Concerning the Non-Chalcedonians

Concerning the Non-Chalcedonians Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon) Commemorated on the Sunday closest to July 16

Glory to God for all things

Miracle of St. Euphemia

Fourth Ecumenical Council

"We live in a time characterized by Rebellion against the Apostolic and ecclesiastical Orthodox spirituality of the Holy Fathers. Alarming is also the great multitude of the visible and invisible enemies of the Orthodox Church. Enemies from without and within, and the danger exists that we may become confused, misled, scandalized and spiritually hypothermic if we fail to guard ourselves with the fail-safe direction of the Holy Fathers." --Constantine Zalalas “I write these things not wishing to cause distress to the heretics or to rejoice in their illtreatment -- God forbid; but, rather, rejoicing and being gladdened at their return. For what is more pleasing to the Faithful than to see the scattered children of God gathered again as one? Neither do I exhort you to place harshness above the love of men. May I not be so mad! I beseech you to do and to carry out good to all men with care and assiduity, becoming all things to all men, as the need of each is shown to you; I want and pray you to be wholly harsh and implacable with the heretics only in regard to cooperating with them or in any way whatever supporting their deranged belief. For I reckon it hatred towards man and a departure from Divine love to lend support to error, so that those previously seized by it might be even more greatly corrupted.”--St. Maximus the Confessor (Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 91 col. 465c)

Table of Contents INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 6 ISSUES ........................................................................................................................................................... 6 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................... 6 WITH LOVE AND RESPECT ............................................................................................................................. 7 PREVIOUS PERSECUTIONS TOWARDS ANTI-CHALCEDONIANS ..................................................................... 7 ENCOUNTERS WITH ANTI-CHALCEDONIANS ................................................................................................ 7 WHAT IS DOGMA AND THEOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 8 THEOLOGY AS A THERAPEUTIC SCIENCE....................................................................................................... 8 ANONYMOUS QUOTE IN FORUM ON CHALCEDON CONTROVERSY ........................................................... 11 FR. JOHN ROMANIDES’ EXPLANATION ABOUT NON-CHALCEDONIANS ..................................................... 13 FR. JOHN ROMANIDES’ INTERPRETATION OF CHALCEDON........................................................................ 15 FR. JOHN ROMANIDES’ FINAL RESPONSE TO THE NON-CHALCEDONIANS ................................................ 17 A NEW MONOPHYSITISM, BY FR. GEORGES FLOROVSKY ........................................................................... 18 AN INFORMATIVE COMMENTARY BY AN ANONYMOUS THEOLOGICAL STUDENT ON FR. ROMANIDES’ ABOVE STATEMENTS................................................................................................................................... 19 EXTERNAL GOODNESS DOES NOT IMPLY CORRECT DOGMA ..................................................................... 20 TRUE ORTHODOXY ...................................................................................................................................... 20 ANTI-CHALCEDONIAN CLAIMS .................................................................................................................... 21 NON-CHALCEDONIANS CLAIM THEIR CHRISTOLOGY IS PATRISTIC............................................................. 21 FURTHER MONOPHYSITE INTERPRETATIONS ............................................................................................. 21 ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA’S REPLY TO THE ABOVE ERRONEOUS COPTIC UNDERSTANDING: ................... 22 TEACHINGS OF SAINT CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA ............................................................................................. 22 APPOLLINARIAN WRITINGS FALSELY CIRCULATED AS ST. ATHANASIUS THE GREAT’S ............................... 24

SAINT CYRIL CONFESSES TWO-NATURES .................................................................................................... 25 ST. CYRIL'S LETTER TO JOHN OF ANTIOCH .................................................................................................. 25 HYPOSTATIC-UNION.................................................................................................................................... 25 NATURE AND PERSON EXPLAINED .............................................................................................................. 26 NEO-PLATONISM PARTLY INFLUENCED SOME ALEXANDRIAN THEOLOGIANS........................................... 27 CHALCEDONIAN CHRISTOLOGY AND PLATONISM ...................................................................................... 29 PERSISTANT MONOPHYSITE REJECTION OF ST. CYRIL'S TEACHINGS .......................................................... 29 MONOPHYSITES CONDEMNATION OF SAINT CYRIL ................................................................................... 29 MONOPHYSITES DIVIDED AMONGST THEMSELVES ................................................................................... 30 MONOPHYSITE DIFFERENCES IN ICON VENERATION ................................................................................. 32 THE FRUITS OF THE MONOPHYSITES .......................................................................................................... 35 THE FALSE (A.K.A. ROBBER) COUNCIL OF EPHESUS .................................................................................... 35 PATRIARCHS DEFROCKED & MARTYRED BY MONOPHYSITES .................................................................... 36 CHALCEDONIAN CREED AFFIRMED ............................................................................................................. 36 SAINT LEO THE GREAT AND HIS TOME ....................................................................................................... 36 MIRACLE OF MARTYR SAINT EUPHEMIA CONFIRMS TWO-NATURES ........................................................ 37 LETTER OF POPE AGATHO CONFIRMING TWO NATURES AND TWO WILLS (6TH ECUMENICAL SYNOD) .. 38 MIRACLE OF APOSTLE ST BARNABAS SAVES CHURCH OF CYPRUS FROM MONOPHYSITISM .................... 38 SAINT MAXIMUS THE CONFESSOR’S TRIAL, EXILE AND VINDICATION ....................................................... 40 SAINT THEODOSIUS THE CENOBIARCH, CONFESSOR OF CHALCEDON ....................................................... 41 SAINT SAVVAS THE SANCTIFIED AND RETURN OF HIS RELICS .................................................................... 42 A VISION OF HELL CONCERNING FATE OF MONOPHYSITE AND NESTORIAN HERETICS............................. 43 HISTORY DISTORTED ................................................................................................................................... 45 EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS. SESSION I. (LABBE AND COSSART, CONCILIA, TOM. IV., COL. 93.) ............... 48 CONDEMNATION SENT BY 4TH HOLY ECUMENICAL SYNOD TO PATRIARCH DIOSCORUS OF ALEXANDRIA .................................................................................................................................................................... 50

HOW TO RECEIVE ANTI-CHALCEDONIANS .................................................................................................. 50 COPTIC POPE SHENOUDA’S CHRISTOLOGY................................................................................................. 51 A RESPONSE TO COPTIC POPE SHENOUDA’S CHRISTOLOGY ...................................................................... 51 MODERN ANTI-CHALCEDONIAN BELIEFS .................................................................................................... 51 THE NON-ORTHODOX THEOLOGY OF SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH .................................................................... 52 SAINT ATHANASIUS THE GREAT’S REFUTATION OF SEVERUS’ CHRISTOLOGY ........................................... 55 FURTHER ERRONEOUS TEACHINGS OF PATRIARCH SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH ............................................... 57 CONDEMNATION OF PATRIARCH SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH BY SIXTH ECUMENICAL SYNOD (COUNCIL) ...... 58 FURTHER CONDEMNATIONS OF PATRIARCH SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH BY SEVENTH ECUMENICAL SYNOD (COUNCIL) ................................................................................................................................................... 59 ECONOMIA BECOMES THE NORM .............................................................................................................. 60 APOSTLES WARN AGAINST HERESY ............................................................................................................ 60 AN ADMONITION TO THE MISLED .............................................................................................................. 61 THE DEFINITION OF FAITH OF THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, PARAGRAPH 4, LINES 2-8 ......................... 61 CLOSING ...................................................................................................................................................... 63 FALSE-UNITY WITH THE HETERODOX ......................................................................................................... 63 BETRAYAL OF THE FAITH ............................................................................................................................. 64 ALLIANCE IN FALSEHOOD - UNION WITH MONOPHYSITES ........................................................................ 64 RESPONSES TO ABOVE AGREEMENT OF FAITH, CHAMBESY UNION .......................................................... 64 THE MODERN CONDEMNATION OF MONOPHYTISM, MIAPHYTISM OR SEVERIANISM BY THE ORTHODOX CHURCH ...................................................................................................................................................... 64 ARE THE NON-CHALCEDONIANS ORTHODOX ? .......................................................................................... 65 ST JOHN OF DAMASCUS’ REPLY TO NEW IMPROVED HERESY OF MONOPHYSITES ................................... 65 OUR LEGACY ? ............................................................................................................................................. 66 FEEDBACK.................................................................................................................................................... 67 AGAIN WITH LOVE AND RESPECT ............................................................................................................... 67

ST. JOHN OF DAMASCUS AND THE ‘ORTHODOXY’ OF NON-CHALCEDONIANS .......................................... 67 A FINAL WORD ............................................................................................................................................ 68 I WRAP THIS UP BY THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT ..................................................................................... 69 STEPS TO ORTHODOX-MONOPHYSITE UNION ........................................................................................... 69

6

INTRODUCTION This article is in no way addressed to Anti-Chalcedonians. Rather, it is for informational purposes to address any confusion that exists giving the impression that the AntiChalcedonians are Orthodox, that they have been the victims of a theological misunderstanding by the Orthodox Church, that they have a valid priesthood and that we are of the same body of Christ with the only difference separating us being semantics and mistranslations by the Holy Fathers of our Church. The following is a list of the Anti-Chalcedonian, Non-Orthodox, Monophysite Parishes:      

Armenian Apostolic Church Syriac [Jacobite] Orthodox Church (excluding Syrian parishes under Antiochian Greek Patriarch), Indian Orthodox Church Coptic Orthodox Church (including British Orthodox Church under Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria), Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church ('tewahido' is a Ge'ez word meaning 'being made one') and Newly autocephalous Eritrean Orthodox Church.

ISSUES What disturbs me most is that this misinformed and confusing spirit has begun to creep its way into some of our Greek Parishes. The Anti-Chalcedonians are erroneously being led to believe (whether by words, acts or gestures), that they are Orthodox and that we in fact share the same faith. I have engaged in discussions with some clergy and laity, who hold the belief that our Holy-Fathers made a mistake, and that the fourth Ecumenical Council was not ecumenical and is not applicable. There have been numerous cases in the past, where Anti-Chalcedonians have entered into our church and partaken of our Holy Mysteries (Sacraments) without making a proper confession of faith adhering to the correct dogmas, particularly the Fourth to the Seventh Ecumenical Councils.

BACKGROUND

7

WITH LOVE AND RESPECT I wish to point out at this time that, this article is in no way suggesting or making assumptions about the integrity, piety, level of faith or repentance expressed by AntiChalcedonians or, also known as, Oriental-Orthodox. Whether they will be saved or not, is a matter for God to decide. I wish to state the following quote from the following article: "We deeply respect and admire Coptic piety. Many Copts far exceed Orthodox in their dedication to God and fidelity to their faith. But our respect must not impede us from telling them the truth, bringing them into the Church properly..." Copts and Orthodoxy PREVIOUS PERSECUTIONS TOWARDS ANTI-CHALCEDONIANS And I will add to the above statement, the Anti-Chalcedonians / Oriental-Orthodox have suffered greatly for their Faith and virtuous life, this is a historical fact that cannot be denied. For example, we have the Armenian Genocide and the latter Egyptian Coptic Church that was previously bombed by Islamic Extremists, which sadly killed several Coptic Christians while they were worshiping during a service. Forgive me for not knowing the exact number of casualties. But I believe, and do not quote me as I am not certain, the numbers of casualties is somewhere up in the thousands and possibly even millions. ENCOUNTERS WITH ANTI-CHALCEDONIANS In my life I have known many Armenians and Coptics, as ethnically, I am of GreekCypriot descent and I understand and feel there pain as my ancestors have undergone similar persecutions. Most of Armenians and Copts come from war-torn countries and they suffer gravely for their faith and virtue. I have known many Armenians who while they lived in Turkey, if word ever got out that they were Armenian, of Christian faith, they were illegally framed and jailed by the local Turkish police, persecuted or sometimes unjustly killed by Turkish fundamentalists. And likewise Coptics and other Oriental Orthodox have been persecuted in the past. However, the fact that they suffered so much in the past, and may continue to suffer, (I say “may”, not to deny, diminish, or minimize their unjust treatment, but rather, only because I am not aware of any recent incidents), does not in any way imply that their faith and dogmas are correct. Yes it is true, we must treat them with love, compassion, mercy and kindness, and I am not denying this. For this is a commandment from Christ God himself, "Love your neighbours as yourself...is far more important than all the burnt offerings and sacrifices." --St. Mark 12:33

8

WHAT IS DOGMA AND THEOLOGY The Difference Between Orthodox Spirituality and Other Traditions -- by Metropolitan (Bishop) Hierotheos Vlachos of Nafpaktos, Greece “...dogmas are the results of decisions made at the Ecumenical [Universal] Councils on various matters of faith. Dogmas are referred to as such, because they draw the boundaries between truth and error, between sickness and health. Dogmas express the revealed truth. They formulate the life of the Church. Thus they are, on the one hand, the expression of Revelation and on the other act as ‘remedies’ in order to lead us to communion with God; to our reason for being. Dogmatic differences reflect corresponding differences in therapy. If a person does not follow the ‘right way’ he cannot ever reach his destination. If he does not take the proper ‘remedies,’ he cannot ever acquire health; in other words, he will experience no therapeutic benefits. Again, if we compare Orthodox spirituality with other Christian traditions, the difference in approach and method of therapy is more evident. A fundamental teaching of the Holy Fathers is that the Church is a ‘Hospital’ which cures the wounded man. In many passages of Holy Scripture such language is used... ‘the Church is a Hospital which cures people wounded by sin; and the bishops and priests are the therapists of the people of God’ (St. John Chrysostom).” “Orthodox spirituality is God-centered, whereas all others [Faiths] are man-centered.” – Metropolitan (Bishop) Hierotheos Vlachos of Nafpaktos, http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/hierotheos_difference.aspx

THEOLOGY AS A THERAPEUTIC SCIENCE “From what has been said so far it is clear that Christianity [Orthodoxy] is principally a science which cures, that is to say, a psychotherapeutic method and treatment. The same should be said of theology. It is not a philosophy but mainly a therapeutic treatment. Orthodox theology shows clearly that on the one hand it is a fruit of therapy and on the other hand it points the way to therapy. In other words, only those who have been cured and have attained communion with God [Theosis] are theologians, and they alone can show Christians the true way to reach the 'place' of cure. So theology is both a fruit and a method of therapy.” –Metropolitan (Bishop) Hierotheos Vlachos of Nafpaktos, http://oodegr.com/english/psyxotherap/epistimi.htm

9

What is meant by the statement that Orthodoxy is God-centered, as opposed to mancentered? According to the ancient Orthodox traditions, (and these are not my own words, but rather the writings of all the Holy Prophets, Apostles and Early Church Fathers since the beginning of time), God always loves man, even the devil himself, regardless of whether they do what’s right or not. Regardless of whether they are a supposed “Good Boy”. God loves and cares for ALL OF HIS CREATION, unconditionally. God wishes ALL TO BE SAVED. But not everyone wants to be saved or let alone healed of their passions and illness and patterns of destructive behavior.

“According to modern society, they hold the belief that it is not the person who changes; it is God! According to them, man does not change. The only thing that man has to do – according to them – is to become a “good guy”. And when a former “bad guy” becomes a “good guy”, that is when God will love him. Otherwise, God will abhor him! If that person remains or becomes a “bad guy”, then God will simply not love him! In other words, if a person becomes a “good guy”, then God will change and be good to him; and now, instead of not loving that person, God will now love him! When a person becomes a “bad guy”, God becomes angry, and, when a person becomes a “good guy”, God becomes happy! ...and this spirit is prevalent in very many of those who are in the Church. Orthodoxy has reached the point of becoming a religion, where God changes His dispositions! When a person is good, God will love him. When he is bad, God will not love him. In other words, God punishes and God rewards!” –Fr. John Romanides http://www.oodegr.com/english/biblia/patristic/kef1_1.htm#3. Now in the situation of Monophysitism or Monothelitism, the person just sits there and prays and hopes for God to act or intervene. For if the human natures and human wills are united into a “third hybrid nature” and / or “third hybrid will”, or the human nature is “fused or absorbed” into the divine nature, as the heretic Archimandrate Eutyches taught, then the result is that there is “a lack of human effort” and a person only needs to believe, pray and hope with little human effort or struggle on his part whatsoever. The result is that humanity is transformed into robots where they lose the ability or freedom to freely act and freely obey the uncreated Lord of Glory. Humanity is ultimately reduced to complete and utter passivity. This is clearly the opposite of what the Apostle St. James said in his epistle, “Faith without works is dead.” And likewise “works without faith” –Apostle St. Paul, is equally as damaging. For if we

10

have works but no faith, then for what are we doing those works? For ourself? For our own recognition? “To be seen by men”? As the Pharisees did or, For our own selfglorification? Then we do what the Apostle St. Paul instructs us not to. “We boast of our works” and become a “god unto ourself.”

The essence of Orthodoxy is that we (all of humanity), regardless of who we are, where we come from, or what we’ve done or been through in the past, are all sick and all in need of therapeutic healing now in the present time, not after death. After death there is no change and no healing for we are already dead and we cannot affect change, as in the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus where "there is a great gulf (barrier) fixed and neither one in Paradise or Hades can pass from one side to the other." --St. Luke 16:26. However, there have been some instances in Orthodoxy were some have been freed from the chains of Hades [see: the monastic orphan who used the alms and prayers to pull his mother from Hades which resulted in a foul stench emanating from his scorched hand], but these are very rare and extreme cases and not to be seen as an absolute. In fact, in these cases, where God allowed the person to be freed from the chains of Hades, He (God) said to the one who requested a loved one to be freed, “Do not ask me to do this again.” Orthodoxy is concerned with the present state of a person's soul who without bias, takes the sick patient "as is", regardless of gender, upbringing or disposition and provides the medicine that the church has to offer. If the patient is willing, and if the patient follows the correct approved method of procedure (indicated by the doctor and indicated on the label) when taking the medicine, the patient will over time become healthy. If the patient does not correctly take the medicine, they will not only NOT be healed, but may become more sick or experience side-effects. The patient may also infect others. This does not mean the medicine ceases to work or loses its supposed ability to heal that it naturally possesses, it only reaffirms that the medicine does work and that “God is a double-edged sword" --Hebrews 4:12, which can either heal or be "a consuming fire.” --Hebrews 12:29; 10:27 and 10:31. The medicine can be helpful or potent it is the person’s individual choice and action not God’s. God never imposes on our free-will; He respects our freedom to choose. And likewise a doctor never forces us to take the medicine or to seek therapeutic treatment against our will. Orthodoxy, as opposed to other faiths, is Theo-centric (God centered), not anthropocentric (man centered), meaning, man is the one who changes, man is the one who is in need of therapeutic healing and regeneration, man is the one who needs to change his ways, habits, customs and ill patterns of behaviour to be godlike (or Christ-like). So how does man change? Man changes by participating in the ecclesiastical and ascetical life of the church. But let us also add that whether man changes or not, God

11

does not stop loving man, God does not cease from using various means to reach us, either through people or through various circumstances. However, God also respects our free-will and will not force change.

Or in the words of the late Fr. John Romanides, one of the greatest theologians of our time next to Fr. Georges Florovsky and Fr. George Metalinos: 'Glorification is God's will for all, both in this life and in the next life. But God's glory in Christ is eternal life for those who are properly cured and prepared. But this same "uncreated glory of Christ" is eternal fire for those who refuse to be cured. The one group is glorified and the other becomes forever happy in their selfishness like the "actus purus god" they believe in.' --Fr. John Romanides So we see that from an Orthodox Perspective, as opposed to other faiths, our purpose is to achieve Glorification (Theosis), becoming "God's by grace" --Psalm 82:6 and be "partakers of His divine nature" --2 Peter 1:4, instead of other faiths, where they perform supposed acts of merit, an at the end of their earthly life achieve this supposed reward of eternal happiness. It is strange that many Christians have completely disregarded the tradition of the Early Church Fathers where Theosis (Glorification), attained only through purification of the human nous 'through ascetic struggles' and participation in His (God's) Holy Mysteries, has never been the central core, sole purpose and priority of their faith. If one does not see the Glory of God, or at least partially see it, in this life, then they will not see it in the next life. Or rather, they may see it as a consuming fire and outer darkness as was the case in the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus where Lazarus was in the bosom of the Patriarch Abraham being comforted in paradise, while the Rich man was being tormented in Hades (Luke 16:19-31). “ Every bit of Church dogma was imposed through the blood of those ready to give their life to defend it; being a matter of life – not merely a theoretical speculation” –Father Dumitru Staniloae, Theological Graduate.

ANONYMOUS QUOTE IN FORUM ON CHALCEDON CONTROVERSY At this point, I wish to quote a statement made by an anonymous blogger on the Chalcedonian controversy: “The Chalcedon controversy created martyrs on both sides many who are venerated Saints. Yet the current situation claims that these saints and church

12

Fathers on BOTH sides were simply ignorant stupid men who couldn’t tell the difference between semantics and heresy (even though the Coptic and Greek language and culture are alike!). I also believe there are reservations on the OO [Oriental-Orthodox] side, since all that’s holding re-union is for the non-chalcedonians to accept the 4th-7th ecumenical councils. If re-union occurs without the need to accept the councils, then we have become Protestants. Any Ecumenist will find similar loopholes to push their agenda & protestant apologetics will use this to show that Orthodoxy accepts anyone as their own as well. The other point I wanted to make is to criticise my Church on this. ...Unfortunately most hierarchs who are into the ecumenism scene do not care about the non-chalcedonian churches. The Orthodox ecumenists only care about union with the large RICH WESTERN CHURCHES. The E.P. [European Union] needs their clout; he needs them as allies for his survival in Turkey. The other Ecumenists seem to have an inferiority complex, where the western churches ‘is where it’s at’ and once again don’t care about the other ‘dying’ churches’ of the east. This is where the Laity needs to wake up and demand true healthy ecumenism and chastise their bishops for acting with submissiveness to the western heresies. Last time this happened it ended in an ecumenist tragedy of epic proportions: the council of Florence! ” All I’d like to say on this above quote is very well put. This is what we need to consider whenever dialoguing with the anti-chalcedonians or non-orthodox for that matter. The issue here is not the dialoguing; it is the way the dialogues are being carried out. As the Very Reverend and Late Metropolitan Philaret once stated in his second sorrowful epistle to the deceived and misled Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople: “...in practice...the Protestant doctrine according to which excommunication from the Church because of dogmatical error, does not bar the one excommunicated from membership in Her. In other words, it means that ‘communion in the mystery of the God-man Jesus’ does not necessarily depend upon membership in the Orthodox Church.” –Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow and New York.

13

FR. JOHN ROMANIDES’ EXPLANATION ABOUT NON-CHALCEDONIANS It is to be understood that the below comments by the very Reverend Fr. John Romanides were made at the time when the Non-Chalcedonians were considering accepting the Fourth to the Seventh Ecumenical Councils and Fr. Romanides, was in the process of slowly wining them over. http://www.romanity.org/htm/ro4enfm.htm http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.08.en.st._cyrils_one_physis_or_hypostasis_of_god_th e_log.htm#nowhere I take issue with several parts of the above comments made by Fr. Romanides. 1. It appears that the comments, are minimizing, overly excusing, defending, or justifying the behaviour of the heretic Dioscorus as opposed to St. Leo of Rome. 2. The following comments, "In other words whether one says two united natures distinguished in thought alone, or one nature out of two natures distinguished in thought alone, one is professing the same reality." --Forgive me, but I don't agree with this statement particularly since the Tome of Leo is what St. Euphemia elevated by her miracle. And also, this is contrary to what the minutes of Chalcedon stated in their decision. As well, to state, “two hypostatically united natures, without confusion, mixture, alteration or separation”, is not the same as “one combined or compound nature out of two”. For one professes that the two natures remain distinct, “that which they are” being held together hypostatically (by Christ’s person ‘or second person of the Holy Trinity’), while the other claims that the two natures combine into one cancelling eachother out and thus denying the hypostatic union or erroneously claiming that hypostasis and nature are the same thing. These comments also require great attention, "thought alone", are strangely and coincidentally similar comments that were used during the Eastern Orthodox / Oriental Orthodox agreed-signed statement of faith, (a.k.a. Chambesy Union) to incorrectly conclude that we and the Monophysites share the same faith. The comments of this ‘Chambesy Agreement’ are as follows, "The Oriental Orthodox agree that the Orthodox are justified in their use of the 'two-natures' formula, since they acknowledge that the distinction is in 'thought alone' (τη θεωρια μονη). http://orthodoxwiki.org/File:1990_OOEO_Agreement_Excerpts.jpg , paragraph 1. -- Which one of the Holy-Fathers of our church would conclude that the dogmas of our faith were a 'thought-process' only? Did not the Holy and enlightened Fathers of our church actually try to live, breathe and act out the words they professed? In other words, they didn't just say they were holy, they acted Holy as well. To minimize our faith and dogma to a thought process only, as the heterodox do, is to reduce dogma into a theological opinion. Once this occurs, then the final conclusion one will come to is, "You

14

can believe this or that, but it doesn't really matter so long as you believe in something." If this were the case, then where does the healing come into play? Which of the HolyFathers considered the dogmas of our church just a 'thought-process' only? Right belief also meant right practice, right action and right worship. Not just something in our head that presupposes two alternate truths or alternate realities. So either we accept that Christ has one-nature after the union, (in which case we owe the Monophysites a very grave apology and proceed to lift the anathemas against Dioscorus, Severus, Zanzalus, Eutyches, etc.), of course this would also involve us denying the Miracle of St. Euphemia and ultimately denying our own faith. Or, on the other hand, we refuse to compromise with the Monophysites, we continue to accept the two-natures, stay loyal to the Holy-Fathers of Chalcedon and let these heretics and Ecumenists do what they want so long as we refuse to participate with them. 3. On another note by Fr. Romanides a lot of generalizations, speculations and analogies are made, when comparing Dioscorus’ support of Eutyches to St. Leo's support of the heretic Theodoret of Mopsuestia (founder and teacher of Nestorius). The fact that St. Leo may have supported the heretic Theodoret of Mopsuestia, (again this is questionable), does not imply that St. Leo's faith, Tome or judgment, was somehow tainted, biased or flawed (as the Monophysites attempt to imply.) Theodoret of Mopsuestia’s theology was never accepted during the 4 th Ecumenical Synod (Council), but rather, Theodore of Mopsuestia was only allowed a seat during this council (Chalcedon) as accuser of Patriarch Dioscorus. Nevertheless, Theodore of Mopsuestia was later condemned for heresy in the Fifth Ecumenical Council for his attacks on St. Cyril of Alexandria teachings of the hypostaticunion of the two natures of Christ. Again, given the fact that St. Leo's tome (epistle to St. Patriarch Flavian - later martyred by Dioscorus and some monks present during robber-council) was accepted by St. Euphemia from her tomb after her physical death. It seems to me that Fr. Romanides, perhaps in an attempt to win over the Non-Chalcedonians to our side, was only succeeding in discrediting St. Leo, while excusing, justifying or minimizing the actions of Dioscorus. Dioscorus was anathematized rightfully by an Ecumenical Synod for disobedience and rightfully for canonical crimes. Whether he was defrocked and anathematized for heresy or not is irrelevant. And further, Dioscorus clearly made a confession of faith by his statement before the council, "i receive the 'of two', 'the two', I do not receive (τὸ ἐκ δύο δέχομαι· τὸ δύο, οὐ δέχομαι). I am forced to be impudent. But the matter is one which touches my soul." I find it odd, that Fr. Romanides did not consider this above statement by Dioscorus as a confession of faith. As a result of this, Dioscorus was made out to be an innocent and excusable victim.

15

Some modern-monophysites have also claimed that St. Cyril in his letter to John of Antioch, was only compromising his beliefs for the sake of "preserving unity" and that St. Cyril supposedly did not really and truly believe in two-natures after the union, but rather that he was only stating this to preserve unity This would imply that St. Cyril lacked integrity, and was not being truthful, or that St. Cyril was more concerned with compromise for the sake of preserving unity then correct dogma. Again, as mentioned earlier, all we have to rely on is holy tradition, the writings of the Holy-Fathers, their life and teachings, the minutes and decisions of the councils, etc. We cannot and should not make assumptions, speculations, conclusions or generalizations on information we don't have or lack thereof on what St. Cyril of Alexandria really meant in his epistle to Bishop John of Antioch (not St. Chrysostom). We do not have any information or sources before us that St. Cyril of Alexandria was supposedly being untruthful in his statement to Bishop John of Antioch about believing in two-natures. And further, St. Cyril is not here today with us, nor was he present during the fourth Ecumenical Synod, to suggest otherwise. Any statements on St. Cyril’s mind, are mere speculation and should be rejected. And this is the problem I have with these two above articles. The Monophysites are now using these articles in their defence, they directly quote and make reference to both Fr. Romanides and Fr. Meyendorff to continue supporting and justifying their unorthodox beliefs 4. Fr. Romanides also stated, "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." --I have to humbly disagree. This is the opposite of what the Holy-Fathers stated in their final-decisions as recorded in the Minutes of Chalcedon. In Fact, the Holy-Fathers do agree in part with this abovestatement, but they also add, "Christ is to be expressed as possessing two-natures after the union." As mentioned in the later writings of St. John of Damascus. 5. And a few other concerns with Fr. Romanides' allegedly above two links.

FR. JOHN ROMANIDES’ INTERPRETATION OF CHALCEDON “VI. So-called Neo-Chalcedonianism. 20. Theologians of the Vatican have been supporting their position that Leo of Rome and his Tome became the basis of the decisions of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of 451 which, according to them, supposedly corrected the monophysitic and theopassian tendencies of the Cyril of Alexandria.

16

But the reality of the matter was that some 50 bishops refused to sign Leo’s Tome claiming that it did not agree with the Synodical Letters of Cyril against Nestorius which were the basis of the decision of the Third Ecumenical Council in 381. They were given five day to examine the Tome of Leo with the said letters of Cyril. They all agreed that Leo indeed agrees with Cyrill. Their statements to this effect are individually recorded in the minutes. So Cyril and not Leo was the key to the Council of Chalcedon. Evidently the Vatican has been keeping this fact quiet since it makes a mockery of socalled Papal infallibility. Contrary to these minutes of Chalcedon are the scholars who claim that the Council of Chalcedon modified the Monophysitic tendencies of Cyrill and supposedly deemphasized the theopassianism of his Twelve Chapters. But Cyril’s Two Synodical Letters to Nestorius and his 383 letter to John of Antioch are included the Horos of Chalcedon "to which have been adapted the Tome of Leo..." In spite of these facts scholars of the Vatican propose that Leo, and not Cyril, is "the" Great Father of the Council of Chalcedon. As these scholars see things strict Cyrilians refused to accept the Council of Chalcedon because of Leo’s victory. So in order bring these Cyrilians back to the Imperial Church Emperor Justinian convened the Fifth Ecumenical Council in order to supposedly "reinterpret" Chalcedon within strict Cyrilian categories. This imperial Justinian reinterpretation is called NeoChalcedonianism. That no such thing ever happened is supported by studies on this website. What is especially strange is that the Latin positions on Neo-Chalcedonianism are text book taught at the theological faculty of the University of Athens as historical reality. Sometimes part of this myth is the idea that Cyril became fully Orthodox when he accepted John of Antioch confession of Christ’s two natures. It was not Cyril of Alexandria who adjusted his terminology to John, but John to Cyril.” http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.00.en.some_underlying_positions_of_this_website.ht m With respect to what Fr. John Romanides quotes above, the purpose and position of this article is not to either argue in favour of St. Leo over St. Cyril or vice-versa. I take no position whether St. Cyril or St. Leo was the great-father of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, or whether it was St. Leo of Rome or St. Cyril of Alexandria who became the basis of the decisions of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. Both Saints Cyril and Leo are recognized Saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church. And the only point I’d like to make with respect to what Fr. Romanides stated above, is that whether one accepts St. Cyril’s Christology or St. Leo’s Christology, they are professing the same reality for both believed and stressed the same Christology. As stated elsewhere in this article, just as we believe in the Godhead to be expressed as a trinity, “Father, Son and Holy Spirit”,

17

inseparable, is just as we believe in one Christ to be expressed as two-fold in nature, “Fully God and Fully Man”, “without mixture, confusion, alteration, division or separation.” Critics of the Fourth (Chalcedonian) Council, argue that to accept this council is a return to Nestorianism. However, if they are to argue as such, then they might as well claim that Trinitarians believe in three gods, and not one, since we express the Godhead in three hypostasis’ (persons). And if we overemphasize God’s oneness then we imply that the Father and Holy Spirit also suffered on the cross. And likewise, if we overemphasize Christ’s oneness, we say that the Divine Nature too suffered on the cross. The non-chalcedonians, by further claiming the divinity and humanity combine into one nature, “from two”, “not in two”, further run the risk of creating a third-hybrid-nature comprised of only part God and part man. So both 3rd and 4th Ecumenical Councils are needed in conjunction. For neither is the third apart from the 4th sufficient, and neither is the 4th apart from the 3rd. And likewise, the 5th-9th Ecumenical Councils are the full revelation and truth of the Orthodox Faith.

FR. JOHN ROMANIDES’ FINAL RESPONSE TO THE NON-CHALCEDONIANS “Thus, we see today the Monophysites accepting the doctrine of *’one nature in Christ,’* but rejecting the accusations that they are heretical Monophysites. They accept, as Dioscorus did, that the one, who was born from the Virgin, is co-essential with the Father with respect to manhood. Their doctrine, although still remaining unclear, states that *Christ has two natures before the union [incarnation], but one after the union, without this implying that his humanity is canceled out.* This doctrine, however, is open to the change of possibly leading to Nestorianism. For in saying that *the humanity is not canceled out,* and in identifying nature and hypostasis, it appears that they accept two hypostasis and two persons in Christ, which amounts to nothing else but Nestorianism!” (From page 61 of Fr. John Romanides’ book An Outline of Orthodox Patristic Dogmatics). In the end, when the very reverend and late Fr. John Romanides realized that the Monophysites / Miaphysites, had no desire to abandon their anti-Orthodox position, and that all Fr. Romanides’ efforts to win them over had failed, his final comments with respect to this so-called false union were:

18

“We have all along been the object of an ecumenical technique which aims at the accomplishment of intercommunion or communion or union without an agreement on Chalcedon and the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Ecumenical Councils” (Minutes of the Conference in Geneva, The Greek Orthodox Theological Review, Vol. XVI, p. 30).

A NEW MONOPHYSITISM, BY FR. GEORGES FLOROVSKY ‘On the other extreme we have in our days a revival of "Monophysite" tendencies in theology and religion [both inside and outside our church amongst both some of our clergy and laity], when man is reduced to complete passivity and is ALLOWED ONLY TO LISTEN AND TO HOPE [Hope but do not act. Pray but do not speak. Listen but do not question. Accept but do not challenge. And finally, blindly follow without discretion]. The present tension between "liberalism" and "neo-orthodoxy" [Modernism, Feminism, Abortionism, Gay Activism, Atheism and finally Nihilism] is in fact a re-enactment of the old Christological struggle, on a new existential level and in a new spiritual key. The conflict will never be settled or solved in the field of theology, unless a wider vision is acquired." ‘ --Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View, page 14-15. http://www.bulgarian-orthodox-church.org/rr/lode/florovsky1.pdf In a nutshell, Monophysitism is a rejection that Christ's human nature is co-substantial with ours (humanity’s). That Christ took on a like nature with ours, in order to crucify it, resurrect it, glorify it, deify it, save it, heal it and restore back into union with the Lord of Glory. Monophysitism is the rejection that in our humanity we are required to humanly struggle to obtain Theosis, our ultimate goal. Theosis was also rejected by the late Coptic Pope (Patriarch) Shenouda of Alexandria, the same Pope Shenouda who embraced gnostic and Islamic teachings, and repetitively attacked the Coptic Monastery of St. Macarius the Great, and then went on to further repetitively attacked Coptic Theologians as Dr. David Bebawi who studied the 4th Ecumenical Synod (Chalcedon) in its original Greek and possibly accepted it. Monophysite tendencies both in and outside the church are a CLEAR REJECTION of the HUMAN ASCETICAL STRUGGLE both NECESSARY and ESSENTIAL for spiritual growth, spiritual progress, spiritual salvation and finally THEOSIS our ultimate goal.

19

One can possibly draw the conclusion that, the whole purpose of Christian theology and the resurrection, can be summed up in the 4th Ecumenical Synod at Chalcedon. Without Chalcedon there is no proper understanding let alone effort of salvation. And I will add, possibly no salvation period. So called experts will tell you that Chalcedon is not required for salvation that there are other ways, methods and sources. The bottom line is this if one rejects Chalcedon (the 4th Ecumenical Synod) and continually battles against it, then they reject not only the Holy Fathers and miracles performed at, or on behalf of Chalcedon, but the human struggle and voluntary submission to God which is essential to salvation itself.

AN INFORMATIVE COMMENTARY BY AN ANONYMOUS THEOLOGICAL STUDENT ON FR. ROMANIDES’ ABOVE STATEMENTS ‘To simplify this, basically the heterodox which are popularly known as Monophysites (who are really closet Nestorians) believe that nature is the same thing as a hypostases [subsistence]. They believe that a complete human nature formed in the womb of the Panagia and that the incarnation took place ONLY AFTER the formation of the human nature. This means that a new Person / Hypostases of Christ was formed from two people namely God the Logos and Jesus of Nazareth. This is paramount to saying that you and I became one person, this is ludicrous and beyond preposterous! With this in mind, no I do not believe that Fr. John Romanides accepted the heterodox “Monophysites” as Orthodox Christians, despite that he was lead to believe so during his earlier participation in the Ecumenical movement. Whereas we believe that the Incarnation took place during the formation of the human nature and that the person of God the Logos took the place of the human person in the human nature. Therefore both natures, the Divine and Human, are both equally belonging to God the Logos [Word]. However, does this mean that the Orientals “Monophysites” are not good people? No, one might even say that we are closer to them than the Papists [Roman Catholics] in some ways. But it doesn’t make their weird views Orthodox by any means. Should we be supportive of them during their persecution by the fanatical Muslems? Of course we should. Is there a higher chance of them becoming Orthodox than the Papists? Yes, a small but only chance and we shouldn’t bet on it. How can we expect a family with a little boy named Dioscoro to tell their kid that he is named after a [condemned] heretic and that he can’t pray to Dioscoros anymore? It would take a lot of humility for them to become Orthodox I think.

20

EXTERNAL GOODNESS DOES NOT IMPLY CORRECT DOGMA There have been many men during history who have displayed great feats of heroism and supposed piety by their actions. Gandhi was one example, when British troops advanced on Gandhi and his fellow Indian protesters against the British, instead of Gandhi and his protesters retaliating violently, Gandhi instructed his protesters to lay down on the ground and protest peacefully. It is noted that Gandhi and his protesters were mostly of Hindu faith. Does this act by Gandhi imply that the Hindu faith is correct? Certainly not. It implies that he was by nature good. Nothing more.

TRUE ORTHODOXY Firstly, with the utmost respect, let me first make it perfectly clear. One is either Orthodox or not. There is no partiality. No room for various forms of interpretation or justifications. The Holy-Spirit is one, “And thou shalt worship the one true triune God in spirit and in truth.” --St. John 4:24 As revealed to the Apostles of Christ, handed down to the Ecumenical Church Fathers of ALL seven-councils, the latter two Holy Synods of Saint Photios the Great (8th-9th Century) and Saint Gregory Palamas (13th Century), in an unbroken chain all the way down to our One, Holy, Catholic (Universal, not Roman Catholic), and Apostolic Church. One who professes to be Orthodox, but does not accept the above-mentioned decisions of these councils and synods, with the deepest, humblest and utmost respect, should not be referred to as Orthodox. The onus weighs very heavily on the clergy, as shepherds and guardians of the church, to uphold this obligation by not misleading, misrepresenting or scandalizing the flock of Christ. For as Christ states in the gospels: "One cannot serve two masters; he will either love the one or hate the other..." --St. Matthew 6:24 As well, one cannot claim to be Orthodox, and at the same time to claim that the AntiChalcedonians have been the victims of a theological misunderstanding. To hold such a position, is not only misleading, it tramples upon the integrity of our very dear and

21

beloved Holy Fathers, Elders and the very foundation that our Orthodox Faith is grounded upon.

ANTI-CHALCEDONIAN CLAIMS The Anti-Chalcedonians profess that they accurately follow the sayings of St. Cyril of Alexandria when speaking of the nature or natures of Christ: “They don’t say that the Monophysites didn’t understand the Holy Fathers – they say that the Holy Fathers did not understand them. In other words, they talk as if they are right and the fathers misunderstood them.” --Elder Paisios of the Holy Mountain Elder Paisios about Non-Chalcedonian and Heterodox

NON-CHALCEDONIANS CLAIM THEIR CHRISTOLOGY IS PATRISTIC Part I Part II a Part II b

-

http://www.pravmir.com/article_1052.html http://www.pravmir.com/article_1064.html http://www.pravmir.com/article_1076.html

FURTHER MONOPHYSITE INTERPRETATIONS Below is an erroneous explanation according to Coptic Christology: “On the Cross His Divinity did not part from His Humanity. However, in Its unification with His Human nature, the former [Divinity] had let the latter [Humanity] to suffer with no intervention whatsoever, thus making the redemptive act of suffering quite genuine.” http://www.suscopts.org/q&a/index.php?qid=732&catid=270

In response to the above hear what St. John of Damascus says: “How is it possible for the same nature to be at once created and uncreated, mortal and immortal, circumscribed and uncircumscribed?...How can they ever say that Christ has two natures, while they are asserting that after the union He has one compound nature? For it is obvious to anyone that, before the union, Christ had one nature” And I will add to what St. John of Damascus says above, “How is it possible for the same nature (or compound-nature), to at once suffer and not suffer. To be crucified and yet at the same time not crucified?”

22

“Will your holiness vouchsafe to silence those who say that a crasis, or mingling or mixture took place between the Word of God and flesh. For it is likely that certain also gossip about me as having thought or said such things.” –St. Cyril of Alexandria’s letter to Bishop John of Antioch If one accepts the above Coptic formula, then they further run the risk of implying that if Christ has a single compound-nature, then it concludes then that Christ is not fully God and fully man, but only partially God and partially man. “Apollinarius believed that Jesus was only partially human…Put differently, the humanity that was assumed in the incarnation was not a complete humanity but lacked a significant component of personhood. Apollinarius believed, then, that Jesus was only partially human.” --J.N.D. Kelly, a prominent scholar of doctrinal history “In other words, if all of Adam was lost and ruined by the fall, then Christ, the second Adam, must put on all that Adam possessed in order to restore human nature and live the life that Adam failed to live.” http://theresurgence.com/2010/03/30/apollinarius-know-your-heretics Or in the words of the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Canada, “Since human beings are comprised of flesh and blood, so likewise the Son and Word of God assumed the same elements. St. Paul tells us further that Christ assumed flesh and blood so that by His death as man, He could defeat the Devil, who has the power of death; so that He could destroy death, ‘by death trampling down death.’ ” “Although the Son and Word of God became man and is God-man, His two natures remain distinct. One does not absorb the other. The two natures are distinct and separate, united in the same person [hypostasis], Christ. He is ‘dual in nature, but one person’ [hypostasis]. Two natures, one person [hypostasis].” To further add to the above words of the Greek Orthodox Metropolis, “Just as the Holy Trinity is one, yet three distinct persons (or hypostasis’), Father, Son and Holy Spirit, likewise Christ is one, yet ‘Full Divine and fully human.’ ” ST. CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA’S REPLY TO THE ABOVE ERRONEOUS COPTIC UNDERSTANDING: “He is also called the Man from heaven, being perfect in his Divinity and perfect in his Humanity, and considered as in one Person [hypostasis]…–St. Cyril of Alexandria’s letter to Bishop John of Antioch

TEACHINGS OF SAINT CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA

23

Let us examine the words, which have caused so much confusion, used by St. Cyril of Alexandria concerning Christ’s nature(s): "Μία φύσις του Θεού Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη " --Άγιος Κύριλλος Αλεξανδρείας " Mia physi tou Theou Logou sesarkomeni " Which is translated: "One nature of God the Word incarnate" --Saint Cyril of Alexandria Now after much struggling with the above statement, it occurred to me that Saint Cyril was quoting the Gospel of St John the Theologian: "And the word became flesh and dwelt among us..." --St. John 1:14 and, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God..." --St. John 1:1 The word (Greek: Logos), being Christ himself, came down and became perfect man by truly taking flesh from the ever virgin Mary. “The divine and Human Natures in Christ do not mingle [Miaphysitism] and are not converted one into the other [Monophysitism]” –Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, (1997) By Father Michael Pomazansky, Translated by Hieromonk Seraphim Rose, page 183, paragraph 2. “The Human Nature—or, in the terminology of the Holy Father, the ‘flesh of the Lord’— united with the Godhead, was enriched by Divine powers without losing anything of its own attributes, and became a participant of the Divine dignity but not of the Divine Nature. The flesh, being deified, was not destroyed, ‘but continued in its own state and nature,” as the Sixth Ecumenical Council expressed it (loc. Cit.).” --Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, (1997) By Father Michael Pomazansky, Translated by Hieromonk Seraphim Rose, page 184, paragraph 2. As the Apostle Paul says: “Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.” --Galatians 5.24 Christ further says to his disciples Peter, James and John on Mount Tabor when they kept falling asleep while on watch, "...the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak." --St. Matthew 26:41 Christ signifies two-distinct natures, one of Spirit and one of humanity. We know that we are all created in the image and likeness of Christ God, and King

24

Solomon near his death, when speaking of man and spirit, quotes rightly when he says: "Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it." --Ecclesiastes 12:7

APPOLLINARIAN WRITINGS FALSELY CIRCULATED AS ST. ATHANASIUS THE GREAT’S One needs to take into consideration that when St. Cyril was speaking at this point in time, he was addressing Nestorius, who falsely implied two-Christs. As well, St. Cyril was quoting St. John 1:14 explaining how God came down and became man. “St. Cyril of Alexandria, although fully Orthodox, he nevertheless stood within the Alexandrian theological tradition. Because of this, and also because of his intense opposition to the heresy of Nestorius, he was especially concerned to assert the unity of the Incarnate Word. To do this, he picked up, the phrase, “one nature (physis) of the incarnate Word of God” out of a writing which was being circulated under the name of St. Athanasius the Great. As it happens, in the 6th century this was discovered to be a fraud — the work had actually been written by Apollinaris. To the Antiochenes, the phrase used by St. Cyril sounded Apollinarian, and in a way they were right; at the same time, St. Cyril (who believed that this phrase carried the authority of St. Athanasius) was interpreting it in an Orthodox way. St. Cyril’s shortcoming was simply a certain imprecision in his way of expressing the union of God and man in the Incarnation or rather, in his concern to emphasize the unity of divine and human in Christ, he could find no clear way of expressing the reality of the full humanness of Christ. His theology was Orthodox but his language was somewhat ambiguous. He did understand that the Orthodox view of the Incarnation could be expressed in other terms; in his letters he indicated that he also accepted speaking of Christ as having two natures, as long as that is interpreted in an Orthodox way. His preference, however, remained with the “one nature” formula, because he felt it was a better safeguard against Nestorianism.” http://panagiaquicktohear.com/2013/03/07/the-orthodox-and-non-chalcedonians/ As St. Athanasius the Great once stated: "God became man so that man may become God." --St. Athanasius the Great That is... God by grace not nature. As the psalmist says:

25

"I have said thou are gods. And all of thee are children of the most high." --Psalm 82:6 and thus may become "...partakers of the divine nature." --2 Peter 1:4

SAINT CYRIL CONFESSES TWO-NATURES Now, moving on, if there is still hesitation as to whether St. Cyril believed and advocated one-nature of Christ or not, let us examine his letter to John of Antioch: ST. CYRIL'S LETTER TO JOHN OF ANTIOCH "We confess, therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, perfect God, and perfect Man of a reasonable soul and flesh consisting; begotten before the ages of the Father according to his Divinity, and in the last days, for us and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin according to his humanity, of the same substance with his Father according to his Divinity, and of the same substance with us according to his humanity; for there became a union of two natures. Wherefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord." Now, if we read further down in St. Cyril's letter: "According to this understanding of this unmixed union, we confess the holy Virgin to be Mother of God; because God the Word was incarnate and became Man, and from this conception he united the temple taken from her with himself." "Will your holiness vouchsafe to silence those who say that a crasis, or mingling or mixture took place between the Word of God and flesh? For it is likely that certain [Monophysites] also gossip about me as having thought or said such things." "When some of those who are accustomed to turn from the right, twist my speech to their views [ Dioscorus, Severus, Eutyches, Zanzalus, etc.], I pray your holiness not to wonder; but be well assured that the followers of every heresy gather the occasions of their error from the God-inspired Scriptures, corrupting in their evil minds [Dioscorus, Severus, Eutyches, Zanzalus, etc.] the things rightly said through the Holy Spirit, and drawing down upon their own heads the unquenchable flame."

HYPOSTATIC-UNION So we see here, that the unity of the natures is not to or with each-other [Miaphysitism], as some Anti-Chalcedonians claim, nor does the unity diminish or cancel out the natures and form one nature (or third hybrid nature), nor is there a compound nature made up of partly divine and partly human, but rather, in the person (Greek: hypostasis; Latin: subsistence) of Christ. The two-distinct natures are united by the person of Christ, cooperating with each-other. Synergia (synergy).

26

The human and divine natures of Jesus Christ co-exist within one person. Without one diminishing or enslaving the other (heresy of Plato, in which the Greek philosopher Plato held that the human body was a prison for the soul, which resulted in some Alexandrian Theologians concluding that, ‘if the human body is a prison for the soul, then the human body thus cannot be good and therefore it must be overtaken by the soul). Within Christ, “...there remains in Him one Person, one Personality, one Hypostasis...’Not separated or divided into two persons [Nestorianism], but one and the same Son and only-begotten God the Word’ “ -- Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, (1997) By Father Michael Pomazansky, Translated by Hieromonk Seraphim Rose, page 185, paragraph 4 and page 186, paragraph 1. As well, when we worship Christ, we do not worship His humanity and divinity separately. We worship Christ the person as a whole. “...the veneration and worship of Christ should be directed to Him as a whole and not to parts of His Being; it must be one...for example, a mother to a child...would never refer his attachment to the heart of the beloved person, but will refer it to the given person as a whole.” -- Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, (1997) By Father Michael Pomazansky, Translated by Hieromonk Seraphim Rose, page 187, paragraph 2 – A Word on the Latin Cult of the “Heart of Jesus” I must also state here, so there is no misunderstanding or confusion, because Christ was also perfect man, he could not sin, let alone be tempted by sin. He voluntarily went to the cross, conquering death by death.

NATURE AND PERSON EXPLAINED Now, let us define the difference between nature and person: " nature is what a thing is, its substance, its form, its powers, etc., whereas person is who a thing is, the self-determining entity or personality in which nature resides." In other words, a human-being is one person (existence). But within his being (person), he has a human-nature that takes on the characteristics of a human, performs the functions of a human, gets hungry, tired, angry, etc. And subsequently, he also has a spirit, which takes on the characteristics of a spirit and performs spiritual functions. Just as a candle is one, but within that candle it has a flame and a wick. The two are within the candle, consisting of one single candle, but within that candle, the flame performs one function and likewise the wick performs another function Both the flame and the wick work in cooperation (synergy) with each-other. As a result of the

27

cooperation, the flame still remains a flame and does not cease from being a flame. And vice-versa, the wick remains a wick. As the Apostle Saint James puts it: "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." St. James 2:26

NEO-PLATONISM PARTLY INFLUENCED SOME ALEXANDRIAN THEOLOGIANS Prior to the Fourth Ecumenical Council held at Chalcedon, there were two major schools of early Christian Theology, and they were, the Alexandrian School and the Antiochian. That is not to say that there weren’t other theological schools, just that these above-mentioned theological schools where the major ones. It is true that many times, various Holy Fathers sometimes quoted early Greek Philosophers to support or further explain Christian Theology; however, this was only a method to use human language to better explain Christian theology to us created beings in a way that we could understand. Unfortunately, some Alexandrian theologians took this approach to far by becoming influenced by these Pagan Greek Philosophers and incorporating these philosophies into their Christian mindset. This later resulted in heresy in-which the church had to step in and hold Holy Ecumenical Councils to protect the flock from being polluted by these intrusions into the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith. For example, the following theologians: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Clement of Alexandria Origen Saint Augustine of Hippo Eutyches

Were heavily influenced by Neo-Platonic philosophies particularly the Neo-Platonic beliefs of Plotinus (3rd Century Philosopher recasting Plato’s system) which asserted that: “Nature therefore is a whole, endowed with life and soul. Soul, being chained to matter, longs to escape from the bondage of the body and return to its original source.” In other words, “the body is a prison for the soul or ‘the spirit is good but matter (which includes the body) is evil.’ ” This Neo-Platonic belief, led to the above mentioned theologians, using their own rational thinking, to conclude then that, since the body is a prison and thus evil, the only logical explanation then is that the human-nature is either swallowed-up, absorbed, combined or fused to the divine nature.

28

Meaning, our human-nature that Christ took on, needs to be controlled, combined or over-taken by the divine-nature in order to be liberated from this so-called bodily created prison. The possibility of “the voluntary act of obedience” or “synergy” is removed. However, the problem with this type of reasoning, (and rightly rejected by the HolyFathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Council and again later rejected by St. Maximos the confessor during the sixth Ecumenical Council), is that it gives the impression that “everything that God Created is not good.” It gives us a distorted view of the “image of God”, it removes the possibility of the body being defied (glorified), and contradicts the words of the Holy Apostle Paul when he states, and “the body is the temple of the HolySpirit” or, “the new glorified body.” And if one conforms to the above-mentioned formula, which has its roots in Platonism, or literally speaking, Paganism, then the end-result is Monophysitism or Miaphysistism. And as history teaches us, one heresy gives birth to other heresies. So the nonChalcedonians, in inheriting a Platonic way of interpreting the natures of Christ, caused the birth of the latter heresy of Monothelitism (Armenian dogma that Christ has only a Divine-Will). Because if human-nature is evil and incapable of good, then logically speaking, the human-will is incapable of being obedient (of its own free-will) to the divine-will. Or as Fr. Seraphim Rose puts it: “If God had created human nature without free will, by this imposed condition He would have rendered the created intelligent being purely passive in nature; the creature would simply submit, not having the possibility of doing otherwise, since it would not be free.” Is this not similar to what the Protestant heretic John Calvin taught ? http://orthodoxinfo.com/general/i_believe.aspx , scroll down to Mystery of evil. And some further quotes by Fr. Seraphim Rose on the human nature: “...even the fallen, corrupted human nature which we have now is not ‘nothing at all,’ as you say, but it still preserves in some degree the ‘goodness’ in which God created it.” “Further, these God-given virtues still exercise themselves even in our fallen state. This is the extremely important Orthodox teaching of St. John Cassian, who thus refuted the error of Blessed Augustine, who indeed believed that man apart from God's grace was ‘nothing at all.’ St. Cassian teaches in his Thirteenth Conference: That the human race after the fall actually did not lose the knowledge of good is affirmed by the Apostle, who says: When the gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law, these who have not the law are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts. (Rm. 2:14-16)

29

And again to the Pharisees He said that they can know the truth: Why even of yourselves do you not judge that which is just? (Lk. 12:57) He would not have said this if they could not have discerned what is just by their natural reason. Therefore one should not think that human nature is capable only of evil. (Thirteenth Conference, 12)” http://orthodoxinfo.com/phronema/evolution_frseraphim_kalomiros.aspx

CHALCEDONIAN CHRISTOLOGY AND PLATONISM Even though post-apostolic Christian writers struggled with the question of the identity of Jesus and the Logos, the Church’s doctrine that Jesus was the Logos never changed. Each of the first six councils, from the First Council of Nicea (325) to the Third Council of Constantinople (680-681) defined Jesus Christ as fully God and fully human. Christianity did not accept the Platonic argument that the spirit is good and the flesh is evil, and that therefore the man Jesus could not be God. Neither did it accept any of the Platonic beliefs that would have made Jesus something less than fully God and fully human at the same time. The original teaching of John’s gospel is, "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.... And the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us." The final Christology of Chalcedon (confirmed by Constantinople III) was that Jesus Christ is both God and man, and that these two natures are inseparable, indivisible, unconfused and unchangeable. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_the_Logos#Chalcedonian_Christology_and_Platonis m –“Chalcedonian Christology and Platonism” So we see here that, Neo-Platonism (or Paganism) gave birth to Monophysitism and Monophysitism gave birth to Monothelitism.

PERSISTANT MONOPHYSITE REJECTION OF ST. CYRIL'S TEACHINGS MONOPHYSITES CONDEMNATION OF SAINT CYRIL

30

The Monophysites or modern-day Oriental-Orthodox, claim they loyally follow the teachings of Saint Cyril of Alexandria, however, if this is the case, then why did two of their so-called commemorated saints condemn Saint Cyril's teachings? 1. "457: Timothy Ailouros (another Monophysite ' saint ') condemns Saint Cyril on account of the agreements: ' Cyril... having excellently articulated the wise proclamation of Orthodoxy, showed himself to be fickle and is to be censured for teaching contrary doctrine: after previously proposing that we should speak of one nature of God the Word, he destroyed the dogma that he had formulated and is caught professing two Natures of Christ.’ [Timothy Ailouros, ' Epistles to Kalonymos, ' Patrologia Graeca, Vol LXXXVI, Col. 276; quoted in The Non Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 13]. " And 2.

further: "

Severos

also

condemns

St.

Cyril's

Agreements:

' The formulae used by the Holy Fathers concerning two Natures united in Christ should be set aside, even if they be Cyril's ' [Patrologia Graeca, Vol. LXXXIX, Col. 103D. Saint Anastasios of Sinai preserves this quote of Severos in his works; quoted in The NonChalcedonian Heretics, p. 12]. " In my humble opinion, I find it very ironic that the Monophysites, on the one hand, claim they follow Saint Cyril's teachings, yet on the other hand, the founders of their faith (and so-called commemorated saints in their church) condemned Saint Cyril's teachings. “Note that Eutyches at one time used to say that the flesh of the Lord was not of the same essence, or co-essential with the Mother, nor with us, while at other times he used to say that before the union, true enough, there were two natures in Christ but after the union only one. Wherefore they used to say that Christ consisted of two natures, before the union, that is to say, but not also in two natures, after the union, that is lo say. And it was for this reason that this Council asserted in its definition above that Christ is of the like (or same) essence with the Father as respecting divinity and of like (or the same) essence with us as respecting humanity.” --Taken from the Holy Rudder (Pedalion), page 245 bottom section

MONOPHYSITES DIVIDED AMONGST THEMSELVES “From this Monophysite named Eutyches - as from some MANY-HEADED HYDRA, there grew up thereafter numerous heresies. For instance: The Theopaschites, who

31

used to say "The one crucified for us is holy and immortal," of whom the chief leader was Peter Knapheus (concerning whom see c. LXXXI of the 6th). For, according to the Monophysites humanity was converted into divinity. So the entire Holy Trinity UNDERWENT SUFFERING – Oh spare us, O Lord! --since Godhood was but of one nature. That is why the bemused heretics uttered this blasphemy even to the Holy Trinity which is lauded in the Three-holy Hymn. From the Monophysites arose the Severians. led by a man named Severus who was a monk and became Bishop of Antioch. From these heretics sprang a group known as Jacobites, led by a certain man of Syros called Jacobus and of base extraction, named Zanzalus, or Tzantzalos, who also became the leader of the heresy of the Armenians. From them arose the Gaianites, their leader Gaianus being a follower of the heresy of Julian, a bishop of Halicarnassus by whom he was also ordained Bishop of Alexandria. These heretics used to say that Christ was entirely impassive, or, in Greek, apathes. on which account they styled Apathites, though John Damascene calls them Egyptians, whom the Copts also Followed. From the roots of the Monophysites there sprouted thereafter also the heresy of the Monotheletes. For if, according to them, there was but one nature in Christ, it followed as a matter of course that this single nature had but a single will too. From them arose the Agnoites, whose leader was Themistius, These persons used to assert that Christ was ignorant of the Day of Judgment (i.e. that He did not know precisely when it would be in the future). They had split off, according to John Damascene.from the Theodosian Monophysites. From them came the Tritheites, who in connection with the Holy Trinity were wont to assert a common essence and nature. individualized as in the case of three human beings. Their leader was John Alexandreus the Philoponus. All Monophysiles used to be called in a word ACEPHALI, or headless men, in allusion to the fact that they had split off from the Patriarch of Alexandria named Mongus either because, as Leonius says, he did not anathematize the Fourth Ec, C,. or because they used to hold various unorthodox assemblies and perform unorthodox baptisms, and used to do other things in the way of innovations and schisms, as Nicephorus Callistus states, or because there arose a schism in their midst between Severus and Julian concerning perishability and imperishability, and some of them followed the one, and some the other leader. Accordingly, it may be said, generally speaking they were called ACEPHALI because of the fact that they did not pay allegiance to any one head, but some to one, and some to another leader, and split into groups differing from one another and from the Church. (See the discussion in Dositheus, p. 470 of the Dodecabiblus, and the discussions by other writers.) “

32

"For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a doubleminded man, unstable in all his ways." –St. James 1:7-8 It further seems, that they are playing with words, in a rationalistic manner, to somehow imply that the 4th to the 7th Ecumenical Councils are not applicable to them and that therefore, they are no longer under the anathemas of the council.

Monophysite Differences in Icon Veneration “A related question was whether representing the humanity of Christ (without the possibility of visually representing his Deity) would constitute a division of His humanity from His divinity – and thus a return to Nestorianism, a heresy condemned in the Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus, 431 AD). On the other hand, if His humanity and divinity are both represented together, then the question would be whether this would constitute a confusion of his natures, and therefore a return Monophysitism – another heresy condemned centuries before, in the Council of Chalcedon (Fourth Ecumenical Council, 451 AD) The iconophile response (especially through the work of St. John of Damascus) to the iconoclasts’ dilemma emphasized a few key points: a. The icon represents neither Christ’s divine nature nor his human nature, but his Person [Hypostasis] which unites in itself these two natures. This is a simple restatement of the reasoning of the Council of Ephesus (431) against Nestorianism: because of the hypostatic union, Mary is not the mother of a nature (human or divine), but the Mother of a Person, who is God. b. Christ assumed all the characteristics of a human being (except sin), including the ability to be physically located, circumscribed, and described –thus making images of him possible. c. We don’t divide or confuse natures in icons but rather pass honor through them to the prototype – the Person of Christ.” Sourced from: Iconoclasm and the 7th Ecumenical Council, paragraphs 9-13

33

“All the Monophysites and Theopaschites REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE ICON (OR PICTURE) OF CHRIST, according to Act 6 of the Seventh Ec. C., because they maintained that the nature therein described and depicted as that of His humanity had been mingled and converted into the nature His divinity: But the criticism made Alamundarus. the chief of the Saracens, was a joke. For this fellow, after becoming a Christian, seeing that Severus sent two bishops with a view to enticing him into his heresy, wishing to rebuke them: said: ‘ But know ye not that they have sent me letters and therein the writers of them declare unto me that the Archangel Michael died? (Heresy of Modern day Jehovah Witnesses claiming Christ is the reincarnation of the Archangel Michael.) The bishops of Severus replied to him that it was impossible for that thing to have happened. Then Alamundarus in reply said: ‘ And if Christ hath not two natures, as you say, how could He have died and have suffered on the Cross? Since His divinity is impassive, and does not die ‘ (Dositheus, p. 424 of the Dodecabiblus).” Sourced from Holy Rudder (Pedalion) page 246.

“Unlike the Orthodox teaching on the veneration of icons, Monophysites sharply differentiate between the icons of Christ and the Mother of God (in keeping with their false veneration of the Holy Theotokos [443]), and the icons of saints whose depictions they treat as useful ‘ pious pictures ‘. From the dogmatic point of view, such veneration of the icons of saints is only a variety of iconoclasm and has nothing in common with the teaching of the Orthodox Church. The great teacher of the Church, Saint John Damascene, in his work On the Sacred Icons, has made the following substantiation of the fact that the icons of the Savior and of the Mother of God are equal in honor with the icons of saints: ‘ In their life-time the saints were imbued with the Holy Spirit, so after their death the grace of the Holy Spirit abides both in their souls and in their bodies, lying in graves, as well as... in their sacred images -- not on account of their essence, but owing to the grace and action (of Divine energies - L. P.) [444]. Therefore, in the sacred icons, in which we venerate One and the Same God, there can be no distinction in honor. The Monophysite teaching is quite different. For them there can be no God in the images of saints because for them He cannot dwell in the saints themselves. The one single nature (according to their false teaching - L. P.), which absorbs into itself the humanity of Christ, finds itself cut off from the humanity of all the rest of the people, even the saints. The human nature of Christ Himself presupposes deification within the single nature of Christ (as it follows from the Monophysite heresy), but this deification itself separates Christ from Christians. Hence,

34

the Monophysite teaching on icons of saints as being second-rate. The question of the veneration of icons very vividly reveals the difference between the two teachings on a single nature of God the Word Incarnate -- that of the Orthodox and of the Monophysites of all trends. “[445] Critique of Chambesy Union, paragraph 40 and on.

As to the deceitful assurance about the veneration of sacred icons by the Orthodox and the heretics being alike, the "authors of the Chambesy Declaration acted thoughtlessly, to say the least" when they hastily declared their like-mindedness without subjecting this question to a special investigation. "It sounds convincing only to those who are not familiar with the history of the Monophysite veneration of icons." [440] As is known from the history of the Church, the actistism of Julian of Halikarnassus, which was one of the most extreme but most tenacious variants of Monophysitism, was distinguished by its iconoclasm. Actistism flourished amongst the Armenian Monophysites from the 6th century and until 1441, when the Armenian Catholicosate was moved from Sis to Echmiadzin; subsequently it was observed there even in the 18th century. In Ethiopia, however, one could see the traces of the Monophysite iconoclasm even at the beginning of the 20th century. All the other branches of Monophysitism were forced to counterbalance actistism by substantiating their "veneration of icons" in a special manner [441]. "Christological heresy, as is shown by history, is always fraught with consequences affecting the veneration of sacred icons -- it does not always cause overt iconoclasm, but always and without exception it leads to the rejection of the veneration of icons in the spirit of Orthodoxy" [442]. Critique of Chambesy Union, paragraph 37 and on.

Now the Monophysties (or Miaphysites, as they prefer to be called now) may claim that they also have icons and do in fact correctly venerate them. However, can they truly claim to venerate them properly? Since there new and improved christology (which even though they now claim to deny the Eutychian heresy "humanity swallowed up, fused or absorbed into divinity) they now claim that Christ has a compound nature, both Divine and Human co-mingling, mixing or confusing. "The Iconoclast controversy was a form of Monophysitism: distrust and downgrading of the human side." --below link paragraph 3 http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8071

35

"During the Iconoclastic period, the Monophysites forbade the veneration of icons, because, as they said, Christ has only one Nature: the humanity and Divinity of Christ form one Nature. Icons cannot depict the Divinity Christ, so they cannot depict the human." --below link, paragraph 2, below letter response by Fr. Michael Azkoul http://orthodoxyinfo.org/venerate.htm

The Fruits of the Monophysites “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?" --Matthew 7:14-16

THE FALSE (A.K.A. ROBBER) COUNCIL OF EPHESUS Robber Council of Ephesus

"Dioscorus presided at this council, gaining the acquittal of Eutyches and the condemnation of Patriarch Flavian by threats and force. St. Flavian was fiercely beaten up during the sessions of this council by impudent monks led by a certain Barsumas Even the impious president of the Robber Council, the heretic Dioscorus, took part in these beatings. After this heavy chains were put upon St. Flavian, and he was sentenced to banishment at Ephesus. The council reinstated Eutyches; Flavian died shortly afterwards, on August 11, 449, from the injuries he received from this attack. He was buried obscurely" Flavian the Confessor

"At this council, which assembled on August 8, 449, Eutyches and Dioscuros violently attacked the archbishop. The council reinstated Eutyches and Flavian died shortly afterwards, on August 11, 449, Flavian died at Hypaepa in Lydia, Asia Minor from the injuries he received from this attack and was buried obscurely." Archbishop Flavian of Constantinople

"Pope Leo I, whose legates had been ignored at the council, protested, first calling the council a ' robber synod ', and declared its decisions void." THE NEW MONOPHYSITES By Father Seraphim Johnson

36

Patriarchs Defrocked & Martyred by Monophysites ST. PATRIARCH PROTERIUS OF ALEXANDRIA Martyred by Coptics February 28 and replaced by Timothy Ailouros (Another Monophysite Saint). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proterius_of_Alexandria

ST. PATRIARCH ANATOLIUS OF CONSTANTINOPLE Martyred 458 A.D. by followers of Dioscorus (Monophysite Saint) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_Anatolius_of_Constantinople

ST. PATRIARCH FLAVIAN OF CONSTANTINOPLE Brutally beaten and martyred by Dioscorus, Barsumas and other monks http://orthodoxwiki.org/Flavian_the_Confessor

So it appears that the Monophysites succeeded in defrocking and murdering three of our Patriarchs. And some of our misled are continuing to dialogue and commune with them. I wonder what these misled do while the Monophysites celebrate the feast days of Dioscorus and Timothy Ailouros ? Do they bring up the fact that these so-called saints murdered and defrocked three of our Patriarchs for witnessing the faith and defending Chalcedon? Did these Monophysite recognized saints to this day repent of their numerous canonical crimes?

CHALCEDONIAN CREED AFFIRMED SAINT LEO THE GREAT AND HIS TOME “For we could not have overcome the author of sin and of death, unless he who could neither be contaminated by sin, nor detained by death, had taken upon himself our nature, and made it his own. For, in fact, he was "conceived of the Holy Ghost" within the womb of a Virgin Mother, who bore him as she had conceived him, without loss of virginity.” --Saint Leo the Great of Rome (Tome of Leo to St. Martyr Patriarch Flavian)

37

MIRACLE OF MARTYR SAINT EUPHEMIA CONFIRMS TWO-NATURES

In the year 451 in the city of Chalcedon, in the very church where the glorified relics of the holy Great Martyr Euphemia rested, the sessions of the Fourth Ecumenical Council (July 16) took place. The Council was convened for determining the precise dogmatic formulae of the Orthodox Church concerning the nature of the God-Man Jesus Christ. This was necessary because of the widespread heresy of the Monophysites [“monophysis” meaning “one nature”], who opposed the Orthodox teaching of the two natures in Jesus Christ, the Divine and the Human natures (in one Divine Person). The Monophysites falsely affirmed that in Christ was only one nature, the Divine [i.e. that Jesus is God but not man, by nature], causing discord and unrest within the Church. At the Council were present 630 representatives from all the local Christian Churches. On the Orthodox side Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople (July 3), Juvenal, Patriarch of Jerusalem (July 2), and representatives of St Leo, Pope of Rome (February 18) participated in the conciliar deliberations. The Monophysites were present in large numbers, headed by Dioscorus, the Patriarch of Alexandria, and the Constantinople archimandrite Eutychius. After prolonged discussions the two sides could not come to a decisive agreement. The holy Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople proposed that the Council submit the decision of the Church dispute to the Holy Spirit, through His undoubted bearer St Euphemia the All-Praised, whose wonderworking relics had been discovered during the Council’s discussions. The Orthodox hierarchs and their opponents wrote down their confessions of faith on separate scrolls and sealed them with their seals. They opened the tomb of the holy Great Martyr Euphemia and placed both scrolls upon her bosom. Then, in the presence of the emperor Marcian (450-457), the participants of the Council sealed the tomb, putting on it the imperial seal and setting a guard to watch over it for three days. During these days both sides imposed upon themselves strict fast and made intense prayer. After three days the patriarch and the emperor in the presence of the Council opened the tomb with its relics: the scroll with the Orthodox confession was held by St Euphemia in her right hand, and the scroll of the heretics lay at her feet. St Euphemia, as though alive, raised her hand and gave the scroll to the patriarch. After this miracle many of the hesitant accepted the Orthodox confession, while those

38

remaining obstinant in the heresy were consigned to the Council’s condemnation and excommunication. http://lessonsfromamonastery.wordpress.com/2013/07/11/all-praised-euphemia-trampler-ofheresy/ http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-we_qrVIodSI/UDkrzcjjjsI/AAAAAAAAABc/nExOnr2BAHk/s1600/steufimia.jpg http://oca.org/saints/lives/2013/07/11/102002-greatmartyr-euphemia-the-all-praised

LETTER OF POPE AGATHO CONFIRMING TWO NATURES AND TWO WILLS (6TH ECUMENICAL SYNOD) (Found in Migne, Pat. Lat., Tom. LXXXVII., col. 1161; L. and C., Tom. VI., col. 630.) http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiii.v.html

MIRACLE OF APOSTLE ST BARNABAS SAVES CHURCH OF CYPRUS FROM MONOPHYSITISM In 431 at the Third Ecumenical Synod of Ephesus, the Church of Antioch represented by Patriarch John tried to prevent the Church of Cyprus from gaining autocephaly, insisting it be under the jurisdiction of Antioch. The Church of Cyprus, represented by Metropolitan Rheginos, insisted on independence by claiming "ancient custom" be upheld in which Cyprus always ordained its own bishops and never was under the jurisdiction of Antioch. The same metropolitan also listed a series of grievances against Antioch for interfering in its election processes of bishops in the past and even harassing visiting Cypriot bishops to Antioch. The bishops of Antioch had no evidence to support their claims. The Fathers of the Synod ratified the autocephalous status of the Church of Cyprus in its seventh session on August 31st (some say July 31) with the third canon and prevented any further molestation by the Patriarchs of Antioch.

In c. 488 Peter the Fuller, the famous Monophysite patriarch of Antioch, appeared in Constantinople to renew the old claims for jurisdiction in Cyprus from Emperor Zeno. Peter, unlike John, asserted his rights to supremacy not on ancient custom, but on the belief that Christianity originally spread from the apostolic foundations of Antioch to Cyprus. Antioch claimed as its first bishop the Apostle Peter. Bishop Anthemios of

39

Salamis (Constantia) and Metropolitan of all Cyprus was summoned to the capital to give an answer. They knew they also had apostolic foundations in the person of Saint Barnabas, but the problem was that there was no proof to back up the claims of the Cypriot Christians. There is no doubt the claims of Peter the Fuller would have succeeded had not divine authority intervened. After Anthemios was called to Constantinople he began having dreams over a period of three nights. Saint Barnabas started appearing in the dreams of Bishop Anthemios directing him to his long forgotten tomb under a carob (some say cherry) tree. The bishop found the tomb exactly where the vision had indicated, complete with a skeleton clutching a copy of the Gospel of Saint Matthew written by the hand of the Apostle Barnabas. Theodoros Lector, a Church historian of those days, reports that both the relics and the gospel book were presented by Anthemios to Emperor Zeno who received them with great joy and had the gospel book covered in gold and jewels. Peter the Fuller was immediately dismissed after a synod was called by Patriarch Akakios of Constantinople confirming the independent status of the Church of Cyprus.

Zeno also granted its bishop, Anthemios of Salamis, the status of Archbishop and ranked after the five ancient patriarchates, along with the so-called "three privileges" which have been zealously guarded ever since: namely 1. to sign his name in cinnabar, a red ink made vermilion by the addition of the mineral cinnabar which was only used by the emperor (this red ink was used when Archbishop Makarios signed the document granting Cyprus independence from Britain in 1959); 2. to wear imperial purple instead of black robes under his vestments; and 3. to hold an imperial sceptre instead of the regular episcopal pastoral staff.

Severus of Antioch mentions in his letter to Bishop Thomas of Germanicea that sometime between 496 and 511 he visited Constantinople and examined the Gospel of Matthew discovered in the tomb of the Apostle Barnabas, and mentioned it "was written in large letters, and was preserved with great honor in the royal palace". Severus also noted that it was free of certain falsifications that existed in the Gospel of Matthew commentaries of Saints John Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria regarding a purported passage that Jesus was pierced with a spear at the crucifixion (these two Saints confused the lectionary of the Church which interpolated various accounts of the Gospels, in this case the Gospel of John, with the singular Gospel of Matthew).

40

Saint Barnabas is considered the patron Saint of Cyprus. The fact that he appeared to Archbishop Anthemios at that particular time was seen as a divine intervention to halt the spread of the monophysite heresy into Cyprus. http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2009/06/apostle-barnabas-and-church-of-cyprus.html

SAINT MAXIMUS THE CONFESSOR’S TRIAL, EXILE AND VINDICATION Several years after the Council of Chalcedon (4th Ecumenical Synod ‘Council’) was concluded, a new controversy arose asserting that if Christ had only one nature, then he (Christ) must also have one will. “Maximus' refusal to accept Monothelitism caused him to be brought to the imperial capital of Constantinople to be tried as a heretic in 658. In Constantinople, the Monothelite heresy had gained the favor of both the Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople. Maximus stood behind the Dyothelite position, and was sent back into exile for four more years. In 662, Maximus was placed on trial once more, and was once more convicted of heresy. Following the trial Maximus was tortured, having his tongue cut out, so he could no longer speak his rebellion and his right hand cut off, so that he could no longer write letters. Maximus was then exiled to the Lazica or Colchis region of modern-day Georgia [Iveria] and was cast in the fortress of Schemarum, perhaps Muris-Tsikhe near the modern town of Tsageri. He died soon thereafter, on 13 August 662. The events of the trials of Maximus were recorded by Anastasius Bibliothecarius.” After St. Maximus’ death, or rather martyrdom for confessing the faith, the Sixth Ecumenical Council examined the Monothelite (one-will) doctrine. At the conclusion of this Sixth (6) Ecumenical Synod (Council), this Synod concluded and condemned Monothelitism, and anyone who professed this doctrine, as a heresy. This council also re-instated and vindicated St. Maximus of all charges against him.

St. Maximus not only defended Chalcedon (4th Ecumenical Synod), by holding that Christ has two-natures (hypostaticall or subsistently united), but further went on to teach that Christ has also two-natural wills. St. Maximus taught that, “humanity was made in the image of God, and the purpose of salvation is to restore us to unity with God...” St. Maximus emphasized Theosis and went on to further state that, “In terms of salvation, humanity is intended to be fully united with God. This is possible for Maximus because God was first fully united with humanity in the incarnation. If Christ did not

41

become fully human (if, for example, he only had a divine and not a human will), then salvation was no longer possible, as humanity could not become fully divine...” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximus_the_Confessor#Trial_and_exile “I beseech you to do and to carry out good to all men with care and assiduity, becoming all things to all men, as the need of each is shown to you; I want and pray you to be wholly harsh and implacable with the heretics only in regard to cooperating with them or in any way whatever supporting their deranged belief.” “Even if all the world shall enter into communion with the (heretical) Patriarch, I will not!” –St. Maximus the Confessor’s statement in relation to the Monothelite Patriarch. “For I reckon it hatred towards man and a departure from Divine love to lend support to error, so that those previously seized by it might be even more greatly corrupted.” + St. Maximus the Confessor, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 91 col. 465c

SAINT THEODOSIUS THE CENOBIARCH, CONFESSOR OF CHALCEDON Commemorated January 11. This Saint had Cappadocia as his homeland. He lived during the years of Leo of Thrace, who reigned from 457 to 474. The Saint established in the Holy Land a great communal monastery, wherein he was the shepherd of many monks. While Saint Sabbas was the head of the hermits of Palestine, Saint Theodosius was governor of those living the cenobitic life, for which reason he is called the Cenobiarch. Together with Saint Sabbas, towards whom he cherished a deep brotherly love in Christ, he defended the whole land of Palestine from the heresy of the Monophysites, which was championed by the Emperor Anastasius and might very well have triumphed in the Holy Land without the opposition of these two great monastic fathers and their zealous defense of the Holy Council of Chalcedon. Having lived for 103 years, he reposed in peace. Apolytikion in the Plagal of the Fourth Tone With the rivers of your tears, you have made the barren desert fertile. Through sighs of sorrow from deep within you, your labors have borne fruit a hundred-fold. By your miracles you have become a light, shining upon the world. O Theodosios , our Holy Father, pray to Christ our God, to save our souls. Kontakion in the Plagal of the Fourth Tone

42

As being planted in the courts of Christ thy Lord and God, with holy virtues thou delightfully didst blossom forth and didst multiply thy children amid the desert, who were watered with the showers of thy fervent tears, O chief shepherd of the godly sheepfold of our God. Hence we cry to thee: Rejoice, O Father Theodosius. http://www.goarch.org/chapel/saints_view?contentid=381&language=en

SAINT SAVVAS THE SANCTIFIED AND RETURN OF HIS RELICS The Relics of St. Savvas were determined to be authentic due to one of St. Savvas’ eyes being removed by Monophysites.

St. Savvas the Sanctified during his lifetime told his disciples that his incorrupt body would be removed from his monastery and later would rest in the Lavra, which he founded. He said this return of his relics would come before the end of the world. This prophecy was fulfilled when the holy relics of St. Savvas were stolen by the crusaders of the First Crusade (1096 - 1099) together with many other relics and brought to Venice, Italy where he was enshrined in a church dedicated to St. Anthony. Nearly nine centuries later his relics were returned to Israel.

On 10 October 1965 the relics of St. Savvas were returned by Pope Paul VI to the Patriarchate of Jerusalem. The reception was made, at the direction of Patriarch Benediktos of Jerusalem, by Bishop Vasilios of Jerusalem, Fr. Theodosios the Abbot of Bethany, Fr. Seraphim the Abbot of St. Savvas Lavra, and the Hierodeacon (and future Metropolitan of Nazareth) Kyriakos. Though it is commonly recorded that this gesture on behalf of the Pope was made merely as an ecumenical gesture, such as that of the skull of St. Andrew in Patras, with regards to the return of the relics of St. Savvas there is more to the story. In fact, it was St. Savvas himself who was urging Pope Paul VI to have his relics returned, appearing first to his predecessor Pope John XXIII in his dreams and causing a scene in his reliquary. Fr. Seraphim, the Abbot of St. Savvas Lavra, explains everything as follows: "The Pope did not give us the holy relic because he loved us, but because he [St.

43

Savvas] would constantly appear to him [Pope John XXIII] and would bother him to have his relics returned to his monastery. When the Pope died he did not take the wishes of the Saint into account, so he appeared again to his successor [Pope Paul VI]. Even in the church where his holy relics were treasured in a glass coffin, he would hit the glass and cause trouble, frightening the guards and the Latin monks." Patriarch Benediktos had insisted that Fr. Seraphim attend the reception of the relics. He even told the Abbot: "In your days, Fr. Seraphim, Saint Savvas has returned!" Fr. Seraphim responded: "No, in your days, Your Holiness."

When the Orthodox representatives arrived at the Church of Saint Anthony in Venice they wondered if indeed these were the relics of Saint Savvas.

Fr. Seraphim observed every inch of the incorrupt relic to see if he could see a sign of authenticity. He noticed that one of the eyes of St. Savvas was missing. This proved it for him, since in his biography it is said that the Monophysites removed one of his eyes.

Moved by this Fr. Seraphim would not leave the side of the relics till they arrived at his monastery. Even when the holy relics arrived in Athens where they were to be venerated by the faithful prior to the return, Fr. Seraphim stood all night guarding the holy relics while everyone else was sleeping. Metropolitan Kyriakos of Nazareth describes the scene as if Fr. Seraphim and St. Savvas were having a conversation that night. http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2010/12/miraculous-return-of-relics-of-st.html

A VISION OF HELL CONCERNING FATE OF MONOPHYSITE AND NESTORIAN HERETICS Chapter XXVI - The life of brother THEOPHANES and his marvellous vision, and of communicating with heretics There was an old man of great merit in God's eyes called Cyriacus, who belonged to the laura of Calamon near the River Jordan. A pilgrim brother called Theophanes from the region of Dora came to him for counsel about his thoughts of fornication. The old man

44

encouraged and instructed him with advice about modesty and chastity, which greatly edified the brother. Truly, father," he said, "if it weren't that in my part of the country I am in communion with the Nestorians I would love to stay with you." When the old man heard the name of Nestor he was so overcome with fear that this brother would be damned that he fell down and prayed, and begged him to abandon this most evil and pernicious heresy and return to the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. "There is no hope of being saved unless we truly feel and believe that Holy Mary is the birthgiver (genetrix) of God," he said, "and this is true." "That's all very well, father," said the brother, "but all the heretics say the same, that unless we are in communion with them we cannot be saved. Unfortunately I don't know what to do. So pray to God for me that I may be quite certain which is the true faith." The old man was delighted to hear what the brother was saying. "Come and sit in my cave," he said, "and put your whole trust in God that he will reveal to you of his mercy what is the true faith." He left the brother in his own cave and went out by the Dead Sea, praying to God for the brother. About the ninth hour of the next day the brother saw someone of truly awesome appearance standing next to him. "Come, and see the truth," he said, and led him to a dark and stinking place throwing up flames of fire, and in the flames he saw Nestorius, Eutyches, Apollinaris, Dioscuros, Severus, Arius, Origen and others like them. "This is the place prepared for the heretics, blasphemers, and those who follow their teachings," he said to the brother. "So then, if you like the look of this place persist in your teachings, but if you would prefer to avoid this punishment return to the holy Catholic [Universal] and Apostolic Church, as the old man told you. For I tell you, even if a person practises all the virtues there are, unless he believes rightly he will be crucified in this place." At these words the brother came to himself. He went back to the old man and told him all that he had seen, and returned to the communion of the holy Catholic Church. He stayed with the old man, and after four years with him he rested in peace. Taken from: http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/mono_chamb.aspx -and- http://www.vitae-patrum.org.uk/page142.html

45

So we see here, that by this above story, all were condemned to hell, including, Nestorius, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Dioscorus, and Severus, and Eutyches. All ended up in the company of each-other. What’s interesting to note, is that only St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Leo of Rome and St. Euphemia (Martyr of Chalcedon), remained untouched by the flames of Gehenna. And if we are to achieve any progress with the non-Chalcedonians, it must be based and grounded upon only these three Saints Cyril, Leo and Euphemia respectively.

HISTORY DISTORTED It needs to be made clear that Anti-Chalcedonians, unfortunately, have not been in communion with us for 1, 500 years. For communion implies same beliefs. What is disturbing is that, the monophysite issue is minimized and treated as if it was not a major schism. There have been cases of suggestions to alter Orthodox theological books, to either minimize or completely remove any references to Eutyches, Dioscoros, Severus, Aelurus, Jacobus, Zanzalus, etc. from being labelled as heretics. LINGUISTICS NOT A VALID ARGUMENT Now some have stated that there was a language miscommunication or mistranslation from the Greek to Arabic, Coptic, etc. and that this accounts for the misunderstanding between the Anti-Chalcedonians and Eastern-Orthodox. Let us examine this further. It is a well-known fact that St. Leo, the originator of the Tome of Leo, was a Latin. If mistranslation was an issue then why didn’t the Latin’s have an issue with this? If history serves us correctly, they shared the same Christology with us for almost 1000 years. They spoke in Latin, read in Latin, theologized in Latin. The same with the Cappadocian fathers had no issues with mistranslations, and the Palestine Fathers, and the Syrian Fathers, and finally the Georgian Fathers. All these aforementioned fathers had no issues with mistranslations. Many of these abovementioned Saints and Fathers translated a lot of Greek Scriptures and writings into their respective languages. Are we to believe that the fathers did not take into consideration culture, linguistics and etc. during the 4th Ecumenical Council? If the anti-chalcedonians are correct and there where errors in translation, or different meanings, then isn’t it safe to conclude then, that the Septuagint (Orthodox LXX Old Testament translated from Hebrew to Greek by the Seventy 300 years before Christ’s birth), would have also had mistranslations ? Therefore, the anti-chalcedonians, and their supporters’ analogy and rationalistic justifications are false.

46

The founders and supporters of Monophysitism or Miaphysitism originated from three clergy: 1. Eutyches (380-456 A.D.) Presbyter and Archimandrite at Constantinople 2. Dioscorus I (444 to 451 A.D.) Patriarch of Alexandria 3. Severus (459-538 A.D.) Patriarch of Antioch These three clergy, Eutyches, Dioscorus and Severus, were in high Administrative positions within the Eastern-Orthodox world, and were very well versed and educated in several languages especially the Greek used during that time period. It is noted that the Anti-Chalcedonians (a.k.a. Oriental Orthodox), are followers of these above-mentioned clergy. As well, I should also add that in the words of Fr. John Romanides, a famous theologian, he states the following, "Bishop Dioscorus was not condemned for heresy, and he was condemned for other reasons." However, even though Bishop Dioscorus was not officially or allegedly condemned for publicly preaching heresy, he was condemned rightfully according to the canons of our church, "The Rudder - 'Pedalion' in Greek", for the following reasons: 1. His involvment in the brutal beating and death of Beloved Patriarch Flavian during the robber council, and, 2. His exonoration and support of Eutyches and Eutyches' heresies during this same Robber Council. I quote the following statements from the Holy Canons (Rudder) in support of the above reasons for the condemnation and depose of Dioscorus: "...Robber synod) which had previously been assembled in Ephesus AD. 448, at which Dioscorus presided, and spoke in defense of Eutyches, but the legates from the Bishop of Rome were not listened to, while St. Flavian of Constantinople, after being kicked and beaten with many whips, died.", page 244 of the Holy Rudder (Pedalion). CANON XX As for voluntary manslaughter; we exclude (the guilty one) from Communion for a space of five years, but as for involuntary manslaughter, for a space of three years, provided after the ordeal off fasting until evening, the murderer confines himself to extreme xerophagy, and consents to do three hundred metanies (prostrations) daily. But if he is sluggishly disposed, let the prescript of the Fathers be fulfilled. INTERPRETATION The present Canon canonizes a voluntary manslaughterer to refrain from communing

47

for five years, but an involuntary manslaughterer to three years. Both offenders have to fast until evening and content themselves with extreme xerophagy, while doing three hundred metanies every day. But if they do not care to do these things, the voluntary manslaughterer gets twenty years, the involuntary manslaughterer gets ten, according to cc. LVI and LVII of Basil. Read also Ap. c. LXVI. CANON LXVI If any Clergyman strikes anyone in a fight, and kills by a single blow, let him be deposed from office for his insolence. But if he be a layman, let him be excommunicated. CANON III If any layman, after becoming a man of authority, and conceiving a contempt for divine and imperial injunctions, and laughing to scorn the dread statutes and laws of the Church, should dare to strike any bishop, or to imprison one, without reason or cause, or for a fictitious reason or cause, let such a one be anathema. (An. c. IV.) CANON XXVII As for a Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon that strikes believers for sinning, or unbelievers for wrong-doing, with the idea of making them afraid, we command that he be deposed from office. For the Lord has nowhere taught that: on the contrary, He Himself when struck did not strike back; when reviled He did not revile His revilers; when suffering, He did not threaten. CANON XXII As regards willful murders, let them kneel continually; but absolution they are to be granted only at the end of their life. INTERPRETATION The present Canon sentences those who murder persons willfully to kneel throughout their life, and to commune only at the end of their life. Now I must also qualify the above Canons and interpretations. The canons also state, that if someone repents, and their repentance is genuine, they will receive a penance and after serving out that penance, submit to the decision of the church on whether they should return to office or not. So I ask, what sort of repentance and penance has Pope Dioscorus undergone for his wilful and voluntary act of manslaughter against St. Patriarch Flavian? And by what authority did Pope Dioscorus have to eject St. Patriarch Flavian from

48

office? Was Dioscorus' decisions to eject, confirmed and backed by an Ecumenical Synod? In other words, he, Dioscorus, didn't agree with the position of St. Patriarch Flavian, and decided to forcefully impose his own will. And it is for these reasons; his refusal to attend any future council meetings when called three times by the Synod, as well as other reasons stated above, that Pope Dioscorus was excluded from the 4th Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. Again, I quote directly from the fourth Ecumenical Council:

EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS. SESSION I. (LABBE AND COSSART, CONCILIA, TOM. IV., COL. 93.) Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, stood up in the midst with his most reverend colleagues and said: We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop [St. Pope Leo] of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed a seat in this assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out; if now your holiness so commands let him be expelled or else we leave.... The most glorious judges and the full senate said: What special charge do you prefer against the most reverend bishop Dioscorus? Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, said: Since he [Pope Dioscorus] has come, it is necessary that objection be made to him. The most glorious judges and the whole senate said: In accordance with what has been said, let the charge under which he lies, be specifically made. Lucentius, the most reverend bishop having the place of the Apostolic See, said: Let him give a reason for his judgment. For he undertook to give sentence against one [ St. Patriarch Flavian ] over whom HE HAD NO JURISDICTION. And he [ Dioscorus ] dared to hold a synod [ Robber Synod / Council ] without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place.... The most glorious judges and the full senate, said: It is proper that you should set forth specifically in what he hath gone astray. Lucentius, the venerable bishop and holding the place of the Apostolic See, said: We will not suffer so great a wrong to be done us and you, as that he [ Dioscorus ] who is come to be judged should sit down [as one to give judgment]... Eusebius, the most reverend bishop of the city of Dorylaeum, stepping into the midst, said:

49

[He then presented a petition, and the Acts of the Latrocinium were read. Also the Acts of the council of Constantinople under Flavian against Eutyches (col. 175).]... And when they were read, the most glorious judges and immense assembly (ὑπερφυὴς σύγκλητος) said: What do the most reverend bishops of the present holy synod say? When he thus expounded the faith did Flavian, of holy memory, preserve the orthodox and catholic religion, or did he in any respect err concerning it? Paschasinus the most reverend bishop, representing the Apostolic See, said; Flavian of blessed memory hath most holily and perfectly expounded the faith... Anatolius the most reverend archbishop of Constantinople said; The blessed Flavian hath beautifully and orthodoxly set forth the faith of our fathers... Lucentius, the most reverend bishop, and legate of the Apostolic See, said; Since the faith of Flavian of blessed memory agrees with the Apostolic See AND THE TRADITION OF THE FATHERS it is just that the SENTENCE by which he was CONDEMNED by the heretics should be TURNED BACK upon them by this most holy synod. Maximus the most reverend bishop of Antioch in Syria, said: Archbishop Flavian of blessed memory hath set forth the faith orthodoxly and in accordance with the most beloved-of-God and most holy Archbishop Leo. And this we all receive with zeal. Thalassius, the most reverend bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia said; Flavian of blessed memory hath spoken in accordance with Cyril of blessed memory. [And so, one after another, the bishops expressed their opinions. The reading of the acts of the Council of Constantinople was then continued.] And at this point of the reading, Dioscorus, the most reverend Archbishop of Alexandria said, I receive “the of two;” “the two” I do not receive (τὸ ἐκ δύο δέχομαι· τὸ δύο, οὐ δέχομαι). I am forced to be impudent, but the matter is one which touches my soul. (Here above, were the Monophysites argue linguistics, or a mistranslation of the Greek, Dioscorus, their very own so-called Saint and Pope, contradicts the Monophysites for Dioscorus understands and th responds to this Holy 4 Synod in the Greek language.) (I will also like to add to the above statement, Dioscorus clearly makes a definition of faith here, by asserting “I receive the of two’, ‘the two’ I do not receive”.)

[After a few remarks the reading was continued and the rest of the acts of the Latrocinium of Ephesus completed. The judges then postponed to the morrow the setting forth a decree on the faith but intimated that Dioscorus and his associates should suffer the punishment to which they unjustly sentenced Flavian. " For full article click here: Extracts from the Acts, Session I

50

CONDEMNATION SENT BY 4TH HOLY ECUMENICAL SYNOD TO PATRIARCH DIOSCORUS OF ALEXANDRIA (Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 459.) The holy and great and ecumenical Synod, which by the grace of God according to the constitution of our most pious and beloved of God emperors assembled together at Chalcedon the city of Bithynia, in the martyry of the most holy and victorious Martyr Euphemia to Dioscorus. We do you to wit that on the thirteenth day of the month of October you were deposed from the episcopate and made a stranger to all ecclesiastical order (θεσμοῦ) by the holy and ecumenical synod, on account of your disregard of the divine canons, and of your disobedience to this holy and ecumenical synod and on account of the other crimes of which you have been found guilty, for even when called to answer your accusers three times by this holy and great synod according to the divine canons you did not come. Notice of Condemnation sent to Dioscorus Session III – See last paragraph all Bishops sign condemnation of Dioscorus

HOW TO RECEIVE ANTI-CHALCEDONIANS Now one might say, "but the Anti-Chalcedonians, in previous discussions with them, they claim they believe in two-natures of Christ, not one?" To this I respond, if that is the case then:  why don't they accept the fourth to the seventh Ecumenical Councils?  make a confession of faith and abandon their own? 

get baptized into the Eastern-Orthodox Church?



learn to do the sign of the cross correctly?



cease from venerating the monophysite / miaphysite hymnology?



cease from venerating as Saints Eutychius, Dioscorus, Severus, Zanzalus, etc?

If they are willing to do all this, we will gladly embrace them as our brothers and sisters in Christ and "...we can pray together forever." --Constantine Zalalas To further clarify any confusion or misunderstanding, my beloved brothers, sisters and clergy in Christ, whenever dialoguing with Monophysites, if they claim they believe in two-natures, ask them this,

51

1. "Do you, or your Church's Administration, believe in two-natures AFTER the conception of Christ within the Ever Virgin Mary's womb (John 1:14) ? " And further ask them, 2. "Do you, or your Church's Administration, believe that when a person falls asleep that their soul SEPARATES from their body and returns to God from whence it came (Ecclesiastes 12:7) ? " 3. "Do you or your Church's Administration accept the 4th to the 7th Ecumenical Councils as Ecumenical"? and finally, 4. "Do you or your Church's Administration believe that the acceptance of all 7 Ecumenical Councils is essential for a proper full understanding of the faith, full healing and salvation?" If they answer in the negative to at least one of these above questions, then unfortunately, they are correctly labelled as Monophysite and we cannot commune with them. For communion entails common belief, same belief. The below sourced article, makes it clear that the Anti-Chalcedonians do not accept two-natures of Christ. And further adds another heresy of Christ having only one-will. COPTIC POPE SHENOUDA’S CHRISTOLOGY Pope Shenouda III On The Nature of Christ Coptic interpretations of 4th Ecumenical Council Letter by Coptic Priest

A RESPONSE TO COPTIC POPE SHENOUDA’S CHRISTOLOGY Response to Pope Shenouda III A Further Response to Pope Shenouda III

MODERN ANTI-CHALCEDONIAN BELIEFS

52

Their dearly beloved Pope Shenouda, whom I have nothing personal against, not only professes one-nature, but further supports one-will. Scripture is incorrectly used to back his heretical positions, thus deceiving a whole multitude. Nowhere in his article, does it even remotely consider the following passages by Christ: "And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou [will]." --St. Matthew 26:39 “I came down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent me.” –St. John 6:38 “...‘Two natural wills not contrary the one to the other...but His human will follows and that not as resisting and reluctant, but rather as subject to His Divine and omnipotent will’ “--Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, (1997) By Father Michael Pomazansky, Translated by Hieromonk Seraphim Rose, page 183, paragraph 4 and page 184, paragraph 1 – Definition of Faith of Sixth Ecumenical Council. In light of the above-mentioned, it is highly unlikely that they believe in two-natures, or have any desire to re-conciliate. They are merely telling this to us in order for us to enter into this so-called false-union. And a select group of our very own clergy are continually being deceived. In my humble opinion, I believe this is a serious issue within our Church for the simple fact that, they are being referred to as Orthodox, and numerous Orthodox books and theologians are not including them in the timeline of major schisms. It is being treated as if; it was a misunderstanding, miscommunication on our part. Not them, us. Apparently, we and our Holy-Fathers were in error, in need of correction, repentance and re-drafting of the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. This disturbs and saddens me greatly.

THE NON-ORTHODOX THEOLOGY OF SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH

'The question addressed by the contemporary scholarship, therefore, involves whether or not there exists fundamental theological differences between the Chalcedonian and Monophysite christologies. Traditionally the Monophysites were mistakenly identified as the followers of Eutyches. Below is what modern miaphysites actually believe and thus confuse some of our hierarchs, theologians and clergy who do not even understand their own theology, let alone how to explain it to others. For how can they understand it, in order to refute the

53

miaphysites, if they are not living and practicing the theology of the Holy Fathers of all nine ecumenical council themselves? 'The question addressed by the contemporary scholarship, therefore, involves whether or not there exists fundamental theological differences between the Chalcedonian and Monophysite christologies. Traditionally the Monophysites were mistakenly identified as the followers of Eutyches. Their doctrine that the incarnate Christ is one Person was understood as acknowledging only one divine nature in Christ over against the orthodox position which affirmed that Christ is one Person with two natures. A contemporary Coptic theologian Tadros Y. Malaty, however, claims that the term "Monophysites" itself is a gross misrepresentation of his church's position because it distorts what Cyril's followers (later designated as the "Monophysites") meant in claiming mia phusis. He explains that "mono," meaning "simply one," is inadequate in representing the concept "mia" which means "one united nature" or a "composite [compound] nature.' http://www.ttgst.ac.kr/upload/ttgst_resources13/20124-208.pdf , page 15

What could Severus object to in the teaching of those who supported Chalcedon? It was not that they confessed the reality and difference between the humanity and divinity. It was not that they refused to confuse the natures in Christ. But Severus did impress upon both Sergius in his letters to him, and to his own followers that: When we anathematise those who say Emmanuel has two natures after the union, and speak of the activities and properties of these, we are not saying this as subjecting to anathema the fact of, or naming, natures, or activities, or properties, but speaking of two natures after the union, and because consequently those natures...are divided completely and in everything. [14] We should object, then, with Severus, to those who divide Christ and not those who name the natures of which Christ is. There is no error in stating that Christ is of humanity and divinity, and that in union these differences persist. BUT THERE IS ERROR IN SETTING UP A HUMANITY AND A DIVINITY WITH THEIR OWN SEPARATE ACTIVITIES AS THOUGH THERE WERE CHRIST THE MAN AND THE WORD OF GOD, EACH PERFECT IN A SIMPLE HUMANITY OR DIVINITY AND ONLY UNITED IN SOME EXTERNAL MANNER. Following Severus' argument we see that:

54

IT IS NOT THE SAYING THAT EMMANUEL HAS TWO NATURES WHICH IS CONDEMNED, BUT SAYING THAT HE HAS THESE TWO NATURES AND THEN DESCRIBING THEIR ACTIVITIES SEPARATELY, AS THOUGH THERE WAS GOD THE WORD ACTING AS GOD IN HEAVEN AND CHRIST THE MAN ACTING AS MAN ON EARTH. Severus allows the naming of the natures. We can and must confess that Christ is human and divine, but we must not allow this Orthodox confession to be perverted such that we describe a man and the Word of God seperately. It is God the Word who is this man Jesus.” http://www.quodlibet.net/articles/farrington-severus.shtml http://www.monachos.net/library/index.php/patristics/themes/252-severus-of-antiochsobjections-to-the-council-of-chalcedon-a-re-assessment But here how St. John of Damascus puts this modern theology of the monophysites to shame, for the monophysites now speak of a compound / single --nature, not eutychian swallowed up nature: "How is it possible for the same nature to be at once created and uncreated, mortal and immortal, circumscribed and uncircumscribed?...How can they ever say that Christ has two natures, while they are asserting that after the union He has one compound nature? For it is obvious to anyone that, before the union, Christ had one nature” --St. John of Damascus And I will add to what St. John of Damascus says above, “How is it possible for the same nature (or compound-nature), to at once suffer and not suffer. To be crucified and yet at the same time not crucified?” And how is it possible for the same-nature (compound-nature) to be comprised of Divinity / Humanity, and not be confused, absorbed one into the other, or the one overtaking the other, etc? For even though Severus claims that the single or compoundnature somehow preserves the distinctness of Divinity and Humanity, he implies a confusion and suggests that Christ is only partially divine and partially human. To re-quote what I stated elsewhere in this article: “Apollinarius (the heretic) believed that Jesus was only partially human…Put differently, the humanity that was assumed in the incarnation was not a complete humanity but lacked a significant component of personhood. Apollinarius believed, then, that Jesus was only partially human.” --J.N.D. Kelly, a prominent scholar of doctrinal history

55

“In other words, if all of Adam was lost and ruined by the fall, then Christ, the second Adam, must put on all that Adam possessed in order to restore human nature and live the life that Adam failed to live.” To illustrate an example, if I take two different liquid components (let’s say, 'water and vinegar') and place them in a single glass jar together, is it possible for these two components not to mix together, to remain distinct liquid substances, while each preserving their own separate properties, without one or the other component diluting or overtaking the other, yet at the same time somehow mysteriously or miraculously remaining one? Of course not. Therefore Severus' reasoning is flawed. Again, the modern form of monophysitism, by claiming as the heretic Severus taught: "it is not the saying that Emmanuel has two natures which is condemned, but saying that he has these two natures and then describing their activities separately, as though there was God the Word acting as God in heaven and Christ the man acting as man on earth"

SAINT ATHANASIUS THE GREAT’S REFUTATION OF SEVERUS’ CHRISTOLOGY Now the Monophysites, or as they prefer to be called, miaphysites, may at this point begin referring to St. Athanasius’ Christology in order to further add credit to their Christology. But Saint Athanasius does not assist them either. Here what St. Athanasius the Great says in response to Severus of Antioch’s christology:

"With the Word of God in His human nature, however, it was otherwise. His body was for Him not a limitation, but an instrument, so that He was both in it and in all things, and outside all things, resting in the Father alone. At one and the same time—this is the wonder—as Man He was living a human life, and as Word He was sustaining the life of the universe, and as Son He was in constant union with the Father." Now here St. Athanasius the Great’s explanation of the MANNER OF THE UNION: 'For His being in everything DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE SHARES THE NATURE of everything, only that He gives all things their being and sustains them in it. Just as the sun is not defiled by the contact of its rays with earthly objects, but rather enlightens and purifies them, so He Who made the sun is not defiled by being made known in a body,

56

but rather the body is cleansed and quickened by His indwelling,...' --St. Athanasius the Great And furthermore: '(18) You must understand, therefore, that when writers on this sacred theme speak of Him [Christ] as eating and drinking and being born, they mean that the body, as a body, was born and sustained with the food proper to its nature [human nature]; while God the Word [divine nature], Who was united with it, was at the same time ordering the universe and revealing Himself through His bodily acts as not man only but God. Those acts are rightly said to be His acts, because the body which did them did indeed belong to Him and none other; moreover, it was right that they should be thus attributed to Him as Man, in order to show that His body was a real one and not merely an appearance. From such ordinary acts as being born and taking food, He was recognized as being actually present in the body; but by the extraordinary acts which He did through the body He proved Himself to be the Son of God. That is the meaning of His words to the unbelieving Jews: "If I do not the works of My Father, believe Me not; but if I do, even if ye believe not Me, believe My works, that ye may know that the Father is in Me and I in the Father." Sourced From: St. Athanasius the Great Homily, On the Incarnation of the Word, Chapter 3, The Divine Dilemma and its Incarnation - continued. Again, Severus misunderstands because according to Severus, if we say that the human nature and divine nature have two separate activities externally united (hypostastically united that is), then according to Severus we are leaning towards Nestorianism and dividing Christ. "This is what leads the heretics astray, that they claim hypostasis and nature to be the same thing." --St. John of Damascus And we are not saying two hypostasis of Christ, but rather two distinct separate natures hypostatically united. And furthermore, we are not claiming that God the Word was only in heaven and incapable of being elsewhere. For the Word is everywhere always and at all times not bound by time, space or place. The word has no limits for it existed even before creation of the world. Thus, again the Severians contradict themselves for by basing their argument on the fact that we emphasize Christ as having two distinct and separate functions (one of the word and another of humanity), they are essentially saying that the word can only be in one place at a time and placing limits and restrictions on the word. Again, their theology has its roots in Neo-Platonism 'the body is a prison for the soul and the soul longs to escape from this so-called prison of the body.' It's unfortunate that they aren't aware of this deep-rooted inherited flaw, possibly originating from Clement of Alexandria another Saint of theirs whom we don't recognize.

57

However, St. Athanasius himself asserts two separate activities and functions. And St. Athanasius also asserts that God the Word is all present everywhere and always. And if, as Severus erroneously claims, we do-away with the two separate activities of the natures of Christ, for fear of falling into Nestorianism (as the Monophysites accuse us of) then we run the risk of saying that Christ's humanity did not possess the freedom and ability to voluntarily submit to his divinity. In other words, we are robots without the capability of choosing. And Christ was unable to do the things he did as a normal human being ('eating and drinking and being born' --St. Athanasius, This sounds dangerously similar to Protestantism or Calvanism in which the human capability of doing things "proper to its nature" --St. Athanasius, are removed and humanity just submits without control, similar to a puppet being pulled by a string. FURTHER ERRONEOUS TEACHINGS OF PATRIARCH SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH Partisans of Severus Would Have the Church Err Patriarch Severus of Antioch (r. 512-518, d. 538), in whom Bishop Peter Nabarnugios the Iberian inculcated a hatred of Chalcedonian Christology, was a heretic and it goes without saying that the Ecumenical Councils were right to condemn him. The Church does not err, for she is the pillar and ground of truth [1 Tim 3:15]. Acceptance of Henotikon and Departure from St. Cyril of Alexandria Severus accepted the Henotikon of Emperor Zeno and rejected the Creed of Union signed by Patriarch St. Cyril I of Alexandria, whom he pretended to follow in all matters Christological. One Theandric Energy Severus affirmed μία θεανδρική ένέργεία [one Theandric Energy], by which Christ acts in all things. Divine actions exercised in and through the human nature (raising the dead by a word and healing the sick by a touch) are formally theandric (divino-human). This is the theandric energy to which the great hieromartyr St. Dionysios the Areopagite (10/9) refers [Letter 4 to Caius]. Purely human actions exercised in response to the divine will (walking and eating) are materially theandric (humano-divine). But there are purely divine actions (creating souls and conserving the universe) that are not theandric, and so, Severus, not all of the activities of Christ are theandric. Compound Theandric Nature Severus also posited μία φύσις θεανδρική (one theandric nature) of Christ. This is impossible, because if Christ had a single συνθετος (compound) divine-human φύσις

58

[nature], He would not be consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, Who subsist only in the divine nature, nor would he be consubstantial with us, because we do not have a divine-human nature. The great Doctor of the Incarnation St. Cyril, when he explained μία φύσις Θeoυ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη, taught something altogether different than the Severian myth that the two natures became one nature. Denial That Christ Exists in Two Natures After the Union Severus wrongly denied that Christ is in two natures after the union. Since St. Paul, inspired of the Holy Spirit, says that Christ exists in human form (and being found in human form [Phil 2:7]), Christ is not merely from two natures (εκ δύο φύσεων), but subsists in two natures (εν δύο φύσεσιν) after the union. The Doctors Know Best As to the heretical tenets and results of Severian Christology, we can trust the testimony of the great Church Doctor Hieromonk St. John of Damascus (3/27), who says in An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 3:3, "we hold that there has been a union of two perfect natures, one divine and one human; not with disorder or confusion, or intermixture, or commingling, as is said by the God-accursed Dioscorus and by Eutyches and Severos, and all that impious company." Severian Christology vs. Eastern Orthodoxy Christology: Apples to Oranges Eastern Orthodoxy: two natures, two energies (operations), two wills Severian Monophysitism: one theandric nature, one theandric energy (the faculty of all of Christ's actions), one theandric will Notes & References Patriarch Severus of Antioch records that Peter the Iberian made him realize the "evil" and "the impiety" of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. He says, "This communion I so hold, I so draw near, as I drew near in it with the highest assurance and a fixed mind, when our holy father Peter of Iberia was offering and performing the ritual sacrifice. "

CONDEMNATION OF PATRIARCH SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH BY SIXTH ECUMENICAL SYNOD (COUNCIL) Letter of the Council (6th Ecumenical Synod) Sent to St. Agatho (Pope / Patriarch of Old Rome)

59

(Found in Migne, Pat. Lat., Tom. LXXXVII., col. 1247 et seqq.; and Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 1071 et seqq.) The holy and ecumenical council which by the grace of God and the pious sanction of the most pious and faithful Constantine, the great Emperor, has been gathered together in this God-preserved and royal city, Constantinople, the new Rome, in the Secretum of the imperial (θείου, sacri) palace called Trullus, to the most holy and most blessed pope of Old Rome, Agatho, health in the Lord. Serious illnesses call for greater helps, as you know, most blessed [father]; and therefore Christ our true God, who is the creator and governing power of all things, gave a wise physician, namely your God-honoured sanctity, to drive away by force the contagion of heretical pestilence by the remedies of orthodoxy, and to give the strength of health to the members of the church. ...in accordance with the sentence already given concerning them in your letter, and their names are these: Theodore, bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, Paul, Pyrrhus and Peter. Moreover, in addition to these, we justly subjected to the anathema of heretics those also who live in their impiety which they have received, or, to speak more accurately, in the impiety of these God-hated persons, Apollinaris, SEVERUS... and Themestius, to wit, Macarius, who was the bishop of the great city of Antioch (and him we also stripped deservedly of his pastor’s robes on account of his impenitence concerning the orthodox faith and his obstinate stubbornness)... and finally all those who impenitently have taught or do teach, or now hold or have held similar doctrines. Up to now grief, sorrow, and many tears have been our portion. For we cannot laugh at the fall of our neighbours, nor exult with joy at their unbridled madness, nor have we been elated that we might fall all the more grievously because of this thing; http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiii.xii.html

FURTHER CONDEMNATIONS OF PATRIARCH SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH BY SEVENTH ECUMENICAL SYNOD (COUNCIL)

Condemnation by Seventh Ecumenical Council Furthermore, the Decree of the Seventh Ecumenical Council in 787 (Nicaea II) condemned Severus as a Monophysite.

60

“With the Fathers of this synod we confess that he who was incarnate of the immaculate Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary has two natures, recognizing him as perfect God and perfect man, as also the Council of Chalcedon hath promulgated, expelling from the divine Atrium [αὐλῆς] as blasphemers, Eutyches and Dioscorus; and placing in the same category Severus, Peter and a number of others, blaspheming in divers fashions.” ...Those, therefore who dare to think or teach otherwise, or as wicked heretics to spurn the traditions of the Church and to invent some novelty, or else to reject some of those things which the Church hath received... if they be Bishops or Clerics, we command that they be deposed; if religious or laics, that they be cut off from communion.” http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvi.xii.html

ECONOMIA BECOMES THE NORM In certain instances, the Church has relaxed certain canons of the church, and received the heterodox out of economy. However, in modern days, economy (also known as ‘economia’), has become the normally practice. The exception has become the rule and the rule has become the exception. Economy is to be used only in the rarest of circumstances (cases of emergency) and not in mass quantities (as has become the common practice among our churches nowadays.) Now obviously, the church is concerned with the salvation of human souls, and in some cases may exercise discretion in certain specific circumstances. But, as stated earlier, this is only in the rarest of circumstances and must not become a normal practice; otherwise, we give the heterodox the impression that long-practiced traditions are no longer applicable. If we fail to hang onto the traditions of the church, as the Apostle Saint Paul instructs us (2 Thessalonians 2:15), then we run the risk of slowly losing our identity, watering down our faith, and “even that which we have being taken away” (Matthew 13:12).

APOSTLES WARN AGAINST HERESY It is misleading and confusing when a few of our brothers, sisters and sometimes clergy consistently believe, teach and preach that OUR ECUMENICAL FATHERS made a mistake, not the Anti-Chalcedonians. Not only do the Anti-Chalcedonians "blatantly refuse to accept our counsels", but they also anathematized and excommunicated the Orthodox of Georgia in the 6th century, for refusing to accept the monophysite

61

doctrines, martyred our dear and beloved Saint Patriarch Flavian, replacing Saint Flavian with one of their own. "Do not be carried about with various and strange doctrines.” --Hebrews 13:9 “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds.” --2 John 1:10 “Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons.” --1 St. Timothy 4:1

AN ADMONITION TO THE MISLED Who teach directly or indirectly, by words, gestures or actions that the canons of the fourth ecumenical council are of no effect: "Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." –St. Matthew 5:19

A FURTHER RESPONSE TO THE MISLED (Note: Not all only those involved): "The holy, great, and ecumenical synod, assembled by the grace of God... in the martyry of the holy and victorious martyr Euphemia (Saint who affirmed the Tome of Leo after her repose), has decreed as follows: ...These things, therefore, having been expressed by us with the greatest accuracy and attention, the holy Ecumenical Synod defines that no one shall be suffered to bring forward a different faith (ἑτέραν πίστιν), nor to write, nor to put together, nor to excogitate, nor to teach it to others. But such as dare either to put together another faith, or to bring forward or to teach or to deliver a different Creed (ἕτερον σύμβολον) to as wish to be converted to the knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles, or Jews or any heresy whatever, if they be Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, and the clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laics: let them be anathematized."

THE DEFINITION OF FAITH OF THE COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON, PARAGRAPH 4, LINES 2-8 "But, forasmuch as persons undertaking to make void the preaching of the truth have through their individual heresies given rise to empty babblings; some of them daring to corrupt the mystery of the Lord’s incarnation for us and refusing [to use] the name Mother of God (Θεοτόκος) in reference to the Virgin, WHILE OTHERS, BRINGING IN A CONFUSION AND MIXTURE, AND IDLY CONCEIVING THAT THE NATURE OF THE

62

FLESH AND OF THE GODHEAD IS ALL ONE, MAINTAINING THAT THE DIVINE NATURE OF THE ONLY BEGOTTEN IS, BY MIXTURE, CAPABLE OF SUFFERING; therefore this present holy, great, and ecumenical synod, desiring to exclude every device against the Truth, and teaching that which is unchanged from the beginning, has at the very outset decreed that the faith of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Fathers shall be preserved inviolate." The Fourth Ecumenical Council and Canons

"I reminded you many times about the atheist heretics (non-Orthodox), and now I implore you not to compromise with them on anything, do not eat or drink with them in the name of friendship, better relations, love or peace, because he who is swayed and compromises with them renders him self-foreign to the Catholic (universal) church." --St. John Chrysostom "Be aware not to be corrupted from love of the heretics; for this reason do not accept any false belief (dogma) in the name of love." --St. John Chrysostom "...do not have a single thing to do with schismatics and absolutely nothing with heretics ... As you know I myself have avoided them due to their Christ hating and heterodox heresy." --St. Anthony the Great "The purity of heretics is worse than all debauchery ... how can a virgin, having rebelled against the true Faith, now pay attention to the deluded, believing the demons and honouring lies?" --St. John the Chrysostom "If someone believes evil about the faith (heretically)...flee from him and have nothing to do with him not only if he is a man but even if he happens to be an angel from heaven. However, do not critique a person's lifestyle because, 'Do not judge so you will not be judged,' applies to all matters of the lifestyle and not in the matters of the Faith." --St. John Chrysostom "Keep an eye on your bishops as far as their Orthodoxy is concerned lest they go so far as to teach doctrines against the true faith or celebrate with heretics or schismatics. As far as other things, they act out of ignorance or because the days are evil and they will give an account to God only." --St Gennadios Scholarios "Outside of Orthodoxy there is no other confession which can lead man to the fullness of the Christian life, to sanctification, to the cleansing from sin or to eternity, because the other ones, the non-Orthodox confessions, supress 'the truth in wickedness'(Rom. 1, 18). They confuse the truth with sophistries and lies and in this way they don't maintain

63

the means of Grace necessary for man's renewal. These only belong to the Orthodox church the only 'Holy and Spotless'" (Ephesians 5,27) --St John of Kronstadt

CLOSING So in conclusion, there are several misled Orthodox (not all), who continue overriding certain confessions of faith by the Holy Ecumenical Fathers, specifically canons involving SERIOUS ISSUES OF SALVATION. They deceive the flock of Christ by bringing in destructive heresies (2 Peter 2:1). They are under the belief that the HOLY FATHERS were confused, misguided and wrongly anathematized the Mono / Mia / Heno / Oriental physites, or whatever name they choose to call themselves. May God enlighten and strengthen these deceived clergy according to God’s will.

OBEY THE ECUMENICAL HOLY-FATHERS Forgive me for being so bold; my only wish is to have the misled flock of christ snap out of this belief of false-unity void of truth. We must stay true to our great and Holy Ecumenical Church Fathers, who suffered greatly to deliver us the faith we have now. It is wise for the misled to take heed of the following scripture when they choose to disregard the Holy Fathers, decisions of these councils or add their very own private interpretations: "Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you." --Hebrews 13:17

FALSE-UNITY WITH THE HETERODOX SEVERAL OF OUR MISLED seem to think they can create their own set of rules, canons and ecumenical councils. They seem to be under the impression that they do not need to regard the decisions of the councils and that they know better than the Holy Fathers. Or is it that some feel they are infallible and without error? Has this false-unity and compromising of our faith become so important, that even the traditions and dogmas of the Church sustaining us for two-thousand years, can be trampled upon and set-aside for this hidden agenda of theirs? "A union with the heterodox must be based on truth. Not love alone" --Nico Sotiropoulos, otherwise we fall into the “spirit of delusion” —2 Thessalonians 2:11 and Romans 1:28.

64

Betrayal of the Faith ALLIANCE IN FALSEHOOD - UNION WITH MONOPHYSITES Agreement of Faith - Chambesy Union, Geneva, 1990 Orthodox Unity - More Sources

RESPONSES TO ABOVE AGREEMENT OF FAITH, CHAMBESY UNION Critique of Chambesy Union, Begins at Paragraph 23 Response by Russian Orthodox Church - ' Remove Ambiguities ' Responses by Mount Athos An In-Depth Commentary Do We Share the Same Beliefs ?

A Confession of Faith Against Ecumenism

THE MODERN CONDEMNATION OF MONOPHYTISM, MIAPHYTISM OR SEVERIANISM BY THE ORTHODOX CHURCH

So since so many clergy and hierarchs, including regular ordinary lay-people protested and disagreed with the Above Chambesy Union false agreement of faith, it goes without saying that this false agreement is not binding on all of Orthodoxy and in the words of the very Reverrend and Late Metropolitan Philaret, these decisions are “null and void.” And as stated by the above “Confession of Faith Against Ecumenism”, signed by thousands of Orthodox Hierarchs, Clergy, Monks, Nuns, and Laity: “Along with the Holy Fathers and the Synods, we too reject and anathematize all the heresies that appeared during the historical course of the Church. Of the old heresies that have survived to this day, we condemn... Monophysitism - the extreme form of Eutychius and the more moderate form of Sevirus and Dioscorus - according to the

65

decisions of the 4th Ecumenical Synod of Chalcedon and the Christological teaching of the great Holy Fathers and Teachers such as Saints Maximus the Confessor, John of Damascus, Photios the Great and the hymns of our worship.”

Are the Non-Chalcedonians Orthodox ? Non-Chalcedonian Bishop Converts to Orthodoxy Letter of Jerusalem Patriarch Diodoros I to Antiochian Patriarch Ignatios IV

FATHER THEODORE ZISIS ABOUT MONOPHYSITES‫‏‬ http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Xh8fBrG5Ly4 A Commentary on Coptic Christology

ST JOHN OF DAMASCUS’ REPLY TO NEW IMPROVED HERESY OF MONOPHYSITES "How is it possible for the same nature to be at once created and uncreated, mortal and immortal, circumscribed and uncircumscribed? ...How can they ever say that Christ has two natures, while they are asserting that after the union He has one compound nature? For it is obvious to anyone that, before the union, Christ had one nature." "The Coptic Church condemns Appolinarius because he taught that Christ did not have a human soul when He became Incarnate. He preached that Christ had a divine nature but since he did not believe that Christ had a human soul, Appolinarius did not believe in Christ having a fully human nature. However Appolinarius like Pope Shenouda also taught that Christ had only One Nature after the union for, ' just as man is one nature, so is Christ Who has come in the likeness of men...One incarnate nature of the Divine Word '. This statement sounds dangerously close to what the Coptic Pope (SHENOUDA) says.." "The idea that Christ Incarnate only had one nature, also invariably leads to the uncomfortable conclusion that suffering and death was inflicted upon the Divine Logos at his crucifixion" http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/coptic-christology-a-commentary.pdf

66

1. "Can it be concluded from this declaration that the Non-Chalcedonians accept without reservation the teachings of our Ecumenical Councils?” part VII 2. "Which Orthodox bishop, who gave an oath to defend the Ecumenical and Local Councils, will accept intercommunion with bishops who will discuss if the Ecumenical Councils are Ecumenical? “part VIII "In other words, the union will take place without their recognizing the Ecumenical Councils; but after the union they probably will be accepted or the matter will be put up for their evaluation.", part VIII “Here again we see in practice the Protestant concept of ecclesiology whereby the excommunication of one for dogmatical error does not prevent heretics from belonging to the Church.” –Metropolitan Philaret’s Second Sorrowful Epistle to Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople.

OUR LEGACY ? My dearly beloved Orthodox brethren, kindly accept these words from an unworthy sinner, and reconsider when receiving these Anti-Chalcedonians into our Churches, not edifying them, even with love, acknowledging their baptisms as valid, without any sort of confirmation or confession of the faith. And finally, I hope and pray that one day we remove our memberships from this organization known as the WORLD COUNCIL OF CHURCHES, as it serves no purpose for our church. Again, I re-quote a statement made by an anonymous blogger on a forum as it highly relates to this issue of WCC membership: “I have wondered, just what ‘HEALTHY ECUMENISM’ is? If a church is in the WCC [World Council of Churches] but does not accept the ‘branch theory’, then why is it there? There seems to be an idea that membership in the WCC is an aspect of missionary work. However, do ecumenists really expect to gain converts by meeting in committees with the official representatives of other churches, reaching decisions which most church members (in any church) will probably never hear about? It seems to me that membership in these bodies is at best a waste of time. ... How many people do you know who became Orthodox because of evangelism that took place at a WCC meeting? Personally I don’t know any. With all the time, effort, and money spent on it you would think our Church would be growing by leaps and bounds via the influx of new converts coming in from WCC meetings. Apparently our "ecumenical representatives" must have some reason other than the "evangelism" they talk so much about for going there. The only real fruit of

67

the eccumenical movement = thousands of scandalized Orthodox and a few schisms! Instead of uniting Christians it actually works to divide Orthodox.”

I humbly ponder the following: 1. What answer will be given to our ancestors and Holy Elders in the last and final judgment? 2. How will we account for the hundreds upon hundreds of laity that have been scandalized or continue to be scandalized with these erroneous, deceitful and non-therapeutic doctrines? 3. And further, what account will we give for the simple-minded Orthodox Christians or converts led astray? We have a duty, no, an obligation, as holders of the true faith to defend and support the Holy-Fathers of our church as the “pillars and ground of truth” –1 Timothy 3:15, even unto death if need be.

FEEDBACK Forgive me for being so harsh. If there are any theological inaccuracies due to my flawed human nature and perception, then any suggestions, additions, deletions or corrections are appreciated. NOTE: Please, only feedback from members of the Eastern-Orthodox body of Christ.

AGAIN WITH LOVE AND RESPECT Again, I must state, this article is in no way directed towards Anti-Chalcedonians, it is directed towards our VERY OWN MISLED who continue to support them (AntiChalcedonians) and do not receive them into the Orthodox body of Christ in a correct and dogmatic manner. And further, this article in no way makes claims or assumptions about the integrity, level of repentance or piety displayed by many Anti-Chalcedonians, their clergy or their monastics as that is for God to decide. ST. JOHN OF DAMASCUS AND THE ‘ORTHODOXY’ OF NON-CHALCEDONIANS http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/zisis.pdf

68

A Final Word In a recent discussion with a Coptic over the Chalcedonian Ecumenical Council, his position was that we are preaching Nestorian theology. A simple response to this is that since we believe in the Holy Trinity, that God is one and yet three distinct person’s (hypostases), Father, Son and Holy Ghost does this imply that we believe in three God’s? Obviously not. Then why is it difficult for them to accept that Christ is one person to be expressed "in two" natures? Well this same Coptic’s response was that he did not know and that they accept two natures but overemphasize his oneness. This answer reminds me of some Protestants I knew years back, that overemphasized the "Oneness of God" and lowered, minimized or diminished the Holy Trinity. I will further add, if one takes a look at our icons, we do not have two Christs, we have one Christ, we too, along with the anti-chalcedonians, regard Nestorius as a condemned heretic. But they, on the other hand, by claiming "from two" natures or "of two" natures, in the words of Very Reverend Fr. John Romanides, "are closer to Nestorian theology than us." And furthermore, they run the risk of diminishing or downplaying the role of the Ever Virgin Mary (Panagia). And falling into the heresy that St. Cyril of Jerusalem warns us of: “Some of them altogether deny that he was born of a virgin...”, and some claim that “he passed through the virgin as a channel.” For if one claims that Christ came "from two" natures, then does that not also imply that his (Christ's) humanity pre-existed before the virgin birth? How is this possible if in the words of St. Pope Leo of Rome whom the anti-chalcedonians reject, "Christ had not yet assumed flesh." Or in the alternative, if they agree that Christ's humanity came after the incarnation, then by arguing "one nature", derived "from two", this would imply that the ever virgin conceived "two natures" or as St. Cyril of Jerusalem states: “...that Christ was not God made man, but that a man was made God. For they have dared to say that it was not the pre-existing Word who became man, but that a certain man by advancement was crowned...” In examining anti-chalcedonian christology, it is further determined that they confuse "hypostases" with "nature" which is in fact two distinct and separate concepts.

69

Or to further elaborate on this as St. John of Damascus says: “But this is what leads the heretics astray: that they look upon nature and person (hypostasis) as the same thing”, and furthermore: “Chalcedon did not declare that Christ is ‘two persons’ [hypostases], but two natures” Or in the words of St. John of Damascus, “His natures are united in His person.[Hypostasis]..and in this He differs both from the Father and the Spirit and from His Mother and us.” And to further guard both from Nestorianism and Monophysitism, we have the very wise words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “The Lord took of us a like nature with us, that He might save human nature...that to that which lacked He might give the larger grace; that sinful humanity might be made partaker of God... and being born of the Holy Virgin and the Holy Spirit, not in appearance or imagination, but in truth... and truly took flesh of her (the virgin), and was truly nourished with milk, and truly ate as we do, and truly drank as we do...” Guard against Monophysitism “Christ was twofold, man in what was seen, God in what was not seen, eating truly as Man like us...dying as Man truly, but as God raising him... Guard agains Nestorianism For neither is it religious to worship the mere man, nor is it pious to speak of Him as God only, separate from His manhood. For if Christ, as He truly is, be God but took not manhood, we are aliens from salvation. Be He then adored as God, but let it be believed that He became Man; for neither is there any profit in calling Him Man without His Godhead, nor is it salutary, if we confess not His manhood together with his Godhead. Let us confess the presence of the King, and the Physician.”—St. Cyril of Jerusalem Commentary on the Creed.

I WRAP THIS UP BY THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT "After 1500 years, the Holy Church once again stands confronted by the heresy of Monophysitism, since the Ecumenical Movement has resurrected all the heresies of old and sent them in legions against the Holy Church..."

STEPS TO ORTHODOX-MONOPHYSITE UNION

70

http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/mono_2.aspx And there are many other scripture passages, writings of Saints, Holy Fathers, Apostles which I could have also included to further support the position of the Holy and Blessed Fathers from the fourth through-to the seventh Ecumenical Synods, “which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen.” –St. John 21:25 In Christ with love, Your Humble and Unworthy Servant... "He who speaks the truth has love, even if he causes distress at the outset and creates a reaction. Not he who misleads and conceals the truth, taking account of temporary human relations and not of eternal realities." --Protopresbyter Theodore Zisis Glory to God For All Things. IC XC NIKA EN TOUTON "+" NIKAS (WITH THIS "+" YOU WIN) – Emp. St. Constantine the Great.