Why we reject the Council of Chalcedon ?

[Anglian]

The main thing is to get my own understanding of what is right. I can understand (conceptually anyway) the unity of personhood while maintaining full humanity and full divinity in Christ. So as an Orhtodox Christian I think I am in agreement with you.

Could you please clarify your teaching on the two wills? Does the will belong to the nature, or to the person?

Also, a question that I have never heard anyone ask but me … does the Holy Spirit have an independent will, as well?

Would three wills be a heresy? If so, why?

Dear James,

Yes, there is a lot of history, and much of it very contested; but not for a moment has our Church ever taught that Christ was other than fully human and fully divine - so we do agree here.

On the 'two wills' business, this is something that bothers those who believe in the Chalcedonian definition, because Leo's Tome spoke about His two natures doing that which was appropriate to them. This gets you into the argument about which will does what; if you believe the two natures are in one Incarnate Christ, then the will is that of Christ - you don't need two wills, as the two natures don't operate separately. The same would apply to the Holy Spirit.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[jamescarvin]

Dear James,

Yes, there is a lot of history, and much of it very contested; but not for a moment has our Church ever taught that Christ was other than fully human and fully divine - so we do agree here.

On the 'two wills' business, this is something that bothers those who believe in the Chalcedonian definition, because Leo's Tome spoke about His two natures doing that which was appropriate to them. This gets you into the argument about which will does what; if you believe the two natures are in one Incarnate Christ, then the will is that of Christ - you don't need two wills, as the two natures don't operate separately. The same would apply to the Holy Spirit.

Peace,

Anglian

So it seems there is much good communiction needed with respect to wills as there is to natures. I think the key to agreement on both issues could be summarized in the phrase "perfectly unconfused oneness."

We still believe in just one God, don't we? Yet there are three persons. And both hold true, rather than one or the other. In all of this, the Non-Chalcedonians seem to me to have had the better speech, in that the distinction belongs to the particulars and does not separate, whether this is to persons, nature (which is dual in Christ) or will. Now if will is a particular that belongs to person, rather than to nature I am not suggesting that there is more than one will, but one will in the one God, but existing in three persons. The one will is divine, and in Christ is human. Yet as the divine is revealed as triune, my question is not so much whether there are three separate wills, as whether there is a triunity of wills because the will is something particular to personhood.

This was a question, not an opinion. My actual opinion is that will is a particular of nature, not of person. But person and nature are united in Christ just as they are in all three members of the Trinity as Triunity. And in that unity I wonder to what extent will also belongs to personhood as well as nature so that it could actually be said that there is a triune will.

Not that I need to stir up another controversy, but for sake of reference let's call this "triunitheletism" rather than "tritheletism." It is being posed as a question, not an opinion. And the question is simply whether will is a particular of nature or person or both. If both, and there is no confusion, then we have triunitheletism, as I am posing it. And I can agree still that will is particular to nature so that there is a diune will in the one Person of Christ, and a triune will in the three Persons of the Triunity, as well.

That's how it would pan out. I don't suppose to know. I've never dwelled on it but I have had it on my prayer wall for a long time still posed to the Lord as a question. Intuitively it does makes sense to me at this point more than it ever did before, ironically, because of dialoging right here with the Coptics. In other words, I am finding in contemplating the unity of nature and person greater reason to accept what I will coin as triunitheletism.

What'dya think?

When I say it has been "on my prayer wall," here is the inaccurate picture of it. It is a picture of my Uncle Will Logan, his father/my grandfather, Will Logan, and my great grandfather, Will Logan. I call it The Three Wills. And every time I look at it I say to myself, "how could I ever know,? But it is a fascinating question I haven't heard asked before!"

In the spirit of the icon of the Trinity, which is equally inaccurate, here is my little family icon.

 

[Anglian]

Dear James,

Thank you for your engagement - and its spirit.
I quite agree when you write:

So it seems there is much good communiction needed with respect to wills as there is to natures. I think the key to agreement on both issues could be summarized in the phrase "perfectly unconfused oneness."

Here too we agree.

We still believe in just one God, don't we? Yet there are three persons. And both hold true, rather than one or the other.

It is interesting you write this:

In all of this, the Non-Chalcedonians seem to me to have had the better speech, in that the distinction belongs to the particulars and does not separate, whether this is to persons, nature (which is dual in Christ) or will.

which is very much what non-Chalcedonians hold; it is vital not even to imply that there is no separation of the natures after the union; this St. Cyril emphasised, and this we have held to. The Chalcedonians, we now see, did not mean that there was a separation, but their language was ambiguous - which at that time, as now, is something to be avoided.

This:

Yet as the divine is revealed as triune, my question is not so much whether there are three separate wills, as whether there is a triunity of wills because the will is something particular to personhood.

is a very good question, and one which I have not seen asked in this form before! My supposition would be that since the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and is of one essence with Him, He does the will of the Father; the only reason we have a discussion with the second Person of the Trinity is that He was also fully human, which means He had a human nature which was not swallowed up in the Divine nature. So I think I'm coming down on the side of your thesis that will appertains to nature. But what a very interesting question!

Our non-Chalcedonian Christology would, you are correct, make the hypothesis you suggest possible, since we emphasise the unity in the person of the Incarnate Word.

I loved your 'three Wills' - and thank you for sharing them - and your thoughts, with us.

peace,

Anglian

 

[copticorthodoxy]

Here are important documents about the meetings between the OO & EO
http://www.coptology.org/AboutUs/download/common_faith.pdf

 

[jamescarvin]

I asked this in another OO thread but it didn't get answered, so I will re-ask it here as the coptology.org pdf says among other things …

The anathematization or acclamation as Saints of certain controversial teachers - It may not be necessary formally to lift these anathemas, nor for these teachers to be recognised as Saints by the condemning side. But the restoration of Communion obviously implies, among other things, that formal anathemas and condemnation of revered teachers of the other side should be discontinued as in the case of Leo, Dioscorus, Severus, and others.

My question was about the meaning of the word "anathema." I have seen it translated as "accursed." I had said that this word had been applied to people, to documents and even to the reposed and that it seems unbecoming of Christians who are to be known by their love and judged by their mercy to use it.

The root seems to be "ana" - or "outside of" and "thema" or "theme," which in the Christian context would be the good news of salvation?

Paul used it …

ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος ἐξ οὐρανοῦ εὐαγγελίσηται [ὑμῖν ] παρ' ὃ εὐηγγελισάμεθα ὑμῖν , ἀνάθεμα ἔστω .

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! (Galatians 1:8)

I think the problem may be the translation. If rather than "accursed" or extremely worse "condemned to fry in infinite pain eternally in hell" it is "outside the theme" as in "let their teaching not be considered a part of what we are teaching and what you are to hand on" then it seems much less judgmental and much more responsible.

The meaning of the word, it would seem to me, ought to have much to do with the "lifting" of anathemas. With that in mind, I see it used in other ways. For instance,

εἴ τις οὐ φιλεῖ τὸν κύριον , ἤτω ἀνάθεμα . μαράνα θά .
If anyone does not love the Lord, let him be accursed. Maranatha! (1 Corinthians 16:22)

The NASB translators must have felt "anathema" implied "separated", as they added the word "separated" which is absent in both Textus Receptus and Wescott-Hort in Romans 9:3 ...

For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh (KJV)

For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh (NASB)

ηυχομην γαρ αυτος εγω αναθεμα ειναι απο του χριστου υπερ των αδελφων μου των συγγενων μου κατα σαρκα (Textus Receptus)

ἠυχόμην γὰρ ἀνάθεμα εἶναι αὐτὸς ἐγὼ ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν μου τῶν συγγενῶν μου κατὰ σάρκα (WHAC)

The type of accursedness that seems to pertain to eternal damnation, at least in Matthew 25:41, is not anathema but katyramena.

τότε ἐρεῖ καὶ τοῖς ἐξ εὐωνύμων· πορεύεσθε ἀπ' ἐμοῦ κατηραμένοι εἰς τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον τὸ ἡτοιμασμένον τῷ διαβόλῳ καὶ τοῖς ἀγγέλοις αὐτοῦ

Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels. (Matthew 25:41)

επικαταρατος - a form of katyramena, was the word used to translate the Hebrew yukalool in Isaiah 65:20 rather than anathema.

και ου μη γενηται εκει αωρος και πρεσβυτης ος ουκ εμπλησει τον χρονον αυτου εσται γαρ ο νεος εκατον ετων ο δε αποθνησκων αμαρτωλος εκατον ετων και επικαταρατος εσται

לֹא־יִֽהְיֶה מִשָּׁם עֹוד עוּל יָמִים וְזָקֵן אֲשֶׁר לֹֽא־יְמַלֵּא אֶת־יָמָיו כִּי הַנַּעַר בֶּן־מֵאָה שָׁנָה יָמוּת וְהַחֹוטֶא בֶּן־מֵאָה שָׁנָה יְקֻלָּֽל׃

There shall be no more thence an infant of days, nor an old man that hath not filled his days: for the child shall die an hundred years old; but the sinner being an hundred years old shall be accursed. (KJV)

“No longer will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, Or an old man who does not live out his days; For the youth will die at the age of one hundred; And the one who does not reach the age of one hundred
Will be thought accursed. (NASB)

I get this sense of a sliding meaning from it, not dissimilar to the Greek proskeneisis, where context dictates interpretation and the same kind of troublesome effect results. In English we have a distinction between "damned" and "cursed" or "accursed" but the "damned" is implied in all.

This is a question that seems more important to me as a person who dialogs with Protestants than it does as a person seeking unity among EOs and OOs. Many Protestants view the mutual anathemas and excommunications as proof of folly and episcopal fallibility, as well as heartlessness. Rather than seeing a light from the East they see a Darkness, especially as they are forced by history to see it through their experience of Rome, which has engaged in the very same thing with respect to use of this word, and adds to the comedy the mutually infallible excommunications of pope versus antipope.

If the sense of the term is about control of communication and the "theme" of the true church, which the bishops are responsible for overseeing, then I'm all for using it and explaining this is the case to the Protestants and to all the world that laughs with them. But if it refers to judgment, which it does appear to, then my tiny vote is to lift all anathemas ever issued throughout history. Better to err on the side of mercy. We will be shown mercy only if we show it ourselves. No?​

 

[Anglian]

Dear James,

However much we may find it not to our way of thinking, the Fathers did pronounce anathemata, and we can be fairly sure they didn't mean anything very nice by it. It certainly means they are separated from the Body of Christ, and if salvation is only through the Body of Christ, the meaning is plain enough.

But they knew, as we do, that only the One Just Judge pronounces on who is and is not saved, and they were not, as it would have been impious, taking upon themselves the task of speaking for God.

Lifting the anathemata would, of course, follow any restoration of communion, since there would be no separation.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[jamescarvin]

Well, they were no worse than Paul for having used the term. To address the criticism of Protestants, it's easy enough to point to Galatians 1:8 and blame him for the practice. The world is probably not so understanding. Thanks for your thoughts!

 

[jamescarvin]

Well, they were no worse than Paul for having used the term. To address the criticism of Protestants, it's easy enough to point to Galatians 1:8 and blame him for the practice. The world is probably not so understanding. Thanks for your thoughts!

 

[Nebmaatisus]

The whole mess seems to have been a combination of poor interpreters and power-struggle between the Greek and the Copts. If we now accept that the unfortunate choice of words at Chalcedon did not mean that Christ has two persons, what difference is left?

 

[Anglian]

What is left is 1600 years of history which, alas, we find it difficult to surmount. Prayers for unity one day.

INXC

Anglian

 

[Basil the Great]

I totally agree, Anglian, with your analysis. Whether the anathemas were intended as solely as a means of separation or not, it was certainly believed by those who issued the anathemas that those who were being separated were lost, as they were now outside the authorized body of Christ.

For myself, I do not see how a reconciliation can be achieved without a lifting of the anathemas, but then again, I could be wrong.

 

[Anglian]

I totally agree, Anglian, with your analysis. Whether the anathemas were intended as solely as a means of separation or not, it was certainly believed by those who issued the anathemas that those who were being separated were lost, as they were now outside the authorized body of Christ.

For myself, I do not see how a reconciliation can be achieved without a lifting of the anathemas, but then again, I could be wrong.

There are examples of anathemata being lifted, and there is no reason in theory or canon law why we two could not do the same.

It ought to be noted that St. Dioscorus was never condemned for heresy at Chalcedon.

It ought to be noted that what the Egyptians protested at the 4th session of the Council was the emperor's insistence on having a new definition of the Faith. In this they were defending what the Fathers had agreed at Nicaea, that is that the definition offered there should not be added to.

When one adds to this the doubtful language used by St. Leo the Great (he later clarified it, but that was later) about the two natures, and the attempt to impose canon 28 about the position of Constantinople, one can see that our Fathers were simply trying to abide by their understanding of tradition.

1600 years later we can surely get beyond this?

peace,

Anglian

 

[Aner]

He is not a human person, even though He is fully and perfectly human.

I greatly appreciated the OP and wish I had the time to digest it more fully. As a member primarily exposed to the western tradition it is rare to be able to have such a thoughtful exposure to elements of the eastern tradition. I must confess I am orthodox by being immersed into Christ rather than in any other formal manner so if I am off-base by simply asking the below question, I will quickly delete my post.

I stumble over such as the above statement - if Jesus is not a human person as stated here, how can he possibly be considered "fully and perfectly human". I have never met a genuine human who was not a human person....so this is where I get lost at. Any comments on this would be appreciate by any tradition since, as I understand it, essentially all of the institutional churches deny that Jesus is a human person.

Thanks,
Aner

 

[lankyknight1990]

who the heck posted that christ wasnt actually a human? thats heresy.

 

[Aner]

Lanky

I took the quote out of the OP. Below is the full paragraph - with the "offending" language bolded. Admittedly, it sort of sounds like a word game - "[Jesus] is not a human person but he is perfectly human". Admittedly I am at a complete loss of how someone is "completely human" without being "a human person" (have you ever met a complete human who was not/did not also have a human person - No? Neither have I). I am at even more of a loss when scripture tells me that Jesus is "a man attested to by God by signs and wonders" (Acts2:22). I know "a man" necessarily is, as a most fundamental element of who he is - a human person - and nothing less. Thus I sought to inquire of this statement. Thanks for confirming that my puzzlement had some merit.

Best,
In Him
Aner

Indeed if it is remembered that the term ‘nature’ was often used in the sense of ‘individual’ then it is clear that the Alexandrians and other opponents of Chalcedon were at least reasonable in finding such terms as ‘in two natures’ difficult to reconcile with Niceae. Christ the Incarnate Word is not ‘two individuals’, He is One Divine Person Who is incarnate, that is, Who is fully man whilst remaining what He is by nature, Divine. He had become man by an act of grace and loving condescension. He is not a human person, even though He is fully and perfectly human.

 

[lankyknight1990]

Yes I can understand that. But He is a human Being. He isn't a separate Mammal. "The Word Became Flesh and Dwelt amongst Us". By saying he isnt human is implying he is not perfect in his humanity.

 

[Aner]

I guess I understand that a genuine man - which scripture calls Jesus (ICor15:21, etc.) would be able to function independently of any divine person. If not, then I don't see how we have a genuine man - but simply a god wrapped in some kind of not fully human clothe (if there is no human person).

 

[lankyknight1990]

No his divinity does not act seperate to his humanity. He is the One Incarnated Logos, not two

 

[Aner]

Therefore, if I understand correctly, in your understanding of Jesus, He is not a genuine man but something less than a genuine man (since His "humanity" (if yo want to call it that) cannot function independently like you and I can.

And in retrospect you are not offended by what you originally were up above.

Do I have this right?

Best,
Aner

 

[lankyknight1990]

no wrong. He is a genuine man. He is genuine God. He is Both God and Man. He is the God-Man, the incarnated Logos, Born of the Ever-Virgin St Mary and of the Holy Spirit. he wasnt part anything. He is Fully God and Fully Man.Also how does our humanity function separate from who we are?