coptichymns.net - Sharing the Joy of Coptic Hymns Around the World

minasoliman

posted on May 30, 2005 - 12:12 AM

I've read some interesting polemical threads.

In addition to Chalcedon giving Theodoret and Ibas the title "blessed," some EO polemics defend that the 5th "Ecumenical" council condemned Theodoret and Ibas's writings and not in person, for they "repented from their Nestorian errors through Leo," although I find no proof of repentance.

Now, it was my impression after reading Fr. John Romanides' articles that they were condemned in person as well. There was almost a schism between the East and West during this fifth council because of the decisions made.

So now. I ask, before any EO-OO dialogues recently, were Theodoret and Ibas saints in the EO tradition?

Grigorii, I know you want to answer this one.

Xrictoc anecti!

_________________

minasoliman@coptichymns.net
Email me, Mina Soliman if there's any problems with posts.
Vain existence can never exist.

Joined: May 22, 2003 | Posts: 1789

Grigorii

posted on Jun 01, 2005 - 04:34 AM

Dearest to Christ Mina,

There are instances where Theodoret is referred to as "blessed" But I know of no commemoration of him in the EO tradition. There is evidence of his "repentance" though. Somewhere around the 26-th to 31-st of October the Bishops at Chalcedon discussed the case of Theodoret. It seems to have been a very passionate debate. Theodoret attempted to simply state his confession of faith and to leave matters there. The Bishops howled him down and demanded that he anathematize Nestorius immediately. Theodoret finally gave in and sold out his long-time friend and theological buddy Nestorius:

"Anathema to Nestorius and whoever denies that the Virgin is Theotokos or divides the Only Son into two Sons. I accept the Definition of Faith and the Letter of Leo."

The First Seven Councils by Leo Donald Davis p. 188.


Given his reluctance it might be questioned how sincere his "repentance" was, but he was nevertheless accepted ONLY on the basis of accepting Chalcedon. Theodoret continued to deny that the Word was the one Subject of attribution since that would imply the Divine Nature of the Word into suffering (which he classified as Arianism), instead Theodoret continued to affirm that the one Subject of attribution is "Christ" that is the Incarnate One, so that "each nature acts according to its natural properties and remains what it is unchangeably." From a Chalcedonian-Leonian pov this is completely Orthodox.

Fr. John Anthony McGuckin notes the same sort of evolution in the thought of Nestorius. Close examination of "The Bazaar", he says, gives evidence of Nestorius integrating some of St. Cyril's criticisms and changing his previous pov. Some parts of "The Bazaar", he writes, deviate from what Nestorius wrote to Cyril in his Letters at 431,.. His later work seems to clearly realize that there must be One Person to whom all actions and properties must be attributed(Christ - the Incarnate One) even if there are two natures to which actions and properties must be attributed separately. Nestorius' approval of Leo's christology is a significant move towards St. Cyril.

Ibas of Edessa seems to have been investigated upon, and after questioning and acceptance of the conciliar definition at Chalcedon (and Leo's Tome) he was received into communion and restored as was Theodoret. Paschasinus and Maximus of Antioch testified to the Bishops that in their reading Ibas Letter to Maris the Persian was Orthodox. There was apparently no official vote on Ibas' Letter to Maris at the Council of Chalcedon.

The Council of Chalcedon did not condemn either of these two. The later issue of the Three Chapters did not condemn Theodoret and/or Ibas in person, but only their christological polemics against St. Cyril. Fr. John Romanides' opinion on Theodoret is precisely his. It is not the official pov of the EO Church. There are other interpretations to be found in the EO Church concerning Theodoret. These more Orthodox interpretations value in particular Theodoret's Ecclesiastical History.

_________________
IC XC

Grigorii

--------------------------------
"Conversion is the ascent away from the movement and away from vice and ignorance towards knowledge of the Blessed Trinity."

Kephalaia Gnostica, VI,19

St. Evagrios the Solitary

Joined: May 15, 2004 | Posts: 315

Idiqut

posted on Jun 07, 2005 - 05:02 PM

That's funny then, because the entire Nestorian branch of the Syrian Orthodox Church would have repented through Leo, as they confessed that Leo's Tome is the perfect representation of their Christology.

Joined: May 23, 2005 | Posts: 21

Grigorii

posted on Jun 07, 2005 - 06:00 PM

Dearest to Christ Idiqut,

Forgive me for clearing up some things which seem to be confused in your post.

The Syrian Orthodox Church is Miaphysite like us,.. She is therefore in full communion with us, unlike the "Nestorian Church" or Assyrian Church of the East. It would perhaps be a good idea to differentiate between these two more clearly.

Also, the Assyrian Church of the East did not accept Chalcedon for reasons given by Catholicos Isho 'yahb II ( 628 - 646 ):

Although those gathered at Chalcedon were clothed with the intention of restoring the Faith, yet they too slid away from the true Faith: owing to their feeble phraseology, warpped in an obscure meaning, they provided a stumbling block to many.

Although, in accordance with the opinion of their own minds, they preserved the true Faith wiht the confession of "two natures", yet by their formula of "one qnoma" it seems they tempted weak minds. As an outcome of the affair a contradiction occurred, for with the formula of "one qnoma" they corrupted the confession of "two natures", while with the "two natures" they rebuked the "one qnoma".

So they found themselves standing at a crossroads, and they wavered and turned aside from the blessed ranks of the Orthodox, yet they did not join the assemblies of the heretics.

On what side we should number them I do not know, for their terminology cannot stand up, as Nature and Scripture testify: for in these, many qnome can be found in a single "nature", but that there should be various "natures" in a single "qnoma" has never been the case and has not been heard of. "The Spiritual World of St. Isaac the Syrian"; Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev, p. 23.

So as far as the "Assyrian Church of the East" was (for they have recently lifted all anathemas against us) concerned, the heretics are us (Miaphistites) and the Chalcedonians are the "in-betweens" that are neither outright heretics not Orthodox. They would be happy to affirm St. Leo's Tome, but they refuse to accept the conciliar definition which is supported with this Tome.

Also I do not remember any Antiochenes (Assyrian Church of the East) claim Leo's Tome perfectly represents their Christology I have merely seen Nestorius and other Antiochenes affirm that Leo's Christology (based on his Tome) is in agreement with theirs.

_________________
IC XC

Grigorii

--------------------------------
"Conversion is the ascent away from the movement and away from vice and ignorance towards knowledge of the Blessed Trinity."

Kephalaia Gnostica, VI,19

St. Evagrios the Solitary

Joined: May 15, 2004 | Posts: 315

petertheodore

posted on Aug 23, 2005 - 09:07 PM

I think the issue of Ibas is very interesting from the pov of understanding why Chalcedon was looked on so critically by the anti-Chalcedonians.

It is indeed the case that after reading the letter of Ibas the Roman legates, and the council accepting their opinion, confessed that either He, in light of his letter, or the letter, was Orthodox.

At the 5th council where the so called Three Chapters were condemned the bishops read the self-same letter and said that it was manifestly full of blasphemy.

I think that even more than Theodoret the 4th council did in fact accept the position of Ibas as articulated in his letter.

At the period of the 5th council there were a great many who DEFENDED the Three Chapters on the basis that rejecting them would be to reject Chalcedon which had accepted them. I have a modern translation in French of a large work called 'In Defense of the Three Chapters' by the leading bishop of the Carthaginian Church. He presented the view of his Church that the Three Chapters were not only incidentally accepted at Chaledon but represented the Christology of Chalcedon.

He wrote against Justinian and spent time in prison in the end. After the 5th Council his whole Church rejected the Council, as did almost all of the Western bishops. Some bishops were in schism over the matter until 700 AD.

One of the leading Roman deacons had also written in favour of the Three Chapters but when offered the Papacy on the death of Vigilius he rejected the Three Chapters. On his return to Rome only two bishops and a priest could be found to consecrate him Pope.

I have always felt this to be important from an apologetic point of view. It adds to the reasons why Chalcedon was reasonably rejected, and we may ask how the Byzantines were happily in communion with a West for 100 years that held a position which was apparently manifestly blasphemous and heretical to anyone at the 5th council.

One of my favourite Western saints wrote to the Pope about the 5th council and rejected it as having denied Chalcedon (he clearly did not have the facts about either Chalcedon or Constantinople), he puns that Pope Vigilius should have been more vigilant.

So it seems to me that Ibas's opinions as well as his person were accepted by the council, I do not see how they can get around "We have read his letter and it/he is Orthodox", when at the 5th it says, "In the third place the letter which is said to have been written by Ibas to Maris the Persian, was brought forward for examination, and we found that it, too, should be read. When it was read immediately its impiety was manifest to all."

Its impiety was not obvious to Chalcedon, that deserves some explanation, and it at least adds to the reasonabless of Chalcedon having been rejected by our fathers.

Peter Theodore

Joined: Dec 02, 2003 | Posts: 434
Location: England

Meghalo05

posted on May 07, 2009 - 10:27 AM

Sorry to revive an old topic, but I heard that the Syrian Orthodox lifted the anathemas against the Assyrian Church of the East in 1997. Is this true? In lifting their anathemas do they accept Nestorius, Thedoret, Ibas, etc.? Would love to hear what you think Father Peter.

Christ is Risen!

Joined: Jan 18, 2005 | Posts: 365
Location: St. Mary and St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church of Indianapolis, IN

Iqbal

posted on May 07, 2009 - 09:21 PM

Christ is Risen, and St Mark lives.

Not true. Whilst the Assyrian Church had determined to lift its anathemas from Sts Cyril and Severus in the month prior to the 1997 meeting, the Syrian Orthodox Church made no such reciprocal promise in regard to its anathemas against Nestorius. The most the Syrian Church had to say on this matter was that it would look into it.

You can read more about the relevant meeting here: http://sor.cua.edu/Ecumenism/19970711sy ... ation.html

With our (i.e the Coptic) Church's recent disavowal of ecumenical dialogue with the Assyrians in light of H.E. Bishoy's research and investigation into their contemporary position on doctrinal and practical matters (as assessed and approved by the Holy Synod), there has been a strain on the Syrian Church's individual ecumenical relationship with the Assyrians (at least insofar as prospects of re-inter-communion are concerned).

I believe there was a recent agreement made between H.H. Pope Shenouda III and the primates of the Syrian and Armenian Churches that no individual OO Church is to take any unilateral action in relation to ecumenical endeavours (such as the lifting of anathemas, for example). I think this undertaking was primarily motivated by our Church's concern to keep a check on the Syrian Church's relationship with the Assyrian Church given how close they are.

Joined: Nov 14, 2004 | Posts: 153

Meghalo05

posted on May 08, 2009 - 12:40 AM

Thank you, Iqbal. May the Lord preserve your life.


Indeed, He is Risen!

Joined: Jan 18, 2005 | Posts: 365
Location: St. Mary and St. Mark Coptic Orthodox Church of Indianapolis, IN