The Non-Chalcedonian Heresy - Monastery of Gregoriou, Mount Athos

What separates the Orthodox Church and the various Non-Chalcedonian churches? Is it merely semantics and misunderstandings, as some today proclaim? The Holy Monastery of Gregoriou on Mount Athos, in this 1994 treatise, gives a detailed examination of the issues and offers much for anyone interested in the truth of Christ, His Church, and the Non-Chalcedonian heresy. 📖 This is a reading of The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics by the Monastery of Gregoriou (Mount Athos) (originally published as The Non-Chalcedonian Heresy in Orthodox Life (Jordanville)). Buy here: https://www.ctosonline.org/ecumenism/... 0:00 Beginning 0:19 Prologue by Abbot George Kapsanis 2:00 Introduction Part I: Ecclesiological Presuppositions 5:30 The Orthodox Church is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church 6:01 The Church is Conscious of Her Identity Over Time 6:47 Using “Polemical” Language Part II: The Historical Witness 8:34 Union Attempts in the Past 13:24 The Agreements of 433 Expose the Non-Chalcedonians 22:03 The Witness from the Synaxaria (Lives of Saints) Part III: Dogmatic Differences 28:42 Is Severos Orthodox? 32:32 1) The Theology of Serveros is Aristotelian 37:09 2) Severos Accepts that the Human Nature of Christ Subsists as a Hypostasis 43:54 3) The Hypostatic Union According to Severos 50:59 4) Severos teaches Monoenergism 56:56 5) Severos Accepts the Heretical Teaching of Individual Essences 59:03 6) How Does Severos Conceive the Deification of Man? 1:02:22 The Theopaschite Addition to the Trisagion 1:06:10 St. Maximus the Confessor on the Phrase “In Thought Alone” 1:09:26 Iconoclasm and its Monophysite Presuppositions 1:14:00 Thoughts on the Joint Declarations of 1989 and 1990 1:17:22 Conclusions Primary Sources 📖 The Acts of the Council of Chalcedon translated and introduced by Fr. Richard Price (Roman Catholic) https://archive.org/details/the-acts-... 📖 Letters 1-50 of St. Cyril of Alexandria https://archive.org/details/letters-1... 📖 Letters 51-110 of St. Cyril of Alexandria https://dokumen.pub/fathers-of-the-ch... 📖 The "Tome" of Pope St. Leo of Rome https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360... 📖 Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by St. John of Damascus (see Book 3) https://stanthonysmonastery.org/produ... Secondary Sources 📖 Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy by Fr. John McGuckin https://svspress.com/saint-cyril-of-a... 📖 The Political Subterfuge of Chalcedon by Patrick Craig Truglia https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com... Audio 🎧 Oriental Orthodoxy Refuted (Playlist) by David Erhan    • Oriental Orthodoxy Refuted   From Non-Chalcedonians 📖 From V.C. Samuel (a Copt), quoted in the text from Gregoriou: The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined https://a.co/d/if45jyR _______ A good intention is not sufficient for an Orthodox formulation of dogma, but only a correct attitude, correct presuppositions, and clear formulation. How can one make a distinction between hypostasis and hypostasis, unless the one is called "hypostasis" and the other "person"? It is precisely on this point, however, that we find the other erroneous philosophical presupposition of the Non-Chalcedonians: the differentiation of hypostasis and person. Hence, their confusion as to the mystery of the hypostatic union. St. John of Damascus: "Furthermore, Dioscoros and Severos and the multitudinous mobs of both accepted that there was one and the same hypostasis, defining in a similar way that there was one nature, 'not knowing what they say nor understanding what they assert.' The disease or deception in their mind lay in this, that they conceived nature and hypostasis to be the same." At the very least, it would be naive for anyone to believe that the enormous subject of Christology could be exhausted in such a brief report. But it is not impossible to summarize the central points, which one absolutely must confess if his Faith is to be Orthodox. From an historical perspective, it should be said that the Holy Fathers knew well with whom they were conversing, and there is no possibility that they misconstrued and condemned the Non-Chalcedonians on account of a misinterpretation. It is neither theological terminology nor racial and cultural factors that played a decisive role in the separation of the Non-Chalcedonians from the communion of the Catholic [i.e., Orthodox] Church, but chiefly their erroneous conception, and consequently their formulation, of the manner of the union of the two Natures in Christ. The dogmatic differences between the two sides are so great that, if they were forgotten, salvation itself would be put at risk.