I would like to learn from Oriental Orthodox: (1) What still divides Catholic and Oriental Orthodox? Isnt the issue of Leos Tome in Greek translation already clarified with a better translation in his subsequent letter to the Palestinian monks in 453 as discussed in Wessels Oxford monograph? Isnt Cyril to his death refused to acknowledge Chrysostom in liturgical diptych whom he and his uncle deposed in 403? If Chrysostom can be exonerated posthumously Im failed to see why a similar situation cant be applied to the deposition of Dioscorus and Severus in 451 and 553. Canonically speaking both deposed could be exonerated posthumously. (2) If Orientals accept the indivisible and inseparable dual consubstantiality nature of Logos incarnate as defined in 451 and clarified in 553, what prevent the full communion with Catholic? The historical problem such as the Nestorian reading of initial Greek translation of Leos Tome I think cant be used because as acknowledged by both particular churches, the translation was clarified in 553. Where in 451 in the Tome Latin word natura was translated into Greek as physis which could be read falsely in Nestorian way. This was caused because Leo relied on Cassians treatise in Latin against Nestorius in which he used natura. After the council in 451, realizing that his terminology could be misread by Nestorians he immediately discarded Cassians natura and used substantia to designate physis as ousia which cant be read in Nestorian way when being translated in 453 for the Palestinian Monks. vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/anc-orient-ch-docs/rc_pc_christuni_doc_19730510_copti_en.html
Posted on: Fri, 05 Sep 2014 21:30:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015