The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
minasoliman said:
 It is always the prosopon that is the center of all willing and acting, but to confess two centers of action is understood by us as serperation and therefore Nestorianism, which is obviously a misunderstanding.
Dear Mina,
I have great difficulty with this. If thelema (will) is an attribute of hypostasis (person) and not ousia (nature) then what was happening in the Agony in the Garden (I know, I have asked this before, but it still hasn't been answered in a way which supports the notion that Christ had only One Will.)

"And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed,
Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.
And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.
And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground."
ÂÂ

If Christ's One Hypostasis had only "one personal Will" (as the Anglican-Oriental Orthodox agreed statement says), then it must have been in perfect harmony with the will of the Father. But the repulsion He expresses towards His coming death in this passage shows that He struggled to align His Will with the Will of the Father. This is all the more stark in the original Koine where the phrase "if Thou be willing" uses the word "boulei" which is more correctly translated as "wishing", but the phrase "not my will but Thine be done" uses the word "thelema" which is the exact same word Christ uses in the Lord's Prayer "Thy will (thelema) be done on earth as it is in Heaven."
From an EO perspective, we would say that Christ was struggling to bring His Human Will in alignment with His Divine Will. It was explained on another thread that the OO position is that Christ had only one will, but his "natural human desire" didn't want to die......however, the "natural human desire" would best be described as "boulei" (wishing), but Christ used this word to ask the Father that if HE (the Father) was "wishing" ("boulei") to let this cup pass, however, not in accordance with the will (thelema) of Christ's human nature  The EO position of the Two Wills therefore makes more sense.
Yes, Christ is One Hypostasis in Two Natures but the EO position is that these Two Natures are united without co-mingling or confusion. So when Christ was asleep, it was His Human Nature which slept- the Divine Nature does not sleep. The unity of the Two Natures does not mean that they were identical or acted identically. It means that they perfectly complemented each other and worked in synergy.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
EkhristosAnesti said:
Employing a term that is in itself ambiguous to the heretic, such that the heretic is given leeway with regards to how he can interpret it,
Is the Evangeslist St. John the Apostle therefore guilty of this since the "Thousand Years" of the Apocalypse has been misunderstood by a vast number of millinarians/chilianists?


EkhristosAnesti said:
The two vital and significant features absent from Chalcedon, which would refute Nestorianism beyond reasonable doubt are:
a) Affirming that The Word is the subject of Christ’s Incarnate experiences. This is directly CONTRADICTED by Leo, who divides “The Word” from "the flesh", regarding them as separate centres of action and hence consciousness.
"In the beginning, there was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word.....and the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." says the Apostle St. John.
"What was assumed from the Lord's mother was nature, not fault; nor does the wondrousness of the nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ, as born of a Virgin's womb, imply that his nature is unlike ours. For the selfsame who is very God, is also very man; and there is no illusion in this union, while the lowliness of man and the loftiness of Godhead meet together." says the Tome of St. Leo.
Where is the contradiction?

EkhristosAnesti said:
b) The defining of the hypostatic union in the same manner St Cyril did in his defense against Nestorians misinterpretation of the “hypostatic union” phrase. The "One physis" formula, despite the arguments of the ignorant; has implications regarding NOT the confusion of ousia's, but rather the nature of the hypostatic union.
Perhaps I am one of the "ignorant", but aren't "One physis", "miaphysis" and "monophysis" all synonyms?

 

Pedro

Archon
Joined
Apr 28, 2004
Messages
2,833
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
40
Location
Greenville, SC
EkhristosAnesti said:
Employing a term that is in itself ambiguous to the heretic, such that the heretic is given leeway with regards to how he can interpret it, to the extent he can still conform such ambiguous expressions with his vile heresy; is simply a bow to that heresy. That's what Chalcedon was; a bow to Nestorianism.
Dude, if this is honestly where you're determined to stand on the issue, then I guess I'm done.  It's been stated by me and several others that words are more fluid that what you're willing to concede, and until some flexibility is shown by the non-chalcedonians on this issue, there's nothing more that we could say that would bear any fruit.  You think it was a bow to Nestorianism, fine.  You're wrong, but nothing I can say will convince you of this, so fine.

Ozgeorge,

First of all, good stuff re: the wills of Christ.  But one physis has been interpreted in MANY ways within the Church and without, from "only one divine nature" to "one composite nature."  So that first term really needs a context.

"Monophysite" generally refers specifically to the heresy of Eutyches, who (somewhat) said that Christ's humanity was "swallowed" by His divinity, making Him only as human as He "needed" to be.  This is not the opinion of the non-chalcedonian communions.

"Miaphysite" is a better term for their belief, as it describes a composite nature of Christ which, as one nature, is both fully human and fully divine at the same time.

Just FYI.

Pedro, bowing out of this thread (and possibly all future Chalcedon threads until further notice).
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Messages
2,743
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Grrrr...no respect for students with exams I tell ya...(joking, I have only myself to blame)

Is the Evangeslist St. John the Apostle therefore guilty of this since the "Thousand Years" of the Apocalypse has been misunderstood by a vast number of millinarians/chilianists?
This analogy is weak…

St John the Evangelist wasn’t writing a polemical defense; nor did his work have an apologetic purpose; he wasn’t concerned about employing specific terms/formulas/expressions in order to refute certain heretics; St John was not even writing at a time when millenarians even existed.

Let’s take a look at the contrast:

Chalcedon was a council called “allegedly” to fight the heresy of the Chalcedonian fathers’ own imaginations (monphysitism). The historical context of the councils is this: Monophysitism did not exist; it was strenuously applied to one sole figure — Eutyches, but apart from him it wasn’t an idea that gained any significant support from anyone i.e. it was not even an itch let alone a disease. OTOH, Nestorianism was still a disease in the Church - a cancer if you will, which was still strongly influential, especially in the Persian empire. Chalcedon had the responsibility of maintaining Church unity and Orthodoxy if it were truly to be considered an Ecumenical council, however, Chalcedon stripped the Church from its Cyrillian shields against the cancer, by compromising such an immune system for expressions and formulas employed to scratch an itch, and in doing so allowing the cancer to spread.

Where is the contradiction?
“Each nature performs what is proper to it in communion with the other; the Word for instance, performing what is proper to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what is proper to the flesh”

Following the above principle established by Leo, a Leonian would declare that: “The Word performed miracles, and the flesh suffered.” Whilst the Word is portrayed as the subject of divine action, it is the flesh that is portrayed as the subject of human action. How in contrast would the miracles and sufferings of Christ be expressed  Orthodox Alexandrian/Cyrillian Christology?

Professor Frances Young, who states in his book From Nicaea to Chalcedon:

Who was the subject of the incarnate experiences of Jesus Christ? For the Alexandrians the subject remained The Word, who though transcendent accommodated himself to the conditions of human nature; for the Antiochenes…the Word could not possibly be regarded as the immediate subject of the incarnate experiences…naturally this produced a dualistic Christology in which the unity of Christ as The Word Incarnate was dangerously undermined.(page 180, bold emphasis mine)

Therefore according to true Orthodox Christology; “The Word performed miracles according to His divinity, whilst The Word suffered according to His humanity/flesh”

Perhaps I am one of the "ignorant", but aren't "One physis", "miaphysis" and "monophysis" all synonyms?
It is not I who calls you ignorant if you argue that the miaphysis formula is heretical; rather this is the implications of the great St Cyril, who states: “Accordingly they are speaking in vain who say that, if there should be one incarnate Physis  ‘of the Word’ in every way and in every manner it would follow that a mixture and a confusion occurred as if lessening and taking away the nature of man.’” (St Cyril to Succensus)

Regarding the three above phrases; the Greek as with the Hebrew language has various different words that can equally translate to the English word “One”; each word possessing differing nuances in their linguistic context. The greek “mia” as with the Hebrew “Echad” are words for “One” which denote a composite unity, where as the greek “mono” as with the Hebrew “yachid” denotes strict singularity.

Peace.
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Messages
2,743
Reaction score
0
Points
0
It's been stated by me and several others that words are more fluid that what you're willing to concede
I don’t think you're understanding my point. That words are fluid in meaning and interpretation is not a proposition that I’m opposing, rather it is one that is fundamental to my very position; for it is I who is arguing that the mere affirmation of One person/hypostasis is not itself sufficient to “repudiate Nestorianism” (as DT states), precisely because if a proper context is not provided for such express affirmations, the phrase “one person/hypostasis” can still be abused.

Chalcedon does not teach Nestorianism, it simply took down St Cyril’s shields which had the Church well-guarded against Nestorianism. As I stated in my response above to ozgeorge, it compromised the cure of a cancerous disease in order to scratch an itch.

Dude, if this is honestly where you're determined to stand on the issue, then I guess I'm done
Dude, this is where my fathers stood on this issue; the saintly men, confessors and teachers of the Orthodox faith, (whom your councils falsely condemned) and I believe the evidence accessible to us today clearly supports their position.

I am content with the fact that the Oriental Orthodox Church's rejection of Chalcedon was more ecumenically motivated than the council itself, and am more than confident to stand as a deacon in the altar of the Coptic Orthodox Church, praying for my Church saying: "Pray for the peace of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Orthodox Church of God".

We can agree to disagree, I have no problem with that.

Peace.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Dear ozgeorge,

I totally understand.

What is important in the willing of Christ is the doctrine of "self-emptying," not that He made His divinity disappear, far from it.  But rather, freely, He allows His prosopon to exist fully in the human nature without seperating Himself from the Divine nature.  In that case, we can say His Prosopon/Hypostasis is acting and willing through humanity to be in alignment with the will of the Father.

7th Day Adventists say that when Christ prays in the Garden of Gethsemane, it is his human nature that is praying to the Divine nature.  We reject this in ALL STANDARDS, for that is CLEARLY Nestorianism at its best.  They admit in Christ a seperation of the natures in Christ so as to make His human nature independant from His divine nature.  This is why we stress the prosopic will.  Our OO fathers did not want to seperate wills to sound like Nestorians, as if a man prayed to the Father and the Logos moved the man towards the will of the Logos (all in prosopic manners).

Christ our God the Logos humbled Himself, emptied Himself so that He can experience fully all the human desires, energies, and wills.  If He did not do that, then how is Christ our God the Logos our role model?  It is therefore right to say that the Logos prayed to the Father through His humanity with that natural human feeling of agony.  We do not want to end up saying that the human nature felt an agony aside from the prosopon of the Word, but that the Logos felt agony through His human nature.  Notice, I am not saying His divine nature is feeling agony through His human nature, for that would confuse the natural wills of Christ.  I use the word "Logos" as prosopon (like St. Cyril does), not as nature, as the Tome of Leo uses it.  To use the word "Logos" as prosopon is very powerful, for it affirms that God was born from the Virgin, God suffered, God died, God rose from the dead, but all of this through the flesh, not through His impassible Divine nature.  Again, we do not confuse the humanity and Divinity of Christ, whether by nature or by natural will.  But we affirm that either way, the Prosopon of the Logos suffered agony, suffered pain, suffered hunger, and even went through human free choice (or fee will) so as to follow the Father's will, and here's the key preposition, FOR US.

From an EO perspective, we would say that Christ was struggling to bring His Human Will in alignment with His Divine Will.
I first like to say I understand the Orthodox intentions in what you say here, and you would rather prefer this wording than any other.  But just as you had trouble with the Prosopic will, we also would have trouble with this sentence, for it's like saying that Christ's human nature prayed to His Divine nature.  How can someone pray to Himself?  I'm not saying this is what you're saying, but it can be misunderstood as such.

The word "will" is a tricky word.  For then this word can either mean "choice" or "desire."  I don't know much about Greek, but would "thelema" mean anything else other than "choice?" ÂÂ

I read for example from the Catholic Encyclopedia, that the word "thelema" can mean many things.  I find this to be interesting:

The Catholic doctrine is simple, at all events in its main lines. The faculty of willing is an integral part of human nature: therefore, our Lord had a human will, since He took a perfect human nature. His Divine will on the other hand is numerically one with that of the Father and the Holy Ghost. It is therefore necessary to acknowledge two wills in Christ.

But if the word will is taken to mean not the faculty but the decision taken by the will (the will willed, not the will willing), then it is true that the two wills always acted in harmony: there were two wills willing and two acts, but one object, one will willed; in the phrase of St. Maximus, there were duo thelemata though mia gnome. The word will is also used to mean not a decision of the will, but a mere velleity or wish, voluntas ut natura (thelesis) as opposed to voluntas ut ratio (boulesis).
I got this from the article on Monothelitism.

Here, the Catholic Encyclopedia, if I understand correctly, acknowledges the word "will" can mean two different things.  They believe in "duo thelema," which is the desire or wish (sounds to me like natural will), but "one will willed," or "mia gnome" (there's that word "Mia" again) or one "boulesis."  The Catholic Church here, I assume not different Christologically from the EO, uses the word "will" to mean "a mere velleity or wish," "not the desicion of the will."  It is not the natures that decide, but the prosopon that decides. ÂÂ

How then can we acknowledge free will in humanity?  The "self-emptying" of Christ solves this, that is, existing fully in the human, the Logos being fully human experiences everything humanly and deals everything humanly, including "free will". ÂÂ

His choice also not to know when the end of the world is is not diminishing that of the Divine Nature, for the Logos knows when through His divine nature, but through humbling Himself and existing fully in the Human nature, He chooses the human mind to express His humanity of not knowing when. ÂÂ

To grow in wisdom and knowledge is not that the Logos was devoid of any knowledge through His divinity, but that He humbled Himself, and experienced fully through the humanity what it was like to "learn."

So when Christ prayed in the Garden of Gethsemane, He really meant "not my desire" as pertains to the Human nature, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia.  But the human nature alone does not choose, but it is the Prosopon that which the human nature belongs to chooses.

Notice in all of this, the subject of all these desires is Christ, the Logos, in proson, not in divine nature as Leo intended.  I've written earlier why St. Dioscorus condemned the Tome because Cyrillian language doesn't prefer this language written, and the misunderstanding continued and solidified from thereon, with both sides CONVINCED of the heresy that they accuse one another, when in fact, it wasn't believed.

Therefore, to me as an OO, it makes more sense to stick with the Logos in prosopon being the center of all acting and willing.  There is "one desicion" but two "desires."  He aligns these two to unite them as one, to harmonize them, glorifying the human nature, or as St. Maximus the Confessor puts it, Divinizing it, making its desires Godly.

I hope I haven't confused you at all. ÂÂ Please forgive me, and I am open to any questions.  I tried to be careful as possible with my wording, but if you understand what I said, this is no different than St. Cyril's teachings, truthfully.

God bless you.  :)
 

Stavro

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 24, 2003
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
0
Points
36
cizinec: You and EA appear to hold that written words must have absolute rule over all meaning, including the intent of the message.  You use definitions as you have defined them and not as defined in Chalcedon or by others when they were discussing the Tome of Leo.
Cizinec,
stretching this logic a little more, we will excuse Nestorius of heresy as long as we are playing the guessing game of what he really meant, although his writings are clear and obvious and did not lack clarity in rejecting Orthodox dogmas. Note that such trends exist already in christian literature and extends to include Arianism as a big fat misunderstanding.
I believe EA did an excellent job in providing a complete picture about Leo's christology, judged against both, Tradition and Nestorianism, and the rejection of Leo's Tome by the OO cannot be simply attributed to terminology and semantic and it was never the case.

Your personal faith is not challenged nor questioned, for what you say you believe in is what you believe in.We have suffered from the tactics you complain about, and we have the good sense to refrain from reciprocating it out of fairness. Also note that you complain that others guess your faith, while you are trying to guess the intentions of Leo of Rome when he wrote the Tome.

Such threads start with questioning our Orthodoxy based on our rejection of Chalcedon and the Tome, and we are explaining why we cannot accept such council and listing our concerns regarding the Tome and this council. EO who are against the unity always make Chalcedon a condition for unity, together with accepting Leo of Rome's teachings and person, without looking at the content of faith. As such, your concern should be directed to fellow EO.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
EkhristosAnesti said:
“Each nature performs what is proper to it in communion with the other; the Word for instance, performing what is proper to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what is proper to the flesh”
Following the above principle established by Leo, a Leonian would declare that: “The Word performed miracles, and the flesh suffered.” Whilst the Word is portrayed as the subject of divine action, it is the flesh that is portrayed as the subject of human action. How in contrast would the miracles and sufferings of Christ be expressedÂÂ Orthodox Alexandrian/Cyrillian Christology?
Nonsense! What on Earth is a "Leonian"? The EO "Chalcedonian Churches" are not certainly not "Leonian". as the minutes of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon attest:
EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS SESSION II. "After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there] ? These are the things Dioscorus hid away.
If the Fathers of Chalcedon say that St. Leo is saying the same thing as St. Cyril- and this led the Fathers of Chalcedon to declare that:
"Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same of a rational soul and body, consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same consubstantial with us according to the Manhood... before the ages begotten of the Father according to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos according to the Manhood...."
This is what the Fathers of Chalcedon say that both St. Cyril's and St. Leo's teaching agree with. Do you disagree with this teaching of the Council? If not, then what difference does it make how you interpret Leo's words today? If you do disagree with this teaching of the Council- I hardly see any point in continuing to dialogue about it- the Eastern Orthodox Church will never depart from this teaching.

 
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Messages
2,743
Reaction score
0
Points
0
If the Fathers of Chalcedon say that St. Leo is saying the same thing as St. Cyril
The Fathers of the OO church say that Leo’s Christology objectively conflicts with that of St Cyril. I think the evidence supports them, and I believe ive sufficiently proven that. Leo adopted an exclusively Antiochene trait which divides the actions of Christ between two subjects: “The Word” and “the flesh”. St Cyril in following the great St Athanasius attributes ALL the actions of Christ to ONE subject: “The Word”.

The flesh does not suffer; THE WORD suffers according to HIS flesh. The former expression is compatible with Nestorianism whilst the latter is not. Thus we affirm along St Athanasius who states in his Letter to Adelphius:

,"…We neither divide the body, being such, from the Word…but knowing that ‘the Word was made flesh’ we recognize Him as God also, after having come in the flesh. Who, accordingly, is so senseless, as to say to the Lord : “Leave the body that I may worship Thee”, or so impious as to join the senseless Jews in saying, on account of the Body, “why dost Thou, being a man, make Thyself God?”. But the leper was not one of this sort, for he worshipped God in the Body, and recognized that He was God, saying, “Lord if Thou wilt, Thou canst make me clean”

He explains the basis behind this, and further elucidates the matter in his Letter to Epictetus, saying:

the incorporeal Word made His own the properties of the Body, as being His own Body. Why, when the Body was struck by the attendant, as suffering Himself He asked, “Why smittest thou Me?”. And being by nature intangible, the Word yet said, “I gave My back to the stripes, and My cheeks to blows, and did not turn My face from shame and spitting”. For what the Human body of the Word suffered, this the Word, dwelling in the Body, ascribed to Himself... And verily it is strange that He it was Who suffered and yet suffered not. Suffered, because His own body suffered; suffered not, because the Word, being by nature God, is impassible” .

Not only is this way of expressing Christ’s functions more Orthodox, it is even more Biblically consistent; for where do you ever find the Apostles dividing the actions of Christ, ascribing some to The Word, and others to the flesh?

Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same of a rational soul and body, consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same consubstantial with us according to the Manhood... before the ages begotten of the Father according to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos according to the Manhood...."

Do you disagree with this teaching of the Council? If not, then what difference does it make how you interpret Leo's words today?
I have no problem with what is positively affirmed in that particular excerpt you pasted. The problem I have with Leo and Chalcedon in general has already been declared and reiterated over and over again. Doctrinally speaking: Weak and questionable in some aspects, superfluous in others — it didn’t contribute to Orthodoxy; it didn’t affirm any fundamental Christological principle that wasn’t already established. Regarding the definitions of Chalcedon itself; as I have implied throughout this thread, the problem is more with regards to what is NOT said, rather than what IS said. No definition of a hypostatic union + no affirmation of The divine person of The Word as the subject of all the incarnational experiences (suffering, hunger, etc.) = bow to Nestorianism. Historically; a politically motivated council of schism; a robbers council, robbing the See of Alexandria of its theological authority.

Peace.
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Messages
2,743
Reaction score
0
Points
0
On a sidenote: I think an interesting point of distinction to bring up regarding our liturgical traditions, concerns the Trisagion.

In the Eastern Church it Is said: “Holy God, Holy Mighty/Strong, Holy Immortal”, and it stops at that.

In the Coptic liturgy according to St Basil (http://www.coptic.net/prayers/StBasilLiturgy.html) we develop this further, by emphasizing that the divine was the subject of the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection:

Holy God, Holy           Agios O the-os:
Mighty, Holy            Agios Ees-shiros;
Immortal, who was          Agios Athanatos;
born of the Virgin,         O ek partheno gennethis:
have mercy upon us.         elsison imas.

Holy God, Holy           Agios O theos:
Mighty, Holy            Agios Ees-shiros;
Immortal, who was          Agios Athanatos:
crucified for us,          O stavrothis di imas:
have mercy upon us.         eleison imas.

Holy God, Holy           Agios O theos:
Mighty, Holy            Agios Ees-shiros:
Immortal, who arose            Agios Athanatos:
from the dead and        O anastas ek ton nekron:
ascended into the heavens   Ke anelthon ees toos
have mercy upon us.     ooranoos: eleison imas.

But then again, I have heard that the Eastern Church in contrast to the Oriental Church, understands the Trisagion in a Trinitarian context...

Peace.
 

Doubting Thomas

High Elder
Joined
Jul 17, 2003
Messages
887
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Georgia
I'm still not sure what it is about "selfsame" in the Tome that non-Chalcedonians do not understand. Reading the Tome as a whole--and not yanking one or two sentences out of context to charge, "Nestorian!"--should make it pretty obvious that Leo regarded the Son as the one divine incarnate Subject. (Is it really necessary for me to list all the quotes again to prove it?). The Divinity is His from eternity and the humanity is His beginning in time as well. It's the same "HIS". He is One Subject. He is the "Word became flesh". All those statements by Leo affirming this provide context to the abused passage concerning the distinction between the natural properties of the "Word"(divinity) and "flesh" (and what each are naturally capable of). Christ who was by nature God became also by nature man...without ceasing to be by nature God. Yet He's the same Subject. In context, Leo means that the One Subject is capable of experiencing some things through His divine nature that as the "Word" He's had from eternity and others through the "flesh" He took in time. So while in that controversial passage Leo seems to "personify" the "Word" and the "flesh", the remainder of Tome should make it clear that the selfsame who is from eternity God also in time became man. It is this selfsame Subject that does all the actions. This is not "Nestorian"

Getting back to the Definition, it is ONE HYPOSTASIS.ÂÂ The man Jesus Christ is the same HYPOSTASIS who from Eternity is the Second Person of the Trinity.  This is not "Nestorian".
 

Doubting Thomas

High Elder
Joined
Jul 17, 2003
Messages
887
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Georgia
EkhristosAnesti said:
On a sidenote: I think an interesting point of distinction to bring up regarding our liturgical traditions, concerns the Trisagion.

In the Eastern Church it Is said: “Holy God, Holy Mighty/Strong, Holy Immortal”, and it stops at that.

In the Coptic liturgy according to St Basil (http://www.coptic.net/prayers/StBasilLiturgy.html) we develop this further, by emphasizing that the divine was the subject of the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection..
But the Tome affirms the same thing--that the Divine Person, by virture of becoming man, was the subject of the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection:

He assumed "the form of a servant" without the defilement of sin, enriching what was human, not impairing what was divine: because that "emptying of Himself," whereby the Invisible made Himself visible, and the Creator and Lord of all things willed to be one among mortals, was a stooping down in compassion, not a failure of power.

Accordingly, the Son of God, descending from His seat in heaven, and not departing from the glory of the Father, enters this lower world, born after a new order, by a new mode of birth. After a new order; because He who in his own sphere is invisible, became visible in ours; He who could not be enclosed in space, willed to be enclosed; continuing to be before times, He began to exist in time; the Lord of the universe allowed His infinite majesty to be overshadowed, and took upon Him the form of a servant; the impassible God did not disdain to be passible Man and the immortal One to be subjected to the laws of death."

"For the selfsame who is very God, is also very man; and there is no illusion in this union, while the lowliness of man and the loftiness of Godhead meet together. For as "God" is not changed by the compassion [exhibited], so "Man" is not consumed by the dignity [bestowed]."


"Accordingly, on account of this unity of Person which is to be understood as existing in both the natures, we read, on the one hand, that "the Son of Man came down from heaven," inasmuch as the Son of God took flesh from that Virgin of whom He was born; and on the other hand, the Son of God is said to have been crucified and buried, inasmuch as He underwent this, not in His actual Godhead; wherein the Only-begotten is coeternal and consubstantial with the Father, but in the weakness of human nature. Wherefore we all, in the very Creed, confess that" the only-begotten Son of God was crucified and buried," according to that saying of the Apostle, "for if they had known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Majesty."
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Doubting Thomas said:
 (Is it really necessary for me to list all the quotes again to prove it?).ÂÂ
"the Self-same Who was the Only-begotten and Everlasting One of the Everlasting Parent, was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. And this birth in time takes away nothing from that divine and eternal birth, nor does it add anything to it...." (Tome of St. Leo)
If anyone can find anything Nestorian in this, or anything that suggests a double hypostasis, I'll eat my hat.







ÂÂ
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
EkhristosAnesti said:
it didn’t affirm any fundamental Christological principle that wasn’t already established.
The only role of an Orthodox Council is to affirm what is already established. It's purpose is to declare what is believed by all the Church through all time. It shouldn't surprise you therefore tha a Council doesn't affirm Christological principles which are not already established.
EkhristosAnesti said:
No definition of a hypostatic union + no affirmation of The divine person of The Word as the subject of all the incarnational experiences (suffering, hunger, etc.) = bow to Nestorianism.
Well if the Non-chalcedons had stuck around for the other three Ecumenical Councils, would they be satisfied with the Fifth Council's affirmation that "One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh." ?

EkhristosAnesti said:
Historically; a politically motivated council of schism; a robbers council, robbing the See of Alexandria of its theological authority.
Hmmmm...........
 

Augustine

High Elder
Joined
Jun 8, 2004
Messages
565
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Website
www.beyondnihilism.blogspot.com
EA,

The Fathers of the OO church say that Leo’s Christology objectively conflicts with that of St Cyril.
And that's fundamentally the problem, which only infrequently slips from the lips (or in this case, finger tips) of the Non-Chalcedonians; which is unfortunate, in the sense that this is really where the problem is.

I fail to see how this is not the equivelent of saying that St.Leo's Christology is "objectively" not Orthodox.

I am glad though, that the discussions here at least have been focusing on what St.Leo said/didn't say in his Tome.  Even avoiding things as essential as "context" (which IMHO, is unfathomable...this is a recipe for division and misunderstanding), I'm simply at a loss to see what is incorrect in St.Leo's Tome, according to the words.  You've yet to convince me of this, nor has anyone from the Non-Chalcedonian side that I've talked to or read from on this topic.  All they can do is cast innuendos or offer "what-if" type arguments, which would require what is written be torn from it's context.

Because if, in context, one still is left believing that St.Leo and/or Chalcedon in whole are "objectively" incorrect or basically describing a "Christ Who doesn't exist", then that for me would indicate that not only is the contemporary EO-OO dialogue and enthusiasm on a poor basis, but also that it's primary argument (that this is fundamentally a semantical issue, and that alone) is incorrect.

 

Doubting Thomas

High Elder
Joined
Jul 17, 2003
Messages
887
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Georgia
Re: Apollinarius

From Church historian, J.N.D. Kelly:

"Thus the clearest most succinct epitome of Cyril's doctrine is the famous formula which he took over, in the sincere but mistaken belief that it had the authority of the great Athanasius behind it, from certain treatises of Apollinarian provenance, 'one nature, and that incarnate of the Divine Word'". (p. 319, Early Christian Doctrines)

Also concerning Apollinarius:

"In a phrase which was to become famous he declared [Ad Iov. I] that there was 'one incarnate nature of the divine Word'" (p.293, ib.)

Obviously there were many in the Church who were leary of this phrase given its origins and implications--that Christ lacked a complete manhood. The fact that Eutyches justified his ideas with this phrase only confirmed this fear of its theological imprecision and ambiguity among many Churchmen.

And, yes, there was initial resistence to homoousion, but there came to be an settlement on homoousion once it was worked out by the Cappadocians there were three hypostases in one ousia thus guarding against both Sabellianism on one hand and Tritheism or Arianism on the other. So too it was worked out that there was one hypostasis (that of God the Word) with two natures thus gaurding against both Nestorianism on one hand and Apollinarianism or Eutychianism on the other.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Dear Doubting Thomas and others,

IMHO, to me and I don't know about other OO's, this dialogue is "almost over" so long as you understand our side as well.

Notice the frustration that you guys go through to defend what Leo actually meant than what Leo is accused of.  I want you to take this frustration and realize it on the side of the non-Chalcedonians.  St. Dioscorus, St. Severus of Antioch, and others NEVER were heretics.  They were never the mixers of natures or wills that your fathers accused us of, and understandably, neither was your side being Nestorian and you defend that very well.

We must also learn a lesson on taking things "out of context" for that was what the fathers couldn't stop doing.  They strongly preferred one language over another and condemned one another with the extremes of what a certain terminology means.

Just as you defend that you have yet to find what is so Nestorian about Leo, we say the same to you.  We have yet to find what the OO fathers erred from exactly.  Both sides I think defend their own fathers very well, but both sides also need to admit that there was a misunderstanding, and regardless of how you interpret it, both sides maintained the common Orthodox faith as the modern fathers in the recent EO/OO dialogues have said.

So while in that controversial passage Leo seems to "personify" the "Word" and the "flesh", the remainder of Tome should make it clear that the selfsame who is from eternity God also in time became man.  It is this selfsame Subject that does all the actions.  This is not "Nestorian"
I think this is the most considerate Chalcedonian statement so long as you admit that our fathers were unjustly condemned by the last four EO councils.

God bless you.

Mina
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
RE: Apollinarius

Dear Doubting Thomas,

Regardless of whether or not Apollinarius used it, I believe the Alexandrians kept documents written by St. Athanasius that used this same phrase and meant it in an Orthodox manner.

Some polemics make it seem like St. Athanasius "never" used it, but why would they state such an unsubstantiated claim?

God bless you.

Mina
 

Doubting Thomas

High Elder
Joined
Jul 17, 2003
Messages
887
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Georgia
The point is not whether Dioscoros, Severus, et al were heretics.  I never said they were, nor do I necessarily think they were.  (Keep in mind I'm not even Orthodox...not yet, at least).  I do think their refusal to accept Chalcedon's clarification had more to do with a woodenly literal acceptance of (?)Cyril's ambiguous "formula", an acceptance which could be labelled more schismatic rather than "heretical".  The point is that the "christologies" of Apollinarius and Eutyches were both heretical, and it was this potential danger latent in the formula "one nature of the incarnate Word" that Chalcedon was trying to guard against in its clarification of the Hypostatic Union.
 

alexp4uni

Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
329
Reaction score
0
Points
0
So who killed J.R. err... I mean who killed Nestorius? Kinda hypocritical to have any council considered to be Holy and then having it's faithful respond with anger and murder?
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
alexp4uni said:
So who killed J.R. err... I mean who killed Nestorius? Kinda hypocritical to have any council considered to be Holy and then having it's faithful respond with anger and murder?
An attempt at humour??
Shaumburg must be a very small town.....


 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
idontlikenames said:
Stavro:

   Do you think EO's are going to hell?
"Send in the clowns,
Where are the clowns?
There ought to be clowns."
 

alexp4uni

Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
329
Reaction score
0
Points
0
An attempt at humour??
Shaumburg must be a very small town.....
OH Well... It was worth a try but bombed miserably. I hope you don't feel embarrassed for me everytime I make a comment. :p

I mean who killed Nestorius? Kinda hypocritical to have any council considered to be Holy and then having it's faithful respond with anger and murder?
What I was trying to scratch at was What happened to Nestorius after he was condemned by the council. Did he practice what he preached or did many of his supporters, after his "murder", continue the heresy? Is it appropriate to call the Assyrian Church as the Oriental Fathers have called them Nestorian since they are in communion with Rome. It would mean their dialogue and unity meant they agreed with the Tome and it reviewed as Nestorian. But as I read the excerpt of the Tome I really don't see any Nestorianism in it without bias (only a little) from other posters.

So can anyone justify why he was killed? To any inquirer to this complex issue it's better for Preservation of the truth to be separate from animosity against Nestorius and Dioscurus and so on. Just spit out truth without "spinning" the debate and stop throw Saints names that would condemn all of us for watching and taking jabs on polemics. We'll all feel better in the morning.


Like I said my stand on the issue has never been condemning both sides or supporting a Definition until faith of confession requires of it. Both sides recognized Christ as a whole human and a whole God that's how I knew it as an "non-denominational". As I started to know more about my former Church I did have bias on "one nature", but a logical explanation of Christ's humanity and Chalcedon definition was the correct answer. It's either accepting it or not. And of course my issues with my former church was mostly animosity, but I had no disagreement withthe OO. I hope people can see me differently that way.
 

Stavro

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 24, 2003
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
0
Points
36
DT,
in response to your question about Arius origin:
He was Libyan, and he was a priest in Alexandria, yet I am concerned in tracing back his line of thoughts to its roots. It is Antioch.
Arius developed his heresy in Antioch, being the student of Lucian and the collegue of Eusebius of Nicomedia in the school of Antioch. He was diposed by Alexandria after he preached heresy there several times, and found no place again there although all apostolic Sees and major christian cities at the time fell into the Arian heresy, such as Liberius of Rome, Eusebius of Constantinople (Nicomedia), Antioch, .... . Only Alexandria stood firm and saved the World from Arianism and then Nestorianism.
The culprit is not Arius as much as the heretical school of Antioch that championed the heresies that were centered around the denial of the divinity of Christ and it was only natural that all heretics hail from this school. It was dominated by philosophers,men who treat christianity as the "current best approach", but not men of faith and was not under the control of the church.
 

Salpy

Toumarches
Joined
Jan 15, 2005
Messages
14,493
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Forgive me if this has already been raised, but have the Chalcedonians posting on this thread read V. C. Samuel's book The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined?  I think this, more than anything else, does a good job of explaining our position on Chalcedon.  Those who are really interested in this subject and want to understand the issues better should really read it. ÂÂ

It is a long book, but actually a pretty quick and easy read.  I got through it in a couple of weeks and learned so much.  This is partly because the author was not too scholarly in his language, so even a layperson dumbhead like myself could get through it without trouble.  The author assumes the reader has a little background knowlegde, but the people on this thread clearly already have that.

The author was also remarkably nonpolemical in his writing.  He actually discusses Pucharia without once referring to her as "the nun who got married."  For an OO that took remarkable restraint.  ;D  He was pretty balanced in his approach.

We also need to rememeber that the ramifications of Chalcedon were not just theoretical, but very real and tragic.  It was Chalcedon and the resulting persecutions which divided the Christian East and made it easy for the Muslims to conquer so much territory in so little time. ÂÂ

Also, the persecutions were not just something which happened over a thousand years ago.  The last Tsar, in the name of Chalcedon, confiscated Armenian Church property, closed Armenian churches and threw Armenian priests in prison.  A few years back, I met and spoke with an elderly architect who, in the 1960's, was involved in repairing a piece of Armenian Church property which had been taken by the Tsar and returned back to the Armenians by Khruschev.  The story this guy told was that Khruschev was visiting Armenia and some officials there got him roaring drunk.  While he was intoxicated, they got him to sign the paperwork returning the building back to the Armenians.  I think the building had been the residence of the Catholicos and the Tsar had, after putting it under Moscow's control, turned it into a stable. ÂÂ

I don't mean to turn this discussion "nasty" by mentioning the above.  It is just that sometimes I think we take theological discussions to be be "theory," when in fact they have real life ramifications. Unfortunately, these ramifications are happening even today.  I have recently heard that in Georgia many Armenian churches are currently either being closed or taken over by the Georgian Church.  The Georgian Catholicos supposedly has authority over all churches and has recently been taking these steps against the Armenian Orthodox over there.  These church closings and confiscations are of course being done against the wishes of the Armenians and without any compensation. ÂÂ

Can't we all just get along?  I, like many others in this forum, would like to see our differences resolved so we could all be one Orthodox Church.  Not only would we be able to present a more united front to the world (something we unfortunately cound not do during the Muslim invasions of the 7th century) but I think we would all be a lot happier.  ÂÂ

Sorry for running on like this.  Again, I advise the people posting on this thread to get V.C. Samuel's book.  You could get it on Amazon.com.  I think this thread would actually be more constructive and interesting if everyone read it and we discussed the points made by Father Samuel, instead of going on about whether or not Leo of Rome acutally intended to sound Nestorian in his language, etc.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
Salpy said:
Forgive me if this has already been raised, but have the Chalcedonians posting on this thread read V. C. Samuel's book The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined?  I think this, more than anything else, does a good job of explaining our position on Chalcedon. ÂÂ
Thanks for this.
I think a good, pretty balanced summary of the Eastern Orthodox position can be found in the work of Fr. John S. Romanides: "ST. CYRIL'S "ONE PHYSIS OR HYPOSTASIS OF GOD THE LOGOS INCARNATE" AND CHALCEDON" it's available online at: http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.08.en.st._cyrils_one_physis_or_hypostasis_of_god_the_log.htm

Salpy said:
We also need to rememeber that the ramifications of Chalcedon were not just theoretical, but very real and tragic.  It was Chalcedon and the resulting persecutions which divided the Christian East and made it easy for the Muslims to conquer so much territory in so little time.....Can't we all just get along? I, like many others in this forum, would like to see our differences resolved so we could all be one Orthodox Church. ÂÂ
Yes, subsequent events are very tragic, and continue to be. But we will always remain at an impasse if we blame the Council of Chalcedon for it. If there are real dogmatic differences between us, these must be acknowledged unlike Nestorios who began a hideous persecution of the Arians, Macedonians, Quartodecimans, and Novatians (earning him the title "The Incendiary" for his burning of their Churches), and then only to end up proclaiming heresy himself, co-existence based on the Love Christ calls us all to is the way forward. However, it would be unreasonable to expect us to become One Orthodox Church if there are real dogmatic differences.
If our differences are not dogmatic we can be One Church, if they are, then we must learn to co-exist in love.
 

Beayf

High Elder
Joined
Dec 10, 2002
Messages
708
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I am reminded of one of my favorite Buffy quotes for some reason...

Giles: "That's why I think we should all keep a level head at this."
Willow: "And I happen to think that mine is the level head and yours is the one things would roll off of."
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Let us not forget that it's not only what's inside the Tome that got us bugging out, but what was associated with it. Theodoret and Ibas, Roman legates calling Theodore of Mopsuestia a "doctor" of the Church, St. Dioscorus' house arrest during the council sessions, and the forceful persecutions lead by Marcian on the Miaphysite faithful for rejecting the Tome all are factores into our rejection of the Tome. We can't just accept it.

However, I understand under the recent agreements that we can accept its Orthodox implications as well as the other councils' Orthodox implications, but we cannot accept it as something binding for the Orthodox Church. What is left now is the lifting up of anathemas from both families so that this unnecessary schism may end.

Dear ozgeorge,

If our differences are not dogmatic we can be One Church, if they are, then we must learn to co-exist in love.
I happen to believe since we have no differences in dogma, we are not only "can be" One Church, but we "are" in fact One Church.ÂÂ I cannot accept a divided Church.ÂÂ Only man divides, but not the Church.ÂÂ I believe Christ has not allowed a division in the Orthodox Church, but only a lesson to be learned.  That's my philosophy.

God bless.
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Messages
2,743
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Doubting Thomas,

I do think their refusal to accept Chalcedon's clarification had more to do with a woodenly literal acceptance of (?)Cyril's ambiguous "formula", an acceptance which could be labelled more schismatic rather than "heretical".
You’re begging the question here. Let’s assume for arguments sake that the EO and OO at Chalcedon had the same faith, and dispute was over semantics and the terminological/”phraseological” emphasis which should prevail in conveying this faith; the question is: which emphasis was more appropriate? In other words, whose rejection/insistence of particular expressions/terms/phrases is truly to be labelled "schismatic"?

I would argue that those at Chalcedon are the schismatics for their very unjustified treatment of St Dioscorus in the first place; which is really the crux of the division that took place. Furthermore I believe it was Leo’s and the rest of the Roman legate's woodenly literal rejection of St Cyril’s formula, and their woodenly literal rejection of other such formulas i.e. “of two natures”, as well as their woodenly literal insistence concerning the acceptance of Leo’s tome in toto without question (if you read the minutes of Chalcedon, you would discover that many of the Chalcedonian fathers were uncomfortable with the tome in the first place, and felt the need to alter it or add to it, or even replace it entirely) could be labeled schismatic on their behalf. I don’t think there’s any objectivity in your line of thought, it seems you just want to flow with the “mainstream”.

The point is that the "christologies" of Apollinarius and Eutyches were both heretical
The point is, the former's heresy is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion - it was already dealt with by the Church before Chalcedon, and the latter's adoption of any sort of heresy is questionable, and certainly a shakey and unjustified assumption to base the proceeding events upon.

As I stated before, Apollinarius' heresy was independent of the miaphysis formula; he denied the rational soul of Christ and taught communicatio idiomatum - his affirmation of mia physis (assuming that he did) would not have been for him the corollary of these heresies, nor the implication of these heresies - thus his usage of it, even if it can be proven that he did so, cannot be proven to be heretical in any event - the whole argument that it was, simply because he held to other Christological heresies, is a non-sequitor im afraid. Furthermore, Apollonarius' heresy was already dealt with at The Council of Constantinople 1. Ephesus 1 then reinforced that Christ possessed a rational human soul alongside the miaphysite Christology that was vindicated then. Miaphysis terminology was the standard for Orthodoxy AFTER the whole Apollonarius controversey (it was not compromised nor challenged at the councils dealing with this heresy), which is enough evidence in and of itself to directly refute your implicit claim that the mia physis formula had to be compromised as a safeguard for Apollonarianism - the early Church and councils DIRECTLY DEALING WITH THIS HERESY certainly didnt think so, nor does reason or logic dictate this.

With regards to Eutyches, I repeat: there is no evidence that Eutyches ever held to the heresy ascribed to him. As I have said, and will repeat; the testimony held against him was as inconsistent as his own. Even assuming that he was a heretic, you have not justified Chalcedon by bringing this up. If you think an entire Church needs to reformulate and re-express the Christology that was established by a previous Ecumenical council for the sake of one sole monk who was neither a scholar, nor a theologian, nor anyone of high authority or reputation, then no offense to you sir, but that is a joke.

On a sidenote: Re: “Apollonarian origins” charge — I didn’t ask you to quote scholars who espouse the theory, I asked for evidence of the charge. I know that many scholars are proponents of this claim, I could refer you to more even (R.V. Sellers, Panagiotes N. Trempela), however my position is that it is nothing more than a mere claim, and there is no hardcore evidence to support it.

it was this potential danger latent in the formula "one nature of the incarnate Word" that Chalcedon was trying to guard against in its clarification of the Hypostatic Union.
Wow, so you admit that the Council of Chalcedon was based on speculation. So let’s get this straight — the Chalcedonian emphasis was based on speculation, concerned with what may or may not have been a potential danger (the historical situation at the time certainly not backing up the former), whereas the non-Chalcedonian emphasis was based on reality, concerned with what already was a real, current, and growing danger in the Church. And who are the schismatics, you say?

Furthermore, on a sidenote: Chalcedon did NOT clarify the hypostatic union. Are you kidding me? Where in any of your quotes does it prove that the Word en-hypostasized his humanity such that its existence and function is dependent on the hypostasis of The Word, as opposed to independent of the Hypostasis of THE WORD — you don’t need to show me those exact words, just show me anything that comes close to clarifying that.

I see a lot of people throwing around the word “context”, however all you have proven is inconsistencies. Your claim is akin to Bob who in an attempt to provide context to Joe’s statement: “It is night-time here, and the sunshine is great”; points out that Joe also said elsewhere that the "moon was bright", to try and clarify that it was indeed night-time. However, that the "moon was bright", does not clarify the statement that "the sunshine is great".ÂÂ Just as Bob has only pointed out further inconsistencies, so too have the Chalcedonians. Let me prove it:

First you claim that "The Word" in reference to the controversial quotation in question, is simply Leo's way of referring to "the divine nature":

“Each nature performs what is proper to it in communion with the other; the Word for instance, performing what is proper to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what is proper to the flesh” (Leo's tome)

...Yet elsewhere, you give us this:

"...that the one Son of God is both Word and flesh." (Leo's tome)

Let's see what this contextual factor brings to light. According to quote 2: The Son of God = Word + Flesh, yet according to quote 1: The Word acts independently of the flesh; therefore, the clear implication is that The One Son of God is capable of being divided according to his acts, and this is where Nestorius applauds.

Furthermore, nothing in the context you have provided has explained the manner in which leo depicts The Word and flesh operating. NATURES DO NOT OPERATE; clearly, Leo understands natures as operative centres of action. If Leo does not understand these natures as personal subjects, and if the context you provide goes out of its way to prove that Leo understood only one personal subject in Christ, then this is yet another clear contradiction within his own tome, for the very corollary of the understanding of a nature as an operative centre of action, is that it is also a centre of consciousness and rationale i.e. personal.

Let no one be fooled by the word "context" - the "context" doesn't clarify Leo's position, it only proves it confused and inconsistent.

Peace.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
St. Leo's one sentance which you seem to be fixated on means simply that the Word Who is Begoten by the Father in Eternity, through Whom all things were created, is Himself, Uncreated. In the latter days, the Word took created flesh from the Theotokos, so in One Person, there was a joining of the Uncreated to the created, the Eternal Word took on human flesh. He is talking about the Dne Nature and the Human Nature. They were not mingled or confused. The Divine Nature is Immutable and Passionless. The Divine Nature did not sleep when Christ slept. The Divine Nature did not eat when Christ ate. The Divine Nature did not empty it's bowels when Christ emptied His bowels. This is what St. Leo means.

Don't try and tell me that you think St. Leo does not recognise the singular Person of Christ when in the same tome he says:
"He is also called the Man from heaven, being perfect in his Divinity and perfect in his Humanity, and considered as in one Person. For one is the Lord Jesus Christ, although the difference of his natures is not unknown, from which we say the ineffable union was made. "
and
"For although in the Lord Jesus Christ there is one Person of God and man, yet that whereby contumely attaches to both is one thing, and that whereby glory attaches to both is another; for from what belongs to us He has that manhood which is inferior to the Father; while from the Father he has equal Godhead with the Father."
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Messages
2,743
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Stavro,

Quote
Historically; a politically motivated council of schism; a robbers council, robbing the See of Alexandria of its theological authority.
A statement that is not supported by evidence and again, exposes the lack of understanding of theology.
Bro, the above quotation to which you were responding was made by me in reference to the Council of Chalcedon. I know the Chalcedonians often refer to Ephesus 449 as a robber’s council; I was simply appropriately re-directing that label and applying it to Chalcedon.

Since a couple have expressed an “hmmmmmmmm….”’ and “huh huh…” in response to my statement, I will provide an elaborate essay substantiating it when I have the time.

Peace.
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Messages
2,743
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ozgeorge,

Don't try and tell me that you think St. Leo does not recognise the singular Person of Christ when in the same tome he says:
I don't think you're getting my point. Again, we are not concerned with Leo's subjective intentions. I am approaching his document from an objective perspective and trying to deduce what may be reasonably interpreted.

That he explicitly affirms one personal subject, alongside statements with the corollary implication of two personal subjects, is called an inconsistency. Natures do not act; they provide the means/capacity by which the hypostasis/person possessing the particular nature acts.

Furthermore, I have already proven that the mere affirmation of "One person", does not suffice, for Nestorius could understand this expression to refer to his "prosopic union".

The Divine Nature did not sleep
The fact of the matter is, neither the divine nature nor the human nature slept. The Word who is Christ who is The Son of God, is the one who slept according to His humanity.

Peace.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
EkhristosAnesti said:
The fact of the matter is, neither the divine nature nor the human nature slept. The Word who is Christ who is The Son of God, is the one who slept according to His humanity.
So, the Divine Nature is either mutable or not present in Christ. Either a Gnostic form of Monophysitism or Arianism.
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Messages
2,743
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Quote from: EkhristosAnesti on Today at 03:43:37 AM
The fact of the matter is, neither the divine nature nor the human nature slept. The Word who is Christ who is The Son of God, is the one who slept according to His humanity.

So, the Divine Nature is either mutable or not present in Christ. Either a Gnostic form of Monophysitism or Arianism.
Huh? You are reading those implications into my statement; I never mentioned the divine nature sir, since the divine nature has nothing to do with Christ's act of sleeping — I affirmed two principle things a) That The Word was the subject of the human act b) That the human act was possible to be excercised by the personal subject: The Word - due to His possession of a human nature - but it was not ACTUALIZED BY his human nature, only His person - THE WORD.

Let me re-iterate my statement, except replacing the act of sleep with the act of suffering/death, and then we will compare it with the 12th anathema of St Cyril.

I say: “The fact of the matter is, neither the divine nature nor the human nature suffered or died. The Word is the one who suffered and died according to his flesh

St Cyril in his 12th anathema says:

"If anyone does not confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh [or alternativelyt as I have stated “according to His flesh”] and was crucified in the flesh and tasted death in the flesh and became the first born of the dead, although as God he is life and life-giving, let him be anathema."

It's quite simple. St Cyril did not say that the flesh suffered or died; He states that The Word suffered and died in/according-to the flesh. If you have a problem with this, then there is really no discussion - I don't think St Cyril's 12 anathema is up for debate.

Peace.


 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
EkhristosAnesti said:
Stavro,

A statement that is not supported by evidence and again, exposes the lack of understanding of theology.

Bro, the above quotation to which you were responding was made by me in reference to the Council of Chalcedon. I know the Chalcedonians often refer to Ephesus 449 as a robber’s council; I was simply appropriately re-directing that label and applying it to Chalcedon.
Hmmm.........
Perhaps, in actual fact, "the Spirit has spoken through Stavro."
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Messages
2,743
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Perhaps, in actual fact, "the Spirit has spoken through Stavro."
Agreed, considering the fact Stavro was responding to it as a Chalcedonian remark in response to Ephesus 449  ;)

Perhaps, the Spirit continued to speaketh through Stavro, saying:

The authority of the Church and each individual is to confirm the faith and protect the faith against any changes, an authority that no other See exercised better than Alexandria. Period.
and:

The holy council of Ephesus II was ratified by the fifth council of the Chalcedonian, for the decisions are one and the same. Chalcedon, that allowed Nestorians back to the church and sanctified their teachings, contradicts both.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
EkhristosAnesti said:
"If anyone does not confess that the Word of God suffered in the flesh [or alternativelyt as I have stated “according to His flesh”] and was crucified in the flesh and tasted death in the flesh and became the first born of the dead, although as God he is life and life-giving, let him be anathema."

We are going in circles.
Until you aknowledge that the one use of the word "Word" by St. Leo refers to the Divine Nature and that he understood that the singular Person/hypostasis of Christ is also the Word we will get nowhere.
When I say "The sun is on my shoulders" do I mean that the mass of the Solar Sphere is resting on my shoulders, or do I mean that the rays of the sun are striking my shoulders? Perhaps someone with Asperger's Syndrome would take it literally and call me a liar.
Perhaps it's best we just agree to disagree and strive to co-exist in Christian love.
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Messages
2,743
Reaction score
0
Points
0
We are going in circles.
Until you aknowledge that the one use of the word "Word" by St. Leo refers to the Divine Nature and that he understood that the singular Person/hypostasis of Christ is also the Word we will get nowhere.
I have acknowledged that Leo uses the term “Word” to refer to the divine nature in the context of his tome. This is irrelevant to the point im making. Leo says that the flesh PERFORMS human acts. St Cyril anathemizes anyone who does not acknowledge that the personal subject of Christ (which St Cyril identifies as “the Word”) is the one who performs human acts “In” or “According to” his flesh.

Perhaps it's best we just agree to disagree and strive to co-exist in Christian love.
Agreed.

Peace.
 
Top