Did the Church make a mistake?

[ArmyMatt]

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?

because that one human nature is the human nature of God Who died and destroyed death by death.

plus, that is the deified Body and Blood we consume, which deifies us.

 

[SingularityOne]

because that one human nature is the human nature of God Who died and destroyed death by death.

plus, that is the deified Body and Blood we consume, which deifies us.

Thanks for explaining the mystery a bit more fully.

 

[Protomartyr Alban]

In 451, during the reign of the Sovereigns Marcian and Pulcheria, the Fourth Ecumenical Council was convoked in Chalcedon against Eutyches and those of like mind with him. After much debate, the Fathers who were the defenders of Orthodoxy, being 630 in number, agreed among themselves and with those who were of contrary mind, to write their respective definitions of faith in separate books, and to ask God to confirm the truth in this matter. When they had prepared these texts, they placed the two tomes in the case that held Saint Euphemia's relics, sealed it, and departed. After three days of night-long supplications, they opened the reliquary in the presence of the Emperor, and found the tome of the heretics under the feet of the Martyr, and that of the Orthodox in her right hand.

She also appeared to St Paisios (+ 1994, feast day 12th July) in his keli when he was having trouble advising bishops on a certain matter, once again illuminating the right path.
When hearing the Orthodox say the 4th Ecumenical Council was a misunderstanding and that we have the same faith as the Monophysites, he said, "They don’t say that the Monophysites didn’t understand the holy fathers—they say that the holy fathers didn’t understand them. In other words, they talk as if they’re right, and the fathers misunderstood them." He considered proposals to erase from the liturgical books statements identifying Dioscorus and Severus as heretics to be a blasphemy against the holy fathers. He said, "So many divinely enlightened holy fathers who were there at the time didn’t understand them, took them the wrong way, and now we come along after so many centuries to correct the holy fathers? And they don’t take the miracle of Saint Euphemia into account? Did she misunderstand the heretics’ tome too?"

Apolytikion of Great Martyr Euphemia in the Third Tone

O Euphemia, Christ's comely virgin, thou didst fill the Orthodox with gladness and didst cover with shame all the heretics; for at the holy Fourth Council in Chalcedon, thou didst confirm what the Fathers decreed aright. O all-glorious Great Martyr, do thou entreat Christ God that His great mercy may be granted unto us.

Kontakion of Great Martyr Euphemia in the Third Tone

You made fervent effort in your struggles of trial, in your struggles of faith for Christ your bridegroom. But even now, intercede with the Theotokos that the heresies and insolence of enemies be trod beneath the feet of our rulers, O All Praised, who received and kept the Decree of the 630 God-bearing Fathers.


Let us not undermine what an Ecumenical Council is and what authority it holds, and let us not undermine the Divinely illumined Holy Fathers, who were guided by the Holy Spirit, or the miracle of St Euphemia, or the wisdom of St Paisios. Let there be no doubt - even if these heretics hold the same faith as us today (which they don't by virtue of rejecting most of our Ecumenical Councils), they did not back then. Besides this, they also reject the saints we canonised, and won't let go of the heretics they canonised. The only thing stopping our unity is their stubbornness and refusal to accept they were and have been in error this whole time.
Holy 630 Fathers of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, Saint Euphemia, St Paisios, pray for us!

 

[ArmyMatt]

the PG has Severus of Antioch saying that there were earlier Fathers who used Chalcedonian terminology, but they did so blamelessly and now shouldn't use it, even if it was St Cyril.

Timothy the Cat says that St Cyril destroyed his own Orthodoxy when he accepted the Formula of Reunion.

I saw on a non-Chalcedonian thread that in Dioscorus' biography, he says that the union was so strong that Christ suffered in His Divinity. and guys in the thread were praising that as good theology as why we are wrong.

 

[Not David]

the PG has Severus of Antioch saying that there were earlier Fathers who used Chalcedonian terminology, but they did so blamelessly and now shouldn't use it, even if it was St Cyril.

Timothy the Cat says that St Cyril destroyed his own Orthodoxy when he accepted the Formula of Reunion.

I saw on a non-Chalcedonian thread that in Dioscorus' biography, he says that the union was so strong that Christ suffered in His Divinity. and guys in the thread were praising that as good theology as why we are wrong.

What did he refer by " the union was so strong that Christ suffered in His Divinity."?

 

[ArmyMatt]

What did he refer by " the union was so strong that Christ suffered in His Divinity."?

the Divine Nature suffered because it was united to the human nature which suffered.

 

[AMM]

I saw on a non-Chalcedonian thread that in Dioscorus' biography, he says that the union was so strong that Christ suffered in His Divinity. and guys in the thread were praising that as good theology as why we are wrong.

Is that considered theopaschism?

Theopaschism is acceptable to an extent, right? In order to avoid nestorianism?

 

[Not David]

the Divine Nature suffered because it was united to the human nature which suffered.

It doesn't sound right. How is it possible for divinity to suffer?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Is that considered theopaschism?

Theopaschism is acceptable to an extent, right? In order to avoid nestorianism?

it's not. theopaschism is that the God the Word truly suffered and died, which we affirm. not that the Divine Nature suffered.

 

[ArmyMatt]

It doesn't sound right. How is it possible for divinity to suffer?

it's not right, that's why we reject Dioscorus.

 

[buzuxi02]

Dioscoros taught [quoting St. Cyril] that the divine nature being united to human nature is like the unity of body and soul or the way fire heats up a piece of iron. The two elements merge and become one in nature. This is written in the Coptic Hagiography on Dioscorus:

Lives of Saints :: Tout 7

I dont think they differentiate (much) between human and divine acts of Christ during his ministry. But I could be wrong on this point.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Dioscoros taught [quoting St. Cyril] that the divine nature being united to human nature is like the unity of body and soul or the way fire heats up a piece of iron. The two elements merge and become one in nature. This is written in the Coptic Hagiography on Dioscorus:

Lives of Saints :: Tout 7

I dont think they differentiate (much) between human and divine acts of Christ during his ministry. But I could be wrong on this point.

I remember from that forum and from St Justinian, Dioscorus actually misquotes St Cyril's actual quote.

 

[Tigran1245]

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.

"Wherefore, we say that the two natures were united, from which there is the one and only Son and Lord, Jesus Christ, as we accept in our thoughts; but after the union, since the distinction into two is now done away with, we believe that there is one nature of the Son."

- St Cyril, Letter to Acacius

So, st. Cyril taught about one nature after the union.

 

[Tigran1245]

the Divine Nature suffered because it was united to the human nature which suffered.

In the Oriental Orthodox Church there is anathema if Divinity suffers. Council of Manzikert 726:

8. If anyone does not say that Christ bore in his body every human passion without sin; but according to Divinity He fell under the passions, or He was not involved in human passions for the economy, let him be anathema.

 

[ArmyMatt]

"Wherefore, we say that the two natures were united, from which there is the one and only Son and Lord, Jesus Christ, as we accept in our thoughts; but after the union, since the distinction into two is now done away with, we believe that there is one nature of the Son."

- St Cyril, Letter to Acacius

So, st. Cyril taught about one nature after the union.

St Cyril used “one” and “nature” more flexibly than others. he did indeed teach one (mia) nature, but he also did teach two natures to counter the guys that called him an Apollinarian. that doesn’t mean they contradict. the point is that it depends on meaning much more than word choice.

we also affirm the one nature of God the Word incarnate formula by acknowledging St Cyril and Ephesus, in the 5th Council, the henotikon of Justin II, the catechism of St Justinian, and the Fount of Wisdom by St John Damascene.

and this thread was from 5 years ago…

 

[ArmyMatt]

In the Oriental Orthodox Church there is anathema if Divinity suffers. Council of Manzikert 726:

8. If anyone does not say that Christ bore in his body every human passion without sin; but according to Divinity He fell under the passions, or He was not involved in human passions for the economy, let him be anathema.

I know, having had many conversations with non-Chalcedonian friends. it’s not our problem since Dioscorus isn’t one of our saints. take it up with him.

 

[The Liturgist]

I regard this entire thread as irrelevant because the Antiochian Orthodox Church and the Syriac Orthodox Church have been reconciled for over 30 years now, and likewise the Copts and Alexandrian Greeks for about 25 years. There might be some opposed to this, but the reality in the Middle East is that outside of a few places such as the constantly contentious situation at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, these issues have become largely irrelevant.

There are occasional embarassing statements made by bishops like HG Seraphim of Piraeus, but aside from that, things have become much better. Also I have not been able to verify the remarks made by @Tigran1245 regarding a deviation still existing between Armenian and Coptic-Syriac theology; if that exists its a problem, but a minor one.

Now unfortunately we have not made as much progress with the Assyrians, and I feel this is partially because the two factions of the Church of the East have not resolved their schism or addressed their own problems, for example, the failure of most of their parishes to follow their own canons and display an icon of our Lord on the altar.