there is a difference between saying the Divine Person took on a human nature, or became Man, and saying He is also a human person. the Person never ceased to be divine and did not become a human person. this is why in the Creed we say He became man, and not that He became a man. yes, God became man, but His hypostasis is only divine.
As said before, seeing that the fathers did say that the Divine Person was also Human (or Human Person), it is arguing mountains over molehills - seeing that the Creeds note he BECAME man and they don't note that Christ is not man and God. If you want to argue something no one argued, that is your choice - as no one has said the Hypostasis was not Divine. If it took others in the Church over centuries to hash it out, no one is going to get this cleared at all points over internet.
again, we are not talking about what He assumed in human nature, which was exactly like us yet without sin. we are talking about His Person, which is only Divine.
According to your perspective, as you went past what Fr. Patrick Reardon said when speaking on the Person of Christ/Divine and taking on a Human nature.
but that was one of the reasons for the split back in the day. that's awesome that this is what is being confessed now, but we cannot pretend that "in two Natures" is accepted without accepting Chalcedon.
It was already addressed decades ago, actually - and the split happened over language. This is why others in Eastern Orthodoxy note that folks can't imagine scenarios that are impossible when assuming that things were not clear before Chalcedon or that others have to become Chalcedonian in order to understand how things were given more definition that actually confirm what was already said before.
We have situations historically where others had to work out situations with language, as occurred at SVOTS East Meets East conference when someone on the Coptic side ended up discussing with Fr. Behr over language as a concern. Of course, many end up focusing on that moment and forgetting the many other situations that happened directly afterward We don't piece things out bit by bit or ignore what happened afterward.
I've met more eoO who have no objections to OO views, than I have those who do - and online, divides seem bigger than how they are in person (in my experience). The main issues always come from how to view the Fourth Council, with the questions being "Does it need to be accepted or can the OO just agree with the principles it was trying to get across rather than adopting the language?" - and as most aware that OO agree with the principles and EO are realizing much was missed on their part for centuries due to language, it makes a difference. OO practice already keeps with the later 3 councils, even if/when they don't acknowledge them - so ultimately, it becomes a conversation about nuance.
We can see what happened with Ecumenical Councils when others agreed to the concepts and yet saw where older things were easy enough to explain. This is why others deal with Nestorians by noting what was already covered/laid out at Ephesus and that Chalcedon simply confirmed all over again with what was already noted at Ephesus - and this is why Nestorians are not accepted by non-Chalcedonians and why EOs have said principles are already agreed to - as stated in the Agreed Statements by the Patriarchs.
The first unofficial meeting between clergy and theologians of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches happened in Aarhus, Denmark in 1964, followed up by 4 unofficial meetings:
And these were followed up with a series of official dialogues between the Churches, occurring at the following:
Many things have occurred since then when it comes to statements have been issued by the Joint Commission, including agreements relating to pastoral concerns -ut ultimately, what was realized was that there has already been acknowledgement that between EO and OO that '
We have inherited from our fathers in Christ the one apostolic faith and tradition.’
And for the sake of anyone wanting clarification, this was noted on the issue by one of Archbishops of the
e Armenian Church involved (from
Unity Efforts Between Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches ):
We had four meetings. During these meetings, we produced
three christological statements and one pastoral statement.
Of course, the process is continuing. We face some
difficulties. Nevertheless, at the same time we realize that the
substance of our faith is the same - we are not different in
terms of the very essence of our doctrine of faith - but we are
different in formulation and expression of our faith.
Q. When you say "formal meetings," does that mean that the
process was set up by the respective churches?
ARCHBISHOP ARAM: Yes, "formal meetings" denotes the
fact that the dialogue was initiated by the churches of the two
families. To be more precise, the initial step was taken by the
Ecumenical Patriarchate [in Constantinople]. The
Ecumenical Patriarchate sent a representative to the heads of
the Oriental Orthodox Churches to discuss with them the
possibilities of starting this formal dialogue. In this sense, the
dialogue is formal, that is, the churches are talking with each
other and not individual theologians sharing mutual
concerns, which was the case with the previous dialogues.
Q. What are some of the issues and aspects in the formal
documents that were produced during these four meetings?
ARCHBISHOP ARAM: There are three spheres to these
documents.
First sphere:
a) Christology. We came to say, always in a formal way, that
Nestorianism and Eutycianism have been rejected and
anathematized by our churches and we adhere to that. In
other words, we both anathematized, once again, Eutycian
and Nestorian hereasies. This is the first step.
b) Formula. We said that the well known Cyrilian formula of
"One nature of the Incarnate Word" has constituted the basis,
the crux of our christologies.
c) The issue of Natures [of Christ]. In terms of definition,
when one family says "One nature," it means "Two natures
united." We do not speak about numerical one, but always
united one. When the other family says "Two natures," it
does not mean two separate natures, but united natures. In
other words - when we use these two formulas or
terminologies - we mean exactly the same thing: united two
natures, without confusion, without alteration, without
change, without division, without separation. (In fact, this
was said by our own St. Nersess the Gracious in the 12th
century). Hence collectively, we came to this conclusion. On
the other hand, we realized that there are some nuances,
some differences of emphasis - as they have been developed
in the course of our histories. For instance, for us the Oriental
Orthdox, it was very important to put the emphasis on the
fact that it was the Logos who assumed humanity. We always
put the emphasis on the divinity of Christ and this is in line
with the Alexandrian christology. We also say "two natures"
in theoria - because in our understanding we cannot speak
about "two natures" after the "unity," after the incarnation.
So, even though there are some differences of emphasis,
essentially we are saying the same thing. And this is very
important. We realized this issue and reiterated it together,
this time in a formal way. This is more or less the
christological aspect of our dialogue.
Second sphere:
We discussed the whole question of anathemas. We have to
realize that things are very much interrelated - you cannot
divorce christology, anathema, councils and other aspects of
the debate from each other. Christology, necessarily leads us
to the old question of anathemas. In this respect, we agreed
that we are ready to lift the anathemas pronounced against
persons and synods, provided that lifting of anathemas
should not necessarily imply the acceptance of that person or
synod as holy or ecumenical. Therefore, lifting the
anathemas should not imply anyting specific. It is just
automatical lifting of anathemas. We said that lifting of
anathemas should not be done in a solemn way, but rather
each church should do it in its own appropriate ways,
according to their own traditions.
Third sphere:
We discussed the old question of conciliarity - the
ecumenical councils. Of course, during our discussions we
reiterated our acceptance of the first three ecumenical
councils and that we hold fast to that. The [Eastern
Orthodox] family accepts seven ecumenical councils. And
they attach a particular importance to the seven councils. As
far as they are concerns, you cannot divide these councils,
they all go together. However, what we said, is the following:
historically, theologically, doctrinally or in whatever
perspective you want to look at them, you cannot put all
these councils in one basket; you cannot deal with each of
these council on the same level. They are theologically and
qualitatively quite different from each other. Even the
ecumenicity of the first three councils has much more weight
than the other councils. Therefore, we tried to make a clear
distinction between the first three and the ones that followed
them. For us, the crux, the substance of Christian faith is in
the first three ecumenical councils. The four councils that
followed them just reinterpreted and re-elucidated the
theological teachings of the first three. In fact when you look
at these councils closely, you realize that they did not have
anything substantial over the earlier teachings of the
councils. In view of this, our position was firm on accepting
the first three as the most fundamental and conclusive of all
councils.
then Chalcedon should be accepted.
When one understands/accepts what Chalcedon AND reads the document Chalcedon produced, the Father of the Church that they agreed with was St. Cyril of Alexandria and placed a reference of St. Leo's tome in the middle of the document (not at the top) - noting Leo AGREES with Cyril. That was a BIG deal since the Greek Fathers noted essentially "Cyril was right" and referencing Ephesus. People miss way too often that Bishops were very clear that Cyril's teaching was accurate - and they accepted Leo because he accepted Cyril.
After the reading of the foregoing epistle [St. Leo's Tome], the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be thememory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who doesnot so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there]? These are the things Dioscorus hid away.
from Session II of the 4th Ecumenical Council
What the Egyptians protested at the 4th session of the Council was the emperor's insistence on having a new definition of the Faith. More directly, in this they were defending what the Fathers had agreed at Nicaea. Adding to things the nuanced language used by St. Leo the Great (which he later clarified, even though it was still later) about the two natures, and the attempt to impose Canon 28 about the position of Constantinople, it's not difficult to see how our Fathers were simply trying to abide by their understanding of tradition. That is something that impacts us still TODAY when we cannot get beyond it and realize "This is where the confusion came from.."
But there's also the reality that there was consistency that many of our Fathers understood well when it came to Pope Leo unified with Cyril - and that is a very significant issue since we already see how
Dioscorus would not let Pope Leo's Tome be read.
Also, as said at Chalcedon:
" After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus?"
"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties." (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 451])
Leo was ONE with Cyril. For those who are Chalcedonian, of course this is the basis behind why they are Chalcedonians. ....but this goes RIGHT back to what Cyril already said at Ephesus and which NON-Chalcedonians have long laid out already. Chalcedon gave more definitions on things which EO have long said were a language issue.
It's all about Cyril, but until you address that, IMHO, you really don't speak for our faith accurately on this point. As it is, many interpret fathers like St. John of Damascus as being against OO but they end up ignoring where he also had disagreement with St.Cyril, who consistently employed “of two natures” to the exclusion of “in two natures” – and the rejection of “in two natures” by the non-Chalcedonian Church follows its very rejection by St Cyril of Alexandria. Others like St Severus of Antioch expressed a willingness to acquiesce to the “in two natures” formula, provided it was affirmed alongside Cyrillian formulas such as “One Nature of God the Logos Incarnate” and “of two natures” – for this context can be more reasonably understood in the manner that post-Constantinople-553 Chalcedonians implicitly stressed (i.e. affirmation of the continuing dynamic reality of Christ’s divinity and humanity, as opposed to an affirmation of Christ’s divinity and humanity constituting two separate grounds of being in Christ).
And for verification, again, , St Cyril used in two Natures often....although he taught it less often compared to saying the other one. Again, St..Cyril teaches that Christ is "from two natures" and "in two natures" - as we see in the letter from "Fathers of the Church Letters of Cyril of Alexandria 51-110", translated by John I. McEnerney and it can be found here:
Letters 51–110 (The Fathers of the Church, Volume 77)
He made concessions to those that he thought used language of two natures in a safe/understood manner, as seen (in example) in the Formula of Reunion (433) with John of Antioch, which St Dioscorus of Alexandria endorsed. He noted there was nothing wrong in distinguishing the natures is fine so long as it is done in theological contemplation alone:
For we know the theologians make some things of the Evangelical and Apostolic teaching about the Lord common as pertaining to the one person, and other sayings they divide as to the two natures, and attribute the worthy ones to God on account of the Divinity of Christ, and the lowly ones on account of his humanity [to his humanity]. (The Letter of Cyril to John of Antioch. )
“We say that there is one Son, and that he has one nature even when he is considered as having assumed flesh endowed with a rational soul. As I have already said, he has made the human element his own. And this is the way, not otherwise, that we must consider that the same one is at once God and man…Godhead is one thing, and manhood is another thing, considered in the perspective of their respective and intrinsic beings, but in the case of Christ they came together in a mysterious and incomprehensible union without confusion or change. The manner of this union is entirely beyond conception. ..if anyone says that when we speak of the single nature of God the Word incarnate and made man we imply that a confusion or mixture has occurred, then they are talking utter rubbish. No one could convict us of saying this by the force of proper arguments.” (On the Unity of Christ )
Well, do we not say that a human being like ourselves is one, and has a single nature, even though he is not homogeneous but really composed of two things, I mean soul and body? And if someone takes the flesh on its own, separating its unity with its own soul, and divides what was one into two, have they not destroyed the proper conception of a man?”
the force of proper arguments.”
“For there is only one Son, the Word who was made man for our sake. I would say that everything refers to him, words and deeds, both those that befit the deity, as well as those which are human. Just as we say that the flesh became his very own, in the same way the weakness of that flesh became his very own in an economic appropriation according to the terms of the unification. So, he is "made like his brethren in all things except sin alone" (Heb 2: 17). Do not be astonished if we say that he has made the weakness of the flesh his own along with the flesh itself.
One can read Fr. VC Samuel's "The Council of Chalcedon Re-examined," which is available on Amazon. It's good that it is a non-Chalcedonian account, as well as being probably the top publications regarding the issue if Chalcedon, and the issues of nature and wills that have formed as a result of that and being excellent sources regarding the political situation at the time....but the one by
V.C Samuels (who was a priest of
the Indian Syrian Orthodox Church) is among the most easy-to-read works on the issue.
One can examine what occurred with Serveus and see the same dynamics with misunderstanding at play.
Of course, there's also the whole of his letters to use for primary evidence.
Th
ere's a collection of St Severus' letters available on line at:
and again, we are confusing His human Nature, which by His will grew and developed, and His Person which is only Divine.
As you already went over/past what the Fathers said when noting the PERSON of Christ (Divine) also included the Human, there's a confusion as to the language. But it is what it is.
And again, we already have St. Athanasis speaking on the Person and the makeup of Nature as a part of His person. The same goes for St. Gregory.
I agree that He humbled Himself and accepted limitations of humanity, but that is not that the Father barred Him from aspects of His Divinity, unless you want to say that He did so in His humbling and self emptying. yes the roles are distinct, because the Persons are all distinct, but since there is only one Divine Will at work here, the Father does not put barriers to the Son, although you can say He was limited in His self emptying. that I can agree with, but it was not something between the Almighty Father and His Almighty Son. a God that is constrained in His Divinity is not God, and to say that the Divine Logos did not have access to His own Divinity is not correct.
Jesus choosing to submit to the Father and only do what he was allowed to do is a limitation - with him being DIVINE in His Person the entire time. Of course, he humbled and emptied himself.
ANd they are all distinct (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) - one goal and ONE ultimate will - but different roles for each to do.
That doesn't address the issue of comprehension when it comes to Divine Mystery in not knowing fully what it looked like for the Father to place limitations on the Son - and the Son agreeing to that. It again leaves out where the Son did NOTHING without permission from the Father and being limited in what one can access at a time in your Divinity is what the Fathers/scriptures note.
We already see the Lord made clear that He would indeed raise His own body from the grave when the religious leaders of his day took issue with him. However, on the issue of John 2:19, what others often forget is the reality that Christ indeed raised His Body....and the MEANS/Methodology that He went about in accomplishing that was in His REVERENT submission to the Father/the Power of the Holy Spirit, who aided Him in doing so....and all of that went together as a type of showing how the Lord desired for his people to rise from the grave as well by the Power of the Spirit.
Acts 2:25-32
25 For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:
26 Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope:
27 Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.
28 Thou hast made known to me the ways of life; thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.
32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.
We know Christ said he had the power to take up His life again in John 2 - but Having power to lay down a life/take it up isn't the same as doing whatever one WISHES to do without permission from the Father. Scripture was very clear it was the desire of Christ to submit to the Father. He made this abundantly clear while on the Earth (
John 14:31)(
John 12:49)(
John 4:31-34)(
John 6:38) - and he chose to submit to God based on reverent submission/learning (
Phil 2:5-6,
John 5:18,
John 10:30-
33,
Heb 1:1-3 )
John 5:19
Jesus gave them this answer: "Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.
Luke 22:42
…41And He withdrew about a stone’s throw beyond them, where He knelt down and prayed, 42
“Father, if You are willing, take this cup from Me.Yet not My will, but Yours be done.” 43Then an angel from heaven appeared to Him and strengthened Him.…
The Biblical record seems to indicate that Jesus was helpless in his situation (limited) and it was Father who righteously resurrected Him AND Glorified him....even though it was Christ who freely chose to lay down his life/yield Himself to Death ( John 10:16-18, John 12:26-28 )--and that resurrection ensured that what He proclaimed was truly real for ALL--and the Same spirit that rose Him from the grave is truly authentic/available for all who'd look solely to Him.
Acts 3:14-16
You killed the author of life, but
God raised him from the dead. We are witnesses of this.
Acts 5:29-31
The God of our fathers raised Jesus from the dead;whom you had killed by hanging him on a tree.
Acts 10:39-41
but God raised him from the dead on the third day and caused him to be seen.
Acts 13:29-31
But God raised him from the dead,
Acts 13:33-35
32"We tell you the good news: What God promised our fathers 33he has fulfilled for us, their children, by raising up Jesus. As it is written in the second Psalm:
" 'You are my Son;
today I have become your Father.[a]'
The fact that God raised him from the dead, never to decay, is stated in these words: " 'I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David.'
36"For when David had served God's purpose in his own generation, he fell asleep; he was buried with his fathers and his body decayed. 37But the one whom God raised from the dead did not see decay. 38"Therefore, my brothers, I want you to know that through Jesus the forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you.
Romans 4:23-25
but also for us, to whom God will credit righteousness—for us who believe in him who raised Jesus our Lord from the dead.
Romans 6:3-5
We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
Romans 10:9That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
Romans 8:1
11And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.
Galatians 1:1-3
Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead—
Ephesians 1
That power is like the working of his mighty strength,
20which he exerted in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly realms,
Colossians 2:11
For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, 10and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority. 11In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature,[a] not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, 12having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.
1 Peter 1:20-22
Through him you believe in God, who raised him from the dead and glorified him, and so your faith and hope are in God.
1 Peter 3:17-19
For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit,
__________________
Others have pointed this out as well when pointing out what the fathers have said.
Metropolitan Bishoy, the secretary of the Coptic Holy Synod, wrote about it before (
here and here in
http://www.zeitun-eg.org/Coptic_interpretations_of_the_Fourth_Ecumenical_Council_(Chalcedon).pdf ). This was referenced before:
To clarify things of what HH the Pope wrote, here is what HE Metropolitan Bishoy, famously known as the right hand of our Pope, wrote:
from his fourth Christological lecture which can be found in
http://www.metroplit-bishoy.org/files/lectures/Lecture 4.doc :
Question:
About wills issue.
Answer:
In our agreement with the Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches, a point was mentioned concerning the will of the Logos. In our Interpretation of the First Agreed Statement on Christology on page 6 you find the following:
The Will of the Incarnate Logos: The real union of the divine with the human. The agreed statement gave a very clear solution for the debate concerning will of Jesus Christ as follows. The real union of the divine with the human with all properties and functions of the uncreated divine nature, including natural will and natural energy, inseparably and unconfusedly united with created human nature with its properties and functions, including natural will and natural energy. It is the Logos incarnate Who is the subject of all willing and acting of Jesus Christ.
Jesus said to the Father, My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me? (Mat. 27:46), and in His prayer in the Mount of Olives he said, O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will. (Mat. 26:39).
We have to make a distinction between what we can call natural will and personal will. The natural will is the desire, while the personal will is the decision. We all believe that Jesus Christ is one single person not a composite person from two persons, but only one single person Who is the Person of the Word of God, the Logos. It is not normal for one person to have two personal wills, otherwise he will be two persons; and this is a Nestorian concept. The monothelites, are those who believe in a single will in Jesus Christ, they were anathematized by the Chalcedonian churches.
Our church also does not accept this concept that the natural human will was dissolved. The natural divine will, natural human will were united without confusion and without mixture. To say without confusion, means that the natural human will of Jesus Christ was not eliminated because of the union. Does this mean that Jesus Christ had two wills? It is impossible to say that He had two wills, otherwise He is going to be considered two persons. Thats why we should define what we mean by the word will. The same problem concerning the natures emerges with will. He has His natural divine will united to His natural human will, but the two natural wills continued to exist in the union, in complete harmony without contradiction.
What is the natural will and what is the personal will?
The natural will is the desire; the personal will is the decision.
You can say, I want to drink, but I dont want to drink; I have a will to go, but I dont will to go. What does this mean? If you are fasting you say I am willing to drink, but I shall not drink? It means that I desire to drink but I decided not to drink. So, there is difference between the natural will and personal will. The personal will works with the decision, while the natural will works with the desire.
As a human being Jesus Christ felt hunger and thirst while He was fasting on the mount. He naturally desired to drink or to eat, because His divinity did not eliminate the properties of His humanity; the energies and the natural will were not eliminated. Only tendency to sin was absolutely not in Him. He never had a desire for sin - not to desire and resist; no never. He was absolutely holy and infallible. However, all the other human desires were in Him. One of these desires as any human being was that he does not like to die. This normal desire was present in Him when He was approaching the cross. But, obeying the Father, as a person He is the second Person of the Holy Trinity; He is free, but He has input to His personal decision from His human desire and divine desire. His divine desire is identical with the desire of the Father. The three hypostaseis are three persons, three in their will, loving each other, but they have the same will and the same desire. Three in number, but one in nature. Naturally, whatever the Father desires, the Son desires, and the Holy Spirit desires.
Are the natural wills identical? No, because if they are identical this means that we are Eutychean and that there is confusion, since the natural desire of His humanity was absorbed in His divinity. This is the heresy of Monotheletism. If the two natural energies and natural wills are reduced to one natural will, this is the Eutychean heresy. Saint Cyril of Alexandria said that the differences of the properties of the two natures were not destroyed because of the union.
O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.. In other words: O Father if You want You may let this cup pass from Me, but not as I desire but as Your will which is also My will, As You and Me decided. Let it not be My desire but Yours which is Your decision and My decision.
Jesus Christ has one personal will because He is one person. Concerning the natural will we can say that they are two in one, since the two natural wills are not mixed or cancelled, but they are in a perfect union, thus they are not separated. His human desire and His divine desire are not separated. Why? Because He never followed His human desires unless it was accepted by His divine desire; and that is the full obedience of Jesus Christ to the Father. Why do we say to the Father and not to His divinity? Because if we say that He is obedient to His divinity, this will mean that He is two personalities. When I say, He, this refers to the person. So I cannot say that He is obedient to Himself; that is illogical. When we mention His obedience, we always refer to the Father; and the Father is automatically has the same desire and the same will of the Son. It is wrong theologically to say that He was obedient to His divinity. This is a Nestorian expression which is already condemned by Saint Cyril of Alexandria in his twelve anathemas. Anything that leads to the concept of two persons, is Nestorian. We should be very careful when we tackle this issue. In the Greek text it is: Let it be not My desire, but Yours. In Arabic it is, Not My desire, but Your desire In Greek the word was not repeated when he was referring to the Father but said, But Yours. The core of the problem is that He said, My will. The Greek term has two meanings, desiredecision.[font="][1][/font] So scientifically speaking, the Greek text allows this interpretation.
In the first agreement the following is stated:
and The real union of the divine with the human, with all properties and functions of the uncreated divine nature, including natural will and natural energy inseparably and unconfusedly united with the created human nature with all its properties and functions, including natural will and natural energy
It is the Logos incarnate[font="][2][/font] Who is the subject of all willing and acting of Jesus Christ.
In the second agreement, it is more clear:
The one hypostasis of the Logos incarnate is always Who is acting and willing..
It is the Logos incarnate Who is the subject of all willing and acting of Jesus Christ. In other words all willing and acting are from one person. But, sometimes He acts according to His divinity; and sometimes according to His humanity. Thus the human natural will did not cease to exist, and also divine energies and human energies did not cease to exist.
What does this mean? It means that sometimes He did things from His divine energy and sometimes He did things from His human energy. When He accepted death, He accepted it according to His humanity. When He destroyed Hades, He destroyed it according to His divinity, and so on. The source of the energy was continuous in Him. What is human was present and thats why He fell under the cross; because His human energy continued in the union, without being separated from His divine energy. When He raised the dead from the tombs, after His crucifixion, this was done through His divine energy. So, the two energies continued to exist in the union.
Simply, the two natural wills continued to exist in the union. The two natural energies continued to exist in the union, without being separated. One person was willing and acting the same person. Sometimes His will according to His humanity is to eat, and according to His divinity with the Father He is content to do it, so He eats according to His human desire with the consent of the Father. The motive of eating comes from His human desire, not His divine; because divinity does not hunger.
God bless.
And others have covered it as well when it comes to the life of Christ. As
another said best:
Mark 14:33-36 And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy; And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch. And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him. And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.
and as recorded in St Luke's Gospel:
Luke 22:41-44 And he was withdrawn from them about a stone's cast, and kneeled down, and prayed, Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done. And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him. And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.
The Fathers have considered these passages from the earliest times, and their comments fall into several categories. The Fathers tend to adopt several different understandings at once, so that it is not the case that one view should be exclusive of all others.
i. Our Lord wishes to show His disciples how to pray, and especially how to pray in the face of danger. They are to submit their own wishes to that of the Father. Not my will but yours be done, is the mark of a true disciple.
ii. There is a distinction between a natural desire and the will. We may well be hungry but we may also WILL not to eat during the fast. In the same way, our Lord allows His humanity to experience the fear which is natural to it in the face of death, but this natural shrinking is not what He wills. YOUR will be done, he says. Rather than the natural and blameless desire of my flesh. It is what we CHOOSE that is the expression of the will.
iii. Many of the Fathers agree that our Lord was not sorrowful because of the thought of what HE would suffer, but because of the suffering that He saw would come upon His disciples, the running from the Garden of Gethsemane in a few moments, the betrayal of St Peter, the tears of His Mother, the death of Judas, and especially the separation of the Jewish people from the will of God. He asks if there is another way for their sake, not for His own.
Here are the words of St Cyril:
But all the same it grieves Me for Israel the firstborn, that henceforth He is not even among the servants. The portion of the Lord, and the cord of My inheritance, will be "the portion of foxes," as it is written. He Who was the beloved one is greatly hated: he who had the promises is utterly stripped of My gifts: the pleasant vineyard with its rich grapes henceforth will be a desert land, a place dried up, and without water. "For I will command the clouds that they rain no rain upon it." "I will break through its hedge, and it shall be a spoil: and I will beat down its wall, and it shall be trampled under foot." And tell me then, what husbandman, when his vineyard is desert and waste, will feel no anguish for it? What shepherd would be so harsh and stern as, when his flock was perishing, to suffer nothing on its account? These are the causes of My grief: for these things I am sorrowful. For I am God, gentle, and that loves to spare. "I have no pleasure in the death of a sinner, but rather that he should turn from his evil way and live." Right therefore is it, most right, that as being good and merciful, I should not only be glad at what is joyful, but also should feel sorrow at whatsoever is grievous.
and
And this too I think it necessary to add to what has been said: that the passion of grief, or malady, as we may call it, of sore distress, cannot have reference to the divine and impassive nature of the Word; for that is impossible, inasmuch as It transcends all passion: but we say that the Incarnate Word willed also to submit Himself to the measure of human nature, by being supposed to suffer what belongs to it. As therefore He is said to have hungered, although He is Life and the cause of life, and the living bread; and was weary also from a long journey, although He is the Lord of powers; so also it is said that He was grieved, and seemed to be capable of anguish. For it would not have been fitting for Him Who submitted Himself to emptiness, and stood in the measure of human nature, to have seemed unwilling to endure human things. The Word therefore of God the Father is altogether free from all passion: but wisely and for the dispensation's sake He submitted Himself to the infirmities of mankind, in order that He might not seem to refuse that which the dispensation required: yes, He even yielded obedience to human customs and laws, only, as I said, He did not bear ought of this in His own nature.
and
Behold then, yes, see, the pattern for your conduct depicted for thee in Christ the Saviour of us all: and let us also observe the manner of His prayer. "Father, He says, if You are willing, remove this cup from Me." Do you see that Christ made His prayer against temptation with a reverence befitting man? "For if You be willing, He says, remove it." And here too remember what the blessed Paul wrote concerning Him; "He Who in the days of His flesh offered up prayers and supplications to Him Who was able to save Him from death, with strong crying and tears, and was heard because of His reverence, even though He was a Son, yet learned obedience by what He suffered, and being made perfect became the cause of eternal life to all them that obey Him." For as though one of us, He assigns to His Father's will the carrying out of whatever was about to be done. And if therefore it happen that we also at any time fall into unexpected troubles, and have to endure any mental conflict, let us beseech God not so much that it may end according to our will, but rather let us ask that whatever He knows to be fit and expedient for the benefit of our souls may be brought to pass. "For we know not what to pray for as we ought:" but He is a treasure house of every thing, and to those who love Him He gives whatever is suitable for them.
These are important passages.
Firstly, we see that St Cyril teaches us that the grief and sorrow our Lord experienced in His humanity were because He saw that the people of Israel were falling away from their relationship with God. They were about to become those keepers of the vineyard who saw the son of the owner and said to themselves, 'come let us kill him and the vineyard will be our own'.
Secondly, we see that St Cyril teaches us that our Lord allowed Himself to experience those blameless passions of sorrow and grief, even as He allowed Himself to experience hunger and tiredness. Therefore he truly experiences sorrow at the enormity of what is to happen - not so much fear for himself, but fear for those men who would put their Creator to death.
Thirdly, we see that St Cyril teaches us that it was an aspect of the incarnation of our Lord that he submit Himself to the Father's will, even as Adam and Eve chose to advance their own will before that of God. So as the Son of God, incarnate, that is made man, He submits Himself as man, and as Son, to the Divine will, not even saying, 'This is my will also', but assigning all the Divine will to the Father Himself.
There is no sense in the Father's at all that in the Garden we see two wills, let alone two contrary wills. We do not see a human man saying, 'Please don't make me suffer'. On the contrary, we see the Word of God Incarnate, careful always for His own creatures, and as one of His own creatures, if we may dare say such a thing, submitting ON OUR BEHALF to the will of the Father, even as Adam, ON OUR BEHALF, rejected the will of the Father.
We can also consider how St Severus also makes use of these passages from the Gospels.
In the first place his concern is Christological, and it is to show that the humanity of our Lord was entirely and completely according to our own nature. There was no aspect of humanity which was missing. So he says,
Clearly we to understand, as the earlier Fathers had taught, that our Lord truly experienced distress and grief. It was not a pretence. But it is, as we would read further in St Severus, the distress and grief experienced by the Word of God Himself in and by means of His own humanity. It is not someone else experiencing these blameless passions.
He speaks elsewhere in one of his homilies and says,
This has been said for our instruction. It is indeed most certain, since the will of the Son and of the Father is not different, but is one and the same will. Furthermore with these words he showed us again that he participated in the same nature as us, one who was fearful of death, and endured voluntarily the suffering of fear and of anguish, saying, "My soul is anguished even unto death", to the end that these sorrows, so that the sorrows which had come into conflict with Christ, the power of the Father, were radically uprooted from our race.
there might have been something in here related to this, but it began with a lot that is not anything we are disputing.
Things that others were covering already you avoided earlier and that was why it was noted, so focusing on something others didn't make an issue doesn't address anything.
yes, and the more conservative elements of Orthodoxy rebelled against a lot of these documents. you don't hold a dual communicant rank in Orthodoxy, since there are a vast majority of Orthodox places you would not be allowed to commune in. just because certain jurisdictions have allowed it, that doesn't mean that you are a member of our communion. which means you should not speak for a faith that is not yours.
A lot of things occurred which were on the level of Fundamentalism being behind the mindsets of some (although not all) of the more conservative elements in Orthodoxy.
Ultimately (as I just came from Divine Liturgy at a Greek Orthodox Church near me), the bottom line is that other places claiming to not do communion doesn't change where a practice/formal act has been present and allowed - especially seeing how many Orthodox places that didn't allow communion were checked by their bishops when it was found out to be disallowed. A practice not allowed in certain places don't mean it's the stance of the Church as a whole - so as said before, it means little claiming others don't have dual communicat rank when that has been established within Orthodoxy for a long time. That amounts to little more than "I feel this, therefore it's true" - but it's up to the Bishop and the priest, as that's the responsibility of the layperson with regards to salvation.
Being an Ordained clergyman/teacher, I don't take lightly what the Councils say or what I said I'd uphold and I must continue to address that where I see it.
IMHO, It also doesn't mean anything when you personally don't speak for your communion by failing to deal with the documents in the Communion and that's a basic. You are not speaking for your faith, nor do I care when you speak past what our faith says by trying to impose something on others that has nothing to do with them. Like I said, my communion was with EO and connected with OO as well. It is not your word that's final.
It is your own choice regarding avoiding where the Joint Commission acknowledged the lifting of anathemas "by the leaders of all churches of both sides by the signing of an ecclesiastical declaration to the effect that each church recognizes the other as fully Orthodox", noting the following:
a) the establishment of total communion between both sides, and that
b) no condemnation of the past against each other by synod or person is active anymore..."
The Patriarchs already know that a union is imminent since it is already done practically - A union that the Patriarch of Antioch has already actualized.
I am reminded of Fr. Antony Bahou the priest at St. George Antiochian Orthodox Church (EO) here in San Diego for priest Fr. Pimen Shenoda from Holy Cross Coptic Orthodox Church, as others have attended and supported the Pan Orthodox Vesper services through lent here in San Diego County. And this kind of practice is not done without warrant. As others noted best:
The faith of the ancient councils – I Nicaea, I Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, II Constantinople, III Constantinople, II Nicaea – is consistent, whether one labels all seven or only the first three as ecumenical. But their terminology is not always consistent. I Nicaea, for example, used the words hypostasis and ousia as synonyms, while the later councils took great pains to distinguish them. So too, the anathemas of the ancient councils are not always consistent. Too often we have mistaken the “short-hand” of later periods for historical fact. The conclusion of the Joint Commission therefore is quite appropriate:
If trying to go/focus on Synods rather than seeing what the Church agreed to already since then, one isn't going with the Church. The Church already honored the synods when seeing the spirit of them/going for unity.
If trying to claim that AGREED Statements by the Patriarchs of the Church are not authoritative, then you aren't dealing with the Church since the documents were long agreed to and accepted. We have to consider what the Ecumenical Synods have said and what the Patriarchs have said about them for the Church.... Patriarchs who lead the church (not you or I) - so as said before, it's inconsequential what you or I feel on the matter when the Church overall has dealt with the issue for a long time/embraced it largely - with statements signed, noted they'd be signed and saying it was not a rush since it was already understood that there was agreement (but time was needed to help others resistant to the idea to be trained on how to handle it).
Nothing you said either dealt with the Patriarch or what they (leading the Church ) have noted on the Councils.
Nothing of what you said changes where the conservative elements of Orthodoxy actually supported the Agreed Statements/ documents and this has been a long term issue. There were talks that ended in the 70s/80s where the Orthodox and the Ethiopian Orthodox noted "You're cool" - but no one ever signed the documents. Others were signed in agreement and have been for ages. Part of the timing was working out how to express things to people getting their head around it/not reacting - and we already see this in Europe where the Copts and the Eastern Orthodox do many things together already.
Making wide-sweeping conclusions on what the conservative elements in Orthodoxy said doesn't matter as it's not your concern (unless you're going to have your name signed on them...for once signed, then they become the concern on the laity). And to be clear, it wouldn't be your concern even if you were a layman since you are not a Patriarch. Again, it's above our pay grade.
I noticed you often quote St. John of Damascus, who lists your confession among the heretics.
As I said before, there are EO who work in OO circles due to their backgrounds/experience (especially when others have the same sees - the Syriac Orthodox Church and Antiochians), so it helps to actually deal with what I said in context. Like I said already, if I really wanted to, it'd not be a problem switching a confession icon to EO due to my spiritual father being EO- but as I identify with the OO, LIVE life with them and know others who had the same experience, that's the background.
Now, if one tries to run with what was said there and assume that a person cannot be EO and work with OO/have appreciation, that is a limitation on understanding what EO actually do. Fr.Kallistos Ware and Fr. John Behr have spoken on this. EO who work in OO cirlces and OO who have intercommunion (which you avoid with the Syrian Orthodox and Antiochian Orthodox) know this and the Patriarchs have pointed this out - and, IMHO, it's not really Orthodox practice trying to harp on it without dealing with it as you have.
That's something that happens often with converts (be it laymen or clergy) - and others who have what is called "sickness of correctness" (or scrupulosity)- but it's not Orthodox practice. Scrupulosity is something difficult enough to avoid within many places in Orthodoxy (as has been discussed before)
It definitely isn't the fathers - and if you question that, that's fine. I know this is something that has happened before between us/others ( as noted in places such as Happy Hanukkah and other places in Pesach...something to think about ), as occurred when others said they were EO but they had a lot of unawareness of Jewish practice within Orthodoxy - or others assumed being Jewish meant one couldn't observe Jewish practices done in honor of Christ and that others couldn't value their Jewish heritage/study the Jewish roots of the faith - or assuming other Orthodox didn't have a Jewish (Messianic Jewish or Jewish Christian) background as Jews or assumed someone claiming to be Messianic in background meant they were not Orthodox (and even folks like Fr. James Bernstein addressed that issue as a Jewish male coming to Orthodoxy from Judaism).
Thankfully, others were well aware of where that was not an issue - as discussed with @Philothei (years ago ) or elsewhere in places such as Desertion in the Desert: Examining Whether the Desert Fathers Were Seperatists. and seeing the work done by Fr. James Bernstein as a Jewish man (as I am) , when noting I have long been among EO who work with Syrian Orthodox/Semitic culture. And this was already a basic even EO mods knew from the jump (whether acknowledged it or not).
This is also the case with those having dual communion with regards to cases already allowed in the Church with Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian and it something many are not able to understand because (in their experience), it's "Either Or" rather than "Both And" - it takes time. People having permission from the Patriarchs don't worry on others reacting in thinking that having dual communion means one jumps from OO to EO (or vice-versa) when the fact is they already have agreement.
Now with that said, A it is, St. Cyril was Oriental and the bottom line is that He and other Orientals were Saints - so consensus matters when seeing them celebrated by the Greek Fathers.
And St.John of Damascus needs to be understood in the original Greek when it comes to the word used. You'd need to point out what the translators said of St. John of Damascus and what the Fathers of the said on his thoughts....and WHY he said it. Greek is too complex to take into English easily, as some words translate easily and others don't.
As it is, most of the time, folks not aware of what is actually taught within Oriental culture assume guilt by association - and so when they see St. John noted Monophysites, they are quick to say "See!! He's talking on Non-Chalcedonians!!!!". They do this generally from his A
gainst Heresies 83 (and 82) as seen here
:
82. The Eutychians, who get their name from the heresy of Eutyches, say that our Lord Jesus Christ did not take His flesh from the Blessed Virgin Mary, but contend that He became incarnate in a more divine manner. ....
83. The Egyptians, who are also called Schematics and Monophysites: separated from the Orthodox Church on the pretext of the document approved at Chalcedon and known as the Tome. They have been called Egyptians because it was the Egyptians who first started this form of heresy during the reigns of the Emperors Marcian and Valentinian; in every other way they are Orthodox. Because they were attached to Dioscoros of Alexandria who was deposed by the Synod in Chalcedon for advocating the teachings of Eutyches they opposed the Synod and fabricated countless charges against it to the best of their ability. We have taken up these charges in this book and sufficiently refuted them, showing them to be clumsy and stupid. Their leaders were Theodosios of Alexandria, from who derive the Theodosians, and James [Baradaios] of Syria, from who the Jacobites derive. Privy to them, and supporters and champions, were Severos, the corrupter from Antioch, and John [Philoponos] the Tritheite, who toiled on vain things; they denied the mystery of our common salvation. They wrote many things against the God-inspired teaching of the 630 Fathers of Chalcedon, and laid many snares, so to speak, and stumbling blocks by the path (Psalm 139:6) for those who were perishing by their pernicious heresy. Nevertheless, even though they teach that there are particular substances, they confound the mystery of the Incarnation. We considered it necessary to discuss their impiety in brief, adding short notes in refutation of their godless and abominable heresy. I shall set forth the teachings, or rather, ravings, of their champion John, in which they take so much pride.
Which Egyptians? It was the Eutychians, who get their name from the heresy of Eutyches, say that our Lord Jesus Christ did not take His flesh from the Blessed Virgin Mary, but contend that He became incarnate in a more divine manner. And he noted the context directly of those in Schism when it came to the INCARNATION of Christ not taken seriously.
If you come back later bringing up St.John without dealing with his immediate context, I know you didn't really deal with the quote. And even the late Pope Shenouda III noted this in
The Nature of Christ when it came to Eutychians condemned by the Church and in agreement with St. John:
D) The Heresy of Eutyches (Eutychianism):
Eutyches was an archimandrite of a monastery in Constantinople. He zealously opposed the Nestorian heresy and was so highly concerned about the unity of the two natures in Christ, which Nestorus tore apart, that he fell into another heresy. Eutyches said that the human nature was absorbed and dissolved in the Divine nature as a drop of vinegar in the ocean. In this way, he denied the human nature of Christ. After St. Dioscorus had excommunicated him, Eutyches pretended that he repented and accepted the true faith and St. Dioscorus allowed him to return on the condition that he would refute his heresy. Later on however, he again declared his corrupt belief and was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon held in 451 A.D., and was also excommunicated by the Coptic Church.
Again, St. John's context was directly pertaining to the who happened to be advocating what Eutyches talked on and the Egyptians he rallied to his side - but not all Monophysites ever supported him - so it'd be taking him greatly out of context to claim St. John was against Non-Chalcedonians as a whole. If trying to say it was about all Monophysites, Obviously, doing that means nothing since there were many different heretical groups associated with Chalcedonians (
Dyophysite ) as well (and we already know the previously accepted council of Ephesus had anathemas of St. Cyril against Nestorius which included prohibitions against certain aspects of the extreme dyophysitism of the Nestorians). And thus, we don't take any phrase like Dyophysite or Chalcedonian to mean all who adhere to Chalcedon. What matters is context. The same applies to the Monophysites issue no different than someone writing a letter addressing errors in Black culture and noting "Those within Hip Hop Culture" (when speaking on gangs/violence) while not speaking of ALL folks in the culture because they made a general statement.
If Scripture says "Jesus spoke to the Jews saying 'Your Father is the Devil'" (John 8), you don't make a claim saying he was speaking of ALL Jews like that. We don't do the same with St. John when we're talking on the Monophysites.
So we need to be honest with the context. And on the issue, the text doesn't even deal specifically with what all in Oriental Orthodoxy think anyhow since they don't claim to be Monophysites. Oriental Orthodox have NEVER BEEN monophysites
As others said best, from an Ethiopian Orthodo
x perspective as an example:
5. It is unfair for the Church to be nicknamed "Monophysites" by the faithful who accept the Chalcedonian formula of "two Natures in the one Person of Jesus Christ", because the expression used by the non-Chalcedonian side was always miaphysis, and never Monophysis (mia standing for a composite unity unlike mone standing for an elemental unity). Therefore these churches are best referred to as the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches.
On the rest of what you said, direct reference from St.John makes a difference. We can see his Christology as it is presented by St John of Damascus, in his work:
“Exposition of the Orthodox Faith”, CHAPTER XI, Concerning the Nature as viewed in Species and in Individual, and concerning the difference between Union and Incarnation: and how this is to be understood, “The one Nature of God the Word Incarnate” and in his
“Book III, Chapter III. Concerning Christ’s two natures, in apposition to those who hold that He has only one.
We can also examine the
Aristotelian definition of ‘nature’, which is the basis of the ontology of the Church Fathers, which would provide to us a common ground in order to read
their (the fathers) texts through
their perspective. As another wisely pointed out:
"I would have to personally conclude that I find the Christology of St John of Damascus to be no different than that of the Oriental Orthodox Church; there is simply no real or actual contradiction. Many of the apparent disagreements are merely the result of historical polemics
What we do see present is that St John of Damascus interprets St Cyril under the Chalcedonian prism and seeks to harmonize. For in St Cyril’s phrase “one nature of God the Word Incarnate”, “the nature of the Word” means neither the subsistence alone, nor “the common nature of the subsistence,” but “the common nature viewed as a whole in the subsistence of the Word.” Also, as he says:
"For since the one Christ, Who is a compound of divinity and humanity, and exists in divinity and humanity, truly suffered, that part which is capable of passion suffered as it was natural it should, but that part which was void of passion did not share in the suffering. For the soul, indeed, since it is capable of passion shares in the pain and suffering of a bodily cut, though it is not cut itself but only the body: but the divine part which is void of passion does not share in the suffering of the body."
(
John of Damascus: An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book III - Patristics )
It's evident where St John does not diverges from the non-Chalcedonian position which follows the position of St Cyril of Alexandria who explicitly explained that it is by virtue of man as “one being, who is of soul and body” i.e. a subsistence of composition, that man may ultimately be known as “one nature."
What is also evident is that St John accepted the council of Chalcedon, but he interpreted it consistently in an Orthodox context. Thus, I have no issue choosing to acquiesce to the Christology of Chalcedon anachronistically interpreted by St John of Damascus on his terms, but not on its own terms as they stand alone in its 5th century context. It should be noted that others have already referenced where the OO see this. In example, there was a fascinating article in Arabic on one of the most known Coptic websites:
It pertains to the hagiography of st. John Damascene and some rather quick observations can be made:
- He is referenced among the Coptic saints
- He is named Al-lahuti (theologian) and it'd be senseless naming a heretic in such a manner.
- The final sentence of the article (prior to listing his other works) quotes his sentence in the context that the Emperor/Chalcedonians should not impose their faith and authority by force ...with Coptic commentary included.
It wouldn't matter ultimately whether or not they consider him a heretic, as what matters is what St. John said. But the bottom line is that he didn't consider OOs to be one. Those promoting extremes which even the OOs dealt with concerning extremes of One Nature THeology were his focus.
As said before, It is evident where St. Damascus criticism centered on Eutyches rather than Oriental Orthodox. Of course St. John spoke the way he did because St. Dioscourus supported Eutyches passively and that got associated with the OO camp, so there's nuance. His objection seems primarily guilt by association. We cannot avoid the ways that St. Dioscorus helped Eutychus by association on a very deep level. When Eutychus appealed to the Eastern and Oriental Patriarches, in particularly, to St Dioscorus (as the 25th Patriarch of the Coptic Orthodox Church, on the pretext that he is teaching the doctorine of the "
The One Nature of God the Incarnate Logos")
, Pope Disocorus absolved Eutychus' excommunication because Eutyches did not tell him the full ideology he held to. Of course, Pope Disocorus discovered that Eutyches has lied to him and was teaching a heresy and subsequently excommunicated Eutyches in a local Coptic Council.
Now of course, we know that Even Dioscorus claimed he condemned Eutyches (although he was the one who ran the kangaroo court that exonerated Eutyches at Ephesus in 449). And that is something we have to wrestle with. St. Dioscorus, safeguarded the wildcard Eutyches and was condemned alongside him. At the time, the OO later rejected Eutyches, and Dioscorus' protection of him had more to do with methodology / politics, but the point stands that Dioscorus communed a heretic who did a lot o f harm to others and didn't repent of this (so far as I know).
When the minutes were read in Ephesus 449, Dioscorus felt that these bishops ignored that Eutyches clearly agreed the consubstantiality of Christ's humanity, and therefore, felt that it was a council of Nestorians that he had to condemn and overthrow that wanted to condemn Alexandrian tradition of "one nature"
Moreover, Part of why the East condemned St. Dioscorus was that he had very despotic behavior at the "Robber Synod" conducted by him in Ephesus in 449. Again, at that illegitimate synod St. Flavian, the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, was severely beaten and he died three days later. We have to remember the Robber council (which has never been viewed as Ecuminical by the OO church - for there were just too many Canonical Issues with it). I'm reminded of how at one point the Copts became more and more extreme until finally some of them claimed Christ is just God and not human. There was a fight over this that led to the Second Council of Ephesus in 449, where a large group of monks showed up to intimidate anyone who opposed the bishop of Alexandria. If any bishop or priest on the other side tried to write an accurate account of the proceedings, a bunch of monks would take the pen out of his hands and break his fingers. And again, It was so violent and dangerous that the monks actually beat the patriarch of Constantinople to death. It is aptly called
the Gangster Synod. ..and the violence
alone is pretty amazing. Consequently, as far as I'm aware, the Egyptians basically moved the ecclesiastical world away from Rome and Constantinople.
As said best elsewhere:
"Robber Synod" (Latrocinium) at Ephesus in 449 (where St. Dioscorus killed St. Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople...and that is NOT cool under any circumstances). The head robber, St. Dioscorus, was Patriarch of Alexandria, at that time the valid successor to St. Mark. The Non-Chalcedonians still regard the Latrocinium as an ecumenical council and refer to it as "Ephesus II. The Robber's Synod is something that doesn't help at all when trying to defend him since it not accepted by the Church as a whole, and did not fall into the consensus of belief - Dioscorus strong arming the council and beating St Flavian to death via mob violence does not help the case.
And of course, as a point of fact,
Ethiopian Orthodox reject Eutyches (alsio involved in the Robber's Synod), who is believed to have taught that in Christ the human Nature was absorbed by the divine Nature....but Dioscorus, whom the Council of Chalcedon deposed, is accepted (as the Council of 451 did not believe that Dioscorus was a heretic at that point and Dioscorus did not deny the continuance of Godhead and manhood in the One Christ after their union ) - for the Ethiopian Orthodox, Tewahido" is the Ethiopian term (meaning "made one") which is the best expression conveying the faith of the Church, since it emphasizes the inseparable unity of the Godhead and manhood in the Person of Christ.
Nonetheless, his behavior is something that can’t be defended when it comes to the violence and ways he handled things.
And again, things don't do really help establish consistency when one like St. Dioscorus was trying to keep out St. Leo when Leo addressed the very mess that St. Dioscorus allowed. Pope Leo opp
osed Eutyches s extreme theology for mixing and blending the natures of Christ. ...addressing the severe error of the Robber Synod.
On
Leo's Tome, as he noted:
He is God by reason of the fact that in the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God; [John 1:1]. He is human by reason of the fact that ;the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us; [John 1:14]. He is God by reason of the fact that ;all things have been made through him, and without him nothing was made [John 1:3]. He is human by reason of the fact that he was made out of a woman, made under the law[Gal. 4:4].
The fact that it was flesh which was born reveals his human nature, while the
fact that he was born of a virgin gives evidence of the divine power. The state of infancy proper to a child is exhibited by the meanness of his cradle; the greatness of the Most High is declared by the voices of the angels. The one whom Herod sets out to kill is like an ungrown human being, but the one whom the Magi worship with humble joy is the Lord of all. Lest the fact that his flesh was the veil of deity go unrecognized, the voice of God thundered from heaven as early as the time at which he came to the baptism ministered by his forerunner John: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased [Matt. 3:17]. So the one whom the devils cunning tempted as a human being is the same one to whom the angel services were rendered as God. Plainly it is a human think to hunger and thirst and get tired and sleep. But to satisfy five thousand men with bread and to bestow on a Samaritan woman living water whose consumption enables its drinker to thirst no more, to walk on the surface of the sea without sinking and to moderate ;the swellings of the waves; when a storm has come up that is a divine thing without question. But let us pass over much of the evidence and sum the matter up.
It is not an act of one and the same nature to weep over a friend;s death in an access of pity and to summon that very friend back to life with the power of a word after opening the grave in which he had been buried for four days; or to hand from the cross and to cause the stars to tremble in their courses after turning day into night; or to be pierced with nails and to open the gates of paradise to the faith of a their. By the same token, it is not an act of one
and the same nature to say,;I and the Father are one; [John 10:30], and to say ;The Father is greater than I; [John 14:28]. Even though there is, in our Lord Jesus Christ, one person of God and of a human being, nevertheless the principle in virtue of which both share in glory is another. A humanity inferior to the Father comes to him from us, and a divinity equal to the Father comes to him from the Father. Because of this unity of person, which must be understood to subsist in a twofold nature, we read that the Son of man came down from heaven (since the Son of God took on flesh from the Virgin of whom he was born), and conversely we say that the Son of God was crucified and buried (even though he endured these things not in that divine nature in virtue of which, as Only Begotten, he is coeternal and consubstantial with the Father, but in the weakness of his human nature). Consequently we all also confess in the creed that the only-begotten Son was crucified and buried, in accordance with the words of the apostle: For if they had known, they would never have crucified
the Lord of glory [1 Cor. 2:8].
That said, we cannot avoid how the EO do follow St Cyril's theology (even though I also believe St Cyril himself prefered "One Nature of the Incarnated Logos" ) - and of course, personally, I stand with other priests/Bishops in that the Christology of Both St.Leo and St.Dioscorus is fully Orthodox and in line with St Cyri of Alexandria. The attacks from both sides things got out of order (where the OO called EO folks Nestorians and they responded in kind calling OO folks Monophysites). St. Dioscorus believed the Two Natures comprised the unity of the natures - and with how difficult things were then, it's no surprise to see why things got hard to hear. A lot of heresies either Started in Egypt or ended up there - so nuance was a big deal.
And a
s another EO said best:
Dioscorus represented a somewhat extreme / uncompromising position in adherence to St. Cyril on a formulaic level (rather than on the essence of St. Cyril's concern - which was to preserve the single subjectivity of Christ). St. Cyril accepted language that described "two natures" in his later language, and the Council of Chalcedon mirrors / adopts much of his language in the christology he forwarded while negotiating with the Orthodox Syrians (not the Nestorians).
So we can also claim to follow St. Cyril - that isn't at all to say the OO doesn't follow him. We just emphasize different parts / periods of his writing, and to different degrees of rigor (we also accept other wordings of christology, like those of Leo). I think this, along with the 5th council, can provide the theological grounds for the kind of mutual recognition.
I don't know what happens with Dioscorus, though. You say he was only condemned for not showing up at his defense, but so far as I'm aware his condemnation stemmed from his refusal to put Eutyches away in submission to the local councils of Rome and (I think) Constantinople. It was the same thing that got the Syrians in trouble for a bit after the Council of Ephesus (refusal to put away Nestorius), even though they weren't Nestorian....
Cyril and the Syrians engaged in mutual recognition through jointly written documents and recommunion. ....
On the issue, I'm glad for what another EO friend of mine recommended to me when it came to this excellent paper by the Late Father John Romanides, an EO scholar with a very unbiased view of the events that have been seen as the main cause of beef between the EO and OO world - as He was heavily involved in the talks that ceased in the early 90s and you can also see OO and EO comments from leading bishops below.
Politics always impacts everything.
Also, For more information/reference, One can examine what occurred with Serveus and see the same dynamics with misunderstanding at play:
There's also this:
Obviously, we don't assume all things are good simply because Fr. John suggest it. But what he has noted is rather direct on the issue of honoring the Councils. Others have not been Chalcedonian in Christology (as it regards advocating for it) and yet they are consistent with it even when they don't see the need to adopt the language.
I noticed you often quote St. John of Damascus
As St. Damascus is already celebrated by the OO world, it cannot be avoided or minimized. We see the same thing with St. Isaac the Syrian, which EO love to reference despite his context and the numerous times he quoted Theodore of Mopsuestia. St. Isaac of Syria is regarded as a Saint and venerated within Holy Orthodoxy, even though he is a "post-schism" saint, being from the Assyrian Church of the East (Nestorian) - and
even St. Isaac of Nineveh had
views reminiscent of Nestorius - more in
The images of 'heart' and Isaac the Syrian | Hyung Guen Choi - Academia.edu. Other good reads on his world can be found in
The Spiritual World of Isaac the Syrian (
more here ). As much as many in the EO world try to claim St. Isaac is Orthodox, we can't dishonor the fact that there's no evidence. As
Dr. David Hart said best:
The attempt to co-opt St. Isaac as “Orthodox,” i.e., a part of the organizational Chalcedonian Church, is without merit. Analysis of the Syriac text of the Ascetical Homilies of St. Isaac by the celebrated Syriac scholar Sebastian Brock reveals an author thoroughly at home within an East Syriac context familiar with Eastern and Western Syriac works and East Syriac phraseology. However, even if we acknowledge, as scholars unanimously do, that St. Isaac was the Eastern bishop of Nineveh, this does not necessitate that he had a thoroughly Nestorian Christology. Some scholars, such as A. Sidorov, have even argued that there was a pro-Chalcedonian movement within the Church of the East, and St. Isaac could very well have been a proponent of a more Chalcedonian Christology than the label “Nestorian” may allow while being a bishop of the Church of the East.
With other Church Fathers, Many are accepted over time and there are plenty of good reviews on the issue:
That said, again, We can't avoid where we already have dioceses of the OCA allowing intercommunion so long as permission is given by the ruling hierarch. Additionally, there is also inter-communion arrangements between the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate and the Eastern Orthodox EO reference the Syriac Orthodox tradition frequently in identification, even though the tradition is not rooted solely n the EO Tradition. Others such as
Dr. Sebastian Brock - the foremost scholar on Syriac Christianity - have done a rather excellent job on pointing that out in regards to the scholarship when it comes to the universality of others from the OO tradition and the work done in the EO community.
that's not how our Church operates. entire synods have been wrong, some communed with Rome. that does not mean that Rome is a part of our communion.
Doesn't change where agreed statements by the Patriarchs already override whatever you may feel on the issue and seeing what our Church has done. The discussion about the Synod happens before the Synod...other times afterward.
But since Rome was mentioned, non-Chalcedonians are closer to communion with both the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholics than the Eastern Orthodox and Catholics are to each other. Moreover, we already have it where others were allowed in the Church to have levels of communion with Rome and this has happened with others who have celebrated St. Francis...we already have Orthodox parishes that actually venerate Catholic saints, as seen with . This has been discussed before, as seen with the
Monastic Communities of New Skete here:
We can see that with others who come out of the Catholic Faith into Orthodoxy, I am glad knowing it doesn't automatically entail a dismissal for all things beautiful that they grew up with as Catholics.
In example, you have Orthodox parishes that actually venerate Catholic saints. Specifically, I'm reminded of how
the monastery at New Skete actually venerates him ...the Monastic Communities of New Skete. But of course, they are unique since they started out as Byzantine Catholic Franciscans and they are a Stavropegial Monastery directly under the omophor of the Metropolitan of the OCA.
It is the case t
hat they highly celebrate St. Francis of Assisi ( be it with his passion for creation/wildlife and the ways he communed with God's creation or the little known encounter between St. Francis of Assisi and Sultan Malik al-Kamil of Egypt during the Crusades and the ways he evangelized) as he is liturgically commerated on his Feast of Oct 4, with Vigil rank. For more, one can go
here or here (
http://myemail.constantcontact.com/...imals.html?soid=1104983459770&aid=hhYB13iaLEA ).
And of course, he isn't a saint because the Roman Catholic Communion is not a part of the Eastern Orthodox Church, but he's still respected/honored. Although he is a "Post-Schism" saint, we have to be consistent in remembering that St. Isaac of Syria is regarded as a Saint and venerated within Holy Orthodoxy, even though he is a "post-schism" saint, being from the Assyrian Church of the East (Nestorian). H St. Seraphim of Sarov is actually one of the saints that closely parallels St.Francis - and as it concerns mysticism, there are differing ways of approaching. As another w
isely noted about him:
At the end of our discussion last night, the authority figure said to us in general (though it felt like it was directed to me in particular), "You can choose Francis of Assisi or you can choose St. Seraphim of Sarov, but you can't have both."
This strikes me as an instance of anti-ecumenical excess. At my church in particular, this is not the first time this figure of authority has made polemical claims that I felt were unfairly anti-Catholic. I have already given my heart to Orthodoxy, but what if another potential Catholic convert comes to a class for the first time and hears words like these? Is that the the first foot Orthodoxy wants to put forward? I am not suggesting that Orthodox should canonize and begin venerating Francis of Assisi. But there is a big difference between that and suggesting he was led astray by demons and very nearly the Antichrist. I don't understand why he needs to be disparaged in this way. For me, I won't bring the topic up again at church, but I will continue to love St. Francis, wear my medal, and ask his intercession in prayer.
Many times, the accusations are unfair and based on historical prejudice, not only among "cradle" Orthodox but also Protestant converts. There are plenty of Orthodox Saints who's spirituality could perhaps be considered over the top. Think of St. Symeon the Stylite, whose repentance and mortification were very public. Hard not to notice a guy hanging out on top of a pillar. There are plenty of other cases when his mortification was very extreme. The same could be said for any Stylite Saint or even the "Fools for Christ." Think of St. Basil the Blessed, whose was also very public about his spiritual life. He went around Moscow barefoot, wearing chains, and preaching mercy. The differences are just cultural in my opinion.
The anti-Catholicism in Orthodoxy is sad. And I agree, that it should not be the first foot Orthodoxy wants to put forward. But many Orthodox feel its better to condemn others rather than show the beauty of Orthodoxy. Orthodox Christians should preach love rather than taking cheap shots at others. I'm afraid that reactionary element in Orthodoxy is the one that is becoming more popular among Orthodox converts. You can see it all over this forum. Months ago, I was very close to leaving the Orthodox Church and going back to the Catholic Church because of attitudes like that. Its something I'm still struggling with. If I hadn't read the Journals of Father Alexander Schmemann, I probably would have left. He understood the meaning of the Orthodox Church and the fact that he criticizes the tribalistic mentality of many Orthodox was refreshing and restored my hope in the Church.
Anyway, as an Orthodox Christian who also asks St. Francis for his help in my prayers, I'm happy to see that you will continue to love him and wear the medal.
I know many are going to throw a fit about it, but I'm going bring up New Skete Monastery in New York. Its a monastery under the OCA, yet they are quite open about the fact that they celebrate St. Francis' feast day liturgically. I'm going to quote something one of the monks there wrote on their website. This is probably going to offend quite a few on here, but I'd figure I'd offer a different Orthodox opinion about him:
"Francis may not have a spot on the Orthodox liturgical calendar, but he is certainly a saint of the universal church and deserves appropriate honor and respect... There won’t be an Orthodox section or a Roman Catholic section in the Kingdom of Heaven. Instead, the example of Francis cuts through the dead end of narrow confessionalism, of triumphalism, of spiritual blindness and pettiness; it encourages us to recognize Christ and his body. And while we may indeed have to live with the reality of division in the Church, we can always be mindful, as Francis was, of the deeper unity of which we are a part, and work to affirm that at every opportunity."
Amen. One thing I can say about the RCC is that I never heard anyone disparaging Orthodoxy. Might some of that be down to ignorance? For sure. Most Catholics I know would have no idea who St. Seraphim of Sarov is, let alone even a pre-schism saint like St. Symeon the Stylite. I guess the size of the RCC, especially in the West, makes it fairly impossible for Orthodox to ignore the RCC. And I also don't know what goes on in RC RCIA classes, nor what went on in the RCC before Vatican II. But at least in the contemporary RCC I was part of, I was never party to any disparagement of EO. And to be clear, I'm not saying that Orthodox should refrain from pointing out where the RCC has gone astray--those things need to be said. So, more discussion of papal infallibility, less suggesting St. Francis of Assisi was inspired by demons, please
In the meantime, I will look at my experiences at my new church as an opportunity for love in complicated circumstances
That said, as said before, Byzantine Catholicism is indeed very complex in its development and it's not a surprise to see why many make the jump into Orthodoxy - some of them more easily than others. And others who take their time doing so do not do so lightly, even though many have said they were surprised coming into Orthodoxy and realizing it was not that radical of a jump once they made it. I have been blessed by others as well who looked back and discovered others in the Byzantine Catholic world who were cheering on and excited for those going into Orthodoxy since we're all brothers/sisters in Christ and lift each other up. The Byzantine world is very diverse and people come into it/out of it from all kinds of trajectories so who knows where your friend will be further in his development in the future. I am glad for his progression and wish him the best and blessings to all the things he'll learn as time goes on
Shalom.
The
y've been doing very well at New Skete (
Monasteries of New Skete shared a link. - Monasteries of New Skete | Facebook ), although they are an older group.
But they are doing just well and they understand the Church, as they don't operate outside of what the Patriarchs/Councils allow.
We see the same with many in the Byzantine Catholic world too, as mentioned before:
Joseph Raya is a retired Melkite Archbishop and wrote a very fascinating book on Eastern Christianity, titled
The Face of God. But in regards to his stance on the papacy, it was appreciated that Raya clearly p
resented the following from his book Face of God:
As the local church manifests its reality and union with Christ by the presence of a bishop at the Eucharistic action, so also the different bishops express their unity and identity with Christ by their union in love, and by their cooperation with each other. Christ himself established a center and a symbol of this cohesion and harmony in his Church. He made Peter the head of his college of Apostles. He clearly wanted him to be the leader and perfect example of his own love for his brothers and peers. “Feed my lambs…feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17). The primacy of Peter is, therefore, of divine institution, willed by Christ as the link and manifestation of union in his Body.
The Pope is the brother who confirms others in the faith, who runs to the aid of his brothers the bishops when they need his intervention and service. He is not the arbitrary dictator above and beyond the law of Christ who lives in the Church. At the Second Vatican Council Patriarch Maximos IV Sayeg explained clearly and unequivocally the meaning of this primacy according to Byzantine theology:
It should be clear to all of us that the only head of the Church, the only head of the Body of Christ which is the Church, is our Lord Jesus Christ and he alone. The Roman Pontiff is the head of the College of bishops, just as Peter was the head of the College of Apostles. The successor has no more power than the one whom he succeeds. For this reason it is not appropriate to say of the Roman Pontiff as we say of Christ---in the same way and without distinction---that he is the head of the Church, caput Ecclesiae.
The foundation of the Church is made up not of Peter alone, but of all the other Apostles as well, as is proven by a number of texts in the New Testament. This truth is in no way opposed to the primacy of Peter and his successors, but sheds new light on it. Peter is one of the Apostles, and at the same time head of the College of Apostles. Similarly the Roman Pontiff is a member of the College of bishops and at the same time head of the College. The head is the link for the whole body. It is not separated from it.
It should be clear that the power of the Roman Pontiff over the whole Church does not take away from the power of the College of bishops as a whole over the Church as a whole…a College which always includes the Pope as its primate…nor does the Pope’s power take the place of the power of each bishop in his diocese. Every canonical delegation of authority within the limits of a diocese comes from the bishop of the diocese and from him alone.
We must emphasize that the universal power of the Roman Pontiff, complete though it is, and remaining in its own order, is given to him essentially as head of the whole hierarchy and precisely to enable him to fulfill this primatial act of service. The “You are Peter” of St. Matthew 16:18 should not be separated from the “Lend strength to your brothers” of St. Luke 2:32. Furthermore, this power is pastoral in character and strictly personal. It is pastoral by nature in this sense, that it is not a prerogative of command merely for the sake of command. It is ministry, a service, a diakonia, a pastoral charge, as His Holiness Pope Paul VI has well emphasized. This power is of a personal character and since it remains such, cannot be delegated in any way.
This Byzantine doctrine of the papacy does not diminish the privileged position of the Pope of Rome. It rather purifies it from human exaggerations and distortions, and presents it as a blessing instead of a domination. Explained in this way, primacy means the principal thrust of grace which calls for and sustains unity in the Church. It becomes, then, an object of gratitude to the Lord and not a cause for stumbling.
A general council is the place where this mutual love of Pope and the bishops is exercised and manifested, and where God manifests his will present through the Holy Spirit and living in the Body of Christ.
In regards to the Melkite interpretation of papal primacy,
as seen in this document:
The Second Vatican Council, according to His Holiness Paul VI’s beautiful words in his opening locution to the second period of the Council, proposes to prepare the paths of union. That is why, it seems to us, the Council must not be content to repeat on this point the words of Vatican Council I, which have already been stated, but must seek to clarify and complement them, in the light of the divine institution and the indefeasible rights of the episcopate.
In this sense the new wording of the schema “De Ecclesia” shows notable progress with respect to both the former wording and also the routine formulas of the theological manuals.
The fact remains, however, that from the ecumenical viewpoint several texts should still be improved so as to bring out more clearly the principles that assure the evenhanded exercise of Roman primacy willed by the divine Founder of the Church.
Leaving details of lesser importance to the written notes that we have already transmitted to the secretariat, it seems to us that the text of the schema of the council should emphasize the following principles:
1) It must be clear to all of us that the only ruler of the Church, the only head of the Body of Christ that is the Church, is our Lord Jesus Christ, and He alone. The Roman pontiff is the head of the episcopal college, just as Peter was the head of the apostolic college. The successor has no more power than the one whom he succeeds. That is why it is not fitting to say of the Roman pontiff, by the same right and without distinction, as we say of Christ, that he is the head of the Church: “caput Ecclesiae.”
2) We agree completely with the explanation given by several venerable Fathers with respect to the foundation of the Church, constituted not only by Peter but by all the other Apostles, as is proven by several texts of the New Testament. This does not in any way contradict the primacy of Peter and of his successors, but rather sheds a new light on it. Peter is one of the Apostles, and at the same time the head of the apostolic college. Likewise, the Roman pontiff is a member of the episcopal college and at the same time the head of this college. The head commands the body, but it is not outside the body.
3) It must be clear that the power of the Roman pontiff over the entire Church does not destroy the power of the whole of the episcopal college over the whole of the Church—a college which always includes the pope as its primate—nor is it a substitute for the power of each bishop over his diocese. Every canonical mission, within the limits of a diocese, stems from the bishop of the diocese, and from him alone....
If you read Fr. John Meyendorff's work on the Primacy of Peter, you will see that the Orthodox didn't reject the primacy of St. Peter or even papal primacy as much as they rejected the medieval reinterpretation of papal prerogatives against the secular German emperors. The late Melkite Catholic theologian Fr. Joseph Raya argues much the same in his book The Face of God. Christian-pages.com I might also point out that the Roman Church accepts numerous post-1054 Eastern Orthodox saints as Catholic saints, which lends credibility to the idea that the split between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy was not as clear cut. St. Gregory Palamas and St. Sergius of Radonezh are prime examples. I might also note that the Church of Kiev remained in communion with both Rome and Constantinople in the 15th and early 16th centuries despite the dissolution of the Florentine Union. Papal temporal power was a result of the Dark Ages and a practical necessity for secular power after the fall of the Roman Empire. Sometimes necessity has a way of intervening into history.
Nice Church - A tad smallish as a parish community (eg the one guy in a black coat), but a great clerical presence and beautiful iconography...
Arsenios
I've shared this before - but with regards to Orthodox Communion with Rome, the the people who do so are known as Eastern Catholics and they do stand out for several reasons. Sometimes, what can help (if you're a visual person) is having a picture of how things slowly evolved. There are some good charts that can help with that (if interested), one of them showing the different districts and where things branched out from each.
Explaining the above, there are five original Patriarchs out of Jeruslam: Carthage, Rome, Antioch, Edessa, and Alexandria - all of which were established by the Apostles. There later came two others: Moscow - because it was evangelized over a thousand years ago by Sts. Cyril and Methodious. ..and the Malakarese and Malabarese, which are from St. Thomas the Apostle (and those are in the India region ). With this in mind, what is noted is that there are seven Patriarcates. And we can see this, in example, with the Melkite Greek Byzantine Catholic Church - a branch which is in Communion with Rome. It was case, during the separation of the Eastern Churches, that it never left Rome - but the Melkites have a sort of Communion with the Antiochean Greek Orthodox, which is considered a Bridge Church in many ways.
There are a lot of big difficulties for those who are Eastern Catholics..
As another EO noted elsewhere, "
So much of Eastern Catholicism is IN Orthodoxy - you cannot study Eastern Catholicism in isolation." ....and on the issue, a
s another noted best:
Melkites certainly know the precarious situation they occupy in the great scheme of Apostolic Christianity, and I do not think my brother Neil needs a reminder of that from anyone. Nevertheless, it does not follow that Melkites are more akin to the west than the east (wishful thinking perhaps?), your argument would have to be a lot more cogent and logical to establish that.
First, though there may be individual Orthodox who personally do not believe Melkites have a valid priesthood, it is not their place to judge these matters. In fact that is not the official stance of the church. Orthodox certainly see all Catholics as Christians, regardless of the fact that many are not in communion with us. The church is not in the business of pronouncing judgment upon other Christian bodies nor their sacraments, and neither expects nor seeks decrees of validation upon itself from outside.
Holy Orthodoxy routinely accords Roman Catholic hierachs respect, and neither endorses Roman Catholic orders nor condemns Roman Catholic orders. They are outside of the church, and are of no use to Orthodox.
Although it is not a formal practice, it is known that Melkite Catholics in Syria very often are communed in Melkite Orthodox churches as a matter of economia. I don't know if Syrian Latin-rite Catholics are accorded this same privilige. The special conditions there, as Christian minorities of a common sort, make it necessary. Many families, even whole towns, are mixed and often only one temple is allowed to be erected in a community. I know of at least one case of a temple being built specifically for use by both the Melkite Catholics and the Melkite (Antiochian) Orthodox, for separate liturgies and altars.
Because of it's more extensive network of parishes in North America, many Melkite Catholic immigrants from Syria and Lebanon worship in Antiochian Orthodox parishes, raising their children as Orthodox.
The reason, actually the only significant reason, Melkites are not in formal Communion and concelebration with Holy Orthodoxy is because the Melkites are in Communion with Rome. The issues in play are the errors Rome teaches, and RC attempts to assert those errors upon others. By sharing communion with the bishop of Rome and other bishops under Rome who teach these errors (out of charity no doubt, in the sense of love), the Melkite Catholics are formally cut off from the larger communion of Holy Orthodoxy.
I view this as a terrible sacrifice on their part.
In their efforts to keep the pipeline between east and west open for Rome the Melkites pay a very high price indeed, and I believe they know it. I do not think that fact is appreciated enough by most Latin Catholics nor latinized Eastern Catholics. To put it mildly it is a thankless position for them to be in.
That said, I do think it really is unfortunate whenever people think that Eastern Catholics all universally serve Rome - for as it has never been just Roman Catholicism with Byzantine Liturgy and plenty of Eastern Catholics (as well as Eastern Orthodox) have noted that stereotype before when it comes to what actually goes down (more shared before
here and
here). Others have often had the issue come close to home when it comes to having family in differing traditions - I've had friends and family who had the same experience. I myself grew up with it (a
s mentioned before)
Something to keep in mind is that Intercommunion agreements can sometimes be worked out between bodies with valid sacraments, even though the bodies are not united. What's interesting to consider is that Melkite Greek Catholics and The Antiochian Orthodox are very close in differing places places and there are indeed many places where Melkites and Antiochians receive communion in each others churches. Historically, it has
been the case that the Antiochians and Melkites built a church together, with both Patriarchs blessing and dedicating the Church together in a country with many Melkites and Antiochians - this not being a necessity, but an activity of unification...and to be more specific, in the 1990s, the Antiochian Orthodox and Melkite Greek Catholics built a church, St. Paul’s, that they share in Doumar, a suburb of Damascus. More on the issue can be seen in
The Melkite Initiative with the Antiochian Orthodox Church - as well as
A CALL FOR UNITY – THE MELKITE SYNOD
For those who are
Eastern Catholics/Byzantine Catholics , with those specific camps, there are some significant differences that many may not be aware of in all cases....as many Eastern Catholic rites are more similar to what occurs within Eastern Orthodoxy or Oriental Orthodoxy. It's often forgotten that
many Eastern Catholics do not accept the Filioque, Purgatory, Transubtantion, etc - with this leading to them being deemed "herectics" by Roman Catholics and yet also accused of supporting those things by EO who do not know fully some of the backgrounds.
For those who are Jewish, interesingly enough, EC is something that has held a lot of appeal when it comes to reflecting their culture. There was a discussion on the issue elsewhere that had many great insights--entitled
Can a Hebrew Catholic be comfortable in a Melkite Church? . As another noted there, the Syriac and the Chaldean/Assyrian Churches are likely the most "Semitic" traditions for a number of reasons, with their Liturgies handed down from the time when they really were Hebrew Catholics...specifically, Temple Jewish Catholics. And for other places that've given some EXCELLENT discussion on the issue:
Within the Holy Land, ECs and EOs are often having to work together on many issues when it comes to showing how to live as a citizen within the land, supporting one's country and yet promoting justice at the same time.
Elias Chacour -
Archbishop of the Melkite Catholic Church - always come to mind as being excellent examples of what it means to do so.
.....And for other examples, others coming to mind are people like
Joseph Raya,
one extensively involved in the American civil rights movement, and later, while serving as Archbishop of Akko, Haifa, Nazareth and all Galilee while doing extensive work with Dr. Martin Luther King (as both a co-laborer and dear friend) and other rabbis working for desegration/fair treatment toward both Jews and Blacks. Being a very controversial/radical figure in the church....helping to organize marches/often suffering alongside other blacks, he was twice beaten badly by the Ku Klux Klan....but later sought to emulate Dr.King's example with the marches over in Palestine. For a
Video clip of Archbishop Raya leading a peaceful protest, 1972-08-14. He has been referenced a
lot by others within Eastern Orthodoxy before - more noted in T
he Road to Emmaus Runs Through Harlem
Hope that helps in one way or another. Blessings
Concerning what it is that you wrote, I find that what you noted is something many others have experienced and gone through as well - consequently leading them to feel as if they are anomalies within their fellowships or the system they live in. One individual I know had a similar situation - as she was Orthodox (and Jewish) while her husband was Catholic - and consequently, they went to two churches: Orthodox (OCA jurisdiction) and Melkite Catholic (Eastern Catholic). It was a bit difficult for them on some levels but they managed to work through it and help each other grow in the knowledge/image of CHrist.
For more:
For more clarity on her experiences, she worked with others in the Eastern Catholic world for a long time even while she was Orthodox before meeting her husband, as far as I can recall. As she noted best,
in her words (for brief excerpt):
A couple of years ago I spent nine months in Western Ukraine, working at the Ukrainian Catholic University. Though an Orthodox Christian by choice (including the explicit choice not to become Roman Catholic, which was my other serious alternative), I worshipped regularly and enthusiastically with the University’s Byzantine Catholic community; I came to love those people and admire their piety, and bought into a fair chunk of their nationalist narrative. I also came to see their Eastern Catholic Church as they see it: as an ecumenical bridge between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, rejecting neither, and working and praying for the unity of the two. That is not a typically Orthodox position..... But here is why I came to think the way I do. The Ukrainian Church has always been wedged, geographically and spiritually, in the middle of the battle – over land, souls, and doctrinal purity – between Rome and Constantinople, and later Moscow. The Great Schism, from the Ukrainian perspective, was a fight between the big dogs in the neighborhood. Taking a side in this fight was a painful choice forced upon the Western Ukrainian community from the outside, by both Rome and the Orthodox world; not surprisingly, their bishops resisted it, staying in communion with both centers of Christianity as long as they could get away with it. When the alternatives have been defined by those outside one’s community in the course of their own conflict, one can take a stand if one must, but it is impossible to make a meaningful choice about one’s identity.
I've enjoyed keeping up with her since she's very passionate about helping others seek
connection where many have said such isn't possible and doing as
Psalm 133 and Ephesians 4:1-8 talk on with unity in the Gospel....
For more reference on her journey if wanting to investigate yourself:
She tripped me out once e when it came to her sharing on
Ecumenism as Household Decoration and that she/her husband hadn't even planned this particular mix of Jewish-Catholic-Orthodox religious imagery…
I could definately relate, as I grew up in a similar household due to the myriad of experiences my family had (living with my mother, grand-parents and great-grandparents in the same household - with Catholic imagery placed alongside things you'd see in Asian culture/icons at the same and then having African/Hispanic cultural images or items in the same house since we were multi-cultural
). And as said before, when you feel like your heart is to honor others where they're at/find beauty in it, it can truly lead to feeling as if they or you are anomalies within the system they live in. I've had that myself when it came to one organization I employed with as a Behavioral Specialist/Youth Worker that I am involved with both Oriental Orthodoxy and Messianic Judaism....for they were perplexed with the way I dressed since the stereotype they may've had for black men (with dreadlocks) was that they'd not do such things/be knowledgeable on it. For some, it was hard to break it down for others since you had to literally give an entire reader's digest history for others to have a bridge they can connect with you on. In time, I could share more info on my multi-ethnic/multi-cultural background and where I was at - and it was amazing to see others in differing places who also had battles in regards to dual identity.
Ultimately, you're not alone.
If I may say...
I like what another noted best
when sharing the following:
Many Orthodox do not realize how spiritually dangerous the ecclesiological claim can be. Either it points us to a self-evident fullness of the life of Christ as embodied in Orthodoxy, in which case it hardly needs to be mentioned at all, or it becomes a deadly weapon designed to bludgeon people into becoming and remaining Orthodox for the wrong reasons. Too often I am reminded of the words of our Lord: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you traverse sea and land to make a single proselyte, and when he becomes a proselyte, you make him twice as much a child of hell as yourselves” (Matt 23:15).
One thing I believe: Orthodox Christians need to be infinitely more concerned for the gospel than for “proving” their ecclesiological superiority. The Lord cannot be divided from his sacramental and ecclesial Body—hence the critical weakness of denominationalism—but we proclaim and believe in Jesus Christ, not an institution. God will not bless parishes that are more concerned with being “Orthodox” than they are with proclaiming, knowing, and living the absolute love of the risen Savior. At the pearly gates St Peter will not be asking us to pull out our Byzantine identity cards.
We Orthodox believe and see in spirit that we possess the fullness of the truth as can be humanly expressed. But that does not mean at all that we are already following that fullness of truth and that completeness has filled us. We sometimes possess it only on our lips, or think that it should replace in our eye the beam of our spiritual sloth. But all that is far from what should be. We possess the truth, and in its fullness, but we do not know how or refuse to live it, and often simply do not aspire to live it, because it overly places too many restriction on our “old self”. Yet we are not against taking pride or glorying in our orthodoxy.
Then as among heterodox Christians there are many who live in the truth of Orthodoxy through their spirit. There are sectarians who are aflame with the spirit and love of God and fellow man much more than some Orthodox, and that very spirit of fervent love for God and man is the mark of a true Orthodox life. Whoever among Orthodox does not possess it is not truly Orthodox, and whoever possesses it among non-Orthodox is truly Orthodox. As he is human, he makes mistakes; as he is human, he fails to understand this or that, he can’t distinguish this or that color in the spiritual world (spiritual Daltonism, e.g. he doesn’t comprehend the meaning of icons, the communion with saints who have left this world). Yet in spirit, in his inner self he is “faithful and true”, devoted in unfeigned love to the living incarnate God, our Lord Jesus Christ, until death. The presence of such true Orthodox Christians may be observed among professed Orthodox as well as among Roman Catholics and among Protestants of all categories. It also may be observed among Russian sectarians, who have become sectarian, i.e. separated themselves in mind and experience from the dogmatic confession of the Church, partially from an inability to comprehend that confession in the Spirit, and partially from bad examples of the realization of that confession in life. It is clear to every Orthodox, that professed Orthodox are often not only not edifying to society, but rather contribute to an outright perversion of that society. We are not speaking of examples of politicians or social activists. Of course to the greatest degree this also concerns us, the clergy, who do not always stand on the spiritual heights of Orthodoxy, in spite of our clear comprehension of the truthfulness of our Church. And as for monasteries . . . What depths of unorthodox feeling, of worldly, corrupt spirit lay at times under the humble monk’s habit. And all this “lightweight” rottenness floated on the surface of the life of the Church and was more noticeable to the eye than the truly humble labor of a multitude of real Orthodox pastors and monks, who renounced themselves to follow Christ in their lives and died in Christ. The Revolution [of 1917] revealed and unmasked this weak layer of the Russian Orthodox priesthood, yet it underlined the confession of an Orthodox life through martyrdom for the majority of priests. Someone has said that the presence of sectarianism testifies to the religious nature of the people. It may also be said thus: the presence of sectarianism testifies to the Orthodoxy of the people, the fervor of its spirit, its idealistic aspirations, its thirst for internal, not external religion, a heartfelt thirst for a covenant with God. And that in essence is Orthodoxy. The Orthodox laymen, and even more so the Orthodox priests, are always more responsible for the presence of sectarianism than are the sectarians themselves. Is not to think thus – to think in an Orthodox manner – to bear upon oneself the blame and responsibility for our separated brethren? Otherwise not to accept the blame would not be Christ’s truth. One may realize human truth in acknowledging the sectarians to be themselves to blame, but Christ’s truth is another, “foolish” for the world, wise – only for God.
The positive strength of the Spirit of God, which lives in Orthodoxy, and which is itself Orthodoxy, may not be proven by quarrels, or disputes, or arguments or coarse disclosures. This Spirit may be manifested only by “foolishly” – according to the world – renouncing the rights of reason and handing the matter over to trial by the Spirit.
That said....I Came across this awhile back and it was an awesome review. It's from
Sr. Vassa(a n
un of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad and liturgiologist of the University of Vienna in Austria) who is one of my favorite theologians since she breaks things down very easily. While writing her doctoral thesis on the Byzantine liturgy, Sister Vassa studied with the noted Byzantine Rite Catholic scholar, Fr. Robert Taft, SJ, at the Pontifical Oriental Institute in Rome....and she has taught Liturgical Studies at the Catholic Theological Faculty of the University of Vienna in Austria. As she noted best, 'The Orthodox Church never denied "an 'ecclesial' reality among the heterodox." There are, as St. John Chrysostom writes, bits and pieces of "ecclesial reality" outside the Church. This is why the baptism of heretics is recognized time and again. But the "plenitude" of Truth is to be found only in the One Church." The tone, attitude and balance of what she said is very encouraging as I know and have seen the Holy Spirit working in the lives of faithful Christians IN so many ways.
A lot of Byzantine Catholics have already said the same as Orthodox anyhow. In example, as it is, The late Melkite Catholic theologian Fr. Joseph Raya argues in his book
The Face of God that the Primacy of Peter never meant for Orthodox to be seen as a rejection of the primacy of St. Peter or even papal primacy as much as a simple rejection of medieval reinterpretation of papal prerogatives against the secular German emperors. Fr. Joseph Raya has always been someone I've greatly admired/respected and when he noted what he did, it caused a lot of controversy in the Catholic world.
But ultimately, the Byzantine Catholics are accepted within Orthodoxy as well - even though they are also hated by many. Historically, it has
been the case that the Antiochians and Melkites built a church together, with both Patriarchs blessing and dedicating the Church together in a country with many Melkites and Antiochians - this not being a necessity, but an activity of unification...and to be more specific, in the 1990s, the Antiochian Orthodox and Melkite Greek Catholics built a church, St. Pauls, that they share in Doumar, a suburb of Damascus. More on the issue can be seen in
The Melkite Initiative with the Antiochian Orthodox Church - as well as
A CALL FOR UNITY & THE MELKITE SYNOD...
And other well-respected Orthodox organizations have done a lot in regards to breaking down what others actually hold to - Kevin Allen did so once whens peaking with Melkite (Eastern Catholic) priest Father James Babcock about the similarities and differences between Eastern Orthodox, Eastern Catholics and the Roman Catholic Church.
I have, the parish near my parents is Antiochian, and I firmly reject the idea of Orientals communing. we had Copts and an Ethiopian when I was at Ft Campbell, and they had to confess their Orthodoxy and promise to not to back to their non-Chalcedonian parishes. we have Orientals who go to my school. they are great people, but their confessions are still in heresy at worst, or schism at best. either way, they are outside the Church and are barred from communing, as they should be and as I should be when I go to their parishes.
Some of that changes on the situation, nonetheless. One of my friends (Antiochian Orthodox) had a woman at her parish (in Charolette, NC) who was Ethriethan Orthodox and she was christmated in a Greek Orthodox Church - but others who were Ethiopian Orthodox had a blessing from their Bishop to come to the Greek Orthodox Church.
And of course, I know others that were Eritrean Orthodox Christian taking communion in a Greek Orthodox Church and attending a Greek Orthodox Church. It always depends on the Jurisdiction, as some Orthodox jurisdictions allow this. There are multiple Antiochian parishes that has allowed people of different groups (especially Oriental Orthodox) to participate in the sacraments. Talking to priests about this directly, I'm glad for where they explained to me that, so far as he understood, someone wasn't supposed to simply come and go and be able to take communion whenever they wanted. The reality was that if someone was too far away from a parish of their own group, and that person was willing to become part of the Eastern Orthodox parish, they would be allowed to join the parish and commune/confess/etc - without being required to make any particular statement of faith or renunciation of this or that belief.
My Church permits intercommunion, but only in circumstances that are beyond the persons control. Specifically, if there was a Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox parish in my town and no Chalcedonian Orthodox churches and I found myself in a situation where I would be away from my own church for a while, allowance for communion would occur - provided the bishop of the other church agreed. This also goes vice-versa. Ethiopians and Eritreans, as an example, have communed in both the OCA and Bulgarian churches and there was no division in any of the EO parishes I went to, with the local example being wonderful.
It always depends on who your Bishop is, who your priests are and what they both say - obedience to the priests and Bishops. If you're Eastern Orthodox or Greek Orthodox, you can't be a heretic unless you were FIRST part of the Church. A teaching can be heretical and a teaching can be heterodox. Again, saying "They're outside of the Church/barred from communing" doesn't hold any water or weight (as that is your view saying who they should be. Nothing more or less).
Just went to parish today at one of the priests I'm friends with who is Greek Orthodox - and as they have noted, there's no issue when someone is Coptic being present/communing.
AS it is the case historically that the
Greek Orthodox church is in full communion with the Oriental Orthodox church:
It was signed by Signed by
H.B. Pope Petros and H.H. Pope Shenouda (
https://orthodoxjointcommission.fil...reek-orthodox-patriarchates-of-alexandria.pdf ). In other words a Coptic person can marry a Greek Orthodox person in the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria with the marriage being accepted by both churches, and the baptism of the other is already accepted by both Churches. The agreement shows that the Church does not consider there to be any theological or spiritual impediment to marriage between EO and OO, and that the issue is understood as a matter of good order. As you can see from Russian Orthodox Patriarch Kiril's visit to Alexandria, there is clear admiration for the Coptic Church of Alexandria from their side, and they don't mind being one with us.
And this isn't new.
But it all goes back to experience. Last year, I attended retreat back in February where one of my good friends goes to
Holy Transfiguration Greek Orthodox Church and yet we got to work serving other men in demonstrating the love of God for people with a myriad of broken situations......praying with them to know the heart of the Father and yet also enjoying what the Lord was doing in our lives as well as the lives of other Protestants there. One of the actual Protestant leaders (Baptist) spoke there on the need for others to do more study on the sacraments/historical review and it was fun being able to be open on where we stand while keeping Christ central. The organization we worked in was entitled
Tres Dias (more
here,
here and
here) which is basically a 3-day weekend for encouragement/support of believers in Christ.
With my friend, I've always been blessed by how he is Greek Orthodox and yet he had no issue working with others in differing groups, it was refereshing. We discussed the reality of Orthodox Brotherhoods lik
e Brotherhood of St. Moses the Black with Fr.Moses Berry (whom my spiritual father used to work with before) and
Brotherhood of St. Herman of Alaska and many other Monastic Brotherhoods ...and of course, we got to discuss others we valued, such as my friend's spiritual father Fr. Paul (whom I've had friendship with
- was so excited to see him becoming a priest last year....as Fr. Paul REALLY encouraged me on several occasions and was a life-saver when I had a very bad situation where I was slandered badly - his wisdom helped me navigate things a lot.
With my Greek Orthodox friend, it's a blessing discussing how we are able to network with other Orthodox in our area, some in places like
St Basil's Orthodox Mission (OCA) (
St. Basil Orthodox Mission | Facebook ). With other places networking has occurred , it has been wild seeing first hand how family/friends at
St. Mary Coptic Orthodox Church of Atlanta actually had active relationship with other Russian Orthodox - as was the case when one of my Coptic friends (a linguist and scholar on differing types of liturgy) noted his experiences in going to one of the churches in our area called
St. Mary of Egypt Orthodox Church - always being welcomed anytime/having wonderful discussions ... and of course, seeing that my Coptic friend/others where he is already work with other EO often in sharing works together, it's not a surprise.
Witnessing this firsthand after going to Divine Liturgy with them and prayer,
including last April to see the The Kursk-Root Icon, it has made me remember how odd it is when others seek to have what can be akin to a xenophobic attitude toward anything they do not understand or haven't experienced
My good friend/sister in Christ Thekla and I once discussed the issue on Facebook considering our own backgrounds when I told her on some of the work I've seen within Orthodoxy and some of the things not well known.
@Philothei and I discussed it as well, as it concerns what has happened before where the Patriarchs were ignored and folks still tried to claim that somehow tried to claim things based on an older era that is not present.....as seen, for example, with regards to how others often assume anything Oriental Orthodox is not connected with Eastern Orthodox - and thus are unable to actually listen to the facts when seeing OO in intercommunion with EO (and again, Antiochians with Syriac Orthodox is an example and I've experienced that numerous times already) or Official Statements from the Bishops.
@Philothei ,o
ne of the older members on CF, was always able to address the dynamic whenever we talked and it is always an interesting thing seeing others having to take some time understanding if explaining that Antiochian Orthodox have worked with Syrian Orthodox (Oriental) - with others in the camp identifying with them/having family present whom they discuss with and in that sense being OO while also identifying with EO (my situation personally.....as I've
shared here and
here/h
ere).
we're not talking about presenting at a Coptic parish or whatever, or having good report with others, so I don't get why this is here...
We weren't talking just about presenting or having good report, as what was noted was intercommunion plainly and others doing so. Not complicated - and the reasons other major figures in the Church have presented/noted the issue.
be that as it may, just because the bigwigs in certain Orthodox circles say something, that does not mean our Church follows suit. same with Rome, until the whole of Orthodoxy says the Orientals are Orthodox, the Orientals are not Orthodox.
It doesn't stay centered on bigwigs obviously, although as the whole of the Church has already followed suit, I will go with the Church. And until the whole of Orthodoxy advocates your view point, I won't take it as Orthodox since they've already noted the Orientals are Orthodox as a normative view. And being within the EO communion first, I will go with what the priests/bishops have said. As it is, Rome was not seen on the same level as the OO due to several things that placed them further outside of Orthodoxy and on the need for more discussion.
that's fine, I am not posting this as a research anything. you posted, and scholars I know who are iffy about it said to be cautious. I certainly don't want to ban the book, merely I pointed out that some that I trust have some concern with it.
I understand, bro, as I wasn't really having issue with other having cautious. I've seen works others here people referenced which I was cautioned on when EO priests warned me on it and I was hesitant. My entire purpose in responding was simply seeing what was said by others cautious and noting that I've experienced/studied that when I went over why folks were no longer cautious with that book.
of course they can, anyone is free to read what they want. I am not saying it is wracked with heresy, only that in the little (admittedly) that I have read, and what those whom I know and trust have said, it should be treated with caution.
I more than understand. I had one of my dear sisters (Antiochian Orthodox) note what can happen when priests know the level of maturity a person can have and can recommend caution with some things because they know what others can do with it if they are not careful.
and I felt no need to make any personal apology since the patristic stuff you referenced I don't dispute. I dispute your conclusions, which often I would use the same patristics for my point.
Conclusions disputed aren't a problem (just as it'd not be with
issues pertaining to Creation/Evolution and many other topics when seeing what the Fathers have said). I don't make personal apology for keeping centered on the Fathers and letting the discussions they had be the focus. In the absence of what they say, it's simply assumptions without verification.
and Met Kallistos and Fr John Behr are not the authority that a saint would be, and St John of Damascus calls the Orientals heretics in his lists of heresies. one St John of Damascus trumps all of the Wares and Behrs of the world.
St. John of Damascus, as said before, did not call Oriental Orthodox at any point heretics - for he was speaking very specifically of Eutyches in his extremes of "one nature" that the Coptic Church condemned very specifically - so it will always make a difference knowing who St. John of Damascus is and not trying to use him outside of the context he spoke in. As you avoided where St.John mentioned the focus to be Eutyches in Against Heresies in 82 and 82, you don't really stand on him. OO know this and it's why it's not taken seriously. St. John of Damascus didn't list OO as herectics and there has yet to be any evidence given from yourself on the issue. Of course, as it concerns my referencing him, other OO have done the same before.
As it concerns Ware and Behr, Met Kallistos nor Fr.John Behr don't stand on their own, as they have already remembered/stood in the examples of the Saints and talked on that before. And as said before, it doesn't do anything trying to quote St. John of Damascus when avoiding what the WHOLE of the Church Fathers said on Orientals.
And again, We can again go and see what St.Cyril had already said when the council verified him/others who stood with him (although as Orientals). As said at Chalcedon:
" After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus?"
"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties." (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 451])
I repeat:
Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who doesnot so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there]? These are the things Dioscorus hid away.
from
Session II of the 4th Ecumenical Council
Cyril of Alexandria (Oriental) already was celebrated by EO - no way around that.
October 8, 2015 Our Common Father: Saint Cyril
The Very Rev. Dr. John Anthony McGuckin, renowned author of 25 books, several of which are published by SVS Press, presented the keynote address at last year's Education Day at St. Vladimir's Seminary. Fr. John outlined a brief history of St. Cyril, highlighting the point that the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox traditions agree with much of the saint's theology.
t.
well, again, that's because you used quotes and references that I would have used, so I don't dispute your patristic references, I dispute your conclusions. so I am not going to quote what you are using, since that would simply lead into a patristc sola quota war.
I understand that. Ultimately, focus goes on the Patristic references and showing one's conclusions (if disagreeing with another) are based on that. At the end of the day, any disagreement goes with seeing what the father say and see how to interpret scripture via Patristics.
For me, if I can see what the Fathers say, that helps...
and I will never say that non-Chalcedonians are Orthodox, no matter what our modern PhDs say. I don't question the Orthodoxy the non-Chalcedonians, because it is not there.
The Patriarchs are not PhDs, so trying to say it's simply modern PhDs saying so would not be accurate.
Others say all the time non-Chalcedonians are not Orthodox
No one says others can't believe that, even though it's not the Church to say so when seeing the Bishops/Priests and Patriarchs overall (as it goes beyond PhDs) - I don't take reacting to non-Chalcedonians as as if they're not Orthodox as an Orthodox response since it's not what the Fathers did...AND much of that is based on not researching in-depth.. So I will go with the Patriarchs/Statements. I'm rather fine with that, be it what the Antiochians have said about non-Chalcedonians or the Greek Orthodox and so forth. I always consider Copts as my family in Christ and always defend that, just as others do who are Coptic Orthodox but who took theological studies at Eastern Orthodox schools/participate in the Greek and Antiochian Orthodox churches events near them. Same goes for the EO doing so in reverse.
that is fine, I did not say it as some personal critique of all things Fr Patrick Reardon. if someone wishes to read it, that is fine. I never said I would not read it, and I have some of his other books. just responded with what I heard and read when it came up.
I feel you and more than respect that, man.
right, so there is disagreement over the Orthodoxy of the book, and I was simply trying to show the other side.
The discussion always helps for more awareness
and I should say as well, I had a very fruitful discussion with one of the OO guests on here about heresies he sees in Chalcedon, and he made no qualms about saying that as a non-Chalcedonian, we are not in the Church and we believe in heresy. I said the same from our POV and I thought it went well.
I am aware of the discussion (as I kept up with it - photo graphic memory), as discussed
here and
here between you and
dzheremi:
I've had plenty of conversations myself, here and elsewhere, with OO who agreed with each other and disagreed...and the same with EO. There are EO who are progressive and believe LGBTQ is God's best. That doesn't mean I take it as a standard without reference just because an EO said it to others - and the same goes for a myriad of topics. What others say here online has zero to do with what happens in the real world when the priests/Bishops are concerned and have NOT said that non-Chalcedonians are not the Church or that Chalcedonians are not the Church.
Also, I've never said or assumed you didn't have fruitful discussion with OO here (and I repeat - per CF policy and CF Administration - that others being OO guests aren't the standard for CF when it comes to others who are EO/OO and dual membership. That has long been set in stone policy wise), as someone claiming as a non-Chalcedonian "I think Chalcedon is a heresy" doesn't speak for the thousands of others who were non-Chalcedonian but noted where the Bishops/Agreed Statements said otherwise. The same goes for EO in reverse, as there's a spectrum. I'm glad for the EO guests who've shared on the issue in the OO forum - and the EO going to OO Churches, just as I'm glad for the OO going to EO churches.
but if you want to show why I take issue with non-Chalcedonians being able to post on this forum, and why I reject dual communion, this is from the 6th Council, and is therefore above any of the links you posted in terms of authority for us:
from the c
Theodore, bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, Paul, Pyrrhus and Peter. Moreover, in addition to these, we justly subjected to the anathema of heretics those also who live in their impiety which they have received, or, to speak more accurately, in the impiety of these God - hated persons, Apollinaris, Severus and Themestius, to wit, Macarius, who was the bishop of the great city of Antioch (and him we also stripped deservedly of his pastor's robes on account of his impenitence concerning the orthodox faith and his obstinate stubbornness), and Stephen, his disciple in craziness and his teacher in impiety, also Polychronius, who was inveterate in his heretical doctrines, thus answering to his name; and finally all those who impenitently have taught or do teach, or now hold or have held similar doctrines.
from the Oros:
an heresy similar to the mad and wick
ed doctrine of the impious Apollinaris, Severus, and Themistius.
this means that from our POV, anyone who holds to the teaching of Severus of Antioch is anathema. which includes the Orientals who hold him as a saint.
none of the statements that you posted have this level of authority, none have the standing, and no Ecumenical Council has been called to take a look at these. so to commune in the non-Chalcedonian confession is to commune outside of the Church if the Chalcedonians are holding the true faith. and vice versa. I would never commune at a Coptic or Armenian parish out of respect for that difference.
Respectfully, as I said, one can talk to administration of CF as policy is made by them (and other EOs) and others who are from an EO background/working in OO circles have already addressed these things. At the end of the day This is not a Church - it is an online forum and CF makes the rules, which are above you and anyone else (myself included) when it comes to what is or isn't allowed.
Speaking on our POV, Talking on the 6th Council doesn't do anything when ignoring the previous councils that already referenced/sustained OO thought alongside EO in the previous councils, including with St.Cyril and St.Severus.
EO have often spoken on the issue when addressing the issue of how things play out when it comes to what was said based on the Councils with Joint Agreements and in honor of that, including the work done to lift anathemas on certain figures.
In the 20th century, an unofficial meeting of theologians from both sides and an official meeting of the Churches that followed came to an agreement that we (EO and OO) hold the same apostolic faith and tradition and spiritual and liturgical understanding, but cultural and political interventions and terminological differences - the Greek language was the basic language at that time - created the division. Patriarchs blessed the meeting. The the Christological disputes are settled theologically already and have been for some time, even though practically the Churches have to take a decision on restoring Eucharist communion - and because people are still waiting on that one, it's why it's noted "It's up to the Bishop" when it comes to intercommunion since it's not set in stone via Council. But it is the accepted practice. The Synod, the Holy and Great Holy Council, divides the Oriental Orthodox as one separate family - but the common understanding from the 20th century on is that we really hold to the same faith and it takes time to help all see that.
And we already see others living this out. As said before,
I am reminded of Fr. Antony Bahou the priest at St. George Antiochian Orthodox Church (EO) here in San Diego for priest Fr. Pimen Shenoda from Holy Cross Coptic Orthodox Church, as others have attended and supported the Pan Orthodox Vesper services through lent here in San Diego County.
Also, we remember that any action could take some time (and as one of my friends in the GOC noted, losing Fr. Romanides made an impact and it could be that we will have to wait for another like fr. Romanides to be revealed to continue full force). What matters is that we mind ourselves spiritually, and continue to work across 'lines' on the ground. The issues are complex (and forget that in the EO, Chalcedon must be interpreted in light of the next council as well).
Thus, what you said is nowhere close to being above what was noted previously by several other fathers and councils in addition to the Agreed Statements by the Patriarchs.
Others in the EO world have long dealt with this simple reality:
On all of the cautions other Conservative EO have had, Fr. John Behr dealt with this rather directly:
Although continuously revered as a Father by the non-Chalcedonian churches, it is only during the course of this century that Severus’ christology, and his place within history, has come to be appreciated anew. At the beginning of this century, the Russian church historian Bolotov acknowledged that if Severus condemned Chalcedon, he did so not because he considered that the Council’s phrase “ in two natures” was itself heretical, as it was held by some more extreme monophysites, but because he regarded this as being a “one-sided, clumsy choice of dogmatic words” when compared to the more traditional expressions of Cyril of Alexandria. The most important work on Severus in the early part of this century was the extensive and systematic investigation of Lebon. He concluded his study by asserting that the Christology of the non-Chalcedonians, as represented by Severus, was “absolutely correct and complete,” and that there is no Westerner “who would not accept and defend, as they do, the unity of the incarnate nature after the union, if one understands by the term ‘nature’ the concrete and individual reality that is otherwise designated by the term ‘person.’” Nevertheless, despite acknowledging that Severus had carefully differentiated himself from the monophysitism of Eutyches and Sergius, Lebon, with a certain lack of sensitivity, continued to refer to the Christology of Severus as “monophysitism.”
The most important stage of the Chalcedonian reassessment of the Christology of Severus began, of course, in 1964 with the first of four Unofficial Consultations between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian theologians, and then in 1989 with the first of three meetings of the Joint Commission. Building upon the work of earlier scholars, and with contributions now from both traditions, the theologians present began, from the first meeting, to recognize the basic unity they shared with regard to Christology, despite the various formulae used to express the same truth. This modern consensus, as was earlier anticipated by both Severus and the “neo-Chalcedonian” theologians, was grounded upon the fundamentally Cyrillian basis and perspective of each tradition.
Already by the time of the second Unofficial Consultation, discussion had progressed to the point of asking about what, given this Christological consensus, was the status of the four Councils, from Chalcedon to Second Nicaea, not regarded as Ecumenical by the non- Chalcedonians, and what should be done about the various anathemas placed by each side upon the other. A further problem arising from this concerned the delicate issue of “tradition,” both in the sense that it has now become a “tradition” for the non-Chalcedonians to reject Chalcedon and for the Chalcedonians to reject those rejecting Chalcedon, but more importantly in the sense of what Zizioulas, at the third Unofficial Consultation, called “the problem of traditional minimalism”: to what extent, and in what way, are the Councils of the Church part of the tradition of the Church, such that we can now reevaluate, or historically contextualize, some of their pronouncements, in order to enter into communion with other Churches who have a different historical expression, if not theological content, for their tradition? On what basis can this be done?
Whilst the issue of the meaning of “tradition” was never further addressed directly, and this is certainly beyond the scope of this paper, the resolution of the predicament involved a careful differentiation between the Council itself and the faith that it proclaimed: both Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians condemn the teaching attributed to Eutyches, but the latter do not do so on the basis of the Fourth Council; both sides have continued in the same faith, but differ in their acceptance or rejection of certain Councils, indeed, for both of them to maintain the same faith, historical circumstances have required them to speak in different terms. It is in this sense that section 8 of the Second Agreed Statement, issued in 1990, stated:
Both families accept the first three Ecumenical Councils, which form our common heritage. In relation to the four later Councils of the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox state that for them the above points 1-7 [the kernel of the agreed Christological position – JB] are the teachings also of the four later Councils of the Orthodox Church, while the Oriental Orthodox consider this statement of the Orthodox as their interpretation. With this understanding, the Oriental Orthodox respond to it positively.
The point of this digression into the conclusions of the Unofficial and Official dialogues is not to comment on them themselves – this is the topic for others more competent than myself, later this morning – but to set the context for discussing a particular aspect of the Christology of Severus. Whilst the issues addressed by the Council of Constantinople in 680/1 may be particular to the Chalcedonian tradition, and as such may not need to be formally recognized by the non-Chalcedonian Churches, the question must be asked whether the theology which it affirms, that of the reality of a human will and energy together with the divine will and energy in Christ, is indeed also affirmed, at least implicitly, by those traditions which stand outside of this development?
.......In the Second Agreed Statement, it is affirmed that both families agree that “the Hypostasis of the Logos became composite (syntheton)” as a result of the Incarnation, and that it is the “one Hypostasis of the Logos incarnate” who alone wills and acts (section 4, 5) – statements which fully accord with Severus’ position. However, the basic axiom in modern Orthodox presentations of “neo-Chalcedonian” Christology is the complete identification of the hypostasis of union with the preexistent hypostasis of the Word. This is, of course, worked out through the doctrine of the enhypostasia: the Word of God, at the incarnation, assumed human nature or ousia, which was without its own hypostasis, and gave it His own hypostasis, “hypostatizing human nature into His own hypostasis.” Although John of Damascus, when discussing the hypostatic union, refers in passing to the union of the two natures “ in one composite hypostasis,” it is more characteristic of the post-Chalcedonian writers to deny the very possibility of a composite hypostasis, and to speak instead of the “properties” of the hypostasis of the Word as becoming more composite through the Incarnation: of the three Persons of the Trinity, the Word alone is now visible and palpable.
This means from our POV (EO), there are already massive witnesses for where it was not an issue in hindsight and agreement - AND going against that would be outside Orthodox thought.
none of the statements that you posted have this level of authority, none have the standing, and no Ecumenical Council has been called to take a look at these.
Again, none of that (despite how strongly one may believe it) really deals with what the Patriarchs have said/done in regards to Councils on the issue - or statements made on the matter by them which are binding on the Orthodox Church. Thus, it'd be a moot issue trying to reference it and not dealing plainly with how the Patriarchs did not see the 6th Council as not allowing for Intercommunion. It's above our paygrade...
None of the statements you posted have the level of authority as the FATHERS - which you again did not address. The same goes for the Patriarchs of the CHurch who know the Councils/Statements and we submit to. It was not just PhDs, but Patriarchs who came together on the matter We've already had formal meetings on the issue and agreed.
I can't ignore that nothing of what you said on the Ecumenical Councils changes how those councils are not dealt with the way you're handling them. For the Antioch Orthodox Church recognizes the Syrian Orthodox(Oriental Orthodox Church, non-Chalcedonian, sister of the Armenian Church) as being one and the same faith. If we want to talk on the Ecumenical Councils, then we should address how the Council of Nicea (325 AD) made very clear that bishops have no authority outside their dioceses - and that means we must ask the question "Why does EO want to be authority over The Armenian Church?"
We must acknowledge the fact that Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches are actively seeking to promote harmony between the two churches, and joint statements issued over the last few decades have shown that the theological misunderstandings which originally caused the split have been resolved. The Patriarchs which interpret the Councils are well aware of this - and as you've yet to address where the agreements have already been noted by the Patriarchs, I don't see the need to go further till that can be addressed. As the Patriarchs said directly:
On the Unity of the Faith
Joint Declaration of the Patriarchs of the Middle East
We give thanks to God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit for the joy of the spiritual communion which has been granted to us from on high, and which has allowed our meeting in the holy monastery of St Bishoy, Egypt, on the occasion of the Executive Committee meeting of the Middle East Council of Churches (MECC), 16-19 November 1987, on the invitation of our sister Coptic Orthodox Church which has welcomed us with goodwill.
It is the first time that we, the Primates of the Byzantine and Oriental churches, that are members of the MECC and that have their seat in the Middle East, meet to reflect together on our common task in the current situation in the Middle East.
While reflecting once more on the deeply-rooted inner unity of faith existing between our two families of Churches, we rejoice in realizing how much we have advanced in our rediscovery and in the growing consciousness among our people of that inner unity of Faith in the incarnate Lord.
Attempts by theologians of both families aimed at overcoming the misunderstandings inherited from the past centuries of alienation towards one another have happily reached the same conclusion that fundamentally and essentially we on both sides have preserved the same Faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, in spite of diverse formulations and resulting controversies.
We welcome all the efforts made on the international or regional levels, and noting in particular that which has been done on the regioal level, in the meetings of Balamand, Lebanon in 1972, and of Pendeli, Greece in 1978, we affirm our togetherness in the true understanding of the Person of Christ, who being God of God, only-begotten Son of the Father, became truly man, fully assumed our human nature without losing or diminishing or changing His DIvine Nature. Being perfect God, He became perfect man, without confusion, without separation.
In the light of this conviction we recommend that the official dialogue on both the regional (Middle East) and the international levels be pursued through common endeavours in the healthy process of clarifying and enhancing our commonness in faith and dispelling the misapprehensions of the past, thus preparing the way towards the full recovery of our communion.
We urge our people to continue to deepen their consciousness in the deep commonality of faith and to relate to one another as brothers and sisters who share the same Gospel, the same faith and the sae commission entrusted to them by their common Lord.
Thanks be to God that ancient controversies and rivalries have given way to a new era of sincere and open dialogue and new communal brotherhood. We pray that these most difficult and crucial times in the Middle East may stimulate all of us to see more clearly the command of our Lord Jesus Christ so that we may be one according to his will (John 10) and His prayer (John 17).
Pope Shenouda III, Coptic Orthodox Church
Patriarch Parthenios III, Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria
Patriarch Ignatios IV, Orthodox Church of Antioch
Catholicos Karekin II, Armenian Apostolic Church of Cilicia
Patriarch Mor Ignatius Zakka I. Iwas, Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch,
Not present at the meeting, also expressed is accord with the statement
The Patriarchs have noted directly that no one was truly 'wrong' - pointing out it was a misunderstanding which led to the split and that we are all truly Orthodox- both EO and OO - for even the terms "Eastern Orthodox" and "Oriental Orthodox" are misnomers. And in the event it was missed, I repeat that we must remember that any action could take some time to play out (and as one of my friends in the GOC noted, losing Fr. Romanides made an impact and it could be that we will have to wait for another like Fr. Romanides to be revealed to continue full force). What matters is that we mind ourselves spiritually, and continue to work across 'lines' on the ground. The issues are complex (and forget that in the EO, Chalcedon must be interpreted in light of the next council as well). I'm thankful for what my EO friend said in agreement with her priest when noting "as long as we can respect one another's fierceness for the faith once delivered, we've taken one step in understanding why it takes multiple people and views to average out in a balance"
So again, I will go with them before you. Your choice to not commune with Non-Chalcedonian doesn't change where the Patriarchs have noted it to be allowed and where the same non-Chalcedonian Saints who you reference (i.e. St. Issac of Syria, St. Cyril of Alexandria, etc.) would not adhere to your thought process. I will always respect what the Patriarchs have said about the process of communion and what has happened with that difference.
I could go further, ArmyMatt, but as time is limited for me, I thought it'd be appropriate to share here as comprehensively/extensively on all the matter as possible instead of going back-and-forth further. We can always talk offline if you want to go further (or make a thread in
St. Justin Martyr's Corner ), but I'm rather good here since the OP main issue was addressing the Incarnation - and I didn't want to go past that.
