"Протоиерей Иоанн Мейендорф. Byzantine Theology " - читать интересную книгу автора

But the Chalcedonian definition balanced and positive as it was lacked
the soteriological charismatic impact, which had made the positions of
Athanasius and Cyril such appealing. Political and ecclesiastical rivalries,
personal ambitions, imperial pressures aimed at imposing Chalcedon by force,
abusive interpretations of Cyril in the Monophysite sense as well as
misinterpretations of the council by some Nestorianizing Antiochians who saw
in it a disavowal of the great Cyril - all provoked the first major and
lasting schism in Christendom.
Understandably, the Byzantine emperors tried to restore the religious
unity of the empire. In the second half of the fifth century, they made
several unhappy attempts to heal the schism by avoiding the issue. But the
issue proved to be real, and the passions - high. Thus, Justinian I
(527-565), the last great Roman emperor, after several attempts to achieve
unity by imperial decree again turned to conciliar procedure.
In the age of Justinian, four major theological positions can be easily
discerned:

The Monophysites.

Although most of the Monophysites were ready to anathematize Eutyches
as well as the idea that Christ's humanity was "confused" with His divinity,
they held steadfastly to the theology and terminology of Cyril of
Alexandria. Just as the "old Nicaeans" in the fourth century had refused to
accept the formula of the three hypostasis introduced by the Cappadocian
Fathers because Athanasius had not used it, so the leaders of fifth- and
sixth-century Monophysitism - Dioscoros of Alexandria, Philoxenus of
Mabbugh, and the great Sever us of Antioch - rejected the Council of
Chalcedon and the Christological formula of "one hypostasis in two natures"
because Cyril had never used it and because they interpreted it as a return
to Nestorianism. The danger of Eutychianism that they claimed was not
serious enough to justify the Chalcedonian departure from Cyril's
terminology. They objected most violently - and this objection may be the
real serious difference between their Christology and Chalcedonian
orthodoxy - to the idea that the two natures after the union "retain in full
their proper characteristics."

The Strict Dyophysites.

The strict Dyophysites were Chalcedonians, which still rigidly
maintained the Antiochian Christology and objected to some of Cyril's
propositions such as the Theopaschite formula: "One of the Holy Trinity
suffered in the flesh." For them, the subject of suffering is Jesus, the son
of Mary, not the divine Logos. But, one may ask, is there not then a duality
of subjects in Christ? The existence of this party in the Chalcedonian camp
and the influence exercised by its representatives - Theodoret of Cyrus
until his death around year 466, Gennadios of Constantinople (458-471), his
successor Macedonios (495-511), and others - provided the Monophysites with
their main arguments for rejecting Chalcedon as a Nestorian council and as a
disavowal of Cyril.