One Physis or Hypostasis of God the Logos Incarnate
Discussion about Father John Romanides’ Paper
Both Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox accept St. Cyril as the chief Patristic exponent of Orthodox Christology. Yet both accuse each other of not remaining completely faithful to Cyril.
The non-Chalcedonian Orthodox reject the Council of Chalcedon and accuse it of Nestorianism because it accepted the Tome of Leo, two natures after the union, and allegedly omitted from its definition of faith such Cyrillian expressions as One Nature of God the Logos Incarnate, hypostatic or natural union, and from two natures or from two One Christ. The failure of Chalcedon to make full use of Cyril’s Twelve Chapters, to condemn the Christology of Theodore, and its acceptance of Theodoret and Ibas throws suspicion on it. Then there is the weighty accusation that the very act of composing a new definition of the faith contradicted the decision of Ephesus (431) which decreed that, It is unlawful for anyone to bring forward or to write or to compose another Creed besides that determined by the Holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Spirit in Nicaea. [ 2 ]
The Chalcedonian Orthodox, on the other hand, believe that it was Cyril’s Christology which was not only fully accepted at Ephesus, but served as the basis of all judgments concerning Christology at Ghalcedon in 451 and especially at Constantinople in 553. In spite of its obvious deficiencies the Tome of Leo is adequately Orthodox, definitely not Nestorian, and was accepted only as a document against Eutyches, but again only in the light of and in subordination to the synodical letters (especially the Twelve Chapters) of Cyril to Nestorius and John of Antioch, as we shall see. The terminology and faith of Cyril were fully accepted, although the Eutychian heresy, the chief concern of the Council, called for some adaptation to the new situation. One may point out that the acceptance of the Chalcedonian definition was no different from the acceptance of Cyril’s letters at Ephesus. Neither the one act nor the other can be considered as a composition of a new Creed. They are both interpretations and clarifications of the Nicaean faith m the light of modern circumstances. It is noteworthy that even Cyril had to defend himself against the accusation that he accepted a new Creed in his reconciliatory correspondence with John of Antioch. [ 3 ] Theodoret and Ibas were restored to the episcopacy because they accepted Ephesus I and especially the Twelve Chapters, which acceptance is in itself a condemnation of what they had written about and against Cyril and his anathemas. The Fifth Ecumenical Council of 553 anathematized the writings of Theodoret and Ibas against Cyril and the very person of Theodore, the Father of Nestorianism.
The non-Chalcedonian Orthodox have been for centuries accusing the Chalcedonian Orthodox of being Nestortans. On the other hand, the Chalcedonians have been accusing the non-Chalcedonians of either being monophysites (which for them means believers in one ousia in Christ) or of a one-sided insistence on Cyrillian terminology to the exclusion of Cyril’s own acceptance of two natures in the confession of faith of john of Antioch which brought about the reconciliation of 433. This one-sidedness was adopted by the Ephesine Council of 449 and rejected by the Council of Chalcedon. It should also be noted that the Flavian Endemousa Synod of 448 was one-sided in its use of and insistence on the Cyrillian terminology of the 433 reconciliation to the near exclusion of Cyril’s normal way of speaking about the incarnation. From Chalcedon and especially from Constantinople II it is clear that the Chalcedonians without compromise allow for variations in terms which express the same faith. On the non-Chalcedonian side Severus of Antioch seems to be the only one who comes close to Cyril’s acceptance of two natures tei theoriai monei after the union, a position adopted at Chalcedon and clearly stated in the definition or anathemas of the Fifth Ecumenical Council.
The purpose of this paper is to discuss a few terms against the historical background of circumstances which called them up to serve as a test of correct faith. Especially important are the circumstances surrounding the Councils of 44g and 4si. Undoubtedly a key figure which conditioned Dioscoros’ exasperation with all talk of two natures was its extremely clever use by Theodoret to hide what one may call a clear case of crypto-Nestorianisrn. Leo’s support of and failure to see through Theodoret made him guilty by association, as in some measure happened with Dioscoros’ support of Eutyches. This explains a good deal of the negative attitude toward Leo’s tome, not only from Egyptian quarters, but also from the Palestinian and, of all people, the Illyrian bishops, who were within Leo s own sphere of ecclesiastical influence.
The key to the approach of this paper is (1) to define Nestorianism as seen by Cyril in order to determine why Cyril could accept tei theoriai monei two natures in Christ after the union and John’s confession of faith, and then (2) to examine very briefly in the light of this definition Leo’s Tome and the attitude toward and use of it by Chalcedon. In Part II we will examine what is clearly a case of crypto-Nestorianism in the person of Theodoret, and in the light of this we will survey some of the important aspects of the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian encounter with this issue. Throughout the paper we will be concerned with the place of Cyril, and especially his Twelve Chapters, at Chalcedon, thereby determining whether or not the Fifth Ecumenical Council is really a return to or rather a remaining with Cyril.
1) Nestorius rejected the fact that He Who was born of the Virgin is consubstantial with the Father according to divinity and thus by nature God. Another way of saying this is that he rejected the fact that He Who before the ages is born from and is consubstantial with the Father was in the last days born according to His Own and proper humanity from the Virgin Mary having become thus by nature man and consubstantial with us. On the basis of this rejection Nestorius distorted the true significance of the title Theotokos which he in reality denied to the Mother of God. The most Nestorius could say is that Christ is the one person of the union of two natures, the one nature being by nature God and the other by nature man. The name Christ is not properly predicated of the Logos, but is the narne of the person of union born of Mary and in whom the Logos dwells and who was assumed by the Logos. Nestorius fanatically insisted that the Logos was not born of the Virgin according to His Humanity and did not, therefore, become by nature man. On the basis of this he divided the natures and predicates of Christ attributing the human to the assumed man and the divine to the Logos.
In the light of his denial of the two births of the Logos and the double consubstantiality of the One and the Same Logos, Son of God and the Self-Same also Son of Mary, and thus of the true meaning of the title Theotokos, Nestorius insistence that he does not divide Christ into two persons, but only the natures and names, was judged a mockery of the faith and on this basis he was condemned by the Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils and rejected by john of Antioch and Leo of Rome.
I have indicated elsewhere [ 4 ] that the reconciliation of 433 between Cyril and john was brought about by the Antiochene’s confession of the double birth and consubstantiality of “our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, the very doctrine rejected so violently by Nestorius and even by Theodoret, as we shall see shortly. In his confession john clearly declares that the Only begotten Son of God was before the ages begotten from the Father according to His Divinity, and in the last days the Self-same (ton auton) for us and for our salvation, (begotten) of Mary the Virgin according to His Humanity, the Self-same (ton auton-note that he is here speaking clearly about the Only begotten Son and not the Nestorian and Theodoretan Prosopon of the union of two natures) consubstantial with the Father according to Divinity and consubstantial with us according to Humanity.” [ 5 ] For Cyril this confession of faith meant that the title Theotokos and the incarnation were accepted in their full and true significance, in spite of the fact that John spoke of “a union of two natures, whereby we confess One Christ, One Son, One Lord.”
In his letter to Acacius of Melitene [ 6 ] Cyril is quite emphatic about the fact that this Antiochene confession of the double birth and double consubstantiality of the One and the Same Logos cannot be suspected of Nestorianism since this is exactly what Nestorius denies. [ 7 ] To the objection that two natures after the union means a predication of two separate kinds of names, divine and human, to two separate natures, Cyril replies that to divide names does not mean necessarily a division of natures, hypostases, or persons, since all names are predicated of the one Logos. The division of names is considered as a safeguard against Arians and Eunomians who by confusing them sought to demonstrate the creatureliness of the Logos and His inferiority to the Father. The names, and not the natures, are divided in order to distinguish the real difference of the natures or things out of which Christ is composed, and not to divide them, since they can be distinguished after the union in contemplation only. [ 8 ]
Of course Cyril prefers to speak of One Nature or Hypostasis of God the Logos Incarnate and become man, since this better safeguards the union and the attribution of all things pertaining to Christ to the Logos as the subject of all human and divine actions. For Cyril Physis means a concrete individual acting as subject in its own right and according to its own natural properties. Thus the One Nature of God the Logos Incarnate, having by His second birth appropriated to Himself a perfect, complete and real Manhood, has as His Own both the ousia and natural properties common to all men, whereby it is the Logos Himself Who is Christ and lives really and truly the life of man without any change whatsoever in his Divinity, having remained what He always was. To speak about two natures in Christ would be somewhat equivalent to a Chalcedonian speaking about two Hypostases in Christ. In this respect ‘a Chalcedonian would accept and does accept everything Cyril says but would use Cyril’s One Hypostasis of God the Logos Incarnate, since for him Physis means Ousia. The one very essential point which Cyril makes and which some day may be given adequate consideration by the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox is that whatever one s insistence on theological accuracy in expression may be, it is sheer caricature to accuse anyone of being Nestorian who accepts the double birth and double consubstantiality of the Logos as the basis for the title Theotokos, as well as for the predication of all human and divine attributes and energies to the Logos Who is the sole subject incarnate and acting, both according to His Divinity and His Own appropriated Manhood. This is what Theodore, Nestorius, and Theodoret denied and this is the essence of Orthodoxy. St. Cyril saw this clearly and it is our duty to place this at the centre of our discussions.
2) There is no doubt that Leo tended to separate or distinguish the acts of Christ in such a way that the two natures seem to be acting as separate subjects, a tendency explainable by what he imagined Eutyches was teaching and by his Latin formation wherein Greek Trinitarian terms used in Christology were not available to him. He so obviously failed to understand how the term One Nature was being used in the East, and especially during the Endemousa Synod of 448. This is why a non-Chalcedonian reading the Tome should read ousia upon coming across natura, since Leo was dealing with the information he had received that Eutyches denied Christ’s consubstantiality with us. His expression of utter amazement that the judges did not severely censure Eutyches when making such a statement as, I confess that our Lord was from two Natures before the Union, but after the Union I admit but one Nature, confirms the confusing of his own natura and the Greek ousia with physis. Then Eutyches own confusion of the terms ousia and physis did not help the matter any.
Nevertheless, Leo is very clear in his acceptance of the antiNestorian standard of Orthodoxy accepted by Cyril. Leo declares clearly in his Tome that “the Self-same who was the Only-begotten and Everlasting One of the Everlasting Parent, was born of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary. And this birth in time takes away nothing from that divine and eternal birth, nor does it add anything to it….”[ 9 ]
The definition of Chalcedon is also clear in this respect. “Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us One and the same Son, the Self-same of a rational soul and body, consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same consubstantial with us according to the Manhood… before the ages begotten of the Father according to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos according to the Manhood….”[ 10 ]
Returning to Leo s Tome it is important to point out that at Chalcedon it was accepted only as a document against the heresy of Eutyches, in spite of the fact that both Leo and his legates believed it to be a good statement against Nestorius also. It is even more important to keep in mind that during its reading at Session II the three now famous Nestorian sounding passages were each one challenged as the document was being read. During each interruption it was attacked and defended by the use of parallel passages from Cyril. [ 11 ] After what must have been a somewhat stormy and long debate, bishop Atticos of Nikopolis in Old Epirus, Greece, made the motion that time out be taken to give the assembly the opportunity to carefully compare Leo s Tome with the Twelve Chapters of Cyril in order to make sure of what they were approving.[ 12 ] The imperial representatives chairing the meeting gave the bishops five days in which to do this and suggested the formation of a committee under the presidency of Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople. [ 13 ] The committee reported back at the fourth session, at the beginning of which the imperial and senatorial representatives declared the unswerving faith of the emperor in the expositions of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus with its approval of the two canonical letters of Cyril, i.e., the Second and Third to Nestorius.[ 14 ] This profession of the imperial faith had been made also at the end of Session I, [ 15 ] and now in anticipation of the committee’s report on the question of Leo s agreement with Cyril’s Twelve Chapters it was repeated. The committee report [ 16 ] was included in the minutes in the form of a listing of the individual opinions of its members, all of whom expressed their belief that Leo’s Tome agreed with Nicaea, Ephesus, and the letter of Cyril. Most of the bishops mentioned the (one) letter of Cyril, [ 17 ] which cannot be any other than the Twelve Chapters since this was the one the Illyrians and Palestinians were concerned about as is clear from the motion of the Illyrian Atticos which initiated the careful comparison of Leo’s Tome with the letter of Cyril. Some of the members mentioned their belief that the Tome agreed with the two letters of Cyril, dearly referring to the ones of Ephesus mentioned as part of the imperial faith. It is extremely interesting to note that among the similar individual opinions given by the rest of the Assembly and recorded in the minutes is that of none other than Theodoret of Cyrus, [ 18 ] who claims that he finds the Tome of Leo in agreement with the letters of Cyril and the Council of Ephesus, certainly a tremendous leap from his position just before the Council. In the light of his strong hesitation at Session VIII to anathematize Nestorius, a hesitation which infuriated the assembly, one wonders about his sincerity, especially since he tried to defend his former acts by an exposition of how he never taught two Sons. He was interrupted by shouts of “Nestorian. [ 19 ]”
The acceptance of Leo s Tome in the light of and in subordination to the letters of Cyril is also clearly contained in the Chalcedonian definition itself. [ 20 ] It is declared that the Council accepts the Synodical (the Third letter to Nestorius is titled synodical, or since this is in the plural it could be a reference to the two of Ephesus, which in the minutes are called canonical, plus the one to John) letters of Cyril to Nestorius and to those of the East, “and to which (epistles) it reasonably adapted the letter of Leo … (epistolas… hais kai ten epistolen tou Leontos… eikotos syncrmose…).” This is not a of a balance between Cyril and Leo, as many scholars would have us believe. Leo became very sensitive about the doubts raised about his tome, and especially disturbed did he become over determined opposition in certain quarters like Palestine where Juvenal was deposed for accepting the Tome. In a letter to Julian of Cos (cxvli, 3) in which he shows much concern with accusations of heresy against himself, he writes that,…if they think there is any doubt about our teaching, let them at least not reject the writings of such holy priests as Athanasius, Theophilus and Cyril of Alexandria, with whom our statement of the faith so completely harmonizes that anyone who professes consent to them disagrees in nothing with us. No one can doubt the sincerity with which Leo wanted to be in agreement with those Alexandrine Fathers, but his defense of Theodoret compromised him. In a letter to the now restored Bishop of Cyrus he chides Theodoret for the tardy way in which he anathematized Nestorius (cxx, 5), yet in his opening remarks of this very same letter he speaks of “the victory you [Theodoret] and we together had won by assistance from on high over the blasphemy of Nestorius, as well as over the madness of Eutyches. Dioscoros relationship to Eutyches may have some parallels.
The Chalcedonian definition also speaks of itself as preserving the order and all the decrees concerning the Faith passed by the Holy Synod held formerly at Ephesus…. [ 21 ] From Ibas ad Marim Persam and from the minutes of the Johannine Council of Ephesus, we learn that the Antiochenes rejected the Cyrillian Council of Ephesus and damned Cyril because the heretical Twelve Chapters had been accepted. [ 22 ] In this same letter Ibas (as were many of Cyril’s friends and Theodoret) [ 23 ] was under the impression that Cyril abandoned his Ephesine position in his reconciliation with john in 433. [ 24 ] However, Ibas stated at his trial in Byretus in 449 that Paul of Emessa had accepted the Alexandrine bishops interpretation of the Twelve Chapters as Cyril had accepted the confession of the Easterners. [ 25 ] It is in the light of this that one should read the letter of john to the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Constantinople (the order of the letter) in which he announces Antioch’s acceptance of Nestorius excommunication and the Council of Ephesus. [ 26 ] It is impossible to accept the opinion of many that Cyril laid aside his Twelve Chapters for the sake of a reconciliation with john. As an individual he had no authority whatsoever to modify the decisions of an Ecumenical Council and there is no evidence to substantiate this supposition. Although the Endemousa Synod of Constantinople seems to have overemphasized the Cyrillian allowances of 433, it accepted the Twelve Chapters as part of Ephesus which it approved in toto. [ 27 ]
In the light of the evidence it is clear that Cyril’s Third letter to Nestorius, including the Twelve Chapters, was not repudiated by Chalcedon as many claim. On the contrary, the Twelve Chapters, were used as the very basis of the Council’s attitudes toward Nestorianism and Leo’s Tome. It is too bad that the Chalcedonians themselves present at the Council of 531 in Constantinople did not fully realize the crucial role played at Chalcedon by Cyill’s Twelve Chapters. Their answer to Severus accusation that the Twelve Chapters were laid aside in 4S1 was that it was accepted and approved as part of Ephesus i. This, of course, is incontestable, but not anywhere near the reality of the matter. The significance of the use made of the Twelve Chapters at Chalcedon should be obvious enough to those who claim that they fail to find the terms characteristic of Cyrillian Christology in the definition. Groundless also are the theories (brought forward by many Protestant and Roman Catholic scholars embarrassed by the Cyrillianism of the Fifth Ecumenical Council) concerning an alleged neo Chalcedonian rnovement which was supposed to have put Leo’s Tome aside and returned to the Twelve Chapters of Ephesus I, especially to the twelfth anathema. The truth of the matter is that in pronouncing anathema on those who do not accept the Twelve Chapters of Cyril, the Fifth Ecumenical Council of 553 is simply repeating what was done at Ephesus in 431 and again at Chalcedon in 451.
PART II Now we must turn to the cryptoNestoriamsm of Theodoret, a type of Christology which in some measure can hide itself behind the language used in the formulary of reunion of 433t without, however, adopting its exact wording and meaning. It was undoubtedly his exasperation with this type of Antiochene Christology more than anything else which goaded Dioscoros into setting aside Cyril’s act of 433 and returning to what may be called Alexandrine exclusiveness as the only sure means of uprooting the new form behind which Nestorianism hid itself.
In the course of the Christological controversies Theodoret learned to modify some of his opinions without, however, changing his basic vision and presuppositions. For example, he rejected Cyril’s suggestion that the Logos Himself became by nature man, [ 28 ] but by the time he wrote his Eranistes he had adapted, to some degree, his language to that of Cyril. In some contrast to Nestorius he claims that “the Truth is both God by nature and man by nature”. [ 29 ], In another work he says that “the Same is by nature God and man. [ 30 ] He Who was born of the Virgin, according to Theodoret, is consubstantial with the Father according to His Godhead and consubstantial with us according to His Manhood. Christ was born, says the bishop of Cyrus, before the ages from God the Father and in our own time the Selfsarne Christ was born from the Virgin Theotokos. [ 31 ] These expressions are not these of Nestorius, yet they are not completely Orthodox. The name Christ, for Theodoret, is predicated of the Logos because the Only begotten Son of God assumed a man or manhood which was born from the Virgin. [ 32 ] Until his acceptance of the Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils, Theodoret could not say that the Logos Himself, being by nature God, became according to the flesh by nature man, or consubstantial with us, by His second birth in time from the Virgin Mary, while remaining immutably what He was. Such a double birth and the double consubstantiality must be predicated of Christ alone and not the Logos. Only divine names can be predicted of the Logos. [ 33 ] Yet all names, both human and divine, can be predicated of Christ because of re union in Him of the two natures. [ 34 ] Thus, when Theodoret says that He Who was born of the Virgin is consubstantial with God the Father, he does not mean that He Who is consubstantial with the Father was born of Mary in the flesh. The name Christ seems to be the only one Theodoret allows to be predicated of the Logos in the flesh, and by means of this he avoids saying with Nestorius that Christ is the Son of David and Son of God united in His (Christ’s) One Person. Yet he clearly follows Nestorius by distinguishing the Only-begotten Son and Christ in the Creed by insisting that the name Jesus Christ, and not the title of Only-begotten Son, is the recipient of the things human such as birth, suffering, death, burial and resurrection. [ 35 ] His attempt to explain why only the name Christ of all things human should be predicated of the Logos in the flesh is a Nestorian failure. Thus it was the prosopon of Christ Who suffered, died, and was buried in the tomb, not the impassible Logos in His Own passible manhood. [ 36 ] When St. Paul speaks of the Lord of Glory being crucified he means that the body of the Lord of Glory was crucified, not that the Lord of Glory was crucified in the flesh. [ 37 ]
Very instructive on the question of dividing the names between the two natures and uniting them, not in the Logos, but m the name Christ, which includes the Logos, is Theodoret’ s version of the formulary of reunion or Antiochene confession of faith. The linguistic variations between the confessions are doctrinally quite revealing. We will quote Theodoret’ s version [ 38 ] and insert in their proper places within brackets and in capitals the longer text of John and underline the one phrase in Theodoret’ s creed missing from that of John.
“We confess one Lord Jesus Christ, (THE ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD), perfect God and perfect man, of rational soul and body, before the ages begotten of the Father according to Godhead, but in the last days (THE SELF-SAME) for us and our salvation, of Mary the Virgin; the self-same consubstantial with the Father according to Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to Manhood.”
For John it is the Only-begotten Son of God Who has a double birth and a double consubstantiality, whereas for Theodoret these can be predicated only of Christ, Who includes the Logos, since only the single divine birth and consubstantiality can be predicated of the Logos Himself. It seems highly doubtful that Theodoret is the author of the formulary of reunion as is commonly claimed. [ 39 ] On occasion he may profess agreement with John confession, but then he professed agreement with the Nicaean Creed also. On the basis of this crypto-Nestorianism Theodoret could continue his attacks on Ephesus and Cyril, and especially on the Twelve Chapters. It is very important to point out that Theodoret’ s Christology is not that of John accepted by Cyril, nor that of Leo’ s Tome and Chalcedon. Failure to realize this during the fifth century made both Leo and Chalcedon guilty by association in the eyes of those who followed the lead of Dioscoros, in the same way that Dioscoros was made guilty by association by his support of Eutyches.
Keeping in mind Theodoret’ s distinction between the titles Christ and the Only-begotten Son for the purpose of denying that the Nicaean Creed speaks of the Only-begotten Son Himself as born, suffering, crucified and buried, it is instructive to turn to Leo s Tome. The bishop of Rome, in clear contrast to Theodoret and Nestorius, writes, “that the Son of God is said to have been crucified and buried, although He suffered these things not in His Godhead itself, in virtue of which the Only-begotten is both co-eternal and consubstantral with the Father, but in the weakness of Human nature. And this is the reason why we all confess, too, in the Creed that ‘the Only-begotten Son of God was crucified and buried’ in accordance with that saying of the Apostle, ‘For had they known they would not have crucified the Lord of Majesty’ ” (ch. 5). If this is not in toto what Cyril is saying in the Twelfth Anathema of his Chapters, it at least is certainly not what Nestorius or Theodoret were saying. In the opinion of this writer, Theodoret’ s acceptance of Leo’ s Tome in his need for help against personal disaster is no different from his acceptance of Cyril’s Twelve Chapters at Chalcedon. He was a sorry sight at the eighth session trying to publicly convince the assembly that he was not now accepting all that was done and anathematizing Nestorius because of any love of honour, rank and wealth. [ 4O ]
As long as Cyril and John were alive they were able to contain somewhat the extremists in their respective dioceses (dioikeseis). Even the eruption of the controversy over the Christology of Diodore and Theodore did not break up the union of 433. However, things changed for the worse with the accession of Domnos (443) to the “Apostolic See” of Antioch and Dioscoros (444) to the “Evangelical See” (so they are called in the minutes of the Councils) of Alexandria. Theodoret got the upper hand in Antioch and pro-Nestorian activities increased seriously. Evidently at Theodoret’ s instigation several Nestorians were ordained bishops, including the notorious Nestorian fanatic Count Irenaeus the twice married. Thus the Church was faced with a resurgence of a Nestorianism hiding behind the formulary of reunion and Theodoretan Christological double-talk. Again we must keep in mind that these people not only professed faith in the formulary of reunion, but also in the Nicene Creed, both of which they interpreted in their own way.
At the time Cyril accepted John’ s confession there were many who were highly suspicious of the two nature document, either feeling that Cyril had compromised the decisions of Ephesus or believing that Cyril had been tricked. They no doubt felt that now their suspicions had been justified. It was now natural for them to feel and decide that the only way to uproot this new Nestorianism was to insist on One Nature of God the Logos Incarnate, One Nature after the Union, and that Christ is One from or out of two Natures. Only this would make it possible to insure the attribution of all the names and activities of Christ to the Logos Incarnate. The Theodoretan type experience had proven to them beyond all doubt that any doctrine of two natures after the union could only mean two subjects and centres of activity in Christ acting in a harmony of wills, the one or the other performing its proper operations as the need arose. As we shall see he assailed even those who could accept One Nature of the Logos Incarnate, but who preferred to speak of two Physeis which to them meant two ousiai.
The opportunity for a decisive blow at two natures was presented by the Endemousa Synod of Constantinople in 448 which was convened to deal with the accusation of heresy filed against Eutyches by Eusebius of Dorylaeum. The libel itself contains no specific heresy, but according to the witness of those sent to invite Eutyches to attend the Council in order to answer to unnamed charges, the aged Archimandrite denied that Christ is consubstantial with us according to manhood. [ 4I ] The same denial was repeated by Eutyches when he finally made a personal appearance at the Synod. However, when told that this is a denial of the teaching of the Fathers (perhaps some Patristic quotations were shown to him) he faltered and showed some willingness to accept this teaching. However, it is interesting to note that he was several times asked as one question what perhaps should have been asked as two separate questions, viz. whether or not he confesses (1) that Christ is consubstantial with us, and (2) that after the incarnation there are two natures in Christ. [ 42 ] There seem to be no indications from the minutes (except possibly in Leo’ s observation that no one reprimanded the monk when he spoke of One Nature after the union) that these two statements could have different meanings, viz, that it may be possible to speak of One Nature of God the Logos Incarnate or one nature after the union, and at the same time confess that Christ is consubstantial with us according to His Manhood. Thus, although Eutyches could seriously entertain the possibility of accepting the teaching on consubstantiality, he could not for a moment think of anathematizing those who teach One Nature after the union. Thus when the two questions were thrown at him as one he could only refuse to anathematize. It seems quite clear that for Eutyches (whose case seems to be one of simple ignorance), as well as for Eusebius and Flavian, physis was synonymous, with ousia. Eutyches was excommunicated, but either during the Synod or later he appealed his case to the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Thessalonica.
Although Eutyches was quite defendable in his refusal to anathematize those who teach One Nature Incarnate of the Logos, since, as he said, he could not anathematize the Fathers of the Church, he could not be defended for his denial that Christ is consubstantial with us. Thus it was not after this Synod that Dioscoros accepted Eutyches into communion. This could not be done until the question of Christ’s consubstantiality was cleared up. This doctrinal deficiency was done away with on the basis of added testimony presented to the Review Conferences of April 449 convened to examine Eutyches claim that the acts of the Endymousa Synod which condemned him were inaccurate and lacking.
Presbyter John, who, together with the deacon Andrew (with another deacon, Athanasius, happening along), was sent to invite Eutyches to the Endemousa Synod, and had then testified that Eutyches denied that Christ is consubstantial with us, now claimed that in private, while the other two were not listening, the Archimandrite expressed his belief that Christ is consubstantial with His mother, although not with us. [ 43 ] When asked why this information was withheld in 448 Presbyter John answered that he had done this because the other two had not witnessed to this part of the conversation. The presbyter’ s testimony is peculiar since Eutyches did say that the mother of Christ was consubstantial with us. [ 44 ] If he believed that Christ was consubstantial with his mother, this would, as it seems, make Him consubstantial with us also. It is interesting to note that Flavian himself uses the phrase that Christ is consubstantial with His mother in his confessions of faith. [ 45 ]
It is very important to realize that at this Review Conference it was established, truthfully or falsely, that Eutyches was excommunicated for refusing to anathematize those who say One Nature after the Union and for refusing to accept two natures after the Union. Constantine the deacon, one of Eutyches advocates at the hearing, accused Flavian of doing just this. [ 46 ] The Patrician Florentius vigorously challenged the truthfulness of the acts which pictured him as attempting to get Eutyches to accept two natures after the union as though this only were Orthodox dogma. [ 47 ] There is also evidence indicating that on the basis of Cyril’ s One Nature of God the Logos Incarnate it was felt that Eutyches must agree with the bishops assembled. [ 48 ] This evidently meant that they felt Eutyches should accept a second nature in Christ since this is what to them Incarnate meant. Of course, this would be true if Physis meant Ousiai but this is not how Cyril used the term in this phrase. He could not and never does speak of One Ousia of God the Logos Incarnate. This paralleling of Cyril’s One Physis with Incarnate in order to prove that Cyril speaks of Two Physeis in Christ was and is a mistake repeated by all Chalcedonians till today. The approach was and is a bad one since it could only lead to two Hypostases and Prosopa. Nevertheless, Eutyches was not restored to communion as a result of this Review Conference, either because Presbyter John’s testimony was not accepted, or because Eutyches refused to accept two natures after the union.
What is of great significance from the foregoing is the fact that the Council of Ephesus of 449 was not heretical since Eutyches exhoneration was obviously based on his confession that Christ is consubstantial with His mother. This explains why Anatolius of Constantinople at the Fourth Ecumenical Council could in plenary session claim that Dioscoros was not deposed for heresy. [ 49 ] The Ephesine Council of 449 was rejected at Chalcedon because of the injustice done to Flavian and Eusebius, and the exhoneration of Eutyches. On the other hand Theodoret and Ibas, who were also deposed at Ephesus in 449, were restored at Chalcedon as late as sessions eight, nine, and ten, and then only after they accepted all that had thus far been done at the Council and anathematized Nestorius. Even though Leo’ s legates considered Theodoret as a participant from the very beginning, [ 50 ] the assembly vigorously protested. [ 51 ] The result of the protest can be seen in that the imperial representatives informed the protesting Dioscoros that the bishop of Cyrus was admitted to the Council in the capacity of accuser only. [ 52 ] We recounted his restoration elsewhere. [ 53 ] It should be noted that Atticos, the bishop of Nikopolis in Old Epirus, who made the motion which brought about the careful comparison of Leo’s Tome with Cyril’ s Twelve Chapters, was present at Theodoret’ s restoration and the Epirot’ s acceptance of it is another testimony to the Bishop of Cyrus submission to Cyril. [ 54 ]
Another objection, and perhaps the most serious, which Chalcedonian Orthodox have with the Ephesine Council of 449 is its rejection of Cyril’s allowance for two natures after the union and its one-sided exclusiveness in this regard. This comes out clearly in the fact that at the Flavian Synod of 448 the minutes of Ephesus were read and accepted [ 55 ] and also by the fact that both Flavian and Eusebius accepted One Nature of God the Logos Incarnate so long as Christ’s consubstantiality with us is clearly professed. [ 56 ] However, Dioscoros simply rejected all talk of two natures after the union. When the imperial representatives asked why Flavian was deposed since he did accept One Nature of the Logos Incarnate, Eustathius of Berytus admitted making a mistake. [ 57 ] Dioscoros, however, claimed that Flavian contradicted himself by accepting two natures after the union. [ 58 ] The strange thing is that both were correct, since for Flavian physis meant ousia, whereas for Dioscoros it meant hypostasis. Nevertheless, knowingly or not Dioscoros was bent on erasing what Cyril had done in 433.
In confronting Eutyches denial that Christ is consubstantial with us Flavian and Eusebius were clearly speaking of two physeis as equivalent to two ousiai. For them double consubstantiality meant two natures. For Eutyches physis and ousia were also synonymous and he evidently at first believed that Cyril’s One Nature meant One Ousia, hence his hesitation to accept them as names for Christ’s humanity. Cyril does use ousia and physis as synonymous when speaking of the Holy Trinity. [ 59 ] There is no question of course about his use of physis as equivalent to hypostasis. Yet he never speaks of there being one ousia in Christ and clearly speaks of the flesh of Christ as being consubstantial with ours. [ 60 ] In Christology he uses physis, hypostasis, and prosopon as synonymous, yet he never, as far as I know, speaks of Two Prosopa before the union and one after, as he does with the other two terms. Equivalent to his One Nature of God the Logos Incarnate is his One Hypostasis of God the Logos Incarnate of his Third Letter to Nestorius [ 61 ] and his Defense of the Twelve Chapters. [ 62 ] In the light of all this and all which was said at Chalcedon, the anathema pronounced in the definition on those who say two natures before the union and one after the union was intended for anyone with Eutyches who denied that Christ is consubstantial with us. There is no doubt that the definition should have contained the phrase or ousia as one finds after the phrase one physis in the eighth and ninth anathemas of the Fifth Ecumenical Council. This would have avoided much misunderstanding. It perhaps was not done at the Fourth because possibly Cyril’s One Nature of God the Logos was taken as equivalent to One Ousia and the word Incarnate as equivalent to a second ousia or physis. That this was possible is borne out clearly by the Flavian Synod of 448, as well as the explanations given by both Eusebius and Flavian at Ephesus in 449, as we have already indicated.
It should be noted that One Hypostasis of God the Logos Incarnate and not One Physis of God the Logos Incarnate is to be found in Cyril’s Third Letter to Nestorius approved by Ephesus and Chalcedon. These terms are, of course, absolutely synonymous for Cyril. Yet it seems very obvious that at the Flavian Synod of 448 and at Chalcedon, the true Cyrillian meaning or usage of One Nature was overlooked simply because the phrase One Nature after the union was not contained in the synodical letters of Cyril which alone were familiar to all participants of both Councils.
At the Endemousa Synod of Constantinople in 448 [ 63 ] and in his confession of faith of 449 Flavian says that Christ is out of or from two natures. [ 64 ] yet he spoke in the same breath of two natures after the union. At the Council of Chalcedon Dioscoros vigorously rejected any talk of a union of two natures (as found in the formulary of reunion approved by Cyril) and insisted exclusively on a union out of or from two natures. For Dioscoros this meant that after the union there could be only one nature. Had this term had the same function for Flavian as it did for Dioscoros, the bishop of New Rome would have found himself believing with Eutyches in one ousia after the union, since for him physis meant ousia. Nevertheless, the imperial representatives were so impressed by the fuss Dioscoros made over this question, that they used this as an example to convince the bishops of the need of drafting a statement of faith. It is at this point that Anatolius intervened to remind the assembly that Dioscoros was not deposed for heresy, but because he excommunicated Leo. [ 65 ] In their interlocution at the fifth session the imperial representatives said that Leo says union of two natures whereas Dioscoros says union out of two natures. Whom do you follow ?” they asked. The Reverend Bishops cried, “As Leo, thus we believe. Those who gainsay are Eutychinists”. [ 66 ] In the light of what happened in sessions two and four with Leo’ s Tome, one wonders if a deliberate attempt was made wit the minutes to make Leo look a little better at Chalcedon in order to offset the obvious humiliation he underwent. Keeping in mind the Council’s subordination of Leo to Cyril one must take seriously the fact that in the letters of Cyril which served as the basis of the Council’s deliberations the terms from two natures or from two One occur several times. It is understandable that Dioscoros made this a big issue and it so became subsequently. One can understand the imperial representatives trying to make the question look like a big victory for Leo. Attila had to be met by the force of an empire united in everything and especially helpful was the bishop of Rome who must not now be humiliated. But even when in two natures is accepted as the original reading of the Chalcedonian definition (although from two natures is what the rnanuscripts contain), it should be taken as an anti-Eutychianist statement meaning in two ousiajs, since this is what had been denied. Thus the Fifth Ecumenical Council rejects as heretical from two natures only when its proponents mean to teach one ousia in Christ. It stands to reason that had anyone proposed in two natures in the sense of rejecting Cyril’s from two natures he would have certainly been challenged. Anatolius reply to the imperial representatives is indicative of the fact that the leaders of the Council were not in any mood to see in these phrases any contradiction, and in fact there were none. Would the non-Chalcedonian say that Christ is out of two ousiai in the same way he says out of two physeis? If not then he can t expect a Chalcedonian to do what he won’t. What is then left is to speak of Christ as of two ousiai or in two ousiais. This is all a Chalcedonian means by of two natures and in two natures. It seems that bickering over such terms was the result of a heresy hunting temper which lumped Leo and Theodoret into one theological camp because of the alliance between them.
Also one may point out that hypostatic union or natural union were accepted at Chalcedon by virtue of the fact that all done at Ephesus in 431, the most important part of which are Cyril’s letters wherein are contained all his key terms and ideas on Christology, was incorporated together with Cyril’s letter to John and the Tome of Leo into the definition itself. It seems obvious enough that the Chalcedonian theologians of the fifth and sixth centuries should be taken very seriously when they point out that Chalcedon was not convened in order to condemn Nestorius, except by way of repeating what had been done so well at Ephesus in 431, but rather in order to deal with the Eutychtanist heresy.
The Theodoretan crypto-Nestorianism, whose danger loomed so large in Alexandrian circles, was not at all grasped by Leo. In a similar fashion the danger of Eutychianism was not handled properly by Dioscoros. We must always keep in mind the serious imbalance of attitudes toward issues on each side. While the Chalcedonians concentrated on the confusors of the ousiai in Christ, the Alexandrians were still fighting the separators of natures or hypostases. In the light of this it would be wise to make allowances in terminology while none whatsoever in faith. I would suggest that serious consideration be given to the Fifth Ecumenical Council, not as one which modified Chalcedon, but as one which interprets it correctly. If we agree on the meaning of Cyril’s Christology, we should also be as pliable as he on terms. In this regard the non-Chalcedonians should accept all of Cyril, including 433, and the Chalcedonians must stop overemphasizing the Cyril of 433.
DISCUSSION: Concerning the Paper of Father Romanides
FATHER MEYENDORFF: I am glad that Father Romanides speaks this time in this positive way about the Tome of Leo, and I hope the non-Chalcedonians will read him in this light. The praises of Leo in the Acts of Chalcedon should be seen as a conciliatory move in the light of the anti-Roman bias of the Chalcedonian Canons.
FATHER ROMANIDES: It is my opinion that the adoption of Trinitarian terms in Christology was in the beginning rather accidental. At the Council of Alexandria in 362, presided over by St. Athanasius the Great it was decided to adopt the Cappadocian manner of distinguishing between hypostasis and ousia When speaking about the Holy Trinity. No decision was made concerning the term physis which, until the Cappadocian distinction hypostasis and ousia. The outcome of this was that the Cappadocian tradition ended up by equating physis with ousia, while the Alexandrian tradition equated physis with hypostasis. The accidental nature of this equating of pbysis with either hypostasis or ousia must be taken seriously into consideration in order to understand the history of the Christological debates between 448 and 451 as described in my paper. In the self-justifying heat of polemics after 451 each side claimed a monopoly of understanding of the precise meaning of the term physis which from the point of view of the history of dogma is untenable. Failure to realize this can only lead us back to the ridiculous debate concerning the superiority of one s own Fathers over the Fathers of the other side. We must be very clear about the fact that the Chalcedonians means two ousiai when they speak of two physeis after the union, whereas the non-Chalcedonians, as pointed out very clearly by Father Samuel’s paper also, do not mean one ousia when they speak of one physis after the union.
FATHER MEYENDORFF: Physis was seen by all as signifying concrete being. The Antiochene Christology insisted upon the idea that the concrete actions of Christ can be variously ascribed to humanity and divinity, the subject being one-the Christ.
FATHER ROMANIDES: But Cyril would attribute everything to the Logos in the flesh, not simply to the Christ as is done by the Nestorianizers and pointed out in my paper.
FATHER VERGHESE: What do we mean by Christ being in two ousiai after the union ?
FATHER ROMANIDES: In both the Cappadocian and Alexandrian traditions the ousia of God is beyond all categories of thought in a radical manner and therefore not only beyond definition of any kind, but also beyond the predication of any name whatsoever, to such an extent that God is hyper-onymos, hyper-ousios and even hyper-theos. Within this Biblical tradition the ousia of man also remains a mystery. Only the energies and rowers of both God and man can be known. In this sense the term ousia is used not in the Greek philosophical sense of the definable and knowable immutable inner reality of a thing, but as concrete unknowable reality known only in its acts. In contrast to the Antiochene and Latin tradition (the Augustinian one), the term ousia as applied to the Holy Trinity by the Cappadocian and Alexandrian Fathers is neither a platonic superstratal genus, nor an Aristotelian substratal material in which the hypostases or persons of the Holy Trinity participate. Therefore, Christ being in two ousiai could only mean that our Lord, the Only-Begotten Son of God, exists in two concrete, yet undefinable and perfect and complete realities, each of which is by nature proper to Himself and distinguishable in the union in thought alone. The term in two natures is of Latin provenance and was translated by the Cappadocian oriented Fathers of Chalcedon by the phrase in two physeis. Under more normal conditions the Alexandrians might have accepted the term in their own theological language as in two ousiai. It is only in this anti-Eutychian sense that the non-Chalcedonians must understand the term in two physeis whose only intent is to preclude one ousia after the union.
FATHER SAMUEL: I am quite pleased with this paper of Father Romanides from several points of view. First, I am pleasantly surprised that Theodoret is not defended by the paper. Secondly, Ephesus (449) is not condemned outright. The paper is much fairer at this point than most Western church historians. Some difficulties remain for anyone reading the minutes of the Council. They do not give me the same impression as they give Father Romanides. Take, for instance, the Third Letter of Cyril to Nestorius with the Twelve Anathemas. At Chalcedon it was not read. The imperial commissioners referred to the two canonical letters of Cyril read and approved at Ephesus in 431. But the letters of Cyril read at Chalcedon were only his Second Letter to Nestorius and his Letter to John of Antioch, or the Formulary of Reunion of 433. So from the point of view of reading, the Third Letter with the Anathemas was passed over in silence. There were two references to it at Chalcedon. One: the intervention of Atticus of Nicopolis who wanted to compare the Tome of Leo with the Twelve Anathemas. And two, the Chalcedonian Formula includes it, by implication, among the documents of the Faith.
How, then, can Father Romanides say that the Twelve Chapters of Cyril were in the mind of the Council when it accepted the Tome of Leo?
FATHER ROMANIDES: Father Samuel is correct in saying that the Third Letter of St. Cyril to Nestorius containing the Twelve Chapters was at first passed over in silence. However, after the reading of Leo’s Tome the successful demand, was made that it be compared with the Twelve Chapters of St. Cyril in order to see whether or not it was Orthodox. We should not overlook the fact that the overwhelming majority of bishops at Chalcedon were Cyrillians and so were able to force the issue of the Twelve Chapters as the criterion of Leo’ s faith. After Chalcedon even Leo attempted to calm his enemies with the claim that he himself was absolutely Cyrillian (see e.g. his Ep. cxvli, 3). I think one should simply check the references to the minutes in my paper for documentation of the evaluations made.
FATHER SAMUEL: I am glad to hear you say that the Twelve Chapters were accepted by Chalcedon, though this is far from clear in the minutes. In the matter of lbas, for instance, the Roman delegates said that they had read his letter to Maris the Persian and that in spite of it they considered him Orthodox.
FATHER ROMANIDES: But Ibas was reinstated on the basis of his formal acceptance, sincere or not, of the Twelve Chapters.
FATHER SAMUEL: Besides, if l may continue, there is no basis for the statement that Dioscorus accepted Eutyches into communion if by this a serious charge is intended to be made against Dioscorus. There are several difficulties here. In the first place, we have to clarify the meaning of the word “communion’ or koinonia. It can mean either Eucharistic communion or simply friendship and support. What is to be proved, if it can be raised as a charge, is that between the Home Synod of Constantinople in 448 and the second Council of Ephesus in 449 Dioscorus offered Eutyches Eucharistic communion. Do we have any evidence for it? Secondly, in none of the petitions against Dioscorus presented to the Council of Chalcedon was this mentioned. The only reference to it is found in the declaration against Dioscorus made by the Roman delegation. They said that Dioscorus had offered koinonia to Eutyches before the latter was rehabilitated at Ephesus in 449, without specifying what they meant by the word koinonia. Thirdly, while stating why Dioscorus had been condemned, Anatolius of Constantinople did not mention this as a charge against Dioscorus. Thus if at all one has to take the words of the Roman delegation seriously, they mean only that Dioscorus supported Eutyches.
But we appreciate your paper and its general trend.
FATHER ROMANIDES: In this regard the only point I wish to make in my paper is that Dioscorus supported Eutythes as one who accepts the double consubstantiality of the Only-Begotten Son of God. Only this can explain why Dioscorus Orthodoxy was upheld at Chalcedon. On the other hand, Dioscorus was deposed for excommunicating Leo and also for acting uncanonically. I was not concerned specifically with the type of support Eutyches received from Dioscorus, although this is in itself of great importance.
BISHOP SARKISSIAN: In our new effort which aims at a deeper and more adequate understanding of the Council of Chalcedon than what we have been accustomed to in the past, we must not overlook the whole emotional, psychological climate in which the Council evolved and the political factors and tensions which were operative elements in the course of the Council. As the great majority of the bishops were Cyrillians in their theological thinking, it was strange that the Tome of Leo was taken as a standard formulation of Christology. There are several other aspects in the minutes of the Council which need to be taken into consideration in a well-balanced presentation and evaluation of the spirit and the content of the Council. In this paper, some important aspects, such as the, role of Leo’s Tome, the rehabilitation of Theodoret and Ibas are overlooked and only the positive elements and aspects have been taken into account. We need a fuller evaluation of the Council as a historical event.
FATHER ROMANIDES: I am surprised at some of the claims of oversight, since much of my paper is devoted to the role of Leo’ s Tome, the Christology of Theodoret and its relation to Leo’ s Christology, and the manner in which Theodoret and Ibas were rehabilitated at Chalcedon. I am also amazed that at this point in our conversations Leo’ s Tome is still referred to as a standard formulation of Christology at Chalcedon. It is easy for you to use the Latin interpretation of Chalcedon as a stick against us, but if we are to get anywhere you will have to take the Greek Chalcedonian interpretation of the place of Leo’s Tome at the Fourth Council more seriously.
DR. KHELLA: In interpreting the Acts of Chalcedon it is unrealistic to expect agreement on our two sides. This paper is historically more or less accurate in, what it says, but the data have been chosen from a particular perspective. As Bishop Sarkissian said, we need a more balanced study of the Acts. As for a few inaccuracies, e.g. on page 83, it is not true to say that Severus was the first to agree on two natures “in thought.” Timothy Aelurus was just as correct in this regard, also Peter the Iberian and others. On pages 87-90, I feel that the role of Leo at Chalcedon should be clarified. The numbers given of bishops at Chalcedon are often legendary. Perhaps there were more than 360 bishops in fact, of whom only 7 were from the West. Two North Africans who were fleeing from the invasions were by accident at Chalcedon. There was also the Apocrisarius of Leo in Constantinople. Two others from the West spoke no Greek. These were the ones who wanted the Tome of Leo to be read.
The letter was read in a smaller committee in which only 23 bishops were present. Latin Acts have different numbers from the Greek Acts; but the Tome was not read in the second session. The session of l3th October is difficult to regard as a full session.
FATHER BOROVOY: I was afraid of this entry into the jungle of details from which there may be no easy way out. I wanted rather to count on my fingers the achievements of this day. Father Meyendorff’ s last two points in his paper are a definite achievement. When I heard Father Samuel saying “we are not monophysites,” this was another achievement. When Bishop Sarkissian spoke of the communicatio idiomatum this was another achievement again. When finally I heard Professor Karmiris I felt we were very close to each other. It seems we should be able on this basis to find a uniting formula. Perhaps we are too enthusiastic and we should speak a little bit as Professor Florovsky did (as advocatus diabolus). I would continue in that negative line. Is there a dialogue here, or a dual monologue? We sincerely accept the defense of our non-Chalcedonian brethren for their past. Our side can also present a similar defense. If we take this line, the next step will be polemics. We say we are individual theologians. I consider myself as such. My Church sent me here to speak on her behalf- not for polemics, but for unity. I am here to find the common ground as suggested in Professor Karmiris paper. All contributions on the Chalcedonian side bear an ecumenical spirit. They seek a meeting point, and even perhaps went further. The spirit of Cyril is strong. We are not against him. But we are the Church, but not the church of Cyril or Leo or Theodoret or anybody else. The Church is above them all. We need not accept everything of Cyril. His fundamental Christology is important; but no need to reject Leo and Theodoret in their positive contributions.
Historically, we should not seek to defend our own sides. History has no angels of light, nor purely dark devils. In history we find men acting, holy men, to be sure, but still men. Even in Nestorius there are many positive aspects. We must recognize both the merit and the weakness of both sides. The Holy Spirit works in the Church as a whole.
We must look for the ground of unity. The details can be worked out by a commission.
PROFESSOR ROMANIDES: There is no doubt, as Bishop Sarkissian and Professor Khella point out, that my paper is written from a certain point of view. It only happens that this point of view is that of the overwhelming majority of the Council which accepted Leo’ s Tome only in the light of St. Cyril’s Twelve Chapters. That this should be the normal outcome at Chalcedon cannot be surprising when one takes seriously the historical fact that the Latins and Antiochenes, who were the only ones who unconditionally supported the Tome, were a small minority at the Council.
I am very happy to hear that Severus was not the first one on the non-Chalcedonian side who could accept two natures tei theoriai monei after the union. There are no indications from the minutes of the Ephesine Council of 449 that Dioscoros could accept this. Nevertheless, I should like to point out that I was not asked to write a book on Chalcedon, but only ten pages which became seventeen. The purpose of the paper did not include any discussion of such technical problems concerning the number of sessions, bishops, etc. I Cannot accept the idea that Session II could have debated Leo’ s Tome without it having first been read. The cruciality of the debate over Leo’ s Tome at Session II can be seen in the fact that the bishops were given five days in which to examine St. Leo’ s faith in the light of St. Cyril’s Twelve Chapters. Session IV continue the discussion and the acceptance of Leo’s Tome only in the light of St,. Cyril is clearly seen in the recording opinions of the bishops and reflected in the Chalcedonian definition itself. These are incontrovertible facts and no manipulation of the minutes can mitigate their importance.
I think a very basic difficulty which we Chalcedonians of the Greek tradition face is that there is a peculiar theological alliance between the Latin (including Protestant) and non-Chalcedonian scholars in regard to Chalcedon. For the same reasons that the Westerners can accept Chalcedon, the non-Chalcedonians reject Chalcedon. Both sides try to prove that Chalcedon rejected the Twelve Chapters of St. Cyril and accepted Leo’ s Tome either as a correction (so say the Westerners) or as a distortion (so say the non-Chalcedonians) of Cyrillian Christology. Contrary to both these approaches (which do not represent the central tradition of Chalcedon) the Chalcedonian Greeks read the documents of Chalcedon in the light of Ephesus I (431) and Constantinople II (553). The usual Latin and non-Chalcedonian picture whereby our Illyrian, Thracian, Asian, Pontian, Cappadocian, Palestinian, and Egyptian Fathers are presented as capitulating before a few Latin and Antiocliene bishops is caricature and not history.
In regard to the welcome remarks of Father Borovoy I would like to add that my paper is not a defense of Chalcedon, whose short comings I try to indicate, nor is it a defense of the non-Chalcedonian position. Rather it is an attempt to understand how the two traditions survived the complexities of history while always maintaining essentially the same Orthodox faith. Such a study so obviously calls for the tracing in history of the common central intuition of faith and doctrine which could not be distorted by the tragedies of our respective histories. This fact is living testimony to the meaning of continuity in truth which is not imposed by any external authority but which is the fruit of communion with the source of truth. To try to avoid the complexities of history when dealing with each other can lead only to a false sentimentalism which can never and will never lead to unity and can be no more effective than an ostrich burying her head in the earth to solve her immediate problems. Whether we like it or not we are christologically the Church of Cyril because Cyril’s Christology is that of the Bible, the Fathers, and the Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils. The anti-Cyrillian works of Theodoret on Christology were condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council and Leo’ s Tome was never accepted as a definition of faith. Cyril’s Twelve Chapters are definitions of faith.
[ 1 ] This paper presupposes familiarity with the article mentioned in note 4, p 53.
[ 2 ] Mansi, iv, 1361.
[ 3 ] P.G., 77, 188.
[ 4 ] See my article, ‘Highlights in the Debate Over Theodore of Mopsuestia’ s Christology’ in The Creek Orthodox Theological Review, vol. v, no. 2 (1959-60), pp. 140-185
[ 5 ] Mansi, iv, 292.
[ 6 ] P.G., 77, 184-201. See also Ep. ad Eulogium, P.G., 77, 224-228; Ep. ad Successum I and II, P.G., 77, 228-245.
[ 7 ] P.G., 77, l89-l92, l97.
[ 8 ] P.G., 77, 193-l97.
[ 9 ] T. H. Bindley, The Ecumenical Documents of the Faith (London, 1950), p. 224.
[ 10 ] Mansi, vii, 116
[ 11 ] Mansi, vi, 972-973.
[ 12 ] Mansi, vi, 973.
[ 13 ] Mansi, vi, 973.
[ 14 ] Mansi, vii, 8.
[ 15 ] Mansi, vi, 937.
[ 16 ] Mansi, vii, 48.
[ 17 ] Mansi, vii, 36-45.
[ 18 ] Mansi, vii, 20.
[ 19 ] Mansi, vii, 188-192.
[ 20 ] Mansi, vii, 113.
[ 21 ] Mansi, vii l09.
[ 22 ] Mansi, rv 1265 ff.; .vii, 244-245.
[ 23 ] Ep. CLXXI, P.G., 83, 1484.
[ 24 ] Mansi, vii, 248.
[ 25 ] Mansi, vii 240.
[ 26 ] Mansi, v, 285.
[ 27 ] Mansi, vi, 665.
[ 28 ] Ep. De XII Capitulis, P.G., 76, 388A.
[ 29 ] P.G., 83, 121B.
[ 30 ] Demonstrationes, P.G., 83, 328A
[ 31 ] P.G., 83, 1420.
[ 32 ] P.G., 83, 264B; 280-281.
[ 33 ] Ibid.
[ 34 ] P.G., 83, 148AB; 252CD; 231A.
[ 35 ] P.G., 83, 280BCD-28lB.
[ 36 ] P.G., 83, 257CD; 261BCD.
[ 37 ] P.G., 83, 280AB.
[ 38 ] Ep. CLI, P.G., 83, 1420A.
[ 39 ] Also doubtful on the basis of his Christology is Theodoret’ s alleged authorship of what seems to be a letter sent by Domnus to Flavian (P.G., 83, 1297. See R. V. Sellers, The Council of Chalcedon (London, 1953), p 28, n. 5) in which it is confessed that all things pertaining to Christ, although predicated of two natures, are attributed “to the One Only Begotten.”
[ 40 ] Mansi, vii, 188-192.
[ 41 ] Mansi, vi, 700-701; 741.
[ 42 ] Mansi, vi, 737; 808; 816.
[ 43 ] Mansi, vi, 785.
[ 44 ] Mansi, v, 1233; vi, 741.
[ 45 ] Sellers, Op. cit., pp. 130-131.
[ 46 ] Mansi, vi, 808; 816.
[ 47 ] Mansi, vi, 808-809.
[ 48 ] Mansi, vi, 813.
[ 49 ] Mansi, vii, 104.
[ 50 ] Mansi, v, 589.
[ 51 ] Mansi, vi, 592.
[ 52 ] Mansi, vi, 644-645.
[ 53 ] Mansi, vu, 188-l92. See remarks in text of this article at note 19.
[ 54 ] Mansi, vii, 188.
[ 55 ] Mansi, vi, 665.
[ 56 ] Mansi, vi, 637; 676-677.
[ 57 ] Mansi, vi, 677.
[ 58 ] Mansi, vi, 681.
[ 59 ] E.g., Ad Monachos, P.G., 77, 17.
[ 60 ] Mansi, vii, 677.
[ 61 ] P.G., 77p 116.
[ 62 ] Apologia Cap. II, P.G., 76, 401A
[ 63 ] Mansi, vi, 680.
[ 64 ] Sellers, op. cit., p. 131.
[ 65 ] Mansi, vii, 104.
[ 66 ] Mansi, vii, 105.