The Confession of Chalcedon: A Stumbling Back to Unity?

[SpyridonOCA]

I love my Oriental Orthodox brethren and hope that, in good time, there will be a full and final reunion between our fellow churches. Consultations between our respective hierarchs and theologians have fostered a dialog that I hope will allow reconciliation to take place. When representatives of Oriental Orthodoxy claim that we share the same faith, I want to believe them. I don't believe this claim will be proved, however, until a formal acceptance of the Chalcedonian Creed is made. I do not mean any disrespect in saying this.

This is the Confession of Chalcedon:

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood;
truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body;
consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood;
in all things like unto us, without sin;
begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood;
one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably;
the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ;
as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcedonian_Creed"

Due to unfortunate historical circumstances, the fathers of Oriental Orthodoxy were unable to accept the Confession of Chalcedon. I hope that the same is not true today. May God have mercy on us all.

 

[minasoliman]

The definition is not something we have a problem with. In fact, the definition is something we always believed in. St. Dioscorus was the first one in the council of Chalcedon itself before being ousted confessed "without confusion, without alteration, without division, without separation."

So, if you're asking us to accept the Chalcedonian definition, we already do. If you're asking us to accept Chalcedon as an ecumenical council, we don't. If all what was needed was to accept the Orthodox faith of Chalcedon, there's no need for formal acceptance because we have always accepted it. Check our liturgies and our OO fathers.

Would it make sense to you that as a Church who always believed in Orthodox Christology to be forced to accept Orthodox Christology that it has always believed in? Wouldn't that assume there was a time when we didn't believe in it? Interest in unity between EO's and OO's is precisely because there's no difference between our Christologies. If you want to be convinced, it's not by acceptance of councils, but by research of what we actually believe. We're certainly not forcing you to accept Ephesus 449 and 475, which are considered by OO's to be Spirit-inspired councils for OO to accept.

God bless.

PS The only stumbling block I feel is highly debated is the interpretation of the acceptance of the Three Chapters in Chalcedon by some bishops.

 

[SpyridonOCA]

So, if you're asking us to accept the Chalcedonian definition, we already do. If you're asking us to accept Chalcedon as an ecumenical council, we don't. If all what was needed was to accept the Orthodox faith of Chalcedon, there's no need for formal acceptance because we have always accepted it. Check our liturgies and our OO fathers.

If there were full and official acceptance of the Confession of Chalcedon, it would be much easier to restore communion. What is the alternative to restoring unity?

 

[SpyridonOCA]

double post

 

[ephraimanesti]

If there were full and official acceptance of the Confession of Chalcedon, it would be much easier to restore communion. What is the alternative to restoring unity?

MY BROTHER,

A better question perhaps would be--why has unity NOT YET been restored. i think everyone--even the powers that be--know that the anathamas of Chalcedon were much more politically based rather than theologically based. i don't understand what all the continued--after 656 years--dragging of feet and posturing is about--unless it continues to be political in some way.

The Church needs to present a UNITED FRONT to the world.

NOW would be a good time to begin.

ephraim

 

[minasoliman]

If there were full and official acceptance of the Confession of Chalcedon, it would be much easier to restore communion. What is the alternative to restoring unity?

It would not be that easy. People like Dioscorus we venerate as a saint and a crucial Church father of our OO history. To accept all of Chalcedon is to condemn Dioscorus.

However, we know from Dioscorus' writings and talks in Chalcedon that he condemns Eutychianism. We know from Dioscorus and Severus and Philoxenus that we believe Christ is fully man and fully God without confusion, without alteration, without division, without separation. Isn't this what Chalcedon is all about? Why insist on accepting something that condemns an Orthodox man? Which is more important? A council or Orthodoxy? Isn't accepting a council completely equivalent to conciliar fundamentalism? The same Orthodox Church that condemns Biblical fundamentalism and inerrancy, why enforce an inerrant form of Chalcedon? Is it not enough from our later ecumenical councils and traditions that we are inherently "Chalcedonian" by spirit, even though not by the letter?

God bless.

 

[Grigorii]

I love my Oriental Orthodox brethren and hope that, in good time, there will be a full and final reunion between our fellow churches. Consultations between our respective hierarchs and theologians have fostered a dialog that I hope will allow reconciliation to take place. When representatives of Oriental Orthodoxy claim that we share the same faith, I want to believe them. I don't believe this claim will be proved, however, until a formal acceptance of the Chalcedonian Creed is made. I do not mean any disrespect in saying this.

Perhaps we should ask what the Council of Chalcedon is before we talk about what it means to accept it (or not).

For us, Eastern Orthodox, the Council of Chalcedon is a testimony of faith in Jesus Christ according to the Scriptures. The Council itself is not the whole of the Orthodox Faith but an expression of it. As an Eastern Orthodox I would affirm that at Chalcedon the true Faith was given testimony to - yet I would add that the true Faith was not defined or revealed at Chalcedon. The definition of faith proclaimed at Chalcedon has been received in the Eastern Church in a Cyrillian interpretation (and an increasingly firm rejection of Nestorianism).

Perhaps what needs to be done is not so much a blanket acceptance of the Oriental Orthodox of Chalcedon as a mutual recognition that the true Faith is expressed in both our traditions. Different dialects of the same theological (dogmatic) language so to speak. If (hopefully "when") we manage to gather a "Holy and Great Council" the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox could re-establish full communion on the basis of identity of Faith as given testimony to in two traditions. This would mean that we, the Eastern Orthodox integrate the Oriental tradition as part of the one Orthodox Faith, and the Oriental Orthodox would integrate the conciliar tradition in the Byzantine East as part of the one Orthodox Faith.

The conciliar tradition of the Byzantine East has a very specific context to it, outside of which it doesn't make sense. A blanket acceptance of the conciliar tradition of the Byzantine East is therefore artificial and doomed to fail. It seems to me that what is needed is mutual recognition and integration of traditions. This takes time. But as we work, and pray, together the seeds of re-union will one day mature into restored ecclesial relations in the one Orthodox Church.

Due to unfortunate historical circumstances, the fathers of Oriental Orthodoxy were unable to accept the Confession of Chalcedon. I hope that the same is not true today. May God have mercy on us all.

Whether the same is true today will depend on our willingness to integrate each others (identical) Orthodoxy and developments of it. For even though our Faith can be seen as identical, there is a oneness of identity in the sense of unity in diversity. Unity in Faith and Doctrine but diversity formulation and expressions.

Accepting Chalcedon for the Oriental Orthodox (it seems to me) cannot mean the rejection of their life in Christ over the past 1500 years. Their traditional life in Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit (I believe) ought to be given full recognition. The integration (by the Oriental Orthodox)) of the Byzantine Orthodox traditonal life in Christ by the same Holy Spirit can only be simultaneously an affirmation of the Oriental tradition. Likewise our acceptance of the Oriental tradition cannot entail a rejection of our own tradition, rather our integration of the Oriental tradition must have the character of affirming our own tradition. To reject either tradition would be to reject the work of the Holy Spirit as would be the rejection of the path that leads to restoration of our ecclesial unity. This process is, I believe, already underway and steadily growing.

Restoration is healing, a healing for both of us. Let us pray to the Lord!

Thanks be to God!

Fr. Deacon Gregory

 

[SpyridonOCA]

It would not be that easy. People like Dioscorus we venerate as a saint and a crucial Church father of our OO history. To accept all of Chalcedon is to condemn Dioscorus.

I believe that the Oriental Orthodox should formally and publicly accept the Confession of Chalcedon without accepting its anathemas. That should be enough of a compromise to restore communion.

 

[SpyridonOCA]

For even though our Faith can be seen as identical, there is a oneness of identity in the sense of unity in diversity. Unity in Faith and Doctrine but diversity formulation and expressions.

I do not mean to offend you in saying this, but what you are saying reminds me of the "two lung" theory, the Roman Catholic claim that Orthodoxy and the Roman Church are one in the same with different expressions of the same faith. I believe that, since Christ cannot be divided, neither can the Church, which is the body of Christ. I am sorry if I have offended you.

 

[Grigorii]

I do not mean to offend you in saying this, but what you are saying reminds me of the "two lung" theory, the Roman Catholic claim that Orthodoxy and the Roman Church are one in the same with different expressions of the same faith. I believe that, since Christ cannot be divided, neither can the Church, which is the body of Christ. I am sorry if I have offended you.

I am not familiar enough to say whether I espouse the "two lung" theory. Perhaps I am, but maybe not.

What I am saying is that the cessation of ecclesial relations is not necessarily a breach of one group from the Church. Such cessation has happened many times, even recently between Moscow and Constantinople (concerning the Ukrainian issue). This is I believe what the Church historian and canonist Fr. Nicholas Afanasieff was saying in his articles on ecclesiology. As far as I am concerned the limited agreements for intercommunion between the Oriental and the Eastern Orthodox in the Middle East, Europe, and even in America. Even if this is allowed only under strict and extreme circumstances, the fact that such intercommunion is possible requires that both parties be truly Orthodox.

Is this "two lung" theory? I don't know. It is simply what is (increasingly) practiced in the Church and thereby an expression of its life in the Holy Spirit. At least this is how I look at it.

Fr. Deacon Gregory

 

[Yeznik]

Perhaps we should ask what the Council of Chalcedon is before we talk about what it means to accept it (or not).

For us, Eastern Orthodox, the Council of Chalcedon is a testimony of faith in Jesus Christ according to the Scriptures. The Council itself is not the whole of the Orthodox Faith but an expression of it. As an Eastern Orthodox I would affirm that at Chalcedon the true Faith was given testimony to - yet I would add that the true Faith was not defined or revealed at Chalcedon. The definition of faith proclaimed at Chalcedon has been received in the Eastern Church in a Cyrillian interpretation (and an increasingly firm rejection of Nestorianism).

Perhaps what needs to be done is not so much a blanket acceptance of the Oriental Orthodox of Chalcedon as a mutual recognition that the true Faith is expressed in both our traditions. Different dialects of the same theological (dogmatic) language so to speak. If (hopefully "when") we manage to gather a "Holy and Great Council" the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox could re-establish full communion on the basis of identity of Faith as given testimony to in two traditions. This would mean that we, the Eastern Orthodox integrate the Oriental tradition as part of the one Orthodox Faith, and the Oriental Orthodox would integrate the conciliar tradition in the Byzantine East as part of the one Orthodox Faith.

The conciliar tradition of the Byzantine East has a very specific context to it, outside of which it doesn't make sense. A blanket acceptance of the conciliar tradition of the Byzantine East is therefore artificial and doomed to fail. It seems to me that what is needed is mutual recognition and integration of traditions. This takes time. But as we work, and pray, together the seeds of re-union will one day mature into restored ecclesial relations in the one Orthodox Church.

Whether the same is true today will depend on our willingness to integrate each others (identical) Orthodoxy and developments of it. For even though our Faith can be seen as identical, there is a oneness of identity in the sense of unity in diversity. Unity in Faith and Doctrine but diversity formulation and expressions.

Accepting Chalcedon for the Oriental Orthodox (it seems to me) cannot mean the rejection of their life in Christ over the past 1500 years. Their traditional life in Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit (I believe) ought to be given full recognition. The integration (by the Oriental Orthodox)) of the Byzantine Orthodox traditonal life in Christ by the same Holy Spirit can only be simultaneously an affirmation of the Oriental tradition. Likewise our acceptance of the Oriental tradition cannot entail a rejection of our own tradition, rather our integration of the Oriental tradition must have the character of affirming our own tradition. To reject either tradition would be to reject the work of the Holy Spirit as would be the rejection of the path that leads to restoration of our ecclesial unity. This process is, I believe, already underway and steadily growing.

Restoration is healing, a healing for both of us. Let us pray to the Lord!

Thanks be to God!

Fr. Deacon Gregory

Hello Fr. Deacon Gregory and welcome.

Rather then getting into a deep theological discussion I would like to bring up some points that might help our understanding of each other.

I think there needs to be a realization that EO culture is heavily set in a Hellenized tradition vs. the OO Churches. Here also we would have to re-evaluate the Byzantine Tradition understanding that in the western part of the Byzantine Empire was mainly Greek and the Eastern part mainly Armenian. And as time progressed from the 5th century forward Constantinople started to filter out other traditions such as Syriac and Latin and keep the traditions of the Byzantine Church mainly Greek. As John Meyendorff stated:

“The cultural framework of Byzantine theology after Chalcedon was increasingly limited to the Greek-speaking world. The wealth of the various non-Greek traditions of early Christianity — especially the Syrian and the Latin — was less and less taken into account by the theologians of the imperial capital.”

So by above process the EO tradition is mainly from a Hellenized tradition of Christianity. Here is where the context of two traditions needs to be studied.

In the OO Churches there exists dynamic traditions in which when translated become centrally orthodox. These traditions are needed to be given equal value to the EO traditions. The OO fully accept traditions that are not specifically within their direct Church. For example the celebration of Christmas is on Jan. 6th on the Armenian calendar while other OO may celebrate Christmas on Dec. 25th. This would be a challenging task that would be strongly resisted in EO circles, mainly by the Greek, Russian and Slavic Churches.

Secondly, there needs to be an understanding from the EO that there were treacherous acts committed by Byzantine Church under the flag of Orthodoxy starting from the 5th century against the OO Churches, and visa versa. This needs to be brought up in dialogue because these are events that were a catalyst to prolonging the unity between the Orthodox Churches, and to fully accept and understand that no one is spotless at the “negotiating table”.

Thirdly we need to accept the modern reality that the majority of the EO and OO use the same, or similar, approach when discussing orthodoxy with the non-orthodox, and to some degree we are our own biggest adversaries. I believe that the Orthodox Churches are starting to reevaluate themselves, in the spirit of humility, rather then the 5th century mentality.

And finally, I whole heartedly agree with you on the continued restoration, may Gods Will continue to be done in us.

 

[Grigorii]

Hello Fr. Deacon Gregory and welcome.

Rather then getting into a deep theological discussion I would like to bring up some points that might help our understanding of each other.

I think there needs to be a realization that EO culture is heavily set in a Hellenized tradition vs. the OO Churches. Here also we would have to re-evaluate the Byzantine Tradition understanding that in the western part of the Byzantine Empire was mainly Greek and the Eastern part mainly Armenian. And as time progressed from the 5th century forward Constantinople started to filter out other traditions such as Syriac and Latin and keep the traditions of the Byzantine Church mainly Greek. As John Meyendorff stated:

“The cultural framework of Byzantine theology after Chalcedon was increasingly limited to the Greek-speaking world. The wealth of the various non-Greek traditions of early Christianity — especially the Syrian and the Latin — was less and less taken into account by the theologians of the imperial capital.”

So by above process the EO tradition is mainly from a Hellenized tradition of Christianity. Here is where the context of two traditions needs to be studied.

Just for clarities sake I would like to change but one thing of the truth you have spoken: Byzantine Orthodoxy is not hellenized Orthodoxy but rather Orthodoxized hellenism. I presume something similar holds true for the cultural worlds the Oriental Orthodox have found themselves in. Orthodoxy is not changed by the culture it incarnates in, rather the culture in which Orthodoxy is incarnated changes (either Byzantine or Oriental).

In the OO Churches there exists dynamic traditions in which when translated become centrally orthodox. These traditions are needed to be given equal value to the EO traditions. The OO fully accept traditions that are not specifically within their direct Church. For example the celebration of Christmas is on Jan. 6th on the Armenian calendar while other OO may celebrate Christmas on Dec. 25th. This would be a challenging task that would be strongly resisted in EO circles, mainly by the Greek, Russian and Slavic Churches.

Not necessarily, ROCOR (now re-united with Moscow) still celebrates Christmas on Jan. 6th using the Old (Julian) Calendar - such accommodations are not only possible but have already been made in the re-unification of ROCOR and Moscow. But other liturgical expressions may be more challenging on the EO part toward the OO. I am not sure if there are similar hurdles from an OO perspective toward the EO - and if so, what they in fact are. It may be interesting and educational to become more aware of each others liturgucal (and other) traditions by increased common prayer (such as we have at Saint Vladimir's Orthodox Seminary).

Secondly, there needs to be an understanding from the EO that there were treacherous acts committed by Byzantine Church under the flag of Orthodoxy starting from the 5th century against the OO Churches, and visa versa. This needs to be brought up in dialogue because these are events that were a catalyst to prolonging the unity between the Orthodox Churches, and to fully accept and understand that no one is spotless at the “negotiating table”.

The mutual treason, backbiting, and other such hurtful things is a fact. These acts must be recognized, indeed, but at all costs the "blame game" is to be avoided. As soon as fingers start pointing the intent to unite becomes an intent to be right at the cost of ecclesial relations and an atmosphere of forgiveness. Sins are only to be confessed to be forgiven, never to be condemned (for an inspiring story of something along these lines see Letter 8 from Pseudo-Dionysius to the monk Demophilos - the story of Carpos).

Thirdly we need to accept the modern reality that the majority of the EO and OO use the same, or similar, approach when discussing orthodoxy with the non-orthodox, and to some degree we are our own biggest adversaries. I believe that the Orthodox Churches are starting to reevaluate themselves, in the spirit of humility, rather then the 5th century mentality.

I am not sure I understand what you mean. Can you please explain? Perhaps an example?

And finally, I whole heartedly agree with you on the continued restoration, may Gods Will continue to be done in us.

Grant it o Lord!

Fr. Deacon Gregory

 

[minasoliman]

I believe that the Oriental Orthodox should formally and publicly accept the Confession of Chalcedon without accepting its anathemas. That should be enough of a compromise to restore communion.

Like I said before, interpreted correctly, there was never a time where we rejected the Creed of Chalcedon (or the Creed of any the later councils for that matter). In fact, if you look at the recent Official Agreed Statements of 1989 and 1990, you will find it in good correlation with the Creed of Chalcedon, Constantinople 553, Constantinople 681, and Nicea 787. You can read the statements here:

http://www.monachos.net/library/Texts_of_the_Agreed_Statements_of_the_Joint_Commission

Now, if you say that we just have to accept the Creed of Chalcedon word for word simply because it came from Chalcedon, we would contend you to accept the Creeds of Ephesus 449 (which you call a Robber Synod) and Ephesus 475. Now, if you really just care about some sort of "official" statement consonant with Chalcedon, well, let's compare and contrast the Creed of Chalcedon with the Creeds of Egypt 1989 and Geneva 1990:

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent,

Egypt 1989:

We have inherited from our fathers in Christ the one apostolic faith and tradition

Geneva 1990:

9. In the light of our Agreed Statement on Christology as well as of the above common affirmations, we have now clearly understood that both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and the unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition, though they have used Christological terms in different ways. It is this common faith and continuous loyalty to the Apostolic Tradition that should be the basis for our unity and communion.

teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ,

Egypt 1989:

It is that the one eternal hypostasis of the Second Person of the Trinity has assumed our created human nature in that act uniting it with His own uncreated divine nature, to form an inseparably and unconfusedly united real divine-human being…It is the same hypostasis of the Second Person of the Trinity, eternally begotten from the Father who in these last days became a human being and was born of the Blessed Virgin.

Geneva 1990:

2. Both families condemn the Nestorian heresy and the crypto-Nestorianism of Theodoret of Cyrus. They agree that it is not sufficient merely to say that Christ is consubstantial both with His Father and with us, by nature God and by nature man; it is necessary to affirm also that the Logos, Who is by nature God, became by nature Man, by His Incarnation in the fullness of time.

the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body;

Egypt 1989:

He is true God and true man at the same time, perfect in His Divinity, perfect in His humanity. … This is the mystery of the hypostatic union we confess in humble adoration - the real union of the divine with the human, with all the properties and functions of the uncreated divine nature, including natural will and natural energy, inseparably and unconfusedly united with the created human nature with all its properties and functions, including natural will and natural energy. It is the Logos Incarnate who is the subject of all the willing and acting of Jesus Christ.

Geneva 1990:

1. Both families agree in condemning the Eutychian heresy. Both families confess that the Logos, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, only begotten of the Father before the ages and consubstantial with Him, was incarnate and was born from the Virgin Mary Theotokos; fully consubstantial with us, perfect man with soul, body and mind (nouj); He was crucified, died, was buried, and rose from the dead on the third day, ascended to the Heavenly Father, where He sits on the right hand of the Father as Lord of all Creation. At Pentecost, by the coming of the Holy Spirit He manifested the Church as His Body. We look forward to His coming again in the fullness of His glory, according to the Scriptures.

consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood;

Egypt 1989:

The Logos, eternally consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit in his Divinity, has in these last days, become incarnate of the Holy Spirit and Blessed Virgin Mary Theotokos, and thus became man, consubstantial with us in His humanity but without sin. … Because the One she bore in her womb was at the same time fully God as well as fully human we call her the Blessed Virgin Theotokos.

one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures,

Egypt 1989:

When we speak of the one composite (synthetos) hypostasis of our Lord Jesus Christ, … It is that the one eternal hypostasis of the Second Person of the Trinity has assumed our created human nature in that act uniting it with His own uncreated divine nature, to form an inseparably and unconfusedly united real divine-human being, the natures being distinguished from each other in contemplation (theotia) only.

Geneva 1990:

7. The Orthodox agree that the Oriental Orthodox will continue to maintain their traditional Cyrillian terminology of "one nature of the incarnate Logos" ("mia fusij tou qeou Logou sesarkwmenh"), since they acknowledge the double consubstantiality of the Logos which Eutyches denied. The Orthodox also use this terminology. The Oriental Orthodox agree that the Orthodox are justified in their use of the two-natures formula, since they acknowledge that the distinction is "in thought alone" (th qewria monh). Cyril interpreted correctly this use in his letter to John of Antioch and his letters to Acacius of Melitene (PG 77, 184-201), to Eulogius (PG 77, 224-228) and to Succensus (PG 77, 228-245).

inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence,

Egypt 1989:

The four adverbs used to qualify the mystery of the hypostatic union belong to our common tradition - without co-mingling (or confusion) (asyngchytos), without change (atreptos), without separation (achoristos) and without division (adiairetos). Those among us who speak of two natures in Christ, do not thereby deny their inseparable, indivisible union; those among us who speak of one united divine-human nature in Christ do not thereby deny the continuing dynamic presence in Christ of the divine and the human, without change, without confusion.

Geneva 1990:

3. Both families agree that the Hypostasis of the Logos became composite (sunqetoj) by uniting to His divine uncreated nature with its natural will and energy, which He has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit, created human nature, which He assumed at the Incarnation and made His own, with its natural will and energy.

4. Both families agree that the natures with their proper energies and wills are united hypostatically and naturally without confusion, without change, without division and without separation, and that they are distinguished in thought alone (th qewria monh). 20

5. Both families agree that He Who wills and acts is always the one Hypostasis of the Logos incarnate.

not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ;

Egypt 1989:

we do not say that in Him a divine hypostasis and a human hypostasis came together. … We agree in condemning the Nestorian and Eutychian heresies. We neither separate nor divide the human nature in Christ from His divine nature, nor do we think that the former was absorbed in the latter and thus ceased to exist.

as the prophets from the beginning [have declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

Egypt 1989:

Our mutual agreement is not limited to Christology, but encompasses the whole faith of the one undivided church of the early centuries. We are agreed also in our understanding of the Person and Work of God the Holy Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father alone, and is always adored with the Father and the Son.

Geneva 1990:

6. Both families agree in rejecting interpretations of Councils which do not fully agree with the Horos of the Third Ecumenical Council and the letter (433) of Cyril of Alexandria to John of Antioch.

8. Both families accept the first three Ecumenical Councils, which form our common heritage. In relation to the four later Councils of the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox state that for them the above points 1-7 are the teachings also of the four later Councils of the Orthodox Church, while the Oriental Orthodox consider this statement of the Orthodox as their interpretation. With this understanding, the Oriental Orthodox respond to it positively.

In relation to the teaching of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of the Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox agree that the theology and practice of the veneration of icons taught by that Council are in basic agreement with the teaching and practice of the Oriental Orthodox from ancient times, long before the convening of the Council, and that we have no disagreement in this regard.

10. Both families agree that all the anathemas and condemnations of the past which now divide us should be lifted by the Churches in order that the last obstacle to the full unity and communion of our two families can be removed by the grace and power of God. Both families agree that the lifting of anathemas and condemnations will be consummated on the basis that the Councils and Fathers previously anathematized or condemned are not heretical.


In conclusion, I don't see why it's so necessary to really enforce accepting of the Creed of Chalcedon while rejecting the anathemas when if one really cares about the faith of Chalcedon, they can find it in such official Creeds that have already been worked out between both Churches. Is Chalcedon a stumbling block? I don't think it's so much of a stumbling block to us for unity (most of the OO at least), but when it comes to EO's, the question remains debatable centering around accepting all or none of Chalcedon (or literal parts of Chalcedon, which is not really consistent when considering our own traditional councils and how we equally viewed your Church).

Is there something I missed?

God bless.

 

[minasoliman]

Fr. Dn Gregory,

I never got a chance to digest the fact that you're an ordained deacon. Axios!

Remember me, your good friend and brother, in your prayers.

 

[SpyridonOCA]

Like I said before, interpreted correctly, there was never a time where we rejected the Creed of Chalcedon (or the Creed of any the later councils for that matter).

If that were true, what need was there for the Schism of Chalcedon? The Creed of Chalcedon, as I understand it, was an attempt to reconcile the Antiochian and Alexandrian Christologial traditions. This reconciliation, however, was not accepted by the Oriental Orthodox fathers at Chalcedon.

 

[minasoliman]

If that were true, what need was there for the Schism of Chalcedon? The Creed of Chalcedon, as I understand it, was an attempt to reconcile the Antiochian and Alexandrian Christologial traditions. This reconciliation, however, was not accepted by the Oriental Orthodox fathers at Chalcedon.

Not necessarily. As you can see, I've given you much longer interpretations of the Creed. To the non-Chalcedonians, the Creed (actually all of Chalcedon) was suspicious of a strong Antiochian/Nestorian tendency, and a lot of things that I have showed you isn't even elucidated in the Creed of Chalcedon. A couple of things:

1. "in" two natures
2. The "Three Chapters" controversy
3. Condemning Dioscorus, who to us was Orthodox and Cyrillian, and a rejection of him was considered a rejection to St. Cyril
4. Tome of Leo

In addition, hundreds of thousands of Copts (let alone other OO's) were persecuted by the Byzantine government for rejecting Chalcedon. Factor all this together, and then you can understand that saying this was a big misunderstanding is a gross understatement.

God bless.

 

[SpyridonOCA]

I've read The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined by V.C. Samuel. What objection would you have to the Tome of Leo and the phrasing "in two natures"?

 

[minasoliman]

It's not so much that I personally have an objection, but I have to be sympathetic in the minds of those who understood things differently. At the time, the phrase "in two natures" was considered Nestorian to our tradition. The word "in" itself was the throw-off. Even the formulary between St. Cyril and John of Antioch didn't have the "in." St. Dioscorus made a point where he told the council "In two natures, I do not accept. Of two natures, I do. This is a matter that is dear to me."

What made things worse was this one sentence in the Tome that got Alexandrians scratching their heads:

The activity of each form is what is proper to it in communion with the other: that is, the Word performs what belongs to the Word, and the flesh accomplishes what belongs to the flesh. One of these performs brilliant miracles; the other sustains acts of violence.

Notice his use of the word "Word" as the divinity, and not for the flesh. To us, this indicated that the flesh is not the Word, but a different man Jesus. Even the way one uses the subject and predicate, the subject made it sound like a person. For example, a hand does not pick up a bottle. I, Mina Soliman, pick up a bottle through my hand. Alexandrians would then say "The Word performs great miracles by the power of His divinity, and the Word sustains acts of violence by His humanity." To St. Dioscorus, along with the acceptance of the "Three Chapters" by the Papal legates, you have to sympathetic to the fact that he read Nestorianism in it. It was poorly worded, and Leo did not consider those with Alexandrian background who read and fought Nestorius and his writings. Even Nestorius lived long enough to read the Tome and actually agree with it. "One and the same" is not enough (To be fair, Leo sought to clarify his Tome to the Palestinian monks who rejected his Tome through a much larger letter, which I think is quite sound, although sadly probably not read by our Church until now. So, I'm not saying Leo was a Nestorian. Misunderstood? Yes, grossly, but I believe with very good reason). One has to confess "God did truly die on the Cross through the flesh," and that Nestorius denies to say (whether or not he believed it is another debate), and so was the impression received by the OO's.

I'm glad you did read the book. It shows our perspective, but definitely not in a polemical way, and Fr. Samuel even opens up a debate on the Nestorian issue.

The clarification made by Constantinople 553 is well received by our Church, and it is in fact something defined by the official statements I have provided for you. Likewise, I'd also like to say for those who were confused about Ephesus 449, Ephesus 475 (which Fr. Samuel mentions briefly) also gives 449 the clarification it needs. Nevertheless, we saw past one another, and we never got a chance to make our peace up until now. It is well known that the Armenian Church found nothing Nestorian and did seek reconciliation in the earliest times before any of the other OO churches did.

Is there something in the book that you have questions about? I don't have the book with me, but I can try my best if my memory serves me well.

God bless.

 

[SpyridonOCA]

I hope you'd agree with me that just because Nestorius felt comfortable with Chalcedon, that doesn't make the Chalcedonian Creed Nestorian.

 

[minasoliman]

I hope you'd agree with me that just because Nestorius felt comfortable with Chalcedon, that doesn't make the Chalcedonian Creed Nestorian.

Yes, I do agree with you. Otherwise, I wouldn't seek unity.