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
1. Our Findings
In the light of the facts we have discussed in the present study we can make the following remarks with reference to the Christological controversy
a) What Christian theology refers to as 'Nestorianism' is the misleading position which the Antiochene interpretation of the position of the person of Jesus Christ came to be understood to affirm. Neither Nestorius himself nor any of the men recognized as leaders of the Antiochene school may have held it in any extreme form. In the same way ' Euthychianism' or 'Monophysitism' is a distorted version of the Alexandrine Christology. The evidence which we have is not really adequate to insist that Eutyches had maintained it. Since, however, he was not capable of bringing out his view clearly, no defence of the man is necessary to be undertaken. It should be stressed, at the same time that neither Cyril of Alexandria nor any of the recognized theologians and Church fathers of the Non- Chalcedonian side including Dioscorus of Alexandria has ever been guilty of asserting it.
b) At a time when the Church in the Mediterranean and the middle eastern world was more or less united, a synthesis of the Alexandrine and the Antiochene positions was felt to be indeed desirable. The fact, however is that it was not possible to be worked out even in those ancient times. For one thing, each position had become so deeply established in certain areas, that neither side was willing to work for a rapprochement.
The reunion of 433, for instance, was an incident which could be taken by the parties concerned as a basis on which to arrive at a synthesis. But each side took it as a stepping stone to advance all its emphases to the exclusion of those of the other. In this, to be sure, the Alexandrine side was much stronger than that of the Antiochenes. Chalcedon, on its part, reversed this situation, by going beyond what had been granted by the reunion of 433 in asserting the phrase 'in two natures' . After Chalcedon also the same thing happened in connection with the Henotikon of Zeno. Although it had been issued as an instrument whereby to bring the parties to unity, those who accepted the document on either side took it only as an immediate step from which to assert their respective points of view, without paying heed to the opinions of their opponents.
c) At Chalcedon, although Rome's concern was only with making the council accept the Tome of Leo without questioning and seeing that its theology was adopted as the Church's doctrinal standard, the imperial authority was keen to have a formula of the faith drawn up by a committee consisting of men belonging to the various provinces of the Church, thereby bringing unity to the empire. Here the state leadership was guided by political considerations, and not theological interest, combined with the issue of human prestige.
d) In insisting on an acceptance of the Tome of Leo so uncompromisingly, Rome was led as much by the idea of pressing of its papal claims as by the desire of sharing its understanding of the faith as it had conserved in the theological tradition of the church in the west. But in so doing, pope Leo showed no understanding of the Christological controversy of the east, nor did he base his theological interpretation on the decisions of the earlier councils reckoned as ecumenical. In the same way, the imperial authority in Constantinopole had no sympathy either for the council of Ephesus in 431 or for the tradition of the Alexandrine fathers. The plan of the emperor and the empress was to befriend Rome against Alexandria with a view to raising Constantinople, the capital of the empire, to the a position of leadership in Church , secondly only to Rome. Since the western see and imperial authority in Constantinople, who controlled the Chalcedonian, had each of them its own plan to carry out through it - a plan which surely had no bearing on the Christological question - neither of them had any difficulty in misrepresenting the point of view of the council's opponents in the most amazing manner, without showing even a shred of evidence in its support.
e) Pressed from the side of Rome on the one hand, and from the imperial authority on the other, the synodical committee produced a definition of the faith which was a sort of compromise formula, evading the central problem facing the Church at that time. Although it satisfied Rome and the men of Antiochene side, it came to be opposed by the Alexandrines who had not taken part in the council of 451. To be sure, both Rome and emperors had misjudged the hold which the Alexandrine theology had in the east. The opposition to the council was so vehement and determined that the Chalcedonian position had to be defended on the other hand by a ruthless programme of persecution let loose on the council's opponents by the emperors of Constantinople, and on the other by reading into them the monophysite heresy inspite of their disclaiming it in clear terms. Neither of these measures helped the Chalcedon side to bring the entire eastern church to its adherence, in fact, the efforts of Justinian and some of the successors to effect a reunion did not materialize because of the simple reason that the Chalcedonian side would not give up the council and the Non- Chalcedonian side would have nothing to do it.
f) Faced with the challenge of the council's opponents, the Chalcedonian side in the east undertook to work out a Christological position from the beginning of the sixth century. It was essentially the same as that already developed by the council's critics on the foundation of the theological tradition maintained by the Alexandrine fathers, with the significant difference that it defended the council of 451 and the formula of ' in two natures', while both these were rejected by the opponents of the council. But in allowing this development, the Chalcedonian side ,though it kept to the phrase 'in two natures' moved away from Chalcedon's compromising attitude towards the Antiochene theological emphases. In fact, if by so doing, the Chalcedonian side adopted an interpretation of the person of Christ, ignoring the hypostatic character his manhood, or accommodating the Julianistic ideas, it is more anti-Nestorian and anti-Antiochene than the Christology of men like Severus of Antioch on the non-Chalcedonian side.
g) The obvious conclusion is that by defending the council of Chalcedon, the Chalcedonian side did not really achieve anything for orthodoxy which the non-Chalcedonian side, while rejecting that council, had not all along maintained consistently as their doctrinal standpoint. Therefore, the issue between the two sides was, at best, only one of expressing reservation by either side, regarding the language asserted by the other. If the two sides, are willing to go beyond the terminologies, it will not be impossible for them to accept an agreed formula, and on its basis to work for the restoration of their lost unity.
h) There is however, one idea insisted on by John of Damascus, following the tradition of earlier theologians recognized by the Chalcedonian side, which the non-Chalcedonian side has not developed in the same way. This has reference to the affirmation that the manhood of Christ was from the moment of its formation in union with God the Son divinized. Linked intimately with the theory of enhypostasia, this view takes the manhood as 'nature' or physis without its own hypostasis. Since, as we have already noted, the manhood has the hypostasis of God the Son as its own hypostasis, it is the same God the Son who performs what is human as well as what is divine. For this reason, the manhood of Christ is divinized, The divinization of Christ's manhood in this sense is not the teaching of the non-Chalcedonian side. In their view, the manhood which is individuated and therefore hypostatic, has become the humanity of God the Son and for this reason it is filled with divine glory.
i) Between the Chalcedonian position as it came to be worked out in the east from the sixth century and the tradition conserved by Antiochene side, stands the Christological teaching of the non- Chalcedonian side. If the last two positions can get over old prejudices, they will be able to reach a theological agreement on the question of Christ's person between them more easily than the first two positions. In fact, unless the Chalcedonian side comes to realize the value of the personal character of Christ's manhood, it will not appreciate the theological contribution of Antiochene theologians.
No comments:
Post a Comment