OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 24, 2014, 04:25:10 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Assyrian Church of the East  (Read 63316 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,355


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #315 on: January 01, 2010, 01:35:12 PM »

It's my understanding that they reject even "The Word of God suffered in the flesh."

Tell me more.


Saying "Christ suffered" is not necessarily the same thing if you believe in separation between Christ and the Word of God.

That's assuming that they do believe in separation between Christ and the Word of God but they insist that they don't. They just don't go into the "mechanics" of the union like you guys do, they simply believe that there is union.

Read this thread.  Rafa speaks repeatedly about the Messiah as having blood, etc. but God the Word can't.  He's been separating them during this entire discussion:

     The COE does not call Mary "Theotokos" since Mary gave birth to the humanity not the divinity. The Holy Spirit crafted a human body, a "Temple" for God, but the humanity and Divinity are separate.


And it's not because we have failed to qualify what we have been saying with the phrase "in the flesh."  We've made it very clear all along that when we attribute blood, suffering, etc. to the Word of God, that we mean within the Incarnation, "in the flesh."  Very early on in this discussion I cited St. Cyril's anathema and emphasized "in the flesh," and Rafa rejected even that:

When we say that the Incarnate Word of God suffered in the flesh and tasted death in the flesh (See St. Cyril's 12th anathema and the EO's Fifth Council,) we are expressing the reality of the union of divinity and humanity in the Incarnation. 
Logged

Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #316 on: January 01, 2010, 01:43:55 PM »

It's my understanding that they reject even "The Word of God suffered in the flesh."

Tell me more.


Saying "Christ suffered" is not necessarily the same thing if you believe in separation between Christ and the Word of God.

That's assuming that they do believe in separation between Christ and the Word of God but they insist that they don't. They just don't go into the "mechanics" of the union like you guys do, they simply believe that there is union.

Read this thread.  Rafa speaks repeatedly about the Messiah as having blood, etc. but God the Word can't.  He's been separating them during this entire discussion:

     The COE does not call Mary "Theotokos" since Mary gave birth to the humanity not the divinity. The Holy Spirit crafted a human body, a "Temple" for God, but the humanity and Divinity are separate.


And it's not because we have failed to qualify what we have been saying with the phrase "in the flesh."  We've made it very clear all along that when we attribute blood, suffering, etc. to the Word of God, that we mean within the Incarnation, "in the flesh."  Very early on in this discussion I cited St. Cyril's anathema and emphasized "in the flesh," and Rafa rejected even that:

When we say that the Incarnate Word of God suffered in the flesh and tasted death in the flesh (See St. Cyril's 12th anathema and the EO's Fifth Council,) we are expressing the reality of the union of divinity and humanity in the Incarnation. 

Well that's Rafa, he's obviously not accurately expressing his church's Christology and he wouldn't be the first. Perhaps it wasn't his intention to make this impression, I don't know, I don't know him personally so I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps it's just a case where things are "coming out wrong" - this happens to all of us. But if this is what Rafa personally believes then, well, the COE's christology is different. Remember Rafa has said that he himself is not a "expert" on this topic.


Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,355


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #317 on: January 01, 2010, 01:54:48 PM »

I don't know if Rafa is accurately expressing his Church's beliefs, but it seems he was catechized by the COE.  Also, what I think started this whole thing was something that I quoted from their catechism which compared Christ and his divinity to the President and the office of the presidency.  Again, that is not something I or any other OO would ever say.

You seem to feel that the COE confesses that "the Word of God suffered in the flesh."  If that is so, then I would like to see someone from the COE actually confess that, in those words. 

Saying that "Jesus Christ" suffered is not necessarily the same thing if the relationship between Christ and the Word is the same as the relationship between the man who is the president and the office of the presidency.
Logged

Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,355


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #318 on: January 01, 2010, 02:03:19 PM »

By the way, I know I have read that Mar Babai the Great explicitly rejected the Theopaschite formula which the EO's put in their fifth council.
Logged

Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #319 on: January 01, 2010, 02:03:43 PM »

Now I'm no authority on the issue but it seems to me that The AOC with this diagram doesn't believe in a pre-incarnate Christ or Holy Spirit.

Can you explain how you got this impression?

Where kyana represents two natures, gnoma is representing a separation of the essence or Kyana. Giving the impression that the holy spirit and Christ have there beginning in time. While kyana also represent the fragmenting of human nature, it doesn't differentiate whether that human nature is preexistent or not. In other words the diagram is equating human nature with its own essence. While in orthodoxy the ousia is specific to just the trinity.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #320 on: January 01, 2010, 02:40:27 PM »

Shalom Salpy,

It's OK I'm also still learning Wink

I don't know if Rafa is accurately expressing his Church's beliefs, but it seems he was catechized by the COE. Also, what I think started this whole thing was something that I quoted from their catechism which compared Christ and his divinity to the President and the office of the presidency.  Again, that is not something I or any other OO would ever say.

OK let me review that quote:

Quote
35)   In what sense can we recognize or acknowledge certain theological terminology used by our beloved sister apostolic churches who will address The Ever Virgin Mary as “The Mother of God”??

The Orthodox position will declare this: The Blessed Mother did not give birth to His Godhead, which is from eternal; but rather she had given birth to His manhood, at the end of time, still it is right to be called “the Mother of God,” why?  Because He who is born of her is at once God and Man.  By way of example: The mother of the President of the United States did not give birth to his presidency, she gave birth to the man; and indeed we call her the mother of the President; and again, the Catholicos Patriarch of the East received his office from The Church, and not from his mother who bore him, and we do call her the mother of the Patriarch.

This Catechism was compiled for the Assyrian Church of the East Youth Ministry, so I'm guessing that they were trying to use analogies simple enough for kids to understand? I really don't know Salpy, I didn't compile this, I suppose you can write to those who teach this Catechism (Diocese of California) for clarification.

What kind of analogies would OOs use?

You seem to feel that the COE confesses that "the Word of God suffered in the flesh."  If that is so, then I would like to see someone from the COE actually confess that, in those words.


I'll try to find at least one quote from an official document, in addition to what Deacon Lance has already posted from the Catechism:

It's my understanding that they reject even "The Word of God suffered in the flesh."

Saying "Christ suffered" is not necessarily the same thing if you believe in separation between Christ and the Word of God.

5) In the Creed we confess: “ . . . He suffered and was crucified in the days of Pontius Pilate . . .” what is the purpose for this statement?

To show to the believer, that our Lord did indeed and in fact suffered and died, to give evidence of His humanity, contrary to the heresy of one of the early centuries of The Church history, who taught that Jesus Christ was a phantom.  “ . . . know ye that the Spirit of God, every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God . . . and every spirit that confesses not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God . . . and this that spirit of anti-Christ, whereof ye have heard that it should come and even now is already in the world . .” (I John 4:2,3)

7)   How is it possible to apply suffering and death to our Lord Jesus Christ, since we confess Him as God?

His suffering is not applied to His Godhead, but rather to that of His humanity (manhood), not because He could not have avoided it, but by an act of love and willingly accepted the consequences of humanity and their sin.  It is written, “ . . . My Father doth love Me, because I lay down My life, that I might take it again.  No man takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself, I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.  This have I received of My Father . . .”  (John 10:17:18)

http://www.acoeyouth.org/Learn/catechism/cat.html

Also the COE does recite the Nicene Creed which includes this statement:

"...he was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and was buried, and the third day he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father;"

Saying that "Jesus Christ" suffered is not necessarily the same thing if the relationship between Christ and the Word is the same as the relationship between the man who is the president and the office of the presidency.

Fair enough but can we really determine that that's the case if we don't look at the Catechism as a whole?

By the way, I know I have read that Mar Babai the Great explicitly rejected the Theopaschite formula which the EO's put in their fifth council.

As he should've.

Now I'm no authority on the issue but it seems to me that The AOC with this diagram doesn't believe in a pre-incarnate Christ or Holy Spirit.

Can you explain how you got this impression?

Where kyana represents two natures, gnoma is representing a separation of the essence or Kyana. Giving the impression that the holy spirit and Christ have there beginning in time. While kyana also represent the fragmenting of human nature, it doesn't differentiate whether that human nature is preexistent or not. In other words the diagram is equating human nature with its own essence. While in orthodoxy the ousia is specific to just the trinity.

A diagram should always be accompanied by an explanation of it to put it into perspective IMO, so what do you think when I accompany this:



with this:

Quote
“A singular essence is called a ‘qnoma’. It stands alone, one in number, that is, one as distinct from the many. A qnoma is invariable in its natural state and is bound to a species and nature, being one [numerically] among a number of like qnome. It is distinctive among its fellow qnome [only] by reason of any unique property or characteristic which it possesses in its ‘parsopa’. With rational creatures this [uniqueness] may consist of various [external and internal] accidents, such as excellent or evil character, or knowledge or ignorance, and with irrational creatures [as also with the rational] the combination of various contrasting features. [Through the parsopa we distinguish that] Gabriel is not Michael, and Paul is not Peter. However, in each qnoma of any given nature the entire common nature is known, and intellectually one recognizes what that nature, which encompasses all its qnome, consists of. A qnoma does not encompass the nature as a whole [but exemplifies what is common to the nature, such as, in a human qnoma, body, soul, mind, etc.].”—Fourth Memra, Book of the Union, Published by Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Paris, 1915, A. Vaschalde, ed.

This diagram is not about chronology of existance but level of existence - abstract, concrete and material.

Logged
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #321 on: January 01, 2010, 02:41:44 PM »

From the Assyrian Liturgy:

[The priest and the deacons kneel three times towards the place of the paten and the chalice. The priest proceeds and takes the paten, and the deacon the chalice. The priest begins the anthem:]

Priest: I waited patiently for the Lord.

The body of Christ and His precious blood are upon the holy altar. Let us all draw near unto Him in fear and love and with all the angels sing aloud unto Him: Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God.
[The deacons respond:]

The poor shall eat and be satisfied.

The body of Christ and his precious blood are upon the holy altar. Let us all draw near unto Him in fear and love and with the angels sing aloud unto Him: Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God.

Let us pray. Peace be with us.

[The priest then holds the paten in his right hand and the chalice in his left hand in the form of the cross and says:]

Let us send up praise to Thy glorious Trinity at all times for ever. May Christ, Who was sacrificed for our salvation and Who commanded us to make a commemoration of His death and burial and resurrection, accept this sacrifice at our hands by His grace and mercy for ever. Amen.

Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,237


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #322 on: January 01, 2010, 03:19:13 PM »

From the Assyrian Liturgy:

[The priest and the deacons kneel three times towards the place of the paten and the chalice. The priest proceeds and takes the paten, and the deacon the chalice. The priest begins the anthem:]

Priest: I waited patiently for the Lord.

The body of Christ and His precious blood are upon the holy altar. Let us all draw near unto Him in fear and love and with all the angels sing aloud unto Him: Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God.
[The deacons respond:]

The poor shall eat and be satisfied.

The body of Christ and his precious blood are upon the holy altar. Let us all draw near unto Him in fear and love and with the angels sing aloud unto Him: Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God.

Let us pray. Peace be with us.

[The priest then holds the paten in his right hand and the chalice in his left hand in the form of the cross and says:]

Let us send up praise to Thy glorious Trinity at all times for ever. May Christ, Who was sacrificed for our salvation and Who commanded us to make a commemoration of His death and burial and resurrection, accept this sacrifice at our hands by His grace and mercy for ever. Amen.

Does the Assyrian Liturgy have the Trisagion (Holy God, Holy Might, Holy Immortal)?  It seems interesting here that the Assyrians, like the OO's, apply the Trisagion "Holy, Holy, Holy" to Christ.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #323 on: January 01, 2010, 03:27:49 PM »

Yes.  But it is refered to Trinity:

"The deacon turns toward the people and says:

Lift your voices, all you people, and glorify the living God.

They reply:

Holy God, Holy Mighty One, Holy Immortal One: Have mercy on us.

Deacon: Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit.

People: Holy God…

Deacon: From age to age, amen, amen.

People: Holy God…

Deacon: Let us pray. Peace be with us.

Prayer of “Holy God”

O Holy, Glorious, Mighty and Immortal One, who dwells in the saints and delights in them: we implore you: turn to us, O Lord, pardon us and have mercy on us as you always do: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, forever.

People: Amen"
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #324 on: January 01, 2010, 03:29:09 PM »



A diagram should always be accompanied by an explanation of it to put it into perspective IMO, so what do you think when I accompany this:



with this:

Quote
“A singular essence is called a ‘qnoma’. It stands alone, one in number, that is, one as distinct from the many. A qnoma is invariable in its natural state and is bound to a species and nature, being one [numerically] among a number of like qnome. It is distinctive among its fellow qnome [only] by reason of any unique property or characteristic which it possesses in its ‘parsopa’. With rational creatures this [uniqueness] may consist of various [external and internal] accidents, such as excellent or evil character, or knowledge or ignorance, and with irrational creatures [as also with the rational] the combination of various contrasting features. [Through the parsopa we distinguish that] Gabriel is not Michael, and Paul is not Peter. However, in each qnoma of any given nature the entire common nature is known, and intellectually one recognizes what that nature, which encompasses all its qnome, consists of. A qnoma does not encompass the nature as a whole [but exemplifies what is common to the nature, such as, in a human qnoma, body, soul, mind, etc.].”—Fourth Memra, Book of the Union, Published by Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Paris, 1915, A. Vaschalde, ed.

This diagram is not about chronology of existance but level of existence - abstract, concrete and material.



I see what you mean now. You shouldn't have a problem agreeing with this than.


Quote
And these two natural wills are not contrary the one to the other (God forbid!) as the impious heretics assert, but his human will follows and that not as resisting and reluctant, but rather as subject to his divine and omnipotent will. For it was right that the flesh should be moved but subject to the divine will, according to the most wise Athanasius. For as his flesh is called and is the flesh of God the Word, so also the natural will of his flesh is called and is the proper will of God the Word, as he himself says: “I came down from heaven, not that I might do mine own will but the will of the Father which sent me!” where he calls his own will the will of his flesh, inasmuch as his flesh was also his own. For as his most holy and immaculate animated flesh was not destroyed because it was deified but continued in its own state and nature, so also his human will, although deified, was not suppressed, but was rather preserved according to the saying of Gregory Theologus: “His will [i.e., the Saviour’s] is not contrary to God but altogether deified.”
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #325 on: January 01, 2010, 03:33:17 PM »

Quote
And these two natural wills are not contrary the one to the other (God forbid!) as the impious heretics assert, but his human will follows and that not as resisting and reluctant, but rather as subject to his divine and omnipotent will. For it was right that the flesh should be moved but subject to the divine will, according to the most wise Athanasius. For as his flesh is called and is the flesh of God the Word, so also the natural will of his flesh is called and is the proper will of God the Word, as he himself says: “I came down from heaven, not that I might do mine own will but the will of the Father which sent me!” where he calls his own will the will of his flesh, inasmuch as his flesh was also his own. For as his most holy and immaculate animated flesh was not destroyed because it was deified but continued in its own state and nature, so also his human will, although deified, was not suppressed, but was rather preserved according to the saying of Gregory Theologus: “His will [i.e., the Saviour’s] is not contrary to God but altogether deified.”

No problem at all, and I don't think the COE will either.

Logged
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #326 on: January 01, 2010, 03:55:10 PM »

I still think the diagram is very incomplete. As it doesn't address mans gnomic will leaving out the possibility of theosis.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,463


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #327 on: January 01, 2010, 03:58:49 PM »

You seem to feel that the COE confesses that "the Word of God suffered in the flesh."  If that is so, then I would like to see someone from the COE actually confess that, in those words. 
This is what I would like to see as well.  Right now I see one representative of the COE, Rafa999, making statements that on their face are clearly heretical, and I see one or two persons NOT in the COE trying to tell us that Rafa999 is misrepresenting COE doctrine.  I'm sorry, but this strikes me as rather presumptuous to tell us what the COE really believes when you are NOT in the COE and are trying to override what a member of the COE has stated about his own church.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,463


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #328 on: January 01, 2010, 03:59:32 PM »

I still think the diagram is very incomplete. As it doesn't address mans gnomic will leaving out the possibility of theosis.
I think you're trying to project onto the diagram what you would like to see when the diagram is clearly intended to communicate something different.
Logged
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #329 on: January 01, 2010, 04:06:38 PM »

You seem to feel that the COE confesses that "the Word of God suffered in the flesh."  If that is so, then I would like to see someone from the COE actually confess that, in those words. 
This is what I would like to see as well.  Right now I see one representative of the COE, Rafa999, making statements that on their face are clearly heretical, and I see one or two persons NOT in the COE trying to tell us that Rafa999 is misrepresenting COE doctrine.  I'm sorry, but this strikes me as rather presumptuous to tell us what the COE really believes when you are NOT in the COE and are trying to override what a member of the COE has stated about his own church.

Deacon Lance and I have utilized COE writings in our posts like quotes from Mar Babai's Book of Union, the COE's Catechism, the COE's Liturgy and quotes from Paul Younan who is a Deacon in the COE. How do what they say compare to what Rafa says?

Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,463


EXTERMINATE!


« Reply #330 on: January 01, 2010, 04:08:55 PM »

You seem to feel that the COE confesses that "the Word of God suffered in the flesh."  If that is so, then I would like to see someone from the COE actually confess that, in those words. 
This is what I would like to see as well.  Right now I see one representative of the COE, Rafa999, making statements that on their face are clearly heretical, and I see one or two persons NOT in the COE trying to tell us that Rafa999 is misrepresenting COE doctrine.  I'm sorry, but this strikes me as rather presumptuous to tell us what the COE really believes when you are NOT in the COE and are trying to override what a member of the COE has stated about his own church.

Deacon Lance and I have utilized COE writings in our posts like quotes from Mar Babai's Book of Union, the COE's Catechism, the COE's Liturgy and quotes from Paul Younan who is a Deacon in the COE. How do what they say compare to what Rafa says?


The presenters are different.
Logged
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #331 on: January 01, 2010, 04:19:55 PM »

Look, I am not a fluent Syriac speaker so I am not qualified enough for this,

Neither am I which is why I'm quoting folks who are like Paul Younan and Dr. Sebastian Brock.

Whenever you see the word "Qnome" in Assyrian patristics think Hypostasis, they are the same, or rather it is the best most accurate term I can think to convey Qnome.
I thought Nazarene said they are not and that "Mar Babai the Great said the qnoma means: "A particular nature which has been individuated but not independently personalized". So how can Hypostasis equate to qnome?

Qnome: member of a taxonomic class

Mar Babai's definition is correct, sorry for the confusion.
Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,355


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #332 on: January 01, 2010, 05:19:37 PM »


The body of Christ and His precious blood are upon the holy altar. Let us all draw near unto Him in fear and love and with all the angels sing aloud unto Him: Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God.


The question is what do they mean by "Christ" and by "Lord God?"  Look again at this post by Mina (#158) wherein he quotes Theodore of Mopsuestia using separate pronouns for Christ and the Lord Who "dwelt" in Him:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,9572.msg389223.html#msg389223

Theodore is a saint in the COE.
Logged

Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #333 on: January 01, 2010, 06:32:21 PM »

It's my understanding that they reject even "The Word of God suffered in the flesh."

Tell me more.


Saying "Christ suffered" is not necessarily the same thing if you believe in separation between Christ and the Word of God.

That's assuming that they do believe in separation between Christ and the Word of God but they insist that they don't. They just don't go into the "mechanics" of the union like you guys do, they simply believe that there is union.

Read this thread.  Rafa speaks repeatedly about the Messiah as having blood, etc. but God the Word can't.  He's been separating them during this entire discussion:

    The COE does not call Mary "Theotokos" since Mary gave birth to the humanity not the divinity. The Holy Spirit crafted a human body, a "Temple" for God, but the humanity and Divinity are separate.


And it's not because we have failed to qualify what we have been saying with the phrase "in the flesh."  We've made it very clear all along that when we attribute blood, suffering, etc. to the Word of God, that we mean within the Incarnation, "in the flesh."  Very early on in this discussion I cited St. Cyril's anathema and emphasized "in the flesh," and Rafa rejected even that:

When we say that the Incarnate Word of God suffered in the flesh and tasted death in the flesh (See St. Cyril's 12th anathema and the EO's Fifth Council,) we are expressing the reality of the union of divinity and humanity in the Incarnation.  

Well that's Rafa, he's obviously not accurately expressing his church's Christology and he wouldn't be the first. Perhaps it wasn't his intention to make this impression, I don't know, I don't know him personally so I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps it's just a case where things are "coming out wrong" - this happens to all of us. But if this is what Rafa personally believes then, well, the COE's christology is different. Remember Rafa has said that he himself is not a "expert" on this topic.





Actually I am expressing my Church's Christology correctly- The Divinity does not have Flesh and blood in the conventional way you and I do. It is Spirit. Nor is Mary Mother of God. If she gave birth to Christ's divinity, she would in fact be his grandmother not mother. I am not a monophysite or a miaphysite: there is no intermingling of the two natures. They are completely separate. Clay and Iron do not mix. The Prophet Isaiah taught so, Jesus taught so, the COE teaches so. Nor does God have blood, nor can he be begotten by a human being, nor can the divinity suffer like a human being, or else the universe stops. This agrees with the council of Chalcedon:

Quote
Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; "like us in all things but sin." He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.

We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation (in duabus naturis inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter). The distinction between natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis.

Text of Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, 451  angel

everything else is mere exposition. All I want is people here to confess that the two natures of the Messiah retained their distinction and were not corrupted or destroyed. Otherwise you DO believe in that diagram I posted. Further, Theodore of Mopsuestia is a PILLAR of the Antiochan tradition, he is a Saint and I will defend his Christology. Cyril is not a Saint in the COE- his "anathema" means nothing to us. The Peshitta speaks of lord and LORD, there is a distinction. Lastly, I will only use semitic terminology here since this game of changing the meaning of words was played too long against the COE and I'm not falling into that trap.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2010, 07:02:37 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #334 on: January 01, 2010, 06:35:54 PM »

I still think the diagram is very incomplete. As it doesn't address mans gnomic will leaving out the possibility of theosis.
I think you're trying to project onto the diagram what you would like to see when the diagram is clearly intended to communicate something different.

I'm glad you can see it's communicative function as I feel it's quite incomplete and dangerous.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,355


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #335 on: January 01, 2010, 07:00:43 PM »


Actually I am expressing my Church's Christology correctly- The Divinity does not have Flesh and blood in the conventional way you and I do. It is Spirit. Nor is Mary Mother of God. If she gave birth to Christ's divinity, she would in fact be his grandmother not mother. I am not a monophysite or a miaphysite: there is no intermingling of the two natures. They are completely separate. Clay and Iron do not mix. The Prophet Isaiah taught so, Jesus taught so, the COE teaches so. Nor does God have blood, nor can he be begotten by a human being. This agrees with the council of Chalcedon:

      ...


Text of Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, 451  angel

everything else is mere exposition. All I want is people here to confess that the two natures of the Messiah retained their distinction and were not corrupted or destroyed. Otherwise you DO believe in that diagram I posted. Further, Theodore of Mopsuestia is a PILLAR of the Antiochan tradition, he is a Saint and I will defend his Christology. Cyril is not a Saint in the COE- his "anathema" means nothing to us. The Peshitta speaks of lord and LORD, there is a distinction. Lastly, I will only use semitic terminology here since this game of changing the meaning of words was played too long against the COE and I'm not falling into that trap.

Thank you Rafa, for clarifying.  Just to make sure I understand, though, I want to confirm:  I read you as saying that the COE rejects any statement that the Word of God suffered, had blood, etc. even with the phrase "in the flesh" attached to it.  If I am reading you incorrectly about this, please let us know.

Also, you seem to be implying that Chalcedon supports the Christology of Theodore.  I think the Chalcedonians here would disagree with you on that.  What specifically have you been taught by your Church about Chalcedon?  Has your Church taught you about the Fifth Council and how it clarified Chalcedon?
Logged

jnorm888
Jnorm
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,516


Icon and Cross (international space station)


WWW
« Reply #336 on: January 01, 2010, 07:08:05 PM »

Rafa999,




How old are you? How do we know you're not just a kid? Maybe someone older from the COE should explain their "official" view. Maybe someone from the city of Chicago. I think the COE Patriarch or Catholicos lives there.













ICXC NIKA
« Last Edit: January 01, 2010, 07:20:47 PM by jnorm888 » Logged

"loving one's enemies does not mean loving wickedness, ungodliness, adultery, or theft. Rather, it means loving the theif, the ungodly, and the adulterer." Clement of Alexandria 195 A.D.

http://ancientchristiandefender.blogspot.com/
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #337 on: January 01, 2010, 07:09:35 PM »

The COE rejects all councils after Chalcedon. No "clarifications" please, We believe in what the council said period. Its quite clear that the two natures of the Messiah are completely separate with NO intermingling whatsoever. Anything aside from that is Monophysitism. Also, the initial reason the COE disagreed with the council was because Cyril managed to bribe thew phrase "Mother of God" into it. However, the COE is signing agreements with Rome, the EO and OO that it agrees with Chalcedon in essence.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2010, 07:11:42 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,355


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #338 on: January 01, 2010, 07:10:49 PM »

Further, Theodore of Mopsuestia is a PILLAR of the Antiochan tradition, he is a Saint and I will defend his Christology. Cyril is not a Saint in the COE- his "anathema" means nothing to us. The Peshitta speaks of lord and LORD, there is a distinction.

Again, just to clarify:  When you say, "the Peshitta speaks of lord and LORD, there is a distinction," are you saying that to explain Theodore's use of two different sets of pronouns when writing about Christ and the Word of God?  Also, are you saying that "lord" refers to Christ and "LORD" refers to the Word of God?
Logged

Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,355


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #339 on: January 01, 2010, 07:13:31 PM »

The COE rejects all councils after Chalcedon. No "clarifications" please, We believe in what the council said period. Its quite clear that the two natures of the Messiah are completely separate with NO intermingling whatsoever. Anything aside from that is Monophysitism. Also, the initial reason the COE disagreed with the council was because Cyril managed to bribe thew phrase "Mother of God" into it. However, the COE is signing agreements with Rome, the EO and OO that it agrees with Chalcedon in essence.

So obviously you don't accept the EO's fifth council.  But what have you been taught by the COE about Chalcedon?  Do you realize that the EO's would disagree with you if you were to say that Chalcedon supports your Christology?
Logged

Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #340 on: January 01, 2010, 07:14:48 PM »

The apostles in the Peshitta refer to Christ as "my Lord" Christ refers to his Father as "My LORD". Thus whenever we speak of the Father we Just Say "MarYah" which is a contraction of the Divine name while if we speak of Christ we say "Mar Eshua" or "Meshikha Eshua". That's all.

As for the EOs disagreeing, it doesn't matter because we don't accept any councils AFTER Chalcedon to "clarify" it, much like the EO dont accept the filioque clause or other innovations.

By the way I'll try to invite a Qasha of the COE here to explain the official COE stance. Try speaking to Deacon Paul Younan at Peshitta.org, he works for the Catholicos in Chicago.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2010, 07:21:57 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,355


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #341 on: January 01, 2010, 07:21:14 PM »

Also, the initial reason the COE disagreed with the council was because Cyril managed to bribe thew phrase "Mother of God" into it.

Which council are you referring to?  St. Cyril was not alive at the time of Chalcedon.

Quote
However, the COE is signing agreements with Rome, the EO and OO that it agrees with Chalcedon in essence.

I think the COE has only signed agreements with Rome.
Logged

Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #342 on: January 01, 2010, 07:22:25 PM »

I mean his followers, pardon me. The only reason the COE didn't agree immediately with Chalcedon was because of that phrase and some of the wording.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2010, 07:23:01 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #343 on: January 01, 2010, 07:23:53 PM »

Further, Theodore of Mopsuestia is a PILLAR of the Antiochan tradition, he is a Saint and I will defend his Christology. Cyril is not a Saint in the COE- his "anathema" means nothing to us. The Peshitta speaks of lord and LORD, there is a distinction.

Again, just to clarify:  When you say, "the Peshitta speaks of lord and LORD, there is a distinction," are you saying that to explain Theodore's use of two different sets of pronouns when writing about Christ and the Word of God?  Also, are you saying that "lord" refers to Christ and "LORD" refers to the Word of God?

Just as an aside: the distinction is one made between a human lord and the Lord God, and it is not unique to Aramaic Syriac (where it is mara and marya).  Arabic has sayyid and rabb.  IIRC the Coptic distinction is neb and chois. In written Greek is is between Kyrios written out and KC i.e. nomina sacra abbreviation. Sort of like lord versus LORD, or god versus God.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #344 on: January 01, 2010, 07:24:28 PM »

Yes Isa is correct. Also we should perhaps remember that his disciples didn't know that Jesus was MarYah only after the resurrection or after the transfiguration.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2010, 07:25:41 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Nazarene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Judaism
Jurisdiction: Messianic
Posts: 520


David ben Yessai


« Reply #345 on: January 01, 2010, 07:26:12 PM »

Rafa999,

How old are you? How do we know you're not just a kid?

I'm beginning to suspect this too.

Maybe someone older from the COE should explain their "official" view. Maybe someone from the city of Chicago. I think the COE Patriarch or Catholicos lives there.

ICXC NIKA

Paul Younan, the COE Deacon I quoted is from Chicago, perhaps we should try to get him here.
Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #346 on: January 01, 2010, 07:27:22 PM »

I'm in my mid-twenties. We can Get Deacon Paul here, he will confirm what I said. Theodore is a Saint and Pillar of the COE we agree with his Christology. In fact I just quoted Deacon Paul angel
« Last Edit: January 01, 2010, 07:30:31 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,355


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #347 on: January 01, 2010, 07:28:06 PM »

I mean his followers, pardon me. The only reason the COE didn't agree immediately with Chalcedon was because of that phrase and some of the wording.


At Chalcedon, the main follower of St. Cyril was St. Dioscoros, and I don't think he had much influence there.  Do you have anything to back up your allegation that language about the "Mother of God" made its way into Chalcedon as a result of St. Cyril's followers paying bribes?
Logged

Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #348 on: January 01, 2010, 07:29:43 PM »

I'll get the documents. It shouldn't be too hard, after all I proved earlier on Cyril got his church into the equivalent of one million dollars debt for Ephesus (via his letters which detailed the bribes). His followers would be even more unscrupulous. If I am correct Dioscorus openly had a mistress too, which would make him somebody unfit for signing holy edicts.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2010, 07:35:44 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,355


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #349 on: January 01, 2010, 07:33:29 PM »

By the way, Rafa, I want you to know that I appreciate your staying with us on this topic here.  I know this isn't easy, with all of us verbally jabbing at you.  I know for my part, I am doing this only because I am genuinely curious about the COE.  I bear no animosity toward you or your Church.  I just have a lot of questions.  I think I told you a few days ago that you were being a good sport, and I still mean it.   Smiley
Logged

Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #350 on: January 01, 2010, 07:34:38 PM »

Of course Salpy. We are all Brothers here, you think this is quarreling? You haven't seen me quarrel  Grin
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,355


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #351 on: January 01, 2010, 07:39:23 PM »

 Cheesy
Logged

minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,237


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #352 on: January 01, 2010, 07:47:28 PM »

If I am correct Dioscorus openly had a mistress too, which would make him somebody unfit for signing holy edicts.

A Copt, like myself, would say you are incorrect.  Dioscorus is a saint in our Church, and a "confessor" which means he receives sub-martyr status.

I think allegations like this are just made for character assassination of a person one might not like.  You don't see me saying Theodore or Nestorius having mistresses.  I don't know where you get your information from, but this idea of having a mistress has never even crossed Chalcedonians' minds of old times who have considered Diosocorus a "hater of God."
« Last Edit: January 01, 2010, 07:48:10 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #353 on: January 01, 2010, 07:47:41 PM »

Of course Salpy. We are all Brothers here, you think this is quarreling? You haven't seen me quarrel  Grin
Actually, Salpy is a sister. But I second her thoughts.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,237


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #354 on: January 01, 2010, 07:49:44 PM »

I want to add to Salpy and Isa's thoughts that I personally want to believe that the Assyrian Church has Orthodox beliefs.  So I am trying to understand and give the benefit of doubt as best as possible.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #355 on: January 01, 2010, 07:50:59 PM »

Yes Isa is correct. Also we should perhaps remember that his disciples didn't know that Jesus was MarYah only after the resurrection or after the transfiguration.

No, Kepha Shimon bar Yona knew before. But, then, according to Christ, he had inside information.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,355


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #356 on: January 01, 2010, 07:58:08 PM »


If I am correct Dioscorus openly had a mistress too, which would make him somebody unfit for signing holy edicts.

Whoa!  This was added after I made my statement about being a good sport.  Please be respectful of other people's saints, even if you don't like them.  I've never heard that allegation about St. Dioscorus, and I'd like you to please refrain from such character assassination.  It's just not necessary. 
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #357 on: January 01, 2010, 08:21:39 PM »


If I am correct Dioscorus openly had a mistress too, which would make him somebody unfit for signing holy edicts.

Whoa!  This was added after I made my statement about being a good sport.  Please be respectful of other people's saints, even if you don't like them.  I've never heard that allegation about St. Dioscorus, and I'd like you to please refrain from such character assassination.  It's just not necessary. 
There is plenty of criticism in EO circles on Pope Dioscoros, but I don't recall ever hearing such a rumor.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #358 on: January 01, 2010, 08:57:25 PM »

Regardless, he beat to death Flavian Bishop of Constantinople. I will prove Dioscoros committed adultery besides murder.


By the way, I found the declaration between the Pope of Rome and the Pope of Alexandria, here it is:

Quote
Common Declaration:
------------------
In May 1973 H.H. Pope-Shenouda III of Alexandria visited H.H. Pope Paul VI of
Rome. Their Common Declaration says:
        
       We confess that our Lord and God and Savior and King of us all,
       Jesus  Christ,  is perfect  God  with  respect to His divinity,
       perfect man  with respect to His humanity. In Him His divinity
       is united  with His humanity  in a  real, perfect union without
       mingling, without  commixtion, without  confusion, without
       alteration, without division, without separation.



This seems orthodox to me. Its the same that was signed in the 1994 agreement with the COE. So what's the deal, why are you guys talking about "mingling" and co-mixture between the Divine nature and the human nature? Maybe the word "division" is the key. You  guys think that the COE believes in two persons.
« Last Edit: January 01, 2010, 09:11:30 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #359 on: January 01, 2010, 09:24:39 PM »

Regardless, he beat to death Flavian Bishop of Constantinople. I will prove Dioscoros committed adultery besides murder.


By the way, I found the declaration between the Pope of Rome and the Pope of Alexandria, here it is:

Quote
Common Declaration:
------------------
In May 1973 H.H. Pope-Shenouda III of Alexandria visited H.H. Pope Paul VI of
Rome. Their Common Declaration says:
        
       We confess that our Lord and God and Savior and King of us all,
       Jesus  Christ,  is perfect  God  with  respect to His divinity,
       perfect man  with respect to His humanity. In Him His divinity
       is united  with His humanity  in a  real, perfect union without
       mingling, without  commixtion, without  confusion, without
       alteration, without division, without separation.



This seems orthodox to me. Its the same that was signed in the 1994 agreement with the COE. So what's the deal, why are you guys talking about "mingling" and co-mixture between the Divine nature and the human nature? Maybe the word "division" is the key. You  guys think that the COE believes in two persons.
Pope Paul says Dei Genetrix, Pope Shenouti Macnouti: would you say "Yaldath Alaha?"
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags: Church of the East Assyrian Aramaic Theodore of Mopsuestia icons Christology 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 »   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 0.169 seconds with 71 queries.