Author Topic: Chalcedon...  (Read 3197 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 311
  • Faith: Orthodox....kind of
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen, but OCA
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.

Online Cognomen

  • Ungrateful Biped
  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,139
  • 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: 2,953
  • Faith: Orthodox
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

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 311
  • Faith: Orthodox....kind of
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen, but OCA
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 »

Offline youssef

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 238
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: 7,151
  • 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 »
“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”- St. Ambrose of Milan

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

"He who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen." (1 John 4:20)

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,151
  • 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.
“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”- St. Ambrose of Milan

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

"He who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen." (1 John 4:20)

Offline Alpha60

  • The Confederate Flag Is Diabolical and Blasphemous
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,187
  • 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: 41,173
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: 19,705
  • 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

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 238
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: 19,705
  • 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

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 238
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: 19,705
  • 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

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 238
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: 19,705
  • 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: 19,705
  • 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: 311
  • Faith: Orthodox....kind of
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #17 on: August 13, 2017, 06:16:36 PM »
Thank you guys  :)

Offline youssef

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 238
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: 19,705
  • 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: 311
  • Faith: Orthodox....kind of
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen, but OCA
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....

Offline Ainnir

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,111
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #21 on: August 13, 2017, 06:54:33 PM »

Offline youssef

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 238
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: 19,705
  • 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

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 238
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: 19,705
  • 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

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 238
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: 311
  • Faith: Orthodox....kind of
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen, but OCA
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 »

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,705
  • 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

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 238
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: 11,080
  • 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: 19,705
  • 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

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 238
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: 11,080
  • 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: 19,705
  • 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: 11,080
  • 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: 19,705
  • 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: 19,705
  • 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

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 238
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: 19,705
  • 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: 7,151
  • 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 »
“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”- St. Ambrose of Milan

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

"He who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen." (1 John 4:20)

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,080
  • 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: 32,617
  • Pope Pius XIII, play for us!
    • 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?
The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Actually, Mor's face shineth like the Sun.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,080
  • 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: 311
  • Faith: Orthodox....kind of
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen, but OCA
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 »

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,080
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #45 on: August 14, 2017, 06:55:32 PM »
I think there was a lot more to the "violence (was there really comparatively much violence?) and socio-political debate" than a degree of Christological difference. Regardless, in my opinion that's all behind us and unity should be reestablished forthwith.
"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 Diego

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 932
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #46 on: August 14, 2017, 11:01:05 PM »
I don't think anyone would argue that God died on the Cross! The common accusation of deicide given to the Jews supports that! I am not sure that accusation is fair (certainly not for ALL Jews down through the centuries forever, and possibly not even for the Jewish leaders THEN, who did not consider Christ God. However, an argument certainly COULD be made that the leaders then WERE guilty of it).

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 32,617
  • Pope Pius XIII, play for us!
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #47 on: August 15, 2017, 01:02:30 PM »
Since Mina has more than adequately addressed the questions of the OP, I would simply like to point out one thing.

...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?

While I realise the OP was not trying to be provocative, I can't help but notice that, in sets of questions that otherwise appear complementary, there is one that seems out of place.  Why are the EO's (or, for that matter, the RC's) claims to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church taken for granted, while the OO have to prove they meet some minimum standards? 

I don't blame the OP, I believe s/he is sincere in wanting to learn and understand.  But others have asked this and similar questions in the past, and I find the implications of such questions (as well as the questions that are not asked) troubling.  Asking the EO how they can claim to fulfill the credal four marks of the Church is at least an equally reasonable question. 
The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Actually, Mor's face shineth like the Sun.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 311
  • Faith: Orthodox....kind of
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #48 on: August 15, 2017, 03:02:47 PM »
Since Mina has more than adequately addressed the questions of the OP, I would simply like to point out one thing.

...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?

While I realise the OP was not trying to be provocative, I can't help but notice that, in sets of questions that otherwise appear complementary, there is one that seems out of place.  Why are the EO's (or, for that matter, the RC's) claims to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church taken for granted, while the OO have to prove they meet some minimum standards? 

I don't blame the OP, I believe s/he is sincere in wanting to learn and understand.  But others have asked this and similar questions in the past, and I find the implications of such questions (as well as the questions that are not asked) troubling.  Asking the EO how they can claim to fulfill the credal four marks of the Church is at least an equally reasonable question.

For Eastern Orthodox:

4. How does the Eastern Orthodox fulfill the four marks of the Church in terms of being One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic compared to the Oriental Orthodox?

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,080
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #49 on: August 15, 2017, 03:04:24 PM »
Since Mina has more than adequately addressed the questions of the OP, I would simply like to point out one thing.

...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?

While I realise the OP was not trying to be provocative, I can't help but notice that, in sets of questions that otherwise appear complementary, there is one that seems out of place.  Why are the EO's (or, for that matter, the RC's) claims to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church taken for granted, while the OO have to prove they meet some minimum standards? 

I don't blame the OP, I believe s/he is sincere in wanting to learn and understand.  But others have asked this and similar questions in the past, and I find the implications of such questions (as well as the questions that are not asked) troubling.  Asking the EO how they can claim to fulfill the credal four marks of the Church is at least an equally reasonable question.

For Eastern Orthodox:

4. How does the Eastern Orthodox fulfill the four marks of the Church in terms of being One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic compared to the Oriental Orthodox?

By reuniting with the OO.
"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 Alpha60

  • The Confederate Flag Is Diabolical and Blasphemous
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,187
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #50 on: August 16, 2017, 07:34:13 PM »
I don't think anyone would argue that God died on the Cross! The common accusation of deicide given to the Jews supports that! I am not sure that accusation is fair (certainly not for ALL Jews down through the centuries forever, and possibly not even for the Jewish leaders THEN, who did not consider Christ God. However, an argument certainly COULD be made that the leaders then WERE guilty of it).

Of course God died on the cross, unless you want to argue Jesus Christ is not God.

The impassable divine nature, which in Chalcedonian Christology is in a hypostatic union with the assumed human nature of our Lord, did not die; in OO Christology I think we would say The Only Begotten Son and Word of God was Crucified for Us.  We would say his humanity died, and was resurrected by its union with the divine nature in the Incarnation.

But God most assuredly died, not in his immutable divinity, but in His assumed humanity, in the Prosopon of the Logos, the Messiah, Jesus, the Son. 

Jesus Christ is of one essence with the father, very God of very God, and he did die on the Cross.

You have to understand how the divinity and humanity are connected.  What Chalcedonians call the Hypostatic Union, what we call the Incarnation from the Human and Divine Natures, is of paramount importance.  Our Lord had to take all of humanity onto himself.  God being omnipotent, became a man through the Virgin Mary, was born, died and resurrected, facilitating an ontological change and glorification in the human nature.

If we say God did not die on the cross, we are rejecting Theopaschitism, and that, to me, is unacceptable; I see Theopaschitism as essential to Orthodoxy.  God is described even in his divinity as "Long Suffering"; through what you as a Chalcedonian call the Hypostatic Union God was able to experience the entire human existence including death, but being God, was able to swallow up death in victory, trampling down death by death.
"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 Alpha60

  • The Confederate Flag Is Diabolical and Blasphemous
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,187
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #51 on: August 16, 2017, 07:39:33 PM »
I don't think anyone would argue that God died on the Cross! The common accusation of deicide given to the Jews supports that! I am not sure that accusation is fair (certainly not for ALL Jews down through the centuries forever, and possibly not even for the Jewish leaders THEN, who did not consider Christ God. However, an argument certainly COULD be made that the leaders then WERE guilty of it).

+1

I believe EO and OO are equally Orthodox because of the influence of our St. Severus on their Christology, Theology and liturgical practice.  The only real difference is that we venerate St. Severus and a few others, and they do not.  Conversely, we widely venerate their saints. And everyone venerates St. Isaac the Syrian, who was what is popularly called a Nestorian, and whose writings contain typically Church of the East (Nestorian) theological ideas such as universalism.

The hagiography of Mar Gregorios Bar Hebraeus by one of the many scholars of the Maronite Assemani family indicated the Nestorian Catholicos mourned the death of the Maphrian, and implied that the "Nestorians" immediately venerated him as a saint, even though he was a "Jacobite."
"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 Diego

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 932
  • Faith: Lutheran LCMS
  • Jurisdiction: Iowa District West
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #52 on: August 16, 2017, 08:50:56 PM »
I don't think anyone would argue that God died on the Cross! The common accusation of deicide given to the Jews supports that! I am not sure that accusation is fair (certainly not for ALL Jews down through the centuries forever, and possibly not even for the Jewish leaders THEN, who did not consider Christ God. However, an argument certainly COULD be made that the leaders then WERE guilty of it).

Of course God died on the cross, unless you want to argue Jesus Christ is not God.

The impassable divine nature, which in Chalcedonian Christology is in a hypostatic union with the assumed human nature of our Lord, did not die; in OO Christology I think we would say The Only Begotten Son and Word of God was Crucified for Us.  We would say his humanity died, and was resurrected by its union with the divine nature in the Incarnation.

But God most assuredly died, not in his immutable divinity, but in His assumed humanity, in the Prosopon of the Logos, the Messiah, Jesus, the Son. 

Jesus Christ is of one essence with the father, very God of very God, and he did die on the Cross.

You have to understand how the divinity and humanity are connected.  What Chalcedonians call the Hypostatic Union, what we call the Incarnation from the Human and Divine Natures, is of paramount importance.  Our Lord had to take all of humanity onto himself.  God being omnipotent, became a man through the Virgin Mary, was born, died and resurrected, facilitating an ontological change and glorification in the human nature.

If we say God did not die on the cross, we are rejecting Theopaschitism, and that, to me, is unacceptable; I see Theopaschitism as essential to Orthodoxy.  God is described even in his divinity as "Long Suffering"; through what you as a Chalcedonian call the Hypostatic Union God was able to experience the entire human existence including death, but being God, was able to swallow up death in victory, trampling down death by death.

Wow! I never would have thought it possible: You and I AGREE on something!

All joking aside, absolutely God died on the Cross! I mean, as you said, not in his Divinity per se. But the fact that Christ DIED, literally died, this cannot be doubted.

"I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth. And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried.

He descended into hell; on the third day he rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God, the Father, Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead."


I know you are not fond of Mr. Luther, but he asks in the Small Catechism:

"What does this mean? I believe that Jesus Christ, true God, begotten of the Father from eternity, and also true man, born of the Virgin Mary, is my Lord,

who has redeemed me, a lost and condemned creature, purchased and won me from all sins, from death, and from the power of the devil; not with gold or silver, but with His holy, precious blood and with all his innocent suffering and death,

that I may be His own, and live under Him, in His Kingdom, and serve Him in everlasting righteousness, innocence, and awkwardness,

even as He is risen from the dead, lives and reigns to all eternity.

This is most certainly true."


I mean, there may be things about which we disagree, but the ONLY way God did not die on the Cross would be through a complete separation of the Two Natures! Even the thought of that is completely  crazy. Or through denying that Christ HAS a divine nature! That is also crazy.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2017, 08:53:36 PM by Diego »

Offline mcarmichael

  • Novice
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,492
  • Actual jerk
  • Faith: Christian
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #53 on: August 16, 2017, 09:23:49 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.
Well said.
"Now, don't allow yourself to be fatigued beyond your powers; there's a amiable bein'.
Consider what you owe to society, and don't let yourself be injured by too much work.
For the sake o' your feller-creeturs, keep yourself as quiet as you can; only think what a loss you would be!"
- The very memorable words of Samuel Veller

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

"Physician, heal thyself." - Ancient proverb

Offline Alpha60

  • The Confederate Flag Is Diabolical and Blasphemous
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,187
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #54 on: August 17, 2017, 01:55:31 AM »
Since Mina has more than adequately addressed the questions of the OP, I would simply like to point out one thing.

...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?

While I realise the OP was not trying to be provocative, I can't help but notice that, in sets of questions that otherwise appear complementary, there is one that seems out of place.  Why are the EO's (or, for that matter, the RC's) claims to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church taken for granted, while the OO have to prove they meet some minimum standards? 

I don't blame the OP, I believe s/he is sincere in wanting to learn and understand.  But others have asked this and similar questions in the past, and I find the implications of such questions (as well as the questions that are not asked) troubling.  Asking the EO how they can claim to fulfill the credal four marks of the Church is at least an equally reasonable question.

For Eastern Orthodox:

4. How does the Eastern Orthodox fulfill the four marks of the Church in terms of being One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic compared to the Oriental Orthodox?

By reuniting with the OO.

I love you Porter.  Thats like the best answer possible.  :)

I wish the EP and MP could work up the nerve to just do it.  There are only a few autocephalous churches opposed to such a merger (I think just Serbia and Georgia, ROCOR, which is no longer autocephalous, and Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus, but not the entire Church of Greece).  I don't think they would break communion over it; in a worst case scenario, Georgia and Serbia might break communion, and Ethiopia might have a schism, but this would heal in a few decades, and in the interim, several other larger schisms such as those with Macedonia and Abkhazia could be resolved, and work could also progress towards a settlement regarding the church in the Ukraine (I lean towards a scenario like that in the US or Estonia, with individual parishes being allowed to affiliate with the Moscow or Kievan Patriarchate, because the politics are so complex).

I dont think any OO church would hold out entirely to a restoration of communion, but the Eritrean church is administratively stalled, and some Ethiopian monasteries might break away for a few years if Ethiopia directly concelebrated with the EO.

I think the workaround there is to have communion formally restored with the Copts, Syriacs and Armenians, and not immediately attempt a concelebration in Ethiopia; communion would be indirect, just as at present Jerusalem and Antioch are not directly in communion, or in the OO church, the Malankara church and the Jacobite church are not in communion with each other, but are in communion with all the other patriarchates.
"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 LivenotoneviL

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 311
  • Faith: Orthodox....kind of
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #55 on: August 17, 2017, 12:13:37 PM »
Since Mina has more than adequately addressed the questions of the OP, I would simply like to point out one thing.

...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?

While I realise the OP was not trying to be provocative, I can't help but notice that, in sets of questions that otherwise appear complementary, there is one that seems out of place.  Why are the EO's (or, for that matter, the RC's) claims to be the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church taken for granted, while the OO have to prove they meet some minimum standards? 

I don't blame the OP, I believe s/he is sincere in wanting to learn and understand.  But others have asked this and similar questions in the past, and I find the implications of such questions (as well as the questions that are not asked) troubling.  Asking the EO how they can claim to fulfill the credal four marks of the Church is at least an equally reasonable question.

For Eastern Orthodox:

4. How does the Eastern Orthodox fulfill the four marks of the Church in terms of being One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic compared to the Oriental Orthodox?

By reuniting with the OO.

I love you Porter.  Thats like the best answer possible.  :)

I wish the EP and MP could work up the nerve to just do it.  There are only a few autocephalous churches opposed to such a merger (I think just Serbia and Georgia, ROCOR, which is no longer autocephalous, and Metropolitan Seraphim of Piraeus, but not the entire Church of Greece).  I don't think they would break communion over it; in a worst case scenario, Georgia and Serbia might break communion, and Ethiopia might have a schism, but this would heal in a few decades, and in the interim, several other larger schisms such as those with Macedonia and Abkhazia could be resolved, and work could also progress towards a settlement regarding the church in the Ukraine (I lean towards a scenario like that in the US or Estonia, with individual parishes being allowed to affiliate with the Moscow or Kievan Patriarchate, because the politics are so complex).

I dont think any OO church would hold out entirely to a restoration of communion, but the Eritrean church is administratively stalled, and some Ethiopian monasteries might break away for a few years if Ethiopia directly concelebrated with the EO.

I think the workaround there is to have communion formally restored with the Copts, Syriacs and Armenians, and not immediately attempt a concelebration in Ethiopia; communion would be indirect, just as at present Jerusalem and Antioch are not directly in communion, or in the OO church, the Malankara church and the Jacobite church are not in communion with each other, but are in communion with all the other patriarchates.

What about the use of unleavened bread by the Armenians?

Also, I wonder the logic of "This might create a schism, but it will resolve itself in a couple of years." I mean, would that same logic apply to the Old Ritualists, or even the Roman Catholics?
I think it would be wiser to see what objections Georgia and Serbia would have to such a reunion, and try to solve that first, if possible. Maybe they would have some valid criticisms which it would be wise to fix first lest we do something completely wrong or miss something.

Unity is important, and this logic of "well, they'll get over it" is dangerous, as I think the Council of Crete has created more division than unity.

I think reunion with the OO would be great, but it should be done very carefully and shouldn't create schism.
« Last Edit: August 17, 2017, 12:26:36 PM by LivenotoneviL »

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,080
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #56 on: August 17, 2017, 12:21:48 PM »
That's the last thing that would be a sticking point. They're an ancient and faithful church that made a different local decision for reasons valid in their milieu.
"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: 311
  • Faith: Orthodox....kind of
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #57 on: August 17, 2017, 12:29:31 PM »
That's the last thing that would be a sticking point. They're an ancient and faithful church that made a different local decision for reasons valid in their milieu.

I just wonder it in light of several Orthodox councils condemning such a proposition, and how more traditional EO Churches would react. I think it's an issue that should be debated nonetheless, and an issue that will be handled when we come to it.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,080
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #58 on: August 17, 2017, 12:58:42 PM »
Condemning it for ourselves, yes. You have to understand the ancient privilege of places like Armenia and Georgia, some of the first Christian countries in the world, with comparatively huge and very faithful populations, and kept somewhat isolated by geography, language, or other circumstances. These churches are held in very high regard. I do think the unleavened bread is a non-issue. For that matter, I very, very much doubt, if the day should ever come that union with Rome were achieved on Orthodox terms, unleavened bread would be an issue with them, either.

Personally I think there should come a point where unity of communion can simply be declared (I can't say what that point would be), and then, after that, any further concerns addressed to a joint council. The same with Rome -- let the Bishop of Rome kiss the feet of his bishop brothers around the world, and then submit that see's magisteria, past and present, to a council.

And I, personally, think all that's lacking for union is the will on both sides.
"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 rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,157
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #59 on: September 05, 2017, 09:00:39 PM »
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 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?
1. The Tome taught that Christ kept and possesses both his human and divine natures. The preceding Nicene Council taught that Christ, the Son of God, was consubstantial or co-essential with His Father. That is, they shared the same substance or essence. By having and sharing the same substance or essence, they also have and share the divine nature.

Likewise, as fully man, Christ shares and has our human essence or substance, and human nature. Thus Christ shares in and possesses both the human and divine substances and essences.

2. The Patriarch of Alexandria had before Chalcedon already excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope of Rome, declaring them heretics for Dyophysitism. He and Ephesus II (unrecognized by EOs) had deposed the Patriach of Antioch as well. Thus there was already a schism in the Church before Chalcedon began, with the EO Dyophysites and their hierarchs on one hand and the anti-Dyophysites and the Pope of Alexandria on the other. For those who accept Dyophysitism and the EO hierarchs' legitimacy in that schism, the ecumenicity of their subsequent Council at Chalcedon is acceptable and legitimate as well.

3. The Tome of Leo did not declare itself infallible, but rather a defense by the Pope of Dyophysitism. Papal Infallibility was a separate issue that came later, an open teaching that the Pope has the ability to speak on behalf of the whole church infallibly.
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: 10,157
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #60 on: September 05, 2017, 09:22:55 PM »
LivenotoneviL,

You made a good point when you said:
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?"
The idea that Christ has a human nature and a divine nature, and also has his own united nature I think can be complementary ideas. For example, the EOs' Tome of Leo explains how Christ has the two natures (dyophysitism), while it also speaks of the "divine and human nature" of Christ in the singular (miaphysitism). The debate therefore seems to boil down most to whether Chalcedon's teaching that Christ is "in two natures" (dyophysitism) is acceptable to both sides, not over whether one can speak of Christ as having his own nature in the singular (miaphysitism). Do you understand what I mean?
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: 10,157
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #61 on: September 05, 2017, 09:27:56 PM »
4. How does the Eastern Orthodox fulfill the four marks of the Church in terms of being One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic compared to the Oriental Orthodox?
I think that my answer in #2 above touches on this. If one accepts that the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople were Orthodox in their theology and were excommunicated by the Pope of Alexandria for it even before Chalcedon, then I think one would say that the Pope and Patriarch of Constantinople were the orthodox, catholic side of that schism. Chalcedon practically made clear an already existing schism.
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Alpha60

  • The Confederate Flag Is Diabolical and Blasphemous
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,187
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #62 on: September 05, 2017, 10:19:15 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.
Well said.

You did realize I was just quoting Alpha 60, the antagonist in the film Alphaville, right?  That entire post I composed, to gue thoroughly in my cheek, from random Alpha 60 quotes on a dare from RobS to "make the Alpha60 post that ends all Alpha60 posts."  I would have thought the screenshots of Alpha60's fan assembly and Dr. Leonard Nosferatu von Braun at his control station would have been enough of a hint, but, alas.

The peculiar thing is that so much of the abstract rambling of Alpha 60 in Godard's film, taken from the pages of books Jean Luc Godard owned or had encountered on General Semantics, and other modernist tropes he found terrifying, is oddly applicable to the EO/OO schism.  Its almost as though the throat-cancer stricken actor who played Alpha 60 using a primitive vocoder of the sort Stephen Hawking uses managed to prophesize rhe entire dialogue concerning Chalcedonian-Miaphysite reunion (and Chalcedonian-Assyrian reunion, for that matter).
« Last Edit: September 05, 2017, 10:20:31 PM by Alpha60 »
"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 Remnkemi

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 359
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #63 on: September 06, 2017, 07:44:29 PM »

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 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?
1. The Tome taught that Christ kept and possesses both his human and divine natures.
That is far from the only thing the Tome of Leo stated. You give an extremely flexible reading and explanation of the Tome and from what you wrote in your response to the second question, you give such a rigid (and inaccurate) reading of OO interpretation.

Quote
The preceding Nicene Council taught that Christ, the Son of God, was consubstantial or co-essential with His Father. That is, they shared the same substance or essence. By having and sharing the same substance or essence, they also have and share the divine nature.

Likewise, as fully man, Christ shares and has our human essence or substance, and human nature. Thus Christ shares in and possesses both the human and divine substances and essences.
You didn't answer the question. Pre-Chalcedon or post-Chalcedon - other than certain heretics like Arius, Apollonarius, and Eutyches, and their followers condemned in those councils - no one argued that Christ is not both divine and human. In response to these heresies, however, the previous councils and fathers never separated Christ's action into categories of divine action vs human actions as Leo's Tome did. Understood this way, it's not far fetched to see Leo's Tome as innovative and therefore contradictory to the councils and fathers.

Quote
2. The Patriarch of Alexandria had before Chalcedon already excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope of Rome, declaring them heretics for Dyophysitism.
Where's Trump to tell you "WRONG"?

The patriarch of Alexandria excommunicated Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople, for not allowing or accepting Eutyches' revised confession of his faith as a sign of his repentance. The same patriarch of Alexandria excommunicated Leo, pope of Rome, for conspiring with the new emperor to illegally and unilaterally reject the decision of the previous emperor, in addition to supporting known Nestorians. Neither of these two condemnations have anything to do with a defense of dyophysitism.

Quote
He and Ephesus II (unrecognized by EOs) had deposed the Patriach of Antioch as well.
Domnus, Patriarch of Antioch, was the nephew of John of Antioch and joined his uncle to fight Cyril in favor of Nestorianism. He ordained a known Nestorian as bishops but the ordination was annulled by Emperor Theodosius II. He defends Ibas' Nestorian tendencies in opposition of Flavian. (You make it sound like Domnus and Flavian were buddies with a common enemy in Dioscorus). I can go on. What makes Domnus a real coward is that he condemns Eutyches, reverses his condemnation in Ephesus II and reverses again in Chalcedon. And he is the only bishop not reinstated by Chalcedon because he still voted for the condemnation of Flavian.

Don't give half the story and make it seem like pre-Chalcedonian schism were only due to dyophysitism.
 
Quote
Thus there was already a schism in the Church before Chalcedon began, with the EO Dyophysites and their hierarchs who defended Nestorianism and Nestorian bishops on one hand and the anti-dyophisites Nestorians and the Pope of Alexandria on the other who saw these Nestorian bishops for who they were, not retracting their previous decisions for political gain.
I fixed it for you. There is always more than one way to interpret history.

Quote
For those who accept Dyophysitism
If by dyophysitism you mean "two natures" and the double consubstantiality of Christ, then mostly everyone believes in dyophysitism, even OO. If by dyophysitism you mean the blurring of the hypostatic union and the double consubstantiality of Christ that seems dangerously close to Nestorianism and monophysitism, then who would want to accept that?

Quote
and the EO hierarchs' legitimacy in that schism,
As you can see above, the main hierarchs' legitimacy is debatable whether you agree or not.

Quote
the ecumenicity of their subsequent Council at Chalcedon is acceptable and legitimate as well.
To this day, I have yet to find one consistent definition of ecumenicity. It's hard to make the case for Chalcedon as acceptable and legitimate if there isn't even a unanimous definition of ecumenicity. But even if one does have a definition of ecumenicity (many have attempted), Chalcedon has a lot of loopholes and questionable actions that are swept under the rug to "affirm" its ecumenicity.

Quote
3. The Tome of Leo did not declare itself infallible, but rather a defense by the Pope of Dyophysitism.
That is only true from an EO prespective. From a RC prospective, it is the first chronological and unofficial example of papal infallibility. If you want to go by official ex cathedra teachings, there are only two doctrines: Immaculate Conception and St Mary's Assumption. So even by technical RC standards the Tome of Leo is not ex cathedra. But unofficially, it is ALWAYS given as an example of infallibility. Here is one example of a RC apologetic discussion that Chalcedon defended RC papal supremacy (and I believe has all the criteria for ex cathedra infallibility even if it is not explicitly declared).
 
Quote
Papal Infallibility was a separate issue that came later, an open teaching that the Pope has the ability to speak on behalf of the whole church infallibly.
[/quote]
Of course, infallibility is a 19th century RCC doctrine and it would not technically apply to the Tome. But Leo definitely viewed it as infallible and the bishops who cried out "Peter speaks through Leo" seem to have believed in some sort of papal infallibility. The OO bishops voiced their disagreement about the Tome, showing they didn't believe in any form of infallibility in the Tome or papal supremacy of Leo. 

And you didn't answer question #4.  :P :P

Offline youssef

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 238
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #64 on: September 06, 2017, 08:15:28 PM »
For the copte here do you knouw mina asaad kamel.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,157
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #65 on: September 06, 2017, 11:05:05 PM »
Dear Remnkemi,

In your message, you asked me two questions, to which I will reply:
QUESTION 1.
Quote
The Patriarch of Alexandria had before Chalcedon already excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope of Rome, declaring them heretics for Dyophysitism.
Where's Trump to tell you "WRONG"?

The patriarch of Alexandria excommunicated Flavian, patriarch of Constantinople, for not allowing or accepting Eutyches' revised confession of his faith as a sign of his repentance. The same patriarch of Alexandria excommunicated Leo, pope of Rome, for conspiring with the new emperor to illegally and unilaterally reject the decision of the previous emperor, in addition to supporting known Nestorians. Neither of these two condemnations have anything to do with a defense of dyophysitism.
Trump does not seem especially religious, and if he is, then he belongs to the Presbyterian Church, which traditionally claims agreement with Chalcedon.

In the aftermath of Ephesus II, the OO Emperor Theodosius announced that Ephesus II "has justly condemned Flavian ... for ... adherence to [Nestorianism]. Theodosius endorses the council's decrees and ordered... any bishops tainted by the heresy of Flavian... to be deposed". And the Dictionary of Christian Biography by Henry Wace quotes Dioscorus as announcing at Chalcedon:
Quote
Dioscorus, still undaunted, said, "The reason why Flavian was condemned was plainly this, that he asserted two natures after the incarnation. I have passages from the Fathers, Athanasius, Gregory, Cyril, to the effect that after the incarnation there were not two natures, but one incarnate nature of the Word. If I am to be expelled, the Fathers will be expelled with me. I am defending their doctrine; I do not deviate from them at all; I have not got these extracts carelessly, I have verified them" (ib. vi. 684; see note in Oxf. ed. of Fleury, vol. iii. p. 348).

Pope Leo rejected the decisions of Ephesus II, approved by the previous emperor, for being uncanonical. Even at the council of Ephesus II itself, the Papal legate announced that they "Contradicted" the decision of that council. Later, the EO signers of Ephesus II themselves testified that they were forced to sign Ephesus II's decision by threats of persecution. Pope Leo was thus on the dyophisite side of the schism. So as you said above, he was excommunicated by Dioscorus for rejecting Ephesus II, approved by the last emperor. Ibas and Theodoret, are not known as Nestorians in the eyes of the EO tradition, but rather considered as Dyophysites. The OOs' accusations against them were investigated at our Fifth Ecumenical Council.

QUESTION 2.
Quote
Quote
For those who accept Dyophysitism
If by dyophysitism you mean "two natures" and the double consubstantiality of Christ, then mostly everyone believes in dyophysitism, even OO. If by dyophysitism you mean the blurring of the hypostatic union and the double consubstantiality of Christ that seems dangerously close to Nestorianism and monophysitism, then who would want to accept that?

Let's check what some EO, OO, and Nestorian sources say that Dyophysitism means.

The article "Doctrine of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church" on an Ethiopian Church website defines the teaching of Dyophysitism this way:
Quote
Dyophysites teach that, after the union, Christ retained the natures of
divinity and humanity in His one Person
in such a way that He ate food, slept, laughed, suffered, walked as man in the human nature, but healed the sick and resuscitated Lazarus as God in the divine nature. Thus He is one Person in two natures of humanity and divinity. The wrongly called Monophysites reject the allegation that they teach one Nature and one Person in Christ.
http://www.dskmariam.org/artsandlitreature/litreature/pdf/doctorinoftheethiopianorthodoxchurch.pdf

The Mekane Selam Ethiopian Tewahdo Church describes Dyophysitism this way:
Quote
The Ethiopian church followed the Coptic (Egyptian) church (now called the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria) in rejecting the Christological decision issued by the Council of Chalcedon in 451 ce that the human and divine natures of Jesus Christ were equally present in one person without commingling. Opposed to this dyophysitism, or two-nature doctrine, the Coptic and Ethiopian churches held that the human and divine natures were equally present through the mystery of the Incarnation within a single nature.
http://mekaneselam.org/

The Orthodox Wikipedia says:
Quote
The alternative response, which eventually became Byzantine dogma, was dyophysitism. This states that Christ has two natures, but emphasizes that they are not separated: Christ is fully one person (ὑπόστασις hypostasis).
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Miaphysitism


The Nestorian website Nestorian.org says that it means a belief in "two natures in Christ":
Quote
The Antiochenes spoke of two natures in Christ, so they came to be known as Dyophysites (from the Greek duo physis, "two natures")
http://www.nestorian.org/nestorian_theology.html

The EO theologian John McGuckin describes Dyophysitism as follows, considering it compatible with St. Cyril's Miaphysitism:
Quote
Mia physis can coexist as an important (and common element of universal Christian Orthodoxy) along with the dyo physeis, without being logically contradictory)... we can equally be (Chalcedonian) dyophysites and affirm that the Incarnate Lord has two physeis, even two unconfused natures or ousiai, but in the Incarnation made inseparably one by him, within the single divine hypostasis of the Word who is the sole subject of his Manhood and his Divinity unified in himself. ... And in the Chalcedonian dyophysite language we affirm that the Single Lord unites two perfectly intact natures (Godhead and Humanity) which are irrefragably and mysteriously made One in the unificative energy of his own single person...  Therefore it is by no means incompatible with Orthodoxy, rather necessary for a fuller confession of the faith, to assert the correctness of both the Cyrilline Miaphysite formula and the Chalcedonian definition: Mia physis and dyo-physeis.
https://ortodoksistenpappienliitto.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/ortodoksia_53_mcguckin.pdf

I find that Eastern Orthodox theology meets any of the underlined definitions of the term "Dyophysitism".

In case LivenotoneviL is interested in my responses to your other portrayals of what I wrote, I am happy to respond.
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 311
  • Faith: Orthodox....kind of
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #66 on: September 09, 2017, 09:01:02 AM »
Here's my fundamental question:

I think the Oriental Orthodox have a problem in how Pope Leo the Great assigns unique roles to each aspect of the Nature of Christ (for example, how it was the humanity of Christ which felt the pain of the cross, and it was the Divinity of Christ which rose Lazarus from the dead). They see this as Nestorian in that it "divides up" the Person of Christ into two people.

However, I ask the question: What is the purpose of having two unique and distinct natures which are in union (as both Dyophysitism and Miaphysitism hold) if there is no difference in their functions? I mean, if both natures are equally capable of performing the same exact roles, can we really say that Christ has two natures? Isn't that the point of having two natures - because they contribute different aspects to the Person of Christ?

And I still don't see how such a view would be Nestorian from what I've studied so far - because in my years of Roman Catholic education and studying Holy Orthodoxy, I have not once thought that there were two "beings" in Christ.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2017, 09:04:15 AM by LivenotoneviL »

Offline Ainnir

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,111
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #67 on: September 09, 2017, 09:22:58 AM »
Here's my fundamental question:

I think the Oriental Orthodox have a problem in how Pope Leo the Great assigns unique roles to each aspect of the Nature of Christ (for example, how it was the humanity of Christ which felt the pain of the cross, and it was the Divinity of Christ which rose Lazarus from the dead). They see this as Nestorian in that it "divides up" the Person of Christ into two people.

However, I ask the question: What is the purpose of having two unique and distinct natures which are in union (as both Dyophysitism and Miaphysitism hold) if there is no difference in their functions? I mean, if both natures are equally capable of performing the same exact roles, can we really say that Christ has two natures? Isn't that the point of having two natures - because they contribute different aspects to the Person of Christ?

And I still don't see how such a view would be Nestorian from what I've studied so far - because in my years of Roman Catholic education and studying Holy Orthodoxy, I have not once thought that there were two "beings" in Christ.

I could be on tenuous ground here, but the bolded sounds like there's not really a full union between the two.  Sort of like they don't communicate, or there's at least a partial wall between the two.  And maybe that's right, or maybe it's not.  It strikes me as odd, though...to think that Christ felt pain in His physical body, yet his Divine nature did not comprehend it (or "feel" it).  Or that when Christ verbally called Lazarus from the tomb, his humanity had nothing to do with that resurrection.  And then if there is really some sort of separation to the point where one nature performs an action while the other nature sits on the sidelines, what do we say about theosis?  How could it ever be full, if the only way it is even possible is through the union of natures in the person of Christ?  The extent of that union would limit the extent of theosis, in other words (or so it seems to me).

Offline andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #68 on: September 09, 2017, 10:28:34 AM »
The problem the Oriental Orthodox mainly and rightly recognize in the writings of Pope St. Leo is the Nestorian sounding way of expressing the distinction of natures in Christ. Around the time of the Council of Chalcedon, many Alexandrians of the time and still, the Oriental Orthodox Church use the word 'nature' to signify concrete reality, construct of existence - hypostasis, while others such as the Antiochians of that time and today's Eastern Orthodox define nature as a set of essential characteristics of concrete realities of the same kind and because the terms that were employed in theological discussions were flexible and used in various ways during the fifth and sixth centuries, saying that, for example, the human nature suffered in the cross (Tome of Leo) is problematic, because, it sounds as if by equating 'physis' with 'hypostasis' and saying that Christ is 'in two natures', there are two hypostases, centers of existence in Christ. So, the thing is, what does one mean when he says:
“...For each form does what is proper to it with the co-operation of the other; that is the Word performing what appertains to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what appertains to the flesh. One of them sparkles with miracles, the other succumbs to injuries.” (The Tome of Leo)
 “...The form of a slave by which the impassible Godhead fulfilled a pledge of mighty loving-kindness , is human weakness which was lifted up into the glory of the divine power.”
Without clarifying what one means with these "forms", there is much room for misinterpretation of what Pope Leo meant with that. Here's another one:
“...In our one Lord Jesus Christ, the true Son of God and man, the person of the Word and of the flesh is one, and both beings have their actions in common.” (From the letter to the Monks of Palestine)
Here, it is spoken of "both beings", as if two realities- the Word and the flesh. So it's very confusing stuff. Yet, elsewhere, Pope Leo says:
“...Whatever therefore Christ received in time, He received in virtue of His manhood, on which are conferred whatsoever it had not. For according to the power of the Word, all things that the Father has the Son also has indiscriminately, and what in the form of a slave He received from the Father, He also Himself gave in the form of the Father.”  (From the letter to the Monks of Palestine)
So that form of God in Christ Leo speaks of is 'the form of the Father'. Now, in the Trinity, since the three hypostases are distinct from each other, each person of the Holy Trinity is in each other not as one reality, as one hypostasis, but as in one divine ousia. So, when Christ says that he is in the Father, it is in regards to nature and substance that he says so (John 14:11,20 ; 10:38, etc...) Therefore, this 'form of the Father' is understood as manifestation of the divine power in accordance with which Christ's divinity is properly preserved. Similarly it is with the form of the slave that means human weakness. Yet, this isn't clear at all from the manner in which the Pope speaks. Furthermore:
“...The Only-begotten of the Most High Father entered on such a union with human humility, that, when He took the substance of our flesh and soul, He remained one and the same Son of God.” (Sermon On the Passion, XII)
 “...A Deity which, by the co-operation of the functions of true flesh, showed not only itself in Manhood, but also Manhood in itself; for the old, original wounds in man's nature could not be healed, except by the Word of God taking to Himself flesh from the Virgin's womb, whereby in one and the same Person flesh and the Word co-existed.” (On Lent, VIII)
“...In declaring the only-begotten Son of God to have been so born of the blessed Virgin's womb... without the reality of human flesh being united to the Word, he departs...” (Letter to Julian Bishop of Constantinople)
And:
“...True God and true man were combined to form one Lord.” (Sermon On the Feast of the Nativity, I)
“...You who truly is Son of man is also truly Son of the living God: You, I say, true in Godhead, true in flesh and one altogether” (Letter to Ephesus II)
Firstly, he speaks of Christ, the self-same person before the Incarnation, even so after the Incarnation and then he speaks of natures forming one person, as one Lord. This is really unclear, because one person somewhere signifies the self-same person and it is used as one reality elsewhere. Yet, this is the way Leo expressed his opinions...
Then again, the difference of the natures in Christ is in no way taken away from the union, because otherwise, why is this called the Incarnation? What is there to Christ's work of salvation if he is not both God and man? Of course there is difference in the natures' functions, since the godhead is impassible, manhood is an embodiment of passability, the godhead is invisible, in the flesh, God became visible and tangible, etc, etc...Yet, they are without separation, so that,
“...The power of His Godhead...was inseparable from His manhood under the veil of our weakness” (On the Feast of Nativity, II)
“...The Word of God appeared clothed in flesh, and That which had never been visible to human eyes began to be tangible to our hands as well.” (On the Feast of the Nativity, VI)
 “...While each substance had its own properties, there was no difference in the power of either.” (On the Feast of Epiphany, I)
“...The inviolable Word not being separated from the passible flesh, the Godhead may be understood as in all things partaker with the flesh and flesh with the Godhead.” (On Lent, VIII)
“...No sort of division ever arose between the Divine and the human substance, and through all the growth and changes of His body, the actions were of one Person the whole time.” (Letter to the Monks of Palestine)
“...Just as true manhood existed in His Godhead, so true Godhead existed in His Manhood.” (Homily on the Transfiguration)
And many others...
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,705
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #69 on: September 09, 2017, 10:31:44 AM »
Here's my fundamental question:

I think the Oriental Orthodox have a problem in how Pope Leo the Great assigns unique roles to each aspect of the Nature of Christ (for example, how it was the humanity of Christ which felt the pain of the cross, and it was the Divinity of Christ which rose Lazarus from the dead). They see this as Nestorian in that it "divides up" the Person of Christ into two people.

However, I ask the question: What is the purpose of having two unique and distinct natures which are in union (as both Dyophysitism and Miaphysitism hold) if there is no difference in their functions? I mean, if both natures are equally capable of performing the same exact roles, can we really say that Christ has two natures? Isn't that the point of having two natures - because they contribute different aspects to the Person of Christ?

And I still don't see how such a view would be Nestorian from what I've studied so far - because in my years of Roman Catholic education and studying Holy Orthodoxy, I have not once thought that there were two "beings" in Christ.

If you notice my "best argument" scenario, it is a contemplation of the aspects of these two natures apart from the hypostatic union.  But once you have the hypostatic union, you CANNOT separate the actions of the two.  The main purpose of the incarnation is to make one humanity and divinity, to make one all of us with the Father.  Therefore, as Ainnir explained, the other nature is just as involved in the action as the former.  The divinity is not liable to suffering or passion, but in union with humanity, the divinity is involved in making these passions and sufferings salvific for all humanity.  Likewise, Christ used His deified flesh to transfigure, to resurrect Lazarus, to walk on water, etc.  That's why we rejected the Tome, because at best, it was not clear whether Pope Leo described them "en theoria" or not, a central point in Cyrillian Christology.  In 1964, EOs in dialogue with OOs said that the intention of the Tome was "en theoria".  That's the best argument in defense of the Tome, but again, OOs historically did not see it that way.
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 andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #70 on: September 09, 2017, 10:37:03 AM »
I could be on tenuous ground here, but the bolded sounds like there's not really a full union between the two.  Sort of like they don't communicate, or there's at least a partial wall between the two.  And maybe that's right, or maybe it's not.  It strikes me as odd, though...to think that Christ felt pain in His physical body, yet his Divine nature did not comprehend it (or "feel" it).  Or that when Christ verbally called Lazarus from the tomb, his humanity had nothing to do with that resurrection.  And then if there is really some sort of separation to the point where one nature performs an action while the other nature sits on the sidelines, what do we say about theosis?  How could it ever be full, if the only way it is even possible is through the union of natures in the person of Christ?  The extent of that union would limit the extent of theosis, in other words (or so it seems to me).

The thing is, Leo writes these, too:
“...Nature does indeed express its real existence by actions that distinguish it, but neither separates itself from connection with the other. Nothing is wanting there on either side; in the majesty the humility is complete, in the humility the majesty is complete: and the unity does not introduce confusion, nor does the distinctiveness destroy the unity. The one is passible, the other inviolable; and yet the degradation belongs to the same Person, as does the glory... God took on Him whole Manhood, and so blended the two Natures together by means of His mercy and power, that each Nature was present in the other, and neither passed out of its own properties into the other.” (On the Passion, III)
“...The Invisible made His substance visible, the Intemporal temporal, the Impassible passible: not that power might sink into weakness, but that weakness might pass into indestructible power.” (On the Resurrection II)
“...Majesty took on humility, strength weakness, eternity mortality: and for the paying off of the debt belonging to our condition the inviolable nature was united with the passible nature” (The Tome of Leo; On the Feast of the Nativity, I)
“...The Godhead and the manhood being right from the Virgin's conception so completely united that without the manhood the divine acts, and without the Godhead the human acts were not performed.” (Letter to the Monks of Palestine)
“...Though the Creator and the creature, the Inviolable God and the passible flesh, are absolutely different, yet the properties of both substances meet together in Christ's one Person in such a way that alike in His acts of weakness and of power the degradation belongs to the same Person as the glory.” (On the Passion XI)
“...He Who was made in the midst of all is the same as He through Whom all things were made. He Who is arrested by the hands of wicked men is the same as He Who is bound by no limits. He Who is pierced with nails is the same as He Whom no wound can affect. Finally, He Who underwent death is the same as He Who never ceased to be eternal, so that both facts are established by indubitable signs, namely, the truth of the humiliation in Christ and the truth of the majesty; because Divine power joined itself to human frailty to this end, that God, while making what was ours His, might at the same time make what was His ours. " (On the Passion XVII)
“...The Word...becoming flesh so united the Divine Nature with the human ...by lowering His Nature to the uttermost has raised our nature to the highest.” (On the Feast of the Apostle Peter and Paul)
“...The Creator Himself was wearing the creature which was to be restored to the image of its Creator.” (On the Passion, III)
Etc...
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,705
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #71 on: September 09, 2017, 10:40:22 AM »
Thank for these quotes.  I appreciate the defense of Pope Leo.  At the same time, I think it's safe to say MOST OOs at the time were not privy to his other writings. So as far as OOs were aware, this is strictly his Tome.

But this brings up another good point.  There are some writings I think EOs did not have of OOs.  For instance, ancient Chalcedonians demonstrated a terrible lack of knowledge on the Julianist debate with St. Severus.  If they had access to those writings of St. Severus, they would be impressed with how sophisticated his belief are not just on the nature of Christ, but also on the will and energy.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2017, 10:42:29 AM 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 andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #72 on: September 09, 2017, 10:50:21 AM »
There are some writings I think EOs did not have of OOs.  For instance, ancient Chalcedonians demonstrated a terrible lack of knowledge on the Julianist debate with St. Severus.  If they had access to those writings of St. Severus, they would be impressed with how sophisticated his belief are not just on the nature of Christ, but also on the will and energy.

That goes without saying, otherwise, no such problems such as Monotheletism or Monoenergism (EO problems) would have ever arised in such a way as they did, although there was much more stuff involved with that. There was ignorance from the Chalcedonian side not only in such sophisticated writings, but also in primary elements of faith in the writings of Severus of Antioch, visibly demonstrated by the anathemas against him for Nestorianism (Although he anathematized Chalcedon exactly because he thought it was such) and Eutychianism (With disregard to his debates with Julian and Sergius)
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 311
  • Faith: Orthodox....kind of
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #73 on: September 09, 2017, 12:11:41 PM »
The problem the Oriental Orthodox mainly and rightly recognize in the writings of Pope St. Leo is the Nestorian sounding way of expressing the distinction of natures in Christ. Around the time of the Council of Chalcedon, many Alexandrians of the time and still, the Oriental Orthodox Church use the word 'nature' to signify concrete reality, construct of existence - hypostasis, while others such as the Antiochians of that time and today's Eastern Orthodox define nature as a set of essential characteristics of concrete realities of the same kind and because the terms that were employed in theological discussions were flexible and used in various ways during the fifth and sixth centuries, saying that, for example, the human nature suffered in the cross (Tome of Leo) is problematic, because, it sounds as if by equating 'physis' with 'hypostasis' and saying that Christ is 'in two natures', there are two hypostases, centers of existence in Christ. So, the thing is, what does one mean when he says:
“...For each form does what is proper to it with the co-operation of the other; that is the Word performing what appertains to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what appertains to the flesh. One of them sparkles with miracles, the other succumbs to injuries.” (The Tome of Leo)
 “...The form of a slave by which the impassible Godhead fulfilled a pledge of mighty loving-kindness , is human weakness which was lifted up into the glory of the divine power.”
Without clarifying what one means with these "forms", there is much room for misinterpretation of what Pope Leo meant with that. Here's another one:
“...In our one Lord Jesus Christ, the true Son of God and man, the person of the Word and of the flesh is one, and both beings have their actions in common.” (From the letter to the Monks of Palestine)
Here, it is spoken of "both beings", as if two realities- the Word and the flesh. So it's very confusing stuff. Yet, elsewhere, Pope Leo says:
“...Whatever therefore Christ received in time, He received in virtue of His manhood, on which are conferred whatsoever it had not. For according to the power of the Word, all things that the Father has the Son also has indiscriminately, and what in the form of a slave He received from the Father, He also Himself gave in the form of the Father.”  (From the letter to the Monks of Palestine)
So that form of God in Christ Leo speaks of is 'the form of the Father'. Now, in the Trinity, since the three hypostases are distinct from each other, each person of the Holy Trinity is in each other not as one reality, as one hypostasis, but as in one divine ousia. So, when Christ says that he is in the Father, it is in regards to nature and substance that he says so (John 14:11,20 ; 10:38, etc...) Therefore, this 'form of the Father' is understood as manifestation of the divine power in accordance with which Christ's divinity is properly preserved. Similarly it is with the form of the slave that means human weakness. Yet, this isn't clear at all from the manner in which the Pope speaks. Furthermore:
“...The Only-begotten of the Most High Father entered on such a union with human humility, that, when He took the substance of our flesh and soul, He remained one and the same Son of God.” (Sermon On the Passion, XII)
 “...A Deity which, by the co-operation of the functions of true flesh, showed not only itself in Manhood, but also Manhood in itself; for the old, original wounds in man's nature could not be healed, except by the Word of God taking to Himself flesh from the Virgin's womb, whereby in one and the same Person flesh and the Word co-existed.” (On Lent, VIII)
“...In declaring the only-begotten Son of God to have been so born of the blessed Virgin's womb... without the reality of human flesh being united to the Word, he departs...” (Letter to Julian Bishop of Constantinople)
And:
“...True God and true man were combined to form one Lord.” (Sermon On the Feast of the Nativity, I)
“...You who truly is Son of man is also truly Son of the living God: You, I say, true in Godhead, true in flesh and one altogether” (Letter to Ephesus II)
Firstly, he speaks of Christ, the self-same person before the Incarnation, even so after the Incarnation and then he speaks of natures forming one person, as one Lord. This is really unclear, because one person somewhere signifies the self-same person and it is used as one reality elsewhere. Yet, this is the way Leo expressed his opinions...
Then again, the difference of the natures in Christ is in no way taken away from the union, because otherwise, why is this called the Incarnation? What is there to Christ's work of salvation if he is not both God and man? Of course there is difference in the natures' functions, since the godhead is impassible, manhood is an embodiment of passability, the godhead is invisible, in the flesh, God became visible and tangible, etc, etc...Yet, they are without separation, so that,
“...The power of His Godhead...was inseparable from His manhood under the veil of our weakness” (On the Feast of Nativity, II)
“...The Word of God appeared clothed in flesh, and That which had never been visible to human eyes began to be tangible to our hands as well.” (On the Feast of the Nativity, VI)
 “...While each substance had its own properties, there was no difference in the power of either.” (On the Feast of Epiphany, I)
“...The inviolable Word not being separated from the passible flesh, the Godhead may be understood as in all things partaker with the flesh and flesh with the Godhead.” (On Lent, VIII)
“...No sort of division ever arose between the Divine and the human substance, and through all the growth and changes of His body, the actions were of one Person the whole time.” (Letter to the Monks of Palestine)
“...Just as true manhood existed in His Godhead, so true Godhead existed in His Manhood.” (Homily on the Transfiguration)
And many others...

This was what I was trying to express in point, and you expressed it much more clearly. I did not want to suggest that the two natures are indeed acting like two different hypostases.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2017, 12:12:12 PM by LivenotoneviL »

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,157
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #74 on: September 09, 2017, 12:16:36 PM »
Dear LivenotoneL
Here's my fundamental question:

I think the Oriental Orthodox have a problem in how Pope Leo the Great assigns unique roles to each aspect of the Nature of Christ (for example, how it was the humanity of Christ which felt the pain of the cross, and it was the Divinity of Christ which rose Lazarus from the dead). They see this as Nestorian in that it "divides up" the Person of Christ into two people.
Does Leo's Tome really put it in those terms, like "His humanity felt the pain of the cross"?

Isn't what Leo is doing is saying that Christ has both two natures and Leo shows this by matching up both kinds of Christ's experiences with the two kinds of natures? This would be like explaining that Christ suffered and died because he was human, had humanity, and still kept fully his human nature, not because of his immortal divine nature.


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

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 311
  • Faith: Orthodox....kind of
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #75 on: September 09, 2017, 12:30:36 PM »
Here's my fundamental question:

I think the Oriental Orthodox have a problem in how Pope Leo the Great assigns unique roles to each aspect of the Nature of Christ (for example, how it was the humanity of Christ which felt the pain of the cross, and it was the Divinity of Christ which rose Lazarus from the dead). They see this as Nestorian in that it "divides up" the Person of Christ into two people.

However, I ask the question: What is the purpose of having two unique and distinct natures which are in union (as both Dyophysitism and Miaphysitism hold) if there is no difference in their functions? I mean, if both natures are equally capable of performing the same exact roles, can we really say that Christ has two natures? Isn't that the point of having two natures - because they contribute different aspects to the Person of Christ?

And I still don't see how such a view would be Nestorian from what I've studied so far - because in my years of Roman Catholic education and studying Holy Orthodoxy, I have not once thought that there were two "beings" in Christ.

I could be on tenuous ground here, but the bolded sounds like there's not really a full union between the two.  Sort of like they don't communicate, or there's at least a partial wall between the two.  And maybe that's right, or maybe it's not.  It strikes me as odd, though...to think that Christ felt pain in His physical body, yet his Divine nature did not comprehend it (or "feel" it).  Or that when Christ verbally called Lazarus from the tomb, his humanity had nothing to do with that resurrection.  And then if there is really some sort of separation to the point where one nature performs an action while the other nature sits on the sidelines, what do we say about theosis?  How could it ever be full, if the only way it is even possible is through the union of natures in the person of Christ?  The extent of that union would limit the extent of theosis, in other words (or so it seems to me).

I'm not a theologian....so I could be way off base (which, if I am, please correct me - I don't want to accidentally be a heretic), but in both miaphysitism and dyophysitism, the two natures are in complete union with each other, but the two natures aren't mixed together together.

Let me demonstrate my understanding of dyophysitism
 
Has anybody used Photoshop or GIMP before? I personally understand the natures of Christ by means of analogy to Photoshop or GIMP in terms of how I comprehend it.

I'll use images of GIMP for this instance.

https://image.ibb.co/koCRbv/1.png

I imagine that Christ's Nature can be kind of viewed as two separate layers of an image which form one image (Hypostasis)

Notice how there are two "layers" on the right.

Imagine the red layer is Christ's Divine Nature, and imagine the yellow layer as Christ's human nature.

The two layers are completely distinct, but in the main image itself they are in union with each other (I made the layers transparent).


What you cannot do is say that the layers are completely mixed together so that they form one layer (i.e., there is one mixture of a human nature and there is no distinction)
https://image.ibb.co/bFrV3a/2.png

Now let's imagine that Christ is wounded physically and He is affected (as indicated by the blue marks)

https://image.ibb.co/jhohGv/3.png

You'll notice that only the human nature is affected in the layers to the right, with the Divine nature being untouched. However, the Person of Christ as a whole is affected in the Hypostasis, both human and Divine. They "cooperate together" so to speak. One nature clearly affects the other, even if the experiences were of one nature and not the other.

This is the metaphor and image I've used in my head to understand Christ, and if I am incorrect, someone, PLEASE correct me. I really, really don't want to be a Nestorian heretic. PLEASE!
« Last Edit: September 09, 2017, 12:37:04 PM by LivenotoneviL »

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 311
  • Faith: Orthodox....kind of
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #76 on: September 09, 2017, 12:31:57 PM »
Dear LivenotoneL
Here's my fundamental question:

I think the Oriental Orthodox have a problem in how Pope Leo the Great assigns unique roles to each aspect of the Nature of Christ (for example, how it was the humanity of Christ which felt the pain of the cross, and it was the Divinity of Christ which rose Lazarus from the dead). They see this as Nestorian in that it "divides up" the Person of Christ into two people.
Does Leo's Tome really put it in those terms, like "His humanity felt the pain of the cross"?

Isn't what Leo is doing is saying that Christ has both two natures and Leo shows this by matching up both kinds of Christ's experiences with the two kinds of natures? This would be like explaining that Christ suffered and died because he was human, had humanity, and still kept fully his human nature, not because of his immortal divine nature.


"...For each form does what is proper to it with the co-operation of the other; that is the Word performing what appertains to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what appertains to the flesh. One of them sparkles with miracles, the other succumbs to injuries."

I didn't put it in the best of words; the two aren't separated, but each nature co-operated with each other.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2017, 12:35:10 PM by LivenotoneviL »

Offline andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #77 on: September 09, 2017, 12:34:36 PM »
Although it wasn't exactly something like "His humanity felt the pain of the cross", Pope Leo writes in his famous Tome thus:
"...If therefore he (Eutyches) receives the Christian faith, and does not turn away his ears from the preaching of the Gospel: let him see what was the nature that hung pierced with nails on the wooden cross, and, when the side of the Crucified was opened by the soldier's spear, let him understand whence it was that blood and water flowed, that the Church of God might be watered from the font and from the cup..."

Yet, the clarification of this is not further down the Tome, but he explains what he means by this before the statement above:
"It is not part of the same nature to be moved to tears of pity for a dead friend, and when the stone that closed the four-days' grave was removed, to raise that same friend to life with a voice of command: or, to hang on the cross, and turning day to night, to make all the elements tremble: or, to be pierced with nails, and yet open the gates of paradise to the robber's faith: so it is not part of the same nature to say, I and the Father are one, and to say, the Father is greater than I.  For although in the Lord Jesus Christ God and man is one person, yet the source of the degradation, which is shared by both, is one, and the source of the glory, which is shared by both, is another. For His manhood, which is less than the Father, comes from our side: His Godhead, which is equal to the Father, comes from the Father."

So yeah, it is because tangibility and passability are proper to human nature that he may speak that way, although taken by themselves, saying that the human nature was hung pierced on the cross is really problematic and Nestorian sounding. Without being familiar with Leo, one can easily interpret him in many ways.
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 311
  • Faith: Orthodox....kind of
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #78 on: September 09, 2017, 12:41:47 PM »
Although it wasn't exactly something like "His humanity felt the pain of the cross", Pope Leo writes in his famous Tome thus:
"...If therefore he (Eutyches) receives the Christian faith, and does not turn away his ears from the preaching of the Gospel: let him see what was the nature that hung pierced with nails on the wooden cross, and, when the side of the Crucified was opened by the soldier's spear, let him understand whence it was that blood and water flowed, that the Church of God might be watered from the font and from the cup..."

Yet, the clarification of this is not further down the Tome, but he explains what he means by this before the statement above:
"It is not part of the same nature to be moved to tears of pity for a dead friend, and when the stone that closed the four-days' grave was removed, to raise that same friend to life with a voice of command: or, to hang on the cross, and turning day to night, to make all the elements tremble: or, to be pierced with nails, and yet open the gates of paradise to the robber's faith: so it is not part of the same nature to say, I and the Father are one, and to say, the Father is greater than I.  For although in the Lord Jesus Christ God and man is one person, yet the source of the degradation, which is shared by both, is one, and the source of the glory, which is shared by both, is another. For His manhood, which is less than the Father, comes from our side: His Godhead, which is equal to the Father, comes from the Father."

So yeah, it is because tangibility and passability are proper to human nature that he may speak that way, although taken by themselves, saying that the human nature was hung pierced on the cross is really problematic and Nestorian sounding. Without being familiar with Leo, one can easily interpret him in many ways.

I still want to find an answer to this - is the problem with Leo the Great for many Orientals the fact that there is an interpretation which says it was "just the human nature" alone that died on the cross, not both natures? Christ was impacted fully as a person being fully God and fully man, but I wonder how you can keep the natures distinct if both natures don't have unique properties to it - surely the source of feeling pain and suffering is the human nature, as God Himself in solely His Divine Nature couldn't experience physical pain or physical sensations, right?

Offline andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #79 on: September 09, 2017, 12:43:13 PM »
The two layers are completely distinct, but in the main image itself they are in union with each other (I made the layers transparent).

Although the great difference remains in natural characteristics, it is only essential, not existential, meaning that Christ doesn't have two hypostases, since the union with flesh endowed with soul is fully wholesome and a real compact of the form of God and the form of a slave results from the Incarnation as said from Leo:
“...The Word of God... with the purpose of delivering man from eternal death, became man: so bending Himself to take on Him our humility without decrease in His own majesty, that remaining what He was and assuming what He was not, He might unite the true form of a slave to that form in which He is equal to God the Father, and join both natures together by such a compact that the lower should not be swallowed up in its exaltation nor the higher impaired by its new associate.” (On the Feast of the Nativity, I)

Because the difference of natures is only essential and pertains to the natural properties, it is to be marked only in thinking, since in reality, divinity and humanity, God and man are one.
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 311
  • Faith: Orthodox....kind of
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #80 on: September 09, 2017, 12:48:47 PM »
The two layers are completely distinct, but in the main image itself they are in union with each other (I made the layers transparent).

Although the great difference remains in natural characteristics, it is only essential, not existential, meaning that Christ doesn't have two hypostases, since the union with flesh endowed with soul is fully wholesome and a real compact of the form of God and the form of a slave results from the Incarnation as said from Leo:
“...The Word of God... with the purpose of delivering man from eternal death, became man: so bending Himself to take on Him our humility without decrease in His own majesty, that remaining what He was and assuming what He was not, He might unite the true form of a slave to that form in which He is equal to God the Father, and join both natures together by such a compact that the lower should not be swallowed up in its exaltation nor the higher impaired by its new associate.” (On the Feast of the Nativity, I)

Because the difference of natures is only essential and pertains to the natural properties, it is to be marked only in thinking, since in reality, divinity and humanity, God and man are one.


I should elaborate that the image represents reality, in which the two layers cannot be separated. If you draw on the image itself, it affects both layers of the image, even if by means of natural properties (only one layer) one is affected, it affects both layers in the image as a whole. The image is "one" so to speak in the color of orange, which is both yellow and red.

I think the word "completely" is too strong

Or maybe I'm just a Nestorian from ignorance and need to be corrected. Is there anything wrong with this metaphor in terms of how I conceive this idea of the one image (or Hypostasis) of Christ? Is there anything problematic (from even a Miaphysite perspective?)

As my history teacher would say, I am just a "Sesame-Street kid" visual learner.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2017, 12:58:33 PM by LivenotoneviL »

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,157
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #81 on: September 09, 2017, 12:54:35 PM »
Dear Ainnir,
Here's my fundamental question:

I think the Oriental Orthodox have a problem in how Pope Leo the Great assigns unique roles to each aspect of the Nature of Christ (for example, how it was the humanity of Christ which felt the pain of the cross, and it was the Divinity of Christ which rose Lazarus from the dead). They see this as Nestorian in that it "divides up" the Person of Christ into two people.

However, I ask the question: What is the purpose of having two unique and distinct natures which are in union (as both Dyophysitism and Miaphysitism hold) if there is no difference in their functions? I mean, if both natures are equally capable of performing the same exact roles, can we really say that Christ has two natures? Isn't that the point of having two natures - because they contribute different aspects to the Person of Christ?

And I still don't see how such a view would be Nestorian from what I've studied so far - because in my years of Roman Catholic education and studying Holy Orthodoxy, I have not once thought that there were two "beings" in Christ.

I could be on tenuous ground here, but the bolded sounds like there's not really a full union between the two.  Sort of like they don't communicate, or there's at least a partial wall between the two.  And maybe that's right, or maybe it's not. It strikes me as odd, though...to think that Christ felt pain in His physical body, yet his Divine nature did not comprehend it (or "feel" it). 
Do you think it is clearer when we say that Christ felt pain and died in accordance with his being human and his humanity, rather than because Christ was God and divine, having an undying divine nature?

One of the reasons theologians get into this is to explain how a person can be God, who is immortal, and yet die nonetheless. Wouldn't one answer be to assign of the person's mortal human experiences to his being human: his human qualities, humanity, and human nature? That is, to provide the answer: "Yes, a divine person felt pain and died, but it was because this person was also human, with a human nature, and his pain and death is a specific part of his being human, his humanity"?


You asked two questions:
Quote
1. And then if there is really some sort of separation to the point where one nature performs an action while the other nature sits on the sidelines, what do we say about theosis? 

2. How could it ever be full, if the only way it is even possible is through the union of natures in the person of Christ?  The extent of that union would limit the extent of theosis, in other words (or so it seems to me).
1. Chalcedon's Faith Statement says that the two natures are united inseparably. But the Tome, accepted at Chalcedon still says that some actions are specific to each nature. Miraculously resurrecting a human, for example, is a divine, miraculous action. Chalcedonians explain theosis, and how the two natures are related, through the hypostatic union, and the union of the two natures in one Person, Christ. And a believer performs union in the human-divine Christ through communion and salvation, so their own personal qualities become like divine ones. Believers are not God Himself through theosis, but rather become "God-like", or "like God".

2. Do regular humans' theosis not become 100% full in that we don't become God Himself, but remain human?
Anyway, if theosis is supposed to be full and humans become fully god-like, I don't see the extent of the union restricting the extent of theosis to less than full, as the two natures are fully in the hypostatic union of two natures in only one hypostasis and person.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2017, 12:54:52 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 andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #82 on: September 09, 2017, 12:59:06 PM »
I still want to find an answer to this - is the problem with Leo the Great for many Orientals the fact that there is an interpretation which says it was "just the human nature" alone that died on the cross, not both natures? Christ was impacted fully as a person being fully God and fully man, but I wonder how you can keep the natures distinct if both natures don't have unique properties to it - surely the source of feeling pain and suffering is the human nature, as God Himself in solely His Divine Nature couldn't experience physical pain or physical sensations, right?
It is never said that just the human nature died on the cross alone, not to even mention the fact that people die, not natures, also the Orientals fully recognize the unique properties pertaining to the natures of Christ, they just have their favorite way of speaking of mia physis and of two natures en theoria. This isn't a problem at all, since because, if as I said before, the difference of natures is essential and thus marked only in thinking (See the Fifth Ecumenical Council), one construct of existence of Christ, one compound reality and subsistence preserves its full integrity as the God-man as one and the self-same person. The natures simply signify what essential characteristics something possesses that are to be found the same in another kind.
Even St. Leo, with his problematic way of expressing himself properly, says that all the actions were of one person the whole time.  (Letter to the Monks of Palestine)
All of the properties of either nature belong to Christ, to Him (One). Properties are to be distinguished, but not to be separated, and since distinguishing natural properties is something proper to intellect, it is in there that we might elaborate how something is divine and how something is human. 
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 311
  • Faith: Orthodox....kind of
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #83 on: September 09, 2017, 01:27:23 PM »
I still want to find an answer to this - is the problem with Leo the Great for many Orientals the fact that there is an interpretation which says it was "just the human nature" alone that died on the cross, not both natures? Christ was impacted fully as a person being fully God and fully man, but I wonder how you can keep the natures distinct if both natures don't have unique properties to it - surely the source of feeling pain and suffering is the human nature, as God Himself in solely His Divine Nature couldn't experience physical pain or physical sensations, right?
It is never said that just the human nature died on the cross alone, not to even mention the fact that people die, not natures, also the Orientals fully recognize the unique properties pertaining to the natures of Christ, they just have their favorite way of speaking of mia physis and of two natures en theoria. This isn't a problem at all, since because, if as I said before, the difference of natures is essential and thus marked only in thinking (See the Fifth Ecumenical Council), one construct of existence of Christ, one compound reality and subsistence preserves its full integrity as the God-man as one and the self-same person. The natures simply signify what essential characteristics something possesses that are to be found the same in another kind.
Even St. Leo, with his problematic way of expressing himself properly, says that all the actions were of one person the whole time.  (Letter to the Monks of Palestine)
All of the properties of either nature belong to Christ, to Him (One). Properties are to be distinguished, but not to be separated, and since distinguishing natural properties is something proper to intellect, it is in there that we might elaborate how something is divine and how something is human.

The idea of only the man dying would be Nestorian, and would make no sense in the context of Christ being the "ultimate sacrifice."

I think a problem however as it pertains to reunion would be the very Monophysite influenced writings of some of their saints (for example, Pope Dioscorus who is alleged to have written that it is blasphemy to say Christ had human blood.), which as such has had one could assume an influence on their theology.
Not to mention culture.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2017, 01:29:38 PM by LivenotoneviL »

Offline andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #84 on: September 09, 2017, 01:41:01 PM »
1. Chalcedon's Faith Statement says that the two natures are united inseparably. But the Tome, accepted at Chalcedon still says that some actions are specific to each nature. Miraculously resurrecting a human, for example, is a divine, miraculous action. Chalcedonians explain theosis, and how the two natures are related, through the hypostatic union, and the union of the two natures in one Person, Christ. And a believer performs union in the human-divine Christ through communion and salvation, so their own personal qualities become like divine ones. Believers are not God Himself through theosis, but rather become "God-like", or "like God".

2. Do regular humans' theosis not become 100% full in that we don't become God Himself, but remain human?
Anyway, if theosis is supposed to be full and humans become fully god-like, I don't see the extent of the union restricting the extent of theosis to less than full, as the two natures are fully in the hypostatic union of two natures in only one hypostasis and person.

More than action being specific to each nature, it is more like every action being proper to its corresponding nature or rather, manifestation of power of nature. In this way, one doesn't make it look like the word 'specific' limits the power of the two natures and their union in the Incarnation.

Being God the Word Incarnate, Christ still retains the fullness of divinity in addition to the newly assumed human nature. Just as the Word interpenetrates the flesh and gives to it in virtue of the personal, hypostatic union divine grace and resurrection of the glorious image and likeness of God unto man, so in baptism, just as the Word veiled himself with his flesh, we wear ourselves with such divine grace-filled flesh. From Leo again:
“...The flesh of Christ is the veil of the Word, wherewith every one is clothed who confesses Him unreservedly.” (Public Letter to Constantinople)
After that, just as the Word deified the flesh without destroying its proper natural abilities, so in our case, we work towards deification without magic or total destruction, but by assuming divine grace, and just as Christ raised our nature to the highest, so are we, partakers by nature of his humanity, partakers of the divine nature with the uncreated grace and partakers of the reality of Christ himself, so that as God, he is all in all. Leo:
“...The Word...becoming flesh so united the Divine Nature with the human ...by lowering His Nature to the uttermost has raised our nature to the highest.” (On the Feast of the Apostle Peter and Paul)
“...While each substance retained its own properties, God neither held aloof from the suffering of His body nor was made passible by the flesh, because the Godhead which was in the Sufferer did not actually suffer.” (On the Passion XVII)
“For He is at once both eternal from His Father and temporal from His mother, inviolable in His strength, passible in our weakness: in the Triune Godhead, of one and the same substance with the Father and the Holy Spirit, but in taking Manhood on Himself, not of one substance but of one and the same person,so that He was at once rich in poverty, almighty in submission, impassible in punishment, immortal in death.” (Letter to Julian Bishop of Constantinople)

"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #85 on: September 09, 2017, 01:50:25 PM »
I think a problem however as it pertains to reunion would be the very Monophysite influenced writings of some of their saints (for example, Pope Dioscorus who is alleged to have written that it is blasphemy to say Christ had human blood.), which as such has had one could assume an influence on their theology.
Not to mention culture.

Although I doubt such statements have really come from Pope Dioscorus, the Incarnation, being the ultimate paradox allows that you may say anything crazy and still be right. For example:
As per communicato idiomatum, indeed, Christ doesn't have human blood, but that is in his divinity, not in his flesh (Again, it is just assigning roles of actions in thinking only to its proper natures that could be reasonable speaking, not actual Nestorianism here), for human blood, although it has become the property of a divine self-same person, is still proper to human nature when nature is understood in its essential way. For although Christ is one subsistence, if one wants, many crazy sounding things may be said and you are still right. Since Christ is a fully human person and he still fills all things in the universe as per his divine energies, being God, it could be said that the man Jesus fills everything in existence or that the man Jesus has created the first man on earth, and many stuff like this.

What about culture, though? I don't think there is anything wrong with that...
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 311
  • Faith: Orthodox....kind of
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #86 on: September 09, 2017, 01:52:40 PM »
I think a problem however as it pertains to reunion would be the very Monophysite influenced writings of some of their saints (for example, Pope Dioscorus who is alleged to have written that it is blasphemy to say Christ had human blood.), which as such has had one could assume an influence on their theology.
Not to mention culture.

Although I doubt such statements have really come from Pope Dioscorus, the Incarnation, being the ultimate paradox allows that you may say anything crazy and still be right. For example:
As per communicato idiomatum, indeed, Christ doesn't have human blood, but that is in his divinity, not in his flesh (Again, it is just assigning roles of actions in thinking only to its proper natures that could be reasonable speaking, not actual Nestorianism here), for human blood, although it has become the property of a divine self-same person, is still proper to human nature when nature is understood in its essential way. For although Christ is one subsistence, if one wants, many crazy sounding things may be said and you are still right. Since Christ is a fully human person and he still fills all things in the universe as per his divine energies, being God, it could be said that the man Jesus fills everything in existence or that the man Jesus has created the first man on earth, and many stuff like this.

What about culture, though? I don't think there is anything wrong with that...


Humans...and maybe bread choice.

Offline andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #87 on: September 09, 2017, 02:47:01 PM »
I think a problem however as it pertains to reunion would be the very Monophysite influenced writings of some of their saints (for example, Pope Dioscorus who is alleged to have written that it is blasphemy to say Christ had human blood.), which as such has had one could assume an influence on their theology.
Not to mention culture.

Although I doubt such statements have really come from Pope Dioscorus, the Incarnation, being the ultimate paradox allows that you may say anything crazy and still be right. For example:
As per communicato idiomatum, indeed, Christ doesn't have human blood, but that is in his divinity, not in his flesh (Again, it is just assigning roles of actions in thinking only to its proper natures that could be reasonable speaking, not actual Nestorianism here), for human blood, although it has become the property of a divine self-same person, is still proper to human nature when nature is understood in its essential way. For although Christ is one subsistence, if one wants, many crazy sounding things may be said and you are still right. Since Christ is a fully human person and he still fills all things in the universe as per his divine energies, being God, it could be said that the man Jesus fills everything in existence or that the man Jesus has created the first man on earth, and many stuff like this.

What about culture, though? I don't think there is anything wrong with that...

Another way to approach this statement could be that since blood is a symbol of human life in the Old Testament, at the Incarnation, the human blood that became God the Word's property is not human blood, merely, that is, but it was deified and though still human, it is sanctified by divine uncreated grace and light, thus deifying the life of the fallen human up until then and making his blood salvific, gaining divine properties while human essence remains what it is.
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 311
  • Faith: Orthodox....kind of
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #88 on: September 09, 2017, 03:06:54 PM »
I think a problem however as it pertains to reunion would be the very Monophysite influenced writings of some of their saints (for example, Pope Dioscorus who is alleged to have written that it is blasphemy to say Christ had human blood.), which as such has had one could assume an influence on their theology.
Not to mention culture.

Although I doubt such statements have really come from Pope Dioscorus, the Incarnation, being the ultimate paradox allows that you may say anything crazy and still be right. For example:
As per communicato idiomatum, indeed, Christ doesn't have human blood, but that is in his divinity, not in his flesh (Again, it is just assigning roles of actions in thinking only to its proper natures that could be reasonable speaking, not actual Nestorianism here), for human blood, although it has become the property of a divine self-same person, is still proper to human nature when nature is understood in its essential way. For although Christ is one subsistence, if one wants, many crazy sounding things may be said and you are still right. Since Christ is a fully human person and he still fills all things in the universe as per his divine energies, being God, it could be said that the man Jesus fills everything in existence or that the man Jesus has created the first man on earth, and many stuff like this.

What about culture, though? I don't think there is anything wrong with that...

Another way to approach this statement could be that since blood is a symbol of human life in the Old Testament, at the Incarnation, the human blood that became God the Word's property is not human blood, merely, that is, but it was deified and though still human, it is sanctified by divine uncreated grace and light, thus deifying the life of the fallen human up until then and making his blood salvific, gaining divine properties while human essence remains what it is.

The quote in question is from Saint Emperor Justinian, who claimed that Dioscorus said in a letter from Gangros to Alexandria:

"Unless the blood of Christ is by nature the blood of God and not of man, how will it differ from the blood of he-goats, young bulls, and heifers? These are earthly and corruptible, and the blood of men is also earthly and corruptible by nature.
And you have to be very careful here, which is why I don't even want to draw connections between the two natures. But as for the blood of Christ, we will never say it belongs to one of those who is [earthly and corruptible] by nature."

If this is a true letter, this is obvious heresy. However, we here have to trust Justinian.

I also would warn you about drawing connections between the two natures. You might be right, but I want to avoid discussing this, because a similar train of thought is what led Sergei Bulgakov to believe that Mary's human nature was deified by the presence of God in her womb, a condemned heresy.

Also, don't go Transubstantiation on us!
« Last Edit: September 09, 2017, 03:07:39 PM by LivenotoneviL »

Offline andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #89 on: September 09, 2017, 03:50:06 PM »
I think a problem however as it pertains to reunion would be the very Monophysite influenced writings of some of their saints (for example, Pope Dioscorus who is alleged to have written that it is blasphemy to say Christ had human blood.), which as such has had one could assume an influence on their theology.
Not to mention culture.

Although I doubt such statements have really come from Pope Dioscorus, the Incarnation, being the ultimate paradox allows that you may say anything crazy and still be right. For example:
As per communicato idiomatum, indeed, Christ doesn't have human blood, but that is in his divinity, not in his flesh (Again, it is just assigning roles of actions in thinking only to its proper natures that could be reasonable speaking, not actual Nestorianism here), for human blood, although it has become the property of a divine self-same person, is still proper to human nature when nature is understood in its essential way. For although Christ is one subsistence, if one wants, many crazy sounding things may be said and you are still right. Since Christ is a fully human person and he still fills all things in the universe as per his divine energies, being God, it could be said that the man Jesus fills everything in existence or that the man Jesus has created the first man on earth, and many stuff like this.

What about culture, though? I don't think there is anything wrong with that...

Another way to approach this statement could be that since blood is a symbol of human life in the Old Testament, at the Incarnation, the human blood that became God the Word's property is not human blood, merely, that is, but it was deified and though still human, it is sanctified by divine uncreated grace and light, thus deifying the life of the fallen human up until then and making his blood salvific, gaining divine properties while human essence remains what it is.

The quote in question is from Saint Emperor Justinian, who claimed that Dioscorus said in a letter from Gangros to Alexandria:

"Unless the blood of Christ is by nature the blood of God and not of man, how will it differ from the blood of he-goats, young bulls, and heifers? These are earthly and corruptible, and the blood of men is also earthly and corruptible by nature.
And you have to be very careful here, which is why I don't even want to draw connections between the two natures. But as for the blood of Christ, we will never say it belongs to one of those who is [earthly and corruptible] by nature."

If this is a true letter, this is obvious heresy. However, we here have to trust Justinian.

I also would warn you about drawing connections between the two natures. You might be right, but I want to avoid discussing this, because a similar train of thought is what led Sergei Bulgakov to believe that Mary's human nature was deified by the presence of God in her womb, a condemned heresy.

Also, don't go Transubstantiation on us!

Sorry, but I don't think there is anything heretical about this, as long as understood in its proper way. As I said before, without thoroughly knowing Leo's way of expression and thinking, one can easily take him for a heretic. Even so it is with about anyone who embodies a complex, but beautifully expressed theology. Now, taking it part by part:

1. "...Unless the blood of Christ is by nature the blood of God and not of man, how will it differ from the blood of he-goats, young bulls, and heifers? These are earthly and corruptible, and the blood of men is also earthly and corruptible by nature..." As we have said, Christ is consubstantial with us in his humanity, it's just that ever since the first moment of the Incarnation, his humanity, his flesh and his soul are deified, not by change or mutation or transubstantiation, but by grace and glory. He is not merely a human, a mere man, even a Nestorian can tell you this. Christ is the self-same person just as before the Incarnation, even so after it, meaning that he is still the second person of the Holy Trinity, God the Word. That means that the flesh endowed with soul assumed in the Incarnation is fully God's property, so in virtue of this it is said that Christ's blood is God's blood and not merely an earthly blood. Simply put in words, he is just no longer only God, but fully God and fully man, perfect God and perfect man, but hat doesn't take his divinity away. Even the scriptures say:
"The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man from heaven." (1 Corinthians 15:47)
2. "...And you have to be very careful here, which is why I don't even want to draw connections between the two natures." Nothing wrong here, and indeed, one has to be really careful with such matters.
3. "...But as for the blood of Christ, we will never say it belongs to one of those who is [earthly and corruptible] by nature." It's the same thing again, God the Word is by nature divine, since that is the nature he has eternally belonged to. In his divinity, God doesn't have blood, but rather the person and the subsistence of God that has become the subsistence of flesh has blood and that this is in his flesh, in his humanity. Yet pay attention when Pope Dioscorus says "it belongs to one of those who is..." so that he is not a mere sacrifice like those of the Old Testament. Plain and simple. I don't see heresy here, unless you want to see it purposefully, in healthy ignorance or in wickedness, otherwise I would dare say.

As for the transubstantiation thing, we are not the Roman Catholic, so please...
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #90 on: September 09, 2017, 03:59:51 PM »
I also would warn you about drawing connections between the two natures. You might be right, but I want to avoid discussing this, because a similar train of thought is what led Sergei Bulgakov to believe that Mary's human nature was deified by the presence of God in her womb, a condemned heresy.

Don't worry, such heresy is so far away from us, it is hard to fall in such trap holes. Let us better beware the trap holes close to us, that we may not fall in them. Perfect manifestation of the Third Hypostasis? She herself? A creature, but also no longer a creature? Is the Holy Virgin uncreated? Can you grasp this, either by faith or by intellect? Nah, this is a bit too far, the actual theosis and theology of the Orthodox Church is much more decent than such. This is just out of topic.
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 311
  • Faith: Orthodox....kind of
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #91 on: September 09, 2017, 04:09:10 PM »
I think a problem however as it pertains to reunion would be the very Monophysite influenced writings of some of their saints (for example, Pope Dioscorus who is alleged to have written that it is blasphemy to say Christ had human blood.), which as such has had one could assume an influence on their theology.
Not to mention culture.

Although I doubt such statements have really come from Pope Dioscorus, the Incarnation, being the ultimate paradox allows that you may say anything crazy and still be right. For example:
As per communicato idiomatum, indeed, Christ doesn't have human blood, but that is in his divinity, not in his flesh (Again, it is just assigning roles of actions in thinking only to its proper natures that could be reasonable speaking, not actual Nestorianism here), for human blood, although it has become the property of a divine self-same person, is still proper to human nature when nature is understood in its essential way. For although Christ is one subsistence, if one wants, many crazy sounding things may be said and you are still right. Since Christ is a fully human person and he still fills all things in the universe as per his divine energies, being God, it could be said that the man Jesus fills everything in existence or that the man Jesus has created the first man on earth, and many stuff like this.

What about culture, though? I don't think there is anything wrong with that...

Another way to approach this statement could be that since blood is a symbol of human life in the Old Testament, at the Incarnation, the human blood that became God the Word's property is not human blood, merely, that is, but it was deified and though still human, it is sanctified by divine uncreated grace and light, thus deifying the life of the fallen human up until then and making his blood salvific, gaining divine properties while human essence remains what it is.

The quote in question is from Saint Emperor Justinian, who claimed that Dioscorus said in a letter from Gangros to Alexandria:


If this is a true letter, this is obvious heresy. However, we here have to trust Justinian.

I also would warn you about drawing connections between the two natures. You might be right, but I want to avoid discussing this, because a similar train of thought is what led Sergei Bulgakov to believe that Mary's human nature was deified by the presence of God in her womb, a condemned heresy.

Also, don't go Transubstantiation on us!

Sorry, but I don't think there is anything heretical about this, as long as understood in its proper way. As I said before, without thoroughly knowing Leo's way of expression and thinking, one can easily take him for a heretic. Even so it is with about anyone who embodies a complex, but beautifully expressed theology. Now, taking it part by part:

1. "...Unless the blood of Christ is by nature the blood of God and not of man, how will it differ from the blood of he-goats, young bulls, and heifers? These are earthly and corruptible, and the blood of men is also earthly and corruptible by nature..." As we have said, Christ is consubstantial with us in his humanity, it's just that ever since the first moment of the Incarnation, his humanity, his flesh and his soul are deified, not by change or mutation or transubstantiation, but by grace and glory. He is not merely a human, a mere man, even a Nestorian can tell you this. Christ is the self-same person just as before the Incarnation, even so after it, meaning that he is still the second person of the Holy Trinity, God the Word. That means that the flesh endowed with soul assumed in the Incarnation is fully God's property, so in virtue of this it is said that Christ's blood is God's blood and not merely an earthly blood. Simply put in words, he is just no longer only God, but fully God and fully man, perfect God and perfect man, but hat doesn't take his divinity away. Even the scriptures say:
"The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man from heaven." (1 Corinthians 15:47)
2. "...And you have to be very careful here, which is why I don't even want to draw connections between the two natures." Nothing wrong here, and indeed, one has to be really careful with such matters.
3. "...But as for the blood of Christ, we will never say it belongs to one of those who is [earthly and corruptible] by nature." It's the same thing again, God the Word is by nature divine, since that is the nature he has eternally belonged to. In his divinity, God doesn't have blood, but rather the person and the subsistence of God that has become the subsistence of flesh has blood and that this is in his flesh, in his humanity. Yet pay attention when Pope Dioscorus says "it belongs to one of those who is..." so that he is not a mere sacrifice like those of the Old Testament. Plain and simple. I don't see heresy here, unless you want to see it purposefully, in healthy ignorance or in wickedness, otherwise I would dare say.

As for the transubstantiation thing, we are not the Roman Catholic, so please...


I'm so sorry, I accidentally added my own portion of the quote.


"Unless the blood of Christ is by nature the blood of God and not of man, how will it differ from the blood of he-goats, young bulls, and heifers? These are earthly and corruptible, and the blood of men is also earthly and corruptible by nature.  But as for the blood of Christ, we will never say it belongs to one of those who is [earthly and corruptible] by nature."

This is the original quote.

My own incompetence is to blame; ignore the original post. This is what his original quote was; he said nothing about being careful about the connection between the human nature and the Divine nature.

And immediately after this quote from Justinian, he calls it "blasphemy."

From Justinian:

"What could be harder to bear than this blasphemy of Dioscorus? For in denying that the blood of Christ is of the same essence as human nature, it is discovered that he does not confess the flesh of our Lord to be of the same essence as we, and he nullifies the salvation of man because he says the Logos' body is of the same essence as the Logos' divinity."

Once again, I don't know if Dioscorus said the original quote or not, but its from the testimony of Justinian.

But also, when I said "don't go Transubstantiation on us," I was more or less making a joke with the idea of the "essence changing" but the physical properties remaining the same in both the bread and the wine.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2017, 04:22:33 PM by LivenotoneviL »

Offline andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #92 on: September 09, 2017, 04:17:35 PM »
No problem, the answer will remain essentially the same, though.  :)
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 311
  • Faith: Orthodox....kind of
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #93 on: September 09, 2017, 04:50:18 PM »
Knowing my history of anecdotal evidence, I felt it interesting to bring up a quote from Saint Cyril of Alexandria, as it pertains to our conversation:

"Now, He says, is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save one from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. See I pray you in these words again how the human nature was easily affected by trouble and easily brought over to fear, whereas on the other hand the Divine and ineffable Power is in all respects inflexible and dauntless and intent on the courage which alone is befitting to It. For the mention of death which had been introduced into the discourse begins to alarm Jesus, but the Power of the Godhead straightway subdues the suffering thus excited and in a moment transforms into incomparable boldness that which had been conquered by fear. For we may suppose that even in the Saviour Jesus Christ Himself the human feelings were aroused by two qualities necessarily present in Him. For it must certainly have been under the influence of these that He shewed Himself a Man born of woman, not in deceptive appearance or mere fancy, but rather by nature and in truth, possessing every human quality, sin only excepted."

Source of Quote:
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_on_john_08_book8.htm

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,705
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #94 on: September 09, 2017, 08:13:43 PM »
We have two writings preserved by St. Dioscorus of Alexandria as far as I am aware.
 
One purported to be a letter to Secundinus while in exile preserved by the historian Zacharias Rhetor (Book 3, Chapter 1):

Omitting many urgent matters, this I declare, that no man shall say that the holy flesh, which our Lord took from the Virgin Mary, by the operation of the Holy Spirit, in a manner which He Himself knows, was different to and foreign from our body. And, indeed, since this is so, they who affirm that Christ did not become incarnate for us, give the lie to Paul. For he has said, 'Not from angels did He take (the nature), but from the seed of the House of Abraham' ; to which seed Mary was no stranger, as the Scriptures teach us. And again,' It was right that in everything He should be made like unto His brethren,' and that word 'in everything' does not suffer the subtraction of any part of our nature : since in nerves, and hair, and bones, and veins, and belly, and heart, and kidneys, and liver, and lungs, and, in short, in all those things that belong to our nature, the flesh which was born from Mary was compacted with the soul of our Redeemer, that reasonable and intelligent soul, without the seed of man, and the gratification and cohabitation of sleep.

For if, as the heretics think, this was not so, how is He named 'our brother,' supposing that He used a body different from ours ? And how, again, is that true which He said to His Father, 'I will declare Thy name to My brethren ?' Let us not reject, neither let us despise, those who think in this way. For He was like us, for us, and with us, not in phantasy, nor in mere semblance, according to the heresy of the Manichaeans, but rather in actual reality from Mary, the Theotokos. To comfort the desolate and to repair the vessel that had been broken, He came to us new. And as Immanuel, indeed, He is confessed ; for He became poor for us, according to the saying of Paul, 'that we, by His humiliation, might be made rich.' He became, by the dispensation, like us ; that we, by His tender mercy, might be like Him. He became man, and yet He did not destroy that which is His nature, that He is Son of God ; that we, by grace, might become the sons of God. This I think and believe; and, if any man does not think thus, he is a stranger to the faith of the apostles.


And here's a link to the letter to the monks of the Hennaton while in exile.

I don't know where Emperor Justinian got the quote from.  Unless Justinian is misquoting St. Dioscorus, I would tend to believe St. Dioscorus was anti-Eutychian in theology.

As for Fr. Sergius Bulgakov's idea that the Theotokos was deified by the pregnancy, what's the problem with that?  This was not just his idea.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2017, 08:14:00 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: 311
  • Faith: Orthodox....kind of
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #95 on: September 09, 2017, 10:15:01 PM »
We have two writings preserved by St. Dioscorus of Alexandria as far as I am aware.
 
One purported to be a letter to Secundinus while in exile preserved by the historian Zacharias Rhetor (Book 3, Chapter 1):

Omitting many urgent matters, this I declare, that no man shall say that the holy flesh, which our Lord took from the Virgin Mary, by the operation of the Holy Spirit, in a manner which He Himself knows, was different to and foreign from our body. And, indeed, since this is so, they who affirm that Christ did not become incarnate for us, give the lie to Paul. For he has said, 'Not from angels did He take (the nature), but from the seed of the House of Abraham' ; to which seed Mary was no stranger, as the Scriptures teach us. And again,' It was right that in everything He should be made like unto His brethren,' and that word 'in everything' does not suffer the subtraction of any part of our nature : since in nerves, and hair, and bones, and veins, and belly, and heart, and kidneys, and liver, and lungs, and, in short, in all those things that belong to our nature, the flesh which was born from Mary was compacted with the soul of our Redeemer, that reasonable and intelligent soul, without the seed of man, and the gratification and cohabitation of sleep.

For if, as the heretics think, this was not so, how is He named 'our brother,' supposing that He used a body different from ours ? And how, again, is that true which He said to His Father, 'I will declare Thy name to My brethren ?' Let us not reject, neither let us despise, those who think in this way. For He was like us, for us, and with us, not in phantasy, nor in mere semblance, according to the heresy of the Manichaeans, but rather in actual reality from Mary, the Theotokos. To comfort the desolate and to repair the vessel that had been broken, He came to us new. And as Immanuel, indeed, He is confessed ; for He became poor for us, according to the saying of Paul, 'that we, by His humiliation, might be made rich.' He became, by the dispensation, like us ; that we, by His tender mercy, might be like Him. He became man, and yet He did not destroy that which is His nature, that He is Son of God ; that we, by grace, might become the sons of God. This I think and believe; and, if any man does not think thus, he is a stranger to the faith of the apostles.


And here's a link to the letter to the monks of the Hennaton while in exile.

I don't know where Emperor Justinian got the quote from.  Unless Justinian is misquoting St. Dioscorus, I would tend to believe St. Dioscorus was anti-Eutychian in theology.

As for Fr. Sergius Bulgakov's idea that the Theotokos was deified by the pregnancy, what's the problem with that?  This was not just his idea.

It was condemned as heresy by a synod (by Metropolitan Sergius I - so as to whether it is valid is a difficult question) as well as Saint John Maximovitch. Plus I think it goes too far, going beyond even the idea of Theosis - "I the Lord am your God. You shall not have any gods besides me."

As for that quote, one could argue that Justinian got his hands on a spurious text or Pope Dioscorus had Monophysite inclinations, which is why he would have supported Eutyches.

Much like a Tootsie Pop lick count, the world may never know.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2017, 10:21:22 PM by LivenotoneviL »

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 311
  • Faith: Orthodox....kind of
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #96 on: September 09, 2017, 10:25:29 PM »
2nd post
« Last Edit: September 09, 2017, 10:27:50 PM by LivenotoneviL »

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,151
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #97 on: September 09, 2017, 11:12:01 PM »
Are we using the word deified differently?
“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”- St. Ambrose of Milan

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

"He who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen." (1 John 4:20)

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,705
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #98 on: September 09, 2017, 11:15:20 PM »
But the latter "possibility" is not possible.  He didn't "support" Eutyches in the same way as coming to the rescue of a beloved brother, but as merely an unknown character who sounded like he was scapegoated by perceived, and here's the key word perceived, Nestorians.  He never kept close correspondence to Eutyches before or after the council of Ephesus II.

With that in mind, when presented with the possibility that Eutyches was not Orthodox, he responded in the minutes of Chalcedon itself: "If Eutyches holds what is contrary to the faith, not only should he be condemned, but deserves hellfire.  My concern is solely of the Orthodox faith, not of any person."

The successor to St. Dioscorus was a personal deacon of his, St. Timothy II (nicknamed "Aelurus").  He defended the memory and honor of the saint, successfully brought back his body from Gangra to be buried with great honor, AND condemned Eutyches with no reservations.

So once again, Justinian's quote is just Justinian's quote.  Wherever he may have gotten it, we don't know, and I don't care to speculate.  I prefer to go with what was preserved to us by the hands of St. Dioscorus himself.

As for the theosis of the Theotokos, before I comment further on the vagueness of what you are saying (because I think both EO and OO liturgical traditions teach her deification when the Holy Spirit came upon her, and if the Holy Spirit comes upon someone and divine power OVERSHADOWS someone, that's deification hands down), can you point me to more information about this "controversy"?

« Last Edit: September 09, 2017, 11:19:01 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 minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,705
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #99 on: September 09, 2017, 11:22:25 PM »
Are we using the word deified differently?

Hmmmm...just to clarify:

Deification does not mean I become consubstantial with God.  God is not deified because that implies He gains something that He doesn't have by nature.  Deification only happens to someone who is created, not the Creator.  God deifies; we become deified.

So to say the Theotokos was deified at the Annunciation seems quite appropriate and Orthodox, because it affirms the deity of the Holy Spirit and the Son incarnate.  That's the ULTIMATE point of the incarnation:  to deify all mankind...and He began with the Theotokos an an example.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2017, 11:23:32 PM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,157
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #100 on: September 09, 2017, 11:40:57 PM »



I'm so sorry, I accidentally added my own portion of the quote.


"Unless the blood of Christ is by nature the blood of God and not of man, how will it differ from the blood of he-goats, young bulls, and heifers? These are earthly and corruptible, and the blood of men is also earthly and corruptible by nature.  But as for the blood of Christ, we will never say it belongs to one of those who is [earthly and corruptible] by nature."

This is the original quote.

My own incompetence is to blame; ignore the original post. This is what his original quote was; he said nothing about being careful about the connection between the human nature and the Divine nature.

And immediately after this quote from Justinian, he calls it "blasphemy."

From Justinian:

"What could be harder to bear than this blasphemy of Dioscorus? For in denying that the blood of Christ is of the same essence as human nature, it is discovered that he does not confess the flesh of our Lord to be of the same essence as we, and he nullifies the salvation of man because he says the Logos' body is of the same essence as the Logos' divinity."

Once again, I don't know if Dioscorus said the original quote or not, but its from the testimony of Justinian.

But also, when I said "don't go Transubstantiation on us," I was more or less making a joke with the idea of the "essence changing" but the physical properties remaining the same in both the bread and the wine.
It was likely common practice in patristic times to quote part of what a church opponent wrote and then discard the rest.
So for example, Origen quoted Celsus, but then Celsus' writing got lost.

Same thing with Marcion, cited by Tertullian. Probably Dioscorus had numerous writings on the topics he was involved in, like his rejection of Christ being in two natures, that have been lost.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2017, 11:41:15 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 Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 564
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #101 on: September 10, 2017, 06:50:59 AM »
I have a simple question: do anti-chalcedonians agree and confess that after the incarnation, the one Lord Jesus Christ have two natures, two wills and two energies ?

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,705
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #102 on: September 10, 2017, 09:01:20 AM »
Well there's a simple answer: we confess one nature, one energy, one will, all theandric/composite.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2017, 09:02:09 AM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,157
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #103 on: September 10, 2017, 12:28:11 PM »
Well there's a simple answer: we confess one nature, one energy, one will, all theandric/composite.
In Leo's Tome, Leo speaks of the "divine and human nature" of Christ in the singular, and this phrase expressing apparently a composite nature can be found in numerous EO writings, including current ones. So I personally don't see the idea of a single composite nature as a crucial or essential difference. Rather, the issue hasn't the issue long seemed to be over whether to answer the question Vanhyo asked in the affirmative (Chalcedon) or negative (Dioscorus and 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 andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #104 on: September 10, 2017, 12:51:39 PM »
Are you sure it is not just a bad or a careless translation from the original Latin or from its translated form in Greek and Leo really spoke of "the divine and human nature" and not of "the divine and human natures"? As for the question for the Oriental Orthodox, I think that they, by confessing two natures in thought only, can also affirm two natural wills and energies in thought only, without destroying the composite unity they so strictly adhere to. Also, as for us Chalcedonians, let's not act dumb and pretend that Dioscorus and Ephesus II really denied the double consubstantial Christ, God the Word incarnate. He was just, by thinking that everyone was using the word 'nature' in the same way as the Alexandrians that used it as 'hypostasis', found the 'two natures' thing unacceptable without proper qualification and abused by crypto-Nestorians. Either way, it's better for the Oriental Orthodox to answer since they know their stuff better than us that may want to ascribe to them our own biases...
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 564
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #105 on: September 10, 2017, 01:14:43 PM »
Well there's a simple answer: we confess one nature, one energy, one will, all theandric/composite.
In Leo's Tome, Leo speaks of the "divine and human nature" of Christ in the singular, and this phrase expressing apparently a composite nature can be found in numerous EO writings, including current ones. So I personally don't see the idea of a single composite nature as a crucial or essential difference. Rather, the issue hasn't the issue long seemed to be over whether to answer the question Vanhyo asked in the affirmative (Chalcedon) or negative (Dioscorus and Ephesus ii)?
After all this time busying yourself with this topic you still don't understand, do you ? When someone confess single will and single energy, that is the same as confessing one nature (which is a result of mixture)

If there were two natures before the incarnation and a single nature after the incarnation, this is the same as mixing of the natures. Infact it is no longer a hypostatic union, but a beginning of a new super-nature or a mixture into one nature.

Whether someone claims that this nature consist of 50%/50% composition or a 99% to 1% ratio, is irreverent, he is still confessing single nature.

There is no human/divine super nature, there is a human nature and a divine nature, which we confess to be united in the person of Christ.

Offline andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #106 on: September 10, 2017, 02:14:14 PM »
Well there's a simple answer: we confess one nature, one energy, one will, all theandric/composite.
In Leo's Tome, Leo speaks of the "divine and human nature" of Christ in the singular, and this phrase expressing apparently a composite nature can be found in numerous EO writings, including current ones. So I personally don't see the idea of a single composite nature as a crucial or essential difference. Rather, the issue hasn't the issue long seemed to be over whether to answer the question Vanhyo asked in the affirmative (Chalcedon) or negative (Dioscorus and Ephesus ii)?
After all this time busying yourself with this topic you still don't understand, do you ? When someone confess single will and single energy, that is the same as confessing one nature (which is a result of mixture)

If there were two natures before the incarnation and a single nature after the incarnation, this is the same as mixing of the natures. Infact it is no longer a hypostatic union, but a beginning of a new super-nature or a mixture into one nature.

Whether someone claims that this nature consist of 50%/50% composition or a 99% to 1% ratio, is irreverent, he is still confessing single nature.

There is no human/divine super nature, there is a human nature and a divine nature, which we confess to be united in the person of Christ.

Is someone talking about mixture and confusion in the union of natures in Christ? We know that a union of two natures occured in Christ and by still preserving the natural differences in the union, one reality and compound subsistence of the God the Word made flesh resulted from the Incarnation. Christ doesn't have two natures or hypostases before the Incarnation, that is just conceptual imagery used to describe how the union of God with the form of a slave took place. Also, no one of the Oriental Orthodox miaphysites ever spoke about a single nature, but of a composite nature. Although the interpretation rakovsky attributes to the Tome of Leo as if Leo speaks of one divine and human nature may be doubtful, when he said 'singular', he most assuredly meant that Leo spoke of the mia physis composite nature in one of his broken ways of elaboration, so anything about singularity of a nature in the truest sense or about a composite nature that involves confusion is completely out of the topic.
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 564
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #107 on: September 10, 2017, 02:49:13 PM »
Quote
Also, no one of the Oriental Orthodox miaphysites ever spoke about a single nature, but of a composite nature.
Will and energy doesn't come from a person but from that person's nature. A person refers to who wills/did it, or in other words a person acts though his/hers nature.

Let me give you an example, you are a single person with human nature, you will never naturally will to move your hands like a bird's wings in order to fly, because it is not part of your nature.

If someone will speak of one will and one energy, then this person is no longer speaking of "composite nature", but clearly defining nature in context, as the source of will and energy.

In this case, we can no longer speak of misunderstanding or language mistake.



 


Offline andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #108 on: September 10, 2017, 03:13:43 PM »
Quote
Also, no one of the Oriental Orthodox miaphysites ever spoke about a single nature, but of a composite nature.
Will and energy doesn't come from a person but from that person's nature. A person refers to who wills/did it, or in other words a person acts though his/hers nature.

Let me give you an example, you are a single person with human nature, you will never naturally will to move your hands like a bird's wings in order to fly, because it is not part of your nature.

If someone will speak of one will and one energy, then this person is no longer speaking of "composite nature", but clearly defining nature in context, as the source of will and energy.

In this case, we can no longer speak of misunderstanding or language mistake.

Indeed, natural willing is something to be ascribed as proper to nature, yet look at St. Maximus the Confessor's concepts of gnomic will or rather personal will and natural will. It's not like this is really relevant here, but this is to show that not all willing comes from nature although truly sometimes, willing may be proper to nature, as you showed in your example.
Yet, the Orientals speak of two faculties of willing, if you read their writings carefully, so that even though they speak of one compound will, or rather one theandric will, it is as a result of these two faculties of willing without separation and division and this will is 100% human and 100% divine at the same time, just like they confess one compound nature as 100% human and 100% divine. Simply put in words, this is just a way to show how Christ's willing is without disorders and with proper equilibrium.
Because the concepts of will and energy we are talking about are related to nature, so that we are talking about natural willing and natural energy/energies, it is proper for dyophysites to speak of two natural wills and energies without confusion, alteration, division or separation and it is also proper for miaphysites to speak of one theandric natural will and one theandric energy as a result of Christ having one compound nature.
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,157
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #109 on: September 10, 2017, 11:52:47 PM »
Are you sure it is not just a bad or a careless translation from the original Latin or from its translated form in Greek and Leo really spoke of "the divine and human nature" and not of "the divine and human natures"?
Yes. This issue shows up in the Russian translation of the Tome too, where he talks about the human and divine nature of Christ. Besides, like I said, you can find other times when even today EOs talk about how Christ's nature is both human and divine.

See e.g..:

Quote
The Divine and Human Nature of Christ | Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto ...
www.gometropolis.org › orthodox-faith
The Holy Scriptures speak of the divine nature and divinity of Christ in many places, but we will refer to only a few. Let us begin...
http://www.gometropolis.org/orthodox-faith/the-incarnation-of-the-logos/the-divine-and-human-nature-of-christ/

To give an analogy, I found a 2nd or 3rd Christian writing saying that a certain bad person has 2 natures, a human nature and a demonic nature. One could paraphrase this as saying that the person had a demonic and human nature. My understanding is that these are two ways of saying the same thing.

Quote
As for the question for the Oriental Orthodox, I think that they, by confessing two natures in thought only, can also affirm two natural wills and energies in thought only, without destroying the composite unity they so strictly adhere to.
The first instance I know where O.O theologians accepted Christ having two natures after the union, even in thought only, was in the 20th c. Ecumenical dialogues. My understanding is that classically the OOs rejected two natures being attributable to Christ after the union, as in the quote by Dioscorus that I posted earlier in the threads.

Quote
Also, as for us Chalcedonians, let's not act dumb and pretend that Dioscorus and Ephesus II really denied the double consubstantial Christ, God the Word incarnate. He was just, by thinking that everyone was using the word 'nature' in the same way as the Alexandrians that used it as 'hypostasis', found the 'two natures' thing unacceptable without proper qualification and abused by crypto-Nestorians.
Dear Andi, please have a look at the thread where I ask whether OOs teach that Christ has two essences after the union. I agree with what you said about it being helpful to hear. O.O answers about that:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,71012.0.html
« Last Edit: September 11, 2017, 12:01:46 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 Remnkemi

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 359
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #110 on: September 11, 2017, 12:30:15 AM »
Well there's a simple answer: we confess one nature, one energy, one will, all theandric/composite.
In Leo's Tome, Leo speaks of the "divine and human nature" of Christ in the singular, and this phrase expressing apparently a composite nature can be found in numerous EO writings, including current ones. So I personally don't see the idea of a single composite nature as a crucial or essential difference. Rather, the issue hasn't the issue long seemed to be over whether to answer the question Vanhyo asked in the affirmative (Chalcedon) or negative (Dioscorus and Ephesus ii)?
After all this time busying yourself with this topic you still don't understand, do you ? When someone confess single will and single energy, that is the same as confessing one nature (which is a result of mixture)
No miaphysite ever confessed a single will and single energy. We are claiming a composite will and energy. It is not single. The distinction of two wills remain, but in the mind. These are the words of St Cyril, the same person whom Chalcedon claimed were the same as Leo's Tome. Either St Cyril and all miaphysites deny a single nature, will or energy (true monophysitism), or Chalcedon and Leo agrees with St Cyril that the distinction of the natures, will and energy exist in the mind only.

Quote
If there were two natures before the incarnation and a single nature after the incarnation, this is the same as mixing of the natures. Infact it is no longer a hypostatic union, but a beginning of a new super-nature or a mixture into one nature.
And that is the only possible interpretation of miaphysitism? Really? If I were to use that same line of thinking, I can say "If there are two natures before the incarnation and two natures after the incarnation, then there is no hypostatic union if the two things before the union continue as the same two things after the union? In fact, it is no longer a hypostatic union and therefore there must be two different hypostatses." Obviously, this is not how Chalcedonians think. Why don't you extend the same courtesy that miaphysitism is  a little more sophisticated than what you have claimed?

Quote
Whether someone claims that this nature consist of 50%/50% composition or a 99% to 1% ratio, is irreverent, he is still confessing single nature.
No this someone is claiming a composite, not single. Don't put words in that someone's mouth.

Quote
There is no human/divine super nature, there is a human nature and a divine nature, which we confess to be united in the person of Christ.
No one ever said there was a human/divine super nature. There is a composite nature. And if you don't know how that differs from a super nature, go back to St Cyril's specific writings on the matter.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,157
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #111 on: September 11, 2017, 12:35:40 AM »
Well there's a simple answer: we confess one nature, one energy, one will, all theandric/composite.
In Leo's Tome, Leo speaks of the "divine and human nature" of Christ in the singular, and this phrase expressing apparently a composite nature can be found in numerous EO writings, including current ones. So I personally don't see the idea of a single composite nature as a crucial or essential difference. Rather, the issue hasn't the issue long seemed to be over whether to answer the question Vanhyo asked in the affirmative (Chalcedon) or negative (Dioscorus and Ephesus ii)?
After all this time busying yourself with this topic you still don't understand, do you ? When someone confess single will and single energy, that is the same as confessing one nature (which is a result of mixture)
No miaphysite ever confessed a single will and single energy. We are claiming a composite will and energy. It is not single. The distinction of two wills remain, but in the mind. These are the words of St Cyril, the same person whom Chalcedon claimed were the same as Leo's Tome. Either St Cyril and all miaphysites deny a single nature, will or energy (true monophysitism), or Chalcedon and Leo agrees with St Cyril that the distinction of the natures, will and energy exist in the mind only.

Can you please provide a quote by Cyril that the distinction is in mind only?

Because the quote by Cyril I posted elsewhere on this forum was that it is the division between the natures that is in thought alone.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2017, 12:36:41 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 Remnkemi

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 359
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #112 on: September 11, 2017, 12:38:38 AM »
Quote
Also, no one of the Oriental Orthodox miaphysites ever spoke about a single nature, but of a composite nature.

Let me give you an example, you are a single person with human nature, you will never naturally will to move your hands like a bird's wings in order to fly, because it is not part of your nature.
Funny. That is exactly how DaVinci envisioned human flying.

This is from here.
"The design for this invention is clearly inspired by the flight of winged animals, which da Vinci hoped to replicate. In fact, in his notes, he mentions bats, kites and birds as sources of inspiration.

Perhaps the inspiration of the bat shines through the most, as the two wings of the device feature pointed ends commonly associated with the winged creature. Leonardo da Vinci’s flying machine had a wingspan that exceeded 33 feet, and the frame was to be made of pine covered in raw silk to create a light but sturdy membrane.

The pilot would lie face down in the center of the invention on a board. To power the wings, the pilot would pedal a crank connected to a rod-and-pulley system. The machine also had a hand crank for increased energy output, and a head piece for steering. As the busy pilot spins cranks with his hands and feet, the wings of the machine flap. The inspiration of nature in the invention is apparent in the way the wings were designed to twist as they flapped."

I guess DaVinci didn't have a human nature but a winged animal's nature.

Offline Remnkemi

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 359
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #113 on: September 11, 2017, 12:45:34 AM »
Can you please provide a quote by Cyril that the distinction is in mind only?

Because the quote by Cyril I posted elsewhere on this forum was that it is the division between the natures that is in thought alone.
Second Letter of Cyril to Succensus 5

"This objection is yet another attack on those who say that there is one incarnate nature of the Son. They want to show that the idea is foolish and so they keep on arguing at every turn that two natures endured. They have forgotten, however, that it is only those things that are usually distinguished at more than a merely theoretical level which split apart from one another in differentiated separateness and radical distinction. Let us once more take the example of an ordinary man. We recognise two natures in him; for there is one nature of the soul and another of the body, but we divide them only at a theoretical level, and by subtle speculation, or rather we accept the distinction only in our mental intuitions, and we do not set the natures apart nor do we grant that they have a radical separateness, but we understand them to belong to one man. This is why the two are no longer two, but through both of them the one living creature is rendered complete. "
« Last Edit: September 11, 2017, 12:45:54 AM by Remnkemi »

Offline andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #114 on: September 11, 2017, 07:47:58 AM »
Are you sure it is not just a bad or a careless translation from the original Latin or from its translated form in Greek and Leo really spoke of "the divine and human nature" and not of "the divine and human natures"?
Yes. This issue shows up in the Russian translation of the Tome too, where he talks about the human and divine nature of Christ. Besides, like I said, you can find other times when even today EOs talk about how Christ's nature is both human and divine.

See e.g..:

Quote
The Divine and Human Nature of Christ | Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto ...
www.gometropolis.org › orthodox-faith
The Holy Scriptures speak of the divine nature and divinity of Christ in many places, but we will refer to only a few. Let us begin...
http://www.gometropolis.org/orthodox-faith/the-incarnation-of-the-logos/the-divine-and-human-nature-of-christ/

To give an analogy, I found a 2nd or 3rd Christian writing saying that a certain bad person has 2 natures, a human nature and a demonic nature. One could paraphrase this as saying that the person had a demonic and human nature. My understanding is that these are two ways of saying the same thing.

Quote
As for the question for the Oriental Orthodox, I think that they, by confessing two natures in thought only, can also affirm two natural wills and energies in thought only, without destroying the composite unity they so strictly adhere to.
The first instance I know where O.O theologians accepted Christ having two natures after the union, even in thought only, was in the 20th c. Ecumenical dialogues. My understanding is that classically the OOs rejected two natures being attributable to Christ after the union, as in the quote by Dioscorus that I posted earlier in the threads.

Quote
Also, as for us Chalcedonians, let's not act dumb and pretend that Dioscorus and Ephesus II really denied the double consubstantial Christ, God the Word incarnate. He was just, by thinking that everyone was using the word 'nature' in the same way as the Alexandrians that used it as 'hypostasis', found the 'two natures' thing unacceptable without proper qualification and abused by crypto-Nestorians.
Dear Andi, please have a look at the thread where I ask whether OOs teach that Christ has two essences after the union. I agree with what you said about it being helpful to hear. O.O answers about that:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,71012.0.html


Rakovsky, let me have my take on this and then please tell me if I am wrong, and I really apologise if so.

Firstly, as for the Tome of St.Leo, just because "the divine and human nature" thing shows up in more than one translation, that doesn't make it outright correct translation. Note carefully what I requested: that the original Latin or that at most, its translated form in Greek that was used in Chalcedon, if you can. Better than say that the Russian verson has the same translation as the English one, or something similar, wouldn't it be better to say that you don't know and we are all making assumptions while we don't use the original form and that's it? I am not saying that you definitely don't know what you are talking about, but that if you really cannot support something as you were asked, it would be better not to present it as THE answer of my question with great confidence, although I would still like to think as if my doubts could be wrong... Then again, it is not really about what some Chalcedonians or non-Chalcedonians say about the divine and human nature and the double consubstantiality of Christ more than what the persons we are currently speaking of say on this topic (Leo and Dioscorus). So even if some OO's speak of a divine-human essence, it isn't relevant to us right now what they say, more than what did firstly Dioscorus affirm regarding this, this for the simple reason that right now, we are talkig about him and not about others. If Dioscorus affirmed the double essence of Christ, that's it. What I want to say is that if we are talking about Dioscorus or about person X, let's first finish talking about him and then we may proceed, so that our discussion may be healthy an orderly. I don't want to be disrespectful, but the thing is I didn't ask what one or the other say more than what the church teaches dogmatically and doctrinally by the means of its Councils and main saints regarding a particular topic. For example, an EO saint could teach universalism, but just because he is orthodox, that doesn't always mean that all the orthodox must accept all of his ideas. This could very well be the case with the OO's. If one of them speaks of one essence and Dioscorus speaks of two essences, it is Dioscorus' opinion that will be taken as the official statement of orthodoxy. (Sorry, I could not find any better word than 'official')...

As for the OO's not speaking about two natures even in thought until recently, what about Severus of Antioch? Didn't he affirm two natures en theoria? He says that he doesn't depart from Cyril's words and he clearly shows in his own writings familiarity with the second letter of Cyrilto Succensus, which mentions the distincion of natures in thought. Severus may not be our saint but he is still an OO saint, so a saint in his way, meaning thaf I am to take his word for truth and his full accord with Cyril's line of thinking. If we are ignorant on these, at least let us not remain so... Yet I agree with you that both ways of speaking of two natures and the divine and human nature describe orthodoxy as long as proper clarifications are made (One person, one hypostasis, two natures spoken of as "one" to show their unity while their distictions are preserved and so on...)

Again forgive me if I didn't truthfully represent your ideas, rakovsky, the OO's ideas,, orthodoxy and anyone else. Even though this was my reply, you still have my thanks, rakovsky, for what helpfulnes you provided.
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,907
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #115 on: September 11, 2017, 09:29:07 AM »
It was condemned as heresy by a synod (by Metropolitan Sergius I - so as to whether it is valid is a difficult question) as well as Saint John Maximovitch. Plus I think it goes too far, going beyond even the idea of Theosis - "I the Lord am your God. You shall not have any gods besides me."

Having read Fr Sergius Bulgakov's position in his own words, I think it's fair to say that the denunciations are based on misinterpretation. Moreover, Fr. Sergius' own jurisdiction (Paris Exarchate/ EP) found nothing heretical in his writing.
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 minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,705
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #116 on: September 11, 2017, 01:30:55 PM »
Quote
Also, no one of the Oriental Orthodox miaphysites ever spoke about a single nature, but of a composite nature.
Will and energy doesn't come from a person but from that person's nature. A person refers to who wills/did it, or in other words a person acts though his/hers nature.

Let me give you an example, you are a single person with human nature, you will never naturally will to move your hands like a bird's wings in order to fly, because it is not part of your nature.

If someone will speak of one will and one energy, then this person is no longer speaking of "composite nature", but clearly defining nature in context, as the source of will and energy.

In this case, we can no longer speak of misunderstanding or language mistake.

This last sentence shows your pre-conceived stereotype.  You jump to conclusion without investigating, without kindly asking, without clearing the air of confusion.  Andi.Zghaba here is defending Pope Leo, and I for one appreciate his research.  He has every right to do so, and he does it with respect, without accusatory language against us.  You on the other hand seem to have a problem controlling yourself, as usual.  But you write with no understanding, with no knowledge, and with no respect.

Anyway, Maximus the Confessor defended the "theandric will" of pseudo-Dionysius on the basis that he believed he was the real Dionysius.  Now, there's some unfortunate implications to this, but the essential and fortunate point is that he can see the Orthodoxy in the terminology.  Surely, you are no better than the teacher Maximus.

Furthermore, the terminology does not mean a mixture of "super-nature", but simply the reality in which both natures interpenetrating one another, communicating the properties to one another in a unified manner to bring salvation for mankind.  After all, we also are given the opportunity to interpenetrate ourselves into the divine nature, or rather it Christ who does this to us primarily.  Therefore, also our wills and energy become a part of that process.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2017, 01:39:28 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 minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,705
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #117 on: September 11, 2017, 01:46:52 PM »
Are you sure it is not just a bad or a careless translation from the original Latin or from its translated form in Greek and Leo really spoke of "the divine and human nature" and not of "the divine and human natures"?
Yes. This issue shows up in the Russian translation of the Tome too, where he talks about the human and divine nature of Christ. Besides, like I said, you can find other times when even today EOs talk about how Christ's nature is both human and divine.

See e.g..:

Quote
The Divine and Human Nature of Christ | Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto ...
www.gometropolis.org › orthodox-faith
The Holy Scriptures speak of the divine nature and divinity of Christ in many places, but we will refer to only a few. Let us begin...
http://www.gometropolis.org/orthodox-faith/the-incarnation-of-the-logos/the-divine-and-human-nature-of-christ/

To give an analogy, I found a 2nd or 3rd Christian writing saying that a certain bad person has 2 natures, a human nature and a demonic nature. One could paraphrase this as saying that the person had a demonic and human nature. My understanding is that these are two ways of saying the same thing.

Quote
As for the question for the Oriental Orthodox, I think that they, by confessing two natures in thought only, can also affirm two natural wills and energies in thought only, without destroying the composite unity they so strictly adhere to.
The first instance I know where O.O theologians accepted Christ having two natures after the union, even in thought only, was in the 20th c. Ecumenical dialogues. My understanding is that classically the OOs rejected two natures being attributable to Christ after the union, as in the quote by Dioscorus that I posted earlier in the threads.

Quote
Also, as for us Chalcedonians, let's not act dumb and pretend that Dioscorus and Ephesus II really denied the double consubstantial Christ, God the Word incarnate. He was just, by thinking that everyone was using the word 'nature' in the same way as the Alexandrians that used it as 'hypostasis', found the 'two natures' thing unacceptable without proper qualification and abused by crypto-Nestorians.
Dear Andi, please have a look at the thread where I ask whether OOs teach that Christ has two essences after the union. I agree with what you said about it being helpful to hear. O.O answers about that:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,71012.0.html

Rakovsky,

I hesitate to argue this with you, but let me defer to your experiences with many writings you have read around you, especially in well-respected newspaper articles, popular textbooks, manuals for how to build things, etc.  While it may be rare, chances are you and I have stumbled a few grammatical errors.  Even Bible exegetes like Origen would argue the Scripture translations he has have some grammatical errors as well.

Now, if Pope Leo did intend it to be singular rather than plural, why is in the same Tome he condemns the use of "one nature" completely, solely believing it to be a heretical Eutychian phrase.  In fact, I know of nowhere in Pope Leo's writings where he shows adequate knowledge of Cyrillian "one nature" language.  His knowledge at best seems to rely on Latin theological resources, like Tertullian and St. Augustine, both known to confess "two natures".

Furthermore, is there any other letter or sermon by Pope Leo which confesses one incarnate nature?

As to the first instance, it's been said St. Severus of Antioch agreed that "two natures" do have an Orthodox past and can be used in an Orthodox manner.  Scholars have mentioned this in reading his writings, a lot of which have not been translated, especially writings against certain Chalcedonians like Nephalius and John the Grammarian.  His insistence on "one nature" ran primarily with what he perceived as Nestorians gaining the upper hand as well as not confessing a real communion between humanity and divinity.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2017, 01:52:19 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 andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #118 on: September 11, 2017, 03:57:22 PM »
Rakovsky,

I hesitate to argue this with you, but let me defer to your experiences with many writings you have read around you, especially in well-respected newspaper articles, popular textbooks, manuals for how to build things, etc.  While it may be rare, chances are you and I have stumbled a few grammatical errors.  Even Bible exegetes like Origen would argue the Scripture translations he has have some grammatical errors as well.

Now, if Pope Leo did intend it to be singular rather than plural, why is in the same Tome he condemns the use of "one nature" completely, solely believing it to be a heretical Eutychian phrase.  In fact, I know of nowhere in Pope Leo's writings where he shows adequate knowledge of Cyrillian "one nature" language.  His knowledge at best seems to rely on Latin theological resources, like Tertullian and St. Augustine, both known to confess "two natures".

Furthermore, is there any other letter or sermon by Pope Leo which confesses one incarnate nature?

As to the first instance, it's been said St. Severus of Antioch agreed that "two natures" do have an Orthodox past and can be used in an Orthodox manner.  Scholars have mentioned this in reading his writings, a lot of which have not been translated, especially writings against certain Chalcedonians like Nephalius and John the Grammarian.  His insistence on "one nature" ran primarily with what he perceived as Nestorians gaining the upper hand as well as not confessing a real communion between humanity and divinity.

If one was to be really scholastically correct (what a word I just used!), the Tome of Leo is not just a document that was prepared when the need for it arose, but passages and excerpts where taken from various writings, letters and most of all, sermons of Pope Leo. So the origin of the fragment in question is Leo's first sermon On the Lord's Resurrection.

“...In Him the properties of the Divine and Human Nature remained undivided, and we might in such sort know that the Word was not what the flesh is, as to confess God's only Son to be both Word and Flesh.” (On the Lord’s Resurrection I)

"...He showed the wound in His side, the marks of the nails, and all the signs of His quite recent suffering, saying, See My hands and feet, that it is I. Handle Me and see that a spirit has not flesh and bones, as you see Me have ; in order that the properties of His Divine and human nature might be acknowledged to remain still inseparable: and that we might know the Word not to be different from the flesh, in such a sense as also to confess that the one Son of God is both the Word and flesh. " (Tome of Leo)

Also there were these interesting passages:

"For the Word was not in any part of It turned either into flesh or into soul, seeing that the absolute and unchangeable nature of the Godhead is ever entire in its Essence, receiving no loss nor increase, and so beatifying the nature that It had assumed that that nature remained for ever glorified in the person of the Glorifier. [But why should it seem unsuitable or impossible that the Word and flesh and soul should be one Jesus Christ, and that the Son of God and the Son of Man should be one, if flesh and soul which are of different natures make one person even without the Incarnation of the Word: since it is much easier for the power of the Godhead to produce this union of Himself and man than for the weakness of manhood by itself to effect it in its own substance.] Therefore neither was the Word changed into flesh nor flesh into the Word: but both remains in one and one is in both, not divided by the diversity and not confounded by intermixture: He is not one by His Father and another by His mother, but the same, in one way by His Father before every beginning, and in another by His mother at the end of the ages" (Letter to Julian Bishop of Constantinople)

In here, Leo makes the analogy of body and soul while trying to explain the Incarnation in general terms, yet he doesn't look as flesh and soul as one human nature, as Cyril did, but as one person, or rather, as one reality, since Leo used 'person' in two ways: as the self-same prosopon of Christ and as manhood and the godhead forming one person, seen in the same letter, too.

Then, afterwards:

"David's Lord was made David's Son, and from the fruit of the promised branch sprang One without fault, the twofold nature joining together into one Person, that by one and the same conception and birth might spring our Lord Jesus Christ, in Whom was present both true Godhead for the performance of mighty works and true Manhood for the endurance of sufferings." (On the Feast of Nativity VIII)

"He that was born voluntarily shall die of His own free will. The Wise men, therefore, fulfill their desire, and come to the child, the Lord Jesus Christ, the same star going before them. They adore the Word in flesh, the Wisdom in infancy, the Power in weakness, the Lord of majesty in the reality of man: and by their gifts make open acknowledgment of what they believe in their hearts, that they may show forth the mystery of their faith and understanding. The incense they offer to God, the myrrh to Man, the gold to the King, consciously paying honor to the Divine and human Nature in union: because while each substance had its own properties, there was no difference in the power of either." (On the Feast of Epiphany I)

So far I've seen, this "twofold nature" and this "the divine and human nature in union" are the closest thing in the entirety of Leo's sermons to Cyril's mia physis, although it is utterly rare for Leo to speak like this, since his favorite way of understanding the Incarnation is always speaking of two natures united at least. Yet here is another excerpt from Leo that shows how he understood the divine and human nature Rakovsky presents as One nature and not as the divine nature and human nature according to Leo:

"The Lord had made it clear by the words of His sacred prayer that the Divine and the Human Nature was most truly and fully present in Him, showing that the unwillingness to suffer proceeded from the one, and from the other the determination to suffer by the expulsion of all frail fears and the strengthening of His lofty power, then did He return to His eternal purpose" (On the Passion VIII)

So in here, Leo speaks again of the divine and human nature in singular, even clearly, just for one moment, speaking as it (one nature) was, yet just after that, showing that they are still distinct by his way of talking...As for letters regarding this, I'll maybe find something  later, but as for now, there is nothing like this.

Therefore, if one would ask me personally, I honestly don't really think Pope St. Leo was speaking of one divine and human nature in the sense rakovsky makes it look like, although it is still an interesting perspective on this and there were other instances apart from his Tome that Leo comes even closer to that. Still, more than simply condemning the one nature completely, he simply shows his ignorance on St. Cyril's writings and his formula as he recognizes the one nature always in connection with Eutyches.

As for Severus, that is the whole thing: Chalcedon, although clarified by mention of one hypostasis and of the self-same person of Christ and usage of two natures clearly intended to mean being understood in their essential properties, with the 'in two natures' formula supported by Leo's Tome interpreted as in accord with Cyril's 12 anathemas (I won't mention the clarifications of the Fifth Council, since Severus had passed away by then), was still abused by crypto-Nestorians and the names of Ibas and Theodoret. So Severus really knew what he was doing and what he was saying, pretty sad he was misunderstood to be a Nestorian and Eutychian in the way he was...
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,157
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #119 on: September 11, 2017, 04:16:22 PM »
Can you please provide a quote by Cyril that the distinction is in mind only?

Because the quote by Cyril I posted elsewhere on this forum was that it is the division between the natures that is in thought alone.
Second Letter of Cyril to Succensus 5

"This objection is yet another attack on those who say that there is one incarnate nature of the Son. They want to show that the idea is foolish and so they keep on arguing at every turn that two natures endured. They have forgotten, however, that it is only those things that are usually distinguished at more than a merely theoretical level which split apart from one another in differentiated separateness and radical distinction. Let us once more take the example of an ordinary man. We recognise two natures in him; for there is one nature of the soul and another of the body, but we divide them only at a theoretical level, and by subtle speculation, or rather we accept the distinction only in our mental intuitions, and we do not set the natures apart nor do we grant that they have a radical separateness, but we understand them to belong to one man. This is why the two are no longer two, but through both of them the one living creature is rendered complete. "

Thank you for providing a text. However, Hans van Loon cites the Greek text on this point as using the root word "διαιρ--", which means "divide", rather than "distinguish". If that is true, I think the text should be corrected on the Joint Commission blog.

Quote
"those things which are usually divided (diareisthai) not just in contemplation, will split apart from each other fully... Let a man like us once again be an example to us. For also with respect to him do we consider two natures, one of the soul, another of the body. But, dividing them in mere thoughts and taking the difference as in subtle reflections or imaginations of the mind, we do not set the natures  apart, nor do we grant them the power of a radical separation..."

The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril of Alexandria, By Hans Van Loon
https://books.google.com/books?id=BVDsO6IbdOYC&pg=PA519&lpg=PA519&dq=letter+of+cyril+succensus&source=bl&ots=VOUzZ1yqKt&sig=Yh0PoNC6SzusUFu5B9RS6iy8-E4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnh5_T753WAhVCurwKHSy0BucQ6AEITDAG#v=onepage&q=letter%20cyril%20succensus%20distinction%20natures&f=false

(See also διαιρώ in: https://translate.google.com/#en/el/divide)

So while one may "contemplate" the difference between a body and a soul, this passage does not say that the distinction is only theoretical. Wouldn't you agree that there are real, practical distinctions between a body and a soul? Take for example Jesus' teaching in Matthew 10:28:
"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul".
A body commonly dies while the soul survives the body's death, revealing a crucial practical difference between them.

In Contra Nestorium, Cyril writes:
Quote
I myself would also hold that the difference or the interval between humanity and divinity is vast, for other with respect to their mode of being and unlike each other are plainly the things that have been mentioned. But when the mystery regarding Christ is brought into our midst, the principle of the union does not fail to acknowledge the difference, but it puts aside the separation, not confusing the natures or mingling the natures...

See the book above, p. 218.

Cyril throughout his writing seems to emphasize that there is no separation between the two natures, divinity and humanity. But shouldn't we agree that he also emphasizes both the continuing distinction between Jesus' divinity and humanity and that there is no confusion between them?
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: 10,157
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #120 on: September 11, 2017, 04:24:38 PM »


Rakovsky, let me have my take on this and then please tell me if I am wrong, and I really apologise if so.

Firstly, as for the Tome of St.Leo, just because "the divine and human nature" thing shows up in more than one translation, that doesn't make it outright correct translation. Note carefully what I requested: that the original Latin or that at most, its translated form in Greek that was used in Chalcedon, if you can.

" So again He showed the wound in His side, the marks of the nails, and all the signs of His quite recent suffering, saying, “See My hands and feet, that it is I. Handle Me and see that a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have;” in order that the properties of His Divine and human nature might be acknowledged to remain still inseparable: and that we might know the Word not to be different from the flesh, in such a sense as also to confess that the one Son of GOD is both the Word and flesh."

LATIN AND GREEK TRANSLATION:
http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/main/leo/tome_of_leo_01.shtml

LATIN:
" ut agnosceretur in eo proprietas divinae humanaeque naturae individua permanere; "

Quote
As for the OO's not speaking about two natures even in thought until recently, what about Severus of Antioch? Didn't he affirm two natures en theoria?

He says that he doesn't depart from Cyril's words and he clearly shows in his own writings familiarity with the second letter of Cyrilto Succensus, which mentions the distincion of natures in thought.
Where did he specify that Christ was in two natures after the union in theory?
Both sides then and since have claimed to not depart from Cyril, despite their disagreements with each other on the topics he wrote about.

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: 10,157
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #121 on: September 11, 2017, 04:46:32 PM »
I hesitate to argue this with you, but let me defer to your experiences with many writings you have read around you, especially in well-respected newspaper articles, popular textbooks, manuals for how to build things, etc.  While it may be rare, chances are you and I have stumbled a few grammatical errors.  Even Bible exegetes like Origen would argue the Scripture translations he has have some grammatical errors as well.
Leo's Tome was translated into Greek for the councils and it says the same thing in Greek. Further, the idea that Christ's "nature" is both human and divine, humanity and divinity, the "dual human and divine nature of Christ" can be found in EO writings since then, so it's not a one time event made by Leo only.


Quote
Now, if Pope Leo did intend it to be singular rather than plural, why is in the same Tome he condemns the use of "one nature" completely, solely believing it to be a heretical Eutychian phrase.  In fact, I know of nowhere in Pope Leo's writings where he shows adequate knowledge of Cyrillian "one nature" language.
Let me answer your good question to me.

Flavian himself, as Fr. Romanides cited, accepted Cyril's formula Mia Physia at Ephesus II, while still rejecting Eutyches' profession of "Two natures before the union, but one afterwards."

The problem is the meaning and intention of Eutyches' pronouncement. Eutyches was well known before and after Ephesus II to be a monophysite teaching that Christ had only one nature, the divine nature, due to what Eutyches saw as the swallowing up of the human nature. Eutyches' statement was directed at contrasting his flawed Appollinarian belief of Christ having two natures before even the incarnation, with his flawed monophysite belief of Christ having only one nature, divinity, after the incarnation. So when the Eutyches made his statement "Christ has two natures before the union, one nature afterwards", he certainly intended and meant a belief of Christ having humanity and divinity before the incarnation, divinity only after the incarnation.

Further, it's clear also that this is how Leo and Flavian correctly understood Eutyches' declaration of his heresy. In their correspondence with each other about Eutyches, as I cited elsewhere on the forum, Leo and Flavian explain to each other that the two "natures" in question are specifically "humanity" and "divinity". When Eutyches says "two natures before the union; one nature afterwards", they correctly understand him to mean "humanity and divinity ('two natures') before the union; divinity ('one') afterwards."

This explains why Leo and Flavian both rejected Eutyches' declaration, despite Leo's speaking of Christ's divine and human nature and Flavian's open acceptance of Cyril's Miaphysia formula. They both correctly understood that Eutyches was declaring his belief in "Christ having two natures (even) before the union; one nature (divinity) afterwards", as the contrasting structure of that sentence alludes to.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2017, 04:56:30 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 minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,705
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #122 on: September 11, 2017, 04:58:46 PM »
I knew this was going to be your answer, Rakovsky.  I just figured I'd give you a different perspective.

I also know you have a problem with the statement "Christ has two natures before the union, one nature afterwards," but this statement was interpreted differently because of the similarities it bore with St. Cyril's statement.  And before you tell me, I know it's not exactly the same statement, but the fact remains that the former statement "two natures before the union" was understood in an abstract sense by Orthodox.  I don't think even Eutyches believed the human nature of Christ "existed" before the incarnation.  So the phrase, as you and I have argued about before, I have no problem with.

In fact, just to make matters even more mind-twisting, I'm willing to be a bit conciliatory just to because I PERSONALLY have no problem with the words said on either side so long as they are "translated" properly:

So for an anti-Chalcedonian who says "Christ has two natures before the union, one nature afterwards", the translation:  "Christ was two natures en theoria apart from the incarnation, one nature within the act of the incarnation."  Or another slightly different translation could be "Christ was separate from human nature before the union (due to ancestral sin), but afterwards united"  Notice the soteriological emphasis.

For a Chalcedonian who says "Christ has one nature before the union, two natures afterwards", the translation:  "Before the incarnation, Christ was only divine, but afterwards, He assumed humanity in Himself."  I accept this too, and so do the ancient OO fathers, just not in that language.  Notice the emphasis solely concentrates on Christ, not on the economy Christ accomplishes.

So my issue is that I have not seen any scholar, even Chalcedonian, that would agree with you that Pope Leo knew or held any Miaphysite language.  In Latin, it's actually unheard of and blasphemous.  I would think therefore, there may be another reason for using the singular term for "nature" if in fact the singular was intended.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2017, 05:00:59 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 andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #123 on: September 11, 2017, 05:16:48 PM »
Rakovsky, first of all, thanks for seriously taking tbe effort to back up your argument of the divine and human nature in Latin. I appreciate it that you took my request in consideration. As for the rest, the thing is that body and soul, or even divinity an humanity for that matter are really different even after the union, but because after the Incarnation, Christ is really one, you cannot immediately recognize the difference of his flesh and his Godhead, without reasoning first that an x action is proper to humanity and another y action is proper to the godhead, but since they belong to one and the same reality, hypostasis, and since essential properties of the same hypostasis cannot be distinguished except in thought only, since such properties are inseperable and not united with simple connection, but with a complete compact and wholesome union of God the Word with his flesh, something even Leo admits in the numerous quotes provided in this thread with his own way of saying it, a real distinction is brought out in thought only. Even the strong denial of confusion of natures while using his prefered 'mia physis' formula shows Cyril guarding the meaningful salvific act of God the Word incarnate. Sorry to put it like this rakovsky, but like it or not, both the Oriental Orthodox with Severus of Antioch and the Eastern Orthodox with our Fifth Ecumenical Council admit that distinction of natures is in thought only while only the properties themselves of the natures being really different one from the other while also being without diision , separation or confusion. Now, if we want to talk about the EO's and OO's as wanting to heal the schism, we need to protect our common ground or then, otherwise one is trolling and mocking not only the Oriental's Orthodoxy, but also our own EO Orthodoxy. And suppose for a moment that the Orientals are heretics, that doesn't mean that everything they say is wrong. And definitely not the distinction of the natures themselves in thought only and not their properties of them differing still really.

The Book of Unity of Christ of St. Cyril or many other writings of his makes it clear that he distinguishes between natures intellectually. Even if I don'f find just one quote of Severus speaking of two natures in thought, he testifies that from Cyril's words he doesn't depart, being in FULL agreement with Cyril in Christology. So it isn't a real problem at all. Even if now, one is to say that Severus may have even denied two natures as Dioscorus did, Severus was first of all, following Cyril and then Dioscorus.

Also, another argument that could be raised up against the real distinction of soul and body as you show Christ do in your quote from the Scriptures is that somewhere in either of Cyril's letters to Succensus, Cyril says that such differences are noted as much as the eyes of the soul are able to see, whereas Christ is perfect God, knowing everything he created in ways incomprehensible to us so that since by virtue of his omniscience and by St. Cyril's criterion with the extent of ability pertaining to the 'eyes of the soul- of the rational intellect' he can really distinguish anything he wants, also this argument is invalidaded as not sustainable.

Sorry for my long prattling and please forgive me of anything wrong I may have said! Thanks to mina for explaining everything just right! Thanks again, I really learn a lot from your rich perspective! Rakovsky, at the very least thanks for you keeping and pursuing truth, if  that is indeed what motivates you, really. Thanks for the others too bearing with me.  God and his truth and his grace may be with you and with us all!
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,157
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #124 on: September 11, 2017, 05:37:49 PM »
I knew this was going to be your answer, Rakovsky.  I just figured I'd give you a different perspective.
It's good that you are familiar with different ways of looking at this statement by Eutyches, since it is helpful when others can see the objections that EOs like myself have to it.

Quote
So my issue is that I have not seen any scholar, even Chalcedonian, that would agree with you that Pope Leo knew or held any Miaphysite language.  In Latin, it's actually unheard of and blasphemous.  I would think therefore, there may be another reason for using the singular term for "nature" if in fact the singular was intended.
I  read a scholar saying that Leo penned several letters in the years after the Tome to justify it, like "The Second Tome", referred to as Letter 165, as well as a "Letter to the Monks of Palestine". There, Leo explains more about which nature the monophysite Eutyches meant when Eutyches said that Christ has one nature after the union in comparison with the two natures before it:

Quote
But Eutyches also must be stricken with the same anathema, who, becoming entangled in the treacherous errors of the old heretics, has chosen the third dogma of Apollinaris [519] :  so that he denies the reality of his human flesh and soul, and maintains the whole of our Lord Jesus Christ to be of one nature, as if the Godhead of the Word had turned itself into flesh and soul:  and as if to be conceived and born, to be nursed and grow, to be crucified and die, to be buried and rise again, and to ascend into heaven and to sit on the Father's right hand, from whence
   He shall come to judge the living and the dead--as if all those things
   belonged to that essence only
which admits of none of them without the
   reality of the flesh:  seeing that the nature of the Only-begotten is
   the nature of the Father, the nature of the Holy Spirit, and that the
   undivided unity and consubstantial equality of the eternal Trinity is
   at once impassible and unchangeable.
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.txt

Here, Leo explains that when Eutyches "maintains the whole of our Lord Jesus Christ to be of one nature," Eutyches means that "the Godhead of the Word had turned itself into flesh and soul", since Eutyches denied that Christ continued to have humanity. Hence, the flesh and soul remaining after the union must have been a "divine-only" flesh and soul. Leo explains that Eutyches talks "as if all those things belonged to that [divine] essence only", not to both two essences.

Thanks for the discussion.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2017, 05:45:13 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 minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,705
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #125 on: September 11, 2017, 06:01:40 PM »
Thank you both for this discussion as well.

I think that's a good last word for this, unless there are other clarifications necessary.
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 Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 564
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #126 on: September 14, 2017, 01:16:49 PM »
@andi.zhgaba3
Quote
if you read their writings carefully, so that even though they speak of one compound will, or rather one theandric will, it is as a result of these two faculties of willing without separation and division and this will is 100% human and 100% divine at the same time, just like they confess one compound nature as 100% human and 100% divine.
Quote
one theandric natural will and one theandric energy as a result of Christ having one compound nature.

I know what they claim, and it is wrong. This formula is simply incorrect, it creates mixture and confusion, and this can be easily demonstrated:

If there is a one theandric/will/energy, was Christ dying on the cross an theandric act ? but if the divine nature ceased to be(died), how was the universe held together ?

If our Lord had people's hair numbered before the incarnation due to His divine operation, does it follows then that all people born after the incarnation have their hair numbered through theandric means. Isn't that a mixture, isn't it confusion ?

How about this one - is Isaiah 40:22 an theandric act ?

@Remnkemi
Quote
No miaphysite ever confessed a single will and single energy. We are claiming a composite will and energy. It is not single. The distinction of two wills remain, but in the mind. These are the words of St Cyril, the same person whom Chalcedon claimed were the same as Leo's Tome. Either St Cyril and all miaphysites deny a single nature, will or energy (true monophysitism), or Chalcedon and Leo agrees with St Cyril that the distinction of the natures, will and energy exist in the mind only.

This is a very strange sentence, in our context - one and single is the same thing, i use the word single to underline your opposition to the two natures formula and your insistence in one will and one energy. I did not define the composition of this "single"

For that matter you can as easily say single compound nature, single theandric natural will and single theandric energy.
The word single here is to show that you oppose the Orthodox Formula of 2wills and 2energies and as a result end up mixing and confusing even though you claim not to be doing so.

Quote
And that is the only possible interpretation of miaphysitism? Really? If I were to use that same line of thinking, I can say "If there are two natures before the incarnation and two natures after the incarnation, then there is no hypostatic union if the two things before the union continue as the same two things after the union? In fact, it is no longer a hypostatic union and therefore there must be two different hypostatses." Obviously, this is not how Chalcedonians think. Why don't you extend the same courtesy that miaphysitism is  a little more sophisticated than what you have claimed?
That will be a straw man argument, nature and person are two different things, this can be easily demonstrated:
You don't go to a cafeteria to drink a coffee with the human nature, you go there to drink coffee with your friends (persons).






« Last Edit: September 14, 2017, 01:23:51 PM by Vanhyo »

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 32,617
  • Pope Pius XIII, play for us!
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #127 on: September 14, 2017, 01:29:31 PM »
I know what they claim, and it is wrong. This formula is simply incorrect, it creates mixture and confusion, and this can be easily demonstrated:

If there is a one theandric/will/energy, was Christ dying on the cross an theandric act ? but if the divine nature ceased to be(died), how was the universe held together ?

In which we learn that Vanhyo, despite claiming to "know what they claim", doesn't know.
The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Actually, Mor's face shineth like the Sun.

Offline Alpha60

  • The Confederate Flag Is Diabolical and Blasphemous
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,187
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #128 on: September 14, 2017, 01:58:20 PM »
Quote
I know what they claim, and it is wrong. This formula is simply incorrect

St. Cyril didn't seem to think so.  Neither did the fathers of the third ecumenical council.

The Oriental Orthodox simply adhere to the first three ecumenical councils without the compromises and complexities that followed the problematic fourth council.

The Orthodoxy of the Oriental Church is proven by the fact that many heresies which subsequently swept through the Chalcedonian Church, such as Monergism, Iconoclasm, Barlaamism, the Filioque, Papal Supremacy, the East-West schism, Ethnophyletism, the Protestant schism, Calvinism, and so on, never happened in our cnurch.

Nor was there ever a schism in the Oriental Orthodox Church due to heavy handed bishops forcing an ill-advised liturgical change on all the people, something which has happened in Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and the Assyrian Church of the East.

There is no Oriental Orthodox equivalent of the Old Believers or Old Calendarists.

All of our schisms have been relatively short and primarily political in nature.

For me, the biggest proof of the Catholicity of the Oriental Orthodox Church is that it never embraced or had to contend on a major scale with iconoclasm.  The holy icons have always been a part of our worship. 

I also recognize the Eastern Orthodox as fully Orthodox, but the EO had to deal with and expound upon many issues and problems that simply never arose in the Oriental church.   Consider there are about 270 million Eastern Orthodox, and 80 million Oriental Orthodox, more or less.   We have always represented a large chunk of the Orthodox population.

The EO church did many invaluable services by fighting off heresies, but we managed to sidestep these.

I think the EO and OO churches have a symbiotic relationship.  The Oriental church gave the EO church the Liturgy of the Presanctified; the EO church gave us various liturgical rites.  Today, the Jesus Prayer and the mystical accomplish,ents of Eastern Orthodox monks are fusing sith the historic accomplishments of Coptic, Syriac and Ethiopian monks, to ensure a fresh vitality in our monasteries, and the Jesus Prayer has been a godsend for our laity.  The EO also run seminaries like St. Vladimirs, which function to produce well educated Oriental clergy who are able to avoid the traps set by the false doctrines of the Roman Church, and more importantly, who are able to resist the continuing and relentless efforts of Protestants to infiltrate and divide our communion.
"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 LivenotoneviL

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 311
  • Faith: Orthodox....kind of
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #129 on: September 14, 2017, 02:31:07 PM »
Quote
I know what they claim, and it is wrong. This formula is simply incorrect

St. Cyril didn't seem to think so.  Neither did the fathers of the third ecumenical council.

The Oriental Orthodox simply adhere to the first three ecumenical councils without the compromises and complexities that followed the problematic fourth council.

The Orthodoxy of the Oriental Church is proven by the fact that many heresies which subsequently swept through the Chalcedonian Church, such as Monergism, Iconoclasm, Barlaamism, the Filioque, Papal Supremacy, the East-West schism, Ethnophyletism, the Protestant schism, Calvinism, and so on, never happened in our cnurch.


Except Judaizers.....and Gnosticism....and Arianism....and Nestorianism.....and Monophysitism....and 4 of the 5 Orthodox Churches at once....and the vangate Oriental Orthodox Churches...and the schisms between the Oriental Orthodox churches now.....

Doing a debate about the number of historical schisms and heretics to determine the validity and soundness of doctrine is a flawed logic to follow, my friend.

I do hope that one day both the Oriental and the Eastern Churches will be One (although the Church right now IS One).
« Last Edit: September 14, 2017, 02:39:39 PM by LivenotoneviL »

Offline andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #130 on: September 14, 2017, 03:33:31 PM »
@andi.zhgaba3
Quote
if you read their writings carefully, so that even though they speak of one compound will, or rather one theandric will, it is as a result of these two faculties of willing without separation and division and this will is 100% human and 100% divine at the same time, just like they confess one compound nature as 100% human and 100% divine.
Quote
one theandric natural will and one theandric energy as a result of Christ having one compound nature.
I know what they claim, and it is wrong. This formula is simply incorrect, it creates mixture and confusion, and this can be easily demonstrated:

If there is a one theandric/will/energy, was Christ dying on the cross an theandric act ? but if the divine nature ceased to be(died), how was the universe held together ?

If our Lord had people's hair numbered before the incarnation due to His divine operation, does it follows then that all people born after the incarnation have their hair numbered through theandric means. Isn't that a mixture, isn't it confusion ?

How about this one - is Isaiah 40:22 an theandric act ?

@Remnkemi
Quote
No miaphysite ever confessed a single will and single energy. We are claiming a composite will and energy. It is not single. The distinction of two wills remain, but in the mind. These are the words of St Cyril, the same person whom Chalcedon claimed were the same as Leo's Tome. Either St Cyril and all miaphysites deny a single nature, will or energy (true monophysitism), or Chalcedon and Leo agrees with St Cyril that the distinction of the natures, will and energy exist in the mind only.

This is a very strange sentence, in our context - one and single is the same thing, i use the word single to underline your opposition to the two natures formula and your insistence in one will and one energy. I did not define the composition of this "single"

For that matter you can as easily say single compound nature, single theandric natural will and single theandric energy.
The word single here is to show that you oppose the Orthodox Formula of 2wills and 2energies and as a result end up mixing and confusing even though you claim not to be doing so.

Quote
And that is the only possible interpretation of miaphysitism? Really? If I were to use that same line of thinking, I can say "If there are two natures before the incarnation and two natures after the incarnation, then there is no hypostatic union if the two things before the union continue as the same two things after the union? In fact, it is no longer a hypostatic union and therefore there must be two different hypostatses." Obviously, this is not how Chalcedonians think. Why don't you extend the same courtesy that miaphysitism is  a little more sophisticated than what you have claimed?
That will be a straw man argument, nature and person are two different things, this can be easily demonstrated:
You don't go to a cafeteria to drink a coffee with the human nature, you go there to drink coffee with your friends (persons).

... Great! Let us start moving things all over again, then!

If they confess one theandric will/energy, how does it necessary follow up then that there must exist confusion or mixture in there? If the Oriental Orthodox, then, while talking about this, always confess that there is no confusion or mixture in the entire schema, who am I, or who are you to judge that?

You say that if the divine nature ceased to be(died), how was the universe held together ? Let me be a bit boring and repeat the always repeated things all over again. Natures do not die. It's simple enough. As for Christ dying on the cross, that is indeed a theandric act, for the divine nature, will, energy and the human nature, will, energy were without separation or division in all things. Yes, death is something proper to humanity and not to the impassible divinity, but that doesn't mean that they were separate in virtue of this, as if divinity slipped away from Christ in the last moments by magic. It was something that only the God-man could turn his own death on the cross in a work to achieve salvation, since human obedience to death on the cross and divine courage to take the cross for the salvation of mankind are done simultaneously, as if one two-folded act, an act of double character. One could talk about two energies or wills or acts without change, confusion, division, separation (Sixth Ecumenical Council), but one could do just fine with a theandric energy or will, as long as understood correctly. So you mention 'the numbering of hair' example as a counterattack against theandric energy? After the Incarnation, of course it is one act, just as it was before the Incarnation, but the act becomes a theandric act, yes. It is really something divine to be able to do that, but Christ is now also human, so one could say that since Christ the man is omniscient, though this being proper to divinity, he could store any information he wanted to in his human brain, so that the 'numbering of hairs' is something done in a theandric manner, both involving his humanity in his everything as much as he wants, willing anything he wants humanly to be done divinely and vice-versa, the act being one, the energies being two in nature, or seen as one energy with twofold character. I don't see anything wrong about the Isaiah verse, though, or rather I don't understand where the problem lies in here...

You also say that one and single are the same thing. Good. Tell me then, is Christ's hypostasis single or composite? Do you see the difference now? Or here is another, is Christ's person the self-same one as before the Incarnation or were there two persons forming one composite person in a way only God can do? Single person or composite person? See again? They don't oppose us, they simply have another way of talking about the same thing in a way they find comfortable. If they say that the theandric act is one and there is no confusion, change or alteration in this, how are they crypto-Nature-confusers (or whatever the word is about this) ? They simply admit what is true orthodoxy while also accepting the fact that not everything about the Incarnation is meant to be understood by our human lowliness, meaning that one simply speaks of one theandric act without confusion without understanding what that means. You simply know this. That's it.

In your last paragraph, you note your own faulty logic line of thinking one could be led to if we are to follow your argument solely. It is truly a helpful thing to distinguish between the concepts of person, hypostasis, nature and ousia so that we may give each its own place and understand orthodoxy correctly by their means, but that doesn't mean that the words can't be used in another way from how you do this. Sorry for being so blunt but, who are you to say that words are to be used only in the way you understand them to be? Who am I, for that matter, to force on you the meaning I'd like a word to have just because I would like so? Who am I to say that a cat is a dog and a dog is a cat because that is how I'd wanted it to? So let us not force unto them petty details such as these...

If OOs recognize our EO big "O" full Orthodoxy, doesn't that mean that they understand their mia physis, thelema, energeia as an embodiment of the same Orthodoxy as our 'en dyo physeis, etc.'?

I am really sorry if I said something false, if I made a wrong assumption of your opinion and a false criticism of you. Please forgive me, but I feel it a duty, with my broken way of explaining stuff to tell you, at least that we Orthodox shouldn't make hurried judgments (like saying confusion is a must for OOs, or anything alike). Please, I know my defects when I talk, I know how unskillful I am to put things properly in words, but at the very least, don't be like me in these, but take things in wide consideration, without being narrow-minded, not as if I am accusing you that you are now, but as a way to improve ourselves, creatures in need of salvation from our loving God full of truth and perfection. Don't be like me in my harsh unsuitable way of talking to others but please take what we are saying to you in your consideration. May God bless us with his truth!

P.S.: People, please correct me if I said anything wrong, I need to be careful with myself, too.
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,705
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #131 on: September 14, 2017, 03:58:28 PM »
Quote
You don't go to a cafeteria to drink a coffee with the human nature, you go there to drink coffee with your friends (persons).

I highly recommend St. Basil's "On the Holy Spirit"
« Last Edit: September 14, 2017, 03:58:48 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 minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,705
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #132 on: September 14, 2017, 04:49:46 PM »
Vanhyo,

I hope you can carefully judge for yourself without jumping to conclusions on our terminology.  If you want to know what we mean by something, rather than going by what you think we mean, I hope you have an open and loving heart to walk an extra mile in our shoes to see how we comprehend the term.

First, let's contemplate on this quote by St. Cyril of Alexandria:

While giving life as God by his all-powerful command, he also gives life by the touch of his holy flesh, demonstrating through both that the operation (Gk: energeia) was a single and cognate one. On another occasion as he approached a city called Nain, ‘a man who had died was being carried out, the only son of his mother’ (Lk. 7:12). Again he ‘touched the bier’ and said, ‘Young man, I say to you, arise’ (Lk. 7:14). He does not simply leave it to the word to effect the raising of the dead, but in order to show that his own body was life-giving, as we have already said, he touches the corpses, and by this act puts life into those who had already decayed. And if by the touch alone of his holy flesh he gives life to that which has decayed, how shall we not profit more richly from the life-giving Eucharist when we taste it? For it will certainly transform those who partake of it and endow them with its own proper good, that is, immortality. (Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, Book IV, Chapter II)

As this quote implies, to say "one energy" does not confuse the two, but shows that the two are always involved.

So, you bring up the death of Christ on the Cross.  If I die or you die on the Cross, does this death provide salvation to the whole cosmos?  No, of course not.  But when Christ died on the Cross, although He died in the same way with the same experience and pain on the Cross as anyone else would, His death was LIFE-GIVING.  That's what we mean when we say "one theandric energy and will".  It does not mean His divinity underwent agony and pain, but His humanity in undergoing agony and pain provided divine and uncreated comfort and healing to the cosmos.  That is done altogether in one action. 

I like these next two explanations:

He did not perform the human actions in a human way, because He was not a mere man, nor did He perform the  divine actions in a divine way only, because He was not just God, but God and man together. And just as we understand  both the union of the natures and their natural difference, so also do we understand that of the natural wills and operations. (John of Damascus, Exposition on the Orthodox Faith, Book 3, Chapter 19)

His human will was lifted up by the omnipotency of his divinity, and his divine will was revealed to men through his humanity. ... the propriety of each nature being kept intact. (Letter to Pope Agatho, from the Council of Constantinople 681)

That's what OOs believe when we say "one theandric energy and will," and I think it is a gross and deliberate misinterpretation to ASSUME when we say "one" that suddenly we created a new hybrid and super nature.

As for creation of the cosmos, well, that's a different topic, or maybe not.  I recommend you read Fr. John Behr's works about St. Irenaeus.  You'd be amazed at the mystical value St. Irenaeus places on the incarnation when it comes to the creation of the cosmos.  Also, your iconographic tradition seems to teach us something mystical that agrees with St. Irenaeus:









Here are some quotes by our Church father St. Severus of Antioch:

But [Christ's soul] was not without intelligence and imperfect, according to the statement of the proverbs of Apollinaris, but was in fact intelligent, as indeed the very term 'boy' and the fact that he was named 'man' is enough to show this same thing: for a boy's soul is not without reason, but it is reasonable because it is human. However this very same thing is also clearly shown even by the sacred writings of the gospel; for it said of him, “Then he began to be distressed and grieved, and to say, 'My soul is sorrowful, even unto death'”. But it is plain to everyone that distress and grief happen to a rational and intellectual soul. But, if they say that the Godhead of the Only one took the place of intellect, this is in truth a thing without intellect, for us to assign the passion of distress to the impassible nature of God. (Letter LXV, second question)

The words 'he scorned', and 'he did not obey', and this other, 'he chose', show us that the Word of God is united hypostatically not only to flesh, but still to a soul endowed with will and reason, for the purpose of making our souls, bent towards sinfulness, incline toward the choice of good and the aversion to evil. (Homily LXXXIII, Chesnut 26)

God the Word who brought us into being, through whom the Father made all things, when by his grace alone he willed to restore him who had fallen to the original order to give back to him who had fallen to the original order the grace of immortality, did not exercise force by using divine power.  On the contrary, in accordance with the word of justice, he made him who had fallen to fight again the battle. ... It was necessary for man to obtain the crown of victory over satan who had formerly deceived and defeated him. (La Polemique p. 36F, from Samuel 339)

The Lord suffered the vehement feeling of hunger, which arouses the yearning for food.  Therefore, the voluntary passions permitted by the Word were not without any operation; but there was in him the stirring up of operations.  These were, however, subjected to the power of the invincible God. (La Polemique p. 134, Samuel 341)

Even less is Christ divided into two natures. He is indeed one from two, from divinity and humanity, one person and hypostasis, the one nature of the Logos, become flesh and perfect human being. For this reason he also displays two wills in salvific suffering, the one which requests, the other which is prepared, the one human, the other divine. As he voluntarily took upon himself death in the flesh, which was able to take over suffering and dissolved the domination of death by killing it through immortality—which the resurrection had shown clearly to all—so in the flesh, whose fruit he could take over—it was indeed rationally animated—he voluntarily took upon himself the passio of fear and weakness and uttered words of request, in order through the divine courage to destroy the power of that fear and to give courage to the whole of humanity, for he became after the first Adam the second beginning of our race. (Contra Grammarian III.33, Hovorun 26)

To recap:  When we say "one will" we are NOT saying:
1.  The integrity of either humanity or divinity is lost, whether nature, will, or operation, or any property
2.  That there is a hybrid nature or super nature different from humanity and divinity separately

What we are saying:
1.  There is a communicato idiomatum
2.  There is a unity, where every action and will expressed by Christ involves both His humanity and divinity
3.  There is a unique manner in which Christ acts, whether it be something clearly human or divine in contemplation, the manner or mode still involves both.  He does not do divine miracles without involvement of His humanity and He does not do human things without them being filled with divinity and salvation to all humanity in the world.

Finally, a lesson in life:
The more you think you know, the more you lost all hope of learning.  The more you learn, the more you realize how much you do not know.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2017, 04:54:26 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 Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,080
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #133 on: September 15, 2017, 12:38:23 PM »
I don't recall an OO poster yet addressing the plain words of our Lord to his Father as recorded by St. Luke: πλήν μὴ τὸ θέλημά μου ἀλλὰ τὸ σὸν γενέσθω: "Yet, not the will of mine, no, but the [will] of yours must come to pass." There is a place for sophistication, for θεωρία, but if against the plain words of our Lord such loftiness is surely dangerous to men's souls.
"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: 19,705
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #134 on: September 15, 2017, 02:26:17 PM »
I don't recall an OO poster yet addressing the plain words of our Lord to his Father as recorded by St. Luke: πλήν μὴ τὸ θέλημά μου ἀλλὰ τὸ σὸν γενέσθω: "Yet, not the will of mine, no, but the [will] of yours must come to pass." There is a place for sophistication, for θεωρία, but if against the plain words of our Lord such loftiness is surely dangerous to men's souls.

What that verse means is that He is expressing natural agony and fear from being killed or dying, as any human would express (and as I have shown St. Severus of Antioch said).  At the same time, this desire to remove the cup is overcome by the divine will of salvation of all mankind.  In fact, it is through that human fear and agony that we partake of divine courage and strength, which is how we would express the one theandric will of that passage; in that moment even the will to remove the cup is deified and filled with salvific effect.  Therefore, even in the human will of fear and agony, the divine will is also involved.

What the verse does NOT mean: Christ's humanity is in conflict with divinity.  That is heretical.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2017, 02:29:45 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 Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,080
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #135 on: September 15, 2017, 02:31:23 PM »
I don't recall an OO poster yet addressing the plain words of our Lord to his Father as recorded by St. Luke: πλήν μὴ τὸ θέλημά μου ἀλλὰ τὸ σὸν γενέσθω: "Yet, not the will of mine, no, but the [will] of yours must come to pass." There is a place for sophistication, for θεωρία, but if against the plain words of our Lord such loftiness is surely dangerous to men's souls.

What that verse means is that He is expressing natural agony and fear from being killed or dying, as any human would express (and as I have shown St. Severus of Antioch said).  At the same time, this desire to remove the cup is overcome by the divine will of salvation of all mankind.  In fact, it is through that human fear and agony that we partake of divine courage and strength, which is how we would express the one theandric will of that passage.  Therefore, even in the human will of fear and agony, the divine will is also involved.

What the verse does NOT mean: Christ's humanity is in conflict with divinity.  That is heretical.

I'm sorry, but this does not address Christ's explicit description of two wills: ( 1 ) a will of Christ's, and ( 2 ) a will of his Father's.
"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: 19,705
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #136 on: September 15, 2017, 02:47:41 PM »
I don't think it's adequate to just count how many wills there exists, but in what manner in which Christ expressed His human desire to not die.  It's not enough to say this is human fear, but also what this means for me, since the person who feared death was no mere man.  It should express the economy of the flesh, not just a mere description of what is going on.  It must explain the divine paradox. That's how St. Athanasius and St. Cyril saw it and I'm sorry you don't see it that way.

If you're going to force an OO to say they see two wills, it needs to come with qualifications.  Unless you're saying there's a conflict between Jesus and the Father, then that's a different story.  Is that what you're saying?
« Last Edit: September 15, 2017, 02:50:30 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 Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,080
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #137 on: September 15, 2017, 02:56:09 PM »
That's how St. Athanasius and St. Cyril saw it and I'm sorry you don't see it that way.

Why do you say I don't agree with what you said? It's that what you said doesn't answer.

Quote
It's not enough to say this is human fear, but also what this means for me, since the person who feared death was no mere man.  It should express the economy of the flesh, not just a mere description of what is going on.  It must explain the divine paradox.

Yes, this is all quite right, I think. But it is a description of Christ's emotions, humanity, one nature, and so on. It does not address my point. You seem to be avoiding my point, and I think it is because you can't answer in your tradition.

Quote
I don't think it's adequate to just count how many wills there exists, but in what manner in which Christ expressed His human desire to not die.

The task before you is not to "count how many wills" God and Christ comprises, but to dare to explain how, where here our Lord explicitly counts at least two, your tradition counts but one.
"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: 19,705
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #138 on: September 15, 2017, 03:05:14 PM »
What does "two" mean to you?  Christ and the Father, or human and divine?

The task before you is not to "count how many wills" God and Christ comprises, but to dare to explain how, where here our Lord explicitly counts at least two, your tradition counts but one.

I already answered that question.  Oneness in the paradox.  We partake of the divine will of courage through the human will of agony.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2017, 03:08:32 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 Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,080
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #139 on: September 15, 2017, 03:14:07 PM »
What does "two" mean to you?  Christ and the Father, or human and divine?

Literally, "mine" is Christ's and "thine" is the Father's. However, this is superficial, as here they are put explicitly in opposition -- "not [μὴ] my will but [ἀλλὰ] thine be done" -- and within God there is no opposition. Therefore, "mine" is also man's as against divine "thine."
"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 Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,080
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #140 on: September 15, 2017, 03:17:06 PM »
The task before you is not to "count how many wills" God and Christ comprises, but to dare to explain how, where here our Lord explicitly counts at least two, your tradition counts but one.

I already answered that question.  Oneness in the paradox.  We partake of the divine will of courage through the human will of agony.

Yes and your tradition counts these (if I understand correctly) as one where your Lord counted them as two.
"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 rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,157
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #141 on: September 15, 2017, 03:20:34 PM »
Here are the two relevant verses:
Matthew 26:39
Going a little farther, He fell facedown and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me. Yet not as I will, but as You will."

Luke 22:42
Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

St. Ambrose of Milan, who is a saint in both our Churches, comments:
Quote
“Since He then says, ‘Not my will but yours be done’ [Luke 22:42], He referred His own will to man and His Father’s to the Godhead. The will of man is temporary, but the will of the Godhead is eternal. There is not one will of the Father and another of the Son. There is one will where there is one Godhead.” (Exposition of the Gospel of Luke 10.60)

St. John Chrysostom is also a saint in both our Churches, and Chrysostom's (or "Pseudo-Chrysostom's"?) commentary says that two opposite wishes are expressed in this passage, and that the desire in the prayer to avoid suffering reflects Christ's "humanity", just as He slept, hungered, and ate. He says however that Christ and the Father in other verses express a wish for the same thing, and that this shows that they have "one will". (SOURCE: http://bible.optina.ru/new:mf:26:39)

When he writes that they have the same "one will", Chrysostom is not proposing a theory where Christ and the Father are one person, according to an idea that there is one will per person. Instead, Chrysostom is saying that they share a "divine will". EO theology makes sense of this by concluding that Christ had a "divine will" and a "human will", and He subjected the human will to the divine one.

I also looked for the commentaries on the Optina monastery website, and St. Leo the Great's (EO) commentary on Matthew 26:39 goes:
Quote
Equal to the Father, the Son knew that everything is possible for God; He descended into this world to take up the cross against His will, so that now he suffered this struggle of feelings with reason. And here is shown the difference between the perceived nature and the receiving one: what belonged to the man demanded divine power, and what belonged to God looked at the human one. The lower will was joined with the higher will, and this shows what a fearful person can pray for and what the Divine Healer can not guarantee.

Равный Отцу, Сын знал, что все возможно для Бога; Он сошел в этот мир принять крест против воли Его, чтобы теперь Он выстрадал эту борьбу чувств с разумом. И вот показана разница между воспринятой природой и принимающей: свойственное человеку требовало Божественной силы, а свойственное Богу взирало на человеческое. Воля более низкая соединялась с волей вышней, и это показывает, о чем может молиться страшащийся человек и чего не может гарантировать Божественный Целитель.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2017, 03:27:05 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 minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,705
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #142 on: September 15, 2017, 03:23:57 PM »
The task before you is not to "count how many wills" God and Christ comprises, but to dare to explain how, where here our Lord explicitly counts at least two, your tradition counts but one.

I already answered that question.  Oneness in the paradox.  We partake of the divine will of courage through the human will of agony.

Yes and your tradition counts these (if I understand correctly) as one where your Lord counted them as two.

I don't appreciate the fighting words, since you just said:

What does "two" mean to you?  Christ and the Father, or human and divine?

Literally, "mine" is Christ's and "thine" is the Father's. However, this is superficial, as here they are put explicitly in opposition -- "not [μὴ] my will but [ἀλλὰ] thine be done" -- and within God there is no opposition. Therefore, "mine" is also man's as against divine "thine."

You've just proven my point on qualifications.  So clearly even if you see the so-called "plain meaning" as "Christ and Father", and since there's no conflict between Christ and Father since their will is one, that leaves with human and divine, which I explained very clearly.  And since human and divine are never in conflict, even in the desire to not die, we see the divine will, that is of courage to move on.  That's the explanation of why we say "one".

"Your" Lord said "I and the Father are one."  We see the oneness even in Gethsemane. 

« Last Edit: September 15, 2017, 03:25:33 PM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,080
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #143 on: September 15, 2017, 03:36:33 PM »
The task before you is not to "count how many wills" God and Christ comprises, but to dare to explain how, where here our Lord explicitly counts at least two, your tradition counts but one.

I already answered that question.  Oneness in the paradox.  We partake of the divine will of courage through the human will of agony.

Yes and your tradition counts these (if I understand correctly) as one where your Lord counted them as two.

I don't appreciate the fighting words,

I am very sorry to see you writing something like this. It makes it so hard to believe you are arguing in good faith.

Quote
... since you just said:

What does "two" mean to you?  Christ and the Father, or human and divine?

Literally, "mine" is Christ's and "thine" is the Father's. However, this is superficial, as here they are put explicitly in opposition -- "not [μὴ] my will but [ἀλλὰ] thine be done" -- and within God there is no opposition. Therefore, "mine" is also man's as against divine "thine."

You've just proven my point on qualifications.  So clearly even if you see the so-called "plain meaning" as "Christ and Father", and since there's no conflict between Christ and Father since their will is one, that leaves with human and divine, which I explained very clearly.

I think, then, that you cannot have read my whole reply and taken it to its conclusion. Probably I was unclear.

Quote
And since human and divine are never in conflict, even in the desire to not die,

According to the words of our Lord, they were indeed in conflict.

Quote
... we see the divine will, that is of courage to move on.  That's the explanation of why we say "one".

So you say "one will" in the sense that the Father's will was done? If so, I'll have to think about that.

Quote
"Your" Lord said "I and the Father are one."  We see the oneness even in Gethsemane.

Why are you putting "your" in quotes? I'm confused how I'm meant to be affected -- perhaps I'm not a Christian now? Are we actually angry at each other now? And the oneness of the Holy Trinity is not in doubt, and asserting it, while quite correct and blessed, really does not seem to me to be addressing the point.
"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: 19,705
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #144 on: September 15, 2017, 03:47:11 PM »
I didn't appreciate how you put "our tradition says one" when "your Lord says two" as if we are contradicting the Scriptures or Christ.  And why only "our".  Is he not also "your" Lord?

That's why I felt like the way in which you are addressing this issue was in fighting words, as if I'm put in a corner between "my tradition" and "my Lord".  Is this how you discuss things on a normal basis?  I never tried attacking "your tradition".  Instead, I go by what is perceived by our tradition, not what is actualized by your tradition and I allow those of your tradition to explain their meanings further.

As you admit, superficially they sound like they're in conflict, but if there's conflict, then that destroys the unity and hence the salvation of humanity.  Even the council of Constantinople 681 says that when they say "two", that NEVER means they are in conflict.  Otherwise, we will have adopted a Nestorian understanding of the passage.  That's why the OO Church does not like saying "two" because they perceive this implies conflict.

I will say one last time:  when Christ says "not my will", He is not referring to a will in conflict, but a natural passion of human fear that does not want to undergo death.  However, Christ knows His mission, that by dying, He will destroy death.  His passion of fear becomes conformed to the mission, and gives all humanity in the world a window into divine courage through human fear.  Yes, there are two wills, one that fears and one that is courageous in moving on.  But these two are never in conflict, but one is communicated into the other.  As we see, it is not mere man who fears, but God who fears, and it is not merely fear, but a fear paradoxically revealing and communicating to us the fullness of divine courage.  Therefore, while we do not destroy the integrity of either will (fear and courage) of what is going on, yet what is ultimately expressed is that Christ takes all of humanity's fear and subjects it and deifies it into the divine will.  The context of this has not changed in any other action of Christ.  Just as the one who cannot die takes mortal flesh and dies in order to give life, so as the one who cannot fear takes flesh that naturally fears death in order to give courage.

If you call that "two", that's fine.  If that's not two to you, but that you need something further, then I need your clarification, not mine.  I think I clarified it as much as I could.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2017, 03:49:12 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 Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,080
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #145 on: September 15, 2017, 03:52:02 PM »
Thank you for explaining.

I just see it as that simple: saying there are not two wills contradicts Christ. I'll keep thinking about it.
"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 Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,080
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #146 on: September 15, 2017, 03:57:46 PM »
I only recently found out OO believe any of this, so I am for sure abysmally ignorant. So a question: If what your Church believes is not monothelitism, than what is monothelitism?

I should take the opportunity to point out that on the whole I agree with OO doctrines more than EO. Please understand I am not fighting along Chalcedonian lines -- God forbid -- but speaking from concerns that are just my own.
"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: 19,705
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #147 on: September 15, 2017, 04:11:51 PM »
I only recently found out OO believe any of this, so I am for sure abysmally ignorant. So a question: If what your Church believes is not monothelitism, than what is monothelitism?

I should take the opportunity to point out that on the whole I agree with OO doctrines more than EO. Please understand I am not fighting along Chalcedonian lines -- God forbid -- but speaking from concerns that are just my own.

Monotheletism assumes that either Christ feigned human experiences or that His human experiences were not the same experiences other humans experience.  Whether one says "one" or "two" or "divine" or "deified", terminology needs to be defined.  From what I see, when EOs say "two" they are preserving the fullness of the integrity of human nature, including will and operation.  OOs also preserve that same integrity with different expressions and different emphases.

I read Maximus the Confessor's commentary on this passage, and by expressing two, I saw that he clearly wanted to discuss that Christ had a rational soul with will that expressed a healthy and non-conflicting fear of death.  I find that same understanding in St. Severus of Antioch, but we go a bit further by also describing and re-expressing the famous Christological exchange "God became man so that man might become God" with all of Christ's experiences, whether it was His birth, His growth, His hunger, His thirst, His temptations, His pain, His fear, His weeping, His death etc.  Nothing Christ does is without benefit for the whole human race.  It's not a mere story of a man who overcome death, but a story of all men who can overcome death in Christ, the true God from true God.  That's how we read the Scriptures.
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: 11,080
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #148 on: September 15, 2017, 04:16:03 PM »
Monotheletism assumes that either Christ feigned human experiences or that His human experiences were not the same experiences other humans experience.

Thank you.

Quote
I read Maximus the Confessor's commentary on this passage, and by expressing two, I saw that he clearly wanted to discuss that Christ had a rational soul with will that expressed a healthy and non-conflicting fear of death.  I find that same understanding in St. Severus of Antioch, but we go a bit further by also describing and re-expressing the famous Christological exchange "God became man so that man might become God" with all of Christ's experiences, whether it was His birth, His growth, His hunger, His thirst, His temptations, His pain, His fear, His weeping, His death etc.  Nothing Christ does is without benefit for the whole human race.  It's not a mere story of a man who overcome death, but a story of all men who can overcome death in Christ, the true God from true God.  That's how we read the Scriptures.

These are some fine thoughts, which remind me to tell you that it was by reading your papers recently that I came to see that Severus of Antioch is truly one of God's Saints.
"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: 311
  • Faith: Orthodox....kind of
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #149 on: September 15, 2017, 04:20:11 PM »
I only recently found out OO believe any of this, so I am for sure abysmally ignorant. So a question: If what your Church believes is not monothelitism, than what is monothelitism?

I should take the opportunity to point out that on the whole I agree with OO doctrines more than EO. Please understand I am not fighting along Chalcedonian lines -- God forbid -- but speaking from concerns that are just my own.

So are you Oriental Orthodox now? Why? What different doctrines of the Oriental Orthodox do you "agree with" more? And if you see Chalcedonian as being inaccurate in terms of dogmatic belief, why?
« Last Edit: September 15, 2017, 04:25:36 PM by LivenotoneviL »

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 311
  • Faith: Orthodox....kind of
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #150 on: September 15, 2017, 04:21:57 PM »
Here are the two relevant verses:
Matthew 26:39
Going a little farther, He fell facedown and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me. Yet not as I will, but as You will."

Luke 22:42
Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

St. Ambrose of Milan, who is a saint in both our Churches, comments:
Quote
“Since He then says, ‘Not my will but yours be done’ [Luke 22:42], He referred His own will to man and His Father’s to the Godhead. The will of man is temporary, but the will of the Godhead is eternal. There is not one will of the Father and another of the Son. There is one will where there is one Godhead.” (Exposition of the Gospel of Luke 10.60)

St. John Chrysostom is also a saint in both our Churches, and Chrysostom's (or "Pseudo-Chrysostom's"?) commentary says that two opposite wishes are expressed in this passage, and that the desire in the prayer to avoid suffering reflects Christ's "humanity", just as He slept, hungered, and ate. He says however that Christ and the Father in other verses express a wish for the same thing, and that this shows that they have "one will". (SOURCE: http://bible.optina.ru/new:mf:26:39)

When he writes that they have the same "one will", Chrysostom is not proposing a theory where Christ and the Father are one person, according to an idea that there is one will per person. Instead, Chrysostom is saying that they share a "divine will". EO theology makes sense of this by concluding that Christ had a "divine will" and a "human will", and He subjected the human will to the divine one.

I also looked for the commentaries on the Optina monastery website, and St. Leo the Great's (EO) commentary on Matthew 26:39 goes:
Quote
Equal to the Father, the Son knew that everything is possible for God; He descended into this world to take up the cross against His will, so that now he suffered this struggle of feelings with reason. And here is shown the difference between the perceived nature and the receiving one: what belonged to the man demanded divine power, and what belonged to God looked at the human one. The lower will was joined with the higher will, and this shows what a fearful person can pray for and what the Divine Healer can not guarantee.

Равный Отцу, Сын знал, что все возможно для Бога; Он сошел в этот мир принять крест против воли Его, чтобы теперь Он выстрадал эту борьбу чувств с разумом. И вот показана разница между воспринятой природой и принимающей: свойственное человеку требовало Божественной силы, а свойственное Богу взирало на человеческое. Воля более низкая соединялась с волей вышней, и это показывает, о чем может молиться страшащийся человек и чего не может гарантировать Божественный Целитель.

+1

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,705
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #151 on: September 15, 2017, 04:24:29 PM »
Here are the two relevant verses:
Matthew 26:39
Going a little farther, He fell facedown and prayed, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me. Yet not as I will, but as You will."

Luke 22:42
Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

St. Ambrose of Milan, who is a saint in both our Churches, comments:
Quote
“Since He then says, ‘Not my will but yours be done’ [Luke 22:42], He referred His own will to man and His Father’s to the Godhead. The will of man is temporary, but the will of the Godhead is eternal. There is not one will of the Father and another of the Son. There is one will where there is one Godhead.” (Exposition of the Gospel of Luke 10.60)

St. John Chrysostom is also a saint in both our Churches, and Chrysostom's (or "Pseudo-Chrysostom's"?) commentary says that two opposite wishes are expressed in this passage, and that the desire in the prayer to avoid suffering reflects Christ's "humanity", just as He slept, hungered, and ate. He says however that Christ and the Father in other verses express a wish for the same thing, and that this shows that they have "one will". (SOURCE: http://bible.optina.ru/new:mf:26:39)

When he writes that they have the same "one will", Chrysostom is not proposing a theory where Christ and the Father are one person, according to an idea that there is one will per person. Instead, Chrysostom is saying that they share a "divine will". EO theology makes sense of this by concluding that Christ had a "divine will" and a "human will", and He subjected the human will to the divine one.

I also looked for the commentaries on the Optina monastery website, and St. Leo the Great's (EO) commentary on Matthew 26:39 goes:
Quote
Equal to the Father, the Son knew that everything is possible for God; He descended into this world to take up the cross against His will, so that now he suffered this struggle of feelings with reason. And here is shown the difference between the perceived nature and the receiving one: what belonged to the man demanded divine power, and what belonged to God looked at the human one. The lower will was joined with the higher will, and this shows what a fearful person can pray for and what the Divine Healer can not guarantee.

Равный Отцу, Сын знал, что все возможно для Бога; Он сошел в этот мир принять крест против воли Его, чтобы теперь Он выстрадал эту борьбу чувств с разумом. И вот показана разница между воспринятой природой и принимающей: свойственное человеку требовало Божественной силы, а свойственное Богу взирало на человеческое. Воля более низкая соединялась с волей вышней, и это показывает, о чем может молиться страшащийся человек и чего не может гарантировать Божественный Целитель.

And Mark 14:36
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: 11,080
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #152 on: September 15, 2017, 04:32:18 PM »
So are you Oriental Orthodox now? Why? What different doctrines of the Oriental Orthodox do you "agree with" more?

I've always appreciated the Oriental expressions of these truths, as well as their composure during this sad period of Church history. I think the Eastern expressions were too reactionary, altho I am content with them as well. Now, as it is my view the two Churches must become one, and that as a rule Christ's Body must not be divided, I would not, say, apply to a Coptic church when I am in a Greek one. Or desire a Copt to forsake her church for mine. All that would be to enact Chalcedon afresh and grieve the Lord. This is my opinion. Have you read much of Patriarch Severus? I think he continues the work of the Cappadocians in terms of bringing insight to knotty problems of the day with a superhuman perception and patience. By "patience" I am trying to describe a restraint of the human passions of imagination and egotism. I doubt I am answering your questions in a specific-enough way.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2017, 04:34:26 PM by Porter ODoran »
"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 andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #153 on: September 15, 2017, 04:40:35 PM »
Now, as it is my view the two Churches must become one, and that as a rule Christ's Body must not be divided, I would not, say, apply to a Coptic church when I am in a Greek one. Or desire a Copt to forsake her church for mine.
I'm sorry about my rudeness or silliness but may I ask why are you talking about a "She" ?  :D :P

"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,080
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #154 on: September 15, 2017, 04:45:11 PM »
Now, as it is my view the two Churches must become one, and that as a rule Christ's Body must not be divided, I would not, say, apply to a Coptic church when I am in a Greek one. Or desire a Copt to forsake her church for mine.
I'm sorry about my rudeness or silliness but may I ask why are you talking about a "She" ?  :D :P

Is that all you young people think about?
"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 andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #155 on: September 15, 2017, 04:55:11 PM »
I'm really sorry, I guess I am really still immature as for that part. It's just that I don't want this thread to end up in a gloomy atmosphere or something like that. I mean, Chalcedon discussions are meant to be in our benefit, and we need to be more positive, not as if we are talking about our EO-OO stuff in a way we are forced to do this or as if discovering Orthodoxy with a capital "O" in someone else isn't interesting. All of this has to be interesting, in a way, for it benefits us. What better than wanting to heal a schism where it's worth it as the one separating EO's and OO's? Maybe it's simply silly me, but this thread started to degrade and to become a bit colder, that's how I feel when I read further and further down, and whether I am right or wrong about this, it doesn't matter, since we need light jokes or something to keep our morale up and not fall in seriousness that may harm us too much. Yeah, I suck at jokes, but I hope you get the idea. Nothing personal. God bless!
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,080
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #156 on: September 15, 2017, 05:07:52 PM »
My answer was a joke too. No need to be glum, as you say!
"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 andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #157 on: September 15, 2017, 05:15:27 PM »
Yeah...Now, back to quarrel with each-other!  :)
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 311
  • Faith: Orthodox....kind of
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #158 on: September 15, 2017, 10:59:00 PM »
So are you Oriental Orthodox now? Why? What different doctrines of the Oriental Orthodox do you "agree with" more?

I've always appreciated the Oriental expressions of these truths, as well as their composure during this sad period of Church history. I think the Eastern expressions were too reactionary, altho I am content with them as well. Now, as it is my view the two Churches must become one, and that as a rule Christ's Body must not be divided, I would not, say, apply to a Coptic church when I am in a Greek one. Or desire a Copt to forsake her church for mine. All that would be to enact Chalcedon afresh and grieve the Lord. This is my opinion. Have you read much of Patriarch Severus? I think he continues the work of the Cappadocians in terms of bringing insight to knotty problems of the day with a superhuman perception and patience. By "patience" I am trying to describe a restraint of the human passions of imagination and egotism. I doubt I am answering your questions in a specific-enough way.

Ah, okay. Your expression that "I agree with the Oriental Orthodox more than the Eastern Orthodox" implies that there is a disparity of beliefs between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, and if there was some, I would've liked to here your opinion. I just implied wrongly apparently.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,080
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #159 on: September 15, 2017, 11:46:46 PM »
So are you Oriental Orthodox now? Why? What different doctrines of the Oriental Orthodox do you "agree with" more?

I've always appreciated the Oriental expressions of these truths, as well as their composure during this sad period of Church history. I think the Eastern expressions were too reactionary, altho I am content with them as well. Now, as it is my view the two Churches must become one, and that as a rule Christ's Body must not be divided, I would not, say, apply to a Coptic church when I am in a Greek one. Or desire a Copt to forsake her church for mine. All that would be to enact Chalcedon afresh and grieve the Lord. This is my opinion. Have you read much of Patriarch Severus? I think he continues the work of the Cappadocians in terms of bringing insight to knotty problems of the day with a superhuman perception and patience. By "patience" I am trying to describe a restraint of the human passions of imagination and egotism. I doubt I am answering your questions in a specific-enough way.

Ah, okay. Your expression that "I agree with the Oriental Orthodox more than the Eastern Orthodox" implies that there is a disparity of beliefs between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, and if there was some, I would've liked to here your opinion. I just implied wrongly apparently.

Not your fault; I was very unclear. I should have said I find I often prefer the OO wording around theology that impinges on Chalcedon, or something like that. I don't believe the actual theology beneath all the words -- if that were possible -- is better or worse with OO or EO, as I believe they are the same at that level, even as Christ is the same. My sympathies do lie with the OO. But my loyalties with the EO. Gosh such introspection into a mite like myself, whose reaction to things is not a worthy subject. The true subject here is the Church and her eternal unity.
"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 Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 564
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #160 on: September 16, 2017, 03:43:43 AM »
@minasoliman
Quote
While giving life as God by his all-powerful command, he also gives life by the touch of his holy flesh, demonstrating through both that the operation (Gk: energeia) was a single and cognate one. On another occasion as he approached a city called Nain, ‘a man who had died was being carried out, the only son of his mother’ (Lk. 7:12). Again he ‘touched the bier’ and said, ‘Young man, I say to you, arise’ (Lk. 7:14). He does not simply leave it to the word to effect the raising of the dead, but in order to show that his own body was life-giving, as we have already said, he touches the corpses, and by this act puts life into those who had already decayed. And if by the touch alone of his holy flesh he gives life to that which has decayed, how shall we not profit more richly from the life-giving Eucharist when we taste it? For it will certainly transform those who partake of it and endow them with its own proper good, that is, immortality. (Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, Book IV, Chapter II)
To make somethings clear, i do not deny that there is an theandric energy, however i do not accept the formula of one theandric nature/will/energy.

Some acts of Christ are theandric, some are human and some are divine. The one theandric energy formula denies this reality.

Quote
As this quote implies, to say "one energy" does not confuse the two,
Yes, St Cyril doesn't confuses the natures/energies of Christ

Quote
but shows that the two are always involved.
Wrong conclusion.
Quote
So, you bring up the death of Christ on the Cross.  If I die or you die on the Cross, does this death provide salvation to the whole cosmos?  No, of course not.  But when Christ died on the Cross, although He died in the same way with the same experience and pain on the Cross as anyone else would, His death was LIFE-GIVING.  That's what we mean when we say "one theandric energy and will".  It does not mean His divinity underwent agony and pain, but His humanity in undergoing agony and pain provided divine and uncreated comfort and healing to the cosmos.  That is done altogether in one action.
Dying on the Cross was a human act. Saving mankind was theandric operation.

Quote
I like these next two explanations:

He did not perform the human actions in a human way, because He was not a mere man, nor did He perform the  divine actions in a divine way only, because He was not just God, but God and man together. And just as we understand  both the union of the natures and their natural difference, so also do we understand that of the natural wills and operations. (John of Damascus, Exposition on the Orthodox Faith, Book 3, Chapter 19)
St John of Damascus is talking about something else, also he is not your friend when it comes to christology, where do you think i learned that anti-chalcedonian mix natures ? This is the quote:

And therefor we hold that there has been a union of two perfect natures, one divine and one human, not with disorder or confusion or intermixture or commingling as is said by the God-accursed Dioscorus and by Eutyches and Severus.

As you see, i only follow and obey what my Church teaches.

Quote
That's what OOs believe when we say "one theandric energy and will," and I think it is a gross and deliberate misinterpretation to ASSUME when we say "one" that suddenly we created a new hybrid and super nature.
Wrong, when you exclude that Christ sometimes act in divine manner, other times in human manner and declare that all His actions are "one theandric" then you are mixing natures and confusing operations. You still have not answered how Christ's human energy participated in the operation of having your hair numbered and how His divinity participated in the act of dying.

@Porter ODoran
Quote
I should take the opportunity to point out that on the whole I agree with OO doctrines more than EO. Please understand I am not fighting along Chalcedonian lines -- God forbid -- but speaking from concerns that are just my own.
You hold some very unhealthy ecclesiastical views.




« Last Edit: September 16, 2017, 03:54:34 AM by Vanhyo »

Offline andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #161 on: September 16, 2017, 05:19:32 AM »
Vanhyo, let me phrase it this way: Please answer the following questions only with Yes/No.
1. Do you accept the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and its position that the distinguishment between natures is in thinking only? Yes or No? Nothing more, nothing less, if you don't mind.
2. Do you accept the Sixth Ecumenical Council that says that the wills and energies that are two without separation, division, conflict or confusion  are natural? Yes or no?

If the wills and energies that are two in Christ as described above are natural, if the natures are distinguished in thinking only, shouldn't that be the same with natural wills and energies? Please answer only these for now, if you would.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2017, 05:22:10 AM by andi.zhgaba3 »
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 564
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #162 on: September 16, 2017, 06:26:17 AM »
Vanhyo, let me phrase it this way: Please answer the following questions only with Yes/No.
1. Do you accept the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and its position that the distinguishment between natures is in thinking only? Yes or No? Nothing more, nothing less, if you don't mind.
2. Do you accept the Sixth Ecumenical Council that says that the wills and energies that are two without separation, division, conflict or confusion  are natural? Yes or no?

If the wills and energies that are two in Christ as described above are natural, if the natures are distinguished in thinking only, shouldn't that be the same with natural wills and energies? Please answer only these for now, if you would.
I would agree with all orthodox councils, unlike you who team up with the anti-chalcedonians in order to oppose someone who is supposedly your brother.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2017, 06:27:02 AM by Vanhyo »

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,705
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #163 on: September 16, 2017, 07:10:34 AM »
I provided you quotes by St. Dioscorus and St. Severus that they do not confuse or mix the natures or the wills of Christ, which you conveniently ignore.  Therefore St. John of Damascus was wrong about these two men.

On the other hand, when you say the two wasn't always involved, you are now veering into the realm of Nestorianism and you separated and divided the wills of Christ.  I just proved to you that John of Damascus believed the two were always involved.  This comes to show you have no understanding of theology and that you will look for every excuse to be blind to the truth and blindly disagree with us than actually reading what we have written, and sometimes to disagree to the point of actually agreeing to heretical understandings about Christ, which is sad.

Quote
Dying on the Cross was a human act. Saving mankind was theandric operation.

How do you think He saved mankind.  As we chant, He destroyed death by His death.  Therefore if He saved mankind by dying, by your definition, saving mankind (that is death) was theandric.  You contradict yourself in two sentences, and you show yourself to be quite bereft of the understanding of mystical and paradoxical language.

As I said, death only happens in human nature, but as John Damascene rightly said, He's no mere man who died.  At the same time, to destroy death is rightly divine, but this did not happen with mere divinity.  Communicato idiomatum necessitates the theandric energy that St. Cyril taught, that this death is what saved mankind, what destroyed death.  Therefore it is theandric.

I find it interesting that when a saint says it it's Orthodox to you, but when the same words are said by someone like me, it's heretical to you.  It shows a double standard in the way you read things.  Your obedience to the fathers is fine, but if obeyed my own grandmother about certain things, I would have failed medical school in my own naivety.  Just because my Church fathers say you're Nestorian does not make it true, and I would hope the same objective judgment of intelligence can come from you too.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2017, 07:27:56 AM by minasoliman »
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,157
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #164 on: September 16, 2017, 10:23:05 AM »
Vanhyo, let me phrase it this way: Please answer the following questions only with Yes/No.
1. Do you accept the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and its position that the distinguishment between natures is in thinking only? Yes or No? Nothing more, nothing less, if you don't mind.

Can you please quote where the 5th Council says that human nature is different from the divine nature "in thinking only"?

I looked into it and there was no decision by the 5th Council concluding that, and Dcn Kuraev wrote a letter complaining that a modern ecumenist dialogue said that the difference was in theory only. He explained that there are real, practical differences between human nature and divine nature.
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: 10,157
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #165 on: September 16, 2017, 10:55:04 AM »
Quote
Dying on the Cross was a human act. Saving mankind was theandric operation.

How do you think He saved mankind.  As we chant, He destroyed death by His death.  Therefore if He saved mankind by dying, by your definition, saving mankind (that is death) was theandric.  You contradict yourself in two sentences, and you show yourself to be quite bereft of the understanding of mystical and paradoxical language.

As I said, death only happens in human nature, but as John Damascene rightly said, He's no mere man who died.  At the same time, to destroy death is rightly divine, but this did not happen with mere divinity.  Communicato idiomatum necessitates the theandric energy that St. Cyril taught, that this death is what saved mankind, what destroyed death.  Therefore it is theandric.
This is one topic where I find dividing the actions between the natures and qualities is useful in modern interfaith discussions. A common rabbinical argument is that Christian theology is impossible because the Bible teaches that God cannot die and that a man cannot redeem another man:

eg.:
1 Timothy 6:16.
He[God] alone is immortal and dwells in unapproachable light.

Psalm 49:7
Truly no man can ransom another, or give to God the price of his life,

One way to argue this from the Christian side, is to say that a being that is both God and man can perform both divine actions and human ones. that if immortality is a divine quality and essential part of divinity, then Christ did not die in his divinity / divine nature, but rather the experience of death was a human action, and he died because he was a man.

Likewise, if it contradicts humans' abilities and the nature of man for one man to redeem his brother, and Redemption is a divine act, then Christ can still perform this divine act, being both God and Man. The key to this would be saying that a being that is in two categories (God and Man) can perform both categories of actions (both divine actions and human ones).

Maybe if Chalcedon banned theories or theandric actions, this would be a mark against Chalcedon. Instead, as far as this is concerned, we just have Leo's Tome and Cyril's letters, which divide the actions and sayings between the natures, respectively. I don't believe that categorizing the actions and sayings between Christ's humanity and divinity means that Christ is two separate persons. Is it so?
« Last Edit: September 16, 2017, 11:04:41 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 andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #166 on: September 16, 2017, 10:59:34 AM »
I would agree with all orthodox councils, unlike you who team up with the anti-chalcedonians in order to oppose someone who is supposedly your brother.
Vanhyo, I am really sorry that you see me as one being opposed to you, first of all! The orthodox are not merely and supposedly brothers, we have to be really as such! Also, I'm not teaming up with anti-chalcedonians in order to oppose someone...I just want to embrace orthodoxy in its fullness. I really admire your faithfulness towards the Holy Tradition of our Church, but one does this to fully preserve truth, not to trash someone else's orthodoxy. Furthermore, even if the Oriental Orthodox are heretics, that doesn't make what truth they say wrong only because of one of their heresies. And if OO's are really heretics, let them and me, their supporter be anathema altogether! Then again, never forget the criticism St. Photios made about St. Augustine: nobody is perfect, be him or her a saint, since they are not omniscient and nobody will ever be. They are partakers of the divine nature in God's active forces, light and grace of his own, not of God's ousia, so that they retain their own human limits in a way that they are not mutated. Yet, all of the fathers in their wholeness and all of their Orthodox opinions make, make up, support and enrich one "infallible" Church, that is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church that serves as the pillar and the foundation of all truth. That is why Ecumenical Councils are "infallible"- they are the work of the "infallible" Church, not as if they are unquestionable, or as without even one accidental mistake, but because they really help the Church in its quest for salvation of mankind in its own unique and shocking truth. I believe Chalcedon is ecumenical, for I like the Chalcedonian formula better, in my opinion it is more adequate, yet to others this doesn't seem to be the case, since OO's don't accept this council, but what is an Ecumenical Council for, in the first place? Are councils simple culinary-oriented gatherings of various cooks that assemble to discuss how to make cookies of the month? Or did those that took part in those councils talk about horses? What are these councils then, if not supplements of the Church with a codified theological formula expressing truth? If I am to be honest, truth be told, I would like OO's to accept at the very least the orthodoxy of the main formula of Chalcedon and recognition of orthodoxy as per the other councils, but whether they formally accept Chalcedon or not, do you get it that it is ultimately an effort to preserve the glorious truth of Christ in its fullness? Everyone has his own way of preserving truth: We EO's by Councils, OO's like Orthopraxis more, but if the end of all this means eternal life, wouldn't you like to keep and save the truth you have been handed from the Apostolic Orthodox Church of Christ by all means? Not by dishonoring the church, but by noble means. If someone else is truly Orthodox, who are you to judge him? A Church Father? John of Damascus? If John of Damascus was fearing that miaphysites were confusing the natures, that was because he obviously wasn't familiar with the flexibility of OO's to use terms such as hypostasis or physis differently in Christology and again differently in Trinitarian Formulas. That is why one has to honestly and not blindly follow the truth. We indeed walk by faith and not by sight, by do you know what you believe in? Do you get what I'm saying?
Also, you say that you believe in councils, "unlike me". Then, dear brother, know that, as for me, if anyone doesn't recognize the orthodoxy and the working Holy Spirit in the Ecumenical Councils as defined by the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church, their holy infallible truth so glorious that it is able to be expressed even in fallible ways or words or people (such as human limitations in words or knowledge), let him be anathema! 
Also, at the very least, I know now that whatever you choose to do from now on, whether accept OO's as Orthodox and not as heretics, or not, accepting the church councils and interpreting them correctly in light of each other and orthopraxis will be your guarantee of Orthodoxy. I wish you all the best, my dear true brother, and please forgive me for annoying you so much with my thoughts full of rubbish. May God save us all in his graceful truth! Mina is way better than most of us people taken together when it comes to this stuff, so may we help each-other accordingly and I will let him take care of this. God, forgive me if I spoiled your truth! Let me close this up with this famous anathema from the Fifth Ecumenical Council. Let this be in effect for all EO's and OO's alike:
"If anyone uses the expression of two natures, confessing that a union was made of the Godhead and of the humanity, or the expression the one nature made flesh of God the Word, and shall not so understand those expressions as the holy Fathers have taught, to wit: that of the divine and human nature there was made an hypostatic union, whereof is one Christ; but from these expressions shall try to introduce one nature or substance [made by a mixture] of the Godhead and manhood of Christ; let him be anathema. For in teaching that the only-begotten Word was united hypostatically [to humanity] we do not mean to say that there was made a mutual confusion of natures, but rather each [nature] remaining what it was, we understand that the Word was united to the flesh. Wherefore there is one Christ, both God and man, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood. Therefore they are equally condemned and anathematized by the Church of God, who divide or part the mystery of the divine dispensation of Christ, or who introduce confusion into that mystery." ( Anathema 8 )
« Last Edit: September 16, 2017, 11:01:02 AM by andi.zhgaba3 »
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #167 on: September 16, 2017, 11:06:27 AM »
Vanhyo, let me phrase it this way: Please answer the following questions only with Yes/No.
1. Do you accept the Fifth Ecumenical Council, and its position that the distinguishment between natures is in thinking only? Yes or No? Nothing more, nothing less, if you don't mind.
Can you please quote where the 5th Council says that human nature is different from the divine nature "in thinking only"?

I looked into it and there was no decision by the 5th Council concluding that, and Dcn Kuraev wrote a letter complaining that a modern ecumenist dialogue said that the difference was in theory only. He explained that there are real, practical differences between human nature and divine nature.

Rakovsky, here is the seventh anathama of the Fifth Council:
"If anyone using the expression, in two natures, does not confess that our one Lord Jesus Christ has been revealed in the divinity and in the humanity, so as to designate by that expression a difference of the natures of which an ineffable union is unconfusedly made, [a union] in which neither the nature of the Word was changed into that of the flesh, nor that of the flesh into that of the Word, for each remained that it was by nature, the union being hypostatic; but shall take the expression with regard to the mystery of Christ in a sense so as to divide the parties, or recognising the two natures in the only Lord Jesus, God the Word made man, does not content himself with taking in a theoretical manner the difference of the natures which compose him, which difference is not destroyed by the union between them, for one is composed of the two and the two are in one, but shall make use of the number [two] to divide the natures or to make of them Persons properly so called: let him be anathema."

If by nature we understand a collection of essential properties corresponding to that nature of a reality, then these sets themselves in Christ are differentiated in a theoretical manner only, but the properties themselves are still really different. See the difference? The collections they belong to are differentiated in thinking only, the properties are still really different, not divided.

Also, like it or not, Cyril of Alexandria is still our saint and he is still, in his own way, authoritative to us.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2017, 11:09:20 AM by andi.zhgaba3 »
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,157
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #168 on: September 16, 2017, 11:22:37 AM »

"If anyone ... recognising the two natures in the only Lord Jesus, God the Word made man, does not content himself with taking in a theoretical manner the difference of the natures which compose him, which difference is not destroyed by the union between them, for one is composed of the two and the two are in one, but shall make use of the number [two] to divide the natures or to make of them Persons properly so called: let him be anathema."
Do you read Russian, Andi? If so, I would point you to Dcn. Kuraev's works. He objects to saying that the difference between the human nature and the divine nature is in theory alone, but he does not "make use of the number [two] to divide the natures or to make of them Persons" in violation of the rule above.

That is, the practical, real difference between Christ's humanity and divinity is that each match certain actions and sayings, according to Leo's Tome and Cyril's letters. If the 5th Council prohibited this, it would be essentially banning the Tome and Cyril's letters.

So the practical, real difference between Christ's humanity and divinity is not "to divide the natures or to make of them Persons".
« Last Edit: September 16, 2017, 11:26:03 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 andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #169 on: September 16, 2017, 11:36:53 AM »
Pardon my ignorance, but I'm unable to read Russian, Rakovsky. Then again, did you see what argument I threw attached to the Seventh Anathema? It is obvious that humanity and divinity are really different, worlds apart. Yet, because they come together in a compact in Christ, while still preserving their integrity, the collections or the sets themselves of the properties of the natures are differentiated in thinking only, while properties are still truly real, thus Leo and Cyril are perfectly fine as long as understood as needed. Humanity and divinity are still real in that each match certain actions or saying, that is true. It is because of Christ's humanity being present in him that he was born of the Virgin, tangible, passable, grew, ate, drank, mourned, talked with his human voice, suffered, died and so on, all of this because of the form of a slave, the human weakness that was to be raised to divine glory and power. Again, it is because of Christ's Godhead that he was eternal, creator, omnipotent, omniscient, caused miracles, was resurrected from the dead, made the most significant work of salvation of humankind ever and it continues. Yet, the collections of these properties are together, so that although natures are really distinguished in their properties, they are not understood as divided or distinguished except in intellectual capacities, when it comes to the sets themselves that are responsible for containing their proper properties. It's more or less, the same thing with, as you say, not to divide natures or to make them representations of persons.
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,157
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #170 on: September 16, 2017, 12:30:29 PM »
Yet, because they come together in a compact in Christ, while still preserving their integrity, the collections or the sets themselves of the properties of the natures are differentiated in thinking only, while properties are still truly real, thus Leo and Cyril are perfectly fine as long as understood as needed.
An example of the practical, real-life difference between Christ's humanity and His divinity is that in reality he died only according to his mortal, human nature, and not, in reality, according to his immortal, divine nature. Not only are the properties of humanity and divinity real (mortality and immortality), but so are the differences between humanity and divnity (mortality vs. immortality). There is a real, functional, practical difference between His human mortality and His divine immortality.

In his letter criticizing one modern joint EO-OO statement, leading Russian theologian Dcn. Kuraev complains that it says that the two natures Christ are distinguished only in a theoretic way. He answers that Christ really is in two natures and that the two natures actually exist. Plus, to say that the two natures are still distinguishable only in theory is like saying that in H20 you can still see the hydrogen and oxygen: those two elements still exist in water, but you cannot breathe water like air, so there is no real, practical, functional distinction. Instead, Dcn. Kuraev argues that in Christ the human nature did not lose its real, distinct will, striving, and activity. The two natures must have a meeting activity to achieve salvation. He asks rhetorically: Aren't there really a distinct human act and a divine one in this synergy, or is this just supposed to be considered theoretical exegesis?
(SOURCE: http://kuraev.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=38)

In case you still disagree and want to continue discussing that topic with me, it's OK, but in that case I would like to do so in the Private section that allows debates:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/board,23.0.html
« Last Edit: September 16, 2017, 12:36:11 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 Father Peter

  • Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,983
    • Coptic Orthodox Church - Patriarchal Diocese
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchal Diocese
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #171 on: September 16, 2017, 12:43:23 PM »
We have never distinguished the natures in a theoretical way. That is just polemics.

En theoria does not mean "in theory", it means "by contemplation".

The whole basis of our Christology is that Christ is really and truly man, and really and truly God, and that there is no confusion or mixture, nor, division or separation. If the humanity is not real humanity none of our Christology works. Which is why it has never even been suggested ever that the humanity is not a real humanity, consubstantial with us.
My ministry and blog - http://www.stgeorgeministry.com

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington

Offline andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #172 on: September 16, 2017, 01:07:20 PM »
An example of the practical, real-life difference between Christ's humanity and His divinity is that in reality he died only according to his mortal, human nature, and not, in reality, according to his immortal, divine nature. Not only are the properties of humanity and divinity real (mortality and immortality), but so are the differences between humanity and divnity (mortality vs. immortality). There is a real, functional, practical difference between His human mortality and His divine immortality.
It is not that I disagree with what you say, since understood as you do, humanity and divinity are seen as real representatives of mortality vs. immortality and thus really different, whereas in what I offered, I see nature just a slightly different from this case, as a collection of properties, thus I stand by what I said, without necessarily disagreeing with what you propose when taken in its own standard, that is nature seen as a representative of its properties. Of course two natures still exist, just in a different way from what we limited mortals are capable of comprehending, in a mystical union where difference is still preserved, as real among various properties, as conceptual and necessary with regards to the collection they belong to. The H20 example is just a bit off, since water is not fully hydrogen and fully oxygen in the same way Christ is, he is way beyond examples, although I would be interested if such comparisons were to be taken further developed. That said, though, Christ's natures are really there, really distinct, it is just as representatives of their proper characteristics. Their full union without confusion or change has taken place in him and this synergy is as real as the existence of the two natures united mystically as...One as the collections of natural properties belong to One Christ, thus effectively seen as one united reality and as one collection of properties, yet two natures when nature is a real representative of its properties?
So, all in all, I don't disagree with you, rakovsky, we are simply looking at the concept of nature just a bit differently. Two natures really exist, their difference of properties really there, it is only something that requires a close observation to see this. As Father Peter says, the theoretical thing or the 'in thinking only' expression is this close observance of their difference, not being immediately apparent as if in two divided realities. It is just that the 'in thinking' expression I use without qualification of what I mean (I'm sorry for that) stands for contemplation. Do you want to continue in private now?
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,157
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #173 on: September 16, 2017, 01:49:39 PM »
Do you want to continue in private now?
It's up to you. I think that Dcn. Kuraev is right that the distinction between Christ's humanity and divinity is not only either in contemplation or theory, but in real-life practice, with the two different practical sets of actions.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2017, 01:52:10 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 Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,080
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #174 on: September 16, 2017, 01:52:58 PM »
Do you want to continue in private now?
It's up to you. I think that Dcn. Kuraev is right that the distinction between Christ's humanity and divinity is not only either in contemplation or theory, but in the real-life, actual practice of the two different sets of actions.

Okay then, which of his actions were human and which divine? And, when you've calculated that for us, which set of actions dare we emulate?
« Last Edit: September 16, 2017, 01:53:32 PM by Porter ODoran »
"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 andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #175 on: September 16, 2017, 02:04:54 PM »
Do you want to continue in private now?
It's up to you. I think that Dcn. Kuraev is right that the distinction between Christ's humanity and divinity is not only either in contemplation or theory, but in the real-life, actual practice of the two different sets of actions.

Okay then, which of his actions were human and which divine? And, when you've calculated that for us, which set of actions dare we emulate?

Well, rakovsky, do you see now? I hope for the TV antennas to get fixed soon and that the signal starts getting received properly.
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 32,617
  • Pope Pius XIII, play for us!
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #176 on: September 16, 2017, 02:15:45 PM »
So much confusion, change, division, and separation going on among the Chalcedonians in this thread...
The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Actually, Mor's face shineth like the Sun.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,157
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #177 on: September 16, 2017, 02:19:44 PM »
It is nice that you are here, Fr. Peter.

Do you think you could please write more what you meant when you wrote in:
Coptic Interpretations of the Fourth Ecumenical Council (Fr. Matthias Wahba, Editor):
Quote
[In Severus' view] Before the union and the incarnation, the Word was simple, not incarnate, nor composite.
...
The proceedings of the Council of Chalcedon show us  that St Dioscorus was not
opposed to the phrase ‘from two natures after the union’. He did not accept Eutychus’ defective teaching of ‘two natures before the union, one nature after the union’. His [ie. Dioscorus'] ‘from two natures’ is the same as St Cyril’s ‘of two natures’. Christ is always, after the incarnation, existing in the dynamic union of humanity and divinity.
http://www.zeitun-eg.org/Coptic_interpretations_of_the_Fourth_Ecumenical_Council_(Chalcedon).pdf
It sounded like you disagreed with Eutyches' formula or expression that "Christ had two natures before the union; one afterwards".

Thank you.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2017, 02:21:20 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 RobS

  • Formerly "nothing"
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,953
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #178 on: September 16, 2017, 02:21:46 PM »
EDIT: oops this is the OO subforum.
« Last Edit: September 16, 2017, 02:22:29 PM by RobS »
"The business of the Christian is nothing else than to be ever preparing for death (μελεπᾷν ἀποθνήσκειν)."

— Saint Irenaeus of Lyons, Fragment XI

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,157
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #179 on: September 16, 2017, 02:22:47 PM »
Okay then, which of his actions were human and which divine? And, when you've calculated that for us, which set of actions dare we emulate?

Well, rakovsky, do you see now? I hope for the TV antennas to get fixed soon and that the signal starts getting received properly.
Are you suggesting that my mind's "antennas" are broken because I agree with Leo's Tome and Cyril's letters that Christ's actions and sayings can be divided between his natures?
« Last Edit: September 16, 2017, 02:23:52 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 andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #180 on: September 16, 2017, 02:41:50 PM »
So much confusion, change, division, and separation going on among the Chalcedonians in this thread...
Lol...But wait, we are not talking about a prosopic union here, like the heretic Nestorians do :P. Yet it's sad in the end.  :(
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #181 on: September 16, 2017, 02:44:50 PM »
Are you suggesting that my mind's "antennas" are broken because I agree with Leo's Tome and Cyril's letters that Christ's actions and sayings can be divided between his natures?
Of course not. It's just that, how about we relax and take a deep breath with my inability to properly joke? If you found it offensive, I apologize then. Still, don't dare think that you accept Leo's Tome and Cyril's letters more than me.  ;)
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,705
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #182 on: September 16, 2017, 08:30:06 PM »
This is one topic where I find dividing the actions between the natures and qualities is useful in modern interfaith discussions.

Council of Constantinople of 681 proclaims: 

defining all this we likewise declare that in him are two natural wills and two natural operations indivisibly, inconvertibly, inseparably, inconfusedly, according to the teaching of the holy Fathers. And these two natural wills are not contrary the one to the other (God forbid!) as the impious heretics assert, but his human will follows and that not as resisting and reluctant, but rather as subject to his divine and omnipotent will. For it was right that the flesh should be moved but subject to the divine will, according to the most wise Athanasius. For as his flesh is called and is the flesh of God the Word, so also the natural will of his flesh is called and is the proper will of God the Word, as he himself says: I came down from heaven, not that I might do my own will but the will of the Father which sent me! where he calls his own will the will of his flesh, inasmuch as his flesh was also his own. For as his most holy and immaculate animated flesh was not destroyed because it was deified but continued in its own state and nature (ὄρῳ τε καὶ λόγῳ), so also his human will, although deified, was not suppressed, but was rather preserved according to the saying of Gregory Theologus: His will [i.e., the Saviour's] is not contrary to God but altogether deified.

And in that same council from the Prosphoneticus to the Emperor:

Therefore we declare that in him there are two natural wills and two natural operations, proceeding commonly and without division

So, I, as do all OO's, agree with the Chalcedonians that is not useful to divide the actions of Christ.
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,907
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #183 on: September 16, 2017, 08:54:35 PM »
As someone once said, we are still waiting for rakovsky to convert to Eastern Orthodoxy.
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 rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,157
  • 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