Council of Chalcedon:"Spirit and water and blood" 1Jn5:8

[Catholic_Dude]

I just got done with the Council of Chalcedon and it was kind of confusing.
Here are some questions I have:

-It starts off talking about a “robber council” which I cant figure out

-How do you pronounce “eutyches”?

-The problem guy is Eutyches but I didnt see how he was much different than Nestorius. They both said there was an original separation of flesh and divine. They both said that the divine came upon the flesh at a time after the flesh was created and used the body as a temple or carrier. The only difference that I see is that Eutyches said that there was a mixture of the two natures instead of the fullness of each, but wouldnt Nestorius have had to believe that as well?

-Here is an AMAZING passage:
It is he, Jesus Christ who has come through water and blood, not in water only, but in water and blood. And because the Spirit is truth, it is the Spirit who testifies. For there are three who give testimony–Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. [1 John 5:8] In other words, the Spirit of sanctification and the blood of redemption and the water of baptism. These three are one and remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others. The reason is that* it is by this faith that the catholic church lives and grows*, by believing that neither the humanity is without true divinity nor the divinity without true humanity.
This paragraph seems to totally destroy that KJV interpretation where it adds the terms the “Father Son and Holy Spirit” are one. Am I right on this one?

-It says to expel anyone who says:
the divinity of the Only-begotten is passible
so what does “passible” mean?

-In Canon 15 it says:
No woman under forty years of age is to be ordained a deacon, and then only after close scrutiny.
I thought women cant become deacons. Can they?

-overall those canons seem to be going after greedy clerics, kind of sad it had to come down to formal laws to stop it.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Catholic Dude:

I just got done with the Council of Chalcedon…

Dude, you seem to have an unusual Summer reading list.

The Council of Chalcedon, of course, was held to deal with the Eutychian heresy (and I have no idea how it is pronounced).

It starts off talking about a “robber council” which I cant figure out

AKA the “Latrocinium” (rebel, hostile) council. Here’s the history: In 448, a synod at Constantinople condemned Eutyuches. In 449, this Latrocinium council was convened by the emperor Theodosius II and chaired by Dioscorus, the Patr. of Alexandria (and an upholder of Monophysitism). Naturally, this “council” upheld Eutyches, and “deposed” some bishops, and furthermore mocked the Pope (St. Leo) and his legates. But this council WAS held with the consent of Pope Leo (though he rejected its findings, rendering it null).

The problem guy is Eutyches but I didnt see how he was much different than Nestorius.

They had similar ideas that the Divine and human natures of Christ were once different, but Eutyches said that the two natures were merged in Christ (whereas Nestorius maintained they remained distinct). The problem with Eutyches idea is that a fusion of Divinity and humanity is not the same as a purely human nature (thus, Jesus could not have had a human nature consubstantial with our own). By way of analogy, the orthodox doctrine is that Jesus was salt AND Jesus was water (both at the same time, though my analogy breaks down because salt and water have natures which are mutually exclusive, whereas a Divine and human nature are not mutually exclusive because they have nothing in common). But, continuing with my flawed analogy… Nestorius said Jesus was part salt, part water, and Eutyches said Jesus was saltwater (neither salt nor water, but a mixture). Eutyches was the true father of the Monophysite heresy

Here is an AMAZING passage:… For there are three who give testimony–Spirit and water and blood. And the three are one. [1 John 5:8].
This paragraph seems to totally destroy that KJV interpretation where it adds the terms the “Father Son and Holy Spirit” are one. Am I right on this one?

Yeah. The KJV wording is not found in any manuscript before the Sixteenth Century. It is a fallacy, and the KJV is a very bad translation based on very bad source material.

-It says to expel anyone who says:
the divinity of the Only-begotten is passible
so what does “passible” mean?

I’ve always assumed it means mutable (ie, it can pass from one thing to another), but I could be wrong.

In Canon 15 it says: No woman under forty years of age is to be ordained a deacon, and then only after close scrutiny.
I thought women cant become deacons. Can they?

The topic of the deaconess has been discussed on this forum at length (as a search will show). It was not an ordained office in the sense that we mean today. This canon is using the term “ordination” somewhat loosely - for example, we might say someone was “ordained” as a Eucharistic Minister, but we would be more precise to say “installed.”

overall those canons seem to be going after greedy clerics, kind of sad it had to come down to formal laws to stop it.

Yes, very sad. But you’re only up to the fourth Oecumenical Council. When you get to Trent, we’ll talk again.

 

[Gene_C]

Hi Catholic Dude and David,

“Passible” means able to feel pain, to suffer.

In His Divine nature, Jesus was impassible. He could not suffer. But in His human nature, He was passible. On the Cross, He suffered for our sins in HIs human nature but not in His Divine nature.

At least, that is the way I understand it and I’m sure somone will correct me if I’m off.

Grace and peace,
Gene

 

[Catholic_Dude]

DavidFilmer-

Dude, you seem to have an unusual Summer reading list.

Ha ha, I know. I decided to read as many as I could get through. This started when I was debating some protestants on another forum and every time I would bring up SS and say how they interpret the Bible for themself with zero regard to history, well they didnt like me saying that and would continually insist that SS means the Scriptures are the only infallible and ultimate authority but they still regard history as a lesser authority, eg councils, fathers, etc. Well I decided to read as much as I could to see how much they agree and so far its been totally in favor of the CC. Some big things that stick out are:
-the clear authority of Bishops/Apostolic Succession over the people,
-clear authority of the Nicene Creed (which these protestants claim they follow, except when I point out “One Baptism for the FORGIVNESS of sins” which they dont like to hear)
-clear power to excommunicate (they dont like that idea though)
-I show some that the title “Mother of God” is infact a proper title to use which some have a hard time using the term
-Then in this council the 1Jn5:8 passage again it reaffirms Baptism
Its really amazing that so much (if not all) of this protestant stuff has already been dealt with already.
Anyway I have learned a lot from reading them as well as your answers to my questions.

By way of analogy, the orthodox doctrine is that Jesus was salt AND Jesus was water (both at the same time, though my analogy breaks down because salt and water have natures which are mutually exclusive, whereas a Divine and human nature are not mutually exclusive because they have nothing in common). But, continuing with my flawed analogy… Nestorius said Jesus was part salt, part water, and Eutyches said Jesus was saltwater (neither salt nor water, but a mixture).

That was very helpful!