What were the non-Chalcedonian Fathers' (and our) response to the claim that St. Euphemia the Martyr Miraculously had the Chalcedonian definition of Christology using the dyophysite formula vindicated and confirmed as God's choice over the Non-Chalcedonia "One Incarnate Nature" formula when both confessions were written and placed in her tomb, the tomb being sealed and three days later her body held the Chalcedonian formula in her right hand while the non-chalcedonian formula under her feet?
While St. Euphemia is commemorated in our Coptic Church around January 1 of each year, there is no mention of this miracle in our Synaxarium or a contradiction to it.
This general rendering of this Miracale at Chalcedon is as follows:
"The council sat in the cathedral consecrated in her name. Present at the council were 630 representatives from all the local Christian Churches. Both the Monophysite and Orthodox parties were well represented at the council, so the meetings were quite contentious, and no decisive consensus could be reached. Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople suggested that the council submit the decision to the Holy Spirit, acting through Saint Euphemia.
Both parties wrote a confession of their faith and placed them in the tomb of the saint Euphemia which was sealed in the presence of the emperor Marcian (450-457), who placed the imperial seal on it and set a guard to watch over it for three days. During these days both sides fasted and prayed. After three days the tomb was opened and the scroll with the Orthodox confession was seen in the right hand of St Euphemia while the scroll of the Monophysites lay at her feet.
This miracle is attested by a letter sent by the council to Pope Leo I:
"For it was God who worked, and the triumphant Euphemia who crowned the meeting as for a bridal, and who, taking our definition of the Faith as her own confession, presented it to her Bridegroom by our most religious Emperor and Christ-loving Empress, appeasing all the tumult of opponents and establishing our confession of the Truth as acceptable to Him, and with hand and tongue setting her seal to the votes of us all in proclamation thereof." ~Wikipedia.org
Was the definition placed on behalf of the Non-Chalcedonians a strictly Eutychian Monophysite definition? If so, I can see why St. Euphemia (who is also in our Coptic Synaxarium) would agree with the Chalcedonian definition? However, since Chalcedon was not about the Eutychian heresy but about the Miaphysite confession of Dioscorus, I would assume that the written statement of faith placed in St. Euphemia's tomb was the Miaphysite one. now...
If the confession placed in her tomb were Dyophysite and Miaphysite, then what was the response of our Fathers to this Miracle?
Comments
If the confession placed in her tomb were Dyophysite and Miaphysite, then what was the response of our Fathers to this Miracle?
A more fundamental approach is needed to examine Chalcedon and generally in all matters of spiritual life.
This hagiography is undoubtedly fictional. It is not at all mentioned in the minutes of the acts of the council, and to the best of my knowledge no contemporary historian mentioned it in their writings (we only have the testimony of Leo, who wasn't even at the council). Secondly, St. Dioscorus and the other so-called Monophysite Bishops didn't bring forth any definition or statement of faith. All they had was the twelve chapters of St. Cyril and the creed of Nicea. They brought forth nothing new. This is enough to prove that this story is yet another fictitious and mythical folktale on part of the Chalcedonians and their despicable spiritual ancestors.
One of the best post on tasbeha in years.
[quote author=Severian link=topic=14347.msg163962#msg163962 date=1364173090]
This hagiography is undoubtedly fictional. It is not at all mentioned in the minutes of the acts of the council, and to the best of my knowledge no contemporary historian mentioned it in their writings (we only have the testimony of Leo, who wasn't even at the council). Secondly, St. Dioscorus and the other so-called Monophysite Bishops didn't bring forth any definition or statement of faith. All they had was the twelve chapters of St. Cyril and the creed of Nicea. They brought forth nothing new. This is enough to prove that this story is yet another fictitious and mythical folktale on part of the Chalcedonians and their despicable spiritual ancestors.
One of the best post on tasbeha in years.
Thank you very much.
Because we are in Great Lent and because I do not wish to create unnecessary discord during this holy and blessed time of the year, I would just like to clarify:
I did not call the spiritual ancestors of the Chalcedonians "despicable" on purpose to offend them. Rather I called them that because anyone who...
1) Says that our Lord Jesus Christ is divided between the Word and the flesh (see the tome of Leo)
2) Lies and creates fictitious hagiographies
3) Persecutes and murders thousands upon thousands of innocent Orthodox faithful in Syria and Egypt
4) Deposes Orthodox Bishops without a legitimate basis
... Is in fact a despicable person and is not at all to be respected or venerated.
[quote author=Stavro link=topic=14347.msg163965#msg163965 date=1364174262]
[quote author=Severian link=topic=14347.msg163962#msg163962 date=1364173090]
This hagiography is undoubtedly fictional. It is not at all mentioned in the minutes of the acts of the council, and to the best of my knowledge no contemporary historian mentioned it in their writings (we only have the testimony of Leo, who wasn't even at the council). Secondly, St. Dioscorus and the other so-called Monophysite Bishops didn't bring forth any definition or statement of faith. All they had was the twelve chapters of St. Cyril and the creed of Nicea. They brought forth nothing new. This is enough to prove that this story is yet another fictitious and mythical folktale on part of the Chalcedonians and their despicable spiritual ancestors.
One of the best post on tasbeha in years.
Thank you very much.
Because we are in Great Lent and because I do not wish to create unnecessary discord during this holy and blessed time of the year, I would just like to clarify:
I did not call the spiritual ancestors of the Chalcedonians "despicable" on purpose to offend them. Rather I called them that because anyone who...
1) Says that our Lord Jesus Christ is divided between the Word and the flesh (see the tome of Leo)
2) Lies and creates fictitious hagiographies
3) Persecutes and murders thousands upon thousands of innocent Orthodox faithful in Syria and Egypt
4) Deposes Orthodox Bishops without a legitimate basis
... Is in fact a despicable person and is not at all to be respected or venerated.
I understand your intentions.
I happen to share the same opinion about the ancestors of the Chalcedonians and for the same reasons you listed. We cannot change the history of the Church, although we have been trying really hard lately, and it condemns the heretics of Chalcedon.
[quote author=Stavro link=topic=14347.msg163965#msg163965 date=1364174262]
[quote author=Severian link=topic=14347.msg163962#msg163962 date=1364173090]
This hagiography is undoubtedly fictional. It is not at all mentioned in the minutes of the acts of the council, and to the best of my knowledge no contemporary historian mentioned it in their writings (we only have the testimony of Leo, who wasn't even at the council). Secondly, St. Dioscorus and the other so-called Monophysite Bishops didn't bring forth any definition or statement of faith. All they had was the twelve chapters of St. Cyril and the creed of Nicea. They brought forth nothing new. This is enough to prove that this story is yet another fictitious and mythical folktale on part of the Chalcedonians and their despicable spiritual ancestors.
One of the best post on tasbeha in years.
Thank you very much.
Because we are in Great Lent and because I do not wish to create unnecessary discord during this holy and blessed time of the year, I would just like to clarify:
I did not call the spiritual ancestors of the Chalcedonians "despicable" on purpose to offend them. Rather I called them that because anyone who...
1) Says that our Lord Jesus Christ is divided between the Word and the flesh (see the tome of Leo)
2) Lies and creates fictitious hagiographies
3) Persecutes and murders thousands upon thousands of innocent Orthodox faithful in Syria and Egypt
4) Deposes Orthodox Bishops without a legitimate basis
... Is in fact a despicable person and is not at all to be respected or venerated.
Severian,
Thanks again for making this appropriate Orthodox closing for Temptation Sunday on the new censored Tasbeha.org. I'll think twice before shaking the narrow, dialectical censorship dust from my feet. Today we were reminded, in every Gospel reading, that Jesus taught us to pray, "Away with you, Satan." When Jesus was leaving his beloved disciples, he told them, "If you love me, you will obey my commandments, as I obey the Father."
There are some written responses in the comments section... but I wish one of us would post rebuttal videos to clarify the facts for them.
Many of these videos are poated by someone named the MistAnchorite.
Their facts are all messed up.
There are many videosbon Youtube bluntly calling St. Dioscorus a heretic and a criminal and asking Copts to leave their Churches to join the non-chalcedonians as they are concerned for our salvation.
There are some written responses in the comments section... but I wish one of us would post rebuttal videos to clarify the facts for them.
Many of these videos are poated by someone named the MistAnchorite.
Their facts are all messed up.
I would like to. But to be honest, I think there are others more qualified for the job. I'm also not good at making videos.
I did not call the spiritual ancestors of the Chalcedonians "despicable" on purpose to offend them. Rather I called them that because anyone who...
1) Says that our Lord Jesus Christ is divided between the Word and the flesh (see the tome of Leo)
2) Lies and creates fictitious hagiographies
3) Persecutes and murders thousands upon thousands of innocent Orthodox faithful in Syria and Egypt
4) Deposes Orthodox Bishops without a legitimate basis
... Is in fact a despicable person and is not at all to be respected or venerated.
What you say Severian is completely true. But be careful how you use or understand subjective phrases like "fictitious hagiographies and [il]legitimate depositions". What one person considers fictitous or illegitimate is not universal, especially if the other party does the same thing. For example, would it surprise you that 2 Coptic hagiographies mention "tearing the Tome of Leo" which was the climax of each hagiography? Clearly, the authors of these hagiographies wanted to illegitimize Chalcedon. Both hagiographies are nearly 100-200 years after Chalcedon. One can easily show that one or both of these hagiographies are fictitious because of their repetitious and legendary nature.
Now the St Euphemia story is very likely fictitious. But so can many other hagiographies from both sides be fictitious. I think opposing hagiographies don't warrant a response since they are by nature semi-fictional.
Secondly, while we may consider the depositon of St Dioscorus illegitimate because he didn't bring any new declaration of faith, it doesn't mean that this is or was the only condition for legitimate deposition. The fact that St Dioscorus anathemized Flavian in Ephesus II in defense of Eutyches - who later recanted his position and claimed Christ's humanity was swallowed up in his divinity - is enough reason for Chalcedonians to believe they have legitimate cause to depose St Dioscorus. Now we can argue over why St Dioscorus is still innocent of any wrongdoing till the end of time. But we won't get anywhere because the definition of a legitimate deposition is different for the two parties (Chalcedonians vs. Non-Chalcedonians).
Metouro, we should care less what people say on Youtube. It is not the foundation or sign of truth. I found Protestants on YouTube who say St Mary cannot be called Theotokos or Mother of God because God can't be born. I have seen videos with neo-Arianism in the form Jehovah's Witness polemics. There is also Apollinarianism and many other heresies that have resurfaced trying to attack Orthodoxy. It doesn't justify wasting any energy responding or even viewing these videos.
I have an interesting PDF of father John Behr (Dean of St. Vladimir's Russian Orthodox Seminary) on Severus of Antioch (my favorite church father). If anyone wants the article, please pm me your email address. Probably one of the best analysis of St. Severus Christology which I've seen.
RO
Ok. I'll start. The English version of the Tome is found here.
First I'll start with a brief overview of the Tome and it's historical significance. The Tome was written by Leo as a response to Eutyches the Archimandrite's theology. Eutyches, fighting the expansion of Nestorianism immediately after the Council of Ephesus, had stated in his early years in Constantinople that Christ had no human nature because it was consumed in the divinity. Flavianus, bishop of Constantinople, told him he was teaching heresy. Eutyches sent a letter to Leo, bishop of Rome, pleading his case. Flavianius also wrote to Leo on this matter. Leo's Tome is a response to Flavianus.
The first problem with Leo's tome is that it seems to be speculating on Eutyches' heresy. It doesn't actually say what Eutyches claimed rather how Leo's own understanding of Eutyches' claim. Starting with a generic polemic against heretics, Leo begins saying "But if it was beyond Eutyches to derive sound understanding from this, the purest source of the christian faith, because the brightness of manifest truth had been darkened by his own peculiar blindness, then he should have subjected himself to the teaching of the gospels. When Matthew says, ..." Then Leo goes on a huge narrative of what it does say in the Gospels, and ends with the only claim I can find on what Eutyches said: "he [Eutyches] would not deceive people by saying that the Word was made flesh in the sense that he emerged from the virgin's womb having a human form but not having the reality of his mother's body." Given that he didn't actually quote Eutyches, rather he paraphrased his understanding of Eutyches' teaching, we should bear in mind that Leo's Tome is not sufficient evidence of what Eutyches actually said.
In the next paragraph, Leo says, "Or was it perhaps that he thought that our lord Jesus Christ did not have our nature because the angel who was sent to the blessed Mary said, "The holy Spirit will come upon you and the power of the most High will overshadow you, and so that which will be born holy out of you will be called Son of God," as if it was because the conception by the virgin was worked by God that the flesh of the one conceived did not share the nature of her who conceived it?" Why start by saying "perhaps ... he thought"? Is he using rhetorical debate techniques or is he unsure of what Eutyches actually said?
Regardless of what Leo thought Eutyches said, it is what Leo said that is in question. In his attempt to defunct any Eutychism, Leo set up a philosophical framework that is dangerously close to Nestorianism. Now Leo's words could be understood in a Orthodox (ie, Non-Chalcedonian) way, but it can also be and was understood as Nestorian in nature. Let's examine.
Leo writes "There is nothing unreal about this oneness, since both the lowliness of the man and the grandeur of the divinity are in mutual relation."
Good so far.
"As God is not changed by showing mercy, neither is humanity devoured by the dignity received."
Good anti-Euthycian monophysite discussion. Good so far.
"The activity of each form is what is proper to it in communion with the other: that is, the Word performs what belongs to the Word, and the flesh accomplishes what belongs to the flesh. One of these performs brilliant miracles; the other sustains acts of violence. "
Here's the problem. Describing the activities of each nature in such way that blurs the mystery of the union of natures sets up a dichotomy similar to what Nestorius preached. Nestorius said the Virgin Mary is Christokos (The birthgiver of Christ) not Theotokos (the birthgiver of God) because God can't be born. In other words, divinity can't be born. In other words, according to Nestorius, the two natures of Christ must be maintained separate and divided. Nestorius insisted on this dichotomy ignoring the fact that in the Incarnation, the union of the natures prevails over dichotomous division.
Put another way. We all know that you and I are made of flesh and soul. A flesh without a soul is a dead cadaver. A soul without the flesh is not human. (It may be an angel or a demon or even a soul that passed from this life, but not a living human being). If I insist on a dichotomy where food nourishes my flesh and prayer nourishes my soul, I have demarcated the division of the natures, not the union we call humanity. When I eat food, I eat, not my flesh eats. When I transcend into the spiritual world through prayer, I transcend through prayer, not my soul only. Of course, we all know the human nature is made of a physical component (which the Alexandrians called nature) and an immortal soul (which the Alexandrians also categorized as a nature). But a historical event done as a natural response of the human nature, such as eating, cannot be described in a dichotomous way without blurring the union of the natures.
This is what Leo did by setting up this dichotomy. He goes on to list miracles belong to divinity and emotions belong to the flesh. He says, "So, if I may pass over many instances, it does not belong to the same nature to weep out of deep-felt pity for a dead friend, and to call him back to life again at the word of command, once the mound had been removed from the four-day-old grave;"
Again, he is going on the assumption that when anyone says "same nature" or "one nature" it must mean one and only nature or one and only one hybrid nature. He fails to recognize that one can mean one nature in a different manner than he assumes. It's almost as if he went on a mission saying the Son of man weeps for his friend and the Son of God raises him from a four-day-old grave. This is no different than Nestorius who said the Virgin gave birth to the man Jesus Christ, not God.
By the way, as Leo moves down his list of miracles done by the divinity and events done by the flesh, he just has to slip an allusion to Rome's supremacy when Peter called the man Jesus "the Christ, the Son of the Living God." Leo writes, "He [Peter] thoroughly deserved to be declared "blessed" by the Lord. He derived the stability of both his goodness and his name from the original Rock," This in itself is not the theme of Leo's Tome but it illustrates Leo's intentions of his Tome.
The final thing "wrong" about Leo's Tome is how it was magically accepted as Cyrillian. Nothing in Leo's Tome seems to reference or describe Cyrillian Christology. But the council of Chalcedon automatically associated and represented Leo's Tome as Cyril's Christology and authority. Of course, this requires a more in depth study, but I just don't see how one can justify any claims that Leo's Tome or writings is equal or should be placed in the same sentence as Cyril's writings.
So to summarize
Leo never explicitly said that Christ is divided between the Word and the Flesh. But in insisting on a division or a dichotomy of natures, he has separated and categorized the actions of one nature vs. the other nature. In doing so, it is not far fetched to claim he implicitly and essentially divided Christ between the Word and the Flesh.
Now of course, this is not how modern Chalcedonians understand Leo's tome. And some of them find such nit picking as offensive as Eutyches' heresy. However, many ecumenically-minded theologians recognize that what Leo said and what Leo meant in his tome, as well as Chalcedon as well as what history tells us is only one piece of the equation. How we understand Leo's tome now and how we understand the Chalcedonian definition now and how we must put aside differences for the sake of the greater good, are other pieces of the equation.
I personally believe Leo's tome can be understood in Severian and Alexandrian Christology. I also believe Leo's Tome, as well as anethemas, and rigid affiliation to a council or a particular episcopacy are all things that should be secondary to the faith that unites us.
Finally, we can begin a discussion on thefacts at hands. I will reply in a couple of hours, after I do a little studying. Hopefully, since those who have commented on the thread so far are all mature and intelligent beings, we can keep this academic.
I'll reply within 3 hours or so :D
But to prove my earlier point before I diverged, St. Cyril of Alexandria made this statement once:
[quote="Cyril of Alexandria, Select Letters 48 (quoted from Fr. Peter Farrington's 'Eutyches and the Oriental Orthodox Tradition')"]In respect of the elements from which is the one and only Son and Lord Jesus Christ, as we accept them in thought, we say that two natures have been united, but after the union, when the division into two has now been removed, we believe that the nature of the Son is one
So, it can be argued that those Alexandrians who have known St. Cyril personally and very well through his letters and his theological treatises, as well as from his sermons probably, you can sympathize with why St. Dioscorus boldly and courageously condemned the Tome before the whole council.
Now, like Remnkemi said, I'm not condemning the Tome of Leo as Nestorian, and many could probably interpret it as Orthodox, but I can certainly understand and sympathize with why it was condemned as Nestorian, and I feel that the condemnation can be justified based on the theological/cultural tradition of the Alexandrians.
Where in the Tome of Leo does it say that Christ is divided as two persons?"For each form does what is proper to it with the co-operation of the other; that is the Word performing what appertains to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what appertains to the flesh."
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14347.msg163989#msg163989 date=1364313773]
I have read the Tome of Leo, and I find it full reconcilable with the Christology of Cyril.I personally have to disagree, and all of the OO Fathers are with me on that one.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14347.msg163989#msg163989 date=1364313773]
As a student of St. Severus, I am sure you are aware of his writings.Yes, and I am also aware of what he said regarding the Tome:
"But this you may keep firmly and fixedly in your mind, that no one shall be our fellow-communicant, nor will we consent to greet by letter any man who at the same time receives the wicked synod at Chalcedon contrary to the law, and does not anathematize the Tome of Leo." -Letter XLVII
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14347.msg163989#msg163989 date=1364313773]
Dude, open up the Coptic synexarium. At east half the stories in there never happened. Another 20 percent are mis-attributed. The stories of many of the saints in the Coptic church synexarium are merely stolen hagiographies from other saints. Take a look at the paradise of the fathers (especially those parts written by Jerome) and tell me that they were not fictitious. Does that make all these saints despicable?I have to disagree. While I am aware that some of our Hagiographies may be fictional or mis-attributed I don't think half (or anywhere near that number) are fictitious. The Chalcedonian hagiographers most likely created the St. Euphemia story as an excuse to persecute the Orthodox. It would not have been the last time they did something like that.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14347.msg163989#msg163989 date=1364313773]
Well they did not see them as Orthodox. So let's not say that they murdered thousands of Orthodox (although that was exactly what happened) but they murdered those they considered to be heterodox.That's not a valid excuse. Did Christ say "and whosoever shall not receive you (I.e. heretics or disbelievers), nor hear your words, murder them by the thousands." -Nowhere 12:36
Or did he say:
"and whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet." -St. Matthew 10:14
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14347.msg163989#msg163989 date=1364313773]
But the Oriental Orthodox church has gone through militant times before. We burnt their churches as well. It seems that there was a mutual war. This war was certainly a terrible thing, but like Abouna Matta says, true unity will come through mutual repentance. Repentance from murder, and repentance from burning churches.There is no historical evidence (to the best of my knowledge) that the Orthodox persecuted the Chalcedonians. And even if there were a few instances where this was the case, it was no where near as systematic or as brutal. If you can cite any historical evidence which indicates otherwise, please do.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14347.msg163989#msg163989 date=1364313773]
Theophilus deposed Chrysostom and Cyril vindicated that anathema! Chrysostom was misunderstood. Does that make Theophilus and Cyril despicable because they deposed an Orthodox Bishop? They defended what they saw as right, even though they were wrong. Humans are not infallible. They make mistakes. Fathers are humans.
Sts. Cyril and Theophilus condemned St. John under the assumption he sympathized with and communed Origenist heretics. St. Dioscorus was never condemned at the Council for heresy. In fact, he was the first to confess that the Divinity and humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ was united per the four adverbs. Ironically enough, his Orthodox confession ended up being included in the synod's definition.
I respect you and your Orthodoxy, but I do have to disagree with you in this regard.
Peace
"As, when iron or another similar substance is abundantly warmed by fire, and is heated by flame, we know that, while the iron does not pass out of its own nature, the iron which has passed into a complete flame, and has been made to hiss and to glow by it, it appears to be all fire, and, while it is in this state, blows are applied to it, it being smitten by a hammer or by means of other kinds of strokes, but the iron is exposed to the blows themselves, being expanded and narrowed at the same time, while the nature of the fire is in no way injured by the smiter."
What St. Severus is affirming is that very thing which Leo speaks of. Leo's Tome continues (from the quote you used) saying, "One of them sparkles with miracles, the other succumbs to injuries." Which seems to me to work perfectly with St. Severus saying, "but the iron is exposed to the blows themselves, being expanded and narrowed at the same time, while the nature of the fire is in no way injured by the smiter."
What this says to me is that the Tome can be read in a Severian lense, and can even complement the works of St. Severus. The Tome is, in my opinion, written in a sloppy way, and is thus ambiguous. But there is no reason to pronounce it heretical off the bat- especially when the Severus whom you and I adore seems to perfect it by his divinely inspired genius. Severian, there is no OO and EO father here. We are going to take them all as men, and analyse their works apart from the family they come from. So to tell me that the OO fathers disagree with me is not convincing. What did the OO fathers say about the issue at hand. I don't need to know what they said about each other, since they, like other men, are capable of falling into anger towards one another (as we know the whole shebang was fueled by a morbid political backdrop.) Excellent, and I acknowledge this. I am an OO by choice which means that I also have my concerns towards Chalcedon. I think the council was a tragedy. But after the smoke blows away, we need to sit down, and ask ourselves simple questions. What do we believe, and what do they believe. So lets ask ourselves that now. I do not need quotes of fallible men saying "We disagree." Rather, I need quotes showing that we disagree. I think we agree (particularly after Constantinople 553.)
Regarding the synexarium, the percentage is besides the point. You said that you consider the EO writers despicable for inventing Hagioraphies, and you agreed that some of our writers did the same. So then where do we go from here? Maybe a mere realization that humans are fallible? My great grandfather told my Father once how he was among a mob who opened a church of the Byzantines up for the Muslims to burn in Egypt. I can't find a source, but I guess word of mouth will have to do. Again, the range and scope of the brutal acts are not as important here. The importance is that we both committed vile acts!They were more systematic (of course, we are Egyptians :P) and brutal, that is fine. But both of us had anger (and thus, according to Christ, murder) in our hearts. Where do we go from here? A realization that humans are fallible. Well and good. So they thought he was a heretic, and they excommunicated him. So my point remains. While both Sts. Theophilus and Cyril were Holy men of God, they misjudged another man of God, though they did not misjudge the truth of God. I only pose, herein, the possibility that the fathers involved in the Chalcedonian controversy did the same. The possibility that both sides misjudged each other, but understood God.
St. Dioscoros was excommunicated for mismanagement. Not for heresy. It is interesting to see how he could go from mismanagement to "heresy" in less than a few years lol :P
I respect your Orthodoxy as well! I love you, respect you, and learn from you. I just want to see if we can reach some form of agreement.
RO
They feel that there must be, visibly, one ecclesiastically undivided Church established by Christ. There can not be two who are not in communion ecclesoastically. This justifies continuing to call us heretics EVEN while realizing we are dogmatically correct.
Failing to accept the Chalcedonian expression and decisions maks us heretics to many of them.
If we are visibly, ecclesiastically not in commuion with the Eastern Orthodox then we are not part of the True Aposolic Church established by Christ because the Church is One and Only one.
My premis has always been the following: We cannot create unity. All we can do is realize that it has always existed and we just were blind to it.
So we are not looking to "unite" per se. The Chalcedonians are correct in saying that there can only be one true church. So as an ecumenist, my goal is not to unite the churches, but to furnish the understanding that we are in fact already one church. We are not to make two churches united.
Now the view that we have to accept Chalcedon has been expounded over and over, but is, in essence, extremely erroneous. For example, there have been many councils which the Russian church's synod has had without the Greek Church. Would the Greek Orthodox church have to accept the Moscow Synod of 1666 as authoritative even though they were not present? The Alexandrian patriarch was excluded from the proceedings of Chalcedon. Why should we accept it? We were not even there!
But this is a mere kink that would be worked out once we agree that we have the same faith --> then we remove excommunications. But, so long as there are conscientious objectors that we do not have the same faith, we cannot (and indeed should not) move forwards.
Even though I am an ecumenist, I think that the anti-ecumenists are not terrible anti-orthodox people. In fact, many of them more Orthodox than myself. I think that we are looking too far ahead. Let's not start talking about unity with the EO until the OO is united within itself. Or even the Coptic church within itself. All we need to analyze now is whether we have the same faith or not.
RO
Could you please explain a bit more clearly? I'm not sure I follow you? ???
Severian,
Yes, I apologize for being so cryptic. I prepared a couple of more descriptive responses, but I carelessly lost them when I tried to edit the previews that I was reviewing. I also thought that I should make a timely acknowledgement of the conformity of your posts with the theme that the Coptic Church has given us in the Temptation Sunday readings. This year was the first time that I had realized that the Church has repeated the same crucially important Gospel lessons of Mk. 1:12-15 and Lk. 4:1-13 at every Temptation Sunday Liturgy. Vespers, Matins, Divine Eucharistic Liturgy and the Evening office. Then, when I read today's, third Wednesday's, Gospel, Lk. 4:1-13, is repeated again. Great lesson against Satan, the master of dialectical argument against truth, and his many masterful disciples. See also, Gen. 3:1-24. I hope Abouna Marcos' sermon is saved. Pray with Jesus, "Away with you, Satan."
What a lesson, that is now seemingly sadly forgotten by all of our current OO and EO jurisdictions (except ROCOR) (in unity with the more heretical RC, WCCC, Protestant and pantheistic One World) leaders) (and pseudo-intellectual want-to-be's) in favor of the popular, more comfortable modern demonic defamations of the dialectical loud "christian" ecumenism and secret/deceptive "christian" feminism and freudianism advocates.
Meana the Censor has recently joined Rem and RO in dishonestly defaming me. In PMs Meana has indicated that he will honestly look into Rem's and RO's long time dishonest defamations. He indicated that their popular heresies and innovations are of more interest to him than my concerns for their heterodoxies. This is fine by me, I think I know the truth. I have lived in the most popular EO jurisdictions (I'm not referring to ROCOR) for 8-10 years and I think I have a more reasonable view of their current heresies than these Coptic "experts" on ancient EO heresies. ROCOR, my favorite EO jurisdiction, is not popular with any of these popular, warm and cozy, heretical ecumenist, feminist, freudian EO apostates, either. I have also lived, on and off, in ROCOR and Old Calendar Greek parishes, without communion, for a couple of years. I consider these to have been my spiritually richest EO experiences. I get relief from the current sense of feminist, freudian hypocrisy of my local Coptic parishes by occasional visits to pray with my freely critical ROCOR friends. Arbitrary, unjustified censorship of my detailed response to Rem's and RO's fabricated defamations, based on long, verbatim citations of 1 Peter 2:18-3:7 and St. Chrysostom's commentaries on 1 Cor. 11:3 and 1 Tim. 2:11-15 against Marina's advocacy for Coptic feminism and unquestioned equality of men and women seems to be the type of opposition that Jesus instructed his disciples to shake off from their feet, and leave. Your posts caused second thoughts.
I recommend that Soxsasi take advantage of the opportunity to learn from, and teach, the forthright Russian parish that God has provided for him. Russian Orthodoxy has a very rich history, including 70 years of very recent inhuman persecution, that seems to me to be an invaluable teacher for all students of Orthodoxy. I think that Soxsasi will find that his Coptic practical and theoretical morality and theology can fill an obvious Orthodox deficiency in the Russian community. This assistance will have to be administered sensitively and slowly, probably to the priest, first. It is 40 degrees below Zero F. in the Russian "desert." Take that, Coptic sissies. Several years ago, I spent 6-8 months, without communion, in a ROCOR parish. When I moved, the priest apologized for not giving me communion. The priest told me that his 10 year old son asked if I was an angel. Wow!! I will guess that Soxsasi's children will eventually be blessed by the experience with the Russian's children. It may take time, tested love and a thick skin. I think it will be worth it.
So is Russian ORthodoxy ok? Because that is a form of EOoxy. So it is not the EO in general you have a problem iwht, just certain rites (like the Antiochian.) If that is so, I agree with you.
LOL IP,
So is Russian ORthodoxy ok? Because that is a form of EOoxy. So it is not the EO in general you have a problem iwht, just certain rites (like the Antiochian.) If that is so, I agree with you.
RO, you're a moving target. Is that schizophrenic, bipolar, freudian, dialectical, insincerity, blind Rem love, or what? I've tried, but can't take you seriously. Stay with Metro. Philip, he'll come up with an "orthodox" scam for everybody. Pity the deceived dupes. Where were they first called christian? Is that still on the map? What are they called now? Where is that now? Brooklyn? New Jersey? Is the bridge orthodox, too? Is it for sale, too? Try the medicine that you prescribe, everyday, for 5-6 years. Keep your eyes and ears open. Then tell us that we should do the same, today. Not 1500 years ago. Any other fabricated defamatory insults? I appreciate the compliments. You've made your point, with the seeming majority. You must be right. More than the Apostles. Nobody liked them, they killed them. Judge not?
Lets move on to the point Stavro, you have yet to chime in.
I'm not sure why people would not want for the churches to come to join in our Lord Christ's faith? To find a commoniality in faith that would see that the See of the apostles would come from the One who sent them out into the world and preached that He has overcome this world? It is not overcome if we critise our own and other churches so harshly with no reconcilation. It's not good enough at this time of temptation.
In corresponding with the Chalcedonians, I have read that there's a difference between Dogmatic Heresy and Ecclesiastic Heresy. It is claimed that EVEN IF Dioscorus' and his followers' (us) Christology is found to be in agreement with theirs we and Dioscorus would still be considered heretics (not just schismatics) because we reject the council of Chalcedon and are not in Ecclesiastical communion with the true Orthodox Church (EO). In their minds there can only be 1 True Church Commuion that is visibly undivided. It cannot be both the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox, even if dogmatically we are the same .
They feel that there must be, visibly, one ecclesiastically undivided Church established by Christ. There can not be two who are not in communion ecclesoastically. This justifies continuing to call us heretics EVEN while realizing we are dogmatically correct.
Whoever you are speaking to is not the voice of Eastern Orthodoxy. Now I can go on and show how there is no scripture evidence that affiliation to a council is a requirement for Christianity or how affiliation cannot triumph over doctrine and faith. But this would be from a Coptic perspective. I think an Eastern Orthodox perspective is more useful.
Take a look at Metropolitan Jonah's of the OCA Talk to the All-American Council Tuesday Evening, November 11, 2008 on conciliarity found here. There is also an OCA blog that comments on Bishop Jonah's principles found here.
From the blog: It's a fact that the Eastern Orthodox families are suffering from constant disputes over authority and affiliation. It is apparent that it has dwindled down to the local level where people believe they can lord over others because of their hierarchical position. The same principle applies to councils. Leadership is voluntary cooperation. The minute someone says "You're not Orthodox because you refuse to cooperate with my belief system, my councils or my understanding of God", it is no longer voluntary. It is no longer leadership. It is no longer Christian.
The fact that your acquaintances acknowledge that theology or faith is not the issue, rather their issue is counciliarity, shows they have no intention to proceed with cooperative love. There is no "my way or the highway" in Orthodoxy or in counciliarity. Brothers must interact with each other in mutual respect. Imagine one brother says to the other, you will never be my brother because you won't submit to my authority. There's no logic in this.
From the OCA blog, Bishop Jonah continues "Authority is responsibility. Authority is accountability, it is not power.....Hierarchy is only about responsibility. It's not all this imperial nonsense." I think insisting on absolute, blind affiliation to Chalcedon when there are justifiable objections is nothing more than "imperial nonsense."
And I know your acquaintances were not arguing about Chalcedon in particular or Christology, rather counciliarity. I know they are trying to establish an organizational framework where everyone submits to the authority of their hierarchy. I can only add Bishop Jonah's final words, "Now, we could have a nice organization, but who cares? Who cares? You know? We could have all the nice rituals, but to quote Father Alexander Schmmeman, of blessed memory: 'Jesus Christ did not die on the cross so that we could have nice rituals.' It's not about religion. It's about our souls, it is about our salvation, it is about our life, our life as one body united by the Holy Spirit in Jesus Christ sharing his own relationship with the Father. If we choose that, everything will be clear. If we choose the other, things may be clear too, organizationally, but our salvation is forfeit."
Jesus Christ did not die on the cross so that we could have Chalcedon or so that we could have organization or so that we have constant animosity about who's right and who's wrong. It's about our souls. It's about our salvation. It's about love. With all due respect, who cares what they think of us if they are not willing to show "communion, reciprocity and mutual consideration". Failure to accept the Chalcedonian expression cannot be a condition of Orthodoxy because it assumes (1) Chalcedon is absolutely correct and (2) there can be no other ways to be Christian without Chalcedon. The first cannot be true for many reasons, the main reason is that not all Chalcedonian Churches agreed with the decisions of Chalcedon. Rome did not accept the Canon 28. The second is wrong because many Chalcedonian hierarchs have already acknowledged Oriental Christology is in fact Christian.
[quoteIf we are visibly, ecclesiastically not in commuion with the Eastern Orthodox then we are not part of the True Aposolic Church established by Christ because the Church is One and Only one.
Sounds identical to Roman Catholic papal supremacy. Tell them we'll be the first to submit to Chalcedon when they submit to Pope Francis.
Peace
Likewise, if it's not Caesaropapism, I find their conciliar fundamentalism also troubling. Just as Protestants hold a form of Biblical fundamentalism, their insistence on following in a nominal form their 7 (or 8...or 9) councils is a ridiculous notion of Christianity, especially if we're not even following Biblical fundamentalism to begin with.
As Orthodox, we have to have a well-rounded diversity of sources for Orthodoxy: the Bible, the saints, the Liturgy, the councils, the fathers, the Sacraments...all of which comprise the life and traditions of the Church. We're not sola papist, sola conciliora, or sola Scriptura....we are "sola ecclesia", we believe in the One Church, and in so doing, we take whatever the Church gave us in her traditions as the sources of our faith, but recognize within it not a literal passing of the faith, but the spirit of the faith itself, and if the EOs have the same spirit of that faith in their liturgical and conciliar tradition, then that should be the basis of unity.
Therefore, I echo Rem's statement, why bother with such people? They don't represent the EO Church. But I will go further that if eventually they do represent the EO Church, shake the dust off your feet and move on. Because they have a restricted theology of ecclesiology.
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=14347.msg163994#msg163994 date=1364346603] Excellent, and I knew that this was going to be the quote brought up. It is the quote I myself struggled with in coming to understand the Tome of Leo. However, as I told you, I myself am a disciple of St. Severus. I found the answer to this confusion by reading the Tome in a Severian lens. Take the following statement of St. Severus:
"As, when iron or another similar substance is abundantly warmed by fire, and is heated by flame, we know that, while the iron does not pass out of its own nature, the iron which has passed into a complete flame, and has been made to hiss and to glow by it, it appears to be all fire, and, while it is in this state, blows are applied to it, it being smitten by a hammer or by means of other kinds of strokes, but the iron is exposed to the blows themselves, being expanded and narrowed at the same time, while the nature of the fire is in no way injured by the smiter."
What St. Severus is affirming is that very thing which Leo speaks of. Leo's Tome continues (from the quote you used) saying, "One of them sparkles with miracles, the other succumbs to injuries." Which seems to me to work perfectly with St. Severus saying, "but the iron is exposed to the blows themselves, being expanded and narrowed at the same time, while the nature of the fire is in no way injured by the smiter."
What this says to me is that the Tome can be read in a Severian lense, and can even complement the works of St. Severus. The Tome is, in my opinion, written in a sloppy way, and is thus ambiguous. But there is no reason to pronounce it heretical off the bat- especially when the Severus whom you and I adore seems to perfect it by his divinely inspired genius.
First of all, what Leo's Tome says and what he implied are two different things. Yes, Leo's Tome can be reconciled with St Severus writings because there are nuggets of truth found in Leo's Tome. However, one must examine what it means in light of the situation when it was said, not what it could mean. From the language Leo used specifically, like "perhaps he meant", shows that it was meant as a covert attack on a philosophy he didn't understand. Nowhere in any of Leo's writings (as far as I know) does Leo actually ask Eutyches what he said, nor what Eutyches actually meant by specific comments (as St Dioscorus did in Ephesus II).
Now let's discuss your "reconciliaiton" of Leo's Tome and Severus' theology. There are a few concerns.
1. I never liked the example of iron and fire to explain the Incarnation. I know it has been used in antiquity many times by St Athanasius and St Cyril and others. I see it as the best they can explain with their limited knowledge of science. Here is my problem with the iron example.
a. What St Severus and others are describing is heated iron, not iron itself. In reality it describes the process of metal working, not the nature of iron. The nature of iron is such that it has the potential to change its anatomy with the energy of fire. The nature of fire is not the "fire" or flame described here. In the iron example, fire is a medium delivering heat and energy for a metallurgic process to change iron. It is the effect of fire, not fire itself. Heated iron is not the same as iron and fire.
b. Heating iron changes the chemical structure of iron to form iron crystals. Iron ore is cubic in nature. When applying heat and cooling (the annealing process), it changes its chemical composition so that it can be bent, elongated or thinned. Then with proper metal-working it changes form again and traps carbon in its crystal to harden the iron. Using this example to describe the incarnation implies that the divinity of the Word (fire in the example) has the ability to change the flesh (iron in the example) permanently in a way different from the original flesh. This is heresy.
c. The nature of fire requires 4 elements (known as the fire tetrahedron). If the iron example actually describes the nature of fire, instead of the effect of fire on iron, (using St Severius' language) the hammer could injure fire (either by destroying the fuel source, or interfering with the combustion chain reaction, for example).
d. Heated iron and iron ore is not the same thing. Take a block of iron ore and drop it on the floor, nothing happens to it. Take recently annealed iron before you temper it and drop it on the floor and it will break into pieces like glass. Returning to the Incarnation, this implies the flesh taken by Christ is not the same as our flesh. Again this is heresy.
e. Notice, there is a difference between saying heated iron suffers from the hammer vs. iron suffers from the hammer and not fire. Actually, iron (or iron ore) hammered does not suffer much from a hammer (it won't change shape efficiently). Fire will suffer from a hammer (as I described above). It does not make sense to say the iron part in heated iron suffers from the hammer because now we are back to defining what is the nature of heated iron vs the nature of iron ore. It does not make sense to say iron suffers and fire doesn't. Heated iron suffers from a hammer in a way specific to each "nature". Now we are confusing definitions and natures. Returning to the Incarnation, Christ suffered grief and Christ raised the dead. It means very little to demarcate the difference in natures by saying Christ's divinity does miracles and Christ's humanity eats. It implies there is a difference when Christ's does miracles and when Christ eats. Now we are back to confusing definitions and natures, like Nestorius.
2. Now if we allow some intellectual freedom, one can understand Leo's Tome and St Severus' example are discussions of how each of Christ's natures are effected by the other. We are now faced with a fundamental problem. What is the definition of nature? Both Leo's Tome and St Severus' example assume we are all using the word "nature" in the same way. But as I showed in my last post, Alexandrians understand the word nature differently than Chalcedonians, which is also different how Nestorians use the word. Any attempt to reconcile Leo's Tome to Oriental Christology requires us to establish a working definition of natures and stop working on assumptions.
I have no problem reconciling Leo's Tome with Oriental Christology, I understand what both Leo's Tome and St Severus' example meant. And they both can be understood as Orthodox. All that is needed is a genuine acknowledgement that there are two different ways to understand Christ's nature in a framework that means something to each party.