Why we reject the Council of Chalcedon ?

[Andrewn]

Nicea had equated hypostasis and ousia.

Where is the word "hypostasis" mentioned in the Nicene Creed. St Athanasius accepted the Cappdocians' formula that the Trinity is one ousia in 3 hypostases.

if you have a hypostasis (an individual member, recalling St. Basil from earlier), that hypostasis is going to have an ousia which it shares with all other members (e.g., the Father and the Holy Spirit). The hyposatsis is, to borrow the wording from the Monachos poster, following the Council of Constantinople in 381, "the subsisting, concrete reality of a being or nature".

There is no disagreement about any of this or the explanation that follows.

With the introduction of the equation of hypostasis and prosopon, it is introduced that the hypostases are something within the prosopon, is it not? Because now, with the hypostases being the focus, they are said to operate quasi-independently of one another.

In Chalcedon they proclaimed 2 physes in 1 hypostasis. There is no multiplicity of hypostases.

Quoting another part of the Tome: "For each form does what is proper to it with the co-operation of the other; that is the Word performing what appertains to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what appertains to the flesh. One of them sparkles with miracles, the other succumbs to injuries."

This is an example of Leo's weak expression. I don't know what he means by "form" but it has to be physis. Of course, physes do not act on their own, the whole anthropos acts. As you said, the one Christ performs some acts according to the divine physis and other times according to the human.

See, I'm a non-Chalcedonian and I can say it: Christ has two natures. No lightning bolts will fly out of the sky to hit me, nor will I be excommunicated, because our fathers did not object to the phrasing of "from two natures"

I always knew that OO & EO believed the same things but preferred different expressions. The schism was mostly politics. Look at the recent schism between the Patriarchs of Moscow and Constantinople or all the separations in Protestant churches.

Absolutely not! Here is the priest's confession before the Eucharist that is prayed in every Coptic Orthodox liturgy, and has had its current form since c. 12th century AD

This means that the 2 natures did not change or mix. But the 2 hypostases did mix and became 1 hypostasis, yes?

Part of what keeps us apart is the vastly different way the EO and OO seem to look at councils, with the EO commonly saying that we need to accept all seven councils that they commonly accept (nevermind that some of them say there are more than these) in order to be 'Orthodox',

They're stubborn. Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

 

[dzheremi]

Where is the word "hypostasis" mentioned in the Nicene Creed.

It is in the anathema of the original 325 version that was subsequently removed at Constantinople:

Τοὺς δὲ λέγοντας, Ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ Πρὶν γεννηθῆναι οὐκ ἦν, καὶ ὅτι Ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων εγένετο, ἢ Ἐξ ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας φάσκοντας εἶναι, ἢ κτιστόν, ἢ τρεπτόν, ἢ ἀλλοιωτὸν τὸν Υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, τούτους ἀναθεματίζει ἡ ἁγία καθολικὴ καὶ ἀποστολικὴ ἐκκλησία

St Athanasius accepted the Cappdocians' formula that the Trinity is one ousia in 3 hypostases.

Yes, this would make sense, following St. Basil's and others' understanding, wouldn't it? We do after all concur with all of Christianity on the worship of one God in three Persons, and if we take hypostases to mean the individual relative to the whole within that class, then well...yeah. That's exactly right.

In Chalcedon they proclaimed 2 physes in 1 hypostasis. There is no multiplicity of hypostases.

Okay. And our common father St. Cyril proclaimed otherwise, and so we stuck with St. Cyril. I'm sure the Chalcedonians say nothing else.

This is an example of Leo's weak expression. I don't know what he means by "form" but it has to be physis. Of course, physes do not act on their own, the whole anthropos acts. As you said, the one Christ performs some acts according to the divine physis and other times according to the human.

And in the context of a statement that was supposed to be suitably Orthodox to represent the entire council, the fact that it has such weak expressions shows both why we rejected it, and why some of the Nestorians or crypto-Nestorians falsely took to it as their own. It's a shame, really.

I always knew that OO & EO believed the same things but preferred different expressions.

The part about preferring our own expressions is definitely true. I think you'll get a wide range of responses on whether or not we ultimately believe the same thing or not. (Probably a wider range on the EO side than on the OO side, but this again is a consequence of how we view councils differently; you do not see any OO saying "Orthodoxy = 3 councils, not 7" like you do among some EO neophytes online.)

The schism was mostly politics.

All schisms are definitely influenced by politics or could be said to have their political dimensions, yes.

Look at the recent schism between the Patriarchs of Moscow and Constantinople or all the separations in Protestant churches.

Sure, I guess, but these don't have anything to do with the OO. They're sad, but other than hoping that the two sides (or many sides, in the case of the Protestants) work them out, we try to take and hands off approach to what others do.

This means that the 2 natures did not change or mix. But the 2 hypostases did mix and became 1 hypostasis, yes?

I do not understand your question. Remember, for us hypostasis is like the individual manifestation of the ousia(i), so I'm not sure what to do with a question about "the two hypostases". I cannot tell what means, so I don't want to agree or disagree. Can you explain a bit more, when you have the chance? Thank you.

They're stubborn. Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.

I can't agree that this is an appropriate invocation of that verse. By the same token, then, we are even more stubborn than they are! Look at how we will not just accept the Tome and the council and the subsequent councils and vanish already, even after almost 1,600 years! Perhaps only the Nestorians are more stubborn, but they tended to agree with the Tome, so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Andrewn]

And our common father St. Cyril proclaimed otherwise, and so we stuck with St. Cyril. I'm sure the Chalcedonians say nothing else.

As far as I understand, Chalcedonians do not believe that hypostases "operate quasi-independently of one another," as you wrote. In fact they believe in 1 hypostasis after the union.

I do not understand your question. Remember, for us hypostasis is like the individual manifestation of the ousia(i), so I'm not sure what to do with a question about "the two hypostases". I cannot tell what means, so I don't want to agree or disagree.

I like your definition of "hypostasis." Christ has 2 physes in one hypostasis. This means that hypostasis of the Son became one with the human hypostasis. It follows that the hypostasis of the Son changed at the incarnation. But, how can God change? How can there be a 4th hypostasis (this was the statement I originally commented on)? What am I missing?

 

[dzheremi]

As far as I understand, Chalcedonians do not believe that hypostases "operate quasi-independently of one another," as you wrote.

I'm not saying that they do. I'm saying that this is what the weakly-worded passages of the Tome made it sound that way. That's why they had to address just what the Tome didn't mean in their subsequent council. Apparently it wasn't just the non-Chalcedonians who had gotten that impression.

In fact they believe in 1 hypostasis after the union.

Okay.

I like your definition of "hypostasis." Christ has 2 physes in one hypostasis. This means that hypostasis of the Son became one with the human hypostasis.

This may be the Chalcedonian definition, but we prefer St. Cyril's original phrasing μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη "one (united) nature of the Word of God incarnate".

It's not "two in one" it is "two united into one".

It follows that the hypostasis of the Son changed at the incarnation.

How so? Does the union induce a change in some preexisting abstracted "form" (thanks, Leo...), or is the union itself the hypostasis? (individual manifestation/not an abstraction -- i.e., Jesus is not a generic human-shaped box containing two abstracted 'forms', but the true union of the divine and human natures in an actually existing man)

Christ Himself is the individual manifestation of the united divine-human ousia. Everything in Oriental Orthodox Christology goes back to the Person in this way.

But, how can God change? How can there be a 4th hypostasis (this was the statement I originally commented on)? What am I missing?

I'm not sure, but again, the charge was that the Chalcedonians were attempting to introduce a fourth hypostases into the Holy Trinity by dividing the natures as though Christ is two hypostases, seeing as how parts of Leo's Tome (as already highlighted) make it seem as though the 'forms' are independent loci of experience.

 

[Andrewn]

"one (united) nature of the Word of God incarnate". It's not "two in one" it is "two united into one".

Fine.

[Jesus is] the true union of the divine and human natures in an actually existing man). Christ Himself is the individual manifestation of the united divine-human ousia. Everything in Oriental Orthodox Christology goes back to the Person in this way.

So, there is a new united physis / ousia. I realize that "He made it one with his divinity without mingling, without confusion and without alteration." But still, there has been conjoining or binding of some sort. How is this not a change in the divine physis / ousia?

 

[Andrewn]

From St. Cyril's Second Letter to Nestorius


Quote

"We do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and became flesh, not that he was transformed into a perfect man of soul and body. We say, rather, that the Word, in an ineffable and incomprehensible manner, ineffably united to himself flesh animated with a rational soul, and thus became man and was called the Son of Man."

The lack of answer to the question I repeatedly asked was making me feel stupid like I was missing a concept that is so obvious to everyone else. Then I found Cyril's quote in the Forum you had directed me to. Thank you. It is probable that this same question was the reason for the theories of Apollinaris and Nestorius at opposite ends of the spectrum.

The wise Cyril answered by simply describing the manner of the union as "ineffable and incomprehensible." The nature of the Word did not change. This is it. No explanation. End of discussion. If we speculate, we run the risk of being labelled as heretics <g>. Actually, Peter Farrington attempted to give an OO explanation but his explanation is quite Apollinarian, IMHO.

Christ Himself is the individual manifestation of the united divine-human ousia.

Peter Farrington seems to disagree with you. He wrote, "When we speak of one nature we do not mean one ousia."

> With our souls and our blood, we will defend the cross! <

I think it's the Cross that defends us, not the other way around <g>.

 

[dzheremi]

From St. Cyril's Second Letter to Nestorius


Quote

"We do not say that the nature of the Word was changed and became flesh, not that he was transformed into a perfect man of soul and body. We say, rather, that the Word, in an ineffable and incomprehensible manner, ineffably united to himself flesh animated with a rational soul, and thus became man and was called the Son of Man."

The lack of answer to the question I repeatedly asked was making me feel stupid like I was missing a concept that is so obvious to everyone else. Then I found Cyril's quote in the Forum you had directed me to. Thank you. It is probable that this same question was the reason for the theories of Apollinaris and Nestorius at opposite ends of the spectrum.

Sorry about that. The lack of answer was not to make anyone feel stupid, but because the quotes I had intended to provide from HH St. Cyril's On the Unity of Christ turned out to stretch on for many pages, and I only have that work in a PDF from which I cannot copy and paste, so it would have involved quite a long time of painstaking reproduction to make sure I did not accidentally mistype anything, and I ran out of time to post the result before having to shut my computer off in order to do other things, and hence lost the post. But I am glad you found something that would answer it for you. As always, go with what the father himself has written.

The wise Cyril answered by simply describing the manner of the union as "ineffable and incomprehensible." The nature of the Word did not change. This is it. No explanation. End of discussion. If we speculate, we run the risk of being labelled as heretics <g>. Actually, Peter Farrington attempted to give an OO explanation but his explanation is quite Apollinarian, IMHO.

I'd have to see exactly what Fr. Peter has written. I don't know him to have any Apollinarian tendencies, though I do know that it is in fashion among some Chalcedonians to claim that HH St. Cyril himself was working with Apollinarian forgeries, which is quite strange but whatever (I don't know enough about the reason for the claims to judge them, but I've never heard of that from anyone). So it is possible that he is just echoing that language.

Peter Farrington seems to disagree with you. He wrote, "When we speak of one nature we do not mean one ousia."

Well then maybe I'm wrong. I'd have to see his actual writing. I'm open to being wrong. I wrote that by the equation of hypostasis and ousia which the Chalcedonian poster had said was characteristic of Nicaea, as it is my understanding that we have not departed from the use of language characteristic of the pre-Chalcedonian Church, but then I suppose it depends on how you understand 'hypostasis'. I am trying to preserve what I have observed in St. Basil and others, but am not myself immune from error.

> With our souls and our blood, we will defend the cross! <

I think it's the Cross that defends us, not the other way around <g>.

This is petty and entirely out of context. Why?

 

[dzheremi]

Peter Farrington seems to disagree with you. He wrote, "When we speak of one nature we do not mean one ousia."

Alright, I have re-read Fr. Peter's post that I assume you're taking this from on Monachos.net. I would highlight this section as a better wording of what I was trying to say:

"So again for the OO when we speak of one we mean at the level of individuality. There is one individual in Christ not two. We never mean ousia. We are clear that Christ is of two ousia, eternally uniting them in Himself, not in a static, bolted together way, but in a dynamic, lived out unity of being without confusion but without division."

I should definitely have specified that 'oneness' at this level is as always the mia, not mono, oneness, in that of course we are clear that it is one nature, united of two (He has to of course be composed of two for there to be a union in the first place), united in a dynamic fashion, and lived out in that unity, as Fr. Peter has written there. So perhaps I mistyped from a technical perspective (thanks be to God he is the priest, not me), or perhaps it is more simply a matter that I am so used to speaking with my own people that I take for granted that they would understand that anything of this type that is said or written has as its background our preexisting belief in the united nature (mia physis) that is 'one nature out of two' (not selected out of two or one swallowing the other or anything like that, so that there is no confusion or mixture or alteration), and not simply one nature period (this is what I was trying to capture by writing 'divine-human ousia', which I now see I ought not to have done, as it is not the best way to phrase things), and hence use the language that is most comfortable for me.

In any case, forgive me for my clumsiness. I hope it is clearer now.

 

[Andrewn]

the quotes I had intended to provide from HH St. Cyril's On the Unity of Christ turned out to stretch on for many pages, and I only have that work in a PDF from which I cannot copy and paste, so it would have involved quite a long time of painstaking reproduction to make sure I did not accidentally mistype anything,

This is very kind of you. Thank you for the effort.

I'd have to see exactly what Fr. Peter has written. I don't know him to have any Apollinarian tendencies,

Fr Peter Farrington's posts I referred to are in the following thread:
'Hypostasis' and 'prosopon' - Christology Discussion Area
If you want me to, I can provide specific quotations of the passages I consider Apollinarian. It would be troubling if what he wrote actually represents OO beliefs.

 

[dzheremi]

This is very kind of you .hank you for the effort.

Yes, if only it had amounted to something! If you are curious, I meant to present the dialogue as it is from page 53 of this edition (opens as a PDF), beginning at "But they maintain that if the word became flesh, he no longer remained the word"...but then it just kept going on and on, with more and more gold, and I wasn't sure where an appropriate cut off would be, and became distracted by other work that was time-sensitive.

Fr Peter Farrington's posts I referred to are in the following thread:
'Hypostasis' and 'prosopon' - Christology Discussion Area
If you want me to, I can provide specific quotations of the passages I consider Apollinarian. It would be troubling if what he wrote actually represents OO beliefs.

As you see now in my most recent reply, I read one of them to try to get a sense of your quote from him about 'ousia'. I did not focus on the things around that, however. If you want to discuss what you feel is Apollinarian in his replies, that's okay, though I am obviously not the best person to answer for someone else...particularly someone who is living and can presumably answer for his own posts. I have interacted with Fr. Peter myself relatively recently, though not on a particularly deep or technical theological level, so I do not feel equipped to judge anyone.

 

[Andrewn]

If you are curious, I meant to present the dialogue as it is from page 53 of this edition (opens as a PDF), beginning at "But they maintain that if the word became flesh, he no longer remained the word"...but then it just kept going on and on, with more and more gold,

I read pages 53 to 57 and haven't found an answer. Like someone said, "Cyril left the definition of certain terms fluid, so that they could be used in different ways in one context and others elsewhere." He said seemingly opposite things in different writings with the result that people with opposing views claim to follow him.

If you want to discuss what you feel is Apollinarian in his replies, that's okay, though I am obviously not the best person to answer for someone else...particularly someone who is living and can presumably answer for his own posts.

When I read Peter Farrington's old posts, I didn't know that he was a priest. He also has a Facebook page. Perhaps one day I'll contact him. Here are some of the things he wrote. Remember that he translates "persona" as "person" and defines it as the self, what is the true "I" in man:

"Except, in my own tradition from St Cyril, in the case of the incarnate Word, for in Him the humanity is real, that is hypostatic, but it belongs to the Word and does not have its own human person attached to it.

"The humanity is hypostatic, in our terms, that is it is a real instance of the human nature, but it is not an individual hypostasis with its own person. The person of the humanity is the Word.

"a particular instance of an ousia which has not yet had a person associated with it - since this is what the humanity is in Christ.

"a human individual without a human person?

'it is possible for a particular instance to be in two states, one without a prosopon of its own ousia, and more normally one with. This he also speaks of the humanity as being hypostatic - which means a real instance - without being an hypostasis.

'In Christ the humanity is a hypostasis that does not have a human self, but it has all the human attributes, both physical and rational.

'the humanity, a hypostasis that has no person of its own;"

If this is true orthodoxy, then I'd rather become Nestorian <g>.

 

[dzheremi]

I read pages 53 to 57 and haven't found an answer. Like someone said, "Cyril left the definition of certain terms fluid, so that they could be used in different ways in one context and others elsewhere." He said seemingly opposite things in different writings with the result that people with opposing views claim to follow him.

HH St. Cyril does indeed keep it open enough that both non-Chalcedonian and Chalcedonian can lay claim to him. Even more significantly, well before Chalcedon, during his conflict with John of Antioch, he receives John's confession as Orthodox, as John had demonstrated a good understanding of how to recognize both natures without dividing them within the person of Christ. We should like that it would have remained that way, but apparently others had other plans, and by the time we get to Chalcedon, HH St. Dioscorus is told to confess in two natures or lose his seat. He does not do so, and we all know what happens as a result.

When I read Peter Farrigan's old posts, I didn't know that he was a priest.

His last name is Farrington, if that helps in finding his contact info. And you are absolutely right. I have referred to him as Fr. Peter because that is how I know him, but it seems possible (probable) that at the time of having written those posts on Monachos, he was not one (as he has been known as "Fr. Peter Farrington" online for years now, which makes me thinks that the "Peter Farrington" posts that don't bear this ecclesiastical title are from before his ordination; I don't know that for sure, though). He is one now, however.

"Except, in my own tradition from St Cyril, in the case of the incarnate Word, for in Him the humanity is real, that is hypostatic, but it belongs to the Word and does not have its own human person attached to it.

"The humanity is hypostatic, in our terms, that is it is a real instance of the human nature, but it is not an individual hypostasis with its own person. The person of the humanity is the Word.

If the union is to be a true union of Divinity and Humanity, then how is the Humanity as a nature to have its own separate hypostasis from that of the Divinity which assumed it? The God-man Jesus Christ only exists in true unity as the God-man, not as a human-shaped vessel carrying separated 'forms' joined together as in a conjunction, nor as the divinity simply clothed in the appearance of a man. His flesh is true flesh, taken from the Theotokos St. Mary, and the union is a true union. If we take hypostasis as the individual manifestation, then it would make sense to insist that Christ is one in His hypostasis, would it not -- i.e., that He is not two people? (Two individuals)

That ends in a question mark as I'm not sure about Peter's (I will stop referring to him as "Fr." here, since we don't know if he was when he wrote these posts) use of "person" here (is this a translation of prosopon?), as that's not what we have thus far been dealing with in this conversation in this thread. So I don't quite know what to make of it. If he defines "persona" as what is the true "I" in man, then I don't really see what distinguishes this from ousia, as that is about essence but is possessed of the individual (hypostasis...) as something that is His own -- e.g., I share the essence (ousia) of humanity with all my fellow humans, but I am my own particular human being (hypostasis). Perhaps this is why hypostasis and ousia were treated more or less synonymously in the original 325 version of the Creed? I don't know. I would want more clarification as to just what is being said here.

"a particular instance of an ousia which has not yet had a person associated with it - since this is what the humanity is in Christ.

"a human individual without a human person?

'it is possible for a particular instance to be in two states, one without a prosopon of its own ousia, and more normally one with. This he also speaks of the humanity as being hypostatic - which means a real instance - without being an hypostasis.

'In Christ the humanity is a hypostasis that does not have a human self, but it has all the human attributes, both physical and rational.

'the humanity, a hypostasis that has no person of its own;"

If this is true orthodoxy, then I'd rather become Nestorian <g>.

Alright, alright...I see where this is going, and again, I have to say I'm not entirely sure what any of this means. To say that the humanity is a hypostasis that has no person of its own doesn't even really make sense to me: if we're talking about the person of Christ, then is it just too obvious to say that the 'person' of the humanity is Christ Himself, since it's HIS unique humanity, in the same way that we all share humanity as our shared essence, and yet are our own unique selves? Because again, to me, the unity of the Divinity and the Humanity finds its unique/sole manifestation in the person of Christ (He is the only one, the only person, the only anything that is both), and since Christ is one person (not two), then it makes sense to say that, with the incarnation, the true union of the natures produces just one Son, Who is at all times both divine and man, without separation, confusion, mixture, or alteration.

I'm not sure I can read through Peter's posts, at least as you've presented them here, and say that I'm without confusion from reading them. In the interest of charity I would say that we don't know whether or not he was actually a priest at the time of writing them, and I know from interacting with him elsewhere that he does not stand behind any error that may have manifested in his posting during his long time on the internet before his ordination. (I think he has a tag on all his posts in the signature line at OrthodoxChristianity.net that says something to that effect.) I know I wouldn't want to be held to represent my entire communion forever and ever as a layperson (or for that matter not as one, though I don't aspire to anything), since that's quite simply not what we're here for. We can try, as I'm trying here, but no one -- from Pope or Patriarch on down -- is completely immune from error. Lord have mercy.

We can go back to HH St. Cyril later, as I think that the different currents of thought to be found in the source are worth picking up (there's no confusion as to his status within the Church when he wrote On the Unity of Christ, and his words carry infinitely more weight; in fact to be honest with you I feel it is not appropriate to spend any more time than is absolutely necessary talking about Peter's posts, and I hadn't even noticed them in that thread on Monachos until you pointed them out, as I linked to that thread specifically for the post by the EO deacon about the new definition of theological terms at Chalcedon, which I believe was only the second post in the thread; I did not read the rest, so I'm a bit blindsided at the moment; and also let's remember it's an internet forum thread, not a declaration of the Holy Synod).

 

[Andrewn]

If we take hypostasis as the individual manifestation, then it would make sense to insist that Christ is one in His hypostasis, would it not -- i.e., that He is not two people? (Two individuals)

I think all Christians agrees with this.

To say that the humanity is a hypostasis that has no person of its own doesn't even really make sense to me:

Exactly. "St Gregory the Theologian had proclaimed that 'what is unassumed is unhealed', which demanded that Christ must not only be truly and completely the Son of the Father (as Nicaea had asserted against Arius), but also truly and completely human (against Apollinarius)." If I had to choose between Apollinaris and Nestorius, I would certainly choose the latter.

with the incarnation, the true union of the natures produces just one Son, Who is at all times both divine and man, without separation, confusion, mixture, or alteration.

Again, I think all Christians agree here.

I know I wouldn't want to be held to represent my entire communion forever and ever as a layperson

When I read my old posts, sometimes I'm surprised at the great insight and other times at the stupidity <g>.

We can go back to HH St. Cyril later, as I think that the different currents of thought to be found in the source are worth picking up

That would be a great study.

 

[The Liturgist]

I read pages 53 to 57 and haven't found an answer. Like someone said, "Cyril left the definition of certain terms fluid, so that they could be used in different ways in one context and others elsewhere." He said seemingly opposite things in different writings with the result that people with opposing views claim to follow him.


When I read Peter Farrington's old posts, I didn't know that he was a priest. He also has a Facebook page. Perhaps one day I'll contact him. Here are some of the things he wrote. Remember that he translates "persona" as "person" and defines it as the self, what is the true "I" in man:

"Except, in my own tradition from St Cyril, in the case of the incarnate Word, for in Him the humanity is real, that is hypostatic, but it belongs to the Word and does not have its own human person attached to it.

"The humanity is hypostatic, in our terms, that is it is a real instance of the human nature, but it is not an individual hypostasis with its own person. The person of the humanity is the Word.

"a particular instance of an ousia which has not yet had a person associated with it - since this is what the humanity is in Christ.

"a human individual without a human person?

'it is possible for a particular instance to be in two states, one without a prosopon of its own ousia, and more normally one with. This he also speaks of the humanity as being hypostatic - which means a real instance - without being an hypostasis.

'In Christ the humanity is a hypostasis that does not have a human self, but it has all the human attributes, both physical and rational.

'the humanity, a hypostasis that has no person of its own;"

If this is true orthodoxy, then I'd rather become Nestorian <g>.

Fr. Peter Farrington is extremely nice and a personal friend. I would think you would enjoy his fellowship.