Was Chalcedon really necessary?

[George Australia]

....And unless someone else comes to the defence of the Faith of the Orthodox Church, this: http://euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/viewto ... 8910#38910
will be my last post on this subject in this thread.

[EkhristosAnesti]

Ozgeorge,

Pathetic attempt to bamboozle, which has failed.

Please don’t confuse your inability to comprehend, with an alleged attempt on my behalf to “bamboozle” anyone.

Though seeing, they do not see;
though hearing, they do not hear or understand. 14In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:
" 'You will be ever hearing but never understanding;
you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.

Monotheletism does not require "One Singular Divine Will" It simply requires "One Singular Will".

You can define it that way if you wish; the definition still contradicts the Orthodox conception of One Will, which does not refer to a singular will proper to hypostasis or even a singular natural will, but rather the unified synergic expression of a distinct natural human will and a distinct natural divine will as per the official teachings of the OO Church. As the humanity and divinity of Christ are actualised by One Hypostasis, they are expressed in actuality according to that One Hypostasis. Monothelitism denies the very existence of a natural human will in the first place.

It would help to have an ounce of the humility of your spiritual leaders who have already come to accept the fact that OO will-Christology is not monothelete. Unfortuantely, it has become a fad within the EO Church for the laity to pridefully seek their own conclusions apart from those drawn by Synods and Clergy who have spent much study and prayer dealing with the issues in question. Hence why, in my opinion, the OO Church should let the EO Church sort out its own mess--its numerous divisions and strifes--and only approach her when she has learnt to discipline her flock.

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.

Again, you insist on shoving words down the Orthodox throat. We do not deny that Christ’s human will is free; in fact, everything I have said testifies to the very opposite conclusion: the fact Christ’s was truly free in His capacity as man. True freedom of will entails a will “directed”, so to speak, by absolute objective Truth and hence free from the deception and ignorance which compels mere humans to deliberate and struggle in their attempt to align their wills to that of God and which ultimately accounts for conflict with the Divine Will. If Christ had the potential to conflict with the Divine Will in his capacity as man according to His human will, then Christ was not truly free, and hence He was not truly God become man. He was/is nothing other than a potential schizophrenic.

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.

Wrong. If His Human Will had the potential to disobey the Divine will, then that means that it was certainly NOTthe human will of God the Word, but rather the human will of a mere man.

Ironically, your arguments and conclusions evidence a severe ignorance of Maximus of Constantinople’s will-Christology—a Father and Saint of your own Church. However, I will not get into that, as that has already been discussed on OC.net with another member who ultimately renounced his position, and as you seem to be on a malicious agenda to deceptively defame the Orthodox Church in the first place, I find no compelling reason to start defending your Church's will-Christology from your own heretical representation of it.

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?

Umm no…Absolutely non-sequitor. George, have you ever considered the idea of providing a rational basis for your conclusions instead of just presuming them to be self-evident?

The Human will being in exact conformity with the Divine will entails a confusion of Wills? HUH? That’s the most nonsensical thing I’ve heard you say so far, and believe me, you’ve said a lot of nonsensical things.

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.

Again you miss the point. The Hypostatic Union provides the basis for the inevitable and ultimate harmony; this is not a matter of time and space; it’s not a matter of when and where, it’s a matter of what and how.

Again, your attempt to deceptively twist and turn the definitions of Miathelitism and Monothelitism to create the false illusion that the two are one and the same, has failed.

[EkhristosAnesti]

I missed the last part of your post:

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:

We have already discussed His Holiness Pope Shenouda III; you’re a bit late aren’t you. I have not denied that the Orthodox Church teaches One Will, I have simply placed that confession in context, a thing necessary in light of the fact that words and phrases are not self-interpreting and the obvious fact that Chalcedonian members of a Chalcedonian forum will be inclined to approach this discussion with false preconceived notions established by Chalcedonian polemics regarding what these phrases imply and mean.

As I have proven, His Holiness does not understand Christ’s One Will in a manner which undermines the fact that Christ has a human will proper to His Human nature and a divine will proper to Divine nature (a principle Chalcedonians understand by the phrase 'two wills'). Again, if you read His Holiness's book in context you will clearly see that he consistently refers to a human and a divine will in Christ:

"The complete righteousness which marked the life of ourLord Jesus was due to His Divine as well as His Humanwill." (p. 47)

Again:

"If there was not unity between the Will of the Divine nature of Christ and His human nature, this would have resulted in internal conflict. Far be it from Him!" (p. 47)

His understanding of One Will regards the harmony and union between the will of the Divine Nature and that of the Human Nature. Again, for the umpteenth time I refer you to Christ’s declaration that husband and wife become ‘One flesh’ in the marital union. Please accuse Christ of confusing the husband and wife!

Furthermore, I refer you to the statements mentioned earlier which were approved by the Holy Synod of which His Holiness is the head:

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.

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

Which is of course, not what it would mean. The energy proper to Christ’s Divinity and the energy proper to Christ’s Humanity, merely represent the capacities by which HE Acts. The One Act means that when Christ slept in the boat, it was His One Hypostasis that was sleeping according to the energy proper to His Humanity, whilst not sleeping according to the energy proper to His Divinity; it was One United Simultaneous Act of Sleep-and-non-Sleep. This is implied when His Holiness states on p. 20:

“Although man is formed of these two natures [i.e. the soul and the body according to St. Cyril’s analogy], we never say that He is two, but one nature. All man's acts are attributed to this one nature and not to the soul alone or to the body alone. Thus when we want to say that a certain individual ate, or became hungry, or slept, or felt pain, we do not say that it is his body which ate, or became hungry, or got tired or slept or felt pain. All man's acts are attributed to him as a whole and not only to his body. Similarly, all the acts of Christ were attributed to Him as a whole and not to His Divine nature alone (independently) or to His human nature alone.

[尼古拉前执事]

Why are the Coptic Orthodox called "Oriental Orthodox"? What do they believe that is different from Orthodoxy as we "Eastern Orthodox" practice it? Why are so many New Calendarist jurisdictions in America anxious to have ecumenical dialogue with these people? Lastly, how do you traditionalists view the Oriental Orthodox? (T.A., CA)

The superficial theological milieu of our era has proven most advantageous for ecumenical ideology, which seeks to gloss over the fundamental and abiding differences which distinguish the heterodox confessions from the Orthodox Faith. All too often, such differences are now conveniently dismissed as merely long-standing miscommunications of alternative, yet equally valid, terminological emphases. This perfunctory approach has been eagerly employed by Orthodox modernists in their theological dialogues with the so-called "Oriental Orthodox" churches. The designation "Oriental Orthodox" itself clearly illustrates the ecumenistic tendency to obfuscate essential theological differences with euphemisms. This deceptive appellation, popularized by the defective world view of Western Christian thought—a world view which lumps together such mutually exclusive ecclesiastical entities as the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Assyrian Church of the East (i.e., Nestorians), "Oriental Orthodox" churches, and Eastern Rite Papists (i.e., Uniates, such as Melkites and Maronites) under the umbrella term "Eastern Christians"—, masks the intransigent heresies held for centuries by three main groups: 1) Armenians, 2) Copts and Ethiopians (Abyssinians), and 3) Syrian and Malabarese Jacobites.

The adjective Oriental is synonymous with the adjective Eastern. There is thus no real distinction between the term Eastern Orthodox (which identifies the only True Church) and the term "Oriental Orthodox" (which denotes several false churches). More importantly, although the "Oriental Orthodox" have appropriated the title Orthodox for themselves (e.g., the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, the Ethiopian Orthodox Church, the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch, etc.), it was precisely their failure to embrace the Christology of the Holy Fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod in 451 that led to their departure from the domain of Orthodoxy to the hinterlands of heresy. They are therefore correctly and accurately designated either as Non-Chalcedonians, reflecting their rejection of this Divinely-inspired Ecumenical Synod, or Monophysites, characterizing their specific heterodox confession of Christianity.

These three groups of Non-Chalcedonians are united in their common profession of Monophysitism, as well as its logical consequents, Monotheletism and Monoenergism—the doctrines that in Christ there are, respectively, only one nature, one will, and one energy. The Fourth Ecumenical Synod anathematized Monophysitism, the Fifth Ecumenical Synod confirmed this decision, the Sixth Ecumenical Synod condemned Monotheletism and Monoenergism, and the Seventh Ecumenical Synod reaffirmed all of the foregoing. Therefore, in addition to being Non-Chalcedonians, the "Oriental Orthodox" are also Non-Second Constantinopolitans, Non-Third Constantinopolitans, and Non-Second Nicaeans. Their unyielding opposition to four of the seven Ecumenical Synods makes it not just a little difficult for us to consider the Monophysite churches Orthodox. After all, even the Latins, not to mention some Protestants, ostensibly abide by all seven of the Ecumenical Synods, and they are never referred to as "Orthodox" churches.

To bear the name Orthodox, one must confess—without equivocation—the Ecumenical Christology of the Catholic and Apostolic Tradition: Jesus Christ united without confusion within His Own Hypostasis His Divine Nature and His Human Nature, His Divine will and His Human will, and His Divine energy and His Human energy. There is no room here for semantic sidestepping. A recent study of Non-Chalcedonianism by the Monastery of Saint Gregory (Gregoriou) on Mt. Athos, The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics: A Contribution to the Dialogue Concerning the "Orthodoxy" of the Non-Chalcedonians, came to this same conclusion (see "Publications" at the back of this issue):

Code: Select all

A great ecclesiological chasm exists between us and the Non-Chalcedonians, which only the explicit confession of the holiness and ecumenicity of the Fourth and the following three Holy Ecumenical Synods on the part of the Non-Chalcedonians can bridge. Any manifest or hidden deviation whatsoever from Orthodox dogma, for the sake of some union contrary to the truth, will occasion only harm to immortal souls and suffering for the Church [p. 41].

Because of their subconscious ecclesiastical insecurities, the New Calendarists in America have a pathological craving for worldly recognition, making them only too willing to accept the "harm to immortal souls and suffering for the Church" already occasioned by dialogues between the "official" Orthodox and the Monophysites. For example, as reported in an earlier issue of Orthodox Tradition, several modernist theologians recently participated in an "Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Symposium" co-sponsored by St. Vladimir’s Theological Seminary and St. Nersess Armenian Seminary, a symposium obviously mimicking the union dialogues held in Europe in 1989 and 1990. On the Orthodox side, the symposium included representatives from the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, the Orthodox Church in America, and the Romanian Orthodox Church in America; on the Monophysite side, it included representatives from the Armenian Apostolic Church of America, the Coptic Orthodox Church, and the Syrian Orthodox Church of Antioch.

As reported by Solia (Vol. 60, No. 6 [June 1995]), the symposium, in heinous violation of the ecclesiological self-definition of the Orthodox Church as the One and Only Church of Christ, blasphemously referred to "‘the two Orthodox Churches’" as "‘one Orthodox family,’" to quote the heretical phrase of one Coptic priest (p. 16). Relying on the results achieved by past conferences and commissions which have examined the "Orthodoxy" of the Monophysites, the participants glibly concluded "that there exists full agreement on the substance of the faith of the two churches, notwithstanding the differences in terms" (p. 13)—and this, apparently, notwithstanding the Divine Grace which enlightened such God-bearing Fathers as Saints Flavian of Constantinople, Leo the Great, and Proterios of Alexandria (all of whom struggled against and suffered because of the Monophysite heresy) to develop and to refine a precise Christological nomenclature delineating the Orthodox Faith.

Having thus summarily disposed of the insuperable dogmatic barrier between the Truth of Orthodoxy and the falsehood of Non-Chalcedonianism, the symposium quickly turned its attention to the "practical steps...which could be implemented at the global and local levels to ultimately achieve [sic] unity," and "this includes among other things, a statement of reconciliation, academic cooperation, and common catechesis of young people" (ibid.). Deciphering this "ecumenically correct" jargon and restating it in plain Orthodox language, this symposium embraced the renunciation of Patristic Tradition, the scholarly prostitution of sacred theology, and the sacrifice of the next generation of Orthodox to appease the Moloch of Monophysitism. And for this, we have to thank "the great contribution of modern scholarship and the current worldwide ecumenical movement" (ibid.)! The words of the Savior ring with prophetic force: "Ye shall know them by their fruits" (St. Matthew 7:16).

In contrast to our ecumenist counterparts, who—to the detriment of their fellow man—reinforce the Monophysites in their error, we traditionalists, out of love both for the Truth and for those who have deviated from it, challenge the Monophysites to accept the standard of True Orthodox Christianity. Let the Non-Chalcedonian heretics become truly Oriental Orthodox: Let their spiritual orientation turn eastward, facing the Chalcedonian sunrise that dawns universally from the noetic Anatolia of Eastern Orthodoxy, where the Theanthropic One, "Whose Name is Orient" (Zechariah 6:12 [LXX]), the God-Man Christ Jesus, rises in Truth. Only then, when they have renounced their heterodox beliefs, can we genuinely address these theologically disoriented Easterners as Orthodox brethren.

From Orthodox Tradition, Vol. XIII, No. 1, 1996, pp. 20-22.

[jckstraw72]

you say you believe Christ has a human and a divine nature and will, but those are somehow one nature and will. your theology does not actually have a separate humanity and divinity but rather a divino-human nature and will. He is thus neither human nor divine, but a mixture of both that is a totally different being.

[尼古拉前执事]

A priest that I know says that the Copts are Orthodox, that they have been the victims of a theological misunderstanding by the Orthodox Church, and that they have a valid priesthood. He communes them and says that they are part of our Faith....You seem to think differently. Can you explain your position, which this priest says is old and outdated. He gave me an article by Bishop Maximos of Pittsburgh of the Greek Archdiocese. He says that Bishop Maximos is a great Patristic scholar and that his word, which supports the Copts as Orthodox, is final. (M.K., NY)

The Copts are Monophysites and thus heretics. Their Mysteries are invalid and, should they join the Orthodox Church, they must be received as non-Orthodox. Indeed, now that most Copts have rejected the errors of the Monophysite heresy, this is a time for their reunion with Orthodoxy. Here is a place for true ecumenism. But despite the fact that the time seems ripe, we must still rest on the Providence of God and restore the Copts to Orthodoxy in a proper way. One cannot say that he is Orthodox simply because he believes correctly and recites the Creed. He must be received into the Church by Chrismation or Baptism. The fact that the Copts were once Orthodox, fell away, and have now come to right belief is neither here nor there. Grace does not withstand generations of heresy and separation from the Church.

Anyone who believes that the Orthodox Fathers were wrong in condemning the Monophysites, and that the Copts have always been Orthodox, is guilty of blasphemy against the Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Synod at Chalcedon, which condemned the Monophysite heresy. He is also guilty of heresy, in that such a proposition presupposes not only that the Fathers of the Church were in error and that this error entered into the conscience of the Church, but that the Orthodox Church has for centuries been "divided" between the two "families" of right-believing Orthodox and the supposedly "right-believing" Copts. Moreover, such a view presumes that our Orthodox Fathers, ignorant of the truth, "divided" the Church over semantics and over word games.

There are even some conservative Orthodox, insufficiently familiar with the primary historical materials and following Western historiographical views of the events surrounding the Council of Chacedon (which have often shown, as Father Florovsky has observed, sympathies both for Monophysitism and the Nestorian heresy which provoked it), who imagine that misinterpretation, misunderstanding, and intransigence are the sources of the Chalcedonian schism. This mimicking of Western scholarship, however popular, breeds an un-Orthodox approach to the Christological debate between the Orthodox and heterodox parties. The Orthodox party was staunchly defending the truth, the non-Orthodox party staunchly defending a false view of Christ. While "objective" historians may thus attribute to the two sides in this debate "intransigence," it is obviously not consistent with Orthodox piety to accuse those who defend the truth of intransigence. It is heresy, a resistance to the truth, which actually has its roots in, and which is defined by, intransigence.

What, too, can we say of the Monophysite Churchmen and theologians who condemned our Orthodox Fathers as heretics and who are today revered by the Copts? Are we to praise and honor them along with the Monophysite "Saints" whose intercession the Copts invoke? Are we to commemorate together the memories of Churchmen who stood diametrically opposed to one another and pretend that such commemorations are consistent with the "one mind" of the Apostolic Church? And must we now reject the counsel of the great Abba Evthymios, who warned St. Gerasimos of the Jordan against the Monophysite heresy, bringing the latter to bitter tears for his former errors?

Theologians and Churchmen who do not read the Fathers, who do not lead spiritual lives, and who see the union of men as something more important than our union with God in the unity of Faith have no business conducting dialogues between the Orthodox and the Copts. They are not acting in a spiritual way, and the results which they achieve will not be spiritual. They are too weak to speak the truth and to lead the Copts, as they must be led, back to the Church in humble submission.

We deeply respect and admire Coptic piety. Many Copts far exceed Orthodox in their dedication to God and fidelity to their faith. But our respect must not impede us from telling them the truth, bringing them into the Church properly, and offering them bread, rather than the stone of cheap ecumenical politics. Spiritual men pine for unity in the truth. Ecumenical politicians seek to exalt themselves by great feats of human prowess. Those spiritual men who have been misled by their understandable enthusiasm for Church unity should reflect seriously on who is leading them into this false unity and what their motives are. When the Copts, too, reflect on this, we will undoubtedly see a cooling in what is now unfounded enthusiasm. And as the Copts grow in their desire to return to Orthodoxy, they will themselves wish to do so in an orderly way and not through the back door which has been opened to them by ecumenical politicians and spiritually irresponsible clergymen.

Bishop Maximos' article on the Monophysites (The Illuminator, Vol. XII, No. 86) rests wholly on the theological opinion of Jean Lebon, A Roman Catholic Priest and scholar, who wrote an interesting thesis on a Monophysite figure. His Grace suggests that all "serious scholars and patrologists" follow the writings of this "great professor and scholar of our century" and find no ultimately essential differences, save those of terminology, between Orthodoxy and Monophysitism. "It is only ignorant and narrow[-]minded[,] irreponsible people who can oppose the work of God's Holy Spirit" and such views, he argues. I doubt, given the prevailing hatred for traditionalists in his jurisdiction, that His Grace would apologize to me and other Old Calendarists under this umbrella of condemnation, but he certainly owes an apology to other theologians who think as we do: the late Protopresbyter Georges Florovsky, the Blessed Archimandrite Justin (Popovich), Professor P. Trembelas, and others.

As for Bishop Maximos' suggestion that "church politicians" and "administrators" settle this question, res ipsa loquitur. Whenever the Church's conscience is violated, we turn to church politicians and administrators—the source and product of modernism and innovation. When that conscience is defended, we look to the Fathers, the Ecumenical Councils, and Church Tradition. And these have already spoken, as we have noted.

We are astonished at and deeply saddened by Bishop Maximos' ill-advised words.

From Orthodox Tradition, VOL. IX, NO. 1, pp. 8-10.

[尼古拉前执事]

The History of the Persistant Monophysite Rejection of St. Cyril of Alexandria's Teaching on the Two Natures of Christ

Following are quotes taken from The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics: A Contribution to the Dialogue

Concerning the "Orthodoxy" of the Non-Chalcedonians...

433: St. Cyril explicitly accepts two natures after the hypostatic union in his "Epistle to John of Antioch" (the Agreements of 433):

"With regard to the Evangelical and Apostolic expressions concerning the Lord, we know that men who are skilled in theology make some of them common to the one Person, while they divide others between the two Natures, ascribing those that are fitting to God to Divinity of Christ, and those that are lowly to His Humanity. On reading these sacred utterances of Yours, and finding that we ourselves think along the same lines—for there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism—, we glorified God the Saviour of all" [John Karmiris, Dogmatic and Creedal Statements of the Orthodox Church, Vol. 1 [Athens:1960]. p. 154], quoted in The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics, p 11]

Saint Cyril replies to extremists who questioned the Agreements:

"We have not gone so mad as to anathematize our own views; but we abide by what we have written and by our way of thinking" [Epistle XXXVII, to Theognostos, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. LXXVII, Col. 169C; quote in The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 12].

448: The Permanent Synod of Constantinople under Patriarch Flavian condemns Eutyches who rejects St. Cyrils Agreements.

449: Dioscoros presides over the Robber Synod and exonerates Eutyches, and deposes St. Flavian (who is beaten to death and replaced by an Alexandrian), and condemns all who accept the Agreements and anathematizes all who confess two natures [Fr. Geoges Florovsky, The Byzantine Fathers of the Fifth Century (Thessaloniki:1992), p 470; referenced in The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 13].

451: The Fourth Ecumenical Synod adopts all the teachings of St. Cyril, and condemns those who selectively choose some of them and reject others as heretical. St. Flavian is vindicated and the Robber Synod Annulled.

457: Timothy Ailouros (another Monophysite "saint") condemns Saint Cyril on account of the agreements:

"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].

499: Philoxenos of Hierapolis convenes a synod in Constantinople and deposes the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch (Flavian), and Severos, a Disciple of Timothy Ailouros (and another Monophysite "saint") is installed in his place [Ibid., p 14].

Severos also condemns St. Cyril's Agreements:

"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].