V.C. Samuel, The Chalcedon Re-examined, Reviews

Rev. Dr. V.C. Samuel was a priest of the Indian Syrian Orthodox Church. He was a pioneer in the ecumenical movement towards unity and reconciliation by reappraisal of historical events. Fr. Samuel studied in Yale University for his Ph. D. He was a Syriac scholar and served as professor, in Serampore College, United Theological College, Bangalore, Theological College of Holy Trinity, in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. He worked briefly for the Christian Institute for the Study of Religion and Society, and was involved in Ecumenical Research for many years, worked with the Christian Institute for the Study of Religion and Society, Bangalore and served as a member of the Faith and Order commission of the WCC. He took part in the Orthodox-Catholic ecumenical dialogue.

Read some of the Reviews of his Chalcedon Re-examined from Amazon:

1) The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined_ by Father V. C. Samuel is a lengthy dissertation dealing with the political, historical and theological conflicts behind the ecumenical council at Chalcedon (near Constantinople in Asia Minor) in AD 451.

Fr. Samuel, a priest in the Indian Orthodox Church, has studied extensively in the Syriac language and Christian theology since his youth in India. He brings a frequently disregarded perspective into this obscure theological-political struggle of the fifth century Byzantine Empire. From 451 onwards there has been a continual schism, or broken communion, between the Orthodox Church, the later pro-Chalcedonian churches (Roman Catholic and Protestant) and the so called non-Chalcedonian, Oriental Orthodox, or "monophysite" Church. The non-Chalcedonian church has distinguished and isolated itself from the rest of Christendom because of this schism and continues to exist today preserving a very ancient and even "primitive" form of Christianity in Egypt, Armenia, Syria, India, Ethiopia and Eritrea. I recommend _The Council of Chalcedon_ to those interested in church history because it covers such a wide variety of information in an objective manner from a very different theological tradition than most Christian authors.

Samuel's book is basically about the events before and after the council of Chalcedon in 451. Chalcedon is sometimes referred to as the "Fourth Ecumenical Council" by Orthodox and Roman Catholic historians, although was not universally acknowledged by ancient Christendom. Samuel familiarizes the reader with the subject by over viewing councils (in 431, 449 and 450) where the dominant doctrinal issue at stake was a definition of exactly who Christ was in extremely technical Greek theological terms. This structuring does the reader a service because it provides a backdrop to the issues Samuel discusses during 451 and afterwards. During 431, a majority of bishops decided to adopt the writings and anathemas (curses) of Cyril of Alexandria (the largest city in Egypt) as official doctrine. The next generation of bishops in Alexandria, led by Cyril's successor Dioscorus, stringently supported Cyril's works. Samuel is an adherent of the Alexandrian position and therefore a modern supporter of the deposed Egyptian patriarch Dioscorus. One of the strong points of Samuel's book, in my opinion, is he goes into a lengthy analysis of the wrangling and power struggles of the different sides and how Dioscorus was condemned.

_The Council of Chalcedon_ covers which groups had a political stake in the outcomes of Chalcedon. To the vast majority of Egyptians, Chalcedon was the "council of schism." In contrast, Chalcedon was a bastion of Christian Orthodoxy for the prelates loyal to the Byzantine Empire and its government and the pope of Rome in the west. The pro-Roman and pro-empire parties considered _The Tome of Leo_ as the definitive statement of Christology which supplemented and complemented Cyril's writings. Samuel does an excellent job in this area of analysis because he differentiates between actual theology and what were in fact worldly power struggles between separatist and nationalist elements in the empire and those interested in maintaining centralized church authority in Rome and Constantinople.

Samuel also focuses on the outcome of Chalcedon and does not cover up the often violent and criminal conflicts that raged in the Byzantine Empire. The separate non-Chalcedon church was viewed as a threat by the imperial government to its authority which was bound up with pro-Chalcedonian Orthodoxy. Violence broke out in places, involving persecutions of dissident monks and prelates. Factionalists from both sides even assassinated and murdered bishops.

In later centuries, debate continued between the non-Chalcedonian church and the Orthodox adherents of Chalcedon. Samuel addresses the question of whether or not the non-Chalcedonians were rightfully deserving of the label "monophysite" which has had a heretical and therefore negative connotation in Western Christendom. Samuel does an excellent job of showing how the theologians of the non-Chalcedon church in later centuries maintained inherently Orthodox Christian beliefs. He argues to the modern reader how the label "monophysite" is a misnomer and something of an undeserved slander. The greatest theologians of the non-Chalcedonians, such as Severus of Antioch, Timothy Aelurus and Philoxenos of Mabbogh, went to great lengths to maintain their belief in the humanity of Christ. The non-Chalcedonian Church also anathematized teachings as heresies that were associated with "monophysitism" by the Orthodox Church. Among the teachings repudiated were Eutychianism, the belief that Christ was not consubstantial with humanity; the belief that Christ had only one "property" in his being, and Julianism, the belief that Christ's humanity was of some incorruptible nature.

Samuel also lists several extremely technical Greek terms became bones of contention because their precise meanings and usage in previous documents were not agreed upon by the debating parties: ousia "essence," hypostasis "that which exists in itself", physis "nature", prosopon "person" and hyparxis "existence". This section of the book greatly helps the reader understand the precise issues that were up for debate and how they were understood differently by the opposing sides.

It appears that the schism heralded by Chalcedon and imperial and papal political and theological agendas was a terrible mistake and both sides were in fact "Orthodox" in their Christology. Both sides condemned the same views as heretical and both were careful to uphold the true humanity of Christ, as well as his divinity. This is the conclusion that Samuel reaches in his book. His work is of such excellent quality because he defends his thesis so well. Chalcedon was essentially a regional power struggle between different factions masked by what was basically a haggle over words. These are the reasons why The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined is a recommended book for readers interested in theology and the history of religion. The book does have a significant fault in because it does not go into enough detail as to what the specific accusations against Dioscorus were. It also seems to attack Chalcedonian Orthodoxy as inherently dangerous to Christendom and the Church at large. Otherwise, Samuel's book is an excellent, objectively written text.

2) "the well known Cyrillic formula of 'One united nature of the Incarnate Word' has constituted the basis, the crux of our Christologies, for us the Oriental Orthodox,...emphasis on that; 'it was the Logos who assumed humanity." Armenian Catholicos

Ecumenical Christology:
Oriental Orthodox, Copts, Armenians, and Syriacs were always defiant, and have persistently challenged Caledonian's habitual errancy in calling them-the ancient apostolic churches of the Mia-Physite (Hypostatically United) tradition-as Mono-physite. Such devious terminology alleged their unity with Eutichian heterodox, in Christological belief, which could not be sustained by any sound theological analysis, old or novel. Most of contemporary eminent Roman Catholic and Protestant experts have condemned the Chalcedonic expression as futile and practically indefensible. Luther, Barth, are Cyrillic Miaphysites, while von Harnack, Baillie, Rahner, Schoonenberg, Tillich, and many others like R. Brown, J. Fitzmyer, J.Knox, and before his parting, Fr. Grillmeyer were never comfortable with consequential lack of soteriology in Leo's Tome.

Chalcedon in the dock?
"Chalcedon was a stumbling block-and still is. It has been said that present day theology has put Chalcedon in the dock." Cardinal Kasper writes that it is not difficult to find many utterances among leading theologians, Protestant and Catholic, which tend in the same direction of A. von Harnack. Everywhere we hear about the impossible deadlock (aporia), presented by the doctrine of the 'two natures' in in Kung, Rahner,Tillich, and Pannenberg, and many others." (W. Kasper, Theology and the Church, Crossroads, 1989, p. 95)

Severian Christology:
Based on his doctoral dissertation, whose thesis analyzed "The Council of Chalcedon and the Christology of Severus of Antioch," the book included his subsequent research on primary source material. His supported findings addressed the christological controversy, and is another earnest attempt to theologically reevaluate the Chalcedonian expression pros and cons. The 'Council of schism' has divided the church, and split the Byzantine empire, helping in the domination of Islam. In his research work, and thorough examination of source documents-mostly in their original language-has cast some light on the root cause of present-day ecclesiological differences. The work of Fr. Samuel made possible "to revisit 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" (German theologian Dietrich Ritschl)

Confusion of terms in Patristic theology

Much of the controversies that raged the Patristic period regarding Trinity and Christology were due to the confusion of meanings in the usage of Greek terms in the Alexandrian and Antiochean Schools. Dr. V. C. Samuel in his Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined (1977) writes: "In the Christological controversy, unlike any other theological dispute in the ancient church, there was a great deal of obscurity on account of the technical terms that were employed. theologians of all shades of opinion used the following terms: ousia in Greek; the Syriac used either ousia or Ithutho to correspond to it. Hupostasis in Greek and its Syriac equivalent Qnumo. Physis in Greek had kyono as its Syriac rendering. The Greek prosopon had parsupo in Syriac....(p.218,;see also , pp. 257-9).

For a brief description of this confusion of terms visit Timothy Enloe's site.

He writes:

"Prior to the Councils, at least in Neoplatonic circles, the terms hypostasis (υποστασισ) and ousia (ουσια) had the same meaning. Whereas hypostasis signified a real being that had entered real existence, ousia meant something primal and eternal. Significantly for later disputes, Latin translations of the creeds used the word substantia for both hypostasis and ousia.

The word prosopon (πρωσοπον) classically referred to one’s “face” in the sense of “individual outward being.” Its meaning could be extended to refer to one’s “role” or “position” in the community. In patristic thought, as a result of the Sabellian controversies, prosopon came to mean roughly the same thing as hypostasis (but with no metaphysical connotations) and sometimes also referred to a concrete instantation of an abstract ousia.

Lastly, the word physis (φυσισ) typically referred to the actual nature of a thing, to the characteristics and qualities of which it was composed or to those things as they would exist when it was finished developing.

At the Council of Nicea (325 A.D.), hypostasis and ousia were used interchangeably against the Arian doctrine that “there was a time when He was not.” It is possible that both terms were used to indicate some differences of emphasis among the assembled Fathers. By contrast, by the time of the Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.), hypostasis had become synonymous instead with prosopon. The common triune nature of the Godhead became ousia while the individual expression of the three Persons were each prosopon. Meanwhile, physis became tied to ousia in another refutation of the Arian position that Christ was a creation of God (i.e., a physis with a different ousia)."

Also go to the descriptions of Key Terms

ousia (essence/being/substance): Important in the Trinitarian doctrine codified at the council of Nicea (325), which declared the Son to be of the same essence (homoousious) as the Father. It becomes important in Christological debates as various theologians sought to understand how the humanity of Jesus and our human nature could be homoousious (usually translated "co-essential").

hypostasis (entity, substance, "person"): Used at Nicea as a synonym for ousia (the word literally means "to stand under" i.e. "sub-stance"). Over the course of the 4th century it comes to be distinguished from ousia and taken as meaning "entity" or "individual reality" or even "distinct manner of existing." Thus in speaking of the Trinity, theologians will speak of there being one ousia (essence/being/substance) and three hypostases (entities or "persons"). In Christology there is a concern that while Christ is both fully human and fully divine, this duality of nature not be thought of as compromising the unity of Jesus Christ as a single hypostasis i.e. Jesus is only one "thing."

physis (nature): Sometimes used in Trinitarian theology as a synonym for ousia, the term really comes into its own in Christological reflection as a way of speaking of the humanity and divinity of Christ. Thus the unity of Christ's hypostasis (person) does not imply any mixing of the divine nature and the human nature.

prosopon (person, "mask/face"): This term literally means "face" and implies the "person" that we present to others. This term was used in both Trinitarian and Christological reflection as virtually synonymous with hypostasis. However, it did not convey as strong a sense as hypostasis of an actually existing entity and thus was suspected by some of indicating only the appearance of a distinct and unified act of existence.
In Trinitarian theology, the "classic" formulation of doctrine is that
God is one essence (ousia)
existing as three persons (hypostases): Father, Son and Spirit.

In Christology, the "classic" formulation of doctrine is that
Christ is one person (hypostasis)
who possesses two natures (physes): divine and human.

tag: gurukulam