I was reading Fr. Nicholas' book about Rome and the East, and he said that there is a movement (particularly in the Church of Greece) to get rid of the Tome in order to reunite with the non-Chalcedonians. I know that there is a general tendencey toward a "high" Christology in the East and vice versa for the West. Also implied is the weaking of the case for Roman Primacy, i.e. no more "Peter has spoken through Leo."

I don't think that this would be a very good move, (quite an understatement on my part).
What do you all think?

God Bless,

Michael

Michael --

That will never happen, because it would require overturning an ecumenical council. Even in the unlikely event that the Church of Greece as a whole would pursue such a thing, that would cut them off from Orthodoxy, because it would be repudiating the ecumenical council.

Brendan

Brenden is correct.

As much as the Church of Greece and, especially, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria desire re-union with the Oriental Orthodox there has been no repudiation of the Tome of Pope St. Leo.

From what I understand, most of the theological issues that separate the two sister communions have been studied, debated, and rectified. The ecclesiological issues that separate Orthodoxy from Rome. and are such an impediment to re-union, are not an issue with the two Orthodox families.

It seems the only issues preventing an immdediate reunion are those of "sharing the turf" and logistics i.e., human issues.

This is the story I have heard via the grape-leaf vine.

FG

Nobody needs to get rid of the Tome of St. Leo in order to re-unite with the Monophysites.

They are already well under way to unity. They have started recognizing their baptism and marriages as valid - something unheard of in all the centuries past that the Church recognizes grace outside her.

In true ecumenical fashion, all objections are being ignored as the ecumenical technicians rapidly and pragmatically perform surgery on the truth. In their last deseased meeting they planned the following: A Formula Concordiae will be drawn up stating the lie that Orthodox and Monophysites have the same faith; the Monophysites will not officially recognize the last four Ecumenical Councils but will refrain from openly anathematizing them and St. Leo. The Orthodox, for their part, will lift the anathemas over Severus, Dioscorus, and other deceased Monophysite fathers. Neither side will be required to recognize the other's saints (i.e. the Monophysites need not recognize Leo as a saint, and the Orthodox can refrain from canonizing Severus); they must, however, remove the anathemas over these men. When the Formula Concordiae is drawn up and accepted, inter-communion will commence. A very practical plan! All that is sacrificed is devotion to the truth, to Christ, and to His Holy Church.

I do not believe that the present theological engagement of heretics outside the Church serves the Truth. First, because the language of the Church with regard to heretics has always been, since Apostolic times, refutative: "Better, indeed, a laudable war than a peace which severs one from God" (Saint Gregory the Theologian). This stand of the Church is actually charitable, for it both protects the Flock of Christ from heresy and provides heretics with motives and reasons for returning to the Church. After all, even if this sick union of heretics with heretics occurs, who will ordain their priests?

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

Dear OrthodoxyorDeath,

I understand where you are coming from and I write this not to change your mind or anything of the sort.

I write to state my own take on this matter.

The term "Monophysite" can only and truly be applied to the Alexandrian monk, Eutyches, who actually believed that our Lord was not consubstantial with us.

Under pressure, he did admit that He is consubstantial with His Most Holy Mother.

Both the Orthodox and those who are called "Monophysites" condemn Eutychianism whose position was the true Monophysitism.

Dioscoros, the nephew of St Cyril of Alexandria, was never condemned by ANY Orthodox Catholic Council for heresy of any kind.

He was censured for his violent behaviour, nothing more.

The language that the "Miaphysites" use in their Christology, and have always used, is simply that of St Cyril of Alexandria, an Orthodox Catholic Father of the universal Church.

As for recognizing "Monophysite" saints, the Orthodox Church already does this with the Saints of Georgia, a formerly Oriental Church that reunited with Byzantine Orthodoxy and whose Saints, some of whom were called names by Orthodox teachers such as David of Garesja, are now recognized as saints by Orthodoxy. Of course, no one would be required to recognize any other Church's local saints in case of any reunion.

Severus of Antioch was the one who wrote, if my sources can be trusted, the hymn "O Only Begotten Son of God" used in the liturgy. This hymn was written to express a common agreement between the two Churches on Christology and we still use it to this day.

Both Orthodox and Oriental Churches can agree on the person and theology of St Cyril of Alexandria.

If they can recognize in each other the same understanding of his theology, then they are indeed heirs to the same Christology. These Churches are exactly the same in every other respect.

It was largely thanks to the Russian theologians participating at the Orthodox-Oriental talks that the insight arose about the root problem concerning how the Orientals understood "Physis" or "Nature" and that it was synonymous, for them, with "Person."

If this is true, then what we are dealing with here is an identical understanding of Christology.

This would not be the first time such an alienation among the Churches occurred due to misunderstanding etc.

I agree with you that the question of recognition of Ecumenical Councils is an important one and should not/cannot be glossed over lightly.

The Coptic Church removed a liturgical anathema against St Leo. That is fine, but that doesn't involve Ecumenical Councils.

My own personal view is that if the Oriental Churches accept, in fact, that the other four Councils express Orthodox faith that they accept, then why not acknowledge them and be done with it?

The Fourth Council may have some unpleasant memories for them, but acceptance of it and the other three later ones do not imply that one must needs liturgically celebrate them, and the Oriental Churches can continue to so celebrate the first three only.

The 7 Councils have been a touchstone of Orthodoxy for so long that even the West is beginning to look to them as the ultimate doctrinal and universal standard of faith.

That is an important issue that must be dealt with (even though this is not up to me, obviously).

Also, and however this process will eventually end up, I think we can all dispense with terms like "Monophysites" "Heretics" and with disrespectful language toward the saints and fathers of the Oriental Churches.

The Orthodox often complained about the treatment they received by the Latins, to the point of a "martyr" complex, in my view.

May all Eastern Christians treat one another and one another's saints with respect and dignity.

We have colleagues on this Forum who are of the Oriental Churches, such as Mor Ephrem, whom we love and accept and who has taught us a lot about his Church's traditions.

I would ask you to refrain from making further such offensive comments about the Oriental Churches in future.

If you find you cannot, I would recommend not that you leave, but that you make them on another Forum, perhaps one of the Orthodox forums where such language against anyone who is not Orthodox is readily received and expected.

Alex

Alex,

I have been involved in several Orthodox forums and have read through many more. Never once have I seen someone asked to change their behavior just because they call us "schismatic Greeks" or the infamous "ethnic Church" routine. They are simply expressing in clear terms their beleifs. I would much rather have someone call me a "schismatic Greek" if that's what they mean than "an Eastern Christian". The former is honesty while the latter is deceit.

I would hope the moral character of this board is not governed by the same superficial political correctness as so much of society today, which is hard pressed to tell you the difference between the Nativity and Pascha. This society has a thousand words to avoid using the term "black person" but when it comes to an Arab these days, it is perfectly acceptable to see a bumper sticker saying "nuke'em all, let God sort them out". These people have never understood Matthew 10:32-42 but they sure understand the language of their own sick culture.

So if I am wrong in using the English version of "Those who beleive in one nature", then I stand wrong with all the blessed Holy Fathers.

he said that there is a movement (particularly in the Church of Greece) to get rid of the Tome in order to reunite with the non-Chalcedonians.

A Catholic priest acquaintance, usually very nice to the Orthodox but who slags them now and then, once wrote me that the Eastern Orthodox periodically try to do away with Chalcedon. I am happy to read here he is wrong.

I know that there is a general tendencey toward a "high" Christology in the East and vice versa for the West.

Yes, which may explain any plausibility of remarks like that above. I have a whole page dedicated to this contrast — "Western Christianity: Heretical or Not?', actually a discussion about a year ago between me and Brendan — linked to my Orthodoxy page.

http://oldworldrus.com

[ 01-16-2002: Message edited by: Serge ]

Dear OrthodoxyorDeath,

I have no quarrel with what you've written, Friend!

Perhaps "Eastern Christian" is deceitful, but I'm no saint and have to work on my character daily.

My point is that there were Monophysites in history but that the Oriental Churches do not belong in that heretical camp.

Apart from the ultra-traditional Orthodox, many of whom believe most of mainstream Orthodoxy is astray, can you mention some Orthodox theologians today who would agree with your using the term "Monophysite" to describe the Churches of Alexandria, Ethiopia, Eritrea, India, Syria and Armenia?

Orthodoxy, so I've heard, is a living Church that is led by the Holy Spirit to this day.

The Fathers and theologians of this Church today must also be given heed.

But we disagree and that is fine.

God bless,

Alex

Thank you, Alex, for reminding us once again that WE AREN'T HERETICS!

Alex,

It is not the "ultra-traditionalist Orthodox" who use the term "Monophysite", but most of the Orthodox world who know a little about their faith.

Understand that it is not "mainstream" Orthodoxy today who are signing up to these deals and negotiating these contracts, but a handful of modernists. A glance at the list of the Orthodox participants in the discussions would cause any Orthodox to pause before perusing the minutes. Could he in even his wildest dreams expect that Metropolitan Nikodim of Lenigrad (who has twice communicated Roman Catholics in Rome), Metropolitan George Khodre of Mt. Lebanon (who calls for a union with Muslims) and such arch-ecumenists as Metropolitan Emilianos of Calabria, Archimandrite Damaskinos Papandreou (Constantinople), Fr John Meyendorff (American Metropolia), Fr. Vitaly Borovoy and Professor Livery Verenov (Moscow) would defend traditional Orthodoxy? And what good could come out of sessions co-chaired by such ecumenical veterans as Dr. Nikos Nissiotis, Director of the Ecumenical Institute in Bossey, Switzerland, and Fr. Paul Verghese of the World Council of Churches staff. A careful reading of the minutes of the Geneva and Addis-Ababa consultations shows that such misgivings would have been eminently justified.

But yet there were several dissenting voices to answer your question. Fr. John S. Romanides was one.

Fr. John Romanides, a Greek-Armerican representing the Church of Greece, had the wisdom and courage to stand up at Geneva and speak the truth. "We have known for centuries," he stated, "the non-Chalcedonian accusations against Chalcedon. Now we are given the impression that the Chalcedonians can be considered Orthodox by the non-Chalcedonians, not because Chalcedon is Orthodox, but because the Chalcedonians are no longer faithful to Chalcedon….If the non-Chalcedonian position on Chalcedon is correct, then the Chalcedonian must reject Chalcedon. If the Chalcedonians Greek position on Chalcedon is correct, then the non-Chalcednians must accept the dogmatic teaching of Chalcedon as Orthodox."

And I would agree, if you were to find a theologian or a Holy Father today, they should be listened too as long as they are preaching Orthodoxy. But only a small handful of Holy Fathers were considered theologians, I would say you would be hard pressed to find one in moderns times.

Bottom line Alex, if one wishes not to be considered a Monophysite and claims like you, that there were indeed Monophysites at one time but no longer, then let them all confirm Chalcedon and condemn Severus. Because to be Orthodox one must agree with all Orthodox synods.

After 1500 years, the Holy Church once again stands confronted by great heresies, since the Ecumenical (syncretistic movement) has resurrected all the heresies of old and sent them in legions against the Holy Church.

God help us all.

Dear OrthodoxyorDeath,

Yes, this is an involved issue, to be sure.

I have never claimed that there are no longer any Monophysites, only that the Oriental Churches themselves officially repudiate that charge and their official theology shows that they are not, anymore than St Cyril of Alexandria could be for having taught "One Nature" in Christ our Lord.

I don't pretend to know who among the Orthodox is truly Orthodox, mainstream or what not.

I simply don't know and find the whole thing confusing.

Perhaps you saw the thread on the New Skete Icons yesterday?

Certainly, this makes one wonder about a possible chasm between Orthodox theology as confessed and Orthodox praxis as implemented.

My point amidst all the barbs was that what is "Orthodoxy" is not so evident.

Fr. Romanides is a great theologian, to be sure. I love reading him and I can't say as I can find anything disagreeable about his views. But, if I am correct, he would not be considered "mainstream Orthodox?"

And your point about John Meyendorff might not be shared by other Orthodox, even the majority. Again, I don't know.

Your point on the Council of Chalcedon is well taken.

In fact, the Oriental Churches have, in the past especially, affirmed its Orthodoxy. The Armenian Church, although of the Oriental camp, at one time rejected Severus of Antioch as a saint and teacher on the grounds of heresy but later changed its mind.

The Byzantine and Orthodox Emperor Justinian at the time of the controversy, however, was sympathetic to him and the Orientals. He certainly thought the problem was about theological precision rather than actual theology. This is why the Orthodox Church includes the hymn "Only Begotten Son" written by Severus of Antioch in the Divine Liturgy - it was part of a reconciliation attempt at that time which remains to this day.

The Orthodox Church is well within its rights to revoke the excommunications against Severus, Philoxenus of Mabbugh, Jacob Bar-deana and others. This would certainly not be the first time in Orthodox Church history when a church was cut off from it due to misunderstanding on both sides.

Of course, if one sees things in black and white ONLY, then such an enterprise doesn't make sense.

Historical relations between the Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox and the "Monophysites" as you call them have always been cordial, with the Orientals receiving great support from the Orthodox and visiting Russians in Egypt often honouring the Orientals' saints.

Again, if you and your jurisdiction feels that the Orthodox engaging in this debate are heretics, then why don't you yourselves reexamine these issues and come to your own conclusions?

The starting point would of course be the "One Nature" teaching of St Cyril of Alexandria and what he meant by it and by "Nature."

Like Fr. Romanides, I too believe there are 9 truly Ecumenical Councils.

Alex

Alex,

Admittedly this issue is quite complex, at least as far as what is being professed by the Orientals these days.

I have studied the terminology regarding the one nature that is currently used and after much consideration made my own decisions. But one does not need to go that far.

Consider the following:
-They were at one time cast out by an Oecumenical Synod which means that by now they need to have all their priest ordained.
-They do not profess Chalcedon or any Oecumenical Synod after that which were all Orthodox, and if they are Orthodox, then they should have no problem with acceptance.
-If you believe as Fr. John S Romanides like you say, that is, there are 9 Oecumenical Synods, then you will be compelled to agree with me, because as soon as you unite with someone who does not recognize all Oecumenical Synods, then they are no longer Oecumenical. So for you, it would be 3 Oecumenical Synods and 4 other "pretty good ones"

I truly feel that if the Orientals are professing Orthodoxy then they ought not have a probblem confirming Chalcedon.

As far as Severus, he was a heretic and was condemned by an Oecumenical Synod, and that is authoratative for all Orthodox.

Unlike you, I beleive all Oecumenical Synods were divinly guided and inspired and are authoratative. As soon as you say that an Oecumenical Synod made a mistake then where will you stop? The only thing left for you that is "truth" is what the latest polls say because it was popular opinion that overturned the decisions of the Synod in the first place.

[ 01-17-2002: Message edited by: OrthodoxyOrDeath ]

Dear OrthodoxyorDeath,

Please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

There are more than enough there already, no more are needed . . .

No, "for me" there are not 3 Ecumenical Councils and 4 pretty good ones.

There are 9 such, period, but I'll go with the number 7.

And the Councils are surely Divinely inspired. Again, period.

As for the volumes of work done on the Orthodox-Oriental dialogue on these very matters, if you don't like them, think they are heretical, fine. Let's not talk about them then.

But you might wish to consider how it was possible for the Orthodox Church to allow for the continuation of the cult of "Monophysite" saints, who, like Severus of Antioch, were condemned as heretics in their lifetime in the formerly Oriental Church of Georgia.

St David of Garesja immediately springs to mind. He was condemned by Greek Orthodox theologians (before the days the Orthodox were split into "Seriously Orthodox" "Mainly Orthodox" "Somewhat Orthodox" etc.).

One such Orthodox writer roundly condemned him as that "putrefaction" from Georgia.

Yet he is today in the Orthodox Calendar. Again, period.

Let's leave it at that.

Alex