Dyophysitism vs. Miaphysitism: Substance or Semantics?

[Fone_Bone_2001]

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.

Okay, I see. And that is, I admit, precisely what the Tome does: consider the natures separately “in theoria.”

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. Sorry if I was not clear enough before.

Well, I certainly can’t impeach the internal consistency of your position, then.

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.

Ah, okay; thanks for the summary!

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.

Don’t get me wrong, I see your points: while I, of course, currently submit to what the Chalcedonian fathers decided about the Tome’s orthodoxy, that doesn’t mean I can’t sympathize with the criticism that it’s really unhelpfully ambiguous. I mean, obviously it was, if Nestorius said he approved of it.

I think the problem is - as Zekariya observed - St. Leo used “the Word” to mean our Lord’s divinity, which is an unusual choice. I do agree that it makes more sense for “the Word” to mean Jesus Himself.

So anyway, I can see how some passages are open to an heretical interpretation. I just also think that, taken as a whole, it really can’t be Nestorian, and I also don’t think I personally know better than the fathers of Chalcedon any more than I think I know better than St. Severus.

 

[mardukm]

My own perception as a miaphysite Catholic:

I believe brother Dzheremi captured the essence of the OO concern concisely - the notion that the natures of Christ can be separated even “in theoria.” Many statements from Pope St. Leo’s Tome seem to be doing just that (as quoted by brother Zekariya).

Before I came into the Catholic communion, I admit there was a time when I never read the Tome, but only heard about it from my Coptic teachers. I heard both good stuff (from ecumenical folks) and bad stuff (from anti-ecumenical folks). I finally read the Tome to decide for myself, and I was frankly surprised by the amount of material that seemed to separate the natures “in theoria.” But the thing that settled my mind as to the orthodoxy of the Chalcedonian position was a seemingly inconspicuous line which runs thus:

“For although in the Lord Jesus Christ there is one Person of God and man, yet that whereby contumely attaches to both is one thing, and that whereby glory attaches to both is another”

The statements which separated the natures “in theoria” SEEMED to say that when Christ suffered, only His human nature suffered, and the divine nature was unaffected; conversely, when Christ performs miracles, it is his divine nature that performs miracles, not his human nature. This was a definite separation in my non-Chalcedonian mind. However, the line I just quoted above demonstrated to me that this was a misunderstanding of Pope St. Leo’s Tome.

Before being aware of that eye-opening line, I had thought that when Chalcedonians said “according to the divine nature” they meant “it is attached ONLY to the divine nature”; similarly, when Chalcedonians said “according to the human nature,” they meant “it is attached ONLY to the human nature.” But the line from the Tome quoted above proved to me that, from the Chalcedonian pov, when something happened “according to the divine nature,” or when something happened “according to the human nature,” that thing was not attached to either/or, but to BOTH natures, as those natures are united as one in the Person of Jesus Christ

Let me put it another way – let’s ask the question, “How can Jesus Christ perform miracles?”

Chalcedonians would normally say. “because of the divine nature.”

Non-chalcedonians would normally interpret this to mean. “ONLY His divine nature is at work, and his human nature has nothing to do with it.” To the non-Chalcedonian mind, that is an unacceptable separation of the natures.

But by that answer Chalcedonians would give, is that what they are really saying? After studying Pope St. Leo’s Tome, I now understand that what Chalcedonians really mean is simply “because He HAS the divine nature,” not that only the divine nature (enhypostasized) is at work when Jesus performs a miracle. In Pope St. Leo’s words, it is “attached to BOTH.”

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Zekariya]

My own perception as a miaphysite Catholic:

I believe brother Dzheremi captured the essence of the OO concern concisely - the notion that the natures of Christ can be separated even “in theoria.” Many statements from Pope St. Leo’s Tome seem to be doing just that (as quoted by brother Zekariya).

Before I came into the Catholic communion, I admit there was a time when I never read the Tome, but only heard about it from my Coptic teachers. I heard both good stuff (from ecumenical folks) and bad stuff (from anti-ecumenical folks). I finally read the Tome to decide for myself, and I was frankly surprised by the amount of material that seemed to separate the natures “in theoria.” But the thing that settled my mind as to the orthodoxy of the Chalcedonian position was a seemingly inconspicuous line which runs thus:

“For although in the Lord Jesus Christ there is one Person of God and man, yet that whereby contumely attaches to both is one thing, and that whereby glory attaches to both is another”

The statements which separated the natures “in theoria” SEEMED to say that when Christ suffered, only His human nature suffered, and the divine nature was unaffected; conversely, when Christ performs miracles, it is his divine nature that performs miracles, not his human nature. This was a definite separation in my non-Chalcedonian mind. However, the line I just quoted above demonstrated to me that this was a misunderstanding of Pope St. Leo’s Tome.

Before being aware of that eye-opening line, I had thought that when Chalcedonians said “according to the divine nature” they meant “it is attached ONLY to the divine nature”; similarly, when Chalcedonians said “according to the human nature,” they meant “it is attached ONLY to the human nature.” But the line from the Tome quoted above proved to me that, from the Chalcedonian pov, when something happened “according to the divine nature,” or when something happened “according to the human nature,” that thing was not attached to either/or, but to BOTH natures, as those natures are united as one in the Person of Jesus Christ

Let me put it another way – let’s ask the question, “How can Jesus Christ perform miracles?”

Chalcedonians would normally say. “because of the divine nature.”

Non-chalcedonians would normally interpret this to mean. “ONLY His divine nature is at work, and his human nature has nothing to do with it.” To the non-Chalcedonian mind, that is an unacceptable separation of the natures.

But by that answer Chalcedonians would give, is that what they are really saying? After studying Pope St. Leo’s Tome, I now understand that what Chalcedonians really mean is simply “because He HAS the divine nature,” not that only the divine nature (enhypostasized) is at work when Jesus performs a miracle. In Pope St. Leo’s words, it is “attached to BOTH.”

Blessings,
Marduk

Excellent post! I had never specifically noticed that part of the Tome.

In Christ,
Zekariya

 

[AnthonyJ]

Do any of the Oriental Catholic Churches have Sts Severus, Jacob of Sarug, Dioscorus or any other post schism Oriental Orthodox saints on their liturgical calendars? Thank you.

In Christ,
Anthony

 

[mardukm]

Do any of the Oriental Catholic Churches have Sts Severus, Jacob of Sarug, Dioscorus or any other post schism Oriental Orthodox saints on their liturgical calendars? Thank you.

I’m not sure. It’s possible. Though there is an official process for beatification and canonization, there are lots of local persons venerated liturgically, especially in the “old countries.” There was once a discussion on this topic in another website (this was almost 2 years ago I think), and in the process I did some research on the matter. In the late 1960’s (IIRC), there was a Vatican-sponsored study done to obtain a list of locally venerated persons, and there were A LOT that never went through the standard beatification process.

I think St. Jacob of Sarug would be a great candidate for local veneration.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Denho]

Do any of the Oriental Catholic Churches have Sts Severus, Jacob of Sarug, Dioscorus or any other post schism Oriental Orthodox saints on their liturgical calendars? Thank you.

In Christ,
Anthony

Our liturgical books for Baptism (at least for now…) include the Anaphora of St Jacob of Serug…

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

My own perception as a miaphysite Catholic:

I believe brother Dzheremi captured the essence of the OO concern concisely - the notion that the natures of Christ can be separated even “in theoria.” Many statements from Pope St. Leo’s Tome seem to be doing just that (as quoted by brother Zekariya).

Thanks for the elaboration, Marduk; what you’ve said makes perfect sense.

The statements which separated the natures “in theoria” SEEMED to say that when Christ suffered, only His human nature suffered, and the divine nature was unaffected; conversely, when Christ performs miracles, it is his divine nature that performs miracles, not his human nature.

And see, even as someone who was not raised a Miaphysite, that interpretation of such sentences in the Tome makes absolutely no sense to me. Even putting aside all these thorny disputes, on a basic philosophical level that interpretation makes no sense to me. “Natures” don’t suffer, do they? People suffer.

So I never understood this weird interpretation that gives personal agency to a person or thing’s what-ness.

Let me put it another way – let’s ask the question, “How can Jesus Christ perform miracles?”

Chalcedonians would normally say. “because of the divine nature.”

Non-chalcedonians would normally interpret this to mean. “ONLY His divine nature is at work, and his human nature has nothing to do with it.” To the non-Chalcedonian mind, that is an unacceptable separation of the natures.

And even before I knew of this dispute, such an interpretation would strike me as confusing and invalid for the same reason as above - doing the work of performing a miracle is something a person does, right? A “nature” doesn’t “do” things, does it? It’s just the what-ness of a person or thing, right?

So at best even my presumably Dyophysite mind would be confused if I heard a person say that “Only Jesus’ divine nature performed miracles.” It just makes me go, “Huh? Isn’t it Jesus himself that performs miracles?”

But by that answer Chalcedonians would give, is that what they are really saying? After studying Pope St. Leo’s Tome, I now understand that what Chalcedonians really mean is simply “because He HAS the divine nature,” not that only the divine nature (enhypostasized) is at work when Jesus performs a miracle. In Pope St. Leo’s words, it is “attached to BOTH.”

Blessings,
Marduk

Ah, that makes perfect sense. And yes, I agree. As I said, the alternative explanation - that “only the divine nature is at work when Jesus performs a miracle” - doesn’t even make sense to me. Maybe I’m just a philosophical amateur, but I don’t understand how we can speak of a “nature” doing anything without succumbing to pure gibberish.

But to say that because our Lord has a divine nature, He can perform miracles, that makes sense to me.

All in all, I think I’m starting to see why Miaphysite Christians hate separating the natures even “in theoria.” Doing so seems to lead to confusing language that makes absolutely no sense to me, insofar as such language attributes personal agency to a person or thing’s what-ness, which is utter nonsense, logically…

 

[dzheremi]

So at best even my presumably Dyophysite mind would be confused if I heard a person say that “Only Jesus’ divine nature performed miracles.” It just makes me go, “Huh? Isn’t it Jesus himself that performs miracles?”

Yes. As Fr. Peter put it in his podcast, if I fall over, I am hurt – humanity is not hurt.

 

[neokarny]

“For although in the Lord Jesus Christ there is one Person of God and man, yet that whereby contumely attaches to both is one thing, and that whereby glory attaches to both is another”

The statements which separated the natures “in theoria” SEEMED to say that when Christ suffered, only His human nature suffered, and the divine nature was unaffected; conversely, when Christ performs miracles, it is his divine nature that performs miracles, not his human nature.

It’s interesting that these statements by St. Leo are strikingly similar to St. Cyril who wrote that “the Word did not suffer in the divine nature because it was impassible and non-physical.” So it is possible, for both St. Cyril and St. Leo, to speak of what happens in Christ’s divinity as compared to his humanity, but it’s important to emphasize what you said next:

But by that answer Chalcedonians would give, is that what they are really saying? After studying Pope St. Leo’s Tome, I now understand that what Chalcedonians really mean is simply “because He HAS the divine nature,” not that only the divine nature (enhypostasized) is at work when Jesus performs a miracle. In Pope St. Leo’s words, it is “attached to BOTH.”

This is absolutely true because of the unity in the one person of the Son of God, there is (according to Pope St. Leo) a shared “communicatio idomatium,” or interchange of predicates, by which anything said of one can be said of the other. Hence Mother of God, etc.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

This is absolutely true because of the unity in the one person of the Son of God, there is (according to Pope St. Leo) a shared “communicatio idomatium,” or interchange of predicates, by which anything said of one can be said of the other. Hence Mother of God, etc.

Well said.

The one specific point I feel confident of is that the Ephesian Theotokos litmus test, for lack of a better way of putting it, is pretty solid. If you can say that our Blessed Mother gave birth to God, then you’re not Nestorian, period. If you have to hedge your response to the Theotokos vs. Christokos question, there’s probably something wrong there.

I remember a discussion on CAF many years ago concerning a “Catholic quiz” someone put online. One question that was trying to be rather tricky asked, “What happened on Good Friday?” And the four possible multiple-choice answers were all designed to perhaps give you pause for different reasons, but the best answer offered was, “God died.”

I remember someone taking issue with that on the forums and trying to explain that, strictly speaking, we shouldn’t put it that way. In retrospect, I smell inadvertent Nestorianism.

 

[Zekariya]

Well said.

The one specific point I feel confident of is that the Ephesian Theotokos litmus test, for lack of a better way of putting it, is pretty solid. If you can say that our Blessed Mother gave birth to God, then you’re not Nestorian, period. If you have to hedge your response to the Theotokos vs. Christokos question, there’s probably something wrong there.

I remember a discussion on CAF many years ago concerning a “Catholic quiz” someone put online. One question that was trying to be rather tricky asked, “What happened on Good Friday?” And the four possible multiple-choice answers were all designed to perhaps give you pause for different reasons, but the best answer offered was, “God died.”

I remember someone taking issue with that on the forums and trying to explain that, strictly speaking, we shouldn’t put it that way. In retrospect, I smell inadvertent Nestorianism.

I like Pope Shenouda III’s quote from his book on the Nature of Christ:

“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

It is a good analogy on the death of Christ Jesus and its implications on his being God and Man.

 

[Aramis]

Essentially, Miaphysitism is “Christ’s two natures are so fully united in his person that they almost appear to be one”

 

[Cavaradossi]

After thinking about this for some while, I would like to offer some thoughts.

The first is that nature in a christological context differs in meaning from ousia. Were this not the case, there would have been no schism at all, because both sides agreed that in abstraction, Christ is both God and man, being consubstantial with us and with the Father (in fact, the dual consubstantiality of Christ is so uncontroversial a fact that Apollinaris, who denied that our Lord had a rational human soul, agreed with it). The historical disagreement indeed seemed to have been over whether the human nature as a particular thing, not as a universal, maintains its integrity after the union, such that continuing to call it a nature after the union would be correct. For this reason, I must disagree with the numerous statements in this thread which express the sentiment that natures do not act, or that natures in this context are abstractions (indeed, if they were abstractions, then there would have been no objections to the confession of in two natures).

The second is that St. Cyril’s concern in confessing one nature is to affirm the Scriptural doctrine of kenosis, by stressing the ontological unity of Christ, against Nestorius whose prosopic union threatened this doctrine by proposing that the unity comes out of two ontologically separate sources. This is why St. Cyril does not object to distinguishing between the two natures in contemplation (en theoria), because merely pointing out the difference between the humanity and divinity does not divide them into two ontologically separate things, as would denying that the Word suffered or was born from the Virgin.

The final thought is that there is a soteriological importance carried by the teaching of two energies and two wills which is being missed here. In Christ, there is found the archetype, so to speak, of human salvation. The incarnation, that is the assumption of a perfect human nature by the divine hypostasis of the Word, takes place under divine initiative, just as our salvation is initiated by God. But this human nature, which subsists in the Word and is hypostatically identical to the Word, is truly free in effecting salvation for humanity in general. That is to say that the Word neither displaces its nous (intellect), as Apollinaris thought, nor its proper faculty of will, as the monothelites taught, but the human nature works and wills freely in perfect synergy with the divinity, owing to its hypostatic identity and union with the divine nature in the hypostasis of the Word. This is why, for example, Florovsky classes the monergism displayed by some Western theologians (most especially the reformed) as monophysitism, because both deny the freedom of man in synergetically contributing to his deification.

 

[yawsep1569]

The historical disagreement indeed seemed to have been over whether the human nature as a particular thing, not as a universal, maintains its integrity after the union, such that continuing to call it a nature after the union would be correct.

I do not think Alexandrians would traditionally affirm this.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

The final thought is that there is a soteriological importance carried by the teaching of two energies and two wills which is being missed here. In Christ, there is found the archetype, so to speak, of human salvation. The incarnation, that is the assumption of a perfect human nature by the divine hypostasis of the Word, takes place under divine initiative, just as our salvation is initiated by God. But this human nature, which subsists in the Word and is hypostatically identical to the Word, is truly free in effecting salvation for humanity in general. That is to say that the Word neither displaces its nous (intellect), as Apollinaris thought, nor its proper faculty of will, as the monothelites taught, but the human nature works and wills freely in perfect synergy with the divinity, owing to its hypostatic identity and union with the divine nature in the hypostasis of the Word. This is why, for example, Florovsky classes the monergism displayed by some Western theologians (most especially the reformed) as monophysitism, because both deny the freedom of man in synergetically contributing to his deification.

Wow, that’s beautiful and makes perfect sense. Thank you for explaining it.

The historical disagreement indeed seemed to have been over whether the human nature as a particular thing, not as a universal, maintains its integrity after the union, such that continuing to call it a nature after the union would be correct.

Are you sure about that? The Oriental Orthodox priest whose podcasts I listened to - the link was given earlier in this thread - asserted things that seem to contradict the notion that “the human nature [does not] maintain its integrity after the union, such that continuing to call it a nature after the union would be incorrect.”

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

Anyway, this is all very complex. The most likely possibility is that I misunderstood your reply, Cavaradossi. There was a point or two that I know I failed to comprehend. But the statement I quoted above from you seems to suggest that the Miaphysites believe something that Father Peter says they don’t.

 

[neokarny]

The historical disagreement indeed seemed to have been over whether the human nature as a particular thing, not as a universal, maintains its integrity after the union, such that continuing to call it a nature after the union would be correct.

I’m afraid I don’t understand why “not as a universal” is needed. It’s rare to speak of the human universal itself in Christology, but always of the particular. When the human universal is spoken of, from my experience, it is usually in reference to Christ’s atonement work affecting all of human nature (the universal).

And I think the part about maintaining integrity is mostly semantics.

For example:

Humanity is the universal (non-Chalcedonian):
Christ exemplifies humanity.
If Christ exemplifies humanity, then it maintains its integrity after the union.

Human nature is the universal (Chalcedonian):
Christ exemplifies human nature.
If Christ exemplifies human nature, then it maintains its integrity after the union.

 

[Zekariya]

I do not think Alexandrians would traditionally affirm this.

“For those hypostases or natures, being in composition without diminution, and not existing separately and in individual existence, make up one person of one Lord and Christ and Son, and one incarnate nature and hypostasis of the Word.” - St Severus of Antioch, Letter 15

“It is plain therefore that the natures or hypostases, if they are not combined in one in hypostatic union without confusion, do not make up one Christ and Son and Lord, and one incarnate nature of the Word and one person.” - St Severus of Antioch, Letter 15

Source: tertullian.org/fathers/severus_coll_2_letters.htm

[emphasis mine]