The Acacian Schism and the Akoimetoi

[Thomas_Deretich]

If non-Chalcedonians genuinely reject Eutychianism as much as Nestorianism, then they should be more honest in admitting the mistake of Dioscorus in rejecting the Constantinople Resident Synod’s discipline of Eutyches and the mistake of Dioscorus’s very hasty exoneration of Eutyches. Despite the fact of various accounts and disagreements, it is clear that Dioscorus grossly mismanaged his Robber Council and he refused to be disciplined by the 600 bishops at Chalcedon who were forced to clean up after all the errors at Dioscorus’s Robber Council and all the errors of Dioscorus’s selfish tendencies and actions. Concerning Severus, even if Leontius of Byzantium and Leontius of Jerusalem made some mistakes, they did powerfully demonstrate the self-contradictions in Severus, including that Severus condemned Cyril’s agreement with Antioch as “prattle.” In contrast, Justinian, Maximus, and John Damascene are amazingly precise and balanced in the way they exclude both confusion and division in the one person of Christ.

[haralampopoulosjc]

451 admitted bishops who condemned Nestorius. 451 did not deeply investigate all the many writings of Theodore, Diodore, Ibas, and Theodoret.

Theodoret's "refutation" of Saint Cyril's Twelve Anathemas were well known at the time of the Council. Theodoret was exonerated at Chalcedon after his statement: "I was brought up by the orthodox, I was taught by the orthodox, I have preached orthodoxy, and not only Nestorius and Eutyches, but any man who thinks not rightly, I avoid and count him an alien." His teachers were Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore of Tarsus. Theodoret being accepted back into communion based on the statement that his heretical teachers were Orthodox directly contradicts Constantinople (553) which declared his teachers to be heretics. Keep in mind that Theodoret had explicitly refused to condemn Nestorius up until this point, in 431 433 and 449.

Ibas of Edessa was exonerated after his letter to Mari the Persian was read: 'Paschasinus and Lucentius, the revered bishops, and Boniface the priest, representatives of the Apostolic See-through the mouth of Paschasinus- (declared) From the reading of the documents and from the report of the revered bishops, we discern the innocence of the venerable Ibas. For when his letter was read, we recognized its orthodoxy. Accordingly, our decision is the restoration of him to his episcopal rank and to the church from which he was wrongfully deposed in his absence.' Ibas being accepted back into communion on the basis of his letter to Mari directly contradicts Constantinople (553) which declared this letter to be heretical. And to anyone who makes the spurious claim that Ibas' letter was a forgery, why wouldn't he have declared that the letter wasn't his at Chalcedon if that was the case?

[Thomas_Deretich]

I am aware of those one-sided interpretations made by online Miaphysites (and I had a feeling you might use those claims). However, the key fact is that the council admitted those who condemned Nestorius. The consensus of the Council did not declare Theodore, Diodore, Ibas, or Theodoret perfect. Seating a controversial bishop after he condemned Nestorius should not be over-interpreted and expanded and transformed into a declaration by the entire council of those controversial bishops being innocent. Seating a bishop is not a declaration of innocence. The purpose was both reconciliation and excluding the extremes of Nestorius and Eutyches. I believe Cyril himself knowingly re-established communion with those who condemned Nestorius and accepted the consensus of 433 even if they still opposed the way he worded his 12 Anathemas. If Cyril re-established communion with anti-Cyrillians who would finally condemn Nestorius, then Miaphysites and you should not condemn Chalcedon for allowing the same or similar bishops to sit down, discus, and help produce a consensus Orthodox statement that would exclude Nestorianism and Eutychianism and produce Orthodox reconciliation. 100 years later, the Church decided on which of Theodoret’s writings to reject and which not to reject. Miaphysites mine Western historians for “gotcha” issues, but there really is no ultimate contradiction between 451 and 553.

[Thomas_Deretich]

Theodoret was seated because he condemned Nestorius, not because he praised his teachers. Ibas was seated because he condemned Nestorius, not because the entire Council voted to endorse the letter.

[haralampopoulosjc]

I am aware of those one-sided interpretations made by online Miaphysites.... The consensus of the Council did not declare Theodore, Diodore, Ibas, or Theodoret perfect. .....

One sided interpretations? Those were direct quotes from the Acts of Chalcedon. How much more objective can you get?

It declared them to be Orthodox.

[haralampopoulosjc]

Ibas was seated because he condemned Nestorius, not because the entire Council voted to endorse the letter.

"From the reading of the documents and from the report of the revered bishops, we discern the innocence of the venerable Ibas. For when his letter was read, we recognized its orthodoxy."

[Thomas_Deretich]

The quote said three bishops and a priest declared Ibas innocent and Ibas was seated. The entire council never declared Ibas perfect. That is non-objective Miaphysite misinterpretation after reading the Acts in English. The Miaphysite polemicists over-interpret the seating of Ibas to raise a “gotcha” accusation against 451 and 553. In reality “it” (the consensus declarations of the Council) never proclaimed all the writings or even the letter to be perfectly Orthodox.