Author Topic: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?  (Read 5211 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,000
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #180 on: November 21, 2017, 10:35:27 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.

If Bible commentaries is all it takes to appreciate someone, let’s also called Theodore of Mopsuestia and Eusebius of Caesarea “Blessed”.
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 Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,238
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #181 on: November 21, 2017, 11:05:52 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.

If Bible commentaries is all it takes to appreciate someone, let’s also called Theodore of Mopsuestia and Eusebius of Caesarea “Blessed”.

Blessed Origen.  Blessed William Barclay.  Blessed Thompson Chain Reference Bible!
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 rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,525
  • 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 #182 on: November 21, 2017, 11:45:08 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.

If Bible commentaries is all it takes to appreciate someone, let’s also called Theodore of Mopsuestia and Eusebius of Caesarea “Blessed”.
I come across Theodoret's commentaries, but not Theodore's, in the commonly read collections of Russian biblical commentaries.

EOs like Fr. John Whiteford still cite Bl. Theodoret as authority:
Quote
...for Orthodox Christians, if we have any doubt about the meaning of a text like this, our first resort should be to the Fathers of the Church, and as Thiselton observes,

"most patristic commentators saw no problem in understanding ἐξουσία in an active sense as a metonymy for a sign of power over. Chrysostom observes: "Being covered is a mark of subjection and authority" [St. John Chrysostom, Homily 26:5 on First Corinthians], and Theophylact explicitly understands the metonymic sign of power. Ireneaus understands κάλυμμα [veil, Against Heresies 1:8:2] here" (Thiselton, p. 838).
...
To these three fathers, we could add the following examples:

"By authority he referred to the covering, as if to say, Let her show her subjection by covering herself, and not least for the sake of the angels, who are set over human beings and entrusted with their care" (Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, Vol. 1, trans. Robert Charles Hill, (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001), p. 205).
https://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/print104571.htm

To give an example of the respect with which some EO theologians accord Bl. Theodoret, I will quote the 19th c. Russian theologian and editor of the Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia, Professor Nikolai Glubokovsky, in describing Bl. Theodoret's repose in his book Blessed Theodoret Cyrene, His life and literary activity, Volume I, Chapter 6:
Quote
The position of Theodoret after the Robber Council, his justification at Chalcedon, and his repose in peace with the Church
...
So, in peace with the Church, in the awareness of his relative correctness before God and men, in old age, the immaculately honest, zealous up to se;f-sacrifice, intelligently educated to total perfection, the greatest hierarch - of which kind is only met in ancient history - went into eternity. He brightly shined in the course of all his like and here and always displayed a sharp light, blinding for the enemies of truth and serving as a guiding star for its friends - from the simple believer up to the Antiochian church leader (vladyka), from the low land-toiler up to the emperor himself.

Положение Феодорита после разбойничьего собора, оправдание его в Халкидоне и кончина его в мире с Церковью.
...
Так в мире с Церковью, в сознании своей относительной правоты пред Богом и людьми, в маститой староста отошел в вечность безупречно честный, ревностный до самопожертвования, умственно образованный до полного совершенства, —величайший иерарх, какой только встречался в древней истории.
http://www.odinblago.ru/glubokovsky_feodorit/6

A brief description of Prof. Glubokovskiy is here:
http://www.encspb.ru/object/2804009603?lc=en

For something in English approving Theodoret's theology, you can read:
Quote
The Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus: The Life, Activities, Creed, Writings and Their Georgian Translations

The preface deals with the significance of the figure of Theodoret in the context of Antiochian theological school and  Christian  Byzantine  world.  It  highlights  the  novelty  of  the  work  as  the research  is  the  first  monograph written in Georgian about Theodoret of Cyrus.
...
The  main  line  is  that  Theodoret  always  held  Orthodox views.
http://www.farig.org/images/pdfs/research-theodoret.pdf

The writer presents a survey of views in the Georgian Orthodox church's history about Theodoret.

Or for something else in English one can find ROCOR holding out Bl. Theodoret as one worthy of emulation in restoring unity in the Church:
Quote
Few people could admonish the opposing party and at the same time agree to obey it for the sake of peace. It must have been this approach that eventually reconciled the two branches of the Church. Blessed Theodoret of Cyrrhus praises the Antiochian Bishop Alexander who, due to his humble ways, managed to restore peace among the Orthodox.
...
The Acts of the Third Ecumenical Council explicitly denounce the Council of the Antiochian Church for its disagreement with the deposition of Nestorius. However, St. Cyril understood that most of the Antiochian Fathers were Orthodox and their deeds were not worthy of division... In Antioch the peacemaker was Blessed Theodoret of Cyrrhus who made a reconciliatory confession of faith. St. Cyril of Alexandria was so bold in his peacemaking efforts, that he even announced reconciliation without first asking the opinion of all the Fathers who had taken part in the Third Ecumenical Council. His audacity was accepted by everybody. This example shows that when the confession of faith is Orthodox, one should strive for peace and unity rather than enumerate the opposing party's evident sins and demand repentance.
http://www.synod.com/synod/eng2006/5endokladsavchenko.html
« Last Edit: November 21, 2017, 11:45:51 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 Remnkemi

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 379
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #183 on: November 21, 2017, 01:02:36 PM »
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.
Something I don't understand. Professor Martzelos has written another article advocating councilar fundamentalism for EO/OO reunion (ie, regardless of what OO's believe all we have to do is accept Chalcedon). But when he writes that Theodoret, Ibas and Origen should be considered Orthodox, is he not explicitly defying the Fifth Council all of which were condemned in some form at the Fifth Council?

Put another way, his argument for the Orthodoxy of Theodoret is that in light of Theodoret's involvement with the Fourth Council, the decision against Theodoret in the Fifth Council is questionable. Isn't he now pitting one ecumenical council against another?

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 #184 on: November 21, 2017, 01:18:17 PM »
I don't recall him writing that Origen should be considered Orthodox. As for Theodoret & Ibas, only their writings were condemned in council of 553. The persons of Theodoret & Ibas were not condemned. The persons of Origen & Theodore of mopsuestia were condemned though

One could argue that since only certain writings of Theodoret were condemned  in 553, that doesn't necessarily conflict with the decision 451. But I do recall reading that historically, Chalcedonian supporters of Theodoret saw that 553 to be in conflict with 451

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,525
  • 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 #185 on: November 21, 2017, 01:20:54 PM »
There are different explanations for why the Fifth Council rejected those writings by Theodoret and allegedly by Ibas, such that those figures are Orthodox. For example, in the Fourth Council, the Council could have reviewed Ibas' letter and found it not to have made a heresy, and then at the Fifth Council, the Council might have rejected the letter for opposing and misunderstanding Cyril, but not for showing that the author himself was heretical. Or to give another example, let's say that Theodoret opposed Cyril for teaching only one hypostasis, but it turns out that the reason Theodoret did this was because he meant hypostasis in the Biblical translation of "substance", not because he meant it the way that Chalcedon later defined it. In such a case, the Fifth Council could reject Theodoret's writing against Cyril because they misunderstood Cyril, but not because of any finding of heresy on Theodoret's own part.

Alternately, if Prof. Martzelos is saying that the Fifth Council was mistaken in its decision on Theodoret, he could propose that OOs should accept Chalcedon for having correct basic theology, without EOs and OOs accepting every single decision by every council, like rejecting specific writings. That is, accepting a Council for having correct basic theology and accepting every decision of a Council like anathematizing certain writings is not the same thing.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2017, 01:21:26 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: 250
    • http://www.saintmarkkc.org
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Alexandria
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #186 on: November 21, 2017, 01:33:02 PM »
Yea, Rakvosky, you have provided an example of a EO explanation.

Here is an example of a different point of view I found on this catholic forum https://forums.catholic.com/t/arguments-against-the-papacy/448722

"In short Pope Virgilius never accepted the Monophysite heresy. Thereby bringing down the wrath of the Imperial brother, the Emperor Justinian, a heretic by the way, Justinian sent his guards to arrest Pope Virgilius and imprisoned him and I don’t say this lightly. Emperor Justinian FORCED Pope Virgilius to condemn three chapters from the Church council of Chalcedon. Which he did sign the Emperors document under false imprisonment and under force by torture and threat of death, then shortly died. So much for teaching heresy by Pope Virgilius."

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,474
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #187 on: November 21, 2017, 02:04:25 PM »
The fools can't even spell their Pope's name right.
Quote
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop
- GK Chesteron, "Lepanto"

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,660
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #188 on: November 21, 2017, 02:07:15 PM »
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.

If Bible commentaries is all it takes to appreciate someone, let’s also called Theodore of Mopsuestia and Eusebius of Caesarea “Blessed”.

Blessed Origen.  Blessed William Barclay.  Blessed Thompson Chain Reference Bible!

;D
"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 Remnkemi

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 379
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #189 on: November 21, 2017, 02:27:52 PM »
I don't recall him writing that Origen should be considered Orthodox.
My bad. Let me rephrase that. He wasn't necessarily defending Origen to be Orthodox, he was defending Origen's contribution to Orthodoxy and that Origen really didn't write anything heretic. Seems like he's trying to blurry the line between Orthodoxy and heresy.
Quote
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,
In other words, Origen is condemned as heretic in 553 but now Origen's condemnation should be lifted because he contributed to Orthodox theology and Chalcedon. Sounds like he is contradicting the Fifth council.

Quote
As for Theodoret & Ibas, only their writings were condemned in council of 553. The persons of Theodoret & Ibas were not condemned.
What's the difference? How can a corpus of writing be considered heresy but not the author who wrote them? Were their writings written by an angel/demon so they get off on a technicality?

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,474
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #190 on: November 21, 2017, 02:38:00 PM »
I think the assumption was that they had somehow repented of their errors. Condemning Ibas himself would be a really glaring contradiction of the council of Chalcedon- no one could deny that Ibas was reinstated there. Of course the records show him reinstated on the basis of his letter but here Justinian's council asserted that this was an interpolation.
Quote
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop
- GK Chesteron, "Lepanto"

Online Asteriktos

  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 36,260
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #191 on: November 21, 2017, 03:06:59 PM »
Blessed Thompson Chain Reference Bible!

"Lift up thine eyes round about, and see: all they gather themselves together, they come to thee: thy sons shall come from far, and thy daughters shall be nursed at thy side." (Isa. 60:4)

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,525
  • 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 #192 on: November 21, 2017, 03:12:48 PM »
Quote
As for Theodoret & Ibas, only their writings were condemned in council of 553. The persons of Theodoret & Ibas were not condemned.
What's the difference? How can a corpus of writing be considered heresy but not the author who wrote them? Were their writings written by an angel/demon so they get off on a technicality?
What was declared heretical by Theodoret were his writings against Cyril, not Theodoret's other writings, which would naturally include non-anti-Cyrilline beliefs.

So if Theodoret himself had an Orthodox Christology, but misunderstood Cyril as having a heretical Christology, then the Church can agree that Theodoret himself believed in Orthodoxy, but his writings against Cyril turned out to be incorrect.

Remember, Cyril eventually came to agree that Theodoret and the others were Orthodox and taught ultimately the same thing as him. If Cyril was correct about that, it means only Theodoret's writings against this truth would be in error.

To agree with Cyril means by implication to find Theodoret ultimately Orthodox.
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: 250
    • http://www.saintmarkkc.org
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Alexandria
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #193 on: November 21, 2017, 03:18:55 PM »
I don't recall him writing that Origen should be considered Orthodox.
My bad. Let me rephrase that. He wasn't necessarily defending Origen to be Orthodox, he was defending Origen's contribution to Orthodoxy and that Origen really didn't write anything heretic. Seems like he's trying to blurry the line between Orthodoxy and heresy.
Quote
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,
In other words, Origen is condemned as heretic in 553 but now Origen's condemnation should be lifted because he contributed to Orthodox theology and Chalcedon. Sounds like he is contradicting the Fifth council.

Quote
As for Theodoret & Ibas, only their writings were condemned in council of 553. The persons of Theodoret & Ibas were not condemned.
What's the difference? How can a corpus of writing be considered heresy but not the author who wrote them? Were their writings written by an angel/demon so they get off on a technicality?

To be clear, he never argued that Origen's anathema should be lifted. This below is the writing of Zack. Not Prof. Martzelos

"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."

Online Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,238
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #194 on: November 21, 2017, 03:22:14 PM »
Quote
As for Theodoret & Ibas, only their writings were condemned in council of 553. The persons of Theodoret & Ibas were not condemned.
What's the difference? How can a corpus of writing be considered heresy but not the author who wrote them? Were their writings written by an angel/demon so they get off on a technicality?
What was declared heretical by Theodoret were his writings against Cyril, not Theodoret's other writings, which would naturally include non-anti-Cyrilline beliefs.

So if Theodoret himself had an Orthodox Christology, but misunderstood Cyril as having a heretical Christology, then the Church can agree that Theodoret himself believed in Orthodoxy, but his writings against Cyril turned out to be incorrect.

Remember, Cyril eventually came to agree that Theodoret and the others were Orthodox and taught ultimately the same thing as him. If Cyril was correct about that, it means only Theodoret's writings against this truth would be in error.

To agree with Cyril means by implication to find Theodoret ultimately Orthodox.

"Cyrilline" > "non-anti-Cyrilline"
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: 13,474
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #195 on: November 21, 2017, 03:24:03 PM »
Quote
As for Theodoret & Ibas, only their writings were condemned in council of 553. The persons of Theodoret & Ibas were not condemned.
What's the difference? How can a corpus of writing be considered heresy but not the author who wrote them? Were their writings written by an angel/demon so they get off on a technicality?
What was declared heretical by Theodoret were his writings against Cyril, not Theodoret's other writings, which would naturally include non-anti-Cyrilline beliefs.

So if Theodoret himself had an Orthodox Christology, but misunderstood Cyril as having a heretical Christology, then the Church can agree that Theodoret himself believed in Orthodoxy, but his writings against Cyril turned out to be incorrect.

Remember, Cyril eventually came to agree that Theodoret and the others were Orthodox and taught ultimately the same thing as him. If Cyril was correct about that, it means only Theodoret's writings against this truth would be in error.

To agree with Cyril means by implication to find Theodoret ultimately Orthodox.

"Cyrilline" > "non-anti-Cyrilline"

Spoken like a true antidecyrillizationist
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 #196 on: November 21, 2017, 03:43:23 PM »
 
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.

If Bible commentaries is all it takes to appreciate someone, let’s also called Theodore of Mopsuestia and Eusebius of Caesarea “Blessed”.
I come across Theodoret's commentaries, but not Theodore's, in the commonly read collections of Russian biblical commentaries.

EOs like Fr. John Whiteford still cite Bl. Theodoret as authority:
Quote
...for Orthodox Christians, if we have any doubt about the meaning of a text like this, our first resort should be to the Fathers of the Church, and as Thiselton observes,

"most patristic commentators saw no problem in understanding ἐξουσία in an active sense as a metonymy for a sign of power over. Chrysostom observes: "Being covered is a mark of subjection and authority" [St. John Chrysostom, Homily 26:5 on First Corinthians], and Theophylact explicitly understands the metonymic sign of power. Ireneaus understands κάλυμμα [veil, Against Heresies 1:8:2] here" (Thiselton, p. 838).
...
To these three fathers, we could add the following examples:

"By authority he referred to the covering, as if to say, Let her show her subjection by covering herself, and not least for the sake of the angels, who are set over human beings and entrusted with their care" (Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus, Commentary on the Letters of St. Paul, Vol. 1, trans. Robert Charles Hill, (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 2001), p. 205).
https://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/print104571.htm

To give an example of the respect with which some EO theologians accord Bl. Theodoret, I will quote the 19th c. Russian theologian and editor of the Orthodox Theological Encyclopedia, Professor Nikolai Glubokovsky, in describing Bl. Theodoret's repose in his book Blessed Theodoret Cyrene, His life and literary activity, Volume I, Chapter 6:
Quote
The position of Theodoret after the Robber Council, his justification at Chalcedon, and his repose in peace with the Church
...
So, in peace with the Church, in the awareness of his relative correctness before God and men, in old age, the immaculately honest, zealous up to se;f-sacrifice, intelligently educated to total perfection, the greatest hierarch - of which kind is only met in ancient history - went into eternity. He brightly shined in the course of all his like and here and always displayed a sharp light, blinding for the enemies of truth and serving as a guiding star for its friends - from the simple believer up to the Antiochian church leader (vladyka), from the low land-toiler up to the emperor himself.

Положение Феодорита после разбойничьего собора, оправдание его в Халкидоне и кончина его в мире с Церковью.
...
Так в мире с Церковью, в сознании своей относительной правоты пред Богом и людьми, в маститой староста отошел в вечность безупречно честный, ревностный до самопожертвования, умственно образованный до полного совершенства, —величайший иерарх, какой только встречался в древней истории.
http://www.odinblago.ru/glubokovsky_feodorit/6

A brief description of Prof. Glubokovskiy is here:
http://www.encspb.ru/object/2804009603?lc=en

For something in English approving Theodoret's theology, you can read:
Quote
The Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus: The Life, Activities, Creed, Writings and Their Georgian Translations

The preface deals with the significance of the figure of Theodoret in the context of Antiochian theological school and  Christian  Byzantine  world.  It  highlights  the  novelty  of  the  work  as  the research  is  the  first  monograph written in Georgian about Theodoret of Cyrus.
...
The  main  line  is  that  Theodoret  always  held  Orthodox views.
http://www.farig.org/images/pdfs/research-theodoret.pdf

The writer presents a survey of views in the Georgian Orthodox church's history about Theodoret.

Or for something else in English one can find ROCOR holding out Bl. Theodoret as one worthy of emulation in restoring unity in the Church:
Quote
Few people could admonish the opposing party and at the same time agree to obey it for the sake of peace. It must have been this approach that eventually reconciled the two branches of the Church. Blessed Theodoret of Cyrrhus praises the Antiochian Bishop Alexander who, due to his humble ways, managed to restore peace among the Orthodox.
...
The Acts of the Third Ecumenical Council explicitly denounce the Council of the Antiochian Church for its disagreement with the deposition of Nestorius. However, St. Cyril understood that most of the Antiochian Fathers were Orthodox and their deeds were not worthy of division... In Antioch the peacemaker was Blessed Theodoret of Cyrrhus who made a reconciliatory confession of faith. St. Cyril of Alexandria was so bold in his peacemaking efforts, that he even announced reconciliation without first asking the opinion of all the Fathers who had taken part in the Third Ecumenical Council. His audacity was accepted by everybody. This example shows that when the confession of faith is Orthodox, one should strive for peace and unity rather than enumerate the opposing party's evident sins and demand repentance.
http://www.synod.com/synod/eng2006/5endokladsavchenko.html


"The Acts of the Third Ecumenical Council explicitly denounce the Council of the Antiochian Church for its disagreement with the deposition of Nestorius. However, St. Cyril understood that most of the Antiochian Fathers were Orthodox and their deeds were not worthy of division... In Antioch the peacemaker was Blessed Theodoret of Cyrrhus who made a reconciliatory confession of faith. St. Cyril of Alexandria was so bold in his peacemaking efforts, that he even announced reconciliation without first asking the opinion of all the Fathers who had taken part in the Third Ecumenical Council. His audacity was accepted by everybody. This example shows that when the confession of faith is Orthodox, one should strive for peace and unity rather than enumerate the opposing party's evident sins and demand repentance. "


Yes, these efforts of Cyril were admirable & the same understanding was shared by Dioscorus as well. But Theodoret of  blessed memory, wrote Eranistes after Cyril death & within this text, he explicitly denied "God the Word suffered in the flesh" multiple times. Theodoret also described those who affirmed "God the Word suffered in the flesh", without making distinction between "God" and "Christ",  as apollinarian. Unfortunately, this was a violation of the terms and conditions, of the great formula of reunion 433 & thus, was the reason for Theodoret's excommunication at the council of Ephesus 449 . 

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 #197 on: November 21, 2017, 04:22:25 PM »
Quote
As for Theodoret & Ibas, only their writings were condemned in council of 553. The persons of Theodoret & Ibas were not condemned.
What's the difference? How can a corpus of writing be considered heresy but not the author who wrote them? Were their writings written by an angel/demon so they get off on a technicality?
What was declared heretical by Theodoret were his writings against Cyril, not Theodoret's other writings, which would naturally include non-anti-Cyrilline beliefs.

So if Theodoret himself had an Orthodox Christology, but misunderstood Cyril as having a heretical Christology, then the Church can agree that Theodoret himself believed in Orthodoxy, but his writings against Cyril turned out to be incorrect.

Remember, Cyril eventually came to agree that Theodoret and the others were Orthodox and taught ultimately the same thing as him. If Cyril was correct about that, it means only Theodoret's writings against this truth would be in error.

To agree with Cyril means by implication to find Theodoret ultimately Orthodox.

Cyril wasn't alive to examine Eranistes, which was written after his death & this piece effectively described those who embraced the 12 chapters as apollinarian. Cyril made decisions based on the information he had at the time. Just like Dioscorus received  Eutyches in Ephesus 449 based on the confession  "Christ is consubstantial with his mother”(information he had at the time). but just like it turned out later that Theodoret was a committed opponent of the 12 chapters, it also turned out later that Eutyches failed to affirm dual consubstantiality. "Shrug", It happens. Which is why Theodoret was later condemned at the council of Ephesus 449 & Eutyches was later condemned at the council of Ephesus 475. Both decisions regarding these two persons were ultimately "re-considered" upon new information.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,525
  • 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 #198 on: November 21, 2017, 04:45:49 PM »
Hello, Zack.
Didn't Theodoret openly reject Cyril's anathemas already in Cyril's own lifetime? Didn't Theodoret also reject Cyril's term Theotokos in his lifetime? This sounds like the same kind of issue as in his rejection of the phrase "God the Word suffered in the flesh"- his desire to avoid confusing the nature and properties specific to the Word with those of Christ the man, despite considering the Word and the Man to be the same person. Despite those kinds of issues already existing, Cyril still considered Theodoret ultimately Orthodox.
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 #199 on: November 21, 2017, 04:53:45 PM »
Theodoret never had an Orthodox Christology. Asserting that he did without having read the scholarship which shows clearly he did not, is not entirely productive.
My ministry and blog - http://www.stgeorgeministry.com

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,525
  • 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 #200 on: November 21, 2017, 05:19:56 PM »
Quote
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.

Theodoret never had an Orthodox Christology. Asserting that he did without having read the scholarship which shows clearly he did not, is not entirely productive.
May I ask if you have read some of the EO scholarly writings explaining why we understand him to be Orthodox?
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: 250
    • http://www.saintmarkkc.org
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Alexandria
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #201 on: November 21, 2017, 05:53:02 PM »
Hello, Zack.
Didn't Theodoret openly reject Cyril's anathemas already in Cyril's own lifetime? Didn't Theodoret also reject Cyril's term Theotokos in his lifetime? This sounds like the same kind of issue as in his rejection of the phrase "God the Word suffered in the flesh"- his desire to avoid confusing the nature and properties specific to the Word with those of Christ the man, despite considering the Word and the Man to be the same person. Despite those kinds of issues already existing, Cyril still considered Theodoret ultimately Orthodox.

While Cyril deposed Nestorius for violating the terms of 431 by denying Theotokos, Theodoret belonged to party that openly rejected the 12 chapters in 431.Of course "God the Word suffered in the flesh" is included in the 12 chapters.  This is why Cyril signed 433 with them, because it was actually the case that almost all of the School of Antioch rejected the 12 chapters. but the formula of reunion 433 does not permit one to explicitly deny "God the Word suffered in the flesh" and describe those who affirm it as "apollinarian", Theodoret violated the terms & conditions of the 433 formula of reunion "peace treaty", by effectively describing those who confessed "God the word suffered in the flesh" as apollinarian in his work Eranistes

Which is why Dioscorus deposed Theodoret & his followers in 449, for violating the terms & conditions of 433. Just like Cyril signed a peace treaty with the Theodoreans via 433,  Dioscorus following in Cyril's footsteps, decided to sign a peace treaty with Eutyches  in 449 & under the terms & condition of confessing "Christ is consubstantial with his mother”, however it was later discovered that Eutyches violated the terms & conditions of 449 by explicitly denying "with us", it was understood by Dioscorus that "Christ is consubstantial with his mother” includes "with us" and Eutyches violated this by denying "with us". Which is why Ephesus 475 was convoked, & following in the footsteps of Cyril & Dioscorus, Timothy II of Alexandria deposed Eutyches & his followers for violating the terms & conditions of 449.
« Last Edit: November 21, 2017, 05:54:17 PM by ZackShenouda439 »

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,525
  • 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 #202 on: November 21, 2017, 06:01:24 PM »
Hello, Zack.
Didn't Theodoret openly reject Cyril's anathemas already in Cyril's own lifetime? Didn't Theodoret also reject Cyril's term Theotokos in his lifetime? This sounds like the same kind of issue as in his rejection of the phrase "God the Word suffered in the flesh"- his desire to avoid confusing the nature and properties specific to the Word with those of Christ the man, despite considering the Word and the Man to be the same person. Despite those kinds of issues already existing, Cyril still considered Theodoret ultimately Orthodox.

While Cyril deposed Nestorius for violating the terms of 431 by denying Theotokos, Theodoret belonged to party that openly rejected the 12 chapters in 431.Of course "God the Word suffered in the flesh" is included in the 12 chapters.  This is why Cyril signed 433 with them, because it was actually the case that almost all of the School of Antioch rejected the 12 chapters. but the formula of reunion 433 does not permit one to explicitly deny "God the Word suffered in the flesh" and describe those who affirm it as "apollinarian", Theodoret violated the terms & conditions of the 433 formula of reunion "peace treaty", by effectively describing those who confessed "God the word suffered in the flesh" as apollinarian in his work Eranistes

It sounds like you are saying that since Cyril taught "God the Word suffered in the flesh", but united with Theodoret whom he knew denied the phrase "God the Word suffered in the flesh", and their reunion agreement didn't say whether this phrase was acceptable or not, therefore the agreement's silence demanded that Theodoret accept the phrase "God the Word suffered in the flesh".

That kind of reasoning does not make sense to me. If an agreement does not mention or take a position on an issue that two parties disagree over, it doesn't mean that the agreement requires one to accept that position. The more likely conclusion is that both parties considered each other orthodox despite their disagreement on the phrase.
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: 250
    • http://www.saintmarkkc.org
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Alexandria
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #203 on: November 21, 2017, 06:14:39 PM »
Hello, Zack.
Didn't Theodoret openly reject Cyril's anathemas already in Cyril's own lifetime? Didn't Theodoret also reject Cyril's term Theotokos in his lifetime? This sounds like the same kind of issue as in his rejection of the phrase "God the Word suffered in the flesh"- his desire to avoid confusing the nature and properties specific to the Word with those of Christ the man, despite considering the Word and the Man to be the same person. Despite those kinds of issues already existing, Cyril still considered Theodoret ultimately Orthodox.

While Cyril deposed Nestorius for violating the terms of 431 by denying Theotokos, Theodoret belonged to party that openly rejected the 12 chapters in 431.Of course "God the Word suffered in the flesh" is included in the 12 chapters.  This is why Cyril signed 433 with them, because it was actually the case that almost all of the School of Antioch rejected the 12 chapters. but the formula of reunion 433 does not permit one to explicitly deny "God the Word suffered in the flesh" and describe those who affirm it as "apollinarian", Theodoret violated the terms & conditions of the 433 formula of reunion "peace treaty", by effectively describing those who confessed "God the word suffered in the flesh" as apollinarian in his work Eranistes

It sounds like you are saying that since Cyril taught "God the Word suffered in the flesh", but united with Theodoret whom he knew denied the phrase "God the Word suffered in the flesh", and their reunion agreement didn't say whether this phrase was acceptable or not, therefore the agreement's silence demanded that Theodoret accept the phrase "God the Word suffered in the flesh".

That kind of reasoning does not make sense to me. If an agreement does not mention or take a position on an issue that two parties disagree over, it doesn't mean that the agreement requires one to accept that position. The more likely conclusion is that both parties considered each other orthodox despite their disagreement on the phrase.

The formula of reunion does not permit one to describe those who confess "God the word suffered in the flesh" as apollinarian. At the time, the school of Alexandria as a whole confessed "God the Word suffered in the flesh" & theodoret effectively described the school of Alexandria as a whole as "apollinarian"

And yes, Cyril did teach "God the Word suffered in the flesh", Theodoret by explicitly  describing those who confess  it as "apollinarian" as he does in Eranistes, he is effectively calling Cyril a "apollinarian."

This is a violation of the great formula of reunion of 433 & the spirit of peace between Alexandria & Antioch

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!'

It's why Theodoret waited until after Cyril died to write Eranistes . This paper written in favor of Theodoret, even admits Theodoret's ambitions.

"Following the death of John of Antioch in 441 AD, Theodoret came to prominence as the most important theological factor in the Antiochene milieu. The death of Cyril of Alexandria in 444 AD provided an opportunity for Theodoret finally to promote the Antiochene Christology of dual natures in Christ and rectify the damage that the reputation of Antioch had suffered in the aftermath of the Council of Ephesus."

"Theodoret had learned a valuable lesson in ecclesiastical diplomacy from Cyril of Alexandria. Cyril began his attack on Antiochene Christology and its most illustrious exponent, Theodore of Mopsuestia, only after the latter’s death in 428 AD."

http://epublications.marquette.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1182&context=dissertations_mu
« Last Edit: November 21, 2017, 06:15:39 PM by ZackShenouda439 »

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 #204 on: November 22, 2017, 05:24:59 AM »
The administrator on this COE forum provides another example of difference in point of view.  He perceives Ephesus 431 as a robber council & he perceives Chalcedon to be a correction to Ephesus 431.

"It is my opinion that the main reason Chalcedon is included in the synodicon is because it represented what many saw as a necessary correction to Ephesus and the ultimate defeat of those who took the side of Cyril and the robber council. Hence the break with the Monophysites because of their rejection of Chalcedon. “

http://peshitta.org/for/showthread.php?tid=2898

"What the Church of the East saw in Chalcedon (a council in which it was not a participant) was a necessary (albeit clumsy) correction to Ephesus (another council in which it was not a participant). A correction that brought the Western definition of Christology closer to the Eastern understanding, and one which allowed it to be acceptable to the Eastern Synod. And that is indicative of the power that the assembled Synod, with the Patriarch at its head, has to define what is canonical and officially binding in our tradition. “

http://peshitta.org/for/showthread.php?tid=2898

"You know Cyril was in the wrong, you know Nestorius' faith was Orthodox, yet for political expediency you condemned him and a dead man. And continue to honor that robber Synod that tried to force Cyril's decrees down the rest of our throats.”

http://peshitta.org/for/showthread.php?tid=1333

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 #205 on: November 22, 2017, 07:57:37 AM »
I have read a lot of scholarly material on Theodoret. I think his views are clear. Unless you engage with such scholarship then all you are doing is presenting your own opinion which that scholarship has already dealt with.

The issue is not whether scholarship is EO or not, but whether it is correct or not.
My ministry and blog - http://www.stgeorgeministry.com

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington

Offline Remnkemi

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 379
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #206 on: November 22, 2017, 09:39:06 AM »
I think the assumption was that they had somehow repented of their errors.
That's a pretty big assumption. Is there any evidence anywhere that clearly states Theodoret repented? The fact that Theodoret wrote Eranistes proves IMO proves he didn't repent of anything. Were the fathers of 553 privy to such evidence of Theodoret's repentance? All questions that should have been addressed in 553 or at least reflected in the Acts.

Quote
Condemning Ibas himself would be a really glaring contradiction of the council of Chalcedon-
Ibas wasn't the only glaring contradiction of Chalcedon. Why are the Three Chapters the "contradiction" that necessitated "correction"? Regardless, why is Constantinople II's correction of the Three Chapters being challenged now?

Quote
no one could deny that Ibas was reinstated there.
There was a lot of denying happening at Chalcedon. People moving to the other side of the table and accusations of coercion to deny agreeing to Ephesus II. It is not unfathomable that people can deny Ibas was reinstated in Chalcedon. I guess plausible deniability is what makes it easy to condemn Ibas' letter in Constantinople II.

Quote
Of course the records show him reinstated on the basis of his letter but here Justinian's council asserted that this was an interpolation.
As I said even with records, someone thought it was plausible to deny Ibas' and Theodoret's reinstatment. But my question is what interpolation was asserted that supports plausible deniability? That an angel/demon wrote the Three Chapters and not the actual authors? Obviously not. But what else could be the interpolation?

Offline Remnkemi

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 379
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #207 on: November 22, 2017, 10:11:58 AM »
Theodoret never had an Orthodox Christology. Asserting that he did without having read the scholarship which shows clearly he did not, is not entirely productive.
This corroborates my initial point. There is no way to separate a person's heretical writings from a person's heresy unless he repents. No one has offered any evidence of repentance. Separating a person from his writings is, borrowing Fr Peter's statement, "not entirely productive".

Offline Remnkemi

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 379
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #208 on: November 22, 2017, 10:14:37 AM »
I think the assumption was that they had somehow repented of their errors.
That's a pretty big assumption. Is there any evidence anywhere that clearly states Theodoret repented? The fact that Theodoret wrote Eranistes proves IMO proves he didn't repent of anything. Were the fathers of 553 privy to such evidence of Theodoret's repentance? All questions that should have been addressed in 553 or at least reflected in the Acts.

Quote
Condemning Ibas himself would be a really glaring contradiction of the council of Chalcedon-
Ibas wasn't the only glaring contradiction of Chalcedon. Why are the Three Chapters the "contradiction" that necessitated "correction"? Regardless, why is Constantinople II's correction of the Three Chapters being challenged now?

Quote
no one could deny that Ibas was reinstated there.
There was a lot of denying happening at Chalcedon. People moving to the other side of the table and accusations of coercion to denying agreement at Ephesus II. It is not unfathomable that people can deny Ibas was reinstated in Chalcedon. I guess plausible deniability is what makes it easy to condemn Ibas' letter in Constantinople II but not Ibas.

Quote
Of course the records show him reinstated on the basis of his letter but here Justinian's council asserted that this was an interpolation.
Even with records, someone thought it was plausible to deny or reinterpret Ibas' and Theodoret's reinstatment. But my question is what interpolation was asserted that supports plausible deniability? That an angel/demon wrote the Three Chapters and not the actual authors? Obviously not. But what else could be the interpolation or theological reason for reinstatement?

Sorry for the double post.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2017, 10:16:06 AM by Remnkemi »

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,474
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #209 on: November 22, 2017, 10:17:32 AM »
I am not saying that Constantinople II's assertion of an interpolation is supported by evidence or that there is any evidence of Theodoret or Ibas repenting of their letters. The logic may simply have been, "Well of course Chalcedon wouldn't reinstate unrepentant heretics" and a consequent fudging of facts in support of this assumption. Since the focus of the controversy had been the Three Chapters, condemning the Three Chapters was the priority- but without appearing to renounce Chalcedon. So they had to fudge the facts a little bit, but actually denying that Ibas was reinstated was a bridge too far. It was much easier to say that a few sentences in the records, where some bishops say, "We read his letter and find him orthodox" was an interpolation, than to say that an entire, well-known episode of the council (the reinstatement of Ibas) didn't happen.
Quote
Don John pounding from the slaughter-painted poop
- GK Chesteron, "Lepanto"

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,525
  • 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 #210 on: November 22, 2017, 02:20:05 PM »
I am not saying that Constantinople II's assertion of an interpolation is supported by evidence or that there is any evidence of Theodoret or Ibas repenting of their letters. The logic may simply have been, "Well of course Chalcedon wouldn't reinstate unrepentant heretics" and a consequent fudging of facts in support of this assumption. Since the focus of the controversy had been the Three Chapters, condemning the Three Chapters was the priority- but without appearing to renounce Chalcedon. So they had to fudge the facts a little bit, but actually denying that Ibas was reinstated was a bridge too far. It was much easier to say that a few sentences in the records, where some bishops say, "We read his letter and find him orthodox" was an interpolation, than to say that an entire, well-known episode of the council (the reinstatement of Ibas) didn't happen.
Iconodule,

Did you consider what might have happened at Chalcedon was that the Chalcedonians read Ibas' letter in question and either didn't find the problem complained of to be so great that they would conclude Ibas was a heretic, or that they found the problem in that letter to be resolved?

Let me cite for you the part of Ibas' letter that was complained of by Ibas' opponent Maras at Chalcedon's 10th Session:
Quote
136. The most God-beloved bishops said: ‘If it transpires that after the death of the most blessed and holy Cyril the most religious Bishop Ibas called him a heretic and held him to be a heretic, prove it.’

137. Maras said: ‘We can prove it.’

The same hallowed secretary read out the following:

Quote
Since the time your religiousness was here, a controversy arose between those two men, Nestorius and Cyril, and they wrote harmful tracts against each other, which were a snare to those who heard them. For Nestorius asserted in his tracts, as your religiousness knows, that the blessed Mary is not Theotokos...
...
Cyril, in his desire to refute the tracts of Nestorius, slipped up and was found falling into the teaching of Apollinarius: for like him he also wrote that the very God the Word became man in such a way that there is no distinction between the temple and the one who dwells in it. He wrote the Twelve Chapters, as I think your religiousness knows, asserting that there is one nature of the Godhead and the manhood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and that it is wrong, he said, to divide the sayings that were uttered, whether those spoken by the Lord about himself or by the evangelists about him."

So what Ibas' opponents complained about in his letter was that Ibas wrote that Cyril:
1. wrote a harmful tracts that were a snare
2. wrote in the 12 Chapters that there is one nature of both the Godhead and manhood together
3. wrote in the 12 Chapters that it's wrong to divide the sayings spoken of by the Lord.

Perhaps on one hand, having heard the accusations, Chalcedon might not have considered them sufficient to declare Ibas a heretic? Maybe the Chalcedonians thought that just because someone had opposed Cyril's writings as a snare, opposed the concept of one united nature of divinity-humanity, and said that Cyril was mistaken for opposing the division of sayings, must the person in question be a heretic? Theodoret and John Antiochene and others had been in a bitter conflict with Cyril over theology, but Cyril took the view that these Church figures were ultimately Orthodox and reunited with them. Being in conflict with Cyril for the reasons cited (#s 2 AND 3 above) must not have been so great for the Chalcedonians to consider Ibas himself a heretic.

It is 22 paragraphs later in Chalcedon's minutes, that we find the place where some anti-Chalcedonians say that Chalcedon upheld Ibas' letter as Orthodox:
Quote
161. Paschasinus and Lucentius the most devout bishops and Boniface the presbyter, representing the apostolic see, said through Paschasinus:

‘Now that the documents have been read, we know from the verdict of the most devout bishops that the most devout Ibas has been proved innocent, and from the reading of his letter we have found him to be orthodox. We therefore decree that both the honour of the episcopate and the church from which he was unjustly ejected in his absence should be restored to him.

If one thinks that they are referencing Ibas' letter against Cyril,
then perhaps they mean that, having read Ibas' document that his opponents complained about, and having found that the grounds for complaint against Ibas were not so great, they reinstated Ibas?

However, do you think that the earlier passage below in the 9th Session of Chalcedon suggests that the letter by Ibas that Chalcedon used to declare Ibas Orthodox could reasonably be the one where he wrote to his flock and accepted Ephesus I and rejected Nestorius?:

Quote
The proceedings which the most devout Ibas has mentioned and which cleared him in the judgment of the bishops from every accusation should be brought before us... 

Veronicianus the hallowed secretary... read out:


"we Photius, bishop of the metropolis of Tyre... read out   

Quote
'The... notary Damascius... gave us pious letters from our emperor, ... ordering us, together with the most devout Uranious bishop of Hermarium, to act as arbitrators concerning the charges advanced against the most devout Ibas bishop of the city of Edessa by the most devout Samuel, Cyrus, Maras and Eulogius,... [W]e convoked the hearing....

[We heard the accusations against Ibas, then] we induced the most God-beloved Bishop Ibas to set out in writing what he held and believed concerning our pious faith; and this he did. The aforesaid most God-beloved man undertook,
even beyond the call of duty, to address the church in his own city and publicly anathematize Nestorius... he also undertook to profess belief in what is contained in the letter of accord between the most God beloved and sacred in memory bishops John ... of Antioch and Cyril... to assent to all the recent transactions of the holy synod that met in.. Constantinople... and to embrace everything that was decreed in the metropolis of Ephesus as stemming from a council guided by the Holy Spirit...

[W]ith the help of God the dividing wall of enmity had been demolished... After discussing what was needed we therefore persuaded... the aforesaid men [the accusers/ "separated men"] themselves to come to the same most God-beloved Bishop as to a father, and to promise a good will and disposition in all respects...

The signatures: 1. Photius, bishop of the city of Trye 2. Eustathius bishop of... Berytus... 3. Samuel, presbyter, 4. Cyrus, presbyter, 5. Maras, presbyter, I accept the judgment.

Price, The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, Volume 1, 9th Session, p.262-263

Let's go back to the place where the Council says that they find Ibas Orthodox after reading his letter:
Quote
‘Now that the documents have been read, we know from the verdict of the
most devout bishops that the most devout Ibas has been proved innocent,
and from the reading of his letter we have found him to be orthodox.
(FOOTNOTE 119)
Price's Footnote 119 says:
The ‘verdict of the bishops’ is that of Photius and Eustathius at Tyre (IX. 7)"

If the verdict of the bishops in that passage is Photius' at Tyre (Session 9), could the letter in question be the one that the verdict had been based on, wherein Ibas accepted Ephesus I?
« Last Edit: November 22, 2017, 02:20:58 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: 250
    • http://www.saintmarkkc.org
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Alexandria
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #211 on: November 22, 2017, 04:41:58 PM »
My view is the faction of those trying to follow Cyril & accepted Chalcedon, were not familiar enough with the 12 chapters to find fault with Ibas letter in real time at 451. Which is normal, because most Christians in the empire at the time were not familiar with it. I also don't think they had a thorough understanding of Cyril's writings at this time, because they treated 433 like it was something Cyril produced & seemed to view it to be more of a authority than the 12 chapters/Cyril's final writings from 438-444.The origin of the formula of reunion(433) was produced by the Antiochians & Cyril simply endorsed it.

So most likely the judgement they are making here is based on the limited information in front of them. Dioscorus was the man in the room at the time, with the most experience in combating Nestorius et al., Remember Dioscorus  also personally attended Ephesus 431 with Cyril. This is why I think Anatolius was able to make both statement A and statement B

Statement A
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.”

Statement B
Anatolius the most devout archbishop of Constantinople said, “the reading of all the accompanying material prove the most devout Ibas innocent of the accusations brought against him.”

While Anatolius was familiar with Dioscorus, it seems like Anatolius wasn't thoroughly familiar enough with the 12 chapters to see fault in Ibas letter at the time.

As for the other faction trying to follow Theodoret,Ibas et al at the time, that's another story.

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 #212 on: November 23, 2017, 05:21:47 AM »
Have you read Ibas' Letter?

Are you aware that he was busy translating the works of Theodore of Mopsuestia into Syriac and distributing them?

He was a determined Theodorean. He never rejected Theodore. He was never asked to. He was more than willing to cut Nestorius adrift.

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 #213 on: November 23, 2017, 08:53:26 AM »
Are you asking me or rakovsky? Yea I know Ibas was a Theodorean. I’ve read second hand descriptions of the letter but I can’t find the primary source.Do you know where I can find it?  I'm actually curious about the contents of it & want to read it directly.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2017, 08:54:04 AM by ZackShenouda439 »

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,525
  • 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 #214 on: November 23, 2017, 11:39:19 AM »
Have you read Ibas' Letter?


Fr. Peter,
I read the one that some OOs object to, as it was read into the minutes of Chalcedon, where I read it.

I don't see Theodoret and Ibas as a crucial obstacle to communion between us, because as you have rightly pointed out in discussing John of Antioch, one need not accept every part of a Council only it's basic theology. It sounds like Theodoret's definitiion of the word hypostasis as substance was not accepted at Chalcedon, because it says that Christ is in one hypostasis.

The first question one must address is whether both churches have to accept the Ecumenical Councils. It looks very hard for the EO church to answer in the negative or unite with bishops who reject Councils that we consider correct. But addressing this looks to me to be the most primary constructive step in dialogues.
« Last Edit: November 23, 2017, 11:40:35 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 Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,599
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #215 on: November 23, 2017, 11:48:53 AM »
Your second and third paragraphs seem to contradict one another.
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 rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,525
  • 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 #216 on: November 23, 2017, 01:02:37 PM »
Your second and third paragraphs seem to contradict one another.
I see these as three different issues:

1. Must all the bishops in a church accept an orthodox, valid, ecumenical council? Can they reject one?

2. Should one reject Chalcedon as fundamentally theologically incorrect?

3. Should one reject Chalcedon for some other issue, like its declaration that Theodoret and Ibas are orthodox?

#1 appears to me the primary, initial step to address in dialogues. Ie. Do we even need to be united in accepting or not rejecting a Council that we consider orthodox and ecumenical?
« Last Edit: November 23, 2017, 01:04:33 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: 250
    • http://www.saintmarkkc.org
  • Faith: Coptic Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Alexandria
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #217 on: November 23, 2017, 09:08:00 PM »
Have you read Ibas' Letter?


Fr. Peter,
I read the one that some OOs object to, as it was read into the minutes of Chalcedon, where I read it.

I don't see Theodoret and Ibas as a crucial obstacle to communion between us, because as you have rightly pointed out in discussing John of Antioch, one need not accept every part of a Council only it's basic theology. It sounds like Theodoret's definitiion of the word hypostasis as substance was not accepted at Chalcedon, because it says that Christ is in one hypostasis.

The first question one must address is whether both churches have to accept the Ecumenical Councils. It looks very hard for the EO church to answer in the negative or unite with bishops who reject Councils that we consider correct. But addressing this looks to me to be the most primary constructive step in dialogues.

You claim you don't see Theodoret & Ibas as a crucial obstacle, but you also claim that it's hard to unite with bishops who reject councils you consider correct...this includes a council where Theodoret & Ibas were restored. So which one is it? You approve the peace treaty Cyril made with John of Antioch, but you claim it's hard to unite with bishops who reject councils that you consider to be correct, so which one is it? You realize Cyril signed 433 with John, without making them accept 431? So  who's really committed to the principal of Cyril & john here? those who want to unite without making you accept Ephesus 449/475/condemn the persons of ibas/theodoret, or those who want to unite with precondition  of accepting councils 4-7? I can accept a 2017 form of chalcedon with a detailed addendum attached with it, but there is no way I can accept the same chalcedon presented in the year 451, without a addendum clarifying the reception of Ibas & his letter & what this means. Same goes with the tome of leo, I can't accept the same tome the way it was presented in 451(this is the same tome that Nestorius accepted) but I can accept a 2017 version of the tome with a addendum outlining a Orthodox interpretation of it. and yes, to be clear, I don't view a 2017 version of  chalcedon with a addendum attached with it,  to be the same as the chalcedon presented in 451. My standard for councils is much higher than one where Ibas & his letter is received, & where Theodoret of Cyrus is on the committee. I'm not asking you to reject this council or believe anything different on the question of historical events. I'm not asking you to condemn the person of theodoret or Ibas,  but I'm asking for higher standard when it comes to Orthodox theology. Accepting the letter of Ibas & accepting the same tome presented in 451( again the same tome that Nestorius accepted) is very low-standard in my view. There needs to be detailed Orthodox addendum attached with  Orthodox interpretations outlined when it comes to the reception of such 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 #218 on: November 23, 2017, 10:21:28 PM »
Honestly Rakovsky, you seem to express more concern about about individual bishops rejecting a council than some of the specific documents/teachings that we have issues with. Don’t you find the piece where Theodoret explicitly denied “God the Word suffered in the flesh” multiple times & then theodoret takes it a step further and calls those who confess this apollinarian( aka monophysite heretics)? In theory I could unite with someone who rejects councils for reasons aside from the formulas & definitions they teach. For example if someone accepted the theopaschite formula but rejected Ephesus 431 because one found  it unfair that St.Cyril held this council without waiting for the Antiochian bishops to arrive, than that’s ok.Because I know they are not rejecting the teachings, but they are rejecting the way the council is conducted. But if you accept Ephesus 431 but explicitly reject  “God the Word suffered in the flesh”, than this is a big problem in my view. You agree with this right? "God the Word suffered in the flesh" is correct right?

Offline Remnkemi

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 379
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #219 on: November 28, 2017, 06:05:20 PM »
I found this from a Catholic apologetics blog.
Quote
In the eighth session of Chalcedon (the Fourth Ecumenical Council) on 10/26/451, the Holy Fathers, with papal approbation, declared the "very reverend bishop Theodoret" to be an "orthodox doctor" [Mansi VII:190CD] after the latter anathematized the heresiarchs Nestorios and Eutyches. Popes Vigilius, Pelagius I, Pelagius II, and the Doctor St. Gregory I the Great of Rome (9/3) all praised Bl. Theodoret, as did Patriarch St. Photios the Great of Constantinople (2/6), who called him a "divine man" [Bibliotheca 204 in PG 102:676B]. Even though in 553 Constantinople II (the Fifth Ecumenical Council) anathematized Thedoret's confused writings [PG 76:392B-449C] against Patriarch St. Cyril I of Alexandria [Canon 13 in Mansi IX:386CD], it did not condemn the person of Theodoret, who shunned the Nestorian heresy and is and will always be, thanks to Chalcedon, a Father of the Church.

While it may seem to corroborate Rakovsky's assertion that Theodoret is not only rightly called "Blessed" but also "a Father of the Church, this actually corroborates my point that the Fifth council contradicts the Fourth Council. In order to get around that logical consequence, a logical loophole (I think it is better called a logical fallacy) is created where heretical writings are separated from the author with no substance or evidence. It as if it is self evident that heretical writings can be separated from the author, where it is not. And if it is not separated from the author, then we are left with two councils pitted against each other. We also have to logically conclude that the heretical writings of Theodoret prove he is far from "blessed" and "a Father of the Church". However, as an OO, it seems some Chalcedonians see Theodoret as blessed with some bad writings and some see him as too controversial to be called blessed. Both of which call into question the Orthodoxy of Theodoret especially since he never agreed with Cyril and often agreed with Nestorius' Theodorean christology, not shunning it.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2017, 06:05:44 PM by Remnkemi »

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 #220 on: November 29, 2017, 03:38:10 AM »
I view Theodoret to be the more clever & more strategic version of Nestorius. Nestorius just regurgitated Theodore's teachings & was quite clumsy, and his clumsiness contributed to his unpopularity early on. While,it looks like supporters of Nestorius have historically seen him as a martyr for the antiochene christological cause, yet in terms of contribution of content in addition to Diodore/Theodore, Nestorius  didn’t contribute much in addition to these two. It’s why I view the term “Nestorian” as a misnomer. It was hardly ever a accurate description.


On the other hand,Theodoret not only regurgitated Theodore's teachings but also helped develop definitions subtle enough to allow a  Theodorean interpretation for that one faction of chalcedonians in 451 who wanted to follow Theodore's teachings. today we actually have more heretical primary writing of Theodoret  available than Nestorius.  It’s pretty funny actually, Theodoret’s actual christology is just as heretical as  Apollinaris, Theodore,Diodore, Eutyches, & Nestorius yet Diophysites gave Theodoret a pass because he accepted the Council of Chlacedon.


As Professor Martzelos explained:
"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

I did find some more helpful bits in Professors Martzelos paper here though. https://hephaestus.nup.ac.cy/bitstream/handle/11728/7613/Orthodoxy_and_heresy_full.pdf?sequence=1

While I of course disagree with the standards he outlines for “dogmatic orthodox”, I very much do like that he admits that the actual Christology of St.Severus & St. Dioscorus are not different from St.Cyril's. I find this paper extremely useful & helpful in understanding this perspective.

"Firstly we should stress that, as has come out of the thorough and in
depth study of the works of the above two anti-Chalcedonian leaders,
these characterisations are not connected to their actual Christology,
which is proven to have no essential difference to the Christology of Cyril
of Alexandria.
They are connected to the fact that Dioscorus and
Severus denied to accept the Fourth Ecumenical Council, thus becoming
leaders and founders of the anti-Chalcedonian schism. According to
Damascene and the other Fathers this is exactly what constitutes the
essence of their heresy, not their actual Christology."

"Nevertheless, independently from this fact we should stress that not
even one passage from Dioscorus or Severus exists where it comes out
that they accept any blending or confusion of the two natures,
as they are
accused for by Damascene. On the contrary, there are many points where
Dioscorus and Severus verbatim reject the blending, the confusion and
the blurring of the two natures.
Given that they had
turned down the Fourth Ecumenical Council as Nestorian, in this way
tearing themselves apart from the body of the Church, the Fathers were
not at all concerned whether their Christology was in itself orthodox or
heretical."

He also referenced Florovsky & Romanides

"Rev. G. Florovsky has emphatically stressed that the
reason for which the Fathers of Chalcedon did not condemn Dioscorus for heresy was
that Dioscorus did not deny the “double consubstantiality”of God-man as Eutyches had done in the “Standing Synod”

"Also Rev. John Romanides, in his
presentation of a special study in Aarhus Denmark 1964, supported and substantiated
the view that Dioscorus was not condemned as a heretic during the Fourth
Ecumenical Council because the “Robber Council” (449), at which he presided, was
not regarded by the Fathers as heretical, as the restoration of Eutyches was apparently
based on his confession that Christ is “of the same substance as his mother”
 

 

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 #221 on: November 29, 2017, 09:28:00 AM »
I found this from a Catholic apologetics blog.
Quote
In the eighth session of Chalcedon (the Fourth Ecumenical Council) on 10/26/451, the Holy Fathers, with papal approbation, declared the "very reverend bishop Theodoret" to be an "orthodox doctor" [Mansi VII:190CD] after the latter anathematized the heresiarchs Nestorios and Eutyches. Popes Vigilius, Pelagius I, Pelagius II, and the Doctor St. Gregory I the Great of Rome (9/3) all praised Bl. Theodoret, as did Patriarch St. Photios the Great of Constantinople (2/6), who called him a "divine man" [Bibliotheca 204 in PG 102:676B]. Even though in 553 Constantinople II (the Fifth Ecumenical Council) anathematized Thedoret's confused writings [PG 76:392B-449C] against Patriarch St. Cyril I of Alexandria [Canon 13 in Mansi IX:386CD], it did not condemn the person of Theodoret, who shunned the Nestorian heresy and is and will always be, thanks to Chalcedon, a Father of the Church.

While it may seem to corroborate Rakovsky's assertion that Theodoret is not only rightly called "Blessed" but also "a Father of the Church, this actually corroborates my point that the Fifth council contradicts the Fourth Council. In order to get around that logical consequence, a logical loophole (I think it is better called a logical fallacy) is created where heretical writings are separated from the author with no substance or evidence. It as if it is self evident that heretical writings can be separated from the author, where it is not. And if it is not separated from the author, then we are left with two councils pitted against each other. We also have to logically conclude that the heretical writings of Theodoret prove he is far from "blessed" and "a Father of the Church". However, as an OO, it seems some Chalcedonians see Theodoret as blessed with some bad writings and some see him as too controversial to be called blessed. Both of which call into question the Orthodoxy of Theodoret especially since he never agreed with Cyril and often agreed with Nestorius' Theodorean christology, not shunning it.

So your position is that Leo, et al. are heretics?

Btw, you might find this thread interesting.
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 Remnkemi

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 379
Re: Where is monophysitism mentioned in the acts?
« Reply #222 on: November 29, 2017, 11:51:22 AM »
I found this from a Catholic apologetics blog.
Quote
In the eighth session of Chalcedon (the Fourth Ecumenical Council) on 10/26/451, the Holy Fathers, with papal approbation, declared the "very reverend bishop Theodoret" to be an "orthodox doctor" [Mansi VII:190CD] after the latter anathematized the heresiarchs Nestorios and Eutyches. Popes Vigilius, Pelagius I, Pelagius II, and the Doctor St. Gregory I the Great of Rome (9/3) all praised Bl. Theodoret, as did Patriarch St. Photios the Great of Constantinople (2/6), who called him a "divine man" [Bibliotheca 204 in PG 102:676B]. Even though in 553 Constantinople II (the Fifth Ecumenical Council) anathematized Thedoret's confused writings [PG 76:392B-449C] against Patriarch St. Cyril I of Alexandria [Canon 13 in Mansi IX:386CD], it did not condemn the person of Theodoret, who shunned the Nestorian heresy and is and will always be, thanks to Chalcedon, a Father of the Church.

While it may seem to corroborate Rakovsky's assertion that Theodoret is not only rightly called "Blessed" but also "a Father of the Church, this actually corroborates my point that the Fifth council contradicts the Fourth Council. In order to get around that logical consequence, a logical loophole (I think it is better called a logical fallacy) is created where heretical writings are separated from the author with no substance or evidence. It as if it is self evident that heretical writings can be separated from the author, where it is not. And if it is not separated from the author, then we are left with two councils pitted against each other. We also have to logically conclude that the heretical writings of Theodoret prove he is far from "blessed" and "a Father of the Church". However, as an OO, it seems some Chalcedonians see Theodoret as blessed with some bad writings and some see him as too controversial to be called blessed. Both of which call into question the Orthodoxy of Theodoret especially since he never agreed with Cyril and often agreed with Nestorius' Theodorean christology, not shunning it.

So your position is that Leo, et al. are heretics?

Btw, you might find this thread interesting.
What I find interesting is that you questioned the same exact claim (i.e., a heretical writing can be separated from the author) in that very same thread you referenced.

I don't recall anyone talking about Leo. Why do you assume my position is to condemn Leo et al as heretics? My position is simple: Nestorius, yes heretic. Theodore, yes heretic. Theodoret, yes heretic. Ibas, yes heretic. They all clearly wrote and continued to defend anti-Cyrillean and anti-Orthodox heresy to the end. Thus, it is illogical to separate their writings from their person. And by extension, it is definitely illogical to consider Theodoret "blessed" or "a Father of the Church" simply because he allegedly "shunned the Nestorian heresy" in Chalcedon ignoring that he later continued anti-Cyrillian attacks.

Nothing in that thread justified separating heretical writings from their authors. (It only talked about posthumous anathema of a person, Theodrean anti-theosis, and the Assyrian Church).
« Last Edit: November 29, 2017, 11:56:44 AM by Remnkemi »

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 #223 on: November 29, 2017, 12:36:40 PM »
I found this from a Catholic apologetics blog.
Quote
In the eighth session of Chalcedon (the Fourth Ecumenical Council) on 10/26/451, the Holy Fathers, with papal approbation, declared the "very reverend bishop Theodoret" to be an "orthodox doctor" [Mansi VII:190CD] after the latter anathematized the heresiarchs Nestorios and Eutyches. Popes Vigilius, Pelagius I, Pelagius II, and the Doctor St. Gregory I the Great of Rome (9/3) all praised Bl. Theodoret, as did Patriarch St. Photios the Great of Constantinople (2/6), who called him a "divine man" [Bibliotheca 204 in PG 102:676B]. Even though in 553 Constantinople II (the Fifth Ecumenical Council) anathematized Thedoret's confused writings [PG 76:392B-449C] against Patriarch St. Cyril I of Alexandria [Canon 13 in Mansi IX:386CD], it did not condemn the person of Theodoret, who shunned the Nestorian heresy and is and will always be, thanks to Chalcedon, a Father of the Church.

While it may seem to corroborate Rakovsky's assertion that Theodoret is not only rightly called "Blessed" but also "a Father of the Church, this actually corroborates my point that the Fifth council contradicts the Fourth Council. In order to get around that logical consequence, a logical loophole (I think it is better called a logical fallacy) is created where heretical writings are separated from the author with no substance or evidence. It as if it is self evident that heretical writings can be separated from the author, where it is not. And if it is not separated from the author, then we are left with two councils pitted against each other. We also have to logically conclude that the heretical writings of Theodoret prove he is far from "blessed" and "a Father of the Church". However, as an OO, it seems some Chalcedonians see Theodoret as blessed with some bad writings and some see him as too controversial to be called blessed. Both of which call into question the Orthodoxy of Theodoret especially since he never agreed with Cyril and often agreed with Nestorius' Theodorean christology, not shunning it.

So your position is that Leo, et al. are heretics?

Btw, you might find this thread interesting.
What I find interesting is that you questioned the same exact claim (i.e., a heretical writing can be separated from the author) in that very same thread you referenced.

I know I did. And I'm still uncertain about whether it's right to do so. I just thought that having the link on hand would help this thread somehow, despite it being full of tangents.

I don't recall anyone talking about Leo. Why do you assume my position is to condemn Leo et al as heretics? My position is simple: Nestorius, yes heretic. Theodore, yes heretic. Theodoret, yes heretic. Ibas, yes heretic. They all clearly wrote and continued to defend anti-Cyrillean and anti-Orthodox heresy to the end. Thus, it is illogical to separate their writings from their person. And by extension, it is definitely illogical to consider Theodoret "blessed" or "a Father of the Church" simply because he allegedly "shunned the Nestorian heresy" in Chalcedon ignoring that he later continued anti-Cyrillian attacks.

Well, Leo, et al. as well as the EO Fathers of the Fifth Council considered Ibas and Theodoret to be Orthodox, didn't they? Is approving of a heretic any better than being one yourself?
« Last Edit: November 29, 2017, 12:36:57 PM 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 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 #224 on: November 29, 2017, 01:08:45 PM »
Having canonised Chalcedon in the 5th century, Justinian could only go so far in condemning Theodore, Theodoret and Ibas. And even to the extent that he did criticise them, he brought about a schism of more or less all the West and North Africa, which lasted in places until 700 AD.
My ministry and blog - http://www.stgeorgeministry.com

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington