Does Chalcedon Contradict Ephesus?

[holdencaulfield]

Hey everyone this is somewhat of a apologetic question, but I think that here may be the most responsive. I really only want answers to my specific question, please don’t get off topic.

Does the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon contradict the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus. I was wondering specifically about these two specific dogmas from each respective Council

“consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood; made in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of his Father before the worlds according to his Godhead; but in these last days for us men and for our salvation born [into the world] of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to his manhood.” (Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon)

“If anyone distributes between the two persons or hypostases the expressions used either in the gospels or in the apostolic writings, whether they are used by the holy writers of Christ or by him about himself, and ascribes some to him as to a man, thought of separately from the Word from God, and others, as befitting God, to him as to the Word from God the Father, let him be anathema.” (Ecumenical Council of Ephesus)

I know that Chalcedon later makes some balancing statements, however if we just look at these two dogmas, don’t they contradict each other. Can someone reconcile this for me?

 

[Chatter163]

Would you explain how they appear contradictory to you?

 

[jimmy]

Would you explain how they appear contradictory to you?

I think he is refering to Christ being born to Mary ‘according to His manhood.’ He is saying that this contradicts what Ephesus says. Ephesus basically says nothing in Christ’s life can be attributed to either the humanity of Christ or the divinity of Christ. Christ is one person so Christ, the God-man, was born of Mary. Not simply His human nature.

I am guessing that he was discussing with some Oriental Orthodox on another forum and this came up. The Oriental Orthodox, who are non-Chalcedonian, tend to view the Chalcedonians as Nestorians. They profess that there is one nature in Christ. A formula that I have seen for it is that there was ‘one incarnate nature of the divine logos.’ They speak of there being one nature out of two.

 

[JuanCarlos]

Ephesus was clarifying the Catholic stance of Christ against the Nestorians; Chalcedon was against the monophysites.

They don’t contradict each other- Ephesus is warning against people who say “Jesus healed the sick as God, but He combed His hair as a man,”. Jesus is God and man, and Jesus as both God and man healed the sick- and combed his hair.

Chalcedon was against those who said that Jesus human nature and divine nature were together only one nature. It tended to neglect Jesus’ humanity, saying it was like a drop of oil lost in an ocean compared to His Divinity.

 

[holdencaulfield]

I think he is refering to Christ being born to Mary ‘according to His manhood.’ He is saying that this contradicts what Ephesus says. Ephesus basically says nothing in Christ’s life can be attributed to either the humanity of Christ or the divinity of Christ. Christ is one person so Christ, the God-man, was born of Mary. Not simply His human nature.

Yes, exactly that is true. And yes I have been talking to OO’s but still it is still a good question. So what do you say?

Chalcedon was against those who said that Jesus human nature and divine nature were together only one nature. It tended to neglect Jesus’ humanity, saying it was like a drop of oil lost in an ocean compared to His Divinity.

Yes, although Appollinarianism wasn’t officially endorsed, they still had a tendency to view this that way. So can someone answer my question. Ephesus says not to say that one of Christ’s natures did something, yet it seems like Chalcedon does say that His natures do things. Am I wrong. There may be a subtle difference but that’s what it seems like.

 

[jimmy]

Yes, exactly that is true. And yes I have been talking to OO’s but still it is still a good question. So what do you say?

Yes, although Appollinarianism wasn’t officially endorsed, they still had a tendency to view this that way. So can someone answer my question. Ephesus says not to say that one of Christ’s natures did something, yet it seems like Chalcedon does say that His natures do things. Am I wrong. There may be a subtle difference but that’s what it seems like.

Eutychianism (monophysitism) was embraced by many though and Eutyches spoke in the way that Juan mentions. He spoke of the divinity swallowing up the humanity basically. The OO however are not Eutychians. They would rebuke Eutyches for the same reasons Chalcedonians would.

 

[jimmy]

holdencaufield, you can’t take this one quote out of the context of the rest of what is said at Chalcedon. Chalcedon does not say that only Christ’s human nature was born of Mary. It speaks later in the council against this statement. It says,But, forasmuch as persons undertaking to make void the preaching of the truth have through their individual heresies given rise to empty babblings; some of them daring to corrupt the mystery of the Lord’s incarnation for us and refusing [to use] the name Mother of God (Θεοτόκος) in reference to the Virgin, while others, bringing in a confusion and mixture, and idly conceiving that the nature of the flesh and of the Godhead is all one, maintaining that the divine Nature of the Only Begotten is, by mixture, capable of suffering

You must also remember that the OO would disagree with those who would mix the two natures of Christ as the Eutychians did. They also said this,According to this understanding of this unmixed union, we confess the holy Virgin to be Mother of God; because God the Word was incarnate and became Man, and from this conception he united the temple taken from her with himself.
And here is your quote in the context of the whole paragraph,
We confess, therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, perfect God, and perfect Man of a reasonable soul and flesh consisting; begotten before the ages of the Father according to his Divinity, and in the last days, for us and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin according to his humanity, of the same substance with his Father according to his Divinity, and of the same substance with us according to his humanity; for there became a union of two natures. Wherefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord.
Notice that the phrase ‘according to his humanity’ is used within the contrast of His eternal begottenness and his incarnation. It is not saying that He was only born of Mary in relationship to his human nature. Any OO who reads the text should be willing to agree with this paragraph.

 

[holdencaulfield]

holdencaufield, you can’t take this one quote out of the context of the rest of what is said at Chalcedon. Chalcedon does not say that only Christ’s human nature was born of Mary. It speaks later in the council against this statement. It says,But, forasmuch as persons undertaking to make void the preaching of the truth have through their individual heresies given rise to empty babblings; some of them daring to corrupt the mystery of the Lord’s incarnation for us and refusing [to use] the name Mother of God (Θεοτόκος) in reference to the Virgin, while others, bringing in a confusion and mixture, and idly conceiving that the nature of the flesh and of the Godhead is all one, maintaining that the divine Nature of the Only Begotten is, by mixture, capable of suffering

You must also remember that the OO would disagree with those who would mix the two natures of Christ as the Eutychians did. They also said this,
According to this understanding of this unmixed union, we confess the holy Virgin to be Mother of God; because God the Word was incarnate and became Man, and from this conception he united the temple taken from her with himself.

That’s very good. Is that all from Chalcedon. Could you cite me where it is from, so I can read the rest.

 

[jimmy]

That’s very good. Is that all from Chalcedon. Could you cite me where it is from, so I can read the rest.

I re-edited my post to add another reference. The first one is from session 5 and the other two are from session 2. Notice the last one is the complete paragraph of what you quoted. There is a parallelism between the begottenness of the Son in eternity and in the incarnation and for this reason it uses the phrase ‘according to his humanity.’ ‘According to his humanity’ does not speak according to a division within Christ but only of the fact of two births of the Son.

 

[holdencaulfield]

I re-edited my post to add another reference. The first one is from session 5 and the other two are from session 2. Notice the last one is the complete paragraph of what you quoted. There is a parallelism between the begottenness of the Son in eternity and in the incarnation and for this reason it uses the phrase ‘according to his humanity.’ ‘According to his humanity’ does not speak according to a division within Christ but only of the fact of two births of the Son.

Good point. I think I may have this issue somewhat reconciled with myself. If I have any more questions then I will ask them here.

---

Another OOC argument. They have said that by Christ having another nature it adds another nature into the All-Holy Trinity. Is this a legitimate claim? You can read their whole article of objections here

 

[holdencaulfield]

Does anyone have any more comments on this?

 

[jimmy]

Good point. I think I may have this issue somewhat reconciled with myself. If I have any more questions then I will ask them here.

---

Another OOC argument. They have said that by Christ having another nature it adds another nature into the All-Holy Trinity. Is this a legitimate claim? You can read their whole article of objections here

I haven’t read the article yet but this objection does not make sense to me. How would it add another nater to the Trinity? What Chalcedon says is that the second person of the Trinity became incarnate. His human and divine natures remain as they are unmixed in one person. I don’t see how they could claim this affects the Trinity.

 

[holdencaulfield]

I haven’t read the article yet but this objection does not make sense to me. How would it add another nater to the Trinity? What Chalcedon says is that the second person of the Trinity became incarnate. His human and divine natures remain as they are unmixed in one person. I don’t see how they could claim this affects the Trinity.

I’m not too sure either. However I don’t think the argument works either. Because I think they meant that the All-Holy Trinity has one nature, the Divine nature, but if Christ then had one nature that combined with the human nature (Miaphysis), that would add another nature to the All-Holy Trinity anyways, so I don’t think it’s a good argument. Still I was just wondering. If anyone has some time I guess you could read that article and talk about this with me.

 

[holdencaulfield]

I was wondering if anyone could reconcile these phrases from St. Leo’s Tome for me. They seem to contradict Anathema #4 of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Here I will post a couple.

“He whom Herod impiously designs to slay is like humanity in its beginnings; but he whom the Magi rejoice to adore on their knees is Lord of all.” (St. Leo the Great of Rome; Tome)

“Accordingly, he who, as man, is tempted by the devil’s subtlety, is the same to whom, as God, angels pay duteous service. To hunger, to thirst, to be weary, and to sleep, is evidently human. But to satisfy five thousand men with five loaves, and give to the Samaritan woman that living water, to draw which can secure him that drinks of it from ever thirsting again; to walk on the surface of the sea with feet that sink not, and by rebuking the storm to bring down the “uplifted waves,” is unquestionably Divine.” (St. Leo the Great of Rome; Tome)

Now St. Leo seems to reconcile this against Anathema #4 later on, showing that he was only using the above passage against Eutyches, but still nonetheless, the passage still exists the way it was. Here is the reconciliation:

“For although in the Lord Jesus Christ there is one Person of God and man, yet that whereby contumely attaches to both is one thing, and that whereby glory attaches to both is another; for from what belongs to us he has that manhood which is inferior to the Father; while from the Father he has equal Godhead with the Father.” (St. Leo the Great of Rome; Tome)

This following passage is fairly confusing as well.

“that the properties of the Divine and the human nature might be acknowledged to remain in him without causing a division, and that we might in such sort know that the Word is not what the flesh is, as to confess that the one Son of God is both Word and flesh.” (St. Leo the Great of Rome; Tome)

This quote seems to be an attack at Nestorianism, which is very good.

“Now what is to dissolve Jesus, but to separate the human nature from him, and to make void by shameless inventions that mystery by which alone we have been saved?” (St. Leo the Great of Rome; Tome)

Finally St. Leo acknowledges how confusing the Monophysite position is, still I want some help with all of this. Thanks.

“I am astonished that so absurd and perverse a profession as this of his was not rebuked by a censure on the part of any of his judges, and that an utterance extremely foolish and extremely blasphemous was passed over, just as if nothing had been heard which could give offence: seeing that it is as impious to say that the Only-begotten Son of God was of two natures before the Incarnation as it is shocking to affirm that, since the Word became flesh, there has been in him one nature only.” (St. Leo the Great of Rome; Tome)