May Orthodox believe that Christ has one nature made of two natures?

[rakovsky]

According to the Creed of Chalcedon, Christ is "in two natures."

For me, this makes sense. In the dictionary, a nature is a collection of properties, a category, or a character. Humanity (or human-ness) and Divinity are natures, that is, Christ is human and Divine, so He has two natures. He is in both categories.

Oriental Orthodox, and some Eastern Orthodox, believe that according to St. Cyril, Christ has one nature composed of those two natures.

This also makes sense to me. Everything and everyone has a nature or character, which is composed of all the properties and qualities in that person. Christ, being one person, has one nature, composed of all of His qualities and properties, which are Divine properties and Human properties. Christ has a character, and His character is human and Divine.

For me, this is a semantic or logical issue. I believe that something can have a united nature composed of its natures.

However, the Fifth Ecumenical Council, Constantinople II, appears to contain an anathema against those who would say Christ has a united nature:

VIII.

If anyone uses the expression "of two natures," confessing that a union was made of the Godhead and of the humanity, or the expression "the one nature made flesh of God the Word," and shall not so understand those expressions as the holy Fathers have taught, to wit: that of the divine and human nature there was made an hypostatic union, whereof is one Christ; [then he is anathematized]

but [if he] from these expressions shall try to introduce one nature or substance of the Godhead and manhood of Christ; let him be anathema.

For in teaching that the only-begotten Word was united hypostatically [to humanity] we do not mean to say that there was made a mutual confusion of natures, but rather each [nature] remaining what it was, we understand that the Word was united to the flesh.

I have heard two explanations about this:
One explanation I read on the Kuraev forum is that the anathema is indeed directed against saying that Christ has one nature made of two natures.

A second explanation by a priest posting on the web said that this is just rejecting the idea that Christ has two essences, as it says above "two natures or essences". I find it interesting that many Oriental Orthodox think that this Fifth Council "cleared up" Chalcedon, yet in fact it is this anathema, not Chalcedon's Creed, that directly addresses the issue of "one nature." However, I am skeptical about this, because I actually do not think "essence" is the same exact thing as nature. For me, they have different connotations. An essence or substance seems much more internal and inherent, while a nature or character seems much more changeable.

A third explanation I can think of is that this is just talking about a ban on using "one nature" the way Eutyches did. Eutyches basically, as I understand it, said that Christ's divine nature swallowed up the human one, leaving only one of the two- the divine nature. However, the anathema does not go into detail about what use of "one nature" is acceptable, it just bans saying "one nature" that is of "two natures". I am not sure it bans only saying there is just the divine nature, because the bishops should have known that "one nature" was often used by Oriental Orthodox to talk about one nature made of two natures.

What do you think?

 

[Knee V]

I would be sure that we are discussing this issue according to how the Greek word "physis" was defined and understood by the Greek fathers, and not according to how the English/Latin word "nature" is defined in one of our modern-day English dictionaries.

 

[rakovsky]

I would be sure that we are discussing this issue according to how the Greek word "physis" was defined and understood by the Greek fathers, and not according to how the English/Latin word "nature" is defined in one of our modern-day English dictionaries.

Knee,

I understand your point.
When physis is used in the Bible it means nature. I assume that in modern Greek speech it means the same thing nature does in English. In Latin, natura also means nature, so that is how I perceive it when I read Leo writing about natura in the Tome.

Also, when I see it written by Sts Athanasius and Cyril, I also understand physis this way.

Some try to say that essence/substance/oumusian and nature/physis mean the same thing, but I believe that they have different connotations.

Others, the Oriental Orthodox, say that physis should mean something like hypostasis. But for me also, they have different connotations.

So for me, hypostasis, nature, and essence all have different connotations and meanings. Leo and Chalcedon both talk about 2 essences and 2 natures. Leo does so in the same phrase. When they do so, I assume they are not making a tautology.

Likewise, although Oriental Orthodox say that they use physis to mean hypostasis, I do not think that is really how they use it. I do not think they would say that Christ and the Holy Spirit have one hypostasis, even though they are willing to say that both of them have one nature. And while they say God is composed of three hypostases, they would not say God has three natures. Do you see what I mean?

I am however open to the idea that the Greek writers and Chalcedon did not use "nature" in the Biblical and normal sense of a character or collection of properties. If you were able to show me a quote to that effect, it would be very helpful.

However what I believe is happening is really that simple- an Armenian writer, Grigor Yan, agreed with me that nature means collection of properties- and he then proceeded to argue that Christ could not have more than one collection of properties, which I believe is incorrect.

 

[buzuxi02]

You would probably better understand the differences if you were comparing the Christologys of the Orientals with the Assyrians. It is there that we begin to uncover the subtle differences.

Awhile back the RC's had seperate dialogues with the Orientals and the Assyrians where they signed agreed upon christological declarations. Both of those statements seem Orthodox for Chalcedonians. Well, the Syriac orientals flipped out and severed ecumenical dialigues with Rome after reading the assyrian-rc declaration. If I find them online I will post them. The Truth is claiming semantics is probably simplistic. The only difference between the 2 statements was the oriental statement empasized the unity of the one Christ, while the other empasized the dual natures of the one Christ.

I don't like the term composite although it was used in some eo-oo talks many years back.

 

[buzuxi02]

I found those common Christological declarations that Rome forumulated with the OO'S and the one they formulated with the Assyrians. The Syriac orientals had a major problem with the Assyrian/ RC talks.

With the Assyrian Church in 1994:

As heirs and guardians of the faith received from the Apostles as formulated by our common Fathers in the Nicene Creed, we confess one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, begotten of the Father from all eternity who, in the fullness of time, came down from heaven and became man for our salvation. The Word of God, second Person of the Holy Trinity, became incarnate by the power of the Holy Spirit in assuming from the holy Virgin Mary a body animated by a rational soul, with which he was indissolubly united from the moment of his conception.

Therefore our Lord Jesus Christ is true God and true man, perfect in his divinity and perfect in his humanity, consubstantial with the Father and consubstantial with us in all things but sin. His divinity and his humanity are united in one person, without confusion or change, without division or separation. In him has been preserved the DIFFERENCE of the naturesof divinity and humanity, with all their properties, faculties and operations. But far from constituting "one and another", the divinity and humanity are united in the person of the same and unique Son of God and Lord Jesus Christ, who is the object of a single adoration.

With the Copts in 1973:

In accordance with our apostolic traditions transmitted to our Churches and preserved therein, and in conformity with the early three ecumenical councils, we confess one faith in the One Triune God, the divinity of the Only Begotten Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, the Word of God, the effulgence of His glory and the express image of His substance, who for us was incarnate, assuming for Himself a real body with a rational soul, and who shared with us our humanity but without sin. We confess that our Lord and God and Saviour and King of us all, Jesus Christ, is perfect God with respect to His Divinity, perfect man with respect to His humanity. In Him His divinity is united with His humanity in a real, perfect union without mingling, without commixtion, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without separation. His divinity did not separate from His humanity for an instant, not for the twinkling of an eye. He who is God eternal and invisible became visible in the flesh, and took upon Himself the form of a servant. In Him are preserved all the properties of the divinity and all the properties of the humanity, together in a real, perfect, indivisible and inseparable union.

Declaration with the Syriac Orientals in 1984:

In our turn we confess that He became incarnate for us, taking to himself a real body with a rational soul. He shared our humanity in all things except sin. We confess that our Lord and our God, our Saviour and the King of all, Jesus Christ, is perfect God as to His divinity and perfect man as to His humanity. In Him His divinity is united to His humanity. This Union is real, perfect, without blending or mingling, without confusion, without alteration, without division, without the least separation. He who is God eternal and indivisible, became visible in the flesh and took the form of servant. In him are united, in a real, perfect indivisible and inseparable way, divinity and humanity, and in him all their properties are present and active.

That one word, "difference" in the Assyrian declaration is problematic to the OO's. That one word, "difference" is all it takes. Notice where the emphasis lies with the OO statements. The perfect and real indivisible and inseparable union of the two natures. The words 'perfect' and 'real' are not explicitly mentioned in the Assyrian statement while in both OO statements they are mentioned twice.

 

[rakovsky]

I found those common Christological declarations that Rome forumulated with the OO'S and the one they formulated with the Assyrians. The Syriac orientals had a major problem with the Assyrian/ RC talks.

With the Assyrian Church in 1994:

With the Copts in 1973:

Declaration with the Syriac Orientals in 1984:

That one word, "difference" in the Assyrian declaration is problematic to the OO's. That one word, "difference" is all it takes. Notice where the emphasis lies with the OO statements. The perfect and real indivisible and inseparable union of the two natures. The words 'perfect' and 'real' are not explicitly mentioned in the Assyrian statement while in both OO statements they are mentioned twice.

I merely wanted to focus on the hypothetical of whether there is one nature or two. But personally I found both statements of agreement you cited to make sense.

In fact, the statement about the difference of the natures remaining preserved should have been acceptable to the Oriental Orthodox, because Chalcedon's Creed says the distinction was not abolished between the natures, but the "character proper to each of the two natures was preserved". And the Oriental Orthodox did not have a problem with that part of Chalcedon. In fact it is taken from Cyril, who is one of their main saints.

St. Cyril himself explicitly writes:

Albeit how ought not one who wanted to shew the difference of the properties, I mean of flesh and Godhead, to advance to this very point by such thoughts and words as were meet?

Cyril of Alexandria, Against Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of Mopsuestia (fragments of book 1), LFC 47 (1881) pp. 320-336.

I don't want to be judgmental, but my impression is that the Syriac Orientals overreacted to what should have been for them a normal statement. If a year before those agreements were made you walked up to an Oriental theologian and showed him this quote by Cyril or another similar quote, I believe he would agree with it if you told him first that it was from Cyril.

Therefore, the Oriental Syriac objection to the agreement with Rome reminds me of what Armenian writer said about the initial Oriental objection to Chalcedon- he said that there were bishops who "suspected" that it secretly contained "Crypto-Nestorianism". My impression from this is that some of them often judge things as "Nestorian" that really might not be.

Oriental orthodox will repeatedly emphasize that they do not believe in any confusion between the natures. And yet you are telling me that the Syriac Orthodox rejected a statement by Rome that says, like St Cyril, that the difference has been preserved?

My guess is that Oriental Orthodox theology in general does not really have a substantial difference here, but Oriental opponents of the statement will make semantic objections about finding the "suspected secret Nestorianism."

 

[buzuxi02]

For the OO using the word difference means the natures are not muted. In OO theology there really is no way to decipher which Acts Of Christ can be categorized as human and divine. I do believe the syriac response had a hint of poilitical reasning behind it. That is the syriac church does not represent the Antiochan tradition, the Antiochan and syrian fathers of the pre 4th century would side with dyophysitism.
Regardless the OO has always viewed Assyrian theology as heretical, they do see heresy in the confession. In the EO we believe Christ has 2 natures, 2 wills and operations in the one Christ, tne human will perfectly submitting to tne divine will as Christ lacks a gnomic will.

The Canon of the 5th Council is instruction to allow back in the Church those that hold to s strict Cyrillic confession but are not eutychians. We cannot hold to a composite nature if your of the byzantine rite, its note part of our tradition. But the OO can retain their understanding as a seperate rite upon reunion add long as its not an eurychian interpretation.
In tne EO

 

[rakovsky]

Buzu,

I don't really disagree with you strongly here:

For the OO using the word difference means the natures are not muted. In OO theology there really is no way to decipher which Acts Of Christ can be categorized as human and divine. I do believe the syriac response had a hint of poilitical reasning behind it. That is the syriac church does not represent the Antiochan tradition, the Antiochan and syrian fathers of the pre 4th century would side with dyophysitism.
Regardless the OO has always viewed Assyrian theology as heretical, they do see heresy in the confession. In the EO we believe Christ has 2 natures, 2 wills and operations in the one Christ, tne human will perfectly submitting to tne divine will as Christ lacks a gnomic will.

Dioscorus, the key saint of the Copts, did say that some things Christ did "as God", and other things Christ did "as a man". So perhaps they can say some of Christ's acts were divine and other acts were human.

Some of them today do have a difficulty accepting the idea that each nature can cause certain acts that the other nature does not. But Athanasius said something similar (eg. he said the flesh does X, the Godhead does Y), and Athanasius is a saint in both churches. But true, not everything Athanasius or another pre-Chalcedon saint said will the OOs always go ahead and say on their own.

I have discussed this kind of thing with some of them. The fact that the Assyrian statement you quoted says the natures each have a difference in operations may be hard for some OOs to realize. They imagine that if a nature acts, then it must mean it is a person, because they think that only persons act, not natures. Anyway, not all OOs think like that, I imagine.

Thank you for writing to me about this. I understand that you are helping me work through this issue. I also accept what you are saying here, except for the part in bold:

The Canon of the 5th Council is instruction to allow back in the Church those that hold to s strict Cyrillic confession but are not eutychians. We cannot hold to a composite nature if your of the byzantine rite, its note part of our tradition. But the OO can retain their understanding as a seperate rite upon reunion add long as its not an eurychian interpretation.
In tne EO

The Councils did consider St. Cyril to be righteous in his theology.

However St. Cyril did believe in a composite nature, as he wrote:

Our Saviour's speech now intertwines the human element in His Nature with the Divine, and is of composite nature, looking both ways... mingling the twain into one, which is not foreign to either.

Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, LFC 43, 48 (1874/1885). Book 11. Vol. 2 pp. 453-588.

This, unfortunately, for me is my difficulty, Buzu. For me, it makes sense to say that Christ, like anything, has a nature. And in the case of Christ, his nature is two natures.

So while I certainly believe Christ has two natures, can I also believe that Christ has one nature that is a composite made from two natures and still be Orthodox?

 

[buzuxi02]

Its, true that you can't avoid completely categorizing between the divine and human acts. We don't even have to look at Dioscorus. When John of Antioch reconciled with Cyril in 433 ad, Cyril agreed that theologians have attributed the higher acts to Christ's divinity and the lower to his humanity. This epistle was accepted at the 4th Council of Chalcedon. Not sure how Oo's view this epistle.

The EO tradition truly is a composite tradition, meaning it is a synthesis of Alxandrian, Antiochan, and Roman understanding of Christ.

This is why I believe the syriac reaction was political. That is the syrians do not represent the antiochan tradition. The pre 4th century syrian fathers were dyophysites and the Assyrian church is the evidence. As was John of Antioch, the schools of Edessa and of Niblis. I believe they are threatened as the assyrians hold to a strict Antiochan tradition while the syrians who claim the Antiochan mantle simply adopted the strict Cyrillic alexandrine tradition under Fuller and forsook their own traditions.

 

[rakovsky]

Buzu,

I agree with your comments above, except I don't know how much the Assyrians hold to a strictly Orthodox Antiochian view. Generally the EO church considers the Assyrians Nestorians, and thus heretical. It's true that Nestorius and his school of thought sometimes used expressions about Christ that were awkward sounding at least, which could be seen as dividing Christ into two persons. I am open to the idea that this was and is just a semantic issue of awkward or bad grammar by the Nestorians.

In any case, I am more concerned about whether my own belief in a composite nature is allowed, or whether there is a way to deal with this issue. Perhaps we do not have to follow every anathema by every council, for example. Or maybe the anathema should be interpreted more correctly.

 

[Mariya116]

I have no idea. I am sad that Christians are fighting over it.

 

[buzuxi02]

I agree with your comments above, except I don't know how much the Assyrians hold to a strictly Orthodox Antiochian view. Generally the EO church considers the Assyrians Nestorians, and thus heretical. It's true that Nestorius and his school of thought sometimes used expressions about Christ that were awkward sounding at least, which could be seen as dividing Christ into two persons. I am open to the idea that this was and is just a semantic issue of awkward or bad grammar by the Nestorians.

Well thats why there are seperated from us. Likewise the OO are seperated, both hold heretical views. If a solution can be found with the OO then an equal solution can be found with the Assyrians. But once you see the OO always flipping out at Assyrians and Chaldeans for even less than what Pope Leo's Tome stated, then we know the faith is different.

In any case, I am more concerned about whether my own belief in a composite nature is allowed, or whether there is a way to deal with this issue. Perhaps we do not have to follow every anathema by every council, for example. Or maybe the anathema should be interpreted more correctly.

[/QUOTE]

I would simply say its unneccesary. The formulas concerning two natures but one will or one operation or one energy were all rejected. Most wont know what your refering to as its never been described in such a way, worse case scenario is your holding to monotheletism.

 

[Christ's_Warrior]

Hi guys, my church, being the church of the east is not nestorian and therefore cannot be viewed as being heretical. Remember that we accept the chalcedonian formula adhered to by the EO. Our two churches were in Communion up until the 8th century and we even celebrated the eucharist together during this time. The reasoning behind our two churches not being in Communion now has more to do with Islam and less to do with christology.

Im at work so I'll go into more detail later God willing.

 

[Lollerskates]

.

 

[rakovsky]

Well thats why there are seperated from us. Likewise the OO are seperated, both hold heretical views. If a solution can be found with the OO then an equal solution can be found with the Assyrians. But once you see the OO always flipping out at Assyrians and Chaldeans for even less than what Pope Leo's Tome stated, then we know the faith is different.

Buzu,

I like your sense of humor. The fact they flipped out shows that they cannot handle a statement about the 2 operations of the two natures, which is a correct statement.

However I don't know if it should be as bad as heresy. Some Eastern Orthodox, like me, think Christ has both two natures and a composite, while others disagree that it is composite. Generally we wouldn't consider eachother heretics, because we agree on Chalcedon's Creed and because the composite issue is secondary.

However, should the composite nature vs. two natures issue itself rise to the level of considering someone a heretic, in case Chalcedon was never made? I think not. Despite their failure to accept the normal statement of Chalcedon, I am not sure that as a theological issue it raises to an issue of heresy.

They do accept Christ is fully human and fully divine, which is the importance of our duophysitism. Their problem is that they do not mentally understand that something that is divine (a nature) and human (a nature) is still in two natures. Cyril called John of Antioch's idea of two natures "simple". Yet Cyril's followers do not understand the simple idea but only accept the complex one!

As for my own idea of a composite nature and two natures, you are right that many people will not understand what I mean, however there are some EO and OO writers today who hold to this idea and think that both duophysitism and a composite nature are valid.

As for Monothelitism, Kuraev considered the Chambessy document to be Monothelite because in part it did not talk about the natures acting but rather said that Christ's person acted. For me, saying the person acted is not bad, and I can imagine talking of an act made of two actions. According to the Tome, Christ's natures cooperate, meaning they act together, so I suppose that could be called a "joint" action. I don't know if that is Monothelitism.

Generally not many groups today are considered to follow Monothelitism. I don't know of any, except the Maronites did but now they are under Rome.

BTW, Christ did have a human will and a divine one, so that makes two wills, but I can see His wills being considered a composite will also. He says "Not My will but Yours", yet they have the same divine will." I feel that these are different abstract expressions, because ultimately Jesus made His human will follow and enact the divine one. Thus in total He had "a" will that was to do His father's. The wills issue to me though is not so crucial because the EOs and OOs did not divide over it.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

is this like saying God is one . but/and Jesus is 100% divine 100% Human at the same time?

just making sure i'm following the premise of the subject of the thread correctly

 

[ArmyMatt]

is this like saying God is one . but/and Jesus is 100% divine 100% Human at the same time?

just making sure i'm following the premise of the subject of the thread correctly

yeah, I think the question is the term nature and how that works with Christ. we all agree that He has Two Natures, both human and Divine, but I think the thread is that since He is unique, can you say that He has one that is comprised of the two.

personally, I think that is just confusing. best to say one Person in Two Natures and leave it at that

 

[Gregory Thompson]

yeah, I think the question is the term nature and how that works with Christ. we all agree that He has Two Natures, both human and Divine, but I think the thread is that since He is unique, can you say that He has one that is comprised of the two.

personally, I think that is just confusing. best to say one Person in Two Natures and leave it at that

yeah that makes sense too . in keeping with the childlikeness thing .

i was looking at this and thinking about how some applications of this causes varying forms of religious schizophrenia

thanks for answering my query .

 

[ArmyMatt]

no probs!

 

[rakovsky]

yeah, I think the question is the term nature and how that works with Christ. we all agree that He has Two Natures, both human and Divine, but I think the thread is that since He is unique, can you say that He has one that is comprised of the two.

personally, I think that is just confusing. best to say one Person in Two Natures and leave it at that

Unfortunately, Matt, my concern is that the anathema does not just leave it at correctly saying Christ has two natures, it bans people who also say Christ has one nature.

In my perception, anything has a nature or character. And Pope Leo himself wrote of "the properties of His Divine and human nature" in the singular, and in the same Tome where he spoke against talking of "one nature".

The Greek Metropolis of Canada has a website announcing:

The Divine and Human Nature of Christ

The Holy Scriptures speak of the divine nature and divinity of Christ in many places, but we will refer to only a few.

The Divine and Human Nature of Christ | Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto (Canada)

By putting the phrase in the singular, the authors are talking about one nature that is both human and divine. This idea of one nature makes sense to me. So that is why the anathema is problematic.

Yet of course the idea of two natures also is not a problem, as the Tome and Chalcedon also lay that idea of two natures out correctly.