EO/OO Dialogue: Read These Articles

[Maximus]

I would like to recommend that everyone read some or all of the articles at the following link:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_mono.htm

I realize some do not like that web site, but the articles are very informative, especially this one:

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/mono_share.htm

If you are EO, you owe it to yourself to check them out before you jump on the reunion bandwagon.

If you would like to react to any of the articles, please do so here.

[Photini]

In keeping with this spirit, the phrase, "We now clearly understand...," has no place among Orthodox. The classical Patristic dictum, "Following the Holy Fathers...," is the only one which expresses how Orthodox understand themselves.


http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/monoph_preface.htm

Thanks Maximus...There's a lot of information there.
I appreciate especially letters and statements which come from Mount Athos.

[Maximus]

Did you catch the following remarks by Fr. Paul Verghese, who later became Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios of the Syrian Orthodox Church of India, made in a speech given in Geneva in 1970 at the third consultation of EO and OO theologians and printed in the Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Vol. XVI, nos. 1 and 2, 1971, pp. 133-14?


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

We are unable to say what this council says when it affirms "two wills and two operations concurring most fitly in him" . . .

To summarize: Acceptance of the Sixth Council is much more difficult for us than the acceptance of Chalcedon. The following are the chief reasons:...

b) We are unable to accept the dithelete formula, attributing will and energy to the natures rather than to the hypostasis. We can only affirm the one united and unconfused divine-human nature, will and energy of Christ the incarnate Lord.

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

How can Verghese's remarks be interpreted as anything but Monothelite and Monophysite?

What of his reference to Pope St. Leo the Great as a heretic?

Are his remarks representative of OO opinion?

Earlier in his speech, Verghese said the OO accept the content of the 4th - 7th councils, although not the councils themselves.

Yet here we see that he actually rejects the content of both the 4th (Chalcedon 451) and the 6th (Constantinople 680-81).

[Reader Nilus]

One can listen to the hard liners on both sides and come to the conclusion we are as far apart as ever or listen to the Patriarchs of Antioch. I tend to go with Antioch.
Jeff the Finn

[Photini]

Have you all been to this site? http://www.orthodoxunity.org/

[Super Mickey]

I posted a link before stating what the copts believe
www.st-peter-st-paul-coptic-orthodox-church.org/chalcedon.htm
let's put aside the teachings of leo about the nature of Christ and look at his teaching about the papacy
in the above link
Leo was occupied with "papacy" more than the dogma of the Church as we will see through the current events of the fifth century. J.W.C. Wand states: [Leo was one of the greatest of all ecclesiastical statesmen, and has been called the Father of Papacy.[5]
The Roman bishop considered this omission as a despise for his Petrine authority, describing the council as "the Robbers' Council," a title which is still used by many westerns!
Is this true? :confused: I think whether what Leo said about the nature of Christ is true or false he should be condemned as a heretic for his heresy of the papacy which was the hidden reason for schism in 1054 and the main heresy the roman catholics believe in. Is such a person is worthy being called the great :confused:
I dont think so
About our belief in the last 4 councils.
these councils are the main problem about reunion of EO with OO as the EO believe that 7 councils are inspired by the holy spirit
I once posted a thread for a question that i dont really know its answer about these councils (ie not challenging) and nobody answered

and i will repost it here again

I read at the site of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia that in the Fifth Council


This Council anathematized three things: The person and writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia; the writings of Theodoret of Cyrrhus against St Cyril; and the letter of Ibas of Edessa to Moris, Bishop of Hardashir in Persia. At the Council of Chalcedon, Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Ibas of Edessa had been restored to their sees, but they had actually been Nestorians and were therefore condemned together with Theodore of Mopsuestia, the teacher of Nestorius and the spiritual father of Nestorianism.




How was the Council of Chalcedon inspired by the Holy Spirit and yet tricked by these two heretics Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Ibas of Edessa and how does this contradiction exist if these two councils the fifth and the fourth were inspired by the Holy Spirit.

[Maximus]

Have you all been to this site? http://www.orthodoxunity.org/
Photini -

That web site is maintained by the "British Orthodox Church," a group that only recently shed vagante status by affiliating itself with the Coptic Church.

Beware of its particular slant.

[Maximus]

One can listen to the hard liners on both sides and come to the conclusion we are as far apart as ever or listen to the Patriarchs of Antioch. I tend to go with Antioch.
Jeff the Finn
Apparently Pope St. Martin and St. Maximus the Confessor were "hardliners."

Did you read Fr. Verghese's remarks that I quoted above?

[OrthodoxTexan]

I read at the site of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia that in the Fifth Council

This Council anathematized three things: The person and writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia; the writings of Theodoret of Cyrrhus against St Cyril; and the letter of Ibas of Edessa to Moris, Bishop of Hardashir in Persia. At the Council of Chalcedon, Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Ibas of Edessa had been restored to their sees, but they had actually been Nestorians and were therefore condemned together with Theodore of Mopsuestia, the teacher of Nestorius and the spiritual father of Nestorianism.



How was the Council of Chalcedon inspired by the Holy Spirit and yet tricked by these two heretics Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Ibas of Edessa and how does this contradiction exist if these two councils the fifth and the fourth were inspired by the Holy Spirit.It appears that that description on the GOA of Australia website is slightly misleading. Theodoret and Ibas appeared before Chalcedon in a state of excommunication for their Nestorian writings. At Chalcedon they rejected their earlier views/writings and accepted an Orthodox Christology, thus being reinstated to their offices. If you read the anathemas of the 5th Council closely, you will see that the condemnations were directed entirely at the writings of Theodoret and the letter of Ibas, and those who defended the thoughts expressed in those letters. The anathemas were not directed at the person of Theodoret or Ibas, since they had rejected and thus ceased defending the views which were expressed in their early writings.

We therefore anathematize the Three Chapters before-mentioned, that is, the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, with his execrable writings, and those things which Theodoret impiously wrote, and the impious letter which is said to be of Ibas, and their defenders, and those who have written or do write in defence of them, or who dare to say that they are correct, and who have defended or attempt to defend their impiety with the names of the holy Fathers, or of the holy Council of Chalcedon.

Here is a paper I found on orthodoxunity.com ( http://www.orthodoxunity.org/article05.html) that discusses this whole situation and was presented at the EO-OO dialogue in Geneva in 1993. I found it very interesting, especially the discussion that ensues at the conclusion of the article.

[Maximus]

OrthodoxTexan -

Interesting article, but I would exercise caution. Fr. John Romanides is the OO's favorite EO writer because he bends over backward to accomodate them. From what I have read of the Latrocinium of Ephesus in 449, Romanides' account is not accurate.

Dioscorus was involved in a complex plot with the Archimandrite Eutyches and his uncle (?), the imperial court eunuch, Chrysaphius.

At one point Romanides says, "Theodoret had never yet accepted the Third Ecumenical Council, the Twelve Chapters of Cyril, the condemnation of Nestorius, nor the re-conciliation of 433 between John of Antioch and Cyril of Alexandria."

That is absolutely not accurate. Theodoret of Cyrus was the author of the formula of reunion signed by both St. Cyril and John of Antioch in 433.

I do not trust Romanides' article.

[OrthodoxTexan]

Thanks for the correction Maximus. I apologize for linking an article that may misrepresent some facts.

However, we can still read the anathemas from the 5th council and see that Theodoret and Ibas were not condemned personally at Constantinople, rather it was their pre-Chalcedonian writings that were anathamatized. Would you agree that this is an accurate representation of events, and that the anathemas of the 5th Council do not contradict the 4th Council. Or did Theodoret and Ibas return to heresy after their rejection of Nestorianism and acceptance of Orthodoxy at Chalcedon?

[Maximus]

Thanks for the correction Maximus. I apologize for linking an article that may misrepresent some facts.

However, we can still read the anathemas from the 5th council and see that Theodoret and Ibas were not condemned personally at Constantinople, rather it was their pre-Chalcedonian writings that were anathamatized. Would you agree that this is an accurate representation of events, and that the anathemas of the 5th Council do not contradict the 4th Council. Or did Theodoret and Ibas return to heresy after their rejection of Nestorianism and acceptance of Orthodoxy at Chalcedon?
I agree absolutely with what you wrote in your post. In fact, I meant to praise you for it but got caught up in reacting to Romanides' article.

The Nestorian writings of Theodoret and Ibas were condemned, but the two men themselves repented and were declared Orthodox. Theodore of Mopsuestia's writings were also condemned, but he was already dead by then and had no chance to recant and repent.

The Fifth Council even pronounces an anathema on anyone who claims that Chalcedon endorsed the "Three Chapters."

As far as I know, both Theodoret and Ibas remained Orthodox to the end of their earthly lives.

In fact, I read in Soloviev that the Greek Orthodox Church beatified Theodoret, who is referred to as "the blessed."

[Pharaoh]

Dear Friends,
I may be the least knowledgable among you but if you will allow me I would like to present a fact. Our Coptic Orthodox Church is not occupied with taking on God's role of Judge and condemning people right and left. No my brethren! All we want to do is condemn heretical ideology and affirm Orthodox dogma. In the Holy Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. our Holy Father, Pope St. Cyril the Great, also known as the Pillar of Faith, outlined the Apostolic truth about the nature of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ. Pope St. Cyril quoted Pope St. Athanasius the Apostolic when the latter said "Mia Physis He Mia Hypostasis To Theo Logo Sesarkomeni" or in English "One Nature and One Hypostasis of God the Word Incarnate" ("De Incarnatione" by Saint Athanasius). The assembly at Chalcedon met inorder to attempt to reconcile two heresies that of Nestorius and that of Eutyches. Both are condemned as heretics by all of Christendom (Coptic Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, everyone!). Our Coptic Orthodox Church was banned monophysite and eutychian but that is not the truth about us. We are very much Apostolic. We believe what was laid down by our Holy Fathers Athanasius at Nicea 325A.D., Timothy at Constantinople 381 A.D., Cyril at Ephesus I 431A.D. and Dioscorius at Ephesus II 449 A.D. Pope Saint Dioscorius the Great absolved Eutyches only when he presented a written plea that was in everyway orthodox. But Eutyches turned out to be a liar and verbally presented a heterorthodox theology. This is why at the preliminary hearing of Chalcedon (days before October 17th, 451 A.D.), Pope Saint Dioscorius said "If Eutyches at denied the Apostolic Orthodox faith then he is not only worthy of excommunication but burning at the very stake!". Such strong words moved many of the bishops who had falsely accused Pope Dioscorius of violence to repent and confess publically to the assembly that they had accused the Holy Father himself falsely and they requested his absolution. Doing exactly like his Master (our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ), Saint Dioscorius forgave them with all his heart and absolved them from the mouth of the Holy Trinity: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, One God Amen. Before the preliminary meetings at Chalcedon and right after the closing of the Second Holy Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 449 A.D., Pope Saint Dioscorius received unquestionable evidence that Bishop Leo of Rome had infact adopted the Nestorian heresies of Theodore of Mopsuestia and the entire Nestorian Party. This troubled the Pope imensely, he grieved for the Church in West but nonetheless had to act as guardian of the faith like his fathers and predessosors Athanasius, Timothy and Cyril respectively at Nicea, Constantinpole and Ephesus. Pope Saint Discorious invoking his Apostolic authority launched the most famous excommunication in early ecclesiastical antiquity: the excommunication of Bishop Leo of Rome. This without doubt infuriated the bishop of Rome and caused a disturbing fear among all senior bishops as they fear they would be targetted next. This was all not true. Leo sent letter to the Righteous Emperor Theodosius II to request another council to clear his name, but the Emperor denied his request saying that the Second Council of Ephesus was "governed by the fear of God". Seeing that Ephesus II had robed him of his Petrine authority, Leo branded it "the Robber's Council". What a sad day it was for Christendom to be divided in such a way.

[Matrona]

Welcome to CF and The Ancient Way, Pharaoh. Have some blessings on me!

[Maximus]

I suggest everyone here read the articles at http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_mono.htm (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_mono.htm)

The Orthodox Fathers of the past 1500 + years were not deceived, nor did they misunderstand Christological terminology.

Yet they were unanimous in regarding the Non-Chalcedonians as heterodox (the Fathers were not quite so polite as I have been).

Do we claim to know more than they did?

Are we to repudiate all the Fathers said and wrote, believing ourselves wiser than they?

Is it possible to be Orthodox and yet reject four of the Seven Ecumenical Councils?

Is it desirable to sell the truth for a cheap window dressing of false "unity"?

[Photini]

Maximus...thanks again for the link...a couple of months ago I had been looking for an article I once read regarding Hesychasm and St Gregory Palamas...I found it there on that site.

[Pharaoh]

Dear Max,
Greetings in Christ! Friend you wrote
"The Orthodox Fathers of the past 1500 + years were not deceived, nor did they misunderstand Christological terminology."

Here is my answer:
Do you know history of the Church or the letters of Saint Cyril and the Canons of the Holy Ecumenical Council at Ephesus in 431 A.D. Saint Cyril stated clearly "One Nature and One Hypostasis for God the Word Incarnate". We did not attempt to change or overrule this apostolic man and kept what he gave us from what Saint Athanasius the Apostolic had already written in his "The Incarnation of the Logos". We obviously did not change anything from the creed or the dogma or faith recieved in the first three ecumenical councils so we cannot be called heterorthodox. Chalcedon and its followers, on the other hand, changed what the three ecumenical councils stated and what Saint Athanasius and Saint Cyril said and claimed to be superior to them saying that Christ is "made manifest in two natures" (Chalcedonian Definition). In Christ's love lets examine this carefully... Nestorius whom we all claim to be a heretic said this EXACT SAME thing in his impious letter to His Holiness Pope Cyril I that Christ is just a man in whom the Logos dwelt: this is essentially the result of the Chalcedonian formula. A person can only support One Hypostasis by necessity. What occured in the Incarnation of God is as follows: God the Logos while remaining unchanged and perfect in His Divinity as God, "became flesh" (John 1:14) thus uniting to Himself a perfect and complete humanity enlived by a rational soul and mind producing the Hypostatic Union of the Incarnation.

The Hypostatic Union
A perfect and complete humanity: a body enlived by a rational soul and mind united to the complete and perfect Hypostasis of God the Logos. This gave us Emmanuel or God-with-us or God manifested in the flesh in an intimate and real way. Saint Paul the Apostle was not joking when he stated "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifested in the flesh" (1 Timothy 3:16). (The English term "nature" from the Greek "Physis" is faulty as it could incorporate "hypostasis" and/or "person" ("prosoporon").

We as Oriental Orthodox in general and Coptic Orthodox in specific stress the unchanging apostolic faith of our Church. We HAVE NOT CHANGED A SINGLE LETTER OF THE FAITH OR CREED SINCE 431 A.D. (when the Introduction to the Creed was formulated by Saint Cyril).

As an important side note: Our Coptic Orthodox Church has defended the faith in the Ecumenical Councils because it HEADED them.

Pope Saint Alexander of Alexandria headed the First Ecumenical Council (Nicea 325 A.D.) and through his deacon Saint Athanasius, formulated the Nicean Creed in Defense of the Divinity of Jesus Christ against arianism:

"And in one LORD Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, Begotten of the Father before all the ages, Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father, through whom all things were made; who for us men and for our salvation came down from the heavens, and was incarnated of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary, and became man, and was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried, and rose again on the third day according to the Scriptures, and ascended into the heavens, and sits on the right hand of the Father, and comes again with glory to judge living and dead, of whose kingdom there shall be no end"

Pope Saint Timothy of Alexandria headed the Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinopole 381 A.D.) in which the Divinity of the Holy Spirit was confirmed and constitutionalized in the Nicean Creed:

"We believe in the Holy Spirit, the LORD, the Life-giver, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, Who Spoke by the prophets"

Pope Saint Cyril of Alexandria headed the Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus 431 A.D.) in which the Divinity of Jesus Christ was re-confirmed and the motherhood to God of the Holy Ever-Virgin Saint Mary was confirmed in the continued usage of her title "Mother of God"-->"Theotokos":

"We magnify you O Mother of the True Light and glorify you O Theotokos, the Holy Saintly Virgin Mother of God For you bore for us the Saviour of the world Who came and saved our souls. Glory be to you O Christ, our master and our King; the honour of the apostles, the crown of martyrs, the joy of the righteous, the confirmation of churches, the forgiveness of sins. We preach, we worship and we glorify the Holy Trinity, One in essence. Lord have mercy, Lord have mercy, Lord bless. Amen. "

You said:"Do we claim to know more than they did?"
My answer: "Do the Chalcedonians claim to know more than the Nicean-Constantinopolin Father and the Fathers of the Ephesian Council of 431 A.D. under the holy precidency of Pope Saint Cyril the Great??!" Not a single one of the so-called Chalcedonians measures to the greatness of theological skill and sainthood of Pope St. Cyril. I am sorry but all the Chalcedonians past and present COMBINED is a miligram of the holiness and theological knowledge of Saint Cyril. Saint Severius of Antioch clearly states how they in their "zeal" condemned even Saint Cyril himself and cleared the heretic Nestorius and his followers! How can anyone Catholic or Orthodox accept this heresy of Nestorius? Our Father the great Pope Saint Dioscorius clearly illustrated to the Chalcedonians how they violate the Apostolic and Canonical rulings of the Canonical Holy Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. under the precidency of his predecessor Pope Saint Cyril. In Ephesus it was stated clearly that the creed, dogma and faith should not be modified ever again and that anyone or any council that dares to change the faith is under ban of excommunication by the mouth of the Holy Trinity the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit and the mouths of the Apostles and the mouths of Pope Saint Athanasius and Pope Saint Cyril and the 318 at Nicea and the 200 Fathers of the Ephesian Council. So Chalcedon it its entirity is excommunicated before at Ephesus in 431 A.D.

Are we to repudiate all the Fathers said and wrote, believing ourselves wiser than they?

Is it possible to be Orthodox and yet reject four of the Seven Ecumenical Councils?

We reject them because they are not Canonical nor Ecumenical as we were not represented there.

Is it desirable to sell the truth for a cheap window dressing of false "unity"?[/QUOTE]

[Maximus]

Pharaoh -

The saints to which you refer as members of the "Coptic Church" were Orthodox Catholics, not Monophysites.

While the patriarchate of Alexandria has been headed by some truly wonderful saints, it has also been headed at times by some dreadful heretics.

Gregory of Cappadocia was Patriarch of Alexandria. He was an Arian.

When Theophilus was Patriarch of Alexandria, he conspired to drive St. John Chrysostom from the episcopal chair of Constantinople and ultimately succeeded.

Dioscorus was not found guilty of heresy by the Council of Chalcedon simply because he refused to appear and answer the charges against him. He was deposed for canonical reasons instead. Had Dioscorus testified at Chalcedon, his heretical opinions would have become a matter of record.

St. Cyril was not a Monophysite. To claim that he would have opposed Chalcedon is ridiculous, but convenient, since he was dead by the time of that council.

Your post implies that Chalcedon was somehow a repudiation of Nicea I and Constantinople I. That is absolutely untrue.

Read the proceedings of the Council of Chalcedon. They condemn Nestorius and praise St. Cyril.

[OrthodoxTexan]

How can anyone Catholic or Orthodox accept this heresy of Nestorius?Ummm....we don't.I am sorry but all the Chalcedonians past and present COMBINED is a miligram of the holiness and theological knowledge of Saint Cyril. Saint Severius of Antioch clearly states how they in their "zeal" condemned even Saint Cyril himself and cleared the heretic Nestorius and his followers!Can anyone reference me to the canons of the Council of Chalcedon where St. Cyril was condemned and Nestorius was cleared?

IMO, it is pretty clear that the EO are not Nestorians, and that the OO are not Eutychians. I do not see a reconciliation, brought about thru dialogue, humility, and prayer as an affront to the Fathers or our Apostolic Faith.

[Maximus]

Excellent post, OrthodoxTexan.

Personally, given their current positions, I do not see a reconciliation of the Non-Chalcedonians outside the path of repentance and acceptance of all seven of the ecumenical councils of the Church.

Anything less would be a betrayal of the faith.

[Super Mickey]

The saints to which you refer as members of the "Coptic Church" were Orthodox Catholics, not Monophysites.
they are saints before the first schism and respected by OO and EO and even RC and considered members of the all these 3 churches and again we are not monophysists
Personally, given their current positions, I do not see a reconciliation of the Non-Chalcedonians outside the path of repentance and acceptance of all seven of the ecumenical councils of the Church.
Anything less would be a betrayal of the faith.
Actually the problem is this schism is very old and we and you cannot change what we believe in. we here in Egypt have a lot of saints who were martyred and persecuted to accept the tome of leo like St. Samuel the Confessor and they never acceped it. so repentance and acceptance of all seven councils is not a practical solution and will be betrayal of what our fathers were tortured and martyred for and the same for you you cannot reject the last 4 councils as they became a matter of faith
I think we will not unite again except by the power of God. I think it is enough for me till now that we share the same faith no puregatories no petrine authority and we even share the smallest things we both dont have statues in churches. it is enough for me also that we share the same belief about the nature of Christ though in different words but it is the same belief

[Photini]

I think we will not unite again except by the power of God. I think it is enough for me till now that we share the same faith no puregatories no petrine authority and we even share the smallest things we both dont have statues in churches. it is enough for me also that we share the same belief about the nature of Christ though in different words but it is the same belief


I tend to feel this way too.

[Maximus]

I don't think we do share the same faith, Super Mickey.You Non-Chalcedonians may not be extreme Monophysites like Eutyches, but what of the moderate (and still unacceptable) Monophysitism of statements like this from Pope Shenouda of Alexandria?

"We believe that the Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ is perfect in His Divinity and perfect in his Humanity without confusion, without change, without separation and we are not talking about two natures after the mysterious union of our Lord". ("Episkepsis" #442, 7/1/1989, p. 10).This is the same kind of thing Dioscorus believed, who is regarded by the Orthodox as a heretic.

Dioscoros said: from two natures I accept, of two natures I do not accept. (Council of Chalcedon). Besides that, one cannot be Orthodox and deny the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Church, which are the pillars of the Orthodox faith.

Religious persecution is a shame whenever and wherever it occurs, but it does not render its victims right.

[Super Mickey]

I don't think we do share the same faith, Super Mickey.You Non-Chalcedonians may not be extreme Monophysites like Eutyches, but what of the moderate (and still unacceptable) Monophysitism of statements like this from Pope Shenouda of Alexandria?

"We believe that the Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ is perfect in His Divinity and perfect in his Humanity without confusion, without change, without separation and we are not talking about two natures after the mysterious union of our Lord". ("Episkepsis" #442, 7/1/1989, p. 10).


It is the teaching of St. Cyril "Mia Physis He Mia Hypostasis To Theo Logo Sesarkomeni" or in English "One Nature and One Hypostasis of God the Word Incarnate" not a new teaching of ours not of Pope Shenouda's


Besides that, one cannot be Orthodox and deny the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Church, which are the pillars of the Orthodox faith.

we rejected the fourth council due to what we see contadiction with what St. Cyril said and the last three we were not in communion with you so we dont believe in them
Actually Ecumenical councils are for stating what the church believes in for example when in the seventh councils stated that we salute, honour and venerate icons dont mean that it is a new teaching and the church before that time didnt salute, honour or venerate icons
What I want to say is that we didnt add anything or change anything to our faith since 451 AD so if what the last 3 councils said was part of the faith before 451 like the seventh one, we already believe in their teachings if not then we dont believe in them. :)

[Super Mickey]

Hi Maximus,
I want to ask u a question if the OO are that bad as u say
why did St. Mary the Virgin appear above an OO church in public for the first time and millions saw here including media and mouslims in 1968?
i just want to know your opinion
see
http://www.zeitun-eg.org/zeitngal.htm

[Maximus]

I did not say Non-Chalcedonians were "bad."

I just said we do not share the same faith.

The saying of St. Cyril's to which you refer was clarified in his own writings. He was using the word physis at that time in the same way that hypostasis came to be used. St. Cyril did not mean that Christ had only one nature.

St. Cyril was dead by the time of the Council of Chalcedon, but his writings, along with the Tome of St. Leo, formed the basis for its statement of faith.

I do not think supposed apparitions of the Blessed Mother can be used to justify erroneous doctrines.

In the course of the one to which you refer, the apparition appeared first to a group of Muslim workmen.

Should that lead us to conclude that the Theotokos has endorsed Islam?

[Reader Nilus]

It seems that the differences are in language and Byzantine politics. And that is becoming clear in discussions with the OO and the EO. I think the Oriental Orthodox have preserved the faith once delivered.
Jeff the Finn

[Maximus]

It seems that the differences are in language and Byzantine politics. And that is becoming clear in discussions with the OO and the EO. I think the Oriental Orthodox have preserved the faith once delivered.
Jeff the Finn
All Orthodox owe it to themselves to read the articles at http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_mono.htm .

They are not written by extremists. Some are by monks of Mt. Athos, and there is a very good one there by Protopresbyter Theodore Zisis, a professor at the University of Thessalonika in Greece.

You should also read the Catholic Encyclopedia article at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10489b.htm . Scroll down to the heading "Orthodoxy" if you want to skip ahead to its conclusions.

Those ancient theologians understood each other.

There was no mistake, and not everything was political or linguistic either.

There were (and are) real differences.

The Orthodox Fathers understood that.

It is our task to learn the faith they bequeathed to us and to preserve it and pass it down intact.

[orthedoxy]

maximus
Do you believe that Jesus had one nature that was 100% God and 100%man?
if not explain.

[Maximus]

maximus
Do you believe that Jesus had one nature that was 100% God and 100%man?
if not explain.
I believe the Orthodox doctrine that our Lord Jesus Christ is one Divine Person with two natures, divine and human.

Here is the Orthodox statement from the Council of Chalcedon:

We teach . . . one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, known in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation.
That is what I believe.

Believing that Christ has but one nature is the heresy known as Monophysitism and leads logically to the concommitant heresy, Monothelitism, which is the teaching that Christ has only one will. It can and has lead to the heresy known as Tritheism, which is the belief that each of the Persons or Hypostases of the Holy Trinity has a separate nature.

Besides the links to articles that I have already recommended, I would like to recommend this one (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03555a.htm) on the Council of Chalcedon and this one (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05633a.htm) for further info on the history and theology of the error known as Monophysitism.

[prodromos]

Maximus, I believe that both Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox do a darn fine job of describing the mystery of the incarnation, something that is not truly explainable in our poor human terms. Just because the one approach does not exactly mirror the other does not mean that one is right and the other wrong. They arrived at their conclusions battling quite different heresies if you recall.

You will no doubt disagree with me and that is your perogative. I do find your current obsession a bit disturbing though and find myself uncomfortable with the intensity with which you are pushing it. You posted the same link to orthodoxinfo.com three times in a two page thread for goodness sakes. Doesn't that strike you as obsessive?

Regarding your insistence on the OO accepting the last councils, you don't think it is possible that the EO (of which I am a part) have not painted themselves into a similiar corner to that which the Catholics have with Papal infallibility?

I won't be posting again in this thread and had not intended on getting involved in the discussion at all as time does not permit what it would require of me.

John.

P.S. for any that are interested, the same topic is/was being discussed over here (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/newboard/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=2479;start=0) with a few more articles linked to that may be of interest.

[orthedoxy]

Maximus
How do you explain the cuncil of ephesus, it says ONE NATURE OF GOD?
here is a better site that explains OO position better on chalcedon,
it has a lot of info
http://www.geocities.com/mfignatius/others/byzantine.html

The Armenians, who in 451AD were fighting a battle in defence of Christianity against the Persians who outnumbered them and desired to bring the Armenians to political submission and also strip them of the Christian faith and with it the HOPE of eternal life, were not present at the council and thus never bowed to the political pressure of the West who abandoned them while they were being persecuted for the very faith about which the West speculated in a war of words. To them, the controversy was settled by confessing in concord with the Ephesian formula that there is in Jesus Christ "One Nature of the Incarnate Word."

Here is a site that explains Armenians and the council of chalcedon
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/article08.html

[Maximus]

Prodromos: Maximus, I believe that both Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox do a darn fine job of describing the mystery of the incarnation, something that is not truly explainable in our poor human terms. Just because the one approach does not exactly mirror the other does not mean that one is right and the other wrong. They arrived at their conclusions battling quite different heresies if you recall.Seems to me the Orthodox Fathers did a darn thorough job of refuting the Non-Chalcedonians and anathematizing them as heretics.

How is it that the Orthodox Church saw no need to question their findings until the 20th century?

The Ecumenical Councils of the Church likewise anathematize the Non-Chalcedonians as heretics, naming specifically the very same men the modern Non-Chalcedonians still regard today as "saints" and "fathers."

Someone is wrong.

Both cannot be right.

Either the Orthodox Fathers and their Holy Spirit-inspired councils were wrong, or the Non-Chalcedonians are wrong.

Which is it?

Prodromos: You will no doubt disagree with me and that is your perogative. I do find your current obsession a bit disturbing though and find myself uncomfortable with the intensity with which you are pushing it. You posted the same link to orthodoxinfo.com three times in a two page thread for goodness sakes. Doesn't that strike you as obsessive?

No, it does not.

Frankly, I had not thought about the Non-Chalcedonians much until I encountered a series of posts on another forum that motivated me to investigate further.

I, apparently like most people, had simply accepted the word of the Non-Chalcedonians that they are Orthodox.

I did not realize that in so doing I was calling into question the wisdom and understanding of the Orthodox Fathers and their councils.

I also did not realize that the Non-Chalcedonians are still engaged in attacking ecumenical councils 4-7, especially Chalcedon.

I was also not aware of the proposals of the joint committee of theologians looking into the possibility of union, proposals which amount to a betrayal of the Orthodox faith.

Prodromos: Regarding your insistence on the OO accepting the last councils, you don't think it is possible that the EO (of which I am a part) have not painted themselves into a similiar corner to that which the Catholics have with Papal infallibility?Yeah - it's called taking a stand and believing in something.

If the ecumenical councils of the Church are not guided by the Holy Spirit and their decisions binding and infallible, what then?

Anything goes?

If the Church possesses the charism of infallibility, if she speaks with unmistakable authority in declaring a particular teaching and group heretical, how is it possible, centuries later, to reverse her decisions, when the group and teaching in question have not changed?

Prodromos: I won't be posting again in this thread and had not intended on getting involved in the discussion at all as time does not permit what it would require of me.

John.

P.S. for any that are interested, the same topic is/was being discussed over here (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/newboard/index.php?board=5;action=display;threadid=2479;start=0) with a few more articles linked to that may be of interest.I think the current detente between the Orthodox Church and the Non-Chalcedonians is one of the greatest dangers to the Orthodox faith to come along in many years. It has its modern source in the WCC.

Here is what the recently departed Patriarch of Jerusalem, Diodorus I, had to say on the subject:

In the same spirit we think that theological dialogues with the heterodox have no positive outcome. Already some of the heterodox have diverged from their original position, adopting innovations alien to the spirit of the Church. Some of the Orthodox Bishops are engaging in dialogues with them, and worse than this, are praying with them, which causes scandal to the faithful and damage to their souls.

Likewise, optimism is expressed about the "positive"—as it is asserted—outcome of the dialogue with the Anti-Chalcedonians, who have repeatedly been condemned for their persistence in heresy and false belief. Our Most Holy Church of Jerusalem abides steadfastly by the decisions of both the Holy Ecumenical Synod of Chalcedon and the subsequent Holy Ecumenical Synods, and neither setting aside any of the definitions nor subjecting them to fresh inquiry, she has broken off the theological dialogue with the non-Chalcedonians.

She does not, however, exclude the possibility of their return and re-inclusion in the bosom of our Most Holy Orthodox Church. In what way the heterodox are received is known. They must fully accept—without any exception—the teaching of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is formulated in the definitions and decisions of the Ecumenical Synods.

The partial acceptance of the teaching of the Orthodox Church, that is, the exception of certain definitions of the Ecumenical Synods, as is being done by the heterodox according to what pleases them and serves their interests, as in this case by the Anti-Chalcedonians, cannot constitute a sign of their contact with our Most Holy Orthodox Church. On the contrary, it will entangle her in vicissitudes and divisions, which will weaken her healthy body. For this reason we are bound to inform you, our Most Blessed brethren, in this fraternal Assembly, that our Most Holy Church is abstaining also from this dialogue. For, despite the positive estimate of its progress that it is going to develop further to the better, it will be of no benefit, unless it presupposes the full acceptance of the Orthodox Teaching.

[Reader Nilus]

Because in the 20th ct the Ottoman empire fell apart and for the first time in a 1000+ years or so the OO/EO could actually talk with one another. When a person starts to listen, the differences are just not there.
Jeff the Finn

[Maximus]

Because in the 20th ct the Ottoman empire fell apart and for the first time in a 1000+ years or so the OO/EO could actually talk with one another. When a person starts to listen, the differences are just not there.
Jeff the FinnThe issues that separated the Non-Chalcedonians from the Church began in the 5th century, well before the arrival of even the Seljuk Turks, let alone the Ottomans. Monophysitism predates Islam. Muhammad himself was not even born until 570.

Chalcedon, the first ecumenical council to anathematize the Monophysites (aka Non-Chalcedonians), was held in 451.

Do you really think the Orthodox Fathers did not read the writings of Dioscoros, Timothy Aelurus, Peter Mongus, and Severus of Antioch?

Are we to believe they (the Fathers) did not understand them and that we now do?

Were the Fathers and the ecumenical councils wrong to condemn the Non-Chalcedonians as heretics?

If they were wrong about the Non-Chalcedonians, what or who else have they been wrong about?

The Nestorians?

The Arians?

To whom should we turn then, if the Fathers cannot be relied upon?

BTW, the EO and the OO lived within close proximity of one another inside the Ottoman Empire. AFAIK, the Turks did not prevent them from communicating.

What is significant about the 20th century in this case was not the demise of the Ottoman Empire but rather the rise of ecumenism and religious relativism.

[Reader Nilus]

I find that the churches that fell outside of the Roman empire are the one's that were condemned, but of course that has nothing to do with it does it? Why did you dismiss the http://www.orthodoxunity.org/ site? It looks like it is just not Antioch but Alexandria as well, that speak to unity. I know from what I have seen where the Greeks stand on the issue.
Jeff the Finn

[orthedoxy]

Maximus
How would you answer the Roman Catholics when they ask why do EO only accept 7 councils?
Also can you tell me if the Church were heretical since they believed in one nature of Christ during the council of Ephesus?

[nyj]

How would you answer the Roman Catholics when they ask why do EO only accept 7 councils?

Why does Catholicism need to be pulled into this discussion? This is a situation for the Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental) and doesn't have anything to do with us.

[Photini]

Why does Catholicism need to be pulled into this discussion? This is a situation for the Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental) and doesn't have anything to do with us.
It was brought up as an illustration.

[Stone_Lock_Comanche]

Teaching of the church. Our Lord jesus christ is perfect God, and as God he is eternally born from GOd. As man, born of the Holy Virgin and in every way like us, except in Sin. Through the incarnation, birth from The Holy Virgin, divinity and humanity are united in him as a single person,infused and immutable, thus reputing Eutychius; Indivisible and inseperable, reputing Nestorius

[orthedoxy]

Teaching of the church. Our Lord jesus christ is perfect God, and as God he is eternally born from GOd. As man, born of the Holy Virgin and in every way like us, except in Sin. Through the incarnation, birth from The Holy Virgin, divinity and humanity are united in him as a single person,infused and immutable, thus reputing Eutychius; Indivisible and inseperable, reputing Nestorius
Can you tell me which non-chelcedon Church believes in Eutychius?
The Armenian Church comdemn Eutychius as a herotic.
That's like accusing the EO church for being Nestorians since they believe in dual nature of Christ.

[Maximus]

I have already quoted a leader among Non-Chalcedonians, Metropolitan Paulos Mar Gregorios of the Syrian Orthodox Church of India, in an earlier post to show that he not only denies the substance of the Council of Chalcedon but of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, as well.

Here is a portion of that quote again:

We are unable to say what this council [the Sixth] says when it affirms "two wills and two operations concurring most fitly in him" . . .

To summarize: Acceptance of the Sixth Council is much more difficult for us than the acceptance of Chalcedon. The following are the chief reasons:...

b) We are unable to accept the dithelete formula, attributing will and energy to the natures rather than to the hypostasis. We can only affirm the one united and unconfused divine-human nature, will and energy of Christ the incarnate Lord
Here is a Non-Chalcedonian metropolitan who denies that Christ has two wills, which is the heresy known as Monothelitism.

Note that he also says, "We can only affirm the one united and unconfused divine-human nature, will and energy of Christ the incarnate Lord."

Although it is possible that Mar Gregorios (Paul Verghese) meant something Orthodox by that statement, and merely misused the word nature, given his assertion of one will and energy in Christ that seems unlikely.

Monothelitism is one of a number of heresies that occur as a logical consequence of Monophysitism. It was condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

Even if one were to concede that the Non-Chalcedonians possess an Orthodox Christology (which is doubtful), the fact remains that they still oppose the inspired councils of the Church and the findings of her Orthodox Fathers. They still uphold and venerate as "saints" and "fathers" men who were anathematized as heretics by the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. They are still using the same arguments used by those same men.

[prodromos]

BTW, the EO and the OO lived within close proximity of one another inside the Ottoman Empire. AFAIK, the Turks did not prevent them from communicating.

They were both fighting for survival. If you have examples of communications between them, present them. Otherwise this is pure conjecture on your part.


Why does Catholicism need to be pulled into this discussion? This is a situation for the Orthodox (Eastern and Oriental) and doesn't have anything to do with us.

I really don't know what to say to this. The Chalcedonian schism occured when Rome was still part of the Orthodox church. It has as much to do with Rome as it has to do with Eastern Orthodoxy.

John.

[orthedoxy]

Maximus
Council of Chelcedon condemned Eutyches and so did the Oriantel Churches.

According to the Armenian Church, Christ is at one and the same time perfect God and perfect man. CHRIST IS GOD BECOME MAN. neither His divine nature nor His human nature are separated. These natures are united so that they are indivisible. Hence, we speak of the ONE NATURE of Christ (According to the formula of St. Cyril of Jerusalem).
The Armenian Church define Christ the way the council of Ephesus did, do you see any problem with that?
I don’t think council of chalcedon condemns the council of Ephesus do you?
I don’t understand how can EO say they accept the council of chelcedon?the council was teaching the primacy of the pope.can you explain?
Here is a quote from the sixth council:
"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him (Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness." -- Acts of Chalcedon, Session 3

[Maximus]

Prodromos: They were both fighting for survival. If you have examples of communications between them, present them. Otherwise this is pure conjecture on your part.
JefftheFinn asserted that the reason the recent push for union between the Non-Chalcedonians and the Orthodox had to wait until the 20th century was because the Ottoman Turks prevented the two sides from communicating.

Since the Non-Chalcedonians and the Orthodox inhabited many of the same areas of the Ottoman Empire, that is self-evidently untrue.

The Monophysite Schism occurred well before the advent of the Ottomans. There was plenty of communication between Non-Chalcedonians and Orthodox. The writings of Orthodox Fathers such as St. John of Damascus and St. Maximus the Confessor refer to the writings of the leading Non-Chalcedonians (and condemn them).

There were early efforts at reconciliation. The Henoticon of the Emperor Zeno led to the famous Acacian Schism, for example.

The Orthodox Fathers knew what the Non-Chalcedonians believed. There was no mistake.

The compromisers and ecumenists of today are the ones making the mistakes.

[Maximus]

orthedoxy: Maximus
Council of Chelcedon condemned Eutyches and so did the Oriantel Churches.Eutychianism is only one of the more extreme forms of Monophysitism.

The Non-Chalcedonians divided into a number of conflicting and competing sects following their schism from the Church. Here are the names of just a few of them: the Agnoetoe; the Corrupticolae; the Incorrupticolae; the Condobaudites (also called "Tritheists"); the Philoponiaci; the Cononites; the Damianists; the Angelites; and the Niobites.

Even the moderate Monophysites, like Severus of Antioch, fell into other heresies like Monothelitism.

orthedoxy: According to the Armenian Church, Christ is at one and the same time perfect God and perfect man. CHRIST IS GOD BECOME MAN. neither His divine nature nor His human nature are separated. These natures are united so that they are indivisible. Hence, we speak of the ONE NATURE of Christ (According to the formula of St. Cyril of Jerusalem).St. Cyril used the term nature (physis) early on in the way that Person or hypostasis came to be used later. He understood that and was able to come to an agreement with John of Antioch and Theodoret of Cyrus on that subject.

He did not mean that Christ had or has only one nature. He meant that Christ is a unified, yet composite Hypostasis (Person) in two physeis (natures), divine and human.

orthedoxy: The Armenian Church define Christ the way the council of Ephesus did, do you see any problem with that?
I don’t think council of chalcedon condemns the council of Ephesus do you?I tried to find a reference in the record of the Council of Ephesus to "one nature" but was unable to. It might be there. I did not have time to read through the whole thing. If it is, then that council used such language as I described above, when the various Fathers were refining the way in which they described the Incarnation, when the terms physis, hypostasis, ousia, and prosopon were sometimes used indiscriminately and interchangeably.

This history is what gives some the idea that the differences between Non-Chalcedonians and the Orthodox are the result of a misunderstanding. However, by the time of the Council of Chalcedon, and certainly by the time of the Fifth Council, in 553, the terminology had been refined and was commonly understood.

orthedoxy: I don’t understand how can EO say they accept the council of chelcedon?the council was teaching the primacy of the pope.can you explain?
Here is a quote from the sixth council:
"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him (Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness." -- Acts of Chalcedon, Session 3The Council of Chalcedon reflects the primacy of the Pope because the Pope did hold the primacy!

Just what that primacy meant is the subject of debate, but that he held some kind of primacy is indisputable.

We accept the Council of Chalcedon because the Church teaches us that it was a holy, ecumenical council of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

[orthedoxy]

Eutychianism is only one of the more extreme forms of Monophysitism.

The Non-Chalcedonians divided into a number of conflicting and competing sects following their schism from the Church. Here are the names of just a few of them: the Agnoetoe; the Corrupticolae; the Incorrupticolae; the Condobaudites (also called "Tritheists"); the Philoponiaci; the Cononites; the Damianists; the Angelites; and the Niobites.

Even the moderate Monophysites, like Severus of Antioch, fell into other heresies like Monothelitism.

St. Cyril used the term nature (physis) early on in the way that Person or hypostasis came to be used later. He understood that and was able to come to an agreement with John of Antioch and Theodoret of Cyrus on that subject.
He did not mean that Christ had or has only one nature. He meant that Christ is a unified, yet composite Hypostasis (Person) in two physeis (natures), divine and human.

Armenians accept two nature within the one nature. We accept the council of Ephesus and to say we are heretics is to say the council was a heresy.


I tried to find a reference in the record of the Council of Ephesus to "one nature" but was unable to. It might be there. I did not have time to read through the whole thing. If it is, then that council used such language as I described above, when the various Fathers were refining the way in which they described the Incarnation, when the terms physis, hypostasis, ousia, and prosopon were sometimes used indiscriminately and interchangeably.

This history is what gives some the idea that the differences between Non-Chalcedonians and the Orthodox are the result of a misunderstanding. However, by the time of the Council of Chalcedon, and certainly by the time of the Fifth Council, in 553, the terminology had been refined and was commonly understood.

Do you mean like Catholics inserting words in the Filioque to explain the meaning?

The Council of Chalcedon reflects the primacy of the Pope because the Pope did hold the primacy!

Just what that primacy meant is the subject of debate, but that he held some kind of primacy is indisputable.

We accept the Council of Chalcedon because the Church teaches us that it was a holy, ecumenical council of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
Would you agree with this statement?” Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith”
If not do you really accept the council?

[Maximus]

Of what relevance to this discussion are attacks on Roman Catholics? Start a new thread if you want to discuss the filioque.

Of course, I accept the Council of Chalcedon.

I am Orthodox.

[Reader Nilus]

The relevance is that the Oriental Orthodox found that statement repugnant and that has nothing at all to do with their views on the nature/s of Our Lord.
Jeff the Finn

[Maximus]

The relevance is that the Oriental Orthodox found that statement repugnant and that has nothing at all to do with their views on the nature/s of Our Lord.
Jeff the FinnWhat statement?

The filioque?

There are many things I find repugnant that are nevertheless not relevant to this particular topic.

[Reader Nilus]

Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church

Maximus wrote:
Of what relevance to this discussion are attacks on Roman Catholics?
I can very well understand the Oriental view of that statement claiming that Peter is the foundation of the Catholic Church.
Jeff the Finn

[orthedoxy]

maximus
This history is what gives some the idea that the differences between Non-Chalcedonians and the Orthodox are the result of a misunderstanding. However, by the time of the Council of Chalcedon, and certainly by the time of the Fifth Council, in 553, the terminology had been refined and was commonly understood.

Why do you condemn the Catholics when they say they were only refining the Nicene Creed by adding "and the son"? You don't seem to see anything wrong with refining things.
Answer me something how can chalcedonians not accept the primacy of the Pope?
You are trying to proof to me why we need to accept the council of chalcedon when you don't believe in it yourself(not everything it stood for) can you tell me if you believe this quote?” Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith”
Apparently you seem to accept the council as infallible only where it agrees with you.

[Maximus]

orthedoxy -

You misunderstand me.

I do accept the Council of Chalcedon and the historic primacy of the bishops of Rome.

However, the differences between Orthodox and Roman Catholics are not the subject of this thread.

The differences between Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonians are the subject of this thread.

If you wish to discuss differences with the RCC, start a new thread.