Non-Chalcedonians-Orientals, reply

[Gregory_I]

I understand the rejection of Chalcedon is based on Leos Tome which can seemingly border on Nestorianism.

THis is Because Leo Says Christ is one Person in Two Natures. Now, each Natue has a subject to which it refers, therefore Christ is two Subjects, therefore he is two Persons.

But if we add a Little Caveat…: “Christ is one Person in Two Natures…That have come into an ineffable and unconfused Union, Free of all Comingling, Change, Division or Separation”

Is this Not equivalent of “From Two Natures”? And Does it not admit that the One Christ, wholly and truly possesing his own Divinity, wholly and truly made possesion of the Manhood that was his from the first moment of his conception? AN ineffable union, and a single Composite, Theandric Being?

Does this make the Non-Chalcedonina Problem Go away? For we Chalcedonians acknowledge this as true, and Leo was Judged and acclaimed on the basis of his Conformity to Cyril, or at least his intention to be understood in a cyriline sense.

 

[Fr_Kyrillos]

I understand the rejection of Chalcedon is based on Leos Tome which can seemingly border on Nestorianism.

THis is Because Leo Says Christ is one Person in Two Natures. Now, each Natue has a subject to which it refers, therefore Christ is two Subjects, therefore he is two Persons.

But if we add a Little Caveat…: “Christ is one Person in Two Natures…That have come into an ineffable and unconfused Union, Free of all Comingling, Change, Division or Separation”

Is this Not equivalent of “From Two Natures”? And Does it not admit that the One Christ, wholly and truly possesing his own Divinity, wholly and truly made possesion of the Manhood that was his from the first moment of his conception? AN ineffable union, and a single Composite, Theandric Being?

Does this make the Non-Chalcedonina Problem Go away? For we Chalcedonians acknowledge this as true, and Leo was Judged and acclaimed on the basis of his Conformity to Cyril, or at least his intention to be understood in a cyriline sense.

Dear Gregory I,

This is a HUGE topic! However, to be brief, if you read the content and conclusions of the work of the official dialogues that have taken place between the OO and EO here:

orthodoxunity.org/official.php

Then, you can see that real agreement is reached on the theological issues. Historically, the issue over the word “physis” (which for Alexandrians meant more “hypostasis” and for Antiochians/Rome meant more “ousia”) was what was most problematic at Chalcedon and in the council’s aftermath. Constantinople II went a long way in bridging the gap but it was too late. The Arab invasion sealed the division.

The real problem today between OO and EO is what to do with all the history (the numbering of the Councils, the anethemas, and so on). Here, I feel the progress has been most thwarted by the EO side for a variety of reasons. The official dialogues have provided some concrete solutions to the historical problems which the OO have endorsed but has not been reciprocated (though I read that the Romanian Church did have approval from her Holy Synod - but again I don’t see any EO church moving without the unity of all EO in concert - which makes sense so as to avoid further divisions)

In terms of OO and Catholics, the historic meeting between Pope Paul VI and Pope Shenouda III left us with very positive starting point:

We have met in the desire to deepen the relations between our Churches and to find concrete ways to overcome the obstacles in the way of our real cooperation in the service of our Lord Jesus Christ who has given us the ministry of reconciliation, to reconcile the world to Himself (2 Cor 5:18-20).

In accordance with our apostolic traditions transmitted to our Churches and preserved therein, and in conformity with the early three ecumenical councils, 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 Saviour 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.

The divine life is given to us and is nourished in us through the seven sacraments of Christ in His Church: Baptism, Chrism (Confirmation), Holy Eucharist, Penance, Anointing of the Sick, Matrimony and Holy Orders.

We venerate the Virgin Mary, Mother of the True Light, and we confess that she is ever Virgin, the God- bearer. She intercedes for us, and, as the Theotokos, excels in her dignity all angelic hosts.

We have, to a large degree, the same understanding of the Church, founded upon the Apostles, and of the important role of ecumenical and local councils. Our spirituality is well and profoundly expressed in our rituals and in the Liturgy of the Mass which comprises the centre of our public prayer and the culmination of our in corporation into Christ in His Church. We keep the fasts and feasts of our faith. We venerate the relics of the saints and ask the intercession of the angels and of the saints, the living and the departed. These compose a cloud of witnesses in the Church. They and we look in hope for the Second Coming of our Lord when His glory will be revealed to judge the living and the dead.

We humbly recognize that our Churches are not able to give more perfect witness to this new life in Christ because of existing divisions which have behind them centuries of difficult history…

The full statement can be read here:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/anc-orient-ch-docs/rc_pc_christuni_doc_19730510_copti_en.html

I would like to hear whether the practical suggestions provided in the EO/OO dialogues in terms of councils and anethemas would be acceptable to the Catholic side. I sense it would, but I don’t have any concrete evidence.

With love in Christ,
Fr. Kyrillos

 

[Ghosty]

I would like to hear whether the practical suggestions provided in the EO/OO dialogues in terms of councils and anethemas would be acceptable to the Catholic side. I sense it would, but I don’t have any concrete evidence.

I don’t know what the proposed solutions for the Councils were between the EO/OO, so I can’t speak on them. As far as anathemazations go, I know that from a Catholic perspective the disciplinary canons from Councils are not dogmatic or infallible, so there would be no reason not to lift the anathemazations if the people in question were demonstrated to be truly orthodox.

Specifically speaking of Pope Dioscoros, I think it’s fair to say that he would easily be considered orthodox since he never confessed Eutychianism, and the Coptic Church unequivocally condemned the beliefs of Eutyches on its own not long after the Council of Chalcedon.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Gregory_I]

Father Give your blessing,

     I am very familiar with this dialogue and I have a real love in my heart for the Oriental Churches. I have extensively Read St. Severus of Antioch, Philoxenus, and some of the hymns by Saint Dioscous I (Who, as you know, was not deposed for his Orthodoxy, but for not showing up to chalcedon). Severus sounds ALOT Like Saint John of Damascus from a different angle.

Can you perhaps p(name removed by moderator)oint for me though what the Copts did not like about “in two natures”? Was it seen as a division after the union? But the Council affirmed the oneness of Christ in a single hypostasis, which is what Cyril said.

Also, do the Orientals not acknowledge that the POWER of willing (and not the act) is a power of the soul? Well, Christ took a fully Human Soul, therefore he must have assumed all its powers, and therefore he must have a divine will and human will united in a single Hypostasis (or Physis).

YET HE WILLED SINGLY and NOT as a multiplicity of beings. Would it be apporiate for YOU to say the One God-Man BEING as a Perfect and real hypostatic Union of Divine and Human Performed all actions singly with the singleness of a single entity but IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL THE PROPERTIES OF THE HUMANITY AND DIVINTY UNITED IN HIM ?

Also, slightly off topic, who has primacy in the Oriental COmmunion? The Patriarch of Alexandria, then Antioch, then who?

P.S. I am also trying to begin a devotion to St. Takla Heyamenout.

 

[Fr_Kyrillos]

Dear Gregory I,

The Lord bless you.

In general, the Alexandrians who rejected Chalcedon were strict Cyrillians. St. Cyril spoke of the “one incarnate nature of God the Word.” Even after the Formula of Reunion, we still see St. Cyril insisting on the “one incarnate nature” terminology:

St. Cyril of Alexandria (from “On Unity of Christ” - SVS Press)
[Cyril] We say there is one Son, and that He has one nature even when he is considered as having assumed flesh endowed with a rational soul. As I have already said, He has made the human element His own. And this is the way, NOT OTHERWISE, that we must consider that the same one is at once God and man.

[Questioner] Then he does not have two natures? that of God and that of man?

[Cyril] Well, Godhead is one thing, and manhood is another thing, considered in the perspective of their intrinsic beings, BUT in the case of Christ they came together in a mysterious and incomprehensible union without confusion or change. The manner of this union is entirely beyond conception.

[Questioner] But how from these two things, that is Godhead and manhood, can we envisage a single Christ?

[Cyril] I think in no other way than as things which come together with each other in an indivisible union beyond all conception, as I have already said.

[Questioner] Such as what?

[Cyril] Well, do we not say that a human being like ourselves is one, and has a single nature, even though he is not homogenous but really composed of two things, I mean soul and body?

[Questioner] We do.

[Cyril] And if someone takes the flesh on its own, separating its unity with its own soul, and divides what was one into two, have they not destroyed the proper conception of man?

[Questioner] But if we say that the Son (even considering his as incarnate)has a single nature surely in is inevitable that we must admit a confusion and a mixture here, as if he had hidden away a human nature in Himself. For what would the nature of man be in the face of the pre-eminence of the Godhead?

[Cyril] My friend, if anyone says that when we speak of the single nature of God the Word incarnate and made man, we imply that a confusion or mixture has occurred, then they are talking utter rubbish. No one could convict us of saying this by the force of proper arguments…

Thus, the “in two natures” was taken to be an innovation or a sublime form of Nestorianism. Again, for St. Cyril (and Sts. Dioscorus, Severus, et. al) nature (we are speaking of the word “physis” not “ousia”) meant “hypostasis,” Therefore, to say Christ is one person in two natures was taken to mean two ‘hyposatases’ after the union.

St. Cyril insisted on the “hypostatic union” - a perfect and natural union between the Hypostasis of the Word and human nature. The humanity became His own, or as we say in our Liturgy, “He made it ONE with His divinity”, not that humanity ceased to be humanity, but it is ONLY in the union that the humanity of Christ came to be. There is no concept of Christ’s humanity apart from the hypostatic union. Therefore, St. Cyril insisted that after the union, there can be no speak of two in Christ (except in contemplation), since the union (the hypostatic, natural union) removes all division in Christ, although the properties of humanity and divinity are never confused. As such to say Christ IS two natures or IN two natures, according to non-Chalcedonians, does injury to the concept of the hypostatic union. FROM or OF two natures does NOT imply a time before the union but only speaks of the union itself - it is a union OF or FROM two natures, a hypostatic union. As such, since the two have come together into a hypostatic union, a natural union, then we only speak of the one incarnate hypostasis of Christ or His one Incarnate nature.

This is consistent with what is sometimes called the “Logos-Sarx” Christology - the focus is on God MADE Man. Antiochian Christology could be labelled as “Logos-Anthropos” Christology - the focus is on God AND Man.

Will post some thoughts of St. Severus…

 

[Fr_Kyrillos]

St. Severus:

Enough has, I think, been said about essence and hypostasis. But the name ‘nature’ is sometimes taken in place of essence’, sometimes in place of hypostasis. For even the whole of mankind we call comprehensively ‘nature’, as it is indeed written: -For all natures of beasts and of birds, and of reptiles and of things that are in the water are subjected and are made subject to human nature-+: and again we speak of one nature in reference to a single man, Paul for example or Peter, or maybe James. Where therefore we name all mankind one nature, we use the name ‘nature’ generically in place of ‘essence’; but, where we say that there is one nature of Paul, the name ‘nature’ is employed in place of ‘individual hypostasis’. So also we call the Holy Trinity one nature, employing the term ‘nature’ in place of the general designation ‘essence’; as Gregory the Theologian the bishop of Nazianzus also said in the sermon on the Holy Pentecost: 'Confess the Trinity to be of one Godhead, my friends; or, if you like, of one nature; and we will ask for you from the Spirit the expression ‘God’. But, when we say ‘one incarnate nature of God the Word’, as Athanasius the prop of the truth and the apostolic faith said in the books on the Incarnation of the Word, we use ‘nature’ in place of ‘individual designation’, denoting the one hypostasis of the Word himself, like that of Peter also or of Paul, or of any other single man. Wherefore also, when we say ‘one nature which became incarnate’, we do not say it absolutely, but by adding 'one nature of the Word himself clearly denote the one hypostasis. But the very men who blasphemously call the one Christ two natures use the name ‘nature’ in place of ‘individual designation’, saying that the Word of God is one nature, and the man as they say from Mary another. For they do not reach such a height of fatuity as to say that they are using the name ‘natures’ in place of ‘general designation’, I mean in the same sense as essence: for, if the Holy Trinity is one nature, and all mankind one nature, in the same sense as anything which is shown to be so on this principle, the Holy Trinity will be found (to say a very absurd thing) to have become incarnate in all mankind, that is the human race.

 

[Fr_Kyrillos]

and St. Severus again…

Do you call the flesh possessing an intelligent soul, which God the Word voluntarily united to himself hypostatically without any change, a specimen or a generality, that is one soul-possessing hypostasis, or the whole human generality? It is manifest that, if you wish to give a right-minded answer, you will say one soul-possessing body. Accordingly we say that from it and the hypostasis of God the Word the ineffable union was made: for the whole of the Godhead and the whole of humanity in general were not joined in a natural union, but special hypostases. And the holy and wise Cyril plainly witnesses to us in that in the third chapter or anathema he spoke thus: -‘Whoever divides the one Christ into hypostases after the union, associating them in association of honour or of authority only, and not rather in junction of natural union, let him be anathema’. And again in the Scholia the same says: ‘Hence we shall learn that the hypostases have remained without confusion’. Accordingly the natural union was not of generalities, but of hypostases of which Emmanuel was composed. And do not think that hypostases in all cases have a distinct person assigned to them, so that we should be thought, like the impious Nestorius, to speak of a union of persons, and to run counter to the God-inspired words of the holy Cyril, who in the second letter to the same Nestorius speaks thus: ‘But that it should be so will in no way help the right principle of faith, even if some men spread about a union of persons. For the Scripture did not say that God the Word united to himself the person of a man, but that he became flesh’. When hypostases subsist by individual subsistence, as for instance, those of Peter and of Paul, whom the authority of the apostleship united, then there will be a union of persons and a brotherly association, not a natural junction of one hypostasis made up out of two that is free from confusion. For this is what those who adhere to the foul doctrines of Nestorius are convicted of saying with regard to the divine Humanization also. They first make the babe exist by himself separately, so that a distinct person is even assigned to him, and then by attaching God the Word to him impiously introduce a union of persons into the faith. This Gregory the Theologian also rejected by saying in the great letter to Cledonius: ‘Whoever says that the man was formed, and God afterwards crept in is condemned: for this is not a birth of God, but an escape from birth’. But, when hypostases do not subsist in individual subsistence, as also in the case of the man among us, I mean him who is composed of soul and body, but are without confusion recognized in union and composition, being distinguished by the intellect only and displaying one hypostasis made out of two, such a union none will be so uninstructed as to call one of persons. Though the hypostasis of God the Word existed before, or rather was before all ages and times, being eternally with God both the Father and the Holy Spirit, yet still the flesh possessing an intelligent soul which he united to him did not exist before the union with him, nor was a distinct person assigned to it. And the great Athanasius bears witness, who in the letter to Jovinian the king says: ‘As soon as there is flesh, there is at once flesh of God the Word; and, as soon as there is soul-possessing and rational flesh, there is at once soul-possessing rational flesh of God the Word: for in him also it acquired subsistence’. And the holy Cyril also testifies, addressing the impious Diodorus as follows: ‘My excellent man, I say that you are shooting forth unlearned words much affected with what is abhorrent. For the holy body was from Mary, but still at the very beginning of its concretion or subsistence in the womb it was made holy, as the body of Christ, and no one can see any time at which it was not his, but rather simple as you say and the same as this flesh of other men’. Following these God-inspired words of the holy fathers, and confessing our Lord Jesus Christ to be of two natures, regard the distinct hypostases themselves of which Emmanuel was composed, and the natural junction of these, and do not go up to generalities and essences, of the whole of the Godhead and humanity in general: for it is manifest that the whole of the Godhead is seen in the Trinity, and humanity in general draws the mind to the whole human race. How therefore is it anything but ridiculous and impious for us to say that the Trinity was united in hypostasis to the race of mankind, when the holy Scriptures say more plainly than a trumpet, ‘The Word became flesh and dwelt in us’, that is that one of the three hypostases who was rationally and hypostatically united to soul-possessing flesh? But neither do we deny, as we have also written in other letters on different occasions, that we often find men designating hypostases by the name of essence. Hence Gregory the Theologian named hypostatic union union in essence in the letter to Cledonius which we have just mentioned, speaking thus: ‘Whoever says that he worked by grace as in a prophet, but not that he was united and fashioned together with him in essence, may he be bereft of the excellent operation, or rather may he be full of the contrary’. And the wise Cyril in the second letter to Succensus calls the manhood which was hypostatically united to God the Word essence, saying: "For, if after saying ‘one nature of the Word’ we had stopped and not added ‘incarnate’, but set the dispensation as it were outside, they would perhaps in a way have a plausible argument when they pretend to ask, ‘Where is the perfection in manhood? or how was the essence after our model made up?’ But, since the perfection in manhood and the characteristic of our essence has been introduced by the fact that we said ‘incarnate’, let them be silent, since they have leaned upon the staff of a reed

 

[Fr_Kyrillos]

Regarding the issue of Wills, H.E. Metropolitan Bishoy addresses the issue in one of his lectures:

Part 1 of 2

In our agreement with the Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches, a point was mentioned concerning the will of the Logos. In our Interpretation of the First Agreed Statement on Christology on page 6 you find the following:

The Will of the Incarnate Logos: The real union of the divine with the human. The agreed statement gave a very clear solution for the debate concerning will of Jesus Christ as follows. The real union of the divine with the human with all properties and functions of the uncreated divine nature, including natural will and natural energy, inseparably and unconfusedly united with created human nature with its properties and functions, including natural will and natural energy. It is the Logos incarnate Who is the subject of all willing and acting of Jesus Christ.

Jesus said to the Father, “My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?” (Mat. 27:46), and in His prayer in the Mount of Olives he said, “O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.” (Mat. 26:39).

We have to make a distinction between what we can call natural will and personal will. The natural will is the desire, while the personal will is the decision. We all believe that Jesus Christ is one single person not a composite person from two persons, but only one single person Who is the Person of the Word of God, the Logos. It is not normal for one person to have two personal wills, otherwise he will be two persons; and this is a Nestorian concept. The monothelites, are those who believe in a single will in Jesus Christ, they were anathematized by the Chalcedonian churches.

Our church also does not accept this concept that the natural human will was dissolved. The natural divine will, natural human will were united without confusion and without mixture. To say ‘without confusion’, means that the natural human will of Jesus Christ was not eliminated because of the union. Does this mean that Jesus Christ had two wills? It is impossible to say that He had two wills, otherwise He is going to be considered two persons. That’s why we should define what we mean by the word ‘will’. The same problem concerning the natures emerges with ‘will’. He has His natural divine will united to His natural human will, but the two natural wills continued to exist in the union, in complete harmony without contradiction.

What is the natural will and what is the personal will?

The natural will is the desire; the personal will is the decision.
You can say, ‘I want to drink, but I don’t want to drink’; ‘I have a will to go, but I don’t will to go.’ What does this mean? If you are fasting you say ‘I am willing to drink, but I shall not drink’? It means that ‘I desire to drink but I decided not to drink’. So, there is difference between the natural will and personal will. The personal will works with the decision, while the natural will works with the desire.

As a human being Jesus Christ felt hunger and thirst while He was fasting on the mount. He naturally desired to drink or to eat, because His divinity did not eliminate the properties of His humanity; the energies and the natural will were not eliminated. Only tendency to sin was absolutely not in Him. He never had a desire for sin - not to desire and resist; no never. He was absolutely holy and infallible. However, all the other human desires were in Him. One of these desires as any human being was that he does not like to die. This normal desire was present in Him when He was approaching the cross. But, obeying the Father, as a person He is the second Person of the Holy Trinity; He is free, but He has (name removed by moderator)ut to His personal decision from His human desire and divine desire. His divine desire is identical with the desire of the Father. The three hypostaseis are three persons, three in their will, loving each other, but they have the same will and the same desire. Three in number, but one in nature. Naturally, whatever the Father desires, the Son desires, and the Holy Spirit desires.

 

[Fr_Kyrillos]

Part 2 of 2 (Metropolitan Bishoy)

Are the natural wills identical? No, because if they are identical this means that we are Eutychean and that there is confusion, since the natural desire of His humanity was absorbed in His divinity. This is the heresy of Monotheletism. If the two natural energies and natural wills are reduced to one natural will, this is the Eutychean heresy. Saint Cyril of Alexandria said that the differences of the properties of the two natures were not destroyed because of the union.

“O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.”. In other words: O Father if You want You may let this cup pass from Me, but not as I desire but as Your will which is also My will, As You and Me decided. Let it not be My desire but Yours which is Your decision and My decision.

Jesus Christ has one personal will because He is one person. Concerning the natural will we can say that they are two in one, since the two natural wills are not mixed or cancelled, but they are in a perfect union, thus they are not separated. His human desire and His divine desire are not separated. Why? Because He never followed His human desires unless it was accepted by His divine desire; and that is the full obedience of Jesus Christ to the Father. Why do we say ‘to the Father’ and not ‘to His divinity’? Because if we say that He is obedient to His divinity, this will mean that He is two personalities. When I say, ‘He’, this refers to the person. So I cannot say that He is obedient to Himself; that is illogical. When we mention His obedience, we always refer to the Father; and the Father is automatically has the same desire and the same will of the Son. It is wrong theologically to say that He was obedient to His divinity. This is a Nestorian expression which is already condemned by Saint Cyril of Alexandria in his twelve anathemas. Anything that leads to the concept of two persons, is Nestorian. We should be very careful when we tackle this issue. In the Greek text it is: “Let it be not My desire, but Yours.” In Arabic it is, “Not My desire, but Your desire” In Greek the word was not repeated when he was referring to the Father but said, “But Yours”. The core of the problem is that He said, “My will”. The Greek term has two meanings, desire and decision. So scientifically speaking, the Greek text allows this interpretation.

In the first agreement the following is stated:

The real union of the divine with the human, with all properties and functions of the uncreated divine nature, including natural will and natural energy inseparably and unconfusedly united with the created human nature with all its properties and functions, including natural will and natural energy…It is the Logos incarnate Who is the subject of all willing and acting of Jesus Christ.

In the second agreement, it is more clear:

The one hypostasis of the Logos incarnate is always Who is acting and willing…

It is the Logos incarnate Who is the subject of all willing and acting of Jesus Christ. In other words all willing and acting are from one person. But, sometimes He acts according to His divinity; and sometimes according to His humanity. Thus the human natural will did not cease to exist, and also divine energies and human energies did not cease to exist.

What does this mean? It means that sometimes He did things from His divine energy and sometimes He did things from His human energy. When He accepted death, He accepted it according to His humanity. When He destroyed Hades, He destroyed it according to His divinity, and so on. The source of the energy was continuous in Him. What is human was present and that’s why He fell under the cross; because His human energy continued in the union, without being separated from His divine energy. When He raised the dead from the tombs, after His crucifixion, this was done through His divine energy. So, the two energies continued to exist in the union.

Simply, the two natural wills continued to exist in the union. The two natural energies continued to exist in the union, without being separated. One person was willing and acting – the same person. Sometimes His will according to His humanity is to eat, and according to His divinity with the Father He is content to do it, so He eats according to His human desire with the consent of the Father. The motive of eating comes from His human desire, not His divine; because divinity does not hunger.

 

[Fr_Kyrillos]

I don’t know what the proposed solutions for the Councils were between the EO/OO, so I can’t speak on them. As far as anathemazations go, I know that from a Catholic perspective the disciplinary canons from Councils are not dogmatic or infallible, so there would be no reason not to lift the anathemazations if the people in question were demonstrated to be truly orthodox.

Specifically speaking of Pope Dioscoros, I think it’s fair to say that he would easily be considered orthodox since he never confessed Eutychianism, and the Coptic Church unequivocally condemned the beliefs of Eutyches on its own not long after the Council of Chalcedon.

Peace and God bless!

From:

orthodoxunity.org/state02.php

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).

1. Both families accept the first three Ecumenical Councils, which form our common heritage. In relation to the four later Councils of the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox state that for them the above points 1-7 are the teachings also of the four later Councils of the Orthodox Church, while the Oriental Orthodox consider this statement of the Orthodox as their interpretation. With this understanding, the Oriental Orthodox respond to it positively.

In relation to the teaching of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of the Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox agree that the theology and practice of the veneration of icons taught by that Council are in basic agreement with the teaching and practice of the Oriental Orthodox from ancient times, long before the convening of the Council, and that we have no disagreement in this regard.

and

1. 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 anathemas and condemnations will be consummated on the basis that the Councils and Fathers previously anathematized or condemned are not heretical.

We therefore recommend to our Churches the following practical steps :

A. The Orthodox should lift all anathemas and condemnations against all Oriental Orthodox Councils and Fathers whom they have anathematised or condemned in the past.

B. The Oriental Orthodox should at the same time lift all anathemas and condemnations against all Orthodox Councils and fathers, whom they have anathematised or condemned in the past.

C. The manner in which the anathemas are to be lifted should be decided by the Churches individually.

Trusting in the power of the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, Unity and Love, we submit this Agreed Statement and Recommendations to our venerable Churches for their consideration and action, praying that the same Spirit will lead us to that unity for which our Lord prayed and prays.

 

[Gregory_I]

Father, give your blessing,

    This makes it wonderfully clear, thank you! I was wondering though Father, do the Orientals see themselves in communion as the One Holy Catholic and apostolic Church, do they acknowledge any Primacy amongst themselves, and in what Order would that Primacy be? Alexandria, Antioch, Armenia, Ethiopia, India?

BTW, do only Byzantines cross themselves from right to left? What is the MAJORITY use in the eastern churches for making the sign of the cross?

Oh, P.S. Does the Oriental monastic tradition destinguish essence and energies, and if so, do the monks practice hesychasm?

 

[Fr_Kyrillos]

Father, give your blessing,

    This makes it wonderfully clear, thank you! I was wondering though Father, do the Orientals see themselves in communion as the One Holy Catholic and apostolic Church, do they acknowledge any Primacy amongst themselves, and in what Order would that Primacy be? Alexandria, Antioch, Armenia, Ethiopia, India?

BTW, do only Byzantines cross themselves from right to left? What is the MAJORITY use in the eastern churches for making the sign of the cross?

Oh, P.S. Does the Oriental monastic tradition destinguish essence and energies, and if so, do the monks practice hesychasm?

Dear Gregory I,

Of course, as is the case with Catholics or Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox would consider that they have best kept the authentic apostolic faith of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. However, the Oriental Churches tend to be very ecumenically minded and have a strong desire for Christian unity between the apostolic churches.

The Patriarch of Alexandria does enjoy a primacy of honor among the OO though I can’t say I know enough about the historical reasons for this to give an intelligent reason.

All of the OO cross themselves from left to right as do Latin Catholics. I believe only in the Byzantine tradition (not sure about Maronites) do they perform the sign of the cross from right to left.

The OO churches would not necessarily have a problem with the essence/energy distinction though I do not see that they are authentically part of our tradition. In Sts. Athanasius and Cyril the focus seems to be on deification and sanctification through Grace and the appropriation of the Divine Life without the use of the essence/energies distinction of St. Gregory Palamas.

I would certainly believe that the desert traditions of Egypt were the foundation of contemplative and mystical prayer, Lectio Divina, and many other wonderful traditions that reached East and West. The Jesus Prayer would have originated in some form in the deserts of Egypt though I don’t see it as “the” exclusive prayer, but rather to be included among other practices, especially the recitation of the psalms and other “arrow prayers”. However, the later hesychastic focus on visions of the uncreated light would seem to me to be something that developed more uniquely in the Byzantine tradition.

God bless,
Fr. Kyrillos

 

[Ghosty]

Fr. Kyrillos: I honestly don’t see anything in the proposal you posted that would be unacceptable to the Catholic Communion as I understand it. In fact, we don’t have any “official list” of Ecumenical Councils to begin with (in my particular Church we speak of Seven, for example, but most Latins typically speak of 21). If there is agreement with the substance of the various Councils, I think that’s all that’s really important.

I would very much like to see our Communions move more towards union, but I understand the Papacy especially is a big issue. Ironically, given what you’ve shown about the agreements between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, and how none of those points would be very contentious within the Catholic Communion, it seems we’d not be far off from Communion if it weren’t for questions of Papal Primacy.

I pray that we can continue to work on this critical point in loving brotherhood, and not as a battle to “win the argument”.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Gregory_I]

Well, isn’t it true that, After Rome, Alexandria was one of the most centralized Sees and has come pretty darn near the Pope of ROme’s scope of authority in its own sphere? I thought I remembered reading it some church history books, that the Copts, in particular among the churches of the east, probably have the least issue with the Papacy , just Gauging by how much they love, venerate, and respect their own pope and patriarch.

Doesn’t the Alexandrian pope exert a huge influence on the coptic church that is somewhat comparable to the ROman pope?

Oh, and I would assume the Patriarch and Pope of ALexandria is protos in the oriental communion because:

1. The traditional enumeration of the Sees is Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and then LATER Jerusalem.
2. The Coptic church Deposed Pope St. Leo for his “pseudo nestorianism”
3. The Pope of Rome did not Ratify the 28th canon of Chalcedon, making Constantinople mistress of the Churches of the east, NOT DUE TO A DESIRE FOR POWER: But because Nicea lists the order of the patriarchates as Rome, Alexandria, ANtioch. It says nothing about constantinople and Leo did not wish to go against the holy canons of the first ecumenical council. His act was for the proper respect for tradition, not politics.
4. Therefore, having severed ties with both Rome and COnstantinople, The Primacy of the Petrine office would devolve to the Patriarch of Alexandria, from their own perspective. And all churches in communion would recognize the petrine office in the Patriarch and Pope of Alexandria.

Is that right?

 

[Alexander_Roman]

As I read the OO-EO documents, upon formal reunion, there would be no need for the OO to liturgically commemorate the other four Councils since they were not present at them and since those councils dealt with issues that arose in the western Roman-Byzantine provinces of the Church. They would only be required not to condemn them as heterodox.

St Dioscoros was actually the nephew of St Cyril of Alexandria and he clung tenaciously to his uncle’s (quite Orthodox) Christological terminology.

As for Eutyches, both EO and OO use “Eutychian” to describe Monophysism. In fact, the monk Eutyches never denied the reality of our Lord’s Humanity in any way. He just couldn’t bring himself to acknowledge Christ was consubstantial with “us” sinful as we are.

He had problem accepting that Christ was consubstantial with His Mother though. And if that could be finally established, Eutyches himself need not be condemned as a heretic.

Alex

 

[Fr_Kyrillos]

Fr. Kyrillos: I honestly don’t see anything in the proposal you posted that would be unacceptable to the Catholic Communion as I understand it. In fact, we don’t have any “official list” of Ecumenical Councils to begin with (in my particular Church we speak of Seven, for example, but most Latins typically speak of 21). If there is agreement with the substance of the various Councils, I think that’s all that’s really important.

I would very much like to see our Communions move more towards union, but I understand the Papacy especially is a big issue. Ironically, given what you’ve shown about the agreements between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, and how none of those points would be very contentious within the Catholic Communion, it seems we’d not be far off from Communion if it weren’t for questions of Papal Primacy.

I pray that we can continue to work on this critical point in loving brotherhood, and not as a battle to “win the argument”.

Peace and God bless!

Amen! Yes, I see the issue of the numbering of the councils less of an obstacle in Catholic/OO relations than it seems to be in EO/OO relations. For many EO, the numbering of the councils as seven is in and of itself quite important and at times appears just as important as the faith expressed in those councils. Thus, ecumenical relations seems to have hit a roadblock on this point, but we continue to pray for the Lord’s will.

The Papacy does seem to be the most important point in the dialogue between Catholics and all the Orthodox churches but I see in His Holiness Pope Benedict a real genuine partner in our relations and so we must remain hopeful.

In the area I live (Orange County) we recently started a wonderful practice of gathering clergy from both the Catholic and Orthodox churches to meet once a month for dinner…to simply get to know one another and enjoy fellowship. These activities are very helpful and cause us to long for union even more.

In Christ,
Fr. Kyrillos

 

[Fr_Kyrillos]

Well, isn’t it true that, After Rome, Alexandria was one of the most centralized Sees and has come pretty darn near the Pope of ROme’s scope of authority in its own sphere? I thought I remembered reading it some church history books, that the Copts, in particular among the churches of the east, probably have the least issue with the Papacy , just Gauging by how much they love, venerate, and respect their own pope and patriarch.

Doesn’t the Alexandrian pope exert a huge influence on the coptic church that is somewhat comparable to the ROman pope?

Oh, and I would assume the Patriarch and Pope of ALexandria is protos in the oriental communion because:

1. The traditional enumeration of the Sees is Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and then LATER Jerusalem.
2. The Coptic church Deposed Pope St. Leo for his “pseudo nestorianism”
3. The Pope of Rome did not Ratify the 28th canon of Chalcedon, making Constantinople mistress of the Churches of the east, NOT DUE TO A DESIRE FOR POWER: But because Nicea lists the order of the patriarchates as Rome, Alexandria, ANtioch. It says nothing about constantinople and Leo did not wish to go against the holy canons of the first ecumenical council. His act was for the proper respect for tradition, not politics.
4. Therefore, having severed ties with both Rome and COnstantinople, The Primacy of the Petrine office would devolve to the Patriarch of Alexandria, from their own perspective. And all churches in communion would recognize the petrine office in the Patriarch and Pope of Alexandria.

Is that right?

Dear Gregory I,

I am not sure if your questions were addressed to me. However, there are many more people on this board that have a much better grasp of the history of primacy and how it was exercised at different times and in different places.

I do know, though, that in a spirit of love and humility, we can work through these issues. My personal opinion is that the Church should look to try to apply the important principles that were displayed in the early church and apply them to our current situation, not necessarily trying to return things to the way they were in the 3rd or 4th century. The Church has the power to bind and loose, to revise old canons and create new ones if necessary. Do we believe that the Holy Spirit is still active in the Church? Why should we assume that the Church today is less activated by the Holy Spirit than in the 3rd century to bring us to the saving truth of our Lord Jesus Christ?

In Christ,
Fr. Kyrillos

 

[Ghosty]

In the area I live (Orange County) we recently started a wonderful practice of gathering clergy from both the Catholic and Orthodox churches to meet once a month for dinner…to simply get to know one another and enjoy fellowship. These activities are very helpful and cause us to long for union even more.

What a wonderful idea! I really think that activities like this do more to build unity than high-level committees and meetings. When Apostolic Christians gather together like that it’s hard to maintain the mental blocks that we easily erect in our minds when we keep to “our own”. In a world where there are so many other visible religions, and even large groups of non-Apostolic Christians (especially in the U.S.) our similarities stand out all the more when we gather together. I pray that we see more events like this one you describe.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Alexander_Roman]

Well, isn’t it true that, After Rome, Alexandria was one of the most centralized Sees and has come pretty darn near the Pope of ROme’s scope of authority in its own sphere? I thought I remembered reading it some church history books, that the Copts, in particular among the churches of the east, probably have the least issue with the Papacy , just Gauging by how much they love, venerate, and respect their own pope and patriarch.

Doesn’t the Alexandrian pope exert a huge influence on the coptic church that is somewhat comparable to the ROman pope?

Oh, and I would assume the Patriarch and Pope of ALexandria is protos in the oriental communion because:

1. The traditional enumeration of the Sees is Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and then LATER Jerusalem.
2. The Coptic church Deposed Pope St. Leo for his “pseudo nestorianism”
3. The Pope of Rome did not Ratify the 28th canon of Chalcedon, making Constantinople mistress of the Churches of the east, NOT DUE TO A DESIRE FOR POWER: But because Nicea lists the order of the patriarchates as Rome, Alexandria, ANtioch. It says nothing about constantinople and Leo did not wish to go against the holy canons of the first ecumenical council. His act was for the proper respect for tradition, not politics.
4. Therefore, having severed ties with both Rome and COnstantinople, The Primacy of the Petrine office would devolve to the Patriarch of Alexandria, from their own perspective. And all churches in communion would recognize the petrine office in the Patriarch and Pope of Alexandria.

Is that right?

The Pope of Alexandria was the first patriarch of the Church to adopt that title “pope” and had direct jurisdiction over all of Africa, and over each and every church and priest in Christian Africa. He was also sometimes called “the New Pharaoh” and “Ecumenical Archbishop.”

And the Pope of Alexandria was all this at a time when the Bishop of Rome barely had immediate jurisdiction over Italy (leaving aside his authority as first bishop etc.)

In Christian Africa, there was Alexandria and then there was “the rest of Africa.” This is why tension ensued when Constantinople a “Ioannis come lately” took over as the first See in the Christian East - Alexandria certainly saw itself as deserving of that title (and who could really argue against that?).

It was St Mark, the close assistant of St Peter, who founded the See of Alexandria which could claim, therefore, a Petrine connection. ALL the popes of Alexandria until now have been canonized as saints and are so venerated by the Alexandrian Churches (Coptic, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Nubian etc.).

The issue of the primacy of Alexandria with respect to Rome and Constantinople ended abruptly after the split as a result of Chalcedon.

The Alexandrian tradition is a most beautiful and spiritually vibrant and moving one. It lies at the centre of Christanity’s historical development and Apostolic roots.

As for Pope Leo, the Church of Alexandria removed a line in her liturgy that was critical of Leo for the sake of ecumenical openness.

Alex

 

[Gregory_I]

My Miaphysite friends, what do you make of this in the Catholic encyclopedia under “Monophysitism” :

" In speaking of one activity, one will, one knowledge in Christ, Severus was reducing Monophysitism to pure heresy just as much as did the Niobites or the Tritheists whom he certainly held in horror; for he refused to distinguish between the human faculties of Christ—activity, will, intellect—and the Divine Nature itself. This is not Apollinarianism, but is so like it that the distinction is theoretical rather than real. It is the direct consequence of the use of Apollinarian formulae. St. Cyril did not go so far; and in this Monothelite error we may see the essence of the heresy of the Monophysites; for all fell into this snare, except the Tritheists, since it was the logical result of their mistaken point of view. "

SO the refusal to cknowledge two physis ina single hypostasis results in the inability to say whether the human activity or divine activity is at work. And apollinaris of Laodicea said that the Word replaced the Soul in Christ, and all activities were merely the activities of God clothed in flesh.

THis is a salient point. How would Miaphysites respond to this?