BELIEF: What do 'Traditional' Catholics think about Miaphysitism?

[Goblin_Taters]

Originally Posted by batteteddy:

Exactly, if their “nature” simply means that Jesus Christ is by definition Man and God, then that could just be a language understanding.

If they mean that “the nature” of the Person Jesus Christ is to be fully human and fully divine. However, we would call each of those aspects, in our language, a seperate nature because we are thinking of “nature” as a metaphysical template, whereas they are just using the word to mean something’s essential definition.

And clearly the Incarnate Word is defined as both Incarnate and Word, that the whole point of Him is to be human and divine. Not to say that the divinity did not have an independent existence before, or is somehow dependent on the humanity.

Perhaps a reconciling statement would be something like, “It is Christ’s nature to have a human nature and a divine nature”…do you see how “nature” is used in two ways in that sentence? Sort of, I believe, the problem with the Oriental Orthodox.

I think we must remember that the semantics of “nature,” “person,” “substance,” etc. were different for these Christians than how we understand these words today. Moreover, many words, such as *hypostases *and physis changed in meaning. When the Alexandrians heard the Antiochenes speak of Christ as of two natures (two physi) they understood them as implying two concrete centers of activity in Christ–in other words, two hypostases. The Antiochenes, when they heard the “one incarnate nature of God the Word,” immediately thought of Apollinaris and his denial of a human soul in Christ–thus a divinization that eliminates full humanity in Christ. It was not only a matter of describing Christ correctly but also avoiding the condemned heresies (and language that might be misconstrued as leading in that direction). The Alexandrians wanted to avoid the Nestorianism that they still saw tendencies of in Antiochene theology (they instead wanted to focus on the true, hypostatic union of the Word with flesh); the Antiochenes desired to avoid any “one nature” language that would deny the full humanity of Christ.

 

[Jakub]

Nay…what say you ?

james

 

[rwoehmke]

Am I correct in finding that these previous posts are saying that Miaphysitism does not equal Monophysitism and pertains more to the teaching that Mary is indeed the Theotokos? I will admit I am totally confused.

 

[Cranch]

Am I correct in finding that these previous posts are saying that Miaphysitism does not equal Monophysitism…

Yes.

…and pertains more to the teaching that Mary is indeed the Theotokos? I will admit I am totally confused.

Nothing to do with Mary, sorry! I would say it’s about the difference in describing Christ as one person with two separate natures, human and divine, joined in hypostatic union (the Council of Chalcedon definition) versus one person with one nature which is both human and divine at the same time (Miaphysitism).

 

[Ghosty]

I have no trouble answering your question. I am one person with one nature (human).

Since you have one nature, are you only spirit, or only matter? They are two completely different natures. You are in fact, as a human being, miaphysite in nature, since miaphysite means “united nature”.

As Goblin_Taters pointed out, these terms were not defined fully at the time of the Council. In fact, some of the terms used didn’t find their final definition until long after the Council.

To get an idea of how nitty-gritty this all is, the Council of Chalcedon exonerated Theodoret of Cyrrhus of Nestorianism, but he had to be re-condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople. He was a Nestorian, but was able to “hide” within the definition of Chalcedon; it took another Council to root out his heresy and condemn him. He wasn’t the only Nestorian to hide his heresy by proclaiming the decision of Chalcedon. Another point to remember is that the miaphysite Oriental Orthodox condemned Monophysitism as heretical on their own after Chalcedon. They never accepted the idea that Christ had a single nature in the manner that the term nature is used by the Chalcedonians.

The miaphysites were reacting precisely to this difficulty in the language of Chalcedon. This isn’t to say that Chalcedon was heretical, on the contrary we Catholics uphold it as definative. The language was difficult, however, and required further Councils to clarify enough to put a rest to heresies.

That being said, it’s important to remember that this matter is already settled for Catholics. We have joint-statements between our Pope and the leaders of the miaphysite Oriental Orthodox to the effect that we have both been defending the same teaching using different terms and definitions.

Incidently, here is part of the Coptic Orthodox liturgy, in which they express what miaphysis means:

I believe and confess to the last breath, that this is the life-giving body that your only-begotten Son, our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ took from our lady, the lady of us all, the holy Theotokos Saint May. He made it one with his divinity without mingling, without confusion and without alteration.****

You can see by the emphasis on no mingling, alteration, and confusion that what they mean by “one” (mia) is unity, not blending, similar to how we say that husband and wife become one flesh.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I love the explanations you guys have been making of this, here . Thanks Ghosty, Cranch and Taters!

 

[DixitDominus]

Profess Chalcedon, or take a beatin’.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Profess Chalcedon, or take a beatin’.

We do .

I have a question for you anyone here. Does the Catholic Church have any official documents teaching on whether or not Miaphysitism is contrary to the faith? If so, can you bring them up for me?

 

[John_May]

I wonder does God care even the slightest over these weighty arguments. I suspect not.

 

[laszlo]

Miaphysitism (sometimes called henophysitism) is a Christological formula of the Oriental Orthodox Churches and of the various churches adhering to the first three Ecumenical Councils. Miaphysitism holds that in the one person of Jesus Christ, Divinity and Humanity are united in one or single nature (“physis”), the two being united without separation, without confusion, and without alteration.[1]

This is from the Wikipedia,

For the western understanding of the word ‘nature’ this is contradiction in self. The human nature is limited, particular, imperfect - the divine nature is unlimited, one, and perfect. Jesus’ human nature was not absorbed into the divine nature

Mark 13:32 But of that day or hour no man knoweth, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father.

The mystery is mystery but for us, Western people and using our regular terms only the diaphysicism (two distinct natures, one Person) expresses the ‘through looking glass’ understanding.

 

[At_Trent]

I wonder does God care even the slightest over these weighty arguments. I suspect not.

No I don’t believe He does. Nothing I’ve read indicates we, as laity, need to ponder such things we really can’t understand anyway. What we do need to focus on is revealed Truth as it relates to our salvation.

It’s interesting to read about these “isms”, but after centuries of debate and no clear conclusion, I see them as interesting but not important.

jmho