Author Topic: Chalcedon...  (Read 6600 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 388
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen
Chalcedon...
« on: August 13, 2017, 01:48:22 PM »
So, as someone who has come to the conclusion that simply being in communion with a successor of Peter doesn't guarantee infallibility, and considering there have been, at points, in Church history from an Eastern Orthodox perspective where a significant portion of Patriarchs were Miaphysite, I wish to start a CIVILIZED informative thread about why the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox have differing views of the Christology from Chalcedon onwards, and how each communion considers itself to be legitimate....

For the Oriental Orthodox:

1. What was contradictory in the Tome of Leo about the Nature of Christ in light of the former Ecumenical Councils and the Church Fathers? Why? And, as a broader question, what exactly is different in the Nature of Christ between the Eastern and Oriental communions? (Is it because the Eastern Orthodox recognize the fact that Christ has two distinct natures, being fully God and fully man)?
2. How was the desposal of the Patriarch of Alexandria not seen as legitimate, and why? Was the Tome of Leo accepted by all at that time?
3. How does the Oriental Orthodox fulfill the four marks of the Church in terms of being One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic compared to the Eastern Orthodox?

For the Eastern Orthodox:
1. How was the Tome of Leo NOT contradictory, in light of the former Ecumenical Councils and Church Fathers?
2. How was Chalcedon seen as legitimate and Ecumenical, in light of the hostility it provoked by Alexandria?
3. Did the Tome of Leo create a foreshadowing of Papal Infallibility, and why did the Eastern Church accept this?

I do not wish for this forum to devolve into a debate where pseudo-intellectuals start a sophistic strawman mud-slinging contest without actually addressing the points at hand, as I want to hear a perspective from both the Eastern and Oriental communions.

I also want to point out that, perhaps maybe even 50 years from now, such a question may be irrelevant, because I honestly think that the Oriental Orthodox, in light of the Eastern Orthodox and her relationship to other communities, have the greatest chance of not compromising the truth and coming into communion with each other in a legitimate fashion - I also think that it is great that both communities have grown substantially in their relationships between one another, which I view as a blessing. However, as an inquirer, I wish to ask this question - as I find it an important one as of now.

So please, go ahead.
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Offline Cognomen

  • Ungrateful Biped
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,155
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Wanderer, but Antioch and All the East
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #1 on: August 13, 2017, 02:00:18 PM »

I do not wish for this forum to devolve into a debate where pseudo-intellectuals start a sophistic strawman mud-slinging contest without actually addressing the points at hand, as I want to hear a perspective from both the Eastern and Oriental communions.

I also want to point out that, perhaps maybe even 50 years from now, such a question may be irrelevant, because I honestly think that the Oriental Orthodox, in light of the Eastern Orthodox and her relationship to other communities, have the greatest chance of not compromising the truth and coming into communion with each other in a legitimate fashion - I also think that it is great that both communities have grown substantially in their relationships between one another, which I view as a blessing. However, as an inquirer, I wish to ask this question - as I find it an important one as of now.

So please, go ahead.

Yes, sir. We'll form an orderly queue to answer your queries. Especially since you said please.
If anything I have posted has been illuminating, please remember that I merely reflect the light of others...but also it's me.

Offline RobS

  • Formerly "nothing"
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,169
  • Jurisdiction: The thrilling romance of Holy Orthodoxy
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #2 on: August 13, 2017, 02:04:36 PM »
Here comes the Alpha60 post to end all Alpha60 posts.
"The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death (μελεπᾷν ἀποθνήσκειν)."

— Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragment XI

Modernist thinking and being consists of nothing but uncritical acceptance.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 388
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #3 on: August 13, 2017, 02:06:39 PM »

I do not wish for this forum to devolve into a debate where pseudo-intellectuals start a sophistic strawman mud-slinging contest without actually addressing the points at hand, as I want to hear a perspective from both the Eastern and Oriental communions.

I also want to point out that, perhaps maybe even 50 years from now, such a question may be irrelevant, because I honestly think that the Oriental Orthodox, in light of the Eastern Orthodox and her relationship to other communities, have the greatest chance of not compromising the truth and coming into communion with each other in a legitimate fashion - I also think that it is great that both communities have grown substantially in their relationships between one another, which I view as a blessing. However, as an inquirer, I wish to ask this question - as I find it an important one as of now.

So please, go ahead.

Yes, sir. We'll form an orderly queue to answer your queries. Especially since you said please.


Thank you  ;)
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 02:14:45 PM by LivenotoneviL »
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Offline youssef

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 316
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #4 on: August 13, 2017, 03:01:29 PM »
It seem that they don't understand each other language ;D and other then that there is no problem.

For me i think rome and constantipole caused this problem.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,321
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #5 on: August 13, 2017, 03:45:05 PM »
Eastern Orthodox:

1. The Tome of Leo, in isolation, was in conflict with St. Cyril of Alexandria's anathemas. However, St. Leo of Rome himself and the entire teaching and doctrine wholly of Chalcedon, not taken in isolation, is not and was not. The Oriental Orthodox would say that the anathemas of St. Cyril are the standard by which Leo and Chalcedon is to be judged.

2. Ecumenical simply means in accord with the imperial authority. Chalcedon became dogma due to historical circumstance, on the one hand, and on the other hand, that most of the East and the whole of the West was more Dyophysite and Antiochene than Alexandrian and Miaphysite in it's Christological conscious. I use "conscious" very specifically here, as Mina Soliman pointed out elsewhere, did the common Churchgoer have a clue about this technical theology debate? Of course not. The local person in the local Church could express the same idea in any number of ways, and this emphasis on which way was "true" divided people in ways which were really unnecessary and not in the spirit of Christianity by any means

3. Not the Tome of Leo, but Chalcedon. But it also created a Constantinopolitan supremacy in the same council. Chalcedon gave Constantinople equal authority with Rome, and greater authority than Alexandria. When Constantinople was in fact, NOT an apostolic see like the others. That's why St. Gregory the Great took issue with St. John the Faster of Constantinople calling himself "Ecumenical Patriarch" or "universal bishop" is how St. Gregory interpreted it, and why he thought that the three apostolic sees have the authority of the one see.

Furthermore, it wasn't merely Chalcedon which "gave" this impression that the Pope had supremacy. In the Council of Ephesus, the priest Philip also says that Pope Celestine has this sort of supremacy. And it can be traced back even to the time of St. Irenaeus and Pope Victor. Although, again, this was never accepted by the universal Church, it has precedent in some of the earliest Popes and Papal actions, however.

Oriental Orthodox:

2. Dioscorus of Alexandria, the Patriarch in question, was involved in the prior "robber council" otherwise known as the Second Council of Ephesus. In that council, the Emperor basically tasked Dioscoros with the rooting out of Nestorian influence within the Church. Alexandrians obviously saw that as commendable, considering they were at the forefront of the controversy. When Dioscoros was deposed, it was due to some of his other more unruly actions taken at Ephesus II. Namely, oppressing some of the Orthodox Antiochian Bishops who were not Nestorian. Nestorius was taught by the Antiochene school, but not every Antiochian was a Nestorian despite every Nestorian being Antiochian.

In other words, Ephesus II was basically like the Crusades. It had a good intention behind it, but the actions backfired and led to very bad fallout. Alexandrians thought Ephesus II was a noble cause, the rest of the Church thought it was terrible and unjust in the way it was carried out, and in how it's definitions of faith were proclaimed. I think the Orientals would say the same is true of Chalcedon, just inversely.

I tried to be objective, but forgive me if I erred any. I've been down this road before, I think we all have.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 03:58:56 PM by xOrthodox4Christx »
This profile is defunct as of 11/8/2017. I created it before Orthodoxy, and have used it after Orthodoxy.

I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

I will likely lurk on this forum under a different name.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,321
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #6 on: August 13, 2017, 04:06:45 PM »
Sorry for all of the typos.
This profile is defunct as of 11/8/2017. I created it before Orthodoxy, and have used it after Orthodoxy.

I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

I will likely lurk on this forum under a different name.

Offline Alpha60

  • The Confederate Flag Is Diabolical and Blasphemous
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,553
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #7 on: August 13, 2017, 04:32:49 PM »
Here comes the Alpha60 post to end all Alpha60 posts.



Sometimes reality is too complex for oral communication. But legend embodies it in a form which enables it to spread all over the world.

Time is like a circle which is endlessly described. The declining arc is the past. The inclining arc is the future.  No-one has ever lived in the past. No-one will ever live in the future. The present is the form of all life.



Once we know the number one, we believe that we know the number two, because one plus one equals two. We forget that first we must know the meaning of plus.

The meaning of words and of expressions, is no longer grasped. An isolated word, or a detail of a design, can be understood. But the meaning of the whole escapes.  Everything has been said, provided words do not change their meanings, nor meanings their words.


"It is logical that the actions of the human race over time will lead to its destruction.  I, Alpha 60, am merely the agent of this destruction."

- The computer Alpha 60, from Alphaville (1964) by Jean Luc Godard, the obvious inspiration for HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

This signature is not intended to offend any user, nor the relatives of Discovery 1 deputy commander Dr. Frank Poole,  and crew members Dr. Victor Kaminsky, Dr. Jack Kimball, and Dr. Charles Hunter.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,197
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #8 on: August 13, 2017, 05:08:09 PM »
To start with the non controversial:
3. Did the Tome of Leo create a foreshadowing of Papal Infallibility

Not any more than the letter Abp. St. Celestine wrote to the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus . IOW no.
and why did the Eastern Church accept this?
since it did not, and it taught the Orthodox Truth, why would we not accept it?
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 minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,999
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #9 on: August 13, 2017, 05:12:50 PM »
Quote
For the Oriental Orthodox:

1. What was contradictory in the Tome of Leo about the Nature of Christ in light of the former Ecumenical Councils and the Church Fathers? Why? And, as a broader question, what exactly is different in the Nature of Christ between the Eastern and Oriental communions? (Is it because the Eastern Orthodox recognize the fact that Christ has two distinct natures, being fully God and fully man)?
2. How was the desposal of the Patriarch of Alexandria not seen as legitimate, and why? Was the Tome of Leo accepted by all at that time?
3. How does the Oriental Orthodox fulfill the four marks of the Church in terms of being One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic compared to the Eastern Orthodox?

1. The Tome of Leo, in the eyes of those who supported St. Dioscorus of Alexandria, tended to present the two natures of Christ as two entities acting together, rather than two entities unconfusedly united in one nature and having one action.  It SEEMED to them that Pope Leo had a language that jeopardized not just the unity of Christ, but the salvific effect and oneness such a unity has on all humanity.  The language in parts of the Tome seemed eerily close to what St. Cyril condemned in Diodore and Theodore and furthermore had unintentional consequences of directly opposing the language and tradition of St. Cyril's preferential use of "one nature".

Today, the Eastern Orthodox will defend the Tome discussing that we should read the Tome in light of "two ousiai en theoria", that is by a contemplative separation of the essence of humanity and essence of divinity, and not in any way a reality of the two as if two separate entities act side by side together.  This is perhaps the best defense of the Tome, though the Oriental Orthodox would contend such an interpretation has been unclear.

Some of the other issues of Pope Leo was his association with the likes of Theodoret of Cyrrhus.  He was a supporter of the Antiochian tradition of Diodore and Theodore, and was at once a defender of Nestorius.  When he turned his back on Nestorius, one is still left with the question of how he dealt with Diodore and Theodore's Christological teachings, and Dioscorus et al were quite suspicious of anyone uniting with Theodoret (as well as Ibas).  In fact, this caused even more problems as the minutes of Chalcedon has shown, to which lead to a seeming confirmation of Pope Leo as guilty not just from the OO interpretation of the Tome, but also by association with such characters.

Therefore, we see Ephesus 449 as a rooting out of Nestorianism via the Tome as well as Theodoret and Ibas, along with the heritage of Theodore of Mopsuestia, which would be later known as the infamous "Three Chapters" that would be AT BEST poorly dealt with in Chalcedon (in the eyes of anti-Chalcedonians, Chalcedon viewed the Three Chapters positively) and would not be dealt with definitively until 553 AD as negatively.

2.  Because St. Dioscorus was seen as someone fighting for the Orthodox faith, the anti-Chalcedonian held him up as a continuation of the heroic deeds of Sts. Athanasius and Cyril, who also had to go up against major opposition and also had similar accusations by their contemporary enemies of "oppression" and "manipulations" and "murder".  In fact, one can argue Ephesus 449 was no different in the way it handled these questions than Ephesus 431, and both had divisive repercussions, with Ephesus 431 arguably ending the repercussions in two years by a form of theological peace agreement, which continued unfortunately to leave both sides interpreting such agreement differently.

3.Investigate for yourself to see if the doctrines of the Oriental Orthodox agree with the Church fathers and the Scriptures and if indeed we do have an unbroken line to the Apostles:
  • Oneness:  In our doctrines and in our sacramental practices; we are one not just today, but with the past fathers and the future Kingdom to come; our oneness also is connected to the oneness of Christ with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and our oneness with the one Christ
  • Holiness: We continue to venerate countless of saints and fathers even after Chalcedon that continue to keep the holiness of the Church by grace of the Holy Spirit; and we trust in the Holy Spirit's guidance first and foremost, who gives us the Scriptures, the communion of saints, the sacraments, the liturgical traditions, the Orthodox councils, etc.
  • Catholic:  Where the Eucharist is, there is the bishop, and where the bishop is (as well as the communion of presbyters, deacons, and all the hosts of communicants), there is the Catholic Church, as St. Ignatius of Antioch taught; our ecclesiology is basically not much different from the Eastern Orthodox
  • Apostolic:  Continuing in the spiritual practices handed down to us by our forefathers the Apostles, and fidelity to that unbroken faith, the faith that St. Peter was first built upon and spread to all the Church, clergy and laity.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 05:16:37 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 youssef

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 316
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #10 on: August 13, 2017, 05:23:24 PM »
Quote
For the Oriental Orthodox:

1. What was contradictory in the Tome of Leo about the Nature of Christ in light of the former Ecumenical Councils and the Church Fathers? Why? And, as a broader question, what exactly is different in the Nature of Christ between the Eastern and Oriental communions? (Is it because the Eastern Orthodox recognize the fact that Christ has two distinct natures, being fully God and fully man)?
2. How was the desposal of the Patriarch of Alexandria not seen as legitimate, and why? Was the Tome of Leo accepted by all at that time?
3. How does the Oriental Orthodox fulfill the four marks of the Church in terms of being One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic compared to the Eastern Orthodox?



1. The Tome of Leo, in the eyes of those who supported St. Dioscorus of Alexandria, tended to present the two natures of Christ as two entities acting together, rather than two entities unconfusedly united in one nature and having one action.  It SEEMED to them that Pope Leo had a language that jeopardized not just the unity of Christ, but the salvific effect and oneness such a unity has on all humanity.  The language in parts of the Tome seemed eerily close to what St. Cyril condemned in Diodore and Theodore and furthermore had unintentional consequences of directly opposing the language and tradition of St. Cyril's preferential use of "one nature".

Today, the Eastern Orthodox will defend the Tome discussing that we should read the Tome in light of "two ousiai en theoria", that is by a contemplative separation of the essence of humanity and essence of divinity, and not in any way a reality of the two as if two separate entities act side by side together.  This is perhaps the best defense of the Tome, though the Oriental Orthodox would contend such an interpretation has been unclear.

Some of the other issues of Pope Leo was his association with the likes of Theodoret of Cyrrhus.  He was a supporter of the Antiochian tradition of Diodore and Theodore, and was at once a defender of Nestorius.  When he turned his back on Nestorius, one is still left with the question of how he dealt with Diodore and Theodore's Christological teachings, and Dioscorus et al were quite suspicious of anyone uniting with Theodoret (as well as Ibas).  In fact, this caused even more problems as the minutes of Chalcedon has shown, to which lead to a seeming confirmation of Pope Leo as guilty not just from the OO interpretation of the Tome, but also by association with such characters.

Therefore, we see Ephesus 449 as a rooting out of Nestorianism via the Tome as well as Theodoret and Ibas, along with the heritage of Theodore of Mopsuestia, which would be later known as the infamous "Three Chapters" that would be AT BEST poorly dealt with in Chalcedon (in the eyes of anti-Chalcedonians, Chalcedon viewed the Three Chapters positively) and would not be dealt with definitively until 553 AD as negatively.

2.  Because St. Dioscorus was seen as someone fighting for the Orthodox faith, the anti-Chalcedonian held him up as a continuation of the heroic deeds of Sts. Athanasius and Cyril, who also had to go up against major opposition and also had similar accusations by their contemporary enemies of "oppression" and "manipulations" and "murder".  In fact, one can argue Ephesus 449 was no different in the way it handled these questions than Ephesus 431, and both had divisive repercussions, with Ephesus 431 arguably ending the repercussions in two years by a form of theological peace agreement, which continued unfortunately to leave both sides interpreting such agreement differently.

3.Investigate for yourself to see if the doctrines of the Oriental Orthodox agree with the Church fathers and the Scriptures and if indeed we do have an unbroken line to the Apostles:
  • Oneness:  In our doctrines and in our sacramental practices; we are one not just today, but with the past fathers and the future Kingdom to come; our oneness also is connected to the oneness of Christ with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and our oneness with the one Christ
  • Holiness: We continue to venerate countless of saints and fathers even after Chalcedon that continue to keep the holiness of the Church by grace of the Holy Spirit; and we trust in the Holy Spirit's guidance first and foremost, who gives us the Scriptures, the communion of saints, the sacraments, the liturgical traditions, the Orthodox councils, etc.
  • Catholic:  Where the Eucharist is, there is the bishop, and where the bishop is (as well as the communion of presbyters, deacons, and all the hosts of communicants), there is the Catholic Church, as St. Ignatius of Antioch taught; our ecclesiology is basically not much different from the Eastern Orthodox
  • Apostolic:  Continuing in the spiritual practices handed down to us by our forefathers the Apostles, and fidelity to that unbroken faith, the faith that St. Peter was first built upon and spread to all the Church, clergy and laity.
I had a question for you. I had read the book of pope Shenouda about the nature of Christ. He said who has died in the cross was God. Did he meant it literally.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 05:26:37 PM by youssef »

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,999
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #11 on: August 13, 2017, 05:28:42 PM »
Hi Youssef,

I'm not sure if perhaps you worded the question strangely or not, but what's wrong with saying God was crucified?  I'm pretty sure even the Chalcedonian tradition has no problem with that, especially after 553 AD.
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 youssef

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 316
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #12 on: August 13, 2017, 05:34:05 PM »
Hi Youssef,

I'm not sure if perhaps you worded the question strangely or not, but what's wrong with saying God was crucified?  I'm pretty sure even the Chalcedonian tradition has no problem with that, especially after 553 AD.

I don't think we say that God died on the cross. Because pope Shenouda was saying that it is God who died on the cross. He said also if it was just the human nature who died so that is not necessary for salvation.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 05:43:50 PM by youssef »

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,999
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #13 on: August 13, 2017, 05:42:58 PM »
Hi Youssef,

I'm not sure if perhaps you worded the question strangely or not, but what's wrong with saying God was crucified?  I'm pretty sure even the Chalcedonian tradition has no problem with that, especially after 553 AD.

I don't think we say that God died on the cross. Because pope Shenouda was saying that it is God who died on the cross.

But you don't have a problem calling Mary the Mother of God?
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 youssef

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 316
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #14 on: August 13, 2017, 05:46:12 PM »
Hi Youssef,

I'm not sure if perhaps you worded the question strangely or not, but what's wrong with saying God was crucified?  I'm pretty sure even the Chalcedonian tradition has no problem with that, especially after 553 AD.

I don't think we say that God died on the cross. Because pope Shenouda was saying that it is God who died on the cross.

But you don't have a problem calling Mary the Mother of God?

In your definition of Jesus no. But with the two nature i had some problem. I had add something in the post before.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 05:48:22 PM by youssef »

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,999
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #15 on: August 13, 2017, 05:57:17 PM »
I realized I forgot to answer another crucial question:

Quote
And, as a broader question, what exactly is different in the Nature of Christ between the Eastern and Oriental communions? (Is it because the Eastern Orthodox recognize the fact that Christ has two distinct natures, being fully God and fully man)?

The Oriental Orthodox prefer to describe Christ as "one nature out of two".  So what does that mean?  Well, quite simple let's define some of the phrases first:

"One" = united, NOT an absolute oneness in essence, but oneness as multiple elements being united together
"Nature" = a unit of something: So the way in which this is used is legs and seat make up a unit called "chair".  The nature of chair is to be sat on

So "one nature" is a united unit.  Christ is "one nature" out of humanity and divinity.  He has in Himself two worlds in one in Himself.  If we are supposed to be "one with Christ and in Christ", Christ has to be "one in Himself".  The fullness of the divinity must be present in His humanity in such a way that anything He does humanly is an act of the divine, and anything He normally did divinely before the incarnation is now done as an act of the human.  While we can differentiate the human and divine unconfusedly by contemplation, in actual concrete manner, Christ works one united act, and this proceeds from the oneness He already is FROM humanity and divinity.  This in no way destroys the integrity of either the humanity or the divinity, but in preserving the full integrity, we also preserve the fullness of unity that exists in Christ and that extends to the body of Christ, the Church.

The Eastern Orthodox prefers to discuss the distinction and also prefers to have a consistency of theological vocabulary in Christology that runs with Trinitarian language.  The Oriental Orthodox is comfortable with inconsistency of vocabulary.  What is used in Trinitarian theology is not necessarily defined or used the same in Christology.  Hence we get the divide between EO and OO theological language, and this language was debated ad nauseum in the sixth and seventh centuries, but MOST of these writings have not been translated, partially due to its redundant nature.
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 minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,999
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #16 on: August 13, 2017, 06:11:31 PM »
Hi Youssef,

I'm not sure if perhaps you worded the question strangely or not, but what's wrong with saying God was crucified?  I'm pretty sure even the Chalcedonian tradition has no problem with that, especially after 553 AD.

I don't think we say that God died on the cross. Because pope Shenouda was saying that it is God who died on the cross. He said also if it was just the human nature who died so that is not necessary for salvation.

Okay, I see what your problem is.  I had to go back to read this part just so I can accurately portray, at least from the English translation we have what Pope Shenouda meant.

Pope Shenouda is discussing the concept of "One nature" as talking about the whole Christ and not dividing Christ into parts, so much so that Christ refers to Himself in a personal sense, not as examining one nature over another.

So for instance, Pope Shenouda does say early on that the divine nature is not liable to death.  He had to assume human nature which is liable to death.  The Scriptural references Pope Shenouda uses however is something akin to what St. Cyril of Alexandria calls the "communicato idiomatum", which is a fancy latin term for "the exchange of properties".  In other words, everything Christ does, He does so in unison, without separation from either nature.  That is why "one nature" is necessary in our tradition.

So when Christ dies, He indeed dies in the flesh, but at the same time, that death is life-giving and earth-shattering (literally) and destroyed Hades.  The death of Christ was filled with divine properties and salvific work.  That's the involvement of the divinity in the human death of Christ.  That's was we call "one nature".

The Feast of the Transfiguration is coming up, and it shows another example of how "one nature" is employed.  Christ reveals His divinity in blinding uncreated light, but the uncreated light takes shape from His flesh (and even His garments).  Therefore, His humanity emitted divinity and that is also an example of the exchange of properties.

When Christ told Lazarus to "come forth", Christ used His created human tongue to emit the uncreated power of resurrection.  When Christ walked on water, He did so with human feet while demonstrating divine rule over nature.  And when Christ was tempted, He took upon us this battle to destroy the power of temptation which once reigned over us.  By His fear in Gethsamene, He emits to us divine courage, and by His suffering, He emits to us divine healing.  By His sorrow on the Cross, He emits to us divine joy.

Therefore, if "only" the human nature is said to "die", that's like saying "only a mere man died on the Cross who happens to be united to God", rather than saying that it was "God Himself who died in the flesh while destroying death by His death, bestowing life to our mortal flesh."
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 06:22:55 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 LivenotoneviL

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 388
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #17 on: August 13, 2017, 06:16:36 PM »
Thank you guys  :)
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Offline youssef

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 316
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #18 on: August 13, 2017, 06:23:09 PM »
That was a good answer. Here is also my problem with the theotokos when we define in two narure, we can say that Mary give a child who happens to be united with God.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,999
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #19 on: August 13, 2017, 06:27:49 PM »
That was a good answer. Here is also my problem with the theotokos when we define in two narure, we can say that Mary give a child who happens to be united with God.

Well, I don't want to be putting words in the mouths of others who say "two natures".  Not everyone who says "two natures" mean the same thing.  But if the natures are separate from one another, then yes, it's impossible to even call Mary "Theotokos".  At best she would have given birth to someone who only "became God" by will and grace, and not God who became man by a natural and hypostatic union.  So long as the "hypostatic union" is properly understood, the use of "two natures" becomes no longer an issue, as was evident from the Council of Constantinople in 553 AD.
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 LivenotoneviL

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 388
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #20 on: August 13, 2017, 06:32:47 PM »
3. Not the Tome of Leo, but Chalcedon. But it also created a Constantinopolitan supremacy in the same council. Chalcedon gave Constantinople equal authority with Rome, and greater authority than Alexandria. When Constantinople was in fact, NOT an apostolic see like the others. That's why St. Gregory the Great took issue with St. John the Faster of Constantinople calling himself "Ecumenical Patriarch" or "universal bishop" is how St. Gregory interpreted it, and why he thought that the three apostolic sees have the authority of the one see.

So....Saint Andrew didn't found the Church at Byzantium?
Well....
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Offline Ainnir

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,203
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #21 on: August 13, 2017, 06:54:33 PM »
"Is any of the above Orthodox?  I have no clue, so there's that."  ~me

Taking a hiatus.  Pray for me, a sinner.

Offline youssef

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 316
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #22 on: August 13, 2017, 07:00:41 PM »
That was a good answer. Here is also my problem with the theotokos when we define in two narure, we can say that Mary give a child who happens to be united with God.

Well, I don't want to be putting words in the mouths of others who say "two natures".  Not everyone who says "two natures" mean the same thing.  But if the natures are separate from one another, then yes, it's impossible to even call Mary "Theotokos".  At best she would have given birth to someone who only "became God" by will and grace, and not God who became man by a natural and hypostatic union.  So long as the "hypostatic union" is properly understood, the use of "two natures" becomes no longer an issue, as was evident from the Council of Constantinople in 553 AD.

There is no difference between two will or one will. All who accept this council say two will.
Why the oriental orthodox was the only church to refused monothelite all the other church had accepted it.


Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,999
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #23 on: August 13, 2017, 07:02:09 PM »
What do you mean by the "Oriental Orthodox" being the only Church to refuse Monetheletes while all the churches accepted it?
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 youssef

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 316
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #24 on: August 13, 2017, 07:15:55 PM »
What do you mean by the "Oriental Orthodox" being the only Church to refuse Monetheletes while all the churches accepted it?

They accept it because the emperor want that, when the emperor come to syria for exemple all the church did accept his view just the syriac orthodox church consider it a heressy.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,999
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #25 on: August 13, 2017, 07:22:44 PM »
I still need to read more around the history, but from a Coptic perspective, a lot of bloodshed occurred from the Monothelete Chalcedonian patriarch of Alexandria.  He was already seen as evil and we even have a story of him making a deal with the Islamic empire in exchange for a Coptic slave girl to leave Egypt alone (which only lasted a short time).

Nevertheless, is "Monotheletism" really a heresy?  I've been reading some material that seems to suggest that the whole discussion was completely unfair and twisted into extreme polemics.  Frankly, our Church was not involved simply because we are already far apart from Chalcedonians in any discussions at all.  What is understood is that "Monotheletism" was developed to unite us, but all it did was try to twist our arms and back us into a bloody corner until we would say "yes".  So there was not any real theological substance, and all the theological debates occurred in the Chalcedonian side as far as I have been reading, with an unfair back-handed approach against the anti-Chalcedonian tradition.

But if you ask the question "Do anti-Chalcedonians believe in one will?", the answer is yes, absolutely.  If we believe in "one nature", we also believe in "one will" and "one energy".  The way to understand this perhaps is different and has nuances, but all in all, we do not think we are destroying the integrity of the human will (and energy) and divine will (and energy), but that one is intertwined with the other in unison.
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 youssef

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 316
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #26 on: August 13, 2017, 07:47:25 PM »
Pope shenouda didn't talk so much about the will in his book  he just say that he has one will.
He give in the end a statement as an agreement was made between him and the catholics.

« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 07:47:44 PM by youssef »

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 388
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #27 on: August 13, 2017, 07:51:58 PM »

Nevertheless, is "Monotheletism" really a heresy?  I've been reading some material that seems to suggest that the whole discussion was completely unfair and twisted into extreme polemics.  Frankly, our Church was not involved simply because we are already far apart from Chalcedonians in any discussions at all.  What is understood is that "Monotheletism" was developed to unite us, but all it did was try to twist our arms and back us into a bloody corner until we would say "yes".  So there was not any real theological substance, and all the theological debates occurred in the Chalcedonian side as far as I have been reading, with an unfair back-handed approach against the anti-Chalcedonian tradition.

But if you ask the question "Do anti-Chalcedonians believe in one will?", the answer is yes, absolutely.  If we believe in "one nature", we also believe in "one will" and "one energy".  The way to understand this perhaps is different and has nuances, but all in all, we do not think we are destroying the integrity of the human will (and energy) and divine will (and energy), but that one is intertwined with the other in unison.

It seems you have finally agreed with the Catholics on something with regards to what they generally disagree with in Orthodoxy (i.e., the heresy of Pope Honorius).

Well anyways, I can see your perspective - from my understanding of monothelitism.... but it is seen as a heresy from a dyophysite terminological perspective, in much the same way that monophysitism is seen as a heresy...
Due to the fact that there are two distinct natures - both human and divine - in union of one hypostasis, these two distinct natures take on two different wills. He had a Divine Will that He understood well, and what made Him perfect is that his human will always cooperated with the Divine Will...the example that is most demonstrated is Jesus's agony in the garden....He asked, in His human will, to have this chalice pass from Him, but let His Father's Will be done and not His. However, His human will still obeyed His Divine Will.

However, due to the fact that Jesus's human will always cooperated with the Divine Will, the Fifth Ecumenical Council decreed "two natural wills and two natural energies, without division, alteration, separation or confusion." - which should sound familiar in miaphysite terminology.

Monothelitism states that Jesus doesn't have two wills, and that despite His two natures, He only has will - in much the same way that monophytism holds that there is strictly only one nature.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 08:01:16 PM by LivenotoneviL »
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,999
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #28 on: August 13, 2017, 07:57:06 PM »
Yes, the Gethsamene interpretation is quite famous.  The most famous anti-Chalcedonian theologian, St. Severus talks about this moment and actually does not shy away from examining Christ's humanity in the sense that He exhibited normal human fear.

But he doesn't stop right there to say human fear was aligned with the divine will.  No, he said that that human fear is the means by which we partake of the divine courage.  In other words, this human fear paradoxically links us to the divine will.  It is the incarnation of the divine will through human fear.

I'll try to dig up the exact quote, but I think St. Severus offers a very profound picture than merely "human will follows divine will".  Yes, in Christ, He shows us how to humanly be subject to the will of the Father, but given that He is already divine incarnate, all aspects of this is true.  Just as He is the Word incarnate, His will is also "divine incarnate".  In other words, "one will out of two".  It is not enough to just say Christ's human will was subject to the divine will.  His human will is deified and contains in it the fullness of divine will, just as His humanity contains the fullness of divinity.

It is by subjecting our human will to Christ that we finally can be seen ourselves as subjecting to the divine will, and in order for us to truly understand this, the divine will has to be revealed to us humanly.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 07:58:09 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 youssef

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 316
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #29 on: August 13, 2017, 08:06:11 PM »
It is hard to talk about Jesus with the two nature definition without seperate them. I didn't hear yet any one do it. Even with your exemple you are seperate them. I appreciate more the ecplanation of Mina on this subject.

About Severus they had teach us that he had killed 350 marounites monks, is this story true.
What a good book about his idea.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 08:06:50 PM by youssef »

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,400
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #30 on: August 13, 2017, 08:10:11 PM »
I don't see how any Christian can dare support monotheletism in the face of the Lord's words "Not my will but thine be done." That would be direct defiance of Christ the Teacher. If there is some supposedly legitimate argument around the "difficulty," then let the Church be non-credal, as all mortal argument would then be equally legitimate.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,999
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #31 on: August 13, 2017, 08:24:08 PM »
I don't see how any Christian can dare support monotheletism in the face of the Lord's words "Not my will but thine be done." That would be direct defiance of Christ the Teacher. If there is some supposedly legitimate argument around the "difficulty," then let the Church be non-credal, as all mortal argument would then be equally legitimate.

If by Monotheletism, it means to compromise the integrity of the human nature, including natural will and energy, I would be hard pressed to find anyone who would disagree with you.  But as in the issue of "nature", even "will" had different meanings over time, and the idea that Christ's human will was present in His use of fear in Gethsemane was not really apparent until Maximus the Confessor.  Before that, you wouldn't find anything close to Maximus's exegesis.  The closest is maybe Severus of Antioch, but other than that, I would encourage a pre-Chalcedonian research over the subject to get a good idea of how pre-Maximus Church fathers understood the passage.

It is hard to talk about Jesus with the two nature definition without seperate them. I didn't hear yet any one do it. Even with your exemple you are seperate them. I appreciate more the ecplanation of Mina on this subject.

About Severus they had teach us that he had killed 350 marounites monks, is this story true.
What a good book about his idea.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but when did Maronite monks begin to exist?  There's a century separating Severus of Antioch and the Maronite movement.  Unless we have proof that Severus of Antioch lived to 200 years of age, that sounds impossible.
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 youssef

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 316
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #32 on: August 13, 2017, 08:28:21 PM »
The marounites monks exist before the marounite church. The monastery of saint Maron exist from the 5th century.
The monastery was chalcedonian.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,400
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #33 on: August 13, 2017, 08:31:18 PM »
"Thelema" is "thelema." What need is there for complex exegesis to make the simple match?
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,999
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #34 on: August 13, 2017, 08:33:50 PM »
"Thelema" is "thelema." What need is there for complex exegesis to make the simple match?

Check this article out by Fr. Richard Price:

https://www.academia.edu/9979102/Monotheletism_A_Heresy_or_a_Form_of_Words&sa=D&ust=1502672667733000&usg=AFQjCNFrf5kycu9S_dpltcuBZzn25aNSXg
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 Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,400
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #35 on: August 13, 2017, 08:43:24 PM »
Thank you. That title is terrible, but I won't hold it against the contents.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,999
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #36 on: August 13, 2017, 08:43:55 PM »
The marounites monks exist before the marounite church. The monastery of saint Maron exist from the 5th century.
The monastery was chalcedonian.

If indeed this was the case, I would have expected an attack against the person of Severus from Chalcedonian sources for these.  I haven't found any source from Chalcedonians that accuse Severus of murder.  This is the first time I hear of this.
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 minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,999
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #37 on: August 13, 2017, 08:45:04 PM »
Thank you. That title is terrible, but I won't hold it against the contents.

Again, I'm still reading this, but it seems difficult to believe any Christian would deny the full integrity of human will.  Even St. Severus was not shy to discuss "two wills" at a rare moment of his theological writings.
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 youssef

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 316
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #38 on: August 13, 2017, 09:03:00 PM »
http://www.maronite-institute.org/MARI/JMS/october97/The_Correspondence_Between.htm

These are three letters between syrian monks and pope hormisdas, they are the only source of the story. We still celebrate the martyrdom of the 350 monks.

I had found online the book made by Pauline Allen, is it a good book about Severus?.


Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,999
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #39 on: August 13, 2017, 09:27:32 PM »
http://www.maronite-institute.org/MARI/JMS/october97/The_Correspondence_Between.htm

These are three letters between syrian monks and pope hormisdas, they are the only source of the story. We still celebrate the martyrdom of the 350 monks.

I had found online the book made by Pauline Allen, is it a good book about Severus?.

I'll check out more about that.  I'll be honest, I know very little about Maronites.

But yes, Pauline Allen's book is excellent.
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 xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,321
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #40 on: August 13, 2017, 11:26:38 PM »
3. Not the Tome of Leo, but Chalcedon. But it also created a Constantinopolitan supremacy in the same council. Chalcedon gave Constantinople equal authority with Rome, and greater authority than Alexandria. When Constantinople was in fact, NOT an apostolic see like the others. That's why St. Gregory the Great took issue with St. John the Faster of Constantinople calling himself "Ecumenical Patriarch" or "universal bishop" is how St. Gregory interpreted it, and why he thought that the three apostolic sees have the authority of the one see.

So....Saint Andrew didn't found the Church at Byzantium?
Well....

He might have. But the Bishop of Byzantium isn't the direct successor of Andrew, but of Apostle Staxys. It's mostly been understood that Andrew founding the See is a later tradition, not an apostolic one.
« Last Edit: August 13, 2017, 11:27:32 PM by xOrthodox4Christx »
This profile is defunct as of 11/8/2017. I created it before Orthodoxy, and have used it after Orthodoxy.

I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

I will likely lurk on this forum under a different name.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,400
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #41 on: August 13, 2017, 11:39:05 PM »
What is meant by "found"? Apostles began many parishes by preaching and baptizing, but this does not make them Apostolic sees.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,102
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #42 on: August 14, 2017, 12:24:33 PM »
What is meant by "found"? Apostles began many parishes by preaching and baptizing, but this does not make them Apostolic sees.

What makes an apostolic see an apostolic see?
Please don't project meta-debates onto me.

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

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,400
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #43 on: August 14, 2017, 12:28:24 PM »
I'd assume it must be so designated by the Church. Otherwise, we'd have a dozen for each. To the glory of God, but not so practical. But perhaps I am completely missing the concept.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 388
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #44 on: August 14, 2017, 06:45:08 PM »
From what I have found so far as it pertains to dyophysitism and miaphysitism, as a novice, I am hard pressed to really see what the difference is....I mean, is there really a difference between the use of "one hypostasis of two fully distinct and inseparable natures in the Person of Jesus Christ" and the use of "one nature composed of two natures which are fully distinct yet inseparable in the Person of Jesus Christ?" Is there really a difference? I could be ignorant, but I'm heard pressed to find one....it seems the problem is that miaphysitism could be understood from a monophysit standpoint (which is incorrect from the Oriental perspective, from what I have found, as the Oriental make it clear that the two natures are not blended together and completely mixed), while dyophysitism could be understood from a Nestorian standpoint (which is incorrect, as it is impossible to say Jesus was man at this point and God at this point)...growing up as a Catholic - from my very primitive understanding of Christology (at least, in comparison to now) in high school, I never viewed Jesus Christ in a way a Nestorian would....ever.

Although, I'm sure there are less sinful and more intelligent philosophers who could better see the difference than me!

Looking back, it is funny to see how much the world has changed (with violence and huge socio-political debates over this one minor yet important issue of Christology, compared to the world now).
« Last Edit: August 14, 2017, 06:50:56 PM by LivenotoneviL »
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt