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
EkhristosAnesti said:
Wasn’t it you that recommended the following article:
Yes, it was....
and I also distinctly remember saying that Fr. Romanides is the Voice for the entire Eastern Orthodox Church and is infallible and ........
Wasn;t it you who's arguments depend on the inane theories of one Prof. Bittle that have been debunked? Do I have to do all your homework for you?
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Messages
2,743
Reaction score
0
Points
0
and I also distinctly remember saying that Fr. Romanides is the Voice for the entire Eastern Orthodox Church and is infallible and ........
LOL what a cop out. Just admit you are absolutely clueless with regards to this whole issue - the history, the logic, the facts, all of it; and that despite your recommendation of the article as a “pretty good summary of the Eastern Orthodox position” it’s obvious you did not even read it FOR THE UNDERLYING PRESUPPOSITION TO THE WHOLE ARTICLE is that physis in its Alexandrian context i.e. as employed by St Cyril and St Dioscorus, is synonymous with HYPOSTASIS.

Fr. Romanides view is historically accurate and honest. Yours has no substance, it is desparate and delusional. 

You want to call St Dioscorus a monophysite for affirming one nature, yet you’re not man enough to be consistent and apply the same title to his immediate predecessor who used the title before him. We provide you with direct and explicit quotations of St Dioscorus from a pro-Chalcedonian textbook, proving that he didn’t understand the ultimate one nature of Christ in its essentialistic sense, but rather in its dynamic sense such that it’s synonymous to hypostasis, yet you continue to ignore this, and blindly continue to purport argumentum ad ignoratium which consequently undermines the great St Cyril whom you supposedly commemorated a few days ago.

Don’t let satan play you ozgeorge.

Wasn;t it you who's arguments depend on the inane theories of one Prof. Bittle that have been debunked?
My arguments weren’t dependent on anything in the first place, they’re supported by St Cyril's 12th anathema first and foremost which declares that the PERSON of Christ acted according to or "in" His NATURES, which is simply common sense. Obviously St Cyril was not authoritative enough for you, so I thought I would bring in authorities in the field of metaphysics to further elucidate the issue. Unfortunately you invented your own version of metaphysics in your own little world. How nice.

Prof. Bittle that have been debunked
Prof. Bittle was debunked? You mean when you said “Stupid Prof. Bittle!” lol I refer everyone and anyone to the relevant discussion that began here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=6373.msg82787#msg82787

I’m sure they can make up their minds for themselves  ;)

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:
You want to call St Dioscorus a monophysite for affirming one nature, yet you’re not man enough to be consistent and apply the same title to his immediate predecessor who used the title before him.
Nice attempt to twist it. If you remember, what I am saying is that Dioscorus is not saying the same thing as St. Cyril. St. Cyril is not Dioscorus' predessesor- you and Dioscorua just think he is. Of course I can say publically that Dioscorus' predessesor is a heretic, because his predessesor is not St. Cyril, its Eutyches.
Let me therefore solemly declare that Dioscorus and his predessesor are both heretics.

Is that "man enough" for you?

I'm off to bed..... Goodnight.
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Messages
2,743
Reaction score
0
Points
0
If you remember, what I am saying is that Dioscorus is not saying the same thing as St. Cyril.
Yes, yes, we know that all you have is baseless assertions. We are still waiting for the evidence. Constantly pointing out that St Dioscorus insisted on one physis after the union tells us nothing about what he meant by this; obviously in your satanic agenda to undermine an Orthodox confessor of the faith, you need to regress into the logical fallacy known as non-sequitor by which you conclude a proposition which does not necessarily follow from the premise. We have provided you with the context of St Dioscorus’ statement, we are still waiting for you to deal with the direct quotes from St Dioscorus which have been pasted for you repeatedly:

St Cyril confirms One physis after the union.
St Dioscorus confirms One physis after the union.

St Cyril says that Christ is consubstantial with mankind.
St Dioscorus says that Christ is consubstantial with mankind.

St Cyril says that Christ acts according to His divinity at times and according to His humanity at times.
St Dioscorus says that Christ acts according to His divinity at times and according to His humanity at times.

St Cyril says that Christ's two essences cannot be separated after the union; thereby presupposing a possession of two essences - since the human essence only came into being at the hypostatic union anyway.
St Dioscorus says that Christ's two essences cannot be separated after the union; thereby presupposing a possession of two essences - since the human essence only came into being at the hypostatic union anyway.

Conclusion:
St Cyril and St Dioscorus declared the same faith in the same context.

Let me therefore solemly declare that Dioscorus and his predessesor are both heretics.
May God forgive and have mercy on you, through the intercessions of the blessed St Dioscorus. May he pray for you like he did for those who persecuted him.

Amen, Kyrie Eleison.

Peace.
 

Anastasios

Merarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
10,561
Reaction score
14
Points
38
Location
Reston, VA
Website
www.anastasioshudson.com
I have just warned ozgeorge for his comments about Dioscorus of Alexandria and I have warned EkhristosAnesti for statements that ozgeorge and others found to be ad hominem. Please fellows, keep discussing the facts and do not get so wrapped up in emotionalism. These kinds of serious debates are necessary and good, and I don't want to have to close this thread.

Anastasios
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Good morning everyone.

Dear ozgeorge,

I really hope that you are this time joking.  After all the proof exhausted by EA, I have a feeling that you only want to do this to make us feel the same frustration you felt when defending the Tome of Leo.  If that's the case, then you've sure taught us the lesson.

But seriously, come on now?  Where in the Synexarium did it declare that there was a confusion of natures and wills?  "One nature" is simply anonymous to "one hypostasis."  For example, the three natures of man (spirit, soul, and body) are united as one nature without mixing or division.  St. Cyril used that analogy to explain his "one incarnate nature."  As for the "one will" I showed you before this means that the prosopon is the center of all decision making.  Two natures don't make "two simultaneous decisions" for that would be Nestorian, but there would be "two desires."  St. Dioscorus thought Leo taught two hypostases and two decisions.  That is all.  We misunderstood one another.  The EO councils misunderstood St. Dioscorus.  Fr. John Romanides writes in this website:

http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.06.en.orthodox_and_oriental_orthodox_consultation.htm

We take Leo of Rome as representative of the problems of unity between us which were created on the Chalcedonian side and Dioscoros as representative of what had been done on the Oriental side. It is around these persons that the central events revolved which produced the final division which we have inherited between us. The point in history where we seem to be at present is that of the lifting of the anathemas against Leo and the Council of Chalcedon, which means the cleaning of the slate on the Chalcedonian side, with the same holding true about Dioscoros and his followers on the Oriental Orthodox side. To clear Dioscoros of doctrinal error should mean the clearing of the slate for those of his followers to be rehabilitated also, as far as the patristic period is concerned. Leo of Rome has no followers so to speak of on the Orthodox side in need of being cleared. It would also seem that agreement that both Leo and Dioscoros were doctrinally Orthodox would then put the problem of their restoration on a non-Christological doctrinal plane, but on a canonical plane. In such a case the reversal of condemnations by Ecumenical and local Councils can be dealt with as canonical, rather than doctrinal problems.
I remember earlier you recommended another article by him.  This is why I believe you are joking, that you are only frustrating us, instead of proving St. Dioscorus a heretic.

But please let us stop joking.  Let us be serious.  Fr. John has a spirit of understanding.  This whole article explains very well a vindication of both sides.  This is what I call objective.  He does not take things out of context (as both our side showed on the Tome and you showed on the Synexarium), but tries to find the essence of what these things meant, and no doubt, with great evidence as both our sides showed in this dizzying debate, we both speak the same faith.

God bless you, brother.

In Christ always,

Mina

PS  some people get confused and think I'm a girl...let the record be clear "Mina" is an Egyptian guy :) (some people did this mistake to me online in other websites before)
 

cizinec

High Elder
Joined
Apr 20, 2004
Messages
943
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Houstonia
Stavro,

I haven’t had time to read this entire thread, so be a little patient.  I just wanted to respond to a couple of things before I get too far behind.

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.
Well, I wish we had a “Nestorian” posting on this board.  They hold argue that they and Nestorius never taught “Nestorianism” and that Nestorianism was just a ploy.  If I’m going to be fair, I’m not going to take your charge as axiomatic if you want me to not take the charges against OOs as axiomatic.

Note that such trends exist already in christian literature and extends to include Arianism as a big fat misunderstanding.
. . . so we should reject that conclusion without any discussion.  Arianism is an extreme case compared to the divisions between “Nestorians,” OOs and EOs.  There were definitely linguistic misunderstandings involved in all these cases. 

In any case, current Nestorians reject Nestorianism, OOs reject monophysitism and EOs reject Nestorianism.

the rejection of Leo's Tome by the OO cannot be simply attributed to terminology and semantic
Since I don’t reject the Tome, I can’t attribute the OO rejection to anything.  If it’s because they say the Tome says something than the EOs say it doesn’t say, then language is a pretty prominent suspect.

I still don’t have one question that’s bugging me answered.

If Chalcedon was a reaffirmation of Nestorianism, why are we separated from Nestorians?  Why wasn’t there a joyful reunion?
 

Anastasios

Merarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
10,561
Reaction score
14
Points
38
Location
Reston, VA
Website
www.anastasioshudson.com
ozgeorge said:
Dioscorus says: "one Messiah, one Lord, and one Nature". I'm not sure how much clearer it needs to be.
George,

While I am a Chalcedonian, I can't believe you actually said this.  I think it's clear from the context that Dioscorus is using the term nature the way we use person.

Anastasios
 

cizinec

High Elder
Joined
Apr 20, 2004
Messages
943
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Houstonia
Wow.  I don't think I read my last post before I posted it.  Look at that grammar.
 

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
Anastasios said:
While I am a Chalcedonian, I can't believe you actually said this. I think it's clear from the context that Dioscorus is using the term nature the way we use person.
I don't think this is at all clear from the context. The context (which is the Coptic Synaxarion) is this:

1) The Council of Chalcedon introduces a "new" doctrine that Christ has "Two Natures" and "Two Wills"
2) Dioscorus is summoned and asked whether he accepts this "new" doctrine.
3) Dioscorus refutes it saying that Christ has One Nature resulting from the fusion of two.
"When he saw that Leo, Archbishop of Rome, was teaching that Christ has two natures and two wills after the Union, he took the charge to refute this new belief. "

I am not saying that this is what all non-Chalcedon's today believe. I am saying this is what Dioscorus' publically said he believed.
However, when I denied this doctrine of Dioscorus and affirmed the doctrine of the Two Natures, I am placed under the (non-existent) anathema of St. Cyril by a non-chalcedonian......
"Accordingly they are speaking in vain who say that, if there should be one incarnate PhysisÂÂ ‘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."
While St. Cyril can be understood to be using "Nature" in the sense of "person" (a fact which is clear from his acceptance of the Two Natures in his letter to John of Antioch), Dioscorus cannot, since his statement was in response to a direct question as to whether Christ has Two Natures.
And again, when I pointed St. Cyril's letter to John of Antioch out, one particular non-chalcedon dismissed it as a "concession".

So I disagree. It is not as clear as you think.

btw, just FYI, If you sent me a warning by pm, I haven't received it. The only pm I have is from EA.
 

idontlikenames

Sr. Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
230
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
43
Location
Ignorantville, U.S.A.
As I've seen countless times on OC.net, this is just another thread where we try to prove how erudite and intelligent each one of us is (a game I can easily play as well, but am mature enough not to).....apparently some of us are not comfortable with our looks or organ-size or what-have-you....or cannot simply rest self-assured in the 10-year-college-education that our rich, doctor daddies paid for.

 

minasoliman

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

What you quote has nothing to do with what St. Dioscorus believed, but with what St. Dioscorus thought Leo believed (i.e. Nestorianism).  We showed you the circumstances upon which we rejected one another.

Quotes like "He taught something new" and "He refuted it with one nature" does not say anything about what St. Dioscorus believed.  Please, you haven't found anything explicitly heretical as of yet from St. Dioscorus' claims and writings.  Publicly in Chalcedon, no one could convict him of heresy to his face because he said nothing different from St. Cyril.

So the author of the Synexarium is obviously wrong and misunderstood Leo's intentions in the faith.  That's all.

Here are some real life quotes from OC.net member "Raouf" who is a very knowledgeable person:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,798.45.html

He quotes some of the famous OO fathers, the first couple of quotes being those of St. Dioscorus himself.  Any of those you find offensive to the Orthodox faith, then let us know.

God bless you, brother.
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Messages
2,743
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ozgeorge,


1) The Council of Chalcedon introduces a "new" doctrine that Christ has "Two Natures" and "Two Wills"
The Coptic Synaxarium was written under the assumption that the Chalcedonian two-nature Christology was in reference to two independent states of existence i.e. hypostasis. St Dioscorus was not rejecting a two-nature Christology as it is understood in the context of the latter councils, or as you would have us believe, in the context of Chalcedon itself which according to you is sufficient in itself — but we can agree to disagree on that — rather he was rejecting it in the manner that he understood it, in a Nestorian context; the manner in which I have argued can be reasonably misinterpreted (whether you disagree with that fact or not is irrelevant to the point im making) as it was done so by the great King of Nestorians, Nestorius himself.


2) Dioscorus refutes it saying that Christ has One Nature resulting from the fusion of two.
“Fusion”? Really? Where does it say “fusion”? Ozgeorge enough of the deceit, ENOUGH. This is a non-sequitor that has been debunked a hundred times, and I will do it a hundred more if I have to. I have shown you an EXPLICIT quote from St Dioscorus himself in which he EXCPLICITLY affirms that Christ is consubstantial with both the Father and mankind. You do know what the term homoousion means right? If you did, you would understand that the implications of this contradict any “fusion” doctrine that you feel the need (under the inspiration of the father of all liars) to desperately and deceptively read into this blessed Saints Christology, for fusion necessarily leads to a compromise of one or the two natures, and hence one or the other CEASES TO BE CONSUBSTANTIAL as a DIRECT CONSEQUENCE. However:

St Dioscorus says: “God the Logos, consubstantial with the Father, at the end of the ages for our redemption became consubstantial with man in the flesh, remaining what he was before.” (Sellers, R.V. The Council of Chalcedon p31. n1. S.P.C.K. 1953)

If at the point of incarnation he was consubstantial with man according to His humanity remaining what He was before - then obviously there was no fusion. PERIOD.

Furthermore, it has already been proven from the Synaxarium itself, that St Dioscorus presupposed two distinct natures (in the ousia sense) in Christ; for If St Dioscorus believed the two natures (ousias) had fused into one nature in its essentialistic sense (ousia) as opposed to their synthesis resulting in One nature in a dynamic sense (hypostasis), he would not have made the statement that the “the two natures cannot be separated in all his acts” since two distinct natures would not have existed to be separated in the first place. The “One nature” resulting from the “two natures” happened at the very point of union, for in reality Christ never had two natures which came together into "one" at a certain point in time such that we can speak of a time "before" and "after" the union in a chronological sense; His humanity came into being at the very point of union — thus it either came into being as a distinct and complete/perfect essence (i.e. consubstantial with mankind), or as an imperfect/dissolved essence, but there was never a “process” such that St Dioscorus could affirm the existence of two distinct natures in Christ that cannot be separated as if they in-time then became One nature (ousia) such that separation is no longer a possibility. The fact he affirms that the two natures (ousias) in Christ are inseparable, is a presupposition of these two natures (ousias) in Christ in the first place, and that they became Mia Physis (hypostasis) according to their union, is simply St Cyrils Miaphysite Christology in a nutshell. That these two natures were consubstantial with the Father and mankind respectively, is an explicit most blatant statement with the undeniable logical consequence that they underwent no alteration or confusion.

St Dioscorus states: “God the Logos, consubstantial with the Father, at the end of the ages for our redemption became consubstantial with man in the flesh, remaining what he was before.” (Sellers, R.V. The Council of Chalcedon p31. n1. S.P.C.K. 1953)

However, when I denied this doctrine of Dioscorus and affirmed the doctrine of the Two Natures, I am placed under the (non-existent) anathema of St. Cyril by a non-chalcedonian......
Don’t twist everything to such a dramatic extent, and think that I will sit here and let you get away with it. First of all, St Dioscorus’ doctrine is that of St Cyril’s — The natures of the hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ ultimately means that He possesses One physis (hypostasis), due to the very fact the humanity of Christ is en-hypostasized by his divinity — if you deny this, and then may you be anathema.

HOWEVER, the anathema I referred you to is very explicit and has nothing to do with the affirmation of one or two natures in whatever sense the term may be understood. The anathema pertained to the fact that If you do not confess that it is the personal subject or Hypostasis of Christ which suffered and died "in the flesh" or "according to His flesh", then you are an anathema. After the first time I showed quoted you St Cyril’s 12th anathema, you continued in defiance to insist that the flesh suffered and died; that it was the NATURE that was the subject of action and not the person. People only need to go back a couple of pages in this forum to see for themselves.

Listen to your fifth council ozgeorge, wasn’t it you who quoted that “One of the Trinity suffered and died in the flesh” (or something along those lines). Stick with that and don’t go back on it, and you’ll be safely away from St Cyril’s 12th anathema.

Dioscorus cannot, since his statement was in response to a direct question as to whether Christ has Two Natures.
It’s obvious that St Dioscorus taught two natures in the manner that the Eastern Church understands these two natures in the context of the subsequent councils. HISTORICALLY however, St Dioscorus interpreted your two nature Christology in the same manner the rest of the Oriental Orthodox Church, as well as Nestorius and the Nestorian church interpreted it; as if physis was in its hypostatic sense and NOT its essentialistic sense - since the context was ambiguous and did not sufficiently clarify the intentions of the one making such statements; they are the FACTS ozgeorge — please read the very article which you highly recommended, because the proposition that physis=hypostasis to Alexandrian and Nestorian ears is not some peripheral point made, it is the very CRUX of that whole article which you recommended yourself.

And again, when I pointed St. Cyril's letter to John of Antioch out, one particular non-chalcedon dismissed it as a "concession".
I affirmed that it WAS a concession; St Cyril obviously didn't think his Christology that was vindicated at Ephesus 431 was defective or lacking; he simply recognized that some were feeble-minded and needed their concerns to be incorporated more explicitly, HOWEVER I didn’t “dismiss” it. When will you stop mispreresenting everyone’s position? From the blessed St Dioscorus, to the blessed St Cyril, to minasoliman and myself — it’s getting ridiculous now. It WAS a concession, however not one to be dismissed SINCE WE AFFIRM THE RE-UNION FORMULA as doctrinally binding in the Oriental Orthodox Church and it has ALWAYS been regarded as such. St Cyril’s affirmation of the concept of two natures was no different to the manner in which St Dioscorus affirmed it. The issue here is language and terminology, and not concept — St Cyril said he had the same faith (concept) as John of Antioch — this he declared upon John’s asfirmation of two natures in their essentialistic sense, and upon his rejection of Nestorius whom he formerly supported.

Peace.
 

Anastasios

Merarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
10,561
Reaction score
14
Points
38
Location
Reston, VA
Website
www.anastasioshudson.com
George,

I posted a warning in this thread on the post where you anathematized Dioscorus personally. I don't see that post anymore; maybe it was deleted? Warnings for specific posts appear below the post in question so that is where it would be.

Anastasios
 

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
Anastasios said:
George,
I posted a warning in this thread on the post where you anathematized Dioscorus personally. I don't see that post anymore; maybe it was deleted? Warnings for specific posts appear below the post in question so that is where it would be.
Anastasios
Anastasios,
I note that EA's anathema of me who upholds the teachings of Chalcedon has not been removed ( http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=6373.msg82842#msg82842 ).
Please do not remove it, I consider this to be a badge of honour. http://www.hymnsite.com/lyrics/umh710.sht (Having said that, this post will probably be removed!)
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Messages
2,743
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ozgeorge,

a) NEITHER of our posts were removed, regardless of Anastasios' comments. Your blasphemy is still existent here: (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=6373.msg82865#msg82865)

b) The comment you are referring to in that particular post was NOT an anathema, it was simply a remark made by St Cyril in his letter to Bishop Succensus, concerning ignoramus’s who choose to derive monophysitism from the mere declaration of one physis . Obviously you know nothing about St Cyril; his Christology, his works etc. etc. so I don’t blame you for your ignorance.

c) I never asked for your post to be deleted btw...it can remain as a badge of honour worn in the name of justice( http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%205:10-12;&version=31; ) i.e. as opposed to in the name of evil, deceit, ignorance, etc. etc.

Peace.
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Messages
2,743
Reaction score
0
Points
0
My response:

Communion hymn: My Coptic Church

My Coptic Church; the church of the Lord
Ancient and strong; I wish a long life
In the early years; after the birth of Christ
Saint Mark came bearing; light of the true faith
He dwelt in the land; proclaiming salvation
In the Name of our Redeemer; Christ who removed our
sins.

The Copts then believed; in the Lord Jesus
And joy filled all; the cities of Egypt.
In a very short time; He abolished all idols
The Cross was exalted; the sign of the faith
Satan quickly rose; toward the Son the God
He stirred the rulers; emperors and armies
He then declared war; on the sons of the faith
"Deny your Christ; or be thrown in the fire"
Our honored fathers; elders, and youngsters
Were not moved by pain; distress, nor dishonor
But said courageously; forward, no turning back
"We don't fear fire; our Lord is Jesus Christ"

They were beaten and imprisoned; they lived in oppression
They were burned and killed; and tasted every pain
By the power of their faith; they overcame their pains
And remained believing in; the King of Peace
With blood and suffering; they the bought the faith
And preserved it for us; in the Name of our Savior

Let us all rise; from our laziness
With diligence seeking; the heavenly reward
The Church of our fathers; you are our bride
To her success; let us all join together
My Coptic Church; their faith is Orthodox
Forever strong; Egypt is Christ's


Isaiah 19:

19 In that day there will be an altar to the LORD in the heart of Egypt, and a monument to the LORD at its border. 20 It will be a sign and witness to the LORD Almighty in the land of Egypt....Blessed be Egypt my people"

Peace.
 

cizinec

High Elder
Joined
Apr 20, 2004
Messages
943
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Houstonia
If Chalcedon was a reaffirmation or restoration of Nestorianism, why are we separated from Nestorians?ÂÂ Why wasn’t there a joyful reunion?

Sorry, I'm still curious about this one.

Please try to answer this one before we all get upset and the thread gets locked.  I'd really like to hear an explanation for this.
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Messages
2,743
Reaction score
0
Points
0
czinec,

I think our position is quite clear. Chalcedon was ambiguous in that the expressions and terminology employed allowed Nestorianism to creep in via a backdoor - this is simply a historical fact; Nestorius didn't applaud the tome because he was stupid, inept or a simpelton; he simply found that he could twist what was said in a manner such that he could conform his doctrine with the expressions used, and consequently squeeze Nestorianism in there. The Chalcedonians however were not intentionally ascribing to the Nestorian heresy; they viewed Nestorians as the enemy as much as the Oriental Orthodox Church - we just feel they were careless in the manner in which they chose to define and express a perfeclt Orthodox two-nature Christology. That's why there was no EO-Nestorian party going on...

If you study the subsequent councils, you will find that your own Church did some serious qualifying and correcting of Chalcedon to make sure it was more clearer in intent such that the Nestorian Church would have no way of further misrepresenting it.

Like ozgeorge pointed out before; your fifth council declared that "One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh" - This is the kind of language which vindicates Chalcedon. However we cannot look at Chalcedon anachronistically; we study it in its immediate context to understand the reactions to it, by both the heretics (Nestorians) and the Orthodox ("non-Chalcedonians")

It's late, and my exams start next week - remember me in your prayers, Goodnight...

Peace.
 

Anastasios

Merarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
10,561
Reaction score
14
Points
38
Location
Reston, VA
Website
www.anastasioshudson.com
George,

My point was I did not remove it and I was inferring that maybe another moderator did or you yourself might have removed it.  I don't make it a point of removing posts, especially after I have spent time commenting on them :)

Anastasios
 

minasoliman

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

I was hoping this discussion would be of a scholarly basis, criticizing the quotes that have been given to you.  However, you remain to follow the "faith of your Fathers" as if we really were Monophysites.  But I affirm, that the faith of your Fathers are right only that it is the right doctrine, but the anathemas against us is null and void.  God knows we are innocent of the anathemas you've given us.  Likewise, God knows you are innocent of the anathemas we've given you.

I ask once more, PLEASE take the time to read the quotes I've given you (which are written by "Raouf" in another thread) and with an open mind like Fr. John Romanides, comment on them.

God bless you, brother.

Mina
 

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:
Dear George,

I was hoping this discussion would be of a scholarly basis, criticizing the quotes that have been given to you.ÂÂ
Friend,
I have done that- using your own sources as requested.

minasoliman said:
However, you remain to follow the "faith of your Fathers" as if we really were Monophysites.ÂÂ
Friend,
Again, I repeat, I am not commenting on what all contemporary non-chalcedonians believe.

minasoliman said:
But I affirm, that the faith of your Fathers are right only that it is the right doctrine,
Friend,
again I say, this is not about what you affirm.

minasoliman said:
but the anathemas against us is null and void. God knows we are innocent of the anathemas you've given us. Likewise, God knows you are innocent of the anathemas we've given you.
My friend,
We will all answer to God who alone knows the hearts of men. I personally have pronounced no anathemas on any of you, nor invoked any anathema's of any of the Fathers against you.

minasoliman said:
I ask once more, PLEASE take the time to read the quotes I've given you (which are written by "Raouf" in another thread) and with an open mind like Fr. John Romanides, comment on them.
Friend,
I have said this privatley to EA and I am saying it to you now. I have no desire to scandalise anyone. I gave my opinion because I was placed in a position that to remain silent in the face of a particular charge would have given the impression that I believe something which I give no assent of faith to. I have said my peace. Please do not ask me to comment on Raouf's posts (which I in fact did read when you first asked me). This can only lead to further discord and the "merry-go-round" which I (and at least one other) have opted to jump off from. Let's just agree to disagree.

George


 

cizinec

High Elder
Joined
Apr 20, 2004
Messages
943
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Houstonia
terminology employed allowed Nestorianism to creep in via a backdoor - this is simply a historical fact.
Actually, I think this is what is at question in the current debate. You take it as an absolute fact.

he simply found that he could twist what was said in a manner such that he could conform his doctrine with the expressions used, and consequently squeeze Nestorianism in there.
And so, therefore, you deny the council. And yet Holy Scripture is twisted into saying that we should drink poison and allow snakes to bite us and we do not reject Scripture as heretical. It seems to me that just because some heretic can use a document outside its context, that which comes before AND after it is written, does not make that document ipso facto heretical.

The Chalcedonians however were not intentionally ascribing to the Nestorian heresy; they viewed Nestorians as the enemy as much as the Oriental Orthodox Church . . .
RIGHT!ÂÂ Because we were not, in fact, ascribing to Nestorianism, nor were we attempting to placate them in any way.ÂÂ If we were, we would have at least attempted to commune with them.ÂÂ We saw them as heretics.ÂÂ Therefore we must not have ascribed to their theology.  The "Chalcedonians" at the time were not unintentionally ascribing to Nestorianism either.  How can one believe something accidentally while rejecting it?

we study it in its immediate context to understand the reactions to it, by both the heretics (Nestorians) and the Orthodox ("non-Chalcedonians").
Yes, but context includes what comes before, during AND AFTER the council.ÂÂ All through this thread it has been insinuated and outright stated that Chalcedon taught something Nestorian.ÂÂ Yet the Nestorians were never restored.ÂÂ The anathemas were retained.ÂÂ When it was seen that the Nestorians were abusing the language of Chalcedon, just as many abuse the language of Scripture, new councils clarified what was at issue, just as councils clarified Scripture.ÂÂ These new councils are a PART of the context.ÂÂ You can't say, "Well, I don't like Chalcedon because it says such and such," and then say, "The authors of Chalcedon had to go back and clarify that they didn't say what we are accusing them of saying."ÂÂ The intent behind Chalcedon was not Nestorianism, but to correct certian issues.  Did the council succeed?  You say no, but what about all the councils together?  Did they?

- we just feel they were careless in the manner in which they chose to define and express a perfectly Orthodox two-nature Christology. That's why there was no EO-Nestorian party going on...
The theology behind the council was correct but the language was sloppy. Is that your reason for schism, brother?
 

copticorthodoxboy

High Elder
Joined
Oct 23, 2004
Messages
610
Reaction score
1
Points
16
IC XC NIKA
Dearest to Christ, cizinec
First off, I just want to state, I have nothing against you. You're a nice fellow, so, take my words as a friend talking to a friend.
Second, this is just my opinion.
After following this thread since the beginning (and, with my lack of a large vocabulary, trying to understand "metaphysics" from EA and George), I agree with minosoliman, that it was a misunderstanding. Plan and simple.ÂÂ
However, the historical fact is, that St. Dioscorus was eventually condemned for being a heterodox Patriarch; which has still not been proven (in fact, it seems 100% clear that he was completely Orthodox). Now how many Ecumenical councils condemn an Orthodox bishop? I can't think of one.
So, in the end, we reject Chalcedon for the "politics" behind it all. Let's face it, Leo was really the creator, in my opinion, of Papal Infalliblity, Supremacy, etc. Once more, we don't need councils 4-7 to hold the Orthodox Faith, since me never left the Faith; once more a fact that so many EO are slow to admit.ÂÂ
We are man enough to say there was a misunderstanding. Are your hierarchs?
Once more, cizinec, I'm not trying to attack you. We've never failed to get along on this site. So I hope you read it, as I said, from one friend to another.
in Christ
copticorthodoxboy
 

minasoliman

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

We answered back and explained to you why the Synexarium said what it said.  We defend that there is nothing heretical in what the Synexarium said as you thought it said.  I've also offered you further sources by Raouf (qualified as "our" sources like the Synexarium) only to show you that it is not only those who are contemporary who are Orthodox, but the fathers that have been condemned by the EO's in the past have also been Orthodox in faith, such as St. Dioscorus.

I can agree to disagree only if we truly believe in different faiths, and only if both our fathers in each Orthodox tradition believe in different faiths.  I find no reason to agree to disagree.  Otherwise, I will be lying to myself and to my conscience.

God bless you bother.  If you wish to not debate, then so be it, but you have not proven St. Dioscorus as a heretic as of yet.

Mina
 

copticorthodoxboy

High Elder
Joined
Oct 23, 2004
Messages
610
Reaction score
1
Points
16
IC XC NIKA
Dearest to Christ, to all:
As you can see from my last post, I'm not the best with English.  Replace all the "once mores" with "what's more."
in Christ
copticorthodoxboy
 

Stavro

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 24, 2003
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Cizinec,
thank you for your post.
If Chalcedon was a reaffirmation of Nestorianism, why are we separated from Nestorians? ÂÂ Why was’t there a joyful reunion?
There was indeed a joyful reunion between Chalcedonians and Nestorians after a brief separation from Ephesus to Chalcedon. This reunion lasted till 553. You can consult the letters of congratulation between Leo of Rome and his dear friend Theodret, a condemned heretic and a Nestorian, after Chalcedon. In fact, even before the decisions of Chalcedon and the official exoneration of the leaders of the Nestorian party, Leo of Rome accepted them in your church , exercising his Papal claims, Supremacy and Infallibility, which are his other dear dogmatic positions that he invented.

Chalcedon produced Nestorian writings such as the Tome and accepted the heretical teachings of three condemned Nestorians after careful examination. Refer to the decision regarding the letter of Ibas. Move beyond the Tome, which I maintain to be Nestorian in clear terms and not only in vague language, for I prefer honesty over false ecumenism, you will not be able to reconcile the writings of Theodore and Theodret and Ibas with orthodoxy. Not because Chalcedonian lack apologetic tactics, but because it is another council of yours that condemns their writings.

A council that produces heretical teachings and embraces/accepts other heretical teachings cannot be anything but heretical, and the Chalcedonian side has still to answer for the clear contradiction between the 4th and 5th councils. It insults the divinity of Holy Spirit to ascribe self-correction to its inspirations and revelations.

Again, the EO act susurprised because OO cannot accept a council that admits heretical teachings such as the Three Chapters, asking the OO to believe in the heresies of Theodret, Ibas and Theodore.ÂÂ
 

cizinec

High Elder
Joined
Apr 20, 2004
Messages
943
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Houstonia
Stavro,

AHHHHH! Now I feel like I'm getting somewhere. I do wish that we had a Nestorian on board here. That would shed a bit more light on things for me. I just don't think we can fully discuss these things without some of their input as it's all tied up together. Since we don't have one, we'll just have to go on.

I don't have time to post a reasonable response right now, though.

coptic orthodox boy,

I don't think you have anything against me.ÂÂ Trust me, you can debate very aggressively with me and I won't take it personally.ÂÂ You can call me whatever you think I am, I won't mind.ÂÂ My family thinks I'm a heretical nut case, so you won't be alone if that's your opinion.  ;DÂÂ
 

Anastasios

Merarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
10,561
Reaction score
14
Points
38
Location
Reston, VA
Website
www.anastasioshudson.com
1) Nestorians deny the title Theotokos. We don't.  The Chalcedonians of 451-553 didn't either.
2) Nestorians deny communicatio idomatum. We don't. The Chalcedonians of 451-553 didn't either.
3) Nestorians deny the Council of Ephesus. We don't.  The Chalcedonians of 451-553 didn't either.
4) Nestorians honor "St" Nestorius. We don't. The Chalcedonians of 451-553 didn't either.

Anastasios
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
I disagree with some points made by Stavro. While Chalcedon confused us with the acceptance of the Three Chapters by the Roman legates, it is clear as Anastasios showed that Chalcedon was not ULTIMATELY Nestorian. What Stavro says is not what our heirarchs have agreed upon.

As H.E. COPTIC Metropolitan Bishoy wrote:

When we come to the issue of the four later councils of the Orthodox: How can we see it together, away from condemnations of the past against the fathers and councils of the Oriental Orthodox?
We can notice that those councils have equally condemned the Nestorian and the Eutychian heresies which the Oriental Orthodox have also condemned.
The condemnation of the person and teachings of Theodore of Mopsuestia which was conducted in the second Council of Constantinople (533) was a monumental historical event which became an important support to the continuing struggle of Orthodoxy against Nestorianism.
Today in the Nestorian controversy there is a severe attack against that council, and many Western theologians are trying to eliminate its teaching and cancel its decisions against the Nestorians. The Oriental Orthodox are presently defending those decisions perhaps more than some of the Orthodox.
and later

To conclude our Oriental Orthodox people should realise that the Orthodox can never be Nestorians since they have condemned the Nestorian teaching of the union of two persons in an external union in Jesus Christ and confessed that the Word of God came in His Own person.
It is also clear that the Orthodox interpretation of the teachings of the four later councils of the Orthodox are the same as the doctrine of the Oriental Orthodox who have always refused both the Nestorians and Eutychian heresies. The two families are called to reinforce each other in their struggle against heresies and to complete each other as one body of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior.
The positive response of the Oriental Orthodox to the Orthodox interpretation is identified by the lifting of anathemas against Orthodox Fathers and Councils, as well as taking use of every positive element in the teaching and acts of the four later councils of the Orthodox.
from http://metroplit-bishoy.org/files/Dialogues/Byzantine/CHRSTAGR.doc

Therefore, it is ultimately agreed that Chalcedon was not Nestorian. Although some ambiguities and politics occured, it is clear the Doctrinal intentions of Chalcedon were none other than Orthodox.

I speak as a non-Chalcedonian who upholds true and objective conclusions.

God bless.

Mina
 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,195
Reaction score
17
Points
38
Age
48
Location
Washington, PA
Cizinec,

I am not Assyrian but will present their position:

Holy Apostolic and Catholic Assyrian Church of the East

What does it believe?

The teaching of the  Church of the East is based on the faith of the universal Church as set forth in the Nicene Creed. The mystery of the Holy Trinity and the mystery of the Incarnation are central to its teaching. The church believes in One Triune God:  Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It also believes and teaches that the  Only-begotten Son of God, God the Word, became incarnate for us men and for our  salvation and became man. The same God the Word, begotten of his Father before  all worlds without beginning according to his divinity, was begotten of a mother without a father in the last times according to his humanity, in a body of flesh, with a rational, intelligent, and immortal soul which he took from the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary and united to himself, making it his very own at the moment of conception. The humanity which he took for his own was assumed by God the Word, who was, thenceforth and for ever, the personal subject of the  divine and human natures. His divine and human natures retain their own properties, faculties, and operations unconfusedly, immutably, undividedly, and inseparably.

Therefore, because the divinity and humanity are united in the Person of the same and only Son of God and Lord Jesus Christ, the Church of  the East rejects any teaching which suggests that Christ is an "ordinary man" whom God the Word inhabited, like the righteous men and the prophets of old. The  Church of the East further rejects any teaching that explicitly or implicitly  suggests that there are two Sons, or two Lords, or two Christs in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, but we confess one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who  is the same yesterday, today, and forever. The same, through his passion, death, burial, and resurrection, redeemed humanity from the bondage of sin and death, and secured the hope of resurrection and new life for all who put their faith in him, to whom, with his Father and the Holy Spirit, belongs confession, worship,  and adoration unto ages of ages. Amen.

http://www.cired.org/aceov.html


Synod of Mar Isho`yahb , AD 587

. . . to "one Lord" they added "Jesus Christ", and revealed that which is one in common with the qnome of the Trinity . . . but they did not add "one Lord, the Son," as in "one God, the Father." Instead, they altered the order of their words and said "in one Lord, Jesus Christ," not forgetting those correct matters which relate to the manhood of God the Word, magnificently explained and wisely proclaimed in one unity of the Godhead and manhood of Christ, even though those of the company of Eutyches babble and reject the manhood of the Son of God. For the title "Anointed One" is indicative of his Godhead, which is from the Father, and of his manhood, which is indisputably from the mother, even though Eutyches and the offspring of his error speak foolishly and deceive, denying the taking of our manhood, or affirming the obliteration of the manhood of Christ. Indeed, the fathers consequently continued, saying, "the Only-begotten and First-born of all creatures," as it is written.

Again, they added, "by whose hands the worlds were established and everything was created," revealing (that) he was the Cause and Maker of all with his Father. Again, they made known concerning his Essence that he was "begotten of his Father before all ages and was not made - Light from Light, true God from true God" - Jesus Christ in his Godhead. Again, they continued, as it were, for the destruction of Arius, setting forth the word "homoousion," that is, "connatural" and "co-essential" with the Father, by whose hand everything came to be - Jesus Christ in his Godhead. And struggling in the invincible armor of true teaching, with which they clothed themselves against the phantoms and apparitions of the worthless teachings of the Simonians and Manicheans, they said, "who for us men and for our salvation descended from Heaven and became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and by the Virgin Mary and became man" - Jesus Christ, in the union of his natures, in his revelation [in the flesh, and in his incarnation - for this indicates the uniting of the natures of Godhead and manhood, in that he descended, became incarnate, and became man. It makes known the assumption of our manhood indisputably, so that from every side the hallucinations of the company of Simon and Mani might be removed, who deny his incarnation, and the taking of a body, and the revelation] of God the Word, who took our manhood and dwelt in it - as it is written, "The Word became flesh and dwelt in us" - and that, even more, the greatness of the lovingkindness of him who descended and dwelt in us might be revealed.

The impious Arius, because he ascribed things exalted and lowly to the nature of the Godhead of the Word, and did not know to apply them separately or conjointly, as the truth requires, for this reason was weighed (in the balances), and fell, and erred, and deceived, and was anathematized and excommunicated. But the fathers added to and completed the saying concerning the dispensation, and after the teaching concerning the divine nature of the Only-begotten, and after the teaching concerning the unity of the natures of Christ, that is, of his Godhead, which does not change and does not die, and his manhood, which is not rejected or forgotten, they added teaching concerning his manhood. As they had revealed clearly by way of exalted things concerning his Godhead, (so) they would reveal clearly concerning his manhood, which was taken for us and for our salvation and for the renewal of all creatures, saying, "He was crucified for us in the days of Pontius Pilate, and suffered, and died, and was buried, and rose after three days," as the Holy Scriptures say - Jesus Christ in his manhood. That is - let us speak the truth - in his corporeal state he accepted the death of the cross for us, in that it is clear to all the upright in their confession that, as the nature of his Godhead does not suffer and die, so neither did his soul receive the sentence of death, for it is not possible for the soul to be subject to the limitation of death. Our Lord bore witness, "Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul." And the reality bore witness (to this), for after our Lord was crucified, and died, and his holy body was buried, he went in his soul to Paradise.

Again, the blessed fathers added, "And ascended to Heaven and sat down at the right hand of his father" - Jesus Christ in his manhood. For in his manhood he received exaltation and session at the right hand, not in his Godhead, which exists eternally and indestructibly with his Father. "And he is coming in glory to judge the living and the dead, whose kingdom has no end" - Jesus Christ in his Godhead and in his manhood. . . .

This is the faith which does not corrupt, and this is its meaning, briefly, according to the sequence of its statements, by which the pars\opa of Christ is proclaimed fully - and the natures of his Godhead and manhood - against those who acknowledge his Godhead but deny his manhood, and against those [who acknowledge his manhood but deny his Godhead, and against those] who deny his Godhead and confess that the manhood is ordinary or like one of the righteous. . . .

After they had thus richly and fully proclaimed the truth, they turned thereafter to the anathematization of Arius and the children of his error. "But to those who say that there was (a time) when he did not exist, or before he was begotten he did not exist, or he was made from nothing, or say he was from some other qnoma or essence, or reckon the Son of God changeable and mutable, such the catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes." The heretics, that is, in their stubbornness, venture to ascribe the properties and sufferings of the nature of the manhood of Christ to the nature and qnoma of the Godhead and Essence of the Word, things which occasionally, because of the perfect union which the manhood of Christ had with his Godhead, are ascribed to God economically, but not naturally. (Synod of Mar Is°o`yahb, AD 587)

http://www.cired.org/faith/christ.html
 

greekischristian

Merarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Feb 4, 2005
Messages
9,487
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Though I'm discussing this very issue elsewhere with EkhristosAnesti (to which I just recently posted...sorry for the delay, but I was traveling for most the time), I guess I'll weigh in on a couple things here at risk of being pulled into this more emotionally heated debate.

First, the Orthodoxy of Dioscorus was never actually addressed by Chalcedon, though it was at Constantinople II. Dioscorus was deposed for reasons of Canonical Order. He was summoned before the Most Holy and Oecumenical Synod to defend his Posistion, he refused to attend though he was in the City, after repeated summons and repeated refusals to attend, he was deposed in accordance with the Holy Canons. The deposistion was perfectly justifyable, but it had nothing to do with theology or faith and everything to do with Order in the Church. But with that said, the fact that he presided over Ephesus 449, and declared with that Synod that the Teachings of Eutyches were Orthodox does give great creedance to his own Orthodoxy, IF he truly was Orthodox in Theology (I have not read enough of him to form an informed opinion on my own) and the later Anathemas against him truly are Misplaced, on account of the aforesaid Historical events, the logic and conclusions that lead to these Anathemas were far from Unreasonable.


Secondly, I find the insistance that the Language of Chalcedon was sloppy to be unsubstantiated. It was Cyril who used Nature in two different manners inorder to reconcile his Orthodox Theology with an Apollinarian Document written in the name of the Great Athanasios, resulting in a (in some instances) poorly expressed, though perfectly Orthodox, Theology. The Cappadocians, on the other hand, had written many volumes of works defining their terms, thus their notions of Person and Nature, which were adopted by Chalcedon, were well defined terms...though some heretics decided to ignore these volumes of works in their attempts to redefine the terms of Chalcedon to fit theire heresies. Chalcedon, using the well established terms of Person and Nature, distinguished Orthodoxy from Nestorius by Saying that Christ was One Person, not two. And clearly distinguished themselves from Eutyches by Saying that Christ had Two Natures and not One; the latter decision had nothing to do with the Nestorian Controversy, as it was addressing the issue of Natures and not of Persons, two distinct and formerly defined terms.
 

Timos

High Elder
Joined
Jun 10, 2005
Messages
858
Reaction score
2
Points
18
Age
33
Location
Toronto, Canada
Hi, these articles were on www.orthodoxinfo.com which is a traditionalist old calendarist orthodox website. Here is what it has to say:

1. Eastern Orthodoxy and "Oriental Orthodoxy"

The superficial theological milieu of our era has proven most advantageous for ecumenical ideology, which seeks to gloss over the fundamental and abiding differences which distinguish the heterodox confessions from the Orthodox Faith. All too often, such differences are now conveniently dismissed as merely long-standing miscommunications of alternative, yet equally valid, terminological emphases. This perfunctory approach has been eagerly employed by Orthodox modernists in their theological dialogues with the so-called "Oriental Orthodox" churches. The designation "Oriental Orthodox" itself clearly illustrates the ecumenistic tendency to obfuscate essential theological differences with euphemisms. This deceptive appellation, popularized by the defective world view of Western Christian thought—a world view which lumps together such mutually exclusive ecclesiastical entities as the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Assyrian Church of the East (i.e., Nestorians), "Oriental Orthodox" churches, and Eastern Rite Papists (i.e., Uniates, such as Melkites and Maronites) under the umbrella term "Eastern Christians"—, masks the intransigent heresies held for centuries by three main groups: 1) Armenians, 2) Copts and Ethiopians (Abyssinians), and 3) Syrian and Malabarese Jacobites.

The adjective Oriental is synonymous with the adjective Eastern. There is thus no real distinction between the term Eastern Orthodox (which identifies the only True Church) and the term "Oriental Orthodox" (which denotes several false churches). More importantly, although the "Oriental Orthodox" have appropriated the title Orthodox for themselves (e.g., the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch, etc.), it was precisely their failure to embrace the Christology of the Holy Fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod in 451 that led to their departure from the domain of Orthodoxy to the hinterlands of heresy. They are therefore correctly and accurately designated either as Non-Chalcedonians, reflecting their rejection of this Divinely-inspired Ecumenical Synod, or Monophysites, characterizing their specific heterodox confession of Christianity.

These three groups of Non-Chalcedonians are united in their common profession of Monophysitism, as well as its logical consequents, Monotheletism and Monoenergism—the doctrines that in Christ there are, respectively, only one nature, one will, and one energy. The Fourth Ecumenical Synod anathematized Monophysitism, the Fifth Ecumenical Synod confirmed this decision, the Sixth Ecumenical Synod condemned Monotheletism and Monoenergism, and the Seventh Ecumenical Synod reaffirmed all of the foregoing. Therefore, in addition to being Non-Chalcedonians, the "Oriental Orthodox" are also Non-Second Constantinopolitans, Non-Third Constantinopolitans, and Non-Second Nicaeans. Their unyielding opposition to four of the seven Ecumenical Synods makes it not just a little difficult for us to consider the Monophysite churches Orthodox. After all, even the Latins, not to mention some Protestants, ostensibly abide by all seven of the Ecumenical Synods, and they are never referred to as "Orthodox" churches.

To bear the name Orthodox, one must confess—without equivocation—the Ecumenical Christology of the Catholic and Apostolic Tradition: Jesus Christ united without confusion within His Own Hypostasis His Divine Nature and His Human Nature, His Divine will and His Human will, and His Divine energy and His Human energy. There is no room here for semantic sidestepping. A recent study of Non-Chalcedonianism by the Monastery of Saint Gregory (Gregoriou) on Mt. Athos, The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics: A Contribution to the Dialogue Concerning the "Orthodoxy" of the Non-Chalcedonians, came to this same conclusion (see "Publications" at the back of this issue):

A great ecclesiological chasm exists between us and the Non-Chalcedonians, which only the explicit confession of the holiness and ecumenicity of the Fourth and the following three Holy Ecumenical Synods on the part of the Non-Chalcedonians can bridge. Any manifest or hidden deviation whatsoever from Orthodox dogma, for the sake of some union contrary to the truth, will occasion only harm to immortal souls and suffering for the Church [p. 41].

Because of their subconscious ecclesiastical insecurities, the New Calendarists in America have a pathological craving for worldly recognition, making them only too willing to accept the "harm to immortal souls and suffering for the Church" already occasioned by dialogues between the "official" Orthodox and the Monophysites. For example, as reported in an earlier issue of Orthodox Tradition, several modernist theologians recently participated in an "Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Symposium" co-sponsored by St. Vladimir’s Theological Seminary and St. Nersess Armenian Seminary, a symposium obviously mimicking the union dialogues held in Europe in 1989 and 1990. On the Orthodox side, the symposium included representatives from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, the Orthodox Church in America, and the Romanian Orthodox Church in America; on the Monophysite side, it included representatives from the Armenian Apostolic Church of America, the Coptic Orthodox Church, and the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch.

As reported by Solia (Vol. 60, No. 6 [June 1995]), the symposium, in heinous violation of the ecclesiological self-definition of the Orthodox Church as the One and Only Church of Christ, blasphemously referred to "‘the two Orthodox Churches’" as "‘one Orthodox family,’" to quote the heretical phrase of one Coptic priest (p. 16). Relying on the results achieved by past conferences and commissions which have examined the "Orthodoxy" of the Monophysites, the participants glibly concluded "that there exists full agreement on the substance of the faith of the two churches, notwithstanding the differences in terms" (p. 13)—and this, apparently, notwithstanding the Divine Grace which enlightened such God-bearing Fathers as Saints Flavian of Constantinople, Leo the Great, and Proterios of Alexandria (all of whom struggled against and suffered because of the Monophysite heresy) to develop and to refine a precise Christological nomenclature delineating the Orthodox Faith.

Having thus summarily disposed of the insuperable dogmatic barrier between the Truth of Orthodoxy and the falsehood of Non-Chalcedonianism, the symposium quickly turned its attention to the "practical steps...which could be implemented at the global and local levels to ultimately achieve [sic] unity," and "this includes among other things, a statement of reconciliation, academic cooperation, and common catechesis of young people" (ibid.). Deciphering this "ecumenically correct" jargon and restating it in plain Orthodox language, this symposium embraced the renunciation of Patristic Tradition, the scholarly prostitution of sacred theology, and the sacrifice of the next generation of Orthodox to appease the Moloch of Monophysitism. And for this, we have to thank "the great contribution of modern scholarship and the current worldwide ecumenical movement" (ibid.)! The words of the Savior ring with prophetic force: "Ye shall know them by their fruits" (St. Matthew 7:16).

In contrast to our ecumenist counterparts, who—to the detriment of their fellow man—reinforce the Monophysites in their error, we traditionalists, out of love both for the Truth and for those who have deviated from it, challenge the Monophysites to accept the standard of True Orthodox Christianity. Let the Non-Chalcedonian heretics become truly Oriental Orthodox: Let their spiritual orientation turn eastward, facing the Chalcedonian sunrise that dawns universally from the noetic Anatolia of Eastern Orthodoxy, where the Theanthropic One, "Whose Name is Orient" (Zechariah 6:12 [LXX]), the God-Man Christ Jesus, rises in Truth. Only then, when they have renounced their heterodox beliefs, can we genuinely address these theologically disoriented Easterners as Orthodox brethren.


2.  Copts and Orthodoxy

A priest that I know says that the Copts are Orthodox, that they have been the victims of a theological misunderstanding by the Orthodox Church, and that they have a valid priesthood. He communes them and says that they are part of our Faith....You seem to think differently. Can you explain your position, which this priest says is old and outdated. He gave me an article by Bishop Maximos of Pittsburgh of the Greek Archdiocese. He says that Bishop Maximos is a great Patristic scholar and that his word, which supports the Copts as Orthodox, is final. (M.K., NY)

The Copts are Monophysites and thus heretics. Their Mysteries are invalid and, should they join the Orthodox Church, they must be received as non-Orthodox. Indeed, now that most Copts have rejected the errors of the Monophysite heresy, this is a time for their reunion with Orthodoxy. Here is a place for true ecumenism. But despite the fact that the time seems ripe, we must still rest on the Providence of God and restore the Copts to Orthodoxy in a proper way. One cannot say that he is Orthodox simply because he believes correctly and recites the Creed. He must be received into the Church by Chrismation or Baptism. The fact that the Copts were once Orthodox, fell away, and have now come to right belief is neither here nor there. Grace does not withstand generations of heresy and separation from the Church.

Anyone who believes that the Orthodox Fathers were wrong in condemning the Monophysites, and that the Copts have always been Orthodox, is guilty of blasphemy against the Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Synod at Chalcedon, which condemned the Monophysite heresy. He is also guilty of heresy, in that such a proposition presupposes not only that the Fathers of the Church were in error and that this error entered into the conscience of the Church, but that the Orthodox Church has for centuries been "divided" between the two "families" of right-believing Orthodox and the supposedly "right-believing" Copts. Moreover, such a view presumes that our Orthodox Fathers, ignorant of the truth, "divided" the Church over semantics and over word games.

There are even some conservative Orthodox, insufficiently familiar with the primary historical materials and following Western historiographical views of the events surrounding the Council of Chacedon (which have often shown, as Father Florovsky has observed, sympathies both for Monophysitism and the Nestorian heresy which provoked it), who imagine that misinterpretation, misunderstanding, and intransigence are the sources of the Chalcedonian schism. This mimicking of Western scholarship, however popular, breeds an un-Orthodox approach to the Christological debate between the Orthodox and heterodox parties. The Orthodox party was staunchly defending the truth, the non-Orthodox party staunchly defending a false view of Christ. While "objective" historians may thus attribute to the two sides in this debate "intransigence," it is obviously not consistent with Orthodox piety to accuse those who defend the truth of intransigence. It is heresy, a resistance to the truth, which actually has its roots in, and which is defined by, intransigence.

What, too, can we say of the Monophysite Churchmen and theologians who condemned our Orthodox Fathers as heretics and who are today revered by the Copts? Are we to praise and honor them along with the Monophysite "Saints" whose intercession the Copts invoke? Are we to commemorate together the memories of Churchmen who stood diametrically opposed to one another and pretend that such commemorations are consistent with the "one mind" of the Apostolic Church? And must we now reject the counsel of the great Abba Evthymios, who warned St. Gerasimos of the Jordan against the Monophysite heresy, bringing the latter to bitter tears for his former errors?

Theologians and Churchmen who do not read the Fathers, who do not lead spiritual lives, and who see the union of men as something more important than our union with God in the unity of Faith have no business conducting dialogues between the Orthodox and the Copts. They are not acting in a spiritual way, and the results which they achieve will not be spiritual. They are too weak to speak the truth and to lead the Copts, as they must be led, back to the Church in humble submission.

We deeply respect and admire Coptic piety. Many Copts far exceed Orthodox in their dedication to God and fidelity to their faith. But our respect must not impede us from telling them the truth, bringing them into the Church properly, and offering them bread, rather than the stone of cheap ecumenical politics. Spiritual men pine for unity in the truth. Ecumenical politicians seek to exalt themselves by great feats of human prowess. Those spiritual men who have been misled by their understandable enthusiasm for Church unity should reflect seriously on who is leading them into this false unity and what their motives are. When the Copts, too, reflect on this, we will undoubtedly see a cooling in what is now unfounded enthusiasm. And as the Copts grow in their desire to return to Orthodoxy, they will themselves wish to do so in an orderly way and not through the back door which has been opened to them by ecumenical politicians and spiritually irresponsible clergymen.

Bishop Maximos' article on the Monophysites (The Illuminator, Vol. XII, No. 86) rests wholly on the theological opinion of Jean Lebon, A Roman Catholic Priest and scholar, who wrote an interesting thesis on a Monophysite figure. His Grace suggests that all "serious scholars and patrologists" follow the writings of this "great professor and scholar of our century" and find no ultimately essential differences, save those of terminology, between Orthodoxy and Monophysitism. "It is only ignorant and narrow[-]minded[,] irreponsible people who can oppose the work of God's Holy Spirit" and such views, he argues. I doubt, given the prevailing hatred for traditionalists in his jurisdiction, that His Grace would apologize to me and other Old Calendarists under this umbrella of condemnation, but he certainly owes an apology to other theologians who think as we do: the late Protopresbyter Georges Florovsky, the Blessed Archimandrite Justin (Popovich), Professor P. Trembelas, and others.

As for Bishop Maximos' suggestion that "church politicians" and "administrators" settle this question, res ipsa loquitur. Whenever the Church's conscience is violated, we turn to church politicians and administrators—the source and product of modernism and innovation. When that conscience is defended, we look to the Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils, and Church Tradition. And these have already spoken, as we have noted.

We are astonished at and deeply saddened by Bishop Maximos' ill-advised words.

From Orthodox Tradition, VOL. IX, NO. 1, pp. 8-10.

+ + +
Excerpt from a letter from Bishop Auxentios regarding my question about the Copts and their claim to be Orthodox:

The short answer, Patrick, is, what do you really expect them to proclaim, that they are heretics? Sorry for my tone in this, but you have to step back and look beyond the particulars, which have been complicated by centuries of self-justification on the parts of the various monophysite groups. The basic questions are really quite simple (even though the professional ecumenists think we are "simple minded" for seeing things in this way): Do we believe in a branch theory of the Church or not? Is the Divine Bridegroom of the Church—Who assures us that not even a sparrow falls to the ground without the will of our Heavenly Father—incapable of maintaining the integrity of His Body, or does He allow it to fracture, for the various components to anathematize one another, and yet for all portions/branches to maintain their unity with Him (and separation with one another) over centuries? In some way or another, the Copts do presume this in their contemporary argumentation for the "Orthodoxy" of their confession. Stange as it may sound, if they had a truly Orthodox mentality, they would be arguing for our un-Orthodoxy (based on the centuries of our separation from them), rather than trying to prove that we are one and the same. If the historical descendants of the monophysite heresy have come full circle and rejected the heretical components of their ancient confessions, this is for them to prove and for them to correct in a contrite spirit. There is a blasphemous disregard for the divinely-inspired conciliar polity of the Church and for the well-known consequences of schism hidden within their argumentation. For the right-reasoning Orthodox believer, this is proof enough that they have lost the fullness of Grace and that, as Father Florovsky so wisely observed, "the history of the Christian divisions can...not be deduced from or built on the basis of the principle of intolerance, nor the principles of pride, lust for power, concupiscence or meanness [and one can certainly add 'cultural' and 'linguistic' idiosyncrasies to this list]. Of course, human passion in all its power is 'decked out' and exposed in the divisions of Christianity. But the initial source of these Christian schisms was not moral depravity or human weakness, but delusion."

...The Monophysite's fundamentalistic insistence on one formula ["one nature of the Word incarnate"]—to the exclusion of another that even St. Cyril had come to understand as synonymous [dual consubstantiality]—reflects an un-Orthodox view of dogma. Those of Orthodox spirit know that dogma is imperfect symbols describing Revelation, but not Revelation itself. What is critical for Orthodox is the integrity of that Revelation, not terminological rigidity.

3.A Humorous and Instructive Reply to a Question Concerning the Monophysites

Dear Father xxx,

I think the question has less to do with "apologies" (and I basically agree with your position on that) and more to do with ecclesial matters:  if, hypothetically, it were determined that there were no doctrinal impediments to communion between the Chalcedonian Church and the Copts, what do we do with the veneration of saints who were persecuted and martyred by the other side, and who were each other's sworn enemies?  Would we give them a list of saints that had to be removed from their calendar?  Would they present us with such a list?  Or do you overlook everything while everyone continues to venerate whom they have always venerated?  And what about Coptic saints who may have been indisputably radical Monophysites for whom the Coptic Church has a continuing attachment?

I certainly do not presume to know the answers; however, these are, as I understand them, some of the questions.

With love in Christ,

Fr. xxx

+ + +
Dear xxx:

May God bless you.

I came up with a fantastic solution to this dilemma. It is amazingly clever and novel. Let us pretend that Bishops of spiritual vision, meeting together in the belief that the Holy Spirit guides those who are gathered in Christ's name and among whom He thus dwells, were to conclude, in conformity with the confession of the Fathers before them, that the Monophysites taught something contrary to the Orthodox Faith preserved within the boundaries of the Church.

Let us then pretend that the Orthodox Church is characterized by its fidelity to these Bishops and that the Fathers of the Church would never have cut off for untold centuries people who really were of correct faith; but rather, that they would have acted only responsibly and in a way pleasing to the Holy Spirit. And let us pretend that we are not more spiritual and more learned than these Fathers, or that the Fathers and believers and Saints in the many centuries after them were not simply cretins and sycophants blindly accepting the errors of the Å’cumenical Synods, waiting for our enlightened contemporaries bravely to open our eyes.

Then let us pretend that we are bound by our Baptisms and Confession of Faith to follow the infallible statements of the Å’cumenical Synods which these Bishops convened. Let us pretend that the very conscience of the Church and Her self-identity lie in these Synods. And let us pretend that one of these Synods actually condemned the Non-Chacedonians and removed them from the bosom of Orthodoxy. And finally, let us pretend that these Bishops represent the True Church established by Christ, from which all in error have been removed, and that fidelity to their pronouncements makes us True Orthodox Christians. And let us pretend that contemporary Orthodox ecumenists, men (at least of late) of rather obviously limited intellectual gifts and little spiritual prowess, are not wiser than the Fathers before us. Would this not be a wonderful solution to the dilemma of our relationship to those in heresy, and specifically the heresy of Monophysitism?

Now, going beyond the foregoing game of "pretend," let us further pretend that Christians live in love and that, because of this, they would never want others to believe that what is false is true, but always wish to bring people to the Truth. Let us pretend that we could teach the Monophysites that they are wrong, rather than apologizing to them for the Truth and for human historical errors that have nothing to do with the criterion of Truth itself. Let us pretend that we could bring the Copts into the Church, rather than prostitute the Truth by conforming it to error. Would this not add much to the wonderful solution that I proposed in the paragraph above?

On second thought, all of this would entail faith in the Truth, the authority of the Church, the inspiration of the Fathers, the infallibility of the Å’cumenical Synods, and the primacy of the Orthodox Faith.

How foolish I am! A mere fundamentalist!

I apologize.

Least Among Monks,

+ Archbishop Chrysostomos

____________________________________________________________________

Right now I'm quite confused because I believe that the Oriental Orthodox are truly Orthodox but I just can't understand one thing. If the Copts now truly believe that Chalcedon is Orthodox then why won't they accept it? It would make things so much more less complicated. On the other hand, if the Eastern Othodox truly believe that the Oriental Orthodox are truly Orthodox then why won't they just let them be and accept them without having them to accept the other 3 councils??
Furthermore on the other hand, both churches believe that the Holy Spirit directly influences the councils so therefore even if the copts use the argument that "these councils did not affect us" wouldn't they be automatically obliged to accept the councils since they are ecumenical and therefore inspired by God??"


 

alexp4uni

Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
329
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dont piss of EA by showing him that. He knows all too well about that....
 

Stavro

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 24, 2003
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Statements in bold are excerpts from posts by Mina Soliman.

- I speak as a non-Chalcedonian who upholds true and objective conclusions

So do I. One fundamental difference between us is that you want unity for the sake of unity. Instead of stating that Leo of Rome is indeed Nestorian, you refer to him as "confused", trying to convince us that you actually know the state of Leo of Rome when he wrote the Tome or his intentions. I prefer a unity based onn truth and free of false ecumenism.

Consider your statement in post # 69:

"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.  I cannot accept a divided Church.  Only man divides, but not the Church.  I believe Christ has not allowed a division in the Orthodox Church, but only a lesson to be learned.  That's my philosophy."

Your philosophy is self-contradictory, and I did not want to comment on it until we finish the discussion with Chalcedonians. Here you are:

- We are two different groups, and we have been out of communion with the Chalcedonian side for the past 16 centuries. This is a fact of life. If you cannot accept it, that is too bad (for you). ÂÂ
- Mutual Anathema still stands, and as much as you want to spin around this fact, it still stands. Our orthodox fathers such as St.Dioscoros and St.Severus are anathemized by the EO, and their leaders are as well. Leo of Rome, Theodret, Ibas, Eusebius, Flavian, and others are still under anathema. You either neglect a fact that is obvious, for you do not want to face reality, or you do not understand what anathema means.
- We do not anathemize people for the sake of it, there are reasons that prompted "the spiritual execution verdict" against certain individuals. It is their teachings and blasphemies. EO anathemize our Fathers for their teachings did not agree with theirs and they considered them heretics, and we anathemize the the Chalcedonian leaders for they taught heresy. There is no other reason for anathema.
- The branch theory is a heresy, plain and simple. The Church is one and remains one, for Christ has only one Body. I respect an EO who would say the same thing, for at least he is honest with himself and consistent with his belief. The only way you can become part of the Body of Christ is by Communion, which is not established between OO and EO, and therefore, we cannot both be the Church. ÂÂ
- What is up with this repeated "confusion" excuse ? You have no way of telling the personal state of any theologian, and specially when his personal connections were very suspecious, but we can definitely judge the writings that survived or the references to their teachings from valid resources. If you claim to be objective, and you are to a large extent, refrain from judging the mental, psychological and other state attributes of the theologians that are totally unknown to you. You were not there.
- You ask us to believe that St.Severus, for example, who lived in the immediate post-Chalcedon era and played a pivotal role in discussions with the Chalcedonian leaders, was also confused, yet you understand better. Although you were not there and the Great Patriarch of Antioch was attending, you understand better the language and the intentions of his opponents. Although you only read about it, and imagined what happened, you can still judge better than a magnificent saint who was present. You did not debate the Chalcedonian leaders to judge their intentions, yet the great saint debated them for about a year and a half. St.Severus had all resources in front of him, and nothing was lost from the historical documents and it was still a hot issue, and he judged Chalcedon as unholy, yet you have no access to his resources but still claim to understand better. No.
- You ask us to believe that the history of the Church is nothing but a series of misunderstandings and confusions, supporting the case of pagans and unbelievers in their criticism of the Faith as a whole. We can extend the same logic to embrace Nestorius, the heretic, Arius, the blasphemers, and any other heretic you wish, for there is no absolute standard anymore and theology to you is nothing but a ideology and the current best approach, and not a confirmation of faith. While you might not want to go so far, it becomes the question of how far you want to go, rather than where is the truth. Truth is absolute.

Your reference to HEM Bishoy just proves my point further:

The condemnation of the person and teachings of Theodore of Mopsuestia which was conducted  in the second Council of Constantinople (533) was a monumental historical event which became an important support to the continuing struggle of Orthodoxy against Nestorianism.

Which is what I maintained from the beginning. Did I ever criticize the 5th council ? Yet the reference to the struggle is amputated, for the 5th council also anathemizes the teachings of Ibas and blessed Thedoret as well, which have been found orthodox by Chalcedon. ÂÂ

To conclude our Oriental Orthodox people should realise that the Orthodox can never be Nestorians since they have condemned the Nestorian teaching of the union of two persons in an external union in Jesus Christ and confessed that the Word of God came in His Own person.

They are not currently Nestorians, and ever since 553 a.d., but those who adhered to the Tome between 451 and 553 and the three chapters are Nestorians. Did HEMB ratify the decision regarding the Three Chapters by Chalcedon or concur on it ? Did the OO holy synods agree to accept the decisions of Chalcedon unconditionally ? If they still reject it, then there must be heresy implied in these decisions.

It is also clear that the Orthodox interpretation of the teachings of the four later councils of the Orthodox are the same as the doctrine of the Oriental Orthodox who have always refused both the Nestorians and Eutychian heresies.

Emphasis on interpretation, for the EO cannot leave the Tome, for example, stand alone but add to it and read it in the light of Cyril's chapters.
Faith documents do not need just twisting and extensive excuse.

Now to another statement of yours:
While Chalcedon confused us with the acceptance of the Three Chapters by the Roman legates

The Three chapters were accepted by the whole council, and not by Leo of Rome alone through his delegation. Whereas EO, through their silence on the matter, cannot defend the contradiction between the 4th and 5th council, you are trying to excuse them based on misrepresentation of history. CHALCEDON ACCEPTED THE THREE HERETICAL CHAPTERS. Face it. There is no confusion here or misunderstanding, for the Chalcedonian themselves anathemize these writings.

What Stavro says is not what our heirarchs have agreed upon.

What the hierarchs agreed upon is to have a declaration of faith, which is a Traditional way and accepted by the OO. It does not imply to confess Chalcedon or the later councils as orthodox.

it is clear as Anastasios showed that Chalcedon was not ULTIMATELY Nestorian

Anastasios argued for the Orthodoxy of the Chalcedonians between 451-553, and he made valid points that were not disputed by me, yet the question of the Three Chapters remains unanswered. I will leave the Tome aside, for the references and standards are different and as such, no agreement will take place. A council embraced heretical teachings, and upon careful examination, found them representing the faith the council wants to proclaim and includes it in the accepted teachings of the council, yet the same teachings are anathemized by another council by the same group. ÂÂ

Again, a common declaration of faith on the faith-related issues (and they are not christological alone as we are led to believe) is sufficient for reunion. ÂÂ
 

Stavro

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 24, 2003
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Secondly, I find the insistance that the Language of Chalcedon was sloppy to be unsubstantiated.
I agree. Chalcedon was very clear about the version of faith they wanted to proclaim, Leo's Tome is very clear in ascribing actions to two separate persons in Christ, and the language of Theodret, Ibas and Theodore in their writings is very clear in its Nestorian content, and all was accepted in Chalcedon. St.Dioscoros confession (exact words used by St.Cyril) was rejected for its Orthodoxy. 

 

minasoliman

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

Right now I'm quite confused because I believe that the Oriental Orthodox are truly Orthodox but I just can't understand one thing. If the Copts now truly believe that Chalcedon is Orthodox then why won't they accept it? It would make things so much more less complicated. On the other hand, if the Eastern Othodox truly believe that the Oriental Orthodox are truly Orthodox then why won't they just let them be and accept them without having them to accept the other 3 councils??
Furthermore on the other hand, both churches believe that the Holy Spirit directly influences the councils so therefore even if the copts use the argument that "these councils did not affect us" wouldn't they be automatically obliged to accept the councils since they are ecumenical and therefore inspired by God??"
We simply cannot accept the last four councils for two main reasons:

1.  We weren't represented.
2.  Our fathers have been unjustly condemned.

We've misunderstood Chalcedon's doctrinal intentions, that is all.  Orthodoxinfo.com has failed to judge the essence of the faith of our OO fathers.

Dear Stavro,

So do I. One fundamental difference between us is that you want unity for the sake of unity. Instead of stating that Leo of Rome is indeed Nestorian, you refer to him as "confused", trying to convince us that you actually know the state of Leo of Rome when he wrote the Tome or his intentions. I prefer a unity based onn truth and free of false ecumenism.
No, Stavro.  Leo was not Nestorian.  Prove to us that Leo was Nestorian.  HEMB has given a clear message that we have misunderstood one another and that we continue to battle Nestorianism together.  I suggest you go to ccel.org and read Leo's letters, and you will find out that Leo was not a Nestorian at all.

We are two different groups, and we have been out of communion with the Chalcedonian side for the past 16 centuries. This is a fact of life. If you cannot accept it, that is too bad (for you).
One day, we'll be back in communion, and anathemas will be lifted, and you will just have to live with the fact of life that Leo wasn't Nestorian.

Mutual Anathema still stands, and as much as you want to spin around this fact, it still stands. Our orthodox fathers such as St.Dioscoros and St.Severus are anathemized by the EO, and their leaders are as well. Leo of Rome, Theodret, Ibas, Eusebius, Flavian, and others are still under anathema. You either neglect a fact that is obvious, for you do not want to face reality, or you do not understand what anathema means.
And yet, I repeat, these anathemas will be lifted when there is unity.  They anathematized our fathers because they thought they were Eutychians.  We anathematized their fathers because we thought they were Nestorians.  We were (and for some of us, are) both wrong.

The branch theory is a heresy, plain and simple. The Church is one and remains one, for Christ has only one Body. I respect an EO who would say the same thing, for at least he is honest with himself and consistent with his belief. The only way you can become part of the Body of Christ is by Communion, which is not established between OO and EO, and therefore, we cannot both be the Church.
When St. John Chrysostom broke out of communion from us, was the Church the Church where St. Theophilus was or was St. John Chrysostom and his supporters the Church?  It comes to show that some anathemas are null and void in Christ's eyes, and only men divide if there is truly one faith.  "One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism."  If we accept one another's baptisms, we might as well say that one another's sacraments are valid even though we are not fully united under them.

What is up with this repeated "confusion" excuse ? You have no way of telling the personal state of any theologian, and specially when his personal conections were very suspecious, but we can definitely judge the writings that survived or the references to their teachings from valid resources. If you claim to be objective, and you are to a large extent, refrain from judging the mental, psychological and other state attributes of the theologians that are totally unknown to you. You were not there.
What in the world are you talking about?

You ask us to believe that St.Severus, for example, who lived in the immediate post-Chalcedon era and played a pivotal role in discussions with the Chalcedonian leaders, was also confused, yet you understand better. Although you were not there and the Great Patriarch of Antioch was attending, you understand better the language and the intentions of his opponents. Although you only read about it, and imagined what happened, you can still judge better than a magnificent saint who was present. You did not debate the Chalcedonian leaders to judge their intentions, yet the great saint debated them for about a year and a half. St.Severus had all resources in front of him, and nothing was lost from the historical documents and it was still a hot issue, and he judged Chalcedon as unholy, yet you have no access to his resources but still claim to understand better. No.
St. Severus is a great saint who wrote much.  He understood Chalcedon to be Nestorian, and that is why he condemned it.  The condemnation of St. Dioscorus was also of great suspicion to him and his party.  Consider St. Maximus the Confessor of the EO's.  He condemned St. Severus' teachings as if they were Eutychian (and there were also some who condemned St. Severus of Nestorianism!).  Since neither side believed in any heresy, these condemnations are obviously a misunderstanding, and this is my objectivity.

You ask us to believe that the history of the Church is nothing but a series of misunderstandings and confusions, supporting the case of pagans and unbelievers in their criticism of the Faith as a whole. We can extend the same logic to embrace Nestorius, the heretic, Arius, the blasphemers, and any other heretic you wish, for there is no absolute standard anymore and theology to you is nothing but a ideology and the current best approach, and not a confirmation of faith. While you might not want to go so far, it becomes the question of how far you want to go, rather than where is the truth. Truth is absolute.
By that logic, then the Chalcedonians are also justified in calling us Eutychians, and we will forever uphold the Chalcedonians as heretics and Nestorians regardless of what they believe.  I don't call that objectivity at all.

Which is what I maintained from the beginning. Did I ever criticize the 5th council ? Yet the reference to the struggle is amputated, for the 5th council also anathemizes the teachings of Ibas and blessed Thedoret as well, which have been found orthodox by Chalcedon.
Not all of Chalcedon accepted the Three Chapters.  Only the Roman legates.  Consider the conclusive definition of the Council of Chalcedon as ultimate dogma of the Council of Chalcedon.  The Fifth Council adds and clarifies the Fourth Council further.  My God, I'm sounding like an EO.

They are not currently Nestorians, and ever since 553 a.d., but those who adhered to the Tome between 451 and 553 and the three chapters are Nestorians. Did HEMB ratify the decision regarding the Three Chapters by Chalcedon or concur on it ? Did the OO holy synods agree to accept the decisions of Chalcedon unconditionally ? If they still reject it, then there must be heresy implied in these decisions.
I tell you though, it's AMAZING that the same people who accepted the Tome are the same people who:
1.  Upheld the title "Theotokos"
2.  Did not deny communicato idiomatum
3.  Who had to accept the Council of Ephesus
4.  Who condemn and forced Theodoret and Ibas to condemn Nestorius both in dogma and person.
(as Anastasios) said.

Furthermore, Stavro, you make my point when you write:

It is also clear that the Orthodox interpretation of the teachings of the four later councils of the Orthodox are the same as the doctrine of the Oriental Orthodox who have always refused both the Nestorians and Eutychian heresies.
Emphasis on interpretation, for the EO cannot leave the Tome, for example, stand alone but add to it and read it in the light of Cyril's chapters.
Faith documents do not need just twisting and extensive excuse.
Indeed, "interpretation" is the key.  For along with the four points made by Anastasios as I restated, Chalcedon and the Tome canNOT be interpreted Nestorian.  So the fact that we must agree upon an Orthodox interpretation means we had the wrong interpretation all along.

The Three chapters were accepted by the whole council, and not by Leo of Rome alone through his delegation. Whereas EO, through their silence on the matter, cannot defend the contradiction between the 4th and 5th council, you are trying to excuse them based on misrepresentation of history. CHALCEDON ACCEPTED THE THREE HERETICAL CHAPTERS. Face it. There is no confusion here or misunderstanding, for the Chalcedonian themselves anathemize these writings.
No where in the definition of Chalcedon did the WHOLE SYNOD agree upon the Three Chapters as dogmatic.  Only the Papal legates.  However you want to interpret the "silence" of the Synod is open for discussion.  But there is no proof that the whole Synod accepted the Three Chapters.  Face it.  You can't prove it.

What the hierarchs agreed upon is to have a declaration of faith, which is a Traditional way and accepted by the OO. It does not imply to confess Chalcedon or the later councils as orthodox.
You are right, but we must also lift our anathemas against these councils and agree upon an Orthodox interpretation of it, as HEMB said.

Anastasios argued for the Orthodoxy of the Chalcedonians between 451-553, and he made valid points that were not disputed by me, yet the question of the Three Chapters remains unanswered. I will leave the Tome aside, for the references and standards are different and as such, no agreement will take place. A council embraced heretical teachings, and upon careful examination, found them representing the faith the council wants to proclaim and includes it in the accepted teachings of the council, yet the same teachings are anathemized by another council by the same group.
You can get too hung up on the Three Chapters all you want.  But it is still very clear from HEMB that the "last four councils" (since EO has seven councils, that includes Chalcedon) will be interpreted as Orthodox.  No longer will we continue to spit condemnations at one another.  Regardless of the opinions of the Roman Legates (and not the whole Synod), the Chalcedonians through Constantinople 553 condemned the Three Chapters.  I think Anastasios or any other EO will say the same.

In addition, the fact that Theodoret ended up condemning Nestorius (even though hesitantly) puts some credence to Chalcedon.  Similarly, the fact that Eutyches confessed at the Second Ephesine Council that Christ is "consubstantial with His mother" should also put some credence on Ephesus.  I still maintain semantics and misunderstandings and politics.  This is the most honest thing I can say on a personal basis.  To say that we did not misunderstand each other would be a contradiction to what I've read and concluded from documents of both Orthodox families.

God bless.
 

idontlikenames

Sr. Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2005
Messages
230
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
43
Location
Ignorantville, U.S.A.
[place erudite and obscurantist sentence here]blah di blah di blah blah blah[/place erudite and obscurantist sentence here]

[bloviate and try to humiliate other posters with my intelligence here] yadda yadda yadda [/bloviate and try to humiliate other posters with my intelligence here]

*obscure trivial fact*......*elegant sentence with lots of commas and not very many periods*......*eloquent hog-wash*......

etc.....etc....etc...
 
Top