The Acacian Schism and the Akoimetoi

[haralampopoulosjc]

@Thomas_Deretich Oh for crying out loud, are the decisions of an ecumenical council infallible or not? The Acts of Chalcedon state in it's own words that Ibas was accepted on the basis that his writings and his letter to Mari the Persian were orthodox. So what if it was three bishops who acquitted him? He was acquitted in front of everyone, and seated among the bishops. Like I said the Chalcedonians really need to engage in heavy mental gymnastics to deny the contradictions between 451 and 553.

[Suaidan]

@Thomas_Deretich Oh for crying out loud, are the decisions of an ecumenical council infallible or not? The Acts of Chalcedon state in it's own words that Ibas was accepted on the basis that his writings and his letter to Mari the Persian were orthodox. So what if it was three bishops who acquitted him? He was acquitted in front of everyone, and seated among the bishops. Like I said the Chalcedonians really need to engage in heavy mental gymnastics to deny the contradictions between 451 and 553.

"attributed to Ibas" 100 times-- the Council of 553

[haralampopoulosjc]

@Thomas_Deretich Oh for crying out loud, are the decisions of an ecumenical council infallible or not? The Acts of Chalcedon state in it's own words that Ibas was accepted on the basis that his writings and his letter to Mari the Persian were orthodox. So what if it was three bishops who acquitted him? He was acquitted in front of everyone, and seated among the bishops. Like I said the Chalcedonians really need to engage in heavy mental gymnastics to deny the contradictions between 451 and 553.

"attributed to Ibas" 100 times-- the Council of 553

Sounds like the bishops at 553 were trying to cover for their little whoopsie at Chalcedon. If the letter was a forgery then why didn't Ibas say that the letter wasn't his at Chalcedon?

[Suaidan]

Sounds like the bishops at 553 were trying to cover for their little whoopsie at Chalcedon. If the letter was a forgery then why didn't Ibas say that the letter wasn't his at Chalcedon?

Or they didn't believe that was the letter of Ibas, which is what they actually said.
And that's the crux of the argument: the Monophysite argument is based on "everyone at two ecumenical councils were liars." And "the Council where they killed a guy is the REAL council."

[Thomas_Deretich]

The “Acts” of councils can include letters, sermons, proceedings, debates, disagreements, provisional decisions on whom to seat, and minority opinions that were never accepted by final consensus. We cannot establish that there was a single, unchanging, uniform version of “the letter.” Scholars consider the facts murky or not totally recoverable. Concerning Ibas being “innocent” and “orthodox”: Ibas was accused of many crimes by opponents who attacked him and may have slandered him. One accusation was that he was an obvious Nestorian who obviously should never be seated. He was seated after some kind of recommendation. The word “innocent” may have meant “not proven.” And “orthodox” may have meant “not obviously Nestorian,” not necessarily meaning “perfect.” Sometimes the proceedings are influenced by the papal legates, the senior hierarch present, a government official charged with keeping order, a committee, etc. These are not the same as the final consensus Definition of Faith, Anathemas, canons, etc. Miaphysites routinely fail to distinguish between final Decrees and other actions at a council. Miaphysites mistakenly treat a sermon in 431 as an infallible dogma, in order to support their agenda of excluding all “two natures” language, even though Cyril used such language. Miaphysites misuse the discussion on Ibas and seating of Ibas as some sort of dogmatic decision that they can say contradicts 553. These accusations are stretches that Miaphysites use to divert us from the undeniable fact that they condemn diphysite language Cyril approved and even used himself and they confuse the unconfusable divine essence and human flesh.

[Thomas_Deretich]

Haralampopoulos, I don’t understand why you, an obviously intelligent person, have absorbed so deeply obviously one-sided arguments from anti-Chalcedonian YouTubers. Read Justinian, the Sixth Council, the Damacene, and the Cyril quotes in van Loon

[haralampopoulosjc]

Sounds like the bishops at 553 were trying to cover for their little whoopsie at Chalcedon. If the letter was a forgery then why didn't Ibas say that the letter wasn't his at Chalcedon?

Or they didn't believe that was the letter of Ibas, which is what they actually said.
And that's the crux of the argument: the Monophysite argument is based on "everyone at two ecumenical councils were liars." And "the Council where they killed a guy is the REAL council."

A hundred years later? Everyone including the man himself accepted that the Letter of Ibas was authentic at Chalcedon, and you're saying that they only admitted it wasn't a HUNDRED YEARS LATER? This is some weak sauce.

As for Flavian we already discussed that. I'm not going to keep repeating what modern scholarship and the scholarship of the time said on that situation if you're going to be deliberately obtuse.