Council Of Chalcedon

[Nihil Obstat]

I was reading today about the Coptic Orthodox Church, and trying to understand where they differ from us, and most of the Eastern Orthodox. It appears that it all comes down to the Council of Chalcedon. Exactly what happened in that council?
What is the Catholic position on what was defined?
What is the position of most of (what became) Eastern Orthodoxy?
What is the position of the Oriental Orthodox?

...and how different are they, really?

Edited November 18, 2009 by Nihil Obstat

[Totus Tuus]

I don't know how well I can answer these questions, but here's what I know:

The heresy disputed at Chalcedon (5th century, I think) was monophysitism, which held that Christ had only one nature. The Church's response is that Christ has two natures in one person. The East broke over the Filioque clause in the Nicene Creed (your question might be kind of ambiguous?). I am not sure how monophysitism defines the Coptics; my Doctrine class didn't go into that much detail. Staretz would probably be able to answer this better than most of us here. Google research would work well, too.

[Nihil Obstat]

I may be getting the wrong impression, but from the brief historical overview I read, the Oriental Orthodox broke with the wider Church over this question, and what is now the rest of the Eastern Orthodox and Catholics agreed on something... then the Orthodox broke later.
I probably am getting dates mixed up though. I'm so confused.

[CatherineM]

You may have to wait until Rexi gets home from school. Short answer is that the fight was over the term "two natures." The church in Egypt maintained their monophysite leanings which is a form of Docetism. Another problem was Canon 28 that gave Constantinople preeminence over the churches in the East. The churches in Antioch and Alexandria didn't like that at all.

[Starets]

I seem to recall reading an article where Pope Shenouda III of the Copts explained that they agreed with the christological definition arrived at at that council but disagreed with the wording. So maybe there is a translation problem between Greek and Coptic as well. I'd like to look into it further. I love the Desert Fathers!

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Staretz' date='18 November 2009 - 01:16 PM' timestamp='1258571760' post='2004944']
I seem to recall reading an article where Pope Shenouda III of the Copts explained that they agreed with the christological definition arrived at at that council but disagreed with the wording. So maybe there is a translation problem between Greek and Coptic as well. I'd like to look into it further. I love the Desert Fathers!
[/quote]
I read that they signed a statement with a different Orthodox Church saying that they taught the same things, just with different language... So confusing, since I don't even know what the language is!

This all started when I found out that my friend is Coptic Orthodox, and I was trying to find out how much we agree on in theory.

[Apotheoun]

The website below should be helpful in highlighting some of the Christological similarities and the differences that exist between Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy:

[url="http://www.orthodoxunity.org/articles.html"]Orthodoxy Unity[/url]

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='18 November 2009 - 01:31 PM' timestamp='1258572666' post='2004962']
The website below should be helpful in highlighting some of the Christological similarities and the differences that exist between Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy:

[url="http://www.orthodoxunity.org/articles.html"]Orthodoxy Unity[/url]
[/quote]
Thanks. Bookmarked.

[Veridicus]

[quote name='Staretz' date='18 November 2009 - 02:16 PM' timestamp='1258571760' post='2004944']
I seem to recall reading an article where Pope Shenouda III of the Copts explained that they agreed with the christological definition arrived at at that council but disagreed with the wording. So maybe there is a translation problem between Greek and Coptic as well. I'd like to look into it further. I love the Desert Fathers!
[/quote]

I have a hard time not outright dismissing anything stated by an anti-Pope.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Veridicus' date='18 November 2009 - 03:08 PM' timestamp='1258582114' post='2005065']
I have a hard time not outright dismissing anything stated by an anti-Pope.
[/quote]
Pope Shenouda is not an anti-pope; instead, he is the Oriental Orthodox bishop of Alexandria.

Alexandrian Christians, both Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, have called the bishop of Alexandria "pope" for centuries.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Nihil Obstat]

I suppose we'd think of him as a patriarch, yes?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='18 November 2009 - 03:24 PM' timestamp='1258583095' post='2005076']
I suppose we'd think of him as a patriarch, yes?
[/quote]
Shenouda is the Pope, Patriarch, and Bishop of Alexandria - at least for the Oriental Orthodox, who are more commonly called "Copts."

If my memory serves me, the title "pope" was used for the Bishop of Alexandria before it was used by the Bishop of Rome, but I would have to re-read the article on the use of the word "pope" (father) found in the [i]Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church[/i] to be sure.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Nihil Obstat]

Would it be inappropriate for a Roman Catholic to grant him that title?

[Resurrexi]

Below is the super-important dogmatic definition of Chalcedon:
"Following the holy Fathers, therefore, we all with one accord teach the profession of faith in the one identical Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. We declare that He is perfect both in His divinity and in His humanity, truly God and truly man composed of body and rational soul; that He is consubstantial with the Father in His divinity, consubstantial with us in His humanity, like us in every respect except for sin. We declare that in His divinity He was begotten of the Father before time, and in His humanity He was begotten in this last age of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, for us and for our salvation. WE declare that the one selfsame Christ, only-begotten Son and Lord, must be acknowledged in two natures with out any commingling or change or division or separation; that the distinction between the natures is in no way removed by their union but rather that the specific character of of each nature is preserved and they are united in one person and one hypostasis. We declare that He is not split or divided into two persons, but that there is one selfsame only-begotten Son, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ. This the prophets have taught about Him from the beginning; this Jesus Christ himself taught us; this the creed of the Fathers has handed down to us.
As these truths, therefore, have been formulated with all possible accuracy and care, the holy, ecumenical council has ordained that no one may bring foreward or put into writing or devise or entertain or teach to others any other faith." (The Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon: Denzinger-Schonmetzer 301-303)

The Tome of Leo is also really important, both in regards to christology and papal primacy. When the Tome was read, the Council Fathers announced in unison, "Peter has spoken through the mouth of Leo".

I think it is also important to note that canon about the See of Constantinople being second in rank see after Rome (Canon 28) does not have ecumenical status since the Pope did not approve it. In fact, St. Leo explicitly rejected it.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Nihil Obstat]

So the gist of that is two natures in one person?