Was Chalcedon really necessary?

[George Australia]

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.

Just because we weren't stupid enough to think that the only possibility was a fusion of the Two Natures into a third, new "Nature" and the Two Wills into a third new "Will", doesn't make the Orthodox dogma of the Two Natures and the Two Wills "Nestorian". You still seem not to understand what "Nestorian" means, so let me repeat:

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]

You still seem not to understand what "Nestorian" means, so let me repeat:

This is a laugh. I know all about Nestorianism in all its shapes and forms. You evidently know very little about Nestorianism since your only understanding of it seems to be the stereotypical caricature of it; I question just how much serious academic study you've actually done. Nestorianism is not contingent upon a denial of St. Mary as ‘Theotokos’—I refer you to Fr. Romanides exposition on Theodoretian-Nestorian Christology; one can still confess St. Mary to be the Theotokos and conceive of Christ as Two Subjects. This is what happened with the Christology of a substantial number of your Chalcedonian Fathers subsequent to Chalcedon—those who accepted the Three Chapters, the Letter of Ibas, and celebrated the death of Nestorius as a Feast Day.

This is the Nestorian Christology implied by your Two Wills, as I have argued:

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!

I wait for you to actually address the response.

As to the claim you continue to parrot in disregard of its being debunked on numerous occasions:

that the only possibility was a fusion of the Two Natures into a third, new "Nature"

I shall simply repeat myself:

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)

and the Two Wills into a third new "Will"

Again, the One Will inseparable from Orthodox Dogma, is the unified hypostatic expression of the two natural wills of Christ. It is neither one natural will to the exclusion of the other, or a third natural will.

Please keep parroting this false “New Third Nature” and “New Third Will” rubbish that I have refuted over and over again; it doesn’t make you look any more smarter the more you repeat it in spite of its being addressed; in fact it does just the opposite.

[Benjamin W. C. Waterhouse]

Simple question

Do you accept the seven Oecumenical Councils led by the Holy Spirit, without qualification?

If you do you are Orthodox, if you do not you are not Orthodox.

Yes or No?

In Him
SB

[Pensees]

Do you accept the seven Oecumenical Councils led by the Holy Spirit, without qualification?

The crux of the matter is whether Chalcedon usurped a previous Ecumenical Council, and therefore cannot properly be considered "ecumenical." If you honestly don't understand the history surrounding Chalcedon, I must once again recommend these articles:

Beyond Dialogue: The Quest for Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Unity Today
Rev John H Erickson, Dean
http://www.svots.edu/Faculty/John-Erick ... ogue.html/

Monophysitism: Reconsidered
Fr. Matthias F. Wahba
St. Antonius Coptic Orthodox Church
http://www.coptic.net/articles/Monophys ... idered.txt

While I am, for the time being, abstaining from this discussion, I would like to remind everyone to exercise Christian charity toward each other, and to use as much logic and evidence as possible, rather than strawmen and indefensible assertions.

Peace.

[Benjamin W. C. Waterhouse]

The crux of the matter is whether Chalcedon usurped a previous Ecumenical Council, and therefore cannot properly be considered "ecumenical."

So the answer is No?

[Pensees]

Again, please read the articles provided if you are honestly ignorant of church history. An "Ecumenical" Council (Chalcedon 451) can't declare that there are two natures after the incarnation, when a previously Ecumenical Council (Ephesus 431) had already declared that there only exists the "one incarnate nature of God the Word." That would be the same as if a new Ecumenical Council decided that the Arian heresy is suddenly the new Orthodoxy.

If Ecumenical Councils truly are infallible, then the Non-Chalcedonian "heretics" were only guilty of following the existing theology of the Church; that the divinity and humanity of Christ are in one composite nature without mixture, without confusion, without separation and without change.

It is totally false to claim that Oriental Orthodox Christians are "not Orthodox" when we did, in fact, preserve the Orthodox Christology of Ephesus 431, while the Roman and Byzantine churches wilfully chose not to do so.

Orthodox Churches:
Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian
A resume of some recent contacts
Paulos Mar Gregorios

Code: Select all

    Few people are aware that two of the largest separations in the Universal Church took place more than fifteen centuries ago. The first was the break between the Church of the Byzantine Empire and the Persian Empire in the fifth and sixth centuries. A remnant of that large Church of the Persian Empire which once extended to East China and South India now survives as the Church of the East, more popularly known in the West as Nestorian Christians. 

The second was a split within the Church of the Byzantine Empire itself, between the Hellenic and Latin peoples on the one hand and the Christian peoples of the ancient civilizations of Syria and Egypt on the other. The remnants of this latter group, which was also quite numerous and flourishing before the rise of Islam and even later, now find themselves in the five 'Oriental Orthodox Churches' of Syria, Egypt, Ethiopia, Armenia and India. They reject the name 'monophysites' applied to them by Western scholars. They believe in the one incarnate nature of God's Word—in mia phusis, one united nature (tewahdo, 'one'-d, as the Ethiopians call it) of Jesus Christ the God-Man, but certainly not in mone phusis, which would mean one nature only. 

The controversy stems from the Council of Chalcedon (451), but the split itself is difficult to date. The Churches of Syria and Egypt rejected the Council of Chalcedon, first because they felt the procedure there was coercive and therefore not properly conciliar, and second because they were opposed to any addition to the Symbol of Nicea, Ephesus and Constantinople. 

The Oriental (as distinct from Eastern, a necessary quibble) Orthodox Churches have in general rejected the Council of Chalcedon as contrary also to the spirit and teaching of Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444), who is their authority in matters of Christology. 

The definitio fidei of the Council of Chalcedon was felt by these Churches to be approving of the Tome of Leo, which later, according to them, not only contradicts the teachings of Cyril, but goes beyond Cyril to make statements which they regard as positively heretical. 

Today many Oriental Orthodox theologians are disposed to accept the formal confession of faith in the definition of Chalcedon as in basic agreement with their Christological tradition, with insistence, however, on one textual variant:



Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all with one voice teach that it should be confessed that our Lord Jesus Christ is one and the same Son, the Same perfect in Godhead, the Same perfect in manhood, truly God and truly man, the Same [consisting] of a rational soul and a body; homoousios with the Father as to his Godhead, and the same homoousios with us as to his manhood; in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of the Father before ages as to his Godhead, and in the last days, the Same, for us and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to his manhood;

One and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, made known in two natures [which exist] without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the difference of the natures having been in no wise taken away by reason of the union, but rather the properties of each being preserved, and [both] concurring into one Person (frosofon) and one hypo-stasis-not parted or divided into two Persons (prosopa) but one and the same Son and Only-begotten, the divine Logos, the Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from of old [have spoken] concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers has delivered to us.’ 1


The textual variant is ‘of two natures’, in place of ‘in two natures’.2 ‘Of’ is acceptable to the Oriental Orthodox, ‘in’ is difficult. But the Greek text of the minutes of the Council has ‘of’.
                    *                                  *                                    *                         

This brief article is not the place to enter into the substance of the controversy itself. What is truly noteworthy is the fact, however, that the issue between the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Eastern Orthodox Churches (those in communion with Constantinople) seems much less clear today, fifteen centuries after the controversy. Our Christological and ecclesiological traditions, even after fifteen centuries of separate development, show a remarkable harmony. This fact was formally recognized by theologians of both sides in their unofficial consultation held at the University of Aarhus, Denmark, 11-15 August 1964. They issued the following statement:

    Ever since the second decade of our century, representatives of our Orthodox Churches, some accepting seven Oecumenical Councils and others accepting three, have often met in ecumenical gatherings. The desire to know each other and to restore our unity in the one Church of Christ has been growing all these years. Our meeting together in Rhodos at the Pan-Orthodox Conference of 1961 confirmed this desire. 

Out of this has come about our unofficial gathering of fifteen theologians from both sides, for three days of informal conversations, in connection with the meeting of the Faith and Order Commission in Aarhus, Denmark.

We have spoken to each other in the openness of charity and with the conviction of truth. All of us learned from each other. Our inherited misunderstandings have begun to clear up. We recognize in each other the one Orthodox faith of the Church. Fifteen centuries of alienation have not led us astray from the faith of our Fathers.

In common study of the Council of Chalcedon, the well-known phrase used by our common Father in Christ, St Cyril of Alexandria, mia phusis (or mia hypostasis) tou Theou logon sesarkomene (the one phusis or hypo-stasis of God's Word incarnate) with its implications, was at the centre of our conversations. On the essence of the Christological dogma we found ourselves in full agreement. Through the different terminologies used by each side, we saw the same truth expressed. Since we agree in rejecting without reservation the teaching of Eutychus as well as of Nestorius, the acceptance or non-acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon does not entail the acceptance of either heresy. Both sides found themselves fundamentally following the Christological teaching of the one undivided Church as expressed by St Cyril.

The Council of Chalcedon (451), we realize, can only be understood as reaffirming the decisions of Ephesus (431) and best understood in the light of the later Council of Constantinople (553). All councils, we have recognized, have to be seen as stages in an integral development and no council or document should be studied in isolation. 

 The significant role of political, sociological and cultural factors in creating tension between factions in the past should be recognized and studied together. They should not, however, continue to divide us.

We see the need to move forward together. The issue at stake is of crucial importance to all Churches in the East and West alike and for the unity of the whole Church of Jesus Christ.

The Holy Spirit, Who indwells the Church of Jesus Christ, will lead us together to the fullness of truth and of love. To that end we respectfully submit to our Churches the fruit of our common work of three days together. Many practical problems remain, but the same Spirit Who led us together here will, we believe, continue to lead our Churches to a common solution of these.’ 

His Grace Bishop Emilianos of Meloa (Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople)
The Very Rev. Professor G. Florovsky (Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople)
The Very Rev. Professor J. S. Romanides (Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of North and South America, Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople)
The Very Rev. Professor Vitaly Borovoy (Russian Orthodox Church)
His Grace Archbishop Mar Severius Zakka Iwas of Mosul (Syrian Orthodox Church)
His Grace Metropolitan Mar Thoma Dionysius (Orthodox Syrian Church of the East)
The Rev. Professor J. Meyendorff (Russian Orthodox Greek Catholic Church of North America)
Professor G. Konidaris (Church of Greece)
His Grace Archbishop Tiran Nersoyan (Armenian Apostolic Church)
His Grace Bishop Karekin Sarkissian (Armenian Apostolic Church, Catholicate of Cilicia)
The Very Rev. Like Siltanat Habte Mariam Worqineh (Ethiopian Orthodox Church)
The Rev. Professor V. C. Samuel (Orthodox Syrian Church of the East)
Dr. Getachew Haile (Ethiopian Orthodox Church)3

Code: Select all

There has been no official action on the part of the Churches on either side directly confirming the statement of the theologians. It has, however, been welcomed by both sides as a significant contribution to the discussion. 

 Official actions by the Churches have proceeded independently of the Aarhus decisions, though not unaffected by them. 

The Conference of the Heads of Oriental Orthodox Churches, which met at Addis Ababa in January 1965, stated: 

 Though in our concern for the reunion of Christendom we have in our minds the reunion of all Churches, from the point of view of closer affinity in faith and spiritual kinship with us we need to develop different approaches in our relationship with them. This consideration leads us to take up the question of our relation with the Eastern Orthodox Churches as a first step. We shared the same faith and communion till the Council of Chalcedon in 451, and then the division took place. 

Concerning the Christological controversy which caused the division, we hope that common studies in a spirit of mutual understanding can shed light on our understanding of each other's positions. So we decide that we should institute formally a fresh study of the Christological doctrine in its historical setting to be undertaken by our scholars, taking into account the earlier studies on this subject as well as the informal consultations held in connection with the meetings of the World Council of Churches. Meanwhile, we express our agreement that our churches could seek closer relationship and co-operate with the Eastern Orthodox Churches in practical affairs. 4 

On the side of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, the Synod of the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, in their meeting of 9 June 1965, took a formal decision, which includes a practical proposal for the restoration of communion between the two families of Churches. After having stated that ‘the systematic promotion and working out of relations with these venerable Churches is fully in accordance with the view and desire of our Churches’, the synodical decision laid down the following proposal...

http://www.paulosmargregorios.info/English%20Articles/
orthodox_churches.html

Peace.

[Pensees]

That doesn't prove a thing. Let's get out the writings of Severus and actually read them at length. Are they online anywhere?

The Orthodox Christology of St Severus of Antioch
© Peter Farrington
http://www.quodlibet.net/farrington-severus.shtml

Severus was recognized, even by his detractors, as one of the greatest Christian theologians of his time. That he did nothing more than uphold the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria, as accepted by Ephesus 431, even the most ardent Chalcedonian should recognize.

Peace.