Why do Non-Chalcedons Orthodox not accept the Council of Chalcedon?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Maximus

Orthodox Christian
Jun 24, 2003
5,822
373
✟7,903.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
As I am Eastern Orthodox and a thorough believer in the Council of Chalcedon and all the ecumenical councils of the Church, I cannot offer you the absolutely authentic Non-Chalcedonian point of view. I am also probably one of the biggest fans of Pope St. Leo the Great you will ever encounter, as well.

However, I can give my understanding of the Non-Chalcedonian objection to the Council of Chalcedon.

First, the Fathers at Chalcedon deposed Dioscorus of Alexandria, who is revered by Non-Chalcedonians as a saint and Church father. That was a blow to the pride of the Egyptians, who were and are foremost in opposition to Chalcedon.

Second, the Non-Chalcedonians object to the fact that the Fathers at Chalcedon accepted Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa as Orthodox despite their having produced writings with a decidedly Nestorian bent. Non-Chalcedonians will even argue that the council endorsed Ibas' Letter to Maris the Persian, although that is not the case. The only writings officially endorsed at Chalcedon were St. Leo's famous Tome, some of the writings of St. Cyril, and, if I recall correctly, the formula of union signed by St. Cyril and the Antiochenes.

The Fathers at Chalcedon accepted Theodoret and Ibas as Orthodox because both of those men made an Orthodox confession of faith and agreed to condemn Nestorius and his heretical Christology. The council did not bother to go back and condemn prior writings because that was not the council's purpose. Nestorianism had already been dealt with at Ephesus in 431. Chalcedon's task was the heresy of Eutyches and the abuses of the "Robber Synod" conducted by Dioscorus in Ephesus in 449.

It is impossible that Chalcedon could have endorsed Nestorianism or Nestorian writings. Nestorius and Nestorianism are explicitly condemned by the Council of Chalcedon and excluded from its definition of faith. All one has to do is read the proceedings of the council to see that.

Third, some Non-Chalcedonians really are Monophysites and Monothelites and regard Pope St. Leo as a heretic and his Tome as heresy. Thus they object to the content of Chalcedon.

There is a very informative article on Chalcedon here if you have the time to read it.

I also recommend these articles, which include an account of the proceedings of the councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451) themselves.
 
Upvote 0

Super Mickey

Active Member
Jan 7, 2004
39
5
43
Alexandria
✟7,684.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
orthedoxy said:
The Armenian Church along with the Syrian, Ethiopian, Coptic and the Indian-Malabar Church or Church of the Apostle St. Thomas, comprise the 5 churches that rejected not only Eutyches, but also the definitions and acts of Chalcedon due primarily to the Tome of Leo, which "separated' the pactivities of Christ according to human or divine, thus tending strongly toward the dangers and errors of Nestorius.
This is what orthedoxy said in the thread of Aremenian Orthodox.
The other reasons we rejeceted Chalcedon are
1- It sounded too Nestorian the church of Alexandria was fighting Nestorianism in the east so "in two natures" sounded too Nestorian for them
2- The Tome of Leo if taken alone without the orthodox explanation looked Nestorian
3- Pope Dioscorus was not given a chance to defend himself. he was banished for non religious reasons like that he didnt allow the ships of wheat to go to the constantinople which didnt sound heretic for the egyptians and the syriacs
4- the whole council looked like a conspiracy between the pope of rome and emperor marcian to get rid of the power of the pope of alexandria. the popes of alexandria before chalcedon were given the title of "the judge of the world" their letters in the easter sent to all churches determines the date of easter and banished the patriarch of constantinople 3 times (Nestorius- St. John the Chrysostom - Macedonius) ie the bishops of constantinople were second to them among equals and one of the canons of the council of chalcedon was to give the bishop of constantinople the title of patriarch and the second among equals in the orthodox catholic church before chalcedon he was only a bishop . Maybe Emperor Marcian was afraid that Egypt might gain independence due to the strong power of popes of alexandria
5- Marcian wanted to force the egyptians amd syriacs to believe in that council so there was a great resistance and in turn persecution by the byzantines. and this persecution lasted till the arab invasion of egypt in 640 AD
 
Upvote 0

Maximus

Orthodox Christian
Jun 24, 2003
5,822
373
✟7,903.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Here is a link to the Tome of Pope St. Leo the Great.

Everyone should read it for him/herself and decide whether it can be interpreted in a Nestorian manner or not.

Since it specifically denies the tenets of Nestorianism, it is impossible for it to be Nestorian.

In addition, St. Leo was a well known opponent of Nestorianism and had written a number of letters opposing it. To allege that his Tome was Nestorian or even that it "looked Nestorian" is ridiculous.

Dioscorus was given the chance to defend himself at Chalcedon and actually spoke there during the first session. After that, he refused to attend the council although summoned there.

He was condemned in part for canonical reasons but also for his despotic behavior at the "Robber Synod" conducted by him in Ephesus in 449. At that illegitimate synod St. Flavian, the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, was severely beaten. He died three days later.

Dioscorus was anathematized at Chalcedon in part because he was a Monophysite.

It is true that Theophilus of Alexandria was involved in the deposition and banishment of St. John Chrysostom at the Synod of the Oak in 403. But that was a shameful travesty of justice (a worthy precursor to Dioscorus' "Robber Synod"), perpetrated in collusion with Eudoxia, the vain Empress of Byzantium, against one of the greatest saints of the Church.

The Emperor Marcian summoned the Council of Chalcedon at the request of Pope St. Leo the Great even though most of the bishops of the Church had already subscribed to his Tome. The Pope wanted a council to help rectify the injustices perpetrated by Dioscorus - who was called "The Pharaoh" because of his cruel and despotic disposition - at the "Robber Synod" of Ephesus in 449.
 
Upvote 0

Super Mickey

Active Member
Jan 7, 2004
39
5
43
Alexandria
✟7,684.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Another reason i forgot is that Nestorius was alive at the time of the council and declared that the teaching of the council is what he said only making things worse to nonchalcedonians to believe that the council of chalcedon is Nestorian. I know he was either a liar or understood the council his way but who at that time would say that?
When St. John the Chrysostom was banished it was a bad thing and the pope of alexandria was wrong what i said is that he had the power to do so St. John is considered a saint in the coptic church
For why the tome of leo is rejected See here

Here is what is said about errors of tome of leo
Errors and Objections

To the ear of the Orthodox, Christ is now divided by saying that the Word does one thing, while the flesh does another. Furthermore, Leo writes "the activity of each form" and then goes on to say how they do different things. The Logos - anathema to anyone who professes this - is divided in our understanding of what Leo has said. If Leo had said that the Word does miracles according to His Divinity and hungered according to His humanity, we would not have an issue.

To us, it is already defined by Saint Cyril:

“Considering, therefore, as I said, the manner of His incarnation we see that His two natures came together with each other in an indissoluble union, without blending and without change, for His flesh is flesh and not divinity, even though his flesh became the flesh of God, and likewise the Word also is God and not flesh, even though He made the flesh His own according to the dispensation. Therefore, whenever we have these thoughts in no way do we harm the joining into a unity by saying that he was of two natures, but after the union we do not separate the natures from one another, nor do we cut the one and indivisible Son into two sons but we say that there is one Son, and as the holy Fathers have said, there is one nature of the Word (of God) made flesh” (Saint Cyril the Great, the Pillar of the Faith, Letter to Bishop Succensus).

Egyptians do not forget what their ancestors did. So, the Tome does not look very promising to us, nor even provide any sort of positive basis for discussions on unity. Should our church unite with the Diophysites, I would not be able to proclaim that I accept Leo's Tome.

It seems that the Diophysites ignore the greater issue that Saint Dioscorus saw: Leo's Christ "in" two natures leaves room for debate on His Unity, while Saint Dioscorus' "OF two natures" is in itself a unity. I cannot help but question the Orthodoxy of the Chalcedonians at that point in time, or at least consider that they themselves were not clear in their understanding of their own Christology at that time. I would argue further that it was for that reason they needed their Constantinopole II to clarify their own Christology.

What Leo might have been trying to say is possibly Orthodox, but we do not see room for it in his Tome for all these reasons.

The best analogy is that of St. Cyril. He describes a burning hot iron that you use to shape. The iron is so hot that it is literally on fire. Hammering the iron bends the whole thing, you can't say that the fire separated itself from the burning iron. To turn this into an on-and-off switch as Leo implies, is Nestorianism. That is why St. Dioscorus absolutely refused to subscribe to the Tome, and why, personally, if our churches do unite, I would not be able to look to the Tome as any sort of official document.
 
Upvote 0

Maximus

Orthodox Christian
Jun 24, 2003
5,822
373
✟7,903.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
jeffthefinn said:
I agree with you Super Mickey, the split had far more to do with politics than it did dogma.
Jeff the Finn
I don't mean to sound impolite, but what does your response above have to do with SuperMickey's last post?

Where does he say the split had more to do with politics than dogma?

Not only did he not say that, he even posted a list of objections to the Tome of St. Leo.

That's dogma, not politics.

BTW, SuperMickey, no one knows what Nestorius' reaction to Chalcedon was or even if he was still alive by 451.

I've seen Non-Chalcedonians make the claim before that Nestorius approved of Chalcedon, but there is no evidence of that. In fact, it seems doubtful, given the fact that Chalcedon reiterates the condemnation of Nestorius made at the Council of Ephesus in 431 and specifically endorses all three of the prior ecumenical councils.

If Nestorius approved of Chalcedon, then he approved of his own condemnation and of the anathemas against himself and his doctrines.

The reason the Non-Chalcedonian leadership disapproves of St. Leo's Tome is because they really are Monophysites.
 
Upvote 0

orthedoxy

Lusavorchagan
Dec 15, 2003
533
17
pasadena california
✟764.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
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 definitio.
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.
This is taken from http://www.geocities.com/mfignatius/others/byzantine02.html
Can you show how council of Chelcedon allowed for the interpretation of Saint Cyril and the 5th council that accepted the two nature within one nature of Christ?
Also can you give a quote from one of our fathers that we believed like Eutyches?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Maximus

Orthodox Christian
Jun 24, 2003
5,822
373
✟7,903.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
orthedoxy -

I don't want to argue this topic to death, but I would suggest you actually read the Council of Chalcedon for yourself.

Since it endorses the writings of St. Cyril AND the Council of Ephesus (431) that condemned Nestorianism and Nestorius, it cannot possibly be Nestorian itself.

It is not Monophysite either, and THAT was the real problem Dioscorus and his ilk had with it.

Eutyches was an extreme Monophysite. Merely disagreeing with him does not make one Orthodox. It is possible to disagree with Eutyches and still be a Monophysite.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.