Coptic interpretations of the Fourth Ecumenical Council - Saint Mina ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

5- The definitions of the Tome were composed in a way that it could be interpreted by different persons, each in his own way. It is known that Nestorius, who was still alive in 451, accepted the Tome of Leo, while the Alexandrines rejected it. 6- The Council of Chalcedon, which is believed to have condemned Eutyches, did not deal with him but with Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria. Eutyches himself was not present at the council. Scholars state that Dioscorus was deprived of office on procedural grounds and not on account of erroneous belief. At Chalcedon Dioscorus strongly declared, "If Eutyches holds notions disallowed by the doctrines of the Church, he deserves not only punishment but even the fire. But my concern is for the catholic and apostolic faith, not for any man whomsoever." The evidence is sufficient for us to look for other reasons for his condemnation. Rome was annoyed by the extraordinary vitality and activity of the Church of Alexandria and its patriarch. 7- As soon as the members of the council had assembled, the legates of Rome demanded that Dioscorus be banished on account of the order of the bishop of Rome whom they called, "the head of all churches". When the imperial authorities asked for a charge to justify the demand, one of the legates said that he "dared to conduct a council without the authorization of the apostolic see, a thing which has never happened and which ought not to happen." As a matter of fact, the Council of 381 had been held without the participation, not to say the authorization, of the bishop of Rome, and the Council of 553 against his wishes. It is evident that the delegates intended by the words, "the head of all churches" to assert the claim of Rome of ecumenical supremacy over the church. 8- Chalcedon rejected the Council of 449, and Leo of Rome considered it as latrocinium, a council of robbers, a title which "has stuck for all time." This may uncover the intention behind such an attitude. A council which ignored Rome's authority, robbing its claim of supremacy, was not for Leo a church council but a meeting of robbers. The Council of Chalcedon, without even examining the issue, denounced the Council of 449, putting the entire responsibility for its decrees exclusively on Dioscorus. Only one hundred and four years later, the decision, not of Chalcedon, but of the so called latrocinium was justified. The Council of Constantinople in 553 anathematized Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas of Edessa, and condemned their Three Chapters. It is remarkable that the desire of the Emperor Justinian to reconcile the non-Chalcedonian churches was behind the decree. Two Different Traditions Dioscorus, then, was not a heretic. The majority of the bishops who attended the Council of Chalcedon, as scholars indicate, believed that the traditional formula of faith received from St. Athanasius was the "one nature of the Word of God." This belief is totally different from the Eutychian concept of the single nature (i.e. Monophysite). The Alexandrian theology was by no means docetic. Neither was it Apollinarian, as stated clearly. It seems that the main problem of the Christological formula was the divergent interpretation of the issue between the Alexandrian and the Antiochian theology. While Antioch formulated its Christology against Apollinarius 4
and Eutyches, Alexandria did against Arius and Nestorius. At Chalcedon, Dioscorus refused to affirm the "in two natures" and insisted on the "from two natures." Evidently the two conflicting traditions had not discovered an agreed theological standpoint between them. Mia Physis The Church of Alexandria considered as central the Christological mia physis formula of St. Cyril "one incarnate nature of God the Word". The Cyrillian formula was accepted by the Council of Ephesus in 431. It was neither nullified by the Reunion of 433, nor condemned at Chalcedon. On the contrary, it continued to be considered an orthodox formula. Now what do the non-Chalcedonians mean by the mia physis, the "one incarnate nature?". They mean by mia one, but not "single one" or "simple numerical one," as some scholars believe. There is a slight difference between mono and mia. While the former suggests one single (divine) nature, the latter refers to one composite and united nature, as reflected by the Cyrillian formula. St. Cyril maintained that the relationship between the divine and the human in Christ, as Meyendorff puts it, "does not consist of a simple cooperation, or even interpenetration, but of a union; the incarnate Word is one, and there could be no duplication of the personality of the one redeemer God and man." Mia Physis and Soteriology "The Alexandrian Christology", writes Frances Young, "is a remarkably clear and consistent construction, especially when viewed within its soteriological context. Mia physis, for the Alexandrians, is. essential for salvation. The Lord is crucified, even though His divinity did not suffer but His humanity did. The sacrifice of the Cross is attributed to the Incarnate Son of God, and thus has the power of salvation. Common Faith It is evident that both the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians agree on the following points: 1- They all condemn and anathematize Nestorius, Apollinarius and Eutyches. 2- The unity of the divinity and humanity of Christ was realized from the moment of His conception, without separation or division and also without confusing or changing. 3- The manhood of Christ was real, perfect and had a dynamic presence. 4- Jesus Christ is one Prosopon and one Hypostasis in real oneness and not mere conjunction of natures; He is the Incarnate Logos of God. 5
Page 1 and 2: Coptic interpretations of the Fourt
Page 3: from the Virgin Theotokos the flesh
Page 7 and 8: Agreed Official Statements on Chris
Page 9 and 10: Cyril's Twelve Chapters. Evidently
Page 11 and 12: the Emperor Marcianus intensified a
Page 13 and 14: and on several occasions seemed on
Page 15 and 16: is his fellow Christians he is tryi
Page 17 and 18: Yet despite all of these difficulti
Page 19 and 20: Pope Saint Dioscorus I of Alexandri
Page 21 and 22: When the judges started the order o
Page 23 and 24: Grillmeier rather confusingly state
Page 25 and 26: condemned to banishment with them,
Page 27 and 28: y the thought that the anti-Chalced
Page 29 and 30: Thus it came about that St Timothy
Page 31 and 32: consideration. With this in mind Ba
Page 33 and 34: that the doctrine of the real incar
Page 35 and 36: Unfortunately, Acacius of Constanti
Page 37 and 38: took flesh from the holy Virgin, an
Page 39 and 40: it seemed to him that the Tome and
Page 41 and 42: St Timothy has been unfairly treate
Page 43 and 44: union of the Divinity with the Huma
Page 45 and 46: when Arab Muslims conquered Egypt,
Page 47 and 48: enemies, he wrote some of his most
Page 49 and 50: Severus, be taken to stand for the
Page 51 and 52: mode of how they are, and they are
Page 53 and 54: anathema the fact of, or naming, na
Page 55 and 56:
agreement of Nestorius with the tea
Page 57 and 58:
Christ is known to be one from both
Page 59 and 60:
is both human and Divine, it does n
Page 61 and 62:
and humanity cease to exist in the
Page 63 and 64:
“Our Lord Jesus Christ is, to be
Page 65 and 66:
nature of flesh, we are not two, bu
Page 67 and 68:
St Timothy reminds us that the huma
Page 69 and 70:
A final passage from St Severus, si
Page 71 and 72:
and agreed by the Holy Synod of the
Page 73 and 74:
He does not seek for Himself a will
Page 75 and 76:
APPENDICES A. WEB RESOURCES: 1. htt
Page 77 and 78:
+ ''Thus He who is consubstantial w
Page 79 and 80:
Churches and to pursue further disc
Page 81 and 82:
together, but that the one eternal
Page 83 and 84:
+ There was a suggestion for small
Page 85 and 86:
2. God's infinite love for mankind,
Page 87 and 88:
Church. It is the teaching of the b
Page 89 and 90:
two families constitutes: (a) a Con
Page 91 and 92:
Church which imposed the anathemas
Page 93 and 94:
A concrete form of methodology to b
Page 95 and 96:
His Holiness Pope and Patriarch She
Page 97 and 98:
Orthodox Co-president of the Joint
Page 99 and 100:
comprising the joint text agreed up
Page 101 and 102:
and energy. 4. Both families agree
Page 103 and 104:
GENEVA, September 23 - 28, 1990 Ort
Page 105 and 106:
(c) political, religious and social
Page 107 and 108:
Edessa who insisted to divide the L
Page 109 and 110:
circles, the imperial court and amo
Page 111 and 112:
The delegates of Rome returned to t
Page 113 and 114:
Euphemia [8] (a small chapel) inste
Page 115:
This PDF is freely available from:
show all

Coptic interpretations of the Fourth Ecumenical Council - Saint Mina ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?