Did the Monophysites kill Chalcedonians?

This is a safe harbor for inquirers and catechumen to ask questions and share their journey into Holy Orthodoxy. Please be kind to our newcomers and warmly welcome them. All Forum Rules apply. No polemics. No heated discussions. No name-calling.
Post Reply
Justice
Sr Member
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri 5 May 2017 8:39 pm
Faith: Deism
Jurisdiction: Possible Inquirer
Location: United States

Did the Monophysites kill Chalcedonians?

Post by Justice »

I have heard about the accounts of Chalcedonians killing Monophysites, but are their any accounts of Monophysites killing Chalcedonians? if so, could you give me a link to the source.
d9popov
Member
Posts: 207
Joined: Sat 10 June 2017 12:29 am

Re: Did the Monophysites kill Chalcedonians?

Post by d9popov »

The question of which side was more violent is, of course, completely irrelevant to the issue of divine revelation and dogmatic truth. You can Google "Dioscurus AND Saint Flavian" to start your research on the violence issue, if you need answers on that. The Fourth Ecumenical Council called Dioscurus "hateful-to-God" for his evil actions and perversions of pure doctrine. Dicoscurus's "Robber Council" was truly an atrocity. Saint Flavian was manhandled and died, essentially murdered. The Byzantines often had more military power than the Monophysite-leaning populations, so there was violence. Justinian was Orthodox but harsh. Theodora too sympathetic to Monophysites. Soon, the Muslim armies overpowered both Orthodox Christians and Monophysite heretics. In addition to the Fourth Ecumenical Council, you need to READ THE FULL DOGMATIC DEFINITION OF THE SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL for the God-given truths about the two natures, wills, and energies in the one person of Christ
Justice
Sr Member
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri 5 May 2017 8:39 pm
Faith: Deism
Jurisdiction: Possible Inquirer
Location: United States

Re: Did the Monophysites kill Chalcedonians?

Post by Justice »

d9popov wrote:The question of which side was more violent is, of course, completely irrelevant to the issue of divine revelation and dogmatic truth. You can Google "Dioscurus AND Saint Flavian" to start your research on the violence issue, if you need answers on that. The Fourth Ecumenical Council called Dioscurus "hateful-to-God" for his evil actions and perversions of pure doctrine. Dicoscurus's "Robber Council" was truly an atrocity. Saint Flavian was manhandled and died, essentially murdered. The Byzantines often had more military power than the Monophysite-leaning populations, so there was violence. Justinian was Orthodox but harsh. Theodora too sympathetic to Monophysites. Soon, the Muslim armies overpowered both Orthodox Christians and Monophysite heretics. In addition to the Fourth Ecumenical Council, you need to READ THE FULL DOGMATIC DEFINITION OF THE SIXTH ECUMENICAL COUNCIL for the God-given truths about the two natures, wills, and energies in the one person of Christ
Thank you d9popov, this helped clear things up.
d9popov
Member
Posts: 207
Joined: Sat 10 June 2017 12:29 am

Re: Did the Monophysites kill Chalcedonians?

Post by d9popov »

Dioscorus, the Archbishop of Alexandria, was a horrible bishop. He is rightfully anathematized by the Orthodox Church as "hateful-to-God." He exonerated the heretical contradictions of Eutyches, he presided at the "Robber Council," he betrayed the teaching of Saint Cyril of Alexandria and Saint Leo the Great, and he is morally culpable in the death of Saint Flavian and in the schism from Christ's Church by the Monophysite churches . Despite all these crimes against the Christian Faith, the Coptic church treats him as if he were a great hero --- a hero like Saint Athanasius the Great and Saint Cyril of Alexandria. Sadly, Copts, Abyssinians (Ethiopians and Eritreans), and Syriac Jacobites have been indoctrinated, by their Monophysite bishops, for centuries, to regard Dioscorus as a hero. This false indoctrination continues to this day because Monophysite popes, bishops, and theologians are often extremely ignorant about what the Holy Fathers of the ancient Church actually taught. The Coptic Church of Alexandria is actually ignorant even about what Saints Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria taught about Christ's two natures, two operations, and two wills. The Egyptian theologian George Bebawi, who studied at the University of Athens, expressed shock at how ignorant Coptic bishops were; and, even worse, how stubborn and resistant they were when they were presented with what the great Fathers of the Church actually taught about Christ's two natures, the essence and energy of God, the Divine Eucharist, and other doctrines. The recent Pope Shenouda was a theological ignoramus who greatly slandered Orthodox teaching about Christ. I feel bad for Shenouda, because he was persecuted by the Egyptian dictators for being a Christian; but, the reality is that Shenouda persecuted members of his own flock who expressed some Orthodox views.

The situation is made worse because some western scholars and theologians (Karl Rahner and numerous others) and some eastern Christian scholars and theologians (John Meyendorff) have written some demonstrably false mischaracterizations of Saint Cyril's teaching. Theologians such as these attribute supposed contradictions to Saint Cyril that are not actually there in Cyril's writings taken as a whole. The situation is made even worse by ecumenist "Orthodox" theologians who are willing to sell out the Orthodox faith for a union with the monophysites.

Some of these "Orthodox" sell-outs falsely claim that Saint Cyril and the Fifth Ecumenical Council teach that Christ's two natures can be distinguished "in thought only" (en theoria mone). This is a sleight of hand. What the Fathers actually teach is that Christ's two natures can by SEPARATED "only in thought," because they are always inseparable in reality. The phrase "in thought only" was never meant by the Orthodox to deny that the two natures are really and truly different. The Holy Fathers write much about the difference between the uncreated divine nature and the created human nature. The monophysites, however, misuse the phrase "in thought only" to obscure the complete, whole, and perfect human nature, human operation/energy, and human will of the one Hypostasis (Person) of Christ. So-called "Chalcedonian Eastern Orthodox" ecumenist theologians and bishops have betrayed the Orthodox teaching by making concessions to this monophysite sleight of hand. There is also a "politically correct" campaign to prevent Orthodox from referring to monophysites as monophysites, but rather as "non-Chalcedonians" or "miaphysites" or "Oriental Orthodox" or even "pre-Chalcedonian Orthodox." Mar Jacob of Serugh can probably be called a "non-Chalcedonian Orthodox" because he seems to have had a Christology that was essentially Orthodox, even though there were contradictory views among his flock about the exact wording used at Chalcedon. However, the followers of Dioscorus do not deserve the title "Orthodox," because Dioscorus exonerated the heretic Euthyches.

The undeniable historical fact is that the term "physis" (usually translated "nature") had more than one meaning in the Church of Alexandria in Saint Cyril's time. When "physis" was used similarly to "essence," then Saint Cyril could refer to TWO physes. When "physis" was used more-similarly to "person," the saint said "one physis." Saint Cyril was an extremely intelligent man, but the Copts have not read him intelligently. The Copts latched on to the phrase "one physis," they gave it a one-sided interpretation, and they used it as a partisan slogan to separate from Christ's Church. The Copts need to be more honest with themselves and more faithful to Saint Cyril and admit that Saint Cyril believed in TWO natures without confusion in the one Person of Christ. The ecumenist "Orthodox" need to be more faithful to Orthodoxy and not try to pull the wool over people's eyes with misinterpretations of "mia physis" and "en theoria mone." There are numerous passages from Saint Cyril's writings that show that he taught essentially the same thing as the later Council of Chalcedon. Many such quotations can be found in Hans van Loon's book _The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril of Alexandria._ I cannot endorse everything that the author writes, but he does provide overwhelming proof that Saint Cyril of Alexandria believed in TWO natures, TWO operations/actions/energies, and TWO wills in the one undivided Person of Christ. The quotations from Saint Cyril are well worth reading. The book can be read, in part, at the Google Books website. The anti-Chalcedonian (and therefore anti-Orthodox) Copts, Ethiopians, Eritreans, Syriac Jacobites, Malankaras, and Armenians are profoundly wrong. I pray that God will lighten the persecutions that many of these believers are undergoing now. I also pray that they return to Orthodoxy as it is summarized in the great definition of faith issued by the Council of Chalcedon. The Antiochian "Orthodox" have my sympathy for the persecutions and suffering they are undergoing in Syria, but we all need to condemn the limited intercommunion that they have with unrepentant monophysites in Syria and Lebanon. Orthodox Christians acknowledge the unity between Saint Cyril and Chalcedon and Orthodox anathematize Eutyches' doctrine and condemn Diocorus' defense of Eutyches. Orthodox must reject intercommunion with those who oppose the Orthodox teaching of the Fourth Ecumenical Synod, held at Chalcedon. It was truly one of the most important councils held in world history. It faithfully taught the truth about the deity and humanity in the one Savior.
Justice
Sr Member
Posts: 816
Joined: Fri 5 May 2017 8:39 pm
Faith: Deism
Jurisdiction: Possible Inquirer
Location: United States

Re: Did the Monophysites kill Chalcedonians?

Post by Justice »

This is a great analysis of the whole situation d9popov.
d9popov
Member
Posts: 207
Joined: Sat 10 June 2017 12:29 am

Re: Did the Monophysites kill Chalcedonians?

Post by d9popov »

Justice wrote:This is a great analysis of the whole situation d9popov.
Thank you for your kind words.

Saint Cyril emphasized the unity of Christ, even going so far as to write of “one physis,” by which he meant one person. However, Saint Cyril also used “two physeis” (“two nature”) language and he would have accepted the carefully balanced dogmatic definition of the Council of Chalcedon (the definition that the Monophysites rejected). The sad reality is that many Copts considered Saint Cyril at the time to be a sell-out for accepting “two natures.” Today, Copts claim that they are “strict Cyrillians,” but that is not fully true. The Copts today are followers of Dioscorus’s evil schism, which was, in part, an attempt to placate those Copts who wrongly considered Saint Cyril to be a sell-out and who wrongly considered Saint Leo to be a Nestorian heretic. The truth is that, despite some differences of emphasis, there was a fundamental unity between Saint Leo the Great, Saint Cyril of Alexandria, and the Council of Chalcedon. Dioscorus refused to accept this unity in Orthodoxy, and the Copts ended up going into schism.

Saint Cyril: “the heavenly Man as well as the Word, in two natures [eis dýo mèn phýseis]” (Saint Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, Glaphyra on Leviticus, PG 69:576B, trans. Loon 555).

Saint Cyril: “not confusing the natures or mingling the natures” (Saint Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, Against Nestorius 2.6, ACO 1.1.6, trans. Loon 556).


Loon: “This is further evidence that Cyril would not have objected to ‘in two natures’, when the unity of Christ is safeguarded.… Within the context of the Chalcedonian definition … ‘acknowledged in two natures’ is so embedded within an unambiguous confession of the unity of Christ, that it seems likely that the Alexandrian archbishop would have accepted it” (Loon 555¬–556).
Post Reply