Blessed Fr. V.C Samuel of Memory Eternal. Those who have known him would say that Fr. Samuel with utter conviction to his thoughts cultivated to live by example in his Personal life and vocation as Priest, Teacher and Servant of God and the Church.
One of the most important topic dear to Fr. V.C Samuel's heart was the need of the Church to go beyond divisions that arose out of the historical councils and separated to Non Chalcedonian and Chalcedonian bodies currently known as 'Oriental Orthodox' and 'Eastern Orthodox'. It was so important to him that he revisited his book ' The Council of Chalcedon Re- Examined 'and added notes , concluding observations and what he felt very relevant to our own contemporary times.
Through Divine providence , posthumously with the help of E.J Varghese of V.C Samuel Ecumenical Forum and Fr. Peter Farrington of the Coptic Orthodox Church, Fr. V. C Samuel's reflections in ' The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined' could be republished in 2001.
As we enter the 25th year of commemorating Fr. V.C Samuel's repose, some of us believe that while committed to Orthodox Christian faith, his most original and revolutionary thoughts have yet to be understood and find more of its place in the worship, service, and common witness in the life with Christ in the Church. It is my prayer that the study on Chalcedon will be read, understood and applied going beyond peripheral discussions to bear fruitful results for God's glory. These are some concluding observations by Fr. Samuel.
November 18, 2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concluding Observations
2. The Relevance of the Discussion in contemporary Context
The Christological controversy belongs admittedly to the ancient Church history. A study in depth of that phase of ecclesiastical history should be of contemporary significance at least in three ways.
a) From an Ecumenical Perspective
The Christological controversy, as we have noted, was the apparent cause of the division of eastern Christianity into three bodies.Following the split in the fifth century, each of them looked upon them others as heretical and broke off communion with them.
Was this action justified? The question is indeed very important. The ascription of heresy, for instance, would seem to assume that at the time of the division there existed a universally acknowledged norm of Orthodoxy in the Church. Is it a fact that such a norm was there in the Church during the fifth century? As we have shown, we have evidence that subsequent to the council of Ephesus in 431 there emerged two positions which had a bearing on this question. Thus the Alexandrines maintained that orthodoxy required continuity with the creed of Nicea. But the Antiochenes were not willing to endorse the council of 431 in its totality; they accepted that council only insofar as it had been approved by the Reunion of 433. In that situation the council of Chalcedon paid no attention to these conflicting views, but offered the Tome of Leo and the council's own definition as the norm of orthodoxy. However, these are the very things which the non-Chalcedonian side strongly criticized and rejected. As for the Church of the East which perpetuates the memory of Nestorius and other Antiochene theologians, it took no cognizance of the council of 451. If we take these facts into account, we shall see that in ascribing heresy by each of the three bodies to the others, it was not assuming a norm of orthodoxy which had been admitted by all of them prior to the division. In other words , none of these ecclesiastical traditions has a legitimate basis to look upon the others as heretical.
The churches are, however, disunited and an effective means of helping them to regain their lost unity is indeed a need. In fact, Rome had tried, on the strength of its claim of universal supremacy over the Church, to solve problems by creating uniate churches with converts from members of these communities to its adherence. Although this plan had a limited amount of success in very few areas of eastern Christianity what has been accomplished is not worth reckoning. The problem needs a satisfactory solution on the strength of an objective and positive evaluation of the history of that division as well as of the doctrinal position conserved by each of these churches. It is an effort towards this end that we have tried to fulfil by means of this study.
(b) From the perspective of Ecclesiastical Authority
If there was no agreed norm of Orthodoxy at the time of the division , was there not ecclesiastical authority to be reckoned with? Pope Leo , for instance claimed for his Tome divine inspiration through Petrine succession, and the Chalcedonian body in the east maintained that the Holy Spirit had lead the council of Chalcedon, as also other ecumenical councils, to conserve the faith in its purity. In both cases the question at issue has reference to ecclesiastical authority, which indeed is a subject of real importance for the Church at all times, including our own.
Two positions are noted here. Firstly that there is the emphasis that as the linear successor of Apostle Peter, the bishop of Rome has a direct personal access to the secrets of the chief of the Apostles and through him to the mind of the incarnate God the Son himself, and that for this reason he is invested with special authority to interpret the faith inerrantly by himself, without any external assistance. Secondly, It is insisted that as an ecumenical council the Chalcedonian assembly has made a declaration of the faith which should be considered binding on the whole Church. Concillar authority, in fact, is not taken in any agreed sense. Whereas some church traditions tried to make out that by the very act of deciding an issue the ecumenical council speaks authoritatively, others would maintain only that authority of a conciliar decision depend upon the truth content which it conserves. Those who hold the latter view would assert that all the recognized ecumenical councils have made doctrinal decisions which have been validated as conserving Christian truth.
Our point here is not to discuss the issue of ecclesiastical authority by defending or criticizing either of the two foregoing views, but to observe that in the light of the facts which we have brought out about the council of Chalcedon and other councils neither of these claims can be supported in an unqualified sense. Therefore, neither the Christological controversy nor the councils which discussed the issue in olden times can be legitimately cited as worthy precedents pointing to the way in which ecclesiastical authority should be properly exercised.
In saying this we do not imply that the story of Chalcedon ipso facto disproves the papal claims of Rome or the eastern claims of conciliar authority. It is a fact, however, that like the issue concerning norms of orthodoxy, the question of how ecclesiastical authority should be exercised had no agreed tradition in the Church. Whereas the east in general adopts the theory of conciliar authority as the final arbiter in ecclesiastical matters, Rome add to it papal supremacy over the Church. Both these positions are unclear in regard to a number of points. The papal theory, has to substantiate the claim that Apostle Peter had a knowledge of the mind of Christ with reference to any doctrinal dispute which may arise in the Church, and that this is inherited by the bishops of Rome. As for the conciliar theory, the fact that it has not clarified itself concerning its composition and nature of its authority. Should, for instance, bishops have the right of membership in a council? It is a fact that the custom of only bishops constituting a council is not older than the council of Chalcedon. Even there the presiding officers were state officials, not even ordained men, and there were clergymen of non-episcopal ranks actively involved in council's proceedings. It should also be remembered that the ancient councils did not arrive at their decisions by the procedure of vote-taking by bishops alone. In the light of such facts what we can say is that Church had different traditions with reference to the exercise of ecclesiastical authority. In the contemporary setting of the Church these should be brought together with appropriate modifications in each of them. The council of Chalcedon and other ecclesiastical assemblies of olden times do, as a matter of fact, point their finger to this need.
As regards the exercise of ecclesiastical authority we should bear in mind a number of facts. In the first place, both the bishop of Rome himself and the bishops who take part in councils whether as individual persons or as a body are children of their own age. We have no basis for believing that through papal enthronement or episcopal consecration they have been able to transcend their human limitations in knowledge, prejudice or conditions of life. Secondly, in the real sense belong by nature to God alone. Any authority in the Church is derived from Him, and it is granted for carrying out of his plan and purpose. Therefore all ecclesiastical authority should conform to the divine plan and mandate in its exercise. Thirdly, ecclesiastical decisions, whether doctrinal or administrative, are bound to be relative to the times and conditions in which they are made. Through the value of the principle underlying them should be recognized whenever possible and necessary, the decisions themselves cannot be insisted on for acceptance of the Church for all times and for ever. In making this point, it should be recalled that the Chalcedonian side has modified its stand with reference to at least three positions which the council of 451 has adopted
I. the decision concerning Theoderet of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa
II. whereas Chalcedon had practically ignored the Twelve Anathemas of Cyril, the council of 553 proceeded on assumption that the council of 451 had in fact recognized the document as fully authoritative; and
III.although Chalcedon had excluded the phrase ' from two natures' and 'one incarnate nature of God the Word , the Chalcedonian side declared the orthodox, and acceptable in 6th Century
IV. With reference to councils of 553 and 680-681 ,we have seen both of them had most deplorably misrepresented the Christological position of non-Chalcedonian side.
In claiming these and similar councils to be ecumenical and authoratitive, these facts about them cannot be ignored. They show that none of them was in itself inerrant, and that no authority can be ascribed to them in an unqualified sense. They are, in fact, ecclesiastial assemblies held in particular contexts subject to their limitations. What is of value in them consists in the principles of the faith which they may have to sought to safeguard. With their positive contributions and failures, they belong to Christian history. Conserving the principles of value found in them and rejecting the mistakes which they may have committed, we shall try to face our responsibilities in our contemporary situations. For this ,there is no need for insisting on a judicial acceptance of any council by a church tradition which had rejected it in the past.
Our point here may be made clear in this way.Whereas the ancient Church of Persia does not recognize the councils of the fifth century and those held in later times, and whereas the non-Chalcedonian side does not accept the councils of 451, 553 and 680-81, the Chalcedonian side claims to stand in the tradition set up by these councils in continuation of the council of 431. The real point of this claim is not that the Chalcedonian side includes them in its list of accepted councils. The legal acceptance of a council does not mean anything unless it implies the endorsement of the doctrinal principle affirmed by that council. The only legitimate sense in which a council can be said to be accepted is thus the admitting the faith which it is believed to have safeguarded. Viewed in this way, the difference among the three traditions into which the Church came to be split on account of the Christological controversy is not really insurmountable. Even with reference to the second council of Ephesus in 449 which the non-Chalcedonian side considers acceptable, although Chalcedon tried to make out that it had been excluded summarily , the fact is that almost all its decisions bearing on the faith of the Church have been ratified by the council of 553 implicitly, and they continue alive in both the Chalcedonian and non- Chalcedonian sides.
c) In the Light of Church's Faith
The real issue then is the Church's faith in the person of Jesus Christ. It is , in fact as old as Christianity itself. The synoptic gospels record how our Lord asked the disciples who, in their view, he was, and how Peter made the famous confession that he was the Christ, the Son of the living God. This same answer is implied in the New Testament writings in a real sense. Following the New Testament times, the fathers of the Church continued in the process by further expounding the faith. In carrying on the work they relied primarily on the rule of faith, which for them signified the Church's deposit of faith
The work which these men had done in their respective generations, which guided the Church more than anything else, should be viewed as much from the point of view of the method they used as from that of the content which they sought to conserve. Both these aspects of their work are indeed important.
i) The Method
Theological expositions of the ancient Church were carried on within the cultural and intellectual settings of those times. In interpreting the faith they took over in varying degrees and concepts current in the Graeco-Roman religious and intellectual world. But they were not doing this by uncritically adopting a syncretistic attitude in regards to the Christian confession. They tried, on the other hand, to remain faithful to the rule of faith which they reckoned to be based on the Apostolic preaching, as also the reality of a life of worship and discipline that had been developed on its foundation. Thus in their theological undertaking they followed a method aimed at safeguarding the essential character of Christianity.
The developing of a similar method whereby to conserve the faith on the one hand and to communicate it intelligently on the other is indispensable for the Church in every age. The cultural and intellectual conditions of the twentieth century are certainly not in the same as those of the times in which the ancient theologians and Church fathers lived and worked. Even in our day they are not the same for the European and the Indian or for the American and African. Corresponding to difference in culture and other conditions there should be different expressions of Christianity. In fact, the Church in every age and in every geographical area should be able to work out its own method of communication of the faith and patterns of life , without diluting or distorting the faith itself. Faced with this task, the Church can see in the method adopted by ancient theologians a worthy lesson of contemporary significance.
ii) The Content
All the three bodies into which the Church came to be split on account of the Christological controversy are agreed in affirming that Jesus Christ is the one and only definitive saviour of the world. They differ only in the interpretation of how he is to be so affirmed.
This fact may be illustrated by referring to the three positions. The Chalcedonian side affirms, both in its Byzantine eastern and Thomistic western traditions,that Jesus Christ is the saviour of the world, because He is God the Son who has united human nature to himself by becoming its person. God the Son, one of the Holy Trinity, gave himself as the activating agent of the human nature in Christ. Thus the reality that underlies all men and women who constitute the whole human race has been united to himself by God the Son- an emphasis which is found in all the three traditions. This in incarnation, and the person of the saviour is the eternal person of God the Son. The Antiochene side does not go all the way with this emphasis. It maintains that God the Son, one of the Holy Trinity, raised the human through one member of the race to a union with himself, though without undergoing a descent on his part, and thus he is the saviour of the world. The non-Chalcedonian position affirms that God the Son, one of the blessed Trinity united manhood to himself. In the union the manhood is not impersonal, though not a person parallel to the person of God the Son. He is a compound person, God the Son integrating in himself the personal reality of the manhood. Jesus Christ is therefore God the Son in his incarnate state, and as such the saviour of the world.
Each of these positions is bound to raise questions, and none of them can be considered throughly without flaw from a strictly intellectual perspective. This itself is an indication that the issue need reappraisal. The fact, however, is that all of the continue in the living stream of Church's doctrinal heritage. Reckoning with their existence, we should proceed on the basis to expound the faith meaningfully to our generation.
(Contd...)
