- Sep 29, 2016
- 1,507
- 822
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Republican
So, I was reading Father V.C. Samuel's Book "Chalcedon revisited," he discusses the trial of Eutyches:
https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/constantinople_448_eutyches.html
Based on this text, Father V.C. Samuel seems to suggest that, although Eutyches was flawed in his theology, and inadvertently did not know what he was talking about, nonetheless he still confessed an Orthodox confession of Faith when ordered to, and that he was excommunicated for not saying "in two natures."
This is why, it seems, that Dioscorus rehabilitated him in Ephesus 449 and excommunicated Flavian.
So, this begs the question: If this argument and conclusion were true, what do we make of the fact that afterwards both the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox held him to be a heretic, and subsequent councils in both Churches excommunicated Eutyches for heresy?
https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/constantinople_448_eutyches.html
Based on this text, Father V.C. Samuel seems to suggest that, although Eutyches was flawed in his theology, and inadvertently did not know what he was talking about, nonetheless he still confessed an Orthodox confession of Faith when ordered to, and that he was excommunicated for not saying "in two natures."
This is why, it seems, that Dioscorus rehabilitated him in Ephesus 449 and excommunicated Flavian.
So, this begs the question: If this argument and conclusion were true, what do we make of the fact that afterwards both the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox held him to be a heretic, and subsequent councils in both Churches excommunicated Eutyches for heresy?