www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Nestorians

Dear Linus,

Well, if you would like someone to respond to your quote from the Indian bishop . . .

What he said is perfectly consistent with the Cyrillian formula and tradition concerning the One Christ.

He affirms, on the one hand, that the Divine and Human in Christ are unconfused - that is perfectly Orthodox.

He also affirms that it is the Person of Christ that is the single origin of the actions of the Divine and Human in Christ.

In other words, he affirms that the Will of Christ is the same in BOTH His unconfused Divine and Human Reality.

This is not monothelitism that posited that there was only one Divine Will in Christ (to which the Human was subject).

That is how I understand what he said.

When he calls Leo a heretic, he is wrong.

But this is because the idea posited in the Council SEEMS to give the IMPRESSION that there are two Prosopa at work in the One Christ - and that would truly be a heresy.

This bishop simply affirms that the Will of Christ that is made manifest in both His unconfused Divine and Human reality - but ultimately derives from His Prosopon or Personhood as the Son of God. Christ truly does have a Divine Will and a Human Will - both of which derive only from His Personhood.

More discussion on this topic is needed to show that his fears are without ground.

But I don't find anything in what he said to constitute either monophysism or monothelitism.

It is a very complex point that he is making but it is not impossible to explain from the point of view of Pope St Leo and that of the Orthodox Church.

Alex

Alex -

I think you are mistaken concerning the remarks of Mar Gregorios. He specifically denies that Christ has two wills, divine and human. That is Monothelitism.

He also asserts that Christ has one nature.

That is not the doctrine of St. Cyril as we know it from all of his writings, not merely one quote taken from before he came to an understanding with the Antiochenes.

Here is how a leading Monophysite leader, Timothy Aelurus, criticized St. Cyril's fully developed Christology:

"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 Aelurus, "Epistles to Kalonymos," in Patrologia Graeca, Vol LXXXVI, Col. 276; quoted in The Non- Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 13).

I think Mar Gregorios regards St. Leo as a heretic because Mar Gregorios is a Monophysite.

If the Old Calendarists do not believe my church is a church, they are not rude for saying so, whether I am offended by it or not.

If I do not regard Non-Chalcedonian groups as part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church (the patristic view), then how can I regard them as "churches"?

If I do not regard those groups as churches and I say so, am I being rude or stating my belief?

It is okay to say someone isn't Orthodox, but not okay to say their group isn't a church?

If you wish to refer to Shenouda as a pope, please feel free to do so.

Do not, however, imagine that I will feel the same sort of inclination.

I might, out of courtesy, refer to him as the Coptic Pope, or as "regarded by Non-Chalcedonian Copts as the Pope," but that's it.

Actually, I did not intend for this thread to turn into a discussion of the Non-Chalcedonians. When I began it I was really just looking for info on the Assyrian Church of the East and the efforts at union between them and the RCC.

I found what I was looking for.

There is no real union, just a declaration of a shared Christology and statements of the intent to continue the dialogue, with the admission that there are differences that need to be cleared up before communion can really occur.

A fairly reasonable assessment, I would say. No one seems to be jumping the gun.

Linus,

1) No one seems to be jumping the gun? Aren't you aware that Assyrian priests can concelebrate with Catholic priests? That the Assyrian bishop Mar Bawai Soro helped consecrate the Catholic Chaldean bishop in the USA in 2001? That's not jumping the gun?

2) Identifying someone as a Church is a matter of polite diplomacy. The Lutherans call themselves a Church so I do too, even if I don't consider them to be a Church in the full sense of the word, since they lack apostolic succession. Similarly, I find your refusal to call Non-Chalcedonian Churches "Churches" rude becuase they are Churches: they worship Christ, they go to a building where they pray, they celebrate the sacraments, etc. That's a CHURCH. I never said you had to say they were theologically correct to call them a Church.

anastasios

Dear Linus,

I think that the way in which we understand this bishop's words indicates how language itself can be a barrier to mutual theological understanding.

The bishop, at no time, denied that Christ isn't "Divine-Human." At no time did he deny that the Divinity of Christ "absorbed" His Humanity or that there is any commingling or comixture etc.

At no time did he deny what we, Chalcedonians, call the "two wills of Christ" (ie. Divine and Human).

What he expressly denies is the Nestorianizing proposition contained in the wording (borrowed by the Roman/Byzantine Churches from the Antiochian school) that suggest that the Divine Will and the Human Will of Christ are somehow "independent" of each other.

He simply affirms that when Christ wills something, this proceeds from His One Person and this Will is manifest in His Divine-Human reality (Christ is a composite Being).

The Monothelites denied this and emphasized Christ's Divine Will only - the difference seems subtle, but it is a very real difference.

The bishop as other bishops of the Miaphysite/Non-Chalcedonian tradition are simply on their guard against Nestorianism.

Frankly, I think this understanding on the part of the Miaphysite Orientals is actually closer to what Patristic Christology - language issues notwithstanding.

Patriarch Timothy Aelurus ("the Cat" so-called because of his thin, gaunt appearance that made him look like one of the famous "Pharaoh cats" of Egypt) took issue with the language of St Cyril.

Cyril did indeed explain what he meant by "One Divine Nature of God the Word Incarnate" - and in so doing appeared to have contradicted himself by referring to "two Natures" after all.

If "Nature" in Cyril was indended to mean "Divine Person," then to refer to "two Natures" seemed to suggest a Nestorianizing tendency.

As you rightly point out, more study of this subject is required - and is being carried out.

For the Alexandrian school, the issue was how could "Person" be separated from "Nature."

To speak of a "Nature" implied the existence of "Personhood" at the same time - one could NOT exist separately, except on a mental plane.

For the Alexandrians, to speak of "two Natures" in Christ suggested Nestorianism by way of two "Prosopa" in Him.

In fact, the classic Nestorian formulation posited two prosopa in Christ for this very reason, i.e. IF Christ had two Natures in Himself after the Incarnation in the sense of "separate" or "unintegrated" Natures, then this means that He was a union of two "Persons" or prosopa.

For the theological/philosophical thinking of the time - Nestorianism as set out in this way was simply a logical conclusion of the view that there were "two Natures in Christ" after the Incarnation (meaning "two independent, not fully integrated Natures").

So what we have is a major and ancient philosophical difficulty with the idea of separating "Person" from "Nature" and otherwise distinguishing one from the other when to speak of one implied the existence of the other.

That is really the crux of the Monophysite/Nestorian controversies.

More study of this is required, but the conclusion agreed upon by both Orthodox and Oriental theologians in the contemporary debate that "Physis" and "Prosopa" were understood slightly differently by the various schools of the time is entirely correct.

By taking this as a "key," I think we can understand that what the bishop you quote is saying is being entirely consistent with his tradition.

Let us also remember that a Church Council was not understood as a kind of "collective papacy" where the canons came down and everyone bowed to them as a matter of course.

Bishops and even laity were extremely theologically "in the know" in those days and laity, for example, thought nothing of unseating and throwing out bishops whose theological formulations were at variance with their own - ie. considered by them to be heretical even before a Council could decide the matter.

Heretical councils were held under Emperors - just as Orthodox councils were held - and their decisions were enforced on the people who resisted them etc.

But not everything that heretical councils proclaimed were deemed damnable by later Orthodox councils.

For example, the iconoclastic council that condemned the veneration of icons, although heretical, affirmed many other things that were perfectly Orthodox e.g. "Whosoever does not invoke the Mother of God and the Saints - anathema!"

These canons were simply left alone by the later Seventh Ecumenical Council . . .

I think you may be understanding the work of the Councils and the theological struggles of the times in which they occurred in perhaps too "hard and fast" categories or even absolutistic ones that the Fathers of those Councils themselves would have rejected.

The Orthodox Church's calendar has saints that were implicated with Nestorianism - but who were said to have recanted or changed later on. Where there was a bit of a question mark, the saint in question was given the title "Blessed" rather than "Saint" to indicate this i.e. Blessed Theodoret and others.

The fact that some teachers or leaders at the time may have been slightly tainted with heresy - that did not prevent the Church from enrolling them in its calendar.

Again, "black and white" in absolutistic terms is a later, Western rational perspective that simply was not part and parcel of the thinking of the Eastern Fathers in the first millennium.

St Basil the Great, by way of another example, stringently opposed Arianism. Yet, he found much to admire in the thinking of the Semi-Arians.

And he himself wrote a panegyric in honour of St Nicetas the Goth, Nicetas being an Arian priest (or ordained by the Arian bishop Ulfilas the Goth). The fact of his martyrdom caused the Church to overlook the defect of his Orthodoxy.

So, IF you are out to find absolute "Black and white" conclusions in those Christological controversies in those who struggled in them - they are few and far between.

Alex

Monophysites did not deny that Christ was Divine-Human. As I said before, that was never the issue.

Not specifically, no. They generally use very Chalcedonian language when speaking of the natures of Christ.

Their conclusions belie that language, however.

Did you read the same thing I read?

Here it is the pertinent portion of it again:

The bolding and underlining are mine.

Mar Gregorios expressly denies "what we, Chalcedonians, call the 'two wills of Christ'."

You are reading your belief in the two wills of Christ into what Mar Gregorios said. Read his words: "one . . . will."

This is an error that was almost universal among the Monophysites.

Against Chalcedon and St. Leo's Tome?

Chalcedon expressly affirms the three previous councils, including Ephesus 431, which condemned Nestorianism, and it reiterates Ephesus' condemnation of Nestorius and his teachings.

St. Leo was a well known opponent of Nestorianism. His Tome specifically excludes it.

If Mar Gregorios is on his "guard against Nestorianism" he is guarding against it by backing himself into the opposite heresy.

Really?

Why is it the Fathers condemned those who expressed the same sorts of opinions you find so "patristic" in Mar Gregorios?

Did they not understand them as well as you do now?

Because Aelurus was, as the Fathers said, a Monophysite heretic. He was condemned and anathematized at the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

The difference between St. Cyril and men like Timothy Aelurus is that St. Cyril was an Orthodox Catholic and the others were not.

By the early Fifth Century the terminology was well understood. St. Cyril saw that and was able to come to an agreement with the Antiochenes.

Timothy Aelurus could not. Why? Because he misunderstood? No! He understood. He could not agree with St. Cyril and the Antiochenes concerning the two natures in Christ because Aelurus was a Monophysite.

It floors me that so many of us are so busy bending over backward to accomodate the Non-Chalcedonians that we can't see that.

I am aware of the background of the Christological controversies.

The assumption that by the time of Chalcedon, in 451, all the parties could not understand each other, is, I believe, an error. That is the conclusion of the author of the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Monophysitism to which I referred you earlier, as well.

Oh, I do not for one moment doubt that he "is being entirely consistent with his tradition."

That's the problem!

His tradition - according to the Fathers and councils - is heretical!

I do not have the time to deal with the rest of your post point by point.

I don't think I take an absolutist position at all.

I don't believe everything in life is black and white, but I do recognize contradiction and inconsistency when I see it.

I can also recognize betrayal and appeasement in the name of false unity.

I am not accusing you of those things, so don't misunderstand me.

But the modern effort to appease heretics in order to achieve some sort of "union" with them troubles me.

Dear Linus,

I agree that there are ecumenists today who don't take into consideration the very real differences between the churches historically and now.

I don't see Orthodox theologians engaging in debate with the Oriental churches as liberal ecumenists. I simply refuse to accept that.

I do accept that you and I, owing to the fact that we are not theologians (I'm assuming you are not, but for all I know you could be), may not fully grasp the subtleties of the tremendous research that is going on in this area.

And that research is focusing on the issues of language and linguistic expression in connection with the way in which theological understandings are couched in them.

It is entirely possible that people spoke past each other at some points in church history.

The fact that they did and the fact that later generations recognized this and attempted to correct the record in whatever ways does not necessarily mean that this is an admission that the Church had, at one point or another, committed error or mistakes.

If you believe that it is impossible to redress these issues with the Miaphysites - then clearly someone should tell the Orthodox Churches that have blessed their theologians to engage in debate with them and to move forward on the issue of church unity.

The Catholic encyclopedia article you mentioned is good, but limited in terms of the understanding that (not I myself) but the theological research has extended for us.

There is nothing in what I've said that I've not gotten from Orthodox theologians works in commenting on these age-old issues that separate the Orthodox and the Orientals.

I'm trying to understand it myself and, yes, it is all new to me.

As a sociologist, I find and have always found the tremendous philosophical education of Orthodox theologians to be particularly inspiring.

The issues raised by them in the rapprochement with the Orientals resounds greatly with me - they truly have a profound grasp of social psychology and historicity.

Again, it is entirely possible for the Church to drop anathemas against historic individuals.

The Church has the keys of binding and loosing to do so.

And an Ecumenical Council is not "above" the Church. Its decrees are not even valid until the Church accepts them as such and proclaims them.

My own reflections on the views of that bishop are that what he said is entirely agreeable to historic Orthodox tradition.

There have been commentaries on that very quote in Orthodox journals (someone here once directed me to them, but I forget who it is).

I understand your position, please believe me, and respect it.

Alex

Alex -

I appreciate your point of view, and perhaps this is a good point to close out this thread (unless someone else has something to contribute).

I am not a theologian, but I am something of an historian, which does not mean I know it all.

What I have read convinces me that the heretics and the Fathers understood each other and that, by the time of Chalcedon (451), the differences were no longer the result of mistaken terminology.

The councils are not "above the Church," but they are an integral and irreversible part of her Holy Tradition.

To contradict or reverse their findings is to confess them fallible and Church dogma subject to the whims of fashion.

Every historic attempt to woo the Non-Chalcedonians by compromising orthodox doctrine has resulted in tragedy and confusion. So, too, will the current dialogue unless the orthodox Catholics insist on the acceptance of the full Orthodox teaching, including all of the ecumenical councils.

Shlomo Linus,
I too am an historian, therefore, you should read over not only what was happening in the Church at the time of Chalcedon, but also what was happening politically within the Empire.

Much of what happened can be traced directly to imperial power. To quote from an Coptic internet site: "the relationships between the Egyptian churches and Constantinople were strained as the Egyptian Christians refused to acknowledge the authority of Alexandrian popes appointed by the Byzantine state."

Also as a member of the only Syriac Church that accepted Chalcedon I can tell you that we had many problems with Byzantine opression too.

Finally I would like to point out the theological differences as understood between how Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox understand Chalcedon from a Syriac Orthodox [geocities.com] website:

Of vs. In
by Peter Theodore

In the English language, two letters have caused the most tragic breach in all of Christendom. In the Aramaic langauge, the difference is in one letter, Dolath vs. Beth--the difference between the two is a small line on the bottom and dot in the center. These prepositions while short and subtle, contain within their meanings the difference between truth and fiction. In as far as these refer to the language of Chalcedon, the Oriental Orthodox follow the traditional terminology using the preposition "of," whereas the Byzantine Orthodox use the preposition "in."

The question then comes in how these terms are used in regards to Christology. In the Nicene-Contantinopolian Creed, we see that "Christ was conceived of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary," thus the foundation is made clear. In terms of Christology the Oriental understanding is that Christ is "One Nature--the Logos Incarnate," of the full humanity and full divinity. The Byzantine understanding is that Christ is in two natures, full humanity and full divinity.

Just as all of us are of our mother and father and not in our mother and father, so too is the nature of Christ. If Christ is in full humanity and in full divinity, then He is separate in two persons as the Nestorians teach. Imagine your nature in your mother and your father; you are then two different people. If however your nature is of your mother and your father, then you are one person.

This is the linguistic difference which separated the Orientals from the Byzantines.

The Gist of the Matter

In my own reading I have understood that the most serious defect in the Tome of Leo is that it teaches that each nature acts on its own, and that the flesh receives insults while the Word receives glory. This is objectionable in several respects.

Firstly it fails to confess that it was the Word Himself who suffered in his own flesh. Indeed it is not surprising that Nestorius believed the Tome of Leo to describe his own Christology since he also taught that the suffering belongs to the flesh and the glory to the Word. It is not enough to defend Leo by saying that he is merely saying that the Word suffered in the flesh since he explicitly teaches that the Word did not suffer at all. He should have said that the Divinity of the Word was resplendent with glory while his own flesh suffered insults.

Instead of distinguishing divinity and humanity he distinguishes the Word himself and the humanity and describes how they each act in their own way.

In distinguishing in this way he fails to confess clearly how the humanity, at the crucifixion for instance, is in any sense united with the Word in any real sense since he has already taught that it is the humanity apart from the Word which suffers.

Even extremely pro-Leo writers like Grillmeier accept that Leo fails to properly describe the union of humanity and divinity in Christ. "he did not succeed in making evident the unity of the bearer".

And EO theologians like Fr John Romanides are clear that the Tome of Leo is defective and excuse the EO from censure by saying that the Tome has never been a definitive document for the EO. Most OO have a problem with the idea that the Tome of Leo wasn't important at Chalcedon. Fr John's articles are at www.orthodoxunity.org. [orthodoxunity.org.]

There is then the problem that Nestorius understood the Tome of Leo to describe his own Christology, and the OO always understood historically the ToL to describe at least a semi-Nestorian Christology very weak on the union of humanity and divinity in Christ.

Then at Chalcedon there are a variety of problems. The deposition of Dioscorus is not the most important but it is symptomatic of the ecclesio-political context at the council. If you read the acts of the council it is clear that not only was he not deposed for any heresy but the actual charges against him were never disclosed to him.

EO tradition says that he had excommunicated Pope Leo but there is no evidence for this, nor any reason why he should not have done if he felt it neccessary. The Popes of Rome were constantly excommunicating Eastern bishops.

It was also said that Dioscorus had accepted Eutyches into communion before the council of 449 had heard his orthodox confession. There is no evidence for this either.

What is known is that Pope Leo had been in constant contact with the Nestorian Theodoret and all during this period of close contact he had never anathematised Nestorius. We have the letters to show their contact with each other. After Chalcedon Theodoret, whose writings were later anathematised because they were full of Nestorianism, boasted that his Christology had won the day.

Indeed the followers of Theodoret, who were not Assyrians, but members of the EO, started celebrating a feast of Nestorius after his death in exile.

I am not saying this to be offensive, though we must all put up with what might seem to be offense if we are to press through to unity. But this was the context in which the OO rejected Chalcedon.

1. The Tome of Leo was obviously weak on the unity of Christ.

2. Nestorius and Theodoret considered it to describe their own Nestorian christology.

3. Some of those who accepted Chalcedon were supporters of Nestorius and Theodoret.

4. The bishops who stood up for the traditional Orthodox terminology were either deposed or threatened with deposition.

5. All of the traditional phrases used to defend against Nestorianism were excluded.

In the actual definitio of Chalcedon there were a number of points which made it appear as a Nestorian conspiracy. EO fail to explain these points and tend to merely say that criticism of the council is itself a sign of heresy.

1. The phrase mia-physis or mia-hypostasis of the Incarnate Word is excluded from the definition.

2. From two natures or hypostases was in the first draft of the definitio but was removed and in two natures was put in its place. At this time physis was synonomous with hypostasis and in two natures was used by the Nestorians, such as Theodoret who with great reluctance anathematised Nestorius while the acts of the council show that the other bishops jeered him because they knew he was anathematising him only to save himself. Theodoret was a member of the council and this must have been a real offense to the OO who believed that this was yet another sign of Nestoranising.

3. In two natures was used by the Nestorians to show that Christ was two beings not one, two realities, united only in the external aspect of person or appearance. From two natures - St Cyrils terminology - meant that out of humanity and Divinity a union had preserved one being or reality that was both human and Divine. It did not mean that the humanity had any pre-existence but that the union was from these two and perfected in one reality, or being or hypostasis. The Chalcedonian phrase had Nestorian written all over it as far as the opponents of the council were concerned.

Why did the council exclude the phrases which had preserved the church against Nestorianism in the past? Why remove the phrases from the draft under Roman pressure? The fact that they are important is shown by the 5th Council re-introducing them, but they seem to have little vitality in EO where the phrases of Chalcedon seem to be put in opposition to those of St Cyril.

Why did Chalcedon not use both phrases? Severus says that two speak of two natures is permissible if the mia-physis or mia-hypostasis is confessed, but this is what Chalcedon appears to have rejected and which the EO tried to re-introduce at the 5th council.

I have no doubt that the faith of the EO now is Orthodox, or that Chalcedon and even the Tome cannot be explained in an Orthodox manner. But when we read history we find great difficulties with this period where it does appear that the traditional Orthodox christology preserved by St Cyril at Ephesus was rejected in favour of a more Nestorian way of speaking - this is certainly what the Nestorians thought.

I have always perceived a revisionism in EO where the balance introduced at the 5th council is read back to the imbalance of the 4th.

I believe that the OO must come terms with the later councils simply because if the EO are Orthodox then they must be liable to an Orthodox interpretation. But there is a difference between interpreting the Definitio of Chalcedon in an Orthodox manner and re-writing history. I believe that the EO must become much more critical of their own history, and these councils - as far as they are able, and in view of the fact that they are human events in the life of the Church - at the same time that the OO must continue to be open to an explanation of these documents - as far as they are able.

History and Theology are different things. We can come to union based on Theology but if history is also made infallible - as some OO tend - then we have no hope because as far as we are concerned history itself challenges Chalcedon.

Byzantine Stance in Relation to Nestorianism

The mainstream of Eastern Orthodoxy do not teach the heresy of Nestorius. I have come across just one or two extremists who are in communion with no-one and who run so far from the teaching of St Cyril out of a misplaced fear of the Oriental Orthodox that they find themselves in the shadier regions of Christology. They are not representative. Neither should we give undue heed to the misrepresentations of our Oriental Orthodox Christology by those who have not studied it at all. We must make every effort to work with people like Constantine, sympathetic people who are committed to Orthodoxy but also desire to do what is possible for unity based on truth as well as love.

The differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Nestorianism are great. Or at least, since Nestorianism also shares roots in the same Apostolic tradition as the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, let us say that in the area of Christology the differences are great and significant for our salvation.

Our own fathers in these days have accepted the Second Agreed Statement in Holy Synod, and therefore it is part of the teaching of our Coptic Orthodox Church that:

"we have now clearly understood that both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and the unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition, though they have used Christological terms in different ways."

Indeed this Second Agreed Statement shows clearly in what respects the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox, as described and defined in these days is both substantially the same as our own, and equally and significantly different from that ascribed to Nestorius and his followers. Let me draw out a few of the points, as the whole text is on www.orthodoxunity.org. [orthodoxunity.org.]

1. Both families of Churches call the Virgin Mary Theotokos and thereby safeguard the doctrine that it is God Himself, the Second Person of the Trinity, who is incarnate.

2. "Both families condemn the Nestorian heresy and the crypto-Nestorianism of Theodoret of Cyrus. They agree that it is not sufficient merely to say that Christ is consubstantial both with His Father and with us, by nature God and by nature man; it is necessary to affirm also that the Logos, Who is by nature God, became by nature Man, by His Incarnation in the fullness of time."

3. Both families confess that the hypostasis of the Word is composite, while also rejecting any idea of confusion or mixture.

4. Both families reject any interpretations of any councils which contradict the Horos of the Third Council.

5. The Eastern Orthodox also accept the validity of St Cyril's 'mia phyis......'

6. The Oriental Orthodox, and in our holy bishops all Copts, also accept that the Eastern Orthodox may use the phrase 'in two natures' since:

"they acknowledge that the distinction is 'in thought alone' "

So the Eastern Orthodox confess one hypostasis, that is one concrete reality in Christ. They acknowledge that it is the one hypostasis of the Logos incarnate who wills and acts. They do not teach two hypostases, that is two concrete realities, but they do confess with us that both the Divinity and the humanity of Christ are real and are hypostatic. They confess that the humanity and Divinity are only distinguished in thought alone and by careful contemplation, but with us they confess that the humanity and Divinity, though perfectly and hypostatically united are not confused, divided, mixed or separated. Humanity remains humanity, Divinity remains Divinity, but in Christ these two are united in one hypostasis.

This does not take away the historical problems we face. And it is reasonable to conclude both that Eastern Orthodox now as we discuss these things believe the same faith as us, even while we may also conclude that in the historical period there were those who accepted Chalcedon and failed to confess the right faith.

Chalcedon is not the same faith as Nestorius because the Eastern Orthodox do not interpret in such a way and our bishops have concluded that the Eastern Orthodox are indeed Orthodox. Now we may criticise Chalcedon from a historical perspective, and even suggest that the Eastern Orthodox understanding of Chalcedon has changed in the 5th and 6th centuries. But it seems to me, both out of respect for our fathers, and out of personal conviction, that we cannot say that what is described now as Chalcedonianism is anything other than in accord with our own Orthodox faith.

The key doctrinal difficulty that we OO have with Chalcedon is the phrase 'in two natures'. And we may still conclude that for many at that council it did indeed mean something a lot closer to Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius' own opinions. But that is separate to the discussion we have between two groups of people here and now who have discovered that what they believe is substantially the same. What matters in this instance is how do Eastern Orthodox now, the ones we are talking with, how do they interpret 'in two natures', and the answer is that they take this to describe the continuing reality of humanity and Divinity in Christ, and not to stand for any separation, or even worse, for the establishment of two hypostases. Our bishops have accepted in Synod that this interpretation of Chalcedon is acceptable and in accord with our own faith since the EO also teach that the humanity and Divinity are distinguished in thought alone.

The Tome of Leo is read and understood in the same manner by EO. In the Tome Leo is taken as describing the continuing reality of the humanity and Divinity and not establishing separation. On this basis we accept the EO position as being Orthodox.

Now it must be fairly well known that I have historical problems with the Tome and with Chalcedon. But I agree wholeheartedly with our bishops that if we have accepted that the EO have maintained the Orthodox faith while separated from us for all of these centuries then we must accept that their interpretation of Chalcedon is coherent and Orthodox. In a sense we must accept that their acceptance and understanding of Chalcedon is Orthodox even while we do not consider that council to be ecumenical. We are saying that the Tome and Chalcedon can and have been accepted in an Orthodox manner even while we reject them. We have therefore modified our historic position that Chalcedon can never be acceptable, and it may now be perhaps explained that we can understand that others might interpret it in an Orthodox manner and be Orthodox but we do not necessarily share that interpretation. This does not take away our opinion that some have held heretical opinions while confessing Chalcedon, or that Chalcedon was a mistake. But we may not say that those who accept Chalcedon are necessarily heretical. Constantine most certainly does not hold to any Christological heresy yet he accepts both the Tome and Chalcedon. Indeed he interprets, and has been taught to interpret them, in an Orthodox manner and not in any way that is in accord with the teaching of Nestorius. Interpretation is everything, look at how the heretics have mishandled the scriptures and the teachings of the fathers.

So as for the Tome. I believe it says A, B and C and that C is error. Yet I need not say that the Tome is explicitly heretical, I may, as I do, suggest that it is ambiguous and badly written in places. EO theologians such as Father John Romanides of blessed memory have said the same. Now if Constantine believes it says A, B and D then he may quite happily confess it as Orthodox. And I might talk to him and agree that if it did say A, B and D then it would be free from error. So I then discover that Constantine and I, who both believe A, B and D, find no substantial difference in our own faith. We disagree however in whether the Tome teaches C or D. It is the same with Chalcedon. Our bishops have agreed in Synod that both our Church and the Eastern Orthodox do indeed teach A, B and D while we may still disagree as to whether any historical events or synods taught C, D or indeed E.

We are united in our faith, we differ in our understanding of history.

Chalcedon: Something Different for Everyone

So far we've discussed what the Oriental Orthodox and the Byzantine Orthodox stances on Chalcedon are. What is interesting, is that two other groups have different stances on Chalcedon.

For the Nestorians, Chalcedon represented their exact understanding of Christology. In addition to this, in 544 the Sixth General Synod of the Syriac Persian Church (Synod of Mar Aba I) adopted the creed and decrees of the Council of Chalcedon.

For the Catholics, Chalcedon is a triumph of Papal Authority. It was the Roman Pope Leo's Tome which was the matter of controversy. Even though this document moved away from the Orthodox language of St. Cyril as defined at the Council at Ephesus, using Nestorian terminology, it was simply accepted. For the Catholic, this decision to accept Pope Leo's tome confirms their belief that the Roman Pope has supremecy over all.

Here are other references regarding Pope Leo and the supremecy issue: Pope St. Leo the Great (r. 440-461) and Papal Supremacy

as well as...

Councel of Chalcedon and the Papacy

Conclusion: What to do Now?

The Byzantines have made clear that they do not believe in two different Jesuses, thus holding to and maintaining the Orthodox faith. It is equally evident that the Oriental Orthodox have never been Monophysites, having equally condemned the heresy of Eutyches. So where does one go from here? The details of reunification are currently being dealt with by our respective Holy Sees, but the duty of the faithful from both sides is to learn about one another, and approach one another in faith, as directed by our spiritual fathers.

Most Byzantine Orthodox faithful know very little about Chalcedon. When I was studying this council and the events surrounding it, I met with much resistence to my undertaking. In this opposition to study, I found three types of people; those who continually seek to argue with others and constantly label the Oriental Orthodox as heretics without providing any reasons why, those who sincerely just don't know, and those who have studied the council and agree with the Patriarch of Antioch and the joint statements from both EO and OO.

Needless to say, there are many Byzantine Orthodox all vying for individual power and creating a great deal of in-fighting. There are three major Russian Orthodox groups in America; the MP (Moscow Patriarchate), the OCA (Orthodox Christians of America) and the ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia). Each group has a different agenda from my experience. The OCA condemn the Antiochian Orthodox for evening Liturgies. The ROCOR are not in communion with the whole of the Byzantine Orthodox, yet they are in full communion withe See of Constantinople (and a few other smaller groups). The Moscow Patriarchate and the Oriental Orthodox refreshingly seem to be on good terms, but within their own camp, there is still much fighting. There is a movement within some of the more fundamentalist Orthodox groups to split from their home Patriarchates and create and American Patriarch. It is very discouraging that within the Byzantine Orthodox there is so much in-fighting and different stories from different people circulating.

At an Antiochian parish that I sought to become a part of (and I still visit it on occasion), the priest said that the Orientals are monophysites and deny the humanity of Christ. When I informed him that this was not true and that the OO also condemned Eutyches, he confessed ignorance in the matter and simply stated that he has to submit to their Church. God bless him. He is a good man who truly focuses on Christ. My other option was the Syriac Orthodox, which in the end is where I entered life as a Christian. Here, the focus was also on Christ, but without the misinformation.

The botton line is this: I became Syriac Orthodox instead of Antiochian Orthodox because of Chalcedon, and the fact that the Oriental stance is the most concise and most logical. The in-fighting within the Byzantine Orthodox jurisdictions is very discouraging for most, but I found a wonderful community which all converted en masse to the Antiochian Orthodox Church, and I gladly would have joined them had their stance on Chalcedon been the more correct one.

As for now, I do recognize that the Byzantines are indeed Orthodox, and I hold to the teachings established by our mutual Patriarchs. I hope and pray that this schism is healed soon, so that we may fulfill the words of our Lord who said, "that they may be one."

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Oh, no!

Please, not an article by "Peter Theodore!"

I know who he is and have argued with him extensively on another forum.

Honestly, when I saw that name I opted not to read the rest.

I assure you, I've heard it all before.

He repeats the same tired old arguments over and over and cannot answer the objections raised against them.

I'll pass on anything bearing the "Peter Theodore" moniker, thank you.

This thread was originally meant by me to be about those who are or used to be known as Nestorians. We have spent too much time discussing the Monophysites.

It's getting boring.