#council of chalcedon | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

racefortheironthrone · 7 months

Note

How did all the heresies and theological arguments of the Late Roman Empire lead to "the Arab caliphates getting a decent navy and winning the Battle of the Masts"?

This is actually a fascinating story about the nature of the religious world and religious politics in the Late Roman and Byzantine Empires and the Rashidun Caliphate.

Because heresies and theological arguments tended to start at the level of bishops and patriarchs fighting with the bishops and patriarchs of other metropoles (and that filters out to which missionaries were sent where), there were strong regional variations as to which position was in the local majority.

Skipping over the Arian controversy because it's not relevant to the Battle of the Masts, Cyril of Alexandria was the leader of the Monophysite faction ("physis" meaning "nature," i.e Christ has one nature, which tracks with the Council of Nicaea's declaration that he had one "essence"), and his dyophysite (meaning two "natures") rivals were based out of Antioch - and Alexandria and thus Egypt became Monophysite. However, Constantinople and Anatolia were dyophysite and worked to make sure that the Second Council of Ephesus and the Council of Chalcedon declared monophysitism a heresy and dyophysitism as Orthodoxy, thus leading to the Chalcedonian Schism.

Following on from this, the emperors Justin II and Justinian I were Orthodox. Now, Justinian tried to end the Schism through the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, but this didn't really work and it remained state policy to persecute Monophysites. However, the empress Theodora was Monophysite and acted as patroness and political defender of Monophysites throughout the empire - which made her very popular in Egypt...and with the Greens in the Hippodrome, who were also Monophysites. Naturally, if the Greens were Monophysite, the Blues were Orthodox, because why not turn your sports rivalry into a religious rivalry and a pseudo-political party system? It's not called the Byzantine Empire because it's simple.

Even though Theodora was a Green, Justinian supported the Blues, which meant that no matter what your sports team or religious views or pseudo-partisanship you could support the imperial family. (Indeed, many historians think that the two at least somewhat arranged their religious and sports affiliations with this in mind.) This worked...up until the Nika riots ended up with Belisarius turning the Imperial army on the sports fans turned revolutionary rioters in the Hippodrome, leading to the deaths of as many as 30,000 people.

And so it went, with Alexandria tending to be the losers in the monoergism vs. dyoergism (does Christ have one "energy" or two?) debate, and the monolethitism vs. dyolethetism (does Christ have one "will" or two?) debate. Notably, these debates saw the Emperors of the time trying to get the Church to adopt a compromise (both monoergism and monothelitism were essentially an attempt by the Emperor Heraclius and his Patriarch to find a new theological formulation that the Alexandrians could live with while pointing urgently in the direction of first the Persians and then the Arabs) and failing due to religious partisans digging in their heels, or Emperors siding violently with one side or the other, ironically in the name of Imperial unity.

And this brings us to the Arab Conquest that gave birth to the Rashidun Caliphate. Now, the Christian population of Alexandria was not exactly thrilled about suddenly being ruled over by Muslim Arabs in 642...but in a genius stroke of enlightened self-interest, the Rashidun Caliphate adopted a policy whereby non-Muslim subjects (dhimmis) would be left alone in terms of religious matters as long as they paid their jizya taxes on non-Muslims (with the idea being to create a financial incentive to convert). While this wasn't the most popular, the Alexandrians realized that having to pay religious taxes and then getting left alone in peace and quiet to be Monophysite was a much better deal than having to pay Byzantine imperial taxes and getting religiously persecuted all the damn time.

This mattered geostrategically, because the Port of Alexandria was one of the largest ports in the Mediterranean, and thus had one of the largest shipyards and a lot of shipbuilders, and a hell of a lot of trained ex-Roman sailors and marines who were heavily Monophysite. These recently-unemployed sailors and marines were very happy to work for the Rashidun Caliphate, especially when the Caliphs started to shift resources into the navy to combat Byzantine dominance on the seas. Thus, only a few years after the Rashidun conquest of Egypt in 642, the Arab navy was suddenly able to fight on equal terms with the Byzantine navy - and then started kicking their ass.

This at last brings us to the Battle of the Masts in 655, where an Arab fleet (crewed mostly by Monophysite Egyptians) of 200 ships under the command of admiral Abu al-A'war came into contact with a Byzantine fleet of 500 ships led by the Emperor Constans II off the coast of Lycia...and smashed it to pieces. According to the historian al-Tabari, it was called the Battle of the Masts because there were rough seas and both fleets lashed themselves together to allow for marine boarding operations, so that soldiers were literally crossing from mast to mast. Constans II supposedly only managed to escape by changing uniforms with one of his subordinates as a disguise.

The defeat was so crippling that Constantinople was brought under siege for the first time by the Rashidun that same year, although that brief siege (the brevity of which is why historians refer to the siege of 674-678 as the "First Arab Siege of Constantinople") was unsuccessful due to a storm that sunk the Arab ships carrying the artillery and siege engines that the land army was counting on. Naturally, the Byzantines attributed this storm and the first Arab civil war that broke out in 655 (which bought the Byzantines some desperately-needed breathing room) to divine intervention.

Just to show how the past is always with us, I wanted to share a bit of a statement by the Coptic Orthodox Church of the Southern United States:

"The Coptic Orthodox Church was accused of being 'Monophysite' in the Council of Chalcedon. The term monophysite comes from two Greek words meaning "single nature". Monophysitism merged Christ's humanity into His divinity so that effectively it meant that in Christ there was only one single nature, a divine nature. This is NOT what the Coptic Orthodox believes. We believe that "Christ's divinity parted not from His humanity, not for a single moment nor a twinkling of an eye" and we recite this statement in every liturgy. As a result, we are Miaphysite and not Monophysite. Miaphysitism (one nature) means the Lord Jesus Christ is perfect human and perfect divine and these two natures are united together without mingling, nor confusion, nor alteration in one nature; the nature of God incarnate."

#byzantine empire #late roman empire #heresy #theology #rashidun caliphate #the battle of the masts

47 notes · View notes

whencyclopedia · 5 months

Photo

Council of Chalcedon

The Council of Chalcedon was called in 451 CE by the Roman Emperor Marcian (r. 450-457) to settle debates regarding the nature (hypostases, "reality") of Christ that had begun at two earlier meetings in Ephesus (431 CE and 439 CE). The question was whether Christ was human or divine, a man who became God (through the resurrection and ascension) or God who became a man (through the incarnation, "taking on flesh"), and how his humanity and divinity affected his essence and being, if at all.

Shortly after Emperor Constantine's conversion to Christianity in 312 CE, an Alexandrian presbyter, Arius, applying logic, had simply taught that if God created everything in the universe, then at some point he must have created Christ. This caused debates and even riots throughout the cities of the Roman Empire. If Christ was a creature, then he was subordinate to God. Seeking empire-wide unity, Constantine I (r. 306-337 CE) called for a council meeting at Nicaea in 325 to settle the matter.

The First Council of Nicaea produced what became known as the concept of the Trinity. This concept expressed the belief that Christ was of the identical essence of God, who had manifested himself in the earthly Jesus of Nazareth. It produced the innovation of a creed that dictated what all Christians should believe. The Nicene Creed was now enforced by the legions of the Roman emperor, and Arianism was condemned as heresy. However, those who sided with Arius continued to incorporate his teachings in their communities. One of Constantine's sons, Constantius II (r. 337-361 CE), was an Arian Christian.

With the beginning of the barbarian invasions in this period, Christians were urged to be patriotic Christians, in line with the Imperial Church. However, the Antiochene and Alexandrian communities continued to debate which emperors had such authority (legitimacy), depending upon their views of continuing Arianism at their courts and other topics. The other problem was that the Council of Nicaea only addressed the relationship between God and Christ but said nothing about his nature.

Struggle Among the Sees

For several centuries, Christian bishops had competed with each other in relation to who had the authority to dictate beliefs and rituals for all Christians. The major sees (dioceses) of bishops were Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Rome. The First Council of Constantinople in 381 elevated Rome above all others (as the site of martyrdom of Saint Peter and Paul the Apostle). Alexandria, which had several Christian schools of philosophy, saw this as an insult to their prestige. Antioch resented it because they claimed their community was the first to be called Christians (from Luke's Acts of the Apostles). Jerusalem was the most insulted, as this was the site of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth and his resurrection. Thrown into this mix were three more heresies that ultimately required more imperial anathemas and dictates: Paulinism, Novatianism, and Nestorianism.

#History #Christianity #CouncilofChalcedon #JesusChrist #WHE #[#]

20 notes · View notes

a-franciscan-spirit · 14 days

Text

Going back to school ten years later is a struggle. There is so much I don’t remember. There is so much I have to relearn. But as I lay down to sleep, I ran through some early church history: Nicea 325, Chalcedon 451, Constantinople 381. And I remembered it. I remembered dates. It sounds so small but I’ve really struggled with feeling like I could still do this last week. And something as small as remembering the dates to early councils is enough to give me a boost of confidence.

#personal

14 notes · View notes

apenitentialprayer · 1 year

Text

May 11, 2023

Earlier today, Pope Francis declared that 21 Coptic Orthodox Christians, who were beheaded by Islamic militants in Libya in 2015, would be added to the Roman Martyrology. Francis made the announcement during an audience with Pope Tawadros II, the leader of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. The “21 Coptic New Martyrs of Libya,” as they are called, were martyred on February 15, 2015. Less than a week later, they were declared saints in the Coptic Orthodox Church by Pope Tawadros. The Copts celebrate their feast on the anniversary of their death, February 15, and it appears that this will also be their feast day on the Roman calendar.

The world was shocked in February 2015, when a 5-minute video was uploaded to the internet by ISIS militants. The video showed the 21 kidnapped men in orange jumpsuits being beheaded on a beach near the Libyan city of Sirte. 20 of these martyrs were Egyptian Copts who had gone to Libya to do construction work. The last member of the group, Matthew Ayariga, was a fellow worker from Ghana. It is said that he told the executioners, “Their God is my God. I will go with them.” There has been some question over whether he was already Christian or whether the witness of his 20 coworkers led to his conversion, but nevertheless, his Christian witness and solidarity are inspiring. It was reported that as they died, they chanted hymns and prayed aloud.

The deaths of these men as Christian martyrs is undeniable. The extraordinary photos of Blessed Miguel Pro, a Catholic priest who was executed by the Mexican government in 1927 during the Cristero War — taken just moments before the he was shot by the firing squad — are perhaps the only other photographic images recording a Christian martyrdom as it happened. And yet the recognition of the 21 martyrs as Catholic saints is unprecedented for several reasons.

The primary reason, of course, is that the Coptic Orthodox Church is not in full communion with Rome. The Copts are Oriental Orthodox (as opposed to Eastern Orthodox), because they split from the other Christian churches in the year 451 at the Council of Chalcedon due to differences over the nature of Christ. They are also referred to as “Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches.” This means that they recognize the first three ecumenical councils, whereas the Eastern Orthodox recognize seven, and the Catholic Church recognizes 21 ecumenical councils.

After more than 15 centuries, our hope of reunion may seem remote. After all these years, the two Churches have independently developed their own traditions, theologies, forms of worship, and prayers. Yet some things have remained the same. Both Churches have maintained apostolic succession and the sacraments: Pope Francis is the successor of St. Peter and Pope Tawadros is the successor of St. Mark. In recent decades, the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Coptic Orthodox Church has become closer. For example, in 2017, Popes Francis and Tawadros made a joint statement indicating mutual acceptance of the validity of baptism in both Churches.

Pope Francis has praised the Martyrs of Libya many times, and today he recalled our shared baptism, as well as the blood of martyrs that enriches the Church. He said, “These martyrs were baptized not only in the water and Spirit, but also in blood, a blood that is the seed of unity for all of Christ’s followers.” In the past, the pope has discussed how we must realize that we, the baptized, have much more in common than what divides us. This shared recognition of sainthood between the two Churches is a significant step towards Christian unity.

This sets a new precedent. In 1964, when the Ugandan Martyrs were canonized by Pope Paul VI, St. Charles Lwanga and the other 21 Catholics among his companions were declared saints. The 23 Anglicans who were martyred alongside them were mentioned briefly in the pope’s homily, when he said, “And we do not wish to forget, the others who, belonging to the Anglican confession, met death for the name of Christ.”

Another reason why today’s announcement is unique was that Pope Francis did this by an official act. The Roman Martyrology is the official list of saints officially recognized by the Latin Church. Many Eastern Catholic Churches have their own processes for canonizing saints according to their traditions. Historically, when groups of Eastern Catholics have come into full communion with Rome, they will bring along their saints and prayers and traditions. Many of these saints aren’t officially canonized by Rome, and they are usually only venerated in their own tradition. By inscribing the names of these martyrs in the Roman Martyrology, Pope Francis has made it clear that these martyrs are to be venerated by Roman Catholics as saints.

Finally, in declaring them saints today, Pope Francis sidestepped the typical canonization process. They are saints, without having passed through the usual stages of Servant of God, Venerable, and Blessed. This “skipping” of steps is commonly referred to as “equipollent canonization.” Essentially, when a pope declares someone a saint by an official act, that person is recognized as a saint in the Church. This is not the first time Francis has moved a case along in this way. For example, when he canonized Popes John XXIII and John Paul II in 2014, he waived the requirement of a second miracle for John XXIII so that the two popes would be canonized on the same day. In 2013, he elevated the Jesuit Peter Faber, whose status had lingered at “Blessed” since 1872.

Perhaps the most interesting case is that of St. Gregory of Narek, an Armenian monk venerated as a saint in the Armenian Catholic Church and the Armenian Apostolic Church. Unexpectedly, Pope Francis named him the 36th Doctor of the Church in 2015. Living from in the mid-10th century through the early 11th, St. Gregory lived at a time when the Armenian Church was not in communion with Rome. After several failed attempts at reunion, the Armenian Catholic Church was officially recognized as an Eastern Catholic Church in 1742. Interestingly, the Armenian Catholic eparchy of Buenos Aires (established in 1989 by Pope John Paul II) is called the Eparchy of Saint Gregory of Narek. Perhaps this is how Pope Francis became familiar with the saint.

We Christians are blessed with a wide variety of saints from all sorts of backgrounds. They help make up the beautiful tapestry of the people of God — praying for us, interceding for us, and inspiring us. This is something worth celebrating.

21 Coptic New Martyrs of Libya, Pray for Us!

Mike Lewis. Bolded emphases added.

#Catholicism #Oriental Orthodox Christianity #Christianity #saints #martyrs #Libyan Martyrs #My Pope #Pope Tawadros II #Ugandan Martyrs #Miguel Pro

121 notes · View notes

tamamita · 1 year

Note

One obvious difference between polytheism and the mainline Christian view of God is that, aside from the Evangelicals who are just all about Jesus all the time (and they're theologically flimsy at best), no one worships the persons of the trinity separately. That's simply not a thing that a proper polytheist take on Christianity would do.

Like I said, Christians aren't polytheist, they are monotheists, this must be established. I did make jabs at the concept cause I think their theology is terrible and the idea of polytheism isn't far-fetched since the Father-Son model was a relatively attractive concept for citizens, considering the hierarchy of pantheons in the Roman Empire. Muslim and Jewish people assert that the Trinity is a form of "association" Shirk/Shituf because it renders God's uniqueness faulty by sharing it with three distinct persons, it's a right exclusive to the One. The Tanakh never foreshadows the trinity and any Christian scholar who would say otherwise are wrong, it's all based on speculations, theories and suppositions. The Church Fathers vandalised, distorted, and altered Scripture to make it seem like it did foreshadow the Trinity or the inevitable birth of Christ to further the Christological narratives when none of these individuals have any knowledge in Hebrew and Aramaic. Jewish scholars have been studying their scriptures intensly for the past 3000 years, it makes no sense for the TANAKH to be so ambigious about the Trinity.

Anyways, Christians are wired to think there are three distinct persons in the One God. This is Trinitarian Monotheism, because they believe that three persons are the One True God, contrasting from the Jewish and Islamic Unitarian Monotheism, which asserts that the Father is One. Jewish theology does not align with Christian theology, it simply doesn't. Zoroastrianism is a Monotheistic religion with a dualistic belief system, but it's not compatible with Jewish and Islamic monotheism (but there are many overlapping exchanges between them). Like I said, scholars of Islam and Judaism do not refer to them as polytheists, but they do accuse Christians of associating God with partners or persons.

What's axiomatic is that there are no records from the Gospels or the Apostles ever asserting this particular view. Christians initially believed in a Unitarian God, adhering to adoptionism, docetism, and then a bianitarian view on God until the Church Fathers settled with the Trinity in the 4th century, throwing every other doctrine out of the window. Even with that set in stone, they still argued over the Nature of God in Chalcedon and subsequent councils throughout the history of Christianity. The Trinity is still an ambigious doctrine even until this day. There's simply nothing convincing about this theology, it's an innovation; why then would it take so much time for God to establish the most imperative Christological tenant, while most Early Christians lived in ignorance? Divine inspiration or not, it's a theological blunder

84 notes · View notes

ltwilliammowett · 2 years

Photo

Sarcophagus of Captain Eudemos

This marble greek sarcophagus from the 2nd century AD (with two uses from the 5th century AD) was found in Olympos (the second most important harbour town on the south coast of Turkey), 60km south west from Antalya, Turkey.

The sarcophagus is of a rather simple design, bearing an inscription in the front and a merchant ship without mast and oar below, but with a representation of Aphrodite, the goddess of love and beauty, who was also the Sailor's patron goddess, on the stern.

Translation of the Greek inscriptions: " I, Eudemos, as captain, know the way between the ways. From one Pontos to another, the discovery of Pallas. All the people of Chalcedon, the city of Bythinia, resolved.... My happy native land, deeming me fit, conferred the office upon me. The people of Lycia were of the same opinion; and I was a member of the council of elders."

"The ship sailed into the last harbour and anchored to go no more, / When there was no more hope, neither from the wind nor from the daylight, / After the light that bore the dawn had left Captain Eudemos, / Then buried the ship with a life as short as a day, like a broken wave."

#naval artifact #sarcophagus #greek #turkey #captain eudemos #2nd century ad #ancient seafaring

127 notes · View notes

thewahookid · 1 month

Text

Question:

What is the difference between the Ascension (of Jesus) and the Assumption (of the Blessed Virgin Mary)?

Answer:

Christ, by his own power, ascended into heaven. Mary was assumed or taken up into heaven by God: she did not do it under her own power.

The elevation of Christ into heaven by His own power in the presence of His disciples the fortieth day after His Resurrection is narrated in Mark 16:19, Luke 24:51, and in the first chapter of Acts. For Mary, although declared divinely-revealed dogma only in 1950, documentation of belief in the Assumption dates to at least the 5th century.

For one example of this long-held belief, at the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when bishops from throughout the Mediterranean world gathered in Constantinople, Emperor Marcian asked the Patriarch of Jerusalem to bring the relics of Mary to Constantinople to be enshrined in the capitol.

The patriarch explained to the emperor that there were no relics of Mary in Jerusalem and that “Mary had died in the presence of the apostles; but her tomb, when opened later . . . was found empty and so the apostles concluded that the body was taken up into heaven.” (2:41)

In the eighth century, St. John Damascene was known for giving sermons at the holy places in Jerusalem. At the Tomb of Mary, he expressed the belief of the Church on the meaning of the feast: "Although the body was duly buried, it did not remain in the state of death, neither was it dissolved by decay. . . . You were transferred to your heavenly home, O Lady, Queen and Mother of God in truth."

All the feast days of Mary mark the great mysteries of her life and her part in the work of redemption. The central mystery of her life and person is her divine motherhood, celebrated both at Christmas and a week later (Jan. 1) on the feast of the Solemnity of Mary, Mother of God. The Immaculate Conception (Dec. 😎 marks the preparation for that motherhood, so that she had the fullness of grace from the first moment of her existence, completely untouched by sin. Her whole being throbbed with divine life from the very beginning, readying her for the exalted role of mother of the Savior.

The Assumption completes God's work in her since it was not fitting that the flesh that had given life to God himself should ever undergo corruption. The Assumption is God's crowning of His work as Mary ends her earthly life and enters eternity. The feast turns our eyes in that direction, where we will follow when our earthly life is over.

The feast days of the Church are not just the commemoration of historical events; they do not look only to the past. They look to the present and to the future and give us an insight into our own relationship with God. The Assumption looks to eternity and gives us hope that we, too, will follow Our Lady when our life is ended.

In 1950, in the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII proclaimed the Assumption of Mary a dogma of the Catholic Church in these words: "The Immaculate Mother of God, the ever-virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heaven."

With that, an ancient belief became Catholic doctrine and the Assumption was declared a truth revealed by God.

Source: Cool Catholics

#love #jesus loves you #jesus christ #blessed mother mary #mary #assumption #ascension

3 notes · View notes

orthodoxydaily · 2 months

Text

Saints&Reading: Wednesday, July 24, 2024

july 11_july 24

COMMEMORATION OF THE MIRACLE (451) OF THE MIRACLE (451) OF GREAT MARTYR EUPHEMIA OF CHALCEDON (304)

The Miracle of Saint Euphemia the All-Praised: The holy Great Martyr Euphemia (September 16) suffered martyrdom in the city of Chalcedon in the year 304, during the time of the persecution against Christians by the emperor Diocletian (284-305). One and a half centuries later, at a time when the Christian Church had become victorious within the Roman Empire, God deigned that Euphemia the All-Praised should again be a witness and confessor of the purity of the Orthodox teaching.

In the year 451 in the city of Chalcedon, in the very church where the glorified relics of the holy Great Martyr Euphemia rested, the sessions of the Fourth Ecumenical Council (July 16) took place. The Council was convened for determining the precise dogmatic formulae of the Orthodox Church concerning the nature of the God-Man Jesus Christ. This was necessary because of the widespread heresy of the Monophysites [“mono-physis” meaning “one nature”], who opposed the Orthodox teaching of the two natures in Jesus Christ, the Divine and the Human natures (in one Divine Person). The Monophysites falsely affirmed that in Christ was only one nature, the Divine [i.e. that Jesus is God but not man, by nature], causing discord and unrest within the Church. At the Council were present 630 representatives from all the local Christian Churches. On the Orthodox side Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople (July 3), Juvenal, Patriarch of Jerusalem (July 2), and representatives of Saint Leo, Pope of Rome (February 18) participated in the conciliar deliberations. The Monophysites were present in large numbers, headed by Dioscorus, the Patriarch of Alexandria, and the Constantinople archimandrite Eutychius.

After prolonged discussions the two sides could not come to a decisive agreement.

The holy Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople proposed that the Council submit the decision of the Church dispute to the Holy Spirit, through His undoubted bearer Saint Euphemia the All-Praised, whose wonderworking relics had been discovered during the Council’s discussions. The Orthodox hierarchs and their opponents wrote down their confessions of faith on separate scrolls and sealed them with their seals. They opened the tomb of the holy Great Martyr Euphemia and placed both scrolls upon her bosom. Then, in the presence of the emperor Marcian (450-457), the participants of the Council sealed the tomb, putting on it the imperial seal and setting a guard to watch over it for three days. During these days both sides imposed upon themselves strict fast and made intense prayer. After three days the patriarch and the emperor in the presence of the Council opened the tomb with its relics: the scroll with the Orthodox confession was held by Saint Euphemia in her right hand, and the scroll of the heretics lay at her feet. Saint Euphemia, as though alive, raised her hand and gave the scroll to the patriarch. After this miracle many of the hesitant accepted the Orthodox confession, while those remaining obstinant in the heresy were consigned to the Council’s condemnation and excommunication.

After an invasion by the Persians during the seventh century, the relics of Saint Euphemia were transferred from Chalcedon to Constantinople, into a newly built church dedicated to her. Many years later, during the period of the Iconoclast heresy, the reliquary with the relics of the saint was cast into the sea by order of the Iconoclast emperor Leo the Isaurian (716-741). The reliquary was rescued from the sea by the ship-owning brothers Sergius and Sergonos, who gave it over to the local bishop. The holy bishop ordered that the relics be preserved in secret, beneath a crypt, since the Iconoclast heresy was continuing to rage. A small church was built over the relics, and over the reliquary was put a board with an inscription stating whose relics rested within. When the Iconoclast heresy was finally condemned at the holy Seventh Ecumenical Council (in the year 787), during the time of Saint Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople (784-806) and the emperor Constantine VI (780-797) and his mother Saint Irene (797-802), the relics of the holy Great Martyr Euphemia were once again solemnly transferred to Constantinople.

Source: Orthodox Church in America_OCA

This miracle is attested by a letter sent by the council to Pope Leo I

“For it was God who worked, and the triumphant Euphemia who crowned the meeting as for a bridal, and who, taking our definition of the Faith as her own confession, presented it to her Bridegroom by our most religious Emperor and Christ-loving Empress, appeasing all the tumult of opponents and establishing our confession of the Truth as acceptable to Him, and with hand and tongue setting her seal to the votes of us all in proclamation thereof.”

NEW MARTYR NECTARIOS OF ST. ANNE'S SKETE, MT. ATHOS (1820)

He was born in Vryoulla or Vourla in Asia Minor. As a seventeen-year-old, he and six other Christians were deceived and converted to Islam. When he appeared before his mother in Turkish clothing, she threw him out, saying: “I gave birth to a Christian, not a Turk”. He left, greatly saddened, and soon understood the harm he had done himself. In Smyrna, he confessed to an Athonite spiritual father, who advised him to go to the Holy Mountain.

He came under the guidance of Elder Stefanos at the skete of Saint Ann, at the house dedicated to Saint John the Theologian. “Persecuted and reviled”, he underwent “many trials and tribulations, because of the envy of the hater of good, but continued patiently, without complaint and, with enormous gratitude, glorifying God and Our Lady His Mother, in the belief that everything was for the remission of his sins”. After his tonsure, at which his name was changed from Nikolaos to Nektarios, he gave himself over completely to the ascetic life. “His eyes became two springs flowing continuously” and “everyone was amazed at the truly divine alteration in this young man”. Every day he begged the Mother of God to allow him to end his life as a martyr.

With the blessings of the holy fathers, and accompanied by his Elder, he went off to his martyrdom. He arrived in his home-town of Vourla, where, with great joy and patience he suffered various horrible tortures for Christ’s sake. Promises of honours and glory left him entirely unmoved. His eyes were trained on the heavens. In prison he gave advice to others and foretold future events, through continuous prayer and fasting. Finally, he was beheaded at the age of 21.

After the transfer of his relics, his Elder received his skull and took it back to the Skete of Saint Ann. Parts of the relics of the martyr were given to his devout mother, and they performed many wonderful miracles.

There is an icon of the saint with scenes from his martyrdom in the church of Saint George, Nea Ionia Athens, where his memory is honoured by his fellow-countryman (families of refugees from Asia Minor). The service and the story of his martyrdom are in a manuscript in the Athonite monastery of Saint Panteleimon and it is from here that information has been drawn for inclusion in the feast days of the Church.

His memory is honoured on July 11, the day of his martyrdom.

Source: Pemptousia

2 CORINTHIANS 6:1-10

1 We then, as workers together with Him also plead with you not to receive the grace of God in vain. 2 For He says: In an acceptable time I have heard you, And in the day of salvation I have helped you." Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation. 3 We give no offense in anything, that our ministry may not be blamed. 4 But in all things we commend ourselves as ministers of God: in much patience, in tribulations, in needs, in distresses, 5 in stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labors, in sleeplessness, in fastings; 6 by purity, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Spirit, by sincere love, 7 by the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armor of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, 8 by honor and dishonor, by evil report and good report; as deceivers, and yet true; 9 as unknown, and yet well known; as dying, and behold we live; as chastened, and yet not killed; 10 as sorrowful, yet always rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having nothing, and yet possessing all things.

LUKE 7:36-50

36 Then one of the Pharisees asked Him to eat with him. And He went to the Pharisee's house, and sat down to eat. 37 And behold, a woman in the city who was a sinner, when she knew that Jesus sat at the table in the Pharisee's house, brought an alabaster flask of fragrant oil, 38 and stood at His feet behind Him weeping; and she began to wash His feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head; and she kissed His feet and anointed them with the fragrant oil. 39 Now when the Pharisee who had invited Him saw this, he spoke to himself, saying, "This Man, if He were a prophet, would know who and what manner of woman this is who is touching Him, for she is a sinner." 40 And Jesus answered and said to him, "Simon, I have something to say to you." So he said, "Teacher, say it." 41 There was a certain creditor who had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. 42 And when they had nothing with which to repay, he freely forgave them both. Tell Me, therefore, which of them will love him more? 43 Simon answered and said, "I suppose the one whom he forgave more." And He said to him, "You have rightly judged." 44 Then He turned to the woman and said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I entered your house; you gave Me no water for My feet, but she has washed My feet with her tears and wiped them with the hair of her head. 45 You gave Me no kiss, but this woman has not ceased to kiss My feet since the time I came in. 46 You did not anoint My head with oil, but this woman has anointed My feet with fragrant oil. 47 Therefore I say to you, her sins, which are many, are forgiven, for she loved much. But to whom little is forgiven, the same loves little. 48 Then He said to her, "Your sins are forgiven." 49 And those who sat at the table with Him began to say to themselves, "Who is this who even forgives sins?" 50 Then He said to the woman, "Your faith has saved you. Go in peace."

#orthodoxy #orthodoxchristianity #easternorthodoxchurch #originofchristianity #spirituality #holyscriptures #gospel #bible #wisdom #faith #saints

2 notes · View notes

log6 · 3 months

Text

LMFAOOO how are you doing heresies from before the Council of Chalcedon I mean come on read a book

6 notes · View notes

orthodoxadventure · 11 months

Text

The Orthodox faith in the Incarnation is summed up in the refrain to the Christmas hymn by Saint Romanos the Melodist: 'A new-born child, God before the ages'. Contained in this short phrase are three assertions:

Jesus Christ is fully and completely God.

Jesus Christ is fully and completely man.

Jesus Christ is not two persons but one.

This is spelt out in great detail by the Ecumenical Councils. Just as the first two among the seven were concerned with the doctrine of the Trinity, so the last five were concerned with that of the Incarnation.

The third Council (Ephesus, 431) stated that the Virgin Mary is Theotokos, 'Godbearer' or 'Mother of God'. Implicit in this title is an affirmation, not primarily about the Virgin, but about Christ: God was born. The Virgin is Mother, not of a human person united to the divine person of the Logos, but of a single, undivided person who is God and man at once.

The fourth Council (Chalcedon, 451) proclaimed that there are in Jesus Christ two natures, the one divine and the other human. According to His divine nature Christ is 'one in essence' (homoousious) with God the Father; according to His human nature He is homoousios with us men. According to His divine nature, that is to say, He is fully and completely God: He is the second person of the Trinity, the unique 'only-begotten' and eternal Son of the eternal Father, born from the Father before all ages. According to His human nature He is fully and completely man: born in Bethlehem as a human child from the Virgin Mary, He has not only a human body like ours, but a human soul and intellect. Yet, though the incarnate Christ exists 'in two natures', He is one person, single and undivided, and not two persons coexisting in the same body.

The fifth Council (Constantinople, 553), developing what was said by the third, taught that 'One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh'. Just as it is legitimate to say that God was born, so we are entitled to assert that God died. In each case, of course, specify that it is God-made-man of whom this is said. God in His transcendence is subject neither to birth nor to death, but these things are indeed undergone by the Logos incarnate.

The sixth Council (Constantinople, 680-1), taking up what was said by the fourth, affirmed that, just as there are in Christ two natures, divine and human, so there are in Christ not only a divine will but also a human will; for if Christ did not have a human will like ours, he would not be truly a man as we are. Yet these two wills are not contrary and opposed to each other, for the human will is at all times freely obedient to the divine.

The seventh Council (Nicaea, 787), setting the seal on the four that went before, proclaimed that, since Christ became true man, it is legitimate to depict his face upon the holy ikons; and, since Christ is one person and not two, these ikons do not just show us his humanity in separation from his divinity, but they show us the one person of the external Logos incarnate.

-- Kallistos Ware, The Orthodox Way

#Incarnation #Nativity #Christianity #Orthodox Christianity #Jesus

8 notes · View notes

sweetmorningdew · 1 year

Text

Hello friends ✨

Here are 5 notable heresies, each with its own distinct nature and origin:

1. Arianism: Arianism, attributed to Arius (a priest in Alexandria in the 4th century), denies the concept of the Trinity and the divinity of Jesus Christ. It asserts that Jesus, while divine, is not equal to God the Father. Arianism was rejected as heretical at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.

2. Gnosticism: Gnosticism was a diverse movement influenced by Greek philosophy and various religious traditions. It claimed special spiritual knowledge (gnosis) necessary for salvation, considering the material world as inherently evil. Gnostics believed in a secret divine realm and considered Jesus as an emissary from that realm. Gnosticism was prevalent in the 2nd to 4th centuries AD and was rejected as heretical by orthodox Christianity.

3. Nestorianism: Nestorianism, associated with Nestorius (Patriarch of Constantinople in the 5th century), taught that Jesus had two distinct natures: a human nature and a divine nature, which were not fully united. This belief challenged the concept of the hypostatic union, which asserts that Jesus is fully God and fully human. Nestorianism was condemned at the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD.

4. Monophysitism: Monophysitism, championed by Eutyches (a monk in Constantinople in the 5th century), claimed that Christ had only one nature – a divine nature with the human nature being absorbed into it. This view denied the orthodox understanding of Jesus' two distinct yet united natures. Monophysitism was rejected as heretical at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD.

5. Pelagianism: Pelagianism, associated with the teachings of Pelagius (a British monk in the 4th and 5th centuries), rejected the doctrine of original sin and the idea that humans are inherently sinful. Pelagians believed that individuals can attain salvation through their own efforts and good works, without relying on God's grace alone. Pelagianism was condemned as heretical by several church councils.

It's important to note that heresy is determined by orthodox Christian authorities and their interpretation of Scripture and tradition. These heretical movements emerged due to differences in theological interpretations, cultural influences, philosophical ideas, and debates within the early Christian communities. Early Christianity, influenced by various councils and consensus among church leaders, defined certain teachings as heretical due to their departure from widely accepted (and BIBLICAL) beliefs about the nature of God, Jesus Christ, and salvation.

#christianity #catholic #heresy #Church history #It’s very easy to fall into any one of these #so be aware and don’t forget to read your Bible #God bless you and keep you #Dew does things

7 notes · View notes

mybeautifulchristianjourney · 1 year

Text

The reformers believed the creeds, wrote confessions and believed Sola Scriptura (along with reading the fathers).

"THE CREEDS OF FOUR COUNCILS RECEIVED. And, to say many things with a few words, with a sincere heart we believe, and freely confess with open mouth, whatever things are defined from the Holy Scriptures concerning the mystery of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, and are summed up in the Creeds and decrees of the first four most excellent synods convened at Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon -- together with the Creed of blessed Athanasius [The so-called Athanasian Creed was not written by Athanasius but dates from the ninth century. It is also called the "Quicunque" from the opening word of the Latin text.], and all similar symbols; and we condemn everything contrary to these.

THE SECTS. And in this way we retain the Christian, orthodox and catholic faith whole and unimpaired; knowing that nothing is contained in the aforesaid symbols which is not agreeable to the Word of God, and does not altogether make for a sincere exposition of the faith."

From Second Helvetic confession 1566.

Source: The Protestant Reformation

6 notes · View notes

thepastisalreadywritten · 9 months

Text

SAINT OF THE DAY (January 2)

St. Basil, one of the most distinguished Doctors of the Church and Bishop of Caesarea, was likely born in 329 and died on 1 January 379.

He ranks after Athanasius as a defender of the Oriental Church against the heresies of the fourth century, especially Arianism, which denied the divine nature of Jesus Christ.

He was a strong supporter of the Nicene Creed.

With his friend, Gregory of Nazianzus and his brother, Gregory of Nyssa, he is part of the trio known as "The Three Cappadocians," of which he was the most important in practical genius and theological writings.

Basil resisted the pressure from Emperor Valens, an Arian himself, who wanted to keep him in silence and admit the heretics to communion.

No wonder, when the great St. Athanasius died, the responsibility of being the defender of the faith against Aryanism fell upon Basil.

Seventy-two years after his death, the Council of Chalcedon described him as “the great Basil, minister of grace who has expounded the truth to the whole earth.”

#Saint of the Day #St. Basil the Great

5 notes · View notes

thesynaxarium · 2 years

Photo

Today we also celebrate the Holy Right-Believing Empress Pulcheria. Saint Pulcheria was the daughter of the Byzantine emperor Arcadius (395-408), was coregent and adviser of her brother Theodosius the Younger (408-450). She received a broad and well-rounded education, and distinguished herself by her wisdom and piety, firmly adhering to Orthodox teaching. Through her efforts the church of the Most Holy Theotokos was built at Blachernae, and also other churches and monasteries. Through the intrigues of enemies and of Eudokia, the wife of the emperor Theodosius the Younger, Saint Pulcheria was removed from power. She withdrew into seclusion, and lived a pious life. Without her benificent influence, conditions in the capital deteriorated. She returned after a while, following the urgent request of her brother. Then the unrest provoked by emerging heresies was quelled. After the death of Theodosius the Younger, Marcian (450-457) was chosen emperor. Saint Pulcheria again wanted to withdraw into her seclusion, but both the emperor and officials entreated her not to refuse the throne, but to marry the emperor Marcian. For the common good she consented to become Marcian’s wife if she were allowed to preserve her virginity within the marriage. They were married, but lived in purity as brother and sister. Through the efforts of Saint Pulcheria, the Third Ecumenical Council was held at Ephesus in 431 to address the heresy of Nestorius; and also the Fourth Ecumenical Council which was convened at Chalcedon in the year 451, to deal with the heresy of Eutychius. Saint Pulcheria built the church of the Mother of God at Blachernae at Constantinople, and also found the relics of the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste (March 9). Throughout her life Saint Pulcheria defended the Orthodox Faith against various heresies. After giving away her wealth to the poor and to the Church, she died peacefully at the age of fifty-four in the year 453. May she intercede for us always + Source: https://www.oca.org/saints/lives/2019/09/10/102566-right-believing-pulcheria-byzantine-empress (at Constantinople - Κωνσταντινούπολη) https://www.instagram.com/p/CovNOtirf2-/?igshid=NGJjMDIxMWI=

15 notes · View notes