Thoughts on some Wikipedia edits

[CutlerB]

I’ve been reading through some articles of Wikipedia, as I happened to come across them, lately and felt obligated to correct some things that seemed wrong or at least badly formulated, potentially causing misunderstandings. The articles included “Catholic Church” and “Council of Chalcedon”.

In the first article, my change was simply to clarify “Roman Catholic Church” as a name for the Catholic Church, as it just sat there in a sentence without explanation. My addition amounted to saying that this name is mostly used in English-speaking countries, and technically incorrect as it generally refers to the Latin Rite of the Church. That was quite quickly removed, although I had supplied references to the sources.

The second article read:

The Oriental Orthodox teach ‘one nature’ in Christ, composed of both Godhead and manhood. Misrepresented as a denial of his true humanity, this used to be denigrated as the heresy of Monophysitism, though now the neutral terms Miaphysite and Miaphysitism or non-Chalcedonian are widely preferred.

I removed the bolded part, as that sounds biased. From what I know and have read here, the teaching that Christ only had one nature is heresy, whether it be that He was merely human, only God or some synthesis of both. It seems repugnant to Church teaching, though I know that Wikipedia doesn’t really acknowledge Church Authority. But neither would this sentence have any authority to claim what it does, especially as no source is quoted.

Can I have your thoughts on these two edits? Do you agree, or would you say I was overreacting, or perhaps I misunderstood the sentence on Chalcedon?

 

[Zekariya]

I removed the bolded part, as that sounds biased. From what I know and have read here, the teaching that Christ only had one nature is heresy, whether it be that He was merely human, only God or some synthesis of both. It seems repugnant to Church teaching, though I know that Wikipedia doesn’t really acknowledge Church Authority. But neither would this sentence have any authority to claim what it does, especially as no source is quoted.

Can I have your thoughts on these two edits? Do you agree, or would you say I was overreacting, or perhaps I misunderstood the sentence on Chalcedon?

You are incorrect here. Neither of Miaphysitism or Dyophysitism are heresy, rather, they are each a differently developed way of understanding the mystery of the Incarnation.

Miaphysitism: Christ in one united nature (of two natures) in one person, his divinity united with his humanity in a real and perfect union without mingling, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without separation. (orthodox)

Eutychianism: Christ has one Nature of God and Man that is mixed and confused. (heresy)

Dyophysitism: Christ in two natures united in one person, his divinity united with his humanity in a real and perfect union without mingling, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without separation. (orthodox)

Nestorianism: Christ has two separate Natures of God and Man that are one in dignity. (heresy)

Doctor of the Church, St Cyril of Alexandria, used the term miaphysis.

“…it is also said that in Christ dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; but we understand that he became flesh, not just as he is said to dwell in the saints, but we define that that tabernacling in him was according to equality. But being made one in nature, and not converted into flesh, he made his indwelling in such a way, as we may say that the soul of man does in his own body.” - Council of Ephesus, Session I, The Epistle of St Cyril of Alexandria to Nestorius

“We confess that He is Son of God and God according to the Spirit, Son of Man according to the flesh, not Two Natures to that One Son, One [Nature] worshipped the other unworshipped, but One Nature of God the Word Incarnate, worshipped with His flesh with One worship: nor Two Sons, One, Very Son of God and worshipped, the other the man out of Mary not worshipped, made by grace son of God just as men too are.” - St Cyril of Alexandria, Book II, Against Theodore, Ch 11

“Therefore, whenever we have these thoughts in no way do we harm the joining into a unity by saying he was of two natures, but after the union, we do not separate the natures from one another, nor do we cut the one and indivisible Son into two sons, but we say that there is one Son, and as the holy Fathers have said, that there is one nature of the Word [of God] made flesh.”

• St Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 45:6 (to Succenus, Bishop of Diocaesarea in Isauria)

“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 physis [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.” - St Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 40:14

 

[devoutchristian]

Ignore Zekariya. You were right to correct that article, as miaphysitism is a heresy.

 

[Zekariya]

Ignore Zekariya. You were right to correct that article, as miaphysitism is a heresy.

You are saying that Doctor St Cyril of Alexandria is a heretic and the Third Ecumenical Council promotes heresy?

 

[devoutchristian]

You are saying that Doctor St Cyril of Alexandria is a heretic and the Third Ecumenical Council promotes heresy?

The third ecumenical council didn’t address miaphysitism. St. Cyril lived before dyophysitism was defined by Chaceledon.

 

[Zekariya]

The third ecumenical council didn’t address miaphysitism. St. Cyril lived before dyophysitism was defined by Chaceledon.

“…it is also said that in Christ dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; but we understand that he became flesh, not just as he is said to dwell in the saints, but we define that that tabernacling in him was according to equality. But being made one in nature, and not converted into flesh, he made his indwelling in such a way, as we may say that the soul of man does in his own body.” - The Third Ecumenical Council, Session I, The Epistle of St Cyril of Alexandria to Nestorius

 

[CutlerB]

 

[Razanir]

 

[CutlerB]

Miaphysitism: Christ in one united nature (of two natures) in one person, his divinity united with his humanity in a real and perfect union without mingling, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without separation. (orthodox)

I struggle to understand. It even seems illogical and contradictory in itself to me. How can two natures be united into one nature? Isn’t nature supposed to be the “basis”, the essence of something below which there is nothing more fundamental? If so, Christ cannot have only that one nature from two natures, for then those two would be the basis of the one nature.

EDIT: I have just read other threads and this topic seems to go very deep, but it appears to be orthodox and rather a matter of words (hypostasis, physis, and whatnot). As long as the Catholic Church hasn’t condemned it, or better: as long as she accepts this view, I’m fine. Otherwise, there’s a lot of confusion coming my way!

 

[adrift]

“…it is also said that in Christ dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; but we understand that he became flesh, not just as he is said to dwell in the saints, but we define that that tabernacling in him was according to equality. But being made one in nature, and not converted into flesh, he made his indwelling in such a way, as we may say that the soul of man does in his own body.” - The Third Ecumenical Council, Session I, The Epistle of St Cyril of Alexandria to Nestorius

Catholic Encylopedia does not have your bolded wording but instead has this

But we do not say that the Word of God dwelt in him as in a common man born of the holy Virgin, lest Christ be thought of as a God-bearing man; for although the Word tabernacled among us, it is also said that in Christ “dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily”; but we understand that he became flesh, not just as he is said to dwell in the saints, but we define that that tabernacling in him was according to equality (κατὰ τον ἴσον ἐν αὐτῷ τρόπον). But being made one κατὰ φύσιν, and not converted into flesh, he made his indwelling in such a way, as we may say that the soul of man does in his own body.

 

[Zekariya]

I struggle to understand. It even seems illogical and contradictory in itself to me. How can two natures be united into one nature? Isn’t nature supposed to be the “basis”, the essence of something below which there is nothing more fundamental? If so, Christ cannot have only that one nature from two natures, for then those two would be the basis of the one nature.

I hope I expressed myself clearly

Disclaimer: This is a simplified explanation.

Both sides agree that Christ is one person hypostasis and has two substances ousia: of one substance with the Father and of one substance with man.

Nature physis and person hypostasis are interchangeable in the Oriental Church. This originated in the School of Alexandria.
Nature physis and substance ousia are interchangeable in the Eastern and Catholic Churches. This originated in the School of Antioch.

 

[CutlerB]

Disclaimer: This is a simplified explanation.

Both sides agree that Christ is one person hypostasis and has two substances ousia: of one substance with the Father and of one substance with man.

Nature physis and person hypostasis are interchangeable in the Oriental Church. This originated in the School of Alexandria.
Nature physis and substance ousia are interchangeable in the Eastern and Catholic Churches. This originated in the School of Antioch.

Thanks, that’s what I came across in my further reading as well. I have decided to not think about it too much, as I don’t know enough about it and second because it is quite confusing. I’ll wait for university with that.

 

[Zekariya]

St Cyril admits the difference between the Schools and maintains that both are orthodox (though he finds Antioch’s two nature explanation as inferior to his own one united nature explanation):

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 40:17

 

[Zekariya]

Thanks, that’s what I came across in my further reading as well. I have decided to not think about it too much, as I don’t know enough about it and second because it is quite confusing. I’ll wait for university with that.

You are most welcome! This is a deep topic indeed.

 

[Nita]

“…it is also said that in Christ dwelt all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; but we understand that he became flesh, not just as he is said to dwell in the saints, but we define that that tabernacling in him was according to equality. But being made one in nature, and not converted into flesh, he made his indwelling in such a way, as we may say that the soul of man does in his own body.” - The Third Ecumenical Council, Session I, The Epistle of St Cyril of Alexandria to Nestorius

I’ve been unable to locate any translation that includes the phrase you have bolded. Do you have a link.

Unfortunately we don’t know what St. Cyril’s response would have been to the clear definition carefully worked out at the Council of Chalcedon. I like to think he would have accepted it and henceforward changed his wording accordingly – as the Council required – rather than break from the Church.

The Council of Chalcedon ewtn.com/faith/teachings/incac2.htm
………the property of both natures is preserved and** comes together into a single person and a single subsistent being;**……….

Since we have formulated these things with all possible accuracy and attention, the sacred and universal synod decreed that no one is permitted to produce, or even to write down or compose, any other creed or to think or teach otherwise………….

“One united nature in one Person” is not the same as saying “Two natures in one Person” –
(even if it is stated that “united nature” is to be understood as containing 2 separate natures.)

The terminology “one united nature in which are 2 distinct, unmixed,… natures” is ambiguous. It actually makes it sound like there are 3 natures in Jesus since there are three different adjectives used to identify “nature” – united, divine, human. (I don’t know if there ever was such a heresy.) I can easily see how that type of terminology led to the monophysite heresy.

 

[Zekariya]

The Greek “κατὰ φύσιν” means according to nature. Therefore “being made one κατὰ φύσιν” means “being made one according to nature.”

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/537935_153528231485184_839407528_n.jpg

William Carl Placher, Readings in the History of Christian Theology

Source: books.google.com/books?id=rya0v9bgwT8C&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=%22kata+physin%22+cyril&source=bl&ots=G-OxF4KNrn&sig=wRbzJwSpP0N6KOvsQHdqAE9m_rQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=20V8UYHCFYWm9ASy5YG4DQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=%22kata%20physin%22%20cyril&f=false

“But being made one κατὰ φύσιν, and not converted into flesh, he made his indwelling in such a way, as we may say that the soul of man does in his own body.”

Source: newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm

 

[Nita]

The Greek “κατὰ φύσιν” means according to nature. Therefore “being made one κατὰ φύσιν” means “being made one according to nature.”

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/537935_153528231485184_839407528_n.jpg

William Carl Placher, Readings in the History of Christian Theology

Source: books.google.com/books?id=rya0v9bgwT8C&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=%22kata+physin%22+cyril&source=bl&ots=G-OxF4KNrn&sig=wRbzJwSpP0N6KOvsQHdqAE9m_rQ&hl=en&sa=X&ei=20V8UYHCFYWm9ASy5YG4DQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwADgK#v=onepage&q=%22kata%20physin%22%20cyril&f=false

“But being made one κατὰ φύσιν, and not converted into flesh, he made his indwelling in such a way, as we may say that the soul of man does in his own body.”

Source: newadvent.org/fathers/3810.htm

It’s not the κατὰ φύσιν on its own-- it’s the “But being made one” in connection with it.

For example, here is how the papal encyclical site interprets that paragraph:
But we do not say that the Word of God dwelt as in an ordinary man born of the holy virgin, in order that Christ may not be thought of as a God-bearing man. For even though “the Word dwelt among us”, and it is also said that in Christ dwelt “all the fullness of the godhead bodily”, we understand that, having become flesh, the manner of his indwelling is not defined in the same way as he is said to dwell among the saints, he was united by nature and not turned into flesh and he made his indwelling in such a way as we may say that the soul of man does in his own body.
papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum03.htm Also read the translation on EWTN and another site, which I can’t remember. I searched for a site that would have the Greek text but was unable to find one.

My understanding is that the miaphysites hold their words mean the same thing as ours – the definition given at Chalcedon. Is this correct?
If so, my question then is why don’t they adopt the language of Chalcedon which is clear to all cultures and far less ambiguous? Is there something in the terminology used in the Chalcedon definition that would make it heretical for an Orthodox. If so, what?

I have to say, I find your signature* (“Truth is singular. Its versions are mistruths.”) *very interesting in connection with this thread. The Church officially defined the nature of the hypostatic union at Chalcedon; miaphysites choose a different way/version of expressing it.

 

[Zekariya]

I have to say, I find your signature* (“Truth is singular. Its versions are mistruths.”) *very interesting in connection with this thread. The Church officially defined the nature of the hypostatic union at Chalcedon; miaphysites choose a different way/version of expressing it.

Truth is singular. The Oriental Orthodox use the older formula of St Cyril of Alexandria (mia physis). The Catholic Church uses the current formula of the Council of Chalcedon. The Theological language might have changed but, it is still the singular truth of the Incarnation of Christ.

We say, “The Trinity is three Persons in one essence.” This orthodox explanation of the Trinity was created by the Cappadocian Fathers: St Basil the Great (330-379), St Basil’s younger brother St Gregory of Nyssa (c.332-395), St Gregory of Nazianzus (329-389). Before them, we relied on older orthodox Theological explanations of this same truth.

Orthodoxy doesn’t change but, Theological terms can change over time. An old form that has been discarded doesn’t cease to be orthodox (though it may not be as specific as the new terms).

 

[Nita]

Orthodoxy doesn’t change but, Theological terms can change over time. An old form that has been discarded doesn’t cease to be orthodox (though it may not be as specific as the new terms).

And I think it was precisely because the old terms were not specific enough to deal with heresies that new terms were required. That is certainly what the Chalcedon terms were about.

 

[neophyte]

…In the first article, my change was simply to clarify “Roman Catholic Church” as a name for the Catholic Church, as it just sat there in a sentence without explanation. My addition amounted to saying that this name is mostly used in English-speaking countries, and technically incorrect as it generally refers to the Latin Rite of the Church. That was quite quickly removed, although I had supplied references to the sources…

You’re impulse was correct, the article is written poorly.