OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 28, 2014, 08:23:35 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: "Orthodox" may just be a name...  (Read 11360 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« on: November 12, 2005, 03:02:44 AM »

Despite the progress made in the past century, many Eastern Orthodox Christians insist that the non-Chalcedonian Churches, those who hold to what the Orthodox Church taught pre-Chalcedon, are somehow unorthodox.
I don't even know why I should care anymore. If you truly feel that way, then I am a monophysite heretic just as you are a Nestorian.
I have no shame in being a member of the ancient Christian Church established by St. Thomas the Apostle in 52 A.D.
If I do not have the right to call myself Orthodox, then call me Coptic. A name is just a name.

Peace.ÂÂ  
« Last Edit: November 12, 2005, 03:03:07 AM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #1 on: November 12, 2005, 05:20:52 AM »

Orthodoxy is an identity based upon the belief in, and excercise of, true faith, praxis, and sacramental life.

I can understand your frustration if it specifically related to those who misrepresent (whether it be of maliciousness or plain ignorance) our faith, or the faith of our Fathers, to thence deduce your alleged un-orthodoxy on this basis. However, since praxis is inextricably related to ecclesiology, then you shouldn’t really be too upset if an EO does not consider you Orthodox by virtue of the fact we are not in communion with them. Likewise, an honest approach from our side renders them un-Orthodox since they are outside the canonical bounds of our Church.

Quote
If I do not have the right to call myself Orthodox, then call me Coptic.

That's a loaded statement my friend; copticisorthodox  Wink

+Irini nem makarismos
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #2 on: November 12, 2005, 05:38:46 AM »

Likewise, an honest approach from our side renders them un-Orthodox since they are outside the canonical bounds of our Church.

If both sides can do that to each other, doesn't that effectively make the name of "Orthodox" meaningless?

Peace.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #3 on: November 12, 2005, 07:53:08 AM »

If both sides can do that to each other, doesn't that effectively make the name of "Orthodox" meaningless?

It simply means that there is disagreement with respect to how the title, which is based on a commonly agreed and hence objective and meaningful definition, applies to the facts, which are either disputed with respect to their factual nature in the first place, or which are disputed with respect to how they’re interpreted.

The same generally goes for a range of other meaningful titles, such as Catholic,Truth, Life, God etc.

+Irini nem ehmot
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 12, 2005, 08:09:06 AM »

It simply means that there is disagreement with respect to how the title, which is based on a commonly agreed and hence objective and meaningful definition, applies to the facts, which are either disputed with respect to their factual nature in the first place, or which are disputed with respect to how they’re interpreted.

It seems that EO triumphalists are not swayed by facts but by their own bigotry.

Peace.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #5 on: November 12, 2005, 08:20:42 AM »

It seems that EO triumphalists are not swayed by facts but by their own bigotry.

That’s uncalled for.

As I stated earlier, their ecclesiology doesn’t allow them to consider us Orthodox in the fullest sense of the word, neither does our ecclesiology allow us to consider them Orthodox in the fullest sense of the word. The ecclesiological principles per se underlying such line of thought are not a matter of personal opinion, prejudice, or bias, but rather they are truths grounded in Church Tradition. We simply understand their application differently, hence why we are not in communion with eachother.
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Beavis
invertebrateischristian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 245

Smooth sounds from Squidworth's clarinet....


« Reply #6 on: November 12, 2005, 09:00:56 AM »

an honest approach from our side renders them un-Orthodox since they are outside the canonical bounds of our Church.

How?  Falsely excommunicating someone (i.e. Dioscoros) doesn't invalidate the Sacramental/ecclesiological validity on the part of those doing the excommunicating.  And neither do I believe (assuming that Dioscoros' excommunication was valid) that the Coptic Church is Sacramentally invalid because of the continuing office of an excommunicated Patriarch.  There were still other Bishops who took part in ordaining his successor.

Matthew777: the EO's who say this sort of thing are unread in the works of Severus of Antioch, Fr. V.P. Samuel, Father Romanides and the like.  My guess is that this simply stems from a blatant anti-hamitism....I can't think of any other reason.  No matter what Vladimir Moss, or any such person, says, the following still hold true:

1)  The OO Church holds to one compound hypostasis from two natures, without confusion, without separation, without division, and without mixture.

2)  The EO Church holds to one compound hypostasis from two natures, without confusion, without separation, without division, and without mixture.

3)  The OO Church holds to a substistent, but non- self-subsistent human soul/body adhering in the Word of God, thereby rendering Christ's human soul/body truly God the Word's human soul/body, in accordance with Severus of Antioch.

4)  The EO Church affirms that Christ's human soul/body is truly God the Word's human/soul body, in accordance with St. John of Damascus.

5)  The OO Church affirms Christ's will as one synergy of human and Divine wills.

6)  The EO church affirms Christ's will as one synergy of human and Divine wills.

7)  The OO Church offers veneration to the Holy Icons, while reserving worship to God alone.

Cool  The EO church offers veneration to the Holy Icons, while reserving worship to God alone.

You can't escape these facts.  If any EO's continue to bug you about this issue, you have my permission to call them a "heretic" (insofar as a heretic is one who holds to a falsehood) Tongue
Logged

"Every entity is what it loves"----Vladimir Solovyov
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #7 on: November 12, 2005, 10:40:44 AM »

Quote
Quote from: EkhristosAnesti on Today at 04:20:52 AM
an honest approach from our side renders them un-Orthodox since they are outside the canonical bounds of our Church.


How?  Falsely excommunicating someone (i.e. Dioscoros) doesn't invalidate the Sacramental/ecclesiological validity on the part of those doing the excommunicating.  And neither do I believe (assuming that Dioscoros' excommunication was valid) that the Coptic Church is Sacramentally invalid because of the continuing office of an excommunicated Patriarch. 


Excommunication is the act of excluding one from the sacramental life of the Church, with the intention that they repent and return to the Church for the sake of continuing that sacramental life.ÂÂ  

Furthermore, false ex-communication is like a boomerang in that the ex-communicator essentially ex-communicates themselves; they exclude themselves from the sacramental life of the Church. This automatic consequence in turn serves the ex-comunicatee’s intention that the ex-communicator repent of his action, else incur deprivation from the life-giving sacraments of the Church.

You belittle, and render the act of ex-communication superfluous, by admitting the possibility that either the ex-communicator falsely ex-communicating or the ex-comunicatee justly ex-communicated, are capable of pursuing and practicing the sacramental life of the Church nonetheless.

+Irini nem makarismos
« Last Edit: November 12, 2005, 10:41:07 AM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Beavis
invertebrateischristian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 245

Smooth sounds from Squidworth's clarinet....


« Reply #8 on: November 12, 2005, 10:50:46 AM »

That would only be the case if Dioscoros were the ONLY Bishop of the Coptic Church during the schism.  There were STILL other Bishops dispensing Sacraments.  The mere presence of an ex-communicatee (assuming his excommunication to be valid) among Communers doesn't invalidate the latter's Sacramental life.  Otherwise, we are led to a neo-Donatism whereby the "touch" of a "sinner" or schismatic somehow "spreads" his/her sin to the Sacraments, thereby "de-gracing" them.
Logged

"Every entity is what it loves"----Vladimir Solovyov
Beavis
invertebrateischristian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 245

Smooth sounds from Squidworth's clarinet....


« Reply #9 on: November 12, 2005, 11:03:35 AM »

Not only that, but your position would also render unity absolutely insolvable by raising the question, "Who re-ordains whom?"  We would have to figure out which Church turned out to be the "right" one, and then have the Bishops of this Church re-ordain the Bishops of the other.  And which one would we choose?  We know that neither side would back down.  Or how about we re-ordain EACH OTHER just to be on the safe side?
Logged

"Every entity is what it loves"----Vladimir Solovyov
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #10 on: November 12, 2005, 11:09:15 AM »

Ex-communication applies to all who follow the ex-communicatee so justly ex-communicated, by virtue of the fact that in doing so they uphold the error and sin for which the punishment was so applied to the individual in the first place. The punishment therefore extends to them all, with practically the same intention, for practically the same purpose.

In like manner, ex-communication applies to all who follow the ex-communicator who falsely ex-communicated, for the same reasons.

By virtue of this, I cannot see how an OO can advocate the Orthodoxy of the EO in the fullest sense, or vice versa.

In any event, I do regard the EOC quite highly, and frequently consult, and in fact own, many works of her theologians and authorities. However, to paraphrase the words of a fellow Copt as stated in a previous thread on this forum: "I praise the EOC for her achievements; however in so doing, I recognise that they are doing very well in spite of their history, and not because of it."

+Irini nem makarismos
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,631


« Reply #11 on: November 12, 2005, 11:09:48 AM »

Quote
It seems that EO triumphalists are not swayed by facts but by their own bigotry.

Actually, I have been attempting to move towards warmly accepting the current attempts at reconciliation, but have been prevented by...  my bigotted triumphalism? No. by OO's who treat every molehill as though they were a mountain. It seems like every time I turn around on this site, some OO is attacking one of my Church's saints or Councils. Even when there is no provocation, and the person or event is brought up in a totally unrelated subject... nonetheless, there is the OO patriot (religious rather than nationalistic) to defend his religion's honor, against those mean, nasty ole Byzantine types. Whenever I can mention the name Leo or Chalcedon on this site without getting a 2,000 word response about how bad they are, then I will believe that some progress has made. Until that time, perhaps you should consider the speck in your own (collective OO) eye.
Logged

"Read not to contradict and confute; nor to believe and take for granted; nor to find talk and discourse; but to weigh and consider." - Francis Bacon
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #12 on: November 12, 2005, 11:26:24 AM »

Quote
t seems like every time I turn around on this site, some OO is attacking one of my Church's saints or Councils. Even when there is no provocation, and the person or event is brought up in a totally unrelated subject... nonetheless,

I do not recall an instance where anyone unnecessarily “attacked” your Saints or Councils unless they were brought up in a polemical/apologetic context, or in the context of an EO-OO dialogue/discussion/debate/(whatever). Furthermore, the word “attack” itself is oft-misused (by both sides) in application to those who simply, genuinely and honestly state or argue their own position which is by nature offensive to the “opposing party.” Needless to say, these issues are quite sensitive, so it's nonetheless understandeable that you feel that way, as I myself have on occasions.

In any event, I do in principle disagree with Matthew’s one-sidedness (as was clearly implicit in my initial response to him); I think a lot of us here have been guilty of “bigotry” at one stage or another (yes, myself included). It is nothing but dishonest to make one-sided open-blanket statements of the sort made by Matthew.

+Irini nem makarismos
« Last Edit: November 12, 2005, 11:29:34 AM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,487


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 12, 2005, 12:04:16 PM »

That would only be the case if Dioscoros were the ONLY Bishop of the Coptic Church during the schism.ÂÂ  There were STILL other Bishops dispensing Sacraments.ÂÂ  The mere presence of an ex-communicatee (assuming his excommunication to be valid) among Communers doesn't invalidate the latter's Sacramental life.ÂÂ  Otherwise, we are led to a neo-Donatism whereby the "touch" of a "sinner" or schismatic somehow "spreads" his/her sin to the Sacraments, thereby "de-gracing" them.

People tend to confuse Donatism with the patristic teaching that we MUST separate from heretics.  Donatism says that the sinfulness of a priest renders his sacraments invalid, even though he is "in" the Church so to speak.  That is heretical because the Church's grace works through its priests regardless of their personal disposition.  Schismatics, however, are no longer in the Church, have publicly cut themselves off from it, are then no longer bishops or priests, and hence no longer can perform sacraments.  Therefore, to remain in communion with a rasephoremenos laikos (lol this is actually a Greek phrase, meaning cassock-wearing layman) is to make yourself subject to the same penalty.

See http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ecum_canons.aspx for canons relating to this subject.

Anastasios
Logged

Please Buy My Book!

Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching. Also, I served as an Orthodox priest from 2008-2013, before resigning.
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #14 on: November 12, 2005, 12:14:57 PM »

Quote
We would have to figure out which Church turned out to be the "right" one...

Exactly! Which is what I’ve stated elsewhere - most recently in germanus' thread concerning EO-OO relations as located in the OO section; re-union is not practically possible until one church concedes to being the “guilty/schismatic party” at Chalcedon.

+Irini nem makarismos
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,831



WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 12, 2005, 12:23:48 PM »

re-union is not practically possible until one church concedes to being the “guilty/schismatic party” at Chalcedon.

Yep.
Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #16 on: November 12, 2005, 12:26:50 PM »

Quote
rasephoremenos laikos (lol this is actually a Greek phrase, meaning cassock-wearing layman

LOL You know, there’s a schismatic group claiming succession from our previous Patriarch His Holiness Pope St Kyrillos VI (i.e. their self-appointed patriarch thinks he's Pope Shenouda the III's substitute) which once labeled itself the “Coptic Orthodox Catholic Church” (it now goes under the name "The Ancient Apostolic Communion"); its presence is strictly in the U.S. and quite trivial at that (they have two parishes I believe); however, upon entering a heated discussion with one of their priests, I wanted to address him in a polemical manner because he was really getting on my nerves, so I began “you…", then I thought real hard and came out with, "guy wearing clergyman clothes.”  Undecided I didn’t know there was an actual word for it ÂÂ Cheesy. You learn something new everyday ay.

+Irini nem makarismos
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #17 on: November 12, 2005, 04:38:02 PM »

In any event, I do in principle disagree with Matthew’s one-sidedness (as was clearly implicit in my initial response to him); I think a lot of us here have been guilty of “bigotry” at one stage or another (yes, myself included). It is nothing but dishonest to make one-sided open-blanket statements of the sort made by Matthew.

I don't remember ever showing the same kind of triumphalism that certain EO's have shown to me. This may not represent a majority but it still doesn't reflect positively on their Church.

Peace.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #18 on: November 12, 2005, 05:07:32 PM »

Quote
I don't remember ever showing the same kind of triumphalism that certain EO's have shown to me. This may not represent a majority but it still doesn't reflect positively on their Church.

a)   Whatever you may have personally experienced from the few EO’s you have encountered is not a justification for you to make such one-sided remarks.ÂÂ  “Triumphalism”, “bigotry” etc. exist on both sides of the fence (just go back and take a look at the way I shamefully handled previous debates and discussions with EO's — mind you, I still always wonÂÂ  Wink Cheesy), and I doubt you are in any position to make some sort of a valid statistical comparative analysis as to which church has it more concentrated. Many EO's, especially on this forum, have been quite understanding on certain issues.
b)   As I said, on an ecclesiological basis, EO’s and OO’s should not reasonably be expected to consider each other Orthodox in the strict sense of the word, as long as they aren’t in communion. Be a little objective and empathetic, therefore.
c)   If they are misrepresenting your doctrinal beliefs, and accusing you of being a heretic, simply correct them; if they persist regardless, then just thank the Lord for the blessing you've received. Our Fathers, the great St Dioscorus, St Severus, St Philoxenus etc. were called such things, and worse; are you better than they? Nay, our Lord Jesus Christ was accused of being a blasphemer, are you better than He?
d)   You know your Church to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church, so just be the best Orthodox Christian you can be, and forget about what anyone else says of you; don't concern yourself with them.

+Irini nem ehmot
« Last Edit: November 12, 2005, 05:09:14 PM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #19 on: November 12, 2005, 05:20:32 PM »

You know your Church to be the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church, so just be the best Orthodox Christian you can be, and forget about what anyone else says of you; don't concern yourself with them.

If my Orthodoxy is contingent upon my accepting of Chalcedon then I am not nor intend to be "Orthodox". This does not mean, however, that I am not a practicing member of an "Oriental Orthodox" church.
IÂÂ  am sorry if this may sound silly but the attitude of certain EO's reminds me of fascism. It's hard to shake even if their accusations are unfounded.

Peace.
« Last Edit: November 12, 2005, 05:21:41 PM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #20 on: November 12, 2005, 05:35:39 PM »

Quote
If my Orthodoxy is contingent upon my accepting Chalcedon then I am not nor intend to be "Orthodox".

Since when do we go by the terms of others? Chalcedon is not part of the Orthodox formula for you. Period. It’s irrelevant what others may believe your Orthodoxy to be contingent upon. We have a different criterion for them too.

Quote
I  am sorry if this may sound silly but that attitude of certain EO's reminds me of fascism.

Roll Eyes Please refer back to a) and b) of my previous post.

NB: I think you've made your point; I would be happy to continue this discussion with you in PM if you feel you must say more, however I just don't think you're serving any useful or beneficial purpose by persisting in the complaints and name-calling. That's just my humble opinion.

+Irini nem makarismos
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 12, 2005, 05:53:17 PM »

I just don't think you're serving any useful or beneficial purpose by persisting in the complaints and name-calling. That's just my humble opinion.

Agreed. Thank you for helping.

Peace.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
amnesiac99
Always Hopeful, Yet Discontent
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 93

Create in me a clean heart, O God


WWW
« Reply #22 on: November 12, 2005, 07:13:43 PM »

I have seen, in this thread and elsewhere on these boards, triumphalism exhibited on both sides. Both the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox (in addition to Roman Catholics) make claim to be the "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church" spoken of by the Creed, and all sides agree that all were at one time part of that church. Times are not so contentious, nor politics, nowadays for us to continue using such harsh rhetoric with each other. Yes, we have disagreements and differences (whether in substance or mere emphasis is up for debate), but I don't think they affect us the way they once did. It seems that only on the internet do such differences descend into mudslinging and the hurling of terms like "heretic." In the Holy Land, for example, there is great cooperation between Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Catholics (Melkites, mostly).

To me, it just seems a damn shame that in a world in which all things Christian are under assault, we still hold as being of prime importance the theological disagreements of a thousand years ago. This is not to say that such differences should be swept beneath the rug in favor of false unity. God forbid! But we should find ways of either working through our differences in Christian love and humility or simply agree to disagree and work together culturally.
Logged

Through the prayers of our Holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy upon and save us. Amen!
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 12, 2005, 07:32:14 PM »

To me, it just seems a damn shame that in a world in which all things Christian are under assault, we still hold as being of prime importance the theological disagreements of a thousand years ago. This is not to say that such differences should be swept beneath the rug in favor of false unity. God forbid! But we should find ways of either working through our differences in Christian love and humility or simply agree to disagree and work together culturally.

I would have to agree with you.

Peace.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #24 on: November 12, 2005, 08:00:54 PM »

Quote
I have seen, in this thread and elsewhere on these boards, triumphalism exhibited on both sides. Both the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox (in addition to Roman Catholics) make claim to be the "one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church"

Hold on a second there; you are quite obviously taking me out of context if you think I was asserting claim to the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church” in a triumphalistic sense. I was simply addressing a fellow OO who seemed to be giving too much weight as to what others believe of him, and not resting enough weight on his own belief concerning himself. It was not polemical rhetoric; it was sincere encouragement. I’m sorry you interpreted me any other way; I feared that might happen, hence part of the reason why I asked Matthew to continue the discussion with me privately in PM if he so chose.

+Irini nem ehmot
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #25 on: November 12, 2005, 08:19:50 PM »

"You believe in the Bible from the accident of birth, and the Turks believe in the Koran from the same accident, and each calls the other infidel. But leaving the prejudice of education out of the case, the unprejudiced truth is, that all are infidels who believe falsely of God, whether they draw their creed from the Bible, or from the Koran, from the Old Testament, or from the New." - Thomas Paine

Peace.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
amnesiac99
Always Hopeful, Yet Discontent
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Patriarchate of Antioch
Posts: 93

Create in me a clean heart, O God


WWW
« Reply #26 on: November 12, 2005, 08:57:46 PM »

Hold on a second there; you are quite obviously taking me out of context if you think I was asserting claim to the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church” in a triumphalistic sense. I was simply addressing a fellow OO who seemed to be giving too much weight as to what others believe of him, and not resting enough weight on his own belief concerning himself. It was not polemical rhetoric; it was sincere encouragement. I’m sorry you interpreted me any other way; I feared that might happen, hence part of the reason why I asked Matthew to continue the discussion with me privately in PM if he so chose.

+Irini nem ehmot


No, that is what I took you to mean. I wasn't even addressing a specific point that you made. I'm sorry for the confusion. Smiley
Logged

Through the prayers of our Holy Fathers, Lord Jesus Christ our God, have mercy upon and save us. Amen!
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #27 on: November 13, 2005, 12:11:01 AM »

Exactly! Which is what I’ve stated elsewhere - most recently in germanus' thread concerning EO-OO relations as located in the OO section; re-union is not practically possible until one church concedes to being the “guilty/schismatic party” at Chalcedon.

"It ain't necessarily so...."
There have been suspensions of Communion (and at least in one case, all out schism) in the EO Church which have been reconciled in the past without having to throw either party's "sins" in it's face. Christians can (and should) be reconciled without having to humiliate each other and exact vengence on one another. This may be impossible for the world, but all things are possible for God. If we really agree on doctrine, then "nihil obstat".

Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #28 on: November 13, 2005, 12:26:51 AM »

This may be impossible for the world, but all things are possible for God. If we really agree on doctrine, then "nihil obstat".

Then why do many Eastern Orthodox still insist upon calling us monophysite heretics?

Peace.


Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #29 on: November 13, 2005, 12:59:22 AM »

Then why do many Eastern Orthodox still insist upon calling us monophysite heretics?

You'll have to ask them.
But if I were to hazard a guess, then I'd say: possibly for simil;ar reasons that some Oriental Orthodox call us heretics.

And I said "if we really agree on doctrine then nihil obstat"....I think the jury is still deliberating on that one. We need patience and mutual repect in the meantime..........and measured words.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
DavidH
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 531



WWW
« Reply #30 on: November 13, 2005, 01:08:51 AM »

Christ is Among Us!

   As a matter of curiosity- when exactly did the two sides (EO and OO) begin to consider the other to be heretical? It seems that after Chalcedon there were still attempts at finding some sort of common ground at least until the Henotikon. When did the real hardening of attitudes occur?
In Christ,
Rd. David
Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #31 on: November 13, 2005, 01:35:39 AM »

I really don't know when it started but I think it should stop.

Peace.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #32 on: November 13, 2005, 02:39:04 PM »

As a matter of curiosity- when exactly did the two sides (EO and OO) begin to consider the other to be heretical? It seems that after Chalcedon there were still attempts at finding some sort of common ground at least until the Henotikon. When did the real hardening of attitudes occur?

As I understand things, the attempts at reconciliation come and go, but I do not think the OO were ever really considered "un-heretical." Perhaps I am wrong about that, though.
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
Beavis
invertebrateischristian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 245

Smooth sounds from Squidworth's clarinet....


« Reply #33 on: November 13, 2005, 02:44:52 PM »

When did the real hardening of attitudes occur?


Probably around the atrocious and despicable actions of the unholy Emperor Justinian (he's not a "saint", is he?.....I pray God that he is not Angry)
Logged

"Every entity is what it loves"----Vladimir Solovyov
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #34 on: November 13, 2005, 04:26:30 PM »

Probably around the atrocious and despicable actions of the unholy Emperor Justinian (he's not a "saint", is he?.....I pray God that he is not Angry)

Sorry Beavis (I can't find a saint beavis anywhere) St Justinian is commemorated on Nov 14 (my calendar)/27(those  others). Your prayers are for naught.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #35 on: November 13, 2005, 06:20:08 PM »

We must remember that saints were sinners too.

Peace.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #36 on: November 13, 2005, 07:36:01 PM »

As I understand things, the attempts at reconciliation come and go, but I do not think the OO were ever really considered "un-heretical." Perhaps I am wrong about that, though.

I believe it was the non-Chalcedonians who immediately interpreted heresy on the Chalcedonian side, hence their rejection of Chalcedon; but not vice versa.

The Chalcedonians were initially aware that the non-Chalcedonian rejection of Chalcedon was not based on an adherence to monophysitism, but rather based upon an interpretation of Chalcedon as a Nestorian council. Re-union attempts thus revolved around attempting to draw a common declaration of faith (based on the presumed understanding that there was indeed a common faith shared regardless) affirming any genuine Orthodox intentions at Chalcedon to the exclusion of the event of Chalcedon, which was deemed by the OOC as failing in accurately and properly portraying and promoting any such intentions if indeed they existed, and hence a source of disunity as opposed to ecumenicity.

You don’t get the polemical accusations of “monophysitism” until about a century later, I believe. Furthermore, St Dioscorus himself was never regarded a “heretic” by the Chalcedonians until about a century later also; there is clear evidence that he was understood as a perfectly Orthodox figure at Chalcedon, and even clearer evidence of this Orthodoxy in his own writings, and sayings recorded by others - especially as recorded in the very minutes of Chalcedon. The anathema placed against him at subsequent Chalcedonian councils were obviously polemical, and formulated by those unaware of what he actually taught and preached; as I recall, they not only accuse him of being a heretic, but they also implicitly accuse him of being a sola scripturist appealing only to the Bible as the basis of his teachings. The minutes of Chalcedon however explicitly reveal St Dioscorus appealing to the Fathers: St Cyril of Alexandria, St Athanasius of Alexandria, and St Gregory the Theologian, as the source of his doctrinal formulas. This further tarnishes any objective reliability that one may impute upon such anathemas according to the truth with which they reflect the actual position of St Dioscorus.

This change of attitude on behalf of the Chalcedonians to a blindly polemical one in their treatment of the non-Chalcedonians and Her Saints, doesn’t need a complex historical analysis; it’s evidently based on a principle that underlies the reaction most humans resort to in their weakness when being attacked or criticised; the notion that the best form of defence is attack. As Fr. Meyendroff (EO priest and theologian) mentions in his book Christ in Eastern Thought, the Chalcedonians were receiving quite harsh criticism from the non-Chalcedonians, who evidently (upon Fr. Meyendroff’s own admission) had the upperhand in debates on the issue early on. The Chalcedonians simply thus chose to resort to polemics of their own; polemics that were (also upon the admission of Fr. Meyendroff) quite weak (such as the attack on the non-Chalcedonian form of the Trisagion — a form which in fact preceded the whole Chalcedon controversy in any event according to non-Chalcedonian tradition). Apparently it was easier to misrepresent the non-Chalcedonian position and put them on the defensive, than it was to actually deal with their criticisms.

Sorry I can’t say much more than that for now; I have an exam to study for.

P.S. Please pray for my exam.

+Irini nem makarismos
« Last Edit: November 13, 2005, 07:41:51 PM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Beavis
invertebrateischristian
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 245

Smooth sounds from Squidworth's clarinet....


« Reply #37 on: November 14, 2005, 08:33:40 AM »

[quote author=Αριστοκλής link=topic=7555.msg98423#msg98423 date=1131913590]
Sorry Beavis (I can't find a saint beavis anywhere) St Justinian is commemorated on Nov 14 (my calendar)/27(thoseÂÂ  others). Your prayers are for naught.
[/quote]

WHAT?......He

a) Was a Julianist.
b) Had thousands of Copts (fellow Christians) slaughtered.
c) Usurped episcopal authority by unjustly condemning Origen and Universalism.  He was just an Emperor.  He had no ecclesiastically authoritative position to do this.

I cannot believe this.  Matthew777: WHAT was the name of the Church you are a part of again?
Logged

"Every entity is what it loves"----Vladimir Solovyov
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #38 on: November 14, 2005, 01:49:32 PM »

ÂÂ  Matthew777: WHAT was the name of the Church you are a part of again?

Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church:
www.indianorthodoxchurch.com

The waters of my baptism, the three-bar cross I bear, the Orthodox Bible I read, the creed that I confess, the people with whom I have fellowship and the faith in my heart point to one reality -
I am an Orthodox Christian and am humbled to be one.

Peace.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2005, 01:50:21 PM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
DavidH
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 531



WWW
« Reply #39 on: November 14, 2005, 02:29:35 PM »

Thank you EA for answering my question.......
Logged
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #40 on: November 14, 2005, 04:35:27 PM »

I do think there is more to it than that, EkhristosAnesti.

I am not sure how it could be interpretted as Nestorian, as Theodret explicitly said "Anathema to Nestorius, and to whoever refuses to call Mary the Holy Theotoke and whoever divides the one and only-begotten Son.”

Also, the "misunderstanding view" seems to have a fatal flaw: it puts guilt on both sides. It makes both parties guilty for division, but Christ cannot be divided. Therefore, even if one is right and the other wrong, both are in fact wrong. Doesn't seem to add up.
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #41 on: November 15, 2005, 11:56:48 PM »

Quote
I am not sure how it could be interpretted as Nestorian


Quite easily if you were to understand the historical circumstances of the time, thereby judging the council in its immediate historical context.

We must also remember that what constitutes “Nestorianism” isn’t as clear cut as many think. For example, popular belief regarding this heresy surrounds the understanding that Nestorius preached “two sons”, such that it requires one to positively affirm two sons, or two persons in Christ in order to profess anything akin to Nestorianism. The fact of the matter is however, Nestorius himself was able to promote Nestorianism, whilst affirming one Son, and one person of Christ, and in fact openly repudiated any notion of “two sons.” This is not to say that his Orthodox opponents, such as the blessed St Cyril, misrepresented or misunderstood him; they merely attributed to him the corollary of the faulty and nonetheless heretical Christology that he was affirmatively proclaiming.

In any event, the point of my last post did not surround the question of whether or not Chalcedon could be interpreted as Nestorian, but rather the historical fact that it was interpreted as Nestorian by a very significant and large portion of the Orthodox Church. On the contrary, the Chalcedonians did not start accusing the non-Chalcedonian Church of monophysitism until about century later.

Quote
as Theodret explicitly said "Anathema to Nestorius, and to whoever refuses to call Mary the Holy Theotoke and whoever divides the one and only-begotten Son.”

The admission of Theodoret is one aspect amongst many which distorted any apparent Orthodoxy at Chalcedon from the perspective of those who rejected it.

•   The first issue to be considered is that he was admitted into Chalcedon before anathematising Nestorius (a fact Leo of Rome was aware of), and thus un-canonically (and hence only apparently, as opposed to actually, from an Orthodox perspective) restored to the Church, hence his presence at Chalcedon. As soon as St Dioscorus and the Alexandrian Saints noticed Theodoret’s presence, they immediately rebuked the Council, which was said to have essentially rejected St Cyril by admitting St Cyril’s arch-enemy, who had yet to renounce his heresies (and in fact never really did) and who was yet to anathematize Nestorius.

•   Second, it must be noted that his anathematization of Nestorius was performed rather hesitantly; the question then arises as to whether he was merely paying lip service to those at Chalcedon; seeing Nestorian theology vindicated at Chalcedon (as Nestorius himself did upon reading the Tome of Leo), he may have decided that despite the paradox in affirming a certain theology whilst anathematising its frontline proponent, he would give the Chalcedonians the satisfaction by going ahead with the anathematization nonetheless, seeing that theology was the more important factor in any event.

•   The third issue to be considered is the undoubtedly Nestorian writings of Theodoret that were exonerated at Chalcedon (and in fact later condemned).

I stress however, that these above issues surrounding Theodoret are not exclusive factors constituting the reasonable perception of Chalcedon as a Nestorian council. There are still issues surrounding Ibas, the Tome of Leo, the Chalcedonian definition of faith etc.

Quote
Also, the "misunderstanding view" seems to have a fatal flaw: it puts guilt on both sides. It makes both parties guilty for division, but Christ cannot be divided. Therefore, even if one is right and the other wrong, both are in fact wrong. Doesn't seem to add up.

I believe the above is loaded on so many levels; however, as the direct and substantial cause of the schism was not essentially doctrinally related, it is irrelevant whether or not there was a misunderstanding on a doctrinal level anyway. This direct and substantial cause was the ex-communication of St Dioscorus. The fact of the matter is that St Dioscorus’ ex-communication and the actions that took place leading up to it (i.e. his initial deposition after the first session), were either right or wrong; his ultimate ex-communication was either just, warranted and hence valid, or it was a legalistic and abusive application of canon law and hence invalid.

+Irini nem ehmot
« Last Edit: November 16, 2005, 12:00:22 AM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #42 on: November 16, 2005, 08:38:19 AM »

Actually, I have been attempting to move towards warmly accepting the current attempts at reconciliation, but have been prevented by...  my bigotted triumphalism? No. by OO's who treat every molehill as though they were a mountain. It seems like every time I turn around on this site, some OO is attacking one of my Church's saints or Councils. Even when there is no provocation, and the person or event is brought up in a totally unrelated subject... nonetheless, there is the OO patriot (religious rather than nationalistic) to defend his religion's honor, against those mean, nasty ole Byzantine types. Whenever I can mention the name Leo or Chalcedon on this site without getting a 2,000 word response about how bad they are, then I will believe that some progress has made. Until that time, perhaps you should consider the speck in your own (collective OO) eye.

How prophetic of you Justin.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #43 on: November 16, 2005, 02:22:11 PM »

Quote
How prophetic of you Justin.

People have asked questions ozgeorge; am I to sit on my hands and allow people to believe that my Church was monophysite in her rejection of Chalcedon, because representing and defending her actual historical position i.e. that Chalcedon was Nestorian, might offend some people regardless of the manner I attempt to express that truth? Am I to sit on my hands and allow people to believe that a revered Saint of my Church was a heretic and schismatic in his being ex-communicated and anathematised by the Chalcedonian church, because representing and defending his integrity and Orthodoxy, might offend some people regardless of the manner I attempt to express that truth?

I am simply attempting to pursue this discussion on an academic level, without making it personal. I am doing no more than presenting my honest and genuine interpretation of history, which is based on some serious and thoughtful research into the matter. That interpretation is ofcourse open to be challenged by anyone according to their own interpretation of history, if they so wish.

The fact of the matter is, and this is my personal belief mind you (please see H.G. Abba Seraphim’s speech that I have posted here, who presents a sort of compromise, and thus a less conservative view than I) that sharing the same Christological beliefs (which I most certainly believe we do) should suffice, theoretically speaking, in an EO-OO reunion, but would not effectively suffice, practically speaking, if we disagree in our interpretations of historical schism.

+Irini nem makarismos
Logged

No longer an active member of this forum. Sincerest apologies to anyone who has taken offence to anything posted in youthful ignorance or negligence prior to my leaving this forum - October, 2012.

"Philosophy is the imitation by a man of what is better, according to what is possible" - St Severus
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #44 on: November 16, 2005, 02:33:11 PM »

In any event, the point of my last post did not surround the question of whether or not Chalcedon could be interpreted as Nestorian, but rather the historical fact that it was interpreted as Nestorian by a very significant and large portion of the Orthodox Church. On the contrary, the Chalcedonians did not start accusing the non-Chalcedonian Church of monophysitism until about century later.

The admission of Theodoret is one aspect amongst many which distorted any apparent Orthodoxy at Chalcedon from the perspective of those who rejected it.

•   The first issue to be considered is that he was admitted into Chalcedon before anathematising Nestorius (a fact Leo of Rome was aware of), and thus un-canonically (and hence only apparently, as opposed to actually, from an Orthodox perspective) restored to the Church, hence his presence at Chalcedon. As soon as St Dioscorus and the Alexandrian Saints noticed Theodoret’s presence, they immediately rebuked the Council, which was said to have essentially rejected St Cyril by admitting St Cyril’s arch-enemy, who had yet to renounce his heresies (and in fact never really did) and who was yet to anathematize Nestorius.

•   Second, it must be noted that his anathematization of Nestorius was performed rather hesitantly; the question then arises as to whether he was merely paying lip service to those at Chalcedon; seeing Nestorian theology vindicated at Chalcedon (as Nestorius himself did upon reading the Tome of Leo), he may have decided that despite the paradox in affirming a certain theology whilst anathematising its frontline proponent, he would give the Chalcedonians the satisfaction by going ahead with the anathematization nonetheless, seeing that theology was the more important factor in any event.

•   The third issue to be considered is the undoubtedly Nestorian writings of Theodoret that were exonerated at Chalcedon (and in fact later condemned).

I believe the above is loaded on so many levels; however, as the direct and substantial cause of the schism was not essentially doctrinally related, it is irrelevant whether or not there was a misunderstanding on a doctrinal level anyway. This direct and substantial cause was the ex-communication of St Dioscorus. The fact of the matter is that St Dioscorus’ ex-communication and the actions that took place leading up to it (i.e. his initial deposition after the first session), were either right or wrong; his ultimate ex-communication was either just, warranted and hence valid, or it was a legalistic and abusive application of canon law and hence invalid.

+Irini nem ehmot


Ok.

What date did he actually anathematize Nestorius?

Nestorianism vindicated? The Creed, which explicitly condemns it, was re-affirmed, as were the decisions of the previous councils. If Nestorianism was indeed vindicated, why is the Nestorian church not in communion with us, and in fact have a different theology? Makes no sense.

Indeed they were later condemned. Which brings rise to the questions of why the seperation continued.

Sorry, not meant to be loaded. What canons were used to depose him, if I may ask? Anyways, whether or not doctrine was involved, there had to be a continued misunderstanding of one another on each side if the theory you propose is true. Again, whether doctrinally related or not, guilt seems to fall on both sides. There must be another explanation.
Logged

Fashions and opinions among men may change, but the Orthodox tradition remains ever the same, no matter how few may follow it.

-- Fr. Seraphim Rose
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.14 seconds with 72 queries.