Where did saint Athanasius and Cyril say that Jesus has two natures? [Archive]

Shenouda

09-11-2009, 01:39 PM

Dear Fady

you said" My final conclusion who refuses this council had refused the following things:

1) The acts of three previous councils (as they were read in the council)
2) St.Cyril letter to John of Antioch
3) Tome of Leo
4) The 500 Bishops

But as I've ended convinced that Chalcedonian way is Orthodox and true but somehow not completely convinced as if there's something missing.
But anyway thank you Ryan , God bless you"
================================================== =======================

i have many comments on what u intend to do

1- one of the chalcedonian fathers " patriarch A natolios of constantinople" said that dioscuros was innocent and not a heritic and orthodox in faith but he got the anathema cause he said the anathema twards leo first" this is the most important testimony of an a father of the chalcedonian father the dioscuros was innocent and orthodox beliver
2- THE NICENE council prohibited and creed of faith or faith formula than the nicene creed itself so the new formula legally still fall under the anathema of the nicene council
3- the chalcedon council agreed both of the tome of leo and the 12 anathema of cyril and st.cyril faith legally correct as a theory but in fact the tome of leo still fall under the fourth anathema of st.cyril
4. If anyone distributes between the two persons or hypostases the expressions used either in the gospels or in the apostolic writings, whether they are used by the holy writers of Christ or by him about himself, and ascribes some to him as to a man, thought of separately from the Word from God, and others, as befitting God, to him as to the Word from God the Father, let him be anathema.
The Tome of Leo expand thr talk about the 2 natures and the 2 persons son of god and son of man as QUOTED FROM

http://www.ewtn.com/faith/Teachings/incac1.htm
There is nothing unreal about this oneness, since both the lowliness of the man and the grandeur of the divinity are in mutual relation. As God is not changed by showing mercy, neither is humanity devoured by the dignity received. The activity of each form is what is proper to it in communion with the other: that is, the Word performs what belongs to the Word, and the flesh accomplishes what belongs to the flesh. One of these performs brilliant miracles; the other sustains acts of violence. As the Word does not lose its glory which is equal to that of the Father, so neither does the flesh leave the nature of its kind behind. We must say this again and again: one and the same is truly Son of God and truly son of man. God, by the fact that "in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"; man, by the fact that "the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us." God, by the fact that "all things were made through him, and nothing was made without him," man, by the fact that "he was made of a woman, made under the law." The birth of flesh reveals human nature; birth from a virgin is a proof of divine power. A lowly cradle manifests the infancy of the child; angels' voices announce the greatness of the most High. Herod evilly strives to kill one who was like a human being at the earliest stage the Magi rejoice to adore on bended knee one who is the Lord of all. And when he came to be baptised by his precursor John, the Father's voice spoke thunder from heaven, to ensure that he did not go unnoticed because the divinity was concealed by the veil of flesh: "This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Accordingly, the same one whom the devil craftily tempts as a man, the angels dutifully wait on as God. Hunger, thirst, weariness, sleep are patently human. But to satisfy five thousand people with five loaves; to dispense living water to the Samaritan woman, a drink of which will stop her being thirsty ever again; to walk on the surface of the sea with feet that do not sink; to rebuke the storm and level the mounting waves; there can be no doubt these are divine.

PLEASE FOR GOD SAKE SEE THE UNDERLINED WORDS ANS SEE HOW THE SAYS OF THE BISHOP OF ROME LEO WAS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE FOURTH ANATHEMA OF ST.CYRIL.
4- POPE DIOSCUROS SAID THAT ANATHEMA IN CHALCEDON ABOUT Eutyches AND THIS CLEAR THAT HE WASN'T HERITIC AND NOT HOLDING MONOPHYSISTE HERESY AND HE SAID THAT Eutyches DESERVE FIRE IF HE ADAPTED A CONTRARY FAITH THATN THE HOLY FATHERS ADAPTED
5- THE BISHOP LEO ACCEPTED THEDORITE THE NESTORIAN BESHOP BEFOR INFORMING THE OTHER OLD PATRIARCHES AND BEHAVE AS HE IS THE FATHER OF THE WHOLE CHURCH AND I THINK THIS IS THE BIRTH OF THE BELIF OF THE PRIMACY PRINCIPLE OF THE ROMAN BISHOP THIS IS MY SPECIAL POINT IF VIEW
6- I THINK AND THIS IS ALSO MY POINT OV VIEW THAT THE CHALCEDONIAN COUNCIL WAS NOT PERFECT AS FATHER JOHN ROMANIDES IN WWW.ROMANITY.COM (http://www.ROMANITY.COM) SAID THAT" WE SHOULD THINK IN CHALCEDON COUNCIL FROM THE LATER Second Council of Constantinople CAUSE THIS MENTIONED COUNCILS ANATHEMAIZED THE THREE CHAPTERS AGAINST ST.CRIL BY THEDORET AND IBAS THE PERSIAN OF EDESSA SO IT IS CLEAR THAT THE FOURTH COUNCIL WAS NOT PERFECT AND CAUSE OF INNOVATE A NEW CREED OF FAITH SUR NOT NESTORIAN BUT NOT COMPATIBLE WITH ST.CYRIL 12 CHAPTERS CAUSED THE HORRIBLE SCHISM IN THE CHURCHES THAT WE SUFFER NOW FROM

PLZ KINDLY FIND THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT BY PETER FARRINGTON FROM THE BRITISH ORTHODOX CHURCH

THIS IS MY POINT OF VIEW
I AM SORRY IF ONE OF MY SAYS WRONGLY INTERPRETED

THANKS TO YOU ALL
PRAY FOR ME
IN
IC XC NI KA

Ryan

10-11-2009, 01:21 AM

Welcome to the forum, Shenouda.

1- one of the chalcedonian fathers " patriarch A natolios of constantinople" said that dioscuros was innocent and not a heritic and orthodox in faith but he got the anathema cause he said the anathema twards leo first" this is the most important testimony of an a father of the chalcedonian father the dioscuros was innocent and orthodox beliver

Could you provide us with the source for this, or quotes? Thanks.

2- THE NICENE council prohibited and creed of faith or faith formula than the nicene creed itself so the new formula legally still fall under the anathema of the nicene council

The formula of Chalcedon was never intended to replace or add to the Nicene creed, so I don't see how this applies here. Also, the final form of the creed we recite today is the one formulated at the first Council of Constantinople... is this council anathematized too?

PLEASE FOR GOD SAKE SEE THE UNDERLINED WORDS ANS SEE HOW THE SAYS OF THE BISHOP OF ROME LEO WAS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE FOURTH ANATHEMA OF ST.CYRIL.

Saint Leo says nothing about two persons. If the words you underlined fall under the anathema, then so do these words:

"According to this understanding of this unmixed union, we confess the holy Virgin to be Mother of God; because God the Word was incarnate and became Man, and from this conception he united the temple taken from her with himself.

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].

These being your holy voices, and finding ourselves thinking the same with them (“One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism,”) we glorified God the Saviour of all, congratulating one another that our churches and yours have the Faith which agrees with the God-inspired Scriptures and the traditions of our holy Fathers."

These are the words of St. Cyril himself, in his letter to John of Antioch.

Ibas, Theodoret, etc. were only accepted at Chalcedon after anathematized Nestorius.

The Council of Chalcedon is fully compatible with St. Cyril's 12 anathemas and in fact upheld them as a standard.

For further discussion, see this thread (http://monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=6033).

Ben Johnson

10-11-2009, 02:41 AM

My priest mentioned that next year, there should be some more dialogue between the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox. Someday this should result, I think he said, in a "union," or "agreement" but I do not know what kind. He also said this could take a long time. Does anyone know if there is any information on the web about this? Sorry I am a little murky on the details.

--Ben

Kosta

19-11-2009, 03:56 AM

Keep in mind that the christological controversies of the 3-5 ecumenical councils had much to do with the understanding of the Antiochans and Alexandrian schools of thought. Antioch emphasized the humanity of Christ and was common to attribute the higher things of Jesus to the divinity and the lower to his humanity. Alexandria emphasized the divinity of Christ and the hypostatic union.

For eastern Orthodoxy, it is the 3rd and 4th councils which go hand in hand and clarifies the correct understanding of these two schools. The christology of Ephesus and Chalcedon work synergistically.

For the OO there is the christology formulated at Ephesus and a disconnect comes from the christology of Chalcedon. In the OO point of view the 4th and 5th council go hand in hand. The 5th council clarifies some vague points in Chalcedon which can be taken as nestorian. The EO on the other hand point to Ephesus as the council which puts to rest any nestorian tendencies.

St Cyril of Alexandria acknowledged the Antiochan usage of the two natures in the formula of reunion in 433 a.d. John of Antioch for his part accepted the dogma of the Theotokos and the anathemas against Nestorius, bringing peace back to the church and making the council of Ephesus in 431 a.d. an ecumenical council.

Mina Mounir

19-12-2009, 02:41 PM

as a convert to Orthodoxy ( former non-chalcedonian), I'd like just to share some ideas ...
first of all, being an Egyptian and lived inside the Coptic " life " and even attended Anba Bishoy's dogmatic course in " ekklerekeia " ( the coptic theological seminary) , I can touch and feel many of the points that Mr. Shenouda mentioned and on what base they are.
the problem within the coptic teaching here in Egypt is the dependence on a very late apologetic writings , most if not all of them are after the 13th century. besides, the points mr. Shenouda mentioned are also found in the book of fr. Tadros Y. Malati and Anba Bishoy's "christological controversy" book. but fr. Mathew referred to a very important point : " Let us try to focus on the Christological questions of the Fathers themselves, and the councils, rather than on how these are implicated in current inter-church relations."
and that was the problem here in Egypt. that is, we do not read the classics of the fathers since very few were translated into Arabic. so, I repeat the advice of fr. Mathew, and leave for a while the coptic apologetics because they need to be read in the light of reading the classics and historical books themselves.
for example.
mr. Shenouda says:
"testimony of an a father of the chalcedonian father the dioscuros was innocent and orthodox beliver"
this is completely not true. Anatolius judged dioscorus and wrote a letter to St. Leo describing the triumph of Orthodoxy ... Historically, Anatolius said that Dioscorus was deposed because he intentionally didn't attend, u can check what he said in the first session of the Council of Chalcedon. however, it is historically approved that after the death of st. Flavian , Dioscorus sent an alexandrian archimendrite to Constantinople to be the Patriarch there , and that was Anatolius. so, Anatolius has his own motives which were later more obvious in his debate with Pope Leo about the 28th canon. so, we need to read such stuff within its historical context, and not to repeat such points in modern books.

secondly, about the " Mia Physis " formula : 1- u can't find it in any other places in st. Athanasius who was crystal clear in speaking about the two natures and wills in the 3rd oration against Arius. and again, we need to read st. cyrils usage within its historical and theological context. Prof. Pelikan's great volumes about the development of doctrine covers the development of this expression ... the first who used it was Eudoxius, an Arian bishop ( and the debate between Leontius of Jerusalem and Severus mentioned that), and later Apollinarius who expanded it in the way st. Cyril used it later, and the reason was the apollinarian forgeries which came to alexandria and the name of St. Athanasius , and st. Cyril used them ... and who read his letters will know that Cyril apologized - indirectly - and stopped using it.
in his 53th letter to Pope Sixtus he says :

F OR I NEVER am accused of having thought anything different from the truth in my opinions, nor have I ever said that the divine nature of the Word was subject to suffering.
[And, after other passages:]
(2) I know that the nature of God is impassible, unchangeable, and immutable, even though by the nature of his humanity Christ is one in both natures and from both natures. third example ,
mr. Shenouda repeats saying : " SUR NOT NESTORIAN BUT NOT COMPATIBLE WITH ST.CYRIL"
this , in my opinion needs to compare the writings of st. Cyril , all the fathers and the creed of Chalcedon. before that, I don't recommend any further conclusions.
if the loyalty to st. Cyril of Alexandria is the criterion , then why would Severus say :
"

"The formulae used by the Holy Fathers concerning two Natures united in Christ should be set aside, even if they be Cyril's" [Patrologia Graeca, Vol. LXXXIX, Col. 103D. Saint Anastasios of Sinai preserves this quote of Severos in his works; quoted in The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 12]. "

also, why would Timothy Aelerius the first Monophysite Patriarch - in 457 - condemns st. Cyril , saying :
"

"Cyril... having excellently articulated the wise proclamation of Orthodoxy, showed himself to be fickle and is to be censured for teaching contrary doctrine: after previously proposing that we should speak of one nature of God the Word, he destroyed the dogma that he had formulated and is caught professing two Natures of Christ" [Timothy Ailouros, "Epistles to Kalonymos," Patrologia Graeca, Vol LXXXVI, Col. 276; quoted in The Non Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 13]."
so, mr. Farrington - who was with us here since while - wrote some points that cannot fit with history. and there's nothing much easier than throwing arguments ! but it is not the point - in my opinion - that we seek.
about the rest of " arguments " like fr. Romanides quote which has nothing to do with our topic , or about the condemnation of Dioscorus to Eutiches - which also was not true if it was read within its place in the minutes of the first session - and rest of stuff , they need to be reconsidered through going beyond " articles " ... i mean the writings and classics ... not to read about chalcedon but to read chalcedon in order to discover who is loyal and sticking to truth
consequently, I do not recommend such conclusions without reading the patristic classics themselves , and in the light of these writings we can judge. I'd rather prefer to focus on these writings without looking at them in thelight of the ecumenical dialogs today.

thanks

Fr Raphael Vereshack

19-12-2009, 03:14 PM

I am presently reading a book called Theodoret of Cyrus by Istvan Pasztori-Kupan (in The Early Christian Fathers series pub by Routledge). The book consists of a basic but extensive introduction on Thedoret and also quite a few of his theological writings.

I have to say that having read this book has made me reassess my understanding of our Orthodox theology. For a number of years I have seen the profound influence of St Cyril. But now I also see that we have been influenced by the Antiochian tradition; especially as for example Theodoret's strong insistence on the full integrity of Christ's humanity though without sin. I was also surprised that Theodoret uses concepts that we see in St Cyril when it comes to the Divine unity of the person of Christ; the word 'appropriates' for example is used to refer to the relation of Christ's divinity to His humanity. Of course though we should keep in mind that those like Fr John McGuckin say, probably fairlly, that Theodoret's position is neo-Antiochian; ie he is taking or referring to several of St Cyril's most positive insights concerning the unity of the Person of Christ; this in a sense helps Theodoret to better explain the Christological context of His human nature which is still very much emphasized.

In any case why I actually wanted to post here in reply to Minas is because of how Mr Pasztori-Kupan notes that for many centuries some of Theodoret's Christological writings were taken as being by St Cyril. Even Severus quoted him on this basis! ( now we can reconstruct Theodoret by referring to how Severus quotes him: there's got to be some humour in that).

Somehow a lot more could be written about this for it implies so much, of how a strong Antiochian could have been read as if he was St Cyril. But one point surely is the most simple and what we were already told many years ago: that our theology is a careful walk between Alexandria & Antioch.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Mina Mounir

21-12-2009, 11:14 AM

Quick notes :

Dear father Raphael,

In any case why I actually wanted to post here in reply to Minas is because of how Mr Pasztori-Kupan notes that for many centuries some of Theodoret's Christological writings were taken as being by St Cyril. Even Severus quoted him on this basis! ( now we can reconstruct Theodoret by referring to how Severus quotes him: there's got to be some humour in that).in my opinion , I agree ... and specially for the humorous point of Theodoret quotes in Cyril's writings. Oxford University published an English translation of two - I dare to say - of the most important writings in the 6th century Orthodox-monophysite debate. that is, Leontius replies :"Leontius of Jerusalem : against the Monophysites : testimonies of the saints and aporiae / edited and translated by Patrick T.R. Gray." (http://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/6528979)
actually, I translated the first work into arabic , which contains more than 150 pre-chalcedonian patristic quotes stating the two-natures formula of Chalcedon , including tens of Athanasius and Cyrillian quotes. while translating them, I discovered something interesting in the footnotes. that is , Leontius use of some quotes attributed to Cyril are actually Theodoret's and the translator to English indicated their places in Theodoret works. also, while Leontius was answering Severian claims , he mentioned the quotes they used , and they were also from Theodoret. and that was funny for me since Theodoret was heretic in the eyes of the Severians. however, they were using his words to support their christological position !
besides, while I was reading the acts of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, the 6th session - as far as I remember - was dedicated to discuss Theodoret's position and his Christology if it is in favor or against Cyril's orthodox christology. in his presence, his famous chapters that offended Cyril were read , and Theodoret was crystal clear that he was against apollinarianism and he saw it - as misunderstanding - in Cyril's Christology ( and I don't blame him since Cyril used the Miaphysite apollinarian term , and that was John of Antioch position before the reconciliation ). consequenctly, Theodoret has never been Nestorian and he publicly anathematized Nestorianism in that session while he was anti-apollinarian and not anti-cyrillian ...

meanwhile, A fragment of Dioscorus is preserved in the "Antirrhetica" of Nicephorus (Spicil. Solesm., IV, 380) which asks: "If the Blood of Christ is not by nature (katà phúsin) God's and not a man's, how does it differ from the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer? For this is earthly and corruptible, and the blood of man according to nature is earthly and corruptible. But God forbid that we should say the Blood of Christ is consubstantial with one of those things which are according to nature (‘enos tôn katà phúsin ‘omoousíon)." and this shows that he preserves a Monophysite Christology as he failed to see the blood of Christ as a created element by nature.

Thanks

Fr Raphael Vereshack

21-12-2009, 05:33 PM

For me Theodoret has been amazing to read. So far I have personally found no theological problems with him or his language. Although it is a bit different at times from what we are used to. At times I felt like I was reading a lost part of our tradition that we would well be rewarded by referring to- especially his continual emphasis on the work of Christ as human. Here the idea is that Christ's victory solely as God would have been fully expected; and in a real sense this would have been an external victory that does not really address the central issue of our fall. Instead then Theodoret focuses on Christ's humanity as summation of the human struggle against sin- since as fully human it is capable of struggling humanly as it were. And then in communion with Him, Christ's human struggle against sin devolves towards us in as much as we also struggle in Christ.

Theodoret though also takes far more into account the unity of the Person of Christ than the the previous Antiochenes. As I noted previously it as if he has recognized St Cyril's insights concerning the unity of Christ and then taken them on board. But in a way which strengthens & refines the central focus of his own particular Christological insights.

There is much in this which addresses very modern questions about Christology: especially the point that salvation can only be of real integrity for us if Christ's humanity is not only a real human nature- but that the situation of this humanity is also real. In other words the nagging doubt on our part that the unity of Christ as Divine gives Him an added power to gain the victory over sin that we could never realistically hope for. Theodoret in a real sense exactly addresses this point through the expressive language that He uses about Christ which allows one to see Him as having fairly gained the victory through His humanity.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Seda S.

22-12-2009, 12:52 AM

meanwhile, A fragment of Dioscorus is preserved in the "Antirrhetica" of Nicephorus (Spicil. Solesm., IV, 380) which asks: "If the Blood of Christ is not by nature (katà phúsin) God's and not a man's, how does it differ from the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer? For this is earthly and corruptible, and the blood of man according to nature is earthly and corruptible. But God forbid that we should say the Blood of Christ is consubstantial with one of those things which are according to nature (‘enos tôn katà phúsin ‘omoousíon)." and this shows that he preserves a Monophysite Christology as he failed to see the blood of Christ as a created element by nature.

Dear Mina

Bringing some suspicious quotations from this or that collection, especially compiled by 'enemies' is not very serious. And what will you say concerning this other quotation from a similar collection-catena, now compiled by Timothy of Alexandria in the 5th century, of course, against Chalcedon and having quotations from nuuuuuumerous Church Fathers.

This is from the letter VII of Dioscorus of Alexandria

Written from Gangra in Syria, to the monks in Henaton

For having been cured with faith, I know Him born as God, and the Same born of Mary, as man.

Behold Him walking on the earth as man, and behold Him creator of heavenly angels as God.

Behold Him sleeping in the ship as man, and behold Him walking on the waters as God.

Behold Him being hungry as man, and behold Him feeding the world as God.

Behold Him being thirsty as man, and behold Him giving water as God.

Behold Him undressed as man, and behold Him dressing [others] as God.

Behold Him be seated on the donkey as man, and behold Him sitting on the Cherubim as God.

Behold Him stoned by the Jews as man, and behold Him worshipped by the angels as God.

Behold Him tempted as man, and behold Him expelling demons as God.

Behold Him a sheep as man, and behold Him a shepherd as God.

Behold Him slaughtering a sacrifice as a priest who makes an offering, and behold Him working salvation as God.

Behold Him standing at the judgement seat of Pilate as man, and behold Him co-enthroned with the Father as God.

Behold Him crucified as man, and behold Him granting paradise to the robber as God.

Behold Him drinking vinegar as man, and behold Him giving water to the world without jealousy as God.

Behold Him dying as man, and behold Him raising the dead as God.

Behold Him become poor in body as man, and behold Him enriching [others] as God.

Behold Him a servant as man, and behold Him giving freedom as God.

Behold Him sown wheat as man, and behold Him also sowing as God.

Behold Him a fruitful vineyard as man, and behold Him a vegetarian and a farmer as God.

I would think this was written by some Chalcedonian, because usually the miaphysites don't like to divide the actions of the Lord (though, of course, this is not some strict rule, anything can be found in their writings).

Also, what would you feel or think if you read St Cyril's words speaking about a union of persons (prosopa, "faces") in Christ. In his commentary on the Epistle to Hebrews he twice (at least in the extant chapters of this commentary) uses such expressions. As far as I know, the scholars haven't shown that this work by St Cyril is not his but is spurious.

Do you know who and how translates from Greek or other Classical languages into English? A Protestant scholar maybe, or a Catholic, or someone who likes to compose instead of translating, or cut out what he wants and similarly add? Just compare, for example, the different English translations of St Ignatius of Antioch's epistles. Or, who prepares the original Greek, Syriac etc texts for publication, from which and how many manuscripts? I'll bring you an example. One of the Armenian Fathers of the 5th century has a very beautiful treatise on the Passions of Christ. It is not a Christological writing. Now, that text has been published since the 19th century more than once, if I'm not mistaken, it was also translated into English. And what happened some years ago? When the scholars in Armenia decided to republish that text according to the manuscripts, they found there a heretical sentence which doesn't exist in the previous publications or translations; but that sentence is found in all manuscripts that contain this work. It seems those who published it in the 19th century, just cut that 'unnecessary' sentence out.

I want to say, this or that quotation from here and there can't explain much. You can read about 'divine body' of the Lord and divinized humanity in the writings of St Gregory the Theologian, for example; but if you don't read also what he speaks about the two natures of Christ, and take out from his wonderful Sermon on the Lord's Nativity only those parts that speak about, say, 'mingling' of Divinity and Humanity of the Lord, or about the Lord's 'divine body', you may think about him whatever you like.

In Christ,
S.

Eric Peterson

26-12-2009, 07:26 AM

This discussion is fascinating to me--especially the close links between St. Cyril's and Blessed Theodoret's theology. I have been enjoying reading Blessed Theodoret's Biblical commentaries, and I look forward to reading the book that Fr. Raphael mentioned. I think it would be very worthwhile for a better understanding of Orthodox Christology if a book were written further examining their commonalities, and whether or not they actually had serious theological disagreement. The whole issue of Chalcedon and its aftermath just seems only to get more and more complicated, with so many more layers being added on. To me, however, it is very important that its complexities be known and understood. Too often, the whole thing is written off as a matter of semantics or misunderstanding. But, clearly, there was more going on, even theologically, than mere superficialities.

Holden Caulfield

26-07-2010, 08:41 PM

Greetings,

I'm well aware that this thread is old, but perhaps I could lend some more perspective. St Athanasius was by no means a 'systematic' Christological writer, and he really was not entirely concerned with this subject (as far as I know). There is probably no place where you will find St Athanasius speaking of two φύσις in Christ, however he does often speak of the equivalent of this. It is important to remember that the μἰα φύσις formula is not actually from St Athanasius, but is simply an Apollinarian forgery. St Athanasius writes:

“You must understand, therefore, that when writers on this sacred theme speak of Him as eating and drinking and being born, they mean that the body, as a body, was born and sustained with the food proper to its nature; while God the Word, who was united with it, was at the same time ordering the universe and revealing Himself through His bodily acts as not man only but God. Those acts are rightly said to be His acts, because the body which did them did indeed belong to Him and none other; moreover, it was right that they should be thus attributed to Him as man, in order to show that His body was a real one and not merely an appearance. From such ordinary acts as being born and taking food, He was recognized as being actually present in the body; but by the extraordinary acts which He did through the body He proved Himself to be the Son of God.” (On the Incarnation Book 3:18)

If we read this passage closely we will find that not only does St Athanasius attribute to God the Word a human nature which he terms the 'body', but he also indicates that what was proper to human nature was underwent by the 'body' of God the Word. His actions such as eating food and so forth, were not in any way some type of play acting but a necessity to show that God assumed the fullness of human nature. Moreover St Athanasius takes care to show that the human nature is endowed with human energy and acts and does what is proper to it, yet all the same it is the human nature of the Logos, and all human energies and properties belong to the Word of God.

In my opinion we can see the roots of subsequent Orthodox theology in St Athanasius and it is simply foolish to read Apollinarianism into him.

Best Regards

Ryan

27-07-2010, 10:21 PM

Holden- It may be true that μἰα φύσις was originally an Apollinarian forgery, but it's important to add that St. Cyril adopted this as his watchword against the Nestorians, and in his hands the phrase was certainly not Apollinarian but simply emphasized the oneness of Christ's hypostasis. The problem was, "physis" could mean both hypostasis and ousia and so this formula became a little unwieldy once we got down to the business of emphasizing the distinct fullness of both Christ's humanity and divinity.

George Christodoulos

20-12-2010, 03:58 AM

Hello brothers and sisters,

I'm overjoyed to join you all here. It's such a privilege to be here with you all. I'd like to share some of my views about this noble and interesting topic. I am Eastern Orthodox and used to be a vehement defender of Chalcedon because I saw in it the beauty and the perfection of the Mystery of the Incarnation. Chalcedon to me meant Christianity, the whole of Christianity and the wisdom of the Fathers. It represented all of Orthodoxy in few simple lines, the whole experience of Christianity in a very concentrated and truth filled lines. Any attack on Chalcedon was seen by me as an attack on the whole of Orthodoxy, and as a foolish and stubborn attempt by people who loved themselves more than they loved the truth. It's an attack on the infallibility of the Church and councils and an outright denial not only of the 4th council but of the rest as well. The issue was too personal, because it's too fundamental. Both sides are strong willed and convinced. Chalcedon changed the world, and if we care to understand its historical implications, they're not little. Someone had to be blamed. Someone had to be a culprit, because as Chalcedon vindicated the papacy and gave the West its theological confidence, it also debased Alexandria and rendered it theologically non-existent. In the aftermath of Chalcedon, the whole world changed. The One Church was wrecked and the wounds were too severe to heal, and this was an opportunity for the rise of an alternative religion and its triumph over the wounded and severed body of Christ. Someone had to be blamed for this. It's either the Chalcedonians or the non-Chalcedonians. I blamed the non-Chalcedonians, for in their stubborn self-love, they promoted themselves on the expense of the body of Christ and the collegiality of the Church. They followed individual Fathers, like the Protestants who follow a Calvin or a Luther, but not the consensus of the Holy Fathers. I couldn't convince any non-Chalcedonian, neither was I convinced by any of their apologetics because to tell you the truth they made no sense to me. I had Orthodox priests assisting me in this, but to no avail. I couldn't see their concern, and in my mind it was reduced to self-promotion and their attempt to justify themselves to avoid the historical guilt. I opposed any official Ecumenical dialogues because this means that there is something wrong with the councils which they don't like. I cheered for the Russian Patriarch because of his hesitant attitude towards unity with the Oriental Orthodox. I disliked how self-confident and hard headed the Orientals are, and how theologically incapable they are. I considered that their position today is an attempt to save face after the historical blunder of their forefathers. I disliked Dioscoros above all who wrecked the Church and ruined the world. Yet all of this occurred without me reading carefully the 3rd council and studying the 5th council. I used to only rely on what the traditional Orthodox polemic was and the traditional characterization of the different heresies which the Church battled and triumphed over to preserve Theosis. I was shocked to find the "One nature" terminology in the 5th, and found the 12 anathemas quite restricting. In fact some of the Orthodox priests' defence was found wanting and contradicting to the 6th council and the 12 anathemas. It was very embarrassing!! I realized that we went too far in emphasizing duality to the point that we clash with what we wish to uphold, the Holy Ecumenical councils. It's not an issue of 1 or 2 as if it's black or white or as if God can be crammed in a couple of lines. It's about the Christian's attitude toward the Mystery. The same problem emerges when the Sixth council is discussed, the traditional polemic centers around a number 1 or 2. But this is not what these councils talk about; the number is but a fraction of what's being said there. I realized that my position is compromised, for how should I judge their choice of words if my council accepts multiple meanings to one and the same word (nature for example). My whole attitude (and the attitude of the fellow Chalcedonians I encountered) was mistaken because it's not about numbers and words; it's about the Mystery of the Incarnation. The anathemas of Ephesus were also hard to put up with, because it shuns a number-centered apologetics. I was unsettled by my reaction to the anathemas and bewildered by how unitive their conception of Christ was as to make no room for the humanity of Christ to show forth. I was also surprised by the constant mention of Saint Cyril as an authority in Ephesus of course but also in Chalcedon, and in third Constantinople (Sixth council). Saint Cyril wasn't just the champion of Orthodoxy against Nestorius in affirming the unity of subject in Christ, rather he was quoted for every single Christological dilemma. So the non-Chalcedonians couldn't just be following their own Father and his idiosyncrasies as was commonly thought, rather they were holding on to the same measuring rod that the Christological councils were using. I was surprised that we don't encounter the writings of Saint Cyril as frequently as we do with Saint Athanasius, Saint Basil and Saint Gregory. The writings of Saint Cyril aren't readily available in English as other Fathers’. How could we have missed this champion of Christology? So the non-Chalcedonians use Saint Cyril's terminology which is also in the Fifth council, then I can't accuse them of heresy because of that, as I and my fellow Chalcedonians used to do. And the non-Chalcedonians accuse us of misunderstanding Saint Cyril, and given the importance of Saint Cyril for our Ecumenical councils then I had to encounter Saint Cyril first hand. When I looked how the Chalcedonians traditionally dealt with the Monophysites, I felt that their treatment was different than any other heresy and as if the Chalcedonian was trying to defend himself against the accusation of departure from Saint Cyril, and as if there is any ground for this. As a modern Eastern Orthodox that was pretty insulting to me, that the non-Chalcedonians were even given the benefit of the doubt. The Ecumenical dialogues, the fifth ecumenical council, the writings of Saint Maximus the confessor and Saint John Damascene made me realize that my position is compromised and wasn't as strong as I thought it to be. Father Myendorff's book Byzantine theology and his admission that there were different types of Chalcedonianism in the aftermath of Chalcedon, Father Romanides' writings pertaining to Chalcedon, the Tome and Theodoret of Cyrus, Theodoret’s counter statements ,critique of the Third ecumenical council and their condemnation a hundred years after Chalcedon, Pope Leo’s support of unrepentant Theodoret prior to Chalcedon(before disowning Nesotorius), Father Florovsky's discussion of the Antiochene Christology and the different attitudes towards the Fifth council in the sixth century between East and West, shattered my belief in a unanimous unchanging understanding of Chalcedon, and made me realize that I can't be as dogmatic, for I represent a doctrinal development (Byzantine theology: The heir of Saint Maximus the Confessor) as the non-Chalcedonian represents an ancient fossilized reaction to some elements and attitudes which stopped being a going concern (except probably in Western christianities). The nuances are many, and the wording of Chalcedon could have been accepted by someone of Nestorian leanings, for the Antiochians of the time could have also said two natures and one person (even one hypostasis), to whom the Monophysites were reacting. The reading of Saint Gregory the Theologian against Appolinaris (emphasizing not only the singleness of identity but also the unity of person and the diversity of essences) and the writings of Saint Cyril (as he masterfully weaves diversity and unity without confusion without losing sight of the Mystery and theosis) made me understand better the concern of the non-Chalcedonians. Here I speak of the non-Chalcedonians of the fifth and sixth centuries who could actually defend their position theologically. The Apologetics of the non-Chalcedonians today can't offer much, but in their vehement adherence to what they perceive to be true opened my eyes because they're an ancient witness of a different vision which I find in Saint Cyril that is in line with Saint Dionysius the Areopagite, Saint Maximus the Confessor, Saint Gregory of Nyssa, Saint Gregory the Theologian, Saint Gregory Palamas and Saint Athanasius and farthest from Latin christianity and the western (Roman catholic - Protestant) way of understanding and defending Chalcedon.

This post may not be acceptable to many Chalcedonians because if someone comes from a strict divisional dyophysite position, Saint Cyril, the 3rd and the 5th councils must be avoided and marginalized. The traditional Roman Catholic (then protestant) polemic against the non-Chalcedonian position tended to be motivated from this perspective and amounted to a quasi-Antiochene christology. Eastern Orthodoxy is about Mount Tabor not about numbers and words in and of themselves, but about transcending every number and word in order to achieve union with God. The way we speak about the Mystery and the ineffable union can sometimes be compromised, if we think, like Eunomius, that with words we can explain God and with numbers we can constrain Him. I was guilty of that and failed to appreciate that Saint Cyril can offer a more united and diverse way of speaking about the Mystery, and that the divisional way which overemphasizes diversity, if exaggerated as in heated polemics (especially if this happens to be one's position), can jeopardize our experience and our appreciation of the God-man.

Afterall, a dyophysite can be as much a heretic as a monphysite, and a monophysite can be as much Orthodox as a dyophysite. Orthodoxy is about proper nuances.If both one and two natures are in the councils, then truth and error cannot be judged or assessed by whether someone is one-naturite or two-naturite, but if one is of Orthodox Insight.

" Hence in regard of thought and of only seeing with the eyes of the soul how the Only-Begotten became man, we say that the natures united are two, but that the Word of God Incarnate and made man, is One Christ and Son and Lord." Saint Cyril's 1st letter to Successus

" But they did not know that things which are severed otherwise than in mere conception of them, these will full surely part off one from the other wholly and separately into diverseness. Take for example a man: we conceive of two natures in him, one, of the soul, the other, of the body. But severing them in mere idea, and in subtle conception or fantasy of the mind, admitting the difference, we do not put the natures apart nor give them their force throughout by severing, but we conceive of One ; so that the two are no longer two, but through both is One living creature made up. Hence though one speak of the nature of manhood and Godhead in Emmanuel, yet the manhood has become the Word's own, and He is conceived of as One Son with it." Saint Cyril's Second letter to Successus

We need to pay attention to what this Pillar of Christology foresaw and wrote about. Yes we can emphasize diversity in Christ on the expense of unity and I've seen it happen so many times in the heat of polemics, to the point of diluting the union. This will have a negative impact on our experience of the Mystery and our Spiritual health.

"Our Lord Jesus Christ again likens Himself to a Pearl, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like unto a merchant man seeking goodly pearls, who when he had found one Pearl of great price hath gone and sold all that he had and bought it. I hear Him in another way manifesting Himself to us and saying, I am the flower of the plain, the lily of the valleys. For He has in His Proper Nature the God-befitting Brightness of God the Father, and gives forth again His Savour, in respect I mean of spiritual fragrance. As therefore in the pearl and also the lily, the thing itself is conceived of as body, the brilliancy or fragrance therein considered in its proper definition as other than they in which they are, yet are the things inseparably innate again the own properties and not alien from those which possess them:---- in this way (I deem) shall we both reason and think of Emmanuel too. For of diverse kind by nature are Godhead and flesh, yet the Body of the Word was His own, and not severed from His Body is the Word which is united thereto; for thus and not otherwise will Emmanuel, i.e., God with us, be conceived of. Hence one while as Man, and making Himself manifest to us from the measures of the emptiness too, He said, No man takes My life from Me, another while again conceived of as God the Word and out of Heaven and One with His proper flesh, He says, No man hath ascended up to Heaven but He That came down from Heaven, the Son of Man.The Holy Scripture therefore from every side knitting together unto inseverable and true union the Son and bearing us back in faith unto One Person"

The Second Tome of Saint Cyril

I just hope we can speak of the Mystery of the Incarnation in such a fashion, with such wonder as of a thing seen and known in our depths.

In Christ,

Fr Raphael Vereshack

20-12-2010, 03:10 PM

Dear George,

Would you be able to break the first portion of your post above into paragraphs? This would make it easier to read. Thanks.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Jason H.

20-12-2010, 06:03 PM

George,

St. Cyril wrote a book On The Unity of Christ (http://www.amazon.com/Unity-Christ-Saint-Cyril-Alexandria/dp/0881411337/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1292864505&sr=8-2)

I'm also trying to excerpt a portion of this book which I think highlights the Saint's main points.

Jason H.

20-12-2010, 06:36 PM

Attendee-"[The Nestorians] might admit this but really they do not want the title Christ applied to the Word born of God the Father, since in his own nature, as God, he was never anointed. They would also maintain that this is one of those name which we cannot use about the Holy Spirit or the Father Himself."

St. Cyril-"The logic behind this is not very clear. It would be a good thing if you could explain it."

Attendee-"Well, listen. There are many varied titles which the inspired Scriptures apply to the Son. He is called: God, Lord, Light, and Life, as well as King, Lord of Hosts, Holy One, and Lord of All. If someone wished to apply all these titles to the Father himself, or to the Holy Spirit, he could do so without error. This is because in a single nature there can only be one excellence of dignities. They argue from this that is the title Christ is truly appropriate to the Only Begotten, then it should be, like the other titles, equally applicable without distinction to the Father himself and to the Holy Spirit. Given that it is entirely inappropriate to apply this title to the Father or to the Holy Spirit, then neither can it be right to apply it to the Only Begotten, and on the contrary, they say, it ought in fact to be attributed to the one who is of the line of David, for in our arguments and discourses we can quite properly attribute to him an anointing by the Holy Spirit."

St. Cyril – “We ourselves also admit that the titles of the divine perfections are common to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and we crown the Begetter with equal glories to the One Begotten from him, and the Holy Spirit too. Nonetheless, dear friends, I would say that that the title of Christ, and that which it signifies (that is, an anointing) really do apply to the Only Begotten, after the manner of his self-emptying. It indicates quite clearly to those who hear it that he has undergone an incarnation, for it signifies wonderfully well that he has been anointed in being made man. If we were not considering this issue of the economy of the flesh, but rather were to direct our thoughts to the Only Begotten Word of God considered outside all the limitations of the self-emptying, then yes, it would indeed be entirely unfitting to name him Christ when he has not been anointed. Since the divine and sacred scripture says that he has become flesh, however, even the anointing is appropriate for him, referring to the incarnation which is his own. The all-wise Paul puts it this way: ‘For the Sanctifier and the sanctified all have the same origin. This is why he is not ashamed to call them brothers when he says: I will announce your name to my brethren” (Heb. 2:11-12; Ps. 44:7-8). He was sanctified along with us when he became like us. The divine David also testifies that the one who is truly Son was also anointed in accordance with his becoming flesh, which is to say perfect man, when he addresses these words to him: ‘Your throne O God is from age to age; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness, and so God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above all who participate in you’ (Ps. 45:6-7 LXX). Take note, then, that while David calls him God and attributes to him an eternal throne, he also says that he has been anointed by God, evidently the Father, with a special anointing above that of his participants, which means us. The Word who is God has become man, therefore, but has retained all the while the virtues of his proper nature. He is perfection itself, and as John says: ‘full of grace and truth’ (Jn. 1:14), and while he himself has everything that is fitting to the deity, we on our part ‘have all of us received from his fullness’ as it is written (Jn. 1:16). Nonetheless he made the limits of the manhood of his own, called Christ even though he cannot be thought of as anointed when we consider him specifically as God or when we speak about his divine nature. How else could we consider that there is one Christ, One Son and Lord, if the Only Begotten had disdained the anointing and had never come under the limitations of the self-emptying?”

Attendee – “But they move along completely different lines to us, and interpret the holy mystery foolishly. They maintain that God the Word assumed a perfect man who was of the line of Abraham and David, as the scriptures say, and who was of the same nature as his ancestors, a man complete in his nature, composed of a rational soul and human flesh. They say that this man, of our nature, was fashioned by the power of the Holy Spirit in the womb of the virgin and ‘was born of a woman, born under the law, so that he could redeem us all’ (Gal. 4:4-5) from the law’s slavery as we received the sonship long destined for us. They say that God the Word conjoined the man to himself in an entirely new way, bringing him to death as is the law among men, but raising him from the dead and taking him up to heaven and sitting him at the right hand of God so that he was ‘above every Principality and Authority, every Power and Dominion, and every name that can be named, not only in this age but even the age to come’ (Eph. 1:21). They say that he received the worship of all the creation insofar as he had an inseparable conjunction with the divine nature, as all creation rendered its worship to him with intellectual reference to God. It is for this reason that one does not speak of two Sons or two Lords because God the Word, the Only Begotten Son of the Father, is the Son by nature, and this man connected with him and participates in him and thereby shares in the very title and honor of the son. The Lord, who by nature is God the Word, communicates the honor to this man who is conjoined with him, and this is why we do not speak of two Sons or two Lords since it is obvious that he who is Lord and Son by nature has, for the sake of salvation, assumed a man into inseparable conjunction with himself which thereby elevates him to the title and honor of both Son and Lord.”

St. Cyril – “My goodness. I cannot imagine how stupid and intellectually superficial they must be who hold to such a conception. The whole thing is faithlessness and nothing else. It is the novelty of wicked inventions, the overthrowing of the divine and sacred kerygma which has proclaimed One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, truly the word of God the Father who was made man and incarnated so that the same one is equally God and man, and that to him alone apply all the divine and human characteristics. For he who is and exists from all eternity, as he is God, underwent birth from a woman according to the flesh. This means that it pertains to one and the same both to exist and subsist eternally, and also have been born after the flesh in these last times. He who as God was holy by nature has been sanctified along with us in terms of his manifestation as man, for it befits man to be sanctified. Both he who exists in lordly glories, and he who took the form of a slave as his own, calls God his Father. He who as God is Life and Life-Giver is manifestation as man. This is why all these characteristics pertain to him. He did not disdain the economy which even God the father had praised, if what Paul taught is true, who said somewhere, ‘He made him who knew not sin into sin for our sake so that in him we might become the righteousness of God’ (2 Cor. 5:21); and in another place, ‘He did not spare his own Son but gave him up for the sake of all so that with him he might grant us all things’ (Rom. 8:32). Surely our exposition follows the mind of the scriptures?

Attendee – “Most certainly.”

This is an excerpt from the book that I mentioned in my previous post.

Ryan

20-12-2010, 11:07 PM

Dear George- I think you did not fully understand the position of Chalcedon and the subsequent theological expressions in the Church. There was never a rejection of St. Cyril's phrase "one nature of God the Word incarnate." This phrase remained in the Orthodox Church alongside Chalcedon's "one person in two natures." St. John Damascene gives a very good explanation of St. Cyril's formula in his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith. Chalcedon upheld Ephesus and St. Cyril's synodical epistles in its definition, which of course includes his third letter to Nestorius with the 12 anathemas. Chalcedon's Orthodoxy was never based on a rejection of St. Cyril's phrase "one nature", but of the non-Cyrillian interpretation of Eutyches which suggested that Christ had only a divine nature. Anyone who rejects out of hand any use of the phrase "one nature" as heretical is not speaking for the tradition of Chalcedon, and if Orthodox polemicists have gone that way, they have gone too far.

At the same time, while St. Cyril's theology was certainly a standard of Orthodoxy, it was not the standard.

St. Cyril himself reconciled with the Antiochian church on the basis of a common agreement that did not include his 12 anathemas, nor even a recognition of the Council of Ephesus, nor the phrase "one nature of God the Word incarnate". In fact, he was even willing to let them go on venerating Theodore of Mopsuestia. St. Cyril was content to have an agreement in substance and was not pushing so hard for a single way of verbally formulating the faith. I think that is part of what distinguishes him from his self-styled followers the non-Chalcedonians whose false purism led to an unnecessary schism.

Some of them point to misinterpretations of Chalcedon by followers of Theodore to somehow be proof of its compromise with heresy. It is essentially an argument of guilt by association and it could just as easily be leveled at the earlier councils as well. And while the 5th council helped to clarify things (as all of the Councils did) we must absolutely reject the assertion that it "corrected" Chalcedon and purged it of latent heresy.

George Christodoulos

21-12-2010, 07:58 AM

St. Cyril himself reconciled with the Antiochian church on the basis of a common agreement that did not include his 12 anathemas, nor even a recognition of the Council of Ephesus, nor the phrase "one nature of God the Word incarnate". In fact, he was even willing to let them go on venerating Theodore of Mopsuestia. St. Cyril was content to have an agreement in substance and was not pushing so hard for a single way of verbally formulating the faith. I think that is part of what distinguishes him from his self-styled followers the non-Chalcedonians whose false purism led to an unnecessary schism.

Hi Ryan,
Thank you for your kind reply. I understand very well your point of view which I used to believe in and defend. Yet I came to realize that it's only acceptable to those who speak of these events after the dust has settled, since they were experienced differently as the decisions were made. The Fifth council which was held 100 years after Chalcedon does clarify Chalcedon and prevents many from using it wrongly. You say that I misunderstood Chalcedon, but the question is: Which Chalcedon did I misunderstand ?! There were at least 3 understandings of Chalcedon in the aftermath of the fourth council. You also say that Chalcedon upheld the third council, yet in the quote above you also say that Saint Cyril compromised his position and made an agreement with no reference to the Third council and the anathemas. Are the anathemas that much of a problem? I think when it comes to a certain understanding of Chalcedon they are. Chalcedon's horos is 100% Orthodox, but it is so from my position here after 600 years of Byzantine theology. I stand on the shoulders of giants and confessors who struggled with the words of Chalcedon to birth my and your understanding of Chalcedon. In the aftermath of Chalcedon there was none of that. You mentioned Saint John Damascene, and you're right, but he wrote in the Seventh century (almost 200 years after Chalcedon). The Fifth council was indeed to compensate for the original lack of clarifications (given the historical and theological context of how the words of Chalcedon sounded to their hearers everywhere) and an affirmation of the original intent of Chalcedon, but a correction to how Chalcedon was understood especially in the West and in the Orient. Chalcedon was lenient, not in its horos abstracted from its historical context as it is the case today, but in its anathemas and exonerations, in its use of words in the context of the Fifth century (not today's of course). The Fifth council reversed many of these. I don't find any condemnation of Dioscoros as heretic until after the Sixth council (150 years after Chalcedon), again a belated condemnation for a heretic who wrecked the Church and fathered the Monophysites!! This gives us reason to think and ponder. For the majority of the people of the see of Alexandria who perceived that their tradition has been compromised, 100 years is a long time for a correction, because they experienced not only the abstract horos (like you and I) but also its context from which it received nuances and meanings.

As for the quote above concerning Saint Cyril's reconciliation, it's been traditionally understood that Saint Cyril compromised his position and his anathemas by signing this agreement. But this is not true as evidenced by his letters after ending the schism with Antioch. He signed the agreement under the conception that the Antiochenes had the same nuance in mind, even though he objected at the obscurity of their expressions. These expressions are now our vocabulary, because we don't know any other, and Saint Cyril's expressions and his insights are now obscured to us.

“Once we confess the union, those things which have been united are no longer separate from each other, but then there is one Son, and his nature is one as the Word made flesh. The bishops from the East confess these doctrines, even though they are somewhat obscure concerning the expression” (This is letter 44 to Eulogius)

How could we assume that a mutual agreement between two patriarchs would have the power to overturn an Ecumenical council and its anathemas? The mutual agreement presupposed Ephesus and its anathemas. Yet it was understood by Rome and Antioch after Chalcedon that somehow the new definition replaced the anathemas or corrected them. Then you said that Saint Cyril was not the standard but a standard. Well I used to believe that too, but this is not how Orthodox Fathers defended Chalcedon. They always had to convince their opponents of their (the Chalcedonians’) agreement with Saint Cyril. The West never bothered with this because they considered the Tome of Leo as the standard, to the point that Saint Cyril never had a feast day till the 19th century in the Catholic Church. There is more than one Chalcedon historically speaking, but there is one and only Chalcedon dogmatically speaking. This Orthodox Chalcedon transcends the words which could have (and they did have in many places) unorthodox nuances and applications (to which the non-Chalcedonians reacted), and this Chalcedon is very Cyrillian as was later developed for example by Saint Maximus the Confessor.

As you said it very well, every council's aim is to clarify and to arrive at the consensus Faith once delivered to the Saints and handed down in different regions among traditional Orthodox Christian communities. Chalcedon didn't do that, no matter how Orthodox it was. There were sizable communities who didn't find the expressions sufficient or representative of their own received faith. They had to be heard, and the Fifth council had to be earlier. It could've been earlier if it wasn't for Rome's "false purism", who insisted that Chalcedon couldn't be further clarified as later happened in the Fifth council. Why did Western churches go into schism because of the Fifth council unless its clarification didn't represent how they understood Chalcedon? Out of honesty I have to spread the guilt of what happened and cannot make it the non-Chalcedonians' sole burden to bear.

In Chalcedon the expression "out of two natures" was rejected because it was Dioscoros' and "in two natures" was accepted in the new definition. The expression was rejected because it was Dioscoros' (guilt by association?). Yet I find this same expression in the Fifth council, many times in Saint Maximus the Confessor and Saint John Damascene. Why did it take so long to accept and give legitimacy to an Orthodox expression which anyone can use today? Why was Dioscoros' "out of two natures after the union" so repulsive in Chalcedon yet so acceptable in Second Constantinople and to all our cherished Byzantine Fathers? If we don't have the honesty to see these issues, and rather prefer to blindly take sides then we won't be able to appreciate Orthodoxy. But I'll go further, there are Eastern Orthodox who can be branded Cyrillian and there are others who are exact copies of the Westerners who went into schism because of the Fifth council. But I'll go even further, an Eastern Orthodox can use both approaches as if he's using one non-contradictory approach without ever realizing it. So Saint Maximus the Confessor and Saint John Damascene can say that "out of two natures" and "in two natures" are equivalent terms, while a great theologian whom I greatly love and appreciate like Vladimir Lossky can say "The dogma of Chalcedon, whose fifteenth centenary the Christian world celebrated in 1951, shows us Christ “consubstantial with the Father in divinity, consubstantial with us in humanity”. We can conceive of the reality of God’s incarnation without admitting any transmutation of the Divinity into humanity, without confusion or mixture of the uncreated and the created, precisely because we distinguish the person or hypostasis of the Son from His nature or essence: a person who is not formed from two natures, ek dyo physeon but who is in two natures, en dyo physesin” (From “Theological Notion of the Human Person” – Chapter 6 In the Image and Likeness of God p111-123). He made a theological distinction between two equally Orthodox expressions according to the Fifth council and the Byzantine Fathers (who happen to be in agreement with Dioscoros), but he’s not alone. Even the word “Nature” of Chalcedon in the hands of the Eastern Orthodox can take different nuances, at times “General Essence” (Father Romanides) and at times “Concrete essence” (Father Florovsky) and so on. So even to this day we can add our own understanding to Chalcedon. We can make it Cyrillian in line with Saint Maximus and Saint John Damascene (and of course the Fifth council) or we can make it Antiochian and Latin in line with Theodore of Mopsuestia and those who went into schism in the West because of Second Constantinople. This is disturbing, but to deny it is to be dishonest. To insist on not sharing the blame is genuinely counterproductive.

Again it’s not about words but about nuances, and unfortunately we can at times forget how we arrived to our own present day perspectives and blame those who dissented for not understanding what it took our forefathers hundreds of years to sharply define. I personally believe that the schism started by favouring one school’s wording over the other, then it sharpened because each faction thought the other was using the same theological terms in the same way and this clouded the genuine Orthodox concerns of both sides. It further deteriorated because of geopolitical complications (Imperial politics, Persian and Arab wars) and it became final when the provinces were lost to the Arabs. Then in the Sixth council (40 years after the Arab invasion) Dioscoros and Severus were labelled heretics, but not one year prior officially speaking. All what I said would be wrong if the two councils (the 4th and 5th) weren’t so different in attitudes, wording and clarification. If they weren’t too far apart timewise and if the Chalcedonians (those who consider Chalcedon as their focal point) weren’t today making the same mistakes condemned by the very ecumenical councils before and after Chalcedon.

A case study is the Protestant churches who care to do theology. Even though they’re Chalcedonians, who would fight endlessly in apologetics with the non-Chalcedonians, they can’t get themselves to call Mary Theotokos or Mother of God. This is an example of people who adhere to the Nicene Creed and the Chalcedonian creed but not to any other council. These are their traditional creeds and they see no inconsistency between these creeds and their quasi-Nestorian position. Now this is a simple example, there are many such nuances which can take on Nestorian dimensions if the whole councils are not taken into account.

This Protestant example proves the non-Chalcedonians right, for here we have a group who adheres to Chalcedon and not to Ephesus, and they don’t see a contradiction between a Semi-Nestorian Christology and their understanding of Chalcedon. There are other elements which can either take Cyrillian or Nestorian twists in one’s Christology, even if one adheres wholly to Chalcedon.

I can no longer get myself to say, as I used to say, that the non-Chalcedonians’ concerns and “unnecessary” schism were motivated by verbal adherence to Saint Cyril. The evidence and the attitude of the Orthodox (in the 5th & 6th centuries) show that these people were reacting against a conception of the Mystery which can be encouraged or is at least not shunned by the Fourth council: A conception which is alive and well today and was alive and well (even if under cover) in the fifth and sixth centuries.

Ephesus, Chalcedon, Second Constantinople and Third Constantinople must form one unit for anyone who wishes to understand Christology, and this synthesis was the basis of my and your understanding of Chalcedon, a perspective which wasn’t readily clear or obvious in the immediate aftermath of Chalcedon, hence the non-Chalcedonian communities. On the other hand, those who lack this synthesis gave us the Western widespread perspectives on Chalcedon, and we all know that these are semi-Nestorian or at least some of us can see the difference between the Byzantine synthesis and the Latin perspective (and consequently the Protestant).

The more Eastern Orthodoxy is influenced by the Latin perspective, the more it will diminish the value of Saint Cyril, the Third and Fifth councils. The more Eastern Orthodoxy is dissociated from the Latin perspective, the more it’ll become appreciative of all the councils and the wealth of the Byzantine synthesis and Saint Cyril.

The Great Schism was caused by many factors, but one of the major issues was the Filioque clause. To the Latins, it’s a harmless addition. To Saint Photios, it was the overturning of the Faith. We can also simplistically explain away the schism in the aftermath of Chalcedon and reduce it to harmless terminological differences or choose to measure the other by our own choice of terms, or we can be as thorough as Saint Photios and see the theological concerns of the tradition of the Great see of Alexandria (people, school and leadership) as it was in the fifth century. I don’t exonerate anybody, but I refuse to oversimplify because I emerged the victor, especially if my position presents itself with multiple often contradictory nuances, not in the councils, but in our understanding of them.

Let’s be frank Christ is much more than one in two or one out of two (I wish it was that simple), it’s the application and understanding of these concepts which can take on Orthodox or unorthodox dimensions and meanings. It’s much more complex, and differences do arise at every step of the way, as one progresses in his or her exposition of Christology.

In the general scholarship out there about the council, the authors speak of the dangers and wiles of confusion of essences in monophysitism as if that’s the only possible heresy, as they are blind to their own dyophysitism, as if the more dyophysite one is, the more Orthodox in Faith. I mean if we choose to see Orthodoxy as a balance of nuances between extremes, so the extreme Monophysite (one-essence) will occupy one end of the spectrum and the extreme Dyophysite (Two hypostases: Because two too independent essences are two hypostases) will occupy the other. At every point of this spectrum, we can have a Christological position which is not Orthodoxy. The more Dyophysite a person is, the more the Orthodox position will seem Monophysite (or prior to Chalcedon it used to be branded Appolinarian). The more Monophysite a person is, the more any position closer to the other extreme will be seen as extreme Dyophysite. One can be a moderate Dyophysite and still not be Orthodox. We’re talking about so many positions along this spectrum and only the whole councils can make us find this middle point. If our measuring rod took hundreds of years to form, one cannot judge those who predated the fullness of this measuring rod, because we can never know what they were, especially if they helped forming it by their reactions.

The truth was always there but not how we described it in a way understandable to all. In this sense Chalcedon outlined an area on this spectrum as where the truth is, and it accommodated all dyophysite positions except the extremist and alienated all the monophysite side of the spectrum. The Truth was just in the middle, so we needed the other councils to narrow down this area to one point only. No one can say Chalcedon wasn’t right, but it wasn’t enough given the positions in existence back then, hence the non-Chalcedonian reaction. I apologize if that was too long.

In Christ,

George Christodoulos

21-12-2010, 08:10 AM

Father Raphael,
I'm new to all this. Would you be kind to tell me how to edit a previously posted message ?

Thank you
In Christ

George Christodoulos

21-12-2010, 08:15 AM

Thank you, Jason. I love this book. What I love the most about Saint Cyril is that he never loses track of the reason of the Incarnation, and never loses sight of the union as he speaks about the diversity of natures or essences. I get a sense that he's meditating a beautiful painting, and he keeps describing the part, then the whole and then you get a feel of his delight at the sight he's seeing, and he does all of that without giving more emphasis to this aspect or the other. You get it all in Saint Cyril :). In Christ.

Ryan

21-12-2010, 03:29 PM

Hi Ryan,
[SIZE=4]Thank you for your kind reply. I understand very well your point of view which I used to believe in and defend. Yet I came to realize that it's only acceptable to those who speak of these events after the dust has settled, since they were experienced differently as the decisions were made. The Fifth council which was held 100 years after Chalcedon does clarify Chalcedon and prevents many from using it wrongly. You say that I misunderstood Chalcedon, but the question is: Which Chalcedon did I misunderstand ?! There were at least 3 understandings of Chalcedon in the aftermath of the fourth council.

And how many understandings were there of Nicaea? Constantinople? Ephesus? In the aftermath of all these councils there were still heretics claiming to accept them. Chalcedon cannot be legitimately understood in a Nestorian way any more than Ephesus can be legitimately understood in a Eutychian or Julianist way. Do we understand the 4th Council in the light of the 5th Council? Sure, just as we understand the 3rd in light of the 4th, and Councils 1-2 in light of Ephesus. They clarify each other, but they don't correct each other, as if there were some heresy in any of these councils.

You also say that Chalcedon upheld the third council, yet in the quote above you also say that Saint Cyril compromised his position and made an agreement with no reference to the Third council and the anathemas.

My point was not that St. Cyril recanted his anathemas- only that he was willing to accept an agreement in substance, without requiring a speciic adhesion to his words.

That Chalcedon upheld the Third Council and St. Cyril's epistles is not a matter of debate; it's written explicitly in the definition of the Council.

It approves the holy synod formerly held in Ephesus, of which Celestine of Rome and Cyril of Alexandria, of holy memory,were the leaders.

It later says: And, on account of those who have taken in hand to corrupt the mystery of the dispensation and who shamelessly pretend that he who was born of the holy Virgin Mary was a mere man, it receives the synodical letters of the Blessed Cyril, Pastor of the Church of Alexandria, addressed to Nestorius and the Easterns, judging them suitable, for the refutation of the frenzied folly of Nestorius, and for the instruction of those who long with holy ardour for a knowledge of the saving symbol.

St. Cyril's 12 anathemas appear, of course, in his third synodical letter to Nestorius, so it is false to suggest that Chalcedon ignored or rejected the 12 anathemas. And I reiterate: St. Cyril's formula of "One nature of God the Word Incarnate" was never rejected or condemned.

Are the anathemas that much of a problem? I think when it comes to a certain understanding of Chalcedon they are.

From the point of view of a misinterpretation, sure. Chalcedon is also a problem to a "certain understanding" of Ephesus- namely, the Eutychian one. This doesn't say anything about the actual meaning of the Council, which affirms the Orthodoxy of St. Cyril and the Council of Ephesus, and denounces Nestorianism explicitly.

I am not arguing that St. Cyril ever compromised the substance of his anathemas or his other theological writings. But he did not uphold his particular formulas and words as the way to express Orthodox theology, unlike certain self-styled followers of his.

Chalcedon's horos is 100% Orthodox, but it is so from my position here after 600 years of Byzantine theology. I stand on the shoulders of giants and confessors who struggled with the words of Chalcedon to birth my and your understanding of Chalcedon. In the aftermath of Chalcedon there was none of that.

What is your opinion of St. Leo the Great? Why is he not one of those "giants and confessors"?
The same giants and confessors said that Dioscorus is "hated of God" (from the definition of Constantinople III) and that those who reject Chalcedon are "alien to the Catholic Church) (Constantinople II). You seem to implying that the Orthodox Church possibly fell into heresy until the 5th Council re-affirmed Orthodoxy, or that heresy at least became an acceptable option until then; that the Fathers of the Church misread or falsified history by assuming Chalcedon to be Orthodox.

The Fifth council was indeed to compensate for the original lack of clarifications ([I]given the historical and theological context of how the words of Chalcedon sounded to their hearers everywhere) and an affirmation of the original intent of Chalcedon, but a correction to how Chalcedon was understood especially in the West and in the Orient.

A correction to a misunderstanding, yes; a correction to Chalcedon itself, no. It's unreasonable to blame the council for its misinterpreters- all of the previous councils had such issues as well.

Chalcedon was lenient, not in its horos abstracted from its historical context as it is the case today, but in its anathemas and exonerations, in its use of words in the context of the Fifth century (not today's of course). The Fifth council reversed many of these.

The Fifth Council did no such thing. It did not reverse the exoneration of Ibas or Theodoret- it did, however, condemn certain of their writings. The "historical context" was that the Alexandrine mode of expression was not the only acceptable one in the Orthodox Church, and St. Cyril recognized the legitimacy of the Antiochene school even while rejecting the extreme proponents like Theodore and Nestorius. What Chalcedon accomplished was a synthesis of these two Orthodox modes of Christology.

[SIZE=4]How could we assume that a mutual agreement between two patriarchs would have the power to overturn an Ecumenical council and its anathemas? The mutual agreement presupposed Ephesus and its anathemas. Yet it was understood by Rome and Antioch after Chalcedon that somehow the new definition replaced the anathemas or corrected them.

You misunderstand. It was never my point that St. Cyril's agreement with John of Antioch overturned the council or the anathemas. All it showed was that accepting these explicitly was not necessary to an agreement in substance. As for Chalcedon "replacing" the anathemas, that is absurd since both the Council of Ephesus and St. Cyril's synodical epistles are upheld in the definition. Actually Chalcedon is more insistent on St. Cyril's words than St. Cyril was himself- he did not require explicit acceptance of Ephesus or his epistles, whereas Chalcedon assumes it.

Then you said that Saint Cyril was not the standard but a standard. Well I used to believe that too, but this is not how Orthodox Fathers defended Chalcedon. They always had to convince their opponents of their (the Chalcedonians’) agreement with Saint Cyril.

I don't see any contradiction between defending Chalcedon as conforming to St. Cyril, while at the same time understanding that his mode of expression was not the only standard. It was simply because the anti-Chalcedonians were furiously arguing that Chalcedon broke with St. Cyril that its conformity to him needed to be stressed. Obviously the Antiochene school had some valuable things to say and these are also enshrined in the definition of Chalcedon.

As you said it very well, every council's aim is to clarify and to arrive at the consensus Faith once delivered to the Saints and handed down in different regions among traditional Orthodox Christian communities. Chalcedon didn't do that, no matter how Orthodox it was. There were sizable communities who didn't find the expressions sufficient or representative of their own received faith.

By that standard, every Council failed to clarify or arrive at consensus. Again, misinterpretations of Chalcedon can't be blamed on the Council itself. This is the very weak crux of the anti-Chalcedonian polemic- that somewhat must be held to blame whenever someone else misinterprets him. After Ephesus, we had Eutyches. Even after they condemned Eutyches, the anti-Chalcedonians gave rise to Julian of Halicarnassus who was very popular in the Armenian church for a while, and Severus of Antioch had to spend a lot of effort arguing against him. Why, by your standards, shouldn't this be blamed on some failure of Ephesus to adequately uphold Christ's human nature?

In Chalcedon the expression "out of two natures" was rejected because it was Dioscoros' and "in two natures" was accepted in the new definition. The expression was rejected because it was Dioscoros' (guilt by association?).

No, the expression was not used because the monophysites loved to talk about one nature "after the union." Therefore, it was necessary to stress that Christ always maintained two distinct natures- so "one person in two natures" much more adequately refutes Eutyches.

Yet I find this same expression in the Fifth council, many times in Saint Maximus the Confessor and Saint John Damascene. Why did it take so long to accept and give legitimacy to an Orthodox expression which anyone can use today?

The Orthodox Church has a long history of adopting phrases with problematic origins, but making them Orthodox in a new context: homoouisios, "one nature of God the Word incarnate", "from two natures," etc.

But I'll go further, there are Eastern Orthodox who can be branded Cyrillian and there are others who are exact copies of the Westerners who went into schism because of the Fifth council.

Where are these latter, who, I presume, venerate Theodore of Mopsuestia?

But I'll go even further, an Eastern Orthodox can use both approaches as if he's using one non-contradictory approach without ever realizing it. So Saint Maximus the Confessor and Saint John Damascene can say that "out of two natures" and "in two natures" are equivalent terms, while a great theologian whom I greatly love and appreciate like Vladimir Lossky can say "The dogma of Chalcedon, whose fifteenth centenary the Christian world celebrated in 1951, shows us Christ “consubstantial with the Father in divinity, consubstantial with us in humanity”. We can conceive of the reality of God’s incarnation without admitting any transmutation of the Divinity into humanity, without confusion or mixture of the uncreated and the created, precisely because we distinguish the person or hypostasis of the Son from His nature or essence: a person who is not formed from two natures, ek dyo physeon but who is in two natures, en dyo physesin”

Lossky is not saying anything here that is contradictory in substance to the 5th council. He is not rejecting "ek dyo physeon" as it was used at that Council. What matters is the context in which words are used. Like it or not, that's how language always works. Lossky's (and Chalcedon's) point is that Christ is not one nature created by a mixing of two natures. While Dioscoros may have agreed with this, his terminological inflexibility did not allow him to adequately refute Eutyches.

We can make it Cyrillian in line with Saint Maximus and Saint John Damascene (and of course the Fifth council) or we can make it Antiochian and Latin in line with Theodore of Mopsuestia and those who went into schism in the West because of Second Constantinople. This is disturbing, but to deny it is to be dishonest.

We can do similar things with all councils and dogmatic statements, owing to the imperfection of human language and the heretics' endless capacity for dishonesty and double-talk. It is dishonest to pretend that this is a particular problem for Chalcedon.

To insist on not sharing the blame is genuinely counterproductive.

Who exactly are we blaming? Did some in the West and Antioch misinterpret Chalcedon? Yes. If that's whom you want to blame, that's fine. But again, it's unreasonable to blame someone simply because others misinterpret him. No doubt, Nestorians and Theodoreans, when they heard about Eutyches, were saying "Ha! We told you that the Council of Ephesus was Appolinarian." Were they justified to say this? Absolutely not.

A case study is the Protestant churches who care to do theology.

That's your problem- guilt by association. It's the same weak tactic favoured by anti-Chalcedonian polemicists.

Even though they’re Chalcedonians, who would fight endlessly in apologetics with the non-Chalcedonians, they can’t get themselves to call Mary Theotokos or Mother of God.

Then they're not Chalcedonians, since the definition of Chalcedon explicitly refers to Mary as Theotokos. Someone who claims to follow the creed of Chalcedon while refusing to call Mary Theotokos has not read the creed of Chalcedon. Perhaps you too could use a refresher:

But, forasmuch as persons undertaking to make void the preaching of the truth have through their individual heresies given rise to empty babblings; some of them daring to corrupt the mystery of the Lord's incarnation for us and refusing [to use] the name Mother of God (Theotokos) in reference to the Virgin, while others, bringing in a confusion and mixture, and idly conceiving that the nature of the flesh and of the Godhead is all one, maintaining that the divine Nature of the Only Begotten is, by mixture, capable of suffering; therefore this present holy, great, and ecumenical synod, desiring to exclude every device against the Truth, and teaching that which is unchanged from the beginning, has at the very outset decreed that the faith of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Fathers shall be preserved inviolate...

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.

[SIZE=4]This Protestant example proves the non-Chalcedonians right, for here we have a group who adheres to Chalcedon and not to Ephesus, and they don’t see a contradiction between a Semi-Nestorian Christology and their understanding of Chalcedon.

This is appallingly poor logic. You need to read the definition of Chalcedon again. You are blaming Chalcedon for those who choose to falsify and lie about it. That is what heretics do- they take something true and mix it with falsehood. They did it to the scriptures, they did it to the first 2 councils (the Nestorians accept these), they did it to the third council (Eutyches, Julian, etc.), so why are you singling out the 4th?

Fr Raphael Vereshack

21-12-2010, 03:54 PM

Father Raphael,
I'm new to all this. Would you be kind to tell me how to edit a previously posted message ?

Thank you
In Christ

Dear George,

What you do is to press the Edit Post button and then make any changes or corrections as need be. From what I recall though for regular posters there is a time limit for doing this.

Your post above (#28) however works so this is alright.

Thanks.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

George Christodoulos

22-12-2010, 09:05 AM

Hi Ryan,
Thank you for your reply. I don't think I can add anything to what I've previously shared. I do not wish to repeat my long post. I'm very sorry if I got you mad, because it was never my intention. Notice I didn't use words like "heretics", neither did I blame Chalcedon. In fact I said no one can say it's not right. I also said that taking sides is bound to produce comments in the spirit of what you wrote. People don't have to venerate a person or even know a person to hold similar views. If no council is reponsible for how it will be understood, then why do you say that Chalcedon rejected "out of two natures" because it wouldn't refute Eutyches? A clear definition in the context of widespread Nestorianism was also a responsibility. I can't argue with dogmatism. I've been there, I've done that. One's belief in the infallibility of anything precedes any argument or assessment. But I don't think this is Orthodoxy, for it really amounts to ecclesiastical monophysitism. It's Divine and inspired. End of story. There is no room for the humanity and historicity of events, of how words were used and understood by their hearers. It makes no room for the human element of the Church to show forth, to grow and develop. Chalcedon becomes all perfect, all wise and all complete in every aspect. Why would God allow His Church to have other councils then? It's because God preserves His truth in the midst of all of this human chaos of Empire, war and weak men, and because He has to work through all of this, we needed more than one council. We needed so many people articulating a glimpse but not the fullness, till someone else can articulate a little more and so on. Yet all of this has to be done for the service of mankind for their salvation, not for any other purpose. A heretic is still the Church's mandate. The council is not an end in itself, it's useful as much as it is understood and communicated. The council was made for man, not man for the council. Ryan, you speak of the non-Chalcedonians as if they were Arians. And as if the title monophysite is an accurate description of all non-Chalcedonians. I can't claim to speak for God, but the almost tormented longing attitude of the Eastern Orthodox towards the non-Chalcedonian over the centuries must mean something. These people weren't treated like any other "heretic". Ryan, Would you avoid the title Theotokos because someone calls Mary the literal Mother of divinity ? I don't think so. Yet Pope Leo avoided its use after Chalcedon. He's very Chalcedonian. Don't you agree? Don't the Protestants do the same as well ? I think we let things go if we deem them uninmportant. Yet Saint Cyril saw the whole struggle against Nestorius centering around calling the Virgin Theotokos, because it's the one element that summarizes it all. I think you need to read my post again, because my feeling is that you didn't appreciate my concerns. Because if you did, you wouldn't be defending anyone (Lossky) or even Chalcedon (Why would you? Have I attacked it ?), since you insist on seeing the situation after the dust has long settled as the Fifth council remains so different in attitude, clarification and wording (given the fact that during the interim 100 years, no new heresies arose for which the council was convened. It was convened to deal with the same old question). My examples were only illustrative, yet they were motivated by genuine concerns which I came to think you either don't appreciate or don't see at all. This too is something I mentioned in my post, that there is a chance that these concerns won't be seen at all. Chalcedon is infallible, yet what about the interim 100 years ? Were they too infallible ? Ecumenical councils arise out of needs. No one ever said that their calling is infallible or the timing of their calling by an Emperor is infallible. There was a need for clarification. A human fallible element prevented it and delayed it. The truth was always there, but not its full articulation and clarification. Three councils were called in 22 year period to deal with the Christological issue, yet it took 100 years to call Second constantinople (Had it been called earlier, it would've arrived at the same decisions and the same clarifications. There was nothing new!!). I don't want to play the what if game. I choose to share the blame rather than calling names. Who am I ? The human element in the Church which at times fails to cooperate with God, to make things better for the Church. And when that human element cooperates, we get our Saints, Confessors and the enlightenment which can only come from God acting out through human words and actions, for the well-being of the Church and the salvation of the world.
In Christ,

Ryan

22-12-2010, 04:03 PM

Hi Ryan,
Thank you for your reply. I don't think I can add anything to what I've previously shared. I do not wish to repeat my long post. I'm very sorry if I got you mad, because it was never my intention.

Please don't confuse vigorous disagreement with anger.

Notice I didn't use words like "heretics", neither did I blame Chalcedon.

You did blame Chalcedon, when you said "... every council's aim is to clarify and to arrive at the consensus Faith once delivered to the Saints and handed down in different regions among traditional Orthodox Christian communities. Chalcedon didn't do that, no matter how Orthodox it was." Which means that Chalcedon failed in its aim where other councils did not. You seem to think there is some problem with Chalcedon that other councils did not have. But as I showed, all the previous councils had the same problems, namely, that some heretics claiming to follow them distorted their meanings.

I also said that taking sides is bound to produce comments in the spirit of what you wrote. People don't have to venerate a person or even know a person to hold similar views. If no council is reponsible for how it will be understood, then why do you say that Chalcedon rejected "out of two natures" because it wouldn't refute Eutyches? A clear definition in the context of widespread Nestorianism was also a responsibility.

And Chalcedon certainly provided such a definition. It is impossible to honestly read Nestorianism into the definition of Chalcedon, which plainly says that Christ is one hypostasis, that the Virgin is Theotokos, etc.

I can't argue with dogmatism. I've been there, I've done that.

Perhaps, instead of framing the discussion in terms of emotions and attitudes, you should actually address the facts at hand. For one thing, I think your argument that "Chalcedonian" protestants can deny that Mary is Theotokos and still be Chalcedonians is absurd. You have relied too much on secondary sources (e.g. Romanides) without actually grappling with the texts themselves.

One's belief in the infallibility of anything precedes any argument or assessment. But I don't think this is Orthodoxy, for it really amounts to ecclesiastical monophysitism. It's Divine and inspired. End of story. There is no room for the humanity and historicity of events, of how words were used and understood by their hearers... Chalcedon becomes all perfect, all wise and all complete in every aspect.[/

Try not to project your past attitudes onto others who disagree with you. I have never said or implied that Chalcedon is "all perfect... in every aspect" and your strawman argumentation is not conducive to meaningful discourse. And again I would ask you to please cite those Eastern Orthodox who, you claim, are "exact copies of the Westerners who went into schism because of the Fifth council."

Was Chalcedon "perfect" or "complete"? No. Neither, however, can it be faulted for those who claim to follow it but violate its very clear and Orthodox definition.

Why would God allow His Church to have other councils then? It's because God preserves His truth in the midst of all of this human chaos of Empire, war and weak men, and because He has to work through all of this, we needed more than one council. We needed so many people articulating a glimpse but not the fullness, till someone else can articulate a little more and so on. Yet all of this has to be done for the service of mankind for their salvation, not for any other purpose. A heretic is still the Church's mandate. The council is not an end in itself, it's useful as much as it is understood and communicated. The council was made for man, not man for the council.

I agree.

Ryan, you speak of the non-Chalcedonians as if they were Arians. And as if the title monophysite is an accurate description of all non-Chalcedonians.

That is simply how the Church traditionally describes them. It does not indicate that they are like Arians. Actually, according to St. John Damascene, aside from their schism over Chalcedon, they are in every other respect orthodox. I do believe that many non-Chalcedonians today hold orthodox views but they are nevertheless in schism from the Church of Christ.

Would you avoid the title Theotokos because someone calls Mary the literal Mother of divinity ? I don't think so. Yet Pope Leo avoided its use after Chalcedon. He's very Chalcedonian. Don't you agree?

Can you actually cite an instance where Saint Leo deliberately avoided the term "Theotokos", for the purpose you suggest, like the Protestants do? Once again, the definition of Chalcedon, which apparently you have forgotten, explicitly calls the Virgin Theotokos. No Chalcedonian can reject this term. Again, what the Council teaches is what is important. No one can seriously argue that Chalcedon undermined the term theotokos when the term appears right there in the definition, which I implore you to read. Fortunately, it is online on this very website: http://www.monachos.net/content/patristics/patristictexts/121-council-of-chalcedon-451-the-definition-of-faith-of-chalcedon

Don't the Protestants do the same as well ? I think we let things go if we deem them uninmportant. Yet Saint Cyril saw the whole struggle against Nestorius centering around calling the Virgin Theotokos, because it's the one element that summarizes it all.

Then you should have no problem with the definition of Chalcedon, as it calls the Virgin Theotokos.

I think you need to read my post again, because my feeling is that you didn't appreciate my concerns.

I share your concerns that some Christians deny that Mary is Theotokos. But what does this have to do with Chalcedon? Julian of Halicarnassus claimed to follow St. Cyril and the council of Ephesus. Why doesn't that concern you also?

Because if you did, you wouldn't be defending anyone (Lossky) or even Chalcedon (Why would you? Have I attacked it ?)

Yes, you have. See above.

since you insist on seeing the situation after the dust has long settled as the Fifth council remains so different in attitude, clarification and wording (given the fact that during the interim 100 years, no new heresies arose for which the council was convened. It was convened to deal with the same old question).

Yes, the same question that Ephesus had to deal with. Does that mean Ephesus failed?

My examples were only illustrative

Illustrative of your unfamiliarity with the definition of Chalcedon, yes.

Chalcedon is infallible, yet what about the interim 100 years ? Were they too infallible ?

Who said "infallible"? What does "infallible" mean anyway?

No one ever said that their calling is infallible or the timing of their calling by an Emperor is infallible.

Exactly, so why are you suggesting that someone did say this?

There was a need for clarification. A human fallible element prevented it and delayed it. The truth was always there, but not its full articulation and clarification.

And I ask again: How was this different from any of the previous councils???

Wasn't Appolinaris condemned at the Second Ecumenical Council? So why did a similar doctrine resurface after Ephesus and have to be condemned at Chalcedon? Are you going to blame St. Cyril for this, the way you blame St. Leo?

If you want to really make a big fuss over the 100 year stretch, then we might as well make it a 120 year stretch, since it was St. Cyril who let Theodore of Mopsuestia posthumously "off the hook" by not requiring that the Church of Antioch cease venerating him. I think St. Cyril's decision was a wise and gracious one for his time, even if it had to be "corrected" ultimately by the 5th Ecumenical Council's condemnation of Theodore. But perhaps you think St. Cyril was mistaken and that he should have never reunited with Antioch?

George Christodoulos

23-12-2010, 05:54 AM

Ryan, I unfortunately may not have the time to comment on all your replies one by one. But I am positive that you still didn't grasp the essence of my post. You sound too threatened by what I said or at least what I said threatens your well-cherished preconceived narrative. You also insist on defending yourself against a foe you're imagining (As if Ephesus is my focal point, rather than all Christological councils treated as one unit. I don't fit very well in your narrative so I don't think your comments represented my position or were relevant to it). You made accusations and assumptions which aren't true. I am not aware Father Romanides said anything about the Protestants!!! You contradict yourself endlessly, for you don't wish to call your position for what it is : You consider Chalcedon complete and whoever saw in it unclarity in light of fifth century theological climate, you brand a heretic. If Chalcedon is not all wise, all complete and all perfect, why do you find fault in someone who says it needed clarification to weed out wrong conceptions in the context of the fifth century, and if it needed such clarification, why do you find fault in someone who thinks it took longer than it should? You consider Chalcedon a complete creed on its own abstracted from all contexts. I agree with you if we're talking about the 21st century because we read our Byzantine theology into the creed and this includes all the following clarifications but I disagree that it was so in the 5th and my evidence is the 5th council which went on clarifying the original intent of Chalcedon. Your position is similar to those who went into schism after the Fifth council, because they deemed Chalcedon all complete and the 5th council needless or even in error because of the new emphasis, at least in their opinion. ( I'm not implying you believe it was in error but you do share the belief in the self-sufficiency of Chalcedon with them)

Chalcedon wasn't like the other councils, Ryan, because it had another council which clarified it. Chalcedon sounds to you, today, totally Orthodox, because you supply its context and nuances, but it wasn't seen in the same light back then (It's not a fringe group or "some" who went into schism: Half of Antioch and all of Alexandria). Again I do not wish to repeat myself. Chalcedon made statements, without defining the terms, which could take on different meanings to different schools. I can call you a name, but if this name is liable to different interpretations, then even though I may be right, I can't be said to have communicated clearly. I can't blame you if you don't understand me. And if I don't make myself clear and consider your background, we'll never agree. Like the word "infallible" the meaning of which you wish me to clarify. Yet what if that name can take on a meaning which is repulsive to you. Obviously, you won't like it at all.While I mean you well, you will react very negatively to my name.

Everyone agrees that Christological clarifications (because of Chalcedonian innovation. A fact no one denies. Innovation in terms is not bad. It can very much be good as long as these terms are understood by all. An example of innovation is using common terms in theology and economy. Something you may take for granted in the 21st century, but it was a novelty in the 5th century for the majority of the Orthodox, and a terminological departure from most of the Fathers) occurred after Chalcedon, and words and conceptions which were unacceptable in the aftermath of Chalcedon came to be accepted and used.

Saint Cyril signed the reconciliatory formula with Antioch in good faith. There is no reason to doubt the goodwill of both parties. Yet after the death of John of Antioch, the formula was used in a nestorianizing fashion. It's not black or white. It's these new waves of nestorianism to which Alexandria was vehemently reacting.

Yes you can have an Eastern Orthodox who divide the natures too much to the point of jeopardizing any real union except nominally speaking. It's a question of emphases, and that was my original concern (using your same logic, you will disown this Eastern Orthodox individual and say he cannot possibly be an Eastern Orthodox or Chalcedonian because he did just that. This is counterproductive. It does happen and you have to face it. I think this is due to overemphasizing Chalcedon on the expense of the other Chirstological councils especially Ephesus and Second Constantinople, and overemphasizing what sets Chalcedon apart from Eutyches' position. So the outcome is a wrong emphasis altogether).

As for Pope Leo, it's a fact that in his early pontifical letters and sermons, he designated Mary the Mother God. Then after Chalcedon, this designation dropped out of his sermons. It's not enough to give lip service to formulas, it's what we emphasize that really stays with us and shapes how we do theology and how we speak of Christology. The Fifth council is not to be dissociated from Ephesus, Chalcedon and Third Constantinople, but if we choose to pick the fourth as the only word on Christology, we're bound to lose our balance.( You may disagree.In this case, in your mind, your next ecumenical council would be Third constantinople because it deals with a new heresy since you think that Chalcedon said it all and gave the exact emphasis to everything and for this reason you only care to defend the Fourth only. But the Church had Second Constantinople which means all hasn't been said, clarified and emphasized enough since it deals with the same topic)

You also have a reductionist view of Nestorianism or heresy in general. It's either black or white with you, you don't see shades of color and emphases. I mean the possible Christian heresies are endless, as many as there are human minds. The Church fights heresy because heresy clouds the mind and the heart and prevents Theosis. So one doesn't have to be a Nestorian extremist to be Nestorianizing It's enough to emphasize duality a bit more than the union, to lose Orthodoxy. This can go the opposite direction as well.One can, due to contradicting opinion, emphasize the union a bit more than the duality, to again lose Orthodoxy. To overemphasize some element over another, to counter a heresy, is tantamount to using a wrong mean to achieve a good end, and what is achieved by a wrong mean is a bad end. I hope you don't understand this last paragraph as if I'm "attacking" anything dear to you. I'm simply sharing what I believe to be the "Royal way" not dividing and not confusing. Appolinaris' thought was condemned because he denied a human soul to Christ, so it's clear Appolinaris and Eutyches weren't saying the same thing. It's not my intention to blame anyone or any council , in fact I wish that people refrain from blaming the other because definitions weren't as clear as they are today, especially in Christology. I only discuss the human element in all of this, in order to benefit myself and benefit those who read me, to find the right emphases and enjoy the results of holding on to them.

If you think no one has the right to speak about this issue because it's long settled, no one will blame you.You'll continue your life believing what you wish within your like-minded comfort zone.This is if you're not concerned about the Church wreckage in the Fifth century and consider these events normal and inconsequential to the Eastern Orthodox (and consequential only to the non-Chalcedonians). But if you think otherwise, then you'll struggle with the issues as if they're your own burdens, and who knows God can find a solution through you. It's your call. But truly your approach has been tried before over the centuries and proved very detrimental to everyone (obviously you can debate this in a future post, but this is one of those things that you either see or don't see).

You tend to favor Chalcedon and overemphasize it (You might say what's wrong with that? Well the real question: Why would you emphasize it more ?). I find this approach erroneous, and influenced by the Western overemphasis on the Fourth council. It's a mistake to overemphasize one over the others, in fact Chalcedon builds on Ephesus and they both must be seen through one another. We must add the 5th and 6th with them, and see them all through one another. This is Orthodoxy. But if we become reductive, and defend only Chalcedon, then we're losing our balance and vision.Especially that we intuitively add all the insights of the rest as we read Chalcedon, then assume that everyone else in the 5th century had the same insights we have today, and finally despise those heretics who rejected Chalcedon. This is the spirit I see in your posts (you might say: Let's deal with the facts!! Why is this guy speaking about the spirit of my posts? I think the spirit of your posts is a major part of the facts) and I believe this is a bit off balance and lacks in humility, for you must acknowledge the debt we owe the Orthodox Church and Her theology in understanding Chalcedon. And this was never instantaneous, it took a long time to have the same vision we have today. A vision which was totally clouded in the Fifth century, and only today after the dust has settled can you have a mutual agreement about the faith between the EO and OO (an impossibility in the Fifth century). The reason? We see better today, something that was unclear to the people living and breathing in the midst of the crisis, for the words and nuances were too clouded and too divergent. The good intent was there, the clear communication took time to develop. It's not just all ill-will and crazy damned heretics, that's why I said you're treating them like the Arians. You didn't say it verbatim, but acted it out. So no matter how many quotes you share from Saint John Damascene, they won't undo the damage done to an OO reading your post. He got the point in the way you presented the fact.

At last you think you can dissociate the councils from history, and history from people and people from feelings and attitudes (You might say I'm accusing you, or I misunderstand or "stop projecting your experience" but this is really the end of what you're saying. You didn't say it verbatim but you're acting it out). These are the facts, not just the written words, but the perception and conception of people in time in regard to these written words. Again this seems to me like monophysitism applied to Ecclesiology. You are my brother in Christ whom I love and appreciate. I greatly appreciate your taking the time to talk with me here. Thank you.

IN CHRIST,

Fr Raphael Vereshack

23-12-2010, 03:02 PM

Please let's be sure to keep all discussions on topic and away from personal attacks.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Ryan

23-12-2010, 05:42 PM

]Ryan, I unfortunately may not have the time to comment on all your replies one by one. But I am positive that you still didn't grasp the essence of my post. You sound too threatened by what I said or at least what I said threatens your well-cherished preconceived narrative.

Again, perhaps you should stop speculating about my feelings and actually address the substance of what I say. Personal attacks don't strengthen your argument.

You contradict yourself endlessly, for you don't wish to call your position for what it is : You consider Chalcedon complete and whoever saw in it unclarity in light of fifth century theological climate, you brand a heretic.

Another strawman argument.

If Chalcedon is not all wise, all complete and all perfect, why do you find fault in someone who says it needed clarification to weed out wrong conceptions in the context of the fifth century, and if it needed such clarification, why do you find fault in someone who thinks it took longer than it should?

I agree that the misconceptions about Chalcedon needed to be clarified. Similarly, misconceptions about Ephesus needed to be clarified by Chalcedon, misconceptions about Constantinople I needed to be clarified by Ephesus, etc. You say that I am giving undue emphasis to Chalcedon, but, on the contrary, you are giving it undue emphasis, emphasizing the messiness of its historical aftermath as if the other councils were neat and tidy in their aftermaths.

You consider Chalcedon a complete creed on its own abstracted from all contexts.

Another strawman.

I agree with you if we're talking about the 21st century because we read our Byzantine theology into the creed and this includes all the following clarifications but I disagree that it was so in the 5th and my evidence is the 5th council which went on clarifying the original intent of Chalcedon. Your position is similar to those who went into schism after the Fifth council, because they deemed Chalcedon all complete and the 5th council needless or even in error because of the new emphasis, at least in their opinion

No, my position is not similar to them because I recognize the 5th council as a necessary condemnation of Theodore of Mopsuestia and his heresies... in so doing, it not only "clarified" Chalcedon, it "clarified" Ephesus and St. Cyril as well.

I'm not implying you believe it was in error but you do share the belief in the self-sufficiency of Chalcedon with them

No, I don't. I don't believe any of the councils were "self-sufficient." I also don't believe any of them are to be blamed for the misinterpretations of others.

]Chalcedon wasn't like the other councils, Ryan, because it had another council which clarified it.

Nonsense. Chalcedon itself was a clarification of Ephesus. Likewise, Constantinople I clarified Nicaea I. I think your problem is that you have been focusing too much on the history of Chalcedon and Constantinople II, all the while ignoring the histories of the other ecumenical councils.
Chalcedon sounds to you, today, totally Orthodox, because you supply its context and nuances, but it wasn't seen in the same light back then (It's not a fringe group or "some" who went into schism: Half of Antioch and all of Alexandria).

Arius and Nestorius also had significant followings. The entirety of Rome split away in support of Papal supremacy and the filioque. What's your point?

Chalcedon made statements, without defining the terms, which could take on different meanings to different schools.

Yes, just like "homoousios" and "mia physis"...

a terminological departure from most of the Fathers[/I]) occurred after Chalcedon, and words and conceptions which were unacceptable in the aftermath of Chalcedon came to be accepted and used.

Yes, just like "homoousios" and "mia physis"...

Saint Cyril signed the reconciliatory formula with Antioch in good faith. There is no reason to doubt the goodwill of both parties. Yet after the death of John of Antioch, the formula was used in a nestorianizing fashion. It's not black or white. It's these new waves of nestorianism to which Alexandria was vehemently reacting.[/SIZE]

Ah, are you saying that St. Cyril's agreement had to be... clarified?

It's a question of emphases, and that was my original concern ([I]using your same logic, you will disown this Eastern Orthodox individual and say he cannot possibly be an Eastern Orthodox or Chalcedonian because he did just that.

Now are you implying that Nestorianism or Theodoreanism are acceptable opinions in the Eastern Orthodox Church? If someone expresses these opinions, he is certainly not Orthodox.

As for Pope Leo, it's a fact that in his early pontifical letters and sermons, he designated Mary the Mother God. Then after Chalcedon, this designation dropped out of his sermons.

Two points: 1. You have no proof that St. Leo omitted the designation deliberately. 2. The definition of Chalcedon plainly uses the term "Theotokos", so what is your point? If the definition actually includes the term Theotokos, how can you argue that it undermines this term?

It's not enough to give lip service to formulas, it's what we emphasize that really stays with us and shapes how we do theology and how we speak of Christology. The Fifth council is not to be dissociated from Ephesus, Chalcedon and Third Constantinople, but if we choose to pick the fourth as the only word on Christology, we're bound to lose our balance.

You're right. Thankfully, no one is doing this.

Appolinaris' thought was condemned because he denied a human soul to Christ, so it's clear Appolinaris and Eutyches weren't saying the same thing.

They did not say the exact same thing, but their heresies tended in the same direction. Eutyches did essentially deny that Christ had a human soul by saying that it was completely divine and no longer equal with other human souls. The fact is that the phrase "one nature" had an Apollinarian background, and, while Ephesus and St. Cyril did not use it this way, it continued to be interpreted with such a tendency. Therefore, Chalcedon was needed to clarify.

]You tend to favor Chalcedon and overemphasize it You might say what's wrong with that? Well the real question: Why would you emphasize it more ?

Why do you fault it more?

I find this approach erroneous, and influenced by the Western overemphasis on the Fourth council.

Ooh, the obligatory "you sound western" card. It always plays well on Orthodox forums.

It's a mistake to overemphasize one over the others, in fact Chalcedon builds on Ephesus and they both must be seen through one another. We must add the 5th and 6th with them, and see them all through one another. This is Orthodoxy.

Not only have I never denied this, I said it myself: "Do we understand the 4th Council in the light of the 5th Council? Sure, just as we understand the 3rd in light of the 4th, and Councils 1-2 in light of Ephesus. They clarify each other, but they don't correct each other, as if there were some heresy in any of these councils."

But if we become reductive, and defend only Chalcedon

I only defend Chalcedon because of your attack on it. I would do the same if someone had come in to attack Ephesus, Constantinople II, etc.

But if we become reductive, and defend only Chalcedon, then we're losing our balance and vision.Especially that we intuitively add all the insights of the rest as we read Chalcedon, then assume that everyone else in the 5th century had the same insights we have today, and finally despise those heretics who rejected Chalcedon. This is the spirit I see in your posts (you might say: Let's deal with the facts!! Why is this guy speaking about the spirit of my posts? I think the spirit of your posts is a major part of the facts) and I believe this is a bit off balance and lacks in humility, for you must acknowledge the debt we owe the Orthodox Church and Her theology in understanding Chalcedon. And this was never instantaneous, it took a long time to have the same vision we have today. A vision which was totally clouded in the Fifth century, and only today after the dust has settled can you have a mutual agreement about the faith between the EO and OO (an impossibility in the Fifth century). The reason? We see better today, something that was unclear to the people living and breathing in the midst of the crisis, for the words and nuances were too clouded and too divergent. The good intent was there, the clear communication took time to develop. It's not just all ill-will and crazy damned heretics, that's why I said you're treating them like the Arians. You didn't say it verbatim, but acted it out. So no matter how many quotes you share from Saint John Damascene, they won't undo the damage done to an OO reading your post. He got the point in the way you presented the fact.

And this is a great big pile of ad hominem and strawmen attacks which I won't dignify further.

George Christodoulos

24-12-2010, 08:35 AM

Thank you Father Raphael for your post. Thank you Ryan for taking the time to reply.There is always a fine line between what's deemed a personal attack and the sincere disagreement about positions with which the conversants strongly identify. I find some of Ryan's comments simply unacceptable and improper. But I am glad our posts will remain on the forum for all seekers to see, search and examine for themselves. Merry Christmas to all, and happy New Year. To Christ Our Lord be all the Glory. Please keep me in your payers, as I will keep you in mine.

George Christodoulos

25-12-2010, 10:03 AM

As I was deciding not to post any further, I came across this (attached below) article, which I find very illuminating, balanced, true to history and to Orthodoxy (dogma and praxis - word and deed - creed and Love). I decided to share it as well so that the seekers and those who are ready can benefit and have a summary of all concerns previously shared (in my own words) and familiarize themselves with this seemingly new narrative, which is as old as the events themselves that shaped our past.

For seekers who wish to examine the development of Pope Leo's theological terminology (how such terminology could have alienated the Eastern Cyrillian Christians and made the Pope sound to them and to their Nestorianizing Antiochene unorthodox opponents Nestorian or strict dyophysite and as a consequence aggravated the state of schism), I would refer you to:

1. The Shifting Tones of Pope Leo the Great's Christological Vocabulary Philip L. Barclift(1997), American Society of Church History 1997 66:221-239 (Article)
2. The Soteriology of Leo the Great Bernard Green Oxford University Press (Book)

I also wish to point out that the West and Eastern Orthodoxy hold divergent views of these events of history and appreciate the councils differently. It's true both the Catholics (and Western Chalcedonians) and the Eastern Orthodox accept the council of Chalcedon as ecumenical, yet they're not on the same page when it comes to what Chalcedon meant. For once, Chalcedon to the Catholic gives credence to Papal Supremacy; for the Eastern Orthodox it does not. There is no reason for me to quote how Catholics assess the importance of Chalcedon for their see, and how they interpret Chalcedon vis-a-vis the Eastern Christians of the 5th century because it's the commonplace position. This attitude is not shared by the Eastern Orthodox, even though the latter can be susceptible to it, given the widespread Western perspective.

I hope you will find these helpful as you come to dissociate yourself from a simplistic narrative of the events (which creates needless tensions and alienates us from our Orthodox Christian selves in action) and come to appreciate the nuances of words in different times as they were acquiring their fixed theological meanings to describe in shadows the heart of Christianity, Our Christ, without whom we cannot do anything.

I couldn't share with you a better Christmas gift, that's if you're willing and ready to receive it. Merry Christmas.

In Christ

Ryan

26-12-2010, 03:52 AM

George- Thank you or this article. I hope you have had a wonderful Christmas. I find this article a good summary of the issues behind Chalcedon and Constantinople II. I find some of its assertions arguable, but overall it is a presentation worthy of sharing with others. I'd like to point out some quotes that I think are particularly relevant to our discussion:

In using "one nature incarnate," however, Cyril did not deny the full and complete humanity of the incarnate Logos. One sees this, for example, in his first letter to Bishop Succensus in which he defended his preference for the "one nature incarnate" formula while at the same time clearly stating that in the Incarnation "we see that the two natures have met without merger (asygchytös) and without alteration (atreptös) in unbreakable mutual union." Here one finds Cyril using "nature" with a meaning different from "hypostasis." The Council of Chalcedon, then, in speaking of one hypostasis and prosopon and of two natures in Christ had not changed Cyril's Christological thought, but had clarified his language in order to make certain that the Apollinarian-Eutychian tendency could not creep in under the ambiguity of Cyrillian terminology. (emphasis mine)

Despite the various claims that Chalcedon represented the triumph of a Western Christology over that of the East, it is clear that Leo's famous Tome was accepted by the Eastern bishops because they were convinced that it did not conflict with Cyril's doctrine. The debates at the Council during the third session resulted in an inquiry into Leo's orthodoxy, judged on Cyrillian presuppositions. In the fourth session, the bishops, nearly one after another, declared that Leo's Tome was in accord with the faith of Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus, and Cyril. Maximus of Antioch, for example, is recorded as saying: "The epistle of the holy Leo, Archbishop of Imperial Rome, agrees with the decisions of the 318 holy fathers at Nicaea and with the 150 at Constantinople which is New Rome and with the faith expounded by the most holy Bishop Cyril at Ephesus, and I subscribe to it." The bishops of Illyricum and Palestine accepted St. Leo's Tome only after they were convinced that it was actually not as contradictory as it first seemed and that it was in accord with the teaching of Cyril. Much is often made of the cry which greeted the reading of Leo's Tome, "St. Peter has spoken through Leo"; but it is often ignored or forgotten that the fathers also went on to say: "Cyril taught thus. Eternal be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing. This is the true faith." At the fifth session, before the reading of the horos, or definition, the Council Fathers once again mentioned both Leo and Cyril by name, claiming that their letters were written for the establishment of the true faith. At Chalcedon, then, the episcopate accepted the new linguistic distinction between physis and hypostasis— a correction of Cyril's language—because they were convinced that it did not represent a departure from Cyril's doctrine. By repeated statements of loyalty to Cyril and by allowing his epistles to stand together with the Tome of Leo, the Council Fathers witnessed to their belief that both Cyril and Leo had taught the same faith. They did not regard the Chalcedonian Definition, then, as replacing either Cyril's letters or Leo's Tome, but as a conciliar attempt to express the Church's mind in such a way as to be loyal to both Cyril and Leo. (emphases mine)

These Cyrillian Chalcedonians represented the majority of bishops at Chalcedon. After the Council, they struggled against both the strict Cyrillians and the strict Dyophysites—neither of whom could accept the compatibility of St. Cyril and the Council of Chalcedon. Finally in 553 at the Council of Constantinople, however, it was this Cyrillian Chalcedonianism which prevailed.

Constantinople II was not merely an attempt at a political compromise with those churches which had not accepted the decisions of Chalcedon, the so-called Monophysite churches; but it was a serious theological attempt to heal the schism on the basis of the common Cyrillian tradition which had been accepted at Ephesus and at Chalcedon. In doing this, however, it clarified the meaning of the Chalcedonian Definition just as Chalcedon had clarified Cyril's language, and it allowed for the legitimacy of the old Cyrillian theological formulations so long as the one faith was upheld. (emphasis mine)

This article makes precisely the main points I was making:

1. Chalcedon was fundamentally Cyrillian, not only in the interpretation of some of its supporters, but inherently, in its definition and in its deliberations, which proceeded under the assumption that St. Cyril and Ephesus were landmarks of Orthodoxy.

2. While some "strict dyophysites" sought to interpret Chalcedon in an anti-Cyrilline fashion, it was their interpretation of Chalcedon that was revisionist, not the Cyrillian one which triumphed at Constantinople II.

3. Constantinople II clarified Chalcedon, just like Chalcedon clarified Ephesus- in this, there was nothing special about Chalcedon. We can regard Constantinople III as a further clarification of the preceding councils, including Constantinople II.

I hope this article will be helpful to all who come to dissociate themselves from a simplistic narrative of the councils where Ephesus and St. Cyril were completely without ambiguity, while Chalcedon was fraught with ambiguity and was the only council that needed to be "clarified."

George Christodoulos

26-12-2010, 08:53 AM

Ryan, I thank you for your good wishes. I also wish you had a Merry Christmas.

You emphasized what you deem worthy and compatible with your position, and you found the rest arguable. This is understandable, and expected. I refrained from actually highlighting whatever I deemed consistent with my position in order to allow the seekers to experience the article as a whole with its balanced emphasis (which includes your position but cannot be reducible to it)

As for your last comment, which is a mirror image of mine, I reiterate you're mistaken about my position. But I can't convince you otherwise, so I'll just wish that no one believes that Ephesus needed no further clarification, as pertaining to the full humanity of Christ.

I encourage everyone to read the article for themselves and not to rely on the comments made about it. I apologize if I seemed in previous posts to highlight my disagreement with your position without informing you that I agree with much of it. But as a whole I cannot subscribe to your position or narrative. I think it's less comprehensive. I also think you're undermining the strength of dyophysite (of the strict type) tendencies, in the aftermath of Chalcedon, which expressed themselves as they masqueraded under the guise and prestige of an ecumenical council and fought endlessly in their own corrupt way those who opposed it ( I think we generally undermine the strength of Nestorianism and overemphasize the strength of Eutychianism in the aftermath of Chalcedon, assuming that Nestorius has been dealt with in Ephesus and Eutyches in Chalcedon. But the Antiochian school of theology didn't just disappear after Ephesus. It accomodated, compromised, tramsformed itself, moved elsewhere and continued to do theology at times under the guise of Chalcedon and at others in opposition to Greek Christianity altogether). We needed to uproot these quickly ,not reluctantly, as Chalcedon is believed to have dealt with Eutyches' misunderstanding of Ephesus.

I also disagree with the statement that all councils clarified one another, as if they dealt with the same topic or heresy. We can say all councils clarified one another concerning the totality of the Faith, but not particular aspects of that Faith as happened with Chalcedon and Constantinople II which dealt with the exact same topic and the exact same challenges to Orthodoxy [If you wish to include Ephesus, that's fine as well. I don't think anyone thinks Ephesus needed no further clarification otherwise Ephesus II wouldn't have been called that soon and Dioscoros wouldn't have attended Chalcedon. Yet it's Chalcedon and Constantinople II, which were a century apart, that present us with a real dilemma. Something needed to be clarified and it wasn't for a century. I fault the human aspect of the Church, and consider its recognition the beginning of reconciliation not only with the others but above all with ourselves, so that the human aspect of the Church (we) wouldn't reproduce the same human foibles in the future. If we do that, we’ll be able to understand the others’ weaknesses and foibles as well and will be able to look beyond them to make sure we make ourselves clear and that we fully understand their concerns and they understand ours. We can be Orthodox in doctrine and attitude in imitation of Our Christ (who, while we were yet weak and sickly, died for us) about whom these controversies were and will be raging]

I wish you and all readers a very good and happy New year in Christ.

Ryan

26-12-2010, 04:14 PM

You emphasized what you deem worthy and compatible with your position, and you found the rest arguable.

That is not what I said. But, of course, it is always more convenient to argue against what you want a person to say, rather than what he actually says.

But I can't convince you otherwise, so I'll just wish that no one believes that Ephesus needed no further clarification, as pertaining to the full humanity of Christ.

Since you said Chalcedon wasn't like the other councils, Ryan, because it had another council which clarified it, it stands to reason that you did not think Ephesus needed clarification.

But as a whole I cannot subscribe to your position or narrative.

Of course! How can you subscribe to something that you don't understand?

But the Antiochian school of theology didn't just disappear after Ephesus. It accomodated, compromised, tramsformed itself, moved elsewhere and continued to do theology at times under the guise of Chalcedon and at others in opposition to Greek Christianity altogether[/I]). We needed to uproot these quickly ,not reluctantly, as Chalcedon is believed to have dealt with Eutyches' misunderstanding of Ephesus.

Again, this is just as much St. Cyril's "fault" as it is Chalcedon's.

I also disagree with the statement that all councils clarified one another, as if they dealt with the same topic or heresy.

They all dealt with Christology. Councils 3-7 in particular dealt especially with the relationship between Christ's one person and his two natures, so yes, it can be very reasonably said that these 5 councils all clarified each other.

We can say all councils clarified one another concerning the totality of the Faith, but not particular aspects of that Faith as happened with Chalcedon and Constantinople II which dealt with the exact same topic and the exact same challenges to Orthodoxy. If you wish to include Ephesus, that's fine as well.

Why not include Ephesus? Why not say, as the article says, that Chalcedon clarified Ephesus just as Constantinople II clarified Chalcedon?

Yet it's Chalcedon and Constantinople II, which were a century apart, that present us with a real dilemma. Something needed to be clarified and it wasn't for a century.

More like 80 years, but never mind. Sometimes things move slowly in Orthodoxy. The difference between 80 years and 20 years isn't significant, all things considered.

George Christodoulos

28-12-2010, 03:15 AM

Given your last reply I became further convinced of how wrong I was when I was defending this common way of characterizing the councils and the different parties, before I came to realize that my former position was compromised. It remains my conviction that it is. You're just confirming it further, so I choose to discontinue the discussion because you and I have been repeating ourselves. I don't know how you counted 80 years between Chalcedon (451 AD) and Constantinople II (553 AD). But it's really tangential, because I won't argue about trivialities and leave the substance of the issue as it so many times happens. Neither will I comment line by line about what you say, because I believe this would be inconsistent with my approach. I tried my best to show that this approach that emphasizes this part and that part without looking at the whole issue and assessing it from an Orthodox Christian mindset is the error of the West and a widespread interpretation of the Fourth council beyond 451 AD. I find Saint Cyril's approach in his writings as a whole the antidote to a weakness witnessed today and in the aftermath of Chalcedon in the Fifth century (It's interesting that you could equate Saint Cyril with Chalcedon, and say it's as much his fault as it is Chalcedon's, as if faulting Saint Cyril will make the delayed clarification of the Ecumenical council of Chalcedon less faulty or inconsequential and as if they had the same authority. Wasn't he just a standard not the standard? One expects more from the collegiality of the Church). I also think it has practical and Spiritual repercussions on the lives of Orthodox Christians. So whether they're 80 years or more than 100 years, I could care less about the accuracy of your dates or statements but I do care about the assessment of the whole events, which I insist, ever remains caricaturistic. My concern here, Ryan, is those who seek not those who think they have the answers which obviously you sound like you do. I will leave it to our readers to assess your posts and mine to see which one of us understood the other or which one was too blinded by his comfortable position and never saw the other's concerns. I won't be the judge of that. I will agree with you that things regrettably (because of human weakness and not because of the Divine will) move slowly in Orthodoxy including the position (which you say I don't understand. I mentioned it so that you don't have to repeat yourself) you defend. I'm positive that generations from now, this will change for their own well-being. To Christ be all the Glory.

Kosta

14-01-2011, 11:49 AM

Dear George,

The third and fourth councils go hand in hand, very true. And yes many defend chalcedon fervently without knowing the background, but it is Ephesus and Chalcedon that need to be attached. The 5th council on the other hand was an attempt to reconcile the non-chalcedon party. It was not that segments of Byzantium reverted back to nestorianism, but it was an attempt to ease the fears and accusations of nestorianism by the non-chalcedonians. There is nothing new in the 5th council that wasnt taught in the 3rd concerning Nestorianism. Dioscorus was not anathemized at the 5th, because the council tried to reconcile the miaphysite party not enstrange it further. Dioscorus morphed into the posterboy of the schism, the father of it, so when reconciliation became impossible he was finally anathemized. Its actually difficult in assessing what infractions Dioscorus was actually deposed for at Chalcedon, that he was deposed for not appearing at the council after thrice summoned is more a modern perspective popular by those gung-ho with reunion, but it was not the only reason.

Lets look at whose fears the 5th council tried to ease from the 7th session of Constantinople II:

'But because the defenders of these impious ones, Theodore and Nestorius, were scheming in some way or other to confirm these persons and their impiety, and were saying that this impious letter, which praised and defended Theodore and Nestorius and their impiety, had been received by the holy Council of Chalcedon we thought it necessary to shew that the holy synod was free of the impiety which was contained in that letter, that it might be clear that they who say such things do not do so with the favour of this holy council, but that through its name they may confirm their own impiety...

Such was the state of the case, how could anyone presume to say that that impious letter was received by the holy council of Chalcedon and that the holy council of Chalcedon agreed with it throughout? Nevertheless in order that they who thus calumniate the holy council of Chalcedon may have no further opportunity of doing so, we ordered to be recited the decisions of the holy Synods, to wit, of first Ephesus, and of Chalcedon, with regard to the Epistles of Cyril of blessed memory and of Leo, of pious memory, sometime Pope of Old Rome... '

We see that a nestorian remnant were misusing Chalcedon and spreading falsehoods while others were simply accusing Chalcedon of being nestorian without basis. Another controversy within this council was whether the Church can anathemize individuals who already had died. It declared that it can just as the Church in the past has restored to the diptychs posthumously those bishops falsely condemned. It anathemized the three chapters and its defenders, the defenders being those that attempted to argue that Chalcedon exonerated Nestorius and done away with the 12 anathemas of Cyril.

Kosta

14-01-2011, 12:15 PM

i see my previous post is similar in thinking to George's article pdf file link, he provided in post 39. The article was very good except for its assertions concerning the theopascite controversy.

George Christodoulos

15-01-2011, 09:24 AM

Thank you Kosta for your kind posts. I appreciate your treatment of the matter, since it is fair, balanced and true to history. The relativeness of who got anathematized in ecumenical councils poses a great problem for those who wish to absolutize decisions based on political and economical compromises. The faith is absolute, but there are other decisions which show the imprint of political consideration and expedience. It's alarming, but nevertheless true.

I see what you mean concerning the Theopaschite controversy, because the reason for which one calls Mary Theotokos is the same which makes one say God the Word suffered for us. It's unquestionable and unambiguous. The same reason we, as Orthodox Christians, don't stop calling Mary Theotokos because others may think we mean she's mother of Christ's divinity.Likewise we have no problem using the Theopaschite statement (one of the Holy Trinity suffered for us) because we believe in One hypostasis of God the Word become man. Yet someone from a Nestorianizing background will find fault with this statement because it implies that divinity is passible as Theotokos implied that a woman can be the mother of divinity. The Nestorianizer will wish to perish the thought and purge the words from Orthodoxy, rather than explain them. He sees the words problematic and he feels uneasy with them. The more the natures of Christ take in his mind the attributes of separate or independent existences, the more he feels uneasy with such statements. No one should have thought this in the aftermath of Chalcedon, because Chalcedon, as you said, shouldn't be dissociated from Ephesus. It's true no one discussed, in the aftermath of Chalcedon, the term Theotokos, yet the Theopaschite statement couldn't be accepted by the masses in Constantinople and Pope Hormisdas forbad it. In this sense, the Fifth council clarified more and guided the population to a proper emphasis which at times was lacking. We blame the non-Chalcedonians for sticking to the letter of the law (Saint Cyril's wording), our forefathers in Constantinople did the same but in the opposite direction concerning Chalcedon. They were at times mixing two positions, the Orthodox and the strict dyophysite. If Christ suffered and He is the Hypostasis of the Son, then One of the Holy Trinity must have suffered for us. I think strict dyophysitism was more widespread than we usually represent it (hence the 5th council - God protects His Orthodoxy). At times the apologetics for the Orthodox horos of Chalcedon was done by strict dyophysites and they had significant impact (The Antiochenes and their tendencies who never left but only took cover). In this sense the Fifth council was pedagogical to restore balance and sanity when it came to emphases, not just a simple attempt to appease the non-chalcedonians (the majority of whom had a legitimate concern over those many Chalcedonians who would reject the Theopaschite statement among other off-balance emphases of the time).

I refer here to the riots in Constantinople which almost toppled Emperor Anastasius (early 6th century) which were caused by an addition of a Theopaschite statement to the Trisagion, since it was taken to be monophysite (with the same logic then Theotokos ought to also be Appolinarian/Monophysite as the Antiochenes previously accused Saint Cyril). The following are books which explain the event:

The age of Justinian: the circumstances of imperial power By J. A. S. Evans page 77
The Emperor Justinian and the Byzantine Empire (same author) page 48
Byzantium the early centuries by John Julius Norwich page pages 186-187

And the article about the communication of idioms in the Catholic Encyclopedia:
"Certain expressions, though correct in themselves, are for extrinsic reasons, inadmissible; the statement "One of the Trinity was crucified" was misapplied in a Monophysite sense and was therefore forbidden by Pope Hormisdas" Again Pope Hormisdas (498 -512) represents the Western attitude in the aftermath of Chalcedon (this is consistent with Pope Leo's refrain from using Theotokos as a description of the Virgin in his letters after Chalcedon).

These are few significant strokes which painted the larger picture in its positive (further clarification) and negative (the irreversible wreckage of the Church) elements. Why should we blame Dioscoros (the contemporary Fathers, who knew the man, refrained from doing it. He may have been unpleasant to deal with, but he was definitely not the mirror image of Nestorius as he was later portrayed) and not take into consideration what he may have been reacting against ? We need to take into account the diversity of nuances in any one theological position and avoid oversimplification when studying the history of dogma. There are events which affected the Eastern Orthodox after the schism, Church and people, which shows that Dioscoros and the Egyptians of the see of Alexandria (along with other significant Christian populations) weren't reacting to a figment of their imagination.

Thank you again, Kosta, for your posts.
In Christ,

Kosta

16-01-2011, 03:08 AM

THere were two theopascite formulas, the one which was added to the Trisagion early on in Antioch about 470 a.d. and the accepted formula of the 5th council formulated by the scythian monks.
What was rejected was Peter the Fullers theopascite clause inserted into the Trisagion. The Trisagion is a hymn to the Trinity, the insertion by Peter the Fuller was indeed a monophysite innovation. It was the charismatic Peter the Fuller with the help of Zeno (who closed down the syrian school of edessa in 489 which promoted antiochan theology) who swayed the syrians into abandoning their own heritage known as the 'school of Antioch'. Under Peter the Fuller the Syrian tradition was poisoned and the syriac speaking natives began embracing miaphysitism..

When the pro-chalcedonian Antiochan Patriarch Calandion succeeded to the throne of Antioch in 479 a.d. he attempted to make the theopascite trisagion into a true christological hymn by inserting the phrase "Christ the king" in front of the phrase 'Who was crucified for us". This never took hold and he was banished, once again placing Peter onto the Antiochan throne solidifying the extreme monophysite phrase.

When the theopascite phrase was added to the trisagion in 512 a.d. in Constantinople- it was rightly rebelled against. Flavian of Constantinople was wrongly deposed 60 years earlier by an alexandrian council over the monophysite Eutyches. This St. Flavian being commemorated as a martyr in Constantinople made it simply the wrong place and time to add such an innovative clause. Thus the attempt to insert this novel clause into a hymn prayed to the Trinity, certainly is heretical and truly eutychian under the circumstance!

What the 5th council accepted was the theopascite phrase formulated in about 519a.d. by the pro-chalcedonian scythian monks. Basically the phrase, 'One of the Trinity suffered in the Flesh'. Originally rejected, it was recieved when Justinian became emperor who was seeking to heal the schism. This theopascite formula found in canon 10 of II Constantinople should not be mistaken with the theopascite trisagion of the orientals condemned in canon 81 of trullo.

Secondly no one is saying there was no legitimate reasons for the concerns over Chalcedon. But many attempts were made to heal the schism to no avail. The Henotikon and the monotheletism of the 7th century were compromises that were rejected. The 5th council should have healed the schism but failed. By the late 6th century the non-chalcedonians became the anti-greek, anti-byzantine party, reconciliation bbecame impossible since nationalism also crept in.

Politics between the rivalry of Sees was also at work, as you rightly point out. But this rivalry was nothing new. Do you really think the coptic position is more superior or more orthodox than that of the persian church? St Cyril intentionaly started the council of Ephesus early so the Antiochan delegation would not take part and their tradition not be heard, and he succeeded, the antiochans held a rival council in Ephesus which condemned Cyril. A great many in Antioch schismed when John reconciled with Cyril in 433, so deep the contempt towards the Alexandrian See and its constant heavy-handed approach was.

Alexandria never liked that many of the patriarchs of Constantinople were from Antioch. Theophilus of Alexandria condemned St John Chrysostom at the oak, Cyril took aim at Nestorius, Dioscorus condemned Flavian. The only reason why the Church never found urgency to reconcile with the persian 'nestorian' church of the east was because it was outside the empire and was outside the sphere of influence, so they never recieved the attention that the non chalcedonians did. Just like the orientals the assyrian(persian) church confession is not that different from ours and they too have their own excellent arguments of the history of events that took place during that era.

George Christodoulos

16-01-2011, 11:45 PM

. Thus the attempt to insert this novel clause into a hymn prayed to the Trinity, certainly is heretical and truly eutychian under the circumstance!

Hi Kosta,
I truly enjoyed your post and wished to share some thoughts yesterday but for some reason I lost my post. I'll try to briefly share them again. I was curious and wish you to elaborate how the Trisagion-theopaschite could be perceived as truly eutychian. I can of course understand the discomfort due to innovation or the canon in trullo to prevent the placement of any theopaschite clauses in the Trisagion, but it escapes me how it can be unorthodox.

1. The hymn can be applied to any of the Three hypostases because all Three share Divinity, Might and Immortality.
2. The hymn can also be applied specifically to the Father (O Theos). (Then any theopaschite clause would be ridiciulous)
3. The hymn can be applied to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit respectively (as long as we don't distinguish the hypostases with the attributes used since they all share them), and here a theopaschite clause will not apply but to the Hypostasis of the Son.

Alexandria never liked that many of the patriarchs of Constantinople were from Antioch... Cyril took aim at Nestorius Could we blame Alexandria for this dislike ? When the first bishop in the East is Nestorius, how could Alexandria not panick ? When Antiochian thought holds sway over the see of New Rome, how could the once first see in the East not dislike it ? Assuming the existence of true genuine local traditions in Antioch and Alexandria, I am inclined to believe that this rivalry was primarily theological and secondarily personal. It's a clash of theological schools and ways of doing and understanding theology. The Antiochian council of Ephesus anathematized Cyril and his writings. So being an Eastern Orthodox, I would have always sided with Cyril over the Orientals who were truly in the wrong, and had too much power given their foundational errors. I think the Antiochian school is given more credit than it should and we'll realize this all the more if we take seriously into account its major errors and their implications. So yes to answer your question, I think the Alexandrian tradition is much more in the right than the Persian/Antiochian/Assyrian, for, as an Eastern Orthodox, I disagree with the first in words not in content and even though I share the same words with the second I disagree in content. What makes the Ecumenical see glorious is the content of the Orthodox Faith, not simply the wording, otherwise we would be Roman Catholics with whom we mostly share the same words but not how we understand them, hence the great schism which wasn't simply an event but an outgrowth of an alien perspective.

In Christ,

Kosta

17-01-2011, 12:45 AM

What i mean is that since the time Constantinople was elevated in 381, there was a rivalry. Remember before Nestorius ever came onto the scene, it was Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria undermining the see of Constantinople. He was responsible for the banishments of St John Chrysostom by holding a pseudo-council, yet the Copts view him as a saint. Theophilus held the robber-council at the OAK with 30 egyptian bishops along with an alliance from the emperor which successfully deposed St John Chrysostom. Theophilus held a witchhunt and continued to undermine st John after his return which led to a second banishment.

Cyril was disengenuious by intentionally starting Ephesus before John of Antioch and his delegation can arrive. Luckily in 433 a.d. they reconciled by Cyril acknowledging the Antiochan tradition while John approved the condemnation of Nestorius and accepting the title of theotokos.

The council presided over by Dioscorus which deposed St Flavian and exhonerated Eutyches was another egyptian cabal. For the first time Alexandria got their wish and under Dioscorus hand picked the replacement bishop for Constantinople after he violently deposed Flavian. St Anatolius of Constantinople was a representative of Dioscorus and a native Alexandrian. When the council of Chalcedon took place Anatolius sided with the chalcedonians, even soon after Anatolius was elevated to the throne he publicly denounced both Nestorius and Eutyches. Im sure this stung for Dioscorus that his own man didnt side with him in Chalcedon.

These rivalries was one factor why reconcilliation became impossible, and history shows that all sees were guilty og human vanity. With Chalcedon, when you plugged one hole another sprang up. Various emperors took sides and tried to crush the opposition to no avail. The henotikon it seems began gaining popularity , both Acacius of Constantinople and the monophysite Peter the Fullo signed it, but as soon as that happened Rome schismed not wanting the henotikon. When attention was turned to heal the schism between Rome and Constantinople over the henotikon, the monophyistes strengthened again not trusting Romes intent , so we were back to square one. The fifth council should have settled the problem, Justinian was a very powerful emperor unlike the weaklings before him. But it was during this time 535-567 a.d. that the Alexandrian Church officially split between the melkites and copts each recognizing a different patriarch for themselves. Thus Theodosius I was the last alexandrian patriarch both copts and byzantines hold in common afterwards it was just as much nationalism as theological.
P.s.- i will have to graciously disagree with you on point 3 on the trisagon with theopascite.

George Christodoulos

17-01-2011, 08:10 AM

Kosta,

I admire your manner of discussion, always gracious and civil. Thank you for such an uplifting discussion in the Spirit of Orthodox brotherhood.

I appreciate your disagreement with my third point, but I desire to be informed about the reason (I'm truly and genuinely curious). I also totally agree about all what you said concerning the condition of the Church in the late Roman world, but I add to this a theological dimension as well. Regardless of the erroneous means, these people were defending strongly held theological positions. Yes they may have disliked and envied each other's influence and power, but I also believe that they did all of that out of strong convictions that they were defending Orthodoxy. The repeated bickering between sees cannot, I believe, be reduced to personal animosity but must also be seen in the context of schools of exegesis of the Mystery and different emphases (right or wrong). The difficulty for Constantinople is that it was supposed to find a balance between these emphases, which, I believe, took a long time to develop and this is what we identify as Byzantine theology. I believe the balance was achieved by an Alexandrian content and Antiochian terminology, but this is my opinion after my examination of the facts and both sides of the argument. No one exemplifies this Byzantine synthesis more than the Great Saint Maximus the Confessor. So I, as an Orthodox Christian of Byzantine heritage, do feel a great theological affinity to Alexandria, and only superficial identification with Antioch. This wasn't apparent at all to people living in the midst of these troubled time, in fact troubled in all aspects religiously, politically, ecologically and economically.

Thank you Kosta again for such a civil and brotherly conversation.
In Christ

Kosta

20-01-2011, 05:28 AM

The reason why i reject your third assumption is because the hypostatic union does not allow for an increase in the Trinity. Also when the hymn is trinitarian the attributes are indeed defined. 'holy God' denotes the Father , Holy Mighty the Son and Holy Immortal the Spirit. This is expounded by St John of Damascus. For instance the term ischyros for mighty is a synonym for pantokrator which means 'almighty', this can be used for the Father as in the opening article of the creed but usually reserved for Christ who is also called 'Mighty God' in Isaiah.
But neither did the divine essense suffer, but soley that hypostasis of the Trinity who became flesh suffered. The theopascite clause of canon 10 makes a point to identify the 'one of the holy trinity' is the one that assumed flesh. The coptic version of the theopascite doesnt allow for this, so anyone belonging to the bbyzantine rite will assume the monophysite heresy.

The maronites add the word 'Christ' to 'suffered for us' so theres no confusion that it is a christological hymn. If there is ever reunion with the miaphysites, they will have to insert 'Christ' so no confusion will arise bbetween the byzantine rite's usage of the trisagion and the oriental rites'.

George Christodoulos

20-01-2011, 11:37 AM

Thank you, Kosta, for sharing your thoughts:)

1. The hypostatic union doesn't add to the Trinity, wonderfully said!! But why would anyone think that such a statement (which actually emphasizes the suffering in the flesh i.e. human nature) could add a human hypostasis, to the Trinity, who was crucified for us?!

2. I speak generally in light of Trinitarian dogma: If I say Holy God, Holy God, Holy God or Holy, Holy, Holy or Holy Mighty, Holy Mighty, Holy Mighty or Holy Immortal, Holy Immortal, Holy Immortal, here I'm simply extolling the consubstantial Three hypostases by ascribing the same attributes to all three. These attributes (Holiness - Divinity - Might and Immortality) are not the distinguishable characteristics of the Hypostases (in contradistinction to unbegottenness, begottenness and procession), they denote the common essence of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. The hymn is directed to the Hypostases. So if one says to the Father "Holy God" , and to Christ "Holy Mighty who was crucified for us" and to the Holy Spirit "Holy Immortal", have mercy on us, while liable to misunderstanding and is not traditional, it cannot be said to be unorthodox. The position (of the statement "who was crucified for us") as well is not as relevant in Greek, when it comes to meaning, as it is in English.

3. The Divine essence shouldn't be seen at all as subject to suffering even if one says to Christ "Holy Mighty who was crucified for us" because it must be implied that the One (The Hypostasis who ever remains Mighty according to Divinity),who became man, was crucified for us.

4. We can direct all three statements to Christ or one out of the three and still not commit any heresy if we state what happened "who was crucified for us".

Thank you again, Kosta, for your post, and for referring me to St. John of Damascus' treatment of the Trisagion.

In Christ,

George Christodoulos

26-01-2011, 01:50 AM

The Definition of the

Holy Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D)

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; 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, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.
I never realized until recently that the definitions of the words "essence/substance" and "nature" were not always the same in the Holy Council's horos. I was well aware that people of the time distinguished in meaning "ousia" and "Physis", and these progressively came to mean the same concept by the 5th Council (Saint John Damascene makes distinction in meaning, and there are at least two definitions he presents). But I was unaware that our definition of these words change within the same line.

As a hint, I, George Christodoulos, do not have a human nature and essence, as the Father, for example, has divine nature and essence. This doesn't pertain to the difference between Creator and created, but rather to the basic definition of "nature" and "essence/substance" which changes. In fact I do not have a human essence at all, and this grieves me because I thought Christ was consubstantial with me as a human person. This makes "Christ is consubstantial with the Virgin Mary" unintelligible, because the human person doesn't have a human essence and nature. The issue here is words like "consubstantiality" and "nature" which apparently do change meanings within the same line.

I based my post on Saint John Damascene's "An exact exposition of the Orthodox Faith". I wonder if others have noticed the same thing, because it was quite a revelation to me, since this lies at the core of his explanation of the Hypostatic union.

In Christ,

Kosta

28-01-2011, 01:55 AM

It would be interesting to see when these terms became more clarified. A christological vocabulary is the best we have to convey the mystery of God.
By the way George have you ever read the Athanasian creed? We were discussing it in another forum, what surprised me about this western creed is its christological confession, while its anti-nestorian and chalcedonian , there is no mention of the theotokos. The only reference to the blessed Virgin Mary in the entire creed is in a line that reads:

Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God.

I wonder if this detail is an influenceof Pope Leo not using the term theotokos after chalcedon.

George Christodoulos

28-01-2011, 07:57 AM

By the way George have you ever read the Athanasian creed? We were discussing it in another forum, what surprised me about this western creed is its christological confession, while its anti-nestorian and chalcedonian , there is no mention of the theotokos. The only reference to the blessed Virgin Mary in the entire creed is in a line that reads:

Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God.

I wonder if this detail is an influenceof Pope Leo not using the term theotokos after chalcedon.

Thanks Kosta for your post.

The way I see it is that the West developed independently from the East after Chalcedon, a process which began long before Chalcedon due to geopolitical and cultural reasons. The Empire itself was in decline, communication broke down and became difficult. I don't know if Pope Leo had any influence, but the way the West saw Chalcedon was different in later centuries, since the Tome of Leo became the sole voice on Christology. The issue goes beyond the use of words, a whole attitude developed in the West which was not totally Orthodox, which influenced the course of later theology. We may assess the discord between Eastern Orthodoxy and Western Christianity in the centuries beyond Chalcedon to be motivated by individual events here and there. But this is how a Westerner would assess it. From an Easterner's perspective, the many difficulties in the relation between the Christian East and West are really born of a different perspective altogether which keeps showing up every time a new issue arises. So the Athanasian creed can be celebrated and enjoyed from an Eastern perspective. The word Theotokos may not be an issue if it's not avoided, but to avoid it is to give credence to those who deemed it unorthodox. If I have the slightest feeling of discomfort calling the Virgin Theotokos, then I have a wrong unorthodox perspective of who Jesus Christ is. It's no accident that the West came in time to understand the significance of the Incarnation in a new and different way than the Eastern Greek Fathers previously did. Only a mind which separates the natures too much can conceive of Anselm's model of the atonement as explained in "Cur deus homo?" or a mind which mixes hypostasis and nature can come to justify the filioque or a mind which separates God and man can see salvation in forensic and legal terms rather than the theosis of the Church Fathers hence the Palamite controversy. Only a mind who lost touch with the experience of the mystery can claim supremacy and infallibility in a legalistic fashion to the Bishop of Rome. These are not accidents and no amount of similar words can bridge this gap. This is a whole attitude which permeates Western Christianity and culture as well. Yes it has its pearls, but it also has its perils. We must be aware of both and not be carried away.

Thank you, Kosta, for your conversation. I greatly appreciate it.