A curious kid was reading the lives of the saints and giving his dad a theological headache. Now the boundaries that seemed so obvious, don't seem quite so clear...
One of my favorite YouTube channels is Coptic Orthodox Answers, original called Orthodox Answers.
I have learnt more about my Orthodox Faith from the two Priests, Father John and Father Anthony than anywhere else since I converted in 2003.
As Eastern Orthodox we need to look to the east to unite; not to the heretical west, who believe in the immaculate conception of the Theotokos, the Patriarch of Rome is infallible, and other heretical things.
We embrace Orthodoxy and its teachings, standing firm against the world's logic that supports narratives like Darwinism and other false historical methods. Instead of seeking truth and withholding judgment, you've clouded the issue for the faithful with an emotional fictional dialogue between a father and son. Your clickbait title misrepresents the martyrs' stand as against Chalcedon rather than the Judaism of their persecutors. Big loss.
I agree that we should oppose Darwinism. And I agree that we should oppose Judaism. That's why two days before the present article was released, I published an article titled, "The Day 4300 Saints Told a Jewish King 'No'". As for Chalcedon, the issue has not been clouded. On the contrary, this article has brought clarity to readers. Previously, many readers may have been under the false impression that the Orthodox Church only ever canonizes saints who agreed with Chalcedon. But with the historical evidence presented in this article, readers are now able to understand that the Orthodox Church's calendar of saints is broader than some people may have otherwise realized.
I understand what is being said, but I can't grasp as to why they are celebrated? If they weren't in communion with the church, as they were miaphysties, how can they be believed to be in paradise and be called Saints? How come that all other miaphysite, Roman Catholic martyrs aren't venerated in the Orthodox Church?
These saints aren't completely unique. There are other Orthodox saints with stories that are similar in this regard. As time permits, hopefully I can share their stories here in more detail.
I understand that they are celebrated, but I'm just wondering as to why? Or more so , how? But after all if the Church has been doing this for some time, and it's seems to me it has, then who am I to question this. Just wondering however.
You might want to read the refutation of this idea in Orthodox Ethos blog, by an Athonite hieromonk. The gist of the blog is that no, these martyrs were NOT monophysites/miaphysites. The hieromonk bases this on the historical record of contemporary political and ecclesiastical events. It's a short read but should answer your questions.
The "refutation" article published on Orthodox Ethos is very misleading, untrue, and contains a number of inaccurate statements and false claims. The actual historical record shows that St. Caleb (Elesbaan) was non-Chalcedonian, and the Christians living in Najran were likewise non-Chalcedonian. I'm currently working on an article in response to Orthodox Ethos, pointing out their historical errors.
This was before the 5th council so there was likely still tangential communion between them and the Orthodox communion. It was likely fully severed after the 5th council and most certainly after the 6th when it was clear these Monophysites dogmatically affirmed monothelitism and monoenergism
They are Miaphysites, not Monophysites. They explicitly reject Monophysite theology. As for those who considered Chalcedon to be authoritative, communion was cut off immediately. The 4th Council anathematized anyone who disagreed with the Definition of Chalcedon. Here is a quote from the acts of the Council itself: "For the council... anathematizes those who invent two natures of the Lord before the union and imagine one nature after the union. Following, therefore, the holy fathers, we all in harmony teach confession of... the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation... the holy and ecumenical council has decreed that no one is allowed to produce or compose or construct another creed or to think or teach otherwise. As for those who presume either to construct another creed or to publish or teach or deliver another symbol to those wishing to convert to the knowledge of the truth from paganism or Judaism or from any heresy whatsoever, the council decrees that, if they are bishops or clerics, they are to be deposed, bishops from the episcopate and clerics from the clerical state, while, if they are monks or laymen, they are to be anathematized." --- So, after the year 451, if anyone stayed in communion with non-Chalcedonians, then they were disregarding the Council of Chalcedon. --- That leaves us with at least 2 choices: (1) The Council of Chalcedon was definitive, and therefore after the year 451 all non-Chalcedonians were outside the Church. -or- (2) The Council of Chalcedon was not definitive, and thus some additional efforts had to be taken at some later date, to make it so that one side (or the other) finally found itself outside the Church. --- It's not possible to have it both ways.
I believe Craig Truglia argues in his articles that there wasn’t a full-fledged break in communion til the 600s, and that the actual issue was the setting up of a different church structure altogether.
The Council of Chalcedon itself, in the year 451, officially anathematized, deposed, and excommunicated those who were non-Chalcedonian. So if anyone after the year 451 remained in communion with non-Chalcedonians, that suggests that they weren't taking Chalcedon very seriously. -- It is true that the Chalcedonians eventually setup a different church structure altogether. Alexandria already had a validly elected patriarch. In the year 536, the (Chalcedonian) emperor called a local council, and under imperial pressure these bishops presumed to depose the Alexandrian Patriarch, even though the bishops themselves were almost entirely non-Alexandrian. To draw a modern analogy, it would be like getting all the Greek Orthodox bishops together, in order to depose Patriarch Kirill from the Russian Orthodox Church. This was a political move by the emperor, in order to install a Chalcedonian patriarch in Alexandria by imperial force. Not surprisingly, over 90% of the Alexandrian clergy and faithful refused to accept such interference in their patriarchate. They continued to recognize the patriarch they already had. They did not accept the new parallel church structure created by the emperor.
Glory to Jesus Christ!
One of my favorite YouTube channels is Coptic Orthodox Answers, original called Orthodox Answers.
I have learnt more about my Orthodox Faith from the two Priests, Father John and Father Anthony than anywhere else since I converted in 2003.
As Eastern Orthodox we need to look to the east to unite; not to the heretical west, who believe in the immaculate conception of the Theotokos, the Patriarch of Rome is infallible, and other heretical things.
May the Lord grant wisdom to our Patriarchs.
We embrace Orthodoxy and its teachings, standing firm against the world's logic that supports narratives like Darwinism and other false historical methods. Instead of seeking truth and withholding judgment, you've clouded the issue for the faithful with an emotional fictional dialogue between a father and son. Your clickbait title misrepresents the martyrs' stand as against Chalcedon rather than the Judaism of their persecutors. Big loss.
I agree that we should oppose Darwinism. And I agree that we should oppose Judaism. That's why two days before the present article was released, I published an article titled, "The Day 4300 Saints Told a Jewish King 'No'". As for Chalcedon, the issue has not been clouded. On the contrary, this article has brought clarity to readers. Previously, many readers may have been under the false impression that the Orthodox Church only ever canonizes saints who agreed with Chalcedon. But with the historical evidence presented in this article, readers are now able to understand that the Orthodox Church's calendar of saints is broader than some people may have otherwise realized.
https://movingtorussia.substack.com/p/the-day-4300-saints-told-a-jewish
I understand what is being said, but I can't grasp as to why they are celebrated? If they weren't in communion with the church, as they were miaphysties, how can they be believed to be in paradise and be called Saints? How come that all other miaphysite, Roman Catholic martyrs aren't venerated in the Orthodox Church?
These saints aren't completely unique. There are other Orthodox saints with stories that are similar in this regard. As time permits, hopefully I can share their stories here in more detail.
I understand that they are celebrated, but I'm just wondering as to why? Or more so , how? But after all if the Church has been doing this for some time, and it's seems to me it has, then who am I to question this. Just wondering however.
You might want to read the refutation of this idea in Orthodox Ethos blog, by an Athonite hieromonk. The gist of the blog is that no, these martyrs were NOT monophysites/miaphysites. The hieromonk bases this on the historical record of contemporary political and ecclesiastical events. It's a short read but should answer your questions.
The "refutation" article published on Orthodox Ethos is very misleading, untrue, and contains a number of inaccurate statements and false claims. The actual historical record shows that St. Caleb (Elesbaan) was non-Chalcedonian, and the Christians living in Najran were likewise non-Chalcedonian. I'm currently working on an article in response to Orthodox Ethos, pointing out their historical errors.
*miaphysites*
This was before the 5th council so there was likely still tangential communion between them and the Orthodox communion. It was likely fully severed after the 5th council and most certainly after the 6th when it was clear these Monophysites dogmatically affirmed monothelitism and monoenergism
They are Miaphysites, not Monophysites. They explicitly reject Monophysite theology. As for those who considered Chalcedon to be authoritative, communion was cut off immediately. The 4th Council anathematized anyone who disagreed with the Definition of Chalcedon. Here is a quote from the acts of the Council itself: "For the council... anathematizes those who invent two natures of the Lord before the union and imagine one nature after the union. Following, therefore, the holy fathers, we all in harmony teach confession of... the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation... the holy and ecumenical council has decreed that no one is allowed to produce or compose or construct another creed or to think or teach otherwise. As for those who presume either to construct another creed or to publish or teach or deliver another symbol to those wishing to convert to the knowledge of the truth from paganism or Judaism or from any heresy whatsoever, the council decrees that, if they are bishops or clerics, they are to be deposed, bishops from the episcopate and clerics from the clerical state, while, if they are monks or laymen, they are to be anathematized." --- So, after the year 451, if anyone stayed in communion with non-Chalcedonians, then they were disregarding the Council of Chalcedon. --- That leaves us with at least 2 choices: (1) The Council of Chalcedon was definitive, and therefore after the year 451 all non-Chalcedonians were outside the Church. -or- (2) The Council of Chalcedon was not definitive, and thus some additional efforts had to be taken at some later date, to make it so that one side (or the other) finally found itself outside the Church. --- It's not possible to have it both ways.
I believe Craig Truglia argues in his articles that there wasn’t a full-fledged break in communion til the 600s, and that the actual issue was the setting up of a different church structure altogether.
The Council of Chalcedon itself, in the year 451, officially anathematized, deposed, and excommunicated those who were non-Chalcedonian. So if anyone after the year 451 remained in communion with non-Chalcedonians, that suggests that they weren't taking Chalcedon very seriously. -- It is true that the Chalcedonians eventually setup a different church structure altogether. Alexandria already had a validly elected patriarch. In the year 536, the (Chalcedonian) emperor called a local council, and under imperial pressure these bishops presumed to depose the Alexandrian Patriarch, even though the bishops themselves were almost entirely non-Alexandrian. To draw a modern analogy, it would be like getting all the Greek Orthodox bishops together, in order to depose Patriarch Kirill from the Russian Orthodox Church. This was a political move by the emperor, in order to install a Chalcedonian patriarch in Alexandria by imperial force. Not surprisingly, over 90% of the Alexandrian clergy and faithful refused to accept such interference in their patriarchate. They continued to recognize the patriarch they already had. They did not accept the new parallel church structure created by the emperor.