The "Non-Chalcedonians"

[Seraphim Reeves]

On another message forum (which I'm sure most of us are familiar with), it seems to be taken as gospel that the Non-Chalcedonians are basically not different from the Orthodox in their christology (with many Orthodox even accepting the term "Oriental Orthodox" to refer to them... which is odd, since "Oriental" and "Eastern" mean the same thing.)

However, I'm not convinced of this (that the Non-Chalcedonians only differ in terminology, not in material belief.) The common apologetic for the Non-Chalcedonian (don't dare call it Monophysitism, though this is exactly what their position is) position is as follows...

• Those who accept Chalcedon affirm that Christ is one hypostasis, but with two Natures (fully human, fully Divine).

• The "Oriental Orthodox" believe that Christ is both human and Divine, but that He is such in one "Incarnational" Nature (that is both human and divine.) However, "we mean the same thing as you guys."

If this is true (that the same thing is intended), it a couple of interesting questions...

a) where the Orthodox fathers really this dense, or should we rather ask, are modern "Orthodox ecumenists" who buy this line, brighter and more informed than the Orthodox fathers who condemned the Non-Chalcedonians as monophysites?

b) If what the Non-Chalcedonians really meant the same thing, why did they take exception to Chalcedon in the first place? While to some degree it is possible to mean "the same thing" while using different terms, there are limits on this - particularly when there is an overlap of terminology. For the truth is, both Orthodox and monophysites speak in a similar vocabulary, including the use of the term "nature" - the Orthodox affirming Christ has a human and divine nature (two natures), and the monophysites confessing only one, composite nature. Thus, I fail to see how one can possibly talking about the "same thing."

Besides this, another problem with the ecumenical dialogue between the Non-Chalcedonians and apparent "Orthodox", is that the non-Chalcedonians reject the ecumenicity of the rest of the Great Councils. This, combined with their hallowing of men who the Church of Christ has named (specifically) as heretics, seems to make corporate reunion impossible at this time. Yet for pointing this out, you'll probably be labeled a hawk or an uncharitable bigot. One thing is certain however, it is absolutely scandalous for the Antiochians to be on the verge of formal communion with these folks, and to take for granted the already existant "grass roots" communion of the Monophysites with their Church.

Those are some of my thoughts on the subject; I'd appreciate the opinions of others, particularly critiques (either in my conclusions, or even my facts.)

Seraphim

[Justin Kissel]

seraphim reeves

a) where the Orthodox fathers really this dense, or should we rather ask, are modern "Orthodox ecumenists" who buy this line, brighter and more informed than the Orthodox fathers who condemned the Non-Chalcedonians as monophysites?

I think the key difference is one of seriousness. For most of us today, theology at most approaches something that inspires awe. For the Fathers, even single syllables were worth dying over if those syllables meant a change in faith, and a corruption of what had been handed on. How many of us, for instance, would stand up against iconoclasts if we knew it meant that they would tie us up in large sacks and throw us into the sea?

I do think it's perhaps going a bit too far though to use the "were they dense?" line. After all, saints in the Church, such as Emperor Justinian, believed that a "compromise formula" was possible that would be ok with both sides, but wouldn't betray Chalcedon. I'm not sure if things have changed since then, and if Justinian's hope was ever realistic to begin with, but I think it should at least give us something to chew on. (I actually have a book on the Christology of Emperor Justinian on my bookshelf right now waiting to be read, though I doubt I'll get to it any time soon... I already read two books on him in the last two months, and I'm working on a half dozen books as it is, not including the Lenten ones).

b) If what the Non-Chalcedonians really meant the same thing, why did they take exception to Chalcedon in the first place?

I would tend to agree here, and there continuance in not accepting it is also reason to wonder. They say that they were afraid that Chalcedon came to close to heresy... but how can that be? The question to these fellows is: can Chalcedon be understood in an orthodox way or not? If it can, then why won't they accept it, interpreting it in the "acceptable" way? If it can't, then are they not saying that the Eastern Orthodox in grave error (and hence, we really don't believe the same thing)?

Besides this, another problem with the ecumenical dialogue between the Non-Chalcedonians and apparent "Orthodox", is that the non-Chalcedonians reject the ecumenicity of the rest of the Great Councils.

On the flip side, have the "Non-Chalcedonians" as a generalized group had any councils together that they still consider authoritative for doctrine and practice? If so, do they expect the Orthodox Churches to accept these councils?

This, combined with their hallowing of men who the Church of Christ has named (specifically) as heretics, seems to make corporate reunion impossible at this time.

They actually said, about a decade ago, that they wouldn't cease their veneration of some who the Orthodox deem to be heretics. What's more, they said that they wouldn't acknowledge as saints the pillars of Orthodoxy whom they up-till-now have viewed as heretics (e.g., they would only go so far as to say that they wouldn't call Leo a heretic in public).

One thing is certain however, it is absolutely scandalous for the Antiochians to be on the verge of formal communion with these folks, and to take for granted the already existant "grass roots" communion of the Monophysites with their Church.

This is one of the most painful things for me. A Priest I respect very much communes monophysites, and the reason he gave me was that, since they had a bunch of kids, they didn't want to travel far to get to Church (they'd have to travel an hour if they didn't attend the Antiochian parish). Therefore, they are allowed to partake at the Antiochian Church, provided they follow along the guidelines that Orthodox Christians follow. Mary and I have actually stopped attending an Antiochian parish (not the one just mentioned) because of this problem. It's ironic that one of the reasons given to me for allowing this practice was that it was out of pastoral concern for those who were too far away from a non-chalcedonian parish to commune at. Now, however, their "pastoral concern" for some has pushed others (ie. my wife and I) away from communing, and into liturgical limbo.

I also find it strange that many Orthodox today bend over backwards to be "loving" and "understanding" of the non-chalcedonians--a group who were, up until fairly recently, universally considered heretics in the Orthodox Church. These same Orthodox, though, will turn around and attack or ridicule or at least slight "traditionalist" Orthodox--their own brothers in the Church of Christ! How is it that ROCOR, for example, is said to have an "irregular status," be "schismatic," or even be heretics, as some uninformed people have claimed, while the non-chalcedonians are said to be "almost orthodox" and to "basically believe the same thing".

Let me sum up my thoughts... I think a more moderate stance is needed than is sometimes taken among traditionalists. I think that we need to at least consider possible formula's for reunion. These are something that should happen over long periods of time, however, and certainly the cart should not be put before the horse (eucharist before formal communion of Churches). We need to keep our wits about us, and stay level-headed. We also need to watch our language, for like it or not, we live in an ecumenical and politically correct time, and out of love we should try to make our language readable (if not totally agreeable). At the same time, we shouldn't shy away from repeating the words of the Fathers when necessary, even if harsh.

Justin

[尼古拉前执事]

I've often wondered about this as well. Non-Chals will not accept the 4th through 7th councils and when you ask, they say, well why will you not accept the Romans' 8th through 24th or whatever number they are up to.

The difference here, of course, is that we do not agree with those Roman councils, yet the Non-Chals say they agree with the decisions of Ecumenical Councils 4 through 7, just that they were not issues in the Churches Orientale.

It seems to me, that if the Non-Chals believe the same thing as us then accepting the councils should not be a barier, yet it is. I do not know why.

[demetrios karaolanis]

I have not read to deeply in this situation so please correct me if I am wrong. isn't the christiology of the oriental churhc entirely different from regular orthodoxy? The coptic pope openly states often that he rejects completely many of the councils. does anyone have any links or anything on oriental orthodoxy?

[尼古拉前执事]

This comes from today's issue of Orthodox News:

Bert Genbrugge Comments on the Oriental Orthodox Churches, ROCA, and ROCOR

March 6, 2003 --

With Love in our Lord & Saviour Jesus Christ
Protodeacon Basil from Canberra

Dear Editor,

In answer to the layperson - Bert Genbrugge, Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Oriental Orthodox churches were found to be heretical by the whole body of the Orthodox Church (Ecumenical Councils) & our ROCA church is part of the historical Russian Orthodox Church (the Catacomb & the Moscow Patriarchate are also part of the same historical Russian Orthodox Church). We stand against heretical teachings/membership in the WCC - (MP's ecumenism & sergianism - both betray Orthodoxy). Let the universal Russian saint of our times - St John of San Francisco & Shangai speak about our Church:

"The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia St. John (Maximovich) of Shanghai and San Francisco

The Russian Orthodox Church Outside of Russia is that part of the Russian Church which is outside the boundaries of the Russian State, governed at the present time by a Chief Hierarch and a Synod of Bishops chosen by the Sobor of Bishops of the Russian Diaspora.

The Russian Church has had a part outside of Russia for about two centuries. The preaching of Christianity to the pagan tribes of Asia involved the founding of missions which became in the course of time dioceses in China and Japan. The spreading of Orthodoxy among the pagan population of the Aleutian Islands and Alaska and the establishment of the Mission, and then dioceses for North America, were a continuation of the preaching in Asia. In Western Europe, beginning with the 18th century, churches were built at first at the Russian embassies, and then separately from them in those places which were visited by Russians in their trips abroad. All these churches were considered to be in the diocese of the Metropolitan of Petrograd; most recently they were directly dependent on his vicar, the Bishop of Kronstadt. None of the Eastern Patriarchs, whose authority has been highly respected by the Russian people, and likewise none of the other heads of the Orthodox Churches, ever protested against such a spreading of the Russian Church. If according to the Church canons a duration of thirty years is sufficient to cause a church or a place to belong to that diocese which in the course of those years was in possession of it, then all the more must one recognize as undisputed the right of the Russian Church to those places which have been cared for by her for many decades. One may say quite certainly that this question would never have been raised if the Russian Empire and with it the Russian Church had remained in its former power and glory, and if no misfortune had befallen them.

After the collapse of the monarchy, at first the Russian Church continued both within and without Russia to enjoy her former rights. But this did not last long. Soon persecution began. The Communist regime which soon came to power set as its aim the uprooting of all religion, which according to Marxist teaching is prejudice and superstition. The chief blow was directed against the Orthodox Church, to which belonged the overwhelming majority of the Russian people, and which had inspired them over the centuries from the very Baptism of Russia. Churches began to be closed, clergy were persecuted and murdered, and this turned later into systematic battle against the Church with the aim of exterminating it.

[尼古拉前执事]

[Seraphim Reeves]

Thank-you for posting that article Nicholas. I've read it already, and it makes quite clear that while the text in question has been badly abused by the ecumenists. When St.John speaks of the monophysites as being "Orthodox" in every other sense, he doesn't mean they are "Orthodox", but rather that the Church doesn't have a problem with them save their heterodox Christology (liturgically they were fine at the time St.John wrote, and in other areas they seemed to be "ok.")

Seraphim