Also from Fr. V.C. Samuel
In the face of the misunderstanding expressed by the Chalcedonian tradition that the non-Chalcedonian position has ignored the manhood of Christ, we shall put together the ideas emphasized by Severus to this point.
For sake of time--it's a hair past midnight as I type this--I'm not going to list the ideas Fr. Samuel details. I'll just refer you to his paper, "One Incarnate Nature of God the Word", which he presented as part of the unofficial consultation between theologians of the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches in Aarhus, Denmark, in August of 1964. (The Greek Orthodox Theological Review
, Volume X, Number 2, Winter 1964-1965)
"...the fact has to be admitted that if the Christology of Philoxenos is 'monophysite', the position maintained by the theory of enhypostasia is equally, if not more, 'monophysite'." - The Council of Chalcedon ReExamined by Father Samuel Chapter 14 Page 318 in the Oriental Orthodox Library edition.
The key word in the logic presented here is "IF". "IF the Christology of Philoxenos is 'monophysite',
the position maintained by the theory of enhypostasia is equally, if not more, 'monophysite'." This is not an assertion that Chalcedonian Christology is monophysite, unless one believes Philoxenos to be a true monophysite. Personally, I don't believe Philoxenos was a follower of the true monophysitism of Eutyches, so the Boolean "IF" logic in the quote you lifted from Fr. Samuel's work breaks down because the former scenario, upon which the latter is dependent, is decidedly false.Salpy,
I realize that you may determine that I crossed the line regarding EO-OO polemics in the Public Forum and that you might, therefore, want to move this thread to the Private forum. Please understand that my intent was merely to refute pathofsolitude's grossly inaccurate claims and faulty logic by presenting some more information on the author he quoted out of context.