EO/OO Dialogue: Read These Articles

[orthedoxy]

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

Can you tell me which non-chelcedon Church believes in Eutychius?
The Armenian Church comdemn Eutychius as a herotic.
That's like accusing the EO church for being Nestorians since they believe in dual nature of Christ.

 

[Maximus]

I have already quoted a leader among Non-Chalcedonians, Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios of the Syrian Orthodox Church of India, in an earlier post to show that he not only denies the substance of the Council of Chalcedon but of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, as well.

Here is a portion of that quote again:

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

Here is a Non-Chalcedonian metropolitan who denies that Christ has two wills, which is the heresy known as Monothelitism.

Note that he also says, "We can only affirm the one united and unconfused divine-human nature, will and energy of Christ the incarnate Lord."

Although it is possible that Mar Gregorios (Paul Verghese) meant something Orthodox by that statement, and merely misused the word nature, given his assertion of one will and energy in Christ that seems unlikely.

Monothelitism is one of a number of heresies that occur as a logical consequence of Monophysitism. It was condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

Even if one were to concede that the Non-Chalcedonians possess an Orthodox Christology (which is doubtful), the fact remains that they still oppose the inspired councils of the Church and the findings of her Orthodox Fathers. They still uphold and venerate as "saints" and "fathers" men who were anathematized as heretics by the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. They are still using the same arguments used by those same men.

 

[prodromos]

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.

They were both fighting for survival. If you have examples of communications between them, present them. Otherwise this is pure conjecture on your part.

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.

I really don't know what to say to this. The Chalcedonian schism occured when Rome was still part of the Orthodox church. It has as much to do with Rome as it has to do with Eastern Orthodoxy.

John.

 

[orthedoxy]

Maximus
Council of Chelcedon condemned Eutyches and so did the Oriantel Churches.

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).
The Armenian Church define Christ the way the council of Ephesus did, do you see any problem with that?
I don’t think council of chalcedon condemns the council of Ephesus do you?
I don’t 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

 

[Maximus]

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.

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.

Since the Non-Chalcedonians and the Orthodox inhabited many of the same areas of the Ottoman Empire, that is self-evidently untrue.

The Monophysite Schism occurred well before the advent of the Ottomans. There was plenty of communication between Non-Chalcedonians and Orthodox. The writings of Orthodox Fathers such as St. John of Damascus and St. Maximus the Confessor refer to the writings of the leading Non-Chalcedonians (and condemn them).

There were early efforts at reconciliation. The Henoticon of the Emperor Zeno led to the famous Acacian Schism, for example.

The Orthodox Fathers knew what the Non-Chalcedonians believed. There was no mistake.

The compromisers and ecumenists of today are the ones making the mistakes.

 

[Maximus]

orthedoxy: Maximus
Council of Chelcedon condemned Eutyches and so did the Oriantel Churches.

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.

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).

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.

orthedoxy: The Armenian Church define Christ the way the council of Ephesus did, do you see any problem with that?
I don’t think council of chalcedon condemns the council of Ephesus do you?

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.

orthedoxy: I don’t 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

The 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.

 

[orthedoxy]

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.

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.

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.

Do you mean like Catholics inserting words in the Filioque to explain the meaning?

The 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.

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 faith”
If not do you really accept the council?

 

[Maximus]

Of what relevance to this discussion are attacks on Roman Catholics? Start a new thread if you want to discuss the filioque.

Of course, I accept the Council of Chalcedon.

I am Orthodox.

 

[Reader Nilus]

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

 

[Maximus]

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

What statement?

The filioque?

There are many things I find repugnant that are nevertheless not relevant to this particular topic.

 

[Reader Nilus]

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

Maximus wrote:
Of what relevance to this discussion are attacks on Roman Catholics?

I can very well understand the Oriental view of that statement claiming that Peter is the foundation of the Catholic Church.
Jeff the Finn

 

[orthedoxy]

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.

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.
Answer me something how can chalcedonians not accept the primacy of the Pope?
You are trying to proof to me why we need to accept the council of chalcedon when you don't believe in it yourself(not everything it stood for) can you tell me if you believe this quote?” Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith”
Apparently you seem to accept the council as infallible only where it agrees with you.

 

[Maximus]

orthedoxy -

You misunderstand me.

I do accept the Council of Chalcedon and the historic primacy of the bishops of Rome.

However, the differences between Orthodox and Roman Catholics are not the subject of this thread.

The differences between Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonians are the subject of this thread.

If you wish to discuss differences with the RCC, start a new thread.