Non-Chalcedonian Theology

Theodore of Mopsuestia God had become a particular man, not humanity in general. (p224) “to say that God indwells everything has been agreed to be the height of absurdity, and to circumscribe his essence is out of the question. So it would be naïve in the extreme to say that the indwelling [of God in Jesus] was a matter of essence” (p224)

Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople Disciple and admirer of Theodore of Mopsuestia Nestorius’ concern is to distinguish between the two natures Called Mary Anthropotokos [Bearer of a human] and Christokos [Bearer of Christ] Council of Ephesus I, 431, title is Theotokos Council of Ephesus II, 449, One Nature of the Incarnate Son of God affirmed, i.e. theology of Cyril of Alexandria (p225)

Cyril of Alexandria P224: Encouraged by a theological work which he thought was by Athanasius but (disastrously) was actually by Apollinaris of Laodicea [inaccurate] Cyril could see no reason to make a distinction between two words which for him both referred to the “person” and “nature” of Christ: these were the terms used by the Cappadocian Fathers for “person”=“hypostasis” and “nature”=“physis” [inaccurate, Cyril made same distinction]

One nature Christology St. Cyril of Alexandria’s theological formula: One nature of God the Word Incarnate

St. Athanasius The Word bore the infirmities of the flesh, as His own, for His was the flesh; and the flesh ministered to the works of the Godhead, because the Godhead was in it, for the Body was God’s.

St. Athanasius When there was need to raise Peter’s mother in law, who was sick of a fever, He stretched forth His hand humanly, but He stopped the illness divinely. And in the case of the man blind from birth, He gave forth from the flesh a human spittle, but divinely did He open the eyes through the clay. And in the case of Lazarus, He gave forth a human voice as man; but divinely as God, did He raise Lazarus from the dead.

For the One and Only Christ is not twofold, although He is understood as constituted out of two different elements into an inseparable unity; just as man also is understood to consist of soul and body, and yet is not twofold, but one out of both. But if we think aright we shall hold that both the human sayings and the Divine were spoken by One Person. Third Epistle of St. Cyril

Athanasius and Leo When there was need to raise Peter’s mother in law, who was sick of a fever, He stretched forth His hand humanly, but He stopped the illness divinely. And in the case of the man blind from birth, He gave forth from the flesh a human spittle, but divinely did He open the eyes through the clay. And in the case of Lazarus, He gave forth a human voice as man; but divinely as God, did He raise Lazarus from the dead. (3.32) To feel hunger, thirst, and weariness, and to sleep is evidently human; but to satisfy thousands of men with five loaves, and to bestow living water on the Samaritan woman, the drinking of which would cause her who drank it to thirst no more; to walk on the surface of the sea with feet which did not sink, and to allay the “rising billows” by rebuking the tempest, is without doubt Divine. As then, to omit many other examples, it does not belong to the same nature to weep in an emotion of pity for a dead friend, and to raise that same friend from the dead with a word of power, after the stone over the tomb where he had been for four days buried had been removed; or, to hang on the wood and, changing the light into darkness to make all elements tremble; or, to be pierced with nails and to open the gates of Paradise to the faith of the robber; so it does not belong to the same nature to say, “I and the Father are One,” and “the Father is greater than I.”

Tome of Leo To see in the “Tome” an affirmation that there were two agents in Christ. Leo and indeed the later Roman Church always maintained the absolute authority of his statement, a stance which was now becoming a habit in Rome, but the fact that Leo himself later wrote a revised statement on the same subject for an Eastern audience probably indicates that he privately recognized its shortcomings. [p226]

Tome of Leo Chalcedon definition wrote: “the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us a regards his humanity….” [p226] MacCulloch indicates that specific churches [Greek, Romanian, Slavic, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Anglicans and mainstream Protestants] accepted the above mentioned statement, actually all churches accept this specific statement. [p226]

Miaphysite, Monophysite (p227) Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox churches are wrongly labeled Monophysite (monos and physis =single nature) Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox churches are presently labeled Miaphysite (mia and physis= one nature) Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox churches insist to be labeled Orthodox Churches

labels MacCulloch labels: Miaphysite = Non-Chalcedonian Churches Dyophysite = Church of the East Latin Church = Catholic Church which includes Protestant & churches of the Reformation Imperial Church = Byzantine Church Melkite Church = Byzantine Church Conventional labels: Miaphysite = Non-Chalcedonian follow the theology of Cyril and Athanasius which includes: (Egypt [Alexandrian, Coptic]; Syria [West Syrian churches], Armenia, Georgia [before joining Byzantium], most Christians of the Arabian peninsula before the overtaking of Islam and other non-imperial churches) Dyophysite = Chalcedonian follow the theology of Leo which includes: (Latin [including all Protestants and Imperial Churches or Melchites or Byzantine Churches) Church of the East = previously labeled Nestorian Church and refers to the East Syrian Churches

Council of Chalcedon (451) Depose Bishop Discours of Alexandria (not for theologica reasons) Emperor appointed Proterius as bishop of Alexandria by military force Alexandrian population elected Timothy Aelurus as bishop of Alexandria

In 482 Emperor Zeno issued the Henoticon drafted by Acacius bishop of Constantinople – Cyril’s theology standard of orthodoxy – Condemned Nestorius – Avoided Chalcedon and Tome of Leo Rome rejects Henoticon & excommunicates Acacius of Constantinople Egyptian and Syrian churches did not accept Henoticon After failure of Henoticon, Emperor & patriarch of Constantinople accepted Chalcedon First division of the Universal Church