Catholic-Orthodox Timeline: Bonocore Responds

[dzheremi]

I have no idea why you’re asking a Chalcedonian these things…

From an historical perspective, do the Miaphysites of today claim Dioscorus to be a saint

HH St. Dioscorus is venerated in the Coptic, Syriac, and Tewahedo Orthodox churches, which are all Miaphysite. To the best of my knowledge, he is not venerated in the Armenian Apostolic Church, though they do not object to his veneration by the rest of the communion (their reasons for rejecting Chalcedon simply do not include anything about St. Dioscorus, since his deposition and treatment at Chalcedon were not among the information they received about Chalcedon that led to their Council of Dvin that formally rejected Chalcedon in 506).

and if they do, how is this possible when he was a monophysite?

He wasn’t a monophysite.

I think that some of the things brought up by Mark Bonocore make sense from an historical standpoint, i.e., why do they deny Chalcedon if in essence we are expressing the same theology albeit using different terminology?

It’s not entirely clear to either side that we are in fact expressing the same theology using different terminology. If it were, we’d presumably be in communion already, as the joint EO-OO theological dialogues have recommended that we be.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I am amused (okay, not really) to see that you misread the quotes which were NOT from Fr. Meyendorff but from Orthodox theologians whose work was quoted in Meyendorff’s book, The Primacy of Peter.

How juvenile it is to respond to postings written by others without first reading them or trying to understand them.

I did not read your citation carefully. My error (you see, I am capable of admitting when I have made an error in haste, unlike some here). But, I own a copy of the book and have read it (which I doubt you have), and I know that the authors do not accept the papal claims. In fact, if you were interested in learning about Orthodoxy and Orthodox perspectives, instead of your meaningless and senseless polemics, I might even have recommended that you pick up a copy of that book (it’s quite inexpensive, if my memory serves me). But I know that your interests likely lie elsewhere (namely, in pop-apologetics), so I suppose such a recommendation will likely fall on deaf ears.

 

[josie_L]

I have no idea why you’re asking a Chalcedonian these things…

HH St. Dioscorus is venerated in the Coptic, Syriac, and Tewahedo Orthodox churches, which are all Miaphysite. To the best of my knowledge, he is not venerated in the Armenian Apostolic Church, though they do not object to his veneration by the rest of the communion (their reasons for rejecting Chalcedon simply do not include anything about St. Dioscorus, since his deposition and treatment at Chalcedon were not among the information they received about Chalcedon that led to their Council of Dvin that formally rejected Chalcedon in 506).

He wasn’t a monophysite.

It’s not entirely clear to either side that we are in fact expressing the same theology using different terminology. If it were, we’d presumably be in communion already, as the joint EO-OO theological dialogues have recommended that we be.

During the “council” of Ephesus aka the “robber” council wasn’t Dioscorus upholding Eutchyes’s view (the originator of this heresy)? And I asked Peter because I wanted to know what parts of Mark Bonocore’s reply he took issue with and if he agreed to some degree with some of the points he raised?

 

[Peter_J]

During the “council” of Ephesus aka the “robber” council wasn’t Dioscorus upholding Eutchyes’s view (the originator of this heresy)? And I asked Peter because I wanted to know what parts of Mark Bonocore’s reply he took issue with and if he agreed to some degree with some of the points he raised?

I’m not going to go back and look at it again (in terms of significance, Bonocore isn’t even on my radar) but I assume that there are some things he said that are correct.

 

[josie_L]

Folks-

Unlike Fr. John and Mark Bonocore, I do not have any credentials or familiarity with this subject. However, because someone (several people, actually) raised objections to Mr. Bonocore’s timeline, I asked the website owner if Mr. Bonocore would like to respond to the criticisms. He did and those two responses are now posted.

It was asked of me whether I would choose to stand with the Catholic Church or with Mark Bonocore. In the mind of the person asking, there must be a substantive difference between these two positions. If so, I would, of course, choose to stand with the Church, and I’m confident that Mr. Bonocore would do the same* if it can be demonstrated that his position is at odds with the Church.* Who among us would not do the same when shown our mistake? However, it must be shown. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to evaluate claims on either side.

I don’t plan on interacting with this thread, since I am not really qualified to do so. There is a time when silence is the best course of action. However, I will follow the discussion with great interest, and I will continue to post any responses I receive from Mark Bonocore unless he chooses to interact with you directly.

Randy

Just wanted to say “thank you” for going the extra mile and contacting Mark Bonocore, and to give him my thanks for actually taking the time to reply.

 

[RyanBlack]

During the “council” of Ephesus aka the “robber” council wasn’t Dioscorus upholding Eutchyes’s view (the originator of this heresy)? And I asked Peter because I wanted to know what parts of Mark Bonocore’s reply he took issue with and if he agreed to some degree with some of the points he raised?

The response I’ve heard is that at the synod in 449, Eutyches convinced the bishops that his christology was indeed orthodox and that he later lapsed back into Monophysitism. The Oriental Orthodox, together with Chalcedonian Christians, consider Eutyches to have been a heretic.

 

[dzheremi]

During the “council” of Ephesus aka the “robber” council

Stop the scare quotes if you expect an actual conversation to take place regarding this matter.

wasn’t Dioscorus upholding Eutchyes’s view (the originator of this heresy)?

The confession given by Eutyches at the council reads as follows: “Since my youth, I diligently sought to live in retreat. Today I am exposed to grave danger because in my strict fidelity to the faith, and my refusal to admit any innovation, I sincerely upheld the faith declared at Nicea, and rely continuously on the writings legated to the Church by Abba Kyrillos of blessed memory. I believe in One God the Almighty, Maker of the visible and the invisible; and in the Lord Jesus the Christ the Only Begotten Son – I mean that He is Consubstantial with the Father; by Him were all things made, in heaven and on earth; He is the One, Who, for us mankind and for our salvation, came down from heaven; He was incarnate and became man;He suffered and rose from the dead on the third day; He ascended up to heaven from when He shall come to judge the living and the dead. As for all those who say that there was a time when the Son was not, or that He was not before He was born, or that He was created out of nothing or that He is of a different substance, or that His two natures were mixed or mingled – all those who say such things are excommunicated by the mouth of the Church Universal. This is the faith I declare, and which I have received from my fathers; in this faith was I born, and in it I was baptized and consecrated, and ordained priest; by it I lived unto this day and I shall uphold it until I depart from this life.” (as reproduced in El-Masri, The Story of the Copts, Book 1: From the Foundation of the Church by Saint Mark to the Arab Conquest)

It was on the strength of this confession that Eutyches was readmitted to communion. Our father St. Severus refers to him as one who returned to his vomit and hence was cast out, truly, but this was later, after he had betrayed the confession given above. We have no qualms with his readmission based on what he told the Council at Ephesus in 449, even as we also count him among the damned heretics, as did our teacher HH St. Dioscorus at Chalcedon, where HH declared “If Eutyches holds notions disallowed by the doctrines of the Church, he deserves not only punishment but even the fire. But my concern is for the catholic and apostolic faith, not for any man whomsoever.”

For more on this matter from the Coptic Orthodox perspective, you may see, among other works, Fr. Matthias F. Wahba Coptic Interpretations of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. (Note: opens as a PDF)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Just wanted to say “thank you” for going the extra mile and contacting Mark Bonocore, and to give him my thanks for actually taking the time to reply.

:tiphat:

 

[josie_L]

One thing that you do not understand about Eastern Orthodoxy is that we do not like change. The development of the papacy was a change. If the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem had once accepted universal papal jurisdiction, what happened that made them change in the 11th century? Why should one believe one Patriarch when the other four disagree with him?
Even if you believe that Patriarch Michael I of Constantinople was wrong in 1054 to refuse to submit to Cardinal Humbert’s demands, what has that to do with Antioch and Jerusalem, who were not really involved in the dispute between Constantinople and Rome, or included in Cardinal Humbert’s excommunication of Patriarch Michael I but were thrown out of office by the Crusaders?

Fr. John

Jerusalem:

“The Council of Chalcedon in 451 raised the bishop of Jerusalem to the rank of patriarch. (See Pentarchy) However, Byzantine politics meant that Jerusalem passed from the jurisdiction of Patriarch of Antioch to the Greek authorities in Constantinople.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Orthodox_Patriarch_of_Jerusalem

Alexandria:

“The small portion of the Church at Alexandria that followed Chalcedonian Christology, being loyal to the emperor at Constantinople (New Rome), has long used Greek as its liturgical language, and it became subsumed under Constantinople as the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_Orthodox_Church_of_Alexandria

Antioch:

“Greek Patriarchs of Antioch from 518 to 1724”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Greek_Orthodox_Patriarchs_of_Antioch

Just putting into perspective that the patriarchates of these sees were of Greek origin or under Byzantine influence during 1054, so I’m not sure how unbiased their stance would have been concerning papal primacy. As I have already mentioned to you before the split was really between Constantinople and Rome.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Dear Roman Catholics everywhere (but especially on CAF, where I see this exact argument reoccur over and over),

Please, please stop bringing up the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox in your arguments with the Byzantine Chalcedonians. You guys agree on that council, so you don’t get to turn around later and say “But what about this one?”, as though you actually doubt it. Are you converting to Oriental Orthodoxy? No? Then stop it. You’re not making a point. You’re only irritating me. We don’t accept Chalcedon or your supposed Papal prerogatives, and the attempt to defend one by bringing up the other is really annoying and wrong.

I don’t suppose you have ever studied mathematics. Often proofs are done by way of contradiction, meaning that we assume some set of principles which we think are false and show they are false beause thet result in a contradiction. I am assuming a Byzantine perspective (as it has been related to me) and pointing out a problem for me with where it leads, even if it is not absolutely a logical contradiction. Sorry if what I said irritates you, but I don’t think that validates your point.

 

[Reuben_J]

Just putting into perspective that the patriarchates of these sees were of Greek origin or under Byzantine influence during 1054, so I’m not sure how unbiased their stance would have been concerning papal primacy. As I have already mentioned to you before the split was really between Constantinople and Rome.

Would the elevation of Constantinople to be on par with Rome, as often mentioned here, constitute in itself a change?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Would the elevation of Constantinople to be on par with Rome, as often mentioned here, constitute in itself a change?

And the rise of Moscow? When did that occur and by what ecumenical council?

 

[Novocastrian]

And the rise of Moscow? When did that occur and by what ecumenical council?

Presumably the Orthodox answer - and they should feel free to correct me here - is that the shift in primacy from Rome to Constantinople was automatic upon the breaking of schism and the end of orthodoxy in Rome, while the elevation of Moscow to the patriarchate was within the canonical rights of Constantinople, which had jurisdiction over Rus. These would be seen as changes internal to the overall Orthodox ecclesiological system, whereas the Papal claims would be seen as a challenge to the system itself.

I imagine you know full well how Moscow was elevated

 

[Randy_Carson]

Presumably the Orthodox answer - and they should feel free to correct me here - is that the shift in primacy from Rome to Constantinople was automatic upon the breaking of schism and the end of orthodoxy in Rome, while the elevation of Moscow to the patriarchate was within the canonical rights of Constantinople, which had jurisdiction over Rus. These would be seen as changes internal to the overall Orthodox ecclesiological system, whereas the Papal claims would be seen as a challenge to the system itself.

I imagine you know full well how Moscow was elevated

No, actually, I don’t. I never gave the EO any thought at all until about two months ago.

 

[Novocastrian]

No, actually, I don’t. I never gave the EO any thought at all until about two months ago.

The ecumenical patriarch Jeremias II (who is also known for his friendly and polite, but firm, refusal to recognise the Confessio Augustana) was in exile in Russia, and raised Metropolitan Job to the Patriarchate. It seems to have been many things: part of possible negotiations for Jeremias to settle in Russia himself as Patriarch; a desire of the Tsar to improve the standing of his expanding Orthodox state in the post-Byzantine world; a recognition that the Muscovite Church was growing rapidly; a practical advantage to having a Patriarchal See outside the zone of Muslim occupation; a way of getting the Slavic world to acknowledge the role of Constantinople as the chief among patriarchates, which had new prominence due to Constantinople’s status in the Turkish state as head of the Rum millet.

So, as in so many episodes in the growth of the Church, a mixture of political pragmatism and the supernatural triumph of the catholic and orthodox faith! Personally I think that Romans might be familiar with at least a few of the elements above

 

[Randy_Carson]

So, as in so many episodes in the growth of the Church, a mixture of political pragmatism and the supernatural triumph of the catholic and orthodox faith! Personally I think that Romans might be familiar with at least a few of the elements above

True. And thanks.

 

[Novocastrian]

True. And thanks.

Sometimes I despair over the disunity of the Church and the apparent hiddenness of right doctrine. Then, without ignoring the reality of the problems of the modern Church, I remember that on forums like this Christians from various different communions are keen to talk together in a search for unity and truth. We may not get there (in this life!), but I think it’s a good sign that it happens nonetheless. The Spirit blows where He wills.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sometimes I despair over the disunity of the Church and the apparent hiddenness of right doctrine. Then, without ignoring the reality of the problems of the modern Church, I remember that on forums like this Christians from various different communions are keen to talk together in a search for unity and truth. We may not get there (in this life!), but I think it’s a good sign that it happens nonetheless. The Spirit blows where He wills.

Amen.

 

[spina1953]

The ecumenical patriarch Jeremias II (who is also known for his friendly and polite, but firm, refusal to recognise the Confessio Augustana) was in exile in Russia, and raised Metropolitan Job to the Patriarchate. It seems to have been many things: part of possible negotiations for Jeremias to settle in Russia himself as Patriarch; a desire of the Tsar to improve the standing of his expanding Orthodox state in the post-Byzantine world; a recognition that the Muscovite Church was growing rapidly; a practical advantage to having a Patriarchal See outside the zone of Muslim occupation; a way of getting the Slavic world to acknowledge the role of Constantinople as the chief among patriarchates, which had new prominence due to Constantinople’s status in the Turkish state as head of the Rum millet.

So, as in so many episodes in the growth of the Church, a mixture of political pragmatism and the supernatural triumph of the catholic and orthodox faith! Personally I think that Romans might be familiar with at least a few of the elements above

Novocastrian: In your post #413 you mentioed that the Tsar wanted the Slavic world to arknowledge the role of Constantinople as chief among Patriarches I wonder if this might be one of the reasons why the patriarches are not wanting to give up their independence or power, through as I understand it each patriarch has power only under his control. I ask as there has been much discussion about primecy of honor given to the Pope and that he is not head of the whole Church, which is only one reason among many as to the schism continuing. Am I wrong or did I mistunderatnd? Thanks.

 

[Novocastrian]

Novocastrian: In your post #413 you mentioed that the Tsar wanted the Slavic world to arknowledge the role of Constantinople as chief among Patriarches I wonder if this might be one of the reasons why the patriarches are not wanting to give up their independence or power, through as I understand it each patriarch has power only under his control. I ask as there has been much discussion about primecy of honor given to the Pope and that he is not head of the whole Church, which is only one reason among many as to the schism continuing. Am I wrong or did I mistunderatnd? Thanks.

Ah, I meant that the Greeks wanted the Slavic world to look to them. By giving the Tsar his own Patriarch, it meant that the Tsar could and would act like the protector of the Orthodox Christians of the Muslim world, as the Emperors of Constantinople had done previously.