Oriental "Orthodox Church"

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

OL,

I would recommend you scan for the threads which have dealth with this issue very thorouhhly.

[Lounger]

I would also suggest looking how they end. Proof that the Monophysites still have monophysitic beliefs and then they and their defenders walk away as they cannot defend their position. It is how every Monophysite thread has ended if I recall correctly.

Here are some good ones to read.

http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/vi ... .php?t=672
http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/vi ... .php?t=867
http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/vi ... .php?t=762
http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/vi ... .php?t=630
http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/vi ... .php?t=221

[Nektarios14]

The Center For Traditionalist Orthodox Studies publishes an English translation to a work by Grigoriou monastery dealing with this issue. I recomend it very highly. It might be intersting to have a discussion about the issue using that as a starting point.

[PFC Nektarios]

I am not a huge fan of OC.net I have warnings sent to me for stupid reasons there, for legitimate questions. The Monophysites always find some way to make them selves look "Orthodox" even though they dont except things that True Orthodox would find it nessisary to believe in to be a True Orthodox Christian.

In Christ
OL

[Seraphim Reeves]

My personal opinion on this subject, right now, is the following...

• There seem to be many (at least on Internet forums like this) Non-Chalcedonians, who if pressed, materially will confess the faith of Chalcedon. While I'll accept this of itself as a good, if they truly are representative of the Non-Chalcedonian churches in total, then their division is clearly a case of schism and theological provincialism ("you didn't speak precisely as St.Cyril will, so we won't hear you"... an attitude which is reminiscent, though more extreme, of old Roman Catholic scholasticism.) While there are certainly important historical considerations that contributed to the schism, in the end, it is was/is a schism and can only be remedied by return. Perhaps a return by the most irenic, gentle means...but a return nonetheless. And this would involve an acceptance of all of the Oecumenical Synods, including Chalcedon.

• At the time of the seperation of those groups who would become "non-Chalcedonians", monophysitism described several more or less "extreme" versions of a part of St.Cyril's teaching (minus any qualifications he made, whether in his letters to Nestorius, or his latter leter to John of Antioch). The obviously heretical doctrine of Eutyches would be the most "extreme" version.

• On a less theological note (more dwelling on the schismatic origin of the Non-Chalcedonian churches), it has to be observed that there was much that was a-doctrinal which contributed to this rift. In the Christian context alone, there is the rivalry between Constantinople and Alexandria (the latter was being "eased" out of it's honourific "second to Rome" status by Constantinople), Alexandria being the chief seat of the Non-Chalcedonians (though they would come to have rival patriarchs elsewhere, which exist to this day.) In political terms, there was also a resenment towards Roman rule, which in fact pre-dates the Christianization of the Alexandrians. I don't believe these were the most significant factors, but they didn't help either.

• Upon studying the period between the Council of Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon, I think it is safe to say that this was a mess the future "non-Chalcedonian" ring-leaders brought upon themselves. The notorious Robber Synod which took place just before the Council of Chalcedon, the use of political favor to bully and brutalize men who I doubt contemporary (apparently) "materially Orthodox believing" could possibly accuse of heresy, and a general situation of lawlessness are what not only made the Council of Chalcedon necessary for theological reasons, but also for the sake of order amongst the Churches. While in situations like this it is always true there is more than enough sin to "go around", I couldn't help but leave with the opinion that the monophystic leaders do not "come off looking good."

• Much of the argument against the teaching of the Council of Chalcedon is ultimatly a case of "guilt by association". When I've talked to non-Chalcedonians who emphasize their material agreement with the Orthodox, ultimatly their argument comes down to Chacledon not so much teaching Nestorianism (or quasi-Nestorianism), but being perceived as "going easy" on the Nestorians. As far as I'm concerned, this is at best, theology by innuendo - particularly when Chalcedon recognized the theology of Ephesus. I also think it fails to take stock of what the Council's aim was - not to combat (primarily) the errors of the Nestorians, but the "opposite extreme" which was equally heretical (Eutychianism, etc.)

Seraphim

[Mor Ephrem]

I am not a huge fan of OC.net I have warnings sent to me for stupid reasons there, for legitimate questions.

A more productive enterprise would be for you to ask the individual who warned you why you were warned instead of thinking aloud elsewhere.

The Monophysites always find some way to make them selves look "Orthodox" even though they dont except things that True Orthodox would find it nessisary to believe in to be a True Orthodox Christian.

And yet, what I find absolutely hysterical (and, if I were one of the "true Orthodox", rather sad) about all this is that the Church you have been instructed to join by your ROCOR spiritual father is, in the opinion of many on this board just as devoted to "true Orthodoxy" as you are (if not more so), in de facto communion with the Syriac Orthodox (Monophysite, if you prefer) Church!. You have the nerve to blast the OCA, but then join the Antiochians? You make no sense, and neither does your spiritual father.

[Mor Ephrem]

I have always tried to be charitable, especially towards you, but I admit that I fail often. I see these issues as being a matter of salvation and because of this only charitable conversations show a genuine appreciation of this.

And I can appreciate this, which is why I respect you a lot, even if we disagree just as much.

Where I wrote "We haven't had a good Monophysite discussion in a while", I sincerley intended a warm bit humor for everyone. If you took it a different way, well, that's the nature of humor and why its dangerous. I'm sorry.

Not a problem.

In addition, I have always felt I have approached these issues in good faith and toward a genuine dialog; I can only offer this to you in the future as I cannot control anything else.

Again, I do not consider you one of the "offenders", for lack of a better word.

But until then, it cannot be said that anything was offered contrary to what I feel are very sound and traditional points of view of the Orthodox Church on this forum.

Understood, and I wouldn't expect any less here.