Is anyone else having problems at OrthodoxChristianity.net?

[Kollyvas]

{link}

...However, Chalcedon would have required that Dioscoros explain his actions in regard to Leo's excommunication and may have either accepted or rejected the action or else at least appreciated a good reasoning behind them. We will never know since Dioscoros refused to argue his case against Leo and Theodoret before the Council. Had he done so he may have come out on top, especially since most of the bishops were Cyrilians. However, Dioscoros could not be exonerated from his condemnations of Flavian of Constantinople New Rome and Eusebius of Dorylaeum for not accepting in Christ " from two natures one nature" which was the " Orthodox" tradition of Alexandria, but not that of all the Churches as Cyril himself explained in his letters to his friends when explaining that by speaking of two natures in Christ one may distinguish them in thought alone. In any case both Flavian and Eusebius were finally justified in their actions against Eutyches by Dioscoros, his bishops and all Oriental Orthodox. ...

...Dioscoros and Eutyches
Theodoret was a heretic before Leo got involved with him and he remained a heretic all the time that he was being supported by Leo. Just after Chalcedon Leo wrote in a letter to Theodoret about their common victory they had won at the Council of Chalcedon, yet in the very same letter complained about Theodoret's tardiness in rejecting Nestorius. In other words Leo supported Theodoret during all the time that he had not one confession of the Orthodox faith to his credit. The first time that he came close to a confession of the Orthodox faith was when he became a member of the committee, we have already mentioned, which found that Leo's Tome agrees with Cyril's Twelve Chapters. Evidently he was made a member of this committee in order to create grounds for satisfying Leo's insistence that he must have his way about Theodoret or there will be no Council of Chalcedon.

[ Return ]
Now we compare Leo's support for Theodoret with Dioscoros's support of Eutyches.
1) Theodoret not only showed no sign whatsoever that he agreed with the Third Ecumenical Council before Chalcedon, but on the contrary rejected it and continued to fight against its Twelve Chapters of St. Cyril and refused to condemn Nestorius.

2) On the contrary Dioscoros supported Eutyches on the basis of his confession of faith that " Christ is consubstantial with his mother." Whether this confession is genuine or not, or in reality an act of penance, the fact remains that Dioscoros defended a Eutyches confessing a Christology which was not exactly that for which he was condemned. This writer brought this confession to light in his paper at Aarhus in 1964. This corrected or perhaps falsified confession of faith was the basis on which Dioscoros accepted to defend Eutyches against false accusers. In any case this means that Chalcedon did not condemn the faith of Dioscoros. He was condemned only because he excommunicated Leo and refused to appear before the Council to defend himself. It is within this context that Anatolius of New Rome Constantinople opposed the effort of the imperial commissioners to have Dioscoros condemned for heresy. Anatolius clearly declared that, " Dioscoros was not deposed because of the faith, but because he excommunicated Lord Leo the Archbishop and although he was summoned to the Council three times he did not come."

It has been pointed out that what Anatolius is perhaps only saying here is that Dioscoros' faith had not been examined and for this reason he had not been condemned for his faith. But it seems that Dioscoros' faith was possibly proven by the confession of faith by which he restored Eutyches to communion. Eutyches had been condemned as denying that Christ is consubstantial with us. Flavian two times confesses to the emperor that Christ is consubstantial with his mother. Now it is supposedly proven that Eutyches is in agreement with Flavian who had him condemned.

After his condemnation by the Home Synod of 448 Eutyches appealed to the emperor, Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Thessaloniki. He argued among other things that the acts had been falsified. By order of the emperor the Review Council of 449 was convened to examine Eutyches' contentions. There we find among other things the following in the minutes: The Presbyter and Advocate John told the Patrician and examining magistrate Florentius that when in 448 he was sent to summon Eutyches to the Synod in order to testify, Eutyches told him that " Christ is consubstantial with his mother even though not with us." Florentius said that " this is not to be found neither in you memorandum nor in your report." John answered " This he told me while speaking only with me, that he does not have a consubstantial flesh with us, but with his mother." Then the Patrician said, " did you forget what you heard, and for this reason this is not to be found in the memorandum which you composed." John answered, " because the most reverend deacons with me did not hear what was told to me in private. for this reason I did not put it in the memorandum."

On the face of these remarks it could be argued that Eutyches agreed with Flavian. But this Patriarch is not recorded as ever denying that Christ is not consubstantial with us, although there could be the possibility that he believed this. But Eutyches had confessed that, although Christ is not consubstantial with us, his mother is. In the case of Eutyches we end up with a contradiction. Since Christ is consubstantial with His mother and His mother is consubstantial with us, it would stand to normal reason that Christ should be consubstantial with us also. It seems that behind such contradictions are either a forgery or an unbalanced personality.

The backbone of the Orthodox tradition is the fact that the Logos became consubstantial with us. There can be no doubt that Dioscoros agrees with this fact and so could never be accused of being a monophysite along with Eutyches.

It seems that Eutyches was trying to follow the fathers in his own way, but was not doing a good job. Then some like Dioscoros undertook to guide him, but to no avail. But neither Dioscoros himself nor any other of the Oriental Orthodox Fathers every followed Eutyches the way Leo followed Theodoret like a pet on a leash. ...

[Kollyvas]

(Here is a parallel to be applied in assessing our tenor in reuniting the Non Chalcedonians: let us use theirs. Note the eaxctness which they call for in what they regard as error. It is proper, even when applied by us in emphasizing that they accept the pleroma of Orthodoxy.--R)

http://www.lacopts.org/index.php/site/entry/87/

Dialogue with the Assyrian Church of the East and its effect on the Dialogue with the Roman Catholic
by His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy

This was posted on: Friday, August 29, 2003

---

A paper presented in the name of His Eminence Metropolitan Bishoy at the Orientale Lumen conference in Melbourne, Australia, July 9th - 12th 2000.

The Coptic Orthodox Church participated in the theological dialogue with the Assyrian Church of the East decided by the Fourth general assembly of the Middle East Council of Churches (MECC) in Cyprus
1986.

The long process of this dialogue continued until the Sixth (6th) General Assembly of the Council in November 1994, when His Holiness Pope Shenouda III agreed to invite a delegation from the Assyrian Church of the East to attend a theological dialogue with the Coptic Orthodox Church in which he himself would lead the Coptic members, and with representatives from the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch and the MECC.

The meeting was held in Saint Bishoy Monastery, Egypt. in January 1995, with Metropolitans Mar Narsai de Baz and Mar Bawai Soro delegated by Patriarch Mar Dinkha IV to represent the Assyrian Church of the East, Metropolitan Mar Theophilis George Saliba representing the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch and Father (now Metropolitan) Paul Sayah representing the MEEC. A proposed Christological common declaration was prepared in which the following statement was of major importance:

‘Both sides consider this declaration a basic step on the way towards the re-establishment of the full ecclesiastical communion between their Churches which existed among the Apostles and their Churches in the early centuries of Christianity. They can indeed, from now on, proclaim together before the world their common faith in the ineffable mystery of Christ. the incarnate Word of God. Furthermore, they pledge to endeavor to remove from their liturgical and official sources any contradiction to this agreement.’

The common intention was to consider this proposed common declaration as a first step to cancel step by step the teachings and the veneration of Nestorius together with Theodore of Mopsuestia and Diodore of Tarsus from their sources, liturgies and theological books.

Afterwards the Coptic Orthodox Church was struck by the fact that the promises given to her in that meeting were inverted to the opposite during the second consultation of the Syriac Dialogue organized by Pro Oriente and held February 1996 in Vienna, where the Coptic Orthodox Church was attending as an observer.

Mar Bawat Soro who is a distinct theologian of the Assynan Church of the East presented a paper in this meeting with the title ‘Does Ephesus Unite or Divide - A Re-evaluation of the Council of Ephesus - an Assyrian Church of the East Perspective’. From this paper we quote the following:

We would only ask that a like effort be made to understand Nestorius’ equally orthodox concern to promote the use of language expressing Christ‘s complete and uncompromised human and divine natures. As we do not ask anyone to revile the memory of Cyril,we would respectfully ask not to be required to abandon our long held admiration of and appreciation for Nestorius."

He also said:
"One could only pray and hope that the oriental Orthodox Brethren from all ecclesial traditions would, in the near future, be able to take similar steps like those of the Assyrian Church and rise above the historical misunderstanding, misjudgment, or whatever difficulty they still may have with Nestortius’ Christology which, I believe, today has been rediscovere, re-evaluated, understood, and accepted, by modern scholarly research, as an orthodox teaching."

Mar Bawai Soro made a severe attack on the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus saying:"A tumultuous council took place, with Cyril acting as both prosecutor and judge of Nestorius. The trial of Nertorius at Ephesus in which he was condemned has always been viewed by the Church of the East as unfair and illegal. It should be noted that others, outside the Church of the East and with impeccable credentials as orthodox scholars, have also agreed with that judgment, attributing the chaotic and embittered atmosphere at Ephesus to personal animus and political ambition on the part of Cyril."

At the same time Most Rev. Dr. Mar Aprem the Metropolitan of Trichur of the Assyrian Church of the East in India presented a paper titled ‘Summary of the Christological debate in the 5 Vienna Consultations between theologians of the Oriental Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches in the light of its applicability to the dialogue with the Assyrian Church of the East’ in which he stated:

In order to explain the reason for that rejection we may quote from the paper of Mar Aprem with the title ‘Was Nestorius a Nestorian’ which he presented in the 59th Ecumenical Symposium of Pro Oriente, Vienna, 18th June 1990 and is published as an Annex in the book of the first Syriac Consultation organised by Pro Oriente in Vienna June 1994 the following:

"Attention should be drawn to the fact that Nestorius in his biblical exegesis followed the literalistic, anti-allegorical method employed by Theodoros of Mopsuestia and favoured in Antiochene circles. Richard Morris states that it was Theodoros who propounded the undoubted original of the Nestorian Christology.

Logos took flesh, He took the form of a servant. He was a sinless man, though the possibility of sin was open to him, as he was a perfect man, being a sinless man, he was able to restore mankind to the image of God. Loofs writes:

‘The main thing is that the logos of a servant brought into existence a sinless man, hence the stress is laid on the moral and religious development of Jesus’1

Nestorius says that the incarnation took place through an intelligent and rational soul. The soul, therefore, is the relation between Logos and man. This is a voluntary union. Here we find a union of free will. The relation becomes so close that one cannot be separated from the other. Or, in the terminology of Paul, Nestorius says that the ‘form of God’ shows itself in the ‘form of a servant’ in acting in the ‘form of God’.2

He also wrote:3

"It must be stated, that ‘image of God’ is not a very important doctrine to Nestorius. His concern is Christological. Here, he differs from Irenaeus and the majority of the Church Fathers. In Bazar of Heraclides, he never discusses the ‘image of God’ in itself. His interest is not man‘s creation in the image of God, but the image of God as it was found in Christ.

The image of god is both the perfect revelation of god as well as perfection of the human nature. Image of God to Nestorius includes both the human and the divine prosopa. In his exegesis of the Philippian hymn Nestorius equates the image of God with the prosopon of union. When Nestorius used Gen. 1,26-7 to explain Phil 2 the resulting exegesis expounds prosopic union. Rowan states:

Therefore the image of God is the perfect expression of God to men. The image of God, understood in this sense, can be thought of as the divine prosopon. God dwells in Christ and perfectly reveals himself to men through him. Yet the two prosopa are really one image of God.4

The same author rightly thinks that Nestorius’ use of the image of God solves, in a fairly coherent way the fundamental problems of the Antiochene Christology.5

It is clear to the Coptic Orthodox Church that even modern scholars cannot deny that Nestorius taught that two persons were united externally according to will and image in Christ and not that the person of the Logos himself became man uniting the human nature which he assumed in the incarnation to his divine nature in his simple person, the thing which the Orthodox call hypostatic union against the prosopic union of Nestorius.

Other quotations from the new discoveries of the writings of Nestorius regarding the prosopic union are as follows:

"Two are the prosopa, the prosopon of he who has clothed and the prosopon of he who is clothed".6

"We must not forget that the two natures involve with him two distinct hypostasis and two persons (prosopons) united together by simple loan and exchange".7

The question now in front of the Coptic Orthodox Church regarding the Christological agreement signed by Pope John Paul II and Patriarch Mar Dinkha in November 1994, is how this agreement may affect the Christological agreement signed between Rome and Alexandria in February, 1983 in which it is stated that we anathematize both the teachings of Nestorius and Eutychus.

In order to discover some of the difficulty facing the Coptic Orthodox Church one may refer to the paper presented by the theologians of the Assyrian Church of the East Mar Bawai Soro and M. J. Birnie in Vienna, June 1994 during the first consultation of the Syriac dialogue organised by Pro Oriente. We quote:

"The liturgies of the Church invariably name Nestorius, with Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia, in their litanies. The calendar features a ‘Memorial of the Greek Doctors’, a list of ‘western’ fathers which includes - and emphasizes - the same three theologians. If the question is ‘Does the Church of the East venerate Nestorius and continue to employ his theological vocabulary?’ the answer is obvious."8

"Under the influence of its patron, a zealous defender of the Antiochene positions and of his choice to head the school, Narsai, the institution flourished and gained respect as a serious center of learning. The Antiochene partisans at Nisibis vigorously promoted their Christological position, using the terminology familiar to them, that is, with the very terminology anathematized by the Ephesene synod and by the partisans of Cyril. Among them Nestorius was venerated as a staunch defender of Antiochene orthodoxy and a martyr to the pride and arrogance of Cyril of Alexandria. The reluctance of bishops of the Church of the East to take a definitive posture, whether positive or negative, relative to Nestorius gave these partisans the opportunity and freedom to further their cause in his defense."9

For the Coptic Orthodox Church Saint Cyril of Alexandria is and will remain a hero of faith and true defender of orthodoxy and we cannot accept to sign an agreement with a church who venerates Nestorius as ‘a staunch defender of Antiochene orthodoxy and a martyr to the pride and arrogance of Cyril of Alexandria.’ That is a great hindrance in our dialogue with the Assyrian Church of the East which is reflected in our relations with the Church of Rome with a threat towards the Christological agreement signed between Rome and Alexandria in February 1998.

For that reason we shall exert our efforts to clear away any difficulties which may affect the theological dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Coptic Orthodox Church.

1. Loofs, Nestorius. op. cit. p83

2. Syriac Dialogue, first non-official consultation on dialogue within the Syriac Tradition. Pro Oriente - Vienna June 1994, p221-222

3. Ibid. p222, 223

4. Rowan Greer: ‘The Image of God and the Prosopic Union in Nestorius’ Bazaar of Heraclides in Lux in Lumine, Essays to honour W. Norman Pittenger, edited by R.A. Morris jr. New York 1996, p50.

5. Ibid. p60.

6. LH 193 Bazaar of Heraclides, quoted by Bernard Duapy, OP, ‘The Christology of Nestorius’ Syriac Dialogue, Pro Oriente, op. cit. p113.

7. R. Nau, Le Livre d’Heraclide de Damas (=LH), Paris 1910; p.xxviii.

8. Mar Bawai Soro/M.J. Birnie ‘Is the Theology of the Church of the East Nestorian?’ - Syriac Dialogue, first non-official consultation on dialogue within the Syriac Tradition, Pro Oriente - Vienna June
   1994, p116.

9. Ibid p120-121.

[Justin Kissel]

Why was it he was somehow treated with some sort of "gloved hands" and pigeonholed in an unceremonious manner provoking this acrimony?

Actually, most of us were just trying to redirect him back to his original thread, which was not deleted as he at first thought. Ekhristosanesti was probably somewhat more confrontational than he expected, but I don't think anyone was particularly pigeonholing or acrimonious. The fact that he came here and complained about his thread being deleted could mean a few different things:

1. He just wanted to whine and complain, and whether the thread was actually deleted was a rather secondary concern in his mind.

2 He just wanted to drum up support for his forum, regardless of what actually happened.

1. He just wanted to appear like a persecuted defender (or ally) of orthodoxy.

2. He was really astonished to find his thread apparently "deleted" and felt compelled to expose the seeming injustice to the world.

The first three options do not show Jose in a very good light, though some might make the case for any of these options. However, I (and I believe most others) were participating in this thread while accepting (at least tentatively) option 4: that it really was just a mistake. However, if that's all that it was, Jose should go back and continue the thread that he started. After all, if he comes here to complain, but upon being informed that his complaint is without foundation decides not to return anyway, then that makes the above options 1-3 more likely. Of course, there are other explanations, such as that he is too embarrassed to go back, or he doesn't have arguments ready that can refute what Ekhristosanesti is saying... but the least he could do is say he is sorry or was rash in starting this (ecafe) thread.

[Kollyvas]

While I tend to agree he may have been engaging in pure provocation, why is it then others so willingly accomodated his intrigues by pandering to their own biases? This blasting cap wouldn't have went off without a charge. Now, the agitator sees ANY "Chalcedonian" as his sport, whom he thinks he can browbeat into submission: he isn't interested in even an argument, only verbal brutality. Making me a poster child for his anti-Chalcedonian campaign, which as has been illuminated, is not even in the slightest related to the attitudes of the Non Chalcedonians to the Orthodox, shows that he is being misconstrued as a Non Chalcedonian interlocutor. Mr. Lauro's avoidance of the fellow isn't so much an avoidance of topic for lack of gravitas, but rather to not bother with instances of rabid dogs set upon the unexpecting, AND BY WHOM remains the mystery. I have quietly illustrated here on this thread and others annotations which have reinforced my initial treatments, and it seems--SURPRISE!--I never lied and was accurate in my presentations. Mind you, this isn't in the hope of disabusing anyone of their penchants for e-muggings, but rather to show the readership that aside from decontextualized spin and the vitriole of others, I am telling the Truth while others are intentionally trying to shout that down. There IS a general lack of gravitas elsewhere and that these threads if followed to the conclusions of provocateurs would leave the readership deceived with baseless propaganda not even in any way circulated amongst the Non Chalcedonians. Look, if we want to treat this topic honestly, then the products of ecumenical dialogue with the Non Chalcedonians are at the forefront, then the theological affinities, then the remaining disputes, then historical circumstances, their other ecumenical "activities," finally polemics. Mr. Lauro's side is a major constituent in such considerations regardless; whereas, the other fellow's only legitimacy may be found in Hyde Park (with those in funny costumes) or expressed in a washroom obscenity. The forum in question, by tacitly caressing its modern strawmen enfranchised would be mobs and that is the abuse of speech which is so odiously objectionable, for Mr. Lauro--like it or not--voiced accepted Orthodox sentiment while the orc empowered by discrimination against him isn't anything but a voice of anger, hatred and alienation without country or affiliation. His violence has been facillitated by biases which respect not Orthodox consensus, but pseudo-scholarship and personal egos. Pathetic.
In the LOVE of Christ,
Rostislav

[Kollyvas]

...v. Other councils must be considered

So far I have suggested that there might be value in concentrating on Christology as a discrete step in the process of reconciliation. I have proposed that any effort to develop a Common Christology must be comprehensive and cannot afford to ignore or deal superficially with any objections to, or anxieties about, our respective Christological traditions. I have suggested that we must really attempt to communicate what we mean, and understand what the other means, rather than relying on simple expressions of Christology which merely reproduce terminologies that are confusing to our brethren.

I would like to recommend that we must also deal in some manner with the later and controversial councils which are considered ecumenical by the Eastern Orthodox, and are either rejected or not considered authoritative by the Oriental Orthodox. Certainly the Tome of Leo must be considered if we are to seriously develop a Common Christology. ...

Understanding the role of a less controversial council, such as the Fifth Council held at Constantinople in 553, might indeed prove a key to unlocking agreement on Chalcedon . The distinguished patristic scholar, J.N.D. Kelly suggests, “The struggle, as embittered as it was long and closely entangled with politics, resulted in the emergence in the East in the sixth century (cf. the second council of Constantinople, 553) of a ‘Neo-Chalcedonianism’ which subtly shifted the bias of the council, interpreting its teaching in a positive Cyrilline sense.”

An open-minded reading of the Sentence and Capitula of this council suggests that there is much which is immediately acceptable to Oriental Orthodox. A closer reading produces a few points at which clarification might be required. Perhaps what might assist the recognition of a Common Christology would be the production by the Eastern Orthodox of a document containing these. It might also include further explanations wherever these are required such that the document remains a clear exposition of the Fifth Council, as far as the Eastern Orthodox understand it, while also being a document which is written with the Oriental Orthodox perspective in mind. Such a document might then be put before the Synods of the Oriental Orthodox Churches and if found to truly describe our own Christology could be received synodically. This would not be the same as saying that, for instance, the Fifth Council was ecumenical. That is a different matter altogether and should not be allowed to prevent the development of a Common Christology. However, if such a document successfully expounded the Eastern Orthodox understanding while being acceptable to the Oriental Orthodox, it would be a means of receiving the substance and content of the Fifth Council as our contemporary brethren in the Eastern Orthodox conceive it.

There is a useful passage in the Sentence of the Fifth Council (II Constantinople, 533) which shows that the Chalcedonians of this time wanted Chalcedon to be interpreted in the light of the first three councils, and not in any other sense,

“Nevertheless, in order that they who thus calumniate the holy council of Chalcedon may have no further opportunity of doing so, we ordered to be recited the decisions of the holy Synods, to wit, of first Ephesus, and of Chalcedon, with regard to the Epistles of Cyril of blessed memory and of Leo, of pious memory, sometime Pope of Old Rome. And since we had learned from these that nothing written by anyone else ought to be received unless it had been proved to agree with the orthodox faith of the holy Fathers, we interrupted our proceedings so as to recite also the definition of the faith which was set forth by the holy council of Chalcedon, so that we might compare the things in the epistle [of Ibas, Bishop of Edessa] with this decree. And when this was done it was perfectly clear that the contents of the epistle were wholly opposite to those of the definition.

For the definition agreed with the one and unchanging faith set forth as well by the 318 holy Fathers as by the 150 and by those who assembled at the first synod at Ephesus. But that impious letter, on the other hand, contained the blasphemies of the heretics Theodore and Nestorius, and defended them, and calls them doctors, while it calls the holy Fathers heretics.”...

...

[Anastasios]

In a nutshell, Mr. Lauro's position, although not shared by me, is a LEGITIMATE ORTHODOX POSITION AND ECHOED ON THE HOLY MOUNTAIN. Why was it he was somehow treated with some sort of "gloved hands" and pigeonholed in an unceremonious manner provoking this acrimony? Even simpler, his views are not isolated to him--why treat him as fringe and give birth to frictions over a bias (yours) which does not speak for all of Orthodoxy?!
R

Of course his view is acceptable and I agree with the Holy Mountain actually. My problem is the way that he presented himself. You are not a member of my forum, so let me explain something. We allow all Orthodox positions to be debated there so there are some pro-Coptic people and some anti-Coptic people there, as well as Copts themselves. Mr Lauro did not post in the appropriate category so his post was moved. He did not understand that and came to this forum complaining about what happened based on his false understanding (he thought he was banned and censured). Mr Lauro and I resolved the issue anyway. I have nothing to do with EkhristosAnesti coming here and firing off shots at Mr Lauro though; take that up with him.

So to reiterate I actually agree with Mr Lauro's position, have exactly the opposite bias than what you presume, and have been nothing but polite to Mr Lauro, and Mr Lauro and I have resolved the issue in private conversation anyway.

Anastasios

[Anastasios]

IS that how they taught you to reason and keep things in context at Crestwood?! My remarks weren't aimed at disparaging the Coptic people, and I take umbrage that you infer that to me, but, rather, at pointing out the position of craven witness and illegitimacy the agitator you empowered has in addressing "Byzantine/Chalcedonian/Dyophysite Orthodoxy" and his quasi-historical (HYSTERICAL) agitprop.

Yeah, but the problem is, that's not what you said. You said that they will be janissaries under the Caliphate and laughed about it. You did not distinguish between the Coptic faith and the Coptic people. In fact, I don't see how in the context you said things, that one COULD make the distinction. You were being vague and therefore, the reason there was a misunderstanding.

I have nothing to do with EkhristosAnesti, did not tell him to come here, and do not agree with him. In fact, if you look on the site, he and I have had problems before. But I do believe in free debate of issues and that's why he is allowed to participate on my forum. There are plenty of people who counter him there and provide the other view. I have nothing to do with him being here, though. So don't you dare say I empower him.

(I AM THE ONE WHO CONSISTENTLY KEEPS UP A THREAD--from which you're curiously absent--DEDICATED TO THE islamic CRIMES COMMITTED AGAINST THE COPTIC PEOPLE AND I AM THE ONE COMMITTED TO IMPROVING THEIR LOT!--HOW DARE YOU?!)

Calm the heck down. You are getting needlessly emotional and agitated over a difference of opinion. I do not have the time to participate in all threads on all boards; I am a casual reader here. So I have no idea what thread you are talking about. You post dozens of threads a week and I frankly don't read them all. I'm sorry I can't be everywhere at once. So don't say my absence is curious--it's due to time contraints!

I speak in I-R-O-N-Y scathingly to greet him with his reality and not his delusions, but OF COURSE, your sensibilities weren't as troubled with his ignorant denunciations of Chalcedonian positions.

1) How would you know? I don't participate in these debates on my forum, and anyway you are not a member and not privy to the private section for these debates so you have no clue what is going on there anyway

2) I do not agree with his denunciations of Chalcedon and believe that he is a heretic. But unlike other people, I am willing to listen to what he has to say before engaging him.

You're a GOC under +Pavlos?! What?! Seriously, next time keep context with my sympathies for the Non Chalcedonians and my lack of taking this agitator seriously. It's not hard

Again, people don't always read every post so it is incumbant upon YOU to make yourself clear each and every time you post.

Anastasios