Just wanted to bump this supposedly "arrogant and prideful" rhetoric up, so that any non-chalcedonians who haven't seen it may read over it and come to the truth.
The "Non-Chalcedonians"
-
Justin Kissel
"Truly never before has the cross of each person who wants to be a true Christian been as heavy as in this time of the triumph of falsehood which we are experiencing.
Never before on this earth has there been such a huge number of people who freely and easily, without any shame, without any pangs of conscience 'call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!' (Isaiah 5:20)." - Archbishop Averky
-
Justin Kissel
I was thinking, we really shouldn't call them "non-Chalcedonians". That'd be like calling Catholics "non-collegialists". Sure it's accurate as far as it goes, but it describes only one aspect of the problem. Regarding the so-called "non-Chalcedonians," the councils after Chalcedon present just as much of a problem, if not more of a problem, than Chalcedon itself.
-
Mor Ephrem
- Member
- Posts: 325
- Joined: Fri 8 November 2002 1:11 am
- Location: New York
- Contact:
-
Justin Kissel
Mor,
This is what I've "gotten" from reading a number of articles over the last few months on the issue. If Chalcedon is not acceptable, then it would seem that future councils which were built on the Chalcedonian theology, and attended by those faithful to Chalcedon, and which affirmed the Council of Chalcedon, would be even more difficult to accept. Wouldn't they? Don't they muddy the waters, as now we aren't just talking about one Council, but are talking about a number of them--perhaps even four of them, that have to be "dealt with"? Wouldn't you look at this the same way that we Orthodox would look at some things in Catholicism? We disagree with the first doctrine, but since that first disagreement a number of doctrines sprung up around that doctrine which are intertwined with it. So we cannot compartmentalize things and just talk about that first doctrine, because now we have to deal with all the other stuff too?
-
Mor Ephrem
- Member
- Posts: 325
- Joined: Fri 8 November 2002 1:11 am
- Location: New York
- Contact:
Dear Justin,
I cannot give any official answers, just my personal opinion based on what I've seen. I'd be interested in knowing what articles you have been reading, if it's not too much trouble.
It seems to me that the issue doctrinally has to do with Chalcedon, and even that, through contact and dialogue between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, is not seen so much as a doctrinal problem with the Chalcedonian definition (our Churches accept it as Orthodox). I think the problem with Chalcedon (or, perhaps more properly, Chalcedonians) is that it/they misunderstands our position, and condemn that which is thought to be our position. That is the problem as I see it. Through dialogues between our Churches, many Eastern Orthodox are beginning to realise that our position is Orthodox, and I thank God for that because it is a small but important step towards the day when we will be in communion once again (a day that will have to see many such small steps). Oriental Orthodox, for our part, are beginning to see the same with regard to the Chalcedonian definition of Eastern Orthodoxy; proportionally, more of us see Eastern Orthodoxy as "Orthodox" than vice versa (although there are exceptions to this--I know of at least two people who, in discussing Christology with Eastern Orthodox Christians, told me that when pushed to defend their position and argue against the OO position, these same EO Christians came across as "very Nestorian", and because of this, these two friends think our Churches should be careful when dealing with Eastern Orthodoxy; since these guys are smarter than I, I trust their judgement and do not doubt the truth of what they had to say about their debates, but I trust our bishops and doctors to know what they are doing, and am inclined to believe that these EO people didn't know their faith as well as they should've...nevertheless, the fact that they sounded "very Nestorian" is something I find very troubling indeed).
As for the other councils, I have never seen any of our leaders express problems with the doctrinal definitions therein (if the Chalcedonian formula is recognised as Orthodox, even if it is not the formula we prefer to use, it follows that theology based on the Chalcedonian formula is also Orthodox, although it might be put differently if Cyrillian Christology were being used as the base). For example, the seventh council dealt with the issue of icons. We have no problem with icons, and never have. We agree with the seventh council's teaching on icons, because we teach it as well (although, because of the lack of an iconoclastic crisis in our Churches, icons do not hold nearly the same place in our piety as they do in Eastern Orthodoxy). I am not sure because I do not know the teachings of the fifth and sixth councils all that well, but I feel pretty safe in saying that these probably pose no doctrinal problems either, since I've never heard that sort of thing come from our leaders.
The main issue as I see it at this point is in the status of the councils after and including Chalcedon. EO and OO are united in recognising the Three Ecumenical Synods of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus. The councils after that and their "ecumenical" status are the main question to be answered.
-
Justin Kissel
Mor,
I definately remember reading this article recently. I also read an article at this site, but that site seems to be temporarily down 
There were a few others, which I'll try to track down tonight. I'll think over what you said in the meantime.