text:
Christ Is Risen!
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Probably around the atrocious and despicable actions of the unholy Emperor Justinian (he's not a "saint", is he?.....I pray God that he is not Angry)-------------------As no one has justified Justinian, I'm guessing my accusations of him still stand Undecided
People have asked questions ozgeorge; am I to sit on my hands and allow people to believe that my Church was monophysite in her rejection of Chalcedon, because representing and defending her actual historical position i.e. that Chalcedon was Nestorian, might offend some people regardless of the manner I attempt to express that truth? Am I to sit on my hands and allow people to believe that a revered Saint of my Church was a heretic and schismatic in his being ex-communicated and anathematised by the Chalcedonian church, because representing and defending his integrity and Orthodoxy, might offend some people regardless of the manner I attempt to express that truth? I am simply attempting to pursue this discussion on an academic level, without making it personal. I am doing no more than presenting my honest and genuine interpretation of history, which is based on some serious and thoughtful research into the matter. That interpretation is ofcourse open to be challenged by anyone according to their own interpretation of history, if they so wish.The fact of the matter is, and this is my personal belief mind you (please see H.G. Abba Seraphim's speech that I have posted here, who presents a sort of compromise, and thus a less conservative view than I) that sharing the same Christological beliefs (which I most certainly believe we do) should suffice, theoretically speaking, in an EO-OO reunion, but would not effectively suffice, practically speaking, if we disagree in our interpretations of historical schism. +Irini nem makarismos
What date did he actually anathematize Nestorius?
The Creed, which explicitly condemns it, was re-affirmed,
If Nestorianism was indeed vindicated, why is the Nestorian church not in communion with us
What canons were used to depose him, if I may ask?
Again, whether doctrinally related or not, guilt seems to fall on both sides. There must be another explanation.
He was essentially cornered into doing so under much pressure a couple or so weeks after the commencement of the council i.e. after Leo of Rome attempted to restore him to the Church in spite of the absence of such an anathematisation. This is rather meaningless; the creed (I assume you are referring to the Chalcedonian definition of faith here?) may have condemned Nestorius by name, but it certainly didn't condemn Nestorianism by its theology. It was deliberately ambiguous enough to allow for Nestorianism to creep in via a backdoor, for the purpose of satisfying the range of traditions represented at the council. This ambiguity served nothing other than Constantinople's own political agenda — to unite the universal Church under its authority.Maybe you can ask them; the only facts I'm aware of which are relevant to this discussion are: a) The Nestorian church felt gratified at the time, b) Chalcedon exonerated Nestorian heretics and writings, c) Chalcedon exonerated a document of faith praised by Nestorius himself, d) Chalcedon exonerated a formula predominantly employed to promote Nestorianism, e) a significant portion of the Orthodox Church rejected Chalcedon upon a Nestorian interpretation of it. His first deposition was upon the imperial commissioners' baseless conclusions that St Dioscorus had acted irresponsibly at Ephesus 449 in ex-communicating those whom he ex-communicated (though this issue was never really properly investigated), and his subsequent ex-communication was pronounced upon the invocation of the canon regarding failure to answer to a thrice dealt summons (its legalistic application is invalid by virtue of the injustice it promoted).The position I have been representing and promoting doesn't impute blame on both sides. It acknowledges that St Dioscorus was falsely ex-communicated; hence the blame of the schism rests upon the Chalcedonian side. It also holds that the Church rightfully rejected Chalcedon upon a reasonable objective interpretation of it as Nestorian or crypto-Nestorian at best. Again, blame lies upon the Chalcedonian side for being so tainted by political intrigues that it failed to fully and truly represent (and hence consequently compromised) the Orthodox faith. +Irini nem makarismos
Beavis,Maybe it's just that some of us (er, ok, me ) have been defending St. Justinian for a few years now, and I just don't have the time or inclination to go into another debate on the subject, especially when the 5th Ecumenical Council and Universalism are complicating matters. How could I hope to convince you that St. Justinian was not as bad as all that, when we seem to disagree on more important matters?
I think it's misleading to present Chalcedon as an attempt to placate the Nestorians; the work of minimizing the damage of the Nestorian issue had already been done by St. Cyril by his admission of the propriety of "two natures" language in relation to Christ, and by his reconciliation with John of Antioch. Chalcedon was just an attempt to defend the moderate path that St. Cyril had already laid out, and to condemn the extremism of Eutyches. After all, Eutyches had been originally condemned for his refusal to consent to language that St. Cyril himself had deemed appropriate, so where does that put those who defended him and likewise refused to accept the moderate views of the later St. Cyril?
If I'm not mistaken, I believed I read somewhere that there is substantial philological evidence that the "two natures" language supposedly attributed to St. Cyril were actually subsequent Nestorian interpolations (though, of course, whether or not Christ actually had two natures remains uneffected by such an archaeological fact).
I haven't heard that myself, but in any case, St. Cyril eventually accepted John of Antioch's confession of faith, which used two natures language.
Is there proof he was pressured?
Sorry, could you spell out Nestorius's teachings vs Nestoriasm? As in, the key ideas of each one.
If the point was to heal the Nestorian rift, why wasn't it healed?
If was all about politics, why didn't they revoke the council and re-integrate the non-Chalcedoians to prevent more schism?
So is the modern Orthodox Church Nestorian? If so, how so?
Quote from: Cyprian on Yesterday at 06:39:28 PMI haven't heard that myself, but in any case, St. Cyril eventually accepted John of Antioch's confession of faith, which used two natures language.A fact too seldom cited.
The problem with that approach is that it ignores the fact that St. Cyril, by his later approach to John, alienated many of those in his own patriarchate, including Dioscorus.
The question is, if Dioscorus was merely continuing in the tradition of Cyril, why did he feel the need to harass the saints family.
Why did he oppose the deposition of Eutyches,
to the point of leading the deposition (in shady circumstances) of those who had condemned him
and that on the basis of the opposition of Eutyches to statements which were perfectly acceptable to Cyril.
There is nothing in Chalcedon which is in any way substantially different from any position that Cyril had accepted as permissible.
Unlike Dioscorus, Cyril did not elevate his own preference for Alexandrian terminology to the status of dogma.
Both the Alexandrian and Antiochene positions are acceptable, properly explained.
Chalcedon was necessary to establish that balance.
We can only attempt to infer that which is reasonable from the facts, so I will quote for you a passage from Fr. V.C. Samuel's Chalcedon Re-examined in which he in turn quotes the very minutes of the council at the point in which Theodoret eventually anathematised Nestorius, and you can decide for yourself whether it seems he was pressured or not:"It was on 26 October that his case was again taken up by the council.351 As soon as the question was mentioned, the bishops. ignoring the action of Leo, exclaimed, 'Theodoret is still under excommunication'. The bishop of Cyrus said that he had submitted petitions to the emperor and to the Roman legates, and that they might be read if the bishops so wished. The petitions of Theodoret, it should be remembered, were not addressed to the council. And the bishops replied that they did not want anything to be read but that he condemned Nestorius. 'I was brought up by the orthodox', responded Theodoret; 'I was taught by the orthodox352, I have preached orthodoxy ; I avoid and count alien, not only Nestorius and Eutyches but everyone who does not have the correct thinking'. 'Speak plainly', demanded the bishops, 'anathema to Nestorius and his doctrine; anathema to Nestorius and those who defend him'. Theodoret now tried to offer an explanation of his position. 'Of a truth', he said, 'I say nothing but what I know is pleasing to God. First I want to make it clear that I am here, not because I care for my city or covet my rank. Since I have been falsely accused, I have come to make it clear that I am orthodox and that I condemn Nestorius and Eutyches, and everyone who affirms two sons'. The bishops now intervened and required of him again only to anathematize Nestorius. Once more the bishop of Cyrus tried to defend his own position, and the bishops shouted. 'He is a heretic! He is a Nestorian! Away with the heretic! Pushed to this extremity, Theodoret said, 'Anathema to Nestorius…"We would be opening a whole can of worms by attempting to figure out what Nestorius taught exactly; so let us stick with relevant issue: the general heresy of Nestorianism as a Christological doctrine. First of all, as an example of Nestorianism being maintained alongside a condemnation of the person of Nestorius, I want you to note a couple of things in the above quoted response of Theodoret, who states:ÂÂ "I was brought up by the orthodox, I was taught by the orthodox, I have preached orthodoxy." Theodoret here is quite clearly implicitly affirming that his Nestorianism has always been orthodox. What this means, is that Theodoret was not renouncing his past heresies, he was in fact essentially admitting that the Christology vindicated by Chalcedon under the title of "orthodox", rendered not only his past and continuing Nestorianism orthodox, but also the very teachers of his Nestorianism as orthodox. As Fr. V.C. Samuel points out in the relevant footnote, the teacher of Theodoret to which he refers is clearly another key proponent of Nestorianism, namely, Theodore of Mopsuestia (the very same teacher of Nestorius by the way).Key ideas of Nestorianism that are relevant to this discussion however are:1) The lack of recognition of The Word as the One metaphysical personal subject of Christ's activities, and hence the affirmation of two-subjects of action whereby humanity performs things proper to it and likewise for divinity.2) Christ's divinity and humanity are two grounds of His existence, and hence not incorporated states of the one subsistence in a hypostatic union.You need to read what I am saying to you more carefully, for I have not suggested that the Chalcedonians intentions were to ratify Nestorianism in an attempt to re-unite with the Nestorian church; the concessions to Nestorianism via certain statements suggestive of the heresy, and in the context of the exoneration of Nestorian figures and documents, as well as the imprecision and ambiguity that allowed Nestorianism to be interpreted into Chalcedonianism were all incidental to the pursuance of ulterior political agendas.. No they are not. Whatever errors were committed at Chalcedon were evidently abrogated and rectified at the subsequent Chalcedonian council - Constantinople 553. It is also clear, that the Eastern Orthodox Church's interpretation of Chalcedon in the context of the subsequent councils and the writings of figures such as Fr. John of Damascus, is indeed Orthodox. Even though I may thus admit this interpretation, I nonetheless argue that it is anachronistic.+Irini nem makarismos
Whether a condemnation of Nestorius or an anathematization of him, neither seem to explicity condemn the seperate Nestorianism as you say. So, either way, it seems there is little difference.
What are these "ulterior political agendas"? If the purpose was not to re-unite them, it seems pretty silly to make such a gesture.
Remember, Constantinople held in force all canons and decisions made at previous councils, that included Chalcedon. If Constantinople changed nothing
If it did change something, there would have been an outcry of the people, and it couldn't be considered Ecumenical.
Ok, been doing some reading, and found this. Here is why Dioscorus was really deposed. From A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Centry AD:
Military officers, soldiers with swords and sticks, even the proconsul with chains, entered at his call. He peremptorily commanded the bishops to sign the sentence, and with a fierce gesture of the hand exclaimed, "He that does not choose to sign must reckon with me." A scene of terrorism followed.
Flavian's own fate was the special tragedy of the Latrocinium. He had lodged in the hands of the Roman delegates a formal appeal to the pope and the Western bishops (not to the pope alone; see Leo, Ep. 43, Tillemont, xv. 374). It was nearly his last act. He was brutally treated, kicked, and beaten by the agents of Dioscorus, and even, we are told, by Dioscorus himself (see Evagr. i. 1; Niceph. xiv. 47).
Those prelates who were reluctant to take part in the deposition were threatened with exile, beaten by the soldiers, denounced as heretics by the partisans of Dioscorus, and by the crowd of fanatical monks (ib. vii. 68) who accompanied Barsumas, until they put their names to a blank paper on which the sentence was to be written (ib. vi. 601 seq. 625, 637, 988). They afterwards protested that they had signed under compulsion. Basil of Seleucia declared that he had given way because he was "given over to the judgment of 120 or 130 bishops; had he been dealing with magistrates, he would have suffered martyrdom." "The Egyptians," says Tillemont, "who signed willingly enough, did so after the others had been made to sign" (xv. 571; cf. Mansi, vi. 601).
To say that Dioscorus was legalistically desposed on the basis of not answering a summons three times is at best a half-truth.
The Roman delegates proposed a sentence, to this effect: "Dioscorus has received Eutyches, though duly condemned by Flavian, into communion.
The apostolic see excuses those who were coerced by Dioscorus at Ephesus, but who are obedient to archbp. Leo
He prevented Leo's letter to Flavian
He has presumed to excommunicate Leo
Huh? Evidence, please. If this is rooted in some historical Chalcedonian polemic, then don't waste your time; only provide a source if its reliability is objectively determinable.
Please be specific, and provide evidence. What harassment? And what did this have to do with St Cyril's Christological tradition which St Dioscorus undoubtedly adhered to to the point of being persecuted? Same condition as above applies.
First of all, you're making the same mistake as Chalcedon by implicitly imputing singular responsibility to St Dioscorus.
The Council of Ephesus 449 found Eutyches to have been falsely deposed. Upon the Council's examination of Eutyches' doctrine, he was found to have been Orthodox, and rightfully so. The minutes of that council are available to us, as is Eutyches' Orthodox submission of faith.Consequently, the deposition of those who deposed Eutyches was justified by the council.
Really? What statements? Eutyches was deposed for failing to confess Christ "in two natures". Show me where St Cyril ever declared Christ to be in two natures, or where he ever indicated that such a blasphemous expression (according to the historical circumstances of that time) is acceptable. Not even the formulary allowed for this.
Theodoret = not permissible.
Ibas = not permissible.
"in two natures" = not permissible
Failure to define hypostatic union = not permissible
Regarding Christ's natures as the subjects of independent operations = not permissible
Ex-communicating an Orthodox Patriarch without any valid basis = not permissible.
Oh really? Is that why Alexandrian Christology was vindicated at Ephesus 431. Or is that you don't consider the third Ecumenical Council to be of dogmatic authority?
St Dioscorus was the only one staying faithful to the established Orthodox Tradition of the time, against those who assigned dogmatic value to documents like the Formulary which as I have addressed above, were not considered dogmatic by St Cyril.
It was the very false and invalid assignment of dogmatic value to the Antiochene interpretation of the Formulary
I can agree to this; that was the whole point of the Formulary.
because he wouldn't admit to an expression that not only had no dogmatic status, but it in fact had no Orthodox value at all in any sense ÂÂ by virtue of its employment to convey the Nestorian heresy.
Well I never attempted to draw a difference between an anathematization and condemnation of Nestorius. My point was simply that there is no intrinsic relationship between the general heresy and a particular proponent of a particular form of that heresy, such that to condemn that particular proponent does not necessarily indicate that the general heresy is condemned. As is made perfectly clear, Theodoret was perfectly capable of maintaining his heresy and regarding it and the one responsible for teaching it to him, orthodox, whilst nonetheless anathematizing Nestorius.Chalcedon therefore exonerated a Nestorian heretic, that Leo of Rome was content with restoring to the Church even with the knowledge that this Nestorian heretic hadn't even anathematised Nestorius at that point in time in any event. That EO's maintain that St Cyril anticipated Chalcedon therefore, is nothing short of a joke. St Cyril would have cried out in rebuke with those who truly stood by him: St Dioscorus and the other Coptic Bishops and Monks that accompanied him.The ulterior political agendas were primarily on behalf of two parties: The political leaders (i.e. emperor and empress) and the political commissioners, and the Romans (Leo of Rome and the Roman legates). Such ulterior political motives were, generally, uniting the church under the authority of Constantinople and asserting the supremacy of Rome, respectively. The achievement of such things ultimately required the undermining of the Alexandrian See, and in pursuance of such an achievement much compromise to the Orthodox Faith was made and an Orthodox Patriarch falsely ex-communicated.As a second and relevant example, the primary purpose of the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus 431 was to affirm the unity of Christ. However, that was also evidently the primary purpose of Constantinople 533; therefore, something must have happened between Ephesus 431 and Constantinople 533 which undermined and compromised that which was established by Ephesus 431, such that the unity of Christ had to be re-affirmed and re-established. The fact of the matter is that Justinian's vigorous debates with non-Chalcedonian leaders had him convinced that their criticisms of Chalcedon were not unfounded, and were indeed reasonable and warranted, such that a new council had to be convened to redeem Chalcedon from its faults. Getting to the specifics however, the main action that took place at Constantinople 533 which essentially ratified the decisions of Ephesus 449 and undermined and abrogated Chalcedon was the condemnation of the three chapters. As a summary conclusion to this, Fr. V.C. Samuel states concerning Constantinople 533:"…its condemnation of the three chapters is indeed an attempt to correct a serious defect which Justinian and those who agreed with him saw in the previous council. The anathemas of the council of 553 corroborate this judgment further. They exclude certain heresies on the one hand, and conserve a theological position on the other. The fact about both these aspects of the anathemas is that they vindicate only the point of view maintained by the non-Chalcedonian body all along. If this truth had been admitted by The emperor and the Chalcedonian body, a great deal of the conflicts that set the communities apart could have been avoided. Michael the Syrian reports555 that Justinian who did so much to establish Chalcedon was drawn towards the end of his life to the Julianist position. The Syrian historian notes that the emperor who used to commend the council of 451 that it had not accepted the letter of Ibas was shocked to hear from Vigilius of Rome that it had in fact approved the document. Now being infuriated, he expressed a three-fold anathema on Chalcedon and adopted the Julianist emphasis."Or, maybe as suggested above, Chalcedonians were convinced of the validity of the non-Chalcedonians criticisms, and being unable themselves to sufficiently refute such criticisms i.e. being unable to maintain the integrity of Chalcedon as a non-Nestorian council according to its undoubtedly Nestorian concessions, they acquiesced to the re-interpreted version of Chalcedon affirmed by ConstantinopleÂÂ 553? Whatever speculation we make and choose to impute regarding what was going on in the minds of the Chalcedonians, doesn't change the objective facts however regarding the condemnation of the three chapters undermining and in a sense abrogating certain decisions made at Chalcedon, in addition to other small things such as the subsequent re-employment of "of two natures" alongside the Chalcedon "in two natures" (these two formulas at Chalcedon were interpreted in a manner that had them diametrically opposed) and other Cyrillian principles.
This article presents such an out-dated and already debunked perspective of St Dioscorus and Ephesus 449. I will deal with the one-sided claims made nonetheless:1) The false charge concerning violence and aggressiveness:And:Trevor Gervasse Jalland's evaluation of the second council of Ephesus is worth noting (The Life and Times of St. Leo the Great, (S. P.C. K., l941) pages 252-253). He admits that "most of our evidence regarding the council and its proceedings is from prejudiced sources", and that although "Leo lays the chief blame for its misdeeds on Dioscorus…it is more than doubtful how far he was really responsible." The real conduct of the council's proceedings were in the hands of the imperial commissioners. Jalland further remarks concerning the Chalcedonian charge of tumultuous behaviour at Ephesus 449, that Chalcedon was no exception (A similar view is expressed by Honigman also about the council of 449. See Juvenal of Jerusalem, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, No. 5, Harvard University Press, 1950, p. 236). According to the Coptic Synaxarium, the blessed St Dioscorus was smitten at Chalcedon; he was struck on his mouth, and the hairs of his beard were plucked out. He took the hair and the teeth that were knocked out and sent them to Alexandria saying, "This is the fruit of Faith."There is simply no reliable evidence of thiis alleged violence or aggressiveness. Any evidence we have in fact suggests the opposite. For example, despite St Dioscorus' resistance to that blasphemous Tome of Leo, he nonetheless adopted a very friendly stance towards Leo of Rome, who was described at Ephesus 449 as a "lover of God"; Domnus of Antioch was titled "lover of God" as well. When Leo of Rome requested that the emperor of the West Valentinus, his mother, and his sister Pulcheria, intercede before Emperor Theodosius II in order that another council may be summoned, Emperor Theodosius responded with a letter praising the Council of Ephesus and stating that it was "controlled by the fear of God." He also declared that he had himself examined the council and found it satisfactory, and asserted that "the members held fast to the true faith and the Fathers' canons."The only violence in fact noted by Emperor Theodosius II was that of the Nestorians, which is why Emperor Theodosius II prevented the attendance of Theodoret of Cyrus because of the pains that believers — even in the villages — suffered from the Nestorians. Eutyches in his appeal to the Bishops, also revealed the violent nature of the Nestorians, asserting "that during the trial he had expressly stated that he was ready to follow what these should determine, but that Flavian had refused to accept this appeal; and he protested against the violence with which he had been treated both at the Synod and afterwards by the populace." (Sellers, The Council of Chalcedon, page. 70)Any reliable evidence available to us in fact suggests that this alleged aggressiveness was the very opposite of St Dioscorus' character and person. For example, in rebuking Domnus of Antioch's encouragement of Theodoret of Cyrhus, Domnus is said to have responded to St Dioscorus by "telling him that he enjoyed his letter because of his love and openness." (Mar Sawirius Yacoub Thomas, Damascus and its Connections for the Syrian Orthodox: The History of the Syrian Antiochene Church, Vol. 2, page 15) Even Theodoret himself, "whose testimony in [St Dioscorus'] favour cannot be suspected, declared in a letter to Dioscorus, soon after his consecration, that the fame of his virtues, and particularly of his modesty and humility, was widely spread (Ep. 60)" (Wace, H, in the article to which I am responding.)ÂÂ J. Neale offers a balanced depiction of St Dioscorus, as a "man of excellent disposition and much beloved for his humility. These virtues were adorned with his fiery zeal for the faith and his presence of mind" (History of the Holy Eastern Church, Vol. 1, page 278, 301).2) The false charge concerning the blank papers:Stephen of Ephesus was one such proponent of the charge of the blank papers. Upon investigation of his testimony, we find that he is inconsistent in his claims. The first of Stephen's stories alleged that followers of St Dioscorus had visited him at his residence, and did not let him leave the church until he recorded the decrees made by St 'Dioscorus, Juvenal, Thalassius and the other bishops'. An interesting thing to note relating to Stephen's credibility in the first place is the accusation brought against him at Chalcedon later on (Oct. 29th), concerning his plot against Basanius of Ephesus which consequently got him arrested such that Stephen could secure the See for himself. The council consequently deposed both Stephen and Basanius. Given his history of deception [In his Patristic Studies (173), Honigman refers to the story of how Stephen had concocted the legend of the seven sleepers in order to divert people's attention from his crime and avoid detection ], suspicion against the credibility of an already inconsistent testimony, is more than reasonable.A more striking claim also suggesting the fallacy of the claims made by Stephen of Ephesus, concerning Theodore of Claudiopolis' statement that everything reported at Ephesus was performed by St Dioscorus, Juvenal and the early signatories. This implicitly contradicts Stephen's denial of ever agreeing to and consequently signing the decrees of Ephesus 449 when one considers that Stephen himself can reasonably be considered one of these "early signatories." [Stephen was one of the leading men at the council of 449, occupying the sixth place among the delegates. Regarding the decision to read the minutes of 448 before presenting the Tome of Leo, he was the second speaker after Juvenal (ACO. II, I, page 97); of acquitting Eutyches, he was the third speaker after Juvenal (ibid , page 182) of condemning Flavian and Eusebius, he was the fifth speaker after Juvenal (ibid., page 192). On all these occasions Juvenal had in fact spoken first. Stephen was the fourth—in the order of Dioscorus, Juvenal, Domnus and Stephen— to sign the decisions of the council at the close of the first session (ibid.,pages194 1067).] Furthermore, Theodore's claim that St Dioscorus and "his party" conducted private meetings at which Theodore and others were not present, only to be handed blank papers by St Dioscorus and Juvenal themselves , simply challenges common sense which dictates that had the whole blank paper plan actually been enacted, that St Dioscorus and Juvenal would have employed other identities to extend the blank papers to Theodore and company, as opposed to extending it to them personally as if to expose themselves so stupidly.In responding to the very principle of this claim, the Egyptian priests cried out saying: "A soldier of Christ fears no worldly power; light a fire and we will show you how martyrs can die." St Dioscorus quietly added that, "It would have been more compatible with a bishop's dignity to refuse signing what he knows not specifically when it is that which concerns the majesty of the Faith".The subject was then diverted but later revisited when the continued reading of the minutes of Ephesus 449 revealed that those present believed the theological basis of the council to be that of the fathers. (Samuel, Fr. V.C., op. cit., page 45) The Oriental Bishops then realizing the untenability of their claims against the council, the minutes of which reveal was once upheld by them, claimed that such a statement was later recorded on the blank papers. "'Everyone wrote with the help of his notary', answered Dioscorus. Juvenal also confirmed the words of the patriarch, and added that his secretaries took down the minutes with the others. Take the report of Juvenal's notary, said Dioscorus, or that of Thalassius, or for that matter of the bishop of Corinth, and see whether theirs is a copy of my minutes." (Samuel, Fr. V.C., op. cit., page 45) In contradiction to his original testimony that the false records were a result of St Dioscorus writing on signed blank papers, Stephen of Ephesus in an attempting to counter the common sense objection of St Dioscorus to the claim of the Oriental Bishops, asserts that St Dioscorus in fact had his secretaries coerce the notaries of the other bishops to write what was written by them. (ACO, II, I, pages 87-88 130-32) "All these allegations were answered by Dioscorus." (Samuel, Fr. V.C., op. cit., page 46) "Let the account in the possession of Stephen himself be read", he said, "to see whether I forced him to copy anything" (ACO. ii, i. p. 88: 33.). But no one responded to him.Even assuming any truth to the story of the blank papers for arguments sake, the fact remains that those who asserted it (Stephen of Ephesus and Theodore) had claimed that St Dioscorus carried out this crime with the participation of others, hence contradicting the position of the Roman legates and Eusebius of Dorylaeum who attempted to place full responsibility for any alleged error or crime committed at Ephesus 449 on St Dioscorus alone. Furthermore, "Eusebius of Dorylaeum was present at the council of 449. But in his petition read to the council of 451 on 8 October, which in all probability was the same as his appeal to emperor Theodosius II soon after the council of 449, he did not mention the story of the blank papers, although he noted it as an incident which had actually happened in his second petition submitted on 13 October. Is it, then, that the man who should be an eyewitness to the alleged story had to wait for over two years to hear it for the first time on 8 October 451 from the men who had signed the Tome of Leo and agreed to support it?" (Samuel, Fr. V.C., op. cit., page 46)In ridiculing their consistent denial of those present at Ephesus 449 regarding the fact they had willingly stated all that was read in the minutes of the Council, St Dioscorus responded: "They want to deny all that is confessed to be the fact…let them next say they were not there." (Wace, H., op. cit.)Later on in the proceedings when the case of Flavian's excommunication was being discussed, the oriental party who had accused St Dioscorus of having collected blank papers with their signatures, and hence attempting to relieve themselves of responsibility for any of the decrees of Ephesus 449 including that of Flavian's excommunication, had followed up the matter crying, 'we all have sinned, we ask for pardon' (ACO, ii, I, page 94:181). In response, the commissioners then asked, 'Did you not complain that you had been forced to sign on blank papers the excommunication of Flavian?'(ACO, ii, I, page 94:182) In answer they repeated the words, 'We all have sinned; we ask for pardon' (ACO, ii, I, page 94:183) Thus they apologized both for agreeing to excommunicate Flavian and for fabricating the story of the blank papers.Regardless of the efforts ofÂÂ the Roman legates, Eusebius of Dorylaeum and the Oriental Bishops to exclude St Dioscorus as solely responsible for the decisions of Ephesus 449, the initial verdict of the commissioners admitted to the Conciliarly nature of the decisions made, hence calling for the deposition of all the leading figure of Ephesus 449.No, not really. I never meant to imply that his failure to answer the three summons was the exclusive justification by the Chalcedonians of his ex-communication, but merely that considering that none of the other matters were conclusively investigated, the canon regarding the three summons was used to seal the deal on such matters, and hence to justify the execution of the ex-communication of St Dioscorus.I will nonetheless answer all of the charges given:Ephesus 449 was a valid Orthodox Council and its decisions overturning the false decisions made at Constantinople 448 were hence valid, and such validity was never investigated objectively at Chalcedon. If you want to dispute this with me, you can try. But until then, the above attempted justification of St Dioscorus' ex-communication has no valid basis.In fact, the above attempted justification of St Dioscorus is not only baseless, but it is hypocritical. As proven, Theodoret of Cyrrhus was under anathema yet he was taken into communion by Leo of Rome. By the Chalcedonians own reasoning therefore, Leo of Rome should be ex-communicated. The case with Leo of Rome is in fact much worse, for unlike St Dioscorus who restored Eutyches to communion by virtue of his Orthodox confession of faith, Leo restored Theodoret aware that he had yet to anathematise Nestorius. Furthermore, Theodoret implicitly though clearly upon his own admission, never renounced his heresies.The charge of co-ercsion has been debunked above. On a sidenote, this quote is a nice representation of the attempt to push forth the papal supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. Actually, he didn't:Although this document was not read at Ephesus 449, it must be allowed that "Dioscorus made more than one attempt to give the papal letters a hearing" (Tixorent, History of Dogmas, Volume 3, page 81), a point that St Dioscorus himself made at the Council of Chalcedon: "What has happened is clear…I asked twice for the reading of the writing of the most revered bishop of Rome" (ACO. II, i. pages 84, 93 and 99). The first instance at which St Dioscorus allowed for the reading of Leo's tome, was after the reading of the imperial letter of convocation by John the chief notary. "As soon as the reading ended, the delegates of the West declared that they carried a message from their Prelate. At this declaration, Abba Dioscorus exclaimed: 'Let the message of our brother and Co-bishop Leo to this Council be read.' The chief notary, however, declared that there were other letters from the Emperor which should be read first. The delegates from the West acquiesced." (El Masri, The True Story of the Copts, page 291)In any event, there was no valid reason necessitating its being read in the first place; it "was not [even] written as a document to the council, but as a letter to the emperor and a copy had been sent to the council handed by the delegates." (Malaty. T. Fr., The Coptic Orthodox Church As a Church of Erudition and Theology (preparatory edition), page 126) Metropolitan Methodios of Aksum states: "the fact that the letter was submitted to the Synod was enough. Leo's representatives were present and they could have made his view known. Even to-day, circular letters are submitted to the Synods, but not necessarily read." (Fouyas, Methodios, Theological and Historical Studies (Athens: 1985), Volume 8, page 14 (n. 3))Leo of Rome falsely ex-communicated St Dioscorus 6 months prior to the day that this charge against the latter was made (ACO. II, i, p 43). If St Dioscorus did this therefore, it was simply a reciprocal action, and therefore justified.+Irini nem makarismos
Regarding whether changes to Chalcedon were made by the 5th council:To know that the fifth council did change Chalcedon, all you have to do is look at the events that took place, including the fact that more schisms and excommunications happened among the Chalcedonians after 553.For example, the Assyrians ("Persian Church") had accepted Chalcedon as vindicating the Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia. In fact, it was the Assyrians' acceptance of Chalcedon, with their proclamation that Nestorius was vindicated at Chalcedon, which caused the Armenian Church to condemn Chalcedon in the early 500's.  After 553, however, the Assyrians parted ways with the other Chalcedonians. This is because the fifth council had condemned Theodore and had redefined Chalcedon to orient it more toward Alexandria, using phrases the Assyrians found objectionable, like "God suffered in the flesh," etc. Another example is the "Sleepless Monks" in Constantinople. They upheld the Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia, celebrated Nestorius' feast day and were staunch Chalcedonians. They enjoyed a good relationship with the authorities until Justinian tried getting them to agree with the idea that one of the Trinity suffered in the flesh. At that point they broke off communion with their fellow Chalcedonians.Finally, Pope Vigilus, as well as the eastern patriarchs, initially condemned the fifth council because it did, in their opinion, change Chalcedon. Justinian had to just about twist the eastern bishops' arms off to get them to sign onto the fifth council. Justinian couldn't do that with Vigilus, however, which is why Vigilus excommunicated the eastern churches and a schism resulted which lasted for about 50 years.This Catholic article deals with this schism: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14707b.htmMany Chalcedonians living in the 21st century like to say that the fifth council changed nothing and that Chalcedon was interpreted exactly the same way 1500 years ago that it is interpreted now. However, it is clear that the people who lived at the time did not see it that way. Vigilus, the eastern bishops, the sixth century Persian Church and the Sleepless Monks were a lot closer in time to Chalcedon than we are. Looking at their actions and words tells us that Chalcedon was initially interpreted by its supporters, as well as its opponents, as supporting the Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia.The fact is, most Chalcedonian theologians today use the word "neo-chalcedonianism" to describe the interpretation of Chalcedon that emerged after 553. Chalcedon and its supporters did change in a way that brought them away from the Christology of Theodore and more in line with St. Cyril.It always gets me when a Chalcedonian says that the Non-chalcedonians were originally Apollonarian heretics and that over time they became more Orthodox, which is why the Chalcedonians and Non-chalcedonians basically agree on Christology today. Looking at history, it becomes clear that the Non-chalcedonians never changed. They were always Orthodox. It was the Chalcedonians who changed after 553.
JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, "Neither of the great parties was as a whole content with the terms of the Union Symbol. On the one hand, Cyril's right-wing allies viewed his acceptance of the Two Natures doctrine with unconcealed dismay. In self-defence he was obliged to muster arguments to show that, for all the at first sight objectionable language in which it was expressed, it was essentially the teaching he had always supported. On the Antiochene side there was an extremist Cilician group which persisted in declaring Cyril a heretic...Cyril himself, however, stood for moderation, and while he was alive he restrained his hot-headed partisans. With his death in 444 the reaction against the Two Natures doctrine gathered force and is reflected in attacks launched on the teaching of Theodoret, now the leading theologian of the Antiochene school. Cyril's successor, Dioscorus, an energetic and ruthless prelate, put himself at the head of it. He was determined, cost what it might, to reassert the One Nature doctrine which, he sincerely believed, had the authority of the fathers behind it and which had only been compromised by Cyril in a moment of weakness."
St. Cyril's relevant letters in this controversy include epistles 40 (to Acacius)
Apologies, I'll have to put this one off until next week.
As is universally recognized in scholarly circles, Dioscorus thoroughly dominated the Robber Synod.ÂÂ
Even if Euyches was Orthodox (and his own statements are so muddled and contradictory as to make the determination of his real views very difficult indeed), it does not follow that he was unjustly deposed. If he was Orthodox at the time of his examination by Flavian, he certainly did his best to conceal it. There is no evidence that Eutyches' deposition was in any way irregular, and therefore the deposition of his accusers was unjustified.
The "duality of natures" refers to statements about Jesus after the Incarnation, and is merely another way of expressing the Chalcedonian phrase "in two natures".ÂÂ
Theodoret agreed to the Formula of Union
he also was on good terms with St. Cyril at the time of the latter's death.
As you yourself have noted, an individual's attitude to a doctrine itself is more important than his attitude to the person holding that doctrine. Theodoret was not a Nestorian, so his attitude to Nestorius is not particularly important in determining his orthodoxy.
Again, like Theodoret, Ibas was fundamentally a moderate Antiochian. Some of his statements were objectionable, but his statements at Chalcedon show him to have been Orthodox
Why did it have to specifically use the phrase "hypostatic union"? The whole point of that phrase was to clarify, against Nestorius, that there was only one hypostasis in Christ. This Chalcedon did in clear and unmistakable terms.
It should also be pointed out that "hypostatic union" was not found in the Symbol of Union.
St. Leo specifically denies that the two natures act independently, affirming that they act always "in concert" with one another. Granted, taken alone, this phrase is susceptible of Nestorian interpretation,
A patriarch like Dioscorus who foments schism excommunicates himself.
Alexandrian Christology was not vindicated as against Antiochian at the council; it was vindicated as against the excesses of Nestorius. The Latin west, which used language that had more in common with Antioch than Alexandria, was not even addressed. Alexandrian Christology is no more authoritative than Latin Christology, or moderate Antiochian.
You say in your first paragraph that you never made any distinction between the condemnation and anathematization of Nestorius, yet in the second, you do draw such a distinction. From the minutes you posted earlier, it seems he had no problem whatsoever condemning Nestorius.
Yet the Orthodox Church has never recognized the supremacy of Rome.
Further, while Dioscorus was deposed, the Alexandrian See was not "destroyed." It exists to this day.
Whatever Justinian may have felt, the Council did affirm and define, not redefine, the faith. New heresies call for new councils.
In short, one must consider the primary sources, not mere interpetations of hwhat happened. It is clear from the above canon that the "changes" were never made
If you continue to maintain that Orthodoxy doesn't accept the Nestorian heresies today, you must clearly show where it changed. if you cannot, it can only be assumed that no changes were ever made.
So now we seem to have two varying sources.
But I guess the question that is on my mind is: what killed Flavian?
Yet, none of the other witnesses claims seem to be properly addressed. When so many people bring on similar accusations
As in the previous post, it has been shown that Theodoret condemned Nestorius without hesitation. It is not unreasonable to assume Leo did not know this.
Further, whether Leo's (personal) excommunication of Dioscorus is valid or not is not the question. The issue is whether Chalcedon rightly excommunicated him.
Bizzlebin,You clearly misunderstand. What I have argued is that there is no distinction between an individual's condemnation or anathematization of Nestorius in its corollary implications regarding whether or not that individual thence condemns or anathematizes the general heresy. What you are referring to, is the minutes of Chalcedon where those opposed to Theodoret required not merely a condemnation, but a strict and explicit anathematization. My point is, that it doesn't make a difference either way regarding the fact that Theodoret was a heretic, regardless of what was demanded of him.Irrelevant. Rome clearly recognised its own supremacy during the whole Chalcedon controversy and the events leading up to it. Their aim was not to "destroy" the Alexandrian See, but rather only to undermine it and subject it to Rome and Constantinople since it had been exerting such a powerful influence at the time. The Alexandrian See today is claimed by both a Greek Chalcedonian patriarch who succeeds a Chalcedonian line of succession, and a Coptic non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Patriarch who succeeds the non-Chalcedonian line of succession from St Dioscorus. The Greek flock is relatively negligible. But that is besides the point anyway.As I stated, the Nestorian heresy was already addressed at Ephesus 431. I'm aware of the fact that Constantinople dealt with other heresies, but its primary purpose was to vindicate Chalcedon from the polemics of its Orthodox critics regarding its being a Nestorian council. It therefore sought to re-affirm and re-establish what Ephesus 431 already achieved, and what Chalcedon compromised for the Chalcedonian church. Primary sources must necessarily be interpreted. You are reading the above canon at face value; you are not approaching it critically. Obviously Constantinople is not going to admit that it abrogated Chalcedon; that would be a disaster for the Chalcedonian church as it would be an unequivocal admission that the non-Chalcedonian church were right all along. But I have already given you evidence that this was in effect what Constantinople did in its condemnation of the three chapters. Just because a primary source reveals the council claiming it hadn't changed a thing, that doesn't make it true and in light of the historical facts. It is deemed untrue in light of what actually occurred.I have already pointed to the condemnation of the three chapters as an abrogation of the effects of Chalcedon, and Salpy has briefly gone into that. I am willing to go further into it if you choose to engage with the issue, but as of yet you have not. I maintain that Constantinople 553 rectified all the errors of Chalcedon; condemned all heretics and heretical documents, and re-ratified the faith of Ephesus 431 from the compromise of Chalcedon.Actually, no. We have your article that presents claims, and we have my response based on a number of sources presenting reasoned arguments refuting those claims. If you are trying to say that we simply have two opposing opinions or claims presented from two varying sources, then you are only fooling yourself.I don't know, why don't you tell me? I've already dealt with the charge of aggression and violence above, and am prepared to deal with any other such wild allegations.Excuse me? I have shown you that all these witnesses in claiming the same charge, have not only been blatantly inconsistent amongst themselves but have in fact on occasions contradicted there own selves, and finally a large party of them admitted that the whole story was a lie and begged for his forgiveness. There is obviously therefore no credibility to the charge, especially when they are making mere claims, and have no supported evidence to back up their statements.St Dioscorus explicitly denied this charge; however, this is not merely a case of two parties making opposing claims, rather it is clear that the claims against St Dioscorus are obviously not credible, or reliable or trustworthy, and hence his denial of their charges stand as the only reliable position on the matter i.e. that no such thing ever occured.Actually it is. Leo of Rome sent a letter to Theodoret after he anathematised Nestorius, asking him why it took him so long to finally do it. This is a clear indication that he was aware that Theodoret had not done so. Theodoret was under ex-communication when Leo of Rome took him into communion; his action was simply unwarranted — he did not have either the reason nor the authority to take such an action, except that he thought himself as Bishop of Rome the supreme arbiter of church matters capable of overturning an conciliar decision by himself.Actually it is the question. You are the one who presented us with Wace's article concerning why St Dioscorus was ex-communicated. One of those reasons presented, concerned St Dioscorus' ex-communication of Leo of Rome. If Leo of Rome invalidly ex-communicated St Dioscorus 6 months prior, then St Dioscorus' reciprocal action is warranted, and hence this attempted justification is invalid.+Irini nem makarismos
You say there was opposition to Leo's erroneous claims of supremacy, which is very true, but then automatically lump us in there as well. The purpose of pointing out that we do not recognize (and have never recognized) the supremacy was to clarify that. It has been our position that all bishops are fundamentally equal.
But if we accept the possibility of Rome conspiring against Alexandria, is it not entirely plausible that Alexandria knew this, and had an counter-agenda, so to speak, of their own?
They did not hint at any change, but rather affirmed Chalcedon as orthodox, and, without changing Chalcedon, further defined the orthodox teaching and re-affirmed Cyril's works.
Does not the last canon of Chalcedon in fact speak of the Egyption bishops still participating in the Council? If the Council was in such heresy, what in the world were the Egyptian bishops, formerly under Dioscorus, doing there?
for it was only later, years later, when a (Coptic) sucessor for Dioscorus appeared!
The source I gave had multiple editors and it quoted other sources throughout it's text. The only fooling is that the aforementioned is untrue.
If Dioscorus was not the killer…
…who was?
And come on, just because someone writes a bishop and tells them they are great doesn't guarantee it is true, or that it will not change. Hardly a basis for the defence of a criminal charge
Again, if everyone had an inconsistant, but similar, story, there must have been some element of truth to it.
It is also clear that everything Dioscorus said didn't line up. Because he simply didn't "crack" and apologize doesn't mean he was truthful. It is far easier for one to persist in a lie, rather than a group.
Theodoret may not have anathematized Nestorius, but he did not hesitate in comdemning him.
If that was the sole reason for the excommunication of Dioscorus, you're right, there would be a problem. But it was not the sole reason.
The claim that St Cyril alienated St Dioscorus from His Patriarchate, is the clearly the claim that I asked you to support with evidence. You have failed to provide any evidence of this, and the above quote is clearly not even relevant to such a claim. The only thing that the above quote attempts to prove is the allegation that St Dioscorus in his faithful adherence to St Cyril's mia physis formula subsequent to St Cyril's death, had undermined the two nature expression as employed in the Formulary.
1) As I have already stated, the expression "two natures" is employed only twice in the Formulary, and each time it is qualified by the preposition "ek" i.e. "of". St Dioscorus had absolutely no problem with the "of two natures" expression employed by the Formulary. In fact, he explicitly asserted his acceptance of it at Chalcedon (ACO, II, p. 120 :332), I thus fail to see how St Dioscorus opposed to two nature formula of the Formulary.
) St Dioscorus most clearly implied his approval of the Formulary. In his letter to Domnus of Antioch, St Dioscorus states: "Now I come back to you, O Christ loving bishop of Antioch, my brother, observe that John did not spare any effort to strengthen the unity of the Church at your end and ours. A unity that they cannot disrupt, they dispatched their forces against it, and without feeling it, they were about to destroy the time of peace. How glorious is the time of peace!"I fail to see the "unconcealed dismay" that Kelly speaks of; all I see is unconcealed joy and hope from St Dioscorus.
3) Kelly implies that the mia physis formula was somewhat opposed to the two nature formula employed in the Formulary, when he claims that St Dioscorus attempted to "re-assert it" as if it had been renounced by St Cyril upon his acceptance of the Formulary. This was the false interpretation of the Formulary inferred by a faction of the Antiochenes (including Theodoret) who regarded St Cyril an Apollinarian heretic who had renounced his Apollinarianism and submitted strictly to a "two nature Christology" upon his acceptance of the Formulary. Unfortunately, such an argument is made in ignorance of St Cyril's interpretation of the Formulary taking into account his subsequent works and defences, which clearly show that he never renounced mia physis doctrine and in fact continued to stress and assert it subsequent to his acceptance of the Formulary, giving us clear evidence that he in fact understood the Formulary in the same manner that St Dioscorus and the Copts did:
Near the end of his life, and well after his acceptance of the Formulary, St. Cyril wrote a book titled "On the Unity of Christ" in which he states:"We say there is one Son, and that He has one nature even when he is considered as having assumed flesh endowed with a rational soul. As I have already said, He has made the human element His own. And this is the way, not otherwise, that we must consider that the same one is at once God and man."
Clearly then, St Cyril did not assign any dogmatic value to the Formulary;
it was clearly not the standard criterion for anything, therefore those who considered it as such are heretics and schismatics.
I love that letter; it is one of my favorites. I urge you however, to view St Cyril's letters collectively as the Oriental Orthodox non-Chalcedonian Church always has. Allow me to quote you another letter in the controversy; the letter to Bishop Succensus:"For not only in the case of those who are simple by nature is the term 'one' truly used, but also in respect to what has been brought together according to a synthesis, as man is one being, who is of soul and body. For soul and body are of different species and are not consubstantial to each other, but united they produce one natureÂÂ of man, even though in the considerations of the synthesis the difference exist according to the nature of those which have been brought together into a unity. Accordingly they are speaking in vain who say that, if there should be one incarnate nature 'of the Word' in every way and in every manner it would follow that a mixture and a confusion occurred as if lessening and taking away the nature of man."
Allow me to shed some light on the evidence regarding the most Holy Council of Ephesus II, and I will show you true and honest scholarship my friend:His Grace Bishop Gregorius Benham offers some insightful remarks in consideration of the publication of the imperial letters of Emperor Theodosius II and Emperor Valantinus (translated from Syriac to Arabic), which are reiterated in English by Fr. Tadros Malaty in The Coptic Orthodox Church As a Church of Erudition and Theology (preparatory edition), pages 122-123.ÂÂ He notes that there had been no previous letters between St Dioscorus and the emperors, and that the Council was not even instigated upon the request of St Dioscorus, who "demanded no personal benefit", but rather the Patriarch of Alexandria presided as well by virtue of his dignity as by the express demand of the most blessed and last Orthodox Emperor of the Orthodox Christian world, who required that "St Dioscorus should haste to put an end" to "the increased theological troubles that spread in the See of Constantinople." St Dioscorus did not preside by himself however; presided with other members, such as Juvenal of Jerusalem for example. Furthermore, all the decisions made at Ephesus 449 were accepted through a system of voting, through which there was shown to be unanimous consensus amongst the Bishops. You will find this same position based on the aforementioned primary sources held in Neale, History of the Holy Eastern Church, Vol 1, page 290; Guette, Histoire de l'Eglise, Vol. IV, pages 557-9.
I'm sorry, but you are presupposing that "in two natures" was simply another way of expressing Christ's "duality of natures", and retrospectively reading this interpretation into the expression. Such a statement is in fact made in ignorance of the fact that "in two natures" at the time was a popular Nestorian expression used to express the fact Christ existed in two hypostases. This is what Eutyches was thus most probably denying when he refused to submit to such an expression.
St Cyril never understood "in two natures" as referring to a "duality of natures", which is why he NEVER, not once, used the expression, because being a staunch opponent of Nestorianism he understood how it was being used at the time.
You are therefore, approaching this anachronistically — you are reading something into an expression which simply did not possess that connotation at the time. It had a Nestorian reputation and interpretation.
Even granted that individuals like Flavian used it in an Orthodox sense, the fact remains as the above scholars note, that the expression and any possibly orthodox interpretation of it thereof, were never ratified dogmatically by an Ecumenical Council — it was not even used in the Formulary — therefore Eutyches was not obliged to confess something which merely represents the theological opinion and expression of another; therefore, his ex-communication was false, and St Dioscorus' reciprocal action was warranted.
As I already stated, the Formulary could be interpreted in varying ways. There was a heretical Antiochene faction for example, who interpreted the Formulary (a non-dogmatic document) in a manner opposed to the Dogmatic and Authoritative Ecumenical Council of Epehsus 431. Guess what, Thedoret was one of these heretics, and here is the evidence:After reviewing the Formulary, Theodoret wrote to John of Antioch giving the following opinion of it:"We have assembled together, and read the Egyptian Letter; we have carefully examined its purport, and we have discovered that its contents are quite in accordance with our own statements, and entirely opposed to the Twelve Chapters, against which up to the present time we have continued to wage war, as being contrary to true religion. Their teaching was that God the Word was carnally made flesh; that there was an union of hypostasis, and that the combination in union was of nature, and that God the Word was the first-born from the dead. They forbade all distinction in the terms used of our Lord, and further contained other doctrines at variance with the seeds sown by the apostles, and outcome of heretical tares."
Is that why Theodoret called St Cyril a villain and praised the latter's death? That's disgusting. You are trying to defend a man, who would curse a departed Saint and rejoice at his death? In his letter to Domnus of Antioch, Theodoret says concerning the death of the blessed St Cyril:"At last and with difficulty the villain has gone. The good and the gentle pass away all too soon; the bad prolong their life for years. The Giver of all good, methinks, removes the former before their time from the troubles of humanity; He frees them like victors from their contests and transports them to the better life, that life which, free from death, sorrow and care, is the prize of them that contend for virtue."
You obviously miss my point. I noted the fact that one's attitude to a particular proponent of heresy is irrelevant to their attitude of the heresy itself, in order to prove that Thedoret's pressured anathematization of Nestorius does not negate the fact Theodoret was still a Nestorian. In the same breath of his condemnation of Nestorius, Theodoret himself most clearly implied that he did not renounce his past Nestorianism and that he regarded it Orthodox, and that Theodore of Mopsuestia (the one officially condemned as Nestorian in Constantinople 533) the one who taught him this heresy was also Orthodox. All this whilst accepting Chalcedon - further evidence that Chalcedon could indeed be conformed with Nestorian doctrine.
The relevance however of the point that I made regarding the fact that Theodoret did not anathematise Nestorius, is the fact that such an anathematization is nonetheless a requisite condition at the least, before an ex-communicated heretic is restored to the church. Leo of Rome happily and un-canonically attempted to restore him without this anathematization.
The same letter of Ibas vindicated at Chalcedon as Orthodox, was condemned at Constantinople 553 as a Nestorian document. If Chalcedon could accept Ibas as Orthodox, this is simply more evidence that Chalcedon was crypto-Nestorian.
It didn't have to specifically use the phrase "hypostatic union" nor was this what I was saying; it had to sufficiently affirm the concept of a "hypostatic union" i.e.ÂÂ that Christ's natures were hypostatically and substantially united as opposed to conjoined in some form of inseparable moral union. Simply affirming the phrase "hypostatic union" therefore would not have sufficed even, let alone "one hypostasis", for as Professor Frances Young states: "[Nestorius] recognizes that the term is ambiguous, even stating that Cyril's phrase 'hypostatic union' could be acceptable if it meant…a union of prosopon." (From Nicea to Chalcedon, page 236)
And I refer you back to my previous posts regarding the status and purpose of the Formulary, which prove that this is irrelevant. Neither was "in two natures" in the formulary; neither were a lot of things. The Formulary did not have the purpose of authoritatively and extensively defining Orthodox dogma in setting the standard and norm of Orthodox Tradition. An Ecumenical Council on the other hand, does have that purpose. Chalcedon failed, for it was not an Ecumenical council.
Not only is affirming that the natures act "in concert" susceptible to Nestorian interpretation, but there are in fact phrases that are clearly suggestive of Nestorianism, and not merely susceptible to it, such as when he explicitly states that each nature performs what is proper to it, in that the Word exclusively experiences divine things and exclusively acts out divine functions whilst the flesh exclusively experiences humanly things and exclusively acts out human functions.
Furthermore, Nestorius himself praised the Tome of Leo whilst in exile. What clearer evidence could one want regarding the dichotomy between Leo's doctrine as presented in the Tome and St Cyril's doctrine as presented at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus 431, when the heretics themselves — Nestorius and Theodoret, find themselves unable to reconcile their views with that of the blessed St Cyril, yet unequivocally praise the Tome of Leo as a confirmation of their heresies.
When you are capable of giving us evidence of where the blessed Confessor of the Orthodox Faith St Dioscorus went wrong, then talk to me. But until now, the evidence clearly shows that he was plotted against and persecuted for a faithful adherence to Orthodox Tradition. The reasons for his being ex-communicated by Chalcedon have already been addressed in my above response to Bizzlebin. You simply have no case.
Do you have any concept of what an Ecumenical council is and what function it serves? An Ecumenical Council is a divinely governed authoritative and ecumenically received council, in which God speaks through the Church regarding dogmatic Orthodox Tradition. The Christology that God allowed to prevail at Ephesus 431 was undoubtedly and clearly Alexandrine Christology
Therefore, at that time, Alexandrine Christology was the standard and norm of Orthodox Tradition regarding Christological matters.
This is not to say that Antiochene Christology is per se heretical however; the Formulary clearly showed that Alexandrine Christological dogma was compatible with the moderate form of Antiochene Christology expressed in that particular document. However this document was neither an exhaustive nor dogmatic expression of Orthodox Tradition, therefore that it was presumed as such against St Dioscorus invalidates the related charges made against him.
It is interesting however that you note the relationship between Latin Christology and Antiochene Christology. This is the very reason why an Antiochene interpretation of the Formulary was essentially ratified and presumed at Chalcedon, as it was more in conformity with the Tome of one who thought himself the supreme head of the church. Leo of Rome had misgivings regarding the Saintly Alexandrine Patriarch even before Ephesus 449 ever commenced. It was his agenda all along, as with that of his legates, to vindicate Latin Christology (which is essentialy Antiochene Christology) as the norm, as that would do justice to the notion of the Bishop of Rome's self-conceived universal supremacy.
That may be your church's position, but that was not Leo's position as is evidently implied in the events that took place. There are a number of things said and committed by him and his legates that suggest an agenda to assert Rome's supremacy.No, since as Fr. V.C. Samuel states:"To say that in opposing the efforts of the Antiochene side to discredit the Alexandrine theological tradition, which for him was the faith of the Church, Dioscorus was led by a desire to dominate the see of Antioch or that of Constantinople is not borne out by available evidence."You're repeating yourself. I already addressed this when I said:Obviously Constantinople is not going to admit that it abrogated Chalcedon; that would be a disaster for the Chalcedonian church as it would be an unequivocal admission that the non-Chalcedonian church were right all along. But I have already given you evidence that this was in effect what Constantinople did in its condemnation of the three chapters. Just because a primary source reveals the council claiming it hadn't changed a thing, that doesn't make it true and in light of the historical facts. It is deemed untrue in light of what actually occurred.I have already pointed to the condemnation of the three chapters as an abrogation of the effects of Chalcedon, and Salpy has briefly gone into that. I am willing to go further into it if you choose to engage with the issue, but as of yet you have not. I maintain that Constantinople 553 rectified all the errors of Chalcedon; condemned all heretics and heretical documents, and re-ratified the faith of Ephesus 431 from the compromise of Chalcedon.After the deposition of the legitimate Alexandrian Patriarch His Holiness St Dioscorus, the Egyptian Bishops submitted and signed a petition to keep themselves free from involvement with Chalcedon. The petition contained a profession of faith, and on its ground they requested the assembly to excuse them from endorsing or rejecting the decisions of the council.When pressed to anathematise Eutyches and to submit to Leo's tome, they acquiescently carried out the former, but refused to do the latter. Much effort was exerted to take the Egyptian Bishops away from the Orthodox faith, but in the end only 4 out of the 13 broke under the pressure, sold-out on The Church and did so.Your source made claims. Those claims were addressed and debunked as untrue via reasoned arguments and valid evidence. The only other sources quoted in your article were primary sources relating what St Dioscorus's opponents said of him. The article did not present reasoned arguments in support of St Dioscorus's opponents' claims, it merely presented what those claims were, and the evidence I have brought forth clearly refutes those claims.And what suggests St Dioscorus was the "killer"? Do you have any evidence of this, or are you once again regurgitating the claims of his opponents who were willing to say anything to get rid of him? Believe me, the opponents of St Athanasius said many similar things of him, and much worse. If you are willing to take such claims as face value, then be consistent and condemn the Holy Coptic St Athanasius as an adulterer, thief, and murderer as he was charged by his opponents.The onus is not on me to prove who killed Flavian. It has nothing to do with St Dioscorus, and hence it is irrelevant to this discussion until you provide some evidence for such an outrageously wild allegation.The only murderers that I'm aware of are the Chalcedonian murderers of the Copts for their refusal to submit to a crypto-Nestorian council.First of all, the examples I brought forth were not brought up as a "defence of a criminal charge"; they were to prove that the unfounded and unsupported claim of aggression and violence (which has been disproven in my refutation of Wace's article) suggested a character of St Dioscorus that was inconsistent with what actual evidence shows of his character in relation to the treatment of his enemies.I don't need to make a "defence" to a "criminal charge", since you as the prosecution have failed to present a valid case that calls for a defence in the first place. Making a claim is not making a case. Bring me the evidence, or claim not. No there mustn't have been any element of truth to it. That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard, not only as man of common sense, but as law student as well. Obviously it was a lie that was alleged in complicity in order to give it more force — when the story crumbled, the lie was exposed. If one party makes a claim against another party, and the other party denies it, and there is no underlying evidence, then the party that fails to present a consistent account loses. The Chalcedonian party that made such a claim, contradicted each other, contradicted themselves, and admittedly lied — furthermore such contradictions were not regarding peripheral matters, they regarded quite essential elements of the story line. There is no credibility in the allegation, no evidence, and therefore all benefit of the doubt — a doubt which is far beyond reasonable - goes in favour of St Dioscorus.What doesn't line up? You're talking nonsense now. Where did St Dioscorus lie? Upon what evidence do you make this claim? The only liars were his accusers, and this has been proven — I have given you the evidence; if you cannot admit this to yourself, then that's fine, but you're really starting to waste my time when you talk the nonsense inherent in the above quote which has absolutely no basis in evidence or logic. You're making me repeat myself again:"…there is no distinction between an individual's condemnation or anathematization of Nestorius in its corollary implications regarding whether or not that individual thence condemns or anathematizes the general heresy."Theodoret was a heretic upon his own admission as I have argued in my previous posts to you.I addressed all the reasons as you presented them in Wace's article.+Irini nem makarismos
Bizzlebin,I love your MonkBot.  I am confused by your request for contemporary Chalcedonian (I assume that is what you mean by "Orthodox") sources which show that at that time they believed that the fifth council changed Chalcedon. Read my above post. I gave you such sources. A number of Chalcedonians actually broke off communion with Constantinople after the fifth council, specifically because they, the Chalcedonians who broke off communion, believed the fifth council undermined Chalcedon. These aren't Coptic sources, but Chalcedonian ones. The strong resistance to the fifth council by many, if not most, Chalcedonian is well documented by Chalcedonian sources. This resistance includes the schism which took place between Rome and Constantinople during that time. The First Seven Ecumenical Councils, by Leo Donald Davis is just one book in my own meagre collection which was written by a Chalcedonian and which details how the fifth council was strongly resisted by so many Chalcedonians of that period.
A number of people who ended up signing onto the fifth council originally had said that it changed or undermined Chalcedon. That was the reason why they initially resisted. A lot of people who signed onto Constantinople II did so not because they believed in it, but because they were afraid of the emperor. Thus, the answer to your question is yes, a number of people who eventually stayed in the Chalcedonian Church did speak of a change.You have to ignore a lot of what happened at that time to say that the fifth council was just minor clarification of Chalcedon. It really changed how Chalcedon was to be interpreted. Before 553, you could be a follower of Theodore of Mopsuestia's Christology and still be a Chalcedonian. After 553, however, that became impossible. The Three Chapters were the biggest sticking point. They were read at Chalcedon in an approving manner by the Roman Legates. Thus, even though Nestorius was condemned, the approving way in which the Chapters were read basically told people they could still believe what Theodore taught and be O.K. with the Church. That is why so many hard core Nestorians, like the Assyrians and the Sleepless Monks staunchly supported Chalcedon prior to 553.There may also have been Chalcedonians at that time who were "Orthodox" by today's standards. These would have been people who felt Theodore's Christology was repugnant, but didn't want to offend the emperors etc., by rejecting Chalcedon. They would have been happy about the fifth council. It is evident from what happened at the time, however, that there were many more Chalcedonians who felt that Theodore's Christology was the only Christology which was acceptable under Chalcedon. That is why they had such a hard time condemning Theodore and the writings of Ibas and Theodoret. Some of these people split off and some grudgingly signed onto the fifth council after complaining that it undermined Chalcedon. I know the language of the fifth council itself says that nothing had changed and it even says that the Three Chapters were never approved by Chalcedon. However, in light of everything that happened, I think that was an effort at "spin," intended to soften the opponents of the fifth council.
I don't know much about this, but it seems as if there's really just a misunderstanding on both sides. As far as I can see, Eastern Orthodoxy affirms two natures FULLY UNITED in Christ, so that He is not two persons but one, the God-man. I interpret the language of two natures as intending to heartily affirm that Christ is indeed both God and Man, fully and completely; that is, He had the nature of God, and then took on the nature of Man and united the two. I don't think the idea is to maintain that even now Christ is somehow two or divided. I may be entirely wrong on this.If the Oriental Orthodox believe the same thing as the Eastern Orthodox, I see no reason to continue disunity, unless people insist on fighting over politics. ? Is there really a significant difference that I'm unaware of? I'm not sure that a difference of opinion over past behavior by certain people of the church ought to constitue a reason for maintaining a breach. Isn't the important thing that we believe and practice the same faith? Perhaps the rejection of a council by some and not others is significant, but surely that is not an impenetrable barrier to union. Human stubbornness, regardless of the side it's on, would be though.
If the Oriental Orthodox believe the same thing as the Eastern Orthodox, I see no reason to continue disunity, unless people insist on fighting over politics. ?ÂÂ
A way around this is to discern whether the Chalcedon and Antichalcedon schism was in fact a temporary suspension of Communion which has lasted 1500 years- unlikely, but all things are possible with God!
Page created in 0.175 seconds with 26 queries.


text:
I was hoping to blissfully ignore the world's lamest holiday this year, but the couple sitting across from me at the Clear Conscience Cafe right now are making that impossible. They've been snoogling on the couch for the past half hour, kissing each other's hair and wrapping legs over legs. And the real coup came when the girl grabbed her boy's coffee mug and poured it into his mouth for him.
If there is ever a point in time when I see fit to feed another person coffee (unless both of their arms are broken or they are The Human Torso), please find me, throw me in a sack, and throw that sack off a cliff.
I just don't get it. I don't get it. There should be a holiday where couples give single people presents as thanks for putting up with their ootsyness and marrying and sofa-picking-out all year.
As for me, I plan to spend my Valentine's night spitting black bile into a flaming cauldron, mixing that up with frog spawn and battery acid, then pouring the whole batch at random out of my apartment window. And cackling. Did I mention cackling?

subset: commoncrawl


text:
OmniSMS Management System
OmniSMS is affordable for any size company.
OmniSMS Pricing
Omni Air Group has restructured its pricing for 2017 to make the OmniSMS aviation management system affordable to smaller organizations. OmniSMS subscriptions start at only $500.00 per month, plus $10.00 per covered employee per month. Discounts may also apply to eligible organizations. Contact Omni Air Group today for a quote!
OmniSMS Subscription
OmniSMS is a total safety and quality management solution. This comprehensive subscription service delivers:
- Professionally developed SMS manual, emergency response plan and event investigation program templates
- Quality assurance program template with audit checklists (for compliance monitoring, internal evaluations, vendor audits, and management reviews)
- OmniSMS web application (mobile-friendly, online reporting, auto-emails, user-defined FRAT / GRAT tools, memo system, reference library and more)
- Monthly human factors newsletter (new!)
- SMS e-Learning courses for personnel and managers (discounted at 50% off published rates)
- Initial system setup and training for administrators (4 hrs. via telephone, email, remote desktop)
- System support / SMS consulting services for the life of your subscription (includes free upgrades and improvements to your OmniSMS system)
OmniSMS pricing is based on the number of people in your flight department or organization (see above)
Safety Management System Classes and e-Learning Courses
Our SMS training picks up where other theoretical courses leave off. These courses address practical, real-world application of SMS theory, based on ICAO, FAA and Transport Canada Safety Management System models.
SMS e-Learning Courses
SMS Training for Personnel: USD $180 per person Learn more…
SMS Training for Managers: USD $270 per manager Learn more…
Classroom Training
Based on FAA and USFS models for SMS training, this two-day, 16-hour course of SMS training is for supervisors, managers and senior management; teaches SMS theory and concepts from a real-world, industry perspective. Delivered at your place of business (minimum enrollment: 8 persons).
Modern Safety Management Methods: USD $495 per person
Two-day, 16-hour course of SMS continuing education for process owners, department managers and senior management; teaches the application of advanced SMS tools such as MEDA / REDA event investigation, ARMS Event Risk Classification (ERC) and SIRA (hazard statement / risk scenario / top event methodology), best practices for ASAP / VDRP integration, advanced bow-tie analysis, and more. Delivered at your place of business (minimum enrollment: 8 persons).
SMS Consulting Services: USD $120 per hr.
Free initial consultations; lifetime support with your OmniSMS subscription)
Call us at 1+509.838.8121 to discuss which SMS products and services are right for your organization.


text: Page Image Regulation Manual Page Content The Professional Classification and Registration Regulations Manual explains the applicable regulations and criteria for classifying and registering health practitioners and their required academic qualifications / work experience, which are essential for professional classification and registration. Any amendment made to the Professional Classification and Registration Manual shall go into effect as of the date it is published on the Commission's website. Professional Classification manual for Health Practitioners The ethics of practitioner Last Update 3/5/2017 9:40 PM


text:
George Gascon Quotes
Given my experience, I believe there are three compelling reasons why the death penalty should be replaced. (1) The criminal justice system makes mistakes and the possibility of executing innocent people is both inherently wrong and morally reprehensible; (2) My personal experience and crime data show the death penalty does not reduce crime; and (3) The death penalty wastes precious resources that could be best used to fight crime and solve thousands of unsolved homicides languishing in filing cabinets in understaffed police departments across the state.
In order to ensure our criminal justice system is fair and equitable, my office is conducting an immediate assessment of every prosecution within the past 10 years where these officers were involved. This is a shameful incident that the public deserves to have addressed in a meaningful and expeditious manner.
Popular topics
- Popular topics:
- Inspirational
- Love
- Funny
- Success
- Friendship
- Life
- Motivational
- Wisdom
- Leadership
- Dream
- Positive
- Freedom
- Knowledge
- Happiness


text:
Welcome to the Onshape forum! Ask questions and join in the discussions about everything Onshape.First time visiting? Here are some places to start:
- Looking for a certain topic? Check out the categories filter or use Search (upper right).
- Need support? Ask a question to our Community Support category.
- Please submit support tickets for bugs but you can request improvements in the Product Feedback category.
- Be respectful, on topic and if you see a problem, Flag it.
If you would like to contact our Community Manager personally, feel free to send a private message or an email.
What happens when I run out of vertical estate on a feature script UI, do I get a scroll bar?
My UI expands as I add different options such as ribs stringers and spars, with these options comes many more options for each one, what if my UI extends down further than I have screen? I tried just shrinking my browser but I just lost half my UI with no way of accessing the bottom half.
kevin_o_toole_1 Onshape Employees, Developers, HDM Posts: 473Scrolling is definitely something we want to add to feature dialogs. We may be addressing this in the near future.
In the mean time, there is a somewhat ugly workaround: Hidden parameters in a feature dialog are stored in the definition just like everything else, so, with some amount of abuse of the conditional visibility system, you can create a UI that has a pseudo-tabbed behavior like so:
Here's a document that you can copy and play around with:
To be clear, I really don't think this is a style we want to encourage. The enum UI really represents exclusive options, (and does so elsewhere in Onshape, e.g. new/add/remove/intersect). I think it's confusing and inconsistent for the end user to have a bunch of invisible options affecting their feature output. Hence, our desire to work on better solutions
Thanks @kevin_o_toole_1 , I'll implement this for now... This might actually make more sense to the user since the number of variables is getting very large.
Kind regards,
as a follow up:
Looks very cool, cheers!


text:
Dig out those old Game Boy and Game Boy Color cartridges and get ready to relive the '90s glory days, because there's a new device available that turns your Android phone into the grey brick a lot loved as kids. Say hello to the Hyperkin Smartboy ($60).
The peripheral device wraps the bottom half of your phone (leaving the screen free to display the game), and it features the classic oversized gaming buttons and cartridge slot, plus a double-sided micro-USB slot. As it's still developing it, Hyperkin is offering a royalty percentage to those who can improve the Smartboy's serial app & firmware, so if you're good at this stuff, there's a chance you'll get a nice chunk from the sales of the final product. Undoubtedly, this thing will sell like hot cakes. Expected to arrive December 2016.


text:
Jacqueline "Jackie" Hartmann
Jackie was an awesome lady and we will miss her so much. Love to Charlie and her family.
Jackie was such a giving and living person. She will be missed. Comfort and Prayers for Charlie and the family.
It's been many years but Jackie was an awesome softball player but most of all a very nice person. God bless her family in their sorrow.
We are so sorry for your loss.
Sending condolences to the entire family. Jackie and Charlie have always been cornerstones of our church; no matter the length of time that may have gone by, their warmth, smiles, and welcoming words have always been a constant. Jackie will be greatly missed.
Jackie was such a neat lady who will be greatly missed by many. I hope the knowledge Christ's resurrection and his promise of eternal life with Him will comfort Charlie and the family.
Charlie-Our thoughts and prayers are with you and your family in this time of sorrow. Arlene and I will not be able to be with you as we are spending the winter with our son and grandchildren in California.
We are so sorry for your loss. Jackie always had a smile and welcoming arms! Thoughts and prayers for your family.
Jackie was a wonderful lady and she loved the Lord. May the comfort and peace of Jesus be with her family as they go through this time and hold fast to the knowledge that all shall meet again
With deepest sympathy to Jackie's family. Old friends from high school


text:
Welcome to the IanVisits alternative guide to London.
Lectures, talks, heritage events, organised walks and other random geeky miscellany.
This is quite an old listings page, did you want: Friday, 15th May 2020?
Exhibitions in London open on Wed, 15th May 2019
Displayed in date order by how soon they close.
Photography display exploring past and present Thamesmead through archival images from the RIBA Collections and contemporary photographs by artist Nina Manandhar. (Ending Soon Thu, 16th May)
The exhibition features twenty-four critically acclaimed projects that have pushed design boundaries through their exploration of the opportunities and challenges of timber structures. (Ending Soon Fri, 17th May)
Rembrandt's legendary painting will be the centerpiece of an exhibition of self-portraits that will also include works by Francis Bacon, Jean-Michel Basquiat, Lucian Freud, and Pablo Picasso (Ending Soon Sat, 18th May)
The first major exhibition on Tudor and Jacobean portrait miniatures in the UK for over 35 years. (Ending Soon Sun, 19th May)
This display presents six innovative projects from the collections of the RIBA and the V&A, each demonstrating a unique experiment in social housing design. (Ending Soon Sun, 26th May)
This exhibition displays a selection of Cultural Revolution propaganda posters, revolutionary landscapes, images of the leader and intricate papercuts all of which were collected in China during the 1970s. (Ending Soon Sun, 26th May)
Free Eric Parry: Drawing
A major exhibition exploring the role of drawing in contemporary architectural practice through the work of one of Britain's leading architects and architectural draughtsmen. (Ending Soon Sun, 26th May)
Spanning thousands of years, this takes a closer look at five objects that explore the relationship between food, power and control. (Ending Soon Mon, 27th May)
A major exhibition of works by Martin Parr, one of Britain's best-known and most widely celebrated photographers. (Ending Soon Mon, 27th May)
The exhibition highlights selected maps illustrating the topographical history of Islington from 16th-century rural village to an urban Victorian district. (Ending Soon Fri, 31st May)
Key pieces include rare and early examples of designs by Conran and Quant on display spaning the period from 1952 – 1977 (Ending Soon Sun, 2nd Jun)
The first ever exhibition outside of Norway of Harald Sohlberg, one of the greatest masters of landscape painting in the history of Norwegian art. (Ending Soon Sun, 2nd Jun)
The first solo UK exhibition by Myfanwy MacLeod, in partnership with the Contemporary Art Gallery (CAG, Vancouver). (Ending Soon Sat, 8th Jun)
This exhibition explores the objects people used to make music, what they sounded like, and how instruments were used in Romano-Egyptian rituals, homes, and childhood. (Ending Soon Sat, 8th Jun)
Free Call in the Cavalry
From flamboyant uniforms to fast horses, this exhibition looks at the shared heritage between the Hungarian and British hussars. (Ending Soon Sun, 9th Jun)
An exhibition that covers a long period in the history of magic, from the 16th to the early 20th century. (Ending Soon Sat, 15th Jun)
Women were inspired to serve their country by Florence Nightingale's work. But in 1918, as WW1 approached its end, nothing could have prepared them for what was to come - the deadly Spanish Flu. (Ending Soon Sun, 16th Jun)
The first major exhibition to explore the great twentieth-century British sculptor's fascination with armour. (Ending Soon Sun, 23rd Jun)
Free Sea Nomads
Drector and photographer James Morgan set out to capture the lives of the Bajau Laut, the world's last true marine nomads. (Ending Soon Sun, 23rd Jun)
An exhibition of drawings made by artist Feliks Topolski of the Bank of England's new Debden bank note printing factory. (Ending Soon Fri, 28th Jun)


text:
Today, we're bringing you a handpicked selection of England's most spectacular rural destinations, curated by Cottages in Northumberland. If you're looking for travel inspiration or want to escape the hustle and bustle of city life, the British countryside offers a rich variety of stunning scenery and activities. So whether you just want to relax and take in the view or put on your walking boots and explore, you won't be short of things to do on your next escape to the country.
As England's most northerly county, Northumberland offers miles of unspoilt countryside vistas and stunning coastline just waiting to be explored. Famed for its historic attractions, including Hadrian's Wall and Holy Island, you won't be short of things to do when it comes to sightseeing. Why not book a holiday cottage in Seahouses, offering the perfect base from which to explore? Take a boat trip to the famous Farne Islands to see the local wildlife – including puffins and seals – or, for the ultimate day out, drive inland to Cragside House. This National Trust house and park was home to Lord Armstrong, and was the first building in the world to be lit by hydroelectricity – with the stately house forming the centrepiece of the stunning gardens and woodland that surround it.
Situated in the far south west of the country, Cornwall is adored for its golden beaches and sunny weather – making it the perfect summertime escape. Pay a visit to Carnewas and the Bedruthan Steps on the north coast of Cornwall to enjoy spectacular clifftop views over the bay – scattered with dramatic natural rock formations. Despite the steep incline down to the sea, the National Trust have rebuilt the steps down to the shore – meaning you can enjoy the views from all angles. But beware of the incoming tide, which can trap unsuspecting visitors at the base of the cliffs. Visit the National Trust holidays website to explore a selection of cozy Cornwall cottages.
Dominating the landscape of North Yorkshire, the North York Moors offer breathtaking views of rolling hills covered in vibrant wildflowers and shrubs – with miles of walking routes to explore. No trip to the area is complete without a visit to Mount Grace Priory, one of the best preserved Carthusian priories in Britain. Explore the ruins of the priory or walk through the surrounding woods, keeping your eyes peeled for the famous population of wild stoats. With a variety of accommodation options on offer in the North York Moors, you won't be short of places to rest after a day out exploring the moorland trails.
The Lake District is a labyrinth of rugged mountains, idyllic lakes and charming market towns. If you're short on time, a visit to popular Derwentwater is a must – providing all the delights of the Lake District in one convenient location. Take a boat from Keswick to the base of Cat Bells for a challenging hill walk, with rewarding views from the 450m-high summit – or explore the shore paths surrounding the lake to get a glimpse of the landscape which inspired many of the famed novels by Beatrix Potter. For the most authentic Lake District escape, why not try camping? With numerous campsites available, you're guaranteed to get closer to the natural wonders which make this part of the country so beautiful.
Offering yet another slice of stunning British coastline, the county of Dorset is famed for its Jurassic Coast beaches – and is a popular destination for British holidaymakers looking to escape the confines of the capital. Take a walk through the sand dunes of Studland National Nature Reserve to enjoy views over the bay – and if you're lucky, you may even encounter some of the local wildlife. If sightseeing is on your agenda, make sure you check out the spectacular ruins of Corfe Castle – just a short drive from Studland Bay. Pair your Dorset escape with a stay in one of the many coastal cottages available on the National Trust Holidays website.
There you have it – 5 of England's most beautiful rural destinations. Whether you're making a quick stop or planning a longer stay, these majestic counties should provide you with plenty of inspiration for your next trip.Join Now


text:
Evaluating franchise opportunities? Earn and learn while you watch kids play and grow. Fantastic franchise offering.
Franchise Profile — My Gym Children's Fitness Centers
This is an award-winning children's early learning and play program devised to help children. They have a long and distinquished history in this field and they'll help you get your franchise up and running smoothly.
(franchise opportunity overview continues below)
This may be one of the best franchise offerings of this kind around. Don't miss it.
Learn More About My Gym Children's Fitness Centers
For more information on this franchise opportunity, visit:
My Gym Children's Fitness Centers
More Franchise Opportunities
Browse more franchise opportunities in the Gaebler Ventures franchise directory:
Our Directory of Franchise Opportunities now includes over 2,000 franchise opportunities. If we're missing a franchise, please let us know.
Additional Resources for Entrepreneurs
Search Engine MarketingSocial Marketing OptimizationBusiness Forms Business in the Jungle - Business in Fiction - NegotiatingRadio Ad Costs Newspaper Advertising RatesCity-Specific Resources for Entrepreneurs Small Business InsuranceGlobal EntrepreneurshipChina & Entrepreneurs


text:
About The Program
Once a prospective affiliate is accepted into the network, they can begin to build their site using the marketing tools and creative made available to them. It must be reviewed and approved before going live. After the site is live, traffic is generated and sales are made, our tracking software is able to generate where and when sales were sourced so commissions can be distributed.
Yes, you can. Once you've been accepted to be part of the Qology Network program you can begin using the available marketing materials for use on websites, banners, emails, and more. In addition to our online marketing materials, we also provide customizable flyers, door hangers or post cards. These materials will feature your unique promo code and toll free number to ensure you receive commission from any resulting sales.
There is no limit to the amount of income you can earn through our program. We are proud to offer some of the most aggressive commission structures available. We will help you every step of the way. You will be assigned an Account Manager who will assist you in launching your marketing campaign.
Payouts vary by provider. They can be install-based, quarterly, weekly, and even incentive programs.
Tracking & Report
In addition to using industry-standard tracking methods, we've integrated our own proprietary back-end tracking systems with which you will be able to track calls and sales generated by your marketing efforts – even if the sale doesn't occur during the first point of contact.
Once you are an affiliate of Qology Network, you will be able to track all of your sales and promotions through our online reporting system, available to you 24/7/365. Through the system, you can see all orders generated, their status and how much you will earn when the sale is approved.
Our tracking system captures a unique identifier for every order placed on our web site based on its source. Affiliates are provided exclusive, dedicated toll free phone numbers to ensure they are properly credited for their marketing efforts.
Promotion & Marketing
Marketing materials are provided to aid in both your online and offline promotional efforts. For online marketing, we provide banners (IAB approved dimensions and sizes), text links, email templates, unique landing pages and content elements. We also provide print marketing materials and can support custom creative needs for large partners.
Yes, you can. However, as part of the terms & conditions of our program, you agree to ensure your e-mail marketing efforts are in strict compliance with the CAN-SPAM act. Violators of the CAN-SPAM act will be terminated immediately from our program. It is very important that your email campaign is sent out to solely those who have expressed an interest in receiving information from you.
In order to set up your own website, you will need to purchase a domain name. This can be done through a variety of providers online relatively inexpensively (Ex. GoDaddy.com). Once your domain has been established, you will need to select content for your site. We provide a selection of customizable content, promotional and full web sites for the use of our affiliates. Simply download or copy the pages you wish to use. Customize them and upload them to your host server.