Effects of the Filioque?

[ArmyMatt]

Nah, the controversy had nothing to do Copts thinking the Latins meant "hypostasis" by the term "substance," proper theological translation from Latin and Greek was worked out long before.

actually, that is not entirely correct. it was a group of monastics under St Leo who questioned his tome for that very reason. that is why Chalcedon began with Cyril and Leo was vetted against him first. only after they realized Leo and Cyril were speaking the same language did they accept the Tome.

And still does among the Oriental Orthodox, as it did with Severus. This is why they rejected Chalcedon.

and we don't reject that understanding and that is not why Severus was anathematized.

Yes, I know, but that substance was not an appropriate translation of hypostasis--despite being a literal translation in prefix and suffix--was settled in Athanasius's time. It was controversial then precisely because Latins were objecting to saying God is three hypostases, but that was all worked out and it was agreed person and subsistence are the equivalent Latin terms when it comes to meaning, whereas substance would mean something closer to ousia (which would be more literally "essence" in Latin). Athanasius himself was the one who ironed out the dispute (which came close to causing a schism between the Latins and the Greeks).

No, but there was an official Latin translation of the Creed long before Chalcedon, and substance was used for ousia in it.

see two posts above. plus, even after Chalcedon Leo wrote a lot to prevent a schism knowing that language was part of the issue.

That hardly changes the fact that your drawing of an ontological distinction between nature and hypostasis comes 100% from the Paris School, and is totally foreign to the Cappadocian Fathers (as was well known to the Paris School).

if it did, Met Heirotheos Vlachos, who called out heresies of the Paris school, would not have made the distinction either. the distinction between person and nature did not originate there. Cyril makes it in his writings to Theodoret of Cyrrhus. and the Cappadocians do when they fought the Eunomians.

Yes, that's right, the Copts use nature and hypostasis interchangeably. So when they're using "nature" that way, and say Christ's nature is both human and divine, it means they are saying his hypostasis is.

which, again, is why I agree we don't reject the One Nature of the Word of God Incarnate formula.

I think you are conflating someone's person with their logos. A human person, being an image of God and a reflection of their logos, is a holy mystery, but holy mysteries aren't inaccessible per se, they just can only be grasped in firsthand spiritual experience as opposed to rationcination, and in fact can even be overtly dissonant with the latter.

which is why I brought up energy, operation, action etc all of which make the unknown, known and known fully in energy, operation, action, etc. and again, this is not from me. Palamas makes this argument.

So you agree that a hypostasis is nothing more than a composite of these elements animated by God? And that hypostasis is not a something distinct from that?

no, you can make the distinction. I can say "I hurt," or "I am pained in my soul." in neither case am I dividing my soul from my body or person, because that is impossible, because I am me and only me. just because you can make a theological distinction, does not mean that you can separate of divide between any category. if hypostasis was simply a composition of soul and body, then you could make the argument (and I am not saying you are) that Nestorius was correct, because Christ had a human soul and body created at the annunciation, which would mean a hypostasis created then, which is Nestorian.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

actually, that is not entirely correct. it was a group of monastics under St Leo who questioned his tome for that very reason. that is why Chalcedon began with Cyril and Leo was vetted against him first. only after they realized Leo and Cyril were speaking the same language did they accept the Tome.

It's entirely true that Severus's objections to the Tome have zero to do with translation of the Latin term substance.

if it did, Met Heirotheos Vlachos, who called out heresies of the Paris school, would not have made the distinction either. the distinction between person and nature did not originate there. Cyril makes it in his writings to Theodoret of Cyrrhus. and the Cappadocians do when they fought the Eunomians.

The ontological distinction absolutely originates there, and it is absolutely radically different from that Cappadocian understanding. Meyendorff is 100% correct in saying that the Cappadocian understanding cannot accommodate Christ's nature as ontologically distinct from his hypostasis. After all, what do you think Saint Cyril meant when he said Christ's hypostatic union is a union (one) from two hypostases?

which, again, is why I agree we don't reject the One Nature of the Word of God Incarnate formula.

Which means we should have communion with the Copts, since we don't reject their formula.

which is why I brought up energy, operation, action etc all of which make the unknown, known and known fully in energy, operation, action, etc. and again, this is not from me. Palamas makes this argument.

I do not believe Palamas says humans cannot see, touch or know each other's persons, but only each other's energies.

no, you can make the distinction. I can say "I hurt," or "I am pained in my soul." in neither case am I dividing my soul from my body or person, because that is impossible, because I am me and only me.

You see, here you are comparing the soul-body distinction to nature and hypostasis, which is absolutely not Patristic. Rather the Fathers would say things like the soul and the body are each natures, but we say one nature for their union, or they are each hypostases, but we say one hypostasis in their union.

just because you can make a theological distinction, does not mean that you can separate of divide between any category. if hypostasis was simply a composition of soul and body, then you could make the argument (and I am not saying you are) that Nestorius was correct, because Christ had a human soul and body created at the annunciation, which would mean a hypostasis created then, which is Nestorian.

A hypostasis was created in the sense that all the components of a human hypostasis were brought into existence, but the important thing to remember is that that existence was not distinct from the Word. Nestorius would be correct if the components of Christ's human hypostasis had their own hypostasis rather than the Word's, but they didn't, they were attached to the Word's hypostasis, they are an enhypostaton, a component of a hypostasis--just like body and soul and mind, and so on; they never were hypostastically distinct from the Word, but were hypostatically one with the Word from the get go.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It's entirely true that Severus's objections to the Tome have zero to do with translation of the Latin term substance.

Severus was not the only player there. there were multiple groups that rejected Chalcedon. Severus was just the closest to us. we are not only talking about Severus' objections.

The ontological distinction absolutely originates there, and it is absolutely radically different from that Cappadocian understanding. Meyendorff is 100% correct in saying that the Cappadocian understanding cannot accommodate Christ's nature as ontologically distinct from his hypostasis. After all, what do you think Saint Cyril meant when he said Christ's hypostatic union is a union (one) from two hypostases?

hence me also saying that the distinction that is made is not an actual division or separation of the hypostasis from the nature. and I know Cyril used flexible language. he also used very Antiochian language and clearly made the distinction (again, not division) between the natures or Person in Christ. and the distinction I am making, as I have said, is a theoretical one. not an ontological one.

Which means we should have communion with the Copts, since we don't reject their formula.

no, because we also say that if you do not say that Chalcedon is one in faith with Ephesus, you are anathema. so until they accept Chalcedon and all subsequent councils, we cannot have communion with them. any more than we can with an Old Calendarist.

I do not believe Palamas says humans cannot see, touch or know each other's persons, but only each other's energies.

it's because, again, any distinction is only made in thought, and not in reality. communing with the energy, action, operation, etc, communes one with the person.

You see, here you are comparing the soul-body distinction to nature and hypostasis, which is absolutely not Patristic. Rather the Fathers would say things like the soul and the body are each natures, but we say one nature for their union, or they are each hypostases, but we say one hypostasis in their union.

no, I am not. I am actually just showing how a distinction can be made in thought and not in reality. it was just an example that came, I was not trying to be Patristic or say this is an analogy to nature or hypostasis distinction.

A hypostasis was created in the sense that all the components of a human hypostasis were brought into existence, but the important thing to remember is that that existence was not distinct from the Word. Nestorius would be correct if the components of Christ's human hypostasis had their own hypostasis rather than the Word's, but they didn't, they were attached to the Word's hypostasis, they are an enhypostaton, a component of a hypostasis--just like body and soul and mind, and so on; they never were hypostastically distinct from the Word, but were hypostatically one with the Word from the get go.

right, the only hypostasis in Christ is that of the Word, and not a human hypostasis. no human hypostasis, but the Divine hypostasis that took on human nature. no human hypostasis in Christ, but the Divine hypostasis Who hypostatically unites human nature to Himself and makes it His own.

 

[AMM]

I have a very basic (in theory) question based on reading all of this - which is a fascinating discussion, by the way.

Are essence and nature synonymous? Or do/should we distinguish them?

 

[ArmyMatt]

I have a very basic (in theory) question based on reading all of this - which is a fascinating discussion, by the way.

Are essence and nature synonymous? Or do/should we distinguish them?

yes, they are synonyms. the dicey part is the word physis, which can mean nature or person

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Severus was not the only player there. there were multiple groups that rejected Chalcedon. Severus was just the closest to us. we are not only talking about Severus' objections.

As far as the Oriental Orthodox of today go, it's pretty much just about his objections.

no, because we also say that if you do not say that Chalcedon is one in faith with Ephesus, you are anathema. so until they accept Chalcedon and all subsequent councils, we cannot have communion with them. any more than we can with an Old Calendarist.

Hardly comparable on three counts.

1. Autocephalous churches can and many do reject the new calendar, there is nothing wrong with that. The Copts pretty much rejected Chalcedon as an autocephalous church, not as individuals.

2. Chalcedon did not make clear that the distinction between nature and hypostasis is purely theoretical, not ontological. That much is quite clear since Severus himself says a formula making a purely theoretical distinction of two natures is quite acceptable.

3. The Copts today are increasingly and even close to officially seeing Chalcedon, as we understand it, is indeed the same faith as Ephesus, and only reject the use of the formula for themselves, having no objection to our using it.

right, the only hypostasis in Christ is that of the Word, and not a human hypostasis. no human hypostasis, but the Divine hypostasis that took on human nature. no human hypostasis in Christ, but the Divine hypostasis Who hypostatically unites human nature to Himself and makes it His own.

I can't see any difference between saying Christ has a divine/human hypostasis, and saying Christ has only a divine hypostasis which also has all things a human hypostasis has. As you said, the distinction between Christ's natures, and his hypostasis, is only theoretical, in actuality they are the same. If you prefer to phrase it that way, I don't have any problem with that, I only object to the ontological distinction between nature and hypostasis, which the Paris School absolutely endorsed and what lead to the extreme stress of contrast between Christ's solely divine hypostasis and divine/human nature.

 

[ArmyMatt]

As far as the Oriental Orthodox of today go, it's pretty much just about his objections.

except that it's not. from our POV it is not about his objections. most of what St Justinian affirmed at the 5th Council was from Severus. so, they might say that, but it is not true.

1. Autocephalous churches can and many do reject the new calendar, there is nothing wrong with that. The Copts pretty much rejected Chalcedon as an autocephalous church, not as individuals.

none of the Old Calendar Churches that are canonical have anathematized those on the New or vice versa. plus they did not reject it as an Autocephalus Church, since there has been a Chalcedonian line since the break as well. parts of the Copts rejected it, but not in full.

2. Chalcedon did not make clear that the distinction between nature and hypostasis is purely theoretical, not ontological. That much is quite clear since Severus himself says a formula making a purely theoretical distinction of two natures is quite acceptable.

does not matter. the heresy was against Eutyches. it did not make the distinction because they used strong Antiochian language to fight a different heresy. plus Chalcedon began with the writings of St Cyril. it was not the 4th that anathematized those who did not accept Chalcedon, it was the 5th which affirmed the theoretical distinction and much of Severus' theology. so that should have healed the issue if that were the case.

3. The Copts today are increasingly and even close to officially seeing Chalcedon, as we understand it, is indeed the same faith as Ephesus, and only reject the use of the formula for themselves, having no objection to our using it.

I agree. the history of the dialogue has been them seeing our view did not violate Ephesus. however, there is no such thing as an Ecumenical Council for only part of the Church. you cannot have part of the Church say Chalcedon is in error, part say it much be believed. now, according to St Leo, the Orientals do not need to change their Liturgy or worship or whatever in accepting Chalcedon. simply accepting the Councils that followed Ephesus does not mean they would need to change that much (St Nektarios shows us this one). and this is the hope I have for reunion.

I can't see any difference between saying Christ has a divine/human hypostasis, and saying Christ has only a divine hypostasis which also has all things a human hypostasis has. As you said, the distinction between Christ's natures, and his hypostasis, is only theoretical, in actuality they are the same. If you prefer to phrase it that way, I don't have any problem with that, I only object to the ontological distinction between nature and hypostasis, which the Paris School absolutely endorsed and what lead to the extreme stress of contrast between Christ's solely divine hypostasis and divine/human nature.

it's because people have said the former (EO and OO alike), but you are the only one I have ever heard who has said the latter. while it is only a theoretical distinction, it is the distinction we have been given. especially in light of the Eunomian controversy which equated the Person and Nature to the extent that unoriginate was the Nature of the Father, only-begotten was the Nature of the Son, and procession was the Nature of the Spirit. I agree that we cannot delve into ANY extreme, especially when talking about God.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

except that it's not. from our POV it is not about his objections. most of what St Justinian affirmed at the 5th Council was from Severus. so, they might say that, but it is not true.

It is pretty true. I'm sure there were many other factions in their camp at one time, but then there were in ours as well, including crypto-Nestorians. Nonetheless it would not really be fair for our opinions to be represented by crypto-Nestorians, since their interpretation of the fourth council was rooted out with the fifth (which had TREMENDOUS resistance as you well know, including from the Pope, which proves were were not a uniform side). I'm not going to associate Copts with those they disavow or don't use to represent them.

none of the Old Calendar Churches that are canonical have anathematized those on the New or vice versa.

That's correct, and if they did, that would have been wrong and should be corrected, although not necessarily by forcing them to adapt the New Calendar.

plus they did not reject it as an Autocephalus Church, since there has been a Chalcedonian line since the break as well. parts of the Copts rejected it, but not in full.

They had the overwhelming majority of clergy and laity. True, they weren't unanimous, but that's not really enough to invalidate their decision.

does not matter.

It really does, since crypto-Nestorianism was rampant then, and there WAS INDEED a crypto-Nestorian reading of the Fourth Council, that is precisely why the Fifth was required, to address that.

the heresy was against Eutyches. it did not make the distinction because they used strong Antiochian language to fight a different heresy. plus Chalcedon began with the writings of St Cyril. it was not the 4th that anathematized those who did not accept Chalcedon, it was the 5th which affirmed the theoretical distinction and much of Severus' theology. so that should have healed the issue if that were the case.

I agree it should have healed the issue, but apparently we still considered Severus Eutychian back then (judging from John Damascene's depiction of him), and a lot still understood the Copts as such as well. If we agreed the Copts could keep their formula, and we would keep ours, and that we should both lift the anathemas, I think the schism would have ended were not it for the fact that there were fanatics and liars on both sides who probably would have misrepresented the agreement. These sorts are still the major hurdle.

you cannot have part of the Church say Chalcedon is in error, part say it much be believed.

That's true, but increasingly they aren't saying it's in error, just that they won't personally use the formula, but that the formula is quite acceptable for use as understood through our theology.

it's because people have said the former (EO and OO alike), but you are the only one I have ever heard who has said the latter. while it is only a theoretical distinction, it is the distinction we have been given. especially in light of the Eunomian controversy which equated the Person and Nature to the extent that unoriginate was the Nature of the Father, only-begotten was the Nature of the Son, and procession was the Nature of the Spirit. I agree that we cannot delve into ANY extreme, especially when talking about God.

The former is what I have been saying....

 

[ArmyMatt]

It is pretty true. I'm sure there were many other factions in their camp at one time, but then there were in ours as well, including crypto-Nestorians. Nonetheless it would not really be fair for our opinions to be represented by crypto-Nestorians, since their interpretation of the fourth council was rooted out with the fifth (which had TREMENDOUS resistance as you well know, including from the Pope, which proves were were not a uniform side). I'm not going to associate Copts with those they disavow or don't use to represent them.

I agree, that is why I have not called them monophysites or eutychian, because they also have anathematized that theology. and that was not what got Severus in trouble.

They had the overwhelming majority of clergy and laity. True, they weren't unanimous, but that's not really enough to invalidate their decision.

the point was that an autocephalous Church did not reject the council. a large portion to be sure, but not the whole Church.

It really does, since crypto-Nestorianism was rampant then, and there WAS INDEED a crypto-Nestorian reading of the Fourth Council, that is precisely why the Fifth was required, to address that.

well, I would not say need, since Chalcedon began by affirming Ephesus and St Cyril and condemning Nestorius. also St Leo was St Celestine's deacon who supported Ephesus and commissioned St John Cassian to write an apology against Nestorius. but yes, it certainly helped.

I agree it should have healed the issue, but apparently we still considered Severus Eutychian back then (judging from John Damascene's depiction of him), and a lot still understood the Copts as such as well. If we agreed the Copts could keep their formula, and we would keep ours, and that we should both lift the anathemas, I think the schism would have ended were not it for the fact that there were fanatics and liars on both sides who probably would have misrepresented the agreement. These sorts are still the major hurdle.

I agree with all points aside from the anathema. Severus is certainly a heretic and the council was not wrong to condemn him. he just was not a monophysite condemned at Chalcedon. we agree that the Copts can keep their formula, since it is our formula as well and we have never rejected it.

That's true, but increasingly they aren't saying it's in error, just that they won't personally use the formula, but that the formula is quite acceptable for use as understood through our theology.

which is great, and may that continue. but the acceptance of Chalcedon must happen first.

The former is what I have been saying....

right, hence me having an issue only with the latter.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

the point was that an autocephalous Church did not reject the council. a large portion to be sure, but not the whole Church.

Unanimity of clergy and laity is not required for an autocephalous church to make a decision.

well, I would not say need, since Chalcedon began by affirming Ephesus and St Cyril and condemning Nestorius.

The Bishop of Rome and a sizable faction were still supporters of Theodore of Mopsuestia's Christology, and saw Chalcedon as an affirmation of it. So as clear as the Council might be to us now, it's obvious that back then there was a major faction in the Church which read it inappropriately, and even saw the Fifth Ecumenical Council as perverting it.

I agree with all points aside from the anathema. Severus is certainly a heretic and the council was not wrong to condemn him. he just was not a monophysite condemned at Chalcedon. we agree that the Copts can keep their formula, since it is our formula as well and we have never rejected it.

Severus did some objectionable things no doubt in that he contributed massively to the schism, but I don't see how his Christology is heretical.

which is great, and may that continue. but the acceptance of Chalcedon must happen first.

If you mean cease to object to it for application to us, that's quite close to happening, although they'll never accept the formula for their own use or the council as an authoritative demand for that (which many certainly understood it as).

 

[ArmyMatt]

Unanimity of clergy and laity is not required for an autocephalous church to make a decision.

I never said it was, I simply stated that an autocephalous Church did not reject Chalcedon. what invalidates their decision is that Chalcedon is true.

The Bishop of Rome and a sizable faction were still supporters of Theodore of Mopsuestia's Christology, and saw Chalcedon as an affirmation of it. So as clear as the Council might be to us now, it's obvious that back then there was a major faction in the Church which read it inappropriately, and even saw the Fifth Ecumenical Council as perverting it.

yeah, folks read stuff wrongly all the time. and there were factions then just like there were multiple factions after Nicaea. the point is that the Council did not need a subsequent council to prove it was not Nestorian, since it affirmed St Cyril and Ephesus, condemned Nestorius as a heretic, and it's champion was a guy that had St Cyril's back during the previous controversy. it certainly helped clarify things, but that was not a need of the Church.

Severus did some objectionable things no doubt in that he contributed massively to the schism, but I don't see how his Christology is heretical.

certainly not a monophysite or monothelite, but he did espouse monoengergism. which is a heresy as well. this is one of the reasons why many of the OO think the 6th Council is far worse than the 4th, and there were agreements of reunion and they could accept Chalcedon if we accepted that Christ has one will or operation. which of course, we cannot do. he was certainly not an extreme heretic like Eutyches, but the Church was right to condemn him. the Church does not make those mistakes.

If you mean cease to object to it for application to us, that's quite close to happening, although they'll never accept the formula for their own use or the council as an authoritative demand for that (which many certainly understood it as).

that's where they would have to. I certainly don't think they would need to be all about it and add it to their calendar, but they would have to accept it as true and Orthodox in theology. because if they commune with us and us with them, we are affirming that were are one in doctrine and faith. even St Leo told them in writing that they do not have to use his formula, only that his was to fight against Eutyches, and that if they are one in faith with Anathanasius, Theophilus, and Cyril, they are one in faith with him. so I don't think they would need a Feast to commemorate Chalcedon, they would just need to remove anything that denied its Orthodoxy.

if they formally accept it as Orthodox, just being in communion with us at that time is enough to rubber stamp that we truly are one in faith.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I never said it was, I simply stated that an autocephalous Church did not reject Chalcedon. what invalidates their decision is that Chalcedon is true.

Chalcedon is true according to how the Orthodox understand it. The understanding of it through the Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia is absolutely untrue, and that was a very, very prominent understanding at the time in both the West and the East. If the Coptic church understood it in that sense, they were wrong, but their error is not one of willful misinterpretation, but one of thinking it meant what their local opponents said it meant, who understood it as triumph of Theodore of Mopsuestia's Christology. In that light, I don't consider their mistake to be blameworthy, and indeed if that were what Chalcedon meant they would have been 100% correct to reject it.

yeah, folks read stuff wrongly all the time. and there were factions then just like there were multiple factions after Nicaea. the point is that the Council did not need a subsequent council to prove it was not Nestorian, since it affirmed St Cyril and Ephesus, condemned Nestorius as a heretic, and it's champion was a guy that had St Cyril's back during the previous controversy. it certainly helped clarify things, but that was not a need of the Church.

No, it really was, because crypto-Nestorians don't identify as Nestorians or consider themselves a follow of Nestorius. They are rather defined by Theodore of Mopsuestia's Christology and a rejection of Theopaschism. Whereas Nestorianism was focused on rejecting God's birth, crypto-Nestorianism was focused on rejecting God's death.

certainly not a monophysite or monothelite, but he did espouse monoengergism.

Not in the sense of saying there were not human energies present in Christ, but in the sense of saying his divine and human energies are a unity. The monoergism condemned at the 6th was the sort which said Christ lacks human energies.

that's where they would have to. I certainly don't think they would need to be all about it and add it to their calendar, but they would have to accept it as true and Orthodox in theology. because if they commune with us and us with them, we are affirming that were are one in doctrine and faith. even St Leo told them in writing that they do not have to use his formula, only that his was to fight against Eutyches, and that if they are one in faith with Anathanasius, Theophilus, and Cyril, they are one in faith with him. so I don't think they would need a Feast to commemorate Chalcedon, they would just need to remove anything that denied its Orthodoxy.

I'm sure they're willing to do that when we cease denying Severus's Orthodoxy.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Chalcedon is true according to how the Orthodox understand it. The understanding of it through the Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia is absolutely untrue, and that was a very, very prominent understanding at the time in both the West and the East. If the Coptic church understood it in that sense, they were wrong, but their error is not one of willful misinterpretation, but one of thinking it meant what their local opponents said it meant, who understood it as triumph of Theodore of Mopsuestia's Christology. In that light, I don't consider their mistake to be blameworthy, and indeed if that were what Chalcedon meant they would have been 100% correct to reject it.

except looking at the council, the understanding is through Ephesus. and if that was the understanding or how they perceived it, it would have been healed at Constantinople 2, where he is clearly and rightly condemned.

No, it really was, because crypto-Nestorians don't identify as Nestorians or consider themselves a follow of Nestorius. They are rather defined by Theodore of Mopsuestia's Christology and a rejection of Theopaschism. Whereas Nestorianism was focused on rejecting God's birth, crypto-Nestorianism was focused on rejecting God's death.

except that the champions of Chalcedon were not solely defined by crypto-Nestorianism, Theodore, or a rejection of Theopaschitism.

and Chalcedon does not contradict the rejection of crypto-Nestorianism or Theodore, or the acceptance of the Theopaschite formula.

Not in the sense of saying there were not human energies present in Christ, but in the sense of saying his divine and human energies are a unity. The monoergism condemned at the 6th was the sort which said Christ lacks human energies.

as one who has sat in on many a class listening to what Severus wrote, he did not only say that there are human and divine energies in unity. if that is what he said, they would have accepted the 6th council because that is what the 6th says, and instead that was the council that prevented them from accepting Chalcedon. many were ready to accept Chalcedon if we would have accepted one will or one energy. and to this day, many of their theologians say the 6th is far worse than the 4th, and the 4th would not be a problem because of the 5th, but the 6th is the worst.

I'm sure they're willing to do that when we cease denying Severus's Orthodoxy.

our Ecumenical Councils, hymns for the feast of the 7 Ecumenical councils, the writings of our own saints at the time, and canons for receiving the non-Chalcedonians into the Church deny his Orthodoxy and rightly call him a heretic.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

except that the champions of Chalcedon were not solely defined by crypto-Nestorianism, Theodore, or a rejection of Theopaschitism.

That's correct, but they were a very sizable and powerful faction who participated in the council. Looking at that, it's not reasonable to blame the Copts for seeing it that way.

as one who has sat in on many a class listening to what Severus wrote, he did not only say that there are human and divine energies in unity. if that is what he said, they would have accepted the 6th council because that is what the 6th says, and instead that was the council that prevented them from accepting Chalcedon. many were ready to accept Chalcedon if we would have accepted one will or one energy. and to this day, many of their theologians say the 6th is far worse than the 4th, and the 4th would not be a problem because of the 5th, but the 6th is the worst.

They reject the 6th for the same reason they rejected the 4th, because they disagreed with the formula, not because they denied Christ's humanity in either respect. The Oriental Orthodox describe synergy as one energy (as in your energy having unity with God's).

our Ecumenical Councils, hymns for the feast of the 7 Ecumenical councils, the writings of our own saints at the time, and canons for receiving the non-Chalcedonians into the Church deny his Orthodoxy and rightly call him a heretic.

Yes, but he's condemned in the hymns based on being a member of the "headless" (those who rejected the authority of Pope Peter III of Alexandria, who actually used the one nature formula, only he wanted to be reconciled with the Chalcedonians). So we have to admit his is a ecclesiastical issue, not one of Christology as such. We must also remember that such an anathema is canonical, not dogma; it can be repealed, and I would argue that if the canonical schism between the OO and EO were healed in the process, it would be sufficient grounds for the Church to rescind the anathema against Severus.

 

[ArmyMatt]

That's correct, but they were a very sizable and powerful faction who participated in the council. Looking at that, it's not reasonable to blame the Copts for seeing it that way.

yeah you can blame them because it would make sense for them to reject the extreme diaphysites (not us), but not the Cyrillian Chalcedonians (us).

They reject the 6th for the same reason they rejected the 4th, because they disagreed with the formula, not because they denied Christ's humanity in either respect. The Oriental Orthodox describe synergy as one energy (as in your energy having unity with God's).

and for us, you cannot deny that formula. the Ecumenical Councils are not optional. and, some writings of the time, even in Severus, confuse the operation with the subject, which the 6th says you cannot do.

Yes, but he's condemned in the hymns based on being a member of the "headless" (those who rejected the authority of Pope Peter III of Alexandria, who actually used the one nature formula, only he wanted to be reconciled with the Chalcedonians). So we have to admit his is a ecclesiastical issue, not one of Christology as such. We must also remember that such an anathema is canonical, not dogma; it can be repealed, and I would argue that if the canonical schism between the OO and EO were healed in the process, it would be sufficient grounds for the Church to rescind the anathema against Severus.

not all the hymns. he is also condemned for confusing the Natures, in his case the will and energy. heretics are anathema for heresy, which is dogmatic

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

yeah you can blame them because it would make sense for them to reject the extreme diaphysites (not us), but not the Cyrillian Chalcedonians (us).

A bit tricky to make a ready distinction when both are using the same Christological confession and consider you their enemy more than each other.

and for us, you cannot deny that formula. the Ecumenical Councils are not optional.

No, they are the dictating formulas for us, and I fully accept the formula. But I don't believe Councils rejected by the OO are terminologically binding on them. As Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev points out, "Ecumenical" had a very different meaning in the East than in the West. In the West, it came to mean "universal", whereas in the East it meant more or less the extent of the empire. This caused a major controversy, of course, over the title "Ecumenical Patriarch," which Pope Gregory found extremely objectionable, saying no bishop had the right to call himself universal. Hilarion says with this understanding of Ecumenical, there must still be a complete agreement on doctrinal matters, but canonical and terminological issues are something else. You'll notice that since the end of the Byzantine Empire, we've still had universal, doctrinal councils (like the Synod of Jerusalem), but we ceased to employ the term "Ecumenical" to them. We also do not call the Council of Jerusalem an Ecumenical Council, since it was not summoned by the emperor--but it was a church-wide council.

and, some writings of the time, even in Severus, confuse the operation with the subject, which the 6th says you cannot do.

When it comes to humans, I would say operation is a component of the subject, since operation includes thoughts, feelings, emotions, prayers, etc. With God of course it is different, because he has one operation and three subjects, and when we say "operation" and "subject" in application to God, this is only as analogy, and therefore both mean something fundamentally and completely different in that capacity.

Since Christ is a God-human subject, it's mystical--or messy, depending on how "scientifically" you want to go about describing him, which I think is not so wise just like I think the transubstantiation-science approach of the West is not so wise. We must absolutely agree that Christ is both completely and perfectly human and God, but saying there is a specific way to describe that and all other ways are incorrect is not quite right--there is nothing wrong with promulgating an official description of that, but I think we have to agree that official descriptions are canonical expressions of doctrine, not doctrine as such (unless such descriptions were furnished by Christ and the Apostles), and therefore are open to variation if autocephalous churches reject them.

not all the hymns. he is also condemned for confusing the Natures, in his case the will and energy. heretics are anathema for heresy, which is dogmatic

Which hymns are you referring to?

 

[ArmyMatt]

A bit tricky to make a ready distinction when both are using the same Christological confession and consider you their enemy more than each other.

and the 5th Council and the hymn Only-Begotten Son show we are not the strict diaphysites.

No, they are the dictating formulas for us, and I fully accept the formula. But I don't believe Councils rejected by the OO are terminologically binding on them. As Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev points out, "Ecumenical" had a very different meaning in the East than in the West. In the West, it came to mean "universal", whereas in the East it meant more or less the extent of the empire. This caused a major controversy, of course, over the title "Ecumenical Patriarch," which Pope Gregory found extremely objectionable, saying no bishop had the right to call himself universal. Hilarion says with this understanding of Ecumenical, there must still be a complete agreement on doctrinal matters, but canonical and terminological issues are something else. You'll notice that since the end of the Byzantine Empire, we've still had universal, doctrinal councils (like the Synod of Jerusalem), but we ceased to employ the term "Ecumenical" to them. We also do not call the Council of Jerusalem an Ecumenical Council, since it was not summoned by the emperor--but it was a church-wide council.

no, they would have to formally agree. just like if the Assyrians became Orthodox, they would have to accept Ephesus. I do not mean they would need some massive Feast or anything, but if we agree it is true doctrine, they must openly affirm it as such.

When it comes to humans, I would say operation is a component of the subject, since operation includes thoughts, feelings, emotions, prayers, etc. With God of course it is different, because he has one operation and three subjects, and when we say "operation" and "subject" in application to God, this is only as analogy, and therefore both mean something fundamentally and completely different in that capacity.

Since Christ is a God-human subject, it's mystical--or messy, depending on how "scientifically" you want to go about describing him, which I think is not so wise just like I think the transubstantiation-science approach of the West is not so wise. We must absolutely agree that Christ is both completely and perfectly human and God, but saying there is a specific way to describe that and all other ways are incorrect is not quite right--there is nothing wrong with promulgating an official description of that, but I think we have to agree that official descriptions are canonical expressions of doctrine, not doctrine as such (unless such descriptions were furnished by Christ and the Apostles), and therefore are open to variation if autocephalous churches reject them.

and the 6th Council makes this not messy. operation is not in the subject since Chris has two natural operations.

Which hymns are you referring to?

Feast of the Seven Ecumenical Councils comes to mind off the bat. we put him through the ringer

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

and the 5th Council and the hymn Only-Begotten Son show we are not the strict diaphysites.

A hymn used by the OO and ascribed by them to Severus. Although it could also be by Justinian. If so, it would be interesting that they prominently use a hymn that Justinian penned. Or that we prominently use a hymn Severus penned.

no, they would have to formally agree. just like if the Assyrians became Orthodox, they would have to accept Ephesus. I do not mean they would need some massive Feast or anything, but if we agree it is true doctrine, they must openly affirm it as such.

As I've stated, their acceptance of the council as doctrinally sound is quite plausible, although they will not recognize its proclamation as binding over them in terms of formula.

and the 6th Council makes this not messy. operation is not in the subject since Chris has two natural operations.

It's pretty messy considering total separation of a human's identity his operations (which include all thoughts and feelings and body temperature and so on) is incorrect, whereas with God energy is distinct from subject because subject is three but energy is one.

Feast of the Seven Ecumenical Councils comes to mind off the bat. we put him through the ringer

That is correct, but we also specify his crime as break from ecclesiastical authority there, which is a canonical issue, not heresy as such. A healing of the schism could theoretically be a valid condition for lifting the anathema. It would also of course require that the OO lift their anathema against Pope Leo.

 

[ArmyMatt]

A hymn used by the OO and ascribed by them to Severus. Although it could also be by Justinian. If so, it would be interesting that they prominently use a hymn that Justinian penned. Or that we prominently use a hymn Severus penned.

whether it was penned by Severus and accepted by St Justinian or written by St Justinian does not matter. what it does is prove that we are not the strict diaphysites.

As I've stated, their acceptance of the council as doctrinally sound is quite plausible, although they will not recognize its proclamation as binding over them in terms of formula.

that makes no sense. if they agree it is doctrinally sound, the formulas are binding. they might not use it as much as we would, but that does not mean it is not binding.

It's pretty messy considering total separation of a human's identity his operations (which include all thoughts and feelings and body temperature and so on) is incorrect, whereas with God energy is distinct from subject because subject is three but energy is one.

and the 6th council makes it very clear that in Christ, the subject is One and the energies are two.

That is correct, but we also specify his crime as break from ecclesiastical authority there, which is a canonical issue, not heresy as such. A healing of the schism could theoretically be a valid condition for lifting the anathema. It would also of course require that the OO lift their anathema against Pope Leo.

no because it was not simply that he broke from the canonical Church, but promoted heresy and is a heretic. the anathema is not wrong on Severus.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

that makes no sense. if they agree it is doctrinally sound, the formulas are binding. they might not use it as much as we would, but that does not mean it is not binding.

That would rest upon the idea that doctrine and formula are the same, which they aren't. Formula develops, doctrine doesn't, and the latter can be expressed in some cases with multiple, different formulas.

no because it was not simply that he broke from the canonical Church, but promoted heresy and is a heretic. the anathema is not wrong on Severus.

I never said the anathema was "wrong" only that it can be repealed. It is quite valid to anathematize someone for being a schismatic. As for promoting a heresy, the epithets applied to him in the liturgy are about schism rather than heresy as such. I do not think saying Christ has a united human-divine energy is heretical, I just think it is not our formula. Saying Christ has no human energy is certainly heretical, but Severus did not maintain that.