The Collatio of 532

[Suaidan]

None of this is new. This only proves that when the Council of 553 was held, that the "Letter of Ibas" being a forgery was already a long-held belief, something Monophysites deny NOW.

[Thomas_Deretich]

The main source of for the letter of Ibas is the Acts of Chalcedon where it was read aloud. After it was read the council accepted Ibas back into communion on the basis that his letter was Orthodox.

Seating Ibas in 451 does not contradict condemning a letter in 553 that was attributed to him, even if it was the same letter read in both councils. Chalcedon never taught the content of Ibas's alleged letter, it seated him after he condemned Nestorius.

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” attributed to Ibas. Concerning Ibas allegedly being declared “innocent” and “orthodox” at Chalcedon: 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 at the council. He was seated after he condemned Nestorius and after some kind of recommendation from some of the officials at the council. The word “innocent” may have meant “not proven.” And “orthodox” may have meant “not obviously Nestorian,” or “not necessarily guilty of everything he has been accused of,” 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.

The quote from the Chalcedonian Acts 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 and hoping to find imperfections to attack. The Miaphysite polemicists over-interpret the seating of Ibas to raise a “gotcha” accusation against 451 and 553. In reality, the consensus declarations of the council never proclaimed all the writings or even the letter to be perfectly Orthodox. Theodoret was seated because he condemned Nestorius, not because he defended his teachers Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Ibas was seated because he condemned Nestorius, not because the entire council voted to endorse the letter.

There are several one-sided interpretations of Chalcedon made by online Miaphysites. However, a key fact is that the council of Chalcedon seated those bishops 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 perfect in all their statements. Seating a bishop is not a declaration of perfection. The purpose of Chalcedon was excluding the extremes of Nestorius and Eutyches by a balanced Orthodox consensus statement. 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 should not condemn Chalcedon for allowing the same or similar bishops to sit down at Chalcedon, and help produce a consensus Orthodox statement that would exclude Nestorianism and Eutychianism and produce Orthodox reconciliation. One-hundred 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.

Nit-picking about Ibas (without proof) does not change the fact that Father Lazarus (and Agen) repeat more than once: “the two natures exist 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 their accusation against the Orthodox that the Orthodox seated Ibas at one council and condemned a letter attributed to him at another. The earlier council never officially approved the controversial contents of the letter; the later council condemned the letter, but did not posthumously excommunicate the man. So there is no ultimate contradiction. The big picture is clear. The seven councils are the Orthodox Christian consensus; Nestorianism and Anti-Chalcedonianism are the extremes, in opposite directions.

[Thomas_Deretich]

"Even if it was the same letter" and "we do not know if it was the same letter" are not contradictory. I have tried many times to explain that what a council as a whole does is sometimes different from what a bishop or group of bishops does AT a council. Consensus is inspired, non-consensus opinions may not be. The council never approved the letter, even if some individual bishops did.

[Thomas_Deretich]

Read what I wrote: "even if ...." In no way did I say they definitely were the same letter. The council did not vote to approve the letter

[Thomas_Deretich]

Read what I wrote: "even if ...." In no way did I say they definitely were the same letter. The council did not vote to approve the letter