Problems with the Chalcedonian Formula

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
 
m (with love from ebaums)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Oriental}}
+
LOL INTERNET
 
+
'''By The Very Reverend Father Tadros Malaty, Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria''' (Excerpts)
+
 
+
We (Oriental Orthodox) reject the Chalcedonian formula for the following reasons:
+
 
+
1. The formula: "one nature" has an evangelic base, and touches our salvation. H.
+
H. Pope Shenouda III clarifies this argument in detail in his book "''The Nature of
+
Christ''".
+
 
+
2. Some Chalcedonian Fathers and theologians stated that the Tome of Leo
+
represents an insurmountable obstacle in the efforts made to unite with the non-
+
Chalcedonians, for the latter believe that two "physeis and ousia" in one
+
person is Nestorianizing. This is supported by the fact that Leo's Tome was
+
praised by Nestorius himself [1], and that the Tome, if taken alone by itself
+
could have created the impression of an excessive opposition of two natures, as
+
Prof. Rev. Florovsky says[2].
+
 
+
3. Kelly states that, unlike, their brethren in the East, the Westerns were
+
concerned with the organization of ecclesiastical matters more than theological
+
ones. He also states that with the exception of Tertullian, the west made little
+
or no contribution to christological theology[3].
+
 
+
4. We are in accord with the Tome in refuting Eutychianism and in confirming that
+
Christ's manhood was real, Christ entered the mundane plane of existence and that
+
the unity of Godhead and manhood had been realized without change... but the Tome
+
consists of three statements, those which some of the Fathers of Chalcedon
+
themselves rejected for their Nestorian attitude[4].
+
 
+
5. Leo speaks of "one person (prosopon)" of Christ but this term does not suffice,
+
for the Nestorians used it to mean "mask," i.e. external unity. There was a need
+
to confirm the unity as a true and "hypostatic" one...
+
 
+
6. The Council of Chalcedon adopted the Tome of Leo. In Egypt many believers were
+
martyred for they refused to sign the Tome... The acceptance of the Tome as a
+
principal document of faith disfigured the Council in the sight of the non-
+
Chalcedonians.
+
 
+
7. The "definitions" of Chalcedon admits the phrase "one hypostasis." Some of the
+
Nestorians objected on this addition, but they accepted it when the word
+
"hypostasis" was interpreted to them as an equal to "prosopon"...
+
 
+
8. We do not recognize this Council because it ignored all the traditional
+
formulas of the Church, which confirm the oneness of the Person of Christ, as a
+
true unity, such as: "one nature of two natures" and "one nature of the
+
Incarnate Word of God."
+
 
+
I conclude my discussion of the Council of Chalcedon by referring to the words of
+
Sellers who defends this council... "In the first place, it should be understood
+
that the (Monophysite) theologians were not heretics, nor were they
+
regarded as such by leading Chalcedonians.[5]"
+
 
+
________
+
 
+
1. Methodios Fouyas, p.12,13.
+
 
+
2. Christology according to the non-Chalcedonian Churches, p. 12-3.
+
 
+
3. Terms: "Physis & Hypostasis in the Early Church", p. 30-1.
+
 
+
4. Ibid 30f.
+
 
+
5. The council of Chalcedon, SPCK 1961, p. 269.
+
 
+
The term "monophysite" was not used during the fifth, sixth and seventh centuries,
+
but was used later in a specific way and in a polemic spirit on behalf of the
+
Chalcedonian Churches.
+
 
+
[[Category:Coptic interpretations of the Fourth Ecumenical Council]]
+

Revision as of 03:44, June 10, 2008

LOL INTERNET

Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Navigation
interaction
Donate

Please consider supporting OrthodoxWiki. FAQs

Toolbox