Was Chalcedon really necessary?

[spiridon]

O.K. where are all the Orthodox Priests, whom seem to always want to view there opinion about the current situation with the Moscow Patriarch and ecumensim, but when someone come and knocks with statements and questions about Our Faith , no one says a word???
Im a simple laity, and well maybe its time for me to get up and say a word or two???

[EkhristosAnesti]

jckstraw72,

He is not one nature and two natures at the same time

He is One Nature of Two Natures. That is pure Orthodox Cyrillian Christology. St. Cyril never said Christ was “in two natures”. He said there is One Incarnate Nature of God the Word, and this One Nature was itself of two natures. There is a different intended nuance of the term Nature in each clause. The term Nature itself generally denotes the total set of attributes or properties conceived either abstractly or in actuality; abstractly we can conceive of two distinct sets: a human set of attributes and properties (A, B, C) and a divine set of attributes and properties (X, Y, Z), however, as those two sets are both actualised by the One Hypostasis of God the Word, they constitute, in practicality, One ultimate set (A, B, C + X, Y, Z = A, B, C, X, Y, Z). The Incarnate God did not go around flicking between two different sets of attributes and properties; He was the God-Man at all times, and operated and lived as such at all times. He did not live sometimes as God and sometimes as man. The One who healed lepers was not merely God, He was the God-Man; the one who suffered, was not merely Man, He was the God-Man.

we believe Christ has two natures (and thus two wills), which make up one person, whereas the Nestorians divide His natures in a manner that ruptures His singular personhood.

Nestorians would be more than happy to acquiesce to your terminology of “one person in two natures”, and in fact they did. This does not suffice to negate Nestorianism. People have an oversimplistic conception of Nestorianism, believing that the mere profession of “one person” is enough to negate it. The fact of the matter is that Nestorius used the term “one person” to refer to a prosopic union, and he used the phrase "in two natures" to proclaim the idea of Christ subsisting in a human nature and in a divine nature as if He were two subsistences.

By refusing to use the term Theotokos they are saying Mary gave birth only to His humanity, which is impossible bc His humanity and divinity are inseparable in one person.

Nestorians learnt to adapt their terminology and eventually acquiesced to the title Theotokos. Nevertheless, they understood this title as a reference to the fact that the one who was conceived was God by virtue of His reception of God in an external union, and hence even the Theotokos title does not suffice to negate Nestorianism.

and saying His two wills acted in harmony is not a qualification, i could just as easily leave it out, since that goes without saying--if Christ was sinless then obviously His humanity always worked in congruence with His divinity

No it doesn’t go without saying. If the harmony that existed was by virtue of effort, struggle or coincidence, rather than by virtue of the Hypostatic Union itself, then your conception of Christ’s human and divine wills is Nestorian. Qualification is necessary, and if your faith regards it unnecessary then I have no other choice but to conclude Chalcedonian will-Christology to be fundamentally flawed and incomplete. Not only was there no conflict between Christ's wills, but the fact is there could not be conflict between Christ's wills; the potential never existed.

If Christ is fully human then He must have a human will, and if He is fully God then He must have a divine will, or else He is not 100% of those natures.

And if His human will was hypostasised by His Divine Hypostasis, then by virtue of the hypostatic union, the relationship between Christ’s divine and human will is such that at the instance of the Incarnation, they are “One will” in a similar sense to the way Christ deemed Husband and wife to become “One flesh” at the instance of their sacramental marital union.

[George Australia]

yes, Christ is one PERSON and two NATURES, with two WILLS simultaneously. He is not one nature and two natures at the same time, which it seems to me the Miaphysites try to say. you bring up God as one and three at the same time, but God is one GOD, and also three PERSONS. He is not one person and three persons, or one God and three Gods.

Ask him whether "thelema" ("Will") is proper to Nature or to Hypostasis....that always stumps him.

[George Australia]

No it doesn’t go without saying. If the harmony that existed was by virtue of effort, struggle or coincidence, rather than by virtue of the Hypostatic Union itself, then your conception of Christ’s human and divine wills is Nestorian.

Codswhollop.
This is only if you accept the miaphysite heresy which teaches that Will is a function of Hypostasis and not of Nature.
It always gets you, doesn't it? Every time you guys claim "we are not monophysites, we are miaphysites" along comes monothelitism to show that there is no difference between them. You guys have to say that Christ has only one free will, because if he has two Wills, and had to conform his Human Will to the Divine Will, that means that his Human Nature is distinct to His Divine Nature- so "poof" goes the whole erroneous theory of "miaphysitism"- because it IS monophysitism.
And only one small phrase from the Gospel is required to prove that Christ had to conform His Human Will to the Divine Will:
"Let this cup pass from Me, however, not as I Will, but as Thou Will".

[EkhristosAnesti]

This is only if you accept the miaphysite heresy which teaches that Will is a function of Hypostasis and not of Nature.

The Oriental Orthodox Church has explicitly confessed that Christ’s human will is proper to His humanity and that his divine will is proper to His divinity. The issue of Christ’s Hypostasis concerns their relationship and interaction.

The Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church has approved the following as reflective of Her Will-Christology:

3. Both families agree that the Hypostasis of the Logos became composite (sunqetoj) by uniting to His divine uncreated nature with its natural will and energy, which He has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit, created human nature, which He assumed at the Incarnation and made His own, with its natural will and energy.

1. Both families agree that the natures with their proper energies and wills are united hypostatically and naturally without confusion, without change, without division and without separation, and that they are distinguished in thought alone.

The problem is not with the Miaphysite Orthodoxy of St. Cyril and Ephesus 431, but your inability to listen and comprehend, and your insecurity of faith which compels you to persist in your malicious attempt to misrepresent the Orthodox Faith.

Every time you guys claim "we are not monophysites, we are miaphysites" along comes monothelitism to show that there is no difference between them.

Monothelitism teaches that there is One Singular Divine Will. Monothelitism denies the reality and existence of a human will proper to Christ’s humanity. Please show me where I have, or where any official document of my Church has, stated anything to that effect.

You guys have to say that Christ has only one free will, because if he has two Wills,

You seem to be confused. First of all, it is you who erroneously/heretically conceives of a dichotomy between understanding Christ to have One and two Wills because of your inability to process a proper understanding of those respective terms, not us. We didn’t say Christ has "only one will" to the exclusion of a distinct divine and distinct human will. That is what you want us to say because that would allow you to feel more secure about your apparently weak faith. What we have said is that Christ has two natural wills that can be conceived in abstract thought alone (as per St. Cyril’s dogmatic condition), and that the relationship between them is such that in actuality they operate in perfect unison and harmony so as to be understood as One Will, in the same sense that the reality of the ideal sacramental union is such that the two partners (or fleshes) may be regarded as One flesh.

and had to conform his Human Will to the Divine Will that means that his Human Nature is distinct to His Divine Nature- so "poof" goes the whole erroneous theory of "miaphysitism"

To use your own initial response (yet in a context that actually warrants it): Codswhollop. Considering that the whole underlying premise of the mia suffix is that the distinction between Christ’s Humanity and Divinity is preserved within His Unity, your argument is again baseless and void of reason.

The fact of the matter is that because the human will belongs to the Person of God the Word and is Hypostatised by Him, there was never an issue of struggle for alignment or deliberation; it was a completely natural and inevitable process. If the theology of your sixth council implies otherwise, then it is Nestorian, for it conceives of a potential even if not actual conflict between Christ’s wills, and hence a potential division within Christ--your Christ becomes a potential schizophrenic.

So “poof” goes your vain plot to misrepresent the Church’s Faith (again).

And only one small phrase from the Gospel is required to prove that Christ had to conform His Human Will to the Divine Will:
"Let this cup pass from Me, however, not as I Will, but as Thou Will".

You seem to be missing the point (again…). The issue concerns how and why conformity was eventually and consistently achieved, and not the fact that conformity needed to be achieved. Did Christ eventually take His Cup according to the Will of the Father, because He, being God the Word and Son of the Father, understood reality with a Divine Perception and was hence not subject to deception or moral ignorance which leads one to undertake onerous deliberation and struggle; did your Christ, upon recognising the incinaltion of His Human will to prolong life instantaneously infinitely understand and appreciate the need to fulfill the prophecies for the sake of the Ressurrection of mankind and hence choose that path naturally, or did he pick up a flower in the Garden of Gethsemane and start pulling off petals one by one, saying, "Hmm..Let the Cup pass, Take the Cup...Let the Cup pass...Take the cup..."?

"Waiting for someone to address the historical reality that half the Chalcedonian Church was Nestorian during the fifth-sixth centuries."

[George Australia]

Monothelitism teaches that there is One Singular Divine Will. Monothelitism denies the reality and existence of a human will proper to Christ’s humanity.

Pathetic attempt to bamboozle, which has failed. Monotheletism does not require "One Singular Divine Will" It simply requires "One Singular Will", and a "miaphysite" who claims that the two Natures are not comingled or confused, but who insists that Christ's Human Will was not free belies this claim. Either Christ had a Human Will or not. If His Human Will had no choice but to obey the Divine Will like a computer program, then it was certainly NOT a Human Will.

Please show me where I have, or where any official document of my Church has, stated anything to that effect.

OK. You said:

If the harmony that existed was by virtue of effort, struggle or coincidence, rather than by virtue of the Hypostatic Union itself, then your conception of Christ’s human and divine wills is Nestorian.

So you claim that the harmony between the Two Wills is a result of an "Hypostatic Union", and to say otherwise is Nestorianism. Therefore, the Human Will of Christ willed exactly the same thing as His Divine Will, right? Is this not a comingling and confusion of the Wills? And how do you attempt to explain the Agony in the Garden to conform with this?:

The issue concerns how and why conformity was eventually and consistently achieved, and not the fact that conformity needed to be achieved.

So, if this harmony and conformity of the Two Wills "eventually...needed to be acheived", then it is obviously not a result of the Hypostatic Union which existed from the Instant of the Incarnation.
It's almost as if you've picked a plower and plucked it's petals saying "Hypostatic Union....Not Hypostatic Union..... Hypostatic Union...Not Hypostatic Union".

And, on top of this, Pope Shenouda has emphasised the fact that you guys believe in "One Will" in his book "The Nature of Christ" where he says:

THE ONE WILL AND THE ONE ACT
Has the Lord Christ two wills and two actions, that is a Divine will and a human will, as well as two actions, that is, a divine act and a human act? As we believe in the One Nature of the Incarnate Logos, as St. Cyril the Great called it, likewise: We believe in One Will and One Act:
Naturally, as long as we consider that this Nature is One, theWill and the Act must also each be one.

Which, of course, would mean that when Christ slept in the boat, the Divinity also slept since "the Act must also be one".

Its Heresy. Plain & Simple.

[George Australia]

O.K. where are all the Orthodox Priests, whom seem to always want to view there opinion about the current situation with the Moscow Patriarch and ecumensim, but when someone come and knocks with statements and questions about Our Faith , no one says a word???

Hear Hear!
And shame on you all that a "World Orthodox" layman like me does so!