This was, then, the atmosphere in which the Council of Chalcedon met. A sensitive world, indeed, where terms and formulas were more than terms and formulas as we take them today.
I agree. I am much further ahead in reading this book than what has been published so far. It gets a little clearer, but I will not oversell this notion.
The older I get, and the more days that I’m directly exposed to the gospels in Holy Mass, the more that I wonder what the apostles actually knew in real time.
St John clearly identifies Jesus as the Logos, a hypostasis of the God of Israel, but he wrote last and after decades of prayer and contemplation.
The Synoptics present (to me anyway) befuddled apostles who knew that Jesus was sent by the Father, and that the Nazarene had a unique relationship with Him, but didn’t know precisely what to make of him. They had seen Jesus Christ eat, drink, and sleep—and presumably excuse himself to toilet, occasionally suffer from the flu, and ultimately, die on a cross. Yahweh does this?!
Roll forward four centuries and I’d be more surprised if there was perfect agreement about the nature(s) of the Son of God.
GAB, the apostles as presented in the synoptics are much more understandable to me if they are looked at through the lens of Jesus fometing a revolution to throw out Rome.
Peter told Jesus he would never betray him, even after Jesus said he would. Our mind skips ahead to Peter betraying Jesus, and we think "what a weak man, or moment of weakness." But let's not skip ahead. Peter didn't betray Jesus: he first pulled out a sword. Once he saw the revolution was over before it began, he wimped out (just to use current vernacular).
Judas may have betrayed Jesus only because he thought that when the guards came to arrest Jesus, the fight could now begin. When Judas saw that this didn't happen, he realized his mistaken assumption.
After the crucifixion and even to the time when the Holy Spirit descended, the apostles believed that they were next to be killed as revolutionaries - at least they acted this way, in fear.
Now, I know this idea doesn't check every box, but it seems to fit better than this idea of looking on the apostles as if the Nicene Creed was already completely worked out in their minds.
Amen! The other day at a regular gathering of men at my Roman Catholic Church, I "confessed" I would not be willing to go on a Crusade to defend the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary since it is not in the Creeds, but now I'm not sure after reading all this whether I'd go on a Crusade to defend the Creeds (fact there are multiple ones probably should have told me that earlier!).
The veneration of Mary as Queen of Heaven has been practiced by the Apostolic Churches since the beginning, however, the nuances are of later origin. I pray the Ave Maria with gusto, but haven’t the devotion to the Rosary (codified in the 16th Century) that my wife and neighbors have. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is of very recent origin!
I will die for the original Nicean Creed. I believe that it stands as the high point of the unified Church.
After finishing this book on Chalcedon, I am debating: do I go backward or forward? I agree, to the extent I understand the history and discussion: it strikes me that the Nicene Creed is sufficient (set aside the filioque issue). But what is the story of the third council?
Or, do I go forward? I understand that at least some of the anti-Chalcedonian Churches agree with the Christological clarifications made in the subsequent councils, but as long as Chalcedon remain Orthodox, these Churches cannot accept it. Is this true?
So, do I go forward or backward? I don't know yet. I have a priest I can talk to about this, and also maybe a Protestant pastor, to get some advice.
Over the past couple of days, I listened to a podcast that was heavy into ”comparative religions”—which is another way of saying, “all religions are man-made and remarkably similar under the surface.” Because of this, we mustn’t rush past defining our Christology as accurately as possible. (AFAIK, Only orthodox Christianity fuses God and Man into a single, indivisible whole in the person of Jesus Christ.)
I suppose the rub comes in that there are no major, competing Christologies in the West at the present time. Both Roman Catholics and Protestants accept the hypostatic union as settled doctrine. Latter Day Saints and Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t deal with the nuance—Jesus Christ is clearly less than God of very God.
A study of the Councils leads my mind into awful places, for they always dip into the power politics of personalities. I’m inevitably drawn downward toward the dark thought that my Christian faith was negotiated/bullied rather than revealed through the Holy Scriptures and the ministry of the Holy Spirit.
Perhaps that’s why my direction would be toward the last point in which the various apostolic churches were united in voice and vision. In studying the filioque controversy, one of the heartbreaking aspects is that up to that point, the eastern churches often deferred to Rome because of the weight of its scholarship. Harmony, albeit with imperfect agreement.
Further, a clear definition of the last point of harmony could be used in fruitful discussion with Protestants. I’m sorry to say that throughout my education as an Evangelical, I was left with the clear impression that after St John died, the Church began running off-track and orthodoxy wasn’t returned until the likes of John Huss and Martin Luther. Tragically, my classmates and I yawned our way through most of two semesters of Church history.
1) I am leaning on moving forward to the fifth council, and not going backward to the third. This is based on your comment, I would rather find something of agreement between the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian churches. Which comes to, I think I understand why some non-Chalcedonian churches, certainly the Armenian, find agreement with the fifth council: Theodore of Mopsuestria and his teaching were condemned here, and this was a key sticking point for Armenians with Chalcedon.
2) I have come to accept that the faith being negotiated / bullied does not necessarily preclude the possibility that the Holy Spirit is at work in these various councils. The Holy Spirit works through fallen man. Perhaps we should just stand amazed as to how much progress He has made given the material He has to work with!
On this second point, this is why I appreciate Sarkissian's book on Chalcedon more than the previous one I reviewed, by VC Samuel. Sarkissian focuses on doctrinal issues - agree or disagree with the Armenian church. What I took from Samuel's book was the power play where both Constantinople and Rome had reason to diminish the influence of Alexandria. True as well, but if we are to ignore every decision made in a less than saintly manner, I am not sure what we would have left.
Well, other than Scripture (a good translation, at least, for which we still must rely on the good-will and capability of the translators!).
Very confusing, despite your help.
I agree. I am much further ahead in reading this book than what has been published so far. It gets a little clearer, but I will not oversell this notion.
The older I get, and the more days that I’m directly exposed to the gospels in Holy Mass, the more that I wonder what the apostles actually knew in real time.
St John clearly identifies Jesus as the Logos, a hypostasis of the God of Israel, but he wrote last and after decades of prayer and contemplation.
The Synoptics present (to me anyway) befuddled apostles who knew that Jesus was sent by the Father, and that the Nazarene had a unique relationship with Him, but didn’t know precisely what to make of him. They had seen Jesus Christ eat, drink, and sleep—and presumably excuse himself to toilet, occasionally suffer from the flu, and ultimately, die on a cross. Yahweh does this?!
Roll forward four centuries and I’d be more surprised if there was perfect agreement about the nature(s) of the Son of God.
GAB, the apostles as presented in the synoptics are much more understandable to me if they are looked at through the lens of Jesus fometing a revolution to throw out Rome.
Peter told Jesus he would never betray him, even after Jesus said he would. Our mind skips ahead to Peter betraying Jesus, and we think "what a weak man, or moment of weakness." But let's not skip ahead. Peter didn't betray Jesus: he first pulled out a sword. Once he saw the revolution was over before it began, he wimped out (just to use current vernacular).
Judas may have betrayed Jesus only because he thought that when the guards came to arrest Jesus, the fight could now begin. When Judas saw that this didn't happen, he realized his mistaken assumption.
After the crucifixion and even to the time when the Holy Spirit descended, the apostles believed that they were next to be killed as revolutionaries - at least they acted this way, in fear.
Now, I know this idea doesn't check every box, but it seems to fit better than this idea of looking on the apostles as if the Nicene Creed was already completely worked out in their minds.
Amen! The other day at a regular gathering of men at my Roman Catholic Church, I "confessed" I would not be willing to go on a Crusade to defend the doctrine of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary since it is not in the Creeds, but now I'm not sure after reading all this whether I'd go on a Crusade to defend the Creeds (fact there are multiple ones probably should have told me that earlier!).
The veneration of Mary as Queen of Heaven has been practiced by the Apostolic Churches since the beginning, however, the nuances are of later origin. I pray the Ave Maria with gusto, but haven’t the devotion to the Rosary (codified in the 16th Century) that my wife and neighbors have. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is of very recent origin!
I will die for the original Nicean Creed. I believe that it stands as the high point of the unified Church.
After finishing this book on Chalcedon, I am debating: do I go backward or forward? I agree, to the extent I understand the history and discussion: it strikes me that the Nicene Creed is sufficient (set aside the filioque issue). But what is the story of the third council?
Or, do I go forward? I understand that at least some of the anti-Chalcedonian Churches agree with the Christological clarifications made in the subsequent councils, but as long as Chalcedon remain Orthodox, these Churches cannot accept it. Is this true?
So, do I go forward or backward? I don't know yet. I have a priest I can talk to about this, and also maybe a Protestant pastor, to get some advice.
Over the past couple of days, I listened to a podcast that was heavy into ”comparative religions”—which is another way of saying, “all religions are man-made and remarkably similar under the surface.” Because of this, we mustn’t rush past defining our Christology as accurately as possible. (AFAIK, Only orthodox Christianity fuses God and Man into a single, indivisible whole in the person of Jesus Christ.)
I suppose the rub comes in that there are no major, competing Christologies in the West at the present time. Both Roman Catholics and Protestants accept the hypostatic union as settled doctrine. Latter Day Saints and Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t deal with the nuance—Jesus Christ is clearly less than God of very God.
A study of the Councils leads my mind into awful places, for they always dip into the power politics of personalities. I’m inevitably drawn downward toward the dark thought that my Christian faith was negotiated/bullied rather than revealed through the Holy Scriptures and the ministry of the Holy Spirit.
Perhaps that’s why my direction would be toward the last point in which the various apostolic churches were united in voice and vision. In studying the filioque controversy, one of the heartbreaking aspects is that up to that point, the eastern churches often deferred to Rome because of the weight of its scholarship. Harmony, albeit with imperfect agreement.
Further, a clear definition of the last point of harmony could be used in fruitful discussion with Protestants. I’m sorry to say that throughout my education as an Evangelical, I was left with the clear impression that after St John died, the Church began running off-track and orthodoxy wasn’t returned until the likes of John Huss and Martin Luther. Tragically, my classmates and I yawned our way through most of two semesters of Church history.
GAB, two thoughts:
1) I am leaning on moving forward to the fifth council, and not going backward to the third. This is based on your comment, I would rather find something of agreement between the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian churches. Which comes to, I think I understand why some non-Chalcedonian churches, certainly the Armenian, find agreement with the fifth council: Theodore of Mopsuestria and his teaching were condemned here, and this was a key sticking point for Armenians with Chalcedon.
2) I have come to accept that the faith being negotiated / bullied does not necessarily preclude the possibility that the Holy Spirit is at work in these various councils. The Holy Spirit works through fallen man. Perhaps we should just stand amazed as to how much progress He has made given the material He has to work with!
On this second point, this is why I appreciate Sarkissian's book on Chalcedon more than the previous one I reviewed, by VC Samuel. Sarkissian focuses on doctrinal issues - agree or disagree with the Armenian church. What I took from Samuel's book was the power play where both Constantinople and Rome had reason to diminish the influence of Alexandria. True as well, but if we are to ignore every decision made in a less than saintly manner, I am not sure what we would have left.
Well, other than Scripture (a good translation, at least, for which we still must rely on the good-will and capability of the translators!).