The Acacian Schism and the Akoimetoi

[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.

[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

[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

[Thomas_Deretich]

Leaders of the Copts gave handed down a narrative about “Saint” Dioscorus and “greatest of the Fathers” Severus, in contrast to the “heretical” Roman Pope Leo and the “evil Melkites” (followers of the Byzantine emperor). College age men like “Agen” spend hundreds or thousands of hours finding scholarly quotations to selectively take out of context, like the Chalcedon Acts, as well as trying to “explain away” dozens of diphysite quotations from Cyril and earlier saints. One Miaphysite program praises the greatness of Maximus, another sarcastically attacks him as “the Confuser.” These programs drip with venomous resentments against the Orthodox Church, but they still crave the prestige of getting recognition from ecumenist “Orthodox.” I sympathize with their retaining a Christian self-identity in hostile societies, but there are also pathological resentments against Orthodoxy and preposterous distortions on historical facts. To repeat: As Lampe’s A Patristic Greek Lexicon proves, the Fathers before Nestorius and Cyril predominantly used “two physeis” language. Those who used “one physis” language meant “one person” not “one substance.” The union is “without confusion.” Divine substance and human flesh are two within the one person. The Anti-Orthodox are uncomfortable with Cyril’s frequent two-nature and two-energy language. Orthodox are not

[Thomas_Deretich]

Nit-picking about Ibas (without proof) does not change the fact that Fr Lazarus (and Agen) repeat more than once: “the two natures existed only in thought.” These men sometimes affirm Orthodox truth, and at other times (like the quote above) they blatantly contradict it. They advocate far more blatant contradictions than seating Ibas at one council and condemning a letter attributed to him at another. The big picture is clear. The seven councils are the Orthodox Christian consensus, Nestorianism and Anti-Chalcedonianism are the perversions