Talk:Isaac of Syria

From OrthodoxWiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Should this article be moved to Isaac the Syrian? This seems to be the preferred title (rather than 'of Syria'). --— by Pιsτévο talk complaints at 22:16, April 19, 2006 (CDT)

A redirect is already in place. But this might lead to confusion with the other St. Isaac the Syrian (abbot), Abbot of Spoleto, who lived during the mid-sixth century (April 12). --Arbible 08:31, April 20, 2006 (CDT)

I don't think it's accurate to say Isaac was a Nestorian, or even a member of the Nestorian Church. The Persian Church (which was it's true name at the time) was still in communion with the Orthodox Churches of Constantinople, Rome, Antioch etc Although already in St Isaac's time Nestorianism was gaining ground among the Persian hierarchy, no formal break had been made by anyone. That, and the obviously Orthodox confession of St Isaac himself, is the reason we venerate him as a saint of the Orthodox Church. For more information on the Orthodoxy of St Isaac and the Persian Church of the time, read the discussion in the recent edition of his homilies by Holy Transfiguration Monastery, Boston.

The article does not say that St Isaac was a "Nestorian", although it does point out (rightly, I think) that he was a member of the Church of the East, and he did live after the "Nestorian Schism." I think the problem is in the use of the term "Nestorian" (a term for a particular heresy) for a Church whose theology is not heretical. --Fr Lev 03:54, February 11, 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right the article doesn't call him a Nestorian. What I should have said is that it is not accurate to say St Isaac lived and died in a schismatic church, which would certainly make his veneration by the Orthodox a strange phenomenon. Rather, he died in the Persian Church of the East, which at the time was still in communion with the other Orthodox churches. Only later was communion broken. --Jgress 02:17, February 21, 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say he lived in a schismatic Church. The Church of the East was not part of the Roman Empire and therefore outside the province of the ecumenical councils. Those who consider the Church to be Nestorian do so becaue it did not accept the teachings of the 3rd Ecumenical Council (Ephseus, 431). If that makes the Church of the East heretical, then that would apply to St Isaac, as he was a bishop of the Church of the East three centuries after it supposedly fell into heresy. When do you suppose communion was broken? And when it was broken, it was for the alleged heresy of Nestorianism, which would have been true of the Church of the East before the time of St Isaac. It seems the right avenue to take here is to drop any suggestion that the Church of the East (which includes St Isaac) is Nestorian. The majority of Orthodox theologians believe that the Christological differences between the Eastern and the Oriental Orthodox do not rise to the level of heresy. --Fr Lev 16:52, February 21, 2009 (UTC)