Non Chalcedonian/Chalcedonian Debate and Discussion

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,470
20,026
41
Earth
✟1,456,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
He never used it in the same way Chalcedon did or how Leo’s Tome did, the idea of one nature doing something and another doing something else is absolutely foreign to his writings, Saint Cyril speaks of the One Christ doing everything and everything he does is done either through his own humanity or divinity such as his suffering on the cross through his humanity however Cyril makes it clear that Christ suffered through his humanity not that the human nature suffered and the God didn’t die like how the Tome of Leo describes Christ. there’s nothing wrong or Un-Orthodox with dyophysitism per say. Chalcedon condemning Nestorius doesn’t mean it doesn't mean it wasn’t influenced by Antiochian Christology in one way or another, Chalcedon would have to condemn Nestorius even if it didn’t want to anyway because it has to make itself appear to continue the anathemas issues at Ephesus if it is to make itself Ecumenical. Leo was so great a friend to Cyril that he supported Theodoret of Cyprus a Nestorian that supported Nestorius’s removal of the title Theotokos for the blessed virgin. The Chalcedonians still regard him as blessed on their calendar despite condemning his writings against Cyril for some odd reason. By the way condemning heresy doesn’t mean you can’t fall into it yourself the biggest example would be Apollonarius who raged against the Arian heresy only to fall into another one himself or Eutychus who raged against the Nestorian heresy only to fall into heresy himself.

yes he did. in his letter to Theodoret of Cyrrhus he absolutely did, as well as his letter to Nestorius with his 12 Anathemas. he absolutely says that each nature operates uniquely.

St Leo actually calls out Theodoret of Cyrrhus (who is not blessed by us), in his letters to Eutyches. St Leo actually encourages Eutyches to keep up the fight against lingering Nestorians.

seriously, you need to stop.
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,470
20,026
41
Earth
✟1,456,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Non Chalcedonians don’t deny that there are two operations in the One Nature, they deny that the natures themselves each preform actions separate to one another.

Chalcedonians also don't say the Natures perform actions separate either. in fact, one of the things Chalcedon says is the union occurs without separation or division between the Natures.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,470
20,026
41
Earth
✟1,456,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
That’s not a problem, if I disagree with Chalcedon then I’m not Chalcedonian and if I’m not Chalcedonian I’d have to fall into the Non Chalcedonian camp. You defend a Christology that belongs to other Christian denominations beside yourself such as Roman Catholics or Protestants, so what your saying doesn’t make much sense. We’re both trying to look into depth right now, that’s the purpose of this thread so we can both learn and others may also learn. So please stop with this it’s getting very irritating that you comment on all threads I make here as if I’m not even a Christian yet thus I have no authority to speak on anything.

you might not agree with Chalcedon (for now), but you shouldn't be debating us because you aren't illumined. you might not agree with Chalcedon, but you also aren't Syriac either.
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,470
20,026
41
Earth
✟1,456,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Why shouldn’t he be able to get to know why his belief is correct/wrong before he converts Father?

that's not his initial post. he began by saying we are wrong, not asking us questions to hash this out, and he will defend the non-Chalcedonian position. it's one thing to say Chalcedon sounds Nestorian, it's another to say it leads to being Nestorian.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
yes he did. in his letter to Theodoret of Cyrrhus he absolutely did, as well as his letter to Nestorius with his 12 Anathemas. he absolutely says that each nature operates uniquely.

St Leo actually calls out Theodoret of Cyrrhus (who is not blessed by us), in his letters to Eutyches. St Leo actually encourages Eutyches to keep up the fight against lingering Nestorians.

seriously, you need to stop.
As I previously said using a Dyophysite forums isn’t wrong in of itself, when it actually used properly as when Saint Cyril described Christ as doing various things and preforming various actions through his One United Nature from two natures. This can be seen in the 12 Anathemas to Nestorius:


3. If anyone shall after the [hypostatic] union divide the hypostases in the one Christ, joining them by that connexion alone, which happens according to worthiness, or even authority and power, and not rather by a coming together, which is made by natural union: let him be anathema.

4. If anyone shall divide between two persons or subsistences those expressions which are contained in the Evangelical and Apostolical writings, or which have been said concerning Christ by the Saints, or by himself, and shall apply some to him as to a man separate from the Word of God, and shall apply others to the only Word of God the Father, on the ground that they are fit to be applied to God: let him be anathema.

Cyril of Alexandria twelve anathemas

Compare this with the Tome of Leo:

The properties of the twofold nativity and nature of Christ are weighed one against another.
There enters then these lower parts of the world the Son of GOD, descending from His heavenly home and yet not quitting His Father’s glory, begotten in a new order by a new nativity. In a new order, because being invisible in His own nature, He became visible in ours, and He whom nothing could contain was content to be contained: abiding before all time He began to be in time: the LORD of all things, He obscured His immeasurable majesty and took on Him the form of a servant: being GOD that cannot suffer, He did not disdain to be man that can, and, immortal as He is, to subject Himself to the laws of death. The LORD assumed His mother’s nature without her faultiness: nor in the LORD Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin’s womb, does the wonderfulness of His birth make His nature unlike ours. For He who is true GOD is also true man: and in this union there is no lie, since the humility of manhood and the loftiness of the Godhead both meet there. For as GOD is not changed by the showing of pity, so man is not swallowed up by the dignity. For each form does what is proper to it with the co-operation of the other. that is the Word performing what appertains to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what appertains to the flesh.

Leo - The Tome of


Anathemas three and four directly contradict the Tome in its wording. That said it doesn’t mean that both can’t somehow be reconciled to one another. Saint Dioscorus has Theodoret banned from his diocese for his Nestorian leanings and his heretical teachings, yet Leo managed to declare the ruling of Dioscorus invalid and allowed him to remember his diocese while at the same time allowing him to participate in the Council of Chalcedon all for the sake of opposing the See of Alexandria and it’s Patriarch

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Theodoret

The purpose of this thread is so both Chacedonians and Miaphysite Non Chalcedonians may learn from one another, seriously please don’t make a post if you don’t want to engage with the thread.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
you might not agree with Chalcedon (for now), but you shouldn't be debating us because you aren't illumined. you might not agree with Chalcedon, but you also aren't Syriac either.
I’m not trying to necessarily discredit the Eastern Orhtodox here, you seem to be thinking that I’m trying to discredit the Eastern Chalcedonian Melkite Church. I’m not officially a member of the Oriental Orthodox Church, yet I believe it’s Christology is pure and represents the true teachings of Cyril and Athanasius, that said you despite Eastern Orthodox are also defending the Christology of Roman Catholics and Protestants since Chalcedon is also accepted by these other mainstream denominations. I’m open to learning from both sides however.
 
Upvote 0

Barney2.0

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Dec 1, 2017
6,003
2,336
Los Angeles
✟451,221.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
that's not his initial post. he began by saying we are wrong, not asking us questions to hash this out, and he will defend the non-Chalcedonian position. it's one thing to say Chalcedon sounds Nestorian, it's another to say it leads to being Nestorian.
thats not what I said in my initial thread, Chalcedonians themselves including the Eastern Orthodox have admitted that the Tome of Leo and the Chalcedonian formula when taken up by themselves do create the impression of Nestorianism:

Christology according to the non-Chalcedonian Churches, p. 12-3.
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,470
20,026
41
Earth
✟1,456,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
As I previously said using a Dyophysite forums isn’t wrong in of itself, when it actually used properly as when Saint Cyril described Christ as doing various things and preforming various actions through his One United Nature from two natures. This can be seen in the 12 Anathemas to Nestorius:


3. If anyone shall after the [hypostatic] union divide the hypostases in the one Christ, joining them by that connexion alone, which happens according to worthiness, or even authority and power, and not rather by a coming together, which is made by natural union: let him be anathema.

4. If anyone shall divide between two persons or subsistences those expressions which are contained in the Evangelical and Apostolical writings, or which have been said concerning Christ by the Saints, or by himself, and shall apply some to him as to a man separate from the Word of God, and shall apply others to the only Word of God the Father, on the ground that they are fit to be applied to God: let him be anathema.

Cyril of Alexandria twelve anathemas

Compare this with the Tome of Leo:

The properties of the twofold nativity and nature of Christ are weighed one against another.
There enters then these lower parts of the world the Son of GOD, descending from His heavenly home and yet not quitting His Father’s glory, begotten in a new order by a new nativity. In a new order, because being invisible in His own nature, He became visible in ours, and He whom nothing could contain was content to be contained: abiding before all time He began to be in time: the LORD of all things, He obscured His immeasurable majesty and took on Him the form of a servant: being GOD that cannot suffer, He did not disdain to be man that can, and, immortal as He is, to subject Himself to the laws of death. The LORD assumed His mother’s nature without her faultiness: nor in the LORD Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin’s womb, does the wonderfulness of His birth make His nature unlike ours. For He who is true GOD is also true man: and in this union there is no lie, since the humility of manhood and the loftiness of the Godhead both meet there. For as GOD is not changed by the showing of pity, so man is not swallowed up by the dignity. For each form does what is proper to it with the co-operation of the other. that is the Word performing what appertains to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what appertains to the flesh.

Leo - The Tome of


Anathemas three and four directly contradict the Tome in its wording. That said it doesn’t mean that both can’t somehow be reconciled to one another. Saint Dioscorus has Theodoret banned from his diocese for his Nestorian leanings and his heretical teachings, yet Leo managed to declare the ruling of Dioscorus invalid and allowed him to remember his diocese while at the same time allowing him to participate in the Council of Chalcedon all for the sake of opposing the See of Alexandria and it’s Patriarch

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Theodoret

The purpose of this thread is so both Chacedonians and Miaphysite Non Chalcedonians may learn from one another, seriously please don’t make a post if you don’t want to engage with the thread.

no, they don't. St Leo never says they are by connexion alone and never divides into two Christs. he never separates the man from the Word.

even in the line that you bolded, only Word is the Person mentioned (flesh isn't a person). so you might not like the wording, but it doesn't do what you say it does.
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,470
20,026
41
Earth
✟1,456,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I’m not trying to necessarily discredit the Eastern Orhtodox here, you seem to be thinking that I’m trying to discredit the Eastern Chalcedonian Melkite Church. I’m not officially a member of the Oriental Orthodox Church, yet I believe it’s Christology is pure and represents the true teachings of Cyril and Athanasius, that said you despite Eastern Orthodox are also defending the Christology of Roman Catholics and Protestants since Chalcedon is also accepted by these other mainstream denominations. I’m open to learning from both sides however.

well, that wasn't how it came across. if you're open and want to learn, you should ask more and assert less.
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,470
20,026
41
Earth
✟1,456,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
thats not what I said in my initial thread, Chalcedonians themselves including the Eastern Orthodox have admitted that the Tome of Leo and the Chalcedonian formula when taken up by themselves do create the impression of Nestorianism:

Christology according to the non-Chalcedonian Churches, p. 12-3.

I was talking about the OP. and it only does if you read Chalcedon selectively and ignore its surroundings history and context.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

TheLostCoin

A Lonesome Coin
Supporter
Sep 29, 2016
1,507
822
Ohio
✟234,420.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
For me personally, I think it's a difficult issue to discuss simply because we only have fragmented readings and epistles from the events, and said fragments are completely partisan and unreliable; we have non-Chalcedonians who say that Dioscorus was a respectable loving fellow who was willing to die for his Faith, and on the other hand, we have Chalcedonians who see him as a fraud, a thief, who put guns up to people's heads and forced them to sign documents.

In my opinion, I believe that both Christological formulas can be used in an Orthodox way that both sides can agree on, and you can find out what that is if you are careful in your studies, namely, that there are two ontologically distinct natures in the Hypostasis of Jesus Christ, but these two natures are united so closely together that you cannot separate them nor will they ever separate them, and to say that they aren't completely united is to be Nestorian. The wills of Christ correspond with these natures; they are ontologically distinct, but they are so closely united that they are never for a moment separated.

While I admit that the non-Chalcedonians have some points that make one raise an eyebrow, like we have a correspondence with the Council admitting Ibas to communion in spite of the fact that he had a notorious, heretical letter (we don't have information outside the text saying he's admitted to communion), the fact that the North African Churches were allowed to be in communion with Chalcedon despite being heretics, and that this whole controversy did in fact start with the Antiochians trying to force a Dyophysite Christology on the whole Church, nonetheless to say that the Dyophysite Christology that is used is Nestorian per se, as far as I can tell, is groundless.

What's often accused of being heretical in the Tome, despite using different formulae, is used by Saint Cyril of Alexandria himself in his commentary on John (namely, that the human and Divine natures served distinct functions in the Godman of Jesus Christ; in his commentary on John, Saint Cyril says that Jesus's human nature caused him to suffer in the garden and his Divine nature caused him to overcome that suffering),

And moreover, we have Syriac fragments of the Council of Ephesus of 449 which you can find in English, and we have the letter of Theodoret which that Council condemned as heresy. There is nothing in that letter that is heretical other than Theodoret biting his tongue at Cyril; he makes it clear that the two natures are one and there is only one hypostasis, and he disliked Saint Cyril because his theology left the impression that the natures were mixed. Nonetheless it was condemned as heresy by virtue of the fact that its formula was "two natures."

This is in stark opposition to Saint Cyril of Alexandria himself, who said that the two natures formula was 100% Orthodox, much to the dismay of local Alexandrians at the time, with some today saying Saint Cyril himself accidentally spoke heresy.

This lattermost point heavily suggests that the non-Chalcedonians, while perhaps a great many of them holding to an Orthodox Christology, were in the wrong here.
 
Upvote 0

TheLostCoin

A Lonesome Coin
Supporter
Sep 29, 2016
1,507
822
Ohio
✟234,420.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Non Chalcedonians don’t deny that there are two operations in the One Nature, they deny that the natures themselves each preform actions separate to one another.

I don't think that that's what the Tome is trying to convey. It's saying that the two actions are performed by the Hypostasis of Jesus Christ, but it's through the two natures which these actions are performed. After all, a human nature cannot be incapable pain and suffering, and a Divine Nature cannot be capable of suffering.

Here is a long quote (from here: Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, LFC 43, 48 (1874/1885). Book 8. Vol. 2 pp. 138-165.):

"Now, He says, is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save one from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. See I pray you in these words again how the human nature was easily affected by trouble and easily brought over to fear, whereas on the other hand the Divine and ineffable Power is in all respects inflexible and dauntless and intent on the courage which alone is befitting to It. For the mention of death which had been introduced into the discourse begins to alarm Jesus, but the Power of the Godhead straightway subdues the suffering thus excited and in a moment transforms into incomparable boldness that which had been conquered by fear. For we may suppose that even in the Saviour Jesus Christ Himself the human feelings were aroused by two qualities necessarily present in Him. For it must certainly have been under the influence of these that He shewed Himself a Man born of woman, not in deceptive appearance or mere fancy, but rather by nature and in truth, possessing every human quality, sin only excepted. And fear and alarm, although they are affections natural to us, have escaped being ranked among sins. And yet besides this, profitably were the human feelings troubled in Christ: not that the emotions should prevail and go forward, as in us; but that, having begun, they might be cut short by the power of the Word, nature in Christ first being transelemented into some better and Diviner condition. For in this way and no other was it that the process of the healing passed over |151 even unto us. For in Christ as the firstfruits the nature of man was restored to newness of life, and in Him we have also gained things above our nature. For on this account He is also named in the Divine Scriptures a second Adam. And in the same manner that as Man He felt hunger and weariness, so also He feels the mental trouble that is caused by suffering, as a human characteristic. Yet He is not agitated like we are, but only just so far as to have undergone the sensation of the experience; then again immediately He returns to the courage befitting to Himself. From these things it is evident that He indeed had a rational soul. For as the circumstance of feeling hunger or indeed of experiencing any other such thing is a suffering which is peculiarly that of the flesh, so also the being agitated by the thought of terrible things must be a suffering of the rational soul, by which alone in truth a thought can enter into us through the processes of the mind. For Christ, not having yet been on the Cross actually, suffers the trouble by anticipation, evidently beholding beforehand that which was to happen, and being led by reasoning to the thought of the future events. For the suffering of dread is a feeling that we cannot ascribe to the impassible Grodhead, nor yet to the Flesh; for it is an affection of the cogitations of the soul, and not of the flesh. And although an irrational animal is troubled and agitated, inasmuch as it possesses a soul, yet it does not come to feel dread by a process of thought, nor by a logical anticipation of coming suffering, but whenever it happens to find itself actually involved in any evil plight, then it painfully experiences the sensation of the danger which is present."
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,470
20,026
41
Earth
✟1,456,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
For me personally, I think it's a difficult issue to discuss simply because we only have fragmented readings and epistles from the events, and said fragments are completely partisan and unreliable; we have non-Chalcedonians who say that Dioscorus was a respectable loving fellow who was willing to die for his Faith, and on the other hand, we have Chalcedonians who see him as a fraud, a thief, who put guns up to people's heads and forced them to sign documents.

In my opinion, I believe that both Christological formulas can be used in an Orthodox way that both sides can agree on, and you can find out what that is if you are careful in your studies, namely, that there are two ontologically distinct natures in the Hypostasis of Jesus Christ, but these two natures are united so closely together that you cannot separate them nor will they ever separate them, and to say that they aren't completely united is to be Nestorian. The wills of Christ correspond with these natures; they are ontologically distinct, but they are so closely united that they are never for a moment separated.

While I admit that the non-Chalcedonians have some points that make one raise an eyebrow, like we have a correspondence with the Council admitting Ibas to communion in spite of the fact that he had a notorious, heretical letter (we don't have information outside the text saying he's admitted to communion), the fact that the North African Churches were allowed to be in communion with Chalcedon despite being heretics, and that this whole controversy did in fact start with the Antiochians trying to force a Dyophysite Christology on the whole Church, nonetheless to say that the Dyophysite Christology that is used is Nestorian per se, as far as I can tell, is groundless.

What's often accused of being heretical in the Tome, despite using different formulae, is used by Saint Cyril of Alexandria himself in his commentary on John (namely, that the human and Divine natures served distinct functions in the Godman of Jesus Christ; in his commentary on John, Saint Cyril says that Jesus's human nature caused him to suffer in the garden and his Divine nature caused him to overcome that suffering),

And moreover, we have Syriac fragments of the Council of Ephesus of 449 which you can find in English, and we have the letter of Theodoret which that Council condemned as heresy. There is nothing in that letter that is heretical other than Theodoret biting his tongue at Cyril; he makes it clear that the two natures are one and there is only one hypostasis, and he disliked Saint Cyril because his theology left the impression that the natures were mixed. Nonetheless it was condemned as heresy by virtue of the fact that its formula was "two natures."

This is in stark opposition to Saint Cyril of Alexandria himself, who said that the two natures formula was 100% Orthodox, much to the dismay of local Alexandrians at the time, with some today saying Saint Cyril himself accidentally spoke heresy.

This lattermost point heavily suggests that the non-Chalcedonians, while perhaps a great many of them holding to an Orthodox Christology, were in the wrong here.

I would point out two things. one, the whole point of the 5th Council was to show that Ephesian and Chalcedonian Christology were in sync with each other and were not in opposition.

two, Ibas denied the theology of the letter at Chalcedon before he was admitted into communion. this is why in subsequent councils it's always referred to as the letter attributed to Ibas, and not the letter of Ibas.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: public hermit
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,176.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
I don't really want to get involved in this conversation (I've written privately via PM to people of this fine board and I think also publicly that Chalcedon is essentially a non-starter for me personally; I don't see anything in this thread that causes me to reevaluate this position), but I do want to highlight something that I think is very wise and add a little commentary on it, if the thread will allow it without dragging me into the argument. :)

In my opinion, I believe that both Christological formulas can be used in an Orthodox way that both sides can agree on, and you can find out what that is if you are careful in your studies, namely, that there are two ontologically distinct natures in the Hypostasis of Jesus Christ, but these two natures are united so closely together that you cannot separate them nor will they ever separate them, and to say that they aren't completely united is to be Nestorian.

As Fr. Matt subsequently pointed out, the fifth council of the Chalcedonians allows for both formulas, properly understood, so yes.

From the 'other side', to allude to Fr. Peter Farrington's (Coptic Orthodox priest in Britain) talk on the Orthodox Christology of St. Severus of Antioch (originally a podcast hosted on the website Podbean; I don't think it is available anymore, and sadly I didn't save it to my computer, hence I am alluding to it rather than quoting it), we do not have, and generally have not historically had, any trouble speaking of the two natures of which Christ is composed. (Emphases mine.) The key is the union, and its inseparability, which St. Severus calls a union which "drives out division". Given that kind of language, you can imagine how forcefully we have taken to rebuking anything which seems, from this vantage point, to be 're-dividing' the natures after the union. (See here also the Syrian Fraction and other liturgical prayers which make this very point, as the prayers of the liturgy are to be our standard.)

But hopefully it goes without saying from our common fathers like St. Cyril et al. that to speak of a union to begin with necessitates two. You can find it even in the name of the Orthodox Tewahedo Church of Ethiopia and Eritrea, tewahedo meaning "unified" or "made one" (in reference to the Church's Christology -- i.e., the union of the two natures at/with the incarnation). The Copts have also adopted (presumably c. 1850s, during the time when we came close to union with the Greeks in Egypt) certain hymns of EO origin such as "Asomen to Kyrio", which explicitly teach this Christological truth. Indeed, they were adopted in the first place because there is nothing but Orthodox Christology in them! And the Copts also say the same about the EO adoption of the Christological hymn "O Monogenes Yios", which is sometimes attributed in the Coptic Orthodox tradition to St. Severus himself (though there is also a tradition that says it was composed by HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic; see this essay for a Copt's perspective on it, if you're curious).
 
Upvote 0

Nancy Hale

Active Member
Dec 29, 2019
226
157
Nevada
✟24,486.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Reading about the historical split and the actual Councils that took place such Ephesus and Chalcedon helped me a lot and reading about the Church Fathers and heretics such as the clash between Saint Cyril and Nestorius. Also I found the Miaphysite Christological formula to be superior and more logical to the one given at Chalcedon. You should use these same methods when reading about the split between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics.
I've read a lot, that's my problem. I get close to settling on one then a new bit of information pops up.
Are you aware there was a divide in the EO church similar to RC/Protestant, but in the case of EO, the protesters "won" control of the church? The ppl who remained true to the original practices are named something along the line of "Old Way" or "Old Believers".
I want to find out more about the split and exactly what changed.
My other issue is, if I stand back and take a look at the Churches where I live (it's not a large place. We have RC, Greek orthodox and Russian orthodox) the Roman Catholic seem to be doing what Jesus said to do, by a long shot (feeding the poor, clothing the poor, and so on) the Russian orthodox church has all services in Russian, not one English option (I live in the U.S.) the Greek orthodox does have some English services. But, they are in a difficult location to reach.
I'm hoping in larger cities, the situation is different.
But, my main issue at this point is the divide of the EO church, and if has been rendered the "protestant" version of itself.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,470
20,026
41
Earth
✟1,456,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I've read a lot, that's my problem. I get close to settling on one then a new bit of information pops up.
Are you aware there was a divide in the EO church similar to RC/Protestant, but in the case of EO, the protesters "won" control of the church? The ppl who remained true to the original practices are named something along the line of "Old Way" or "Old Believers".
I want to find out more about the split and exactly what changed.
My other issue is, if I stand back and take a look at the Churches where I live (it's not a large place. We have RC, Greek orthodox and Russian orthodox) the Roman Catholic seem to be doing what Jesus said to do, by a long shot (feeding the poor, clothing the poor, and so on) the Russian orthodox church has all services in Russian, not one English option (I live in the U.S.) the Greek orthodox does have some English services. But, they are in a difficult location to reach.
I'm hoping in larger cities, the situation is different.
But, my main issue at this point is the divide of the EO church, and if has been rendered the "protestant" version of itself.

that's actually not what happened with the Old Believers.

at all.
 
Upvote 0

TheLostCoin

A Lonesome Coin
Supporter
Sep 29, 2016
1,507
822
Ohio
✟234,420.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
I've read a lot, that's my problem. I get close to settling on one then a new bit of information pops up.
Are you aware there was a divide in the EO church similar to RC/Protestant, but in the case of EO, the protesters "won" control of the church? The ppl who remained true to the original practices are named something along the line of "Old Way" or "Old Believers".
I want to find out more about the split and exactly what changed.
My other issue is, if I stand back and take a look at the Churches where I live (it's not a large place. We have RC, Greek orthodox and Russian orthodox) the Roman Catholic seem to be doing what Jesus said to do, by a long shot (feeding the poor, clothing the poor, and so on) the Russian orthodox church has all services in Russian, not one English option (I live in the U.S.) the Greek orthodox does have some English services. But, they are in a difficult location to reach.
I'm hoping in larger cities, the situation is different.
But, my main issue at this point is the divide of the EO church, and if has been rendered the "protestant" version of itself.

This is so objectively and historically wrong on so many levels that I don't even know what to start with.

1. The Catholic Church gave liturgies in Latin in every country from the time of Saint Damasus to the 1960s, no exceptions except in China under Pius XII.
2. It is incredibly ignorant and pretentious to say that Orthodox people don't help the poor. See St. Maria Skobstova. If you are talking about monasticism specifically, well, the idea of monasticism focused in on helping the poor started post-schism with Francis of Assisi. The Roman Church absolutely did not have such monasticism before then, so unless you want to contend that the Roman Church never did what Jesus did until St. Francis of Assisi, you better retract that calumnious claim.
3. The Russian Orthodox Church and the Greek Orthodox Church vary on a parish by parish basis whether their liturgies are in English or not - it's not a default rule. The local Russian Church where I live in has liturgies in English.
4. The Old Believers didn't "win," what happened is the Russian Church reformed their liturgies with the Old Believers going into schism, and the Russian Church retaining the reforms.
5. How can you say that the Russian Orthodox Church suffers from "Protestantization" more than Roman Catholicism? I mean, have you been to a typical Roman Catholic Mass? Most now have no liturgical chant, no incense, little images or iconography, and many Masses serve the function of social gatherings rather than liturgical worship (many, not all). That's not to mention the removal of non-politically correct language, like how Dies Irae has disappeared from the Funeral Mass or how the prayers that the Jews may be converted to Christ during Holy Week has been removed and replaced with prayers for Jews to "be faithful to God's Covenant."
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Euodius
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,470
20,026
41
Earth
✟1,456,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
What happened? I've only been able to find out a little and it could have been totally one-sided.

they were not protesters. the chose (in a heavy handed way) to follow the Byzantine Rite as opposed to the Old Rite. prior to this, both rites were fully in communion. after the schism, many Old Rite either never left or returned because they were promised they could keep their Old Rite. some, sadly didn't.

it's nothing like what you described.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Nancy Hale

Active Member
Dec 29, 2019
226
157
Nevada
✟24,486.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
This is so objectively and historically wrong on so many levels that I don't even know what to start with.

1. The Catholic Church gave liturgies in Latin in every country from the time of Saint Damasus to the 1960s, no exceptions except in China under Pius XII.
2. It is incredibly ignorant and pretentious to say that Orthodox people don't help the poor. See St. Maria Skobstova. If you are talking about monasticism specifically, well, the idea of monasticism focused in on helping the poor started post-schism with Francis of Assisi. The Roman Church absolutely did not have such monasticism before then, so unless you want to contend that the Roman Church never did what Jesus did until St. Francis of Assisi, you better retract that calumnious claim.
3. The Russian Orthodox Church and the Greek Orthodox Church vary on a parish by parish basis whether their liturgies are in English or not - it's not a default rule. The local Russian Church where I live in has liturgies in English.
4. The Old Believers didn't "win," what happened is the Russian Church reformed their liturgies with the Old Believers going into schism, and the Russian Church retaining the reforms.
5. How can you say that the Russian Orthodox Church suffers from "Protestantization" more than Roman Catholicism? I mean, have you been to a typical Roman Catholic Mass? Most now have no liturgical chant, no incense, little images or iconography, and many Masses serve the function of social gatherings rather than liturgical worship (many, not all). That's not to mention the removal of non-politically correct language, like how Dies Irae has disappeared from the Funeral Mass or how the prayers that the Jews may be converted to Christ during Holy Week has been removed and replaced with prayers for Jews to "be faithful to God's Covenant."
I didn't mean to offend and I'm sorry I didn't make myself clear; I just took a look at the Churches in my small city. I'm not saying it's true for the Churches as a whole, just looking thru my eyes at what is in front of me.
I did go to the RC mass a couple of times. How would I, a person raised in protestant churches, know if they've changed?
How can I even fairly judge anything about them? I was disappointed that no one even greeted me, but I reasoned that possibly greeting strangers is a protestant thing, so I went back and intended to speak to a priest (the only person i, as a stranger, could identify as someone of authority) but that didn't work out. He had a group of woman twice his age running around him calling him "papa" or "daddy" and it was pretty ... odd. I went to their store and bought more books.
Every time I drove by the Russian orthodox church no one was there. I went by it nearly everyday.
Reading books isn't all to helpful because there's always another book saying the previous book is completely wrong.
Like you did when I attempted to relate my personal experience.
 
Upvote 0