Topic: Did the OO's ever condemn Eutyches?

[William]

Well he said that the Word receives glory while the flesh receives suffering.

So that implies strongly that the Word has nothing to do with the suffering, which is not true. He doesn't say, in that passage, that the flesh of the Word receives suffering, he sets as two subjects - as you described yourself - the Word and the flesh.

If the Word does not receive suffering then it does seem to be like saying 'this body is hungry but I do not feel hungry'. We would be entitled to assume that the body which feels hunger and the one who does not are two different subjects.

What about the clause in which he says "the activity of each form is what is proper to it in communion with the other..."?

Or when he says "for although there is in the Lord Jesus Christ a single person who is of God and of man, the insults shared by both have their source in one thing, and the glory that is shared in another"?

[Father Peter]

The idea that the humanity and divinity are in communion doesn't seem to us to express the natural union which we understand to have taken place.

It must be remembered that Nestorius believed the Tome of Leo expressed his Christology. This certainly doesn't mean that Leo had a Nestorian Christology, but it would seem to indicate that far from being the last word on Christology which Leo thought his Tome should be, in fact it contained too much ambiguous language which failed to exclude a Nestorian interpretation.

The second passage is also problematic since Theodore, Theodoret, Nestorius and Ibas would all agree that there is in Christ one Person of God and man. But there understanding was fundamentally flawed. They were unable to say that Christ was the Word of God and that the Person of Christ was the same Person of the Word.

Alpo is not happy with the idea that there is only one subject in Christ who is the Word, and I am not going to leap on him, but I do think that there is more than enough Eastern Orthodox conciliar evidence to show that Eastern Orthodox does not allow it to be said that there are two subjects or two persons in Christ.

If the Word of God is not the subject of the humanity then there is some other subject, and if there is some other subject then it was not God the Word who died on the cross for our salvation.

[minasoliman]

Well he said that the Word receives glory while the flesh receives suffering.

So that implies strongly that the Word has nothing to do with the suffering, which is not true. He doesn't say, in that passage, that the flesh of the Word receives suffering, he sets as two subjects - as you described yourself - the Word and the flesh.

If the Word does not receive suffering then it does seem to be like saying 'this body is hungry but I do not feel hungry'. We would be entitled to assume that the body which feels hunger and the one who does not are two different subjects.

What about the clause in which he says "the activity of each form is what is proper to it in communion with the other..."?

Or when he says "for although there is in the Lord Jesus Christ a single person who is of God and of man, the insults shared by both have their source in one thing, and the glory that is shared in another"?

My activities of my form does (or should do) what is proper in communion with the Word.

The insults that I endure, the Word also shares with me, and the glory that I receive come from the Word.

Nestorius did confess one person of Christ, the Son of God, made of the man Jesus and of God the Word.

You have to be forceful.  If you do not say the Word is the one that bears insults, and the Word is the one who died, you cannot, I repeat, you cannot refute Nestorius, Theodoret, and Ibas.  Theodoret and Ibas are merely Nestorians who are able to twist their theology a bit to confess "Theotokos."

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

If I recall, Eutyches himself was personally exonerated after he reformed his bungled confessions and affirmed the Niceo-Constantinople Creed, but those heretical teachings rightfully or wrongfully attributed to him were condemned both by the EOs and the OO several times over, but I am not sure which source exactly I read or heard this from.

By the way, Father Peter's article on Eutyches is very very enlightening about the sociopolitical context.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Alpo]

Alpo is not happy with the idea that there is only one subject in Christ who is the Word, and I am not going to leap on him, but I do think that there is more than enough Eastern Orthodox conciliar evidence to show that Eastern Orthodox does not allow it to be said that there are two subjects or two persons in Christ.

If the Word of God is not the subject of the humanity then there is some other subject, and if there is some other subject then it was not God the Word who died on the cross for our salvation.

I was not trying to advocate two subject or two persons. I didn't mean to say that it is wrong to say that Word does or Word suffers instead of Christ does and suffers if it doesn't imply that there's confusion of natures or that there isn't any real union of natures. Nor was I trying to advocate my Church's position on this since I'm fairly ignorant of it.  I was just wondering OO Christological jargon since I'm more used to talking about Christ instead of just Word since besides being God He is also a man. However I don't believe that there is much or at all differences between EO and OO positions on the issue.

But since I've pretty much absorbed my Christology from Finnish Protestantism, Finnish academic sources and individual reading of Bible I might understand Christology a little incorrectly. I've always assumed that there isn't really any substantial difference between Protestant and Orthodox Christology but perhaps it's time to consult the Fathers and actually pay heed to the Christological hymns they sing at the services.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

If I recall, Eutyches himself was personally exonerated after he reformed his bungled confessions and affirmed the Niceo-Constantinople Creed, but those heretical teachings rightfully or wrongfully attributed to him were condemned both by the EOs and the OO several times over, but I am not sure which source exactly I read or heard this from.

By the way, Father Peter's article on Eutyches is very very enlightening about the sociopolitical context.

XXXI. ---- OF THE HOLY SEVERUS FROM THE LETTER TO SERGIUS THE PHYSICIAN AND SOPHIST. [515-8.]
But with regard to the reception of Eutyches that it was done in a canonical way, and that it casts no slur on the holy. Dioscorus, and on the synod which assembled with him at Ephesus, I addressed the arguments on this head to certain persons some time ago, and I also dealt completely with it as the truth demands; and I have thought it good and urgent to send a copy of these things to your learning. Not only the wretched man from Scythopolis 220, but many others besides before him and after him, employed the same blasphemous absurdities, not knowing what they are saying 221, but made empty-mindedness fulness of blasphemy against God. The holy synod which assembled at Ephesus with the saintly witness of the truth Dioscorus taught nothing new whatever with regard to the faith, but only effected the deprivation 222 of those who were infected with the Jewish poison of |93 Nestorius and cast them off: but Eutyches, who presented a petition and anathematized his heresy, on account of which he was accused, it accepted on the ground of the actual petition itself and on the ground of the minutes 223 that were written at Constantinople before Flavian, since it did not recognise the poison that was in his heart, and the disease hard to be discovered was in accordance with the human standard properly hidden from it; for the divine Scripture plainly teaches that 'man looks on the face, but God looks on the heart' 224. But what will anyone say about those who assembled at Chalcedon, who received Theodoret and Hiba, who not merely hid the foul heresy of Nestorius in the heart, but actually displayed it with open face. When the contents of the minutes' on account of which Hiba's deprivation 225 took place had been read, and his letter to Mari the Persian, which was full of many blasphemies (a copy of which I have also sent to you), the representatives of Leo, who had become prelate of the church of the Romans, pronounced him blameless, making the following declaration 226: «Pascasinus and Lucentius the reverend bishops and Boniface the presbyter representing |94 the apostolic throne 227 said by the mouth of Pascasinus, 'From the reading of the documents 228, and from the statement 229 of the reverend bishops we know that the reverend Hiba has been shown to be innocent. For, when his letter was read, we recognised that it is orthodox 230; and therefore our decision is that the episcopal rank also and the church from which he was wrongfully ejected in his absence be restored'» 231. And to these things the whole synod assented; and they promulgated the same decision. How then can those who defend those men dare to make the reception of Eutyches, which took place according to the canons, a charge against the holy Dioscorus and the synod which assembled with him?
XXXII. -------- OF THE SAME FROM THE LETTER TO THE ORTHODOX 232 BROTHERS IN THE CITY OF TYRE, WHICH IS SUR. [513-8.]
Since you have thought fit to ask me for what reason Eutyches is anathematized, the man of ill name 233 and impious, and how it is that he was received by Dioscorus of saintly memory, we say in a few words that he was |95received on presenting a document 234 which contained a right confession of faith and anathematized Mani and Valentine, and Apollinaris, and those who say that the flesh of our Lord and God Jesus Christ came down from heaven; to which he further added the words that follow (though those who assembled at Chalcedon interrupted the reading, when the things that were written at Ephesus in the transactions 235 concerning him were put in), that the things which they wished to impute to him were slanders 236. But the man of ill name seems again to have 'returned to his vomit' 237. And that 238.....
XXXIII. ---- OF THE HOLY SEVERUS, FROM THE LETTER TO NEON THE PRESBYTER AND ARCHIMANDRITE 239, ABOUT THE RECEPTION OF EUTYCHES. [513-8.]
And, in order not to extend the letter to a great length, from these declarations 240 it has been clearly made known that, as we said, in consequence of the document' and of the minutes 241 written in the royal city, and of the depositions 242 on behalf of Eutyches that are contained in them the holy synod |96 which then assembled in the city of the Ephesians gave a decision by which it declared this man innocent; and it can never be accused on account of the fact that after these things the same Eutyches ran back to the vomit 243 of his own evil opinion. For neither against the holy fathers did this bring a reproach, because many heretics consented to a temporary hypocrisy, and again returned to their impiety; since even with the 318 holy fathers Eusebius Pamphili both sat in concourse with them and was one of their number; and he contended with these on behalf of the madness of Arius, and armed himself against those who held the right opinions.
(And a little farther on.)
But in the synod at Chalcedon Dioscorus said this: «But, if Eutyches holds anything outside the doctrines of the church, he deserves not merely punishment, but even fire. But I concern myself for the catholic and apostolic faith, not for any man soever» 244. But that the saintly man of saintly memory acknowledged Emmanuel who is of the Father's nature in |97 the Godhead himself to have become also of our nature in the manhood, how do we need any other testimony, since the minutes 245 that were written in Constantinople before Flavian, and brought in again at Ephesus, plainly contain this expression, which was confessed by Eutyches, and confirmed by him, in that he asked that synod, «Do we all also agree to these things?» and they said, «We agree» 246?

Letters of Saint Severus

It seems that even with Severus, Eutyches was back and forth..

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Seafra]

From what i have read he was questionable and there may be no official "document" but there are many occasions (St Severus, St Dioscorus etc.) who renounced him. I dont think Eutyches himself was actually bad i think he struggles conforming to Cyrilline theology but he tried hard to understand it as best he could and you can see in the minutes where he changed a good bit of his understanding... but that's my personal opinion.

[Salpy]

I've copied the article on Eutyches back to here...

http://www.britishorthodox.org/Eutyches.pdf

Hope it is useful to people.

Father Peter

The link above is no longer active.  So I am pasting an active link here:

http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/eutyches-and-oriental-orthodox-tradition.html

[frjohnmorris]

How could there be a problem saying that the flesh suffered? or that the Word suffered in flesh which was capable of suffering?

This is what the incarnation means surely?

The problem is when it is said that the flesh suffers apart from the Word. Or that the Word does one thing and his flesh another. Naming the flesh is not problematic. St Severus says that the humanity is utterly and completely different and other than the divinity and that this difference remains in the incarnation. It is a property of humanity to suffer, it is not a property of divinity to suffer. But in the incarnation it become a property of the Word of God incarnate to suffer himself in his own humanity.

The issue with the Tome of Leo is where it seems to say that the Word (a person) receives glory, while the flesh receives insults, and this has appeared to personalise and subjectify the humanity.

I don't agree. From what I've read, the Tome is not saying that the Word does something while the flesh independently does something completely different. It simply makes them into subjects and differentiates what each subject does in accordance with what is proper to it. Much like how you've said that it is a property of humanity to suffer and not one of divinity to suffer. And the Tome of Leo says that each subject works with the co-operation of the other.

It just doesn't seem like a very strong distinction to me.

It is problematic to say that the Word does one thing and the flesh another because we must ask who is this flesh if he is not the Word?

The flesh of the Word.

When the Tome of Leo was presented at the Council of Chalcedon, it was referred to a committee which spent several days studying it to determine that it was in conformity with the teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Only after the committee decided that it was reconcilable to the teachings of St. Cyril was it approved by the Council of Chalcedon. In its decrees the Council of Chalcedon reaffirmed its commitment to the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria.

Fr. John W. Morris.

[Nephi]

When the Tome of Leo was presented at the Council of Chalcedon, it was referred to a committee which spent several days studying it to determine that it was in conformity with the teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Only after the committee decided that it was reconcilable to the teachings of St. Cyril was it approved by the Council of Chalcedon. In its decrees the Council of Chalcedon reaffirmed its commitment to the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria.

Fr. John W. Morris.

When I was writing my undergraduate seminar on EO and OO Christologies, I read St. Cyril and Ephesus first. When I finally got to the Tome, I was pretty much shocked at the apparent disconnect from a plain reading of the text. It really takes a good deal of effort, IMO, to read it in a Cyrillian light, but I suppose that's natural given that by the time it was written (if it was even written by St. Leo himself) the Pope had shifted toward the Antiochene School a great deal (eventually even dropping the use of "Theotokos," which couldn't have helped his relations with the non-Chalcedonians). Interestingly, even Fr. Sergius Bulgakov took great issue with Chalcedon's (and St. Leo's) language about Christ and speaking of his "humanity" or his "divinity" distinctly, and always preferring to emphasize the one subject of the "God-Man."

[minasoliman]

How could there be a problem saying that the flesh suffered? or that the Word suffered in flesh which was capable of suffering?

This is what the incarnation means surely?

The problem is when it is said that the flesh suffers apart from the Word. Or that the Word does one thing and his flesh another. Naming the flesh is not problematic. St Severus says that the humanity is utterly and completely different and other than the divinity and that this difference remains in the incarnation. It is a property of humanity to suffer, it is not a property of divinity to suffer. But in the incarnation it become a property of the Word of God incarnate to suffer himself in his own humanity.

The issue with the Tome of Leo is where it seems to say that the Word (a person) receives glory, while the flesh receives insults, and this has appeared to personalise and subjectify the humanity.

I don't agree. From what I've read, the Tome is not saying that the Word does something while the flesh independently does something completely different. It simply makes them into subjects and differentiates what each subject does in accordance with what is proper to it. Much like how you've said that it is a property of humanity to suffer and not one of divinity to suffer. And the Tome of Leo says that each subject works with the co-operation of the other.

It just doesn't seem like a very strong distinction to me.

It is problematic to say that the Word does one thing and the flesh another because we must ask who is this flesh if he is not the Word?

The flesh of the Word.

When the Tome of Leo was presented at the Council of Chalcedon, it was referred to a committee which spent several days studying it to determine that it was in conformity with the teachings of St. Cyril of Alexandria. Only after the committee decided that it was reconcilable to the teachings of St. Cyril was it approved by the Council of Chalcedon. In its decrees the Council of Chalcedon reaffirmed its commitment to the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria.

Fr. John W. Morris.

The committee included Theodoret, a real "expert" in Cyrillian Orthodoxy 

[Mor Ephrem]

When I was writing my undergraduate seminar on EO and OO Christologies, I read St. Cyril and Ephesus first. When I finally got to the Tome, I was pretty much shocked at the apparent disconnect from a plain reading of the text. It really takes a good deal of effort, IMO, to read it in a Cyrillian light, but I suppose that's natural given that by the time it was written (if it was even written by St. Leo himself) the Pope had shifted toward the Antiochene School a great deal (eventually even dropping the use of "Theotokos," which couldn't have helped his relations with the non-Chalcedonians). Interestingly, even Fr. Sergius Bulgakov took great issue with Chalcedon's (and St. Leo's) language about Christ and speaking of his "humanity" or his "divinity" distinctly, and always preferring to emphasize the one subject of the "God-Man."

I hope you didn't go to Communion this morning with that potty-mouth of yours.   

[Nephi]

When I was writing my undergraduate seminar on EO and OO Christologies, I read St. Cyril and Ephesus first. When I finally got to the Tome, I was pretty much shocked at the apparent disconnect from a plain reading of the text. It really takes a good deal of effort, IMO, to read it in a Cyrillian light, but I suppose that's natural given that by the time it was written (if it was even written by St. Leo himself) the Pope had shifted toward the Antiochene School a great deal (eventually even dropping the use of "Theotokos," which couldn't have helped his relations with the non-Chalcedonians). Interestingly, even Fr. Sergius Bulgakov took great issue with Chalcedon's (and St. Leo's) language about Christ and speaking of his "humanity" or his "divinity" distinctly, and always preferring to emphasize the one subject of the "God-Man."

I hope you didn't go to Communion this morning with that potty-mouth of yours.