The more I learn of Church history the more I lean toward concluding that Chalcedon represents a triumph of Christological dogmaÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¦
The problem with you Matthew in relation to most, if not all, issues you try to discuss and argue on this forum, is academic immaturity. You seem to be swayed very easily by dubious online sources. I am not trying to insult or demean you, but rather to encourage you to approach issues of concern or relevance to you more maturely, cautiously and academically.
So the question for now is, what is the source of your learning on Church history in the fourth/fifth centuries? As an Oriental Orthodox Christian, have you even read any of the mere two Oriental Orthodox textbooks published on the issue of Chalcedon in order to assist your making of a qualified judgment? One would think that if you wanted to formulate a serious conclusion on the matter of Chalcedon that you would at least start
by considering the position of your own
Church as eloquently and academically defended in the two textbooks in question.
We all know that seven is the Biblical number of completion; how fitting for there to be Seven Ecumenical Councils of the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church?
“We all know that three is the Biblical number of totality (see The Navarre Bible: Text and Commentaries
); how fitting for there to be Three Ecumenical Councils of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church?”
I no longer desire to use St. Cyril of Alexandria to advance a position in which he may not have actually believed.
Statements like this prove the point I made above regarding your academic immaturity. You find a dubious online source (a polemically charged and undoubtedly biased online article), take it at face value, and then you draw your final judgment.
Had you done some proper research (by reading the books produced by your very own Church) you would have found that St. Cyril of Alexandria advocated His mia physis formula till the day he died. We have a number of post-433 letters and treatises of St. Cyril which evidence this.
As for the re-union formula that the author of the article in question appeals to, it’s a document that needs to be understood in context. Who wrote it? What purpose does it serve? What authority does it carry? What is it actually saying? The fact that it mentions “two natures” per se doesn’t mean anything; our Fathers obviously didn’t have a problem with the document in question, since they (particularly Sts. Dioscorus and Timothy) unequivocally praised and defended it. In fact the context in which the phrase “two natures” is made, if carefully read and considered, can be argued to be in support of the OO position as St. Severus argued 15 centuries ago.
P.S. Don’t bother trying to ask me specific questions in relation to any of the actual historical/theological issues relevant to the subject of Chalcedon. I have not responded to this thread to open discussion on the matter*, but only to make clear the fact that you need to get off the internet and start doing some serious study for a change.
*I have in fact already addressed the issues surrounding the re-union formula extensively elsewhere in this forum in any event.