Author Topic: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?  (Read 9070 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ZackShenouda439

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 266
    • http://www.saintmarkkc.org
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Alexandria
Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« on: October 25, 2017, 03:20:08 AM »
Was monophysitism ever condemned in any of the ecumenical councils?  I'm looking at the acts but I don't see this term mentioned. I see references to Arius, Eutyches and Apollinarius et al, but I don't see monophysitism mentioned.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #1 on: October 25, 2017, 04:03:52 AM »
As far as I recall, Monophysitism isn't condemned. But certain people who were considered as such were, such as Eutyches and yes, even Severus and Dioscoros.

But I don't think it was at Chalcedon, but at the later councils, probably Constantinople II or III.
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline ZackShenouda439

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 266
    • http://www.saintmarkkc.org
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Alexandria
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #2 on: October 25, 2017, 04:23:15 AM »
Yea, I know the names of Severus & Dioscorus are mentioned

Like in Canon 1 of the council of Trullo I found this bit on Dioscorus

"And together with him also Nestorius and Dioscorus of whom the former was the defender and champion of the division, the latter of the confusion”

Which made me chuckle cuz in the minutes of Chalcedon 451, Dioscorus introduced the terminology of without confusion. Pretty ironic haha

Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘We speak of neither confusion nor division nor change. Anathema to whoever speaks of confusion or change or mixture'

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #3 on: October 25, 2017, 05:07:44 AM »
Yea, I know the names of Severus & Dioscorus are mentioned

Like in Canon 1 of the council of Trullo I found this bit on Dioscorus

"And together with him also Nestorius and Dioscorus of whom the former was the defender and champion of the division, the latter of the confusion”

Which made me chuckle cuz in the minutes of Chalcedon 451, Dioscorus introduced the terminology of without confusion. Pretty ironic haha

Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘We speak of neither confusion nor division nor change. Anathema to whoever speaks of confusion or change or mixture'

Yeah, you cannot expect ancient people to have memorized the Acts of Chalcedon. It was hard enough just to keep candles lit enough to see at night.
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline WPM

  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,663
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #4 on: October 25, 2017, 06:04:18 AM »
I'd think you'd have to really dig in and study the Church councils and their sources.
Learn meditation.

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #5 on: October 25, 2017, 08:55:32 AM »
Yea, I know the names of Severus & Dioscorus are mentioned

Like in Canon 1 of the council of Trullo I found this bit on Dioscorus

"And together with him also Nestorius and Dioscorus of whom the former was the defender and champion of the division, the latter of the confusion”

Which made me chuckle cuz in the minutes of Chalcedon 451, Dioscorus introduced the terminology of without confusion. Pretty ironic haha

Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘We speak of neither confusion nor division nor change. Anathema to whoever speaks of confusion or change or mixture'

Yeah, you cannot expect ancient people to have memorized the Acts of Chalcedon. It was hard enough just to keep candles lit enough to see at night.

LOL!  Are you serious?  It sounds like you're saying, "We can't expect the leaders of the Church in Antiquity to be competent or conversant in the pertinent material because it was hard enough back then just to stay alive.  Rather, we should expect them to simply repeat allegations from ignorance".
« Last Edit: October 25, 2017, 09:01:23 AM by Antonious Nikolas »
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,700
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: Yekmalian Monoculture
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #6 on: October 25, 2017, 11:29:16 AM »
Yea, I know the names of Severus & Dioscorus are mentioned

Like in Canon 1 of the council of Trullo I found this bit on Dioscorus

"And together with him also Nestorius and Dioscorus of whom the former was the defender and champion of the division, the latter of the confusion”

Which made me chuckle cuz in the minutes of Chalcedon 451, Dioscorus introduced the terminology of without confusion. Pretty ironic haha

Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘We speak of neither confusion nor division nor change. Anathema to whoever speaks of confusion or change or mixture'

Yeah, you cannot expect ancient people to have memorized the Acts of Chalcedon. It was hard enough just to keep candles lit enough to see at night.

What a solid foundation on which to build a 1600 year old schism. 
Mor Ephrem is a nice guy.  Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

thank you so much Mor ephrem you are a hero!

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 780
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #7 on: October 25, 2017, 12:19:26 PM »
@mor
I am sure you are innerly aware that we are right on this, you are just too biased and stubborn to acknowledge it in your mind.

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,700
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: Yekmalian Monoculture
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #8 on: October 25, 2017, 12:25:08 PM »
@mor
I am sure you are innerly aware that we are right on this, you are just too biased and stubborn to acknowledge it in your mind.

You wish that were true. 
Mor Ephrem is a nice guy.  Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

thank you so much Mor ephrem you are a hero!

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 14,259
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #9 on: October 25, 2017, 12:28:36 PM »
@mor
I am sure you are innerly aware that we are right on this, you are just too biased and stubborn to acknowledge it in your mind.

So, the best argument we can come up with is, "Well, they were practically cavemen, so don't expect them to remember stuff", and yet somehow our opponents must feel inwardly compelled by our position? Pass the pipe, man.
Quote
When a time revolts against eternity, the only thing to set against it is genuine eternity itself, and not some other time which has already roused, and not without reason, a violent reaction against itself.
- Berdyaev

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

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #10 on: October 25, 2017, 12:54:55 PM »
@mor
I am sure you are innerly aware that we are right on this, you are just too biased and stubborn to acknowledge it in your mind.

I'd say the person who is biased and stubborn is the one insisting that the Fathers of his own Church were basically - as Iconodule put it - cavemen ignorant of the salient facts.  And if that were true, you should follow suit with them why?
I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,189
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #11 on: October 25, 2017, 12:58:53 PM »
@mor
I am sure you are innerly aware that we are right on this, you are just too biased and stubborn to acknowledge it in your mind.

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: 10,664
  • 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: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #12 on: October 25, 2017, 01:10:02 PM »
I think Eutyches' theology, which we agree is Monophysite, was condemned at Chalcedon.
Quote
Monophysitism (particularly Eutyches' variety) was condemned at the Fourth Ecumenical Council, held in Chalcedon in the year 451.
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Monophysitism
Quote
The Fourth Ecumenical Council

...The teaching arose that Christ's human nature (less perfect) dissolved itself in His divine nature (more perfect): like a cube of sugar in a post of water. Thus, in reality, Christ had only one nature, the Divine. Hence, the term: Monophysites ("mono", one and "physis", "nature".) Monophysitism overemphasized the divine nature of Christ, at the expense of the human.

The Council condemned Monophysitism and proclaimed that Christ has two complete natures: the divine and the human, as defined by previous Councils.
https://www.goarch.org/-/the-fourth-ecumenical-council

Price summarizes a discussion about Dioscorus' theological issue:
Quote
Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople immediately objected, ‘Dioscorus was not deposed on account of the faith; but because he broke off communion with the lord
Archbishop Leo and was summoned a third time but did not come, this is
why  he  was  deposed.’  The  chairman,  however,  ignored  this  intervention,
and continued to speak as if Dioscorus’ teaching has been condemned, and
the  bishops  weakly  concurred  (V.  26–7).
http://ixoyc.net/data/fathers/624.pdf
In the minutes, there is a longer discussion on this, with the Papal legates saying that Dioscorus was deposed for heresy and the bishops collectively agreeing.

I think there was also a discussion in the Acts of Chalcedon (available at the link above) where Dioscorus was denying that Christ had two natures and the bishops replied that this denial was heretical.

I also think that a few later councils like the 6th Council repeated the condemnation of Monophysitism and condemned Eutyches and Dioscorus for heresy.

So for example as Zack mentioned, the Trullo Council says "And together with him also Nestorius and Dioscorus of whom the former was the defender and champion of the division, the latter of the confusion”. Zack brought up a good question of how Dioscorus taught confusion in the minds of the Trullo Council. EOs who hold that interpretation of Dioscorus use the question of what happened to the duality of natures if one rejects that Christ remained in the two natures. Their logic goes that if Christ has only one nature such that he lacks both two natures (humanity and divinity), the only logical possibility is that the two natures fused together into a homogenous mixture (ie. are "confused"), or else they interacted such that only one nature (eg. the divine nature or the human nature) was left (Eutychianism).
« Last Edit: October 25, 2017, 01:14:39 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,189
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #13 on: October 25, 2017, 01:40:21 PM »
Yeah, you cannot expect ancient people to have memorized the Acts of Chalcedon. It was hard enough just to keep candles lit enough to see at night.

We need to understand something very unique.  Chalcedon is one of the first councils we know of (along with Ephesus 449) that has full minutes.  Ephesus 431 has summary minutes, but we do not have full minutes for that one.  Nicaea and Constantinople are cloaked in mystery and we only have second-hand reports of witnesses throughout history and some later stories that are stuff of legends.

So, there is no excuse to make when we have almost the full records of Chalcedon preserved for us (and I think every council afterwards if I'm not mistaken).  Perhaps, imperial legates decided at some point councils need to be fully recorded to have proper investigations over certain situations.  But at this moment, if the historians and scholars of the Church (not talking about regular folks) make legends and assumptions not based on actual records, this seems to point not to a valid excuse of overwhelmingness, but rather laziness.  The sixth century was very clear it seems they were not merely dealing with summary reports of the council, but the nitty gritty details of it as well that almost everyone seemed familiar with and how to interpret those details.  It's because of those details that there was a council in 553!
« Last Edit: October 25, 2017, 01:41:27 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 Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,700
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: Yekmalian Monoculture
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #14 on: October 25, 2017, 02:48:57 PM »
But at this moment, if the historians and scholars of the Church (not talking about regular folks) make legends and assumptions not based on actual records, this seems to point not to a valid excuse of overwhelmingness, but rather laziness. 

If only it was laziness. 
Mor Ephrem is a nice guy.  Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

thank you so much Mor ephrem you are a hero!

Offline ZackShenouda439

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 266
    • http://www.saintmarkkc.org
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Alexandria
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #15 on: October 25, 2017, 06:36:06 PM »
I think Eutyches' theology, which we agree is Monophysite, was condemned at Chalcedon.
Quote
Monophysitism (particularly Eutyches' variety) was condemned at the Fourth Ecumenical Council, held in Chalcedon in the year 451.
https://orthodoxwiki.org/Monophysitism
Quote
The Fourth Ecumenical Council

...The teaching arose that Christ's human nature (less perfect) dissolved itself in His divine nature (more perfect): like a cube of sugar in a post of water. Thus, in reality, Christ had only one nature, the Divine. Hence, the term: Monophysites ("mono", one and "physis", "nature".) Monophysitism overemphasized the divine nature of Christ, at the expense of the human.

The Council condemned Monophysitism and proclaimed that Christ has two complete natures: the divine and the human, as defined by previous Councils.
https://www.goarch.org/-/the-fourth-ecumenical-council

Price summarizes a discussion about Dioscorus' theological issue:
Quote
Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople immediately objected, ‘Dioscorus was not deposed on account of the faith; but because he broke off communion with the lord
Archbishop Leo and was summoned a third time but did not come, this is
why  he  was  deposed.’  The  chairman,  however,  ignored  this  intervention,
and continued to speak as if Dioscorus’ teaching has been condemned, and
the  bishops  weakly  concurred  (V.  26–7).
http://ixoyc.net/data/fathers/624.pdf
In the minutes, there is a longer discussion on this, with the Papal legates saying that Dioscorus was deposed for heresy and the bishops collectively agreeing.

I think there was also a discussion in the Acts of Chalcedon (available at the link above) where Dioscorus was denying that Christ had two natures and the bishops replied that this denial was heretical.

I also think that a few later councils like the 6th Council repeated the condemnation of Monophysitism and condemned Eutyches and Dioscorus for heresy.

So for example as Zack mentioned, the Trullo Council says "And together with him also Nestorius and Dioscorus of whom the former was the defender and champion of the division, the latter of the confusion”. Zack brought up a good question of how Dioscorus taught confusion in the minds of the Trullo Council. EOs who hold that interpretation of Dioscorus use the question of what happened to the duality of natures if one rejects that Christ remained in the two natures. Their logic goes that if Christ has only one nature such that he lacks both two natures (humanity and divinity), the only logical possibility is that the two natures fused together into a homogenous mixture (ie. are "confused"), or else they interacted such that only one nature (eg. the divine nature or the human nature) was left (Eutychianism).

if that's how they interpreted Dioscorus, than my next question is why not interpret Cyril the same way? what makes what Dioscorus said in 451 any different to what Cyril has said previously?Interpretation aside, every phrase that Disocorus used, Cyril has also used. Or did they simply not have access to all of Cyril's work ? to me the only explanation that makes sense is they weren't familiar with Cyrils writings from 438-444 & it looks like relied primary on a certain interpretation of  433 with John(which was a document prepared by the antiochenes & Cyril endorsed it as a peace treaty with them, it was never considered ecumenical before 451...although it was treated as a primary authoritative Cyrillian document at  Chalcedon which was in interesting). Or was 433 with John considered more authoritative in the minds of the fathers of trullo, than the 12 chapters accepted at Ephesus 431? from my research, it looks like it took a while, even after chalcedon, for the christians outside of alexandria, to really formally accept the substance & understand the purpose of the 12 chapters.

Below is what Dioscorus In the minutes of Chalcedon 451 we see

Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘Clearly Flavian was deposed for this reason, that he spoke of two natures after the union. But I have quotations from the holy fathers Athanasius, Gregory and Cyril saying in numerous passages that one should not speak of two natures after the union but of one incarnate nature of the Word.

Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexan- dria said: ‘I accept “from two [natures]”; I do not accept “two”. I am com- pelled to speak brashly: my soul is at stake.’

This is what Cyril has written:

"For we are composed of body and soul and we perceive two natures; there is one nature of the body, and a different nature of the soul, and yet one man from both of them in terms of the union. This composition from two natures does not turn the one man into two, but as I have said there is one man by the composition of body and soul. If we deny that there is one single Christ from two different natures, being indivisible after the union, then the enemies of orthodoxy will ask: “If the entirety amounts to one nature then how was he incarnated or what kind of flesh did he make his own?”

" Given that we understand this, we do no harm to that concurrence into union when we say that it took place out of two natures. After the union has occurred, however, we do not divide the natures from one another, nor do we sever the one and indivisible into two sons, but we say that there is One Son, and as the holy Fathers have stated: One Incarnate Nature of The Word.”

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

"This is why the two are no longer two, but through both of them the one living creature is rendered complete."

So if we even put the argument of interpretation aside, in terms of terminology, Dioscorus used the same terms as Cyril. from what I see, the interpretation is really what is the primary authoritative writing of Cyril? it looks like the Chalcedonians historically in 451 viewed this as the 433 reconciliation with John and  where the OOs viewed the primary authoritative to be the 12 chapters & Cyril's writings from 438-444.

If this is the standard for monophysitism, than I do think it can be argued from this standard that Cyril is also monophysite. In fact, Cyril himself was also accused of mixture and confusion.

As Cyril mentions here
"But since certain people are trying to implicate us with the opinions of Apollinaris, saying: ‘If you maintain that the Word of God the Father incarnated and made man is One Son in a strict and compact union, perhaps you imagine or have come to think that some mixture or blending or confusion occurred between the Word and the body, even a transformation of the body into the nature of Godhead? We are fully aware of such implications and we refute such a slander when we say that the Word of God, in an incomprehensible manner, beyond description, united to himself a body animated with a rational soul, and came forth as man from a woman, not becoming what we are by any transformation of nature but rather by a gracious economy. For he wished to become man without casting off his natural being as God, and even when he descended into our limitations, and put on the form of the slave, even so he remained in the transcendent condition of the Godhead and in his natural state as Lord."

So I honestly, can't see difference in terms of critiques of the of historic Chalcedonians towards Dioscorus & those of Cyril pre-chalcedon. I wouldn't care about being called a monophysite if Cyril was also called that, but both OOs & EOs have historically considered Cyril orthodox, so that's what makes monophysite as a description, a bit inconsistent in application. What we know is  Cyril wasn't alive to accept chalcedon. so the question of whether or not he would accept Chalcedon is a debatable speculation but not a fact in either case. so objectively speaking, if Dioscorus & Severus could be considered monophysite based on the writings they used, than so can Cyril.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #16 on: October 25, 2017, 06:55:51 PM »
Just for the record, I was being coy.
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,151
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #17 on: October 25, 2017, 08:00:41 PM »
In the minutes, there is a longer discussion on this, with the Papal legates saying that Dioscorus was deposed for heresy and the bishops collectively agreeing.

Fr. John Meyendorff actually argued the opposite. Dioscorus was deposed for personal conduct, not heresy. And from the way Fr. Meyendorff framed it, if St. Leo was a little more accommodating to Cyrillian language or if there was a less arrogant pope in Rome at the time, then the whole schism probably could have been avoided. That's my impression of his arguments at least. See: Imperial Unity, Christian Divisions: The Church AD 450-680
« Last Edit: October 25, 2017, 08:01:13 PM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline ZackShenouda439

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 266
    • http://www.saintmarkkc.org
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Alexandria
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #18 on: October 25, 2017, 08:07:40 PM »
Also, Rakvosky,

in discourse, Cyril wouldn't affirm "two natures" in insolation either or "two natures after the union" when he was asked to either. so if that's how they interpreted Dioscorus response to questions, than I don't think they had access to much of Cyril's writing nor did they have a big-picture comprehensive assessment of it. that's really, the only theory I can think of, that makes sense, assuming your premise is true. Cyril responded to questions in the same way as Dioscorus did


Q.  Have they therefore been confused and both become one nature?

Cyril. But who will be thus distraught and unlearned as to  suppose that either the Divine Nature of the Word has been turned into what it was not, or that the flesh went over by way of change into the Nature of the Word Himself (for it is impossible)? but we say that One is the SON and One His Nature even though He be conceived of as having assumed flesh with a rational soul. For His (as I said) hath the human nature been made, and He is conceived of by us none otherwise than thus, God alike and man.

Q. There will then be not two natures, of God and of man?

Cyril: Godhead and manhood are one thing and another, according to the mode [of being] existing in each, yet in Christ have they come together, in unwonted wise and passing understanding, unto union, without confusion and turning. But wholly incomprehensible is the mode of the Union.

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_christ_is_one_01_text.htm

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,133
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #19 on: October 25, 2017, 08:23:28 PM »
Yea, I know the names of Severus & Dioscorus are mentioned

Like in Canon 1 of the council of Trullo I found this bit on Dioscorus

"And together with him also Nestorius and Dioscorus of whom the former was the defender and champion of the division, the latter of the confusion”

Which made me chuckle cuz in the minutes of Chalcedon 451, Dioscorus introduced the terminology of without confusion. Pretty ironic haha

Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘We speak of neither confusion nor division nor change. Anathema to whoever speaks of confusion or change or mixture'

Yeah, you cannot expect ancient people to have memorized the Acts of Chalcedon. It was hard enough just to keep candles lit enough to see at night.

This reply is invertebrate-level ignorance.

If the council condemned Dioscorus as the champion of "confusion," it's surely because of statements they considered him to have issued besides his commendable statements at Chalcedon 451. No doubt there were those present who genuinely regretted his fall. Of course, what they considered his teaching to be and what he actually taught may have been very different.
"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 ZackShenouda439

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 266
    • http://www.saintmarkkc.org
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Alexandria
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #20 on: October 25, 2017, 09:58:54 PM »
There seems to be a sharp difference in general perception of Dioscorus between the fathers of Chalcedon in 451 & fathers at the council of Trullo in 692. For instance the patriarch of Constantinople, who is a saint in the EO church and was a senior bishop at the time, said this about Dioscorus in the minutes of chalcedon:

Anatolius the most devout archbishop of Constantinople said: "It
was not because of the faith that Dioscorus was deposed. He was deposed
because he broke off communion with the lord Archbishop Leo and was
summoned a third time and did not come.”

We also know that before Chalcedon, Dioscorus’s orthodoxy wasn't questioned, so the difference I see, between the fathers of chalcedon & the fathers of Trullo is one of perception within a 200+ year gap.

Dioscorus is also documented saying this in the council of chalcedon 451 in regards to the question of Eutyches

"If Eutyches holds opinions contrary to the doctrines of the church, he deserves not only punishment but hell fire. For my concern is for the catholic and apostolic faith and not for any human being. “

Richard Price also made this assessment regarding the acts of the council of Chalcedon & the question of Dioscorus theology

"Dioscorus had certainly given support to Eutyches, but did that prove him a heretic? It is not obvious to modern historians that Eutyches deserved his reputation as a heretic;10 even if he did, Dioscorus had distanced himself from him at the first session of the council (I. 168), and in his subsequent exile at Gangra was to denounce the Eutychian error of denying Christ’s consubstantiality with the rest of the human race.11 The drawback with this change of stance was that it was not compatible with defending the decree in favour of Eutyches voted at Ephesus II.12 The point to be made in the present context,however, is that the later categorization of Dioscorus as a Eutychian heretic is not securely based on the proceedings of Chalcedon



 


Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,664
  • 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: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #21 on: October 25, 2017, 10:16:40 PM »
Quote
Their logic goes that if Christ has only one nature such that he lacks both two natures (humanity and divinity), the only logical possibility is that the two natures fused together into a homogenous mixture (ie. are "confused"), or else they interacted such that only one nature (eg. the divine nature or the human nature) was left (Eutychianism).

if that's how they interpreted Dioscorus, than my next question is why not interpret Cyril the same way? what makes what Dioscorus said in 451 any different to what Cyril has said previously?

Hello, Zack.

In order to answer your question about why they took this viewpoint, one must think from the Chalcedonian perspective. Chalcedon makes a fundamental statement that Christ is in two natures and that Cyril is Orthodox, whereby interpreting Cyril in agreement with Dyophysitism.

Cyril's teaching, in our tradition EO reading, is that Christ has one nature (Miaphysia) of the word incarnate, such that Christ still is in two natures, as Cyril says:
Quote
Some things he[Christ] says as man and some as God, for he has authority in both natures. As man he says "Now is my soul troubled", but as God He says, "I have power to lay down my life and to take it up again." (Cyril, Thesaurus, Chp 24, https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0881410896)

Dioscorus, on the other hand, taught that Christ had one nature in such a way that Dioscorus considered us heretics for ascribing two natures to Christ. Thus at Chalcedon, in explaining why he excommunicated Flavian, Dioscorus
Quote
said, "The reason why Flavian was condemned was plainly this, that he asserted two natures after the incarnation. (ib. vi. 684; see note in Oxf. ed. of Fleury, vol. iii. p. 348).
Dictionary of Christian Biography by Henry Wace

Another important, relevant aspect is the opposite positions of Cyril and Dioscorus themselves toward us dyophysites. Cyril on one hand considered us Orthodox, made a reconciliation agreement with us while knowing our position, and defended us, pointing out that we could not be Nestorians if we rejected Nestorius. Dioscorus on the opposite hand considered Flavian and the Antiochian teaching to be so awfully heretical that Flavian needed excommunication, naming Flavian as a "Nestorian" despite Flavian's rejection of Nestorius.

To give an analogous situation about the importance of their attitudes toward us, imagine that there are two leading bishops who have had controversy with our other leading theologians. The first bishop calls us Orthodox, uses formulas practically the same as ours (eg. "in both natures"), doesn't label our formulas (Christ is in two natures) heretical, and reaches a reconciliation agreement. The second bishop calls our bishops heretical and rejects our formulas as heretical and excommunicates or deposes our leading bishops.

It's only natural in those circumstances that our bishops would be inclined to see the first bishop as Orthodox, while seeing the second bishop's rejection of our theology as a false teaching.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2017, 10:20:46 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,980
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #22 on: October 25, 2017, 10:31:20 PM »
Yeah, but St. Cyril also said that if you add St. John Chrysostom to the Saints, you should add Judas to the Apostles. What difference does it make if they condemned one another back then? I'm sure at the very least they've reconciled now in the Bosom of the Father.

My standard is, nowhere do I see Dioscorus or any other Miaphysite asserting something so complete and insane as Eutyches's "drop of wine in the sea" analogy (which seems to me to be borderline adoptionist). Everything else is just complicated quibbling over details. But maybe I'm naive.
On an extended hiatus from this site. Please pray for me and my family.

I'm sorry to any that my posts might offend.

Offline RaphaCam

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,048
  • It is honourable to reveal the works of God
    • Em Espírito e em Verdade
  • Faith: Big-O Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Exarchate of Gotham City
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #23 on: October 25, 2017, 10:39:29 PM »
Anatolius the most devout archbishop of Constantinople said: "It was not because of the faith that Dioscorus was deposed. He was deposed because he broke off communion with the lord Archbishop Leo and was summoned a third time and did not come.”
Wow, this is interesting.

Yeah, but St. Cyril also said that if you add St. John Chrysostom to the Saints, you should add Judas to the Apostles.
Where was that?
"May the Lord our God remember in His kingdom all Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, which heralds the Word of Truth and fearlessly offers and distributes the Holy Oblation despite human deficiencies and persecutions moved by the powers of this world, in all time and unto the ages of ages."

Anyhow when God was asked he said Eastern Orthodox is true Church and not Catholic Church. So come home and enjoy.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,664
  • 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: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #24 on: October 25, 2017, 10:46:43 PM »
In the minutes, there is a longer discussion on this, with the Papal legates saying that Dioscorus was deposed for heresy and the bishops collectively agreeing.

Fr. John Meyendorff actually argued the opposite. Dioscorus was deposed for personal conduct, not heresy. And from the way Fr. Meyendorff framed it, if St. Leo was a little more accommodating to Cyrillian language or if there was a less arrogant pope in Rome at the time, then the whole schism probably could have been avoided. That's my impression of his arguments at least. See: Imperial Unity, Christian Divisions: The Church AD 450-680
Thank you for writing back. In case Fr. Meyendorff feels that Dioscorus was deposed only for his conduct and that the conflict would have been rightly avoided had Pope Leo been accommodating to Cyril's Christology, then this does not appear to me to be the traditional EO understanding.

First, the plaintiffs against Dioscorus specified that they were complaining about him as having heresy for his anti-dyophysitism. Second, during the exchanges at Chalcedon, Dioscorus rejected dyophysitism as heretical, and his EO interlocutors said in the discussion that his position was heretical. Third, at the moment of the announcement of his excommunication, there was no statement that this was done only on the basis of his conduct and not on the basis of heresy. Rather, each person voting had their own reasons, with Dioscorus' former ally Anatlolius announcing that it was only for conduct, Pope Leo's legates saying that it was for heresy, and the bishops in the minutes collectively concurring with Pope Leo's legates.

As to the issue of whether conflict could have been avoided had Leo simply repeated the concept of Miaphysia and taken an attitude of humility towards Dioscorus, there are several obstacles. First, as Fr. Romanides points out, Patriach Flavian did repeat Cyril's formula of Miaphysia at Dioscorus' Council of Ephesus II, and yet Dioscorus anathematized Flavian anyway. Thus Fr. Romanides writes that at Ephesus II, the two EO bishops
Quote
Flavian and Eusebius accepted One Nature of God the Logos Incarnate so long as Christ's consubstantiality with us is clearly professed. [ 56 ] However, Dioscoros simply rejected all talk of two natures after the union. When the imperial representatives asked why Flavian was deposed since he did accept One Nature of the Logos Incarnate, Eustathius of Berytus admitted making a mistake. [ 57 ] Dioscoros, however, claimed that Flavian contradicted himself by accepting two natures after the union.

http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.08.en.st._cyrils_one_physis_or_hypostasis_of_god_the_log.htm#56
So the issue in controversy was not Cyril, his writings, and his formula of Miaphysia, but Flavian and the teaching that Christ has two natures, humanity and divinity, after the union. At Ephesus II, EO Bishops begged Dioscorus on their knees in full humility for Dioscorus to spare Flavian. Then at Chalcedon, Dioscorus before his anathematization was repeatedly referred to with honorable titles due him as Patriarch. No matter how strongly Leo and Flavian asserted the Mia Physia, nor regardless of their humility to Dioscorus' person, Dioscorus would still have stood for excommunication of Flavian for our teaching of Dyophysia.

Secondly, Leo and the EO bishops were presented with the problem of Flavian's deposal for heresy of Dyophysitism at Ephesus II. Even with a humble attitude and repeating the Miaphysia like Flavian did, Pope Leo as an EO Dyophysite would have to challenge Flavian's anathematization for teaching EO Dyophysitism.
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,664
  • 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: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #25 on: October 25, 2017, 10:48:46 PM »
Anatolius the most devout archbishop of Constantinople said: "It was not because of the faith that Dioscorus was deposed. He was deposed because he broke off communion with the lord Archbishop Leo and was summoned a third time and did not come.”
Wow, this is interesting.
Well, Anatolius was the ally of Dioscorus who in the wake of the anti-dyophysite Council of Ephesus II was given Constantinople's Patriarchate after Flavian was expelled. It's not surprising to me that Anatolius would look for ways to mitigate the charges against his now ex-ally.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2017, 10:49:15 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,664
  • 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: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #26 on: October 25, 2017, 10:59:43 PM »
My standard is, nowhere do I see Dioscorus or any other Miaphysite asserting something so complete and insane as Eutyches's "drop of wine in the sea" analogy (which seems to me to be borderline adoptionist). Everything else is just complicated quibbling over details. But maybe I'm naive.
First, Dioscorus and Ephesus II openly supported the teaching of Eutyches that Christ already had two natures even before the incarnation in contrast to one afterwards (as Eutyches said: "I confess that Christ had two natures before the union, but one afterwards). To Flavian and the Chalcedonians, this sounded like the monophysite theory of Apollonius, whereby Christ had human flesh already before the incarnation, yet had only the divine nature after the incarnation.

Second, I do understand what you mean that the theological issues EOs have with Dioscorus are not as lengthy in list as those with Eutyches, since Eutyches made many discourses expanding on his monophysitism, denying of consubstantiality, etc. With Dioscorus, for EOs the basic issue was simpler, his rejection of Dyophysitism as a great heresy. Had Dioscorus not treated the question of Christ retaining the two natures as of paramount necessity for the whole church communion by calling an ecumenical council to excommunicate the Patriach of Constantinople for it, perhaps it would not have been a central theological issue of schism.
« Last Edit: October 25, 2017, 11:06:32 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline ZackShenouda439

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 266
    • http://www.saintmarkkc.org
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Alexandria
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #27 on: October 25, 2017, 11:36:05 PM »
Quote
Their logic goes that if Christ has only one nature such that he lacks both two natures (humanity and divinity), the only logical possibility is that the two natures fused together into a homogenous mixture (ie. are "confused"), or else they interacted such that only one nature (eg. the divine nature or the human nature) was left (Eutychianism).

if that's how they interpreted Dioscorus, than my next question is why not interpret Cyril the same way? what makes what Dioscorus said in 451 any different to what Cyril has said previously?

Hello, Zack.

In order to answer your question about why they took this viewpoint, one must think from the Chalcedonian perspective. Chalcedon makes a fundamental statement that Christ is in two natures and that Cyril is Orthodox, whereby interpreting Cyril in agreement with Dyophysitism.

Cyril's teaching, in our tradition EO reading, is that Christ has one nature (Miaphysia) of the word incarnate, such that Christ still is in two natures, as Cyril says:
Quote
Some things he[Christ] says as man and some as God, for he has authority in both natures. As man he says "Now is my soul troubled", but as God He says, "I have power to lay down my life and to take it up again." (Cyril, Thesaurus, Chp 24, https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0881410896)

Dioscorus, on the other hand, taught that Christ had one nature in such a way that Dioscorus considered us heretics for ascribing two natures to Christ. Thus at Chalcedon, in explaining why he excommunicated Flavian, Dioscorus
Quote
said, "The reason why Flavian was condemned was plainly this, that he asserted two natures after the incarnation. (ib. vi. 684; see note in Oxf. ed. of Fleury, vol. iii. p. 348).
Dictionary of Christian Biography by Henry Wace

Another important, relevant aspect is the opposite positions of Cyril and Dioscorus themselves toward us dyophysites. Cyril on one hand considered us Orthodox, made a reconciliation agreement with us while knowing our position, and defended us, pointing out that we could not be Nestorians if we rejected Nestorius. Dioscorus on the opposite hand considered Flavian and the Antiochian teaching to be so awfully heretical that Flavian needed excommunication, naming Flavian as a "Nestorian" despite Flavian's rejection of Nestorius.

To give an analogous situation about the importance of their attitudes toward us, imagine that there are two leading bishops who have had controversy with our other leading theologians. The first bishop calls us Orthodox, uses formulas practically the same as ours (eg. "in both natures"), doesn't label our formulas (Christ is in two natures) heretical, and reaches a reconciliation agreement. The second bishop calls our bishops heretical and rejects our formulas as heretical and excommunicates or deposes our leading bishops.

It's only natural in those circumstances that our bishops would be inclined to see the first bishop as Orthodox, while seeing the second bishop's rejection of our theology as a false teaching.

Rakvosky,

If that's the EO answer, than it's unpersuasive to non-EO. at best that looks like their interpretation of 433 and that's being charitable.

the definition at chalcedon does not use "two natures after the union." 433 Formula of reunion does not use "two natures after the union." So appealing to Cyril to justify this, simply does not hold water.

 If we go by what's written, it's more likely Cyril wouldn't permit "Two natures after the union." and I'm saying this in light of the facts, not out of a partisan perspective.

(1) Disocorus explained his answer in regards to the question of why he deposed Flavian. In the minutes of Chalcedon Dioscorus

says

 Dioscorus:‘Clearly Flavian was deposed for this reason, that he spoke of two natures after the union.'

Cyril is unambiguous in not speaking of two after the union, as well.

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


Cyril never permitted use of "two natures after incarnation" as applied in Flavian's synod. Cyril never permitted to use "two natures" in insolation without appropriate qualifications outlined in 433.  You won't find this phrase in 433 with John. You won't find this "two natures after the union" phrase in anything Cyril wrote.

(2) Flavian's synod demanding somebody confess "two natures after the union"  was in fact a breach of the formula of union 433. As Richard Price's assessment

"The demand by the synod that Eutyches should affirm two natures after the union breached the terms of the accord of 433, since the Formula of Reunion was ambiguous on this point: it stated, ‘There has occurred a union of two natures’, which left it ambiguous whether after the union there are two natures or one."

It's  very possible to detect for monophysites as in those who deny the full humanity of christ  without resorting to insisting that someone confess "Two natures after the union." I can present a example of those who have done it.

For example, Timothy I of Alexandria is coptic orthodox saint & he presided over the First Council of Constantinople in 381 AD that condemned Apollinarius.Clearly, this council  was able to condemn those that supported Apollinarism, without having to make them affirm "that christ has two natures after the union"
« Last Edit: October 25, 2017, 11:44:31 PM by ZackShenouda439 »

Offline ZackShenouda439

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 266
    • http://www.saintmarkkc.org
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Alexandria
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #28 on: October 25, 2017, 11:41:40 PM »
My standard is, nowhere do I see Dioscorus or any other Miaphysite asserting something so complete and insane as Eutyches's "drop of wine in the sea" analogy (which seems to me to be borderline adoptionist). Everything else is just complicated quibbling over details. But maybe I'm naive.
First, Dioscorus and Ephesus II openly supported the teaching of Eutyches that Christ already had two natures even before the incarnation in contrast to one afterwards (as Eutyches said: "I confess that Christ had two natures before the union, but one afterwards). To Flavian and the Chalcedonians, this sounded like the monophysite theory of Apollonius, whereby Christ had human flesh already before the incarnation, yet had only the divine nature after the incarnation.

Second, I do understand what you mean that the theological issues EOs have with Dioscorus are not as lengthy in list as those with Eutyches, since Eutyches made many discourses expanding on his monophysitism, denying of consubstantiality, etc. With Dioscorus, for EOs the basic issue was simpler, his rejection of Dyophysitism as a great heresy. Had Dioscorus not treated the question of Christ retaining the two natures as of paramount necessity for the whole church communion by calling an ecumenical council to excommunicate the Patriach of Constantinople for it, perhaps it would not have been a central theological issue of schism.

 Dioscorus received Eutyches in 449 based on this confession "Christ is consubstantial with his mother." not based on one or two terminology . EO or OO perceptive aside, that's what the acts show. You can argue that the reception based on this confession is insufficient, but regarding the question of what he supported, that's not debatable.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,980
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #29 on: October 26, 2017, 12:10:27 AM »
My standard is, nowhere do I see Dioscorus or any other Miaphysite asserting something so complete and insane as Eutyches's "drop of wine in the sea" analogy (which seems to me to be borderline adoptionist). Everything else is just complicated quibbling over details. But maybe I'm naive.
First, Dioscorus and Ephesus II openly supported the teaching of Eutyches that Christ already had two natures even before the incarnation in contrast to one afterwards (as Eutyches said: "I confess that Christ had two natures before the union, but one afterwards). To Flavian and the Chalcedonians, this sounded like the monophysite theory of Apollonius, whereby Christ had human flesh already before the incarnation, yet had only the divine nature after the incarnation.

Second, I do understand what you mean that the theological issues EOs have with Dioscorus are not as lengthy in list as those with Eutyches, since Eutyches made many discourses expanding on his monophysitism, denying of consubstantiality, etc. With Dioscorus, for EOs the basic issue was simpler, his rejection of Dyophysitism as a great heresy. Had Dioscorus not treated the question of Christ retaining the two natures as of paramount necessity for the whole church communion by calling an ecumenical council to excommunicate the Patriach of Constantinople for it, perhaps it would not have been a central theological issue of schism.

But what difference does it make how much of a stickler Dioscorus was against Dyophysitism or how much he wanted Flavian's head on a platter? If he's in Heaven with God, then he's a Dyophsite now (or alternately, Flavian is now a Miaphysite, whatever the case may be). As long as there's nothing unambiguously heretical going on (current OOs are certainly neither Apollinarian nor Eutychian), can't we let bygones be bygones?
On an extended hiatus from this site. Please pray for me and my family.

I'm sorry to any that my posts might offend.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,664
  • 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: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #30 on: October 26, 2017, 12:39:41 AM »
My standard is, nowhere do I see Dioscorus or any other Miaphysite asserting something so complete and insane as Eutyches's "drop of wine in the sea" analogy (which seems to me to be borderline adoptionist). Everything else is just complicated quibbling over details. But maybe I'm naive.
First, Dioscorus and Ephesus II openly supported the teaching of Eutyches that Christ already had two natures even before the incarnation in contrast to one afterwards (as Eutyches said: "I confess that Christ had two natures before the union, but one afterwards). To Flavian and the Chalcedonians, this sounded like the monophysite theory of Apollonius, whereby Christ had human flesh already before the incarnation, yet had only the divine nature after the incarnation.

Second, I do understand what you mean that the theological issues EOs have with Dioscorus are not as lengthy in list as those with Eutyches, since Eutyches made many discourses expanding on his monophysitism, denying of consubstantiality, etc. With Dioscorus, for EOs the basic issue was simpler, his rejection of Dyophysitism as a great heresy. Had Dioscorus not treated the question of Christ retaining the two natures as of paramount necessity for the whole church communion by calling an ecumenical council to excommunicate the Patriach of Constantinople for it, perhaps it would not have been a central theological issue of schism.

But what difference does it make how much of a stickler Dioscorus was against Dyophysitism or how much he wanted Flavian's head on a platter? If he's in Heaven with God, then he's a Dyophsite now (or alternately, Flavian is now a Miaphysite, whatever the case may be). As long as there's nothing unambiguously heretical going on (current OOs are certainly neither Apollinarian nor Eutychian), can't we let bygones be bygones?
Hello, Volnutt.
I understand what you are saying. There are theologians who say that we deep down believe the same thing, so let's just agree to disagree and have communion. This proposal has an appeal, but also some obstacles.

My understanding is that in Eastern Orthodoxy, the ecumenical councils are a central unifying authority of the church, so that its hard for many EO bishops to be in communion as one church with any bishops who openly reject the Councils or their main teachings. So even if we decided that the Christology was the same and nobody was in heresy, traditionally I think the EOs would consider those who reject ecumenical councils to be in schism.

I understand that some ecumenical EOs do not see this as an issue, but I want to show you what the obstacle is for others. It has to do with the question of how much Orthodoxy is a "Conciliar" Church or faith.

Second, there are very many theologically conservative EOs, at least ones I meet in Russian settings, forums, etc, for whom it is very important how much of a stickler Dioscorus was against Dyophysitism. For them, denial that Christ is in two natures, His humanity and divinity, is of practical importance and unambiguously heretical, although I can understand a sentiment that it is not.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2017, 12:42:12 AM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,189
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #31 on: October 26, 2017, 12:45:01 AM »
Did St. Timothy I preside over Constantinople 381?
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.

Online Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,246
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #32 on: October 26, 2017, 12:57:03 AM »
...traditionally I think the EOs would consider those who reject ecumenical councils to be in schism.

Problem is, Orthodox are in disagreement about all sorts of seemingly important issues related to Ecumenical Councils, including: how many such councils there have been; whether one can be held now, for what purposes, and called by whom; and even what an Ecumenical Council is and what kind of authority it has (church wide and unanimous? imperial? highest ecclesiastical authority?) Orthodox like to poke fun at Catholics for making a big deal about papal infallibility but then being unable to produce a definite list of infallible statements... but Orthodoxy is in a similar position with the high status it gives ecumenical councils despite all the debates surrounding certain questions.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2017, 12:58:33 AM by Asteriktos »

Offline ZackShenouda439

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 266
    • http://www.saintmarkkc.org
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Alexandria
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #33 on: October 26, 2017, 01:25:24 AM »
Did St. Timothy I preside over Constantinople 381?

Yup. I read about this recently. Pretty interesting. 

Offline ZackShenouda439

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 266
    • http://www.saintmarkkc.org
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Alexandria
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #34 on: October 26, 2017, 01:38:09 AM »
My standard is, nowhere do I see Dioscorus or any other Miaphysite asserting something so complete and insane as Eutyches's "drop of wine in the sea" analogy (which seems to me to be borderline adoptionist). Everything else is just complicated quibbling over details. But maybe I'm naive.
First, Dioscorus and Ephesus II openly supported the teaching of Eutyches that Christ already had two natures even before the incarnation in contrast to one afterwards (as Eutyches said: "I confess that Christ had two natures before the union, but one afterwards). To Flavian and the Chalcedonians, this sounded like the monophysite theory of Apollonius, whereby Christ had human flesh already before the incarnation, yet had only the divine nature after the incarnation.

Second, I do understand what you mean that the theological issues EOs have with Dioscorus are not as lengthy in list as those with Eutyches, since Eutyches made many discourses expanding on his monophysitism, denying of consubstantiality, etc. With Dioscorus, for EOs the basic issue was simpler, his rejection of Dyophysitism as a great heresy. Had Dioscorus not treated the question of Christ retaining the two natures as of paramount necessity for the whole church communion by calling an ecumenical council to excommunicate the Patriach of Constantinople for it, perhaps it would not have been a central theological issue of schism.

But what difference does it make how much of a stickler Dioscorus was against Dyophysitism or how much he wanted Flavian's head on a platter? If he's in Heaven with God, then he's a Dyophsite now (or alternately, Flavian is now a Miaphysite, whatever the case may be). As long as there's nothing unambiguously heretical going on (current OOs are certainly neither Apollinarian nor Eutychian), can't we let bygones be bygones?
Hello, Volnutt.
I understand what you are saying. There are theologians who say that we deep down believe the same thing, so let's just agree to disagree and have communion. This proposal has an appeal, but also some obstacles.

My understanding is that in Eastern Orthodoxy, the ecumenical councils are a central unifying authority of the church, so that its hard for many EO bishops to be in communion as one church with any bishops who openly reject the Councils or their main teachings. So even if we decided that the Christology was the same and nobody was in heresy, traditionally I think the EOs would consider those who reject ecumenical councils to be in schism.

I understand that some ecumenical EOs do not see this as an issue, but I want to show you what the obstacle is for others. It has to do with the question of how much Orthodoxy is a "Conciliar" Church or faith.

Second, there are very many theologically conservative EOs, at least ones I meet in Russian settings, forums, etc, for whom it is very important how much of a stickler Dioscorus was against Dyophysitism. For them, denial that Christ is in two natures, His humanity and divinity, is of practical importance and unambiguously heretical, although I can understand a sentiment that it is not.

But you are ignoring the details and muddying the waters. In the council of Chalcedon the minutes show what Dioscorus explicitly  opposed

Dioscorus the most devout bishop of Alexandria said: ‘Clearly Flavian was deposed for this reason, that he spoke of two natures after the union. But I have quotations from the holy fathers Athanasius, Gregory and Cyril saying in numerous passages that one should not speak of two natures after the union but of one incarnate nature of the Word. I am being cast out together with the fathers. I stand by the doctrines of the fathers, and do not transgress in any respect. And I have these quotations not indiscriminately or in a haphazard form but in books. As all have asked, I too request that the rest be read.’

The definition of the council of chalcedon does not use "two natures after the union."  Now in terms of the details of why Dioscorus rejected the council of Chalcedon. We have the 6 anathemas he issued available.

Chalcedon is anathematised because the members of the council contradicted the faith of Nicaea, introducing a different nature into the Trinity by proposing a fourth hypostasis.
Chalcedon is anathematised because it has trampled under foot the canons and prescriptions of the Fathers.
Chalcedon is anathematised because the teachings which were established there have overturned the teachings of the council of Ephesus, and in making a new definition of the faith the council has fallen under the anathemas issued at Ephesus.
Chalcedon is anathematised because it has corrupted the patristic doctrine and has received the Tome of Leo.
Chalcedon is anathematised because it has accepted the communion of the partisans of Nestorius, such as Ibas.
Chalcedon is anathematised because in conformity with the doctrine of Nestorius the members of the council have distinguished two natures in Christ, separated into their proprieties; and they have offered Christ two adorations, calling one God and the other man.

Do you see "in two natures" mentioned in his 6 anathemas? No. Because his rejection of it is not about terminology usage.it's about substance. You can disagree with Dioscorus, and that's fine, but accuracy matters. To muddy the waters and obfuscate the fine details is just that. 

Offline Antonious Nikolas

  • Orthodox Christian, Miaphysite
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,237
  • Saint Nicholas the Wonderworker, Bishop of Myra
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Oriental Orthodox Church
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #35 on: October 26, 2017, 07:53:37 AM »
Poor Zack.  He seems a bright young lad.  He has no idea what sort of program he's inadvertently activated here.  He'll learn soon enough though.  :laugh:

I'm with the camp of 13 million Americans that believe politicians are, or are controlled by, Reptilians. I think only monks can solve this problem. It doesn't seem right that they prefer to ignore it.

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,151
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #36 on: October 26, 2017, 09:22:11 AM »
My understanding is that in Eastern Orthodoxy, the ecumenical councils are a central unifying authority of the church, so that its hard for many EO bishops to be in communion as one church with any bishops who openly reject the Councils or their main teachings. So even if we decided that the Christology was the same and nobody was in heresy, traditionally I think the EOs would consider those who reject ecumenical councils to be in schism.

I suggest you read "The Reception of the Ecumenical Councils in the Early Church," St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 47:3-4 (2003): 413-30 by Bishop Hilarion (Alfeyev) of Podolsk. There is good reason to think that the position you've outlined above is ahistorical.

As for your comments about Dioscorus, you keep referring to the minutes of the council, but the link you provided is broken. We Orthodox should care very little what papal legates say in the minutes of a council. We are not bound to papal authority. The letter sent to Dioscoros informing him of his deposition is much more official. It says the following:

"Know you that because you despised the canons and disobeyed the present holy and ecumenical council, without taking account of other misdeeds of which you are guilty, since you have not consented, having been invited three times by the present holy and great council according to the canons, to give answer to the accusations brought against, you are deposed from episcopacy and removed from all ecclesiastical rank, by this holy and ecumenical council, on this day, October 13." - Acts of the Oecumenical Councils vol. 2, pp. 41.

Heresy is not mentioned here.

As for the Romanides article you linked, I think it is very important for you to consider the comments of Fr. Meyendorff, who said the praises of St. Leo should be taken as conciliatory remarks in light of the anti-Roman canons passed at the council. Now put that together with the alleged fact of yours that the bishops weakly agreed with the legates' assessment of Dioscoros. In any case, the official letter of the council sent to Dioscoros should be taken as the definitive reason as to why he was deposed.
« Last Edit: October 26, 2017, 09:25:30 AM by Rohzek »
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,700
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: Yekmalian Monoculture
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #37 on: October 26, 2017, 09:26:55 AM »
Poor Zack.  He seems a bright young lad.  He has no idea what sort of program he's inadvertently activated here.  He'll learn soon enough though.  :laugh:



I want to have your babies.
Mor Ephrem is a nice guy.  Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

thank you so much Mor ephrem you are a hero!

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,664
  • 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: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #38 on: October 26, 2017, 10:09:46 AM »
Now in terms of the details of why Dioscorus rejected the council of Chalcedon. We have the 6 anathemas he issued available.

Chalcedon is anathematised because the members of the council contradicted the faith of Nicaea, introducing a different nature into the Trinity by proposing a fourth hypostasis.
Thanks for posting this information, which is new to me.

Question: According to Oriental Orthodoxy, how many natures did the Trinity have before the incarnation?

According to Chalcedonian theology, the Trinity is three persons and three hypostases, the Trinity shares a single nature (divinity), whereas due to the incarnation, Christ Himself is in two natures (divinity and humanity). Thus, before the incarnation, the Trinity had only one nature (divinity), whereas afterwards, one person of the Trinity had two (divinity and humanity).

Thus, the Declaration of Chalcedon says that We acknowledge Christ to be "in two natures" and only "one hypostasis".

My guess is that Dioscorus' logic in counterarguing the Chalcedonian statement is that "nature" means "hypostasis" in the sense that there must always be exactly one "hypostasis" per person. So Dioscorus concludes that if we say that Christ has two natures, then it entails that Christ has two hypostases in the sense of one hypostasis per person, thus also saying that Christ is two separate persons. And therefore he concludes that Chalcedon teaches not a "Trinity" of hypostases and persons, but four.

Do I understand Dioscorus' logic correctly?

Isn't Dioscorus demanding that each person can only have exactly one hypostasis and one nature per person, no more and no less?

If so, does that mean that the Trinity must be in exactly three natures total, no more and no less?
« Last Edit: October 26, 2017, 10:11:39 AM by rakovsky »
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline ZackShenouda439

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 266
    • http://www.saintmarkkc.org
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Alexandria
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #39 on: October 26, 2017, 10:17:14 AM »
My understanding is that in Eastern Orthodoxy, the ecumenical councils are a central unifying authority of the church, so that its hard for many EO bishops to be in communion as one church with any bishops who openly reject the Councils or their main teachings. So even if we decided that the Christology was the same and nobody was in heresy, traditionally I think the EOs would consider those who reject ecumenical councils to be in schism.

I suggest you read "The Reception of the Ecumenical Councils in the Early Church," St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 47:3-4 (2003): 413-30 by Bishop Hilarion (Alfeyev) of Podolsk. There is good reason to think that the position you've outlined above is ahistorical.

As for your comments about Dioscorus, you keep referring to the minutes of the council, but the link you provided is broken. We Orthodox should care very little what papal legates say in the minutes of a council. We are not bound to papal authority. The letter sent to Dioscoros informing him of his deposition is much more official. It says the following:

"Know you that because you despised the canons and disobeyed the present holy and ecumenical council, without taking account of other misdeeds of which you are guilty, since you have not consented, having been invited three times by the present holy and great council according to the canons, to give answer to the accusations brought against, you are deposed from episcopacy and removed from all ecclesiastical rank, by this holy and ecumenical council, on this day, October 13." - Acts of the Oecumenical Councils vol. 2, pp. 41.

Heresy is not mentioned here.

As for the Romanides article you linked, I think it is very important for you to consider the comments of Fr. Meyendorff, who said the praises of St. Leo should be taken as conciliatory remarks in light of the anti-Roman canons passed at the council. Now put that together with the alleged fact of yours that the bishops weakly agreed with the legates' assessment of Dioscoros. In any case, the official letter of the council sent to Dioscoros should be taken as the definitive reason as to why he was deposed.

+1

I like the receiving-giving process Bishop Hilarion outlined. that's basically how it was done historically/traditionally & it's the correct process. the position Rakvosky outlined is very modernist & akin to the way papists operate

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,664
  • 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: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #40 on: October 26, 2017, 10:24:14 AM »
My understanding is that in Eastern Orthodoxy, the ecumenical councils are a central unifying authority of the church, so that its hard for many EO bishops to be in communion as one church with any bishops who openly reject the Councils or their main teachings. So even if we decided that the Christology was the same and nobody was in heresy, traditionally I think the EOs would consider those who reject ecumenical councils to be in schism.

I suggest you read "The Reception of the Ecumenical Councils in the Early Church," St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly 47:3-4 (2003): 413-30 by Bishop Hilarion (Alfeyev) of Podolsk. There is good reason to think that the position you've outlined above is ahistorical.

As for your comments about Dioscorus, you keep referring to the minutes of the council, but the link you provided is broken. We Orthodox should care very little what papal legates say in the minutes of a council. We are not bound to papal authority. The letter sent to Dioscoros informing him of his deposition is much more official. It says the following:

"Know you that because you despised the canons and disobeyed the present holy and ecumenical council, without taking account of other misdeeds of which you are guilty, since you have not consented, having been invited three times by the present holy and great council according to the canons, to give answer to the accusations brought against, you are deposed from episcopacy and removed from all ecclesiastical rank, by this holy and ecumenical council, on this day, October 13." - Acts of the Oecumenical Councils vol. 2, pp. 41.

Heresy is not mentioned here.

As for the Romanides article you linked, I think it is very important for you to consider the comments of Fr. Meyendorff, who said the praises of St. Leo should be taken as conciliatory remarks in light of the anti-Roman canons passed at the council. Now put that together with the alleged fact of yours that the bishops weakly agreed with the legates' assessment of Dioscoros. In any case, the official letter of the council sent to Dioscoros should be taken as the definitive reason as to why he was deposed.
Thank you for writing about this.
If a plaintiff brings several kinds of complaints to a court of judges, and the judges announce that he finds the defendant responsible for several different injuries, then I think that the judges' decisions and their reasons announced at the court should be given as official reasons, even if the court later sends a letter to the defendant only mentioning one reason and complaint.

So in the case of Chalcedon, where plaintiffs brought complaints of heresy and of wrongful excommunication, and the bishops themselves give both reasons, with a collective affirmation of heresy, then it appears that those are the bishops' reasons, even if later on they only gave one reason in a letter to Dioscorus. Thus the editors of the Acts of Chalcedon note:
Quote
    A  question of particular interest is whether Dioscorus was condemned only  for  misconduct  or  also  for  heresy.
    ...
    1. The  principal  plaintiff  was  Eusebius  of  Dorylaeum,  and  his  plaint
    concentrated on the charge of heresy, specifically that of sharing the heresy
    of Eutyches – a charge that was taken up and repeated by one of the bishops
    delivering a verdict (96.63).
    2. Vague and unsubstantiated charges of blasphemy against the doctrine
    of the Trinity were included in all the four plaints from the plaintiffs from
    Alexandria (47, 51, 57, 64).
     3. The letter to Pulcheria (103) contains extended, though vague, refer-
    ences to heresy.
    4. Finally, the letter that Marcian addressed to the monks of Alexandria
    in 454 (Documents after the Council 14) describes Dioscorus as an adherent
    of Eutychianism.

    FOOTNOTE: (V. 26–7)

The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon
https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0853230390
Richard Price, ‎Michael Gaddis - 2005
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20

Offline ZackShenouda439

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 266
    • http://www.saintmarkkc.org
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Alexandria
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #41 on: October 26, 2017, 10:30:18 AM »
Now in terms of the details of why Dioscorus rejected the council of Chalcedon. We have the 6 anathemas he issued available.

Chalcedon is anathematised because the members of the council contradicted the faith of Nicaea, introducing a different nature into the Trinity by proposing a fourth hypostasis.
Thanks for posting this information, which is new to me.

Question: According to Oriental Orthodoxy, how many natures did the Trinity have before the incarnation?

According to Chalcedonian theology, the Trinity is three persons and three hypostases, the Trinity shares a single nature (divinity), whereas due to the incarnation, Christ Himself is in two natures (divinity and humanity). Thus, before the incarnation, the Trinity had only one nature (divinity), whereas afterwards, one person of the Trinity had two (divinity and humanity).

Thus, the Declaration of Chalcedon says that We acknowledge Christ to be "in two natures" and only "one hypostasis".

My guess is that Dioscorus' logic in counterarguing the Chalcedonian statement is that "nature" means "hypostasis" in the sense that there must always be exactly one "hypostasis" per person. So Dioscorus concludes that if we say that Christ has two natures, then it entails that Christ has two hypostases in the sense of one hypostasis per person, thus also saying that Christ is two separate persons. And therefore he concludes that Chalcedon teaches not a "Trinity" of hypostases and persons, but four.

Do I understand Dioscorus' logic correctly?

Isn't Dioscorus demanding that each person can only have exactly one hypostasis and one nature per person, no more and no less?

If so, does that mean that the Trinity must be in exactly three natures total, no more and no less?

To put it in simply, he understood "in two natures" as two individuals. and there was a faction of people who accepted chalcedon in 451 with this understanding. It's why the EO fifth council 100 years later, ended up including this in one of it's canons, to exclude those people. so there were people who understood "in two natures" the same way as Dioscorus & accepted it for the same reason he rejected it. Like I said,his concern was about substance, not terminological usage.

"If anyone understands the expression “one only Person of our Lord Jesus Christ” in this sense, that it is the union of many hypostases, and if he attempts thus to introduce into the mystery of Christ two hypostases, or two Persons, and, after having introduced two persons, speaks of one Person only out of dignity, honour or worship, as both Theodorus and Nestorius insanely have written; if anyone shall calumniate the holy Council of Chalcedon, pretending that it made use of this expression [one hypostasis] in this impious sense, and if he will not recognize rather that the Word of God is united with the flesh hypostatically, and that therefore there is but one hypostasis or one only Person, and that the holy Council of Chalcedon has professed in this sense the one Person of our Lord Jesus Christ: let him be anathema"

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,700
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: Yekmalian Monoculture
Mor Ephrem is a nice guy.  Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

thank you so much Mor ephrem you are a hero!

Online Luke

  • Formerly Gamliel
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 5,222
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #43 on: October 26, 2017, 10:38:20 AM »
^What do you mean, an African or European swallow? :)

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,700
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: Yekmalian Monoculture
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #44 on: October 26, 2017, 10:56:00 AM »
^What do you mean, an African or European swallow? :)

Are you trying to get me thrown off a bridge??
Mor Ephrem is a nice guy.  Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

thank you so much Mor ephrem you are a hero!