Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I don't quite follow...are you saying Patriarch Ignatius IV is not part of the Church?
And as said before, your point is moot (and a circular one) when it ignores at several points where Theodore was both referenced AND celebrated as the person the Church needed to listen to - and we already know that Theodore was the person Nestorius referenced largely for his own theology AND was received into the Assyrian Church because of it.no, I am saying your point about his referencing Theodore is not a strong one, what matters is if there is evidence from that time that can prove he was actually Nestorian. \.
What happens with a lot of canonical saints in similar situations does not change the main issue being discussed here, as it concerns St.Isaac referencing other leaders in the Church of the East extensively - and pointing to the need for the Church to both respect/listen to them. His own words are the focus and we cannot go around that by saying "Well, look at what happened to others" since the issue is "What did St.Isaac SAY and who did he point to?"n. I know a lot of folks say he was, and he was in a Nestorian area at the time, and his writings had some of those leanings. but you see that with a lot of canonical saints at the time of heresies, but they were always in the one Church.
Trusting St. Paisios doesn't change where it has been said in the Church many times that Saints were not infalliable - and it does not matter what St. Paisios said if it contradicts what another Saint said directly, as that would be illogical. Talking on trusting him more than PhDs sounds nice, but I will go with what the other Saints have said in their own words (beyond both PhDs and St.Paisios from the 20th century) - and it doesn't make a good case saying the non-Chalcedonians venerate him and therefore he cannot be Nestorian. There are already non-Chalcedonians who venerate him but also note he did not advocate Nestorianism since Theodore did not espouse the tenants of Nestorianism anyhow - AND this is something other non-Chalcedonian and Chalcedonians have pointed out before when it comes to understanding that Nestorious was an extreme of what Theodore advocated and yet what was condemned by him (Nestorianism) was also condemned by Theodore.so yeah, I can say that I don't think he was Nestorian because I trust St Paisios more than any PhD on Church matters, and because the non-Chalcedonians venerate him. I highly doubt a group that called for the condemnation of Theodore (and rightly so) would venerate someone who is at one with that theology.
And as said before, your point is moot (and a circular one) when it ignores at several points where Theodore was both referenced AND celebrated as the person the Church needed to listen to - and we already know that Theodore was the person Nestorius referenced largely for his own theology AND was received into the Assyrian Church because of it.
As stated previously, this is what St. Isaac said verbatim on Theodore of Mopsuestia:
There are other places besides that - but it the evidence has been there for a long time. Thus, again, it would not be consistent or factual to claim St. Isaac was not Nestorian when Theodore was Nestorius's spiritual Father.
And again, as said before, St. Cyprian having a personal view of Tertullian doesn't change where Tertullian was not heretical or that he was a revered Church Father in his views, as stated previously:hence me bringing up St Cyprian's personal veneration of Tertullian.
sure it would, St Cyprian and Tertullian
.
trying to bring up Tertullian as a negative doesn't really work in light of the fact that Tertullian WAS one of the Church Fathers revered in the Church. And speaking of him being herectical is ironic since he sought to address herectical views:
- Book III Against Marcion by Tertullian (160-220): Tertullian defends the Christian view of Christ against an early heretic Marcion. In particular, Tertullian argues that Christ really was the incarnate God and Tertullian noted it best when saying "How will all this be true in Him, if He was not himself true....if He really had not in Himself that which might be crucified, might die, might be buried, and might rise again? [I mean] this flesh suffused with blood, built up with bones, interwoven with nerves, entwined with veins, [a flesh] which knew how to be born, and how to die, human without doubt, as born of a human being (On The Flesh of Christ)
Of course, many in more conservative circles do not like him because of the fact that he and others advocated for Subordinationism (which is prominent among the pre-Nicene Church Fathers when it came to their understanding of the Godhead - as shared before and here as well ) - and I've noted before to folks that Tertullian stands out in other ways as well since Tertullian, while affirming Mary's virginal conception of Jesus, did not hold that Mary was virginal in childbirth - in addition to his view that "brothers and sisters" of Christ were to be blood brothers and sisters (based on his views in Mark 3:31-35).
Nonetheless, although his view was not the consensus of the church when it came to the concept of being a virgin, we still honor him. At the end of the day, the Fathers honored Tertullian and so we must as well. It was Tertullian who helped Christians to keep themselves wise when it came to how they operated in the Roman Empire when approaching popular culture and politics in a manner that focused on the Church resisting popular culture and the wider society at every turn (the extreme example of this being Amish communities today) - and yet advocating for prayer/intercession be done for the leaders of his time(more in A Christian Economy and Why does Paganism scare Christians? and Orthodox Monarchs appointed by God?). There were more things beyond that which could be noted ...
St. Cyprian having a personal view of Tertullian doesn't change where Tertullian was not heretical or that he was a revered Church Father.
Moot point and it does not change the main issue which was "Did St. Isaac point to others who were part of the Church of the East and revere them?" - anything outside of that would be changing the goal posts.
Claiming Tertullian is not a Father isn't something claimed by the Early Church.except that Tertullian was heretical and is not a Father (like Theodore).
Respectfully, while that may be true, that's neither here nor there since the main issue was "Did St.Isaac point back to Theodore/his ideology as someone to reference/take seriously and note in his writings as his basis of thought?" - and since St. Isaac DID reference/note Theodore as the basis for his theology, there's no escaping where one celebrating Him is also celebrating Theodore whom he honored.not moot point. Christians have been doing that forever. heck, the Cappadocians edited the bad Origen from the good Origen, and pointed folks to him even though during Origen's lifetime folks were calling him a heretic toward the end of his life, to include some of our saints. and most of the Fathers at the First Council had Originist leanings.
They actually too things further, as As the Patriarchs said directly:Not "supposedly." Antioch agreed with the Syriac Orthodox Church, and the view of HB Ignatius IV and HH Ignatius Zakka Iwas, Memory Eternal, is clear: the two Parriarchates are both one church. Also, if there can be 9 councils, or even 10, why not 3?
Here is the official agreement between the two Churches of Antioch:
A Synodal and Patriarchal Letter.
To All Our Children, Protected by God, of the Holy See of Antioch:
Beloved:
You must have heard of the continuous efforts for decades by our Church with the sister Syrian Orthodox Church to foster a better knowledge and understanding of both Churches, whether on the dogmatic or pastoral level. These attempts are nothing but a natural expression that the Orthodox Churches, and especially those within the Holy See of Antioch, are called to articulate the will of the Lord that all may be obey, just as the Son is One with the Heavenly Father (John 10:30).
It is our duty and that of our brothers in the Syrian Orthodox Church to witness to Christ in our Eastern region where He was born, preached, suffered, was buried and rose from the dead, ascended into Heaven, and sent down His Holy and Life Giving Spirit upon His holy Apostles.
All the meetings, the fellowship, the oral and written declarations meant that we belong to One Faith even though history had manifested our division more than the aspects of our unity.
All this has called upon our Holy Synod of Antioch to bear witness to the progress of our Church in the See of Antioch towards unity that preserves for each Church its authentic Oriental heritage whereby the one Antiochian Church benefits from its sister Church and is enriched in its traditions, literature and holy rituals.
Every endeavor and pursuit in the direction of the coming together of the two Churches is based on the conviction that this orientation is from the Holy Spirit, and it will give the Eastern Orthodox image more light and radiance, that it has lacked for centuries before.
Having recognized the efforts done in the direction of unity between the two Churches, and being convinced that this direction was inspired by the Holy Spirit and projects a radiant image of Eastern Christianity overshadowed during centuries, the Holy Synod of the Church of Antioch saw the need to give a concrete expression of the close fellowship between the two Churches, the Syrian Orthodox Church and the Eastern Orthodox for the edification of their faithful.
Thus, the following decisions were taken:
Damascus
- We affirm the total and mutual respect of the spirituality, heritage and Holy Fathers of both Churches. The integrity of both the Byzantine and Syriac liturgies is to be preserved.
- The heritage of the Fathers in both Churches and their traditions as a whole should be integrated into Christian education curricula and theological studies. Exchanges of professors and students are to be enhanced.
- Both Churches shall refrain from accepting any faithful from accepting any faithful from one Church into the membership of the other, irrespective of all motivations or reasons.
- Meetings between the two Churches, at the level of their Synods, according to the will of the two Churches, will be held whenever the need arises.
- Every Church will remain the reference and authority for its faithful, pertaining to matters of personal status (marriage, divorce, adoption, etc.).
- If bishops of the two Churches participate at a holy baptism or funeral service, the one belonging to the Church of the baptized or deceased will preside. In case of a holy matrimony service, the bishop of the bridegroom's Church will preside.
- The above mentioned is not applicable to the concelebration in the Divine Liturgy.
- What applies to bishops equally applies to the priests of both Churches.
- In localities where there is only one priest, from either Church, he will celebrate services for the faithful of both Churches, including the Divine Liturgy, pastoral duties, and holy matrimony. He will keep an independent record for each Church and transmit that of the sister Church to its authorities.
- If two priests of the two Churches happen to be in a locality where there is only one Church, they take turns in making use of its facilities.
- If a bishop from one Church and a priest from the sister Church happen to concelebrate a service, the first will preside even when it is the priest's parish.
- Ordinations into the holy orders are performed by the authorities of each Church for its own members. It would be advisable to invite the faithful of the sister Church to attend.
- Godfathers, godmothers (in baptism) and witnesses in holy matrimony can be chosen from the members of the sister Church.
- Both Churches will exchange visits and will co-operate in the various areas of social, cultural and educational work.
We ask God's help to continue strengthening our relations with the sister Church, and with other Churches, so that we all become one community under one Shepherd.
12 November 1991
Patriarch Ignatios IV
of the Greek Antiochian Church
Patriarch Ignatius Zakka Iwas
of the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch
Claiming Tertullian is not a Father isn't something claimed by the Early Church.
One can say he was a Father that later fell into concerning stances, as he later adopted Montanism at point but he is still was one of the pre-Nicene Fathers and stood against heresy (as did Theodore who was supported by St.Isaac as one the Church needed to revere) - but the man represents one of the original lay-writers of the church - and with Montanism, there was a stage at the end of Tertullian’s life where he splits with the Montanist, which is often overlooked and his writings by and large are considered standard representation for Orthodoxy. For despite how he got involved with Montanism at one point, he continued to write against heresy, especially Gnosticism (more in CHURCH FATHERS: Against the Valentinians (Tertullian) - New Advent ) - becoming the teacher of Cyprian and the predecessor of Augustine. But on the issue, we also see context since there was a very specific point/reason for why he got involved with the Montanist in the first place, as Tertullian had grown angry at what looked like compromise creeping into the church - unwillingness to be martyred and willingness to forgive more serious public sin (as noted in CHURCH FATHERS: De Fuga in Persecutione (Tertullian) ). When understanding why he aligned himself with them on that basis, it makes sense why it was a very temporary move.
John McGuckin points this out well when noting the following:
From around 205 his [Tertullian's] writings show an increasing respect for Montanist ideas, but the style of Montanism as it was then influential in North Africa was a much-moderated form of the original Asia Minor movement, and there is no clear indication that he ever broke from the catholic community."
Others have pointed this out as well:
Certainly within Tertullian's writings, the New Prophecy had no characteristics of a schism. There was no rival hierarchy as there was later with Novatianism and Donatism. While most catholics were psychics [immature Christians], not spiritual (iei. 11.1), Tertullian insisted that there were spiritual bishops (iei. 16.3) who shared his opposition to the readmission of serious sinners. Cyprian (Ep. 55.21) wrote of these earlier bishops who held such views. Cyprian would not have followed Tertullian so assiduously had Tertullian been schismatic….
This [the agreement of some bishops with Tertullian] 'is a clear demonstration that Tertullian's attacks were in the main directed more at particular bishops and their presumptuous claims than at episcopal office as such'….
And of course, we honor Tertullian because St. Cyprus continues to do so - as even Jerome noted (CHURCH FATHERS: De Viris Illustribus (Jerome) ):
"I myself have seen a certain Paul an old man of Concordia, a town of Italy, who, while he himself was a very young man had been secretary to the blessed Cyprian who was already advanced in age. He said that he himself had seen how Cyprian was accustomed never to pass a day without reading Tertullian, and that he frequently said to him, 'Give me the master,' meaning by this, Tertullian.
The man would never stop honoring his teacher whom he built his thoughts/ideas on - and likewise, we honor him for how he built things up:
He and others advocated for Subordinationism (which is prominent among the pre-Nicene Church Fathers ) - this is a basic when seeing what the pre-Nicene Church Fathers advocated in their understanding of the Godhead - as shared before and here as well ) - and I've noted before to folks that Tertullian stands out in other ways as well since Tertullian, while affirming Mary's virginal conception of Jesus, did not hold that Mary was virginal in childbirth - in addition to his view that "brothers and sisters" of Christ were to be blood brothers and sisters (based on his views in Mark 3:31-35).
- Book III Against Marcion by Tertullian (160-220): Tertullian defends the Christian view of Christ against an early heretic Marcion. In particular, Tertullian argues that Christ really was the incarnate God and Tertullian noted it best when saying "How will all this be true in Him, if He was not himself true....if He really had not in Himself that which might be crucified, might die, might be buried, and might rise again? [I mean] this flesh suffused with blood, built up with bones, interwoven with nerves, entwined with veins, [a flesh] which knew how to be born, and how to die, human without doubt, as born of a human being (On The Flesh of Christ)
If you want to argue against him being a Church Father, one can do so but it'd have little to do with examining St. Isaac's theology - and I say that since you chose to bring up Tertullian.
Respectfully, while that may be true, that's neither here nor there since the main issue was "Did St.Isaac point back to Theodore/his ideology as someone to reference/take seriously and note in his writings as his basis of thought?" - and since St. Isaac DID reference/note Theodore as the basis for his theology, there's no escaping where one celebrating Him is also celebrating Theodore whom he honored.
By the logic you're advocating, because others pointed to a 'good' Origen and a 'bad' Origen, it also means that there was a 'good' Theodore and a 'bad' Theodore - a Theodore who was a part of the Church of the East. If it is already accepted with Origen and not wholesale throwing him out, there's inconsistency saying one can't do so with others such as Theodore when noting phases of life and still seeing them as people to reverence.
And again, ultimately, St. Isaac was one who revered Theodore and noted in no uncertain terms that he had serious issue with others refusing to honor him/his teachings - a consistent point St. Isaac noted his entire life. Thus, one CANNOT try to revere St. Isaac and ignore his reverence for Theodore at the same time since it is not honest with what he wrote....or honest in what inspired him the most.
Saying you value St. Isaac is saying you honor/value Theodore whose theology St.Isaac built upon - and really, this would be no different than trying to say one wants to honor a celebrity like Michael Jackson and yet ignore where MJ was largely influenced by James Brown - and noted that when it came to his dance moves. You can say you don't like James Brown as a the Godfather of Soul - but you cannot honestly say you value MJ if ignoring where MJ said "I learned Dance moves from this man" since he didn't make things up on his own
Likewise, we honor the spiritual fathers/grandfathers of the ones who are Saints in the Church, for without those folks there would be no Saints to begin with. This is why we CANNOT try to argue against not supporting Theodore while trying to claim St. Isaac since St.Isaac will not allow for that when it comes to his consistent referencing of Theodore and building his thoughts on the man.
Modern definitions don't change what the Fathers said or claimed of each other, especially since Tertullian did not leave the Church. Again, one needs reference and not a slogan. This is a basic when it comes to noting the differences between Great Fathers, Greek Fathers, Cappadocian Fathers, etc. Orthodox have noted before that Tertullian and Origen actually are considered Church Fathers, but there are reasons they aren't St. Tertullian and St. Origen, as we obviously know that Tertullian fell into heresy and a good portion of Origen's writings were condemned at an Ecumenical Council.not in the Synaxarion = not a Father. he may have contributed (like Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Origen, etc) but that does not make him a Church Father. especially since he left the Church.
Actually, what you were advocating is what the modern scholarship has noted, seeing what the Early Church has already noted alongside earlier Saints. It generally doesn't help trying to make oneself different in argumentation from what you label as modern scholarship when you're doing exactly the same. It was not an ancient practice to assume that someone not on a calandar was not a Saint OR that the early Church did not consider someone a Father - so again, consistency is important rather than circular thinking on the issue.yes, I get that is what a lot of modern scholarship says, but the academic world is not where we look to for what consitutes the Church. that is a modern Western temptation. he is not on our calandar, so while he may have contributed much, that does not make him a Father. I highly doubt Athos, Valaam, Optina, etc would count him as one.
Nothing said here changes where Theodore was referenced repeatedly by St.Isaac nor does it change Theodore and St.Isaac's place in the Church of the East - you cannot argue outside both sides of your mouth trying to claim St.Isaac for your camp AND avoiding where he noted repeatedly it was Theodore who the Church should listen to and the one whom he learned from. That would not be honest. Arguing past that is arguing past reality, so if you want to go for that, that's your choice. I'd prefer real scholarship and St.Isaac in his love for Theodore does not change because you or myself or anyone else do not prefer it. Moreover, it does nothing responding to an argument that no one was saying since Theodore and St.Isaac being a part of the Church of the East is NOT the same as saying that both of them are Nestorian - for neither the Church of the East, St.Isaac OR St.Theodore advocated Nestorianism.that makes neither St Isaac a Nestorian, nor does it lift the anathema against Theodore.
Again, you alone are bringing in an argument no one advocated since no one said St.Isaac advocated Nestorianism - and this is something the Church of the East has pointed out repeatedly when it comes to association with Nestorius just as Theodore was associated alongside St.Issac. The Church has also said St. Isaac was a part of the Church of the East - but still refers to him just as they do to Origen (and to be clear, even the Coptic church, and his Alexandrian school of thought had many followers, but even they will admit his teachings were mixed).yes, there is good and bad for every heretic. often the saints used the language of the heretic in a proper way (ie St Cyril with Nestorius), so just because St Isaac revered him, that again does not make him Nestorian any more than it makes him not a heretic. the Church has said Isaac is Orthodox, Theodore is anathema.
None of that would change the bottom line fact that at the end of the day, James Brown is what you're getting when you're seeing MJ dance AND thus you're always getting a part of Him in the end. MJ didn't just perfect Brown's moves, as he used many of them directly and this is another basic when it comes to music history/seeing how moves and songs evolve. I don't have to be a fan of James Brown to be honest in saying "James Brown was the one who did that before Michael did and thus I CANNOT say James Brown never said it first."not really. I can like MJ and not stomach James Brown for other reasons when he dances. just because MJ perfected the moves of James Brown, that does not mean a fan of MJ's dancing would have to acknowledge that James Brown was good, no matter what MJ says about him. I know a lot of fans of rock music who don't think the Beatles were all that great.
Doesn't change where St.Isaac belonged to the Church of the East - and having a discussion after the fact doesn't change where he said he was connected with, where he taught AND what he advocated with regards to the Persian world. So saying "The Church Says No" doesn't address where St.Isaac in his theological mindset is still a reflection of the Church of the East - so there needs to be a honest discussion on what he actually said and did. This is why many in the Church noted how Saints were celebrated by many after the fact even though their original stances did not match up with future generations since they were made Saints in hindsight - and you cannot change what someone wrote.we do, until the point where the Church says they are anathema. St Isaac can preach that Theodore is the greatest thing since sliced bread, and that is fine until the Church says no. and the Church has said no.
Modern definitions don't change what the Fathers said or claimed of each other, especially since Tertullian did not leave the Church. Again, one needs reference and not a slogan.
Actually, what you were advocating is what the modern scholarship has noted, seeing what the Early Church has already noted alongside earlier Saints. It generally doesn't help trying to make oneself different in argumentation from what you label as modern scholarship when you're doing exactly the same. It was not an ancient practice to assume that someone not on a calandar was not a Saint OR that the early Church did not consider someone a Father - so again, consistency is important rather than circular thinking on the issue.
Nothing said here changes where Theodore was referenced repeatedly by St.Isaac nor does it change Theodore and St.Isaac's place in the Church of the East. Arguing past that is arguing past reality/trying to make it up as one goes, so if you want to go for that, that's your choice. I'd prefer real scholarship and St.Isaac in his love for Theodore does not change because you do not prefer it. Moreover, it does nothing responding to an argument that no one was saying since Theodore and St.Isaac being a part of the Church of the East is NOT the same as saying that both of them are Nestorian - for neither the Church of the East, St.Isaac OR St.Theodore advocated Nestorianism. Focus.
And he left the Montanists in time - and there's zero evidence he left the Church, unless showing otherwise.Tertullian did leave the Church. the Montanists were schismatic.
Theodore being deemed heretical does not change where others in the Church had issue with referencing St.Isaac who based his theology on Theodore and said that was where he built his ideas. The same goes for Tertullian who was still referenced as a Father by the early Saints - you cannot have it both ways, dude, as that's circular to want to acknowledge St.Isaac and not acknowledge those he anchored his theology in which the Church did not support later - for that's part of the negative reality of modern scholarship when not dealing with what the Church has said over the centuries.I only brought up the calendar because of Tertullian being advocated as a Father of the Church. the Church has spoken at the 5th Council that Theodore was a heretic, which makes him a heretic. that's not circular reasoning and I am not basing it on modern scholarship. and again, the 5th Council calls Theodore a heretic and anathema.
Bringing up a council doesn't change where you have not dealt with St.Isaac in what he actually SAID - and his standing with the Church of the East, as you keep avoiding where St.Isaac noted his work with Church of the East AND Theodore while trying to bring up a council. Again, you cannot have it both ways trying to advocate for Theodore being condemned AND trying to say St.Isaac who reflected his ideology HAS to be Orthodox since that is not consistent.you keep bringing up that Theodore being referenced by St Isaac as actually having more weight than the ecumenical council that anathematized him. t
Again, IMHO, that is consistent inconsistency playing out since it is a direct willingness to ignore what St.Isaac said in noting Theodore as the SOURCE of his theology (consistent with his belonging to the Church of the East). Talking on what the Church says is irrelevant if not dealing with what a Saint actually said on where he belonged - we don't override facts or what figures said if being honest.that is me saying when the Church says Theodore is a heretic and St Isaac is not
Going back to St.Paisos does nothing when avoiding what St.Isaac said - and again, this is circular since it assumes that whatever St.Paisos said is automatically true (When that wasn't even the case IN SCRIPTURE with the Saints of the OT and NT) and it doesn't change what St. Isaac said. By your own logic, someone having a revelation that St.Anthony lived in the Arctic rather than in the Desert HAS to be taken as the definition of what St.Anthony said instead of seeing objectively what St.Anthony and other Saints noted o him - and as wild as that'd be, it's the same with trying to bring up St. Paisos and claiming his vision alone means St.Isaac was (1) NEVER PART of the Church of the East or (2) Never a student of Theodore., and when a saint of the Church in a vision says St Isaac was never Nestorian, that I believe that over someone like Dr. David Hart. I don't doubt that St Isaac had love for Theodore, but that does not change that Theodore is anathema.
And he left the Montanists - and there's zero evidence he left the Church, unless showing otherwise.
Theodore being deemed heretical does not change where others in the Church had issue with referencing St.Isaac who based his theology on Theodore and said that was where he built his ideas. The same goes for Tertullian who was still referenced as a Father by the early Saints - you cannot have it both ways, dude, as that's circular - and modern scholarship when not dealing with what the Church has said over the centuries. There's zero avoiding where Theodore was the one St. Isaac said he reflected - and when referencing him, you're also reflecting Theodore. Not addressing that is not honest with what Theodore AND St.Isaac said and is trying to speak outside both sides of the mouth. Of course, as the author of the thread noted earlier, much of this goes back to the ideology of assuming Saints/Church Fathers are above error or beyond being able to make misunderstandings a reality.
Bringing up a council doesn't change where you have not dealt with St.Isaac in what he actually SAID - and his standing with the Church of the East, as you keep avoiding where St.Isaac noted his work with Church of the East AND Theodore while trying to bring up a council. Again, you cannot have it both ways trying to advocate for Theodore being condemned AND trying to say St.Isaac who reflected his ideology HAS to be Orthodox since that is not consistent.
As it is, you don't even deal with where not all in Orthodoxy have ever said St. Isaac was a part of the Church - or the fact that Saints were often made that way after the fact and that's why Saints belonged to one camp and are still referenced. Evagrius, Gregory of Nyssa, etc.
Again, IMHO, that is consistent inconsistency on your part since it is a direct willingness to ignore what St.Isaac said in noting Theodore as the SOURCE of his theology (consistent with his belonging to the Church of the East). Talking on what the Church says is irrelevant if not dealing with what a Saint actually said on where he belonged - we don't override facts or what figures said if being honest.
As another noted best, this is akin to "the same way as saying that the Bible is true because the Bible says it is true. It is this circular reasoning and logic that "because the Church says he's a saint, then he must not be from the Assyrian Church and did not write these things because he's a saint." Is therefore St. Augustine no longer a saint, or can we say that some of those heretical writings are "pseudo-Augustine"? I love Origen. I can go back and say, "those anathemas against the writings purported to be by Origen are pseudo-Origen; I mean see how the Church fathers loved Origen before Pope Theophilus of Alexandria!!!"
Going back to St.Paisos does nothing when avoiding what St.Isaac said - and again, this is circular since it assumes that whatever St.Paisos said is automatically true (When that wasn't even the case IN SCRIPTURE with the Saints of the OT and NT) and it doesn't change what St. Isaac said. By your own logic, someone having a revelation that St.Anthony lived in the Artic rather than in the Desert HAS to be taken as the definition of what St.Anthony said instead of seeing objectively what St.Anthony and other Saints noted o him - and as wild as that'd be, it's the same with trying to bring up St. Paisos and claiming his vision alone means St.Isaac was (1) NEVER PART of the Church of the East or (2) Never a student of Theodore.
Both assumptions are based on the ideology that others deemed Saints in the 20th century have the ability to be above error/question and that what they say goes beyond what earlier Saints said.
Again, I will take what St.Isaac says over any theologian or figure from the 20th century - and this is why you're not dealing whatsoever with St. Isaac. As it is, if trying to say you don't go with academics when trying to bring up Dr. David Hart, IMHO, that is rather needless since he actually spoke CONSISTENTLY with what St.Isaac said - and that is the standard in academia, as a theologian or priest is to be believed when they honor what the Saint said.
And with what St. Isaac said on Theodore of Mopsuestia (as well as in other places):
Trying to claim St. Isaac did not honor Theodore with the Church of the East is without warrant - and the same goes with saying he was not connected deeply with the Church of the East (otherwise known as the Nestorian Church).
And this is why terms make a world of difference - because if you come back saying "St.Isaac was not Nestorian because the Church says so", it doesn't change his own stances or what he noted. Most tend to react with saying "He was not Nestorian!!!" because they assume the identification of the Church of the East as Nestorian is the same as supporting Nestoriamism. Again, if wanting to debate evidence on Nestorian Heresy, that's another issue. For there's no real evidence he himself subscribed to the Nestorian heresy. Nonetheless, it is a well-establish fact that he belonged to the Assyrian Church of the East, which was Nestorian, and some of his writings supposedly reflect an Antiochian (as opposed to Alexandrian) approach to Christology (and even in saying that, this does not mean Nestorianism). Indeed, it's unlikely that one who did not subscribe to the Nestorian beliefs of his Church would have been made a bishop by it, meaning there is not much point in suggesting that he was not 'Nestorian', especially since the Assyrian Church of the East has never accepted that it is 'Nestorian' in the sense commonly understood by Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy as it is.
Again, you cannot have it both ways.
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.joining the Montanists is leaving the Church, so if he left the Montanists, what evidence do you have that he returned to the Church?
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 Sloganswhen 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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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):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.
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 will take what the councils say over anything St Isaac says.
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 (beyond 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.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.
No it wouldn'tthat would shut me up.
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.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.
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.I don't, this is what the Church teaches about both men
Again, 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" - so hopefully one can do better. 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
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.
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.
This is essentially an argument of "I'm right because I believe in God/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. Going past that simple point misses the issue entirely.
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.
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
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.
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), while he does not say anything expilcitly and definitely on the matter of Christology, so we can not say surely wether he was Nestorian or not. However, the Syriac original of Volume 1 has plenty of references to Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore, both are well-known Nestorian writers accused of heresy at Chalcedon.
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
The Sabaite Heritage in the Orthodox Church from the Fifth Century to the ... - Google Books
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 authentic 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 - and even then, we BOTH know you really aren't going to do that since this has been noted before by others...and you didn't address it. 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.
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) ...
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.
And there have been cases of Ethiopian monks baptizing Eastern Orthodox.
That doesn't make it canonical.
The canons say Nestorians and Monophysites are to be received by confession.
Of course the Oriental Orthodox aren't Monophysites, so in the church of Antioch they are not received at all. A Syriac Orthodox cannot be received into the Antiochian church or vice versa (in Syria at least).
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?