Author Topic: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils  (Read 2571 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,352
  • 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: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #45 on: January 20, 2017, 03:05:45 PM »
LBK,
I like you are an expert on correct iconography.
What exactly was the problem with the boat ikon?
Quote


Nice try, but way off the mark.

The Fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Council are commemorated liturgically by the EO Church in mid-July, and Dioscorus and Eutyches, are shown in the icon as stripped of their clerical ranks, symbolic of the repudiation of that Council of their heresies.
In the eyes of the EO Church, denial of Chalcedon's Creed that Christ is in and has two natures after the incarnation is considered a heresy, whether Dioscorus was rejected for that at Chalcedon or only for his mistreatment of Flavian.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2017, 03:05:59 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,352
  • 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: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #46 on: January 20, 2017, 03:07:07 PM »
Ah, so if at some point this "Ark of Salvation" gets a feast day the icon suddenly becomes okay.
I guess per her logic it does if there was an actual boat the people in the ikon made and the heretics were on the shore.

Like if it happens in the afterlife.......
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,352
  • 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: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #47 on: January 20, 2017, 03:11:56 PM »
there is nothing edifying about an icon falsely conflating Dioscorus and Eutyches. And yet...
St. P.Leo's question was why else would Dioscorus punish Flavian for banning Eutyches unless Dioscorus accepted those professions of Eutyches for which Flavian banned him?

If when Flavian banned him Eutyches had openly rejected the monophysitism EOs and OOs attribute to him, that rejection by Eutyches would serve as a rebuttal to Flavian. But there is no record Eutyches did this.
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 32,841
  • Pope Pius XIII, play for us!
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #48 on: January 20, 2017, 03:14:19 PM »
Pray to the Lord on our behalf, O teachers of Orthodoxy, Severus and Dioscorus, that He may forgive us our sins.
Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,352
  • 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: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #49 on: January 20, 2017, 03:15:51 PM »

I'm content to defer to the Fathers of the Council in their wisdom

Then you should defer to their judgment that Dioscorus was not deposed for the faith but for disciplinary reasons.
1. The record from Chalcedon looks like participants were divided on this point.
2. Two separate issues are whether Dioscorus was a heretic and whether he was banned for being one. The 5th council only says the first of those two AFAIK.
3. The Chalcedon ikon doesn't specify what his mistake was anyway. Theoretically he could be a schismatic and still shown on the ikon like that.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2017, 03:16:58 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,352
  • 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: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #50 on: January 20, 2017, 03:24:11 PM »
Pray to the Lord on our behalf, O teachers of Orthodoxy, Severus and Dioscorus, that He may forgive us our sins.
As I understand it, Dioscorus' teaching is:
1. One must not accept Christ being in or having two natures after the incarnation.
2. Eutyches' statement was Orthodox that Christ was in two natures before the incarnation and one afterwards.
3. Flavian had no legitimate reason to condemn Eutyches.

And Severus built on this by specifying that Christ was in two hypostases before the incarnation and only one afterwards.

Of these, I am most unfamiliar with why OOs believe #3.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2017, 03:25:31 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,352
  • 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: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #51 on: January 20, 2017, 03:34:37 PM »
What specifically were the heresies of St. Dioscoros that were repudiated by the Council of Chalcedon? 
His rejection that Christ is in two natures after the union.

I think Chalcedon would also reject Eutyches' declaration at Ephesus II that Dioscorus upheld as Orthodoxy - that "Christ was in two natures before the union and one after."

I kind of remember the bishops at Chalcedon in the records saying they rejected this formula. I think that with Chalcedon there is no way to claim that the undivided person of Christ was actually in two natures before the union, particularly in any way that he could only be in only one nature afterwards in that same sense. Chalcedon's theology says the opposite - Christ was only in a divine nature before the union, and afterwards he was in both a divine and a human nature.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2017, 03:35:40 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,352
  • 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: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #52 on: January 20, 2017, 04:00:36 PM »
I was in an OCA church one summer evening for Vespers and that icon was on the stand, a fact I didn't realise until I'd already made my bows and was about to kiss the icon.  I read the Greek at the top, thought "Uh oh", found St Dioscoros, covered the little demon on his shoulder with my thumb, and kissed him.  The priest looked at me quizzically.
Is it hard in OO art to immediately tell Dioscorus from other saint depictions without looking at the name, since there are numerous ones that just show a saint as a man in a robe?







It looks like something to just keep my eye out for if I go to an OO church so I don't accidentally venerate it.

My personal emotion with Dioscorus is not really just a theological or ecclesiastical issue. If that was all it was, I could just put it next to Severus or Nestorius or Luther, or for that matter schismatic EOs like the Church of Macedonia, Old Believers, or Ukrainian Autocephalous Church. With Dioscorus, there is a way in which he appears to me like St. Joseph Volotsky, St. Tsar Nicholas II, St. Pedro Arbués, St. Dominic, and St. Josaphat Kuntsevych. For me, an ikon of Dioscorus is like an ikon of Josaphat Kuntsevych.



« Last Edit: January 20, 2017, 04:18:27 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,352
  • 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: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #53 on: January 20, 2017, 04:04:43 PM »
I couldn't find any OO icons of their Ephesus II.
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline CoptoGeek

  • of Alexandria, the Christ-loving City
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,516
Re: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #54 on: January 20, 2017, 04:18:15 PM »
What specifically were the heresies of St. Dioscoros that were repudiated by the Council of Chalcedon? 
His rejection that Christ is in two natures after the union.

I think Chalcedon would also reject Eutyches' declaration at Ephesus II that Dioscorus upheld as Orthodoxy - that "Christ was in two natures before the union and one after."

I kind of remember the bishops at Chalcedon in the records saying they rejected this formula. I think that with Chalcedon there is no way to claim that the undivided person of Christ was actually in two natures before the union, particularly in any way that he could only be in only one nature afterwards in that same sense. Chalcedon's theology says the opposite - Christ was only in a divine nature before the union, and afterwards he was in both a divine and a human nature.

Rakovsky, you really do just ignore everything presented to you in conversation.

"In respect of the elements from which is the one and only Son and Lord Jesus Christ, as we accept them in thought, we say that two natures have been united, but after the union, when the division into two has now been removed, we believe that the nature of the Son is one, as of one [person], though made man and incarnate."

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

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

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 32,841
  • Pope Pius XIII, play for us!
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #55 on: January 20, 2017, 04:19:11 PM »
Pray to the Lord on our behalf, O teachers of Orthodoxy, Severus and Dioscorus, that He may forgive us our sins.
As I understand it, Dioscorus' teaching is:
1. One must not accept Christ being in or having two natures after the incarnation.
2. Eutyches' statement was Orthodox that Christ was in two natures before the incarnation and one afterwards.
3. Flavian had no legitimate reason to condemn Eutyches.

And Severus built on this by specifying that Christ was in two hypostases before the incarnation and only one afterwards.

Of these, I am most unfamiliar with why OOs believe #3.

You got all that out of a one-sentence prayer? 
Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 32,841
  • Pope Pius XIII, play for us!
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #56 on: January 20, 2017, 04:23:53 PM »
I was in an OCA church one summer evening for Vespers and that icon was on the stand, a fact I didn't realise until I'd already made my bows and was about to kiss the icon.  I read the Greek at the top, thought "Uh oh", found St Dioscoros, covered the little demon on his shoulder with my thumb, and kissed him.  The priest looked at me quizzically.
Is it hard in OO art to immediately tell Dioscorus from other saint depictions without looking at the name, since there are numerous ones that just show a saint as a man in a robe?

...

It looks like something to just keep my eye out for if I go to an OO church so I don't accidentally venerate it.

Not sure what you are worried about.  Icons usually have names inscribed on them, and you were able to read "Dioscoros" on an icon of the council of Chalcedon without figuring out the much bigger words at the top of that icon.

Quote
My personal emotion with Dioscorus is not really just a theological or ecclesiastical issue. If that was all it was, I could just put it next to Severus or Nestorius or Luther, or for that matter schismatic EOs like the Church of Macedonia, Old Believers, or Ukrainian Autocephalous Church. With Dioscorus, there is a way in which he appears to me like St. Joseph Volotsky, St. Tsar Nicholas II, St. Pedro Arbués, St. Dominic, and St. Josaphat Kuntsevych. For me, an ikon of Dioscorus is like an ikon of Josaphat Kuntsevych.

If it's not theological or ecclesiastical, but "like...Josaphat Kuntsevych", what does it mean?  Is St Dioscoros just another Slav? 
Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,352
  • 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: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #57 on: January 20, 2017, 04:29:54 PM »
I think Chalcedon would also reject Eutyches' declaration at Ephesus II that Dioscorus upheld as Orthodoxy - that "Christ was in two natures before the union and one after."

"In respect of the elements from which is the one and only Son and Lord Jesus Christ, as we accept them in thought, we say that two natures have been united, but after the union, when the division into two has now been removed, we believe that the nature of the Son is one, as of one [person], though made man and incarnate."

St Cyril of Alexandria

Dear CoptoGeek.
In your quote, St. Cyril said: Elements existed "as we accept them in thought", from them is Jesus and the Son, and the natures were united.

Before the union, Christ had only one nature, even though the two natures existed "in thought".

The quote does not say that Christ was from/of/in two natures before the union. There is a big difference.

Eutyches' declaration accepted by Dioscorus that the Tome rejects was:
“I confess that our Lord was of two natures before the union, but I confess one nature after the union."
« Last Edit: January 20, 2017, 04:51:35 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,352
  • 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: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #58 on: January 20, 2017, 04:36:07 PM »
Pray to the Lord on our behalf, O teachers of Orthodoxy, Severus and Dioscorus,
As I understand it, Dioscorus' teaching is: ...
...
And Severus built on this by specifying ...

You got all that out of a one-sentence prayer?
Isn't one referring to those things, their famous teachings, when one calls them teachers of Orthodoxy?
« Last Edit: January 20, 2017, 04:36:53 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,352
  • 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: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #59 on: January 20, 2017, 04:41:33 PM »
Quote
With Dioscorus, there is a way in which he appears to me like
St. Joseph Volotsky,
St. Tsar Nicholas II,
St. Pedro Arbués,
St. Dominic, and
St. Josaphat Kuntsevych.

For me, an ikon of Dioscorus is like an ikon of Josaphat Kuntsevych.

If it's not theological or ecclesiastical, but "like...Josaphat Kuntsevych", what does it mean?
I'll add Cranmer and Calvin to the list above. There is a major commonality they all share in my mind after learning about them.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2017, 04:42:10 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 32,841
  • Pope Pius XIII, play for us!
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #60 on: January 20, 2017, 04:48:41 PM »
Quote
With Dioscorus, there is a way in which he appears to me like
St. Joseph Volotsky,
St. Tsar Nicholas II,
St. Pedro Arbués,
St. Dominic, and
St. Josaphat Kuntsevych.

For me, an ikon of Dioscorus is like an ikon of Josaphat Kuntsevych.

If it's not theological or ecclesiastical, but "like...Josaphat Kuntsevych", what does it mean?
I'll add Cranmer and Calvin to the list above. There is a major commonality they all share in my mind after learning about them.

And that is?
Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Offline CoptoGeek

  • of Alexandria, the Christ-loving City
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,516
Re: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #61 on: January 20, 2017, 04:50:09 PM »
I think Chalcedon would also reject Eutyches' declaration at Ephesus II that Dioscorus upheld as Orthodoxy - that "Christ was in two natures before the union and one after."

"In respect of the elements from which is the one and only Son and Lord Jesus Christ, as we accept them in thought, we say that two natures have been united, but after the union, when the division into two has now been removed, we believe that the nature of the Son is one, as of one [person], though made man and incarnate."

St Cyril of Alexandria

Dear CoptoGeek.
In your quote, St. Cyril said: Elements existed "as we accept them in thought", from them is Jesus and the Son, and the natures were united.

Before the union, Christ had only one nature, even though the two natures existed "in thought".

The quote does not say that Christ was from/of/in two natures before the union. There is a big difference.

Eutyches' declaration accepted by Dioscorus that the Tome rejects was:
“I confess that our Lord was of two natures before the union, but I confess one nature after the union."

Astounding. So if Eutyches simply added "in thought", Leo would've accepted the statement as orthodox?
"Be oppressed, rather than the oppressor. Be gentle, rather than zealous. Lay hold of goodness, rather than justice." -St. Isaac of Nineveh

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

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,352
  • 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: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #62 on: January 20, 2017, 05:06:29 PM »
In your quote, St. Cyril said: Elements existed "as we accept them in thought", from them is Jesus and the Son, and the natures were united.

Before the union, Christ had only one nature, even though the two natures existed "in thought".

The quote does not say that Christ was from/of/in two natures before the union. There is a big difference.

Eutyches' declaration accepted by Dioscorus that the Tome rejects was:
“I confess that our Lord was of two natures before the union, but I confess one nature after the union."

Astounding.
What is most astounding to me is #3 in my list above in this thread, that Flavian's rejection of Eutyches could be considered baseless, when EOs and OOs agree Eutyches was a monophysite.

Coptogeek,
I don't say this rhetorically:

If this was just an issue of schism or theological disagreement, it would not be so bad, it could just be like remaining divisions with the Old Believers, or modern respectful EO-OO-ACOE-RC disagreements.

The emotional side of the issue for me is when I read the declarations at Ephesus II that Flavian needed to be killed, or I read about other EOs' deaths. I imagine the same kind of thing is felt by OOs when they read about repression of OOs in Byzantine times.

I don't see comments like this as helpful:
Quote
Rakovsky, you really do just ignore everything presented to you in conversation.
...
Astounding.
Please forgive me if I do the same kind of thing.


To answer your question:
Quote
So if Eutyches simply added "in thought", Leo would've accepted the statement as orthodox?
1. Eutyches didn't add "in thought."

2. Cyril said the elements (divinity and humanity) existed in thought. Cyril did not say that before those elements even united to make up the God-man, our Lord was of those elements. The Tome is right: that would not make any sense.

3. Cyril didn't say "our Lord was of two natures before the union... in thought".

« Last Edit: January 20, 2017, 05:09:32 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,352
  • 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: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #63 on: January 20, 2017, 05:21:36 PM »
And that is?
Cruelty. Do you know of any EO saints who directly approved of statements that OOs should be killed in brutal ways?

I am not saying it about just Dioscorus alone - it seriously bothers me to consider someone who directly approves of, and is involved in killing as a result, a saint like the EO St. Joseph Volotsky is. It's like OK, J.Volotsky helped the Church translate the OT into slavonic, but the support for burning heretics and the Spanish Inquisition contradicts my ideal of a saint. OK, saints can sin, but did he repent of this? Is being a brutal executioner a model worthy of saintly emulation? It's a troubling issue in general for me.

I once brought the issue up to Bp. Job about the abuse the Tsar supported and he told me I can still be Orthodox and don't have to consider Nicholas II a saint. I love Bp. Job and miss him.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2017, 05:28:44 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline CoptoGeek

  • of Alexandria, the Christ-loving City
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,516
Re: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #64 on: January 20, 2017, 05:26:27 PM »
Rakosvsky, because we went through this same conversation in the private forum. But i'm sure if Eutyches added "in thought" all this would've been avoided.  ::)

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

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

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 32,841
  • Pope Pius XIII, play for us!
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #65 on: January 20, 2017, 05:27:53 PM »
And that is?
Brutality. Do you know of any EO saints who directly approved of statements that OOs should be killed in brutal ways?

When did St Dioscoros "directly approve of statements that EOs should be killed in brutal ways"?
Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,352
  • 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: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #66 on: January 20, 2017, 05:33:42 PM »
Rakosvsky, because we went through this same conversation in the private forum.
::)
Our Church has not accepted Eutyches' declarations as orthodox for the last 1500+ years, so why roll your eyes at me if I didn't in the private forum?

The biggest step forward has been respectful dialogue even where there is disagreement. Do you agree with that step?

i'm sure if Eutyches added "in thought" all this would've been avoided.
1. Cyril said the elements existed in thought. In what sense do you believe He as non-human and pre-incarnate had both elements or natures before the incarnation even in thought?

2. Even if Eutyches had added "in thought" at Ephesus II, we still have the problem that EOs and OOs agree he was already a monophysite before then, so why do you believe Flavian was wrong to depose him before Ephesus II?
« Last Edit: January 20, 2017, 05:46:03 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,352
  • 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: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #67 on: January 20, 2017, 05:43:23 PM »
When did St Dioscoros "directly approve of statements that EOs should be killed in brutal ways"?
Hello, Mor.

It was at Ephesus II, since Mina said that OOs and EOs share the same records of it which narrate this:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,70750.msg1441090.html#msg1441090

Do you understand my personal difficulty with perceiving someone who supports brutality as saintly?
« Last Edit: January 20, 2017, 05:43:37 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 32,841
  • Pope Pius XIII, play for us!
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #68 on: January 20, 2017, 05:49:26 PM »
When did St Dioscoros "directly approve of statements that EOs should be killed in brutal ways"?
Hello, Mor.

It was at Ephesus II, since Mina said that OOs and EOs share the same records of it which narrate this:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,70750.msg1441090.html#msg1441090

Do you understand my personal difficulty with perceiving someone who supports brutality as saintly?

Galatians 5.12

Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,352
  • 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: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #69 on: January 20, 2017, 06:20:46 PM »
Hello, Mor.

It was at Ephesus II, since Mina said that OOs and EOs share the same records of it which narrate this:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,70750.msg1441090.html#msg1441090

Do you understand my personal difficulty with perceiving someone who supports brutality as saintly?

Galatians 5.12

Mor,

Regardless of my own notes on Gal 5 below, is your overall answer to me to imply that there is not a moral issue with approving of someone getting brutally killed, and with being involved in the death?


========================================
Galatians 5:12 - As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

Here Paul did not have political power to emasculate the agitators, he wasn't involved in it being performed, he didn't demand it would be done in the injunctive, he was not talking about killing them, he was expressing his own unpleasant wish about self-mutilators mutilating themselves more.

Flavian was not teaching heretical physical mutilation, but rather non-mutilating orthodox Christology. Dioscorus comes across to me in a very different, troubling way.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2017, 06:33:43 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,034
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #70 on: January 20, 2017, 07:05:25 PM »
What specifically were the heresies of St. Dioscoros that were repudiated by the Council of Chalcedon? 
His rejection that Christ is in two natures after the union.

No.  St. Dioscoros was not officially condemned for any theological reasons at Chalcedon, merely for administrative reasons, specifically failing to answer the summons of the council three times.  He was never declared a heretic.
Now accepting brief PMs.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 32,841
  • Pope Pius XIII, play for us!
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #71 on: January 20, 2017, 07:19:24 PM »
Mor,

Regardless of my own notes on Gal 5 below, is your overall answer to me to imply that there is not a moral issue with approving of someone getting brutally killed, and with being involved in the death?

I will not answer this question because you want to apply my answer to St Dioscoros and you haven't demonstrated your claim against him.  Lying is also a moral issue. 


Quote
Galatians 5:12 - As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

Here Paul did not have political power to emasculate the agitators, he wasn't involved in it being performed, he didn't demand it would be done in the injunctive, he was not talking about killing them, he was expressing his own unpleasant wish about self-mutilators mutilating themselves more.

Flavian was not teaching heretical physical mutilation, but rather non-mutilating orthodox Christology. Dioscorus comes across to me in a very different, troubling way.

You have quite a knack for missing the point. 

In Galatians, St Paul was arguing against those who would require circumcision of the Gentiles and underscoring the correct theological belief.  To that end, he used a rhetorical flourish in 5.12.  He was not seriously suggesting people circumcise or castrate themselves, nor was he going to use his considerable experience in persecuting religious minorities to go after the circumcision party with sharpened knives.  He used a rhetorical device. 

To suggest that St Dioscoros was not doing anything like this, but rather was some sort of Daeshesque arch-terrorist intent on sawing his theological opponents in half, is AFAIK wrong, unjustified, and needlessly polemical.  That you came up with such an idea and wish to promote it is par for the course. 
Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,352
  • 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: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #72 on: January 20, 2017, 08:11:35 PM »
Mor,

Regardless of my own notes on Gal 5 below, is your overall answer to me to imply that there is not a moral issue with approving of someone getting brutally killed, and with being involved in the death?

I will not answer this question because you want to apply my answer to St Dioscoros and you haven't demonstrated your claim against him.   
IOW, you don't want to admit there is a moral issue with brutality when an EO sees an OO saint as approving of it?

Quote

The Acts of Ephesus II read at Chalcedon:

    "The holy council [Ephesus II] said: "Destroy and burn Eusebius. Let him be burnt alive. Let him be cut in two. As he has divided, let him be divided."
    Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: "Do you allow this language speaking of two natures after the incarnation?"
    The holy council said: "Anathema to whoever says this!"
    Disocorus bishop of Alexandria said: "Since I need both your voices and a show of hands, let anyone who is unable to cry out raise his hand."
    Page 221

Participants of Ephesus II at Chalcedon:
    all the Egyptians and the monks accompanying Barsaumas and the whole crowd rose up and began saying, "He who says two natures should be cut in two.

    Footnote 71,  from vol I:

    Barsaumas was a leading Syrian archimandrite who took part as a  full  member  of  Ephesus  II  (78.131),  where  he  incited  the  monks  against  Flavian  of Constantinople and his sympathizers (176, 851; IV. 77–8); having a monk as a full member of an ecumenical council was an innovation. ...  After refusing to accept the decrees of the council, he returned to Syria
    where  he  campaigned  against  them  until  his  death  in  458.  He  is  venerated  as  a  saint  in  the Oriental Orthodox churches.
    http://ixoyc.net/data/fathers/624.pdf
Barsaumas is an OO saint.
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,352
  • 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: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #73 on: January 20, 2017, 08:23:32 PM »
Quote
Galatians 5:12 - As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!

You have quite a knack for missing the point. 

In Galatians, St Paul was arguing against those who would require circumcision of the Gentiles and underscoring the correct theological belief.  To that end, he used a rhetorical flourish in 5.12. He was not seriously suggesting people circumcise or castrate themselves, nor was he going to use his considerable experience in persecuting religious minorities to go after the circumcision party with sharpened knives. He used a rhetorical device. 
If Paul wrote during his persecution of Jewish Christians that he wanted them to mutilate themselves (assuming one could find a theological relevance), would one conclude that he only meant it rhetorically and didn't have any desire for them to get hurt?

If the Egyptian participants of Ephesus II, like Barsaumas and Dioscorus, express approval of killing of Flavian who they believe is a major heretic, at the same time when dyophites are actually being killed or mutilated (Chalcedon includes testimony of killing and mutilation of EOs in Asia Minor, and we know it happened in Alexandria and Jerusalem too), and Ephesus II's EO participants tell Chalcedon that they were frightened into submitting to Ephesus II against their will, then should I see the threats as a merely rhetorical flourish, Mor Ephrem?

I am expressing a sincere major emotional problem I have with Ephesus II, and one that I don't see as a particular problem of OOs, since I see EOs having this issue with St. Joseph Volotsky.

Nor do I expect OOs to be fine with any persecution they themselves received in Byzantine times. I am OK with your statement in your signature line: "The Church's bridegroom was never the Byzantine Empire."
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,352
  • 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: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #74 on: January 20, 2017, 08:29:29 PM »
To suggest that St Dioscoros was not doing anything like this, but rather was some sort of Daeshesque arch-terrorist intent on sawing his theological opponents in half, is AFAIK wrong, unjustified, and needlessly polemical.  That you came up with such an idea and wish to promote it is par for the course.


I agree with what Mina has said:

Quote
I am a bit empathetic with the situation regarding Byzantine emperors.  I feel if the tables have turned it would be your church lamenting "our violent emperors and bishops".  So we all have our baggage to deal with.
The tables were turned in the case of Flavian, St. Proterius, other EO victims, under the cries for brtual slaying at Ephesus II.

When OOs tell me that the Byzantine emperors or bishops performed violence on them, I accept that this happened. I consider mutual, respectful recognition essential par for the course of reconciliation, and I am telling you about a sincere moral objection/difficulty I have on the topic, one that I don't isolate to OO issues, but includes any EO saints for which something similar applies, like J.Volotsky.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2017, 08:33:20 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,352
  • 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: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #75 on: January 20, 2017, 08:55:28 PM »
What specifically were the heresies of St. Dioscoros that were repudiated by the Council of Chalcedon? 
His rejection that Christ is in two natures after the union.
No.  St. Dioscoros was not officially condemned for any theological reasons at Chalcedon, merely for administrative reasons, specifically failing to answer the summons of the council three times.  He was never declared a heretic.
1. Dioscorus' teaching that Christ is definitely not in two natures after the incarnation is repudiated by Chalcedon in that Chalcedon definitely teaches dyophisitism.

Now you are bringing up a separate issue, whether Dioscorus was himself directly formally condemned as a heretic:
2. At Chalcedon IIRC one EO bishop announced that Dioscorus was not condemned for heresy, but for his abuse of Flavian. The Roman legate replied that he was in fact condemned for this and others agreed with the legate. My own conclusion from reading this exchange was that everyone had their own reason for the excommunication when it was voted on, but that the official question posed upon the vote doesn't make it clear. It was not "Do you excommunicate him for heresy", but just a vote to excommunicate or not.

As I understand it, the Fifth Council doesn't specify either whether Dioscorus was one:
Quote
Wherefore this holy and universal synod of ours, ... has piously accorded in all things with the five holy and universal synods: that is to say, with

   the synod of 318 holy fathers who gathered at Nicaea against the madman Arius, and
 ...
    that at Chalcedon of 630 God-inspired fathers against Eutyches and Dioscorus, hateful to God
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum06.htm

And it's only a later one that does:
Quote
at III Constantinople the monothelites were seen as holding the heretical positions condemned at Chalcedon and II Constantinople (553 A.D.), which the council associated respectively with Dioscorus and Severus, among others.  Hence, in the course of a long series of anathemas pronounced at the final session of the council, we find the names of Dioscorus and Severus.  Clearly, by the time of III Constantinople popular opinion did associate these names with heretical positions condemned at earlier councils.  And this tendency continues in later centuries.  For example, hymnography for the Feast of the Seven Ecumenical Councils (July 16 - originally the commemoration of the Council of Chalcedon) can exhort the orthodox to “abhor” Dioscorus and Severus along with a multitude of other heretics.

http://www.svots.edu/content/beyond-dialogue-quest-eastern-and-oriental-orthodox-unity-today

Monothelitism is the teaching that Christ had only one will and it was both human and divine, right?
« Last Edit: January 20, 2017, 08:59:13 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,034
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #76 on: January 20, 2017, 09:32:16 PM »
What specifically were the heresies of St. Dioscoros that were repudiated by the Council of Chalcedon? 
His rejection that Christ is in two natures after the union.
No.  St. Dioscoros was not officially condemned for any theological reasons at Chalcedon, merely for administrative reasons, specifically failing to answer the summons of the council three times.  He was never declared a heretic.
1. Dioscorus' teaching that Christ is definitely not in two natures after the incarnation is repudiated by Chalcedon in that Chalcedon definitely teaches dyophisitism.

Stop splitting hairs.  It's intellectually dishonest.  The teaching that, "Christ is definitely not in two natures after the incarnation" was never assigned specifically to St. Dioscoros by the council nor condemned in his name.  The council merely allowed for two nature language, it didn't condemn one nature language.  St. Dioscoros never taught anything different - Christologically speaking - than St. Cyril.  No specific teaching of his was explicitly condemned by Chalcedon, nor was any heresy assigned to him.  You cannot assert - contrary to history - that St. Dioscoros taught any heresy or was condemned by Chalcedon as a heretic.  He was not.

Now you are bringing up a separate issue, whether Dioscorus was himself directly formally condemned as a heretic:

That was the issue I was discussing from the beginning and you know it.  LBK made it out as if Dioscoros and Eutyches were both condemned as heretics by Chalcedon.  I asked her to substantiate this.  So far, she hasn't.  You are trying - in vain - to split hairs and make it out as if the teaching of St. Dioscoros - which is simply the teaching of St. Cyril - was condemned in any way by the council even if his person wasn't.  That is not the case.  He was condemned for not answering the summons three times.  In fact, I'm done discussing this with you, because this has been discussed ad nauseam in the private forum.  So has the rest of your post, right down to the false accusations against St. Dioscoros regarding the death of Flavian.  It is tiresome rehashing this stuff with you again and again and again as you post back to back to back posts to yourself.  I can already see your next post in which you try to impale me with what you pretend to take as the literal meaning of my question to LBK.  I don't find you to be sincere, especially when it comes to the subject of Oriental Orthodoxy, and I don't find discussions with you on the subject of the Orthodox Faith as upheld in our Church to be profitable.
Now accepting brief PMs.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 32,841
  • Pope Pius XIII, play for us!
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #77 on: January 20, 2017, 11:14:33 PM »
Mor,

Regardless of my own notes on Gal 5 below, is your overall answer to me to imply that there is not a moral issue with approving of someone getting brutally killed, and with being involved in the death?

I will not answer this question because you want to apply my answer to St Dioscoros and you haven't demonstrated your claim against him.   
IOW, you don't want to admit there is a moral issue with brutality when an EO sees an OO saint as approving of it?

^This is why I don't want to answer the question.  You twist what doesn't fit into your worldview so that it does, to hell with everything standing in the way. 

Prove your claim against St Dioscoros and then I'll answer your question.

Quote
Quote

The Acts of Ephesus II read at Chalcedon:

    "The holy council [Ephesus II] said: "Destroy and burn Eusebius. Let him be burnt alive. Let him be cut in two. As he has divided, let him be divided."
    Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: "Do you allow this language speaking of two natures after the incarnation?"
    The holy council said: "Anathema to whoever says this!"
    Disocorus bishop of Alexandria said: "Since I need both your voices and a show of hands, let anyone who is unable to cry out raise his hand."
    Page 221

Participants of Ephesus II at Chalcedon:
    all the Egyptians and the monks accompanying Barsaumas and the whole crowd rose up and began saying, "He who says two natures should be cut in two.

    Footnote 71,  from vol I:

    Barsaumas was a leading Syrian archimandrite who took part as a  full  member  of  Ephesus  II  (78.131),  where  he  incited  the  monks  against  Flavian  of Constantinople and his sympathizers (176, 851; IV. 77–8); having a monk as a full member of an ecumenical council was an innovation. ...  After refusing to accept the decrees of the council, he returned to Syria
    where  he  campaigned  against  them  until  his  death  in  458.  He  is  venerated  as  a  saint  in  the Oriental Orthodox churches.
    http://ixoyc.net/data/fathers/624.pdf
Barsaumas is an OO saint.

Yes, St Barsawmo is an Orthodox saint and is commemorated in the diptychs as "our lord, lord Barsawmo, head of the anchorites". 
« Last Edit: January 20, 2017, 11:14:57 PM by Mor Ephrem »
Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 32,841
  • Pope Pius XIII, play for us!
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #78 on: January 20, 2017, 11:44:22 PM »
If Paul wrote during his persecution of Jewish Christians that he wanted them to mutilate themselves (assuming one could find a theological relevance), would one conclude that he only meant it rhetorically and didn't have any desire for them to get hurt?

At first, your problem was the language.  Now that you are shown a similar use of language from the inspired pen of an apostle, you want to move the goalposts.   

Quote
If the Egyptian participants of Ephesus II, like Barsaumas and Dioscorus, express approval of killing of Flavian who they believe is a major heretic, at the same time when dyophites are actually being killed or mutilated (Chalcedon includes testimony of killing and mutilation of EOs in Asia Minor, and we know it happened in Alexandria and Jerusalem too), and Ephesus II's EO participants tell Chalcedon that they were frightened into submitting to Ephesus II against their will, then should I see the threats as a merely rhetorical flourish, Mor Ephrem?

More moving of goalposts.  Once you were alerted to the possibility that St Dioscoros was using a figure of speech, you wanted to include another saint who could also be implicated in order to establish a pattern which you could use in your anti-OO polemic. 

Quote
I am expressing a sincere major emotional problem I have with Ephesus II, and one that I don't see as a particular problem of OOs, since I see EOs having this issue with St. Joseph Volotsky.

I doubt very many EOs have knowledge of the existence of a Joseph Volotsky, let alone problems with his life and sainthood. 

Quote
Nor do I expect OOs to be fine with any persecution they themselves received in Byzantine times. I am OK with your statement in your signature line: "The Church's bridegroom was never the Byzantine Empire."

From the twelve apostles down to our day, there are saints whom we propose for veneration whose lives had some decidedly unholy aspects.  We honour them in spite of those things because of what God was able to accomplish through them.  I don't venerate St Barsawmo or St Dioscoros because I support the idea of an army of monks splitting a bishop in twain anymore than I venerate St Peter for denying Christ.  I venerate them because there is more to their lives than whatever faults we may identify in them.  I don't have to defend the latter in order to accept them as saints.  If God can show them mercy, why can't I glorify God in them for his work of mercy in their lives? 

Did some Orthodox saints say and do some unholy and sinful things?  Sure.  But we don't take those things and try to shoehorn them into a theology of infallible councils, Spirit-bearing bishops, and inerrant desert-dwelling monastic oracles so that somehow those unholy and sinful things are actually holy and grace-filled because holy people did them.  Unfortunately, this is what many EO do with similar examples on their side of the divide precisely because of the need to prop up and protect a weird pseudo-magisterium. 
Quote
The erection of one’s rod counts as a form of glory (Theophylaktos of Ohrid, A Defense of Eunuchs, p. 329).

The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,034
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #79 on: January 21, 2017, 12:56:59 AM »
You twist what doesn't fit into your worldview so that it does, to hell with everything standing in the way.   

^ This.  Big time.  It's as exhausting as the pretense of sincere inquiry - while simultaneously damning us with loaded questions - is obvious.
Now accepting brief PMs.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,352
  • 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: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #80 on: January 21, 2017, 03:20:09 AM »
Overall, I like the OO Church and find it interesting. It's why this kind of thing is a stickler for me. I don't particularly care about Mormonism or the Second Adventist movement, etc., so I don't waste much time with their theological issues.
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,352
  • 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: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #81 on: January 21, 2017, 03:29:31 AM »
^ This.  Big time.  It's as exhausting as the pretense of sincere inquiry - while simultaneously damning us with loaded questions - is obvious.
Our churches have been going at this stuff and dialoging about this stuff for the last 1500+ years. I can't hope to resolve this stuff in even a few years, and doubt it will even work out in my lifetime.

The best successes at dialogue that comes to mind are the one with the Syriac OOs back then when they affirmed numerous canons of Chalcedon and nowadays when we have the joint statements saying our churches are not Nestorian, or Monophysite, and that "in two natures" is acceptable (from what Mor has posted here before).

I don't see most EOs globally giving up the 7 councils as pillars of the EO faith, and it looks like it would be a big bullet to bite for OOs to openly, collectively formally affirm Chalcedon as a correct council, because we are talking about 1500+ years of tradition, and Tradition is a big thing for all Orthodox.

So gridlock and different impressions like I am going in circles out of some "pretence" is probably going to be par for the course that I need to recognize. I don't see a way to overcome that, because personality issues get in the way.

I guess it's like talking about some politics issue and you really need to be talking with someone you are on the same page with at least about approaching issues.
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,352
  • 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: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #82 on: January 21, 2017, 04:22:14 AM »
At first, your problem was the language.  Now that you are shown a similar use of language from the inspired pen of an apostle, you want to move the goalposts.   

More moving of goalposts.  Once you were alerted to the possibility that St Dioscoros was using a figure of speech, you wanted to include another saint who could also be implicated in order to establish a pattern which you could use in your anti-OO polemic. 
The goalpost is what I said before - approval of brutal killing and involvement in the victim's tragic death.

The example of Paul doesn't meet that.

Joseph Volotsky does. The battle with the 16h c. Judaizing heresy is well known in Russian EO history. So is Tsar Nicholas II who I asked Bp. Job publicly if I had to acknowledge as a saint because of his approval of brutal punishment.

Based on my personal standard, I have the same issue with Dioscorus and Barsaumas at the moral level. If I didn't, I would be hypocritical to say that what happened to Flavian at Ephesus II was morally fine.

Only way to get me to change my mind would be to bring up statements at Ephesus II where Dioscorus opposed what his council declared and said he didn't want anything bad to happen to Flavian or any other dyophisites, and he didn't say that.  Other option is people could call me "insincere", "lying", etc. and pressure me into not talking about this stuff. But inside the revulsion never goes away because it doesn't address the source of the problem, which is Ephesus II's declarations. It's just like Cranmer, Josaphat K, Joseph Volotsky and the others at the emotional level. Barsaumas, Calvin, and others go in that list for me too. The burning of Servetus by Calvin was one emotional factor pushing me away from the Calvinist churches and into Orthodoxy as a teenager. Turns out the Calvinists used greenwood to make it extra painful.

It's ultimately not a particular "OO issue" for me, because I have the same problem with EOs and other Chalcedonians' saints when they do this kind of stuff. It's a challenge in the Christian world. How to deal with proclaimed saints when they crush my image of mercy and compassion that I see as important to sainthood.

I think maybe when it comes to reconciliation some EOs won't think about the moral side of that, and just think about the theology of Chalcedon. Maybe at base that's the most important thing - focus on the basics of the faith and not get stuck up on the history of abuses.


Quote
Quote
Nor do I expect OOs to be fine with any persecution they themselves received in Byzantine times. I am OK with your statement in your signature line: "The Church's bridegroom was never the Byzantine Empire."

From the twelve apostles down to our day, there are saints whom we propose for veneration whose lives had some decidedly unholy aspects.
Sure. This is a good point. Only Jesus was perfect.
Joseph Volotsky and Dioscorus affirmed the Nicene Creed and both opposed certain heresies - for Volotsky it was Judaising and for Dioscorus it was Nestorianism.

At an emotional level, I am not sure how much abuse I am comfortable with by any proclaimed "saints", that is, how strong the "unholy aspect" becomes in order for it to swallow the "holy aspect" in terms of sainthood.

The example of Peter denying Christ and the apostles scattering at Gethsemane would have some relevance, but that in the Church's tradition they repented of those deeds and ended up getting martyred.

If Joseph V. and Dioscorus were known to have sincerely repented of what happened to their victims like Paul repented of what happened to Stephen, of course their persons in my mind would be cleansed of those misdeeds.

Impulses to deny that the abuse (by any EO or OO saints) occurred or was wrong just compounds the moral problem for me, as if the legacy of abuse continues. The same thing would be true if EOs taught that OOs were not persecuted or brutalized by the Byzantine empire. Denial is like what Jesus said about the pharisees following in the legacy of Cain. When I talk sometimes with some people who hate Christianity and they deny persecution and then heap abuse on you it's like a reminder that they are actually following in the steps of the early persecutors. Jesus saw the legacy himself in Matthew 23 talking about the pharisees ("all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar."). How did the pharisees of the 1st c. kill Zechariah? It was because they were part of this legacy, even if they were to tell Jesus they didn't support the killing.

If people don't think there was any moral problem with J.Volotsky or the other people on the list doing this stuff, and then they declare themselves their spiritual offspring, they are taking on that legacy themselves.

I understand what you are saying here:
Quote
  We honour them in spite of those things because of what God was able to accomplish through them.  I don't venerate St Barsawmo or St Dioscoros because I support the idea of an army of monks splitting a bishop in twain anymore than I venerate St Peter for denying Christ.  I venerate them because there is more to their lives than whatever faults we may identify in them.  I don't have to defend the latter in order to accept them as saints.  If God can show them mercy, why can't I glorify God in them for his work of mercy in their lives? 

Did some Orthodox saints say and do some unholy and sinful things?  Sure. 


Quote
But we don't take those things and try to shoehorn them into a theology of infallible councils, Spirit-bearing bishops, and inerrant desert-dwelling monastic oracles so that somehow those unholy and sinful things are actually holy and grace-filled because holy people did them.  Unfortunately, this is what many EO do with similar examples on their side of the divide precisely because of the need to prop up and protect a weird pseudo-magisterium.
Yes, some EOs have a theology of "theology of infallible councils" and "Spirit-bearing bishops". I am kind of skeptical about the infallibility of councils theory. But anyway, EOs do seem to have a theology that if the Spirit is in councils, bishops, and monastics, then it's going to have a major reflection in their lives' holiness. One of the proofs of their spiritual truth is their fruit, like Jesus said "By their fruit ye shall know thee". I sympathize with that. The more poison their tree is producing, the more skeptical I am about seeing the person as a saint.

So OK, J.Volotsky might have done a good job translating the OT and it was good to oppose Judaizing, but.... I think a lot of people he accused were not actually Judaizers and he was exaggerating some of his victims' faults. It was like a witchunt. He was a fan of the Spanish Inquisition and introduced it to Russia, which was a unique rarity in Russian history. He was also an advocate of major Church land ownership that brought major material riches to the church, and I am skeptical of that too. So I question how much of that is really good fruit.

Same thing with Dioscorus and Barsaumas. Other than his virtue of using his church authority to push out Nestorius' bad explanations of Christology, it is hard for me to see what his great saintly services to the Church were, such that it overcomes the problems I have with his actions on Church unity in the wake of Cyril's Reconciliation and the treatment of Flavian. Maybe I am missing something from his biography like he gave all his wealth to the poor or some other great virtuous deed?
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,352
  • 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: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #83 on: January 21, 2017, 04:31:05 AM »
^This is why I don't want to answer the question.  You twist what doesn't fit into your worldview so that it does, to hell with everything standing in the way. 

Prove your claim against St Dioscoros and then I'll answer your question.
The info I pasted here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,70750.msg1441090.html#msg1441090

My preferred worldview would be one where Dioscorus, Barsaumas and Ephesus II didn't say anything about hurting Flavian, that there was no threat of punishment used against the EOs there to get them to sign, that Flavian wasn't deposed and exiled, dying soon after, and that EOs and OOs didn't persecute each other in the 6th c. Unfortunately, I don't get to make my own preferred worldview reality, so I'm stuck with what we have.

The other thing is that sometimes there are problems in the world where people are abused and need help. A pastor should be there who is part of divine sympathy for the brutalized. This is just my own personal preference for what kind of pastor I like. I know there are plenty of Chalcedonian pastors who don't fit this mold, when I think of J.Volotsky and the Spanish Inquisition.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2017, 04:32:02 AM by rakovsky »
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,352
  • 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: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #84 on: January 21, 2017, 04:58:38 AM »
The teaching that, "Christ is definitely not in two natures after the incarnation" was never assigned specifically to St. Dioscoros by the council nor condemned in his name.  The council merely allowed for two nature language, it didn't condemn one nature language.  St. Dioscoros never taught anything different - Christologically speaking - than St. Cyril.  No specific teaching of his was explicitly condemned by Chalcedon, nor was any heresy assigned to him.  You cannot assert - contrary to history - that St. Dioscoros taught any heresy or was condemned by Chalcedon as a heretic.  He was not.
Hello, Antonius.

Chalcedon does not merely allow for two nature language. By putting "in two natures" in the main faith statement Chalcedon teaches that it is correct.

Dioscorus' own teaching explicitly at Ephesus II and in his post-Chalcedon correspondence was that Christ is not in two natures and to reject the teaching of Chalcedon above.

Dioscorus also taught that Eutyches' declaration was orthodox that even before Christ's incarnation, Christ was of two natures, and the Tome rejects this as false "nonsense".

The records of Chalcedon also have participants calling Dioscorus' teaching heretical IIRC, and the only uncertainty is whether the formal condemnation itself was for heresy. My own guess would be that if the voters had different opinions and it wasn't stated in the vote itself, that we can't say that the formal condemnation itself was for heresy in particular. So you are right on that point.

Now you are bringing up a separate issue, whether Dioscorus was himself directly formally condemned as a heretic:

That was the issue I was discussing from the beginning and you know it.

  LBK made it out as if Dioscoros and Eutyches were both condemned as heretics by Chalcedon.  I asked her to substantiate this.  So far, she hasn't.
Your first message to LBK was message #25:
What specifically were the heresies of St. Dioscoros that were repudiated by the Council of Chalcedon? 
The teachings that (A) Christ is not in two natures and (B) that before the incarnation Christ was of two natures were repudiated by the Council of Chalcedon by:
* teaching that Christ is in two natures
* the assembled bishops' declarations
* The Tome accepted by the Council, which directly repudiated Eutyches' statement of (B).

I would have to check if there were any canons by Chalcedon rejecting as heresy the denial of Christ being in two natures after the incarnation, but the Fifth Council had those.

  I don't find you to be sincere, especially when it comes to the subject of Oriental Orthodoxy, and I don't find discussions with you on the subject of the Orthodox Faith as upheld in our Church to be profitable.
Sorry you feel that way. Dialogue really requires two people.
Reconciliation goes better when people are open to reexamining older positions, and also to talking respectfully.

I am open to reexamining Chalcedonian and other EO claims.
I agree with your point that Chalcedon did not formally condemn Dioscorus for heresy.
I am also open to not even considering Dioscorus as a heretic in his person, based on the same spirit of leniency St. Cyril extended to Theodore M.

To say Dioscorus never made any false teachings requires at least more discussion, which I am open to.
« Last Edit: January 21, 2017, 05:10:13 AM by rakovsky »
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,132
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #85 on: January 21, 2017, 08:36:14 AM »
You twist what doesn't fit into your worldview so that it does, to hell with everything standing in the way.   

^ This.  Big time.  It's as exhausting as the pretense of sincere inquiry - while simultaneously damning us with loaded questions - is obvious.

+1

Rakovsky, you do not discuss in good faith.
Quote
“A goose to hatch the Crystal Egg after an Eagle had half-hatched it! Aye, aye, to be sure, that’s right,” said the Old Woman of Beare. “And now you must go find out what happened to it. Go now, and when you come back I will give you your name.”
- from The King of Ireland's Son, by Padraic Colum

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,034
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #86 on: January 21, 2017, 10:26:26 AM »
Hello, Antonius...

All of this has been asked an answered by various posters elsewhere.  I don't feel like going through the pointless exercise of reiterating the answers to these questions and accusations against St. Dioscoros in a point-by-point rebuttal which in turn would just birth a reiteration of the refuted and/or answered points in different words by you.  (And I called it on your trying to impale me on a deliberately misinterpreted literal meaning of my words to LBK.)  If someone else wants to play ring-around-the-rosy with you, they are welcome to it.  With apologies, I cannot.

Our churches have been going at this stuff and dialoging about this stuff for the last 1500+ years. I can't hope to resolve this stuff in even a few years, and doubt it will even work out in my lifetime.

No one is asking you to resolve it for the Church.  People above our paygrade are working that out.  The question is, whether or not you can resolve it to your own satisfaction within your own mind.  If the answer is yes, all of the answers to your questions have already been presented to you - sometimes more than once - over a period of years by more-than-competent posters ranging from Fr. Peter Farrington to Salpy to minasoliman to Mor Ephrem to Iconodule to Remnkemi to CoptoGeek to wgw to Severian to...you get the picture.  This being the case, it truly does seem that you do not ask in good faith, especially when so many of your questions are coupled with some defamatory accusation or other, usually relating to how excitingly exotic we are when beheading goats or smoking weed.  Either you are insincere, or you have some sort of tic.  Either way, you are more than I can bear at present.  Good luck to you in your quest, and may God restore the full and apparent unity of His Orthodox Church.
Now accepting brief PMs.

Offline Thomas

  • Section Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,991
Re: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #87 on: January 21, 2017, 11:33:09 AM »
As to the Church Ark icon, I have seen versions of it in Slavic Monasteries where it is quite  popular.  The use of the gun with Luther had more to do with the  Lutheran Swedes invasion of Poland, Russia , Eastern Europe,etc and their use of guns during that invasion.  Luther is representative of that grouping seeking to destroy the Orthodox Church by military force.  The icon will also include a Pope of Rome usually holding some form of spear or other weapon, some Orthodox or Eastern Catholic Bishops (I was never sure but realized that it was people in authority who were  actually enemies of the faithful),and a moslem turk or caliph firing an arrow from a bow. The great whore of Babylon from Revelations is there as well as the false prophet and the Beast of Revelations, the open mouthed leviathan representing hell is usually behind all of these figures waiting to gobble them and any who fall from the ship as a result of their efforts.  On the ship will be Christ, the Theotokos,some of the Apostles, and a grouping of saints including the three Theologians, the patronal saint of the monastery, and popular national saints of the Orthodox Church.  All in all, it is an Icon that tells a story of those who seek the safety of the Ship of Orthodoxy and those who seek to destroy it. It is seen as  a true icon by many although it is often updated to add current enemies of the Church (e.g Lenin, Stalin, etc)

Your brother in Christ ,
Thomas

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,034
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #88 on: January 21, 2017, 12:06:04 PM »
As to the Church Ark icon, I have seen versions of it in Slavic Monasteries where it is quite  popular.  The use of the gun with Luther had more to do with the  Lutheran Swedes invasion of Poland, Russia , Eastern Europe,etc and their use of guns during that invasion.  Luther is representative of that grouping seeking to destroy the Orthodox Church by military force.  The icon will also include a Pope of Rome usually holding some form of spear or other weapon, some Orthodox or Eastern Catholic Bishops (I was never sure but realized that it was people in authority who were  actually enemies of the faithful),and a moslem turk or caliph firing an arrow from a bow. The great whore of Babylon from Revelations is there as well as the false prophet and the Beast of Revelations, the open mouthed leviathan representing hell is usually behind all of these figures waiting to gobble them and any who fall from the ship as a result of their efforts.  On the ship will be Christ, the Theotokos,some of the Apostles, and a grouping of saints including the three Theologians, the patronal saint of the monastery, and popular national saints of the Orthodox Church.  All in all, it is an Icon that tells a story of those who seek the safety of the Ship of Orthodoxy and those who seek to destroy it. It is seen as  a true icon by many although it is often updated to add current enemies of the Church (e.g Lenin, Stalin, etc)

I have no problem with it, really.  I was just asking if one of the figures was intended to be a "Monophysite with an Armenian cowl" as I've seen that version before.  Thanks for the explanation.  It makes a lot of sense.  :)
Now accepting brief PMs.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,352
  • 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: Icons of the Church-Ark and of the councils
« Reply #89 on: January 24, 2017, 06:29:26 PM »
+1

Rakovsky, you do not discuss in good faith.
I am sorry to feel that way, Iconodule.

If I didn't discuss OO theology in good faith towards it, why would I say I am OK with the belief in one united nature composed of two? This teaching was rejected by John Damascene, IMO by one of the anathemas at the 5th Council, and Russians on the Kuraev forum argue against me when I accept this. I feel no compulsion under EO Tradition to accept this teaching.

Here is what I wrote already on the forum about J.Volotsky:
So Saint J.Volotzky actually could have made four mistakes in my view - he was too intolerant of people using Jewish practices, he killed heretics, he excessively relied on Jewish rules that had been transcended, and in doing so he strongly contradicted himself. Despite the Church having sainted him and his contribution toward Biblical translation, I am doubtful whether he, along with the Tsar's family for that matter, should rightly be called saintly.
When I say that I am uncomfortable about proclaimed saints supporting and being involved in persecution or other repression, I am saying that in good faith, Iconodule.
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20