Overcoming gridlock between EOs and OOs over Chalcedon's Formula

[Sirlanky]

Ok, I understand. So for your OO friends, the first question is why should OOs refuse to accept Chalcedon's main creed, if "in two natures" is acceptable? There have been cases where EO churches do not accept every canon in every council but still accept a Council anyway by accepting its creed. OOs who accept "in two natures" could do the same thing. Like the issue of affirming every canon, I consider the issue of anathemas to be secondary to a council's main creed.

Secondly, there are OOs who don't accept "in two natures" for semantic reasons. And since their objections are semantically illogical, it mentally wears me down and feels not sane when debating it for hours, like debating whether the earth is "round" or whether God "made" Jesus. I don't know what to do when that happens, Matt. It's mentally overpowering for me, because it's a simple issue, yet educated, intelligent people can go on for hours and months denying it.

Normally you should just be able to open a dictionary, see that "natures" means essences or categories, and have a normal discussion in maybe 15 minutes. But that doesn't happen here.

There is one OO archbishop who as I understand it says that Christ has one nature - "the divine one", and that Christ is a divine person, not a human person, in accordance with divinization of the human nature:
http://www.christianforums.com/threads/abp-petrosian-on-armenian-christology.7938598/#post-69424056
However, as Paul Y. suggests on that thread, my citations has been so controversial, that some OOs assert that I have mistranslated him and that an Armenian must read the Armenian original, which I provided, for himself.

If he believes Christ only is divine he is a heretic.

 

[Sirlanky]

Hello, Silanky, it's nice to hear from you. I know you are a real person, and some OOs are ok with "in two natures", even a OO priest who writes on this topic. And I sympathize with you about lifting anathemas.

You as: "Reunion won't happen whilst either side is demanding the other do anything, except lift the anathemas. And indeed why should either side? It has (I believe) been proven that the modern Oriental church is not heretical, and holds the same faith as he Greeks."

The answer to your question is the dilemma in the OP: Either OOs accept "in two natures" or EOs don't consider Chalcedon ecumenical anymore. And since we agree that "in two natures" is a legitimate statement, then why should EOs give up Chalcedon because people can't mentally handle a correct statement?

If some people do not want to accept the Nicene Creed because they confusedly think that "begotten, not made" in the Creed means a denial of the incarnation, then should the Nicene Creed not be ecumenical anymore?

The EO should not give up on chalcedon. I believe the oriental orthodox should accept 'in two natures' as being orthodox and accept the tome of St Leo.

 

[ArmyMatt]

He is a st. St Leo the great. But I do have a question for you. Do you believe everything that the holy councils said it infallible?

Yes as far as the statements of faith, anathemas, and doctrinal definitions go.

And you are the first non Chalcedonian who calls St Leo a saint

 

[rakovsky]

Do you believe everything that the holy councils said it infallible?

That could be an overgeneralization or oversimplification, since some canons EOs don't follow today. It's clearer to me to just say that the main formulas are true and that the canons contain truth, but the infallibility is not individually total and monolithic about each canon.

 

[Sirlanky]

Yes as far as the statements of faith, anathemas, and doctrinal definitions go.

And you are the first non Chalcedonian who calls St Leo a saint

I am unusual when it comes to oriental orthodox. However there are others who agree with me that the tome of St Leo is orthodox. My point as to why I'm not Eastern Orthodox is that I am orthodox already and see no point in repeating sacraments. I pray that the schism between oriental and Eastern Orthodox ends, but sadly I don't see it happening in this life anymore. I used to, but I'm a little bit more realistic now then I used to be. What I do see happening however is a greater allowance for intercommunion of laity between eastern and oriental orthodoxy

 

[Sirlanky]

One possible action I see as a posibility for reunion would be the oriental orthodox accepting Chalcedon, and all subsequent councils, in exchange a reunified church would lift the anathemas against oriental orthodox saints, and would also list the anathemas against Eastern Orthodox saints.

 

[ArmyMatt]

One possible action I see as a posibility for reunion would be the oriental orthodox accepting Chalcedon, and all subsequent councils, in exchange a reunified church would lift the anathemas against oriental orthodox saints, and would also list the anathemas against Eastern Orthodox saints.

That will never happen. The Church did not misspeak in condemning Severus. If you accept the councils, you cannot cherry pick what is true and what is not. If our councils are true, Severus is a heretic

 

[rakovsky]

If you accept the councils, you cannot cherry pick what is true and what is not. If our councils are true, Severus is a heretic

But then we have the fact that some canons of past councils are not imposed any more, and there were Council canons that were never accepted by certain EO churches.. There is a canon against having a Jewish doctor.

Rev John H Erickson, an Orthodox dean, claims:

Let us also consider the case of Severus. He clearly affirms the basic Christological truth that Jesus Christ is consubstantial with His Father in His divinity and consubstantial with us in His humanity. In other words, he does not fall into the heresy of Eutyches condemned at Chalcedon, which denied Christ’s consubstantiality with us and thus His full humanity. But Severus uses technical terms like hypostasis and physis in ways very different from the later formulations of Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. If read on his own terms, he is not guilty of either the heresy of monophysitism or the heresy of monotheletism as these have been condemned by the ecumenical councils. [32] His terminology may seem idiosyncratic, but it is hardly less so than that of most of his contemporaries, whether Chalcedonian (like Leontius of Byzantium) or Non-Chalcedonian. In other words, he was misunderstood, perhaps deliberately, perhaps inadvertently, by the time that Constantinople III labeled him “infamous” and anathematized him as one of the progenitors of monotheletism.
...
The faith of the ancient councils - I Nicaea, I Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, II Constantinople, III Constantinople, II Nicaea - is consistent, whether one labels all seven or only the first three as ecumenical. But their terminology is not always consistent. I Nicaea, for example, used the words hypostasis and ousia as synonyms, while the later councils took great pains to distinguish them. So too, the anathemas of the ancient councils are not always consistent. Too often we have mistaken the “short-hand” of later periods for historical fact.

http://www.svots.edu/content/beyond-dialogue-quest-eastern-and-oriental-orthodox-unity-today

Saying that Severus is idiosyncratic is a euphemestic way of reflecting the semantic problems with Severus' writings. I agree that it's wrong to deny that Christ is in two natures or to assert that Christ is a unity of two hypostases. But if you look at the substance of his beliefs, I think he did not actually think what he was expressing.

So this leads to the question: If someone's mistake is semantic, is she/he heretical? Hypostasis etymologically means "substance", not necessarily a person's whole united being itself. For example, Hebrews 11 says: "Now faith is the substance (hypostasis) of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." But hypostasis eventually came to be used to mean a whole united being, even though I think that etymologically that change was a mistake.

Blessed Theodoret Cyrene, in his debate with St. Cyril, noted that hypostasis meant nature, and that since there were two "hypostases", there must be two natures.

Just compare:

Theodoret objected that... hypostasis meant nature and as we may say "two natures" in man, there could be no harm in dividing the hypostases in the Christ...
Cyril answers that... As for the analogy of soul and flesh in man, Theodoret would not separate them in the concrete: and it is agreed on both sides that abstractedly Godhead and Manhood stand apart.
...
Anath, IV [by Cyril accepted at Chalcedon]. "If any one assigns to two Persons or hypostases the expressions in the Gospels.... to a man... apart from the Word... let him be anathema."Later Treatises of Saint Athanasius
SOURCE: Later Treatises of Saint Athanasius

Theodoret would be under anathema per an anathema accepted at an ecumenical council, since he divided the "hypostases". But in doing so he meant substance, not "hypostasis" as we understand it today.

The 2nd Council of Nicea says about Severus:

Our holy synod therefore assembled, and we, its 338 members, follow the older synodal decrees, and accept and proclaim joyfully the dogmas handed down, principally those of the six holy Ecumenical Synods. In the first place the holy and ecumenical great synod assembled at Nice, etc.

After we had carefully examined their decrees under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we found that the unlawful art of painting living creatures blasphemed the fundamental doctrine of our salvation— namely, the Incarnation of Christ, and contradicted the six holy synods. These condemned Nestorius because he divided the one Son and Word of God into two sons, and on the other side, Arius, Dioscorus, Eutyches, and Severus, because they maintained a mingling of the two natures of the one Christ.

What is " the unlawful art of painting living creatures"? It seems that churches do sometimes paint animals.

I don't have a strong opinion on whether the anathemas should be lifted, but I note that councils have been acceded to without every canon being affirmed. The main thing should be the faith formulas, eg. "in two natures".

 

[ArmyMatt]

Again, the Church guided by the Holy Spirit would not have anathematized someone who was just in some semantic error.

And we are not talking about the canons as much as the doctrinal statements. Severus was anathematized in his person, which makes him a heretic and he will always be a heretic.

 

[rakovsky]

Again, the Church guided by the Holy Spirit would not have anathematized someone who was just in some semantic error.

The premise seems to be that every decision out of thousands made by the councils must be correct in every way.

But as I understand it, we only say that each canon only has an underlying truth.
And so some canons aren't followed.

And we are not talking about the canons as much as the doctrinal statements. Severus was anathematized in his person, which makes him a heretic and he will always be a heretic.

Cyril 12 anathema are directed against the person of anyone who breaks them, ie Let him be anathema. But Cyril was in dispute with Blessed Theodoret, and I'm hesitant to impose every anathema of every council.

What do you think about a situation where a person makes a semantically fake teaching that he himself does not literally believe? Does that make him a heretic?

I am not asking that rhetorically. I am not sure.

I think Dioscorus failed to understand the semantic logic of in two natures, as do many OOs. But once those OOS understand the semantics they are ok.

I have seen repeatedly numerous educated OOS fail to give a fully consistent, coherent definition of nature.

 

[rakovsky]

If someone objects to saying that a "nature acted", is their mistaken objection semantic or heretical? It seems to me that this objection is semantic.
So for example the OO Dzheremi objects to saying that "Christ's human nature suffered", that by making this statement we consider the human nature to be a separate being. This mistaken objection seems to be at root a semantic one. Dzheremi is not denying that Christ was a human who suffered, or that he suffered in the flesh as opposed to the godhead.

I have seen over a hundred pages of EO and OO debates that directly or indirectly revolve around the use and meaning of the word "nature", such that EOs and OOs agree with each other when using various definitions of the word (eg. essences or properties) as opposed to the word itself.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The premise seems to be that every decision out of thousands made by the councils must be correct in every way.

But as I understand it, we only say that each canon only has an underlying truth.
And so some canons aren't followed.

we're not talking about the canons.

Cyril 12 anathema are directed against the person of anyone who breaks them, ie Let him be anathema. But Cyril was in dispute with Blessed Theodoret, and I'm hesitant to impose every anathema of every council.

actually he was in dispute with Nestorius, and he affirmed to John of Antioch that his anathemas were directed at the Nestorian heresy, not at the Antiochian school of Christology.

What do you think about a situation where a person makes a semantically fake teaching that he himself does not literally believe? Does that make him a heretic?

I am not asking that rhetorically. I am not sure.

if that is the case, the Church would not name him a heretic in the first place. check out the Three Chapters. Ibas' writing was condemned, but Ibas himself was not.

I think Dioscorus failed to understand the semantic logic of in two natures, as do many OOs. But once those OOS understand the semantics they are ok.

if they understand and affirm that, they would have no issue with the definition of Chalcedon or the Tome of St Leo.

I have seen repeatedly numerous educated OOS fail to give a fully consistent, coherent definition of nature.

same with us (meaning EOs giving coherent definitions), that is why Chalcedon and Constantinople 2 and 3 are MUSTS for true Christology.

If someone objects to saying that a "nature acted", is their mistaken objection semantic or heretical? It seems to me that this objection is semantic.

it certainly could be.

So for example the OO Dzheremi objects to saying that "Christ's human nature suffered", that by making this statement we consider the human nature to be a separate being. This mistaken objection seems to be at root a semantic one. Dzheremi is not denying that Christ was a human who suffered, or that he suffered in the flesh as opposed to the godhead.

if he would say that I would agree. I had a good personal discussion with him about that.

I have seen over a hundred pages of EO and OO debates that directly or indirectly revolve around the use and meaning of the word "nature", such that EOs and OOs agree with each other when using various definitions of the word (eg. essences or properties) as opposed to the word itself.

hence Constantinople 2 which affirmed that correct understanding is key, not merely the words. the Church would not have been split for so long over just semantics. both sides claim that they were genuinely seeking to preserve the Truth. this basically means that semantics are stronger than the work of the Holy Spirit with two camps of faithful people.

 

[Sirlanky]

The church would declare him as heretic of intolerance was at such a high level that complete dialogue broke down. Up until the 20th century the Eastern Orthodox considered us to be monophysites. Now, we are largely considered to be orthodox in christology but in schism for rejecting chalcedon. So that means if our christology is the same, the Eastern Orthodox Church was wrong on about us for 1500 years. The oriental Orthodox Church was wrong for 1500 years. Intolerance and lack of compassion do much damage

 

[rakovsky]

Matt!

If someone objects to saying that a "nature acted", is their mistaken objection semantic or heretical? It seems to me that this objection is semantic.

it certainly could be.

So for example the OO Dzheremi objects to saying that "Christ's human nature suffered", that by making this statement we consider the human nature to be a separate being. This mistaken objection seems to be at root a semantic one. Dzheremi is not denying that Christ was a human who suffered, or that he suffered in the flesh as opposed to the godhead.​

if he would say that I would agree. I had a good personal discussion with him about that.

I know. I have nice discussions with Dzheremi, which reflects how I would like the churches to come to agreement.
Over and over the discussions keep returning to grammatical and semantic issues. For example, he says that to ascribe an action to humanity or a nature means that humanity or nature is a person. So he interprets statements by EOs that a nature performed an action or had an experience (like suffering), then it means we are talking about two persons when we say two natures. This mistaken objection is inherently grammatical. He is making an objection that we assert two persons, which we don't. He is not denying what we intend to say, ie. that Christ has two substances.

Dzheremi's semantic arguments are exactly the same ones that Dioscorus and Severus mistakenly made against two natures. They both asserted that Christ having or being in two natures implied that he is in two person, which it doesn't. They always claimed that Christ was human and divine, they just could not handle talking about two "natures", at root a mental, grammatical irrational mistake about what the implications are about saying something has two natures.

Let me give you some good illustrations from my latest discussions about this, revolving around what are the semantic implications of saying "two natures":

Okay...now we are reaching things that are really hard for me to understand. Because the anathema says, clear as day, that expressions may not be divided between the natures on the grounds that some are fit to be applied to God, and yet you are saying that St. Cyril did just that in his defense of John?

The anathema does not say that expressions may not be divided between "natures", it says:

"If anyone shall divide between two persons or subsistences those expressions which are contained in the Evangelical and Apostolical writings, or which have been said concerning Christ by the Saints, or by himself, and shall apply some to him as to a man separate from the Word of God, and shall apply others to the only Word of God the Father, on the ground that they are fit to be applied to God: let him be anathema."​

Here is where Cyril defended the EOs on this account in detail: In his letter to Acacius, bishop of Melitene, Saint Cyril wrote:

But the brethren at Antioch, understanding in simple thoughts only those from which Christ is understood to be, have maintained a difference of natures, because, as I said, divinity and humanity are not the same in natural quality, but proclaimed one Son and Christ and Lord as being truly one; they say His person is one, and in no manner do they separate what has been united.

Neither do they admit the natural division as the author of the wretched inventions [Nestorius] was pleased to think, but they strongly maintain that only the sayings concerning the Lord are separated, not that they say that some of them separately are proper to the son, the Word of God the Father and others are proper to another one again, the one from a woman, but they say that some are proper to His divinity and others are proper to His humanity. For the same one is God and man. But they say that there are others which have been made common in a certain way and, as it were, look towards both, I mean both the divinity and the humanity.

This letter is from an OO Bishop's essay: http://www.metroplit-bishoy.org/files/Dialogues/Byzantine/CYRIL2.DOC

The only way to reconcile them is by saying that dividing the expressions between two forms does not mean that the two forms are separate persons.
We really need to be flexible in our thinking like Cyril was about the Antiochians in order to grasp and reconcile these kinds of distinctions.

...

It is His humanity which allowed Him to become a sacrifice for us all, so in that sense it would be appropriate to say (and is said) that He suffered according to His humanity, but "in" it?

Sure, he suffered "in" his flesh, hence "in" his humanity. I do not have mental trouble with that phrase, nor do the Coptic writers I cited.

St. Cyril writes in Letter 46

Your excellency very rightly and with complete understanding has expounded the matter concerning the Passion of our Savior, by strongly contending that the only-begotten Son of God in so far as he is known to be and is God DID NOT ENDURE THE SUFFERINGS OF THE BODY IN HIS OWN NATURE, BUT SUFFERED RATHER IN HIS EARTHLY NATURE. For it was necessary and proper to maintain with reference to the one true Son both that he did not suffer in his divinity and that it is affirmed that he suffered in his humanity, for his flesh suffered.

Would you agree that it is helpful be flexible in thinking post-incarnation mainstream dyophysite language like Cyril was?

The two natures exist by the simple fact that humanity and divinity, which our Lord is composed of, are not the same nature. They're different natures, and we do not confuse them by mixture, separation, dissolving, or any other way. So our Lord is from two natures by virtue of the fact that He is of humanity ('has his human nature', if you will) according to St. Mary His mother, and of divinity ('has his divine will') from God the Father. By Christ's existence in the flesh He has both natures. We just do not say He is 'in' two natures because again our understanding of the incarnation does not permit it without destroying the unity of the incarnation in the first place, so it's not possible.

The fact that you use "exist" in the present tense, speaking of two natures, and saying "He has both natures" are statements by you that I agree with. The ease and common sense way that you put those phrases reflect to me that Christ does in fact, as a matter of common, normal speech, "have two natures."

A big tragic problem, Dzheremi, is that this very issue has been a major dividing point between our churches.

Severus of Antioch wrote:

When we anathematise those who say Emmanuel has two natures after the union, and speak of the activities and properties of these, we are not saying this as subjecting to anathema the fact of, or naming, natures, or activities, or properties, but speaking of two natures after the union, and because consequent ly those natures...are divided completely and in everything

http://www.zeitun-eg.org/Coptic_interpretations_of_the_Fourth_Ecumenical_Council_(Chalcedon).pdf

Kindly,
Rakovsky.

The situation woul be analogous to millions of Christians refusing to affirm the Nicene Creed because it says Jesus was "not made", because they considered the phrase to be a denial of the incarnation (Athanasius wrote that Christ was "made" in the incarnation, elsewhere). The appropriate solution would be for them to understand "not made" in context.

The same thing goes for the OOs. The solution would be for them to read "two natures" in agreement with Chalcedon's phrases "two essences" and "one hypostasis". This reading of "one being in two natures" is possible as a matter of elementary grammar which they fail to grasp.

 

[rakovsky]

Now, we are largely considered to be orthodox in christology but in schism for rejecting chalcedon. So that means if our christology is the same,

Can a semantically mistaken statement on Christology be Christologically correct?

Was it heretical to deny that Mary was the "Theotokos", because the term's opponents thought that this implied that she gave birth to divinity itself?

I don't have a strict answer to these two questions.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The church would declare him as heretic of intolerance was at such a high level that complete dialogue broke down. Up until the 20th century the Eastern Orthodox considered us to be monophysites. Now, we are largely considered to be orthodox in christology but in schism for rejecting chalcedon. So that means if our christology is the same, the Eastern Orthodox Church was wrong on about us for 1500 years. The oriental Orthodox Church was wrong for 1500 years. Intolerance and lack of compassion do much damage

And I think we would say that you are moving toward us, and that communion is returning to her Apostolic roots

 

[rakovsky]

Sirlanky,

You have a mission to "go tell it on the mountain" about these truths.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Matt!


I know. I have nice discussions with Dzheremi, which reflects how I would like the churches to come to agreement.
Over and over the discussions keep returning to grammatical and semantic issues. For example, he says that to ascribe an action to humanity or a nature means that humanity or nature is a person. So he interprets statements by EOs that a nature performed an action or had an experience (like suffering), then it means we are talking about two persons when we say two natures. This mistaken objection is inherently grammatical. He is making an objection that we assert two persons, which we don't. He is not denying what we intend to say, ie. that Christ has two substances.

Dzheremi's semantic arguments are exactly the same ones that Dioscorus and Severus mistakenly made against two natures. They both asserted that Christ having or being in two natures implied that he is in two person, which it doesn't. They always claimed that Christ was human and divine, they just could not handle talking about two "natures", at root a mental, grammatical irrational mistake about what the implications are about saying something has two natures.

Let me give you some good illustrations from my latest discussions about this, revolving around what are the semantic implications of saying "two natures":


The situation woul be analogous to millions of Christians refusing to affirm the Nicene Creed because it says Jesus was "not made", because they considered the phrase to be a denial of the incarnation (Athanasius wrote that Christ was "made" in the incarnation, elsewhere). The appropriate solution would be for them to understand "not made" in context.

The same thing goes for the OOs. The solution would be for them to read "two natures" in agreement with Chalcedon's phrases "two essences" and "one hypostasis". This reading of "one being in two natures" is possible as a matter of elementary grammar which they fail to grasp.

yeah, it might be a lot of semantic stuff now, but theologically they would have to accept all of the Ecumenical Councils which would include the anathemas of Severus. that is theology and not semantics. if it were merely semantics, Chalcedon would not divide.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Can a semantically mistaken statement on Christology be Christologically correct?

no, if the Church affirms the statement with Orthodox understanding, it was not semantically mistaken (ie "of two Natures" and "in two Natures")

Was it heretical to deny that Mary was the "Theotokos", because the term's opponents thought that this implied that she gave birth to divinity itself?

after Ephesus, yes.

 

[Sirlanky]

Something cannot go from not being heretical to heretical