joining the Montanists is leaving the Church, so if he left the Montanists, what evidence do you have that he returned to the Church?
He never claimed to leave the Church or Apostolic tradition, Bro. And again, the nuance matters when seeing why he joined the Montanist sect since the Montanists reacted against laxity/license for sins in the Church by embracing extreme-rigorous standards. As said before, the era Montanists he encountered (unlike previous generations) were highly-organized, and in many other ways true to Christian orthodoxy.
when the Church says someone is not a Father, that makes him not a Father even if he was revered by folks at the time. so again, even if St Isaac thought that Theodore was the greatest theologian since John, once Council 5 anathematized him, he is not a Father and that anathema shows that he never was. there is no such thing as an anathematized Church Father.
Respectfully, this is circular since you have yet to either show or address where St. Isaac was either not a part of the Assyrian Church or the East or that his SOURCE of theology was not Theodore - and claiming "The Church says" does not count for evidence anymore than saying "The Bible says" - You are getting Theodore (whom St. Isaac took both language AND theology from) when you get St.Isaac and there's really no avoiding that simple fact. Anything outside of dealing with St. Isaac's words is not dealing with the Church and is dealing with Slogans
Of course, one can examine what aspects of Theodore were condemned and what aspects of him were accepted, as reflected in St. Isaac of Ninevah - for no one is all Saint, all Herectical in all things. This is why people have said there was no issue whatsoever with noting as an Orthodox person that St.Isaac of Ninevah was accepted (even though he was a reflection of Theodore) and yet Theodore was condemned since what was condemned was how he was the father of Nestorious (who took his teachings to the extreme and ended up with them both being seen negatively).
except that the Church HAS accepted his teaching and his language AND anathematized his teacher. that is what the Church says. so the Church says Isaac is Orthodox and Theodore is not.
Doesn't matter when St.Isaac already noted he REFLECTED his teacher Theodore and one still gets the theology of Theodore when dealing with St. Isaac - both of whom were prominent in the Assyrian Church of the East and noted that in the writings. You have to do selective argumentation to claim otherwise and a slogan isn't sufficient. But again, one can examine what specifically was condemned in Theodore and why St.Isaac (as a living reflection of him) advocates for his theology consistently in his writings.
Moreover, you cannot talk on how the Church has accepted St.Isaac and condemned Theodore when ignoring the simple reality that ANY commendation of Theodore is also problematic according to the Councils.
I have brought this up repeatedly when citing what the 5th Council
says directly:
again, the fact that the EO has venerated him since who knows how long, the St Paisios reference, the fact that the Orientals venerate him, and the fact that he taught things that no Nestorian did (ie the mutual exchange of properties), is enough. my standard is what the Orthodox Faith says.
Again, That is a moot point since EO or OO venerating him does NOT address where he said he got his teachings from - OR the historical background of where he actually taught (Church of the East). What it does say is that EO chose to honor him after the fact - and with St. Paisios, no one goes higher than the account of Scripture and even scripture shows that Saints can get it WRONG - from David to Nathan and so on. St. Paisios does not have any right to change what St. Isaac said and it is St. Isaac's words that matter above all else.
And as said before, St.Isaac not bringing up Nestoriansim does not change where he belonged to the Assyrian Church of the East (also called Nestorian) and REFERENCED Theodore as others in the Nestorian Church did. Trying to claim St.Isaac's lack of bringing up Nestorianism does not show him as not belonging to the Church of the East, dude - AND this is standard in the Orthodox Church since other Orthodox have said it, so using triumphaslistic language isn't a good argument when other Orthodox can say the same who disagree with you...flatly. I'm glad when you say "my standard is what the Orthodox Faith says" - but I also note other Orthodox saying the same are radically different in conclusion than what you're noting.
that is because the standard I am using the what the Church says. it does not matter if St Isaac took his language from Theodore any more than the really early Fathers that took their language from Platonism. it might to understand parts of where he is coming from, but not his standing in the Church. or Theodore's.
This is essentially an argument of "I'm right because I believe in God/The Church " - this has nothing to do with dealing with what Theodore said or what St.Isaac actually said AND why Orthodox revering St.Isaac have already said "He was someone outside the bounds of Orthodoxy and yet we still revere him" - your feelings on the matter are not relevant when ignoring what St.Isaac said in noting the TEACHINGS (not the language) of Theodore are what the Church should take seriously/adhere to. Of course, for someone like St.Isaac belonging to the Church of the East and working there as a Bishop, this is not a problem since it's consistent with the world he lived in.
However, trying to make him into an EO reflection is where it becomes problematic - but again, St.Isaac already said Theodore being rejected is to reject the Church so the issue is again what St.Isaac actually said. And St.Isaac anathematized ANYONE who rejected Theodore.
-
"Lest any of those who zealously imagine that they are being zealous for the cause of truth should imagine that we are introducing something novel of our own accord, things of which our former Orthodox fathers never spoke, as though we were bursting with an opinion which did not accord with truth, ...turn to the writings of the Blessed Interpreter ( Theodore of Mopsuestia ), a man who had his sufficient fill of the gifts of grace, who was entrusted with the hidden mysteries of the Scriptures, ( enabling him ) to instruct on the path to truth the whole community of the Church; who, above all, has illumined us orientals with wisdom - nor is our mind's vision capable enough ( to bear ) the brilliancy of his compositions, inspired by the divine Spirit.
" .
.. we accept ( him ) like one of the apostles, and anyone who opposes his words, introduces doubt into his interpretations, or shows hesitation at his words, ( such a person ) we hold to be alien to the community of the Church and someone who is erring from the truth." ( St. Isaac, The Second Part , p. 165-166 )
We cannot avoid the fact that advocating for Theodore was part of what the Church said anathema was about - and thus, St Isaac is both a saint and under anathema...and subscription to the fifth ecumenical council's canon of anathematisation of those who follow Theodore is difficult to avoid. And of course, we have to remember context since the commendation of Theodore of Mopsuestia is not the same as 'Nestorianism' advocated (as Theodore did not call for that) - we can see where the 3rd council condemns Nestorianism, but it did not condemn Theodore and it was the 5th council which anathematised those who commended him.
In the event it was missed throughout this thread, I repeat what the 5th Council
says:
And again, while it is not seen clearly where St.Isaac taught Nestorianism, it has been shown that he commends Theodore of Mopsuestia AND NOTES his theology to be a reflection of him - meaning that 5th Council is very relevant in the issue of his status as someone who is both a Saint and under anathema technically. This is necessary to understand since debates can go back and forth all day on "Was St.Isaac Nestorian?" - but the simpler question of "Did he commend Theodore?" IS more direct. This is in addition to seeing the clear fact that St. Isaac already belonged to a communion outside the communion of the Orthodox Church in its technical and visible sense (and was an ordained cleric within it).
So with St.Isaac already being a part of the Church of the East that Theodore was a part of, it is not an issue for him to commend him since he was part of that world - but when Orthodox try to venerate him AND Claim he was against all things Church of the East ......it is simply not factual. It also avoids how one cannot say "The Church says St.Isaac is a Saint and that settles it!!!" when the Same Church says ANYONE commending Theodore would also be seen as a heretic - making St. Isaac a HUGE paradox.
For our Saint to do that shows a different picture than what many say of him in the name of the Church when it comes to assuming He reflects EO today. He assuredly did not reflect the majority of EO dogmatic on rejecting or condemning all things Theodore....
Going past that simple point misses the issue entirely. But ultimately, I agree with others when noting I truly do not doubt that St Isaac is a Saint, yet I also don't doubt he was outside the bounds of visible Eastern Orthodoxy.
that is if the Church as a whole accepts theological errors like that. I do not say only look to St Paisios, only that he is a greater authority than anyone you have referenced. and coming up with some hypothetical vision that no one had ever does not lend credence to your argument. I am not talking about someone who logically speculated about St Isaac, and tried to make sense of an apparent contradiction.
I have never said that you believed St. Paisios was the sole authority to look to, although again None of that deals with the fact that St.Paisios will never be GREATER than the facts of what St.Isaac and others in his time said - and that is hardly a greater authority than what others have said here because of a vision he had. If it does not line up with what someone says, consistent with Scriptural witness, the vision is taken with a grain of salt and not the final word.
So again, IMHO, it seems you are unfortunately making an argument that is circular and not dealing with what Theodore actually said - if you cannot go beyond a slogan, you're not dealing with St.Isaac.
if you can name the saints that affirm either that Isaac actually was Nestorian, I would love to hear it. saying he was simply by saying his love for his teacher or what he thought of Theodore would not be enough, because it is not more than the Council.
When you actually address where St.Isaac operated and the locations he was present in (or what the author of the OP already stated), then I will take the question seriously. It was already noted earlier and I don't care to repeat myself after several times, as
The Wisdom of Saint Isaac the Syrian noted this in the intro of the book (by Dr.Sebastian Brock):
"Little is known of the circumstances of St Isaac's life. Like a number of other distinguished Syriac writers of the seventh century, St Isaac was born in the region of modern Qatar, on the Gulf. It must have been there that he received his early monastic training and education, when he will have first become familiar with the great writers on the spiritual life, both Syriac and Greek (in Syriac translation), men such as St Ephrem, John the Solitary, Evagrius, Macarius, Abba Isaiah, Mark the Monk and many others.
"The only fixed chronological point in his life was his consecration as bishop of Ninveveh (Mosul) be George, who was Catholicos Patriarch of the Church of the East from 661-681. St Isaac's episcopal career, however, was a brief one, since, 'for a reason which only God knows' (as one biographical writer put it) after only five months in office he retired to live the life of a hermit somewhere in the mountains of south-east Iraq, attached to the monastery of Rabban Shabur. There he appears to have lived to a great age, and it was perhaps only then that, at the urging of his spiritual disciples, he committed his teaching on so many different aspects of the spiritual life to writing.
"In the form in which they have been transmitted St Isaac's surviving works fall into a 'First Part' and a 'Second Part'. The First Part, which consists of eighty-two homilies, had a wide circulation, and was already by the eighth/ninth century read in monastic circles of other churches than his own, for it was approximately then that most of his collection of homilies was translated into Greek in the Orthodox monastery of St Saba in Palestine. Incorporated into this translation, and given under St Isaac's name, are give texts which are not in fact by him: four of these are by another, slightly later, monastic writer of the Church of the East, John the Elder (also known as John Saba, or John of Dalyatha), while the fifth is the abbreviated form of a letter on the spiritual life by the Syrian Orthodox theologian, Philoxenus of Mabbug, who died in 523."
Beyond the fact that he already noted his work with the Church of the East (and to argue otherwise would be selective ignorance with asking a question while not dealing with evidence), Thus far, it has been a lot of cherry picking and avoiding the references for where St.Isaac already noted he operated from. We don't just go with his teacher/mentor and the school of thought he operated from in regards to Theodore/Persian culture - and his being a Bishop in the Church of the East is not a light detail.
And of course, this has already been covered. Dr. Sebastian Brock is the foremost scholar in the world and has tackled this issue before in depth alongside others:
And of course, as said before, For a great read on Saint Isaac of Nineveh check out The Spiritual World of Saint Isaac the Syrian, written by Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev:
The Spiritual World Of Isaac The Syrian (Cistercian Studies): Hilarion Alfeyev, Bishop Kallistos Ware of Diokleia: 9780879077754: Amazon.com: Books
The book discusses in-depth where St.Isaac notes his high appreciation for Theodore and Diodore and the ways they both were instrumental in helping him be who he is. Specifically, I am glad for where it pointed out how St.Isaac called Diodore "
a person of high intelligence, someone from whose fountain the clear-sounding Theodore himself drank, the great teacher of the Church, wonderful among the teachers and instructor of Theodore."
We should not be surprised at all of the references St.Isaac gives to others in the Church of the East since the man is quite diverse. As said earlier, In "The Syriac Fathers on Prayer and the Spiritual Life", a work translated and introduced by Dr. Sebastian Brock, Brock makes the following remark(s) on the Canon of St. Isaac's writings:
"Isaac's extensive writings all seem to be the product of his old age; they thus date approximately to the last decade or so of the seventh century. One biographical account states that he wrote 'five volumes of instruction for monks'; if this is correct, then much will have been lost, for the works which have come down to us and which are definitely genuine are divided into two parts. These two parts were clearly put together after Isaac's death." ( p. 243 )
"Isaac is not a systematic writer and his spirituality draws on many different sources, notably Evagrius, John of Apamea ( whose threefold pattern of the spiritual life he sometimes employs ), the Macarian Homilies, the Apophthegmata and related literature of the Egyptian Fathers ( this had been made readily accessible by Ananisho in the mid-seventh century to monks of the Church of the East in a massive compilation known as the 'Paradise of the Fathers' ), Theodore of Mopsuestia ( to whom Isaac normally refers as 'the Exegete', par excellence ), Abba Isaiah, and Mark the Hermit." ( p. 244-245 )
I will take what the councils say over anything St Isaac says.
If that is the case.....By that logic, you'd have no business trying to appropriate St.Isaac outside of his context when he referenced/advocated and promoted others as the standard (Theodore and Church of the East) that certain councils disagreed with. But of course, if not dealing with what St.Isaac SAID, it is another issue. I will take St.Isaac seriously in the context he lived in...
I never said he did not honor Theodore, and if he was connected, you would easily show me the Nestorian bishops that consecrated him, and the Nestorian services he had throughout his life and his death. that would shut me up.
Why would I repeat what was said and what others noted earlier? Respectfully, You already avoided the scholarship AND what St.Isaac said directly, alongside those leading in the field. We already have it where He was most definitely of the East Syrian tradition. And we know that he was consecrated bishop in an area where there was only the hierarchy of the Assyrian Church of the East. Moreover, in his writings (at Volume 1), he does not say anything explicit and definite on the matter of Christology (be
yond his views of God's Love in Christ), so we can not say surely whether he was Nestorian in his teaching or not. However, the Syriac original of Volume 1 has plenty of references to Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore, both of whom are well-known Nestorian writers accused of heresy at Chalcedon. He referenced them extensively when it came to his views on Hell/Judgement (more shared in
St Isaac the Syrian: The Triumph of the Kingdom over Gehenna ) - and
St.Isaac himself was a synthesis of the views of Diodore, Theodore and Nestorius at several points.
One can simply investigate
Ascetical Homilies of St. Isaac the Syrian (Volume 1)
Also, One can go to
The Spiritual World Of Isaac The Syrian for further discussion on the actual world that the man developed in..
.
With St.Isaac, St Isaac's writing espouses the kind of "restoration of all things" as taught by Theodore of Mopuestia. Additionally, St. Isaac being established as a bishop of the Assyrian Church of the East, known now as the Nestorian Church, can be seen in the writings of Father George Florosvsky since he says the following in his
footnotes to the Ways of Russian Theology:
43. Isaac the Syrian or Isaac of Nineveh (d. c. 700), a Syrian bishop, theologian and monk, is venerated as a saint by Eastern Christianity even though he passed his life as a Nestorian. He was a Nestorian bishop, however, for only five months. He then resigned and returned to monastic life. His numerous works, which were a basic source for both Eastern and Western Christianity, had a powerful influence on Russian spirituality.
As other Orthodox scholars have noted, more in
Presentation at the First International Patristics Conference of the Ss. Cyril and Methodius Theological Institute of Post-Graduate Studies St. Isaac the Syrian and His Spiritual Legacy:
In the Orthodox Church Isaac the Syrian has been venerated for more than a millennium. This began with the appearance of the Greek translation of his works and continues to this day. The memory of St. Isaac the Syrian, Bishop of Nineveh, is kept by the Orthodox Church on 10th February (28th January according to the Old Style calendar), together with the memory of another great Syrian writer and ascetic, St. Ephraim the Syrian. The image of Isaac the Syrian is often present in iconostases and frescos of Orthodox Churches as well as in book miniatures. One of the well-known depictions of Isaac, which the participants of this conference can see for themselves, dates back to the beginning of the sixteenth century: it is located in the local row of the original iconostasis of the Dormition Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. At present this iconostasis covered by other, later images; however, through a ‘window’ in the local row there are visible images of three saints, one of whom is St. Isaac the Syrian.
We may consider it an ‘ecclesiastical phenomenon’ the fact that a humble bishop of the Church of the East from a remote province of Persia became a holy father of the post-Chalcedon Orthodox Church. Among Russian patrologists the first to note this phenomenon was Fr. Georges Florovsky. In his book The Byzantine Fathers of the V – VIII Centuries he wrote: ‘There is much that is not clear in the life of St. Isaac… He was made a bishop in the monastery of Bet-Bai by Patriarch George (660 – 680)… We are here in the Nestorian milieu, and at the same time it is here that Isaac stands out from this milieu. It is unclear why he left Nineveh; we may surmise that is was because of disagreements with the local clergy. He lived a solitary life in the monastery, and yet his teaching was a temptation…. He left behind the Antiochian tradition, and yet he refers to the Interpreter[27] many times.’[28]
Since the fact that Isaac the Syrian belonged to the Church of the East had already been established by scholars at the time of Florovsky, throughout the twentieth century this fact has never been disputed by either Russian or Western scholars. And yet he poses a problem for Orthodox scholars: how could a great saint who is venerated throughout the Orthodox Church be a Nestorian? There have been various attempts to answer this question. Florovsky preferred not to enter into discussion of the problem, limiting himself to a remark that St. Isaac ‘stood out’ in the Nestorian milieu. Some have seen a solution to the problem by saying that Isaac only ‘formally’ belonged to the Nestorian Church. This opinion was adhered to by the well-known Russian patrologist Archbishop Basil (Krivoshein): ‘In as far as we can judge by the historical data that has come down to us, St. Isaac was for a short period bishop of the city of Nineveh which came under the jurisdiction of the Church in the Persian Empire, as though his whole life’s activity was carried out within the confines of this Church. Nevertheless, the Orthodox Church has since times of old venerated him as a saint and esteems highly his spiritual works, which of course do not contain any “Nestorianism” whatsoever. And I if course shall never dare to take away his title of ‘saint’, even though the fact of his belonging (albeit formally) to the Nestorian Church challenges the Orthodox theological consciousness with serious problems on the nature of the Church and of the possibility of a life of grace and sanctity beyond its visible boundaries’[29].
There's also
The Sabaite Heritage In the Orthodox Church from the 5th Century to the Present", as it concerns the contacts the Assyrian monks had with Jerusalem and the Mar Saba Monastery. One can scroll to page 202 and study on how this andSt Isaac's writing came to us
We also have what Hieromonk Alexander pointed out when he said the following in review of
The Spiritual World of St.Isaac:
Only the most grace-proof could fail to be moved by this book. Isaac is himself cause for “wonder,” a note echoed at the beginning by Bishop Kallistos account of his own growing love for this desert hermit (9-12), and at book’s end by what I take to be an autobiographical account, phrased in the third person, of Alfeyev’s own love affair with the saint, which began during the author’s novitiate (299). It is hard not to love this old man of the desert. “He speaks,” wrote the Catholicos Yuhanna ibn Barsai, “the language of the heavenly ones” (28). Yet, in this admiring phrase from an eighth-century prelate of the “Nestorian” Church, we are in fact at the edges of a certain controversy around Isaac, one which we know little about, save that it was there. Likewise, and much more clearly, we know of controversies around – and even condemnations launched against – other remarkable figures in the spiritual literature of the East Syrians: Martyrius (or Sahdona), Joseph the Seer, and especially the luminous John of Dalyatha, three of whose homilies found a home in the Greek edition of Isaac under the latter’s name, and who so amazingly anticipates the fourteenth-century, Byzantine Hesychasts. All three came under censure, and the censure appears to have been related to their insistence on the possibility of deification, on its reality not just in the world to come, but even now, however partially and momentarily. They appear to have run up against the strict school theology begun by Theodore of Mopsuestia and carried on enthusiatically by Theodore’s admirers in the Church of the East. Alfeyev devotes some space to this question (54-9), seeing in Isaac’s traditional language of a “mingling” of God and man in Christ “a way of overcoming the extremes of dyophysitism,” of breaking down “the sharp boundaries between God and creation which are a characteristic of the strongly dyophysite position of the Church of the East” (58), but, were this book the sort of scholarly investigation that it does not pretend to be, the question could easily have been pursued further.
Obviously, too, St. Isaac poses questions for those of us whose inheritance lies on the other side of the line dividing Nestorius from Cyril of Alexandria. Isaac clearly appears to have stretched the possibilities of “Nestorian” Christology and soteriology, but even so, and just as clearly, he made them the vehicle of a spirituality – indeed, of a vibrant witness – that generations of “Orthodox,” whether Chalcedonian or non-Chalcedonian, have rejoiced in acknowledging as the substance of their own faith and hope. We both call him saint, and rightly so, and we venerate his image, seek his intercessions, ask his counsel, and learn from him, and we have both been doing so for over sixty generations. Does this not raise a little question over the nature and necessity of the Christological Controversy that wracked the whole Church in all the East for three hundred years, and that left behind it three separate communities of Nicene Christians continually at each others’ throats until the armies of Islam swept up and over them all? Is there not, on the other hand, some little hope of ultimate reconciliation in, say, the story of Fr Matta al Meskin, a devout Copt who retired to a desert cave around 1950 armed with an Arabic translation of the scriptures, the Kadloubovsky-Palmer selections from the Philokalia , and Wensinck’s eccentric English rendering of Isaac’s Discourses, and who, from that retreat and with those sources, emerged from his cave to lead the renewal of Coptic monasticism, and contribute to the vital renewal of the whole Egyptian Church, that are both still under way today? A revered “Monophysite” monk is shaped by Isaac, an equally revered abbot of Mt Athos (Archimandrite Vasseilios) sings Isaac’s praises to the point of near incoherence, and both thus, the “Monophysite” and the Orthodox, find in this seventh-century “Nestorian” the very wellsprings of the Faith. Nor is their discovery an illusion. They are right. Isaac is a voice of the great tradition, a witness of the living Voice, of the undying Flame, of the light and life of the Risen One handed down the generations by his Spirit. Yet what does this say in turn about our divisions, about the conciliar definitions and counter-definitions, the anathemas and counter-anathemas? I for one am certainly not prepared to say that the precisions in theological vocabulary resulting from the controversies of the fifth through seventh centuries are worthless, or meaningless, but I do wonder, given the “wonder” of Isaac, how absolute a value we are obliged to accord our terminological advances, particularly when we find in him an exemplar par excellence of “embodied theosis ,” which is to say, of that very possibility and promise which all those disputes – speaking from the Cyrillian side of the line – were intended to defend and preserve. Isaac is not only wonderful and holy. He is also disturbing. I have no answers to this puzzle, but I do cherish the suspicion that our Lord expects us to mull it over a bit. Perhaps he has left us this saint as a kind of gentle question mark placed over some of our certainties. Not over the essential ones, for Isaac himself is proof of those, but perhaps over others that we – and not God – have declared certain. May he grant that his Isaac disturb us all, and that we as a result grow in that Love which the saint never tired of praising. Grace and peace, too, to the author, who has made the holy man so much more available to us with this splendid book.
Hieromonk Alexander (Golitzin)
Thus again, it is not really showing authenticity with asking for verification when you avoided much from the onset of the thread. You would easily deal with what St. Isaac said on the Church of the East and other scholars - point for point, quote for quote - if you were seriously. Thus far, however, all you've said is "St. Isaac is not with the CHURCH OF THE EAST!" (as if that counts for evidence of any kind).
So seriously, if you really wanted to deal with St. Isaac, you'd deal with his Writings. Respectfully, That has yet to happen and it has already been avoided with fact on where he was consecrated a Bishop - so I'm not really concerned with showing you again what was already noted till you can show yourself a bit more concerned in what the man stated -
No it wouldn't
For others have already shared on that - and it has yet to be acknowledged. If you already want to believe what you believe, that's your choice - but being concerned for what would "shut you up" isn't what I'm about.
For me, The facts are what matter, whether someone believes something or not.
again, that is because you are not looking at it the way I am. I do not think that the Orthodox Church would glorify someone who was never in our communion. that means that it, again, does not matter how much St Isaac venerated Theodore personally. the Church, by having him on the calendar affirms his Orthodoxy and not that of Theodore, who is condemned in his person. and he did teach some very anti-Nestorian things. hanging out here in the Library I ran across him teaching the mutual exchange of properties in the Lord, which is very anti-Nestorian.
It has already been mentioned that the Church calendar having him hardly settles the issue since the Church also noted directly in the 5th Council that anyone commending Theodore was also to be condemned - thus meaning we again have a major contradiction. This is why we study things in their fullness and why others have said St.Isaac is very complicated when seeing him occupy a dual reality.
Starting with "I do not think that..." and avoiding what IS always makes a difference since it is starting off with the historical record rather than having a belief...and looking for what confirms that or avoiding what goes against that. The Church has several on the calendar who themselves came from outside bounds - and that in/of itself is what has shaped other Orthodox when noting someone in a Calendar can be Orthodox in their lifestyle even if not located within Orthodox world. This is why many accept St.Isaac of Ninevah when seeing his associations - and taking seriously what Theodore (whom St.Isaac reflected) said. And what was condemned with Theodore was never ALL of what he advocated anyhow - for he was condemned on account of really being the teacher of Nestorius/the one whom Nestorius took the extreme. Outside of that, his theology is still what shaped St.Isaac - and this is why it was never a matter in councils of one being only all "herectic', all 'Saint' or all bad/good. There is a world of nuance and this is why we have to be consistent. Both Theodore AND St.Isaac did many things against Nestorianism and I've seen that firsthand in their writings when it comes to the Person of Christ.
This isn't a new concept, of course, as Abba Evagrius of Pontus was anathematized for some of his views on Christology and the preexistence of souls. Nonetheless, despite the anathamatization some of his works are actually in the Philokalia itself and he is oft quoted by many of our monastic saints.
We can't build a belief outside of seeing what the Saints said - and thus, whatever the sensibilities of people are have to match up with what St. Isaac did to see what he was about. If he was always Orthodox, one would have already had record of him not being with the Assyrian Church of the East or being so direct in his support of that world - but we don't have that. One must let him speak for himself. Historically, of course, during St. Isaac's lifetime, there was at least one in the region - well known and influential - who held to the Chalcedonian understanding (Martyrius-Sadhona) ...
And as my friend A.T said best:
Collecting writings -- location is not a problem recall, the EO has saints from all over, and our children's Palestinian Godparent, and Lebanese Godparent, are quite adamant that they are GREEK Orthodox as their family has been for centuries
And we can see the same thing with others. As another wisely pointed out:
In the end, the ecclesiological question of sanctity and the Church is the one that really consumes people, and one often hidden away behind other issues. At one direct level, it is clear that St Isaac lived and died in communion with an ecclesial body that was not in communion with the Church - and yet that same Church has given him, and maintains for him, the title 'Saint'. ....Many people become deeply worried, perhaps afraid, when they encounter the reality of the Church's ascetical approach to its members, bound up in certain episodes or facts that jar with black-and-white categorisations: for example the fact that Origen, a man many are happy simply to call 'heretic, end of story', was in fact the singular most influential theologian on most of the great saints of the fourth century; that Arius was in fact rehabilitated to the Church, yet still called heretic; that Isaac might be outside the clear bounds of ecclesiological jurisdiction, yet still called 'saint'; etc. Each of these can be explained away by approaching the story from a certain slant; but the real testimony of the Church is that truth works in a different category than simply analysis of data......
In some sense, the point of the canons is not to attempt definition of how sanctity might exist outside the Church; canons exist to foster life within it, and to ensure the life lived in the Church is the authentic life in Christ as the Church has received it. That sanctity can exist outside the earthly bounds of the Church is a given, if one reads the scripture as far as the testimony of Melchizadek or the Centurion who encountered Christ; but the canons exist to foster right life within, not without.
Examples of lives transfigured in Christ, which also simultaneously examples of lives lived beyond the canonically-defined limits of Church life, are traditionally commended in the Church (a la St Isaac, the Georgian martyrs, etc.), whilst maintaining nonetheless the canonical condemnation of a general situation which they may have transcended in their person. There are individuals whose lives of holiness are profitable for instruction and veneration, despite other aspects of those lives which might be ascetically / ecclesiologically condemnable in canonical terms. This the Church has always acknowledged - even as far back as the apostles (e.g. it is canonically condemned to deny the Lord, especially in public and for reasons of persecution, but Peter does so, and yet is venerated); but this acknowledgement is met with caution, given that the ascetical focus of canons condemning, e.g. Nestorianism, remain proper even if individuals falling under the title 'Nestorian' might have much to teach. In St Isaac's case, this is clearly what the Church has done since very soon after his death: accepted the sanctity of an obviously transfigured life, while maintaining the canonical condemnation of the broader context in which that life was lived.
I don't, this is what the Church teaches about both men
That I understand and have already noted (i.e. noting how the Church has said Theodorus was condemned post-death and St.Isaac was received) - but examining what both have been accepted in (and the degree ) is a different conversation.
With that being said, if you'd like to go further on the issue, I think it'd help if the previous resources were addressed to help with being on the same page/not having misunderstanding. As an example, you brought up the situation of how the Church anathematized Theodore and proclaimed St.Isaac a Saint - but I haven't seen where you addressed t
he 5th Council when it said commending Theodore also meant one was anathematized (and thus St.Isaac would be implicated because of his doing just that for Theodore AND Diodore). You also asked on the Nestorian Bishop who ordained St.Isaac and verification, as an example, and I shared noted St.Isaac was ordained a bishop in the monastery of Bet-Bai by
Patriarch George (660 – 680) - more
found here in
The Book of Governors: The Historia Monastica of Thomas, Bishop of Thomas Bishop of Marga A.D.940. But you didn't really tackle it at several points when I noted who that was in your questioning me for documentation - and, IMHO, that seems to indicate one can get so focused on the point they're making that they end up missing what someone was conveying to address it. Generally, if you respond to something I say to another (as
occurred when I gave a shout-out to Commander Xenophon initially and you commented ), I'll respectfully engage it to the best of my ability - but I don't want to go too in-depth if there's a lot of speaking past one another - and not a real engagement on things which were previously laid out.
Of course I have no issue addressing any questions point-for-point (despite how busy I have been with several PhD projects in academia/education and traveling happening), but I do not want to do futility if you bring up a concern which I've already sought to address comprehensively and give verification/reference for as best as possible. Peace
