Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 814
Reply with quote  #1 
Nestorius, who was born in Syria of Kurdish parents, is the founder of the Nestorian Church.
Nestorius was condemned as a heretic by the Council of Ephesus in 431, because his opponents claimed, that Nestorius believed, that Jesus Christ is divided into two persons. But Nestorius never believed such nonsense. According to Nestorius, Jesus Christ is one person with two distinct natures. According to Nestorius, the two natures of Jesus Christ can never be mingled. Nestorius was a staunch Dyophysite, and his major opponent was Cyril of Alexandria, who was a Miaphysite.
Nestorius rejected calling Mary the Mother of God, because according to Nestorius, Mary can't be the mother of the divine nature of Jesus Christ. But Nestorius called Mary the Mother of Christ, because she is the mother of the person of Jesus Christ. Nestorius rejected communicatio idiomatum (communication of properties). An example of communicatio idiomatum is claiming, that God died on the cross. Nestorius rejected theopaschism (the divine nature of Jesus Christ suffering on the cross). The person of Jesus Christ, who is both God and man, suffered on the cross, but his divine nature didn't suffer on the cross. Calvin also rejected communicatio idiomatum, while Luther affirmed communicatio idiomatum.
In addition to rejecting calling Mary the Mother of God, the Nestorian Church differs from the Orthodox Church by affirming aniconism, by lacking auricular confession and by practicing open communion.
MatthewJTaylor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 156
Reply with quote  #2 
Until recently I also avoided Theotokos but have since reconciled myself to the title. However, I dont use it since I perceive Marianism to be a heresy.
I would be interested to hear how modern church groups perceive modern historians as, which I suspect that they would continue to disagree with the historian christology, I wonder if it is perceived as an irreconcilable heresy.

__________________
ceterum censeo caetum europaeum delendum esse
The Scottish Tory - https://sites.google.com/view/scottishtory
Scots for a French Royal Restoration - https://sites.google.com/view/sfrr
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 814
Reply with quote  #3 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MatthewJTaylor
Until recently I also avoided Theotokos but have since reconciled myself to the title. However, I dont use it since I perceive Marianism to be a heresy.
I would be interested to hear how modern church groups perceive modern historians as, which I suspect that they would continue to disagree with the historian christology, I wonder if it is perceived as an irreconcilable heresy.

The Catholic Church accepted in 1994, that the Christology of the Nestorian Church isn't heretical and that the Nestorian Church avoiding Theotokos is valid. 
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,436
Reply with quote  #4 
That will mean valid in the sense the Church of the East was well- motivated. I doubt the Roman Catholic Church meant the title Theotokos was invalid.

I think that there's a lot more common ground between all sides of the miaphysite-Chalcedonian-Nestorian divide than traditionally was recognised.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 814
Reply with quote  #5 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
That will mean valid in the sense the Church of the East was well- motivated. I doubt the Roman Catholic Church meant the title Theotokos was invalid.

I think that there's a lot more common ground between all sides of the miaphysite-Chalcedonian-Nestorian divide than traditionally was recognised.

I have never claimed, that the Catholic Church meant, that the title Theotokos is invalid. But the Catholic Church recognizes, that the Nestorian Church doesn't deny, that Mary is the mother of the son of God. Nestorius never denied, that Mary is the mother of the son of God. Nestorius merely claimed, that Mary isn't the mother of the divine nature of Jesus Christ, because Nestorius rejected communicatio idiomatum, but Nestorius affirmed, that Mary is the mother of the person of Jesus Christ. Nestorius didn't reject veneration of Mary, unlike the Protestants. The Nestorian Church venerates Mary and the saints. Nestorius is venerated as a saint by the Nestorian Church. 

azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 814
Reply with quote  #6 
The Nestorian Church is Chalcedonian. The Nestorian Church actually accepts the Council of Chalcedon (the fourth ecumenical council), while rejecting the Council of Ephesus (the third ecumenical council). In the Bazaar of Heraclides, Nestorius affirms, that Jesus Christ is one person with two natures.
The Nestorian Church has closer ecumenical relations to the Catholic Church than to the Orthodox Church. The Orthodox Church has closer ecumenical relations to the Miaphysite Church than to the Nestorian Church. The Orthodox Church and the Miaphysite Church both affirm iconodulism and Theotokos, while the Nestorian Church affirms aniconism and reject Theotokos. 
The Orthodox Church venerates Cyril of Alexandria. Cyril of Alexandria was the main opponent of Nestorius. Cyril of Alexandria was a Miaphysite, who affirmed the existence of one nature of the Word of God incarnate. As a staunch Dyophysite, I consider Miaphysitism to be a heresy. The Orthodox Church affirms Dyophysitism, despite venerating Cyril of Alexandria.  
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,436
Reply with quote  #7 
I know that the Church of the East doesn't use icons, but is this just a preference, or do they affirm an actual iconoclastic theology? The Catholic and Orthodox couldn't accept that, as iconoclasm is considered a heresy (the Eastern Orthodox celebrate the overcoming of iconoclasm as the final culmination of the overthrow of the heresies threatening the Church from the fourth century onwards).

In my opinion, except for extremists, the main points of orthodox Christology are shared by the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Church of the East, although there are naunces and differences of language, of course.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 814
Reply with quote  #8 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
I know that the Church of the East doesn't use icons, but is this just a preference, or do they affirm an actual iconoclastic theology? The Catholic and Orthodox couldn't accept that, as iconoclasm is considered a heresy (the Eastern Orthodox celebrate the overcoming of iconoclasm as the final culmination of the overthrow of the heresies threatening the Church from the fourth century onwards).

In my opinion, except for extremists, the main points of orthodox Christology are shared by the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and the Church of the East, although there are naunces and differences of language, of course.

The Church of the East not using icons is just a tradition. I support aniconism, because the Second Commandment bans religious images. To me, aniconism is the most important difference between the Church of the East and the Orthodox Church.
The Christology of Oriental Orthodox Church is actually very different from Chalcedonian Christology, because the Miaphysites affirm Jesus Christ having one composite nature, while Chalcedonian Christology affirm Jesus Christ being one person with two natures. The Miaphysites aren't Monophysites, because Miaphysitism affirm, that Jesus Christ is consubstantial with mankind, while Monophysitism denies, that Jesus Christ is consubstantial with the mankind. The Christology of the Church of the East is Chalcedonian, and even Nestorius affirmed Chalcedonian Christology. But the Church of the East rejects communicatio idiomatum (communication of properties). That's why the Church of the East rejects Theotokos.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,436
Reply with quote  #9 
Well, I don't want to get into theological discussions, but it seems to me you are speaking through a partisan, Nestorian lens. Parallel points could be made against the Nestorian Church, but I think it is mostly a matter of language and nuance in each case.

My quick reading does seem to support the view that the Church of the East isn't iconoclastic on principle. However, your comments on the second commandment would be iconoclastic. With all due respect, they are also rather ignorant. The early iconoclasts raised second commandment objections, but St.John of Damascus so refuted these that even the original iconoclasts tended to drop this line, as explained here:

https://theorthodoxlife.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/an-overview-of-the-iconoclastic-controversy/

Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,436
Reply with quote  #10 
I was referring to the Oriental Orthodox. As I said, I have no desire to get into the theology of it all, but your claims about the miaphysites strike me as Nestorian partisanism, and I maintain that, except for extremists, all Eastern Christians (and the major Western branches) have a similar enough Christology in essence, language and naunce aside. They all maintain that Christ is fully human and fully divine in one entirely unified being.

A literal interpretation of the second amendment is neither here nor there. As the Damascene showed so well that the original iconoclasts more or less abandoned this route and turned to Christological arguments instead (ironically, quasi-monophysite ones), the veneration of an icon is fundamentally different from the use of idols, so the second commandment does not apply.

It is also interesting that you seem to be taking a position not maintained by your church. Basically everything I have found has confirmed what I thought: that the Church of the East, whilst not now using icons often (though it has at times in its history), does not condemn them. For example:

https://eastmeetseastblog.blogspot.com/2012/09/assyrian-churchs-theology-of-icons-part.html?m=1

Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,436
Reply with quote  #11 
I'm confused about what happened with your post. You seem to have changed your post just above my last, so that last doesn't make as much sense, nor is the difference that big in your position and mine.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 814
Reply with quote  #12 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
I'm confused about what happened with your post. You seem to have changed your post just above my last, so that last doesn't make as much sense, nor is the difference that big in your position and mine.

Claiming, that Nestorian Christology and Miaphysitism are equally different from Chalcedonian Christology is wrong, because the Church of the East ratified the Council of Chalcedon in 544, while the Miaphysite Church rejects the Council of Chalcedon.
The Church of the East doesn't condemn icons, but neither does it condemn aniconism. The Church of the East has never ratified the Seventh Ecumenical Council, which condemned iconoclasm. Most Nestorian Christians don't consider my support for aniconism to be heretical.
I admit, that the Church of the East became aniconist, because it was subject to Islamic rule, not because of the Second Commandment.
The Chalcedonian Orthodox Church pursues union with the Miaphysite Church. I'm opposed to the Chalcedonian Orthodox Church pursuing union with the Miaphysite Church, as long as the Miaphysite Church rejects Chalcedonian Christology. The Chalcedonian Orthodox Church doesn't pursue union with the Church of the East, despite the Church of the East affirming Chalcedonian Christology. The Chalcedonian Orthodox Church sadly appear to consider icons and Theotokos to be more important than Dyophysitism.
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,436
Reply with quote  #13 
As I said, I have no desire to go much further into theological issues with you. Suffice it to say, I'm unconvinced. I have heard or read Oriental Orthodox believers make parallel cases, and although it is true they don't accept the Council of Chalcedon, that doesn't prevent the Eastern Orthodox (who to my mind are the pillar of Christian orthodoxy) drawing bcloser to them than the Church of the East.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 814
Reply with quote  #14 
I consider neither aniconism nor iconodulism to be heretical. I support aniconism, because I support a literal interpretation of the Second Commandment, but iconodulism isn't heretical, because the iconodules is interpreting the Second Commandment differently because of the incarnation of Jesus Christ rather than outright rejecting the Second Commandment. 
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,436
Reply with quote  #15 
Have you had a memory lapse? Because you have repeated yourself for seemingly no reason in at least two threads today.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.