Specifics of the Christology of Chalcedon

[Christopher Dombrowski]

This is a somewhat personally oriented question that I have. While I am sacramentally a member of the mainstream Eastern Orthodox (Chalcedonian) Church, as I was Baptized and Chrismated last Pascha in the Greek Metropolis of San Francisco, I am finding that I am really not sure where I actually line up on the Chalcedonian issue. I was hoping that people here could help me define what exactly and most basically makes one a Chalcedonian believer and what makes one a Non-Chalcedonian, and beyond that try to find which group I likely belong in according to my Christology.

I could write up a short confession if it would help, or just answer pertinent questions if that works.

Thanks all.

[Eric Peterson]

Christopher, are you saying you want to find a church that matches your Christology?

[Christopher Dombrowski]

Christopher, are you saying you want to find a church that matches your Christology?

Mmm, no, that's not quite the essence of my question. So far as I know which "box" my Christology fits into, then I would know which church matches that Christological system. Right now I know my particular thoughts about Christology and the Chalcedonian controversy, yet I do not know what is the bottom line of what makes a person "Chalcedonian" and what on the other hand makes them "Non-Chalcedonian". For instance, if we imagine someone who is willing to accept the Chalcedonian Creed, yet regards the Tome of Leo as Nestorianizing, is that person Chalcedonian or Non-Chalcedonian? Likewise, I am wondering whether my views are substantially that of an adherent of the Council of Chalcedon, or whether I reject enough of the Chalcedonian tradition that I am not really an adherent to it.

[Paul Cowan]

Here is a thread (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=3440&highlight=Chalcedonian) to look at and another. (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1573&highlight=Chalcedonian) and yet another (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1575&highlight=Chalcedonian). These might be of interest to your position.

Paul

[Eric Peterson]

You ought to consult your priest about this. It isn't something to investigate all by one's self. Since you are Orthodox now, you are under a spiritual authority which is there to guide you to salvation and true knowledge of both God and yourself.

[Bratislav]

Dear in Christ Christopher,

Firstly, welcome to the Forum.

As to your concern over Chalcedon it seems pertinent to me how it is you see the explication of Chalcedon at second (and third, I suppose) Constantinople. I see the bottom line as whether you view Chalcedon as being misinterpreted as Nestorian and proving itself otherwise at second Constantinople or as actually succumbing to Nestorian teaching and so having to "fix itself" at the subsequent council.

I look forward to reading your thoughts.


Mmm, no, that's not quite the essence of my question. So far as I know which "box" my Christology fits into, then I would know which church matches that Christological system. Right now I know my particular thoughts about Christology and the Chalcedonian controversy, yet I do not know what is the bottom line of what makes a person "Chalcedonian" and what on the other hand makes them "Non-Chalcedonian". For instance, if we imagine someone who is willing to accept the Chalcedonian Creed, yet regards the Tome of Leo as Nestorianizing, is that person Chalcedonian or Non-Chalcedonian? Likewise, I am wondering whether my views are substantially that of an adherent of the Council of Chalcedon, or whether I reject enough of the Chalcedonian tradition that I am not really an adherent to it.

[Christopher Dombrowski]

You ought to consult your priest about this. It isn't something to investigate all by one's self. Since you are Orthodox now, you are under a spiritual authority which is there to guide you to salvation and true knowledge of both God and yourself.

I actually am in dialogue about this with my mission priest. He seems to think that the bottom line of Chalcedonian adherence is the dogmatic definition of the Creed, and that one's position on the Tome, the acquittal of Ibas and Theodoret, and finally the deposition of Dioscorus are not fundamental. We have discussed the issue of my hesitancy on the phrase "in two natures" but regards my Christology as consistent with this. He believes my Christology to be substantially consistent with Chalcedon and thus welcomes me to commune at our church.

However, I am personally not as sure as he is about the orthodoxy of Chalcedon.

[Christopher Dombrowski]

Dear in Christ Christopher,

Firstly, welcome to the Forum.

As to your concern over Chalcedon it seems pertinent to me how it is you see the explication of Chalcedon at second (and third, I suppose) Constantinople. I see the bottom line as whether you view Chalcedon as being misinterpreted as Nestorian and proving itself otherwise at second Constantinople or as actually succumbing to Nestorian teaching and so having to "fix itself" at the subsequent council.

I look forward to reading your thoughts.

At that, I am really not sure. I suppose it really depends on what aspect of the Council we are to speak of. For one, I do not think that the deposition of Dioscorus was just, but that does not appear to really be all that theological of a matter.

Secondly, I view the acquittal of Theodret and Ibas as fairly erroneous, especially given that there were really no qualifiers as to this except simply for an anathematizing of Nestorius. As a matter of fact, a number of bishops at the Council (including the Patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, and Antioch) actually claimed to establish and vindicate Ibas' orthodoxy on the basis of his very letter to Maris of Persia that was condemned as 2nd Constantinople. In this letter, Ibas even depicts Cyril, before the Reunion with John of Antioch, as having been an Apollinarian heretic. He regards the Formula of Reunion as the conversion of Cyril to Theodorean orthodoxy.

As to the Tome of Leo, I am inclined view Pope Leo I as to some degree a Nestorian. He appears to have had high regard for Theodoret and Ibas (of whom he "restored" Theodoret even before the Council) and his theology appears to be influenced by them and have mirrored the Nestorian content found in their writings. His Tome, further, appears to have had some truly Nestorian content that was explicitly inconsistent with some of Cyril's 12 anathemas. While I don't think that Leo was really aware that his views were against the teachings of Cyril (while Theodoret and Ibas appeared to have been aware of such), I do see a certain discipleship of Theodoret in his writings.

Finally, as the actual Creed of Chalcedon, my objections are not as strong. It appears in the acts of the council that the creed finally proclaimed by the Council was not the first one drawn up, but rather the second. It seems apparent that the first draft used more traditionally Alexandrian language, as when it was presented to the commissioners they questioned the use of the phrase "of two natures". They pointed out that this was the formula accepted by Dioscorus, whereas Leo in contrast proposed "in two natures". And thus that came to be the formula used in the final draft of the Creed. My only real hesitancy to the Creed of Chalcedon is this, the use of the phrase "in two natures". At first glance, by the use of the preposition "in" it sounds as if the bishops are speaking of subsistence, and if this were the case then the phrase would obviously be heterodox. However, given the reality that the Cappadocian tradition more often used the term "nature" to refer to "ousia" rather than "hypostasis", then it is entirely possible that the Creed is speaking simply of the composition of Christ, and in this context the Creed would be orthodox. So on this subject, I am not entirely sure what is meant by the phrase, but if by it the Council simply means that according to ousia Christ remains two, that is He is composed of our humanity and the Father's divinity that remain unmixed, and if the Council does recognize that in nature according to hypostasis Christ is united in one composite nature, then I could conclude that its Creed is orthodox.

As to the Second Council of Constantinople, it does appear to me that it is annulling the decisions of the Council of Chalcedon in some points. For example, with the Council of Chalcedon having acquitted Theodoret and Ibas with no qualifier except that they anathematize Nestorius (with some evening stating Ibas' letter to Maris as being orthodox), and the Second Council of Constantinople having condemned the writings of Theodoret and Ibas, the Second Council of Constantinople appears to have to some degree annulled the ruling of Chalcedon on Theodoret and Ibas. However, aside from its subscription to the Tome of Leo, I recognize the Second Council of Constantinople as being entirely orthodox, even when speaking of the phrase "in two natures", as it specifies that it condemns any who would seek to divide the natures, and it specifies that it is speaking of composition when speaking of the twoness of Christ, and that this phrase is a theoretical differentiation and not one according to subsistence.

As to the Third Council of Constantinople, in so far as it appears to confess two wills in Christ particularly according to composition and ousia, and in so far as it excludes any opposition of these wills, and in so far as it attributes the operation and action of these wills to the one hypostasis of Christ (and not His two ousias as the Tome of Leo had so insanely done), and thus practicly professes one composite will in Christ according to subsistence, I also confess the orthodoxy of the Third Council of Constantinople.

I hope this all helped in showing where I am at in my Christological mentality and succeeded in answering your question.

[Matthew Namee]

Mr. Dombrowski,

Do you read Greek? Or are you reading about Chalcedon in translation? I don't read Greek myself, but I know that these definitions are particularly difficult to grasp in translation.

My own understanding of Chalcedon is this: Jesus Christ is human in precisely the same way that I am human, and he is divine in precisely the same way that the Father is divine. This is what I understand "human nature" and "divine nature" to be. Jesus is one individual entity, if I may use such terminology, but he is human like us and divine like the Father and the Spirit. Thus he is one person in two natures.

If I've erroneously summarized Chalcedon, someone please correct me.

[Christopher Dombrowski]

Mr. Dombrowski,

Do you read Greek? Or are you reading about Chalcedon in translation? I don't read Greek myself, but I know that these definitions are particularly difficult to grasp in translation.

My own understanding of Chalcedon is this: Jesus Christ is human in precisely the same way that I am human, and he is divine in precisely the same way that the Father is divine. This is what I understand "human nature" and "divine nature" to be. Jesus is one individual entity, if I may use such terminology, but he is human like us and divine like the Father and the Spirit. Thus he is one person in two natures.

If I've erroneously summarized Chalcedon, someone please correct me.

I'm reading this in translation. And I'm very aware that there are limitations in the accuracy of interpreting councils that were conducted in Greek through English translations of their acts. I try to balance this problem with reading commentaries and scholarly/clerical interpretations of the Council. Whether this actually achieves the desired effect, there's really no way to know.

And there's nothing really erroneous about your summarization. This is an entirely valid (and by this I mean understandable, believable, and without evidence to the contrary) interpretation of the Council. It might be a little bit simplistic, but there's nothing really wrong with that. However, given the simplicity, I must say that this would render myself and even pretty much all of those who call themselves "Non-Chalcedonian" to actually be Chalcedonians. Which is also fine for one to hold that opinion, so long as they recognize it for what it is.

[Eric Peterson]

Christopher,

When we become members of the Church, when we say we are Orthodox Christians, when we receive the Holy Sacraments from the Church, our mother, we submit ourselves to her in a relationship of trust and dependence. Being a son of the Church means that one is under her authority and guidance. One cannot say that one is a member of the Church, and yet hold to private opinions which may be contrary to her teaching and understanding. A member of the Church must adopt the mind of the Church and set his private opinions in submission. Indeed, holding a private opinion at odds to the teaching of the Church is the seed of heresy.

So, we cannot have two Christologies, for example, ours and the Church's. We must hold to the Christology of the Church for it alone is true. We cannot have two beliefs about something, ours and the Church's. Having such is like serving two masters, which our Lord informs us is impossible to do.

Theological speculation or an attempt to dissect what the Holy Fathers taught is dangerous for anyone, especially for those who have not attained to the lofty spiritual life of the Holy Fathers. These great men do not teach from their own human experience or understanding, but from the experience of God and from divine revelation. Who are we in comparison?

We have to make a choice. Are we going to sit at the feet of the Holy Fathers and be taught by them, praying humbly that they would grant us understanding, or are we going to try to compare what we think to what they say in the sense that, if we find that what they say contradicts what we think, we will go with our own thinking? This is audacity. Even if we find, in the end, that the Holy Church's teaching does indeed accord with whatever our opinion is, we have gone about it the wrong way, and are still in a kind of spiritual danger.

The Holy Apostle Paul says, "It is no longer I that live, but Christ that lives in me." The "I" must submit itself to Christ as a member of His Body, the Holy Church. The "I" has to cultivate the humility to say that its understanding is imperfect and inferior and that the Church's understanding is perfect and superior.

Certainly, if we look at our own little lives, we have more pressing issues facing us than trying to rehash a 1500 year old Christological debate, especially when the Church has not left us bereft of both teaching and interpretation of these councils and doctrines. We must sooner or later recognize that such an inquiry is beyond us, that our real spiritual work is to acquire an Orthodox heart and mind and divest ourselves of our old man, which is at emnity with the new man Christ is making in us through the Holy Church.

[Rick H.]

As St. Maximos has written, paraphrasing the theologians Gregory of Nazianzus and Dionysios: "the very fact of knowing nothing is knowledge surpassing the intellect" there are some good points made above. And as well, may we never lose our spirit of enquiry as we each walk our own personal paths of salvation.

[Christopher Dombrowski]

Christopher,

When we become members of the Church, when we say we are Orthodox Christians, when we receive the Holy Sacraments from the Church, our mother, we submit ourselves to her in a relationship of trust and dependence. Being a son of the Church means that one is under her authority and guidance. One cannot say that one is a member of the Church, and yet hold to private opinions which may be contrary to her teaching and understanding. A member of the Church must adopt the mind of the Church and set his private opinions in submission. Indeed, holding a private opinion at odds to the teaching of the Church is the seed of heresy.

So, we cannot have two Christologies, for example, ours and the Church's. We must hold to the Christology of the Church for it alone is true. We cannot have two beliefs about something, ours and the Church's. Having such is like serving two masters, which our Lord informs us is impossible to do.

Theological speculation or an attempt to dissect what the Holy Fathers taught is dangerous for anyone, especially for those who have not attained to the lofty spiritual life of the Holy Fathers. These great men do not teach from their own human experience or understanding, but from the experience of God and from divine revelation. Who are we in comparison?

We have to make a choice. Are we going to sit at the feet of the Holy Fathers and be taught by them, praying humbly that they would grant us understanding, or are we going to try to compare what we think to what they say in the sense that, if we find that what they say contradicts what we think, we will go with our own thinking? This is audacity. Even if we find, in the end, that the Holy Church's teaching does indeed accord with whatever our opinion is, we have gone about it the wrong way, and are still in a kind of spiritual danger.

The Holy Apostle Paul says, "It is no longer I that live, but Christ that lives in me." The "I" must submit itself to Christ as a member of His Body, the Holy Church. The "I" has to cultivate the humility to say that its understanding is imperfect and inferior and that the Church's understanding is perfect and superior.

Certainly, if we look at our own little lives, we have more pressing issues facing us than trying to rehash a 1500 year old Christological debate, especially when the Church has not left us bereft of both teaching and interpretation of these councils and doctrines. We must sooner or later recognize that such an inquiry is beyond us, that our real spiritual work is to acquire an Orthodox heart and mind and divest ourselves of our old man, which is at emnity with the new man Christ is making in us through the Holy Church.

For one, this is really only helpful if we are to assume that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the Church of Christ in which we should place our trust in. While you are free to make such an assumption, I am not one to follow you in that, and I hope you can understand why. With such a significant portion of Christendom having rejected the Council of Chalcedon and communion with those who adhere to it, I cannot simply write them off as schismatics as if there is no chance that they were in the right. I cannot blindly submit myself to the teachings of the Eastern Orthodox Church as if it is certainly the Catholic Church just because it is the Church that I joined.

Secondly, to boil this down to me having private opinions in contrast to the collective and public teaching of the Church is somewhat naive. I am finding these teachings from the Tradition of the Oriental Orthodox Church, and am thus, if anything, exploring the collective and public teaching of the Oriental Orthodox Church as possibly the truth.

Third, to speak of submission or non-submission of the Church Fathers as if this is the simple issue is also slightly naive. Particularly given that the Oriental Orthodox Church shares a little more than the first 400 years of our Patristic history, it's very possible that they have maintained the Tradition of those Fathers to a degree that the Eastern Orthodox Church has not. When speaking of men such as Athanasius of Alexandria, Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and so on, we must discern exactly who has attained to the Tradition of these Fathers, rather than simply assuming (for whatever reason) that it is the Eastern Orthodox Church that has. It could be the Roman Catholic Church. It could be the Assyrian (Nestorian) Church of the East. It could be the Eastern Orthodox Church. It could be the Oriental Orthodox Church. It could be the Old Believers. It could be a number of different groups with historical connection to the Apostolic Church.

Finally, I can't really understand your downplaying of the importance of the Chalcedonian debate. When it is the very thing that has formed the dividing traditions of two churches of such orthodox faith, it is the very point of discovery as to who constitutes the continuation of the Apostolic Tradition, whether that be the Oriental Orthodox Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, or possibly both. Such a discernment of the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church is of extreme importance. The discernment of the Catholic Church is the very basis by which we find the great vessel of salvation that Christ has handed down to us through the Apostles and their successors.

[Matthew Namee]

Mr. Dombrowski,

Given your comments on this thread, I must ask, why did you convert to Chalcedonian Orthodoxy? You say that you were chrismated over Pascha; did you join the Orthodox Church in spite of your concerns, or did they arise later?

For we who are Chalcedonian Orthodox Christians, the question of the validity and accuracy of Chalcedon is a settled one. You are an infant in the Orthodox faith, and it is not unreasonable for Eric to advise that you humbly submit to the mind of the Church which you freely chose to join mere months ago. At your chrismation - if it was like any of the chrismations I have witnessed - you professed a fidelity towards the Ecumenical Councils of the Church. You now seem to be doubting those councils, and in your most recent post, you have called into question the identity of the Orthodox Church as the true Church, the Bride of Christ. I am not sure how you can say that you are "sacramentally" a member of that Church and yet set yourself so strongly against her theology and ecclesiology.

Anyway, an online forum is hardly the place for you to engage these questions, and even if you get answers, I wonder if you are willing to receive them. You seem already to have made up your mind, and the fact that you think you can have your "own" Christology, distinct from that of the Church, is rather foreign to Orthodox life.

We made up our minds on this issue 1500 years ago; countless saints in the intervening centuries have confirmed this. I wish you good luck, but I fear that you are already traveling on a path which leads away from Orthodoxy.

[Paul Cowan]

Secondly, to boil this down to me having private opinions in contrast to the collective and public teaching of the Church is somewhat naive.

Third, to speak of submission or non-submission of the Church Fathers as if this is the simple issue is also slightly naive.

What I find amazing is over and over the more people I meet and particularly in religious matters I get confirmation upon confirmation that man has not changed in 7500 years. Only our technology has.

The Creed starts with "I believe..."

I believe what? what I pick and choose to believe? That's what happened to the PC 400 years ago. I believe to believe what "sounds" right? hummm, so if I were to "believe" Jesus' human nature was swallowed up by His divine nature, that's ok? if this were the case, how could He have redeemed our human nature?

I have only been on this earth for 42 years. The Church has been around for 2000 years. I wonder who might have had more time to evaluate and examine and thoroughly determine who was right or wrong or otherwise 1600 years ago during and after the debate? How arrogant for man in the 21st century to think he knows more than man did 2000 years ago who were closer to the issues and actually died because of their beliefs.

Being chrismated is not being baptized. You still have time to learn or to "choose" to follow another path before it hurts your immortal soul. Apostacy is as grevious for the EO as it is for the OO. Time to "choose" what you "believe".

I "believe" what the EO church tells me simply because on the global time line, I am barely an emerging weed and frankly, I will wither and die before I can get a handle on what my 21st century brain chooses to believe. Better to accept what the church fathers have taught than to question everything they have taught. This is tantamount to saying I will repent on my death bed. The question is how fast will one die?

Paul

[Matthew Namee]

A follow-up comment, if I may...

If one wishes to remain in the Orthodox Church, one must submit to the doctrines which have already been articulated. For instance, one is not free to speculate that Jesus Christ may not be divine. The divinity of Jesus is sacrosanct; it is not a matter which is up for discussion. Likewise the humanity of Jesus, or the divinity of the Holy Spirit, or the ever-virginity of the Theotokos, or the veneration of icons. Doubt may tempt anyone from time to time, but we cannot give in to those doubts (or, worse, ally ourselves with those doubts) or we will set ourselves against the Church and, for all intents and purposes, place ourselves outside the Church.

The question of Chalcedon is no different. If you do not accept all of the Ecumenical Councils, you simply cannot be an Orthodox Christian. You won't be stoned or even damned, but you will be outside the Church. It is therefore natural for Orthodox Christians to respond with a bit of alarm when one who professes to be himself Orthodox expresses the opinion that he is free to speculate on the validity of the Ecumenical Councils. You, Mr. Dombrowski, are free to do whatever you wish. I am not, because I have made the conscious decision to bow before the Church in matters such as these.

[Peter S.]

My own understanding of Chalcedon is this: Jesus Christ is human in precisely the same way that I am human, and he is divine in precisely the same way that the Father is divine. This is what I understand "human nature" and "divine nature" to be. Jesus is one individual entity, if I may use such terminology, but he is human like us and divine like the Father and the Spirit. Thus he is one person in two natures.

If I've erroneously summarized Chalcedon, someone please correct me.

That is correct. One person with two natures. And the "I" in Jesus is the Logos.

Peter

[Herman Blaydoe]

I had a lot of concerns as well, even after I became Orthodox. Some things take some sorting out. Unfortunately, for most of us, baptism/chrismation does not come with the "total enlightenment" package. Even some things I thought were settled turned out needing some more explanation and I even thought of a few things afterwards that didn't occur to me before. What does your priest and your bishop say on the subject? Do you agree or not? If you don't then perhaps you are communing under false pretenses, particularly if you feel this is an important topic. But then again, it is not a sin to be undecided on a particular point. I'll admit I went back and forth more than once on that whole Theotokos thing.

To be honest, that whole Chalcedonian/non-Chalcedonian thang is a real stumper to many, including those in ecclesiastical authority, in both churches, if the threads on the topic here are any indication. You are in good company regardless of what others may say.

What about the Chalcedonian position that is a problem? Why do you consider it a problem? Is it simply a matter of the existence of separation in the Churches? Is it serious enough to break communion over? Or not? I do agree that you would be better discussing this with the priest rather than a bunch of arm-chair amateur theologians, relatively-anonymous netizens who really don't know where you are coming from. But if you do ask, do expect to get some rather sincere and sometimes strong opinions.

FWIW from a bear of very little brain.

Herman the Pooh

[Christopher Dombrowski]

That is correct. One person with two natures. And the "I" in Jesus is the Logos.

Peter

I have no problem confessing Jesus Christ to be "of two natures", as this statement essentially means that Jesus is composed of two ousia, humanity and divinity. Confessing Jesus to be "in two natures" in my mind is dangerous, as it sounds as if it is speaking of subsistence (hypostasis), and is thus in danger of dividing the single subsistence of Christ.

[Christopher Dombrowski]

What does your priest and your bishop say on the subject?

I've never really talked with my local bishop to any great extent. However, I have had extensive talks with the rector of my congregation about this. He believes that it is not entirely important what I believe about the Tome of Leo, the deposition of Dioscorus, or the acquittal of Theodoret and Ibas. He places utmost importance on the dogmatic tradition of Chalcedon. And he has said that as long as I confess Christ to be "of two natures" after the union, this meaning that Christ continues to be composed of two distinct ousia, that of humanity and divinity, that he regards my Christology as consistent with that of Chalcedon and that he thus welcomes me to partake of Communion at his church, so long as I prepare through prayer and fasting.




Do you agree or not?

Well, I do agree that my Christology is orthodox. I don't know that I agree that the Chalcedonian Creed is orthodox and that that my Christology is consistent with it. The Chalcedonian Creed is the one aspect of Chalcedon that I have the least doubts about, but I'm still not 100% sure about the phrase "in two natures".




If you don't then perhaps you are communing under false pretenses, particularly if you feel this is an important topic.

To be clear, I'm actually not communing. As soon as I began developing substantial criticisms of the Council of Chalcedon and realized this as an important issue to me, I discontinued partaking of Communion, whether that be at an EOC or an OOC. I intend to maintain this policy until I reach clarity on the issue.




I'll admit I went back and forth more than once on that whole Theotokos thing.

Though it may be somewhat tangential, I'm curious by what you mean by this?




You are in good company regardless of what others may say.

I know. I'm most taken to the moderate sides of both churches that are really engaging in understanding the historical issues behind the debate and why each side believed what it did. Strongly conservative Eastern Orthodox who condemn the Oriental Orthodox and strongly conservative Oriental Orthodox who condemn the Eastern Orthodox both bother me.




What about the Chalcedonian position that is a problem?

Well, there are a few key points:

First, I am not sure as to the orthodoxy of the phrase "in two natures". As I said, unlike Eutyches and rather more like Dioscorus and Severus, I have no problem submitting to the teaching of two continuing ousia in Christ, humanity and divinity, and that Christ is con-substantial to His Father according to divinity and con-substantial to us according to His humanity. But the phrase "in two natures" sounds a bit like it's trying to make a statement about the hypostatic nature of Christ, and if this is the case it appears to be dividing the unity of the Incarnation.

Second, and more strongly, I find the Tome of Leo to be rather heterodox. Leo appears to (to too great of an extent) attribute certain properties to the humanity of Christ while others to the divinity of Christ as if those properties do not become singularly of the Incarnational hypostasis of Christ. Even worse, Leo appears to attribute not only the origin of divine will to Christ's divinity and that of the human will to Christ humanity, but even applies the very human action to the human nature and the divine action to the divine nature, as if these natures are actual principles of action (which seemingly only hypostases can be) rather than identifying the person of Christ as the principle of human and divine action as the 2nd and 3rd Councils of Constantinople did.

Third and finally, I have a very hard time swallowing the acquittal of Theodoret of Cyrrus and Ibas of Edessa, who have both been deposed at the Second Council of Ephesus (449, which was referred to at Chalcedon as a "council of robbers"). To me, Theodoret and Ibas are clearly Theodorean (referring to Theodore of Mopsuestia) heretics who do not appear to be all that distinct from Nestorius in their Christology. Thus, I regard their being deposed as 2nd Ephesus as quite just. That the Council of Chalcedon restored Theodoret and Ibas with only requiring them to verbly anathematize Nestorius without devling into their Christology further than that, and given that the Patriarchs of Rome, Constantinople, and Antioch all appeared to have declared the letter of Ibas to Maris of Persia to be orthodox, while that particular writing of Ibas and a number of Theodoret's writings were explicitly condemned as the Second Council of Constantinople, because of this I find their exhonoration highly disturbing.




Why do you consider it a problem?

I consider all three of these matters to be major problems because any one of them poses a potential point at which the Council of Chalcedon delved into heresy (namely some shade of Nestorianism). If the Council of Chalcedon was to some degree heretical then I cannot regard it as anything more than a local council, and I am thus likely a Non-Chalcedonian and should probably consider joining the Oriental Orthodox Church.




Is it serious enough to break communion over? Or not?

It really depends. If Chalcedon just happened to use really poor language that appeared heretical but was actually being used to defend a faith that was substantially orthodox, then I don't think there is any reason why I should have to leave the EOC. If Chalcedon used certain language that left it open to heretical interpretation of Nestorians, but was clarified as orthodox by the Second Council of Constantinople, then there is again no reason why I should have to leave the EOC. If Chalcedon truly was heretical but the Chalcedonian Church was shepherded back into orthodoxy by the Second Council of Constantinople, I may or may not have to leave the EOC. Finally, if Chalcedon was truly heretical and this submission to heresy irreparably damaged the Byzantine Church, then I would of course have to leave.




I do agree that you would be better discussing this with the priest rather than a bunch of arm-chair amateur theologians, relatively-anonymous netizens who really don't know where you are coming from. But if you do ask, do expect to get some rather sincere and sometimes strong opinions.

Well, I am discussing this with my priest. I'm really trying to approach this problem from a number of different angles. This discussion here is not my sole vessel of working through the problem, but rather is supplementary.

Thanks for your time Herman.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear friends,

This is a gentle reminder of the scope of this forum, which remains the discussion of Orthodoxy (defined in our Terms of Use for this forum as the Church of the seven councils) in its patristic heritage, and not for the addressing of inter-church theologies or relations - however valid and important those topics may be in their own right. Indeed they are; but for the sake of this forum's particular scope and aims, we have for many years elected to keep to a tight and narrow aim, so as to keep this a 'specialised' forum addressing our themes and aims, rather than a general forum that discusses all manner of things.

As such, I have renamed this thread 'Specifics of the Christology of Chalcedon', and make the request that future discussion in it focus on specific questions as to this matter, rather than questions of Chalcedonian theology's comparability to that of other church's, etc.

Thanks to all.

INXC, Dcn Matthew
Monachos.net

[Christopher Dombrowski]

Dear friends,

This is a gentle reminder of the scope of this forum, which remains the discussion of Orthodoxy (defined in our Terms of Use for this forum as the Church of the seven councils) in its patristic heritage, and not for the addressing of inter-church theologies or relations - however valid and important those topics may be in their own right. Indeed they are; but for the sake of this forum's particular scope and aims, we have for many years elected to keep to a tight and narrow aim, so as to keep this a 'specialised' forum addressing our themes and aims, rather than a general forum that discusses all manner of things.

As such, I have renamed this thread 'Specifics of the Christology of Chalcedon', and make the request that future discussion in it focus on specific questions as to this matter, rather than questions of Chalcedonian theology's comparability to that of other church's, etc.

Thanks to all.

INXC, Dcn Matthew
Monachos.net

I'm hoping that the core questions of:

1. What are the fundamentals of adherence to the Council of Chalcedon? What beliefs are necessary to be considered a Chalcedonian?

2. Do I personally meet those qualities such that I should consider myself a Chalcedonian or not?

Are still valid questions within the context of the scope of this forum?

[Peter S.]

Council of Chalcedon, 451: The Definition of Faith of Chalcedon:



Following the holy Fathers we teach with one voice that the Son [of God] and our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the same [Person], that he is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, very God and very man, of a reasonable soul and [human] body consisting, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood; made in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of his Father before the worlds according to his Godhead; but in these last days for us men and for our salvation born [into the world] of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to his manhood. This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be in two natures, (1) unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably [united], and that without the distinction of natures being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Prophets of old time have spoken concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ hath taught us, and as the Creed of the Fathers hath delivered to us.


Peter

[Kusanagi]

I am just wondering how come no one quotes the miracle of St Euphemia when discussing about the Chalcedon "controversy".

[Owen Jones]

There's something else going on here. This is a case in point in which theology is and must be pastoral in nature. I would be willing to bet that the contention, the argument, the dispute is with something or someone else, and the argument with Chalcedon is just an intellectualising of it.

[Paul Cowan]

I am just wondering how come no one quotes the miracle of St Euphemia when discussing about the Chalcedon "controversy".

Miracle during the Council of Chalcedon
The Council of Chalcedon was the fourth Ecumenical Council of the Christian Church which took place in the city of Chalcedon in the year 451. It repudiated the Eutychian doctrine of monophysitism, and set forth the Chalcedonian Creed, which describes the "full humanity and full divinity" of Jesus Christ, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.

The council sat in the cathedral consecrated in her name. Present at the council were 630 representatives from all the local Christian Churches. Both the Monophysite and Orthodox parties were well-represented at the council, so the meetings were quite contentious, and no decisive consensus could be reached. Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople suggested that the council submit the decision to the Holy Spirit, acting through Saint Euphemia.

Both parties wrote a confession of their faith and placed them in the tomb of the saint Euphemia which was sealed in the presence of the emperor Marcian (450-457), who placed the imperial seal on it and set a guard to watch over it for three days. During these days both sides fasted and prayed. After three days the tomb was opened and the scroll with the Orthodox confession was seen in the right hand of St Euphemia while the scroll of the Monophysites lay at her feet.

[Ryan]

For we know the theologians make some things of the Evangelical and Apostolic teaching about the Lord common as pertaining to the one person, and other things they divide as to the two natures, and attribute the worthy ones to God on account of the Divinity of Christ, and the lowly ones on account of his humanity [to his humanity].

I am curious about the above passage, which is in Saint Cyril's letter to John of Antioch. He is apparently quoting John, but then indicates his full agreement with it. (It is very possible that I am misreading this passage, so I am open to correction). This aroused my attention because this seems to me to be precisely the kind of statement that raises red flags for non-Chalcedonians when they read the Tome of Leo, namely, the attribution of some qualities/ actions to different natures in Christ.