Was Chalcedon really necessary?

[George Australia]

No they are not “somehow” One Nature and One Willl. I have explained precisely just how they are One Nature or One Will

We know. You have explained very verbosely that you are monophysites...no need to labour the point.

[EkhristosAnesti]

I'll take that as the usual cop-out which is the fruit of the usual pridefully rigid opposition to the spirit of honesty and pursuit of truth.

Please, less baseless rhetoric, and more rational application of the actual facts.

[EkhristosAnesti]

Spiridon,

Sorry I missed your post:

that too much explaining and jumping around means one is trying to hard to prove something...

If I were to discuss my Christology amongst members of my own Faith, it wouldn’t take much effort for us to understand eachother, since we speak in the same tongue and harbour the same Spirit. Additionally, when I discuss my own Faith with those of heteredox Faiths who at least approach me with a genuine and honest interest in understanding what I believe, it likewise takes little to no effort to explain the Orthodox Faith to them (and glory be to God that such occurrences vastly outnumber situations such as the one I’m dealing with here with ozgeorge).

The reason much energy has been expended in this discussion in the context of this forum, is, as I have suggested above, because I am dealing with people who desire to play word games; people who wish to focus on form, and misrepresent the essence. When you deal with such people in such a context, consistent clarification and repetition is required, nevertheless, as I suggested above, such clarification and repetition is only as consistent as the incomprehension and misrepresentation that inspires it. The more the person denies and twists the truth, the more one has to do to emphasise and expose that deception and distortion for the sake of innocent bystanders who may be duped into buying into the falsehoods.

That is why when the Fathers (for e.g. Sts. Athanasius and Cyril) debated the heretics, it took them numerous letters and works to articulate the Faith in a manner that would be clearly understood by the Faithful and that would be sufficiently guarded against the misrepresentation of the heretics. They repeated themselves over and over again, though they did not need to. St. Cyril sent many letters to many Bishops subsequent to Ephesus 431 to emphasise to them that the One Nature formula did not result in confusion of Natures, that Ephesian Christology did not result in Theopaschitism.

[George Australia]

The reason much energy has been expended in this discussion in the context of this forum, is, as I have suggested above, because I am dealing with people who desire to play word games;

What word games? You mean your own words and those of Pope Shenouda? "We believe in One Will and in One Nature" There's no word game. The only word game is your verbosity in attempting to justify the recalcitrance of those churches which refuse to accept Chalcedon and the subsequent Oecumenical Councils of the Orthodox Church which clearly teach the Two Natures and the Two Wills.
And by far, the best word game I have ever heard is "miaphysite".

[EkhristosAnesti]

What word games?

I refer you to your own posts.

You mean your own words and those of Pope Shenouda?

There is no contradiction between my words and those of His Holiness, except of course to those who have eyes but cannot see, and those who have ears but cannot hear.

The word game is your verbosity in attempting to justify

You can categorise my very clear and articulate answers to your objections in any manner that makes it easier for you to evade dealing with those very answers. Copping out has become an artform for you.

those churches which refuse to accept Chalcedon

The problem is we don’t know which Chalcedon to accept; you’ll have to help us out. The Chalcedon of the Chalcedonian Patriarch Vigilus of Rome who upheld the Letter of Ibas? The Chalcedon of the Chalcedonian Bishop Theodoret who propounded the Christology of Theodore? The Chalcedon of those Chalcedonians who upheld the Three Chapters? The Chalcedon of those Chalcedonians who celebrated the death of Nestorius as a feast day? Which one?

which clearly teach the Two Natures and the Two Wills.

You mean like the Nestorians who taught no differently?

And by far, the best word game I have ever heard is "miaphysite".

Why, because we confess the mia physis of Christ just as St. Cyril did?

I think the best word game I have heard is Eastern "Orthodox"; I'm still waiting to hear what differentiates your will-Christology from that of a Nestorian. Their Christ has two wills in actuality capable of division, your Christ has two wills in actuality capable of division, their Christ is a potential schizophrenic, your Christ is a potential schizophrenic, the human will of their Christ is not hypostatised by God the Word, the human will of your Christ is not hypostatised by God the Word...sounds pretty much the same to me.

[George Australia]

I think the best word game I have heard is "Eastern Orthodox"; I'm still waiting to hear what differentiates your will-Christology from that of a Nestorian.

Let me explain.
Nestorios rejected the title "Theotokos". From this is was inferred that he held (although he never explicitly stated it) that the Pre-Incarnate Christ is a different Hypostasis to the Incarnate Christ. Thus "Nestorianism" has come to mean any heresy which states or implies that Christ is more than one Hypostasis.
Now, you yourself, in this very thread has stated that your Church agrees with the Sixth Oecumenical Council that:

Christ’s human will is proper to His humanity and that his divine will is proper to His divinity.

So, if we really agree that Will is proper to Nature, why then would the Orthodox Dogma of the Two Wills make you think that we believe in Two Hypostases? Either it is because of your erroneous belief in One Nature and One Will which in reality makes no distinction between the Divine & Human Natures and Wills because you believe in a third confused Nature and therefore think that Two Wills and Two Natures mean Two Hypostases; or otherwise, in reality, you think that Will is proper to Hypostasis, and not Nature.

[EkhristosAnesti]

Thus "Nestorianism" has come to mean any heresy which states or implies that Christ is more than one Hypostasis.

Precisely! And the notion that Christ is more than one hypostasis is the very implication one may properly derive from that which you positively express and particularly that which you refuse to positively express.

Either it is because of your erroneous belief in One Nature and One Will which in reality makes no distinction between the Divine & Human Natures and Wills because you believe in a third confused Nature

I know it's easier for you to just presume your own non-sequitor conclusions than to deal with my refutation; for the rest of those willing to listen, I have already answered this. I always love it when these kind of discussions get to the point where already debunked claims start getting recycled; that's when I just have to cut and paste:

No there is no Third Nature; again, your own ignorant rendering of OO Christology. St. Cyril’s One Incarnate Nature is not a third Nature, it is simply the union of the two natures. His Holiness Pope Shenouda appeals to the body-soul and iron-fire union analogy of St. Cyril to emphasise this; human nature is not a third new nature resulting from the fusion of the body and soul, it is simply the unity of those two natures. Again to quote the blessed St. Cyril:

"For not only in the case of those who are simple by nature is the term ‘one’ truly used, but also in respect to what has been brought together according to a synthesis, as man is one being, who is of soul and body. For soul and body are of different species and are not consubstantial to each other, but united they produce one Nature (physis) of man, even though in the considerations of the synthesis the difference exist according to the nature of those which have been brought together into a unity. Accordingly they are speaking in vain who say that, if there should be one incarnate Nature (physis) ‘of the Word’ in every way and in every manner it would follow that a mixture and a confusion occurred as if lessening and taking away the nature of man.’ (Letter to Bishop Succensus)

So, if we really agree that Will is proper to Nature, why then would the Orthodox Dogma of the Two Wills make you think that we believe in Two Hypostases?

Since Chalcedonian will-Christology insofar as you have presented it, refuses to acknowledge that the natural human will and the natural divine will of Christ operate in perfect harmony and unity, and that they are hence, for all practical purposes One Will, then you confess Two Wills in the same sense the Nestorians do.

Orthodox Dogma teaches that the natural human will and the natural divine will of Christ are hypostatised by the ONE Hypostasis of God the Word; as such there is no potential for conflict. The natural human will of Christ is not suppressed, but rather truly free in that it is not subject to those factors which enslave the human will, causing it to depart from the Good Divine Will in the first place. If the natural human will of Christ is subject to those factors and hence capable of conflicting with the divine will, then it either belongs to a human subject, or the Personal Subject of The Word is not in fact God, but someone of an inferior essence to Him. So the logical options are: Nestorianism or Arianism. Pick!