Sunteți pe pagina 1din 70

Concerning the Non-Chalcedonians

Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon)

Commemorated on the Sunday closest to July 16

Glory to God for all things

Miracle of St. Euphemia Fourth Ecumenical Council

"We live in a time characterized by Rebellion against the Apostolic and ecclesiastical
Orthodox spirituality of the Holy Fathers. Alarming is also the great multitude of the visible
and invisible enemies of the Orthodox Church. Enemies from without and within, and the
danger exists that we may become confused, misled, scandalized and spiritually hypothermic
if we fail to guard ourselves with the fail-safe direction of the Holy Fathers."
--Constantine Zalalas

I write these things not wishing to cause distress to the heretics or to rejoice in their ill-
treatment -- God forbid; but, rather, rejoicing and being gladdened at their return. For what is
more pleasing to the Faithful than to see the scattered children of God gathered again as
one? Neither do I exhort you to place harshness above the love of men. May I not be so mad!
I beseech you to do and to carry out good to all men with care and assiduity, becoming all
things to all men, as the need of each is shown to you; I want and pray you to be wholly
harsh and implacable with the heretics only in regard to cooperating with them or in any way
whatever supporting their deranged belief. For I reckon it hatred towards man and a
departure from Divine love to lend support to error, so that those previously seized by it might
be even more greatly corrupted.--St. Maximus the Confessor (Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 91 col.
Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 6

ISSUES ........................................................................................................................................................... 6

BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................... 6

WITH LOVE AND RESPECT ............................................................................................................................. 7

PREVIOUS PERSECUTIONS TOWARDS ANTI-CHALCEDONIANS ..................................................................... 7

ENCOUNTERS WITH ANTI-CHALCEDONIANS ................................................................................................ 7

WHAT IS DOGMA AND THEOLOGY ............................................................................................................... 8

THEOLOGY AS A THERAPEUTIC SCIENCE....................................................................................................... 8

ANONYMOUS QUOTE IN FORUM ON CHALCEDON CONTROVERSY ........................................................... 11

FR. JOHN ROMANIDES EXPLANATION ABOUT NON-CHALCEDONIANS ..................................................... 13

FR. JOHN ROMANIDES INTERPRETATION OF CHALCEDON........................................................................ 15

FR. JOHN ROMANIDES FINAL RESPONSE TO THE NON-CHALCEDONIANS ................................................ 17

A NEW MONOPHYSITISM, BY FR. GEORGES FLOROVSKY ........................................................................... 18


ABOVE STATEMENTS................................................................................................................................... 19

EXTERNAL GOODNESS DOES NOT IMPLY CORRECT DOGMA ..................................................................... 20

TRUE ORTHODOXY ...................................................................................................................................... 20

ANTI-CHALCEDONIAN CLAIMS .................................................................................................................... 21

NON-CHALCEDONIANS CLAIM THEIR CHRISTOLOGY IS PATRISTIC............................................................. 21

FURTHER MONOPHYSITE INTERPRETATIONS ............................................................................................. 21


TEACHINGS OF SAINT CYRIL OF ALEXANDRIA ............................................................................................. 22


SAINT CYRIL CONFESSES TWO-NATURES .................................................................................................... 25

ST. CYRIL'S LETTER TO JOHN OF ANTIOCH .................................................................................................. 25

HYPOSTATIC-UNION.................................................................................................................................... 25

NATURE AND PERSON EXPLAINED .............................................................................................................. 26


CHALCEDONIAN CHRISTOLOGY AND PLATONISM ...................................................................................... 29

PERSISTANT MONOPHYSITE REJECTION OF ST. CYRIL'S TEACHINGS .......................................................... 29

MONOPHYSITES CONDEMNATION OF SAINT CYRIL ................................................................................... 29

MONOPHYSITES DIVIDED AMONGST THEMSELVES ................................................................................... 30

MONOPHYSITE DIFFERENCES IN ICON VENERATION ................................................................................. 32

THE FRUITS OF THE MONOPHYSITES .......................................................................................................... 35

THE FALSE (A.K.A. ROBBER) COUNCIL OF EPHESUS .................................................................................... 35

PATRIARCHS DEFROCKED & MARTYRED BY MONOPHYSITES .................................................................... 36

CHALCEDONIAN CREED AFFIRMED ............................................................................................................. 36

SAINT LEO THE GREAT AND HIS TOME ....................................................................................................... 36

MIRACLE OF MARTYR SAINT EUPHEMIA CONFIRMS TWO-NATURES ........................................................ 37



SAINT MAXIMUS THE CONFESSORS TRIAL, EXILE AND VINDICATION ....................................................... 40

SAINT THEODOSIUS THE CENOBIARCH, CONFESSOR OF CHALCEDON ....................................................... 41

SAINT SAVVAS THE SANCTIFIED AND RETURN OF HIS RELICS .................................................................... 42


HISTORY DISTORTED ................................................................................................................................... 45



.................................................................................................................................................................... 50
HOW TO RECEIVE ANTI-CHALCEDONIANS .................................................................................................. 50

COPTIC POPE SHENOUDAS CHRISTOLOGY................................................................................................. 51

A RESPONSE TO COPTIC POPE SHENOUDAS CHRISTOLOGY ...................................................................... 51

MODERN ANTI-CHALCEDONIAN BELIEFS .................................................................................................... 51

THE NON-ORTHODOX THEOLOGY OF SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH .................................................................... 52

SAINT ATHANASIUS THE GREATS REFUTATION OF SEVERUS CHRISTOLOGY ........................................... 55

FURTHER ERRONEOUS TEACHINGS OF PATRIARCH SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH ............................................... 57



(COUNCIL) ................................................................................................................................................... 59

ECONOMIA BECOMES THE NORM .............................................................................................................. 60

APOSTLES WARN AGAINST HERESY ............................................................................................................ 60

AN ADMONITION TO THE MISLED .............................................................................................................. 61


CLOSING ...................................................................................................................................................... 63

FALSE-UNITY WITH THE HETERODOX ......................................................................................................... 63

BETRAYAL OF THE FAITH ............................................................................................................................. 64

ALLIANCE IN FALSEHOOD - UNION WITH MONOPHYSITES ........................................................................ 64

RESPONSES TO ABOVE AGREEMENT OF FAITH, CHAMBESY UNION .......................................................... 64


CHURCH ...................................................................................................................................................... 64

ARE THE NON-CHALCEDONIANS ORTHODOX ? .......................................................................................... 65


OUR LEGACY ? ............................................................................................................................................. 66

FEEDBACK.................................................................................................................................................... 67

AGAIN WITH LOVE AND RESPECT ............................................................................................................... 67

ST. JOHN OF DAMASCUS AND THE ORTHODOXY OF NON-CHALCEDONIANS .......................................... 67

A FINAL WORD ............................................................................................................................................ 68

I WRAP THIS UP BY THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT ..................................................................................... 69

STEPS TO ORTHODOX-MONOPHYSITE UNION ........................................................................................... 69


This article is in no way addressed to Anti-Chalcedonians. Rather, it is for informational
purposes to address any confusion that exists giving the impression that the Anti-
Chalcedonians are Orthodox, that they have been the victims of a theological
misunderstanding by the Orthodox Church, that they have a valid priesthood and that
we are of the same body of Christ with the only difference separating us being
semantics and mistranslations by the Holy Fathers of our Church.

The following is a list of the Anti-Chalcedonian, Non-Orthodox, Monophysite Parishes:

Armenian Apostolic Church

Syriac [Jacobite] Orthodox Church (excluding Syrian parishes under Antiochian
Greek Patriarch),
Indian Orthodox Church
Coptic Orthodox Church (including British Orthodox Church under Coptic
Patriarch of Alexandria),
Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church ('tewahido' is a Ge'ez word meaning
'being made one') and
Newly autocephalous Eritrean Orthodox Church.


What disturbs me most is that this misinformed and confusing spirit has begun to creep
its way into some of our Greek Parishes. The Anti-Chalcedonians are erroneously being
led to believe (whether by words, acts or gestures), that they are Orthodox and that we
in fact share the same faith. I have engaged in discussions with some clergy and laity,
who hold the belief that our Holy-Fathers made a mistake, and that the fourth
Ecumenical Council was not ecumenical and is not applicable.

There have been numerous cases in the past, where Anti-Chalcedonians have entered
into our church and partaken of our Holy Mysteries (Sacraments) without making a
proper confession of faith adhering to the correct dogmas, particularly the Fourth to the
Seventh Ecumenical Councils.



I wish to point out at this time that, this article is in no way suggesting or making
assumptions about the integrity, piety, level of faith or repentance expressed by Anti-
Chalcedonians or, also known as, Oriental-Orthodox. Whether they will be saved or not,
is a matter for God to decide. I wish to state the following quote from the following

"We deeply respect and admire Coptic piety. Many Copts far exceed Orthodox in their
dedication to God and fidelity to their faith. But our respect must not impede us from
telling them the truth, bringing them into the Church properly..." Copts and Orthodoxy


And I will add to the above statement, the Anti-Chalcedonians / Oriental-Orthodox have
suffered greatly for their Faith and virtuous life, this is a historical fact that cannot be
denied. For example, we have the Armenian Genocide and the latter Egyptian Coptic
Church that was previously bombed by Islamic Extremists, which sadly killed several
Coptic Christians while they were worshiping during a service. Forgive me for not
knowing the exact number of casualties. But I believe, and do not quote me as I am not
certain, the numbers of casualties is somewhere up in the thousands and possibly even


In my life I have known many Armenians and Coptics, as ethnically, I am of Greek-

Cypriot descent and I understand and feel there pain as my ancestors have undergone
similar persecutions. Most of Armenians and Copts come from war-torn countries and
they suffer gravely for their faith and virtue. I have known many Armenians who while
they lived in Turkey, if word ever got out that they were Armenian, of Christian faith,
they were illegally framed and jailed by the local Turkish police, persecuted or
sometimes unjustly killed by Turkish fundamentalists. And likewise Coptics and other
Oriental Orthodox have been persecuted in the past. However, the fact that they
suffered so much in the past, and may continue to suffer, (I say may, not to deny,
diminish, or minimize their unjust treatment, but rather, only because I am not aware of
any recent incidents), does not in any way imply that their faith and dogmas are correct.

Yes it is true, we must treat them with love, compassion, mercy and kindness, and I am
not denying this. For this is a commandment from Christ God himself, "Love your
neighbours as far more important than all the burnt offerings and sacrifices."
--St. Mark 12:33


The Difference Between Orthodox Spirituality and Other Traditions

-- by Metropolitan (Bishop) Hierotheos Vlachos of Nafpaktos, Greece

...dogmas are the results of decisions made at the Ecumenical [Universal] Councils on
various matters of faith. Dogmas are referred to as such, because they draw the
boundaries between truth and error, between sickness and health. Dogmas express the
revealed truth. They formulate the life of the Church. Thus they are, on the one hand,
the expression of Revelation and on the other act as remedies in order to lead us to
communion with God; to our reason for being.

Dogmatic differences reflect corresponding differences in therapy. If a person does not

follow the right way he cannot ever reach his destination. If he does not take the proper
remedies, he cannot ever acquire health; in other words, he will experience no
therapeutic benefits. Again, if we compare Orthodox spirituality with other Christian
traditions, the difference in approach and method of therapy is more evident.

A fundamental teaching of the Holy Fathers is that the Church is a Hospital which
cures the wounded man. In many passages of Holy Scripture such language is used...

the Church is a Hospital which cures people wounded by sin; and the bishops and
priests are the therapists of the people of God (St. John Chrysostom).

Orthodox spirituality is God-centered, whereas all others [Faiths] are man-centered.

Metropolitan (Bishop) Hierotheos Vlachos of Nafpaktos,


From what has been said so far it is clear that Christianity [Orthodoxy] is principally a
science which cures, that is to say, a psychotherapeutic method and treatment. The
same should be said of theology. It is not a philosophy but mainly a therapeutic
treatment. Orthodox theology shows clearly that on the one hand it is a fruit of therapy
and on the other hand it points the way to therapy. In other words, only those who have
been cured and have attained communion with God [Theosis] are theologians, and they
alone can show Christians the true way to reach the 'place' of cure. So theology is both
a fruit and a method of therapy. Metropolitan (Bishop) Hierotheos Vlachos of

What is meant by the statement that Orthodoxy is God-centered, as opposed to man-


According to the ancient Orthodox traditions, (and these are not my own words, but
rather the writings of all the Holy Prophets, Apostles and Early Church Fathers since the
beginning of time), God always loves man, even the devil himself, regardless of whether
they do whats right or not. Regardless of whether they are a supposed Good Boy.
God loves and cares for ALL OF HIS CREATION, unconditionally. God wishes ALL TO
BE SAVED. But not everyone wants to be saved or let alone healed of their passions
and illness and patterns of destructive behavior.

According to modern society, they hold the belief that it is not the person who changes;
it is God! According to them, man does not change. The only thing that man has to do
according to them is to become a good guy. And when a former bad guy becomes
a good guy, that is when God will love him. Otherwise, God will abhor him! If that
person remains or becomes a bad guy, then God will simply not love him! In other
words, if a person becomes a good guy, then God will change and be good to him;
and now, instead of not loving that person, God will now love him! When a person
becomes a bad guy, God becomes angry, and, when a person becomes a good guy,
God becomes happy!

...and this spirit is prevalent in very many of those who are in the Church. Orthodoxy
has reached the point of becoming a religion, where God changes His dispositions!
When a person is good, God will love him. When he is bad, God will not love him. In
other words, God punishes and God rewards! Fr. John Romanides

Now in the situation of Monophysitism or Monothelitism, the person just sits there and
prays and hopes for God to act or intervene. For if the human natures and human wills
are united into a third hybrid nature and / or third hybrid will, or the human nature is
fused or absorbed into the divine nature, as the heretic Archimandrate Eutyches
taught, then the result is that there is a lack of human effort and a person only needs
to believe, pray and hope with little human effort or struggle on his part whatsoever. The
result is that humanity is transformed into robots where they lose the ability or freedom
to freely act and freely obey the uncreated Lord of Glory.

Humanity is ultimately reduced to complete and utter passivity. This is clearly the
opposite of what the Apostle St. James said in his epistle, Faith without works is dead.
And likewise works without faith Apostle St. Paul, is equally as damaging. For if we

have works but no faith, then for what are we doing those works? For ourself? For our
own recognition? To be seen by men? As the Pharisees did or, For our own self-
glorification? Then we do what the Apostle St. Paul instructs us not to. We boast of our
works and become a god unto ourself.

The essence of Orthodoxy is that we (all of humanity), regardless of who we are, where
we come from, or what weve done or been through in the past, are all sick and all in
need of therapeutic healing now in the present time, not after death. After death there is
no change and no healing for we are already dead and we cannot affect change, as in
the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus where "there is a great gulf (barrier) fixed and
neither one in Paradise or Hades can pass from one side to the other." --St. Luke 16:26.
However, there have been some instances in Orthodoxy were some have been freed
from the chains of Hades [see: the monastic orphan who used the alms and prayers to
pull his mother from Hades which resulted in a foul stench emanating from his scorched
hand], but these are very rare and extreme cases and not to be seen as an absolute. In
fact, in these cases, where God allowed the person to be freed from the chains of
Hades, He (God) said to the one who requested a loved one to be freed, Do not ask
me to do this again.

Orthodoxy is concerned with the present state of a person's soul who without bias,
takes the sick patient "as is", regardless of gender, upbringing or disposition and
provides the medicine that the church has to offer. If the patient is willing, and if the
patient follows the correct approved method of procedure (indicated by the doctor and
indicated on the label) when taking the medicine, the patient will over time become
healthy. If the patient does not correctly take the medicine, they will not only NOT be
healed, but may become more sick or experience side-effects. The patient may also
infect others. This does not mean the medicine ceases to work or loses its supposed
ability to heal that it naturally possesses, it only reaffirms that the medicine does work
and that God is a double-edged sword" --Hebrews 4:12, which can either heal or be "a
consuming fire. --Hebrews 12:29; 10:27 and 10:31.

The medicine can be helpful or potent it is the persons individual choice and action not
Gods. God never imposes on our free-will; He respects our freedom to choose. And
likewise a doctor never forces us to take the medicine or to seek therapeutic treatment
against our will.

Orthodoxy, as opposed to other faiths, is Theo-centric (God centered), not anthropo-

centric (man centered), meaning, man is the one who changes, man is the one who is in
need of therapeutic healing and regeneration, man is the one who needs to change his
ways, habits, customs and ill patterns of behaviour to be godlike (or Christ-like).

So how does man change? Man changes by participating in the ecclesiastical and
ascetical life of the church. But let us also add that whether man changes or not, God

does not stop loving man, God does not cease from using various means to reach us,
either through people or through various circumstances. However, God also respects
our free-will and will not force change.

Or in the words of the late Fr. John Romanides, one of the greatest theologians of our
time next to Fr. Georges Florovsky and Fr. George Metalinos:

'Glorification is God's will for all, both in this life and in the next life. But God's glory in
Christ is eternal life for those who are properly cured and prepared. But this same
"uncreated glory of Christ" is eternal fire for those who refuse to be cured. The one
group is glorified and the other becomes forever happy in their selfishness like the
"actus purus god" they believe in.' --Fr. John Romanides

So we see that from an Orthodox Perspective, as opposed to other faiths, our purpose
is to achieve Glorification (Theosis), becoming "God's by grace" --Psalm 82:6 and be
"partakers of His divine nature" --2 Peter 1:4, instead of other faiths, where they perform
supposed acts of merit, an at the end of their earthly life achieve this supposed reward
of eternal happiness.

It is strange that many Christians have completely disregarded the tradition of the Early
Church Fathers where Theosis (Glorification), attained only through purification of the
human nous 'through ascetic struggles' and participation in His (God's) Holy Mysteries,
has never been the central core, sole purpose and priority of their faith.

If one does not see the Glory of God, or at least partially see it, in this life, then they will
not see it in the next life. Or rather, they may see it as a consuming fire and outer
darkness as was the case in the parable of the Rich man and Lazarus where Lazarus
was in the bosom of the Patriarch Abraham being comforted in paradise, while the Rich
man was being tormented in Hades (Luke 16:19-31).

Every bit of Church dogma was imposed through the blood of those ready to give their
life to defend it; being a matter of life not merely a theoretical speculation Father
Dumitru Staniloae, Theological Graduate.


At this point, I wish to quote a statement made by an anonymous blogger on the

Chalcedonian controversy:

The Chalcedon controversy created martyrs on both sides many who are
venerated Saints. Yet the current situation claims that these saints and church

Fathers on BOTH sides were simply ignorant stupid men who couldnt tell the
difference between semantics and heresy (even though the Coptic and Greek
language and culture are alike!).

I also believe there are reservations on the OO [Oriental-Orthodox] side, since all
thats holding re-union is for the non-chalcedonians to accept the 4th-7th
ecumenical councils.

If re-union occurs without the need to accept the councils, then we have become
Protestants. Any Ecumenist will find similar loopholes to push their agenda &
protestant apologetics will use this to show that Orthodoxy accepts anyone as their
own as well.

The other point I wanted to make is to criticise my Church on this.

...Unfortunately most hierarchs who are into the ecumenism scene do not care
about the non-chalcedonian churches. The Orthodox ecumenists only care about
union with the large RICH WESTERN CHURCHES. The E.P. [European Union]
needs their clout; he needs them as allies for his survival in Turkey. The other
Ecumenists seem to have an inferiority complex, where the western churches is
where its at and once again dont care about the other dying churches of the
east. This is where the Laity needs to wake up and demand true healthy
ecumenism and chastise their bishops for acting with submissiveness to the
western heresies. Last time this happened it ended in an ecumenist tragedy of
epic proportions: the council of Florence!

All Id like to say on this above quote is very well put. This is what we need to consider
whenever dialoguing with the anti-chalcedonians or non-orthodox for that matter.

The issue here is not the dialoguing; it is the way the dialogues are being carried out. As
the Very Reverend and Late Metropolitan Philaret once stated in his second sorrowful
epistle to the deceived and misled Patriarch Athenagoras of Constantinople: practice...the Protestant doctrine according to which excommunication from

the Church because of dogmatical error, does not bar the one excommunicated
from membership in Her. In other words, it means that communion in the mystery
of the God-man Jesus does not necessarily depend upon membership in the
Orthodox Church. Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow and New York.


It is to be understood that the below comments by the very Reverend Fr. John
Romanides were made at the time when the Non-Chalcedonians were considering
accepting the Fourth to the Seventh Ecumenical Councils and Fr. Romanides, was in
the process of slowly wining them over.

I take issue with several parts of the above comments made by Fr. Romanides.

1. It appears that the comments, are minimizing, overly excusing, defending, or

justifying the behaviour of the heretic Dioscorus as opposed to St. Leo of Rome.

2. The following comments, "In other words whether one says two united natures
distinguished in thought alone, or one nature out of two natures distinguished in thought
alone, one is professing the same reality." --Forgive me, but I don't agree with this
statement particularly since the Tome of Leo is what St. Euphemia elevated by her
miracle. And also, this is contrary to what the minutes of Chalcedon stated in their
decision. As well, to state, two hypostatically united natures, without confusion, mixture,
alteration or separation, is not the same as one combined or compound nature out of
two. For one professes that the two natures remain distinct, that which they are being
held together hypostatically (by Christs person or second person of the Holy Trinity),
while the other claims that the two natures combine into one cancelling eachother out
and thus denying the hypostatic union or erroneously claiming that hypostasis and
nature are the same thing.

These comments also require great attention, "thought alone", are strangely and
coincidentally similar comments that were used during the Eastern Orthodox / Oriental
Orthodox agreed-signed statement of faith, (a.k.a. Chambesy Union) to incorrectly
conclude that we and the Monophysites share the same faith. The comments of this
Chambesy Agreement are as follows, "The Oriental Orthodox agree that the Orthodox
are justified in their use of the 'two-natures' formula, since they acknowledge that the
distinction is in 'thought alone' ( ).
EO_Agreement_Excerpts.jpg , paragraph 1.

-- Which one of the Holy-Fathers of our church would conclude that the dogmas of our
faith were a 'thought-process' only? Did not the Holy and enlightened Fathers of our
church actually try to live, breathe and act out the words they professed? In other
words, they didn't just say they were holy, they acted Holy as well. To minimize our faith
and dogma to a thought process only, as the heterodox do, is to reduce dogma into a
theological opinion. Once this occurs, then the final conclusion one will come to is, "You

can believe this or that, but it doesn't really matter so long as you believe in something."
If this were the case, then where does the healing come into play? Which of the Holy-
Fathers considered the dogmas of our church just a 'thought-process' only? Right belief
also meant right practice, right action and right worship. Not just something in our head
that presupposes two alternate truths or alternate realities.

So either we accept that Christ has one-nature after the union, (in which case we owe
the Monophysites a very grave apology and proceed to lift the anathemas against
Dioscorus, Severus, Zanzalus, Eutyches, etc.), of course this would also involve us
denying the Miracle of St. Euphemia and ultimately denying our own faith. Or, on the
other hand, we refuse to compromise with the Monophysites, we continue to accept the
two-natures, stay loyal to the Holy-Fathers of Chalcedon and let these heretics and
Ecumenists do what they want so long as we refuse to participate with them.

3. On another note by Fr. Romanides a lot of generalizations, speculations and

analogies are made, when comparing Dioscorus support of Eutyches to St. Leo's
support of the heretic Theodoret of Mopsuestia (founder and teacher of Nestorius). The
fact that St. Leo may have supported the heretic Theodoret of Mopsuestia, (again this is
questionable), does not imply that St. Leo's faith, Tome or judgment, was somehow
tainted, biased or flawed (as the Monophysites attempt to imply.)

Theodoret of Mopsuestias theology was never accepted during the 4 th Ecumenical

Synod (Council), but rather, Theodore of Mopsuestia was only allowed a seat during
this council (Chalcedon) as accuser of Patriarch Dioscorus.

Nevertheless, Theodore of Mopsuestia was later condemned for heresy in the Fifth
Ecumenical Council for his attacks on St. Cyril of Alexandria teachings of the hypostatic-
union of the two natures of Christ.

Again, given the fact that St. Leo's tome (epistle to St. Patriarch Flavian - later martyred
by Dioscorus and some monks present during robber-council) was accepted by St.
Euphemia from her tomb after her physical death. It seems to me that Fr. Romanides,
perhaps in an attempt to win over the Non-Chalcedonians to our side, was only
succeeding in discrediting St. Leo, while excusing, justifying or minimizing the actions of
Dioscorus. Dioscorus was anathematized rightfully by an Ecumenical Synod for
disobedience and rightfully for canonical crimes. Whether he was defrocked and
anathematized for heresy or not is irrelevant. And further, Dioscorus clearly made a
confession of faith by his statement before the council, "i receive the 'of two', 'the two', I
do not receive ( , ). I am forced to be impudent. But
the matter is one which touches my soul."

I find it odd, that Fr. Romanides did not consider this above statement by Dioscorus as
a confession of faith. As a result of this, Dioscorus was made out to be an innocent and
excusable victim.

Some modern-monophysites have also claimed that St. Cyril in his letter to John of
Antioch, was only compromising his beliefs for the sake of "preserving unity" and that
St. Cyril supposedly did not really and truly believe in two-natures after the union, but
rather that he was only stating this to preserve unity This would imply that St. Cyril
lacked integrity, and was not being truthful, or that St. Cyril was more concerned with
compromise for the sake of preserving unity then correct dogma.

Again, as mentioned earlier, all we have to rely on is holy tradition, the writings of the
Holy-Fathers, their life and teachings, the minutes and decisions of the councils, etc.
We cannot and should not make assumptions, speculations, conclusions or
generalizations on information we don't have or lack thereof on what St. Cyril of
Alexandria really meant in his epistle to Bishop John of Antioch (not St. Chrysostom).

We do not have any information or sources before us that St. Cyril of Alexandria was
supposedly being untruthful in his statement to Bishop John of Antioch about believing
in two-natures. And further, St. Cyril is not here today with us, nor was he present
during the fourth Ecumenical Synod, to suggest otherwise. Any statements on St. Cyrils
mind, are mere speculation and should be rejected.

And this is the problem I have with these two above articles. The Monophysites are
now using these articles in their defence, they directly quote and make reference to both
Fr. Romanides and Fr. Meyendorff to continue supporting and justifying their
unorthodox beliefs

4. Fr. Romanides also stated, "The Basic question was not whether one accepted two
natures or one nature in Christ, but whether one accepted that the Logos Himself, Who
is cosubstantial with His Father, became Himself consubsantial with his mother and us
without confusion, change, separation, division, etc." --I have to humbly disagree. This
is the opposite of what the Holy-Fathers stated in their final-decisions as recorded in the
Minutes of Chalcedon. In Fact, the Holy-Fathers do agree in part with this above-
statement, but they also add, "Christ is to be expressed as possessing two-natures after
the union." As mentioned in the later writings of St. John of Damascus.

5. And a few other concerns with Fr. Romanides' allegedly above two links.


VI. So-called Neo-Chalcedonianism.

20. Theologians of the Vatican have been supporting their position that Leo of Rome
and his Tome became the basis of the decisions of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of
451 which, according to them, supposedly corrected the monophysitic and theopassian
tendencies of the Cyril of Alexandria.

But the reality of the matter was that some 50 bishops refused to sign Leos Tome
claiming that it did not agree with the Synodical Letters of Cyril against Nestorius which
were the basis of the decision of the Third Ecumenical Council in 381. They were given
five day to examine the Tome of Leo with the said letters of Cyril. They all agreed that
Leo indeed agrees with Cyrill.

Their statements to this effect are individually recorded in the minutes. So Cyril and not
Leo was the key to the Council of Chalcedon.

Evidently the Vatican has been keeping this fact quiet since it makes a mockery of so-
called Papal infallibility.

Contrary to these minutes of Chalcedon are the scholars who claim that the Council of
Chalcedon modified the Monophysitic tendencies of Cyrill and supposedly de-
emphasized the theopassianism of his Twelve Chapters. But Cyrils Two Synodical
Letters to Nestorius and his 383 letter to John of Antioch are included the Horos of
Chalcedon "to which have been adapted the Tome of Leo..." In spite of these facts
scholars of the Vatican propose that Leo, and not Cyril, is "the" Great Father of the
Council of Chalcedon. As these scholars see things strict Cyrilians refused to accept the
Council of Chalcedon because of Leos victory.

So in order bring these Cyrilians back to the Imperial Church Emperor Justinian
convened the Fifth Ecumenical Council in order to supposedly "reinterpret" Chalcedon
within strict Cyrilian categories. This imperial Justinian reinterpretation is called Neo-
Chalcedonianism. That no such thing ever happened is supported by studies on this

What is especially strange is that the Latin positions on Neo-Chalcedonianism are text
book taught at the theological faculty of the University of Athens as historical reality.
Sometimes part of this myth is the idea that Cyril became fully Orthodox when he
accepted John of Antioch confession of Christs two natures. It was not Cyril of
Alexandria who adjusted his terminology to John, but John to Cyril.

With respect to what Fr. John Romanides quotes above, the purpose and position of
this article is not to either argue in favour of St. Leo over St. Cyril or vice-versa. I take no
position whether St. Cyril or St. Leo was the great-father of the Fourth Ecumenical
Council, or whether it was St. Leo of Rome or St. Cyril of Alexandria who became the
basis of the decisions of the Fourth Ecumenical Council. Both Saints Cyril and Leo are
recognized Saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church. And the only point Id like to make
with respect to what Fr. Romanides stated above, is that whether one accepts St. Cyrils
Christology or St. Leos Christology, they are professing the same reality for both
believed and stressed the same Christology. As stated elsewhere in this article, just as
we believe in the Godhead to be expressed as a trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit,

inseparable, is just as we believe in one Christ to be expressed as two-fold in nature,

Fully God and Fully Man, without mixture, confusion, alteration, division or

Critics of the Fourth (Chalcedonian) Council, argue that to accept this council is a return
to Nestorianism. However, if they are to argue as such, then they might as well claim
that Trinitarians believe in three gods, and not one, since we express the Godhead in
three hypostasis (persons).

And if we overemphasize Gods oneness then we imply that the Father and Holy Spirit
also suffered on the cross. And likewise, if we overemphasize Christs oneness, we say
that the Divine Nature too suffered on the cross.

The non-chalcedonians, by further claiming the divinity and humanity combine into one
nature, from two, not in two, further run the risk of creating a third-hybrid-nature
comprised of only part God and part man.

So both 3rd and 4th Ecumenical Councils are needed in conjunction. For neither is the
third apart from the 4th sufficient, and neither is the 4th apart from the 3rd. And likewise,
the 5th-9th Ecumenical Councils are the full revelation and truth of the Orthodox Faith.


Thus, we see today the Monophysites accepting the doctrine of *one nature in Christ,*
but rejecting the accusations that they are heretical Monophysites. They accept, as
Dioscorus did, that the one, who was born from the Virgin, is co-essential with the
Father with respect to manhood. Their doctrine, although still remaining unclear, states
that *Christ has two natures before the union [incarnation], but one after the union,
without this implying that his humanity is canceled out.* This doctrine, however, is open
to the change of possibly leading to Nestorianism. For in saying that *the humanity is
not canceled out,* and in identifying nature and hypostasis, it appears that they accept
two hypostasis and two persons in Christ, which amounts to nothing else but
Nestorianism! (From page 61 of Fr. John Romanides book An Outline of Orthodox
Patristic Dogmatics).

In the end, when the very reverend and late Fr. John Romanides realized that the
Monophysites / Miaphysites, had no desire to abandon their anti-Orthodox position, and
that all Fr. Romanides efforts to win them over had failed, his final comments with
respect to this so-called false union were:

We have all along been the object of an ecumenical technique which aims at the
accomplishment of intercommunion or communion or union without an
agreement on Chalcedon and the Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Ecumenical Councils

(Minutes of the Conference in Geneva, The Greek Orthodox Theological Review,

Vol. XVI, p. 30).


On the other extreme we have in our days a revival of "Monophysite" tendencies in

theology and religion [both inside and outside our church amongst both some of our
clergy and laity], when man is reduced to complete passivity and is ALLOWED ONLY
TO LISTEN AND TO HOPE [Hope but do not act. Pray but do not speak. Listen but do
not question. Accept but do not challenge. And finally, blindly follow without discretion].

The present tension between "liberalism" and "neo-orthodoxy" [Modernism, Feminism,

Abortionism, Gay Activism, Atheism and finally Nihilism] is in fact a re-enactment of the
old Christological struggle, on a new existential level and in a new spiritual key. The
conflict will never be settled or solved in the field of theology, unless a wider vision is
acquired." --Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View, page 14-15.

In a nutshell, Monophysitism is a rejection that Christ's human nature is co-substantial

with ours (humanitys). That Christ took on a like nature with ours, in order to crucify it,
resurrect it, glorify it, deify it, save it, heal it and restore back into union with the Lord of

Monophysitism is the rejection that in our humanity we are required to humanly struggle
to obtain Theosis, our ultimate goal. Theosis was also rejected by the late Coptic Pope
(Patriarch) Shenouda of Alexandria, the same Pope Shenouda who embraced gnostic
and Islamic teachings, and repetitively attacked the Coptic Monastery of St. Macarius
the Great, and then went on to further repetitively attacked Coptic Theologians as Dr.
David Bebawi who studied the 4th Ecumenical Synod (Chalcedon) in its original Greek
and possibly accepted it.

Monophysite tendencies both in and outside the church are a CLEAR REJECTION of
growth, spiritual progress, spiritual salvation and finally THEOSIS our ultimate goal.

One can possibly draw the conclusion that, the whole purpose of Christian theology
and the resurrection, can be summed up in the 4th Ecumenical Synod at Chalcedon.
Without Chalcedon there is no proper understanding let alone effort of salvation. And I
will add, possibly no salvation period.

So called experts will tell you that Chalcedon is not required for salvation that there are
other ways, methods and sources. The bottom line is this if one rejects Chalcedon (the
4th Ecumenical Synod) and continually battles against it, then they reject not only the
Holy Fathers and miracles performed at, or on behalf of Chalcedon, but the human
struggle and voluntary submission to God which is essential to salvation itself.



To simplify this, basically the heterodox which are popularly known as Monophysites
(who are really closet Nestorians) believe that nature is the same thing as a hypostases
[subsistence]. They believe that a complete human nature formed in the womb of the
Panagia and that the incarnation took place ONLY AFTER the formation of the human
nature. This means that a new Person / Hypostases of Christ was formed from two
people namely God the Logos and Jesus of Nazareth. This is paramount to saying that
you and I became one person, this is ludicrous and beyond preposterous! With this in
mind, no I do not believe that Fr. John Romanides accepted the heterodox
Monophysites as Orthodox Christians, despite that he was lead to believe so during
his earlier participation in the Ecumenical movement.

Whereas we believe that the Incarnation took place during the formation of the human
nature and that the person of God the Logos took the place of the human person in the
human nature. Therefore both natures, the Divine and Human, are both equally
belonging to God the Logos [Word].

However, does this mean that the Orientals Monophysites are not good people? No,
one might even say that we are closer to them than the Papists [Roman Catholics] in
some ways. But it doesnt make their weird views Orthodox by any means. Should we
be supportive of them during their persecution by the fanatical Muslems? Of course we
should. Is there a higher chance of them becoming Orthodox than the Papists? Yes, a
small but only chance and we shouldnt bet on it. How can we expect a family with a
little boy named Dioscoro to tell their kid that he is named after a [condemned] heretic
and that he cant pray to Dioscoros anymore? It would take a lot of humility for them to
become Orthodox I think.


There have been many men during history who have displayed great feats of heroism
and supposed piety by their actions. Gandhi was one example, when British troops
advanced on Gandhi and his fellow Indian protesters against the British, instead of
Gandhi and his protesters retaliating violently, Gandhi instructed his protesters to lay
down on the ground and protest peacefully. It is noted that Gandhi and his protesters
were mostly of Hindu faith. Does this act by Gandhi imply that the Hindu faith is correct?
Certainly not. It implies that he was by nature good. Nothing more.

Firstly, with the utmost respect, let me first make it perfectly clear. One is either
Orthodox or not. There is no partiality. No room for various forms of interpretation or

The Holy-Spirit is one, And thou shalt worship the one true triune God in spirit and in
--St. John 4:24

As revealed to the Apostles of Christ, handed down to the Ecumenical Church Fathers
of ALL seven-councils, the latter two Holy Synods of Saint Photios the Great (8th-9th
Century) and Saint Gregory Palamas (13th Century), in an unbroken chain all the way
down to our One, Holy, Catholic (Universal, not Roman Catholic), and Apostolic Church.

One who professes to be Orthodox, but does not accept the above-mentioned decisions
of these councils and synods, with the deepest, humblest and utmost respect, should
not be referred to as Orthodox. The onus weighs very heavily on the clergy, as
shepherds and guardians of the church, to uphold this obligation by not misleading,
misrepresenting or scandalizing the flock of Christ.

For as Christ states in the gospels:

"One cannot serve two masters; he will either love the one or hate the other..."
--St. Matthew 6:24

As well, one cannot claim to be Orthodox, and at the same time to claim that the Anti-
Chalcedonians have been the victims of a theological misunderstanding. To hold such a
position, is not only misleading, it tramples upon the integrity of our very dear and

beloved Holy Fathers, Elders and the very foundation that our Orthodox Faith is
grounded upon.

The Anti-Chalcedonians profess that they accurately follow the sayings of St. Cyril of
Alexandria when speaking of the nature or natures of Christ:

They dont say that the Monophysites didnt understand the Holy Fathers they
say that the Holy Fathers did not understand them. In other words, they talk as if they
are right and the fathers misunderstood them. --Elder Paisios of the Holy Mountain
Elder Paisios about Non-Chalcedonian and Heterodox


Part I -
Part II a -
Part II b -


Below is an erroneous explanation according to Coptic Christology:

On the Cross His Divinity did not part from His Humanity. However, in Its unification
with His Human nature, the former [Divinity] had let the latter [Humanity] to suffer with
no intervention whatsoever, thus making the redemptive act of suffering quite genuine.

In response to the above hear what St. John of Damascus says:

How is it possible for the same nature to be at once created and uncreated, mortal and
immortal, circumscribed and uncircumscribed?...How can they ever say that Christ has
two natures, while they are asserting that after the union He has one compound nature?
For it is obvious to anyone that, before the union, Christ had one nature

And I will add to what St. John of Damascus says above, How is it possible for the
same nature (or compound-nature), to at once suffer and not suffer. To be crucified and
yet at the same time not crucified?

Will your holiness vouchsafe to silence those who say that a crasis, or mingling or
mixture took place between the Word of God and flesh. For it is likely that certain also
gossip about me as having thought or said such things. St. Cyril of Alexandrias letter
to Bishop John of Antioch

If one accepts the above Coptic formula, then they further run the risk of implying that if
Christ has a single compound-nature, then it concludes then that Christ is not fully God
and fully man, but only partially God and partially man.

Apollinarius believed that Jesus was only partially humanPut differently, the humanity
that was assumed in the incarnation was not a complete humanity but lacked a
significant component of personhood. Apollinarius believed, then, that Jesus was only
partially human. --J.N.D. Kelly, a prominent scholar of doctrinal history

In other words, if all of Adam was lost and ruined by the fall, then Christ, the second
Adam, must put on all that Adam possessed in order to restore human nature and live
the life that Adam failed to live.

Or in the words of the Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Canada, Since human beings are
comprised of flesh and blood, so likewise the Son and Word of God assumed the same
elements. St. Paul tells us further that Christ assumed flesh and blood so that by His
death as man, He could defeat the Devil, who has the power of death; so that He could
destroy death, by death trampling down death.

Although the Son and Word of God became man and is God-man, His two natures
remain distinct. One does not absorb the other. The two natures are distinct and
separate, united in the same person [hypostasis], Christ. He is dual in nature, but one
person [hypostasis]. Two natures, one person [hypostasis].

To further add to the above words of the Greek Orthodox Metropolis, Just as the Holy
Trinity is one, yet three distinct persons (or hypostasis), Father, Son and Holy Spirit,
likewise Christ is one, yet Full Divine and fully human.



He is also called the Man from heaven, being perfect in his Divinity and perfect in his
Humanity, and considered as in one Person [hypostasis]St. Cyril of Alexandrias
letter to Bishop John of Antioch



Let us examine the words, which have caused so much confusion, used by St. Cyril of
Alexandria concerning Christs nature(s):

" " --
" Mia physi tou Theou Logou sesarkomeni "

Which is translated:
"One nature of God the Word incarnate" --Saint Cyril of Alexandria

Now after much struggling with the above statement, it occurred to me that Saint Cyril
was quoting the Gospel of St John the Theologian:

"And the word became flesh and dwelt among us..." --St. John 1:14 and,

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God..." --St. John 1:1

The word (Greek: Logos), being Christ himself, came down and became perfect man by
truly taking flesh from the ever virgin Mary.

The divine and Human Natures in Christ do not mingle [Miaphysitism] and are not
converted one into the other [Monophysitism] Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, (1997)
By Father Michael Pomazansky, Translated by Hieromonk Seraphim Rose, page 183,
paragraph 2.

The Human Natureor, in the terminology of the Holy Father, the flesh of the Lord
united with the Godhead, was enriched by Divine powers without losing anything of its
own attributes, and became a participant of the Divine dignity but not of the Divine
Nature. The flesh, being deified, was not destroyed, but continued in its own state and
nature, as the Sixth Ecumenical Council expressed it (loc. Cit.).
--Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, (1997) By Father Michael Pomazansky, Translated by
Hieromonk Seraphim Rose, page 184, paragraph 2.

As the Apostle Paul says:

Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and
desires. --Galatians 5.24

Christ further says to his disciples Peter, James and John on Mount Tabor when they
kept falling asleep while on watch, "...the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak."
--St. Matthew 26:41

Christ signifies two-distinct natures, one of Spirit and one of humanity.

We know that we are all created in the image and likeness of Christ God, and King

Solomon near his death, when speaking of man and spirit, quotes rightly when he says:

"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God
who gave it." --Ecclesiastes 12:7



One needs to take into consideration that when St. Cyril was speaking at this point in
time, he was addressing Nestorius, who falsely implied two-Christs. As well, St. Cyril
was quoting St. John 1:14 explaining how God came down and became man.

St. Cyril of Alexandria, although fully Orthodox, he nevertheless stood within the
Alexandrian theological tradition. Because of this, and also because of his intense
opposition to the heresy of Nestorius, he was especially concerned to assert the unity of
the Incarnate Word.

To do this, he picked up, the phrase, one nature (physis) of the incarnate Word of God
out of a writing which was being circulated under the name of St. Athanasius the Great.
As it happens, in the 6th century this was discovered to be a fraud the work had
actually been written by Apollinaris.

To the Antiochenes, the phrase used by St. Cyril sounded Apollinarian, and in a way
they were right; at the same time, St. Cyril (who believed that this phrase carried the
authority of St. Athanasius) was interpreting it in an Orthodox way.

St. Cyrils shortcoming was simply a certain imprecision in his way of expressing the
union of God and man in the Incarnation or rather, in his concern to emphasize the unity
of divine and human in Christ, he could find no clear way of expressing the reality of the
full humanness of Christ. His theology was Orthodox but his language was somewhat
ambiguous. He did understand that the Orthodox view of the Incarnation could be
expressed in other terms; in his letters he indicated that he also accepted speaking of
Christ as having two natures, as long as that is interpreted in an Orthodox way. His
preference, however, remained with the one nature formula, because he felt it was a
better safeguard against Nestorianism.

As St. Athanasius the Great once stated:

"God became man so that man may become God." --St. Athanasius the Great
That is... God by grace not nature.

As the psalmist says:


"I have said thou are gods. And all of thee are children of the most high." --Psalm
82:6 and thus may become "...partakers of the divine nature." --2 Peter 1:4


Now, moving on, if there is still hesitation as to whether St. Cyril believed and advocated
one-nature of Christ or not, let us examine his letter to John of Antioch:


"We confess, therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, perfect
God, and perfect Man of a reasonable soul and flesh consisting; begotten before the
ages of the Father according to his Divinity, and in the last days, for us and for our
salvation, of Mary the Virgin according to his humanity, of the same substance with
his Father according to his Divinity, and of the same substance with us according to
his humanity; for there became a union of two natures. Wherefore we confess one
Christ, one Son, one Lord." Now, if we read further down in St. Cyril's letter:

"According to this understanding of this unmixed union, we confess the holy Virgin to
be Mother of God; because God the Word was incarnate and became Man, and from
this conception he united the temple taken from her with himself."

"Will your holiness vouchsafe to silence those who say that a crasis, or mingling or
mixture took place between the Word of God and flesh? For it is likely that certain
[Monophysites] also gossip about me as having thought or said such things."

"When some of those who are accustomed to turn from the right, twist my speech to
their views [ Dioscorus, Severus, Eutyches, Zanzalus, etc.], I pray your holiness not to
wonder; but be well assured that the followers of every heresy gather the occasions of
their error from the God-inspired Scriptures, corrupting in their evil minds [Dioscorus,
Severus, Eutyches, Zanzalus, etc.] the things rightly said through the Holy Spirit, and
drawing down upon their own heads the unquenchable flame."


So we see here, that the unity of the natures is not to or with each-other [Miaphysitism],
as some Anti-Chalcedonians claim, nor does the unity diminish or cancel out the
natures and form one nature (or third hybrid nature), nor is there a compound nature
made up of partly divine and partly human, but rather, in the person (Greek: hypostasis;
Latin: subsistence) of Christ. The two-distinct natures are united by the person of Christ,
cooperating with each-other. Synergia (synergy).

The human and divine natures of Jesus Christ co-exist within one person. Without one
diminishing or enslaving the other (heresy of Plato, in which the Greek philosopher
Plato held that the human body was a prison for the soul, which resulted in some
Alexandrian Theologians concluding that, if the human body is a prison for the soul,
then the human body thus cannot be good and therefore it must be overtaken by the

Within Christ, ...there remains in Him one Person, one Personality, one
Hypostasis...Not separated or divided into two persons [Nestorianism], but one and the
same Son and only-begotten God the Word -- Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, (1997)
By Father Michael Pomazansky, Translated by Hieromonk Seraphim Rose, page 185,
paragraph 4 and page 186, paragraph 1.

As well, when we worship Christ, we do not worship His humanity and divinity
separately. We worship Christ the person as a whole.

...the veneration and worship of Christ should be directed to Him as a whole and not to
parts of His Being; it must be one...for example, a mother to a child...would never refer
his attachment to the heart of the beloved person, but will refer it to the given person as
a whole. -- Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, (1997) By Father Michael Pomazansky,
Translated by Hieromonk Seraphim Rose, page 187, paragraph 2 A Word on the Latin
Cult of the Heart of Jesus

I must also state here, so there is no misunderstanding or confusion, because Christ

was also perfect man, he could not sin, let alone be tempted by sin. He voluntarily went
to the cross, conquering death by death.


Now, let us define the difference between nature and person:

" nature is what a thing is, its substance, its form, its powers, etc., whereas person is
who a thing is, the self-determining entity or personality in which nature resides."

In other words, a human-being is one person (existence). But within his being (person),
he has a human-nature that takes on the characteristics of a human, performs the
functions of a human, gets hungry, tired, angry, etc. And subsequently, he also has a
spirit, which takes on the characteristics of a spirit and performs spiritual functions.

Just as a candle is one, but within that candle it has a flame and a wick. The two are
within the candle, consisting of one single candle, but within that candle, the flame
performs one function and likewise the wick performs another function Both the flame
and the wick work in cooperation (synergy) with each-other. As a result of the

cooperation, the flame still remains a flame and does not cease from being a flame. And
vice-versa, the wick remains a wick. As the Apostle Saint James puts it: "For as the
body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also." St. James 2:26


Prior to the Fourth Ecumenical Council held at Chalcedon, there were two major
schools of early Christian Theology, and they were, the Alexandrian School and the
Antiochian. That is not to say that there werent other theological schools, just that these
above-mentioned theological schools where the major ones.

It is true that many times, various Holy Fathers sometimes quoted early Greek
Philosophers to support or further explain Christian Theology; however, this was only a
method to use human language to better explain Christian theology to us created
beings in a way that we could understand.

Unfortunately, some Alexandrian theologians took this approach to far by becoming

influenced by these Pagan Greek Philosophers and incorporating these philosophies
into their Christian mindset. This later resulted in heresy in-which the church had to step
in and hold Holy Ecumenical Councils to protect the flock from being polluted by these
intrusions into the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith.

For example, the following theologians:

1. Clement of Alexandria
2. Origen
3. Saint Augustine of Hippo
4. Eutyches

Were heavily influenced by Neo-Platonic philosophies particularly the Neo-Platonic

beliefs of Plotinus (3rd Century Philosopher recasting Platos system) which asserted

Nature therefore is a whole, endowed with life and soul. Soul, being chained to
matter, longs to escape from the bondage of the body and return to its original

In other words, the body is a prison for the soul or the spirit is good but matter (which
includes the body) is evil.

This Neo-Platonic belief, led to the above mentioned theologians, using their own
rational thinking, to conclude then that, since the body is a prison and thus evil, the only
logical explanation then is that the human-nature is either swallowed-up, absorbed,
combined or fused to the divine nature.

Meaning, our human-nature that Christ took on, needs to be controlled, combined or
over-taken by the divine-nature in order to be liberated from this so-called bodily created
prison. The possibility of the voluntary act of obedience or synergy is removed.

However, the problem with this type of reasoning, (and rightly rejected by the Holy-
Fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Council and again later rejected by St. Maximos the
confessor during the sixth Ecumenical Council), is that it gives the impression that
everything that God Created is not good. It gives us a distorted view of the image of
God, it removes the possibility of the body being defied (glorified), and contradicts the
words of the Holy Apostle Paul when he states, and the body is the temple of the Holy-
Spirit or, the new glorified body.

And if one conforms to the above-mentioned formula, which has its roots in Platonism,
or literally speaking, Paganism, then the end-result is Monophysitism or Miaphysistism.

And as history teaches us, one heresy gives birth to other heresies. So the non-
Chalcedonians, in inheriting a Platonic way of interpreting the natures of Christ, caused
the birth of the latter heresy of Monothelitism (Armenian dogma that Christ has only a
Divine-Will). Because if human-nature is evil and incapable of good, then logically
speaking, the human-will is incapable of being obedient (of its own free-will) to the
divine-will. Or as Fr. Seraphim Rose puts it:

If God had created human nature without free will, by this imposed condition He would
have rendered the created intelligent being purely passive in nature; the creature would
simply submit, not having the possibility of doing otherwise, since it would not be free.

Is this not similar to what the Protestant heretic John Calvin taught ? , scroll down to Mystery of evil.

And some further quotes by Fr. Seraphim Rose on the human nature:

...even the fallen, corrupted human nature which we have now is not nothing at all, as
you say, but it still preserves in some degree the goodness in which God created it.

Further, these God-given virtues still exercise themselves even in our fallen state.
This is the extremely important Orthodox teaching of St. John Cassian, who thus refuted
the error of Blessed Augustine, who indeed believed that man apart from God's grace
was nothing at all. St. Cassian teaches in his Thirteenth Conference:

That the human race after the fall actually did not lose the knowledge of good is
affirmed by the Apostle, who says: When the gentiles, who have not the law, do by
nature those things that are of the law, these who have not the law are a law to
themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts. (Rm. 2:14-16)

And again to the Pharisees He said that they can know the truth: Why even of
yourselves do you not judge that which is just? (Lk. 12:57) He would not have said this if
they could not have discerned what is just by their natural reason. Therefore one
should not think that human nature is capable only of evil. (Thirteenth Conference,


Even though post-apostolic Christian writers struggled with the question of the identity
of Jesus and the Logos, the Churchs doctrine that Jesus was the Logos never

Each of the first six councils, from the First Council of Nicea (325) to the Third Council
of Constantinople (680-681) defined Jesus Christ as fully God and fully human.

Christianity did not accept the Platonic argument that the spirit is good and the flesh is
evil, and that therefore the man Jesus could not be God. Neither did it accept any of the
Platonic beliefs that would have made Jesus something less than fully God and fully
human at the same time.

The original teaching of Johns gospel is, "In the beginning was the Logos, and the
Logos was with God, and the Logos was God.... And the Logos became flesh and dwelt
among us." The final Christology of Chalcedon (confirmed by Constantinople III) was
that Jesus Christ is both God and man, and that these two natures are inseparable,
indivisible, unconfused and unchangeable.

m Chalcedonian Christology and Platonism

So we see here that, Neo-Platonism (or Paganism) gave birth to Monophysitism and
Monophysitism gave birth to Monothelitism.




The Monophysites or modern-day Oriental-Orthodox, claim they loyally follow the

teachings of Saint Cyril of Alexandria, however, if this is the case, then why did two of
their so-called commemorated saints condemn Saint Cyril's teachings?

1. "457: Timothy Ailouros (another Monophysite ' saint ') condemns Saint Cyril on
account of the agreements:

' Cyril... having excellently articulated the wise proclamation of Orthodoxy, showed
himself to be fickle and is to be censured for teaching contrary doctrine: after previously
proposing that we should speak of one nature of God the Word, he destroyed the
dogma that he had formulated and is caught professing two Natures of Christ.
[Timothy Ailouros, ' Epistles to Kalonymos, ' Patrologia Graeca, Vol LXXXVI, Col. 276;
quoted in The Non Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 13]. "

And further:

2. " Severos also condemns St. Cyril's Agreements:

' The formulae used by the Holy Fathers concerning two Natures united in Christ should
be set aside, even if they be Cyril's ' [Patrologia Graeca, Vol. LXXXIX, Col. 103D. Saint
Anastasios of Sinai preserves this quote of Severos in his works; quoted in The Non-
Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 12]. "

In my humble opinion, I find it very ironic that the Monophysites, on the one hand, claim
they follow Saint Cyril's teachings, yet on the other hand, the founders of their faith (and
so-called commemorated saints in their church) condemned Saint Cyril's teachings.

Note that Eutyches at one time used to say that the flesh of the Lord was not of the
same essence, or co-essential with the Mother, nor with us, while at other times he
used to say that before the union, true enough, there were two natures in Christ but
after the union only one. Wherefore they used to say that Christ consisted of two
natures, before the union, that is to say, but not also in two natures, after the union, that
is lo say. And it was for this reason that this Council asserted in its definition above
that Christ is of the like (or same) essence with the Father as respecting divinity and
of like (or the same) essence with us as respecting humanity.
--Taken from the Holy Rudder (Pedalion), page 245 bottom section


From this Monophysite named Eutyches - as from some MANY-HEADED HYDRA,

there grew up thereafter numerous heresies. For instance: The Theopaschites, who

used to say "The one crucified for us is holy and immortal," of whom the chief leader
was Peter Knapheus (concerning whom see c. LXXXI of the 6th). For, according to the
Monophysites humanity was converted into divinity. So the entire Holy Trinity
UNDERWENT SUFFERING Oh spare us, O Lord! --since Godhood was but of one
nature. That is why the bemused heretics uttered this blasphemy even to the Holy
Trinity which is lauded in the Three-holy Hymn.

From the Monophysites arose the Severians. led by a man named Severus who was a
monk and became Bishop of Antioch. From these heretics sprang a group known as
Jacobites, led by a certain man of Syros called Jacobus and of base extraction, named
Zanzalus, or Tzantzalos, who also became the leader of the heresy of the Armenians.
From them arose the Gaianites, their leader Gaianus being a follower of the heresy of
Julian, a bishop of Halicarnassus by whom he was also ordained Bishop of Alexandria.

These heretics used to say that Christ was entirely impassive, or, in Greek, apathes. on
which account they styled Apathites, though John Damascene calls them Egyptians,
whom the Copts also Followed.

From the roots of the Monophysites there sprouted thereafter also the heresy of the
Monotheletes. For if, according to them, there was but one nature in Christ, it followed
as a matter of course that this single nature had but a single will too.

From them arose the Agnoites, whose leader was Themistius, These persons used to
assert that Christ was ignorant of the Day of Judgment (i.e. that He did not know
precisely when it would be in the future). They had split off, according to John
Damascene.from the Theodosian Monophysites. From them came the Tritheites, who in
connection with the Holy Trinity were wont to assert a common essence and nature.
individualized as in the case of three human beings. Their leader was John Alexandreus
the Philoponus.

All Monophysiles used to be called in a word ACEPHALI, or headless men, in allusion

to the fact that they had split off from the Patriarch of Alexandria named Mongus either
because, as Leonius says, he did not anathematize the Fourth Ec, C,. or because
they used to hold various unorthodox assemblies and perform unorthodox baptisms,
and used to do other things in the way of innovations and schisms, as Nicephorus
Callistus states, or because there arose a schism in their midst between Severus and
Julian concerning perishability and imperishability, and some of them followed the
one, and some the other leader.

Accordingly, it may be said, generally speaking they were called ACEPHALI because of
the fact that they did not pay allegiance to any one head, but some to one, and some to
another leader, and split into groups differing from one another and from the Church.
(See the discussion in Dositheus, p. 470 of the Dodecabiblus, and the discussions by
other writers.)

"For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-
minded man, unstable in all his ways." St. James 1:7-8

It further seems, that they are playing with words, in a rationalistic manner, to somehow
imply that the 4th to the 7th Ecumenical Councils are not applicable to them and that
therefore, they are no longer under the anathemas of the council.

Monophysite Differences in Icon Veneration

A related question was whether representing the humanity of Christ (without the
possibility of visually representing his Deity) would constitute a division of His humanity
from His divinity and thus a return to Nestorianism, a heresy condemned in the Third
Ecumenical Council (Ephesus, 431 AD). On the other hand, if His humanity and divinity
are both represented together, then the question would be whether this would constitute
a confusion of his natures, and therefore a return Monophysitism another heresy
condemned centuries before, in the Council of Chalcedon (Fourth Ecumenical Council,
451 AD)

The iconophile response (especially through the work of St. John of Damascus) to the
iconoclasts dilemma emphasized a few key points:

a. The icon represents neither Christs divine nature nor his human nature, but his
Person [Hypostasis] which unites in itself these two natures. This is a simple
restatement of the reasoning of the Council of Ephesus (431) against
Nestorianism: because of the hypostatic union, Mary is not the mother of a
nature (human or divine), but the Mother of a Person, who is God.

b. Christ assumed all the characteristics of a human being (except sin), including
the ability to be physically located, circumscribed, and described thus making
images of him possible.

c. We dont divide or confuse natures in icons but rather pass honor through them
to the prototype the Person of Christ.

Sourced from: Iconoclasm and the 7th Ecumenical Council, paragraphs 9-13

All the Monophysites and Theopaschites REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE ICON (OR
PICTURE) OF CHRIST, according to Act 6 of the Seventh Ec. C., because they
maintained that the nature therein described and depicted as that of His humanity had
been mingled and converted into the nature His divinity: But the criticism made
Alamundarus. the chief of the Saracens, was a joke.

For this fellow, after becoming a Christian, seeing that Severus sent two bishops with a
view to enticing him into his heresy, wishing to rebuke them: said: But know ye not that
they have sent me letters and therein the writers of them declare unto me that the
Archangel Michael died?
(Heresy of Modern day Jehovah Witnesses claiming Christ is the reincarnation of the
Archangel Michael.)

The bishops of Severus replied to him that it was impossible for that thing to have
happened. Then Alamundarus in reply said: And if Christ hath not two natures, as you
say, how could He have died and have suffered on the Cross? Since His divinity is
impassive, and does not die (Dositheus, p. 424 of the Dodecabiblus).
Sourced from Holy Rudder (Pedalion) page 246.

Unlike the Orthodox teaching on the veneration of icons, Monophysites sharply

differentiate between the icons of Christ and the Mother of God (in keeping with
their false veneration of the Holy Theotokos [443]), and the icons of saints whose
depictions they treat as useful pious pictures . From the dogmatic point of view, such
veneration of the icons of saints is only a variety of iconoclasm and has nothing in
common with the teaching of the Orthodox Church. The great teacher of the Church,
Saint John Damascene, in his work On the Sacred Icons, has made the following
substantiation of the fact that the icons of the Savior and of the Mother of God are equal
in honor with the icons of saints: In their life-time the saints were imbued with the
Holy Spirit, so after their death the grace of the Holy Spirit abides both in their souls and
in their bodies, lying in graves, as well as... in their sacred images -- not on account of
their essence, but owing to the grace and action (of Divine energies - L. P.) [444].

Therefore, in the sacred icons, in which we venerate One and the Same God, there can
be no distinction in honor. The Monophysite teaching is quite different. For them
there can be no God in the images of saints because for them He cannot dwell in
the saints themselves. The one single nature (according to their false teaching - L. P.),
which absorbs into itself the humanity of Christ, finds itself cut off from the humanity of
all the rest of the people, even the saints. The human nature of Christ Himself
presupposes deification within the single nature of Christ (as it follows from the
Monophysite heresy), but this deification itself separates Christ from Christians. Hence,

the Monophysite teaching on icons of saints as being second-rate. The question of the
veneration of icons very vividly reveals the difference between the two teachings on a
single nature of God the Word Incarnate -- that of the Orthodox and of the
Monophysites of all trends. [445]
Critique of Chambesy Union, paragraph 40 and on.

As to the deceitful assurance about the veneration of sacred icons by the Orthodox and
the heretics being alike, the "authors of the Chambesy Declaration acted thoughtlessly,
to say the least" when they hastily declared their like-mindedness without subjecting this
question to a special investigation. "It sounds convincing only to those who are not
familiar with the history of the Monophysite veneration of icons." [440]

As is known from the history of the Church, the actistism of Julian of Halikarnassus,
which was one of the most extreme but most tenacious variants of Monophysitism, was
distinguished by its iconoclasm. Actistism flourished amongst the Armenian
Monophysites from the 6th century and until 1441, when the Armenian Catholicosate
was moved from Sis to Echmiadzin; subsequently it was observed there even in the
18th century. In Ethiopia, however, one could see the traces of the Monophysite
iconoclasm even at the beginning of the 20th century. All the other branches of
Monophysitism were forced to counterbalance actistism by substantiating their
"veneration of icons" in a special manner [441].

"Christological heresy, as is shown by history, is always fraught with consequences

affecting the veneration of sacred icons -- it does not always cause overt iconoclasm,
but always and without exception it leads to the rejection of the veneration of icons in
the spirit of Orthodoxy" [442].
Critique of Chambesy Union, paragraph 37 and on.

Now the Monophysties (or Miaphysites, as they prefer to be called now) may claim that
they also have icons and do in fact correctly venerate them. However, can they truly
claim to venerate them properly? Since there new and improved christology (which
even though they now claim to deny the Eutychian heresy "humanity swallowed up,
fused or absorbed into divinity) they now claim that Christ has a compound nature, both
Divine and Human co-mingling, mixing or confusing.

"The Iconoclast controversy was a form of Monophysitism: distrust and downgrading of

the human side." --below link paragraph 3

"During the Iconoclastic period, the Monophysites forbade the veneration of icons,
because, as they said, Christ has only one Nature: the humanity and Divinity of Christ
form one Nature. Icons cannot depict the Divinity Christ, so they cannot depict the
--below link, paragraph 2, below letter response by Fr. Michael Azkoul

The Fruits of the Monophysites

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheeps clothing, but inwardly they are
ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from
thornbushes or figs from thistles?" --Matthew 7:14-16


Robber Council of Ephesus

"Dioscorus presided at this council, gaining the acquittal of Eutyches and the
condemnation of Patriarch Flavian by threats and force. St. Flavian was fiercely beaten
up during the sessions of this council by impudent monks led by a certain Barsumas

Even the impious president of the Robber Council, the heretic Dioscorus, took part in
these beatings. After this heavy chains were put upon St. Flavian, and he was
sentenced to banishment at Ephesus. The council reinstated Eutyches; Flavian died
shortly afterwards, on August 11, 449, from the injuries he received from this attack. He
was buried obscurely"
Flavian the Confessor

"At this council, which assembled on August 8, 449, Eutyches and Dioscuros violently
attacked the archbishop. The council reinstated Eutyches and Flavian died shortly
afterwards, on August 11, 449, Flavian died at Hypaepa in Lydia, Asia Minor from the
injuries he received from this attack and was buried obscurely."
Archbishop Flavian of Constantinople

"Pope Leo I, whose legates had been ignored at the council, protested, first calling the
council a ' robber synod ', and declared its decisions void."
THE NEW MONOPHYSITES By Father Seraphim Johnson

Patriarchs Defrocked & Martyred by Monophysites


Martyred by Coptics February 28 and replaced by Timothy Ailouros (Another
Monophysite Saint).


Martyred 458 A.D. by followers of Dioscorus (Monophysite Saint)


Brutally beaten and martyred by Dioscorus, Barsumas and other monks

So it appears that the Monophysites succeeded in defrocking and murdering three of

our Patriarchs. And some of our misled are continuing to dialogue and commune with

I wonder what these misled do while the Monophysites celebrate the feast days of
Dioscorus and Timothy Ailouros ? Do they bring up the fact that these so-called saints
murdered and defrocked three of our Patriarchs for witnessing the faith and defending
Chalcedon? Did these Monophysite recognized saints to this day repent of their
numerous canonical crimes?



For we could not have overcome the author of sin and of death, unless he who could
neither be contaminated by sin, nor detained by death, had taken upon himself our
nature, and made it his own. For, in fact, he was "conceived of the Holy Ghost" within
the womb of a Virgin Mother, who bore him as she had conceived him, without loss of
virginity. --Saint Leo the Great of Rome (Tome of Leo to St. Martyr Patriarch Flavian)


In the year 451 in the city of Chalcedon, in the very church where the glorified relics of
the holy Great Martyr Euphemia rested, the sessions of the Fourth Ecumenical Council
(July 16) took place. The Council was convened for determining the precise dogmatic
formulae of the Orthodox Church concerning the nature of the God-Man Jesus Christ.
This was necessary because of the widespread heresy of the Monophysites [mono-
physis meaning one nature], who opposed the Orthodox teaching of the two natures
in Jesus Christ, the Divine and the Human natures (in one Divine Person). The
Monophysites falsely affirmed that in Christ was only one nature, the Divine [i.e. that
Jesus is God but not man, by nature], causing discord and unrest within the Church. At
the Council were present 630 representatives from all the local Christian Churches. On
the Orthodox side Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople (July 3), Juvenal, Patriarch of
Jerusalem (July 2), and representatives of St Leo, Pope of Rome (February 18)
participated in the conciliar deliberations. The Monophysites were present in large
numbers, headed by Dioscorus, the Patriarch of Alexandria, and the Constantinople
archimandrite Eutychius.

After prolonged discussions the two sides could not come to a decisive agreement.

The holy Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople proposed that the Council submit the
decision of the Church dispute to the Holy Spirit, through His undoubted bearer St
Euphemia the All-Praised, whose wonderworking relics had been discovered during the
Councils discussions. The Orthodox hierarchs and their opponents wrote down their
confessions of faith on separate scrolls and sealed them with their seals. They opened
the tomb of the holy Great Martyr Euphemia and placed both scrolls upon her bosom.
Then, in the presence of the emperor Marcian (450-457), the participants of the Council
sealed the tomb, putting on it the imperial seal and setting a guard to watch over it for
three days. During these days both sides imposed upon themselves strict fast and
made intense prayer. After three days the patriarch and the emperor in the presence of
the Council opened the tomb with its relics: the scroll with the Orthodox confession was
held by St Euphemia in her right hand, and the scroll of the heretics lay at her feet. St
Euphemia, as though alive, raised her hand and gave the scroll to the patriarch. After
this miracle many of the hesitant accepted the Orthodox confession, while those

remaining obstinant in the heresy were consigned to the Councils condemnation and


(Found in Migne, Pat. Lat., Tom. LXXXVII., col. 1161; L. and C., Tom. VI., col. 630.)



In 431 at the Third Ecumenical Synod of Ephesus, the Church of Antioch represented
by Patriarch John tried to prevent the Church of Cyprus from gaining autocephaly,
insisting it be under the jurisdiction of Antioch. The Church of Cyprus, represented by
Metropolitan Rheginos, insisted on independence by claiming "ancient custom" be
upheld in which Cyprus always ordained its own bishops and never was under the
jurisdiction of Antioch. The same metropolitan also listed a series of grievances against
Antioch for interfering in its election processes of bishops in the past and even
harassing visiting Cypriot bishops to Antioch. The bishops of Antioch had no evidence
to support their claims. The Fathers of the Synod ratified the autocephalous status of
the Church of Cyprus in its seventh session on August 31st (some say July 31) with the
third canon and prevented any further molestation by the Patriarchs of Antioch.

In c. 488 Peter the Fuller, the famous Monophysite patriarch of Antioch, appeared in
Constantinople to renew the old claims for jurisdiction in Cyprus from Emperor Zeno.
Peter, unlike John, asserted his rights to supremacy not on ancient custom, but on the
belief that Christianity originally spread from the apostolic foundations of Antioch to
Cyprus. Antioch claimed as its first bishop the Apostle Peter. Bishop Anthemios of

Salamis (Constantia) and Metropolitan of all Cyprus was summoned to the capital to
give an answer. They knew they also had apostolic foundations in the person of Saint
Barnabas, but the problem was that there was no proof to back up the claims of the
Cypriot Christians.

There is no doubt the claims of Peter the Fuller would have succeeded had not divine
authority intervened. After Anthemios was called to Constantinople he began having
dreams over a period of three nights. Saint Barnabas started appearing in the dreams of
Bishop Anthemios directing him to his long forgotten tomb under a carob (some say
cherry) tree. The bishop found the tomb exactly where the vision had indicated,
complete with a skeleton clutching a copy of the Gospel of Saint Matthew written by the
hand of the Apostle Barnabas. Theodoros Lector, a Church historian of those days,
reports that both the relics and the gospel book were presented by Anthemios to
Emperor Zeno who received them with great joy and had the gospel book covered in
gold and jewels. Peter the Fuller was immediately dismissed after a synod was called
by Patriarch Akakios of Constantinople confirming the independent status of the Church
of Cyprus.

Zeno also granted its bishop, Anthemios of Salamis, the status of Archbishop and
ranked after the five ancient patriarchates, along with the so-called "three privileges"
which have been zealously guarded ever since: namely 1. to sign his name in cinnabar,
a red ink made vermilion by the addition of the mineral cinnabar which was only used by
the emperor (this red ink was used when Archbishop Makarios signed the document
granting Cyprus independence from Britain in 1959); 2. to wear imperial purple instead
of black robes under his vestments; and 3. to hold an imperial sceptre instead of the
regular episcopal pastoral staff.

Severus of Antioch mentions in his letter to Bishop Thomas of Germanicea that

sometime between 496 and 511 he visited Constantinople and examined the Gospel of
Matthew discovered in the tomb of the Apostle Barnabas, and mentioned it "was written
in large letters, and was preserved with great honor in the royal palace". Severus also
noted that it was free of certain falsifications that existed in the Gospel of Matthew
commentaries of Saints John Chrysostom and Cyril of Alexandria regarding a purported
passage that Jesus was pierced with a spear at the crucifixion (these two Saints
confused the lectionary of the Church which interpolated various accounts of the
Gospels, in this case the Gospel of John, with the singular Gospel of Matthew).

Saint Barnabas is considered the patron Saint of Cyprus. The fact that he appeared to
Archbishop Anthemios at that particular time was seen as a divine intervention to halt
the spread of the monophysite heresy into Cyprus.


Several years after the Council of Chalcedon (4th Ecumenical Synod Council) was
concluded, a new controversy arose asserting that if Christ had only one nature, then he
(Christ) must also have one will.

Maximus' refusal to accept Monothelitism caused him to be brought to the imperial

capital of Constantinople to be tried as a heretic in 658. In Constantinople, the
Monothelite heresy had gained the favor of both the Emperor and the Patriarch of
Constantinople. Maximus stood behind the Dyothelite position, and was sent back into
exile for four more years.

In 662, Maximus was placed on trial once more, and was once more convicted of
heresy. Following the trial Maximus was tortured, having his tongue cut out, so he could
no longer speak his rebellion and his right hand cut off, so that he could no longer write
letters. Maximus was then exiled to the Lazica or Colchis region of modern-day Georgia
[Iveria] and was cast in the fortress of Schemarum, perhaps Muris-Tsikhe near the
modern town of Tsageri. He died soon thereafter, on 13 August 662. The events of the
trials of Maximus were recorded by Anastasius Bibliothecarius.

After St. Maximus death, or rather martyrdom for confessing the faith, the Sixth
Ecumenical Council examined the Monothelite (one-will) doctrine. At the conclusion of
this Sixth (6) Ecumenical Synod (Council), this Synod concluded and condemned
Monothelitism, and anyone who professed this doctrine, as a heresy. This council also
re-instated and vindicated St. Maximus of all charges against him.

St. Maximus not only defended Chalcedon (4th Ecumenical Synod), by holding that
Christ has two-natures (hypostaticall or subsistently united), but further went on to teach
that Christ has also two-natural wills. St. Maximus taught that, humanity was made in
the image of God, and the purpose of salvation is to restore us to unity with God...
St. Maximus emphasized Theosis and went on to further state that, In terms of
salvation, humanity is intended to be fully united with God. This is possible for Maximus
because God was first fully united with humanity in the incarnation. If Christ did not

become fully human (if, for example, he only had a divine and not a human will), then
salvation was no longer possible, as humanity could not become fully divine...

I beseech you to do and to carry out good to all men with care and assiduity, becoming
all things to all men, as the need of each is shown to you; I want and pray you to be
wholly harsh and implacable with the heretics only in regard to cooperating with them or
in any way whatever supporting their deranged belief.

Even if all the world shall enter into communion with the (heretical) Patriarch, I will not!
St. Maximus the Confessors statement in relation to the Monothelite Patriarch.

For I reckon it hatred towards man and a departure from Divine love to lend support to
error, so that those previously seized by it might be even more greatly corrupted.
+ St. Maximus the Confessor, Patrologia Graeca, Vol. 91 col. 465c


Commemorated January 11.

This Saint had Cappadocia as his homeland. He lived during the years of Leo of
Thrace, who reigned from 457 to 474. The Saint established in the Holy Land a great
communal monastery, wherein he was the shepherd of many monks. While Saint
Sabbas was the head of the hermits of Palestine, Saint Theodosius was governor of
those living the cenobitic life, for which reason he is called the Cenobiarch. Together
with Saint Sabbas, towards whom he cherished a deep brotherly love in Christ, he
defended the whole land of Palestine from the heresy of the Monophysites, which was
championed by the Emperor Anastasius and might very well have triumphed in the Holy
Land without the opposition of these two great monastic fathers and their zealous
defense of the Holy Council of Chalcedon. Having lived for 103 years, he reposed in

Apolytikion in the Plagal of the Fourth Tone

With the rivers of your tears, you have made the barren desert fertile. Through sighs of
sorrow from deep within you, your labors have borne fruit a hundred-fold. By your
miracles you have become a light, shining upon the world. O Theodosios , our Holy
Father, pray to Christ our God, to save our souls.

Kontakion in the Plagal of the Fourth Tone


As being planted in the courts of Christ thy Lord and God, with holy virtues thou
delightfully didst blossom forth and didst multiply thy children amid the desert, who were
watered with the showers of thy fervent tears, O chief shepherd of the godly sheepfold
of our God. Hence we cry to thee: Rejoice, O Father Theodosius.


The Relics of St. Savvas were determined to be authentic due to one of St. Savvas
eyes being removed by Monophysites.

St. Savvas the Sanctified during his lifetime told his disciples that his incorrupt body
would be removed from his monastery and later would rest in the Lavra, which he
founded. He said this return of his relics would come before the end of the world. This
prophecy was fulfilled when the holy relics of St. Savvas were stolen by the crusaders of
the First Crusade (1096 - 1099) together with many other relics and brought to Venice,
Italy where he was enshrined in a church dedicated to St. Anthony. Nearly nine
centuries later his relics were returned to Israel.

On 10 October 1965 the relics of St. Savvas were returned by Pope Paul VI to the
Patriarchate of Jerusalem. The reception was made, at the direction of Patriarch
Benediktos of Jerusalem, by Bishop Vasilios of Jerusalem, Fr. Theodosios the Abbot of
Bethany, Fr. Seraphim the Abbot of St. Savvas Lavra, and the Hierodeacon (and future
Metropolitan of Nazareth) Kyriakos.

Though it is commonly recorded that this gesture on behalf of the Pope was made
merely as an ecumenical gesture, such as that of the skull of St. Andrew in Patras, with
regards to the return of the relics of St. Savvas there is more to the story. In fact, it was
St. Savvas himself who was urging Pope Paul VI to have his relics returned, appearing
first to his predecessor Pope John XXIII in his dreams and causing a scene in his

Fr. Seraphim, the Abbot of St. Savvas Lavra, explains everything as follows:

"The Pope did not give us the holy relic because he loved us, but because he [St.

Savvas] would constantly appear to him [Pope John XXIII] and would bother him to
have his relics returned to his monastery. When the Pope died he did not take the
wishes of the Saint into account, so he appeared again to his successor [Pope Paul VI].
Even in the church where his holy relics were treasured in a glass coffin, he would hit
the glass and cause trouble, frightening the guards and the Latin monks."

Patriarch Benediktos had insisted that Fr. Seraphim attend the reception of the relics.
He even told the Abbot: "In your days, Fr. Seraphim, Saint Savvas has returned!" Fr.
Seraphim responded: "No, in your days, Your Holiness."

When the Orthodox representatives arrived at the Church of Saint Anthony in Venice
they wondered if indeed these were the relics of Saint Savvas.

Fr. Seraphim observed every inch of the incorrupt relic to see if he could see a
sign of authenticity. He noticed that one of the eyes of St. Savvas was missing.
This proved it for him, since in his biography it is said that the Monophysites
removed one of his eyes.

Moved by this Fr. Seraphim would not leave the side of the relics till they arrived at his
monastery. Even when the holy relics arrived in Athens where they were to be
venerated by the faithful prior to the return, Fr. Seraphim stood all night guarding the
holy relics while everyone else was sleeping. Metropolitan Kyriakos of Nazareth
describes the scene as if Fr. Seraphim and St. Savvas were having a conversation that



Chapter XXVI - The life of brother THEOPHANES and his marvellous vision, and of
communicating with heretics

There was an old man of great merit in God's eyes called Cyriacus, who belonged to the
laura of Calamon near the River Jordan. A pilgrim brother called Theophanes from the
region of Dora came to him for counsel about his thoughts of fornication. The old man

encouraged and instructed him with advice about modesty and chastity, which greatly
edified the brother.

Truly, father," he said, "if it weren't that in my part of the country I am in communion with
the Nestorians I would love to stay with you."

When the old man heard the name of Nestor he was so overcome with fear that this
brother would be damned that he fell down and prayed, and begged him to abandon
this most evil and pernicious heresy and return to the holy Catholic and Apostolic

"There is no hope of being saved unless we truly feel and believe that Holy Mary is the
birthgiver (genetrix) of God," he said, "and this is true."

"That's all very well, father," said the brother, "but all the heretics say the same, that
unless we are in communion with them we cannot be saved. Unfortunately I don't know
what to do. So pray to God for me that I may be quite certain which is the true faith."

The old man was delighted to hear what the brother was saying.

"Come and sit in my cave," he said, "and put your whole trust in God that he will reveal
to you of his mercy what is the true faith."

He left the brother in his own cave and went out by the Dead Sea, praying to God for
the brother. About the ninth hour of the next day the brother saw someone of truly
awesome appearance standing next to him.

"Come, and see the truth," he said, and led him to a dark and stinking place throwing up
flames of fire, and in the flames he saw Nestorius, Eutyches, Apollinaris, Dioscuros,
Severus, Arius, Origen and others like them.

"This is the place prepared for the heretics, blasphemers, and those who follow their
teachings," he said to the brother. "So then, if you like the look of this place persist in
your teachings, but if you would prefer to avoid this punishment return to the holy
Catholic [Universal] and Apostolic Church, as the old man told you. For I tell you, even if
a person practises all the virtues there are, unless he believes rightly he will be crucified
in this place."

At these words the brother came to himself. He went back to the old man and told him
all that he had seen, and returned to the communion of the holy Catholic Church. He
stayed with the old man, and after four years with him he rested in peace.

Taken from:


So we see here, that by this above story, all were condemned to hell, including,
Nestorius, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, and Dioscorus, and Severus, and Eutyches. All
ended up in the company of each-other.

Whats interesting to note, is that only St. Cyril of Alexandria, St. Leo of Rome and St.
Euphemia (Martyr of Chalcedon), remained untouched by the flames of Gehenna. And if
we are to achieve any progress with the non-Chalcedonians, it must be based and
grounded upon only these three Saints Cyril, Leo and Euphemia respectively.

It needs to be made clear that Anti-Chalcedonians, unfortunately, have not been in
communion with us for 1, 500 years. For communion implies same beliefs. What is
disturbing is that, the monophysite issue is minimized and treated as if it was not a
major schism. There have been cases of suggestions to alter Orthodox theological
books, to either minimize or completely remove any references to Eutyches, Dioscoros,
Severus, Aelurus, Jacobus, Zanzalus, etc. from being labelled as heretics.


Now some have stated that there was a language miscommunication or mistranslation
from the Greek to Arabic, Coptic, etc. and that this accounts for the misunderstanding
between the Anti-Chalcedonians and Eastern-Orthodox. Let us examine this further.

It is a well-known fact that St. Leo, the originator of the Tome of Leo, was a Latin. If
mistranslation was an issue then why didnt the Latins have an issue with this? If history
serves us correctly, they shared the same Christology with us for almost 1000 years.
They spoke in Latin, read in Latin, theologized in Latin.

The same with the Cappadocian fathers had no issues with mistranslations, and the
Palestine Fathers, and the Syrian Fathers, and finally the Georgian Fathers. All these
aforementioned fathers had no issues with mistranslations. Many of these above-
mentioned Saints and Fathers translated a lot of Greek Scriptures and writings into their
respective languages. Are we to believe that the fathers did not take into consideration
culture, linguistics and etc. during the 4th Ecumenical Council?

If the anti-chalcedonians are correct and there where errors in translation, or different
meanings, then isnt it safe to conclude then, that the Septuagint (Orthodox LXX Old
Testament translated from Hebrew to Greek by the Seventy 300 years before Christs
birth), would have also had mistranslations ?

Therefore, the anti-chalcedonians, and their supporters analogy and rationalistic

justifications are false.

The founders and supporters of Monophysitism or Miaphysitism originated from three


1. Eutyches (380-456 A.D.) Presbyter and Archimandrite at Constantinople

2. Dioscorus I (444 to 451 A.D.) Patriarch of Alexandria
3. Severus (459-538 A.D.) Patriarch of Antioch

These three clergy, Eutyches, Dioscorus and Severus, were in high Administrative
positions within the Eastern-Orthodox world, and were very well versed and educated in
several languages especially the Greek used during that time period. It is noted that the
Anti-Chalcedonians (a.k.a. Oriental Orthodox), are followers of these above-mentioned

As well, I should also add that in the words of Fr. John Romanides, a famous
theologian, he states the following, "Bishop Dioscorus was not condemned for heresy,
and he was condemned for other reasons." However, even though Bishop Dioscorus
was not officially or allegedly condemned for publicly preaching heresy, he was
condemned rightfully according to the canons of our church, "The Rudder - 'Pedalion' in
Greek", for the following reasons:

1. His involvment in the brutal beating and death of Beloved Patriarch Flavian
during the robber council, and,

2. His exonoration and support of Eutyches and Eutyches' heresies during this
same Robber Council.

I quote the following statements from the Holy Canons (Rudder) in support of the above
reasons for the condemnation and depose of Dioscorus:

"...Robber synod) which had previously been assembled in Ephesus AD. 448, at which
Dioscorus presided, and spoke in defense of Eutyches, but the legates from the Bishop
of Rome were not listened to, while St. Flavian of Constantinople, after being kicked and
beaten with many whips, died.", page 244 of the Holy Rudder (Pedalion).


As for voluntary manslaughter; we exclude (the guilty one) from Communion for a space
of five years, but as for involuntary manslaughter, for a space of three years, provided
after the ordeal off fasting until evening, the murderer confines himself to extreme
xerophagy, and consents to do three hundred metanies (prostrations) daily. But if he is
sluggishly disposed, let the prescript of the Fathers be fulfilled.


The present Canon canonizes a voluntary manslaughterer to refrain from communing


for five years, but an involuntary manslaughterer to three years. Both offenders have to
fast until evening and content themselves with extreme xerophagy, while doing three
hundred metanies every day. But if they do not care to do these things, the voluntary
manslaughterer gets twenty years, the involuntary manslaughterer gets ten, according
to cc. LVI and LVII of Basil. Read also Ap. c. LXVI.


If any Clergyman strikes anyone in a fight, and kills by a single blow, let him be deposed
from office for his insolence. But if he be a layman, let him be excommunicated.


If any layman, after becoming a man of authority, and conceiving a contempt for divine
and imperial injunctions, and laughing to scorn the dread statutes and laws of the
Church, should dare to strike any bishop, or to imprison one, without reason or cause,
or for a fictitious reason or cause, let such a one be anathema. (An. c. IV.)


As for a Bishop, or Presbyter, or Deacon that strikes believers for sinning, or

unbelievers for wrong-doing, with the idea of making them afraid, we command that he
be deposed from office. For the Lord has nowhere taught that: on the contrary, He
Himself when struck did not strike back; when reviled He did not revile His revilers;
when suffering, He did not threaten.


As regards willful murders, let them kneel continually; but absolution they are to be
granted only at the end of their life.


The present Canon sentences those who murder persons willfully to kneel throughout
their life, and to commune only at the end of their life.

Now I must also qualify the above Canons and interpretations. The canons also state,
that if someone repents, and their repentance is genuine, they will receive a penance
and after serving out that penance, submit to the decision of the church on whether they
should return to office or not.

So I ask, what sort of repentance and penance has Pope Dioscorus undergone for his
wilful and voluntary act of manslaughter against St. Patriarch Flavian?

And by what authority did Pope Dioscorus have to eject St. Patriarch Flavian from

office? Was Dioscorus' decisions to eject, confirmed and backed by an Ecumenical


In other words, he, Dioscorus, didn't agree with the position of St. Patriarch Flavian, and
decided to forcefully impose his own will. And it is for these reasons; his refusal to
attend any future council meetings when called three times by the Synod, as well as
other reasons stated above, that Pope Dioscorus was excluded from the 4th
Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. Again, I quote directly from the fourth Ecumenical


TOM. IV., COL. 93.)

Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, stood up in the
midst with his most reverend colleagues and said: We received directions at the hands
of the most blessed and apostolic bishop [St. Pope Leo] of the Roman city, which is the
head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed a
seat in this assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat he is to be cast
out. This instruction we must carry out; if now your holiness so commands let him be
expelled or else we leave....

The most glorious judges and the full senate said: What special charge do you prefer
against the most reverend bishop Dioscorus?

Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, said: Since he
[Pope Dioscorus] has come, it is necessary that objection be made to him.

The most glorious judges and the whole senate said: In accordance with what has
been said, let the charge under which he lies, be specifically made.
Lucentius, the most reverend bishop having the place of the Apostolic See, said: Let
him give a reason for his judgment. For he undertook to give sentence against one [ St.
Patriarch Flavian ] over whom HE HAD NO JURISDICTION. And he [ Dioscorus ]
dared to hold a synod [ Robber Synod / Council ] without the authority of the Apostolic
See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place....
The most glorious judges and the full senate, said: It is proper that you should set
forth specifically in what he hath gone astray.

Lucentius, the venerable bishop and holding the place of the Apostolic See, said: We
will not suffer so great a wrong to be done us and you, as that he [ Dioscorus ]
who is come to be judged should sit down [as one to give judgment]...

Eusebius, the most reverend bishop of the city of Dorylaeum, stepping into the midst,

[He then presented a petition, and the Acts of the Latrocinium were read. Also the Acts
of the council of Constantinople under Flavian against Eutyches (col. 175).]...

And when they were read, the most glorious judges and immense assembly (
) said: What do the most reverend bishops of the present holy synod
say? When he thus expounded the faith did Flavian, of holy memory, preserve
the orthodox and catholic religion, or did he in any respect err concerning it?

Paschasinus the most reverend bishop, representing the Apostolic See, said; Flavian
of blessed memory hath most holily and perfectly expounded the faith...
Anatolius the most reverend archbishop of Constantinople said; The blessed Flavian
hath beautifully and orthodoxly set forth the faith of our fathers...
Lucentius, the most reverend bishop, and legate of the Apostolic See, said; Since the
faith of Flavian of blessed memory agrees with the Apostolic See AND THE
TRADITION OF THE FATHERS it is just that the SENTENCE by which he was
CONDEMNED by the heretics should be TURNED BACK upon them by this most
holy synod.

Maximus the most reverend bishop of Antioch in Syria, said: Archbishop Flavian of
blessed memory hath set forth the faith orthodoxly and in accordance with the
most beloved-of-God and most holy Archbishop Leo. And this we all receive with

Thalassius, the most reverend bishop of Csarea in Cappadocia said; Flavian of

blessed memory hath spoken in accordance with Cyril of blessed memory.

[And so, one after another, the bishops expressed their opinions. The reading of the
acts of the Council of Constantinople was then continued.]
And at this point of the reading, Dioscorus, the most reverend Archbishop of Alexandria
said, I receive the of two; the two I do not receive ( ,
). I am forced to be impudent, but the matter is one which touches my
(Here above, were the Monophysites argue linguistics, or a mistranslation of the Greek, Dioscorus, their
very own so-called Saint and Pope, contradicts the Monophysites for Dioscorus understands and
responds to this Holy 4 Synod in the Greek language.)

(I will also like to add to the above statement, Dioscorus clearly makes a definition of faith here, by
asserting I receive the of two, the two I do not receive.)

[After a few remarks the reading was continued and the rest of the acts of the
Latrocinium of Ephesus completed. The judges then postponed to the morrow the
setting forth a decree on the faith but intimated that Dioscorus and his associates
should suffer the punishment to which they unjustly sentenced Flavian. " For full
article click here: Extracts from the Acts, Session I



(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 459.)

The holy and great and ecumenical Synod, which by the grace of God according to the
constitution of our most pious and beloved of God emperors assembled together at
Chalcedon the city of Bithynia, in the martyry of the most holy and victorious Martyr
Euphemia to Dioscorus.

We do you to wit that on the thirteenth day of the month of October you were deposed
from the episcopate and made a stranger to all ecclesiastical order () by the holy
and ecumenical synod, on account of your disregard of the divine canons, and of your
disobedience to this holy and ecumenical synod and on account of the other crimes of
which you have been found guilty, for even when called to answer your accusers three
times by this holy and great synod according to the divine canons you did not come.
Notice of Condemnation sent to Dioscorus
Session III See last paragraph all Bishops sign condemnation of Dioscorus


Now one might say, "but the Anti-Chalcedonians, in previous discussions with them,
they claim they believe in two-natures of Christ, not one?" To this I respond, if that is the
case then:
why don't they accept the fourth to the seventh Ecumenical Councils?
make a confession of faith and abandon their own?

get baptized into the Eastern-Orthodox Church?

learn to do the sign of the cross correctly?
cease from venerating the monophysite / miaphysite hymnology?
cease from venerating as Saints Eutychius, Dioscorus, Severus, Zanzalus, etc?

If they are willing to do all this, we will gladly embrace them as our brothers and sisters
in Christ and "...we can pray together forever."
--Constantine Zalalas

To further clarify any confusion or misunderstanding, my beloved brothers, sisters and

clergy in Christ, whenever dialoguing with Monophysites, if they claim they believe in
two-natures, ask them this,

1. "Do you, or your Church's Administration, believe in two-natures AFTER the

conception of Christ within the Ever Virgin Mary's womb (John 1:14) ? " And
further ask them,

2. "Do you, or your Church's Administration, believe that when a person falls asleep
that their soul SEPARATES from their body and returns to God from whence it
came (Ecclesiastes 12:7) ? "

3. "Do you or your Church's Administration accept the 4th to the 7th Ecumenical
Councils as Ecumenical"? and finally,

4. "Do you or your Church's Administration believe that the acceptance of all 7
Ecumenical Councils is essential for a proper full understanding of the faith, full
healing and salvation?"

If they answer in the negative to at least one of these above questions, then
unfortunately, they are correctly labelled as Monophysite and we cannot commune with
them. For communion entails common belief, same belief.

The below sourced article, makes it clear that the Anti-Chalcedonians do not accept
two-natures of Christ. And further adds another heresy of Christ having only one-will.


Pope Shenouda III On The Nature of Christ

Coptic interpretations of 4th Ecumenical Council

Letter by Coptic Priest


Response to Pope Shenouda III

A Further Response to Pope Shenouda III



Their dearly beloved Pope Shenouda, whom I have nothing personal against, not only
professes one-nature, but further supports one-will. Scripture is incorrectly used to back
his heretical positions, thus deceiving a whole multitude. Nowhere in his article, does it
even remotely consider the following passages by Christ:

"And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it
be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou [will]."
--St. Matthew 26:39

I came down from heaven, not to do Mine own will, but the will of Him that sent
St. John 6:38

...Two natural wills not contrary the one to the other...but His human will follows and
that not as resisting and reluctant, but rather as subject to His Divine and omnipotent
will --Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, (1997) By Father Michael Pomazansky, Translated
by Hieromonk Seraphim Rose, page 183, paragraph 4 and page 184, paragraph 1
Definition of Faith of Sixth Ecumenical Council.

In light of the above-mentioned, it is highly unlikely that they believe in two-natures, or

have any desire to re-conciliate. They are merely telling this to us in order for us to enter
into this so-called false-union. And a select group of our very own clergy are continually
being deceived.

In my humble opinion, I believe this is a serious issue within our Church for the simple
fact that, they are being referred to as Orthodox, and numerous Orthodox books and
theologians are not including them in the timeline of major schisms. It is being treated
as if; it was a misunderstanding, miscommunication on our part. Not them, us.
Apparently, we and our Holy-Fathers were in error, in need of correction, repentance
and re-drafting of the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. This disturbs and saddens
me greatly.


'The question addressed by the contemporary scholarship, therefore, involves whether

or not there exists fundamental theological differences between the Chalcedonian and
Monophysite christologies. Traditionally the Monophysites were mistakenly identified as
the followers of Eutyches.

Below is what modern miaphysites actually believe and thus confuse some of our
hierarchs, theologians and clergy who do not even understand their own theology, let
alone how to explain it to others. For how can they understand it, in order to refute the

miaphysites, if they are not living and practicing the theology of the Holy Fathers of all
nine ecumenical council themselves?

'The question addressed by the contemporary scholarship, therefore, involves whether

or not there exists fundamental theological differences between the Chalcedonian and
Monophysite christologies. Traditionally the Monophysites were mistakenly identified as
the followers of Eutyches.

Their doctrine that the incarnate Christ is one Person was understood as acknowledging
only one divine nature in Christ over against the orthodox position which affirmed that
Christ is one Person with two natures.

A contemporary Coptic theologian Tadros Y. Malaty, however, claims that the term
"Monophysites" itself is a gross misrepresentation of his church's position because it
distorts what Cyril's followers (later designated as the "Monophysites") meant in
claiming mia phusis. He explains that "mono," meaning "simply one," is inadequate in
representing the concept "mia" which means "one united nature" or a "composite
[compound] nature.' , page 15

What could Severus object to in the teaching of those who supported Chalcedon? It was
not that they confessed the reality and difference between the humanity and divinity. It
was not that they refused to confuse the natures in Christ. But Severus did impress
upon both Sergius in his letters to him, and to his own followers that:

When we anathematise those who say Emmanuel has two natures after the
union, and speak of the activities and properties of these, we are not saying this
as subjecting to anathema the fact of, or naming, natures, or activities, or
properties, but speaking of two natures after the union, and because
consequently those natures...are divided completely and in everything. [14]

We should object, then, with Severus, to those who divide Christ and not those who
name the natures of which Christ is. There is no error in stating that Christ is of
humanity and divinity, and that in union these differences persist.



Following Severus' argument we see that:






Severus allows the naming of the natures. We can and must confess that Christ is
human and divine, but we must not allow this Orthodox confession to be perverted such
that we describe a man and the Word of God seperately. It is God the Word who is this
man Jesus.

But here how St. John of Damascus puts this modern theology of the monophysites to
shame, for the monophysites now speak of a compound / single --nature, not eutychian
swallowed up nature:

"How is it possible for the same nature to be at once created and uncreated,
mortal and immortal, circumscribed and uncircumscribed?...How can they ever
say that Christ has two natures, while they are asserting that after the union He
has one compound nature? For it is obvious to anyone that, before the union,
Christ had one nature --St. John of Damascus

And I will add to what St. John of Damascus says above,

How is it possible for the same nature (or compound-nature), to at once suffer
and not suffer. To be crucified and yet at the same time not crucified?

And how is it possible for the same-nature (compound-nature) to be comprised of

Divinity / Humanity, and not be confused, absorbed one into the other, or the one
overtaking the other, etc? For even though Severus claims that the single or compound-
nature somehow preserves the distinctness of Divinity and Humanity, he implies a
confusion and suggests that Christ is only partially divine and partially human.

To re-quote what I stated elsewhere in this article:

Apollinarius (the heretic) believed that Jesus was only partially humanPut differently,
the humanity that was assumed in the incarnation was not a complete humanity but
lacked a significant component of personhood. Apollinarius believed, then, that Jesus
was only partially human. --J.N.D. Kelly, a prominent scholar of doctrinal history

In other words, if all of Adam was lost and ruined by the fall, then Christ, the
second Adam, must put on all that Adam possessed in order to restore human
nature and live the life that Adam failed to live.

To illustrate an example, if I take two different liquid components (lets say, 'water and
vinegar') and place them in a single glass jar together, is it possible for these two
components not to mix together, to remain distinct liquid substances, while each
preserving their own separate properties, without one or the other component diluting or
overtaking the other, yet at the same time somehow mysteriously or miraculously
remaining one? Of course not. Therefore Severus' reasoning is flawed.

Again, the modern form of monophysitism, by claiming as the heretic Severus taught:

"it is not the saying that Emmanuel has two natures which is condemned, but
saying that he has these two natures and then describing their activities
separately, as though there was God the Word acting as God in heaven and
Christ the man acting as man on earth"


Now the Monophysites, or as they prefer to be called, miaphysites, may at this point
begin referring to St. Athanasius Christology in order to further add credit to their
Christology. But Saint Athanasius does not assist them either.

Here what St. Athanasius the Great says in response to Severus of Antiochs

"With the Word of God in His human nature, however, it was otherwise. His body
was for Him not a limitation, but an instrument, so that He was both in it and in all
things, and outside all things, resting in the Father alone. At one and the same
timethis is the wonderas Man He was living a human life, and as Word He
was sustaining the life of the universe, and as Son He was in constant union with
the Father."

Now here St. Athanasius the Greats explanation of the MANNER OF THE UNION:

'For His being in everything DOES NOT MEAN THAT HE SHARES THE NATURE of
everything, only that He gives all things their being and sustains them in it. Just as the
sun is not defiled by the contact of its rays with earthly objects, but rather enlightens and
purifies them, so He Who made the sun is not defiled by being made known in a body,

but rather the body is cleansed and quickened by His indwelling,...' --St. Athanasius the

And furthermore: '(18) You must understand, therefore, that when writers on this sacred
theme speak of Him [Christ] as eating and drinking and being born, they mean that the
body, as a body, was born and sustained with the food proper to its nature [human
nature]; while God the Word [divine nature], Who was united with it, was at the same
time ordering the universe and revealing Himself through His bodily acts as not man
only but God. Those acts are rightly said to be His acts, because the body which did
them did indeed belong to Him and none other; moreover, it was right that they should
be thus attributed to Him as Man, in order to show that His body was a real one and not
merely an appearance.

From such ordinary acts as being born and taking food, He was recognized as being
actually present in the body; but by the extraordinary acts which He did through the
body He proved Himself to be the Son of God. That is the meaning of His words to the
unbelieving Jews: "If I do not the works of My Father, believe Me not; but if I do, even if
ye believe not Me, believe My works, that ye may know that the Father is in Me and I in
the Father."

Sourced From: St. Athanasius the Great Homily, On the Incarnation of the Word,
Chapter 3, The Divine Dilemma and its Incarnation - continued.

Again, Severus misunderstands because according to Severus, if we say that the

human nature and divine nature have two separate activities externally united
(hypostastically united that is), then according to Severus we are leaning towards
Nestorianism and dividing Christ.

"This is what leads the heretics astray, that they claim hypostasis and nature to be the
same thing." --St. John of Damascus

And we are not saying two hypostasis of Christ, but rather two distinct separate natures
hypostatically united. And furthermore, we are not claiming that God the Word was only
in heaven and incapable of being elsewhere. For the Word is everywhere always and at
all times not bound by time, space or place. The word has no limits for it existed even
before creation of the world.

Thus, again the Severians contradict themselves for by basing their argument on the
fact that we emphasize Christ as having two distinct and separate functions (one of the
word and another of humanity), they are essentially saying that the word can only be in
one place at a time and placing limits and restrictions on the word. Again, their theology
has its roots in Neo-Platonism 'the body is a prison for the soul and the soul longs to
escape from this so-called prison of the body.' It's unfortunate that they aren't aware of
this deep-rooted inherited flaw, possibly originating from Clement of Alexandria another
Saint of theirs whom we don't recognize.

However, St. Athanasius himself asserts two separate activities and functions. And St.
Athanasius also asserts that God the Word is all present everywhere and always. And
if, as Severus erroneously claims, we do-away with the two separate activities of the
natures of Christ, for fear of falling into Nestorianism (as the Monophysites accuse us
of) then we run the risk of saying that Christ's humanity did not possess the freedom
and ability to voluntarily submit to his divinity. In other words, we are robots without the
capability of choosing.

And Christ was unable to do the things he did as a normal human being ('eating and
drinking and being born' --St. Athanasius, This sounds dangerously similar to
Protestantism or Calvanism in which the human capability of doing things "proper to its
nature" --St. Athanasius, are removed and humanity just submits without control, similar
to a puppet being pulled by a string.


Partisans of Severus Would Have the Church Err

Patriarch Severus of Antioch (r. 512-518, d. 538), in whom Bishop Peter Nabarnugios
the Iberian inculcated a hatred of Chalcedonian Christology, was a heretic and it goes
without saying that the Ecumenical Councils were right to condemn him. The Church
does not err, for she is the pillar and ground of truth [1 Tim 3:15].

Acceptance of Henotikon and Departure from St. Cyril of Alexandria

Severus accepted the Henotikon of Emperor Zeno and rejected the Creed of Union
signed by Patriarch St. Cyril I of Alexandria, whom he pretended to follow in all matters

One Theandric Energy

Severus affirmed [one Theandric Energy], by which Christ acts

in all things. Divine actions exercised in and through the human nature (raising the dead
by a word and healing the sick by a touch) are formally theandric (divino-human). This is
the theandric energy to which the great hieromartyr St. Dionysios the Areopagite (10/9)
refers [Letter 4 to Caius]. Purely human actions exercised in response to the divine will
(walking and eating) are materially theandric (humano-divine). But there are purely
divine actions (creating souls and conserving the universe) that are not theandric, and
so, Severus, not all of the activities of Christ are theandric.

Compound Theandric Nature

Severus also posited (one theandric nature) of Christ. This is

impossible, because if Christ had a single (compound) divine-human

[nature], He would not be consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, Who
subsist only in the divine nature, nor would he be consubstantial with us, because we do
not have a divine-human nature. The great Doctor of the Incarnation St. Cyril, when he
explained eo , taught something altogether different
than the Severian myth that the two natures became one nature.

Denial That Christ Exists in Two Natures After the Union

Severus wrongly denied that Christ is in two natures after the union. Since St. Paul,
inspired of the Holy Spirit, says that Christ exists in human form (and being found in
human form [Phil 2:7]), Christ is not merely from two natures ( ), but
subsists in two natures ( ) after the union.

The Doctors Know Best

As to the heretical tenets and results of Severian Christology, we can trust the testimony
of the great Church Doctor Hieromonk St. John of Damascus (3/27), who says in An
Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 3:3, "we hold that there has been a union of two
perfect natures, one divine and one human; not with disorder or confusion, or
intermixture, or commingling, as is said by the God-accursed Dioscorus and by
Eutyches and Severos, and all that impious company."

Severian Christology vs. Eastern Orthodoxy Christology: Apples to Oranges

Eastern Orthodoxy: two natures, two energies (operations), two wills

Severian Monophysitism: one theandric nature, one theandric energy (the faculty of all
of Christ's actions), one theandric will

Notes & References

Patriarch Severus of Antioch records that Peter the Iberian made him realize the "evil"
and "the impiety" of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. He says, "This communion I
so hold, I so draw near, as I drew near in it with the highest assurance and a fixed mind,
when our holy father Peter of Iberia was offering and performing the ritual sacrifice. "



Letter of the Council (6th Ecumenical Synod) Sent to St. Agatho (Pope / Patriarch of Old

(Found in Migne, Pat. Lat., Tom. LXXXVII., col. 1247 et seqq.; and Labbe and Cossart,
Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 1071 et seqq.)

The holy and ecumenical council which by the grace of God and the pious sanction of
the most pious and faithful Constantine, the great Emperor, has been gathered together
in this God-preserved and royal city, Constantinople, the new Rome, in the Secretum of
the imperial (, sacri) palace called Trullus, to the most holy and most blessed pope
of Old Rome, Agatho, health in the Lord.

Serious illnesses call for greater helps, as you know, most blessed [father]; and
therefore Christ our true God, who is the creator and governing power of all things, gave
a wise physician, namely your God-honoured sanctity, to drive away by force the
contagion of heretical pestilence by the remedies of orthodoxy, and to give the strength
of health to the members of the church. accordance with the sentence already given concerning them in your letter, and
their names are these: Theodore, bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, Paul,
Pyrrhus and Peter.

Moreover, in addition to these, we justly subjected to the anathema of heretics those

also who live in their impiety which they have received, or, to speak more accurately, in
the impiety of these God-hated persons, Apollinaris, SEVERUS... and Themestius, to
wit, Macarius, who was the bishop of the great city of Antioch (and him we also stripped
deservedly of his pastors robes on account of his impenitence concerning the orthodox
faith and his obstinate stubbornness)... and finally all those who impenitently have
taught or do teach, or now hold or have held similar doctrines.

Up to now grief, sorrow, and many tears have been our portion. For we cannot laugh at
the fall of our neighbours, nor exult with joy at their unbridled madness, nor have we
been elated that we might fall all the more grievously because of this thing;



Condemnation by Seventh Ecumenical Council

Furthermore, the Decree of the Seventh Ecumenical Council in 787 (Nicaea II)
condemned Severus as a Monophysite.

With the Fathers of this synod we confess that he who was incarnate of the immaculate
Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary has two natures, recognizing him as perfect God
and perfect man, as also the Council of Chalcedon hath promulgated, expelling from the
divine Atrium [] as blasphemers, Eutyches and Dioscorus; and placing in the
same category Severus, Peter and a number of others, blaspheming in divers fashions.

...Those, therefore who dare to think or teach otherwise, or as wicked heretics to spurn
the traditions of the Church and to invent some novelty, or else to reject some of those
things which the Church hath received... if they be Bishops or Clerics, we command that
they be deposed; if religious or laics, that they be cut off from communion.


In certain instances, the Church has relaxed certain canons of the church, and received
the heterodox out of economy. However, in modern days, economy (also known as
economia), has become the normally practice. The exception has become the rule and
the rule has become the exception.

Economy is to be used only in the rarest of circumstances (cases of emergency) and

not in mass quantities (as has become the common practice among our churches

Now obviously, the church is concerned with the salvation of human souls, and in some
cases may exercise discretion in certain specific circumstances. But, as stated earlier,
this is only in the rarest of circumstances and must not become a normal practice;
otherwise, we give the heterodox the impression that long-practiced traditions are no
longer applicable. If we fail to hang onto the traditions of the church, as the Apostle
Saint Paul instructs us (2 Thessalonians 2:15), then we run the risk of slowly losing our
identity, watering down our faith, and even that which we have being taken away
(Matthew 13:12).


It is misleading and confusing when a few of our brothers, sisters and sometimes clergy
consistently believe, teach and preach that OUR ECUMENICAL FATHERS made a
mistake, not the Anti-Chalcedonians. Not only do the Anti-Chalcedonians "blatantly
refuse to accept our counsels", but they also anathematized and excommunicated the
Orthodox of Georgia in the 6th century, for refusing to accept the monophysite

doctrines, martyred our dear and beloved Saint Patriarch Flavian, replacing Saint
Flavian with one of their own.

"Do not be carried about with various and strange doctrines. --Hebrews 13:9

If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your
house nor greet him; for he who greets him shares in his evil deeds. --2 John 1:10
Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving
heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons. --1 St. Timothy 4:1


Who teach directly or indirectly, by words, gestures or actions that the canons of the
fourth ecumenical council are of no effect:

"Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men
so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them,
he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven." St. Matthew 5:19

A FURTHER RESPONSE TO THE MISLED (Note: Not all only those involved):

"The holy, great, and ecumenical synod, assembled by the grace of God... in the
martyry of the holy and victorious martyr Euphemia (Saint who affirmed the Tome of
Leo after her repose), has decreed as follows: ...These things, therefore, having been
expressed by us with the greatest accuracy and attention, the holy Ecumenical Synod
defines that no one shall be suffered to bring forward a different faith (
), nor to write, nor to put together, nor to excogitate, nor to teach it to
others. But such as dare either to put together another faith, or to bring forward or to
teach or to deliver a different Creed ( ) to as wish to be converted to the
knowledge of the truth, from the Gentiles, or Jews or any heresy whatever, if they be
Bishops or clerics let them be deposed, the Bishops from the Episcopate, and the
clerics from the clergy; but if they be monks or laics: let them be anathematized."



"But, forasmuch as persons undertaking to make void the preaching of the truth have
through their individual heresies given rise to empty babblings; some of them daring to
corrupt the mystery of the Lords incarnation for us and refusing [to use] the name
Mother of God () in reference to the Virgin, WHILE OTHERS, BRINGING IN A

therefore this present holy, great, and ecumenical synod, desiring to exclude every
device against the Truth, and teaching that which is unchanged from the beginning, has
at the very outset decreed that the faith of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Fathers
shall be preserved inviolate."

The Fourth Ecumenical Council and Canons

"I reminded you many times about the atheist heretics (non-Orthodox), and now I
implore you not to compromise with them on anything, do not eat or drink with them in
the name of friendship, better relations, love or peace, because he who is swayed and
compromises with them renders him self-foreign to the Catholic (universal) church."
--St. John Chrysostom

"Be aware not to be corrupted from love of the heretics; for this reason do not accept
any false belief (dogma) in the name of love."
--St. John Chrysostom

" not have a single thing to do with schismatics and absolutely nothing with heretics
... As you know I myself have avoided them due to their Christ hating and heterodox
--St. Anthony the Great

"The purity of heretics is worse than all debauchery ... how can a virgin, having rebelled
against the true Faith, now pay attention to the deluded, believing the demons and
honouring lies?"
--St. John the Chrysostom

"If someone believes evil about the faith (heretically)...flee from him and have nothing to
do with him not only if he is a man but even if he happens to be an angel from heaven.
However, do not critique a person's lifestyle because, 'Do not judge so you will not be
judged,' applies to all matters of the lifestyle and not in the matters of the Faith."
--St. John Chrysostom

"Keep an eye on your bishops as far as their Orthodoxy is concerned lest they go so far
as to teach doctrines against the true faith or celebrate with heretics or schismatics. As
far as other things, they act out of ignorance or because the days are evil and they will
give an account to God only."
--St Gennadios Scholarios

"Outside of Orthodoxy there is no other confession which can lead man to the fullness
of the Christian life, to sanctification, to the cleansing from sin or to eternity, because the
other ones, the non-Orthodox confessions, supress 'the truth in wickedness'(Rom. 1,
18). They confuse the truth with sophistries and lies and in this way they don't maintain

the means of Grace necessary for man's renewal. These only belong to the Orthodox
church the only 'Holy and Spotless'" (Ephesians 5,27)
--St John of Kronstadt

So in conclusion, there are several misled Orthodox (not all), who continue overriding
certain confessions of faith by the Holy Ecumenical Fathers, specifically canons
involving SERIOUS ISSUES OF SALVATION. They deceive the flock of Christ by
bringing in destructive heresies (2 Peter 2:1). They are under the belief that the HOLY
FATHERS were confused, misguided and wrongly anathematized the Mono / Mia /
Heno / Oriental physites, or whatever name they choose to call themselves. May God
enlighten and strengthen these deceived clergy according to Gods will.


Forgive me for being so bold; my only wish is to have the misled flock of christ snap out
of this belief of false-unity void of truth. We must stay true to our great and Holy
Ecumenical Church Fathers, who suffered greatly to deliver us the faith we have now. It
is wise for the misled to take heed of the following scripture when they choose to
disregard the Holy Fathers, decisions of these councils or add their very own private

"Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as
those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would
be unprofitable for you." --Hebrews 13:17


SEVERAL OF OUR MISLED seem to think they can create their own set of rules,
canons and ecumenical councils. They seem to be under the impression that they do
not need to regard the decisions of the councils and that they know better than the Holy
Fathers. Or is it that some feel they are infallible and without error? Has this false-unity
and compromising of our faith become so important, that even the traditions and
dogmas of the Church sustaining us for two-thousand years, can be trampled upon and
set-aside for this hidden agenda of theirs?

"A union with the heterodox must be based on truth. Not love alone" --Nico
Sotiropoulos, otherwise we fall into the spirit of delusion
2 Thessalonians 2:11 and Romans 1:28.

Betrayal of the Faith


Agreement of Faith - Chambesy Union, Geneva, 1990

Orthodox Unity - More Sources


Critique of Chambesy Union, Begins at Paragraph 23

Response by Russian Orthodox Church - ' Remove Ambiguities '

Responses by Mount Athos

An In-Depth Commentary

Do We Share the Same Beliefs ?

A Confession of Faith Against Ecumenism



So since so many clergy and hierarchs, including regular ordinary lay-people protested
and disagreed with the Above Chambesy Union false agreement of faith, it goes without
saying that this false agreement is not binding on all of Orthodoxy and in the words of
the very Reverrend and Late Metropolitan Philaret, these decisions are null and void.

And as stated by the above Confession of Faith Against Ecumenism, signed by

thousands of Orthodox Hierarchs, Clergy, Monks, Nuns, and Laity:

Along with the Holy Fathers and the Synods, we too reject and anathematize all the
heresies that appeared during the historical course of the Church. Of the old heresies
that have survived to this day, we condemn... Monophysitism - the extreme form of
Eutychius and the more moderate form of Sevirus and Dioscorus - according to the

decisions of the 4th Ecumenical Synod of Chalcedon and the Christological teaching of
the great Holy Fathers and Teachers such as Saints Maximus the Confessor, John of
Damascus, Photios the Great and the hymns of our worship.

Are the Non-Chalcedonians Orthodox ?

Non-Chalcedonian Bishop Converts to Orthodoxy

Letter of Jerusalem Patriarch Diodoros I to Antiochian Patriarch Ignatios IV


A Commentary on Coptic Christology



"How is it possible for the same nature to be at once created and uncreated, mortal and
immortal, circumscribed and uncircumscribed? ...How can they ever say that Christ has
two natures, while they are asserting that after the union He has one compound
nature? For it is obvious to anyone that, before the union, Christ had one nature."

"The Coptic Church condemns Appolinarius because he taught that Christ did not have
a human soul when He became Incarnate. He preached that Christ had a divine nature
but since he did not believe that Christ had a human soul, Appolinarius did not believe
in Christ having a fully human nature.

However Appolinarius like Pope Shenouda also taught that Christ had only One Nature
after the union for, ' just as man is one nature, so is Christ Who has come in the
likeness of men...One incarnate nature of the Divine Word '. This statement sounds
dangerously close to what the Coptic Pope (SHENOUDA) says.."

"The idea that Christ Incarnate only had one nature, also invariably leads to the
uncomfortable conclusion that suffering and death was inflicted upon the Divine Logos
at his crucifixion"

1. "Can it be concluded from this declaration that the Non-Chalcedonians accept without
reservation the teachings of our Ecumenical Councils? part VII

2. "Which Orthodox bishop, who gave an oath to defend the Ecumenical and Local
Councils, will accept intercommunion with bishops who will discuss if the Ecumenical
Councils are Ecumenical? part VIII

"In other words, the union will take place without their recognizing the Ecumenical
Councils; but after the union they probably will be accepted or the matter will be put up
for their evaluation.", part VIII

Here again we see in practice the Protestant concept of ecclesiology whereby the
excommunication of one for dogmatical error does not prevent heretics from belonging
to the Church. Metropolitan Philarets Second Sorrowful Epistle to Patriarch
Athenagoras of Constantinople.


My dearly beloved Orthodox brethren, kindly accept these words from an unworthy
sinner, and reconsider when receiving these Anti-Chalcedonians into our Churches, not
edifying them, even with love, acknowledging their baptisms as valid, without any sort of
confirmation or confession of the faith. And finally, I hope and pray that one day we
remove our memberships from this organization known as the WORLD COUNCIL OF
CHURCHES, as it serves no purpose for our church.

Again, I re-quote a statement made by an anonymous blogger on a forum as it highly

relates to this issue of WCC membership:

I have wondered, just what HEALTHY ECUMENISM is? If a church is in the

WCC [World Council of Churches] but does not accept the branch theory, then
why is it there? There seems to be an idea that membership in the WCC is an
aspect of missionary work. However, do ecumenists really expect to gain
converts by meeting in committees with the official representatives of other
churches, reaching decisions which most church members (in any church) will
probably never hear about? It seems to me that membership in these bodies is at
best a waste of time.

... How many people do you know who became Orthodox because of evangelism
that took place at a WCC meeting? Personally I dont know any. With all the time,
effort, and money spent on it you would think our Church would be growing by
leaps and bounds via the influx of new converts coming in from WCC meetings.
Apparently our "ecumenical representatives" must have some reason other than
the "evangelism" they talk so much about for going there. The only real fruit of

the eccumenical movement = thousands of scandalized Orthodox and a few

schisms! Instead of uniting Christians it actually works to divide Orthodox.

I humbly ponder the following:

1. What answer will be given to our ancestors and Holy Elders in the last and final

2. How will we account for the hundreds upon hundreds of laity that have been
scandalized or continue to be scandalized with these erroneous, deceitful and
non-therapeutic doctrines?
3. And further, what account will we give for the simple-minded Orthodox Christians
or converts led astray?

We have a duty, no, an obligation, as holders of the true faith to defend and support the
Holy-Fathers of our church as the pillars and ground of truth 1 Timothy 3:15, even
unto death if need be.

Forgive me for being so harsh. If there are any theological inaccuracies due to my
flawed human nature and perception, then any suggestions, additions, deletions or
corrections are appreciated.

NOTE: Please, only feedback from members of the Eastern-Orthodox body of Christ.


Again, I must state, this article is in no way directed towards Anti-Chalcedonians, it is

directed towards our VERY OWN MISLED who continue to support them (Anti-
Chalcedonians) and do not receive them into the Orthodox body of Christ in a correct
and dogmatic manner. And further, this article in no way makes claims or assumptions
about the integrity, level of repentance or piety displayed by many Anti-Chalcedonians,
their clergy or their monastics as that is for God to decide.


A Final Word
In a recent discussion with a Coptic over the Chalcedonian Ecumenical Council, his
position was that we are preaching Nestorian theology.

A simple response to this is that since we believe in the Holy Trinity, that God is one
and yet three distinct persons (hypostases), Father, Son and Holy Ghost does this
imply that we believe in three Gods? Obviously not.

Then why is it difficult for them to accept that Christ is one person to be expressed "in
two" natures? Well this same Coptics response was that he did not know and that they
accept two natures but overemphasize his oneness. This answer reminds me of some
Protestants I knew years back, that overemphasized the "Oneness of God" and
lowered, minimized or diminished the Holy Trinity.

I will further add, if one takes a look at our icons, we do not have two Christs, we have
one Christ, we too, along with the anti-chalcedonians, regard Nestorius as a
condemned heretic.

But they, on the other hand, by claiming "from two" natures or "of two" natures, in the
words of Very Reverend Fr. John Romanides, "are closer to Nestorian theology than

And furthermore, they run the risk of diminishing or downplaying the role of the Ever
Virgin Mary (Panagia). And falling into the heresy that St. Cyril of Jerusalem warns us
of: Some of them altogether deny that he was born of a virgin..., and some claim that
he passed through the virgin as a channel.

For if one claims that Christ came "from two" natures, then does that not also imply that
his (Christ's) humanity pre-existed before the virgin birth? How is this possible if in the
words of St. Pope Leo of Rome whom the anti-chalcedonians reject, "Christ had not yet
assumed flesh."

Or in the alternative, if they agree that Christ's humanity came after the incarnation, then
by arguing "one nature", derived "from two", this would imply that the ever virgin
conceived "two natures" or as St. Cyril of Jerusalem states:

...that Christ was not God made man, but that a man was made God. For they have
dared to say that it was not the pre-existing Word who became man, but that a certain
man by advancement was crowned...

In examining anti-chalcedonian christology, it is further determined that they confuse

"hypostases" with "nature" which is in fact two distinct and separate concepts.

Or to further elaborate on this as St. John of Damascus says:

But this is what leads the heretics astray: that they look upon nature and person
(hypostasis) as the same thing, and furthermore:

Chalcedon did not declare that Christ is two persons [hypostases], but two natures

Or in the words of St. John of Damascus, His natures are united in His
person.[Hypostasis]..and in this He differs both from the Father and the Spirit and from
His Mother and us.

And to further guard both from Nestorianism and Monophysitism, we have the very wise
words of St. Cyril of Jerusalem:

The Lord took of us a like nature with us, that He might save human nature...that to
that which lacked He might give the larger grace; that sinful humanity might be made
partaker of God... and being born of the Holy Virgin and the Holy Spirit, not in
appearance or imagination, but in truth... and truly took flesh of her (the virgin), and was
truly nourished with milk, and truly ate as we do, and truly drank as we do...

Guard against Monophysitism

Christ was twofold, man in what was seen, God in what was not seen, eating truly as
Man like us...dying as Man truly, but as God raising him...

Guard agains Nestorianism

For neither is it religious to worship the mere man, nor is it pious to speak of Him as
God only, separate from His manhood.

For if Christ, as He truly is, be God but took not manhood, we are aliens from salvation.
Be He then adored as God, but let it be believed that He became Man; for neither is
there any profit in calling Him Man without His Godhead, nor is it salutary, if we confess
not His manhood together with his Godhead. Let us confess the presence of the King,
and the Physician.St. Cyril of Jerusalem Commentary on the Creed.


"After 1500 years, the Holy Church once again stands confronted by the heresy of
Monophysitism, since the Ecumenical Movement has resurrected all the heresies of old
and sent them in legions against the Holy Church..."



And there are many other scripture passages, writings of Saints, Holy Fathers, Apostles
which I could have also included to further support the position of the Holy and Blessed
Fathers from the fourth through-to the seventh Ecumenical Synods, which if they were
written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that
would be written. Amen. St. John 21:25

In Christ with love,

Your Humble and Unworthy Servant...

"He who speaks the truth has love, even if he causes distress at the outset and creates
a reaction. Not he who misleads and conceals the truth, taking account of temporary
human relations and not of eternal realities."
--Protopresbyter Theodore Zisis

Glory to God For All Things.

EN TOUTON "+" NIKAS (WITH THIS "+" YOU WIN) Emp. St. Constantine the Great.