome, since Leo had lengthy correspondence with numerous figures on both side of the issue, before and after Chalcedon - Flavian, Eutyches, Juvenal, the whole Council at Ephesus, and others?

I mean, is there someplace that OOs have asserted what you are saying here about never seeing anything else by P.Leo?
Do you expect to line up every singe OO from the 5th century on and personally ask each one if they knew every document on Leo's database (other than the Tome) existed?

All the OO writings from Chalcedon onward only addressed Leo's Tome. If they knew or read Leo's other writings, they would have at least mentioned something somewhere. To the best of my knowledge, Leo's other writings are completely absent even in the most polemical and most moderate OO treaties. As I said before, Leo wanted his Tome to be the end all document anyway. Why do you expect anything more from OO? Put it this way, if I wrote a document that you felt was heretical and threatened you with death if you didn't believe it, can I expect you to read my other documents when I said the initial document is the ultimate document? It's illogical to expect anything otherwise. 

Your standard or expectation for OO's is illogical while your standard or expectation for condemned heretics is very accommodating. You have the right to believe what you want to believe.

Offline Tonedawg

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 206
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Re: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #84 on: January 12, 2017, 05:02:56 AM »
Yes, they didn't know about any other documents by Leo.
What makes you think that OOs didn't know about other documents besides the Tome, since Leo had lengthy correspondence with numerous figures on both side of the issue, before and after Chalcedon - Flavian, Eutyches, Juvenal, the whole Council at Ephesus, and others?

I mean, is there someplace that OOs have asserted what you are saying here about never seeing anything else by P.Leo?
Do you expect to line up every singe OO from the 5th century on and personally ask each one if they knew every document on Leo's database (other than the Tome) existed?

All the OO writings from Chalcedon onward only addressed Leo's Tome. If they knew or read Leo's other writings, they would have at least mentioned something somewhere. To the best of my knowledge, Leo's other writings are completely absent even in the most polemical and most moderate OO treaties. As I said before, Leo wanted his Tome to be the end all document anyway. Why do you expect anything more from OO? Put it this way, if I wrote a document that you felt was heretical and threatened you with death if you didn't believe it, can I expect you to read my other documents when I said the initial document is the ultimate document? It's illogical to expect anything otherwise. 

Your standard or expectation for OO's is illogical while your standard or expectation for condemned heretics is very accommodating. You have the right to believe what you want to believe.

+1,000,000 Remnkemi is on point. Why would the OO care for any of Leo's other writings when it was shoved down their throat and were persecuted into accepting it. That document alone caused many martyrs and confessors for the oriental orthodox, one of the most famous among them was st Samuel the confessor who had one of his eyes blucked out for not accepting the tome!
“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: 8,568
  • 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: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #85 on: January 14, 2017, 04:52:08 PM »
I'm only going to answer what you made clear as questions:

The Tome was not condemned at Ephesus II.  It was ignored completely.  The Latin representatives who were requesting that it be read were ignored.  That was obvious in the minutes.
Dear Mina,

May I ask if OOs have their own recorded version of the facts of what happened at Ephesus II, Chalcedon, and in between?

The EOs have kept minutes of Ephesus II wherein, for example, Dioscorus demands cutting Flavian in half. Remnkemi is saying that this is in question because these are the EOs' minutes.

Quote

Most of the OO arguments are in fact isolated to the Tome and everything in Chalcedon was interpreted according to the Tome in OO polemical history.  The EOs have a different view of course where the Tome is interpreted according to Chalcedon, not the other way around
I agree about the underlined part, but think commonly what EOs will do is use them as tools to interpret them both ways.

So Chalcedon's main faith statement ( eg. "...in two natures... one hypostasis") is the only fundamental thing for EOs, and after that in importance come the Council's specifically stated decisions, and then after that come things stated during the Council, along with both St. Cyril's writings and St. Leo's Tome, which were both approved at the Council in passing.

So Leo's Tome is important, but not fundamental.

It's kind of like with the Nicene Creed, in a way. The Creed itself is fundamental to Nicea, whereas Athanasius' writings are important but secondary.


Quote
(minus the Three Chapters, which were to the OOs a sort of smoking gun in the ancient debates).

The reason why I say they didn't have any other documents by Pope Leo in hand because Pope Leo's writings were predominantly Latin, divorced completely from the Greek East.
I am very skeptical because of the correspondences I mentioned and what you said about a translated letter to Palestinians, but... is there a larger conclusion you would draw from your assertion, Mina?
eg. the OOs didn't realize Leo was not Nestorian because they didn't have his other numerous correspondence?

Quote
  In fact, it is clear that Latin Chalcedonians and Greek Chalcedonians seem to view the events and theology of Chalcedon with slight nuances, and this is at least according to Price, but every scholar seems to notice this as well, including Fr John Romanides.

You can also tell that writings from St. John Cassian and St. Augustine were also not readily available to the East either.  The whole issue on grace and free will and Pelagianism seem to be absent in the East, even if they may have heard about it.  You could tell that when Julian of Halicarnassus was condemned by St. Severus, an Augustinian system was actually condemned, but St. Severus seems to never heard or Augustine or read his writings. 
You are bringing up a good point about language barriers. In the case of Severus, there would be an added obstacle of being cut off already from the Roman Catholic Church, AFAIK.

Quote
Only Syriac and Greek writings were available to him.  When he condemned Julian, he didn't mention Augustine.  And when he quoted or even mentioned ancient fathers, he could go back to Origen, Irenaeus, Ignatius, but never mentioned Tertullian.  This is an indication that the Latin West was already beginning to become divorced from the East theologically due to a linguistic divide.
Yes, I think you are bringing up a great point. Protestants and RCs tended to divide along language families, did you notice, even though the Latin writings were very well available to the Germans and English who even used Latin in official affairs.

Quote
Therefore, YES, Pope Leo's writings weren't made readily available in the polemical debates.  The only thing OOs (and most Greek EOs) in the fifth and sixth centuries knew of Pope Leo was the Tome and maybe a few here and there that were of no major theological significance (in other words the arguments would not have changed).  Understandably, Pope Leo did write a clarification letter to Palestinians and interestingly enough asked for their forgiveness on a poor translation of one of his letters, which might be his Tome.  I read this letter and, yes, theologically, it's better than the Tome.
If you want to share it with me, I would be interested. But you don't have to.

Peace.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2017, 04:52:23 PM by rakovsky »

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,568
  • 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: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #86 on: January 14, 2017, 05:19:57 PM »
Hello, Remnkemi!

My main goal in the OO section is reconciliation and clarifying what I don't understand, rather than debating.

You wrote that you saw a big problem in Chalcedon & the Fifth Council allowing Theodoret & Ibas to not be banned, but only banning some of their writings. I understand what you mean, so one way I propose looking at this constructively is to consider the underlying principles and how they work. So in the case of St Cyril, he rejected Theodore M.'s writings as heretical, but he opposed Theodore M. being condemned as a heretic himself. At Ephesus II, the leaders considered Leo's Tome to be so heretical that they even kept it from being read, but they still allowed Leo to be represented as a legitimate orthodox catholic Patriarch and participant of the Council.

The underlying principle from Cyril, Dioscorus, and Ephesus II must be that sometimes it can be correct to openly consider or treat someone's writings as heretical and openly  treat or consider someone as orthodox himself or otherwise deliberately avoid calling them a heretic. Do you see what I mean about the underlying principle here?

I understand you draw a difference when you say:
There is a major difference between censoring a letter out of theological concerns and having an ecumenical council declare a specific letter as heretic. Ephesus II never condemned Leo's Tome officially. No one ever condemned (to the best of my knowledge) Leo's Tome without condemning Leo. Constantinople II on the other hand officially condemned Ibas' letter and not Ibas. It is not even close to the same issue I brought up.
Do you see how an ecumenical council could be applying the principle I laid out previously, if it were to follow the example of Cyril and call someone's writing heretical and not the person himself?

No it was not isolated to Leo's Tome. Anyone who understood natures as synonymous with hypostases will see Nestorianism in any document that mentions two natures in one hypostasis.
Remnkemi,
I understand how that phrase would not make sense if hypostasis = nature.

May I please ask: In OO theology, are those words sometimes distinguished from each other, like when talking about the one nature or three hypostases of the one God?


When one sees the phrase "two natures in one hypostasis", would that open one up to the possibility that the phrase's author was using those two words to meant something different from each other?

Since Leo's Tome was designed (by Leo himself) to be the self declared definition of Orthodoxy, without addressing how natures should be defined, it is not difficult to see Nestorianism in Leo's Tome for OOs at that time. Now that the nuances of natures are fully explained, OOs no longer see Nestorianism in the phrase two natures in one hypostasis.
You are right about the OO's reconciliation agreement with the EO's that says EOs are not Nestorian.
I wonder whether all the OO churches' heads officially accept the agreement?
I see it as an important step forward.

Quote
Leo's mistake is that he expected everyone to think his way without any effort to dive deep into his theology (a necessary requirement since Latin was divorced from the Greek East). It's also clear to see that Leo's later writings clarify the shortcomings of his Tome.
Could you give an example, please?
You don't have to if you don't remember.

Quote
Yes, they didn't know about any other documents by Leo. And it does not matter anyway since Leo wanted his tome to be the end all document.
Mina mentioned an interesting attempt by Leo to clear up confusion by sending a letter to Palestinians, where he said one of his previous letters was wrongly translated. It would be interesting to see.

Peace.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,568
  • 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: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #87 on: January 14, 2017, 05:23:51 PM »
You seem to prove my point in other threads how repetitive and tiring you may be.

I think you are educated and intelligent and I like how you can be open minded about the EO way of looking at these questions.

I talked at great length with another OO forum user Deusveritasest on how to understand natures and it just went around and around, reminding me of talking with Andrewlya on how to understand Trinitarianism or URG8RB8 on membership in an orthodox communion.

In your case though, I think you are thoughtful and reflective.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2017, 05:25:27 PM by rakovsky »

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,568
  • 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: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #88 on: January 14, 2017, 05:46:10 PM »
Hello Iconodule,

I will briefly discuss an issue you brought up with Theodore M.
You conveniently omitted the two paragraphs immediately following your quotation from Theodore:
The reason was because I just wanted to focus most directly on his direct discussion on Christ-God's "person", and because his writing was quite long.


He had received union with him right from the start at the moment of his formation in the womb.
[~Theodore M.]
So the union was at the incarnation, rather than crucifixion. Before the incarnation, Jesus as man alone did not even existed, so Jesus de facto was always Christ-God.

Severus talked at length about the union of the two hypostases, the result of which there was only one hypostasis, whereupon he also described the hypostases' differences. And a way I could resolve that in the case of Severus is to point out the same thing, that Severus did not consider Jesus' human hypostasis to actually exist before the incarnation anyway, so Jesus was always the divine-human hypostasis.

IMO to leave no room standing at all for Theodore M. or Severus, one would need to find where they explicitly said Christ-God remained in two separate persons or hypostases and that the unity was only imagined or conceptual and not fundamental, and then find no places where they contradicted themselves on the point.

How come you are willing to give this a pass while you meticulously grill Abp Petrosian for every slight turn of phrase?
The issues and theories involved in both cases (and that of Severus) seem to me comparable and related.
I am glad to answer you and other quotations by Theodore M. in detail, but my request is that we do it in the debate thread I linked to previously.

Strictly speaking, the EO Church has by now declared Dioscorus, Severus, (OO church) Theodore M., and Nestorius (ACOE) all heretics in their persons. But since I am an ecumenical person, I am open to finding approaches of logic that would find a way to say that their writings or concepts may be heretical but that we don't have to consider them heretics in their persons.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2017, 05:51:46 PM by rakovsky »

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,568
  • 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: Chalcedon as "Nestorian" and "the council of schism"
« Reply #89 on: January 14, 2017, 06:23:17 PM »
Do you expect to line up every singe OO from the 5th century on and personally ask each one if they knew every document on Leo's database (other than the Tome) existed?
No.

All the OO writings from Chalcedon onward only addressed Leo's Tome. If they knew or read Leo's other writings, they would have at least mentioned something somewhere.
Maybe they might not mention them because they didn't find them important?
For example, Mina said that Leo wrote a letter translated especially for the Palestinian audience.
It reminds me a bit of the question of why the early Church writers didn't mention some 1st c. writings,  sayings of Jesus, or important facts of church history, if they knew of the writings, sayings or facts.

Quote
To the best of my knowledge, Leo's other writings are completely absent even in the most polemical and most moderate OO treaties. As I said before, Leo wanted his Tome to be the end all document anyway. Why do you expect anything more from OO?
I don't have a particularly strong expectation that they would mention other writings by Leo if they knew of them.

Quote

 Put it this way, if I wrote a document that you felt was heretical and threatened you with death if you didn't believe it, can I expect you to read my other documents when I said the initial document is the ultimate document?
Supposing you were going to take me on and debunk me, I would expect you to look at my other writings to make collateral attacks undermining my position.
Sorry, I am not sure what is the broader implication you are trying to draw, Remnkemi. Is your broader point that if they had read his other writings, they would be more likely to see him as not Nestorian?

Quote

Your standard or expectation for OO's is illogical while your standard or expectation for condemned heretics is very accommodating.
Remnkemi,
In the EO Church, Severus, Dioscorus, and Theodore M. are condemned heretics, the accusation being that they taught opposite extremes of related issues (one nature alone out of the two - divinity and humanity after the incarnation vs. two totally separated persons after the incarnation).

Instead, I am open to OOs asserting the belief in one divine-human nature after the incarnation, and in looking for a consistent approach that would not see these figures as heretics in their persons.

The way I see to do that is to look for their orthodox statements and concepts (retaining full divinity and humanity, and there being one hypostasis after the union, there being one single person alone after the incarnation, etc.) that directly contradict any heretical statements or concepts (eg. rejection of dyophisitism, teaching of two hypostases, teaching that the one nature was only divine and didn't remain human, etc.) , and then to conclude that in their persons they agreed with the orthodox statements and concepts.

Quote
You have the right to believe what you want to believe.
That's true for unfortunate schisms.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2017, 06:26:21 PM by rakovsky »