Talk:Dioscorus of Alexandria

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 12: Line 12:
  
 
I also don't really see how it is appropriate for this article to so boldly claim that the Non-Chalcedonians reject the Formula of Reunion, especially in an article about Dioscorus of Alexandria. Dioscorus himself boldly accepted the twoness formula propagated by Cyril, which, as much as some Chalcedonians do not like to admit it, was "ek duo physis" (of/from two natures) rather than "en duo physis" (in two natures as at Chalcedon). He even went so far as to confess at Chalcedon that he believed that Christ was "of/from two natures ''after the union''". I thus am highly skeptical about the quote for Timothy Aurelius condemning the twoness formula of Cyril when there is clear precedence of acceptance of it among the Non-Chalcedonian Fathers. [[User:Deusveritasest|Deusveritasest]] 21:50, March 13, 2009 (UTC)
 
I also don't really see how it is appropriate for this article to so boldly claim that the Non-Chalcedonians reject the Formula of Reunion, especially in an article about Dioscorus of Alexandria. Dioscorus himself boldly accepted the twoness formula propagated by Cyril, which, as much as some Chalcedonians do not like to admit it, was "ek duo physis" (of/from two natures) rather than "en duo physis" (in two natures as at Chalcedon). He even went so far as to confess at Chalcedon that he believed that Christ was "of/from two natures ''after the union''". I thus am highly skeptical about the quote for Timothy Aurelius condemning the twoness formula of Cyril when there is clear precedence of acceptance of it among the Non-Chalcedonian Fathers. [[User:Deusveritasest|Deusveritasest]] 21:50, March 13, 2009 (UTC)
 +
 +
== "Saint John of Antioch"? ==
 +
 +
Where is John of Antioch identified as a canonized Saint? [[User:Deusveritasest|Deusveritasest]] 21:55, March 13, 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:55, March 13, 2009

Contents

Eutyches

It is fairly misleading to suggest that Eutyches seeming "redemption" at the Second Council of Ephesus is the final chapter in the story for the Oriental Orthodox. On the contrary, it appears that Eutyches returned to his heresies after 2nd Ephesus, and the Oriental Orthodox did pick up on this. Dioscorus shortly afterward anathematized Eutyches for his return to those heresies. The then Non-Chalcedonians had council with the attendance of about 500 bishops to deal with the Eutychian issue. They met at Ephesus in 475 (thus sometimes called the "Third Council of Ephesus") and condemned Eutyches and the heresies attached to him. Lastly, one of the leading authorities in the OOC, Severus of Antioch, was also of the opinion that Eutyches ultimately was a heretic. Deusveritasest 21:32, March 13, 2009 (UTC)

As such, I think it would be wise to reword the third paragraph in section 1. Does anyone object? Deusveritasest 21:35, March 13, 2009 (UTC)

Pope Leo I

Is it really appropriate to be referring to Leo I in our articles as "the Roman Catholic Pope Leo I", especially given that we designate a distinction between the "Roman Catholic Church" and the pre-Schism "Church of Rome"? Does this designation make it sound like we're recognizing the claim of the modern RCC to continuation with the pre-Schism Church of Rome? Deusveritasest 21:40, March 13, 2009 (UTC)

Cyril, Two natures, and the Non-Chalcedonians

I also don't really see how it is appropriate for this article to so boldly claim that the Non-Chalcedonians reject the Formula of Reunion, especially in an article about Dioscorus of Alexandria. Dioscorus himself boldly accepted the twoness formula propagated by Cyril, which, as much as some Chalcedonians do not like to admit it, was "ek duo physis" (of/from two natures) rather than "en duo physis" (in two natures as at Chalcedon). He even went so far as to confess at Chalcedon that he believed that Christ was "of/from two natures after the union". I thus am highly skeptical about the quote for Timothy Aurelius condemning the twoness formula of Cyril when there is clear precedence of acceptance of it among the Non-Chalcedonian Fathers. Deusveritasest 21:50, March 13, 2009 (UTC)

"Saint John of Antioch"?

Where is John of Antioch identified as a canonized Saint? Deusveritasest 21:55, March 13, 2009 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
interaction
Donate

Please consider supporting OrthodoxWiki. FAQs

Toolbox