OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 28, 2014, 07:03:02 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 10530 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
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 #90 on: November 26, 2005, 10:13:54 PM »

it is clear that each group agrees with the other in all matters of faith.

I hate to rain on the parade, but actually, this is yet to be established.
While miaphysitism may or may not be monophysitism and can possibly be sorted out, we are still stuck with the problem of the Two Wills unless the Antichalcedonian side can come up with a "Miatheletism" distinct from monotheletism, but even so it will still need to be sorted out as to whether "miatheletism" is the same teaching as the Two Wills.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #91 on: November 26, 2005, 10:31:22 PM »

I hate to rain on the parade, but actually, this is yet to be established.
While miaphysitism may or may not be monophysitism and can possibly be sorted out, we are still stuck with the problem of the Two Wills unless the Antichalcedonian side can come up with a "Miatheletism" distinct from monotheletism, but even so it will still need to be sorted out as to whether "miatheletism" is the same teaching as the Two Wills.

Goodness, and here I was convinced that Diocorus and Nestorianism was the issue. Nonetheless, I am not sure their position is different there either. From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monothelitism):

"However, it was rejected by the Church, and was never accepted by most of the Monophysites either."

It seems that monothlistism was actually a doctrine invented to try to reunite the EO and OO, but it is developed too late (7th century) to be the orignal position of either.
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
DavidH
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 531



WWW
« Reply #92 on: November 26, 2005, 10:40:38 PM »

Christ is in Our Midst!
 ÃƒÆ’‚  Ozgeorge seems right that one way out would be to see our histories as a prolonged suspension of communion- and right that its highly unlikely this idea would float. If the Henotikon didn't smooth out the differences, what will?
The comparative Christologies of the two communions run a lot deeper than I feel comfortable commenting on in any depth, but it seems both the EO and OO have a common problem in white-washing our pasts. There are multitudes of saints and theologians in my tradition- far deeper theologically than I could ever hope to be- who uniquivically declared the anti-Chalcedonian position heretical. Our friends in the OO have the same problem. THEY have multitudes they revere as holy saints and deep theologians who declared the pro-Chalcedonian position to be heretical. Historically, a compromise formula doesn't have much hope. It may work "in the middle" of both churches among those of us who know just enough theology to make a mush of things; but the masses below would never accept it for cultural/ historical biases and the masses above who see the theological importance of proclaiming one Christological formula to the exclusion of the other side's dogma would also never accept it. I think what our OO friend EA wrote not long ago is unfortunately the truth: one side will eventually have to come to a recognition of itself as the guilty party in this schism.
In Christ,
Rd. David
Logged
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #93 on: November 26, 2005, 11:01:34 PM »

If the Henotikon didn't smooth out the differences, what will?

The comparative Christologies of the two communions run a lot deeper than I feel comfortable commenting on in any depth, but it seems both the EO and OO have a common problem in white-washing our pasts. There are multitudes of saints and theologians in my tradition- far deeper theologically than I could ever hope to be- who uniquivically declared the anti-Chalcedonian position heretical. Our friends in the OO have the same problem. THEY have multitudes they revere as holy saints and deep theologians who declared the pro-Chalcedonian position to be heretical. Historically, a compromise formula doesn't have much hope. It may work "in the middle" of both churches among those of us who know just enough theology to make a mush of things; but the masses below would never accept it for cultural/ historical biases and the masses above who see the theological importance of proclaiming one Christological formula to the exclusion of the other side's dogma would also never accept it. I think what our OO friend EA wrote not long ago is unfortunately the truth: one side will eventually have to come to a recognition of itself as the guilty party in this schism.
In Christ,
Rd. David

Time healed many divisions. Perhaps now is the time.

I agree many saints condemned the perceived Christology of the other side, but with what we know today, there seems to be little difference. Just about every saint in both of our Churches condemned something that was orthodox (in the eyes of their own Church) at one time or another.  As for the masses, how is this different from any other healed division? I am not saying the road will not be hard, but I am saying we must trvael it.
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
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 #94 on: November 26, 2005, 11:28:21 PM »

It seems that monothlistism was actually a doctrine invented to try to reunite the EO and OO, but it is developed too late (7th century) to be the orignal position of either.
When a doctrine (Orthodox or heretical) is defined does not mean it was not the position of a particular school of thought until then.ÂÂ  Many in the Church did not know they were Iconoclast heretics until the Seventh Oecumenical Council. The Coptic Church uses "miaphysitism" to describe it's position- but it is not clear that miaphysitism is compatable with the doctrine of the Two Natures- which is uncompromisingly "diaphysitism".ÂÂ  Miaphysitism, by it's nature requires miatheletism since the Two Natures cannot act distinctly (and therefore, cannot will distinctly). As you can see from this and similar threads, the Antichalcedonian position is that One Hypostasis can only have One Will.


  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ THE HYPOSTASIS  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ THE NATURES  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  THE WILLS  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚Â
Chalcedonian  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ One  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  Diaphysitism  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  Diatheletism

Antichalcedon   ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ One  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  Miaphysitism  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ Miatheletism
« Last Edit: November 26, 2005, 11:28:44 PM by ozgeorge » 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 #95 on: November 26, 2005, 11:35:41 PM »

Time healed many divisions. Perhaps now is the time.

I agree many saints condemned the perceived Christology of the other side, but with what we know today, there seems to be little difference. Just about every saint in both of our Churches condemned something that was orthodox (in the eyes of their own Church) at one time or another.ÂÂ  As for the masses, how is this different from any other healed division? I am not saying the road will not be hard, but I am saying we must trvael it.


 ÃƒÆ’‚  I hope that our two churches do find a God-pleasing way to heal the division without any compromise in Truth. But I am not sure what our EO Fathers or their OO Fathers could have not percieved or known about the others' position (since both sides were there together and both sides were "expert" in theology). If we do not notice any substantive difference in the two Christologies how do we know it is not OUR perception that is less clear than the Fathers'?
 ÃƒÆ’‚ Not to be critical, just adding food for thought........
In Christ,
Rd. David
 ÃƒÆ’‚ (BTW- I don't think I am deep enough in the study of this 1500 yr old disagreement to notice "what is the big deal", I am just reluctant to second-guess the judgement of our EO Fathers in this matter)
Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,409


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #96 on: November 27, 2005, 01:40:01 AM »

Hi,

I think my computer is O.K. now, and it didn't take as long as I thought.  I have been sternly warned never to use Outlook Express again for my e-mails.  I was told it is like wearing a big "kick me" sign on my back.  I am still furious with the Norton Antivirus people for being so unhelpful.   Angry    Pray for me, that I get over this by tomorrow morning so I can take Communion.   Smiley

I am also one of those people who would like to see our two churches reunited.  We waste too much energy and time on these debates and being split makes us weak and vulnerable to our common enemies.  They say the Muslims would not have had such an easy time taking the Middle East if it were not for the schism between us.  I think this is still an issue, with both the EO's and OO's suffering so much persecution today. 

I don't think it was an accident that the two churches began talking to each other during the twentieth century, when Communism and Islam were bringing more Christians to martyrdom than at any other time in history.  I think when people are under attack, they are more likely to look past the differences which divide them and try to unite.  I have noticed that the dialogue has not been as strong and the polemics have intensified in the last decade, since Communism fell.  I do hope, however, that we go back to dialogue and figure something out.  As it has already been pointed out, with God all things are possible!
Logged

Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #97 on: November 27, 2005, 03:12:33 PM »

When a doctrine (Orthodox or heretical) is defined does not mean it was not the position of a particular school of thought until then.ÂÂ  Many in the Church did not know they were Iconoclast heretics until the Seventh Oecumenical Council. The Coptic Church uses "miaphysitism" to describe it's position- but it is not clear that miaphysitism is compatable with the doctrine of the Two Natures- which is uncompromisingly "diaphysitism".ÂÂ  Miaphysitism, by it's nature requires miatheletism since the Two Natures cannot act distinctly (and therefore, cannot will distinctly). As you can see from this and similar threads, the Antichalcedonian position is that One Hypostasis can only have One Will.


  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ THE HYPOSTASIS  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ THE NATURES  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  THE WILLS  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚Â
Chalcedonian  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ One  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  Diaphysitism  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  Diatheletism

Antichalcedon   ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ One  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  Miaphysitism  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚  ÃƒÆ’‚ Miatheletism

Is not miathelistism Orthodox?
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
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #98 on: November 27, 2005, 03:22:12 PM »


 ÃƒÆ’‚  I hope that our two churches do find a God-pleasing way to heal the division without any compromise in Truth. But I am not sure what our EO Fathers or their OO Fathers could have not percieved or known about the others' position (since both sides were there together and both sides were "expert" in theology). If we do not notice any substantive difference in the two Christologies how do we know it is not OUR perception that is less clear than the Fathers'?
 ÃƒÆ’‚ Not to be critical, just adding food for thought........
In Christ,
Rd. David
 ÃƒÆ’‚ (BTW- I don't think I am deep enough in the study of this 1500 yr old disagreement to notice "what is the big deal", I am just reluctant to second-guess the judgement of our EO Fathers in this matter)

Yet the EO accused the OO of monophysitism, and the OO accused the EO of Nestorianism. Today we can clearly see that these accusations are untrue. Yet beside these accusations, the two sides think quite alike. Perhaps the accusations are just one of those little "t" traditions that we have yet to let go of.
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
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 #99 on: November 27, 2005, 05:11:07 PM »

Is not miathelistism Orthodox?
The jury is still out on that one on the EO side.
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 #100 on: November 30, 2005, 08:54:25 PM »

Quote
I think you may have misunderstood me.  By "alienated" I meant that many of Cyril's patriarchate were discontented with the Symbol of Union.


I have already given clear evidence that St Dioscorus praised the re-union, employed its expressions, and adhered to the doctrinal principles advocated therein. You simply have absolutely no evidence of the blessed St Dioscorus being “discontent” with the Formulary. The only thing St Dioscorus was “discontent” with, and justifiably so, is the extremist Antiochene movement headed by Theodoret that attempted to spread and promote crypto-Nestorianism upon an anti-Cyrillian interpretation of the Formulary.

Furthermore, as I have repeated, the Formulary despite being acceptable did not possess dogmatic or authoritative status. St Dioscorus could accept the fact that the language of moderate Antiochenes expressed the same Alexandrine theology of St Cyril, and hence his support for the re-union with John of Antioch’s party; however, being faithful to the Normative Tradition of his day, he would not accept the notion of one being obligatorily subject to it, for it simply did not possess that status in the Orthodox Church; rather, it was the Formulary that was subject to Ephesus 431 and the Holy 12 anathemas Conciliarly and formally approved therein.

What St Dioscorus was discontent with therefore, is your faulty Theodoretan/anti-Cyrilline understanding of the Formulary, and hence a fictional conception of it, and not the Formulary of history i.e. the Formulary that St Cyril actually consented to.

Quote
Over time, Dioscorus moved to align himself with these malcontents.  This movement was culminated in his betrayal of the Symbol of Union at the Robber Synod.

The Holy Council of Ephesus II (449) was consonant with The Holy Council of Ephesus I (431). Claiming that there was a “betrayal” of the Formulary, is not only a groundless claim not based upon either fact, or even an honest interpretation of this document, however it also implicitly presupposes a faulty conception of the document by use of the word “betrayal.” Such rhetoric is not helpful when you are yet to even properly establish your case that the Formulary ever possessed an authority to be “betrayed” in the first place.

An implicit problem in your reasoning is in fact the same problem that occurred at Chalcedon, whereby an honest examination of the Holy Council of Ephesus II against the theological background of the time was evaded.

It is interesting to note, that even though EO priest and scholar, Fr. John Romanides, adopts the erroneous belief that The Holy Council of Ephesus II “set aside” the Formulary, he nonetheless justifies this alleged reaction in light of the theological background of the day. In commenting with respect to the insurgence of Nestorianism in the East subsequent to St Cyril’s death, Fr. Romanides states:

“It was undoubtedly his exasperation with this type of Antiochene Christology [which, according to Fr. Romanides was crypto-Nestorian Christology] more than anything else which goaded Dioscoros into setting aside Cyril's act of 433 and returning to what may be called Alexandrine exclusiveness as the only sure means of uprooting the new form behind which Nestorianism hid itself.”

Therefore, even granting the presumption that The Holy Council of Ephesus II "set aside" the Formulary, Fr. Romanides is nonetheless capable of examining  this alleged move in its historical context, and not merely in the abstract. His implicit justification thereof consequently implies that the Holy Council of Ephesus II was not dogmatically bound by the Formulary in any event; nay, the Formulary was in fact subject to The Holy Council of Ephesus II.

Until you are able to refer me to the Ecumenical Council that ratified the Formulary as an Ecumenically Authoritative document whereby the Universal Church was bound to its terms, you have no case. No one was bound to its terms — not even Eutyches. And I stress, this is all granting the baseless presumption that the Formulary was neglected in the first place.

Quote
That's not the case for the reference to the "duality of natures" which I mentioned in my last post.  The phrase is, "...but distinguish others in view of the duality of natures..." (os epi dhio physeon).

Let’s have a look at the statement in context, in order to stress the baselessness of your presumed equation of this expression in the Formulary and the statement pertaining to Christ existing “in two natures”:

The entire sentence reads:

‘And with regard to the evangelistic and apostolic sayings concerning the Lord’, it said, ‘we know that theologians make some common, as relating to one person and distinguish others, as relating to two natures, interpreting the God-befitting ones to be of the Godhead of Christ, and the lowly ones of his humanity.’

As Fr. V.C. Samuel notes:

“Intended obviously to mitigate the difficulty which the Antiochenes felt about the fourth anathema, the sentence does not in fact contradict the position of Cyril. For it affirms only that theologians distinguish matters pertaining to our Lord in three ways. A very guarded statement, it does not say that Christ existed in three centres of being and activity, but only that the words and deeds of Christ are possible to be differentiated in three ways…Cyril himself had worked out a theory which would grant this possibility. In his view, as we contemplate on Christ, we can in our minds recognize some words and deeds of Christ as divine and some as human.
(Samuel. V.C., Chalcedon Re-Examined, page 16)

The expression therefore, simply pertains to how theologians may categorise certain sayings or activities of Christ, according to His divinity and humanity, in contemplation alone. Therefore, regardless of the interpretation you choose to retrospectively impute upon “in two natures” the fact of the matter is that such an expression pertains to the nature of Christ’s existence — it does not refer to contemplatively and theologically theorizing a distinction between Christ’s names, rather it refers to conceiving the reality and actuality of Christ’s incarnate existence.

Although St Dioscorus explicitly recognised this principle of distinguishing between human and divine sayings of Christ in contemplation, it was not the subject of the 448. vs. 449 controversey, and hence it is irrelevant to the discussion nonetheless.

Quote
The fact that Dioscorus originally supported it


There is no basis to believe that St Dioscorus ever changed his mind with respect to the Formulary. He accepted it upon the basis that St Cyril accepted it, and continued to do so till his death. We have a document written by him to his blessed monks before his death whilst in exile, which most explicitly employs the afore-explained principle of the Formulary whereby the activities of Christ may be distinguished in contemplation according to either Christ’s divinity or His humanity.

Quote
only shows that he was ignoring its obvious concessions to the Antiochene way of thinking,

You need to quit presuming what you are yet to prove. The Formulary was not a concession to Antiochene way of thinking; it was a form of recognition regarding the fact that moderate Antiochene language was compatible with the Alexandrine Tradition vindicated at Ephesus 431.

St Dioscorus remained faithful to a proper Cyrillian understanding of both the theology and status of the Formulary. As Fr. And Professor Romanides of EOC admits, St Dioscorus was merely opposed to the resurgence of a Nestorianism hiding behind the formulary of reunion and Theodoretan Christological double-talk.”

Quote
St. Cyril, after the acceptance of the Symbol, continues to prefer "mia physis" language.  That much is true.  However, by the acceptance of the Symbol, he also acknowledged the validity of the moderate Antiochene position

You are being equivocative. The acceptance of the Formulary acknowledges the “validity” of the moderate Antiochene position only insofar that it was recognised that such language could be compatible with an Orthodox Alexandrine Christology, but not in the sense that it constituted a concession or submission to Antiochene language in compromise of St Cyril’s Alexandrine position that was the Orthodox Standard of The Church.

The main issue here therefore, is that since St Cyril clearly did not accept the Formulary in the sense of it abrogating Alexandrine mia physis Christology (by virtue of his continued defence of mia physite Christology), then there was no justification for the insistence of Constantinople 448 to either dogmatically impose “in two natures” upon Eutyches, nor to command him to anathematize the mia physis formula. Even if falsely presuming the Formulary to be the standard criterion by which Eutyches’ Orthodoxy was to be measured.

Regarding the former, Jalland comments that the condemnation of Eutyches on the basis that he did not accept the formula of ‘in two natures’, was one that made Flavian “guilty of undue haste.” “Flavian had exceeded his authority in demanding subscription to a formula for which as yet no Oecumenical sanction could be claimed” (The Life and Times of St. Leo the Great, (S. P.C. K., l941), pp. 216-7)

Regarding the latter, even Fr. John Romanides of the EO church admits that Eutyches was “quite defendable in his refusal to anathematize those who teach One Nature Incarnate of the Logos, since, as he said, he could not anathematize the Fathers of the Church.”

Therefore, the Conciliarly actions of The Holy Council of Ephesus II regarding the ex-communication of Eutyches’ condemners was indeed justified.

Quote
The Antiochians, whatever their views of Cyril himself, made many concessions in the Symbol, as did Cyril himself.

St Cyril did not made concessions, and he clearly proved this in his defence of those who accused him of doing so. The Formulary was not a concession; it was simply a form of recognition.

Quote
In fact, his own preference for the language was in part derived from the mistaken belief that it held the authority of St. Athanasius.

Actually the only sources which constitute the basis of the argument that St Cyril was somehow so ignorant of St Athanasius that he mistakenly considered an Apollinarian document as being authored by St Athanasius, are those based on baseless post-Chalcedonian polemics. It is quite shameful that the proponents of Chalcedon had to resort to implicitly accusing the very successor of St Athanasius of being ignorant.

In any event, the source per se of a particular expression is irrelevant, as you already pointed out yourself with reference to the homoousios formula.

Quote
To this day, the Orthodox church does not view "mia physis" language as heretical, so long as the one using it also acknowledges the propriety of the Two Natures language of the Latin fathers, as St. Cyril did.


To this day, the Orthodox Church expresses and maintains the distinct reality between Christ’s two natures to the very extent and manner that St Cyril did, and not beyond it to the very border of Nestorianism, as Nestorius, Theodoret, Constantinople 448 and Chalcedon 451 did — albeit to differing extents.

Quote
This isn't an either/or issue, and it is the insistence of the Copts, both then and now, on thinking in either/or rather than both/and terms, that has led them into schism.

You misinterpret the reason why The Orthodox Church ex-communicated your fathers and their council, and why your fathers essentially ex-communicated themselves, because you are unable to approach history actually and objectively.

St Dioscorus and the Holy Council of Ephesus II were not opposed to the moderate form of Antiochene Christology which St Cyril recognised as being compatible with the Alexandrine Orthodox Tradition. They were opposed to a crypto-Nestorian movement that attempted to hide behind the Formulary as Fr. Romanides, a scholar of your own church admits. As such, and against this historical background, the Holy Council of Ephesus II maintained an Alexandrine exclusiveness for the sake of preserving the faith against this insurgence of Nestorianism threatening the church through the dogmatic assertion of an extremist Antiochene interpretation of the Formulary.

By doing so, they were not in fact compromising or rejecting the Formulary, for a) they were not subject to the authority of the Formulary in any event by virtue of its possessing no authority in the first place, and b) the theology of the Formulary as correctly understood was not opposed to the theological position of St Dioscorus.

As such, the Conciliar actions and decisions of The Holy Council of Ephesus II were justified against the Antiochene extremists. As Chalcedon failed to justly or properly investigate this issue (by virtue of its adoption of unwarranted presumptions from the outset, and the political agendas of some including Rome’s attempt to assert its supremacy) and as it thence proceeded to exonerate heretics and their writings, and to falsely ex-communicate His Holiness Pope St Dioscorus, then it was consequently a divisive council; a council of schism.

Quote
St. Cyril specifically recognized, in epistle 40, that it was possible to speak of two natures without dividing Christ, although of course he preferred not to do so.

The specific expressions pertaining to “two natures” that were recognised by St Cyril are limited, and were never objected to by St Dioscorus. Again, please deal with the facts. 1) “in two natures”, was never accepted by St Cyril. 2) “in two natures” had a Nestorian reputation — stop presuming that it is self-evidently synonymous with any of the relevant Formulary expressions 3) Any Orthodox re-interpretation of this Nestorian expression had no dogmatic authority and hence no one was obliged to confess it, since it was not grounded in Church Tradition, but more appropriately in Nestorian tradition.

Quote
This whole line of thought is legalistic

No, it is ecclesiological. Conciliar Tradition vindicates expressions and doctrines to the status of dogmatic, especially if such councils possess an Ecumenical authority. When something is elevated to being dogmatic, that doctrine or expression thence becomes the established Norm. A document merely recognizing that someone else’s language is not necessarily heretical and even compatible with Orthodox dogma is not itself a dogmatic document.  Since it possesses no dogmatic authority, Orthodox Christians are not obligatorily subject to it.

Quote
Anyway, St. Cyril never gave any indication whether he personally thought the Union Symbol should be seen as dogmatic, and his own preference for the language he was accustomed to using is immaterial.

First of all, let us put aside the most relevant fact that there is absolutely no indication that St Cyril ever assigned any dogmatic authority to it. This is more or less an open admission to the fact that you do not have an argument. The Formulary was subject to Ephesus 431 and the Holy 12 Anathemas Conciliarly approved therein. The Formulary was not binding, rather it was bound.

Furthermore, the fact St Cyril pursued miaphysite language subsequent to his acceptance of the Formulary is quite material to the point in question, for if as the Nestorian heretics and yourself imply, St Cyril made concessions to the Formulary as a dogmatically authoritative document, then he would have been bound by its language and hence forced to discontinue using mia physite language. However, he wasn’t; no one was; certainly no Orthodox Christian.

Quote
In condition to the consideration I've already mentioned above, seeing a statement as authoritative when it is not does not make one a heretic, even if he is wrong.


Actually it can, because in elevating it to that status over and above actual authority and hence essentially to the exclusion of it, one can thence push forth an abusively extreme crypto-Nestorian Antiochene Christology disguised behind the non-authoritative Formulary. This is what happened with Theodoret and his party as Fr. Romanides of the EO church admits.

Quote
Who is the schismatic, the one who, already acknowledging the Council of Ephesus, also acknowledges the christology of the holy fathers Sts. Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, and others, both eastern and western, who spoke of two natures

The issue was never about “acknowledging” different Christology’s, so you have merely set up a straw man. St Dioscorus was never falsely ex-communicated for not “acknowledging” an Orthodox form of moderate Antiochene Christology (indeed, as has been explicitly proven, he happily praised the Formulary).

The schismatic is the one that fails to examine the Holy Council of Ephesus II against the established and normative Orthodox Tradition of the time, which though having had nothing to do with the Formulary, went further and even presumed an Antiochene interpretation of the formulary. The Formulary was a document recognizing that another form of language was compatible with THE Tradition, but it was not a concession to that form of language as being representative of THE Tradition.

Quote
or the one who insists that the language of Alexandria, one among many Orthodox regions and theological traditions, and Alexandria alone, is justified?


First of all, you cannot point to forms of undeveloped Christology as representative of Orthodox Christological Tradition. Alexandrian Christology was that which was vindicated at an Ecumenical Council - the highest form of authority in the Church — which defines Tradition (and your later distinction between “specific points” and the whole “system” of Alexandrine Christology is superfluous — the very key distinctive and fundamental elements of Alexandrine Christology rejected by a majority of the Antiochenes were vindicated at Ephesus).

Second of all, St Dioscorus’ problem was not with “other forms” of Christology per se, for in praising the reunion so highly he implicitly acknowledged that the Alexandrian Christological Tradition that was vindicated at the highest level of Authority — an Ecumenical Council — was indeed compatible with other legitimate forms of Christology. What St Dioscorus, and the entire Holy Council of Ephesus II, evidently had beef with, is the fact that an evidently influential crypto-Nestorian movement hiding behind the Formulary apparently attempted to climax at Constantinople 448 which tried to forcefully assert Antiochene Christology in compromise of Alexandrian Christology, when a strictly Antiochene expression that had never been employed by St Cyril, was never in the Formulary, and had a Nestorian reputation, was put forth as if it were the standard Criterion of Orthodoxy, such that if one failed to confess it, then one was worthy of ex-communication.

Quote
Again, you're elevating St. Cyril's idiosyncratic choice of language

Actually, I was simply putting St Cyril into context against a one-sided depiction of his post-Ephesus Christology as if he had compromised or conceded his initial position, which he most definitely had not.

Furthermore, since the only dogmatic authority concerning Orthodox Christology at the time was the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus 431, it is primarily our understanding of this council that is relevant to the discussion. As St Cyril was the God-appointed Patriarch to preside over the proceedings of the Holy Ecumenical Council, and as his God-approved Christology presented in his God-elected documents that were vindicated at this council constituted the Norm of Orthodox Tradition, therefore it is more than reasonable for one to consult the very works of St Cyril himself for contextual purposes. This includes the Formulary, but not exclusively, nor primarily, for the Formulary was not St Cyril conceding to a another Christological language and elevating it to the standard by which one’s Orthodoxy is to be measured, it was simply St Cyril’s way of saying: “Yes, I can agree that what you are saying in your own language is consonant with the Alexandrine Tradition, and hence is Orthodox”, it was not his way of saying “I accept your terms as authoritative, and may anyone who does not subject themselves to or admit this be ex-communicated or anathema”

Quote
but merely pointing out that he was its leading voice and the one who, by force of his commanding personality and presence, set the agenda for it.  Because of this, for better or for worse, he must bear the heaviest load of responsibility for the council's decisions.

This is a load of nonsense. St Dioscorus was not the sole president, let alone the leading voice of the council. The council acted and spoke unanimously; had the council disagreed with St Dioscorus, then the decisions made would never have been made. Fortunately however, the Council was capable of making true and valid judgments in unity. As for the position of presidency exercised by those of the Council including St Dioscorus, such a position was not held by virtue of their agenda to impose their authority, but rather by virtue of their dignity according to their Patriarchal See, and the Imperial Command of St Theodosius II.

The fact St Dioscorus was exclusively discriminated, even apart from his co-presidents explicitly reveals a clear personal agenda.

Quote
Of course "in two natures" was susceptible to Nestorian interpretation, but "in one nature" was susceptible of Apollinarian, or even Docetic.  Again, no language was completely "clean".


The difference between “in two natures” and “one nature” is really quite simple. It is the difference between an expression used to convey heresy, and an expression which conveys Orthodoxy but is nonetheless compatible with heresy. To say that Christ was “in two natures” was to say that Christ existed in his divine nature, and in his human nature, such that His divine nature and human nature constituted two grounds of being i.e. two hypostases. The expression one nature was used to express the fact that the totality of properties and attributes of the natural qualities so hypostatized, belonged to the one hypostasis, by virtue of that one hypostasis being the actualization of both divinity and humanity. This is perfectly Orthodox in and of itself. The only problem with the Apollinarians is that they did not admit a human soul as one of those properties of the natural human reality so hypostatized, however the mia physis expression had no direct implications with respect to this.

Furthermore, you again choose to approach the subject retrospectively. At the time of the particular controversy in question, One Nature was being propagated and promoted within the Orthodox Church, most notably by the Doctor of Orthodox Christology, St Cyril himself. The “in two nature” formula on the other hand was strongly asserted by The Orthodox Church’s Nestorian opponents in opposition; this was the reputation it had, and it could not come clean until receiving Ecumenical clarification and sanction.

Quote
There was as yet no Ecumenical Council to prevent abuse of "one nature" language,


There is no evidence that such an abuse ever took place; do a proper study of history and you will see that the only abuses taking place at the time, regardless of Ephesus 431, were abuses of the Formulary for the purpose of propagating Nestorianism, as your own Eastern Orthodox scholar admits.

Quote
and the polemics of Theodoret surely demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt

Theodoret wrote polemical works against the blessed St Cyril himself charging him with abusing mia physis Christology and being an Apollinarian, and yet you appeal to this very same Theodoret to discern whether others had been abusing it also? Unbelievable! Mia physis per se was an abuse in and of itself according to Thedooret — he never recognised an Orthodox understanding of it, in order to reliably report alleged abuses of it.

The extents you will go to in order to defend this heretic, are nothing short of incredible.

Quote
He wasn't obliged to recognize the language as fully authoritative, but he would not even recognize it as permissible,


a)   By praising the Formulary St Dioscorus recognized the “permissibility” of such language. In employing the expressions and adopting the doctrinal principles of the Formulary whereby names could be distinguished between Christ’s natures, he also clearly expressed this “permissibility”
b)   By ex-communicating the condemners of Eutyches, he was recognizing that such language was not “fully authoritative” and hence Eutyches was not obliged to confess it. Since therefore it was Eutyches’ inability to confess the Antiochene expression, and his inability to anathematize the Alexandrine language that had him ex-communicated in the first place, the reciprocal action of the Holy Ephesine (II) Council was warranted.

Quote
Theodoret here opposes the Symbol to the Twelve Chapters, not to the Council of Ephesus.


Are you kidding me here?

Fact 1) The Holy Twelve Chapters constitute “The Council of Ephesus”, for they were formally approved in their entirety by the Council.
Fact 2) Theodoret not only blasphemously interprets the Formulary contrary to the 12 Chapters, but he also interprets them contrary to “their teaching…that there was an union of hypostasis, and that the combination in union was of nature, and that God the Word was the first-born from the dead.” Are you telling me that the hypostatic union of Christ’s divine and human nature was also independent from the Council of Ephesus?
Fact 3) You are the one who initially referenced us to St Cyril’s acceptance of the Formulary in order to validate it as a document; well I refer you to his interpretation of the Formulary in order validate the charge that as Theodoret understood the Formulary contrary to St Cyril, then he understood it heretically. As Fr. Romanides of your own church states: “It is impossible to accept the opinion of many that Cyril laid aside his Twelve Chapters for the sake of reconciliation with John. As an individual he had no authority whatsoever to modify the decisions of an Ecumenical Council and there is no evidence to substantiate this supposition.”

Quote
The Twelve Chapters were read, but not canonized, at the Council

This is what happens when one appeals to scholarship to the very detriment of their position. Allow me to paste you quotes from reputable Church historians, and a scholar of your own church regarding the untenability of this Protestant argument from silence that you advocate:

From The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. XIV, The Third Ecumenical Council.; The Council of Ephesus, Historical Introduction to St. Cyril's Anathematisms:

“There has been some difference of opinion among the learned as to whether St. Cyril's Synodal letter which has at its end the anathemas against Nestorius, which hereafter follow, was formally approved at the Council of Ephesus. The matter is one only of archeological and historical interest for from a theological point of view the question is entirely uninteresting, since there is no possible doubt that the synod endorsed St. Cyril's teaching and for that express reason proceeded at their first session to excommunicate Nestorius.

…the historical question is one of some interest, and I shall very briefly consider it. We have indeed the "Acta" of this council, but I cannot but agree with the very learned Jesuit Petavius and the Gallican Tillemont in thinking them in a very unsatisfactory condition. I am fully aware of the temerity of making such a suggestion, but I cannot help feeling that in the remarks of the Roman representatives, especially in those of the presbyter-legate, there is some anachronism. Be this as it may, it is a fact that the Acts do not recite that this letter of Cyril's was read, nor do they state that the Anathemas were received. I would suggest, however, that for those who defend John of Antioch, and criticise the action of St. Cyril, it is the height of inconsistency to deny that the Council adopted the Anathemas. If it was the bitterly partisan assembly that they would have us believe, absolutely under the control of Cyril, there is nothing that, a priori, they would have been more sure to do than adopt the Anathemas which were universally looked upon as the very fulcrum on which the whole matter turned.”
 

Hefele, Hist. of Councils. Vol. III., p. 48, note 2:

“We were formerly of opinion that these anathematisms were read at Ephesus, but not expressly confirmed, as there is hardly anything on the subject in the Acts. But in the Fifth Ecumenical Council (collatio vj.) it is said: "The holy Council at Chalcedon approved this teaching of Cyril of blessed memory, and received his Synodical letters, to one of which are appended the xij. anathemas" (Mansi, t. ix., p. 341; Hardouin, t. iij., p. 167). If, however, the anathematisms of Cyril were expressly confirmed at Chalcedon, there was even more reason for doing so at Ephesus. And Ibas, in his well-known letter to Maris, says expressly that the Synod of Ephesus confirmed the anathematisms of Cyril, and the same was asserted even by the bishops of Antioch at Ephesus in a letter to the Emperor.”

Petavius, De Incarnatione, Lib. VI., cap. Xvij:

“The Acts do not tell us what judgment the Synod of Ephesus gave with respect to the third letter of Cyril, and with regard to the anathemas attached to it. But the Acts in other respects also have not come down to us in their integrity. That that third letter was received and approved by the Ephesine Council there can be no doubt, and this the Catholics shewed in their dispute with the Acephali in the Collation held at Constantinople under the Emperor Justinian in the year of Christ 811. For at that memorable meeting some-tiring was shewn forth concerning this letter and its anathemas, which has a connexion with the matter in hand, and therefore must not be omitted. At that meeting the Opposers, that is the Acephali, the enemies of the Council of Chalcedon, made this objection against that Council: "The [letter] of the Twelve Anathemas which is inserted in the holy Council of Ephesus, and which you cannot deny to be synodical, why did not Chalcedon receive it?" etc., etc.”

From this it is evident that the prevailing opinion, then as now, was that the Twelve Anathemas were defined as part of the faith by the Council of Ephesus.” (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. XIV, The Third Ecumenical Council.; The Council of Ephesus, Historical Introduction to St. Cyril's Anathematisms)

From Ibas ad Marim Persam and from the minutes of the Johannine Council of Ephesus, we learn that the Antiochenes rejected the Cyrillian Council of Ephesus and damned Cyril because the heretical Twelve Chapters had been accepted. (Mansi, rv 1265 ff.; .vii, 244-245.)

Quote
It was prudent on the part of the Council not to canonize them.

It is prudent on your part not to shoot yourself in your own foot via a blind approach to faulty scholarship.

Quote
Anyway, whatever Theodoret's personal feelings, he was at peace (even if it was an uneasy peace) with Cyril when the latter died.

This is absurdity. I just quoted for you Theodoret calling St Cyril a villain on his deathbed, and celebrating his death. Theodoret likewise celebrated St Cyril’s death in a letter to Leo of Rome, where he even stated that he would like to see a large rock on St Cyril’s grave to prevent him from ever coming back. These are words of hatred and contempt for St Cyril. Any alleged peace you are referring to is shallow and absolutely meaningless. As world renowned church historian and scholar Phillp Schaff notes, even though some have observed that Theodoret temporarily “entered into friendly correspondence with Cyril”, the fact remains that “the truce was hollow. Cyril was indignant to find that Theodoret still maintained his old opinions.”

Theodoret hated St Cyril. Theodoret wrote blasphemies against St Cyril during and after his life. Theodoret was a heretic by virtue of this very opposition, and he is anathema by virtue of St Cyril’s 12 anathemas - they’re not called “anathemas” for nothing; Double anathema times 12 to Theodoret for rejecting and attacking all 12 of them.

Quote
And I'm saying that Theodoret was not, and never was, a Nestorian.


The only ones who would agree with you on this, are the Nestorians themselves, and certain contemporary protestant scholars who adopt a non-patristic approach to ecclesiastical history. Theodoret was anathema by virtue of his resistance to and blasphemous attacks against St Cyril’s Ecumenically authoritative 12 chapters alone, and was justly ex-communicated by the Holy Council of Ephesus II in response. Evidence beyond this exists, but is superfluous in the dialogue between two who recognise Ephesus 431 as Ecumenically binding, and St Cyril of Alexandria as an Authoritative Father on Orthodox Christology.

Quote
He altered his terms in the course of the Nestorian dispute, as the controversy made clear that some of his past statements had been ill-judged.

As Fr. And Professor John Romanides of the Chalcedonian church states:

“Theodoret learned to modify some of his opinions without, however, changing his basic vision and presuppositions…. On the basis of this crypto-Nestorianism Theodoret could continue his attacks on Ephesus and Cyril, and especially on the Twelve Chapters.”

Quote
As for Theodore, the issues regarding him had not yet been made clear, and although I consent to the judgment of Constantinople that he was a heretic, it was only after great analysis that this determination was made; it's unfair to judge Theodoret by his attitude to a figure who had not yet been judged by the Church.

Theodore was judged by The Church accordingly and righteously by the Holy Council of Ephesus II (449) which condemned the three chapters — a decision undermined by Chalcedon, and consequently ratified by your Constantinople 533.

Regardless of the authorities you personally recognise towards the condemnation of Theodore, the fact remains that he was always a heretic, no matter how slow your church was in recognizing this obvious fact. Since Theodoret always held Theodore in high esteem as an Orthodox teacher of the faith, therefore Theodoret always upheld heresy as Orthodox. This he did when he defended Theodore in his blasphemous writings subsequent to St Cyril’s death, and when he implicitly yet clearly declared the Orthodoxy of Theodore at Chalcedon.

This explains why Chalcedon was subject to such an obvious Theodorean-Nestorian interpretation. Not only by the “non-Chalcedonian” Orthodox Church, and not only by the Nestorian Church and Nestorius himself, but even by Chalcedonians themselves as Salpy’s posts have proven.

Quote
If there's one thing Christians should know, claiming as we do to be followers of Jesus, it's that there is "economy" for every "law", and an exception for every rule.

Economy is motivated by good reason, moral judgement, and a sense of justice, and is nonetheless within certain limits with respect to how it is carried out. A legitimate imperially sanctioned Orthodox council ex-communicated Theodoret upon the basis of his continued resistance to St Cyril and Ephesus 431 (regardless of the lip service he may have paid Ephesus, we have already proven that he essentially disregarded it) evident in his actions subsequent to St Cyril’s death; the Bishop of Rome had neither the authority, nor purpose of economy to un-canonically restore that figure to the church. That such was performed, even with disregard to whether or not the condemned heretic anathematized the central proponent of the heresy for which he was condemned, only exasperates the situation.

Theodoret was a Nestorian heretic, and Leo was more or less guilty by association.

Quote
Chalcedon was concerned primarily with the person of Ibas, who appeared at the council and showed himself to the Orthodox, while Constantinople focussed specifically on one letter of his.  There's no contention between the two.

Actually, there is contention, for the person of Ibas was deemed Orthodox by Chalcedon upon reading the very letter that was later condemned at Constantinople 533.

Quote
But that's clearly not the drift or meaning of Leo's Tome or the Chalcedonian confession.


Clearly, to you, in retrospect, maybe, but not clearly to the Orthodox Church that rejected Chalcedon, the Nestorian church that recognised Chalcedon as a vindication of its theology, nor to those Chalcedonians who interpreted Chalcedon as having authorised the three chapters later condemned.

The safeguards against Nestorianism you allege do indeed negate an extremist Nestorian two-son type Christology, but they do not negate the crypto-Nestorianism with which the council was charged — a form of Nestorianism that could easily have been negated by a clarification and definition of the hypostatic union, as well as the inclusion of Alexandrine formulas to guarantee the “balanced Christology” that is anachronistically claimed for it.

As for Leo’s tome, I wouldn’t suggest ambiguity as that with which I charge the definition of faith, but rather I would suggest inconsistency. To support this I appeal to three Greek Orthodox Professors and clergymen (Fr. Florovsky, Fr. Romanides, and Bishop Methodios) who recognise and understand the legitimacy of its being interpreted as Nestorian, albeit defending it in light of Leo’s subjective intentions.

Quote
My point about the Symbol was simply that, just as it had spoken the truth without the phrase "hypostatic union", Chalcedon did the same.

A document of re-union does not serve the same purpose as an Ecumenical Council. That you can make such an analogy is absurd to say the least. If Chalcedon was the Ecumenical council that it is alleged to be by the Chalcedonian church, then it would not have been ambiguous to the extent of allowing itself susceptible to a more than reasonable and plausible interpretation of it as a Nestorian council, not only by the Orthodox, but also by the Nestorian church, and Chalcedonians themselves. If Chalcedon was truly effecting the balance anachronistically claimed of it, then it would have affirmed the central and fundamental key dogma to Orthodox Alexandrine Christology — the hypostatic union.

Quote
Secondly, Nestorius himself was always more muddled than fundamentally heretical.  While Ephesus was perfectly justified in condemning him for statements he had made to that point

I’ve argued with a lot of Chalcedonians in my short lifetime, but never have they stooped to the level of denying the heretical teachings of the arch-heretic Nestorius for the sake of defending Chalcedon. That you can deny that Nestorius was a heretic to yet then go on to justify his condemnation at Ephesus 431 is beyond me. Nestorius never changed his position post-Ephesus 431, and even the scholars that advocate the whole “Nestorius was not a heretic” nonsense do not perceive him as ever having changed his position. Nestorius himself maintained that such a position was that which he had maintained all along.

The heresy he presents in the Bazaar is the same heresy that lead to his condemnation at The Holy Council of Ephesus 431. You undermine this council by attempting to upgrade Nestorius from arch-heretic to “muddled” Orthodox.

Is this your Church’s position on Nestorius? Maybe the EO church has more hope for re-intercommunion with the Nestorian church of Assyria then it does with the Orthodox Church.

Quote
it has never struck me as unusual that he would agree to Leo's Tome

We can at least agree on that.

Quote
No, it was a few specific points which had their basis in Alexandrine christology.  It was not the whole system to the exclusion of all others.


Alexandrine Christology is a theological tradition that is centered around the Word being the subject of the Incarnation and consequent Incarnate experiences, and His hypostatically uniting humanity to Himself. This Christological tradition was vindicated as The Tradition — and yes, to the exclusion of others. Which Antiochene formulas and expressions, or central dogmatic points did God choose to elevate to Ecumenical authority? Sorry, I am unaware of any.

Quote
The legitimate concerns of both Antiochene and Latin christology had not yet been formalized by a council.


And that is the crux of the case. As they had not been formalized by a council, they possessed no authority in and of themselves, even if they were capable of being recognized as conveying the very Christology that had in fact been formalized by an Ecumenical Synod, and hence capable of being understood as Orthodox. As such Constantinople 448 condemned itself by imposing an Antiochene exclusiveness, Ephesus II was justified in ratifying an Alexandrine exclusiveness (not out of a non-recognition of the validity of the language of moderate Antiochene Christology, but as an apologetic in the face of an extremist Antiochene movement), and Chalcedon schismed in its failure to properly investigate the matter, its false deposition of an Orthodox Patriarch, and the ambiguity with which it presented itself, making itself prone to Nestorian interpretation by the Orthodox, a majority of pre-Constantinople Chalcedonians, and the Nestorians.

+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
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 #101 on: November 30, 2005, 09:04:44 PM »

Quote
Yes, I know he was trying to assert Rome's supremacy, but we did not let him, not did we ever recognze it.

Rome’s attempt to assert Supremacy nonetheless had a great impact upon the proceedings of the council and the treatment of St Dioscorus. It’s good that the EO Church does not recognise the notion of papal supremacy, which is why I do not consider it a heretical church, but it cannot deny the relevant incidents of history whereby Rome’s attempt to assert its supremacy played a major role in the schism that took place.

Quote
I am not talking Alexandria vs Antioch, or Alexandria vs Constrantinople, but Alexandria vs Rome, where a clear "rivalry" of sorts was present.

Constantinople had its own political role and agenda also; it wanted to unite the church under its authority even if it did not conceive of such authority in a papal supremacist sense. In fact, I would suggest that Juvenal of Jerusalem also had his own hidden agenda for the patriarchate of Jerusalem explaining the sudden and drastic compromise of his position. With respect to Alexandria however, there is simply no indication that St Dioscorus wanted to exert influence over and above Rome; it simply wanted to protect its theological tradition from the crypto-Nesotiran threat it was facing - which had nothing to do with Rome. It was Rome that chose to interfere in matter that had nothing directly to do with it; a matter that Alexandria was imperially called to investigate.

Quote
Again, thats what they say. Do you have any sources from Orthodox Christians of that period that shows they believed there was a change?

Salpy has already given you evidence of Chalcedonians perceiving a drastic change, but regardless of what my Church said or what a majority of your own Church said, or even what the Nestorians said, there is then the issue of what the historical facts themselves say. I believe the historical facts most clearly show that the three chapters were condemned by Ephesus II (449), authorised by Chalcedon 451, and condemned again by Constantinople 553.

Quote
Not everyone accepted the Tome of Leo, because it was not made a requirement at the council.

The Tome was Conciliarly approved, and it was used to exert influence over how the definition of faith was to be formulated. You are right in saying not everyone accepted the Tome; there were vigorous debates regarding its implications, however the Roman legate’s insisted and persisted upon its acceptance in toto, and on many occasions threatened to abandon the council if they did not get their way. As the imperial commissioners had their own agenda to unify the church under Constantinople’s authority it could not allow the Roman’s to do such a thing. They therefore co-operated with the Romans who eventually got their way.

Quote
If you say that any peice of evidence that refutes the claims against Dioscorus is automatically valid simply because Diocorus must be right, that is eisegesis and not logic

Im sorry but I do not recall ever claiming that a piece of evidence is valid simply because “St Dioscorus must be right”. The evidence is valid because it is valid evidence; period. Unless you give me some reason to discredit the evidence then I do not see any reason to dismiss it.

Quote
Yet, instead of also going to a more neutral source, you run and grab Coptic literature. It seems a bit one-sided and biased.

What Coptic literature? Most of the evidence I have given you is primarily based on primary sources. Just because my arguments are in favour of the Coptic position this does not make them bias, and even if they were to be asserted by Coptic sources this is no reason to prima facie dismiss them as biased. You should be able to deal with the arguments being presented, without attacking the source of the arguments. Bias is more appropriately proven in the presumptions and presuppositions adopted; however, if you can find none, then there is really no reason to dismiss such arguments as being “one-sided and bias”

Quote
think we can agree that Protestants seems to neither favor one of us more than the other

Even though the principle of the matter has been addressed above, the fact of the matter is that Henry Wace is an Anglican, and Anglicans, as far as I know, adhere to the 7 Chalcedonian councils. So yes, he would in fact be “pro-Chalcedonian”, but I didn’t dismiss his article upon this basis; I simply addressed his claims.

Quote
It is also clear that Athanaius was cleared of these charges.

As was St Dioscorus. One is clearly cleared of all charges if the prosecution is unable to prove the elements of the offence in the first place, which is the case with this most outrageous charge of murder.

Quote
Was the murderer of Flavian ever found? Or was it just assumed that "Holy Dioscorus" couldn't have done it?

You have yet to prove any connection whatsoever between the murder of Flavian and St Dioscorus, therefore it is irrelevant whether or not the murderer was found. All you have is a passionately charged claim by St Dioscorus’ enemies, which lack any substance or basis.
I do in fact have a very cogent defence for this charge, however I am not inclined to blindly follow this discussion wherever you may choose to lead it. When you are capable of giving me the prosecution’s case to either negate or defend against, then I will speak on the matter.

Quote
Chalcedonians kill Copts, Copts kill Chalcedonians. It happens, unfortunately. But we're not talking about any Copt, were talking about the founder, Dioscorus.

A few points to make:

1)   St Dioscorus was not the “founder” of the Copts. The founder of the Copts is Christ who established the Coptic Church by our first Patriarch St Mark the Apostle. St Dioscorus was the 25th successor of the Alexandrian Patriarchate and the See of St Mark.
2)   You have yet to give us any slight evidence supporting the most outrageous claim that St Dioscorus ever murdered anyone. St Athanasius is cleared of similar charges on the same basis that St Dioscorus is i.e. the fact there is no evidence to support such wild accusations purported by their enemies.
3)   Copts did not mass-slaughter Chalcedonians. We were the persecuted (yet glorified) party, we were the physically powerless (yet mighty in spirit) party.
4)   Chalcedonians mass-slaughtered Copts for their refusal to submit to the imperial decrees regarding Chalcedon. Such mass-slaughters were undertaken under the leadership and instigation of men whom you regard as Saints till this very day.

Quote
but, at best, have only shown that some of the people Wace talked about were perhaps lying.

Huh? We have an open and explicit admission that they were lying, there is no “perhaps” about this. They cried for St Dioscorus’ forgiveness. If they were lying then so was everyone else who made the similar charge, because the whole concocted blank paper story was intended to explain how it was that the entire council managed to agree with St Dioscorus. It couldn’t hold if only a faction tried to assert it (and inconsistently at that), with the other faction denying it. Furthermore, I have already proven to you that those who did try to assert it contradicted themselves! Whenever St Dioscorus answered to their charges, they would change their story and contradict themselves once more regarding quite essential elements of the story too. The charge has no credibility, and St Dioscorus' defence stands.

Quote
The only reason Dioscorus is innocent in your mind is because you seem to have made him the gold standard of truth and perfection.

That is truly a weak response, my friend.

St Dioscorus is innocent, because from an objective point of view, all the evidence in favour of him vindicates him beyond all reasonable doubt.

Quote
I never said Theodoeret was completely correct in his theology.

He was a heretic, who was justly ex-communicated by St Dioscorus.

Quote
The case against the "blank paper argument," fine. But the council didn't say the condemned him for the blank paper.

We are only speaking about the blank paper issue because it is the issue that you choose to dwell upon. I clearly addressed every other issue.

+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
Stavro
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,120



« Reply #102 on: December 01, 2005, 06:12:31 PM »

Welcome back, EA.

Quote
Bizzlebin: Yes, I know he was trying to assert Rome's supremacy, but we did not let him, not did we ever recognze it.
Actually you did, if you identify yourself with the Chalcedon and the Chalcedonian side. There are many issues that you need to reconsider if you read EA's posts carefully, so you might as well take this issue into consideration as well: The heresy of Supremacy of Rome (their primacy is a heresy as well) and the heresy of Papal Infallibility, the first advocated clearly by Leo of Rome and championed by him and the second finds its seeds in his writings as well and indirect hints to it.

Note the following:

- Leave the Nestorian language of the Tome aside and the connections of Leo with the Nestorians, because they are better presented by EA's posts, and take a second look at your statement about the heresy of Supremacy. If you truly believe your own statement, that it was Leo of Rome who advocated it and tried to assert it, then why do you stop short of convicting Leo of Rome of heresy in ecclesiology that corrupted the faith afterwards and left the whole West vunerable to the heresies of the Bishops of Rome. isn't this heresy the direct cause of the schism in the Chalcedonian side as well ?

- CHalcedon defacto upheld this heresy when it allowed Leo of Rome to abrogate a lawful council, the holy council of Ephesus II,  that was still a authoritive council till the date in the whole church. Canons teach us that a council is to be aborgated by another council. This is the essence of Roman Supremacy, that the Bishop of Rome can and will exercise power over any council, something that Chalcedon set an excellent example for by its acceptance of the actions of Leo of Rome. Theodret was under anathema, in fact many anathema, yet Leo of Rome defied the holy council of Chalcedon and accepted the Nestorian Theodret into communion and Chalcedon ratified such actions. So to deny this Supremacy afterwards is contradictory. Your holy fathers at the unholy council of Chalcedon believed in it.

- EO got to reap what they sow in later centuries, when Rome exercised their Chalcedon given rights and began the "and the Son" teachings and other wrong teachings, only to lead to the natural result of Supremacy which is schism. It is really ironic and sad that the EO reject all Supremacy claims by Rome, while they venerate the Supremacy champion in the person of Leo of Rome.

Quote
Bizzlebin :Chalcedonians kill Copts, Copts kill Chalcedonians.

The first part is true, and one might add that it was a mass slaughter that the EO never apologized for, and the second part is an outrageous false statement that will cannot be dignified with an answer. Is this the "balanced" approach to history, to try to invent history to counterbalance your shameful history that you cannot excuse and do not want to be brave enough to apologize for ?



 
Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #103 on: December 02, 2005, 06:17:07 PM »

Welcome back, EA.
Actually you did, if you identify yourself with the Chalcedon and the Chalcedonian side. There are many issues that you need to reconsider if you read EA's posts carefully, so you might as well take this issue into consideration as well: The heresy of Supremacy of Rome (their primacy is a heresy as well) and the heresy of Papal Infallibility, the first advocated clearly by Leo of Rome and championed by him and the second finds its seeds in his writings as well and indirect hints to it.

Note the following:

- Leave the Nestorian language of the Tome aside and the connections of Leo with the Nestorians, because they are better presented by EA's posts, and take a second look at your statement about the heresy of Supremacy. If you truly believe your own statement, that it was Leo of Rome who advocated it and tried to assert it, then why do you stop short of convicting Leo of Rome of heresy in ecclesiology that corrupted the faith afterwards and left the whole West vunerable to the heresies of the Bishops of Rome. isn't this heresy the direct cause of the schism in the Chalcedonian side as well ?

- CHalcedon defacto upheld this heresy when it allowed Leo of Rome to abrogate a lawful council, the holy council of Ephesus II,ÂÂ  that was still a authoritive council till the date in the whole church. Canons teach us that a council is to be aborgated by another council. This is the essence of Roman Supremacy, that the Bishop of Rome can and will exercise power over any council, something that Chalcedon set an excellent example for by its acceptance of the actions of Leo of Rome. Theodret was under anathema, in fact many anathema, yet Leo of Rome defied the holy council of Chalcedon and accepted the Nestorian Theodret into communion and Chalcedon ratified such actions. So to deny this Supremacy afterwards is contradictory. Your holy fathers at the unholy council of Chalcedon believed in it.

- EO got to reap what they sow in later centuries, when Rome exercised their Chalcedon given rights and began the "and the Son" teachings and other wrong teachings, only to lead to the natural result of Supremacy which is schism. It is really ironic and sad that the EO reject all Supremacy claims by Rome, while they venerate the Supremacy champion in the person of Leo of Rome.
 
The first part is true, and one might add that it was a mass slaughter that the EO never apologized for, and the second part is an outrageous false statement that will cannot be dignified with an answer. Is this the "balanced" approach to history, to try to invent history to counterbalance your shameful history that you cannot excuse and do not want to be brave enough to apologize for ?

So a person that believes heresy cannot be a saint? Why do you call Augustine a saint? His theology is one of the key differences between East and West, and yet you pretend no case (though euqally absurd) could be made to say that by acceptance of him as a saint you are the ones vindicating the Catholic Church.

Again, look at people like Auustine. You are making arguements with a double standard: if we do it, we must be wrong, if you do it, it is certainly right. Leo no more reresents Chalcedonians than Augustne represents non-Chalcedonians.

Please show which Chalcedonian canon gave the Patriarch of Rome any rights over the others.

No Coptic ever killed an Orthodox Christian?
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
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #104 on: December 02, 2005, 06:32:20 PM »

Constantinople had its own political role and agenda also; it wanted to unite the church under its authority even if it did not conceive of such authority in a papal supremacist sense. In fact, I would suggest that Juvenal of Jerusalem also had his own hidden agenda for the patriarchate of Jerusalem explaining the sudden and drastic compromise of his position. With respect to Alexandria however, there is simply no indication that St Dioscorus wanted to exert influence over and above Rome; it simply wanted to protect its theological tradition from the crypto-Nesotiran threat it was facing - which had nothing to do with Rome. It was Rome that chose to interfere in matter that had nothing directly to do with it; a matter that Alexandria was imperially called to investigate.

Salpy has already given you evidence of Chalcedonians perceiving a drastic change, but regardless of what my Church said or what a majority of your own Church said, or even what the Nestorians said, there is then the issue of what the historical facts themselves say. I believe the historical facts most clearly show that the three chapters were condemned by Ephesus II (449), authorised by Chalcedon 451, and condemned again by Constantinople 553.

The Tome was Conciliarly approved, and it was used to exert influence over how the definition of faith was to be formulated. You are right in saying not everyone accepted the Tome; there were vigorous debates regarding its implications, however the Roman legate’s insisted and persisted upon its acceptance in toto, and on many occasions threatened to abandon the council if they did not get their way. As the imperial commissioners had their own agenda to unify the church under Constantinople’s authority it could not allow the Roman’s to do such a thing. They therefore co-operated with the Romans who eventually got their way.

Im sorry but I do not recall ever claiming that a piece of evidence is valid simply because “St Dioscorus must be right”. The evidence is valid because it is valid evidence; period. Unless you give me some reason to discredit the evidence then I do not see any reason to dismiss it.

What Coptic literature? Most of the evidence I have given you is primarily based on primary sources. Just because my arguments are in favour of the Coptic position this does not make them bias, and even if they were to be asserted by Coptic sources this is no reason to prima facie dismiss them as biased. You should be able to deal with the arguments being presented, without attacking the source of the arguments. Bias is more appropriately proven in the presumptions and presuppositions adopted; however, if you can find none, then there is really no reason to dismiss such arguments as being “one-sided and bias”

Even though the principle of the matter has been addressed above, the fact of the matter is that Henry Wace is an Anglican, and Anglicans, as far as I know, adhere to the 7 Chalcedonian councils. So yes, he would in fact be “pro-Chalcedonian”, but I didn’t dismiss his article upon this basis; I simply addressed his claims.

You have yet to prove any connection whatsoever between the murder of Flavian and St Dioscorus, therefore it is irrelevant whether or not the murderer was found. All you have is a passionately charged claim by St Dioscorus’ enemies, which lack any substance or basis.
I do in fact have a very cogent defence for this charge, however I am not inclined to blindly follow this discussion wherever you may choose to lead it. When you are capable of giving me the prosecution’s case to either negate or defend against, then I will speak on the matter.

Huh? We have an open and explicit admission that they were lying, there is no “perhaps” about this. They cried for St Dioscorus’ forgiveness. If they were lying then so was everyone else who made the similar charge, because the whole concocted blank paper story was intended to explain how it was that the entire council managed to agree with St Dioscorus. It couldn’t hold if only a faction tried to assert it (and inconsistently at that), with the other faction denying it. Furthermore, I have already proven to you that those who did try to assert it contradicted themselves! Whenever St Dioscorus answered to their charges, they would change their story and contradict themselves once more regarding quite essential elements of the story too. The charge has no credibility, and St Dioscorus' defence stands.

St Dioscorus is innocent, because from an objective point of view, all the evidence in favour of him vindicates him beyond all reasonable doubt.

He was a heretic, who was justly ex-communicated by St Dioscorus.

We are only speaking about the blank paper issue because it is the issue that you choose to dwell upon. I clearly addressed every other issue.

+Irini nem makarismos

Well, it is clear today that it wouldn't have had to compromise, as the Chacedonians certainly do not subscribe to Nestorianism.

What canon authorized the three chapters?

The Tome was not conciliarly accepted. Again, no canon states that the acceptance of the tome is mandatory. The Chalcedonian Creed doesn't even mention it. Yes, some bishops accepted it, but not all of them did, and it never became binding.

My question is what gives your evidence the power to "trump?" This is the bias I am speaking of.

So my sources, because they disagree with the Coptic position, cannot possibly be based on the primary sources?

Well, looking at Anglican Communion, I wouldn't say even that is much of a requirement today.

Then you misunderstood. I never intended to have a prosecutors case against Dioscorus.

Of course they were lying, but how much? As I keep saying, there is some element of truth to everything. It seems silly to say that such a concerted effort against Dioscorus was about "nothing" or completely baseless.

If either of us were objective, then it may be possible to make such a statement.

And later excommunicated by the Chalcedonian Church as such.

I was not aware of overly pushing the issue at all. It was merely another set of points for discussion.
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
Stavro
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,120



« Reply #105 on: December 02, 2005, 06:38:23 PM »

Quote
So a person that believes heresy cannot be a saint?
Good, I just wanted to hear you admit that Leo of Rome, the canonized saint in your church and the pillar of Orthodoxy in your standard, is believed in a heresy. The fact that you acknowledge him to be a heretic and yet believe he was a saint is as absurd as your defense of his actions in Chalcedon. It also reveals the standard of sainthood in your church.
As for your attempt to ascribe heresy to Augustine, believe what you wish. Open another thread titled "Heresies and Augustine" or "Why I believe Leo and Augustine are heretics, yet saints", but I do not feel obliged to divert the thread from its intention and follow any flawed line of thought you might suggest.

Chalcedon upheld the actions of Leo of Rome and followed him in exoneration of an archheretic like Theodret, ratifying his Supremacy claims defacto. As for your equally absurd claim about the persecution of Chalcedonians by Copts,I will not dignify it with an answer.  It reminds me of muslim tactics who try to defend their actions by fabricating history.
Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #106 on: December 02, 2005, 06:54:05 PM »

Good, I just wanted to hear you admit that Leo of Rome, the canonized saint in your church and the pillar of Orthodoxy in your standard, is believed in a heresy. The fact that you acknowledge him to be a heretic and yet believe he was a saint is as absurd as your defense of his actions in Chalcedon. It also reveals the standard of sainthood in your church.
As for your attempt to ascribe heresy to Augustine, believe what you wish. Open another thread titled "Heresies and Augustine" or "Why I believe Leo and Augustine are heretics, yet saints", but I do not feel obliged to divert the thread from its intention and follow any flawed line of thought you might suggest.

Chalcedon upheld the actions of Leo of Rome and followed him in exoneration of an archheretic like Theodret, ratifying his Supremacy claims defacto.

As for your equally absurd claim about the persecution of Chalcedonians by Copts,I will not dignify it with an answer.  It reminds me of muslim tactics who try to defend their actions by fabricating history.

This is the very double standard I am talking about. I think you agree that Augustine taught things that were heretical too, and yet you only seem to have a beef with Leo. Prejudice and mudslinging is the name of the game here, no need for a new thread for such a purpose.

Again, the Chalcedonians acceptance of Leo, despite what he did wrong, is no different from the Coptics' acceptance of Augustine. You fail to see the hypocrisy with which you condemn one and yet honor the other.

If you continue to maintain that no Coptic could ever kill an Orthodox Christian on any occasion for any reason, that's your right.
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
Amdetsion
Worship God with all thy strength and all thy might
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christianity
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Patriarchate; Addis Abebe Ethiopia
Posts: 931


HH Abuna Pawlos - Patriarch of Ethiopia


« Reply #107 on: December 07, 2005, 01:38:57 AM »

It seems that Christ is not being viewed as the example.

Are we greater than the teachings of God?

Christ washed the feet of the Apostles and took all manner of scorn and suffering so that the world might be saved.

Christ ordered the Apostles to feed His sheep.

Christ instructed the Apostles who were arguing among themselves as to who was the greatest....He said to them that the greatest of you shall be the servant of the least.

To me the whole idea of EO and OO is a clear example of disobedience among the faithful. Prejudicial and selective treatment within the Holy Church is NOT the religion of Christ. Christ set down with sinners and the righteous.

The fathers of the Church holds onto their positions for all these years; maintaining a huge division  within the Church at the sacrifice of true peace and fellowship? This is shameful in my opinion. It is sadder when we look at the results to date.....Chalcedon has produced NO winners....NONE.

Christ is the savior of the world NOT just EO and OO..THE WORLD.

It is also concerning that EO and OO is even used at all. This is no more than semantical terminology designed to divide. "ORTHODOX" is a very specific term with a very specific meaning.

Old Greek: 'Ortho doxa'...."Straight doctrine"
Used to express the continuity of faith in Christ who is the "Word"(doxa). Christ spoke and said keep the road or "faith"(doxa) "straight"(Ortho). He also spoke that He is the "way" (Ortho) the truth (Ortho) and the "life" (doxa). Christ is descibed as the living "word"(doxa) as well. The Church fathers used and established the phrase 'Ortho doxa' to build a Christiological axiom which builds on all the points noted to help us the believers keep a firm relationship with Christ in how we perceive ourselves and distinguish ourselves from the world most importantly the non believers.

Modern Greek: 'Orthodox'...."Straight doctrine"
Same meaning but reduced in its usage to define simply a kind type of "Christian" in our age. The term no longer has the binding spiritual frame work it seems. It is difficult to say Eastern-"straight doctrine" Church and Oriental -"straight doctrine" Church. But we can say Eastern Christian Church and Oriental Christian Church.

which leads to my point which is WE the faithful are Orthodox and not the Church. The Church is what we are orthodox in .... the Church is Christs property stand alone; it is his body, it is indivisible, neither eastern or oriental....it is straight, true, the source of life, the way to salvation.

Christ spoke; the Church is MY bride and I AM the bride groom.

WE are thus intended to be Orthodox in the Lord as is found in the Liturgy.

If I have this half right than we all can see each other as Orthodox...YES WE ARE ONE FAITH.

Our differences are irrelevant.

Logged

"ETHIOPIA shall soon stretch out her hands unto God".....Psalm 68:vs 31

"Are ye not as children of the ETHIOPIANS unto me, O children of Israel"?....Amos 9: vs 7
Stavro
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,120



« Reply #108 on: December 18, 2005, 03:08:48 AM »

Quote
I think you agree that Augustine taught things that were heretical too, and yet you only seem to have a beef with Leo. Prejudice and mudslinging is the name of the game here, no need for a new thread for such a purpose.
Oh no, I do not believe Augustine was a heretic nor were his teachings at the time received as heresies, confirming his orthodox understanding and preaching. As for Leo of Rome, it seems that you know that he was the Father of Roman Supremacy and Infallibility( a heresy) and yet you venerate the mastermind of all schisms.   
Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #109 on: December 18, 2005, 03:17:11 AM »

Oh no, I do not believe Augustine was a heretic nor were his teachings at the time received as heresies, confirming his orthodox understanding and preaching. As for Leo of Rome, it seems that you know that he was the Father of Roman Supremacy and Infallibility( a heresy) and yet you venerate the mastermind of all schisms.  ÃƒÆ’‚  

You are still making a difference between the two. So, what defines a heretic vs one who believes in heresy?

Also, it is perhaps wrong to cite Leo as being the mastermind of all schisms. (That position is the Devil's). While his ideas may have in part caused the schism, it is Augustine's which largely prevents re-union. (And not to mention, Augustinian ideas also heavily influenced the Reformers too, and so have a MUCH larger impact than Leo's ever did.
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
Stavro
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,120



« Reply #110 on: December 19, 2005, 05:39:00 PM »

Quote
You are still making a difference between the two. So, what defines a heretic vs one who believes in heresy?
Nothing, and it is irrelevant to Augustine. Allow us to present what we believe in and do not try to impose what you think our beliefs are on us. Just to be clear, and this is the third time I state this: OO do not believe Augustine was a heretic, nor that his teachings are heretical as understood by the OO. Therefore, there is no contradiction in our position regarding him.
There is a big fat contradiction in your personal position and the position of the EO regarding Leo of Rome. You believe he was the Father of Roman Supremacy and the author of Infallibility, as you stated in an earlier post, and that he pursued his agenda in Chalcedon. Roman Supremacy and Infallibility is a heresy, of ecclesiological nature, but has theological and soteriological dimensions.   
Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #111 on: December 19, 2005, 06:07:21 PM »

Nothing, and it is irrelevant to Augustine. Allow us to present what we believe in and do not try to impose what you think our beliefs are on us. Just to be clear, and this is the third time I state this: OO do not believe Augustine was a heretic, nor that his teachings are heretical as understood by the OO. Therefore, there is no contradiction in our position regarding him.
There is a big fat contradiction in your personal position and the position of the EO regarding Leo of Rome. You believe he was the Father of Roman Supremacy and the author of Infallibility, as you stated in an earlier post, and that he pursued his agenda in Chalcedon. Roman Supremacy and Infallibility is a heresy, of ecclesiological nature, but has theological and soteriological dimensions.   

I have a funny feeling that this is not the official position of the OO regarding Augustine. Before we continue, please provide some sources for this information.
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
Stavro
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,120



« Reply #112 on: December 19, 2005, 09:01:37 PM »

To bring forth evidence is the responsibility of the accuser. You have accused the Coptic Church and the OO of double standard, accepting an alleged heretic (Augustine), God forgive you, as a saint while believing he taught heresy. As such, you will have to prove that the holy synods of the OO churches hold your position. You will not find an exoneration of Augustine when he was never accused of heresy to begin with, if that was what you were asking for.
 So, again, it is not relevant to the discussion about Leo of Rome and his role at Chalcedon when he wanted to assert his Roman Supremacy and Infallibility. 
Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #113 on: December 20, 2005, 04:38:25 AM »

To bring forth evidence is the responsibility of the accuser. You have accused the Coptic Church and the OO of double standard, accepting an alleged heretic (Augustine), God forgive you, as a saint while believing he taught heresy. As such, you will have to prove that the holy synods of the OO churches hold your position. You will not find an exoneration of Augustine when he was never accused of heresy to begin with, if that was what you were asking for.
 So, again, it is not relevant to the discussion about Leo of Rome and his role at Chalcedon when he wanted to assert his Roman Supremacy and Infallibility.

Augustine didn't look so kindly on the Nicene Creed. He believed in the filioque, and even opposed some who didn't.

"The difference between Hilary and Ambrose on the one side and Augustine on the other is that the first two fathers were expressing a personal opinion whereas Augustine struggled against all those who expressed views opposite to his" view of the filioque.*

I'm fairly sure we can agree that opposing the Nicene Creed is heretical. Remember, this was not just support of the filioque (which I think Coptics may consider heretical), but active opposition to those that didn't, which is without a doubt a violation.

* - Scholarios, Oeuvres Tome II
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
Stavro
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,120



« Reply #114 on: December 20, 2005, 04:29:48 PM »

This is your own interpretation, not the OO. We do not believe Augustine taught heresy, and there is no double standard therefore. I asked you to show that OO actually believe Augustine taught heresy so we can see the contradiction in their position. But if the position of the EO is compatible with yours (or the other way around), then you have another contradiction the EO have to deal with. EO celebrate a day for Augustine and have been doing so since his repose. Were they venerating yet another heretic (in their tradition) for so long before people starting reinterpreting his teachings.

I am afraid that you missed the point completely. Stay well. 
Logged

In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. (Isaiah 19:19)

" God forbid I should see the face of Judah or listen to his blasphemy" (Gerontius, Archmanidrite of the monastery of St. Melania)
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #115 on: December 20, 2005, 08:05:32 PM »

This is your own interpretation, not the OO. We do not believe Augustine taught heresy, and there is no double standard therefore. I asked you to show that OO actually believe Augustine taught heresy so we can see the contradiction in their position. But if the position of the EO is compatible with yours (or the other way around), then you have another contradiction the EO have to deal with. EO celebrate a day for Augustine and have been doing so since his repose. Were they venerating yet another heretic (in their tradition) for so long before people starting reinterpreting his teachings.

I am afraid that you missed the point completely. Stay well. 

Again, you seem to think that saints are somehow exempt from heresy, living a completely doctrinally pure life. This is simply untrue, and is little different from the Pope claiming that he may be free of heresy. If you can show me where the OO believe the filioque and reject those that don't, then sure, what you say about Augustine may be true. Or, conversely, you may show me where the OO say a cannonized saint must be near-infalliable in all matters of doctrine. Until then, you're arguing a position that is not shared among the OO.
« Last Edit: December 20, 2005, 08:09:50 PM by Bizzlebin » 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 0.168 seconds with 53 queries.