Post History

It's important to note that:

 * Monophysitism was not only condemned at the Council of Chalcedon, but _also_ at subsequent councils.
 * Much ecumenical dialogue has attempted to distinguish monophysitism _proper_ from miaphysitism by associating the former with Eutyches (who was condemned in the Council of Chalcedon) and the latter with Severus of Antioch, who is portrayed as having a more moderate monophysite view.
   * The distinction between the views of Eutyches and Severus of Antioch was noted/known even by early Church Fathers. See, e.g., Joseph Lebon’s monograph [_Le Monophysisme sévérien_](https://archive.org/details/Lebon1909LeMonophysismeSeverien).
   * One disagreement impacting reconciliation is whether the differences are merely _semantic_ or theologically substantive.
   * There are other reasons impacting reconciliation that have to do with the way in which the ecumenical dialogues took place.[^1]

For those who believe the differences are theologically substantive, the primary _theological_ issues with miaphysitism include the following:

 * The non-Chalcedonians have refused to acknowledge and accept Ecumenical Councils 4–7, and instead wish to "agree to disagree" and sweep differences under the rug as semantic. This would imply that they are not heterodox, but merely in schism (i.e., that the church "split" rather than there being an unbroken Orthodoxy with the non-Chalcedonians departing from this Orthodoxy as heretics).
 * Appealing to Severus of Antioch in distinction to Eutyches doesn't escape heterodoxy. Early Church Fathers also considered Severus of Antioch a heretic as well as his followers (referred to as Severians). St. John of Damascus wrote:

> ... Severus, the seducer from Antioch, and John the Tritheite ... denied the mystery of salvation. They wrote many things against the inspired council of the 630 Fathers of Chalcedon, and they set many snares, so to speak, and ‘laid stumbling blocks by the wayside’ for those who are lost in their pernicious heresy. Although they hold individual substances, they destroy the mystery of the Incarnation.[^2]

 * This attempt to sweep Chalcedonian Christology under the rug is nothing new historically: read about [the _Henoticon_](https://orthodoxwiki.org/Henoticon) (which was supported by Severus).

 * I don't have time (nor the expertise) to attempt to summarize the technical arguments from various Fathers, but will cite Fr. Georges Florovsky:

>The followers of Severus could not speak of Christ’s humanity as a “nature.” It broke down into a system of traits, for the doctrine of the Logos “taking” humanity was still not developed fully by Monophysitism into the idea of “inter-hypostasis-ness.” The Monophysites usually spoke of the Logos’ humanity as οἰκονομία. It is not without foundation that the fathers of the Council of Chalcedon detected here a subtle taste of original Docetism. Certainly this is not the Docetism of the ancient Gnostics at all, nor is it Apollinarianism. However, to the followers of Severus the “human” in Christ was not entirely human, for it was not active, was not “self-motivated.” In this contemplation of the Monophysites, the human in Christ was like a passive object of Divine influence. Divinization, or theosis, seems to be a unilateral act of Divinity without sufficiently taking into account the synergism of human freedom, the assumption of which in no way supposes a “second subject.”[^3]






[^1]: Many Orthodox Christians have other issues that with the specific way that previous ecumenical dialogues with non-Chalcedonians have taken place that have as much to do with theological disagreement with ecumenism's implied "branch theory" as with actual theological issues surrounding non-Chalcedonian Christology (miaphysitism). For an example of the traditional Orthodox approach to ecumenical relations, see [the Oberlin statement](http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/oberlin.aspx) and [this memorandum from various monks at Mt. Athos](http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/mono_athos.aspx) who opposed the ecumenical dialogue with the non-Chalcedonians for related reasons. However, there are dissenting opinions (see, for example, [this letter from a bishop who was tonsured on Mt. Athos](https://orthodoxjointcommission.wordpress.com/2013/12/14/anathema-some-historical-perspectives-on-the-athonite-statement-of-may-1995/)).

[^2]: John of Damascus, _On Heresies,_ ch. 83 "The Egyptians, or Schematics, or Monophysites." Quoted from John Damascene, _Writings_, ed. Hermigild Dressler, trans. Frederic H. Chase Jr., vol. 37, _The Fathers of the Church_ (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1958), 138–148. This passage is sometimes misquoted (or not _fully_ quoted to imply that non-Chalcedonians are "Orthodox in all things." Other documents against Severus include the petitions from bishops of Syria Secunda and Palestinian monasteries. See [this article](https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/Monophysites-and-Monophysitism) for further details.

[^3]: Georges Florovsky, _The Byzantine Fathers of the Fifth Century, Collected Works,_ vol. 8 (Liechtenstein: Büchervertriebsanstalt, 1987), page number unknown. Quoted from Nicholas Marinides, "Chalcedonian Orthodoxy and Non-Chalcedonian Heterodoxy," _Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy_ blog, https://blogs.ancientfaith.com/orthodoxyandheterodoxy/2016/04/12/chalcedonian-orthodoxy-non-chalcedonian-heterodoxy/