West and East Indebted to Dr. V. C.

Samuel:
Some Comments on Chalcedon

Dr. Prof. Dietrich Ritschl

The Council of Chalcedon in 451 presented by no means a final

conclusion to the Christological problems raised at the end of the 4th
century in Appollinaris’ attempt at explaining the relation between logos and
the man Jesus 1. The negative propositions promulgated by the council at
best determined the territory within which positive statements about the
one person of Jesus Christ could be made. The statement of both the
Alexandrian and the Antiochian Schools in reaching such positive
affirmations was not met by the decisions of 451 2. Here a double question
arises: (1) has the formula of 451 made concessions to the Nestorians
(based perhaps on implicit permissions in the Tome of Leo)? And (2) has the
insight into the hypostatic union-prefigured and supported by Cyril - been
obscured by the Council of Chalcedon?
 The Orthodox critics of Chalcedon answered both these questions in the
affirmative. The non-Chalcedonian tradition of the ancient Orthodox Church
(not, of course, including the Nestorians) is based upon the Trinitarian
theology of the councils of 325 and 381, on Cyril’s Second and Third Letters
to Nestorius (including the 12 anathemas), and it accepts the Henotikon of
482 as Orthodox. Severus of Antioch (d. 538) is claimed an important
witness. Prof. V.C. Samuel’s theological works 3 is a major contribution
towards clarifying the complex developments during and after the council of
Chalcedon. And more than that: His work is not only historical and analytic
but theological and conductive. Fr. Samuel bases significant theological
propositions and positions on his penetrating analysis in to the reasons and
logical conditions for the 5th, 6th and 7th centuries. We the Western Church
are profoundly grateful for such interpretative and constructive work.

1. Western Difficulties with Chalcedon

Here we need not dwell on typically Protestant criticism of Greek

patristic thought as they were expressed in the school of liberal-theological
historicism in the 19th century. We will, however, not deny our respect for
much impressive historical research done by scholars of that period. A.v.
Harnack, F. Loofs and many others will always be remembered as pioneers
of critical – historical research even though we many not accept there
laminations over the ontology which was part of the early fathers’
theological thinking4.

The difficulties Western theologians and Churches today have with

Chalcedon are of a different kind. It is a sense of missing important elements
in the totality of what can and what ought to be said about Jesus Christ. This
deficiency is noted by no means only with regard to Chalcedon. It also
concerns other conciliar decisions – decisions with which we agree! e.g. that
of the Council of Constantinople in 381 5. We feel that the relation between
Jesus Christ and e.g. history is not really explained the ancient statements, or
the eschatological dimension, of the inner connection between Christology
and ethics, and so forth. I need not go into details as this point. The problem
for Westerners is this: while we – at least the trained theologians – indeed
have well grounded sympathies or critical thoughts concerning this or that
classical positions (e.g. for Cyril and against Eutyches), we cannot help
feeling that our problems are not fully taken care of by the advocates of
classical positions or councils. We learn about their decisions and
controversy, we studied the writings of the fathers (wished we did more of
that!) and we indeed come up with preferences and judgments which may
please our friends in the Orthodox Churches, but we are inclined to treat all
of the issues at stake in patristic controversies as issues “in the second dark”,
as it were. By saying “we” I mean the Western theologians who are not
experts in patristic studies. These experts, it must be admitted, have little
influence on the Church at large on individual Christians in the parishes.
 Thus the Council of Chalcedon functions the mind of Church at large in
the West mainly in the very negative terms in which the decisive portion in
articulated: Do not think of our Lord in this (Eutychian) or in that
(Nestorian) way! For most people in theology and in the Church, this
suffices. It could well be that the Western part of the Church in the 5th, 6th
and 7th centuries held a very similar view. In any case, after the “interlude”
of the 5th Ecumenical Council in 553 the Lateran Synod of 649 and indeed
the 6th Ecumenical Council of 680–81 in Constantinople seemed to have
rehabilitated the decisions of Chalcedon in much the same way. Thus the
general impression in the West was (and is!) that, after the zigzag of
imperially advocated and ecclesiastically accepted decisions such as
Chalcedon (451), the Henotickon (482) the Three Chapters (543/544), the
fifth Ecumenical Council (553), the rehabilitation of Maximus Confessor
(649) and the 6th Ecumenical Council (680/81), Chalcedon was eventually
reaffirmed. The average Western theologian has no difficulties with this
general view although he may not be interested in the details.

The fascinating aspect of Professor V.C. Samuel’s theological work is the

fact that he is aware of such feelings of deficiency with reference to the
ancient theological positions. This is brought out very clearly in the
concluding remarks of his book on the relevance of the ancient texts for the
Church today, especially the Church in an Indian context (pp.296-304). But
this does not diminish his deep respect for the fathers and his conviction
their views, insights and positions are constitutive for a sound theology
today. This is an admirable approach which sets a formidable example for
theologians in East and West.

2. The Problem about the Term “Monophysitism”

Fr. Samuel upholds his critical assessment of the Council of Chalcedon.

In doing so he not merely follows his Churches’ official teaching but
penetrates deeply into the history of the councils, ponders the theological
possibilities given at that time and comes up with an interpretation that
ultimately suggests a denial of the council’s theological statements. His
critique is subtle and differentiated. He can think of rapprochement of the
main concerns of Alexandrian and Antiochian Christologies. 6 And indeed,
there have been Ecumenical Consultations – even though unofficial – in
Arhus (1964), in Bristol (1967), in Geneva (1970) and in Addis Ababa
(1971) at which Fr. Samuel’s readiness for conciliatory discussions has been
demonstrated7.

What is the main theological basis for the non-Chalcedonian critique of

Chalcedon? The general label “Monophysitism”8 is all too vague. Fr. Samuel
denies that his chief witness, Severus of Antioch, was a “Monophysite”, in his
Christology. His arguments are convincing. This leaves us with the
historical question of how classify the various groups after Chalcedon. A
classification alone, however, will not bring about a cognitive gain in
theological content. But it would be helpful to know how the major parties
and groups constituted themselves theologically and how they were related
to tradition and to the council 451. It seems that earlier attempts at
classifying, e.g. the division into (1) Chalcedonian, (2) Monophysites and (3)
Nestorian cannot stand up against the facts of the texts available. Moreover,
the enormous emphasis on political and ethnic practice, stresses e.g. by
Harnack, does not satisfactorily explain the emergence of the non-
Chalcedonian Churches.

C.H. Moeller, D.V. Evans and S. Helmer9 have shown convincingly that a
distinction between strict Chalcedonian (Moeller: “Chalcedonisme strict”)
and neo-Chalcedonianism is necessary. The former stresses the integrity of
the two natures in Christ (including Leontius of Byzantium who, however,
contrary to F. Loofs’, analysis of 1887, actually does not really belong here
since he, in fact taught that the subject of the Incarnation gave up his
hypostasis in favour of a tertium quid); the latter emphasised the
enhypostasis of the divine Logos. They, e.g. John the Grammarian, claimed to
maintain a position which Cyril of Alexandria would have advocated had he
been alive at that later time. We will return to their concept later. In
addition to these two movements one must distinguish the group
represented by Severus of Antioch on the one hand and the real
Monophysite on the other.

If this is tenable, five movements (or sections of the Church) can be

distinguished:
  The Antiochians or Nestorians who, at the latest, were out ruled
by the “Three Chapters”, in 543 and by the 5th Ecumenical
Council,
 The “strict” Chalcedonians,
 The neo-Chalcedonians, notably John the Grammarian, who
tolerated Cyril’s mia- physis- formula on the basis of dyophysitic
concept and who clearly delineated his position against the
Nestorians, claiming support by Cyril in sketching his
understanding of enhypostasis,
 The “Severians”
 The monophysites10.

Fr. Samuel discusses the development towards these positions in “Part

Two” of his book. In his article on “One Incarnate Nature of God the Word”
he clearly defends Severus against the charge of Monophysitism and
demonstrates his faithfulness to Cyril of Alexandria. Julian of Halicarnassus,
however, is shown to have taught Docetism and Monophysitism in
maintaining that Christ in his incorruptible body had no involvement in the
fallen state of the human race.

3. The Trinitarian Grounding of the Concept of

Hypostatic Union

J. Lebon has said that the position of the Severian non-Chalcedonians

should actually be called “pre-chalchedonienne” since it took its main point
of departure from Cyril and from the Trinitarian theology of the 4th century.
It is true, however, that all parties claimed faithfulness to these highly
respected sources of Orthodoxy, but for Severus this is true in the particular
sense that his is an Incarnation – theology from beginning to end. “One
Incarnate Nature” was for Severus not equated with one ousia. At this point
terminological differences are of some importance: while the
Chalcedonians, in particular the neo-Chalcedonians (John the Grammarian)
took physis in the sense of ousia, Severus spoke of ousia in the original
Trinitarian sense and equated physis with hypostasis the two hypostasis
(physis), however, did not co-exist, so to speak, before the incarnation as if
the human nature were co-eternal with the Trinitarian hypostasis of the Son.
Hence, Christ “of two natures” – a correct statement according to Severus –
cannot possibly mean that before the incarnation (the conception of the
child Jesus) there existed – existed co-internally or parallel – two natures.
(Severus rightly criticizes the “symmetrical” use of language with regard to
the “two natures” as if they were compatible entities.) The union of the
natures was hypostatic, i.e., the divinity of the (Trinitarian) Son comes
together with everything that an individual manhood connotes. Fr. Samuel
quotes convincingly from Severus’ Philalethes that in the Incarnation of the
Word God the Son himself became incarnate by becoming one with
individuated humanity and that this incarnate Word is a person.

However, the oneness of the Word and man in the hypostatic union is
composite in the sense that neither Godhead nor humanity were diminished
or lost. Nor were the two confused or mixed in to some third entity, but the
two natures are hypostatically united maintaining their respective
properties.

Prof. Samuel at this point rightly asks why then the Severian section of
the Church did not freely speak of “two natures”. It was merely for the fear
of coming to close to the Nestorian error of turning such concepts in to a
doctrine of two persons. Thus the non-Chalcedonians for fear of
Nestorianism speak of the “One Incarnate Nature of God the Word”
(meaning thereby “of two natures”) while the neo-Chalcedonians for fear of
Eutychianism speak of Christ “in two natures”.

4. Conclusions

We must forgo a discussion on some interesting questions, such as

(1) Why did the Severians not accept the fifth Ecumenical Council?

(2) Why did the sixth Ecumenical Council speak of Severus “impious”
teaching?

(3) What was the inner connection between monothelitism and the
tradition of Severians? These questions are connected with the open
problems in the interpretation of Cyril of Alexandria whose authority
was appealed to by most parties concerned.

The tension between Severus and John the Grammarian is regrettable.

Moreover, the intention behind the “One Incarnate Nature of God the Word”
and the Enhypostasis of the neo-Chalcedonians is of such subtle dimensions
that western theology can only wish to learn from both, Severus and neo-
Chalcedonians. Some western authors have drawn attention to the
enormous theological and epistemological implications of a Christology
which is based ultimately on Cyril and on the Trinitarian theology of the 4th
century, notably Athanasius. It was above all Professor T.F. Torrance who
has attempted to show that here lies the promising beginnings of a theology
(or philosophy of science) which can overcome dualism. His thesis is that
these theologians of the incarnation have produced insight in to the fallacy
of cosmological and philosophical dualism that has only been fully
unmasked in 20th century physics. Thus the all-embracing effect of the
Incarnation not only permits thoughts such as H. Stickelberger maintains K.
Barth had found helpful in combating the anthropological idea of
autonomous powers or authorities. It also permit new and most helpful
concepts concerning the ultimate reconciliation 11 between forces and
entities formerly thought of as being dualistically opposed to each other. I
am not sure whether T.F. Torrance can rightly claim to find direct
explications of such helpful theories in Cyril and the fathers who followed
him. But it does seem to me that the non-Chalcedonians in particular hold
some treasures which we are yet to discover. Fr. Samuel’s life-long scholarly
work is a tremendous contribution toward such discovery. His publications
are of great ecumenical importance with respect to the relation between the
ancient Orthodox Churches and the Chalcedonians. And the Western
Churches can learn directly from this constructive discourse. Patristic
scholarship can learn to re-assess movements traditionally labeled
“monophysite”. Moreover, theology in East and West can take up the
challenge and re-visit genuine Incarnation –theologies of the 4th, 5th and
6th centuries in order to equip itself with powerful instruments for
overcoming dualistic concepts in cosmology, anthropology and in political
ethics●

(This was first published under the title “Some Comments on Chalcedon and Its Orthodox
Critics”, in the book Orthodox Identity In India: Essays in honour of Father V.C. Samuel, Ed. Fr.
M.K. Kuriakose, Bangalore, 1988 and Keeping Hope Alive, Ed. Jesudas Athyal, the Academy of
Ecumenical Indian Theology and Church Administration, Madras 1992)

1
Cf. E. Muhlenberg, Appollinaris von Laodicea, Gottingen (Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht), 1969.
2
Cf. A. Grillmeier and H. Bacht, Das Konzil von Chalcedon, 111, Wurzburg
(Echter-Verlag), 1954.

3
E.g. His main book The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined: A Historical and
Theological Survey, Madras (The Diocesan Press), 1977; cf. also his “One
Incarnate Nature of God the Word”, in P. Gregorios/Wm. Lazareth/N.A. Nissiotis
(ed.), Does Chalcedon Divide or Unite? Geneva (WCC Publications), 1981, pp.
76-92.
4
I have criticized these approaches in Memory Hope, An Inquiry Concerning the
Presence of Christ, New York (Macmillan Co.), 1967, Ch. 11 “Union with Christ:
Greek Patristic Thought” and in Athanasius, Zurich (EVZ-Verlag), 1954.

5
Cf. my analysis in “Warum wir Konzilien feiern – Konstantinopel 381”, in
Konzepte (coll. Essays), Munich (Chr. Kaiser), 1986 pp. 84-96.

6
Cf. R.V. Sellers, Two Ancient Christologies, London 1940.
7
The statements agreed upon there are reprinted in Does Chalcedon Divide or
Unite? See FN.3), pp. 3-26

8
Cf. e.g. W.H.C. Frend, The Rise and Fall of Monophysite Movement, Cambridge
1972, and the book by Roberta C. Chesnutt, Three Monophysite Christologies:
Severus of Antioch, Philoxenus of Mabbug, and Jacob of Sarug, London (OUP)
1976, praised by Frend. In a review in Journ. Of Eccl. Hist. Vol. 28, 3, July 1977,
pp. 319-20.

9
S. Helmer, Der Neuchalkedonismus, Geschichte, Berechting und Bedeutung
eines dogmengeschichtlichen Bogrffes, Dissertation Bonn, 1962.

10
See to the question of a classification S. Helmer, op. cit; chaps. I-IV; cf. also H.
Stickelberger, Ipsa assumptione creatur, Bern (p. Lang), 1979), an interesting book
on Karl Barth’s use of the concept of enhypostasis; an excellent discussion of the
patristic background is found in Paragraph 4.

11
See e.g. T.F. Torrance’s book Theology in Reconciliation, London (Geoffrey
Chapman) 1975.