www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Oriental Orthodox & Chalcedon

What are the reasons the Oriental Orthodox do not accept the ecumenical status of the Council of Chalcedon when they have admitted in recent years that its teachings are not heretical?
Does the forum have any Oriental Orthodox members who could please enlighten? Or any other informed Christian? Much of this controversy is very confusing to me.
Many thanks! God Bless!

They have admitted that Catholic and Orthodox belief are not heretics. They still view Chalcedon as Semi-Nestorian and unacceptable. Just as we do not believe them to be heretics yet hold Ephesus II as unacceptable.

Shlomo RussianCath,

Even though I am not Oriental Orthodox, my Church shares a cultural heritage with them. The reasons are these.

First, eparchs from the Coptic, Syriac and Armenian Traditions were not evited.
Second, since the eparchs from the most affected areas were not there to represent their theological point of view, the Council was not/is not ecumenical.
Third, the decrees of the Council used Greek Theological stylings and therefore the above mentioned nations felt slighted.

What I find very interesting is how much the Eastern Orthodox Church screams that none of the Ecumenical Councils after the first seven are not valid, are not willing to see that maybe the same arguement could be made about some of the first seven.

To let everyone here know I fully support Chalcedon (it is considered the birthing act of the Maronite Church), I would hope that maybe representives of the Church of the East, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, the Eastern Orthodox Churches as well as the Catholic Churches could have an unification Ecumenical Council that would take all the points of the first seven (and others after) as canons for a reunified Apostolic Church.

I know that that is a big dream, but one can hope.

Fush BaShlomo Lkhoolkhoon,
Yuhannon

Not only CAN one hope - one MUST.

The Orthodox Unity web site

http://www.orthodoxunity.org/official.php

Has historical background in it along with recent joint statements on the shared Christology of our churches.

How odd that the Oriental Orthodox and the Eastern Orthodox should find it easier to restore communion than the Eastern Orthodox and the Latin Church. Even stranger that the Latin Church should find it easier to restore communion with the Oriental Orthodox than with the Eastern Orthodox. This sets up the potential for both the Latin Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church to be in communion with the Oriental Orthodox Church, but not with each other--even more so when one considers that the differences between the Eastern Orthodox and Latin Churches are trivial as compared to the differences that affected their relationships with the Oriental Orthodox.

As recently as a year ago in discussion with members of the Coptic Orthodox Church I was told Roman Catholic converts are all received by baptism, and I haven't seen anything to the contrary since then. Has something changed?

From what I understand the Coptic Pope was horrified by the Christological Agreement between the RCC and the Assyrian Church of the East. The Copts consider the latter group to be Nestorian heretics and concluded something was very wrong with the RCC if they could agree to such a thing.

Which shows that Cyril of Alexandria casts a long shadow, indeed.

But, to demonstrate how insubstantial these Christological disagreements truly are, when in the 17th century, the Syro-Malabarese Church (in communion with the Assyrian Church of the East) was under pressure from the Portuguese-backed Latin Church, a significant number of its followers had no difficulty in forming the Syro-Malankarese Orthodox Church, in communion with the Syrian Orthodox Church; i.e., in making the jump from "Nestorian" to "Monophysite" without even breaking stride.

Just as the Pope Shenuda would insist he is not a monophysite, so, too, will the hierarchs of the Church of the East tell you they are not Nestorians. Not even Nestorius was a Nestorian, and all such terms (including Chalcedonian) tend to be inaccurate and generate more heat than light.

StuartK,
could you please explain your statement,"Not even Nestorius was a Nestorian, and all such terms (including Chalcedonian) tend to be inaccurate and generate more heat than light."

Put simply, the Nestorius did not believe that Christ had two distinct and separate being, human and divine (and his writings, as well as those of the Church of the East, demonstrate this); while conversely, Cyril did not believe that Christ had just one nature that combined both the divine and human. Few, indeed, of Cyril's followers ever expressed such a belief; on the other hand, there were more than a few bishops who interpreted Chalcedon in a distinctly bi-physite manner. Those Churches which are called "Chalcedonian" do not rest their Christology solely on the formula accepted at Chalcedon, but of a synthesis that includes Chalcedon, Constantinople II and Constantinople III (and, some would say, Nicaea II).

The tragedy of the Christological controversies was, as always, a failure to listen to what the other side was saying, focusing instead on what we thought they said, as well as the desire to impose our own particular modes of thought and expression upon them. The conflict between "schools" of theology certainly did involve the sins of pride and vainglory, but the permanence of the schisms is largely due to these different modes of theological expression becoming national and cultural identifiers in secular conflicts between different cultures (Byzantine vs. Coptic and Syrian; Coptic and Syrian vs. Assyrian), just as the putative theological differences between Latins and Byzantines became markers in the political struggle of the Eastern and Western "Chalcedonian" Churches.

That common agreed Christological statements are possible at all is due to the belated willingness of all sides to listen, with charity, to what each side is saying, and not what we presume each side is saying; to look at the historical record objectively, and without confessional bias; and to be willing to look for the underlying unity of content in our beliefs, as opposed to the variable and historically conditioned expressions of doctrinal statements.

Why, then, does unity elude us? Because the Church remains composed of men who are weak, vain and sinful, and because weak, vain and sinful men find it difficult to transcend the bonds of history, with which our confessional identities are inextricably bound. To do so would require unprecedented courage, humility and willingness to forgive old slights. And, as such, it cannot happen except through the decent and action of the Holy Spirit, Who has yet to make his presence felt in a decisive manner. Perhaps He waits upon us, for the time when we desire unity in Christ more than we desire to prove that we (or our ancestors) were right at the expense of others and their ancestors?

Dear Stuart,
What then should we make of Chalcedon? What makes an Ecumenical Council??? If the Egyptians, Syrians, Armenians, etc... did not really have a say in the council, and other modes of thought and expression were imposed on them,...? What then?
(Thank You very much for your last post!)

If I understand it correctly, Oriental Orthodox (miaphysite) believe that Christ has both divine and human essences united in One Nature. Eastern Orthodox and Catholics (calcedonian) believe in Christ having both human and divine natures united in one person.

I'm trying to understand any solid difference between the meanings of the words essence and nature, and the fact that both churches have the same formula (two united in one) does not clearly point out a difference to me.

Is the difference in Christology only in grammar and not belief?

Well, we could take "Oikumene" in a narrow sense to mean "within the boundaries of the Roman Empire". And the Church of Alexandria was a full and active participant in the Council--they just did not like the outcome.

The relationship between the Church of Alexandria and the Church of Constantinople post-Chalcedon is not a matter of black-and-white: there were times when relations were closer, and at others more distant. Constantinople never ceased trying to find an accommodation with the Alexandria and the Cyrilians more broadly--which is why we had three subsequent Ecumenical Councils. Only with the Muslim conquest and the inward turning of Byzantine civilization in the 8th century (the Byzantine Dark Ages) is that effort finally abandoned: the Alexanrian and Syriac Churches are under Muslim domination (except for a small "Melkite" rump, and the Muslims are encouraging conflict with Constantinople as a way of weakening the influence of the Byzantines in the occupied Near East. As I said, secular interests exploit the theological issues.

Chalcedon should be considered ecumenical to the extent that the faith of Chalcedon has been received by all orthodox Christians, even if some have not received the specific doctrinal formulation.

"Jesus Christ is true God. Jesus Christ is true man. Jesus Christ is One. Everything else is Philosophy"--Kyr Elias Zoghby

Dearest Father Deacon Lance

There are two distinct trains of thought within OO'xy on the matter:

1) What prevents the OO from accepting Chalcedon as a whole is the Tome of Pope St. Leo. The Tome uses the phrase "in two natures." The Orient accedes to the phrase "of two natures." The OO will concede that the two phrases actually mean the same thing in the context of their respective theologies, but this is the fruit of modern dialogue. Basically, even though the dialogues of today have borne the fruit of understanding and we no longer call each other heretics, the OO do not believe that this common understanding necessarily applies to the past - so Chalcedon is still heretical, in thought if not in word.

2) OO do not call Catholics and EO heretics, but neither do they consider Chalcedonian Christianity completely orthodox. OO will accept what unites us with them, which was heretofore hidden from each others' eyes for various reasons, but they cannot accept what they still consider heterodox - namely, the diophysite theology of Pope St. Leo.

Humbly,
Marduk