I wish to ask - if it was not Chalcedonian doctrine that was rejected (when properly understood), but the potential loopholes opened by it (which were set in order by the 5th Ecumenical Council), why have the Oriental Orthodox maintained their anathemas?
I may be missing something, but wouldn't this be similar to the following conversation between an mythical protestant and orthodox-catholic:
________________________________
Protestant: I don't like the phrase "mother of God" (theotokos).
Orthodox-Catholic: Why? It was affirmed as doctrinally mandatory at the third ecumenical council in Ephesus...
Protestant: It opens the loophole possibility that Mary could be worshipped idolatrously as the mother of the eternal Son, not just Christ, so I prefer "Christo-tokos."
Orthodox-Catholic: Oh! Well, that's fair. What if we explicitly condemned that belief as heretical and specified the meaning in an equally binding doctrine at an equally binding ecumenical council?
Protestant: I still wouldn't be in communion with you because of the loophole.
_____________________________
This is an honest question. I've not had much opportunity to converse with Coptic Christians, and when I have I've felt a deep sense of common ground and brotherhood. Why we aren't in communion is a mystery to me, and your article goes a long way towards dispelling that mystery. My curiosity is genuine - given the universal acceptance of the 5th ecumenical council among the Chalcedonian churches (given the closing of the loophole), what maintains the anathema and what would need to be done, from a Coptic point of view, for union to be achieved?
The OO / EO unity needs much Humility from both sides , see this link . it includes all the dialogues between the OO & EO http://www.orthodoxunity.org/
__________________ We Worship You, O Christ, together with Your Holy Father and the Holy Spirit; For You have
come and saved us.
In spite of the fact that the Council of Ephesus had excommunicated Nestorus, the Nestorian roots extended to influence the council of Chalcedon where the trend to separate the two natures became so apparent that it was said that Christ is two persons, a God and a human being; the one works miracles and the other accepts insults and humiliation. Following the same trend, Leo, the Bishop of Rome, accordingly declared his famous Tome which was rejected by the Coptic Church. But the Council accepted and voted for it, thus confirming that two natures existed in Christ after their unity: a Divine nature performing its functions and a human nature carrying out its role. Nestorus claimed that those two natures were distinctly separate. The Carthage's Council proclaimed their union but Nestorus separated them by this explanation. Just as he concluded that Christ had two natures, he also concluded that He had two wills and two lines of action. The problem of the two natures and two wills has its roots here and thus began disruption and conflict within the Church. Now we are trying to settle this question by attempting to rewrite a satisfactory wording of our faith, which would be acceptable to all
Exsert from The Nature of Christ By H.H. Pope Shenouda 111
The Oriental Orthodox are ready to lift the historic anathemas, and our language has already changed to reflect our changed understanding of the Byzantine Orthodox position.
As far as I can see the problem is the the Byzantine Orthodox are not ready to lift their own anathemas against us, or those churches which are ready find themselves in difficulties because of those who do not wish to.
When the Byzantine Orthodox are ready then unity will come, but at present that seems to be where the hold up is.
I think a lot of Eastern Orthodox are worried about ecumenism compromising the faith, and that's a legitimate concern. So without understanding the issues, they reject the notion of reunification. But I think most of the clergy realize the misunderstanding that took place. And I just hope that the Oriental Orthodox Christians aren't thrown off by the relative ignorance of some of the laymen, and yes, even some of the clergy. It needs to be understood by both sides that there will be skeptics on both sides, and that this sort of transition will take time to get used to. But that shouldn't deter the restoration of unity.
I think a lot of Eastern Orthodox are worried about ecumenism compromising the faith, and that's a legitimate concern.
Dear Photios,
Of course it is - but many OOs share that concern. Why would anyone imagine that we would want to dilute the faith once received? It was, after all, precisely because of our fear that Chalcedon did that that we rejected it.
Part of the trouble is that we keep being told that we must accept certain things before unity can take place; but it simply is not true from our point of view to say that there are more than 3 ecumenical councils. If ecumenical means accepted by the whole Church, we have never accepted them as such. We'd be quite happy to see them for what they were, which is local councils.
I share your view that unity is desirable - but we, like you - do not feel it should be at the price of the faith. Only as and when we see that we are both professing that same faith can we attain unity.
Forgive me if I am wrong as I am not an expert in these things, but there is also another issue other than the orthodoxy of faith that undermines the credibility and authority of the Councils of Chalcedon and after.
At Chalcedon, St. Dioscorus and others were both illegally and immorally deposed from their rightful positions by Emperor Marcion and Empress Pulcheria, and this action was both known and supported by Leo of Rome and his supporters.
As a result, others usurped the roles of the true hierarchy of the Churches of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem and it was these usurpers that were present at these later Councils.
Thus they were not legitimately represented by the Body of Christ in its entirity and so cannot be truly considered ecumenical in the same sense as the first three Councils, only by the Churches they in truth had present.
Given the way non-Chalcedonians were treated, it is no surprise that they would reject the Council of Chalcedon. Eastern Orthodox who refer to non-Chalcedonians as "Monophysite" do so because they are insecure in their faith and unwilling to recognize that unfairness that occurred. It's akin to sociopathy.
I really appreciate your posting this. It is needed for the reconciliation between Non-Chalcedonians and Orthodox which seems to be pending. I must confess that there are too many details for me to follow it all since there are so many references to people in history that need to be kept track of. The main thing is to get my own understanding of what is right. I can understand (conceptually anyway) the unity of personhood while maintaining full humanity and full divinity in Christ. So as an Orhtodox Christian I think I am in agreement with you.
Could you please clarify your teaching on the two wills? Does the will belong to the nature, or to the person?
Also, a question that I have never heard anyone ask but me … does the Holy Spirit have an independent will, as well?
Would three wills be a heresy? If so, why?
__________________ James, James
... and the greatest of these is love. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, even as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:34-35)
Linear Mode
