Non Chalcedonian/Chalcedonian Debate and Discussion

prodromos · Feb 22, 2020

The CAPSLOCK warrior has been reported.

Joy · Feb 22, 2020

Mod Hat On

Some Posts and Responses
have been Removed
in
Thread Clean

Mod Hat Off

Barney2.0 · Feb 23, 2020

ArmyMatt said:
no, they don't. St Leo never says they are by connexion alone and never divides into two Christs. he never separates the man from the Word.

even in the line that you bolded, only Word is the Person mentioned (flesh isn't a person). so you might not like the wording, but it doesn't do what you say it does.

I never said he divides the two natures into two Christs, what I said is that his wording indirectly does. Natures aren’t don’t experience anything the Hypostasis or person of Christ does through the natures, the Tome of Leo talks of natures preforming separate actions as one talks of different Hypostases preforming different actions. Did you read the source I gave?

Barney2.0 · Feb 23, 2020

ArmyMatt said:
I was talking about the OP. and it only does if you read Chalcedon selectively and ignore its surroundings history and context.

Well I’m trying not to ignore Chalcedon and it’s surrounding history and context, I’m trying to compare it with Ephesus and in my personal view can’t see a purpose for Chalcedon seeing Ephesus already had a perfect Christological creed that refuted both the heresies of Nestorius and Eutychus.

Barney2.0 · Feb 23, 2020

dzheremi said:
I don't really want to get involved in this conversation (I've written privately via PM to people of this fine board and I think also publicly that Chalcedon is essentially a non-starter for me personally; I don't see anything in this thread that causes me to reevaluate this position), but I do want to highlight something that I think is very wise and add a little commentary on it, if the thread will allow it without dragging me into the argument.

As Fr. Matt subsequently pointed out, the fifth council of the Chalcedonians allows for both formulas, properly understood, so yes.

From the 'other side', to allude to Fr. Peter Farrington's (Coptic Orthodox priest in Britain) talk on the Orthodox Christology of St. Severus of Antioch (originally a podcast hosted on the website Podbean; I don't think it is available anymore, and sadly I didn't save it to my computer, hence I am alluding to it rather than quoting it), we do not have, and generally have not historically had, any trouble speaking of the two natures of which Christ is composed. (Emphases mine.) The key is the union, and its inseparability, which St. Severus calls a union which "drives out division". Given that kind of language, you can imagine how forcefully we have taken to rebuking anything which seems, from this vantage point, to be 're-dividing' the natures after the union. (See here also the Syrian Fraction and other liturgical prayers which make this very point, as the prayers of the liturgy are to be our standard.)

But hopefully it goes without saying from our common fathers like St. Cyril et al. that to speak of a union to begin with necessitates two. You can find it even in the name of the Orthodox Tewahedo Church of Ethiopia and Eritrea, tewahedo meaning "unified" or "made one" (in reference to the Church's Christology -- i.e., the union of the two natures at/with the incarnation). The Copts have also adopted (presumably c. 1850s, during the time when we came close to union with the Greeks in Egypt) certain hymns of EO origin such as "Asomen to Kyrio", which explicitly teach this Christological truth. Indeed, they were adopted in the first place because there is nothing but Orthodox Christology in them! And the Copts also say the same about the EO adoption of the Christological hymn "O Monogenes Yios", which is sometimes attributed in the Coptic Orthodox tradition to St. Severus himself (though there is also a tradition that says it was composed by HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic; see this essay for a Copt's perspective on it, if you're curious).

I have little to object to in regards to this information, however my priest has given me a very different view of the Council I remember him once telling me that it was a forced upon the Church by the Byzantine emperors and influenced by Nestorianism. Most Coptic clergy on YouTube seem to somehow state the same or that it was a political gamble by Rome to usurp power from the See of Alexandria. I don’t think many of their claims are historically inaccurate.

ArmyMatt · Feb 23, 2020

Al Masihi said:
I never said he divides the two natures into two Christs, what I said is that his wording indirectly does. Natures aren’t don’t experience anything the Hypostasis or person of Christ does through the natures, the Tome of Leo talks of natures preforming separate actions as one talks of different Hypostases preforming different actions. Did you read the source I gave?

I did. he doesn't say what you are saying he said. especially if you look at the history and other stuff he has said. and St Cyril has said the same stuff.

you are reading him apart from context. that's not a good way to read anything.

ArmyMatt · Feb 23, 2020

Al Masihi said:
Well I’m trying not to ignore Chalcedon and it’s surrounding history and context, I’m trying to compare it with Ephesus and in my personal view can’t see a purpose for Chalcedon seeing Ephesus already had a perfect Christological creed that refuted both the heresies of Nestorius and Eutychus.

yeah, no. if it were that simple, you wouldn't need Ephesus either since Nicaea refutes them both as well. and Eutyches saw himself as a champion of Ephesus.

not to mention, you not seeing it's purpose is irrelevant.

faroukfarouk · Feb 28, 2020

Nancy Hale said:
I've read a lot, that's my problem. I get close to settling on one then a new bit of information pops up.
Are you aware there was a divide in the EO church similar to RC/Protestant, but in the case of EO, the protesters "won" control of the church? The ppl who remained true to the original practices are named something along the line of "Old Way" or "Old Believers".
I want to find out more about the split and exactly what changed.
My other issue is, if I stand back and take a look at the Churches where I live (it's not a large place. We have RC, Greek orthodox and Russian orthodox) the Roman Catholic seem to be doing what Jesus said to do, by a long shot (feeding the poor, clothing the poor, and so on) the Russian orthodox church has all services in Russian, not one English option (I live in the U.S.) the Greek orthodox does have some English services. But, they are in a difficult location to reach.
I'm hoping in larger cities, the situation is different.
But, my main issue at this point is the divide of the EO church, and if has been rendered the "protestant" version of itself.

Wasn't it ostensibly about the procession of the Spirit? (John 14.16, 17, 26); also about styles of doing propositional theology.

ArmyMatt · Feb 29, 2020

faroukfarouk said:
Wasn't is ostensibly about the procession of the Spirit? (John 14.16, 17, 26); also about styles of doing propositional theology.

if you're asking about the Old Believer schism, then no.

dzheremi · Feb 29, 2020

Al Masihi said:
I have little to object to in regards to this information, however my priest has given me a very different view of the Council I remember him once telling me that it was a forced upon the Church by the Byzantine emperors and influenced by Nestorianism. Most Coptic clergy on YouTube seem to somehow state the same or that it was a political gamble by Rome to usurp power from the See of Alexandria. I don’t think many of their claims are historically inaccurate.

I agree with the claim that it was forced upon the Church in certain of those places where it was unpopular (St. Samuel the Confessor and many martyrs bearing witness), but that doesn't touch the point I was making regarding Christology.

You can leave Chalcedon aside and still talk about Christ as man and God and not be dividing Him into two, as both 'sides' recognize that He is always perfectly and completely the God-man! It is on the strength of this belief that I personally see the schism as able to be healed, even though obviously doing so is out of any our hands. May God grant it.

From the second part of the Sunday Theotokia, as prayed in the holy Tasbeha (emphasis added):

The ark overlaid, roundabout with gold, that was made, with wood that would not decay.

It foretold the sign, of the God the Word, who became man, without separation.

One nature out of two, a holy divinity, co-essential with the Father, and incorruptible.

A holy humanity, begotten without seed, co-essential with us, according to the Economy.

ArmyMatt · Feb 29, 2020

dzheremi said:
I agree with the claim that it was forced upon the Church in certain of those places where it was unpopular (St. Samuel the Confessor and many martyrs bearing witness), but that doesn't touch the point I was making regarding Christology.

You can leave Chalcedon aside and still talk about Christ as man and God and not be dividing Him into two, as both 'sides' recognize that He is always perfectly and completely the God-man! It is on the strength of this belief that I personally see the schism as able to be healed, even though obviously doing so is out of any our hands. May God grant it.

From the second part of the Sunday Theotokia, as prayed in the holy Tasbeha (emphasis added):

The ark overlaid, roundabout with gold, that was made, with wood that would not decay.

It foretold the sign, of the God the Word, who became man, without separation.

One nature out of two, a holy divinity, co-essential with the Father, and incorruptible.

A holy humanity, begotten without seed, co-essential with us, according to the Economy.

personally, I don't think Chalcedon is really our problem anymore. I have yet to meet a non-Chalcedonian who doesn't agree that the fullness of Divinity and humanity are preserved in the one Christ. and I have yet to meet a Chalcedonian who says that you can divide Christ into two Persons. both openly condemn Eutyches and Nestorius over and over again.

I think our division is far more subtle.

dzheremi · Feb 29, 2020

I agree. Miaphysitism vs. Dyophysitism is not the problem, and has not been the problem for a very long time.

We have a lot more to talk about concerning some basic matters, such as how we view councils, how exactly we are to be ecclesiastically organized (you guys are a bit 'tighter' in this sense than we are, as we were never a part of any pentarchy and don't really have anyone equivalent to the Ecumenical Patriarch, don't have liturgical uniformity to the degree that you guys do, etc.), the daily practices (I have been told here on TAW that EO laity don't generally pray the hours everyday), etc. I think we really do have some things to recover for our own sake that increased interaction with the Eastern Orthodox could help if it is done smartly (e.g., iconography and the theology of the icon), or I guess you could say has helped to the extent that there are now priests and bishops who, armed with 'EO' terminology and concepts that were codified after Chalcedon in response to situations that had no real analogue in the OO world, can at least begin to point us back to the importance of preserving/reviving some of the things that are in danger in the modern era largely due to immigration to the west and the effect that this has on the populations' attempt to integrate into new societies while remaining Christian.

Nancy Hale · Feb 29, 2020

dzheremi said:
the daily practices (I have been told here on TAW that EO laity don't generally pray the hours everyday),

When I first read about praying the hours, I thought it was the most amazing thing; I set special alarms on my cell phone for each one.
What I took away from that experience was a deeper knowledge of how modern society is truly set against christianity. The alarms would go off while I was driving kids to and from school or preparing a meal; things I couldn't just set aside, not without much criticism.
It was nice, the awareness that so many fellow believers around the world were praying at that moment (whether they count me or not) but I began to wonder if it was mine to appreciate and eventually turned the alarms off.
But, I think it's good to set alarms and see for your see for yourself and if the world seems horrible to you it's a good reminder that numerous people are praying around the clock.

prodromos · Mar 1, 2020

Nancy Hale said:
When I first read about praying the hours, I thought it was the most amazing thing; I set special alarms on my cell phone for each one.
What I took away from that experience was a deeper knowledge of how modern society is truly set against christianity. The alarms would go off while I was driving kids to and from school or preparing a meal; things I couldn't just set aside, not without much criticism.
It was nice, the awareness that so many fellow believers around the world were praying at that moment (whether they count me or not) but I began to wonder if it was mine to appreciate and eventually turned the alarms off.
But, I think it's good to set alarms and see for your see for yourself and if the world seems horrible to you it's a good reminder that numerous people are praying around the clock.

The Hours are like fasting, they are a means to an end but they are not the end themselves.
If you are able to structure your life around the praying of the hours then well and good, but the aim of the hours isn't necessarily to pray at those set times, but rather to make prayer throughout the day a habit, one that I am sorely in need of cultivating.

buzuxi02 · Mar 1, 2020

public hermit said:
That makes sense. And, it avoids the tension of trying to make sense of what it means for a person to have two distinct natures.

This is more an explanation of the intimate unity of being one Person
St. Cyril second letter to Nestorios explains that Christ is not a unity of persons but a hypostatic union:
For we do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and became flesh, or that it was converted into a whole man consisting of soul and body; but rather that the Word having personally united to himself flesh animated by a rational soul, did in an ineffable and inconceivable manner become man, and was called the Son of Man, not merely as willing or being pleased to be so called, neither on account of taking to himself a person, but because the two natures being brought together in a true union, there is of both one Christ and one Son; for the difference of the natures is not taken away by the union, but rather the divinity and the humanity make perfect for us the one Lord Jesus Christ by their ineffable and inexpressible union.

Barney2.0 · Mar 6, 2020

dzheremi said:
I agree with the claim that it was forced upon the Church in certain of those places where it was unpopular (St. Samuel the Confessor and many martyrs bearing witness), but that doesn't touch the point I was making regarding Christology.

You can leave Chalcedon aside and still talk about Christ as man and God and not be dividing Him into two, as both 'sides' recognize that He is always perfectly and completely the God-man! It is on the strength of this belief that I personally see the schism as able to be healed, even though obviously doing so is out of any our hands. May God grant it.

From the second part of the Sunday Theotokia, as prayed in the holy Tasbeha (emphasis added):

The ark overlaid, roundabout with gold, that was made, with wood that would not decay.

It foretold the sign, of the God the Word, who became man, without separation.

One nature out of two, a holy divinity, co-essential with the Father, and incorruptible.

A holy humanity, begotten without seed, co-essential with us, according to the Economy.

I’d agree that many of the differences are subtle, but many of the Fathers including Saint Samuel the Confessor regraded Chalcedon as Un-Orthodox, his famous rebuking of Chalcedon pretty much sums up his views:

"Excommunicated is this tome and everyone who believes in it, and cursed is everyone who might change the Orthodox faith of our Holy Fathers."

In the Arabic speaking world I’ve noticed that this view still exists the more radical view, which is why I’m quite confused at your moderate position regarding Chalcedon while many of the clergy on our side of the world practically condemn it as heretical in its origins.

Barney2.0 · Mar 6, 2020

dzheremi said:
I agree. Miaphysitism vs. Dyophysitism is not the problem, and has not been the problem for a very long time.

We have a lot more to talk about concerning some basic matters, such as how we view councils, how exactly we are to be ecclesiastically organized (you guys are a bit 'tighter' in this sense than we are, as we were never a part of any pentarchy and don't really have anyone equivalent to the Ecumenical Patriarch, don't have liturgical uniformity to the degree that you guys do, etc.), the daily practices (I have been told here on TAW that EO laity don't generally pray the hours everyday), etc. I think we really do have some things to recover for our own sake that increased interaction with the Eastern Orthodox could help if it is done smartly (e.g., iconography and the theology of the icon), or I guess you could say has helped to the extent that there are now priests and bishops who, armed with 'EO' terminology and concepts that were codified after Chalcedon in response to situations that had no real analogue in the OO world, can at least begin to point us back to the importance of preserving/reviving some of the things that are in danger in the modern era largely due to immigration to the west and the effect that this has on the populations' attempt to integrate into new societies while remaining Christian.

Yes I have noticed the lack of Icons in the Syriac Church, I myself prefer the Byzantine liturgy over the Syriac one, but that’s just me. I do believe that interaction with Eastern Orthodox can really help things. Just last night I had a dream of attending a council of reunion with the Eastern Orthodox with Pope Shenouda himself present. Technically speaking the Pope of Alexandria acts as an Ecumenical Patriarch, holding a primacy of honor in the Oriental Orthodox Church. I think the pentarchy system works better, but it was formed after the split and schism at Chalcedon, I think the Oriental Orthodox Church operates much like the early Church, with each Church generally operating independently of each other, with different customs while retaining the same faith.

ArmyMatt · Mar 6, 2020

Al Masihi said:
I’d agree that many of the differences are subtle, but many of the Fathers including Saint Samuel the Confessor regraded Chalcedon as Un-Orthodox, his famous rebuking of Chalcedon pretty much sums up his views:

"Excommunicated is this tome and everyone who believes in it, and cursed is everyone who might change the Orthodox faith of our Holy Fathers."

In the Arabic speaking world I’ve noticed that this view still exists the more radical view, which is why I’m quite confused at your moderate position regarding Chalcedon while many of the clergy on our side of the world practically condemn it as heretical in its origins.

probably because he knows more of the history. and I can speak for myself that he and I have had more than one discussion about our differences. the non-Chalcedonians, for at least a while, were willing to accept Chalcedon because of Constantinople II, the henotikon of Justin II, the writings of St Justinian, etc. when it was calm, there actually was a lot of dialogue between the two sides and full communion wasn't broken for a while.

dzheremi · Mar 6, 2020

Al Masihi said:
I’d agree that many of the differences are subtle, but many of the Fathers including Saint Samuel the Confessor regraded Chalcedon as Un-Orthodox, his famous rebuking of Chalcedon pretty much sums up his views:

"Excommunicated is this tome and everyone who believes in it, and cursed is everyone who might change the Orthodox faith of our Holy Fathers."

In the Arabic speaking world I’ve noticed that this view still exists the more radical view, which is why I’m quite confused at your moderate position regarding Chalcedon while many of the clergy on our side of the world practically condemn it as heretical in its origins.

I have heard much the same regarding the Tome, including from the priest who baptized me, who said very negative things about it -- and that was in English, here in America.

That's why I've stated several times on this very subforum that conditioning union with the Chalcedonians on our acceptance of the Tome is pretty much a non-starter. I don't believe that this is either an moderate or an extreme position. Just a realistic one.

I do recognize, however, as Fr. Matt points out above, that relations have not always been antagonistic. You will find if you look across the history of the communion that we have had very open saints such as HH St. Nerses Shnorhali (Catholicos of the Armenians) who actually sought out the Byzantines to come to an agreement with them regarding union, as well as saints like Mor Dionysius Bar Salibi who wrote strong polemics against them. These two saints were both from what is now Turkey (HH from Gaziantep, Mor Bar Salibi from Malatya) and died within two years of each other in the 12th century (1173 and 1171, respectively), so I don't know that anyone can even point to differing times and places to explain them. Rather, it is the case and has always been the case that reality on the ground is much more complex than can be captured in any polemic or by looking at the writings of any one saint or chronicler.

Personally I prefer it this way, as I feel that having a range of views expressed naturally within the communion keeps us from being either unwisely closed off to outsiders or unwisely open to them, but if you want to focus more on one end of the continuum there are certainly many figures like St. Samuel out there to learn from, and we don't shy away from commemorating them and asking for their intercessions, of course.

ArmyMatt · Mar 6, 2020

I should also add, that whenever the Chalcedonians and the non-Chalcedonians would start dialoguing, the Muslims would boot off the moderates and put at least one hardliner in his place.

Non Chalcedonian/Chalcedonian Debate and Discussion

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Fading curmudgeon

Regular Member

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Regular Member

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Active Member

Senior Veteran

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian

Regular Member

Similar threads