The Trisagion?

[Zekariya]

I try to be as nonconfrontational as possible in my responses. However, I honestly believe that Dioscoros and Severus were wrong. My view comes from standard histories of the period written by recognized scholars, most of whom are not Eastern Orthodox, and from reading some of the works of Severus. Read Wiliston Walker’s A History of the Christian Church. This is a standard well accepted text used in many universities and seminaries for church history classes. So my views are quite mainstream among historians. I do not see how the non-Chalcedonians can claim to reject the teachings of Eutyches while considering Dioscoros a saint because Dioscoros was his chief supported and presided over the Council of Ephesus of 449 that revoked his condemnation. He was also at least complacent in the beating of Flavian that so injured him that it led to his death. At the same time, historians agree that Servius was a Monophysite who led the schismatic movement of the supporters of Dioscoros. I have looked at some of his writings and am inclined to agree that he was a Monophysite or at least that he was wrong to condemn Chalcedon and accuse the Ecumenical Council and its supporters of Nestorianism.
Whether or not these historical disagreements can be resolved by treating them as theologoumena is one solution to the division provided the Chalcedonian Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox are able to reach full dogmatic agreement. However, I am just a priest and do not have the authority to set policy for the Eastern Orthodox Church. But that would be my solution to the division over historical interpretations. What is important is doctrine not history because I am the first to admit that history is not truth, but is subject to interpretations that are always colored by the personal biases of whoever is interpreting history. I am Eastern Orthodox. Therefore my view of history is filtered through my Eastern Orthodox point of view.
I refer to my Church as The Orthodox Church, because according to Orthodox theology and statements that have been presented in ecumenical dialogues, we have taken the position that the Church is not divided, but that the those Churches in Communion with Constantinople and the other Eastern Orthodox autocephalous Churches are the “living realization of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” Until Communion is restored, I would consider the Oriental Orthodox close, but not yet fully Orthodox.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Father, thank you for this clear response.

On Severus of Antioch, I believe you to be mistaken. I have read his letters and most of the time when defending Miaphysite Christology, he quotes St Cyril of Alexandria. I am quite certain that you would consider St Cyril to be a Monophysite heretic if he wasn’t revered by your Church. As it stands, you accused St Cyril of being close to Sabellianism when you mistakenly thought his quote was my own quote. How would you respond to St Cyril if I attributed his quotes to Severus? Would you not accuse St Cyril of Monophysitism?

 

[malphono]

On Severus of Antioch, I believe you to be mistaken. I have read his letters and most of the time when defending Miaphysite Christology, he quotes St Cyril of Alexandria. … How would you respond to St Cyril if I attributed his quotes to Severus? Would you not accuse St Cyril of Monophysitism?

Indeed. Admittedly, Mor Sevarus was a rather complicated character, but there’s really nothing to suggest that he was ever a monophysite. Let’s just say that if he had been, Rome’s minions would have expunged his prayers from the SCC at the time of union, but of course, that didn’t happen.

 

[Zekariya]

Indeed. Admittedly, Mor Sevarus was a rather complicated character, but there’s really nothing to suggest that he was ever a monophysite. Let’s just say that if he had been, Rome’s minions would have expunged his prayers from the SCC at the time of union, but of course, that didn’t happen.

Yes. St Severus is clear that neither nature consumed the other (like a drop of vinager in the sea) nor were they combined in mixture.

“It is plain therefore that the natures or hypostases, if they are not combined in one in hypostatic union without confusion, do not make up one Christ and Son and Lord, and one incarnate nature of the Word and one person.” - St Severus of Antioch, Letter 15

“Flesh does not renounce its existence as flesh, even if it has become God’s flesh, nor has the Word departed from his nature, even if he has been hypostatically united to flesh which possesses a rational and intelligent soul: but the difference also is preserved, and the propriety in the form of natural characteristics of the natures of which Emmanuel consists, since the flesh was not converted into the nature of the Word, nor was the Word changed into flesh.” - St Severus of Antioch, Letter 1

 

[dzheremi]

Regarding St. Dioscorus, as I see no one else here has taken up his case (nor do I expect them to), a few things should be sorted out:

• He was virtually under house arrest at the time of summons, as Pulcheria had placed armed guards around his house with orders that they bar his way and the way of his bishops. His refusal to submit to the three-fold summons should be viewed in that context.
• He accepted Eutyches back into the church upon receiving Eutyches’ good confession at Ephesus, same as the other bishops present. That Eutyches later returned to his heresy is lamentable (see once again the quote from St. Severus that I produced earlier in the thread, which rightly condemns Eutyches on that account, as we have ever since in the OO communion), but certainly this backsliding cannot be placed at the feet of St. Dioscorus. As St. Dioscorus himself declared, his concern was for the faith, not the person of Eutyches.
• The condemnation of Leo, which was the crime for which St. Dioscorus was condemned according to one of his only accusers to specify an actual crime at Chalcedon, one Anatolius of Constantinople, who specifically stated at the time of the Council of Chalcedon that Dioscorus is not condemned for heresy, is not a cut and dry matter in the least. Not only have subsequent EO writers such as Fr. John Romanides mused that Dioscorus was justified in taking action against Leo for the latter’s support of Theodoret (which is mighty interesting, given the “guilt by association” charge leveled at Dioscorus vis-a-vis his alleged championing of Eutyches at Ephesus in 449), but it should also be noted that just as Leo was struck from liturgical commemoration by Dioscorus prior to the Chalcedon, Leo also removed Dioscorus from the same (also prior to his official deposition at Chalcedon), and had instructed those of Jerusalem to do the same. So these were mutual excommunications, and the framing of the issue as “Dioscorus excommunicated Leo! Anathema!” only betrays a certain a priori condemnation that, if it is to be excused on the part of the Chalcedonians with regard to their acceptance of their own historical narrative as indisputably faultless (as seems to be the case with the posts we see in this thread, despite protestations to the contrary of objectivity and historicity), certainly cannot be used as a cudgel against the non-Chalcedonians for having maintained the same with regard to the equally forceful actions of their own Patriarchs (read: both sides claim that their actions preserved the Orthodox faith as they knew/know it, and in that neither are ‘wrong’, but then it becomes wrong for one to blame the other for having engaged in the same activity, with roughly the same justification. That’s how mutual excommunications work. I would think that of all people, modern EO would understand this.)

Think what you will of the faith or person of St. Dioscorus. We find no fault in him on account of his faith in the Coptic Orthodox Church, where he is remembered as a stalwart defender of Orthodoxy against imperial machinations and overreaching Roman Papal authority.

 

[malphono]

Think what you will of the faith or person of St. Dioscorus. We find no fault in him on account of his faith in the Coptic Orthodox Church, where he is remembered as a stalwart defender of Orthodoxy against imperial machinations and overreaching Roman Papal authority.

Now, we just can’t have that, can we? The very idea of Byzantine imperial machinations? Oh, the horror! And overreaching Papal authority? Could this be true???

 

[dzheremi]

Hahaha. Yes. Perhaps the Greeks are just mad because we were opposing the Roman Pope for so long before they caught on that it was the cool thing to do. It’s okay, Hellenes; you are invited to our anti-Latin Pope party. You may have your own table, if you wish, so that your refreshments needn’t be contaminated by being too close to ours.

Anyway, I have no problem with any church not venerating St. Dioscorus. The Armenians do not, and to my knowledge never have, and remain in communion with the rest of the OO. Just as St. Dioscorus himself said, our concern is with the faith, and not with one man. However, there are many historical or pseudo-historical objections to Dioscorus that grew out of the bad blood and suspicion that was quite clearly evident before Chalcedon that have, subsequent to that council and the sad division, caused EO objections to St. Dioscorus to become somewhat unmoored from the historical record, which does not support charges of heresy against him. I feel confident stating this not only after having reviewed the acts of the Council of Chalcedon before writing my previous post, but also my PM box on this board, which contains admissions of that fact from EO posters who for reasons for courtesy shall remain private. So it is not sacrificing anything of allegiance to Chalcedon to not buy into the later narrative that St. Dioscorus was somehow heretical (ditto St. Severus and others who have been maligned in subsequent Chalcedonian councils).

 

[Zekariya]

Now, we just can’t have that, can we? The very idea of Byzantine imperial machinations? Oh, the horror! And overreaching Papal authority? Could this be true???

I have have an icon of St Severus of Antioch that I personally mounted to wood and placed in my icon corner.

 

[malphono]

I have have an icon of St Severus of Antioch that I personally mounted to wood and placed in my icon corner.

Oh NO!!! How could this be??? Heresy!!! Anathema!!!

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father, thank you for this clear response.

On Severus of Antioch, I believe you to be mistaken. I have read his letters and most of the time when defending Miaphysite Christology, he quotes St Cyril of Alexandria. I am quite certain that you would consider St Cyril to be a Monophysite heretic if he wasn’t revered by your Church. As it stands, you accused St Cyril of being close to Sabellianism when you mistakenly thought his quote was my own quote. How would you respond to St Cyril if I attributed his quotes to Severus? Would you not accuse St Cyril of Monophysitism?

Like all Fathers, St. Cyril made mistakes. One of his biggest mistakes was thinking that he was quoting St. Athanasius when he wrote of “one nature of the incarnate Logos.” He was actually quoting the heretic Appolnaris.
I believe that it is a mistake to base one’s theology on just one Father, but that one must consider the entire patristric corpus and the dogmatic statements of the 7 Ecumenical Councils. I also think that the non-Chalcedonians misunderstand that St. Cyril’s theology did not change, but he was able to evolve to the point that he understood that Greek words like person (physis) and nature (hypostasis) can mean different things to different people. In a letter written sometime between 433 and 438, St. Cyril used language that is very close to the declaration of Chalcedon when he wrote of the union of the human and divine natures of Christ “without confusion, without change, and without alteration…” In his letter to St. John of Antioch in 433, he also laid a foundation for Chalcedon by recognizing that it is possible to express the same doctrine using different language. I think that the root of the problem is although both sides used Greek, they did not mean the share a common understanding of meaning of the Greek words that they used. The opponents of Chalcedon equated the word nature (hypostasis) with person (physis), while the supporters of Chalcedon made a distinction between person (physis) and nature (hypostasis). Thus when the non-Chalcedonians heard the Chalcedonians speaking of two natures, they heard them saying two persons. When the Chalcedonians heard the non-Chalcedonians speak of one nature, they understood them to saying one person.
I believe that had both sides shown the maturity and tolerance that St. Cyril showed in his letter to John of Antioch, the whole schism could have been prevented.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[shlomo3amrooh]

I believe that had both sides shown the maturity and tolerance that St. Cyril showed in his letter to John of Antioch, the whole schism could have been prevented.

Archpriest John W. Morris

How sad but true this statement is Abuna.