on Chalcedon



  • The Tome of Leo is clearly nestorian and this would be the reason for Leo ousting St. Dioscorous.

    Really? You think that is the only possible reason? Have you heard the other side as well? You are taking data, and attaching your own interpretation to it. The data (that Leo excommunicated Dioscorous) is undeniable. The reason being that Leo was Nestorian is your own (wrong) interpretation. Leo understood Dioscorous as Eutechian. That is why. It may have been a misunderstanding, but the fact that Leo excommunicated Dioscorous does not imply anything.

    Leo was on his way to exile if it were not for the death of the emperor Theodosius.

    Source? Reason? Anything?

    So Leo made up bogus stories that St. Dioscorous became violent and what not.

    Can you confirm they were all made up? Lies typically carry some truth. There was certainly violence involved from both sides. The murder of Flavian is a huge question up on the air. In a disagreement, there are three points of view: Mine, yours, and the truth. Apply that to the EO and the OO. Dioscorous's, Leo's, and the Truth.

    No Leo is not a nestorian. This is just you, taking certain facts and making some non-sequitur interpretation of it. "Dioscorous accepted Eutychus back. Therefore Dioscorous is Eutychean." That is absolute garbage, and you know it. Why would you be willing to give Dioscorous a break, and actually analyze his dealing with Eutychus, and refuse to do the same for Leo? Leo supported Theodoret? Dioscorous accepted Eutychus.

    [quote author=Tome of Leo]
    "The infancy of a babe is shown in the humbleness of its cradle : the greatness of the Most High is proclaimed by the angels' voices. He whom Herod treacherously endeavours to destroy is like ourselves in our earliest stage : but He whom the Magi delight to worship on their knees is the Lord of all. So too when He came to the baptism of John, His forerunner, lest He should not be known through the veil of flesh which covered His Divinity, the Father's voice thundering from the sky, said, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased Matthew 3:17 .” And thus Him whom the devil's craftiness attacks as man, the ministries of angels serve as God. To be hungry and thirsty, to be weary, and to sleep, is clearly human: but to satisfy 5,000 men with five loaves, and to bestow on the woman of Samaria living water, droughts of which can secure the drinker from thirsting any more, to walk upon the surface of the sea with feet that do not sink, and to quell the risings of the waves by rebuking the winds, is, without any doubt, Divine. Just as therefore, to pass over many other instances, it is not part of the same nature to be moved to tears of pity for a dead friend, and when the stone that closed the four-days' grave was removed, to raise that same friend to life with a voice of command: or, to hang on the cross, and turning day to night, to make all the elements tremble: or, to be pierced with nails, and yet open the gates of paradise to the robber's faith: so it is not part of the same nature to say, “I and the Father are one,” and to say, “the Father is greater than I. ” For although in the Lord Jesus Christ God and man is one person, yet the source of the degradation, which is shared by both, is one, and the source of the glory, which is shared by both, is another. For His manhood, which is less than the Father, comes from our side: His Godhead, which is equal to the Father, comes from the Father."

    Show me the Nestorianism.

  • Posted by: minasoliman
    « on: August 14, 2012, 09:50:32 PM » Insert Quote
    I remember reading an article a while ago about the Trinity where it mentions that one possible Old Testament reference to the Trinity can be the three men who visited Abraham.  The article claimed that although our tradition mainly sees this as the Logos with two angels, some Church fathers seem to believe that this is the Trinity appearing to Abraham.  I admit, there's no reference to which Church fathers did in fact profess this, but perhaps someone here can help me more knowledgeable than I am in this.  Perhaps if someone has the ACCS and look up Genesis 14, this may also add an interesting dynamic to the discussion, that we cannot assume what Isaiah saw by theological assumption that only the Logos can appear to human eyes in the Old Testament.  In addition, the Ethiopian Church venerates an icon of the Trinity, three equally looking, anthropological figures, blessing.  This icon is rampant in the Ethiopian Church and has become a symbol of their iconographical tradition:

    Since this is a popularity contest, I'll make my best effort. It has always been my understanding that this Ethiopian icon of the Trinity and Rublev's famous, beautiful icon of the three visitors (Trinity) are heretical and heterodox because no one has ever, in truth, seen the Father (or the Holy Spirit for that matter). So, these icons cannot show truth, and therefore, are not Orthodox Truth. I've spent time in the Ethiopian and Eritrean Churches, have asked, and have been told by theologically sensitive laity that the icon is problematic, was brought into the church under some wrong pretense, and now has universal prominence (and intellectual justification?). This should be a warning to us regarding welcoming and blindly advocating for the much more dangerous heresies of blind date ecumenism and its soft, warm and fuzzy bedfellows, freudianism and feminism. Neither are Patriarchal, as The Father, and His creation's order. Their prominence will start with divorcing and ordained women, as in all of their maturely (or matronly) developed current "christian" jurisdictions. Isn't it amazing how heresies of a feather, flock together?Do I need a campaign chairwoman? 
  • Leo supported Theodoret, even forcing him into the council. Theodoret is a confirmed nestorian.

    Wanted to also ask why it is that Theodoret approved the excommunication of Nestorius in 451?

  • [quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=13535.msg159161#msg159161 date=1345582945]

    Leo supported Theodoret, even forcing him into the council. Theodoret is a confirmed nestorian.

    Wanted to also ask why it is that Theodoret approved the excommunication of Nestorius in 451?

    While he did anathematize Nestorius he still held heretical beliefs and opposed Cyrilline Christology until his death.
  • Severian,

    I am not saying that Theodoret is a father or Doctor of the church. Not even that he has proper theology. I am saying that in the council to which he was invited by Pope Leo, he did excommunicate Nestorius. This is a response to Ioannes' claim that because Theodoret was brought into the counncil by Leo, Leo is Nestorian.

  • What if we looked for secondary sources that reference primary sources? In "There is No Crime for Those who have Christ" p.323, , Gaddis says "the exiled Nestorius claimed that Tome of Leo, which subsequently formed the basis for the council's [Chalcedon's] own definition, vindicated his [Nestorius'] own beliefs". Gaddis takes this from Nestorius "Bazaar of Heracleides" p. 370 where Nestorius says, "Let Nestorius be anathemized, as long as they believe what I believe"

    In the very next page, however, Gaddis tells us that "Pope Leo complained of mistranslations - or perhaps deliberate forgeries - of his Tome that falsely attributed to him a "Nestorian" division of Christ in two persons." Gaddis then tells us, "The division of Christ in two prosopa or persons was a common caricature of "Nestorianism" even though Nestorius himself explicitly denied any such idea."

    It is obvious that the polemics of post-Chalcedonian violence still persists. Did Nestorian vindicate himself through Leo's Tome? We have conflicting stories from Nestorius himself. We need to actually really read Nestorius Bazaar of Heracleides to get a proper understanding of how he viewed Leo's Tome. (Fr Peter, please let us know what you think).

    Personally I believe associating a person with a heretic is not sufficient proof as RO has pointed out. Apparently, it is also difficult for a heretic like Nestorius to prove another person like Leo agrees with the same heresy.
  • Sadly Fr. Peter is no longer on this site. I will try to ask him privatley what he thinks and report back.

    I had a question to ask but was afraid that I would be shot for it. Here it is: Was Nestorius really a nestorian?

  • You're not the first to ask this question. It's a rhetorical question that will never have an adequate answer. Even if Nestorius wrote he believes X, it doesn't necessarily mean X is the heresy of Nestorianism as we know and define it now.

    The question has also been asked for Chalcedon and Ephesus II. Did Cyril mean miaphysis or monophysis, even though there is no grammatical or semantic difference in the two? Was Dioscorus a monophysite? Was Leo a Nestorian? Was Chalcedon's Chrisotological formula Nicene? And so on and so on. Each party answers this rhetorical question in their narrow view because it is impossible to answer it satisfactorily in a broad way.

  • Dear all,
    Since I was the one who started the post of the Trisagion Hymn in this thread I just want to give a conclusion to it.
    I picked two quotes from this thread:

    [quote author=Father Peter link=topic=13535.msg158448#msg158448 date=1344024660]
    but in Syria, where it originated, it was a Christological hymn and was used as a Christological hymn even by Chalcedonians.

    [quote author=imikhail link=topic=13535.msg158496#msg158496 date=1344113099]
    Does not the following canon prevent the Eastern clergy and laity from addressing the Trisagion to the Son:

    Whereas we have heard that in some places in the hymn Trisagion there is added after "Holy and Immortal," "Who was crucified for us, have mercy upon us," and since this as being alien to piety was by the ancient and holy Fathers cast out of the hymn, as also the violent heretics who inserted these new words were cast out of the Church; we also, confirming the things which were formerly piously established by our holy Fathers, anathematize those who after this present decree allow in church this or any other addition to the most sacred hymn; but if indeed he who has transgressed is of the sacerdotal order, we command that he be deprived of his priestly dignity, but if he be a layman or monk let him be cut off.

    6th "ecumenical" council canon LXXXI

    I came back Today from the church after celebrating the Feast of the Assumption of the Theotokos and I heard these in the Liturgy:

    Rejoice O’ Mary, the handmaid and mother, for He who is on
    your lap, the Angels praise; the Cherubim worship worthily and
    the Seraphim without coldness.
    We have no favour before our Lord Jesus Christ, except your
    prayers and pleadings O’ Lady of us all, the Lady Mother of
    That we praise You with the Cherubim and the Seraphim proclaiming
    and saying: Holy, Holy, Holy, O’ Lord Almighty,
    heaven and earth are full of Your glory and honour


    Today present on this table Emmanuel our Lord The
    Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!

    Who is sitting on the throne of His Glory, before Him
    stand all the heavenly hosts. He is praised and blessed
    by the voice of the angels. Before Him the angels and the
    archangels kneel and prostrate.
    The four incorporeal living creatures say “Agios, Agios,
    Agios”, (Holy, Holy, Holy).
    Around the throne there are twenty-four thrones, and on
    the thrones twenty-four priests sitting, clothed in white
    robes; and they have crowns of gold on their heads. In
    their hands they are holding golden incencers full of
    incense, which are the prayers of the saints.
    The one hundred and forty four thousand pure virgins
    praise the LORD saying Holy, Holy, You are Holy, Amen
    Holy is God, the Almighty Father, Amen Alleluia.
    Holy is His Only Begotten Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord,
    Amen. Alleluia.
    Holy and glorious is the pure Virgin, Saint Mary, the
    Theotokos Amen, Alleluia.

    I acknowledge that I am not great in theology; I would give myself a pre- Kindergarten level but I trust with all my heart what my Orthodox Church teaches me.
    In Liturgy people says that we experience Heaven on earth, I think it is that we are spiritually ascended unto Heaven to be in front of the Throne of God
    A quote from Fr Tadros Malaty, Introduction to the Coptic Church

    “Liturgy is in its essence the true communion with Christ. This liturgical life is not lived only when a believer participates in common worship whatever it is, but it dwells within his heart even when he is alone in his room. In other words "liturgy" is a life which the church practices, through which she acknowledges her nature, realizes her message and attains her own existence which is life and growth in Jesus Christ”.

    Have a happy Feast of the Virgin
Sign In or Register to comment.