Author Topic: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?  (Read 5020 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,516
  • 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 #135 on: November 03, 2017, 10:48:08 AM »
Do you mean - how should they deal with those individuals who think that "in two natures" must always be heretical? By educating them about what it means to them.
Fr. Peter,

Are you saying that EOs should agree to union with both bishops, clergy and theologians who meet the requirements of Met. Hilarion's proposed agreement and those who reject its requirements, rejecting "a positive attitude to the teaching" of Chalcedon, teaching that Chalcedon contradicts their own teaching, or rejecting its Christological formulae as heretical?
« Last Edit: November 03, 2017, 10:55:31 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 Father Peter

  • Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,090
    • Coptic Orthodox Church - Patriarchal Diocese
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchal Diocese
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #136 on: November 03, 2017, 03:27:32 PM »
I mean that is it necessary for the EO to say what the teaching of Chalcedon is, then it can be agreed to or not.

The Chalcedonians have done this in the past and presented Chalcedon as standing for a variety of things. That's not an issue. But what do you think it stands for?
My ministry and blog - http://www.stgeorgeministry.com

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington

Offline ZackShenouda439

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 250
    • http://www.saintmarkkc.org
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Alexandria
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #137 on: November 03, 2017, 06:18:58 PM »
Overall, I like Met. Hilarion's proposal but in terms of the big picture, I think the substance of faith is of primary importance & the councils/persons you venerate is a secondary matter. This was the principal St.Cyril himself. It's why, while I genuinely have a radically different view of the person of Theodoret than the EO, I consider this to be a secondary matter. I know the EO believe in a Christology that is the same in substance as the OO and it is not the same as Theodorets. What's of primary importance is substance of faith.To say otherwise, I think is to deviate from the legacy of St.Cyril. And lets not forget, the legacy of St.Cyril matters. I mean the whole point of the schism is both sides believed that they were being loyal to St.Cyril.

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,027
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #138 on: November 04, 2017, 02:47:20 AM »
Overall, I like Met. Hilarion's proposal but in terms of the big picture, I think the substance of faith is of primary importance & the councils/persons you venerate is a secondary matter. This was the principal St.Cyril himself. It's why, while I genuinely have a radically different view of the person of Theodoret than the EO, I consider this to be a secondary matter. I know the EO believe in a Christology that is the same in substance as the OO and it is not the same as Theodorets. What's of primary importance is substance of faith.To say otherwise, I think is to deviate from the legacy of St.Cyril. And lets not forget, the legacy of St.Cyril matters. I mean the whole point of the schism is both sides believed that they were being loyal to St.Cyril.

I think it is also instructive that although the Frankish Church rejected II Nicaea, the Eastern Chalcedonian churches by and large maintained communion with the Frankish Church, not without tension mind you due to the Filioque (a separate theological matter). And this was possible because the Franks articulated a theology on icons in their own terms that was fundamentally the same more or less as that agreed upon at II Nicaea. Therefore, it seems ahistorical to me for anyone in the EO camp to insist upon strict adherence to the later ecumenical councils as preconditions for being a part of the same communion.
"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: 250
    • http://www.saintmarkkc.org
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Alexandria
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #139 on: November 04, 2017, 08:04:44 PM »
That's a very good point Rohzek. I agree with you that it's ahistorical to insist on strict adherence to the later ecumenical councils as preconditions for being a part of the same communion. And that example with the Frankish church can serve as a good precedent.


 

Offline ZackShenouda439

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 250
    • http://www.saintmarkkc.org
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Alexandria
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #140 on: November 04, 2017, 08:07:23 PM »
I was reading this interesting bit about Photius & the Armenians

"According to Photius, the Armenian church is 'in union with the holy Catholic church in every respect save one', that is the rejection of Chalcedon, which hinders full communion between the two churches.Photius speaks of the Byzantines and Armenians as 'fellow-disciples' of Truth and fellows in preaching the Gospel and in accomplishing Christ's will that his disciples should abide in unity"

https://books.google.com/books?id=C803DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT194&dq=according+to+%22Photius+speaks+of+the+Byzantines+and+Armenians+as+'fellow-disciples'+of+Truth+and+fellows+in+preaching+the+Gospel+and+in+accomplishing+Christ's+will+that+his+disciples+should+abide+in+unity%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj2rannj6bXAhWh8YMKHbQ8AXoQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=according%20to%20%22Photius%20speaks%20of%20the%20Byzantines%20and%20Armenians%20as%20'fellow-disciples'%20of%20Truth%20and%20fellows%20in%20preaching%20the%20Gospel%20and%20in%20accomplishing%20Christ's%20will%20that%20his%20disciples%20should%20abide%20in%20unity%22&f=false

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,321
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #141 on: November 04, 2017, 08:14:22 PM »
Overall, I like Met. Hilarion's proposal but in terms of the big picture, I think the substance of faith is of primary importance & the councils/persons you venerate is a secondary matter. This was the principal St.Cyril himself. It's why, while I genuinely have a radically different view of the person of Theodoret than the EO, I consider this to be a secondary matter. I know the EO believe in a Christology that is the same in substance as the OO and it is not the same as Theodorets. What's of primary importance is substance of faith.To say otherwise, I think is to deviate from the legacy of St.Cyril. And lets not forget, the legacy of St.Cyril matters. I mean the whole point of the schism is both sides believed that they were being loyal to St.Cyril.

I think it is also instructive that although the Frankish Church rejected II Nicaea, the Eastern Chalcedonian churches by and large maintained communion with the Frankish Church, not without tension mind you due to the Filioque (a separate theological matter). And this was possible because the Franks articulated a theology on icons in their own terms that was fundamentally the same more or less as that agreed upon at II Nicaea. Therefore, it seems ahistorical to me for anyone in the EO camp to insist upon strict adherence to the later ecumenical councils as preconditions for being a part of the same communion.

That is a valid point. Since we consider Constantinople IV, the Photian council, of equal significance, the same point can be made. The Papal Church had initially agreed to excise the filioque from the Creed, and reject it's universal jurisdiction. Though, it eventually rejected the council once more, it nevertheless showed that communion between two groups which accept different conciliar understandings is indeed possible.

Although, I do question the wisdom of doing so, you make a valid point.
This profile is defunct as of 11/8/2017. I created it before Orthodoxy, and have used it after Orthodoxy.

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

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

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,206
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #142 on: November 04, 2017, 10:02:48 PM »
Overall, I like Met. Hilarion's proposal but in terms of the big picture, I think the substance of faith is of primary importance & the councils/persons you venerate is a secondary matter. This was the principal St.Cyril himself. It's why, while I genuinely have a radically different view of the person of Theodoret than the EO, I consider this to be a secondary matter. I know the EO believe in a Christology that is the same in substance as the OO and it is not the same as Theodorets. What's of primary importance is substance of faith.To say otherwise, I think is to deviate from the legacy of St.Cyril. And lets not forget, the legacy of St.Cyril matters. I mean the whole point of the schism is both sides believed that they were being loyal to St.Cyril.

I think it is also instructive that although the Frankish Church rejected II Nicaea, the Eastern Chalcedonian churches by and large maintained communion with the Frankish Church, not without tension mind you due to the Filioque (a separate theological matter). And this was possible because the Franks articulated a theology on icons in their own terms that was fundamentally the same more or less as that agreed upon at II Nicaea. Therefore, it seems ahistorical to me for anyone in the EO camp to insist upon strict adherence to the later ecumenical councils as preconditions for being a part of the same communion.

How powerful/influential was the Frankish Church at the time compared to the non-Chalcedonians?  ISTM at least some modern ecumenism has more to do with aligning with power/influence than with healing old wounds, and I'm wondering how far back that goes.
How this relates to the coming Antichrist? I don't know...

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

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,027
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #143 on: November 05, 2017, 12:27:05 AM »
Overall, I like Met. Hilarion's proposal but in terms of the big picture, I think the substance of faith is of primary importance & the councils/persons you venerate is a secondary matter. This was the principal St.Cyril himself. It's why, while I genuinely have a radically different view of the person of Theodoret than the EO, I consider this to be a secondary matter. I know the EO believe in a Christology that is the same in substance as the OO and it is not the same as Theodorets. What's of primary importance is substance of faith.To say otherwise, I think is to deviate from the legacy of St.Cyril. And lets not forget, the legacy of St.Cyril matters. I mean the whole point of the schism is both sides believed that they were being loyal to St.Cyril.

I think it is also instructive that although the Frankish Church rejected II Nicaea, the Eastern Chalcedonian churches by and large maintained communion with the Frankish Church, not without tension mind you due to the Filioque (a separate theological matter). And this was possible because the Franks articulated a theology on icons in their own terms that was fundamentally the same more or less as that agreed upon at II Nicaea. Therefore, it seems ahistorical to me for anyone in the EO camp to insist upon strict adherence to the later ecumenical councils as preconditions for being a part of the same communion.

How powerful/influential was the Frankish Church at the time compared to the non-Chalcedonians?  ISTM at least some modern ecumenism has more to do with aligning with power/influence than with healing old wounds, and I'm wondering how far back that goes.

That's a fair point. The Frankish Church I would say was quite powerful at the time since it was intricately linked with the Carolingian Empire. It and the Byzantine Empire maintained a respectful yet sometimes tense relationship, as far as I can remember, although there were a number of Frankish councils that did condemn the Eastern churches, namely Frankfurt (794), Aachen (809), and Worms (868). These latter two councils dealt exclusively with the matter of the filioque, whereas images and icons just fell by the wayside. In the 820s, the Franks held local councils developing their own theology of veneration of crosses and relics, which basically was on the same lines as icons, so that Frank/Greek controversy seems to have been dropped (despite the Franks still officially rejecting II Nicaea). The Ottonian Empire, which was basically East Francia after the demise of the Carolingian line there, engaged in marriage alliances with the Byzantines. So there was certainly political clout that made maintaining the relationship more favorable. But the bishop of Rome also played a crucial role in smoothing over the tensions between the Frankish Church and those in the East, with the exception of Pope Nicholas I, of course.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2017, 12:27:58 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 ZackShenouda439

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 250
    • http://www.saintmarkkc.org
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Alexandria
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #144 on: November 05, 2017, 03:55:53 AM »
 While monophysitism is not explicitly mentioned in the acts,it seems that Dr. William Lane Craig has actually adopted monophysitism. he's calls it "Neo-Apollinarian Christological model." Finally a real life monophysite for orthodoxinfo dot com to confront, instead of the monophysites of their imagination haha

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/reasonable-faith-podcast/does-dr.-craig-have-an-orthodox-christology/

What's weird is he claims to agree with Chalcedon's formula

"We agree with the Council of Chalcedon that in Christ we have one person with two natures – human and divine."

but he justifies his model by claiming that he wants to avoid Nestorianism

"So I am constrained to avoid Nestorianism. Here I think Apollinarius has pointed the route that we could take, namely, you say that there is a common constituent which is shared by the human nature and the divine nature. That would be the person – the soul of the human nature is the person of the second person of the Trinity. By having this common constituent, there is overlap so to speak between the divine and the human natures."

Has Craig read Cyril or Cyril's formula? I think he should adopt "One Incarnate Nature of the Word" formula instead.  This would allow him to avoid nestorianism, without resorting to the Apollinarianism defect of failing to affirm christ's full humanity.  I think if he read St.Cyril or St.Severus, they can provide him with a more coherent explanations for his questions, then that Apollinarianism failure. 

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,599
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #145 on: November 05, 2017, 04:09:48 AM »
:(

Craig used to be one of my favorite writers. I remember raising the red flag about this on another forum years ago, before he started actually calling himself Apollinarian AFAIK, and being dismissed. This is really depressing to me.
« Last Edit: November 05, 2017, 04:12:41 AM by Volnutt »
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline ZackShenouda439

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 250
    • http://www.saintmarkkc.org
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Alexandria
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #146 on: November 05, 2017, 04:16:23 AM »
I think his error here is  based more on ignorance than anything else.He doesn't seem familiar with the fathers writings on this. I wonder if Criag has ever heard of communicatio idiomatum? communicatio idiomatum I think can help provide him with a better explanation than resorting to that "common constituent which is shared by the human nature and the divine nature" Apollinarian mess.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,599
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #147 on: November 05, 2017, 04:47:54 AM »
I think his error here is  based more on ignorance than anything else.He doesn't seem familiar with the fathers writings on this. I wonder if Criag has ever heard of communicatio idiomatum? communicatio idiomatum I think can help provide him with a better explanation than resorting to that "common constituent which is shared by the human nature and the divine nature" Apollinarian mess.

Craig's no fool, he knows exactly what he's doing.

I think the crux is this:

Quote
What he is saying here is that if Christ had a merely human soul and merely human body in addition to the divine person then to me it is very difficult to understand why there wouldn’t be two persons in Christ – one human and one divine. Think about it. What goes to constitute a human person? It is a rational soul and a body. If you have a rational soul and a humanoid body, you have a human person. That is all it takes. So if you say that Christ had a merely human soul and a human body then why wasn’t there a human person, Jesus? Yet orthodoxy denies that. Orthodoxy says there is only one person in Christ (or who is Christ), and that person is divine. There is no human person, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is a divine person with two natures. I can’t make sense of that if we say that Christ had, in addition to his divine person, a merely human soul conjoined with a human body. That seems to me to be sufficient for another person in which case you have two Sons – one the divine Son and the other a human Son.

I admit this is a line of thought that attracted me too at one point in my life, along with Craig's quotation of Philippians 2 and question of what exactly it was that Christ "emptied Himself" of. I'm guessing he would say that a Communicatio Idiomatum type view fails in that it just makes Christ's humanity an empty shell, a "Clark Kent," as he puts it.
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline ZackShenouda439

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 250
    • http://www.saintmarkkc.org
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Alexandria
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #148 on: November 05, 2017, 06:01:02 AM »
What's interesting  is the below reads to me that he's having issues with the two-nature terminology

"Jesus Christ is a divine person with two natures. I can’t make sense of that if we say that Christ had, in addition to his divine person, a merely human soul conjoined with a human body. That seems to me to be sufficient for another person in which case you have two Sons one the divine Son and the other a human Son."

He seems like he's concerned about safe-guarding the union between the humanity & divinity, but is not familiar with lexicon to do so. I've only seen him reference the dyophysite lexicon/framework here

"We agree with the Council of Chalcedon that in Christ we have one person with two natures – human and divine."

But he never references the miaphysite one. I wouldn't be surprised if he's genuinely unfamiliar with Cyril's writings from 438-444 & if he straight-up has never heard St.Severus before. Many Christian Scholars even at the PhD level aren't familiar with this type of Christology, so he certainly wouldn't be the first.

Offline Father Peter

  • Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,090
    • Coptic Orthodox Church - Patriarchal Diocese
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchal Diocese
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #149 on: November 07, 2017, 05:12:07 AM »
So many of the scholarly books I have on Christology show that the author has no idea at all about the Christology of St Cyril and of our communion.
My ministry and blog - http://www.stgeorgeministry.com

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington

Offline ZackShenouda439

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 250
    • http://www.saintmarkkc.org
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Alexandria
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #150 on: November 07, 2017, 10:32:16 AM »
I've noticed that Father Peter. Most of the books I've seen, when they mention christology St.Cyril, they tend to ignore the majority of his thoughts. It's as if they extrapolate from the most diluted & broad 5% of his thoughts, but ignore the 95%. Seldom do I find a comprehensive big picture piece about his thoughts as a whole. What I usually see written is the Cyril of the author's imagination, as opposed to Cyril's actual thoughts.
« Last Edit: November 07, 2017, 10:34:05 AM by ZackShenouda439 »

Offline Father Peter

  • Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,090
    • Coptic Orthodox Church - Patriarchal Diocese
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchal Diocese
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #151 on: November 07, 2017, 01:35:32 PM »
I think it was Professor Patrick Grey who said that Grillmeier (for all his very great value) had misled a generation of scholars by inistsing on his own faulty understanding of Cyrilline and Oriental Orthodox Christology.
My ministry and blog - http://www.stgeorgeministry.com

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington

Offline ZackShenouda439

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 250
    • http://www.saintmarkkc.org
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Alexandria
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #152 on: November 15, 2017, 03:33:28 AM »
Theodoret’s view of Ephesus 449 is interesting, he admits that he was the main subject. the summaries on wikipedia describe Ephesus 449 as a Eutyches-centric event, but theodoret's perspective conflicts with this narrative. Theodoret's perspective is actually closer to the OO than the summaries on wikipedia

"It is perfectly clear even to outsiders that it was for doctrine that I and the rest were expelled. Why the Lord Domnus too, because he would not accept "the Chapters" was deposed by these excellent persons who called them admirable and confessed that they abided by them. I had read their propositions, and they rejected me as the head and front of the heresy and expelled others for the same reason”
 
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers2/NPNF2-03/Npnf2-03-23.htm

From what I understand, Theodoret wrote Eranistes in 447, so this was written after Cyril’s death. So Cyril wasn’t alive to examine this work. However, based on what Theodoret has written, it looks like Dioscorus wasn’t a fan of this work: At least this is what Vasilije Vranic  paper claims and referenced the below

Theodoret wrote this in 448
“But the very pious bishop Dioscorus has written us a letter such as never ought to have been written by one who has learned from the God of all not to listen to vain words.”

http://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1182&context=dissertations_mu

lol I wonder what Dioscorus wrote? I’d like to read his response to Theodoret’s Eranistes. Was his letter to Theodoret burned or something?

I just encountered a really insane bit of Theodoret's Eranistes. He kept denying that "God the Word suffered in the flesh." Multiple times. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/27033.htm

Eran.— The Apostle proves the general resurrection by means of the Lord's resurrection, and it is clear that in this case also what died and rose was a body. For he would never have attempted to prove the general resurrection by its means unless there had been some relation between the substance of the one and the other. I shall never consent to apply the passion to the human nature alone. It seems agreeable to my view to say that God the Word died in the flesh.

Orth.— We have frequently shown that what is naturally immortal can in no way die. If then He died He was not immortal; and what perils lie in the blasphemy of the words.

Eran.— He is by nature immortal, but He became man and suffered.

Orth.— Therefore He underwent change, for how otherwise could He being immortal submit to death? But we have agreed that the substance of the Trinity is immutable. Having therefore a nature superior to change, He by no means shared death.

Eran.— The divine Peter says Christ has suffered for us in the flesh.

Orth.— This agrees with what we have said, for we have learned the rule of dogmas from the divine Scripture.

Eran.— How then can you deny that God the Word suffered in the flesh?

Orth.— Because we have not found this expression in the divine Scripture.

Eran.— But I have just quoted you the utterance of the great Peter.

Orth.— You seem to ignore the distinction of the terms.

Eran.— What terms? Do you not regard the Lord Christ as God the Word?

Orth.— The term Christ in the case of our Lord and Saviour signifies the incarnate Word the Immanuel, God with us, both God and man, but the term God the Word so said signifies the simple nature before the world, superior to time, and incorporeal. Wherefore the Holy Ghost that spoke through the holy Apostles nowhere attributes passion or death to this name


I wonder who Theodoret was referring to with the name "Eranistes" in this discourse. I can't quite put my finger on it.

St.Cyril:
 If anyone does not confess that God the Word suffered in the flesh, was crucified in the flesh, tasted death in the flesh, and was made the firstborn from the dead, even though as God he is Life and the Life-giver, let that person be anathema!

Offline Father Peter

  • Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,090
    • Coptic Orthodox Church - Patriarchal Diocese
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchal Diocese
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #153 on: November 15, 2017, 06:30:51 AM »
Thedoret had a defective Christology all his life and when he signed up to Chalcedon and afterwards. The book by by Paul Clayton about him is very detailed and substantial and shows that though he moderated his terminology he never changed his Christology.
My ministry and blog - http://www.stgeorgeministry.com

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington

Offline ZackShenouda439

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 250
    • http://www.saintmarkkc.org
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Alexandria
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #154 on: November 15, 2017, 04:29:57 PM »
True. This paper by: Vasilije Vranic argues that same premise & I agree with his central premise.

"In this dissertation, I argue that the Christology of Theodoret of Cyrrhus remains consistent and unchanged throughout his life."

 http://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1182&context=dissertations_mu

 Vasilije Vranic took some unfair shots at the Alexandrian party though

"The Alexandrian party more than compensated for its inadequacy in reflective theological thinking by the strength of its political connections"

This bit I also found too unfair:

"Dioscorus of Alexandria was the greatest exponent of the extreme wing of the Alexandrine party.”

I don’t see Dioscorus anymore “extreme" than Cyril.I'd say Theodoret changed the status quo when he wrote “Eranistes"

The author even admits this bit:

"The Eranistes greatly displeased Dioscorus, who recognized in it a subtle attack on his Christological tradition. Thus, the Eranistes became ample incentive for the persecution of Theodoret.”

I think the author here just doesn’t see Eranistes as a justification for Dioscorus’s action, against Theodoret in 449. I do view Theodoret's explicit denial of “God the Word suffered in the flesh” in this work multiple times, as more than enough for the discipline that took place in Ephesus 449.

I view Theodoret, to be the more theologically talented & more patient version of Nestorius basically. The difference I see between Nestorius & Theodoret is personality/theological ability. but I don’t see significant difference in Christology between these two.

 

 

Offline Father Peter

  • Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,090
    • Coptic Orthodox Church - Patriarchal Diocese
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchal Diocese
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #155 on: November 16, 2017, 06:38:13 AM »
I don't think that Theodoret was persecuted (in the context of the times). He held a heterodox Christology, and together with Nestorius and Ibas, he represented the developing Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia. The first contact between Eutyches and Leo of Rome was entirely positive. Eutyches wrote to him warning of a resurgence of "Nestorianism".

And I would not say that St Dioscorus was extreme, rather that times had changed and he lacked some of the discretion of St Cyril, or rather he probably thought that the time for discretion had passed with the death of Theodosius and the elevation of Marcian and Pulcheria to the Imperial throne. Certainly he seems to have known in advance what would happen at Chalcedon after he refused to compromise as requested by Pulcheria.

If Constantinople 448 rejected the use of Cyrilline language, and Ephesus 449 insisted on it, then it seems to me that Chalcedon went back pretty much to the position of Constantinople 448. Especially if Nestorius had been invited. This was not helped by Leo failing to understand Cyrilline language at all.
My ministry and blog - http://www.stgeorgeministry.com

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 623
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #156 on: November 17, 2017, 01:51:53 PM »
I think you miss the obvious and important question and the others are not as important at all.

Do we believe the same things about Christ?

Since the answer is yes, and has been yes since the 6th century, we had better get on with what that answer demands of us.

Well said.
Why are there monkeys on your profile picture ?

Unless they (the anti-chalcedonians) are willing to confess Christ with 2wills and 2energies, we don't have the same faith.

Honestly, the more I read about Theodoret on here, the more skeeved out I am that he's (probably, maybe) an EO Saint.

Makes me want to choose OO over EO for that reason alone.

I can give you 14 reasons not to make this mistake
« Last Edit: November 17, 2017, 02:00:37 PM by Vanhyo »

Offline Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,206
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #157 on: November 17, 2017, 01:54:43 PM »
Honestly, the more I read about Theodoret on here, the more skeeved out I am that he's (probably, maybe) an EO Saint.

Makes me want to choose OO over EO for that reason alone.

I can give you 14 reasons not to make this mistake

Keep the polemics out of this section.
How this relates to the coming Antichrist? I don't know...

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

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,456
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #158 on: November 17, 2017, 02:22:39 PM »
I think you miss the obvious and important question and the others are not as important at all.

Do we believe the same things about Christ?

Since the answer is yes, and has been yes since the 6th century, we had better get on with what that answer demands of us.

Well said.
Why are there monkeys on your profile picture ?

Monkeys are cool.

Quote
Unless they (the anti-chalcedonians) are willing to confess Christ with 2wills and 2energies, we don't have the same faith.

From everything I have seen, they affirm the fullness of Christ's humanity and divinity just as we do. Whether they express this with the exact same terminology as certain 7th century Byzantine theologians is not a priority for me.
Quote
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop
- GK Chesteron, "Lepanto"

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,587
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #159 on: November 17, 2017, 02:38:38 PM »
Honestly, the more I read about Theodoret on here, the more skeeved out I am that he's (probably, maybe) an EO Saint.

Who commemorates him, or was this already discussed and I missed it?

Quote
Makes me want to choose OO over EO for that reason alone.

As an "EO," and a perfectly happy one, I'd be fine with you or anybody else outside the Church becoming "OO," and in fact would glorify God. Yet maybe because you disapprove the contents of Eranistes, which as far as I know has had no prevailing influence, isn't the best reason to make such a decision.
"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: 250
    • http://www.saintmarkkc.org
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Alexandria
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #160 on: November 17, 2017, 10:05:36 PM »
Yea I don't see Eranistes as having influence on the EO. The christology of the EO is very different than the christology  of Theodoret of Cyrus
« Last Edit: November 17, 2017, 10:05:54 PM by ZackShenouda439 »

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,599
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #161 on: November 17, 2017, 11:02:35 PM »
Honestly, the more I read about Theodoret on here, the more skeeved out I am that he's (probably, maybe) an EO Saint.

Who commemorates him, or was this already discussed and I missed it?

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=54243.0


Quote
Makes me want to choose OO over EO for that reason alone.

As an "EO," and a perfectly happy one, I'd be fine with you or anybody else outside the Church becoming "OO," and in fact would glorify God. Yet maybe because you disapprove the contents of Eranistes, which as far as I know has had no prevailing influence, isn't the best reason to make such a decision.

True. I should not have been hyperbolic,. I have other reasons for thinking about going OO.
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,587
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #162 on: November 17, 2017, 11:26:15 PM »
Honestly, the more I read about Theodoret on here, the more skeeved out I am that he's (probably, maybe) an EO Saint.

Who commemorates him, or was this already discussed and I missed it?

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=54243.0

So, no, he's not commemorated, but if you follow a few links, Rakovsky called him "St." once.
"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 Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,599
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #163 on: November 17, 2017, 11:56:07 PM »
Honestly, the more I read about Theodoret on here, the more skeeved out I am that he's (probably, maybe) an EO Saint.

Who commemorates him, or was this already discussed and I missed it?

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=54243.0

So, no, he's not commemorated, but if you follow a few links, Rakovsky called him "St." once.

If Rakovsky is really St. Photios the Great (or Fr. Michael Pomanzansky) posting from Heaven.
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,587
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #164 on: November 18, 2017, 02:18:45 PM »
Honestly, the more I read about Theodoret on here, the more skeeved out I am that he's (probably, maybe) an EO Saint.

Who commemorates him, or was this already discussed and I missed it?

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=54243.0

So, no, he's not commemorated, but if you follow a few links, Rakovsky called him "St." once.

If Rakovsky is really St. Photios the Great (or Fr. Michael Pomanzansky) posting from Heaven.

Nah. You're reading what you want to read.
"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: 250
    • http://www.saintmarkkc.org
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Alexandria
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #165 on: November 18, 2017, 04:40:24 PM »
In the book The Lamb of God Fr. Sergius Bulgakov does refer to Theodoret as "St.Theodoret" here:

"This is in part explained by the tendency of his opponents (St. Theodoret and the Eastern fathers in general) to accuse him of Apollinarianism, which St. Cyril considers in a highly simplified and stylized form, a form in which Apollinarius himself, at least after the Council of Constantinople (381), did not express his doctrine"

 But in the same book, Fr. Sergius also sees the same ambiguity I see, when I read the Tome of Leo

"What precisely does una persona signify, and how does it unite the two natures? The Tome of Leo the Great leaves this question unanswered. In any event, the Tome does not represent progress in theological thought, although it is an  important step forward in church dogma.”

So what to conclude here? Theodoret is called “St.Theodoret”  here for reasons unrelated to the actual Christology of Theodoret. That’s why it looks like Theodoret’s christology does not have influence on EO christology.
I’ll admit though, when I read “St.Theodoret”, I experience this sensation of bewilderment. That’s really the only way to describe the sensation I experience lol

Offline Father Peter

  • Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,090
    • Coptic Orthodox Church - Patriarchal Diocese
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchal Diocese
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #166 on: November 20, 2017, 06:41:32 AM »
The official Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese site clearly calls Theodoret a saint...

http://www.antiochian.org/category/article-topics/st-theodoret-cyrus
My ministry and blog - http://www.stgeorgeministry.com

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,456
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #167 on: November 20, 2017, 11:12:34 AM »
Well, websites, official or otherwise, don't count for much IMO. If someone can point to a feast day on a calendar, that would mean more.
Quote
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop
- GK Chesteron, "Lepanto"

Offline Father Peter

  • Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,090
    • Coptic Orthodox Church - Patriarchal Diocese
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchal Diocese
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #168 on: November 20, 2017, 11:39:23 AM »
I think that where there are a great many websites, of reasonable seriousness, (Ancient Faith Radio) which all speak of "St Theodoret" and also list the commemoration of his feast, then it indicates that he is certainly venerated as a saint by a significant population of EO. And if I search for Blessed Theodoret (and it is often stressed in EO circles that Blessed also means Saint) then I find even more references.

No one would dream of speaking of Blessed Ibas, or Blessed Nestorius, or Blessed Eutyches. But Theodoret was as heterodox in his Christology and was condemned for it.
My ministry and blog - http://www.stgeorgeministry.com

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,456
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #169 on: November 20, 2017, 11:59:33 AM »
I think that where there are a great many websites, of reasonable seriousness, (Ancient Faith Radio)


Yeah, I can't agree with you there.

Quote
which all speak of "St Theodoret" and also list the commemoration of his feast

Where? What is the date of this feast and which calendars have it?
Quote
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop
- GK Chesteron, "Lepanto"

Offline Father Peter

  • Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,090
    • Coptic Orthodox Church - Patriarchal Diocese
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchal Diocese
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #170 on: November 20, 2017, 01:02:28 PM »
I sent you to the Antiochian Archdiocese and you said it didn't count. There are many others. A Google reveals them.
My ministry and blog - http://www.stgeorgeministry.com

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,456
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #171 on: November 20, 2017, 01:07:12 PM »
The webpage on the Antiochian Archdiocese website doesn't list a feast day. Presumably if Theodoret is widely venerated by EO's as you claim, it should be very easy to produce a single example of a feast day in his name. I've certainly tried googling it and come up with nothing. Perhaps your Google skills are superior, so I entreat you to indulge my meager search engine savvy and provide one of the 'great many' examples you have uncovered which, in your words, 'all speak of "St Theodoret" and also list the commemoration of his feast.'
« Last Edit: November 20, 2017, 01:07:23 PM by Iconodule »
Quote
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop
- GK Chesteron, "Lepanto"

Offline Alpha60

  • Pray without ceasing!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,586
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #172 on: November 20, 2017, 04:48:58 PM »
I think that where there are a great many websites, of reasonable seriousness, (Ancient Faith Radio) which all speak of "St Theodoret" and also list the commemoration of his feast, then it indicates that he is certainly venerated as a saint by a significant population of EO. And if I search for Blessed Theodoret (and it is often stressed in EO circles that Blessed also means Saint) then I find even more references.

No one would dream of speaking of Blessed Ibas, or Blessed Nestorius, or Blessed Eutyches. But Theodoret was as heterodox in his Christology and was condemned for it.

What is more, the case of Theodoret lacks the mitigating circumstances that exist in the lifes of Dioscorus and especially Theodore of Mopsuestia (in his case, I feel the anathema was entirely unfair, as he died in the peace of the church, his best friend was St. John Chrysostom, whose Christological orthodoxy has never been disputed, and his theological speculations about Christology, although in error, as far as I can tell, went without criticism during his lifetime).  I feel the same way about Origen for similiar reasons.

In the case of Theodoret, his Christology was controversial in his lifetime and opposed by the most pious St. Cyril.  My view is that no one personally opposed to St. Cyril, including John I of Antioch, is worthy of veneration.  St. Cyril is really the key to understanding Orthodox Christology, and the shared veneration of him between EOs and OOs represents the pathway towards reconciling the schism.
"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 ZackShenouda439

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 250
    • http://www.saintmarkkc.org
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Alexandria
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #173 on: November 20, 2017, 05:21:06 PM »
The thing is, I think there is some good practical reasons for the anathema on Theodore of Mopsuestia. I see it as a way to prevent people from adopting error. This guys work could easily be used to exonerate both Nestorius/Theodoret & endorse their christology. I view the anathema given to him in 553 to be a good move because it helps prevent people from adopting a serious error.

Offline Remnkemi

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 379
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #174 on: November 20, 2017, 05:52:51 PM »
The webpage on the Antiochian Archdiocese website doesn't list a feast day. Presumably if Theodoret is widely venerated by EO's as you claim, it should be very easy to produce a single example of a feast day in his name. I've certainly tried googling it and come up with nothing. Perhaps your Google skills are superior, so I entreat you to indulge my meager search engine savvy and provide one of the 'great many' examples you have uncovered which, in your words, 'all speak of "St Theodoret" and also list the commemoration of his feast.'
I tried a deep Google search. I found nothing also. The most I gather is that Theodoret is fairly unanimously called "Blessed Theodoret"; which is inherently ambiguous. Does that mean he is some sort of a super saint or does it mean he is in between canonized saint and non-saint? It seems RC say "Blessed Augustine" and mean super saint. In Theodoret's case, EO sites appear to say the latter.

Wiki is of the opinion that since Theodoret is called "Blessed" in Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, then it justifies Theodoret's status as "canonized as blessed" in the EO.

Regardless, whatever "canonized as blessed" means, it doesn't mean he has a feast commemoration.

Offline ZackShenouda439

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 250
    • http://www.saintmarkkc.org
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Alexandria
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #175 on: November 20, 2017, 07:37:50 PM »
Yea, I couldn’t find Theodoret's feast day either.Also, from my research,it looks like EOs don’t view him as a authority when it comes to Christology.

Anyway, this excerpt from Eastern Orthodox  Professor of Theology University of Thessaloniki George Martzelos, does at least partially  provide a hint as to how Theodoret is seen, at least that's how I read it

"It is characteristic for instance, that whereas Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa had insulted St. Cyril of Alexandria by their deeds and writings and had supported Nestorius and his teaching - for which they could have very easily been characterised as heretics -, nevertheless, because they had accepted the ecumenical decision of the Church and had condemned Nestorius, they were regarded as orthodox by the Fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Council without  having renounced their Nestorian-like positions”

Although I’m not sure why Ibas of Edessa doesn’t have a similar title.
 
Perhaps it's also because Theodoret appears liked for his exegesis. Theodoret contributed heavily to this. 

Given the situation of Theodoret, I can see how the situation of Origen's status is odd, although Origen was “condemned" way before the Chalcedonians "condemned" him in 553.

For example St. Demetrius I of Alexandria "condemned" Origen in a synod in 232.

I’ve yet to find anything unambiguously heretical written by Origen himself(in terms of his primary works, words attributed to his name are another story) & he did contribute heavily to Orthodox theology. I can see a good case to be made for lifting his anathema, but I see it as a somewhat inconsequential move anyway.
« Last Edit: November 20, 2017, 07:40:59 PM by ZackShenouda439 »

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,456
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #176 on: November 20, 2017, 09:03:24 PM »
Perhaps Fr Peter mistook him with St Theodoret of Antioch.
Quote
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop
- GK Chesteron, "Lepanto"

Offline ZackShenouda439

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 250
    • http://www.saintmarkkc.org
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Alexandria
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #177 on: November 20, 2017, 09:39:45 PM »
That would make sense, I myself also thought that Theodoret of Antioch and Theodoret of Cyrus referred to the same person  at first too. Easy to conflate these two due to the lack of specificity in name, and Theodoret of Cyrus association with the School of Antioch. I figured they weren’t the same later on after doing some additional research and discovering that "Theodoret of Antioch” died before Ephesus 431 took place.

Offline Father Peter

  • Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,090
    • Coptic Orthodox Church - Patriarchal Diocese
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchal Diocese
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #178 on: November 21, 2017, 04:23:57 AM »
Yes, I went back to double check. I assumed the date on the Antiochian page was celebrating his feast. My bad. But I did find a fringe group/person that were trying to suggest a feast day for him!

I would say that Blessed Augustine has a strong body of supporters insisting that Blessed means Saint. And therefore I suppose it would seem that this should apply to Theodoret. But it would be necessary to ask when Theodoret started being called Blessed and by whom.

It may also be that the Roman Catholics have influenced this more positive attitude?

I do find myself surprised at his continuing reception, with sometimes a proviso that a few passages of his about St Cyril are rejected, when in fact he had a heterodox Christology all his life, just as much as Ibas and Nestorius.
My ministry and blog - http://www.stgeorgeministry.com

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,516
  • 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 #179 on: November 21, 2017, 10:15:48 AM »
Bl. Theodoret's Biblical commentaries are still valued among Russian biblicists. Consider that "substance" in English is etymologically hypo-stasis in Greek, and is used that way several times in the Bible. It makes sense to me that if Theodoret was saying two hypostases before Chalcedon, he likely meant two substances.
The ocean, infinite to men, and the worlds beyond it, are directed by the same ordinances of the Lord. ~ I Clement 20