The Orthodox Church (testimony, virgin, doctrine, churches, bishop)

[No*s]

Bishop Kallistos Ware's book, The Orthodox Church, is evidently available online. I'm not sure if it's abridged or not, but this has been one of the standard texts in the English speaking world (and there are two editions with some additions and some changes in the latter). Even if it's abridged, it's a good read on Orthodoxy (albeit a long read).

http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0804/_INDEX.HTM

Of course, I'm going to enjoy it myself .

[Scott1]

Frubals to thee...... I loved reading this:

Orthodoxy and Rome each believes itself to have been right and its opponentwrong upon

these points of doctrine; and so Rome and Orthodoxy since the schism have each claimed to be

the trueChurch. Yet each, while believing in the rightness of its own cause, must lookback at

the past with sorrow and repentance. Both sides must in honesty acknowledge that they could

and should have done more to prevent the schism. Both sides were guilty of mistakes on the hu-

manlevel.

[No*s]

Ah, thankee .

There was more than a little blame to go around on both sides in the Schism . That is a sour point in our mutual history, much like the groups that schismed off at Chalcedon.

[Linus7]

Originally Posted by No*s

Ah, thankee .

There was more than a little blame to go around on both sides in the Schism . That is a sour point in our mutual history, much like the groups that schismed off at Chalcedon.

Speaking of Chalcedon, have you read Dr. Warren Carroll's account of the Latrocinium (the Robber Synod of Ephesus - 449), of Chalcedon, and the events and personalities involved in volume 2, The Building of Christendom, of his six-volume series A History of Christendom?

Dr. Carroll is a Roman Catholic historian and the founder of Christendom College in Front Royal, Virginia. His books are superbly written and documented, even if they are written from the Roman catholic perspective.

Anyway, what happened with the Monophysites was not a schism. It was heresy.

[No*s]

Thanks, I'll add the series to my reading list. I should have access to a decent library soon enough.

It was most certainly a schism. They broke off of the Church .

Now, whether they were a heresy or not, it appears to be a convoluted matter...and I trust the juggement of the Church and the fact that they broke away.

[Linus7]

Originally Posted by No*s

Thanks, I'll add the series to my reading list. I should have access to a decent library soon enough.

It was most certainly a schism. They broke off of the Church .

Now, whether they were a heresy or not, it appears to be a convoluted matter...and I trust the juggement of the Church and the fact that they broke away.

Oh, it was a heresy, all right, in fact, two or more of them at the same time.

Strictly speaking, heresy and schism are not really the same thing. It's possible to be schismatic without being involved in material heresy.

The Monophysites, who are also Monothelites as a consequence of their Monophysitism, believe in heretical doctrines.

We have the testimony of several ecumenical councils, some Church Fathers, and even a number of martyrdoms that attest to it.

[No*s]

Originally Posted by Linus7

Oh, it was a heresy, all right, in fact, two or more of them at the same time.

Strictly speaking, heresy and schism are not really the same thing. It's possible to be schismatic without being involved in material heresy.

The Monophysites, who are also Monothelites as a consequence of their Monophysitism, believe in heretical doctrines.

We have the testimony of several ecumenical councils, some Church Fathers, and even a number of martyrdoms that attest to it.

Yes, it is possible to be schismatic without being heretical, but it is also possible to be heretical without being schismatic. Arius was for a good while.

With reference to them, I take the Councils at their words, but the present situation is more complex. I've read some Coptic literature, and some of what they say contradicts Monophysitism, so that they would be more of a Miaphysite like St. Cyril. It's a complicated matter, and if that is true, I hope that things work out. If it isn't, then I know God will guide the Church away from it.

It's a very difficult situation. I know I'll stay away from the Non-Chalcedonian churches for my part.

[Linus7]

Originally Posted by No*s

Yes, it is possible to be schismatic without being heretical, but it is also possible to be heretical without being schismatic. Arius was for a good while.

With reference to them, I take the Councils at their words, but the present situation is more complex. I've read some Coptic literature, and some of what they say contradicts Monophysitism, so that they would be more of a Miaphysite like St. Cyril. It's a complicated matter, and if that is true, I hope that things work out. If it isn't, then I know God will guide the Church away from it.

It's a very difficult situation. I know I'll stay away from the Non-Chalcedonian churches for my part.

St. Cyril was no "Miaphysite." Be careful reading Coptic stuff. You won't get the full story. What you will get is distortion.

Non-Chalcedonians love to quote early St. Cyril and the Apollinarian forgeries that purport ot be St. Cyril's works. What they leave out are his later writings, like his letter to John of Antioch, in which he made clear that Christ has not one but two natures. They also tend to leave out the fact that St. Cyril signed the Formula of Union (433) with the Antiochenes, drafted by none other than the Blessed Theodoret of Cyrus himself.

St. Cyril's later writings, and especially his conciliatory actions toward the Antiochenes, were repudiated by Monophysite leaders like Timothy Aelurus and Severus of Antioch.

"Cyril... having excellently articulated the wise proclamation of Orthodoxy, showed himself to be fickle and is to be censured for teaching contrary doctrine: after previously proposing that we should speak of one nature of God the Word, he destroyed the dogma that he had formulated and is caught professing two Natures of Christ" (Timothy Aelurus, "Epistles to Kalonymos," Patrologia Graeca, Vol LXXXVI, Col. 276; quoted in The Non Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 13).

"The formulae used by the Holy Fathers concerning two Natures united in Christ should be set aside, even if they be Cyril's" (Severus of Antioch, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. LXXXIX, Col. 103D; quoted in The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 12).

Modern Non-Chalcedonians still maintain that our Lord has but one nature and one will. I have read this myself in the writings of the Coptic Pope Shenouda.

They may say things that sound Orthodox, but one must read everything they have to say.

[No*s]

I read both sides so that I can get a full picture .

The thing is, St. Cyril used the language "one nature," but when he saw Chalcedon, he said that it also taught his christology. The problem isn't that they claim "one nature," that is that Christ has "one nature" without compromising his humanity or divinity. When it fails to make a distinction that this isn't some hybrid nature, we get some sort of part-God part-man stuff or Christ's humanity is simply swallowed up. The hybrid is "monophysite," and from it a monothelete.

I personally won't go to a Coptic Church, but I'm also willing to say that I'm not sure of their stance right now. I read what looks like a monophysite position in one place, and then, I read what looks like a miaphysite in another .

[Scott1]

Wow..... I like the "new guy".... hehe.... welcome Linus7.... great posts!