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

[mardukm]

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.

Sorry to say, but that’s a very confused analogy. We’re not talking about someone believing something is orthodox when it is not. The MEANING that Eutyches attached to his theological terminology was actually heterodox, despite his belief that it was orthodox. We’re talking about the situation where the theological terminology on the surface is heteredox, but the actual MEANING behind those terminologies is fully orthodox.

I’ve never met an OO of any jurisdiction who, knowing his own Christology, will confess two natures.

I’ve never met a Chalcedonian who confessed JUST “two natures” without a lot of qualification. And I have never met and OO who confessed JUST “one nature” without a lot of qualification. Your objections are based on a lot of oversimplification.

So what we have a problem with is not that someone might say “two natures” (period), but how they understand the incarnation of Christ.

So you admit it is about the meaning.

It is not proper according to Orthodox Christology to divide the natures after the union, as St. Cyril teaches us:

Since the Chalcedonians don’t divide the natures according to the meaning of their theological terminology, then what is the issue? Please clarify.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[dzheremi]

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.”

I will ask them, yes. The quoted portion is too vague for my taste. “The faith they profess concerning the mystery of the Word of God made flesh and become really man” could mean that they both believe in the reality of the incarnation (as all Trinitarians do), without agreeing in the details. I strongly suspect this to be the case, but I will ask them for clarification.

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.

Now this I will NOT agree with, as I wrote that and you are taking my words out of context. You’ll notice that I offered the Chalcedonians as an example of what I mean(t), namely that it is by and large not believed by the non-Chalcedonians that the Chalcedonians are actually Nestorian, only that they hold to a belief, as shown by their acceptance of the Tome of Leo, that is wrong. When I first asked our good priest here in Albuquerque about Chalcedon, he said nothing of the people (beyond saying that we will not commune with them), but instead characterized the Tome of Leo as being “full of heresies” (which, from the OO viewpoint, is not an incorrect statement). This is what I meant by “form”, not that it is over essence, but that we do have real problems with the foundational Christological document of 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.

I would venture to guess that this has more to do with everything ELSE held in common between the EO and OO (hence Catholics cannot be included; I was baptized, whereas EO are received only by chrismation, as far as I know) than some kind of general statement on the supposed Orthodoxy of Chalcedonianism. In reality, if the OO and EO come up with an agreed upon statement that actually results in a change in how they may receive each other (which hasn’t happened in the case of RCC converts; see previous sentence), then that is for the two of them as agreeing parties to interpret and apply as they wish, and doesn’t really concern you.

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.

Yeah, how dare I not disobey the explicit instructions of our priests and bishops in order to appease an apostate from Orthodoxy on the internet!

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.

Okay.

(cont’d below)

 

[dzheremi]

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.

I’m not failing to read anything. You’re making a leap from “this common faith in Jesus Christ” (referring to the description in the previous paragraph) to some kind of admission that Catholics and Armenian Orthodox have the same faith period. It is interesting; this actually came up in the sermon at yesterday’s liturgy. The passage under consideration (from the Gospel of St. Matthew) concerned those at the left and the right of Christ, and that to some would be granted the kingdom and others not. Father’s very good insight was that the two shared a common faith in Christ (i.e., there were no unbelievers among them), but that it was a matter of the misunderstanding of one that led them to a different end. I AM NOT IMPLYING THAT CATHOLICS WILL BE ON THE LEFT SIDE OF CHRIST (heaven forbid!), only making the point that one can essentially share a common faith at some level without sharing a common faith in toto (i.e., in everything that it means to be an Orthodox Christian, such as you would need to in order to re-enter our communion).

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.

If you believe that Christ Jesus is in two natures after the union (e.g., that he has a divine nature and a human nature that are in communion but considered separately for the purposes of saying, as Leo says, “this one does this, and this one does that”), we do not share the same Christology. Do I have to quote the Syrian fraction again, or dig up from another thread the damning quote from the anthemas of St. Cyril where he anathematizes anyone who does exactly what Leo did in the relevant section of the Tome?

Not completely, but we already share a lot.

Yes, fine. Good.

It’s not a debate about the filioque. Don’t you know an analogy when you see one?

I understood the analogy, but I do not agree with it, and yes, it would inevitably lead to a debate about the Filioque that I am not at all interested in having. I wasn’t born yesterday, Mardukm.

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.

I agree with it completely. To a greater degree now than ever before, we live by it (whether we’re Orthodox or Catholic). The question is, as always, where do we draw the line between what is profitless arguing and what is important in order to maintain the integrity of our faith. The OO, being much more conservative than the RCC, draws the line well before stating categorically that we have the same faith as anyone outside of our communion. Why else do you think we are not in communion with the EO, despite the fact that most of our people on both sides see our ways of being Christian as substantially the same, or at least much closer than the RC and either of the communions claiming to be Orthodox? We are that protective of what the Fathers have given us.

 

[Frazier_York]

Based on the foregoing, the watershed agreements at Chambesy, Switzerland between Oriental and Eastern Orthodox representatives by the end of the 1990s–all in all 4 informal talks and 4 formal sessions of dialogue–put the issue to rest in the realm of dogma. (The conversations/dialogues also significantly influenced the favorable accords between the OO and the Catholic communion.) They do indeed share a common faith, but perhaps the most historically significant issue is the tacit recognition (especially by the EO reps.) that there can be a common orthodox (“small o”) faith AND that such faith can have more than one legitimate manner in which it can be rightly expressed. This is SO important, because many of the problems that led to the disintegration of relations between the Rome-Byzantium group and the Alexandrine-Antiochene-Armenian group in antiquity is each side’s contention that ONE and only one system legitimately express the truth…in this case, the Hypostatic Union. The Catholic Church, for its part, has also recognized the legitimacy of multiple, philosophically-based systems to help “impart the word of truth.” In my opinion, this is one of the greatest advances in the whole project of modern ecumenism.

And that is also part of the problem. Despite the OO/EO accords, several issues remain:

The 29 (more or less, depending on one’s reckoning) autocephalous churches of the three Orthodox Communions–Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and the Assyro-Chaldean “Church of the East” (which until lately we called Nestorian) are by and large satisfied with the status quo. Despite the fact that the EO and OO worked out the dividing doctrinal issues among the respective ecumenical dialogue partners (most of whom are bishops and world class theologians), the issue simply “died in committee” and the respective supreme hierarchs and their synods simply did nothing–with the exception of protocols worked out in Antioch and Alexandria which established limited, provisional sacramental sharing between the EO and OO–due to the current period of distress under varying degrees of Islamist domination. To boot, too much is going on at home for the Middle Eastern Orthodox dealing with Isalmic oppression or Arab/Turkish secular repression, or too much to deal with re-consolidating the post-Soviet EO in E. Europe.

To reunite the EO and OO as a whole would practically require certain repudiations of the former regarding what have been proven historically inaccurate or outright wrong evaluations of certain persons or theological positions that were condemned at Chalcedon and Constantinople II. (For example, the dialogues have vindicated the theology or Dioscorus and Severus of Antioch–they were NOT “monophysites” in the sense of being Apolonarian, which was the *true *heresy claiming that Christ’s humanity was obliterated or nearly so because of the incarnation. That ain’t gonna happen anytime soon, especially with reactionary groups found in some sectors of Mt Athos, or among similar groups of the Russian and Greek Churches who would be less-than-comfortable with such an admission. Remember, for these sectors, ecumenism is a heresy (and that’s one of the nicer things they call it…)

(There is also the issue of how the OO with few if any exceptions among their senior theologians regard Ayssyro-Chaldean Christology as orthodox. This is another issue…We must remember that the respective Christologies are somewhat “polarized” that of Alexandria (and Cyril) on one hand and that of the older Antiochene school represented by Theodore of Cyr and Theodore of Mopsuestia. (And I’m not including Nestorius, because even he himself in a certain level of disrepute among the A-C churches! Sorry for the digression…)

Finally, the big problem is getting people to “play nice in the same sandbox.” Remember, around 30 autocephalous or “self-heading” groups have known division as normative…most of the churches within the EO and OO have just accepted the 1700 years of division as business as usual. It strikes me as a matter of, “well, we’ve gotten along without you this long, so why bother?” How can that be overcome?

And, to make it more tragic, both communions share the same basic dogmatic belief system, which would make it (seemingly) even easier to unite as a single communion with each other than it would for, say, the Catholic Church given the issue of petrine primacy. But it would ultimately be a question of qui bono–what good, what difference would it make in my diocese, my parish, my life? Until or if there is a popular movement toward answering these questions, keeping in mind that the Lord God desires one, universal, apostolic communion of believers, division will continue.

To the state of the question, then–yes, yes indeed miaphysites and diaphysites, so-called, share the same core orthodox faith. But getting them together in the same church–aye, that’s the rub.

May the Sprit himself forgive us and direct our paths!

 

[pdstor]

To the state of the question, then–yes, yes indeed miaphysites and diaphysites, so-called, share the same core orthodox faith. But getting them together in the same church–aye, that’s the rub.

I think “you shall know them by their fruit” applies here. Despite the sin that has occurred within every one of the ancient Churches, they have subsisted and flourished, with the exception of the Assyrian Church, which has dwindled in the past centuries but still exists today. We’re talking about divisions of four-digit age here, and the gates of Hell haven’t prevailed over them; IMO the reasons for the divisions have not come to their assumed fruition, like it did for Arian churches, for instance. The Gospel and Eucharist are alive within them, and I am really starting to think that the schisms are a sinful division of the whole Body that should be trampled over and stomped out, rather than taken as a valid declaration of true intention of heresy, an idea that is causing Gnostic “salvation is in my club”-ism and the loss of love it implies.

 

[Zekariya]

I think “you shall know them by their fruit” applies here. Despite the sin that has occurred within every one of the ancient Churches, they have subsisted and flourished, with the exception of the Assyrian Church, which has dwindled in the past centuries but still exists today. We’re talking about divisions of four-digit age here, and the gates of Hell haven’t prevailed over them; IMO the reasons for the divisions have not come to their assumed fruition, like it did for Arian churches, for instance. The Gospel and Eucharist are alive within them, and I am really starting to think that the schisms are a sinful division of the whole Body that should be trampled over and stomped out, rather than taken as a valid declaration of true intention of heresy, an idea that is causing Gnostic “salvation is in my club”-ism and the loss of love it implies.

I have read Nestorius (venerated by the Assyrians) and he is a heretic. I have read Severus of Antioch (venerated by the Coptic, Syriac, etc) and he is orthodox.

 

[Cyrillic]

I have read Nestorius (venerated by the Assyrians) and he is a heretic. I have read Severus of Antioch (venerated by the Coptic, Syriac, etc) and he is orthodox.

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?

St. Cyril was in communion with the heretical Ibas of Edessa and (the to a lesser extent heretical) Theodoret of Cyrrus.