seraphim reeves wrote:On another message forum (which I'm sure most of us are familiar with), it seems to be taken as gospel that the Non-Chalcedonians are basically not different from the Orthodox in their christology (with many Orthodox even accepting the term "Oriental Orthodox" to refer to them... which is odd, since "Oriental" and "Eastern" mean the same thing.)
However, I'm not convinced of this (that the Non-Chalcedonians only differ in terminology, not in material belief.) The common apologetic for the Non-Chalcedonian (don't dare call it Monophysitism, though this is exactly what their position is) position is as follows...
- Those who accept Chalcedon affirm that Christ is one hypostasis, but with two Natures (fully human, fully Divine).
Until the Non-Chalcedonians accept Chalcedon, they are in heresy, and in Schism. Period.
- The "Oriental Orthodox" believe that Christ is both human and Divine, but that He is such in one "Incarnational" Nature (that is both human and divine.) However, "we mean the same thing as you guys."
If this is true (that the same thing is intended), it a couple of interesting questions...
a) where the Orthodox fathers really this dense, or should we rather ask, are modern "Orthodox ecumenists" who buy this line, brighter and more informed than the Orthodox fathers who condemned the Non-Chalcedonians as monophysites?
b) If what the Non-Chalcedonians really meant the same thing, why did they take exception to Chalcedon in the first place? While to some degree it is possible to mean "the same thing" while using different terms, there are limits on this - particularly when there is an overlap of terminology. For the truth is, both Orthodox and monophysites speak in a similar vocabulary, including the use of the term "nature" - the Orthodox affirming Christ has a human and divine nature (two natures), and the monophysites confessing only one, composite nature. Thus, I fail to see how one can possibly talking about the "same thing."
Besides this, another problem with the ecumenical dialogue between the Non-Chalcedonians and apparent "Orthodox", is that the non-Chalcedonians reject the ecumenicity of the rest of the Great Councils. This, combined with their hallowing of men who the Church of Christ has named (specifically) as heretics, seems to make corporate reunion impossible at this time. Yet for pointing this out, you'll probably be labeled a hawk or an uncharitable bigot. One thing is certain however, it is absolutely scandalous for the Antiochians to be on the verge of formal communion with these folks, and to take for granted the already existant "grass roots" communion of the Monophysites with their Church.
Those are some of my thoughts on the subject; I'd appreciate the opinions of others, particularly critiques (either in my conclusions, or even my facts.)
Seraphim
Non-Chalcedonions are heretics and schismatics like any other non-Orthodox group until they accept Chalcedon. Period.
