Non-Chalcedonians-Orientals, reply

[Fr_Kyrillos]

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?

I would simply respond by saying that the above indicates that one has not really studied the Christology of St. Severus. I don’t see an actual quote by St. Severus. For a nice two-part article providing a very clear overview of St. Severus, I would recommend read Fr. Peter Farrington’s articles found here:

orthodoxunity.org/article02.php

orthodoxunity.org/article03.php

Again, it is clear in all the writings of the non-chalcedonian fathers that there is a real confession of the consubstantiality of Christ’s humanity to ours. If one takes the position that there is no physis without hypostasis, then how can one say Christ has two physis without having two hypostases? We come back to the problem of language and especially the word physis.

In Christ,
Fr. Kyrillos

 

[Gregory_I]

So what Christological school has its ascendency in Orthodoxy and Catholicism? The Antiochene or Alexandrene?

 

[Ghosty]

So what Christological school has its ascendency in Orthodoxy and Catholicism? The Antiochene or Alexandrene?

It depends entirely on which groups you’re talking about. The Byzantine/Eastern Orthodox tradition is very strictly Antiochene, while the Oriental Orthodox are Alexandrene. In the Catholic Church it depends on which tradition the particular Church draws from, but the Antiochene school predominates. The Catholic Communion isn’t as strict as the Eastern Orthodox about absolute adherence to a particular theological school, and I don’t know how strict things are in the Oriental Orthodox Communion.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Gregory_I]

Oh, I suppose I meant Roman Catholic. Does the ROman School of SPirituality tend more toward the Antiochene or Alexandrene? Or is it a good via Media?

Oh, and Since the Church of Georgia used to belong to the kingdom of armenia and has oriental roots in the Armenian apostolic church, would you say ITS Christological school would tend more towards Antioch or Alexandria?

 

[Leo_The_Great]

It would seem the Roman Catholic church is Antiochene.

I have a question, is there ANY evidence the Trisagion was considered a Christological hymn Before its modification by Peter the Fuller? Or before Chalcedon?

 

[Gregory_I]

Ok, did I just read this right: THe Coptic church teaches abortion is wrong, yet somehow does not have any canons on it and does not take an official position one way or the other?

 

[mathewjoseph]

What do you say about the following :

Well according to St Chrysostom the successor of St Peter is Ignatius
Quote:
Ignatius of Antioch a “successor of Peter, on whom, after Peter, the government of the church devolved”

And in another place Chrysostom says this:
Quote:
: “Since I have named Peter, I am reminded of another Peter [Flavian, bishop of Antioch], our common father and teacher, who has inherited as well the virtues as the chair of Peter. Yea, for this is the privilege of this city of ours [Antioch], to have first (ἐν ἀρχῇ) had the coryphaeus of the apostles for its teacher. For it was proper that the city, where the Christian name originated, should receive the first of the apostles for its pastor.

 

[Gregory_I]

I agree. BUt it is different for an apostle to consecrate a bishop for one see and to have another appointed as their personal successor in another see. It would seem the latter has the fullness of succession, while the former is of apostolic appointment. So The Bishop of ROme is the Successor of Peter in the Fullest sense, and Antioch and Alexandria are of Petrine origin.