I'm sorry, I just can't help myself; I will just quickly respond to those issues that will take the least of my time to respond to:
Yet a rejection of the 'IN' two natures is a confusion or change of the natures from our perspective.
The issues is this: The reasonableness of our rejection of the expression “in two natures” in the name of Orthodoxy vs.
the reasonableness of your employment of “in two natures” in the name of Orthodoxy.
The expression itself finds its origins in Nestorianism, and before Chalcedon ever adopted it, never was it employed in the name of Orthodox Christology (not even in the re-union formula, as Mina correctly pointed out), but rather predominantly employed to convey heresy. The fact of the matter is, that semantically speaking its very implications are Nestorian EVEN WHEN the term physis is understood essentialistically as opposed to in a hypostatic sense; such that there is no parallel between the misunderstanding of “One physis” and “in two physis” — since heresy can only be read into the former if the term physis is defined in a manner disconnected from the context that it is employed, whereas the corollary implications of the latter are heretical regardless of how the context demands us to define the term “physis”. I will quickly explain why:
The first thing to note is that the definition in Chalcedon starts with the clause that one must confess Christ “to be inÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦” or synonymously confess that Christ “exists inÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦” — at this stage any reasonable person will understand that whatever follows is essentially a qualification of Christ’s state of existence. That it is qualified with “two natures” gives the very clear implication that Christ’s two natures are two grounds of His existence i.e. Christ exists IN the human nature (One ground of existence) AND Christ exists IN the divine nature (Another - Second - ground of existence) — this is why Nestorius employed it, since he regarded Christ’s two essences/natures as two centers/grounds of existence for Christ. Christ does not “exist IN” His natures — this is the worst and most unreasonable manner to manner to attempt to convey the essential Orthodox concept that Christ “possesses” two complete and perfect natures/ousias. The Incarnate Word is only ONE existence — this ONE existence came about “from” the unconfused union of His two natures/ousias; for as the ground of His existence was one prior to the Incarnation, so it remained One after the Incarnation due to the fact His humanity became inextricably intrinsic to His One ground of existence as opposed to independent of it.
Professor Frances Young states in his book From Nicea to Chalcedon
“The ‘prosopic union’ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦becomes Nestorius’ attempt to provide a metaphysical account of Christ’s unity of person
which did not involve the difficiulties of a ‘natural’ or ‘substantial’ union, and Nestorius meant to convey a ‘real union’. The One Christ has ‘two grounds of being’, he exists ‘in two natures’, as Chalcedon was later to confirm
.” (page 237)
The issue was more one of Confusion and Change of the natures than Consubstantiality.
One is directly relevant to the other; they’re not two independent issues. If Christ’s natures were confused into one, then the consubstantiality of both is compromised, for He now has a new "super-human nature" so to speak, which is not the same as that possessed by any other being. However, in the historical context of what was understood as “monphysitism”; the divine nature did not cease to be consubstantial, but rather by virtue of this “confusion”, it "dissolved" or "consumed" the real humanity of Christ and as such, Christ’s humanity ceased to be real/complete/perfect i.e. ceased to be consubstantial with mankind. Regardless of the different types of “confusion” that can be conceived, the ultimate result is certain — His consubstantiality with mankind no longer remains. This is simply the direct logical consequence.
Eutyches never affirmed confusion however; the monophysite doctrine is one ascribed to him by his enemies. If you can find for me in the minutes of Ephesus 448 or 449, or anywhere else, any quotation from Eutyches in which he affirms monophysitism, I would like to see it. As was said before, Eutyches was simply a confused old man who became the centre of controversy for reasons that were far from doctrinal. He was hesitant in affirming the consubstantiality of Christ to mankind only on the basis that he really had no idea what the fathers taught, and feared straying from a tradition he was oblivious to in the first place. If you read the things he said (which I have), you would understand that ignorance was the only basis of his hesitancy; however ultimately he did in fact implicitly confess Christ's consubtantially with mankind, and he explicitly confessed it to St Dioscorus after. If we were to make any reasonable conclusions based on his positive affirmations or even on his silence, we would conclude that this old man who was neither a scholar nor a theologian, was placed into a sensitive position which he simply did not know how to handle. He wanted to affirm the faith of the fathers, but unfortunately he did not know what that faith entailed.
Eutyches is still under anathema by our Church (anathemized by St Dioscours personally)ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š as he is by yours, however this is based on the assumption that he ascribed to monphysitism. This assumption I believe, was a false one to make, and the only direct bearing that such a conclusion has on anything, is the legitimacy of Chalcedon itself.
communion between us and the Non-Chalcedonians is unrealistic and, in all probability, undesirable for both sides.
I absolutely agree. However, I hold the historical event of Chalcedon responsible for this, and not our historical or even continued rejection of it.Okay I solemnly vow that from this moment I will not return to this forum until July!
[/u] (I feel so badÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€š