/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>762247

their theology hasn't developed that far

>>762268

I find that very hard to believe. For about 1500 years, they had no theological development in the way that Catholics and Orthodox did? They split after Augustine, so presumably there was some exposure to him and his ideas.

>>762361

You have to remember that they live in small communities and in very though conditions.

Most of them don't even know they're original heresies.

I don't know look at the church of East and they say they aren't nestorians (and that even Nestorius wasn't a nestorian) that's why we got several of them as Eastern catholics.

Its a petty I'd like to see some of their theological traditions.

>>762247

well i'm suree they've had some development but mostly in reaction to chalcedonianism it seems. Formal palamism or scholasticism is foreign to them, imagine eastern orthodoxy but the controversy with Barlaam never happened or catholicism without scholasticism.

They never developed a equivalent theology since they never had to react to a controversy like eastern orthodoxy with 'barlaamism' or have a unifying authoritative figure to ratify councils and bind people to developed doctrines with relative ease.

>>762375

That's because Nestorius actually didn't hold the heresy that he was accused of. His Bazaar survives, read it, he considered Chalcedon the triumph of the orthodox faith. We aren't Nestorian because we don't get our christology from Nestorius, we get it from Theodore of Mopsuestia. Our theology isn't undeveloped, translations of East Syriac writings to English are just lacking.

>>762380

>Our theology isn't undeveloped, translations of East Syriac writings to English are just lacking.

This is what I thought would be the case. After all, it is only rather recently that dialogue has been opened.

>>762380

I had to read them, but wasn't based on the letters of Nestorius that St. Cyril and the church excommunicated him?

And do you guys then hold that Mary is truly the mother of God?

>>762409

We say Mary is the Mother of Christ (emeh d'mshikha), who is God and man. A lot of people think this means we deny that Christ is truly God, but this is not the case any more than Mother of God denies Christ is truly human. In fact, both "mother of God" and "mother of the man" are anathema in the Church of the East because they only speak about one of Christ's natures and not the one united Son who is in two natures. Christ is begotten by the Father in his divinity, and by Mary in his humanity, and Mother of Christ avoids mixing Christ's natures when they are actually distinct, coming together in one person.

Here is a quote from St Nestorius in his third epistle to Pope Celestine:

"In the case of the term Theotokos, I am not opposed to those who want to say it, unless it should advance to the confusion of natures in the manner of the madness of Apollinaris or Arius. Nonetheless, I have no doubt that the term Theotokos is inferior to the term Christotokos, as the latter is mentioned by the angels and the gospels."

>>762474

Since Jesus Christ is one person and Jesus Christ is God Almighty, its because of his incarnation as a Man that Mary can be called Mother of God.

We do not mean that she is the mother of the "divine side" of Christ, because God is uncreated and the Word proceeds eternally only from the Father.

But since Christ is God and Mary is the Mother of Christ since He came in the flesh as Man she is rightfully the Mother of God since God Himself came to this world from her womb.

I have no objection to the name Christotokos, but you guys should realise that the title Mother of God is an orthodox title, even if you guys prefer not to use it according to your eccleasiastic traditions.

>>762483

We do realize this, and we do not object to your preference. I'm just explaining how we view it and why we say Mother of Christ instead.

>>762495

OK brother, I can only hope one day we can be one again.

>>762380

>That's because Nestorius actually didn't hold the heresy that he was accused of.

Even to this day all orientals claim to be orthodox and falsely accused in heresy. But if this is so, then why don't they accept the dogmatic definitions of Ephesus and Chalcedon?

>>762874

Interesting indeed. If they aren't nestorians what stops them from accepting the Councils?