|
1 members (Protopappas76),
256
guests, and
21
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,299
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Do you seriously suppose that when St. Peter infallibly promulgated the first ex cathedra decree (that there was no impediment for the Gentiles to be received into the Church), that it was any less the Truth (i.e., infallible) before the Church accepted the teaching than it was after the Church accepted the teaching? Why is it that you always try to read the novel 19th century theory of the Roman Church into the first millennium (or in this case the 1st century)? I don't think that St. Peter ever issued an "ex cathedra" decree, but he did receive revelation, which is something no bishop can do. An "Ex cathedra" decree is an infallible decree from the Chair of Peter (i.e., with the authority of St. Peter) to the universal Church. You mean, St. Peter did not do this? Try to get to the meaning of words, instead of focusing on the words themselves.  Blessings, Marduk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2 |
But just as we don't accuse the First Ecumenical Council of "sloppiness," we shouldn't go around accusing Pope St. Leo of "sloppiness." A pope, when it is deserved, is not above criticism. The same holds for an ecumenical council. Well, at least you're consistent, though I can't say I appreciate or respect the casual way you mock the Sacred authorities of the Church. Blessings, Marduk It is not mocking at all to point out thr fact that doctrinal formulas always limp. The mysteries of the faith exceed human language, which is why St. Hilary said that: "The error of others compels us to err in daring to embody in human terms truths which ought to be hidden in the silent veneration of the heart." The ancient Fathers - unlike the modern Church - did not like to issue dogmatic decrees.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2 |
Do you seriously suppose that when St. Peter infallibly promulgated the first ex cathedra decree (that there was no impediment for the Gentiles to be received into the Church), that it was any less the Truth (i.e., infallible) before the Church accepted the teaching than it was after the Church accepted the teaching? Why is it that you always try to read the novel 19th century theory of the Roman Church into the first millennium (or in this case the 1st century)? I don't think that St. Peter ever issued an "ex cathedra" decree, but he did receive revelation, which is something no bishop can do. An "Ex cathedra" decree is an infallible decree from the Chair of Peter (i.e., with the authority of St. Peter) to the universal Church. You mean, St. Peter did not do this? Try to get to the meaning of words, instead of focusing on the words themselves. Blessings, Marduk Correct. St. Peter did not do that. St. Peter was not a bishop, and so he had no "see"; and he - unlike the bishops - received revelation. You need to stop reading the Vatican I decree back into the early Church. By the way, the topic of this thread is: Miaphystism and dyophystism.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
e.g., I do not think that he asked Pope Celestine whether it was okay for him to write to Nestorios. Actually, he did not even consider it prudent to break communion with Nestorius until he consulted with his protos. He wrote to Pope St. Celestine: " We have not confidently abstained from communion with him [Nestorius] before informing you of this. condescend, therefore, to unfold your judgment, that we may clearly know whether we ought to communicate with him who cherishes such erroneous doctrine." I see no mention of a "protos" in the letter Of course, in the Synodal letter to Pope St. Celestine, under the presidency of Pope St. Cyril, the Council affirms: " For it is your custom in such great matters to make trial of all things, and the confirmation of the Churches you have made your own. But since it is right that all things which have taken place should be brought to the knowledge of your holiness..." That's nothing more nor less than the job description of the head bishop (i.e., the protos) as described in Apostolic Canon 34. and I have a feeling that St. Cyril wrote to many bishops for support and not merely Celestine. It seems a lot of your views on the papacy are based on interpretative feelings instead of direct evidence.  The bishops used to do that a lot, but that tradition has fallen out of use for the pope who now acts like a general commanding his troops. Probably in your own world, but we know that bishops today in the Catholic Church, and throughout her history even after the Great Schism, often wrote to each other for support. But we're talking about a Patriarch here, a Patriarch who is making his action dependent on the judgment of another Patriarch. That's not a common occurrence. Blessings, Marduk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Correct. St. Peter did not do that. St. Peter was not a bishop, and so he had no "see"; and he - unlike the bishops - received revelation. You need to stop reading the Vatican I decree back into the early Church. You base your response on the idea that St. Peter had no "See" when the definition I gave you does not even mention a "See?" Goodness! Ummm. I think we both need some coffee right now. Blessings, Marduk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2 |
Of course, in the Synodal letter to Pope St. Celestine, under the presidency of Pope St. Cyril, the Council affirms: "For it is your custom in such great matters to make trial of all things, and the confirmation of the Churches you have made your own. But since it is right that all things which have taken place should be brought to the knowledge of your holiness..." That's nothing more nor less than the job description of the head bishop (i.e., the protos) as described in Apostolic Canon 34. Cool. Clearly then there is no need for the novel theories put forward at Vatican I that talked about the universal jurisdiction of the pope and his infallible teaching office. Thank God, and now with that useless theory out of the way perhaps ecumenism can move forward and we can all live to see the day when Eastern Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics and Eastern Catholics (and maybe even the Oriental Orthodox) are all in communion with each other. Once the Roman Church gets rid of the concept of papal supremacy many other obstacles to the restoration of communion fall away. Heck now we can get back to the discussion of miaphysitism and dyophysitism. P.S. - I don't drink coffee or anything with caffeine in it, but I do drink orange juice in the morning. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978 |
We must remember that Leo's Tome was only accepted as orthodox by the Fathers of Chalcedon after it had been diligently compared with the writings of St. Cyril, and that the in two natures expression was only accepted in the light of St. Cyril's letter 45, no. 7 (CUA Fathers of the Church series, volume 76, page 193; see also St. Cyril's letter to Acacius of Melitene). The Tome was not accepted by all the Council Fathers and to them (whom latter became the Non-Chacedonians) the Tome was more in line with Nestorius not St. Cyril. It don't think St. Cyrill would agree with "in two natures" but "from two natures." I could be wrong, since I haven't read enough of St. Cryil's work but from what I have read I come to that conclusion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 2 |
It really doesn't matter, because they all meant the same thing, anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,293 Likes: 17
Moderator Member
|
|
OP
Moderator Member
Joined: Aug 1998
Posts: 4,293 Likes: 17 |
It matters to the Copts, because from what I can see they are never going to accept the Chalcedonian definition that Christ is one divine person with two natures, divine and human.
My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2 |
It matters to the Chalcedonians too, because "of two natures" and "in two natures" are not the same thing.
The former phrase affirms the concrete and inseparable union of the two natures in the one divine person of the incarnate Logos, while the latter phrase attests to the fact that the two natures can be distinguished only theoretically in the onlooker's mind after the union.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978 |
they are never going to accept the Chalcedonian definition that Christ is one divine person with two natures, divine and human. Fr. Deacon, They do believe that Christ is one divine person with two natures, divine and human. They disagree with the term in two natures. I would again suggest reading Fr. V.C Samuels The Council of Chalcedon Revisited. I even think the Oriental Orthodox say that the fourth-seventh councils are Orthodox but don't call them ecumenical because they were not present (much like many say that the later Latin Councils are general synods of the West and shouldn't be forced upon the Eastern Orthodox as ecumenical). The Catholic Communion recognizes their Christology as Orthodox. The two Popes (of Rome and Alexandria) have issued statements as such. I agree with StuartK that both sides are Orthodox and that the schism was due to political factors and lack of communication between the two sides (especially after the Islamic Conquests of Egypt and Syria).
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978 |
I think the Oriental position of "from two natures" affirms the inseparable union of the two natures just as much as "in two natures." Both sides are saying the same thing, just one is using Greek Terminology and the other Coptic/Semitic Terminology. Both affirm in that Christ is perfect God and perfect man united in the one divine person- Our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2 |
The use of the phrase "of two natures" by St. Cyril and the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431) clearly attests to the union of natures in the incarnate Christ, and no one on either side disputes that.
Now as far as the Chalcedonian phrase "in two natures" is concerned, it can only be used in a very restricted sense, that is, when one looks at the incarnation theoretically (i.e., in the onlooker's mind), and that teaching, which conforms to what St. Cyril taught in his letters to Succensus and Acacius, was confirmed by the seventh canon of Constantinople II.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978 |
Yes the "of" and "from two natures" are acceptable to both sides. "When the Fathers spoke of "one incarnate nature of God the Word," they made
it clear that by becoming incarnate the Word did not abandon His nature, but
that He remained in His perfection without change and deviation; for he did
not undergo any loss or diminution in His hypostasis. When they said that He
"became incarnate", they affirmed that the flesh was nothing but flesh, and
that it did not come into being by itself apart from union with the Word.
Therefore, it is just to say that the Word was simple, not composite, before
the ages. When He willed to assume our likeness without sin, the flesh was
brought into being, but not separately. While signifying the lofty union,
the words "became incarnate" refer to the assumption of the flesh from the
Virgin, which was not separate by itself; so that from two natures, namely
Godhead and manhood, one Christ came forth from Mary. The same is known to
be at once God and man; He is of the same substance with the Father in the
Godhead and He Himself is of the same substance with us men in the manhood. -Severus of Antioch" Here is the joint deceleration by the Popes of Rome and Alexandria on Christology. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p..._pc_christuni_doc_19730510_copti_en.html Now as far as the Chalcedonian phrase "in two natures" is concerned, it can only be used in a very restricted sense, that is, when one looks at the incarnation theoretically (i.e., in the onlooker's mind), and that teaching, which conforms to what St. Cyril taught in his letters to Succensus and Acacius, was confirmed by the seventh canon of Constantinople II. I'm interested in seeing where St. Cryil taught "in two natures." Is is possible to have some quotes. Thanks, very interesting topic. I do hope Fr. Kryillos, whom posts here from time to time, can throws his two sense in, as he knows more about miaphysite Christology than I.
Last edited by Nelson Chase; 02/09/11 05:56 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 2 |
It matters to the Copts, because from what I can see they are never going to accept the Chalcedonian definition that Christ is one divine person with two natures, divine and human. Why should they have to, if they agree that Christ is true God, Christ is fully human, and Christ is One? In our various agreed Christological statements, the Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East were not required to accept the Chalcedonian definition, only an orthodox understanding of the nature of Christ, as expressed in their legitimate theological idiom.
|
|
|
|
|
