OCA and GOA in communion or not?

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,470
20,026
41
Earth
✟1,456,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
As I remember, we and the Copts didnt have so much of a problem with seeing the pros and cons (as it were) of Chalcedon but it was how our theologies then split and developed in parallel as time went on.

Chalcedon isn't even the real problem. it's the 6th Council. that's where Severus of Antioch was condemned. historically, the Copts were willing to accept the 4th Council because of the 5th Council, but the 6th at the time was something they could not accept.
 
Upvote 0

A Shield of Turquoise

Active Member
Apr 29, 2019
72
37
Southeastern Pennsylvania
✟15,080.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I don't consider Chalcedon to be heretical, but it's easy to see, in the context, how an orthodox Christian, living at the time and loyal to St Cyril, could find it to be highly suspect at least.

1. The language of the definition of Chalcedon was new. St Cyril's famous formula, "One incarnate nature of God the word" was well-known among Greek-speaking Christians; "One person in two natures" sounded to many like a compromise with Nestorianism. For those grounded in Aristotle's metaphysics, as the Alexandrian school very much was, the idea of an abstract nature distinct from a person didn't make sense- "physis" and "hypostasis" were used more or less interchangeably. The school of Theodore of Mopsuestia also said "two natures" but meant something quite heretical, the natures being united only by common will. The closest thing to the definition of Chalcedon (and the Tome of Leo) was the formula of union reached between Cyril and John of Antioch, which used "of two natures" (not "in two natures"). So the fathers at Chalcedon had some explaining to do, as to why they were introducing this novel formula, and how it could be reconciled with the previous language- explaining which evidently they did not bother to provide. This task would be left to the next council.

2. The rehabilitation of some followers of Theodore and Nestorius was also a red flag. Ibas' letter denouncing St Cyril was read at the council and declared orthodox (this same letter was condemned as heretical at Constantinople II). Theodoret was likewise reinstated and played a role in the subsequent proceedings. Both these men where required to anathematize Nestorius, but this was likely conditional and insincere ("if he really did teach x, y, z, then I denounce him") and they did not retract their condemnations of Cyril.
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,470
20,026
41
Earth
✟1,456,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I don't consider Chalcedon to be heretical, but it's easy to see, in the context, how an orthodox Christian, living at the time and loyal to St Cyril, could find it to be highly suspect at least.

1. The language of the definition of Chalcedon was new. St Cyril's famous formula, "One incarnate nature of God the word" was well-known among Greek-speaking Christians; "One person in two natures" sounded to many like a compromise with Nestorianism. For those grounded in Aristotle's metaphysics, as the Alexandrian school very much was, the idea of an abstract nature distinct from a person didn't make sense- "physis" and "hypostasis" were used more or less interchangeably. The school of Theodore of Mopsuestia also said "two natures" but meant something quite heretical, the natures being united only by common will. The closest thing to the definition of Chalcedon (and the Tome of Leo) was the formula of union reached between Cyril and John of Antioch, which used "of two natures" (not "in two natures"). So the fathers at Chalcedon had some explaining to do, as to why they were introducing this novel formula, and how it could be reconciled with the previous language- explaining which evidently they did not bother to provide. This task would be left to the next council.

2. The rehabilitation of some followers of Theodore and Nestorius was also a red flag. Ibas' letter denouncing St Cyril was read at the council and declared orthodox (this same letter was condemned as heretical at Constantinople II). Theodoret was likewise reinstated and played a role in the subsequent proceedings. Both these men where required to anathematize Nestorius, but this was likely conditional and insincere ("if he really did teach x, y, z, then I denounce him") and they did not retract their condemnations of Cyril.

1. except "in two Natures" wasn't novel. it was used by St Cyril himself, as well as plenty of earlier Fathers.

2. yes, Ibas was restored but only after rejecting the theology of the letter. that is why when the letter was condemned, it's only said to be attributed to Ibas.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,470
20,026
41
Earth
✟1,456,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
and I would add, if you actually read the condemnation, it was never Monophysitism. Severus was not ever a Monophysite. that's not what got him hemmed up from the Orthodox POV.

the modern non-Chalcedonians are not Monophysites.
 
Upvote 0

A Shield of Turquoise

Active Member
Apr 29, 2019
72
37
Southeastern Pennsylvania
✟15,080.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
1. except "in two Natures" wasn't novel. it was used by St Cyril himself, as well as plenty of earlier Fathers.

Where?

2. yes, Ibas was restored but only after rejecting the theology of the letter. that is why when the letter was condemned, it's only said to be attributed to Ibas.

You've got that wrong. They explicitly say, "We have read his letter and find him to be orthodox." He is asked to repudiate Nestorius, which he does, but not the letter. They find nothing wrong with the letter- certainly nothing worthy of the anathema that it got 100 years later. The fathers at Constantinople II recognized this as a problem, so they claimed that this part had been interpolated into the record.
 
Last edited:
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

A Shield of Turquoise

Active Member
Apr 29, 2019
72
37
Southeastern Pennsylvania
✟15,080.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
and I would add, if you actually read the condemnation, it was never Monophysitism. Severus was not ever a Monophysite. that's not what got him hemmed up from the Orthodox POV.

the modern non-Chalcedonians are not Monophysites.

Constantinople III condemns Severus as "hated of god" and puts him next to Apollinarius. He is obviously considered a heretic by the imperial church and this is reflected in plenty of hymns as well.
 
Upvote 0

Andrei D

Well-Known Member
Feb 13, 2018
661
774
45
Charlotte, NC
✟76,721.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married

In the Formula of Reconciliation for instance.
We confess, therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, perfect God, and perfect Man of a reasonable soul and flesh consisting; begotten before the ages of the Father according to his Divinity, and in the last days, for us and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin according to his humanity, of the same substance with his Father according to his Divinity, and of the same substance with us according to his humanity; for there became a union of two natures. Wherefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of this unmixed union, we confess the holy Virgin to be Mother of God; because God the Word was incarnate and became Man, and from this conception he united the temple taken from her with himself.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: anna ~ grace
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,470
20,026
41
Earth
✟1,456,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Where?



You've got that wrong. They explicitly say, "We have read his letter and find him to be orthodox." He is asked to repudiate Nestorius, which he does, but not the letter. They find nothing wrong with the letter- certainly nothing worthy of the anathema that it got 100 years later. The fathers at Constantinople II recognized this as a problem, so they claimed that this part had been interpolated into the record.

actually, if you read on the Three Chapters by St Justinian, he has many quotes by St Cyril using the "in two Natures" formula, as well as the minutes from Chalcedon where as they are interrogating Ibas and he rejects the letter.

and in my copy it comes with the actual references that are contained in the PG, so it's not St Justinian being wrong.

plus, both Severus of Antioch and Timothy the cat admit that St Cyril and earlier Fathers use that language. Severus basically says they were innocent and ignorant of the error, and Timothy says they should be censored. Timothy even says St Cyril betrayed Orthodoxy.
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,470
20,026
41
Earth
✟1,456,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Constantinople III condemns Severus as "hated of god" and puts him next to Apollinarius. He is obviously considered a heretic by the imperial church and this is reflected in plenty of hymns as well.

yes, but not because of Monophysitism.
 
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

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,470
20,026
41
Earth
✟1,456,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
But where they ever? I'm honestly asking. The "mia" has always been there, I honestly just don't understand how this came to be.

if they were it wasn't for long. it wasn't long for Eutyches to be condemned by them.
 
Upvote 0

A Shield of Turquoise

Active Member
Apr 29, 2019
72
37
Southeastern Pennsylvania
✟15,080.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
As I said above, "of two natures" is different from "in two natures". With "of" we are distinguishing the natures on a purely theoretical level; with "in" we are talking about a persistent difference. From the point of view of St Cyril and his followers, we talk about "of" or "from" two natures "before the union," that is, in an abstract, conceptually preceding way, not that there were two separate natures in time before they got conjoined in Mary. Once we accept the union, we do not distinguish the natures. And this is because for St Cyril and his followers, "nature" and "hypostasis" were basically synonymous. The definition of Chalcedon employs "nature" in a very difference sense, more synonymous with "ousia" or "essence" like the "homoousios" of the creed.
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,470
20,026
41
Earth
✟1,456,009.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
As I said above, "of two natures" is different from "in two natures". With "of" we are distinguishing the natures on a purely theoretical level; with "in" we are talking about a persistent difference. From the point of view of St Cyril and his followers, we talk about "of" or "from" two natures "before the union," that is, in an abstract, conceptually preceding way, not that there were two separate natures in time before they got conjoined in Mary. Once we accept the union, we do not distinguish the natures. And this is because for St Cyril and his followers, "nature" and "hypostasis" were basically synonymous. The definition of Chalcedon employs "nature" in a very difference sense, more synonymous with "ousia" or "essence" like the "homoousios" of the creed.

and again, that's not all St Cyril says.
 
Upvote 0

A Shield of Turquoise

Active Member
Apr 29, 2019
72
37
Southeastern Pennsylvania
✟15,080.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
yes, but not because of Monophysitism.
You will find Severus routinely referred to as a monophysite in Byzantine Orthodox literature.

Examples from the hymns:


O mindless and vain Severus, tell us: is the Word, the Son of the Father of lights, a single essence, commingled, unoriginate? For if thou sayest so, thou dost postulate a different essence; for flesh and the Word are not a single essence, but are two, O wretched one!


The six hundred and thirty pious men, having cast down the deception of Eutyches and the heresy of Severus, attained unto this hymn: We preach Christ in two natures, walking according to the pronouncement of the blessed Cyril!
 
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