Chalcedon vs Non-Chalcedon Christianity

  • Thread starter Thread starter rben20
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rben20

Guest
Hello,

I wanted to ask the Eastern Catholic Community if there were Non-Chalcedon communities recognized. Also how are they viewed in the Eastern Orthodox community?

Thanks
 
I’m not sure what you mean by “if there were non-Chalcedon communities recognized”. The Council of Chalcedon was a source of schism in the church that has continued to this day. The churches today known as the Oriental Orthodox Communion (at the time, the majority of the churches of Alexandria and Antioch) rejected the Council and broke from the body that would become the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Communion. The Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox today are completely independent, separate communions. They have an ongoing ecumenical dialog with one another as does each with the Catholic Church (and with the Assyrian Church of the East, which broke off earlier following the Council of Ephesus). These three bodies – Assyrian Church of the East, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox – are often lumped together under the label “Orthodox Christianity”, although the truth is the three are as different from each other as they are from the Catholic Church. The Chalcedonian split is why for example in Egypt one finds three institutions which each claim to be the true Coptic Church – one Oriental Orthodox, one Eastern Orthodox, and one Eastern Catholic.
 
Hello,

I wanted to ask the Eastern Catholic Community if there were Non-Chalcedon communities recognized. Also how are they viewed in the Eastern Orthodox community?

Thanks
EOs generally have higher regard for the Oriental Orthodox, who are non-Chalcedonian (they recognize 3 councils), than for Catholics, Anglicans, or Protestants.

The ACoE could also no called non-Chalcedonian, but is very different (they recognize 2 councils), and is sometimes called “Nestorian”. They are generally not termed “Orthodox”.
 
There are Eastern Catholic churches that stem from the non-Chalcedonian Oriental churches – the Coptic Catholic Church, the Ethiopian Catholic Church, the Armenian Catholic Church, the Syriac Catholic Church and the Syro-Malankara Catholic Church. Today these all fully accept the Council of Chalcedon, although the language they use about the topics discussed at Chalcedon is virtually identical to that used by the Oriental Orthodox churches that still reject it.
 
**Non-Chacedonians belong to the Alexandrian School and are miaphysites.
**
Miaphysitism: Christ in one united nature (of two natures: Divinity and Humanity) in one person, his divinity united with his humanity in a real and perfect union without mingling, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without separation.

The Catholic Saint, Pope Cyril of Alexandria, taught miaphysitism.

In respect of the elements from which is the one and only Son and Lord Jesus Christ, as we accept them in thought, we say that two natures have been united, but after the union, when the division into two has now been removed, we believe that the nature of the Son is one. - St Cyril of Alexandria, Select Letters, 48

We confess that He is Son of God and God according to the Spirit, Son of Man according to the flesh, not Two Natures to that One Son, One [Nature] worshipped the other unworshipped, but One Nature of God the Word Incarnate, worshipped with His flesh with One worship: nor Two Sons, One, Very Son of God and worshipped, the other the man out of Mary not worshipped, made by grace son of God just as men too are. - St Cyril of Alexandria, Against Theodore

Chacedonians belong to the Antiochian School and are dyophysites.

Dyophysitism: Christ in two natures (Divinity and Humanity) united in one person, his divinity united with his humanity in a real and perfect union without mingling, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without separation.

The Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon taught dyophysitism.

This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be in two natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably [united], and that without the distinction of natures being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Prophets of old time have spoken concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ hath taught us, and as the Creed of the Fathers hath delivered to us. - The Council of Chalcedon, Definition of Faith

A Catholic (Chacedonian) and Syriac Orthodox (Non-Chacedonian) Joint Statement Piece:
Progress has already been made and Pope Paul Vl and the Patriarch Mar Ignatius Jacob III are in agreement that there is no difference in the faith they profess concerning the mystery of the Word of God made flesh and become really man, even if over the centuries difficulties have arisen out of the different theological expressions by which this faith was expressed. They therefore encourage the clergy and faithful of their Churches to even greater endeavours at removing the obstacles which still prevent complete communion among them. This should be done with love, with openness to the promptings of the Holy Spirit, and with mutual respect for each other and each other’s Church. They particularly exhort the scholars of their Churches, and of all Christian communities, to penetrate more deeply into the mystery of Christ with humility and fidelity to the Apostolic traditions so that the fruits of their reflections may help the Church in her service to the world which the Incarnate Son of God has redeemed. - Singed Statement by Syriac Patriarch Mar Ignatius Jacob III of Antioch and Pope Paul Vl of Rome

It doesn’t matter if you understand the Incarnation better in miaphysite terms or dyophysite terms. As long as you accept that both are different orthodox understandings of the same teaching of the doctrine of the Incarnation, it really doesn’t matter where you stand.

Here are the heretical views that are from one extreme to another:

Eutychianism: Christ in one nature that is a mixture and confusion of Divinity and Humanity in one person. He is not fully God. He is not fully man. He is a mixture of God and man in one person.

Nestorianism: Christ in two natures that have come to each other. One is Divine and is worshipped and the other one is a man and is unworshipped. The two persons are one in dignity.
 
**Non-Chacedonians belong to the Alexandrian School and are miaphysites.
**…
I think that that is not 100% correct, they seem to adhere to Monophysitism. Miaphysitism could be consistent with Dyophysitism.
 
I think that that is not 100% correct, they seem to adhere to Monophysitism. Miaphysitism could be consistent with Dyophysitism.
No, the statement to which you replied is correct. The Oriental Orthodox are not now, nor have they ever been Monophysites, at least not in the sense of the monophysitism that was condemned at Chalcedon. They went into schism not because they supported the teaching of Eutyches that was condemned, but because they were unable to reconcile the Definition of Chalcedon with the christological teaching of the Third Ecumencial Council.
 
No, the statement to which you replied is correct. The Oriental Orthodox are not now, nor have they ever been Monophysites, at least not in the sense of the monophysitism that was condemned at Chalcedon. They went into schism not because they supported the teaching of Eutyches that was condemned, but because they were unable to reconcile the Definition of Chalcedon with the christological teaching of the Third Ecumencial Council.
You know what? You are right! Now that I read your post old discussions come to mind and click into place. Thanks for reminding me the references to Eutyches and the inability to reconcile with Calchedon that helped trigger my memory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top