Topic: Question to EO's re Chalcedon

[jckstraw72]

if i remember correctly, Chalcedon does not use "one nature" language, but the 5th Council approved it. This is probably what your friend was thinking of.

[Salpy]

No.  He specifically insists that Chalcedon explicitly approves of one nature and explicitly holds it as being as equally Orthodox as two natures.  He's not talking about Chalcedon as interpreted by Con.II a century later.  He says it's explicitly in the decrees of Chalcedon itself.

[HabteSelassie]

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

No.  He specifically insists that Chalcedon explicitly approves of one nature and explicitly holds it as being as equally Orthodox as two natures.  He's not talking about Chalcedon as interpreted by Con.II a century later.  He says it's explicitly in the decrees of Chalcedon itself.

I've read some explanations from the EO perspective which explain that original intent of the term dyophysis essentially connotates the same meaning as miaphysis in the context of being a composition. Perhaps this is the same vein of thinking he was coming from?  I am of course extremely interested to know if the language of the Council of Chalcedon explicitly accepts or rejects the term miaphysis, because I do know the term dyophysis is used for "two natures" in that Council, but I am not sure as to if there are references to "one" in the context of "mia" or "mono."  Again, the Oriental fathers object to the term dyo as being two, and argue conceptually that this term implies a separation, however in ecumenical dialogue over the past hundred years the EO have openly accepted the term miaphysis to describe their doctrine of dyophysis, which to me, seems to say that they are willing to interpret the term dyophysis in the same context which Oriental fathers interpret miaphysis (ie, a unity of two as one without separation, distinction, mixture, or confusion)

Really sometimes it seems like a case of


stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Nephi]

I'm just wondering, since I was recently reminded that Pope Leo in his Tome stated the following:

But when Eutyches, on being questioned in your examination of him, answered, “I confess that our Lord was of two natures before the union, but after the union I confess one nature;” I am astonished that so absurd and perverse a profession as this of his was not rebuked by a censure on the part of any of his judges, and that an utterance extremely foolish and extremely blasphemous was passed over, just as if nothing had been heard which could give offence:  seeing that it is as impious to say that the Only-begotten Son of God was of two natures before the Incarnation as it is shocking to affirm that, since the Word became flesh, there has been in him one nature only

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.vii.html

In his Tome, Pope Leo calls the language "one nature" and "of two natures" absurd, perverse, extremely foolish, extremely blasphemous and impious.

So I am wondering if there was some authoritative decree in the Council that dealt with this particular section of the Tome and stated that such language was just as Orthodox as "in two natures."

Again, I'm only asking about this because I have come across EO's who claim that Chalcedon explicitly upheld "one nature" and "of two natures" as being Orthodox.

I think any such statements by EO's are trying to put their own views into Chalcedon. The Fathers at Chalcedon understood "one nature," etc. to be associated only with the heretical views of Eutyches and his ilk, and anything said at Chalcedon (or by Pope Leo, etc.) must be understood in this light. They make no mention of a true Oriental Orthodox Christology, and as such their statements do not at all address it.