Was Chalcedon really necessary?

spiridon · Post by **spiridon** » Sun 26 November 2006 5:08 pm

Mr Anesti, tell us what is the True understanding and teachings about the Mother of God-Theotokos in your church?
and how do you all view the Latin church?
and why was the Coptic church out of the picture for so many hundreds of years ?
and does the Ethiopian church believe the same as the Coptic church aswell.
Remember these arent rude questions , im speaking to you in a mildly and loving tone- I say this because sometimes the internet can make our writings seem very harsh and rude, and im not coming from that point at all, but rather In CHRIST

jckstraw72 · Post by **jckstraw72** » Sun 26 November 2006 6:37 pm

We can contemplate two wills—one perfectly divine and the other perfectly human—in theological abstraction, yet when we consider the Incarnate Word in actuality we find that He consistently expresses and conforms to One will, which is nothing other than the hypostatic expression of the synergically harmonious interaction between His distinct and real divine will and His distinct and real human will.

i believe we see two wills acting in harmony, just as we see two natures acting in harmony.[/code]

EkhristosAnesti · Post by **EkhristosAnesti** » Sun 26 November 2006 7:30 pm

ozgeorge,

There is no qualification necessary for the dyothelitism of the Orthodox Faith. "Christ has Two Wills, period" is all that's necessary.

Actually, if you study the history of your Church, you will find that qualification of your reductionist Christology was necessary. How else do you think it was possible for half of your Church to fall into Nestorianism within the hundred years proceeding-Chalcedon/preceding-Constantinople? This is a historical fact you’re going to have to deal with; faithful members of the Chalcedonian Church were upholding the Nestorian Christology of Theodore, whilst upholding Chalcedon; faithful members of the Chalcedonian Church were upholding the heretical letter of Ibas whilst upholding Chalcedon; faithful members of the Chalcedonian Church were celebrating the death of Nestorius as a feast day, whilst upholding Chalcedon. Constantinople became a necessary qualification for Chalcedon because Chalcedon could not stand on its own two feet.

You purport the idea that your Christology can be reduced to an overly simplistic 4 word formula without qualification as if that is something to be proud of. I personally find that an embarrassment. As I mentioned before, a Nestorian will gladly proclaim the very same formula as you, and I have no reason but to conclude that he would proclaim it in the very same spirit as you, seeing as you consciously refuse to acknowledge proper qualification that would serve to differentiate your two faiths.

It is only those who hold "miaphysitism" that have to "qualify" this by saying inane things like His Will is One and Two simultaneously.

You’re only proving the point I made earlier about how most heretical/schismatic groups’ incomprehension of Orthodoxy stems from their simpleton-istic attempt to dissolve a paradoxical mystery. God is One and Three simultaneously; God suffered and did not suffer simultaneously; Christ is One and Two Simultaneously; this is Orthodoxy. Paradoxical, yes, but there is no contradiction here. Familiarise yourself with what is known as the categorical fallacy and you may understand why.

Just as the Natures are comingled and confused in the heresy of miaphysitism, so are the Wills.

More irrationality. It seems that you have reached a level of desparation where you have found it necessary to impute your own conclusions upon the Faith of the Orthodox Church without any foundation or basis. I didn’t realise your faith was so weak and insecure so as to warrant such self-delusion and dishonesty. I’m not here to shake your faith George. But i’m furthermore not here to argue with a child; so when you’re man enough to discuss these issues with me maturely and rationally, then please reply; if not, I think it’s best that you take some time-out before you upset yourself any further and set yourself up for more embarrassment.

EkhristosAnesti · Post by **EkhristosAnesti** » Sun 26 November 2006 7:32 pm

Spiridon,

Mr Anesti, tell us what is the True understanding and teachings about the Mother of God-Theotokos in your church?

Well there’s much that can be said; is there a specific issue or issues that you have in mind that you would like me to discuss?

and how do you all view the Latin church?

Schismatic and Heretical.

and why was the Coptic church out of the picture for so many hundreds of years ?

What do you mean exactly? Out of whose picture?

and does the Ethiopian church believe the same as the Coptic church aswell.

Yes; all Churches of the Oriental Orthodox Communion (Armenians, Syrians, Ethiopians, Eritreans, Indians and Copts) share such Communion by virtue of their proclamation of the same substantial faith.

Remember these arent rude questions

I never perceived them to be as such. You can ask as many questions as you wish, I don’t mind.

EkhristosAnesti · Post by **EkhristosAnesti** » Sun 26 November 2006 7:36 pm

jckstraw72,

i believe we see two wills acting in harmony, just as we see two natures acting in harmony.

Is the idea of the two wills of Christ acting in perfect unison and harmony a dogmatic principle for the EO Church? According to Ozgeorge, you need not qualify your belief in “Two wills”, which presumes that belief in two wills is the only dogmatic principle of the EO Church. If such is the case, then the EO Church’s will-Christology is no different to that of the Nestorians. I would hope that ozgeorge is mistaken in his representation of his Church.

Please elaborate on this notion of the interaction of the two wills of Christ; do you believe they have the potential to conflict? Is their acting in unison something externally coincidental or natural? As I explained earlier, and as ozgeorge refuses to understand, when the OO proclaim Christ to have One will, we are referring to the natural and perfect unison of the interaction between his divine and human wills. We use the term “One” in the same sense Christ does when he says that husband and wife (in an ideal marital union ofcourse) become “One flesh”.

jckstraw72 · Post by **jckstraw72** » Sun 26 November 2006 8:19 pm

Christ is One and Two Simultaneously

yes, Christ is one PERSON and two NATURES, with two WILLS simultaneously. He is not one nature and two natures at the same time, which it seems to me the Miaphysites try to say. you bring up God as one and three at the same time, but God is one GOD, and also three PERSONS. He is not one person and three persons, or one God and three Gods.

jckstraw72 · Post by **jckstraw72** » Sun 26 November 2006 8:23 pm

If such is the case, then the EO Church’s will-Christology is no different to that of the Nestorians. I would hope that ozgeorge is mistaken in his representation of his Church.

we believe Christ has two natures (and thus two wills), which make up one person, whereas the Nestorians divide His natures in a manner that ruptures His singular personhood. By refusing to use the term Theotokos they are saying Mary gave birth only to His humanity, which is impossible bc His humanity and divinity are inseparable in one person.

and saying His two wills acted in harmony is not a qualification, i could just as easily leave it out, since that goes without saying--if Christ was sinless then obviously His humanity always worked in congruence with His divinity, otherwise He'd be a sinner. If Christ is fully human then He must have a human will, and if He is fully God then He must have a divine will, or else He is not 100% of those natures.