copticheritage.org :: To Protect and Preserve. (PNphpBB2)

Integrated Coptic Orthodox Forums

** Important Disclaimer Concerning Our Forums **

Miaphysite or monophysite

Page: 1, 2 Next

copticheritage.org Forum Index » Religion and Faith » Coptic Orthodoxy » Questions about Coptic Orthodoxy

Post new topic | Reply to topic

Author

Message

DEACON_JOHN

Posts: 121

Joined: Aug 22, 2003
Location: St. George & St. Rueiss COC Toronto, Ontario

Posted: Nov 18, 2007 - 07:14 PM

What is the difference between Miaphysite and monophysite and which one is the coptic church? What were we accused of by the Catholic church?

minaS

Posts: 196

Joined: Jun 26, 2003

Posted: Nov 18, 2007 - 08:00 PM

Hi,

Miaphysite means united nature.

Monophysite means absolutely one nature.

The Coptic Orthodox Church is miaphysite because of its belief in the the union of the human and divine nature in to the one nature of the Incarnate Logos, Jesus Christ. This is the formula articulated by St. Cyril of Alexandria in the council of Ephesus with which the Eastern Orthodox churches agreed. Later on, the Oriental Orthodox churches were wrongfully accused of being monophysite.

Truth.Seeker

Posts: 432

Joined: Feb 25, 2008

Posted: Feb 28, 2008 - 09:41 PM

To explain it a little more fully:

Miaphysite means "one composite nature."

Monophysite means "one simple nature."

In non-chalcedonian theology (theology of those who rejected the Council of Chalcedon) this means that Christ has one composite nature, fully human and fully divine.

"Monophysite" was a deragatory term used by the chalcedonian side because the Second Council of Ephesus in 449 let a man named Eutyches "off the hook." He had been condemned for not accepting "two natures after the union" in a local synod in 448. St. Dioscorus, presiding over the 449 council, said that since the theology he was asked to accept had never actually been accepted by the church, and because Eutyches affirmed what had been declared by Ephesus, he was not at fault.

At Chalcedon, Eutyches had been clear in believing that Christ's divinity "overtook" His humanity, i.e. His divinity ate up His humanity, which just left one simple nature in Christ, i.e. the divine nature. After this, Chalcedon (Council in 451 AD) accepted "two natures after the union" (as opposed to one composite nature), so the Egyptian and Syrian bishops rejected that decision because in their view it was contradictory to the Council of Ephesus (431 AD).

So, since the Egyptians and Syrians rejected the Council, and Eutyches was declared innocent in 449 by the Archbishop of Alexandria (St. Dioscorus), the chalcedonian side said we believe the same thing that Eutyches did (i.e. that Christ only had one simple divine nature), and therefore called us "monophysite." An interesting fact to point out is that Eutyches was condemned by the Egyptians and Syrians at Chalcedon as much as he was condemned by the Chalcedonian side.

A positive advancement in recent years is that much (if not most) of the Chalcedonian side has stopped calling us monophysite and now awknoledge that we believe in miaphysite theology.

Last edited by Truth.Seeker on Oct 16, 2008 - 08:37 AM; edited 1 time in total

stylite39

Posts: 2

Joined: Oct 13, 2008

Posted: Oct 13, 2008 - 03:37 AM

Bear in mind readers that in the Greek language, "mono" and "mia" both mean one. This refers to the one nature of Christ that the Fourth Ecumenical Council of 451 AD rejected.

In Eastern Orthodox Christianity it is said the person of Christ maintains two distinct natures - fully God and fully man, separate yet undivided.
Think of oil & vinger in a sealed flask.

In Coptic Orthodox Christianity it is said the person of Christ maintains one composite nature - inseparable and undivided. Think of mixing chocolate syrup and regular milk.

433 AD - St. Cyril explicitly accepts two natures after the hypostatic union in his "Epistle to John of Antioch" (the Agreements of 433):

"With regard to the Evangelical and Apostolic expressions concerning the Lord, we know that men who are skilled in theology make some of them common to the one Person, while they divide others between the two Natures, ascribing those that are fitting to God to Divinity of Christ, and those that are lowly to His Humanity. On reading these sacred utterances of Yours, and finding that we ourselves think along the same lines—for there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism—, we glorified God the Saviour of all" [John Karmiris, Dogmatic and Creedal Statements of the Orthodox Church, Vol. 1 [Athens:1960]. p. 154], quoted in The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics, p 11]

and on how blatant the heretic Severos was in disagreeing with St. Cyril's perspective:
"The formulae used by the Holy Fathers concerning two Natures united in Christ should be set aside, even if they be Cyril's" [Patrologia Graeca, Vol. LXXXIX, Col. 103D. Saint Anastasios of Sinai preserves this quote of Severos in his works; quoted in The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 12].

Peace be with all!

Iqbal

Posts: 127

Joined: Nov 14, 2004

Posted: Oct 13, 2008 - 06:36 AM

stylite39 wrote:

Bear in mind readers that in the Greek language, "mono" and "mia" both mean one.

Even in english, the term "one" is rather vague and can mean a range of things in different contexts. Greek, being more nuanced, has different terms corresponding to the different connotations which "one" carries in the english. Obviously, "mia" and "mono" are not logical equivalents else they wouldn't exist as two different words. Yes, they both mean "one," but they refer to different senses of oneness, and that is the relevant point being made here.

Quote:

Think of mixing chocolate syrup and regular milk.

Sorry, but the Church has never employed any analogy which would suggest mixture and confusion as the above does.

Quote:

433 AD - St. Cyril explicitly accepts two natures after the hypostatic union in his "Epistle to John of Antioch" (the Agreements of 433):

Sorry, no such explication exists in the given quote. The phrase "two natures" used here is neither qualified by "after the union" nor the infamous "in" preposition. As such the phrase is never actually used with reference to the reality of the Incarnate Word's existence, and ultimately it was how the expression so applies to that reality which was at the heart of the dispute regarding its propriety. St Severus of Antioch, directly commentating on this very passage, quite astutely observes that St Cyril uses the phrase in question within the context of theological reflection insofar as he refers to the manner in which "men who are skilled in theology" interpret the Gospel verses that would seem to divide the activities of Christ. Its use in this context thus sits quite well with the Church's insistence that there is in fact an exception to the rule that Christ cannot be spoken of in two natures viz. when such speech is used to express that which is conceived "in contemplation" alone.

Quote:

and on how blatant the heretic Severos was in disagreeing with St. Cyril's perspective:

This is a primary case of poor scholarship. The quote in question is not rooted in any primary work of St Severus, but rather the polemical treatise of one of his opponents. That alone strips it of its credibility. The fact it runs against the grain of St Severus' adament pursuit to follow St Cyril to the 'T', as amply demonstrated in his authentic works, serves to put the nail in the coffin on this one.

Truth.Seeker

Posts: 432

Joined: Feb 25, 2008

Posted: Oct 13, 2008 - 08:27 AM

stylite39 - why would you go on a Coptic website and call St. Severus of Antioch a heretic? A bit inflammatory don't you think? You could express your disagreement, but be a bit more decent.

macarius323

Posts: 1

Joined: Sep 16, 2008

Posted: Oct 13, 2008 - 08:55 AM

From stylite39:

Quote:

Bear in mind readers that in the Greek language, "mono" and "mia" both mean one. This refers to the one nature of Christ that the Fourth Ecumenical Council of 451 AD rejected.

As Iqbal has already pointed out, they mean completely different things or else why are there two words for the same meaning? Clearly "Mono" (only one) and "MIa" (one as in a unity) are different.

Quote:

Think of mixing chocolate syrup and regular milk.

Once again as Iqbal has said, the Oriental Orthodox have never used this analogy. Rather we used the analogy given by our father St. Cyril of Alexandria which was also used by St. Dioscorus of Alexandria as well as St. Severus of Antioch:

"The union of the Divinity and the Humanity, like the union of fire and iron, the hammering of the iron affects only the iron, but does not affect the fire, although it shares a unity with the iron. The union of the Divinity with the Humanity gave an infinitive value for the one Who suffered for the sake of the salvation of all the humanity."

and also:

"The Hypostatic Union of the Word of God with the flesh is like the union of the soul with the body and like the union of fire and iron: even as they are of two different natures, by their union they became one. Likewise, our Lord Christ is one Messiah, one Lord, and one Nature."

Quote:

433 AD - St. Cyril explicitly accepts two natures after the hypostatic union in his "Epistle to John of Antioch"

St. Cyril accepted this under the condition that the distinction was "in thought alone" as evident in his Twelve Anathemas:

"IF anyone shall after the [hypostatic] union divide the hypostases in the one Christ, joining them by that connection alone, which happens according to worthiness, or even authority and power, and not rather by a coming together which is made by natural union: let him be anathema."

Quote:

and on how blatant the heretic Severos was in disagreeing with St. Cyril's perspective:

I think you'll find that the "heretic" in question was actually Leo who started this whole affair. A Greek Orthodox Priest (Fr. John S. Romanides) after careful study of Chalcedon said that Leo had followed Theodore of Mopsuestia like "a pet on a leash", all the while being completely aware that he was a Nestorian, and he even "reprimanded" him after Chalcedon saying that although it was a common victory for them both, yet he (Theodore of Mopsuestia) had been tardy in denouncing Nestorius! He knew he was a Nestorian and followed him, even going so far as to demand a place for him in the council!

Without going into much more detail, what occured at Chalcedon could have been avoided had Leo been content with his See and jurisdiction, then he wouldn't have tried to elevate himself above what what was already a great honour. Leo as the Archbishop of Rome, was the "First among equals" but he abused this to the point that the he called the Second Council of Ephesus a "Latrocinium" (robber synod) and accused St. Dioscorus "For he undertook to give sentence against one over whom he had no jurisdiction. And he dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place."

Firstly he excommunicated Leo without knowing it was him (St. Dioscorus was shown the Tome of Leo without being told who wrote it); and secondly, the See of Rome is called the Apostolic See, as if all the other Sees were not founded by the Apostles! The Archbishop of Rome wasn't even aware of the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople until after it was over. I don't seem to recall the Archbishop of Rome back then refusing to accept its decrees rather complaining that it was held without his consent! After St. Dioscorus was evicted from the council, Leo insisted that See of Rome should be above that of Constantinople, and that the Archbishop of Rome should enjoy more presidence! It just goes to show Chalcedon was REALLY about.

To sum it all up, Chalcedon wasn't really about faith so much as it was about politics, as I said before; had Leo not meddled with what was not his concern anyway, the Orthodox churches might still be completely united. In saying this we've come a long way since then and are close to achieving unity once again with the Eastern Orthodox. These succesful dialogues have been achieved through the prayers and effort of His Holiness Pope Shenouda III and his partners in the Apostolic ministry our fathers the bishops. May God preserve their lives for us.

Sorry for taking so long

Pray for me, a sinner.

mikehenry

Posts: 96

Joined: Jan 19, 2006
Location: St. Mary and St. Moses Coptic Orthodox Church, Buffalo, NY, USA

Posted: Oct 13, 2008 - 09:30 AM

Truth.Seeker,

Are you sure that the strawberry lemonade example you posted earlier isn't going too far? It sounds like the chocolate milk example given by stylite39, which (as established) is contradictory to any Oriental Orthodox teaching.

But, I could be wrong...

_________________
Mike
http://www.buffalocopts.org

"When I said, 'My foot is slipping,' Your love, O LORD, supported me. When anxiety was great within me, Your consolation brought joy to my soul."
Psalm 93:18-19

"My eyes are always toward the Lord, for He shall pluck my feet out of the trap."
Psalm 24: 15

Truth.Seeker

Posts: 432

Joined: Feb 25, 2008

Posted: Oct 13, 2008 - 10:48 AM

Mike,

The word "κρᾶσις" was used by some Fathers before St. Cyril (e.g. Tertullian) and it meant "the blending of two liquids together so as to form a compound." Nestorius seems to have made the point that you are making and St. Cyril recognizes the confusion that might happen, in his first letter against Nestorius, he says the following:

"What no one therefore even in bare idea thinks of holding, why do you putting this in your book, as though actually uttered, pretend to be contending for the doctrines of piety? For the name mixture, some of the holy fathers too have put: but since you say that you are afraid lest any confusion be deemed to take place, as in the case of liquids mingled with one another, I rid you from your fears, |17 for not so did they deem (how could they?) but they used the word improperly, anxious to declare the extreme union of the things that had come together; and we say that the Word of God came together with His proper Flesh, in union indissoluble and unalterable. And we find that the God-inspired Scripture itself too, does not look minutely into the word, but uses it rather improperly and simply. And verily the Divine Paul hath written of some, But the Word preached did not profit them, who wore not mixed in faith with its hearers. Were they of whom he spoke going to be mixed one with another, after this fashion, as wine with water, and to undergo a confusion of persons, or were they rather to be united in soul, as it is written in the Acts of the holy Apostles, And of the multitude of them that believed was the heart and the soul one? But this I suppose is the truth, not the other. Be free then from all fear on this score, for firmly established is the mind of the saints."

_____

When I said "mix" above I may have been making the same error that these Fathers made, which is to show the unity of His divinity and humanity, I wasn't careful enough to stay away from words that could be taken as a "mingling" of His divinity and humanity. In any case, the fire and iron example written above is more proper and causes much less confusion.

It seems that with the liquid example, one might have to go one step further and say that on a fundamental level, the lemonade particles and the strawberry particles are not mixed into one another, but when you drink it you taste strawberry lemonade, not just strawberry and not just lemonade.

Anyway - maybe not the best of analogies on my part.

Truth.Seeker

Posts: 432

Joined: Feb 25, 2008

Posted: Oct 13, 2008 - 10:55 AM

Earlier I said, "The composite nature was explained by Sts. Cyril and Severus by an analogy to liquid." I'm not so sure if that is correct anymore, I wrote that post from memory. So, either Sts. Cyril and Severus were defending the position of earlier Fathers or I misunderstood something.

lowlyman

Posts: 241

Joined: Apr 04, 2006

Posted: Oct 14, 2008 - 01:14 PM

[quote="macarius323"]From stylite39:

Quote:

Bear in mind readers that in the Greek language, "mono"

"IF anyone shall after the [hypostatic] union divide the hypostases in the one Christ, joining them by that connection alone, which happens according to worthiness, or even authority and power, and not rather by a coming together which is made by natural union: let him be anathema."

I think the anathema applies to those who separate the center of activity in the divinity from the center of activity in his humanity. For in the hypostatic union, Christ our God heals with his human body. therefore his human flesh fully participates in the healing which is accomplished due to his divinity.

stylite39

Posts: 2

Joined: Oct 13, 2008

Posted: Oct 14, 2008 - 01:42 PM

Truth.Seeker wrote:

Mike,
When I said "mix" above I may have been making the same error that these Fathers made, which is to show the unity of His divinity and humanity, I wasn't careful enough to stay away from words that could be taken as a "mingling" of His divinity and humanity. In any case, the fire and iron example written above is more proper and causes much less confusion.

I racked my mind struggling to discern the principle of miaphysitism - the fire/iron example is acceptable in meeting this criteria. I kindly disagree about the miaphysite doctrine being the proper way to describe Christ though.

Hopefully I'm not catering to some ancient heresy unwittingly, but I liken Christ's dual natures to a rose. His divinity is the stem and His humanity the petals. The stem separates at the base of the petals but they remain united to comprise one single flower (think of hypostasis). The stem and petals never fuse or exert their respective characteristics upon one another, even though the rose operates as a single entity. The nature of the stem is different than the nature of the petals but they collectively comprise the definition of one rose. So it is with Christ’s human and divine natures.

Think about this: as fire fuses together with iron and changes its state (or characteristics rather) from solid to liquid, the iron turns molten, loses its rigidity and ability to function as, let’s say - a knife. So too when the Divine imposes (or fuses) its power and will upon a man, that man ceases to operate like other men. The knife which melted into molten iron has undergone change and will function differently because of this change – it can’t slice bread any longer. The fire/iron analogy of miaphysitism implies that Christ's nature (or characteristics rather) was different than ours, and this I find trouble with.

How could Christ be fully God AND fully man if Divinity fused within Him? Men have free will, and our free will is free because it is not controlled by God. So too did Christ have one will in accordance with His divine nature and another will in accordance with His human nature. CHRIST’S DUAL WILLS OPERATED INDEPENDENTLY WITHIN THE SAME PERSON. Remember His prayers at Gethsemane! This brings me to the 6th Ecumenical Council and the heresy of monothelitism. If it is said that Christ had only one nature, then as a composite in God (fire/iron) His divine will caused Him to forfeit his human will; thus ceasing to classify Him as FULLY man. This reminds me of the Franco Latin heresy pertaining to the Virgin Mary's Immaculate Conception.

The difference between Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian beliefs seem to be something other than entirely political, although I do agree that politics played a role. Specifically in the Robber’s Synod how Archimandrite Barsum from Syria was permitted to vote at the council in support of Eutyches, even though according to the canons only bishops could be members. And let’s not forget how Archbishop Flavian and his partisans were not even permitted the right to speak in their own defense lest they be placed under arrest in accordance with the Emperor’s edict.

The Fourth Ecumenical Council in 451 elicited no such threats however, and 630 bishops unanimously heralded the dual natures of Jesus Christ. I believe the Holy Spirit dawned upon these men, exactly like in every other Ecumenical Council that preceded it, free of violence, free of duress, and the ability to convene under genuine spiritual contemplation.

My girlfriend is Coptic Orthodox and I've been mulling over these differences to a serious extent. I deeply respect the piety of Coptic Orthodox Christians and hope that one day we share the fullest of communion in truth as Christ intended.

Peace be with all!

Truth.Seeker

Posts: 432

Joined: Feb 25, 2008

Posted: Oct 14, 2008 - 03:12 PM

Let me try to address your points:

1) Leo's #1 problem with the 449 Council (I'm trying to find neutral language, not going to call it the Second Council of Ephesus or the "Robbers' Synod") is that the Tome of Leo was not read. There was absolutely no reason for the Tome of Leo to be read at the Council. As far as procedure goes, this Council was met to pass judgment on the much smaller Synod of 448 that excommunicated Eutyches after asking him to accept a dual-nature theology that had not been passed by any Council.

2) "The Fourth Ecumenical Council in 451 elicited no such threats however, and 630 bishops unanimously heralded the dual natures of Jesus Christ." I'm not sure where you got this information, but as a matter of fact, the Egyptian bishops did not accept this dual nature. If the decision was "unanimous" by excluding the Egyptian bishops, then the word "unanimous" becomes meaningless. "The House of Representatives passed the legislation unanimously by 300 votes to 135." Not much sense in that.

"Specifically in the Robber’s Synod how Archimandrite Barsum from Syria was permitted to vote at the council in support of Eutyches." I'm not familiar with this fact, but even if it is true, the vote to rescind Eutyches' excommunication was by much more than two votes, i.e. this fact is absolutely immaterial, if, it is, indeed a fact.

3) If you read the minutes of Chalcedon, the non-Roman Bishops agreed with Dioscorus more than they agreed with Leo. In fact, when asked to go draw up the definition of Christology, they came back with "two natures BEFORE the union." They had to be reminded THREE times by the SECULAR representatives of Rome that this language is completely consistent with Dioscorus whom they had excommunicated a bit earlier and inconsistent with the Tome of Leo which they had accepted. Only after those reminders did they adopt Leo's language as the definition of the faith.

4) "If it is said that Christ had only one nature, then as a composite in God (fire/iron) His divine will caused Him to forfeit his human will; thus ceasing to classify Him as FULLY man." That is besides the point as it concludes what the main dispute is about. What do I mean by that? If Christ has one unique nature FROM a Divine and a human nature, then He has a nature unlike any other nature, and therefore, does not have this Divine will/human will division to worry about. In effect, you are saying that since Christ has two natures (by saying “divine will” and “human will”), how could He have one will? Well, sure, I absolutely agree. Having one will would not follow from two natures, but we disagree on Him having two natures, so that's where the issue still lies.

5) Regarding Christ's two natures, EO and RC, in following Leo's Tome say that certain acts are attributable to Christ's divinity, and others are attributable to Christ's humanity. Now let's ponder the following verse:

John 20:26 - And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!”

How did Jesus walk through the shut doors? Was it His divine nature taking that action or was it His human nature? Walking is a human act, going through a door is a divine act. If Jesus has two natures, how could His divine nature have not mixed and mingled with His human nature in order to allow His body to pass through the door? Sure, it was the One Person of Christ that walked through the door, but that One Person has two natures that allow Him to do different things, according to Leo's theology. In other words, before His One Person takes an action, the "two natures" (and corresponding "two wills") decide upon it. In the example of walking through the door, it would seem that the human nature told the Divine nature, "alright, just take over and take me through the door."

You may actually be surprised that it was Dioscorus who first used the phrase "without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration". Ironically, he used it at Chalcedon to explain the orthodoxy of "one nature after the union," and it was then used to support two natures after the union.

lowlyman

Posts: 241

Joined: Apr 04, 2006

Posted: Oct 15, 2008 - 09:47 AM

Truth.Seeker wrote:

John 20:26 - And after eight days His disciples were again inside, and Thomas with them. Jesus came, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, “Peace to you!”

I don't think this pertains to the discussion at hand. For it is acknowledged that the body of Christ after the resurrection is not the same as his body before the resurrection. After the resurrection, his body became incorruptible and of different nature than before the resurrection. for example, after the resurrection Christ has no need of food, sleep, or any of our natural needs.

Truth.Seeker wrote:

4) "If it is said that Christ had only one nature, then as a composite in God (fire/iron) His divine will caused Him to forfeit his human will; thus ceasing to classify Him as FULLY man."

I don't think the above statement is true in the Coptic orthodoxy viewpoint. As far as I understand it, having one composit nature
is different from saying that Christ had only one nature as stated above.

Truth.Seeker wrote:

That is besides the point as it concludes what the main dispute is about. What do I mean by that? If Christ has one unique nature FROM a Divine and a human nature, then He has a nature unlike any other nature,

so far so good.

Truth.Seeker wrote:

and therefore, does not have this Divine will/human will division to worry about.

I disagree with your conclusion.indeed he does have two wills pertaining to his divinity and to his humanity. however, as far as I know, Coptic orthodoxy objects it to him having each nature existing independently of the other as St Severus is quoted below:

"We confess the difference and the particularity and the otherness of the natures from which Christ is, for we do not quarrel about names, but we confess the particularity which lies in natural quality, and not that which will be set in parts, each one existing independently"

that is, Coptic orthodoxy drives out the division of the two nature in the incarnate Word of God, but maintain the differences of qualities of each nature in the hypostatic union.

St Cyril affirms that " The properties of the Word became properties of manhood, and those of manhood, properties of the Word. For thus one Christ and Son and Lord is understood".

this way, "we may truly say that God was seen and heard and touched, that God suffered and died. Thus when Christ walked on the water this was neither a human action, since it is not human to walk on water, nor was it divine, since it is not of God to walk, but it is an evidence of the union of humanity and Divinity, without confusion such that we see always One Christ and not God and a man with him." [1]

all of the things that I attributed to Coptic orthodoxy above are in agreement with Eastern orthodoxy as far as I know.

[1]http://www.orthodoxunity.org/article03.html
lowlyman

Truth.Seeker

Posts: 432

Joined: Feb 25, 2008

Posted: Oct 15, 2008 - 10:02 AM

"I don't think this pertains to the discussion at hand. For it is acknowledged that the body of Christ after the resurrection is not the same as his body before the resurrection. After the resurrection, his body became incorruptible and of different nature than before the resurrection. for example, after the resurrection Christ has no need of food, sleep, or any of our natural needs."

Without arguing this point - explain His walking on water before His crucifixion.

"that is, Coptic orthodoxy drives out the division of the two nature in the incarnate Word of God, but maintain the differences of qualities of each nature in the hypostatic union."

You are wrong, we do not differentiate between the two after the union. We do not "maintain the differences." We attribute everything to the one hypostatic union. Your quote of St. Severus is most likely talking about the "from two natures before the union" issue.

lowlyman

Posts: 241

Joined: Apr 04, 2006

Posted: Oct 15, 2008 - 11:12 AM

it is not me who said these things, but I extracted them from:
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/article02.html
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/article03.html

authored by:

Peter Theodore Farrington
Sub-Deacon
British Orthodox Church
Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate

they are great reading materials..

lowlyman

Truth.Seeker wrote:

Truth.Seeker

Posts: 432

Joined: Feb 25, 2008

Posted: Oct 15, 2008 - 01:11 PM

Did you directly quote what you wrote above or is what you wrote your interpretation from those pages? There's a big difference.

Also - how did Jesus Christ walk on water? Did His divine nature overtake His human nature in order to allow His One Person to walk on water? If so - then the two nature thesis commingles the natures.

"We do not differentiate between the two after the union. We do not "maintain the differences." We attribute everything to the one hypostatic union." I wrote this. This is very basic knowledge about Oriental Orthodox Christology. What in the webpages you hyperlinked shows otherwise?

mikokiko

Posts: 1021

Joined: Feb 11, 2003

Posted: Oct 15, 2008 - 01:50 PM

Truth.Seeker, I think we can differentiate and say which qualities belong to the Divine Nature, and those that belong to the Human Nature. For example, forgiving of sins, is purely a Divine thing. But still the very act that took place, when He forgave the paralytic mans' sins, was a union of His Divine and Human qualities, not simply a juxtaposition of traits. We can say that being the Son of God, is a quality of the Divine Nature, and being the Son of Man, is a quality of the human Nature, but that the Son of God, was a Man, is to say that His humanity and Divinity were completely united, since we do not say He had in Him humanity, and He also had in Him Divinity. But that His humanity is completely united with His Divinity that we can use statements as the Son of God is a Man, or "the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us."

God Bless

lowlyman

Posts: 241

Joined: Apr 04, 2006

Posted: Oct 15, 2008 - 02:07 PM

they were direct quotes attributed to either Sts Cyril or Severus.nothing that I quoted came from me if it was enclosed in quotation marks.

to answer your question below, here are some direct quotes:

"He who confesses one nature incarnate of God the Word, and teaches an unconfused union, does not deny awareness of the difference and particularity which lies in natural quality of the the natures from which there is the one Christ"

"This is why Severus criticises those who try to divide up the activities of Christ as though they belonged to the different natures separately and not to the incarnate Word, who is of humanity and divinity unconfusedly. There is no error in understanding that in his humanity Christ acts humanly, that speaking and eating and all such things are of humanity, and are not divine. But in the union of humanity and divinity in Christ, all of these things belong to God the Word who acts divinely in union with his humanity. The error that Severus opposes is the setting up of two seperate centres of activity such that there is a man with God rather than God incarnate."

"When we anathematise those who say Emmanuel has two natures after the union, and speak of the activities and properties of these, we are not saying this as subjecting to anathema the fact of, or naming, natures, or activities, or properties, [i]but speaking of two natures after the union, and because consequently those natures...are divided completely and in everything"[/i]

"We also recognise a variety of utterances: for some are proper to God, while others are human, but one Word incarnate spoke both the former and the latter"

"The properties of the Word became properties of manhood, and those of manhood, properties of the Word. For thus one Christ and Son and Lord is understood."

"For how will anyone divide walking upon the water? For to run upon the sea is foreign to the human nature, but it is not proper to the divine nature to use bodily feet. Therefore that action is of the incarnate Word, to whom belongs at the same time divine character and human, indivisibly"

Truth.Seeker wrote:

Quote:

Truth.Seeker

Posts: 432

Joined: Feb 25, 2008

Posted: Oct 15, 2008 - 02:27 PM

"He who confesses one nature incarnate of God the Word, and teaches an unconfused union, does not deny awareness of the difference and particularity which lies in natural quality of the the natures from which there is the one Christ"

Do you see what he followed that with?

The point Sub-deacon Peter Theodore Farrington is making is not one that contradicts what I said above. "does not deny...natural quality of the natures FROM WHICH there is the one Christ." What came to my mind earlier seems to be right - Farrington is talking about the natures from which the hypostatic union was formed, i.e. divine and human. The point is that the divine did not take over the human (Eutyches).

"This is why Severus criticises those who try to divide up the activities of Christ as though they belonged to the different natures separately and not to the incarnate Word, who is of humanity and divinity unconfusedly. There is no error in understanding that in his humanity Christ acts humanly, that speaking and eating and all such things are of humanity, and are not divine. But in the union of humanity and divinity in Christ, all of these things belong to God the Word who acts divinely in union with his humanity. The error that Severus opposes is the setting up of two seperate centres of activity such that there is a man with God rather than God incarnate."

You seem to be taking the first part of this without taking the second part. YES, eating is a human act. But like I said before and Farrington points out, in Oriental Orthodoxy we do not differentiate between what nature does what. "But in the union of humanity and divinity in Christ, all of these things belong to God the Word who acts divinely in union with his humanity." In other words, even though eating was a result of the humanity in His nature, we cannot separate it from His divinity. That's the same reason I told you we do not "maintain the differences."

The key to understanding Oriental Orthodox Christology is to not confuse pre-union and post-union expositions. We have no problem saying eating is an act Jesus would have not had to perform had His hypostatically united nature not been from divinity and humanity; we have a problem saying, "when Jesus was eating, that was from His human nature." That should come as no surprise to you, as after the union, Oriental Orthodox Christology does not break Jesus up into "human nature" and "divine nature."

______________

Of course I am amused that you have a quote from Farrington making the same point about Jesus walking on water that I made -

"For how will anyone divide walking upon the water? For to run upon the sea is foreign to the human nature, but it is not proper to the divine nature to use bodily feet. Therefore that action is of the incarnate Word, to whom belongs at the same time divine character and human, indivisibly."

Well?

_________________
A. S.

Truth.Seeker

Posts: 432

Joined: Feb 25, 2008

Posted: Oct 15, 2008 - 02:30 PM

Mikokiko - I think my response to lowlyman shows what I'm saying. The point is not that eating isn't human, it's that we do not say that when Jesus eats, it is from His human nature. It is from the one hypostatic union. That is, unless we qualify that, and say it is from the pre-union human nature. That's not Chalcedonian theology - they say AS Jesus acts, it's His humanity or His divinity doing things.

lowlyman

Posts: 241

Joined: Apr 04, 2006

Posted: Oct 15, 2008 - 03:18 PM

Truth.Seeker wrote:

they say AS Jesus acts, it's His humanity or His divinity doing things.

no. we do not say that as far as I know.

Truth.Seeker

Posts: 432

Joined: Feb 25, 2008

Posted: Oct 15, 2008 - 03:24 PM

"The activity of each form is what is proper to it in communion with the other: that is, the Word performs what belongs to the Word, and the flesh accomplishes what belongs to the flesh. One of these performs brilliant miracles the other sustains acts of violence."

- from the Tome of Leo

mikehenry

Posts: 96

Joined: Jan 19, 2006
Location: St. Mary and St. Moses Coptic Orthodox Church, Buffalo, NY, USA

Posted: Oct 15, 2008 - 03:53 PM

It's AD 451 all over again (lol).