Talk:Ecthesis

Against Eutychianism
This has to become a discussion here because this is close to becoming an edit war.

"the point you want to make has no reason to be here, as the article clearly states their position"

How does the article otherwise make clear that the Non-Chalcedonians do not teach one divine nature? Deusveritasest (talk) 19:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I'm sorry (really) if you feel I've been too uncompromising, so I'll try too explain you better what I mean. The reason I find the edit without a good reason to stay is because it honestly seems to me that the non-Calchedonian position is well stated in the sentence: "who were against the idea of the two natures, maintaining that the humanity and divinity of Christ were united in one nature". Frankly, I find that their position couldn't be clearer; what's the point to mention here Eutyches, as both of the parties disagreed with him? This article doesn't even have a link to monophysitism, so for this I don't see why to raise the issue here; I'm certain there are many position the non-Calchedonians disagreed with, we don't have to list them all. Also, the passage has, I must add an apologetic flavour, and there no reason to defend here from an accusation that is not present in the article.Aldux (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the problem is the fact that the teaching of one divine nature is identified as explicitly addressed by Chalcedon, and then the Non-Chalcedonians are identified as disagreeing with the ruling of Chalcedon, which, on a very basic level, implies that they disagreed with the ruling against one divine nature, and nowhere is that explicitly denied. Chalcedon is identified as explicitly condemning it, the Non-Chalcedonians are distinguished from Chalcedon, and not identified as explicitly condemning it. The article starts by saying what is definitive of Chalcedon was ruling "that Christ did not possess one divine nature", but "possessed two distinct natures". In response it says that "This ruling was consistently rejected by the Non-Chalcedonians", mentioning explicitly the matter of two natures, but not explicitly addressing the matter of the supposed one divine nature. I am very concerned that this article seems to leave somewhat open the implication that the we are Eutychians. Deusveritasest (talk) 20:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe this can be adressed by expanding better on the background and clearing the nature of Calchedon. I'll give it a look tomorrow evening. For now, ciao, Aldux (talk) 20:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"schismatic brethren"
"... the Non-Chalcedonians considered their schismatic brethren to be more of a threat than any foreign invader." Is there any reference that supports the claim that the non-Chalcedonians considered Chalcedonians as "schismatic brethren"? rather than say heretics?--Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)