The Council of Chalcedon

Pope Shenouda lists the Council of Chalcedon together with Appolinarius and other “widely known heresies”. He explains: Even though Chalcedon had excommunicated Nestorius, it was still Nestorian itself (How is that!!!!). The Council declared that Christ is two persons (I will append later the statement of the Council of Chalchedon, where such a statement was not in it, on the contrary it is condemned. As always misleading statements based on emotions, not facts): A God and a human being. The first person is working miracles and the latter does the suffering and accepting humiliation. St. Leo of Rome was also a Nestorian (We will see) and his Tome confirmed that Christ had two natures. Pope Shenouda reminds us, that Nestorius said that the two natures were distinctly separated and that Christ had two wills, and two actions.

Nestorianism leads to the idea that if Christ has to distinct persons, these must necessarily be a divine and a human hypostasis, or persons. Chalcedon did not declare that Christ is ”two persons”, but two natures1. St. Maximos the Confessor says, ”...a forth person is not added to the Trinity, which would be the case if the Incarnate Christ was divided into two persons”.2 But is is necessary to distinguish between the two natures in Christ because, ”nothing can be coessential or cognate with the Divinity...in other words, in the Incarnation the two natures have united to form a single person, not a single nature”.3

It is true that St. Leo’s Tome could be accused of occasionally being somewhat unclear in the language used to describe these concepts. Especially this phrase by St. Leo, ”...each ”form” does the acts which belong to it, in communion with the other; the Word...performing what belongs to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what belongs to flesh...one shines out in miracles, the other succumbs to injuries”.4 This has been greatly criticized by the Coptic Church as being ”Nestorian”, but hear how St. Leo explains this in the very next sentence of his Tome, ”...as the Word does not withdraw from equality with the Father in glory, so the flesh does not abandon the nature of our kind...For...He is one and the same, truly Son of God and truly Son of Man”.5 Obviously Pope Shenouda’s fear that St. Leo is speaking of ”two persons”, is unfounded. When speaking about the hypostatic union of the two natures in Christ6, St. Leo used the Latin word substantia which in Greek was translated into hypostasis. Etymologically these two terms are very similar ”hypo-stasis”, and ”sub-stantia”, but after the Arian controversy, hypostasis was used by the Greek Fathers for the Latin ”persona”. Substantia was then translated into ”ουσια” in Greek (nature or essence). Unfortunately St. Leo was probably not aware of this. But if one reads the few examples given above it is obvious that St. Leo spoke about the two natures in Christ, and not of two persons. St. Leo emphasized that these two natures in Christ were, ”active in communion with each other”.7 He did so against Nestorianism and the heretical claim that Christ was a mere man, in whom the Divine ”indwelled”. Leo’s emphasis on this is essential for the Orthodox concept of Theosis or perfection through Christ the Mediator, because Christ became man, so that man could become God. The concept of Theosis seems not to be considered at all by Pope Shenouda. St. Leo also affirmed Theopaschism, which was in perfect harmony with what St Cyril taught. It is also a fact that the Council of Chalcedon found no discord between the teachings of St. Cyril and of St. Leo. The Tome of St. Leo was compared with the letters of St. Cyril, and there is no reason to believe that St. Cyril’s letter of anathema against Nestorius was not considered by the Council, thereby elevating Chalcedon above any suspicion of Nestorianism.8

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 See Appendix ( to be appended later).
2 Philokalia Vol 2 p. 250.
3 Ibid.
4 NPNF Ser 2 Vol XIV p 256.
5 Ibid.
6 C F. Oxford Dictionary p 1553
7 Meyendorff p. 173.
8 Ibid. P. 174.

>>> To be continued