Dyophysitism vs. Miaphysitism: Substance or Semantics?

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I was reading a bit about Christianity in the fifth century, and while I finally began to understand some of that century’s Christological conflicts in detail, I also added another confusion to my understanding. I would really appreciate clarification from anyone knowledgeable enough to help, and particularly from Oriental Christians: I’m thinking Marduk and dzheremi will probably be able to help me out a lot here.

I used to just trust that there’s a difference between Miaphysitism and Monophysitism.

Then, I learned what that difference is. So far, so good.

But learning the difference - which I fully see and acknowledge - started to make me wonder what distinguishes Miaphysitism from Chalcedonian Dyophysitism. Is it a difference merely of semantics? Or is there actually a substantive difference?

Here is why the difference seems purely semantical to me:

We know that the Oriental Christians adhere to St. Cyril’s formula, “one Incarnate nature of God the Word.” We also know that the word used for “nature” in that formula, physis, had different meanings for different fifth-century theologians: St. Cyril admitted, when he reconciled with John of Antioch, that he meant physis to mean hypostasis… so by his definition of physis, his formula is actually perfectly Dyophysite. Orthodox Dyophysite Christians obviously would also insist that there is only one Person who is the incarnate Word: Jesus, the Logos, the Son, these are all the same Person.

Flash forward just under twenty years from 433. Chalcedon has happened. Eutyches’ belief has been condemned, and even Dioscoros’ side agrees that Eutyches is wrong.

Miaphysite Christians, of course, are fully orthodox regarding this matter: they certainly profess that the Lord - the one Incarnate Son of God - is consubstantial with us. He is what His Father is, and He is what we are.

My question, then, is this: ignoring Chalcedonian formulas, is the difference between Dyophysite Christology itself and Miaphysite Christology itself substantive or merely one of semantics?

I can understand why Miaphysite Christians would have preferred not to speak of “two physes of Christ” - of course that created confusion, since St. Cyril used physis to mean hypostasis. And saying our Lord has two hypostases is as Nestorian as you can get.

But since St. Cyril *did *use physis to mean hypostasis, then the Miaphysite teaching that in our Lord “divinity and humanity were united in one physis” means essentially, "divinity and humanity were united in one hypostasis."

… which confuses me, since that’s definitely in accord with Dyophysite teaching.

Furthermore… I’m no philosopher or theologian, but my understanding of “nature” has always been “what someone or something is,” a person or thing’s “what-ness.”

If our Lord, through His Incarnation, is not only as divine as His Father but also as human as I am, and if Miaphysite Christology acknowledges this, then what is so Miaphysite about Miaphysitism?

It sounds like Dyophysite Christology in non-Chalcedonian language.

Is the difference between Dyophysite and Miaphysite Christology indeed merely semantical?

If it is also substantive as well as semantical, how is that possible when Miaphysite Christology acknowledges that our Lord is as consubstantial with us as He is with God the Father?

 

[Wandile]

Excellent question

 

[Vico]

There are some common declarations between the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/sub-index/index_ancient-oriental-ch.htm

 

[Zekariya]

A concise statement of Miaphysite Christology written by St Cyril:

"Accordingly when we assert the union of the Word of God the Father to his holy body which has a rational soul, a union which is ineffable and beyond thought and which took place without blending, without change, without alteration, we confess one Christ, Son and Lord, the Word of God the Father, the same God and man, not one and another, but one and the same, being, and known to be, God and man. Therefore sometimes he speaks as man according to the dispensation and according to his humanity, and sometimes as God he makes statements by the authority of his divinity.

"And we make the following assertions also. While skillfully examining the manner of his dispensation with the flesh and finely probing the mystery, we see that the Word of God the Father was made man and was made flesh and that he has not fashioned that holy body from his divine nature but rather took it from the Virgin Mary. Since how did he become man, if he has not possessed a body like ours? Considering, therefore, as I said, the manner of his Incarnation we see that his two natures came together with each other in an indissoluble union, without blending and without change, for his flesh is flesh and not divinity, even though his flesh became the flesh of God, and likewise the Word also is God and not flesh, even though he made the flesh his own according to the dispensation.

"Therefore, whenever we have these thoughts in no way do we harm the joining into a unity by saying he was of two natures, but after the union, we do not separate the natures from one another, nor do we cut the one and indivisible Son into two sons, but we say that there is one Son, and as the holy Fathers have said, that there is one nature of the Word [of God] made flesh."

• St Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 45:6 (to Succenus, Bishop of Diocaesarea in Isauria)

[emphasis mine]

 

[Zekariya]

I think that this is pretty much to the point.

Cappadocian Fathers:
hypostasis = person
ousia = essence

Alexandrian:
physis = hypostasis = person
ousia = essence

Antiochian:
hypostasis = person
physis = ousia = essence

 

[yawsep1569]

I think that this is pretty much to the point.

Cappadocian Fathers:
hypostasis = person
ousia = essence

Alexandrian:
physis = hypostasis = person
ousia = essence

Antiochian:
hypostasis = person
physis = ousia = essence

For the Antiochene school,

prosopon= person
hypostasis has a rather different meaning that can not be simply categorized as person, or essence.

 

[Zekariya]

For the Antiochene school,

prosopon= person
hypostasis has a rather different meaning that can not be simply categorized as person, or essence.

Correct me if I’m wrong, what I stated was the Chalcedonian view that developed after St Cyril reconciled with John of Antioch.

 

[dzheremi]

Hi Fone,

Unfortunately I’m too busy right not to address your questions in depth, but Fr. Peter Farrington of the British Orthodox Church (within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarch) has talked at length about the Orthodox Christology of our Church in his podcast here. Hopefully it will answer a lot of questions. Of particular interest within the context of this topic should be the discussion of the Orthodox Christology of St. Severus.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

There are some common declarations between the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/sub-index/index_ancient-oriental-ch.htm

Thank you, Vico.

To my untrained examination, these seem to suggest that the answer to my question is yes, the difference is merely one of semantics.

Of course, these are Catholic sources, so that’s not surprising, but ***if ***Pope Shenouda III really did agree that, “we confess one faith in the One Triune God, the divinity of the Only Begotten Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Word of God, the effulgence of His glory and the express image of His substance, who for us was incarnate, assuming for Himself a real body with a rational soul, and who shared with us our humanity but without sin. We confess that our Lord and God and Saviour and King of us all, Jesus Christ, is perfect God with respect to His Divinity, perfect man with respect to His humanity. In Him His divinity is united with His humanity in a real, perfect union without mingling, without commixtion, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without separation. His divinity did not separate from His humanity for an instant, not for the twinkling of an eye. He who is God eternal and invisible became visible in the flesh, and took upon Himself the form of a servant. In Him are preserved all the properties of the divinity and all the properties of the humanity, together in a real, perfect, indivisible and inseparable union” …

… and if the Syriac Patriarch of Antioch really did agree that, “In our turn we confess that He became incarnate for us, taking to himself a real body with a rational soul. He shared our humanity in all things except sin. We confess that our Lord and our God, our Saviour and the King of all, Jesus Christ, is perfect God as to His divinity and perfect man as to His humanity. In Him His divinity is united to His humanity. This Union is real, perfect, without blending or mingling, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without the least separation. He who is God eternal and indivisible, became visible in the flesh and took the form of servant. In him are united, in a real, perfect indivisible and inseparable way, divinity and humanity, and in him all their properties are present and active”…

… then it most definitely seems that Dyophysite Christology and Miaphysite Christology are only semantically different.

I think that this is pretty much to the point.

Cappadocian Fathers:
hypostasis = person
ousia = essence

Alexandrian:
physis = hypostasis = person
ousia = essence

Antiochian:
hypostasis = person
physis = ousia = essence

Yeah, that’s why the difference seems like one of mere semantics to me. Thank you as well for the quotes from St. Cyril. The portion of the letter you quoted also reinforces my impression, as what St. Cyril says is what I was always taught in my obviously Dyophysite Latin Church.

… so it seems either the Latin Church has been secretly teaching me Miaphysitism all my life without anyone noticing, or the difference is one of mere semantics…

Hi Fone,

Unfortunately I’m too busy right not to address your questions in depth, but Fr. Peter Farrington of the British Orthodox Church (within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarch) has talked at length about the Orthodox Christology of our Church in his podcast here. Hopefully it will answer a lot of questions. Of particular interest within the context of this topic should be the discussion of the Orthodox Christology of St. Severus.

Thank you, dzheremi. Sadly, the link isn’t working right now. If it’s not a dead link, I’ll have to try again later as I do want to listen to Father Peter Farrington’s take on the topic.

 

[dzheremi]

Oh. I figured that was my computer, because my internet has been really glitchy lately (not loading Google and such). I guess the site is down right now. My apologies. It should be working again soon (worked for me yesterday).

 

[Zekariya]

Oh. I figured that was my computer, because my internet has been really glitchy lately (not loading Google and such). I guess the site is down right now. My apologies. It should be working again soon (worked for me yesterday).

And it has worked for me in the past as well. Fr Peter is a wonderful teacher.

Check his writing on St Severus here in the meantime: orthodoxunity.org/article02.php

 

[Vico]

Thank you, Vico.

To my untrained examination, these seem to suggest that the answer to my question is yes, the difference is merely one of semantics.

Of course, these are Catholic sources, so that’s not surprising, but ***if ***Pope Shenouda III really did agree that, "we confess one faith in the One Triune God, the divinity of the Only Begotten Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity,…

Yes:* Tower of St. John in the Vatican gardens, May 10, 1973*Paul VI, bishop of Rome and Pope of the Catholic Church, and Shenouda III, Pope of Alexandria and patriarch of the See of St. Mark

See: cnewa.org/default.aspx?ID=99&pagetypeID=9&sitecode=HQ&pageno=1

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Oh. I figured that was my computer, because my internet has been really glitchy lately (not loading Google and such). I guess the site is down right now. My apologies. It should be working again soon (worked for me yesterday).

And it has worked for me in the past as well. Fr Peter is a wonderful teacher.

Check his writing on St Severus here in the meantime: orthodoxunity.org/article02.php

Yeah, I really enjoyed the ones I listened to. Fr. Peter is great - very clear and thorough, and he’s a good teacher as he proceeds slowly and patiently, thereby making his points easy to digest well.

What I listened to has reinforced my initial impression, which I’ll thus continue to hold unless someone says I’m missing something and explains what that something is: the Christology of the Chalcedonian churches and that of the Oriental Orthodox are only semantically, not substantively, different.

Father Peter said, for instance, the following things at various points:

• that there is neither confusion nor extinction of our Lord’s humanity or divinity
• that His divinity continues to be divinity
• that His humanity continues to be humanity
• that “the flesh is one thing, according to nature,” and “the divinity is one thing, according to nature”
• that “the union [of natures] takes place hypostatically”
• that our Lord is consubstantial with us according to humanity

He also explicitly condemned the following propositions

• that His “humanity has been mixed or confused with His divinity”
• that His humanity is swallowed up by His divinity
• that He has no human will

And he explained “one nature of the Son incarnate” in this way: “if we speak of one nature… it is in the sense that each of us as humans is one and not two: so Christ is one concrete individual, not two; even though He is a union of humanity and divinity.”

That is literally exactly what I have always been taught in my “Dyophysite” Catholic Church.

If there is a real difference between Miaphysitism and Diophysitism, it appears to be no more than one of emphasis. Fr. Peter says that in Miaphysite Christology, “What is condemned is… the introduction of a division which separates [the natures] such that they become two independent centers of activity.”

So I can see how Miaphysite Christians wouldn’t like that passage in the Tome of St. Leo which describes certain things our Lord does as belonging to humanity or divinity exclusively. Even so, Fr. Peter even admitted in one podcast that the Tome of St. Leo can be interpreted in an orthodox manner, and frankly, the whole document in context so obviously rules out Nestorianism* that even this real difference in emphasis between Dyophysite and Miaphysite Christology is, to my mind, totally non-substantive and utterly unworthy of schism…

*I say this because other passages in the Tome say things like, “So the proper character of both natures was maintained and came together in a single person,” and “without leaving his Father’s glory behind, the Son of God comes down from his heavenly throne and enters the depths of our world,” and speaks of “God… becoming a suffering man,” etc. Thus the Tome of St. Leo in no way allows for the introduction of division in our Lord’s hypostatic singularity.

 

[Zekariya]

A well known writing of Pope St Leo is his tome read in the Council of Chalcedon. His tome is part of what divided the Catholic Church from the Oriental Churches. Some of his tome can be viewed as supporting nestorianism.

For each “form” does the acts which belong to it, in communion with the other; the Word, that is, performing what belongs to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what belongs to the flesh; the one of these shines out in miracles, the other succumbs to injuries. And as the Word does not withdraw from equality with the Father in glory, so the flesh does not abandon the nature of our kind. - The Council of Chalcedon, The Tome of Pope St Leo of Rome

To paraphrase, “The Word preforms His duties and the flesh preforms its duties in communion with each other.” And then we see:

"[Christ said,] Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself; handle me and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have:” that the properties of the Divine and the human nature might be acknowledged to remain in him without causing a division, and that we might in such sort know that the Word is not what the flesh is, as to confess that the one Son of God is both Word and flesh. - The Council of Chalcedon, The Tome of Pope St Leo of Rome

The Coptic Alexandrians would have probably been more comfortable with saying that there is one Son of God (the Word of God the Father) who is both God and Man. Pope St Cyril of Alexandria seems to contradict the Tome of Pope St Leo of Rome:

If anyone shall divide between two persons or subsistences those expressions which are contained in the Evangelical and Apostolical writings, or which have been said concerning Christ by the Saints, or by himself, and shall apply some to him as to a man separate from the Word of God, and shall apply others to the only Word of God the Father, on the ground that they are fit to be applied to God: let him be anathema. - Pope St Cyril of Alexandria, Twelve Anathemas, Anathema IV

Pope St Leo used “Son of God” to mean “Jesus” and “the Word” to mean “divinity” and “flesh” to mean “humanity”. Pope St Cyril of Alexandria used “the Word of God the Father” to mean “Jesus”. Therefore, when the Coptic Alexandrians hear that Pope St Leo has divided the Word from the flesh, it makes sense that they’d think of him as a nestorian heretic.

“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 done away with, we believe that there is one physis [nature] of the Son, as one, however, one who became man and was made flesh. But if being God the Word he is said to be incarnate and to be made man, let the suspicion of a change be cast somewhere far away, for he has remained what he was, and let the entirely unconfused union be confessed on our part.” - St Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 40:14

“For how will anyone divide walking upon the water? For to run upon the sea is foreign to the human nature, but it is not proper to the divine nature to use bodily feet. Therefore that action is of the incarnate Word, to whom belongs at the same time divine character and human, indivisibly.” - St Severus of Antioch

"But, did the Divinity [of Christ] suffer? …] The holy fathers explained this point through the aforementioned clear example of the red-hot iron, it is the analogy equated for the Divine Nature which became united with the human nature. They explained that when the blacksmith strikes the red-hot iron, the hammer is actually striking both the iron and the fire united with it. The iron alone bends (suffers) whilst the fire is untouched though it bends with the iron." - Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria

 

[dzheremi]

Well, it is because of an understanding of the Tome that promoted such division that Nestorius thought that it described his own faith. That’s another point that Fr. Peter makes, if I recall correctly.

Basically, what it boils down to is this: Christ is both divine and human, but is the union of the two natures into one indivisible nature at the incarnation, or are the natures still separate/separatable? We believe that they are made one and indivisible, while the Chalcedonians believe that they are separatable, at least “in theoria”. Whether or not that is ‘semantics’ probably say more about you and how you interpret things than any kind of underlying concrete reality of the disagreement. I personally don’t see it as semantics (or at least not purely so), but do concede that there have been many misunderstandings on both sides. So I suppose I would disagree with Fr. Peter on this account, if he is in fact saying that they are merely misunderstandings.

And it is worth noting that, as the Tome and believers in the Tome (in the form of usurper Chalcedonian patriarchs set up in the aftermath of the council to govern over mostly non-Chalcedonian populations, e.g., in Egypt) have been forced on the non-Chalcedonians for very long time, our own leaders have had the occasion to examine the Tome time and time again, and have not accepted it. So whether or not it is possible to understand it in an Orthodox manner is kind of beside the point. To draw a comparison with something that Roman Catholics are more directly acquainted with, some EO leaders (probably most notably Bp. Kallistos Ware) have said that the filioque can be understood in an Orthodox manner and/or is more a semantic matter than anything, but this has not resulted and will not result in the acceptance of the filioque clause by the EO. Things do not work that way, with apologies to Bp. Kallistos Ware and Fr. Peter.

 

[Zekariya]

Well, it is because of an understanding of the Tome that promoted such division that Nestorius thought that it described his own faith. That’s another point that Fr. Peter makes, if I recall correctly.

Basically, what it boils down to is this: Christ is both divine and human, but is the union of the two natures into one indivisible nature at the incarnation, or are the natures still separate/separatable? We believe that they are made one and indivisible, while the Chalcedonians believe that they are separatable, at least “in theoria”. Whether or not that is ‘semantics’ probably say more about you and how you interpret things than any kind of underlying concrete reality of the disagreement. I personally don’t see it as semantics (or at least not purely so), but do concede that there have been many misunderstandings on both sides. So I suppose I would disagree with Fr. Peter on this account, if he is in fact saying that they are merely misunderstandings.

And it is worth noting that, as the Tome and believers in the Tome (in the form of usurper Chalcedonian patriarchs set up in the aftermath of the council to govern over mostly non-Chalcedonian populations, e.g., in Egypt) have been forced on the non-Chalcedonians for very long time, our own leaders have had the occasion to examine the Tome time and time again, and have not accepted it. So whether or not it is possible to understand it in an Orthodox manner is kind of beside the point. To draw a comparison with something that Roman Catholics are more directly acquainted with, some EO leaders (probably most notably Bp. Kallistos Ware) have said that the filioque can be understood in an Orthodox manner and/or is more a semantic matter than anything, but this has not resulted and will not result in the acceptance of the filioque clause by the EO. Things do not work that way, with apologies to Bp. Kallistos Ware and Fr. Peter.

I want to go on the record as not a supporter of the Tome. I have always disliked the wording used and would never support that wording. I find Sts Cyril and Severus as being able to explain the Incarnation the best. No offense intended toward Pope St Leo. There are plenty of Fathers that used confusing wording at times.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Pope St Leo used “Son of God” to mean “Jesus” and “the Word” to mean “divinity” and “flesh” to mean “humanity”. Pope St Cyril of Alexandria used “the Word of God the Father” to mean “Jesus”. Therefore, when the Coptic Alexandrians hear that Pope St Leo has divided the Word from the flesh, it makes sense that they’d think of him as a nestorian heretic.

Well said.

“For how will anyone divide walking upon the water? For to run upon the sea is foreign to the human nature, but it is not proper to the divine nature to use bodily feet. Therefore that action is of the incarnate Word, to whom belongs at the same time divine character and human, indivisibly.” - St Severus of Antioch

Okay, that’s quite brilliant. I’m impressed.

Well, it is because of an understanding of the Tome that promoted such division that Nestorius thought that it described his own faith. That’s another point that Fr. Peter makes, if I recall correctly.

Yeah, I just listened to it this morning, and you’re definitely right: Fr. Peter does make that very point.

Basically, what it boils down to is this: Christ is both divine and human, but is the union of the two natures into one indivisible nature at the incarnation, or are the natures still separate/separatable?

And I fully admit that this question is beyond me. I don’t understand the difference. That doesn’t mean there isn’t one; it is not, however, one that my mind can presently access.

We believe that they are made one and indivisible, while the Chalcedonians believe that they are separatable, at least “in theoria”.

I think I follow you here. It’s kind of what I attempted, blunderingly, to describe when I mentioned why non-Chalcedonians would disagree with the way St. Leo’s Tome describes some acts of our Lord that “belong to” His humanity and others that “belong to” His divinity.

Whether or not that is ‘semantics’ probably say more about you and how you interpret things than any kind of underlying concrete reality of the disagreement. I personally don’t see it as semantics (or at least not purely so), but do concede that there have been many misunderstandings on both sides. So I suppose I would disagree with Fr. Peter on this account, if he is in fact saying that they are merely misunderstandings.

Oh, I may very well be putting words in his mouth. In fact, I don’t recall him saying that they are “merely misunderstandings.” In any case, as impatient and prideful as I know I can be, I am thankfully free of the degree of hubris that would allow me to think I can perfectly understand all sides of an issue that has confounded the attempts of the wisest and holiest for well over a millennium.

All I am confident of at this point is that what he and - according to his podcast - St. Severus believe, is the same faith that I have been taught in the Latin Church. That’s all I know for sure.

And it is worth noting that, as the Tome and believers in the Tome (in the form of usurper Chalcedonian patriarchs set up in the aftermath of the council to govern over mostly non-Chalcedonian populations, e.g., in Egypt) have been forced on the non-Chalcedonians for very long time, our own leaders have had the occasion to examine the Tome time and time again, and have not accepted it. So whether or not it is possible to understand it in an Orthodox manner is kind of beside the point.

I don’t know, dzheremi; truth is and ought to be our foremost consideration. I do not want to belittle the significance of the problematic aspects that your communion sees in the Tome, but unless you’re willing to say, “Yes, I believe it is heretical and Pope Leo was a Nestorian,” then its fundamental orthodoxy ought to be the very point indeed.

To draw a comparison with something that Roman Catholics are more directly acquainted with, some EO leaders (probably most notably Bp. Kallistos Ware) have said that the filioque can be understood in an Orthodox manner and/or is more a semantic matter than anything, but this has not resulted and will not result in the acceptance of the filioque clause by the EO. Things do not work that way, with apologies to Bp. Kallistos Ware and Fr. Peter.

Fair enough. Of course, the papacy today acknowledges that the eastern churches should not use the filioque, since it was added solely by a pope, and to address an exclusively western form of late Arianism.

The Tome, as a document accepted by a (purportedly) ecumenical council, is rather in an altogether different category, whether one accepts or rejects it.

Also, I have a question, dzheremi: forgive me and correct me if I am inadvisably and invalidly imposing Byzantine, post-Chalcedonian terminology on you in an inapplicable way, but what do the Oriental Orthodox believe about monothelitism? The question of one vs. two operations, wills… I must confess that, unfortunate terminology aside, the supposedly problematic passages of the Tome do indeed impress me insofar as - interpreted properly - they seem to successfully rule out all this bad stuff: Nestorianism, Eutychian Monophysitism, and monothelitism.

As I said, if the very question is invalid outside the theological framework of Chalcedonian Christology, just let me know. I just want to ask.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I want to go on the record as not a supporter of the Tome. I have always disliked the wording used and would never support that wording. I find Sts Cyril and Severus as being able to explain the Incarnation the best. No offense intended toward Pope St Leo. There are plenty of Fathers that used confusing wording at times.

I have to admit, the quotes you provided are deeply impressive. I particularly find both clarity and inspiration in St. Severus’ point about our Lord’s walking on water.

Perhaps the main point to take away from all of this is that we must be crystal-clear about whether we’re talking about the who-ness or the what-ness of our Lord…

 

[dzheremi]

And I fully admit that this question is beyond me. I don’t understand the difference. That doesn’t mean there isn’t one; it is not, however, one that my mind can presently access.

It is the difference between divisible and indivisible. I believe that this is why Fr. Peter makes the point of saying that in the union “division is driven out” – meaning that it is not possible for there to be division in the Oriental Orthodox conception of the natures of Christ after the union (before the union, sure; we do not object to “from two natures”, for this reason). This is important when considering the EO position that the natures are able to be considered separately “in theoria”. We will not even do that, if we are talking about after the union/incarnation.

Oh, I may very well be putting words in his mouth. In fact, I don’t recall him saying that they are “merely misunderstandings.”

No, that was my wording, as that is a shorthand for what most people mean when they say X is “just semantics”.

All I am confident of at this point is that what he and - according to his podcast - St. Severus believe, is the same faith that I have been taught in the Latin Church. That’s all I know for sure.

Well…good, I guess.

I don’t know, dzheremi; truth is and ought to be our foremost consideration. I do not want to belittle the significance of the problematic aspects that your communion sees in the Tome, but unless you’re willing to say, “Yes, I believe it is heretical and Pope Leo was a Nestorian,” then its fundamental orthodoxy ought to be the very point indeed.

And we do say that. My own priest said that in almost those exact words (he didn’t say “Nestorian”, but he said that the Tome is “full of heresies”). Pope Leo is in no way a saint to us, and we do not accept the faith of the Tome of Leo as being representative of the Orthodox faith. Saying that it can be understood in an Orthodox fashion is not the same as saying that it is Orthodox (recall the filioque example). We do not believe that the Tome is Orthodox, and we will not accept it. Sorry if I was not clear enough before.

Also, I have a question, dzheremi: forgive me and correct me if I am inadvisably and invalidly imposing Byzantine, post-Chalcedonian terminology on you in an inapplicable way, but what do the Oriental Orthodox believe about monothelitism?

As far as I know, this controversy was a bit late for us, and Egypt was under Muslim occupation by the time the Chalcedonian churches resolved it for themselves, so I’m not sure to what degree it would have affected us. I have a small collection of medieval Coptic writings by the likes of Severus al-Ashmunein, Ibn Kabar (priest of the Hanging Church in Cairo c.13th century), etc. and I don’t recall any of them ever talking about it. Most likely we missed out on all the action, so to speak. To the extent that I have seen it discussed by modern Coptic theologians, they tend to answer it in much the same way as they answer the old charge of monophysitism: There is one Christ, not two, so we don’t divide His divinity from His humanity. I’m not where that falls on the monothelitism debate, because again I’ve never read or heard any discussion on it directly, but if I had to guess I would assume that we would probably subscribe to the idea of one will, if only because again the oneness of the Oriental Orthodox formula is not the simple ‘mono’ oneness that is condemned by both of our communions, but rather the ‘mia’ oneness that preserves distinction while driving out division. It could fairly be said, I think, that much Chalcedonian combating of heresy (as necessary as it was) is generally directed at ‘mono’ heresies, which are not what we believe. I do not really know why there was this tendency to believe that to compromise/bring the non-Chalcedonians back to the fold the formulas for reunion needed to begat other heresies wherein one nature was taken away when that’s never what we believed, but there you have it. That’s why we didn’t reunite all those years ago in the first place. It’s not a fair compromise if it destroys both of our theologies. And of course by the modern day, compromise isn’t really the idea, for better or for worse.

The question of one vs. two operations, wills… I must confess that, unfortunate terminology aside, the supposedly problematic passages of the Tome do indeed impress me insofar as - interpreted properly - they seem to successfully rule out all this bad stuff: Nestorianism, Eutychian Monophysitism, and monothelitism.

Okay. Then stick with the Tome. The Tome is not the faith of St. Severus, however. St. Severus was very much against Chalcedon, in fact. The relevant portion of that document (p.3, bottom paragraph) states that St. Severus explicitly anathematized the Tome of Leo, and thought of the Henotikon as annulling the Council of Chalcedon.

As I said, if the very question is invalid outside the theological framework of Chalcedonian Christology, just let me know. I just want to ask.

No, no, I think it’s very valid for Chalcedonians in particular, but as with many things that were discussed in the subsequent councils (after Chalcedon), its relevance to us is at best very minimal.

 

[Zekariya]

I have to admit, the quotes you provided are deeply impressive. I particularly find both clarity and inspiration in St. Severus’ point about our Lord’s walking on water.

Perhaps the main point to take away from all of this is that we must be crystal-clear about whether we’re talking about the who-ness or the what-ness of our Lord…

Definitely! We need to use precision in our Theological formations and take into account what the audience believes those words to mean.