Miaphysite Theology and the Infallibility of Chalcedon

[George720]

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…

Baptism conjoins the Holy Spirit to the human hypostasis…
This is the New Creation into which we are reborn…
It is the basis for our Life IN Christ…
Which OT Saints did NOT have…

geo

 

[Dovekin]

The Ousia of Christ is His (unknowable) Divine Physis, or Nature

I read this yesterday and had no problem with it. Today I am not so sure.

When Jesus died on the cross, he gave his life for us. If his life, his humanity, is not part of his wealth, it is not much of a sacrifice.

The ousia of Christ is both divine and human, unconfused…

Maybe I am not understanding what you are saying? I know I am not unconfused…

 

[Dovekin]

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.

Eastern and Oriental Orthodox began dialogue in 1951. In 1964, at Aarhus, they wrote together:

We recognize in each other the one Orthodox faith of the church. Fifteen centuries of alienation have not led us astray from the faith of our fathers… On the essence of the Christological dogma we found ourselves in full agreement. Through the different terminologies used by each side, we found the same truth expressed.

From Beyond Dialogue on St Vladimir’s Orthodox Theological seminary’s webiste.

 

[George720]

The Ousia of Christ is His (unknowable) Divine Physis, or Nature

Forgive me, I must have mis-spoke… I was seeking a way of expressing the relationship of Physis and Ousia in Christ as God… From the human perspective, Physis IS Ousia in God… The Nature of God is His Being, and this we cannot know…

Yet we can know God, IF God decides we will know Him… And the manner of this knowledge is not knowing about God, but as created in His Image, we conjoin, insofar as we are able to do so, with His Creative Energies, and in these we are Energized, and these Divine Energies Illumine our understanding, not being dependent on it…

This is a fairly late formulaic - 14th Century I believe - Articulated by St. Gregory Palamas, which differentiates between God as He is in His Essence/Ousia, and God as He ACTS according to His Creating Energy which created Creation… The first we cannot know, and the second we can enter into, and this union of God with man is called the Marriage of the Lamb, or the “Knowing God” that IS Life Eternal…

But here is the kicker, you see… The Ousia of God expressed as wealth, is both His Creative Energies AND God as He is to Himself, as His Essence, from which the Creation of the Cosmos originated… And the BASIS of THAT, you see, is the Divine Hypostases… Which are the Persons of the Holy Trinity… And it is the Divine Hypostasis Who IS the Second Person of the Trinity Who condescended to take a death-bearing human body from the Holy Virgin, and re-invigorate it by His Life and then His Death on the Cross, and His Descent into Hades, where He overcame Death and Resurrected on the Third Day…

INTO Whom we are Baptized…

The person as hypostasis, you see, is the essence of essences, standing under the ousia… The very Nature of God (His Physis, including His Ousia/Being qua God, which we cannot know) rests on the Person AS (qua) Hypostasis… Nothing is more foundational than person as hypostasis… I am persuaded that this is the ultimate meaning of our being created in the Image of God…

“The Person in the Orthodox Tradition” by Metropolitan Hierotheos Vlachos of Nafpakta is the work that lays this out extensively… And this understanding accounts for the catastrophically disastrous consequence of Adam’s Sin… And the profound need we have for not only repenting from sin but of overcoming it wherever we encounter it… For we are taking down principalities of darkness in our Christian walk in the Way of the Lord…

WHO we are is foundational to everything…

As Christ asked: “Who do people say that I AM?”

geo

 

[jimXroberts]

The Oriental Orthodox Churches (not to be confused with the Eastern Orthodox - they were later) split from the rest of Christianity claiming that the Council of Chalcedon was far from Ecumenical. The Coptic and Ethiopian Churches thought that it was a sell-out to Nestorianism and the Armenian Church were prevented from attending by war. Later scholarship suggests that the differences were semantic fuelled by politics (of the “My Pope’s better than you Pope” variety). There is very little to prevent a full rapprochement between the Oriental Orthodox and Catholic Churches and I suspect that the real stumbling block is that Rome would like union with the Eastern Orthodox first. That’s more difficult since the Russian Church as well as sections of the Greek Church are opposed to it.

We should all be seeking the unity for which Jesus prayed.

 

[George720]

I suspect that the real stumbling block is that Rome would like union with the Eastern Orthodox first. That’s more difficult since the Russian Church as well as sections of the Greek Church are opposed to it.

The issue of Papal Primacy vs Papal Supremacy needs to be addressed…

Surprisingly, it never seems to come into focus in E-W talks…

The Russian Church is now protected by the Russian Politic, and it is officially an Orthodox country, but while the holiness of the very Russian ground and lands is real, the condition of the Church recovering from the atheist persecutions for some 80 years is only at its beginnings… Russia is having to evangelize and disciple Her own population… And young people have filled the monasteries of Russia unto this purpose…

In the US, Orthodoxy is just being fledged, and is a canonical mix-mash… There is no Americal Orthodox Church… And precious few monasteries… But it is coming… And the ethnic Churches will have the American Orthodox Church to enter into, eventually…

We pray…

geo

 

[Ghosty1981]

Eastern and Oriental Orthodox began dialogue in 1951. In 1964, at Aarhus, they wrote together:

Indeed, but as that very section indicates that is a statement from an informal dialogue session, not any kind of formal agreement. I pray that eventually the whole of Apostolic Churches will be able to make such a statement officially as a united front.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Dovekin]

The Joint Commission on Dialogue expressed their agreement in 1990:

Both families agree that all the anathemas and condemnations of the past which now divide us should be lifted by the Churches in order that the last obstacle to the full unity and communion of our two families can be removed by the grace and power of God. Both families agree that the lifting of anthemas and condemnations will be consummated on the basis that the Councils and fathers previously anathematized or condemned are not heretical.

I was trying to show the dialogue was early, earlier than Vatican II. The official statements came in 1989 and 1990. Questions about the authority have continued since then, but they are about as authoritative as you can get among the Orthodox.

The major issue is the one this thread was supposed to be about: what does agreement now say about the Council of Chalcedon?

 

[George720]

The Joint Commission on Dialogue expressed their agreement in 1990:

Do you have a link for this?

Thank-you…

geo

 

[Dovekin]

I usually try to include a link, my apologies for not doing that yesterday. I am not sure what happened.

Second Agreed Statement (1990)

 

[George720]

I usually try to include a link, my apologies for not doing that yesterday. I am not sure what happened.

Second Agreed Statement (1990)

I am profoundly in your debt, thank-you…

geo

 

[George720]

Here are the relevant texts: (families = Churches)

1. Both families agree that the natures, with their proper energies and wills, are united hypostatically and naturally without confusion, without change, without division and without separation, and that they are distinguished in thought alone (th qewria monh).

This is the basis of their accordance, that the hypostatic union is distinguished by theoria alone - Theoria is not thought… It is way past thought… Indeed in the condition of theoria, there is no thought… It is noetic apperception through God… In a purified heart…

1. Both families agree that He Who wills and acts is always the one Hypostasis of the Logos incarnate.

1. The Orthodox agree that the Oriental Orthodox will continue to maintain their traditional Cyrillian terminology of “one nature of the incarnate Logos” (“mia fusij tou qeou Logou sesarkwmenh”), since they acknowledge the double consubstantiality of the Logos which Eutyches denied. The Orthodox also use this terminology. The Oriental Orthodox agree that the Orthodox are justified in their use of the two-natures formula, since they acknowledge that the distinction is “in thought alone” (th qewria monh). Cyril interpreted correctly this use in his letter to John of Antioch and his letters to Acacius of Melitene (PG 77, 184-201), to Eulogius (PG 77, 224-228) and to Succensus (PG 77, 228-245).

The unifying principle is very mystical… Theoria alone…

ti theoria moni…

What this standard does is establish the Saints in theoria (divine visioning) as the only ones who have the ability to discern which of Christ’s natures are active in questionable events where He is acting in Scripture…

eg It is not materially discernible…

Ti theoria moni, you see, is a dative of means…

It will not define well for Concilliar formulaics…

It may very well be correct…

I sure do not know…

But it shows the free-ranging usage of physis (fusij in the text) to cover physics and thought and Spiritual matters, eg - of their natures… It is not confined to materiality as the physics gloss of physis in English might suggest…

geo

 

[George720]

Now assuming that the suggested resolution, or some other mutually agreed resolution, of the one vs two natures understandings is reached, the anathemas will of course be cancelled… As they then no doubt should be cancelled… And the reason is that the one “Physis” of the Miaphysites refers to the Hypostasis of the Second Person of the Trinity…

And the “Two Physes” of the Church refer to Christ’s human nature and His Divine Nature… So they are two different designations… Both legitimately, but differently, subsumed under the term Physis…

And the OP seemed very concerned about the implication such an outcome might have for the “INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY” of the Council imposing the Anathemas on the Miaphysites…

May I ever so gently suggest that this is not a profitable line of enquiry?

geo

 

[Dovekin]

I think it is an important “line of enquiry.”

The communion of saints is a core element of the faith, the unity of not just the people alive on earth today, but our links to those who have died. How do we understand those relations, when one group has anathematized someone by name, and another group prays to that same person and calls him one of God’s chosen saints.

The dogma of infallibility is probably the most important area that needs illumination. Many people latch onto a doctrine and make it more important than our relations in Christ. Perhaps this is more of a Catholic problem, but I have seen people decide that a doctrine, that they believe was taught without error, is more significant than core beliefs about how Christ is present with the Church.

The Orthodox have a similar problem, though it described in terms of maintaining what we have received. How can we revise our history and remain true to it?

The 1990 agreement from the Joint Commission is not the final step. It has been sent out for the Orthodox Churches to assess and decide on. This process of reception is normal for the Orthodox, but different from the Catholic acceptance of a decree from the Pope or a Council. One issuee raised is whether there is an authority that can overturn the anathemas? We may agree the anathems never applied, but why is our opinion, even an opinion explicitly affirmed by Patriarchs of every nation, more authoritative than the opinion of the Council of Chalcedon? What would that say about the auhority of a Council?

These are important issues even if we agree that the two natures in Christ do not detract from the unity of his Person.

 

[George720]

The Orthodox have a similar problem, though it described in terms of maintaining what we have received. How can we revise our history and remain true to it?

I liked how the Russians did it… Under the atheists, the Moscow Patriarchate was excommunicated, and even when the atheists departed, the Patriarch was accused of being a former agent of the atheists and not worthy to re-enter into Communion with the rest of the Orthodox Churches… And finally, they simply announced in a six hour Service of Restoration of Communion that the issues which had separated them were no longer applicable…

Similarly, if it turns our that our disagreement with the Oriental Orthodox is simply one of two referents for the term “Nature”, then the dividing issue is no longer applicable… But this will not happen until the actual issue is clearly acknowledged by both Communions, and no possibility of some other overlooked issue may be hidden out of sight and mind…

The Orthodox do not proclaim their Authority in these kinds of matters as does the Latin Communion… They acknowledge that each of the Sees is autocephalous, and within its jurisdiction is authoritative, and that Communion is voluntary, and conflicts that prevent it need resolution… We never expected the break with the Latin Church in 1054 to last even a hundred years… We did not expect it to be all that permanent until the sack of Constantinople in the 4th Crusade… It simply did not occur to us that such a thing could occur - The looting of a Christian civilization for decades by a conquering Christian army… And Constantinople thus weakened fell, soon after their departure, to the Turks…

Each autocephalous Church has the authoritative responsibility to protect the Truth of the Faith, preserving what was given to the Apostles… And even Ecumenical Councils do not have Authority over the Church, for the Church must RECEIVE their rulings across time… It is the Church qua the Body of Christ Who is Her Head that has Authority, which means Christ Himself IS the Authority, and not any single member or combination of the members of His Body…

And yes, your line of enquiry does have this importance, calling such Authority into question as it does…

geo