Did the Church make a mistake?

[Not David]

According to some theologians and even Orthodox Christians, the Orthodox Church made a mistake in condemning the Non-Chalcedonians as monophysites when they were miaphysites, and practically the OO are the same as the EO in theology. Also, this happened because of language issues or something like that.

What is the truth?

 

[civilwarbuff]

My opinion is once John died and they had no Apostle to turn to the church turned its back on what Jesus said and began to debate what He 'meant' in their opinion. It has been down hill ever since......

 

[Not David]

My opinion is once John died and they had no Apostle to turn to the church turned its back on what Jesus said and began to debate what He 'meant' in their opinion. It has been down hill ever since......

It would be silly to think Christ founded a Church that didn't even survived the first century,

Anyway, what does this have to do with monophysitism?

 

[ArmyMatt]

the non-Chalcedonians are not condemned as monophysites, as they also condemn it.

was the Church wrong? no, because they do have a different Christology.

 

[ArmyMatt]

My opinion is once John died and they had no Apostle to turn to the church turned its back on what Jesus said and began to debate what He 'meant' in their opinion. It has been down hill ever since......

Jesus pretty much disagrees with this.

and if your point is that Christians started looking to their own opinion rather than Christ, it is unwise to begin with, "My opinion is..."

 

[civilwarbuff]

It would be silly to think Christ founded a Church that didn't even survived the first century,

Anyway, what does this have to do with monophysitism?

If you notice I did say church and not Church which has survived. Jesus came to earth to open the gates of Heaven to any who would follow Him not for man to debate the who, where, why, and when of God. Just my opinion.........

 

[timewerx]

It would be silly to think Christ founded a Church that didn't even survived the first century,

Anyway, what does this have to do with monophysitism?

Perhaps irrelevant but in the book of Judas (non canon scripture, I know),

Jesus shared a prophecy with His apostles that the apostles themselves would start a religion that would deceive many.

The Apostles are obviously horrified by the prophecy. But this is the Book of Judas, who would believe, right?

 

[buzuxi02]

Miaphysite and monophysite is basically a synonym for the same Greek word implying singleness. Mia meaning 'one' while mono meaning "just one".
As explained by Orientals miaphysite becomes a term more theologically synonymous with the term dyophysite. The latter a term they reject of course..

 

[ArmyMatt]

If you notice I did say church and not Church which has survived. Jesus came to earth to open the gates of Heaven to any who would follow Him not for man to debate the who, where, why, and when of God. Just my opinion.........

that isn't even the discussion...

 

[Not David]

the non-Chalcedonians are not condemned as monophysites, as they also condemn it.

was the Church wrong? no, because they do have a different Christology.

Then why isn't Miaphysitism condemned in any of the councils? And why does the Church refer to Non-Chalcedonian theologians as monophysites and monothelities?

 

[buzuxi02]

Then why isn't Miaphysitism condemned in any of the councils? And why does the Church refer to Non-Chalcedonian theologians as monophysites and monothelities?

The term miaphysite is new, you wont find it used in antiquity, even the term monophysite didnt come to be until after 700AD.
Monotheletes were not monophysites, they were those that accepted the compromise of Emperor Heraclius. Monotheletes accepted Chalcedon's terminology in two natures but recognized Christ as having one will. It was supposed to be a compromise solution to unify the factions. All sides rejected it but one faction held onto this teaching. Today they are known as Maronites.

 

[Lukaris]

I tend to view the EO & OO as Orthodox but not in communion. Until the hierarchies can find unity, I abide by the situation. Nothing else can be done.

 

[civilwarbuff]

that isn't even the discussion...

yep, I agree. I think I misunderstood what was being discussed. I shall bow out.....

 

[ArmyMatt]

Then why isn't Miaphysitism condemned in any of the councils? And why does the Church refer to Non-Chalcedonian theologians as monophysites and monothelities?

because miaphysitism isn't a heresy.

they are referred as such from time to time because of the bitterness of the spat between us. and they can be monothelites.

 

[Not David]

because miaphysitism isn't a heresy.

they are referred as such from time to time because of the bitterness of the spat between us. and they can be monothelites.

Can an Eastern Orthodox be miaphysite?
Also, it seems kind of weird Orthodox calling them monophysites when the Non-Chalcedonians were Orthodox the whole time.

Plus, didn't OO saint, Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria, support Eutyches?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Can an Eastern Orthodox be miaphysite?
Also, it seems kind of weird Orthodox calling them monophysites when the Non-Chalcedonians were Orthodox the whole time.

Plus, didn't OO saint, Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria, support Eutyches?

we are miaphysites, correctly understood. we ratified that formula at the 5th Council. the non-Chalcedonians are not Orthodox, but not for Monophysitism.

and yes, Dioscrorus did.

 

[Not David]

we are miaphysites, correctly understood. we ratified that formula at the 5th Council. the non-Chalcedonians are not Orthodox, but not for Monophysitism.

and yes, Dioscrorus did.

What do you mean by "we are miaphysites, correctly understood. we ratified that formula at the 5th Council"?

And why are the non-Chalcedonians Orthodox?

 

[buzuxi02]

And why are the non-Chalcedonians Orthodox?

Non-Chalcedonians do not believe that after the union Christ is in Two natures subsisting in His person.

 

[Not David]

Non-Chalcedonians do not believe that after the union Christ is in Two natures subsisting in His person.

And is that neither monophysitism nor Miaphysitism?

 

[buzuxi02]

To understand the difference. Here is a portion of the Christological statement the RC and Assyrians (extreme dyophysites) agreed to in 1994:

. ..In him has been preserved the difference of the natures of divinity and humanity, with all their properties, faculties and operations.

Now here is the Christological statement the RC and Copts agreed to in 1973:

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.