Dialogues Between Monophysites and Eastern Orthodox

"The Non-Chalcedonians were not and are not now Orthodox."

 

The publication of an extensive essay on the Orthodox-Monophysite dialogue by Archimandrite George, Abbot of the Monastery of St. Gregory (Gregoriou) [on Mt. Athos—Trans.], [1] was prompted recently by an article by Protopresbyter John Romanides, entitled: «Μία φύσις τού Θεού Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη. Ό Άγιος Κύριλλος και ή Δ' Οικουμενική Σύνοδος» ["One Incarnate Nature of God the Word: St. Cyril and the Fourth (Ecumenical Synod"]. [2]

According to Archimandrite George, one of Father John's "central ideas" is that "we Orthodox and Non-Chalcedonians have essentially the same Christological faith; although we differ in our formulation of doctrine, in the content of our beliefs we are, nonetheless, the same." Father George, in concord with the important contribution by the Sacred Community of the Holy Mountain to the controversial issue of Orthodox-Monophysite rapprochement—which, especially since 1989, has apparently entered the homestretch—, goes on to make some very crucial and fundamental "observations" on Father John's article, admitting, in his prefatory remarks, that "there are, undoubtedly, positive points" in the article. "However, on very many points, he does not follow the Orthodox interpretation of the Fourth Holy Ecumenical Synod; we maintain that this is the result of the same flawed approach that led to the composition of joint statements with the Non-Chalcedonians in 1989, 1990, and 1993. ...[I]t is worthy of note that, on these points, his interpretation is in agreement, at times ad litteram, with that of the Non-Chalcedonian theologians, whereas the Orthodox Patristic interpretation is radically different; he thus creates a hermeneutical framework, within which the positive points of his analysis lose their theological significance." Following these remarks are his "observations," by means of which Father George demonstrates clearly, and with full documentation, that “the Non-Chalcedonians [Monophysites] did not, in the past, have the same Christological faith as the Church." Finally, he cites "compelling evidence" which proves that "contemporary Non-Chalcedonians, too, do not have an Orthodox Christology."

The "uproar" created over Father John's article and the ideas expressed by Father George are remarkable: Father John responded, by way of the Internet, to Father George's critique—though his response is anything but a response—and "posted" his earlier "Report" of January 2, 1991, to the then Archbishop Seraphim [Primate of Athens and All Greece—Trans.], on the Orthodox-Non-Chalcedonian dialogue; this, in turn, was followed by a “revealing correspondence between Father John and Father George," and, finally, by a sober and unequivocal reply from Father George to Father John. [3]

In any case, aside from the other conclusions that can be drawn from the aforementioned texts and exchanges, [4] it is obvious from Father John's "Report" of January 2, 1991, that there is a lack of sobriety in the Orthodox-Non-Chalcedonian dialogue that is currently under way, and this deficiency appears to be a common trait of the various dialogues being held in the context of the ecumenical movement.

Indeed, how is it possible for such dialogue to be conducted with spiritual sobriety, charismatic zeal for the Truth, and love for the erring heterodox—not to mention with methodological refinement of the highest degree—, when Father John, as he himself admits, "sets traps" for the Non-Chalcedonians [Monophysites]—for the "Orientals"—to fall into, thereby involuntarily confessing things that do not reflect their Christological beliefs? Are these not serious issues? Is this how the Fathers engaged in dialogue with the heterodox? And can the disclosure of an "enticing snare"—in the form, indeed, of a "trophy" for the Orthodox ecumenists—, possibly contribute to an upbuilding of trust among the parties in dialogue?

Sure proof, moreover, of Father John's unreliable and ineffectual "trap" is provided by a recent book on this subject by the Coptic Patriarch, Shenouda III; [5] after the supposedly "successful" outcome of the Orthodox-Monophysite dialogue; notwithstanding the presumption that the Non-Chalcedonians have been convinced that we Orthodox and they have a common Christology, formulated in different ways by each side, the Coptic Patriarch adheres to the Christological views which he expressed in 1984 and which—aside from other considerations—demonstrate that he has, in essence, not understood any of the explanations put forward by the Orthodox.

For example, Patriarch Shenouda III maintains that:

"Despite the fact that the Synod of Ephesus [the Third Ecumenical Synod] anathematized Nestorios, its Nestorian roots spread and influenced the Synod of Chalcedon [the Fourth Ecumenical Synod], where the tendency to separate the two natures [of Christ] began to become so evident that it was said that Christ consisted of two persons" [!].

By the admission of the Copts, "the union [of the Divine and human natures] led them to a unity of nature; ...with regard to the nature of our Lord Jesus Christ, we say 'the Incarnate Word,' and we do not say 'God and man'; likewise, the nature of the Incarnate Word is a single nature that embraces all Divine and all human attributes";

"This expression ['two natures' or 'God and man'] denotes two and not one, and the term 'two' never means union. A union can truly never be separated into two things... Similarly, the term 'two' means separation or a tendency towards separation."

"Since we believe in One Nature of the Incarnate Word, we believe in One Will and One Energy. Naturally, since we believe that His [Christ's] Nature is One, we believe that His Will and His Energy are also One"; "and since His Will is One, necessarily His Energy is One. Thus, we make no distinction between two natures."

[We should point out to our readers that these quotations from Pope Shenouda are clear and unequivocal statements of a Christological heresy that has been flatly condemned by several Ecumenical Synods, by local councils, in Patristic writings, in the Canons of the Church, and in Orthodox dogmatic works—Trans.]

 

NOTES

1. Archimandrite George, Abbot of the Holy Monastery of Gregoriou, «Οί Άντιχαλκηδόνιοι δέν ήσαν καί δέν είναι ’Ορθόδοξοι-Άπάντησις εις μελέτην τοϋ π. Ίωάννου Ρωμανίδου ύποστηρίζοντος την άντίθετην άποψιν» [“The Non-Chalcedonians Were Not and Are Not Now Orthodox: In Reply to a Study by Father John Romanides, Who Holds the Contrary Opinion"], Κοινωνία (April-June 1999), pp. 127-135; (July-September 1999), pp. 253-262.

2. In the collective volume, ’Ορθοδοξία και ή των πάντων ένότης [Orthodoxy and the Unity of All] (n.p.: Publications of the Holy Monastery of Koutloumousiou, 1999), pp. 177-191.

3. For the relevant texts, see Χριστιανική, No. 575 [889] (14 October 1999), p. 10; No. 576 [890] (28 October 1999), pp. 8, 11; No. 577 [891] (11 November 1999), pp. 9-11.

4. Let us add to these texts and exchanges a very interesting article on this subject: Hieromonk Luke Gregoriates, «Ή δήλωσις τοϋ Κόπτου Πατριάρχου δέν αποτελεί ’Ορθόδοξον 'Ομολογίαν» [“The Declaration of the Coptic Patriarch Does Not Constitute an Orthodox Confession"], ’Ορθόδοξος Τύπος, No. 1329 (23 July 1999), pp. 3, 4.

5. Patriarch Shenouda III, Ή Φύση τοϋ Χριστοϋ-ΉΘεότητα τοϋ Χριστοϋ [The Nature of Christ—The Divinity of Christ] (Athens: Harmos Publications, 1996).

 

Greek source: ’Ορθόδοξος Ένημέρωσις, No. 36 (April-June 2000), pp. 149-150.

English source: Orthodox Tradition, Vol. 18 (2001), No. 1, pp. 36-38.