Oriental Orthodox History #1 - Post Chalcedon

This is a very interesting article. In fact, I went back and re-read the section in "The Orthodox Church" about this and I realized that Met. Kallistos does not go into detail about what happened in Alexandria after Chalcedon. He mainly focuses on the North.

I got into it so much I also listned to Fr. Thomas Hopko's podcast: The Bishops, Ep. 5 - about the 5th century where he explained in a little more detail the effects this debate had on the structure of the church. All this is quite interesting and I found myself siding with the non-Chalcedonians in most cases and siding with the Chalcedonians in others. For example, I could not believe that St. Cyril hated Fr. John Crysostom. Also, the fact that St. Cyril was kind of a "Godfather" in Alexandria . . as Fr. Thomas Hopko referred: "That Gangster of Bishops".

Anyway, the argument over Jesus' nature, whether or not it is two or one, seemed, at first, to be a trivial thing to argue about. It seemed that the great Bishops were just battling over power or wealth. But, when I got to thinking about it, I see the importance of it. Also, the argument surrounding the validity of the Theotokos. I never put much thought into this things.

So, while making breakfast and listening to Fr. Hopko's podcast, I thought about the nature of Jesus and just how powerful a thought that is. I believe it is by the spirit that we can even begin to expound on such matters but I also believe we don't even scratch the surface in understanding anything about Jesus.

I thought about my coffee. First, I have to start with water. I could go even further back and discuss where the water came from, but, for our purposes I'll just start with water. Once I heat it on the stove, it becomes different. It begins to let off steam and boil. It is not a different substance, it is still water - same molecules, moving differently. Now, I pour this hot water into my press that contains a small amount of ground coffee beans. Immediatly, the water turns a deep brown color and the ground beans swirl within the water. Voila! I now have coffee. It is no longer water. It has changed. The water is still there, in essence, but I can no longer drink that water as it is completely changed. It is now coffee. I let this steep for a few minutes. I push the plunger down and the coffee now becomes a darker brown, almost completly black color. I pour it into my mug and enjoy the completly transformed water that has become coffee.

Now, why am I going into detail about this? Because, while pondering the nature of Jesus, I couldn't help but pull the similarities out of this basic daily activity of making coffee. Shall we argue about the nature of my coffee? Is it one substance? Or is it both hot water and coffee existing at the same time. Shall we talk about it as two or one substances? In my opinion, coffee is coffee . . it's one substance. I cannot take the water out of the coffee or the coffee out of the water and get back to their original natures. It is transformed into one substance.

So, with this thought, I concluded that Jesus is Jesus. God and Man, together . . but as one substance, cojoined to be Jesus. Jesus is Jesus - a mystery, yet able to be known . . .

It brings me to the question: why didn't the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians just come to this conclusion? It seems so basic. I really wonder what some of their discussions sounded like.

So . . now, I realize that both EO and OO are in agreement theologically about all of this and there is some harmony between the churches, which is really one (I believe). I just can't wrap my mind around why the bishops in the 5th century were so staunch in their opinions. Did it have to do with power and wealth? Did it have to do with jurisdiction? Also, how were the common everyday people reacting to this sort of debate. I can't help but think that if I lived during this time I would just shake my head at those "crazy Bishops" as I walked to liturgy.

I understand a bit about the sensitivity towards the "Nestorian" ideas, especially at the minimizing of the Theotokos. It makes total sense to me to have these debates and discussions around these particular theological points.

I agree with the quote Suryoyo posted previously from Bar `Ebroyo:

When I had given much thought and pondered on the matter, I became convinced that these quarrels among the different Christian Churches are not a matter of factual substance, but of words and terminology; for they all confess Christ our Lord to be perfect God and perfect human, without any commingling, mixing, or confusion of the natures... Thus I saw all the Christian communities, with their different christological positions, as possessing a single common ground that is without any difference between them. (Book of the Dove, Chapter IV)

This quote sums up my feelings concisely.



Another question, though. Why all the blood shed? Why did the Chalcedonians have to run out all the monks in Alexandria? When Christians are supposed to love thier neighbor and their enemy . . . Why is there such hate and horrible behavior surrounding these debates and councils? It is one thing to say, "OK, they disagree with us. We think we are right and they are wrong." But, it is a completely other thing to say, "OK . . we are right they are wrong . . let's go run them out of their homes and kill them."

I don't get it.

Going back to Suroyo's post before, Nestorius was a massive issue during the Chalcedonian Council, as was Theodret (Nestorius' disciple.) Theodret was a Nestorian who was close to Leo and given a place on the peosecution of Dioscorus, after professing an Orthodox Faith.

The acts of the council state that throughout his time speaking, the Bishops around jeered Theodret, yet he was allowed to speak on order or Leo, who headed the Council.

Following the Council, Dioscorus wrote 6 Anathemas of Chalcedon. One said:



This accusation of Nestorianism was so widespread (As the article shows) that tThe Imperial Orthodox Church called a Council at Constantinople 100 years later, where one of the Canons of the council said:



So many had certainly presumed a Nestorian link in the council, and the Cyrilline Alexandrian School was very Anti-Nestorian, which also explains the extreme view taken by Eutyches, the Monophysite.

Basically, we saw two extremes produced: In trying to prevent Nestorianism, Eutyches took Cyrils 'Miaphysite' formula and went to the extreme, producing Monophysitism. In response, Leo went to the Extreme against Eutyches and anathematised the term 'one nature' to prevent Monophysitism. The problem was that when he did this, he also condemned the Miaphysites, so was accused of supporting Nestorius. I personally would call it amatter of crossed wires, but accusing an 'Ecumenical' council (I use the '' because OO do not see it as this, not to cause offense) of Crossing wires is to cause a great problem.

This is why reunion between the two Orthodox Families is a practical impossibility at this point. EO would either have to accept the possibility of a Mistake at a Church council and list the Anathema on Dioscorus (who was later condemned for usurption of the Throne, not Heresy) or the OO wouls have to denounce the writings of Dioscorus and Severus, accept Leo and hold back their condemnations of Chalcedon. At this point neither would back down on these issues.

As for Fr Thomas Hopko. I have great respect for him as a Priest and theologian though his assessment of Chalcedon is problematic for me. In his book 'Saint Cyril and the Christological Controversy" he Claims that the Non-Chalcedonians misinterpreted Cyril and fell into Heresy. I think this is a biased presumption, which is the same as I would say to any OO Scholar who condemned Leo of Nestorianism, since we know Leo himself was not Nestorian.

As for St. Cyril's condemnation of Saint John Chrysostom, it was his Uncle Theodosius who spoke against him, Cyril refused to uphold it.