Severus of Antioch and the Oriental Catholic

[ronyodish]

Continued…

As for Cyril and our Patriarch Delly’s comment on him mentioned by Murtad, I do not have the sermon and the context of the sermon with me, so I can not comment in detail on this, except to say that whatever has been said, I do not believe that the Patriarch has anathematized Cyril at all. It would actually make no sense for him to do so, because the ACE herself has removed, in 1997, all the curses and harmful references in regard to Cyril. In his book, The Church of the East, Mar Bawai Soro explains this on page 282:

In 1997, the Holy Synod of the Assyrians of the Church of the East unilaterally decided to remove all curses and harmful references concerning both Cyril and Severus from the Church of the East’s liturgical books and official publications. This risky initiative was undertaken with the full realization that it may not be reciprocated. All parties to this controversy are challenged today to realize that, like Cyril and Severus, for 1500 years they have affirmed the impassibility of the divine nature in Christ and recognized the full, integral reality of his manhood. At the same time Theodore and Nestorius have always insisted on the oneness of the person of Christ and at no time have separated his divine nature from the complete human nature, which the Word took for his own. The legitimate fears expressed by each party to this dispute, as each side saw the weakness in the other’s terminology, have simply never been realized. That is why it is time for all Christendom to move on towards a new reality – one that is a truer realization of the Kingdom of God. Because of our past histories and actions, we have faced an increasingly hostile world divided against ourselves in contradiction of our Lord’s fervent prayer, “That they may be one” (John 17:21). If the gates of Hell do not prevail over our embattled segment of Christ’s body, it will only be because we have found the humility to confess our failure of love and the strength to reach out to one another in brotherly embrace.

Now, I would like to say that Monophysitism is not Miaphysitism. Classical Monophysitism, which denies the human soul in Christ, and further states that the human nature has been swallowed up by the divine nature, is a heresy that has been condemned by the Miaphysites themselves. Both the teaching of Appolonarius and also Eutyches have been condemned. The Miaphysites affirm a human soul in Christ, and in their expression of the Union, what they call the “one nature of the Word of God incarnate” (phrase used by Cyril), they do not confess any confusion or change to the Divinity and the Humanity in their Unity.

Having said the above, I as a Chaldean, do not use the above expression, nor do I really have any great veneration for Cyril, but I neither recognize the above expression as heresy, nor do I consider Cyril a heretic. Being in the Catholic Communion, I do not consider as heretics the saints of my various and different Catholic brethren, otherwise, what would be the point of me being in the Communion in the first place? So, while I am not a fan of the way Nestorius was treated by Cyril, I do not, thereby, consider Cyril “the worker of evil” or that “there is prepared for him everlasting fire, the recompense of his labors”, phrases which were used by an ancient historian of the Church of the East towards Cyril. It is not my preference to use the terminology of Cyril, but those Catholics that do use it, I do not consider them Appolonarian heretics, nor do I consider Cyril as a subscriber of the Appolonarian heresy.

So, no, Catholics can not bring, and are not allowed to bring, their previous bitterness and hatreds with them into the Catholic Communion. If a particular tradition is allowed in the Communion, then it ought to be respected by everyone else in the Communion. It need not be utilized by everyone else, since we are not a uniformed Communion, but there has to be mutual respect, a basic level of appreciation and recognition of each other as Catholic brethren of one Apostolic Faith expressed through many diverse and ancient traditions.

God bless,

Rony

 

[Ghosty]

I am baptised into the Chaldean Catholic Church from Jaafari Islam, so I am a Catholic forever as the sacrament of baptism cannot be revoked. What is your authority to declare other Catholics as not true Catholics? You are not my Bishop who is the only person who can ex-communicate me.

Ronyodish gave a much fuller and better response than I am able to give, but I will say a few short things.

I am not excommunicating you, I am saying that in anathemizing St. Cyril you anathemize yourself. I’m not judging your guilt in this regard, I’m merely pointing out that to anathemize St. Cyril and his teachings is to anathemize the Catholic Faith itself, including the Faith of the Chaldean Church. Perhaps you don’t understand St. Cyril’s teaching, and that is understandable but it is also something that should be rectified.

Seeing as how even the non-Catholic Assyrians no longer anathemize St. Cyril, it seems that this is an area you should study up on a bit more before hurling condemnations against Holy Fathers of the Catholic Church. It is one thing to disagree with St. Cyril’s approach and terminology, but another entirely to say his teaching is heretical when in fact it forms a cornerstone of Catholicism.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Addai]

Assalam Alaikum Addai.

Can you share with me, which Assyrian Church were you a member of ?
Is it one of these three ?

1. New Calendar sect @ Assyrian Church of the East (HH Mar Dinkha IV)
2. Old Calendar sect @ Ancient Church of the East (HH Mar Addai II)
3. Protestant sect @ Nestorian Church of the East (a.k.a. Assembly of Jerusalem)
   f.

I don’t think its any of the there. This group descended came from the missions work of the Anglican Church when they assisted the Assyrian Church in remissionizing India in areas like Trichur that were decimated by Tamerlane centuries ago. Essentially the Anglicans “loaned” bishops and priests that studied the liturgy of Mari and Addai and received other training and helped to re-seed these areas with churches. From this connection a line of Apostolic Succession developed and still persists (although has mostly died out except for some cases) where you can have English speaking or American priests that the apostolic lines and training in the liturgy but almost no other real experience in the overall Tradition.

QUOTE
Let us agree to disagree, my brother but do you happen to know how Coptic Pope Cyril persecuted Syrian Patriarch Nestorios?
QUOTE

Oh yes I was a Nestorian Church sympathizer long before I was a monophyte.

QUOTE
The New Advent is just an encyclopedia and so it is not infallible. Only His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI is infallible and BTW, the Pope has praised his predecessor Mar Leo, Arch Bishop of Old Rome for ex-communicating Cyril’s successor, who was Dioscoros for teaching Mia Physis. The reason why Cyril was not directly ex-communicated at Chalcedon was mainly to preserve the unity of the Church. Besides, sainthood does not necessarily imply that a canonised person’s dogma is pious.

Mar Leo’s best friend Mar Flavian suffered martyrdom because of the actions of Cyril’s nephew, Dioscoros who murdered him on orders from the tyrant Cyril himself.
QUOTE

But your missing a point… Who is a saint, is a matter of public record it is celebrated every year in the liturgy etc. Most Church’s that have a saint, especially someone like this tend to celebrate that day once a year. They mention him one part of the prayer service etc. It would be a pretty big mistake to be celebrating a heretic as a hero of the faith. To be holding him up as an example of the Faith. And to be soliciting his prayers no less… Such a glaring mistake would shed doubts on the overall veracity of the teaching office of the Church. This mind isn’t a little mistake like misidentifying an aspect of grammar and making a scribal or translation error (that can easily be done) this is something that deals with the very understanding and nature of the Church’s epistemology to know Truth from error.

 

[DBarchard]

As an historian of sorts who knows the issues discussed here only from an historical and not a theological viewpoint, I want to thank Ronyodish for his excellent and, as far as I could judge, spot on summary of the issues involved, especially with the regard to Nestorius and the Nestorians. As regards Cyril of Alexandria, he might stand in a somewhat similar position vis a vis Monophysites (or pre-Chalcedonians as I believe they are usually called these days in polite ecclesiastical parlance). I was a bit dismayed to see such vitriol being tossed around so casually – e.g. denunciations of heresy and the implication that the person considered, ancient or modern, is personally bad. Theodore of Mopsuestia seems to have been theologically in error but a courteous and respectful human being. Is hatred the most appropriate response to him?

 

[StRaphael]

It should be noted that the Oriental Orthodox do in fact condemn monophysitism, which was the heresy of Eutyches. Pope St. Dioscorus and St. Severus were condemned along with Eutyches for monophysitism, but it was actually only Eutyches who was guilty of the charge. … P.S. Apparently, the “Banana Republican” is not aware of these fruitful discussions between the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches.

Brother Marduk, just because Dioscorus and Severus were not Eutychians doesn’t mean that they were not Monophysites. Thank God progress has been made in the dialogue between the Church and the Oriental Orthodox communions! But let us not conclude from these dialogues{1} that the anathemas of the Ecumenical Councils against Dioscorus and Severus were unjust; the Church has not announced such a conclusion. From the Sixth Ecumenical Council{2}:
The Prosphoneticus to the Emperor: “For this they were attempting who have recently introduced the detestable novelty that in him there is but one will and one operation, renewing the malignancy of Arius, Apollinaris, Eutyches and Severus.”
The Letter of the Council to Pope St. Agatho of Rome: “Moreover, in addition to these, we justly subjected to the anathema of heretics those also who live in their impiety which they have received, or, to speak more accurately, in the impiety of these God-hated persons, Apollinaris, Severus and Themestius…”
The Definition of Faith: “and that in Chalcedon of 630 God-inspired Fathers against Eutyches and Dioscorus hated of God…”

From the Seventh Ecumenical Council{3}:
Decree: “With the Fathers of this synod we confess that He who was incarnate of the immaculate Mother of God and Ever-Virgin Mary has two natures, recognizing Him as perfect God and perfect man, as also the Council of Chalcedon hath promulgated, expelling from the divine Atrium [aulhs] as blasphemers, Eutyches and Dioscorus; and placing in the same category Severus, Peter and a number of others, blaspheming in diverse fashions.”
Letter to the Emperor and Empress: “And now having carefully traced the traditions of the Apostles and Fathers, we are bold to speak. Having but one mind by the inbreathing of the most Holy Spirit, and being all knit together in one, and understanding the harmonious tradition of the Catholic Church, we are in perfect harmony with the symphonies set forth by the six, holy and ecumenical councils; and accordingly we have anathematized the madness of Arius, the frenzy of Macedonius, the senseless understanding of Apollinarius, the man-worship of Nestorius, the irreverent mingling of the natures devised by Eutyches and Dioscorus, and the many-headed hydra which is their companion.”
Acts Session One: “Anathema to those who spurn the teachings of the holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church, taking as a pretext and making their own the arguments of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, that unless we were evidently taught by the Old and New Testaments, we should not follow the teachings of the holy Fathers and of the holy Ecumenical Synods, and the tradition of the Catholic Church.”

Dioscorus exonerated the unrepentant heretic Eutyches at the Robber Synod of Ephesus in 449, rejected the Creed of Union signed by his predecessor St. Cyril I, and said that the blood of Christ is incorruptible κατά φύσίν (by nature, i.e., of its own nature). From his exile in Gangra, Dioscorus wrote, “If the Blood of Christ is not by nature (katà phúsin) God’s and not a man’s, how does it differ from the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer? For this is earthly and corruptible, and the blood of man according to nature is earthly and corruptible. But God forbid that we should say the Blood of Christ is consubstantial with one of those things which are according to nature (‘enos tôn katà phúsin ‘omoousíon).”{4} This plainly obliterates the διαίρεσις (distinction) between and leads to a κρασίς (mixing) of the divine nature and the human nature.

Continued in next post…

Notes & References
{1} vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/sub-index/index_ancient-oriental-ch.htm
{2} fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const3.html
{3} fordham.edu/halsall/basis/nicea2.html
{4} Patriarch St. Nicephoros of Constantinople, Book of Selections Against Eusebius and Epiphanides 30:V in Jean-Baptiste-François Cardinal Pitra: Spicilegium Solesmense IV:380 (Paris, 1858). Qtd. in the Catholic Encyclopedia.

 

[StRaphael]

Continued in next post…

Severus of Antioch, who accepted the Henotikon of Emperor Zeno and rejected the Creed of Union signed by Patriarch St. Cyril I of Alexandria–whom he pretended to follow in all matters Christological [PG 89:103D]–affirmed μία φύσις θεανδρική (one theandric nature) of Christ. This is impossible, because if Christ had a single συνθετος (compound) divine-human φύσις, He would not be consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, Who subsist only in the divine nature, nor would he be consubstantial with us, because we do not have a divine-human nature. Severus also affirmed μία θεανδρική ένέργεία, by which Christ acts in all things. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, divine actions exercised in and through the human nature (raising the dead by a word and healing the sick by a touch) are formally theandric (divino-human). This is the theandric energy to which St. Dionysius the Areopagite refers [Letter 4 to Caius in PG 3:1072C]. Purely human actions exercised in response to the divine will (walking and eating) are materially theandric (humano-divine). But there are purely divine actions (creating souls and conserving the universe) that are not theandric, and so not all of the activities of Christ are theandric. The Sixth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople III), in Session 10 [Mansi xi:443BC], quoted the following absurd statement of Severos from his Epistle 2 to Count Oecumenis: “Yet one, i.e. Incarnate Word, wrought one and the other–neither was this from one nature, and that from another; nor can we justly affirm that because there are distinct things operated there are therefore two operating natures and forms." Severus wrongly denied that Christ is in two natures after the union [PG 86:908]. Since St. Paul, inspired of the Holy Spirit, says that Christ exists in human form (“and being found in human form” [Phil 2:7[/COLOR]]), Christ is not merely from two natures (εκ δύο φύσεων), but subsists in two natures (εν δύο φύσεσιν) after the union.

 

[Leo_The_Great]

You do not understand. What we mean by Hypostasis as “Individually Subsistent being” (Not Person really, a Chair is an hypostasis) is What the Orientals mean by “one Nature of God the Word Incarnate.”

THere is one being (The word incarnate) who is both God and Man. He has one nature as God the Incarnate Word, just as we have one nature as SOul and Body, yet he is from The HUman and FUlly human, and From the Divine and Fully Divine.

THe Natures do not mix. THey do not Change. THey do not originate a Third nature.

THis is no different from what we mean by “Hypostatic” union. IT WAS REAL UNION in a single subsistence, THe INcarnate WOrd. THe Natures Permeated each other without confusion, change division or separation. Jesus Christ as a Single Hypostasis is in two natures, but they have been united in a single hypostasis. ONE.

Do the Coptic catholics acknowledge St. Takla Haymanot?

 

[StRaphael]

You do not understand. What we mean by Hypostasis as “Individually Subsistent being” (Not Person really, a Chair is an hypostasis) is What the Orientals mean by “one Nature of God the Word Incarnate.”

THere is one being (The word incarnate) who is both God and Man. He has one nature as God the Incarnate Word, just as we have one nature as SOul and Body, yet he is from The HUman and FUlly human, and From the Divine and Fully Divine.

THe Natures do not mix. THey do not Change. THey do not originate a Third nature.

THis is no different from what we mean by “Hypostatic” union. IT WAS REAL UNION in a single subsistence, THe INcarnate WOrd. THe Natures Permeated each other without confusion, change division or separation. Jesus Christ as a Single Hypostasis is in two natures, but they have been united in a single hypostasis. ONE.

My brother Leo_the_Great, the Church has always understood St. Cyril’s formula μία φύσις Θeoυ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη to mean that Christ’s single hypostasis subsists in two natures, i.e., that Christ’s hypostasis is composite because “the one common nature viewed as a whole in the subsistence of the Word” became incarnate An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 3:11 in PG 94:1025B], i.e., the divine nature of the Word united flesh to itself in Person III, q. 2, art. 1, ad 1Summa Theologica]. Your explanation of the hypostatic union in the last sentence is correct, but you have not interacted with my posts to vindicate Severus of Antioch from charges of heresy, and against you I maintain that your explanation is not the same as saying that the two natures became one divine-human nature, which is the Oriental Orthodox position according to the very clear statement on page 10 of Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria’s book The Nature of Christ, available at copticchurch.org/Texts/Spirituals/Natofchr.pdf. One compound divine-human υπόστασις is correct, but the great Doctor St. John of Damascus (December 4) explains why one compound divine-human φύσις is incorrect: “If, therefore, after the union, Christ’s nature was, as the heretics hold, a compound unity, He had changed from a simple into a compound nature, and is not of the same essence as the Father Whose nature is simple, nor as the mother, who is not a compound of divinity and humanity. Nor will He then be in divinity and humanity: nor will He be called either God or Man, but simply Christ: and the word Christ will be the name not of the subsistence, but of what in their view is the one nature.” This statement comes from An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 3:3, “Concerning Christ’s two natures, in opposition to those who hold that He has only one.”

God bless you and yours!

 

[Leo_The_Great]

Listen to the Words of Severus Himself.

“Hear what the holy and wise doctor Cyril says in the second volume11 of the work against the blasphemies of Nestorius: «For between Godhead and manhood I also allow that there is great distinction and distance. For the things which have been named on the principle of manner of existence are clearly different, and in no point like one another. But, when the mystery in Christ is introduced among us, the principle of union is not oblivious of difference”, but rejects division, not by mixing or commingling the natures with one another, but that, after the Word of God has partaken of flesh and blood, he is even so understood and named as one Son» 12. But, if Emmanuel is one, consisting of Godhead and manhood which have a perfect existence according to their own principle, and the hypostatic union without confusion shows the difference of those which have been joined in one in dispensatory union, but rejects division, both the elements |7 which naturally belong to the manhood have come to belong to the very Godhead of the Word, and those which belong to the Word himself have come to belong to the very manhood which he hypostatically united to him."

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 |18 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 42 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»43. 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 recognised 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 44 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 |19 before the union with him, nor was a distinct person assigned to it 45. 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 flesh46, there is at once soul-possessing rational flesh of God the Word46: for in him also it acquired subsistence»

Severus Nailed It. And the Catholic Church, at least indirectly acknowledges this By admitting the Orthodoxy of the Oriental Orthodox Christology.

 

[Leo_The_Great]

John of Damascus was not wrong as far as Apollinarians and Eutychians go, but his main error in his writing regarding the Miaphysites is to assume they associate Ousia with Physis, or Essence with Nature/Being. THis is not at all the case.

Severus of Antioch:

“But now also we will come to what is required, and, we will again say, that ‘essence’ 62 signifies a generality, and ‘hypostasis’ a particularity, but ‘being’ and ‘nature’ introduce sometimes a general signification, sometimes a partial or particular one. This is stated on account of the varying use that is found in the holy fathers: for you knew both that 'essence’62 is sometimes employed in the particular signification of 'hypostasis ', and occasionally also |24 ‘hypostasis’ is found employed in place of ‘essence’ 63. For this reason we decline to use such a signification as being unscientific.”

"Enough has, I think, been said about essence 63 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»64: 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’ 63; but, where we say that there is one nature of Paul, the name ‘nature’ is employed in place of ‘individual hypostasis’. So |25 also we call the Holy Trinity one nature, employing the term ‘nature’ in place of the general designation ‘essence’ 65; 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’»66. 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 67, 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 |26 of ‘general designation’, I mean in the same sense as essence 68: 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. "

"It is not confessing the particularity of the natures from which Emmanuel comes that we avoid, so long as we maintain the unity without confusion (the particularity is that which is expressed in natural characteristics), but distributing and dividing the properties to each of the natures"

And thus John’s Argument is toppled. As far as Mia Physis goes.

 

[Ghosty]

Here’s a question intended to illustrate the confusion and cut through the “big talk”:

How many natures do humans have?

Peace and God bless!

 

[Fide_Roma]

I heard that there was basically no difference between severus of ANtioch and John of Damascus’s Christologies. Can anyone confirm this? I heard Severus even describes something like a lack of gnomic will in Christ which John of Damascus talks about…