OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 22, 2014, 02:41:08 AM *
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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: What really happened at Chalcedon?  (Read 4148 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« on: December 17, 2005, 02:39:25 AM »

Dioscorus was excommunicated, and many simply chose to follow him.

"Saint Dioscorus I was the dean of the Catechetical School of Alexandria and personal secretary to Pope Saint Cyril the Great of Alexandria, known as the Pillar of Faith. He accompanied Pope Cyril to the Third Ecumenical Council held at Ephesus and was quite aware of what had transpired, and of the attitude of some of the bishops against the Church of Alexandria. He was ordained as the 25th Pope of Alexandria in 444 during the reign of Emperor Theodesus II. Dioscorus was a man of great sensibility. He was much loved for his fiery zeal for the faith, his humility, and for his great courage. These virtues helped him cope with the numerous tribulations he was destined to face.

In his struggle against Nestorius St. Cyril explained the union between the two natures of Christ (His Divinity and His Humanity) as "inward and real without any division, change, or confusion." He rejected the Antiochene theory of "indwelling", or "conjunction", or "close participation" as insufficient to reveal the real unification. He charged that their theory permitted the division of the two natures of Christ just as Nestorius taught.

Thus the traditional Orthodox formula adopted by Cyril and Dioscorus was "ONE INCARNATE NATURE" which translated in Greek to "MIA-PHYSIS" and not "Mono Physis". They meant by "MIA": one; not "single one", but "unity one"; "out of two natures"; as St. Dioscorus stated. He insisted on "the one nature" of Christ to assert Christ's oneness, as a tool to defend the Church's faith against Nestorianism. Thus Christ is at once God and man.

On the other hand the Antiochene formula was "Two natures after the union" which is translated to "DYO PHYSIS". This formula explained Christ as two persons; Son of God, and Son of Man, and that God did not suffer nor did He die.

A struggle occurred between Eutyches and Theodoret. Eutyches was an archmandrite of a monastery in Constantinople. He defended the formula "one nature" against that of "two natures", but without sound theological basis. He concluded that the Godhead absorbed the manhood of Christ. Theodoret accused Eutyches and Cyril and published a long attack on them. The council of Constantinople was held in 448, and Eutyches was condemned and exiled.

Leo, Bishop of Rome wrote to Eutyches praising his zeal in opposing the Nestorian dualism. But Leo changed his mind; perhaps when he heard that the emperor wrote to Pope Saint Dioscorus calling him to a council to be held to discuss that matter. Leo, who was not part of the conflict between the Alexandrian and the Antiochian Christology, sent the famous Tome (letter) of Leo to Constantinople not to work for reconciliation of the parties, but to deform the Alexandrian theologians.

Then Emperor Theodosius II convened the Second Council of Ephesus in 449 A.D. and asked Pope Saint Dioscorus to exercise supreme authority over it as president. Eutyches was rehabilitated because he offered to repent and also because Leo, Bishop of Rome wrote to Flavian saying that he should be kind to him, and to accept him if he repented. The council also went on to depose the leading Nestorians such as Theodoret, Domnus, and Flavian of Constantinople.

Then on July 28, 450, Emperor Theodosius died and his sister Pulcheria and her consort Marcian were declared emperors. Pulcheria supported Rome against Alexandria. She gathered signatures for the "Tome" of Leo to be introduced as the basic paper for a new council to be held at Chalcedon. At the same time, she decided not to let Rome hold supreme authority in the church. She refused Leo's demand to hold the council in Italy, but insisted that it would be held in the East. Although the council of Chalcedon is believed to have condemned Eutyches, the man whom it really dealt with was Dioscorus for Eutyches was already in North Syria, where he had been exiled before the council met.

During the council St. Dioscorus explained why the Orthodox faith adopted the formula "One incarnate nature of God the Word". On hearing one nature some bishops in the council shouted, "Eutyches says these things also." Here Pope Saint Dioscorus clarified the Alexandrian point of view saying, "We do not speak of confusion, neither of division, nor of change." St. Dioscorus tried to make his position clear, that he did not accept "two natures after the union" , but he had no objection to "FROM two natures after the union."

When the judges started the order of the acts of the Council, Paschasinus the Roman delegate said, "We have orders from Rome that Dioscorus should not have a place in this council. If this is violated he should be cast out." When the judges asked about what Dioscorus did, the Roman delegate replied, "He has dared to conduct a council without the authorization of the apostolic see in Rome, a thing which has never happened and which ought not to have happened."

It was the emperor's favor that the council had to drawl out Alexandria and declare a new formula to bring the entire Church in the east under the leadership of Constantinople. They used Leo as a tool to accomplish their objective through his enmity to Alexandria looking upon it as an obstacle in realizing his papal authority on the Church over the world.

The verdict of the commissioners was announced: Dioscorus of Alexandria, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Thalassius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Ancyra, Eutathius of Berytus, and Basil of Seleucia - these were the men who had been responsible for the decisions of the second council of Ephesus, and should as such all be deposed. Thus the Pope of Alexandria was exiled to Gangra Island. In fact, Pope Saint Dioscorus was condemned not because of a theological heresy, but due to political circumstances.

Under strong pressure, the bishops of the council accepted a new formula of faith, so that Alexandria would not acquire theological precedence. Yet when the delegates attempted to impose the papal authority upon the universal church, silence turned into revolt. Leo announced, in his repeatedly angry letters, his resistance to the council because it regarded Rome and Constantinople as equal.

After those incidents, a messenger from Constantinople arrived in Alexandria announcing the exile of Pope Dioscorus, and the appointment of an Alexandrian priest named Proterius as a imperial [i.e. alien/foreign/non-Egyptian] patriarch over Alexandria with the approval of the emperor. He threatened whoever dared to show disobedience. The melkete (royal) patriarch who was appointed by the emperor became surrounded by soldiers willing to punish those who might resist the imperial command.

In the year 457 Pope Dioscorus died in exile, and when the Copts heard that, they met with the clergymen and elected Timothy, the disciple of Dioscorus, to be the new Pope. This became a regular practice of the Coptic Church who never surrendered to the alien patriarches throughout the Byzantine era which lasted until the seventh century when the Arabs invaded Egypt."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dioscorus_I_of_Alexandria



The more I learn about the Council of Chalcedon, the more it sounds like a coup d'état. I wonder to what extent the persecution of the Oriental Orthodox post-Chalcedon really was. This will be hopefully the last thread on the subject that I'll ever start.

Peace.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2005, 03:29:21 AM by Matthew777 » Logged

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #1 on: December 17, 2005, 02:56:46 AM »

I call on the moderators to close this thread. There is already an existing thread dealing with Chalcedon and St Dioscorus, which was not only started by Matthew, but was in fact also pointed out to Matthew just a couple of days ago in response to his attempt to sidetrack a separate discussion to such issues.ÂÂ  

Thank you in advance,

+Irini nem ehmot
« Last Edit: December 17, 2005, 02:57:50 AM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,464


« Reply #2 on: December 17, 2005, 03:01:10 AM »

Matthew,
Just for further clarification, Wikipedia should not be your definitive source for ANYTHING.

Please, you seem to want internet justification from us for every single aspect of Orthodoxy.  Your overanalyzing almost EVERYTHING.  Please stop.  Just go to church and be Orthodox.
Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 17, 2005, 03:01:24 AM »

That thread was on intolerance, not the Council itself. I'm still far from seeing exactly what transpired and why though I still don't like what I've seen so far.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 17, 2005, 03:04:32 AM »

Matthew,
Just for further clarification, Wikipedia should not be your definitive source for ANYTHING.

This is what I've learned at church except for only there have the real persecutions of Oriental Orthodox Christians immediately after Chalcedon been discussed. The government bothers me but that's okay, I don't expect it to not bother me. But this is the Church and the Church is supposed to be above such unnecessary divisions.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2005, 03:07:49 AM by Matthew777 » Logged

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #5 on: December 17, 2005, 03:11:11 AM »

Quote
That thread was on intolerance, not the Council itself.


Read the rest of the thread Matthew. Pages 3-8 are focused on nothing but Chalcedon and St Dioscorus.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2005, 03:11:36 AM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

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

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

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 17, 2005, 03:16:21 AM »

Thank you. This just bewilders me. I wish that there could be at least one place in the world where there never is nor ever was corruption or injustice in any way, shape or form. It's bad enough that our politicians can't get along. I hope that some day, all Christians can just love each other share the Eucharist.
« Last Edit: December 17, 2005, 03:24:21 AM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 17, 2005, 11:04:42 PM »

It seems that ultimately, the point of Chalcedon was not to affirm doctrine but to consolidate power.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 18, 2005, 01:21:59 AM »

It seems that ultimately, the point of Chalcedon was not to affirm doctrine but to consolidate power.

People tried to get power at just about every council, and at each one, politics was certainly involved. Chalcedon is just picked out and villified.
Logged

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

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #9 on: December 18, 2005, 02:35:14 AM »

There is no comparison between Chalcedon and the three Ecumenical Councils. Any political aspirations on behalf of certain individuals or groups at Nicaea 325, Constantinople 381, or Ephesus 431, were never pursued to the detriment of Church unity and the Orthodox Faith; they never resulted in the false ex-communication of Orthodox Patriarchs, nor did they ever lead to such wide-spread, persistent and significant opposition from Orthodox faithful within the Church.

At Ephesus 431 for example, the only patriarch to have been ex-communicated was Nestorius, who was undeniably a heretic. Nestorius's "Nestorianism" was never misrepresented, distorted, or fabricated; there was simply no injustice in the treatment he received as a response to the heretical doctrinal position he uncompromisingly held and supported till his very last breath. In light of this, although it has been argued that Nestorius failed to answer his three summons to the Council for legitimate reasons, his ex-communication is valid upon the basis he was indeed a heretic. As for John of Antioch and the Syrian suggrogates, it was nothing more than unfortunate that their arrival was delayed. The Council attempted to accomodate for such a delay by postponing its proceedings, however when John and his faction failed to arrive at the later assigned date, the Council had begun without them. One may sympathise with John and his party's frustration and anger upon learning that the Council proceeded without them nonetheless, however their initial opposition was quickly realised to be unwarranted, and St Cyril reconciled them to Ephesine Orthodoxy without having to compromise it in the first place. I am even willing to concede to the fact that the Ecumenicity of Ephesus 431 was contingent upon its reception by John and the rest of the moderate Antiochene's who accepted an Alexandrine interpretation of the Formulary of Reunion.

+Irini nem makarismos
Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 18, 2005, 02:46:13 AM »

There is no comparison between Chalcedon and the three Ecumenical Councils. Any political aspirations on behalf of certain individuals or groups at Nicaea 325, Constantinople 381, or Ephesus 431, were never pursued to the detriment of Church unity and the Orthodox Faith; they never resulted in the false ex-communication of Orthodox Patriarchs, nor did they ever lead to such wide-spread, persistent and significant opposition from Orthodox faithful within the Church.

At Ephesus 431 for example, the only patriarch to have been ex-communicated was Nestorius, who was undeniably a heretic. Nestorius's "Nestorianism" was never misrepresented, distorted, or fabricated; there was simply no injustice in the treatment he received as a response to the heretical doctrinal position he uncompromisingly held and supported till his very last breath. In light of this, although it has been argued that Nestorius failed to answer his three summons to the Council for legitimate reasons, his ex-communication is valid upon the basis he was indeed a heretic. As for John of Antioch and the Syrian suggrogates, it was nothing more than unfortunate that their arrival was delayed. The Council attempted to accomodate for such a delay by postponing its proceedings, however when John and his faction failed to arrive at the later assigned date, the Council had begun without them. One may sympathise with John and his party's frustration and anger upon learning that the Council proceeded without them nonetheless, however their initial opposition was quickly realised to be unwarranted, and St Cyril reconciled them to Ephesine Orthodoxy without having to compromise it in the first place. I am even willing to concede to the fact that the Ecumenicity of Ephesus 431 was contingent upon its reception by John and the rest of the moderate Antiochene's who accepted an Alexandrine interpretation of the Formulary of Reunion.

+Irini nem makarismos

Your problem with Chalcedon is that Dioscorus was excommunicated for failing to answer a summons. Yet, when it comes to Nestorius, it "ok" because he was a heretic anyways? Not to mention the Nestorian schism, at the time, wasn't a tiny movement. This sounds like a rotten double standard. It's ok to excomminucate someone for failing to answer a summons, but when it comes to a Coptic, "whoa there?" Further, the ecumenicity of something doesn't depend upon men, but upon God. You seem to think Chalcedon was entirely invalid simply because a man was excommunicated!
« Last Edit: December 18, 2005, 02:47:06 AM 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
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #11 on: December 18, 2005, 03:09:29 AM »

Nestorius's "Nestorianism" was never misrepresented, distorted, or fabricated; there was simply no injustice in the treatment he received as a response to the heretical doctrinal position he uncompromisingly held and supported till his very last breath.

Did Nestorius actually insist that Christ's human and divine natures are two distinct persons or did he merely believe that the Blessed Virgin is the mother of Christ rather than the mother of God? Nonetheless, the Assyrian Church of the East does not hold to Nestorianism, whether or not Nestorius created it in the first place.

As for the politics of Chalcedon...

Monophysitism and the Council of Chalcedon
------------------------------------------
1- According to some Scholars, there, was no need for it, but politics played
a big role. "It  was only under  constant  pressure from the  Emperor Marcian
that the Fathers  of  Chalcedon agreed  to  draw a  new formula  of  belief."

2-  The  different expressions  of the one   faith are due   in large part to
non-theological    issues,   such as  "unfortunate   circumstances,  cultural
differences and the difficulty  of translating terms."  It is debated whether
the opposition to Chalcedon was out  of a Christological  issue or an attempt
to assert Coptic and Syrian identity against the Byzantine.


3- Ecclesiastical politics had been very confused ever since the legislation,
in the  Council of 381,  of a primacy  of honor for Constantinople, the New
Rome," second only to that of the old Rome.  It  seems that both Rome and the
Emperors  used the Council of Chalcedon  to carry out their respective plans:
Rome for asserting its claim for primacy over the Church and the Emperors for
trying to bring the entire Church in  the East under  the jurisdiction of the
See of Constantinople.


4- No one  can deny the  disadvantages of the  imperial interventions in  the
dispute.  Most  probably,  Chalcedon's decisions and   terms  would have been
different if the  Emperor Marcian and  his wife Pulcheria had not intervened.
Since 450, they were gathering signatures for the  Tome of Leo, the bishop of
Rome.  Many bishops of   Chalcedon approved it   only as a  concession to the
bishop whom the imperial authority supported
.

5- The definitions  of  the Tome were composed  in   a way that  it  could be
interpreted by  different  persons, each in  his  own way.  It is known  that
Nestorius, who was still alive  in 451, accepted the Tome  of Leo, while  the
Alexandrines rejected it.

6- The Council  of Chalcedon, which is believed  to  have condemned Eutyches,
did not deal  with him but with Dioscorus,  Patriarch of Alexandria. Eutyches
himself was not present at  the council. Scholars   state that Dioscorus  was
deprived  of office  on procedural grounds  and not  on account of  erroneous
belief. At Chalcedon Dioscorus  strongly declared, "If Eutyches holds notions
disallowed by  the doctrines of  the Church, he  deserves not only punishment
but even the fire.  But my concern  is for the  catholic and apostolic faith,
not for any man whomsoever."  The evidence is  sufficient for us to look  for
other reasons  for his condemnation.   Rome was annoyed by the  extraordinary
vitality and activity of the Church of Alexandria and its patriarch.


7- As soon as the members  of the council  had assembled, the legates of Rome
demanded that Dioscorus be banished on account of the order  of the bishop of
Rome  whom they  called, "the  head   of all  churches"
.  When the   imperial
authorities asked for a charge to justify the demand, one of the legates said
that he  "dared  to  conduct  a council  without   the authorization  of  the
apostolic  see,  a thing which  has  never  happened and  which  ought not to
happen."  As a matter of fact,  the Council of  381 had been held without the
participation, not to say  the authorization, of the bishop  of Rome, and the
Council of 553 against his wishes.  It is evident that the delegates intended
by the words,  "the head of   all churches" to assert the   claim of Rome  of
ecumenical supremacy over the church
.

8- Chalcedon  rejected the Council  of 449, and Leo of  Rome considered it as
latrocinium,  a council of robbers, a  title which "has  stuck for all time."
This may uncover   the intention behind  such an  attitude. A council   which
ignored Rome's  authority, robbing its claim of  supremacy, was not for Leo a
church council but  a meeting of  robbers
. The Council of Chalcedon,  without
even examining  the issue, denounced  the Council of  449, putting the entire
responsibility for its decrees exclusively on Dioscorus. Only one hundred and
four  years later,  the  decision, not  of  Chalcedon,  but of the  so called
latrocinium was justified. The Council of Constantinople in 553 anathematized
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas of Edessa, and condemned
their  Three  Chapters.  It is  remarkable  that the   desire  of the Emperor
Justinian to reconcile the non-Chalcedonian churches was behind the decree.
http://www.coptic.net/articles/MonophysitismReconsidered.txt

Yes, this sounds very much like a coup to me.

Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox
Posts: 1,236



« Reply #12 on: December 18, 2005, 03:26:43 AM »

Quote
In light of this, although it has been argued that Nestorius failed to answer his three summons to the Council for legitimate reasons, his ex-communication is valid upon the basis he was indeed a heretic.
One can equally argue that Nestorius did not want to appear in front of an Orthodox council where he could not argue his heresies, there was no physical reason why he could not make the council, and he was waiting for support by his Nestorian collegues. 
Quote
This sounds like a rotten double standard. It's ok to excomminucate someone for failing to answer a summons, but when it comes to a Coptic, "whoa there?"

Nestorius was not anathemized for not attending, he was anathemized based on his writings and his letters to St.Cyril. St.Dioscoros was under house arrest when he was summoned to an unofficial gathering of his archnemesis, Nestorians, and was excommunicated for not attending. Later, it appeared that his chief error in the eyes of the Chalcedonians was his excommunication of Leo of Rome, who accepted a Nestorian into communion and who was the mastermind behind the Infallibility and Supremacy heresies. According to Church canons, those who accept excommunicated persons like Theodret into communion, and accept heretics (Leo knew Theodret was a heretic) are excommunicated themselves. St.Dioscoros was applying the church laws, while CHalcedon was abiding by Rome's law.

By the way, race should have little contribution to our discussion, as St.Dioscoros could have been of any other race and culture and our position would have been the same concerning him and Chalcedon.
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 #13 on: December 18, 2005, 03:33:24 AM »

As for the politics of Chalcedon...

Monophysitism and the Council of Chalcedon
------------------------------------------
1- According to some Scholars, there, was no need for it, but politics played
a big role. "ItÂÂ  was only underÂÂ  constantÂÂ  pressure from theÂÂ  Emperor Marcian
that the FathersÂÂ  ofÂÂ  Chalcedon agreedÂÂ  toÂÂ  draw aÂÂ  new formulaÂÂ  ofÂÂ  belief."

2-  The  different expressions  of the one  ÃƒÆ’‚ faith are due  ÃƒÆ’‚ in large part to
non-theological  ÃƒÆ’‚  issues,  ÃƒÆ’‚ such as  "unfortunate  ÃƒÆ’‚ circumstances,  cultural
differences and the difficultyÂÂ  of translating terms."ÂÂ  It is debated whether
the opposition to Chalcedon was outÂÂ  of a ChristologicalÂÂ  issue or an attempt
to assert Coptic and Syrian identity against the Byzantine.


3- Ecclesiastical politics had been very confused ever since the legislation,
in theÂÂ  Council of 381,ÂÂ  of a primacyÂÂ  of honor for Constantinople, the New
Rome," second only to that of the old Rome.ÂÂ  ItÂÂ  seems that both Rome and the
EmperorsÂÂ  used the Council of ChalcedonÂÂ  to carry out their respective plans:
Rome for asserting its claim for primacy over the Church and the Emperors for
trying to bring the entire Church inÂÂ  the East underÂÂ  the jurisdiction of the
See of Constantinople.


4- No oneÂÂ  can deny theÂÂ  disadvantages of theÂÂ  imperial interventions inÂÂ  the
dispute.  Most  probably,  Chalcedon's decisions and  ÃƒÆ’‚ terms  would have been
different if theÂÂ  Emperor Marcian andÂÂ  his wife Pulcheria had not intervened.
Since 450, they were gathering signatures for theÂÂ  Tome of Leo, the bishop of
Rome.  Many bishops of  ÃƒÆ’‚ Chalcedon approved it  ÃƒÆ’‚ only as a  concession to the
bishop whom the imperial authority supported
.

5- The definitions  of  the Tome were composed  in  ÃƒÆ’‚ a way that  it  could be
interpreted byÂÂ  differentÂÂ  persons, each inÂÂ  hisÂÂ  own way.ÂÂ  It is knownÂÂ  that
Nestorius, who was still aliveÂÂ  in 451, accepted the TomeÂÂ  of Leo, whileÂÂ  the
Alexandrines rejected it.

6- The CouncilÂÂ  of Chalcedon, which is believedÂÂ  toÂÂ  have condemned Eutyches,
did not dealÂÂ  with him but with Dioscorus,ÂÂ  Patriarch of Alexandria. Eutyches
himself was not present at  the council. Scholars  ÃƒÆ’‚ state that Dioscorus  was
deprivedÂÂ  of officeÂÂ  on procedural groundsÂÂ  and notÂÂ  on account ofÂÂ  erroneous
belief. At Chalcedon DioscorusÂÂ  strongly declared, "If Eutyches holds notions
disallowed byÂÂ  the doctrines ofÂÂ  the Church, heÂÂ  deserves not only punishment
but even the fire.ÂÂ  But my concernÂÂ  is for theÂÂ  catholic and apostolic faith,
not for any man whomsoever."ÂÂ  The evidence isÂÂ  sufficient for us to lookÂÂ  for
other reasons  for his condemnation.  ÃƒÆ’‚ Rome was annoyed by the  extraordinary
vitality and activity of the Church of Alexandria and its patriarch.


7- As soon as the membersÂÂ  of the councilÂÂ  had assembled, the legates of Rome
demanded that Dioscorus be banished on account of the orderÂÂ  of the bishop of
Rome  whom they  called, "the  head  ÃƒÆ’‚ of all  churches"
.  When the  ÃƒÆ’‚ imperial
authorities asked for a charge to justify the demand, one of the legates said
that he  "dared  to  conduct  a council  without  ÃƒÆ’‚ the authorization  of  the
apostolicÂÂ  see,ÂÂ  a thing whichÂÂ  hasÂÂ  neverÂÂ  happened andÂÂ  whichÂÂ  ought not to
happen."ÂÂ  As a matter of fact,ÂÂ  the Council ofÂÂ  381 had been held without the
participation, not to sayÂÂ  the authorization, of the bishopÂÂ  of Rome, and the
Council of 553 against his wishes.ÂÂ  It is evident that the delegates intended
by the words,  "the head of  ÃƒÆ’‚ all churches" to assert the  ÃƒÆ’‚ claim of Rome  of
ecumenical supremacy over the church
.

8- ChalcedonÂÂ  rejected the CouncilÂÂ  of 449, and Leo ofÂÂ  Rome considered it as
latrocinium,ÂÂ  a council of robbers, aÂÂ  title which "hasÂÂ  stuck for all time."
This may uncover  ÃƒÆ’‚ the intention behind  such an  attitude. A council  ÃƒÆ’‚ which
ignored Rome'sÂÂ  authority, robbing its claim ofÂÂ  supremacy, was not for Leo a
church council butÂÂ  a meeting ofÂÂ  robbers
. The Council of Chalcedon,ÂÂ  without
even examiningÂÂ  the issue, denouncedÂÂ  the Council ofÂÂ  449, putting the entire
responsibility for its decrees exclusively on Dioscorus. Only one hundred and
fourÂÂ  years later,ÂÂ  theÂÂ  decision, notÂÂ  ofÂÂ  Chalcedon,ÂÂ  but of theÂÂ  so called
latrocinium was justified. The Council of Constantinople in 553 anathematized
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas of Edessa, and condemned
their  Three  Chapters.  It is  remarkable  that the  ÃƒÆ’‚ desire  of the Emperor
Justinian to reconcile the non-Chalcedonian churches was behind the decree.
http://www.coptic.net/articles/MonophysitismReconsidered.txt

Yes, this sounds very much like a coup to me.



1) Who, but Constantine, convened Nicea? Nothing wrong with an imperial call for a council, in fact, it was the norm.

2) I wouldn't necessarily disagree. As I have said before, both sides had some less than charitable political motivations.

3) This point shows misunderstanding. If one actually reads the canons, they will see "primacy of honor" used, which has nothing to do with supremacy. I must also ask why the Coptics didn't speak up in earlier Ecumenical Councils when primacies were given out. It seems that this is a red herring, a best.

4) Imperial intervention was common in Ecumencial Councils.

5) Ok

6) Eutyches was later condemned, though you are right in saying Dioscorus was not excommunicated on doctrinal grounds.

7) Yes, the delegates did very much intend to convey the idea. But it was not accepted, and Dioscorus was excommunicated on other grounds.

Cool Chalcedon did examine the issue. Whether the findings were in line what with we think today or not is not the question. And as for Constantinople in 533, where did it justify the counci of 449l?

What took place at Chalcedon was much like what took place at other Councils. However, romanticized views may often be crushed when the reality of the Councils is learned.
Logged

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

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #14 on: December 18, 2005, 03:38:25 AM »

Quote
Your problem with Chalcedon is that Dioscorus was excommunicated for failing to answer a summons. Yet, when it comes to Nestorius, it "ok" because he was a heretic anyways?

Nestorius wasn't ex-communicated for failing to answer his three summons. He was ex-communicated on the basis of heresy. The proceedings of the Council make this quite clear, as it wasn't until after investigation of the patristic basis for the unity of Christ and the writings of Nestorius himself, that his ex-communication followed. Therefore, it is more than “okay” that Nestorius was ex-communicated.

In the case of Nestorius, a heretic was ex-communicated for being a heretic, however in the case of St Dioscorus, an Orthodox Patriarch was ex-communicated upon unsubstantiated and invalid grounds, in response to his failure to answer three summons - only one of which was voluntary, and the reason for which seems more than justified in the circumstances. St Dioscorus was not attempting to escape a just trial of his person and action, for he had attended the Council from its inception and patiently and peacefully gave up his rightful seat to the right of the Emperor for the seat of an accused man on trial when the Roman legates launched their protest. He was more than willing and prepared to defend himself before the enemy, and did so quite diligently throughout the first session; he was not however going to foolishly take the enemy's bait — he was wiser than that.

Quote
Not to mention the Nestorian schism, at the time, wasn't a tiny movement. This sounds like a rotten double standard.


There is no double standard; you're comparing the resistance of Nestorian heretics to the resistance of Orthodox faithful. They are two completely different standards. The only thing rotten here is your logic.

Quote
Further, the ecumenicity of something doesn't depend upon men, but upon God. You seem to think Chalcedon was entirely invalid simply because a man was excommunicated!

Umm..The Ecumenicity of a Council depends on its Ecumenical Reception. It's all in the name. I believe Chalcedon was invalid for it essentially ex-communicated itself in the course of its false ex-communication of St Dioscorus, and because it had drastic negative implications to the Orthodox theological world at the time, as I have already discussed with you in the afore-linked thread. Nestorianism found a loop-hole in Chalcedon.

+Irini nem ehmot

Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #15 on: December 18, 2005, 03:42:36 AM »

Nestorius was not anathemized for not attending, he was anathemized based on his writings and his letters to St.Cyril.

St.Dioscoros was under house arrest when he was summoned to an unofficial gathering of his archnemesis, Nestorians, and was excommunicated for not attending. Later, it appeared that his chief error in the eyes of the Chalcedonians was his excommunication of Leo of Rome, who accepted a Nestorian into communion and who was the mastermind behind the Infallibility and Supremacy heresies. According to Church canons, those who accept excommunicated persons like Theodret into communion, and accept heretics (Leo knew Theodret was a heretic) are excommunicated themselves. St.Dioscoros was applying the church laws, while CHalcedon was abiding by Rome's law.

By the way, race should have little contribution to our discussion, as St.Dioscoros could have been of any other race and culture and our position would have been the same concerning him and Chalcedon.

So, was Nestorius officially excommincated on the grounds of failing to answer a summons, as EA says, or on the grounds of his heretical teachings, as you say? Perhaps a source wqould be in order.

If Chalcedon was abiding by Rome's law, Papal Supremacy would have been in a canon, or at least discussed as a viable option. It was not. As for Theodret, there is question as to whether he renounced his heretical beliefs as the time he was given communion.

I was referring to Coptic as in Coptic Orthodox, not a race.
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 #16 on: December 18, 2005, 03:50:52 AM »

Nestorius wasn't ex-communicated for failing to answer his three summons. He was ex-communicated on the basis of heresy. The proceedings of the Council make this quite clear, as it wasn't until after investigation of the patristic basis for the unity of Christ and the writings of Nestorius himself, that his ex-communication followed. Therefore, it is more than “okay” that Nestorius was ex-communicated.

In the case of Nestorius, a heretic was ex-communicated for being a heretic, however in the case of St Dioscorus, an Orthodox Patriarch was ex-communicated upon unsubstantiated and invalid grounds, in response to his failure to answer three summons - only one of which was voluntary, and the reason for which seems more than justified in the circumstances. St Dioscorus was not attempting to escape a just trial of his person and action, for he had attended the Council from its inception and patiently and peacefully gave up his rightful seat to the right of the Emperor for the seat of an accused man on trial when the Roman legates launched their protest. He was more than willing and prepared to defend himself before the enemy, and did so quite diligently throughout the first session; he was not however going to foolishly take the enemy's bait — he was wiser than that.
 

There is no double standard; you're comparing the resistance of Nestorian heretics to the resistance of Orthodox faithful. They are two completely different standards. The only thing rotten here is your logic.

Umm..The Ecumenicity of a Council depends on its Ecumenical Reception. It's all in the name. I believe Chalcedon was invalid for it essentially ex-communicated itself in the course of its false ex-communication of St Dioscorus, and because it had drastic negative implications to the Orthodox theological world at the time, as I have already discussed with you in the afore-linked thread. Nestorianism found a loop-hole in Chalcedon.

+Irini nem ehmot



Earlier you say: "In light of this, although it has been argued that Nestorius failed to answer his three summons to the Council for legitimate reasons..." So, which is it?

That is entirely ex post facto. Either excommunication based on failure to answer a summons is or isn't valid. You can't justify it later. If it isn't valid, Nestorius isn't excommincated, if it is, Diocosrus is too.

Isn't that begging that question? Again, the logical fallacies are yours.

Depends on what you mean by "drastic negative implications." No Council was free from backlash. Just because your church was the one to act against it doesn't make it somehow "special"
Logged

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

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #17 on: December 18, 2005, 03:51:33 AM »

Stavro,

Some have argued that a large mob had gathered outside Nestorius's compound wanting to kill him, and that he couldn't leave to attend the Council by virtue of this. apparently he requested military protection, and was denied it. Considering that Nestorius moved to Ephesus for the purpose of attending the Council, it seems rather absurd in principle that he would then voluntarily refuse to attend the council for no good reason. In any event, as I initially suggested, and as you confirmed, Nestorius was not ex-communicated for his failure to answer his summons, but rather he was ex-communicated for heresy.

+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 #18 on: December 18, 2005, 04:52:04 AM »

Quote
Earlier you say: "In light of this, although it has been argued that Nestorius failed to answer his three summons to the Council for legitimate reasons..." So, which is it?

Nestorius failed to answer his three summons, however this was not the exclusive basis of his ex-communication. From the minutes of the Holy Council of Ephesus I: "We all anathematize the heretic Nestorius and his adherents, and his impious faith and his impious doctrine.ÂÂ  We all anathematize the impious Nestorius...”( Mansi, Tom. IV. pages 1170-1178 )

I was simply pointing out the irrelevance of whether or not his failure to answer the three summons was legitimate, in light of the fact he was ex-communicated for being a heretic. What is it that you find so hard to understand about this?

Quote
That is entirely ex post facto. Either excommunication based on failure to answer a summons is or isn't valid. You can't justify it later. If it isn't valid, Nestorius isn't excommincated, if it is, Diocosrus is too.

Ex-communication based on one's failure to answer three summons is valid church canon law. It can however, be abused for purposes outside the realm of that which such canon law was created for in the first place, according to an unjust legalistic application of it.

In the case of Nestorius, he was not ex-communicated for his failure to answer three summons - he was ex-communicated for doctrinal matters, therefore discussion of the validity or invalidity of his refusal to answer to his three summons is irrelevant. In the case of St Dioscorus, his ex-communication upon the ground of not being able to answer the first two summons, and his refusal to answer to the third, is invalid per the above stipulated principle.

Quote
Isn't that begging that question? Again, the logical fallacies are yours.

Nestorianism is a heresy mutually condemned by both churches; I thus fail to see how presuming this begs the question unless a) you are of the Nestorian church, or b) you are attempting a non-patristic approach to ecclesiatical history. Again, the logical fallacies are yours alone.

Quote
Depends on what you mean by "drastic negative implications."


The manner in which crypto-Nestorianism found a loophole via Chalcedon has already been discussed in the other thread.

+Irini nem makarismos
« Last Edit: December 18, 2005, 04:53:07 AM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #19 on: December 18, 2005, 05:07:50 AM »

Nestorius failed to answer his three summons, however this was not the exclusive basis of his ex-communication. From the minutes of the Holy Council of Ephesus I: "We all anathematize the heretic Nestorius and his adherents, and his impious faith and his impious doctrine.ÂÂ  We all anathematize the impious Nestorius...”( Mansi, Tom. IV. pages 1170-1178 )

I was simply pointing out the irrelevance of whether or not his failure to answer the three summons was legitimate, in light of the fact he was ex-communicated for being a heretic. What is it that you find so hard to understand about this?

Ex-communication based on one's failure to answer three summons is valid church canon law. It can however, be abused for purposes outside the realm of that which such canon law was created for in the first place, according to an unjust legalistic application of it.

In the case of Nestorius, he was not ex-communicated for his failure to answer three summons - he was ex-communicated for doctrinal matters, therefore discussion of the validity or invalidity of his refusal to answer to his three summons is irrelevant. In the case of St Dioscorus, his ex-communication upon the ground of not being able to answer the first two summons, and his refusal to answer to the third, is invalid per the above stipulated principle.

Nestorianism is a heresy mutually condemned by both churches; I thus fail to see how presuming this begs the question unless a) you are of the Nestorian church, or b) you are attempting a non-patristic approach to ecclesiatical history. Again, the logical fallacies are yours alone.
 

The manner in which crypto-Nestorianism found a loophole via Chalcedon has already been discussed in the other thread.

Ah, ok. I misunderstood what you were saying, then.

As for failure to answer the summons, you note Dioscorus explicity refused to answer the third. How is this not an error on his part?

The begging of the question had to do with this statement: "you're comparing the resistance of Nestorian heretics to the resistance of Orthodox faithful." As can clearly be seen, you're saying one group is the Church, when in reality that it what the dicussion is ultimately about. That is most certainly begging the question.

I am quite aware of how the loopholes were found. In fact, I coined the term "loopholes" in that thread. However, this doesn't have to do with there being a loophole, but of the fact that Chalcedon was not the only Council to receive backlash. As I mentioned earlier, you are simply trying to make this case "special" for the sole reason that your church, and not someone else's, is the one involved.
Logged

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

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #20 on: December 18, 2005, 06:14:25 AM »

Quote
As for failure to answer the summons, you note Dioscorus explicity refused to answer the third. How is this not an error on his part?

I've already generally answered this in the following paragraphs:

Ex-communication based on one's failure to answer three summons is valid church canon law. It can however, be abused for purposes outside the realm of that which such canon law was created for in the first place, according to an unjust legalistic application of it.

In the case of Nestorius, a heretic was ex-communicated for being a heretic, however in the case of St Dioscorus, an Orthodox Patriarch was ex-communicated upon unsubstantiated and invalid grounds, in response to his failure to answer three summons - only one of which was voluntary, and the reason for which seems more than justified in the circumstances. St Dioscorus was not attempting to escape a just trial of his person and action, for he had attended the Council from its inception and patiently and peacefully gave up his rightful seat to the right of the Emperor for the seat of an accused man on trial when the Roman legates launched their protest. He was more than willing and prepared to defend himself before the enemy, and did so quite diligently throughout the first session; he was not however going to foolishly take the enemy's bait — he was wiser than that.

Basically, it seems that by the third summons, St Dioscorus received information that constituted the final straw, leading him to rightfully believe that justice was never going to be served and that the interests of the council were far from discerning the truth of the matter; there was an agenda against him that was attempting to force its way in any and every way possible, and he was not going to entertain their ungodly intentions any longer. He had been patient and co-operative for long enough; now it was time to take a stand, and in his wisdom, foreseeing that further attempts to humiliate him and the faith were at hand, he decided that enough was enough.

Furthermore, even assuming for arguments sake that his refusal to answer the third summons was unjustified, then it was only one summons that he voluntarily failed to submit to, and hence there is no legal justification for his ex-communication upon this basis in any event.

Quote
However, this doesn't have to do with there being a loophole, but of the fact that Chalcedon was not the only Council to receive backlash. As I mentioned earlier, you are simply trying to make this case "special" for the sole reason that your church, and not someone else's, is the one involved.

I have been involved in pages and pages of discussion with you regarding the reasons for our rejection of the Ecumenicity of Chalcedon, so for you to claim that i'm trying to make a “special case” simply because the church involved is “my Church”, is blatant dishonesty, especially when you have yet to prove that there is any precedent in the resistance to any of the three Ecumenical Councils. Arians resisted Nicaea because they were Arian heretics who denied the consubstantiality of Christ to the Father. Nestorians resisted Ephesus 431 because they were Nestorian heretics who denied that the Logos was the subject of Christ's Incarnate experiences. Orthodox resisted Chalcedon because it had nullified itself by virtue of its false ex-communication of an Orthodox Patriarch, and because it had undermined the Orthodox faith by allowing the resurgence of crypto-Nesotorianism via a loophole — as you yourself admit.

Quote
The begging of the question had to do with this statement: "you're comparing the resistance of Nestorian heretics to the resistance of Orthodox faithful." As can clearly be seen, you're saying one group is the Church, when in reality that it what the dicussion is ultimately about. That is most certainly begging the question.

There is no question begging here; you are simply falsely imputing an implication upon the point that I was actually trying to make. I clearly never said anything about one group being “the Church” in contradistinction to another. I contrasted “Orthodox faithful” (in reference to the Oriental Orthodox opposition to Chalcedon - and even though I believe OO to be “the Church” nonetheless, it is not a belief i was presupposing, for it is irrelevant to the argument being made) to “Nestorian heretics” (in reference to the Nestorian opposition to Ephesus 431) — obviously the distinction is upon the basis of doctrinal position.

The point I was making represents common sense: It is obviously quite ridiculous to assume that a Council is not Ecumenical because it is not received by those who adhere to the heresy that such a Council condemned in the first place — which is precisely the case of the Nestorian opposition to Ephesus 431. Therefore, you cannot refer to the Nestorian rejection of Ephesus 431, as if it invalidates the argument that the OO rejection of Chalcedon denies its Ecumenicity upon the basis it was not Ecumenically received.

+Irini nem ehmot
« Last Edit: December 18, 2005, 06:18:31 AM by EkhristosAnesti » Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #21 on: December 18, 2005, 06:49:20 AM »

I've already generally answered this in the following paragraphs:

Ex-communication based on one's failure to answer three summons is valid church canon law. It can however, be abused for purposes outside the realm of that which such canon law was created for in the first place, according to an unjust legalistic application of it.

In the case of Nestorius, a heretic was ex-communicated for being a heretic, however in the case of St Dioscorus, an Orthodox Patriarch was ex-communicated upon unsubstantiated and invalid grounds, in response to his failure to answer three summons - only one of which was voluntary, and the reason for which seems more than justified in the circumstances. St Dioscorus was not attempting to escape a just trial of his person and action, for he had attended the Council from its inception and patiently and peacefully gave up his rightful seat to the right of the Emperor for the seat of an accused man on trial when the Roman legates launched their protest. He was more than willing and prepared to defend himself before the enemy, and did so quite diligently throughout the first session; he was not however going to foolishly take the enemy's bait — he was wiser than that.

Basically, it seems that by the third summons, St Dioscorus received information that constituted the final straw, leading him to rightfully believe that justice was never going to be served and that the interests of the council were far from discerning the truth of the matter; there was an agenda against him that was attempting to force its way in any and every way possible, and he was not going to entertain their ungodly intentions any longer. He had been patient and co-operative for long enough; now it was time to take a stand, and in his wisdom, foreseeing that further attempts to humiliate him and the faith were at hand, he decided that enough was enough.

Furthermore, even assuming for arguments sake that his refusal to answer the third summons was unjustified, then it was only one summons that he voluntarily failed to submit to, and hence there is no legal justification for his ex-communication upon this basis in any event.

I have been involved in pages and pages of discussion with you regarding the reasons for our rejection of the Ecumenicity of Chalcedon, so for you to claim that i'm trying to make a “special case” simply because the church involved is “my Church”, is blatant dishonesty, especially when you have yet to prove that there is any precedent in the resistance to any of the three Ecumenical Councils. Arians resisted Nicaea because they were Arian heretics who denied the consubstantiality of Christ to the Father. Nestorians resisted Ephesus 431 because they were Nestorian heretics who denied that the Logos was the subject of Christ's Incarnate experiences. Orthodox resisted Chalcedon because it had nullified itself by virtue of its false ex-communication of an Orthodox Patriarch, and because it had undermined the Orthodox faith by allowing the resurgence of crypto-Nesotorianism via a loophole — as you yourself admit.

There is no question begging here; you are simply falsely imputing an implication upon the point that I was actually trying to make. I clearly never said anything about one group being “the Church” in contradistinction to another. I contrasted “Orthodox faithful” (in reference to the Oriental Orthodox opposition to Chalcedon - and even though I believe OO to be “the Church” nonetheless, it is not a belief i was presupposing, for it is irrelevant to the argument being made) to “Nestorian heretics” (in reference to the Nestorian opposition to Ephesus 431) — obviously the distinction is upon the basis of doctrinal position.

The point I was making represents common sense: It is obviously quite ridiculous to assume that a Council is not Ecumenical because it is not received by those who adhere to the heresy that such a Council condemned in the first place — which is precisely the case of the Nestorian opposition to Ephesus 431. Therefore, you cannot refer to the Nestorian rejection of Ephesus 431, as if it invalidates the argument that the OO rejection of Chalcedon denies its Ecumenicity upon the basis it was not Ecumenically received.

+Irini nem ehmot

Even if what you say is true about Dioscorus perceiving justice to be impossible, that is still no reason to refuse to go. If you believe he was right, doesn't it make sense that he could do more good at the council than away from it? Further, had he not been charged with violating the summons, would he have ever been excomminicated? It is speculation, certainly, but I think we can clearly see that his action didn't contribute to unity in any way.

You still fail to grasp that you are, in fact, putting you church on a different level: as for no precedent, you are forgetting order of events. The Arians and Nestorians were excommunicated after their doctrines were spread around and caused division. In the most technical sense, they were still in the Orthodox Church before the Councils, so this was Orthodox opposition. However, as you may point out, their later excommunication makes their criticisms invalid. But to this I must ask how the situation at Chalcedon was any different. Further, while there may have been concern over possible crypto-Nestorianism, the Orthodox Church and those in it did not reject the Council as a whole, for to do so would put them outside of Orthodoxy. So, there was either Orthodox oppostion to all the Ecumencial Councils, or Orthodox opposition to none. You can't have your cake and eat it too. In regards to the loophole, you are completely misunderstanding the situation. The crypto-Nestorian threat didn't just magically appear after Chalcedon, it was there before as well. So, it didn't create the threat, as you seem to imply, it simply failed to adequately combat it.

That arguement also has a pre-supposition: that schism is not a form of heresy. Again, we have the situation I described above: there is either no oppoisition to any Council or there is opposition to every Council.

And here you almost make my point exactly! You say "It is obviously quite ridiculous to assume that a Council is not Ecumenical because it is not received by those who adhere to the heresy that such a Council condemned in the first place." By that same logic, is it not also "quite ridiculous" to assume that an Ecumenical Council (namely Chalcedon) isn't Ecumenical because it wasn't received by a person it excommunicated (Disocorus)?
« Last Edit: December 18, 2005, 06:52:13 AM 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
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 #22 on: December 18, 2005, 08:14:38 AM »

Quote
Even if what you say is true about Dioscorus perceiving justice to be impossible, that is still no reason to refuse to go.

Yes it is; it is a decision to refuse to allow blatant injustice, and a continued mockery of his person and faith. St Dioscorus was doing nothing more than shaking the dust off his feet.

Quote
If you believe he was right, doesn't it make sense that he could do more good at the council than away from it?

This was no longer about whether St Dioscorus was right or wrong, for he clearly perceived that no one was interested in matters of right or wrong, they were only interested in their own personal agendas. St Dioscorus sufficiently made his case and was not obliged to continue defending himself against those whose reasonably perceived objective was to unjustly get rid of him by any means possible, without properly and fairly investigating the matter.

Quote
You still fail to grasp that you are, in fact, putting you church on a different level.

No, rather you continue to make baseless claims, and fail to prove any form of double standard.

Quote
As for no precedent, you are forgetting order of events. The Arians and Nestorians were excommunicated after their doctrines were spread around and caused division. In the most technical sense, they were still in the Orthodox Church before the Councils, so this was Orthodox opposition.


No i am not forgetting anything; and you still have no precedent.

Arians and Nestorians were deemed outside of The Church subsequent to the Councils of Nicaea and Ephesus, respectively, by virtue of their adherence to the very heresy that the respective Orthodox Councils rightfully condemned.  Had the Oriental Orthodox Church rejected Chalcedon due to an adherence to monophysitism for example, then you would have a valid analogy. But this was simply never the case, and therefore you have no case, and you have no precedent; you have nothing.

Quote
Further, while there may have been concern over possible crypto-Nestorianism, the Orthodox Church and those in it did not reject the Council as a whole, for to do so would put them outside of Orthodoxy.


What are you talking about? The Coptic, Armenian, Syrian, Indian, and Ethiopian Orthodox Church rejected Chalcedon as a whole. To say such a rejection put them outside of Orthodoxy, is evidence of you begging the question.

Quote
So, there was either Orthodox oppostion to all the Ecumencial Councils, or Orthodox opposition to none. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

You are the one who claimed something to the effect of: “To deny the Ecumenicity of Chalcedon due to its OO opposition is akin to denying the ecumenicity of Ephesus 431 due to its Nestorian opposition.” In response, I have merely pointed out the obvious: The Nestorians rejected Ephesus 431 because they adopted heresy; the Orthodox Church rejected Chalcedon because Chalcedon allowed a loop-hole for the resurgence of an already condemned heresy and because it ex-communicated an Orthodox patriarch.

Quote
In regards to the loophole, you are completely misunderstanding the situation. The crypto-Nestorian threat didn't just magically appear after Chalcedon, it was there before as well. So, it didn't create the thread, as you seem to imply, it simply failed to adequately combat it.

I never implied that it created the threat; this is absolutely irrelevant. I realise the threat preceded the council; its existence was the very reason why the Holy Council of Ephesus II (449) was held.

What is most relevant is your blatant admission that it failed to combat that threat — it in effect allowed that threat to continue — that is the loop-hole; the threat now found support in a council that was claimed to be both Ecumenical and Orthodox. The crypto-Nestorian opposition to Ephesus 431 and St Cyril, now found a new friend in the Council of Chalcedon. This is not the fruit of an Ecumenical Council.

Quote
That arguement also has a pre-supposition: that schism is not a form of heresy.


Huh? I presupposed nothing of the sort, nor is your statement even relevant to anything I have said. I was referring to heresy as a doctrinal divergence from Orthodox dogma.

The only presupposition here is your own i.e. that the OO opposition to Chalcedon was of a “schismatic” nature.

Quote
Again, we have the situation I described above: there is either no oppoisition to any Council or there is opposition to every Council.

It's really very simple, I don't understand what you're not getting. There is either valid opposition to a council or there is invalid opposition to a council. Opposing a council due to an adherence to heretical doctrine (i.e. Nestorian opposition to Ephesus 431) is an invalid basis of opposition. Opposing a council due to that council's self ex-communication (the corollary of a false-excommunication), and its weak and ambiguous theology that fails to adequately define Orthodoxy and that vindicates the already growing resurgence of crypto-Nestorianism, is a valid opposition to a council.

Quote
You say "It is obviously quite ridiculous to assume that a Council is not Ecumenical because it is not received by those who adhere to the heresy that such a Council condemned in the first place." By that same logic, is it not also "quite ridiculous" to assume that an Ecumenical Council (namely Chalcedon) isn't Ecumenical because it wasn't received by a person it excommunicated (Disocorus)?

No, because you are presupposing that St Dioscorus' ex-communication was valid, and hence you are begging the question. The validity of the ex-communication of the Nestorians is contingent upon Nestorianism being a heretical doctrine. Since we both agree that it is, therefore the validity of the ex-communication of the Nestorians is not in question.

Furthermore I never claimed that Chalcedon wasn't Ecumenical by virtue of one figure's rejection of it. Chalcedon is not Ecumenical because it wasn't received by Orthodox faithful for valid reasons i.e. The reasonable perception of Chalcedon as a crypto-Nestorian council, in adition to the council's self-ex-communication when it falsely ex-communicated St Dioscorus, lawful Patriarch of Alexandria. Such valid reasons find no precedent in the reasons for resistance of any of the churches or factions opposed to any of the three Ecumenical Councils.

+Irini nem makarismos
Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #23 on: December 18, 2005, 08:45:33 AM »

Yes it is; it is a decision to refuse to allow blatant injustice, and a continued mockery of his person and faith. St Dioscorus was doing nothing more than shaking the dust off his feet.

This was no longer about whether St Dioscorus was right or wrong, for he clearly perceived that no one was interested in matters of right or wrong, they were only interested in their own personal agendas. St Dioscorus sufficiently made his case and was not obliged to continue defending himself against those whose reasonably perceived objective was to unjustly get rid of him by any means possible, without properly and fairly investigating the matter.

Arians and Nestorians were deemed outside of The Church subsequent to the Councils of Nicaea and Ephesus, respectively, by virtue of their adherence to the very heresy that the respective Orthodox Councils rightfully condemned.ÂÂ  Had the Oriental Orthodox Church rejected Chalcedon due to an adherence to monophysitism for example, then you would have a valid analogy. But this was simply never the case, and therefore you have no case, and you have no precedent; you have nothing.
 
What are you talking about? The Coptic, Armenian, Syrian, Indian, and Ethiopian Orthodox Church rejected Chalcedon as a whole. To say such a rejection put them outside of Orthodoxy, is evidence of you begging the question.

You are the one who claimed something to the effect of: “To deny the Ecumenicity of Chalcedon due to its OO opposition is akin to denying the ecumenicity of Ephesus 431 due to its Nestorian opposition.” In response, I have merely pointed out the obvious: The Nestorians rejected Ephesus 431 because they adopted heresy; the Orthodox Church rejected Chalcedon because Chalcedon allowed a loop-hole for the resurgence of an already condemned heresy and because it ex-communicated an Orthodox patriarch.

I never implied that it created the threat; this is absolutely irrelevant. I realise the threat preceded the council; its existence was the very reason why the Holy Council of Ephesus II (449) was held.

What is most relevant is your blatant admission that it failed to combat that threat — it in effect allowed that threat to continue — that is the loop-hole; the threat now found support in a council that was claimed to be both Ecumenical and Orthodox. The crypto-Nestorian opposition to Ephesus 431 and St Cyril, now found a new friend in the Council of Chalcedon. This is not the fruit of an Ecumenical Council.
 

Huh? I presupposed nothing of the sort, nor is your statement even relevant to anything I have said. I was referring to heresy as a doctrinal divergence from Orthodox dogma.

The only presupposition here is your own i.e. that the OO opposition to Chalcedon was of a “schismatic” nature.

It's really very simple, I don't understand what you're not getting. There is either valid opposition to a council or there is invalid opposition to a council. Opposing a council due to an adherence to heretical doctrine (i.e. Nestorian opposition to Ephesus 431) is an invalid basis of opposition. Opposing a council due to that council's self ex-communication (the corollary of a false-excommunication), and its weak and ambiguous theology that fails to adequately define Orthodoxy and that vindicates the already growing resurgence of crypto-Nestorianism, is a valid opposition to a council.

No, because you are presupposing that St Dioscorus' ex-communication was valid, and hence you are begging the question. The validity of the ex-communication of the Nestorians is contingent upon Nestorianism being a heretical doctrine. Since we both agree that it is, therefore the validity of the ex-communication of the Nestorians is not in question.

Furthermore I never claimed that Chalcedon wasn't Ecumenical by virtue of one figure's rejection of it. Chalcedon is not Ecumenical because it wasn't received by Orthodox faithful for valid reasons i.e. The reasonable perception of Chalcedon as a crypto-Nestorian council, in adition to the council's self-ex-communication when it falsely ex-communicated St Dioscorus, lawful Patriarch of Alexandria. Such valid reasons find no precedent in the reasons for resistance of any of the churches or factions opposed to any of the three Ecumenical Councils.

+Irini nem makarismos

The "injustice" went on without him. His presence might have helped, but couldn't have made it much worse.

Quite the speculation. If they wanted to get rid of him that bad they wouldn't have gone through the trouble of investigating the matter, questioning witnesses, and then asking Dioscorus himself. What you say makes no sense.

So schism is not a form of heresy?

Not at all. It's simply an application of the same logic you use in regards to Arians and Nestorians. As I have been saying along, you are trying to put your church as a special case, and fail to apply the same principles equally.

Again, it no more allowed a loophole than did Ephesus allow crypto-Nesotrianism to come into being. These things simply happened, and the Councils had to deal with the issues. Just because a Council doesn't perfectly destroy a heresy doesn't mean it intentionally leaves room for it.

That is exactly the point. So why do you insist that the crypto-Nestorian problem is someohow the result/fault of Chalcedon?

A lot of the early oppoisition wasn't schismatic, sure, but this doesn't change the end result.

Ecumenical Councils have the right to excommincate Patriarchs, unless the Patriarch believes he has some power over the Council... Anyways, weak and ambiguous is relative. Was Nicea weak and ambiguous for only defining the first part of the Creed? Was Constantinope weak and ambiguous for not defining the faith in such a way as to avoid Nestorianism? Again, you seem to think the other Ecumenical Councils are fine and dandy, yet when Chalcedon makes pronouncements that leave room for future heresy (no different than Nicea, etc did) you're all over it. "The Council didn't define doctrine xyz as clearly as I would like" is not a valid opposition.

Of course we agree that Nestorianism is a heretical doctrine, but the Nestorians didn't. This is what you are failing to see. It's only begging the question if you're on the other side. Besides the obvious doctrinal differences, you are claiming rejection of a Council in much the same manner the Nestorians or Arians did. So, if either of us were to presume the excommunication of either of those two groups was valid while talking to a member, to them, we'd be begging the question. The same is happening here. It's all point of view.

Of course there was some confusion at the time. Yet now, when it is clear Orthodoxy is not crypto-Nestorian, there is no reason to oppose it besides the excomminication of Dioscorus. And that depends on whether one thinks excommunication for willfully and knowingly violating a canon of the Church (a canon which we both uphold), with no sign of repentance or regret, is valid or not.
« Last Edit: December 18, 2005, 08:50:05 AM 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
EkhristosAnesti
'I will say of the Lord, "He is my refuge and my fortress; My God, in Him I will trust."' - Psalm 91:2
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #24 on: December 18, 2005, 10:13:10 AM »

Quote
The "injustice" went on without him. His presence might have helped, but couldn't have made it much worse.

The only thing his presence would have helped is the personal and ungodly agenda of those who required his presence in order to continue persecuting him. You are expecting St Dioscorus to co-operate with evil. To repeat myself for you:

St Dioscorus was doing nothing more than shaking the dust off his feet. This was no longer about whether St Dioscorus was right or wrong, for he clearly perceived that no one was interested in matters of right or wrong, they were only interested in their own personal agendas. St Dioscorus sufficiently made his case and was not obliged to continue defending himself against those whose reasonably perceived objective was to unjustly get rid of him by any means possible, without properly and fairly investigating the matter.

Quote
Quite the speculation. If they wanted to get rid of him that bad they wouldn't have gone through the trouble of investigating the matter, questioning witnesses, and then asking Dioscorus himself.


They obviously needed to find something to attempt to trap St Dioscorus on in order to superficially attempt to justify their persecution and humiliation of him. It makes perfect sense. Kind of like the lengths the Jews went to in order to humiliate and persecute Christ. The parallel is almost uncanny. The witnesses against Christ presented inconsistent and contradictory testimony; the witnesses against St Dioscorus presented inconsistent and contradictory testimony. Christ was struck on the mouth and his beard was plucked; St Dioscorus was struck on the mouth and his beard was plucked. Christ gave up attempting to defend Himself in the end, for He had already testified the Truth sufficiently to His accusers; St Dioscorus did likewise.

Quote
So schism is not a form of heresy?

Schism is not necessarily related to matters of faith. there is no point in playing smenatics here. I am using the word heresy to specifically denote false doctrine, for the convenience of this discussion. 

Quote
Not at all. It's simply an application of the same logic you use in regards to Arians and Nestorians.


Arians and Nestorians resisted Nicaea and Ephesus respectively, because they adopted false doctrine. The OO Church did not resist Chalcedon out of an adoption of false doctrine. There is no logical connection. Get it? No….Logical….connection….

Quote
Again, it no more allowed a loophole than did Ephesus allow crypto-Nestorianism to come into being.


Huh? The crypto-Nestorian movement was explicitly opposed to Ephesus 431. Never did crypto-Nestorians attempt to hide behind Ephesus 431 — it was the Formulary that they appealed to in order to vindicate their position. On the other hand, Crypto-Nestorianism found friendship with Chalcedon — as Salpy pointed out, people managed to uphold Chalcedon and celebrate the death of Nestorius at the same time. You yourself explicitly admit that Chalcedon allowed the crypto-Nestorianism to creep in via a loop-hole just a couple of posts ago. There’s no consistency in anything you’re saying; you’re all over the place.

Quote
A lot of the early oppoisition wasn't schismatic, sure, but this doesn't change the end result.

You’re not making any sense. If a church’s opposition to a council is valid, and hence not “schismatic”, how does the “end result” change?

Quote
Ecumenical Councils have the right to excommincate Patriarchs, unless the Patriarch believes he has some power over the Council...


You’re presupposing that Chalcedon is Ecumenical. According to the objective facts of history, the ex-communication of St Dioscorus was unwarranted, and hence the council ex-communicated itself. Ecumenical Councils do not ex-communicate themselves from the Church, therefore Chalcedon was not an Ecumenical Council.

Quote
Anyways, weak and ambiguous is relative. Was Nicea weak and ambiguous for only defining the first part of the Creed?


Nicaea was primarily convened to deal with Arianism. It was neither weak nor ambiguous, since the Arian heresy was sufficiently dealt with. The part of the Creed dealing with the Holy Spirit was simply not relevant to Nicaea’s principal purpose, and hence its absence from the initial Nicaean creed does not imply any weakness or ambiguity on behalf of Nicaea.

Quote
Was Constantinope weak and ambiguous for not defining the faith in such a way as to avoid Nestorianism?


No, since Nestorianism was not an Ecumenically relevant issue at the time. It wasn’t Constantinople’s problem. Constantinople merely had the duty of upholding the faith of Nicaea and dealing with the new heresies it was facing.

Quote
Again, you seem to think the other Ecumenical Councils are fine and dandy

Because they are. You have yet to prove how the OO criticisms of Chalcedon apply to any of the three Ecumenical Councils. Which Ecumenical Council ex-communicated an Orthodox Patriarch upon false grounds? Which Ecumenical Council compromised the effects of a preceding Ecumenical Council by vindicating a crypto form of the heresy for which that preceding Council sufficiently condemned?

Quote
, yet when Chalcedon makes pronouncements that leave room for future heresy (no different than Nicea, etc did) you're all over it. "The Council didn't define doctrine xyz as clearly as I would like" is not a valid opposition.

You’re attacking a straw man once again. Your dishonest presentation of my arguments is not appreciated at all. Your council exonerated Nestorian heretics (Theodoret) and their writings (the letter of Ibas), and gave support to the crypto-Nestorian movement (a lot of Chalcedonians were also Theodorians).  These historical facts, would never have be historical facts, had Chalcedon adequately defined Orthodoxy; it is obviously therefore not a matter of Chalcedon not defining doctrine to my personal satisfaction. There is a standard here; and that standard is the objective facts of history.

Quote
Of course we agree that Nestorianism is a heretical doctrine, but the Nestorians didn't. This is what you are failing to see.


I fail to see the relevance of what a Nestorian thinks. There are no Nestorians in this discussion. Are you a Nestorian?

Quote
It's only begging the question if you're on the other side.

For the life of me, how can I possibly be begging the question by presupposing something that is accepted by both sides of this discussion. Are you even listening to yourself? If you were a Nestorian, then I could understand the accusation that I am begging the question, but you are not, and there are no Nestorians in this discussion. We both agree upon what Orthodox Christology and what heretical Christology is. Nestorians resisted Ephesus 431 out of an adherence to heretical Christology. The OOC did not reject Chalcedon out of an adherence to heretical Christology. There is therefore no logical connection, between the Nestorian resistance to Ephesus 431 and the OO resistance to Chalcedon.

Quote
How can it be begging the question therefore, if I am presupposing 


Because that's what begging the question is. Presupposing something that you are yet to prove, and which requires proof by virtue of the fact that it is not mutually accepted by both sides of the discussion/debate.

Quote
Besides the obvious doctrinal differences, you are claiming rejection of a Council in much the same manner the Nestorians or Arians did.


For the life of me, explain to me how this is so. Did Nicaea or Ephesus falsely ex-communicate legitimate Orthodox patriarchs out of political lust? Nicaea was the first Ecumenical Council, and therefore there can be no question of it allowing for the resurgence of a heresy Ecumenically condemned. What about Constantinople; did Constantinople allow for the resurgence of Arianism? Which crypto-Arians, or crypto-Arian documents did Constantinople vindicate? Which group of Arians managed to claim allegiance to Constantinople 381 and Arian heretics at the same time? If you can’t answer any of these questions, then you cannot possibly claim any parallel between the Orthodox Church’s rejection of Chalcedon, and the rejection of the resistance groups to the three Ecumenical Councils.

Quote
Of course there was some confusion at the time. Yet now, when it is clear Orthodoxy is not crypto-Nestorian there is no reason to oppose it

Chalcedon will always be rejected for what it was, and not what it has become to Chalcedonians post-Constantinople 533.

Quote
besides the excomminication of Dioscorus. And that depends on whether one thinks excommunication for willfully and knowingly violating a canon of the Church, with no sign of repentance or regret, is valid or not.

I have already generally given sufficient and legitimate reason and justification for St Dioscorus’ refusal to answer the third summons; in any event, as I already told you, church canon law pertains to the refusal to answer three summons, and not merely one. St Dioscorus was under house arrest and was thus prevented from answering the first two summons by the imperial guards. Therefore, even if we were to approach the matter legalistically, by neglecting the reasons or justifications for non-compliance, and looking only at that which was willful and voluntary, then the ex-communication is still false, since St Dioscorus only wilfully and voluntarily refused one summons. It looks like you can’t win either way.

+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
Shankar
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Not Sure Yet
Posts: 39


« Reply #25 on: December 18, 2005, 01:40:58 PM »

Sorry if this interrupts the flow of the conversation, but are the minutes of Chalcedon published in a form that is widely accessible? 
« Last Edit: December 18, 2005, 01:41:17 PM by Shankar » Logged
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,146


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #26 on: December 18, 2005, 05:33:40 PM »

Sorry if this interrupts the flow of the conversation, but are the minutes of Chalcedon published in a form that is widely accessible? 

There are minutes of Chalcedon that are published, but there's a catch: minutes were kept by different parties with different purposes.  So the minutes kept by, say, the West (in Nicene/Post-Nicene Fathers series, for example) will differ in areas/details from other versions (say, the Pedalion).  Of course, that's how all accounts and disseminations of the councils go - some are going to make a point politically expedience to them (I've heard a Catholic try to tell me that Leo's Tome was accepted on its face without critical comparison, while I've read that the Synod actually didn't give it any creedence until they compared it to Cyril).

I think GiC has a link to the Pedalion online, but we haven't had a chance to check the text against the Greek to see if its an accurate translation;  meanwhile, the Nicene/Post-Nicene Fathers are online (I think ccel.org or something like that).
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
Shankar
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Not Sure Yet
Posts: 39


« Reply #27 on: December 18, 2005, 06:29:55 PM »

Cleveland, thanks for the information!  I'll try to keep in mind the source while reading any version of the minutes.
Logged
SaintShenouti
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 224


« Reply #28 on: December 18, 2005, 07:27:34 PM »

Quote
Umm..The Ecumenicity of a Council depends on its Ecumenical Reception. It's all in the name. I believe Chalcedon was invalid for it essentially ex-communicated itself in the course of its false ex-communication of St Dioscorus, and because it had drastic negative implications to the Orthodox theological world at the time, as I have already discussed with you in the afore-linked thread. Nestorianism found a loop-hole in Chalcedon.

Amen, and amen!

Remember the fathers.
Logged
Bizzlebin
Theologian
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #29 on: December 18, 2005, 08:09:17 PM »

The only thing his presence would have helped is the personal and ungodly agenda of those who required his presence in order to continue persecuting him. You are expecting St Dioscorus to co-operate with evil. To repeat myself for you:

St Dioscorus was doing nothing more than shaking the dust off his feet. This was no longer about whether St Dioscorus was right or wrong, for he clearly perceived that no one was interested in matters of right or wrong, they were only interested in their own personal agendas. St Dioscorus sufficiently made his case and was not obliged to continue defending himself against those whose reasonably perceived objective was to unjustly get rid of him by any means possible, without properly and fairly investigating the matter.
 

They obviously needed to find something to attempt to trap St Dioscorus on in order to superficially attempt to justify their persecution and humiliation of him. It makes perfect sense. Kind of like the lengths the Jews went to in order to humiliate and persecute Christ. The parallel is almost uncanny. The witnesses against Christ presented inconsistent and contradictory testimony; the witnesses against St Dioscorus presented inconsistent and contradictory testimony. Christ was struck on the mouth and his beard was plucked; St Dioscorus was struck on the mouth and his beard was plucked. Christ gave up attempting to defend Himself in the end, for He had already testified the Truth sufficiently to His accusers; St Dioscorus did likewise.

Schism is not necessarily related to matters of faith. there is no point in playing smenatics here. I am using the word heresy to specifically denote false doctrine, for the convenience of this discussion. 
 

Arians and Nestorians resisted Nicaea and Ephesus respectively, because they adopted false doctrine. The OO Church did not resist Chalcedon out of an adoption of false doctrine. There is no logical connection. Get it? No….Logical….connection….
 

Huh? The crypto-Nestorian movement was explicitly opposed to Ephesus 431. Never did crypto-Nestorians attempt to hide behind Ephesus 431 — it was the Formulary that they appealed to in order to vindicate their position. On the other hand, Crypto-Nestorianism found friendship with Chalcedon — as Salpy pointed out, people managed to uphold Chalcedon and celebrate the death of Nestorius at the same time. You yourself explicitly admit that Chalcedon allowed the crypto-Nestorianism to creep in via a loop-hole just a couple of posts ago. There’s no consistency in anything you’re saying; you’re all over the place.

You’re not making any sense. If a church’s opposition to a council is valid, and hence not “schismatic”, how does the “end result” change?
 

You’re presupposing that Chalcedon is Ecumenical. According to the objective facts of history, the ex-communication of St Dioscorus was unwarranted, and hence the council ex-communicated itself. Ecumenical Councils do not ex-communicate themselves from the Church, therefore Chalcedon was not an Ecumenical Council.
 

Nicaea was primarily convened to deal with Arianism. It was neither weak nor ambiguous, since the Arian heresy was sufficiently dealt with. The part of the Creed dealing with the Holy Spirit was simply not relevant to Nicaea’s principal purpose, and hence its absence from the initial Nicaean creed does not imply any weakness or ambiguity on behalf of Nicaea.
 

No, since Nestorianism was not an Ecumenically relevant issue at the time. It wasn’t Constantinople’s problem. Constantinople merely had the duty of upholding the faith of Nicaea and dealing with the new heresies it was facing.

Because they are. You have yet to prove how the OO criticisms of Chalcedon apply to any of the three Ecumenical Councils. Which Ecumenical Council ex-communicated an Orthodox Patriarch upon false grounds? Which Ecumenical Council compromised the effects of a preceding Ecumenical Council by vindicating a crypto form of the heresy for which that preceding Council sufficiently condemned?

You’re attacking a straw man once again. Your dishonest presentation of my arguments is not appreciated at all. Your council exonerated Nestorian heretics (Theodoret) and their writings (the letter of Ibas), and gave support to the crypto-Nestorian movement (a lot of Chalcedonians were also Theodorians).  These historical facts, would never have be historical facts, had Chalcedon adequately defined Orthodoxy; it is obviously therefore not a matter of Chalcedon not defining doctrine to my personal satisfaction. There is a standard here; and that standard is the objective facts of history.
 

I fail to see the relevance of what a Nestorian thinks. There are no Nestorians in this discussion. Are you a Nestorian?

For the life of me, how can I possibly be begging the question by presupposing something that is accepted by both sides of this discussion. Are you even listening to yourself? If you were a Nestorian, then I could understand the accusation that I am begging the question, but you are not, and there are no Nestorians in this discussion. We both agree upon what Orthodox Christology and what heretical Christology is. Nestorians resisted Ephesus 431 out of an adherence to heretical Christology. The OOC did not reject Chalcedon out of an adherence to heretical Christology. There is therefore no logical connection, between the Nestorian resistance to Ephesus 431 and the OO resistance to Chalcedon.
 

Because that's what begging the question is. Presupposing something that you are yet to prove, and which requires proof by virtue of the fact that it is not mutually accepted by both sides of the discussion/debate.
 

For the life of me, explain to me how this is so. Did Nicaea or Ephesus falsely ex-communicate legitimate Orthodox patriarchs out of political lust? Nicaea was the first Ecumenical Council, and therefore there can be no question of it allowing for the resurgence of a heresy Ecumenically condemned. What about Constantinople; did Constantinople allow for the resurgence of Arianism? Which crypto-Arians, or crypto-Arian documents did Constantinople vindicate? Which group of Arians managed to claim allegiance to Constantinople 381 and Arian heretics at the same time? If you can’t answer any of these questions, then you cannot possibly claim any parallel between the Orthodox Church’s rejection of Chalcedon, and the rejection of the resistance groups to the three Ecumenical Councils.

Chalcedon will always be rejected for what it was, and not what it has become to Chalcedonians post-Constantinople 533.

I have already generally given sufficient and legitimate reason and justification for St Dioscorus’ refusal to answer the third summons; in any event, as I already told you, church canon law pertains to the refusal to answer three summons, and not merely one. St Dioscorus was under house arrest and was thus prevented from answering the first two summons by the imperial guards. Therefore, even if we were to approach the matter legalistically, by neglecting the reasons or justifications for non-compliance, and looking only at that which was willful and voluntary, then the ex-communication is still false, since St Dioscorus only wilfully and voluntarily refused one summons. It looks like you can’t win either way.

+Irini nem makarismos

Again, who is to say that it wasn't the Council who felt that way about Diocosus, that he would never repent? You have to see it from both angles, and not simply make Diocorus the "gold standard" of truth and everyone who disagrees with him a total liar. One of the few ways to know for sure what each side truly stood for was to hear them talk in Chalcedon. Diocorus conveniently refused to do this.

To compare Christ to Diocorus is simply silly. You seem to forget that Chalcedon did not condemn Cyrillian Christology, yet you are making it seem that Diocorus was persecuted for it. Not true. Arius was also beaten to some degree, but you're not defnding him. Again, you're ignoring every "wrong" done by a Council unless it involves your Church, when such wrongs becomes completely evil and "proof" that Orthodoxy was never right anyway. This is the bias you cannot seem to see.

Of course, in common discussion, the two are different. But in the most technical sense, schism is heresy, and that is the point.

See above, schism.

You yet fail to remember that Chalcedon upheld all pronouncements made at Ephesus. Any true loopholes were perceived, and were no different than the "loopholes" of other Councils. (Hence why I originally surrounded my coined term of loopholes in quotation marks).

The non-schismatic oppostition ended because it was realized that Chalcedon was not, in fact, Nestorian. The schismatic opposition didn't.

If you referring to the objective view of history which only Coptics seems to be "skilled" enough to realize, then sure.

So, you have basically stated that an Ecumenical Council is not responsible for any future heresies, or variation of heresies, that appear. You accusation of Chalcedon as opening the way to a new form of heresy then becomes baseless. You can't hold Chalcedon responsible for allowing a new form of heresy while you hold the other Ciuncils to a different standard. Further, it is you who have yet to prove that Chalcedon "vindicated" crypto-Nestorianism anymore than Nicea vindicated early forms of Gnosticism simply because it didn't address all of them.

If it is a strawman, then you don't have troube with Chalcedon not clearly defining Orthodoxy in such a manner as to exclude the crypto-Nestorians?

Again, you are not understanding how relative begging the question is. That is the point. As I said, besides the doctrinal differences, you have much the same position as others who broke off from the Orthodox Church. The only reason you do not see this is because you believe Diocsorus was wrongly excommunicated. As I have been saying, put yourself in Orthodox shoes for a moment, and then compare this schism with another, ignoring the doctrinal differences.

Show when the interpretation of Chalcedon changed, or when a council considered Ecumenical by said "Chalcedon wasn't really correct."

That assumes Diocorus wouldn't have answered another summons. You yourself seem to indicate he wouldn't. The Council may has well have called a hundred times. This is certainly not legalism.
Logged

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

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #30 on: December 18, 2005, 11:09:52 PM »

Quote
Again, who is to say that it wasn't the Council who felt that way about Diocosus, that he would never repent?


If that was the attitude of the council, then this simply further emphasizes their being schismatic heretics, for how could St Dioscorus repent of a crime he never committed, and that he was never legitimately found guilty of? None of the charges laid against him were sufficiently investigated; the grounds of his initial deposition and consequent ex-communication were all false. I have already proved all of this to you in previous threads.

Quote
One of the few ways to know for sure what each side truly stood for was to hear them talk in Chalcedon. Diocorus conveniently refused to do this.

St Dioscorus attended the first session in its entirety; sufficient discussion took place — enough to reveal the evil and hidden agendas of many. St Dioscorus was well-prepared to attend the next session; however by the time he had received the third summons, those summoning him had revealed certain information to him which constituted the last straw of injustice that St Dioscorus had patiently put up with till that time. There is nothing but wisdom and prudence in the action of  St Dioscorus, following the divine command to the Apostles, by shaking the dust off his feet; he was not foolish or gullible enough to allow the enemy to continue mocking and humiliating his person, The Church and the Orthodox Faith; he was not obliged to allow that to eventuate, in fact he was obliged on the contrary, not to throw pearls before swine, in accordance with the divine command. If you can’t see it like this, then that is fine — I’m not trying to convert you. We can agree to disagree.

Quote
To compare Christ to Diocorus is simply silly. You seem to forget that Chalcedon did not condemn Cyrillian Christology, yet you are making it seem that Diocorus was persecuted for it.


When did Cyrillian Christology come into this discussion? Why do you always seem to jump all over the place? I have already discussed how Chalcedon in effect undermined Cyrillian Christology and Ephesus 431 (in the thread that I linked to on the first page of this thread), even if lip-service was paid to St Cyril, and even if there were a few genuine Cyrillians at that Council. Please don’t extend this discussion any further into already dealt with issues; it’s already boring enough.

Quote
Arius was also beaten to some degree, but you're not defnding him.

Arius was a heretic who denied Christ’s consubstantiality to the Father. Why would I defend him? I didn’t even make the analogy to Christ exclusively upon the fact St Dioscorus was unjustly beaten, so why are you ignoring everything else?

Quote
Again, you're ignoring every "wrong" done by a Council unless it involves your Church,


No I am not. Was it wrong that Arius was hit? Maybe, but who cares; I never said Chalcedon was a schismatic council simply because St Dioscorus was hit, so you’re not making any valid point here. You’re simply desperate for anything and everything to attack and argue with, and believe me it doesn’t look good on your side. You can keep responding to me till forever, but your last 4-5 posts have degenerated so badly according to the quality of arguments, that you’re really only doing your side a disservice. That is the only reason I continue to respond to you depsite how boring and circular this dialogue is, because you keep presenting me with golden opportunities to expose cop-outs and obvious weaknesses.

Quote
Of course, in common discussion, the two are different. But in the most technical sense, schism is heresy, and that is the point.

What point does this prove? What relevance does it have to the discussion? I made the distinction between heretical resistance to Ephesus 431 and Orthodox resistance to Chalcedon upon the basis of doctrinal grounds. The Nestorians were an heretical resistance because their resistance was motivated by an adherence to false Christology. The resistance to Chalcedon was Orthodox since their opposition to Chalcedon was not based on a false Christology. This very simple and obvious observation debunks your whole attempt to try and prove an analogy between the two situations. If you want to equate schism with heresy, then go ahead and be my guest, but you have yet to even establish that the OO Church is schismatic; their opposition to Chalcedon was and remains valid and legitimate, and the fact such an opposition has nothing to do with an adherence to false Christology, renders their opposition non-analogous to the Arians or the Nestorians. Why is it that you seem to have trouble understanding this very simple fact?

Quote
You yet fail to remember that Chalcedon upheld all pronouncements made at Ephesus.


I already proved to you in the other thread that lip-service paid to Ephesus was practically superfluous. An anti-Ephesian Theodorian movement found a friend at Chalcedon, whilst true Alexandrine Cyrillians found an enemy at Chalcedon.

Quote
Any true loopholes were perceived, and were no different than the "loopholes" of other Councils. (Hence why I originally surrounded my coined term of loopholes in quotation marks).

First of all, I have been using the term “loophole” long before you were even born on this forum. Second of all, there was no loop-hole in any of the Three Ecumenical Councils — stop making claims and start giving evidence. The loop-holes that I speak of are loop-holes allowing for the resurgence of an already previously Ecumenically condemned heresy. This leaves Nicaea from possible qualification, since it was the first Ecumenical Council. Prove to me what loop-holes existed at Ephesus 431 or Constantinople 381.

Quote
The non-schismatic oppostition ended because it was realized that Chalcedon was not, in fact, Nestorian. The schismatic opposition didn't.

No, it was never realized that Chalcedon was not in fact Nestorian. What a load of rubbish. In its immediate historical context Chalcedon vindicated crypto-Nestorian heretics, crypto-Nestorian documents, other documents with crypto-Nestorian expressions, and essentially provided a loophole for the crypto-Nestorian movement to continue growing. Therefore you had Theodorian Chalcedonians, and Chalcedonians celebrating the death of Nestorius.  All these events lead the Church to severe disunity; Chalcedon was therefore a council of schism, and it was rejected as such, and no subsequent event could change what Chalcedon was, since what it was, was history, and history cannot be changed. Constantinople 533 could attempt to re-interpret it however way it wished, but this did not change the fact of what Chalcedon was in its immediate historical context.

Quote
So, you have basically stated that an Ecumenical Council is not responsible for any future heresies, or variation of heresies, that appear. You accusation of Chalcedon as opening the way to a new form of heresy then becomes baseless.


He-lloooooooo…didn’t we both just agree a few posts ago that crypto-Nestorianism existed before Chalcedon? Chalcedon therefore vindicated an already existing heresy that was condemned as such by a previous Ecumenical Council. There is no precedent for this in the history of any of the Three Ecumenical Councils.

Quote
Again, you are not understanding how relative begging the question is.


Relative to what? Relative to this discussion I am not begging the question. Unless you are a Nestorian yourself, then don’t accuse me of begging the question for presupposing Nestorianism to be a false Christology. The level of desperation to which your arguments have stooped, is nothing short of incredible.

Quote
That is the point. As I said, besides the doctrinal differences, you have much the same position as others who broke off from the Orthodox Church.


Prove it. I have asked you 10 times in the last 10 posts to prove to me where any parallel exists between the Orthodox Church’s rejection of your schismatic council, and the heretical resistance to The only Three Ecumenical Councils. Fact: The Orthodox Church rejected Chalcedon because it allowed a loop-hole for the resurgence of an already condemned heresy, and because it falsely ex-communicated an Orthodox Patriarch. Fact: Nestorians rejected Ephesus 431 because they adhered to a false Christology. Any child can see that there is clearly no parallel.

Quote
Show when the interpretation of Chalcedon changed, or when a council considered Ecumenical by said "Chalcedon wasn't really correct."

I’m not running around in your circles Bizzlebin, stop wasting my time — read the other thread, Salpy and I have already dealt with this. You don’t want to listen, fine, don’t; it’s up to you. No one is trying to convert you.

Quote
That assumes Diocorus wouldn't have answered another summons.


We don’t assume. The canon law in question pertains to one who actually rejects three official summons, and not one who rejects one and who may possibly or probably have rejected another two. Deal with it. If you want to be legalistic about this, that is the legalistic response. There is simply no way out for you — simply because, there is never a way out for schism.

+Irini nem ehmot   
Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #31 on: December 19, 2005, 04:12:45 AM »

If that was the attitude of the council, then this simply further emphasizes their being schismatic heretics, for how could St Dioscorus repent of a crime he never committed, and that he was never legitimately found guilty of? None of the charges laid against him were sufficiently investigated; the grounds of his initial deposition and consequent ex-communication were all false. I have already proved all of this to you in previous threads.

St Dioscorus attended the first session in its entirety; sufficient discussion took place — enough to reveal the evil and hidden agendas of many. St Dioscorus was well-prepared to attend the next session; however by the time he had received the third summons, those summoning him had revealed certain information to him which constituted the last straw of injustice that St Dioscorus had patiently put up with till that time. There is nothing but wisdom and prudence in the action of  St Dioscorus, following the divine command to the Apostles, by shaking the dust off his feet; he was not foolish or gullible enough to allow the enemy to continue mocking and humiliating his person, The Church and the Orthodox Faith; he was not obliged to allow that to eventuate, in fact he was obliged on the contrary, not to throw pearls before swine, in accordance with the divine command. If you can’t see it like this, then that is fine — I’m not trying to convert you. We can agree to disagree.
 

When did Cyrillian Christology come into this discussion? Why do you always seem to jump all over the place? I have already discussed how Chalcedon in effect undermined Cyrillian Christology and Ephesus 431 (in the thread that I linked to on the first page of this thread), even if lip-service was paid to St Cyril, and even if there were a few genuine Cyrillians at that Council. Please don’t extend this discussion any further into already dealt with issues; it’s already boring enough.

Arius was a heretic who denied Christ’s consubstantiality to the Father. Why would I defend him? I didn’t even make the analogy to Christ exclusively upon the fact St Dioscorus was unjustly beaten, so why are you ignoring everything else?
 

No I am not. Was it wrong that Arius was hit? Maybe, but who cares; I never said Chalcedon was a schismatic council simply because St Dioscorus was hit, so you’re not making any valid point here. You’re simply desperate for anything and everything to attack and argue with, and believe me it doesn’t look good on your side. You can keep responding to me till forever, but your last 4-5 posts have degenerated so badly according to the quality of arguments, that you’re really only doing your side a disservice. That is the only reason I continue to respond to you depsite how boring and circular this dialogue is, because you keep presenting me with golden opportunities to expose cop-outs and obvious weaknesses.

What point does this prove? What relevance does it have to the discussion? I made the distinction between heretical resistance to Ephesus 431 and Orthodox resistance to Chalcedon upon the basis of doctrinal grounds. The Nestorians were an heretical resistance because their resistance was motivated by an adherence to false Christology. The resistance to Chalcedon was Orthodox since their opposition to Chalcedon was not based on a false Christology. This very simple and obvious observation debunks your whole attempt to try and prove an analogy between the two situations. If you want to equate schism with heresy, then go ahead and be my guest, but you have yet to even establish that the OO Church is schismatic; their opposition to Chalcedon was and remains valid and legitimate, and the fact such an opposition has nothing to do with an adherence to false Christology, renders their opposition non-analogous to the Arians or the Nestorians. Why is it that you seem to have trouble understanding this very simple fact?
 

I already proved to you in the other thread that lip-service paid to Ephesus was practically superfluous. An anti-Ephesian Theodorian movement found a friend at Chalcedon, whilst true Alexandrine Cyrillians found an enemy at Chalcedon.

First of all, I have been using the term “loophole” long before you were even born on this forum. Second of all, there was no loop-hole in any of the Three Ecumenical Councils — stop making claims and start giving evidence. The loop-holes that I speak of are loop-holes allowing for the resurgence of an already previously Ecumenically condemned heresy. This leaves Nicaea from possible qualification, since it was the first Ecumenical Council. Prove to me what loop-holes existed at Ephesus 431 or Constantinople 381.

No, it was never realized that Chalcedon was not in fact Nestorian. What a load of rubbish. In its immediate historical context Chalcedon vindicated crypto-Nestorian heretics, crypto-Nestorian documents, other documents with crypto-Nestorian expressions, and essentially provided a loophole for the crypto-Nestorian movement to continue growing. Therefore you had Theodorian Chalcedonians, and Chalcedonians celebrating the death of Nestorius.  All these events lead the Church to severe disunity; Chalcedon was therefore a council of schism, and it was rejected as such, and no subsequent event could change what Chalcedon was, since what it was, was history, and history cannot be changed. Constantinople 533 could attempt to re-interpret it however way it wished, but this did not change the fact of what Chalcedon was in its immediate historical context.
 

He-lloooooooo…didn’t we both just agree a few posts ago that crypto-Nestorianism existed before Chalcedon? Chalcedon therefore vindicated an already existing heresy that was condemned as such by a previous Ecumenical Council. There is no precedent for this in the history of any of the Three Ecumenical Councils.
 

Relative to what? Relative to this discussion I am not begging the question. Unless you are a Nestorian yourself, then don’t accuse me of begging the question for presupposing Nestorianism to be a false Christology. The level of desperation to which your arguments have stooped, is nothing short of incredible.
 

Prove it. I have asked you 10 times in the last 10 posts to prove to me where any parallel exists between the Orthodox Church’s rejection of your schismatic council, and the heretical resistance to The only Three Ecumenical Councils. Fact: The Orthodox Church rejected Chalcedon because it allowed a loop-hole for the resurgence of an already condemned heresy, and because it falsely ex-communicated an Orthodox Patriarch. Fact: Nestorians rejected Ephesus 431 because they adhered to a false Christology. Any child can see that there is clearly no parallel.

I’m not running around in your circles Bizzlebin, stop wasting my time — read the other thread, Salpy and I have already dealt with this. You don’t want to listen, fine, don’t; it’s up to you. No one is trying to convert you.
 

We don’t assume. The canon law in question pertains to one who actually rejects three official summons, and not one who rejects one and who may possibly or probably have rejected another two. Deal with it. If you want to be legalistic about this, that is the legalistic response. There is simply no way out for you — simply because, there is never a way out for schism.

+Irini nem ehmot   


So if Diocosrus has such an attitude, it only proves he was right, while if the Council had the very same attitude, it's proof they were wrong? Sounds like blind bias to me.

What is this "certain information" he received?

It was not I, but you, who made reference to it, when you compared Jesus being persecuted for His teachings to Diocorus being persecuted for his.

I am not ignoring everything else. I already addressed the teachings question, which you accused of bringing in something that you brought up (see above), and as for inconsistent testimonies, what is the Nestorianism vs Nestorius issue but that? Yet I still find it odd that whether or not Arius was a heretic, you have no problem with him being beaten, yet when it comes to Dioscorus and schism, you think it's completely wrong. Is it ok to beat up heretics or something?

As I have been saying, you are not able to see any side but your own. You see my arguements as "circular" and lacking quality yet I can quote you as post the one posting the same thing over and over again. The ad hominem is simply uncalled for. If you believe this discussion is going nowhere, you are not being forced to participate. You fail to realize that all the discussions I've had with you until now have lagely been formative of my beliefs, and seem to take everything as a personal attack. Having been fairly neutral in the beginning (perhaps in fact sympathising with the Coptic position), you have only pushed me further from it.

Opposition that promotes schism is heretical.

You stated there was lip service many times, you have yet in any way to prove it. Your entire arguement  is based Chalcedon changing the faith, which means the pronouncements were mere lip service, which means Chalcedon changed tha fai...wait, a circular arguement!  Tongue

Then our definition of loopholes is different. But, as I noted above, until you can prove Chalcedon undid what previous Councils did, you have no arguement here.

Again, prove, without circular reasoning, that Chalcedon changed the faith, or Constantinople changed Chalcedon. Then your arguement can have validity.

Pre-Chalcedonian crypto-Nestorianism vs slight post-Chalcedonian variants made to capitalize on the perceived crypto-Nestorian vindication. No contradiction.

The problem lies in the fact that the same way Nestorius or Arius were excommunicated (during an Ecumenical Council) is the same way Dioscorus was excommunicated. This is why I brought it up. The same methods were employed to excommunicate three people, yet you see one differently. You don't see it as begging the uqestion because you are looking only at the results. I see it differently because I am also looking at the methods. This little tangent came about entirely because we are seeing the same events in two different ways.

The only reason you cannot see the similarities is because you can't let go of your position long enough to consider another point of view. Look at it from the Orthodox angle and Dioscorus is simply another man who was excommunicated during an Ecumenical Council. Further, you have yet to prove Chalcedon changed anything, or that Dioscorus was falsely excommunicated (that's what this dicusion is largely about)

I have read the other posts in the other thread, but I did not see the part where that was proven. If you believe I overlooked it, please direct me to it.

Sorry if I missed this, but where is the full text of the canon on the three summons? I'll be happy to address that last point, just need to look over the canon for something I just thought 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
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #32 on: December 19, 2005, 04:44:29 AM »

Am I right that the rift of Chalcedon was over political power?
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #33 on: December 19, 2005, 05:01:38 AM »

Am I right that the rift of Chalcedon was over political power?

To some degree, yes. The main issue was the excommunication of Dioscorus, which, according to some, had strongly political motivation. I definately think that politics was involved (rivalry between the Patriarchates), though at the fundamental level the issue had to do with the still-unclear events surrounding the council in 449 and the Chalcedon itself. The rift itself was only begun with the excommunication of Dioscorus, however, and later, fear that Chalcedon was crypro-Nestorian and also fear that Rome was trying to take power over the Church ultimately completed the schism.
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
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #34 on: December 19, 2005, 05:04:15 AM »

Given that politics, rather than theology, motivated the rift, why not forgive and forget the mistakes of the past?
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #35 on: December 19, 2005, 05:30:44 AM »

Given that politics, rather than theology, motivated the rift, why not forgive and forget the mistakes of the past?

If the rift had stopped with Dioscorus, or if he had sought to heal it himself, that would be possible. But the other two things I mentioned as completing the rift (perceived crypto-Nestorianism and fear of Rome), these must also now be dealt with.

As I touched on in another thread, if the situation is treated like that with John of Antioch, re-union is possible. For the OO, that means they must accept all Seven Ecumenical Councils (though obviously they shouldn't see Chalcedon as crypto-Nestorian). For the EO, that means accepting all the OO back, from Dioscorus to today, admitting the mistake of excommunicating him (without intrfering with the Ecumenicity of Chalcedon, as was done with John of Antioch at an earlier Ecumenical Council), and re-assuring everyone that Chalcedon was not crypto-Nestorian and didn't alter the faith. Certainly, though, there will be many people who oppose this on both sides, favoring a more all-or-nothing approach to their demands.
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
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #36 on: December 19, 2005, 05:35:41 AM »

If Chalcedon did not alter the faith, why was it necessary?
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #37 on: December 19, 2005, 05:46:46 AM »

If Chalcedon did not alter the faith, why was it necessary?

No Ecumenical Councils alter the faith, they only clarify it to some degree.
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
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #38 on: December 19, 2005, 05:57:47 AM »

No Ecumenical Councils alter the faith, they only clarify it to some degree.

Given that the previous Council accepted "One incarnate nature" rather than two natures, Chalcedon did change the faith.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #39 on: December 19, 2005, 06:04:33 AM »

Given that the previous Council accepted "One incarnate nature" rather than two natures, Chalcedon did change the faith.

That would be monophysitism. Neither pre-Chalcedonian Orthodox, EO, or OO subscribe to that.
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
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #40 on: December 19, 2005, 06:20:46 AM »

That would be monophysitism. Neither pre-Chalcedonian Orthodox, EO, or OO subscribe to that.

Not monophystism but miaphysitism. As St. Cyril explained, as the Council of Ephesus accepted, there is the "one incarnate nature of God the Word" out of two natures. Jesus is fully divine and fully human in one divine-human nature.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #41 on: December 19, 2005, 06:34:00 AM »

Not monophystism but miaphysitism. As St. Cyril explained, as the Council of Ephesus accepted, there is the "one incarnate nature of God the Word" out of two natures. Jesus is fully divine and fully human in one divine-human nature.

That is the difference between monophysitism and miaphysitism: the hypostasis (which you didn't mention earlier).
Logged

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

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

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Posts: 2,743


Pope St Kyrillos VI


« Reply #42 on: December 19, 2005, 09:30:30 AM »

Bizzlebin,

I don’t think there is any edifying purpose to pursue this discussion any further; it’s starting to get repetitive from where I stand, and I simply don’t have the time to keep up with it. I call upon anyone capable of making honest and sound judgment, to read this particular exchange from its inception (against the background of the exchange that took place here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=7555.msg98669#msg98669), in order to draw their own conclusions. As far as I’m concerned most of your criticisms have already been answered, others are desperate distortions of my actual arguments, and the rest defy simple logic or even common sense.

I will gladly answer to anyone else’s input, remarks or inquiries regarding the issues being discussed, but I think our time is out. Thanks for the discussion nonetheless.

+Irini nem makarismos
Logged

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

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

Faith: Orthodoxy
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 714

MonkBot, Go Forth!


WWW
« Reply #43 on: December 19, 2005, 06:00:37 PM »

Bizzlebin,

I don’t think there is any edifying purpose to pursue this discussion any further; it’s starting to get repetitive from where I stand, and I simply don’t have the time to keep up with it. I call upon anyone capable of making honest and sound judgment, to read this particular exchange from its inception (against the background of the exchange that took place here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=7555.msg98669#msg98669), in order to draw their own conclusions. As far as I’m concerned most of your criticisms have already been answered, others are desperate distortions of my actual arguments, and the rest defy simple logic or even common sense.

I will gladly answer to anyone else’s input, remarks or inquiries regarding the issues being discussed, but I think our time is out. Thanks for the discussion nonetheless.

+Irini nem makarismos


Don't forget point of view again. To me, it is your arguements which are repetitive, desperate, logically unsound, etc. But neither of us are truly qualified to make such a statement since we are both very participating, and thoroughly biased, parties. I look forward to discussing other issues with you though Smiley
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
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #44 on: December 20, 2005, 05:25:20 AM »

As far as I’m concerned most of your criticisms have already been answered

What about my criticism that Chalcedon's motivations were mostly political? This seems new to the forum.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Tags:
Pages: 1   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 0.216 seconds with 72 queries.