Miaphysite Theology and the Infallibility of Chalcedon

[MomentsNotice]

Greetings all!

The schism that occurred in the Church after the Council of Chalcedon is a topic that fascinates me, and lately I have had the following thoughts:

If one is a Chalcedonian Christian, he/she must not only accept that the dogmatic decrees of the Council of Chalcedon are binding on all Christian faithful, but also that they are infallibly guided by the Holy Spirit. After all, if an Ecumenical Council is not infallible, then the Christian Faith lies on shaky ground…

However, if this hypothetical Chalcedonian Christian examines the non-Chalcedonian miaphysite theology and arrives at the conclusion that the non-Chalcedonian formula for the Hypostatic Union is, indeed, perfectly orthodox and just as suitable as the Chalcedonian formula presented in Leo’s Tome, then said hypothetical Chalcedonian Christian MUST NECESSARILY reject the Council of Chalcedon as an Ecumenical Council.

Why? Because if Chalcedon erred in proclaiming anathemas on all non-Chalcedonian formulations for the Hypostatic Union (“of two natures,” “from two natures,” etc.), then it logically follows that Chalcedon is NOT infallible; if Chalcedon is not infallible, then it cannot be inspired by the Holy Spirit. So, this hypothetical Chalcedonian Christian no longer has any business being a Chalcedonian Christian, and he/she must become Oriental Orthodox in order to remain logically consistent.

Now, this wouldn’t mean that the Chalcedonian formula for the Hypostatic Union is necessarily wrong in-and-of-itself, but it WOULD mean that Chalcedon - as a council - is not actually infallible and God-inspired.

These days, the Catholic Church recognizes the miaphysite Christological doctrine as being, in essence, perfectly sound and orthodox, as evidenced by joint theological statements. But, if this is the case, wouldn’t that mean that the Catholic Church must admit that Chalcedon made a mistake in anathematizing non-Chalcedonian theology? What does this imply about the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils and of the Catholic Church?

This post is not meant in an antagonistic way; I am genuinely curious about people’s thoughts on this.

God bless!

 

[poche]

I suspect that it is more about semantics and national aspirations of certain communities than anything theological.

 

[Salibi]

Hello @MomentsNotice, and welcome to the forums.

The Oriental Orthodox position was misunderstood. The teaching they hold (Miaphysitism) was wrongly believed to have been Monophytism, which was rejected by the Council. The error here was one of faulty understanding, and the Council indeed did not err in condemning Monophytism. The Church has recognised that the OO have been wrongly accused of being Monophysite, and upon further scrunity, has found that their Christology (Miaphytism) is compatible with the teachings of the Council.

You should look up the joint Christological declarations signed by our two Churches for further information on the subject.

This is my understanding of the matter. I shall take the liberty of tagging our forum priest, @edward_george1, who will be better able to explain/ answer your questions than I. (If he wants to, of course).

God bless.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I am curious to know, in view of the fact that there doesn’t seem to be a disagreement between the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic positions, why the churches do not simply reunite. Is it due to national concerns or the Oriental Orthodox simply not wanting to give up their traditional separate governance after so many centuries?

 

[catholic03]

I suspect for the same reasons as the Eastern Orthodox. They probably cannot accept papal supremacy, and I suspect we have developed further theological differences. The Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church (an autonomous Oriental Orthodox Church) has very weird theological views.

 

[Salibi]

Is it due to national concerns or the Oriental Orthodox simply not wanting to give up their traditional separate governance after so many centuries?

I suppose a bit of both. Keep in mind even if we do unite, there will always be a group of fanatics who will treat any form of union as anathema, separate from the main hierarchy, and thus perpetuate Oriental Orthodoxy.

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Chalcedon IS infallible. In the Byzantine Tradition, the Sunday between July 13 - 19 (or after the 16th) is the Sunday of the Fathers of the First Six Ecumenical Councils, especially that of Chalcedon. The Vespers for that Sunday is replete with the doctrine that Our Lord Jesus Christ is one Divine Person with two natures, Divine and human, in the unity of His Divine Person:

Commemoration of the First Six Ecumenical Councils, Octoechos Tone 5; Our Venerable Father Simeon, the Fool for Christ (c. 580), and His Ascetical Companion John (527-65); Prophet Ezekiel – Liturgical Texts and Music

 

[George720]

I am curious to know, in view of the fact that there doesn’t seem to be a disagreement between the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic positions, why the churches do not simply reunite. Is it due to national concerns or the Oriental Orthodox simply not wanting to give up their traditional separate governance after so many centuries?

I have a good friend who is O-O, and I asked him once why his Church did not commune the Latin Roman Catholic Church.

He replied: “Same reasons as you…”

“You” = EOC

geo

 

[Dovekin]

if Chalcedon erred in proclaiming anathemas on all non-Chalcedonian formulations for the Hypostatic Union (“of two natures,” “from two natures,” etc.), then it logically follows that Chalcedon is NOT infallible;

Actually, this does not follow. Primarily what Chalcedon gave is a definition. The controversy, and split churches, arose from how to apply that definition. Were miaphysites monophysites? Were Chalcedonians Nestorians? The politics may have obscured the harmony between Chalcedonians and miaphysites. Both groups were committed to St Cyril’s teaching.

The Coptic Orthodox Roman Catholic dialogue described their doctrine in a joint statement in 1976:

When the Orthodox confess that Divinity and Humanity of Our Lord are united in one nature, they take “nature”, not as a pure and simple nature, but rather as one composite nature, wherein the Divinity and Humanity are united inseparatedly and unconfusedly. And when Catholics confess Jesus Christ as one in two natures, they do not separate the Divinity from the Humanity, not even for the twinkling of an eye, but they rather try to avoid mingling, commixtion, confusion or alteration.

 

[MomentsNotice]

Hi Dovekin,

Thanks for your response! This thread has received more responses than I anticipated.

I understand your point about the underlying politics at Chalcedon, and I am inclined to agree with you. However, when you say “primarily what Chalcedon gave is a definition,” I must agree only conditionally. I agree in the sense that the Chalcedonian Christological definition is the PRIMARY fruit of the council, but the council did also pronounce anathemas, including the following:

“…it (meaning the council) anathematizes those who concoct two natures of the Lord before the union but imagine a single one after the union.” (Council of Chalcedon, Definition of the Faith)

Now, this before-and-after business is precisely the sticking point for the miaphysite side of the argument. They’ll feel comfortable saying of two natures or from two natures, but in two natures is where they draw the line. For an example, see the following from H.H. Pope Shenouda III’s The Nature of Christ:

“St. Cyril the Great taught us not to talk about two natures after their unity. So we can say that the Divine nature united hypostatically with the human nature within the Virgin’s womb, but after this unity we do not ever speak again about two natures of Christ.” (H.H. Pope Shenouda III, The Nature of Christ, Chapter 1: The Orthodox Concept Concerning the Nature of Christ)

According to Chalcedon, statements such as the one above must be retracted under pain of anathema.

Aside from all of this, isn’t a Christian ecclesiastical body that refuses to accept what is considered by the Church to be a true Ecumenical Council severed from the Mystical Body of Christ by default? If a particular “church” refuses to accept Nicaea I, for example, that “church” cannot remain in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, right? Why would Chalcedon be any different?

 

[Dovekin]

“…it (meaning the council) anathematizes those who concoct two natures of the Lord before the union but imagine a single one after the union.” ( Council of Chalcedon, Definition of the Faith )

It here means St Leo’s tome, where he quotes Eutyches saying “I confess that our Lord was of two natures before the union, but I confess one nature after the union.” This anathema is not a condemnation of a position, but a repetition of what St Leo has said. If the miaphysite position were the same as Eutyches’, it would be condemned by this.

“This before and after business” is not the sticking point for the miaphysites. You can see it in the quote in my last note, not even for the twinkling of an eye. The issue is the timeless, unchanging divine nature uniting with our history bound humanity. No one has a good way to express that. Eutyches embraced the change in the divine; the miaphysites did not.

Pope Shenouda comes close to the before and after, but it is more about talking than a real change. Confusion about nature, substance and person is more the problem with miaphysites.

Aside from all of this, isn’t a Christian ecclesiastical body that refuses to accept what is considered by the Church to be a true Ecumenical Council severed from the Mystical Body of Christ by default? If a particular “church” refuses to accept Nicaea I, for example, that “church” cannot remain in the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, right? Why would Chalcedon be any different?

This is the big problem these days. Just follow one of the SSPX threads. The Coptic Orthodox Roman Catholic statement I referenced affirms the first 3 Councils. The Oriental Orthodox dialogue has discussed degrees of communion, etc.

 

[George720]

The Coptic Orthodox Roman Catholic statement I referenced affirms the first 3 Councils. The Oriental Orthodox dialogue has discussed degrees of communion, etc.

In the Middle East, when the Copts and the Antiochian Archdiocese got together to iron out their differences, they were unable to discern them with clarity, and so they decided that the faithful should not suffer their deficiencies, and where an Antiochian Church is not nearby there, an Antiochian can Commune in a nearby Coptic Church, and vice versa… The Copts affirm everything the EOC affirms, and vice versa…

There is something to be said for simplicity of Faith…

Pivotal I think is the understanding of the person, and ousia as wealth, rather than the Aristotelian core of a thing … eg “to ti estan einai” - “The what it was being to be…”

You see, in the Aristotelian sense, the person is the essence, eg the hypostasis, standing under the ousia/being/essence in the Christian terminology… The person, you see, in the innermost sense of this term, does not reduce to any other component parts… Some think it is the very Eikon, or Image, of God in man, which the saints clearly see in every sinner, no matter his sins…

geo

 

[George720]

“ St. Cyril the Great taught us not to talk about two natures after their unity. So we can say that the Divine nature united hypostatically with the human nature within the Virgin’s womb, but after this unity we do not ever speak again about two natures of Christ. ” ( H.H. Pope Shenouda III, The Nature of Christ, Chapter 1: The Orthodox Concept Concerning the Nature of Christ )

This understanding - eg that “the Divine nature united hypostatically with the human nature” (in the Virgin’s Womb) is not the understanding of the EOC… The two natures co-exist in the unity of the Divine Hypostasis - God is Person, you see… And the distinctions between them are established by the Hypostasis, the Person Who IS God, by means of the emptying of the human nature from the divinity of the Person of God… This is a willful act of humility which we also are enjoined to do as grow ever more mature in God in the Faith of Christ… (It goes practically much deeper than this as a Theological matter…)

It is not the Divine Nature and the human nature that are united in the Virgin’s womb, but instead it is the human nature of fallen man that is united with the Divine Hypostasis of the Second Person of the Trinity, emptied of its Divinity in this fallen human nature…

This is one reason that reading Scripture can appear contradictory, because while Christ ordinarily was Son of Man, sometimes He speaks for or as God… He was perfectly obedient, you see… And He KNOWS His Heavenly Father always, even in His fallen human nature… And discerning His Words and actions, as coming forth from His Divinity vs from His fallen humanity, which He is raising by His Incarnate life on earth, is best left to the Saints Glorified for that purpose!

Christ always avoided talk of His being “Son of God”, though He knew Who He is… Instead He spoke of the Son of Man… I should think that we should avoid this idea that Christ is a (Hypostatic) Union of two Natures becoming a third one… Christ’s human nature is by condescension for the sake of the elevation of that (sadly fallen) human nature unto Union with God as Creator of Creation… (And not with God as God, mind you!) Hence the need for the Cross is but ancillary to primary mission, which is Union of our (no longer fallen after Baptism) human nature with God as our Creator…

No small matter…

Good thread…

geo

 

[poche]

They have their own pope. I don’t think we can have two popes in one Church.

 

[MomentsNotice]

It here means St Leo’s tome, where he quotes Eutyches saying “I confess that our Lord was of two natures before the union, but I confess one nature after the union.”

I don’t mean to be argumentative, but I must disagree that the third person singular pronoun, “it,” refers to Leo’s Tome and not the Council of Chalcedon in the anathema I mentioned. If you read the anathema in context, it occurs in a list of acts of the Council of Chalcedon, each act beginning with the third person singular, “it” - each “it” referring to the synod itself, NOT Leo’s Tome as taken apart from the synod. Here’s the text in context:

"Therefore this sacred and great and universal synod, now in session, in its desire to exclude all their tricks against the truth, and teaching what has been unshakable in the proclamation from the beginning, decrees…

…it ratifies the teaching about the being of the Holy Spirit …it has accepted the synodical letters of the blessed Cyril…To these, it has suitably added…the letter of… the most saintly Archbishop Leo…

It is opposed to those who attempt to tear apart the mystery of the economy into a duality of sons; and it expels from the assembly of priests… it stands opposed to those who imagine a mixture… it expels those who have the mad idea… it anathematizes those who concoct two natures…" (Council of Chalcedon, Definition of the Faith)

Anyways, the issue is neither here nor there - even IF the anathema was only pronounced by the tome and not by the council itself, the tome is a document annexed to the documents of the council anyways. It’s like saying “well, St. Cyril’s letter to Nestorius declares Nestorius’ theology heterodox, but the Council of Ephesus doesn’t.”

This anathema is not a condemnation of a position, but a repetition of what St Leo has said. If the miaphysite position were the same as Eutyches’, it would be condemned by this.

So, an anathema of an Ecumenical Council is not a condemnation of a position, but at the same time it IS a condemnation of a position? I don’t quite understand that - it’s like saying “A=A, but also A=not A.”

This before and after business” is not the sticking point for the miaphysites.

Actually, it seems to me that it is - again, refer to the text from H.H. Pope Shenouda III’s The Nature of Christ. It’s also the same point St. Cyril himself makes when drawing the analogy between the hypostatic union and human nature (being one nature of/from two: body and soul).

The issue is that if you say Christ is in two natures after the union, and then you begin to ascribe various acts of Christ’s life to each of the two different natures (as Leo’s Tome does), then for a non-Chalcedonian this comes dangerously close to two hypostases (or even two prosopon) in Christ - like two conflicting centers of subjectivity and agency - each possessing a separate and wholly alien set of essential attributes - held captive together in one enfleshed, concrete, reality.

 

[MomentsNotice]

It is not the Divine Nature and the human nature that are united in the Virgin’s womb, but instead it is the human nature of fallen man that is united with the Divine Hypostasis of the Second Person of the Trinity, emptied of its Divinity in this fallen human nature…

This is one reason that reading Scripture can appear contradictory, because while Christ ordinarily was Son of Man, sometimes He speaks for or as God… He was perfectly obedient, you see… And He KNOWS His Heavenly Father always, even in His fallen human nature… And discerning His Words and actions, as coming forth from His Divinity vs from His fallen humanity, which He is raising by His Incarnate life on earth, is best left to the Saints Glorified for that purpose!

George, forgive me, but I find some of these statements a little difficult to understand. You refer to Jesus’ “fallen humanity” and His “fallen human nature”; Jesus came to cleanse man of the effects of the Fall, so Jesus cannot have a fallen human nature. Christ came to restore the distorted and disfigured image of God in man by becoming the New Adam - in Christ we see Adam as he was always meant to be, and Christ restores human nature to a state superior even to the one in which he originally found himself in the Garden of Eden. Christ partook of human nature, so that we might become partakers by grace of the Divine nature, and thus receive true adoption as children of God in Christ. This makes no sense if Christ’s human nature was fallen.

You also mention Christ being “emptied” of Divinity in the hypostatic union - to me this sounds like mixture and mingling of the Divine and human natures. The Divine essence is left unchanged in the hypostatic union. When St. Paul writes in his letter to the Philippians that Christ “emptied” himself, it is a paradoxical emptying by acquisition - acquisition of human nature. Christ “takes the form of a slave,” as St. Paul puts it, but Christ isn’t “emptied” of any of His essential Divine attributes.

Anywho, all of this is starting to careen off into theological discussion, and the nature of my original question was really more pertinent to ecclesiology.

This is the big problem these days. Just follow one of the SSPX threads. The Coptic Orthodox Roman Catholic statement I referenced affirms the first 3 Councils. The Oriental Orthodox dialogue has discussed degrees of communion, etc.

This is closer to the question I was initially posing in this forum. If we decide that non-Chalcedonian, miaphysite, from-two-natures-but-not-in-two-natures-after-the-union Christology is actually just as Orthodox as Chalcedonian Christology, then what are we to make of Chalcedon? How can you reject an Ecumenical Council and still be considered a part of the Mystical Body of Christ? Schism and heresy alike sever one from the Church, so saying “meh, it all just comes down to politics and language barriers” doesn’t really cut it.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Language is a fuzzy thing, and translation makes it even fuzzier.

Anathemazations of individuals are not infallible, but the definitions that underly these anathemas are. The definitions must be understood from the perspective of those that wrote them, with as little polemics as possible.

Chalcedon condemned a certain theological proposition with nuanced language. The Bishops who supported Chalcedon thought this condemnation applied to the non-Chalcedonian Bishops, and the non-Chalcedonians thought that Chalcedon contradicted previous Councils. There were a lot of hot heads on both sides and political issues over the centuries, and polemics and assumptions became entrenched.

After careful and sober reflection both sides determined that the anathemas didn’t apply to the actual theology of either group, and we have reached an agreement on Christology. The intervening 1600 years lead to other differences and divisions, however, so total reunification continues to be a work in progress.

Peace and God bless!

 

[George720]

Jesus came to cleanse man of the effects of the Fall, so Jesus cannot have a fallen human nature.

This is indeed a theological difference between the Latin Rite Church and that of all the rest of the Orthodox Faith… We Join with St. Maximus who tells us that Jesus healed the Human Nature that He assumed… That IF Jesus did NOT assume our fallen human nature, THEN He did NOT heal it by His incarnation… If you agree with the Early Fathers on this point, the IC is then also ruled out, because then Christ only healed those who are immaculately conceived…

So I may be out of bounds here for this discussion group -
Please forgive me…

But Christ did assume our death-laden from Adam human nature…

He did NOT assume any “Pre-Fall” human nature…

He assumed OUR fallen human nature…

And by His Incarnation, He healed it in Himself…

And we are Baptized INTO Him…

geo

 

[George720]

You also mention Christ being “emptied” of Divinity in the hypostatic union - to me this sounds like mixture and mingling of the Divine and human natures. The Divine essence is left unchanged in the hypostatic union. When St. Paul writes in his letter to the Philippians that Christ “emptied” himself, it is a paradoxical emptying by acquisition - acquisition of human nature. Christ “takes the form of a slave,” as St. Paul puts it, but Christ isn’t “emptied” of any of His essential Divine attributes.

Christ gained nothing by subsuming fallen human nature into Himself…
He did not have His Divinity emptied -
He emptied Himself in His humanity of His Divinity…
He lived a fully human life of obedience to God the Father…
And we are to do the same…
Paul did it too - “That you not think of me above what you see…”

geo

 

[George720]

As to the OP, we must regard Chalcedon as inerrant…
Infallible is a poor choice of terms…
The O-O and Coptic formulaic is error…

The Nature of Christ… is One Nature formed of two natures,
united without mixture, nor mingling, not confused….
perfect Divinity and perfect Humanity.
We do not speak of two natures
after their being united
in the Virgin’s womb.

You see, we DO speak of two natures AFTER their being united in the Virgin’s Womb…

We speak of them in their unity without confusion being subsumed under the Divine Hypostasis of the Second Person of the Trinity…

Had human nature NOT been fallen under the rule of death - eg Had Adam NOT fallen - Christ would still have incarnated to raise human nature into His incarnated Divinity… But He would not have been crucified for our sins… You see, in order for us to be entered into the Risen Christ, we must be free of sin, which is what we receive in the rebirth of Baptism which washes away all our sins for this entry into Christ…

But until the issue of the Person of Christ, and not that of His “Nature”, is addressed, I do not think the matter will resolve. The Copts do not distinguish between Divine Nature and Person… They confuse Person (Hypostasis) and Nature (Physis) and Essence (Ousia)…

Until such time as we get these understandings in view, we will not be able to resolve the issues on which our understandings diverge… And the Catholic view seems fairly aligned with that of the Copts in that you seem to regard the merging of the two “natures” as the creation of a “new nature” in which BOTH are increased…

We see it as a rescue mission on Christ’s part to save and restore the failed mission of Adam, rather than a way for God to somehow grow in stature or humanity… That, to the EO, is never in view, due to the apophatic nature of our theological understanding…

geo