Talk:Dioscorus of Alexandria

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Pope Leo I)
Line 8: Line 8:
  
 
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? [[User:Deusveritasest|Deusveritasest]] 21:40, March 13, 2009 (UTC)
 
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? [[User:Deusveritasest|Deusveritasest]] 21:40, March 13, 2009 (UTC)
 +
 +
: Indeed, no!  &mdash;[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 00:41, March 14, 2009 (UTC)
  
 
== Cyril, Two natures, and the Non-Chalcedonians ==
 
== Cyril, Two natures, and the Non-Chalcedonians ==

Revision as of 16:41, 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)

Indeed, no! —Fr. Andrew talk contribs (THINK!) 00:41, March 14, 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)

Cyril a Nestorian?

There appears to be something seriously wrong with the following sentences: "On the other hand the Antiochian formula was "two natures after the union" which is translated to dio physis. This formula explained Christ as two natures; Son of God, and Son of Man, and that God did not suffer nor did He die.

St. Cyril himself accepted the Antiochian formula,"

Not only did Cyril not accept that Christ is two natures after the union (usually the formula referred to when simply saying "two natures after the union"), but rather simply "of/from two natures", but the text appears to also suggest that Cyril accepted Christ as "Son of God, and Son of Man, and that God did not suffer nor did He die". If we are to simply look at the 12 anathemas we can see that to suggest such is clear foolishness. I think some reworking of the text needs to be done here as well. Deusveritasest 22:01, March 13, 2009 (UTC)

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
interaction
Donate

Please consider supporting OrthodoxWiki. FAQs

Toolbox