[ CONTENTS ]
This is not a paper about the technical question
about how one lifts anathemas, either those of Dioscorus and his
followers by the Chalcedonians, nor those of Leo and the Chalcedonians
by the Oriental Orthodox. What we are here concerned with is the
evidence already presented by this writer as far back as 1959-60
and especially 1964 that both Leo and Dioscoros are Orthodox because
they agree with St. Cyril Of Alexandria, especially with his Twelve
Chapters, even though both had been considered heretical by the
other side here represented. We do not intend to present new evidence
in this matter, but to review aspects we already presented at
Aarhus in 1964. But we intend to present the issues at stake in
such a way as to throw light on the problem before us with the
expectation that specialists in cannon law may find the way to
lift anathemas pronounced by Ecumenical or/and local Councils
without provoking a controversy.
It is unfortunately also possible to take a clear
distinction between the Fathers of the 5th and following
centuries of both sides and their nominal followers today. This
is so because the modern Orthodox on both sides have officially
agreed with doctrinal statements they participated in producing
along with Latin and Protestant scholars in the WCC. We will make
some observations on this question in the second part of this
paper. We will do this in the light of the fact that we are in
the process of re-uniting, not necessarily with the Fathers themselves
of our respective traditions, but 1) with what has perhaps incompletely
survived of these traditions or 2) with what may be even a distortion
of what were up to a point in our histories Biblical and Patristic
Traditions. On the Chalcedonian side much effort has been expended
for some time now in getting rid of the non Biblical Franco-Latin
Augustinian presuppositions which found their way into its theology
and sometimes even in practice, especially because of the so-called
reforms of Peter the Great. However, there are indications that
something similar has crept into the Oriental Orthodox tradition
also, if one may judge by WCC doctrinal documents like BEM and
Confessing the One Faith and by papers produced in other dialogue
contexts. This writer is not aware of official rejections of such
WCC statements except those made by the late Prof. Gerasimos Konidaris
of the Church of Greece.
We take Leo of Rome as representative of the problems
of unity between us which were created on the Chalcedonian side
and Dioscoros as representative of what had been done on the Oriental
side. It is around these persons that the central events revolved
which produced the final division which we have inherited between
us. The point in history where we seem to be at present is that
of the lifting of the anathemas against Leo and the Council of
Chalcedon, which means the cleaning of the slate on the Chalcedonian
side, with the same holding true about Dioscoros and his followers
on the Oriental Orthodox side. To clear Dioscoros of doctrinal
error should mean the clearing of the slate for those of his followers
to be rehabilitated also, as far as the patristic period is concerned.
Leo of Rome has no followers so to speak of on the Orthodox side
in need of being cleared. It would also seem that agreement that
both Leo and Dioscoros were doctrinally Orthodox would then put
the problem of their restoration on a non-Christological doctrinal
plane, but on a canonical plane. In such a case the reversal of
condemnations by Ecumenical and local Councils can be dealt with
as canonical, rather than doctrinal problems.
However, whether this covers today's Orthodox and
Oriental Orthodox is a separate question. That this is so is due
to the fact that there are strong indications that today's Orthodox
and Oriental Orthodox have doctrinal positions which are not those
of the Fathers of neither the first Three, nor of the Seven Ecumenical
Councils.
The keys to clearing up historical misunderstandings
between us are the facts 1) that on one side Dioscoros supported
Eutyches, who was finally realized to be a heretic by Dioscoros
himself on the Oriental Orthodox side, and 2) that on the other
side the fact that Leo supported Theodoret whose Christology is
indeed heretical and at the same time not that of Leo himself
which sufficiently agrees with the Twelve Chapters of St. Cyril.
Theodoret's heretical Christology is especially clear
in his attacks against Cyril's Twelve Chapters. These attacks
were indeed considered heretical by all the fathers of the Fourth
Ecumenical Council except by the legates of Pope Leo of Rome.
This is clear from the fact that the fathers of Chalcedon accepted
Theodoret's condemnation by the Council of Ephesus 449 in spite
of Leo's refusal to accept it. The Fathers of the Council of Chalcedon
paid no attention to Leo's opinions on the matter and refused
to seat Theodoret as a member of the Council since he was still
under the condemnation of Ephesus 449. He was allowed to sit only
as accuser of Dioscoros. The Council of Chalcedon lifted Theodoret's
excommunication of 449 only when he finally anathematized Nestorius,
accepted the Third Ecumenical Council and the Twelve Chapters
of St. Cyril at session VIII. Ibas of Edessa was also likewise
cleared of his condemnation at sessions IX and X.
Here we are faced with a Pope Leo who knowingly or
willfully or unknowingly supported a heretical and yet unrepentant
Theodoret of Cyrus. Theodoret was allowed by unknown means to
quietly manifest his " repentance" for the first time,
even though attending the Council only as an accuser, by becoming
a member of the committee which was appointed to examine the Tome
of Leo to see if it indeed agrees with the Twelve Chapters of
St. Cyril. The list of the opinions of the members of this committee
are recorded in the minutes and they unanimously found on close
examination that the Tome of Leo agrees with Cyril's Twelve Chapters.
Among the names listed is that of Theodoret. In other words Theodoret
finally found that Cyril agreed with Leo his patron and vice versa.
He was latter re-united to the Church as just mentioned.
As this writer pointed out in his paper at Aarhus
in 1964, Ephesus 449 was still part of Roman Law and had to be
dealt with item by item, i.e. by not only rejecting certain of
its decisions, but also by accepting certain of its decisions.
The refusal of the Pope of Rome to accept Ephesus 449 and the
request of some bishops that the emperor be asked to strike out
this Council in toto from its legal standing was rejected by the
imperial commissioners. Two of the items of Ephesus 449 which
were accepted at Chalcedon were the condemnation of both Theodoret
of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa.
It was understood that John of Antioch's reconciliation
with Cyril of Alexandria and his acceptance of the Third Ecumenical
Council with the Twelve Chapters was done on behalf of all bishops
of the Patriarchate of Antioch. However, after the death of John
in 442, his successor Domnus allowed Theodoret to lead a revolt
against the Third Ecumenical Council especially after the death
of St. Cyril in 444. Thus it fell to his successor Dioscoros to
lead the defense of Orthodox doctrine against Theodoret and his
Nestorian companions. Pope Celestine had died right after the
Third Ecumenical Council in 432, succeeded by Sixtus III, who
was in turn succeeded by Leo I in 440. Leo rejected the condemnations
by Ephesus 449 of not only Flavian of Constantinople and Eusebius
of Dorylaeum, but also of the Nestorian Theodoret of Cyrus. Failing
to distinguish between the two Orthodox bishops and the Nestorian
Theodoret Leo seems to have used the occasion to assert the authority
of his see. But by doing this he reduced doctrine to a lesser
level than the papal authority of Rome. Dioscoros in like manner
also asserted the papal authority of Alexandria.
It is important to note that Theodoret's profession
of the faith of Cyril and the Third Ecumenical Council at session
VIII of the Council of Chalcedon was accompanied by much hesitation
on his part and Episcopal cries of " Nestorian" against
him. This is a clear proof that had Dioscoros accepted to appear
before the Council and face Theodoret his accuser, he would have
certainly been cleared in his fight against this Nestorian enemy
of Cyril. He would have been found at least doctrinally, if not
canonically, excusable for his excommunication of Leo for his
support of this Nestorian. Dioscoros and his bishops excommunicated
Leo upon approaching Chalcedon and learning that the legates of
Pope Leo were insisting that Theodoret must participate as a member
of the Council. Leo insisted upon this in spite of the fact that
Theodoret had never yet accepted the Third Ecumenical Council,
the Twelve Chapters of Cyril, the condemnation of Nestorius, nor
the re-conciliation of 433 between John of Antioch and Cyril of
Alexandria. It seems that the Chalcedonian Orthodox must let these
facts sink into their heads and take them seriously.
This is why the Council of Chalcedon upheld the excommunication
of Theodoret by the Ephesine Council of 449. Therefore, Dioscoros
was legally and canonically correct by excommunicating Leo for
his support of Theodoret before the Council of Chalcedon. Ephesus
449 was still before the Council of Chalcedon a part of Roman
Law in spite Leo of Rome. From a purely doctrinal viewpoint the
Pope of Rome was guilty of supporting a Nestorian and a vigorous
enemy of the Twelve Chapters, which were the basis of the doctrinal
decision of the Third Ecumenical Council. John of Antioch and
his own Third Ecumenical Council of 431 had condemned and excommunicated
the Cyrilian Third Ecumenical Council because its doctrinal decisions
were summarized in Cyril's Twelve Chapters. But then in 433 John
and his bishops accepted the Third Ecumenical Council with the
Twelve Chapters and condemned Nestorius. Therefore before the
Council of Chalcedon in 451 Theodoret was under condemnation by
the Roman Laws of both Ephesus 431 and 449. Ephesus 449 was not
yet in the process of being repealed or accepted as was finally
done item by item. Thus Chalcedon did not repeal the condemnations
of Theodoret and Ibas by Ephesus 449. On the contrary Chalcedon
enforced these decisions against both and required that both must
repent for their actions against Cyril and the Third Ecumenical
Council, accept Ephesus 431 and their own condemnation by Ephesus
449, and to ask forgiveness. In other words Chalcedon completely
supported Dioscoros on these questions.
However, Chalcedon would have required that Dioscoros
explain his actions in regard to Leo's excommunication and may
have either accepted or rejected the action or else at least appreciated
a good reasoning behind them. We will never know since Dioscoros
refused to argue his case against Leo and Theodoret before the
Council. Had he done so he may have come out on top, especially
since most of the bishops were Cyrilians. However, Dioscoros could
not be exonerated from his condemnations of Flavian of Constantinople
New Rome and Eusebius of Dorylaeum for not accepting in Christ
" from two natures one nature" which was the " Orthodox"
tradition of Alexandria, but not that of all the Churches as Cyril
himself explained in his letters to his friends when explaining
that by speaking of two natures in Christ one may distinguish
them in thought alone. In any case both Flavian and Eusebius were
finally justified in their actions against Eutyches by Dioscoros,
his bishops and all Oriental Orthodox.
The question is now raised whether there were substantial
grounds for Dioscoros' excommunication of Leo of Rome. It would
further seem possible to argue that this excommunication was somewhat
like that of Cyril's excommunication of Nestorius when the latter
refused to subscribe to the Twelve Chapters. Cyril did this with
the full support of the Pope Celestine of Rome. But in the case
before us in 451 we have Pope Leo of Rome himself who is being
excommunicated by Pope Dioscoros of Alexandria. The reason behind
this is the simple fact that Pope Leo was in reality repudiating
His predecessor's support of Cyril's Twelve Chapters by supporting
a fanatic enemy of Cyril and his Twelve Chapters.
The realization of the implications about Leo's support
for Theodoret are interesting indeed in view of those who support
Franco-Latin Papal theories about the magisterium of their medieval
papacy.
In 1964 I pointed out that the fundamental criterion
of Orthodox Christology was the acceptance of the fact that the
Logos Who is consubstantial with His Father became Himself consubstantial
with us by His birth as man from His mother, the Virgin Mary.
In contrast, the Nestorian position was that Christ is a person
who is the product of the union of the two natures in Christ.
For Nestorius and Theodoret (up to 451) it is not the Logos Himself
Who became by nature man and consubstantial with his mother and
us. For both of them the very idea that the Logos could be united
to His human nature by nature meant that He was united by a necessity
of His divine nature. Thus for Nestorius and Theodoret the one
nature of the Logos is consubstantial with the Father and the
created nature of the Logos is consubstantial with us. The Logos
did not become man and son of Mary by nature and the Virgin Mary
did not become the mother of the Logos incarnate. The Basic question
was not whether one accepted two natures or one nature in Christ,
but whether one accepted that the Logos Himself, Who is cosubstantial
with His Father, became Himself consubsantial with his mother
and us without confusion, change, separation, division, etc. Neither
Nestorius nor Theodoret accepted that the Logos Himself became
consubstantial with his mother and us and was born and died as
man.
Theodoret was a heretic before Leo got involved with
him and he remained a heretic all the time that he was being supported
by Leo. Just after Chalcedon Leo wrote in a letter to Theodoret
about their common victory they had won at the Council of Chalcedon,
yet in the very same letter complained about Theodoret's tardiness
in rejecting Nestorius. In other words Leo supported Theodoret
during all the time that he had not one confession of the Orthodox
faith to his credit. The first time that he came close to a confession
of the Orthodox faith was when he became a member of the committee,
we have already mentioned, which found that Leo's Tome agrees
with Cyril's Twelve Chapters. Evidently he was made a member of
this committee in order to create grounds for satisfying Leo's
insistence that he must have his way about Theodoret or there
will be no Council of Chalcedon.
1) Theodoret not only showed no sign whatsoever that
he agreed with the Third Ecumenical Council before Chalcedon,
but on the contrary rejected it and continued to fight against
its Twelve Chapters of St. Cyril and refused to condemn Nestorius.
2) On the contrary Dioscoros supported Eutyches on
the basis of his confession of faith that " Christ is consubstantial
with his mother." Whether this confession is genuine or not,
or in reality an act of penance, the fact remains that Dioscoros
defended a Eutyches confessing a Christology which was not exactly
that for which he was condemned. This writer brought this confession
to light in his paper at Aarhus in 1964. This corrected or perhaps
falsified confession of faith was the basis on which Dioscoros
accepted to defend Eutyches against false accusers. In any case
this means that Chalcedon did not condemn the faith of Dioscoros.
He was condemned only because he excommunicated Leo and refused
to appear before the Council to defend himself. It is within this
context that Anatolius of New Rome Constantinople opposed the
effort of the imperial commissioners to have Dioscoros condemned
for heresy. Anatolius clearly declared that, " Dioscoros was
not deposed because of the faith, but because he excommunicated
Lord Leo the Archbishop and although he was summoned to the Council
three times he did not come."
It has been pointed out that what Anatolius is perhaps
only saying here is that Dioscoros' faith had not been examined
and for this reason he had not been condemned for his faith. But
it seems that Dioscoros' faith was possibly proven by the confession
of faith by which he restored Eutyches to communion. Eutyches
had been condemned as denying that Christ is consubstantial with
us. Flavian two times confesses to the emperor that Christ is
consubstantial with his mother. Now it is supposedly proven that
Eutyches is in agreement with Flavian who had him condemned.
After his condemnation by the Home Synod of 448 Eutyches
appealed to the emperor, Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Thessaloniki.
He argued among other things that the acts had been falsified.
By order of the emperor the Review Council of 449 was convened
to examine Eutyches' contentions. There we find among other things
the following in the minutes: The Presbyter and Advocate John
told the Patrician and examining magistrate Florentius that when
in 448 he was sent to summon Eutyches to the Synod in order to
testify, Eutyches told him that " Christ is consubstantial
with his mother even though not with us." Florentius said
that " this is not to be found neither in you memorandum nor
in your report." John answered " This he told me while
speaking only with me, that he does not have a consubstantial
flesh with us, but with his mother." Then the Patrician said,
" did you forget what you heard, and for this reason this
is not to be found in the memorandum which you composed."
John answered, " because the most reverend deacons with me
did not hear what was told to me in private. for this reason I
did not put it in the memorandum."
On the face of these remarks it could be argued that
Eutyches agreed with Flavian. But this Patriarch is not recorded
as ever denying that Christ is not consubstantial with us, although
there could be the possibility that he believed this. But Eutyches
had confessed that, although Christ is not consubstantial with
us, his mother is. In the case of Eutyches we end up with a contradiction.
Since Christ is consubstantial with His mother and His mother
is consubstantial with us, it would stand to normal reason that
Christ should be consubstantial with us also. It seems that behind
such contradictions are either a forgery or an unbalanced personality.
The backbone of the Orthodox tradition is the fact
that the Logos became consubstantial with us. There can be no
doubt that Dioscoros agrees with this fact and so could never
be accused of being a monophysite along with Eutyches.
It seems that Eutyches was trying to follow the fathers
in his own way, but was not doing a good job. Then some like Dioscoros
undertook to guide him, but to no avail. But neither Dioscoros
himself nor any other of the Oriental Orthodox Fathers every followed
Eutyches the way Leo followed Theodoret like a pet on a leash.
At Ephesus 449 both Flavian and Eusebius accepted
Cyril's One nature of the Logos incarnate, the Third Ecumenical
Council and its Twelve Chapters of Cyril. Dioscoros accused them
of contradicting themselves and Cyril by using this formula wrongly
by speaking about two natures after the union instead of one.
So they were condemned because they insisted that when the uncreated
nature (or also hypostasis in Cyrilian usage) of the Logos became
by nature flesh or incarnate, the two natures out of which Christ
was composed, became one nature (or hypostasis). In this natural
and hypostatic union, according to Cyril, the human nature or
hypostasis of the Logos was neither suppressed, absorbed nor changed
and became united by nature to the logos without separation, division
and change. In Cyrilian usage the two natures or hypostases are
distinguished into two in thought alone. In contrast the Orthodox
traditions of Rome, of New Rome and of Antioch used the two natures
out of which Christ in composed in the incarnation exactly like
Alexandria, but speak about two natures distinguished in thought
alone. In other words both traditions agree on what the incarnate
Logos is constituted of, created and uncreated natures, the uncreated
being from the Father and the created nature from the Theotokos.
In other words whether one says two united natures distinguished
in thought alone, or one nature out of two natures distinguished
in thought alone, on is professing the same reality.
In 433 Cyril accepted that both sides were saying
the exact same thing. However, Dioscoros came to the conclusion
that Theodoret was escaping from a just condemnation for his real
heresy by hiding it behind the possibility of not only saying
two natures, but of thinking of two separately acting natures
which he had been also doing. However, the key to Thedoret's heresy
was not this, but the fact that for him, for Nestorius, for Theodore
of Mopsuestia, for Arius, for Lucian, and for Paul of Samosata
(the philosophical great-grandfather and grandfather of all the
former)[ 2 ] God is united to the creature only by will and energy
and never by nature. For all of those just mentioned that which
is related or united by nature does so by necessity and not by
the freedom of will.[ 3 ]
One may conclude that Dioscoros can be defended in
his actions against Leo. He is to be fully complimented for his
fight against Theodoret. His actions against Flavian and Eusebius
can be explained as primarily motivated by his desire to defend
the faith against Nestorianism to such a point that he came at
least very close to abandoning Cyril's reconciliation of 433 with
John of Antioch. The use of the Alexandrian formula " One
Nature or Hypostasis Incarnate" by Flavian and Eusebius were
technically wrong as such, since they used it not in its correct
historical context. However, from the viewpoint of the 433 reconciliation
between Cyril and John, this formula could also be used as was
done by Flavian and Eusebius, but only so long as its original
usage is made clear also. Neither Flavian nor Eusebius understood
this and this is what got Dioscoros hot under the collar. He was
correct when he protests that both contradicted themselves when
using this formula. But he could have let them use it also in
the light of 433.
At this conference the Severians supported that Eutyches
was indeed a heretic and that Dioscoros accepted him as one repentant
and finally confessing the faith that Christ is consustantial
with his mother. They seemed not troubled that Eutyches had denied
that Christ is cobsubstantial with us. They defended Dioscoros'
action against Flavian and Eusebius because they contradicted
themselves when saying " One nature of the Logos Incarnate"
and at the same time insisting on " two natures after or in
their union." Hypatius, the spokesman for the Chalcedonians,
was exasperated at the logic of the Orientals by which they justified
Dioscoros' defense of the supposedly penitent Eutyches, but refused
to accept the Orthodoxy of Flavian and Eusebius. The conference
deteriorated into a fundamentalistic debate about which tradition
had the correct terminology, a sanctified tradition of debate
which reached right up to Aarhus 1964. The Severians insisted
that " from two natures" was only correct and that " in
two natures" is only wrong. The Chalcedonian side claimed
that both are correct.
But the main cause why misunderstandings could never
be resolved was the fact that neither side of this meeting had
ever read and studied the minutes of Chalcedon. The Severians
accused Chalcedon of not accepting Cyril's letter to Nestorius
with the Twelve Chapters. Hypatius answered that Chalcedon had
accepted it as part of the Third Ecumenical Council. But the reason
why Chalcedon supposedly did not use this letter was because Cyril
speaks of two hypostases especially in Chapter 3. In other words
oral traditions about Chalcedon had begun replacing the minutes
of the Council on both sides so that arguments began to be formulated
on the basis of heresy.
This opened the way to the position that the Tome
of Leo had supposedly become the standard of Chalcedonian Orthodoxy.
This was followed by the position that the Fifth Ecumenical Council
returned to Cyril's Twelve Chapters in order to please the Non-Chalcedonians.
Having studied at Yale University under specialist in the History
of Dogma, one may appreciate the shock this writer had, while
preparing for Aarhus 1964, when he saw in the minute's of Chalcedon
the debate about whether the Tome or Leo agrees with the Twelve
Chapters of Cyril. Hypatius' claim that Chalcedon supposedly avoided
the use of Cyril's Twelve Chapters because it uses hypostasis
as synonymous with physis, obliges one to realize that Chalcedon
did no such thing, since Cyril became the judge of Leo's Orthodoxy.
So Chalcedon both accepted the Alexandrian tradition of terms,
but also that of Rome, Cappadocia and Antioch. It is important
that every effort should be made to get rid of the historians
of doctrinal history being caused by the so-called Neo Chalcedonianism
of the Fifth Ecumenical Council.
One must emphasize that acceptance of the Three or
Seven Ecumenical Councils does not in itself entail agreement
in faith. The Franco-Latin Papacy accepts these Councils, but
in reality accepts not one of them. In like manner there are Orthodox,
since Peter the Great, who in reality do not accept the soteriological
and Old Testament presuppositions of these Councils. On the other
hand those of the Oriental Orthodox, who have not been Franco-Latinised
in important parts of their theology, accept the first three of
the Ecumenical Councils, but in reality accept all Seven, a fact
which has now become clear in recent agreements.
The determining element in the above fluctuations
is the fact that the Carolingian Franks learned to interpret the
first two Ecumenical Councils through the eyes of Augustine. Then
the rest of the Seven became wagons of the same train drawn by
the same locomotive. The bishop of Hippo had neither the lightest
understanding of the Arian, Eunomian and Macedonian positions
about the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation, nor of the Fathers
who opposed them. Neither he nor the Franco-Latins ever realized
that each heresy condemned by the Seven or Nine Ecumenical Councils
was an attack on the Biblical experience of illumination and glorification.
In each case fallen man was imagined to be instructed and saved
by a creature: a) either by a created Logos, b) or by a created
Spirit's created energies, or c) by a created Spirit/Angel. But
Augustine's salvation by created grace, i.e. by his created glorifications
in the Old and New Testaments or by his created Pentecostal tongues
of fire, or by his fires of hell and outer darkness or by created
heavenly glory, are all the same pagan realities. Indeed all these
Augustinian creatures which reveal and save in both the Old and
New Testaments come into and pass out of existence after each
of their specific tasks has come to pass. The Council of 1341
condemned these teachings in the person of Barlaam the Calabrian
not knowing that this tradition was initiated by Augustine and
was accepted by the Franco-Latin tradition. It was continued by
the Reformers and is to be found in Bible Commentaries today.
The reality of the matter is that the difference
between Augustine and Ambrose, who baptized the former, became
the difference between the Franco-Latin and the Roman traditions,
both East and West.
The basic difference between the Franco-Latin and
Orthodox traditions is that not only illumination or justification
takes place in this life, but also that glorification or theosis
does so also. The today's Orthodox must return to the Fathers
who see both these stages of cure already in the Old Testament
and completed in Christ and Pentecost. This would be the essential
patristic basis for our going forward in our coming into organic
union since this is a fundamental presupposition in the Bible
accepted and clearly expounded by our the Fathers, especially
by those of the Three and Seven Ecumenical Councils.
Illumination/justification and glorification/theosis
in both the Old and New Testaments have nothing to do with mysticism.
The Fathers reject spiritualities based on the soul's so-called
liberation from earthly copies of transcendental realities and
its quest for union with non existent universals in the essence
of God. The Fathers clearly reject universals and condemn efforts
to unite with them as figments of the imagination and tricks of
the devil. Here is a basic patristic foundation for agreeing with
those Protestants who agree with Luther's revolt against Franco-Latin
monasticism. Many Orthodox assume that Luther's revolt against
monasticism was an attack on Orthodox spirituality. To understand
this reality is the main key to our participation in such efforts
as the WCC.
Luther's rejection of analogia entis, i.e. universals,
made the Bible the only basis of speaking authoritatively about
God. But the Fathers go further by rejecting analogia fidei, the
identity of the words and concepts about God, even in the Bible,
with God Himself. The inspiration of the Bible does not make it
revelation itself, but a guide to glorification which is revelation.
Even the words of Christ themselves are guides to and not themselves
glorification or revelation. Christ prays that his disciples and
their disciples may see His Glory (John 17), but He does not describe
his glory. The foundation of heresy is the confusion of the Bible
with revelation whereby one tries to understand God by meditation
and speculation on Biblical texts. Since all of one's words and
concepts are from one's environment, such meditation and speculation
ends up being a closed circle within createdness. Only by accepting
the witness of the prophets that there is no similarity between
the created and the uncreated and that " it is impossible
to express God and even more impossible to conceive Him"
that one submits to the cure of purification, illumination and
glorification.
This raises the question about the validity of Systematic
or Dogmatic Theology and its distinction from Pastoral Theology
and the relation of both to so-called Christian Ethics. Within
the context of the cure of purification and illumination of the
heart and glorification these theological disciplines do not really
exist. The very fact that one's spirit must return to the heart
emptied of both good and bad thoughts in order to be occupied
only with prayer that the intellect may by occupied with its normal
activities does not allow such divisions of labor. What is left
is cure of oneself in communion with others as expressed in the
gospel of Christ with which He Himself inspired in His friends
even before His incarnation.
Such documents as " Confessing the One Faith"
are distortions of our Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed in its
present form. It must be completed by the fact that " God,
whom no one has ever seen" (John 1:18), has indeed revealed
Himself to the prophets of the Old Testament in His uncreated
Messenger even before His incarnation. To see the Angel of the
Lord is to see God Himself Who sends Him. " The only begotten
Son, He Who is in the bosom of the Father, He reveals." As
the prophets saw and heard God in His Messenger, so now also he
who sees and hears His incarnate Messenger sees and hears God
Himself. She who gave birth to Christ gave birth to God's Logos
in the flesh. They who crucified Christ crucified the Logos Himself
in the flesh. " He who believes in me does not believe in
me but in him who sent me, and he who sees me sees him who sent
me." (John 12:44-45). " Lord, show us the Father... He
who sees me has seen the Father." (John 14:8-9). This identity
between the uncreated Messenger of God in the Old Testament and
the incarnate Logos in the New Testament is the key to a correct
appreciation of the Three, Seven and Nine Ecumenical Councils
(879, 1341) of the Orthodox Church.
From the viewpoint of both the Old and New Testaments
and the Fathers correct faith in the Lord of Glory is not a religion,
but the rejection of religion. Religion is a sickness which confuses
words and concepts taken from one's environment with God and transforms
them into the idols that they are. This is exactly what most so-called
theologians, pastors and faithful do. The faithful who are not
at least in the state of illumination may seem better than members
of other religions, but may be even morally worse. Such evaluations
may be to the point within the context of the negative role religions
seem to be playing today. A discussion and agreement about the
dangers of analogia entis, analogia fidei and the fanatics they
tend to breed within Christianity and other religions may be a
helpful and useful corollary to our work together.
It would seem that we must train ourselves patristically
to be ready to examine with our Protestant and Latin friends whether
Sola Sciptura and Sola fide want to say what may be described
as the Patristic Sola Pentcoste. Each theosis, i.e. glorification,
is the extension of Pentecost in the lives of our saints to which
nothing can be added and improved upon.
The basic question which we must ask ourselves is
whether we are descendants of our fathers in Christ, or have we
become part of the Augustinian tradition? Who are and what are
the so-called Orthodox who no longer identify Christ with " He
Who Is" Who appeared to Moses in the burning bush and the
" Angel of Great Council" Who appeared to Isaiah?
I have not once come across a document of the WCC
in which the Orthodox have made known Who Christ is in the Old
Testament. I tried to do this at the Rhodes meeting on " Confessing
the Crucified and Risen Christ in Social, Cultural and Ethical
Context today" 4-11/1/88. I explained that no one has the
right to explain and comment on the Nicene-Constantinopolitan
Creed without reference to the reasons why the Fathers composed
the Creed and how they explain the Creed. I insisted that both
the Arians and Eunomians agreed with the Fathers that Christ in
the Old Testament is the Angel of the Lord, the Angel of Great
Council, etc. who appeared to the prophets; that the difference
was that for the fathers the Logos/Angel is uncreated and that
for these heretics he was created. Augustine rejected this identity
of this Angel of the Lord with the Logos, thinking that only the
Arians believed that the Logos was seen by the prophets and that
his visibility was the main argument by which they proved that
the Logos is created. I presented the meeting with patristic texts.
The participants voted the approval of my suggestions. But subsequently
nothing appeared in the New Revised Version. But that the Lord
of Glory of the Old Testament was born as man from the Theotokos
[ 5 ] and was crucified is the foundation of all the doctrinal decisions
of all our Ecumenical Councils. Who in God's name are running
the Orthodox show in the World Council of Churches?
If we believe as our Fathers that Christ is the Lord
of Glory Who appeared to the prophets and made them His friends,
and if we are supposed to also see His Glory and become his friends,
as clearly prayed for by Christ in John 17, only then do the lifting
of anathemas have some meaning.
|
[ 1 ] This presentation will be better understood in the light of writer's studies: 1) "St. Cyril's `One Physis or Hypostasis of God the Logos Incarnate and Chalcedon," in The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Vol. X, 2 Winter 1964-65; in "Does Chalcedon Divide or Unite?" Edited by Paul Gregorios, William H. Lazereth, Nikos Nissiotis, WCC, Geneva 1981, pp. 50-75; in "Christ in East and West," edited by Paul R. Fries and Tiran Nersoyan, Mercer University Press, 1987, pp.15-34. 2) "Highlights in the Debate over Theodore of Mopsuestia's Christology," The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Vol. VII, 2 (1959-60), pp. 140-185.
[ 2 ] Dogmatics (in Greek), Thessaloniki 1973.
[ 3 ] See John S. Romanides, ""Highlights in the Debate Over Theodore of Mopsuestia' s Christology," in The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, vol. v, no. 2 (1959-60), pp. 140-185.
[ 4 ] Mansi VIII, 817-834; Patrologia Orientalis, XIII, 192-196.
[ 5 ] Here on page 53 "Mary is `Theotokos, the mother of him who is also God..." For the Council Mary is the mother of God.
|
 © HydroGraphiX. |
 "Romanity". |