Beyond dialogue: the quest for Eastern and Oriental Orthodox unity today [Archive]

View Full Version : Beyond dialogue: the quest for Eastern and Oriental Orthodox unity today

Pages : [1] 2

Athanasius Abdullah

26-02-2006, 01:45 PM

Beyond Dialogue: The Quest for Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Unity Today
John H Erickson, Dean
Symposium on 1700th Anniversary of Christian Armenia
October 27-28, 2000

Henry Chadwick, distinguished church historian and veteran observer of the ecumenical scene, is fond of remarking that the chief reason for Christian division today is division itself. Whatever may have been the issues initially leading to division, a division once established very quickly takes on a life of its own, as each side tries to justify its own role in the division. Differences that would not in themselves have been church-dividing are invested with new meaning, to the point of becoming symbols of division rather than examples of legitimate diversity. Signs of particular divine favor are discovered on each side, whether in supernatural portents or in the steadfastness of new confessors and martyrs. Competing ecclesial structures are erected. Anathemas are hurled. And even if the issues that led to the division are eventually resolved, the division itself - buttressed in these many ways - remains.

Certainly these generalizations hold true if we look at the long history of relations between the Eastern, or Chalcedonian, Orthodox Churches and the Oriental, or Non-Chalcedonian, Orthodox Churches. As these commonly-used designations suggest, both families of churches regard themselves as orthodox, as “right-believing,” or (more accurately) as “right worshipping.” But they have differed on their position with regard to the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.) and the definition on Christological dogma made at that council. Thus their long and often painful division goes back over 1500 years. In recent decades relations have begun to improve, yet developments have been both encouraging and frustrating. Encouraging - because theological dialogue, first informal in the 1960s, then formal in the 1980s and 1990s, has led to the conclusion that the Christological issues that initially prompted the division of these churches have been resolved, so that continued division can no longer be justified on dogmatic grounds. Frustrating - because the division does continue. At this point the reason for the division of our churches seems to be division itself. A closer review of relations between our churches in the last decades of the twentieth century may place in sharper relief both how far they have come in their quest for unity and also how many divisive and potentially divisive issues remain.

In this year in which we commemorate the 1700th anniversary of Armenian Christianity, it may be useful to begin our review with another anniversary year, 1951, the 1500th anniversary of the Council of Chalcedon. In a letter commemorating that anniversary, Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople quoted with approval St. John of Damascus, who in the eighth century observed that those who do not accept the terminology of Chalcedon were “nevertheless Orthodox in all things,” and he called for theological dialogue with the Non-Chalcedonian churches. The openness of Patriarch Athenagoras stands in contrast to the way in which Chalcedon was presented in popular literature of the period. On the Chalcedonian side, Chalcedon then as now was numbered as the fourth of the seven ecumenical councils; and just as the other ecumenical councils, it was remembered chiefly in terms of the heresy condemned. Just as I Nicaea had condemned the Arian heresy, I Constantinople the Macedonian heresy, and Ephesus the Nestorian heresy, so also Chalcedon had condemned the monophysite heresy. Those whom the Eastern Orthodox (or for that matter Western Christians) today refer to as Oriental Orthodox or Non-Chalcedonians were most often called monophysites in popular books of the period. The genesis of this heresy and its condemnation at Chalcedon were presented more or less like this: The Council of Ephesus (431 A.D.) quite rightly had condemned Nestorius for emphasizing Christ’s humanity to the point of separating Him into two persons; by contrast Nestorius’ chief opponent, Cyril of Alexandria, emphasized Christ’s divine nature, and followers such as Eutyches quickly enough carried this to an extreme, to the point of denying Christ’s human nature; so Chalcedon, basing itself on the carefully balanced Christology of the Tome of Pope Leo of Rome, quite rightly condemned this monophysite heresy, this heresy which held that Christ had but one nature, viz. the divine.

This, of course, is the stereotype that was widespread among the Eastern Orthodox circa 1951. No doubt comparable stereotypes existed among the Oriental Orthodox. For most Orthodox, however, whether Eastern or Oriental, the climate of opinion has changed considerably since 1951. Why?

(1) First of all, we must acknowledge the contribution of the modern ecumenical movement. Both the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox Churches have criticized certain developments within the ecumenical movement, and quite rightly. At the same time, both have benefited from the ecumenical movement in diverse ways. The very dialogue which has brought these churches so close to the point of unity and full communion is, in many respects, a product of the ecumenical movement and, more specifically, of the close contacts and resulting friendships which this movement has made possible. Back in the early 1960s, two then-young staff members of the World Council of Churches, Nikos Nissiotis and Paul Verghese - later Mar Paulos Gregorios - of the Malankara Syrian Orthodox Church, sensed the fundamental unity of the Eastern and Oriental churches. They succeeded in winning over their respective church authorities, and in turn - at first in conjunction with meetings of the Faith and Order Commission of the World Council of Churches - a series of informal consultations began (1964-71). In an atmosphere of mutual respect, relatively free from the cultural and political pressures that had doomed earlier attempts at reunion, leading theologians from both sides [1] were able to address the subject of Christology from a fresh perspective, concentrating not on what divides (as in older polemical literature) but rather on what unites (in this case, our common father from the early Church, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and his formulation “one incarnate nature of God the Word”).

Already the joint statement issued by the first of these informal consultations (Aarhus 1964) could declare: “We recognize in each other the one Orthodox faith of the church. Fifteen centuries of alienation have not led us astray from the faith of our fathers.... On the essence of the Christological dogma we found ourselves in full agreement. Through the different terminologies used by each side, we found the same truth expressed.” The second informal consultation (Bristol 1967) extended agreement to include virtually every hitherto-disputed aspect of Christology: “Some of us affirm two natures, wills and energies hypostatically united in the one Lord Jesus Christ. Some of us affirm one united divine-human nature, will and energy in the same Christ. But both sides speak of a union without confusion, without change, without division, without separation. These four adverbs” - which of course lie at the heart of the Chalcedonian definition - “belong to our common tradition. Both affirm the dynamic permanence of the Godhead and the Manhood, with all their natural properties and faculties, in the one Christ.” [2]

Building on the work of these and subsequent informal consultations, an official Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches began to meet in the 1980s. In its agreed statements on Christology, the Commission repeatedly and unequivocally affirmed the churches’ full agreement on the substance of the faith, notwithstanding differences in terminology. “In the light of our four unofficial consultations (1964, 1967, 1970, 1971) and our three official meetings which followed (1985, 1989, 1990), we have understood that both families have loyally maintained the authentic Orthodox Christological doctrine, and the unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition, though they may have used Christological terms in different ways” (Chambesy 1993). Indeed, as the documents of the dialogue point out, “Our mutual agreement is not limited to Christology, but encompasses the whole faith of the one undivided Church of the early centuries” (Anba Bishoy 1980), including, for example, the veneration of icons. [3]

(2) While the modern ecumenical movement has contributed significantly to the progress in relations between our churches, we must acknowledge an even greater debt to modern historical scholarship. During the twentieth century, our churches began to engage not only in synchronous dialogue - dialogue with each other and with other churches involved in the ecumenical movement - but also in diachronous dialogue - dialogue with their own past. They discovered, among other things, that their popular presentations of the period of church history in question were gross oversimplifications. After Chalcedon, Christological positions whether among those accepting the council or those rejecting it were much more varied and fluid than popular presentations suggested, making it difficult any longer to view one “side” as purely orthodox or the other as purely heretical.

Among those rejecting Chalcedon, there were indeed some who put forward positions that quite properly could be described as monophysite, most notably Julian of Halicarnassus, who asserted that Christ’s body was by nature incorruptible from the moment of the union, even before the resurrection, so that “even though Christ wept over Lazarus, it was his incorruptible and divine tear that raised him from the dead.” But as modern specialists beginning with Lebon demonstrated conclusively, mainstream “monophysites” like Severus of Antioch simply sought to continue the mia physis Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria. [4] They spoke of “one incarnate nature of God the Word,” but this did not mean that they denied the fullness of Christ’s humanity. In fact, much of their energy was spent in combatting the apthartodocetism of Julian of Halicarnassus and others like him, who compromised the fullness of Christ’s humanity by arguing that it was essentially different from our own. [5]

At the same time that Non-Chalcedonian “monophysitism” was being reassessed, Chalcedonian diphysitism was also being reassessed. Reacting again the older and characteristically Western approach which saw ancient church history and dogmatic development as culminating and indeed ending with Chalcedon, scholars like Fr. John Meyendorff called attention to developments after Chalcedon and indeed to neglected aspects of Chalcedon itself. [6] As Fr. Meyendorff often emphasized, at Chalcedon it was not just the Tome of Pope Leo of Rome that was the touchstone of orthodoxy. Whenever a difficult moment arose in the proceedings, the witness of Cyril, not just of Leo, was invoked. In addition, as Meyendorff and other scholars pointed out, Chalcedon itself left a number of issues unresolved, both in Christology and in the inseparable area of soteriology. Many - indeed perhaps the majority - of those who rejected Chalcedon did so on the grounds that it could be interpreted in a Nestorian way and that it had rehabilitated certain Nestorian sympathizers - personages like Theodoret of Cyrus, who with some justice have been labeled crypto-Nestorian. This possibility was eliminated only after yet another council, the fifth ecumenical council by Eastern Orthodox reckoning, in Constantinople in 553, during the reign of Emperor Justinian. This council once again emphasized the authority of St. Cyril, condemned the suspect Nestorian sympathizers, and fully incorporated into its definition the “theopaschite” formulations which those rejecting Chalcedon had long regarded as essential for orthodoxy. The hymn “Only-begotten Son,” generally ascribed to Justinian and sung each time the Divine Liturgy is celebrated, testifies to the continuing importance of this council’s understanding of Christology within the Byzantine tradition.

Only-begotten Son and Word of God: Thou art immortal,
yet for our salvation Thou didst deign to be incarnate
of the holy Theotokos and ever-virgin Mary,
and without change Thou didst become man and wast crucified, O Christ our God,
trampling down death by death;
Thou art one of the Holy Trinity,
glorified together with the Father and the Holy Spirit:
Save us!

After 553, there would be no thought of rejecting or simply ignoring Chalcedon within the Byzantine imperial church, but it was also clear that Chalcedon could be interpreted only in the light of the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria and, behind that, the soteriology of St. Cyril. In short, Chalcedon, the fourth of the councils regarded as ecumenical in the Eastern Orthodox Church, does not stand alone. It must be read in the light of the fifth and subsequent councils.

The modern ecumenical movement and modern historical scholarship have indeed helped bring our churches closer. They are now able to view both each other and their own histories in a new perspective. But we should not conclude from this that the present rapprochement is simply the result of modern relativism or the “pan-heresy of ecumenism,” as some self-styled traditionalists might charge. Even during the long centuries of division there were some on both sides who recognized that differences between the churches’ preferred Christological formulations were essentially verbal rather than substantive. And during those centuries there also were efforts to reach agreement and to restore communion. These early efforts are instructive and merit closer examination. They illustrate what both sides - at the time at least - regarded as the proper basis for reunion.

Attention already has been drawn to Emperor Justinian’s efforts in the sixth century to address the legitimate concerns of those who did not accept Chalcedon. The council which he summoned did not in fact achieve its goal of unity. By that point both sides had begun to erect parallel, competing hierarchies, and ethnic, national and political issues were further aggravating what had begun as a theological dispute. The chief reason for division was becoming division itself. Yet efforts at reunion continued - and indeed intensified - under Justinian’s successor, Justin II, who issued what has been called “a manifesto of Neo-Chalcedonian theology.” Addressing all his Christian subjects, he affirmed that orthodox Christology can be expressed both in Cyrillian terms (“one incarnate nature of God the Word”) or in Chalcedonian terms (“the difference of natures is not annulled by the union...”); and he called on all parties to unite on the basis of orthodoxia, avoiding “unnecessary disputes about persons or words, since the words [used on either side] lead to one true belief and understanding.” [7]

One problem, of course, is that emperors of this and every age tend to become impatient when their initiatives are not immediately crowned with success. In Christian antiquity imperially sponsored dialogue too often alternated with imperially sponsored persecution of dissidents. No doubt some churchmen were happy to go along with the persecutions, just as they went along with the dialogues. But there also were those who rejected force. One such was John the Faster, a sixth-century patriarch of Constantinople. “What did the dissidents do or say that deserves persecutions?” he asked. “If pagans have been justified and amnestied, how can I persecute Christians who are blameless in their Christianity and, so it seems to me, have more faith than we?”[8] Another noteworthy figure is John the Merciful, Chalcedonian patriarch of Alexandria, who is honored as a saint by both sides because of his even-handed charity.

During this early period there were also important developments in how each side viewed the ecclesial status of the other. In the wake of Chalcedon, some self-proclaimed champions of akribeia, or “strictness,” on both sides tried to ransack the archives of the churches to expunge the names of long-dead “heretics” and insisted on the rechrismation and reordination of those “repenting” of their former adherence. This approach, however, was vigorously resisted and ultimately defeated by moderate churchmen on both sides, who explored the proper limits of oikonomia, or “prudent pastoral management.” For example, Severus of Antioch, leading Non-Chalcedonian theologian of his age, railed against what he called “the heresy of the self-appointed reanointers,” i.e., those of his fellow Non-Chalcedonians who advocated rechrismation of Chalcedonians. On the Chalcedonian side too, we can see an analogous development in canon 95 of the Synod in Trullo, a synod which for the Chalcedonian Orthodox possesses ecumenical authority: Those coming over from among the Non-Chalcedonians are to be received simply by profession of faith, not by anointing with chrism or, a fortiori, by rebaptism.

While much of this discussion of oikonomia and its limits proceeded case by case, there was at least one attempt at a systematic presentation, a special treatise on the subject by the seventh-century Chalcedonian patriarch of Alexandria Eulogius. His work expresses what I take to be the accepted position of Chalcedonians and Non-Chalcedonians like: (a) By oikonomia a temporary concession can be made in matters of practice to avoid irremediably damaging the peace of the Church (e.g., Paul’s circumcision of Timothy); (b) by oikonomia differences in theological terminology can be tolerated indefinitely; (c) by oikonomia technical barriers to communion - an occasional heretic’s name in the diptychs and other vestiges of past error - can simply be ignored. But in no case may present purity of faith be compromised.

The proper basis for unity is orthodoxia, even if this is expressed in different Christological formulas. This was the conviction of leading figures on both sides in antiquity. This also was the conviction of the theologians who participated in the informal consultations between the churches in the 1960s and 1970s. This also forms the basis for the agreed statements issued subsequently by the official Joint Commission for Dialogue. But as is pointed out so often, orthodoxia involves not only right belief but also right worship, and in antiquity and continuing in the Middle Ages many differences in worship that would not in themselves have been church-dividing came to be invested with new meaning, becoming symbols of division.

Particularly instructive are the ways in which certain distinctive Armenian liturgical practices, such as the use of azymes (unleavened bread) and a chalice unmixed with water in the eucharist, come to be linked to Christological doctrine. The origins of these practices are unknown, but they certainly antedate any division of the churches. By late sixth century, however, they were becoming symbols of Armenian identity vis-a-vis the Greeks, who used leavened bread and wine mixed with warm water in the eucharist. Refusing an invitation from Emperor Maurice to come to Constantinople to discuss reunion, Catholicos Movses II in 591 declared: “I will not cross the River Azat nor will I eat the baked bread of the Greeks or drink their hot water.” [9] By the late seventh century these distinctive liturgical practices, already symbols of national identity, have become even more potent symbols of Christological doctrine. Reflecting the aphthartodocetism of Julian of Halicarnassus, which was then in the ascendency in the Armenian Church, Catholicos Sahak III (d. 703) writes: “Now we profess the body of Christ [to be] incorrupt and all-powerful always and constantly from [the moment of] the union of the Logos. This is why we take azymes [unleavened bread] for the bread of holiness with which we offer the salvific sacrifice, which signifies incorruptibility.” [10] Then, after a barrage of typological and moral arguments supporting the use of unleavened bread, Sahak goes on in like manner to associate the unmixed chalice, free from the adulteration of added water, with the incorruptible blood of Christ. The Byzantine Church quickly enough responded in kind. The Synod in Trullo (691-92) almost certainly had Sahak’s treatise in mind when it decreed that any bishop or presbyter who does not mix water with the wine in the eucharist is to be deposed, on the grounds that he thus “proclaims the mystery incompletely and tampers with tradition” (canon 32). [11] Very possibly Trullo also had Armenian liturgical practice in mind when it decreed “Let no man eat the unleavened bread of the Jews...” (canon 11). In any case, in subsequent polemical literature the issue of the bread and wine of the eucharist figures prominently, frequently to the exclusion of deeper theological reflection. Thus, despite their common rejection of Chalcedon and the generally Severan orientation of their shared Christology, the Armenian and Syrian churches in the Middle Ages sometimes attacked each other precisely because of such liturgical differences. So also, as schism yawned between the Byzantine and Latin churches in the eleventh century, Byzantine polemicists transferred their anti-azyme arguments from the Armenians to the Latins, notwithstanding the latters’ manifestly Chalcedonian Christology. Use of leavened bread and mingled wine, or conversely of unleavened bread and pure wine, immediately marked a community as either heretic or orthodox, no matter what Christological doctrine the community in question actually held!

Other liturgical practices became equally divisive. Consider, for example, the Trisagion: “Holy [is] God! Holy [and] mighty! Holy [and] immortal! Have mercy on us!” The origins of this troparion are disputed, Non-Chalcedonians claiming an Antiochian provenance and Chalcedonians attributing it to a heavenly vision when earthquakes were threatening Constantinople in 438-39. Even more disputed its interpretation. To whom is the troparion addressed? In its original form, it may have been addressed to Christ. This, in any case, is how the Non-Chalcedonian Patriarch Peter the Fuller of Antioch understood the troparion when he interpolated the theopaschite clause “who was crucified for us” into it sometime between 468 and 470, i.e., at a time when many Chalcedonians regarded any theopaschite formula with deep suspicion. Quickly enough the Trisagion became yet another bone of contention. Among Non-Chalcedonians, Catholicos Sahak III went so far as to trace the origins of the Trisagion, interpolation and all, to St. Ignatius of Antioch at the end of the first century.[12] In response to his claims, the Synod in Trullo (691-92) condemned the interpolation “as being foreign to true piety”; and by the time of the earliest Byzantine commentary on the Divine Liturgy, that of Patriarch Germanos I in the early eighth century, the troparion was being interpreted as addressed to the three persons of the Trinity, “Holy God” referring to the Father, “Holy Mighty” to the Son, and “Holy Immortal” to the Holy Spirit. [13]

One final example illustrates particularly vividly the ease with which a minor liturgical difference can be transformed into a symbol of division. In the Coptic, Syrian and Armenian liturgical traditions, a week of strict fasting - variously called the Fast of Heraclius, the Fast of Ninevah or the Forefast (Arachavorats) - preceeds the “Forty-Day” Great Fast of Lent. The same week in the Byzantine tradition calls only for abstinence from meat, not from dairy products. The historical development of the fasting practices of these various liturgical traditions is complex, but the differences between them were not the result of any dogmatic differences. [14] Yet in the context of church division, these differences came to be given a polemical explanation. Here is the rubric given in the Byzantine Triodion for Cheesefare Sunday, which introduces the week in question: “During this week the accursed Armenians fast from eggs and cheese, but we, to refute their damnable heresy, do eat both eggs and cheese for the entire week.” What one side does is enough to prompt the other to do the opposite! We see here the tragic way in which our sense of ecclesial identity has, in the context of division, been formed by opposition rather than by reference to a common faith. The characteristics by which we identify ourselves and our churches as “orthodox” all too often have been simply those extrinsic elements which make us different from others.

Must differences of worship, once invested - however artificially - with dogmatic significance, continue to divide? In the course of the Middle Ages, a few conciliatory voices could be heard. Worthy of special mention is St. Nersess the Graceful, who in the twelfth century entered into some very promising discussions with the Byzantine didaskalos Theorianos, head of the patriarchal school and ambassador of Emperor Manuel Comnenos. St. Nersess agreed, first of all, that there was indeed unity of faith, Chalcedon notwithstanding. He writes: “I find nothing in the horos [of Chalcedon] against the Orthodox faith, and I am astonished that those before us opposed it so strenously.”[15] He also is able to place an irenic interpretation on the liturgical diversity that distinguished the churches. For example, he observes concerning the Trisagion: “...whether one says [it] to the Holy Trinity, as you do, or to the Son alone, as we do, both are pleasing to God when they are said without contention.”[16] Unfortunately, initiatives towards reunion in St. Nersess’ day were not carried through. The vartabeds of eastern Armenia were slow to respond. The “guardians of Orthodoxy” in Constantinople were less than enthusiastic about the emperor’s ecumenical initiatives whether towards the Armenians or towards the Latins.[17] Perhaps more importantly, with the Battle of Myriocephalon (1176) the last remnants of Byzantine hegemony in eastern Anatolia were swept away, eliminating whatever political advantages either side might have gained by reunion.

Are current efforts to restore unity any more likely to succeed than those of the twelfth century? Certainly the modern ecumenical movement has provided a more auspicious “political” climate than that of the twelfth century, and modern scholarship has provided a clearer, more dispassionate understanding of many of the issues which have divided our churches in the past. Reflecting some of the progress that has been made in discussion of liturgical differences, the Joint Commission’s subcommittees on liturgical and pastoral issues, meeting in Damascus in February 1998, agreed - among other things - “that the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches basically maintain the old liturgical traditions in their local liturgical types, which co-existed in the undivided Church”; and they also declared

that liturgical issues have to be theologically clarified to indicate that they are in agreement with our common Christological Statements. For example, the expression “who was crucified for us” in the Trisagion hymn can be properly understood only in a Christological interpretation, while the hymn without this phrase can be understood both in Trinitarian and Christological senses. In the same spirit, the use of unleavened bread and unmixed wine by the Armenian Orthodox Church in the eucharist can be explained without any implications for the Christological consensus. [18]

But one can sense that, in the course of the last decade, the impulse towards reunion of the churches has slowed. Articles published in the late 1980s and early 1990s, soon after the Joint Commission issued its agreed statements on Christology, could speak optimistically of “recent strides toward reunion” and “last steps to unity.” [19] Since then, however, progress has slowed considerably. Opposition to reunion on the basis of the agreed statements of the Joint Commission has been mounting in Greece, Russia, Jerusalem and, on the Non-Chalcedonian side, Ethiopia. An unsigned article in a “traditionalist” Orthodox periodical, reflecting this changing tide of opinion, bears the title: “Patriarch Bartholomew Attempts to Strong-Arm the Church into Union with the Monophysites.” [20] Particularly strident, and certainly more influential, has been the 1995 “Memorandum of the Sacred Community of the Holy Mountain [Mount Athos] Concerning the Dialogue between the Orthodox Churches and the Anti-Chalcedonian Churches.” [21] Many more examples could be given. This opposition to the work of the Joint Commission does not appear to be based on Christological concerns. The Athonite memorandum, for example, refers to the actual substance of Christology only twice, and even then it fails to explore the contents of the “monophysite heresy.” [22] Objections coming from both sides have focused rather on liturgico-canonical issues, and more specifically on the anathemas which the churches hurled against each other during their many centuries of division. According to the 1990 agreed statement of the Joint Commission, “Both families agree that all the anathemas and condemnations of the past which now divide us should be lifted by the Churches in order that the last obstacle to the full unity and communion of our two families can be removed by the grace and power of God. Both families agree that the lifting of anthemas and condemnations will be consummated on the basis that the Councils and fathers previously anathematized or condemned are not heretical.” (para. 10) But so far this has not been done. Instead, in “traditionalist” quarters on both sides, the same kinds of questions have arisen: How can we lift these anathemas without betraying our holy fathers who imposed them in the first place? How can we enter into communion with those who honor as saints precisely those whom our holy fathers in the past anathematized as heretics?

One can read statements from both Oriental and Eastern Orthodox arguing precisely this. For example, according to a popular presentation of the position of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tawahido Church:

...to lift the anathemas imposed in the past upon those Chalcedonian Fathers and to accept them as saints would dishonor those Oriental Orthodox Church Fathers who condemned the Chalcedonians.... Since these anathemas have been observed for about 1500 years by our Holy Fathers as inscribed in our liturgical texts and hymnody, they shall not be lifted. [23]

Much the same attitude can be seen in the memorandum from the monks of Mount Athos, which vigorously objects to “purging the liturgical books of texts which refer to the Anti-Chalcedonians as heretical.” As the memorandum continues:

The sacred services of many confessors of the Faith, of many righteous Fathers, and especially the Holy Fathers of the Fourth Council in Chalcedon will be mutilated.... We ask: Are all the texts referred to above simply ornamental elements in Orthodox hymnology so that they can be painlessly and harmlessly removed, or are they basic elements of Orthodoxy, whose removal will cause the eradication of what we understand as Orthodoxy.

The memorandum from Mount Athos also rejects that line of thinking which “considers that the anathemas were laid upon the heretics by the Ecumenical Councils in a spirit lacking love, while today, since love now exists, union can be accomplished.” “Such a way of thinking,” the memorandum states, “directs a profound blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, through Whose inspiration these decisions were made, and against the sacred memory of the Holy Fathers, whom the Churchs calls God-bearers, Mouths of the Word, and Harps of the Spirit....”

Practically inseparable from the question of anathemas is the question of the meaning and authority of ecumenical councils. The Oriental Orthodox regard three councils as ecumenical, the Eastern Orthodox, seven. It was in councils four through seven that Oriental fathers like Dioscorus of Alexandria and Severus of Antioch were condemned; and it was in these councils that Leo of Rome, condemned as crypto-Nestorian by the Orientals, was hailed as a pillar of right belief. According to the Joint Commission for Dialogue, a sufficient basis for reconciliation is the fact that both families of churches confess the faith of all seven of the councils recognized as ecumenical by the Chalcedonians, even though they do not accord the same ecumenical authority to all these councils. But is this sufficient? According to some Eastern Orthodox, the Orientals must indicate their full and unqualified acceptance of seven ecumenical councils; they must accept not only the substance of the faith of these councils but also their disciplinary norms and terminology -- and presumably also their anathemas. For example, Patriarch Diodorus of Jerusalem in 1997 wrote a letter to Patriarch Ignatius of Antioch protesting, among other things, the latter’s eagerness to move forward to reunion on the basis of the work of the Joint Commission. “According to Holy Tradition,” Patriarch Diodorus avers, “the Non-Chalcedonians ought to accept absolutely and completely all the terms and canons of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, in its entirety, as well as the following Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Ecumenical Councils, also in their entirety.” [24]

For the Chalcedonian Orthodox, can the anathemas pronounced at councils four through seven be lifted? If so, how? This question sometimes has been approached from a juridical perspective: Who has the authority to lift an anathema? In this perspective, the answer would appear to be clear: An anathema can be lifted, but only by a body of the same or greater authority as the one which imposed it. The Joint Commission in 1993 urged that “the lifting of anathemas should be made unanimously and simultaneously by the heads of all churches of both sides.” But are “the heads of the all the churches” the juridically competent body? Not according to the memorandum from Mount Athos, which denounces this “decision of the Joint Commission concerning the possibility of lifting an anathema placed by an ecumenical council.” According to the memorandum, this is “alien to the sound mind of the Church” and “offends the fundamental consciousness of the Church concerning the authority of the ecumenical councils.” From this juridical perspective, only another ecumenical council would have the authority to lift the anathemas imposed by councils four through seven, though in a pinch presumably a Great and Holy Council of the Orthodox Church would do - when and if such a council meets.

But the issue of the anathemas - and along with it the issue of the number of ecumenical councils - is not simply a juridical question. It is a question of the identity and historical consistency of Orthodoxy itself, a question of the unity of the Church not only in space, with other professing Christians here and now, but in time, with the holy fathers and mothers of all ages. In this perspective, it becomes a matter of considerable significance whether one labels a given individual a saint or a heretic. As Metropolitan John Zizioulas has pointed out, membership in the Church does not mean simply the enjoyment of an a-temporal communion with Christ. It implies entering into communion with the saints of all the ages, as expresssed among other places in the diptychs, the calendar, and liturgical observances. And here by “saints” we should not think simply of those conspicuous for their personal sanctity. As Zizioulas points out, “saints are signs of the glory of God in this world not so much as individuals as in the context of the communion of saints, the advance guard of the One Body. ‘Saint’ therefore is a relational term; if relationship is broken -- if unity is broken -- the meaning of sanctity itself dramatically shifts.” [25] Can any body, even an ecumenical council, attempt to overturn the decision of a previous ecumenical council concerning who is a holy father and who is a heretic without calling into question the unity and continuity of the Church through time? This is the question which the memorandum from Mount Athos raises when it denounces “the attack upon the validity and authority of the Holy Ecumenical Councils by the decision of the Joint Commission that the Anti-Chalcedonian heresiarchs Dioscorus, Jacob, Severus, etc. be considered not heretical but Orthodox in their thinking.” As the memorandum continues, “The consciousness of the Orthodox Church recognizes that infallibility and authority in the Holy Spirit is in the ecumenical councils and refuses to accept the possibility of revising the decisions of an ecumenical council by another ecumenical council without the latter council being considered as an heretical conventicle...” [26]

How can one respond to such denunciations? Certainly ancient writers like Patriarch Eulogius of Alexandria would appear to be far more generous and forgiving. Here it is important to consider what kind of authority we ascribe to ecumenical councils. The memorandum from Mount Athos uses the word “infallibility.” This may be an unfortunate choice of words, the result of an understandable but regrettable reaction to Roman claims of papal infallibility. (We see here another example of the way in which ecclesial identity has, in the context of division, been formed by opposition, in this case by opposition to Roman Catholicism.) It would be more accurate to say simply that the ecumenical councils have inerrantly defined the faith and delineated the boundaries of true piety. But even if we speak of the “infallibility” of ecumenical councils, certainly this infallibility does not imply full and direct divine inspiration for each and every statement made in the course of these councils. It does not, for example, mean that councils and council fathers cannot be mistaken concerning matters of fact or inconsistent in their terminology. Councils - even ecumenical councils - do not invent or produce the faith of the Church. Rather, they bear witness to it. Therefore the adequacy of their words for this faith - and the appropriateness of their terminology and of their anathemas - must always be evaluated in the light of this faith.

Let us turn specifically to anathemas as these have been pronounced by successive ecumenical councils. These show an interesting progression as we move from earlier councils to subsequent councils. At the time when a given error or heresy is most pressing, an anathema, if pronounced, is usually quite specific about the position that is being condemned. The first ecumenical council at Nicaea, for example, reacting against the heresy which subsequent generations have called Arianism, concluded its creed with the following words: “And whosoever shall say that there was a time when the Son of God was not, or that before he was begotten he was not, or that he was made of things that were not, or that he is of a difference substance (hypostasis) or essence (ousia} [from the Father] or that he is a creature, or subject to change or conversion -- all that so say, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes them.” [27] As we come to later councils, the formulation becomes much less specific about the errors in question. Instead, it tends to be attached specifically to the person of Arius rather than to the position which he espoused: Anathema to Arius! We see a similar progression when it comes to other heresies. In the early stages of the Christological controversies, St. Cyril’s Twelve Anathematisms directed against the theology of Nestorius are quite specific. For example, the fourth anathematism reads: “If anyone shall divide between two persons or subsistences those expressions which are contained in the Evangelical and Apostolical writings, or which have been said concerning Christ by the Saints, or by himself, and shall apply some to him as to a man separate from the Word of God, and shall apply others to only the Word of God the Father, on the ground that they are fit to be applied to God: let him be anathema.” [28] These anathematisms were included verbatim in the acts of the third ecumenical council, Ephesus (431 A.D.), but thereafter formulations generally are content simply to anathematize Nestorius. In other words, a kind of theological “short-hand” develops. Instead of anathematizing a heretical position, which may be rather cumbersome to summarize and explain, we give this position a name and anathematize it as a heresy - Arianism or Nestorianism - or, more often, we associate it with a specific person and anathematize him - Arius or Nestorius.

In the case of Arius or Nestorius, the meaning of this “short-hand” is reasonably clear to the point of being self-evident. By saying “anathema to Nestorius” we are saying “anathema” to the positions denounced by St. Cyril in his Twelve Anathematisms and thereafter by the Council of Ephesus. But in some cases this “short-hand” can deceive. If we are very clear about what is being condemned, well and good. But if we rely simply on the “shorthand” of later councils, we may be misled. This point may be illustrated by reference to what Chalcedonian Orthodox regard as the sixth ecumenical council, III Constantinople (681 A.D.), which proclaimed anathema to Dioscorus “hated of God” and to the “impious” Severus of Antioch. This council was faced by the heresies of monotheletism and monenergism, which held that there was but one will and one natural energy in Christ. As frequently the case when faced with a new challenge, orthodox churchmen on the one hand denounced these heresies as dangerous innovations, but on the other they tried to demonstrate that the new heresies were simply old, long-condemned heresies in disguise. Like the monks of Mount Athos, like the fathers of the ancient councils generally, and for that matter like the heretics who assembled in the various ancient pseudo-councils, the fathers of III Constantinople wished to demonstrate the historical consistency of their own position and at the same time, the coherence of their opponents’ position with that of earlier heretics. Thus at III Constantinople the contemporary monothelites were seen as holding, among other things, the heresy of Apollinarius, who had held that Jesus Christ did not possess a human rational soul (nous) - a heresy which, according to III Constantinople, was condemned at I Constantinople (381 A.D.). In fact the story of I Constantinople is much more complex than a reading simply of the acts of III Constantinople would suggest; at I Constantinople itself, the question of Apollinarius’ teaching seems to have been tangential at most. [29] So also, at III Constantinople the monothelites were seen as holding the heretical positions condemned at Chalcedon and II Constantinople (553 A.D.), which the council associated respectively with Dioscorus and Severus, among others. Hence, in the course of a long series of anathemas pronounced at the final session of the council, we find the names of Dioscorus and Severus. Clearly, by the time of III Constantinople popular opinion did associate these names with heretical positions condemned at earlier councils. And this tendency continues in later centuries. For example, hymnography for the Feast of the Seven Ecumenical Councils (July 16 - originally the commemoration of the Council of Chalcedon) can exhort the orthodox to “abhor” Dioscorus and Severus along with a multitude of other heretics. But these formulations - these “short-hand” notes from later times - in fact are very misleading.

Let us first consider the case of Dioscorus. While III Constantinople can say anathema to Dioscorus and regard him as a progenitor of the monothelite heresy, this does not accurately reflect the views and activities of Dioscorus or how the Council of Chalcedon actually dealt with him. At that council Dioscorus was indeed deposed, but as the acts of the council indicate, “it was not for the faith that Dioscorus was deposed but because he had excommunicated the lord Leo, archbishop [of Rome], and that summoned three times, he did not come. This is why he was deposed.” [30] He did not in fact espouse the teaching of Eutyches, whose teaching concerning Christ and whose person were condemned at Chalcedon. To use the words of Fr. John Romanides, an Eastern Orthodox theologian deeply engaged in the theological dialogue with the Oriental Orthodox: “The backbone of the Orthodox tradition is the fact that the Logos became consubstantial with us. There can be no doubt that Dioscorus agrees with this fact and so could never be accused of being a monophysite along with Eutyches.”[31]

Let us also consider the case of Severus. He clearly affirms the basic Christological truth that Jesus Christ is consubstantial with His Father in His divinity and consubstantial with us in His humanity. In other words, he does not fall into the heresy of Eutyches condemned at Chalcedon, which denied Christ’s consubstantiality with us and thus His full humanity. But Severus uses technical terms like hypostasis and physis in ways very different from the later formulations of Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. If read on his own terms, he is not guilty of either the heresy of monophysitism or the heresy of monotheletism as these have been condemned by the ecumenical councils. [32] His terminology may seem idiosyncratic, but it is hardly less so than that of most of his contemporaries, whether Chalcedonian (like Leontius of Byzantium) or Non-Chalcedonian. In other words, he was misunderstood, perhaps deliberately, perhaps inadvertently, by the time that Constantinople III labeled him “infamous” and anathematized him as one of the progenitors of monotheletism.

Here a further question may be posed. What weight should be given to an objection raised by Patriarch Diodorus in his letter to Patriarch Ignatius: “Are we to believe that they [viz., the theologians of the period in question] did not correctly understand those present in the Synods with whom they communicated in a common language and education?” But while it certainly is true that these theologians were working in the same language, Greek, it does not follow that they used technical terms - especially those with a philosophical coloring - in the same way. We sometimes face the same problem today. English now serves as an international language in much the way that Greek did in antiquity, but as a frequent participant in international meetings once remarked, “We live in a world in which everyone knows English -- bad English!” A concrete word like “shoe” will be understood in much the same way by virtually every speaker of the English language, even by those for whom English is a second language, but a word like “existential” or “natural” will mean different things to different people, even to those whose only language is English. And of course the problem becomes even more complicated in the case of theologians who worked in different languages.

The faith of the ancient councils - I Nicaea, I Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, II Constantinople, III Constantinople, II Nicaea - is consistent, whether one labels all seven or only the first three as ecumenical. But their terminology is not always consistent. I Nicaea, for example, used the words hypostasis and ousia as synonyms, while the later councils took great pains to distinguish them. So too, the anathemas of the ancient councils are not always consistent. Too often we have mistaken the “short-hand” of later periods for historical fact. The conclusion of the Joint Commission therefore is quite appropriate: “Both families agree that the lifting of anathemas and condemnations will be consummated on the basis that the Councils and fathers previously anathematized or condemned are not heretical” (1990 Chambesy Agreed Statement, para. 10). But will this happen any time in the foreseeable future?

The question at this point is whether we really desire unity more than our present disunity. Will we continue to be divided simply by the power of division itself? Certainly at the present time we seem to prefer the disunity of the status quo. Our cherished anathemas and preferred formulas give us a sense of security. Without them, our very identity seems threatened. Of course, much of Christian doctrine arose precisely because of the need to define the truth in opposition to heresy. But the words in which the truth are expressed are not the same as the truth itself. Failure to recognize this can lead to the kind of situation described by St. Gregory of Nazianzen. He notes how, when we try to lift a handful of water to our lips, some can be found slipping through our fingers:

In the same way, there is a separation not only between us and those who hold aloof in their impiety, but also between us and those who are most pious - a separation in regard both to such doctrines as are of small consequence and to expressions intended to bear the same meaning. [33]

Certainly this is the situation in which the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox find themselves today. If our church families can overcome the division of centuries, if they can recognize in each other the same one faith, if they can enter into a life of communion in the deepest sense of that word, their reunion will be a sign of promise for all Christians.
-----------
[1] Participants included, among others, Georges Florovsky, John Meyendorff, John Karmires, John Romanides, John Zizioulas, Paul Verghese and V.C. Samuel.
[2] Reports of the four unofficial dialogues (1964-1971) are published in The Greek Orthodox Theological Review 10.2 (1964-65), 13 (1968), and 16.1 and 2 (1971).
[3] At this point the agreed statements and proposals of the Joint Commission are available in English translation most conveniently in St. Nersess Theological Review 1.1 (1996) 99-110.
[4] J. Lebon, Le monophysisme Severien (Louvain, 1909).
[5] On Severus’ Christology and its significance for dialogue today, see most recently John Behr, “Severus of Antioch: Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Perspectives,” St. Nersess Theological Review 3.1-2 (1998) 23-35.
[6] See especially his Christ in Eastern Christian Thought (Crestwood NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1975).
[7] Evagrius, Eccl. Hist. 5.4, cited by J. Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions (Crestwood NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1989) 262.
[8] John of Ephesus, Hist. Eccl. 5.15, ed. and trans. E.W. Brooks (Paris - Louvain: 1935-36), cited by Meyendorff, Imperial Unity 264-5.
[9] La Narratio de Rebus Armeniae, ed. G. Garitte (Louvain: Peeters, 1952) 242-4, cited by M. Findikyan, “Liturgical Usages and Controversy in History: How Much Diversity Can Unity Tolerate?” St. Nersess Theological Review 1.2 (1996) 197, to whose discussion of liturgical diversity the present summary is deeply indebted. On this episode and others from this crucial period in Armenian ecclesiastical relations with Constantinople, see now Nina Garsoian, L’Eglise Armenienne et le grand schisme d’Orient (Louvain: Peeters, 1999), esp. 267-77.
[10] Girk’ Tlt’oc’ [Book of Letters], ed. J. Ismireantz (Tiflis: 1901) 475-76; French trans. with extensive commentary M. van Esbroeck, “Le discours du Catholicos Sahak III en 691 et quelques documents armeniens annexes au Quinisexte,” in The Synod in Trullo Revisited, ed. G. Nedungatt and M. Featherstone (Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale, 1995), 323-454 at 431; English trans. M. Findikyan, “Liturgical Usages...” 198-99.
[11] The canon in question takes pains to correct Sahak’s manifestly incorrect interpretation of a passage from St. John Chrysostom’s homilies on Matthew: Chrysostom was condemning the ancient sect of the Hydroparastatae, who substituted water for wine in the eucharist, not those who mix water with the wine. On this and other aspects of Sahak’s treatise and its importance in the history of Byzantine - Armenian relations, see van Esbroeck, “Le discours...” passim.
[12] On Sahak’s argument and Trullo’s response, see van Esbroeck, “Le discours...” passim.
[13] R.F.T[aft], “Trisagion,” in the Dictionary of Byzantium (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1991) 2121; S.P. Brock, “The Thrice-Holy Hymn in the Liturgy,” Sobornost/Eastern Churches Review 7.2 (1985) 24-34; V.-S. Janeras, “Les byzantines et le trisagion christologique,” in Miscellanea liturgica in onore di sua eminenza il Cardinale Giacomo Lercaro 2 (Rome: 1967) 469-99.
[14] See T.J. Talley, The Origins of the Liturgical Year (New York: Pueblo, 1986) 168-222.
[15] Theoriani Disputationes com Armeniorum Catholico I, PG 133:204B, cited by A. Papadakis, The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy (Crestwood NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1994) 116.
[16] Encyclical Letters of St. Nersess Shnorali (Jerusalem: 1871) 138, cited by M. Findikyan, “Liturgical Usages...” 207.
[17] The expression is that of Paul Magdalino, The Empire of Manuel I Komnenos, 1143-1180 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993) 386-88 et passim.
[18] Communique of the Meeting of the Subcommittees on Liturgical and Pastoral Issues, 2-5 February 1998, Damascus, Syria, points 3 and 4 (typescript). The English text - practically incomprehensible in the original press release - has been lightly modified for greater grammatical and lexical clearity.
[19] See, for example, John Meyendorff, “Chalcedonians and Non-Chalcedonians: The Last Steps to Unity,” St. Vladimir’s Theological Quarterly 33.4 (1989) 319-329; Thomas FitzGerald, “Toward the Reestablishment of Full Communion: The Orthodox-Orthodox Oriental Dialogue, “Greek Orthodox Theological Review 36.2 (1991) 169-181; Theodore Pulcini, “Recent Strides Toward Reunion of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches: Healing the Chalcedonian Breach,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 30.1 (1993) 34-50.
[20] In Orthodox Life 45.3 (1995) 39-41, where it is followed by a lengthy critique of the work of the Joint Commission and of the churches participating in it.
[21] Ser. no. ph2/116/455, May 14/27, 1995 - typescript.
[22] See the trenchant critique of the memorandum by A. Golitzin, “Anathema! Some Historical Perspectives on the Athonite Statement of May, 1995,” St. Nersess Theological Review 3.1-2 (1998) 103-117, especially 106-9.
[23] The Ethiopian Tewahido Church (New York?: n.d.) 108.
[24] Letter no. 361, May 17, 1997.
[25] “Ecclesiological Issues Inherent in the Relations Between Eastern Chalcedonian and Oriental Non-Chalcedonian Churches,” Greek Orthodox Theological Review 16 (1971) 144-62 at p. 149.
[26] Cf. the extremely valuable assessment of D. Wendebourg, “Chalcedon in Ecumenical Discourse,” Pro Ecclesia 7.3 (1998) 307-332 at p. 330: “Why is so much made of the question, ‘Three or seven ecumenical councils?’ if a consensus has nevertheless been reached on the substance of Christology? This question is of such great importance because it is directly concerned with the identity of the divided churches, identity understood not simply in a psychological sense, but in a theological one. It is a matter of the relation of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the church to the concrete history of the church. Both sides concede to each other that they are legitimate representatives of faith in Christ, and that means filled with the Holy Spirit. But each side has existed for fifteen hundred years in a distinctive way, characterized - positively - by a distinctive expression of faith in Christ and negatively - by being distinguished from those who do not share this exposition. Can the concrete historical form of their path under the guidance of the Spirit be detached from a ‘substance’ of the presence of the Spirit without this presence of the Spirit becoming a purely abstract reality?”
[27] Trans. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, ser. 2, vol. 14, 3.
[28] Ibid. 211.
[29] For a convenient presentation of I Constantinople see Archbishop Peter L’Huillier, The Church of the Ancient Councils: The Disciplinary Work of the First Four Ecumenical Councils (Crestwood NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press,1996) 101-42.
[30] Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople, in Session 5, quoted by L’Huilllier, Church of the Ancient Councils 189, with further discussion of the case of Dioscorus.
[31] “Leo of Rome’s Support of Theodoret, Dioscorus of Alexandria’s Support of Eutyches, and the Lifting of the Anathemas,” paper (as yet unpublished?) presented at the November 1993 meeting of the Joint Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches (Geneva) 6.
[32] On this subject see most conveniently John Behr, “Severus of Antioch...” 23-35.
[33] Or. 21.35.
-------
[Link to original article...] (http://www.svots.edu/Faculty/John-Erickson/articles/beyond-dialogue.html/)

(Message edited by admin on 26 February, 2006)

Mina Monir

17-03-2006, 05:26 PM

dear brothers , I was asking about the idea why did chalcedon cause more than 33,000 martyrs in egypt between 451 - 454 ? it is simply, we refused the imperial patriarche sent by leo because our pope is alive and in exile for the correct faith , is it a christian reaction? mrs.Butcher and hefele mentioned stories about the horrible massacres in egypt .. could any one tell me why?

please some one tells me : why Leo of rome defended for Roman Papacy (and the quotes are infinite!) and is considered as saint?

I read parts in the greek theological review book of fr.Florovsky we can see his quote: modern theologians now can confess that the tome of leo divided the christ by two ... Nestour himself blessed that council!!!!!!

also, prof.John Romanides says : if you use the latin translation of the tome you will use a stick against us!

why all that?

last question from fr.Schmemann : BYZANTIUM or CHURCH?
any way I'm sending a paper presented by HE Metropolitan Bishoy in the last committie betweem Russian and Oriental orthodox familiies.
in Christ

Athanasius Abdullah

21-03-2006, 10:12 PM

Dearest to Christ Mina,

Peace and blessings with you:

Weren't you the one who consistently placed emphasis on the "official" mutual agreements of the Joint Commission? As I recall, one point of agreement related to the lifting of anathema's, which would include that which is presently placed on Leo of Rome by our Church. So what relevance do your comments pertaining to Leo of Rome have within the context of this thread, which is primarily concerned with achieving practical unity, if issues relevant to Leo have in effect been declared null with respect to their being stumbling blocks to such unity?

As for the issue relating to the massacres that took place; we forgive and forget. Although I must admit that I find it troubling to have bumped into the odd one Chalcedonian who staunchly defended the moral integrity of such actions. I'd hope that attitude does not reflect that of the predominant majority of Chalcedonians. In any event, however sensitive such historical issues may be, as long as they are not faith related, then I likewise fail to see the relevance of bringing up that issue within the context of this thread.

Forgive me if I have offended you,

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Scott Pierson

17-07-2006, 03:39 AM

Its time for me to put me not so worthwhile two cents (that I cant refrain from putting in because I'm addicted this message board) in on this topic :)

I have mixed feelings about the eccumenical relations between the Orthodox and the OO. On the one hand we do have so much in common, much more then with any other Church. On the other hand people are in such a hurry for union they dont seem intent on makeing the OO's accept ALL of the Eccumenical councils as being eccumenical (they say its enough for them to "agree with them in priniciple" etc..). Secondly anyone who Anathematized or insulted the Orthodox Church or Her saints should not continue to be recognized as a saint by the OO's if they want Union imo. Basically if they want Union ( and I would love that to be true) they should become Orthodox! Even if those who claim that OOs are not heretical but 'only" schismatic are correct the OOs would still need to renounce and apologize for their schism at least and stop reverencing their ancient leaders who lead them to schism in the first place.

John Charmley

31-08-2006, 04:09 PM

Fr Raphael Vereshack

31-08-2006, 06:57 PM

Mr. Pierson makes important points, but does not the statement 'Basically if they want Union ( and I would love that to be true) they should become Orthodox!' rather beg the question raised by Athanasius Abdullah?

As a newcomer to this community and an Anglican who has had contacts with both Oriental and Eastern Orthodox communities (and knows just enough to realise that some in both sets may take offensive at the adjective), I stumbled on this thread because, feeling left behind by my own Church, I am pulled towards Orthodoxy and have found what is posted here most illuminating. The Oriental Orthodox response to Mr. Pierson's perfectly reasonable argument could, I suppose, take the same form, since they could, and I suspect would, argue that they are Orthodox. That would create a situation that was indeed 'beyond dialogue'.

But since this is a forum for exploring Orthodoxy with thoughtfulness and prayer, it would be good to hear from those more knowledgeable on these matters, about how the existing dialogue (which has produced some interesting statements) might be pursued. I know there are those who see in this the cloven hoof of ecumenism, and suspect there may be a natural Anglican tendency towards syncretism in even posing the question, but from the position I am in, as an enquirer looking to find an Orthodox community, it seems deeply sad that in this secularised and increasingly Godless civilisation, the enemies of the Faith should be able to exclaim 'See how they love each other!'

Given the state of my own Communion, I am, despite that question, among the last to want to see the Orthodox faith in any way weakened or watered down, but where the existing dialogue has already pronounced a great measure of agreement on fundamentals, it would be tragic (in our contemporary world) to lose any opportunity that might lead to real unity (which, of course, begs another set of questions).

But I suspect that simply telling the other lot that they need to convert to real Orthodoxy (which is a perfectly defensible response) won't take a dialogue very far. For those who look upon such a dialogue as deeply misguided that would be fair enough, but Christ's message was for all mankind, and I do wonder how members of this community think His Church is doing on that score.

Can I apologise in advance to those who will find this chain of thought deeply shot through with Anglican syncretism - it is a hard habit to shake, I fear, but the question is, I hope, well intentioned.

Asking pardon for any offence,

In Christ,

John

Thanks for these charitable and sober comments. I agree that simply telling the other to 'convert to real Orthodoxy' won't get very far. But that reflects the unique circumstance that each of us believes we are already Orthodox. On the one hand it could be that we are indeed at this point close enough in belief to fruitfully pursue dialogue. The danger however is that the 'desire for dialogue' which is so often a cover for syncretism in our time, does not take properly into account the real differences which still divide us.

I have to admit that my own thoughts about this are not clear. I personally rejoice at the indications of a certain warming up to Chalcedon by our non-Chalcedonian brethren. The piety and love for tradition shown by the non-Chalcedonians are edifying to say the least. But then statements are still made which portray Chalcedon as being Nestorian- a sure way to drown out any optimism since this Council is so central to the division which occured.

Then the question of saints who witnessed & suffered for the truth of their particular vision of Orthodoxy comes up. This is such a delicate question because no one will give up the veneration of their own saints. In some cases I suppose we could get to the point where we portray the saint as recognising one side of the mystery of Faith while the other side recognised another. In their own day they were opposed but in the larger picture maybe they actually complement each other. It gets harder though where one side's saint was the other's persecutor. Could this be seen differently in the larger picture? I don't know- but certainly not if it's just part of an effort to 'overlook' the past.

If the past is any precedent for the future it seems that these things are healed only through time and effort. The faithful on both sides have to get to the point where there is a basic trust in each others' Orthodoxy. If this is achieved then it's often surprising what differences can be overcome. But without this no agreements will work. And the desire for unity needs to spring from a common desire to heal the past through the present; not to overlook the past through the present.

My own belief is that the reason we have not yet achieved unity is that even though there are real signs of approaching each other with a common theological vision as opposed to the past, this vision is not yet common enough. Dialogue can help in achieving a common desire for unity but it can only go so far in attaining the common vision necessary for this.

It can often take a long time to attain once more this common vision. Often in the past it has come about only with the recognition that separation involves the loss of something crucial like the loss of a hand or foot. Maybe the hand went its own way for a time but still it shows signs of being part of your body. And perhaps this has to do with recognising that the other has something else which we can accept which doesn't involve us in compromising the Faith in any fundamental way.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

John Charmley

01-09-2006, 12:44 AM

[QUOTE
My own belief is that the reason we have not yet achieved unity is that even though there are real signs of approaching each other with a common theological vision as opposed to the past, this vision is not yet common enough. Dialogue can help in achieving a common desire for unity but it can only go so far in attaining the common vision necessary for this.

It can often take a long time to attain once more this common vision. Often in the past it has come about only with the recognition that separation involves the loss of something crucial like the loss of a hand or foot. Maybe the hand went its own way for a time but still it shows signs of being part of your body. And perhaps this has to do with recognising that the other has something else which we can accept which doesn't involve us in compromising the Faith in any fundamental way.
[/QUOTE]

I am, as I suspect all readers will be, grateful for Father Vereshack's wise words - and for the tone in which they are delivered.

I come at this as an outsider, still marvelling at the richness of Orthodoxy, but saddened to see two sets of Orthodox communities divided each from the other, when it seems they have much in common.

Of course, Father, you are right to remind us of the difference between union for its own sake and real unity; the latter is a chimera encouraged by the sort of ecumenism which seeks unity by refusing to confront real differences and problems; as an Anglican I know only too well where that road leads, and Orthodoxy has surely been guided by its founder away from all of that.

With the sort of spirit and wisdom manifested by Father Vereshack, and so many others on this forum, perhaps it may yet be possible for those sundered by Chalcedon to bear a united witness to the flocks of hungry sheep who look up for food; but it will only happen by a prayerful and humble willingness to acknowledge where there are real differences, and ask for help from the Source that never fails us.

In that sense, whatever doubts one harbours about some types of ecumenism, properly approached, it can provide a forum for real reconciliation between those who seem to an outsider to have more in common than perhaps sometimes appears to be the case. Given the nature of the past divisions, I wonder how many on both sides of the divide have a clear picture of where the other side stands? Chalcedon may have divided, but we know that Christ unites - and Orthodoxy, if it can be one again, is so needed in this world, not least in those areas where the division of 1054 paved the way for so many later schisms.

Of course, to those of you steeped in Orthodoxy (of both varieties), I can only offer such thoughts with great hesitation, but there may be times when the view from outside has some value. As one searching to find the Orthodox way who finds so much to admire in both the Eastern and Oriental, it is fascinating to see the past dialogue between the two sides, and I pray that it continues - in the spirit Father Vereshack's post exemplifies.

It seems wise to remember that however misguided some of us may appear to those already growing in the Orthodox tradition, we see ourselves as fellow Christians, and to treat any such as Amalekites to be smitten hip and thigh, is perhaps to fail in our duty of Charity - not a criticism that anyone could label at the posters to this site.

In Christ,

John

Brian B.

01-09-2006, 04:19 AM

Dear In Christ Athanasius Abdullah,

Thank you for posting that article. It explains much that I have been wondering about. As an inquirer I find the story of the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox communions to be both a source of inspiration and hope, and a source of considerable consternation for myself.

The consternation arises because as one who has been called to truth, I must now discern using my imperfect faculties between two communions claiming to be the sole and visible Body of Christ on Earth. Yet if they are largely in agreement on doctrine and practice, on what objective basis may I judge? If the choice were one of mere practicality or numbers, then certainly one of the eastern Orthodox jurisdictions makes sense, at least in North America. But practicality is a poor substitute for Truth, and further it leaves the sneaking suspicion that such an approach is more the result of my asserting my autonomy than in listening to God. Of course the only real answer will come through prayer.

The history of the schism is extremely complicated and fraught with tears as indicated in the article by Rev. Erickson, and yet it is also paradoxically a sign of potentially immense hope and a revelation of truth in the world. For what else can one conclude when two communions, after 1555 years of separation and strife, find themselves so close doctrinally and liturgically and attitudinally. Can such a miracle be found with any other pair of religious communities in the world, over a period of 78 generations of Man? I think not. Surely this is an indication of where truth lies, for the truth resides in all men's hearts, and when two communities of men are so close after so long a division, then surely one can take that as a sign that truth informs much of both. For an inquirer such as myself, the example of the eastern and oriental churches is one of hope, hope that my quest for the fount of truth is nearing an end, even if that final step is one of the most difficult.

Please pray for me and all inquirers, and please pray that truth endures and prevails, and that the two communions find a legitimate way to reunite. For if that happens I think the unified Church can say that even in division truth is undeniable, and Orthodoxy is the living proof of that.

Peace in Christ,

Brian

Fr Raphael Vereshack

01-09-2006, 03:25 PM

John Charmley wrote

In that sense, whatever doubts one harbours about some types of ecumenism, properly approached, it can provide a forum for real reconciliation between those who seem to an outsider to have more in common than perhaps sometimes appears to be the case. Given the nature of the past divisions, I wonder how many on both sides of the divide have a clear picture of where the other side stands? Chalcedon may have divided, but we know that Christ unites - and Orthodoxy, if it can be one again, is so needed in this world, not least in those areas where the division of 1054 paved the way for so many later schisms.

In a way in my post yesterday I was trying to say that when we get a clear picture of what the other side is saying and that picture shares a common vision of Christ, even if expressed differently, then we are on the road to reconciliation.

To put it most simply we insist that to be in communion with us there must be a shared vision of Christ as referred to by Chalcedon.

One and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence (hypostasis), not as parted into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ

Can one have an Orthodox understanding of Christ without using the precise language of Chalcedon? In a way that is what we discussed here in the past few years often in lengthy and detailed discussion. At least as I read it at the time there were times when it appeared from what was posted here by our non-Chalcedonian brethren that we really were saying the same thing about Christ using different language. At other times however it appeared, especially from the adamant rejection of Chalcedon by some for being Nestorian, that something fundamental was indeed missing which relates to Christology. I have to admit that for me at least it was this which left me feeling uneasy.

Who knows- maybe the language of St Cyril can still be used as long as the intent is Chalcedonian. This after all is how we read St Cyril's words (Mark Harrison refers to this in his post today). I can't be the arbiter of this even if I have my own thoughts about it. As they say it will be the Church in common and guided by the Holy Spirit which will determine this.

However I can say that if the non-Chalcedonians reject not only the expressions used by Chalcedon (to be fair some seem to reject the events that led up to it as having been more political than anything else. So other cultural issues are at work here which need to be at least taken into account) but also the inner meaning of its Christology then we are still deeply divided. And yes this is a heretical understanding of Christ no matter what.

To put it simply another way. As an Orthodox priest I need to be able at some point in this exchange between us and the non-Chalcedonians to give a clear enough answer to my parishioners. Is the non-Chalcedonian vision of Christ heretical or not? From our discussions here I have to say I still can't give a clear answer to this question.

Again I don't know but maybe the vision is common at this point. But if past history of healing Church divisions is any precedent than what is needed is not only a common vision, but also the intent and desire to say this openly. Maybe the reasons behind this hesitation are what prevents unity between us from going forward any further than it has for the past 30 years or so.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

John Charmley

01-09-2006, 05:37 PM

Dear Father Vereshack and Brian B

I find Brian B's formulation of his dilemma identical to my own:
'as one who has been called to truth, I must now discern using my imperfect faculties between two communions claiming to be the sole and visible Body of Christ on Earth. Yet if they are largely in agreement on doctrine and practice, on what objective basis may I judge?'

I take heart from the perception that:
'two communions, after 1555 years of separation and strife, [can] find themselves so close doctrinally and liturgically and attitudinally. Can such a miracle be found with any other pair of religious communities in the world, over a period of 78 generations of Man? I think not. Surely this is an indication of where truth lies, for the truth resides in all men's hearts, and when two communities of men are so close after so long a division, then surely one can take that as a sign that truth informs much of both. '

And that is where Father Vereshack takes both Brian B and I, as well as the discussion, forward in a most useful way. It is, indeed, necessary to see clearly what both Orthodox communions believe. I have found the following comment of Abba Wahba of California helpful in this respect. In an article reproduced on Coptnet he describes what the existing dialogue has revealed in terms of commonality:

'1- They all condemn and anathematize Nestorius, Apollinarius and Eutyches.

2- The unity of the divinity and humanity of Christ was realized from the
moment of His conception, without separation or division and also without
confusing or changing.

3- The manhood of Christ was real, perfect and had a dynamic presence.

4- Jesus Christ is one Prosopon and one Hypostasis in real oneness and not
mere conjunction of natures; He is the Incarnate Logos of God.

5- They all accept the communicatio idiomatum (the communication of idioms),
attributing all the deeds and words of Christ to the one hypostasis, the
Incarnate Son of God.'

How far does that help? I would be most interested to know what Father Vereshack and others think here. It does not meet Father Vereshack's condition about the precise language of Chalcedon, but as with the text reproduced by Athanasius Abdullah who started this thread, it does seem to the outside observer to indicate that more than fifteen centuries of separation have not created an unbridgeable gulf.

But then I am mindful of the other part of Father Vereshack's post, namely:
'At least as I read it at the time there were times when it appeared from what was posted here by our non-Chalcedonian brethren that we really were saying the same thing about Christ using different language. At other times however it appeared, especially from the adamant rejection of Chalcedon by some for being Nestorian, that something fundamental was indeed missing which relates to Christology. I have to admit that for me at least it was this which left me feeling uneasy.'
and that perhaps requires elucidation from the Christology thread here, and form those more learned in Patristics than I (a hint, perhaps, for our moderator?).

Certainly Father Samuel's learned tome on Chalcedon (recently republished by the Oriental Orthodox Library - details on www.britishorthodox.org) gives one pause for thought, but then I am not well versed enough to know the extent to which his own Communion influenced his interpretation of a very complex and contested event.

Where even an experienced and learned Orthodox priest such as Father Vereshack finds difficultly in knowing what to tell his flock on this issue, we may all feel the need for prayer - and elucidation.

Like Brian B., I can only pray for help for those of us still searching. But as we both come at this from outside, we can both say that the world needs Orthodoxy now - as it always has and, until the end of all things, always will.

I am sure we both look forward to further posts on this.

In Christ

John

Fr Raphael Vereshack

01-09-2006, 06:05 PM

Dear John,

Although it's not clearly indicated who the author is I think I've found the article by Fr Samuel you refer to by following one of the links on the British Orthodox site.

The article is: The Oriental Orthodox Rejection of Chalcedon. I'll have a look at it.

It's also a very interesting site.

Many thanks.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

John Charmley

01-09-2006, 06:21 PM

Dear Father Vereshack,

I think the author of the piece you mention is Peter Farrington, who is a subdeacon of the British Orthodox Church. It was he, through the Oriental Orthodox Library (which is mentioned on the website) who put me onto Father Samuel's book.

The articles are interesting to me, but I cannot read them with the experience you can bring, and I would be very interested indeed in your opinions - and those of other Orthodox folk.

The book itself is in the Oriental Orthodox Library, and I quote from the website:

'Vol II - The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined

This work by the late Father V.C. Samuel of the Indian Orthodox Church is the fruit of an entire life devoted to the study of the Orthodox faith. It is perhaps the most important study of Christology and the Council of Chalcedon to be published in the 20th century.

It is an entirely eirenic study of these deeply controversial times and deserves to be read by every Orthodox Christian concerned to see the reconciliation of the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox communions.'

From that last sentence you can see why it interested me!

In Christ,

John

Scott Pierson

02-09-2006, 05:42 AM

ierson's perfectly reasonable argument could, I suppose, take the same form, since they could, and I suspect would, argue that they are Orthodox.

I think the whole movement to "unite the Churches" (as opposed to uniting persons who happen to have been Oriental Orthodox at one point to the Church) is a waste of time. In the past people would belong to the Church they "knew" was the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (right or wrong in their knowledge). If one thought that the latins are the true Church they would become Roman Catholic, the same with the monophysite (if the saints used the term I see no reason not too) Church and the Orthodox church, etc. Now no one wants to accept absolute truth.. we all have our truths and we are not so differnt anyways lets just all join together. They say " I want to be an Oriental Orthodox (and revrence the monophysite "saints" who labeld the Orthodox Church heretical and nestorian) but still be in communion with the Orthodox Church" or " I want to be in communion with the pope but with the Orthodox too". Like they cant pick which Church is the One Church so they are trying to play it safe by being in communion with everyone lol. Or even worse they have fallen for the plans of the devil and are working to bring about a new one world religion.

The fact that an ecclesial body holds Orthodox views on theology does not imply that the said body is the Church (or a "branch" of the Church). One could be Orthodox in beliefs but still be a schismatic. .. that is assuming the OO's are even totaly Orthodox in theology. One of our Churchs is the Church and the other is a schismatic sect. Its true the OO's says that they are the Church and we are the schismatics and we say the oposite. well then the thing to do is find out who is telling the truth and then join that Church. It solves so many problems that way.

If the OOs are warming up to Chalcedon why not join the Chalcedonian Church ?

Sorry if I sound like a broken record. I cant say I'm totaly oblivious to the fact that there are some more legitmate reasons for people wanting the union of churches but I just see those as the main reasons.

John Charmley

02-09-2006, 10:30 AM

Mr. Pierson offers an interesting point of view, and one that, as he indicates, is shared on both sides of the divide created by Chalcedon; it is also, as he implies, shared by those who derived their 'Church' from the post 1054 split. And, of course, the problem with the 'let them become Orthodox' line is that since they all think they are Orthodox, God's people set a lamentable example of divisiveness to a world badly in need of the Gospel; that is the main reason for constructive ecumenism.

Mr. Pierson correctly divines the problem with so much of what passes for ecumenism, which is that it seeks a lowest common denominator (low Church Anglicanism might almost be your default position, especially since it does not have much time for the episcopate), and this is where Father Vereshack's words of wisdom need to be heeded. He was right to point out the need to really understand what issues are at stake and then to face up to them.

This is wisdom, and we should all attend it. So much of what one reads is not dialogue, it is a rephrasing of old positions designed to denigrate one's opponent and promote one's own position; these may be good debating school tactics and are used by all politicians, but I wonder if they leave much room for the promptings of the Holy Ghost?

I am far from being the only Christian being pulled towards Orthodoxy, and I know I am not alone in being perplexed when I study its Eastern and Oriental manifestations in being unable to know which path to choose. I know of cases where fellow Anglicans have been told that Orthodoxy was not for them because they were not Russian or not Greek, which as well as being a trifle unfriendly, seems rather unbiblical as in Christ there is neither Greek nor Russian. The Coptic Church, by contrast, has been happy to let the British Orthodox Church find a way of presenting the Faith to the British in a way that they can understand; no one has asked any of the BOC to become Egyptian in order to experience Orthodoxy. The contrast here may be an accident of personal experience, but it gives one to think.

The Faith is not a Country Club or a sect, God's message is for us all; but, of course, we need His Church to guide us on the way; it is hard to hear the words of Our Lord in the maxim 'the other lot had better convert then'. It would, as Mr. Pierson says, be wrong to want 'union' for its own sake, but are we sure we do God's work when we refuse to speak to our fellow Christians about such matters?

In Christ,

John

Scott Pierson

02-09-2006, 02:47 PM

I apologize for my last post. There should be some sort of fail safe that prevents people who havent had enough sleep from posting . Not that I disagree with what I posted previously just that I wouldnt have written it so sacrasticly.

I think dialogue and learning more about eachothers Churchs is a wonderful thing. Its great that many OO's are finding themselves more comfortable with Chalcedon and want union with EO Church. I just think the proper fruit of that learning and dialogue should be conversion. If for example the OOs learn that they have a lot in common w/ the EO Church and there was no reason for the seperation (despite the fact that many of our saints claimed that they are not only schismatics but also heretics and theirs vice versa) then they should say " we apoligize for seperating and would like to leave our schismatic church and rejoin the Church." If they didnt come to that conclusion how would our Churchs unite in the first place?.. The idea that one finds oneself in the Church through dialogue and gaining the proper beliefs doesnt make sense imo. One Joins the Church through Baptism (or by economy, Chrismation) not via eccumenical dialogue or finding out over a thousand years later that "hey I guess we really agreed with you all along".

It may be possilbe that the majority of OO would never be willing to do that but its also true that the majority of muslims, buddhists, etc wouldnt be willing to do that either but we still try our best to bring them to the Church (and some of them do). Many muslims would be unwillling to renounce "the Prophet" do we tell them they can keep venerating him but still be communion with the Church? I know its not the same thing but I think the idea is simmilar.. to allow OOs to venerate as saints people who labeled our Church heretical while still being in communion w/ us.

Athanasius Abdullah

04-09-2006, 04:24 AM

Dear Scott Pierson,

+irini nem ehmot.

As an OO who has actually undergone an in-depth and balanced study of the issues surrounding the EO/OO divide, both academically and personally, I find your approach to the matter to be void of the necessary dispassionate objectivity which requires one to abandon their presuppositions in order to avoid question-begging assertions and arguments. Considering the fact you are in dialogue with a) those who do not agree with your position, and b) those who are seeking to ascertain the right position for them, such dispassionate objectivity is pre-requisite.

Ultimately, I believe your conclusions and judgments on the matters in question to be fallaciously reductionist and ill informed; they furthermore evidently fail to demonstrate a real and adequate sense of appreciation of the complexity of the sensitive matters at hand.

Additionally, the condescending (yet nonetheless amusing) demand that OO's “apologise” to the EO’s seems to be inspired by nothing but an irrational sense of triumphalism and arrogance (superficially sugar-coated with a warped sense of responsibility to “defend the truth” against “political correctness” – a self-justification often appealed to by fundamentalists of most if not all religious groups, and one motivated by misguided zeal) that frankly, with all due respect, repels and discourages me from an attempt to pursue dialogue with you (especially in light of the fact that it was only a few days ago that the Coptic Orthodox Church commemorated the departure of the 30, 000 Coptic martyrs killed under Chalcedonian rule); nevertheless, I do so in consideration of the fact that this is a public forum and I feel a sense of duty to present readers with a balanced perspective.

There are a few issues brought forth that I wish to investigate:

The first concerns the idea that OO’s are “warming up to Chalcedon”. Such a statement, worded in such a manner, can invoke some very misleading implications. I can only conceive of one interpretation of the statement in question as being adequately reflective of the reality of the situation from the OO perspective as deduced from Her formal and official approach to the matter.

1) The first possibly intended implication that is of a misleading character is that the OO’s acceptance of the perfect, complete, real, and dynamic reality of the humanity (consubstantial with mankind) and divinity (consubstantial with the Father) of Christ and their unconfused union represents a “warming up to Chalcedon”.

It is only from the subjective perspective of an EO who presupposes the Council of Chalcedon to be the authoritative source and standard for such a doctrine, that the idea that OO’s--who would also generally be presupposed to have once rejected the aforementioned Christological principles--are “warming up to Chalcedon” by virtue of their present day acceptance of such Christological principles, makes any sense.

From the subjective OO perspective, however, such Orthodox Christology that the EO’s presently attribute to the Council of Chalcedon, is one that has always and consistently been assumed by the OO Church, and one that is grounded in the teachings of our own Councils and our own Fathers. In this sense, the position of the OO Church on the matter is static; it is not “warming up” to, or “cooling away” from anything. In other words, our present Christological beliefs do not represent a “warming up” to Chalcedon, but rather a consistent and solid adherence to our own Christological tradition.

Ultimately, proof that such an implication is misleading, requires the objective vindication of the subjective OO perspective of her history and present, over and above the aforementioned subjective EO perspective (which is not in fact shared by all EO’s, for many recognise the fact that OO’s were never “Monophysites”), and I am prepared to argue toward such an end if the above proposed intended implication was and is in fact the actual intended implication.

2) The second possibly intended implication of a misleading character is that OO’s are starting to favourably modify their position on the Council of Chalcedon.

Well, we are, but only in a particular sense, which is in fact in the very same sense that EO’s are starting to favourably modify their position on the OO Church (and hence our own Councils, such as Ephesus II (449) and Ephesus III (475) and our own Fathers, such as Sts. Dioscoros and Severos). It is in the sense of recognising doctrinal soundness. Through present-day dialogue we are able to see that EO’s point to Chalcedon as the source and standard of and for a Christology which they have proved to be perfectly Orthodox from our perspective, and that, in and of itself, is a good thing. In spite of the historical issues surrounding Chalcedon, it is a good thing that Chalcedon serves EO’s today as a basis of what we recognise to be Orthodox Christology, which is why our hierarchs have indicated that they are willing to accept Chalcedon as a local council constituting an element of the developing Christological tradition of the EO Church.

Ultimately, however, we find no objective reason to accept Chalcedon as Ecumenical. We have our own OO councils that are not even officially titled Ecumenical, that we believe to be more ecumenical in nature than Chalcedon itself. Needless to say, the fact Chalcedon was not historically received by us is a primary reason why OO’s cannot consider Chalcedon to be Ecumenical, and in spite of what has been said above, the historical Chalcedon wasn’t rejected without good and valid reason. It was not only the OO who historically rejected Chalcedon as Nestorian, but it was Nestorians who in fact advocated Chalcedon as a vindication of their doctrines—this is not a polemical attack, it is a historical fact. Notice, I am not raising the question of whether Chalcedon was in actual fact Nestorian or not, but whether it was of such a nature that, for whatever reasons be they political or whatnot, it lead reasonable Orthodox men to reasonably believe it to be a compromise of the established Orthodox Tradition of the time. According to us, it did, hence even if we were to recognise the goodness of Chalcedon in its retrospective service to EO’s, we still maintain that it was a historically inadequate and controversial expression of that Orthodoxy (it in fact historically served Nestorians) which is why our Fathers rejected it, and which is why, ultimately, according to our position, it was not received by the ecumene of the Church and hence why, also according to our position, it cannot be considered Ecumenical. Our Holy Fathers’ reaction to Chalcedon was not motivated by anything other than a genuine allegiance to Holy Tradition that they reasonably perceived, within their historical context, to have been compromised.

With respect to the issue of our Saints labelling your Saints and Councils heretics, I believe that was mutual. Therefore, unless you would like to provide an objective justification as to why OO’s should offend their Holy Fathers in the manner you stipulate and why EO’s shouldn’t treat their Saints in like manner by virtue of the same underlying reason—a justification that doesn’t involve question-begging arguments such as, “well my Fathers were right and yours were wrong, because my Fathers belong to the Church I axiomatically believe to be the Orthodox Church”--then your remarks are without force.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

John Charmley

04-09-2006, 09:48 PM

Dear Scott Pierson,

+

Ultimately, I believe your conclusions and judgments on the matters in question to be fallaciously reductionist and ill informed; they furthermore evidently fail to demonstrate a real and adequate sense of appreciation of the complexity of the sensitive matters at hand.

Additionally, the condescending (yet nonetheless amusing) demand that OO's “apologise” to the EO’s seems to be inspired by nothing but an irrational sense of triumphalism and arrogance (superficially sugar-coated with a warped sense of responsibility to “defend the truth” against “political correctness” – a self-justification often appealed to by fundamentalists of most if not all religious groups, and one motivated by misguided zeal) that frankly, with all due respect, repels and discourages me from an attempt to pursue dialogue with you

I can understand where Athanasius Abdullah is coming from on this. His original post is an attempt to encourage us all to examine what the Oriental Orthodox actually believe rather than the picture painted by polemic, and this new post seems to be cast in the same spirit.

If one examines the dialogue then it becomes difficult to hold to the view that the OOs are 'monophysite' in any meaningful sense of that word. As Athanasius points out, those who opposed Chalcedon did so because they saw themselves as defending the traditional teachings of the Fathers against the taint of Nestorianism. If we can now see that the majority of the Chalcedonian Fathers were not Nestorian, we can also, I suspect, see that the majority of the non-Chalcedonians were not monophysites. I find the nuanced and balanced account given by Athanasius more compelling than the sort of rhetoric that generates more heat than light, and am very grateful to him for starting this discussion.

As Father Raphael has pointed out, we shall get nowhere with the sort of ecumenism that sweeps differences under the carpet, but one of the splendid things about this discussion is that by facing upto what the Oriental Orthodox actually believe, it might sweep away many misconceptions; I guess a millenium and a half leaves many of these.

I spent Saturday at the opening of the Coptic Cathedral of St. George in Stevenage, UK, where Archbishop Gergorios of the Ecumenical Partriarchy was present along with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Armenian Patriarch. It was a moving experience to see so many of my fellow Christians prepared to meet to celebrate another step in bringing Christ's word to those who need it; no one was pretending there were not differences, but it was good to feel that they all thought that real dialogue might be possible.

I am just discovering the wonders of Orthodoxy - but wish that I had been able to do so thirty years before - but at that time I was told that since I was not Russian, I could not be Orthodox!

Perhaps sometimes we forget Our Lord's primary commission?

In Christ,

John

Scott Pierson

04-09-2006, 10:55 PM

In all due respect some of the points you made support what I was saying imo.

Ultimately, however, we find no objective reason to accept Chalcedon as Ecumenical. We have our own OO councils that are not even officially titled Ecumenical, that we believe to be more ecumenical in nature than Chalcedon itself. Needless to say, the fact Chalcedon was not historically received by us is a primary reason why OO’s cannot consider Chalcedon to be Ecumenical, and in spite of what has been said above, the historical Chalcedon wasn’t rejected without good and valid reason.

The OO Church has every right to develop whatever view of Chalcedon they feel is acceptable. The EO Church (hereafter termed “the Church“) however considers it to be ecumenical and binding on all Christians. If one claiming to be Orthodox denies this they are in effect (and by definition) an anathematized heretic and have no right representing the Church in ecumenical dialogue.

Our Church teaches that it is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. That those bodies who are no longer in communion with her are by definition schismatic. If one is representing the Church in ecumenical dialogue I would hope they at least hold to the teachings of our Church. People want this discussion to take place from a supposedly unbiased viewpoint that is neither traditionally EO or OO and I don’t find that to be an honest way to do things. People basically imply that we cant look at this from the presuppositions of our Church (which as Orthodox we consider to be the Pillar and Ground of Truth) but must have an “open mind”.

Neither traditional OO ecclesiology or the ecclesiology of the Church allow for two separate One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Churches, that are not in communion, recognize different saints and councils and have anathematized each other for over a thousand years. I don’t really need to prove that my Church is correct and the others are wrong.. Regardless of who is right the fact remains that we cant all be right at the same time and one of the said Churches has to be at least schismatic… And if one of us is right and the other is wrong why not join the one that is right? If both of us are wrong why worry about union? The union of two wrongs doesn’t make a right. These are things people need to look into before they decide what faith they are going to follow.

I’m certainly not telling OOs that they cant venerate whoever they wish. What I am saying is that if one wants to be in communion with the Church they need to refrain from venerating people who have labeled our Church heretical, schismatic and Nestorian.

I consider it the height of arrogance for our modern scholars and ecumenists to claim that they know better then the saints.. That the saints just couldn’t see things as clearly and dispassionately as we moderns do. I’m sure if I was OO I would feel the same way. You point out the fact that
“specially in light of the fact that it was only a few days ago that the Coptic Orthodox Church commemorated the departure of the 30, 000 Coptic martyrs killed under Chalcedonian rule” would those 30,000 people agree with the idea that we really believed the same thing all along and it was just a silly misunderstanding ?
Are the saints that each of our Churches respectively venerate so close minded and ignorant that they didn’t really know what they were talking about?. I wouldn’t doubt that in the future our ecumenists friends will find out that the Nestorians really agreed with us all along too and we can have three sets of saints that all mutually anathematized each other in same communion ;).

Considering your are right though and the OO’s are not monophysites (despite what the fathers of the Church claim) do they also denounce the heresies of Monotheletism and Monoenergism?

This web page has a few good articles on this topic that I would recommend http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_mono.aspx

Athanasius Abdullah

05-09-2006, 05:16 AM

Dear Scott Pierson,

+irini nem ehmot

The EO Church (hereafter termed “the Church“)

You have every right to believe your Church to be “the Church”, but I don’t think it’s proper etiquette to pursue such language within the context of inter-Communion dialogue.

I personally do not intend on countering your provocatively subjective language, so as far as my choice of terminology within the context of this dialogue is concerned, the OO Church will remain “the OO Church”, and the EO Church will remain “the EO Church”.

If one claiming to be Orthodox denies this they are in effect (and by definition) an anathematized heretic.

Council’s generally anathematise those who reject the doctrinal substance of that for which the Council is called for in the first place, and not those who formally reject the practical and historical integrity of that Council.

As a significant pre-Chalcedonian precedent, you will find that all St. Cyril of Alexandria required to accept John of Antioch and his party back into Communion with the Church was a profession of the substance of the Ephesian faith.

People want this discussion to take place from a supposedly unbiased viewpoint that is neither traditionally EO or OO and I don’t find that to be an honest way to do things.

On the contrary, it is the only honest way of doing things. If you are unable to let go of your presuppositions for the sake of examining them and allowing them to be put under scrutiny, then they are worthless within the context of dialogue with those who do not share your presuppositions, and your claim to their being representative of the absolute truth is just about as good as those axiomatically propagated by the followers of any other belief system.

Your position is hypocritical in a sense, because it expects all those who do not share your presuppositions to re-consider their own presuppositions, even though you are unable or willing to do so yourself. As such, even your request that OO’s “apologise” to your Church is hypocritical, for in order for us to come to some sort of conclusion regarding any possible personal culpability, we would have to be prepared to do the very thing which you are unwilling to do yourself.

People basically imply that we cant look at this from the presuppositions of our Church (which as Orthodox we consider to be the Pillar and Ground of Truth)

Not when you’re in dialogue with those who do not share your presuppositions!

Tell me what your thoughts would be if you were to engage in dialogue with a Muslim regarding the nature of Christ, and he pointed to verses in his Qur’an remarking, “Aha! See! Christ is only a man; you Christian’s must denounce this false belief of yours and take heed to the words of Allah”? Wouldn’t you express sentiments to the effect of, “Sorry my Muslim friend, but the potential cogency of your claims is contingent upon the presupposition that the Qur’an is indeed the word of God—a presupposition I do not accept, and hence one that we must investigate first”? And if he were to respond with outrage and mockery at your expectation that he question his own presupposition (that which he considers to be “the Pillar and Ground of Truth”), would you not accuse him of narrow-mindedness, lack of objectivity, and all other related and warranted epithets? Yet this poor Muslim fellow is adopting the very same mind-set that you are; it is simply applied in a different context.

What I am saying is that if one wants to be in communion with the Church they need to refrain from venerating people who have labeled our Church heretical, schismatic and Nestorian.

Ultimately this is not your call, but rather the call of your hierarchs, and as far as official and formal progress on the matter goes, hierarchs from both our Churches have shown a favourable inclination towards the idea of a mutual lifting of anathemas from our respective Saints and Fathers.

The OO Church in particular has gone out of her way to prove that the accusations of your Saints against ours, are not borne out by, and in fact directly negated by, the available evidence; yet we have made no such demand that you discard the Sainthood of these men, for we are willing to put history aside for the sake of the present and future. If Leo of Rome retrospectively serves EO’s as a pillar of the integrity of the humanity of Christ against a Eutychian extremism, then we consider that to be a good thing (Eutychus was anathematised by OO’s in the Council of Ephesus III-475). Whether or not Leo of Rome was indeed Nestorian or whether or not, being motivated by a sense of papal supremacy and political intrigue, he lead reasonable Orthodox men to reasonably believe he was a Nestorian, are historical questions that bear no essential relevance to the prospect of a future re-intercommunion which should ideally stand or fall upon mere consideration of potential unity of faith.

I consider it the height of arrogance for our modern scholars and ecumenists to claim that they know better then the saints.

I consider it the height of naivety to fail to recognise the limitations of our human Fathers, whether personal or contextual, and to realise that we, in our present circumstances which are void of the historical and political tensions which undoubtedly would have affected human judgment, are retrospectively able to see through and overcome those limitations.

There seems to be a tendency amongst various members of certain Christian groups who claim allegiance to a set of Fathers, to effectively idolise them. The Fathers of the earliest Christian Church were not perfect—Apostles were denying Christ, abandoning Christ, disobeying Christ, displaying hypocrisy in their methods of bringing people to Christ etc.—and as long as they are human beings, they never will be. Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail over the Church; He didn’t say those gates would not affect her. A man can be wounded without being killed, particularly if he is wounded as a result of his own shortcomings and weaknesses.

would those 30,000 people agree with the idea that we really believed the same thing all along and it was just a silly misunderstanding ?

As I argued earlier, assuming for arguments sake that a majority of the Chalcedonian Fathers were not Nestorian (a proposition I am willing to accept as I find there to be a plausible basis for it), I maintain that the Council a) lead reasonable Orthodox men to reasonably perceive it to be a compromise of the established Orthodox Tradition of the time, and b) gave Nestorians a loophole to propagate their doctrines. As such, the historical resistance of our Fathers and Martyrs to the Council was practically warranted within that historical context.

Again I should emphasise, that if there were a misunderstanding, it would certainly not have been a “silly” misunderstanding. This tendency of yours to trivialise the matter results from (in my opinion), as I stated earlier, a failure to truly appreciate the complexity of the situation at the time. Such an appreciation requires more than a basic encyclopaedic reading of the events in question; it requires thorough and committed research and engagement with scholarship of all shapes and sizes.

I wouldn’t doubt that in the future our ecumenists friends will find out that the Nestorians really agreed with us all along too

Actually, the OO Church has already pursued dialogue with the Nestorians, and has reached the conclusion that such dialogue is futile, and hence dialogue has ceased with them for the time being. Our Church is seeking honest and genuine unity, as the Lord commanded, which is why, despite our dialogue with a range of Churches, including the RC’s, Nestorians, and the Anglicans, it is only with the EO’s that we perceive a viable and warranted prospect of re-union in light of the present circumstances.

Considering your are right though and the OO’s are not monophysites (despite what the fathers of the Church claim)

I am willing to prove it if you are willing to listen and willing to accept the prospect that the historical polemics of your Fathers were false. This shouldn't be seen as an attack on their sanctity or their integrity.

do they also denounce the heresies of Monotheletism and Monoenergism?

Yes. It follows from our being miaphysites, that we are also miathelites, and miaenergists.

This web page has a few good articles on this topic that I would recommend http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_mono.aspx

I read all the articles on that website a long time ago; they’re quite infamous. I believe them to be infected with emotional sensationalism (take for example the article of ArchBishop Chrysostomos of Etna—an article intended to mock and humiliate), circular reasoning (many of their arguments rest upon EO presuppositions), and poor scholarship (there is very little engagement with primary and secondary OO sources, and much is taken out of context). I can go through one of them line by line if you wish me to demonstrate that I am not just blowing hot air.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

John Charmley

05-09-2006, 03:57 PM

Dear Athanasius Abdullah,

Re-reading both your last post and your original one, I would just like to thank you for two things: for the enlightenment, and for the courteous tone you bring to what is so often a topic whose discussion generates more heat than it does light.

Professor Erickson's paper has so much in it, and its references are taking me off into reading which I might not have come across otherwise.

What I would be interested to know is whether those discussions between the two Communions have now stalled? As an outsider beginning to experience Othodoxy, I am hesitant to say much for fear of giving offence, but it does seem to me that the dialogues of the past few decades have clarified in a helpful way, what differences still remain, and it would be good to see progress here.

If the Christological controversies and their soteriological implications are, in truth, not as divisive as we have assumed, then it would be excellent to spread the word; although we all know it is easier to hold to old beliefs rather than go through the painful process of examining them (as an Anglican I have been guilty of that for many years).

I am grateful to Athanasius Abdullah for raising this important topic. If the EO and OO have more in common than they have things that divide them, even after a millenium and a half, that might tell us something important - if we will only open our ears.

Unity would be, after all, a means to an end and not an end in itself (which is why it is important that there should be a properly respectful but robust discussion process). As a newcomer (and still an outsider) to Orthodoxy, I don't know what to be more amazed at - its richness and its wonders, or the fact that it is so difficult to encounter in the West. Unity would be not only a great symbol, but a means to mission.

In Christ,

John

Fr Raphael Vereshack

05-09-2006, 05:06 PM

John Charmley wrote

What I would be interested to know is whether those discussions between the two Communions have now stalled? As an outsider beginning to experience Othodoxy, I am hesitant to say much for fear of giving offence, but it does seem to me that the dialogues of the past few decades have clarified in a helpful way, what differences still remain, and it would be good to see progress here.

Some might describe the discussions as being 'stalled' while others might describe it more as 'taking a breather'. I would second the point made by Athansius Abdullah that in all of the ecumenical talks, gatherings, committees, etc which have occurred in the past 30 years and more only that with the OO have shown any realistic hope of something that could result in actual ecclesiastical union. But after each round of talks there has always followed a period of time when things just had to sink in for awhile.

I think the interaction here at Monachos very clearly reflects the present level of unity achieved and what still remains. The present reveals that there is more potential between us than with any other churches. Part of this is based on the degree of theological agreement achieved over what mainly divided us- Chalcedon. But a lot is also a reflection of a common theological way of looking at things that is more in accord with that of the ancient Church. After all Rome is Chalcedonian, so are the Anglicans and so are many Protestants. But we are very far from any realistic prospect of unity with any of them. So obviously there is something besides Chalcedon which connects us and which we lack with others. Again I think this is a shared understanding about Tradition or at least something close enough to allow us to make real progress.

But on the other hand there still is not enough confidence on either side that we share a common enough theological vision. Also as we can see the past needs to be healed without ignoring it, without covering it up or implying that those who were its defenders on either side were ignorant and misinformed.

Here I'm not too sure how much good it does to point to the fact that the fathers of the Church were human and fallible in their understanding. This only leads us back to the untenable argument that the division between us occurred due to ignorance and misunderstanding. But if that is so how to account for the obvious fact of division between us for the past 1500 years or so? Has the division been the result of total delusion on both sides for all these centuries?

Probably this is why so many still resist unity in the way it has been presented so far. Unity must not be the fruit of totally disowning our past. For if we do this then what is our present except some sort of newly invented 'church' which has no connection with the saints, theological fathers and faithful who have gone before us?

Without this being some sort of intellectual sophistry unity must be the fruit of healing the past by an openess to what is most true among each of us. Obviously each of us needs to have been able to find where the truth lies on the other side and accept it- which as we can see is a very painstaking task that must be handled with great care. To have humility in how we see others while not compromising on what is esssential to the Faith is no easy task. But it absolutely is required for real unity to be achieved.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Scott Pierson

05-09-2006, 05:51 PM

Ultimately this is not your call, but rather the call of your hierarchs,

It is the duty of every baptized believer to preserve the faith. It would be morally wrong for a lay person to sit idly by while some of their hiearchs insult the memory of our God bearing Fathers and attack the conclusions of an eccumenical council. If my hiearchs enter into union with the OO without first fixing the problems I disscussed above (God forbid!) I would be forced to cease communion with them. The hiearchs have a duty to be in submission to the councils and tradition of the Church they have no legitmate power to do otherwise. The Priests and Bishops are servants of God not masters who proclaim their own truth and will contra the teaching of the councils and Church tradition.. In other words they are not Popes.

The Church teachs that christ has 2 wills (a divine AND a human will).. dythelitism. If one rejects that, they are by definition of an eccumenical council a heretic. Miathelitism - ONE divine human will. One = mono the fact that the will is considered one "divine human" doesnt prevent it from still being one and thus monothelit.

John Charmley

05-09-2006, 11:51 PM

I hope that Athanasius Abdullah or someone else from the Oriental Orthodox communion will address Mr. Pierson's important point, but I hope he can see from previous posts, particularly those of Father Raphael and Athanasius Abdullah that no one wishes to avoid answering the sort of point he makes in his last post.

Is there not a difference between the sort of ecumenism one sees on the WCC and the dialogue between the EO and OO? Both these Churches have borne a steadfast witness to their Faith and to the Apostolic tradition in a way that has, I think, no equal, at least in so far as they have both avoided the accretions that have attached to Roman Catholicism since 1054, and the sort of thing that has gone on in the West since the Reformation.

Of course, if prayerful dialogue were to reveal that the differences were insurmountable, that would be that. There is an interesting article by Subdeacon Peter Farrington of the BOC at the following address http://www.britishorthodox.org/107d.php which those following this thread might like to ponder.

In Christ,

John

Michael H. Lake

06-09-2006, 06:10 AM

Dear brothers & sisters in Christ,

A cradle Roman Catholic, I was chrismated by an OCA pastor into the Orthodox Church (hereinafter referred to as "THE CHURCH") in June of 1990. Without fully recognizing or understanding the differences between EO and OO, I soon began attending St. Mary's Coptic Orthodox Church here in Seattle mainly because I had met two lovely parishoners who were full of love and fidelity. Little did I realize then, however, what I had gotten myself into--I mean culturally, not theologically. But as I have read the Fathers of the CHURCH and compared their wise words with the history of political machinations perpetuated by many emperors (and patriarchs), the awareness has dawned on me that OE and OO are fighting a war of words their spiritual ancestors started, whether for good reasons or ill.

Yet, we must soberly recognize that the division between the two bodies is nigh unto abyssal because of the all the massacres the Christians of Egypt and Syria suffered at the hands of their "brothers," who considered themselves to be the only true Christians and guiltless in the slaughter of the "heretical". But while noting this, I am quite persuaded that if imperial favor had gone the other way, we would now be talking about OO crimes against humanity.

But where is the CHURCH in all this history? Do we continue to approach the differences between the OE and the OO as merely theological and not also historical? Do triumphalist OEs or OOs, then, demand that the other side repent in sackcloth and be rebaptized in order to be saved? Quite honestly, I am ashamed that we continue to sin against one another in the name of being "tc" (theologically correct). What would happen to the intercommunion dialogue if we finally admitted that both "St." Dioscorus and "St." Leo were more concerned with their respective positions of primacy than with the question of whether Eutyches were preaching heresy or not?

I realize that I have perhaps stirred up a maelstrom with this posting, but I am very tired of people in the CHURCH rearranging deck chairs while the Titanic sinks in this era of the anti-Christ.

Yours in Christ,

Michael

John Charmley

06-09-2006, 06:56 PM

Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

Mr. Lake's post takes this thread on an interesting, and as he says, possibly provocative turn; but all the way through, as elsewhere on this site, we have not shied away from provocative thoughts sensitively expressed!

Whilst not being able to express it with the elegance or force of Mr. Lake, his view has resonances with mine. His comments echo those of Professor Chadwick cited at the start of this thread - namly that the main cause of the divisions continuing is the fact that they exist. Here we might pause and take on board Mr. Pierson's forthright position, and unless we can address it (and I think we can) then I fear there will be little positive progress.

But where Mr. Lake's post strikes home with me is when he writes about rearranging he deckchairs on the Titanic - and that after the iceberg has been sighted!

On the other hand, someone might riposte that it is pretty rich of an Anglican to make such comments, since my own Church has sold every pass even before there was a buyer for it, and its search for 'relevance' has led it to some sad places. If the stauchness of Mr. Pierson and those who think his way helps prevent Orthodoxy from following suit, more power to them.

But, at the risk of being terribly Anglican, we can surely find some balance here? IF the dialogue between the OO and EO has revealed how very small the differences between them are, then Mr. Lake's sentiments are surely germane? How many souls do we risk losing whilst we gaze at our respective navels?

Unity for its own sake and on the lowest common denominator terms, no, but even then, no only when it is clear after a thorough debate that the real differences are too great. Christ's commission to spread the Good News would be much facilitated by real unity between those who have held the Orthodox Faith intact and who have so much to teach those of us outside Orthodoxy.

In Christ,

John

Scott Pierson

07-09-2006, 12:25 AM

To me the issue comes down to one thing, trust. Who do I trust to be a more reliable source for truth on this subject . One the one hand we have the teachings of an ecumenical council and a vast multitude of God bearing saints spread out over a thousand plus years of Church history who teach that the OO are in fact schismatic and heretical. On the other hand we have a few modern scholars and ecumenical activists who claim that they are not heretical and some who go so far as to claim that they are not even schismatic (despite the fact they are not in communion with us!? ). To me the answer is obvious. You trust the fathers. Yes, it is possible for the fathers to err when discussing their own theological opinions as opposed to the dogma of the Church… But we are not talking about a few errant words from one or two of the fathers who were later corrected by other saints for teaching something not in line with the holy Church. We are talking about a real consensus that spreads out over a thousand years, hundreds if not thousands of saints, etc. I know when I was becoming Orthodox I was told over and over about the importance of the patristic consensus and that we are not to judge the fathers by our own standards and opinions but rather are to submit our will to the teachings of the fathers. Do we really know better then the God illumined fathers ?

I can understand why many people think we have a lot in common. In certain areas we do. Personally I’ve learned a lot from reading Fr. Matthew the Poors books for example. But the issues of Christological theology and our similarities and differences in that area are very complex subjects and I would trust the penetrating mind and soul of a saint over a modern scholar or ecumenical representative any day. He who prays is a real theologian not he who has a degree from a seminary or studied dogmatic theology in school. Do we have the same faith? Who would know better then the respective saints of each of our traditions… and the conclusion of those saints appears to be a unanimous “no”. Do the people who represent our Church in ecumenical dialogue have a more refined and clear view of Christological realties then the God bearing fathers ? Do they have better spiritual discernment?

If one is going to represent the Church in ecumenical dialogue they have a duty to represent the teachings of the Church (and therefore the teachings of the fathers) and not just their own personal opinion. If one side dropped the teachings and presuppositions of their Church and the other party did the same any agreement or finding (that “wow we really have the same faith already) would be worthless. They would only have proved that those who reject the teachings of their respective churches have the same faith not the actual churches themselves. I’m not saying all the people who are participating in the dialogue are doing that but from some of things I’ve read it seems more then a few are.

Ryan

07-09-2006, 12:55 AM

I am wondering, how much do the OO churches talk to each other? For instance, I visited the website of the Armenian Church and I could find no reference to the Coptic Church or any of the other OO churches they are in communion with.

Athanasius Abdullah

07-09-2006, 01:34 AM

Dear John Charmley,

+irini nem ehmot,

I think Fr. Raphael hit the nail on the head with respect to the reason behind the apparent stalled state of progress on the matter; our Churches are simply “taking a breather”.

In the last OO Synod (2003) represented by the Patriarchs of the Coptic, Armenian, and Syrian Orthodox Churches, the point was in fact explicitly made that whilst it’s great that many prominent hierarchs, theologians and scholars have come to realise that the OO Church is not Monophysite, it still needs time to be received and to sink in for many others.

Fr. Raphael,

+irini nem ehmot

I must say I firmly agree with everything you said in your last post. I would just like to make a couple of points in response to the following remarks:

This only leads us back to the untenable argument that the division between us occurred due to ignorance and misunderstanding. But if that is so how to account for the obvious fact of division between us for the past 1500 years or so? Has the division been the result of total delusion on both sides for all these centuries?

1) There have been many times throughout the last 1500 years, even points in time within the first few centuries subsequent Chalcedon, that a mutual unity in essential and substantial faith was perceived between our Churches and hence why attempts at re-union had been pursued or at the very least borne in the mind of certain hierarchs at various points in time throughout these last 1500 years.

2) Coptic theologian, Fr. Tadros Malaty, makes the point that our Church wasn’t even labelled “Monophysite” by the Chalcedonians until a few centuries after the incident. The time immediately subsequent to the event of Chalcedon was a time of severe confusion for everyone; it wasn’t a clear-cut matter whereby two distinct groups emerged, one being deemed Monophysite by another, and that other being deemed Nestorian by that one. A great and brief article on the subject can be read here: http://www.orthodoxunity.org/article01.html

Athanasius Abdullah

07-09-2006, 01:44 AM

Dear Scott Pierson,

It is the duty of every baptized believer to preserve the faith. It would be morally wrong for a lay person to sit idly by while some of their hiearchs insult the memory of our God bearing Fathers and attack the conclusions of an eccumenical council.

I can agree with this in theory, but the question would arise as to whether that would in actual fact be the case, or whether you would in fact simply be recklessly and ignorantly disobeying hierarchs who are being moved by the Spirit to exercise their authority in such a manner simply because of your ill-informed private interpretation of what it means to preserve the faith?

I believe that to uphold the integrity of any claim to preserving the faith would require that you question the presuppositions underlying the particular faith you are deeming worthy of preservation.

For example, as to upholding the “conclusions of an ecumenical council”, would this include the anathemas launched against our Saints (particularly Sts. Dioscoros and Severos) by those councils you consider ecumenical? And if the available evidence vindicates these Saints from the charges so launched against them, do you think it would be “morally wrong” (to use your own terms) to submit to the proposal of your hierarchs that these anathemas be lifted? It seems to me that the only moral wrongness that could be committed in this circumstance would be to blindly uphold these charges contrary to the facts that the available evidence give witness to (simply because your presuppositions compel you to). It would be morally wrong on account of it being dishonest and on account of it bearing false witness.

The Church teachs that christ has 2 wills (a divine AND a human will).. dythelitism. If one rejects that, they are by definition of an eccumenical council a heretic.

The issue of Christ’s will(s) has more or less been agreed upon between our two Churches in the following points of the Second Agreed Statement of the Joint-Commission (1990).

3. Both families agree that the Hypostasis of the Logos became composite (sunqetoj) by uniting to His divine uncreated nature with its natural will and energy, which He has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit, created human nature, which He assumed at the Incarnation and made His own, with its natural will and energy.

4. Both families agree that the natures with their proper energies and wills are united hypostatically and naturally without confusion, without change, without division and without separation, and that they are distinguished in thought alone (th qewria monh). 20

5. Both families agree that He Who wills and acts is always the one Hypostasis of the Logos incarnate.

Source: http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state02.html

Miathelitism does not deny two distinct natural wills in Christ; it simply assigns these two distinct wills to the realm of theological contemplation. Miathelite language focuses on the practical expression of the synergic interaction between these two distinct natural wills in the Incarnate Word Who exists and ultimately wills as a composite unity (as opposed to a singularity or duality).

One = mono the fact that the will is considered one "divine human" doesnt prevent it from still being one and thus monothelit.

‘Mono’ implies one in the sense of exclusive singularity. The OO Church has never used the prefix ‘mono’ in her Christological vocabulary, but rather the Cyrillian term ‘mia’ which connotes multiplicity in unity i.e. composite unity. Christ’s one (mia) will therefore, is not a hybrid natural divine-human will, but rather the hypostatic will of the Incarnate Word. The primary theological implication of such terminology is that the One Hypostasis wills in accordance with the synergic relationship between His natural divine and natural human wills.

Thus, contrary to what is propagated in polemical literature, mia-type language does not represent an extreme opposition to an extreme dualism. Rather, it represents, by virtue of its attestation to multiplicity in unity (as opposed to mere singularity or mere duality) the very balance that Chalcedonians claim for their own Christology.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Scott Pierson

07-09-2006, 02:14 AM

or example, as to upholding the “conclusions of an ecumenical council”, would this include the anathemas launched against our Saints (particularly Sts. Dioscoros and Severos) by those councils you consider ecumenical?

Yes it would. The ecumenical councils are very important expressions of our Churches dogma and teaching. We test doctrines and teachings against the standard of the ecumenical councils. We do not sit in judgment over an ecumenical council and declare it to be wrong based on our own opinions or views on a matter. It would be like declaring the Bible wrong... as Orthodox we believe that our ecumenical councils are God directed and guided by the Holy Spirit. We also believe that our holy God bearing fathers came to their conclusions under inspiration of the Holy Spirit and that the councils are therefore without error. At least that is what I have always been taught.

Athanasius Abdullah

07-09-2006, 04:18 AM

Dear Scott Pierson,

+irini nem ehmot

Yes it would.

If such is the case, then I would consider your vision of re-inter-communion to be dishonest; there is no doubt in my mind that the OO Church would cease dialogue with the EO Church if it were made clear to her that there were no intention that the anathemas be lifted from Sts. Dioscoros and Severos. Fortunately, that has not been the case:

In 1991 His Holiness Patriarch Ignatius IV (EO Patriarch of Antioch) issued a Synodal and Patriarchal letter, affirming the Antiochian-Syrian Pastoral Agreement that took place earlier that year. The first two points of that agreement read:

1. We affirm the total and mutual respect of the spirituality, heritage and Holy Fathers of both Churches. The integrity of both the Byzantine and Syriac liturgies is to be preserved.

2. The heritage of the Fathers in both Churches and their traditions as a whole should be integrated into Christian education curricula and theological studies. Exchanges of professors and students are to be enhanced.

Source: http://www.antiochian.org.au/content/view/143/21

In 1994, the Holy Synod of the Romanian Orthodox Church issued a declaration approving of the conclusions of the Joint-Commission, which include the proposal regarding the mutual lifting of anathemas.

Source: http://orthodoxunity.org/state10.html

In 1997, the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church issued a declaration approving of the Second Agreed Statement which contains proposals regarding the mutual lifting of anathemas. The statement expresses some reservations regarding the specificity and clarity of the Christological language employed however.

Source: http://orthodoxunity.org/state12.html

In 2001, the Holy Synod of the Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria issued a pastoral agreement with the Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, which states:

"Since the Holy Synods of both the Coptic Orthodox Church and the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria and all Africa have already accepted the outcome of the official dialogue on Christology between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, including the two official agreements: the first on Christology signed in June 1989 in Egypt and the second also on Christology and on the lifting of anathemas..."

Source: http://orthodoxunity.org/state05.html

The OO Church appeals to the EO Church to lift the anathemas off her Saints, not by virtue of some question-begging argument resting on the mere fact of their being Saints of the OO Church and hence Orthodox by virtue of the presupposed infallible Truth of our Ecclesiastical Tradition, but rather upon consideration of the available evidence regarding what these Fathers actually taught and preached.

I think it’s rather absurd and senseless that you would expect OO’s to abandon both their Tradition (which testifies to the sanctity and Orthodoxy of these Fathers) as well as the abundant available evidence regarding what these Fathers taught and preached, simply because of the presupposed infallibility of the historical polemics of a Council you consider to be Ecumenical.

It furthermore seems absurd that you would uphold anathemas against those very Fathers who are the very reason behind our present common perception of unity in faith. To accept re-inter-Communion with the OOC for the very faith their Fathers are responsible for, whilst upholding anathematisations of those Fathers, would be an obvious contradiction. We OO believe what we believe today because of these Saints and not in spite of them.

ecumenical councils are very important expressions of our Churches dogma and teaching.

That’s all well and good, but an anathema is only an expression of a Church’s dogmatic teaching insofar as it implicitly anathematises a certain doctrine in anathematising the person presupposed to be a proponent of that doctrine.

What harm does it do therefore, to submit to the facts and evidence that indicate, not that the teaching implicitly condemned is falsely condemned, but that the condemned teaching is falsely attributed to certain historical persons?

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Scott Pierson

07-09-2006, 05:24 AM

If one comes to the conclusion that the ecumenical council was wrong in it decisions (to anathematize )then that’s their opinion. In the Church one doesn’t put their opinion over the rulings of an ecumenical council. If the Church “admitted” that the council was wrong in its anathematazations (for whatever reason) then they are in effect denying the traditional orthodox teaching that the ecumenical councils are without error. Either God guided the council into all truth or the council was merely a human endeavor. As an Orthodox Christian I believe that God guided the fathers to anathematize Dioscoros and Severos. It is not up to us to second guess them. If we disagree with them that is our right but we have no right to lead the Church according to our opinions.

Scott Pierson

07-09-2006, 05:42 AM

The OO Church appeals to the EO Church to lift the anathemas off her Saints, not by virtue of some question-begging argument resting on the mere fact of their being Saints of the OO Church and hence Orthodox by virtue of the presupposed infallible Truth of our Ecclesiastical Tradition, but rather upon consideration of the available evidence regarding what these Fathers actually taught and preached.

Our Church Tradition was not formed via “rational consideration of available evidence.” If it was it could be right or it could be wrong. Our Tradition came about through direct divine illumination and revelation. The fathers speak as they are lead by God. The Church proclaims and we obey. We do not test the teachings of the Church against our logic we submit our logic to revelation. If in our opinion X + Y =Z and the Church proclaims X+Y=A then we drop our opinion (regardless of the perceived evidence) and accept the teachings of the Church.

I dont expect you to agree with this I'm not writing it to convince you of the truth claims of the Church... just to point out the reasons I as an Orthodox can not accept the decisions of an eccumenical council to be wrong.

Athanasius Abdullah

07-09-2006, 07:00 AM

Dear Scott Pierson,

+irini nem ehmot

I dont expect you to agree with this

Well I’m glad that you can implicitly admit to the fact that you have no real valid reason as to why OO’s (or really anyone who doesn't accept your EO presuppositions) should adopt your point of view, which essentially means that such an adoption requires a blind submission to your subjective experience and interpretation of what you consider to be the infallible and unquestionable Truth.

I, on the other hand, expect (in the sense of considering reasonable and due, as opposed to in the sense of considering obligatory) all rational human beings to judge St. Severus according to St. Severus’ own writings (which attest to his Orthodoxy beyond all reasonable doubt), and not according to the polemical accusations of his ecclesiastical opponents, nor even according to his exalted position within the OO Tradition which is, in like manner to the conception of ‘Holy Tradition’ within the EO Church, perceived and experienced as being divinely inspired and guided etc.

Lastly, I was hoping that you would address the last question that I posed to you in my last reply. The question I was essentially asking was: “Why do you feel it necessary to incorporate historical polemics into your concept of Church Tradition?” As I proved in my last post, the hierarchs of your Church (and I didn’t just refer to the opinions of the odd Bishop or theologian, but rather the formal declarations of the Holy Synods of the EO Churches of Antioch, Alexandria, Russia, and Romania) seem to conceive of Holy Tradition in a manner in which it is not compromised by the retraction of polemical pronouncements; so the question I am encouraging you to ask yourself is whether you are even holding to a proper interpretation of what this overarching authority (i.e. Holy Tradition) actually encompasses according to your ecclesiastical tradition.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Ryan

07-09-2006, 07:11 AM

Forgive me if this has already been brought up. St. Isaac of Nineveh, while not specifically anathematized, was a member of a church that was condemned as Nestorian, yet he is lovingly venerated in the EO church (I don't know how the OO view him). Whether this brings any light on the present discussion of anathematized Coptic saints I'm not sure.

Scott Pierson

07-09-2006, 01:09 PM

t. Isaac of Nineveh, while not specifically anathematized, was a member of a church that was condemned as Nestorian,

There are many people who make that claim. According to tradition he was Orthodox and in the Orthodox Church. Many Fathers reference him in their writings and none of them claim he was a Nestorian (at least that I know of). Many of them did however point out that he was not only Orthodox but a pillar of the Church ( Not the Nestorian Church mind you but the real Church). Some scholars make the claim that he was Nestorian (others that he was a monophysite <the exact opposite> ), but I trust the Saints over modern “scholars”. I think the idea (among some Orthodox**) that he was really in the Nestorian Church is a relatively new phenomena.

** I say "among some Orthodox" because those in other Churches tried to claim him for themselves as well.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

07-09-2006, 02:48 PM

The Quest for Eastern & Oriental Orthodox Unity thread seems to have gone for the moment at least in the direction of authority in the Church and how this is reflected in the Councils. So I've also posted this related question to the Ecclesiology area. Reply posts should go to the Ecclesiology area however unless it directly relates to the EO-OO question.

Maybe some useful questions at this point would be how we relate the authority of Councils to the fact that the Church no longer follows all of the canons proclaimed by them or reinterprets their original meaning.

What part if any of Councils is unchanging? Or turn the question around- what part can change?

How can we have respect for the authority of a Council as well as the need to constantly be interpreting it and applying it in a practical living way?

What then does this suggest about the authority of Councils?

Where does the authority of the Church lie and how is this expressed?

I bring this up partly from our own present ROCOR-MP experience where spiritual life & death issues (ie our future direction as part of the Church) are affected by how past documents and statements are interpreted.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Fr Raphael Vereshack

07-09-2006, 03:39 PM

I have to admit that even though there are obvious differences there are also some similarities in this discussion about the possibility of union between the EO & OO. The obvious difference is that what we are talking about relates so much to the basic doctrine of the Church- something which cannot be allowed by either side to be negotiated away.

There are however also some real similarities which are interesting. One of these which I've brought up in the Ecclesiology area is that of where authority in the Church lies. Why this question comes up I think is because on the one hand the possibility of reconciliation implies some sort of profound change in the way the Church has been living compared to the past. On the other hand though this change itself needs to take place in the context of a continued faithfulness to the Faith & Tradition of the Church. It's in between these two areas of what apparently needs to change and what must never change that the most active and indeed fierce discussions occur.

Amidst all of this discussion it is only natural that past councils, decrees and even statements are constantly referred to support change or not. But what's interesting about this in terms of this thread is that the same question of where the authority of the Church lies always comes up in terms of past councils & decrees. How much is the Church bound by its past and how is it bound to the past? Where does the authority of the Church lie?

In this way I think we can see that similarly to the ROCOR-MP question the EO-OO question is really as much a question of trying to figure out what we are as the Church as much as the other side.

Another thing I want to add about this which also comes from the ROCOR-MP experience. There is a noticable phenomenon- which almost should be given an official name by some trained psychologist- amidst all of the debate about the significance of past councils, etc where slowly without noticing it councils are claimed to have said things they never said at all. Gradually this can become a whole urban legend where everyone is arguing over interpretations (and interpretations of interpretations...) as if they were absolute facts.

Anyway I thought I'd just bring this up from another similar experience. Last night I went to the actual Acts from the sessions of the 4th Ecumenical Council. So far I'm only about half way through. But for now it's interesting to see the following from Session III of the Council:

After this Dioscorus was again summoned and, as he did not come, sentence was given against him, which was communicated to him in a letter contained in the acts. (L. and C., Conc., Tom IV., col. 418.) The Bishops expressed their opinions for the most part one by one, but the Roman Legates spoke together, and in their speech occurs the following (Col. 426:)

Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties. The bishops then, one by one, spoke in favour of the deposition of Dioscorus, but usually on the ground of his refusal to appear when thrice summoned.

Here then is the Condemnation sent to Dioscorus:

The Condemnation Sent by the Holy and Ecumenical Synod to Dioscorus.

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 459.)

The holy and great and ecumenical Synod, which by the grace of God according to the constitution of our most pious and beloved of God emperors assembled together at Chalcedon the city of Bithynia, in the martyry of the most holy and victorious Martyr Euphemia to Dioscorus.

We do you to wit that on the thirteenth day of the month of October you were deposed from the episcopate and made a stranger to all ecclesiastical order by the holy and ecumenical synod, on account of your disregard of the divine canons, and of your disobedience to this holy and ecumenical synod and on account of the other crimes of which you have been found guilty, for even when called to answer your accusers three times by this holy and great synod according to the divine canons you did not come.

Maybe it's best if I leave the interpretation of this to each of us.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Fr Raphael Vereshack

07-09-2006, 03:41 PM

I have to admit that even though there are obvious differences there are also some similarities in this discussion about the possibility of union between the EO & OO and that between ROCOR & the MP. The obvious difference is that what we are talking about relates so much to the basic doctrine of the Church- something which cannot be allowed by either side to be negotiated away.

There are however also some real similarities which are interesting. One of these which I've brought up in the Ecclesiology area is that of where authority in the Church lies. Why this question comes up I think is because on the one hand the possibility of reconciliation implies some sort of profound change in the way the Church has been living compared to the past. On the other hand though this change itself needs to take place in the context of a continued faithfulness to the Faith & Tradition of the Church. It's in between these two areas of what apparently needs to change and what must never change that the most active and indeed fierce discussions occur.

Amidst all of this discussion it is only natural that past councils, decrees and even statements are constantly referred to support change or not. But what's interesting about this in terms of this thread is that the same question of where the authority of the Church lies always comes up in terms of past councils & decrees. How much is the Church bound by its past and how is it bound to the past? Where does the authority of the Church lie?

In this way I think we can see that similarly to the ROCOR-MP question the EO-OO question is really as much a question of trying to figure out what we are as the Church as much as the other side.

Another thing I want to add about this which also comes from the ROCOR-MP experience. There is a noticable phenomenon- which almost should be given an official name by some trained psychologist- amidst all of the debate about the significance of past councils, etc where slowly without noticing it councils are claimed to have said things they never said at all. Gradually this can become a whole urban legend where everyone is arguing over interpretations (and interpretations of interpretations...) as if they were absolute facts.

Anyway I thought I'd just bring this up from another similar experience. Last night I went to the actual Acts from the sessions of the 4th Ecumenical Council. So far I'm only about half way through. But for now it's interesting to see the following from Session III of the Council:

After this Dioscorus was again summoned and, as he did not come, sentence was given against him, which was communicated to him in a letter contained in the acts. (L. and C., Conc., Tom IV., col. 418.) The Bishops expressed their opinions for the most part one by one, but the Roman Legates spoke together, and in their speech occurs the following (Col. 426:)

Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties. The bishops then, one by one, spoke in favour of the deposition of Dioscorus, but usually on the ground of his refusal to appear when thrice summoned.

Here then is the Condemnation sent to Dioscorus:

The Condemnation Sent by the Holy and Ecumenical Synod to Dioscorus.

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 459.)

The holy and great and ecumenical Synod, which by the grace of God according to the constitution of our most pious and beloved of God emperors assembled together at Chalcedon the city of Bithynia, in the martyry of the most holy and victorious Martyr Euphemia to Dioscorus.

We do you to wit that on the thirteenth day of the month of October you were deposed from the episcopate and made a stranger to all ecclesiastical order by the holy and ecumenical synod, on account of your disregard of the divine canons, and of your disobedience to this holy and ecumenical synod and on account of the other crimes of which you have been found guilty, for even when called to answer your accusers three times by this holy and great synod according to the divine canons you did not come.

Maybe it's best if I leave the interpretation of this to each of us.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Athanasius Abdullah

07-09-2006, 05:03 PM

Dear Fr. Raphael,

+irini nem ehmot

Maybe it's best if I leave the interpretation of this to each of us.

That St. Dioscoros was deposed at Chalcedon for mere ecclesiastical reasons as opposed to doctrinal reasons, should be clear to anyone (and i'm presuming that's the point you had in mind when posting your last response?).

In fact, if you continue reading through the minutes of Chalcedon to the point where the Chalcedonian Fathers begin to pursue the idea of drafting a confession of faith (the fifth session if my memory serves me correctly), you will find that Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople, drafted his own version with the formula "of two natures". Upon seeing this, the Roman legates contested with outrage on two accounts: 1) that Anatolius sought to substitute this formula for the one used by Leo of Rome, and 2) that Anatolius was using a formula used by St. Dioscoros. In response to the latter, Anatolius more or less answered with the sentiment of: "Well, so what? Dioscoros wasn't deposed for doctrinal reasons, so what has his expression of Christology got to do with anything?".

Another interesting point to notice is that St. Dioscoros was the very first figure at Chalcedon to express the unconfused union of Christ's divinity and humanity. He in fact anticipated the very formula used in the Chalcedonian Confession of Faith attesting to the fact that Christ's natures were united "without confusion, change, division, or separation". He in fact added an additional adverb ("without transmutation") to further safeguard himself from any potential accusation of compromising the distinctness between Christ's humanity and divinity.

It is in light of this that Anglican scholar R.V. Sellers writes in his book The Council of Chalcedon: "t should be understood that the [OO] Fathers were not heretics, [I]nor were they regarded as such by leading Chalcedonians" (p. 269). Greek Orthodox Professor Fr. Romanides expresses a similar view, stating that, “Dioscorus was considered quite orthodox in his faith by such leading Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon as those represented by Anatolius of Constantinople.”

Metropolitan Methodius of Aksum further remarks indicating that: the “information which we possess does not depict Dioscorus as a heretic. From available information it is obvious that he was a good man and even Bishop Leo himself tried to take him on his side…Likewise Emperor Theodosius in a letter to Dioscorus calls him a man who radiates the Grace of God, a humble man and of orthodox faith. Several times in the course of the Council Patriarch Dioscorus declared his faith. He was not condemned because he was heretical but because he refused to communicate with Leo…and because he refused to come to the Council although he was invited to do so three times. The evidence is sufficient for us to look for other reasons for Dioscorus’ condemnation”

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Anthony

07-09-2006, 05:45 PM

That St. Dioscoros was deposed at Chalcedon for mere ecclesiastical reasons as opposed to doctrinal reasons, should be clear to anyone (and i'm presuming that's the point you had in mind when posting your last response?).

Dear Athanasius,

This has always been my understanding of the situation, following lectures I once attended by an eminent Orthodox (EO) bishop and theologian. However I would demur at the word "mere". Pope Dioscorus was deposed because of his behaviour towards Archbishop Flavian of Constantinople, who he had accused of heresy. The Fathers of Chalcedon were effectively saying that since that accusation had not been made to stick, it rebounded back on the person who made it, and in doing so had disturbed the peace of the Church. These are surely quite serious and legitimate "ecclesiastical reasons", independent of any subtexts of ecclesiastical and imperial politics that may have been present. (And irrespective too of the way in which Chalcedon was enforced, which I know too little about and am grateful to you for forcing to our attention.)

Anthony

Fr Raphael Vereshack

07-09-2006, 11:40 PM

I have spent much of today reading about the Council of Chalcedon. First of all the context of Dioscoros appearing at Chalcedon is that he was summoned to answer for his actions at the Council of Ephesus in 449 where Flavian had been deposed & Eutyches restored to his rank.

What becomes apparent from reading about Chalcedon is that even though Dioscoros was eventually deposed for his actions at Ephesus, many bishops present were very hesitant about this action. We can I think, as Athansius Abdullah says, see this with Patriarch Anastasius himself who replied to the Papal delgates' contention about the language of the formula that, "Dioscorus was condemned not for his doctrine but for the illegality of his actions at Ephesus." (This is quoted from The First Seven Ecumenical Councils by L D Davis).

It could very well be that from the Papal side Dioscoros represented as much of a theological as a disciplinary problem when he so emphatically rejected the Tome of Leo. However it is important to recognise that the clear evidence of the Council is that many bishops including the Patriarch of Constantinople himself did not see Dioscoros' theology as being the main problem. This is why they kept resisting the Papal legates' pressure for deposing Dioscoros. And this resistance continued until Dioscoros' eventual refusal to attend the Council to answer the charges against him led to the point where a feasible defense for him could no longer be kept up.

One question I have though is why Dioscoros defended Eutyches at the Council of Ephesus in 449. Perhaps his own theology wasn't as radical as Eutychios'. But why then the open approval of Euthychios' Christology at this Council?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Kris

07-09-2006, 11:47 PM

One question I have though is why Dioscoros defended Eutyches at the Council of Ephesus in 449. Perhaps his own theology wasn't as radical as Eutychios'. But why then the open approval of Euthychios' Christology at this Council?

Your blessing Father,

I believe Dioscoros defended Eutyches due to a denial of heresy by the latter. Later, however, in the words of Severus of Antioch, Eutyches "returned to his own vomit."

Fr. V. C. Samuel gives quite a detailed account of the situation in his book on Chalcedon. If I get time I'll see if I can post the relevant passages from the book, rather than rely on my own shaky memory.

In XC,
Kris

Fr Raphael Vereshack

08-09-2006, 12:15 AM

Your blessing Father,

I believe Dioscoros defended Eutyches due to a denial of heresy by the latter. Later, however, in the words of Severus of Antioch, Eutyches "returned to his own vomit."

Fr. V. C. Samuel gives quite a detailed account of the situation in his book on Chalcedon. If I get time I'll see if I can post the relevant passages from the book, rather than rely on my own shaky memory.

In XC,
Kris

Thanks.

The book I was reading didn't point this out.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Kris

08-09-2006, 01:17 AM

It is the duty of every baptized believer to preserve the faith. It would be morally wrong for a lay person to sit idly by while some of their hiearchs insult the memory of our God bearing Fathers and attack the conclusions of an eccumenical council.

I agree completely with the above. However, I do not think it is an insult to the memory of our God bearing Fathers to suggest that the miaphysites are, in fact, not heretical (with respect to their christology).

The vast majority of the writings of Severus of Antioch were destroyed, and as such were not available to such venerable and Godbearing teachers as St. John of Damascus, who relied on others for their information about such people instead of being able to consult their actual writings.

When one read's St. John's The Fount of Knowledge, Severus of Antioch is essentially accused of Eutychian monophysitism, and St. John gives his response under this assumption.

Now, like it or not, there is nothing at all in Severus' writings that suggests he ever held such a position. In fact, one could actually argue that St. John is closer to monophysitism than Severus, since the latter attributes to Christ's humanity its own hypostasis (united with the divine hypostasis of the Logos at the incarnation - a composite hypostasis so to speak), whereas the former only allows for the idea of a divine hypostasis.

However, just because St. John was mistaken (through no fault of his own) with regards to what Severus actually taught, his response to what he believed were Severus' teachings is entirely Orthodox, and as such one cannot fault or criticise him.

What I am essentially saying is that admitting that St. John was mistaken in his view of Severus does not in any way mean questioning, revising or criticising the Saints teachings, and as such cannot be viewed as an insult to his memory.

With regards to the Councils, I believe Chalcedon was right in deposing Dioscoros since he acted uncanonically, and I don't question its decision (although I do acknowledge that the situation is far from clear-cut).

The Church teachs that christ has 2 wills (a divine AND a human will).. dythelitism. If one rejects that, they are by definition of an eccumenical council a heretic. Miathelitism - ONE divine human will. One = mono the fact that the will is considered one "divine human" doesnt prevent it from still being one and thus monothelit.

That is not entirely correct. Mono is a singular one, mia is composite one. Miathelitism is not monothelitism. There might be no distinction in the English language, but there is in Greek.

Scott Pierson

08-09-2006, 02:07 AM

To say that times change and that some canons are not as relevant (due to changes in culture, technology, etc) is not the same as saying that a council was wrong. There is a big difference between the two imo.

I’ve seen people discuss the issue of the canons and acting once . A canon apparently existed that barred Christians from being actors.. The reason being - at the time actors generally performed in a perverted manner. In our times being an actor doesn’t of necessity entail that so the canon against it is not as applicable today.. that’s all well and good. No one was saying it was wrong for the canon to have been put in effect in the first place. To say that a council was wrong in anathematizing those it did however is a totally different story . That would imply that the council was not guided by the Holy Spirit. On the issue of acting there occurred a change in the nature of the job . On the issue of the OO church there haven’t been any changes (they still claim to be the One Holy Catholic an Apostolic Church, to not be in schism, the still teach the doctrines that a vast multitude of our saints have labeled heretical, etc) and it’s the council itself that is being claimed to be in error.

Athanasius Abdullah

08-09-2006, 03:02 AM

Dear Antony,

+irini nem ehmot

However I would demur at the word "mere".

I must clarify the fact that my use of the term "mere" was intended to imply the exclusivity of the nature of the reasons for St. Dioscoros's deposition (i.e. that they were exclusively ecclesiastical); it was not intended to downplay the seriousness of the charges at hand.

Albeit of an exclusively ecclesiastical nature, the charges laid against St. Dioscoros are nonetheless quite serious. We OO’s do not believe it sufficient merely that St. Dioscoros was Orthodox in doctrine; we have our own explanation and perspective on all the charges made out against him. Fr. V.C. Samuel puts forth our case most elaborately and eloquently in his book Chalcedon Re-examined.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Athanasius Abdullah

08-09-2006, 03:17 AM

Dear Fr. Raphael,

+irini nem ehmot

It could very well be that from the Papal side Dioscoros represented as much of a theological as a disciplinary problem when he so emphatically rejected the Tome of Leo.

It must emphasised that the minutes of the Council of Chalcedon reveal that the Tome of Leo was pretty much initially rejected by the majority of Eastern Bishops present—a fact that is made clear in the Greek text of the minutes of the Council, though it is one that is interestingly obscured in the Latin text, I believe.

In fact, from the very moment Leo of Rome’s Tome became public, it was widely viewed with suspicion. The only historical reason I can find as to why it was ultimately accepted at the Council of Chalcedon regards the persistent insistence by the Roman legates that the Council accept the document in its entirety without compromise. In fact, the Roman legates were so determined that this document be accepted that they essentially blackmailed the Council by threatening to abandon their participation (and hence, essentially Rome’s support and consent), unless the document be accepted. Yet, so obscure and potentially misleading was the document that even the ultimate acceptance of it was quite reluctant; it required a three day investigation by the Eastern Fathers in order that they might put it under scrutiny and critically analyse it in light of St. Cyril's twelve anathemas (which Leo of Rome apparently had no awareness of until after the Council had completed its proceedings).

And this resistance continued until Dioscoros' eventual refusal to attend the Council to answer the charges against him led to the point where a feasible defense for him could no longer be kept up.

It must be noted that St. Dioscoros did not refuse to show at that point in time because he was stubborn or unwilling to defend himself. As you would know, St. Dioscoros was present from the very beginning of the proceedings of the Council; he was more than willing to co-operate. Even when he was humiliated from the outset of the proceedings by being removed from his honourable position at the right hand of the Emperor upon the defiant request of the Roman legates—before any charges were even made out against him—he humbly removed himself in silence, and positioned himself as a guilty man on trial and continued to co-operate with the proceedings.

Even when he was initially deposed he proved himself prepared and willing to continue facing the charges laid against him. Upon his first being summoned he indicated no hesitancy to continue his participation; he simply requested that the Council acquire an Imperial permit for him to come since he was blocked from coming by the Imperial guards. Those who came to summon him pretty much responded to the effect of: “That’s not our problem”. Well, it certainly wasn’t St. Dioscoros’s problem. By the time the permit was acquired a few other factors came into play which constituted the final straw for St. Dioscoros with regard to the blatant miscarriage of justice that he had perceived and tolerated from the beginning.

That is the OO interpretation of the events in question which I briefly point out for the sake of emphasising the point I just made to Antony, namely, that the OO position is not merely content with the fact St. Dioscoros was Orthodox in doctrine, but we believe his ecclesiastical actions which form the basis of the various charges laid against him, to be justified, and hence those charges to be unwarranted. How important this is to the question of potential re-inter-Communion in the present day is another question--I personally don't think it's very relevant.

One question I have though is why Dioscoros defended Eutyches at the Council of Ephesus in 449. Perhaps his own theology wasn't as radical as Eutychios'. But why then the open approval of Euthychios' Christology at this Council?

When called to the Council of Ephesus 449, Eutyches submitted a written confession of faith which confessed the consubstantiality of Christ’s humanity to mankind; this sufficed in the eyes of that Council and hence Eutyches was exonerated by unanimous consensus (i.e. not the mere judgment of St. Dioscoros alone).

As Orthodox11 notes however, rumour had it that Eutyches later fell into the heresy he was initially accused of. When St. Dioscoros’s accusers ascribed the stereotypical “Monophysite” doctrine to Eutyches, St. Dioscoros responded by saying: “If Eutyches holds notions disallowed by the Doctrines of the Church, he deserves not only punishment but even fire. However, my concern is for the Catholic and Apostolic faith, not for any man whomsoever.” The relevant implications of this statement are that: a) St. Dioscoros was implicitly recognising that that which was being attributed to Eutyches at Chalcedon was indeed “diallowed by the doctrines of the Church”, and b) that Eutyches was not punished because he (i.e. St Dioscoros) and the rest of the Council found no evidence that Eutyches ascribed to such things upon investigating his doctrine.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Scott Pierson

08-09-2006, 04:23 AM

Assuming a multitude of the saints are wrong and the OO Church is not heretical that wouldn’t prevent it from being schismatic. If an ecclesial community isn’t in communion with the Church they are by definition schismatic. I don’t think anyone would claim otherwise would they? In order for a schismatic to join the Church they need to reject their schism (and its founders) and accept the Orthodox Church (the Chalcedonian one ) as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. No one seems to be demanding this. Probably because there isn’t much chance of it happening… but you cant water down the faith just to gain a “victory”. Look at the schisms of the past (like the donatist schism) many of them had (for the most part) the exact same theology but they were still recognized as schismatic. Certainly one wouldn’t have been allowed to venerate Donatus and make the claim that the donatist sect was the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and yet still be allowed to be in communion with the Church! A donatist would have to admit that donatus was wrong for starting his schism, that his sect was not the true Church, and he would need to proclaim the Orthodox Church (or EO Church if you prefer) to be the true Church.

Is there any doubt among OO that their Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church ? Is their any doubt among EO that their Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church? If the answer is no to both questions then I dont see how people could avoid claiming the other group to be schismatic ? If a sect is shismatic then it is NOT the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Can you unite a schismatic sect with the Church on equal terms as if the said Church had as much right to be called "the church" as the Church itself does? If not how can EO allow OO's to be in communion with them while still holding the OO Church to be One...Catholic Church? There are two compeating truth claims here. One side would need to renounce its claim to be the Church in order for an honest union to take place.

Scott Pierson

08-09-2006, 01:10 PM

A unity of faith is required for ecclesial union right? The doctrine of the EO Church is that the EO Church is the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. The Doctrine of the OO Church teaches the same in regards to itself. Thats NOT the same faith. In order for the same faith to exist they would have to come to the agreement that one Church is right. I dont see any way around that.

Kris

08-09-2006, 01:32 PM

Peace,

Assuming a multitude of the saints are wrong and the OO Church is not heretical that wouldn’t prevent it from being schismatic. If an ecclesial community isn’t in communion with the Church they are by definition schismatic. I don’t think anyone would claim otherwise would they?

No, the OOC is most definately schismatic; I don't think even the Ecumenists would argue with that.

In order for a schismatic to join the Church they need to reject their schism (and its founders) and accept the Orthodox Church (the Chalcedonian one ) as the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. No one seems to be demanding this.

I know His All Holiness Patriarch Bartholomew has stated that acceptance of Chalcedon and the subsequent Councils must be a prerequisite for any form of union. Sadly, many liberal Ecumenists have abandoned such a faithfulness to Orthodoxy.

Probably because there isn’t much chance of it happening… but you cant water down the faith just to gain a “victory”.

Pope Shenouda III (or was it Metropolitan Bishoy?) has already said the Coptic Church would be willing to accept Chalcedon and the other Councils as local Councils of the Eastern Orthodox Church, which I see as quite a positive sign that such a thing might just happen.

Is there any doubt among OO that their Church is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church ? Is their any doubt among EO that their Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church? If the answer is no to both questions then I dont see how people could avoid claiming the other group to be schismatic ? If a sect is shismatic then it is NOT the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Can you unite a schismatic sect with the Church on equal terms as if the said Church had as much right to be called "the church" as the Church itself does? If not how can EO allow OO's to be in communion with them while still holding the OO Church to be One...Catholic Church? There are two compeating truth claims here. One side would need to renounce its claim to be the Church in order for an honest union to take place.

I don't think this is necessary. Were the OO to accept all the Ecumenical Councils, she would essentially be renouncing the thing that caused the schism in the first place. Were she then to be re-united to the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, she would not be merely an add-on or addition, but would be an integral part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, as she was for the first four centuries.

That, in my eyes atleast, solves the problem. But it is unacceptable to speak of any kind of re-unitification without having acceptance of all 7 Councils as Ecumenical as a prerequisite.

In XC,
Kris

Kris

08-09-2006, 02:57 PM

Bismil Abbi, wal Ibni, wa Ruhil Kudus, al Illah al wahad. Amin.

It must emphasised that the minutes of the Council of Chalcedon reveal that the Tome of Leo was pretty much initially rejected by the majority of Eastern Bishops present—a fact that is made clear in the Greek text of the minutes of the Council, though it is one that is interestingly obscured in the Latin text, I believe.

This is quite open knowledge among the Orthodox, and is proof that the Council of Chalcedon was not some kind of triumph of the papacy, where everyone bowed down and accepted the words of the Pope without question; a view held by Catholics in support of their heretical ecclesiology, and by the Miaphysites to discredit the Council.

I think this is actually one of the big problems with the inter-Orthodox dialogue on the subject of Chalcedon. The OO apologists, Fr. V. C. Samuel included, views the Council in the context of Catholicism rather than Orthodoxy. In the words of Fr. Romanides: "It is easy for you to use the Latin interpretation of Chalcedon as a stick against us, but if we are to get anywhere you will have to take the Greek Chalcedonian interpretation of the place of Leo's Tome at the Fourth Council more seriously."

In fact, from the very moment Leo of Rome’s Tome became public, it was widely viewed with suspicion. The only historical reason I can find as to why it was ultimately accepted at the Council of Chalcedon regards the persistent insistence by the Roman legates that the Council accept the document in its entirety without compromise. In fact, the Roman legates were so determined that this document be accepted that they essentially blackmailed the Council by threatening to abandon their participation (and hence, essentially Rome’s support and consent), unless the document be accepted.

You're right in saying that acceptance of the Tome was due to the insistance of the Roman legates, but wrong in deeming their actions as blackmail. The Tome represented Pope St. Leo's, and the rest of the West's, position on Christology.

I don't see how their insistance on their doctrinal formula to be accepted by the Council (and this was all they demanded; it was never held to be the doctrinal standard of the Council as Catholics and Miaphysites often claim) is any different from the Miaphysites' insistance on the Alexandrian formula to be the only acceptable expression throughout the universal Church.

Yet, so obscure and potentially misleading was the document that even the ultimate acceptance of it was quite reluctant; it required a three day investigation by the Eastern Fathers in order that they might put it under scrutiny and critically analyse it in light of St. Cyril's twelve anathemas (which Leo of Rome apparently had no awareness of until after the Council had completed its proceedings).

The Tome's obscurity has everything to do with it being written in Latin within the context of the Western school of thought. It was for this reason, and no other, that the Tome was obscure amongst many of those in the Greek speaking East, and for this reason that the Council deemed it right to conduct a lengthy investigation into the document to prove that it was consistent with the teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria; whose teachings were more or less the standard of Orthodoxy.

How one views the Tome is essentially a question of how you view the words 'nature' and 'person.' The Council itself clearly interpreted St. Leo's 'one person' to mean one hypostasis (which Fr. Samuel states on p.224 of his book), and not merely one prosopon. Fr. Samuel mentions that, among the Antiochians, hypostasis and prosopon were used synonimously (p. 225). But this has little or no bearing on the Council's decision.

Secondly, and more importantly, is the word 'nature.' Again, it is clear from reading Leo's Tome that this equated to the Greek word 'ousia,' not 'hypostasis,' and as such any charge of Nestorianism is, again, unwarranted.

I am aware that Severus of Antioch objected to the idea of 'two ousia' as well, but when one compares his own theology to the Tome, one finds very little difference in substance; only linguistics.

On p. 236 of his book, Fr. Samuel notes that Severus of Antioch said the following in a letter to the monks of Enaton: "They saw Him asleep in the ship as man, and they saw Him walking upon the waters as God. They saw Him hungry as man, and they saw Him feeding [others] as God."

I don't see how this differs from one of the Tome's more controversial points, when it states that "each nature performs what is proper to itself in communion with the other; the Word, for instance, performing what is proper to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what is proper to the flesh."

Once again, the fact that there was a thorough analysis of the Tome, and that it was only accepted because it was held to be in agreement with St. Cyril's Anathemas and the Council's own theological statment, is proof that the Tome was never held as the Council's doctrinal standard, but merely accepted as a valid refutation of Eutychian monophysitism.

"I am also amazed that at this point in our conversations Leo' s Tome is still referred to as a standard formulation of Christology at Chalcedon." Fr. Romanides.

Upon his first being summoned he indicated no hesitancy to continue his participation; he simply requested that the Council acquire an Imperial permit for him to come since he was blocked from coming by the Imperial guards. Those who came to summon him pretty much responded to the effect of: “That’s not our problem”. Well, it certainly wasn’t St. Dioscoros’s problem.

I must admit I have never heard about this. I don't think Fr. Samuel makes any mention of it (please correct me if I'm wrong). Instead he says the cause of Dioscoros' refusal to caomply with the three symmonses served on him was that Eusebius, who had come out with a petition against him the first time round, was just going to repeat himself in any further proceedings (pp. 95-96).

Fr. Samuel goes on to say "The second flaw mentioned in the verdict refers to 'other offences of which you have been convicted', without specifying any of them." Since they were not mentioned in the Council's verdict, its difficult for us to say with any certainty what they were; but that does not mean they're mere fabrications.

Nor should one dismiss the fact that Dioscoros supported Eutyches prior to his exhoneration. As Fr. Samuel notes, it cannot be proven that he restored Eutyches to Communion, but these are serious allegations and Dioscoros' refusal to comply with the summonses are made more serious in respect to this.

Fr. Samuel goes on to say that Pope St. Leo had done the same thing with respect to Theodoret of Cyrus. I suppose the difference is that in the case of the latter, his legates were at the Council to speak on his behalf, as was Theodoret, who later agreed to condemn Nestorius. One must also take into consideration the fact that the Council of 449 did not have the same status in the West as it did in the East, and so Pope St. Leo's actions could be excused (if not justified) on these grounds.

With regards to Dioscoros' excommunication of Pope St. Leo, it is correct that the latter, in fact, excommunicated the former 5months this happened. I suppose the reason was Dioscoros' refusal to accept the Tome, which St. Leo then saw as heresy (it could also have been a reaction to his support of Eutyches). But, given this fact, I think we are obliged to give Dioscoros the same benefit of a doubt we give Pope St. Leo in this respect.

How important this is to the question of potential re-inter-Communion in the present day is another question--I personally don't think it's very relevant.
[quote]

I would generally agree with this, although I do find the issue of opposing individuals being canonised by the respective sides a problem to any unity.

[quote]
When called to the Council of Ephesus 449, Eutyches submitted a written confession of faith which confessed the consubstantiality of Christ’s humanity to mankind; this sufficed in the eyes of that Council and hence Eutyches was exonerated by unanimous consensus (i.e. not the mere judgment of St. Dioscoros alone).

But it should be taken into account, as I already noted, that the charge against Dioscoros' admitting Eutyches to communion (assuming it means Eucharistic Communion - we don't know for sure) was prior to Eutyches exhoneration by the Council of 449.

As Orthodox11 notes however, rumour had it that Eutyches later fell into the heresy he was initially accused of. When St. Dioscoros’s accusers ascribed the stereotypical “Monophysite” doctrine to Eutyches, St. Dioscoros responded by saying: “If Eutyches holds notions disallowed by the Doctrines of the Church, he deserves not only punishment but even fire. However, my concern is for the Catholic and Apostolic faith, not for any man whomsoever.” The relevant implications of this statement are that: a) St. Dioscoros was implicitly recognising that that which was being attributed to Eutyches at Chalcedon was indeed “diallowed by the doctrines of the Church”, and b) that Eutyches was not punished because he (i.e. St Dioscoros) and the rest of the Council found no evidence that Eutyches ascribed to such things upon investigating his doctrine.

Although Fr. Samuel frequently suggests that neither Eutyches nor Nestorius actually held the heresies they are commonly accused of, this is certainly not the view of Severus of Antioch.

He wrote that:
"Since you have thought fit to ask me for what reason Eutyches is anathematized, the man of ill name and impious, and how it is that he was received by Dioscorus of saintly memory, we say in a few words that he was received on presenting a document which contained a right confession of faith and anathematized Mani and Valentine, and Apollinaris, and those who say that the flesh of our Lord and God Jesus Christ came down from heaven….But the man of ill name seems again to have 'returned to his vomit.'"

Note the word "again." It seems that Severus believed Eutyches to have held these views prior to him presenting this written document containing "a right confession of faith," and then later returned to his heretical teachings, warranting his excommunication.

Now if Dioscoros "admitted Eutyches to communion before he had been rehablititated by the council of 449" (Fr. Samuel p.97), that gives valid reason for suspicion. Not that Dioscoros himself held such beliefs (he clearly didn't), but that he supported a man who did.

In XC,
Kris

Fr Raphael Vereshack

08-09-2006, 04:57 PM

Maybe I missed something in my reading about Chalcedon but I didn't pick up on any major opposition to St Leo's Tome there. Immediately after the official reading of the Tome at the Council the following appears in the report.

Extracts from the Acts Session II.

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 368.)

After the reading of the foregoing epistle [ie of Pope Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there]? These are the things Dioscorus hid away.

Some explanations were asked by the Illyrian bishops and the answers were found satisfactory, but yet a delay of a few days was asked for, and some bishops petitioned for a general pardon of all who had been kept out. This proposition made great confusion, in the midst of which the session was dissolved by the judges.

It says here only that questions were asked about the Tome by the Illyrian bishops but then, "the answers were found satisfactory" which presumably refers to the Orthodoxy of the Tome. Note also the petition for a general pardon for those who had been kept out. Yesterday in my posts I referred to how clear it was from reading the reports of the Council that many of the bishops present were very hesitant about deposing Dioscorus and those who had supported him. Patriarch Anastasius even went so far as to comment that as far as he was concerned what was at question was not Disocorus' theology. The 'great confusion' the report refers to then probably is connected to this same concern the bishops had throughout the proceedings of the Council.

From my own reading I would say that the Council's ambivalence about Dioscoros probably reflected the ambivalence of the Church at large. On the positive side it seemed Dioscoros held to an Orthodox understanding of St Cyril. On the other hand there could well have been hesitation about his relationship to Eutyches. When Eutyches was accepted back at Ephesus in 449 by Dioscoros was this the result of Eutyches being called to account for himself or was it from Dioscoros' ongoing efforts to rehabilitate him from the time of his original condemnation by the synod under Flavian in Constantinople? The fact of Ephesus being considered a Robber Council in Constantinople as well as in Rome led some to question Dioscoros' motives and it is this which could well have been behind the ambivalence about him at Chalcedon.

Reading about the period after Chalcedon is also very interesting. It shows that after Chalcedon there was more theological conflict than ever. This culminated in a schism between Rome & Constantinople from 484- 518. In the books much of this is described as Chalcedonian vs Monophysite but one wonders if this is to read the clear divisions that lay in the future into the past. The fact is that there was little clarity in these disputes in terms of the issues but rather a tremendous struggle from within the Church to determine the boundaries of her own theology.

That is why even though there were those who had a difficult time accepting Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo after 451 much of this was not at all like the clear rejection of the future by what became a non-Chalcedonian church. In general both Chalcedon and the Tome were either greatly respected or else at least accepted as correct expressions of Orthodoxy. Not least in this period of turmoil was the effort by many to compromise while sticking to their theological positions. In a sense at least at this stage much of the dispute seems to arise from the effort to preserve at least two ways of seeing theologically- St Leo's & St Cyril's within the One Church.

It's tempting to condemn one or the other's vision as being incomplete. But in a way the real problem lay in the how each vision could be interpreted in incomplete ways.

One can see at Chalcedon over & over again the effort to hold these two visions together by trying to read them in one Orthodox light. In a way this is partly what Chalcedon is about. But the atmosphere was still far too volatile to allow for the ultimate success of this effort in the long run. Through no fault at all of the Council instead of a harmonious vision, Sts Leo and Cyril were instead interpreted by too many as opposing each other.

Neither Chalcedon nor the turmoil which followed can be blamed for this. Chalcedon was the effort to provide a way forward for maturing the vision of the Church by setting before it another way of speaking and thinking (ie St Leo representing a Roman vision). But there is no good reason to reject this unless we are to maintain we are a Church which can see only through one lens.

Turmoil also is no good reason for having failed. After all there is something similar about what came before and after Nicea when there was a tremendous struggle over language and various ways of using this. But then the Church managed to achieve out of the turmoil a language which takes into account the best of different theological tendencies within the Church. This is what the word homoousios represents for us (and maybe one reason we cling to it so faithfully without trying to change it).

What all of this shows I think is that it is wrong to blame Chalcedon or St Leo or St Cyril for what occurred afterwards. The failure rather was in increasing closed-mindedness about what the Church could and could not allow in terms of its expression. In the period after Chalcedon there was in fact no us & them. Rather there was all of us struggling to find something common in something diverse.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Athanasius Abdullah

09-09-2006, 02:28 PM

Dear Orthodox11,

+irini nem ehmot

This is quite open knowledge among the Orthodox, and is proof that the Council of Chalcedon was not some kind of triumph of the papacy, where everyone bowed down and accepted the words of the Pope without question; a view held by Catholics in support of their heretical ecclesiology, and by the Miaphysites to discredit the Council.

Whether by conscious intention or not, the very fact Leo of Rome’s document was ultimately accepted in spite of the obvious undesirable theological and practical implications of doing so, in addition to the fact that his apparent agenda against St. Dioscoros, which had slowly unravelled from the time before Ephesus 449 even proceeded, was vindicated by Chalcedon, indicates that Chalcedon did in a sense encourage his sense of supremacy over Church affairs: he got what he wanted, even though what he wanted was unjustifiably to the detriment of the peace of the Church.

The OO apologists, Fr. V. C. Samuel included, views the Council in the context of Catholicism rather than Orthodoxy. In the words of Fr. Romanides: "It is easy for you to use the Latin interpretation of Chalcedon as a stick against us, but if we are to get anywhere you will have to take the Greek Chalcedonian interpretation of the place of Leo's Tome at the Fourth Council more seriously."

Fr. Romanides’ response on this point doesn’t really hold water. Any theological document received and upheld by an Ecumenical Council would surely be nothing less than an authoritative standard by which relevant theological considerations are to be measured. If you consider Chalcedon to be Ecumenical, then you must consider the ultimate unanimous reception and vindication of the Tome by your Fathers to be representative of the fact that within a Chalcedonian framework, the Tome can be considered nothing less than a standard formulation of the faith. If you read the pronouncement pasted in Fr. Raphael's post that follows yours, you will find your Fathers more or less anathematising those who do not accept the Tome.

You're right in saying that acceptance of the Tome was due to the insistance of the Roman legates, but wrong in deeming their actions as blackmail.

The minutes of the Council clearly portray the Roman Legates threatening to abandon the Council unless the Tome was signed. That pretty much represents the basic formula of a typical blackmail: “If you don’t do X I’ll do Y”.

I don't see how their insistance on their doctrinal formula to be accepted by the Council…is any different from the Miaphysites' insistance on the Alexandrian formula to be the only acceptable expression throughout the universal Church.

The problem that I believe you have in understanding the significant and most relevant difference here, is the fact you seem to be considering the issue of theological vocabulary in a vacuum and not in within the immediate historical context in which it was considered. The fact that the primary motivation of the OO approach to certain terminology was shaped by legitimate practical concerns constitutes the fundamental essence of Fr. V.C. Samuel’s Chalcedon Re-examined. It is also something that is recognised by Fr. Romanides who displays a profound sense of empathy as to the Alexandrian insistence on the maintenance of the integrity of mia physis terminology.

The adamant defence of the Alexandrian Christology was significantly relevant to the OO’s, not simply because such Christology was Alexandrian as you would have us falsely believe, but because it was the underlying Christology of the normative Tradition of the Church at that time; more significantly however it represented the most explicit negation of Nestorianism to Nestorian ears. The fact of the matter is, that if we were to go back to the mid-fifth century we would find a significantly large number of Nestorians as well as a newly developed and fiercely progressive crypto-Nestorian movement attempting to adapt its heretical principles to a new theological vocabulary, in contrast to one old monk by the name of Eutyches who may or may not have truly ascribed to this idea of “monophysitism”. It is in this light that we must consider the significance and relevance of one form of language over and above the other.

Secondly, and more importantly, is the word 'nature.' Again, it is clear from reading Leo's Tome that this equated to the Greek word 'ousia,' not 'hypostasis,' and as such any charge of Nestorianism is, again, unwarranted.

We can sit here and debate the various implications of certain philosophical constructs according to their usage within a particular linguistic, cultural, or geographical framework, but in the end it would be to miss the very fundamental point.

I refer you to my above comments regarding the need to relate all issues back to their historical context. As was the case with Nicaea, Constantinople and Ephesus, terminology and language were chosen primarily to negate heresy rather than to express Orthodoxy. Christ was homoousios to the Father, not because homoousios was the best available expression of His relationship to the Father, but rather because it was the best available negation of Arianism.

In light of this, and in upholding our concern for practical/historical considerations, what may possibly be deemed plausibly Orthodox as to the doctrine Leo subjectively intended to convey as reached by the Chalcedonian Fathers through a three day investigation of the usage of Latin terms and expressions, is of negligible relevance if, in the end, upholding such a document means providing Nestorian heretics with fuel to continue progressing their heresies, and repelling true Orthodox Christians who sought fidelity to the Tradition of the Church. Ultimately, the practical results of vindicating the tome were this: a multitude of Orthodox clergy and laity resisted it, whilst a multitude of Nestorian clergy (including Nestorius himself!) and laity praised it as a vindication of their doctrines.

On p. 236 of his book, Fr. Samuel notes that Severus of Antioch said the following in a letter to the monks of Enaton: "They saw Him asleep in the ship as man, and they saw Him walking upon the waters as God. They saw Him hungry as man, and they saw Him feeding [others] as God."

I don't see how this differs from one of the Tome's more controversial points, when it states that "each nature performs what is proper to itself in communion with the other; the Word, for instance, performing what is proper to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what is proper to the flesh."

First of all, the former quote belongs to St. Dioscoros, not St. Severos.

Second of all, the difference between St. Dioscoros’s quotation and the one you have taken from Leo’s Tome is quite significant to the trained eye, especially if you consider the latter quotation in its relevant context:

"For each "form" does the acts which belong to it, in communion with the other; the Word, that is, performing what belongs to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what belongs to the flesh; the one of these shines out in miracles, the other succumbs' to injuries. "

If you look carefully at St. Dioscoros’s statement, the subject of all activity (i.e. human and divine activity) is the One hypostasis of Christ (which is denoted by the personal pronoun – Him). It was Him, who slept, and it was Him who walked upon waters; there is One personal subject, and it is of Him that the human activity of sleeping is ascribed, and it is of the same Him that the divine activity of walking upon waters is ascribed.

When we look at Leo’s statement, we find him speaking of Christ’s flesh as if it were the subject of human activity. For Leo of Rome, “the flesh [carries] out what belongs to the flesh”, yet according to St. Dioscoros, this very statement would be properly worded, “He carries out what belongs to the flesh”. The fact that Leo of Rome separates the “Word” from the “flesh” is also problematic, for the term “Word” is a title of Christ’s person. This is the way that the title was understood from the very time of the Apostles, for it was St. John who depicted the “Word” as being personally acquainted with God the Father since time eternity in the very first verse of his Gospel.

I must admit I have never heard about this. I don't think Fr. Samuel makes any mention of it (please correct me if I'm wrong).

He certainly does make mention of it. Please see pg. 53 and onwards.

Instead he says the cause of Dioscoros' refusal to caomply with the three symmonses served on him was that Eusebius, who had come out with a petition against him the first time round, was just going to repeat himself in any further proceedings (pp. 95-96).

That was his refusal to comply to the “third” summons, and Fr. V.C. Samuel does not give the reader the impression that St. Dioscoros was merely seeking to avoid repeating his case for the sake of avoiding repitition. He was avoiding a reasonably perceived miscarriage of justice. Eusebius’s claims had already been dealt with; it was obvious that Eusebius had a personal agenda that he was not prepared to relinquish.

Nor should one dismiss the fact that Dioscoros supported Eutyches prior to his exhoneration. As Fr. Samuel notes, it cannot be proven that he restored Eutyches to Communion

Exactly; it’s conjecture.

Fr. Samuel goes on to say that Pope St. Leo had done the same thing with respect to Theodoret of Cyrus. I suppose the difference is that in the case of the latter, his legates were at the Council to speak on his behalf, as was Theodoret, who later agreed to condemn Nestorius.

Leo’s relationship with Theodoret was a lot more telling than St. Dioscoros’s relationship with Eutyches. St. Dioscoros exonerated Eutyches upon consideration of a written Orthodox confession of Faith; he did so canonically according to proper ecclesiastical procedure. Leo of Rome exonerated Theodoret against proper canonical custom—he had no authority to reverse the decisions of Ephesus 449 on his own (another reason why he is labelled the father of papal supremacy), and he exonerated Theodoret with conscious knowledge of the fact that Theodoret was a supporter of Nestorius and that he had not yet anathematised Nestorius.

Theodoret in fact never truly renounced Nestorianism; it is clear that he paid mere lip service to appease his accusers, and there is compelling reason to believe so.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Athanasius Abdullah

09-09-2006, 02:37 PM

Dear Fr. Raphael,

+irini nem ehmot,

Though I have read over your post I unfortunately do not have sufficient time to respond as of now, especially considering the particularly lengthy response of Orthodox11 that I just responded to.

There is alot you have said that rings true, yet much I still disagree with; nevertheless I sense a genuine and honest attempt on your behalf to provide a balanced and non-polemical account of things, and for that I express my sincere respect and gratitude which stands even if our interpretation of history never ultimately coincides.

I hope to be able to post a response to you in the next week or so.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Fr Raphael Vereshack

09-09-2006, 03:48 PM

Athanasius Abdullah

10-09-2006, 06:23 PM

Dear Fr. Raphael,

+irini nem ehmot,

It says here only that questions were asked about the Tome by the Illyrian bishops but then, "the answers were found satisfactory" which presumably refers to the Orthodoxy of the Tome.

The point I was trying to make is that there was already a stigma attached to the Tome prior to Chalcedon, which had aroused the suspicion of many before and even at that Council—the Illyrian Bishops, the Palestinian Bishops, and certain other individual Bishops. The pressure applied by the Roman legates and the Imperial commissioners to procure acceptance of the Tome lead these men to request a five day delay in order to investigate the Tome; ultimately they managed to accept it.

One of the Palestinian Bishops, Juvenal of Jerusalem, had in fact already investigated the Tome prior to the convening of Chalcedon, and he found it to be so undeniably Nestorian to the extent that before his departure to Chalcedon he gathered his congregation together and instructed them to resist his authority if he were ever discovered to have changed his mind with respect to the Tome upon his return from Chalcedon. Obedient as the Jerusalem flock were, they followed through with his words, and their resistance was met with severe imperial force.

The ill-reputation of the Tome amongst many Orthodox was further confirmed by the fact that Nestorians appealed to it as support for their cause. In fact it was none other than Nestorius himself who, whilst in exile from the time of his ex-communication at Ephesus 431, looked upon the Tome as a victory of the doctrines he struggled so hard to infect the Church with. Church historian Professor Henry Chadwick states: “Nestorius, reading the tome in his lonely exile, left that the truth had been vindicated at last, and that he could die in peace.” (The Early Church, p. 202)

From my own reading I would say that the Council's ambivalence about Dioscoros probably reflected the ambivalence of the Church at large.

It is clear that many loved St. Dioscoros, particularly the Church of Alexandria which solidly stood loyal towards him to the extent that many died for the sake of upholding his integrity. It was a bloody day in Alexandria when the congregation refused to betray their Patriarch in exile by refusing to submit to the one enforced upon them by the imperial authorities. The Church recognised St. Dioscoros as their leader till his very death, and he has been a Saint of the OO Church ever since (which was quite a significant representation of the "Church at large" at that time--OO's still significantly outnumber the EO's in the lands of the ancient Patriarchal Sees). St. Dioscoros has not only been received in the tradition of the Church as a teacher and confessor of the faith, but also as a holy man according to his works and deeds--a lover of the poor and oppressed who, even during the time of his own oppression whilst in exile, refused to accept the sympathies of his loved ones but rather turned them away and expended his time and energy to serve the needy on the Island of Gangra, performing many great signs amongst them.

Nevertheless, there were those who held an ill-inclined attitude towards St. Dioscoros, but such was also the case with his predecessors—Sts. Cyril and Athanasius. We must go beyond mere observation of the various attitudes held towards and against St. Dioscoros and investigate their underlying basis.

When Eutyches was accepted back at Ephesus in 449 by Dioscoros was this the result of Eutyches being called to account for himself or was it from Dioscoros' ongoing efforts to rehabilitate him from the time of his original condemnation by the synod under Flavian in Constantinople?

Most certainly the former; there is simply no evidence to suggest the latter. The Council of Ephesus 449 which lead to the exoneration of Eutyches was convened neither by the express will or authority of St. Dioscoros, nor was St. Disocoros’ presidency over that Council due to his express will. The Council was convened by the Emperor upon consideration of the personal appeal of Eutyches himself, and St. Dioscoros was president of that Council by virtue of his position as the Pope and Patriarch of the See of Alexandria and by the express command of the Emperor.

Furthermore, your terminology expresses a fundamental presupposition that underlies one of the great misjustices of St. Dioscoros’ trial at Chalcedon. You indicate the belief that: “Eutyches was accepted back at Ephesus in 449 by Dioscoros”—I must emphasise to you that Eutyches was not accepted back into the Church by St. Dioscoros, but rather he was accepted conciliarly. As Professor R.V. Sellers notes: “To bring these proceedings to a close, Dioscorus then requested each Bishop to state his opinion concerning the Orthodoxy of Eutyches, and, beginning with Juvenal and Domnus, one hundred and eleven Bishops, Basil and Seleuces among them, together with the abbot Barsumas, accepted his confession of faith and agreed that he should be reinstated.” (The Council of Chalcedon, p. 79)

The fact of Ephesus being considered a Robber Council in Constantinople as well as in Rome led some to question Dioscoros' motives

Well for us OO's, the fact that Ephesus 449 was labelled a Robber Council by Leo of Rome leads us to question Leo’s motivations. From our perspective, it was termed the Robber Synod because the Synod had, from the perspective of Leo of Rome, robbed him of his sense of supremacy over Church affairs when it failed to entertain his Tome.

All contrary explanations which attempt to impute some sort of criminal guilt on St. Dioscoros are no more or less akin to the very same charges brought upon his Alexandrian predecessors (particularly Sts. Athanasius and Cyril, both who were charged with some pretty outrageous things) time and time again, and as with those very charges there is a lack of evidentiary basis and in fact a contradiction with what the actual evidence indicates.

In fact, reading through the minutes of Chalcedon where one such charge, particularly that of aggression and force, is discussed, St. Dioscoros pretty much prudently exposes the contradiction in his accuser’s testimonies. When his accusers realised that the untenability and fallacy of their concocted charges had been exposed, many of them renounced their lies and openly cried for St. Dioscoros’ forgiveness.

That is why even though there were those who had a difficult time accepting Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo after 451 much of this was not at all like the clear rejection of the future by what became a non-Chalcedonian church.

The rejection of Chalcedon was quite clear and blatant; in fact the Church held an (essentially) Ecumenical Council (though it is not officially labelled as such) just 20 years after Chalcedon in the year 475; it was presided by St. Dioscoros’ successor St. Timothy and was quite well-represented. This Council re-affirmed the Church’s anathematisation of Nestorius and then went on to anathematise Eutyches and the Council of Chalcedon.

The only confusion, and one which blurred any real distinction between a “Chalcedonian Church” and a “non-Chalcedonian Church” , at that time arose by virtue of the very fact that each side was still holding to the hope that the other side would compromise its position on Chalcedon: Non-Chalcedonians were waiting it out in the hope that those who supported Chalcedon would relinquish their support of it, and vice versa. It is only when all immediate re-union efforts failed to realise the anticipated compromise that a clear distinction and division came to light.

Chalcedon was the effort to provide a way forward for maturing the vision of the Church by setting before it another way of speaking and thinking (ie St Leo representing a Roman vision). But there is no good reason to reject this unless we are to maintain we are a Church which can see only through one lens.

I guess I’d make the same point to you here as I did to Orthodox11: One cannot truly empathise with the OO position if they are to consider particular theological “visions” in a vacuum.

For the OO’s, the adament defence of Alexandrian Christology was neither motivated by a sense of nationalistic pride in the Alexandrian tradition, nor a sense of narrow-mindedness that prohibits consideration of alternative traditions. Rather, it was motivated by the legitimate concern of maintaining the integrity of the underlying Dogmatic Tradition expressed through Alexandrian terminology, against tampering and manipulation by the heretics—a tampering and manipulation that was commonly manifest throughout Church history in the form of an abuse of terminology. The only language at that time that the Nestorians could not tamper with, and which hence served as a clear dividing fence between heresy and Orthodoxy was Alexandrian Christological language.

As discussed earlier, the Tome of Leo gave Nestorius a sense of victory whilst he was in exile; history later reveals that Chalcedon gave rise to a group of Nestorians who upheld Chalcedon whilst commemorating the death of Nestorius. We also hear of Chalcedonians who upheld Chalcedon whilst promoting the Christology of Nestorius’ teacher—Theodore. You see, even if we were to accept the argument that the intent of Chalcedon was Orthodox—its ambiguity leading to its service to the regeneration of an already condemned heresy, and its consequent rejection by many Orthodox, laity and clergy alike, cast doubt on just how much authority and respect is really due to it.

Turmoil also is no good reason for having failed. After all there is something similar about what came before and after Nicea when there was a tremendous struggle over language and various ways of using this.

Consequent turmoil per se is certainly no good reason for deeming Chalcedon a failed Council. It all comes down to the issues of why turmoil arose.

But then the Church managed to achieve out of the turmoil a language which takes into account the best of different theological tendencies within the Church.

I cannot find this interpretation to hold water with respect to any of the Ecumenical Councils, and one that is in fact contradicted by the third Ecumenical Council which was strictly of an Alexandrian flavour, or, to put it in terms more relevant to the issue at hand, was a vindication of the Alexandrian flavour over and above the Antiochian flavour. That is not to say that the Fathers of Ephesus thought there to be something intrinsically wrong with the Antiochian Christological tradition, but in terms of the primary concern of that Council—a practical concern to deal with the problems threatening the Faith of the Church in that immediate historical context (i.e. Nestorianism), it was Alexandrian Christology that had to be vindicated because it was Alexandrian Christology that best expressed Orthodox Christology to the negation of Nestorian Christology, whereas Antiochian Christology was, on the contrary, liable to abuse by the Nestorians regardless of any possible Orthodox intent that may lie behind it.

The Fathers were concerned with providing and dogmatising the best expression of Orthodox Christology to the negation of heresy, they were not concerned with “[taking] into account the best of different theological tendencies within the Church”.

Furthermore, even if that were so, Chalcedon certain didn’t take the “best” of the Alexandrian expression of the unity of Christ’s natures. In fact St. Severos was the one who suggested that had Chalcedon incorporated the Cyrillian “One Nature” formula along with the rest of what it had incorporated, that this may have sufficed in clarifying the ambiguity that lay with Chalcedon, both for the sake of maintaining unity with the many Orthodox who opposed it, and for the sake of not blurring the division between Orthodoxy and Nestorianism.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Anthony

10-09-2006, 07:12 PM

Dear Athanasius,

Thank you for your thought-provoking post. I really appreciate your presence in this discussion and the well-reasoned and courteous way in which you put your views across. All I can manage at the moment are rare and brief posts, but I hope they do not come across as attempts to snipe at your position. I am just trying to figure things out.

I have just one question (for the time being).

For the OO’s, the adament defence of Alexandrian Christology was neither motivated by a sense of nationalistic pride in the Alexandrian tradition, nor a sense of narrow-mindedness that prohibits consideration of alternative traditions. Rather, it was motivated by the legitimate concern of maintaining the integrity of the underlying Dogmatic Tradition expressed through Alexandrian terminology, against tampering and manipulation by the heretics—a tampering and manipulation that was commonly manifest throughout Church history in the form of an abuse of terminology. The only language at that time that the Nestorians could not tamper with, and which hence served as a clear dividing fence between heresy and Orthodoxy was Alexandrian Christological language.

I don't doubt the sincerity of Pope Dioscorus devotion to the verbal integrity of the teaching he inherited from his great predecessors, but I seem to remember that the phrase "mia physis tou theou logou ensesarkomenou" originated in a text of St Athanasios which may have been interpolated by Apollinarians, and which St Cyril adopted believing it to be authentic. I would be interested to know what your views are on that subject, as it would be ironic if the Alexandrian tradition had itself fallen victim to just this kind of tampering.

Second (although I said I had only one question :)) - I thought that the title Theotokos was the traditional bastion against Nestorianism. You are presumably claiming that there were people around who accepted the Theotokos but were still Nestorian. If so, I would be interested to know more about this.

Anthony

John Charmley

12-09-2006, 01:22 AM

Fr Raphael Vereshack

12-09-2006, 03:15 PM

It is good to see these things being discussed so thoroughly, and Athanasius' views are certainly supported by the documents on the dialogue on http://www.orthodoxunity.org/. As with all historical questions it is possible to selectively use evidence to support a preferred position, but I hope other readers of this thread would agree that Athanasius is trying to see the wider picture.

We can come back to precise interpretations of contested definitions of contested words, and I am not sure that it gets us very far to state that ecumenical councils cannot, by definition, err, especially when one side in this dialogue would say that it is precisely because Chalcedon erred that it cannot be considered ecumenical. Of course for those who take the opposite view, the opposite is true, but that gets us back into the circularity pointed out earlier in this thread. Dialogue requires that we listen to what the other says; at the very least it is unclear to me why the existing differences between the EO and the OO constitute an insuperable obstacle to unity.

It seems, from the outside, as though there are those who are so attached to their way of seeing things that no amount of dialogue will alter it; a not unfamiliar phenomenon, and certainly all too familiar in the history of Christianity, but one we should seek, in prayer, to overcome.

How many of our fellow Christians could (or would want) to follow this (to me) fascinating and informative discussion. As I look around at this world, and the almost post-Christian Britain in which I live, I cannot but wonder what we could do were we to put this energy into mission.

It may be, on re-reading this thread, that the differences are more substantial than an Anglican can appreciate, and that they really do warrant the EO and the OO remaining apart; but what I do see is how much the division harms the cause of spreading Christ's word. Of course that could be read as an argument for syncretism, especially from an Anglican, but as I hope my previous posts suggest, that is not where I am coming from.

I find this thread so illuminating in so many ways, but we should never (and I think we can sometimes) lose sight of the purpose of the dialogue. I would like to thank Anthanasius in particular for his insightful comments, but also for his tone; he never forgets to treat his interlocutors with respect. Our fellow Christians, however mistaken we may think they are, should not be treated as though they were Amalekites - and one of the blessings of this site is that they are not.

We should not forget in this detailed discussion that our words can only ever be approximations of a sacred mystery. Coptic Orthodoxy believes, as far as I can make it out, that Christ was perfect man and perfect God, and that what was assumed can be redeemed. Is there, sometimes, a danger that in our human pride we seek to define the indefinable? Our Lord did not tell us in plain words exactly what he felt about the Incarnation, and it is plain that holy men have grasped at the immensity of this Christological dilemma. Could we, as His Creation, show a little humility, and are we sure we are not trying to confine the Incarnate Lord into our words.

I look forward to continuing my education here, and being told why we are so certain we can pin down the Almighty, and so sure that our definitions are so different that it warrants blocking the road to union. But I have a sense from the website mentioned above, and from these posts, that dialogue such as this is really moving things on, and that perhaps there will be progress. I am not sure who is closer to each other than the EO and the OO.

We should pray for each other and for the guidance of the Holy Ghost.

In Christ,

John

Thanks for your kind words.

I'm not sure how much good it does to simply say that Ecumenical Councils do not err and leave it at that. From this discussion we can see that Ecumenical Councils had their fair share of debate- even heated debate- and that certain things were not completely cleared up. There is some ambiguity of meaning even with Ecumenical Councils.

This does not deny however the undoubted authority which these Councils have for us. Perhaps at the Council itself there was fierce debate over issues. Maybe the final acts of the Council reflect this fact. Nevertheless in the mind of the Church these Councils take on specific meanings which define the Faith for the faithful and this is what in fact makes these Councils as they say 'ecumenical'.

In this light it is heartening to read that, "Coptic Orthodoxy believes, as far as I can make it out, that Christ was perfect man and perfect God, and that what was assumed can be redeemed." I would also agree with this and add that it is this which has given grounds for hope in the past few decades.

However as you can also probably also see Chalcedon is still a major point of contention between us. We can and probably should keep discussing its actual interpretation. But at the end of the day there is a real danger here which overlooks the point made above. This is that an ecumenical council is not only something open to interpretation (yes we should be able to admit that and engage in it ourselves). It also represents something fundamental to our theological vision: in this case how we see Christ. So from this perspective an Ecumenical Council is by our lights absolutely non-negotiable. And we could add that even though discussions are helpful a major roadblock to unity still remains if some method of completely accepting this is not not found or is resisted.

It is my own feeling that there is room for hope. But still at this point too many points of theological and historical disagreement remain. What I think makes the circularity of the arguments is not the fact that one side accepts a council as ecumenical and another does not. I think it is rather created by not recognising how theology is expressed through the Councils and history of the Church- how the people of the Church acted- and how we interpret all this. For these express precisely the Faith we hold to. Therefore we need to take these things fully into account along with the meaning given to them.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

John Charmley

12-09-2006, 04:16 PM

Dear Father Raphael,

I feel blessed reading your posts; let us heed the wisdom in them. Dialogue in this spirit is a blessing and spreads enlightenment. Only when we understand what the other really believes, and why and how that is expressed, can we make real progress.

Perhaps, in this sphere, two sayings from the Alexandrian School have some relevance.

The first is St. Cyril's comment to Nestorius, that he would never find a person who would love him like Cyril, but never would this love be at the expense of his faith.

The second comes from St. Athanasius, who, in his tome to the people of Antioch stated that disputes merely about words must not be suffered to divide those who think alike.

Thank you for sharing your wisdom with us, Father.

In Christ,

John

Athanasius Abdullah

12-09-2006, 05:22 PM

Dear Anthony,

+irini nem ehmot

I appreciate your kind words and am relieved to know that I am not causing any offence in my approach to these undoubtedly sensitive matters. I further appreciate and am gladdened by your open-mindedness and understanding.

I seem to remember that the phrase "mia physis tou theou logou ensesarkomenou" originated in a text of St Athanasios which may have been interpolated by Apollinarians, and which St Cyril adopted believing it to be authentic.

Whether the expression is authentically Athanasian or not, is, I believe, besides the point as to why it was in actual fact adopted by St. Cyril, and here I refer to the words of Professor N. Russell: “[St. Cyril] first used the mia physis formula in his five-volume polemic against Nestorius, and again in his important dogmatic letters to Eulogius and Succensus. To him it was a useful phrase of irreproachable provenance which emphatically ruled out Nestorius’ loose ‘prosopic union’ once and for all.” (St Cyril of Alexandria: A Critical Appreciation p. 240). This reason similarly lies as the primary basis for the OO defence of the phrase. The fact the expression had precedent in St. Cyril's writings was indeed important for us, but it was not the crux of our uncompromising struggle on its behalf.

Furthermore, the OO Fathers appealed to many other patristic sources in support of the mia physis formula, including the writings of St. Gregory the Theologian and St. Ignatius of Antioch. St. Dioscoros actually brought these documents with him to the Council of Chalcedon to use at his defence; nevertheless, no one objected to his use of such documents on the ground that they were Apollinarian forgeries. This seems to be, as far as I’m aware, a claim that was grounded in later Chalcedonian polemics.

I would be interested to know what your views are on that subject, as it would be ironic if the Alexandrian tradition had itself fallen victim to just this kind of tampering.

Well even assuming that the Apollinarians assumed the mia physis formula, there is still the question as to whether their interpretation of the formula had anything to do with the Apollinarian heresy in any event; I don’t think there’s a necessary connection there. Nevertheless, I will assume that a necessary logical connection exists for arguments sake; the fact of the matter is that OO’s are not claiming the Alexandrian expression of Christology to be infallible; all human constructs are, by virtue of their being human expressions, subject to manipulation. The question of relevance to the issue of Chalcedon is: which expression of Orthodoxy best and most practically served in defence of the established Tradition of the Church against those who, at that very historical point in time, were attempting to undermine, and posed the most significant threat to the integrity of that Tradition?

Second (although I said I had only one question :)) - I thought that the title Theotokos was the traditional bastion against Nestorianism. You are presumably claiming that there were people around who accepted the Theotokos but were still Nestorian. If so, I would be interested to know more about this.

Since Fr. Romanides deals with this issue more eloquently and academically than I ever could were I to attempt to give it a good go, I shall refer you to his article on this issue which you can read online: http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.08.en.st._cyrils_one_physis_or_hypostasis_of_g od_the_log.htm#m2 (Part II is the relevant section).

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Athanasius Abdullah

12-09-2006, 05:50 PM

Dear John,

+irini nem ehmot

Thank you for continuing to serve as a voice of neutrality and moderation; you’re certainly keeping me in check.

We should not forget in this detailed discussion that our words can only ever be approximations of a sacred mystery.

Indeed, else our proclamation of the ineffability of God’s being and His economy is mere lip-service. As I argued in another thread, I believe all semantic expressions employed throughout Church history to be historically accidental, containing no intrinsic or absolute worth. It is in this light that all my arguments in relation to the “mia physis vs. dyo physeis” dispute are exclusively historical.

In consideration of the popular understanding of dyo physeis terminology in the present, I would have no problem abandoning the mia physis formula if that’s what it took to re-establish re-intercommunion, and would certainly not demand submission to it as a pre-requisite to re-intercommunion, just as I would probably have no problem abandoning the term homoousios if that’s what it took to re-establish re-intercommunion with some hypothetical group that accepted the substantial principle underlying that philosophical construct. Substance and form are not inseparable.

Coptic Orthodoxy believes, as far as I can make it out, that Christ was perfect man and perfect God, and that what was assumed can be redeemed.

Indeed; these fundamental Christological and Soteriological principles are not just expressed by the Fathers and Theologians of the Church, but they are expressed in the very Liturgical life of the Church. I have uploaded various audio segments (chanted in english) of the Coptic Liturgy of St. Gregory the Theologian relevant to the aforementioned principles:

Audio 1: http://www.rapidupload.com/d.php?file=dl&filepath=18811

“And when [man] fell by the guile of the enemy, and the disobedience of Your Holy Commandment, You desired to renew him and to restore him to his original state.

Neither an angel nor an archangel, neither a prophet nor a patriarch have you entrusted with our salvation.

But You who, without change, was Incarnate and became man, and resembled us in everything except sin alone…”

Audio 2: http://www.rapidupload.com/d.php?file=dl&filepath=18813

“You who are The Being at all times, have come to us on the earth. You have come into the womb of the Virgin.

You who cannot be contained, being God, did not consider it fraudulent to claim equality with God.

But You emptied Yourself and took the form of a slave.
You blessed my nature in You.
You fulfilled Your Law for my sake.
You showed me the way to rise from my fall.
You gave freedom to those who had been under the dominion of Hades.
You cast away the curse of the law.
You abolished sin in the flesh.
You revealed the power of Your authority.
You granted sight to the blind.
You raised the dead from their graves.
You raised human nature through the word….”

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Athanasius Abdullah

12-09-2006, 06:00 PM

Dear Fr. Raphael,

+irini nem ehmot,

Nevertheless in the mind of the Church these Councils take on specific meanings which define the Faith for the faithful and this is what in fact makes these Councils as they say 'ecumenical'.

I assume that when you implicitly refer to the acceptance and reception of a Council’s authority in “defin[ing] the Faith for the faithful” by the “mind of the Church” that you refer to this idea of “consensus”. If I am wrong then please feel free to correct me. Assuming that I am right however, the relevant question then becomes: how do we define consensus without resorting to circular reasoning which entails the idea that consensus is “the acceptance and reception of all those who have accepted and received” the Council in question?

It also represents something fundamental to our theological vision: in this case how we see Christ. So from this perspective an Ecumenical Council is by our lights absolutely non-negotiable.

How would this principle as it relates to the EO vision of Chalcedon, apply to OO’s however? I’m glad that you recognise the fact that OO Christology is essentially the same as that Christology that the EO Church understands to be advocated by Chalcedon, but it must follow from such a recognition that Chalcedon is not so fundamental to “how we see Christ”, if we, EO’s and OO’s alike, “see Christ” in the same way in spite of our differing approaches to and almost diametrically opposed historical perspectives of Chalcedon.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

John Charmley

13-09-2006, 12:47 AM

Dear Athanasius,

I am indebted to you for the audio files - and for so much illumination.

I come at this as an Anglican whose contacts with Orthodoxy have come, in the main, through the British Orthodox Church, which is, of course, under the jurisdiction of the Patriarchy of Alexandria. I have found HH Pope Shenouda's theological writings a great help, and stand in admiration at the witness of the Coptic Church down the ages. We hear, rightly, much of the persecution suffered by Eastern Orthodox Christians under Communism, and those seventy years were, indeed, ones of martyrdom and suffering on a scale any English Anglican can hardly imagine. The same is true of the period of Ottoman rule (although it must be acknowledged that the Ottoman millet system was generally less onerous than the systematic persecution practised by the Godless Communists - which is not to defend it, merely to point out a difference). But the Copts have suffered thus for more than a millenium - which is a formidable witness.

Your statement that:

'Indeed, else our proclamation of the ineffability of God’s being and His economy is mere lip-service. As I argued in another thread, I believe all semantic expressions employed throughout Church history to be historically accidental, containing no intrinsic or absolute worth. It is in this light that all my arguments in relation to the “mia physis vs. dyo physeis” dispute are exclusively historical'

represents, to my mind, a subtle and fertile line of approach. We should remember, in all humility, the limitations of language when it tries to capture something of the ineffable. As the report of the 1964 Aarhus conversations put it:

'We recognise in each other the one Orthodox faith of the Church ... On the essence of the Christological dogma we found ourselves in full agreement.'

At Bristol as long ago as 1967 the delegates agreed:
'Some of us affirm two natures, wills and energies hypostatically united in the one Lord Jesus Christ. Some of us affirm one united divine-human nature, will and energy in the same Christ. But both sides speak of a union without confusion, without change, without division, without separation. The four adverbs belong to our common tradition. Both affirm the dynamic permanence of the Godhead and the Manhood, with all their natural properties and faculties in the one Christ.'

To remind ourselves of something you mentioned much earlier in this dialogue, the Joint Commission which met in Egypt in 1989 agreed, among other things that:

'3. Both families agree that the Hypostasis of the Logos became composite (sunqetoj) by uniting to His divine uncreated nature with its natural will and energy, which He has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit, created human nature, which He assumed at the Incarnation and made His own, with its natural will and energy.

4. Both families agree that the natures with their proper energies and wills are united hypostatically and naturally without confusion, without change, without division and without separation, and that they are distinguished in thought alone (th qewria monh). 20

5. Both families agree that He Who wills and acts is always the one Hypostasis of the Logos incarnate.

Even on the thorniest part of the thicket they managed to state:

'7. The Orthodox agree that the Oriental Orthodox will continue to maintain their traditional Cyrillian terminology of "one nature of the incarnate Logos" ("mia fusij tou qeou Logou sesarkwmenh"), since they acknowledge the double consubstantiality of the Logos which Eutyches denied. The Orthodox also use this terminology. The Oriental Orthodox agree that the Orthodox are justified in their use of the two-natures formula, since they acknowledge that the distinction is "in thought alone" (th qewria monh). Cyril interpreted correctly this use in his letter to John of Antioch and his letters to Acacius of Melitene (PG 77, 184-201), to Eulogius (PG , 224-228) and to Succensus (PG 77, 228-245).'

Would I be correct, Athanasius, in thinking that your own position would be similar to this article 7?

I should be most interested to know Father Raphael's opinions on these matters - and that of our other posters on this site. Where I have misunderstood anything, and if I have inadvertently caused anyone offence, I would ask for pardon; I know how much heat this subject can generate - although here I see much light.

It seems, to a mere Anglican, a sign of the blessing that is this site that we can discuss such matters in such a tone of voice. If real unity can only come when there is full agreement on faith, such dialogue must be a crucial element in this process.

In Christ,

John

Raouf

13-09-2006, 05:28 AM

Dear John,

+irini nem ehmot

Thank you for continuing to serve as a voice of neutrality and moderation; you’re certainly keeping me in check.

Indeed, else our proclamation of the ineffability of God’s being and His economy is mere lip-service. As I argued in another thread, I believe all semantic expressions employed throughout Church history to be historically accidental, containing no intrinsic or absolute worth. It is in this light that all my arguments in relation to the “mia physis vs. dyo physeis” dispute are exclusively historical.

In consideration of the popular understanding of dyo physeis terminology in the present, I would have no problem abandoning the mia physis formula if that’s what it took to re-establish re-intercommunion, and would certainly not demand submission to it as a pre-requisite to re-intercommunion, just as I would probably have no problem abandoning the term homoousios if that’s what it took to re-establish re-intercommunion with some hypothetical group that accepted the substantial principle underlying that philosophical construct. Substance and form are not inseparable.

Indeed; these fundamental Christological and Soteriological principles are not just expressed by the Fathers and Theologians of the Church, but they are expressed in the very Liturgical life of the Church. I have uploaded various audio segments (chanted in english) of the Coptic Liturgy of St. Gregory the Theologian relevant to the aforementioned principles:

Audio 1: http://www.rapidupload.com/d.php?file=dl&filepath=18811

“And when [man] fell by the guile of the enemy, and the disobedience of Your Holy Commandment, You desired to renew him and to restore him to his original state.

Neither an angel nor an archangel, neither a prophet nor a patriarch have you entrusted with our salvation.

But You who, without change, was Incarnate and became man, and resembled us in everything except sin alone…”

Audio 2: http://www.rapidupload.com/d.php?file=dl&filepath=18813

“You who are The Being at all times, have come to us on the earth. You have come into the womb of the Virgin.

You who cannot be contained, being God, did not consider it fraudulent to claim equality with God.

But You emptied Yourself and took the form of a slave.
You blessed my nature in You.
You fulfilled Your Law for my sake.
You showed me the way to rise from my fall.
You gave freedom to those who had been under the dominion of Hades.
You cast away the curse of the law.
You abolished sin in the flesh.
You revealed the power of Your authority.
You granted sight to the blind.
You raised the dead from their graves.
You raised human nature through the word….”

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Dear Athanasius,

Can you please point me to where to get the complete recording of this Divine Liturgy?

In Christ,
Raouf

Kris

13-09-2006, 04:27 PM

Dear Athanasius,

Can you please point me to where to get the complete recording of this Divine Liturgy?

In Christ,
Raouf

www.tasbeha.org is an excellent Coptic site with hymns, liturgies and spiritual songs (in Coptic, Arabic and English) which can all be downloaded for free, provided you register (also for free).

It's one of my favourite sites. I currently have 1.2 days of Coptic hymns on my iTunes play list, lol.

Hope this is of some use.

In XC,
Kris

Fr Raphael Vereshack

13-09-2006, 04:48 PM

Dear Athanasius,

You wrote:

I assume that when you implicitly refer to the acceptance and reception of a Council’s authority in “defin[ing] the Faith for the faithful” by the “mind of the Church” that you refer to this idea of “consensus”. If I am wrong then please feel free to correct me. Assuming that I am right however, the relevant question then becomes: how do we define consensus without resorting to circular reasoning which entails the idea that consensus is “the acceptance and reception of all those who have accepted and received” the Council in question?

No I'm not referring to consensus when speaking of the authority of the Church's councils but rather to how their authority is due to the fact that they reflect the mind (or as we say phronema) of the Church. As you know at one time it was 'St Athansius against the world' in regards to the Nicene faith & Arianism. But yet this lack of consensus did not make St Athanasius wrong. Likewise at one point when St Gregory the Theologian became bishop of Constantinople almost all of the churches there were Arian. Likewise this did not make the Council of Nicea of no authority.

To say this the other way around the authority of councils comes from the way in which they reflect the faith and mind of the Church. In so far as they do this they have and gain an overall authority that overrides the instability of human history. In all of this one must never overlook the role of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church in Truth for otherwise we seek to tie the authority of councils to purely human factors which is clearly wrong.

How would this principle as it relates to the EO vision of Chalcedon, apply to OO’s however? I’m glad that you recognise the fact that OO Christology is essentially the same as that Christology that the EO Church understands to be advocated by Chalcedon, but it must follow from such a recognition that Chalcedon is not so fundamental to “how we see Christ”, if we, EO’s and OO’s alike, “see Christ” in the same way in spite of our differing approaches to and almost diametrically opposed historical perspectives of Chalcedon.

What I wrote below about OO Christology was:

In this light it is heartening to read that, "Coptic Orthodoxy believes, as far as I can make it out, that Christ was perfect man and perfect God, and that what was assumed can be redeemed." I would also agree with this and add that it is this which has given grounds for hope in the past few decades.

My personal belief is that in many ways we both- EO & OO- are approaching a similar Christology or possibly have already reached this. But yet there seems to be real OO hesitation about accepting Chalcedon.

Rather than this calling into question the authority of Chalcedon I would say that this situation is better summed up by the analogy of those who in the 4thc were basically Nicene in faith but yet had great hesitations about Nicean language because they believed it to be too Sabellian.

In other words throughout this dispute there have always been two intertwined arguments; i) over core theology & ii) over the suitability of the language used to express this. This latter throughout the course of the Church has always been contentious precisely because language within the Church has a tradition or a history which can follow more than one path.

Thus we find the interesting example of St Cyril of Jerusalem where one can see clear examples in his Catechetical Lectures of hesitation about using Nicean language about the Trinity- and this after the Council of Nicea. This apparently led some in his time, like St Jerome, to question his Orthodoxy. But yet over the centuries as we read him now we see that his faith was Nicean even if his expression is a bit weak at times.

In terms of what we're talking about what St Cyril of Jerusalem illustrates is the variety of different traditions of language within the Church and the degree of toleration shown this as long as this still expresses the core faith of the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Peter Farrington

13-09-2006, 04:50 PM

Your statement that:

'Indeed, else our proclamation of the ineffability of God’s being and His economy is mere lip-service. As I argued in another thread, I believe all semantic expressions employed throughout Church history to be historically accidental, containing no intrinsic or absolute worth. It is in this light that all my arguments in relation to the “mia physis vs. dyo physeis” dispute are exclusively historical'

represents, to my mind, a subtle and fertile line of approach. We should remember, in all humility, the limitations of language when it tries to capture something of the ineffable.

Dear John

I do agree that this is a necessary way forward. It seems to me that many of the problems associated with the controversial period were rooted in the inability to allow for the provisionality of all human language.

The Home Synod of Constantinople in 448 took a view that the 'mia physis' language should be excluded; and then Ephesus 449 took the view that the 'dyo physis' terminology should be excluded; Chalcedon seems to many of us OO to have again sought to practically exclude the 'mia physis' language; while of course the Fathers of the non-Chalcedonians wrote excluding 'dyo physis' language again.

Yet it is clear that Severus, for instance, does not exclude the reality of the humanity and Divinity, and is able to allow the use of 'two natures' as long as the 'mia physis' is also confessed as a safeguard against Nestorianism or or more properly Theodoreanism. So there was a great closeness of Christological substance just an inability on all sides to allow for a genuine diversity of expression. Dioscorus and Timothy also wrote clearly describing and defending the reality of the natures of which Christ is.

And both Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians were able to agree to the Christology of the Henotikon, but the sticking point was Chalcedon and the issue of terminology.

As Severus says, 'We do not fail to recognise the distinction in natures of which Christ is, God forbid! But we do reject a division in which each nature has its own independent existence' (Bit of a paraphrase from memory).

Now if most Chalcedonians do in fact mean to preserve the distinction when they speak of 'in two natures' and do not mean to set up a division then we do believe the same thing, as I believe. And if, non-Chalcedonians mean to preclude division when they speak of mia-physis or hypostasis, but do not mean to abolish the distinction, then again we believe the same thing.

This is an instance where language divides. What do we mean by a pair of suspenders? In England we would be shocked to learn that Tony Blair wore suspenders. In the US no-one would be interested if George Bush did. Which is the correct use of the word?

Surely this would be a pointless argument that could not be resolved. What would matter would be to discover what is meant. And this is surely what is required here and now. Neither dyo-physis nor mia-physis are absolute terms. We do not believe in a Koran. What matters is what we mean. And if we mean the same then we must make every effort to be reconciled with each other.

This is why I believe that even my own Coptic Orthodox Church must be in dialogue with the Assyrian Church of the East. We must allow them to speak for themselves and explain what they mean by what they say.

This is why it is unreasonable to take a sentence or two from any modern writer and use it to beat others over the head with. What matters is what is meant, and that is discovered in conversation and dialogue such as this, not in casual polemics.

Peter Theodore Farrington

John Charmley

13-09-2006, 07:44 PM

Dear John

I do agree that this is a necessary way forward. It seems to me that many of the problems associated with the controversial period were rooted in the inability to allow for the provisionality of all human language.

The Home Synod of Constantinople in 448 took a view that the 'mia physis' language should be excluded; and then Ephesus 449 took the view that the 'dyo physis' terminology should be excluded; Chalcedon seems to many of us OO to have again sought to practically exclude the 'mia physis' language; while of course the Fathers of the non-Chalcedonians wrote excluding 'dyo physis' language again.

Yet it is clear that Severus, for instance, does not exclude the reality of the humanity and Divinity, and is able to allow the use of 'two natures' as long as the 'mia physis' is also confessed as a safeguard against Nestorianism or or more properly Theodoreanism. So there was a great closeness of Christological substance just an inability on all sides to allow for a genuine diversity of expression. Dioscorus and Timothy also wrote clearly describing and defending the reality of the natures of which Christ is.

And both Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians were able to agree to the Christology of the Henotikon, but the sticking point was Chalcedon and the issue of terminology.

As Severus says, 'We do not fail to recognise the distinction in natures of which Christ is, God forbid! But we do reject a division in which each nature has its own independent existence' (Bit of a paraphrase from memory).

Now if most Chalcedonians do in fact mean to preserve the distinction when they speak of 'in two natures' and do not mean to set up a division then we do believe the same thing, as I believe. And if, non-Chalcedonians mean to preclude division when they speak of mia-physis or hypostasis, but do not mean to abolish the distinction, then again we believe the same thing.

Neither dyo-physis nor mia-physis are absolute terms. We do not believe in a Koran. What matters is what we mean. And if we mean the same then we must make every effort to be reconciled with each other.

Dear Peter Theodore,

Welcome to this site - we shall gain much from your contributions, and I really would be most interested to hear from our Chalcedonian brothers on your post, as well as my last one and that of Athanasius.

The combination of the provisional nature of all language in dealing with the Ineffable, and the differences between Greek and Latin, has certainly been a potent source of division; but it is clear to me that for some Chalcedonians that position looks like a cop out. You and I know it is not meant to be, but it would be good to hear how our arguments sound to others!

The Ethiopian Orthodox use the words 'hellawie', 'bahrey' and 'tabayee', which approximate to hypostasis, ousia and physis, and this caused (and causes) endless internal and external difficulties - so the one universal constant (apart from the patience and love of the Lord Jesus with His creation) is the inadequacy of language to convey the wonder of the Incarnation.

It is a good thing that God is not 'just' according to our reading of that word and concept - none of us could stand such a judgement. Perhaps like God's judgement, the Incarnation is beyond precise defining by us.

In Christ,

John

Fr Raphael Vereshack

13-09-2006, 11:39 PM

John Charmley wrote,

The combination of the provisional nature of all language in dealing with the Ineffable, and the differences between Greek and Latin, has certainly been a potent source of division; but it is clear to me that for some Chalcedonians that position looks like a cop out. You and I know it is not meant to be, but it would be good to hear how our arguments sound to others!

The Ethiopian Orthodox use the words 'hellawie', 'bahrey' and 'tabayee', which approximate to hypostasis, ousia and physis, and this caused (and causes) endless internal and external difficulties - so the one universal constant (apart from the patience and love of the Lord Jesus with His creation) is the inadequacy of language to convey the wonder of the Incarnation.

It is a good thing that God is not 'just' according to our reading of that word and concept - none of us could stand such a judgement. Perhaps like God's judgement, the Incarnation is beyond precise defining by us.

I for one appreciate the recent participation of yourself, Athansius (he's actually been posting for quite awhile) and now Peter Farrington. I think for most of us on the EO side of things it's something new to hear about or from OO converts. It could be this adds something new to the discussion.

Actually there is a lot in the posts all three of you have made that I agree with. I've been trying to make a similar point about language & adding that it must always express the core belief of the Church. So I don't think this is a cop-out.

Another point that comes to mind though but which is not made in the sense of disagreeing with what was already written. This is really just to pose the question: even if the way we express ourselves theologically within the Church is provisional isn't there a sense in which once this language is given a specific meaning a tradition arises which leads us to respect this language?

For example the word homoousios could mean different things before the Council of Nicea. But Nicea gives it specific meaning which now is even part of the Creed. Maybe other words could have similar meanings or we could recognise that the word homoousios is not absolute in meaning. But still we would be extremely hesitant about replacing this word with anything else. Perhaps part of the respect given to this word also arises from the tremendous struggle the Church put into giving it a specific and proper meaning.

Anyway...just a few thoughts that come to mind.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Peter Farrington

14-09-2006, 10:21 AM

Another point that comes to mind though but which is not made in the sense of disagreeing with what was already written. This is really just to pose the question: even if the way we express ourselves theologically within the Church is provisional isn't there a sense in which once this language is given a specific meaning a tradition arises which leads us to respect this language?

Dear Father

I believe you are correct and I agree with you, but on the other hand it is not the case that Christological terminology did receive a universal meaning.

This was and has been part of the problem.

Perhaps this is why the Second Agreed Statement validates BOTH terminologies. Or rather I am SURE this is why it validates both terminologies.

I naturally prefer to speak carefully of Christ being 'of two natures', and 'of the natures of which Christ is', but I can also use 'in two natures' if I need to, as long as it is clear what is meant.

Constantinople 553 does provide balance from a non-Chalcedonian point of view and precluded many of those errors which it had been considered that Chalcedon remained porous to.

Within the Chalcedonian community, for instance, there was a very large constituency which considered that the Three Chapters, as they came to be known, had been commended and received by Chalcedon. The Church of North Africa and most of the West went into schism after 553 because it was seen as rejecting the writings and theologians who had been received at Chalcedon. Some in the West remained in schism until 700 AD, and when Pelagius II returned as Pope elect he could find only two bishops and a priest who would consecrate him.

If it was possible for so many people to consider, as they did, that the Letter of Ibas had been received at Chalcedon then what does this say about Chalcedon? I mean that as a question not polemically.

It must mean, as is the case with all human activity, that it is at least liable to misinterpretation.

But if the Church of the West and that of North Africa believed for 100 years that the Letter of Ibas had been received, and the teachings of Theodoret, then why is it unreasonable for the non-Chalcedonians to have also believed the same. Indeed the Acts of Chalcedon - and I have the new three volume complete scholarly edition at home which I will refer to when I get back tonight - do have the Letter of Ibas read out and proclaimed as Orthodox. 'We have read the letter, and it is Orthodox' the papal legates state. And this is written into the record. No-one shouts out, as at Constantinople 553 'We have read the letter, and it is blasphemous' This could not fail to cause problems for those who became the non-Chalcedonians. It was just one of the theological reasons for its rejection.

In answer to a question asked elsewhere, 'Yes, Chalcedon was broke, it does need fixing'.

It produced a long-lasting schism between those who believe essentially the same, and it was certainly ambiguous and allowed those who supported error to agree to it at the same time. It therefore failed in its intent which was, being charitable, to bring about unity in the Church and exclude error. On the contrary many tens of thousands of non-Chalcedonians were killed, whole hierarchies were martyred. There were real efforts at genocide of those who rejected Chalcedon. So there are questions which need to be asked.

The non-Chalcedonians have not changed their faith. And even Chalcedon is not THE FAITH. It is a witness to the faith, and therefore human and provisional to a degree (that does not mean valueless of course). Because Chalcedon is not the Faith it is not the faith that has been rejected with Chalcedon, it is an expression, a description, a definition. Just as I could ask people to describe an elephant and find that some definitions could actually also be a giraffe and were therefore more ambiguous than intended. To reject a particular definition of the faith while preserving the faith can never be heresy.

I would suggest that Chalcedon needs re-opening and to be brought to a conclusion that brings about unity and excludes error. This means, I suggest, that it needs to be canonically explained by the Chalcedonians and some text added to it which precludes misunderstanding and misinterpertation. I suggest that as a way forward so that Chalcedon can be acceptable to all without diminishing the esteem in which it is held by the Chalcedonians. There is a need to take account of the historic reasons for the rejection of Chalcedon, which were theological.

In fact I am working, and have been for some time, on the documents of Chalcedon 553. I am researching a paper which would go through the documents of the council and explain them to a non-Chalcedonian audience.

My own bishop has suggested that it might be possible to produce a non-Chalcedonian version of these conciliar documents, I mean with glosses where necessary to clarify how the document should be properly understood, and how we are understanding it. If such a document were presented to the Oriental Orthodox synods and synodically approved it would signal, as far as I am concerned, an acceptance of that council, whether or not the event itself be described as ecumenical.

I would hope that a similar approach could be taken with the other councils, even including Chalcedon, if the Chalcedonians were able to be reflective about what it is Chalcedon means. If it means the dominance of the Imperial Church over all others by fiat then reconciliation fades, but if it means an expression of faith that is intended to unite and exclude error then it seems reasonable to expect that both sides would go the extra mile. The one side adding words in some additional paragraph to exclude misunderstanding, the other side bearing with phrases that sound problematic and rather basing their judgement on the meaning as clarified.

This would, to my mind, signal a real acceptance of Chalcedon. The issue of the historical event seems secondary because it is dependent on so many other preconceptions and has been subject to so much polemic on all sides.

Would this be any sort of way forward?

Since the Oriental Orthodox have synodically accepted that the Eastern Orthodox ARE Orthodox then it must be possible to read the documents of the 4-7th (or 8th) councils in an Orthodox manner otherwise by their acceptance of these councils the Eastern Orthodox would have to be in error as a matter of course.

What seems necessary is to present these documents in a manner which is acceptable to the integrity of faith of both sides. It would then be clear, also, that opposition to reconciliation, was not based on the faith at all but on some other factors.

I think the 5th Council is a good place to start, since it is relatively a neo-Cyrilline council. If the Oriental Orthodox could synodically accept the documents of that council as Orthodox then it might set a precedent. Or I may be a mere subdeacon living in fantasy land? I am sure however that the Oriental Orthodox need to deal with the latter councils.

Does this have potential?

Peter Theodore Farrington

Fr Raphael Vereshack

14-09-2006, 04:33 PM

Dear Peter,

First off just so there's no misunderstanding my knowledge of Chalcedon is only general and not detailed. I have read about the Council, what led up to it and also its results. But this has been only limited reading and only from time to time at that. So there's a lot of detail I'm unaware of or even could have forgotten over time.

On the other hand there might be a possible advantage to this as I sense that it is very easy to get completely lost interpreting the details on this one. Except for gaining a better understanding of how differently we interpret the same events I wonder how much this accomplishes.

For example the reading of the Letter of Ibas and the series of later events you refer to can be given a very different interpretation as you probably know. The book I recently read (The First Seven Ecumenical Councils- L D Davis) for example explains,

The legates [at Chalcedon] ruled that what had been decided against him [ie Ibas] at the Robber Council should not prejudice the bishops against him. The bishops examined his letter to Maris the Persian. In answer to questions by the commissioners, Paschasinus and Maximus of Antioch testified that from the reading of the letter, he was orthodox. Anatolius of Constantinople accepted him into communion because he agreed to the definition of the Council and Leo's Tome. No official judgment was apparently voted on the letter itself, a point much debated in the next General Council at Constantinople in 553. Ibas, like Theodoret, was restored to his see.

As you can see every statement here is open to interpretation. For example was Ibas accepted into communion because of the testimony of the Antiochians or because Anatolius accepted that Ibas (or his letter?) was in agreement with the Definition of the Council & Leo's Tome? Not that these discussions don't have their place. They definitely do. But I wonder if at some point greater clarity would arise by bearing in mind that how we interpret these individual events is usually within a larger theological or historical framework that is much more strightforward. Thus for example whatever the exact details of Ibas' Letter (and there is tremendous amount of complex interpretation since the actions take root from actions that date back at least to the contentious Council at Ephesus) it does not add up to some sort of crypto Nestorianism for us. Thus the exact reason why Ibas' Letter was accepted may be open to question but its significance for us at least will always be found within the overall meaning of the Council. Thus specific actions and overall context needs to be kept in mind.

Starting from the 5th Council could bear fruit. Again this could relate to the overall theological context which I refer to above. This is what for us keeps seemingly contradictory actions like at the 4th & 5th Councils in harmony.

Also I want to add about Chalcedon that we're not only talking about what this Council represented during its sessions and in the centuries immediately afterwards. For us Chalcedon has gained a tremendous influence in recent times because of the way it addresses critical modern issues such as the worth of the person. When we talk about Chalcedonian Orthodoxy or even its antithesis Monophysitism we're really talking about how we are saved in Christ in the full integrity of our humanity in an age which is so destructive to this humanity. It's even quite possible that through all of this we have changed the focus or added something to what the Fathers meant when they referred to person/hypostasis. Thus it needs to be kept in mind that one reason we defend Chalcedon so firmly is because of the way it has become so central to the way we see our faith in recent times.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Peter Farrington

14-09-2006, 05:12 PM

Dear Father,

I hope that in time you will come to see that I have no interest in empty arguments or polemics. You are quite right that the reception of Ibas' letter can be seen in a variety of ways, indeed this variety of interpretations of all manner of things is what is necessary for us to accept, but has not always been easy for Christians who tend to act as if there were ever only one possible way of reading any text.

I introduced the example of Ibas to show that where it was read with definite acceptance by the papal legates and tacit acceptance by the bishops, nevertheless to the Alexandrians and others, and to the bishops of the 5th council it was manifestly blasphemous.

This is mentioned only to show that there were a variety of legitimate reasons for coming to reject Chalcedon that had and have nothing to do with accepting any error.

I do not want to get bogged down in minute detail, especially when it comes to he said this and they said that and he is right and they are wrong etc etc.

But if it is possible for the Chalcedonians to change their response to the Letter of Ibas, from perhaps passing over in silence to horror at its content, then it is possible that the non-Chalcedonian response is without fault. It is clear that all of the West considered that his letter had been read and accepted. Their hierarchs were willing to go to prison in defence of the Three Chapters, yet they were Chalcedonians. And of course Pope Vigilius himself tried his hardest to hang onto the Three Chapters.

I accept that you believe that Chalcedon has become important because it speaks of the integrity of the humanity of Christ but I would have to dispute that the integrity of that humanity was ever in doubt among those who rejected Chalcedon.

Indeed the suffering Coptic Orthodox seem to me to be able to draw great comfort from the consubstantiality with us of our Lord. For it is one of the Holy Trinity who suffered on the cross in His flesh.

Because Chalcedon has become more important in that sense do you believe that it must therefore be imposed as a condition on those who already confess the consubstantiality of Christ with us according to His flesh? I mean that as a question not polemically? If the faith of Chalcedon, properly explained, is accepted by those who have issues with the historical event and with the ambiguity of some documents, then it must be asked what acceptance of the event adds? Indeed what does such an acceptance mean?

If this was not the immediate aim of Chalcedon, which being charitable, was to confess the double consubstantiality of Christ and exclude the error of Eutyches and Nestorius, then how can it be required that it be accepted?

Surely if the double consubstantiality of Christ and the exclusion of error are confessed then this is the same as accepting Chalcedon. It was what 'accepting' meant to the Fathers.

When Nestorius was condemned by Theodoret did he accept that Ephesus was a wonderful council and he had been wrong about St Cyril all along? It would seem unlikely. I shall take a look in the Acts tonight. All that was required of him was the anathema against Nestorius. Likewise John of Antioch repudiated Nestorius and came close enough to St Cyril's position for him to be reconciled, but I cannot find that he accepted Ephesus as is being demanded of Chalcedon.

It seems to me that the Fathers were more interested in the faith than in history and interpretations of events because these were always subjective.

I could ask how the Chalcedonian communion could be Orthodox if for 100 years it allowed the whole Western and North African Church to accept and support the Three Chapters? But I do not believe such questions posed as absolutes are helpful, though I believe it would do Chalcedonians well to reflect on things such as this.

I would also be interested in your views on how the Chalcedonian Christianity of the West seems to have been easily corrupted into a denial of the divinity of Christ by basically creating a Nestorian Christ who is essentially only man but a man in whom God works. I have been told that I must simply accept the texts of Chalcedon as dictated by God and without any possibility of misunderstanding (rather like the Koran), but in fact it seems to me that many Chalcedonians (not necessarily Eastern Orthodox) accept Chalcedon and teach heresy.

I hope you see that I am not criticising what might be called Chalcedonian Orthodoxy, but hoping that you can see that there are Chalcedonian heresies and errors also. Indeed most Christian heresy and error today is Chalcedonian or rooted in Chalcedonianism. Surely we are not ultimately Chalcedonians or non-Chalcedonians but members of the Church, the Body of Christ, and this requires a wider faith and a relationship with the Living Head.

I must be honest and say that much of the criticism and even abuse I have faced from Chalcedonians over the last 12 years is from people who have little idea what any of the councils taught or teach and who use Chalcedon only as a stick. That is rather depressing.

One question I would ask you to answer. What do you consider 'accepting' Chalcedon to mean?

I will find the text that describes the basis of Theodoret's reconciliation at Chalcedon.

Best wishes in Christ Jesus

Peter Theodore

Antonios

14-09-2006, 11:18 PM

I would also be interested in your views on how the Chalcedonian Christianity of the West seems to have been easily corrupted into a denial of the divinity of Christ by basically creating a Nestorian Christ who is essentially only man but a man in whom God works.

How does this relate to the Orthodox Church? In fact, the implication is that Chalcedeon has lead to heresy when in fact the Orthodox Church is witness that it hasn't.

Fr Raphael Vereshack

15-09-2006, 12:36 AM

Dear Peter,

Thanks for your comments which are much appreciated.

First off when you wrote:

I accept that you believe that Chalcedon has become important because it speaks of the integrity of the humanity of Christ but I would have to dispute that the integrity of that humanity was ever in doubt among those who rejected Chalcedon.

Indeed the suffering Coptic Orthodox seem to me to be able to draw great comfort from the consubstantiality with us of our Lord. For it is one of the Holy Trinity who suffered on the cross in His flesh.

Let me assure you that my last comments about Chalcedon were not meant as a criticism of the Coptic Orthodox. What I meant was that part of our fervency about Chalcedon comes from issues which touch us who are Eastern Orthodox on a very personal level. Since the discussion so often centres (correctly of course) on the time of the Council itself it's easy for these other more personal reasons to be overlooked. But they do play a great role- maybe the main one- for us.

You also wrote:

Because Chalcedon has become more important in that sense do you believe that it must therefore be imposed as a condition on those who already confess the consubstantiality of Christ with us according to His flesh? I mean that as a question not polemically? If the faith of Chalcedon, properly explained, is accepted by those who have issues with the historical event and with the ambiguity of some documents, then it must be asked what acceptance of the event adds? Indeed what does such an acceptance mean?

If this was not the immediate aim of Chalcedon, which being charitable, was to confess the double consubstantiality of Christ and exclude the error of Eutyches and Nestorius, then how can it be required that it be accepted?

Surely if the double consubstantiality of Christ and the exclusion of error are confessed then this is the same as accepting Chalcedon. It was what 'accepting' meant to the Fathers.

Oh that's a tough one. I could duck the issue I guess by saying it will our hierarchy which decides this question, not us. But...

If someone who was Coptic or OO came to our parish and wanted to become EO I probably would first expect them to accept the Faith of Chalcedon. Of course it would be good if they could accept the legitimacy of the Council but the main thing is the Christology.

This is a very tricky area but if memory serves me right past efforts at reconciliation focussed more on the correct Faith.

When Nestorius was condemned by Theodoret did he accept that Ephesus was a wonderful council and he had been wrong about St Cyril all along? It would seem unlikely. I shall take a look in the Acts tonight. All that was required of him was the anathema against Nestorius. Likewise John of Antioch repudiated Nestorius and came close enough to St Cyril's position for him to be reconciled, but I cannot find that he accepted Ephesus as is being demanded of Chalcedon.

Yes that's a very interesting question.

I would also be interested in your views on how the Chalcedonian Christianity of the West seems to have been easily corrupted into a denial of the divinity of Christ by basically creating a Nestorian Christ who is essentially only man but a man in whom God works. I have been told that I must simply accept the texts of Chalcedon as dictated by God and without any possibility of misunderstanding (rather like the Koran), but in fact it seems to me that many Chalcedonians (not necessarily Eastern Orthodox) accept Chalcedon and teach heresy.

I see the division with the West as quite different from that between us & the OOs. The latter is at bottom I think really a theological disagreement.

That with the West I think is more fundamental and arises from placing the self at the centre of reality. From this ultimately comes the Nestorian humanistic Christ. Chalcedon did not cause this. Rather the West's new way of seeing reality which revealed itself through the Schism caused it to abandon in a deeper way the Faith of Chalcedon even if outwardly it was loyal to it. Indeed for us who are EO we often say that the West could find its healing if it could recover the faith of Chalcedon.

I hope you see that I am not criticising what might be called Chalcedonian Orthodoxy, but hoping that you can see that there are Chalcedonian heresies and errors also. Indeed most Christian heresy and error today is Chalcedonian or rooted in Chalcedonianism. Surely we are not ultimately Chalcedonians or non-Chalcedonians but members of the Church, the Body of Christ, and this requires a wider faith and a relationship with the Living Head.

Do you mean that as above you believe that Chalcedon & western 'nestorianism' (maybe we would say secularism) are connected? That western secularism comes from Chalcedon? One thing to keep in mind is that the EO who of course are Chalcedonian have always stood against this secularisation of values. The character of our Church is far more traditional and ascetic than anything found in the west- except you people of course! We venerate the icon of the True Christ in our churches. So the fact that Chalcedon didn't lead us like the west to have a Nestorian Christ I think shows the problem is not with Chalcedon.

I must be honest and say that much of the criticism and even abuse I have faced from Chalcedonians over the last 12 years is from people who have little idea what any of the councils taught or teach and who use Chalcedon only as a stick. That is rather depressing.

Yes there's more than enough closed-mindedness to go around a few times over. But there's also the desire on both of our parts to remain faithful to the truth of Christ and His Church. Which leads to strongly expressed views at times.

One question I would ask you to answer. What do you consider 'accepting' Chalcedon to mean?

See above.

I will find the text that describes the basis of Theodoret's reconciliation at Chalcedon.

Thanks!

Best wishes in Christ Jesus

Peter Theodore

You likewise!

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Peter Farrington

15-09-2006, 02:52 PM

How does this relate to the Orthodox Church? In fact, the implication is that Chalcedeon has lead to heresy when in fact the Orthodox Church is witness that it hasn't.

Well the West and North Africa were robustly Chalcedonian, but they also accepted the Three Chapters equally robustly and bishops were willing to go to Imperial prisons to defend them.

The West and North Africa were part of the Chalcedonian communion yet they accepted the Three Chapters. This is a fact.

Were they Orthodox? They accepted Chalcedon and had been in communion with Constantinople for 100 years while accepting the Three Chapters as Orthodox. If they were not Orthodox then why were they in communion with the East? And if they were Orthodox then the championing of the Three Chapters is surely Orthodox?

The implication in my mind is that being Chalcedonian is not a total defense against heresy and error. It is possible to be a Chalcedonian heretic.

If Eastern Orthodox are able to consider this and reflect on its truth then they will also see that insisting on an 'acceptance' or Chalcedon is not a defense against heresy, nor indeed is a rejection of Chalcedon necessarily an acceptance of heresy.

Rather we believe a catholic faith that requires the whole of our faith to be taken into account. We must ask about the substance of our respective faith, merely accepting this or that polemical banner is not enough.

This is why the terms Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian are rather weak in my opinion. They don't really say very much, except how one relates to an historical event. Even dyo-physite v mia-physite don't say too much, since I am happy to use dyo-physite language, I am not a terminological exclusivist.

I do think Chalcedon has been used to defend and develop heresy. The increasing prevalence in the West of ideas about Jesus the Man seem entirely Nestorian and are a [mis]use of Chalcedon's teaching about two natures.

But we do see on another thread that there is confusion among even Eastern Orthodox about what 'in two natures' means, this ambiguity is one of the reasons that Chalcedon is not considered 'ecumenical', even though it could be considered 'Orthodox' rightly understood.

In Christ

Peter

Peter Farrington

15-09-2006, 03:30 PM

Dear Father Raphael

Thank you for your kind post. I must admit that I return to read posts with a certain degree of trepidation since on other forums a post such as the one I sent would have been responded to with virulent abuse, but not here, thank God. I can cope with the level of criticism that seems to be appropriate on this forum.

I appreciate that you meant no criticism of the Copts, nor I of Eastern Orthodox Chalcedonians. I was just trying to show that

i. Concerns over the double consubstantiality of Christ are present among Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians showing that Chalcedon is in itself not the sole locus of this doctrine, but if Chalcedon is Orthodox, let alone, ecumenical, that it must only be saying what is already the faith.

ii. There are, and have been, many who consider that they accept Chalcedon, but teach error, therefore Chalcedon on its own is not sufficient to preclude error, but it must be rightly understood in the light of the rest of the faith and Tradition.

In the past when people came over to the non-Chalcedonians from the Chalcedonians, they were received only by repudiating error and confessing the faith. (This of course meant repudiating Chalcedon, but Chalcedon as described by us, not Chalcedon as it came to be described by you).

When we receive Eastern Orthodox to communion, not as if they were converted, we receive them in the same manner as always, by their right confession. Even when they are anointed as a sign of reconciliation, not normal with us but sometimes requested of those who are joining one of our communities, this is an anointing for blessing as it were and not a chrismation.

Indeed my bishop has said, as an example, to a 'joiner' (rather than the word convert) from ROCOR that we had nothing 'extra' to offer him. He was already baptised and chrismated. So we receive people to communion on the basis of their faith, some will 'accept' seven councils, but we are sure that their faith is the same as ours and we commune them on that basis.

Your points about the degradation of theology in the West are taken, and I agree with them. I was just trying to suggest that Chalcedon on its own, apart from the wider Tradition, is not a magic bullet. It can be taken to mean anything, and has been. It needs explanation, and I believe that Constantinople 553 was trying to provide this, but already at that time the effect especially of persecution had precluded a reconciliation, and in any case, none of the non-Chalcedonian hierarchs were invited to the council.

I have been reading the Acts of Chalcedon over lunch and have a few comments but I'll put them in another post.

In Christ Jesus

Peter

Fr Raphael Vereshack

15-09-2006, 04:21 PM

Dear Peter,
Thanks once again for your thought-provoking posts.

Actually there was a lot of dispute and disagreement over the Three Chapters in the West which led to a long standing schism between those who accepted it and and those who did not. The Papacy after initially resisting then accepted, but there were major sees such as Aquileia & Milan which for a time broke communion with Rome over this.

Now the reason for this was not that one party was robustly Chalcedonian and the other was not. Both accepted Chalcedon. Rather what divided them was the actions of the 5th Ecumenical Council and the condemnation of the Three Chapters. For those who rejected this condemnation what was at stake was the honour of Chalcedon which rightly or wrongly they felt had been put in question by the condemnation.

Now obviously the acceptance of the condemnations of the 5th Council implies a change of mind. But about this Pope St Gregory the Great wrote:

Do you think that to Peter, who was reversing his position, one should have replied: We refuse to hear what you are saying since you previously taught the opposite? If in the matter of the Three Chapters one position was held while truth was being sought, and a different position was adopted after truth had been found, why should a change of position be imputed a crime to this See...? For what is reprehensible is not to change one's stand, but to entertain fickle opinions. Now if the mind remains unwavering in seeking to know what is right, why should you object when it abandons its ignorance and reformulates its position?

He also writes:

You know, beloved brethren, that a thing subject to uncertainty should always be interpreted so as to give the benefit of the doubt. What is to prevent [Theodore and co] being praised by one Father while his error was still obscure and subject to doubt, and, when his error later became known, being shot through by the judgements of almost all the great Fathers like a wild beast by a growing shower of missiles?

So none of this implied any change in the honour with which Chalcedon was regarded. In fact both sides honoured Chalcedon. And so there is never a question at least among those referred to here that the integrity of Chalcedon was in question due to the actions of the 5th Council.

I would also like to repeat my point of yesterday that we see no connection between Chalcedon and the path western Christianity has taken in the past 1000 years and more. In fact this path represents if anything a loss of vision which the Ecumenical Councils represent (eg many point to how the Protestants are iconoclastic). But still there's no direct link betwen the two. Even in the one case of the 7th Council when Charlemagne seemingly didn't accept this Council there's really very little evidence that this was anything more than local and temporary. Rather the west accepted the Councils but in time (we can see it beginning to manifest itself in the 9th c at least) due to turning away from an Orthodox consciousness gradually lost a correct understanding of what these Councils represented.

To say it the other way around the EO Church has retained this consciousness all through these centuries. I believe you are right to urge not completely centring on Chalcedon as if this Council represents the end point & perfect expression of the Faith. The 5th Council expands on or qualifies Chalcedon and so does the 6th and 7th. But this doesn't minimise the place of Chalcedon as an expression of the Faith. Rather it illustrates how the message of Chalcedon fits into a larger context.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Fr Raphael Vereshack

15-09-2006, 04:37 PM

Dear Peter,

Actually I like very much how you put these two points.

i. Concerns over the double consubstantiality of Christ are present among Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians showing that Chalcedon is in itself not the sole locus of this doctrine, but if Chalcedon is Orthodox, let alone, ecumenical, that it must only be saying what is already the faith.

ii. There are, and have been, many who consider that they accept Chalcedon, but teach error, therefore Chalcedon on its own is not sufficient to preclude error, but it must be rightly understood in the light of the rest of the faith and Tradition.

What you write below about the how EOs are received is very interesting. I always wondered about this. I can see that in general we are more strict although I thought I read that not too long ago one of the middle-of-the-road Greek Old Calendrist groups in America received an Ethiopian by confession of Faith only.

In any case our being more strict about this has a lot to do with concern about confessional relativism among so many Christians. In what is often a heated atmosphere among ourselves with divided opinions on the best ways to deal with this it often ends up that stricter measures are taken than the Canons themselves indicate and all Christians are lumped together.

In the past when people came over to the non-Chalcedonians from the Chalcedonians, they were received only by repudiating error and confessing the faith. (This of course meant repudiating Chalcedon, but Chalcedon as described by us, not Chalcedon as it came to be described by you).

When we receive Eastern Orthodox to communion, not as if they were converted, we receive them in the same manner as always, by their right confession. Even when they are anointed as a sign of reconciliation, not normal with us but sometimes requested of those who are joining one of our communities, this is an anointing for blessing as it were and not a chrismation.

Indeed my bishop has said, as an example, to a 'joiner' (rather than the word convert) from ROCOR that we had nothing 'extra' to offer him. He was already baptised and chrismated. So we receive people to communion on the basis of their faith, some will 'accept' seven councils, but we are sure that their faith is the same as ours and we commune them on that basis.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Fr Raphael Vereshack

15-09-2006, 04:39 PM

Peter Farrington

15-09-2006, 04:47 PM

Dear Father

I had a look at the session of Chalcedon which had reference to the reception of Theodoret and Ibas.

You must understand that my concern is to comprehend and describe some of the reasons why rejection of Chalcedon as an event were legitimate, and though I have written a short article about these which was published in our BOC Glastonbury Review, I was wanting to do a lot more research which my acquisition of a full, scholarly copy of the Acts now allows. My intent is not to diminish the Orthodox faith of the Eastern Orthodox or push them into a corner where they must repudiate Chalcedon. But since I do not believe that Chalcedon is 'not broken' I think it important to investigate in what sense it is problematic.

Perhaps I'll start with the reception of Theodoret and cover Ibas later.

Here are some of the issues, as far as I can see. Again this is not to suggest that Chalcedon is of necessity wrong, heretical or in error, but as a start, lets see whether it allows for an ambiguity of response to Chalcedon.

i. Leo of Rome had been in communion with Theodoret all the time he had refused to anathematise Nestorius. The papal legates on behalf of the Apostolic See say in the 8th session:

The most holy and blessed Leo of the whole Church, bishop of the city of Rome, received the most holy and venerable Bishop Theodoret into communion some time ago.

Yet he had still not anathematised Nestorius, and it was surely not the place of one bishop to overturn the judgement of many on his own account.

ii. Leo of Rome had unilaterally restored Thedoret to his See, completely outside his jurisdiction, and again without him anathematising Nestorius. The papal legates introduce him into the council saying:

The most devout bishop Theodoret, restored to his See by the most holy archbishop of the renowned city of Rome..

Yet he has still not anathematised Nestorius. And in 449 he was still writing letters describing the 'poison' and 'heresy' of Cyril. If he was writing thus, as he was, then in what manner was his deposition in 449 unjust? And on what basis was he preserved in communion by Leo of Rome since he was a notorius opponent of Cyril?

iii. Theodoret, still without anathematising anyone, is allowed to sit as a member of the council and is invited to help draw up the new statement of faith.

iv. When Theodoret finally comes to anathematise Nestorius he is most reluctant and finally does so after insisting he would rather keep silent. This does not occur until the 8th session of the council after he has been sitting as a member. This is not the manner of a man who really believes what he is saying, and it would seem most did not believe him:

While he was still speaking, the most devout bishops exclaimed: Say publically, anathema to Nestorius and his teachings, anathema to Nestorius and his friends!

Theodoret the most devout bishop said: In truth, I shall say nothing except what I know is pleasing to God. First I shall convince you that I am not concerned about a see nor am I after honour. I haven't come here for this reason: but since I was calumniated, I have come to prove that I am orthodox and that I anathematise Nestorius and Eutyches and everyone who says 'two sons'...

While he was still speaking the most devout bishops exclaimed: Say clearly, anathema to Nestorius and to those who hold his views!

Theodoret the most devout bishop said: If I may not expound what I believe, I shall not speak but simply believe.

While he was still speaking the most devout bishops exclaimed: He is a heretic. He is a Nestorian. Drive out the heretic!

Theodoret the most devout bishop said: Anathema to Nestorius and to whoever does not say that the holy Virgin Mary is Theotokos and to whoever divides the one only-begotten Son into two Sons.

v. The council acclaims Theodoret as an 'orthodox Teacher', hardly further from the truth.

Now it is not my purpose to try to diminish your own veneration of Chalcedon, but in regard to Theodoret I am pointing out that there were reasonable grounds for considering Chalcedon to have admitted a heretic. Indeed it is wholly possible for a Theodorean to reject Nestorius and maintain both Chalcedon and Theodore - surely this is what Constantinople 553 was about.

So I am sure that Theodoret was finally willing to abandon Nestorius, but there is no evidence he ever accepted Ephesus I, or the Christology of St Cyril. Just two years earlier he had described St Cyril's Christology as 'poison' and 'error' in extant letters to Domnus.

And I believe, though I will have to document it, that after Chalcedon he wrote to his long term friend Leo of Rome, asserting that HIS Christology had been triumphant at Chalcedon. Chalcedon was a 'baggy jumper' and could cover a multitude of errors, even if that was not the intent of the majority. Constantinople 553 proves that this was the case.

So in regard to Theodoret it seems to me entirely reasonable that this was ONE of the reasons why Chalcedon was rejected. He had been in communion with Leo all the time he refused to anathematise Nestorius, and had sat as a bishop in the council for many of the sessions before he was finally called to give account of himself.

The issue, as Constantinople 553 understood, was not really Nestorius at all, but Theodore of Mopsuestia, the fount of this Christological error. Nestorius manifestly did not teach 'two sons', and therefore the rejection of an error that no discerning Theodorean accepted was no hardship. Theodoret had always been a Theodorean and I doubt he ceased to be.

The main issue, in terms of reconciliation between EO and OO, is that Theodoret definitely did not accept Ephesus I, nor was he asked to. It was on the basis of his anathema of Nestorius, the rejection of the gross error of 'two sons' and his signing Leo's Tome that he was finally accepted, although this was only rubber stamping that which Leo had done unilaterally and without any anathema of Nestorius.

I do not expect you to have to answer every paragraph, but I wonder if you can accept that. especially in the context of those times, the reception of Theodoret by Leo and then by the council could be perceived as being soft on his error?

Indeed this was the main reason why Dioscorus had broken communion with Leo. Leo had accepted into communion a man who had been deposed for heresy, and who had never repudiated that heresy. In what sense was that unreasonable? You may well suggest ways in which it was a wrong action, but do you disagree that it was reasonable, especially in the context?

It does also seem very important to me that Theodoret did not have to accept Ephesus I as ecumenical, or even accept it at all, he only had to make a right confession, as far as he can be trusted to have done.

As ever

Peter

Athanasius Abdullah

15-09-2006, 05:17 PM

Dear Fr. Raphael,

+irini nem ehmot

I’d just like to re-emphasise a point that I was trying to make before, and one that I believe Peter was getting at in one of his last posts, regarding what pre-requisite conditions in regard to “accepting Chalcedon” EO’s should reasonably expect of OO’s when considering the prospect of re-inter-communion.

Through my various posts on this forum, I have attempted to prove that the OO faith, from the days of St. Dioscoros till the very present, as reflected in her Patristic writings and Liturgical life, is in agreement with what we have come to realise and accept as being an Orthodox interpretation of Chalcedon. I am gladdened by your open and honest approach to consider the truth of this, though I get the feeling that you still hold some reservations to drawing anything conclusive on the matter. As such, I would like you to assume that I have been successful for arguments sake (since such unity of faith is an obvious pre-requisite to re-intercommunion, and comes before all other matters--which means that discussion of other matters must presuppose that unity in faith); or, to bring more force to the essential assumption being made, assume for argument’s sake that the Holy Synods of the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Patriarchates of Alexandria and those of the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Patriarchates of Antioch, were correct in agreeing that each Church possessed the substantial faith of the other.

In light of this assumption, this faith that you attribute to Chalcedon, and which, by virtue of its being grounded in Chalcedon within the EO tradition, you deem to be “reflecting the mind of the Church” (which according to you is the essential quality of its “Ecumenicity”), is one possessed by the OO Church and one that has been possessed by her in spite of her rejection of Chalcedon, nay, from the traditional OO perspective, it is one that she possessed because of her rejection of Chalcedon. This faith, then, that “reflects the mind of the Church”, is thus, for the OO's, grounded in other sources—OO Councils and OO Fathers. So the question I pose to you is, if OO’s can be deemed from the Chalcedonian perspective to be possessing the faith which “reflects the mind of the Church”, and since that faith is grounded in sources other than Chalcedon, which consequently means that those sources also “reflect the mind of the Church”, then what makes the Chalcedonian sources (which includes, primarily, the Council of Chalcedon itself) any more authoritative than the OO sources? Why would they need to be imposed on us, if the very purpose for which they exist according to your perspective (e.g. the purpose of Chalcedon from the EO perspective was to defend the integrity of the distinction between Christ’s humanity and divinity, and His double consubstantiality), is already fulfilled by the OO's in spite of them?

By the way, regarding our apparent liberality with respect to receiving EO's, it must be stressed that it is only with EO's that such liberality with respect to reception, applies. We are much stricter than EO's in receiving Protestants or RC's for example; I have heard that some EO jurisdictions receive Trinitarian Protestants and RC's by chrismation alone. The Coptic Orthodox Church baptises all (except EO's) regardless of the procedure of their baptism.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Ryan

15-09-2006, 06:50 PM

Did the Oriental Orthodox ever face an iconoclast controversy? Do they have a statement defending icons comparable to the 7th Ecumenical Synod?

Peter Farrington

15-09-2006, 08:53 PM

No, there was not an iconoclast controversy, which is why many of the oldest icons extant are Coptic.

There may be synodal or patriarchal comments about icons, especially in relation to Islamic persecution over the years, but since there is no doubt about the validity of icons there has been no need to have an authoritative statement.

The Second Agreed Statement says that the teaching of the 7th council is substantially that of the Oriental Orthodox.

Some Oriental Orthodox use icons more extensively than others, but none have ever theologically rejected icons. The Armenians, for instance, tend to prefer bas relief and manuscript iconography, but some of the important iconographic collections in the Egyptian monasteries were created by Armenian iconographers.

The Ethiopians and Eritreans have as much iconography as the Coptic Orthodox, though all have their own local and culturally relevant forms of iconography.

In my own British Orthodox congregation we have a variety of iconography, including Byzantine, but all of the major icons, and all those on the iconostasis, have been painted by the same internationally renowned neo-Coptic iconographer based in London, another convert actually.

So where there is no doubt there has been no need for a pronouncement. As far as I can see iconoclasis is a Chalcedonian heresy rooted in dividing the natures of humanity and Divinity. The Oriental Orthodox are deeply aware, and always have been, of the hypostatic and natural union of divinity and humanity in Christ, therefore the humanity of Christ has always and without doubt been worthy of the same veneration and worship, as it is the own flesh of the Word of God.

Surely iconoclasis takes the two natures of Christ as two beings in a Theodorean sense and therefore denies that the humanity of Christ is worthy of veneration, except in a relative sense, since it is only the flesh of a man who has been united to God. For the Oriental Orthodox (and I know the modern Eastern Orthodox) the flesh of Christ is the flesh of the incarnate Word.

As ever

Peter

Fr Raphael Vereshack

16-09-2006, 12:14 AM

Dear Peter,

I have read what you posted above and considered it.

To the question:

I do not expect you to have to answer every paragraph, but I wonder if you can accept that. especially in the context of those times, the reception of Theodoret by Leo and then by the council could be perceived as being soft on his error?

I know a lot more could be given to the discussion but I think all of these points seem open to interpretation in the light of whether one trusts Chalcedon or not. For us then whatever St Leo's motives may have been- and really we do not mistrust them- in no way was there any intent to make Chalcedon a covert doorway for Nestorianism into the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Fr Raphael Vereshack

16-09-2006, 12:32 AM

Peter Farrington

16-09-2006, 11:11 AM

I know a lot more could be given to the discussion but I think all of these points seem open to interpretation in the light of whether one trusts Chalcedon or not. For us then whatever St Leo's motives may have been- and really we do not mistrust them- in no way was there any intent to make Chalcedon a covert doorway for Nestorianism into the Church.

Dear Father,

that wasn't my question however. The question I posed was whether, especially in the context of those times, the reception of Theodoret, not least by Leo without any anathema of Nestorius, could have been reasonably been percieved as being soft on error.

I am not asking if you think that it was soft on error, but if you think that it could have been percieved as being soft on error by others.

If you do not think it could even be reasonably conceived as having been soft on error, then I believe you, as a Chalcedonian, must still answer the serious charge that Leo accepted a Nestorian Theodoret into communion. If you do accept that this could have been misunderstood, then we can take it as perhaps only a misjudgement on the part of Leo. If you are not able to consider the reception into communion of an unrepentant Nestorian as a misjudgement then many OO will conclude that the reception of an heretic was a deliberate act, which indeed has been the accusation all along. I don't accept that, but it requires Chalcedonians to consider how Chalcedon and the acts surrounding it appeared to others.

But Chalcedonians cannot have it both ways. As indeed Father John Romanides is reflective enough to understand. Dioscorus cannot be condemned for apparently having received Eutyches into communion, though there is no evidence of this; without Leo also being liable to the same condemnation for having quite clearly, by the words of his own legates, not his opponents, having accepted Theodoret into communion while he was writing that the teachings of St Cyril were poison and heresy, and he refused to anathematise Nestorius.

If Chalcedonians are unwilling to consider that these events had the appearance of error then it does seem that the charges against Chalcedon have lasting force. It is only the acceptance that these charges require addressing and their proper consideration that can provide any possibility of Chalcedon being able to become a means of unity.

The charges in respect of Theodoret are again:

i. He was received into Leo's communion without rejecting Nestorius
ii. He was still writing against St Cyril
iii. He was able to participate in the council without anathematising Nestorius
iv. He wrote after the council that his Christology had been victorius

All of these can be explained away, but it is necessary for Chalcedonians to accept that they were a reasonable cause for Alexandrians to find them problematic.

in Christ

Peter

John Charmley

16-09-2006, 12:45 PM

[QUOTE=peterfarrington;36483]

But Chalcedonians cannot have it both ways.

QUOTE]

Peter/Father Raphael,

Well of course not - but they, like every one, would prefer to have it both ways - it is a part of our human nature.

But it might be opportune to recall what unity is for. Those of us with an interest in what to most is ancient history can carry on our debates, and we do so, and we are right in saying that these things matter, for, as we all agree, only a fair and robust debate will do.

But we would probably be wise to recognise how many of our fellow religionists will react, and to ground our discussions in considerations of mission as well as getting the past straight (as it were). Perhaps a slight adjustment in our perspective on the future would help with the troubled and conflicted past.

As an outsider who is finding his life and faith enriched by Orthodoxy, I feel it would be good to remember Our Lord's commission to us all.

But do keep up the scholarly discussion - which I am finding fascinating!

In Christ,

John

Peter Farrington

16-09-2006, 03:39 PM

Hi John

I think that I am clear in my intent, which is not to make anyone admit that anyone was wrong. That does seem pointless and anti-reconciliatory.

But it does seem necessary for reconciliation that it is admitted that there are different, legitimate and reasonable ways of viewing an event.

If the EO insist that Chalcedon cannot be misunderstood and that all rejection of it must of necessity be rooted in error, then there can be no reconciliation, even if both sides believe the same about Christ, which seems scandalous to me.

But equally if the OO insist (and they do not) that Chalcedon is of necessity an heretical assembly at which Nestorianism was vindicated, and that it can only be viewed in that way, then equally there can be no reconciliation, which is scandalous if we believe the same about Christ.

It seems to me that it is necessary for the event itself to be understood by both sides as being HISTORICALLY liable to a variety of interpretations, but that in terms of Orthodox THEOLOGY there is only one correct interpretation of the doctrinal statements, which is that which is in accord with our common Christology.

One of the main problems, as far as I have experienced conversations with EO over 12 or more years, is that many EO, especially converts, are unwilling to even consider that an historical event can have a variety of interpretations, and that any document can be liable of a variety of understandings, many of which may or may not be that which the originators intended.

If we are to come to unity for the sake of the world, and our mission is dependent on our unity, then we must allow that in the past there have been a variety of interpretations which have produced our separation.

BUT.. now we must develop a commom understanding to facilitate our union, and this common understanding must take account of past [mis]understandings.

So I mention Theodoret, not to push anyone into a corner where they must deny Chalcedon, but rather hoping that they will appreciate that though the reception of an unrepentant Theodoret might be innocent AS FAR AS THEY ARE CONCERNED, yet it could also have the appearance of receiving error.

I think this is necessary for unity, and it seems that it is only in the realm of this dialogue that there seems to be a lack of willingness to put ourselves in the other person's shoes.

Peter

Fr Raphael Vereshack

16-09-2006, 05:22 PM

Dear Peter,

You asked:

that wasn't my question however. The question I posed was whether, especially in the context of those times, the reception of Theodoret, not least by Leo without any anathema of Nestorius, could have been reasonably been percieved as being soft on error.

Yes- certainly it could have, and was, perceived as being soft on error. Was the perception 'reasonable' however? I suppose by the word 'reasonably' is meant 'justifiably'. In this case we are both asking the same question- is it correct to interpret the events in such a manner- and most importantly- see this and similar events surrounding Chalcedon as justifying its rejection.

There were many concerns about Nestorianism before, during and after Chalcedon. This concern was shared by the whole Church. But we must be very careful about the use of terms like Nestorian which can help categorise things for the purposes of discussion but on the other hand distort into black & white what was really a very complex situation.

To say it briefly there is a heresy concerning the humanity of Christ put forth by Nestorius. However there were many within the Church who also used a similar theological method (often called Antiochian) in trying to defend the humanity of Christ without this being heretical. The struggle of the Church was to find a manner in which either such a way of doing theology or the concerns behind it about Christ's humanity was acceptable.

To understand this struggle however we must keep in mind that the Church had other traditions like the one we call Alexandrian. Here concerns about the divinity of Christ were maintained. But similar to the Antiochian both proper concern & excess were possible from within the same way of theology. As with the Antiochian the struggle of the Church was to discover the proper measure.

The point here is that to understand Chalcedon we must always keep both sides of this equation in mind. The Church understood the possibility of extreme from either tradition. But the Church also understood the value in each. At Chalcedon we see a balance achieved between these two traditions interestingly by calling on a third tradition- the western as exemplified by St Leo's Tome.

I think the question of the acceptance of Theodoret fits within this overall context at Chalcedon. For all of Theodoret's tendency towards Nestorius or those who did theology in the Antiochian way, he did, as Fr John Meyendorrff explains:

recognize where Cyril had been right against Nestorius, and he signed the formula of union of 433...He recognized that orthodoxy could also be expressed in Alexandrian formulas and that certain Antiochene formulas, such as the 'assumed man', had to be rejected. In 451, Theodoret's orthodoxy was recognized after he anathematized his former friend Nestorius.

I think Fr John has a very important insight here for he implies that Theodoret was accepted by the Council because he was able to see or at least accept that the Alexandrian way was also acceptable. Presumably this meant that Theodoret came to accept that the Alexandrian way could adequately address Antiochian concerns about Christ's humanity. The main point though is that we see here an example of the way in which Chalcedon was really an attempt to balance theological traditions within the Chuch by calling on all to recognize what was valid in each while turning away from what was not. At least in the estimation of the Council, & at least at the time of the Council, it was felt Theodoret accepted the validity of this effort of the Church to attain a balance.

Theodoret's Orthodoxy at the Council was accepted on this basis. Disocorus' acceptance of Eutyches is criticized because on the contrary it is seen by us as not being a genuine rejection of his Monophysitism. From what has been posted here in the last while it can be seen that there are two completely contradictory versions of Dioscorus' actions at Ephesus in 449. Possibly the only way this could be cleared up is from more direct evidence from that time- although even that is questionable.

For us Ephesus 449 is so problematic because of the way it appears to be a forcible attempt by one party in the Church to achieve a solution to theological controversy by what is in effect anathematizing different theological expressions within the Church. Chalcedon is the Church's necessary corrective to this. And in this sense it represents as much an ecclesiological methodology or way of life as a particular theological vision.

Of course Chalcedon could and was perceived by some as being unacceptably soft on error. But we do not think this perception is correct based on what is explained above. For the Church always has and will be soft on error to the acceptable degree that this can secure what is good while rejecting what is not.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Athanasius Abdullah

17-09-2006, 02:29 PM

Dear Fr. Raphael,

+irini nem ehmot,

The struggle of the Church was to find a manner in which either such a way of doing theology or the concerns behind it about Christ's humanity was acceptable.

You seem to conceive of the Church’s duty in history as a duty to be diplomatic, whereas for us the Church’s duty was to defend her Tradition against any and all compromise even if that meant, in practicality, the favouring a particular theological expression over and above another for the sake of preventing the heretic's abuse of what otherwise is a good thing (i.e. diplomacy). It is in this regard that a sense of Alexandrian exclusiveness was assumed by Ephesus 449. Contrary to popular textbook accounts of the historical circumstances during the fifth century, the fact of the matter is that the only heretical group that posed a significant threat to the Tradition of the Church at the time was Nestorianism, not “Monophysitism” which may or may not have been adopted by one old monk named Eutyches. Nestorianism was able to manipulate Antiochian terminology, but it stood conclusively defeated in the face of the Alexandrian Ephesian expression of the Faith.

At Chalcedon we see a balance achieved between these two traditions interestingly by calling on a third tradition- the western as exemplified by St Leo's Tome.

Putting aside my contention with your approach to the matter, which I believe to be overly acontextual (as per the reasons given above), and hence putting aside the issue of whether or not “seeking balance” was the legitimate duty of the Church at the time, I would dispute the very idea that Leo of Rome's Tome was even adopted by a sense of duty to seek balance. The evidence seems to suggest that Leo of Rome's Tome was simply adopted because of pressure from Rome and crafty political tactics on behalf of the Imperial Commissioner’s in response to the Roman legate’s blackmail attempt. The idea that the very agenda of Chalcedon was to seek theological balance (which, were it true for argument’s sake, would still not, in my opinion, legitimise the Council in consideration of the historical context of the time) is one that I believe to be retrospectively and hence eisegetically read into the Council.

I think the question of the acceptance of Theodoret fits within this overall context at Chalcedon.

I believe Peter was discussing issues relating to Leo of Rome’s personal reception of Theodoret against the conciliar decisions of the canonical 449 Synod in Ephesus before his ultimate acceptance by the Council of Chalcedon as a whole. Leo of Rome, according to historical documentation, was well aware at the time he uncanonically received Theodoret, that Theodoret had not anathematised Nestorius and that he was not willing to do so. Theodoret ultimately did anathematise Nestorius, but it is clear (as Peter noted) in consideration of the extreme reluctance with which he did so, that he did so out of pressure rather than conviction. Theodoret’s response to those charging him to renounce his heresies and to anathematise Nestorius, reveal him to be rather baffled by the request that he do so for, from his perspective, everything he believed and everything that Nestorius stood for was exactly that which Chalcedon was advocating.

For all of Theodoret's tendency towards Nestorius or those who did theology in the Antiochian way, he did, as Fr John Meyendorrff explains:

Fr. Meyendroff’s attempt to read Theodoret’s acceptance of the Formulary as an indication of an implicit admission that “Cyril had been right against Nestorius” is clearly and fallaciously reductionist, and I refer to none other than Fr. Meyendroff’s contemporary, Fr. Romanides, to prove my point on that issue. Theodoret remained a supporter of Nestorius till his being pressured to serve a lip-service anathema to him at Chalcedon, and he remained a sworn enemy of St. Cyril and St. Cyril’s Christology even after St. Cyril’s death let alone after his acceptance of the Formulary, which proves that he had adopted an interpretation of the Formulary not intended by St. Cyril. In fact, so full of evil hatred was this man against the blessed Cyril that he praised the very death of this Saint! Read what he says concerning St. Cyril and St. Cyril's Orthodox Alexandrian theology in his congratulatory letter to Leo of Rome:

“'The living are delighted. The dead, perhaps, are sorry, afraid they may be burdened with his company...May the guild of undertakers lay a huge, heavy stone on his grave, lest he should come back again and show his faithless mind again. Let him take his new doctrines to Hell, and preach to the damned all day and night.'”

Disocorus' acceptance of Eutyches is criticized because on the contrary it is seen by us as not being a genuine rejection of his Monophysitism.

St. Dioscoros answered for himself at the Council of Chalcedon, as already discussed, and no one at the Council raised any objection to his defense; on the contrary, as we have already concluded, St. Dioscoros was regarded as Orthodox by leading members of the Council. To repeat my response to you on this matter:

When St. Dioscoros’s accusers ascribed the stereotypical “Monophysite” doctrine to Eutyches, St. Dioscoros responded by saying: “If Eutyches holds notions disallowed by the Doctrines of the Church, he deserves not only punishment but even fire. However, my concern is for the Catholic and Apostolic faith, not for any man whomsoever.” The relevant implications of this statement are that: a) St. Dioscoros was implicitly recognising that that which was being attributed to Eutyches at Chalcedon was indeed “diallowed by the doctrines of the Church”, and b) that Eutyches was not punished because he (i.e. St Dioscoros) and the rest of the Council found no evidence that Eutyches ascribed to such things upon investigating his doctrine.

A quotation of Eutyches’ confession that he handed to Ephesus 449 for consideration is recorded in Iris Habib El Masri’s The Story of the Copts:

“As for all those who say…that [The Son’s] two natures were mixed or mingled, - all those who say such things are excommunicated by the mouth of the Church Universal. This is the faith I declare, and which I have received from my fathers; in this faith was I born, and in it was I baptised and consecrated, and ordained priest; by it I lived unto this day and I shall uphold it until I depart from this life.” (p. 292)

From what has been posted here in the last while it can be seen that there are two completely contradictory versions of Dioscorus' actions at Ephesus in 449. Possibly the only way this could be cleared up is from more direct evidence from that time- although even that is questionable.

First of all, as I have pointed out, St. Dioscoros was president of the Council of Ephesus 449 by the Emperor’s command, but ultimately the decisions that took place there took place conciliarly. Eutyches submitted a confession of faith to the Council that affirmed Christ’s consubstantiality with mankind—automatically negating notions of “confusion” or notions of a drop of vinegar being absorbed in an ocean or whatnot.

If you have any “direct evidence” that suggests anything to the contrary, then please bring it forward for consideration.

For us Ephesus 449 is so problematic because of the way it appears to be a forcible attempt by one party in the Church to achieve a solution to theological controversy by what is in effect anathematizing different theological expressions within the Church.

The OO Church had no problem with Antiochene terminology per se; indeed, St. Dioscoros himself spoke quite favourably of the Formula of Re-union which was more or less a confirmation of the Ephesian Tradition in Antiochian terminology. Again, the issue all comes down to historical context; Ephesus 449 (i.e. the entire Council of Ephesus 449, and not just St. Dioscoros) was not an arbitrary gathering of Fathers seeking to make determinations on various theological expressions in the abstract. They were responding to a historical situation: on the one hand, they were responding to a council which effectively sought to anathematise the Cyrillian terminology underlying the Ephesian Tradition, and they were responding also to a crypto-Nestorian movement that was attempting to hide itself behind the Formulary. On this latter point, I refer you to Fr. Romanide's paper which can be read here: http://romanity.org/htm/rom.08.en.st._cyrils_one_physis_or_hypostasis_of_g od_the_log.htm#m2 (the relevant section of this paper is "Part II" which I have directly linked you to).

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Athanasius Abdullah

18-09-2006, 12:04 PM

Fr Raphael Vereshack

18-09-2006, 04:42 PM

Dear all,

+irini nem ehmot

I just thought I’d make a point of the fact that I plan to cease further contribution to this thread; I appreciate the insight and graciousness displayed in this dialogue and I thank all, particularly Fr. Raphael, John Chamberley, Anthony, and Scott Pierson, for the honesty, respect and kindness shown, and I in turn apologise if I in any way offended anyone or encroached upon any boundaries.

Ultimately, as this thread evidences, the issues between OO’s and EO’s are quite complex; a minute of prayer for unity would probably do more justice to the situation than what hours of discussion could. Let’s all keep that in mind. The historical stumbling blocks are not too heavy to lift for the One who upholds the foundations of the universe by His Word.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Actually I concur with this. The historical discussion is interesting up to a point. It shows where agreement or disagreement lies. But ultimately historical arguments never overcome disagreements about history. The only thing which can overcome this- or rather heal it- is a common enough theological vision.

As I have said many times here before I believe much has been achieved on this score that we need to be thankful for. I am not in agreement with some of my EO brothers in Christ that this 'change for the better between us' is just window dressing & theological relativism showing itself once more.

But more needs to be accomplished on theological level for this to go forward in a proper way.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Peter Farrington

18-09-2006, 09:06 PM

Ultimately my aim was never to force a similar historical vision, but to show that we will always have different historical visions, and this is to be expectec, but also that this does not preclude a similar theological vision.

Today I was at Minster Abbey in Thanet (in Kent, South East England) at an East-West conference organised by the Roman Benedictine sisters there. It was a most interesting day with contributions by church leaders and theologians of the Roman and Oriental Orthodox Churches. (There were a few EO but mostly OO, Romans and Anglicans).

The quality of presentation was very good and I got to chat with some great people such as Archbishop Yohannes of Aleppo, whom I met in Sweden last year; Father Richard Price who has just published his complete three volume Acts of Chalcedon (a fantastic and scholarly work); and other people that are important in the UK OO and Roman scene but are probably unknown here.

Oh..I should have mentioned Dom Colin Battell, Prior of Ampleforth, who got me an invite; and Father Demetrios Sharbak, an Antiochean doing a PhD on the dialogue between the EO and OO with whom I have been corresponding.

I am hoping to spend a day or so at Ampleforth this Autumn as I would like to talk with Dom Colin about an Orthodox view of Benedict, whom I find strangely ignored by most Orthodox even though he is himself undoubtedly Orthodox. Dom Colin has a great interest in Ethiopian Orthodoxy and had just returned from a retreat he had led there. I came into contact with him because I found that he had quoted one of my articles in a Benedictine conference he had spoken at.

Anyhow... to come back to the topic of the thread, it was good to have some Roman views on the dialogue with the OO and themselves and between the EO/OO. As well as some views from +Yohannes who is a wonderfully warm and approachable man. They were able to make clear how much had been achieved, but also that so much is still demanded of men and women of good will.

Peter

John Charmley

18-09-2006, 11:24 PM

Dear Athanasius,

I am, as I am sure Father Raphael, Peter, Scott and the other posters on this thread are, extremely grateful for your contributions, which have taken the unity debate to some interesting places.

In the end, as you imply, it will not be agreement on historical analysis, but the work of the Holy Spirit, which will lead us. But it seems to me that this thread has shown that the quotation from Henry Chadwick with which it began was spot on; it is the historical differences rather than the Christological ones which are now at the heart of the issue - and that is both good and bad.

It is good in the obvious sense that we can attain to a fuller understanding of the full picture of what was at stake at Chalcedon, but bad in the sense that some of those issues still endure. What no one has dwelt on is the fact that there was an ethnic dimension to Chalcedon. Alexandria clearly felt its place was under threat, not least from the New Rome; the fact that the Romans composed much of the ruling elite in Egypt added another tension here. Today, as other threads here show, the question of ethnicity continues to provide tensions and causes for division.

But I wonder whether Peter feels that the very process of debate and discussion can, itself, be a vehicle for unity? Where does he think we are at the moment.

But I am sure I speak for us all in thanking Athanasius and in looking forward to his contributions elsewhere; where there is such a spirit and such faith, there is always cause for optimism.

In Christ,

John

Peter Farrington

19-09-2006, 11:28 AM

Dear John

I am convinced that where people have genuine love and respect for each other it is possible to discuss all things positively, constructively and charitably.

Yesterday I was mostly talking with Roman Catholics, but they were very open to considering the questions I raised. None of us were threatened by the other. I also had a chance to talk with my Antiochian Archimandrite correspondent and we were also able to talk freely without fear.

Surely the aim of all those who claim to follow Christ is unity in truth and love. Without love it is impossible to find the truth, we are left resorting to polemics. Without truth we cannot find unity because there is nothing coherent to be united in. But love and truth.

If I do believe, and the Roman scholars I talked to agreed wholeheartedly, that there the rejection of Chalcedon was reasonable; I do not believe that the preservation of division in the Church today is less than a scandal. I know that for myself at least I feel a great burden to expend myself by all means, as God wills, to do whatever might help bring all to unity in the fulness of the Orthodox Faith - which is the Gospel, but not necessarily to bring all to unity in the British Orthodox Church, the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate, or the Oriental Orthodox communion.

But there must be unity in truth, and this unity and this truth can only be truly found where there is love. Such love seeks to understand what the 'other' means, and what the 'other' believes. To allude to one of those 'Love is..' cartoons. Love doesn't assume it knows what someone else believes and beats them over the head with a straw man!

I am not sure there is enough love. That is the problem I think, not that there is not enough truth. The truth is only evident to those who love. Without love our pursuit of truth merely makes Pharisees.

Just to add that yesterday there was plenty of opportunity for me to discuss details with various Romans, and this didn't seem to cause any problems. Indeed they were able to distinguish between the acceptance of Chalcedon as an event (which they agreed was ambiguous and porous to Nestorian thinking), and the acceptance of the faith of Chalcedon rightly understood. So it was very productive for me and I made some useful contacts. If we do not KNOW people from other traditions then we cannot love them and if we do not love them then we cannot seek with them for unity in the truth.

Peter

Anthony

19-09-2006, 03:21 PM

Dear Athanasios,

Thank you for your patient reply to my post. Having been away for a week, I see I have a lot on this thread to catch up on - I will start with the Romanidis link which you were kind enough to post.

In Christ,
Anthony

Fr Raphael Vereshack

19-09-2006, 03:50 PM

Dear Peter,

You wrote:

If I do believe, and the Roman scholars I talked to agreed wholeheartedly, that there the rejection of Chalcedon was reasonable; I do not believe that the preservation of division in the Church today is less than a scandal. I know that for myself at least I feel a great burden to expend myself by all means, as God wills, to do whatever might help bring all to unity in the fulness of the Orthodox Faith - which is the Gospel, but not necessarily to bring all to unity in the British Orthodox Church, the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate, or the Oriental Orthodox communion.

I am quite confident that it is here that you would find the most resistance from us compared to Roman Catholics about Chalcedon.

I wonder what it is that keeps bringing both of us back to Chalcedon? Surely this is of great significance. For all that others may know about Chalcedon I really do not believe that we share this bond in the same way with any other Christian communion. For each of us (I better speak more for us but I sense it in you people much more than in any RCs or Protestants than I've ever met) these things are really in our bones & our identity and not just something intellectual. And it's a pleasant surprise for me to see whenever we speak about it that this same Council from so long ago can also get you people as worked up against as us for. I don't know what you think of this- but I think it points to some shared bond perhaps barely recognised which we could work with as we struggle over it.

To take the title of the movie then- What about Chalcedon? What does it mean that neither of us can really let Chalcedon go for unity to be achieved on a deeper level? You think it is reasonable to have rejected Chalcedon- likely we'd never quite accept the rejection as legitimate in this way. But maybe some sort of taking into account of your own unique history along with confidence that we're both speaking the same theological language. Who knows?

For an Orthodox methodology of unity I think love means concentrating on unity, as I say above, of a deeper kind. There are many kinds of unity out there which our own EO history strongly predisposes us against at present. Unity of this kind must be avoided or else we will simply put never get past conferences and talking. In other words if others really wish to understand where we are coming from they need to take account of our strong and conscious stand against false unity. A lot of this probably comes from the unique way in which culturally/geographically etc EO has always stood in such close relation to the west. This must be taken into account when dealing with us.

Love must always be self-sacrificial. I think we are as guilty of forgetting this as anyone else when it comes to unity. Usually love as Christ really talks about this in the Gospel is replaced by human emotion & closeness without this being predicated on the Cross and selfless truth.

Love when it concerns the Faith must first look to Christ and His Church to see whether the project of unity is in fact something He has really placed before us or is it our own project. I think we all in the twentieth century fell into this trap over & over again thinking our projects are Christ's because they concern unity. That this is manifestly false should hopefully by now be understood from our experience in such things. Not one of these projects- except one I would say- has succeeded in giving any deeper fruit due to the fact that we have scarcely put obedience to Christ first.

Where there may be something more God pleasing is I think between us. We seem to share something closer to the way in which we see the Church and to the way we live it. And this may even be coming out in the way in which we each see Chalcedon. Simply put- for each of us Chalceon is much more than some intellectual exercise. I think we need to keep in mind that membership in the Church means something different for us. For us it involves a deep personal commitment to Christ's Church. Consequently it is a potential betrayal of our commitment to give up how we see and relate to something like Chalcedon.

Is there a way to take a step forward which works with this rather than trying to deny it? Maybe- as part of a selfless effort to keep working on essentials that we share & which still constitute absolute faithfulness to Christ's Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Peter Farrington

19-09-2006, 04:22 PM

Dear Father,

Have you read the paper presented by my bishop at the Inter-Orthodox Conference in Sweden? I would be interested in your comments.

I must say that though I appreciate your tone, I have too often found among EO correspondents not a rejection of a unity based on weak foundations but downright unpleasantness, lack of charity, even pride and arrogance.

Too many EO, especially converts in the West, are happy to cry out 'We are right and you are wrong and the sooner you accept you are wrong the better'.

This is not Christian. It is not even Orthodox since it is based on a modern revisionist reading of our histories.

When I find this spirit (thankfully not very often) among my own brethren I am equally disturbed by it.

If we truly feel the burden of our disunity then we will not rest content without doing SOMETHING about it. Most of the EO I have corresponded with in 12 years have not been willing to do ANYTHING about it.

We must at least seek to understand each other. I think I do understand the EO and I am willing to communicate in language that the EO understand, but there seem to be few EO who are willing to make the effort to understand us. I am glad that you are among them.

I think Chalcedon is important, but not as important as it is for you. Historically it is important in a negative way, but theologically it is not important to us at all. We had always confessed clearly the double consubstantiality of Christ and both Nestorius and Eutyches are condemed by us.

Chalcedon is important now to us because it is important to you. We are willing to lay aside the negative historical understanding, and consider the substance of the council in terms of the theology in which it is presented by the Eastern Orthodox. We are not in a position to judge clearly the intent of the bishops at Chalcedon, none of us are. We can only go on what is before us in the record. We see it one way, you see it another.

But we can come to understand with clarity what each of us mean TODAY. This is what we are responsible for. This is why we will be judged severely if we merely parrot polemics under the guise of being 'traditional' on either side. It is not the tradition of Christ that those who might believe the same beat each other up with hateful words.

Once again, if you (the EO) insist that it is your interpretation of history which must be accepted then there will be no reconciliation, if we insist on our interpretation there will be no reconciliation, but if you are actually interested in unity based on the faith then there can be. There could even be an acceptance of the Definitio (rightly understood). This seems necessary to my mind.

History is always liable to different interpretations, but we should be able to come to agreement on the faith, on Christology. Indeed this agreement is quite obvious to anyone who studies the relevant documents.

As ever

Peter

Peter Farrington

19-09-2006, 04:53 PM

Actually I've just posted elsewhere about the American War of Independence, or the American Revolutionary War.

Which ones was it?

An American patriot might insist it was a War of Independence and would not countenance any other view as being reasonable.

An English man might insist it was a War of Revolution and could not in honesty accept any other view.

Which is right?

In fact when it comes to relationships between the two countries that is the wrong question. It is the outcome of the War which is of continuing importance, not the War itself, unless we are going to act as though the War had never ended.

Certainly from my point of view the issue of Chalcedon is the same. What matters now is how we stand in relation to each other and to God, not how we stand in relation to an historical event.

I do believe strongly that we will be judged if we persist in living in the past in this way when it is clear we believe the same about Christ.

Let me offer a Christologial confession of faith again, as I have often done on the internet. I would most seriously ask for your comments on it and any indication where it is ambiguous or appears contrary to your own Christological faith. It is my intent to communicate my faith not to merely state it. You will see that it is much closer to Constantinople 553 language than Chalcedon but I cannot see anything that is contrary to the 553 re-interpretation of Chalcedon. It uses the Cyrilline language of one incarnate nature, but this was also shown to be acceptable at Constantinople 553, as of course it always was. You should understand 'one incarnate nature' as 'one incarnate hypostasis' as Fr John Romanides comments, and I am willing to amend this statement to reflect that if it helps since we OO use both 'one incarnate nature' and 'one incarnate hypostasis' as close synonyms.

"I confess that God the Word, the only Son, who was begotten of the Father in eternity, through whom all things were made, Light of Light, living image of the Father and sharing His nature, in the last times became incarnate by the Holy Spirit and of Mary the Virgin, and became a man perfectly without variation and confusion, in everything like unto us except sin; and He remained God immutable, and, when He assumed our humanity, He was not diminished in His Godhead; and that which was derived from us He made His own by dispensation in a natural union. For He who was begotten without time and without a body of God the Father, the same underwent a second birth in flesh, inasmuch as in an ineffable manner He became incarnate of a virgin mother; and, after she had borne Him, she continued in her virginity; and we justly confess her to be the Theotokos, and that He who was born of her in the flesh is perfect God and perfect man, the same out of two natures one Son, one Lord, and one Christ, and one nature of God the Word who became incarnate; and each one of the natures which combined to form an indivisible unity remained without confusion. And so He is very rightly one of the holy and consubstantial Trinity, both before He took flesh and after He took flesh, and a fourth number was not added to the Trinity; and He is impassible in that He is of the nature of the Father, but passible in the flesh in that He is of our nature. For God the Word did not suffer in His own nature, but in flesh of our nature; and He who personally united this to Himself suffered in our likeness. And Gregory the Theologian defined the matter and called Him impassible in His Godhead, passible in the assumption of flesh. And He is one in the miracles, and also in the passions, and by dispensation He made our passions His own, voluntary and innocent ones, in flesh which was passible and mortal after our nature, endowed with a soul and an intellect, and passible and mortal all the time of the dispensation; for He suffered not in semblance but in reality, and in flesh that was capable of suffering He suffered and died on the cross; and by a Resurrection befitting God He made and rendered it impassible and immortal, and in every way incorruptible, since it came from the union of the womb, which was holy and without sin. While recognising, therefore, the distinction between the elements which have combined to form the unity of nature, I mean between the Godhead and the manhood, we yet do not separate them from one another; also we do not cut the One into or in two natures, nor yet do we confound Him by rejecting the distinction between the Godhead and the manhood, but we confess Him to be one out of two, Emmanuel"

With serious intent, as ever

Peter

Fr Raphael Vereshack

19-09-2006, 10:34 PM

Dear Peter,

You asked:

Have you read the paper presented by my bishop at the Inter-Orthodox Conference in Sweden? I would be interested in your comments.

Possibly- quite a few things have been posted here by OO in the last two years on this topic.

But it's certainly worth it to have a look again even if we have seen it before. So please post the article or a link.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Peter Farrington

19-09-2006, 11:16 PM

Although in my latest design I haven't yet copied all the back issues of our Journal, the Glastonbury Review, onto the live site yet, fortunately I have copied the edition that contained the article I mentioned.

It is here:

http://www.britishorthodox.org/112g.php

It was presented by Abba Seraphim at an Inter-Orthodox Conference on Christology in Sweden last year and was one of the key-note papers. +Hilarion of the Russians was there and presented a paper, as was the Serbian bishop in charge of their Seminary in Serbia (can't remember his name), and Prof. John Erickson, who also spoke, and of course lots of priests and lay people and other OO bishops you probably won't know but who I do, including +Yohannes of Aleppo, a wonderful man who spoke at the OO-RC conference in Kent yesterday. So it was a good quality conference.

Do please read the article. It is not the answer to life the universe and everything but you will see it is trying to be realistic.

As ever

Peter Farrington

Fr Raphael Vereshack

20-09-2006, 12:30 AM

Dear Peter,

I have just had a chance to look through the article you provided a link for. There is much in it that I think is very good. I especially agree with the proposals for a proper and realistic way of going forward.

Here are some sections from the article that struck me but of course it's better if we read the whole article.

I would like to recommend that we must also deal in some manner with the later and controversial councils which are considered ecumenical by the Eastern Orthodox, and are either rejected or not considered authoritative by the Oriental Orthodox. Certainly the Tome of Leo must be considered if we are to seriously develop a Common Christology.

The eighth point in the Second Agreed Statement states that, “In relation to the four later Councils of the Orthodox Church. the Orthodox state that for them the [previous seven heads of agreement] are the teachings also of the four later Councils of the Orthodox Church, while the Oriental Orthodox consider this statement of the Orthodox as their interpretation. With this understanding, the Oriental Orthodox respond to it positively.”

Now if this is so, then it must mean that an Oriental Orthodox who accepts the Second Agreed Statement must find a way of understanding the latter councils as being understood by the Eastern Orthodox in an Orthodox manner. It is not possible to affirm that the Eastern Orthodox have ‘maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith’ while they accept the latter councils, if acceptance of those councils can only be a sign of gross Christological defects. I suggest that the Oriental Orthodox cannot ignore these councils. However, the meaning of this passage is not at all clear to many members of both communities. The Eastern Orthodox often read it as saying that the Oriental Orthodox don’t consider the latter councils very important but don’t mind if the Eastern Orthodox want to accept them. In relation to the development of a Common Christology this is not satisfactory, especially to the Eastern Orthodox.

What can we do, however? If we consider the council of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo, I cannot conceive of any realistic scenario where the Oriental Orthodox would accept these as being authoritative and ecumenical, likewise it is not easy to imagine a circumstance where the Eastern Orthodox could repudiate them. We have spent centuries using Chalcedon and the Tome as the measure of Orthodoxy on either side, increasingly without ever taking the time to understand what the actual substance of the Christology of the other side really is. Now the Second Agreed Statement says, for the first time in 1400 years, that it might be possible both to reject Chalcedon and accept Chalcedon, and yet maintain the same substance of faith.

Therefore I suggest that we should grasp the nettle even of Chalcedon and the Tome. We must investigate what the Eastern Orthodox mean by their acceptance of Chalcedon, and what the Oriental Orthodox mean by their rejection. We must separate, for the purpose of developing a Common Christology, the various histories of Council and the Tome from the actual use of these events and documents in contemporary Eastern Orthodoxy. Just as we must really communicate with one another concerning every other Christological detail, so we must seek to communicate in respect of what we are trying to safeguard by both the acceptance and rejection of these controversial events and documents.

It is refreshing to read balanced comments by modern Orthodox theologians, such as Father John Romanides,
“The Theodoretan crypto-Nestorianism, whose danger loomed so large in Alexandrian circles, was not at all grasped by Leo. In a similar fashion the danger of Eutychianism was not handled properly by Dioscoros. We must always keep in mind the serious imbalance of attitudes toward issues on each side. While the Chalcedonians concentrated on the confusors of the ‘ousiai’ in Christ, the Alexandrians were still fighting the separators of natures or ‘hypostases’. In the light of this it would be wise to make allowances in terminology while none whatsoever in faith. I would suggest that serious consideration be given to the Fifth Ecumenical Council, not as one which modified Chalcedon , but as one which interprets it correctly. If we agree on the meaning of Cyril's Christology, we should also be as pliable as he on terms. In this regard the non-Chalcedonians should accept all of Cyril, including 433, and the Chalcedonians must stop overemphasizing the Cyril of 433.”

Perhaps we should have in mind the same willingness to bear with one another’s weaknesses for the sake of a greater unity, not such that our Common Christology be founded on compromise, rather that it be based on continuing to go that extra mile to understand more clearly what the other side means. We should have that same hesitancy which St. Cyril exhibited. Not to give space to error, but rather that, for the sake of a greater good we might give time for the other Orthodox community to explain itself completely and fully.

Peter Farrington

20-09-2006, 10:31 AM

Fr Raphael Vereshack

20-09-2006, 03:33 PM

Dear Father,

are you able to respond to that proposal in a positive manner. I mean is this something that you are agreeing is a useful way forward?

I should say that my bishop did present it on behalf of the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate, and the text had been seen by Metropolitan Bishoy, the Secretary of the Holy Synod, who did not request any changes, therefore it must be conformable to general Synodal thinking, even if not official policy. I would like it to become official policy which I why, as referred to in this paper, I am working on the texts of Constantinople 553 as the easiest EO council to deal with.

Peter

Dear Peter,

It looks like the first part of your first sentence above got cut off. But still- about whether I agree that this is a useful way forward.

I have to say yes I do agree with this. I thought the emphasis was very wise on having those with the ability carefully go through the theological issues which we find problematic. This is an implicit reversal of what we have been told for so long now that the division between us was the result of a misunderstanding.

The most basic reading of texts from the time clearly shows that for one party there was concern that a particular kind of theology within the Church was leaning too far towards Nestorianism; meanwhile for another party there was concern about a theology which seemed to lean too far towards Monophysitism. There is nothing at all ambiguous about this in the sense that there was a real controversy which has lasted down to our times. And yet in the past thirty years there has been a minority among us who have kept driving unity by trying to maintain that the division was the result of a misunderstanding. What could the faithful think, when they saw controversy arise every time subjects like Chalcedon arose, except that either blindness or conscious duplicity was involved among those actively involved in the project of unity?

As we should be able to see even from our own little discussions at Monachos these same issues that arose 1400 years ago do very much still divide us. Pointing to the agreements achieved in the past thirty years can help as a possible way forward. But some again point to these agreements to imply that we have no real disagreements remaining. And here again we get caught in the same contradiction pointed out above. I think then it's much better to get clear in our minds that the agreements reached in the past thirty years represent a possible way forward and not a unity already achieved.

After so long apart and with such fundamental issues between us it seems very wise to start with what theologically divided us. This gets to fundamental issues. But it also allows the possibility for increasing trust in this whole process which frankly has been in the past the major problem caused by our side. Trust is increased by openly saying from the opening stage of the discussions that theological issues of a fundamental nature have come between us for the past 1600 years. Then clearly & concisely describe for the faithful the nature of these issues. Then through the whole process clearly explain to the faithful the proposed solutions arrived at. This isn't just a matter of openess. Rather by the very nature of the thing 99% of us must rely on those few more theologically adept than we are; all of us will be deeply affected by theological issues difficult for us to fully grasp. This puts a particular responsibility on those involved in the process which up until now our side in particular has been very slow to grasp. Our most serious sin is that we (by 'we- I mean us on the EO side) have approached this whole effort of unity largely as an academic/intellectual exercise rather than as spiritual/ascetic work in conformity with the conciliar way of the Fathers. No matter how tasty the apple has been which has been produced by such efforts in the past always without fail a worm of falseness has been found inside.

So I think what is proposed by Abba Seraphim is important on many levels. First because he speaks as if something real does indeed divide us. Secondly he proposes a way of dealing with this which could realistically be acceptable at least to us. And thirdly he proposes a method for achieving this which inherently avoids the problems caused by the un-Orthodox methodology of our side in the process for the past thirty years or so.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Peter Farrington

20-09-2006, 03:48 PM

I have to say Father that I am rather disappointed because it seems you have misunderstood the paper entirely.

There are certainly issues which divide us but this is not the same as saying that there is a theological substance which divides us.

I have to wonder what you actually think we believe?

Can you say a little about what you think we believe? Because it seems to me that whatever has been said by OO here has not been taken in and understood. And if not by you, among the most friendly and warm hearted, then by whom?

The issues need discussing carefully so that it is clear that both sides do believe the same and the people who will always resist unity do not have a leg to stand on. They do not need discussing carefully because actually we believe the EO to be Nestorians.

Can you please suggest what you think we believe because from your post it seems to me that you must think that we do believe all manner of error.

And I have to say that I do not think the methodology of the past 30 years has been un-Orthodox at all. Can I ask how many of the many serious papers presented at these dialogues you have read? And can I ask on what basis ROCOR has refused to participate at all in the reconciliation of Christians? I am sorry but I do not find the ROCOR model attractive at all.

Once again, please give me some idea of what error you believe I believe, this is a most serious matter.

Peter

Fr Raphael Vereshack

20-09-2006, 03:57 PM

I have to say Father that I am rather disappointed because it seems you have misunderstood the paper entirely.

There are certainly issues which divide us but this is not the same as saying that there is a theological substance which divides us.

I have to wonder what you actually think we believe?

Can you say a little about what you think we believe? Because it seems to me that whatever has been said by OO here has not been taken in and understood. And if not by you, among the most friendly and warm hearted, then by whom?

The issues need discussing carefully so that it is clear that both sides do believe the same and the people who will always resist unity do not have a leg to stand on. They do not need discussing carefully because actually we believe the EO to be Nestorians.

Can you please suggest what you think we believe because from your post it seems to me that you must think that we do believe all manner of error.

Peter

Dear Peter,

In the article which I read it was clearly stated that fundamental theological issues divide us. It can be clearly seen that these same issues which the article refers to also divide us as we speak here at Monachos.

The method proposed by the article implies accepting this division as real and then working with that. Which seems most wise.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Peter Farrington

20-09-2006, 04:20 PM

Dear Father

I have to say that since I wrote about half the paper I know that it does not say that and neither I nor my bishop, the other author, believe that.

But even if it appeared thus to yourself, contrary to our intentions, let me ask again, a reasonable question that I think it only fair you answer,

What do you think I and the rest of the OO believe that is error.

Peter

Matthew Panchisin

20-09-2006, 04:22 PM

Dear Peter,

And can I ask on what basis ROCOR has refused to participate at all in the reconciliation of Christians? I am sorry but I do not find the ROCOR model attractive at all.

It is interesting to note the joy and hope that has been expressed by many within Orthodxy for the good reconcilation works that ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate have accomplished. Father Raphael is very familiar with the process of reconcilation and the fruit. The tree and the fruit is seen as good as the Patriarch of Jerusalem recently articulated his hope that other divisions would be healed by following the Spirit recognized and embraced by ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate. I have heard many comments along those lines.

I suspect that you are referring to ROCOR's rejection of Ecumenism which is different.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Peter Farrington

20-09-2006, 04:31 PM

I am referring to ROCOR's unwillingness to dialogue with the Oriental Orthodox.

This conversation can be called many things, but it seems to me unchristian to call talking with other Christians a heresy and an error, and certainly not Traditional.

If ROCOR will not talk with the Oriental Orthodox then it seems to me that they have no basis on which to judge the Oriental Orthodox.

Even here it seems that it is not necessary to express any opinion about what my supposed heresy is, it merely needs stating that I am an heretic. To me that does not seem Christian in any sense.

I will talk with anyone if it helps me understand better what they believe, discover what we have in common, and how we can grow towards unity in the fulness of the Orthodox Faith.

ROCOR will not. That is problematic. Especially when so called 'traditionalist' websites also trumpet the alleged heresy of my Orthodox communion.

Again I will ask, what is the substance of my error. If no-one can reply but all are willing to assert that I am a heretic then there is something wrong in the state of Denmark.

Peter

Kris

20-09-2006, 05:19 PM

I am referring to ROCOR's unwillingness to dialogue with the Oriental Orthodox.

This conversation can be called many things, but it seems to me unchristian to call talking with other Christians a heresy and an error, and certainly not Traditional.

Hi Peter,

First of all, given the ROCOR's history and relationship with the other EO jurisdictions, it has had more than enough on its plate to deal with. Although EO-OO relations are greatly important, and our separation is a tragic one, maintaining unity within the EO is obviously a greater priority since "every kingdom divided against itself shall not stand."

Secondly, I do not believe the ROCOR has ever stated that talking with other Christians a heresy or an error. What ROCOR opposes (and quite rightly so in my opinion) is a particular form of Ecumenism which seems to dominate such talks.

Orthodoxy (i.e. Christianity), as I'm sure you'll agree, is the Truth revealed to us by "the Father of the lights, with Whom is no alternation or a shadow cast by turning." As such it is not something subjective or subject to compromise. To compromise Orthodoxy is to deny the Truth, to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, Who is the Spirit of Truth.

Yet it is precisely this attitude of compromise which is found among so many of those who participate in the "Ecumenical movement."

The Church's participation in the WWC or other dialogues with the Catholic Church has led to innovations such as the New Calendar, which have divided the EO (many people even being martyred for it). Further more, it was the cause of the attitudes you say you experienced among EO clergy a decade ago (Anglican=British Orthodox). It is also the reason Orthodox growth in Latin southern Europe is non-existant (owing the relations between the EP and the Vatican).

Yet is has done next to nothing to bring these heterodox groups closer to Orthodoxy, which would be the only possible basis on which any kind of reunion could take place.

So can one really blame the ROCOR for rejecting the Ecumenical movement?

Of course, the OO is different both theologically and historically from the Protestants and Catholics, and so these dialogues must be taken on their own merit. But I think the ROCOR are entirely justified in their overall rejection of Ecumenism.

Again I will ask, what is the substance of my error. If no-one can reply but all are willing to assert that I am a heretic then there is something wrong in the state of Denmark.

From an EO perspective, your "error", although it does not necessarily constitute heresy, lies in your refusal to accept all 7 of the Ecumenical Councils as binding.

It is this (our acceptance and your rejection of Chalcedon as Ecumenical) that is the cause of the schism.

Even if we shared a common Christology (and I believe we do), the tragic fact remains that one of us (depending on which side you're on) remains in schism. The Scriptures, the Creed and the Fathers speak only of One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and they do not seem to allow for an Anglican "branch theory" or the "invisible Church" of the Protestants.

I hear exactly the same reasoning expressed by Copts I have spoken to on other forums (including those who, like myself, greatly desire reunion). So it seems to me that even though both sides can declare the other Orthodox, there still lamentably remains "schismatic."

In XC,
Kris

John Charmley

20-09-2006, 06:34 PM

Peter/Father Raphael/Kris/Matthew

What an interesting proliferation of correspondence! I almost drew back from making another post here, not least since at the moment I am neither EO nor OO, but quite clearly from a Church you could all agree in calling both heretical and schismatic (I might be tempted to add that it has become so secular that most of its members would not understand these concepts, or even why they matter- but that is for another thread).

Let us take the question of the 7 Councils. What does 'accept them' mean? It is not clear to me that the OO reject the main conclusions.

The 4th Council with its insistence that Christ is God and Man says nothing that the OO have not always believed.

Since the OO had always rejected the Three Chapters, they have always regarded the 5th Council as welcome evidence that the Chalcedonians were catching up with them!

As for the 6th Council the OO have never taught that Christ's humanity was without will, so they have regarded it as a local council designed to deal with a Roman problem; again, of you like, as Chalcedonians putting their house in OO order!

Something similar could be said of the 7th Council - there was never an Iconoclast controversy in the OO communion, and the Copts have many ancient icons as a happy result of this.

If my understanding of the main results of Councils 4-7 is wrong than I shall happily accept enlightenment, but on my reading, there is nothing of substance dividing us. A Council can only be ecumenical if all agree, and by the token the EO adopt for Councils 4-7, the Romans can condemn them for not accepting their numbering of the Councils; you can try to have it each which way, but to demand of the OO that they accept Councils 4-7 as ecumenical whilst refusing to adhere to Rome's request for subsequent Councils is not very logical. As we have said before in this thread, if one starts from the position that others always move to you because you are right, not much will ever move.

Hence, I suspect, Peter's frustration with Father Raphael's recent posts. I may be misreading those posts and Abba Seraphim's work, as well as that of Peter, but I wonder whether there is not, at heart, an agreement here?

What I mean is that Father Raphael is acknowledging that the issues at stake were/are serious theological ones. That does not necessarily run counter to Peter's argument that the process of dialogue has established that they no longer need to divide us in the way we have supposed; or am I just being so eirenic that I am missing the point in splendid Anglican style?

I am fascinated by the debate over Chalcedon - quite clearly it matters - and I look forward to EO comments on Peter's new thread on that subject; come on folks, help me out here - as you can see, Peter is a knowlegeable chap, and I really would like an EO view on this.

Can we leave ecumenism at the door? As we have said before on this and other threads, none of us posting here wants the sort of ecumenism that is a Trojan Horse for syncretism - hey, just join the Anglicans if you want that (as an Anglican I hope I can get away with that). But it has been said many times that the EO and the OO are both closer to each other than to any of the other Churches on the WCC, and that is why the dialogue matters.

Do remember, Peter is coming at this through his commitment to mission. Divided as we are, we may sometimes bear more witness to our attachment to the things of this world than to preaching the Gospel. As it happens, I think that would be wrong, and that Father Raphael is right when he insists that only through a real dialogue that we can make progress. That is why Peter is also right to say that we need to understand what we are claiming the other to believe - as well as what we think the Church believes.

I suspect that if ecumenism can, and does, provide a forum through which we can deal with the serious issues that have divided the EO and the OO, it will have been worthwhile.

In the meantime, the world shows how much it needs Orthodoxy. Of course, God's time scale is not ours, and His will, not our own be done. But we all need to consider why the Word became Incarnate, as well as how that happened. Of course soteriology and Christology are intimately connected, which is why I look forward to being told exactly how the soteriology of the EO and the OO differ.

In Christ,

John

Father David Moser

20-09-2006, 07:15 PM

I am referring to ROCOR's unwillingness to dialogue with the Oriental Orthodox.
...
If ROCOR will not talk with the Oriental Orthodox then it seems to me that they have no basis on which to judge the Oriental Orthodox.

Peter,

I am not a bishop (and therefore know nothing) however as a long time member and priest in ROCOR, I can offer an observation based on the historical behavior of ROCOR. ROCOR is not an autocephalus Church - has never considered herself to be. Rather ROCOR has always been and continues to be a part of the greater Russian Orthodox Church. As only a part of the Russian Church, it is not our place to enter into the "dialogue" which you seem to propose. This is an issue for the whole Russian Church to approach together, thus it would be presumptuous for ROCOR to enter into dialogue on her own. If dialogue would be beneficial, then it is something that would need to be undertaken by the Russian Church as a whole - beginning at the level of the Patriarchal Synod and eventually encompassing the whole Sobor of bishops (of which ROCOR is a part).

Thus with no change in the current situation, the only position that the clergy and laity of ROCOR can take in regards to the OO is that which is based on the Holy Fathers and the proceedings of the Holy Ecumenical councils. Until that situation changes - and as regards the Russian Church, ROCOR is not the sole entity to work out that change - until then we can only take the position that has been handed down to us by our forefathers in the faith.

Fr David Moser

Fr Raphael Vereshack

20-09-2006, 07:50 PM

Dear Peter:

You asked

What do you think I and the rest of the OO believe that is error.

In my estimation if we are talking about the present effort at unity between the EO & OO then there should only be two issues before us: 1) our respective theologies.

2) the proper methodology for dealing with this.

Again in my estimation there is still a real and serious enough theological problem between us which even comes out on the small scale of Monachos.
This relates to point 1 which I felt the paper also acknowledged.

Point 2 about methodology refers to how questions such as the above can mean very different things. If it means, 'For the sake of us having drawn closer theologically in the past while let us see what further can be achieved. We see you still have a problem/question about our theology. But again for the sake of what we have already mutually achieved let us strive for more. We are open to this,' this should be accpetable to all.

The methodology is crucial here for it implies that the process we are involved in is an open-handed effort to see if our theology is acceptable enough to each other for unity to be realistic or godly. It allows the other to freely judge by their own lights according to what we present about ourselves to them.

There is another methodology however which does not allow this freedom. For some reason it assumes that the only godly result is unity & thus sets its sights on the end before before dealing with the actual Orthodox criteria before it. Then in assuming that such a method of unity is the only proper one it portrays those who do not accept this as fanatics and close-minded. Which through its own impatience reveals how it is a problematic and self-contradictory approach to unity.

A good example of this is Chalcedon. The division between us clearly arose due to what led to, centred in, and then resulted from Chalcedon. Chalcedon in fact still brings up the exact same issues (plus some other worthy ones) which arose those many centuries ago. The claim that all is solved because we now have the same theology begs the question of why not accept Chalcedon then?
If we reject Chalcedon presumably it means at least to reject its specific way of formulating theolgy. But Chalcedon precisely is what we do accept as a fundamental expression of the Faith. How then do we say that we share the same theology then unless theology is seen as divorced from its own expressions?

Of course there are differences of tradition such as the Antiochian and Alexandrian within the One Church. We don't deny this. But these are an affirmation only insofar as it would apply to the One Faith- not a denial that appears to reject an Ecumenical expression of the Faith.

So this is to suggest we acknowledge what divides us and if it is proper to work with it. It seemed that the paper I read was making a similar if not identical point. If it didn't then it could be it makes some other valid point but which is outside my immediate concern about the profitable & unprofitable ways of going forward.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

PS: Matthew is correct in his point about my thinking being influenced by the ROCOR-MP talks. From the beginning it was decided that the negotiating committees would work only with a set series of essential dividing issues of principle. The essential issues to be dealt with were set out in advance by the respective hierarchies of the two churches. Contentious issues about personalities were purposely left off the table to be dealt with by the conscience of the Church over time.

I don't know how this was determined but this way of proceeding certainly was inspired. Somehow it grasped that not everything can be dealt with immediately, & not everything resolved in talks, councils and synod meetings. What is needed much more to go forward is a degree of already achieved unity that calls for and then provides the ground for formal union.

I bring this up because even though ROCOR-MP & EO-OO unity involves different issues the crucial point is that real unity recognizes & almost spontaneously works with the actual unity already present.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

John Charmley

21-09-2006, 10:47 PM

Father Raphael/Peter/Father David

A question, followed by a quotation, both, I hope, on focus.

To what extent is it the case that dyophysite and miaphysite Christologies actually represent two different approaches to a divine mystery which is, in fact, ineffable?

The quotation is from Barhebraeus (translation courtesy of the excellent Professor Brock):

When I had given much thought and pondered on the matter I became convinced that these quarrels of Christians among themselves are not a matter of factual substance, but rather, one of words and terms. For they all confess Christ our Lord to be perfect God and perfect human, without any commingling, mixing or confusion of the natures. This bipinnate "likeness" [Phil. 2:6-7] is termed by one party a "nature", by another a "hypostasis, and by yet another a "person". Thus I saw all the Christian communities, with their different Christological positions, as possessing a single common ground that is without any difference.

He went on to add:
Accordingly, I totally eradicated any hatred from the depths of my heart, and I completely renounced disputing with anyone over confessional matters.

Well, chaps, I think we have certainly done the first part of that sentence, but I hope we don't do the last bit.

In Christ

John

Jose Lauro Strapasson

22-09-2006, 08:12 AM

Hi

This is my first message in this topic.
This is a very nice book from Pope Shenodua III, about what Coptic Orthodox and probably all other Oriental Orthodox think
http://www.copticchurch.org/Texts/Spirituals/Natofchr.pdf

In page 45 he says
"We believe in One Will and One Act:"

This is the definition of what Eastern Orthodox calls "Monothelitism", And it was condemned in the VI General Council and it was just a modification of Monophysitism, in order to conciliate the Monophysites.

The coucil says in the Exposition of faith:
"And we proclaim equally two natural volitions or wills in him and two natural principles of action which undergo no division, no change, no partition, no confusion, in accordance with the teaching of the holy fathers. And the two natural wills not in opposition, as the impious heretics said, far from it, but his human will following, and not resisting or struggling, rather in fact subject to his divine and all powerful will. For the will of the flesh had to be moved, and yet to be subjected to the divine will, according to the most wise Athanasius. etc"

and not only the concil, but even the Gospel says very clear that Jesus were Tempted (not possible if Jesus had only divine will!), that Jesus learned obedience (not possible if Jesus had only divine will!) and we have learned from St Maximos the confessor that if Jesus had not a human will, He would not be a truly man and so the message of salvation would be lost!

Non-calcedonians churches had tried, had changed their faith, but are still not correct.

Of course Non-calcedonians don't like it, but they should ask if they do believe in the Bible and the Fathers.

Peter Farrington

22-09-2006, 09:55 AM

You know I do find it rather deeply offensive that some EO should decide that a google search provides him with a full knowledge of the OO position on any matter.

And then to assume that by taking one sentence he has suddenly mastered a complete Christology.

Jose, I am afraid that you are very wrong. It seems fashionable among some EO who cannot maintain that the OO deny the perfect humanity of Christ, to then try and impute monothelitism to our Orthodox communion.

Nothing could be further from the truth, but it is frustrating and yes, offensive, that you do not seem to show any desire to understand.

Do you wish to know what we believe? Or do you wish to show that you are clever and know better than I what I believe?

This is most disappointing. I had thought that Monachos was concerned with the serious study of texts, not easy polemics.

Here is a clear passage from a text which is the official position of my Orthodox Church.

Both families agree that the Hypostasis of the Logos became composite by uniting to His divine uncreated nature with its natural will and energy, which He has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit, created human nature, which He assumed at the Incarnation and made His own, with its natural will and energy.

We have never, and do not, reject the natural human will of Christ, rather we understand its operation in accordance with the following teaching.

His human will follows and that not as resisting and reluctant, but rather as subject to his divine and omnipotent will. For it was right that the flesh should be moved but subject to the divine will, according to the most wise Athanasius. For as his flesh is called and is the flesh of God the Word, so also the natural will of his flesh is called and is the proper will of God the Word, as he himself says: “I came down from heaven, not that I might do mine own will but the will of the Father which sent me!” where he calls his own will the will of his flesh, inasmuch as his flesh was also his own. For as his most holy and immaculate animated flesh was not destroyed because it was deified but continued in its own state and nature, so also his human will, although deified, was not suppressed, but was rather preserved according to the saying of Gregory Theologus: “His will is not contrary to God but altogether deified.”

Do you not also believe this?

Peter

Jose Lauro Strapasson

22-09-2006, 05:17 PM

Dear Peter

Of course I did not say that this the position of all OO. I just thought that would possible it to be, since OO is a comunion.
Well, I don't know what is your Church, are you from Coptic Orthodox?
Thake a look in this 50 pages book from pope Shenouda III, is he wrong? Or perhaps my english is not that good, because he says in page 45

"We believe in One Will and One Act:
Naturally, as long as we consider that this Nature is One, the
Will and the Act must also each be one.
etc"

It is not a simple "google search", it is a oficial book from a site of a coptic parish in NY, from the alexandrine coptic pope.

P.S. The end of the 50 page is very interesting too.

Athanasius Abdullah

22-09-2006, 06:29 PM

Dear JoseLauro,

+irini nem ehmot

I agree with you that there is no ground upon which to discredit your conclusions upon mere appeal to the means by which you discovered the document in question, for it is after all a document authored by His Holiness the Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria regardless of whether it is found through a ‘google’ search or borrowed from a local library. I would hope however that you would be open to the possibility that you have taken His Holiness out of context to conclude “monotheletism” on his behalf.

The first thing you should take serious note of in determining the intentions of His Holiness, is the first quote that Peter provided you in his post, which reads:

Both families agree that the Hypostasis of the Logos became composite by uniting to His divine uncreated nature with its natural will and energy, which He has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit, created human nature, which He assumed at the Incarnation and made His own, with its natural will and energy.

What Peter should probably have emphasised is the fact that this particular point of the Second Agreed Statement, which presupposes the existence of two natural wills-one divine and one human-was expressly and officially acknowledged by His Holiness and the Holy Coptic Synod as a reflection of the Orthodox Truth. Confirmation of this fact can be found in the Letter of Metropolitan Bishoy of Damiette to Metropolitan Damaskinos of Switzerland which he wrote in November 1990, and the Pastoral Agreement that His Holiness Pope Shenouda signed with His Holiness Petros in 2001.

The one will that His Holiness is affirming, is not, as the Monothelites would have us believe, the personal divine will of Christ; rather, it is the hypostatically expressed product of the synergic interaction between Christ’s natural divine and natural human wills. The fact this interaction is not (contrary to what would logically follow from Nestorian Christology) something to be pragmatically observed (as if taking place in actual time and space), but rather something to be envisaged in theological contemplation alone lies at the heart of His Holiness’s stress of the one will of Christ. His Holiness is essentially confirming the points of the Second Agreed Statement that immediately follow the one quoted above:

4. Both families agree that the natures with their proper energies and wills are united hypostatically and naturally without confusion, without change, without division and without separation, and that they are distinguished in thought alone.

5. Both families agree that He who wills and acts is always the one Hypostasis of the Logos incarnate.

Your local church (the Antiochian Orthodox Church, as per your profile) has discussed the issue of Christ's wills with the OO Communion officially and unofficially over the course of many years now, yet they have never raised an issue of concern regarding our understanding of Christ's "one will", which complements (as opposed to contradicts or negates), the idea of Christ's "two wills" when both expressions are understood in their proper context.

On a side note, as an OO I find rather unusual the tendency I see amongst EO's to disregard the position of their Holy Synods and authorities on these matters. Maybe OO's are just simple-minded, but I could pretty much safely guarantee you that you will not find an OO who pushes forward his own personal stance on these matters contrary to that promoted by the respected authorities.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Athanasius Abdullah

22-09-2006, 06:30 PM

[This was a double post; my apologies.]

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Peter Farrington

22-09-2006, 07:23 PM

Thank you for your post Athanasius

In fact the reality that Jose is taking HH Pope Shenouda out of context is found in the same book he references. Since in that book Pope Shenouda clearly says,

"What the Divine nature chooses is undoubtedly the same as that chosen by the human Nature because there is not any contradiction or conflict whatever between the will and the action of both."

It is clear here, as in the Synodal and therefore authoritative statement from the Joint Agreement you posted that neither Pope Shenouda, nor any OO, fail to accept that there is a natural human will in Christ. What is rejected is contradiction in the natural human will and the Divine will.

If both the Divine nature and human nature choose, then both have natural will.

I have spoken to my bishop about this and he agrees that all of the OO have always accepted the natural human will in Christ.

Peter

Jose Lauro Strapasson

22-09-2006, 08:41 PM

Dear Peter and Athanasius.

Well, If I read badly that book, then I am sorry, I apologize for my mistake! ;)

José Lauro.

P.S. Yes, I am a former Roman Catholic and now antiochian from Curitiba, in south of Brazil, and about the "official" things from Antiochian Church, well they are official but not infalible, only roman catholics think this way. We must follow the fathers and ecumenical concils before our leaders.;) I don't like everything from Antiochian Church, but what can I do? There are no ROCOR near where I live! If my church starts doing more bad things I just leave it as I did before from Roman Catholic. You know, whenever we find we are wrong, we have to change.;)

John Charmley

24-09-2006, 04:47 PM

Dear Jose Lauro,

I can appreciate your distress, and I am sure that no one set out to cause anyone distress on this site; in fact, given the problems this subject has caused for 1600 years, we are doing well to keep the temperature as cool as we can.

Some of the discussion on this has migrated, probably unhelpfully, to the thread on the Capitula.

What, I suspect we must all be careful of is selective quotation. The problem comes when we all (and we do all have that tendency, I fear, for we are all sinners) choose something from the other tradition which seems to bolster our view of it, when, in fact, that is not what that tradition teaches. That way we end up intensifying the problem.

I suspect many of us have 'doubts' about the WCC, and as an exiting-Anglican I would be the last person to advocate that form of ecumenism which becomes indistinguishable from syncretism. But I hope that you will see from Athanasius and from Peter that the Oriental Orthodox really are not Mononthelites.

What might be helpful is to address Father Raphael's point about where the real differences lie. I think the Capitula thread is moving in that direction at the moment - the question is whether we ought to continue it here, where most of the previous arguments are?

We might all, incidentally, read Athanasius' original post to remind ourselves of some important 'agreed' points; there are times when we almost seem to be retracing steps away from that!

Many thanks for you posts, JoseLauro - Brazil has so much to offer us all when it comes to the Faith.

In Christ,

John

Peter Farrington

24-09-2006, 06:09 PM

Dear John,

perhaps I'll post here then a brief synopsis of the positive contents of Oriental Orthodoxy as it relates to controversial issues.

i. Jesus Christ is the Word of God incarnate.

ii. He has taken to Himself a perfect humanity without ceasing to be what He has always been.

iii. His humanity has been united to His Divinity without confusion, mixture, division or separation.

iv. His humanity is consubstantial with our humanity, and His divinity is consubstantial with the Father.

v. His humanity is perfect and complete, the same in every way to our humanity without sin.

vi. His humanity has natural human will and energy.

vii. The natural distinction between the natures of humanity and Divinity remain, but division and separation are rejected in the ineffable union.

viii. When the phrase 'one incarnate nature of the Word' is used, it should be understood as meaning in modern EO terms 'one incarnate hypostasis of the Word'.

ix. When the phrase 'in two natures' is rejected it is when it is used in the sense of 'in two hypostases'.

x. The contents and indeed the authors of the Three Chapters are rejected as heretical and were rejected long before Constantinople 553.

xi. There is a proper use of icons as means of instruction and as a means of veneration of those saints depicted, and as a means of worshipping Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ when depicted. The Word of God incarnate may be depicted because He is truly God become man.

xii. The teaching of Nestorius which divides Christ so that His humanity and His Divinity have individual and independent existence and activity has always been rejected.

xiii. The teaching of Eutyches which is in a variety of manners a rejection of the consubstantiality of Christ with our humanity has always been rejected.

xiv. The heretical teachings of Origen and his person were rejected long before Constantinople 553.

xv. Our Orthodox Church does not believe in the 'branch theory' and has always considered itself and called itself, the 'One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church'.

xvi. With relation to the human will and energy in Christ, what is rejected is the 'gnomic will' in Christ, as described later by Maximus the Confessor. The natural human will and energy are faculties of the nature, the 'gnomic will' is the activity of a human subject, and Christ is not a human subject, He is the Word of God incarnate. When we speak of one will, we always mean a unity of the human and Divine will and energy in the one Divine subject in accordance with the teaching of the Byzantine 6th council. I have often however come across Byzantines who definitely describe a 'gnomic will' in the humanity of Christ contrary to the Orthodox Faith, and even to the Byzantine teaching of Maximus the Confessor. Such a description of two contrary wills is essentially Nestorian since it creates two contrary subjects.

This seems to cover most areas. If there are other areas I am happy to provide similar clarification.

Peter

John Charmley

25-09-2006, 12:21 AM

Dear Peter,

That is a pretty breathtaking act of concision, and we are all in your debt for outlining so very clearly the Oriental Orthodox position.

As regular posters here may know, my interest in this is not just the natural inquisitiveness of an historian, but also that of an exiting Anglican who has always felt Orthodox but who has found his Church false to that tradition, and who, having encountered both the OO and the EO, is seeking to make sense of where the real divisions are; after all, both say they are the True Church, and both show many signs of this in common, and the unity talks have certainly confirmed such a view.

Coming from where I am, I am not after false ecumenism, still less some syncretic dilution; but after reading these posts, and now this last from Peter, I am really genuinely puzzled. Can any of our EO friends look at Peter's last post and tell me where they differ from him?

Again, Peter, thank you for taking so much time to be so clear in your exposition, and I hope that other posters will take up the dialogue on these themes.

In Christ,

John

Fr Raphael Vereshack

25-09-2006, 12:56 AM

Peter Farrington

25-09-2006, 09:36 AM

To go a little further in respect of will. I consider this passage to sum up the OO position.

"..his human will follows and that not as resisting and reluctant, but rather as subject to his divine and omnipotent will. For it was right that the flesh should be moved but subject to the divine will, according to the most wise Athanasius. For as his flesh is called and is the flesh of God the Word, so also the natural will of his flesh is called and is the proper will of God the Word, as he himself says: “I came down from heaven, not that I might do mine own will but the will of the Father which sent me!” where he calls his own will the will of his flesh, inasmuch as his flesh was also his own. For as his most holy and immaculate animated flesh was not destroyed because it was deified but continued in its own state and nature, so also his human will, although deified, was not suppressed, but was rather preserved according to the saying of Gregory Theologus: “His will [i.e., the Saviour’s] is not contrary to God but altogether deified.”

Does this clarify things further?

Peter

Fr Raphael Vereshack

25-09-2006, 03:05 PM

Peter Farrington

25-09-2006, 03:44 PM

It is from the Definition of the Byzantine 6th Council.

It is good because it stresses the unity of will, without diminishing the reality of either.

As I said before, what is rejected by the OO is the idea of a human 'gnomic' or 'deliberative' will creating contradiction. What is not rejected is the natural faculty.

Because the natural human will is always in accordance with the Divine will we understand them to be one. This is a oneness of union, not a oneness of mixture or confusion or elimination.

We (normally) reject the idea of two wills because this has been used (and is still used in my personal experience by some Byzantines) to describe a 'gnomic' or 'deliberative' human will creating contradiction and therefore tending to be Nestorian.

I am happy with the phrase that 'in Christ there are two natural wills'. And indeed, as I have posted but no-one seemed to want to comment, the Synods of ALL the Orthodox Churches have defined Christ as having a natural human will and natural human energy.

Therefore what is rejected cannot be the presence of such a will and energy, but it is the 'independent' exercise of such will and energy, which the phrase 'in two' can be, and indeed still is, used to describe.

Peter

Fr Raphael Vereshack

25-09-2006, 04:12 PM

We (normally) reject the idea of two wills because this has been used (and is still used in my personal experience by some Byzantines) to describe a 'gnomic' or 'deliberative' human will creating contradiction and therefore tending to be Nestorian.

Thanks for the reference.

What would you say what you wrote above says about Christ in His two natures & wills? This isn't a leading question. It's just helpful to for us to know.

It's an interesting thing in Orthodox life. Theology goes in waves according to the preoccupations of the time. There was at one time among us a bit of an in-house dispute about Christ & gnomic will. I'm not sure why gnomic will was ascribed to Christ by some. I strongly suspect it gets down to that delicate question of what we mean by Christ, 'assumed' which by even the conversations here can be seen to not be so clear.

To cut to the chase the question always cuts closest to the bone when speaking of Christ's assuming our weakness. How far does Christ actually assume our weakness? Is this weakness healed by the assumption or by being in union through His Divine Person?

Then again in what sense can there be a union of Divinity and weakness when we are referring to what is fallen and sinful? Here is where the theological disagreements have been interpreted as centring. But we also have had similar disagreements among ourselves.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Peter Farrington

25-09-2006, 05:31 PM

Without being definite, in the sense that I am happy to discuss this with you as a person and not as a 'church representative', I would want to say.

The Julianist heresy, which was a Chalcedonian as much as a non-Chalcedonian issue, of aphtharto-docetism was rejected by us precisely because it failed to posit a complete humanity such as we know. It wanted Christ to have assumed a non-fallen humanity without our weakness and it wanted to teach a Christ who sometimes 'seemed' to be weak but was only being weak for effect, whereas the view which prevailed was that 'what is not assumed is not healed'.

It is no good the Word becoming some other flesh which we don't have. We need a Saviour who become incarnate in our present state.

I think the issue about the gnomic will is then really the whole matter of Nestorianism again. Does the Word unite to Himself a human being who is like us and has to struggle in 'exactly' the same way as us, and who is ontologically different from the Word as subject.

Or does He take our fallen humanity and renew it in taking it, making it right by uniting it to Himself? Is the salvation and renewal of our humanity the very purpose of the incarnation, or is it so that God gets a good idea of how tough it is for us?

I remember when I was at an Evangelical Seminary (I already by intuition held to a Cyrilline Christology) one of my fellow students vigorously rejected my description of the Cyrilline hypostatic union (though I didn't know that is what it was) because she felt it was 'unfair' if God was not reduced to a mere man.

But the incarnate Word is never a 'mere' man, though He is fully and properly human.

The presence of a 'gnomic' will makes Christ a mere man as far as I can see. And the Greek priest I was discussing this with was describing Christ as a human being and as having to struggle to choose the good which seems entirely to describe a 'gnomic' or 'deliberative' will and therefore to be at least condemned by Maximus the Confessor, and certainly it made me feel he was describing a functionally Nestorian Christ.

This is why I like the text from the 6th council and the Christology of Maximus the Confessor.

It seems to me there are several important points that we want to preserve.

i. In Christ there is natural will and natural energy because the humanity is complete and these are functions of human nature.

ii. It is the 'use' of this faculty which is perverse in humanity. The 'user' of this faculty is the incarnate Word therefore that which is naturally willed is always good in Christ.

iii. The natural will and natural energy are not eliminated in Christ but are put to 'proper' use in union with the Divine will and energy and therefore there is no contradiction, nor could there be, between the natural human will and the Divine will.

iv. The weakness of our humanity is assumed by the incarnate Word but in union with the Divine nature it is deified, as the 6th council asserts, not taking it out of consubstantiality with us, but rather renewing it for our salvation. The Word chooses to 'use' His proper humanity as is appropriate for our salvation, so He can walk on water, he can be Transfigured. He is not 'bound' by the limitations of our humanity because He is God, but it is our fallen humanity which he assumes, against those who say it was an un-fallen humanity.

He transcends the weakness of His humanity when he needs to, in the economy of our salvation. Rather than pretending to be weak when He is not, as the Julianists said. So he really does bear the guiltless passions, but He does not always 'have to' when He has some higher end in view, because He is God and the humanity is the humanity of God not of a mere man.

This is also why we tend to reject the neat categorisation of Leo of Rome. Yes, to walk is human, but it is not human to walk on water. But it is not Divine to walk at all. This does not point to some 'third' way, but it does point, for us, to the ineffable union of humanity and Divinity, without confusion but without division. It is real humanity which the Word unites to Himself, but the union has a purpose, and that purpose is greater than simply being A man. He is never simply A man, He is the Word of God incarnate.

Some Byzantines seem concerned to make Christ A man, rather than the Word made flesh. This seems to me to be Nestorian.

Maximus the Confessor seems to sum it up for me. I must read more of his work that I have done.

Peter

Fr Raphael Vereshack

26-09-2006, 02:43 PM

Dear Peter,

Just for the sake of clarity if I could divide my brief comments into those theological and something more on the line of 'reflects the spiritual/pastoral concerns of the age'. I'll try to explain this latter category afterwards.

On the level of theology I am quite happy with what is expressed here especially with the emphasis on Christ as pre-eternal Logos as focus or subject in the Incarnation. Indeed His human will freely reflects His Divine personal will even in the manner in which He acts humanly in weakness. The adoption of our weakness and human condition is of course axiomatic for our salvation. But we must, as I think your comments strongly imply, always understand that in Christ His adoption of human nature is not a moral union with the human condition. After all that is why we always say that He adopted humanity but 'without sin'.

In other words in Christ His mode of union with human nature is unique to Himself as the Son of God. But from our perspective I think this means the focus of our spiritual life is quite literally finding our life in Christ rather than again something only on the level of moral effort.

When you write:

This is also why we tend to reject the neat categorisation of Leo of Rome. Yes, to walk is human, but it is not human to walk on water. But it is not Divine to walk at all. This does not point to some 'third' way, but it does point, for us, to the ineffable union of humanity and Divinity, without confusion but without division. It is real humanity which the Word unites to Himself, but the union has a purpose, and that purpose is greater than simply being A man. He is never simply A man, He is the Word of God incarnate.

I think we tend to see this in particular from within the perspective of those Fathers like St Irenaeos of Lyons who define humanity in terms of Christ as the recapitulation of creation and humanity. Humanity is in the image & likeness of Christ, indeed not an identical image, but it does find its likeness in Him as its own Creator. St Maximos later beautifully fills this out in a whole cosmology since Christ as Logos has planted His own images/logoi in all creation. Thus He defines the telos of creation and especially of man. Which seems to nicely tie together with the original comments of St Irenaeos that man in Paradise was originally intended to keep growing in Christ. Which of course was tragically interrupted by the Fall but is being restored through His Incarnation.

This is why although it is true that Christ's walking on water does not mean being restricted to one place or time as we are; it is true that He freely walks on water so that man may through faith in Him also perhaps walk on water. That after all is why for example we have in the Egyptian Desert Frs accounts of those who walked over water (didn't one cross the Nile on a crocodile?) & also St Mary Of Egypt. Also this is the significance of the saints in whose company animals lived in gentle obedience. Thus in Christ our humanity is gradually revealed in the glory of its original purpose.

About the second category of 'reflects the spiritual/pastoral concerns of the age'. I think this better describes things like the conversation with the Greek priest than Nestorianism. There is a very valid concern among our people that Christ really shares in the human condition. Spiritualising things too much is usually called Origenism. I agree that this went too far at one time although the balance now seems to be shifting back the other way. It often seems that Christ is described in similar terms as our own way of life be it 'more human' or 'more spiritual'.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Fr Raphael Vereshack

27-09-2006, 12:09 AM

Here is a link for those who would like to read Fr Georges Florovsky's Rise of Monophysitism (http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/fathers_florovsky_2.htm#_Toc16316523) which is Chap 18 of his Byzantine Frs of the 5th Century. It is quite short.

I don't refer to it here to cause offense or argument but rather simply to provide one of the best resources out there which explains our hesitancy over this dispute.

Fr Georges has a gift for clearly explaining what are the most essential & complex issues in this dispute. There are real jewels throughout the rest of this work.

This comes from the Holy Trinity Mission (rocor) site which is part of an online Orthodox school.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Athanasius Abdullah

27-09-2006, 03:05 AM

+irini nem ehmot

Not to merely counter Fr. Raphael’s reference with an OO reference for the mere sake of countering it (which would evidently be quite childish), but I think any honest study of Chalcedon and the issues surrounding it must include Fr. V.C Samuel’s Chalcedon Re-examined (http://www.amazon.com/Council-Chalcedon-Re-Examined-V-Samuel/dp/1401016448). Fr. V.C. Samuel does something that Fr. Florovsky evidently fails to do—he engages with the position of the other side, and allows his own position to be put under scrutiny. Indeed, it is because of this that most of Fr. Florovsky's contentions with the OO position have been openly addressed in Fr. V.C. Samuel’s work. Fr. V.C. Samuel’s book is not only balanced therefore, it is also proleptic; it anticipates the objections and reservations of the EO reader and it addresses them in advance.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Peter Farrington

27-09-2006, 10:28 AM

John Charmley

27-09-2006, 12:35 PM

It is surely never right, when studying any 'opposing' philosophy or idea, to base one's opinion on one's own ideas of what such a philosophy or idea actually means. This only takes a person so far. If Father George had discussed this even with me I would have pointed out where his appreciation of our thought was seriously flawed.

Peter/Athanasius/Father Raphael,

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has written that 'history is a set of stories we tell in order to understand better who we are and the world we're now in', adding that 'Good history makes us think again about the definition of things we thought we understood pretty well'. By that standard, which I am happy to accept, Fr. Samuel's book on Chalcedon is 'good history', and I commend its balanced nature and conclusions.

Writing from a different tradition, an equally 'good historian', the late Fr. Meyendorff, equally deserves our respect and admiration in his great book Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions where he provides an account of Chalcedon we should all read and inwardly digest. In his words:

'The use of the term "creed of Chalcedon" in contemporary manuals is misleading. The text was not intended for liturgical, sacramental, or "symbolic" use, but was conceived only as a statement excluding both the Nestorian and Eutychian heresies.' (p. 177)

Fr, Meyendorff's account, which like that of all historians, is open to question on some points of interpretation, is nonetheless a skilled theological historian's attempt to remind us that the politics of the immediate pre and post-Chalcedonian periods had as much (if not more) effect on the disunion that was to follow than did the Council itself. When he notes that the only 'authoritative spokeseman for Chalcedon in the East happened to be Theodoret of Cyrus', he adds that his authority 'was marred by his earlier polemics against Cyril'. He also notes (p. 187) that Theodroret had 'never really understood Cyril's theology' and that his views continued to reflect the teachings of Theodore of Mopsuestia whose approach he thought 'Chalcedon had legitimised.'

The situation this reveals is one that gives us pause for thought. In the East, Chalcedon was defended by a man many regarded as an opponent of the Blessed Cyril, whose own approach was essentially the one Cyril had combatted previously; it was little wonder that many in the East had their doubts about what had happened. When that was compounded by the reaction in Alexandria to the deposition of their beloved Dioscoros, and the imperial attempt to enforce it, it is no wonder Chalcedon became the proximate cause of a great disruption.

But, as Peter has written elsewhere, it took more than a century for the disruption to become an accomplished fact, and by then both Theodore and Theodoret had been disowned. Fr. Meyendorff's comment is worth noting:

'Throughout the entire second half of the fifth century, no real substantive theological debate on the meaning of the Chalcedonian definition took place, but much political infighting and sloganeering. As a result the Chalcedonian statement of faith was gradually taken out of its proper context and used either to justify the survival of the old Antiochene christology, as if the decisive challenge by St. Cyril had not shown its shortcomings and dangers, or prove that Cyrillian theology had been abandoned.'

In effect, Theodore and Theodoret chose to interpret the statement about the two natures concurring in one person in an Antiochene sense. They thought that the statement 'concurring in one prosopon and one hypostasis' implied (and here I quote Fr. Meyendorff's words) 'a new and weakened use of the term hypostasis, as synonymous with prosopon.' For the Antiochene school prosopon meant person in the sense of mask or impersonation, as well as in the usual sense of the word. They certainly did not admit a real unity of subject in Christ.

In these circumstances we can see why things went the way they did. The Non-Chalcedonians were, of course, in error in refusing to accept that hypostasis could be distinguished from physis, as Cyril himself did in his later works. But again, to quote Fr. Meyendorff, who is not sparing in his judgement on those he calls Monophysites:

'It must be recognised ... that the writings and activities of the "Antiochene Chalcedonians" made it more difficult for the followers of Dioscoros and Timothy Aelurus to believe the assurances, so specifically voiced at Chelcedon, that the Tome of Leo and the final statement were to be read and understood only in the light of Cyril's theology, of Cyril's soteriology and Cyril's findamental belief that union with divinity did not obliterate humanity, but makes it truly itself, in conformity with God's original intention.' (p. 193)

I find it hard to beat Fr. Meyendorff's conclusion on this:

'The lack of an aticulate Chalcedonian theology, coupled with the brutality of imperial interventions, made the Chalcedonian definition into a symbol and a slogan. Both sides filled it with that content which suited their own emotional, political and, later, cultural tendencies, or interests.' (p. 193)

I hope that the length of this post will be forgiven, but I hope it will be considered a useful addition to the debate. We should all be mindful of the implications of the last quotation!

But I do think that we are making a serious attempt to address the Chalcedonian Christology, and as we do so we find ourselves agreeing with the EO-OO unity discussants. However, Father Raphael is surely correct to note how far there is to go in spreading this word.

In Christ

John

Fr Raphael Vereshack

27-09-2006, 03:04 PM

Fr Raphael Vereshack

27-09-2006, 03:16 PM

I must agree with Athanasius here, having read the chapter by Fr Florovsky.

The theology he describes is not one I recognise at all from many years of study and membership of the Orthodox communion he challenges. I would have to say that he has signally FAILED to understand our theology and I wonder if he actually dialogued with any Oriental Orthodox on these matters or just wrote as he understood with Chalcedonian glasses on. I don't mean that aggressively, but I must doubt that he showed this chapter to any OO and asked them to critique it.

There are several key points in his description which are just plain wrong, even while his tone is certainly eirenic and I am sure that he meant to be even-handed.

It is surely never right, when studying any 'opposing' philosophy or idea, to base one's opinion on one's own ideas of what such a philosophy or idea actually means. This only takes a person so far. If Father George had discussed this even with me I would have pointed out where his appreciation of our thought was seriously flawed.

Peter

Dear Peter,

I don't know if Fr Georges ever spoke directly with any of the OO. What is in these volumes on the Fathers I believe come from his lectures back into the 30s & 40s. He reposed in 1979.

To be fair however every work like this has its own time. It would be understandable if reading a work by the OO let's say from 50 or 100 years ago the tone would be quite different from what we recently read for example. Lack of direct contact is not always something to be condemned & does not completely explain the disagreements we may have.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Peter Farrington

27-09-2006, 07:17 PM

Mina Soliman

27-09-2006, 10:58 PM

Dear Father

Do believe me that I am always trying to read an article in its context and I am willing cut Father George plenty of slack for writing in the 30s and 40s when there was very little contact.

But we do need to be careful ourselves how we use such materials.

There are materials from my own communion which speak to the controversy between the OO and ACE in a very much more negative and polemical tone than I am at all happy with. So it is something I feel strongly about in all conversations and dialogues. We must always let the other side explain itself even as we raise questions in an iterative manner until all issues are resolved.

Peter

The dialogues started in the 60s, so for Fr. George to write something like this in the 30s is more than understandable, at least to me.

If one reads the Coptic perspective written by Coptic historian Iris Habib el Masry, very early 1900s writer, you would receive the same negativity towards Chalcedon.

God bless.

Mina

Fr Raphael Vereshack

28-09-2006, 12:20 AM

The dialogues started in the 60s, so for Fr. George to write something like this in the 30s is more than understandable, at least to me.

If one reads the Coptic perspective written by Coptic historian Iris Habib el Masry, very early 1900s writer, you would receive the same negativity towards Chalcedon.

God bless.

Mina

I feel that these writings should be allowed to stand in their own light whatever they may say. That after all is still the best way we have of understanding what is being said by others even if we disagree with it. The evidence is that Fr Georges Florovsky had precisely these writings to hand since he quotes and refers to them abundantly. One would expect the same thing from the Copts in our regard.

I think we have to be aware of modern takes on understanding that this only comes from agreeing with each other & from a particular kind of personal contact. Disagreement- in a way, the deeper the disagreement, the more the point is made- is a certainly a form of understanding. And in a way reading from the written form- a form almost invented by the Church- is the most personal contact possible.

This is not only because face to face contact is often impractical. There is something unique to writing and then reading which allows a distilled kind of communication which can even (though not to discount it) provide a more genuine form of communication than face to face contact.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Peter Farrington

28-09-2006, 09:40 AM

I feel that these writings should be allowed to stand in their own light whatever they may say. That after all is still the best way we have of understanding what is being said by others even if we disagree with it. The evidence is that Fr Georges Florovsky had precisely these writings to hand since he quotes and refers to them abundantly. One would expect the same thing from the Copts in our regard.

Dear Father

Then we have to say that Fr George was just plain wrong on some points, and I am not sure which quotes I am missing. He didn't seem to refer in depth to any sources, indeed just reading the passage, which was, as I said, not written unkindly as far as I could see, many passages from my own Fathers came to mind that he obviously had not known.

The difficulty with a written communication such as that is that it may not communicate at all, it may communicate error, it may be completely wrong. If there is no dialogue then how is this discovered?

I do prefer writing to face-to-face because it is easier to be honest and it is easier to clarify ones thoughts, but there must be a question-answer-question-answer process or we are not making an effort to understand, just demanding that our opinion be received.

Peter

Mina Soliman

29-09-2006, 09:52 AM

Fr Raphael Vereshack

29-09-2006, 04:58 PM

Interestingly enough, concerning the same Coptic author I just talked about, a Coptic website just posted part of her book concentrating on the life of St. Dioscorus of Alexandria, going through the whole Chalcedonian controversy on a completely one-sided approach.

Notice the difference in tones, that while EO's portrayed Leo as a great man of Orthodox faith and Dioscorus as an evil and greedy and arrogant man, you find the roles totally switched in this Coptic perspective, and even further, comments on the humbleness and "martyrdom" of Dioscorus.

The contents of this writing are not in any way my view (or the view of many OO's today, although still some may hold to this), but this is provided just to make a comparison of "old writings" that described historical events of Chalcedon different than the EO/OO dialogues' findings, including content and tone.

http://www.coptichymns.net/module-pagesetter-viewpub-tid-1-pid-643.html

Enjoy.

Mina

I have begun reading this article and it is very interesting. There is as you say a wide difference in how Dioscoros is portrayed but there also seems to be a fair minded approach to St Leo's activities at least at the beginning of the controversy. It's especially interesting for example to read in the article about how patient St Leo was with Eutychius for quite awhile giving him the benefit of the doubt.

I have to say however that I still find very unconvincing the idea that in the past nothing very substantial divided us.

From the same website referred to comes a very typical quote from H E Metropolitan Bishoy:

We should explain to our peoples that both families of Churches have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith.

They have struggled together side by side to defend the Orthodox faith against the heretical teachings of both Nestorius and Eutyches.

This could have as well been said by one of us (and it has many times). At this point however I believe this viewpoint is completely mistaken.

Having read and then considered what those like Frs Georges Florovsky & John Meyendorrf say I strongly believe that we can go to these writings for a basic understanding of why there was this dispute and the resulting division between us. Of course one can disagree with the obvious pro-Chalcedonian viewpoint of both- but in a way that just just goes to demonstrate the basic point that a major divide has been there which needs to be looked at honestly.

The difference in tone which Mina refers to I think gets to the heart of the matter. Apart from all of the confusing historical controversy of the time the evidence from that time clearly shows that we each read our own and each others theology not in the same but rather in different and opposing ways.

I think this point is very important and overlooking this is one reason we fall into confusion at this point. It needs to be recognized first off that our theology- as Peter was saying yesterday our 'position'- is the way we read our theological tradition; the way we interpret it and give it meaning. In other words the meaning of our tradition doesn't fall out of the sky or come automatically just from the words we read. It is rather the Church which gives these words its meaning. And that's why anything from Scripture to St Cyril to St Leo to Chalcedon can & have been depicted in such contrary ways.

I think what we are doing is reading back our present interpretations onto the past in a way that does violence to this past & denies its significance. By doing this we not only run smack into a scenario that defies simple common sense: like the clear evidence of disagreement, controversy & division somehow adding up to 'it was just a misunderstanding'. We deny the reality of each of our own theologies, our tradition & the witness of our saints; ie the very meaning the Church gave to what occurred. A unity which proceeds in this way is a unity based on neglecting our own sense of the truth.

It should be possible to give our theology added meaning without doing violence to what came before it. This after all is what the history of the Church clearly attests has continually occurred throughout its past. While having continuous faithfulness in Chalcedon we find new significance in it which is unique to our own day. And Frs John & Georges similarly point out that in its own day Chalcedon was also read in different ways- many of which even if different were not wrong.

In any case no matter how commendable, whatever God gives us to pursue in terms of unity we had better not lose sense of what the Church is.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Peter Farrington

29-09-2006, 05:32 PM

Dear Father,

You write,

I have to say however that I still find very unconvincing the idea that in the past nothing very substantial divided us.

but I think that all of us from the OO membership are waiting still for you to come up with substance to that statement.

If you think that there was substance to the attribution to us of error then you must surely substantiate such a view. What was it that was taught by the anti-Chalcedonians which was substantially heretical.

If you are not able or willing to say then how can we respond? We are just left with vague feelings on the part of EO that probably the OO are heretics. That is not fair or charitable, though I do not accuse you of either.

I am quite willing to describe the reasons for our rejection of Chalcedon and have done here, though no-one seems to have read my comments. What separated us then is not some great mystery. But it is clearly NOT what separates us now, and we live now. Therefore here and now what heresy do you accuse us of? If there is none then how can we allow ourselves to be disunited in the face of a needy world.

As ever

Peter

John Charmley

29-09-2006, 05:44 PM

I have to say however that I still find very unconvincing the idea that in the past nothing very substantial divided us. ...

It needs to be recognized first off that our theology- as Peter was saying yesterday our 'position'- is the way we read our theological tradition; the way we interpret it and give it meaning. In other words the meaning of our tradition doesn't fall out of the sky or come automatically just from the words we read. It is rather the Church which gives these words its meaning. And that's why anything from Scripture to St Cyril to St Leo to Chalcedon can & have been depicted in such contrary ways.

I think what we are doing is reading back our present interpretations onto the past in a way that does violence to this past & denies its significance. By doing this we not only run smack into a scenario that defies simple common sense: like the clear evidence of disagreement, controversy & division somehow adding up to 'it was just a misunderstanding'. We deny the reality of each of our own theologies, our tradition & the witness of our saints; ie the very meaning the Church gave to what occurred. A unity which proceeds in this way is a unity based on neglecting our own sense of the truth.

It should be possible to give our theology added meaning without doing violence to what came before it. This after all is what the history of the Church clearly attests has continually occurred throughout its past. While having continuous faithfulness in Chalcedon we find new significance in it which is unique to our own day. And Frs John & Georges similarly point out that in its own day Chalcedon was also read in different ways- many of which even if different were not wrong.

In any case no matter how commendable, whatever God gives us to pursue in terms of unity we had better not lose sense of what the Church is.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Father Raphael,

It is clearly vital not to lose sense of 'what the Church is', but as Matthew has pointed out elsewhere, this can be a complex business, and one of the things this dialogue is trying to tease out is exactly what 'faithfulness in Chalcedon' means beyond being a shibboleth?

A 'misunderstanding' that has endured for close on two millenia could never be described as 'simple', but I increasingly wonder whether the trouble came from Chalcedon or from the methods by which it was propagated in the East. I am struck (as I have said in a previous post) by Fr. Meyendorff's acknowledgement of the problems caused by the fact that its two main proponents in the East were both anti-Cyrilline in antecedents, and Antiochene in Christology; the fact that both were later condemned by a council the EO recognise as Ecumenical and the OO as local, hardly suggests they were the men to put 'faithfulness in Chalcedon' across to those in an area sensitised to Nestorianism.

Given the different languages, different uses within languages, and the relative looseness with which even St. Cyril wrote on occasions, and given the identity of those charged with the delivery of the Chalcedonian message in the East, and the methods chosen by the Empire to enforce it, it was not surprising that there was a division; a complex set of misunderstandings interacting with prideful men in a variety of charged situations, is a veritable recipe for disaster.

It is the history that has done violence to justice, I suspect, rather than other way around.

Of course we all read our own position and those of others in the light of tradition, but as the various reports of the Joint Commission on unity show, there is a very great deal that is common to both 'traditions'.

The complexity of 'tradition' interests me. St. Cyril is the last of the Fathers whom both the OO and EO would quote with joint approval. Yet as Professor McGuckin shows in his excellent St Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy the dispute between him and the School of Antioch was based both on a misunderstanding of terminology and on real differences.

My reading of what we are about here is to follow through from the Unity discussions by continuing to expore where there are (far from 'simple') misunderstandings, and where there are substantive differences.

I suspect that what Peter is trying to elicit are the areas where the latter still lie. As I have written in the 'Two Wills' thread, it would be really useful to know where the EO posters on this site feel that the OO position Peter has outlined differs in substance from what they feel their tradition would find acceptable.

If it would be useful for Peter, a poor old Anglican struggling to find a way through the thickets would appreciate it even more! If it is all so clear to those of you more knowledgeable than I, I do apologise, but having read the Joint Commission's various reports, I really did think we were further forward than this. (I note that I wrote 'we' - which is an interesting subconscious phenomenon I have decided not to edit out).

In Christ,

John

Athanasius Abdullah

29-09-2006, 07:07 PM

Dear Fr. Raphael,

+irini nem ehmot

but there also seems to be a fair minded approach to St Leo's activities at least at the beginning of the controversy. It's especially interesting for example to read in the article about how patient St Leo was with Eutychius for quite awhile giving him the benefit of the doubt.

I believe you’re misreading the intentions of the author if you have read his comments in regard to Leo of Rome’s initial patience with Eutyches in a positive light. The author was in fact attempting to highlight a telling discrepancy in Leo’s attitude towards Eutyches between the manner it was before the convocation of Ephesus 449 and the manner it was after; the implication is that Leo of Rome’s attitude towards Eutyches had nothing to do with doctrine, but rather to do with his role as pawn in the wider political game. Leo of Rome was initially quite easy about the situation surrounding Eutyches because there was nothing at stake for him, and much potential for him to exploit the situation in his own favour; when news arrived at the Papal doorstep regarding the See of Alexandria’s involvement in the controversy however, Leo of Rome’s demeanour suddenly switched.

It is rather the Church which gives these words its meaning.

I’m sure you would agree with me, not as an EO believer, nor as an EO clergyman, but in your capacity as an evidently well-educated gentleman, that a key and necessary element to discussion between two groups with conflicting positions aimed at achieving resolution and unity is objectivity.

I think it’s quite obvious that for your position to have any validity, it would require the one holding it to do a very invalid thing—presuppose their Church to be ‘the Church’ in order to consequently conclude the inability to compromise on their own position; in other words, the reasoning of the proponent of such a position would essentially be: “my Church’s position is true because it is my Church’s position which means it’s true because my Church is the true Church because that is my Church’s position”. If that’s the mindset that the EOC and OOC adopted, then what hope can there be for any progress? You are essentially deeming all dialogue absolutely futile; the only hope for fruitful dialogue that person X adopting such reasoning could possibly hold, is the hope that Y’s “Church” blindly submit to the presupposition that X’s Church is ‘the Church’—the hope that Y abandon a long-held tradition, all reason, all logic, all common sense, and take this giant unwarranted leap of faith in the proposition that the other side’s interpretation is valid and authoritative by virtue of the presupposition that that it is ‘the Church’s interpretation’.

Never in the history of Church has ‘the Church’ expected anything so unreasonable from those she considered ‘outside the Church’, so how can EO’s expect it of OO’s and vice versa?

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Fr Raphael Vereshack

29-09-2006, 11:12 PM

Dear Peter,

You wrote:

I am quite willing to describe the reasons for our rejection of Chalcedon and have done here, though no-one seems to have read my comments. What separated us then is not some great mystery.

Yes I think that would be greatly helpful.

Please describe these reasons if you wish.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Fr Raphael Vereshack

29-09-2006, 11:48 PM

Dear John Charmley,

You wrote:

Given the different languages, different uses within languages, and the relative looseness with which even St. Cyril wrote on occasions, and given the identity of those charged with the delivery of the Chalcedonian message in the East, and the methods chosen by the Empire to enforce it, it was not surprising that there was a division; a complex set of misunderstandings interacting with prideful men in a variety of charged situations, is a veritable recipe for disaster.

It is the history that has done violence to justice, I suspect, rather than other way around.

But doesn't this just describe the human condition that the Church lives within?

Amidst all of this the Church continues and expresses Her message to all. We have then when looking back to find the thread of continuity that ties all of this together. And within the Church this is part of our traditional perspective the 'glasses' we have on when we speak about our history. Otherwise precisely our history gets lost in the inseparable threads of human instability and unclear motive.

For us then our history is the sign of the Church's journey across the sea of life from creation up until Christ's Second Coming. There is much unclear in this yes. But not so much that how the Church has consistently been upheld by and been consistent to Her own Truth is not made manifest.

In this case then what I think we have is two different claims about this thread of continuity which arose in the past. Actually there is nothing too strange about this- we have seen this throughout the history of the Church since within the Church there is always a spectrum of opinion which is needed to keep the Church healthy.

In this case however two or more different claims within the one Chruch gradually became contradictory. (The description of two immediately formed & different camps which then rapidly became separate churches is false. Many of the first disputes were Greek on Greek, person to person, with views constantly shifting. To acknowledge this is to allow ourselves to understand the essential problem and thus to recognise a possible solution). We need to ask how this occured with a theology which allowed itself and already had developed to some extent a variety of expressions.

After all implicit in so much of this is the assumption that theology- all of our theology whether Antiochian or Alexandrian or Western... was cast in stone and utterly incapable of allowing for the expression of those other traditions within the One Church. Does this sound like Orthodox theology to anyone here? If not then we need to explore this much further and then try to learn the lesson given from our own past.

The complexity of 'tradition' interests me. St. Cyril is the last of the Fathers whom both the OO and EO would quote with joint approval. Yet as Professor McGuckin shows in his excellent St Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy the dispute between him and the School of Antioch was based both on a misunderstanding of terminology and on real differences.

Did you find this a helpful book? I was just about to purchase a copy.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

John Charmley

29-09-2006, 11:59 PM

Dear Father Raphael,

What might also be useful would be if it were possible for someone to address the question of where Peter's outline of the OO position is not within what the EO would regard as Orthodox.

As Athanasius implies, we are not talking about an unproblematised 'Church' in these discussions; indeed, at root, we seem to be trying to discover where the concept of the 'Church' and 'tradition' can unite, as well as divide those who call themselves Orthodox. Thinking more today, it seems clear that one of the main obstacles to the reception of Chalcedon in the East was the fact that those chosen to convey its message were, themselves, suspected of being un-Orthodox, a view later confirmed by a Chalcedonian Council.

In these circumstances, and with the Empire enforcing its view at sword point, it was not surprising that Chalcedon was rejected. That, of course, does not mean that had it been properly understood, had it been propagated by men not suspected of Antiochene Christology, and had it not coincided with the deposition of Dioscoros, that its reception might not have been rather different.

This is one of the reasons why it is important to know in what degrees the positions which Peter has outlined, and will no doubt, reiterate, remain unacceptable. After all, none of the reasons I have listed for the growth of the division now exist - save the one I have not mentioned - namely the linguistic and terminological differences and usages, and on that one, the Joint Commission seems to have delivered its own verdict - which is that language need no longer divide.

What I should like to get clear, if possible, is what, other than history, habit and one definition of 'tradition' now divides the EO from the OO?

In Christ

John

Fr Raphael Vereshack

30-09-2006, 12:51 AM

Dear Athanasius,

You wrote:

I’m sure you would agree with me, not as an EO believer, nor as an EO clergyman, but in your capacity as an evidently well-educated gentleman, that a key and necessary element to discussion between two groups with conflicting positions aimed at achieving resolution and unity is objectivity.

Please, please- I'm neither a well-educated gentleman nor objective!

Just keep reading and you'll see!

First off in what I posted this morning I began by referring to plain common sense. Here we are EOs & OOs talking with each other; as anyone can see there has been very little evidence that we have reached any fundamental agreement. No matter what is said someone among us always disagrees. How is it then that we continue to appeal that we actually are saying the same thing, 'why don't you acknowledge we're saying the same as you', etc etc? I'm waiting for a little child to stand up and say, "oh by the way, the king has no clothes." With the little education I do have it seems to me at least that 1 and -1 do not equal 2 no matter how much you get them onto the floor and try to force them to dance the same way.

“my Church’s position is true because it is my Church’s position which means it’s true because my Church is the true Church because that is my Church’s position”.

This of course is not what the Church says about its own Truth. The Church's Truth is not a rational (or irrational) tautology. Certainly we should know by now that the Church's Truth is based on the understanding that it has of Christ. And from this understanding it defends what leads to this Truth of Christ and denies what leads away from it.

Up until now I've always assumed both of us- EO & OO began and ended up on this present course of opposition from similar loyalty to its own perception of the truth about Christ it believes itself to be conveying. What else explains the tenacity with which we hold to what we are saying?

Respectfully I disagree with the viewpoint heard at times that this is just prejudice. After all human opinion by its own nature as the Frs tell us is notoriously unstable and so (especially in our world) keeps changing. 1600 years of misunderstanding and prejudice- is this the history of your church for all this time?!

If not then I think it's high time we acknowledge as our forefathers freely did that there is a real disagreement between us over how we see Christ. Naturally this touches the touches the deepest part of what we are. So there is no other way to deal with this unless we are to be completely false to ourselves.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Peter Farrington

30-09-2006, 10:24 AM

First off in what I posted this morning I began by referring to plain common sense. Here we are EOs & OOs talking with each other; as anyone can see there has been very little evidence that we have reached any fundamental agreement. No matter what is said someone among us always disagrees.

Dear Father

I must admit to be absolutely amazed that you have said this?

I have to wonder which discussion you are actually particpating in?

Since the EO seem to have been very reticent to actually say what they do believe I am at a loss to see how there has been any disagreement.

Can you please explain what theological substance there has been any disagreement about? I cannot see any.

I can only imagine that you have chosen to ignore every post I have made which expresses what the OO believe???

Please say, since you seem to not have done so any point, where is the disagreement?

Peter

John Charmley

30-09-2006, 11:48 AM

Up until now I've always assumed both of us- EO & OO began and ended up on this present course of opposition from similar loyalty to its own perception of the truth about Christ it believes itself to be conveying. What else explains the tenacity with which we hold to what we are saying?

Dear Father Raphael,

This is clearly the case, but the fact that we are talking and not hurling anathema at each other is, I should have thought, a sign that we are trying to see if we can be obedient to Our Risen Lord who wanted one church to witness to Him.

What would be useful for me, having had from Peter an outline of what the OO hold as Orthodox, would be to know what it is that the EO hold with such 'tenacity'? Would that be possible?

If not then I think it's high time we acknowledge as our forefathers freely did that there is a real disagreement between us over how we see Christ. Naturally this touches the touches the deepest part of what we are. So there is no other way to deal with this unless we are to be completely false to ourselves.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Dear Father Raphael/Peter,

Am I correct in thinking that we have been acknowledging the diagreements, but also exploring the commonalities within tradition?

I am trying to grasp where the 'real disagreement between us over how we see Christ' lies, not to deny it. Is it the case that the Joint Commission members simply did an Anglican-style fudge over these real differences? That would be one end of a spectrum. At the other end lies the possibility that laymen and clergy will not give up their familiar oppositional positions because they have become, for them, part of the tradition of their Church.

Perhaps only an Anglican could see a spectrum like this? But what I was hoping to find were some points between possible syncretism and possible closed-mindedness where the 'real disagreement' on how Christ is seen can be outlined.

I do hope that the ancient disagreements, which many would now see as arising out of the historical circumstances outlined above, are not effectively enshrined as part of the EO tradition - or that of the OO either.

Thanks to Peter I have a sense of where the OO are, as they say, coming from; I'd really appreciate being more clued-up on where the EO disagree with the positions Peter outlines?

I do hope we can continue with the dialogue, remembering that its purpose is to generate light and not heat!

In Christ,

John

Fr Raphael Vereshack

30-09-2006, 03:11 PM

Peter Farrington

30-09-2006, 03:58 PM

Dear Father

How can it be wrong for you to provide a straightforward answer to the question, 'what do you believe?'

I must admit to finding myself completely bemused at the way EO here seem to constantly skirt around this simple question.

I have professed a faith in the perfect humanity and perfect divinity of Christ, in his consubstantiality with His Father and his consubstantiality with us men in all things save sin. I have rejected the Three Chapters. I have confessed that his humanity has a natural will and natural energy. And I have stated that I wholeheartedly venerate icons of our Lord and His saints.

Yet you are unable to say in which regard this is different to your own faith? That is frankly amazing.

I don't see how any objection of the EO to the OO can have any substance if no EO is able to express the nature of the difference in regard to these issues dealt with at the latter councils.

The basis of this discussion is surely that you have been asked a simple question, repeatedly, by several people, and will not provide an answer.

The question is, to be clear, in what regard is the OO faith as I have simply expressed it, different to your own?

Peter

John Charmley

30-09-2006, 04:47 PM

I feel a bit caught here because I don't want to be too abrupt about this. For now then perhaps it is sufficient just to say that I think the whole basis of this discussion is wrong.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Dear Father Raphael,

Please do not feel 'caught', or that I feel you are being 'abrupt'. Obviously if you feel that the basis of the discussion is 'wrong' then that is what you feel.

All that I was trying to ascertain was a little enlightenment in my darkness. I have from Peter the following:

I have professed a faith in the perfect humanity and perfect divinity of Christ, in his consubstantiality with His Father and his consubstantiality with us men in all things save sin. I have rejected the Three Chapters. I have confessed that his humanity has a natural will and natural energy. And I have stated that I wholeheartedly venerate icons of our Lord and His saints.

which gave me some indication of what is Orthodox about Oriental Orthodoxy. The difficulty for me is to see where it differs from what is Orthodox in Eastern Orthodoxy.

However, if this is a mistaken mode of proceeding, then I am sorry for it. My one concern was that I should not make a great mistake in leaving Anglicanism; I think that might, in apophatic ways, have happened.

I am very profoundly grateful to you, Father, for sparing the time from your spiritual burdens, to join this discourse, and can only tender apologies if this has pressed too close for comfort.

It would have been, and perhaps will be, nice to hear from other EOs - but in the meantime Father, renewed thanks, and I shall look forwards to other discussions in other threads on this site.

In Christ

John

Fr Raphael Vereshack

30-09-2006, 05:04 PM

Dear Peter,

You asked:

The question is, to be clear, in what regard is the OO faith as I have simply expressed it, different to your own?

But the question has no basis. It's a question that already assumes its answer. So it's an assertion put as a question. And an assertion that that does not admit that there is possibly a completely different issue which should be at the forefront.

It's not agreement which is needed. It is a common theological vision. And that's a whole different enterprise than that which we have been engaged in here for the last while.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Peter Farrington

30-09-2006, 06:45 PM

Dear Father,

many thanks for your contributions thus far, but I see that my pressing you to answer my requests is placing you in what you feel is an uncomfortable position.

So perhaps this is as far as we can go in this thread.

It seems to me that at least we have clearly clarified that the Oriental Orthodox do accept the substance of all the latter Byzantine councils. This at least is positive.

In Christ

Peter

Mourad Mankarios

30-09-2006, 11:52 PM

Fr Raphael, Perhaps you can elaborate more on what you mean...

Fr Raphael Vereshack

01-10-2006, 02:38 AM

Fr Raphael, Perhaps you can elaborate more on what you mean...

Yes it's a bit difficult for me to put into words exactly. But here is a good example of what I am trying to get at.

Roman Catholics, Anglicans and even many Protestants formally accept all of the Councils as well as the teaching on Christ's two natures & wills, etc.

But yet this doesn't make us one Church. We in general even see them as being further from us than the OO- even though we formally agree on much more than with the OO.

Put it the other way around and I think the point also comes through. Even though formally we have more of a disagreement with the OO than western Christians actually we are closer to the OO than to the west.

Not that formal agreement about doctrine has no importance. But obviously something much more than formal agreement is involved in the unity of the Church.

After all St Leo believes in two natures, but so do Severus, Francis of Assisi & Billy Graham. What makes the difference then between all of this & why could not all appeal that due to their same belief they share the same Faith?

I think I'll leave it there for all of us to figure out if we can.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Ryan

01-10-2006, 03:32 AM

I can't say I understand the finer points of this discussion, but it seems to me that, while there are clear doctrinal differences between EO and Roman Catholicism and Protestantism (acceptance of Chalcedon notwithstanding), what the OO here are asking is, can you specify such differences between EO and OO? Sure, Francis of Assisi and Billy Graham believed in 2 natures, but Francis believed also in the filioque and Billy Graham believes in Sola Scriptura.

Athanasius Abdullah

01-10-2006, 04:14 AM

Dear Fr. Raphael,

+irini nem ehmot

First off in what I posted this morning I began by referring to plain common sense. Here we are EOs & OOs talking with each other; as anyone can see there has been very little evidence that we have reached any fundamental agreement.

John Chamberley for one seems to get the very real impression (and he may correct me if I have misread him) from what Peter and I have professed concerning the Oriental Orthodox faith, and what we have professed as to the reasons why Chalcedon was reasonably resisted in history, that there is “fundamental” or “essential” or “substantial” agreement.

Again, let us remind ourselves, that the Holy EO Synods of Alexandria and Antioch have agreed that there is “fundamental agreement”. The Ecumenical Patriarch of the EO Church has agreed that there is “fundam