Is Miaphysitism compatible with Chalcedon? - One Nature vs Two Natures - Yes!

[Zekariya]

Venerable Pope Pius XII speaks on the nature(s) of Christ and seems to accept that both understandings can be orthodox and heterodox depending on what is meant in his encyclical, SEMPITERNUS REX CHRISTUS:

1. It is indeed sad that the ancient adversaries of the council of Chalcedon (also called Monophysites) should have rejected this doctrine, so lucid, so coherent and so complete, on the strength of certain badly understood expressions of ancient writers. While they rejected the absurd teaching of Eutyches about the mixture of natures in Christ, they obstinately clung to the well-known expression: ‘One Incarnate nature of the Word God’. This expression had been used by Cyril of Alexandria (who took it from St. Athanasius) with a perfectly correct meaning, since he used the term ‘nature’ to signify ‘person’. The Fathers of Chalcedon, therefore, totally removed what was ambiguous or liable to cause error in these expressions. For they applied the same terms as are used in the theology of the Trinity, to the exposition of our Lord’s Incarnation. Thus they [Chalcedonian Fathers] made ‘nature’ and ‘essence’ (essentia, ousia) the same, and likewise ‘Person’ and ‘Hypostasis’, and they treated the latter two names as totally different in meaning, from the former two. Their [Oriental Fathers] approach, on the other hand, had made ‘nature’ the equivalent of’ Person’ not of ‘essence’ (essentia).

Source: papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12SEMPI.HTM

St Cyril of Alexandria, Doctor of the Incarnation, says the there is one nature but admits that there are some who teach two natures who don’t mean it to mean two persons:

For we shall not understand, as some of the more ancient heretics, that the Word of God, by having taken his own nature, that is, the divine, prepared a body for himself; but, following in every way the divinely inspired Scriptures, we strongly maintain that he took his flesh from the Holy Virgin. 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 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. But perhaps those on the opposite side might say:
Behold, those who fashion the confession of the true faith clearly name two natures, but maintain that the expressions of those inspired by God are divided according to the difference of the two natures. Then, how are these assertions not opposite yours? For you do not allow the attributing of expressions to two persons, that is, two hupostaseis.
But, my dear friends, I would say, I have written in the propositions:
If anyone attributes to two persons, that is, to two hupostaseis, the sayings and ascribes some to a man considered separately from the Word of God, and ascribes others, as proper to God, only to the Word of God the Father, let him be condemned. - St Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 40:14

…]

But the brethren at Antioch, understanding in simple thoughts only those from which Christ is understood to be, have maintained a difference of natures, because, as I said, divinity and humanity are not the same in natural quality, but proclaimed one Son and Christ and Lord as being truly one; they say his person is one, and in no manner do they separate what has been united. Neither do they admit the natural division as the author of the wretched inventions was pleased to think, but they strongly maintain that only the sayings concerning the Lord are separated, not that they say that some of them separately are proper to the Son, the Word of God the Father, and others are proper to another son again, the one from a woman, but they say that some are proper to his divinity and others again are proper to his humanity. For the same one is God and man. But they say that there are others which have been made common in a certain way and, as it were, look toward both, I mean both the divinity and the humanity. - St Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 40:17

 

[Ghosty]

The Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches have actually signed agreements asserting that we have the same Faith on this matter.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Zekariya]

The Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches have actually signed agreements asserting that we have the same Faith on this matter.

Peace and God bless!

Yes, that is wonderful!

 

[Elizium23]

The Eastern Catholic Churches exist as a prototype of the union that could be enjoyed by the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox if they could but overcome their small differences. What a blessing it could be if the East could unite in this way, it would truly give us hope here in the West as well.

 

[dzheremi]

The question of the OP is malformed. Miaphysitism exists as a separate Christology because the Egyptians, Syrians, Ethiopians, etc. at Chalcedon (and afterward, such as when copies of the Tome of Leo were distributed to the monks in the Egyptian desert, and torn to pieces) did not find the dyophysite Christology as it was expressed at that council to be consistent with their preexisting Cyrilian Christology (remember, St. Cyril died several years before the council was called).

So the question should be, “Is the Council of Chalcedon compatible with the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria?” While there are many more issues surrounding Chalcedon than just the Christology that came to be accepted by the pro-Leo party, on that particular point all that I’ve seen from the OO side says that it is not.

 

[Zekariya]

The question of the OP is malformed. Miaphysitism exists as a separate Christology because the Egyptians, Syrians, Ethiopians, etc. at Chalcedon (and afterward, such as when copies of the Tome of Leo were distributed to the monks in the Egyptian desert, and torn to pieces) did not find the dyophysite Christology as it was expressed at that council to be consistent with their preexisting Cyrilian Christology (remember, St. Cyril died several years before the council was called).

So the question should be, “Is the Council of Chalcedon compatible with the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria?” While there are many more issues surrounding Chalcedon than just the Christology that came to be accepted by the pro-Leo party, on that particular point all that I’ve seen from the OO side says that it is not.

I know that many OOs do not believe that they are compatible. I wouldn’t use Pope Pius XII to convince OOs that they are compatible since he in no way represents the OOs. This was directed to the Eastern Catholics of this forum to promote awareness.

 

[mardukm]

The question of the OP is malformed. Miaphysitism exists as a separate Christology because the Egyptians, Syrians, Ethiopians, etc. at Chalcedon (and afterward, such as when copies of the Tome of Leo were distributed to the monks in the Egyptian desert, and torn to pieces) did not find the dyophysite Christology as it was expressed at that council to be consistent with their preexisting Cyrilian Christology (remember, St. Cyril died several years before the council was called).

So the question should be, “Is the Council of Chalcedon compatible with the Christology of St. Cyril of Alexandria?” While there are many more issues surrounding Chalcedon than just the Christology that came to be accepted by the pro-Leo party, on that particular point all that I’ve seen from the OO side says that it is not.

I disagree. The Christological Agreements indicate just that - an AGREEMENT in Christology. The issue here is not the basic dogmatic Christology, but merely the different expressions.

Having said that, I know there are some in all camps (OOC, EOC, and CC) who really cannot go beyond the different theological expressions, forgetting that the highest authorities in our respective Churches (at least between the OOC and CC) have determined that the MEANING behind those theological expressions is identical. Namely:
“Our Lord Jesus Christ is one, perfect in his humanity and perfect in his divinity – at once consubstantial with the Father in his divinity, and consubstantial with us in his humanity. His humanity is one with his divinity – without change, without commingling, without division and without separation.” (From the Common Declaration with the Malankara Orthodox)

I think the issue being brought up by naysayers from all camps is basically, “are the respective theological expressions saying something MORE than this common understanding in the Faith?” The onus is really on such as these to prove that.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Zekariya,

I had actually read an article in the old Catholic Encyclopedia indicating that a mitigated understanding between the OO and CC already existed, at least on the Catholic side. That’s at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries.

Were you aware that there was actually intercommunion between Catholic missionaries and the COC in Egypt for about 100 years (either 16th-17th or 17th-18th centuries, I forget when exactly)?

I have heard (though these are not official sources) that even though there was much understanding between the Coptic Orthodox and Catholics, it turned sour in the early 20th century when Catholics started re-baptizing Copts who came into Catholic communion.

Blessings,
Marduk

Venerable Pope Pius XII speaks on the nature(s) of Christ and seems to accept that both understandings can be orthodox and heterodox depending on what is meant in his encyclical, SEMPITERNUS REX CHRISTUS:

1. It is indeed sad that the ancient adversaries of the council of Chalcedon (also called Monophysites) should have rejected this doctrine, so lucid, so coherent and so complete, on the strength of certain badly understood expressions of ancient writers. While they rejected the absurd teaching of Eutyches about the mixture of natures in Christ, they obstinately clung to the well-known expression: ‘One Incarnate nature of the Word God’. This expression had been used by Cyril of Alexandria (who took it from St. Athanasius) with a perfectly correct meaning, since he used the term ‘nature’ to signify ‘person’. The Fathers of Chalcedon, therefore, totally removed what was ambiguous or liable to cause error in these expressions. For they applied the same terms as are used in the theology of the Trinity, to the exposition of our Lord’s Incarnation. Thus they [Chalcedonian Fathers] made ‘nature’ and ‘essence’ (essentia, ousia) the same, and likewise ‘Person’ and ‘Hypostasis’, and they treated the latter two names as totally different in meaning, from the former two. Their [Oriental Fathers] approach, on the other hand, had made ‘nature’ the equivalent of’ Person’ not of ‘essence’ (essentia).

Source: papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12SEMPI.HTM

St Cyril of Alexandria, Doctor of the Incarnation, says the there is one nature but admits that there are some who teach two natures who don’t mean it to mean two persons:

For we shall not understand, as some of the more ancient heretics, that the Word of God, by having taken his own nature, that is, the divine, prepared a body for himself; but, following in every way the divinely inspired Scriptures, we strongly maintain that he took his flesh from the Holy Virgin. 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 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. But perhaps those on the opposite side might say:
Behold, those who fashion the confession of the true faith clearly name two natures, but maintain that the expressions of those inspired by God are divided according to the difference of the two natures. Then, how are these assertions not opposite yours? For you do not allow the attributing of expressions to two persons, that is, two hupostaseis.
But, my dear friends, I would say, I have written in the propositions:
If anyone attributes to two persons, that is, to two hupostaseis, the sayings and ascribes some to a man considered separately from the Word of God, and ascribes others, as proper to God, only to the Word of God the Father, let him be condemned. - St Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 40:14

…]

But the brethren at Antioch, understanding in simple thoughts only those from which Christ is understood to be, have maintained a difference of natures, because, as I said, divinity and humanity are not the same in natural quality, but proclaimed one Son and Christ and Lord as being truly one; they say his person is one, and in no manner do they separate what has been united. Neither do they admit the natural division as the author of the wretched inventions was pleased to think, but they strongly maintain that only the sayings concerning the Lord are separated, not that they say that some of them separately are proper to the Son, the Word of God the Father, and others are proper to another son again, the one from a woman, but they say that some are proper to his divinity and others again are proper to his humanity. For the same one is God and man. But they say that there are others which have been made common in a certain way and, as it were, look toward both, I mean both the divinity and the humanity. - St Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 40:17

 

[Crescentinus]

The Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches have actually signed agreements asserting that we have the same Faith on this matter.

Peace and God bless!

is stunned

 

[fames]

The Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches have actually signed agreements asserting that we have the same Faith on this matter.

Peace and God bless!

:extrahappy:

 

[Ghosty]

is stunned

It happened some time ago, to boot. I think the first one was in the early 80s, though there had been meetings in the 70s that were going in that direction, and it was generally recognized long before it was made official.

Peace and God bless!

 

[dzheremi]

I think the issue being brought up by naysayers from all camps is basically, “are the respective theological expressions saying something MORE than this common understanding in the Faith?” The onus is really on such as these to prove that.

While I still think you put wayyyyyyyy too much stock in these agreed statements, I would actually substantially agree with this. The issue is, however, not simply a matter of what basics we can agree on, but it really IS a matter of form. It has been recognized for quite some time now that the dyophysites, for instance, do not believe that Christ is two people as could be said the Nestorians do (with their radical disjunction between the humanity and divinity of Christ), yet we remain divided primarily because we cannot confess, as they do, that Christ is in two natures. And this is their standard, just as St. Cyril, not Leo, is the OO standard.

 

[Zekariya]

Dear brother Zekariya,

I had actually read an article in the old Catholic Encyclopedia indicating that a mitigated understanding between the OO and CC already existed, at least on the Catholic side. That’s at the turn of the 19th-20th centuries.

Were you aware that there was actually intercommunion between Catholic missionaries and the COC in Egypt for about 100 years (either 16th-17th or 17th-18th centuries, I forget when exactly)?

I have heard (though these are not official sources) that even though there was much understanding between the Coptic Orthodox and Catholics, it turned sour in the early 20th century when Catholics started re-baptizing Copts who came into Catholic communion.

Blessings,
Marduk

That’s interesting. I did not know that.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Dzheremi,

While I still think you put wayyyyyyyy too much stock in these agreed statements, I would actually substantially agree with this. The issue is, however, not simply a matter of what basics we can agree on, but it really IS a matter of form. It has been recognized for quite some time now that the dyophysites, for instance, do not believe that Christ is two people as could be said the Nestorians do (with their radical disjunction between the humanity and divinity of Christ), yet we remain divided primarily because we cannot confess, as they do, that Christ is in two natures. And this is their standard, just as St. Cyril, not Leo, is the OO standard.

I don’t think I am putting any more stock in the officiaI agreed statements from the highest authorities in the OO and Catholic Curches than they deserve. All of them indicate that it is not the form, but the essence, that require our more earnest attention. The highest authorities in our respective Churches have already asserted:

“Progress has already been made and Pope Paul VI and the Patriarch Mar Ignatius Jacob III are in agreement that there is NO DIFFERENCE in the faith they profess concerning the mystery of the Word of God made flesh and become really man, even if over the centuries difficulties have arisen out of the different theological expressions by which this faith was expressed.”
Common Statement between Syriac Orthodox and Catholic Churches (1971)

“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 Savior 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.”
Common Statement between Coptic Orthodox and Catholic Churches (1973)

"**First of all, Their Holinesses confess the faith of their two Churches, formulated by Nicene Council of 325 A.D. and generally known as “the Nicene Creed.” The confusions and schisms that occurred between their Churches in the later centuries, they realize today, in no way affect or touch the substance of their faith, since these arose only because of differences in terminology and culture and in the various formulae adopted by different theological schools to express the same matter.

Accordingly, we find today no real basis for the sad divisions and schisms that subsequently arose between us concerning the doctrine of Incarnation. In words and life we confess the true doctrine concerning Christ our Lord, notwithstanding the differences in interpretation of such a doctrine which arose at the time of the Council of Chalcedon.

Hence we wish to reaffirm solemnly our profession of COMMON FAITH in the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, as Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Moran Mor Ignatius Jacoub III did in 1971. They denied that there was any difference in the faith they confessed in the mystery of the Word of God made flesh and become truly man**"
Common Statement between the Syriac Orthodox and Catholic Churches (1984)

“It is this faith which we both confess. Its content is THE SAME same in both communions; in formulating that content in the course of history, however, differences have arisen, in terminology and emphasis. We are convinced that these differences are such as can co-exist in the same communion and therefore need not and should not divide us, especially when we proclaim Him to our brothers and sisters in the world in terms which they can more easily understand.**”
Common Statement between Syrian Malankara Orthodox and Catholic Churches (1990)

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

"**They particularly welcome the great advance that their Churches have registered in their common search for unity in Christ, the Word of God made flesh. Perfect God as to his divinity, perfect man as to his humanity, his divinity is united to his humanity in the Person of the Only-begotten Son of God, in a union which is real, perfect, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without any form of separation.

The reality of this COMMON FAITH in Jesus Christ and in the same succession of apostolic ministry has at times been obscured or ignored. Linguistic, cultural and political factors have immensely contributed towards the theological divergences that have found expression in their terminology of formulating their doctrines. His Holiness John Paul II and His Holiness Karekin I have expressed their determined conviction that because of the fundamental common faith in God and in Jesus Christ, the controversies and unhappy divisions which sometimes have followed upon the divergent ways in expressing it, as a result of the present declaration, should not continue to influence the life and witness of the Church today.**"
Common Statement between the Armenian Apostolic and Catholic Churches (1996)

According to these official declarations by the highest authorities in the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches, we DO have a common Christological Faith. Yes, Oriental Orthodox do not and cannot confess “in two natures.” But you can believe and admit what that statement actually MEANS to Chalcedonians. It is the MEANING that unites us in Christological Faith, not the theological expressions which can remain different. In the same way, Latins confess filioque in the Creed, while non-Latins generally do not, though the common dogma is believed by both and unites Latin to non-Latin Catholics - that the Holy Spirit proceeds FROM the Father THROUGH the Son.

It should be affirmed that there are other issues (theological and otherwise) which prevent the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches from having full communion (issues that I have sufficiently investigated and resolved in my heart, mind and soul to allow me to conscientiously join the Catholic communion). But Christology is not one of them.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

According to these official declarations by the highest authorities in the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches, we DO have a common Christological Faith.

No. With the possible exception of the Malankaran statement (which I’m not sure I understand from the snippet provided; I’ll have to ask some Malankaran friends to explain it to me), I don’t see anything in any of the highlighted sections that say a common CHRISTOLOGY. Probably because we don’t have a common Christology with the Chalcedonians. The other statements are all more or less meaningless in the context in which they’ve been marshalled as evidence of a so-called “common faith”. They say things like that we share a “fundamental common faith in God and in Jesus Christ”, which is true but not the point. Any Christian who believes in Jesus Christ could say similarly, but that doesn’t mean, for instance, that a Presbyterian and a Russian Orthodox person have the same FAITH, only that they share a fundamental belief in God and in Christ, as all Christians do. If it were a matter of such basics with no further explanation or exploration, there would have never been any schisms in the first place.

Yes, Oriental Orthodox do not and cannot confess “in two natures.” But you can believe and admit what that statement actually MEANS to Chalcedonians. It is the MEANING that unites us in Christological Faith, not the theological expressions which can remain different.

I don’t know what to make of this “Christological Faith” business. We don’t share the same Christology. We don’t share the same faith, except at such a base level as to not be very illuminating (hence the Copts, Syrians, Armenians, Malankarans, etc. still remain in union with each other, but not Rome; You, having been Orthodox once, should know what that means, as far as who is sharing what faith).

In the same way, Latins confess filioque in the Creed, while non-Latins generally do not, though the common dogma is believed by both and unites Latin to non-Latin Catholics - that the Holy Spirit proceeds FROM the Father THROUGH the Son.

Please, can we not make this thread into a debate on the filioque? That’s another matter, separate from the Cyrilian Christology of the non-Chalcedonians.

It should be affirmed that there are other issues (theological and otherwise) which prevent the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches from having full communion (issues that I have sufficiently investigated and resolved in my heart, mind and soul to allow me to conscientiously join the Catholic communion). But Christology is not one of them.

You can believe as you wish. Your heart is wrong, but may the Lord bless you just the same.

 

[Zekariya]

I don’t know what to make of this “Christological Faith” business. We don’t share the same Christology. We don’t share the same faith, except at such a base level as to not be very illuminating (hence the Copts, Syrians, Armenians, Malankarans, etc. still remain in union with each other, but not Rome; You, having been Orthodox once, should know what that means, as far as who is sharing what faith)…

Did Pope St Cyril accept a heretic as being orthodox (i.e. John of Antioch)? No. Pope St Cyril said that, though the Antiochian view was simpleminded, it was still orthodox. Being orthodox is not in how you word something. It is how you understand the words to mean. Pope St Cyril used “nature” and “hypostasis” as meaning the same thing. John of Antioch used “nature” and “essence” as meaning the same thing. That is why Pope St Cyril accepted John of Antioch as being orthodox. He found that John of Antioch did not use “nature” as Nestorius did. That is why both explanations of “nature” are orthodox, as long as you are using “nature” in an orthodox way.

“27. Moreover, in the twelfth century, a writer of the highest repute, among the Armenians, clearly expounded his views of this matter in these words: ‘We speak of Christ as one nature, not to imply confusion as does Eutyches, nor diminution, as does Apollinaris, but in the sense of Cyril of Alexandria, who in his book Scholiorum Adversus Nestorium says, “There is one nature of the Incarnate Word as the Fathers taught”. And we also teach this according to the tradition of the saints, but not according to the opinion of heretics. For they introduce confusion and change and alterations into the union in Christ. We say there is one nature referring to the hypostasis, which you also speak of in Christ; and this is correct and granted by us, and equally valid is our own expression: “One Nature.” Nor do we refuse to say “two Natures”, provided there is no implication of the division maintained by Nestorius, but the expression is used against the confusion introduced by Eutyches and Apollinaris’ (Nerses iv, 1173 in his Libellum Confessionis Fidei to the Emperor Manuel Comnenus (cf. I. Capelletti S. Narsetis Claiensis Armenorum Catholici, Opera. I, Venice 1836, pp. 182-83).” - papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12SEMPI.HTM

 

[dzheremi]

Did Pope St Cyril accept a heretic as being orthodox (i.e. John of Antioch)? No. Pope St Cyril said that, though the Antiochian view was simpleminded, it was still orthodox.

I don’t quite see what you’re getting at. Pope St. Cyril accepted John of Antioch after much hard work, culminating in the “formula of reunion”, which set forth St. Cyril’s requests of John. If you look at it in its historical context, its intent seems to be to reign in the horrible errors John of Antioch committed in exonerating Nestorius and condemning St. Cyril. This is why, for instance, at the end of the letter, St. Cyril closes by appending a copy of an epistle of St. Athanasius, as it was apparently based on a distortion of the same that the schism was being perpetrated by John’s party. How you get “he accepted a heretic as being Orthodox” out of that, I don’t know. It seems a rather straight forward: “I (Cyril) believe this, and this, and this. You or your party say I do not, and twist things all around. Please stop doing that, and we can end this stupid division. Here’s a correct copy of some writings of St. Athanasius to replace the corrupted ones in use by your people.” I presume that had John torn up the letter, refusing to accept it, St. Cyril would likewise not have accepted him. This is how it seems to have always been for the Egyptians. This approach (that some presumed heretic prove their Orthodoxy by assenting to/agreeing with established Orthodox teaching) later got St. Dioscoros in trouble, as he had accepted Eutyches back into the church based on the latter’s false confession of Orthodoxy, only to have to excommunicate him again sometime later after he started once again preaching his heresy. (I forget which day it is exactly, but I remember hearing it read from the Synaxarium regarding the excommunication of Eutyches, and he has stayed excommunicated ever since, thanks be to God).

So I guess at best we can say that sometimes it works out (as with John of Antioch) and sometimes it does not (as with Eutyches).

Being orthodox is not in how you word something. It is how you understand the words to mean.

Being Orthodox is not only in how you word things, no, but certainly there are Orthodox statements and heterodox or heretical ones. And it is certainly NOT a matter of how you understand the words to mean, or else no heretic would ever have been rightly condemned. Certainly the aforementioned condemned Eutyches thought he was preaching the Orthodox faith in condemning Nestorius, but his attempts, as well-intentioned as they might have been, led to another heresy, regardless of what he understood himself to be preaching.

Pope St Cyril used “nature” and “hypostasis” as meaning the same thing. John of Antioch used “nature” and “essence” as meaning the same thing. That is why Pope St Cyril accepted John of Antioch as being orthodox. He found that John of Antioch did not use “nature” as Nestorius did. That is why both explanations of “nature” are orthodox, as long as you are using “nature” in an orthodox way.

Yes, fine. (I don’t think any of this contradicts what I have written.)

“27. Moreover, in the twelfth century, a writer of the highest repute, among the Armenians, clearly expounded his views of this matter in these words: ‘We speak of Christ as one nature, not to imply confusion as does Eutyches, nor diminution, as does Apollinaris, but in the sense of Cyril of Alexandria, who in his book Scholiorum Adversus Nestorium says, “There is one nature of the Incarnate Word as the Fathers taught”. And we also teach this according to the tradition of the saints, but not according to the opinion of heretics. For they introduce confusion and change and alterations into the union in Christ. We say there is one nature referring to the hypostasis, which you also speak of in Christ; and this is correct and granted by us, and equally valid is our own expression: “One Nature.” Nor do we refuse to say “two Natures”, provided there is no implication of the division maintained by Nestorius, but the expression is used against the confusion introduced by Eutyches and Apollinaris’ (Nerses iv, 1173 in his Libellum Confessionis Fidei to the Emperor Manuel Comnenus (cf. I. Capelletti S. Narsetis Claiensis Armenorum Catholici, Opera. I, Venice 1836, pp. 182-83).” - papalencyclicals.net/Pius12/P12SEMPI.HTM

Alright. I don’t know what you’re expecting from me here. I’ve never met an OO of any jurisdiction who, knowing his own Christology, will confess two natures. I take Nerses’ point to be that we understand Christ as being a union FROM two natures, as St. Cyril confesses (see below), and we confess, as in the Syrian Fraction: “One is Emmanuel who cannot be divided after the union; there is no division into two natures. Thus we believe, thus we confess, and thus We affirm that this Body belongs to this Blood, and this Blood belongs to this Body.”

So what we have a problem with is not that someone might say “two natures” (period), but how they understand the incarnation of Christ. It is not proper according to Orthodox Christology to divide the natures after the union, as St. Cyril teaches us:

“In respect of the elements from which is the one and only Son and Lord Jesus Christ, as we accept them in thought, we say that two natures have been united, but after the union, when the division into two has now been removed, we believe that the nature of the Son is one.” – St Cyril of Alexandria, Select Letters, 48

 

[Zekariya]

This is what I am getting at: St Cyril was a Coptic that allowed people to confess two natures (as long as they confess that the Word is One). Either St Cyril was in communion with heterodox John of Antioch or he was in communion with orthodox John of Antioch. Which one was it in the OO view?

 

[mardukm]

Dear Dzheremi,

No. With the possible exception of the Malankaran statement (which I’m not sure I understand from the snippet provided; I’ll have to ask some Malankaran friends to explain it to me), I don’t see anything in any of the highlighted sections that say a common CHRISTOLOGY.

Yes, be sure to ask them and get back to us. You might also want to ask some Syriac Orthodox friends what HH Mar Ignatius Jacob III meant by “there is NO DIFFERENCE in the faith they profess concerning the mystery of the Word of God made flesh and become really man.” You might also want to ask them if they agree with you that the form and terminologies of doctrine are more important than the essence and meaning of doctrine. I’d really like to hear their answer.

Probably because we don’t have a common Christology with the Chalcedonians.

Not a common terminology, but we do have a common Christology (i.e., theology on Christ). So much so that an Agreed Statement on Christology between the Coptic and certain EO Churches was accepted by the Holy Synod of the COC in 1990, wherein the Baptisms of the EO were accepted. But there are so-called “purists” (maybe like yourself) who like to focus on terminologies and forms of doctrines instead of the meaning and essence of doctrines.

The other statements are all more or less meaningless in the context in which they’ve been marshalled as evidence of a so-called “common faith”. They say things like that we share a “fundamental common faith in God and in Jesus Christ”, which is true but not the point.

The Agreed Statement with HH Pope Shenoute III in 1973 is pretty comprehensive, and differs little from what the Coptic Synod accepted from the EO, except that the Agreed Statement between the COC and certain EOC’s included a statement of agreement on the subject of the 5th Ecumenical Council. Some other Statements I quoted did not go into the details because the details were hammered out in previous meetings/consultations.

Any Christian who believes in Jesus Christ could say similarly,

You are failing to read the context. E.g., the Agreed Statement with the Armenians contains what it meant by “THIS common Faith in Jesus Christ” in the immediately preceding paragraph that I quoted. They weren’t referring to some general faith in our Lord that all Christians share. Just read more contextually.

but that doesn’t mean, for instance, that a Presbyterian and a Russian Orthodox person have the same FAITH, only that they share a fundamental belief in God and in Christ, as all Christians do.

I wonder if the COC has ever signed a Christological Agreement with the Presbyterians. If you find one, please get back to us.

I don’t know what to make of this “Christological Faith” business. We don’t share the same Christology.

Yes we do. We don’t share the same theological terminology, though. Do us here a favor and point out exactly how we differ in Christology. Any rhetoric about terminology won’t fly unless you are willing to explain what the terminology means.

We don’t share the same faith

Not completely, but we already share a lot.

Please, can we not make this thread into a debate on the filioque? That’s another matter, separate from the Cyrilian Christology of the non-Chalcedonians.

It’s not a debate about the filioque. Don’t you know an analogy when you see one? The analogy was to the notion that you should not let theological terminology get in the way of the efforts at unity. I hope you can ponder and absorb the importance of St. Paul’s exhortation contained in my signature line below.

You can believe as you wish. Your heart is wrong, but may the Lord bless you just the same.

Well, at least my mind and soul are OK.

Blessings,
Marduk