Council of Florence and Lyons II

[Wandile]

What is the difference between the Monophysite rejection of the Council of Chalcedon and the Orthodox rejection of the The second council of Lyons and the council of Florence?

What makes the Orthodox different from the Monophysites?

Secondly do eastern Catholics view these two reunion councils as ecumenical? Why or why not?

 

[malphono]

I’m not up for a major discussion of Christology right now, so it will have to suffice for me to say that the so-called “monophysistes” condemned by Chalcedon are, in fact miaphysistes who follow the Christology of St Cyril of Alexandria. That miaphysite Christology is indeed orthodox is attested to even by Rome. For one thing, there have been joint Christological declaration between Rome and the Oriental Orthodox over the past 35-some years confirming this. Secondly, Cyril of Alexandria has ever been considered a saint in the Latin Church, and it seems to me that would be a rather unlikely distinction had his theology been anything but orthodox.

As an end note, let me add that I have never heard of Chalcedon spoken of as a “reunion” council. It is, however, considered by some to be a “Robber Council”.

 

[Wandile]

I’m not up for a major discussion of Christology right now, so it will have to suffice for me to say that the so-called “monophysistes” condemned by Chalcedon are, in fact miaphysistes who follow the Christology of St Cyril of Alexandria. That miaphysite Christology is indeed orthodox is attested to even by Rome. For one thing, there have been joint Christological declaration between Rome and the Oriental Orthodox over the past 35-some years confirming this. Secondly, Cyril of Alexandria has ever been considered a saint in the Latin Church, and it seems to me that would be a rather unlikely distinction had his theology been anything but orthodox.

Yes however the reality of Monophysites was real in that there were some who were actually Monophysite. However what you say is true.

As an end note, let me add that I have never heard of Chalcedon spoken of as a “reunion” council. It is, however, considered by some to be a “Robber Council”.

Neither did I call it a reunion council

 

[malphono]

Neither did I call it a reunion council

Sorry … I guess I missed the word “Lyons” …

 

[Peter_J]

What is the difference between the Monophysite rejection of the Council of Chalcedon and the Orthodox rejection of the The second council of Lyons and the council of Florence?

What makes the Orthodox different from the Monophysites?

Secondly do eastern Catholics view these two reunion councils as ecumenical? Why or why not?

One different is that the Second Council of Lyons wasn’t consider an Ecumenical Council until almost 300 years after the fact (mid 16th century).

 

[Peter_J]

Wandile, I think there is merit to your Eastern Orthodox / Oriental Orthodox comparison. But the thing is, it shouldn’t be a matter of revising our opinion of EOs downward, but rather of revising our opinion of OOs upward.

 

[twf]

Wandile, I think there is merit to your Eastern Orthodox / Oriental Orthodox comparison. But the thing is, it shouldn’t be a matter of revising our opinion of EOs downward, but rather of revising our opinion of OOs upward.

This has always been my issue with the views of some Eastern Catholic Christians. The argument is made that the 8th through 21st “ecumenical councils” recognized by Rome cannot truly be ecumenical councils, or, according to some, in any way binding on Eastern Catholics, as the Eastern Orthodox bishops were not represented. If that argument is sound, I don’t understand why Chalcedon through Second Constantinople can be deemed “ecumenical” without the Oriental bishops. As a Latin, I certainly believe that Eastern and Oriental bishops should be actively involved at all ecumenical councils, but it is not, strictly speaking, a requirement for a valid council. Latin bishops were hardly, if at all, involved at most of the early councils, but we still accept them as fully ecumenical and binding.

We can debate what constitutes a valid ecumenical council, but the criteria of universal acceptance by the episcopate has no historical basis.

 

[Peter_J]

This has always been my issue with the views of some Eastern Catholic Christians. The argument is made that the 8th through 21st “ecumenical councils” recognized by Rome cannot truly be ecumenical councils, or, according to some, in any way binding on Eastern Catholics, as the Eastern Orthodox bishops were not represented. If that argument is sound, I don’t understand why Chalcedon through Second Constantinople can be deemed “ecumenical” without the Oriental bishops. As a Latin, I certainly believe that Eastern and Oriental bishops should be actively involved at all ecumenical councils, but it is not, strictly speaking, a requirement for a valid council. Latin bishops were hardly, if at all, involved at most of the early councils, but we still accept them as fully ecumenical and binding.

We can debate what constitutes a valid ecumenical council, but the criteria of universal acceptance by the episcopate has no historical basis.

I think people, often times, like things to be very black-and-white, e.g. “There cannot be any post-1054 Ecumenical Councils, until Catholics and EOs reunite” or “There have been 21 Ecumenical Councils because it says so in the CCC.”

Don’t get me wrong, I like your idea that there can be debate (possibly leading to a number greater than 7 but less than 21) but I find that most people do not.

 

[Zekariya]

Ecumenical Councils are called by Byzantine emperors to settle disputes so that the one, true Faith is preserved inviolate. The bishops who reside in the Byzantine empire must obey the emperor and meet to defend the Faith against the heretics. Each patriarchates has the choice of accepting or rejecting a Council called by the emperor. Those who reject the decision of the Council supported by the Byzantine emperor are anathematized and exiled by the emperor.

There are no more emperors around to enforce the decisions of Ecumenical Councils. The later councils ended with multiple bishops having multiple opinions on the validity or authority of the council. There are no legal penalties placed on those that reject the council except excommunication. The decisions of the council cannot be enforced on all patriarchates.

If there was a strong Byzantine emperor in 1054, there might have never been a “Great Schism”. A decision would have been made in a Council and the emperor would enforce is and exile those that reject it.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

This has always been my issue with the views of some Eastern Catholic Christians. The argument is made that the 8th through 21st “ecumenical councils” recognized by Rome cannot truly be ecumenical councils, or, according to some, in any way binding on Eastern Catholics, as the Eastern Orthodox bishops were not represented. If that argument is sound, I don’t understand why Chalcedon through Second Constantinople can be deemed “ecumenical” without the Oriental bishops. As a Latin, I certainly believe that Eastern and Oriental bishops should be actively involved at all ecumenical councils, but it is not, strictly speaking, a requirement for a valid council. Latin bishops were hardly, if at all, involved at most of the early councils, but we still accept them as fully ecumenical and binding.

We can debate what constitutes a valid ecumenical council, but the criteria of universal acceptance by the episcopate has no historical basis.

In Traditional Church teaching, a Bishop that goes into schism or heresy is no longer a “valid bishop” to use Latin terminology (this whole idea of licit and illicit, degrees of Communion et al is perplexing). This is why there is a Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian Patriarch of Alexandria for example.

Technically, The Chalcedonian Orthodox could have replaced the Pope in Rome with an Orthodox Bishop (we still could, although that would never happen). What Schismatics or Heretics do or don’t do is irrelevant…The Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. They have cut themselves out of the picture.

NOW…as for what that means for current ecumenical relations, it is definitely messy. Reconciliation is the official policy, so the blunt language of the past has been softened by Economia and a shift of tone.

Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not a crank and nor am I against taking a reasonable conciliatory tone (I support it wholeheartedly, as division is always a deep tragedy) but from the Orthodox point of view Rome is in schism, as are the Non-Chalcedonians. I know you and they in turn view us the same way. This is why using the Non-Chalcedonian example doesn’t really work, because Schismatics in general don’t make the Church cease to be Catholic. I know Rome sees it as irrelevant that the Orthodox didn’t participate in Trent or Vatican I).

 

[dzheremi]

I had a much more irritated response penned in reply to the consistent slander of ignorant Western Chalcedonians who wish to use the division between the non-Chalcedonians and the Byzantines in order to imagine some support or excuse for their own positions which differ from both, but it is better that our saints testify as to the antiquity of our Orthodox confession regarding the nature of Christ as perfect God and perfect man, without any mixture, division, confusion, or alteration (and I am also not in the mood for Christological debate; it is not 451 anymore and we will continue on as usual). Then maybe you will think twice next time before starting a thread that rests upon shameful distortions of the Orthodox faith that, as has been pointed out to you by others, is held in common by some who you too/two recognize as saints, namely St. Cyril of Alexandria.

Culled from an address given by Abba Seraphim of the British Orthodox Church in 2005 (bibliography at source):

“If Eutyches holds notions disallowed by the doctrines of the church, he deserves not only punishment but even fire: but my concern is for the Catholic and apostolic faith, not for any man whomsoever .”

“Since you have thought fit to ask me for what reason Eutyches is anathematized, the man of ill name and impious, and how it is that he was received by Dioscorus of saintly memory, we say in a few words that he was received on presenting a document which contained a right confession of faith and anathematized Mani and Valentine, and Apollinaris, and those who say that the flesh of our Lord and God Jesus Christ came down from heaven….But the man of ill name seems again to have ‘returned to his vomit’.”

“I have written this upon hearing that certain persons are opposed to obeying the tradition of the holy fathers who taught Christ’s fleshly consubstantiality with us. Such persons the fathers also anathematized”.

“I also say anathema to Eutyches the heretic, and to his followers, because he denies that there was a real embodiment of God from the Virgin, and regards as hallucinations the mysteries of His corporeity.”

“Eutyches …. zealously opposed the Nestorian heresy, and was so highly concerned about the unity of the two natures in Christ, which Nestorius tore apart, that he fell into another heresy. Eutyches said that the human nature was absorbed and dissolved in the Divine nature as a drop of vinegar in the ocean. In this way, he denied the human nature of Christ. After St. Dioscorus had excommunicated him, Eutyches pretended that he repented and accepted the true faith and St. Dioscorus allowed him to return on the condition that he would refute his heresy. Later on however, he again declared his corrupt belief and was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon held in 451 AD, and was also excommunicated by the Coptic Church.”

There are many more quotes that could be gathered in defense of the true history of the communion and its Orthodox faith, but this is probably enough. Hopefully it is obvious to all who might read this thread how closely HH Pope Shenouda III follows the explanation of St. Severus, and thus demonstrates the continued opposition Eutychianism/monophysitism that has always existed among us. This rejection of the Eutychian heresy is, after all, just as much a part of our tradition as is the rejection of the Council of Chalcedon, yet if one were to read Chalcedonians discussing the matter amongst themselves (as here), it would be hard to come away with this understanding. Even in framing the issue at hand, it is assumed that there are non-Chalcedonians and then there are Orthodox (Chalcedonian Byzantines), and never the twain shall meet. Well excuse me for being blunt, but if this is the paradigm you are working within and expect us to fit, may God sustain us in our Orthodox faith far, far away from either of you, as there has apparently been nothing learned (and hence nothing to be gained from union with you) since the failed attempts at reunion engineered by the Byzantines which begat their own heresies due to Byzantine ignorance regarding the non-Chalcedonian position (e.g., the monothelite heresy).

Far from being with merit, this is just about the most tired and ultimately senseless and worthless comparison that anyone seeking to understand either the non-Chalcedonian or the Byzantine Chalcedonian communion could possibly make. It’s like asking what makes a house cat different from a giraffe since they’re both mammals: Probably many things, but what exactly does that tell you? Everything outside of the basics involved in being a mammalian organism is different, just as everything outside of the fact that both communions rejected what others claimed to be binding councils differs re: the OO and Chalcedon and the EO and Florence and Lyons II. What do you gain from comparing the two situations and communions?

 

[malphono]

I had a much more irritated response penned in reply to the consistent slander of ignorant Western Chalcedonians who wish to use the division between the non-Chalcedonians and the Byzantines in order to imagine some support or excuse for their own positions which differ from both, but it is better that our saints testify as to the antiquity of our Orthodox confession regarding the nature of Christ as perfect God and perfect man, without any mixture, division, confusion, or alteration (and I am also not in the mood for Christological debate; it is not 451 anymore and we will continue on as usual). Then maybe you will think twice next time before starting a thread that rests upon shameful distortions of the Orthodox faith that, as has been pointed out to you by others, is held in common by some who you too/two recognize as saints, namely St. Cyril of Alexandria. …

Far from being with merit, this is just about the most tired and ultimately senseless and worthless comparison that anyone seeking to understand either the non-Chalcedonian or the Byzantine Chalcedonian communion could possibly make. It’s like asking what makes a house cat different from a giraffe since they’re both mammals: Probably many things, but what exactly does that tell you? Everything outside of the basics involved in being a mammalian organism is different, just as everything outside of the fact that both communions rejected what others claimed to be binding councils differs re: the OO and Chalcedon and the EO and Florence and Lyons II. What do you gain from comparing the two situations and communions?

Excellent post, dzheremi.

 

[Peter_J]

Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not a crank and nor am I against taking a reasonable conciliatory tone (I support it wholeheartedly, as division is always a deep tragedy) but from the Orthodox point of view Rome is in schism, as are the Non-Chalcedonians. I know you and they in turn view us the same way. This is why using the Non-Chalcedonian example doesn’t really work, because Schismatics in general don’t make the Church cease to be Catholic. I know Rome sees it as irrelevant that the Orthodox didn’t participate in Trent or Vatican I).

Right. Ditto for Lateran V and Vatican II.

It’s a different matter if we’re talking about the 8 councils that were added en masse, in the mid-16th century, to our list of Ecumenical Councils.

 

[Wandile]

I had a much more irritated response penned in reply to the consistent slander of ignorant Western Chalcedonians who wish to use the division between the non-Chalcedonians and the Byzantines in order to imagine some support or excuse for their own positions which differ from both, but it is better that our saints testify as to the antiquity of our Orthodox confession regarding the nature of Christ as perfect God and perfect man, without any mixture, division, confusion, or alteration (and I am also not in the mood for Christological debate; it is not 451 anymore and we will continue on as usual). Then maybe you will think twice next time before starting a thread that rests upon shameful distortions of the Orthodox faith that, as has been pointed out to you by others, is held in common by some who you too/two recognize as saints, namely St. Cyril of Alexandria.

Culled from an address given by Abba Seraphim of the British Orthodox Church in 2005 (bibliography at source):

There are many more quotes that could be gathered in defense of the true history of the communion and its Orthodox faith, but this is probably enough. Hopefully it is obvious to all who might read this thread how closely HH Pope Shenouda III follows the explanation of St. Severus, and thus demonstrates the continued opposition Eutychianism/monophysitism that has always existed among us. This rejection of the Eutychian heresy is, after all, just as much a part of our tradition as is the rejection of the Council of Chalcedon, yet if one were to read Chalcedonians discussing the matter amongst themselves (as here), it would be hard to come away with this understanding. Even in framing the issue at hand, it is assumed that there are non-Chalcedonians and then there are Orthodox (Chalcedonian Byzantines), and never the twain shall meet. Well excuse me for being blunt, but if this is the paradigm you are working within and expect us to fit, may God sustain us in our Orthodox faith far, far away from either of you, as there has apparently been nothing learned (and hence nothing to be gained from union with you) since the failed attempts at reunion engineered by the Byzantines which begat their own heresies due to Byzantine ignorance regarding the non-Chalcedonian position (e.g., the monothelite heresy).

Far from being with merit, this is just about the most tired and ultimately senseless and worthless comparison that anyone seeking to understand either the non-Chalcedonian or the Byzantine Chalcedonian communion could possibly make. It’s like asking what makes a house cat different from a giraffe since they’re both mammals: Probably many things, but what exactly does that tell you? Everything outside of the basics involved in being a mammalian organism is different, just as everything outside of the fact that both communions rejected what others claimed to be binding councils differs re: the OO and Chalcedon and the EO and Florence and Lyons II. What do you gain from comparing the two situations and communions?

Calm down, nobody is attacking you or calling you a heretic

The comparison is valid. I’m comparing like with like. How is the Oriental rejection of Chalcedon different from the Eastern orthodox rejection do Chalcedon? Chalcedon was deemed ecumenical despite rejection by Monophysites,Miaphysites and Nestorians but alas eastern orthodox argue that Lyons and Florence were not ecumenical because they rejected them… How are they different?

Clearly this question was not targeted at you because its concerning the Eastern Orthodox rationale of how their rejection of Lyon is different from the Oriental rejection.

The second part is aimed at eastern Catholics.

Now not to be rude but before go on another rant, make sure the question is targeted at you or else you will find yourself having a debate with yourself.

 

[Zekariya]

Calm down, nobody is attacking you or calling you a heretic

The comparison is valid. I’m comparing like with like. How is the Oriental rejection of Chalcedon different from the Eastern orthodox rejection do Chalcedon? Chalcedon was deemed ecumenical despite rejection by Monophysites,Miaphysites and Nestorians but alas eastern orthodox argue that Lyons and Florence were not ecumenical because they rejected them… How are they different?

Clearly this question was not targeted at you because its concerning the Eastern Orthodox rationale of how their rejection of Lyon is different from the Oriental rejection.

The second part is aimed at eastern Catholics.

Now not to be rude but before go on another rant, make sure the question is targeted at you or else you will find yourself having a debate with yourself.

Referring to the non-Chalcedonians as “Monophysites” is no different then calling them heretics. They are Miaphysites and use the same terms as St Cyril of Alexandria whom Rome calls the Doctor of the Incarnation. St Cyril actually says, “mia physis”. The non-Chalcedonians condemned Monophysitism. The non-Chalcedonian St Severus of Antioch condemned Monophysitism. Monophysitism is heresy.

 

[malphono]

Referring to the non-Chalcedonians as “Monophysites” is no different then calling them heretics. They are Miaphysites and use the same terms as St Cyril of Alexandria whom Rome calls the Doctor of the Incarnation. St Cyril actually says, “mia physis”. The non-Chalcedonians condemned Monophysitism. The non-Chalcedonian St Severus of Antioch condemned Monophysitism. Monophysitism is heresy.

Thank you for saying that so nicely. To paraphrase a line from brother dzheremi, my response would have been just a wee bit more irritated.

 

[Wandile]

Referring to the non-Chalcedonians as “Monophysites” is no different then calling them heretics. They are Miaphysites and use the same terms as St Cyril of Alexandria whom Rome calls the Doctor of the Incarnation. St Cyril actually says, “mia physis”. The non-Chalcedonians condemned Monophysitism. The non-Chalcedonian St Severus of Antioch condemned Monophysitism. Monophysitism is heresy.

Yes I know they are Miaphysite. Yet who says all non-Chalcedonians are miaphysite? They are Miaphysites, Monophysites and Nestorians. So yeah, nobody is fighting you here.

 

[Zekariya]

Yes I know they are Miaphysite. Yet who says all non-Chalcedonians are miaphysite? They are Miaphysites, Monophysites and Nestorians. So yeah, nobody is fighting you here.

Which Church teaches Monophysitism?

 

[malphono]

Which Church teaches Monophysitism?

Maybe it’s the same one that teaches Nestorianism. You know, Mono on M-W-F and Nesto on Tu-Th-Sa or vice-versa. I guess they alternate Sundays.

 

[Zekariya]

Maybe it’s the same one that teaches Nestorianism. You know, Mono on M-W-F and Nesto on Tu-Th-Sa or vice-versa. I guess they alternate Sundays.

Like they said in the old days of the empire… “[Name] is a Monophysite and a Nestorian.”