Again dear Isa, how is this comparable?
Their “theological perspectives” were pure heresy at many different levels. Contradistinctive polemic aside, this isn’t the sort of problem that Orthodox and Latins have to deal with in a unia. It wasn’t like the Orthodox had dropped 5 sacraments off the books and then argued about which two to keep.
Isa Almisry;3382876:
The Chaldeans are allowed to continue to refer to the Theotokos as Christotokos (yaldat mshiHa), the very issue which caused the Third Ecumenical Council to expel Nestorius and his followers.
The various unia were allowed to say the Creed without the Filioque, at least at first, the very cause of 1054.
The Copts, Syrians, and Armenians as far as I know did not change a thing, a sign of the extend of that schism being a misunderstanding.
Isa on the Nestorian matter if you could demonstrate that allowance for use of the term “Christotokos” is in and of itself a capitulation to heresy (when it could well be argued it is allowable based on how it is understood) you might be at the begining of making an argument.
On the filioque I am almost hesitant to ask what you are thinking that demonstrates? Also this is not clear with the Copts, Syrians and Armenians either. I am ill prepared to discuss the history of those liturgies but I am wondering how much they had changed in the wake of the schism anyway. If they had or at least at the time been understood to have retained their liturgy but been under the influence of mistaken notions and heresies, I am not sure what the impetus would have been to have needed to have changed them
Again we come back to the problem I had that started this part of the echange - the notion that
Constantinople magnanimously backed off away from the Lutherans in stark contrast to the Romans opting for unias is odd and tough to really present or defend as comparable. Josephdaniel asserts
In fact when there were overtures made by the Lutherans to the Ecumenical Patriarch in the 16th century, after several correspondences Patriarch Jeremiah II broke communications with them because of their heterodox beliefs. If he had desired perhaps the EP could have overlooked the theological issues and forged ahead with union with the Lutherans but he valued truth over any particular political advantages he may have gained by such a union.
In the throes of the wild rebellion of Protestantism, there was little choice in the matter and try as hard as you may to paint a different picture, the details of contention that needed to be resolved for unias with the Assyrians, Orientals or Orthodox were miniscule in comparison! There is no rational way to deny that coming to an understanding on allowance and meaning of the term “Christotokos” and Luther’s “solas” is the difference between hopping a puddle and jumping over a sea!
If you feel better reducing it to that for expedience, I won’t spend days on end in a thread trying to talk you out of it. If it is all explained via pragmatic political expedience - nothing more, nothing less in your mind…
Isa Almisry;3382876:
The timing seems very opportune.
The charge of opportune timing is one of those things that is (1) difficult to either prove or disprove and (2) most easy to throw out to cast some doubts.
It can likewise be argued that the timing of some moves “back to all Holy Orthodoxy” could happen to coincide with some better offers, opportunities or political realities.
Would it be a source of great difficulty to accept just as some today still make this move into unia, and some today still defend it, the same was possible previously?
(on Saint Peter Moghyhla):
What are you satisfied that proves or demonstrates? You throw that out there as thought is stands alone as evidence… I welcome explication on the relevence of that…
Isa Almisry;3382876:
You said something about relations between the Latins and the Orthodox being close. I was just giving a concrete example.
His mother, Elizabeth tried spreading submission to Rome in Moldavia.
She may have but he did not… and he is the one that was a bishop and is a glorified saint of the Orthodox Church. Going after his mamma or feeling compelled to bring her possible antics into the discussion seems a ploy at guilt by association.
Have you read Moghyla’s work?
Isa Almisry;3382876:
If you have read it, and you have posted it, one is left to wonder how you can feel so comfortable asserting the incompatibility of different western theological thoughts and models and contstructs with your vision of Holy Orthodoxy. Moghyla’s work is replete with much of it. While never in formal union, the level of polemic and contradistinction you so frequently assert is the trye patrimony and heritage of the Orthodox churches just doesn’t seem present in him and a number of other Slavic saints and theologians. With them as a reference point for at least one school of thought in the Slavic east, it certainly seems no stretch to accept that some of similar thinking would be comfortable in unia!
