Is the Oriental Orthodox Church a heretical church?

[minasoliman]

This is the chance for those who are engaged in a serious discussion to really come out of the closet and let me know why I cannot be called an "Orthodox" Christian (other than the fact because my "bishops told me so").

I'm willing to answer every honest question brought to me. I've already stated numerous "rebuttals" at the VitD forum, but no one seems to care what is written in the stickies there.

Therefore, with the help of any other OO who wishes to join, let us discuss honestly what is it that we find with one another as problematic, and can we find the solution. Let us not propose solutions, but teach me the means by which a solution can be found. The solution then should be obvious to everyone without even telling us what it is.

I only ask one request. That this be not turned into a verbal fight or a forum filled with CAPITALIZATIONS and EXCLAMATIONS!!!!!!!!! Let us not show emotion here. Let us, in the Spirit of the Apostles in the Council of Jerusalem find out why a certain position can be wrong, and how we can rectify it. Even St. Peter was of the opinion to make one Jewish before Christian, and he with humility accepted the Spirit of true dogma, that Jewish law is not a necessary prerequisite for the baptized in Christ.

The love of God the Father, the grace of His Only Begotten Son, our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, and the communion and gift of the Holy Spirit be with us all, now and forever, and unto the ages of all ages. Amen!

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Oh yeah...

I'll definitely be subscribing to this one.

:thumbsup:

[Dust and Ashes]

I am subscribing as well. This is an issue that needs to be discussed.

[Jacob4707]

No takers, eh?

[MichaelArchangelos]

The OO are Miaphysites, aren't they? They believe that Christ was fully God and fully man, but that the two natures merged into one nature in the womb of the Virgin Mary.

Therefore, Christ has a hybrid nature - made up of both the divine and human natures. The Orthodox Church believes that Christ had two distinct natures - the divine and the human. That is why when we make the Sign of the Cross, we fold the ring finger and little finger into the palm of our hand to represent the two natures of Christ.

The OO are in schism from the Orthodox Church - we cannot receive their Communion and our priests can't serve with theirs.

[GabrielWithoutWings]

The OO are Miaphysites, aren't they? They believe that Christ was fully God and fully man, but that the two natures merged into one nature in the womb of the Virgin Mary.

Merged? Merged implies a mixture of sorts. Christ is fully God and fully man, without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration.

Therefore, Christ has a hybrid nature - made up of both the divine and human natures. The Orthodox Church believes that Christ had two distinct natures - the divine and the human. That is why when we make the Sign of the Cross, we fold the ring finger and little finger into the palm of our hand to represent the two natures of Christ.

Again, when you say that the Byzantine Church confesses two "distinct" natures, you seem to be implying that Miaphysis doesn't keep them distinct.

Also, the Oriental Orthodox use the exact same way of crossing oneself, though it's done left to right, instead of right to left.

The OO are in schism from the Orthodox Church - we cannot receive their Communion and our priests can't serve with theirs.

This can be reversed. The EO are in schism from the Orthodox Church - we cannot we receive their Communion and our priests can't serve with theirs.

A bit of an exception exists between the Byzantine Antiochian Church and the Syriac and Alexandrine Church. Fr Stephen of Saint Ignatius in Franklin stated that he can commune Copts who approach his altar, though he cannot serve in their church. I believe this is done as an exceptionary method during circumstances of hardship.

Peace.

PS - Mina, I'm not sure if you're wanting to go this alone, or if you welcome other folks. If my post is out of bounds, I'll remove or ask a mod to remove it.

[Jacob4707]

The OO are Miaphysites, aren't they? They believe that Christ was fully God and fully man, but that the two natures merged into one nature in the womb of the Virgin Mary.

Therefore, Christ has a hybrid nature - made up of both the divine and human natures. The Orthodox Church believes that Christ had two distinct natures - the divine and the human. That is why when we make the Sign of the Cross, we fold the ring finger and little finger into the palm of our hand to represent the two natures of Christ.

The OO are in schism from the Orthodox Church - we cannot receive their Communion and our priests can't serve with theirs.

That's what I believed, based on what EO folks have said, until I read the VitD thread/sticky on miaphysitism. They say Christ has the nature of the Incarnate Logos. It's not a hybrid, but it is distinct from a solely human nature and a solely divine nature, though some might argue that this doctrine is indeed the teaching of a hybrid nature.

[Dust and Ashes]

That's what I believed, based on what EO folks have said, until I read the VitD thread/sticky on miaphysitism. They say Christ has the nature of the Incarnate Logos. It's not a hybrid, but it is distinct from a solely human nature and a solely divine nature, though some might argue that this doctrine is indeed the teaching of a hybrid nature.

So, then it is a 3rd nature that is neither fully human nor fully Divine but somehow both?

[GabrielWithoutWings]

So, then it is a 3rd nature that is neither fully human nor fully Divine but somehow both?

No!

100 % man and 100% God, always, now and ever, and to the ages of ages.

From HH Pope Shenouda III's book The Nature of Christ (http://www.mystjohn.org/books/the_nature_of_christ.pdf):

Union without Mingling, Confusion, Alteration, or Transmutation:

By "one nature," we mean a real union. This does not involve mingling as of wheat and barley, nor confusion as of wine and water or milk and tea. Moreover, no change occured as a result of chemical reaction. For example, carbon dioxide consists of carbon and oxygen, and the nature of both changes when combined; each loses its properties which distinguished it before the unity. In contrast, no change occurred in the Divine or Human nature as a result of their unity.

Furthermore, unity between the two natures occurred without transmutation.

Thus, neither did the Divine nature transmute into the human nature, nor did the human nature transmute into the Divine nature. The Divine nature did not mix with the human nature nor mingle with it, but it was a unity that led to the Oneness of Nature. The analogy of the Union of Iron and Fire is right after that, as is the Union of the Soul and the Body. HH the Pope just a bit after that explains that it is a hypostatic union.

I think everyone would enjoy this book of his. It's not that long, and reads quite easily.

[Dust and Ashes]

So then, it seems to me that the issue isn't as big of a deal as I had thought. It looks like the only real difference between the EO and OO views is that the OOs hold that the 2 natures joined into one and the EO hold that the 2 natures remained separate.

I pray that the Holy Spirit will lead us to resolve this before too much longer.

[GabrielWithoutWings]

So then, it seems to me that the issue isn't as big of a deal as I had thought. It looks like the only real difference between the EO and OO views is that the OOs hold that the 2 natures joined into one and the EO hold that the 2 natures remained separate.

I pray that the Holy Spirit will lead us to resolve this before too much longer.

Well, that, and the fact that OO hold 3 councils to be ecumenical, while the EO hold 7 to be ecumenical. In these councils, they anathematize folks whom the OO regard as holy, such as Severus of Antioch and Dioscorus of Alexandria.

HH the Pope said that he would lift the anathemas on Leo and company if the anathemas on the OO fathers would be lifted.

In regards to these councils, I think everyone is dependent upon the letter of the law, while ignoring the spirit of the law.

That's my take on it, anyway.

[minasoliman]

Dear Gabe,

It's okay. Like I said, I didn't want to work on this alone. It would also be nice to get the expertise of Brother Subdeacon Peter Theodore, who is much more knowledgeable than I am.

My dear friends,

I thank you for the first question. Indeed many people are confused about the issue of "one nature," or "mia physis." First, we must honestly ask ourselves was this something that OO's made up, or was this a held Orthodox tradition? Even EO's, true and honest EO's would admit that the phrase "mia physis tou Theo Logo Sesarkomeni" is a phrase founded in Orthodox tradition.

Who then upheld and defended such a phrase? None other than St. Cyril himself, and even St. Cyril contended that this is not his own tradition, but the tradition of the ancient Alexandrian Church, with it was first written by St. Athanasius himself.

So, what exactly do we mean by "one nature," or more precisely "one incarnate nature?" Gabe quoted HH Pope Shenouda, who said it best.

Let me share with you what St. Cyril taught:


The Prophet Isaiah says, There was sent unto me one of the Seraphim and in his hand a live coal which he took with the tongs from off the altar and he said to me, Lo this touched thy lips and shall take away thine iniquities and purge thy sins. But we say that the live coal fulfils to us the type and image of the Incarnate Word, Who, if He touch our lips, i. e., when we confess the faith Him-ward, doth then both make us pure from every sin and free us from the pristine charges against us.
Natheless one may see in the coal, as in an image, the Word of God united to the human nature, yet not losing the being what He is, but rather trans-elementing what He had taken, or united, unto His own glory and operation. For as fire having to do with wood and entering into it, seizes hold of it, and removes it not from being wood, but transmutes it rather into the appearance and force of fire, and inworks all its own property therein, and it is now reckoned one with it, so shall you conceive of Christ too. For God united ineffably with the manhood, hath kept it what we say that it is, and Himself hath remained what He was; but once united, is accounted one with it, making His own what is its, and Himself too introducing into it the operation of His own Nature.

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_scholia_incarnation_01_text.htm#C9

The idea of the "one nature" is not something merely terminological, but Soteriological as well. The central problem of Nestorius when he held that Christ was "in two natures" was that He could not conceive a "communicato idiomatum," or a communication of properties between the divinity and humanity of Christ. Thus, Nestorius went to the point of separating Christ's natures.

St. Cyril battled this and saw the heretical implications behind the phrase "in two natures," and upheld the "one Incarnate nature of God the Word." This does not mean that there is a "third nature" different from humanity and divinity, but rather a united nature having full humanity and full divinity. The Logos did not change from what He always was, and when incarnate, He not only took flesh, but became a full rational man, with all the properties and functions, save sin. But more than that, by taking humanity, He glorified humanity, and allowed us to have a share and an inheritance in His divine nature. Truly indeed, the phrase "one Incarnate nature" as an Alexandrian birth to the phrase "God became man so that man might become God," which was also an Alexandrian phrase first written by St. Clement.

"One Incarnate Nature" is necessary to uphold not only the unity of Christ, but also our unity with Christ, with God. It is not only a dogma of Christology, but of theosis.

The coal, St. Cyril, being filled with Divine fire cleanses us all. This fiery coal also is what we partake of in the Eucharist, not mere humanity, but also Divine energies filling all with satisfaction.

http://www.metroplit-bishoy.org/files/Dialogues/Byzantine/CYRIL2.DOC

The link I provided shows that St. Cyril had no intention even of leaving the phrase "one incarnate nature," that this was a superior phrase, so long as one understands the distinction and non-confusion of the divinity and humanity of Christ, even after making that blessed agreement with John of Antioch to reunite the Church. In fact, the division that happened between St. Cyril and John of Antioch I find nothing different from the non-Chalcedonian and Chalcedonian fights, except that St. Cyril was not under political persecution.

St. Cyril in his frustration about the whole terminological issue brought against him (St. Cyril was accused of being a Monophysite too!) wrote to Succenus:

Accordingly they are speaking in vain who say that, if there should be one incarnate fusiV ‘of the Word’ in every way and in every manner it would follow that a mixture and a confusion occurred as if lessening and taking away the nature of man.

Even St. John of Damascus admits that the phrase "one incarnate nature" is Orthodox, he just never read the writings of St. Severus to find that he is no different from St. Cyril, which you can read here:

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/severus_coll_2_letters.htm

God bless.

Mina

PS I really do hope that the EO's understand that St. Cyril is a common father to both our traditions, who upheld the Third Ecumenical Council which also had an implication of uphelding the phrase "one nature."

[minasoliman]

By the way, for those who do know what sticky I refer to:

http://www.christianforums.com/t1500435-why-the-copts-are-not-monophysites.html

God bless.

Mina

[plmarquette]

from what some of you are posting , this might be useful to read , as to the nature of God and Man ... and specifically Jesus , the son of man , both man and god

The First Council of Nicaea, held in Nicea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicea) in Bithynia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bithynia) (in present-day Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey)), convoked by the Roman Emperor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Emperors) Constantine I (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_I_%28emperor%29) in 325 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/325), was the first ecumenical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_council)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#_note-0) conference of bishops (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop) of the Christian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity) Church, and most significantly resulted in the first uniform Christian doctrine. With the creation of the Nicene Creed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed), a precedent was established for subsequent 'general (ecumenical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical)) councils of Bishops' (Synods (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synod)) to create statements of belief and canons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law) of doctrinal orthodoxy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodoxy)— the intent being to define unity of beliefs for the whole of Christendom.
The purpose of the council was to resolve disagreements in the Church of Alexandria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Patriarchs_of_Alexandria) over the nature of Jesus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus) in relationship to the Father; in particular, whether Jesus was of the same or merely of similar substance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ousia) as God the Father (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_the_Father). St. Alexander of Alexandria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Alexander_of_Alexandria) and Athanasius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius) took the first position; the popular presbyter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyter) Arius (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arius), from whom the term Arian controversy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arianism) comes, took the second. The council decided against the Arians overwhelmingly (of the estimated 250-318 attendees, all but 2 voted (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting) against Arius). Another result of the council was an agreement on the date of the Christian Passover (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Passover) (Pascha in Greek; Easter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter) in modern English), the most important feast of the ecclesiastical calendar. The council decided in favour of celebrating Jesus on the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernal_equinox), independently of the Bible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible)'s Hebrew Calendar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_Calendar) (see also Quartodecimanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quartodecimanism)), and authorized the Bishop of Alexandria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bishop_of_Alexandria) (presumably using the Alexandrian calendar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandrian_calendar)) to announce annually the exact date to his fellow bishops.
The Council of Nicaea was historically significant because it was the first effort to attain consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_decision-making) in the church through an assembly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legislature) representing all of Christendom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christendom).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#_note-dictionary) "It was the first occasion for the development of technical Christology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christology)."[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#_note-dictionary) Further, "Constantine in convoking and presiding over the council signaled a measure of imperial control over the church."[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea#_note-dictionary) With the creation of the Nicene Creed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed), a precedent was established for subsequent general councils to create a statement of belief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creed) and canons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canon_law) which were intended to become guidelines for doctrinal orthodoxy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodoxy) and a source of unity for the whole of Christendom — a momentous event in the history of the Church and subsequent history of Europe.

[minasoliman]

Dear Plmarquette,

I hope you didn't misunderstand the discussion. We are discussing issues that date back to the Council of Chalcedon (and perhaps touching a little bit of the Council of Ephesus 431).


What the Council of Nicea defended was the full divinity of Christ. The humanity was not a problem back then. Arianism back then is like modern-day Jehovah's Witness, denying the full divinity of Christ, only saying that He is "similar" to God, but not co-essential with God.

The Council of Chalcedon dealt with the heresy of Eutychianism, which believed that Christ had no real humanity. In this council, Eutychian charges were brought up against St. Dioscorus. We, the OO Church, believe these charges were unfounded, and indeed, according to the minutes provided by Mansi (according to Fr. VC Samuel's book "The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined"), St. Dioscorus defended himself very well. He was simply deposed not for heresy, but for not appearing supposedly under a triple summons as well as condemning the Pope of Rome, the successor of St. Peter.

For this debate (actually I really hope it's a dialogue more than a debate), I will use Fr. VC Samuel's book "The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined" for historical mention. The book is a very good read, and it does not just present a simple OO defense, but is quite objective too, eliminating the polemics of ancient OO fathers. This book can be purchased here:

http://www.lulu.com/content/159679

God bless.

Mina

[minasoliman]

In response to icxn,

from http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=30174334&postcount=42

I don't see how our interpretations differ. Yes, St. Cyril preserves the difference between humanity and divinity, but he has not renounced the phrase "one nature of God the Word Incarnate." In fact, he said adding the phrase "Word Incarnate" takes away all suspicion.

The reason why we adamantly continued to use it was no different than the reason why St. Cyril used it, because our Church interpreted Chalcedon as the heresy that St. Cyril was fighting, which you put very nicely. He used it to fight against what you described what we call the Nestorian heresy. I'm not saying that your Church is Nestorian, but I'm saying that what happened historically, we still used it to fight what we believed was Nestorianism.

So, the quote you provided doesn't support the notion of "two natures," but supports of how and why "mia physis" was used.

The wills issue is really not a problem to us either. In fact, I recall it wasn't our issue, but solely a Chalcedonian issue. St. Severus of Antioch did not find it a problem to confess the "difference and preservation" between the human will and the divine will of Christ, and did not find a problem espousing human "free will" either, as the divinity, he says, does not force the humanity to salvation, according to a quote from Fr. VC Samuel's book.

God bless.

Mina

[buzuxi02]

Strictly speaking the OO church is heretical, of course an OO can say the same about the EO.

Both agree on what is said in the creed, that there is only one true church.(same interpetation and all) So obviously one has to be heretical.

Both agree that the 2 lung theory championed mostly by rome is incorrect and contradicts the creed which soeaks of one church, and if it was not, perhaps a case can be made that the eo and oo are the 2 lungs.

My personal opinion is that the OO are slowly coming to right belief.
The armenians exclusively refered to themselves as the Armenian Apostolic Church to distinguish themselves from there slavic brethren who were mostly Orthodox, but now the term orthodox is used liberally by them to refer to their church.

While i believe this schism will be healed in a few centuries i strongly reject both sides who claim its over semantics.

I find it shameful that either copt or greek consider their church fathers, and martyrs created over this was due to stupidity. That the fathers and martyrs were simply too dumb to decipher semantics even though they pretty much spoke the same language!!!!.

With that said i also believe that a TRUE reunion will take longer due to politics. What i mean by true, is not a few bishops on both sides publicly professing their opinion that there is no schism or both churches are the same, citing many of these obscure ecumenical documents that are unreliable assesing the true beliefs of the other church.
True union requires the undoing of a major political headache. That is which patriarch is out of a job, which bishops will make up the synod, who will claim church property( currently for the greek orthodox alexandrian patriarch, most of his churches lie outisde of egypt made up of native africans and greek immigrants). What to do with the calendar issue etc. Yes underneath relevant theological issues also lie ugly politics.

[minasoliman]

Dear Buzuxi,

How do you feel that the OO Church is heretical? You mentioned that we are getting back to the right faith. I contend that we haven't changed from the right faith, that which was professed by Pre-Nicean fathers, post-nicean fathers, and post-Chalcedonian fathers, including Dioscorus and Severus.

If you feel that either the OO or the EO Church is the one true Church, and you chose the EO's, then surely you have some idea on what differences there might have been? If not, then you do not have a strong foundation on your own Church.

God bless.


Mina

[buzuxi02]

I believe in what we call the 7 ecumenical councils. The christology of those councils. Now if the 4th council is agreed upon by the OO then they would accept it as well. I take it that this is not the case even with the recent ecumenical hoopla.
If we begin to say that certain people were wrongly condemned in those councils then we are in trouble.

Theres many in both east and west who truly believe Nestorius was not a heretic but was pronounced one because of politics. Many both east and west would love to exhonerate Origen.

Rome has a complete propaganda machine to show that the heretic Pope Honorius was wrongly anathemized, so they can prove papal supremacy (of course those anathemized with him are still guilty only the roman bishop was falsely accused according to the roman double standard).
The bishops at Chalcedon accepted Pope Leo's tome as being one with St Cyril's theology which was the benchmark of orthodoxy, the EO, OO & RC all agree with Cyril but the OO claims that Leo did not understand Cyril making the western church heretical on the 2 natures, that the east and west had a flawed understanding of Cyril..

Now are you saying that the church fathers (whether EO or OO) were too ignorant to decipher semantics?

[minasoliman]

Dear Buzuxi,

Have you even read the dialogues?

These dialogues examined the issues carefully and found that the theology of Dioscorus and Severus and et al matched with that of St. Cyril.

At the same time, while we may argue about whether Leo's Christology was Orthodox or not (I believe it was), it was realized that Leo associated himself with well-known Nestorians of the Church, and the Roman legates themselves are recorded to have supported well-known Nestorian documents that have been condemned by what you call the 5th Ecumenical Council.

Now, your problem is that there is an issue if the fathers made a mistake on who they're condemning. To me, it's not so much as who they condemned, but the intentions and beliefs of the fathers themselves. For example, if it was found out that Nestorian was not really a Nestorian in the sense we both put it, then I have no problem lifting an anathema from him. Which is more important, the Orthodox faith, or the people? St. Peter or the rock?

The analogy with Pope Honorius is a poor one. Are you saying that the Pope of Rome wants us to lift the anathema from him because he didn't believe in Papal Supremacy? Wouldn't that contradict Rome's stand on Papal Supremacy?

The OO Church has a history and a record of the writings of our own fathers, including St. Severus. In fact, the EO Church has continually condemned St. Severus for both Eutychianism and Nestorianism, two mutally opposed heresies that proves that the EO's know nothing about St. Cyril's (or St. Severus for that matter) Christology at the time, that they felt what they were doing was the right thing. Leo himself could not even read Greek. He was strictly a Latin speaker and probably wrote on what he THOUGHT was St. Cyril's Christology.

Were the fathers too ignorant to decipher? No, not at all. The fathers just did a poor job trying to understand one another intentions. You have one side who rehabilitated Eutyches and the other side who have full support of the "Three Chapters." Therefore, it is understandable how misunderstandings can be elevated, not to mention the excuse of using the story of "violence" on both sides; what titles EO's use to call Dioscorus were the same as the titles OO's used to call Leo, i.e. murderer, blasphemer, heretic, and hater of God.

So, it is more than just semantics and politics; it was also associations and culture and emperial "butting in" that caused the split.

I encourage you to read this and let me know what you think:

http://www.coptic.net/articles/OrthodoxUnityDialog.txt

I also encourage you to read, as I mentioned earlier, Fr. VC Samuel's book "The Council of Chalcedon Re-examined"

Thank you and God bless.

Mina

[buzuxi02]

Dear Minasoliman,

I dont mind for an ecumenical council to lift anaethemas(if neccesary) but it will lead to a domino effect and compromise all councils.

The Assyrians accept the first 2 councils only.
They can make the case that they alone are the Orthodox Church of the Fathers, as well.

In fact they can say the Creed is sufficient enough and hypothetically they would be correct, in asserting that; belief in the articles of the creed is all a christian needs as dogma. The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of course is the bare minimum a christian needs to confess and truly be a christian, after all it is called the symbol of faith. (some may disagree).

Now what i meant by Pope Honorius of Rome is this- Pope Honorius & company were condemned as heretics in the 6th ecumenical council for monothletism. This is bad for rome's theory on papal infallibility, so yes they would love to lift that anathema. Currently they have an entire propaganda machine to claim he was not a heretic contradicting their own ecumenical council !

As you very well know in the OO, Pope Leo has been anathemized. (so atleast i know you do not buy into papal infallibility as well.) Perhaps lifting anathema on Nestorius may do well and should be looked into, it may automatically heal the assyrian-EO- OO schisms with one shot!

Now as for St Cyril using the phrase "One incarnate nature" is true, but it was not the only phrase he accepted. St. Cyril thought the phrase derived from St Athanasius, unfotunately it did not. That was a forgery written by Apollinaris.

Cyril used the phrase in an Orthodox way but also accepted other ways to express the human and divine in Christ. He being of the alexandrian school liked the phrase because he was extreme in his rejection of nestorianism but the Antiochan school did not like it.
Apollinaris went beyond what was neccesary, he upheld the divintiy of Christ and downplayed his humanity. Thus the school of Antioch was against Apolinaris. The Antiochene school was firmly bent on upholding the humanity of Jesus and His free will, while the Alexandrian school still getting over the effects of arianism, insisted on upholding his divinity.

Cyril's belief was Orthodox but his language vague.Add to the mix that physis and hypostasis were still interchangeable at this time.
The Fathers at Chalcedon deliberately decided not to exclusively use either the antiochan school or alexandrian school since both were extremes.
So they accepted Leo's phrase of "union of two natures". Dioscorus rejected this and wanted the phrase "union from two natures". Dioscorus phrase seems to make a composite being ,the two natures melting into one. He was rejected because he only wanted that particular phrase to the exclusion of all others. Dioscorus did not care that Cyril himself accepted the chalcedonian understanding a few decades earlier.

In 433 a.d. Cyril writes an epistle to John of Antioch:
"With regard to the evangelical and apostolic expressions concerning the Lord, we know that men skilled in theology make some of them common to the One Person, while they divide others(expressions) between the Two Natures, ascribing those that are fitting to God, to Divinity of Christ and to those (expressions) that are lowly to his Humanity. In reading these sacred utterances of yours (john of antioch) and finding that we ourselves think along the same lines, for their is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism...."(agreement of 433)

Timothy Ailouros a saint in the coptic church but rejected as a monophysite in the EO writes this:

(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 he formulated, and is caught professing 2 natures in Christ". (epistles to kalonymos, patrologia graecia LXXXVI, COL 276)
From this i take that the modern day copts are slowly coming around to right belief.

That back then both sides knew the issues and the arguments and the monophysites prefered to stress the divinity of Christ above his human nature..

[minasoliman]

Dear Buzuxi,

Thank you for your first comments, which are overwhelming and will take a lengthy post to answer.

The Assyrians accept the first 2 councils only.
They can make the case that they alone are the Orthodox Church of the Fathers, as well.

The Assyrians accept the first 2 councils only.
They can make the case that they alone are the Orthodox Church of the Fathers, as well.

In fact they can say the Creed is sufficient enough and hypothetically they would be correct, in asserting that; belief in the articles of the creed is all a christian needs as dogma. The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed of course is the bare minimum a christian needs to confess and truly be a christian, after all it is called the symbol of faith. (some may disagree).

Indeed, they can, but that doesn't stop anyone from examining the theology of Diodore, Theodore, and Nestorius, who they venerate.

In addition, one has to read the context of which these councils were accepted. There was unanimous agreement on how Nicea and Constantinople were to be accepted, and there were the writings of St. Cyril to understand how Ephesus is to be understood, and what his theology and anathemas meant. Thanks to Roger Pearse, one has some of the major writings of St. Cyril available at tertullian.org/fathers, which shows St. Cyril effectively condemning the writings of Diodore, Theodore, and Nestorius, while after Chalcedon, no one could do the same to Dioscorus or Severus, since they either did not have their writings, or were distorting their intentions and neglecting the harmony between OO's and St. Cyril.

For the Assyrian Church, there is a lot of work to do. The Roman Catholics already lifted the anathema from Nestorius and accepted them as an Apostolic Church. We OO's or EO's haven't yet, due to the amount of disagreement that comes from reading their ambiguous writings.

Now what i meant by Pope Honorius of Rome is this- Pope Honorius & company were condemned as heretics in the 6th ecumenical council for monothletism. This is bad for rome's theory on papal infallibility, so yes they would love to lift that anathema. Currently they have an entire propaganda machine to claim he was not a heretic contradicting their own ecumenical council !

Well, I'm not very well adept in this debate, but I also have wondered whether this was terminological or truly a bunch of people who wanted to do away with the human will of Christ. What I do know is that after reading St. Maximus the Confessor's theology, I was at rest to find that St. Severus of Antioch does not disagree when reading his letters. So I personally haven't investigated the matter further.

Now to the other comments you made. You seem to get all your information solely from orthodoxinfo.com and strike me as the person who doesn't do the research on your own. I already answered a few of these points on the sticky in VitD. To which I'll only reiterate in hopefully an organized manner:

[minasoliman]

1. St. Cyril thought he adopted "one incarnate nature" from St. Athanasius, when really it was an Apollinarian forgery.

When St. Cyril was proving the validity of the phrase, he "held a document in his hand" doing so. Thus, if it was Apollinarian, I don't think St. Cyril was stupid enough to miss out on the parts when the document should have denied the rational soul of Christ. St. Cyril himself kept on going saying that Christ is "one incarnate nature with a rational soul."

Yes, it is well-known that Apollinarius used this phrase, but there is an Orthodox document (not Apollinarian) with the name "Athanasius" on it that professed this same phrase, and this document is preserved today in De Incarn. Dei Verbi in Migne's Patr. Graec. In fact, perhaps the only ones who said this was an Apollinarian document (knowing that Athanasius is of high authority to the ecumenical church) were Antiochians merely respecting Athanasius but not respecting the theological school he came from.

It is very clear that the Alexandrian school herself, not Apollinarius alone, professed the "one incarnate nature," and either this resulted from or resulted into the theosis phrase, "God became man so that man might become God." As we know, if St. Cyril can use it in an Orthodox manner (and it was of high authority to him, while other phrases were either vague or heretical), and this was probably stemmed from the use of Alexandrians. There are even other documents with authors like Gregory the Wonder-Worker (who also used the word "Theotokos"), and Julius of Rome (who lived at the time of St. Athanasius, and probably learned it from him when St. Athanasius was hiding in Rome).

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/zachariah04.htm

Therefore, it is very well known that this is not Apollinarius' phrase alone, but the school of Alexandria (in which he graduated from as well). Apollinarius' only problem is indeed removing a part of humanity from Christ, but he rightly never confused the human or divine natures. Obviously, we also know that St. Athanasius himself among others condemned him, if not by name, but by the beliefs he upheld. St. Athanasius believed the word "flesh" meant all of humanity, including rational soul, according to his letter to Epictetus.

Up until now, I have not found any proof to validate the claim that St. Cyril help in his hand an "Apollinarian forgery." If it was, then truly this forgery also included the heretical beliefs of Apollinarius, and if it did, then St. Cyril has become liable in leading people astray.

2. “One incarnate nature” was vague

Now, let us say with all honesty that the phrase "one incarnate nature" was a vague expression. The phrase "in two natures" is no less vague and is found in the writings of Nestorius himself (in fact, Nestorius went on to write how happy he was of the decisions and faith of Chalcedon when he was in exile and praised the Tome of Leo). I don't think Chalcedon allowed a balance between the two schools of thought as orthodoxinfo claims to say. In fact, such an interpretation of Chalcedon can only be made in the light of the fourth council in Constantinople, which was held 80 years later. The understanding is that even though there were Nestorians in the council, or those who supported Nestorian documents, there were also Orthodox people there, and it is their Christology that was upheld. That's fine and dandy, but for 80 years, the Chalcedonian Church suffered divisions because of how to interpret Chalcedon. The Chalcedonians could not agree on how Chalcedon is to be interpreted, and even Pope Valentinus threatened to split the Church on account that many "so-called" Chalcedonians were condemning Theodore of Mopsuestia, who he considered a "doctor of the Church."

[minasoliman]

3. What Dioscorus said in Chalcedon and “of” vs. “from”

What is not vague was St. Dioscorus' clear confession of faith in Chalcedon, when men were yelling at him as a supporter of Eutyches who confused the natures of Christ, St. Dioscorus replies:

“If Eutyches holds notions disallowed by the doctrines of the Church, he deserves not only punishment but even fire. But my concern is for the catholic and apostolic faith, not for any man whomsoever.” And again, he says with no hesitation, “We do not speak of confusion, neither of division, nor of change. Let him who says confusion, change, or mixture, be anathema.” Many people in the council of Chalcedon caused mayhem shouting out to Dioscorus “We all have sinned, we ask for pardon.”

In the very beginning, St. Dioscorus says “ ‘the two’ I do not accept, but ‘of the two’ I accept; this is a matter that touches my heart.”

These are all according to Mansi’s minutes. The Council of Chalcedon itself acknowledge that it wasn’t heresy that Dioscorus was deposed for.

Now, one of the most absurd claims I have heard is that Dioscorus wanted “from two natures” and not “of two natures.” No polemicist in their right mind would ever use such an attack against a so-called heirasarch. St. Dioscorus used “ek duo physien” in the original Greek, which is the same expression used by the formulary between St. Cyril and John of Antioch. No one attacked him on this point.

Second of all, there is no difference in using “from” or “of.” When one wished to translate Maximus the Confessor’s use of the phrase “ek,” he made it as if he said “from two natures” (On the Cosmic Mystery). Meanwhile, according to ccel.org’s version of the Council of Chalcedon, they recorded St. Dioscorus as saying “of two natures.” So even if it’s not a big deal, orthodoxinfo.com fails to agree with the text both Mansi and Schaff uses, which shows not only ignorance (on account that there is no difference between “of” and “from”), but ill-will and deception (not corroborating with proper texts).

4. They accepted Leo’s phrase “of two natures.”

First of all, this was not Leo’s phrase. Leo’s phrase was “in” two natures, not “of.” In fact, no where in the definition of Chalcedon was there “of two natures,” but “in two natures.” Second of all, I hope you are not surprised to know that in the last meetings of Chalcedon near the end of the month of October, there was a debate as the use of “of two natures,” and in the end, it was rejected on account of Leo’s “authoritative” phrase “in two natures.” The original definition was indeed “of two natures,” but the supporters of Rome rightly attributing this phrase to Dioscorus wanted the Leonian phrase “in two natures” to be upheld, and they did so quite successfully, even though some bishops accused the Roman legates of Nestorianism. “Those who are opposed” they said “are exposed; they are Nestorians. Let them wend their way to Rome.”

5. The formulary: what did St. Cyril believe? Did Dioscorus care about what St. Cyril believed?

The quote you provided by St. Cyril was from the formulary. I already answered it here thoroughly:

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=17218636&postcount=116
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=17228000&postcount=118

In addition, as I have mentioned earlier, the phrase “one incarnate nature” St. Cyril considered better than the phrase “of two natures,” for the latter is for simple-minded people like the Antiochians, according to his letter to Succenus, and anyone who accuses St. Cyril of confusing the natures is “speaking rubbish” and “in vain.”

In light of this evidence, Dioscorus did in fact care about what St. Cyril wrote, and what he meant. Even in Chalcedon, an Egyptian bishop, Eustathius effectively proven that the Formulary should be interpreted in the light of the fact that St. Cyril considered “one incarnate nature” better, and that nothing else but “of two natures” are to be professed, not “two natures,” not “in two natures,” but “of two natures,” making all the difference in the world. It was in fact, Dioscorus who was the first one to say the four adverbs: “I speak of two natures, as the Holy Cyril taught, as in the iron and heat, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.” These four abverbs were adopted as if they were Chalcedonian, but in Chalcedon, they were Dioscorian. Mansi’s minutes are very clear.

6. Timothy, a “Monophysite” condemns St. Cyril

First, Timothy is not a Monophysite. Second, the quote you provided is yet to be given to me in context, which is unfortunately not. Personally, I could not find the quote anywhere, but I would be most obliged if you gave it to me in its context, for it is nothing but quoting off of orthodoxinfo.com.

Here’s a reply I wrote in response to this:

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=17475835&postcount=132

7. Miscellaneous:

Here’s a bunch of quotes written by famous OO’s, like Dioscorus, Timothy, and Severus:

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=15869650&postcount=104
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=15870279&postcount=105

Some of their writings can be found here:

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers

And some articles defending them and adding more quotes:

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=15407069&postcount=66

God bless.

Mina

[buzuxi02]

Dear Minasoliman,

Thank-you for your lengthy response with the included links.
I greatly appreciate finally discussing/debating important theological concerns with not only a knowledgeable person as yourself , but where the primary source of authority is not: "because my patriarch is infallible and the head of the church" mentality.

You have listed excellent patristic quotes and links and i will look deeper into them.

What i do not want is unity for the sake of unity. This is why i completely ignore "agreed upon theological statements" most of the time they do not measure the temperature of what exactly the conscience of the church is whether EO or OO upon an issue.

In fact i believe in looking further into the liturgical practises of a church to further see what the conscience of the Church is.

After all in the eastern church- "In order to know what we believe one must know how we worship."

Unity for the sake of unity, in hopes thru such a union the Church will experience some sort of a " magical hippie revival" will simply lead back to schism in the future.

I still have many concerns on this issue, some with liturgical practise, the relationship of the copts with the ethiopians, armenians, jacobites, syriac etc. the belief of copts towards the EO, (are we still considered nestorians?) Is the chalcedon definition false or inadequate? I still would like to further disect the phrase "One incarnate nature" in order to see what this means in the OO mindset.

Looking forward to further discussions with you.

God Bless !!

[minasoliman]

Dear Buxley,

I am overwhelmed with joy that you did not take my message the wrong way, and I thank God that this may seem like a fruitful discussion where possible disagreements may not cause altercations.

I greatly appreciate finally discussing/debating important theological concerns with not only a knowledgeable person as yourself , but where the primary source of authority is not: "because my patriarch is infallible and the head of the church" mentality.Indeed, I even disagree with my own patriarch on a few issues. As you and I may agree, not everyone is perfect, even I. And I stand corrected if I'm wrong.

When I first read the dialogues, I was interested, because it implied that both families already agreed that both are Orthodox, and perhaps even implying that both are One Church. So I did what any other honest Orthodox Christian would do; investigate the claims made by them because after all, they are very serious claims if one knows the history very well and cares about what his church believes. If there's something positive about orthodoxinfo.com and its webmaster Patrick Barnes, it is that Barnes simply cares about what his church believes even though we disagree.

Thus, it was important for me to understand my own fathers' theology, what really happened in Chalcedon, know the history of the situation, and read documents of the other side to get a balanced view. I personally have come to a satisfying conclusion agreeing with the dialogues, although, as I said before, not blindly.

What i do not want is unity for the sake of unity. This is why i completely ignore "agreed upon theological statements" most of the time they do not measure the temperature of what exactly the conscience of the church is whether EO or OO upon an issue.Indeed, I agree. Unity for the sake of unity is false unity. Unity for the sake of the Truth is true unity. I only seek the truth. Perhaps, I see (and oppose) other dialogues as examples of ecumenical problems that lead to nothing but political appeasement not investigating deeply the issues at hand. With the EO/OO dialogues, I find a complete difference, in which both sides have stood their ground (sometimes attacking the other side) but objectively listening to what the other side is saying.

In fact i believe in looking further into the liturgical practises of a church to further see what the conscience of the Church is.

After all in the eastern church- "In order to know what we believe one must know how we worship." Amen!

I still have many concerns on this issue, some with liturgical practisePerhaps I may be of assistance. What liturgical practices do you find interesting or filled with obstacles?

the relationship of the copts with the ethiopians, armenians, jacobites, syriac etc.We are a diversity of cultures in One Church, one Orthodox faith. There may be some political issues (like the Syrian and Indian issue, which sorta reflects what ROCOR and MP used to have), and there are also theologians that disagree with one another strongly (like in the Coptic Church, HH Pope Shenouda and Abouna Matta el Maskeen), but overall, these have always existed in the Church.

the belief of copts towards the EO, (are we still considered nestorians?)As far as officially, No. Many Coptic heirarchs, even the Pope, has made and agreed with statements like the "Chalcedonians were never Nestorian to begin with, but thank God, they have condemned the Nestorian heresy all along." Just recently, HH Pope Shenouda has made a common agreement with HB Pope Theodorus as if they acted as one Church. That never happened before, and it is an interesting, perhaps positive direction.

Is the chalcedon definition false or inadequate?We have always argued that the phrase "hypostatic union" was not added in. or that the phrase "in two natures" needs a bit more of a clarification. However, as Fr. John Romanides have told us, Chalcedon is part of a continuous Orthodox tradition that is validated and clarified through the fifth, sixth, and seventh councils, and cannot be taken alone. Therefore, we respond to this interpretation positively, and agree that if we are to unite and agree that the EO's were always Orthodox, we must interpret Chalcedon through Constantinople 553.

I still would like to further disect the phrase "One incarnate nature" in order to see what this means in the OO mindset.I think if one is to do an in-depth study and contemplation on the phrase "One incarnate nature," we would end up writing a lengthy thesis. If there's anything the sums up the meaning of the expression very well, it is how the Coptic HE Metropolitan Bishoy writes:

Those who used the expression ‘one incarnate nature’ had meant to express the state of existence; those who used the expression 'two natures' had meant to express the reality of the continuance of the existence of the two natures.The "state of existence" is how the Incarnate Word acted. "One Incarnate Nature" was something to describe indeed the Hypostasis of Christ, or how Christ acted. For from this, we understand that since the Incarnation, we cannot speak of the humanity separately from the divinity or the divinity separately from the humanity. St. Severus quotes the Cappadocian fathers when talking about the Biblical sentence, in which Christ says "I am lower than the Father," that it was not merely His humanity, but the Incarnate Logos working to raise the lowly estate of man, which brings new meaning to St. Paul's verse: "the weakness of God is stronger than the strength of men, and the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of men." He not only died on the Cross, but destroyed death by His own Death. His human acts were theandric, accompanied by His divine acts of unity, grace, and salvation.

Thus, it all comes down to the affirmation of theosis. It rejects Nestorianism and Eutychianism. For both are nothing but different side of the same coin, working to destroy the effectivity of salvation. Nestorianism destroys salvation by forever separating God and man. Eutyches destroyes salvation by proving the Logos never had an Incarnate nature, never united God to man to begin with.

Thus, the reality of existence is affirmed, that is how Christ acts, and He acts both divinely and humanly at all times, limiting Himself and blessing the limitations as paradoxically far greater than what the limit seems. By eating, you as a Christian no longer merely eats, but eats as Christ has eaten. Everything you do is now in communion with Him, and that is the importance of the "One Incarnate Nature."

I've rambled. Enough for tonight.

God bless.

Mina

[Yeznik]

The OO are Miaphysites, aren't they? They believe that Christ was fully God and fully man, but that the two natures merged into one nature in the womb of the Virgin Mary.

Therefore, Christ has a hybrid nature - made up of both the divine and human natures. The Orthodox Church believes that Christ had two distinct natures - the divine and the human. That is why when we make the Sign of the Cross, we fold the ring finger and little finger into the palm of our hand to represent the two natures of Christ.

The OO are in schism from the Orthodox Church - we cannot receive their Communion and our priests can't serve with theirs.

Yes, but EO and RCC call these natures inseparable per, The Tome of Leo.

[minasoliman]

Sorry Buzuxi, I called you Buxley by accident. Your name reminds me of another person named Buxley.

God bless.

Mina

[Yeznik]

The armenians exclusively refered to themselves as the Armenian Apostolic Church to distinguish themselves from there slavic brethren who were mostly Orthodox, but now the term orthodox is used liberally by them to refer to their church.

We use the term orthodox in the classical definition of the word, not as it was later defined by the Byzantine Churches. The word in Armenian is oughpar- which loosely translates into English as orthodox. Secondly, the term EO is non-existent in Armenian terminology. The EO are called the Greek Churches in Armenian. This term has always been used by the Armenians since the early centuries to describe the EO Church.

[Grigorii]

For this wonderfull effort Mina!

Have you ever considered putting these posts in an essay format (Word doc + footnotes) for publishing online to counter orthodox-mis-info.com? There are many EO's cergy and laity that I know who feel strongly opposed to that website.

You know where to find me,.. Let's talk!

Gregorios

[minasoliman]

I'd like to address a subject matter that many of you might be interested to know. Why exactly did the Oriental Orthodox Church reject Chalcedon?

Before we continue, I realize many people are confused. Why exactly are we saying that the EO's are Orthodox and not accept Chalcedon? What's wrong with us OO's? Do we hold some agenda?

People read this and have not realized that there were dialogues held. I believe I provided a link before in this thread to read the conclusions of these dialogues (eight dialogues in total, four unofficial and four official). What's interesting to me is that many Orthodox online still are not educated enough to understand what these dialogues entail. When studying these dialogues, I find them not as some sort of compromise, but a realization of the truth of history.

So, let me quote some EO's opinions on the OO's:

There's also the fact that if it really was a language issue all along, the non-Chalcedonians shouldn't have a problem with using Chalcedonian terminology exclusively, instead of trying to get us to drop Chalcedon.
Well..the Copts and the Romans are different. The Romans as a whole left the Church, along with the Bishop at the time. We have no Orthodox Bishop/Patriacrh of Rome.The Copts...part of them split and they appointed their own Bishop. So the Bishop that remained true to the faith, and his successors have Apostolic succession. Then there are others who say "Let the theologians handle this" or "Listen to your bishops" or "Just because we disagree, doesn't mean I take you out of salvation" as if I'm some inexperienced little boy who does not understand the whole "complex" situation.

I am no OO fanatic fundamentalist, but assuming I was, I can do things like these:

There's also the fact that if it really was a language issue all along, the Chalcedonians shouldn't have a problem with using non-Chalcedonian terminology exclusively, instead of trying to get us to accept Chalcedon.or

Well..the Byzantines and the Romans are different. The Romans as a whole left the Church, along with the Bishop at the time. We have no Orthodox Bishop/Patriacrh of Rome.The Byzantines...part of them split and they appointed their own Bishop. So the Bishop that remained true to the faith, and his successors have Apostolic succession. I may even add... "We have no Orthodox patriarch of Constantinople or Moscow."

All these comments against EO's stem from those who believed that "Chalcedonians are Nestorians". While I personally do not believe this, many of the arguments made against Chalcedonians can be something along the lines like these:

1. While Leo and his legates paid lip service to St. Cyril, the pillar of faith, they rehabilitated Nestorians like Theodoret and Ibas, accepted their Nestorian documents which were condemned by the Neo-Chalcedonians in the sixth century, and called Theodore of Mopsuestia a doctor in the faith and considered him Orthodox, which Neo-Chalcedonians also condemned.

2. They condemned and brutally beat up a holy man, and Orthodox confessor who defended St. Cyril's Christology in the council, a man named St. Dioscorus.

3. They condemned St. Dioscorus for not obeying the Pope of Rome, who taught Nestorian doctrines and was considered a Pope of the whole Church.

4. Leo and Marcian conspired together to depose Diosocorus and eradicate Egyptian Christianity, killing millions of non-Chalcedonian faithfuls.

5. Nestorius himself approved of the council and the Tome of Leo.

These things you will find among hot-headed OO's who are as narrow-minded as those who say the above things that I have quoted from EO's.

Now, while these are quite tough and exaggerated remarks, there is an element of truth in these.

1. While we do not know of the intentions of Pope Leo, the legates did in fact find the controversial "Three Chapters" Orthodox, which the Council of Constantinople in 553 condemned. And while many may say that Theodoret himself was blessed and repented at the time of writing up the Formulary of Reunion between John of Antioch and St. Cyril, Theodoret however maintained his pro-Nestorian views distorting and ridiculing the Alexandrian school via his "Eranistes" published in 447 (Samuel 2001, p, 43), well after his "alleged repentance."

Even worse, one of those who scrutinized the Tome of Leo with St. Cyril's writings was Theodoret himself, bringing more suspicion of some sort of conspiracy. While Theodoret condemned Nestorius, although rather hesitantly, was it a smart choice to place Theodoret and the legates who considered the Mopsuestian Orthodox to judge the Tome of Leo?

2. First St. Dioscorus was no Monophysite. He was not afraid to condemn Eutyches as I said before. Now we hold that when banishing St. Dioscorus, he was also lynched, being blamed for lynching Flavian. Now, who did we blame? You will here remarks from fundamentalist OO's calling Leo a murder and Marcian the propagator of murder. I would venture to say that Marcian, who is a political leader would be more responsible. But to say Leo was responsible to me would be equivalent of saying Dioscorus was responsible for lynching Flavian, to which I defend both are not true. It's actually quite interesting that narrow-minded EO's would use the same excuse of lynching against Dioscorus that narrow-minded OO's would use against Leo.

3. The OO's did in fact believe that the Pope of Rome was developing a sense of Petrine Primacy in the council. Many RC's would believe to be that's the case. Therefore, not only were we proud in "combatting Nestorianism" but also the "roots of the heresy of Petrine primacy." Now, it is understood that Leo may have had primacy thoughts, but Chalcedon perhaps did not allow his thoughts of primacy to pervade as truth, and even more promising was successors of Leo may have even not considered themselves as Primates over the whole Church, such as St. Gregory the Great.

The statement made here also is that Dioscorus defended St. Cyril's Christology, and that is true. He adamantly stuck with "one incarnate nature" or "of two natures" "without mingling, without confusion, without division, and without separation." As I have said before, it was Dioscorus himself who first said those four crucial adverbs in Chalcedon repeating nothing but Cyrilline Orthodoxy.

4. Again, narrow-minded OO's wish to blame Leo along with the emperor for slaughters and conspiracies. Perhaps, there was a conspiracy, but we cannot blame Leo for that. When promised for a five-day scrutiny of the Tome, only three days passed and a small number of bishops appeared wishing to talk privately to Dioscorus summoning him three times. Dioscorus was first under house arrest, but when released, he realized that the emperical judges were not to be present and those accused with Dioscorus were not to be present with him. This is why he denied to appear in the summons.

Later, the other bishops accused were never even summoned and were forgiven. The empirical judges when they found out were also quite irritated that they weren't told an "early" reconvening took place. Thus, wouldn't you in Dioscorus' shoes suspect some sort of conspiracy even though all of Chalcedon was not involved?

5. This was true via his "Bazaar of Heracleides." What we do accept however was that due to the Chalcedonian Orthodox present, Chalcedon can be validated through Constantinople 553.

So, if one reads the history very carefully, one can understand why the OO's, as Orthodox as they were, were suspicious of Chalcedon. On top of that, the Tome of Leo itself was accused of being Nestorian because of this one sentence that separated the "Word" from the "flesh," "the Word doing miracles, and the flesh accepting insults." To an Alexandrian, this does sound Nestorian, and in all honesty, one has to be empathic to see the dangerous implications behind this sentence, where Nestorius may have found himself to agree with Chalcedon and the Tome. To Alexandrians, it sounded like the Word of God did miracles, and the man Jesus Christ, the flesh, accepted insults. Notice how those "two natures" quickly sounds like "two persons." That is why we held so adamantly to "one Incarnate Nature."

Factor this with the persecutions that non-Chalcedonians suffered under the hands of the Chalcedonian supported empirical government, what then do you expect? In the past, it was the Orthodox suffering from the heretics? Would it look good for the Orthodox Church, which supported the emperor as the "upholder of Orthodox for the government" to persecute heretics (even though the non-Chalcedonians technically believed the same thing)?

In addition, since we hold a different interpretation to Ephesus 449, the one many may call the Robber's Council, we consider that there be common decency, to recognize the Orthodoxy of such a council and that of Ephesus 475, and hold no agenda against EO's. We are here to teach truth, that none of these men or councils you condemned (or we condemned) were ever heretical in the first place.

Perhaps, another day, I can write a defense for Ephesus 449 and give some background for Ephesus 475.

Have a blessed Lent.

[minasoliman]

Months ago, a discussion was ended and locked as the discussion became more heated. It was an excellent discussion, but as the discussion was losing edge (and worth), the best decision was probably made to end it. I encourage people here who like to read more about OO/EO discussions to read this one:

http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=22430#post22430[/URL]

But I want to share one that I particularly like. If there's a top ten of my favorite posts, this would be one of them:

http://www.monachos.net/forum/showpost.php?p=38115&postcount=306 (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1564)

And I'll share it with you all here. The username is called "Raouf" which was his name before he was ordained a priest, now Fr. Kyrillos Ibrahim serving a Coptic Church in San Diego, CA.

I think it takes great wisdom in what he writes:

I have been reading this thread for some time now and would like to throw in my two cents…Peter knows me from years ago on the internet when I was regularly on Orthodox newsgroups and lists usually discussing the issues of Chalcedon and Oriental Orthodox Christology. At some point (and this is my personal opinion only which is related to how those discussion usually led me to have more negative views to the EO – the opposite effect of what one would hope for), I realized those discussions were not very fruitful.

For whatever its worth to the discussion at this point, here are a few personal observations…

1. It is necessary for us as OO to defend our Christological teachings both in terms of the historical context of Chalcedon and with regards to the theological inheritance of our Fathers. This is necessary because, in reality, most of the information about OO Christology is utterly false and skewed. Therefore, it is required of us to give a defense. However, beyond that, when we enter into the realm of trying thereby to seek acceptance from the EO…I think we do damage. We are not in any way lacking should the EO not want to seek a real unity based on truth.

2. It seems to me that the only acceptable mutual way out of our disunity is to proclaim that both sides were right in their fortitude to proclaim their specific Christological traditions and wrong in their fear of the outcome. What I mean is that we can proclaim based on hindsight that the EO never became Nestorians and the OO never became Eutychians, despite the one-sidedness of their views at the time which “could” have led to one or the other. Then, the next step (again in hindsight) would be to say that the OO fathers at the time of Chalecedon and thereafter are indeed saints because they fought against the perceived danger of Nestorianism which thank God never materialized with the Chalcedonians. Likewise the EO at the time are indeed saints because they vigorously fought against the perceived dangers of Eutychianism which never materialized with the OO. This solution requires true humility and love and we should leave it on the table and walk away until both sides are serious about it.

3. True understanding of our Orthodox unity (which I believe already exists but as men we have not yet recognized it) will not come from words about theology but by true experience. For example, I as a Copt in my college days used to frequently visit EO monasteries…and I felt completely at home…that is indeed MY tradition of monasticism. I went to the canonization of St. John Maximovitch and I KNEW that this was MY saint, completely of the same spirit and gifts as MY other beloved saint, Pope Kyrillos VI the Great Wonderworker of our generation. It was only on the internet when I argued over words that I felt a distance from my EO brethren. Therefore, I challenge anyone of my EO brethren who does not believe we are united in faith to go for a pilgrimage to Egypt (for example) and spend a couple of weeks visiting the monasteries and holy places. There you will find the incorrupt relics of the saints exactly as in EO, you will find holy clairvoyant elders and wonderworkers, like Elder Porphrios or St. John Maximovitch, you will find holy priests like Fr. Pishoi Kamel who will remind you immediately of St. John of Kronstadt, you will see weeping icons, almost identical to those in EO, you will find that despite 1500 years of separation, the liturgy is almost the same, you will find the piety of the people whose lives are immersed in prayer, fasting and communion with the saints and you will immediately think of Holy Russia. I could go on and on…but one must taste and see. This is the only way for unity…to experience at the deepest levels that we are already one.

Forgive me, I am not eloquent with words and my thoughts are somewhat scattered, but I hope the above may add a different dimension to our approach.

In Christ,
RaoufThis quote says a lot, including OO intentions in their defenses, and his experiences seeing Oriental Orthodoxy in the EO saints.

I wish this quote can be shared and spread to all who have similar discussions.

God bless.

PS Fr. Kyrillos' ordination to the priesthood:
[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Oh5RBxFsUY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQsG3k_mano

[minasoliman]

Dear Buzuxi,

In reply to your question here:

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=37703867&postcount=100

I remember I explained quite well that Dioscorus never professed Monophysitism in the discussion you and I had together earlier here. As of now, most of his writings are in translated in French and German, and there are some who are translating these into English. Catholic historian R.V. Sellers wrote a book called "The Council of Chalcedon," where he also gives us some translations of his own of Disocorus' writings and his records in the council itself, showing that Dioscorus was not heterodox in any way. Here's the two posts I provided for you in the discussion you and I had:

http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=15869650&postcount=104
http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=15870279&postcount=105

These two posts include quotes by both Dioscorus and Timotheos (known also as Timothy Aeulurus).

For in depth understanding of Timothy, these two websites help:

http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/zachariah04.htm
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/zachariah05.htm

In those websites, not only does it describe Timothy's obvious objection to Chalcedon and Leo's Tome, but also his involvement in condemning certain Eutychians that caused problems in Egypt for his see. He was also the leading figure of the Council of Ephesus 475, which according to Zacharius had 700 bishops, although others say 500 bishops (it only comes to show that numbers mean nothing when talking about Orthodox faith...as someone mentioned earlier trying to "prove" Chalcedon as faithful by saying it had 630 bishops). In this council, Nestorianism, Eutychianism, and obviously Chalcedon were all condemned.

With Zacharias, an ancient historian, as I showed you. I'm not aware of any other translated works. I think he is quite neglected in non-Chalcedonian history, and many historians spend most of their time on Severus. Here are two articles by a British Orthodox Subdeacon, and a very devout OO theologian and historian:


http://britishorthodox.org/109g.php
http://britishorthodox.org/110e.php

Hope this helps.

God bless.

Mina

[Spiritofprophecy]

Greetings in the name of Jesus::)

Responding to the Original post: Any person who accepts Jesus as Lord and savior in their hearts; should not be denied by any, who claims Jesus and follows Jesus in action and word. whither it be Non Catholic or Asian or African or What ever. Those that are with us, are not against us.

And as far as salvation and communion with God: If we Claim Jesus, The only sin which could deny us salvation, is to then deny anothers right to Jesus; which returns our Judgement by merit back upon us: Some denominations should heed this, Not excommunicating others.

The Church of God is not a building, but a group of People who follow Jesus and God, which is his word.

any who claims Jesus as Lord, I shall not them turn away.

I pray my words do not offend: God bless Forum Christians and the unbeliever. :wave:
</IMG></IMG>

[minasoliman]

Dear SpiritofProphecy,

As much as I'd love to address the few can of worms that you just opened, I think, for the sake of consistency, we should stick with the topic that concerns Chalcedon and the historical challenge behind those who opposed it. Right now, I feel your interjection as to define what a "Church" is really gets in the middle of a "dialogue" of two "churches" that have different feelings (or more so further clarifications) of your definition to, and I have to admit this, exclude others. As much as that sounds bad, you are in direct dialogue with two parties, i.e. the Chalcedonians and the non-Chalcedonians, who define "Church" on more exclusive and rigid terms.

But, like I said, let's keep this about Chalcedon, not about "what a Church is." Thank you.

God bless.

[Spiritofprophecy]

Dear SpiritofProphecy,

As much as I'd love to address the few can of worms that you just opened, I think, for the sake of consistency, we should stick with the topic that concerns Chalcedon and the historical challenge behind those who opposed it. Right now, I feel your interjection as to define what a "Church" is really gets in the middle of a "dialogue" of two "churches" that have different feelings (or more so further clarifications) of your definition to, and I have to admit this, exclude others. As much as that sounds bad, you are in direct dialogue with two parties, i.e. the Chalcedonians and the non-Chalcedonians, who define "Church" on more exclusive and rigid terms.

But, like I said, let's keep this about Chalcedon, not about "what a Church is." Thank you.

God bless.
Greetings in the Name of Jesus:


I appreciate your manner and repose in response to my post: but I am puzzled in your conclusions of topic direction and purpose as purposed by the Original Poster.

Lest you seek to retain doctrines of men: and deny O.P. his God given rights to Claim whatever he wants. As I also have the right to claim any thing I believe is truth in scriptures if I wish and can back it up in scriptures.

As I could say: one is apostate to deny one claiming Christ; which is not directly given authority to do so in Scriptures. But we should respect one another.

As Knowing my rights in rules according to the thread: I may in confidence in scriptures and Knowledge of thread rules discourse topic responses: respond in respect and honor.

Since the Chalcedony doctrines was not in original thread or is not Scriptures it should not be automatically accepted, and should be viewed in suspicion and caution: as all doctrines of men which are not written in the scriptures.

But even those of Chalcedony Creed. Which accept Jesus, I shall not deny them their spiritual voice: and place at the table in forum threads.

Now since the rules have changed. and Formal debate rules are not in effect: based that this forum was to be eliminated. They approve any posts which are respectful and speaking unto the O.P.

I Have the confidence of God, And the word to hold to the Truth.

God Only matters in salvation, and Jesus only matters in judgment. Not Orthodox Creeds of men. For men can condemn, but Only God can Judge in truth; and man deceives himself, if he thinks he may judge the salvation of others. So says the parable of the fruit tree.

I was addressing the original poster; and speaking to the theme of thread he posted. In which I sympathize.

And the Concept I posted: that the "Church is People". is Clear to any in scriptures of early church, which had no buildings for Hundreds of years.

I am sorry you did not appreciate my input.

I pray my words do not offend. God bless Christians and all in forum.

[buzuxi02]

Dear Spirit,
Church is the gathering place of the elect, thats what ecclesia literally means in greek . And its a place which professes a common faith and worship.

This is why this is an important subject among EO and OO. It all comes down whether we are of one mind and if we hold all things in common, allowing a place on the table in a literal sense.
As far as your belief thats fine, but the churches mentioned in the scripture (yes they still exist) along with those christians who can trace their lineage to the preaching of the apostles as i can, reject your belief.

[minasoliman]

Dear SpiritofProphecy,

I'm not sure what you mean by "O.P." If it means the original post, or the person who made the original post, I am the one who made that post. So, I'm not sure how I'm denying "myself God given rights in whatever I want."

So, let me clarify the O.P. for you:

There is a council in 451 AD held in Chalcedon. This council caused a major rift in the history of Christianity, those who supported and accepted Chalcedon and those who were against it. I am of the tradition that was against it.

The reason of rejection I believe were valid, but not true. Valid because either side thought the other believed in something that is quite unChristian and downright heretical. But not true because they never believed in those things in the first place.

Many scholars have called those who rejected Chalcedon the "Monophysites" or "Eutychians." Eutyches was a person who basically did not believe that the humanity of Christ was real, but really a phantasy. It is why he is considered a "mono" "physite" because he believed in a single divine nature of Christ, but not in the human. However, there were lots of confusions that went around where our Church in turn thought Eutyches was innocent and those who condemned him (which later become the Chalcedonians) were "Nestorians," which believe that Christ was two persons, a God and a man.

Neither the non-Chalcedonians were Eutychians or the Chalcedonians were Nestorians. There is ample scholarship on the study of Chalcedon, especially making it clear about its anti-Nestorian status because these scholars do come from the Chalcedonian tradition. These same scholars who did not have enough evidence to study non-Chalcedonian tradition assumed the heresy on them with the Chalcedonian resources they had.

Nowadays, more research has shown that non-Chalcedonians, who call themselves the Oriental Orthodox Church (OO's) never really were Eutychians. And we now understand that Chalcedonians (the Eastern Orthodox Church or EO's) never really were Nestorians. However there are still those who are unconvinced that OO's are not heretics. This is what I'm addressing, and I am challenging those who still consider OO's (or those saints and fathers OO's celebrate) heretics. This whole thread has nothing to do with "what the Church is," but rather "what do OO's really believe?" I have not even addressed whether OO's and EO's are one Church or not.

I hope now you understand the intent of the OP.

God bless.

[Spiritofprophecy]

Greetings in the name of Jesus: :hug:

Dear Minasoliman:

I appreciate your response and manner of respect: you do yourself Honor.

And forgive for my intrusion: but I was speaking to only one relating point to the O.P. (original Post). Which was that No one believing in Jesus. should be called a Heretic. And be denied fellowship by another Group. I didn't seek to enter into my personal beliefs. Although the Chalcedon creed, I would have to be in align with.
But would not because of this, deny any of acceptance or fellowship with the Church as a whole.

My only interjection was that all doctrines and creeds of men are Just that: of men and wisdom therein. Worth debating and consideration in the Church, is my Point. That to the One God, and One salvation, and One truth, there is to God Only One Church. Which to me, Clearly is the people of faith in Christ or Jesus, which has many earthly concepts and doctrines. But to this we are all linked in One God, and therefor from that One God, has One Church: which we of flesh divide in to many Houses of God, Using many titles of buildings and discernments of word, which titles so divide us.

In hopes of unity of Gods people, I did speak to One constant theme throughout Christianity; which Is Jesus as our rock and foundation. That we might use this to connect and unify in our similarities, that our differences will not then divide us, which such separation can be seen as sin, if one refuses or rejects another.

My inability to be clear and concise unto my understanding of God is a clear weakness of my flesh, I pray you may forgive me.

I Only wanted to say: that for all who reject and dismiss another for doctrines of difference. There are others who will always accept brothers, thankful that they accept Jesus; and then leave the spirit to lead them through prayer and supplication of spirit to guide.

If Jesus is with you: no one can stand against you!

I pray my words do not offend, God bless Christians in forum and all others.:wave:
</IMG></IMG>

[Spiritofprophecy]

Dear Spirit,
Church is the gathering place of the elect, thats what ecclesia literally means in greek . And its a place which professes a common faith and worship.

This is why this is an important subject among EO and OO. It all comes down whether we are of one mind and if we hold all things in common, allowing a place on the table in a literal sense.
As far as your belief thats fine, but the churches mentioned in the scripture (yes they still exist) along with those christians who can trace their lineage to the preaching of the apostles as i can, reject your belief.
greetings in the name of Jesus:

I appreciate your repose and manner of respect: and yet some of your basis of truth of thread discourse, I respectfully do question?

"Church is a gathering place of the elect". Now all have God given rights to believe as they so choose. But not claim as truth, what cannot be substantiated by Scriptures. Now unless you can support this quote as Church is a " Place". Which I can show scriptures where Gods spirit does not dwell in buildings made of hands or in places or areas, but Gods spirit dwells in the hearts of men alone. And Church is faithful people. One should correctly say "Houses of worship" or " meeting place"

And forgive me for my passion unto the word; but I shall in respect and by faith always interject on truth of Gods words, which men can accept or deny as they so choose. When I see, scriptures being seemingly added too or slightly misused; Which I shall try in humility and respect to address; yet I do fail.

I apologize if my comments and posts are not wanted: for I did not intend to offend or insult but only to remind brothers in Jesus; what the word so says; Which God and his words are One, Made flesh in Jesus. st. John 1;1 & 14.

Only The Church of God and Gods words, shall continue on forever of the earth.: and buildings and doctrines of men shall pass away.

I did not mean to confuse the issue or insult any based on their formal debate desire on this thread, but to only interject, scriptural correlations.

I pray my words do not offend: God bless Christians in forum and all users.

[minasoliman]

Dear SpiritofProphecy,

Do you believe that Christ is fully man and fully God? Do you believe that those who believe that Christ is not man only God, and looked like man by false appearance be called Christians?

God bless.

PS Concerning the question of the Church, I discussed this here:

http://foru.ms/t3931911&page=4

I don't think there is really much more I can say except the idea of consistency that forces Orthodox Christians to be exclusive.

[Spiritofprophecy]

Dear SpiritofProphecy,

Do you believe that Christ is fully man and fully God? Do you believe that those who believe that Christ is not man only God, and looked like man by false appearance be called Christians?

God bless.

PS Concerning the question of the Church, I discussed this here:

http://foru.ms/t3931911&page=4

I don't think there is really much more I can say except the idea of consistency that forces Orthodox Christians to be exclusive.
Greetings in the name of Jesus:

Dear Minasoliman:

I would like to first commend and praise you for your honorable manner, and civilized demeanor unto all who seek council and discourse unto the secret and hidden things of God and his Word.

I respectfully submit, that for the Sacrifice of Jesus; to have true value and merit to remove the sins of all mankind, had to be a true sacrifice of true flesh; with true God spirit to hold the flesh in abeyance unto Gods will for perfect Sacrifice; which is a blood sacrifice. And also to fulfill the scriptures of Emanuel, and isaiah 51;12 " made as Grass" and to " Suffer and die" and Zechariah 13;5-6. "Husbandman" " One shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends."

If Jesus was Just all God, without the flesh to suffer and sacrifice; then the example and Gift would not be complete and Perfect. But God was made flesh; or took upon flesh. This is my opinion; by what the spirit reveals unto me, by the word. As its written: word is made flesh. St. John 1;14.

I pray my words do not offend. God bless Christians in forum and All who use it.

[minasoliman]

Dear SpiritOfProphecy,

Praise be to the Lord. Your words do not offend, but reverberate with life-giving Truth.

The OP pretty much addressed whether our Church believed Christ had humanity or not. I contend that we do, and that was the whole basis of the discussion. If indeed my Church had believed Christ had no real flesh, not only would I admit that we are not of the Church, but we should not even be called Christians.

This was the basis of the whole discussion, and I hope you understand this now. :)

God bless you.

PS Thank you for your kind words.
PSS Here's another thread that I had a discussion on the issue of denominations:

http://foru.ms/t5339973&page=2

[Spiritofprophecy]

Greetings in the name of Jesus: :hug:

dear minasoliman:

Greetings my friend. I would like to first thank and commend you for your repose and manner in honor of discourse. I praise God for your spirit.

I was actually posting in difference to the rules of the " formal debate". but since I did complain about rules restricting the spirit, and hurting open discourse. I was then told that the Forum rules were not working as planned, and if one spoke in respect unto others, it would be appropriate to comment in discussions on formal debate.

Now I did some research chalcedon: but didn't want to directly interfere in your discussion; but only to add Scriptural references; and thus I worried that I would seem in interference.

But again it was a great discussion you were having, and I did not want to derail it or damage the possibility of some union of minds or a comprehensive understanding.

But then again, the Orthodox concepts and rigid alignments of doctrines of past ages, is not something which I find of scripturally based truths.

These doctrines of men, are of No value unto God and salvation. Colossians 2;10 - 3;3. speak unto earthly traditions have no lasting substance.

It is faith in Jesus, and retention of Gods words and spirit which makes a man one with God; and nothing of men or denominations, can separate us from God.

This is only my opinion. and I accept all those who claim Jesus. And yet many excommunicate me, and others for not aligning with orthodox concepts which many are unscriptural and contradict sound established doctrines, and just plain wrong. As I can judge words and doctrines and truths and sin; and yet I may not or should not Judge any man or value of man, but his works and words alone.

Again I apologize if my intrusion and interference, if was unwelcome: but I meant no offense; and sought only to speak for the word as truth, as I so know it. As spirit reveals in my opinion.

I pray my words do not offend, God bless Christians in forum and all who use it. :wave:
</IMG></IMG>

[minasoliman]

And yet many excommunicate me, and others for not aligning with orthodox concepts which many are unscriptural and contradict sound established doctrines, and just plain wrong.

Well dear brother,

Perhaps, if you like to start another thread questioning Orthodox practices and doctrines, I'm sure many will be more than willing to answer your concerns.

God bless you. :)

[Spiritofprophecy]

Well dear brother,

Perhaps, if you like to start another thread questioning Orthodox practices and doctrines, I'm sure many will be more than willing to answer your concerns.

God bless you. :)
Greetings in the name of Jesus:

It is a good point for thread, but is really fruitless.

You cannot have a thread in true discourse with those who believe your Meat is contemptible. Or That your concepts are without merit; not being based in Orthodoxy, and based in ones concepts of being the One and only Church. As some orthodox so believe.

Which I submit is counter to " parable of fruit tree". to Judge not the tree.

As One Orthodox group has in theology today: that their leader (pope) is perfect in discernment of theological matters. Which would equal and compare him to Jesus: And I find that theology Heresy and contemptible in spiritual alignment unto the word, teaching as true doctrine. But even this should be forgiven by men.

And leave all things unto God to Judge as to individual salvation.

But to have discourse as I have in past with staunch Orthodox theologian on Doctrine is fruitless; if any concept is preordained as Satanist concepts; as non orthodox concepts to some are preconditioned positions.

This is way off the O.P. thread topic. But I thought I should respond. To O.P. I was trying to say: Faith in Jesus, cannot be removed or salvation denied, by institutions of men. No matter what they say.

I accept all people who claim Jesus as Lord, as part of Gods Church.

I pray my words do not offend, God bless Christians in forum and all who use it.

[minasoliman]

Dear brother,

Your words do not offend. In fact, I would be quite displeased at Orthodoxy if some Orthodox theologian felt superior over me and started treated me like an soulless and condemned heretic. But I'm sure many who have inquired into what other churches believed have also felt they were given the "fire and brimstone" lecture, and they too can be misleading. Therefore, I wouldn't judge Orthodoxy based on the haughty Pharisees, but I would rather look for the humble and true servant, who does not emulate Christ if he should also be infallible, but emulates Him by serving and not being served, bending over to the feet of those he serves, and gently washes whatever spiritual impurities they may have through the grace of the Trinity, and truly live a life of asceticism and salvific suffering and not enjoy worldly pleasures. This is the true Christ-like figure. From this authority, I bow in honor and obey because this is where the Holy Spirit may speak through him.

If you are interested dear brother, you may read documents of those in the first four centuries of Christianity, written by bishops who suffered in the name of Christ, men like Ignatius and Polycarp, who were in the end tortured and martyred by the Roman pagan government for their beliefs. It is truly enlightening.

God bless.

[Spiritofprophecy]

Dear brother,

Your words do not offend. In fact, I would be quite displeased at Orthodoxy if some Orthodox theologian felt superior over me and started treated me like an soulless and condemned heretic. But I'm sure many who have inquired into what other churches believed have also felt they were given the "fire and brimstone" lecture, and they too can be misleading. Therefore, I wouldn't judge Orthodoxy based on the haughty Pharisees, but I would rather look for the humble and true servant, who does not emulate Christ if he should also be infallible, but emulates Him by serving and not being served, bending over to the feet of those he serves, and gently washes whatever spiritual impurities they may have through the grace of the Trinity, and truly live a life of asceticism and salvific suffering and not enjoy worldly pleasures. This is the true Christ-like figure. From this authority, I bow in honor and obey because this is where the Holy Spirit may speak through him.

If you are interested dear brother, you may read documents of those in the first four centuries of Christianity, written by bishops who suffered in the name of Christ, men like Ignatius and Polycarp, who were in the end tortured and martyred by the Roman pagan government for their beliefs. It is truly enlightening.

God bless.
Greetings in the name of Jesus:

dear minasoliman:

Amen brother well spoken and so true; for I was speaking not as to individuals and their merit; but unto the established rules and doctrines of institutions of men. as it so relates to Colossians 2;10-3;2. About "commandments and doctrines of men, which perish with the using."col 2;22.

I Praise God for your spirit and Love for Christ: and I will always accept you as of God; claiming Jesus as you do.

I did not intend to demean or insult any one; but speak unto the issue of believers of Jesus Not being bound by institutions of men, but from a Higher calling in spirit, not of fleshly doctrines; and need not worry about being rejection of men, for a word; if one is of faith in Jesus.
As to my opinion, and discernment of Gods words.

I pray my words offend not any: God bless Christians in forum and all who use it.

[minasoliman]

Greetings in the name of Jesus:
unto the established rules and doctrines of institutions of men. as it so relates to Colossians 2;10-3;2. About "commandments and doctrines of men, which perish with the using."col 2;22.


Indeed, I will never follow the traditions of mere men. I follow Paul's command to follow the traditions of God as passed down by Christ's followers inspired by the Holy Spirit, "And the things that you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (2 Tim. 2:2) "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. " (2 Thes. 2:15).

God bless. :)

Mina

[DarkNLovely]

I was about to subscribe to this party, but I'm late! :D