Prodromos: Maximus, I believe that both Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox do a darn fine job of describing the mystery of the incarnation, something that is not truly explainable in our poor human terms. Just because the one approach does not exactly mirror the other does not mean that one is right and the other wrong. They arrived at their conclusions battling quite different heresies if you recall.
Seems to me the Orthodox Fathers did a darn thorough job of refuting the Non-Chalcedonians and anathematizing them as heretics.
How is it that the Orthodox Church saw no need to question their findings until the 20th century?
The Ecumenical Councils of the Church likewise anathematize the Non-Chalcedonians as heretics, naming specifically the very same men the modern Non-Chalcedonians still regard today as "saints" and "fathers."
Someone is wrong.
Both cannot be right.
Either the Orthodox Fathers and their Holy Spirit-inspired councils were wrong, or the Non-Chalcedonians are wrong.
Which is it?
Prodromos: You will no doubt disagree with me and that is your perogative. I do find your current obsession a bit disturbing though and find myself uncomfortable with the intensity with which you are pushing it. You posted the same link to orthodoxinfo.com three times in a two page thread for goodness sakes. Doesn't that strike you as obsessive?
No, it does not.
Frankly, I had not thought about the Non-Chalcedonians much until I encountered a series of posts on another forum that motivated me to investigate further.
I, apparently like most people, had simply accepted the word of the Non-Chalcedonians that they are Orthodox.
I did not realize that in so doing I was calling into question the wisdom and understanding of the Orthodox Fathers and their councils.
I also did not realize that the Non-Chalcedonians are still engaged in attacking ecumenical councils 4-7, especially Chalcedon.
I was also not aware of the proposals of the joint committee of theologians looking into the possibility of union, proposals which amount to a betrayal of the Orthodox faith.
Prodromos: Regarding your insistence on the OO accepting the last councils, you don't think it is possible that the EO (of which I am a part) have not painted themselves into a similiar corner to that which the Catholics have with Papal infallibility?
Yeah - it's called taking a stand and believing in something.
If the ecumenical councils of the Church are not guided by the Holy Spirit and their decisions binding and infallible, what then?
Anything goes?
If the Church possesses the charism of infallibility, if she speaks with unmistakable authority in declaring a particular teaching and group heretical, how is it possible, centuries later, to reverse her decisions, when the group and teaching in question have not changed?
Prodromos: I won't be posting again in this thread and had not intended on getting involved in the discussion at all as time does not permit what it would require of me.
John.
P.S. for any that are interested, the same topic is/was being discussed
over here with a few more articles linked to that may be of interest.
I think the current detente between the Orthodox Church and the Non-Chalcedonians is one of the greatest dangers to the Orthodox faith to come along in many years. It has its modern source in the WCC.
Here is what the recently departed Patriarch of Jerusalem, Diodorus I, had to say on the subject:
In the same spirit we think that theological dialogues with the heterodox have no positive outcome. Already some of the heterodox have diverged from their original position, adopting innovations alien to the spirit of the Church. Some of the Orthodox Bishops are engaging in dialogues with them, and worse than this, are praying with them, which causes scandal to the faithful and damage to their souls.
Likewise, optimism is expressed about the "positive"as it is assertedoutcome of the dialogue with the Anti-Chalcedonians, who have repeatedly been condemned for their persistence in heresy and false belief. Our Most Holy Church of Jerusalem abides steadfastly by the decisions of both the Holy Ecumenical Synod of Chalcedon and the subsequent Holy Ecumenical Synods, and neither setting aside any of the definitions nor subjecting them to fresh inquiry, she has broken off the theological dialogue with the non-Chalcedonians.
She does not, however, exclude the possibility of their return and re-inclusion in the bosom of our Most Holy Orthodox Church. In what way the heterodox are received is known. They must fully acceptwithout any exceptionthe teaching of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is formulated in the definitions and decisions of the Ecumenical Synods.
The partial acceptance of the teaching of the Orthodox Church, that is, the exception of certain definitions of the Ecumenical Synods, as is being done by the heterodox according to what pleases them and serves their interests, as in this case by the Anti-Chalcedonians, cannot constitute a sign of their contact with our Most Holy Orthodox Church. On the contrary, it will entangle her in vicissitudes and divisions, which will weaken her healthy body. For this reason we are bound to inform you, our Most Blessed brethren, in this fraternal Assembly, that our Most Holy Church is abstaining also from this dialogue. For, despite the positive estimate of its progress that it is going to develop further to the better, it will be of no benefit, unless it presupposes the full acceptance of the Orthodox Teaching.
