The Orthodox Church

[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:

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/19.HTM

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

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

the true Church. Yet each, while believing in the rightness of its own cause, must look back 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-

man level.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/19.HTM

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/19.HTM

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/19.HTM

 

[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]

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]

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]

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]

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!

 

[Linus7]

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

Thank you. Is that really you? Are you a priest?

 

[Linus7]

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 .

You're right that at one point St. Cyril spoke of "one nature" (mia physis), but that was in the early days of Christology, before the terminology was settled. St. Cyril later wrote of the two natures of Christ. He didn't live to see the Holy Council of Chalcedon. St. Cyril went to be with the Lord in 444, seven years before Chalcedon. It was left to Pope St. Leo the Great (one of my favorite saints) to formulate and best express the Orthodox Catholic doctrine, in his famous Tome.

Here is an excerpt from St. Cyril's letter to John of Antioch.

"With regard to the Evangelical and Apostolic expressions concerning the Lord, we know that men who are skilled in theology make some of them common to the one Person, while they divide others between the two Natures, ascribing those that are fitting to God to Divinity of Christ, and those that are lowly to His Humanity. On reading these sacred utterances of Yours, and finding that we ourselves think along the same lines—for there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism—, we glorified God the Saviour of all" (St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letter to John of Antioch, in John Karmiris' Dogmatic and Creedal Statements of the Orthodox Church, Vol. 1; Athens:1960. p. 154).

"Miaphysitism" is really the same thing as Monophysitism, since both mean the belief that Christ has but one nature.

The fact that Non-Chalcedonians say some things that sound Orthodox should not distract one from the fact that their Christological beliefs remain heretical. They still regard many Orthodox saints - such as St. Leo the Great and the martyrs, St. Flavian, Pope St. Martin, and St. Maximus the Confessor - as heretics, and reject the last four of the seven ecumenical councils.

No one can be considered Orthodox who does those things.

(I know you aren't saying that NCs are Orthodox, just that you think the whole subject is difficult.)

I'm not saying we should not engage in dialogue with NCs, just that we should beware and thus avoid compromise that would betray the Orthodox faith. Some are too quick to pronounce them fully Orthodox - after all, they have beards, incense, and icons - without recognizing the truth that our Fathers knew too well.

 

[No*s]

You're right that at one point St. Cyril spoke of "one nature" (mia physis), but that was in the early days of Christology, before the terminology was settled. But he didn't live to see the Holy Council of Chalcedon. St. Cyril went to be with the Lord in 444, seven years before Chalcedon. It was left to Pope St. Leo the Great (one of my favorite saints) to formulate and best express the Orthodox Catholic doctrine, in his famous Tome.

Here is an excerpt from St. Cyril's letter to John of Antioch.

"With regard to the Evangelical and Apostolic expressions concerning the Lord, we know that men who are skilled in theology make some of them common to the one Person, while they divide others between the two Natures, ascribing those that are fitting to God to Divinity of Christ, and those that are lowly to His Humanity. On reading these sacred utterances of Yours, and finding that we ourselves think along the same lines—for there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism—, we glorified God the Saviour of all" (St. Cyril of Alexandria, Letter to John of Antioch, in John Karmiris' Dogmatic and Creedal Statements of the Orthodox Church, Vol. 1; Athens:1960. p. 154).

"Miaphysitism" is really the same thing as Monophysitism, since both mean the belief that Christ has but one nature.

The fact that Non-Chalcedonians say some things that sound Orthodox should not detract one from the fact that their Christological beliefs remain heretical. They still regard many Orthodox saints - such as St. Leo the Great and the martyrs, St. Flavian, Pope St. Martin, and St. Maximus the Confessor - as heretics, and reject the last four of the seven ecumenical councils.

No one can be considered Orthodox who does those things.

(I know you aren't saying that NCs are Orthodox, just that you think the whole subject is difficult.)

I'll have to look up what I'm confusing. I believe St. Cyril saw an argument for Chalcedonian Christianity and accepted it, even if it wasn't the council...stupid memory :banghead3. I'll get back to that .

I wouldn't say that miaphysitism is the same thing as monophysitism, but without clarification, it can become that. Just like for diophysitism also became heresy at Ephesus, because of Nestorius' insistance on not using the term "theotokos" (and the cause of St. Cyril's insistance on one nature).

I'm glad you understand I wouldn't advocate their theology. The Spirit has guided the Church, and I'm glad I'm not discussing with them. I wouldnt' be up to the task .

 

[Linus7]

I'll have to look up what I'm confusing. I believe St. Cyril saw an argument for Chalcedonian Christianity and accepted it, even if it wasn't the council...stupid memory :banghead3. I'll get back to that .

I wouldn't say that miaphysitism is the same thing as monophysitism, but without clarification, it can become that. Just like for diophysitism also became heresy at Ephesus, because of Nestorius' insistance on not using the term "theotokos" (and the cause of St. Cyril's insistance on one nature).

I'm glad you understand I wouldn't advocate their theology. The Spirit has guided the Church, and I'm glad I'm not discussing with them. I wouldnt' be up to the task .

Diophysitism is the Orthodox doctrine. It simply means that Christ has two natures (dio physis).

Miaphysitism is the belief that Christ has one nature. It is essentially the same thing as Monophysitism and equally heretical.

The Nestorian belief was that Christ has two hypostases, which comes pretty close to saying that He was two different persons, a man possessed by God.

Check out the articles on these subjects in The Catholic Encyclopedia at NewAdvent.org.

I enjoy conversing with you, brother!

 

[No*s]

Diophysitism is the Orthodox doctrine. It simply means that Christ has two natures (dio physis).

Miaphysitism is the belief that Christ has one nature. It is essentially the same thing as Monophysitism and equally heretical.

The Nestorian belief was that Christ has two hypostases, which comes pretty close to saying that He was two different persons, a man possessed by God.

Check out the articles on these subjects in The Catholic Encyclopedia at NewAdvent.org.

I enjoy conversing with you, brother!

Yes its, and I realize that. The problem Nestorius ran into, is that he took diophysitism to the point that he made two hypostasis, as you said. He removed the checks and balances, and comitted the grave error of going too far in analyzing a mystery (and as always when that happens, analyzed it wrong ).

I've always understood miaphysitism as similar terminology as monophysitism, but with checks built in (kind of like St. Cyril used). Without those checks, though, we get some sort of hybrid and both divinity and humanity is compromised. I think this point here, that there can be another legitimate classification, is our sole point of disagreement (well, of course it is lol...since we both accept all Seven Councils ).

Well, I'm still learning for my part, and I'm enjoying the conversation (and am counting up the books I haven't read to add to my list ).

 

[No*s]

I used the term "diophysite" because I really have a lack of terminology to explain Nestorius' view of Christ, and how it relates to his view of the natures. He denied the title "theotokos" largely for the same reason Protestants do, and it stems from his view of Christ's natures, but without check.

 

[Scott1]

Thank you. Is that really you? Are you a priest?

You're quite welcome.... and no, that's not me and I'm not a priest.

Click the link in my signature line if you'd like to learn more about Servant of God Father Patrick Peyton......

.... or click here http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/member.php?userid=529 to learn a bit about me!

 

[Linus7]

Yes its, and I realize that. The problem Nestorius ran into, is that he took diophysitism to the point that he made two hypostasis, as you said. He removed the checks and balances, and comitted the grave error of going too far in analyzing a mystery (and as always when that happens, analyzed it wrong ).

I've always understood miaphysitism as similar terminology as monophysitism, but with checks built in (kind of like St. Cyril used). Without those checks, though, we get some sort of hybrid and both divinity and humanity is compromised. I think this point here, that there can be another legitimate classification, is our sole point of disagreement (well, of course it is lol...since we both accept all Seven Councils ).

Well, I'm still learning for my part, and I'm enjoying the conversation (and am counting up the books I haven't read to add to my list ).

I don't think there are any more "checks" in the system of the modern Non-Chalcedonians than there were in the old days of Monophysites like Dioscorus, Severus of Antioch, and Timothy Aelurus (all NC "saints," BTW).

They are still writing the same things, still claiming they do not confuse the humanity and divinity of Christ, yet doing that very thing the next instant. They still revere the same old Monophysites the Orthodox Fathers condemned, especially Severus of Antioch.

If our Lord has but one nature - and there is but one divine nature shared by the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity - then have the Father and the Holy Spirit acquired a human nature? Or has Jesus a nature that is a divino-human hybrid, different from the divine nature of the Father and the Holy Spirit?

If our Lord Jesus has but one will - as Coptic Pope Shenouda maintains to this day - and the divine will is shared by the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity, then have the Father and the Holy Spirit acquired a human will? Or has our Lord Jesus a hybrid divino-human will different from the divine will of the Father and the Holy Spirit?

If the NCs are Orthodox, as some of them - and even some EOs - maintain, then why the resistance to the last four ecumenical councils?

(Those are rhetorical questions, brother. I know you don't believe NCs are Orthodox.):bonk:

In fact, I read a statement from a Malankara metropolitan who says that the NCs have more problems with the 6th Ecumenical Council (Constantinople, 681, which condemned Monothelitism) than they do with Chalcedon!

 

[No*s]

I don't think there are any more "checks" in the system of the modern Non-Chalcedonians than there were in the old days of Monophysites like Dioscorus, Severus of Antioch, and Timothy Aelurus (all NC "saints," BTW).

They are still writing the same things, still claiming they do not confuse the humanity and divinity of Christ, yet doing that very thing the next instant. They still revere the same old Monophysites the Orthodox Fathers condemned, especially Severus of Antioch.

If our Lord has but one nature - and there is but one divine nature shared by the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity - then have the Father and the Holy Spirit acquired a human nature? Or has Jesus a nature that is a divino-human hybrid, different from the divine nature of the Father and the Holy Spirit?

If our Lord Jesus has but one will - as Coptic Pope Shenouda maintains to this day - and the divine will is shared by the Three persons of the Holy Trinity, then have the Father and the Holy Spirit acquired a human will? Or has our Lord Jesus a hybrid divino-human will different from the divine will of the Father and the Holy Spirit?

If the NCs are Orthodox, as some of them - and even some EOs - maintain, then why the resistance to the last four ecumenical councils?

(Those are rhetorical questions, brother. I know you don't believe NCs are Orthodox.):bonk:

In fact, I read a statement from a Malankara metropolitan who says that the NCs have more problems with the 6th Ecumenical Council (Constantinople, 681 - condemned Monothelitism) than they do with Chalcedon!

That's what put the brakes one when I was looking at them a while back...there were no checks. They would swing from something completely compatible with the Councils over to a monophysite statement pretty quickly. I couldn't make heads or tails out of the matter.

I hadn't read their statements on the monothelete controversy. I can see where they'd have problems with it, though. For my part, I'm glad I have the Councils .

 

[Linus7]

Here is the statement I had in mind, from the Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios of the Indian Syrian Non-Chalcedonian Church.

Here, as earlier in the decree, the Tome of Leo is expressly affirmed. The decree actually calls the Tome "the pillar of the right faith." You can perhaps understand that all this is rather difficult for us to accept. For us Leo is still a heretic. It may be possible for us to refrain from condemning him by name, in the interests of restoring communion between us. But we cannot in good conscience accept the Tome of Leo as "the pillar of the right faith" or accept a council which made such a declaration. The council approves explicitly what I clearly regard as heresy in the Tome of Leo: "Each form does in communion with the other what pertains properly to it, the Word, namely doing that which pertains to the Word, and the flesh that which pertains to the flesh." If one rightly understands the hypostatic union, it is not possible to say that the flesh does something on its own, even if it is said to be in union with the Word. The flesh does not have its own hypostasis. It is the hypostasis of the Word which acts through the flesh. It is the same hypostasis of the Word which does the actions of the Word and of his own flesh. The argument of the horos [dogmatic definition] in this Sixth Council is basically unacceptable to us (Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Vol. XVI, nos. 1 and 2, p. 139; Does Chalcedon,p. 133).

We are unable to say what this council 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.

c) We find that this Sixth Council exalts as its standard mainly the teaching of Leo and Agatho, popes of Rome, paying only lip-service to the teachings of the Blessed Cyril. We regard Leo as a heretic for his teaching that the will and operation of Christ is to be attributed to the two natures of Christ rather than to the one hypostasis. The human nature is as "natural" to Christ the incarnate Word as is the divine. It is one hypostasis who now is both divine and human, and all the activities come from the one hypostasis (Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Vol. XVI, nos. 1 and 2,pp. 140-141; Does Chalcedon,pp. 134-135).​

The bolding is mine, for emphasis.

These remarks leave little doubt as to the real NC position on Christological issues.

​