'Miaphysis'

[Sarah Mikhail]

Hia

I'm a member of the coptic orthdox church. My question is why do i still get told that i'm a monophysite? so often i have my beliefs told to me like i do not know what i belive in. According to all i've read and studied my church never claimed to be monophysites. (mia yes, but that was a cyrillian term. I was recently reading from orthdoxinfo.com ( a great web page) but i was really disheartened to find that there was an entire section dedicated against the dialoge witht he oriental orthdox churches? have people not read the numerous joint agreements and that dialogue that both churches made? why must we set on dividing ourselves if the beliefs are identical (pharsing might be different) but both churches reject the herecy of appolinarias, eutyches, arius etc.

*sigh* i dunno......i guess i just don't like the tension between the churches when there is no solid foundation.

just wondering what everyone's veiw on this issue is

lots of love
in IC XC
Sarah

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Sarah,

I am confused. What do you mean when you say "Monophysite no" but "mia, yes," adding that the latter is a Cyrillian term? As I understood it, "mia" is Greek for "one." Does it mean something else as Cyril uses the term?

I am not Orthodox myself as you will come to see but my church is in agreement with Eastern Orthodox teaching on the duality of the natures of Christ, human and divine.

Yes, I have read at least one of the documents you mention and found that it asserted that there was no disagreement among the so-called Oriental Orthodox with the so-called Eastern (as if the two terms were not synonymous!). I think the difference is in the matter of degree of emphasis on the union of vs. duality between either church confesses this mystery.

The tension between East and West of which I am a part is involved at the level of the Trinity, but let me not derail your question and its potential responses. I too am interested in Orthodox response to you.

Richard,
another outsider looking in.

[Justin]

As someone who hasn't researched or meditated (let alone comprehended, which is something altogether different) on a lot of the christological truths, I normally resort to less theological aspects of this discussion when it is brought up. This doesn't normally help any discussion (in the big picture) move forward since it doesn't actually address the key issues, but at least it might help some, like you Sarah, understand why some Orthodox are so wary of our supposed similarities (and I say "supposed" not in an angry or hostile way, but merely because I don't think we are as similar as is sometimes claimed).

The first thing I'd ask is: if we had the same faith all along, then apparently this means that Chalcedon can, somehow, be interpreted or accepted in an orthodox way. Otherwise, you'd have to say that we had wrong christological beliefs for 1500 years, and how then could you say that we had the same faith? However, if there is indeed an orthodox way of understanding or interpreting Chalcedon (and those 5 councils that came after it, including the Photian and Palamite Councils), then why won't the Non-Chalcedonians accept the Councils and interpret them in this orthodox way? If it's just a matter of stressing or emphasising, and not a matter of orthodoxy and heterodoxy, then why can't we accept the same councils--interpreted aright? If love and a want for unity is enough to heal so many centuries of division, then why is there not enough love to embrace the same councils, if indeed we have the same faith? I think of it this way: how would we Orthodox respond if an Arian group came to us and said "We agree totally with you. We think it was all a political misunderstanding. We have the same faith. Jesus is God. Only... we won't accept the First Ecumenical Council"? They could repeat back to us our beliefs word for word (repeating to a letter the exact same thing we say to them), but if they can't accept our Ecumenical Council(s), then how can their be unity? So far as I know, the non-chalcedonians have made it quite clear that they will not accept the 4th and later councils of the Orthodox.

The second thing I'd mention is the treatment of Orthodox saints. It is my understanding that the non-Chalcedonians will not venerate the Orthodox saints. In fact, they're apparently giving a lot just to say that they won't condemn Saints like Leo publically anymore (and even this seems to me, based on my extremely limited reading, more as a concession because they're nice, rather than as a real changing of minds due to doctrinal/theological reasons). Is this a foundation for unity? Keeping our mouths shut even though we think another group's saints are heretics?

The thing that is really scary is that this communion is already happening at the grass roots. Not only has the Patriarch of Antioch and the Met. in America under him authorized communing non-chalcedonians (and began looking into concelebrations), but many non-chalcedonians--or anti-chalcedonians, as they would more accurately be called--actually are communed at the grass roots level. I've been in two seperate churches that this has been done in.

[Richard Leigh]

I have heard from a Lutheran theological professor who had a non-chalcedonian priest take a class from him that the problem for his church, which was Syrian, at the time of Chalcedon was two-fold: (1)They weren't invited & (2) they didn't have a proper word fore "nature" (or "physis")in their language.

Would this be the case for the Copts as well Sarah? BTW, I know from my own experience that there are those in at least one non-chalcedonian Church that knows nothing of the difference regarding this issue.

Richard

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

Regarding this fledgling discussion on the term 'monophysite', as well as the questions surrounding the terminology involved in the larger issues, perhaps a common 'starting point' for our conversation here might be the new article by Tenny Thomas, only recently published to the website:

"Severus of Antioch's Objection to Chalcedon - A Re-Appraisal" (http://www.monachos.net/patristics/christology/severus_chalcedon.shtml)

The article specifically examines the thought of Severus of Antioch (often termed a 'moderate monophysite' by modern scholars and Chalcedonian faithful); but it does so through a rather careful examination of the use of terminology in the whole post-Chalcedonian dispute -- terms such as 'ousia', 'physis', 'hypostasis', 'mia', etc. It is a very good document with which to begin dialogue on the implication of these terminologies.

Those who are less familiar with the period in Church history in which the questions at hand arose, may wish to spend some time in the Christological Controversy Study Area (http://www.monachos.net/patristics/christology/index.shtml), which contains numerous texts and studies on the whole era and its consequences for future generations of Christian history. Some may be particularly interested to examine the Texts of the Agreed Statements of the Commissions on Orthodox-Oriental Dialogue (http://www.monachos.net/patristics/christology/orthodox_and_oriental.shtml), drawn up in the 70s and 80s. These statements have been the subject of much discussion since their formulation, some deeming them a great advancement in positively working toward the healing of a longstanding division; others regarding them as near-heresy.

INXC, Matthew

[Sarah Mikhail]

Grrr I typed a long response my computer froze and now I have to do it all again


Hia all I’m kinda a little overwhelmed by all the responses I received, I’m not used to getting so many replies to my comments. I’ll try to answer the questions as much as I can with my tiny knowledge of Christology. Firstly the term mia as far as I’ve understood does mean one but it is a one of unity i.e. the difference between “one shoe” and “one pair of shoes” mono being purely singular while mia implies more then one united to be inseparable (I think that’s why the Coptic church preferred it). (Someone please correct me if I’m wrong). I think the problem of the council of Chalcedon being accepted is more then just a matter of the Christology issues like the anathematizing of the oriental church and saint dioscorus are also factors, the terminology of the Oriental church was considered to be heretical partly because both sides were overly cautious against different heresies to the oriental two natures sounded Nestorian and to the Byzantine one nature sounded euthychian. On reflection these issues can be resolved as a misunderstanding but for us to agree to the council of Chalcedon would be to say that we had the Christology wrong all along, and reject things like the fact that mia physis came from the phrase St Cyril used “mia physis to theo logos se sarkomeni) (sorry about phonetically spelling “one nature of god the word incarnate” so while we agree to the Christology of the 4th council we cannot accept the 4th council (perhaps a new council could work around it? Expand on the teachings and if everyone agrees to it then…. I dunno). whereas in terms of the arians if they were to return to th church they would have to renounce their prior christolgy as it was wrong not just misundersttod. As for the other councils as far as I’m aware we agree to all their teachings but cannot claim them as ours because we were never there.

will not venerate the Orthodox saints??

Sorry I don’t fully understand that statement

Matthew thanks so much for the article it was a really good read. Another great web page on the issue is www.orthodoxunity.org (http://www.orthodoxunity.org) “some deeming them a great advancement in positively working toward the healing of a longstanding division; others regarding them as near-heresy.” That’s my qualm why do people still think it’s near heresy to look at an ancient misunderstanding and call it that?

Pray for me
In Christ
Sarah

[Richard Leigh]

"...mono being purely singular while mia implies more then one united to be inseparable..."

Dear Sarah,

This is interesting news to me. This is precisely the argument regarding the Hebrew word "echad" in "Sh'ma Yisrael Adonai eloheinu, Adonai echad." We are taught (by the late Richard Wurmbrand, an atheist Jew converted to Christ who became Lutheran in Budapest) that "echad" at least oridginally meant "a unity" not "a discrete singularity."

Richard

[Fr John Wehling]

Glory to Jesus Christ!

As the Church wrestles and struggles for theological definition, she is engaged in a struggle for terms. Consider the importance, not only of a word, but of a single letter, at Nicea. To some this seems like nitpicking. But many of us realise that the difference between homoiousian and homoousian is crucial. So, like it or not, we must struggle for terms.

Furthermore, the Fathers as far back as Nicea have held that we cannot always limit ourselves to biblical terms, or even terms that have a long history in the tradition of the Church. Insisting on this leads, at times, to a dead end of theological understanding, one from which we can only escape by finding a new term.

In the Christological disputes between Severus (and his adherents) and the Chalcedonians, it is the latter who have, I believe, done the better job of, literally, "coming to terms", with the problem of unity and diversity in Christ. By holding to a union of the two natures in the one person of the Son of God without confusion, change, division, or separation, Chalcedon drew a boundary around the Mystery of the incarnation that at once upholds a real participation of the human in the Divine without obliterating the human. And this, if I understand it correctly, is the danger of Severus' language: there is little room left for human nature after it has been united to the Divine nature. It becomes the drop in the ocean of Divinity.

Now, I do not want to twist Severus' words or push his thought beyond where he intended it to go. But this is a danger, one that, I believe, is avoided by the Chalcedonian definition, which preserves the proper role of human nature as a natural participant and co-operator with God.

Perhaps an adherent of Severus' teaching could claim that the Chalceonian definition errs in the other direction, of creating too great an independence of the human from the divine leaning toward Nestorianism. But this is not tenable if one gives full weight to Chalcedon's Cyrillic emphasis on union. Nestorius held to a connection (synapheia, if I remember correctly) between the divine and the human, no union, and this truly did lead toward a meaning of two persons in Christ. But Chalcedon goes far beyond a mere connection, in the way already stated above.

That is my paltry understanding of the matter. May God grant "the union of all."

Fr John

[Arsenios]

Fr. John writes:

>>>But many of us realise that the difference between homoiousian and homoousian is crucial.<<<

Father Bless!

Would you please be so kind, Father, as to spell out the difference in meaning between these two so similar words, and perhaps, for my poor mnemonics, to explain how it is that the little iota found in the middle of one word linguistically gives it separation from the same word that does not have it? And perhaps could you add glosses for each that are linked in pairs?

Homo-ousian would seem to mean same-being...
And Homo-i-ousian does what? Add an "if" of some kind? Making of sameness a likeness?

Thank-you Father...

George [Arsenios]

[Fr John Wehling]

Arsenios,

The Lord God bless you!

We seem to have jumped from one thread to another, but I suppose Matthew will shepherd us aright if we get lost. :>)

In brief, homoousios means "of the same essence" and means that the Son shares in -- or has the same -- essence of the Father (and the Holy Spirit for that matter), and is God, the uncreated.

Homoiousios means "of like essence", and was considered by the Fathers of Nicea to be too weak; it doesn't go far enough. If the Son is merely like the Father in essence then we are not united to God but to one who is like God, who resembles God -- and thus we are not saved.

Fr John

[Arsenios]

Thank-you Father John -

You wrote:


In brief, homoousios means "of the same essence" and means that the Son shares in -- or has the same -- essence of the Father (and the Holy Spirit for that matter), and is God, the uncreated.

Homoiousios means "of like essence", and was considered by the Fathers of Nicea to be too weak; it doesn't go far enough. If the Son is merely like the Father in essence then we are not united to God but to one who is like God, who resembles God -- and thus we are not saved.

So indeed it is 'same' vs 'similar'... I think I can remember it now. Can it then be said that we are homoiousian with the Son?

Arsenios

[Fr John Wehling]

Can it then be said that we are homoiousian with the Son?

To my knowledge no one in the Church has or would say this. It would just be confusing. The homoiousian was an attempt (that was rejected, remember) to come to terms with how the Son is God; i.e. how He is related to the Father. It was/is not a term, as far as I am aware, that has ever been used to define our relation to God.

We can say that we are in the image of God, but this is not defined -- to my knowledge -- as homoiousios. We can say that the Son has taken our nature/physis in the incarnation. But to say we are of similar essence (homoiousios) to Him would just confuse the matter, in my humble opinion. If the Fathers spend their blood, sweat, and tears to define the Mystery in words, we had probably better stick to their words in as much as it is possible.

Fr John

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Fr. John,

Do we &#40;Lutherans are Chalcedonians, so at this level we can include ourselves&#41;say that Jesus has one or two essences &#40;ouisiai&#41;? Or are we sayuing that he has two natures but one &#123;essence}?

My thought is that my essence as a human being is the same as my nature, i.e., human, and following from that I would be inclined to say that we are of the same human essence as Christ. Consequently, this is a question awaiting correction &#40;or approval, as the case may be&#41;.

Richard

P.s. To paraphrase Luther, there were two sides of a horse to fall off of, the trick is staying on its back. --RL

[Justin]

That’s my qualm why do people still think it’s near heresy to look at an ancient misunderstanding and call it that?

Believe it or not, because it would reveal all of Orthodoxy to be nothing more than a sham--a house of cards: and that house of cards would come tumbling down. To make such assertions has very deep implications about knowledge, history, revelation, how the Holy Spirit and God's uncreated Grace works, etc. Such assertions would essentially cut our epistemological and gnosiological legs out from under us. We'd be the legless, armless, blind, deaf, mute, war casualty laying in the hospital living a meaningless life, and rushing towards a not-quick-enough death. If you tell me that an Ecumenical Council got it wrong, or that so many saints recognized by the Church got a dogma wrong... well you might as well tell me that Christ himself lied to me, because that's exactly what you'll be saying (because of certain presuppositions I hold to). It is only those who do not look at the Church as a theanthropic body where Christ is really leading his saints in a real communion that would believe that the Church and her saints could get things so wrong on this issue. This is not to say that saints don't make mistakes, but certainly the mind of the Church as articulated by so large a company of faiths--which is none other than the mind of Christ--does not make mistakes. The Fathers called it heresy, and am I further along on the path to understanding that I can contradict them? And who then is my foundation, having left those rocks of Christ? Modern scholarship, which shows that it was all a "big misunderstanding"? But this is nothing but sand.

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear Richard,

The Council of Chalcedon quite clearly said that Christ was homoousios with man; and if that statement is true, then it is equally &#40;and necessarily&#41; true that man is also homoousios with Christ.

It is a matter of more subtle consideration to note that the councils declared Christ to be homoousios both with God and with man &#40;thus two natures&#41;, yet to have only one ousia &#40;essence&#41;. It is in this regard that the &#39;confusion&#39; of terminology in the era becomes apparent. Terms such as physis and ousia mean different things in different contexts, as well as when uttered by different &#40;and all conciliarly affirmed&#41; individuals.

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Regarding the definition of the faith set forward at the Council of Chalcedon, those who are unfamiliar with the materials can find them here: Proceedings of the Council of Chalcedon. (http://www.monachos.net/patristics/christology/chalcedon.shtml)

The most concise &#40;and influential&#41; statement of the council was its &#39;Definition&#39; of the Faith, which was composed as an &#39;addendum&#39; or clarification of &#39;The Creed&#39;, which was that of Nicaea-Constantinople. The text of the Definition can be found here (http://www.monachos.net/patristics/christology/chalcedon_definition.shtml).

With a particular eye toward the most recent posts, the Definition affirms a belief in Christ who is &#39;consubstantial [homoousios] with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial [homoousios] with us as touching his manhood&#39;.

INXC, Matthew

[Richard Leigh]

Thus, Matthew, Christ is the means by which humanity in general and any one of us in particular are &#34;divinized&#34;?

Richard

P.s. Feel free, anyone, to jump in, the student is ready. --RL

[Moses Anthony]

Dear Richard L.

We know that Jesus Christ is Himself, "...the Way, the truth, and the Life...." He is the beginning, continuation, and, the end. Looking at divinization in this way, Yes, He is the means of our deification.

The other angle of this is found in the word/s in the Greek for by, or way. The Apostle Peter in his second epistle to the Asian churches however, says that it is through the promises of God that we come to share in the divine nature, and this only by way of our obedience. Therefore; one might say that the promises of God are our means to share in divinity.

I think that the way to your arguement is in saying that the means -i.e., the promises- are in the hands of Jesus, like the axe in the hands of the woodsman. It is not the axe which feels the tree, but....

the unworthy servant

[Richard Leigh]

Dear James,

I hadn&#39;t heard that St Peter&#39;s second epistle was addressed to the same audience as his first, but no matter, you misunderstood me if you took me to be making an argument &#40;I&#39;m in learning mode here&#41;. I was only following from Matthew&#39;s reitteration of Chalcedon&#39;s statement about Jesus&#39; being only one essence which, in respect to his divine nature was &#40;is&#41; the same essence as the Father&#39;s yet with respect to his human nature, this same essence is the same as ours, making him essentially the unifying principle &#40;as Person, of course, with a face&#41; with the Father.

This then becomes how your &#40;our&#41; theology is lived, but of course you&#39;re right, it is by the promises, and receiving them by the obedience of faith: i.e., to believe them and act accordingly.

Thank you for the word &#34;deification&#34; that is the one I was looking for when I could only hit on &#34;divinization.&#34;

Richard

[Sarah Mikhail]

Father bless,

I am not disputing that that the church must struggle to protect the theological definitions set by our fathers, and that a word or a letter can make a huge and heretical difference in the theological meaning of a statement. &#40;No it does not seem like nit picking to me&#41;.

I’m a little rusty on my very limited knowledge of Christology so I’ve had to go back to my lecture notes &#40;please bear with me while I fumble through this and forgive me any grave errors&#41;. My understanding is that the first time the term “in two natures” was used was at the Home synod of Constantinople in 448. &#40;my weak self already has trouble with the fact that this term was introduced, albeit for the right reasons, without an ecumenical council&#41; asking for the condemnation of those who professed one nature after the union at that synod was the start of the divide, with the news reaching Alexandria that the teachings of St Cyril &#40;who’s teachings was one nature&#41; were being condemned. Because news of the eutychian heresy had not reached them.

Moving up to the council of Chalcedon, one of the main bones of contention was the difference between “of two natures” and “in two natures” Dioscorus stated “I accept the phrase of two natures after the union” he accepted this phrase to reaffirm the Cyrillian teaching of the continuance of two natures in the union without intermixture or confusion. However the reason that Alexandria refused to accept the final draft of the council of Chalcedon was 2 fold. 1 – The definition agreed on was “in two natures” without the prase hypostatic union or the phrase “there can be no separation between the natures except in thought/contemplation only, &#40;both of which were important phrases in St Cyril’s teachings&#41; and the statement that condemned those who believe in one nature after the union. Although this phrase was placed there against the Eutychian heresy, it needed clarification to say that as it still seemed a condemnation of previously accepted teachings by St Cyril. Although this was partially corrected in the council of Constantinople by adding the phrases “hypostatic union” and “in thought alone”. The issues remained regarding “in two natures vs. of two natures

To my limited understanding it seems that the definitions balance each other out, the term one nature describes the state of existence and the term 2 natures expresses the continuity of existence of the two natures. Those stating one nature protected it from the eutychian heresy by stating that it with without mingling confusion or alteration. And those stating 2 natures protected it against heresy by stating that it was without separation and separation can be in thought alone.

Justin I am not daring to state that the blessed church fathers got the council of Chalcedon wrong. The True Apostolic faith does not change but sometimes is clarified buy the statements the Church makes, &#40;i.e. the bible is not wrong, however theology was clarified in the councils&#41; the original statements of the council of Chalcedon were not wrong but were further clarified and added to in the council of Constantinople. All I’m saying is that if clarified that the condemnation of those holding to two natures was a condemnation of the eutychian heresy not the teachings of St Cyril then this is not a change to the faith or to the council.

Please excuse my presumption at talking so long about a topic I barely have a grasp of &#40;being a 21yr old medical student this is way out of my field&#41;. Please forgive any mistakes I might have made and I await any correction

Pray for me
In Christ
Sarah

P.S. could I say Christ had 3 natures? &#40;As human nature is composed of physical, and spiritual natures if you add the divine nature you have 3&#41; LOL &#40;sorry just thought I’d lighten such a serious topic up&#41;

[Moses Anthony]

Richard L.
Please forgie me my ignorant misunderstanding of your point.

the unworthy servant

[Richard Leigh]

Dear James,

I forgive you. I didn&#39;t actually take offense, BTW, but I hear your request.

In the mean time, I note in reading over my post to Matthew you were responding to, that I used &#34;protestant language,&#34; in the term &#34;means by which,&#34; that could have helped to
throw off course by blurring the Orthodox focus. We protestants &#40;and Catholics&#41; speak of &#34;means of grace,&#34; which, I think sounds a bit too impersonal to our Orthodox &#40;dare I say?&#41; bretheren. We don&#39;t mean to be impersonal, we are only trying to clarify by increase of precision.

Isn&#39;t it interesting how we all trip over the curse of Babel. May we rise up in the blessing of Pentecost!

Richard

[Fr John Wehling]

Sarah,

The Lord God bless you!

Forgive my tardiness in responding to your last post. I have been far too busy.

Chalcedon clearly, I think, sought to be faithful to the teaching of St Cyril, even if it did not insist on using his exact terminology. To my understanding, Leo&#39;s Tome was understood in a Cyrillian light, even if Leo&#39;s own understanding of nature and persona was not as close to Cyril as it could or should have been.

Other issues were also clearly involved in the rift between those who didn&#39;t accept Chalcedon and those who did, and many unfortunate things happened in the years that followed that probably made union highly unlikely. These political actions and responses are something that I think we can all rightly lament.

Something that seems telling to me, and please correct me if I am wrong, is that after St Cyril&#39;s reunion with John of Antioch, and then after his death, the saint himself was maligned by his apparent followers in Alexandria &#40;Dioscorus, I believe&#41;. Is this, in your estimation, a contributing factor to the rift between Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians, or not?

Peace,
Fr John

[M.C. Steenberg]

In a post from a few weeks back, Sarah wrote:


I’m a little rusty on my very limited knowledge of Christology so I’ve had to go back to my lecture notes (please bear with me while I fumble through this and forgive me any grave errors). My understanding is that the first time the term “in two natures” was used was at the Home synod of Constantinople in 448. (my weak self already has trouble with the fact that this term was introduced, albeit for the right reasons, without an ecumenical council) asking for the condemnation of those who professed one nature after the union at that synod was the start of the divide, with the news reaching Alexandria that the teachings of St Cyril (who’s teachings was one nature) were being condemned. Because news of the eutychian heresy had not reached them.

Dear Sarah, his is an interesting point. It is hard for us to know precisely when and where the precise terminology of 'two natures' was employed in ecclesiastical discussion. Very often a term's first appearance in the extant record does not necessarily equate to first use -- simply to the earliest recorded use that has survived the strange selectivies of history.

However, we should keep in mind that the concept of two natures, if not the language, was current at least as early as the first Ecumenical Council at Nicaea. The fathers there stated explicitly that Christ is 'consubstantial' (homoousios) with the Father, thus implying what later generations would specify as as a divine 'nature'. It also explicitly states that the Word, this same one who is consubstantial with the Father, also 'became incarnate' (sarkothenta), 'became man' (enanthropisanta). This is the cardinal confession that lies behind later proclamations of Christ as possessing a 'human nature'. So while Nicaea does not discuss the 'natures' (physeis) of Jesus Christ, it does lay out the framework for what Ephesus and Chalcedon would see themselves doing nothing more than clarifying and expounding.

INXC, Matthew

[Sarah Mikhail]

Father bless,

It now my turn to ask forgiveness on being so slow with my response, with my exams coming up all my time seems to go towards that.

While I do agree that Chalcedon did seek to be faithful to the teachings of St Cyril but I think that the church of Alexandria at the time sought the same thing approaching the issue with different heresies in mind was a big part of the difference in the terminology used. To be really honest I do not know much about the Tome of Leo &#40;besides it still being a bone of contention between the oriental and the eastern orthodox&#41;. I know it can be explained in a cyrillian light especially in light of recent Christological discussions. I will take the time to study the tome after my exam on the 21st Nov

The reunion between St Cyril and John of Antioch left both sides in a state of tension which was never truly resolved while both were alive this could be managed, with their deaths however things got out of hand. I know that the Alexandrian church felt that St Cyril provided too many concessions to the Antiochenes this probably was in their minds re-enforced with the emergence of Theodoret of Cyrus especially with the news that was passed on to Dioscorus that Cyril’s teachings were to be excommunicated he thought that Nestorianism had taken hold. Other then that I honestly hadn’t heard that St Cyril was ever maligned by the Alexandrian church. Can you lease point me as to where you read that?

Matthew,

Thanks for your response to my quote I agree that the concept of two natures was employed much earlier then the local synod I mentioned it was mentioned by saint Cyril in his letter or reunion to John of Antioch “for a union was made of his two natures” what I guess I meant to say was that this was the first time that anyone was asked to profess a faith in 2 natures of face anathema.

I think if there weren’t the political problems as well as the treat of heresies &#40;different ones being combated by each side&#41; we would still be one church yet as it stands we are not and it saddens me when people feel that dialogue with us and the possibility of reunion is the equivalent of heresy

[Byron Jack Gaist]

I realise that this thread has been inactive for some time, but I wonder if someone here can suggest a good doctrinal text on Eastern Orthodox Christology. I would be particularly interested in a clear guide which includes definitions and explanations of the various heresies and divergences from Orthodox teaching concerning the Lord.

ICXC
Byron

[matt]

John Meyendorff&#39;s &#34;Christ in Eastern Christian THought&#34; is a great place to start.

[Mina-Monir]

hello , my name is Mina , I'm coptic orthodox i.e. Miaphysite believer , I'm really happy to find such place pushes orthodox people all over the world to reunion , infact I should thank all the reponsibles for this great site . any way , firstly forgive my bad English , secondly, I have a self comment on the accident of chalcedon council in 451 . if we read history we will find big damage and confusion between historians , and unfortunately , the eastern orthodox churches as the catholic churches still don't stop or prevent the fanatic historians from publishing lies ... and I don't mean that the eastern orthodox are liars...never, I mean they give the free place for anyone to write in this sensitive point . I read in some historic greek and Russian books what is following :

Dioscurus defended for Monophysitism and was with eutiches against Leo the Great!! and the Alexandrian church is still Monophysite , and the russian historian said: the orientals are heretics , they wittnessed the birth of Arius , Nestorius and eutiches...however , the greek and romans are the real wittnesses for apostolic faith ...HOW COMES!!

Answering this point in love and quietness : Saint Dioscurus was not monophysite and he rejected Eutiches before the chalcedonians reject him , in the Ephesus council 449 we restored eutiches when he confessed the Nicaea faith , and we rejected him when he sent his followers to preach his heresy in Alexandria in 450 ... however , Dioscurus was like the son of StCyril we Cyril took him in ephesus council in 431 and dioscurus shered in answering and anathematizing Nestourius ... and the Alexandrian see rejected Arius whose followers filled rome and constantinople in 325 and we know well who is Saint Athanasius and his nationality , we rejected Nestour in the time the greek historians now Hardly remember the name of their patriache in that council because no one answered nestorius except our father Cyril , and Clistinus the pope of rome gave Cyril authorization to represent rome too... Alexandria was and still till this time the christian Castle . and i read that my father John Wehling said that we maligned Cyril ... sure no my father , Saint cyril's name is the third name mentioned after Saint Mark the apostle and Athanasius in our liturgy...and we always say the great rule of faith of cyril(WE MAGNIFY YOU OH THEOTOKOS ...) we are the sons of cyril. and if there someone maligned him , it is LEO WITH HIS HERETIC TOME WHICH DEVIDED THE MIAHPYSITE MONOGENNIS TOU THEOLOGO SESARKOMEEN .

cyril said MIAPHYSITE ..do you believe the cyrillian quote? so, who maligned him? me the miaphysite cyrillian believer , or the diophysite who killed 31 thousand coptic in one day after the chalcedon council and played with history facts to show that the alexandrians are eutichians and win the emperial stupid game? I think the greek Athos theologians stopped the flow of wrong facts and said honorly NO for diophysitism... in the oriental - eastern conversation in christology ... in 1988 and 1993...this gave the chanve to open the gate for reunion...on a true base.... I'm happy to see the eastern orthodox Christology reunits with the Miaphysite belief and no anathemas between the two families.
I'm sorry again if I disturb anyone...but let me say again what father John wehling said: think, sought to be faithful to the teaching of St Cyril, even if it did not insist on using his exact terminology. To my understanding, Leo's Tome was understood in a Cyrillian light, even if Leo's own understanding of nature and persona was not as close to Cyril as it could or should have been

THANKS AND GOD BE WITH YOU
MIAPHYSITE TOU THEOLOGO SESARKOMEN (SAINT CYRIL THE ALEXANDRIAN)

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Mina-Minor,

I see that no one else has tried to answer your questions yet. I was hoping someone else would have as I am really not very knowledgable about the details of our Church's theology and its history. But I will try in some simple way to give you an answer as if you had come in good faith & good will to visit our parish and then asked such questions. First of all we deeply honour & venerate Sts Leo the Great Pope of Rome & his Tome. We also deeply honour & venerate St. Cyril of Alexandria. We also deeply honour the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon and indeed regard it as the sign and anchor of our Faith. For it was this Council that proclaimed that Christ is One Person in Two Natures. Without this as we know it there could not be any real salvation for us & indeed this Council defines what salvation means. But of course it is how we view this Council which has divided us.

No matter how they expressed this or the precise words or language they used, for us Holy Fathers who preceded the Council of Chalcedon, such as St Cyril were perfectly consistent in their theological vision with this great Council. In other words we believe that St. Cyril is Chalcedonian even if his language is not identical to it. But then again the language of many Holy Fathers is not 100% identical to the theological formulations of crucial Councils that followed them.

Another crucial point for us is that we anathematise Nestorianism as much as do the Copts or Armenians. If you believe that the intent of Chalcedon was Nestorian or that it is still a Nestorian influence on us to this day then we must kindly but firmly point out that this has never been so on our part.

I am not sure that such simplistic answers will put your mind at ease. Of all those Christians divided through the centuries it seems that we and the Oriental Orthodox in more recent times have come closest to having a meeting of heart & mind as far as what the Faith means. And considering the remarkable & ancient piety of your people we certainly would be enriched by being in communion once more.

But certainly we need to know- are we still theologically divided or not? By our lights (and I am confident yours also) we definitely were theologically divided at one time (despite the efforts of some on both sides to say this is not so -despite what our saints perceived about you and also your own saints about us. If this were really all just a misunderstanding of the past I think we would naturally find ourselves back in communion with almost no effort at all). If we are still fundamentally theologically divided then there is no possible way we can be in communion with each other for we regard each other as heretical. If on the other hand there has been real theological change then something good is possible. And if we really both now see through the same theological eyes then flexibility on how we express ourselves is quite possible. After all there was certainly this variety of expression in the past. But this will take a lot of sobriety and prayer to be sure we are not short-changing each other just for the sake of another false 'union'.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Kosmas Damianides]

I agree with Fr Raphael...Amen.

I hope one day we will be united in love and peace with the Coptic Orthodox Church.

God Bless

[Theopesta]

But certainly we need to know- are we still theologically divided or not?..If we are still fundamentally theologically divided then there is no possible way we can be in communion with each other for we regard each other as heretical..

our father, we believe and we study in our theological institute you are not heretic, but the expression: "two nature" without in "one person" give impression of nestorian thoughts,
we belive the two nature persist together, after union, the humanity together with the divine nature in one person not two person.

but we know you are all honest in the dogma and faith of our fathers the apostles, and we know there was a strong effect of the empress eukharia on Chalcedon to take a blessing about her marriage and leaving her vows in monasticism.

forgive me: about the empress, I feel with shame when I remmber her, every time I remmber her I need to say to all the women as a nun not weak, she can be strong as our beloved st. maximos and domadious. and we study the firest meeting in chalcedon, the alexandrian pope is the head, the greek monks agree with him, and after the meeting they signatured, under the strength of the soldiers, and the alexandrean pope prevented wih forth to not complete the other meetings. I am not experienced in economic discussion,
small note: when I read the threads in faith in dogma in monastic life, I feel I am in coptic media,

I need your blessed prayer.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Theopesta Dem,
You wrote:


we belive the two nature persist together, after union, the humanity together with the divine nature in one person not two person.

This is also how we believe about Christ. I wish that someone with the theological understanding of Matthew S could also give his views on this.

I also have often been most impressed and touched by the piety of your people. I remember seeing a documentary about Ethiopia where the Ark of the Covenant is kept. The documentary showed a western scholar before the priest of the sanctuary asking very critical questions about the Ark. There was such doubt in his attitude but I most remember that how the Ethiopian priest answered him reminded me of our monks on the Holy Mt Athos. Firm faith not of this world. Lots of salt- lots of salt.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Theopesta]

if you please, our father, what the mean of: Lots of salt- lots of salt. thanks for your patient with me

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Matthew 5:13: "You are the salt of the earth."

Mark 9:50: "Salt is good."

From the commentary of Blessed Theophylact of the Holy Gospel According to St. Mark: "Just as salt preserves meat, and prevents worms from breeding within it, so do words of teaching, if they are astringent shrink the fleshliness of carnal men, and prevent the worm that never sleeps from breeding within them...Have salt therefore in yourselves, that is, have the pleasing and preserving grace of the Holy Spirit..."

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Athanasius Abdullah]

Dearest to Christ Fr. Raphael,

Peace and Blessings be with you:


If you believe that the intent of Chalcedon was Nestorian or that it is still a Nestorian influence on us to this day then we must kindly but firmly point out that this has never been so on our part.

Concerning questions such as the intent and substance of the Council of Chalcedon (doctrinally speaking that is), we would have to in all honesty understand it as Orthodox, when it is considered in its appropriate context. However, regardless of this, we do believe that Chalcedon was a *bow* to Nestorianism. It adopted questionable documents and accepted questionable figures, and with regards to its positive contribution to Orthodoxy, it was lacking and hence weak, leaving itself open therefore to easy misinterpretation. It was more concerned with polemics, such that though condemning the two heretical extremes of the scale, it did not provide any real focal point. As such it left various loopholes, allowing Nestorianism to creep in via a backdoor. The evidence of this is clear; simply study the historical reaction of Nestorius and the Nestorian Church to the Council of Chalcedon.

So not only was Chalcedon rejected by those who held to a legitimate Orthodox Christology (Copts, Armenians, Syrians etc.) in fear of its compromising such Orthodox Christology by making concessions for Nestorianism, but it was accepted by the Nestorian Church and Nestorius himself on that very basis. This is some harsh evidence the Eastern orthodox church needs to deal with. To come back and prove that your subjective intentions were not Nestorian does not negate what can be objectively interpreted from Chalcedon.

The way your subsequent councils dealt with Chalcedon also reveal that your fathers understood that many things needed to be corrected and clarified.


But certainly we need to know- are we still theologically divided or not? By our lights (and I am confident yours also) we definitely were theologically divided at one time

As I explained to you in the other thread Fr., our position has never changed nor has it ever been compromised. If we have theological misunderstandings today, we therefore had theological misunderstandings then, if we find agreement on certain issues today - this is a reflection that in actuality we were in agreement on those issues then, but were unable to see it due to the historical circumstances clouding an objective viewpoint of the other side.

Unless you can prove otherwise, by showing me from Oriental Orthodox documents a change in non-Chalcedonian Christological thought, then this claim of yours has no substance to it, and would be dishonest to further pursure. I would be most interested to hear your evidence concerning when our Church changed its Christological position, and what Christological principle exactly did it change. We are faithful Cyrillians - everything St Cyril affirmed, we affirmed - and as hard as it is to squeeze Nestorianism into the teachings of St Cyril, so too is it hard to squeeze monophysitism in them also - for the consubstantiality of Christ to humanity was affirmed by St Cyril before Chalcedon, and was even consequently affirmed by his two successors: St Dioscorus and St Timothy of Alexandria. The continuing dynamic reality of the two natures in an unconfused union, were also already affirmed by St Cyril, and adopted by our Church before Chalcedon ever came into play as well.

I am convinced that we have the same faith, however I am a bit iffy regarding the issue of Christ's acts/wills. Though we affirm with the Chalcedonian Church, that Christ has two natural wills pertaining to His two natures constituting the One Nature of God the Logos Incarnate - the way they are understood to function by the Chalcedonian Church seems to me to be in contradiction to how we understand it.

From our perspective, the natures of Christ do not "will" nor do they "act", for these are not functions of a nature. They however, provide the means by which Christ wills and acts, such that Christ both wills "humanly" and wills "divinely" (two natural wills), but ultimately he wills personally - and this is where we affirm the One will of Christ - such that it is always The Word who wills and no other. Therefore though there are two natural wills pertaining to the two respective volitional capacities provided by the two natures: the human and divine - these natural wills are actualized by His person, and according to the One personal will of Christ, the divine will always prevails due to the voluntary submission of the human will to the divine such that they are perfectly in sync and One (hence as I would label myself a miaphysite, so too I would label myself a miathelete).

Expressions like "the humanity of Christ wills this" and "the divinity of Christ wills that" or "the humanity of Christ performs this" and "the divinity of Christ performs this", implies two centres of consciousness - for "willing" and "acting" are in themselves intellectual/rational principles corollary from personhood - therefore we would never be able to accept this. It is The Word (as opposed to an exlcusive nature of The Word) who wills "according to His humanity" at times, and "according to His divinity" at other times, and He also acts "according to His humanity" at times, and "according to His divinity" at other times. This is perfectly Orthodox language - it affirms that The Word is always the subject of Christ's Incarnational experiences, whilst affirming the two means/capacities by which He acts, according to the two respective natures whose unconfused and inseparable union constitute His person. Not only is this latter way of speaking more metaphysically sound, it is more Biblically consistent - for never in the Bible is The Word divided such that we find the Apostles separating and dividing the functions of his natures. It was The Son of God whom they crucified, the Author of life whom they killed - even though such actions were only possible according to His humanity.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

[leandros]

Dear Athanasius Abdullah and all Miaphysite friends,

As you know there was in the past a great problem, that came up from the different semantics use of language.

Can you define please the term &#34;divine will&#34;, so that we may understand your point of view on this issue?

&#40;the &#34;human will&#34; definition is not nececary to be given because we are all humans and we all share the same experience of this term, which make it easy to talk about it without the need for definitions&#41;

[Athanasius Abdullah]

Dearest to Christ leandros,

Peace and blessings be with you:

I believe the term &#34;divine will&#34; simply pertains to the natural inclination/desire/want of the divine person towards perfect and absolute goodness, according to the divine essence which is in and of itself perfect and absolute goodness.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

[leandros]

Dear Athanasius Abdullah,

The “divine will” according to Chalcedonian doctrine has nothing to do with the “divine essence which is in and of itself perfect and absolute goodness”, or with “the natural inclination/desire/want of the divine person”. There is nothing “natural” regarding the “divine will”.

According to the Chalcedonian doctrine, the “devine will” of Christ originates and it is begotten in an uncreated exclusively way from the singular Personal relationship of the Word with the Father, that we call Sonship.

In this context Jesus as one Person has a will that originates from one source, that is the Father. At the same time he participates ontologically as a Person in two realities: the divine and the human – the first one is Uncreated and the second is created. This realization of one Personhood of Christ in two living experiences is the outcome of the singular Uncreated will of the Father to have an uncreated Personal relation with the Son, not as an intention to create a compound God-man nature, but as a will to manifest the Trinity uncreated Life of Persons by a God-man Person.

In this context we understand St Athanasios teachings On the Incarnation of the Word:

“For this purpose, then, the incorporeal and incorruptible and immaterial Word of God comes to our realm, howbeit he was not far from us before. For no part of Creation is left void of Him: He has filled all things everywhere, remaining present with His own Father. But He comes in condescension to shew loving-kindness upon us, and to visit us. And seeing the race of rational creatures in the way to perish, and death reigning over them by corruption; seeing, too, that the threat against transgression gave a firm hold to the corruption which was upon us, and that it was monstrous that before the law was fulfilled it should fall through: seeing, once more, the unseemliness of what was come to pass: that the things whereof He Himself was Artificer were passing away: seeing, further, the exceeding wickedness of men, and how by little and little they had increased it to an intolerable pitch against themselves: and seeing, lastly, how all men were under penalty of death: He took pity on our race, and had mercy on our infirmity, and condescended to our corruption, and, unable to bear that death should have the mastery—lest the creature should perish, and His Father’s handiwork in men be spent for nought—He takes unto Himself a body, and that of no different sort from ours. For He did not simply will to become embodied, or will merely to appear . For if He willed merely to appear, He was able to effect His divine appearance by some other and higher means as well. But He takes a body of our kind, and not merely so, but from a spotless and stainless virgin, knowing not a man, a body clean and in very truth pure from intercourse of men. For being Himself mighty, and Artificer of everything, He prepares the body in the Virgin as a temple unto Himself, and makes it His very own as an instrument, in it manifested, and in it dwelling. And thus taking from our bodies one of like nature, because all were under penalty of the corruption of death He gave it over to death in the stead of all, and offered it to the Father—doing this, moreover, of His loving-kindness, to the end that, firstly, all being held to have died in Him, the law involving the ruin of men might be undone &#40;inasmuch as its power was fully spent in the Lord’s body, and had no longer holding-ground against men, his peers&#41;, and that, secondly, whereas men had turned toward corruption, He might turn them again toward incorruption, and quicken them from death by the appropriation of His body and by the grace of the Resurrection, banishing death from them like straw from the fire“

According to Chalcedonian doctrine, St Athanasios is talking all the way and exclusively about the Person Word. Nowhere and in no instance has he talked of the nature of Word, on the issue of Incarnation of Christ.

In this context the Incarnation &#40;enanthropisi / åíáíèñþðçóç&#41; is about the Incarnation of a Person. It is a “movement” of the “un-moveable” in the context that the uncreated Person of Christ lives the ontological experience of existence in real human way according to created human nature, originated from the uncreated divine will of the Father.

He is begotten from the Father’s will into human created realm, likewise He is begotten from the Father’s will into divine uncreated Trinity realm. The “divine will” of the Father is one and the same in both cases, it is uncreated and it is the Sonship that the Father “offers” and the Son “receives” in an uncreated fashion before time. Chalcedonian doctrine declares that Christ Incarnation is not a movement of divine and human natures that meet each other producing a single God-man nature in Christ. The incarnation resulted in a single God-man Person – this is why we call the Virgin Theotokos &#40;god-mother&#41; as she is the mother of a human being that is a Divine Person.

Chalcedonian doctrine by staying faithful to doctrines of Nicea, Constantinople, and Ephesus declares that the singular will of the Father as it is expressed in the uncreated relationship with the Son, as a divine Fathership, is incomprehensible. By that it declares that the Trinity Life is non-experience-able &#40;amethectos áìÝèåêôïò&#41; in a natural way of experience. Nevertheless, this divine will is also expressed by the Person of Christ, because Christ has a Personal experience of His Father’s Fathersip as Christ’s Sonship. As this Sonship is realized both in divine realm &#40; the Trinity Life &#41; and in human realm &#40; the human life of Jesus &#41; we can declare that Jesus has two wills, a divine will and a human will that are not originated from his two natures. By saying that Jesus has two wills we refer to the split experience of natural existence that he simultaneously lives into as one Person.

Christ is capable of being in two realms and having discrete wills and still not to split into two Persons, because he is given His Personhood from the uncreated relationship of Sonship with the Father. This is a non-logical proposition because for our human created way of existence we need to naturally distinguish Persons and wills.

Exactly this is the Chalcedonian opposition to mia-nature doctrine: We do not need to associate the Person of Word with the Divine nature. He is capable to manifest His Self as a Person in the absolute absence of His divine nature, not as an abstract ideal of Personhood but as an ontological absolute existence of a Person that is living in the Trinity Communion of Divine Persons, originated his Personal existence from the will of the Father.

In this context we, Chalcedonias, along with St Athanasius, declare that “taking from our bodies one of like nature” … ”He offered it to the Father”. The first is referring to the Incarnation, the second refers to the Personal relationship of Sonship of the human Person Jesus&#40;who is the Word&#41; with the Father.

To make the Chalcedonian doctrine easier to understand let me take a Coptic example, that Pope Shenouda III, is giving :

“The Example of the Union of Iron and Fire:
St., Cyril the Great used this analogy and so did St. Dioscorus. In the case of ignited iron, we do not say that there are two natures: iron and fire, but we say iron united with fire. Similarly, we speak about the nature of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Incarnate God, and we do not say &#34;God and man&#34;. In the union of iron with fire, the iron is not changed into fire nor fire into iron. Both are united without mingling, confusion or alteration. Although this situation is not permanent in the case of iron, and here is the point of disagreement, but we only want to say that once iron is ignited with fire, it continues to retain all the properties of iron and all the properties of fire. Likewise, the nature of the Incarnate Logos is One Nature, having all the Divine characteristics and all the human as well.”

For us, Chalcedonians, this explanation is false.

The analogy of Iron and fire is not valid as long as it refers to composition of natural characteristics that are being inherited to a singular end-product.

We explain this example in the way that Nicea, and Constantinople, and Ephesus has taught us to explain things &#40;which is also St. Cyril&#39;s explanation&#41;: The iron is a nature that it remains iron regardless of the presence of the fire &#40;like the burning shrub that was not consumed by the fire and it was preserved from the presence of the fire, as have been seen by Moses in the desert, as a symbol of the incarnation of Christ&#41;. We do not say that there are two natures, but we say there are the nature of iron and the incorporeal presence of the fire. The “fire” of Christ’s divinity is not a natural divine essence, it is His Divine Personhood, it is the presence of the Person we call Word/Logos. This is why St Athanasius, who’s theology is the pillar of our Faith, for we call him Great, says: “For this purpose, then, the incorporeal and incorruptible and immaterial Word of God comes to our realm, howbeit he was not far from us before. For no part of Creation is left void of Him.”. St. Athanasius is talking, with St Cyril and all other Saints of the Church, of the Person Christ that Incarnated.

If we were to accept an Incarnation &#34;from two natures&#34; in Christ, as the coptic church declares, then the Incarmation would be an Incarnation of the divine nature Word.

But we, Chalcedonians, declare an incarnation &#34;in two natures&#34; in Christ, that is an Incarnation of the Divine Person Word.

By doing that, Christ introduced in our human realm the paradox of the Presence of a divine Person in the absence of His divine nature.

[Kosmas Damianides]

May God Bless you All!!!

I'm in one of my happy moods.http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

But we can sure use God's blessing.... all the time.

[Antonios]

Since today we celebrate St. Cyril (as well, of course, the Ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ), and since the saint has been mentioned in this thread more than a few times, I would like to offer the following prayer from the kontakion (fourth tone):

Thou with the power of Christ Saviour's divine words didst rend asunder all the webs of the heresies and didst enrich the Church by cutting down the tares of profane Nestorius, O our blest Father Cyril; wherefore, in Christ's presence now with the choirs of the Angels thou intercedest fervently with Him to grant forgiveness of failings to all of us.

May the Lord shower all of you with His blessings from on high!

in humility and love,
Antonios

[M.C. Steenberg]

On ‘mia physis’:


It thus has implications regarding the nature of the hypostatic union itself. Therefore, it is after the union that it is essential to affirm the ultimate mia physis in order to emphasise that the One hypostasis of the Word before the union, did not become two hypostasis at the incarnation, but rather the humanity of Christ was en-hypostasized by the hypostasis of The Word, such that Christ was mia physis according to the state of His individual existence.

What is particularly interesting about the above quotation is that it phrases in essentially the exact content of Chalcedon, but with different vocabulary. One of the key issues in the first half of the fifth century was divergent usage of key terms: physis, ousia, hypostasis, person, etc. This is particularly apparent across certain regional bounds an between different persons (thus the preference for prosopon in, e.g., Theodore and Nestorius as compared to a preference for hypostasis in Cyril); but is true also within the thought and writings of individuals (thus Cyril, for example, often uses physis as a synonym of hypostasis, while at others using it to indicate the properties of a natural reality, i.e. an ousia).

To declare, as Cyril declares, that there is ‘one incarnate physis’ after the incarnation is, when one reads his comments in their contexts, clearly for him to affirm his principal incarnational insight that the union he describes is one of hypostasis, and indeed the two terms are interchangeable in such a sentence. His objection is that to declare two hypostases/physeis after the union is to declare the presence of two existing/subsistent realities (i.e. hypostases), which would be tantamount to Cyril’s understanding of Nestorius’ vision. The singular hypostatic reality which Cyril calls the incarnate Christ’s one physis, is to be known ever as one (for there is only one hypostasis of the Son, before, during and after the incarnation); and moreover the mystery of the incarnation is such that this hypostasis is now known always in its incarnate reality: is a physis sesarkomene, an ‘incarnate nature’.

The difficulties here do not reside in the conceptuality of the incarnation espoused, but the language used to explore them. To use the term physis as descriptive of the subsistent reality of the hypostasis was puzzling to more than Nestorius. Far more widespread in the era was the ascription of this term to the natural reality, or ‘nature’ of a species; this is clearly the case, for example, in the writings of the Cappadocians, without whose thought Cyril’s hypostatic understanding of the incarnation is quite impossible. In such a text as, for example, the Cappadocian Epistle 38 (http://www.monachos.net/patristics/basil/epistle38.shtml), the relationship of ousia to hypostasis is paralleled to the relationship between physis and pragma, and it is the basic equation of ousia/physis as indicative of natural realm or reality (‘essence’, as the popular translation of ousia has it) that is important to note, as this was widespread.

Even Cyril uses physis in this manner on many occasions, especially when approaching the matter of the two natural realities found in Christ, which he describes as coming ‘from two natures’ (ek duo physein). It is clear that Cyril could use the term to mean different things at different times: on occasion it could imply what such a one as Theodore would have considered better described by ousia, and at others as identical to hypostasis. This becomes clear, again, when one reads Cyril’s works carefully and in their contexts; but it is not a stretch to see why those of his day (and not just Nestorius) would show some concern when they heard him proclaim that the incarnate Christ is ‘out of two natures’ and existing as ‘one nature’. While Cyril meant ‘a single hypostatic reality hypostatising two natural realms/natures’, it was easy to misread him as proclaiming that the Son was either ‘of two hypostases that merged into one’ (perceived as Apollinarian).

Part of the project of Chalcedon (451) was precisely to clarify the language. In the definition of that council, the term physis is clearly assigned to the realm of ‘nature’ or natural realm, which is clearly distinguished from the term for hypostatic or personal reality, called therein prosopon. Keep in mind that Cyril himself acknowledged that this was an acceptable manner in which to speak, given that one clarified the discussion. To speak of ‘one person in two natures’ sounded to some ears (then and now) as redolent of Nestorius’ own formula; but in fact it is impossible to hold the two together in any real sense, as Nestorius clearly believed that there was more than one prosopon in Christ. The term used by him, Theodore and others (namely Leo, in this instance) was employed by Chalcedon to describe the personal, hypostatic reality indicated by Cyril, without succumbing to the possibility for a confusion of terms between that singular personal reality and the persistent presence of the two natural realms which Cyril himself acknowledged.

INXC, Matthew

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Matthew,

Thank you so much for your clear & sober presentation above. This helps clarify the discussion. Could you go a step further and help clarify for us also the following? (By the way these are genuine & not 'trick' rhetorical questions)

Do you agree with the idea that the disagreement over Chalcedon was just a matter of terminology rather than theology? In other words what was really behind the division between us?

Secondly do you feel that now the division between us is one of terminology or of theological vision?

Lastly what do you feel is the best way to refer to the Oriental orthodox? Monophysite- miaphysite?

It seems the former has negative heretical connotations for both sides while the latter is acceptable on the oriental orthodox side. I suppose the answer will have something to do with whether we consider there is still a fundamental theological divide or not.

The last point for most of us is the main & crucial question- is the division between us real or only apparent at this point? The question is crucial because many of us must deal with this question on a direct pastoral level and have to come to some decision. Of course we can say- "ask your bishop"- which is also a good answer. But it seems in many cases Church life moves through the understanding of the people of the Church and at times the bishops themselves reflect this. So all of us struggle to find a proper answer to these questions.

In any case in this sense this question is not idle or just speculative. Mostly it is an effort to clarify things without which it seems almost impossible to come to a decision that accords with an Orthodox conscience. Sober input from those who understand the theological issues then & now is crucial.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[M.C. Steenberg]

The consequence of this is that the two essences which constitute His mia physis according to the hypostatic union, are inseparable, precisely because the existence of one physis (ousia) - the human, is dependent on such a union in the first place, due to its lacking hypostatic qualities in and of itself."

This seems to be a mis-reading of what is meant by ‘hypostatic’ with reference to ousia. The real refinement to the Christian notion of hypostatic existence that came about through the Cappadocian fathers in the late fourth century, was precisely that an ousiaexists hypostatically—that this is the means of subsistence of an ousia. Indeed, even to say that a nature ‘exists’ is to declare its hypostatic reality, for hypostasis is the subsisting, or extant, reality of an ousia.

The analogy often drawn in explanation is that of human nature in relation to human persons. Peter, James and John are each fully human persons, and as such each fully of human nature. In turn, the nature of ‘human’ is fully realised in each. Yet the human nature that Peter, James and John each are, is not a ‘thing’ shared or communicated between them, nor separable from their individual existences as human persons. Each one’s personal (or hypostatic) reality is that which is the subsisting reality of human nature. Never can this human nature (which we might assign either to the term ousia or physis) exist apart from the hypostatic reality of human persons. In others words, ‘human nature’ is not an extractable ‘substance’ that exists in any sense or form apart from the hypostatic reality that is a human person.

To declare that the human ousia/physis in Christ ‘lacks hypostatic qualities in and of itself’ is to conflate the very notions of ousia and hypostasis. An ousia in fact never has ‘hypostatic qualities’ in and of itself, for a nature is a nature, not a personal reality. But then, natures do not exist apart from hypostatic individuals, for to exist is by definition to be an hypostasis. Christ’s human nature (physis) has no ‘hypostatic reality’ in and of itself, any more than his divine nature has any such reality in and of itself. The divine ousia, like all natures, exists ever and only hypostatically; and the mystery of the Trinity is that the divine nature is tri-hypostatic.

To suggest that Christ’s human nature had some sort of self-subsisting reality (i.e. hypostatic reality) apart from the union with the divine hypostasis, would be to re-frame in quite technical terms the precise picture Cyril paints of Nestorius’ Christology: two concrete, subsistent wholes coming together in some manner of unitive conjunction. That Cyril rejects this view should not, however, cause us to think that he simply modifies the same paradigm such that the self-subsistence of the divine nature attracts to itself a non-subsistent human nature. This is still to read Cyril through Nestorius.

Cyril’s point is that the one who is the Son, who prior to the incarnation hypostatised the divine nature alone, in and after the incarnation hypostatises both the divine and human natures. To speak of one being self-subsisting and the other not, however one defines this, is to conflate the categories of ousia/physis and hypostasis. Natures never self-subsist in a manner other than hypostatically.

INXC, Matthew

[M.C. Steenberg]

Fr Raphael wrote:


Do you agree with the idea that the disagreement over Chalcedon was just a matter of terminology rather than theology? In other words what was really behind the division between us?

There is, as many people here know, a strong voice in the modern world that would wish to suggest precisely this; namely, that the divisions over Chalcedon were primarily (or entirely) semantic, based on ambiguities of vocabulary and its usage. There is certainly some strong grounding in this. The fact that so much of the vocabulary was fluid among the voices of the age (even, as I mentioned in a previous post, within the thought of individual writers) meant that any document purporting a finality of vocabulary would meet with resistance. This was seen in Ephesus already: John of Antioch’s abhorrence at the decrees of ‘Cyril’s council’ was tempered in later discussions between these two, such that the ‘formula of reunion’ could be issued in 433 in language that was in fact neither traditionally Cyrilline nor fully Johannine, but which presumably both parties agreed was adequate once the meaning of various terminologies had been explored. That Cyril, for example, could speak rather strongly against the language of Christ ‘in’ two natures, yet also come to admit that such language was acceptable given proper definition of what was meant, is a classic case-in-point.

Yet it is too easy to relegate the whole dispute to semantics—and certainly inauthentic to the genuine concerns of the age. Even when grounded in the strong support for Cyrilline language that had gradually emerged after imperial ratification of Ephesus in 433 (which, keep in mind, took some time to be achieved; the emperor initially condemned all parties at Ephesus, including Cyril’s!), and taking into account the linguistic clarifications that had since risen in 433 and other discussions, there was still strong concern that a language of ‘of’ two natures, as well as descriptions of ‘one nature’ (mia physis—which interestingly Cyril seems to have dropped by 433) were prone to difficult interpretations. Though they might well and truly be able to be explained authentically, and perhaps indeed Cyril’s was (and may remain) among the most powerful means of conceiving the incarnation, it had residual dangers all its own. The outbreak over the teaching of Eutychius seemed the proof-in-the-pudding of this. Chalcedon seems to have been called as a genuine attempt at further refining the largely Cyrilline outcome of Ephesus in light of reflections emerging from others—as well as Cyril himself—in the intervening years.

There is something of the ‘in’ two natures language of Chalcedon that actually moves beyond our present discussion of what the mia physis formula meant for Cyril (which was clearly the singular reality of the one hypostasis of the Son). In declaring that this single subjective reality exist in two persisting natures, which persist as distinct, is something Cyril agreed to (under qualification). But in positing such things as the dual-consubstantiality of Christ (i.e. that he is ‘consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and consubstantial with us as regards his humanity’), began to shed light on the interrelation of the persistently distinct natures in Christ’s singular personhood; and objections over this aspect of Chalcedon’s thought are more than merely pedantic.

It is not merely coincidental that the controversy immediately to follow Chalcedon was that of the so-called ‘Monothelete’ dispute, which boiled down to a discussion over the question of wills and willing in Christ, as related to the persistent natures in which he exists.


Secondly do you feel that now the division between us is one of terminology or of theological vision?

Much of it certainly still is of terminology, for various parties on (and within) all sides still understand much of the terminology differently; and mis-representation of others’ views and beliefs is, sadly, an ancient and pervasive Christian custom. But there is still theological ground as well. What are we, in a Chalcedonian/non-Chalcedonian discussion, to say of the persistent distinction of Christ’s two natures in relation to their actualisation in his single hypostatic reality? How do those attributes distinct to the human natural reality, manifest themselves in his single subjectivity which is the single subjectivity of the divine Son—e.g. such attributes as deliberative willing, obedience, choice, etc?


Lastly what do you feel is the best way to refer to the Oriental orthodox? Monophysite- miaphysite?

Technically, ‘monophysite’ is the term used to describe the view traditionally ascribed to Eutyches, generally taken to imply that two precedent natures are united in such a manner that the resultant being is the reality of only one natural reality alone: a subsumed or ‘divinised’ humano-divinity. That this is patently not what was meant by Cyril, often taken as among the key patrons of those who confess a doctrine of mia physis, is grounds enough for realising its pejorative character when applied to such groups. ‘Chalcedonian’ and ‘non-Chalcedonian’ is frequent (I confess it is my own most-common usage), but there is the entirely valid question of whether it is appropriate to define a group by its rejection of a thing (comparable to calling all English ‘non-Declaration-of-Independence-ists’). However, as we’ve seen even here in these discussions, a rejection of Chalcedon is often taken as a cornerstone of belief by some such groups. Perhaps ‘miaphysite’ is best, as it describes a group by ascription to a theological term actually held and honoured; but even this has its opponents.

I might point out that in questions of discussing the various Orthodox churches, the qualifiers ‘Chalcedonian’ and ‘non-Chalcedonian’ are more appropriate, as several churches employ the adjective ‘Orthodox’ in their titles, which are not in communion with one another. Adherence to Chalcedon is a point of clarification in this regard.

INXC, Matthew

[leandros]

Dear Friends,

M.C. Steenberg’s analysis, both the historical & of the issue of Christology itself, is substantial, but let me add to that a clarification, If I may.

There are two similar expression: “the hypostasis of The Word en-hypostasize the humanity of Christ” and “The Word is the hypostasis of the humanity of Christ”.

Of course in the similarity of their content someone can use these expressions interchangeably, in the same singular context that he implies. So, in these cases, we have to search what is the actual intention of the person that uses either of these phrases.

But, while these two expressions seem to declare the same thing, there is a significant deference in the context that: “hypostasis” is the subjective reality of existence and “nature” is the objective reality of existence of only one and identical being. We can not separate these two realities, nor can we unite them with others, isolated from each other, either naturally or hypostatically.

In this context, the phrase “the hypostasis of The Word ‘en-hypostasize’ the humanity of Christ” is literally implying that, the hypostasis of the Word as a pre-existing divine subjective reality hypostatizes the human nature of Christ, at a given time, while at the same time it carries over the respective divine objective reality of hypostasis, because there can be no separation between subjective and objective reality of being. If we deduct the divine objective reality, then the subjective reality must also vanish to nothingness.

If we analyse the phrase “the hypostasis of The Word en-hypostasize the humanity of Christ” we see that “the hypostasis of the Word” is the subject that “en-hypostasize” “the humanity of Christ”. The meaning of “the hypostasis of the Word” is an indicative definition of the Word as a distinct hypostasis among similar others. Word is energetically en-hypostasize the human being of Christ, as an action/energy of the Personhood. In this context, Word as a subjective reality hypostatizes the nature of human being Christ, not as an esoteric/internal self-experience of being the objective created reality of the human natural reality of Christ, but as pre-existed divine subjective self-experience that takes the place of a missing human subjective self-experience. It is a divine personhood that acts in place of a missing human personhood.

In the context, starting from this one hypostasis of Christ as a hypostatical union &#40;of a pre-existed personhood with a never-existed personhood&#41;, the incarnation is expressed as a union of two pre-existed natures that united in a complex one nature, that itself then resulted in the hypostatical union of the Word and of the void persona of human nature into one person, that is no other than Word.

In an analogy, to the use of “en-hypostasize” Christ, was the Greek ancient pagan god Jupiter. Jupiter was supposed to be a divine persona, who originated his hypostasis from his divine nature &#40;essence&#41;, which he inherited from his father Cronus and from his mother Rea. From time to time, he supposedly assumed human & animal bodies to incarnate into self-alienated beings in order to associate with non-divine beings. He was carrying with him, both his divine hypostasis and his divine nature, embodied in a creature’s body. For that when he was on earth, he was absent from his heaven residence of Olympus. &#40;By the way, his absence made his wife goddess Hera to wonder of his loyalty! Ancient Greek people were very lusty people, so their deities were the same.&#41;

Why do I bring up the issue of pagan deities, for I know that none Christian is accepting those superstitions? Because, it is an example of the use of “en-hypostasize” that shows vividly that this is not the case of Christ’s incarnation!

St Athanasius the Great, living at a time when these ancient superstitions were believed by many, in order to show that the incarnation of God is not in the context of “en-hypostasize” he is saying: “For this purpose, then, the incorporeal and incorruptible and immaterial Word of God comes to our realm, howbeit he was not far from us before. For no part of Creation is left void of Him: He has filled all things everywhere, remaining present with His own Father. But He comes in condescension to shew loving-kindness upon us, and to visit us” – Specifying by these words that Christ’s incarnation is not like Jupiter’s incarnation ‘en-hypostasizing’.

Because, Christ’s incarnation is a non-logical proposition: “The Word is the hypostasis of the humanity of Christ”. He is the subjective reality of human existence, and at the same time He is the subjective reality of divine existence, while at the same time He does split into two persons, because although these realities are self experienced according to the respective objective realities of divine nature and human nature, as esoteric/internal self-experiences of being, in two distinct realms, one created and the other uncreated, the cause of His existence as His self-awareness is not self-determined but He is determined from the Father as His Son.

The difference between “Word en-hypostasize …”, and “Word is ...” consist in the acceptance or the denial of one of the proposals that “Word becomes human”, or that “Word is human”. Of course we all know that humans are creatures, as they are created being. For any human being, there was a time that he/she was not, and a time after he/she became a being. There is the obligatory issue of evolvement in the human nature and personhood. A human being evolves from nothingness to perfection. Christ as “child grew and became strong; he was filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him.” &#40;Luke 2:40&#41;. He was perfect as a human being in any way, both natural and personal. But He was not a perfect human baby nature that had a confined a perfect personhood, so that as long as the baby Jesus was growing the person Christ was in a stable perfect state.

St. Luke in order to show that Christ “grew and became strong and he was filled with wisdom” he immediately continues by presenting the instance in which Christ went to the Temple, where He spoke with the teachers of the temple “listening to them and asking them questions. Everyone who heard him was amazed at his understanding and his answers”. In this instance (http://bible.gospelcom.net/passage/?search=Luke%202:40-50;&version=31;) St Luke recites that “Every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the Feast of the Passover. When he was twelve years old, they went up to the Feast, according to the custom…” At that point, St Luke presents that Christ was going with His parents to the Temple every year, but he had shown up to the teachers not until the age of twelve. This is presented as an evidence of His gradual development as a human being, as a whole embodied/person subjective and objective realization of being. As an evidence that, He was like one of us “humans”.

St. Athanasius says on this issue &#40;as I have submitted in an earlier post&#41;:

“For this purpose, then, the incorporeal and incorruptible and immaterial Word of God comes to our realm, howbeit he was not far from us before. For no part of Creation is left void of Him: He has filled all things everywhere, remaining present with His own Father. But He comes in condescension to shew loving-kindness upon us, and to visit us…..
He takes unto Himself a body, and that of no different sort from ours. For He did not simply will to become embodied, or will merely to appear . For if He willed merely to appear, He was able to effect His divine appearance by some other and higher means as well. But He takes a body of our kind, and not merely so, but from a spotless and stainless virgin, knowing not a man, a body clean and in very truth pure from intercourse of men. For being Himself mighty, and Artificer of everything, He prepares the body in the Virgin as a temple unto Himself, and makes it His very own as an instrument, in it manifested, and in it dwelling…
And thus taking from our bodies one of like nature, because all were under penalty of the corruption of death He gave it over to death in the stead of all, and offered it to the Father”.

In this context, Christ’s incarnation has a controversial/oxymoron scope: “He takes unto Himself a body, and that of no different sort from ours. For He did not simply will to become embodied, or will merely to appear . For if He willed merely to appear, He was able to effect His divine appearance by some other and higher means as well”…. “And thus taking from our bodies one of like nature, because all were under penalty of the corruption of death He gave it over to death in the stead of all, and offered it to the Father”

Christ is the manifestation of the will of the Father, as an existential relationship between Father and Son. Both the divine nature and the human nature are irrelevant to this Life of Trinity. The cause of Trinity Life is the Father, not a natural “functionality”. This uncreated relationship is not the result of existence of Persons, it is the identification of their existence with their Personhoods. The Father, the Son and the Spirit are “Who they are” for no other reason, but because the Son and the Spirit have as cause the Father, and the Father being without cause.

In this context, the hypostasis of the human nature of Christ has as the only cause the Father, and not the energy of the Son. The objective reality of both divine and human nature of Christ is not the cause of the subjective reality of His Sonship.

Christ’s incarnation is not His action/energy of “en-hypostasizing” an impersonal human nature, which afterwards becomes His human self. It is the existential experiential union of two separate objective realities: that of created reality of Creation and that of uncreated reality of Trinity Life as they are realised by the Son Who has the experiential awareness of both of them at once. Because the one reality is uncreated and the other is created, the Son is the hypostasis of an uncreated divine nature and at the same time of a created human nature.

Word IS the hypostasis of His divine nature and He IS the hypostasis of His human nature while determination of his Personhood is not self-determined by Himself, but by Father. He IS the Son of God, and He IS the son of man. He IS experiencing both objective realities, having a Single Father.

To make it easier for us to understand, when he was talking about His Person, He spoke the language of Kings. He talked of Himself in the third person, like Kings do. “When he heard this, Jesus said, &#34;This sickness will not end in death. No, it is for God&#39;s glory so that God&#39;s Son may be glorified through it.&#34; &#40;John 11:4&#41; &#34;For the Son of Man is to go just as it is written of Him; but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.&#34; &#40;Mark 14:21&#41;. Also like kings do, when he talked of His natural will he used first person language: “Later, knowing that all was now completed, and so that the Scripture would be fulfilled, Jesus said, &#34;I am thirsty.&#34;&#40; John 19:28&#41; Also like kings do, when He talked directly to His Father, he talked using first person language.

When a Prince talks, he says “the Successor wishes to go hunting” just like “a person that has a unique reference, which is the relation with the King Father”. That is because the Princehood is a reality that he experience together with the reality of humanity, but it is not given by nature, but by his Father’s will. But of course, we can not say that the Prince personality is en-hypostasizing the human nature. We can say that the same Person IS the human being and that the same oen IS the Royal being.

God Bless us all.

[leandros]

I have to make a &#40;typing error&#41; correction in my previous post:

Because, Christ’s incarnation is a non-logical proposition: “The Word is the hypostasis of the humanity of Christ”. He is the subjective reality of human existence, and at the same time He is the subjective reality of divine existence, while at the same time He does NOT split into two persons, because although these realities are self experienced according to the respective objective realities of divine nature and human nature, as esoteric/internal self-experiences of being, in two distinct realms, one created and the other uncreated, the cause of His existence as His self-awareness is not self-determined but He is determined from the Father as His Son.

Ooops. Sorry for that mistake.