Post by edjuThe fifth century flap among the Egyptians, the Greeks and the
Syrians
How did you manage to leave out the Greeks? And for that matter, why
did the Armenians side with the Syrians and Egyptians, yet still deny
they are Monophysites?
Post by edjuI find to be extremely interesting
Frankly, I was hoping that someone who "finds it extremely
interesting", would have found it interesting enough to put more care
into studying it before making assertions about it:(
Post by edjuand, though I have done some reading on the subject, I am very
confused.
Well, some confusion is natural -- especially if you are primarily
relying on Western sources, most of which are worse than useless. But
I have found _one_ western source, by a Roman Catholic, which is
pretty good. So I strongly recommend that to you to help lift the
fog. See the link at the end of this post.
My favorite source on this, however, is still Kartashev [Kartashov],
whose book "The Ecumenical Councils [Vselenskiye Sobory]" is a real
classic.
Post by edjuShort version ---
Too short!
Post by edjuNestorius of Antioch (the two-nature - some say two-person - guy) was
roundly condemned by Cyril of Alexandria (the one-nature guy).
"The one-nature guy" Didn't any of your reading say where he _got_
this phrase "one-nature"? It is simply not possible to understand this
whole quarrel until you understand taht the full real phrase was "one
nature of the Word incarnate", and that this was lifted from a
_pseudonymous_ work, a work St. Cyril _thought_ was by a saint.
After all: this phrase was a very unfortunate phrase. It was really
from Apollinarius!
Post by edjuNestorius was declared anathema at Ephesus, much to Cyril's
gratification. Then Nestorius, suffering in his desert exile, felt
vindicated by the Council of Chalcedon
This was _decades_ later! And it didn't restore Nestorius to his
See. For that matter, how could you pass over the "Robber Council" in
silence? The famous "Tome of Leo" was written in response to this
false Council.
And it is commenting on this Tome that Kartashev came up with one of
his choices nuggets:
The special points of note of this epistle are 1) the equality of
logical accent on _both_ sides of the Incarnation, against which both
schools (Alexandrian and Antiochian) erred, and 2) his unusual
oratorical and literary art, the wealth of the synonyms, with which he
describes the action of both natures.
[fm http://www.biblicalstudies.ru/Books/Kart5.html]
Of course, Kartashev could say things like this because he knew both
Greek and Latin very well, and could respond to the finer points of
the language almost like a native speaker in ancient times.
Post by edju- what with Leo's Tome and all. The Egyptians must have agreed; they
split with the Chalcedon crowd - too Nestorian for the one-nature
guys. But so did the Syrians, who one would think should have
welcomed Chalcedon, what with its definition - the Man growing in
wisdom and the God walking on water.
I am not sure why you think this would have pleased the Syrians.
Post by edjuWhat happened between Ephesus and Chalcedon that turned the
two-nature Syrians into one-nature monophysites (miaphysites -
whatever)? And how is it that Cyril is a saint among the Greeks -
after all, "One nature of the incarnate Word".
Cyril is a saint because he correctly saw the danger behind Nestorian
and fought with great zeal and great personal sacrifice to defend the
Church against it. His sanctity is _not_ an endorsement of that
unfortunate phrase. It is not even an endorsement of everything he did
in that struggle. On the contrary: it is widely recognized that the
fierceness of the fight against Nestorianism, together with that
unfortunate phrase, unbalanced his polemics, giving him a very strong
appearance of Monophysitism. And sure enough, the next few Popes of
Alexandria (including St. Cyril's nephew) really _did_ give his words
a Monophysite interpretation, breaking away from the other Sees, which
(according to these Popes), had fallen back into 'Nestorianism'.
Kartashev even goes so far as to say that part of the problem was that
St. Cyril was 'self-educated', and so did not always express himself
with the clarity that a better-educated Greek would have done.
Post by edjuOK - I am sure the above is filled with inaccuracies
You got that part right;)
Post by edju- but, hey, it'sshort.
Too short. That is a large part of the problem. It is harder to get it
accurate and short at the same time -- as you seem to be aware.
But what you do not seem to be arare of is that in such an important
case as this, accuracy is much more important than brevity. So it is
safer to error on the side of wordiness.
Finally, that book I said I would recommend: it is at the following
Amazon link:
http://www.amazon.com/First-Seven-Ecumenical-Councils-325-787/dp/0814656161.
I haven't spent the money on it, because I already have Kartashev. But
if you can't read Kartashev, I strongly recommend this book, which is
almost as good;)
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)