Differences between Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonians

Every once in a while in TAW someone, especially an inquirer, will raise the question "What's the differences between the Orthodox and the Copts"?

In trying to answer this question, I wrote this essay, which I hope will clear some doubts.

In XC,
Rick of Wessex

--------------------------------------------------------

A little bit of History
The Coptic and Ethiopian churches, together with the Syriac, Armenian, Eritrean and Malankaran churches, compose a group known as Oriental Christian churches. Other names are Non-Chalcedonians or Miaphysite (they call themselves "Oriental Orthodox", but there are many things wrong with this term - more on that later).

The main theological differences between Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonians are of a Christological nature (no pun intended).

First and more important, they emphatically rejected the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. and its resolutions, and thus split from the Church. They also rejected the Ecumenical Councils of Constantinople II, Constantinople III and Nicea II.

The reason for this rejection are manyfold. Copts and Syrians resented being subjects of "the Romans", and found in Monophysitism the excuse they needed to divorce themselves from the Roman (Byzantine) Empire.

Thus, after Chalcedon, both groups founded their own ethnic/national churches.

Before the Council of 451, Greeks and Coptics were united under the same Patriarch in Egypt. When the Council of Chalcedon deposed the then Patriarch, Dioscorus, and proclaimed Saint Proterios as the rightful Patriarch, Dioscorus fled to St. Macarius Monastery (near modern-day Cairo) and the Copts, for ethnocentric reasons, left the Church altogether founding the Coptic Church - there was no "Coptic Church" before 451 A.D., just the Orthodox Church of Alexandria.

The Syriac church was founded by Jacob Baradeus and Sergius of Tella in 544 A.D., 26 years after Severus of Antioch, the last monophysite Patriarch of Antioch, had been deposed and exiled in Egypt (in 518).

The Armenians only accepted Monophysitism much later, in 491 A.D., They couldn't send delegates to Chalcedon (and Ephesus, before that, in 431) because when the Council took place, Armenia was at war with Persia. They asked Constantinople for help, but the Empire couldn't send any reinforcements because at that same time they were dealing with an heresy (Monophysitism) in Egypt and a Goth invasion in their northern border alongside the Danube River.

Feeling beatrayed, the Armenians also found in monophysitism the excuse they needed to leavethe Empire.

That's what we'd call today (ethno)philetism, that is, justification of nationalism and ethnocentrism by religion and/or theology. It is important to mention that philetism (alonside racism) was proclaimed a heresy by the pan-Orthodox Orthodox council of 1872 held in Istambul.


What is Monophysitism?
Monophysitism was a heresy created by Eutyches, an archimandrite from Constantinople, to directly oppose Nestorianism. Eutyches affirmed that after the union of the two natures, the human and the divine, Christ had only one nature, that of the incarnate Word, and his human nature had been absorbed by his divine.

The energy and imprudence of Eutyches in asserting his opinions led to his being accused of heresy by Domnus of Antioch and Eusebius, bishop of Dorylaeum, at a synod presided over by St. Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople, in the Imperial capital city in 448. As his explanations were not considered satisfactory, the council deposed him from his priestly office and excommunicated him.

Eutyches then fled to Egypt and asked for help from his friend Dioscurus, the then Patriarch of Alexandria. In the following year, Dioscorus convened a synod in Ephesus which became known as the Robber Synod.

This "synod" was a comedy of errors from beggining to end. According to historian Henry Wace in his book "A Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature to the End of the Sixth Century A.D., with an Account of the Principal Sects and Heresies" (which can be downloaded here):

Henry Wace said:

Eutyches was allowed to make his statement; but when Flavian asked that Eusebius (Eutyches' accuser at Constantinople) be heard, Elpidius, the imperial commissioner, vetoed this request - with the support of Dioscorus.

The legates again urged that "the pope's letter" should be read first, but this was overruled; the "acts of the synod" were read, but the reading was calculated to make the earlier synod of Constantinople appear to profess the heresy of Nestorianism, and Eutyches to profess undeniable orthodoxy. Dioscorus' Egyptian followers contributed by cheering the words of Eutyches and voicing anger at the words of Flavian's inquest. Dioscorus then called on the bishops to give their verdict as to the theological statements of Eutyches."

"Dioscorus called in some imperial notaries, who brought forward a draft sentence of deposition against Flavian and Eusebius, on the ground that the Ephesian council had enacted severe penalties against any who should propose an alternate creed to the Nicene. Flavian and Eusebius were declared to have committed this offence by "unsettling almost everything, and causing scandal and confusion throughout the churches."

Onesiphorus, bishop of Iconium, with some others, went up to Dioscorus, clasped his feet and knees, and begged Dioscorus for leniency on behalf of the two bishops, but to no avail. Dioscorus called to the soldiers, and upon their enterance he commanded the bishops to sign the sentence, and with a fierce gesture of the hand threatened those prelates who were reluctant to agree to the deposition with exile, beatings from the soldiers, denounced as heretics by the partisans of Dioscorus, and by the fanatical monks led by Barsumas.

Click to expand...

This part is particularly shocking:

Flavian had sent by the Roman delegates a formal appeal to the pope [Leo the Great] and the Western bishops, but this was nearly his last act. He was brutally treated, kicked, and beaten by the agents of Dioscorus, and even, we are told, by Dioscorus himself (see Evagr. i. 1; Niceph. xiv. 47). He was then imprisoned, and sentenced to be exiled, but died from the effect of his injuries three days after his deposition (Liberatus, Brev. 19), on August 11, 449.

Click to expand...

The problem of Monophysitism was solved only in 451, when Emperors Ss. Marcion and Pulcheria convened the Fourth Ecumenical Council by request of the patriarchs St. Anatolius of Constantinople, St. Juvenal of Jerusalem and St. Leo of Rome.


Was it really just semantics?
Non-Chalcedonians, however, claim that they were never Monophysite and have always been Orthodox, and this whole thing is just a matter of semantics. This argument, however, has surfaced only a few years ago, (sponsored mainly by the WCC), has never been supported by any serious Church Historian, is seriously flawed and comes very close to blasphemy.

To quote Orthodox Tradition Magazine:

Anyone who believes that the Orthodox Fathers were wrong in condemning the Monophysites, and that the Copts have always been Orthodox, is guilty of blasphemy against the Church Fathers and the Ecumenical Synod at Chalcedon, which condemned the Monophysite heresy. He is also guilty of heresy, in that such a proposition presupposes not only that the Fathers of the Church were in error and that this error entered into the conscience of the Church, but that the Orthodox Church has for centuries been "divided" between the two "families" of right-believing Orthodox and the supposedly "right-believing" Copts. Moreover, such a view presumes that our Orthodox Fathers, ignorant of the truth, "divided" the Church over semantics and over word games.

There are even some conservative Orthodox, insufficiently familiar with the primary historical materials and following Western historiographical views of the events surrounding the Council of Chacedon (which have often shown, as Father Florovsky has observed, sympathies both for Monophysitism and the Nestorian heresy which provoked it), who imagine that misinterpretation, misunderstanding, and intransigence are the sources of the Chalcedonian schism. This mimicking of Western scholarship, however popular, breeds an un-Orthodox approach to the Christological debate between the Orthodox and heterodox parties. The Orthodox party was staunchly defending the truth, the non-Orthodox party staunchly defending a false view of Christ. While "objective" historians may thus attribute to the two sides in this debate "intransigence," it is obviously not consistent with Orthodox piety to accuse those who defend the truth of intransigence. It is heresy, a resistance to the truth, which actually has its roots in, and which is defined by, intransigence.

What, too, can we say of the Monophysite Churchmen and theologians who condemned our Orthodox Fathers as heretics and who are today revered by the Copts? Are we to praise and honor them along with the Monophysite "Saints" whose intercession the Copts invoke? Are we to commemorate together the memories of Churchmen who stood diametrically opposed to one another and pretend that such commemorations are consistent with the "one mind" of the Apostolic Church? And must we now reject the counsel of the great Abba Euthymios, who warned St. Gerasimos of the Jordan against the Monophysite heresy, bringing the latter to bitter tears for his former errors?

Theologians and Churchmen who do not read the Fathers, who do not lead spiritual lives, and who see the union of men as something more important than our union with God in the unity of Faith have no business conducting dialogues between the Orthodox and the Copts. They are not acting in a spiritual way, and the results which they achieve will not be spiritual. They are too weak to speak the truth and to lead the Copts, as they must be led, back to the Church in humble submission.

We deeply respect and admire Coptic piety. Many Copts far exceed Orthodox in their dedication to God and fidelity to their faith. But our respect must not impede us from telling them the truth, bringing them into the Church properly, and offering them bread, rather than the stone of cheap ecumenical politics. Spiritual men pine for unity in the truth. Politicians seek to exalt themselves by great feats of human prowess. Those spiritual men who have been misled by their understandable enthusiasm for Church unity should reflect seriously on who is leading them into this false unity and what their motives are. When the Copts, too, reflect on this, we will undoubtedly see a cooling in what is now unfounded enthusiasm. And as the Copts grow in their desire to return to Orthodoxy, they will themselves wish to do so in an orderly way and not through the back door which has been opened to them by politicians and spiritually irresponsible clergymen.

From Orthodox Tradition, VOL. IX, NO. 1, pp. 8-10.

Click to expand...

By the Way, the Nestorian Assyrian Christians also claim that Nestorius was injustly condemned in the 3rd Ecumenical Council over a "matter of semantics".

See how dangerous this argument can be? If we say the Fathers of Chalcedon were wrong... what about the fathers of Ephesus and Nicea?

Saint Cyril's use of the term "one nature"
Nowadays, many monophyste apologists cling to the argument that St. Cyril had used the term "one nature incarnate". This is only partially true.

The sentence "one nature incarnate " used by St. Cyrill was an apollinarian forgery falsely aributed to St. Athanasius. For instance:

In other words, the Christ as Apollinaris conceived him is a single organism - "one composite nature" [3] - in which "the earthly body is knit together with the Godhead" ...

from Williston Walker et al, A history of the Christian Church, p. 164

Note [3] -> Apollinarius, Fragment 111, in Lietzman, H., Apollinaris von Laodicea und sine Schule (Tübingen, 1904).

Click to expand...

The effect of this language [i.e. John 1:14 and Philippians 2:6-11] , Cyril thought, could be summed up nicely in the expression "one incarnate nature of the divine Logos" - a phrase he found in a work attributed to Athanasius but which in fact (though he was not aware of it) had been written by Apollinaris.

from Walker, Williston et al, A history of the Christian Church, p. 167

Click to expand...

Thus, the clearest and most succint epitome of Cyril's doctrine is the famous formula which he took over (in the sincere but mistaken belief that it had the authority of the great Athanasius behind it) from certain treatises of Apollinarian provenance, "one nature, and that incarnate, of the divine Word".

from Kelly, J.N.D., Early Christian Doctrines, p. 319

Click to expand...

St. Cyrill knew this sentence had its problems. That's why he composed the Tome of Agreement with John of Antioch. This document was a perfect synthesis of Alexandrian and Antiochian schools of theology:

With regard to the Evangelical and Apostolic expressions concerning the Lord, we know that men who are skilled in theology make some of them common to the one Person, while they divide others between the two Natures, ascribing those that are fitting to God to Divinity of Christ, and those that are lowly to His Humanity. On reading these sacred utterances of Yours, and finding that we ourselves think along the same lines—for there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism—, we glorified God the Saviour of all.

from Karmiris, John. Dogmatic and Creedal Statements of the Orthodox Church, Vol. 1 [Athens:1960]. p. 154. emphasis mine

Click to expand...

In following St. Cyril's arguments as presented in the Tome of Agreement, the Fifth Ecumenical Council (533) stated:

Though anathema 13 gave formal approval to the Twelve Chapters of Cyril against Nestorius, anathema 8 specified that if one should use the Cyrillian formula "one nature incarnated," the word "nature" would stand for hypostasis.

Meyendorff, Fr. John, Byzantine Theology, p; 35

Click to expand...

Are they still Monophysites?
Not anymore - at least not Eutychian monophysites. It is important to notice, however, that since they left the Church, the Non-chalcedonians have never been a cohesive group. From the 5th to the 9th centuries they have been divided in several "factions", many of which quarelled amongst themselves: the Eutychianists, the neo-Appollinarians (aka, the Cyrilians), the Julianists, the Acephaloi, the Tritheists and the Severianists, to mention just a few. The only thing these groups had in common was their denial of Our Lord's two natures.

However, during the 9th-10th centuries, two Coptic popes, Sanutius (also caled Khail) II (849-851) and Menos II (956-974), developed the doctrine of Miaphysitism, currently professed by all Non-Chalcedonians. Their theology has been much more homogenous since them.

This doctrine is much closer to the Orthodox Christological definition, but it is not exactly the same. Not to mention that it has led to some serious errors, such as the of current Coptic Pope, Shenouda III, being a stauch supporter of Monothelitism, a heresy condemned in the 6th Ecumenical Council:

Pope Shenouda III said:

Has the Lord Christ two wills and two actions, that is a Divine will and a human will, as well as two actions, that is, a divine act and a human act? As we believe in the OneNature of the Incarnate Logos, as St. Cyril the Great called it, likewise: We believe in One Will and One Act.

Click to expand...

The quote above is from the essay "The Nature of Christ" written by Pope Shenuda III and which can be downloaded at http://www.saintmark.com

Besides, as Miaphysism merges Our Lord's human and divine natures into one single, composite nature, it creates a tertium quid, very similar to that preached by Apollinarius in the 4th century.

So, are they Orthodox?
Although they may call themselves "Oriental Orthodox", they are not Orthodox. Sure, they are (relatively speaking) much closer to us than Roman Catholics, for instance, but only when and if the Non-Chalcedonians accept the fullness of Faith of all Ecumenical Councils they can be considered Orthodox. And yes, the Councils do matter.

Not to mention that the moniker "Oriental Orthodox" is unacceptable for many reasons:

First, was invented by the World Council of Churches in the early 1990's, to try to diminish the serious differences between Orthdox and Non-Chalcedonians and pave the way for a false "reunion". This fact alone is reason enough to reject it.

As I said before, their Christology is closer to ours, but that doesn't make them Orthodox - Anglicans, Roman Catholics and Lutherans follow the Chalcedonian definitions but are not considered "Orthodox" either.

Second, this term advocates that the Orthodox Church is divided in two families or branches - "Eastern" and "Oriental". A modern ecclesiological heresy known as the "Branch Theory" and rejected by every Orthodox theologian I've known so far - see, for instance, the Basic Principles of the Attitude of the Russian Orthodox Church Toward the Other Christian Confessions, especially item 2.

Not to mention this is gramatically wrong - as you can see in any good dictionary, Eastern and Oriental are synonyms.

You can read more about this subject here, in Fr. George Florovsky's (+1979) book The Church Fathers of the 5th Century:

Chapter 15 - The Road to Chalcedon
Chapter 16 - The Council of Chalcedon (especially the section The Chalcedonian Oros)

And also these articles make good reading.

Rick

Dear friends,

I gently ask you to not post anything here yet, because this thread is a work in progress.

I will post further information here over the course of the next few days - most probably weeks. If you wish to make any comments or suggestions, please PM me. I'll be glad to answer (it may take some time, though).

Thanks for your comprehension,

Rick