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

Integrated Coptic Orthodox Forums

Author

Message

mikehenry

Posts: 96

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

Posted: Jan 03, 2008 - 10:00 AM

Hey guys,

What were/are the Christological formulas of St. Cyril and Pope Leo of Rome, and how are they different? Are they compliant? and do we adhere to only the one of St. Cyril?

Which ones do the Chalcedonians adhere to?

I'm starting to think that the thing that separated us in 451 AD was not just a problem of semantics. However, I could be wrong.

Thanks

_________________
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

Matzpah

Posts: 40

Joined: Jul 05, 2005
Location: Nativity of Our Lord, Virginia

Posted: Feb 09, 2008 - 09:27 PM

As I understand it, St. Leo embraced a dyophysite Christology. In his Tome, he refers to a Christ in two natures after the union. The traditional Antiochene Christology to this point was that Christ was from or of two natures after the union. I believe St. Cyril did admit in the Formula of Reunion of 433 that of/from two natures after the union was within bounds of orthodoxy, I haven't read St. Cyril enough to know for sure, but I know that his followers emphasized the One Incarnate Nature of God the Logos.

Chalcedonians are markedly dyophysite. Several Councils that followed Chalcedon necessarily build on the dyophysite view (against monoenergism, monothelitism).

mikehenry

Posts: 96

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

Posted: Feb 10, 2008 - 08:03 PM

Thanks, Matzpah.

copt07

Posts: 14

Joined: Apr 16, 2006

Posted: Feb 14, 2008 - 03:11 PM

Matzpah wrote:

Hello Matzpah.

I was wondering if you could provide quotes from the Tome that indicate Christ has two natures. Thanks in advance.

Peace

Peter

Posts: 428

Joined: Mar 18, 2003
Location: Jersey City, NJ

Posted: Feb 15, 2008 - 01:00 AM

Doesn't State it explicitly but the two quotes point that sort of ideology, particularly the second which almost sounds like a refutation of St. Cyril's formula.

Quote:

For the selfsame who is very God, is also very man; and there is no illusion in this union, while the lowliness of man and the loftiness of Godhead meet together. For as "God" is not changed by the compassion [exhibited], so "Man" is not consumed by the dignity [bestowed]. For each "form" does the acts which belong to it, in communion with the other; the Word, that is, performing what belongs to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what belongs to the flesh; the one of these shines out in miracles, the other succumbs' to injuries.

Quote:

But when Eutyches, on being questioned in your examination of him, answered, "I confess that our Lord was of two natures before the union, but after the union I confess one nature;" I am astonished that so absurd and perverse a profession as this of his was not rebuked by a censure on the part of any of his judges, and that an utterance extremely foolish and extremely blasphemous was passed over, just as if nothing had been heard which could give offence: seeing that it is as impious to say that the Only-begotten Son of God was of two natures before the Incarnation as it is shocking to affirm that, since the Word became flesh, there has been in him one nature only.

Truth.Seeker

Posts: 432

Joined: Feb 25, 2008

Posted: Feb 25, 2008 - 11:11 AM

Alright, I'm going to post the actual language below (but with my markings within them, so I'm pointing that out).

To correct something that was said about St. Cyril in the Formula of Reunion in 433 AD: He did NOT say it was orthodox to say two natures after the union. What he said was that "some theologians say that." Which is just language to appease the other side without conceding anything.

I made a document about the Christological Controversy some time ago, it has a lot of history and theology surrounding the differences. Shoot me an e-mail if you want me to end it to you.

I think Leo's dyophisite language was talked about and contrasted with St. Cyril's miaphysite terminology. So, I'll just post what they said:

Cyril's Third Letter to Nestorius:

We confess the Word to have been made one with the flesh hypostatically, and we adore one Son and Lord, Jesus Christ. We do not divide him into parts and separate man and God in him, as though the two natures were mutually united only through a unity of dignity and authority; that would be an empty expression and nothing more.

[NOTE, Cyril equates dividing the Nature of Christ into human and into divine with making them united “only through…dignity and authority.” Let me also add that for Cyril, the division does not happen AFTER talking about human and divine, the division comes about BY talking about human and divine. In short, the mere act of saying two natures is to say division.]

There is therefore one Christ and Son and Lord, but not with the sort of conjunction that a man might have with God as unity of dignity or authority. Equality of honour by itself is unable to unite natures. For Peter and John were equal in honour to each other, being both of them apostles and holy disciples, but they were two, not one. Neither do we understand the manner of conjunction to be one of juxtaposition for this is not enough for natural union. Nor yet is it a question of relative participation, as we ourselves, being united to the Lord, are as it is written in the words of scripture "one spirit with him". Rather do we deprecate the term "conjunction" as being inadequate to express the idea of union.

It is true that he called the Father "God" even though he was himself God by nature and of his being, we are not ignorant of the fact that at the same time as he was God he also became man, and so was subject to God according to the law that is suitable to the nature of manhood. But how should he become God or Lord of himself? [NOTE: as far as Cyril was concerned, to say two natures is to say human and divine, to say human and divine, is to say divine over human, to say divine over human is to say only divine, to basically be Eutychian. To say two natures is to be Eutychian!] Consequently as man and as far as it was fitting for him within the limits of his self-emptying it is said that he was subject to God like ourselves. So he came to be under the law while at the same time himself speaking the law and being a lawgiver like God.

We also confess that the only begotten Son born of God the Father, although according to his own nature he was not subject to suffering, suffered in the flesh for us according to the scriptures, and was in his crucified body, and without himself suffering made his own the sufferings of his own flesh, for "by the grace of God he tasted death for all". For that purpose he gave his own body to death though he was by nature life and the resurrection, in order that, having trodden down death by his own unspeakable power, he might first in his own flesh become the firstborn from the dead and "the first fruits of them that sleep".

For we do not divide up the words of our Saviour in the gospels among two hypostases or persons. [hypostates = natures, why would Cyril repeat the same word (persons) twice? ALSO, contrast the preceding statement from a quote from the Tome: “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.”] For the one and only Christ is not dual, even though he be considered to be from two distinct realities, brought together into an unbreakable union. In the same sort of way a human being, though he be composed of soul and body, is considered to be not dual, BUT RATHER ONE OUT OF TWO [Follow the analogy - There is one human nature that is composed of a soul and a body. We do not say "the soul did that," and "the body did this," we say "the human did this"]. Therefore, in thinking rightly, we refer both the human and divine expressions to the same person. For when he speaks about himself in a divine manner as "he that sees me sees the Father", and "I and the Father are one", we think of his divine and unspeakable nature, according to which he is one with his own Father through identity of nature and is the "image and impress and brightness of his glory". But when, not dishonouring the measure of his humanity, he says to the Jews: "But now you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken the truth to you", again no less than before, we recognise that he who, because of his equality and likeness to God the Father is God the Word, is also within the limits of his humanity. For if it is necessary to believe that being God by nature he became flesh, that is man ensouled with a rational soul, whatever reason should anyone have for being ashamed at the expressions uttered by him should they happen to be suitable to him as man ? For if he should reject words suitable to him as man, who was it that forced him to become a man like us? Why should he who submitted himself to voluntary self-emptying for our sake, reject expressions that are suitable for such self-emptying? All the expressions, therefore, that occur in the gospels are to be referred to one person, the one enfleshed hypostasis of the Word [One Incarnate Nature of the Word]. For there is one Lord Jesus Christ, according to the scriptures.

Tome of Leo (relevant sections)

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.

So, if I may pass over many instances, it does not belong to the same nature to weep out of deep-felt pity for a dead friend, and to call him back to life again at the word of command, once the mound had been removed from the four-day old grave; or to hang on the cross and, with day changed into night, to make the elements tremble; or to be pierced by nails and to open the gates of paradise for the believing thief. Likewise, it does not belong to the same nature to say I and the Father are one, and to say The Father is greater than I. For although there is in the Lord Jesus Christ a single person who is of God and of man, the insults shared by both have their source in one thing, and the glory that is shared in another. For it is from us that he gets a humanity which is less than the Father; it is from the Father that he gets a divinity which is equal to the Father.

If he [Eutyches] does not think that the Lord's cross was unreal and if he has no doubt that the suffering undergone for the world's salvation was real, then let him acknowledge the flesh of the one whose death he believes in.

These three [Persons of Holy Trinity] are one and remain indivisible. None of them is separable from its link with the others.

When you cross-examined Eutyches and he replied, "I confess that our Lord was of two natures before the union, but I confess one nature after the union", I am amazed that such an absurd and corrupt declaration of faith was not very severely censured by the judges; and that an extremely foolish statement was disregarded, as if nothing whatever offensive had been heard.

It is just as wicked to say that the only-begotten Son of God was of two natures before the incarnation as it is abominable to claim that there was a single nature in him after the Word was made flesh.

But when he had refused to be party to the anathematising of his wicked doctrine [refusing to accept “two natures after the incarnation”], your fraternity would have realised that he was persisting in his false belief and that he deserved a verdict of condemnation.

Matzpah

Posts: 40

Joined: Jul 05, 2005
Location: Nativity of Our Lord, Virginia

Posted: Mar 04, 2008 - 09:15 PM

TruthSeeker:

"To correct something that was said about St. Cyril in the Formula of Reunion in 433 AD: He did NOT say it was orthodox to say two natures after the union. What he said was that "some theologians say that." Which is just language to appease the other side without conceding anything."

Based on what I remember of V.C. Samuel's book, the formula "two natures after the union" or "in two natures" was unacceptable to St. Cyril and many Alexadrines; but that "of or from two natures" was in fact acceptable in relation to the hypostatic union.

Matzpah

Posts: 40

Joined: Jul 05, 2005
Location: Nativity of Our Lord, Virginia

Posted: Mar 04, 2008 - 09:34 PM

Just to add a few more comments:

I pulled Fr. V.C. Samuel's book out. As expected, his language is specific. He does make a strong distinction throughout the book between "two natures after the union" (opposed) and a union "of or from two natures" (acceptable).

I cannot find a spot where he says "of or from two natures after the union," so my precision was not as good as it could have been. Basically, what I am saying is that the hypostatic union, once effected, can be spoken of as of or from two natures.

It seems that St. Cyril and the Alexandrines did legitimately accept the phrase "of or from two natures" when speaking of the hypostatic union.

According to Fr. V.C. Samuel, the phrase "in two natures" that was adopted by Chalcedon is drawn from the Latin of the Tome of Leo (see pp. 226-227).

Truth.Seeker

Posts: 432

Joined: Feb 25, 2008

Posted: Mar 05, 2008 - 08:58 AM

Looks like some miscommunication.

John and his followers liked "two natures after the union," in that context, the Formula of Reunion was written by Cyril. In it, he says that some theologians say two natures after the union (attribute some things to His divinity and some to His humanity).

That's why when you talked about the Formula, I thought you were referring to this (if I had read what you wrote a little more carefully, I would have seen that it's not what you wrote). On the other hand, what you wrote was no where in the Formula Smile

. So, perhaps we could have both been a little more careful.

The "from two natures after the union" was said by St. Dioscorus at Chalcedon (that he had no problem with it). There's no problem with it since from the union on, Christ's nature will always be "from two natures." So, whether we add "after the union" or not doesn't matter.

Naturally St. Cyril accepted "from two natures," he came up with it!

As you correctly point out, the "in two natures" was taken from the Tome. What is interesting about Chalcedon is that when the Eastern Bishops first wrote the definition, it was in agreement with Dioscorus, not Leo. The secular organizers of the event had to send them back a couple of times and when they saw no change they had to say, "You're agreeing with the man you deposed and disagreeing with the Tome you accepted." Only then did the Eastern Bishops accept "in two natures."

Display posts from previous:

Jump to:

All times are GMT

Post new topic | Reply to topic

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