More on Monophysites...

[尼古拉前执事]

Some world Orthodox statements on their planned union and acceptance of the anti-chalcedeons can be found here: http://www.britishorthodox.org/2church.php

[Lucian]

Lucian,

Clearly, the "Greek Orthodox" knew the theology of the Monophysites and only worked to produce a white-wash, which is what I always said these agreements were.

I recently read Shenouda's treatise on their monothelite theology.

And with that, there can be no question for an Orthodox Christian that the "Oriental Orthodox" are outside the Church and that the ecumenist communion is with them.

Will you please tell me where I can get hold of that treatise by Shenouda?

I would like to read it myself.

Have you read the book, Cosmic Liturgy: The Universe According to Maximus the Confessor, by Hans Urs von Balthasar? It is a real eye-opener, although the book requires some genuine effort in order to wrap one's mind around the concepts involved.

According to von Balthasar, St. Maximus saw the writings of Severus of Antioch as one of the sources of the Monothelite controversy (although Severus was deceased by that time) and wrote his Letter 12 as a detailed refutation of Severus' errors.

Here is an appropriate excerpt from a Catholic Encyclopedia article on Monophysitism found here:

But though Severus went so far as this, it is shown elsewhere (see EUTYCHIANISM, MAXIMUS CONFESSOR, and especially MONOTHELITISM) that he did not avoid the error of giving one activity to our Lord, one will, and one knowledge. It is true enough that he had no intention of admitting any incompleteness in the Humanity of Christ, and that he and all the Monophysites started merely from the proposition that all activity, all will, and intelligence proceed from the person, as ultimate principle, and on this ground alone they asserted the unity of each in Christ. But it was on this ground that Monothelitism was condemned. It was not supposed by the best Catholic theologians who attacked the doctrine that the Monophysites denied Christ to have exercised human activities, human acts of the will, human acts of cognition; the error was clearly recognized as lying in the failure to distinguish between the human or the mixed (theandric) activity of Christ as Man, and the purely Divine activity, will, knowledge, which the Son has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit, and which are in fact the Divine Nature. In speaking of one activity, one will, one knowledge in Christ, Severus was reducing Monophysitism to pure heresy just as much as did the Niobites or the Tritheists whom he certainly held in horror; for he refused to distinguish between the human faculties of Christ-activity, will, intellect-and the Divine Nature itself. This is no Apollinarianism, but is so like it that the distinction is theoretical rather than real. It is the direct consequence of the use of Apollinarian formulae. St. Cyril did not go so far, and in this Monothelite error we may see the essence of the heresy of the Monophysites; for all fell into this snare, except the Tritheists, since it was the logical result of their mistaken point of view.

The bolding is mine, for emphasis.

[Aristokles]

Lucian,

Clearly, the "Greek Orthodox" knew the theology of the Monophysites and only worked to produce a white-wash, which is what I always said these agreements were.

I recently read Shenouda's treatise on their monothelite theology.

And with that, there can be no question for an Orthodox Christian that the "Oriental Orthodox" are outside the Church and that the ecumenist communion is with them.

While I can agree that the working agreement is a white-wash stressing some contorted commonalities and ignoring apparently real differences, I wonder how the fact that the EP demands full acceptance of all 7 Councils as a pre-condition for re-union messes up your negativism, OOD. (Video of the EP's statement in his interview is on the GOARCH website). Do you distinguish between false ecumenism and ecumenism at all?
I agree that the Copts and the Ethiopians appear as fully cloaked in mono-nature status as ever. But does this apply to all the other NC churches? I wonder. The Church of Georgia rejected Chalcedon for 150 years - was monophysite, in other words, in this period and then accepted the council and rejoined the Orthodox Church. So, it's happened before.
It is also no wonder that the Greek Orthodox Church(es) are active with this. After all, it was from them that the NCs originally departed. And I look forward to my Slavic brothers' input and approval (or rejection) of any outcome of this dialogue.

Demetri

[Lucian]

The history of the Church of Georgia should serve as an example to modern Non-Chalcedonians and gives me hope that at least some of them can be reconciled to the Church.

What disturbs me most is the way in which NC claims of orthodoxy are uncritically accepted by the (supposedly) Orthodox.

But in what way has their theology changed or their attacks on the councils?

If NCs really are orthodox, they should have no trouble accepting all of the ecumenical councils.

The fact that they continue to attack them gives the lie to their claims.

[Lucian]

"I confess that before the union our Lord had two natures, but after the union I confess one single nature."
- Eutyches

"So we can say that the Divine nature united hypostatically with the human nature within the Virgin’s womb, but after this unity we do not ever speak again about two natures of Christ."

Code: Select all

                                                    - Coptic Pope Shenouda III[/b][/quote] 

Would someone care to explain to me the difference in the two quotes above?

An "after this unity" that prohibits speaking of two natures of Christ implies a "before this unity" for our Lord's human nature. Yet we know that before the Hypostatic Union, Christ, the Divine Logos, had no human nature.

Thus, if we are unable to speak of our Lord's human nature "after this unity," then clearly, according to the logic reflected in the quotes above, He has no human nature!

He has only the "One Nature of the Incarnate Word" (Coptic Pope Shenouda III again, quoting pre-union St. Cyril).

This error, which seems to make one Person of Christ out of two persons (Shenouda consistently uses nature in the sense of person), leads to the Monothelitism and Monenergism expressed by Coptic Pope Shenouda III later in the work from which the original quote is taken, entitled The Nature of Christ and found here.

Coptic Pope Shenouda's words are as heretical as those of Eutyches, it seems to me.

[Justin Kissel]

bump

[Lucian]

I wanted to post an excerpt from a 1997 letter of Patriarch of Jerusalem Diodorus I of Blessed Memory to the Patriarch of Antioch (the entire letter was posted by Nicholas here).

It is especially appropriate for this thread and says very well what needs to be reiterated in Orthodox churches everywhere.

I. AGREEMENT WITH THE NON-CHALCEDONIANS


First, it becomes clear that no acceptance of the results of the dialogue with the non-Chalcedonians has been declared by all of the Orthodox Churches; therefore, We cannot speak approvingly of a "preparation for the next point and a beginning of the implementation of the Pastoral, Sacramental, and Canonical stage."


The document produced from the theological dialogue on the Christological Doctrine, which has been forwarded to the Orthodox Churches with the relevant introduction of the bilateral commission, was sharply criticized in many of the Churches by Their Holy Synods. It has even been subjected to criticism by Monastic Communities, such as the one on the Holy Mt. Athos. The memorandum issued by this Community was circulated to all of Us. Although this document of the dialogue was not accepted by the totality of the Orthodox Church, We did not observe willingness from the side of the Commission to modify it in order to reflect the Orthodox position and Holy Tradition. According to Holy Tradition, the Non-Chalcedonians ought to accept absolutely and completely all the Terms and Canons of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, in its entirety, as well as the following Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Ecumenical Councils, also in their entirety. Therefore, no matter what decision could be adopted by the Orthodox Churches in favor of accepting the introductions made, it should be considered as a challenge of the Orthodox conscience of the Faithful and as an insult to the Tradition of the Fathers of the Eastern Orthodox Church.


We were justly surprised by the indirect threat implied by your statement that You do "not want to precipitate unilaterally in a procedure which binds the entirety of the Orthodox Churches." In this expression, We discern a lack of respect for the Pan-Orthodox adopted principle [i.e., Holy Tradition] which states that the Orthodox Church in Her Entirety must unanimously co-advance in actions that are related to the acceptance and implementation of results emanating from theological dialogues. You unjustly express indignation "that some of the Orthodox hold a double language and continue to blame the Non-Chalcedonians for monophysitism." What modifications were made in the relevant text of Chambessy or in the documents that followed, and what change has the Orthodox Church observed in the thoughts and position of the Non-Chalcedonians, that justify the abolishment of the characteristics of the Monophysites given to the Non-Chalcedonians by the Fathers?


The text of Your Beatitude speaks of "one particular responsibility of the Antiochians and Alexandrians"—a responsibility which, as We understand it, emanates from the geographical location of these Churches. But in the same geographical area there is located also Our Patriarchate of Jerusalem. You state that "the practical implications of the Unity within the re-found Faith with Our Non-Chalcedonian Brothers are not the same for all the Churches." But even in this point, We have observed a declination of the Orthodox position by You as there are not only "practical implications of the Unity," but radical disagreements if indeed Unity of Faith was 're-found' with the Non-Chalcedonians. In the compromising Unity which You propose "through a decision of the Synods of the Orthodox Churches" and through resolution "of the practical problems which intervene obstacles," We do express once again the opposition of Our Holy Church.


Where do We further proceed, in the restoration of Communion between two "Family Churches" as You propose, and in union with the Non-Chalcedonians who refuse to denounce the error and their un-Orthodox founders? How can this compromise stand? For one, We firmly believe in the Presence of the Holy Spirit within, and the Illumination of, the Holy Fathers and Defenders of the Orthodox Dogmas who gathered in the Ecumenical Synods. Furthermore, We maintain that these God-inspired Fathers, because of their holiness and struggle for the Soul and Body of the Orthodox Faith, were worthy to be honored in the Conscience of the Church. Thus are we to believe that they did not correctly understand those present in the Synods with whom they communicated in a common language and education?


How else does Your Beatitude explain the fact that the Fathers of Our Orthodox Church condemned those who thought and accepted principles different from theirs as falling into the heresies of Monophysitism, naming them and their followers 'heretics'. What comfort will Our Soul find when on Our path toward this Unity, We end up abandoning the Faithful People of God—who have been devoted to Our teachings until today—in the waste of confusion, pushing them into a new soul-destroying schism and apostasy, all under the pretext of guarding Orthodox Truth?


The points contained in this Chapter incited Our serious worry over the daring encyclical letter which the Holy Church of Antioch issued some time ago. Because of it (as We have been informed), in violation of the Holy Canons and with disregard for ecclesiastical order, there was allowed Common Prayer of Orthodox Hierarchs and Clergy with the Non-Chalcedonians. Moreover, there are reports that changes in the orders of the Church Services were made for such occasions as a result of this encyclical. These activities are dangerous in that they dull the consciences of the Faithful. They are not only contrary to the Holy Canons, but clearly are condemned by Them. Those who are decide in favor of or commit these activities are [Ed.—according to the Canons] to be severely punished and expelled from the Church Vineyard, as "every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire." (Matthew 3:10).

Amen!