Miaphysite Theology and the Infallibility of Chalcedon

[MomentsNotice]

This is indeed a theological difference between the Latin Rite Church and that of all the rest of the Orthodox Faith… We Join with St. Maximus who tells us that Jesus healed the Human Nature that He assumed… That IF Jesus did NOT assume our fallen human nature, THEN He did NOT heal it by His incarnation…

George, I’m not necessarily speaking from a Roman Catholic theological perspective. I think you and I are generally expounding the same theology, but our verbiage is not quite lining up.

When you say Christ assumed “fallen” human nature, you must identify what you mean. If you mean Christ’s Divine Will willingly permitted himself as a theanthropic subsistence to endure the “blameless passions” (hunger, thirst, fatigue, etc.) according to the human nature which He assumed, then we are in agreement.

If, however, you mean that Christ inherited original sin and the inclination towards sin, then I must emphatically disagree. Based on your previous reply, I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

The following also seems a little unfair:

And the Catholic view seems fairly aligned with that of the Copts in that you seem to regard the merging of the two “natures” as the creation of a “new nature” in which BOTH are increased…

Neither Copts nor Catholics would ever say something like this - this is either a misunderstanding or a flat-out misrepresentation; neither church confesses the emergence of a third composite nature that transmutes the characteristics of each of the constituent natures from one to the other.

We see it as a rescue mission on Christ’s part to save and restore the failed mission of Adam, rather than a way for God to somehow grow in stature or humanity…

I never said this - I’m not sure where you’re getting this from my previous posts.

 

[George720]

If, however, you mean that Christ inherited original sin and the inclination towards sin, then I must emphatically disagree. Based on your previous reply, I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

We do not inherit sin…
We inherit death…
“Upon which all have sinned…” Rom 5:12 eph’o
Christ inherited this death…

And He overcame death by His Death on the Cross…

I never said this - I’m not sure where you’re getting this from my previous posts.

I may have gotten it from another post’s comments…

The Copts say that the two natures became one in Mary’s Womb, and that after that we do not speak of two natures…

eg quoting the Copts:

The Nature of Christ… is One Nature formed of two natures,

The nature of Christ IS two natures, you see…

Forgive my summary of the Roman teaching - It SEEMS to be, as I wrote, not IS… eg That the divine nature “gained” the human nature in the Virgin’s Womb… If that is not the Roman teaching, then I am glad to hear that it is not…

Here is what you wrote:

If we decide that non-Chalcedonian, miaphysite, from-two-natures-but-not-in-two-natures-after-the-union Christology is actually just as Orthodox as Chalcedonian Christology, then what are we to make of Chalcedon? How can you reject an Ecumenical Council and still be considered a part of the Mystical Body of Christ? Schism and heresy alike sever one from the Church, so saying “meh, it all just comes down to politics and language barriers” doesn’t really cut it.

A great observation… Politics and language barriers really don’t cut it! Chalcedon affirms that Christ had two natures, and the Copts “join with Basil” (or whoever it was) in saying He has a ‘new nature’ that is a composite formed in the womb, after which we never mention two natures… Christ adopted fallen - eg death laden - human nature as a condescension, not an acquisition, and preserved both natures in His One Hypostasis (Person) without division or confusion etc… So the distinction of FROM 2 natures but not IN 2 natures after the union is a monster IF… I was assuming you were offering it as a somewhat viable possibility in Catholic Christology…

Have I got this totally wrong??

geo

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

My view is that because of language barrier, Chalcedon did condemn certain position which was never present in Coptic Church, because it condemned position written in Greek. Copts however thought it condemned their position because of wrong translation to their language.

I think it is same business as with Filioque- it actually DOES sound heretical in Greek, while in Latin it is perfectly normal because of language barrier. Same way, what Copts believe is perfectly normal but when it is translated into Greek, it sounds heretical because of language barrier. Chalcedon condemned that heretical version which it sounds like in Greek.

I just need to add that this is just my perception, I am not fluent in either of those languages. This would however mean, that Copts did separate themselves out of communion of Church based on misinformation as much as Chalcedonians believed they were anathemized based on misinformation. What does this make of Church of Christ? Where did it stay? Actually, at this point it would be pretty confusing. However, obedience to Church, Ecumenical Councils and Roman Pope are also requirements to be IN the Church from Catholic viewpoint, hence Copts have separated themselves by severing communion with Pope. It would be interesting to know how do Eastern Orthodox deal with this, as dual Church of Christ is not an option and it is impossible to determine which side was “more right” or “less wrong” at this point.

Funnily enough, Chalcedon was pretty controversial council- Rome did not accept some canons, Alexandria did not accept it as a whole and Antioch held to entire council. Must have been very confusing for ordinary people.

 

[George720]

However, obedience to Church, Ecumenical Councils and Roman Pope are also requirements to be IN the Church from Catholic viewpoint, hence Copts have separated themselves by severing communion with Pope. It would be interesting to know how do Eastern Orthodox deal with this, as dual Church of Christ is not an option and it is impossible to determine which side was “more right” or “less wrong” at this point.

We simply hold that the EOC is the Body of Christ, that we know it is, that we know where it is, and it is the Ekklesia of the EOC, and then we say that we do NOT know where the Body of Christ is NOT… As Obama used to say, that question is above our pay grade!

I am going to have to call my Coptic friend and ask him about this two natures becoming a third one that is no longer two… It looks like that is what Pope Shenouda probably wrote, but he did not write it in English, nor in Greek…

geo

 

[OrbisNonSufficit]

I see. There is no reliable way to know which communion (Oriental Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox) was True Church of Christ with visible hierarchy then? It does still sound kinda confusing.

I am going to have to call my Coptic friend and ask him about this two natures becoming a third one that is no longer two… It looks like that is what Pope Shenouda probably wrote, but he did not write it in English, nor in Greek…

That’s a good idea. I completely missed that language barrier could affect that document too, and not just Chalcedon.

 

[Dovekin]

If we decide that non-Chalcedonian, miaphysite, from-two-natures-but-not-in-two-natures-after-the-union Christology is actually just as Orthodox as Chalcedonian Christology, then what are we to make of Chalcedon? How can you reject an Ecumenical Council and still be considered a part of the Mystical Body of Christ? Schism and heresy alike sever one from the Church, so saying “meh, it all just comes down to politics and language barriers” doesn’t really cut it.

This is the important question, but you mistate the history a bit. Chalcedon condemned the position of Eutyches, that there was a before and after in the divine and human natures merging. Whatever it refers to, the sentence that uses anathema is based on the sentence St Leo attributed to Eutyches. Everyone - Copts, Orthodox, Catholic - accepts that there is no 3rd nature. Anglican, Lutheran, etc.

Catholics and Orthodox have sometimes accused miaphysites of being Eutychian, and so condemned by Chalcedon. But agreement among Catholics and the Oriental Ortodox means that is not the case on the theological issue. Basically, disagreement is not about theology defined at Chalcedon.

What remains is the claim that only Chalcedon’s expression is valid. This certainly a claim that Council made. Is that covered by infallibility, as the theology is? Can it teach the true faith, but do it so obnoxiously that people reject it?

That is an extreme way to express it, but Chalcedon did not pay attention to what the words meant in other languages. Different worldviews saw nature in different ways. This was enmeshed in politics and language barriers, so that is where agreement has to come.

 

[Bithynian]

I don’t mean to be argumentative, but I must disagree that the third person singular pronoun, “it,” refers to Leo’s Tome and not the Council of Chalcedon in the anathema I mentioned. If you read the anathema in context, it occurs in a list of acts of the Council of Chalcedon, each act beginning with the third person singular, “it” - each “it” referring to the synod itself, NOT Leo’s Tome as taken apart from the synod. Here’s the text in context:

I’ve read the quoted part in the Greek manuscript along with its Latin translaction (Labbe ,Sacrosancta Concilia, vol 4, col 566) and the context indicates that the Council is referring to Leo’s Tome.

It isn’t clear in an English translation, but the Greek has the clause ‘προὸς τὴν τῶν ὸρθοδόξων δογμάτων βεβαίωσιν’ (for the confirmation of orthodox dogma) immediately prior to the sentence of 'τοἲς τε γὰρ… ὰνθίσταται… ὲξελαύνει… ὰναθεματίζει (for to those who… it opposes… it drives out… it anathematizes).

The γάρ particle which introduces the sentence is an explanatory conjunction, and it responds to the question implicit in the prior clause: πῶς ὴ ὲπιστολὴ ὰρχεπισκόπου Λέοντος βεβαίωσις τῶν ὸρθοδόξων δογμάτων; (how is Archbishop Leo’s letter a confirmation of orthodox doctrine?).

The actual penalties decreed by the Council are later in the Definition (col 567): “εἰ μὲν εἶεν ὲπίσκοποι ἤ κληρικοὶ, ὰλλοξίνους εἶναι τοὺς ὲπισκόπους τῆς ὲπισκοπῆς, καὶ τοὺς κληρικοὺς τοῦ κλήρου; εἰ δὲ μονάζοντες ἢ λαικοὶ εἶεν, ἀναθεματίζεσθαι αὐτούς” (if [anyone who disagrees] is a bishop or a priest, let the bishops be deposed from the episcopacy, and the priests from the priesthood; if any is a monk or laity, let them be anathematized).

Moreover, the penalties listed at the end are written in the formal style characteristic of traditional Greek legislative and judicial decrees (inherited from 5th century BC Athens): a conditional, followed by an infinitive with an implicit δεῖ (it is necessary to…). Most - if not all - Greek-language councils (that is, all Seven Ecumenical Councils) follow this formula in stipulating canonical penalties. As a point of comparison, the verbs ὰνθίσταται, ὲξελαύνει and ὰναθεματίζει (used earlier in referring to Leo’s Tome) are in the indicative mood.

 

[Bithynian]

I’m making this post separately from the one above as I don’t want to mix this up.

Language is a fuzzy thing, and translation makes it even fuzzier.

I don’t wish to correct directly on Chalcedon as my knowledge of the Oriental Orthodox position is far too fuzzy. But I think the ambiguity of theological language - especially when translated - really needs to be emphasised.

Using another example: the distinction between worship given to God, and the veneration given to Mary, the angels and saints.

Most contemporary theology texts understand our English words to correspond to specific Latin and Greek theological terminology:

• worship = adoratio = λατρεία (latria)
• veneration = veneratio = δουλεία (dulia)

Now let’s compare the Council of Trent (1563) and the Second Council of Nicaea (7th Ecumenical Council, 787) and Aquinas (d. 1274) as a sort of mid-way point.

Councilium Tridentinum:

• God and the Eucharist are to be given “latriae cultus… in veneratione” (the cult of latria in veneration) which is very ambiguous.
• “to the images of Christ, the Virgin Mother of God and other saints… is to be given honorem (honour) and venerationem … thus, through these images… adoremus (we worship) Christ and veneremur (we venerate) the saints”.
• The ‘honor’ we show to the images is “referred to the original subjects (prototypa) which they represent”.
• Ambiguous as to whether we must worship an image of Christ.

Aquinas:

• The honour shown to image reaches (pervenit) to the prototype (prototypum). This prototype is the exemplar (in Latin exemplar). In this case, the exemplar is Christ who “adorandus adoratione latriae” (must be worshipped with the worship of latria). Therefore “et ius imago” (also his image must be worshipped).
• Aquinas makes a distinction between exemplar and prototypum, while Trent only identifies prototypum.
• Aquinas teaches that an image of Christ must be worshipped, while Trent is rather ambiguous.
• Quotes John of Damascus (4th century, also Doctor of the Church) who teaches that we should worship Jesus’ manger.

(continued below)

 

[Bithynian]

Nicaea II:

• Does not use term δουλεία, but instead προσκύνησις (proskunesis). While still translated as ‘veneration’ in English, it is translated as adoratio in the Latin proceedings.
• Instead translates λατρεία as servitute, which we nonetheless still translate as ‘worship’ in English.
• Quotes Gregory the Theologian (4th century, Archbishop of Constantinople, also Doctor of the Church) that “προστάσσει λατρεύειν τῇ πάτνῃ” (we should not worship Jesus’ manager), and that no-one could possibly disagree with Gregory unless they were a “forte de insensatis” (a complete idiot) or “totius scripturalis scientiae ac paternae doctrinae inexpertes” (totally uneducated about the Scriptures or the teachings of the Fathers)
• All images of God, the Virgin Mary, all Angels and Saints must be venerated (προσκυνεῖν/adorare).
• Declares it heterodox to worship (λατρεύειν/servire) images of Christ, contrary to Aquinas.
• Right after its discussion on the veneration of images, the Council Fathers write: “If anyone does not believe and debates the matter further… our holy ecumenical council anathematises them. Anathema is nothing less than absolute separation from God.”

We can see a very stark inconsistency in theological terminology used (likely due to profound issues in translation), along with some very marked contrasts (I wouldn’t quite term contradictions) in theology appearing over time.

 

[dochawk]

They have their own pope. I don’t think we can have two popes in one Church.

There are also other heads of church’s with he title “pope”

When you look at the etymology of the word, it’s kind of surprising that there aren’t more.

My view is that because of language barrier, Chalcedon did condemn certain position which was never present in Coptic Church,

And here we have the correct answer (to which we also get by actually paying attention to late 20th century and 21st century discussions between the Churches . . .)

There is no reliable way to know which communion (Oriental Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox) was True Church of Christ with visible hierarchy then?

This is a question which, like so many in the east, can simply be answered “yes” . . . the error comes not from either group, but from trying to specify, which involves trying to state the other’s position without understanding it (and in which, as has too often been the case, the other’s position is the same was one’s own but expressed differently . . the first article from the Treaty of Brest comes to mind: paraphrased, it is is "we do not understand each other because we don’t want to . . .)

 

[Margaret_Ann]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.) George720:

The Nature of Christ… is One Nature formed of two natures,

Wrong. The Person of Christ is One Person with two Natures, Divine and human, in the unity of His Divine Person.

The difference between “Nature” (ουσία) and “Person” (πρόσωπον) is critical to understanding the infallible definition of Chalcedon.

When “Nature” and “Person” are used carelessly it causes misunderstandings which are detrimental to the Faith and the salvation of souls.

 

[Ghosty1981]

When “Nature” and “Person” are used carelessly it causes misunderstandings which are detrimental to the Faith and the salvation of souls.

“Person” and “nature” have a certain nuance in Greek that doesn’t translate to other languages. This isn’t a matter of carelessness, but of human language.

Peace and God bless!

 

[George720]

The Nature of Christ… is One Nature formed of two natures,(Copts)

Without question…

geo

 

[George720]

“Person” and “nature” have a certain nuance in Greek that doesn’t translate to other languages. This isn’t a matter of carelessness, but of human language.

The official language of the pre-schism Church at all Her Ecumenical Councils was Koine Greek… And the O-Os and the Copts and the Syrians and the Persians and all the foreign tongues who participated did so in the Koine Greek Language… And I am but assuming here, but my assumption is that this was so because of the fact that Koine Greek was the “Lingua Franka” of the Mediterranean countries after Aleksander the Great’s conquest… And I am further assuming that at least some of the participants of these Councils were fluent in it… It is for this reason that I am really hesitant to assign lightly the matter of language discontinuity to the early schism with the O-Os and their brothers, the Coptic Church… It may be true, but it is way to easy to just write it off to divided tongues… “It’s Greek to me!”, with a shrug of the shoulders and hands flailing the air, fails to engage the matter of the ontology of Spiritual meaning…

One of the great things Christianity did for pagan cultures was to bring a loving and humble genuineness to the personality, where previously it functioned more as a mask that concealed its hidden inner passions and cravings… And one of the features of this kindness of soul was the understanding of who we are as Christians… And one of the bases of this is the understanding of person as hypostasis, or basis, or that which stands under, who we are fundamentally… Prior to Christianity, the person was understood as the mask one adopted for functioning on the world stage, be it family, society, or theatric…

Through living repentant and confessional lives, Christians, in the course of maturing in their Faith of Christ, gradually worked their way down through the multiple layers of personality to the very core of their being, the journey into the heart, wherein at each stage they purified the evil they found by repentance… And kept only what was good…

And in this process, came to lead genuine lives that glorified God and spread goodness among men… Where the persona or mask (prosopon) became genuinely the person acting in earthly creation: The Hypostasis… This turns out to be the reason why we have accountability for our actions on this earth, whether in this life or after this life… And it is this hypostasis which is, when conjoined with the Holy Spirit in Baptism into Christ, the New Creation which we become IN Christ… This New Creation is Theandric - Both God and man - and is the presence of God in the human heart which has there become the Temple of the Indwelling Holy Spirit…

And it is this, in part, that the Councils sought to preserve and protect, because when the purification of the heart becomes completed across years of repentance in the Ekklesia, Saints are born Glorified by God, where the very Shadow of Peter could heal the sick…

So maybe a linguistic disorder caused the schism…

And maybe not…

geo

 

[Ghosty1981]

The official language of the pre-schism Church at all Her Ecumenical Councils was Koine Greek… And the O-Os and the Copts and the Syrians and the Persians and all the foreign tongues who participated did so in the Koine Greek Language

Language is fluid and prone to significant differences in nuance between regions. Just look at the expression “let’s table the discussion” in modern English, as it means opposite things in England and the U.S. yet most English speakers on both sides don’t realize this. It can be seen as a fact of history that the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians understood the Greek very, very differently, as the non-Chalcedonians understood the expression of Chalcedon to be a total reversal of the Council of Ephesus. So simply saying “both sides spoke Greek” (which is an oversimplification to begin with) doesn’t really give us much insight into the dispute.

The Chalcedonian emphasis on “two natures” can raise the question of how a single person can act with two natures; the expression “miaphysitism” emphasizes the unity of Christ’s Divine Personhood, as the “mia” indicates a unity of multiple things as opposed to “mono” which indicates a single thing. The nuance that the non-Chalcedonians were trying to preserve was that when Christ acts He acts as a singular entity, not two entities, and how can a single entity have two utterly separate natures? The non-Chalcedonians used the term “nature” with a nuance that leaned towards personhood, and so any expression such as “duophysite” carried the implication of “duo-personhood”, a contradiction of Ephesus. The Latins and Greeks did not have the same nuance to the term “nature”, so they couldn’t understand the non-Chalcedonian objection.

As we have discussed things over the centuries we’ve come to realize that both sides were trying to preserve the same Divine Truth with imperfect human language. Perhaps the fact that we no longer speak a “common language”, and therefore can’t assume we mean the same thing, has allowed us to realize that our condemnations were misplaced.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Dovekin]

Greek: ousia, hypostasis, prosopon.
Latin: substance, person, appearance.

Ousia somehow got translated into Latin as substance, even though substance and hypostasis both mean stand beneath.

Sub=hypo= below
Stance=stasis= stand
Substance =/= hypostasis

The people who translated these terms must have expected there would be plenty of ambiguity.

 

[George720]

Greek: ousia, hypostasis, prosopon.
Latin: substance, person, appearance.

Ousia somehow got translated into Latin as substance, even though substance and hypostasis both mean stand beneath .

Sub=hypo= below
Stance=stasis= stand
Substance =/= hypostasis

The people who translated these terms must have expected there would be plenty of ambiguity.

Ousia means literally the noun ‘being’, but this also means wealth, where one’s wealth is one’s being… Which the Latins translated as Substance, and also Essence… Why they did so is anyone’s guess - They can perhaps speak for themselves… And this is why Hypostasis was used in the East for Person, for it is irreducibly primary… The Ousia of Christ is His (unknowable) Divine Physis, or Nature… Commonly in Greek we find people giving of their ousia to their neighbor… Meaning giving of their wealth - Their sheep or cattle or grain or other things… So ousia in the Greek means two things… And those two can be seen as related…

But what must be kept clearly in view is not the vagaries of culture surrounding word usage, but the appropriation of the common Greek for Ekklestiacle meanings… Because they were using the basics of common Greek to denote the Spiritual realities of Christian Life… Hence we can take their Koine Greek basic denominators somewhat as empirical descriptives of things which up to then had not been named…

For example Hypostasis has perfectly good Greek meanings prior to Christianity, none of which meant person, if I understand it aright… But in Spiritual terms, it is the Person who is fundamental to Christian Life, and hence the hypostasis of man is the person man irreducibly and most fundamentally the man IS… You cannot add two things together and come up with person… Person does not reduce… Hence it is that which stands under everything spiritually human…

geo

 

[George720]

As we have discussed things over the centuries we’ve come to realize that both sides were trying to preserve the same Divine Truth with imperfect human language. Perhaps the fact that we no longer speak a “common language”, and therefore can’t assume we mean the same thing, has allowed us to realize that our condemnations were misplaced.

Possibly…

I am slow to seize that account…

I fear an eyes closed kumbaya where mental mush replaces clarity…

geo

 

[niceatheist]

There’s a lot of bitter history. While Rome overall had less contact with Miaphysites churches, the Byzantine Emperors at times suppressed the Syriac Church and used its political and military might to impose Chalcedonian Christianity on various Oriental churches within its reach. After the Islamic invasions those churches that survived were isolated; both geographically and by the lingering distrust of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Possibly…

I am slow to seize that account…

I fear an eyes closed kumbaya where mental mush replaces clarity…

geo

Understandable, I suppose. The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches have come a long way in mutually supporting eachotgers’ Faithful, but I don’t believe any official pronouncements of mutual theological understanding have been put forth.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has engaged in lengthy theological dialogue with several Oriental Orthodox Churches and official agreements of theological (not ecclesial) understanding and unity have been reached with several Churches. Additionally there are official provisions for caring for eachothers’ flock, especially in times and areas of civil strife; I have received Christ from the hands of a Syyriac priest in the presence of my Melkite Bishop. This goes a long way towards putting to rest whatever doubts I might have otherwise have held.

Where things get awkward is that the Oriental Orthodox Churches and Assyrian Church of the East still harbor misgivings about eachothers’ theology, yet both have theological and pastoral agreements with the Catholic Church.

Peace and God bless!