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.
Severus of Antioch's Christology is orthodox. In fact he even anticipates dyotheletism.
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.
Right, he was condemned on the basis of misunderstandings and strawman arguments.
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.
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.
Where?
the modern non-Chalcedonians are not Monophysites.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You will find Severus routinely referred to as a monophysite in Byzantine Orthodox literature.yes, but not because of Monophysitism.
and again, that's not all St Cyril says.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?