Hey, excuse my red face... my scarf is on too tight.

Anastasios · Post by **Anastasios** » Sat 9 October 2004 1:02 am

Joasia,

As Mor Ephrem pointed out, the so-called Monophysites most certainly DO teach that Jesus is God. What is disputed is whether they attribute to Christ a HUMAN nature.

Anastasios

Mor Ephrem · Post by **Mor Ephrem** » Sat 9 October 2004 9:45 am

Dear Joasia,

Since I agree with you that this conversation is going nowhere, this will be my last post.

Joasia wrote:
But, where does Orthodoxy originate from? The Creed. It's the blueprint of Orthodoxy, or original Christianity, to be more specific.

But, as you said previously: Lots of people with different views of who is Orthodox and who is not, and what Orthodoxy is and what it is not...who is right? I'm sure I'd get a lot of different answers to that.

So where do you turn to for the full truth? The original source...

Orthodoxy existed before the Creed. The Creed is not the source of Orthodoxy. The Creed is an expression thereof.

This comment is totally lost to me. How else do you determine whether a group is following their own innovations, if you don't look to the original source?

You're right, but I disagree that the Creed is the original source. The faith of the Orthodox Church is the source.

I never said that. Read my thread called My conversion. You must have me mixed up with someone else. Mistakes happen. I have made some here too.

I don't have time now to read that thread, but I am sorry for the misunderstanding.

Your priest should know that answer. It's part of liturgy. But, what's your point?

We don't use the Byzantine rite, so my priest probably wouldn't know.

The Monophysites don't believe that Jesus is God...it's stated in the Creed.

No where do I see anything about Monophysites stated in the Creed. If you do some basic reading on Monophysitism (say, in any of the major English language encyclopaedias), you'll see that you are wrong on this. Monophysites, as Anatasios writes, believe that Christ is God. They dispute human nature in Christ.

That's not what I said. I said that they don't ADHERE to the Creed, which makes their teachings heretical. Don't twist this around, Mor.

Adherence to the Creed is one thing, and on that I agree with you. Nestorians do not adhere to the Creed. Yet, they confess it without change. How is that possible? Are Nestorians not rational? Or do they interpret the same words differently? In their minds, they DO adhere to the Creed, as in our minds WE adhere to the Creed--and we have different conclusions. The Creed cannot be the only thing that determines Orthodoxy. Luther and the Pope had the same text of Romans, and interpreted it differently. Merely saying that Romans is the word of God doesn't help--who has the right understanding and on what basis?

Well, the RC have, we know that. But, all the other heretical divisions don't agree on all the points or add to it. Their confession doesn't follow the Creed.

As it is formulated, I don't know where Protestantism would deny any tenet of the Creed.

First of all, it's the original confession of Christianity. Second...
And in One Lord, Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all ages. Light of Light, True God of True God, begotten, not of one Essence with the Father, through Whom all was made.

That still doesn't say how many "Persons" there are in Christ, or how many "Natures" are in Him. And it is precisely on those questions that various schisms arose.

the ever-virginity of Our Lady, six of the sacraments, the proper role of the Scriptures in the Church, Holy Tradition, the veneration of saints, efficacious intercessory prayer for the departed, etc.

Yes, the rest came with time. By the way, there are 7 sacraments(Holy Mysteries). But, I'm talking about the essential faith of the foundation of Christianity. If you don't have that, you can't go on to the next level.

I am probably misreading you, but I hope this does not mean that you think the "rest" were later developments, "man-made traditions" introduced into the Church. You are right in saying that the Creed is a basic exposition of the Christian faith. However, "the next level" is just as important, it is not less important because it is not present in the Creed, hence my belief that it is the Orthodox faith, and not this or that expression of it, that is the most important.

And yes, I know there are seven sacraments. However, only one is mentioned in the Creed.

May God bless you.

joasia · Post by **joasia** » Sat 9 October 2004 10:27 am

As Mor Ephrem pointed out, the so-called Monophysites most certainly DO teach that Jesus is God. What is disputed is whether they attribute to Christ a HUMAN nature.

"And was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and of the Vigin Mary and became MAN"

Mor,

As to the comment about the GOC, that you said that I am... I get so confused with the iniatials used. Sorry for the confusion. I thought you were talking about the Greek new calendarists. There's also a church St. Markella with them. I wasn't sure if they were in Astoria too.

But it's OK for you to say the exact same thing we say, and you are not anathematised, but we are. But that's besides the point.

So the Monophysites, Coptics (right?) say the whole Creed, as is, but aren't sure about one point? And the Nestorians too. That doesn't make sense.

Nestorians have not changed this article of the Creed, yet they have come to believe an un-Orthodox teaching. How is that? Is it really possible to believe one thing while verbally confessing something quite obviously the opposite of that belief? I don't think this is possible (someone should've figured it out by now) unless they, while not having changed the letter of the Creed, interpret its articles differently.

Well, shouldn't this comment apply to the Monophysites too?

Let me put it another way...all these other Christian denominations say the Creed in Church, BUT question one point here, another point there. So they teach something else. The Monophysites ignore one part of the Creed...the MAN part. The Nestorians talk about something that happened after the Birth which is not mentioned in the Creed, I agree. But, I think Nestorians have more issues than that.

Orthodoxy existed before the Creed. The Creed is not the source of Orthodoxy. The Creed is an expression thereof.

And if it is an expression thereof, wouldn't they put all the MAJOR points of their expression of Orthodoxy? It was the first time that they established their expression of Orthodoxy, officially, because of the heresies around them. They had the First Ecumenical Council to all agree on which points are to be considered the Orthodox confession. Only time tells whether a certain group start preaching something else. Then we can look back to the first official document to see...then we say...hey, the Monophysites teach that God has only one nature, God, but look here...doesn't it show Him as being born Man? And if there is a question of both natures not being expressed, then we look to the part that says God of God...of One Essence with the Father and ...became Man. As the source, I meant a point in time where we can go back to see all the points of Orthodox confession.

There's also the part about Christ existing before He was born as Man, for those that argue that point(I don't know which group).

...begotten of the Father BEFORE ALL AGES.

I called the Creed the origin of the original Christian faith(which we call Orthdox) because it is the outcome of the Christian(Orthdox) belief. Just as the Bible is the expression of Christ's teaching which were passed down and compiled, officially. If someone teaches reincarnation in Church, we can look in the Bible and show that Christ taught about living one life. But, I don't want to go into the Bible. That's not my point.

This will be my last post too.

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Sat 9 October 2004 12:04 pm

Joasia

If I recall correctly, you said in the past that at one time you were affiliated with the GOC of Greece (centred, in America, at Saint Markella's in Astoria).

I never said that.

You didn't? About 4 months ago, when you first started posting on the forum...?

Anastasios · Post by **Anastasios** » Sat 9 October 2004 7:04 pm

It's obvious that the Creed alone is not the sole criteria of Orthodoxy at this point. That's obvious because converts no longer are required to receite just the Creed but must renounce all heresies by name and must confess faith in the 7 Ecumenical Councils, etc.

I think the fullest confessions of faith are the 3 that Bishops must confess in order to be ordained. Those 3 confessions are what is required belief of all Orthodox.

Anastasios

Anastasios · Post by **Anastasios** » Sat 9 October 2004 7:06 pm

As Mor Ephrem pointed out, the so-called Monophysites most certainly DO teach that Jesus is God. What is disputed is whether they attribute to Christ a HUMAN nature.

"And was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and of the Vigin Mary and became MAN"

I'm sorry, I just don't understand how quoting one line from the Creed supposedly proves the point. What I said was that "what is disputed is whether THEY attribute to Christ a human nature." They of course confess that Christ became man. The issue is whether they attribute to him the fullness of humanity. No mainstream Christian, be he Orthodox, Catholic, etc., denies this point.

Anastasios