Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
on Chalcedon
Hello All,
I would like to ask the view of the Oriental Orthodox Churches towards Chalcedon. Do we view it as a hersey,an error or as an acceptable Christological view?
I would like to ask the view of the Oriental Orthodox Churches towards Chalcedon. Do we view it as a hersey,an error or as an acceptable Christological view?
Comments
Do you mean the council as a whole, the Doctrinal statement, the rejection of Eutychianism?
Some of it is acceptable, some of it became acceptable and some of it remains unacceptable.
It rather depends entirely on what you mean by Chalcedon.
Do you mean the council as a whole, the Doctrinal statement, the rejection of Eutychianism?
Some of it is acceptable, some of it became acceptable and some of it remains unacceptable.
Fr Peter, I have a follow up question. Regarding the rejection of Eutychianism, I know we (Chalcedonian - hereafter called C, and Non-Chalcedonian - hereafter called NC). I know the Chalcedonian formula of out of two natures has become acceptable from NC point of view. What then remains unacceptable in terms of Christology? Is it politics that remains?
Second question. Your book, Selected writings of Severus of Antioch, shows that Severus was adamant against stating "out of two natures" to combat Leo's Tome. He said it is unacceptable to say "When the mystery of Christ is introduced among us, the principle of union is not oblivious of difference, but rejects division, not by mixing or commingling the natures with one another, but that after the Word has partaken of flesh and blood, he is understood and named as Son." Up to this point, it seems both C and NC agree as understood in the 20th century ecumenical talks.
"But if Emmanuel is one, consisting of Godhead and manhood which have a perfect existence according to its own principle, and the hypostatic union without confusion shows the difference of those which have been joined in one dispensatory union, but rejects division, both the elements which naturally belong to the manhood have come to belong to the very Godhead of the Word, and those which belong to the Word Himself have come to belong to the very manhood which he hypostatically united in him."
Everything in this second half of Severus' discussion seems to attack Leo's Tome. C's formula, found on this site, seems to agree with Severus' definition and contradicts Leo's Tome. Is this a fair assessment?
ReturnOrthodoxy
Proudly, a chalcedonian Monophysite
ReturnOrthodoxy
huh?!
[quote author=ReturnOrthodoxy link=topic=13535.msg157803#msg157803 date=1342578859]
Proudly, a chalcedonian Monophysite
ReturnOrthodoxy
huh?!
I had the same reaction :)
I meant the decision of Chalcedon as to Christ's nature.I am also confused about the difference between prospoic union and hypostatic union.
The Chalcedonian terminology is 'in two natures' and not 'out of two natures'. Indeed 'out of two natures' was rejected at Chalcedon. The issue is not the Christology of the Chalcedonians as it has been mediated through especially the council of Constantinople 553, but what we think of Chalcedon as an event itself. This is what is problematic.
The Christology as UNDERSTOOD is the same. The Christology as it was PRESENTED at Chalcedon is a matter of dispute. I accept the substance of all these latter councils, and even Chalcedon as interpreted through Constantinople 553. But that does not mean I accept Chalcedon in the same way that a Chalcedon will.
So it depends what is required and what is meant. I am in a detailed dialogue with serious and theologically highly literate Chalcedonians at the moment. It is clear that we do have exactly the same Christology, to an even greater degree than I myself had considered, and yet this agreement is subverted by the use of a different lexicon which has made communication complex and troubled.
There are issues around anathemas and the use of terminology in different ways. But these are clearly surmountable since the Christology is the same. Much of the problem has been with misunderstanding and misrepresenting other's views.
I think it is mistaken to say that St Severus does not use the term 'out of two natures'. I would say that it is foundational for him and for all non-Chalcedonians since it describes the union as being of two distinct elements.
Just one instance from a letter taken at random...
Following these God-inspired words of the holy fathers, and confessing our Lord Jesus Christ to be of two natures..
We do not dispute that Christ is fully and perfectly God and fully and perfectly man. St Severus says that we do not reject distinction but division. But no-one who has an adequate Christology does either. The issue with Chalcedon is that at the least it left the door open for inadequate Christologies, and it was at Constantinople 553 that things were tightened up. So we are speaking with those who have already tightened up their Christology as it were. They look back and see Chalcedon as saying what we all believe. We look back and see it saying something different. But it does not change the fact that we are saying the same thing now about Christ.
The Tome of Leo can also be taken in an Orthodox manner, as well as in an un-Orthodox manner. Which Tome should we read? When we are asking what the Chalcedonians believe we will want to read it in an Orthodox manner as they do. When we are asking why we reject it we will want to describe how we see certain ambiguities in it which are problematic.
What we all want to do is insist that the identity of Christ is that of the Word. And so we say that the Word suffered on the cross, because he truly did and no-one else did. But we do not mean that he suffered in his divine nature which is impassible. We can say that God wept, God walked on water, even that God died, because all of these things which happen in the flesh belong only to the Word of God and no-one else. So we do find it jarring when Leo of Rome says that the Word receives glory while the flesh receives suffering because we want to say that if the Word does not also receive suffering then WHO does!
But to find deficiency in the Tome of Leo is not the same as finding deficiency in the Christology of those who receive the Tome since it may be understood, as all human communication may be understood, in a variety of ways.
I may say that I believe in one God, and a Muslim may say, 'So do I'. But we do not mean the same thing at all.
Have you read my articles on the Christology of St Severus and other important Fathers? They are available in the book and ebook 'Orthodox Christology' which you, or anyone else, can purchase here...
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/orthodoxlibrary
In essence this is not different to the working of God in a prophet, even if we say that it is to a higher or even perfect degree. Jesus the man is not the Word of God in this concept, even if he shares some of the names because he is the man in whom the Word is showing himself and in whom their is an iconic relationship. So one who teaches a prosopic union could not say that the Word suffered on the cross. The man Jesus in whom God was suffered on the cross.
An hypostatic union is one of identity. Jesus the man IS God the Word. They are the same identity. To touch Jesus is to touch God the Word in his humanity. He does not show himself through a man, he IS that man. While remaining God.
This is one of the touchstones of a true Christology. Can a person say that one of the Holy Trinity suffered and died on the cross. Those who teach a prospopic union can not. They might say that the Lord suffered and died, or even that the Son suffered and died, because they allow that these names and titles can be applied to the man that the Word united himself to, as an ambassador who is humiliated in a foreign court is united to his king or president so that the humiliation might be said to apply to the king or president. But they could never say that one of the Holy Trinity suffered. The hypostatic union requires us to do so.
The Definition is problematic, and personally I believe was not satisfactorily Orthodox in its creation. But it can be understood in an Orthodox manner. Accepting that the Definition of Chalcedon CAN be understood in an Orthodox manner and accepting that it WAS always understood in an Orthodox manner are not the same things.
To take an extreme. It might be possible to take a writing of Arius and interpret it in an Orthodox manner, but that would not be the same as being willing to accept Arius.
Many Chalcedonians do not require that their interpretation of the Definition be accepted - which is not very problematic. But they wish also to insist that their hagiographic understanding of the historical event of Chalcedon also be accepted. This is not possible. Nor does it seem necessary to me. Some Chalcedonians will insist that to accept Chalcedon requires us to anathematise St Dioscorus. I am not willing to do that either. Others will insist that the Tome of Leo must be received.
So it is necessary to ask in which way Chalcedon should be accepted. I don't think there is anything political about it. I am willing to accept the revised intent of Chalcedon as describing the dual consubstantiality of Christ. I am not willing to accept the Chalcedonian view of history. I am willing to accept the present Chalcedonian understanding of the Chalcedonian Definition. I am not willing to reject St Dioscorus.
The Chalcedonian terminology 'in two natures' does strike me, on its own, as being incompatible with our Orthodox Christology. This is why it was objected to. The objections to Chalcedon were not political, they were theological. The Six Anathemas are not political. But now we are dealing with Chalcedonians who have revised their view of Chalcedon, and in a direction that makes their Christology essentially compatible with ours. But to accept that compatibility does not require us to say that we made a mistake in rejecting Chalcedon as it was and is on its own.
'In two natures' is Theodorean language. It is the language of a prosopic union. Even worse, the language of St Cyril, 'of two natures', was declared heretical.
So Chalcedon, on its own, remains problematic. Even though the Chalcedonian understanding of Chalcedon is less problematic.
:)
That's probably a completely unOrthodox suggestion, but I'm just a layman, so who cares.
A prosopic union is such as Theodore of Mopsuestia proposed (and his followers). Prosopon has the sense of face or mask, and so Christ is understood as being the manifestation of the Word of God in the man Jesus. We see the Word of God in a sense when we see Jesus because the Word is working in Jesus and has united himself to him by grace and will.
In essence this is not different to the working of God in a prophet, even if we say that it is to a higher or even perfect degree. Jesus the man is not the Word of God in this concept, even if he shares some of the names because he is the man in whom the Word is showing himself and in whom their is an iconic relationship. So one who teaches a prosopic union could not say that the Word suffered on the cross. The man Jesus in whom God was suffered on the cross.
An hypostatic union is one of identity. Jesus the man IS God the Word. They are the same identity. To touch Jesus is to touch God the Word in his humanity. He does not show himself through a man, he IS that man. While remaining God.
This is one of the touchstones of a true Christology. Can a person say that one of the Holy Trinity suffered and died on the cross. Those who teach a prospopic union can not. They might say that the Lord suffered and died, or even that the Son suffered and died, because they allow that these names and titles can be applied to the man that the Word united himself to, as an ambassador who is humiliated in a foreign court is united to his king or president so that the humiliation might be said to apply to the king or president. But they could never say that one of the Holy Trinity suffered. The hypostatic union requires us to do so.
Dear Father Peter,
I have a question,
Why do almost all the churches not include the formula of the Trisagion in their prayers as does the Coptic Church recite it?
Is it because they still have some doubt about accepting the Hypostatic union?
THE TRISAGION
Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, Who was born of the Virgin, have mercy on us.
Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, Who was crucified for us, have mercy on us.
Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, Who rose from the dead and ascended into the heavens, have mercy on us.
The Oriental Orthodox use it as a Christological hymn, and therefore add phrases which are appropriate to such a focus.
It has nothing to do with the relative view of the hypostatic union. If the Eastern Orthodox were using it in a Christological sense but refusing to add the phrases then that might be a matter for clarification. But they use it in a Trinitarian sense.
The Oriental Church kept that Tradition.
Can you please provide any academic references to "The Early Church understood the Trisagion hymn to be directed to the Son rather than the Trinity"?
Thank you
As the rite of Constantinople came to predominate in Eastern Orthodoxy the use of the Trisagion as a Trinitarian hymn also came to predominate.
But it was certainly a Christological hymn from the Antiochian/Syrian Tradition.
In summary, the West and the Byzantines were afraid to address the Trisagion to the Son so that people may think that the passion was attributed to the divinity. The Oriental on the other hand had no problem addressing the chant to the Son in accordance with:
These things Isaiah said when he saw His glory and spoke of Him. John12:41 (the Trisagion is heard by Isaiah in his vision of the Cherubim and the Seraphim)
If anyone interested in the article, please pm me.
In Constantinople it was used as a Trinitarian hymn, but in Syria, where it originated, it was a Christological hymn and was used as a Christological hymn even by Chalcedonian
Dear Father Peter,
Since the Trisagion hymn, as a Christological hymn, has its origin in Syria, why the Constantinople changed it as Trinitarian hymn.
There is nothing in the basic form which requires it to be Trinitarian or Christological. It can be either. And in Coinstantinople it was addressed to the Trinity. If I were participating in an Eastern Orthodox liturgy I would address it to the Trinity as they intend to.
Not according to the Patristic Tradition (St Cyril of Alexandria, St John Chrysostom, Origen, Augustine, and others)
Because of Chalcedon, the Byzantines were afraid that the passion might be attributed to the Divinity.
The OO Church has fought with the Melekites showing that the chant ought to be attributed to the Son as the Church has received through Holy Tradition.
Not according to the Patristic Tradition (St Cyril of Alexandria, St John Chrysostom, Origen, Augustine, and others)
This is of particular interest to me. Could you provide references from these Fathers regarding the Trisagion?
I dont believe any of these fathers refer to the Trisagion hymn. I think imikhsil is confusing reference to the holy, holy, holy of Isaiah with the hymn we call the Trisagion. I think I will bow out if this as it seems that everything I say is contradicted and I dont want to enter into argument.
I am sorry Father Peter, if I have offended you in any way.
You are right in your analysis as to the origin of the Trisagion. I was not clear in my last post.
The Oriental Church believes that the origin of the Trisagion is the vision of Isaiah. And so had no problem addressing it to the Son according the Church Fathers interpretation.
However, the Eastern Church did condemn such usage. Thus, they introduced the trinitarian formula. In addition, the Melekites in Syria attributed the Trisagion to Isaiah and did say that it addresses the Father.
Again, I am sorry if I have offended you. I am certain that your fatherly heart has room for my imperfections.
If I were participating in an Eastern Orthodox liturgy I would address it to the Trinity as they intend to.
Dear Father Peter,
If a priest of an Eastern Orthodox Church were participating in an Coptic Orthodox liturgy, do your Kodsak think he would sing it to the Son? I know of some people will not address it to the Son.
If he was educated in the variety of uses of the Trisagion then he might either choose to sing as he was accustomed, or choose to sing as we are accustomed. But it would depend on the priest.
Either form is Orthodox, but one is addressed to the Trinity and one to the Son.
It would surely depend on the priest?
If he was educated in the variety of uses of the Trisagion then he might either choose to sing as he was accustomed, or choose to sing as we are accustomed. But it would depend on the priest.
Either form is Orthodox, but one is addressed to the Trinity and one to the Son.
Dear Fr. Peter,
Please correct me if I am wrong.
Does not the following canon prevent the Eastern clergy and laity from addressing the Trisagion to the Son:
Whereas we have heard that in some places in the hymn Trisagion there is added after "Holy and Immortal," "Who was crucified for us, have mercy upon us," and since this as being alien to piety was by the ancient and holy Fathers cast out of the hymn, as also the violent heretics who inserted these new words were cast out of the Church; we also, confirming the things which were formerly piously established by our holy Fathers, anathematize those who after this present decree allow in church this or any other addition to the most sacred hymn; but if indeed he who has transgressed is of the sacerdotal order, we command that he be deprived of his priestly dignity, but if he be a layman or monk let him be cut off.
6th "ecumenical" council canon LXXXI
This canon prevents the hymn when used in a Trinitarian fashion having this addition, which is correct. But it was used extensively by Eastern Orthodox as a Christological hymn with the additions. Which is also correct.
However, the Eastern Church did condemn such usage. Thus, they introduced the trinitarian formula.
Dear Imikail,
It is troubling that the Eastern Church condemn the use of the original formula, the Word of God, and replaced it with another formula. Does the church still hold of chalcedon!!
How can some people ask for unity with such church?!!