Biblical topics
Bible Study
Pope Shenouda
Father Matta
Bishop Mattaous
Bishop Moussa
Bishop Alexander
Habib Gerguis
Fasts & Feasts
Family & Youth
3ds Max 2016
Account Payable
Accounts Receivable
Active Directory
Adaptive Access Manager
Adobe Premiere Pro
Apache Hive
Asset Management
Big data
Building OA Framework
Business Intelligence
C Sharp
Cash Management
Crystal Reports
Data Acquisition
Data Architecture
Data Archiving
Data Guard
Data Mining
Data Modeling
Data Structure
Data Visualization
Design Illustration
Expression Web
Fusion Middleware
General Ledger
Google Drive
GoPro Studio
Hyperion Planning
Massive UE4
MS Access 2016
MS Exchange Server
MS OneNote 2016
MS OneNote 2016 
MS Outlook 2016
MS PowerPoint 2016
MS Publisher 2016
MS SharePoint 2016
MS Word
Oracle 12c Administration
Oracle EBS
Oracle E-business tax
Oracle Financial Applications
Oracle Identity Manager
Oracle Mobile
Oracle Payroll Fundamentals
Oracle Performance Tuning
Oracle Product Lifecycle
Oracle project
Oracle Purchasing
Oracle RAC admin
Oracle SOA admin
Photoshop CS6
Project Management
R Programming
SQL Server
Subledger Accounting
Supply Chain Planning
Visual Basic
Visual Studio
Weblogic Server
Windows 10
Windows Server


The Second Meeting of

The Joint Commission for the Relations

Between the Russian Orthodox Church and

Oriental Orthodox Churches in the Middle East

December 15-18, 2004 -

St. Mark Centre – Nasr City

Cairo, Egypt



Saint Severus of Antioch

His Life and His Christology



Metropolitan Bishoy of Damiette

General Secretary of the Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church

                                                            Co-Chairman of the Commission


1. Outline of the Life of Saint Severus [1]


"Athanasius of Antioch… stresses that Severus was a compassionate man,[2] and, as we will see, this is an important quality in understanding him. All the early biographers emphasise Severus' asceticism, and Severus himself, writing to Justinian, says that his life was habitually frugal.[3]


Severus was born in Sozopolis in Pisidia about 465. His family was well-to-do, and as a young man, not yet baptised, he was sent to Alexandria to study grammatikh and rhtorikh. From Alexandria he went to Beirut, to study Roman law. At Beirut Severus came under the influence of a group of Christian students, and began to study Basil and Gregory Nazianzen. At this stage he was baptised, at the shrine of Leontius at Tripoli.[4]


We are told that after his baptism Severus became increasingly ascetic, spending much of his time in church. He qualified as an advocate, and visited Jerusalem, where he decided to follow the monastic life. From Jerusalem, looking for a still more ascetic life, he went into the desert of Eleutheropolis. Here he eventually became ill, and was persuaded to enter the convent of Romanus. At this time he shared out with his brothers the property he inherited from his parents, and after giving most of his share to the poor, bought a convent near Maiuma.


Severus was already actively involved in opposing the Council of Chalcedon. Maiuma had been the episcopal seat of Peter the Iberian, one of the two(?) bishops who consecrated Timothy Aelurus;[5] and Severus was to follow in this tradition. He already belonged to the more extreme [non-Chalcedonian][6] party, which rejected the Henoticon of Zeno. Liberatus, the archdeacon of Carthage, wrote of Severus that "dum sederet prius in monasterio Iberi, non suscipiebat Zenonis edictum, nec Petrum Mongon ... exinde missus est permanere Constantinopotim ..."[7] Severus was indeed sent to Constantinople. A Chalcedonian monk, Nephalius, stirred up the bishops in Palestine against the anti-Chalcedonian monks, who began to be harassed. John of Beth Aphthonia tells us that Nephalius even wrote an Apologia for Chalcedon, which Severus destroyed as if it had been a cobweb, with his two Orationes.[8] This was the first important anti-Chalcedonian work of Severus that we have, and it was written around 508.[9] Cobweb or not, Evagrius tells us that Severus was expelled from his own monastery by Nephalius and his party, and thence proceeded to the imperial city, to plead the case of himself and those expelled with him.[10]


Severus spent the years 508-11 in Constantinople. He seems quite quickly to have gained the sympathy of Anastasius, who was already not over-fond of the

Patriarch Macedonius, who had definite leanings towards Chalcedon. The Chalcedonians in the capital made a collection of edited excerpts from Cyril, in an attempt to show that Cyril himself supported the Chalcedonian account of the two natures. This work was apparently given to Macedonius, who gave it to the emperor. Severus, in turn, wrote his Philalethes, giving the true context of the quotations from Cyril.[11] Relations between Severus and Macedonius steadily deteriorated. Macedonius' position was not strong. He had already undermined his support with the extreme Chalcedonians by promising to uphold the Henoticon.[12] In addition, Anastasius had a personal grudge against him. Euphemius, the previous Patriarch, had withheld his approval from the elevation of Anastasius, unless he wrote an agreement to maintain the faith of Chalcedon inviolate. This document had passed into the hands of Macedonius, and according to Evagrius, Anastasius' objection to the document was largely the cause of Macedonius' expulsion.[13] In 511 he was replaced by Timothy,


The removal of Macedonius was only part of a concerted effort by the [non-Chalcedonian]. While Severus had been in the capital, Philoxenus had been busy in Palestine, undermining the position of Flavian of Antioch. At Anastasius' order, a Synod was assembled at Sidon in 512. Flavian was presented with a list of seventy-seven anathemas, as well as the request openly to anathematize Chalcedon. Flavian refused...[14] This was not Philoxenus: his monks informed Anastasius that Flavian was a heretic, and they received an order for his rejection. In November 512, Severus was consecrated Patriarch of Antioch in his place.


In his enthronement address,[15] Severus affirmed Nicea, Constantinople and Ephesus. He affirmed the Henoticon of Zeno as "an orthodox confession of the faith", but explicitly anathematized Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo, as well as Nestorius and Eutyches, and Diodore and Theodore, "the masters of Nestorius". Added to the list are Ibas of Edessa, Barsumas of Nisibis and Cyrus and John of Aigai.[16] In a Synod held at Tyre around 514,[17] the assembled bishops openly anathematised Chalcedon and the Tome, and Severus joined with Philoxenus in expounding the Henoticon as annulling Chalcedon.[18] Evagrius also tells us that Severus ceased not daily to anathematise Chalcedon.[19]


In Antioch he must have made his presence felt. John of Beth Aphthonia tells us that on becoming bishop, he sent away the cooks from the episcopal palace, and demolished the baths he found there.[20] In his Cathedral Homilies, he warned his people against resorting to the races[21] and the theatre,[22] and his letters show his energy, and the trouble he had in financial matters. But his time as Patriarch was not to be long.


Anastasius died in July 518, and Evagrius tells us that, many contentions having arisen in the church, Justin, in the first year of his reign, ordered him to be arrested and punished.[23] Severus, with a number of the [non-Chalcedonian] bishops, managed to escape to Egypt. Philoxenus was sent into exile at Gangra. In Egypt, Severus lived a harried existence,[24] but wrote some of his most important works,…. he completed his correspondence with Sergius from his exile. Lebon dates his great anti-Chalcedonian work, the Liber contra impium Grammaticum, to around 519.[25]


Around 530 Justinian relaxed persecution of the [non-Chalcedonians], and in 532 he summoned the leading [non-Chalcedonian] to a 'collatio' with the Chalcedonians in Constantinople. Though invited, and promised immunity by Justinian, Severus did not attend this conference.[26] He came instead, again at the summons of Justinian, in the winter of 534/5. At about the same time Anthimus of Trebizond, whom Zacharias tells us would not receive the Synod of Chalcedon into the faith,[27] succeeded Epiphanius as Patriarch of Constantinople, and Theodosius, a friend of Severus, became bishop of Alexandria.


This unity in the [non-Chalcedonian] camp so alarmed… Ephraim of Antioch that he sent a special envoy to Agapetus in Rome.[28] Justinian was engaged in an operation to regain Rome, and the Goths sent Agapetus to Constantinople to treat with Justinian on their behalf. Agapetus arrived in Constantinople in 536. Zacharias tells us that he perverted the love of the king to Severus and Anthimus. Justinian's interest clearly lay in the West, and Anthimus was replaced by Menas as Patriarch of Constantinople. Though Agapetus died in April 536, the position of Severus and the [non-Chalcedonians] was lost.


Severus, and his friends, were condemned[29] at a sunodoV  endhmousa in Constantinople lasting from May to June 536. The synod was confirmed by an edict of Justinian on the 6th of August 536. According to the edict, Severus was guilty of both Nestorianism and Eutychiamsm,[30] his books were to be banned,[31] and he was to be banished.[32]


According to Athanasius, Severus left Constantinople with the help of the Empress Theodora.[33] He returned to Egypt, and there, about 538, "the Lord visited him with a light disorder, and .... he fell asleep".[34]



2. The Council of Tyre, the Capital of Phoenica, in 514 A.D.[35]


“Severus and Philoxenos… tried to consolidate the forces against Chalcedon. With imperial orders, they held a great council at Tyre, the capital of Phoenicia, in 514. It had representatives from Alexandria and Jerusalem along with bishops from the provinces of Antioch, Apamea, Euphratesia, Osroene, Mesopotamia, Arabia and Phoenicia. This assembly could reverse the memory of Sidon. It declared the Henotikon its theological standard, but in so doing, the assembly interpreted the document, not in the light of its original intention of unifying the parties, but as a formula which cancelled the council of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo. Elias of Jerusalem who was opposed to a position like this had to submit, though he resisted later and was deposed. John replaced Elias. The Council of Tyre wrote letters of unity to the patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria. Thus a union of the four major sees in the east was carved out for a time. About this time empress Ariadne dies.”



3. What Some Russian Theologians Wrote About St. Severus and His Christology


(i) Professor N. A. Zabolotsky

In his paper on "The Christology of Severus of Antioch"[36] presented during the unofficial dialogue between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches, Professor N. A. Zabolotsky who was teaching at that time in "Leningrad Theological Academy", wrote:

"It is important to mention here also the point of view of Prof. V.V. Bolotov about the attitude of Severus towards Chalcedon; although Severus rejected this Council that had become "a sign of controversy" for many centuries, he did it not because the Council taught about two natures, mediating about the unity of Godhead and manhood in Christ, but because the fathers of the Council did not follow St. Cyril's doctrine and did not use the terminology of this great master of Alexadrine school; V. V. Bolotov thought that Severus had rejected the Chalcedonian Council for its being incomplete, one sided, for its clumsy choice of dogmatic words, that are a less successful, instead of the most characteristic ones[37]. Examining Severus as a polemist against Nestorian errors and actual Monophysitism, we acknowledge that nobody of the oriental opponents of Chalcedon "approached the Chalcedonian dogma in such a degree as this famous author"[38], avoiding formalism and assuming an attitude of examining Severus' Christology in its essence, we shall be able perhaps to consider him a spokesman of Eastern Orthodoxy although not in the Chalcedonian shape."


He also wrote in the same paper:[39]

"The best western investigator of Severus… J. Lebon (Joseph Lebon) speaks more than once about a direct dependence of the dogmatic system of  this non-Chalcedonian patriarch on St. Cyril of Alexandria. He writes: "Severus' explanations are based on the Holy Scripture and on the works of the holy fathers, primarily Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria".[40]


He also wrote:[41]

“The formula ‘two natures’ was formally condemned by Severus mostly in connection with his anti-Nestorian polemics because he thought that the formula of the Council of Chalcedon, i.e. evn du,o fu,sesin[42], introduces Nestorianism, for it discerns supposedly two individuals, because for Severus, to discern essences meant the same as to discern hypostasis; the Chalcedonian expression ‘in two natures’ meant for Severus ‘in two hypostaseis’ which was the same as ‘in two persons’. But without stopping his polemics against the Council of Chalcedon, Severus could not actually ignore arguments of the Council supporters about the existence of ‘two natures’. He agreed with the patristic testimonies in this respect but only said that the fathers spoke about two natures not in the sense of the participants of the Council of Chalcedon. According to Severus, when the fathers spoke about two natures, they understood that they were discerned in one Christ by a ‘subtle speculation’ –duo fuseiV en qewria.[43] Consequently this use of terminology, Severus had to yield the expression ‘two natures’– duo $fuseiV%, when he was compelled to oppose Synusiasts, confluing natures of the Lord in this sense. Emphasizing unconfluence and unalterability of Divinity and humanity in Christ, Severus, who strictly followed St. Cyril, introduced a limitation qewria monh i.e. ‘only in speculation’ which justifies his accepted formula about ‘two natures’.[44] V. V. Bolotov wrote on this occasion: ‘In a subtle abstraction, in the limits of a purely theoretical thought, the man’s reason can imagine natures of Christ as they have been before their unification.[45] Then he imagines each of them not only in its peculiarities, in its differences and variation after its physical quality, that distinguishes it out of other natures, but considers it as existing for itself like a ‘hypostasis’.[46] We may agree with Lebon that Severus introduced the limitation qewria monh in order to show that ‘two natures in Christ’, or, better to say, ‘duplicity’, meant by duo fuseiV, does not express the existing order of reality but it allowed only in a subtle speculative construction, in abstraction from a real unity, in order to see the continuity of difference essentially (in esse) between the Logos and the flesh, in order to confirm non-confluence and unalterability’ of Divinity and humanity in one Christ.[47]

To emphasize non-confluence and unalterability, Severus uses also the formula ek duo fusewn ‘out of two natures’- which had been used by the participants of the Council of Chalcedon in the draft of the confessional documents and preserved in the Greek text of Oros.[48]

(ii) Professor V. V. Bolotov wrote:

"Following St. Cyril, Severus added… "We also acknowledge the essential difference of two, combined into one nature; we know that the Word has one nature and the flesh had another."[49]

Many other writings of Professor V. V. Bolotov were introduced above under the writings of Professor N. A. Zabolotsky.



4. Christology of St. Severus of Antioch


Saint Severus strongly defended the Cyrillian Alexandrine Christology and skilfully brought into unity the Antiochene and Alexandrine teachings concerning the incarnation of the Logos.


(i) The Double Consubstantiality


Saint Severus of Antioch wrote:

Since the one Christ is one nature and hypostasis of God the Word incarnate from Godhead and manhood, it necessarily follows that the same is known at once as consubstantial with the Father as to Godhead and consubstantial with us as to manhood. The same is the Son of God and the Son of man. He is not, therefore, two sons, but he is one and the same son.[50]


(ii) The Composite Hypostasis and Single Prosopon


V. C. Samuel in his book “The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined” wrote the following:

The non-Chalcedonian theologian affirms that the union of Godhead and manhood in Jesus Christ was not a union of two natures understood as abstract realities, but of God the Son with the manhood which became individuated in the union. Though the manhood was not an independent hypostasis over against God the Son, it is hypostatic in the union. Accordingly, Severus and almost all other theologians recognized by the non-Chalcedonian side insist that the one hypostasis is not ‘simple’; but it is ‘composite’. As we have noted, this is a Cyrilline idea, which shows that the ‘one nature’ expression, as it is conserved in Alexandrine tradition, does not lend itself to be described as ‘monophysite’.

The one hypostasis of Jesus Christ is not simply the hypostasis of God the Son, but it is the hypostasis of God the Son in his incarnate state. So Severus writes in his contra Grammaticum.[51]

The natures and the hypostases, of which he has been composed are perceived irreducibly and unchangeably in the union. But it is not possible to recognize a prosopon for each of them, because they did not come into being dividedly either in specific concretion or in duality. For he is one hypostasis from both, and one prosopon conjointly, and one nature of God the Word incarnate.”[52]


For Saint Severus of Antioch a human hypostasis can be an individuated human nature and not a personalised nature but not in a separate existence in Jesus Christ. That is why he said that the hypostases of which the incarnate Logos has been composed “are perceived irreducibly and unchangeably in the union. But it is not possible to recognize a prosopon for each of them.”


He explained that the prosopon of the hypostasis of God the Word is shared by both the divine and the human hypostases of our Lord Jesus Christ, because as he wrote, “they did not come into being dividedly either in specific concretion or in duality. For he is one hypostasis from both, and one prosopon conjointly, and one nature of God the Word incarnate.”


The concept of assuming an individuated human nature can be seen in thought alone in the formation of Eve from Adam and also in the incarnation of the Word of God from Saint Mary the Mother of God (Theotokos).


(iii) Distinction In Thought Alone  Th Qewria Monh


In the line of the Christological understanding of St. Cyril, concerning the distinction in thought alone, at the moment of incarnation between the divinity and the humanity of the Lord Jesus Christ, St. Severus wrote the following:


Those, therefore, who confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is one (made up) of Godhead and manhood, and that He is one prosopon, one hypostasis, and one nature of the Word incarnate, recognize and affirm also the difference, integrity, and otherness of the natures, of which the one Christ is ineffably formed. As they perceive this by subtle thought and contemplation of the mind, they do not take it as a ground for dividing the Emmanuel into two natures after the union.”[53]


This fact was expressed by Saint Cyril of Alexandria in his letter to Acacius Bishop of Melitene (letter 40):


“Accordingly, whenever the manner of the Incarnation is closely considered, the human mind doubtless sees the two, ineffably and unconfusedly joined to each other in a union; but the mind in no wise divides them after they have been united, but believes and admits strongly that the one from both is God and Son and Christ and Lord.”[54]


Saint Cyril also wrote in the same letter:

“Wherefore, we say that the two natures were united, from which there is the one and only Son and Lord, Jesus Christ, as we accept in our thoughts; but after the union since the distinction into two is now done away with, we believe that, there is one physis of the Son”[55]



(iv) Natural Energies and Personal Act


In His letter to Oecumenius the Count[56] about properties and operations, St. Severus wrote that St. Cyril of Alexandria in the Scholion about the coal speaks as follows :

“Nevertheless we may see in the coal as in a figure that God the Word was united to the manhood, but has not cast off being that which he is, but rather changed what had been assumed or united into his glory and operation. For, as fire when it takes hold of wood and is introduced into it, prevails over it, and does not make it cease being wood, but rather changes it into the appearance and force of fire, and performs all its own acts in it, and is already reckoned as one with it, so understand in the case of Christ also. For, since God was ineffably united with manhood, he has preserved it as what we say it is, and he himself also has remained what he was. But, after he has once been united, he is reckoned as one with it, appropriating its qualities of himself, but he himself also carried on the operation of his nature in it”[57].  If [58] then the Word changed the manhood which he had hypostatically united to him, not into his nature, for he remained that which he was, but into his glory and operation, and things which manifestly belong to the flesh have come to belong to the Word himself, how shall we allow that each of the forms performs its own acts? But we must anathematize those who confine the one Christ in two nature and say that each of the natures performs its own acts. Between the things performed and done by the one Christ the difference is great. Some of them are acts befitting the divinity, while others are human. For example, to walk and travel in bodily form upon the earth is without contention human; but to bestow on those who are maimed in the feet and cannot walk upon the ground at all the power of walking like sound persons is God-befitting. Yet the one Word incarnate performed the latter and the former, and the one nature did not perform the one, and the other; nor, because the things performed are different, shall we on this account rightly define two natures or forms as operating.”


The one hypostasis of the Word of God has one operation. He has one composite natural divine human energy mia energeia, in which both the divine and human natural energies continued to exist without change, without confusion, without separation and without division. According to the dispensation the incarnate Logos was acting in one operation with different capabilities according to the different natural energies which He owned.


According to His human energy, He suffered in His own flesh, but nevertheless because of the perfect union of His divinity with His humanity with all their properties including their natural energies, those passions became healing to us; as St. Peter wrote concerning the scourges put upon the holy body of our Lord, “By whose strips you were healed” (1 Pt. 2:24). Even the death of His holy body was a life giving one, and still alive in His human spirit He went to Hades where He preached the imprisoned spirits of those who slept in the hope of salvation (see 1 Pet 3:18)!!


On His glorious resurrection the Lord Jesus Christ according to His divine energy He was able to raise His holy body from the dead bringing it again to life and to the glorious state of the body of resurrection. The first-fruit of His resurrection was declared by preserving His body after His death from corruption in the tomb “Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption.” (Ps 16:10, Act 2:27).


When He said “Lazarus, come forth” (Jn 11:43) raising him from the dead. The miracle was performed in one divine-human act by the one Person of Jesus Christ using his natural divine human energy mia energeia.

[1]  I. R. Torrance, Christology After Chalcedon, The Canterbury Press Norwich, 1988, pp. 3-6.

[2] Athanasius of Antioch, The Conflict of Severus, PO 4, p. 613.

[3] The Syriac Chronicle, Bk. 9, ch. 16, p. 257.

[4] Athansius, John of Beth Aphthonia and Zacharias Rhetor concur in telling us that Severus received baptism at the shrine of Leontius… Garitte argues that the Coptic represents the original Greek of Severus' sermon, and that this detail has been suppressed in the Syriac version. See G. Garitte, "Textes hagiographiques orientaux relatifs a saint Leonce de Tripoli. II L'Homelies copte de Severe d'Antioche", Le Museon 79 (1966), pp. 335-386.

[5] On Peter the Iberian, cf. John of Beth Aphthonia, Vie de Severe, PO 2, pp. 219-223; D.M. Lang, "Peter the Iberian and his biographers". JEH 2 (1951) pp. 158-168. In his letters, Severus acknowledges the influence of Peter on him (cf. Select Letters, Section 5, Letter 11).

[6] Some writers wrongly call the non-Chalcedonians Monophysites.

[7] Breviarium Causae Nestorianorum et Eutychianorum, XVIII, ACO 2.5, p. 133. 13-16. For Severus' own condemnation of Peter Mongus, cf, Select Letters, Section 4, Letter 2.

[8] cf, John of Beth Aphthoinia, op. cit. p. 232.

[9] For the dating, cf. Lebon Le Monophysisme, pp. 120-121.

[10] cf. Evagrius, The Ecclesiatical History, ed. J.Bidez and L. Parmentier (London 1898) Bk. 3, ch. 33.

[11] Between 509-511. cf. Lebon, Le Monophysisme, pp. 124-125.

[12] cf. Zacharias Rhetor, Vie de Severe, PO 2, p. 113.

[13] Evagrius, op. cit., Bk 3, ch. 32.

[14] The Syriac Chronicle, Bk. 7, ch. 10, p. 179 (Hamilton and Brook's translation).

[15] PO 2, pp. 322-325.

[16] It is interesting to note that in his Letter of Apology, Sergius also condemns "Persia" (presumably Barsumas of Nisibis) and Cyrus and John (cf. EM p.186.24).

[17] See Honigamann, Eveques et Eveches Monophysites (CSCO 127, Sub. 2 Louvain, 1951), pp. 16-17, for the difficulties in dating the Synod.

[18] The Syriac Chronicles, Bk 7, ch. 10. For Severus' attitude to Henoticon, see his Collected Letters (ed. Brooks) PO 12, Letters 46 (p. 320) and 49 (p. 324). He held that though it contained and orthodox confession of faith, by itself (without and explicit anathema on Chalcedon) it was unable to bring the healing that was needed.

[19] Evagrius, op. cit. Bk. 4, ch. 4.

[20] John of Beth Aphthonia, op. cit., p. 243.

[21] Homily 26.

[22] Homily 54.

[23] Evagrius, op. cit., Bk. 4, ch. 4.

[24] He mentions this twice in his Third Letter to Sergius: EM p. 158.6-7; p. 176.14-17.

[25] cf. Lebon, Le Monophysisme, p. 153.

[26] The Syriac Chronicle, Bk. 9, ch. 16, gives Severus' letter to Justinian, refusing to come to the royal city.

[27] Ibid., Bk 9, ch. 19.

[28] Ibid., Bk 9, ch. 19.

[29] Among other things, Severus was accused of being and "Akephalist" (ACO 3, p. 137.8-10); a Eutychian and Manichaean (ACO 3, p. 147.35-36); of conducting uncanonical baptism (ACO 3, p. 112.35-36); and of holding illegal meetings (ACO 3, p.113.14-16). The old slur about his pagan background was also brought up (ACO 3, p. 40.16-24).

[30] cf. ACO 3, p.121.5-9.

[31] Ibid., lines 22-27.

[32] Ibid., lines 30-34.

[33] Athanasius, op. cit. pp. 709-710.

[34] Ibid., p. 716.

[35] V. C. Samuel, Council of Chalcedon Re-examined, Published for the Senate of Serampore College, by The Christian Literature Society, The Diocesan Press, Madras, 1977. C8041, p. 235

[36] Metropolitan Methodius of Aksum, Papers Referring to the Theological Dialogue Between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches,  Athens 1976. p.155.

[37] Prof. V.V. Bolotov, Lectures on the History of the Primitive Church. III. History of Theological Thought. Posthumous edition edited by Prof. A. Brilliantov, Petrograd 1918, page 337; V. V. Bolotov wrote here: "He (Severus) anathematized the Chalcedonian Council not because the Council, discussing unity, spoke about two natures: 'Nobody accused it in such a senseless way, we also recognize two natures in Christ – created and a not created one.' The Chalcedonian Council has to be anathematized for the fact that it did not follow St. Cyril's doctrine, that it did not say: Christ is ek duo fusewn that one Christ is of two; it rejected the expressions: mia fusiV tou qeou logou

sesarkwmenh,  enwsiV  kaq  upostasin

[38] cf, op, cit.

[39] cf, Zabolotsky p. 156.

[40]  La Christologie du monophysisme syreien par Mgr Jospeh Lebon, Prof. em a l'Universitee Catholique de Louvain. A Russian translation has been made in the Leningrad Theological Academy, Leningrad (1974), cited according to the original, p. 456

[41] cf, Zabolotsky p. 170-171.

[42] V. V. Bolotov, pp. 292-293, 338. J. Lebon, p. 499.

[43] V. V. Bolotov, p. 338; J. Lebon, p. 499

[44] J. Lebon, pp. 500-505.

[45] We think that V.V. Bolotov is not exact in this expression, admitting the idea that non-Chalcedonians allegedly taught about a real pre-existence of both natures of Christ. As a matter of fact, such doctrine may be concluded only out of Eutyche’s fantasianism, and Eutyches could take it from Origin who spoke about the pre-existence of Christ’s human soul. The non-Chalcedonians, and particularly Severus, rejected such a view absolutely.

[46] V.V. Bolotov, p. 338. Further V. V. Bolotov wrote: ‘But when the reason has formed the impression that these essences have been combined in such a way that one hypostasis was the result of it, it has no right to suppose that in the whole reality, taiV upostaseiV these essences, thought by him as th epinoia are two…’ It seems to us that the differentiation qewria monh used by St. Cyril and Severus emphasized the duplicity in Christ a little bit more, since it was destined to refute fantasies of Synusiasts, confluing Divinity and humanity in Christ; by qewria monh unconfluence and unmixture of the elements of God-man are confirmed. When the Chalcedonian Council said in its Oros: en duo fusisin (ek duo fusewn) asugcutwV  atreptwV  adiairetwV  gnwrizomenon this gnwrizomenon does not include qewria monh.

[47]J. Lebon, p. 504

[48] V. V. Bolotov, p. 291, Cf. also N. A. Zabolotsky, to a dialogue about the Chalcedonian Council, JMP 1970, 1, p. 39

[49] V. V. Bolotov, cit. p. 337-338.

[50] V.C. Samuel, The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined, the Senate of Serampore College, Madras, India 1977, p. 246, quoting Severus, Contra Grammarian I p. 227.

[51] Contra Gr. I, p. 187.

[52] V.C. Samuel, The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined, the Senate of Serampore College, Madras, India 1977, p. 251-252.

[53] Rev. Prof. V. C. Samuel, Does Chalcedon Divide or Unite? A paper entitled ‘One Incarnate Nature of God the Word’ p. 84, citing Contr. Gr. Op. cit., III, p. 106.

[54] Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 40, par. 15, The Fathers of the Church, Volume 76, C.U.A., 1987 p.162.

[55] Ibid, par. 14 p.160.

[56] Brooks, A Collection of Letters of Severus of Antioch From Numerous Syriac Manuscripts, pp. 7-9.

[57] Schol. De Inc. Unig., 9 (ed Pusey, VI, p. 516).

[58] This passage as far as ‘operating’ (p. 10, 1.6) is cited in Mansi, XI, 444, where the letter is described as the 2nd to Oecumenius.

||    Pope Shenouda    ||    Father Matta    ||    Bishop Mattaous    ||    Fr. Tadros Malaty    ||    Bishop Moussa    ||    Bishop Alexander    ||    Habib Gerguis    ||    Bishop Angealos    ||    Metropolitan Bishoy    ||

||    The Orthodox Faith (Dogma)    ||    Family and Youth    ||    Sermons    ||    Bible Study    ||    Devotional    ||    Spirituals    ||    Fasts & Feasts    ||    Coptics    ||    Religious Education    ||    Monasticism    ||    Seasons    ||    Missiology    ||    Ethics    ||    Ecumenical Relations    ||    Church Music    ||    Pentecost    ||    Miscellaneous    ||    Saints    ||    Church History    ||    Pope Shenouda    ||    Patrology    ||    Canon Law    ||    Lent    ||    Pastoral Theology    ||    Father Matta    ||    Bibles    ||    Iconography    ||    Liturgics    ||    Orthodox Biblical topics     ||    Orthodox articles    ||    St Chrysostom    ||   

||    Bible Study    ||    Biblical topics    ||    Bibles    ||    Orthodox Bible Study    ||    Coptic Bible Study    ||    King James Version    ||    New King James Version    ||    Scripture Nuggets    ||    Index of the Parables and Metaphors of Jesus    ||    Index of the Miracles of Jesus    ||    Index of Doctrines    ||    Index of Charts    ||    Index of Maps    ||    Index of Topical Essays    ||    Index of Word Studies    ||    Colored Maps    ||    Index of Biblical names Notes    ||    Old Testament activities for Sunday School kids    ||    New Testament activities for Sunday School kids    ||    Bible Illustrations    ||    Bible short notes

||    Pope Shenouda    ||    Father Matta    ||    Bishop Mattaous    ||    Fr. Tadros Malaty    ||    Bishop Moussa    ||    Bishop Alexander    ||    Habib Gerguis    ||    Bishop Angealos    ||    Metropolitan Bishoy    ||

||    Prayer of the First Hour    ||    Third Hour    ||    Sixth Hour    ||    Ninth Hour    ||    Vespers (Eleventh Hour)    ||    Compline (Twelfth Hour)    ||    The First Watch of the midnight prayers    ||    The Second Watch of the midnight prayers    ||    The Third Watch of the midnight prayers    ||    The Prayer of the Veil    ||    Various Prayers from the Agbia    ||    Synaxarium