Then the only option for an EO is to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that the Oriental Orthodox are indeed what they were accused of being: Christological heretics. If the OO can be proven to be such, then yes, Chalcedon has been received by the whole Church. However, if the OO can be shown beyond reasonable doubt to not be Christological heretics, but rather believers in the same Orthodox faith, albeit expressed differently, then Chalcedon has NOT been received by the whole Church--a whole section of it has not received it.
Anything else is circular.
The post above is puzzling to me.
The Council of Chalcedon was convened to deal with Christological heresy - that of Eutyches - and with the injustices perpetrated at the Latrocinium in Ephesus in 449.
A minority of baptized Christians - albeit a fairly large one - rejected its findings.
majority of baptized Christians, however, accepted the Council and its dogmatic statement.
The 3rd Council (Ephesus, 431) was rejected by a fairly sizeable minority of baptized Christians. Are we obligated to prove their spiritual descendants Christological heretics in order to validate that council?
The 1st Council (Nicea I, 325) was likewise rejected by a very sizeable minority of baptized Christians, perhaps, for a time, even by a majority (if one includes the Semi-Arians).
Now we are told by the spiritual descendants of those who rejected the Council of Chalcedon (and the subsequent councils) that we must prove they are Christological heretics or Chalcedon is not a valid ecumenical council.
Well, we could produce quotes from Non-Chalcedonian leaders affirming that our Lord has but one nature and one will (and we have produced them); but, we are told, they didn't really mean those things. (Funny thing, though: they keep saying them, over and over and over
. . .)
We could even produce evidence that the 6th Council, which proclaimed the two wills of Christ, is as much or even more of a problem for Non-Chalcedonians than the 4th.
Further, we could produce the testimony of the Orthodox Fathers - like St. Maximus the Confessor, who, in his Letter 12
, addressed the errors of Severus of Antioch - and of a number of scholars who have pointed out the not-so-subtle differences between Non-Chalcedonian and Orthodox Christology.
Then there are the attacks on the councils themselves.
Since Non-Chalcedonians claim they are Orthodox, and some of them even say they hold the same faith as the Eastern Orthodox, it is time for them
to prove it.
How are they to do that?
Through Christological arguments and criticisms of the councils of the Church?
No; been there, done that.
Non-Chalcedonians can once-and-for-all prove their Orthodoxy by accepting the standards of Orthodoxy: ALL
of the ecumenical councils of the Church, especially
Until they do that, all their protests of Orthodoxy are empty.