72
edits
Changes
no edit summary
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)
== 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. [[User:Deusveritasest|Deusveritasest]] 21:50, March 13, 2009 (UTC)
