Like in this, from A.B. Bruce’s The humiliation of Christ, about Eutyches, the Monophysite fanatic:
It is plain from those representations that Eutyches had no distinct definite conception of the constitution of our Lord’s person. He felt rather than thought on the subject of Christology. He did not pretend to comprehend the mystery of the Incarnation, but rather gloried in proclaiming its incomprehensibleness. He knew that God and flesh were altogether different things, and he believed that Christ s flesh was real; but the divinity bulked so large in his eye, that the humanity, in comparison, vanished into nothing. And if compelled by fact to admit that the humanity was still there, not drunk up like a drop of honey by the sea of the divinity, he refused, at all events, to regard it as on a level with ordinary humanity: reverence protested against calling Christ s divine body consubstantial with the bodies of common mortals.
The result of this was a mess:
It would have been well had the course of events permitted such a man to pass his life in obscurity. But it was otherwise ordered. Eutyches became the representative of a theory which engaged the attention of three Synods ; being condemned by the first, approved by the second, and re-condemned and finally disposed of as a heresy by the third, the famous (Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon…)
The criticism Bruce levels against Eutyches has also been directed against the Orthodox in general. Unfortunately Eutyches’ approach has its counterparts in other parts of Christianity. And, in this emotionalistic age we live in, even the “rational” places are driven by the same kind of lack of thinking.