J
JamesTheJust
Guest
Let’s define our terms. dzheremi, what do you mean by “nature”?
- Status
F
FrDavid96
Guest
St Cyril of Alexandria acknowledged the Orthodoxy of Antioch’s teaching two natures though he considered it inferior to his teaching of one incarnate nature. He found that they used “two natures” in an orthodox way not in a nestorian way.
It is quite disturbing that St Cyril made a concession for differing orthodox theological formulas for unity, yet, many Chalcedonians won’t do the same now that the roles are reversed. If St Cyril acknowledged the orthodoxy of “two natures” while “one nature” was the accepted formula while fighting Nestorianism, why can’t Chalcedonians acknowledge the orthodoxy of “one nature” while “two natures” was the accepted formula while fighting Eutychianism?
For we shall not understand, as some of the more ancient heretics, that the Word of God, by having taken his own nature, that is, the divine, prepared a body for himself; but, following in every way the divinely inspired Scriptures, we strongly maintain that he took his flesh from the Holy Virgin. Wherefore, we say that the two natures were united, from which there is the one and only Son and Lord, Jesus Christ, as we accept in our thoughts; but after the union, since the distinction into two is done away with, we believe that there is one phusis [nature] of the Son, as one, however, one who became man and was made flesh. But if being God the Word he is said to be incarnate and to be made man, let the suspicion of a change be cast somewhere far away, for he has remained what he was, and let the entirely unconfused union be confessed on our part.
…]
But the brethren at Antioch, understanding in simple thoughts only those from which Christ is understood to be, have maintained a difference of natures, because, as I said, divinity and humanity are not the same in natural quality, but proclaimed one Son and Christ and Lord as being truly one; they say his person is one, and in no manner do they separate what has been united. Neither do they admit the natural division as the author of the wretched inventions was pleased to think, but they strongly maintain that only the sayings concerning the Lord are separated, not that they say that some of them separately are proper to the Son, the Word of God the Father, and others are proper to another son again, the one from a woman, but they say that some are proper to his divinity and others again are proper to his humanity. For the same one is God and man. But they say that there are others which have been made common in a certain way and, as it were, look toward both, I mean both the divinity and the humanity.
It is quite disturbing that St Cyril made a concession for differing orthodox theological formulas for unity, yet, many Chalcedonians won’t do the same now that the roles are reversed. If St Cyril acknowledged the orthodoxy of “two natures” while “one nature” was the accepted formula while fighting Nestorianism, why can’t Chalcedonians acknowledge the orthodoxy of “one nature” while “two natures” was the accepted formula while fighting Eutychianism?
For we shall not understand, as some of the more ancient heretics, that the Word of God, by having taken his own nature, that is, the divine, prepared a body for himself; but, following in every way the divinely inspired Scriptures, we strongly maintain that he took his flesh from the Holy Virgin. Wherefore, we say that the two natures were united, from which there is the one and only Son and Lord, Jesus Christ, as we accept in our thoughts; but after the union, since the distinction into two is done away with, we believe that there is one phusis [nature] of the Son, as one, however, one who became man and was made flesh. But if being God the Word he is said to be incarnate and to be made man, let the suspicion of a change be cast somewhere far away, for he has remained what he was, and let the entirely unconfused union be confessed on our part.
…]
But the brethren at Antioch, understanding in simple thoughts only those from which Christ is understood to be, have maintained a difference of natures, because, as I said, divinity and humanity are not the same in natural quality, but proclaimed one Son and Christ and Lord as being truly one; they say his person is one, and in no manner do they separate what has been united. Neither do they admit the natural division as the author of the wretched inventions was pleased to think, but they strongly maintain that only the sayings concerning the Lord are separated, not that they say that some of them separately are proper to the Son, the Word of God the Father, and others are proper to another son again, the one from a woman, but they say that some are proper to his divinity and others again are proper to his humanity. For the same one is God and man. But they say that there are others which have been made common in a certain way and, as it were, look toward both, I mean both the divinity and the humanity.
- St Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 40
F
FrDavid96
Guest
Thankfully, at the highest levels at least, this has been settled, and we can say that we all agree on our Christology. It’s a shame that it took us 15+ centuries to get there.
I agree! Glory be to God!
D
dzheremi
Guest
I did not write any of that to get into any discussion with Chalcedonians on anything (if you want to have that kind of discussion, there are much smarter people to have it with than me), only to make the point to Fr. David that it is not a matter of problems introduced in translation from Greek to Coptic, as he had stated. I don’t really agree that we are saying the same thing using different language (some of us may be, since the OO these days are much more conciliatory toward the Chalcedonian position than the other way around, as poster Zekariya has pointed out), though I will agree that the difference between the non-Chalcedonian and the Chalcedonian positions is a subtle one, and one that is not well suited to discussion in this environment (and not entirely due to language issues).
F
FrDavid96
Guest
You can choose to agree with it or not, it won’t change anything.
Theologians both Coptic and Catholic (including Catholic Copts of course) accept as a given that there are no Christological differences—the perceived differences were a matter of language, not theology as such.
Today it is widely recognized by theologians and church leaders on both sides that the Christological differences between the Oriental Orthodox and those who accepted Chalcedon were only verbal, and that in fact both parties profess the same faith in Christ using different formulas. This new understanding was the result of official meetings between Popes and heads of Oriental Orthodox Churches, and unofficial meetings of theologians sponsored by the “Pro Oriente” Foundation in Vienna, Austria.
cnewa.org/default.aspx?ID=96&pagetypeID=9&sitecode=US&pageno=1
Both Churches, at this point, accept as a given that the differences were merely a matter of language.
The Coptic Church was misunderstood in the 5th century at the Council of Chalcedon. Perhaps the Council understood the Church correctly, but they wanted to exile the Church, to isolate it and to abolish the Egyptian, independent Pope, who maintained that Church and State should be separate. Despite all of this, the Coptic Church has remained very strict and steadfast in its faith. Whether it was a conspiracy from the Western Churches to exile the Coptic Church as a punishment for its refusal to be politically influenced, or whether Pope Dioscurus didn’t quite go the extra mile to make the point that Copts are not monophysite, the Coptic Church has always felt a mandate to reconcile “semantic” differences between all Christian Churches. This is aptly expressed by the -]current/-] [gone to his reward] 117th successor of Saint Mark, Pope Shenouda III: “To the Coptic Church, faith is more important than anything, and others must know that semantics and terminology are of little importance to us.”
coptic.net/EncyclopediaCoptica/
Pope Shenouda called it “semantics and terminology”
D
dzheremi
Guest
I don’t think I appreciate the tone of this sentence. After this reply, I will no longer be discussing this issue or anything else with you.
Catholic Copts have nothing to do with anything. Chalcedonian disagreement involves the Orthodox, not Catholics who already believe that we’re all saying the same thing.
They are indeed a matter of language. I don’t know what that “merely” is doing in there.
And HH was right that it is a matter of semantics and terminology, but wrong that these things matter little to us. If they truly did not matter, we would accept the Tome of Leo already. We don’t.
When Eutyches was accepted back into the Church at Ephesus in 449, it was on the strength of his written confession as examined by the bishops gathered at that council (the same mechanism as the acceptance of the Tome of Leo two years later). A similar approach can be said to have taken place in the already mentioned conflict between St. Cyril and John of Antioch, in that the latter produced a confession that St. Cyril deemed Orthodox, or at least sufficiently so to heal their schism. This is the recurrent pattern throughout Coptic history in relation to schisms and schismatics, and if this is what HH had in mind in saying that such matters of semantics and terminology do no matter, then I can see and agree with where he’s coming from. That is consistent with history. But if (and I suspect that this was the case, at least in the mind of the translator who presented his words in this way) HH was using “semantics” to mean “quibbling over words that has little value or relation to the core concept being discussed” (as most people mean it), then HH was wrong. Words matter, and how we understand words matters. There is no underlying truth to be arrived by bypassing the very language and terminology we use to express central Christian truths, as that terminology was itself either invented or adopted for the explicit purpose of expressing those truths. So once again, no, we are not all saying the same thing. How can you have one Church accepting as Orthodox what the other deems to be full of heresies (the Tome of Leo)? And why would that be so cut and dry to you if even the Byzantines who accepted it realized that it was possible to be understood in a heterodox fashion to such a widespread degree that they required a subsequent council to make sure that it wasn’t understood as confirming Nestorius (as Nestorius himself, and the Nestorians throughout the Persian Empire, are recorded to have believed? See here, for example, the letters of Catholicos Babken of the Armenians to the Orthodox in Persia, written within ~50 years of Chalcedon).
No, I’m sorry, it most definitely matters whether we say Christ is in two natures of from two natures, and no matter what formula is used, these things need to be understood in context, not assumed to be trumped 1600 years later because you found a thing on the internet that said HH Pope Shenouda III said this or that. Pope Shenouda III is not the unquestioned lord and master of the Coptic Church, and the Coptic Encyclopedia is not some kind of COC Catechism. (Many of its contributors are not themselves members of the Church; some are not even Christians.)
(cont’d. below)
D
dzheremi
Guest
Increased understanding is one thing, but you cannot find an Orthodox Copt anywhere who is honest with himself or herself who says that because we have agreed in the modern day that the two expressions are largely equivalent or acceptable that we are therefore saying the same thing. Even in the example of St. Cyril and John of Antioch brought up by poster Zekariya, it is made clear that while St. Cyril was willing to accept the ‘two nature’ Christological phrasing, it was considered inferior to the miaphysite formula. Now, it is not for me to speak against my own leaders should they choose to follow St. Cyril’s lead in welcoming back the Chalcedonians (I’m glad that has not happened yet, though, as the talks are ongoing and have not yielded mutual recognition), but please make note of what that does not mean: (1) We are not accepting the Tome of Leo, as it is problematic at best; (2) We are not accepting Chalcedon as an ecumenical council; (3) We are not even saying that “we’re saying the same thing”. If I were to follow HH Pope Shenouda III (or, rather, one possible interpretation of what he could mean, as you’ve presented it), I could also say “We’re saying very similar things, and what differences there are are a matter of semantics and terminology.” In fact, I have no trouble saying just that (as I said it in my earlier post, too). But I am also a linguist, and I know that semantics and technical terminology are not for people not trained in semantics to quibble over and then decide they don’t matter because it’s easier to pretend that one nature and two natures are equivalent (when they weren’t arrived at via the same communal settings and philosophies, as that is at the root of actual ‘semantics’ – i.e., meaning is by communal agreement and reinforcement). That’d be false union, and that’s not what anyone on any side of this is after, I hope.
The authority to assert what it is that we believe in contradiction to Chalcedonian understandings of the same ultimately rests with my Fathers, of which I would like to highlight St. Severus of Antioch and St. Cyril of Alexandria. From St. Severus
“Those, therefore, who confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is one (made up) of Godhead and manhood, and that He is one prosopon, one hypostasis, and one nature of the Word incarnate, recognize and affirm also the difference, integrity, and otherness of the natures, of which the one Christ is ineffably formed. As they perceive this by subtle thought and contemplation of the mind, they do not take it as a ground for dividing the Emmanuel into two natures after the union.”
And from St. Cyril:
“Wherefore, we say that the two natures were united, from which there is the one and only Son and Lord, Jesus Christ, as we accept in our thoughts; but after the union since the distinction into two is now done away with, we believe that, there is one physis of the Son”
Based on these (and not only!), if you do not confess only one nature after the union, we are not saying the same thing. Whether any particular OO leader will accept you as close enough or whatever is another matter (and there are plenty of supporters and detractors regarding this matter; I’d like to think I’m somewhere in the middle, and have tried to interpret HH Pope Shenouda III’s words in a way that is consistent with Coptic history as it was taught to me by actual Coptic Orthodox people, not from an encyclopedia). St. Cyril made concessions, and it appears that HH Pope Shenouda III made concessions. Neither of these change non-Chalcedonian Christology one bit.
The authority to assert what it is that we believe in contradiction to Chalcedonian understandings of the same ultimately rests with my Fathers, of which I would like to highlight St. Severus of Antioch and St. Cyril of Alexandria. From St. Severus
“Those, therefore, who confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is one (made up) of Godhead and manhood, and that He is one prosopon, one hypostasis, and one nature of the Word incarnate, recognize and affirm also the difference, integrity, and otherness of the natures, of which the one Christ is ineffably formed. As they perceive this by subtle thought and contemplation of the mind, they do not take it as a ground for dividing the Emmanuel into two natures after the union.”
And from St. Cyril:
“Wherefore, we say that the two natures were united, from which there is the one and only Son and Lord, Jesus Christ, as we accept in our thoughts; but after the union since the distinction into two is now done away with, we believe that, there is one physis of the Son”
Based on these (and not only!), if you do not confess only one nature after the union, we are not saying the same thing. Whether any particular OO leader will accept you as close enough or whatever is another matter (and there are plenty of supporters and detractors regarding this matter; I’d like to think I’m somewhere in the middle, and have tried to interpret HH Pope Shenouda III’s words in a way that is consistent with Coptic history as it was taught to me by actual Coptic Orthodox people, not from an encyclopedia). St. Cyril made concessions, and it appears that HH Pope Shenouda III made concessions. Neither of these change non-Chalcedonian Christology one bit.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Are you referring to the miaphysites from whom you broke off communion, or to the miaphysites* that you recently established communion with? That seems important in terms of understanding what you’re shouting.
(* While recognizing the ongoing debate about whether there are Catholic miaphysites or not.)
C
coptsoldier
Guest
Those of us who swap from coptic orthodox to coptic catholic still hold our christological expression of miaphysitism, but we also accept the tome of st leo as orthodox as well.
S
SyroMalankara
Guest
I consider myself miaphysite rather than duophysite, although I accept that the duophysite position is acceptable within it’s duophysite framework and not heterodox. The reason I consider myself miaphysite is that it is better suited within the context, framework (e.g. Tradition, Patristic teaching) within my Church.
- Status