Nestorian?

[Jim Parker]

The statement of faith of the Oriental Orthodox Church concerning the divinity and humanity of Christ:

We believe that our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ, the Incarnate–Logos, is perfect in His Divinity and perfect in His Humanity. He made His Humanity One with His Divinity without Mixture, nor Mingling, nor Confusion. His Divinity was not separated from His Humanity even for a moment or twinkling of an eye. At the same time, we Anathematize the Doctrines of both Nestorius and Eutyches

So, can someone explain why the Eastern Orthodox churches are the not in communion with OOCs? I was told that the OOCs were considered Nestorian; that is obviously incorrect.


Jim Parker

 

[Damaris]

You're thinking of the Assyrian Church of the East, which is another of the eastern churches entirely.

What you call "Oriental Orthodox" are the non-Chalcedonian churches, which, as you note, are emphatically not Nestorian.

Neither the non-Chalcedonians nor the Assyrian church are in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Couldn't one link the non-Chalcedonians/Orientals to monophasytism more than anything else if we want to get picky?

 

[jckstraw72]

some of the Saints, such as St. Maximus even said the Orientals are crypto-Nestorians, because Severus wrote of two hypostases and not just two natures coming together into one. but this is probably not what the OP was getting at.

 

[Jim Parker]

It seems to me that the churches have divided primarily over questions of language and semantics while attempting to precisely define that which is beyond our ability to define.

 

[Jim Parker]

The Oriental Orthodox reject monophysitism (the view of Eutyches) which proposes a single nature of Christ.

In May 1973 H.H. Pope-Shenouda III of Alexandria visited H.H. Pope Paul VI of Rome. Their Common Declaration says: We confess that our Lord and God and Savior 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.


How does that differ substantially from the definition of Chalcedon?

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.
​

jim

 

[InnerPhyre]

The Oriental Orthodox reject monophysitism (the view of Eutyches) which proposes a single nature of Christ.

jim

At this point, we are separate from them because we have separate hierarchies and because some of their saints are considered heretics in our church and some of our saints are considered heretics in their church and no one has had a good idea about how to resolve that yet.

 

[Damaris]

It seems to me that the churches have divided primarily over questions of language and semantics while attempting to precisely define that which is beyond our ability to define.

Let's look at that in two parts: "It seems to me that the churches have divided primarily over questions of language and semantics" That's debatable, but it is a conclusion that some modern theologians have come to.

"while attempting to precisely define that which is beyond our ability to define." Now that is absolutely not the case. It may sound arcane to debate on certain topics, but these controversies have lasted as long as they have because the sine qua non of Orthodox Christianity is a correct confession of faith. It's in the name and everything.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It seems to me that the churches have divided primarily over questions of language and semantics while attempting to precisely define that which is beyond our ability to define.

while true, if that is the case and they have the same understanding that we do, they would have no problems accepting the councils that they have yet to accept. it seems there is more to this than merely semantics (although, don't get me wrong, that is a part of it).

 

[buzuxi02]

The Oriental Orthodox reject monophysitism (the view of Eutyches) which proposes a single nature of Christ.

In May 1973 H.H. Pope-Shenouda III of Alexandria visited H.H. Pope Paul VI of Rome. Their Common Declaration says: We confess that our Lord and God and Savior 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.


How does that differ substantially from the definition of Chalcedon?

Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all with one accord teach men to acknowledge one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at once complete in Godhead and complete in manhood, truly God and truly man, consisting also of a reasonable soul and body; of one substance with the Father as regards his Godhead, and at the same time of one substance with us as regards his manhood; like us in all respects, apart from sin; as regards his Godhead, begotten of the Father before the ages, but yet as regards his manhood begotten, for us men and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin, the God-bearer; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation; the distinction of natures being in no way annulled by the union, but rather the characteristics of each nature being preserved and coming together to form one person and subsistence, not as parted or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten God the Word, Lord Jesus Christ; even as the prophets from earliest times spoke of him, and our Lord Jesus Christ himself taught us, and the creed of the fathers has handed down to us.
​

jim

The phrase "recognised in two natures" is rejected by the Orientals. In fact I would have to take a look at another translation of the definition. The term 'recognise' in that context is problematic. Note how in the 1973 confession of pope Shenouda no mention is made of the distinction of the 2 natures only there perfect unity.

The Orientals had a big problem with the tome of Pope Leo as well. Some of the phraseology Pope Leo employed was controversial. The tome was a dogmatic document read during the 4th council describing Rone's tradition on the two natures.

 

[Jim Parker]

Pity.

"I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me.

And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me." John 17:20-23 (NKJV)

And because we are not one, many do not believe that God has sent His Son or that God has loved them.

It saddens me that our "theology" is so important to us that the world concludes we cannot be believed because we can't agree on what our words mean.

 

[buzuxi02]

And because we are not one, many do not believe that God has sent His Son or that God has loved them.

It saddens me that our "theology" is so important to us that the world concludes we cannot be believed because we can't agree on what our words mean.

We as Orthodox do not believe that it is possible to divide the One Body of Christ, only that there is a falling away from that one Body.

As far as not being able to agree on words its a minor issue, the biggest violator is protestantism in that they believe divisions enhance christianity! Just a quick visit to the WCC website demonstrates that "diversity" in Christianity is something to be celebrated. Concepts as "we are members of invisible church(es)", that christians are to promote secular western humanist social issues and not personal holiness and ascetism is more worrisome

Anyone can come to the Church and be received by Her if they accept the Faith. It is our responsibility and duty as Orthodox Christians to pass down that faith which we have received without addition or alteration. Each generation is entrusted to preserve that which was received by their ancestors. Thus compromise is out of the question, it is antichristian, no need to beat yourself up over.

 

[Jim Parker]

<<the sine qua non of Orthodox Christianity is a correct confession of faith.>>

It is still impossible to describe God. Chalcedon was generated to refute Nestorian and monophysitism. The OOC concluded that Chalcedon still retained enough of Nestorius' teaching to have failed to accomplish its goal.

Are we not putting our "sine qua non" above Christ's will that we be united when we assume that we can split such a fine hair in defining what is essentially beyond our understanding?

 

[ArmyMatt]

<<the sine qua non of Orthodox Christianity is a correct confession of faith.>>

It is still impossible to describe God. Chalcedon was generated to refute Nestorian and monophysitism. The OOC concluded that Chalcedon still retained enough of Nestorius' teaching to have failed to accomplish its goal.

Are we not putting our "sine qua non" above Christ's will that we be united when we assume that we can split such a fine hair in defining what is essentially beyond our understanding?

I would say, no, because when Christ prays that we all are one, as He and the Father are, one of the things is a unity of belief. we are not talking about something that we came up with, but something that was either revealed by God or not. it is possible for us to know Him insofar as what He has revealed. as stated earlier, if this really is a non issue, they should have no problem accepting the councils they currently reject.

 

[Jim Parker]

<<if this really is a non issue, they should have no problem accepting the councils they currently reject.>>

Or the EOCs should have no problem accepting the OOC as being as Orthodox as they are as we have essentially done with the Copts.

 

[buzuxi02]

<<the sine qua non of Orthodox Christianity is a correct confession of faith.>>

It is still impossible to describe God. Chalcedon was generated to refute Nestorian and monophysitism. The OOC concluded that Chalcedon still retained enough of Nestorius' teaching to have failed to accomplish its goal.

Are we not putting our "sine qua non" above Christ's will that we be united when we assume that we can split such a fine hair in defining what is essentially beyond our understanding?

Chalcedon was to refute Eutyches. Basically Eutyches was persecuting the remaining remnant of Nestorians in Constantinople that his zealousness brought him to the opposite extremism, that there is no "two" in any way. His hate for nestorians led him into heresy as well.

Basically what happened at Chalcedon was to reconcile the Antiochan school which emphasized the humanity of Christ with the Alexandrian school which emphasized the divinity of Christ.

The Copts saw Chalcedon as usurping Ephesus. Chalcedon indeed was being promoted in the West in such a way. To this day even protestants emphasize chalcedonian christology while keeping silent about Ephesus. Chalcedonian theology cannot be seperated from Ephesus and stands in the middle between Coptic christological and the christology of the Assyrian Church.

I do believe there is a difference between us and the OO, Thus I reject the argument of semantics but the differences are extremely subtle. Politics had its role as well 1600 years ago, moreso than semantics. I usually point out the divergences is best seen when Assyrians and OO get together and the fireworks go off.

 

[Jim Parker]

<< the differences are extremely subtle.>>

Exactly. But we are very sure of our assumption that we have a more precise and the absolutely correct understanding of that subtlety. That is quite a grandiose assumption for mortals to make. I suspect there is some amount of ego involved in that assumption as reflected in the politics then and now.

"Then Zedeki'ah the son of Chena'anah came near and struck Micai'ah on the cheek, and said, "Which way did the Spirit of the LORD go from me to speak to you?" 2Ch 18:23

jim

 

[buzuxi02]

Councils according to Orthodoxy should only be called when a conflict or heresy arises that cannot be dealt on the local level and the cancer spreads. Obviously at the time nestorianism and monophysitism were indeed a christological problem.

But the language is still important, as an example awhile back in this forum a calvinist (as far as I remember) argued that the reason they reject the real precense is because Chalcedon does not allow a separation for the humanity and divinity of Christ. Thus the flesh of Christ (which he explained) was His humanity seperates from the divinity . In other words he was a Nestorian. He seperates the Person into natures!

I suspect this is a serous problem in protestant churches. Anyone familiar with the Council of Ephesus and its employment of the christological term of Theotokos and that any categorizing of the one person of Christ into two camps of human and divine parts is anathemized.

Likewise anything that reduces the real humanity of Christ is anathemized.

 

[Jim Parker]

The OOCs do not reduce either the Divine or Human natures of Christ. They just describe it with a different accent.

jim

 

[ArmyMatt]

The OOCs do not reduce either the Divine or Human natures of Christ. They just describe it with a different accent.

jim

but I think it's important to point out that it does not matter as much why you deviated from the faith, but that you deviated. if Christianity was merely a formula of beliefs, then yeah, we would probably be making a mountain out of a mole hill. since Christianity is a living relationship within the living Body of Christ, it does not matter how close someone is, not being in the Body is not being in the Body. a severed hand still has the same DNA, but it's still dead.