Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Do Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians share the same Christology?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
67 replies to this topic

#61 Theopesta

Theopesta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 411 posts

Posted 13 November 2005 - 06:24 PM

Dear Rev. Dr. Mat,

Might I answer your question not instead of Athanasius, but just to learn.
the Q:

what constitutes the 'nature' of the human and the divine in Christ?


the nature of the incarnated hypostasis constitute of: the divine nature and the human nature, i.e self existence nature and non self existence nature, i.e uncreated nature and created nature. I think this is the right. but we can not say hypostasis instead of nature i.e: we can not say the incarnated hypostasis constitute of: the divine hypostasis and the human hypostasis i.e self existence hypostasis and non self existence hypostasis i.e
uncreated hypostasis and created hypostasis. this latter expressions is non-right

any expression indicate the presence of 2 hypostasis in christ not accuratly express the way of existence of the incarnated LOGOS, then not reflect the deep truth of union in the incarnation

if my language not good enough to express, forgive me
IN ONE CHRIST, theopesta

#62 Guest_Michael Howard Lake

Guest_Michael Howard Lake
  • Guests

Posted 16 November 2005 - 08:29 PM

Dearest Sister, Fathers, and Brothers in Christ,

How wonderful reading (and rereading) these posts has been for me! I have learned so much by observing your exchanges from the sidelines. Despite my admitted ignorance, the very language of Christology draws my heart up towards the ineffable. So from my poor perspective, dear Sister Theopesta, your language is always "good enough to express." Now as to whether these various verbal formulations accurately portray Christ's existential reality or not, I hope, as I grow in understanding, at last to be able to discern.

I want to thank all of you, however, for all you are teaching us through these discussions. God bless all of you!

Your brother in Christ,

Michael


#63 M.C. Steenberg

M.C. Steenberg

    Former Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,843 posts

Posted 20 November 2005 - 11:20 AM

Dear Theopesta,

Thank you for your post (your no. 297) above. It is interesting that you use the language of 'constitute' for the reality of the divine and the human in Christ. Assuming that this does not imply a kind of composition, as we've discussed somewhat at length in the earlier conversation, it seems (to me) that this language would be more at home with the language of Christ 'in' (en) two natures, as was said by Leo and Chalcedon; rather than 'from' or 'out of' (ek) two natures, as was preferred (though not without caveats) by Cyril. This is interesting, as it harks back to your question about this very distinction of expression.

People often find it surprising to learn that the Chalcedonian Church as a whole has not simply ratified the 'in'/en language of Chaldeon. The second council of Constantinople in 553 (ecumenical) makes it quite clear that one should also speak of the two natures 'of (ek) which [Jesus] is composed'; and in fact anathematises those who do not believe that 'from (ek) the divine and human natures a union was made according to hypostasis'.


#64 Theopesta

Theopesta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 411 posts

Posted 21 November 2005 - 06:26 AM

dear Dr. Matth. and all friends of eastern orthodox members,

I know that I am less than all of you in knowledge, just not for objection but for learning more, I find these phrases about en and ek in thayer's lexicon:

page 190: II.3.
ek used of the material out of which a thing is made

page212: I.6.c.
en used of that in which other things are contained and upheld as their cause and origin.

this mean for me we can use en before the phrase "incarnated hypostasis" and use ek before we say two natures, en the incarnated hypostasis the nature constitutes of ek two natures.

I do not know I can make the correct expression or not.

but finally their is no deep difference touch the christology issue itself
IN ONE CHRIST, Theopesta

#65 Guest_Mina Monir

Guest_Mina Monir
  • Guests

Posted 25 November 2005 - 08:15 PM

dear Dr.Mathew and Friends,

it so long time since I posted ... because of the continuos exams and struggle ... I really missed all of you.

I think it is a very interesting thread title... I wanted to talk on that point : as I stressed before , there is an official agreement between the both orthodox famillies declaring that the both famillies shared the same tradition and same faith for the 2000 years , that's why the orthodox greek church here in alexandria accepts our baptism and we do too, waiting this historic step from the rest of churches.. noting that the romanian church mentions the name of HH Pope Shenouda III in its liturgies from 1994 as an orthodox patriarche.. and we see team work in the WCC preparing for : i) one dyptiches for mutual usage between the famillies. ii)"Surprise!!" Coptic and Greek church will held two masses .. one in the St.Mark Cathedral in cairo and the other in greece .. in a great festival will be held to partake Communion together. we need intensive prays for that step to be taken soon. these new I got them from inside the Ecumenism office of the church and the WCC Journals .from this very positive intorduction I shall begin my words .

I don't want to interrupt the topic but I want to focus on the following : the story of 'of two natures' and 'from two natures' are both cyrillian terminologies , however Cyril used the second one more as it is more accurate. St.Cyril used these terms in his epistle to ksistos bishop of rome ( excuse me for the spelling as I translate) which is the epistle no.53 :"(2)... I know that nature of God is not painable and inchangeable , though it is through his Human nature , the Christ is one in two natures , and from two natures." here, we see him talking about the essences ... in the same time we see him talking in his epistle to succensus about Mia-Physis tou theologo sesarkomeni (and not sesarkomenu) .. here he talks about the one Hypostasis of the christ which is composed of two essences .. but one single simple person (prosopon ) ... refusing the Nestorian definition about prosopic union ... stressing on the physical union which is directly defined according to cyril as Hypostatic union. the epistle to Flavian (I think it is no.50) St.Cyril explained the concept that The two natures are still exist inseparably , and then he goes directly to explain the one 'incarnated' nature , and how it is accurate since the distinguish between the natures is in thought alone (Ty theoria Mony). Getting back to secondly , Why did the OO church and especially St.Dioscorus stress on the Mia-Physis terminology. I belive that there was very critical circumstances in that time , Nestour managed to spread his ignorant teachings through Theododret of cyrus and theodore of Mopsuista and others , Attilla the Hun was attacking Rome from the north ... all that needed A RIGID TERMINOLOGY TO CUT OFF THE WAY and finish this issue. St.Athanasius in his defence for the councils of italy and arminum mentioned that St.Ignatius (one of the apostolic fathers who took the teachings directly from the apostles) used the term One nature ... I think it is the oldest source of christology to find one like Ignatius talking about one nature (one hypostasis). all that pushed dioscorus to use this term as his previous fathers. in the same time, Eutiches appeared and deviated totally from the truth, and there must be a way to stop him... but facing the word by word not by Sword. Eutiches lied to the 449 ephisus council and deceived the attendants , Prof.John Romanides mentioned about flavian that it is strange to find flavian talking about consubstantiality that the christ is consubstantial with the Virgin (not with us) , and in the same time he accepted the writings of theodoret which were refused totally and were described as ignorant writnings by Cyril. in this time , a smart and clever political person became the bishop of Rome and unfortunatly he played the political and christological issues in one game .. egypt was the reward or payment of unity between constantinople and rome to face the barbarian monster Attilla ... and we saw leo dealing with attilla ... and accepting the refused writings of Theodoret to challenge alexandria .. the earthly force cut off the story for the sake of rome in the Council of Chalcedon. no addition in faith was added , no rigid terminology was produced, in contrary .. a definition and a group of laws opened the door for a bigger area of discussion ... and this generates a chain of objections . in the time dioscorus was stressing on (From two natures ) and refuses Eutiches and Nestour , Chalcedon opened the gate -Practically- for the nestorians to move freely when theodoret's writings were accepted . this massive error needed another council in 553 to condemn the Crypto-Nestorianism of Theodoret...AFTER A CENTURY ?! but what happened in that century? a good question. Leo prepared the way to accept the dogma of Roman papacy. the Encyclopaedia of Catholic new advent added the apologetic catholic writings... I read in the point of papacy how leo's writings supported it .. I remember a letter sent by him to dioscorus , telling him that the great pope of rome must accept the results of 449 and bless them as rome is the throne of Christianity. Bishop anatolius of Consantinople in the moments of Chalcedon Council declared it obviously that Dioscorus is Orthodox , but because he refused the tome of leo , we deposed (not condemned) him from his mission. in the modern ecumenical discussions , h.e Bishop Samuel OO bishop talked to romanides about the tome , and Romanides was clear in his answer saying that the Latin translation is not accurate , but the greek one is accurate!! besides , Chalcedon in the EO view cannot be understood separately from the other councils , but it must be interpretted IN THE LIGHT OF CYRIL'S CHRISTOLOGY AND THE COUNCIL OF 553 ... Chalcedon in my view point is like a youn chicken which need a chicken to nurse it . excuse me , It cannot be acceptable!! the roman Catholic church which is the church of papacy and the son of Leo reached a very shameful level of compromises on faith, they managed to put a christological agreement with the Assyrian Nestorian group (I can't say church) .. this Pushe H.E metropolitan Bishoy to leave the ecumenical meeting in the vatican and declared that the common christological agreement between the RCC and OOC is cancelled till they interpret their nestorian agreement with the assyrians. if there was a rigid terminology , the door would be closed early. that's why in the official agreement on the one faith of the EO and OO famillies , the 6th point mentioned that WE ACCEPT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ROMAN ORTHODOX CHURCH . but sure not chalcedon! getting back to the century between chalcedon and constantinople, Egypt suffered from a great persecution reached a sea of blood to force the egyptians to accept the error of chalcedon (i.e. accepting the theodoret's Crypto-Nestorianism) , but because the gos said : blessed my people Egypt on Isaiah , we managed to survive and managed to bear the persecution of chalcedonians till the Conquest of the Arab Barbarians in 641 , Amr Ibn-EL-AAS the islamic leader did not find the coptic patriache , then he knew that the Chalcedon CRISTIANS kidnapped him to force him to accept Leo's tome , that's why the muslims always say that : we saved you from the byzantine chalcedonians!!! if some you (any EO ) put yourself in my position ... Honestly, what will u say?

Modern view : I'm one of the side who call to put a condition before unity , which is : the EO church must apologize for : 1) hundreds of years accusing us of monophysitism since they knew that they misunderstood us (i'm not convinced by the word misunderstood)
2) the blood of coptic martyrs. but since there is a positive steps from EO familly , I can accept unity which is based on the fact of one faith , because I remember how John of Antioch prisonned Cyril , and cyril did not put that as an obstacle on the way of unity between them in 433.

in one Christ .
Mina

#66 Fr Raphael Vereshack

Fr Raphael Vereshack

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 4,420 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member
  • Verified Monastic Cleric

Posted 25 November 2005 - 08:46 PM

Dear Mina,

It's good to see you back here and I hope your exams have gone well. There is some sort of special warmth in your posts which I really appreciate even if at times I might disagree with some things in them. Sometimes I feel I have to disagree almost just to keep such a tasty soup warm.

Anyway- your post has many interesting points. Could you explain more fully for us though what is the problem with Pope Leo? Do you mean you think his Christology is somehow Nestorian?

Also- are you saying that the false understanding of papal supremacy arises with him? Thanks for clarifying this.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

PS: You wrote: " Chalcedon in my view point is like a youn chicken which need a chicken to nurse it . excuse me , It cannot be acceptable!!"

Yes- but we all hope the older chicken doesn't have bird flu.Posted Image

#67 Guest_Mina Monir

Guest_Mina Monir
  • Guests

Posted 26 November 2005 - 12:52 PM

thanks very much fr.Rafael , I did -relatively- well in the exams , but this does not mean that I finished!! I still have so much struggle.. so, pleeeeeeeeeeeeease pray for me. what I wanted to say was : we have the same christology , Dioscorus and Leo have the same christology ... but they did not have the same targets.

I read very very well the tome of leo , my comment is : it has a lack of accuracy , however there is not a real problem in the meaning , but it cannot be taken as an official recource for christology. "one sustains pain and the other do miracle" ... I can't accept it separately. beside , I want to stress on two points :

A- the importance of presenting a RIGID terminology to close the door and cut off the way on sophistric discussion may lead to a bigger area generates problems and heresies. for example , I wont talk again about the Roman Catholic model which dealt with the Assyrians the nestorians because the catholics used to waste the faith ... they reached the highest level when they believed in puragtory and salvation of non-Believers. but the other example is the Protestants , they don't believe in tradition nor the Nicene creed of faith . so, they opened the door for freedom and multiplicity of thinking since we (they say) believe in trinity and deity of christ ... this multiplicity and liberation from A RIGID CREED led them to generate Adventists and Jehovah witnesses who don't believe in christ as god. Martin luthar began from Sola Scriptura (however I think he believed in Anti scritpura not sola scriptura) to Elin Hwait the prophet of the adventists!! there was no Bounds. that's why I prefer the concept of Rigid terminology. Mia Physis tou theologo sesarkwmeny closes the door on Nestor (mia-Hypostasis)and in the same time on eutiches by (sesarkwmeny) .. but multiplicity and liberation from this rigidity in leo's tome led the Chalcedonians to fall in the massive error of accepting theodoret's Crypto-Nestorianism ... may be some one asks : but the term Miaphysis did not protect dioscorus from Eutiches' in 449 , I tell him : If any one did not accept Eutiche's confess in 449 let be anathema ... he was clear and he apologized and refused his monophysitism and confessed the Nicene Creed.so, there is no falt on dioscorus.. but in 450 he got back to his ignorance and there was a local council in alexandria condemned him . on the other side , the free tome which did not include any rigid dogma and did not talk about the killing point which is the Hypostatic union opened the door to accept the Crypto nestorianism dogma . may be some one asks : and where is the difference between eutiches story with dioscorus and this story? I say : theodoret did not present any new writings to change the idea of the fathers towards him , he did not repend and the same writings accepted in 451 were refused in 553 ... what pushed the same people to condemn him? besides, forcing theodoret for refusing Nestor in 451 was not enough to condemn his nestorianism ... and the result was the massive error which needed a century for mentainance in 553 . why all that? the result :

1) crypto nestorian errors and errors in laws.
2) a sea of blood were shedd in egypt.

about Leo , he was not an innocent person who accepted terminological multiplicity and misunderstood dioscorus .. he was a clever political person , and all the historical books told us how he played the game to ally with constantinople to face Attilla the Hun ... and to show his supremacy as I'll explain later , but the conclusion is : 1)pope Leo was playing a political game , and it is unfair to talk about the accident of 451 from a christological side.

2)pope Leo was orthodox (I'm not very sure) , and the tome stressed on the concept of one person in christ and not two persons . (I hope he practised orthodoxy when he sent a patriarche to alexandria using the military to force copts to accept him and reject dioscorus who was tortured by Pulcharia and sent to Gangra where he died ... but we had one and one saint and patriarche dioscorus .. we made a revolution against the imperial forces and when dioscorus died god put Timothaus after him ... no sword will force god's people .. not the swords of leo nor muslims ... never) about papal Supremacy , I remember there was a thread here in Monachos opened my mind on that point . so , I searched and found it very clear in his writings , and the catholic Apologetics showed it very well by underlining the supercilious sentences he used with the others. I'll send them when it is possible . there is a site called newadvent , any one can find leo's writings there.
I belive this is my view point .

last note : in the time we try to differ between "ek" and "en " two natures , the Jehovah witnesses and mormons are attacking us. we need a direct apologetic trend to stop this western wave.

in christ,
Mina

#68 Guest_Mina Monir

Guest_Mina Monir
  • Guests

Posted 26 November 2005 - 06:31 PM

dear friends,

i'll post a small message because of my small free time,

dear Fr.Raphael , I hope I could answer your questions about Leo from my side , and soon I'll send many of his writings about the one control of peter's see to prove how he began the heresey of papal supremacy.

secondly, monks of Athos are still monks!! they are closed and they are feel some fears because they live in greece , and greece is part of europe , and europe is part of the liberated and atheist community where homosexuality and drugs cover big part of them , besides, they are fearing from any compromises hurt the orthodox faith ... but I have an opinion and a solution ... we can talk on that tomorrow. please hussamX pray for the unity.

I will talk about the story of mentioning HH name in romania as an Orthodox patriarche tomorrow.

GBU in Christ,
Mina Monir




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users