Effects of the Filioque?

[AMM]

Anyway, I don't consider Oriental Orthodox to be really different from us, so I don't care to dissuade you. They will most likely tell you the same thing, that they and us are mostly on the same page. If you go Oriental Orthodox, most Eastern Orthodox parishes will still be happy to offer you Communion, and Oriental Orthodox, particularly Copts and Ethiopians, are generally just as happy to Commune Eastern Orthodox.

The point of make a distinction in natures was to protect against Eutychianism, which was a major problem back then, including among the Copts. Many Euthychians were tricky about it too, not overt, and that's why they had to be so bluntly dealt with.

Funny enough I've actually said that before too, that the orientals and easterners seem to be actually the same, and most of the differences are semantics, so maybe I'm just being inconsistent about the whole thing. The Holy Spirit will lead me to the truth in His own time, I'm not too worried at the present.

Also I should do more reading on these histories. I'm realizing that I mostly just know (a tiny amount about) the orthodox position that was upheld, not so much about the reasons, teachings, heresies, etc. leading to the councils.

I'd be careful here. most jurisdictions I know do not offer the OO the sacraments. in seminary we were taught their Christology leaves the door open for heresy (and we have some OO students). and while many do sound like us, there are some voices out there who are not. jckstraw quoted a Malankar priest who said the will is an aspect of Person, and not of nature, which is heretical.

Can you clarify your last sentence? I'm not sure what you mean; why is that heretical? (I don't agree nor disagree, I'm just uninformed)

 

[ArmyMatt]

Can you clarify your last sentence? I'm not sure what you mean; why is that heretical? (I don't agree nor disagree, I'm just uninformed)

will is an aspect of nature. Christ has two Natures which means He has two wills (human and divine). they are both in full communion with each other and never oppose, but their distinction must be maintained. otherwise, it is a heresy called monothelitism.

plus, if will is an aspect of Person, then there are Three Wills in the Trinity (which is bad), and Christ did not deify the human will since He is a divine Person, He would only have a divine will.

bad stuff all around.

but to be fair, most you talk to sound like us, and over the years they have moved closer to our position, but the rejection of Chalcedon has left the door open for some heresy to be there

 

[~Anastasia~]

will is an aspect of nature. Christ has two Natures which means He has two wills (human and divine). they are both in full communion with each other and never oppose, but their distinction must be maintained. it is a heresy called monothelitism.

plus, if will is an aspect of Person, then there are Three Wills in the Trinity (which is bad), and Christ did not deify the human will since He is a divine Person, He would only have a divine will.

bad stuff all around.

but to be fair, most you talk to sound like us, and over the years they have moved closer to our position, but the rejection of Chalcedon has left the door open for some heresy to be there

Thanks also Matt. I did not initially understand everything implied by your last statement either so I'm glad to see it explained. Now it makes sense. (And I feel like I should have been able to make that connection, lol, but delving TOO deeply into the Holy Trinity is something I don't do on my own lol).

 

[ArmyMatt]

Thanks also Matt. I did not initially understand everything implied by your last statement either so I'm glad to see it explained. Now it makes sense. (And I feel like I should have been able to make that connection, lol, but delving TOO deeply into the Holy Trinity is something I don't do on my own lol).

no problem. it's always dicey since when it comes to God, we must always be clear about person and nature as far as has been revealed, which is NOT something that can be done by simple speculation, philosophy, or psychology. so you are right to not delve into the mysteries of the Trinity, which the Fathers say will drive you mad if you try to do.

 

[~Anastasia~]

no problem. it's always dicey since when it comes to God, we must always be clear about person and nature as far as has been revealed, which is NOT something that can be done by simple speculation, philosophy, or psychology. so you are right to not delve into the mysteries of the Trinity, which the Fathers say will drive you mad if you try to do.

Thank you, then I'm grateful to have been placed on the right track.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

I'd be careful here. most jurisdictions I know do not offer the OO the sacraments. in seminary we were taught their Christology leaves the door open for heresy (and we have some OO students). and while many do sound like us, there are some voices out there who are not.

In Egypt they universally do, and my parish, which is Greek (the majority in America) does. From that perspective, either my jurisdiction is committing an incredible transgression that other jurisdictions should be ashamed to be silent about. Or the Eastern-Oriental schism is comparable to the current schism between Antioch and Jerusalem. I'm going to go with the latter, since if any jurisdiction started giving full Communion to Latins, there would be a major confrontation with the other Orthodox jurisdictions.

I don't think Oriental Orthodox Christology is any different from ours, and I humbly submit that you can't demonstrate that it is. Their terminology is different from ours. They do have a formula that opens the door for Euthychianism, but they've dealt with that long ago. We also had a formula that opened the door for Nestorianism, people saying it is wrong to say that God was Crucified and died for us; but we likewise dealt with that long ago, at the Fifth Ecumenical Council. The doors left open by these formulas were a problem at one time, but they absolutely are not anymore.

jckstraw quoted a Malankar priest who said the will is an aspect of Person, and not of nature, which is heretical.

The will of the three persons of the Godhead is obviously an aspect of nature, since it is one. However, the will of human persons varies from person to person, so it is correct to say it is an aspect of person in certain respects, although "human will" as a general category is natural.

However, we must be very, very careful about falling into "univocity of being" here, as happened in the West. When we say "person" or "nature" in regard to God, we're obviously working with completely different and mystical definitions than when we apply those terms to man.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Can you clarify your last sentence? I'm not sure what you mean; why is that heretical? (I don't agree nor disagree, I'm just uninformed)

Many of our saints say it is heretical to say Christ has one nature out of two, because in ancient times that was what Eutychians said (who formed a very large part of the non-Chalcedonian camp). A lot of the non-Chalcedonian camp wasn't Eutychian, though, and in fact they anathematized them. Today they make a distinction between "monophysites" (which they use to refer to Eutychians, Apollonarians, and Docetism), and "miaphysites" which they use to refer to themselves. They do generally object to being called the former.

Oriental Orthodox simply work with a different terminology than we do. For instance, when we say one's energy is united with God's, we call it "synergy"; they wouldn't though, they would say that is one energy--not in the Protestant sense of monergism, where God is the only one acting, but maybe what you might call "miargism"; they would say human energy and God's energy become one, but without abrogation or obliteration of the human energy.

 

[ArmyMatt]

In Egypt they universally do, and my parish, which is Greek (the majority in America) does. From that perspective, either my jurisdiction is committing an incredible transgression that other jurisdictions should be ashamed to be silent about. Or the Eastern-Oriental schism is comparable to the current schism between Antioch and Jerusalem. I'm going to go with the latter, since if any jurisdiction started giving full Communion to Latins, there would be a major confrontation with the other Orthodox jurisdictions.

I don't think Oriental Orthodox Christology is any different from ours, and I humbly submit that you can't demonstrate that it is. Their terminology is different from ours. They do have a formula that opens the door for Euthychianism, but they've dealt with that long ago. We also had a formula that opened the door for Nestorianism, people saying it is wrong to say that God was Crucified and died for us; but we likewise dealt with that long ago, at the Fifth Ecumenical Council. The doors left open by these formulas were a problem at one time, but they absolutely are not anymore.

yes, they still leave the door open for a different Christology, since many of them say we have a different Christology. I will never forget being at SVOTS for Ed Day, and Fr John Behr and a Coptic Deacon arguing about this. Fr John had your position, the Deacon was saying we are heretics. and I think the Deacon was right to do from the Coptic POV.

The will of the three persons of the Godhead is obviously an aspect of nature, since it is one. However, the will of human persons varies from person to person, so it is correct to say it is an aspect of person in certain respects, although "human will" as a general category is natural.

However, we must be very, very careful about falling into "univocity of being" here, as happened in the West. When we say "person" or "nature" in regard to God, we're obviously working with completely different and mystical definitions than when we apply those terms to man.

right, and we have the 6th Council for this, which means there is no debate. if we had the same Christology, no one would be saying this on their side.

 

[ArmyMatt]

and I would add, we never had the door open to Nestorius after Ephesus, since all subsequent Councils affirmed Ephesus and St Cyril, and Nestorius's condemnation. the door to monotheletism, monoenergism, etc are still open since they have not accepted the Councils that condemned those heresies. and I say this knowing most OO do fall in line with our Christology.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

yes, they still leave the door open for a different Christology, since many of them say we have a different Christology. I will never forget being at SVOTS for Ed Day, and Fr John Behr and a Coptic Deacon arguing about this. Fr John had your position, the Deacon was saying we are heretics. and I think the Deacon was right to do from the Coptic POV.

I don't. Although we do actually have real heretics in our ranks. For instance, the copy of The Ascetic Homilies of Saint Isaac the Syrian (which is excellent) put out by the Holy Transfiguration Monastery (granted, they are schismatics, but that has nothing to do with this) says Theopaschism is a monophysite teaching, and it is called heretical in some foreword material. This is absolutely a sort of Nestorianism (even while they are defending Saint Isaac from charges of Nestorianism!), and it is directly because of zealots trying to shoehorn differences between us and the Copts that really aren't there. And you can't put them there without falling into Nestorianism, or misunderstanding the Coptic position.

right, and we have the 6th Council for this, which means there is no debate. if we had the same Christology, no one would be saying this on their side.

It's a matter of terminology, not Christology. You know, there was a huge fuss originally in the West over the formula of three hypostases in one essence (since they understood those as virtually the same), and they contended it was three persons, not three hypostases; Saint Athanasius stepped in and said it was clear that our terms just meant different things in the West than they did in the East, and managed to pull everyone back together and show they meant the same thing.

Really, this is splitting hairs. If they use the term "one energy" to refer to synergy, that's not heretical in the sense that the 6th Council was addressing. The 6th Council was addressing the heresy that Christ has no human energy. There were a lot of people saying that then, that Christ only has one energy, the Father's energy. That's not really what the Copts are saying, since they consider Christ's energies to be both human and divine, but perfectly synchronized and are one in that sense. We do the same thing: Christ was born according to the flesh, we say, but we still call Mary the Theotokos, because Christ's flesh is God and God's flesh; does that mean Christ's flesh, being God, is no longer human? No. You know, our saints have used the term "nature" in many varied ways, that's why some say we are called to participate in God's nature (even the Bible says this, 2 Peter 1:4). Others say God's nature is completely inaccessible, and we can only participate in God's grace. I don't think there is heresy on either side, I think it is just very clear that "nature" is a totally abstract term and open to different uses in different contexts. By the Bible's words of course, we would call Communion "participating in God's nature", but at the same time we say Christ's flesh and blood is human nature. The Bible says we are to all be one in Jesus Christ, and this obviously includes energies--are we to take this as heretical? I don't think so.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I don't. Although we do actually have real heretics in our ranks. For instance, the copy of The Ascetic Homilies of Saint Isaac the Syrian (which is excellent) put out by the Holy Transfiguration Monastery (granted, they are schismatics, but that has nothing to do with this) says Theopaschism is a monophysite teaching, and it is called heretical in some foreword material. This is absolutely a sort of Nestorianism (even while they are defending Saint Isaac from charges of Nestorianism!), and it is directly because of zealots trying to shoehorn differences between us and the Copts that really aren't there. And you can't put them there without falling into Nestorianism, or misunderstanding the Coptic position.

that's their problem. they are not in the Church, so they are not in our ranks. and I have classes with Copts and what I said came from a Copt. I can easily say this without falling into Nestorianism.

It's a matter of terminology, not Christology. You know, there was a huge fuss originally in the West over the formula of three hypostases in one essence (since they understood those as virtually the same), and they contended it was three persons, not three hypostases; Saint Athanasius stepped in and said it was clear that our terms just meant different things in the West than they did in the East, and managed to pull everyone back together and show they meant the same thing.

right, because the understanding was always the same. even though hypostasis means the same as substance. but they never broke communion fully over this, which the non-Chalcedonians have. and we also say if you do not affirm that Chalcedon is the same faith as Ephesus, you are anathema.

Really, this is splitting hairs. If they use the term "one energy" to refer to synergy, that's not heretical in the sense that the 6th Council was addressing. The 6th Council was addressing the heresy that Christ has no human energy. There were a lot of people saying that then, that Christ only has one energy, the Father's energy. That's not really what the Copts are saying, since they consider Christ's energies to be both human and divine, but perfectly synchronized and are one in that sense.

that is not the issue with one energy. St John of Damascus uses one theandric energy to speak of the human and divine perfectly in sync, and as one. the issue is if the energy is an aspect of the Person or the Nature.

We do the same thing: Christ was born according to the flesh, we say, but we still call Mary the Theotokos, because Christ's flesh is God and God's flesh; does that mean Christ's flesh, being God, is no longer human? No.

well, no. Christ's flesh is not God and is only human. Christ is God in His Person and His Divine Nature. we call Mary Theotokos because she gave birth to a Divine Who, not a Divine What. Christ's flesh is not God, Christ is God Who has flesh. and that is not splitting hairs. that is what the Christological Councils were all about. The Divine "Who" of the Word, took on the "what" of the creature.

You know, our saints have used the term "nature" in many varied ways, that's why some say we are called to participate in God's nature (even the Bible says this, 2 Peter 1:4). Others say God's nature is completely inaccessible, and we can only participate in God's grace.

it's because grace is an aspect of nature, like will. so when we participate in God's grace, we are participating in His Nature.

I don't think there is heresy on either side, I think it is just very clear that "nature" is a totally abstract term and open to different uses in different contexts.

there can be, if you take grace to be created. yes, the term can be vague, which is why the Church has always sought common understanding and experience. you are not addressing what actually divides us.

By the Bible's words of course, we would call Communion "participating in God's nature", but at the same time we say Christ's flesh and blood is human nature.

it's because of the hypostatic union. when we partake of the Eucharist, we partake of God because the Person is Divine, and has united humanity to Divinity.

The Bible says we are to all be one in Jesus Christ, and this obviously includes energies--are we to take this as heretical? I don't think so.

no, and we are not. however, if certain circles of the OO take energy to be an aspect of Person, then they are.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

Christ's flesh is not God and is only human.

[....]

it's because of the hypostatic union. when we partake of the Eucharist, we partake of God because the Person is Divine, and has united humanity to Divinity.

So His flesh is in fact God (or else the Eucharist would not be God, since it is Christ's flesh). It is God because of His divine hypostasis. "The Word became flesh". Christ's Body is Christ, just as your body is you, and my body is me. Christ's flesh was always God and will always be God. Even when Christ was dead, His flesh was God.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

no, and we are not. however, if certain circles of the OO take energy to be an aspect of Person, then they are.

Are humans of one energy?

 

[ArmyMatt]

So His flesh is in fact God (or else the Eucharist would not be God, since it is Christ's flesh). It is God because of His divine hypostasis. "The Word became flesh". Christ's Body is Christ, just as your body is you, and my body is me. Christ's flesh was always God and will always be God. Even when Christ was dead, His flesh was God.

God is a Personal Trinity of hypostases of one Divine Nature. flesh is human nature. the flesh is not God, but God has flesh. what you are saying is not correct.

Are humans of one energy?

in the sense we are of one nature, yes.

 

[~Anastasia~]

In Egypt they universally do, and my parish, which is Greek (the majority in America) does. From that perspective, either my jurisdiction is committing an incredible transgression

My apologies for interrupting, but I have a concern that there can be misunderstandings because of this.

I can't speak for your parish, but mine is Greek, and I've spoken to my priest several times to be sure I understand our position, and we are not in communion with the OO. I've also spoken to other priests of other jurisdictions, other Greek priests, Greek monastics, and with parishioners who had an issue with it.

Perhaps there are some extenuating circumstances in your parish, or something you are not aware of, or your priest is not aware of, or something else. We don't generally make it our business whether or not a particular person is receiving the Sacraments, or able to receive them. So I'm not saying there is any great transgression being committed by your parish. But I want to make it clear that it is not the position of the Greeks in general that we are in communion with the OO. To leave that statement without addressing it could cause misunderstand in those who read. I do apologize, as I don't wish to be argumentative, but I feel it important.

Peace to you.

 

[ArmyMatt]

My apologies for interrupting, but I have a concern that there can be misunderstandings because of this.

I can't speak for your parish, but mine is Greek, and I've spoken to my priest several times to be sure I understand our position, and we are not in communion with the OO. I've also spoken to other priests of other jurisdictions, other Greek priests, Greek monastics, and with parishioners who had an issue with it.

Perhaps there are some extenuating circumstances in your parish, or something you are not aware of, or your priest is not aware of, or something else. We don't generally make it our business whether or not a particular person is receiving the Sacraments, or able to receive them. So I'm not saying there is any great transgression being committed by your parish. But I want to make it clear that it is not the position of the Greeks in general that we are in communion with the OO. To leave that statement without addressing it could cause misunderstand in those who read. I do apologize, as I don't wish to be argumentative, but I feel it important.

Peace to you.

this has been my experience as well with the Greeks I know. even the Antiochians are taking a more hard line stance that we are not in communion with them.

 

[~Anastasia~]

this has been my experience as well with the Greeks I know. even the Antiochians are taking a more hard line stance that we are not in communion with them.

I know fewer Antiochian priests and it has only come up with a couple, but that has been their position as well.

I don't mean that the priests aren't sympathetic to the situation, and I think the schism grieves pretty much everyone. But that is the official position.

I do have FB friends who are both OO and EO in other countries who tell me intercommunion is common there. I know it happens. But it's not my place to comment, as the situation there is very different and they face situations nothing like we have in the US. I believe the right things are generally being done in each case, whatever that may be. But it's certainly not my place to critique anyway.

 

[ArmyMatt]

yeah, it is pretty tragic. and it only adds to the confusion that we have always affirmed a lot of what they say, or at least said, we did not affirm back around the 4th Council. in fact, one of the reasons I love the 5th Council was because it affirmed that all Chalcedonians must agree with certain things that the non-Chalcedonians were harping on:

One Nature of the Word of God Incarnate
natural union
of two Natures
Christ is composite or synthetic or compound
the theopaschite formula
distinction between humanity and divinity is only in theory or thought, and not in reality
the anathema of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the certain writings of Theodoret and Ibas
there is only one worship of the one Christ
the One born of Mary is God, and therefore she is Theotokos
reaffirmation of the condemnation of Nestorius, and that St Cyril was not an Apollinarian

 

[~Anastasia~]

yeah, it is pretty tragic. and it only adds to the confusion that we have always affirmed a lot of what they say, or at least said, we did not affirm back around the 4th Council. in fact, one of the reasons I love the 5th Council was because it affirmed that all Chalcedonians must agree with certain things that the non-Chalcedonians were harping on:

One Nature of the Word of God Incarnate
natural union
of two Natures
Christ is composite or synthetic or compound
the theopaschite formula
distinction between humanity and divinity is only in theory or thought, and not in reality
the anathema of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the certain writings of Theodoret and Ibas
there is only one worship of the one Christ
the One born of Mary is God, and therefore she is Theotokos
reaffirmation of the condemnation of Nestorius, and that St Cyril was not an Apollinarian

This ... would take some study for me to fully understand or reply to fully. I think a LOT of study. I know some, but certainly not all. But thank you for the info. I should file this away.

 

[ArmyMatt]

This ... would take some study for me to fully understand or reply to fully. I think a LOT of study. I know some, but certainly not all. But thank you for the info. I should file this away.

and there are some more:

anathema against anyone who says Christ is a God-bearing man, and not God Incarnate
anathema to anyone who says Christ advanced in grace as from lower state to higher
in two Natures only without separation or division