The "Non-Chalcedonians"

[Julianna]

So what does that make you?

Orthodox.

[Julianna]

Do you call the Roman Catholic Church the "Roman Catholic Religious Organization", too? :ohvey:

anastasios

I usually call them Roman Papists. But heretics works too. Do you deny the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon too? Are you a Papist?

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

I usually just call "Roman Catholics", who are Frankish and far from Catholic, Latin.

Whenever I hear the axiom "Is the pope catholic?", I can't help but smirk.

With regard to the Monophysites I have many important points to make, each of which should make Bartholomew's ecumenist hairs stand on end (but probably wouldn't since I would simply be labeled "fanatic" and be forcibly evicted).

Without getting into all that, I do have a question that sounds simple, but it begs an answer.

If the Orthodox saints did fall under a massive satanic delusion that broke the church into two branches (as the ecumenists say), how can it be that both groups left Chalcedon calling each other the names "Monophysite" or "Diophysite".

These names have clear meanings: "one nature-ist" and "two nature-ist". I can't help but feel that if the monophysites realy have always believed as we do, that Christ had two natures, unconfused before and after He became man, then how they could call us "diophysites" and not somehow feel the term inadequete since they in fact beleived this too?

Just thinking out loud. I already know the answer: The only deception here is not that the holy fathers of the Church fell to satan's deceptions, but that vast swaths of the indifferent, those "who would beleive a lie", have today.

The final definition of Chalcedon, rejected by the Monophysites to this day:

"Following the holy fathers, we teach with one voice that the Son [of God] and our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the same [Person], that He is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, true God and true man, of a reasonable soul and [human] body consisting, consubstantial with the Father as touching His Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching His manhood; having become like us in all things save sin only; begotten of His Father before the ages according to His Godhead; but in these last days, for us men and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to His manhood. This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be in two natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably [united], and that without the distinction of natures being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets of old have spoken concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ has taught us, and as the Creed of the fathers has delivered unto us. "

Lord have mercy.

[Seraphim Reeves]

On one hand, our non-Chalcedonian friends deny the charge of "monophyitism", yet they obviously are uncomfortable with our "diophysitism" (which I do not deny is the Orthodox position.)

If one speaks of "one nature of God Incarnate", that is monphysitism - the phrase itself denotes "one nature". I know the non-Chalcedonians affirm that this is the union of the Divine and Human natures (and I don't think any diophysite has ever denied they affirm that); however, if one insists on speaking of "one nature", then well...that's monphysitism, unless words are to be made meaningless.

A further difficulty I have with the position taken by non-Chalcedonians in ecumenical circles, is the affirmation that we all really mean the same thing in different words. Beside what I've written in the above paragraphs (which would seem to show that claim to be dubious), this raises the question of why non-Chalcedonians (if this is all simply a misunderstanding) simply don't just give their assent to Chalcedon? Freely say the language involved is not their cup of tea, but the substance being good, the canons of Chalcedon are accepted... I don't understand why this hasn't happened, if there is in fact so much material agreement.

Seraphim

[Justin Kissel]

Well I finished some of the articles, still not sure what to think. Looking forward to hearing responses to Seraphim's post

[Methodius]

Good questions Seraphim, I have never seen a solid response to those points.

[Anastasios]

Do you call the Roman Catholic Church the "Roman Catholic Religious Organization", too? :ohvey:

anastasios

I usually call them Roman Papists. But heretics works too. Do you deny the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon too? Are you a Papist?

Nope, I don't deny Chalcedon. Not that it's any of your business but at the present time I am a Uniate on the way to Orthodoxy. You should become Orthodox, too, since you are not by virtue of being a member of a schismatic, graceless sect.

anastasios