Chalcedonian Christianity

When we look at this and we talk about Eastern Orthodoxy, yes, we are talking about the Christian churches that were under the patriarchates or the bishops or the popes of the Eastern half of the Roman Empire, as contrasted with Roman Catholicism, which is the church under the Western Latin pope, the Pope of Rome.

But internal to the East, what you have are also churches that are non-Chalcedonian or Oriental Orthodox, churches that rejected Chalcedon and are not in communion with the broader Christian church.

And so the natural question is why? Why did these churches in the East reject Chalcedon? Now, one polemic that is sometimes used against them is to suggest that the non-Chalcedonians are monophysites or meophysites.

So what does this term mean? Well, according to Chalcedonian Orthodox Christology, Christ is fully God and fully human.

These are two distinct natures.

The heresy known as monophysitism or meophysitism refers to one nature, which is to say, the two natures end up mingled or confused.

He becomes a god-man the way a centaur is a horse-man.

Now, the non-Chalcedonians, because they reject Chalcedon, are oftentimes polemically treated as if they are monophysites, that in rejecting Chalcedon and saying that there is only one nature of Christ, which is something that was common amongst the non-Chalcedonians, that they must be affirming that the natures are mingled or confused.

Now, you may be asking, what is the real difference between believing that Christ had one nature that was fully human and fully divine, or that Christ had two natures that were in full communion with each other? Is this more of a distinction than a difference, you might be asking.

Well, in modern times, Miaphysite churches have improved relations quite a bit with the pro-Chalcedonian churches, uh, to the point where reunion between these different groups of churches might be possible.

In the fifth century, this debate was very intense.

People really believed that if they got the definition about Christ's nature wrong, that they would anger God, jeopardize their salvation, and potentially bring God's wrath down upon the people of the Earth.

...

it i- it is, uh, the, the two natures in the Chalcedonian definition, uh, from, from, from 451, which he, which he develops and, and, and, uh, underwrites.

You have two natures in one person without confusion, change, division, or separation.

And, uh, it's a, it's a very, uh, delicate tightrope walk.

So here we go.

Quote, with what arguments might we benefit the Orthodox? That is the Chalcedonians, but not the Nestorians, the Jacobites, that's followers of Jacob Baradeus, Bishop of Edessa, the Julianists, these are followers of Julian of Halicarnassus, and the Maronites, defenders of monothelitism, nor the other heretics who lay claim to Christianity.

So these are all heretical sects he's mentioned.

Each of these sects imagines that our efforts to confirm Christianity work to their benefit alone, they being the only true Christians.

Classical theology, we, we might summarize it most, uh, concisely by saying it's, it's the theology represented in the great creeds and confessions of the church.

Go back to the ancient church, we have the Nicene Creed, the Chalcedonian formula.

They really set the, the stage for thinking about God, for understanding what the scriptures teach about God for the next well over a thousand years.

You come to the Reformation ...

That's right.

And, you know, that can be hard for people to grasp because we tend to think words point to actual realities rather than to, to limits.

Chalcedonian definition is really four negative statements, you know.

Right.

They're two.

The Chalcedonian split in 451 separates them.

Greek Orthodox and Latin are Chalcedonian.

Armenian, Syriac, Coptic, Ethiopian are Oriental Orthodox, non-Chalcedonian.

And that 1500-year-old division still structures who sits where and who holds what rights.

So the seating chart in the Holy Sepulchre is a map of a council that happened in the 5th century.

One of them is at least their take on truly God and truly man.

Of course, that is— properly understood or understood in the Chalcedonian way.

This is biblical theology.

This is accepted theology for 1,800 years or so.