www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Nestorians

Dear Linus,

Yes, you have a wonderful way of bringing things into a more clear, precise framework!

St David of Garesja, although formally condemned by some Orthodox theologians of his day was NEVER condemned by a Council, as were the others you mention.

The acceptance of saints of communities formerly outside the Church by the Church once union is achieved is something that has always gone on in the Church's history - with the ancient proviso that these saints weren't personally named in the condemnation by Councils.

So we will find, in the Orthodox (and Roman Catholic) Church's calendars the names of saints who either formally or probably belonged to various churches that were excommunicated.

St Savas and St Nicetas the Goths were most certainly ordained priests by an Arian bishop. St Isaac of Nineveh lived in an area where there were only Assyrian ("Nestorian") bishops.

The Assyrians who are in communion with Orthodoxy (both in the 19th century and in this century), they continue to keep their Assyrian saints, apart from, of course, those who are named and condemned for Nestorianism by Council.

(Justinian was certainly against the individuals you name, especially those condemned for Nestorianism - but he didn't have too much trouble with many of the "Monophysites" of his day and earnestly desired reunion with them - it is to them that he addressed his remarks about lifting the anathemas against their teachers.)

Pope Dioscoros was actually censured not for heresy, but for his actions with respect to the council he called and toward St Flavian etc.

Severus of Antioch's case is also one that involves more canonical rather than dogmatic issues.

But the point remains that they were named and condemned by a Council.

But so was Pope St Leo (honoured by both RC and Orthodox Churches) formally condemned by the Oriental Churches on charges that he was inclining toward Nestorianism!

In the case of the discussions that Orthodox and Oriental theologians have been having, the issue of the mutual lifting of the anathemas of each other's teachers and saints was discussed at length (and that fascinating dialogue has been published, but I forget the title of the book, perhaps others here could provide it).

At one point, the Orthodox came to the eye-opening understanding that the Oriental Churches understood the Greek word for "nature" or "physis" as "person."

What does that mean? It means that the Orthodox Church was always correct about condemning anyone who believes that in Christ there is only "One Nature."

It means that our understanding of how the Oriental Churches confess their faith in Christ is extended - and, consequently, this understanding transforms the entire issue of whether or not they are in heresy.

That is the only "change" that changes not ONE IOTA of the faith or of the condemnation of Monophysism by the Councils.

As for the individuals historically condemned by the Councils - the anathemas could indeed be lifted by the Orthodox Church IF it can be shown that the individuals condemned were not truly heretics.

Does this mean that if the anathemas could be lifted that the Councils erred?

Not at all. The Councils were always consistent in condemning heresy and those implicated with them.

The Church can exonerate individuals so condemned - that process of investigation is going on right now.

But as to the actuals ways and means of this - that is something that is up to the Church to decide on.

I don't see how such an exoneration impugns the Church or its gift of indefectibility under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

The ONLY way by which this could occur is if the Church approved of heresy or of heretics.

Dioscoros and Severus were condemned largely for canonical infractions and issues - their exoneration would not, therefore, even involve the matter of the Orthodox Christological faith and related issues.

As for those implicated in the Nestorian heresy - that is, of course, a much more difficult matter.

The Assyrian Church today is in agreement with Orthodox Christology.

It has yet to be proven that it has historically been consistent in confessing that Christology.

For example, the various Assyrian creeds that confess two "prosopa" or what we would call "Persons" in the One Christ - what does that mean? How is that consistent with Orthodox Christology? And how are the statements of Nestorius in exile that his Christology agreed with that of St Flavian of Constantinople to be understood? Did he have a change of heart following his condemnation? How is his refusal to recognize the title of "Theotokos" an indication that he was "Orthodox?"

By comparison with the Oriental Churches, the Nestorian issues are quite the different kettle of fish indeed!

Alex

Dioscorus was condemned by more than one ecumenical council.

Here are his own words at Chalcedon:

I disagree. That is the usual Monophysite take on Severus.

Here is a quote from Severus in which he disparages St. Cyril's agreement with the Antiochenes:

"The formulae used by the Holy Fathers concerning two Natures united in Christ should be set aside, even if they be Cyril's" (Patrologia Graeca, Vol. LXXXIX, Col. 103D. Saint Anastasios of Sinai preserves this quote of Severos in his works; quoted in The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 12).

Severus' belief in one nature of Christ after the hypostatic union also led him into the heresy of Monothelitism.

Have you checked out this article [newadvent.org] from the Catholic Encyclopedia on Monophysitism? Scroll down to the heading "Orthodoxy" for its conclusions.

An extremely important point, it seems to me.

The fact that he was condemned by heretics only adds luster to St. Leo's name and reputation.

The Oriental "churches" aren't churches at all.

Some of them may make that error, but the terminology was pretty well established and commonly understood by the early fifth century.

The Fathers knew what the Monophysites meant, and the Monophysites knew what the Fathers meant.

I have my doubts about whether or not the Non-Chalcedonians really do have an orthodox Christology.

Take, for example, the following quote from the 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. 133-143.

The bolding is mine for emphasis.

"Pope" Shenouda of the Copts has made similar statements, which indicate the continuing belief in Monothelitism at the very least and certainly seem to reflect outright Monophysitism.

It's simple really.

A supposedly infallible ecumenical council says, "A!"

A group of ecumenist theologians comes along over 1500 years later and says, "Not A!"

Since "A" and "Not A" are mutually exclusive (they can't both be right), somebody is wrong.

Was the ecumenical council wrong?

Or are the 21st century ecumenist theologians wrong?

Linus,

You say, "the Oriental Churches are not Churches at all."

You also put Pope Shenouda's title "Pope" in quotation marks.

This is a pan-Eastern message board and I find such activities to be rude. You can disagree with people without being rude.

anastasios

Dear, in Christ, Linus,

Anastasios is right. It is our accepted convention here to speak with courtesy about one another's Churches, and Church leaders, and this includes using their titles correctly.

While a good discussion on Chalcedonian Orthodoxy, and Oriental Orthodox is certainly most welcome, may I ask you to revise your post on this point?

Let us speak with courtesy about our Christian brothers and sisters, and all the leaders of the Churches. Such language credits our argument, and makes discussion possible.

Elias

Linus,

If you are interested in reading Assyrian theological documents, please see:

From the Assyrian Website [http]

anastasios

Dear Linus,

Thank you for your copious response!

As for whether the Orientals constitute "Churches" or not - I think that is not up to you or me to decide.

If the Orthodox Church, in particular, says they are Churches - and it does - then they are Churches and I accept that.

Has any Orthodox Patriarch anywhere ever written to Pope Shenouda and addressed him with his title in parentheses?

I've never heard of that and so since I as an Eastern Catholic am willing to submit to the judgement in this matter of the Orthodox Church - I think we both should!

That misunderstandings over terminology could have occurred among Christians - it would certainly not be the first time that happened.

For example, the Orthodox Church condemned the Oriental Trisagion for including words like "Who was crucified for us" after the "Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal."

To the Greeks, such an inclusion suggested the introduction of a fourth entity into the glorification of the Trinity etc.

Peter Mongus of Alexandria was a particularly strong proponent of the Oriental Trisagion.

But we know now that the Trisagion of the Orientals is a prayer that is NOT addressed to the Holy Trinity, but a prayer that is, in their tradition, addressed to Christ alone!

And that certainly does change our understanding of their perspective.

Dioscoros and Severus used Christological expressions that were rooted in the wording of St Cyril of Alexandria. Dioscoros was Cyril's nephew and was personally taught by his uncle in the matter of Christology.

It was probably inevitable that theological arguments rooted in wording would arise between Alexandria and Antioch given the tremendous theological thought produced in those two centres where each sought to preserve important aspects of a comprehensive Christology i.e. how Christ can be both God and Man and yet be One etc.

Dioscoros and Severus both affirmed that Christ is a composite Being. Perhaps today we may speak more dispassionately about the distinction between "Person" and "Nature" - but it was not always thus.

St Cyril himself was the one who coined the phrase "One Divine Nature of God the Word Incarnate."

What did he mean, then, by "Nature?" If he was serious about understanding nature in this way, then can we conclude that Cyril was a Monophysite?

Can we?

The fact is that Pope Leo did use terminology that was borrowed from those implicated with Nestorianism - Rome was known for this and preferred the Antiochene school.

If Dioscoros was a true Monophysite - then he would NEVER have referred to Christ as being "Divine-Human." That is the tell-tale sign that he disagreed with a formulation by Rome that he considered came dangerously close to Nestorianism.

At not time did either Dioscoros or Severus ever refer to Christ in Monophysite terms i.e. that He was Divine only, but "Divine-Human."

For them, then, "Physis" meant a unified whole where there was never any separation between Christ's Divine and Human natures - "not in the twinkling of an eye" as they say.

"Nature" can only be separated from "Person" theoretically.

To assert Divine Personality is to assert Divine Nature at the same time.

For Christ to have assumed human nature means that His Divine Prosopon united it to Himself while He did not cease being "One" as the Athanasian Creed states. And this "Oneness" of Christ does not "mix" the Divine and Human in Christ.

It is that crucial "Oneness" of Christ that Dioscoros and Severus saw as being under attack by the Nestorians - and by those in the Roman and Byzantine Churches who were only too willing to borrow Nestorianizing terminology (as it appeared) to defend their positions.

For the Oriental teachers, "Dyophysite" was and is synonymous with "Nestorian" where two Prosopa in Christ are posited.

We have not only come a long way in understanding the Orientals, but, in so doing, have come to appreciate the Christology of St Cyril as well.

Again, rather than attack "wishy-washy" ecumenical Orthodox theologians, I think it is well worth our while to study their writings and discussions which they undertook with the blessing of their respective Churches.

I am willing to admit that such theologians, including John Meyendorff, know a thing or two more than I about these entire matters.

If I have difficulty understanding them or what they are saying, perhaps the source of that difficulty lies in me.

For me to say that they are wrong etc. could be simply an act of great intellectual pride on my part.

That things aren't always what they appear to be and that history isn't "black and white" should not be matters that attack my sense of security about the Church's indefectibility either.

Alex

Those are my beliefs.

You find them unpleasant, so they seem rude.

I don't regard groups declared heretical by the Fathers as "churches."

I don't regard Shenouda as "Pope."

My beliefs will offend some people.

They are not inherently "rude," however.

Sorry. I would have revised it to read, "I do not regard Non-Chalcedonian groups as 'churches'."

I would have also revised it to read, "I do not regard Shenouda as Pope."

Unfortunately, this site has a time limit on editing, so I was unable to make the revisions.

Dear Linus,

But if the Orthodox Church does not use the terminology you do here - and I would venture to guess that it would disagree with your terminology with respect to the Orientals - are you not then in conflict with your own Church on this score?

Are you not trying to be "more Orthodox than the Orthodox" on this matter?

I do NOT believe you are being rude in saying what you say about the Orientals here IF that is what your Church has said about them.

If you use terminology that your bishops and metropolitans would not use in conjunction with the Orientals - then you are not simply being rude, but you are making yourself out to be higher than your hierarchs.

Alex

Alex -

I will reply to your post at length when I have more time.

However, I think you know that St. Cyril clarified his position in his letter to John of Antioch and through his signing of the formula of union drafted by Theodoret of Cyrus.

If merely speaking of Christ as Divine-Human means that one is not a Monophysite, then there never were any Monophysites.

Monophysites always acknowledged the humanity of Christ. That was not their problem. Their problem is that they allow His humanity to be swallowed up and so thoroughly dominated by His divinity as to be almost an afterthought. Witness their consistent Monothelitism, a logical consequence of Monophysitism.

You really should read the Catholic Encyclopedia articles on Monophysitism and Eutychianism. They don't reach the same conclusions you do.

No matter how one slices it, to arrive at your conclusions, one must believe the Fathers of the Church were wrong in their assessment of the Monophysites.

Has the Orthodox Church actually spoken on the issue of the Monophysites?

I think she has, in the ecumenical councils and the writings of the Fathers.

If she has changed her mind in recent years, where is the ecumenical council that has declared the change?

Different patriarchs and bishops currently say different things.

The bishops of ROCOR have denounced the dialogue with the Non-Chalcedonians, as did Diodorus of Blessed Memory, Patriarch of Jerusalem.

How can groups that are not part of the Church yet be "churches"?

How many popes are there?

Dear Linus,

Actually, I've read those articles many times before - they are very good!

Rome today wouldn't necessarily agree with all that they say as Rome and Alexandria ("Pope Shenouda" and his "band" ) have signed a full agreement on Christology and their theologians are examining the historical issues involved as are the Orthodox.

The "swallowing up" of the Humanity of Christ is what is central about the Monophysite heresy, you are quite right.

Eutyches and his followers were classical Monophysites - and both the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches are united in condemning them and Monophysism.

I've not said that Monophysism or Monothelitism aren't heresies.

I've just said that historical understandings of certain individuals and what they believed can change.

And, by the way, have you read the extremely scholarly articles by the Orthodox theologians engaged in the Orthodox-Oriental dialogue?

I really think you should, you know!

They, better than I or even Anastasius ( ), explain the issues that you take issue with.

In my younger years, I always believed that the Orthodox were cut off from the true Church of Christ, were graceless and therefore in danger of eternal hell-fire.

I've modified my thinking in this regard since, however . . .

If I can do it, anyone can do it!

Have a great day!

Alex

Dear Linus,

You'll have to excuse my giddiness today - I've had nothing but good news affecting my personal life.

The news affecting my Church is another matter . . .

It doesn't even bother me that the Administrator has taken to ignoring me . . .

God bless you, Orthodox Servant of Christ!

Alex

Alex -

Thank you for your consistently kind posts.

And I am very glad for your good personal news (whatever it may be).

The hang up for me in the dialogue with the Non-Chalcedonians is the idea, advanced by some, that the ecumenical councils are subject to review and revision.

If they were infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit they cannot be subject to review and revision, not without contradiction that amounts to heresy or perhaps even apostasy.

It is interesting that when I posted the remarks of the Metropolitan Mar Gregorios of the Syrian Orthodox Church of India, both here and on another board, no one chose to address them, yet they very obviously reflect a continuing tradition of both Monophysitism and Monothelitism within the Non-Chalcedonian leadership.

I don't see the need to try to swallow whole groups that are outside the Church, especially if they are unwilling to renounce the things that placed those groups outside the Church in the first place.

Just because I disagree with you does not mean I think your views are inherently rude. For instance, I do not find it rude that Old Calendarists would regard your Church as graceless. What I would find disturbing is if they called your Church a "Church" or as they call the Roman Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic "religious Organization". That is offensive to me.

The Non-Chalcedonians are a Church just as the Lutherans are a Church. You can say they aren't Orthodox, and that is fine, but you simply can't say they aren't a Church.

Pope Shenouda is a Pope, plain and simple. He fills the office. Again, you can argue he isn't Orthodox, but you can't argue that he isn't a Pope. Sorry.

anastasios