Ecumenism - 2004 Thessaloniki Conference

Sabbas

High Elder
Joined
Dec 7, 2004
Messages
503
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Iowa
-ö-+-¦-¦-+-+ -¥-+-¦-+-+-¦-¦ said:
Dear Nektarios,

I think for the majority of your points, I am happy to leave it as us agreeing to disagree. Now we can get back on topic of this thread. :)

One clarification here is that Fr Seraphim Rose was close to the Greek Old Calendarists before they even came in to communion with ROCOR. The Greek he speaks of this way were HTM and not the GOC or Cyprianites as his biographers have footnoted in various versions.
I also think Fr.Damascene's book made this clear. When I read it I never saw any mention of Met.Cyprian except mentioning the booklet he wrote, as an Archimandrite, about a woman's life after death experience. From what I recall Fr.Seraphim's relationship with the HTM went sour due to the monastery's abbot, Fr.Panteleimon, praising the 'New Dogma of Redemption' which at the time was being praised by Bishop, later Metropolitian, Vitaly with a new edition of Met.Khrapovitsky's book being published. Outside of this I recall Fr.Seraphim mentioning in one or two of his essays that the disputes amongst the Greek Old Calendarists was disheartening.
 

Stavro

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 24, 2003
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
0
Points
36
If Orthodox fathers of the IV E.C. thought that it was necessary to deny Dioscorus his "membership card" what are we going to do 1500 years later? Question them? God forbid!
Church councils are not your local summer conventions, nor can the treatment St.Dioscoros, confessor and martyr of faith, be justified. Again, it seems that Chalcedonian have nothing else to bring to the table except the mere argument : " It is so because, you know, hmm, we said so !!". Bankrupt. What are the grounds of excommunication for St.Dioscoros ?

Another council, summoned about a hundred years earlier, denied St.Athanasius his "membership card" and his whole Papacy. It is called the council of Tyre, the closest thing to Chalcedon, and the bishops in overwhelming majority voted the holy saint out of his Papacy. What difference is there between Chalcedon and Tyre ? This alleged infallability of CHalcedon can be ascribed as well to Tyre, for both were summoned in a canonical manner.

While Chalcedonian claim to cling to St.Cyril's theology, who they ridiculued in Chalcedon by admission of Theodret and Ibas and upholding the writings of Theodre and the Nestorian Tome, they will have a hard time explaining how they reconcile this lie of theirs with the fact that:
- Alexandria was not even represented in CHalcedon, and only Alexandrians represent St.Cyril's theology. Alexandria was altogether eliminated from Chalcedon for the sake of the heretical school of Antioch and Rome's elevation to some kind of Primacy.
- The three Chapters that are pure blasphemy and contain all the ideas of Diodore, Theodore, Ibas and Thedoret,which are Nestorian writings ?
- The abrogation of Chalcedon in the 5th council and the anathema against the writings of Theodret, Ibas and Thedore ? One of the councils has to be wrong, and you will have to admit the contradiction between both.
No matter what we are told today, the fact remains that it was the Non-chalcedonian side that refused offers of Orthodox Church (and apart from her the earthly authorities of that time) to return into the fold.
Which offers are you talking about ? Can you list them ?
The reconcilation efforts that produced unity after Chalcedon were centered around a common declaration of faith like in the age of Zeno the Emperor, or a total rejection of CHalcedon like the brief unity lived between Antioch, Alexandria and Constantinople in the age of Anthimus, Patriarch of Constantinople, St.Theodosius, and the great St.Severus of Antioch. Never ever did the Orthodox (Non-Chalcedonians) accept CHalcedon or confess it as a holy council, it was Constantinople which moved from its position and rejected Chalcedon.
So, until such time comes that all these "communion wanting" parties change their erroneous doctrine, they simply can not be in communion with us.
Your arrogance is unsubstantiated. We are the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church, and we do not need external ties to admit us to communion. It is sad that the sacrifices of the Orthodox were received by the Chalcedonians as appeasements. The only reason why unity talks are pursued with the CHalcedonian is that we realize that the Eastern churches, now so-called EO, have returned to Orthodoxy after falling into Nestorianism in Chalcedon. It is a risk, and not an honor, to be affliliated with any Chalcedonian party, be it Rome or Constantinople. There is nothing in your history that can be attractive to us.

Peace.
 Since I just chided my own moderator for calling you guys monophysites I would be utterly a hypocrite if I did not chide you for calling Eastern Orthodox Nestorian. That is simply unacceptable as the Tome of Leo does NOT teach Nestorianism. You could say that in your Church's point of view Leo's Tome was confused or seemed Nestorian but to call it Nestorian is a polemical tactic that in my opinion is especially wrong when your Church constantly asks the Eastern Orthodox to "better understand" its Christology; if we are to give you such a benefit you should return the favor.  Have you actually ever read Nestorius's writings? I have, and they are not the same as St. Leo's.
 

Stavro

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 24, 2003
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
0
Points
36
In response to the warning written in green:

- My church does not ask yours to understand its christology, for our christology is that of Athanasius and Cyril. If these are foreign to the Eastern churches, there is no ground for discussion. The burden is on you to trace Chalcedon back to Orthodoxy and explain a reason for moving away from Tradition.

- I did NOT call current EO Nestorians, for it is clear that by rejecting the writings of Ibas, Theodore and Theodret in the fifth council they have made a sincere effort to reject the ugly heresy, and it is clear by their current confession of faith that they are Orthodox, at least when it comes to christology. But those who officially clinged to Chalcedon, between 451 a.d. and 553 a.d., are Nestorians. How do you reconcile Orthodoxy with Ibas, Theodret, Theodore ? How can a church accept heretical writings ( by the 5th council own admission) for 100 years and use it extensively (by the 5th council own admission) and then reject those writings and still be considered Orthodox during the whole period of accepting blashemy ? Please return to the language of the fifth council in reference to these heretical writings.

- Yes, I have read Nestorius' teachings, and it is similar to the Tome. Nestorius, while in his exile in Egypt, agreed with the Tome. I do not make a disctinction between how far you go with a heresy and what differences there is between them, for heretics are one denomination, nor do I care about the state of Leo of Rome when he wrote the Tome. There is no way to know whether Leo fo Rome was confused or what drove him to write this piece, but it does not take from the fact that the Tome separates the natures of Christ and abrogates the one incarnate nature theology handed down from the apostles and confirmed by St.Athanasius and St.Cyril.
 

Stavro

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 24, 2003
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
0
Points
36
In reference to post # 74 by Sabbas:

As for history of the OO I simply point it out as to say that the OO was not some innocent victim of the EO. I recall reading a year ago a book on the Crusades and recall one Syriac Saint who simply gained glorification because of his great feats against the Chalcedonians such as killing EO priests. I will try to look this up. The book should still be at my local library.
- You must know that OO were occupied by the Roman Empire, headed by Chalcedonians in the first place and supported by the church of Constantinople. What stands and what will stain the legacy of the Eastern churches forever is the masacres inflicted by Justinian, a SAINT in your church, in which he killed millions of OO.Marcian and his bedcompanion, Pulcharia, have killed thousands of OO by the inistigation of Leo of Rome in response to the murder of Protenius the puppet Patriarch of Alexandria. We can go on and on till we reach Emperor Hercules, whose personal entourage was Maximos of Constantinople. Hercules mutilated the whole OO nations, cutting off the ears, the nose and blinding the right eye of all who refused to confess Chalcedon and the Tome, without any objection by Maximos of Constantinople. All massacres were blessed by Constaninople and the CHalcedonian churches.

This alleged story of the syrian saint is hard to believe, for crusaders were Chalcedonians and during their brief stay in Egypt during the reign of Luis the 9th, who was taken captive, killed more copts than muslims, for both were infidels for them. Assume for the sake of argument that this syrian saint did this, would this counterbalance millions of martyrs that Leo of Rome and Justinian killed ?
The idea that because there were caesars and patriarches in Constantinople who fell into heresy somehow taints and undermines the authority of the Bishop of New Rome or the legal authority of the Caesar of the Roman Empire seems a bit off to me.
The reference to the continuous heretical tendency of Constantinople should not be dismissed so easily and can be discussed from various aspects. The important factor is that the theology of the school of Antioch, a liberal school that adopted the heresies of Lucian and Paul of Samosata, has produced all these heresies and formed the ideas of the prominent heretics ( Arius, Eusebius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Theodret, Theodore, Diodore, Ibas). This theology dominated Chalcedon as evident from the exoneration of Thedore, Thedoret and Ibas and the rejection of the Alexandrian Orthodox theology as presented by St.Dioscoros, the personal entourage of St.Cyril. To claim continuity with the Apostolic Tradition while adopting such pattern of thought is absurd.

 
Joined
May 15, 2005
Messages
477
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
Oz
Stavro,


I am sorry that I wrote things I did.
I did so in a somwhat "jelly" moment of my being here.
Last week was a bit to harsh on me and I do apologize if what I wrote offended you (because it was offensive).
I have been trying on one of the other forums to really build relations with OO and did succede and my writing here was result of something that happen that I do not wish to explain.
It has nothing to do with the facts but just that I was not happy with myself or anything.

I wish to apologize that my words were cold and un-christian like.
A lot of things have happened since then.
I am sorry.



In the same time I do find your answer very insulting. So much so, that even I forgive you (as these insulting words come as an answer on the post that I just apologized for), I do not think, that IF THIS IS WHAT YOU REALLY THINK,

"The only reason why unity talks are pursued with the CHalcedonian is that we realize that the Eastern churches, now so-called EO, have returned to Orthodoxy after falling into Nestorianism in Chalcedon. It is a risk, and not an honor, to be affliliated with any Chalcedonian party, be it Rome or Constantinople. There is nothing in your history that can be attractive to us"

I am sorry to say that there is nothing we can do together.
I am sorry for insulting you in my previous post by arrogance and abuse of what I know, but these words  of yours (quoted) are so full of hate that I do not think that you are OO that I wish to speak to.

I beg your pardon.
But answering my stupidity and lack of charity with such an insult is just the same.

I do hope that you have over-reacted due to my own stuidity in a post that you answered.
If this is not the case of over-reaction but indeed your view, than... I am sorry.


in ICXC
stafan+


 

copticorthodoxboy

High Elder
Joined
Oct 23, 2004
Messages
610
Reaction score
1
Points
16
IC XC NIKA
Hello to all,
I just wanted to state, and I am not trying to be a wise guy on a serious subject, how much I love the efforts of the OCA.  I mean, really, is there a Church out there that tries harder than the OCA to bridge the gap between OO and EO; not at the cost of Orthodoxy, however?  SVS Press prints off wonderful books from the Early Fathers ( I am very fond of the size, design, etc. of each book, they are a treasure). 
in Christ,
copticorthodoxboy
 

Anastasios

Merarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
10,557
Reaction score
7
Points
38
Location
Reston, VA
Website
www.anastasioshudson.com
Stavro,

Thank you for the clarification as to whom you actually think are Nestorians.

I must say that you are probably one of the most consistent Non-Chalcedonians I have ever met, and I enjoy reading your posts even though on many points I do not agree. I am glad that you have read Nestorius and if you think Nestorius and Leo are similiar while I think Nestorius and Leo are not, then I guess it boils down to how one interprets Leo. Since I have nothing more constructive to add to the discussion (this whole issue just boggles my mind and no matter how much I read on it I can't ever seem to understand it), I will let the other EO continue the discussion with you.

Anastasios
 

Anastasios

Merarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
10,557
Reaction score
7
Points
38
Location
Reston, VA
Website
www.anastasioshudson.com
Actually I did think of one point to bring up. Stavro, while by Nestorius's own admission in the Bazaar of Hericleidus (sp?) he accepted the Tome of Leo, I noted that that was not enough to have him rehabilitated; in other words, the Chalcedonians seem to have still rejected him.  This seems to implicitly show that they did not accept Nestorius at all.

Anastasios
 

Augustine

High Elder
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
565
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.beyondnihilism.blogspot.com
What becomes incredibly clear (at least to me) in actually reading the early Christian fathers (pre-Nicean and even those who lived 'round about the time of the Ecumenical Councils) is that the roots of terminology which came to embody heterodox positions, has Orthodox roots.  The period is far more "mixed up", and the notoriety and (this is key) popular acceptance and assimilation of the Councils is more complicated than I'd initially thought.

For example, St.Hilary of Potiers advances language which if not read within the totality of his thought, is Apollinarian in tone, and would later come to be associated solely with such thought (and would for this reason come to be dropped by Orthodox teachers of the faith.)  The same can be said in some wise of the Cappodocian Fathers even in certain of their propositions.  And while many jump all over St.Augustine for certain of his doctrinal conclusions (particularly regarding the filioque), it's important to remember he was writing at a time when the Constantinople I was still a fairly young council, and throughout much of the western world at this point, even the original Creed of Nicea played little role in popular piety or even public celebrations of the Divine Liturgy, let alone it's Constantinopolean-concilliar additions regarding the Holy Spirit (not to mention that the Council of Ephesus in 431, which pretty much hammered out that no one was to alter the Creed in anyway, did not occur until shortly after his death.)

My point is that you even find great authorities, saying certain substantial things (or as is more often the case, using terminology) which are questionable by later lights and later consensus (to say the least!).

I think the most important thing to come out of this understanding, is that the Councils cannot be viewed in isolation.  The seven great Councils are all fundamentally Christological (and secondarily speaking, Triadological) in emphasis, and all of the errors they combat flow from real "legitimate" ways of speaking or even conceptualizing matters (perhaps with less precision) in some previous age.  Thus, Arianism is a rationalistic reduction of certain real (Orthodox) teachings about the kenosis of the Son in becoming a man - Nestorianism is an exageration of the reality of both Christ's Divinity and humanity, Monophysitism the exageration of the unity of Christ (and perhaps, amongst those who were not Eutcyians, a stubborn insistance on St.Cyril's manner of speach, despite it's obvious limitations - a sort of "Cyrillian snobbery/fundamentalism", with more qualities of schism than anything else...the "heresy" part being more theoretical than grotesque/obvious).

I'd also submit that there were probably those both before and after the Ecumenical Synods, who while probably aligned with the "wrong" party, would insist until the cows come home that they material agreed with the faith of the Synod they were dissenting from, but resented having to sign onto anything.  There were those we'd now call "semi-arians" (though often they were not really Arians, they just simply though "Nicea sucked") who were probably "materially" Orthodox...ditto with Nestorians and in my experience obviously with many anti-Chalcedonians (though you get into some real obvious problems with Monothelitism even with these.)

 
Joined
May 15, 2005
Messages
477
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
45
Location
Oz
Augustine,
very very well said!





(the only reason why you do not get excellent is that is reserved only for.......  me ;D)




Seriously... excellent remark!
 

Silouan

High Elder
Joined
Jun 3, 2005
Messages
818
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
33
Starting in a new thread (in the faith section) since this long and confusing thread is getting very sidetracked, I'd like to explore the issue Starvo brought up.... so I am starting a new thread there.
 

Stavro

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 24, 2003
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Anastasios,

the respect is mutual, and I find great pleasure in reading your posts as well. I believe communication over the internet in general, leaves much to be desired in providing a better understanding of different parties, for the lack of sometimes leads to misconceptions, at least about the intentions. I will not pretend that there are no "real" disagreements, for to overlook 16 centuries of division and 14 centuries in which communication was absent altogether would be dishonest. There must be a reason that after 40 years of mutual admission of the sound christology of each group, there is still division. Union in itself is not a goal, nor is it a bad thing either, but the manner in which it is approached is what counts.

You are right about the fact that Chalcedon ratified the verdict against Nestorius, but his admission of accepting the Tome is alarming. Note that anathemizing a heretic does not grant automatic orthodoxy, for monophysites and Nestorians would anathemize each other and both are still outside the sound faith. Nestorius did not repent so we would assume he agreed with the orthodoxy of the Tome, and the Bazaar condemns him even more in other aspects of the faith with multiple heresies. To have a document of faith with which a heretic agrees and takes it as to represent his christology, together with the division it caused and the monumental effects it had in the East, should have prompted a clarification from Leo of Rome about what he really meant with the Tome. Leo of Rome spent another ten years in his episcopate, and he wrote many letters in which he never deviated from the Tome. He did not lack the time nor the energy to clarify his intentions.

I am sure that your understanding of the Tome is orthodox, but my own opinion is that EO do not interpret the Tome, they add to the Tome what is not written in it. Regardless, is the Tome necessary at all ?
 

Pedro

Archon
Joined
Apr 28, 2004
Messages
2,833
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Greenville, SC
Stavro said:
You are right about the fact that Chalcedon ratified the verdict against Nestorius, but his admission of accepting the Tome is alarming.
There will always be things which can be read in ways that are most definitely NOT the intentions of the author(s).  The Bible itself, for instance, can be read in countless ways by heretics of every stripe.  Does this cause us to view the Bible as "alarming"?  While I understand your concern, it is ultimately not damning if a heretic "likes" one of our documents, if he/she can read into it his/her heresy.  Mormon's have done as much with St. Athanasius' and St. Irenaeus' works on theosis.  What does matter, as I've said before, is what the Orthodox say in return about this heretic.  Now, you say next that

anathemizing a heretic does not grant automatic orthodoxy, for monophysites and Nestorians would anathemize each other and both are still outside the sound faith.
This is true, and a good point.  One cannot anathamatize a heretic and claim Orthodoxy; one must anathamatize all the necessary heretics to be Orthodox.  Chalcedon does this, as you have agreed.  All this taken into consideration, the point does stand that in no way can this Tome truly be called Nestorian, as the context in which it was written absolutely prohibits us from reading it thusly.  The orthodoxy of the Council--which is the context I just spoke of--condemns both heresies, thus balancing its doctrine within Orthodoxy.

Nestorius did not repent so we would assume he agreed with the orthodoxy of the Tome, and the Bazaar condemns him even more in other aspects of the faith with multiple heresies. To have a document of faith with which a heretic agrees and takes it as to represent his christology, together with the division it caused and the monumental effects it had in the East, should have prompted a clarification from Leo of Rome about what he really meant with the Tome. Leo of Rome spent another ten years in his episcopate, and he wrote many letters in which he never deviated from the Tome.
This is a good point.  I wish he'd done this, as well.  However, I don't think the Tome needs clarification, as all the Orthodox knew what he meant.  For the sake of mercy towards the weaker-minded and Nestorianism-prone, it would have been a good move.

I am sure that your understanding of the Tome is orthodox, but my own opinion is that EO do not interpret the Tome, they add to the Tome what is not written in it. Regardless, is the Tome necessary at all ?
I think the Tome has much to say about the Chalcedonian understanding of the two natures of Christ, so yes, it's a necessary and (to us) edifying read.  As to the allegation that we "add" things to the Tome, well, one is always bound to "add" the hindsight of reflection and further theological deliberation to anything written before such illumination--Augustine has written eloquently about this--is this not the definition of interpretation?  St. Leo was using the language of Chalcedon in his Tome and, though a more thorough understanding of Chacedon has since blossomed within the Church since that time, it in no way has "added" anything that had been lacking from the original decision: that Christ is one, divine Logos, with a fully human nature and a fully divine nature that are inseparably united (and were never for one second separate), though were never confused or mingled.

Again, it is to THAT definition--the one a group in question itself provides IN RESPONSE to a heretical interpretation of the work in question--that one must finally look at, , and not the heretical interpretation itself.
 
Top