Was Chalcedon really necessary?

[尼古拉前执事]

Since this discussion has the possibility of getting out of hand quite quickly and easily, I wanted to make sure that everyone involved in this thread makes sure that he or she has read the forum rules listed in the FAQs at http://EuphrosynosCafe.com/forum/faq.php

While I welcome any non-Orthodoxy visitors, whether they be Non-Chalcedonians, Uniates, Protestants, etc. It is of utmost importance that they understand one of our more unique rules that can be read at http://euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/faq.php#4.

Do I have to be a traditionalist Orthodox Christian to post here?
No you do not. However, for our non-traditional Orthodox Christian guests, we ask that if you have concerns that you respectfully ask questions but not attack our Faith.

I only bring this up because some of the participants in this thread have been parts of volatile threads in other forums with debate techniques that would definitely violate this rule, among others that we have here at the Saint Euphrosynos Cafe.

[EkhristosAnesti]

An "honest" approach would be to examine all his writings

That would be the ideal approach to the study of any Saint/Father. It has nothing to do with honesty though. Ofcourse, if Anastasios has the time and energy to expend on studying all of St. Severus’ works, many of which are yet to be translated into english, then by all means he should. However, he asked for material that can be viewed online, and I linked him to the only website that has full works of St. Severus in translation readily available and free of charge.

My use of the term ‘honesty’ was to contrast the drawing of a conclusion on St. Severus in consideration of what his works actually state, to what the polemical works of his ecclesiastical opponents ascribe to him. Ofcourse, one can nonetheless approach the very works of St. Severus dishonestly by mistranslating or taking him out of context etc.

When people write letters they tend to hide what they truly think for the sake of diplomacy.

That’s a rather poor generalisation to make. Unless, in considering the purpose and objective of a certain letter, you have substantial reason to believe that the author of that certain letter would distort their own faith, then it is neither scholarly nor prudent to prima facie apply such a generalisation.

Many of the letters on the website I linked to are letters to fellow Oriental Orthodox clergy and congregations instructing them on the Faith. There is absolutely nothing in the realm of common sense that would suggest that St. Severos would instruct his Church in a Faith other than that which he himself believed and suffered for. Furthermore, St. Severos’ character is not one reflective of that which would be inclined to diplomacy. In fact, it was his very political incorrectness that got him in trouble with the political authorities, particularly Justinian whom he debated rigorously.

Again, it would be neither scholarly nor prudent to discard the letters of St. Severus in a pursuit to ascertain his Christological thought. Indeed, I cannot think of such a standard ever being applied in any study of any other figure in Church history.

You can find a Bibliography of Severus here: http://www.cecs.acu.edu.au/severusresearch.htm

Ah yes, the Centre for Early Christian Studies has done a great deal in terms of Severian research and scholarship. I’m in regular contact with Dr. Youhanna Youssef, an honoury research associate at the Centre and a member of the Melbourne Coptic Orthodox diocese. I’ve also read Dr. Pauline Allen's english publications on St. Severus. These two figures have probably read more of St. Severus than anyone else in the world; neither of them conclude him to be “Monophysite”/"Monothelite".

[George Australia]

When people write letters they tend to hide what they truly think for the sake of diplomacy.

That’s a rather poor generalisation to make. Unless, in considering the purpose and objective of a certain letter, you have substantial reason to believe that the author of that certain letter would distort their own faith, then it is neither scholarly nor prudent to prima facie apply such a generalisation.

You think so? Let's test the theory in this public forum where Deacon Nikolai has outlined the rules above....
Answer me this question: How many Wills does Christ have, one or two? I just want a straight forward answer with none of the usual verbosity. Is your answer:

(A) Christ has Two Wills, or
(B) Christ has only One Will?

Please pick one. And lets see if you are one of those who would "would distort their own faith"- which is, as you claim, the same faith as Severus.

[EkhristosAnesti]

Answer me this question: How many Wills does Christ have, one or two? I just want a straight forward answer with none of the usual verbosity.

(A) Christ has Two Wills, or
(B) Christ has only One Will?

Please pick one.

You may wish to set up a false dichotomy between the unity and duality of Christ’s wills, and if that false dichotomy constrains the paradigm according to which you operate then I must conclude that your dyothelitism is nothing but the heretical product of a reductionist methodology which inevitably destroys the paradox of the Incarnation (in fact most heresies are, including Arianism/Unitarianism which set up the false dichotomy of: '(a) God is One (b) God is Three, please pick one' and Nestorianism which set up the false dichotomy of: '(a) God suffered (b) Humanity suffered, please pick one').

The simplest answer I can and ever will give you: We can contemplate two wills—one perfectly divine and the other perfectly human—in theological abstraction, yet when we consider the Incarnate Word in actuality we find that He consistently expresses and conforms to One will, which is nothing other than the hypostatic expression of the synergically harmonious interaction between His distinct and real divine will and His distinct and real human will.

If you want to maintain a simplistic Christology that can be crudely examined with a two option multiple choice question, then that’s your prerogative. I must apologise, however, because the Christology of my Church is a bit more sophisticated than that—we’re dealing with a divine mystery, not kindergarten Maths.

How fitting and coincidental it is that in your attempt to be provocative you to take away the verse from your signature relating to the mystery of the Incarnation at the same time you submit a post which attempts to trash that very paradoxical mystery of godliness. For shame my friend.

[George Australia]

You may wish to set up a false dichotomy between the unity and duality of Christ’s wills, and if that false dichotomy constrains the paradigm according to which you operate then I must conclude that your dyothelitism is nothing but the heretical product of a reductionist methodology which inevitably destroys the paradox of the Incarnation (in fact most heresies are, including Arianism/Unitarianism which set up the false dichotomy of: '(a) God is One (b) God is Three, please pick one' and Nestorianism which set up the false dichotomy of: '(a) God suffered (b) Humanity suffered, please pick one').

The simplest answer I can and ever will give you: We can contemplate two wills—one perfectly divine and the other perfectly human—in theological abstraction, yet when we consider the Incarnate Word in actuality we find that He consistently expresses and conforms to One will, which is nothing other than the hypostatic expression of the synergically harmonious interaction between His distinct and real divine will and His distinct and real human will.

If you want to maintain a simplistic Christology that can be crudely examined with a two option multiple choice question, then that’s your prerogative. I must apologise, however, because the Christology of my Church is a bit more sophisticated than that—we’re dealing with a divine mystery, not kindergarten Maths.

How fitting and coincidental it is that in your attempt to be provocative you to take away the verse from your signature relating to the mystery of the Incarnation at the same time you submit a post which attempts to trash that very paradoxical mystery of godliness. For shame my friend.

Blah, blah, blah.....
In other words: "I'm too gutless to admit in public that my Church holds that Christ has only One Will". Which is exactly my point about what Severus says in his letters...too gutless to say what he really thinks.
According to the Orthodox Faith, Christ has Two Wills my friend- there is no getting around this.

[EkhristosAnesti]

In other words: "I'm too gutless to admit in public that my Church holds that Christ has only One Will".

That's like an Arian responding to my Nicaen belief that God is both One and Three, and saying, "Ah, you can't admit that your Nicaen Church is Tritheistic!"; well, no Mr. Arian, my Church is not Tritheistic, we believe God is One and Three according to two different respective categories. If my Nicaen Church was tritheistic, why would I deny it?

As disappointed as I am in your poor attitude to all of this, it does go well to demonstrate how reductionist theologies are prone to such categorical fallacies. The truths my Church hold are as I have expressed them:

We can contemplate two wills—one perfectly divine and the other perfectly human—in theological abstraction, yet when we consider the Incarnate Word in actuality we find that He consistently expresses and conforms to One will, which is nothing other than the hypostatic expression of the synergically harmonious interaction between His distinct and real divine will and His distinct and real human will.

As you will note, I have essentially expressed Christ's wills to be Two and One simultaneously, yet understood within two different respective frameworks. One deals with abstract theological contemplation, the other with practical reality. I apologise if this is too complicated for you, but what possible reason could there be for me not wanting to be plain about my Faith? Please use some common sense; I do not appreciate being called a liar simply because I choose to not reduce my Church's doctrinal understanding of a paradoxical mystery to a one word multiple choice proposition, precisely because to do so would be a betrayal of an accurate expression of the very faith you're asking me to propound.

Which is exactly my point about what Severus says in his letters...too gutless to say what he really thinks.

This statement is irrational and lacking in any substance. Again, why would you presume that St. Severus would distort his faith when instructing The Church on the Faith or debating your Heirarchs. What is it that he is 'gutless' of facing? He had nothing to gain, and in the case of the latter, suffered many afflictions. Justinian bribed St. Severus with many great glories; Justinian set him on an exceedingly high mountain and showed him the kingdoms and their glory, and said 'All these things i will give you..."; but St. Severus would not succumb to such temptations at the compromise of the Orthodox Faith. So upon what ground do you insult this great Saint? If you are angry, I advise that you take a few moments away from the computer; but do not sin like this.

According to the Orthodox Faith, Christ has Two Wills my friend- there is no getting around this.

If that is the faith you hold--what I will call a 'Two Wills Without Qualification' (TWWQ) faith, then you hold to something that must be considered no less than heresy insofar as it is incomplete and refuses to acknowledge proper qualification. It is surely not the Orthodox Faith, for it is the Faith that any Nestorian will gladly proclaim, and as you refuse the proper qualification that would differentiate Nestorian Christology from your own in this respect, then it is only fitting that this faith be called Nestorian--and there is no getting around that.

[George Australia]

I just want a straight forward answer with none of the usual verbosity.

:ohvey:

There is no qualification necessary for the dyothelitism of the Orthodox Faith. "Christ has Two Wills, period" is all that's necessary. It is only those who hold "miaphysitism" that have to "qualify" this by saying inane things like His Will is One and Two simultaneously. Just as the Natures are comingled and confused in the heresy of miaphysitism, so are the Wills.
In the Orthodox Faith, Christ has two Natures and Two Wills, not "kind of Two and kind of One"....