Chalcedonian Orthodoxy

[Sunny]

Greetings all,
I have a question. If Chalcedonian Orthodoxy refers to the 7 ecumenical councils including Chalcedon, why is the Chalcedonian one highlighted specifically, I mean, why is it called Chalcedonian Orthodoxy instead of like the Orthodoxy of the Seven Ecumenical Councils?
Thank you in advance for your answers!
Sunny

[John Charmley]

Dear Sunny,

Good question, and of course there are some who object to the qualifying adjective, as they would to any other qualifier to the single word 'Orthodox'.

Chalcedon gets highlighted because for the Oriental Orthodox it marked the point at which, under Imperial direction, the Church made what it saw as dangerous additions to the deposit of the Faith; it, and the subsequent Councils, are seen as local ones. For the Greek Orthodox Church (and, half a century later the Russians) what happened there was that some of the Egyptians and Syrians refused to accept the verdict of an Ecumenical Council, and went into schism.

Of course, it was only in retrospect that Chalcedon came to mark a split that has not been healed (for more than two centuries attempts were made), and that is why its name bulks so large.

For Roman Catholics there have been far more Ecumenical Councils, and at some point that issue will no doubt have to be dealt with.

I hope no one will take too much offence at this - I make no judgements, and am conscious of the complexities - but I hope that this answer helps you investigate further. One of the good things in the modern world is that Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox can now talk is a constructive dialogue. There is, I think, a real difference between this and what might be called routine ecumenism; as brethren long parted talk, they find what they hold still in common.

In Christ,


John

[Alex Haig]

"Orthodox" is itself an adjective: in my [not very humble] opinion, either "Christian" or "The Church" would be preferable. However, if we use just these, confusion would be made between Orthodox and Roman Catholics/Protestants/others calling themselves christians.

With love in Christ

Alex

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Greetings all,
I have a question. If Chalcedonian Orthodoxy refers to the 7 ecumenical councils including Chalcedon, why is the Chalcedonian one highlighted specifically, I mean, why is it called Chalcedonian Orthodoxy instead of like the Orthodoxy of the Seven Ecumenical Councils?
Thank you in advance for your answers!
Sunny

The reason Chalcedon gets highlighted is because of the remarkable way in which it sums up Orthodox Christology. This in turn points to a particular kind of spirituality which can also be called Chalcedonian, but which of course is Orthodox. In a word then, Chalcedon points us towards what it means to be Orthodox in every aspect of our life.

To this day even though it is the Christological understanding which is fundamental, in fact it is the spirituality of the Orthodox Church which shows the longest enduring influences of Chalcedon. For example it is well known among Orthodox monastics how our monasticism really is based on a Chalcedonian understanding of asceticism & spirituality. Much of the sense of revived monasticism which the Church presently is experiencing is based on a Chalcedonian sense of balance.

One reason for the highlighting could also be that in recent times Chalcedon has received renewed attention from the whole Church. In Orthodox seminaries it usually is one of the major focus points for forming the understanding of seminarians. Many of these seminarians of course become priests and so in a practical way one can see how this influences the whole Church. Present day monastics are also made very aware of Chalcedon during their formation.

Beyond this however I personally think that one reason Chalcedon has become so central is that this Council addresses so many of our modern questions of what it means to be a human being. If you pay attention to discussions about Chalcedon it's interesting how rapidly the focus turns to what it means to be a person. This issue wasn't the main concern of the Fathers at Chalcedon. But still, I think Chalcedon addresses these more modern issues in a very real way.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Sunny]

Dear Brothers in Christ,
Thank you all for attempting to answer my question. Forgive me I am incredibly stupid and uneducated. The Chalcedonian council sounds like it was an amazing event. Is there a source where I can read about what was said or a summary of it, that is perhaps for the layman?
Thank you,
Sunny

[Herman Blaydoe]

The proceedings of the council of Chalcedon at Monachos (http://www.monachos.net/library/The_proceedings_of_the_council_of_Chalcedon)

The Council of Chalcedon from the Medieval Sourcebook (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/chalcedon.html)

The Council of Chalcedon at CCEL (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.i.html)

[Sunny]

Dear Mr. Blaydoe,
Thank you for links to Chalcedon!
Sunny

[John Charmley]

Dear Sunny,

At the risk of irritating some of our fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, you might also look at the following for different views of the Council:

Fr. John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity (SVS Press, 1989) http://www.svspress.com/product_info.php?products_id=108

Fr. V.C. Samuel, The Council of Chalcedon Reexamined (OOL 2005) http://www.lulu.com/content/159679

One of the many distressing aspects of the split that occurred then is that it has divided Christians who have more in common that they know.

I am sure that Fr. Raphael is right when he writes:

For example it is well known among Orthodox monastics how our monasticism really is based on a Chalcedonian understanding of asceticism & spirituality

but, as Fr. Matthew the Poor shows in his Orthodox Prayer Life: The Interior Way (http://www.amazon.com/Orthodox-Prayer-Life-Interior-Way/dp/0881412503), the land where monasticism first developed, has much to teach all Christians. It would be interesting to know in what ways Chalcedon modified the unbroken and still living traditions preserved since the days of St, Anthony in the Coptic Church? I suspect the answer if that few of us know - since few are knowledgeable in both areas - which is what I mean about divisions between those who probably have more in common than they will ever know.

Chalcedon can still divide us - or studying it can help do the opposite.

In Christ,

John

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Sunny, you wrote:


I have a question. If Chalcedonian Orthodoxy refers to the 7 ecumenical councils including Chalcedon, why is the Chalcedonian one highlighted specifically, I mean, why is it called Chalcedonian Orthodoxy instead of like the Orthodoxy of the Seven Ecumenical Councils?

This is a good question, and having read over the initial posts in response to it, I've been given occasion to ponder the issue a little. Do forgive just a few thoughts of my own here, for what they are worth.

Firstly, it is probably worth noting that this terminology is primarily academic, in the sense that it is not first-and-foremost a title of self identification, but an academic way of distinguishing between trajectories in Christian history of the early centuries and following, in which the council held at Chalcedon in AD 451 was of notable significance (though hardly the only event of that turbulent period). 'Chalcedonian Orthodoxy' is the title given to that body of Christianity which accepted the council of Chalcedon at that point in the course of historical development, and for whom that council formed a framework by which the past would be understood and future decisions / articulations framed. Parts of the Christian world did not accept the validity of this council or its theological framework; and that approach to the council in turn influenced their framework by which the past would be understood and future decisions / articulations framed. So there is a sense in which later periods of history (i.e. those centuries in which the remainder of what the Chalcedonian tradition considers the remaining ecumenical councils) do find a point of departure and refraction in the council of Chalcedon -- and so, for all its limitations, it has a certain academic value as describing an era, if not a precise moment, in which two broad trajectories diverged more strongly than they had in the past.

Secondly, this means that, however much the term may be frequently encountered in academic contexts and on the internet, it is not a normal title of self-designation. In other words, people who are Chalcedonian Orthodox would not normally think of themselves as 'Chalcedonian Orthodox' (nor would non-Chalcedonian Orthodox normally think of themselves as 'Non-Chalcedonians'), any more than most Americans would describe themselves in the first instance as 'Former colonials of the 18th-century departure'. Academically, such hypothetical Americans would likely agree that they do indeed fit under such a title; but it is not the normal way they would identify or think of themselves. In a similar way, most Christians who could rightly be described by the title 'Chalcedonian Orthodox' would agree in semantic or academic discussions that this is the case, but in their ordinary, everyday experience would identify themselves simply as 'Orthodox'.

Thirdly, this is part of the reason we do, in fact, see the term used so regularly in public, open-access discussion environments, especially on the internet -- precisely because within one's own scope and tradition of self-identification, the term 'Orthodox' applies primarily to one's own understanding of what 'right belief' and 'right worship' entail; that is, the tenets of one's own Church. So simply identifying oneself as 'Orthodox' works in certain contexts; but in environments where there are multiple traditions who describe themselves in this way, some kind of clarification is needed as to actual underlying traditions. This isn't (or at least, it shouldn't be) a kind of judgement on various traditions, but a simple act of integrity and honesty. There is fracture in the Christian world, including among groups that call themselves 'Orthodox' and share much of their heritage in common. We must acknowledge this, as the first step in seeking true understanding and reconciliation.

In terms of public discussions, and indeed private, more personal interactions, the question becomes, how do I use such terms. It is good and productive (and, I think, holy and right) to use them for the purpose of honesty, openness and understanding -- and also for maintaining the integrity of one's own beliefs, as well as the integrity of those whose beliefs differ, in whatever way, from one's own. But if such a title starts to be used as a hammer with which to beat another, to scoff and mock at another tradition as sad or broken while pronouncing our own as pristine and strong, then we use something good for something evil. This happens too often.


That matter of usage in discussion aside, I might just add the following. One must attempt to understand how certain events, moments and statements influence the life of the communities that embrace them as a positive part of their heritage -- and I speak here of all events and all communities, not just councils and the Church. But in the case of the Church specifically, one of the hardest things to appreciate is how certain events (such as a council) frame in the consciousness of the later history of the Church that embraces them.

Chalcedon is a good example. I cringe a touch when I hear what strike me as too-laudatory praises being sung of the spirituality of Chalcedon and (pace to Fr Raphael) its influence on monasticism. Surely its initial effects on the monastic life were largely problematic, fracturing and difficult. It is too easy to become Zionist about Chalcedon. But at the same time, one must also take into account the broader influence of Chalcedonian expression on the theological articulation of the Church that views it as one of the ecumenical foundations for its thought and praxis -- and here there is an influence on the way in which Chalcedonian Orthodox monasticism has developed throughout its history, and exists today. This certainly doesn't make Chalcedon the foundation of monasticism; but within this tradition, which for those who adhere to it is 'the Church', it is without question a great influence on monastic life and practice.


Continuing typing when likely I should have long ago stopped, I might just note here at the end that it is hard to speak about Chalcedon and its influence. It is an emotional topic for so many; and perhaps rightly, or at least understandably, so. This council, some 1,550 years in the past, still marks a division in the community of those who call themselves Christian. For those who view Chalcedon as an ecumenical council, it forms part of over a millennium-and-a-half of heritage that has stood upon it; the idea that it might be dismissed tugs right at one's foundations. For those who do not view it as an ecumenical council, there is an equally-long period of history and life that have not taken it as an ecumenical pillar; the idea that it must be considered so is equally volatile to both emotion and mind. And because of this, people are prone to take any and all comment on Chalcedon, whether positive or negative, as some manner of direct challenge of their own understanding of it, whether positive or negative. Surely there are those who will take this post itself as entirely too pro-Chalcedon and pro-Chalcedonian, and therefore as some implicit slight or denegration of traditions which do not see it as such. At some point, one must simply recognise that this is how emotions work. I've myself witnessed some of the most gentle, caring and loving expressions of thought on Chalcedon by great exemplars of both traditions, and in all cases people have nonetheless chosen to take their words as some kind of cannon aimed at them, their belief, their faith. This is one of my greatest personal sorrows - that people expressing their own belief in its integrity are taken as slighting that of another.

INXC, Matthew

[John Charmley]

Continuing typing when likely I should have long ago stopped
My dear Matthew,

No, I for one am profoundly glad you did not stop, for when you wrote:


In terms of public discussions, and indeed private, more personal interactions, the question becomes, how do I use such terms. It is good and productive (and, I think, holy and right) to use them for the purpose of honesty, openness and understanding -- and also for maintaining the integrity of one's own beliefs, as well as the integrity of those whose beliefs differ, in whatever way, from one's own. But if such a title starts to be used as a hammer with which to beat another, to scoff and mock at another tradition as sad or broken while pronouncing our own as pristine and strong, then we use something good for something evil. This happens too often.
you wrote something profound, which drills to the heart of what I perceive this forum to be about. One of the great stengths of Monachos is that, on the whole, the first part of this is how folk here behave - which is one reason some of us stay here in preference to other sites. If, occasionally, being all too human, we stray to the second part, we are usually gently (or firmly) guided back. It is a microcosm of living a Christian life.


This is one of my greatest personal sorrows - that people expressing their own belief in its integrity are taken as slighting that of another.
INXC, Matthew

For those of us who share this feeling, your post is moving and wise, and it speaks of a great soul - and I, for one, regret the absence of the 'reputation' function, as I have seldom wanted it so much.

Of course, as you suggest, others may want it in a different sense - but I would doubt that Matthew. You rarely, perhaps with due humility and caution, say as much as you did here - but for this glimpse of you, many will join me in being grateful.

It ought to be compulsory reading for all of us - and perhaps it might be included in the 'welcome' for the webmaster - at any rate, it moved me greatly, and I thank you for it.


In Christ,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Such a contentious issue I think calls for some personal explanation on my own part.

While I personally find Chalcedon fascinating as an issue for discussion I also as a priest need to speak with an awareness of responsibility for the faithful of the Church. There is room for both but the weight for myself definitely must move towards the latter.

If discussion so often highlights the complexity of life in the Church still at the end of the day this needs to be firmly anchored in the understanding that the Church does have a message. And this message has a consistency to it from Christ to our own times. This consistency of message is what we as priests are especially responsible for handing on faithfully to our people.

In Christ- Fr Raphael