Very clear explanations on the history of traditional historic churches. But one thing is obvious now that even though there is a potential for the unity of Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, I don't think there will be any potential for the unity of the west (Roman Catholic) with the Eastern Orthodox churches including Orientals because Roman Catholic is drifting away from church traditional teachings in this Day N age. For instance, their pope allowing a blessings of same sex couples recently. This is being seen by both Eastern and Orientals as heretics to the extreme.
@@civiliseddisobedience3096 A capitulation to Satanic influence. He should have counseled them to repent and embrace Christ and his mercy and forgiveness.
And while they disputed about terminology, Islam took control of the Christian Middle East..... seems to me that that lesson hasn’t been fully understand.
As an example, one history that I read was when the Ottoman Empire invading Egypt, in the 9th or 10th centuries, the Roman Empire under the influence of Eastern Orthodox includes the Catholics were doing nothing on helping the Coptic due to divisions among the Christians on arguing on terminology, and then history told us Islam took control of the Christian Egypt. Very sad history!!
Dr. Sebastian Brock is a very devout and practicing Anglican. His wife Helen is Catholic. I know this because I was one of his students at Oxford University.
4/41 Do not use Jacobite/Monophysite on one extreme or Nestorian on other extreme Instead use 20years old invented word Miaphysite for Monophysite One Nature while Chalcedon is Two Natures/Diaphysite Nestorian church rejects 431AD Ephesus but not Oriental/Monophysites who reject 4th Council 451 AD Two Ambiguous terms Physus/and Hypostasis have caused terrible confusion so much so that Emperor Zeno 482 Henoticon omits both 9/33 Irony of Emperor Justinian Libelli Certificates imposing Chalcedon when he could not convert his own wife to Chalcedon After this imposition stance of Anti Chalcedon hardens and Rise of Islam not long after Ensures Divided Church remains permanent EK and EN/ ONE LETTER difference similar to Homousios and Homoiousios of earlier Arian debates Conception emphasized by Miaphysites versus Ascencion Emphasized by Chalcedon video 15/05 Not clear why modern view insists on both whereas Historical view was either /or Only by Tenth/Eleventh Century proportion of Christian to Muslim changes with latter becoming more than former/tables turned
As a nonprofessional, I think the reputed Syriac research scholar Dr. Sebastian Brock has not done his paper in-depth. He ignored or unaware of many important aspects of the theological and historical dialogues that took place in the second half of the 20th century which, promoted the conciliar unity among the divided churches. The Indian Theologian late Rev. Dr. V. C. Samuel (1912-98) has played a unique and pioneering role in making the ancient Alexandrian and Antiochene Christologiies intelligible as well as acceptable to both the Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian Churches. Most of the modern thinkers and leaders who came later into the debate about the Person of Christ owe their basic insights to his outstanding research work at Yale University and its outcome. Please note a few of the testimonies of the eminent ecumenical leaders and scholars. “Father V.C. Samuel's paper on "One Incarnate Nature of God the Word" affirmed that phrase from Cyril of Alexandria (444 A.D.) as "a most crucial linguistic tool to conserve the Church's faith in the Person of Jesus Christ". It made very clear to the leading Byzantine theologians present like Johannes Karmiris, John Meyendorff, George Florovsky, John Romanides, Nikos Nissiotis, George Konidaris, and Vitaly Borovoy that the Oriental Orthodox agreed with the Byzantine Orthodox. It was Father V.C. Samuel's paper, which convinced them. There were other dignitaries present, like the present Syrian Patriarch of Antioch (Ignatius Zakka I was) and the present Armenian Catholicos of Antelias (Karekin II); it is no exaggeration to say, however, that there was no one on the Oriental Orthodox side who could convince the Byzantine theologians on the basis of historical scholarship that there was no essential disagreement between the Byzantines and the Orientals on the substance of Christological teaching. I had the great privilege of organizing, along with the late Nikos Nissiotis, that first unofficial theological conversation.” Paulose Mar Gregorios Presidents of WCC. “The Council of Chalcedon in 451 presented by no means a conclusion to the Christological problems raised at the end of the 4th century in Apollinaris’ attempt at explaining the relation between logos and the man Jesus. The negative propositions promulgated by the council at best determined the territory within which positive statements about the one person of Jesus Christ could be made. The statement of both the Alexandrian and the Antiochian Schools in reaching such positive affirmation was not met by the decisions of 451. Here a double question arises: (1) has the formula of 451 made concessions to the Nestorians (based perhaps on implicit permissions in the Tome of Leo)? And (2) has the insight into the hypostatic union-prefigured and supported by Cyril - been obscured by the Council of Chalcedon? The Orthodox critics of Chalcedon answered both these questions in the affirmative. The non-Chalcedonian tradition of the ancient Orthodox Church (not, of course, including the Nestorians) is based upon the Trinitarian theology of the councils of 325 and 381, on Cyril’s Second and Third Letters to Nestorius (including the 12 anathemas), and it accepts the Henotikon of 482 as Orthodox. Severus of Antioch (d. 538) is claimed an important witness. Prof. V.C. Samuel’s theological works ‘The Council of Chalcedon Reexamined: A Historical and Theological Survey’ is a major contribution towards clarifying the complex developments during and after the council of Chalcedon. In addition, his work is not only historical and analytic but theological and constructive. Fr. Samuel bases significant theological propositions and positions on his penetrating analysis into the reasons and logical conditions for the 5th, 6th, and 7th centuries. We the Western Church are profoundly grateful for such interpretative and constructive work. The tension between Severus and John the Grammarian is regrettable. Moreover, the intention behind the “One Incarnate Nature of God the Word” and the Enhypostasis of the neo-Chalcedonians is of such subtle dimensions that western theology can only wish to learn from both, Severus and neo-Chalcedonians. Some western authors have drawn attention to the enormous theological and epistemological implications of a Christology, which is based ultimately, on Cyril and on the Trinitarian theology of the 4th century, notably Athanasius. It was above all Professor T.F. Torrance who has attempted to show that here lay the promising beginnings of theology (or philosophy of science) which can overcome dualism. His thesis is that these theologians of the incarnation have produced insight into the fallacy of cosmological and philosophical dualism that has only been fully unmasked in 20th-century physics. Thus, the all-embracing effect of the Incarnation not only permits thoughts such as H. Stickelberger maintains K. Barth had found helpful in combating the anthropological idea of autonomous powers or authorities. It also permits new and most helpful concepts concerning the ultimate reconciliation between forces and entities formerly thought of as being dualistically opposed to each other. I am not sure whether T.F. Torrance can rightly claim to find direct explications of such helpful theories in Cyril and the fathers who followed him. But it does seem to me that the non-Chalcedonians, in particular, hold some treasures which we are yet to discover. Fr. Samuel’s life-long scholarly work is a tremendous contribution toward such discovery. His publications are of great ecumenical importance with respect to the relation between the ancient Orthodox Churches and the Chalcedonians. And the Western Churches can learn directly from this constructive discourse. Patristic scholarship can learn to re-assess movements traditionally labeled “monophysite”. Moreover, theology in East and West can take up the challenge and re-visit genuine Incarnation -theologies of the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries in order to equip itself with powerful instruments for overcoming dualistic concepts in cosmology, anthropology and in political ethics.” Prof. Dietrich Ritschl, Prof Heidelberg University. .... contd More www.frvcs.in
In reference to Indian matterrs, he said “not to complicate matters, I won’t go into that”; presumably it is for similar reasons that he did not mention what you recount? My impression is that he is very much in touch with Indian developments. I like Sarah Coakley’s championing of Chalcedon as clearing a space of thought by the four negative adverbs, and Sebastian Brock’s sympathy with the Henotikon goes in the same direction. No sure why “the promising beginnings of theology (or philosophy of science) which can overcome dualism” should be a relevant consideration in Severus’s dislike of talk of two natures in Christ. “Truly man, truly God” seems to entail an ineradicable concrete duality that makes Leo and Nestorius perpetually relevant and leaves a wide space for thought that Chalcedon defended. How do Athanasius, Cyril, and Severus produce “insight into the fallacy of cosmological and philosophical dualism that has only been fully unmasked in 20th-century physics.” Isn’t this a metabasis eis allo genos? Ritschl iseems dubious about the Torrance way of thinking here, but he ends up swinging behind it: “to equip itself with powerful instruments for overcoming dualistic concepts in cosmology, anthropology and in political ethics.” It would be nice if the Christological debates dismissed for centuries as “Byzantinism” were to turn out to have such philosophical importance (as Johannes Zachhuber argues on a different front), but I suspect this is a vain hope,
Dr Brock has a very scholarly presentation. We Learn a lot about the variety of Christianities of the late classical and early medieval Middle East.
Very clear explanations on the history of traditional historic churches. But one thing is obvious now that even though there is a potential for the unity of Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, I don't think there will be any potential for the unity of the west (Roman Catholic) with the Eastern Orthodox churches including Orientals because Roman Catholic is drifting away from church traditional teachings in this Day N age. For instance, their pope allowing a blessings of same sex couples recently. This is being seen by both Eastern and Orientals as heretics to the extreme.
it is not the case that he blessed their 'coupledom' he blessed the individuals
@@civiliseddisobedience3096 A capitulation to Satanic influence. He should have counseled them to repent and embrace Christ and his mercy and forgiveness.
And while they disputed about terminology, Islam took control of the Christian Middle East..... seems to me that that lesson hasn’t been fully understand.
As an example, one history that I read was when the Ottoman Empire invading Egypt, in the 9th or 10th centuries, the Roman Empire under the influence of Eastern Orthodox includes the Catholics were doing nothing on helping the Coptic due to divisions among the Christians on arguing on terminology, and then history told us Islam took control of the Christian Egypt. Very sad history!!
Is Brock catholic?
No. He is Oriental Orthodox.
@@101caliber Thanks for the reply. Do you know if he is a convert?
@@MrSofuskroghlarsen I don't know. It could be a possibility as I assume Oriental Orthodoxy does not have a large presence in the UK.
Dr. Sebastian Brock is a very devout and practicing Anglican. His wife Helen is Catholic. I know this because I was one of his students at Oxford University.
@@ttv2103 Thank you friend
4/41 Do not use Jacobite/Monophysite on one extreme or Nestorian on other extreme
Instead use 20years old invented word Miaphysite for Monophysite One Nature while Chalcedon is Two Natures/Diaphysite
Nestorian church rejects 431AD Ephesus but not Oriental/Monophysites who reject 4th Council 451 AD
Two Ambiguous terms Physus/and Hypostasis have caused terrible confusion
so much so that Emperor Zeno 482 Henoticon omits both
9/33 Irony of Emperor Justinian Libelli Certificates imposing Chalcedon when he could not convert his own wife to Chalcedon
After this imposition stance of Anti Chalcedon hardens and Rise of Islam not long after Ensures Divided Church remains permanent
EK and EN/ ONE LETTER difference similar to Homousios and Homoiousios of earlier Arian debates
Conception emphasized by Miaphysites versus Ascencion Emphasized by Chalcedon video 15/05
Not clear why modern view insists on both whereas Historical view was either /or
Only by Tenth/Eleventh Century proportion of Christian to Muslim changes with latter becoming more than former/tables turned
Indispensable.
As a nonprofessional, I think the reputed Syriac research scholar Dr. Sebastian Brock has not done his paper in-depth. He ignored or unaware of many important aspects of the theological and historical dialogues that took place in the second half of the 20th century which, promoted the conciliar unity among the divided churches.
The Indian Theologian late Rev. Dr. V. C. Samuel (1912-98) has played a unique and pioneering role in making the ancient Alexandrian and Antiochene Christologiies intelligible as well as acceptable to both the Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian Churches. Most of the modern thinkers and leaders who came later into the debate about the Person of Christ owe their basic insights to his outstanding research work at Yale University and its outcome. Please note a few of the testimonies of the eminent ecumenical leaders and scholars.
“Father V.C. Samuel's paper on "One Incarnate Nature of God the Word" affirmed that phrase from Cyril of Alexandria (444 A.D.) as "a most crucial linguistic tool to conserve the Church's faith in the Person of Jesus Christ". It made very clear to the leading Byzantine theologians present like Johannes Karmiris, John Meyendorff, George Florovsky, John Romanides, Nikos Nissiotis, George Konidaris, and Vitaly Borovoy that the Oriental Orthodox agreed with the Byzantine Orthodox. It was Father V.C. Samuel's paper, which convinced them. There were other dignitaries present, like the present Syrian Patriarch of Antioch (Ignatius Zakka I was) and the present Armenian Catholicos of Antelias (Karekin II); it is no exaggeration to say, however, that there was no one on the Oriental Orthodox side who could convince the Byzantine theologians on the basis of historical scholarship that there was no essential disagreement between the Byzantines and the Orientals on the substance of Christological teaching. I had the great privilege of organizing, along with the late Nikos Nissiotis, that first unofficial theological conversation.”
Paulose Mar Gregorios Presidents of WCC.
“The Council of Chalcedon in 451 presented by no means a conclusion to the Christological problems raised at the end of the 4th century in Apollinaris’ attempt at explaining the relation between logos and the man Jesus. The negative propositions promulgated by the council at best determined the territory within which positive statements about the one person of Jesus Christ could be made. The statement of both the Alexandrian and the Antiochian Schools in reaching such positive affirmation was not met by the decisions of 451. Here a double question arises: (1) has the formula of 451 made concessions to the Nestorians (based perhaps on implicit permissions in the Tome of Leo)? And (2) has the insight into the hypostatic union-prefigured and supported by Cyril - been obscured by the Council of Chalcedon?
The Orthodox critics of Chalcedon answered both these questions in the affirmative. The non-Chalcedonian tradition of the ancient Orthodox Church (not, of course, including the Nestorians) is based upon the Trinitarian theology of the councils of 325 and 381, on Cyril’s Second and Third Letters to Nestorius (including the 12 anathemas), and it accepts the Henotikon of 482 as Orthodox. Severus of Antioch (d. 538) is claimed an important witness. Prof. V.C. Samuel’s theological works ‘The Council of Chalcedon Reexamined: A Historical and Theological Survey’ is a major contribution towards clarifying the complex developments during and after the council of Chalcedon. In addition, his work is not only historical and analytic but theological and constructive. Fr. Samuel bases significant theological propositions and positions on his penetrating analysis into the reasons and logical conditions for the 5th, 6th, and 7th centuries. We the Western Church are profoundly grateful for such interpretative and constructive work.
The tension between Severus and John the Grammarian is regrettable. Moreover, the intention behind the “One Incarnate Nature of God the Word” and the Enhypostasis of the neo-Chalcedonians is of such subtle dimensions that western theology can only wish to learn from both, Severus and neo-Chalcedonians. Some western authors have drawn attention to the enormous theological and epistemological implications of a Christology, which is based ultimately, on Cyril and on the Trinitarian theology of the 4th century, notably Athanasius. It was above all Professor T.F. Torrance who has attempted to show that here lay the promising beginnings of theology (or philosophy of science) which can overcome dualism. His thesis is that these theologians of the incarnation have produced insight into the fallacy of cosmological and philosophical dualism that has only been fully unmasked in 20th-century physics. Thus, the all-embracing effect of the Incarnation not only permits thoughts such as H. Stickelberger maintains K. Barth had found helpful in combating the anthropological idea of autonomous powers or authorities. It also permits new and most helpful concepts concerning the ultimate reconciliation between forces and entities formerly thought of as being dualistically opposed to each other. I am not sure whether T.F. Torrance can rightly claim to find direct explications of such helpful theories in Cyril and the fathers who followed him. But it does seem to me that the non-Chalcedonians, in particular, hold some treasures which we are yet to discover. Fr. Samuel’s life-long scholarly work is a tremendous contribution toward such discovery. His publications are of great ecumenical importance with respect to the relation between the ancient Orthodox Churches and the Chalcedonians. And the Western Churches can learn directly from this constructive discourse. Patristic scholarship can learn to re-assess movements traditionally labeled “monophysite”. Moreover, theology in East and West can take up the challenge and re-visit genuine Incarnation -theologies of the 4th, 5th, and 6th centuries in order to equip itself with powerful instruments for overcoming dualistic concepts in cosmology, anthropology and in political ethics.” Prof. Dietrich Ritschl, Prof Heidelberg University. .... contd
More www.frvcs.in
In reference to Indian matterrs, he said “not to complicate matters, I won’t go into that”; presumably it is for similar reasons that he did not mention what you recount? My impression is that he is very much in touch with Indian developments. I like Sarah Coakley’s championing of Chalcedon as clearing a space of thought by the four negative adverbs, and Sebastian Brock’s sympathy with the Henotikon goes in the same direction. No sure why “the promising beginnings of theology (or philosophy of science) which can overcome dualism” should be a relevant consideration in Severus’s dislike of talk of two natures in Christ. “Truly man, truly God” seems to entail an ineradicable concrete duality that makes Leo and Nestorius perpetually relevant and leaves a wide space for thought that Chalcedon defended. How do Athanasius, Cyril, and Severus produce “insight into the fallacy of cosmological and philosophical dualism that has only been fully unmasked in 20th-century physics.” Isn’t this a metabasis eis allo genos? Ritschl iseems dubious about the Torrance way of thinking here, but he ends up swinging behind it: “to equip itself with powerful instruments for overcoming dualistic concepts in cosmology, anthropology and in political ethics.” It would be nice if the Christological debates dismissed for centuries as “Byzantinism” were to turn out to have such philosophical importance (as Johannes Zachhuber argues on a different front), but I suspect this is a vain hope,