What do you think?
Rate this book
مجمع خلقيدونية إعادة فحص
يمثل مجمع خلقيدونية نقطة فارقة في حياة الكنيسة استمر أثرها لأكثر من خمسة عشر قرناً من الزمان، حيث انقسمت الكنيسة بعده إلي كيانين أحدهما مؤيد والآخر رافض لذلك المجمع.
وقد قام العديد من اللاهوتيين في الغرب بالدفاع عن مجمع خلقيدونية، ومهاجمة النعارضين له ووصفهم بالهرطقة، وعلي الرغم من ذلك ظهرت بعض الدراسات المعاصرة التي طالبت بتعديل جزء من تلك الصورة التقليدية القديمة. ولكن ظلت الحاجةلدراسةأكثر تعقماً حول هذا الموضوع، لأن تلك الدراسات المعاصرة رغم أهميتها لم تستطع الوصول إلي جذور الحقائق المتعلقة بالمجمع وبالجدال الخريستولجي المصاحب له.
وقد قام العديد من اللاهوتيين في الغرب بالدفاع عن مجمع خلقيدونية، ومهاجمة النعارضين له ووصفهم بالهرطقة، وعلي الرغم من ذلك ظهرت بعض الدراسات المعاصرة التي طالبت بتعديل جزء من تلك الصورة التقليدية القديمة. ولكن ظلت الحاجةلدراسةأكثر تعقماً حول هذا الموضوع، لأن تلك الدراسات المعاصرة رغم أهميتها لم تستطع الوصول إلي جذور الحقائق المتعلقة بالمجمع وبالجدال الخريستولجي المصاحب له.
649 pages, Paperback
Published January 1, 2009
23 people are currently reading
252 people want to read
About the author
V.C. Samuel
3 books11 followersFather Dr. Vilakuvelil Cherian Samuel
https://fathervcsamuel.wordpress.com/...
https://fathervcsamuel.wordpress.com/...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
September 8, 2024
A friend of mine recommended me this book as I was interested in the history and the theology of the Chalcedonian Schism. I found this piece of work invaluable. I learned so much. As in our time, there are a very few theologians and historians who write from the non-Chalcedonian view.
Historically, the Council of Chalcedon split the one church in the Eastern Roman empire into three. A Church that recognised the council and became the imperial church, to be known later as the "Eastern Orthodox Church". A church that refused the council, to be known later as the "Oriental Orthodox Church". Finally, a church that was condemned by the council, later known as the "Nestorian Church".
This is a thorough academic analysis of the history and the theology of the Chalcedonian schism. Fr. V.C. Samuel, uncovers the political aspirations and the two schools of theology, the Alexandrian and the Antiochene, that were in conflict during time. He explains how the split developed over time and remains unhealed until this day. The author writes from the non-Chalcedonian historical and theological point of views. He clearly brings evidences supporting the non-Chalcedonian cause and their positions. In which he responds to all the accusations against the non-Chalcedonian position, e.g. being called "Monophysites". His goal in bringing these facts up is to help bring the churches back into unity.
The author divided the book into two parts, with the first part focusing on historical events and the second on the theological issues at hand.
- The historical part starts from the beginning of the Nestorian controversy in the 5th century all the way to the Arab conquest of the Eastern Roman empire in the 7th century. Also, he explains the political and economic motivations behind the decisions of emperors and bishops. Fr. Samuel uses events, correspondences and modern scholarship to support his argument. I did not find this depth and clarity in any of the pro-Chalcedonian books. For example, Fr. Samule explains that those who opposed the council had two main reasons; the acceptance of the Tome of Leo and issuing a declaration of faith that explains the nature of Christ as "in two natures". These two were not acceptable to the Alexandrian tradition.
- The theological part covers all the theological positions of the Alexandrines, the Antiochenes and the Chalcedonians. He explains how they developed over time, then he compares and contrasts them with each other. These schools agree on most of the headlines, but it is the details of the hypostatic union that they differ. For me, this part was the hardest to read. Particularly chapter 12, 13 ,and 14. Fr. Samuel went really deep into the differences of each theologian writer. From the non-Chalcedonians he quotes, Cyril of Alexandria, Dioscurus of Alexandria, Philixinous of Mabbog and Severus of Antioch. From the Chalcedonian side, he quotes John the grammarian, John of Damascus and others. In all his arguments, he indicates that the Chalcedonians and the non-Chalcedonians are very close to each other. And if both sides are willing, they can reach an agreement.
The author's knowledge of multiple languages gave him an advantage over other scholars. Particularly, his knowledge of the Syriac language, which gave him access to multiple untranslated Syriac manuscripts that I did not see the other historians make use of them. He quotes from John of Ephesus, Michael the Syrian and Zacharia the rhetor. Also, his knowledge in French and German helped him access modern scholarship in these languages.
Definitely not an easy-to-read book. I found his writing academic and convincing. I re-read sections and chapters to understand the narrative and its logic. But once I understood it, the logic was sound and clear. I think this difficulty was because of the complexity of the issues at hand.
I highly recommend some pre-readings in the Roman/Byzantine history, from the 5th century to the 7th century. Also, I found it very helpful to read the 12 anathemas of St. Cyril in his secodn letter to Nestorious, and the Letter of Reunion that was the correspondence between St Cyril and John, the bishop of Antioch.
Before reading this book, I thought that it was the non-Chalcedonians who were wrong and created this conflict. This is because all my resources were pro-Chalcedonian. But, I was wrong. This book changed my orientation towards the Council of Chalcedon and my thinking of the non-Chalcedonians.
I pray for healing from this schism that tormented our churches until this day to be healed and we become united as ONE church, as our Lord Jesus Christ is ONE who is ONE with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
About the Author:
V.C. Samuel is a multi-linguistic scholar, university professor, theologian, historian and philosopher. He is also a priest from the non-Chalcedonian Syriac Indian Church. He knew 15 languages. Fr. Samuel wrote this piece to deal with issues arouse in the Indian church from the Chalcedonian Schism. He has contributed significantly to the ecumenical movement and world council of the churches.
Historically, the Council of Chalcedon split the one church in the Eastern Roman empire into three. A Church that recognised the council and became the imperial church, to be known later as the "Eastern Orthodox Church". A church that refused the council, to be known later as the "Oriental Orthodox Church". Finally, a church that was condemned by the council, later known as the "Nestorian Church".
This is a thorough academic analysis of the history and the theology of the Chalcedonian schism. Fr. V.C. Samuel, uncovers the political aspirations and the two schools of theology, the Alexandrian and the Antiochene, that were in conflict during time. He explains how the split developed over time and remains unhealed until this day. The author writes from the non-Chalcedonian historical and theological point of views. He clearly brings evidences supporting the non-Chalcedonian cause and their positions. In which he responds to all the accusations against the non-Chalcedonian position, e.g. being called "Monophysites". His goal in bringing these facts up is to help bring the churches back into unity.
The author divided the book into two parts, with the first part focusing on historical events and the second on the theological issues at hand.
- The historical part starts from the beginning of the Nestorian controversy in the 5th century all the way to the Arab conquest of the Eastern Roman empire in the 7th century. Also, he explains the political and economic motivations behind the decisions of emperors and bishops. Fr. Samuel uses events, correspondences and modern scholarship to support his argument. I did not find this depth and clarity in any of the pro-Chalcedonian books. For example, Fr. Samule explains that those who opposed the council had two main reasons; the acceptance of the Tome of Leo and issuing a declaration of faith that explains the nature of Christ as "in two natures". These two were not acceptable to the Alexandrian tradition.
- The theological part covers all the theological positions of the Alexandrines, the Antiochenes and the Chalcedonians. He explains how they developed over time, then he compares and contrasts them with each other. These schools agree on most of the headlines, but it is the details of the hypostatic union that they differ. For me, this part was the hardest to read. Particularly chapter 12, 13 ,and 14. Fr. Samuel went really deep into the differences of each theologian writer. From the non-Chalcedonians he quotes, Cyril of Alexandria, Dioscurus of Alexandria, Philixinous of Mabbog and Severus of Antioch. From the Chalcedonian side, he quotes John the grammarian, John of Damascus and others. In all his arguments, he indicates that the Chalcedonians and the non-Chalcedonians are very close to each other. And if both sides are willing, they can reach an agreement.
The author's knowledge of multiple languages gave him an advantage over other scholars. Particularly, his knowledge of the Syriac language, which gave him access to multiple untranslated Syriac manuscripts that I did not see the other historians make use of them. He quotes from John of Ephesus, Michael the Syrian and Zacharia the rhetor. Also, his knowledge in French and German helped him access modern scholarship in these languages.
Definitely not an easy-to-read book. I found his writing academic and convincing. I re-read sections and chapters to understand the narrative and its logic. But once I understood it, the logic was sound and clear. I think this difficulty was because of the complexity of the issues at hand.
I highly recommend some pre-readings in the Roman/Byzantine history, from the 5th century to the 7th century. Also, I found it very helpful to read the 12 anathemas of St. Cyril in his secodn letter to Nestorious, and the Letter of Reunion that was the correspondence between St Cyril and John, the bishop of Antioch.
Before reading this book, I thought that it was the non-Chalcedonians who were wrong and created this conflict. This is because all my resources were pro-Chalcedonian. But, I was wrong. This book changed my orientation towards the Council of Chalcedon and my thinking of the non-Chalcedonians.
I pray for healing from this schism that tormented our churches until this day to be healed and we become united as ONE church, as our Lord Jesus Christ is ONE who is ONE with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
About the Author:
V.C. Samuel is a multi-linguistic scholar, university professor, theologian, historian and philosopher. He is also a priest from the non-Chalcedonian Syriac Indian Church. He knew 15 languages. Fr. Samuel wrote this piece to deal with issues arouse in the Indian church from the Chalcedonian Schism. He has contributed significantly to the ecumenical movement and world council of the churches.
August 16, 2022
على الرغم ان التاريخ يطلق على انقسام ال1054 بين الغرب و الشرق الانشقاق العظيم (great schism) الا ان انقسام ما تلا مجمع خلقيدونية عام 451 من الممكن اعتباره من اكبر كوارث الكنيسة (ان لم تكن الأكبر على الإطلاق) فالأحداث الدامية التي حدثت من قبل السلطة الإمبراطورية في محاولة اخضاع الجانب غير الخلقيدوني و الصراعات بين اللاهوتيين من الجانبين قامت ببناء حاجز عملاق كان له بالغ الأثر في تغيير مجرى تاريخ المنطقة سياسيا و من الناحية الدينية أدى إلى عرقلة و الوقوف في وجه اي محاولة جادة للوحدة بين الطرفين.
ينقسم الكتاب إلى جزأين، جزأ تاريخي و جزء لاهوتي صرف، في الجزأ التاريخي استعرض الكاتب بشكل سريع المجامع الاولى و الظروف المحيطة بها و سلط الضوء بشكل خاص على مجمع افسس عام 431، حيث ان الهرطقة التى حاربها و حيثيات المجمع و ما تلاه كان النواة التي مهدت لمجمع خلقيدونية، و بعدها تم سرد أحداث مجمعي القسطنطينية و مجمع افسس الثاني الذي كان وراء انفجار الخلاف بين روما و الإسكندرية ثم بالطبع كان النصيب الأكبر لمجمع خلقيدونية و قدم فيه الكاتب سرد تفصيلي لوقائع المجمع و الثغرات التي حدثت و القرارات التي اصدرت. ثم تناول الكاتب بعد ذلك فترة ال 200 عام بعد المجمع و ما تضمنه من صراعات بين الجانبين و محاولات إعادات الوحدة و اسباب فشلها.
و على الرغم من انحياز الكاتب بعض الشيء الذي يظهر في العديد من الفقرات إلى الجانب الذي ينتمي اليه (اي الجانب غير الخلقيدوني) الا انه كان اكثر انصافا من العديد من المراجع التي تمادت في اتهامات غير منصفة للجانب غير الخلقيدوني(لا زال العديد يتمسك بها إلى اليوم) و التي قام الكاتب بتفنيدها بالعديد من البراهين مستعينا في ذلك بالعديد من المراجع منها مراجع يعترف بها و تنتمي للجانب الخلقيدوني حتى يعطي ثقل لحجته، كذلك الكاتب انصف الجانب الخلقيدوني في عديد من الفقرات نذكر منها على سبيل المثال لا الحصر: 1- دفاعه عن فلابيانوس بطريرك القسطنطينية و الذي حوكم و عزل و تم نفيه بسبب مجمع افسس الثاني
2 - توضيح صحة العديد من التعاليم للجانب الخلقيدوني و التي اسيئ فهمها او تفسيرها من الجانب الآخر
3 - ذكر ان واحدة من محاولات اعادة الوحدة كان سبب فشلها الجانب غير الخلقيدوني.
الا انه اكبر فائدة و قيمة تكمن في هذا الكتاب هو توضيح الحجم الحقيقي لاختلاف وجهات النظر بين الجانبين ، فأي من الأطراف قبل قراءة هذا الكتاب قد يشعر ان المسافة بين الاثنين هي اميال ليكتشف بعد قراءة الكتاب انها في الحقيقة امتار، و لذا استحق هذا الكتاب ان يكون نواة و واحدة من اهم الأدوات التي استخدمت و تم الاستعانة بها في الحوارات التي حدثت بين الجانبين في القرن العشرين و التي ترتب عليها قطع شوط ليس بقليل في التقارب و القضاء على الخلافات بين الجانبين
ينقسم الكتاب إلى جزأين، جزأ تاريخي و جزء لاهوتي صرف، في الجزأ التاريخي استعرض الكاتب بشكل سريع المجامع الاولى و الظروف المحيطة بها و سلط الضوء بشكل خاص على مجمع افسس عام 431، حيث ان الهرطقة التى حاربها و حيثيات المجمع و ما تلاه كان النواة التي مهدت لمجمع خلقيدونية، و بعدها تم سرد أحداث مجمعي القسطنطينية و مجمع افسس الثاني الذي كان وراء انفجار الخلاف بين روما و الإسكندرية ثم بالطبع كان النصيب الأكبر لمجمع خلقيدونية و قدم فيه الكاتب سرد تفصيلي لوقائع المجمع و الثغرات التي حدثت و القرارات التي اصدرت. ثم تناول الكاتب بعد ذلك فترة ال 200 عام بعد المجمع و ما تضمنه من صراعات بين الجانبين و محاولات إعادات الوحدة و اسباب فشلها.
و على الرغم من انحياز الكاتب بعض الشيء الذي يظهر في العديد من الفقرات إلى الجانب الذي ينتمي اليه (اي الجانب غير الخلقيدوني) الا انه كان اكثر انصافا من العديد من المراجع التي تمادت في اتهامات غير منصفة للجانب غير الخلقيدوني(لا زال العديد يتمسك بها إلى اليوم) و التي قام الكاتب بتفنيدها بالعديد من البراهين مستعينا في ذلك بالعديد من المراجع منها مراجع يعترف بها و تنتمي للجانب الخلقيدوني حتى يعطي ثقل لحجته، كذلك الكاتب انصف الجانب الخلقيدوني في عديد من الفقرات نذكر منها على سبيل المثال لا الحصر: 1- دفاعه عن فلابيانوس بطريرك القسطنطينية و الذي حوكم و عزل و تم نفيه بسبب مجمع افسس الثاني
2 - توضيح صحة العديد من التعاليم للجانب الخلقيدوني و التي اسيئ فهمها او تفسيرها من الجانب الآخر
3 - ذكر ان واحدة من محاولات اعادة الوحدة كان سبب فشلها الجانب غير الخلقيدوني.
الا انه اكبر فائدة و قيمة تكمن في هذا الكتاب هو توضيح الحجم الحقيقي لاختلاف وجهات النظر بين الجانبين ، فأي من الأطراف قبل قراءة هذا الكتاب قد يشعر ان المسافة بين الاثنين هي اميال ليكتشف بعد قراءة الكتاب انها في الحقيقة امتار، و لذا استحق هذا الكتاب ان يكون نواة و واحدة من اهم الأدوات التي استخدمت و تم الاستعانة بها في الحوارات التي حدثت بين الجانبين في القرن العشرين و التي ترتب عليها قطع شوط ليس بقليل في التقارب و القضاء على الخلافات بين الجانبين
July 4, 2021
الكتاب غير محايد، والكاتب غير محايد رغم انه يدعي النقيض، ليست المشكلة في عدم الحياد، لكن المشكلة في تصوير عدم الحياد على انه حياد، الاسلوب ممل ورتيب الى ابعد الحدود، التكرار مبالغ فيه جدا، الافكار غير متناسقة ومتناثرة مما يصعب معها المتابعة، الكاتب لا يملك ملكة الكتابة ولا ملكة البحث، فقد حاول جاهدا أن يجمع كل المصادر التي تؤيد وجهة نظره وتجاهل عمدا الاراء الاخرى كما لو لم توجد ... الافكار بعضها متناقض، تناقض صارخ لا يقبله المنطق السليم، كما يبدو ان الكاتب في بعض العناوين اعتمد الحشو لملأ الفقرات، فقد يبهرك عنوان وتجد تحته محتوي تكراري ضعيف ... لا يمكن وصف الكتاب انه بحث، هو مجرد رأي شخصي معتمد علي الاقتطاع والترجيح فلا موضوعية في البحث على الاطلاق ... من الواضح ايضا ان الكاتب غير متعمق لاهوتيا وهذا ما يظهر جليا من سطحية توصيفه للصراع العقيدي ... ما يزيد الطين بلا هو الاخطاء التاريخية في الكتاب.
اذا لماذا اخذ هذا الكتاب تلك الشهرة في الاوساط القبطية ؟ ... لانه الكتاب الوحيد في المكتبة العربية القبطية الذي لا يصنف من كتب رواد "الهرتلة" والجهل من بعض الاساقفة ورؤوساء الاساقفة الاقباط ... وهي مدرسة اسسها رئيس اساقفة متنيح لتبسيط العلوم اللاهوتية وجعلها علوم شعبية فعاملها الاقباط على انها كتابات لاهوتية وصاروا يدرسونها في اكليريكيتهم معاهدهم. العلمية (واعتذر عن توصيفها العلمية فلا هي علمية ولا هي اكاديمية حاليا) فصرنا أضحوكة المعاهد اللاهوتية العالمية سواء الارثوذوكسية او غير الارثوذوكسية ... ففي وسط هذا العبث الانتاجي لكتاب الاقباط جاء الكتاب كقطرات غيث ليعينهم في الصراع الخلقيدوني، فهو لا ينتمي للمدرسة العبثية القبطية، بل عمل الي حد ما يمكن وصفه بالاكاديمي، او هلي اقل تقدير مظهره اكادبمي، فصار ملاذا للكثير من الاقباط الذين ملوا من اصحاب العمائم وانتاجهم الجهلي الشعبي ...
لا ينصح بقراءته، ولكنه علي كل حال افضل بكثير من الاضحوكات العبثية التي وصفتها بعاميتي المصرية بالهرتلة التي تغرق المكتبات القبطية عن الخلاف القبطي الرومي، فان كنت من متابعي الانتاج العبثي القبطي، فهذا بالتاكيد افضل ويعتبر خطزة في الاتجاه الصحيح لتطوير نزعية قراءاتك، اما ان كنت تماك لغة ثانية انجليزية، فهناك الافضل والاكثر حيادية ليقرا، لا تضيع وقتك في مستوي لا يرقي للصراع مجال البحث
اذا لماذا اخذ هذا الكتاب تلك الشهرة في الاوساط القبطية ؟ ... لانه الكتاب الوحيد في المكتبة العربية القبطية الذي لا يصنف من كتب رواد "الهرتلة" والجهل من بعض الاساقفة ورؤوساء الاساقفة الاقباط ... وهي مدرسة اسسها رئيس اساقفة متنيح لتبسيط العلوم اللاهوتية وجعلها علوم شعبية فعاملها الاقباط على انها كتابات لاهوتية وصاروا يدرسونها في اكليريكيتهم معاهدهم. العلمية (واعتذر عن توصيفها العلمية فلا هي علمية ولا هي اكاديمية حاليا) فصرنا أضحوكة المعاهد اللاهوتية العالمية سواء الارثوذوكسية او غير الارثوذوكسية ... ففي وسط هذا العبث الانتاجي لكتاب الاقباط جاء الكتاب كقطرات غيث ليعينهم في الصراع الخلقيدوني، فهو لا ينتمي للمدرسة العبثية القبطية، بل عمل الي حد ما يمكن وصفه بالاكاديمي، او هلي اقل تقدير مظهره اكادبمي، فصار ملاذا للكثير من الاقباط الذين ملوا من اصحاب العمائم وانتاجهم الجهلي الشعبي ...
لا ينصح بقراءته، ولكنه علي كل حال افضل بكثير من الاضحوكات العبثية التي وصفتها بعاميتي المصرية بالهرتلة التي تغرق المكتبات القبطية عن الخلاف القبطي الرومي، فان كنت من متابعي الانتاج العبثي القبطي، فهذا بالتاكيد افضل ويعتبر خطزة في الاتجاه الصحيح لتطوير نزعية قراءاتك، اما ان كنت تماك لغة ثانية انجليزية، فهناك الافضل والاكثر حيادية ليقرا، لا تضيع وقتك في مستوي لا يرقي للصراع مجال البحث
January 16, 2011
A historical and theological defense of the non-Chalcedonian position, constructed on a meticulous and nuanced examination of the sources. The work does not amount to an unqualified endorsement of the Alexandrine school over against the Chalcedonian and "Nestorian" camps, however. In delivering a critical re-evaluation of the latter two positions, Fr. Samuel shows also how each of the three parties at various times misunderstood and thereby unnecessarily opposed one another as heretical. The book closes with a study of the points agreement among the Alexandrine, Chalcedonian and Antiochese Christologies and a rough sketch of the way forward. Despite being redundant and poorly-edited in places, this work is laudably irenic, cautiously-written and eminently readable. A must for anyone interested in the reunion of the divided Churches.
September 22, 2015
This was one of the major inspirations for my book, Healing The Divide. Samuel helped me to see that the Oriental Orthodox understanding of Jesus is mystical and dynamic. Whereas the Western understanding of Jesus is inherently static and dualistic. There are many talking about non-dual consciousness today. Samuel points to the traditional theology and mysticism of the Oriental Orthodox Church, which has preserved Miaphysite theology (The Jesus Paradox). The Jesus Paradox epitomizes non-dual awareness. It is the core mystical theology of Christian Tradition. The Jesus Paradox is about letting go of the false dilemmas and binaries and beholding the creative tensions. It is about letting go of the two sides of the tug-of-war and beholding the tension in the rope itself. Another name for The Jesus Paradox is non-absolutism. We don't settle for the reductionist boxes--that Jesus is God or that Jesus is human, period. Like Cyril of Alexandria we proclaim, "Jesus is at once God and human." The Council of Chalcedon was the pivotal council where subtleties and nuances of The Jesus Paradox should have been weighed. Instead, the council turned into an ego battle between the Roman See and the Alexandrian See for supremacy. As a result the first major split in the church happened and a mystical nuanced understanding of Jesus preserved in Alexandrian tradition for centuries was squashed. Thanks to the Oriental Orthodox Church, which split from the rest of the Church after Chalcedon, a thoroughly mystical theology of Jesus was preserved for future generations.
-Amos Smith (author of Healing The Divide: Recovering Christianity's Mystic Roots)
-Amos Smith (author of Healing The Divide: Recovering Christianity's Mystic Roots)
Read
July 23, 2016لتحميل نسخة الكترونية من كتاب مجمع خلقيدونية اعادة فحص – الاب في سي صموئيل
http://coptic-books.blogspot.com/2016...
http://coptic-books.blogspot.com/2016...
December 3, 2014
A very thorough covering of the issue that spans from the 3rd ecumenical council at Ephesus, the Formulary of Reunion of 433 between St. Cyril and John of Antioch, the Synod of 448, the Synod of 449, the Council of Chalcedon of 451, the 5th Council of 553 and to the 6th Council of 681.
In order to understand the dispute between the non-Chalcedonian side and the Chalcedonian side, you need to understand the whole 250 year story and Fr. V. C. Samuel does an outstanding job at presenting the history, the people involved and the debate.
Basically, the historical story line looks something like this:
Cyril of Alexandria presided over the Council of Ephesus in 431 and deposed Nestrorius who was the Patriarch of Constantinople for teaching a separation in Christ of the divinity and humanity. Ephesus declared the Orthodox teaching to be that the Word of God became a man - not that the Logos attached itself to a man, but that the Logos actually entered Mary's womb and truly united Himself to humanity. Thus, Ephesus declared it was OK to call Mary the "Theotokos" ( God-bearer/God-birther/Mother of God ) because God, truly united to man, was in her womb.
Unfortunately, however, the Patriarch John of Antioch arrived late to the council and all the decisions were already made but John did not like the decisions so he convoked his own council of bishops while there but his decisions were not accepted and the decisions made under Cyril's council were declared true and correct.
The Patriarch John went back to Antioch but did not remain silent. To restore peace between these two Apostolic Sees, Cyril and John communicated back and forth until they finally came to an agreement and this agreement allowed Antioch to fully accept the Council of 431. This was called the "Formulary of Reunion of 433" (because the agreement was made in AD 433) and Cyril said it was OK for Antioch to use the term "in two natures" as long as they understood there was a true union of the human and divine in Christ without any separation at all and Antioch acknowledged that this is how they meant it when they said, "in two natures".
Now, about 4-5 years later, in Constantinople, an Archimandrite name Eutyches (pronounced: U-Te-Keys) was accused of heretical beliefs by a Bishop named Eusebius. Thus, a synod was convened in Constantinople to address the charges in AD 448. Eutyches was deposed because he refused to declare that christ was "in two natures" (the Antiochian way of referring to Christ's divinity and humanity) and that he was "consubstantial" with us. Well, after he was deposed, Eutyches appealed the decision to the Patriarch of Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Thessalonika and to the Emperor himself and, because Eutyches had friends in high places, the emperor decided to convene a council in 449 to hear Eutyches complaint.
Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria was chosen by the Emperor to be the President of the Council. In this council, Patriarch Dioscorus re-instated Eutyches on the grounds of no real evidence and deposed the Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople, Theodoret of Cyrus and some other people. He also did not include the Tome of Leo (the Patriarch of Rome) into the hearings. Needless to say, this did not go over well with allot of people and the Patriarch of Rome (Leo) declared it a "council of robbers!"
This led to the Council of Chalcedon in 451 which reversed all of the decisions of the council of 449 and deposed the Patriarch Dioscorus (it was a reversal of most, or all, of the decisions of 449). Now, this council caused ALLOT of problems for many people in Alexandria and Antioch and they refused to accept the Tome of Leo and the "in two natures" Christology because it sound like Nestorianism to them and implied a separation of the natures in Christ.
The people who would not accept the decisions of Chalcedon were considered to have the heresy of Appolonarianism (sp?) and Doeceticism (sp?) - that is, Christ was not truly human (i.e., did not have a human soul) and that Christ only appeared to be human (doeceticism). These accusations, however, where not true but that is how the Imperial powers and others painted the dissenters of Chalcedon to be.
Fr. Samuel then does a great job showing exactly what the non-chacedonians really did believe (that Christ was 100% man and 100% God in a true union without and separation, mixture, mingling or confusion) but how allot of this seemed to be caused by a misunderstanding of the terms (ousia, physis, prosopon, etc...) and, it seemed to me, by a power-play by Rome to exercise domination over all the Churches (starting with the insistence of the Tome of Leo being accepted) and Imperial Constantinople (the secular power) wanting to exercise its dominion over the churches and bring them under the unity of Constantinople (this is only my opinion from reading this book).
He then goes on to write about the problem and the various solutions that were tried with the Council of 553 under Justinian trying to "fix" the division caused by 451. Whereas the Council of 451 exonerated Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Eddesa, the Council of 553 slightly corrected this by condemning some of their writings (called the Three Chapters) while not actually condemning the people themselves (thus, still upholding the decision of 451 to exonerate them). Unfortunately, 553 did not really fix anything - as far as the rift between these two groups goes - except to make the Christology of 451 a little more clear and well-defined (in my opinion).
The council of 553 then led to the Council of 681 which dealt with the "two wills/two operations" in Christ which, to me, is really just a continuation of 451 & 553.
So, there is the history in an abbreviated form - the book unpacks all of this and more. If you have an investigative mind, read this book and try and put the pieces together - I think you will see some power-plays happening, political influence happening and just plain misunderstandings going on.
I liked this book and would recommend it to anyone who is trying to understand this era and the things that happened and why we have the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox to this day.
Finally, I do have to tell you that the editing is poor, at times, and the grammar also. So, just be aware of this and do not let the misspellings and lack of punctation stop you from enjoying the book. Hopefully, in the future editions, they will edit it better.
In order to understand the dispute between the non-Chalcedonian side and the Chalcedonian side, you need to understand the whole 250 year story and Fr. V. C. Samuel does an outstanding job at presenting the history, the people involved and the debate.
Basically, the historical story line looks something like this:
Cyril of Alexandria presided over the Council of Ephesus in 431 and deposed Nestrorius who was the Patriarch of Constantinople for teaching a separation in Christ of the divinity and humanity. Ephesus declared the Orthodox teaching to be that the Word of God became a man - not that the Logos attached itself to a man, but that the Logos actually entered Mary's womb and truly united Himself to humanity. Thus, Ephesus declared it was OK to call Mary the "Theotokos" ( God-bearer/God-birther/Mother of God ) because God, truly united to man, was in her womb.
Unfortunately, however, the Patriarch John of Antioch arrived late to the council and all the decisions were already made but John did not like the decisions so he convoked his own council of bishops while there but his decisions were not accepted and the decisions made under Cyril's council were declared true and correct.
The Patriarch John went back to Antioch but did not remain silent. To restore peace between these two Apostolic Sees, Cyril and John communicated back and forth until they finally came to an agreement and this agreement allowed Antioch to fully accept the Council of 431. This was called the "Formulary of Reunion of 433" (because the agreement was made in AD 433) and Cyril said it was OK for Antioch to use the term "in two natures" as long as they understood there was a true union of the human and divine in Christ without any separation at all and Antioch acknowledged that this is how they meant it when they said, "in two natures".
Now, about 4-5 years later, in Constantinople, an Archimandrite name Eutyches (pronounced: U-Te-Keys) was accused of heretical beliefs by a Bishop named Eusebius. Thus, a synod was convened in Constantinople to address the charges in AD 448. Eutyches was deposed because he refused to declare that christ was "in two natures" (the Antiochian way of referring to Christ's divinity and humanity) and that he was "consubstantial" with us. Well, after he was deposed, Eutyches appealed the decision to the Patriarch of Rome, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Thessalonika and to the Emperor himself and, because Eutyches had friends in high places, the emperor decided to convene a council in 449 to hear Eutyches complaint.
Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria was chosen by the Emperor to be the President of the Council. In this council, Patriarch Dioscorus re-instated Eutyches on the grounds of no real evidence and deposed the Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople, Theodoret of Cyrus and some other people. He also did not include the Tome of Leo (the Patriarch of Rome) into the hearings. Needless to say, this did not go over well with allot of people and the Patriarch of Rome (Leo) declared it a "council of robbers!"
This led to the Council of Chalcedon in 451 which reversed all of the decisions of the council of 449 and deposed the Patriarch Dioscorus (it was a reversal of most, or all, of the decisions of 449). Now, this council caused ALLOT of problems for many people in Alexandria and Antioch and they refused to accept the Tome of Leo and the "in two natures" Christology because it sound like Nestorianism to them and implied a separation of the natures in Christ.
The people who would not accept the decisions of Chalcedon were considered to have the heresy of Appolonarianism (sp?) and Doeceticism (sp?) - that is, Christ was not truly human (i.e., did not have a human soul) and that Christ only appeared to be human (doeceticism). These accusations, however, where not true but that is how the Imperial powers and others painted the dissenters of Chalcedon to be.
Fr. Samuel then does a great job showing exactly what the non-chacedonians really did believe (that Christ was 100% man and 100% God in a true union without and separation, mixture, mingling or confusion) but how allot of this seemed to be caused by a misunderstanding of the terms (ousia, physis, prosopon, etc...) and, it seemed to me, by a power-play by Rome to exercise domination over all the Churches (starting with the insistence of the Tome of Leo being accepted) and Imperial Constantinople (the secular power) wanting to exercise its dominion over the churches and bring them under the unity of Constantinople (this is only my opinion from reading this book).
He then goes on to write about the problem and the various solutions that were tried with the Council of 553 under Justinian trying to "fix" the division caused by 451. Whereas the Council of 451 exonerated Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Eddesa, the Council of 553 slightly corrected this by condemning some of their writings (called the Three Chapters) while not actually condemning the people themselves (thus, still upholding the decision of 451 to exonerate them). Unfortunately, 553 did not really fix anything - as far as the rift between these two groups goes - except to make the Christology of 451 a little more clear and well-defined (in my opinion).
The council of 553 then led to the Council of 681 which dealt with the "two wills/two operations" in Christ which, to me, is really just a continuation of 451 & 553.
So, there is the history in an abbreviated form - the book unpacks all of this and more. If you have an investigative mind, read this book and try and put the pieces together - I think you will see some power-plays happening, political influence happening and just plain misunderstandings going on.
I liked this book and would recommend it to anyone who is trying to understand this era and the things that happened and why we have the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox to this day.
Finally, I do have to tell you that the editing is poor, at times, and the grammar also. So, just be aware of this and do not let the misspellings and lack of punctation stop you from enjoying the book. Hopefully, in the future editions, they will edit it better.
August 22, 2025
This is a very valuable book in attempting to reach an understanding across the division that the church councils of the 400s caused between the Catholic & Orthodox Churches, the nonChalcedonian miaphysite churches, and the church of the East. Father V.C. Samuel, an Indian Orthodox man with a superlative linguistic and educational background, was uniquely (some might say providentially)equipped to author such a book.
I will say up front, the biggest negative for my reading experience is that the book is rife with misspelled words and misuse punctuation to a level that does at times slow readability. It would be wonderful to see it newly edited. And also, though there are 946 endnotes (averaging more than 2 per page) there are still a few places where main doctrines of church fathers are summarized and could use supporting notes linking to text.
That said, this is still an awesome resource.
I will say up front, the biggest negative for my reading experience is that the book is rife with misspelled words and misuse punctuation to a level that does at times slow readability. It would be wonderful to see it newly edited. And also, though there are 946 endnotes (averaging more than 2 per page) there are still a few places where main doctrines of church fathers are summarized and could use supporting notes linking to text.
That said, this is still an awesome resource.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
August 29, 2021
"عسي ان يختلف اثنان وكلاهما علي حق"
كتاب و بحث رائع تاريخيا و لاهوتيا عن اسباب الخلاف بين الكنائس بعد خلقيدونية
الكتاب تجاهل جهود البابا شنودة عن الوحده في 1989 كان هتكون نهايه سعيدة اكتر لقضية الخلاف دي
كتاب و بحث رائع تاريخيا و لاهوتيا عن اسباب الخلاف بين الكنائس بعد خلقيدونية
الكتاب تجاهل جهود البابا شنودة عن الوحده في 1989 كان هتكون نهايه سعيدة اكتر لقضية الخلاف دي
September 30, 2017
كتاب ممتاز ومرجع تاريخي موسوعي عن حقبة خلقيدونيّة وما بعد خلقيدونية.. هام جدًا في الدراسات الخرستولوجيّة
October 12, 2017
كتاب رائع عن الأحداث التاريخية والصراعات اللاهوتية أثناء وبعد مجمع خلقيدونية. إسلوب السرد ممل بعض الشيء ولكن المحتوى جيد جدا
February 9, 2019
A so amazing book! I recommend it to all my friends who are into knowing more facts about Christianity and the Coptic church.
August 28, 2023
Father Samuel has a talent for writing history in an interesting manner. A great read for anyone interested in Christology.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews