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.
Can you tell me which non-chelcedon Church believes in Eutychius?Stone_Lock_Comanche said:Teaching of the church. Our Lord jesus christ is perfect God, and as God he is eternally born from GOd. As man, born of the Holy Virgin and in every way like us, except in Sin. Through the incarnation, birth from The Holy Virgin, divinity and humanity are united in him as a single person,infused and immutable, thus reputing Eutychius; Indivisible and inseperable, reputing Nestorius
Here is a Non-Chalcedonian metropolitan who denies that Christ has two wills, which is the heresy known as Monothelitism.We are unable to say what this council [the Sixth] says when it affirms "two wills and two operations concurring most fitly in him" . . .
To summarize: Acceptance of the Sixth Council is much more difficult for us than the acceptance of Chalcedon. The following are the chief reasons:...
b) We are unable to accept the dithelete formula, attributing will and energy to the natures rather than to the hypostasis. We can only affirm the one united and unconfused divine-human nature, will and energy of Christ the incarnate Lord
Maximus said:BTW, the EO and the OO lived within close proximity of one another inside the Ottoman Empire. AFAIK, the Turks did not prevent them from communicating.
nyj said:Why does Catholicism need to be pulled into this discussion? This is a situation for the Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental) and doesn't have anything to do with us.
JefftheFinn asserted that the reason the recent push for union between the Non-Chalcedonians and the Orthodox had to wait until the 20th century was because the Ottoman Turks prevented the two sides from communicating.Prodromos: They were both fighting for survival. If you have examples of communications between them, present them. Otherwise this is pure conjecture on your part.
Eutychianism is only one of the more extreme forms of Monophysitism.orthedoxy: Maximus
Council of Chelcedon condemned Eutyches and so did the Oriantel Churches.
St. Cyril used the term nature (physis) early on in the way that Person or hypostasis came to be used later. He understood that and was able to come to an agreement with John of Antioch and Theodoret of Cyrus on that subject.orthedoxy: According to the Armenian Church, Christ is at one and the same time perfect God and perfect man. CHRIST IS GOD BECOME MAN. neither His divine nature nor His human nature are separated. These natures are united so that they are indivisible. Hence, we speak of the ONE NATURE of Christ (According to the formula of St. Cyril of Jerusalem).
I tried to find a reference in the record of the Council of Ephesus to "one nature" but was unable to. It might be there. I did not have time to read through the whole thing. If it is, then that council used such language as I described above, when the various Fathers were refining the way in which they described the Incarnation, when the terms physis, hypostasis, ousia, and prosopon were sometimes used indiscriminately and interchangeably.orthedoxy: The Armenian Church define Christ the way the council of Ephesus did, do you see any problem with that?
I dont think council of chalcedon condemns the council of Ephesus do you?
The Council of Chalcedon reflects the primacy of the Pope because the Pope did hold the primacy!orthedoxy: I dont understand how can EO say they accept the council of chelcedon?the council was teaching the primacy of the pope.can you explain?
Here is a quote from the sixth council:
"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him (Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness." -- Acts of Chalcedon, Session 3
Armenians accept two nature within the one nature. We accept the council of Ephesus and to say we are heretics is to say the council was a heresy.Maximus said:Eutychianism is only one of the more extreme forms of Monophysitism.
The Non-Chalcedonians divided into a number of conflicting and competing sects following their schism from the Church. Here are the names of just a few of them: the Agnoetoe; the Corrupticolae; the Incorrupticolae; the Condobaudites (also called "Tritheists"); the Philoponiaci; the Cononites; the Damianists; the Angelites; and the Niobites.
Even the moderate Monophysites, like Severus of Antioch, fell into other heresies like Monothelitism.
St. Cyril used the term nature (physis) early on in the way that Person or hypostasis came to be used later. He understood that and was able to come to an agreement with John of Antioch and Theodoret of Cyrus on that subject.
He did not mean that Christ had or has only one nature. He meant that Christ is a unified, yet composite Hypostasis (Person) in two physeis (natures), divine and human.
Do you mean like Catholics inserting words in the Filioque to explain the meaning?I tried to find a reference in the record of the Council of Ephesus to "one nature" but was unable to. It might be there. I did not have time to read through the whole thing. If it is, then that council used such language as I described above, when the various Fathers were refining the way in which they described the Incarnation, when the terms physis, hypostasis, ousia, and prosopon were sometimes used indiscriminately and interchangeably.
This history is what gives some the idea that the differences between Non-Chalcedonians and the Orthodox are the result of a misunderstanding. However, by the time of the Council of Chalcedon, and certainly by the time of the Fifth Council, in 553, the terminology had been refined and was commonly understood.
Would you agree with this statement? Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faithThe Council of Chalcedon reflects the primacy of the Pope because the Pope did hold the primacy!
Just what that primacy meant is the subject of debate, but that he held some kind of primacy is indisputable.
We accept the Council of Chalcedon because the Church teaches us that it was a holy, ecumenical council of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
What statement?jeffthefinn said:The relevance is that the Oriental Orthodox found that statement repugnant and that has nothing at all to do with their views on the nature/s of Our Lord.
Jeff the Finn
Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church
I can very well understand the Oriental view of that statement claiming that Peter is the foundation of the Catholic Church.Maximus wrote:
Of what relevance to this discussion are attacks on Roman Catholics?
Why do you condemn the Catholics when they say they were only refining the Nicene Creed by adding "and the son"? You don't seem to see anything wrong with refining things.maximus
This history is what gives some the idea that the differences between Non-Chalcedonians and the Orthodox are the result of a misunderstanding. However, by the time of the Council of Chalcedon, and certainly by the time of the Fifth Council, in 553, the terminology had been refined and was commonly understood.
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?