Scot,
I think you are right when many people still confuse or hybridize Christ’s natures. I also think that many still separate them. It is a very difficult box to stay in sometimes. Even you said the natures were separable in your last couple of words, when Chalcedon as you quoted says quite clearly they are without separation. It is hard for us to conceive of two things that are distinct but not separate; united but not mingled. Much like with the Trinity, what really happens in baptism, and a host of other mysterious beliefs, we don’t have the capability to express it precisely and accurately.

The mention of Eucharist here is interesting. When the discussion of the nature of Christ becomes tied up with Eucharist it always seems to me that we step into a place where we should not go – and way beyond where Scripture goes. One trend I think we see in the history of the church is a deep tendency to take the human elements out of the faith, to dehumanize it – and nowhere is this seen more deeply than in “theories” of Eucharist.

Will, thanks for that and I corrected it. I did have “separable” and I suppose “distinct” would have been better.

“The Church has always held this viewpoint.”
Why do you keep saying this? There would have been no need for any council to decree it a heresy if it hadn’t become a popular belief within the church which needed to be corrected.

Let me be a little provocative here (relax Scot):
I think the deity of Christ is affirmed in so many places in scripture in so many ways it cannot be denied without doing violence to the scriptures themselves.
But this issue seems to be more about protecting our understanding or interpretion of certain issues — namely, if we have understood redemption correctly, and if we have understood the eucharist correctly, then Christ’s human and divine natures cannot be mingled too closely.
So was this protecting a critical Christian doctrine or simply the dominate interpretation of the scriptures?

Re: #4, commenting on this bit,
The Fourth Council, at Chalcedon in 451, decreed this view incompatible with our gospel and salvation. The Church has always held this viewpoint.
Indeed, the most we can say is that “the Church has always since held this viewpoint.” The very need for the Council in the first place proves that the Church hasn’t always had a definitive opinion on the matter.

Mark (#6)
I think that some of these “heresies” involve details such that it is not correct to say that the church always held this position either before or after the relevant council verdict. So the first two heresies – about who Christ is/was – involved real heresies. Jesus was both human and divine and attempts to deny either are wrong.
On the other hand the decrees of heresy that deal with how the divine and human natures are interrelated seem to me to tread on shaky ground much of the time. I agree with ChrisB – this seems to me more a case of protecting dominant interpretation than protecting critical doctrine.

I am trying to follow this so I do have a question what is the problem with accepting scripture when it says that Jesus the Christ, “And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit: and having said thus, he gave up the ghost.” Luke 23:46 By that I mean that he became a man who lived a life oof perfection and then sacrficed that life for the salvation of many?

Scot,
Isn’t Eutychianism just another form of docetism? It seems to be another way of saying “Jesus seemed to be fully human” but really he has a hybrid nature so he isn’t fully human–he is something else than us.
As well, should our understanding of how communion works inform our understand of Jesus? Shouldn’t it be the other way around?
Does this heresy stem from incorrect theology about Jesus or about theories regarding bread and wine actually becoming flesh and blood?
I think the former but as we get into these heresies I wonder what philosophy or rational drove them.

This is what the Church has always believe, as Scot said, because the Church has always understood Jesus as fully human and fully div

Sigh. Apparently can’t get more than a few words through again.

Scott M (##10-13): Maybe that’s a sign from God!

Although I think that the definition of Chalcedon is superior to its competitors, I don’t consider adherence to the definition a legitimate test of orthodoxy.
It is extremely doubtful that the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox (aka Oriental Orthodox) are actually heretics. The Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox viewed each other as heretics for centuries, but over the last few decades they actually started to listen to each other.
Check out the official statements of the Eastern Orthodox-Oriental Orthodox dialogue:
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state01.php
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state02.php
BTW, Copts and other Oriental Orthodox consider the label “Monophysite” akin to calling a Catholic a “Papist” or a Muslim a “Mohammedan.” The Oriental Orthodox call their own view “Miaphysitism.”

Phil: and the new, updated Eastern/Greek Orthodox NT in English is now available: http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/eob/

The Intelligence that created the entire Universe is going to sit like a petty bureaucrat and check off the beliefs of people before letting them into Heaven. Yeah, right.
The idea of Heresy is medieval nonsense.

Charles,
You’re language prejudices the case because you’ve equated any view that God cares what one believes with a petty bureaucrat.
The issues are these: Does one have to believe in Jesus Christ? Let’s say yes. Once one admits that, one has to ask what one has to believe about Jesus Christ for it to be the real, apostolically-understood Jesus Christ.