Thank you for this article. We must remember that the Non-Chalcedonians are not only condemned in the 4th Ecumenical council, but again in the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh EC's. They are also monothelites denying that Christ had an ACTIVE human free will that He could exercise during His lifetime. This robs Christ not only of His humanity, but His all-praised obedience, and robs us of the possibility of salvation, for according to St. Athanasios, whatever Christ failed to take on from our nature, is not redeemed. If our active human free will was too dangerous for Christ to take on (as Coptic Pope Shenouda ii claimed-see "the Nature of Christ"), because it would allegedly conflict with the Divine and cause Him to sin--how then can God judge us who have no choice but to take it on? Finally, neither of our ecclesiologies will allow us to admit that there could somehow be two co-existing Bodies of Christ for 1600 years, nor that the Body of Christ has been visibly divided in two for 1600 years. The only option they have is to humble themselves, reject their heresy, embrace all the Ecumenical Councils, and join us Orthodox sinners in the One Ark of Salvation. Even here there is no guarantee of Salvation unless we faithfully repent and "endure to the end". May God find a way to save us all!
In Chalcedon and the Armenian Church, Karekin Sarkissian, who went on to become the Catholicos of Armenian Church 1995-1999, states that the Armenian rejection of Chalcedon was willful and reasoned with all the necessary facts:
‘Then, we think, it will NOT be difficult to conclude that if the Armenians rejected the Council of Chalcedon it was not because:
(a) They were deceived or misled.
(b) They were unable to understand the doctrine of Chalcedon.
(c) They were compelled by the Persians.
(d) Their language was inadequate for an accurate rendering of the intricate meaning of the formularies.
(e) They were victims of a false and unfortunate identification of the Chalcedonian doctrine with Nestorianism.
Rather:
(a) Their attitude was primarily religious and theological, not political.
(fe) The rejection of the Council of Chalcedon did not happen suddenly or accidentally. There was a struggle within the Church before it took place.
(c) The Armenians did not confound Nestorianism with Chalcedon; but the two only became closely associated and Chalcedon only became of vital importance for the Armenian Church when the Nestorians themselves took it as a source of strength and as a vindication of the orthodoxy of their doctrinal position.
(d] The rejection was a very natural and reasonable act, closely consistent with their doctrinal position, when seen in the context of their historical and theological tradition.
These are the main points which will come up in the course of the present study and which we will try to substantiate by the existing historical and theological evidence. (Chalcedon and the Armenian Church, pp. 20-21)
He has been, and yet their theology is rooted in much of his theological framework. He is used here because the philosophical framework which he laid out is consistent with that which the churches accepted and have continued to build on. While more recent scholarship can be helpful, we have to remember that the Fathers' interpretation and the pronouncements of the ecumenical councils are the foundation and rule of our interpretation. If they wish to return to the Orthodox Church, they must accept those decrees - not recent scholarship and attempts to reconcile the two irreconcilable views.
Indeed they do. The article ought to have turned on and engaged in recent interpretations of Cyril and then Severus. That’s the main issue. I think Philoponus is an interesting case, no doubt, but one more instructive for understanding, say, William Lane Craig, who is Apollonarian, monothelete, and tritheist.
Do you take the original distinction to be a difference of direction (one coming from anti nestorian and the other anti monophysite)? If you do, I was wondering what a better preposition is that may fit that encompasses "from" and "in".
Being a member of the Armenian Apostolic Church, II would like to make some comments though I am afraid that comprehensive answer would take too much space. That is why I'd rather take two-three points only.
The author takes some thoughts of Chalcedonies authors like John of Damascus or Maximus the Confessor as ultimate truths, while these ideas often contradict the ideas of pre-Chalcedonian fathers of the Universal Church.
In other cases, ascribes the notions of Severus and some other non-Chalcedonian theologians to the Armenian Church, which is also not correct.
"Monophysites, however, believe that Christ is both God and man in such a way that His nature is a composite—one “incarnate nature” made up of divinity and humanity."
This is the idea of Severus of Antioch, which is not shared by the Armenian Church, therefore this argument is not valid for us.
"Thus, that rational mortal animal which is in me is common to no other living thing.'
This formulation of Philoponus, in this form also is not shared by the Armenian Church.
"It is absolutely necessary that where there are two natures there be also at least two hypostases in which these natures will have received their existence."
This formulation, however, is very correct. Moreover, Cyril of Alexandria goes further and states that in Christ two natures, with their representative hypostases united.
"But because their theology maintains a strict 1:1 ratio of nature to hypostasis, this union results in a single composite nature—the so-called "one incarnate nature.""
In the case of the Armenian Church it does not result in composite nature. There is a very correct and elegant explanation for that.
"If Christ’s "incarnate nature" is a composite of divinity and humanity—blended into a third thing—then His humanity is no longer truly ours. It becomes a hybrid, semi-divine nature, and Christ ceases to be consubstantial with us."
First, 'incarnate nature', which is the favourite term of Cyril, is not the composite nature, otherwise he would at least once call it "composite". And he explains his 'incarnate nature' many times in his letter.
There are other instances, that I would like to touch, but in one thing I would like to agree with the author. Indeed, non-Chalcedonian (or Oriental Orthodox) theologians should not say our theology is the same as that of Chalcedonians. It has many common points but has also important differences.
Do you reject St. Cyril of Alexandria? Is that why you put his words in mocking scare quotes preceded by "so-called"? And do you really not know that Oriental as an adjective for orthodox is a 20th Century exonym?
Oh good. Yes, having a decent command of the English and French languages, I'm aware of the relation between Oriental and Eastern - hence why it is mentioned in the article as an absurd and false distinction, one which is untranslatable and meant to confuse, invented recently for ecumenical dialogue.
Second point: It's not I who reject St. Cyril, friend, but the Monophysites. Notice I nowhere quote St. Cyril. The quoted words you allude to are in relation to the bastardized concept which Monophysites hold to. A concept St. Cyril rejected and which by attributing to St. Cyril they blaspheme his holy memory.
As is common knowledge to those familiar with the history, St. Cyril was clear about rejecting the monophysite reading in his letters, but the Monophysites again blaspheme his memory by claiming he was forced to write them or was otherwise senile.
It's funny though because you prove my point: Monophysites love to play word games because they can't defend their heresy. Instead of having an answer and discrediting my argument with reason, you stoop to ad hominems and insist I'm blaspheming the Blessed Cyril. It's easy for you to do - since you're not in his Church.
There were no attacks on your character in my reply. I asked why you put his quotes in scare quotes and you answered by saying you are presenting the other side. Your issue is in conflating every position which is not your own as Monophysitism, which would be like some one of my position conflating every position which is not mine as Nestorianism and Nestorius lite. What you have to content with is that the Coptic Orthodox is not some minor community to be written off so easily, but the genuine See of Alexandria, and likewise the Syriac Orthodox the genuine See of Antioch. Your theology is not apostolic (unless you claim the See of Rome) but imperial (of Constantinople). Before Chalcedon there was no concept of five patriarchates but three apostolic sees, and we have two of them. Greek was used early on there, but their indigenous languages are Coptic and Syriac (literary Aramaic).
They are amazingly faithful people and I see all these type of public statements as hopeful, tentative reachings toward getting back together. I'd like to see that happen.
Thank you for this article. We must remember that the Non-Chalcedonians are not only condemned in the 4th Ecumenical council, but again in the Fifth, Sixth and Seventh EC's. They are also monothelites denying that Christ had an ACTIVE human free will that He could exercise during His lifetime. This robs Christ not only of His humanity, but His all-praised obedience, and robs us of the possibility of salvation, for according to St. Athanasios, whatever Christ failed to take on from our nature, is not redeemed. If our active human free will was too dangerous for Christ to take on (as Coptic Pope Shenouda ii claimed-see "the Nature of Christ"), because it would allegedly conflict with the Divine and cause Him to sin--how then can God judge us who have no choice but to take it on? Finally, neither of our ecclesiologies will allow us to admit that there could somehow be two co-existing Bodies of Christ for 1600 years, nor that the Body of Christ has been visibly divided in two for 1600 years. The only option they have is to humble themselves, reject their heresy, embrace all the Ecumenical Councils, and join us Orthodox sinners in the One Ark of Salvation. Even here there is no guarantee of Salvation unless we faithfully repent and "endure to the end". May God find a way to save us all!
Exactly Father. Thank you for your comments
Very helpful article. This is the one heresy that I still had not fully grasped or understood the implications that follow from it.
In Chalcedon and the Armenian Church, Karekin Sarkissian, who went on to become the Catholicos of Armenian Church 1995-1999, states that the Armenian rejection of Chalcedon was willful and reasoned with all the necessary facts:
‘Then, we think, it will NOT be difficult to conclude that if the Armenians rejected the Council of Chalcedon it was not because:
(a) They were deceived or misled.
(b) They were unable to understand the doctrine of Chalcedon.
(c) They were compelled by the Persians.
(d) Their language was inadequate for an accurate rendering of the intricate meaning of the formularies.
(e) They were victims of a false and unfortunate identification of the Chalcedonian doctrine with Nestorianism.
Rather:
(a) Their attitude was primarily religious and theological, not political.
(fe) The rejection of the Council of Chalcedon did not happen suddenly or accidentally. There was a struggle within the Church before it took place.
(c) The Armenians did not confound Nestorianism with Chalcedon; but the two only became closely associated and Chalcedon only became of vital importance for the Armenian Church when the Nestorians themselves took it as a source of strength and as a vindication of the orthodoxy of their doctrinal position.
(d] The rejection was a very natural and reasonable act, closely consistent with their doctrinal position, when seen in the context of their historical and theological tradition.
These are the main points which will come up in the course of the present study and which we will try to substantiate by the existing historical and theological evidence. (Chalcedon and the Armenian Church, pp. 20-21)
Is John Philoponus rejected by Miaphysites? I thought he was condemned by both sides.
He has been, and yet their theology is rooted in much of his theological framework. He is used here because the philosophical framework which he laid out is consistent with that which the churches accepted and have continued to build on. While more recent scholarship can be helpful, we have to remember that the Fathers' interpretation and the pronouncements of the ecumenical councils are the foundation and rule of our interpretation. If they wish to return to the Orthodox Church, they must accept those decrees - not recent scholarship and attempts to reconcile the two irreconcilable views.
It says Peter III of Callinicum specifically made tritheists condemn tritheism and teachers like Philoponus.
Indeed they do. The article ought to have turned on and engaged in recent interpretations of Cyril and then Severus. That’s the main issue. I think Philoponus is an interesting case, no doubt, but one more instructive for understanding, say, William Lane Craig, who is Apollonarian, monothelete, and tritheist.
Do you take the original distinction to be a difference of direction (one coming from anti nestorian and the other anti monophysite)? If you do, I was wondering what a better preposition is that may fit that encompasses "from" and "in".
Being a member of the Armenian Apostolic Church, II would like to make some comments though I am afraid that comprehensive answer would take too much space. That is why I'd rather take two-three points only.
The author takes some thoughts of Chalcedonies authors like John of Damascus or Maximus the Confessor as ultimate truths, while these ideas often contradict the ideas of pre-Chalcedonian fathers of the Universal Church.
In other cases, ascribes the notions of Severus and some other non-Chalcedonian theologians to the Armenian Church, which is also not correct.
"Monophysites, however, believe that Christ is both God and man in such a way that His nature is a composite—one “incarnate nature” made up of divinity and humanity."
This is the idea of Severus of Antioch, which is not shared by the Armenian Church, therefore this argument is not valid for us.
"Thus, that rational mortal animal which is in me is common to no other living thing.'
This formulation of Philoponus, in this form also is not shared by the Armenian Church.
"It is absolutely necessary that where there are two natures there be also at least two hypostases in which these natures will have received their existence."
This formulation, however, is very correct. Moreover, Cyril of Alexandria goes further and states that in Christ two natures, with their representative hypostases united.
"But because their theology maintains a strict 1:1 ratio of nature to hypostasis, this union results in a single composite nature—the so-called "one incarnate nature.""
In the case of the Armenian Church it does not result in composite nature. There is a very correct and elegant explanation for that.
"If Christ’s "incarnate nature" is a composite of divinity and humanity—blended into a third thing—then His humanity is no longer truly ours. It becomes a hybrid, semi-divine nature, and Christ ceases to be consubstantial with us."
First, 'incarnate nature', which is the favourite term of Cyril, is not the composite nature, otherwise he would at least once call it "composite". And he explains his 'incarnate nature' many times in his letter.
There are other instances, that I would like to touch, but in one thing I would like to agree with the author. Indeed, non-Chalcedonian (or Oriental Orthodox) theologians should not say our theology is the same as that of Chalcedonians. It has many common points but has also important differences.
Do you reject St. Cyril of Alexandria? Is that why you put his words in mocking scare quotes preceded by "so-called"? And do you really not know that Oriental as an adjective for orthodox is a 20th Century exonym?
Let those with ears to hear, hear. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMCe9mxCeq4&t=9s
Who are you talking to?
You, friend.
Oh good. Yes, having a decent command of the English and French languages, I'm aware of the relation between Oriental and Eastern - hence why it is mentioned in the article as an absurd and false distinction, one which is untranslatable and meant to confuse, invented recently for ecumenical dialogue.
Second point: It's not I who reject St. Cyril, friend, but the Monophysites. Notice I nowhere quote St. Cyril. The quoted words you allude to are in relation to the bastardized concept which Monophysites hold to. A concept St. Cyril rejected and which by attributing to St. Cyril they blaspheme his holy memory.
As is common knowledge to those familiar with the history, St. Cyril was clear about rejecting the monophysite reading in his letters, but the Monophysites again blaspheme his memory by claiming he was forced to write them or was otherwise senile.
It's funny though because you prove my point: Monophysites love to play word games because they can't defend their heresy. Instead of having an answer and discrediting my argument with reason, you stoop to ad hominems and insist I'm blaspheming the Blessed Cyril. It's easy for you to do - since you're not in his Church.
There were no attacks on your character in my reply. I asked why you put his quotes in scare quotes and you answered by saying you are presenting the other side. Your issue is in conflating every position which is not your own as Monophysitism, which would be like some one of my position conflating every position which is not mine as Nestorianism and Nestorius lite. What you have to content with is that the Coptic Orthodox is not some minor community to be written off so easily, but the genuine See of Alexandria, and likewise the Syriac Orthodox the genuine See of Antioch. Your theology is not apostolic (unless you claim the See of Rome) but imperial (of Constantinople). Before Chalcedon there was no concept of five patriarchates but three apostolic sees, and we have two of them. Greek was used early on there, but their indigenous languages are Coptic and Syriac (literary Aramaic).
They are amazingly faithful people and I see all these type of public statements as hopeful, tentative reachings toward getting back together. I'd like to see that happen.
Word concept fallacy