Divisive, foolish, and another Fr. Athanasius Henein train wreck. I wonder what he calls the OO now. Monophysites? Just like that traitor Athanasius Henein.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14347.msg164029#msg164029 date=1364569343] Divisive, foolish, and another Fr. Athanasius Henein train wreck. I wonder what he calls the OO now. Monophysites? Just like that traitor Athanasius Henein.
RO This happened in 1912. He's probably dead by now.
Oh well, Rem, I have a response to you analysis (it goes along the style of "you over analysed the words of St. Severus.") He clearly didn't have any of your science in mind lol. Iwill respond as soon as I get through studying Orgo :( lol
RO, Yes I know he didn't have any science in mind. But the point I'm making is that one can't simply use examples to explain Christology without first explaining the philosophical foundation and definition of the word nature. The example of iron is faulty because it assumes a wrong understanding of nature. The examples of Leo's Tome are faulty because they also assume a wrong understanding of nature.
But I still want to hear your responses. Orgo is so much easier than theology and you obviously show a strong grasp of theology. So I wouldn't worry about orgo. It's child's play now.
Metouro, The miracle of St Euphemia is certainly contrived out of desperation from the Chalcedonians at the time to try and further propagate and recognize the heresy of Chalcedon in the history books and church canons. The Chalcedonians engaged in what historians today call 'historical revisionism'. They borrowed it from the ancient pharaohs of Egypt whereby subsequent pharaohs/kings tried to efface or even erase the memory of previous pharaohs. This is why we have little information on pharaohs today or the information we received is partly untrue or defamatory. A famous example of this is the Pharaoh Akhenaten. He was the first to try and bring ancient Egyptians to a more sensible way of worship (monotheism). He abolished all other deities and introduced the worship of one (a sun God I believe). To Akhenaten, the worship of multiple deities was absurd and only one God could exist. Refer to st Justin Martyr's 'spermatikos Logos' doctrine of knowledge of the eternal Logos and how the rationale of God is implanted in every man, believer or not.
Subsequent pharaohs vilified him in history by calling him evil, madman, among other things, all for attempting to introduce the worship of one God. He also wrote psalms which are similar in spirit of worship to those of David the prophet. One surviving poem of his is interestingly similar to psalm 104. The rest, probably burned and his life was spent in a constant struggle with those who demonized him and tried to bring about his ruin.
St Euphemia's 'miracle' is fictitious and another blot of historical dishonesty that would be the theme of the Byzantine churches for subsequent years, before they were practically redeemed by following councils. The only faith St Dioscorus had with him was the faith of the 3 Holy councils and the Nicean-Constantinoplean creed. No additions, no updated expression or formula.
The Chalcedonians would engage in similar tactics in 451. This is why the prophecies of holy men and monastics in the years preceding the council alluded to it as being devoid of the spirit of God and any clear conscious for truth seeking. St Dioscorus, the Lamp of Orthodoxy, was vilified and tortured; his hair plucked out and his teeth broken, at one instance carrying them in his hands uttering "this is the fruit of faith". Clergy at Chalcedon didn't want to share in his fate. It was a council of intimidation and fear. Yet St Dioscorus uncompromisingly became the second Athanasius as Richard Price called him.
Leo showed a lack of understanding of the Christological controversy in the east nor was the tome based on theological interpretations of previous councils. Ironically, St Cyril anathamatized Chalcedon before it came into existence many years earlier. He warned of speaking of division when it comes to Christ and playing around with things we shouldn't approach.
The point of the incarnation is unity. Christ also came to unite us to Him. The entire universal message and theology underpinning His incarnation is Unity. Chalcedon came and inadvertently set us back and once again ignored the traditions of the Orthodox fathers.
Fr Tadros Malaty himself said "The formula: "one nature" has an evangelic base, and touches our salvation...Leo speaks of "one person (prosopon)" of Christ but this term does not suffice, for the Nestorians used it to mean "mask," i.e. external unity. There was a need to confirm the unity as a true and "hypostatic" one...
Fr Tadros, who is an ecuminist by the way, goes on to say "We are in accord with the Tome in refuting Eutychianism and in confirming that Christ's manhood was real, Christ entered the mundane plane of existence and that the unity of Godhead and manhood had been realized without change... but the Tome consists of three statements, those which some of the Fathers of Chalcedon themselves rejected for their Nestorian attitude..Leo's Tome was praised by Nestorius himself"
Fr V.C Samuel states "..the imperial authority in Constantinople had no sympathy either for the council of Ephesus in 431 or for the theological tradition of the Alexandrine fathers. The plan of the emperor was to befriend Rome against Alexandria with a view to raising Constantinople, the capital of the empire, to a position of leadership in the church, second only to Rome. Since the western see and the imperial authority in Constantinople, who controlled the council of Chalcedon, had each of them its own plan to carry out through it-a plan which surely had no bearing on the Christological question-neither of them had any difficulty in misrepresenting the point of view of the council's opponent's in the most amazing manner, without showing even a shred of evidence in its support."
It's a tragic thing that politics tore Christ's body in two. We are blessed to be part of an orthodox communion without claim to as much shadowy puppeteerings from behind the scenes.
We must insist, though, that the Chalcedonians of the time are nothing like the EO of today who try to live Orthodoxy faithfully. The EO today will defend the errors of Chalcedon and the tome, sure, but that is because they have to. It's part of their tradition. We don't expect them to drop a council. That would create and compound the schisms already in existence. Lets be thankful we're part of the Coptic Orthodox church and the wider Oriental Orthodox communion. Lets not trust our own discernment of things. Our fathers saw and in wisdom defended against the shadows of heresy that once again tried to creep in the church ever to subtly.
ReturnOrthodoxy, The issue with Fr Athanasius Henien is complex. He continually disobeyed the Holy Synod but some people would say he was unjustly defrocked. I believe he would've stayed if it were up to him. Also, when you spend as much time with the Byantines like him, you'll get influenced greatly by their approach to things. I believe he was defrocked and eventually had no where else to go but to accept the priesthood in the Greek Orthodox church. By him calling us monophysites is just his way of lashing out against what happened to him. It shows immaturity on his part and perhaps God weeds out the unfaithful servants that way. But he himself is a theologian and doesn't believe this nonsense. He was married in a Greek church and spent many years in Greece learning. So he was really an OO-EO hybrid his whole life, if that makes sense. Although I don't want to reduce the situation to such a reductionist explanation.
I once saw him on a christian Sattelite channel talking with a Coptic man, discussing politics and the like, but he seemed overly agitated and no longer at peace. I was reminded of Saul loosing his peace after the spirit of God departed from him.
Either way, lets pray him, however, his statements against the church will certainly cut his chances of being reinstated, not that he would try anyway.
I think you made an excellent post, but I would still stay on the side of St. Severus and support his analogy, not because it's perfect, but it's perfect to the simple-minded. ;) It also is a good explanation on our theosis. Perhaps, if we think in todays scientific terms, the iron is like the bush Moses saw...it burns, but is not consumed or changed in its essence, but simply transformed into the glory of the fire.
Yes, Mina St Severus' example is simple-minded and it has its merits. In fact, given his time frame, this fourth century example is an excellent explanation of theosis.
But it is this theme that bothers me: Iron doesn't change with fire, like the flesh of Christ didn't change with the divinity. The essence of iron is changed by fire. I think the burning bush is a perfect example of the Incarnation, while the iron example is flawed. It's only flawed when we say iron doesn't change its essence. I just wanted to comment that we should be careful how we use the iron example.
After more thought on it, I think the iron example - if understood as heated iron, not iron and fire - reinforces Orthodoxy's basic premise of theosis/the Incarnation: "The point of the incarnation is unity. Christ also came to unite us to Him. The entire universal message and theology underpinning His incarnation is Unity." Heated iron, for a short moment, explains the effect of fire on iron when fire/energy and iron are united. The word, heated iron, itself illustrates a unity. In this way, the example has nothing to do with the nature of fire + the nature of iron, rather the nature of heated iron explains the Incarnation very well.
Insisting on iron + fire vs. heated iron only breaks that unity. The same insistence on distinction of natures after the Incarnation breaks the unity of the Incarnation and it becomes dangerously close to Nestorianism. This corroborates Orthodoxy's statement "Chalcedon came and inadvertently set us back and once again ignored the traditions of the Orthodox fathers."
Orthodoxy, I still think everyone should be careful on terms like "fictitious" and "historical revisionalism". Personally, I agree with everything you said about Pharonic revisionalism and Imperial Byzantine revisionalism. But I prefer not to extend my personal opinion to historical fact without substantial evidence. Otherwise, we end up creating our own historical revisionalism. Using your comments about historical events from Chalcedon, I must ask do you have substantial evidence that St Dioscorus had his hair plucked out and his teeth broken? Or is this Oriental/Coptic historical revisionalism? It will not surprise us that modern Chalcedonians will deny this ever happened because we have no real proof. It will also not surprise us that they will give historical "evidence" that St Dioscorus had a mob attack the bishops of Chalcedon. Of course, their evidence is weak at best and "fictitous" at worse. ;)
Historical revisionalism is real, like you pointed out. Historiography shows us many examples of biased histories and historians of controversial events like Chalcedon. As the saying (allegedly written by Winston Churchill) goes, "history is written by the victor". Let's not turn the pendulum of error all the way to the other end by saying everything Chalcedon said or stands for is historically fictitious or evil because we can't prove it and we are not innocent of the same historical revisionalism against them (even though we were never victors or conquerors).
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=14347.msg164041#msg164041 date=1364668366] The insistence of Leo of the two natures after the incarnation is what is offensive and not accepted by the Orthodox. Fixed that for you. ;)
Specifically, his insistence that the Word and flesh act as distinct entities. I don't think our Fathers minded the dyophysite phraseology per se, as many Pre-Chalcedonian Fathers (E.g. St. Gregory the Theologian) used it.
[quote author=minasoliman link=topic=14347.msg164039#msg164039 date=1364663569] Well the idea could very well be fire and iron "en theoria", but after the union, it's fiery iron.
EXACTLY. Understood in this manner, both the Chalcedonian and Oriental Christologies make sense because we now have a fundamental philosophical framework for the word and concepts of natures individually and natures united. In this framework, there cannot be any exclusivity of explanations. There can be multiple explanations to describe Christ's nature(s), as long as they don't violate the framework. The fact that one party says there is one and only way to explain Christology by default violates this framework from the beginning (even if that explanation was Orthodox).
The framework of St Cyril and followed by the orientals is not to speak of two natures after unity and thus disect the natures of the Son incarnate as if ther are separate after union.
[quote author=imikhail link=topic=14347.msg164050#msg164050 date=1364749870] The framework of St Cyril and followed by the orientals is not to speak of two natures after unity and thus disect the natures of the Son incarnate as if ther are separate after union. Except "en theoria." Even St. Dioscorus said "His two natures are not divided in all His works."
[quote author=minasoliman link=topic=14347.msg164054#msg164054 date=1364765497] So if Leo's Tome would be renamed "Leo's exposition of the natures en theoria", would it be acceptable? No, because much of the content is still unacceptable regardless of the Tome's title.
We must understand the exact definitions intended by the fathers as they taught them.
It's important to not transpose the 21st century with the 5th. We can orthodoxify anything, fine, but that would be dishonest and it would ascribe intentions to certain fathers or 'heretics' which they themselves didn't hold to.
I support unity with the EO but not at the expense of the Orthodox definitions/expressions of Ephesus and St Cyril the great, because they kept the faith secure against the onslaught of Nestorian attacks in the 5th century, who in my opinion, where the real puppeteers behind the errors of Chalcedon.
I echo Fr Tadros malaty's words in saying that while the Alexandrine school adopted the "hypostatic union" or "natural union" of the Godhead and manhood to assert the oneness of Jesus Christ, the Antiochene school accepted the "indwelling theology", that is the Godhead dwell in manhood, as if Jesus Christ were two persons in one, to assert that no confusion had occurred between the Godhead and manhood and to avoid attributing human weakness to His Divinity. The basis for the Alexandrian school was John 1.14 "And the Word became flesh", while that of the Antiochenes was Colossians 2.9 "For in Him dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily"
I won't venture so far as to say Leo was a Nestorian in disguise but he certainly wasn't a theologian and that is evident from the substandard & erroneous tome. He shows no understanding of the Alexandrine definitions. He shows a lack of understanding of the differences between 'hypostatic union' of Alexandria and the 'indwelling theory' of the Antiochian school, to which the latter is a complete blunder of theological ineptness.
It seems Leo created a new definition, which he thought was in line with the traditional expressions, to usurp power and prestige in the fertile field of 5th century theological contentions. He adopted the formula of the heretics believing he could get away with it. He certainly took advantage and knew how to when he accepted no compromise as to its acceptance. And St Dioscorus, lamp of Orthodoxy, refused to read the tome in Ephesus 449, probably out of respect for his friend, Leo, whom he didn't want to embarrass with his theologically inept tome.
Leo adopted the term "prosopic union" which signifies an external union; a mask if you will. This was the exact term the Nestorians were using at the time, and it was deceptively close to the Alexandrians' 'hypostatic union' to the unbeknowing & untrained in the theology of the fathers.
In fact, Nestorious invoked this expression when he said 'Christotokos' instead of 'Theotokos' which would make sense given their "indewelling" or "loose association" theory of the union. St Cyril tirelessly fought the use of this term decades before Chalcedon warning of its error & danger- that it divides Christ into two persons; that it proposes an external union, one that has profound impacts on our definitions of salvation and who our Lord was. It would completely negate the concept of 'Theopoesis' (evolving later into 'Theosis' by the Byzantines, but that's a topic for another thread)
Leo used the term 'prospon' as the Nestorians have. Some Nestorians objected to the addition of "one hypostasis" but they accepted it when "hypostasis" was interpreted to them as equal to "prosopon". Nesotorius himself praised the tome saying something along the lines of it "vindicated me" (unsure of the exact quote).
There's nothing in terms of sound Christology that can be redeemed in the tome, other than it condemns Eutychianism, to the extent that some EO scholars today are postulating it could've been written by someone other than Leo. Some are beginning to distance themselves from the tome. The only thing keeping it afloat is its latter orthodox interpretations.
Observe here what Nestorious says and how that same term was used by Leo: "We must not forget that the two natures involve with him two distinct hypostases an two persons (prosopon) united together by simple loan and exchange".
We're indebted to our fathers Sts Athanasius, Cyril, Dioscorus, Timothy Aelurus, Philoxenus of Mabbug, Severus, and countless others who stood firm in the face of violence, ridicule and even martyrdom to preserve for us the Orthodox faith, pure & undefiled.
Perhaps St Timothy Aelurus summarized it best when he said:
"I also distance myself from the letter of Leo, governor of the Church of the Romans, who introduced a division into the one indivisible Our Lord Jesus Christ; because of which, I do not subscribe to the council of Chalcedon. For I was baptized, and I baptize, in accordance with the confession of the 318 holy Fathers of Nicaea; it is this that I preach and it is this that I believe, without any addition or subtraction, and those who believe in such a manner are in communion with me, for the Faith does not grow old and has no need of renewal with the passage of time.
I do not presume to say two natures in God who took a body and who was made man of the holy Virgin Mother of God. I confess above all the Faith, while I marvel with rapture at the indivisible, un-shakeable, and life-giving mystery of the Incarnation. It is a terrible thing indeed if the doctrines of each heresy stay as they are, and those of the Orthodox Christians change over time. It becomes an object of derision to the unbelievers if, in the last days of the world – while we wait for Christ our Saviour to come from heaven, in a frightening manner, for the second time – we are divided concerning the subject of the confession of his preaching. What will be made of those who, since the coming of Christ, baptized according to the symbol of the Faith? For me, therefore, in accordance with the divine Scriptures, this is the way I will live in Christ, with the same Faith which has been passed to me by the Spirit of holiness since the the first times; and this would be to me a blessing, of dying while keeping the profession of faith of the holy Fathers who recalled it without change"
Lets pray for unity and understanding amongst all Orthodox communions.
Theosis is a Cappadocian term and perfectly acceptable in Orthodox tradition.
Leo never said "two persons". Be careful what you say "Leo said". You need to verify it before EOs engage in debate with you to be more than happy to prove you're wrong.
[quote author=minasoliman link=topic=14347.msg164066#msg164066 date=1364826023] Theosis is a Cappadocian term and perfectly acceptable in Orthodox tradition.
Leo never said "two persons". Be careful what you say "Leo said". You need to verify it before EOs engage in debate with you to be more than happy to prove you're wrong.
I'm not aware of an instance where I said theosis wasn't Orthodox. However, the word 'theosis' was never used before the Cappadocian fathers. The term used prior, by Athanasius, Iraneus & others was 'Theopoesis' which has a slightly different meaning. And according to Abouna Athanasius Iskander 'Theosis' is not an Orthodox term, but I'm not going as far as that to agree with him. I believe the byzantines now use it in an Orthodox manner.
Also, I never said Leo uttered 'two persons'. The last quote I provided was by Nestorious who I wanted to show shared the same terminological usage as Leo. I'm implying that his use of terminology could be understood as Nestorian. I did perhaps explain it carelessly.
Apologies for the confusion.
Here's an article by Abouna Athanasius Iskander and his quarrel with 'Theosis', its history and the proper terms. Everyone can decide from there
Mina, excellent point. We need to be very careful what we claim.
Orthodoxy, excellent exposition. A few points. [quote author=Orthodoxy link=topic=14347.msg164063#msg164063 date=1364792246] We must understand the exact definitions intended by the fathers as they taught them.
It's important to not transpose the 21st century with the 5th. We can orthodoxify anything, fine, but that would be dishonest and it would ascribe intentions to certain fathers or 'heretics' which they themselves didn't hold to. As I tried to show before that Leo was being dishonest in describing Eutyches' intentions so he can villify Eutyches. From Leo's words he showed that he did not describe Eutyches' teaching in any depth but rather what he thought Eutyches said. When Sts. Iraneus, Justin Martyr, Athanasius, Cyril and early fathers fought against heresies like Gnosticism, they were very, very specific about the heretic teachings. They needed a full description to defend Orthodoxy point by point with no assumptions. Leo's Tome did not do this. I am not defending Eutyches since evidence shows us that he did preach monophystism at one point. And I can't with any great degree of certainty represent what Leo's intentions were when he wrote the Tome. But his language and style of defending Orthodoxy against heresy does not match with earlier Orthodox fathers.
He certainly took advantage and knew how to when he accepted no compromise as to its acceptance. And St Dioscorus, lamp of Orthodoxy, refused to read the tome in Ephesus 449, probably out of respect for his friend, Leo, whom he didn't want to embarrass with his theologically inept tome.
This actually made me laugh. You have a huge, kind heart Orthodoxy. The fact is each council has a presiding authority. It is at the discretion of that bishop what is or isn't read at the council. From my understanding of the council of Ephesus II, St Dioscorus didn't read Leo's Tome because Eutyches retracted his heresy and confessed an Orthodox belief. Leo's Tome has no bearing in the council if Eutyches no longer believes in heresy. I agree that St Dioscorus probably viewed the Tome as unorthodox. This gave him a second reason not to allow the Tome. But I think it had to do with simple logic, rather than safe guarding a friendship.
Leo used the term 'prospon' as the Nestorians have. Some Nestorians objected to the addition of "one hypostasis" but they accepted it when "hypostasis" was interpreted to them as equal to "prosopon". Nesotorius himself praised the tome saying something along the lines of it "vindicated me" (unsure of the exact quote).
I think its in the Bazaar of Heraclides. I'll check when I get home.
We're indebted to our fathers Sts Athanasius, Cyril, Dioscorus, Timothy Aelurus, Philoxenus of Mabbug, Severus, and countless others who stood firm in the face of violence, ridicule and even martyrdom to preserve for us the Orthodox faith, pure & undefiled.
It's so ironic because Chalcedonians accuse us for additions (especially to the Trisagion). There are stories of cities threatening riots to martyrdom if the additions of the Trisagion were forced on them, claiming they are defending the faith of the early Church. They fail to see that the additions are found in Syria and the meaning and understanding of the Trisagion additions are found in Orthodox fathers. They even tried to find a middle ground compromise. And again they failed to see how certain "compromises" in the Trisagion additions are in fact subtle and hidden Nestorianism.
Thank you for your references. They were very enlightening.
Brethren, Christ is Risen! Sorry to re-open such an old post. I am actually having difficulty with "historic revisionism" and synaxarium folk tales of miracles. I just finished reading Fr VC Samuel Book on Chalcedon. Quite honestly, I have skimmed over the academic theology and read more in detail the politics and violence. I am extremely nauseated more than reading the accounts of the Spanish Inquisition. I am less interested in "who is right theologically" and actually now think that this is a stupid question! There are many poor villagers around the world who would die in Christ's name and have no clue what "Christology" means! The ability of politics to corrupt the church some much cuts deep into the truth of Christianity alltogther! You read among spiritual masters like John of the Ladder (who was Chalcedonian by the way) about "discernment" and its stages as progress towards edification and the simple fact that there is so much blood shed about Christology, that history have proven to be inconsequential with the rich theological and spiritual heritage of both Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian (and also Roman Catholic and by the way few "Nestorians" like Isaac the Syrian and "Protestants" like AW Tozer), suggests that "discernment" is really some sort of delusion! Folk tales describe the apparitions of angels, Saints,Virgin Mary, and Christ Himself at critical points of history to guide the faithful about critical issues. Wasn't the Chalcedonian schism critical enough to dictate such a supernatural intervention? I am starting to think that the "orthodox ecumenists" are more conflicted than the anti-ecumenism polemicists! Although I find the zealot polemicists to be repulsive but they seem to be more consistent in their position and less conflicted. Perhaps, the anti-ecclesiology post-denomenalist Protestants may be more consistent as well. If so much history is falsified, why can't the core historic details that our faith rest upon be falsified too? I know this is far stretched and I am well read for the so called historic proofs of accuracy of Gospels, etc but I still find the concept of the synaxarium(s) fairy tales repulsive! There were figures like John of the Ladder, Isaac the Syrian, and Jacob of Seruj who existed at the time of controversy and, despite their affiliation to certain communions, refrained from writing about controversial doctrine issues and focused more on deep spirituality (and hence crossed schisms and ecclesiological boundaries). Fr Matta Almaskeen would a contemporary figure of a similar line. May be they are the missing link of Agape love that can unite. God bless!
Comments
Thanks for the replies guys. I'll try and respond in a few hours.
Peace
Actually, I don't think I'll be able to respond until the end of Spring break. Sorry for any inconvenience.
http://araborthodoxy.blogspot.com/2012/11/a-non-chalcedonian-bishop-converts-to.html
RO
Divisive, foolish, and another Fr. Athanasius Henein train wreck. I wonder what he calls the OO now. Monophysites? Just like that traitor Athanasius Henein.
RO
This happened in 1912. He's probably dead by now.
Oh well, Rem, I have a response to you analysis (it goes along the style of "you over analysed the words of St. Severus.") He clearly didn't have any of your science in mind lol. Iwill respond as soon as I get through studying Orgo :( lol
RO
Yes I know he didn't have any science in mind. But the point I'm making is that one can't simply use examples to explain Christology without first explaining the philosophical foundation and definition of the word nature. The example of iron is faulty because it assumes a wrong understanding of nature. The examples of Leo's Tome are faulty because they also assume a wrong understanding of nature.
But I still want to hear your responses. Orgo is so much easier than theology and you obviously show a strong grasp of theology. So I wouldn't worry about orgo. It's child's play now.
The miracle of St Euphemia is certainly contrived out of desperation from the Chalcedonians at the time to try and further propagate and recognize the heresy of Chalcedon in the history books and church canons. The Chalcedonians engaged in what historians today call 'historical revisionism'. They borrowed it from the ancient pharaohs of Egypt whereby subsequent pharaohs/kings tried to efface or even erase the memory of previous pharaohs. This is why we have little information on pharaohs today or the information we received is partly untrue or defamatory. A famous example of this is the Pharaoh Akhenaten. He was the first to try and bring ancient Egyptians to a more sensible way of worship (monotheism). He abolished all other deities and introduced the worship of one (a sun God I believe). To Akhenaten, the worship of multiple deities was absurd and only one God could exist.
Refer to st Justin Martyr's 'spermatikos Logos' doctrine of knowledge of the eternal Logos and how the rationale of God is implanted in every man, believer or not.
Subsequent pharaohs vilified him in history by calling him evil, madman, among other things, all for attempting to introduce the worship of one God. He also wrote psalms which are similar in spirit of worship to those of David the prophet. One surviving poem of his is interestingly similar to psalm 104. The rest, probably burned and his life was spent in a constant struggle with those who demonized him and tried to bring about his ruin.
St Euphemia's 'miracle' is fictitious and another blot of historical dishonesty that would be the theme of the Byzantine churches for subsequent years, before they were practically redeemed by following councils. The only faith St Dioscorus had with him was the faith of the 3 Holy councils and the Nicean-Constantinoplean creed. No additions, no updated expression or formula.
The Chalcedonians would engage in similar tactics in 451. This is why the prophecies of holy men and monastics in the years preceding the council alluded to it as being devoid of the spirit of God and any clear conscious for truth seeking. St Dioscorus, the Lamp of Orthodoxy, was vilified and tortured; his hair plucked out and his teeth broken, at one instance carrying them in his hands uttering "this is the fruit of faith". Clergy at Chalcedon didn't want to share in his fate. It was a council of intimidation and fear. Yet St Dioscorus uncompromisingly became the second Athanasius as Richard Price called him.
Leo showed a lack of understanding of the Christological controversy in the east nor was the tome based on theological interpretations of previous councils. Ironically, St Cyril anathamatized Chalcedon before it came into existence many years earlier. He warned of speaking of division when it comes to Christ and playing around with things we shouldn't approach.
The point of the incarnation is unity. Christ also came to unite us to Him. The entire universal message and theology underpinning His incarnation is Unity. Chalcedon came and inadvertently set us back and once again ignored the traditions of the Orthodox fathers.
Fr Tadros Malaty himself said "The formula: "one nature" has an evangelic base, and touches our salvation...Leo speaks of "one person (prosopon)" of Christ but this term does not suffice, for the Nestorians used it to mean "mask," i.e. external unity. There was a need to confirm the unity as a true and "hypostatic" one...
Fr Tadros, who is an ecuminist by the way, goes on to say "We are in accord with the Tome in refuting Eutychianism and in confirming that Christ's manhood was real, Christ entered the mundane plane of existence and that the unity of Godhead and manhood had been realized without change... but the Tome consists of three statements, those which some of the Fathers of Chalcedon themselves rejected for their Nestorian attitude..Leo's Tome was praised by Nestorius himself"
Fr V.C Samuel states "..the imperial authority in Constantinople had no sympathy either for the council of Ephesus in 431 or for the theological tradition of the Alexandrine fathers. The plan of the emperor was to befriend Rome against Alexandria with a view to raising Constantinople, the capital of the empire, to a position of leadership in the church, second only to Rome. Since the western see and the imperial authority in Constantinople, who controlled the council of Chalcedon, had each of them its own plan to carry out through it-a plan which surely had no bearing on the Christological question-neither of them had any difficulty in misrepresenting the point of view of the council's opponent's in the most amazing manner, without showing even a shred of evidence in its support."
It's a tragic thing that politics tore Christ's body in two. We are blessed to be part of an orthodox communion without claim to as much shadowy puppeteerings from behind the scenes.
We must insist, though, that the Chalcedonians of the time are nothing like the EO of today who try to live Orthodoxy faithfully. The EO today will defend the errors of Chalcedon and the tome, sure, but that is because they have to. It's part of their tradition. We don't expect them to drop a council. That would create and compound the schisms already in existence.
Lets be thankful we're part of the Coptic Orthodox church and the wider Oriental Orthodox communion. Lets not trust our own discernment of things. Our fathers saw and in wisdom defended against the shadows of heresy that once again tried to creep in the church ever to subtly.
ReturnOrthodoxy,
The issue with Fr Athanasius Henien is complex. He continually disobeyed the Holy Synod but some people would say he was unjustly defrocked. I believe he would've stayed if it were up to him. Also, when you spend as much time with the Byantines like him, you'll get influenced greatly by their approach to things. I believe he was defrocked and eventually had no where else to go but to accept the priesthood in the Greek Orthodox church. By him calling us monophysites is just his way of lashing out against what happened to him. It shows immaturity on his part and perhaps God weeds out the unfaithful servants that way. But he himself is a theologian and doesn't believe this nonsense. He was married in a Greek church and spent many years in Greece learning. So he was really an OO-EO hybrid his whole life, if that makes sense. Although I don't want to reduce the situation to such a reductionist explanation.
I once saw him on a christian Sattelite channel talking with a Coptic man, discussing politics and the like, but he seemed overly agitated and no longer at peace. I was reminded of Saul loosing his peace after the spirit of God departed from him.
Either way, lets pray him, however, his statements against the church will certainly cut his chances of being reinstated, not that he would try anyway.
I think you made an excellent post, but I would still stay on the side of St. Severus and support his analogy, not because it's perfect, but it's perfect to the simple-minded. ;) It also is a good explanation on our theosis. Perhaps, if we think in todays scientific terms, the iron is like the bush Moses saw...it burns, but is not consumed or changed in its essence, but simply transformed into the glory of the fire.
But it is this theme that bothers me: Iron doesn't change with fire, like the flesh of Christ didn't change with the divinity. The essence of iron is changed by fire. I think the burning bush is a perfect example of the Incarnation, while the iron example is flawed. It's only flawed when we say iron doesn't change its essence. I just wanted to comment that we should be careful how we use the iron example.
After more thought on it, I think the iron example - if understood as heated iron, not iron and fire - reinforces Orthodoxy's basic premise of theosis/the Incarnation: "The point of the incarnation is unity. Christ also came to unite us to Him. The entire universal message and theology underpinning His incarnation is Unity." Heated iron, for a short moment, explains the effect of fire on iron when fire/energy and iron are united. The word, heated iron, itself illustrates a unity. In this way, the example has nothing to do with the nature of fire + the nature of iron, rather the nature of heated iron explains the Incarnation very well.
Insisting on iron + fire vs. heated iron only breaks that unity. The same insistence on distinction of natures after the Incarnation breaks the unity of the Incarnation and it becomes dangerously close to Nestorianism. This corroborates Orthodoxy's statement "Chalcedon came and inadvertently set us back and once again ignored the traditions of the Orthodox fathers."
Orthodoxy,
I still think everyone should be careful on terms like "fictitious" and "historical revisionalism". Personally, I agree with everything you said about Pharonic revisionalism and Imperial Byzantine revisionalism. But I prefer not to extend my personal opinion to historical fact without substantial evidence. Otherwise, we end up creating our own historical revisionalism. Using your comments about historical events from Chalcedon, I must ask do you have substantial evidence that St Dioscorus had his hair plucked out and his teeth broken? Or is this Oriental/Coptic historical revisionalism? It will not surprise us that modern Chalcedonians will deny this ever happened because we have no real proof. It will also not surprise us that they will give historical "evidence" that St Dioscorus had a mob attack the bishops of Chalcedon. Of course, their evidence is weak at best and "fictitous" at worse. ;)
Historical revisionalism is real, like you pointed out. Historiography shows us many examples of biased histories and historians of controversial events like Chalcedon. As the saying (allegedly written by Winston Churchill) goes, "history is written by the victor". Let's not turn the pendulum of error all the way to the other end by saying everything Chalcedon said or stands for is historically fictitious or evil because we can't prove it and we are not innocent of the same historical revisionalism against them (even though we were never victors or conquerors).
And yes, we can't just blame Chalcedonians of their own hagiography. We have our own too.
The insistence of Leo of the two natures after the incarnation is what is offensive and not accepted by the Orthodox.
Fixed that for you. ;)
Specifically, his insistence that the Word and flesh act as distinct entities. I don't think our Fathers minded the dyophysite phraseology per se, as many Pre-Chalcedonian Fathers (E.g. St. Gregory the Theologian) used it.
Severian, you've jumped to the conclusion a litle too fast that we have a monopoly on Orthodoxy. This thread is seeking out that answer.
We are indeed "Orientals" and at the rate we are going, we are not very "Orthodox" these days either.
Well the idea could very well be fire and iron "en theoria", but after the union, it's fiery iron.
EXACTLY. Understood in this manner, both the Chalcedonian and Oriental Christologies make sense because we now have a fundamental philosophical framework for the word and concepts of natures individually and natures united. In this framework, there cannot be any exclusivity of explanations. There can be multiple explanations to describe Christ's nature(s), as long as they don't violate the framework. The fact that one party says there is one and only way to explain Christology by default violates this framework from the beginning (even if that explanation was Orthodox).
The framework of St Cyril and followed by the orientals is not to speak of two natures after unity and thus disect the natures of the Son incarnate as if ther are separate after union.
Except "en theoria." Even St. Dioscorus said "His two natures are not divided in all His works."
So if Leo's Tome would be renamed "Leo's exposition of the natures en theoria", would it be acceptable?
No, because much of the content is still unacceptable regardless of the Tome's title.
It's important to not transpose the 21st century with the 5th. We can orthodoxify anything, fine, but that would be dishonest and it would ascribe intentions to certain fathers or 'heretics' which they themselves didn't hold to.
I support unity with the EO but not at the expense of the Orthodox definitions/expressions of Ephesus and St Cyril the great, because they kept the faith secure against the onslaught of Nestorian attacks in the 5th century, who in my opinion, where the real puppeteers behind the errors of Chalcedon.
I echo Fr Tadros malaty's words in saying that while the Alexandrine school adopted the "hypostatic union" or "natural union" of the Godhead and manhood to assert the oneness of Jesus Christ, the Antiochene school accepted the "indwelling theology", that is the Godhead dwell in manhood, as if Jesus Christ were two persons in one, to assert that no confusion had occurred between the Godhead and manhood and to avoid attributing human weakness to His Divinity. The basis for the Alexandrian school was John 1.14 "And the Word became flesh", while that of the Antiochenes was Colossians 2.9 "For in Him dwells the fullness of the Godhead bodily"
I won't venture so far as to say Leo was a Nestorian in disguise but he certainly wasn't a theologian and that is evident from the substandard & erroneous tome. He shows no understanding of the Alexandrine definitions. He shows a lack of understanding of the differences between 'hypostatic union' of Alexandria and the 'indwelling theory' of the Antiochian school, to which the latter is a complete blunder of theological ineptness.
It seems Leo created a new definition, which he thought was in line with the traditional expressions, to usurp power and prestige in the fertile field of 5th century theological contentions. He adopted the formula of the heretics believing he could get away with it.
He certainly took advantage and knew how to when he accepted no compromise as to its acceptance. And St Dioscorus, lamp of Orthodoxy, refused to read the tome in Ephesus 449, probably out of respect for his friend, Leo, whom he didn't want to embarrass with his theologically inept tome.
Leo adopted the term "prosopic union" which signifies an external union; a mask if you will. This was the exact term the Nestorians were using at the time, and it was deceptively close to the Alexandrians' 'hypostatic union' to the unbeknowing & untrained in the theology of the fathers.
In fact, Nestorious invoked this expression when he said 'Christotokos' instead of 'Theotokos' which would make sense given their "indewelling" or "loose association" theory of the union.
St Cyril tirelessly fought the use of this term decades before Chalcedon warning of its error & danger- that it divides Christ into two persons; that it proposes an external union, one that has profound impacts on our definitions of salvation and who our Lord was.
It would completely negate the concept of 'Theopoesis' (evolving later into 'Theosis' by the Byzantines, but that's a topic for another thread)
Leo used the term 'prospon' as the Nestorians have. Some Nestorians objected to the addition of "one hypostasis" but they accepted it when "hypostasis" was interpreted to them as equal to "prosopon". Nesotorius himself praised the tome saying something along the lines of it "vindicated me" (unsure of the exact quote).
There's nothing in terms of sound Christology that can be redeemed in the tome, other than it condemns Eutychianism, to the extent that some EO scholars today are postulating it could've been written by someone other than Leo. Some are beginning to distance themselves from the tome. The only thing keeping it afloat is its latter orthodox interpretations.
Observe here what Nestorious says and how that same term was used by Leo:
"We must not forget that the two natures involve with him two distinct hypostases an two persons (prosopon) united together by simple loan and exchange".
We're indebted to our fathers Sts Athanasius, Cyril, Dioscorus, Timothy Aelurus, Philoxenus of Mabbug, Severus, and countless others who stood firm in the face of violence, ridicule and even martyrdom to preserve for us the Orthodox faith, pure & undefiled.
Perhaps St Timothy Aelurus summarized it best when he said:
"I also distance myself from the letter of Leo, governor of the Church of the Romans, who introduced a division into the one indivisible Our Lord Jesus Christ; because of which, I do not subscribe to the council of Chalcedon. For I was baptized, and I baptize, in accordance with the confession of the 318 holy Fathers of Nicaea; it is this that I preach and it is this that I believe, without any addition or subtraction, and those who believe in such a manner are in communion with me, for the Faith does not grow old and has no need of renewal with the passage of time.
I do not presume to say two natures in God who took a body and who was made man of the holy Virgin Mother of God. I confess above all the Faith, while I marvel with rapture at the indivisible, un-shakeable, and life-giving mystery of the Incarnation. It is a terrible thing indeed if the doctrines of each heresy stay as they are, and those of the Orthodox Christians change over time. It becomes an object of derision to the unbelievers if, in the last days of the world – while we wait for Christ our Saviour to come from heaven, in a frightening manner, for the second time – we are divided concerning the subject of the confession of his preaching. What will be made of those who, since the coming of Christ, baptized according to the symbol of the Faith? For me, therefore, in accordance with the divine Scriptures, this is the way I will live in Christ, with the same Faith which has been passed to me by the Spirit of holiness since the the first times; and this would be to me a blessing, of dying while keeping the profession of faith of the holy Fathers who recalled it without change"
Lets pray for unity and understanding amongst all Orthodox communions.
Leo never said "two persons". Be careful what you say "Leo said". You need to verify it before EOs engage in debate with you to be more than happy to prove you're wrong.
Theosis is a Cappadocian term and perfectly acceptable in Orthodox tradition.
Leo never said "two persons". Be careful what you say "Leo said". You need to verify it before EOs engage in debate with you to be more than happy to prove you're wrong.
I'm not aware of an instance where I said theosis wasn't Orthodox. However, the word 'theosis' was never used before the Cappadocian fathers. The term used prior, by Athanasius, Iraneus & others was 'Theopoesis' which has a slightly different meaning. And according to Abouna Athanasius Iskander 'Theosis' is not an Orthodox term, but I'm not going as far as that to agree with him. I believe the byzantines now use it in an Orthodox manner.
Also, I never said Leo uttered 'two persons'. The last quote I provided was by Nestorious who I wanted to show shared the same terminological usage as Leo. I'm implying that his use of terminology could be understood as Nestorian. I did perhaps explain it carelessly.
Apologies for the confusion.
Here's an article by Abouna Athanasius Iskander and his quarrel with 'Theosis', its history and the proper terms.
Everyone can decide from there
Orthodoxy, excellent exposition. A few points.
[quote author=Orthodoxy link=topic=14347.msg164063#msg164063 date=1364792246]
We must understand the exact definitions intended by the fathers as they taught them.
It's important to not transpose the 21st century with the 5th. We can orthodoxify anything, fine, but that would be dishonest and it would ascribe intentions to certain fathers or 'heretics' which they themselves didn't hold to.
As I tried to show before that Leo was being dishonest in describing Eutyches' intentions so he can villify Eutyches. From Leo's words he showed that he did not describe Eutyches' teaching in any depth but rather what he thought Eutyches said. When Sts. Iraneus, Justin Martyr, Athanasius, Cyril and early fathers fought against heresies like Gnosticism, they were very, very specific about the heretic teachings. They needed a full description to defend Orthodoxy point by point with no assumptions. Leo's Tome did not do this. I am not defending Eutyches since evidence shows us that he did preach monophystism at one point. And I can't with any great degree of certainty represent what Leo's intentions were when he wrote the Tome. But his language and style of defending Orthodoxy against heresy does not match with earlier Orthodox fathers. This actually made me laugh. You have a huge, kind heart Orthodoxy. The fact is each council has a presiding authority. It is at the discretion of that bishop what is or isn't read at the council. From my understanding of the council of Ephesus II, St Dioscorus didn't read Leo's Tome because Eutyches retracted his heresy and confessed an Orthodox belief. Leo's Tome has no bearing in the council if Eutyches no longer believes in heresy. I agree that St Dioscorus probably viewed the Tome as unorthodox. This gave him a second reason not to allow the Tome. But I think it had to do with simple logic, rather than safe guarding a friendship. I think its in the Bazaar of Heraclides. I'll check when I get home. It's so ironic because Chalcedonians accuse us for additions (especially to the Trisagion). There are stories of cities threatening riots to martyrdom if the additions of the Trisagion were forced on them, claiming they are defending the faith of the early Church. They fail to see that the additions are found in Syria and the meaning and understanding of the Trisagion additions are found in Orthodox fathers. They even tried to find a middle ground compromise. And again they failed to see how certain "compromises" in the Trisagion additions are in fact subtle and hidden Nestorianism.
Thank you for your references. They were very enlightening.