Did the Church make a mistake?

[buzuxi02]

And is that neither monophysitism nor Miaphysitism?

They believe Christ is a hypostatic union of two natures . After the union the natures were muted so He is no longer IN* two natures. We EO believe both the former and latter expression is correct.

 

[ArmyMatt]

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?

because miaphysitism doesn't contradict Chalcedon. since Chalcedon affirms the singleness of Christ, just like St Cyril used the two Natures formula.

and non-Chalcedonians are not Orthodox.

 

[Not David]

because miaphysitism doesn't contradict Chalcedon. since Chalcedon affirms the singleness of Christ, just like St Cyril used the two Natures formula.

and non-Chalcedonians are not Orthodox.

Thanks, Father. Sorry if I might bother you with all of my questions, I am just a youngster who tries to understand the faith better.

I am confused about how can Orthodox be both dyophysites and miaphysites at the same time.

And why did the Non-Chalcedonians accept the Council? What makes them non-Orthodox?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Thanks, Father. Sorry if I might bother you with all of my questions, I am just a youngster who tries to understand the faith better.

I am confused about how can Orthodox be both dyophysites and miaphysites at the same time.

And why did the Non-Chalcedonians accept the Council? What makes them non-Orthodox?

we are dyophysites in that we confess the fullness of each Nature being preserved.

we are miaphysites in that we confess the singularity of Christ and that a true union occurred of the two Natures.

physis, being a broad term, works for both formulas.

they did not accept the Council because they would only define Christology more narrowly than St Cyril did, who they claim to champion.

since because of that they left the Church, they are not Orthodox.

 

[Not David]

we are dyophysites in that we confess the fullness of each Nature being preserved.

we are miaphysites in that we confess the singularity of Christ and that a true union occurred of the two Natures.

physis, being a broad term, works for both formulas.

they did not accept the Council because they would only define Christology more narrowly than St Cyril did, who they claim to champion.

since because of that they left the Church, they are not Orthodox.

Thanks again, Father.

In what ways is it more narrowly than St Cyril's?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Thanks again, Father.

In what ways is it more narrowly than St Cyril's?

St Cyril affirmed the two Natures formula, he would distinguish between the human and the Divine in Christ. basically, what the non-Chalcedonians object to in Chalcedon, St Cyril was fine with.

 

[SingularityOne]

St Cyril affirmed the two Natures formula, he would distinguish between the human and the Divine in Christ. basically, what the non-Chalcedonians object to in Chalcedon, St Cyril was fine with.

Is it correct to say that the formula is a “fully personal divine nature and an impersonal human nature” (as St. Sophronius says in the 7th counsel)?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Is it correct to say that the formula is a “fully personal divine nature and an impersonal human nature” (as St. Sophronius says in the 7th counsel)?

yes, in the sense that the Person is the Divine Word

 

[SingularityOne]

yes, in the sense that the Person is the Divine Word

Yes, I agree.

So, our human nature being “impersonal” means that He assumes our human nature into His “Personal” Divine Nature?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Yes, I agree.

So, our human nature being “impersonal” means that He assumes our human nature into His “Personal” Divine Nature?

I think it's more accurate to say He assumes it into His Person, which united it to His Divine Nature.

 

[SingularityOne]

I think it's more accurate to say He assumes it into His Person, which united it to His Divine Nature.

I think I’m starting to understand... could you phrase it in a different way so that I can grasp this further, if possible?

 

[ArmyMatt]

I think I’m starting to understand... could you phrase it in a different way so that I can grasp this further, if possible?

I dunno. the Word of God took on human nature and made it truly His own.

 

[Not David]

Yes, I agree.

So, our human nature being “impersonal” means that He assumes our human nature into His “Personal” Divine Nature?

What do you mean by personal and impersonal?

 

[SingularityOne]

What do you mean by personal and impersonal?

I’m honestly still trying to figure it out. It’s how St. Sophronius defines the natures of Christ in the 7th Counsel.

What I have understand, this far, is that Christ, in His pre-incarnate Form was personally divine and then in His incarnation he assumed “impersonal” human nature and, then was crucified, died and resurrected and brought that human nature to the right hand of the Father so that we can be sanctified in the process of theosis.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I’m honestly still trying to figure it out. It’s how St. Sophronius defines the natures of Christ in the 7th Counsel.

What I have understand, this far, is that Christ, in His pre-incarnate Form was personally divine and then in His incarnation he assumed “impersonal” human nature and, then was crucified, died and resurrected and brought that human nature to the right hand of the Father so that we can be sanctified in the process of theosis.

correct, but His Divine Person personalized the human nature. so the Person of Jesus of Nazareth is the Son and Word.

 

[SingularityOne]

correct, but His Divine Person personalized the human nature. so the Person of Jesus of Nazareth is the Son and Word.

So, the human nature is personalized from what I’m hearing you say. So, what does “impersonal human nature” mean in St. Sophronius’ statement/understanding then?

 

[ArmyMatt]

So, the human nature is personalized from what I’m hearing you say. So, what does “impersonal human nature” mean in St. Sophronius’ statement/understanding then?

Christ is a Divine Person Who took on human nature, there is no separate human person in Christ.

 

[SingularityOne]

Christ is a Divine Person Who took on human nature, there is no separate human person in Christ.

Ah, I agree.

So, is this human nature both “one” and “many”? I guess what I’m trying to figure out is that: is the human nature that is “taken on” talked about generally (considering it’s “impersonal”)?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Ah, I agree.

So, is this human nature both “one” and “many”? I guess what I’m trying to figure out is that: is the human nature that is “taken on” talked about generally (considering it’s “impersonal”)?

no, it's one.

 

[SingularityOne]

no, it's one.

I know that you may have answered this already, forgive my slowness in understanding if so, but how does this “impersonal human nature” being “one”, save all of mankind if it is not “many”; trying to understand this doctrine of Christology in relation to Soteriology?