A
- Status
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
At the end of the day if you press an Oriental Orthodox on how many natures Christ has (and I’m all for pressing someone to get their actual beliefs out in the open; I guess I’ll never have a career in ecumenism) their answer would be one. Technically therefore, going by the literal meaning of the world, Miaphysitism would be a form of Monophysitism. Due to the latter term’s association with the likes of the Eutychians and Appolinarians they dislike when you use it for them, though. “Miaphysites” is indeed the more precise and uncontroversial term.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
You raise excellent points of discussion Aelred (I would rename you “Major!”).
Actually, if we asked St Cyril of Alexandria, he too would respond with “One Divine Nature in Christ the Incarnate Word . . .etc.”
For the Miaphysites, “Nature” means “Person” as was discovered during the ecumenical talks between the EO and OO. And the Oriental Orthodox repudiate Monophysitism as such - they affirm they were reacting to Nestorianism.
When it comes to Eutyches, I find him an interesting fellow. In fact, I believe (and my opinions carry absolutely no weight - I wanted that understood at the outset
), I believe that he was not the heretic he was made out to be.He simply could not accept that the Divine and Incarnate Son of God was consubstantial with . . . us. He thought that profaned the Incarnate Word.
However, when asked if he could accept that Christ is consubstantial with His All-Holy and Glorious Mother . . . Eutyches readily agreed with that!
There is a confession of faith that asserts precisely that - Christ’s consubstantiality with His Most Holy Mother.
My compliments,
Alex
A
Aelred_Minor
Guest
I’ve heard that about the Oriental Orthodox. A discussion I had with a particular Copt seemed to debunk the idea that they equate nature and person, but that was just an Egyptian kid on the internet not a professional theologian. I suspect like in any large group there are differences of interpretation within their community. For all I know there may even be situations like that of certain Catholics who seem to deliberately try to live up to anti-Catholic stereotypes, or, in my impression, certain ancient Nestorians who really held the heresy that was probably intended by neither Nestorius nor the modern Assyrian Church of the East.You raise excellent points of discussion Aelred (I would rename you “Major!”).
Actually, if we asked St Cyril of Alexandria, he too would respond with “One Divine Nature in Christ the Incarnate Word . . .etc.”
For the Miaphysites, “Nature” means “Person” as was discovered during the ecumenical talks between the EO and OO. And the Oriental Orthodox repudiate Monophysitism as such - they affirm they were reacting to Nestorianism.
When it comes to Eutyches, I find him an interesting fellow. In fact, I believe (and my opinions carry absolutely no weight - I wanted that understood at the outset
He simply could not accept that the Divine and Incarnate Son of God was consubstantial with . . . us. He thought that profaned the Incarnate Word.
However, when asked if he could accept that Christ is consubstantial with His All-Holy and Glorious Mother . . . Eutyches readily agreed with that!
There is a confession of faith that asserts precisely that - Christ’s consubstantiality with His Most Holy Mother.
My compliments,
Alex
Very interesting information about Eutyches. Never encountered the idea of restoring his reputation before, as has become common for Nestorius. Not to discount any individual instance like this one, but I feel like the way things are going pretty soon people will be saying Arius and Pelagius were just misunderstood too.
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Again, you raise fascinating points!! Arius was included in the calendar of Saints under June 6 as “St Artotis” until the Bollandists, having discovered this deliberate inclusion by an ancient Arian copyist, expunged the name. But Arius can never be rehabilitated as he always held to the phrase “there was a time when He (Christ) was not.” Despite this, there are Arian saints in the Catholic calendar like St Nicetas the Goth, St Sabas the Goth and St Artemius the Dux Augustalis of Egypt. Martyrdom appears to have made the Church overlook the defect of their orthodoxy.I’ve heard that about the Oriental Orthodox. A discussion I had with a particular Copt seemed to debunk the idea that they equate nature and person, but that was just an Egyptian kid on the internet not a professional theologian. I suspect like in any large group there are differences of interpretation within their community. For all I know there may even be situations like that of certain Catholics who seem to deliberately try to live up to anti-Catholic stereotypes, or, in my impression, certain ancient Nestorians who really held the heresy that was probably intended by neither Nestorius nor the modern Assyrian Church of the East.
Very interesting information about Eutyches. Never encountered the idea of restoring his reputation before, as has become common for Nestorius. Not to discount any individual instance like this one, but I feel like the way things are going pretty soon people will be saying Arius and Pelagius were just misunderstood too.
Even Wulfila, the Apostle to the Goths, who was at least a Semi-Arian, had a cathedral built in his honour at Trishtov in Bulgaria (ancient Novae in Moesia in Roman times), so even he was locally venerated.
Pelagius or Morgan of Wales has been given close scrutiny in recent times. There are independent Celtic churches in the U.S. named for “St Morgan of Wales” who was, in fact, Pelagius. The contemporary jury is still out on him.
The dispute between Alexandria and Antioch over Christology was based on these Churches’ different theological approaches - the former emphasizing the One Christ and the other the distinctions between His two Natures.
These disagreements spilled over into other Churches, especially the “Roman province” of the Church (the name the Alexandrians and Antiochians gave to Rome/Constantinople). St Flavian of Constantinople was beaten to death because he was perceived as defending the Nestorian position. Even the great St Nicholas clobbered Arius at the first Ec. Council because he felt the punishment exacted on Arius by the Council was not nearly enough . . .
I personally feel that Origen of Alexandria should, at the will of the Church, be canonized since his errors were such that he submitted himself for correction to the judgement of the Church. He was also honoured as a Confessor locally at Alexandria (had he died a martyr, he would probably be in the calendar now). That is my personal opinion which I too submit to the judgement of the Church.
Tertullian, although a schismatic, did much good for the Church with his polemical treatises and defense of Catholic doctrine and discipline. I don’t know how one would get around the fact that he did go into schism however . . . There was a Tertullianist church in Africa as late as the seventh century which did honour him as a saint . . . I’ll stop there . . .
Having said all this, there were numerous sects in the early Church with many wild ideas about theology. They had their own saints and martyrs and the veneration of such was forbidden. This did not apply to most saints of the Nestorian, Arian and other persuasions which later reconciled with the Church.
With respect to that kid on the internet, you are absolutely right, there are many who want to live up to a persona (whether it be Anti-Catholic or what have you) without knowing the current official state of ecumenical affairs. Like that convert who wore several rosaries and prayer-ropes . . .
Alex
M
mardukm
Guest
YOU ARE AN UNFATHOMABLE WELL OF KNOWLEDGE!!!:bowdown:
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Actually, YOU are, sir!
I bow to your education, breadth of knowledge and erudition!
Alex
T
ThatOneGuy92
Guest
T
ThatOneGuy92
Guest
I bow before both of your knowledge and education! :bowdown:
A
Alveus_Lacuna
Guest
What you are writing reads clearly like heresy to me. God the Word was fully human, hence one of us. Likewise, His all-pure and spotless Mother was also one of us; in fact she was merely human, so how Eutyches could affirm Christ’s consubstantiality with her and not with us seems totally baffling to me. Unless you are unintentionally misrepresenting his views, in which case it really doesn’t matter.
But St. Gregory the Theologian of Nazianzus stated the problem with this view most clearly:
“For that which He has not assumed He has not healed; but that which is united to His Godhead is also saved.”
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
- Status