haralampopoulosjc wrote: ↑Sat 18 July 2026 4:31 pmWhen did you refute it? .... I've declined to respond to a lot of things, ... You haven't provided any counter-points, you've just claimed that it's been refuted and every time I point out the contradiction it's only more special-pleading: It was only three bishops.....There was no vote to approve the letter.... Do better.
Dear Haralampopoulos: The fact that there was no council vote to approve the letter at Chalcedon 451 means that Constantinople 553's condemnation of the letter did not contradict the Chalcedon council. Airtight logic. You repeatedly fail to distinguish between debated opinions at a council and consensus decisions of a council. Please read everything that has already been posted. Below includes some new paragraphs and some old ones that you have not responded to.
YouTube Miaphysite polemicists mislead people. The documented historical evidence runs counter to Miaphysite propaganda on several issues. Scripture refers to two morphaí (which Saint Cyril interprets as phýseis, meaning “natures”) in Christ. Saints Gregory the Theologian, Basil the Great, and Gregory of Nyssa taught that God was one essence/nature in three persons and that Christ was one person in two essences/natures. This Trinitarian terminology was accepted relatively quickly. But it took longer for this terminology to be used consistently in Christology. Words like hypóstasis and phýsis were still used in varying ways in Christology during the time of Saint Cyril of Alexandria. Before Nestorius started to preach his heresy, most Fathers who referred to number spoke of “two phýseis,” not “one phýsis,” in Christ. The phrase “one phýsis” did not necessarily mean “one nature,” but more like “one original nature” (Christ’s original, uncreated nature) or “one person.” It is true that Saint Cyril supported “one phýsis” language in his letters to Acacius, Succensus, and Eulogius in 433. But a key purpose of these letters was to respond to these bishops who were uncertain about Cyril’s judgment when Cyril approved of the “two phýseis” language utilized in the Formula(ry) of (Re)-Union of 433 that was agreed to by Saint Cyril and Archbishop John of Antioch. This consensus statement was undeniably mostly written by the Antiochene faction, with Saint Cyril likely adding short phrases like “the self-same one” for clarity. Whether or not Theodoret was the main author, it is a fact that the 433 statement repeated language from the Antiochene faction’s official confession of faith sent to the emperor in 431. That 431 statement is also believed by many to have been mostly written by Theodoret, as many believe Theodoret was largely responsible for drafting the 433 consensus statement. The key point is that Cyril approved of “two-natures” language (similar to Theodoret’s) as used by Archbishop John and other Antiochenes—when such “two-natures” language was balanced with clear statements on the undivided oneness of Christ’s person. The 433 statement did not use the exact words “one hypóstasis in two phýseis,” but that would be an accurate summary of a key point of the consensus statement. Chalcedon added virtually nothing on “two-natures language” that was not already utilized already somewhere in Saint Cyril’s writings. Even the three “controversial” passages in Saint Leo the Great’s_Letter to Flavian_, which speak of the two natural operations that operated in Christ, are very similar to what Saint Cyril himself wrote in his Gospel commentaries and other writings. Chalcedon utilized this Cyrillian language consistently, but dropped the varying use of “one phýsis” to mean “one original nature” or “one person,” which was confusing to many people in the Church, especially in the Latin-speaking and Antiochene/Oriens regions. Despite the fact that Greek is sometimes more precise than Latin, in certain areas of Christology Latin was clearer than Greek. In Latin, natura and persona are not used with as much variability as phýsis and hypóstasis are used in Greek. Chalcedon used precise, balanced, consensus language that was already used widely in the Church, including in numerous passages of Saint Cyril. So, there is no ultimate contradiction between Cyril and Chalcedon.
Scripture and Early Fathers referred to two natures. Cyril referred to two natures. The decrees of Ephesus 431 do not appear to have ever dogmatized “one physis.” Cyril makes clear “one physis” means “one original nature” or “one hypostasis.” Chalcedon represented the consensus language in the West, Asia Minor, Egypt (excluding the fanatics), Oriens, and Palestine/Holy Land. Godhood and manhood remain in existence with all their properties, wills, and operations “without confusion.” Therefore the Godhood and manhood deserve to be called “natures,” both at and after the Incarnation. Ephesus 431 condemned Nestorius, but it did not condemn Monophysitism clearly (since Monophysitism became a major debate over 15 years later). Therefore, Chalcedon 451 was necessary to condemn Monophysitism and to bring Orthodox dogmatic consensus to the Church through a precise and balanced Orthodox statement that excluded both Nestorianism (dividing the one person of Christ) and Monophysitism (confusing the two natures). Dioscorus was a schismatic. He broke from the communion of the Church and the doctrinal consensus of the Church. He was followed in his schism by others not because he defended the patristic consensus, but due to resentments against the empire and the Universal Church. Severus was also a schismatic who distorted the patristic consensus in a one-sided and incoherent direction. It is a lie to proclaim “without confusion, merging, or mingling” and then say two substances become one substance. Anti-Chalcedonians still reject the Cappadocian (and consensus) distinction between essence/substance/nature and person/prosopon/hypostasis. The largest Miaphysite church, the Church of Ethiopia, is a mixture of Christianity, Judaism, and extreme Eutychian-like Monophysitism. The Miaphysite church among Armenians adopted papal errors like azymes. Shenouda both affirms and attacks Orthodox doctrine on Christ, energies, and theosis. He attacks members who actually want to investigate patristic theology. Shenouda used Islamic slurs like “shirk” against fellow Copts. Shenouda was a Sergianist, “suspending” Pascha one year and forbidding pilgrimage to Jerusalem for secular-protest reasons. Tewadros and the church broadly are ecumenist, not truly patristic Orthodox.
ON THE ALLEGED CONTRADICTION ON IBAS
The “Acts” of councils can include letters, sermons, proceedings, debates, disagreements, provisional decisions on whom to seat, and minority opinions that were never accepted by final consensus. We cannot establish that there was a single, unchanging, uniform version of “the letter” attributed to Ibas. Concerning Ibas allegedly being declared “innocent” and “orthodox” at Chalcedon: Ibas was accused of many crimes by opponents who attacked him and may have slandered him. One accusation was that he was an obvious Nestorian who obviously should never be seated at the council. He was seated after he condemned Nestorius and after some kind of recommendation from some of the officials at the council. The word “innocent” may have meant “not proven.” And “orthodox” may have meant “not obviously Nestorian,” not necessarily meaning “perfect.” Sometimes the proceedings are influenced by the papal legates, the senior hierarch present, a government official charged with keeping order, a committee, etc. These are not the same as the final consensus Definition of Faith, Anathemas, canons, etc. Miaphysites routinely fail to distinguish between final Decrees and other actions at a council. Miaphysites mistakenly treat a sermon in 431 as an infallible dogma, in order to support their agenda of excluding all “two natures” language, even though Cyril used such language. Miaphysites misuse the discussion on Ibas and seating of Ibas as some sort of dogmatic decision that they can say contradicts 553. These accusations are stretches that Miaphysites use to divert us from the undeniable fact that they condemn diphysite language Cyril approved and even used himself and they confuse the unconfusable divine essence and human flesh.
The quote from the Chalcedonian Acts said three bishops and a priest declared Ibas innocent and Ibas was seated. The entire council never declared Ibas perfect. That is non-objective Miaphysite misinterpretation after reading the Acts in English and hoping to find imperfections to attack. The Miaphysite polemicists over-interpret the seating of Ibas to raise a “gotcha” accusation against 451 and 553. In reality, the consensus declarations of the council never proclaimed all the writings or even the letter to be perfectly Orthodox. Theodoret was seated because he condemned Nestorius, not because he defended his teachers Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Ibas was seated because he condemned Nestorius, not because the entire council voted to endorse the letter.
There are several one-sided interpretations of Chalcedon made by online Miaphysites. However, a key fact is that the council of Chalcedon seated those bishops 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 perfect in all their statements. Seating a bishop is not a declaration of perfection. The purpose of Chalcedon was excluding the extremes of Nestorius and Eutyches by a balanced Orthodox consensus statement. 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 should not condemn Chalcedon for allowing the same or similar bishops to sit down at Chalcedon, and help produce a consensus Orthodox statement that would exclude Nestorianism and Eutychianism and produce Orthodox reconciliation. One-hundred 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.
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 admitting the mistake of Dioscorus’s very hasty exoneration of Eutyches. Despite various historical accounts and interpretations, 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.
