Was Chalcedon really necessary?

[Pensees]

In the first Council of Ephesus, not the "Robber Synod" that it's often confused with, the Church at large agreed upon St. Cyril of Alexandria's Christology of "the one incarnate nature of God the Word."
Since that time, Oriental Orthodox Christians have held to the traditional Christological definition that Christ is true God and true man, fully divine and fully human, in one divine-human nature; the two being united without separation, without confusion, and without alteration.

Having said that, what theological necessity was there for a new Christology? It's easy for Eastern Orthodox Christians to accuse us of being "Monophysite" because strawmen, after all, are always more easily built than a defense of your own position.

Please don't claim that since your fathers accepted it, Chalcedon must have been right. Anyone who's taken a course in logic will tell you that truth isn't determined by majority vote. Even the doctrines of an Ecumenical Council must be demonstrably true, otherwise the council isn't ecumenical. For example, the First Council of Nicaea didn't accept that Jesus is co-equal and co-substantial with His Father for the fun of it, but because it can be demonstrated by Scripture.

If you are able to explain why the Chalcedonian Confession was necessary to supplant the Ephesian Christology, please do so as civilly and clearly as possible. I do not doubt that the Chalcedonian Confession, properly interpreted, is a legimimately Orthodox Christology, but I wonder if it was really worth dividing the Church over when the Cyrillian Christology was already sufficient.

If no one is able to clearly and fairly defend Chalcedon, please refrain from ever again claiming that Oriental Orthodox Christians are somehow "not Orthodox." We don't doubt your Orthodoxy, so please afford us the same kindness.

Grace and peace.

[Benjamin W. C. Waterhouse]

In the first Council of Ephesus, not the "Robber Synod" that it's often confused with, the Church at large agreed upon St. Cyril of Alexandria's Christology of "the one incarnate nature of God the Word."
Since that time, Oriental Orthodox Christians have held to the traditional Christological definition that Christ is true God and true man, fully divine and fully human, in one divine-human nature; the two being united without separation, without confusion, and without alteration.

Having said that, what theological necessity was there for a new Christology? It's easy for Eastern Orthodox Christians to accuse us of being "Monophysite" because strawmen, after all, are always more easily built than a defense of your own position.

Please don't claim that since your fathers accepted it, Chalcedon must have been right. Anyone who's taken a course in logic will tell you that truth isn't determined by majority vote. Even the doctrines of an Ecumenical Council must be demonstrably true, otherwise the council isn't ecumenical. For example, the First Council of Nicaea didn't accept that Jesus is co-equal and co-substantial with His Father for the fun of it, but because it can be demonstrated by Scripture.

If you are able to explain why the Chalcedonian Confession was necessary to supplant the Ephesian Christology, please do so as civilly and clearly as possible. I do not doubt that the Chalcedonian Confession, properly interpreted, is a legimimately Orthodox Christology, but I wonder if it was really worth dividing the Church over when the Cyrillian Christology was already sufficient.

If no one is able to clearly and fairly defend Chalcedon, please refrain from ever again claiming that Oriental Orthodox Christians are somehow "not Orthodox." We don't doubt your Orthodoxy, so please afford us the same kindness.

Grace and peace.

1. All the seven Ecumenical councils were led by the Holy Spirit, there is no disputing this in Orthodoxy, to dispute it is unOrthodox.

2. Do you accept all seven Ecumenical Councils? If you do not you are not Orthodox.

3. The Roman Catholic Church considers the Orthodox to be one of the lungs of the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox do not accept this; so whether your Church does not doubt our Orthodoxy is irrelevant.

"The Divine nature (God the Word) was united with the human nature which He took of the Virgin Mary by the action of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit purified and sanctified the Virgin's womb so that the Child to whom she gave birth would inherit nothing of the original sin; the flesh formed of her blood was united with the Only-Begotten Son. This Unity took place from the first moment of the Holy Pregnancy in the Virgin's
womb. As a result of the unity of both natures-the Divine and the human-inside the Virgin's womb, one nature was formed out of both: "The One Nature of God the Incarnate Logos" as St. Cyril called it."

"The Holy Church did not find an expression more reliable, deep and precise than that which was used by St. Cyril the Great, and which St. Athanasius the Apostolic used before him. Both of them were true leaders in the theological field worldwide. When I participated in the dialogue arranged by the Pro-Oriente group in Vienna, Austria in September 1971 between the Roman Catholic Church and the ancient
Oriental Orthodox Churches concerning the Nature of Christ, the point of discussion was St. Cyril's expression "One Nature of God the Incarnate Logos" (Mia Physis Tou Theou Logou Sesarkwmene)."

"After the schism which took place in the year 451 A.D., when the Coptic Orthodox Church rejected the motions of the Council of Chalcedon and its theological struggles, we were called "Monophysites" that is, those who believe in the "One Nature".

"Sharing our belief are the Syrians, the Armenians, the Ethiopians and the Indians; who were also called "Non-Chalcedonian" Orthodox Churches. On the other hand, the Chalcedonian Catholic and Creek Churches "The Roman Orthodox" believe in the two natures of Christ; the Protestant Churches also hold this belief."

"Just as we say that the human nature is one nature consisting of two elements or natures, we can also say about the Incarnate Logos, that He is one entity of two elements or natures."

THE NATURE OF CHRIST By: H.H. Pope Shenouda III

In Him
SB

[jckstraw72]

that very last sentence sounds Orthodox

[GOCPriestMark]

Yes it was necessary and important enough for God to reveal His will through the miracle of the Great-martyr Euphemia which the Holy Church celebrates each year on July 11th.

[GOCTheophan]

433: St. Cyril explicitly accepts two natures after the hypostatic union in his "Epistle to John of Antioch" (the Agreements of 433):

"With regard to the Evangelical and Apostolic expressions concerning the Lord, we know that men who are skilled in theology make some of them common to the one Person, while they divide others between the two Natures, ascribing those that are fitting to God to Divinity of Christ, and those that are lowly to His Humanity. On reading these sacred utterances of Yours, and finding that we ourselves think along the same lines—for there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism—, we glorified God the Saviour of all" [John Karmiris, Dogmatic and Creedal Statements of the Orthodox Church, Vol. 1 [Athens:1960]. p. 154], quoted in The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics, p 11]

Saint Cyril replies to extremists who questioned the Agreements:

"We have not gone so mad as to anathematize our own views; but we abide by what we have written and by our way of thinking" [Epistle XXXVII, to Theognostos, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. LXXVII, Col. 169C; quote in The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 12].

448: The Permanent Synod of Constantinople under Patriarch Flavian condemns Eutyches who rejects St. Cyrils Agreements.

449: Dioscoros presides over the Robber Synod and exonerates Eutyches, and deposes St. Flavian (who is beaten to death and replaced by an Alexandrian), and condemns all who accept the Agreements and anathematizes all who confess two natures [Fr. Geoges Florovsky, The Byzantine Fathers of the Fifth Century (Thessaloniki:1992), p 470; referenced in The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 13].

451: The Fourth Ecumenical Synod adopts all the teachings of St. Cyril, and condemns those who selectively choose some of them and reject others as heretical. St. Flavian is vindicated and the Robber Synod Annulled.

457: Timothy Ailouros (another Monophysite "saint") condemns Saint Cyril on account of the agreements:

"Cyril... having excellently articulated the wise proclamation of Orthodoxy, showed himself to be fickle and is to be censured for teaching contrary doctrine: after previously proposing that we should speak of one nature of God the Word, he destroyed the dogma that he had formulated and is caught professing two Natures of Christ" [Timothy Ailouros, "Epistles to Kalonymos," Patrologia Graeca, Vol LXXXVI, Col. 276; quoted in The Non Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 13].

499: Philoxenos of Hierapolis convenes a synod in Constantinople and deposes the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch (Flavian), and Severos, a Disciple of Timothy Ailouros (and another Monophysite "saint") is installed in his place [Ibid., p 14].

Severos also condemns St. Cyril's Agreements:

"The formulae used by the Holy Fathers concerning two Natures united in Christ should be set aside, even if they be Cyril's" [Patrologia Graeca, Vol. LXXXIX, Col. 103D. Saint Anastasios of Sinai preserves this quote of Severos in his works; quoted in The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 12].

[GOCTheophan]

Dear Benejamin,

I read that book by the Coptic Pope when I was an Eastern Rite Roman Catholic and basically a false Ecumenist also and what struck me that the he teaches firmly that Christ has only ONE will. I had read St Maximius and therefore from that moment on knew that they were heretics because they reject the teachings of the 6 th Ecumenical council clearly without all the hair splittings they indulge in about the 4 th.

Theophan.

[Anastasios]

Anyone who's taken a course in logic will tell you that truth isn't determined by majority vote.

I guess you weren't paying attention in that class Matthew--because you are making a rather large assumption and you are also subtly changing the subject in that sentence, and you are relying on hearsay. So you are basically violating three rules of logic at once!