OrthodoxyOrDeath wrote:Saint Isaac was not a Nestorian. This is a very long description of history, but essentially Assyrians were not Nestorians until they met you! When they were confronted with your views of the one-nature of Christ, the only theological formula they had access to, being cut off from the Roman Empire by the Arabs, and that which was written in their language, was Nestorian. Falling back on this, they actually became Nestorians combatting your polemics! I could go into more detail on this if you like.
And from a later post:
As in many cases with the Orthodox, we were never theologically well-versed on a subject until a heresy sprung up and challenged it. There was nothing established among the Assyrians concerning the two natures of Christ since the Assyrian Church was far removed from the quarrels of Nicaea.
In the early 600's the Persian Army, after defeating the Romans in several great battles, finally conquered Egypt and the surrounding territories (I believe the Arabs cut the Assyrians off from teh Empire long before that, but it may have been the Persians). With these new conquests, Armenia included, their was a flood of Monophysites who fled the former territories of the Roman Empire and for the first time came into substantial contact with the Assyrians. Well by now, the Monophysites were well-versed in their polemics of one-nature, and the Assyrians were not, and were therefore forced to dig up whatever theological texts they could. Unfortunatley what they found was Nestorian, the homilies of Afraat. The more the Assyrians fell back on the concepts expressed by these documents, the more they were trapped by Nestorianism - having no other theological texts (most were written in Greek and in the West, which they had been cut-off from for centuries.).
Bottom line - St. Isaac was not Nestorian because Assyrians could not be considered Nestorian in his day.
And you know, here I was thinking that the Nestorians were heretics because they would not confess that the Blessed Ever-Virgin Mary was the Mother of God, but instead posited that she was only the Mother of Jesus Christ (as if Christ was not the Son of God in the flesh), when all along, the real truth was that they only became heretics after the 600's when their nation was able to conquer Egypt and had to battle Monophysites. Either there has been a very great cover-up in my education, or you will go to any length to prove that Monophysites are the root cause of all the world's ills. 
I am sorry that my current schedule does not permit me to read the history contained in the link you offered, but thanks for the link, I hope to read it at some point, since the history of the Syriac speaking Churches is an interest of mine.
As for the others you mention, I am admitedly not familiar with them. But I would like to point out that the heretic converts accepted by the OCA - the New Skete, still consider St. Francis and others as Saints. They are in effect "allowed" to keep their "Saints" by the ecumenist church. This in no way means they are saints, because error does not justify a new norm or example to follow.
I'm not concerned here with what the "ecumenist church" does or what the "really unbelievably true orthodox right believing confessor church" does. I'm concerned with principles.
Do you think these other examples are siginificant enough of an example that I should look into them? (I don't want to write it off if you think it proves your case.)
I'm not sure what you should do. I do know that I'm not satisfied with the answers so far. I'm not at all convinced that Nestorians were not heretics before the seventh century, unless denying that Mary is the Theotokos is OK since it is a "theologoumenon" ( a Protestant notion if I ever heard one!). Since there is no question about when Monophysites became Monophysites, maybe it would be helpful if you addressed the situation of the Georgian Church.
Aristokles wrote:
I've not studied Arianism as much as I perhaps should but my little understanding was that his heresy , while there and an error, was so subtle that some could be Arian without meaning to. It seems many heresies are that way. But, if I 'm not mistaken, Arianism was a heresy 'within' the Church - there was not so much a wholesale schism with altar-against-altar, separate churches/synods, etc. It was met and defeated in the Church . Being baptised by an Arian apparently was not an invalid act.
Arianism may have been very subtle, but so was the serpent. Subtle or not, it was a heresy, and heresy, from all I've gathered here, is something that immediately cuts you off from the Church, whether it is synodically condemned or not synodically condemned but obviously contrary to the Orthodox Faith. Since heretics are cut off from the Church by the very fact of being heretics, even if this is not immediately recognised by the other local Churches, they are graceless. How then can the baptisms of Arians be anything but washings with ordinary water? Since heretics are cut off from the Church by the very fact of being heretics, how can we speak of Arianism as a "heresy 'within' the Church' "? It may seem to be within the Church, but it couldn't be farther outside.
Since the rolling battles between Farrington and Linus7 last year at OC.n, I've learned a bit about the Church of Georgia and it's 150 years of 'monophytism' until after the 5th Council I find it interesting that their local saints were accommodated as you describe - thanks for the info. I do wonder that you would criticize this given an almost identical local saint problem between our communions now. At least we've a precedent to resolve the present issue - if....
I'm not criticising the fact that your Church recognises Saint David of Garej and other "Oriental Orthodox" saints. I am not even criticising my own Church for recognising Saint Isaac of Nineveh and maybe some Arian or Arianesque saints. I question the strict interpretation of things I see here. If what is said here about heresy and its effects is correct, then one has to deal with certain logical problems when confronted with particular saints. I do not know enough to settle this matter for myself (I am pulled in different directions when I consider different parts of the problem), and would like to know how you would settle it, and see if that kind of solution is something I could agree with.
