The Acacian Schism and the Akoimetoi

[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

[Thomas_Deretich]

Fr Lazarus continues on another video (against Bishop Luke’s ROCOR article on Cyril) that “all” the Fathers before Nestorius were miaphysite. A lie. He claims 431 taught mia physis. But he also says 431 did not use mia physis tou Theou Logou sesarkomene. So he undermines his strange claim that the Apolinarian forgery theory would undermine 431. He does not quote any mia physis text from 431. Henosis kata physin is not the same as mia physis. So in the first few minutes he makes three blatant errors. Agen says that one text is disputed, therefore it is definitely authentic (?!). Agen misinterprets 553 canon 8 as saying “all” Fathers taught mia physis tou Theou Logou sesarkomene, whereas it says no such thing. The Orthodox church did not condemn this phrase, but rather said it is Orthodox if physis means person in it. The Miaphysites in the video quote allegedly from Nestorius where he doesn’t sound so heretical, and they say Chalcedonians would agree, and therefore Chalcedonians are bad. This whole video is full of non-sequiturs. Incoherently, Agen seems to be saying only the properties of the two natures remain, not the two natures themselves. He implies Cyril sometimes used physis and hypostasis as synonyms, and then implies Chalcedonians must accuse Cyril of being Nestorian. Agen frequently engages in nonsense, but with his hostility to Orthodoxy remaining clear, but with no attempt to systematically explain how Cyril uses physis, hypostasis, ousia, morphē, prosōpon, etc. In a tangled bush of verbiage, they teach hostility to Chalcedon, forbid speaking of two, yet talk of twofold-ness and “without confusion.” Their hostility and resentment are clear; their theology is clearly contradictory and incoherent. This is why Haralampopoulos is clearly hostile, but has not presented a coherent Christology. He aped the hatred, but there was no coherent Christology to ape