The Acacian Schism and the Akoimetoi

[Thomas_Deretich]

Henotikon .... Nestorius and Eutyches .... Chalcedon .... the thirty-five year Acacian schism .... Akoimetoi

Another one of countless examples where the Church's teaching is precise and balanced, but heretics go to distorted extremes or compromises with distorted extremes. Dioscorus compromised with the Eutychian heresy, the Henotikon compromised with the Dioscorians, whereas some of the later Acoemetae (Ἀκοίμητοι) seem to have compromised with a form of semi-Nestorianism. Acacius went into schism and some Acoemetae went into schism. It should be obvious that both the Nestorians and semi-Nestorians on one side and the Miaphysite anti-Chalcedonians on the other side went to one distorted side at the expense of the precise and balanced truth maintained by the Church at the consensus councils, including Chalcedon.

[Thomas_Deretich]

To simplify, Nestorius and Theodore are Nestorians. Semi-Nestorians would/could include any Acoemetae or others who proclaimed Chalcedon but distorted it in a semi-Nestorian direction. The point is that there were distortions in two opposite directions. Some violated “unconfused.” Some violated “indivisible.” The Orthodox Church adhered to the truth, and excluded distortions in either direction. Just as Nestorianism is a clear distortion, anti-Chalcedonianism became a clear distortion.

[Thomas_Deretich]

In order to adhere to Orthodoxy, one must keep “without confusion” and “without division” in balance. Both in Triadology and Christology, one must distinguish between “essence/substance/nature” and “person” (υπόστασις or πρόσωπον), in order not to distort the truth. Not just Eutyches, but also Dioscorus (who exonerated Eutyches), went in a one-sided direction. Anti-Chalcedonianism rejects Cyril-like language in Leo. Anti-Chalcedonianism is incoherent and confused in the way it refuses to clearly distinguish essence/nature and person. Anti-Chalcedonianism grossly violates “without confusion,” even though Anti-Chalcedonians admit “without confusion” is a requirement of orthodox truth. Anti-Chalcedonians say completely opposite things on essence and energies and on deification. Anti-Chalcedonians lie when they claim “all” early Fathers used “one nature” language. As the Patristic Greek Lexicon states (under the word φύσις), the Fathers before Nestorius and Cyril predominately used “two physeis” not “one physis” language. Cyril used both. In Latin, natura and persona were already distinct. So, Chalcedon followed the majority tradition (sometimes followed by Cyril himself) in clearly distinguishing hypostasis and physis and in clearly proclaiming one hypostasis in two physeis.

[Thomas_Deretich]

I see. If the Akoimetoi actually became semi-Nestorian, I have no problem admitting it. Eutyches forced Leo to emphasize the two natures without confusion, but Leo also emphasized the one undivided person. There were real Monophysite temptations in the East. So, although some Westerners wrongly opposed condemning the Three Chapters, they were not necessarily semi-Nestorian for doing so. They were suspicious of possible attempts to chip away at Chalcedon to placate Monophysites. The term “Neo-Chalcedonian” is a prejudiced (even slanderous) term based on the false idea that 451 and 553 were inconsistent. 451 admitted bishops who condemned Nestorius. 451 did not deeply investigate all the many writings of Theodore, Diodore, Ibas, and Theodoret. The purpose of 451 was to reject, by consensus, the Eutychian extreme, and confirm a consensus condemning the Nestorian extreme. So, again, those who rejected Nestorius were admitted in 451. By the time of 553, the Church had investigated Origen’s many followers, Theodore and associates, and the “moderate” Severan miaphysites. 553 was very judicious in method and Orthodox in result. It was not a corrective to Chalcedon. Rather, it decided on matters that Chalcedon never intended to investigate deeply, after an additional century allowed such deep investigations. The Holy Spirit guided the Church during the challenges from Arius, Apollinarius, Macedonius, Nestorius, Eutyches, Dioscorus, Severus, and various Origenists. Some Copts apparently honor Origen and Didymus the Blind because they were Egyptian heroes. Orthodoxy rejects them, along with Evagrius of Pontus, at the same time acknowledging that they wrote some very good things, but are not reliable overall. To repeat: Christianity believes in one person Christ with unconfused and undivided Godhood and manhood. The Nestorian distortion tends toward division. The Anti-Chalcedonians all tend toward confusion.

[Thomas_Deretich]

If non-Chalcedonians genuinely reject Eutychianism as much as Nestorianism, then they should be more honest in admitting the mistake of Dioscorus in rejecting the Constantinople Resident Synod’s discipline of Eutyches and the mistake of Dioscorus’s very hasty exoneration of Eutyches. Despite the fact of various accounts and disagreements, it is clear that Dioscorus grossly mismanaged his Robber Council and he refused to be disciplined by the 600 bishops at Chalcedon who were forced to clean up after all the errors at Dioscorus’s Robber Council and all the errors of Dioscorus’s selfish tendencies and actions. Concerning Severus, even if Leontius of Byzantium and Leontius of Jerusalem made some mistakes, they did powerfully demonstrate the self-contradictions in Severus, including that Severus condemned Cyril’s agreement with Antioch as “prattle.” In contrast, Justinian, Maximus, and John Damascene are amazingly precise and balanced in the way they exclude both confusion and division in the one person of Christ.

[Thomas_Deretich]

I am aware of those one-sided interpretations made by online Miaphysites (and I had a feeling you might use those claims). However, the key fact is that the council admitted those who condemned Nestorius. The consensus of the Council did not declare Theodore, Diodore, Ibas, or Theodoret perfect. Seating a controversial bishop after he condemned Nestorius should not be over-interpreted and expanded and transformed into a declaration by the entire council of those controversial bishops being innocent. Seating a bishop is not a declaration of innocence. The purpose was both reconciliation and excluding the extremes of Nestorius and Eutyches. I believe Cyril himself knowingly re-established communion with those who condemned Nestorius and accepted the consensus of 433 even if they still opposed the way he worded his 12 Anathemas. If Cyril re-established communion with anti-Cyrillians who would finally condemn Nestorius, then Miaphysites and you should not condemn Chalcedon for allowing the same or similar bishops to sit down, discus, and help produce a consensus Orthodox statement that would exclude Nestorianism and Eutychianism and produce Orthodox reconciliation. 100 years later, the Church decided on which of Theodoret’s writings to reject and which not to reject. Miaphysites mine Western historians for “gotcha” issues, but there really is no ultimate contradiction between 451 and 553.

[Thomas_Deretich]

Theodoret was seated because he condemned Nestorius, not because he praised his teachers. Ibas was seated because he condemned Nestorius, not because the entire Council voted to endorse the letter.