.

2005
ISBN: 960-7553-23-3

2005

... ...

,
,
,

...
( )
***

...
,
,
,
, ,
...
( )
***

...
...
,
...
( )
***

... , ,
, ... ,
,
...
( ,
/)

11

15

15

15

22

1.

22

2. .
:

26

3.

62

68

77

79

SUMMARY

85

, , .
, , . ...
(. . 19).
, ,
.
,
. ,
.
, , ,
. ,
,

(. , , 2003).
.
-

12

13

, .
,
(. , 1990, . 10).
. ,
,
.


. , , . .
,
.
,
.
.
.
. , ,
,

. . .
. .
,
.
,
, , comprehensiveness ().
, . ,

. ,
,
,
.

, ,

.
,

, -

14

, , , , ,
.

11 2005




.
, .
, , . ,
, , .
,
.

. .
1 , -

1. . . ,
. , . , . 75, . 2, 2004,
. 593-609. (. . . , . 18/
10/2002, 10, 17 24/1/2003), . ( ., . 8/11/2002) . .
( . . 29/11/2002, 14 21/2/2003) . . ( ., . 31/1/ 7/2/2003), (. , . 798 (2003), . 598 ..).

16

, . : .
,
,
, 2 . :
) , ,
( )3.
)
, . 4.
:
. .
) . [.. ]
, ...
5.

, .
)
6.
. ,
,
- ,

.
,
(. , . 647/30.4.2005).


,
,
... ( .).


(1964-

2. . . , ..., ., . 609.
3. ., . 595-596.
4. ., . 598.
5. ., . 598-599.

6. ., . 609.

17

18

1971),
,
(1985-1993),
7. ,
(1989, 1990),
.
(1993)

, 8 .
. ,
) ,




9.
)

, ,
,

, ( )10.

7.
.
.
(1992), .
(1991), . (1998),
(1994),
. (1965), . (1994) .
(1994), ( 1995 ), . (1999), . . (2000) Jean-Claude Larchet (
2000, . 74/1 (2003), . 199234 74/2 (2003), . 633-670 75/1 (2004), . 77-104). (1994, 1995, 1996)
(1994, 1995, 1999, 2003).
. 2003 , ( ), ,
2003.

19

8. , . 9, . 4461.10.1990, . 19-20.
, . 49830.11.1993, . 6.
9. . ,
. . . , 1996, . 36-60.
10. ., . 97-101.

20

) . Bishoy, , ,
,
, ,

,
.
. Bishoy,
,
, 11.
...
12 .
(, 21 2004) ,
,


. : [.. . Bishoy] , [..

. ], , .
, ,

( )
() , ,
, , .
.

. ,
.

11.
. Bishoy
(11 2004), . .
12. . , . 37/2004, . 7-12.

***

21

1.




,

:
1.
, , , , . ,

,

2 .
,
.
1. . . , ..., . 595-596.
2. . . , ., . 64-78. ,
, (
), , 2003.

23

: ... , ,
. ,
, ,
, , , , .
. ,
, . [...]
, , ,
[...] ,
, , ... ,
, ,
, [...] , , , , ,
3.
: , 3. . , PG 89, 101C-105C.

24

.
, ,
,
...4.


: (. 47) (. 49)
, (. 50)

(. 58 59),
.

,
, .
, , , ,
,
. -

.
, . ,
( , , , ),
,
, (PG
91, 221A). ,
, 5.
. ( ), 6.

7.
, -

4. . . , , 20.

25

5. , , ,
, ,
, , (. , , , PG 91, 501D). . ,
..., ., . 100-101.
6. , .
, ..., ., . 53-54.
7. . . , ..., . 595.

26

, . , 8 .

, . 83
10 . , :

2.
.
:
9,
.
:
.
,
, . ,
. : ,
. , 8. . , , , . 64-78. .
, , .
, . 792 (2002) . 308-316,
/, ( ).
9. . .
. , ,
. , 1994. . ,
...,
., . 71 . 64-78.

27

10. ,
:
, , [] , .
,
. ,
,
, .
, , ,
. ,
, ,
.
,

,
. , (PG 94, 741-744).
Kotter . ,
,
. , ... ,
Kotter
.

28

29

(, , []
),
. , ,
83 .
,
.
(, praetextum )

( ).
. ,

. ,
.
, . .. ,
( ), . , (
),
.
. ( 451)

( 6 )11. :
...; [...] , ,
, , ,
12 .
: , . ,
13. ,
, 1672: [...] , ,
,
11. . , , . , PG 89, 101C-109D.
12.
, . . , PG 91, 253BC.
13.
,
: (PG 91, 52).
, .
,
, ( , PG 61, 622).

30

31

,
, ,
,
, , , 14.
1672
15, .
.
, , ,
(
).
, ,

.
.

( ... ). .
, ,
.
,
, ( ) ( )16.
.
17, 18 .

( )19. -

14. . , , . , Graz-Austria 1968, .731 [811].

15. . . ,
, . , . , . (1964), . 567
(. ), , . , . , . - (1990), . 12,
. 7.

16. (. . .
, ..., ., . 594).
17. . . , , PG 5, 299
. , , 2.295 3.384.
18. . , 24, .
, , . , PG 90, 648.
19. (. . , .).

32

, :
20,
: , , ,
21.
,

,
(. 50:55-68)
(. 9:1 10:14), ( , . 83addit.).
/
: [ ] [] 22 .

( ,
).

,

, :
. , .

. .
( )
,

. ,
23,

,
,
24. , ,

,
,
, .

20. . . . ,
( ), / 2002, . 149.
. , ...,
., . 119-121.
21. . , , . , PG 89, 108.
22. . . , , 24.5b:4-20.

23. . . , ., . 596, . 9.
24. ., . 596.

33

34

,
, .

, 27.
, ( ) 28 . ,

: ... , ,

...29.
.

. 83 . ,
, , , , ,
25, .
.
, :
... ... ,

, , , ... ,

, 26.
,
-

25. . , , , PG 91,
569D-572A.
26. , . Doctrina Patrum, 310.

35

.
,

. 30.
.

: , ,

27. . , , ., . 185-189, .
28. , ..., . .
138-151.
29. . , , . , 1960, . 222.
30. . . , ..., ., . 598.

36

,
, ,
... [.. , , ]... , ,
31.

, ,
() 32 .

,
. .
Aarhus Bristol , 197934.

35.
Aarhus,
. ,
. -

. .
. . , Aarhus 1964,

-
,
.
- 33.

31. . , , . , PG 89, 120B. .

. ,
(PG 89, 109D- 121A).
32. , ..., ., . , . 43
50-51 , .
124-138 , . 138-151
, . 151-171 , .
171-183.
33. . . , ..., ., . 597.

37

34. , . ( ), , . Abba Salama, . VII, 1976,

: . 186-190 (. ), . 191-195 (. . ), . 206 (. ).
. . , . (
), , . , . , 1991, .
145-146 . 36 . . ,
, 2000, . 46-56.
35. . . , . . , . ,
( . . ), . . 2/1999, . 127135 . 3/1999, . 253-262. . Aarhus, . . , Aarhus , . , . 25/1965, .
598-599.

38

. 36. ,

. Abba Habte Mariam

Severius , ,
Samuel

. Khella
.
37!
.
Aarhus ,
:
-
,

.
,

, .
. 38,
.

,
,
39, 40. , ,

.

36. . . . 1990, .
. , , ..., ., . 115-116, . 54.
37. . Does Chalcedon Divide or Unite, Towards convergence in Orthodox Christology, ed. by Paulos Gregorios William H. Lazareth Nikos Nissiotis, W.C.C.,
Geneva 1981, . 43-49, . Discussion: Concerning the Paper of Professor Karmiris. . Aarhus , . , . 17-18 (1-15
. 1965) . 5 (1 1966).

39

38. . . , , 47
28 37.
39. Jean-Claude Larchet,
- :
, . , . 75/1 (2004), . 99. . . ,
, 1761, . , 573.
40. George Metallidis, The Calcedonian Christology of St John Damascene (Philosophical Terminology and Theological Arguments), Durham 2003 (
), . 90-91 152-153.

40

41.

42 , :
, ,
.
,
. ,
43. (
, , )44,
. 36 81
, ( )45

, ,
46,
, ,
.


,
,

.
.
12
.
47: . , . . -

41. Does Chalcedon..., ., . 30, 42 46.

42. Does Chalcedon...., ., . 30.
43. . , , . , . 518-519
(- 1961), . 181-187.
44. . , , 1978, . 413.
45. . . , ..., ., .
184.

41

46. . ..., . , . . 226.

Aarhus ,
1961 , , . . , ..., ., 518-519 520-521.
47. , .
, , , (1806), . 470, 482, 464 511.

42

, , .
, ,
: , , , . , ,
: , .
, , ,
,
.

, . 48 .
1672
, ,
.

,
( ,
: separated from the [Orthodox] Church only with regard to their geographical position)49.

48. . ,
,
. , . , 1964, . , . 576.
,
( ., . , 1965, . , . 564),
,
.

43

.


50.
.

. :
i) , /, 51.
, , :
, :
,
,
. .

49. Does Chalcedon...., ., . 30-31.

50. . . , ..., ., . 599-604.
51. ., . 599-600.

44

, ,
52 .

53.
,
, . , ,

, ()
: ... , , , 54.
, , .
,
. , .
,

55.
, , ,
, 56. ,

, , 57. . ,
,
(
)58 , , . , ,

52. . , ..., ., . 228.

53. , , , , (
1982, . & , . 352). . ,
..., ., . 68, . 116.
54. . , ..., . , .,
. 228.

45

55. ACO II, 1, 2, 41:37-42:3.

56. ACO II, 1, 2, 25:7-17:
. , [...] .
57. ACO II, 1, 2, 28: 28-29. ,
:
(ACO II, 1, 2, 29:22-23).
58. , ..., ., .
43. . . , , . , / 1986, . 138, :
.

46

59, : . . . 60.

, .
.
. ,
: [...] . 61.
.
. ( )
,
62 . -

.
,
, .
. 63.
, . ,
: ... ,


64.

( )65

59. V. C. Samuel, The Council of Chalcedon and the Christology of Severus of

Antioch (Dissertation, Yale University), 1957, . 164,
, :
, .
60. ACO II, 1, 2, 156. . , . , , 1985, . 78-79.
61. ACO II, 1, 2, 124: 24-29.
62. . , ..., .,
. 69-72, . 77-79, , .
. . 192-193,

47

.
63. : ,
,
, , ( , , PG
91, 524D-525A). . , ..., ., . 66-71, 77-79, 183-187 192-193.
64. , . . . , , PG 91, 121AB 221B 224 468BC 488
C 1268C-1272, . . , ..., 58:6 .
65. . ,
, ., . 129, :
, -

48

49

, ,
( )66.

.

.
66. .
,
448 (ACO II, 1, 1, 145):
(. , , . , . 798/2003, . 614 , , ., . 130). ,
,
(. ..., ., . 612).
. ,
: [.. ], , ,
, (Bibl. 230.275a.42-275b.4). , ;

. . (. ...,
., . 612-615) .
( , / 2000), .
,
, -

, .


. (
) ,
,
(ACO II, 1, 1, 92:9-17).
.
.
(ACO II, 1, 1, 124:28-34). ,
, ,
:
, (ACO II, 1, 1, 114:3-10).

.
, (ACO II, 1, 1, 136:8-14 137:1-10)
(ACO II, 1, 1, 144:29-33).
: (ACO II, 1, 1, 137:8)
,
(ACO II, 1, 1, 143:10-11).
,
(ACO II, 1, 1,
139:17-22 , 142:23 -143:11 144:16-23). ,
.


. .
.

50

51

( )67 , ,
.
68,

. ,
, ,
,
( )69,
, , .
70,

,

. , 71, 72 ,
.
6
, ( , ) (
) , , , .

67. , . , ..., ., . 53-55.

68. . . , ,
. 125-127.
69.
, ,
,

.
70. . ..., ., . 183-187. , .
. , (ACO I,
1, 1, 15:7-33 ACO I, 1, 1, 18:18-22) , (ACO I, 1, 1, 72:15-23) ,
, (ACO I, 1, 6, 33:31-35) , -

(ACO I, 1, 6, 153:16 -154:8). , ,

,
(ACO I, 1, 7, 24:12-16 43:31-44:10),
,
(ACO I, 1, 3, 100 :27-31).
71. . V. C. Samuel, The Council of Chalcedon and the Christology of Severus
of Antioch, ., . 157, . 1, . 294 341.
72.
, .
. , (ACO I, 1,
1, 92:25 -93:2 117:15-28) (ACO I, 1, 1, 117:29 -118:4).

52

, , ,

73. ,
,
,
.
,
. : .
, [
] 74.
,
,

.

75.
ii) , ,
,

76.
, . ,
, ..
(ACO II, 1, 1, 69-70) (ACO II, 1, 2, 123:37-124:13),
77

78 .
.
,
79.
:

73. ( ) , . . . , , ., . 590-591 . 58 . 484

. 120.
74. De Sectis, PG 86, 1236C.
75. . , ..., ., . 227-228.

53

76. . . , ..., ., . 600, . 18.

77. ( , . 23) , ( . ,
, ., . 489). , . . 27
( ., . 505).
78. ACO II, 1, 2, 156.
79. ACO I, 1, 2, 35:30 -36:6 .

54

, , 80.
iii)
81.
82 .

, ( ) ,
. 83.
iv)
84
85.

,

, .
, ,
86.
:
,
, 87.
,
,
,

88 .
,
,
89. ,

80. . /, , 17.4b:36-38 . . , , , . ,
, , 1864, . 211.
81. . . , ..., ., . 601, . 18.
82. . , . , ..., . .
3/1999, . 258-260 , ..., ., . 46-55.
83. . , . , ,
., . 67 . 17, . 70.
84. . . , ..., ., . 601.
85. ., . 602.

55

86. ., . 602-603.
87. . . :
,

,
,
(. 44). : , ,
,
(
, PG 91, 40). . PG 91, 501D.
88. . . , ..., 47: ...
.
89. .

56

, ,
, [...] ,


90. ,
.

, 91.
, , ,


,
.
.
, , , .
,
92 . ..

,
,
.
, 93.
94,
,
95, . . J.-Cl. Larchet,
96.
, . ,
,
,
, . -

90. .
91. . , , . , PG 89, 209C-213C.
92. ( , PG 77, 245C). . , -

57

, , PG 91, 481D.
93. , , PG 91, 481CD.
94. , , PG 91, 568C: ...
, . (ACO II, 1, 1, 112:31),
, . , ..., ., . 38-46.
95. , , PG 91, 524:
, ( PG 91, 516D-524D). .
PG 91, 40: ,
( PG 91, 40-44).
96. . . , ..., ., . 602.

58

. , , ,
. .

. , ,
, 97.
.
. :
...
98, , ,
( )
( ). . , -

1351 (. 7-9)99,

: ,

.
, .
,
,
(
)
, , ,
, 100.
,
,
.

,
.
.

( -

97. (.
. 22),
, (. ., 17),
, ,
(. ., 12-13).
98. . . , ..., ., . 603-604.

59

99. . , ..., . , .
. 378-380.
100. . , 210, ,
. 5.

60

) (): , ,
, ,... ,
,
,
, , , , ,
, 101. , ,
:
,

: [ ]
, ,
,

: ... ... , , , , ...

102 .
,
[ ]
,
, .
, ..
103;



.
, .

, 104.

... [.. ]... , 105, .
,

101. , /
, .... ( ), , . 10, /
2000, . 27. . . , , . , . 792/2002, . 313.
. . , ..., . , ., . 409410.

102. . , ., . 209, 214, 216.

103. . , . , ., . 35-36, . 6.
104. . . , ..., ., . 608.
105. .

61

62

, [.. ]
... ... ,
, ...106.

,
, ,
.
v)
, 107.
, 5 6 (
)


. ,

108 .

3.

106. ., . 607 609.

107. . . , ..., ., . 603.
108. . . , , / 2001 ( ).
. George Metallidis, The Calcedonian Christology of St John Dama-

63

, :
. , ..
, 109.
,
,
,
, , ,
.
( )
.
: (. 968 ) , , ,
. , ,
.
,
scene (Philosophical Terminology and Theological Arguments), Durham 2003
( ).
109. . . , ..., ., . 605-607.

64

( ) , , , .
. . , , , , ,
()110.
( ), , , .
.
,
.
111.
(
, ..). -

. ,

.

110. . , , . , / 1982,
. 589, . 1.
: , . , , .
,
, , , ( . . 160).
111. . . , ..., ., . 606:
... .

65

. ,
112 .
,

. ,

, . ..
. , (
)
, .

,
,
,
112. ., . 599.

66

67

. ,

. , . ,
, .
[.. ] ,
... 113.
. ,

,
. , .
114.
( , . . 3), :
,
, , (. 4-5).

, ,

,
. 115.
, : ) , ) ) .
, ,
.

,

,

116.

117.
118,

113. ., . 598-599.
114. . , ...,
., . 187-194.

115. , . , PG 28, 665D-668A.

116. . , ..., . , .,
. 227-229.
117. ., . 203-219.
118. ., . 203-214.

68

119, 120.

119. ., . 214-216.
120. ., . 216-217.

.


.
. ,
, . :
[.. ]
, , -.

, ,
451 : ,
,
, . , , ,

70

121.
, ,
.
,
; :
, ,
( )
, (
);
,
,
,

;
. , , ( ) :
- ( ) ; () ,
; , -

; ,

, , ;
; (communio in Sanctorum), ; : ( )
,
;
,
,
,
;

;

;
; ,
,
,
;122

121. . . , ..., ., . 609.

71

122. ,
( , 1979), -

72

:
,

. ,
,
: ; : , .

,
,
( ), . . , , .
:
( ),
, , ,

: , , .

,
,
.
. .
,
,
;
:
,
; , ,
123. , .
,
. -

,
(. 49830.11.1993).

73

123. :
, ,
,
( 58, ).

74

;


. ,
, , , .
.
, :
.
:
, , ...
, , , , , , ,
124.

:
(. . ).

.

. .

,
125.
. , , , .

-

124. . , ..., . , .,
. 322.
,
. -

75

, . . . ,
, , 1995.
125. [], ,
...
[ ] , .

76

77

,
.

. .

126. 127
( ): , . : , , , .
,
.
, : , . , ,
.
, . ,
. .

: , , [ ], 128 .
,


,
,
129.
, , .

,
,
)
)
, ,
-

126. . , 128, .
127. . . , 113, ,
, ...

.

128. : . , 128,
.
129. ,
, .

78

,

.
,
/. : ,
. ,..., ,
.


.

( ),
,
( ).

:

, :

. ,
. , . :
, /
, ,


,
,

,
. -

80

81

, ,

. ,
, ,
. ,
,

, , ,

.
. , , ,
.

,
. ,
.
)
, , -

: ... ,
.

. ,
.
) , : , ,
. ,
,
. .
) . . . , ,
.
) ,
,
, ,
.
,
-

82

83

, . , ,
.
,

.
) , , ,
.
) ,

, .
) , , ,
, ,

. (),
.
() . , .

,
.
)
, ,

, , , . ,
.
) ,
, ,
.
,
,
.
) . ,


,
, , , : ,

,
.

, ,
. .
, , .

SUMMARY
In his article Orthodoxy and heresy of the Anti-Chalcedonians according to St John the Damascene (periodical , vol. 75, n.
2/2005), Professor G. Martzelos argues that Anti-Chalcedonians have Orthodox doctrinal teaching (ideological Orthodoxy), because their Christology does not differ essentially from that of St Cyril of Alexandria. Despite this, they are heretics because they have separated themselves from
the Church by rejecting the Definition [Horos] of the Synod of Chalcedon
(they do not possess an ecclesiological Orthodoxy).
Professor G. Martzelos supports his views with the claim that with the
expression: [they were] separated from the Orthodox Church on the pretext of that document [approved] at Chalcedon (see De Heresibus 83), St
John the Damascene reveals their dogmatic identity as heretics, whereas
with the expression: in all other respect they are orthodox (ibid) he recognises that in everything else and in their Christological teaching they
are Orthodox. He attempts to certify their orthodoxy by calling upon the
witness of theologians, such as Prof. John Karmiris and Prof. Father John
Romanides, in addition to interpretations of historical and dogmatic facts.
Namely, a) that Dioscorus of Alexandria has not been deposed for dogmatic reasons, as Anatolius of Constantinople has declared; b) that the exclamations of the bishops, by which they anathematised Dioscorus, do not
constitute a decision of the Synod; c) that the Robber Synod of Ephesus
was not recognised as heretical by the Fathers of Chalcedon; d) that Dioscorus and Severus of Antioch have, in their writings, rejected verbatim
the confusion (), blending () and mixture () of
the natures of Christ. Thus, when St John the Damascene ascribes these
terms to their Christology, he is acting as Prof. G. Martzelos claims, pastorally and not laying claim dogmatic exactitude, such as would be expected of contemporary academic analysis of the texts of the heresiarchs. Like-

86

Summary

87

wise he claims that the recognition of an ideological Orthodoxy in the

treatises, the dogmatic meaning of this term. St Maximus the Confessor de-

Anti-Chalcedonians is supported by the fact that other heretics, such as

veloped an unprecedented line of argumentation by which he makes clear

the Hiketae () and Autoproscoptae () have also

the heretical character of the Severian Christology.

been characterised by St John the Damascene as in all other respects Or-

b) When interpreted having as a rule the patristic, synodal, and litur-

thodox. He considers the ecclesiological criterion, by which the Church

gical tradition, the excerpt in question testifies to the heretical Christolo-

cuts off the heretics from her body, to be so important as to leave the ho-

gy of the Anti-Chalcedonians. The phrase in all other respects, by which

ly Fathers indifferent to whether the heretics have orthodox or heterodox

St John of Damascus describes in what way they are orthodox, refers to is-

dogmatic teaching. Finally he concludes that because the Anti-Chalcedoni-

sues not pertaining to Christology. The judgment that the Severian Chris-

ans possess an ideological orthodoxy and lack only an ecclesiological or-

tology is a distortion of St Cyrils Christology is based upon the patristic

thodoxy, within the framework of the Theological Dialogue with them we

tradition itself.

mustnt seek anything more than to accept the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Oecu-

c) The published opinions of Professors John Karmiris and Father

menical Synods. For, thus is the dogmatic cause which provoked their sep-

John Romanides regarding the orthodoxy of the Anti-Chalcedonians were

aration from the Orthodox Church lifted, and the basic and necessary pre-

a result of an early enthusiasm which soon thereafter gave way to positions

supposition for their re-union with her created.

of serious questioning and much deliberation.

We have provided a response to Professor G. Martzelos theory because

d) The assertion that Dioscorus expressed an orthodox Christology,

his proposal the Anti-Chalcedonians to accept the Oecumenical Synods,

since was not deposed for dogmatic reasons, according to St Anatolius

even if correct and praiseworthy per se, without accepting their dogmatic

words, is shown to be unfounded. St Anatolius statement was arbitrary,

decisions conceals a serious danger for the unity of the Church. At the out-

as is attested to the minutes [of the Synod] and by the way in which these

set, we observed that the recognition of an ideological Orthodoxy among

minutes were understood by subsequent Fathers. Likewise the claim that

the Anti-Chalcedonians only goes to confirm the Conclusions of the Theo-

Dioscorus expressed an Orthodox Christology because the phrase from

logical Dialogue (1985-1993), which a great majority of the faithful has not

two natures is supposedly dogmatically equivalent to the phrase in two

accepted. Subsequently, we presented the following reasons why this theory

natures, is also lacking support. The phrase from two natures, even if

is not consonant with the patristic and synodal tradition:

orthodox in itself, if it is not combined with the phrase in two natures

a) The dogmatic identity of the Anti-Chalcedonians is determined by

cannot ensure there wont be a deviation of the Christological outlook in-

the entire anti-Severian (anti-monophysite) collection of writings of St John

to that which is called Severian Christology. Although the initial Defini-

the Damascene, the Church Fathers and Oecumenical Synods but not on-

tion [Horos] contained the phrase from two natures and was persistent-

ly by the short excerpt: [they were] separated from the Orthodox Church

ly characterised by the bishops of the Synod as orthodox, it did not possess

on the pretext of that document [approved] at Chalcedon, whereas in all

the dogmatic fullness which the final Definition [Horos] acquired with the

other respect they are orthodox. St Anastasius of Sinai and St John the

phrase in two natures.

Damascene refer to them as Monophysites and provide, in their extend

88

Summary

89

e) The exclamations of the bishops, by which they anathematised Dio-

i) The anti-Chalcedonian heresiarchs were cut off by the Church on

scorus, expressed the Catholic mindset () of the Church, since all

the basis of the ecclesiological criterion, i.e. the oecumenical decision of

of Fathers expressed themselves in oneness of heart not just a few or even

the Church against them. The application of the ecclesiological criterion

many bishops.

was not, however, in spite of or indifferent to its dogmatic substance, but

f) The Robber Synod was heretical, for it bypassed the Exposition

rather on accord of it, which, in the case of the Anti-Chalcedonians, was

of Reconciliation ( ) of St Cyril and affirmed the

the rejection of the dogmatic Definition [Horos] of the Synod. Patristic lit-

heretical statement of Eutyhes: two natures before the union, one nature

erature is full of testimonies to the interpenetration ()

after the union.

of Orthodox Faith, the holy Synods which confirmed the Faith, and the

g) The terms blending (), confusion () and mix-

condemnations leveled by the Synods against those who rejected the Faith.

ture (), which are ascribed to Anti-Chalcedonians, are theological-

j) By showing that Prof. G. Martzelos theory is erroneous, one may

ly accurate, for these terms are the normal consequence of the Severian

rightly conclude that in order for a union of the Anti-Chalcedonians with

Christology's one composite nature in Christ. These are not pastoral terms

the Church to occur which is consistent with Orthodox Ecclesiology, they

(), which supposedly could be used in a way that is dogmatically

must accept the 4th, 5th, 6th and 7th Oecumenical Synods together with

imprecise. The Holy Fathers have even used these terms in Confessions of

all that this acceptance involves; i.e. a) they must renounce their Severian

Faith (), which undoubtedly require precision. The term without

Christology, b) accept the condemnations of the heresiarchs Dioscorus and

confusion (), as employed by Severus of Antioch in the frame-

Severus, c) and cease ecclesiastical communion with all those who remain

work of a confession of the one composite nature, does not ensure the un-

attached to their anti-Chalcedonian mindset (). This approach is

confused union of the natures. The comparison of the contemporary ac-

in agreement with the experience of the Church, gained from past union

ademic theological views with the Confession of the Faith () is

attempts which were unsuccessful, as well as those which were successful

unwise, because these views are often in opposition to basic doctrines of

in achieving true unity. Among the latter are those made by St Photios the

the Faith.

Great. Any approach to union which would ignore the aforementioned ele-

h) It is possible that heretics who have not condemned for dogmatic

reasons, such as Hicetae () and Autoproscoptae (),
may possess an entirely ( ) orthodox dogmatic teaching. This, however, is until such a time ( ), for often they later fall into heterodoxy so as to appear to have a good reason for separating from the
Church, as St Nikodemos the Hagiorite observes. On the contrary, in the
cases of the heresiarchs Dioscorus and Severus, they have been condemned
for particular dogmatic teachings, such that it is impossible for them to be
included among the aforementioned schismatic-heretics.

mentary requirements, in the name of , will only be harmful to

the Church.


,
,



. ,
2005
2000

.., 570 21 ,
. 23970-23313,

.

ISBN: 960-7553-23-3