www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West From Miscommunication to Divorce

Rae, our understanding of Christ's revelation might change, but His revelation doesn't change. He revealed, and gave, all of Himself to us. That hasn't changed. He also gave instruction to the apostles, and that hasn't changed. And the Holy Spirit enlightened the apostles, and that hasn't changed. All of that is documented in Scripture and Holy Tradition, including the writings of the Fathers.

As for the fights between Christians, I'm the first to admit there were a lot of less than pure motives involved on all sides. And, yes, a lot of the Monophysitism and Nestorianism had to do with nascent nationalism. But, there were real theological issues too. The Monophysites tended to overemphasize Christ's divinity, and the Nestorians tended to overemphasize Christ's humanity. Those were theological errors that needed to be corrected (although, obviously, is was a colossal mistake to persecute them).

As for the other religions . . . they are other religions. God is everybody's loving Father; the Holy Spirit is speaking to us all; and Christ is among us. But, Christians believe . . . in Christ, and thus in Christianity.

Finally, and back to the original post, I would suggest that someone who is trying to discern which church to join --Catholic or Orthodox-- needs first to be firm in faith in Christ and in the Church as the Body of Christ. Only with that kind of faith can a person next discern --by prayer and investigation-- where in the Church does Christ wants him or her to serve.

Take care,

-- John

Ouch .. I forgot that this was the topic of this tread. I hope I have not inadvertently influenced anyone. But I doubt that I have.

I tend to agree that Christ's revelation has not changed (which revelation is Jesus himself) .. but not all the institutional church (any church) does or teaches is this revelation.

For example: I doubt it was a revelation that the Copts were wrong in their Christology - certainly this was how the Byzantine and Latin church thought of them selves in this situation .. (they thought they were upholding revelation against heretics) and so it turns out that they were wrong, mistaken, whatever you want to call it but keep in mind it was done (the condemnation) in the name of the revelation of Jesus Christ.

Now I will end this side-discussion here. I think it is unproductive of me in this thread. Perhaps I will begin a thread to discuss some of these things ... all churches have made their mistakes. We don't like to see it - we do not like to crack that glass wall ... but some of these mistakes have been done in the name of Revelation - and it has impact on the question .. if the church has ever changed its mind.

I thank you John for your patience. I look forward to your contribution when I do start another thread (if I do). You know that I value your opinions and good sense.

-ray

Ray,

This might be intersting as a new thread. Perhaps you could entitle it, "How Do We Know if It's True to the Apostolic Tradition."

-- John

Ray,
It depends on what you mean by wrong! The Church is never wrong about doctrine, it se forth the clear understanding that Jesus was fully God and Fully Man. It may have misunderstood what the "Monophysites" so called were saying. But I wast not wrong in its reponse as to true doctrine.
Stephanos I

OK.. let me be a bit more precise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodoxy

The Christian community of Alexandria (founded by St. Mark) was accused by the church of Antioch - of holding Monophysite Christology. The Council of Chalcedon condemned Alexandrian Christology but when the Alexandrian church refused the mandate of that council that Alexandria must change its Christology (a change of of one word) as Alexandria saw this as accepting a Nestorian-flavored terminology while Alexandria had stressed the unity of the two natures of Christ. Things fell apart.

So ... Alexandria refused to accept Nestorian terminology .. and Calcedon refused to accept Monyphysite termenology.

Both sides were defending revelation and 'true doctrine'. (perhaps). Or was it that both sides only thought they were defending true doctrine but in reality each misunderstood the other and actually wound up condemning the good doctrine of the other.

Beneath the debates lay politics - which had more to do with the failure of the council than the wording of its Christology as these issues (political and imperial) comprised most of the council debates.

Those Alexandria bishops who refused the mandate of the Calcedon council - were eventual the object of a demand by the Byzantine emperor Justine to become 'Calcedon' and when they refused ... they were violently persecuted by Rome ... which persecution (defense of true doctrine) lasted until Islam invaded Alexandria.

Thus ... was formed the Coptic Church (anti-Calcedon) and the Coptic church (Calcedon). I am not sure of their official titles today. Oriental churches ... I believe.

In June 1989 - the Coptic Orthodox church signed a Christological agreement with the Orthodox church and lifting the mutual excommunication was recommended by both sides .. but .. apparently .. neither wants to be the first to lift it.

Perhaps only a joint ceremony will would be acceptable - but no one is really moving towards that.

I believe that Rome has already lifted it ... and admits it was all a misunderstanding ... but the snag here is the word 'Orthodox' in "Coptic Orthodox Church" ... so full communion has not taken place. But Rome is in full communion with a Coptic Catholic church.

The Coptic Catholic church and the Coptic Orthodox church formally joined at some point - but this union was ignored by everyone and has been officially forgotten with the dust of time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Orthodox_Church_of_Alexandria

http://zeitun-eg.org/Coptic_interpretations_of_the_Fourth_Ecumenical_Council_(Chalcedon).pdf

As I understand it ... and I am not pretending theological accuracy ...

Monophysite {mono = one} {physis = nature}

Monophysite believe that Christ had only one nature ... and one nature only.

Nestorianism is the doctrine that Christ exists as two separate natures, the man Jesus and the divine Son of God, or Logos, rather than as a unified person.

Calcedon Christology holds that Christ had two natures (fully human and fully divine) unified in one person.

Alexandrian Christology held that Christ had one incarnate nature ... composed out of a union of two natures (fully human and fully divine).

As you can see ... Calcedon and Alexandrian are two approaches (from different angles) which are not necessarily exclusive of each other. Calcedon claims that 'person' is the divine nature that is united to a fully human nature. Alexandrian claims that the union of the two natures results in one incarnation.

A unity 'in' two natures or a unity 'out of' two natures. That was the wording disagreement.

Again .. I am not an authority and this is only an internet forum. Everyone should consult thier own church if interested in the debate.

But really - I must end this here as I am way out of the subject of the thread.

Peace and good will to you Stephanos I
-ray

Well isn't the problem with Oriental Orthodoxy the fact that it seemingly rejected the authority of Ecumenical Councils outright? Isn't that a problem, that they just rejected the authority and orthodoxy of Ecumenical Councils?

Alexis

I think this thread is really off topic now.

Ray, I humbly and strongly suggest you start a new thread. Include my latest post, your latest post, Fr. Stephanos' latest post, and Logos-Alexis' post. Entitle it something like, "How Do We Know If It Conforms to Apostolic Truth" or something like that. It's a good topic, worthy of exploration, but it really needs its own thread.

-- John

I agree John and I ask the moderator to move the said posts to a new thread which I would call ...

"From Miscommunication to Divorce"

The churches are divided .. each claiming the other wrong .. and I am driving hard to say that, at times, while each has believed in its own mind that it was defending revelation against the 'wrong' of some other church ... no such wrong existed in reality. The 'wrong' was in their own inability (and lack of desire) to trust and really come to understand what the other church was saying.

A human condition often found in divorce once love has ceased to be primary. Pride steps in and then one (and then both) begin to make ultimatum and demands upon the other to do it "MY way" or face non-acceptance. From love - to conditional love ("fulfill my conditions ... else I will not love you.")


One MUST agree that the divine nature in the churches is NOT responsible for the division - human nature is responsible for that. I am willing to examine where that has happened. But we have got to remove that glass wall in ourselves which does not want to see the church as anything but perfect and incapable of error. We have to crack that wall.


When we claim that one church was simply defending 'right doctrine' and revelation against another church which is holding 'wrong doctrine' ... and a break follows ... are we not (in reality) claiming that Christ himself is dividing his church? which is something I say He would never ever do. Has Christ failed to keep his church united?

And so the cause of division must be within the human nature of the church and I will show us how that is. We all know in our hearts what the cause of division is but we will not say it out loud. I will.

-ray

well I know what you're saying, and would agree except there'd be a difference between those that belong in His Church and don't based not only on the fact that they once did; didn't Jesus say if your brother sins against you take it up w/ him, then witnesses, then the church, then if he still does not repent, treat him as you would a pagan or tax collector" which although I am paraphrasing the scripture from just what I recall, I believe the point is He was saying if the brother, who apparantly was a Christian too, otherwise would not have cared what the church had to say, was to be rejected 'cos he wouldn't admit he was wrong, wouldn't that apply in the bigger picture with movements of heresy to which the adherants refused to deny, and you all are more well read than myself and probably can think of some better examples, but like the church of England; didn't they reject the authority of Rome after threat by King Henry (?) who rejected it so he could divorce his barren wife, which the pope would not let him do?
So it would have been right to let them go, as they were embracing the king as leader of the church and refusing to repent of it (as a whole), right? Regardless, I mean THEY left US, I believe, but the point is, leaving us eventually cost them their apostolic sucession, valid orders and the rest, so, wasn't that division of man compatable w/ the Lord's instructions?

We won't say it out loud? LOL ! Ray, we're saying it here every week.

I have to go, but I look forward to reading more and replying more later this week. In the meantime, my friend, I leave you with a thought: Christ is One and so too is His Church. The disunity is amongst ourselves.

-- John

Now that DID make me laugh out loud

-ray

'Church' is a slippery word. If we mean 'church' as in the institution we can see and hear ... we can not say it is one. They (churches) hold certain things in common .. but their minds and hearts (lead by hierarchy) is not one and they declare that they are not one.

If we mean 'church' in the way of meaning "Jesus founded his church" and it continues today through apostolic succession ... well ... that is the very church that is divided.

If by 'church' we mean Jesus Christ is the church (in as much as he called himself a temple and in as much as Jesus said to Saul "Why do you persecute me") than we can say that those who believe in this 'invisible church' .. can be and indeed are One united all together through reciprocal friendship in Christ.

(Back to Coptic Christology) ...

Coptic Christology is Christolgy handed down to them by St. Mark who founded the first catechetical school Christianity ever had. As such - its view of Christ represents a view of Christ which most likely is very near what was held by the apostles themselves.

We must keep in mind that the formula created at Calcedon ... was forged mostly in response to Arianism. A reaction. A creed designed to counter what was considered not only error by also a political threat to the church of Byzantine and Rome.

Now - just to be clear - I am not saying that the Calcedon formula is wrong - but what I am saying is that it was a further development brought about (caused) in reaction to later events threatening the religious and political status of Byzantine and Rome. When I say 'later events' I mean much later than when the Mark-ian formula of Alexandria what been codified.

Both Alexandria and Antioch spoke Greek at the time (and I think Rome was Greek speaking also at the time) and so we must count for nothing any idea of a problem of translation.

And so it seems to me that Alexandria was holding to the original Mark-ian expression while Calcedon's formulation was an newer innovation. Not all innovation is bad of course and I do not mean to imply that at all.

It is fact (inside the church and out) that the technology of language advances over time. Earlier word use held a much wider meaning and inflection ... which the later use of the same word ses its meaning more restricted and what once had been an inflection now gains its own technical word.

What do I mean by that?

A perfect example is - what was once expressed by one word (incarnation) is now (with Calcedon) expanded to a whole paragraph to say the same thing but in a more precise way.

What is so important to realizes is that this 'more precise way' did not exist at the time of Mark!

Now notice ... (please notice) ... That the Alexandirian form (Mark's expression) express simple - an incarnation. While the later Calcedon form expresses further technical details (where the incarnation was done).

Alexandra states that: the union of divine nature and human nature = incarnation of Jesus who is Christ.

Calcedon states that: the Peron of Jesus was divine ... and the mind and body of Jesus were human ... and the unity of these = incarnation of Jesus Christ.

So what Calcedon did was to make what was once correct (the Mark-ian form) ... now heretical in the context of the new Calcedon form.

Do you see??

This is exactly what happened with the filoque! Once approved and accepted by both East and West ... when one Greek word which had (at the time of agreement) has a shift in meaning (the word was further developed in the Greek language) the East used the nenwer definition while the Latin West was still using the older definition ... and of a sudden the oldlelr way the Latins had understood it was now turned on a dime into ... heretical.

But of course .. the recent act of Rome in excommunicating the Eastern church - no doubt had some influence over the Eastern church's decision to pronounce it the Roman creed as heretical instead of getting together like friends to work the whole thing out.

There is a saying that great men sometimes say when they are recognized for some great act. "I would like to thank all those great men who came before me - I was able to do this because I stood on thier shoulders."

The Chritology of Calcedon (as right as it may be) could not have been developed had it not stood on the shcoluders of Mark and Alexandria.

There is another saying: that the student becomes the teacher ... when he proves his teacher wrong. There is an aspect of human nature to understand in this saying. It is related to the Greek habit of the son (prince) becoming worthy to be the king only after he has killed his father.

Human nature.

Another case of this human nature of the church ... is what happened to Origen.

Origen is the father of Christan theology. Origen was the first to lay a solid foundation .. upon which all other theologian would build .. when he transfered the biblical antiquities of the Jews (OT) to Greek concepts.

Byzantine and Latin .. Rome and Constantinople .. he was the most sought after speaker by bishops and Popes.

Have you ever read Origen? A wonderful read - of course one must be aware of the context of his time when reading him. It is unfair to measure him against todays more developed theology.

Yet long after Origen's death (and again in coincidence when the emperor of Constantinople and the Pope of Rome were feuding over who would be the head of the Church ..) an Eastern Council was called in efforts to condemn Origen as a heretic. The Pope of Rome (not at that Council) refused to ratify the results (meaning that the Council could not be considered ecumenical) and so instead .. what was condemned was certain statments by Origen (the primary being the pre-existence of the soul) .

The Council condemned the statement of Origen that said (paraphrasing now) we (as human) pre-exited before time (before creation) in a purely spiritual state. And that because of our sin we were plunged into bodies.

Now .. you hear that and you say "Oh! Well... they were right to condemn such a position!!" and you would be right! They WERE right to condemn such a position... HOWEVER .. that is a misunderstanding of what Origen was saying!! (I do not care how many books are written claiming that Origen did say and mean just that - he certainly did not!)

The pre-existence of which Origen was saying )in the words of his day) is today expressed by what theology calls 'essential union'. It is a legitimate Latin theological concept.

So, in reality ... Origen was not condemned for what Origen held .. rather Origen was condemned for what the Council held that Origen held.

The Council condemned a straw man (its own creation).

Now one might think that the Pope of Rome did not ratify the results because he was on Origen's side .. but that would be naive. The goal of the Council in condemn Origen was to confiscate all Roman owned real estate within Byzantine boarders as almost all Roman monastic communities inside the Byzantine empire - were Origenist. And Origen being declared heretical would revert all their real estate to the emperor. A real coup de grass in the feud with Rome.

Once Origen was condemned (he wasn't condemned - only some of his articles were condemned - but the council published that Origen himself had been condemned) theologians who even had once been students of Origen - dropped him like a hot potato. You see - Christian heretic (at that time) could be killed. Ib fact is was often duty to the church to persecute pagans and heretics.

Be all that as it may (the ulterior motives) ...

The important thing to note here is that what was once a legitimate brilliant theologian of the church ... was now ... heretical.

The very same thing that happened to the Markian Christology of Alexandria!

Do you see the failings of human nature here? I do.

The good theology of both Alexandria and Origen (good within the context of their time in the development of the church) were condemned ... by the later church ... due to (forget political motives for a moment) due to the inability of words to be infallible .. and to only be able to be representations of truth, PLUS the human tendency for assuming that 'I' (singular or collective) am the measure of what another man means to say with his words.
= and so these does not loom the problems that Byzantine and Rome would later have over the filoque.
On another subject .. has the church ever changed its mind?

It once taught that the world is flat. It does not teach that any more.

It once taught that the sun circled the earth and this was Revelation (Joshuah and the sun stood still). it persecuted those who taught that the earth circles the sun. It does not teach that any more.

It once taught that you can identify a witch - if you put her into water and she floats. It does not teach that any more. But at the time the church published a book on the subject of how to identify a witch.

The church once taught that the world was created 4000 years before Christ ... it arrived at that date by calculating all the ages of the people given in the book of Genesis and it was considered as Revelation from scriptures. (I think that was the time span) but it dos not teach that any more.

It once taught against evolution ... but the Roman church accepts certain principles of evolution now.

It once taught that pure spirits fly about in the sky and in space and inside a perfect vacuum. The either were full of spirits. It does not teach that any more.

It once taught that it is duty to persecute (and go to war against) non-Christians and other Christians who are declared heretics. Now it teaches that all people have the right to freely practice their religion.

It once encouraged, and organized, the Crusades as it was Christian duty to occupy the Holy Land .. it does not teach hat any more.

Has the church changed its mind?

Yes it has. Yes - even on some items which it had claimed were revelation in some way.

Am I condemning the church? No I am not. I am condemning the false pious mind set (we all have it at times) which wants to see the church only as ... perfect. Infallible. Without error.

Have we all (no matter which church we belong to) have we all wanted the church to be ... too divine? to the blindness of not being able to recognize its human nature also?

One of the biggest blockages to unity (a friendly love between churches) ... is a carry over from days gone by when Kings simple did not make mistakes. Pretending that every edict was right and could not be a mistake .. eventual walled the king into a corner. Like the man who paints himself into the corner of a room and suddenly finds he can not get to the door.

This all too human tendency .. especially in religion .. can only be overcome by massive humility and charity. I point to John Paul II as an example of real ecumenical spirit.

And back we go to something I said at the beginning of this post - unity which automatically comes from a reciprocal freindship with Christ. There is where unity is - and where unity starts ... and the fruit of it (which is unity) is how we can tell if anybody has it.

Obviously a lot of people at this forum - have it

Enuff for tonight. Let the stones fly! I got my helmet on.

(its late and I can not proof read I am not an authority in anything anyway)

Peace be to us, to our conscience, and to our churches.
-ray

I am not teaching anyone. I myself am working out .. my own coming to grips with the fact that the human nature of the church is only as perfect as as they who run it.

It seems to me today that the guidance of the Holy Spirit within the church ... does not violate our free will. In other words no one (hierarchy included) is given a holiness that he himself does not have. That is why it is called 'guidance'.

The Church may be the mystical body of Christ but it seems to me to be so only in its wholeness. With Paul I would have to say that no particular church can contain or be the subsistence of that wholeness ... no more than we can cut and apple into parts and then pick up but one piece and claim "this is the whole and entire apple." A piece of an apple remains only one part of the apple and the wholeness of the apple subsists in the wholeness of the apple.

Friendship in Christ (friendship with Christ) seems to me to be where the subsistence of the church is. Friendship with Christ means that if I am friends which Christ (charity) then I am also automatically friends with all others who are friends with Christ. And that friendship between friends of Christ ... is the visible proof of the existence of our friendship with the invisible Christ.

Paul calls this 'fellowship in Christ' when he writes to the church at Corinth and warns them against dividing into doctrinal decisions according to various apostles. ("I belong to Paul, I belong to Apollo, I belong to Chepas") and that they should return to this fellowship.

It also seems to me (without it in front of me now) that in the letters that the angel delivers to the seven churches (Revelation of John) Christ does name the faults .. "You have fallen from your first love ..." and then innumerates doctrinal errors resulting from falling from the friendship and fellowship of mutual love in Christ. ("Return to your fist love'")

(( I am going to have to read them again now))

Paul names the number one virtue as charity (loving Christ and loving each other). Jesus sums up all the old testament and new testament in the one command that fulfills the entire law "Love one another".

Where doctrine is not in error - it can not also be infallible because infallibility can not be transmitted with thoughts and words which are themselves only representations of reality. Certainly history gives proof that nothing of the human nature of the church has ever been infallible or even capable for keeping the human nature of the church - in unity.

"If I have right doctrine but I do not have charity - I am nothing but a clanging gong."

Off to work with me this morning.

-ray

Now it just dawned on me and there is something to this ...

Christ himself selected 12 apostles. At not time did he can any of them. There were not able to understand all he said and did - and they often held wrong doctrine (Get behind me Satan) and did things wrong .. in fact - Judas - came to be compliant in the murder of Jesus ... but Jesus (having this foreknowledge) did not say "Yer outta here Judas .. excommunicated!! This is the end of our friendship."

I also note that the Byzantine church which hosts this forum - lives in friendship with both the Roman church and the Orthodox church. Somehow - it finds a way to live with both theologies East and West - which others claim to be entirely incompatible.

really gotta get to work now! late for the job.

-ray

Ray,

It certainly doesn't take much for us to lose our focus, and just as quickly we come up with ideas such as Paul describes here: they seem to be acceptable--even good and holy--but of course, they are not!

I think you're really onto something here. Charity is the supreme law of Christianity, in whose light all other doctrines must be understood. It was to this that Our Lord was referring when He spoke of the "leaven" of the Pharisees and Sadducees (c.f. Mt.16:6 ff).


Peace,
Deacon Richard