My Verdict Thus Far in terms of the Chalcedonian Controversy

[TheLostCoin]

For the few of those who have been following my struggles in looking into Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy, I feel that I would like to share an update as to where I am now.

Unlike my struggles with Roman Catholicism, where the idea of the whole Church believing in a Vatican 1 style Bishop of Rome for the first thousand of years is verifiable or not to a great degree, I find this struggle over terminological meaning between the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox to be a lot more painful, for both sides make accusations to the other that are not as easy to verify. For instance, to what extent of Dioscorus's violent proceedings were accurate or just libel, to what extent Eutyches was a heretic before Ephesus 449, and to what extent those who used Antiochian terminology accepted a view of Ephesus 431 where Cyril repudiated his own doctrines in favor of the Antiochian school - all of these accusations are extremely difficult to verify, with only lingering evidence here and there.

However, with my studying and prayer - the latter of which I question it's efficacy, because I'm an absolute wretch, literally the worst sinner on this planet and a Pharisee, who is in need of the Sacraments and a hospital to begin the arduous surgery against my Passions, hopefully with my soul's own desire (which hasn't repented yet and will be condemned to eternal fire unless I repent).

Nonetheless, making a decision that I don't take lightly, I really think that the Eastern Orthodox Church is correct, based on the information that I've found.

Reading Severus of Antioch's objections to Chalcedon, as well as V.C. Samuel's objections to Chalcedon, at a doctrinal level, I find untenable.

There are two (three) theological arguments put forward by the the Oriental Orthodox frequently that I want to address, and my reasoning (hopefully it's justified) as to why I reject such reasoning.

The first argument that was brought forward at Chalcedon, subsequently brought forward by Severus of Antioch and others, is that from Cyril onwards "it is forbidden to use the phrase 'in two natures'", as Cyril created a precise theological terminology that the whole world must accept.

To me, this ridiculously contradictory to the Formula of Reunion between John of Antioch and Cyril, the latter of which completely accepted the terminology of "In Two Natures." If Cyril was really so stringent as to not accept this formula, why would he accept the Reunion of 431?

Severus of Antioch - contradicting himself - says that the Formula of Reunion is acceptable, because basic theological principles are accepted that Chalcedon did not accept. Which brings us to the second argument.


The second argument I have here is the argument (if I understand correctly) is regarding to the (in)famous phrase "The activity of each form is what is proper to it in communion with the other: that is, the Word performs what belongs to the Word, and the flesh accomplishes what belongs to the flesh."
There are two ways, that I've found, that this is interpreted as heretical by the Oriental Orthodox.
The first of which, is that this can easily "sound" Nestorian, as it isn't clear as to whether this refers to the properties of each natures, or if it views each nature as autonomous and individual of each other - that is, whether the Person of Christ referred to is a "Prosopon" or a "Hypostasis."

However, immediately after Leo says this:
"We must say this again and again: one and the same is truly Son of God and truly son of man."
He also says:
"So it is on account of this oneness of the person, which must be understood in both natures, that we both read that the son of man came down from heaven, when the Son of God took flesh from the virgin from whom he was born, and again that the Son of God is said to have been crucified and buried..."

and says:
"All this was so that it would be recognised that the proper character of the divine and of the human nature went on existing inseparable in him; and so that we would realise that the Word is not the same thing as the flesh, but in such a way that we would confess belief in the one Son of God as being both Word and flesh."

And in a later Sermon Leo says, in Sermon 54, clarifying exactly what his intentions were, says this:
"In all things, therefore, dearly-beloved, which pertain to the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Catholic Faith maintains and demands that we acknowledge the two Natures to have met in our Redeemer, and while their properties remained, such a union of both Natures to have been effected that, from the time when, as the cause of mankind required, in the blessed Virgin's womb, the Word became flesh, we may not think of Him as God without that which is man, nor as man without that which is God. Each Nature does indeed express its real existence by actions that distinguish it, but neither separates itself from connection with the other. Nothing is wanting there on either side; in the majesty the humility is complete, in the humility the majesty is complete: and the unity does not introduce confusion, nor does the distinctiveness destroy the unity. The one is passible, the other inviolable; and yet the degradation belongs to the same Person, as does the glory. He is present at once in weakness and in power; at once capable of death and the vanquisher of it. Therefore, God took on Him whole Manhood, and so blended the two Natures together by means of His mercy and power, that each Nature was present in the other, and neither passed out of its own properties into the other."

Not only that, but there can really be only one interpretation, for the definition of Chalcedon says this:

"the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Prosopon and One Hypostasis."

Severus of Antioch says that this is contradictory to the phrase "In Two Natures," going against not only the Formula of Reunion, but even Saints who have used such phrases in the exact same way Chalcedon uses it, such as John Cassian

Father V.C. Samuels argues that perhaps both can be synonymous with each other, that Hypostasis in the Council can be understood as Prosopon. However, if this is the case, than why would they say the same word twice in a way that it distinguishes the two, using the conjunction "and"?

The other argument I've heard is that its impossible, according to Severus of Antioch, due to the Unity of the Natures, to ascribe specific characteristics to either Nature, which is what is objectional to the Tome of Leo. That is, for example, "The birth of flesh reveals human nature; birth from a virgin is a proof of divine power. A lowly cradle manifests the infancy of the child; angels' voices announce the greatness of the most High." The Natures are so tightly unified that perhaps you can't even in thought ascribe characteristics to each Nature.


However, this is heretical, as it's a denial of the Dynamic Continuation of Two Natures. Cyril in his Commentary on John and in his letters to Nestorius explicitly claims that is is impious or even blasphemous to say that the Word (referring to the Divine Nature of Christ, exactly as Leo does) suffered.

From Book 8 of his commentary on John:
"Can it be then that the Divine Nature of the Word became capable of death? Surely it were altogether impious to say this. For the Word of God the Father is in His Nature Life: He raises to life, but He does not fall: He brings death to naught, He is not made subject to corruption: He quickens that which lacks life, but seeks not His own life from another. For even as light could not become darkness, so it is impossible that Life should cease to be life. How then is the same Person said to fall into the earth as a grain of wheat, and also to "go up" as "God with a shout?" Surely it is evident that to taste of death was fitting for Him, inasmuch as He became Man: but nevertheless to go up in the manner of God, was His own natural prerogative."

From the Second Letter of Cyril to Nestorius:

"In a similar way we say that he suffered and rose again, not that the Word of God suffered blows or piercing with nails or any other wounds in his own nature (for the divine, being without a body, is incapable of suffering), but because the body which became his own suffered these things, he is said to have suffered them for us. For he was without suffering, while his body suffered. Something similar is true of his dying. For by nature the Word of God is of itself immortal and incorruptible and life and life-giving, but since on the other hand his own body by God's grace, as the apostle says, tasted death for all, the Word is said to have suffered death for us, not as if he himself had experienced death as far as his own nature was concerned (it would be sheer lunacy to say or to think that), but because, as I have just said, his flesh tasted death. So too, when his flesh was raised to life, we refer to this again as his resurrection, not as though he had fallen into corruption—God forbid—but because his body had been raised again."

Pope Leo, in the Roman Tradition, uses Roman Church Fathers to help compose his Tome.

From Ambrose of Milan "On the Faith: Book 1":
"What, then, was the meaning of the mystic offerings in the lowly cattle-stalls, save that we should discern in Christ the difference between the Godhead and the flesh? He is seen as man, He is adored as Lord. He lies in swaddling-clothes, but shines amid the stars; the cradle shows His birth, the stars His dominion; it is the flesh that is wrapped in clothes, the Godhead that receives the ministry of angels. Thus the dignity of His natural majesty is not lost, and His true assumption of the flesh is proved."

From John Cassian "On the Incarnation: Book 1":
"For it was not God the Father who was made man, nor the Holy Ghost, but the Only Begotten of the Father; and so we must hold that there is one Person of the Flesh and the Word: so as faithfully and without any doubt to believe that one and the same Son of God, who can never be divided, existing in two natures(who was also spoken of as a giant ) in the days of His Flesh truly took upon Him all that belongs to man, and ever truly had as His own what belongs to God: since even though He was crucified in weakness, yet He lives by the power of God."

Both of these are Saints in the Oriental Orthodox Church.


At a theological level, I don't see how Chalcedon violated a principle of Orthodoxy, and as such, I can't see how it is theologically justifiable to ignore it, when the whole Church accepted something that was Orthodox.

Therefore, unless I am convinced otherwise, I'm going to remain Eastern Orthodox.

It's not a decision I've made lightly and without tons of research, but regardless, I could use your prayers for the enlightenment of my mind if I'm incorrect. However, it's not based on emotion or some kind of bias that I make my decision, its just that I can only do what I am able to do based on objective evidence, and I believe that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the True Church of Christ.

That is where I am.

 

[HTacianas]

For the few of those who have been following my struggles in looking into Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy, I feel that I would like to share an update as to where I am now.

Unlike my struggles with Roman Catholicism, where the idea of the whole Church believing in a Vatican 1 style Bishop of Rome for the first thousand of years is verifiable or not to a great degree, I find this struggle over terminological meaning between the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox to be a lot more painful, for both sides make accusations to the other that are not as easy to verify. For instance, to what extent of Dioscorus's violent proceedings were accurate or just libel, to what extent Eutyches was a heretic before Ephesus 449, and to what extent those who used Antiochian terminology accepted a view of Ephesus 431 where Cyril repudiated his own doctrines in favor of the Antiochian school - all of these accusations are extremely difficult to verify, with only lingering evidence here and there.

However, with my studying and prayer - the latter of which I question it's efficacy, because I'm an absolute wretch, literally the worst sinner on this planet and a Pharisee, who is in need of the Sacraments and a hospital to begin the arduous surgery against my Passions, hopefully with my soul's own desire (which hasn't repented yet and will be condemned to eternal fire unless I repent).

Nonetheless, making a decision that I don't take lightly, I really think that the Eastern Orthodox Church is correct, based on the information that I've found.

Reading Severus of Antioch's objections to Chalcedon, as well as V.C. Samuel's objections to Chalcedon, at a doctrinal level, I find untenable.

There are two (three) theological arguments put forward by the the Oriental Orthodox frequently that I want to address, and my reasoning (hopefully it's justified) as to why I reject such reasoning.

The first argument that was brought forward at Chalcedon, subsequently brought forward by Severus of Antioch and others, is that from Cyril onwards "it is forbidden to use the phrase 'in two natures'", as Cyril created a precise theological terminology that the whole world must accept.

To me, this ridiculously contradictory to the Formula of Reunion between John of Antioch and Cyril, the latter of which completely accepted the terminology of "In Two Natures." If Cyril was really so stringent as to not accept this formula, why would he accept the Reunion of 431?

Severus of Antioch - contradicting himself - says that the Formula of Reunion is acceptable, because basic theological principles are accepted that Chalcedon did not accept. Which brings us to the second argument.


The second argument I have here is the argument (if I understand correctly) is regarding to the (in)famous phrase "The activity of each form is what is proper to it in communion with the other: that is, the Word performs what belongs to the Word, and the flesh accomplishes what belongs to the flesh."
There are two ways, that I've found, that this is interpreted as heretical by the Oriental Orthodox.
The first of which, is that this can easily "sound" Nestorian, as it isn't clear as to whether this refers to the properties of each natures, or if it views each nature as autonomous and individual of each other - that is, whether the Person of Christ referred to is a "Prosopon" or a "Hypostasis."

However, immediately after Leo says this:
"We must say this again and again: one and the same is truly Son of God and truly son of man."
He also says:
"So it is on account of this oneness of the person, which must be understood in both natures, that we both read that the son of man came down from heaven, when the Son of God took flesh from the virgin from whom he was born, and again that the Son of God is said to have been crucified and buried..."

and says:
"All this was so that it would be recognised that the proper character of the divine and of the human nature went on existing inseparable in him; and so that we would realise that the Word is not the same thing as the flesh, but in such a way that we would confess belief in the one Son of God as being both Word and flesh."

And in a later Sermon Leo says, in Sermon 54, clarifying exactly what his intentions were, says this:
"In all things, therefore, dearly-beloved, which pertain to the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Catholic Faith maintains and demands that we acknowledge the two Natures to have met in our Redeemer, and while their properties remained, such a union of both Natures to have been effected that, from the time when, as the cause of mankind required, in the blessed Virgin's womb, the Word became flesh, we may not think of Him as God without that which is man, nor as man without that which is God. Each Nature does indeed express its real existence by actions that distinguish it, but neither separates itself from connection with the other. Nothing is wanting there on either side; in the majesty the humility is complete, in the humility the majesty is complete: and the unity does not introduce confusion, nor does the distinctiveness destroy the unity. The one is passible, the other inviolable; and yet the degradation belongs to the same Person, as does the glory. He is present at once in weakness and in power; at once capable of death and the vanquisher of it. Therefore, God took on Him whole Manhood, and so blended the two Natures together by means of His mercy and power, that each Nature was present in the other, and neither passed out of its own properties into the other."

Not only that, but there can really be only one interpretation, for the definition of Chalcedon says this:

"the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Prosopon and One Hypostasis."

Severus of Antioch says that this is contradictory to the phrase "In Two Natures," going against not only the Formula of Reunion, but even Saints who have used such phrases in the exact same way Chalcedon uses it, such as John Cassian

Father V.C. Samuels argues that perhaps both can be synonymous with each other, that Hypostasis in the Council can be understood as Prosopon. However, if this is the case, than why would they say the same word twice in a way that it distinguishes the two, using the conjunction "and"?

The other argument I've heard is that its impossible, according to Severus of Antioch, due to the Unity of the Natures, to ascribe specific characteristics to either Nature, which is what is objectional to the Tome of Leo. That is, for example, "The birth of flesh reveals human nature; birth from a virgin is a proof of divine power. A lowly cradle manifests the infancy of the child; angels' voices announce the greatness of the most High." The Natures are so tightly unified that perhaps you can't even in thought ascribe characteristics to each Nature.


However, this is heretical, as it's a denial of the Dynamic Continuation of Two Natures. Cyril in his Commentary on John and in his letters to Nestorius explicitly claims that is is impious or even blasphemous to say that the Word (referring to the Divine Nature of Christ, exactly as Leo does) suffered.

From Book 8 of his commentary on John:
"Can it be then that the Divine Nature of the Word became capable of death? Surely it were altogether impious to say this. For the Word of God the Father is in His Nature Life: He raises to life, but He does not fall: He brings death to naught, He is not made subject to corruption: He quickens that which lacks life, but seeks not His own life from another. For even as light could not become darkness, so it is impossible that Life should cease to be life. How then is the same Person said to fall into the earth as a grain of wheat, and also to "go up" as "God with a shout?" Surely it is evident that to taste of death was fitting for Him, inasmuch as He became Man: but nevertheless to go up in the manner of God, was His own natural prerogative."

From the Second Letter of Cyril to Nestorius:

"In a similar way we say that he suffered and rose again, not that the Word of God suffered blows or piercing with nails or any other wounds in his own nature (for the divine, being without a body, is incapable of suffering), but because the body which became his own suffered these things, he is said to have suffered them for us. For he was without suffering, while his body suffered. Something similar is true of his dying. For by nature the Word of God is of itself immortal and incorruptible and life and life-giving, but since on the other hand his own body by God's grace, as the apostle says, tasted death for all, the Word is said to have suffered death for us, not as if he himself had experienced death as far as his own nature was concerned (it would be sheer lunacy to say or to think that), but because, as I have just said, his flesh tasted death. So too, when his flesh was raised to life, we refer to this again as his resurrection, not as though he had fallen into corruption—God forbid—but because his body had been raised again."

Pope Leo, in the Roman Tradition, uses Roman Church Fathers to help compose his Tome.

From Ambrose of Milan "On the Faith: Book 1":
"What, then, was the meaning of the mystic offerings in the lowly cattle-stalls, save that we should discern in Christ the difference between the Godhead and the flesh? He is seen as man, He is adored as Lord. He lies in swaddling-clothes, but shines amid the stars; the cradle shows His birth, the stars His dominion; it is the flesh that is wrapped in clothes, the Godhead that receives the ministry of angels. Thus the dignity of His natural majesty is not lost, and His true assumption of the flesh is proved."

From John Cassian "On the Incarnation: Book 1":
"For it was not God the Father who was made man, nor the Holy Ghost, but the Only Begotten of the Father; and so we must hold that there is one Person of the Flesh and the Word: so as faithfully and without any doubt to believe that one and the same Son of God, who can never be divided, existing in two natures(who was also spoken of as a giant ) in the days of His Flesh truly took upon Him all that belongs to man, and ever truly had as His own what belongs to God: since even though He was crucified in weakness, yet He lives by the power of God."

Both of these are Saints in the Oriental Orthodox Church.


At a theological level, I don't see how Chalcedon violated a principle of Orthodoxy, and as such, I can't see how it is theologically justifiable to ignore it, when the whole Church accepted something that was Orthodox.

Therefore, unless I am convinced otherwise, I'm going to remain Eastern Orthodox.

It's not a decision I've made lightly and without tons of research, but regardless, I could use your prayers for the enlightenment of my mind if I'm incorrect. However, it's not based on emotion or some kind of bias that I make my decision, its just that I can only do what I am able to do based on objective evidence, and I believe that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the True Church of Christ.

That is where I am.

I liked your post. Very thorough. If it helps, I look forward to the day that the EO and OO resolve their differences. To be a member of one church now, or the other church now will have no meaning when that time comes.

 

[dzheremi]

Hello. I would like to respond to this fine post in the depth it deserves, but to do so at the moment would be difficult because I am traveling in an area where the internet is extremely unreliable, so I don't want to be booted off mid-reply.

Until then I can tell you the same thing I've told others who have been in your position: the EO Church could do worse than to receive someone who has seriously atudied the issues surrounding Chalcedon. The fact that you have apparently made a different decision than I did is, if not exactly immaterial or inconsequential, at best secondary to your being truly spiritually nourished, and if you can best do that among the Chalcedonians, then it is not my or anyone dlse's place to judge you for it. May God be with you. God willing I will give a proper reply in the coming days.

 

[TheLostCoin]

I liked your post. Very thorough. If it helps, I look forward to the day that the EO and OO resolve their differences. To be a member of one church now, or the other church now will have no meaning when that time comes.

Me too. It will be a wonderful day if we can all venerate Saint Athanasius and Saint Cyril together in a legitimate way, where there is unity between the Liturgy of Saint Cyril and Athanasius and the Liturgy of the Cappadocian Fathers, each which have preserved heavenly beauty in their own venerable cultural expressions.

Another thing to post, however, is that I do not hold to the accusations that the Oriental Orthodox hold the Chalcedonian Christians to - I believe in a Hypostatic Union, and believe that there is One Hypostasis of Jesus Christ, who is fully God and fully man, entirely, completely, without separation, mixture, or confusion. I believe that through Christ's death and resurrection, He, the Word of God, our God, grants us the opportunity to Eternal Life and Glorification.

May Saint Athanasius, Saint Cyril, the Cappadocian Fathers, the Apostles, and Martyrs, pray for me.

If I am unintentionally remaining in heresy and schism, I hope that God will be merciful to me as a judge, because I have really objectively tried really hard to try to figure out who is right. May God forgive me if I'm wrong.

 

[TheLostCoin]

Also, when I say "it denies a Dynamic Continuation of Two Natures," I mean it seems to me that it implies that Christ isn't completely, 100% man, and isn't, completely 100% God.

After all, there must have been some acts - like suffering - that couldn't involve the Divine Nature, for if it did, it means there was a mixture of the Natures, which is something that the EO and OO both deny.

Not necessarily that Saint Cyril ever held the phrase "In Two Natures."

I was quoting V.C. Samuels who used the term "Dynamic Continuation of the Two Natures" to refer to both properties being maintained after the Inseparable Union, something which I fully accept.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.

And of course, I believe that it was One Person of Christ who performed these actions - but some actions are exclusive to one nature, some to another, and some with unity of both natures together (Such as spitting in the earth and using the mud to heal the blind man), not that either natures were compromised with actions performed by the Person together, but they worked together in unity with one another, insofar as the properties of each could work together and they are inseparable from the One Person of Jesus Christ.

Of course, I don't want to be a mechanic of how Christ worked - it's a Mystery of Faith after all, nor do I want to try to treat my God as a Scientific Subject who is Incomprehensible.

But to quote "Hilary of Poitiers," when we trample on forbidden territory of Theology and trying to discuss these things which should be kept in our heart and our soul, it's necessary to try to find the Truth and elaborate what I believe in.

 

[dzheremi]

Hello again, OP and others.

I've returned from my trip, though perhaps ever so slightly under the weather (you know how it can be with travelling: breathing recirculated air in planes, surrounded by sick people in airports, etc.), so please forgive me and be patient with me should I not be maximally clear at all times. Also this is just tough material to begin with.

First, I want to just make known that I am, of course, just some guy. Not even some guy of repute, but literally just some guy. There's no reason why anything I write should be taken as "the Oriental Orthodox view" of anything, and truth be told I don't even have access to Fr. V.C. Samuels' book right now, and am unlikely to have it for the foreseeable future (I do own it, but it's in storage just like 99% of the rest of my books), so any arguments that rest on what is written in there will have to be provided in a bit of a hand-holding fashion, if only because I can't double check their wider context, sources, etc. I do have a small number of OO-related works here at my apartment, but they're mostly academic rather than polemical, because that's more where I'm at. I've already made my choice, after all, so I honestly spend no time at all thinking about Chalcedon or the events or personalities surrounding it on an everyday basis, or even an every month or every year basis. I am not exaggerating when I tell you that I have had EO posters on this website write to me privately more than once asking what I thought about this or that or if I had any 'new' objections to Chalcedon, only to have to disappointingly send them away by saying that honestly it just has no relevance or interest in my life or the life of anyone I know. I have had born-Coptic people ask me 100% sincerely "What is Chalcedon?", and I don't think that this was a sign of poor catechesis on their part, or a language barrier (the question and the answer is the same in Arabic, after all). It is just a fact that for the vast majority of Coptic people -- at least here in the USA, where I am; I can't speak for other places I haven't been -- when they talk about "the Greeks" (our term for the Eastern Orthodox), they say something like "Yes, they are Orthodox like us", because that is how they see it and that is how they are taught to see it by our own leaders. The question of communing a Chalcedonian is something much different (we're not stupid; we know that the Holy Synod has not reached any monumental agreement with the EO), but as far as the Christological issues that have kept us apart for so long, by and large they are viewed as mostly settled, if not down to a man then certainly among the leadership (HH Pope Shenouda III said as much in 1995 following meetings between the OO and EO, which were nevertheless not the end of the schism due to hold outs on both sides, particularly among the monastics). Largely we are now trying to navigate the 'how' of reunion: what happens to the saints we venerate but the EO anathematize, and vice-versa? What happens to the status of the Tome and the insistence on dyophysite Christology, particularly in light of some of the later Chalcedonian councils which Chalcedonians have told me allow for Miaphysite Christology to be considered Orthodox if "properly understood" or whatever (cf. our view on dyophysitism, which matches that which we had before Chalcedon ever happened, as you can see in the Formula of Reunion)? Lotsa questions there, even without getting into the much more obvious differences in praxis that make us often look so different not just from the EO, but also from one another.

With all that out of the way, let's get down to it.

For the few of those who have been following my struggles in looking into Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy, I feel that I would like to share an update as to where I am now.

Unlike my struggles with Roman Catholicism, where the idea of the whole Church believing in a Vatican 1 style Bishop of Rome for the first thousand of years is verifiable or not to a great degree, I find this struggle over terminological meaning between the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox to be a lot more painful, for both sides make accusations to the other that are not as easy to verify. For instance, to what extent of Dioscorus's violent proceedings were accurate or just libel, to what extent Eutyches was a heretic before Ephesus 449, and to what extent those who used Antiochian terminology accepted a view of Ephesus 431 where Cyril repudiated his own doctrines in favor of the Antiochian school - all of these accusations are extremely difficult to verify, with only lingering evidence here and there.

Some of them are actually very easy to verify: this idea that St. Cyril somehow "repudiated his own doctrines in favor of the Antiochian school", for instance, is the wish of men both OO and EO view as heretics, like Ibas, who saw the reunion of HH St. Cyril and John of Antioch as a vindication of their own (Ibas') wrong Christology, as though HH St. Cyril had given up his own formula in favor of theirs (and by "theirs", I don't mean Chalcedonian dyophysitism, since that didn't exist yet in so many words, but rather the Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia, which was that of Ibas' party). Since this is never what actually happened (as we can see by looking at literally everything HH St. Cyril ever wrote), history sort of verifies that for us. If you need a reference as to Ibas' view of the formula and what it supposedly meant, see (e.g.) Susan Wessel's Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy: The Making of a Saint and of a Heretic (Oxford, 2004), particularly page 282 and following, which sets up the need to underline Alexandria's opposition to Ibas' view of Cyril -- and not necessarily HH St. Dioscorus' personal view of Eutyches -- as a motivation for what would later transpire at Ephesus II.

If you have something else in mind on this point, please bring it up.

However, with my studying and prayer - the latter of which I question it's efficacy, because I'm an absolute wretch, literally the worst sinner on this planet and a Pharisee, who is in need of the Sacraments and a hospital to begin the arduous surgery against my Passions, hopefully with my soul's own desire (which hasn't repented yet and will be condemned to eternal fire unless I repent).

Lord have mercy upon Your servant. There is not one among us who could not and should not say the same.

There are two (three) theological arguments put forward by the the Oriental Orthodox frequently that I want to address, and my reasoning (hopefully it's justified) as to why I reject such reasoning.

The first argument that was brought forward at Chalcedon, subsequently brought forward by Severus of Antioch and others, is that from Cyril onwards "it is forbidden to use the phrase 'in two natures'", as Cyril created a precise theological terminology that the whole world must accept.

Putting on my "individual Oriental Orthodox layperson hat" here, I would point out that HH St. Cyril himself does talk about two natures -- as they are indeed distinguishable and Christ is 'composed' of two, for lack of a less clunky way to put it -- but that the contemplation of the natures is at a theoretical level, in recognition of the fact that humanity and divinity are not the same as natures. This is after all, the 'point' of the union, is it not? What is united among two things that are in fact not distinguishable from one another? In fact, how would they then even be two things? But we do not now say and have never said (not in St. Severus' writings, either, so far as I have read them) that the humanity and the divinity are not distinguishable, only that at/with/in the union itself, the division between the two is driven out in the Person of Christ. They are truly and completely and wholly united. This is why our fathers have always been in favor of "from two natures" rather than "in two natures", if there is some reason to speak of two.

So at to clarify the point, our father HH St. Dioscorus, surely a person you would expect to object to "in two natures" (and he does!), does nevertheless write in his letter to the monks of the Hennaton:

I am fully aware, having been educated in the Faith, respecting Him (Christ) that He was born of the Father, as God, and that the Same was born of Mary, as Man. Men saw Him as Man walking on the Earth and they saw Him, the Creator of the Heavenly Hosts, as God. They saw Him sleeping in the ship, as Man, and they saw Him walking upon the waters, as God. They saw Him hungry, as Man, and they saw Him feeding (others), as God. They saw Him thirsty, as Man, and they saw Him giving drink, as God. They saw Him stoned by the Jews, as Man, and they saw Him worshipped by the Angels, as God. They saw Him tempted, as Man, and they saw Him drive away the Devils, as God.​

Does this perhaps remind you a bit of our previous discussion (or at least I think it was with you; forgive me if I have you confused with someone else) regarding what you saw as troubling in a fragment of HH St. Cyril's commentary on the Gospel of John, wherein HH writes about His humanity and His divinity? Yes, of course he does, because we recognize that He has them! In what in EO/Chalcedonian language would be called "hypostatic" (as I understand it, the union is for them between two hypostases -- natures -- in the One God-man, Jesus Christ), it is fully within our tradition to recognize that they're not the same thing(s) as natures. But we do say what is appropriate to say with regard to the actions, as a means of characterizing the actions themselves (as above), but not the Person. And in Oriental Orthodox Christology, all things relate back to the Person, even as we can say just what both HH St. Cyril says in the fragment from his commentary on John, and what HH St. Dioscorus says in his letter above.

So if HH St. Cyril can do it, and HH St. Dioscorus his successor can do it, then what exactly is being objected to in "in two natures"? I have to imagine (again, without recourse to the source material that you are dealing with) it's the "in" part, as that is absent from the writings of either. The one source I have seen from HH St. Cyril which says "in two natures" is of extremely doubtful (or at least extremely suspect) provenance, as it is a translation of a fragment of his letter 53 by Migne which is based upon a single manuscript of a treatise against the non-Chalcedonian position by sixth-century Chalcedonian polemicist Leontius of Byzantium, who was not even born until 36 years after HH St. Cyril's departure.

Anyway, getting back to HH St. Severus himself, to get a view of an OO priest who does have some authority to speak on HH St. Severus in particular, I would recommend Fr. Peter Farrington's work The Orthodox Christology of St. Severus of Antioch. I have not read it in book form, but I was blessed to catch much of the material I assume it to be based on in podcast form before Fr. Peter's OO theology podcast lost its place on the web, where he did a series on the same topic.

To me, this ridiculously contradictory to the Formula of Reunion between John of Antioch and Cyril, the latter of which completely accepted the terminology of "In Two Natures." If Cyril was really so stringent as to not accept this formula, why would he accept the Reunion of 431?

More to the point, why would we all? See here on the L.A. Archdiocese's website under point V, which you will note carries no hint of disagreement with the outcome, because we do not have any such disagreement. (I have found this presupposition among EO on this website before that we do not agree with it, and I'm not sure where that comes from. We do not have a problem with the formula of reunion, as far as I know.)

Severus of Antioch - contradicting himself - says that the Formula of Reunion is acceptable, because basic theological principles are accepted that Chalcedon did not accept. Which brings us to the second argument.

In what way is he contradicting himself?

(Other things, excised for length)

Not only that, but there can really be only one interpretation, for the definition of Chalcedon says this:

"the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Prosopon and One Hypostasis."

Severus of Antioch says that this is contradictory to the phrase "In Two Natures," going against not only the Formula of Reunion, but even Saints who have used such phrases in the exact same way Chalcedon uses it, such as John Cassian

In what way does HH St. Severus say that this contradicts the phrase "in two natures"?

I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at. Why would St. Severus care if it contradicts "in two natures" if he's against "in two natures" in the first place?

Father V.C. Samuels argues that perhaps both can be synonymous with each other, that Hypostasis in the Council can be understood as Prosopon. However, if this is the case, than why would they say the same word twice in a way that it distinguishes the two, using the conjunction "and"?

Alright, I'm lost by now...are you objecting to HH St. Severus' argument, or Fr. V.C. Samuels' argument? I can't really tell the substance of either from what you've written so far, since it's mostly been quotes from the Tome and a sermon by Leo, neither of which are HH St. Severus or Fr. V.C. Samuel. So I'm not really sure what I should or even can say, because it's not clear to me what you are saying that St. Severus is saying, and on what grounds, and in relation to what, etc.

The other argument I've heard is that its impossible, according to Severus of Antioch, due to the Unity of the Natures, to ascribe specific characteristics to either Nature, which is what is objectional to the Tome of Leo. That is, for example, "The birth of flesh reveals human nature; birth from a virgin is a proof of divine power. A lowly cradle manifests the infancy of the child; angels' voices announce the greatness of the most High." The Natures are so tightly unified that perhaps you can't even in thought ascribe characteristics to each Nature.

No, that is flatly incorrect, and I would suspect without reference to be something other than what HH actually writes...there may be reticence to distinguish between the divine and the human in certain ways for fear of splitting into He Who is one (this was Eutyches' error, remember), but that is precisely why HH St. Cyril says that we can distinguish between the natures -- in theory.

I'm not really sure what "ascribe characteristics to either nature" means, though. If Christ does something that is befittingly described as according to His humanity -- say, thirsting -- then does that mean that humanity is thirsty? cf. our earlier discussion of treating the natures as independent loci of experience, rather than relating the actions back to the person, as is proper. To borrow a phrase from the earlier referenced Fr. Peter, if I fall down, I am hurt. Humanity is not hurt.

However, this is heretical

Again, please provide contextual evidence that this is what HH St. Severus was saying. I can point to parts of HH St. Severus' own writings that would seem to contradict what he is saying, if that's the case (hence I am disinclined to believe that this is what HH means), as he has to distinguish between the divinity and the humanity to even be able to write about the incarnation at all. We all do.

Given this, I am going to skip over some subsequent portions of what you have provided because, again, you and I are not in disagreement about this. "Dynamic continuation of two natures" or whatever you want to call it, as you've provided evidence from Leo as to why the Tome cannot mean anything but what its supporters take it to mean thanks to subsequent clarifications, the ultimate clarification of what we believe comes from our own prayers which affirm completely the union of the natures and their continuation within the Person of Christ by their having been made one (united) in the one Christ Himself:

Amen. Amen. Amen. I believe, I believe, I believe and confess to the last breath, that this is the life-giving body that your only-begotten Son, our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ took from our lady, the lady of us all, the holy Theotokos Saint Mary. He made it one with his divinity without mingling, without confusion and without alteration. He witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate. He gave it up for us upon the holy wood of the cross, of his own will, for us all. Truly I believe that his divinity parted not from his humanity for a single moment nor a twinkling of an eye. Given for us for salvation, remission of sins and eternal life to those who partake of him. I believe, I believe, I believe that this is so in truth. Amen.

This is from the priest's confession before the Eucharist in the Coptic Orthodox liturgy of St. Basil. It is the final word on everything, and whatsoever disagrees with it from whomever, I do not agree with that thing or person.

(cont'd. below)

 

[dzheremi]

"Can it be then that the Divine Nature of the Word became capable of death? Surely it were altogether impious to say this.

We don't say that (heaven forbid it!), so this is not a problem. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Both of these are Saints in the Oriental Orthodox Church.

And we have no problem with any of that.

At a theological level, I don't see how Chalcedon violated a principle of Orthodoxy

Okay.

and as such, I can't see how it is theologically justifiable to ignore it

I'm pretty sure we did not ignore it...

when the whole Church accepted something that was Orthodox.

The whole Church did not accept it. Those of the Greeks and the Latins did, but that's it. The Egyptians and Axumites did not accept it, the Syrians did not accept it, within a reasonable amount of time (~50 years) the Armenians (and with them at the time the Caucasian Albanians and the Georgians) did not accept it, many of the Arabs and others (Daylamites and other Iranians) within the mixed Greek and Syrian sphere of influence on the Oriental frontiers (e.g., Mesopotamia and points further east, rather than Damascus) did not accept it, and there were others (e.g., the Nubian Christian kingdoms) who seemed to vacillate (which one had which allegiance when tends to depend on who you read).

And not to seem to be arguing on a personal level (because, again, it is not my place to judge you or anyone for doing whatever they feel is best for their soul and its health), but I think you and I would both agree that the truth is not in the numbers in any case, or else why wouldn't you and I and everyone else be Roman Catholic? And why would we both remember (together also with the Latins) HH St. Athanasius as being Contra Mundum? The acceptance or for that matter the rejection of something must be based not on who else accepts or rejects it.

Frankly, since I am free to speak my mind unencumbered on this particular board, which is not here to be a mouthpiece for Chalcedonianism in the first place, I would not give a damn if the Ecumenical Patriarch himself were to personally show up at my apartment with a list of a thousand reasons as to why I should be Eastern Orthodox and not Oriental Orthodox. I would listen to his reasons, of course, but the fact that he is saying them or that he has more believers with him than my own patriarch does is of no consequence. To both him and my own Patriarch, HH Pope Tawadros II, I would request that the reasons either stand or fall on their own, rather than appeal be made to "what the whole Church" accepts.

While it is definitely not as common in the OO tradition to paint things in such a black and white fashion as the EO seem often to do in ecclesiological discussion (see: Teule "'It is not right to call ourselves Orthodox and the others heretics': ecumenical attitudes in the Jacobite Church in the time of the Crusades" in Ciggaar and Teule [Eds.] East and West in the Crusader States II, Peeters, 1999), there is still a very real sense in which we can say that we are the Church, on precisely the same grounds that the EO would likewise say that the Church is not fractured by their own subsequent separation from the Latins, who make even grander ecclesiological claims than either of us.

So "what the whole Church accepts" is a funny thing, because it really depends on whose "whole Church" you accept as being "the whole Church". As Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew put it some years ago with regard to Rome and potential reunion with them: "No one ignores the fact that the model for all of us is the person of the Theanthropos Jesus Christ. But which model? No one ignores the fact that the incorporation in Him is achieved within His body, the Church. But whose church?"

Therefore, unless I am convinced otherwise, I'm going to remain Eastern Orthodox.

Again, as I wrote earlier, may God be with you. I pray that you will be truly spiritually fed there, and win mercy and be truly united with God.

It's not a decision I've made lightly and without tons of research, but regardless, I could use your prayers for the enlightenment of my mind if I'm incorrect. However, it's not based on emotion or some kind of bias that I make my decision, its just that I can only do what I am able to do based on objective evidence, and I believe that the Eastern Orthodox Church is the True Church of Christ.

That is where I am.

We do not pray that others do not become Eastern Orthodox. We pray that everyone become and remain Orthodox, period. These labels are a convenience for the outside so that no one who doesn't know better would confuse who is communion with whom. God willing, in His time we will not need any modifiers with the outsiders, either, and then we can speak outside of the Church the same as we do inside of it:


Priest:
Pray.

Deacon:
Stand up for prayer.

Priest:
Peace be with all.

People:
And with your spirit.

Priest:
Again, let us ask God the Pantocrator, the Father of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ.

We ask and entreat Your goodness, O Lover of Mankind, remember, O Lord, the peace of Your one only holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church—

Deacon:
Pray for the peace of the one holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Orthodox Church of God.

People:
Lord have mercy.

Priest:
That which exists from one end of the world to the other.

Priest:
Remember, O Lord, our blessed and honored father, the archbishop our patriarch, Pope Abba (Tawadros II), and his spiritual brothers, the Patriarch of Antioch Mar Ignatius (Aphrem II), and the Patriarch of Eritrea Abouna (Antonios).

Deacon:
Pray for our high priest, Pope Abba (Tawadros II), pope and patriarch and archbishop of the great city of Alexandria, and his spiritual brothers, the Patriarch of Antioch Mar Ignatius (Aphrem II), and the Patriarch of Eritrea Abouna (Antonios).

People:
Lord have mercy.

Priest:
In keeping, keep them for us for many years and peaceful times.

Remember, O Lord, the salvation of this, Your holy place, and every place, and every monastery of our Orthodox fathers—

Deacon:
Pray for the salvation of the world and of this city of ours, and of all cities, districts, island, and monasteries.

People:
Lord have mercy.

Priest:
and every city and every region, and the villages and all their adornments.

And save us all from famine, plagues, earthquakes, drowning, fire, captivity by barbarians, the sword of the stranger, and the rising up of heretics.

People:
Lord have mercy.

(From the five short litanies prayed during the Vespers and Matins rising of the incense)

 

[TheLostCoin]

Hello again, OP and others.

Some of them are actually very easy to verify: this idea that St. Cyril somehow "repudiated his own doctrines in favor of the Antiochian school", for instance, is the wish of men both OO and EO view as heretics, like Ibas, who saw the reunion of HH St. Cyril and John of Antioch as a vindication of their own (Ibas') wrong Christology, as though HH St. Cyril had given up his own formula in favor of theirs (and by "theirs", I don't mean Chalcedonian dyophysitism, since that didn't exist yet in so many words, but rather the Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia, which was that of Ibas' party). Since this is never what actually happened (as we can see by looking at literally everything HH St. Cyril ever wrote), history sort of verifies that for us. If you need a reference as to Ibas' view of the formula and what it supposedly meant, see (e.g.) Susan Wessel's Cyril of Alexandria and the Nestorian Controversy: The Making of a Saint and of a Heretic (Oxford, 2004), particularly page 282 and following, which sets up the need to underline Alexandria's opposition to Ibas' view of Cyril -- and not necessarily HH St. Dioscorus' personal view of Eutyches -- as a motivation for what would later transpire at Ephesus II.

If you have something else in mind on this point, please bring it up.

I'm aware of Ibas's heretical view - and the fact that it was condemned as heresy in the 5th Ecumenical Council -
but from my research, I think that it's too simplistic to divide entire groups of people based on theological terminology in terms of their theological standing.
There is a tendency within apologetics to lump all those who used "In Two Natures" into this "Antiochian School" and those who say "From Two Natures, but One Incarnate Nature" into the "Alexandrian School."

Of course, our usage of the "Antiochian School" and the "Alexandrian School" are means of Social Science, to help create a model of this complicated situation in terms of "who used what terminology," but I don't think you can simply say "The Antiochians all were Nestorianizers, and the Alexandrians were all really precise and sound in their theology."

This ignores the fact that within the "Alexandrian School" there were heretics and Saints (Eutyches and Saint Cyril), and that there were heretics and Saints within the "Antiochian School" (Ibas and Saint John Cassian).

Of course, in terms of famous names, there were Nestorians within the Antiochian school - but that's to be expected within the immediate aftermath of Ephesus, in which the idea of there being more than one Hypostasis was condemned as heretical, and Nestorius's disciples haven't vanished yet into the dustbins of heretical theology. And simply the famous nature of these names does not equivocate to the fact that there were no heretics within the Alexandrian School - Eutyches had a lot of disciples, and at the time of the Home Synod / Ephesus 449, Eutyches had managed to get most of the Court of the Emperor to be on his side.

If it were really as simple as "The Alexandrian School defends Orthodoxy and the Antiochian School were all heretics," you would have to concede that Saint John Cassian was a heretic despite the fact that he wrote a 7 Book Treatise against Nestorius explicitly supporting HH Saint Cyril, using Antiochian terminology, and you would have to concede that Eutyches was not actually a heretic, despite his insistent denial that Christ is consubstantial with us, even after all the trouble it caused him. Eutyches used the Alexandrian School's terminology to argue his blasphemous Monophysitism, something which Saint Cyril denied in his Letter in response to the Union of 431.

My argument is that Saint Cyril, in his reunion, recognized this very fact - that simply using "In Two Natures", doesn't necessarily equivocate to implicitly holding to a heretical theology, that the True Faith can be expressed by means of his own Miaphysite theology, or Dyophysite theology. That was the point of the reunion, which I think is contradictory of Severus of Antioch, who felt that the term "In Two Natures" in of itself implied a heretical theology, despite the fact that he felt the Reunion of 431 was legitimate, which recognizes that the term "In Two Natures" doesn't in of itself imply a heretical theology.
http://www.monachos.net/library/ind...s-to-the-council-of-chalcedon-a-re-assessment


Of course, many on both sides thought that Saint Cyril repudiated his own doctrine in the Reunion, but he denied this, and argued that Unity was more important than terminology, in his Letter in response to Ephesus 431.

And my point in quoting Leo and his readings is that his usage of Antiochian terminology, as well as his usage of snippets from Western Fathers like Saint Ambrose, who compared the properties of the Natures in the exact same way as Leo did, as my quote shows, doesn't mean he was a Nestorianizer.

Of course, his association with Theodoret seems to be problematic, but I don't see how his association with Theodoret, based on his writings in the Tome, his letters after Chalcedon, and his Sermons after Chalcedon is sufficient in of itself to argue that Leo held (and thus tried to push on the whole Church) there was more than one hypostasis, which was my point in my quotes from not only the Tome, but also his Sermon on the Passion of Christ.




I'll return later to try to elaborate myself. Thanks for dealing with me.

 

[TheLostCoin]

I guess I have two questions:

1. What does “nature” or “ousia” mean to you?
I see “ousia” as equivalent with “essence.” The fact there are two “ousia” of Christ as I’ve understood it refers to the fact that Christ is consubstantial with us, that he is fully God and fully man, entirely, completely. This means that Christ was 100% human - he had a soul, a brain, he ate food, he got tired, he could get hurt, etc. At the same time, he is 100% God.

So, when Chalcedon in its dogmatic definition proclaimed that Christ is “in Two ousia” in “one hypostasis and one prosopon”, what is heretical about this?

“Physis” or nature was the term used in Alexandrian theology, translated as “nature”, which could mean “hypostasis” and “ousia” at different points.

Is there a difference in the definition of “ousia” that im missing that could lead to Chalcedon being heretical?

2. I reject invisible Church theory. I believe that in the same way that the Word took on finite, visible flesh, so the Body of Christ is also finite and visible.

Of course I don’t believe that strength lies in numbers. I do believe that schism is one of the worst sins one could commit however, and if your Church schisms, it better be for a just cause. Preserving a specific set of theological terminology, if it expresses the same exact Truth as what the rest of the Church declared at that Council, does not warrant a schism, any more than the Old Believers wanting to preserve their authentic liturgical Russian expression were justified in their schism.

If I can be convinced that Chalcedon in of itself is heretical, and it teaches a dogma either in the Tome of Leo or the Definition of Chalcedon that contradicts what Saint Cyril or the other Church Fathers like Athanasius or Ambrose or John Cassian or the Cappadocian Fathers wrote, then I will recognize Oriental Orthodoxy as the Church of Christ. However none of the arguments put forward really convince me of that, and if the Oriental Orthodoxy believe in the exact same Truth as Eastern Orthodoxy, no schism could be justified in not obeying a Council which all the Churches agreed on.

The argument thus put forward is that Chalcedonians believed in Nestorianism, and it is pointed to the African Churches after the 5th Council with the 3 Chapters.
What is often forgotten though is that Saint Cyril’s works were used as a judgment tool in Chalcedon, according to the Minutes of Chalcedon.
If you believe that Leo tried to hijack Chalcedon to push Nestorianism on the whole Church, read Sermon 54 of Leo, and tell me he was a Nestorian who believed that the Word wasn’t the same Hypostasis as Jesus Christ, or that he believed the Two Natures remained in Christ but not united in any meaningful sense.
Not to mention as Fr. Matthew points out on this forum, Leo commissioned John Cassian’s 7 Book Treatise against Nestorius.

 

[TheLostCoin]

However none of the arguments put forward really convince me of that,

That is, the arguments I've heard of. Perhaps there is a convincing argument; however, thus far, I've not come across one that convinces me yet. However, I'm open ears - the Armenian Liturgy and the Coptic Liturgy are both beautiful in their own ways, and I would have no personal problem making them my liturgical spiritual home. However, thus far I've never found one that - with certainty - implicates Chalcedon is heretical.

If there was a specific aspect of the Tome which Nestorius in his writings agreed to, to which Saint Cyril rejected, then that should warrant careful study and make me inquire more, and if it's proven correct with no other solution, I will anathematize Chalcedon and join Oriental Orthodoxy.
However, I haven't come across one other than the terminology of "Two Natures" and the idea that each nature has distinct properties and actions - the latter of which I still struggle (and it may be mea culpa to my damnation) to see how an Oriental Orthodox could take that as problematic.

The two are in union with each other at the level of nature, but both natures retain their individual properties without confusing their properties, correct? Is this not Orthodox?
Is being scourged, causing injury and blood NOT somehow an action of the human nature? What role does the Divine Nature take place in the physical suffering of Christ alone?

https://dnq5fc8vfw3ev.cloudfront.ne.../The-Flagellation-Of-Christ.jpg?ts=1505655060

That's enough for me for now. But seriously, I want to hear your responses, and I want to really see your response, because I just want the Truth. Liturgy or Church Membership means nothing, in fact it's only secondary - I just want to submit myself to the Truth.

 

[dzheremi]

I'm aware of Ibas's heretical view - and the fact that it was condemned as heresy in the 5th Ecumenical Council -

A decision we very much agree with, naturally.

but from my research, I think that it's too simplistic to divide entire groups of people based on theological terminology in terms of their theological standing.
There is a tendency within apologetics to lump all those who used "In Two Natures" into this "Antiochian School" and those who say "From Two Natures, but One Incarnate Nature" into the "Alexandrian School."

Of course, our usage of the "Antiochian School" and the "Alexandrian School" are means of Social Science, to help create a model of this complicated situation in terms of "who used what terminology," but I don't think you can simply say "The Antiochians all were Nestorianizers, and the Alexandrians were all really precise and sound in their theology."

This ignores the fact that within the "Alexandrian School" there were heretics and Saints (Eutyches and Saint Cyril), and that there were heretics and Saints within the "Antiochian School" (Ibas and Saint John Cassian).

Of course, in terms of famous names, there were Nestorians within the Antiochian school - but that's to be expected within the immediate aftermath of Ephesus, in which the idea of there being more than one Hypostasis was condemned as heretical, and Nestorius's disciples haven't vanished yet into the dustbins of heretical theology. And simply the famous nature of these names does not equivocate to the fact that there were no heretics within the Alexandrian School - Eutyches had a lot of disciples, and at the time of the Home Synod / Ephesus 449, Eutyches had managed to get most of the Court of the Emperor to be on his side.

If it were really as simple as "The Alexandrian School defends Orthodoxy and the Antiochian School were all heretics," you would have to concede that Saint John Cassian was a heretic despite the fact that he wrote a 7 Book Treatise against Nestorius explicitly supporting HH Saint Cyril, using Antiochian terminology, and you would have to concede that Eutyches was not actually a heretic, despite his insistent denial that Christ is consubstantial with us, even after all the trouble it caused him. Eutyches used the Alexandrian School's terminology to argue his blasphemous Monophysitism, something which Saint Cyril denied in his Letter in response to the Union of 431.

Axios! We agree completely on all of this. In fact, if you'll permit me, I'd like to provide a lengthy quote here from the book Introduction to the Coptic Orthodox Church by Fr. Tadros Y. Malaty, because I believe that he says it better than I can. Please keep in mind that this is meant to be an introductory text, so this is the kind of mindset that is on display from the very start in our Church with regard to these matters. Fr. Tadros writes (p. 72; emphasis added):

I would like to make clear the following points:

1. There was a controversy between the two schools, but they agreed on many points.

2. The problem has risen because of those who misinterpreted these Schools' concepts. Apollinarius of Laodicea, who denied that the Lord Jesus had a human soul, and Eutyches of Constantinople denied the humanity of Christ, both did wrong to the School of Alexandria. It is noteworthy that they accepted the Alexandrian formula concerning the one nature of Christ (mia-physis); they were not Alexandrians, nor had they studied the Alexandrian system of theology. On the other side Nestorius, Theodoret of Cyrus, Theodore of Mospuestia and Ibas of Edessa who insisted to divide the Lord Jesus Christ in two persons, did wrong to the School of Antioch.

3. The imperial and church politics played their role in this controversy to create a huge gap between the leaders of these schools.

+ + +

So you see that we recognize that it is not so simple, and that the problem is not in belonging to one or the other 'school' (which you are right, are labels of convenience), but an abuse of both by those who did not understand either properly. You can find this same approach on display in works that are much more in-depth than Fr. Tadros' introduction, such as the massive Orthodox Christology and the Council of Chalcedon by Fr. Shenouda Maher Ishak (a very learned priest and scholar who has represented us in the continuing OO-EO dialogues). That book even has sections dedicated to what the Antiochians and even specifically Nestorius himself did not teach, so as to correct historical misunderstandings that we recognize are out there.

So please do not misunderstand things: the point is not, and has never been, "that's Antiochian, therefore it is bad/heretical."

My argument is that Saint Cyril, in his reunion, recognized this very fact - that simply using "In Two Natures", doesn't necessarily equivocate to implicitly holding to a heretical theology

In point of fact, you do not find "in two natures' anywhere in HH St. Cyril's letter to John of Antioch which represents their reunion. You can read it for yourself here, in case it's been a while (I know it had been for me). What you do find there is the following:

"We confess, therefore, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only Begotten Son of God, perfect God, and perfect Man of a reasonable soul and flesh consisting; begotten before the ages of the Father according to his Divinity, and in the last days, for us and for our salvation, of Mary the Virgin according to his humanity, of the same substance with his Father according to his Divinity, and of the same substance with us according to his humanity; for there became a union of two natures. Wherefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord."

This is proper (Orthodox!) dyophysitism -- a union of two natures. It is also proper (Orthodox!) miaphysitism -- again, a union of two natures. We have never, and will never, confessed anything other than this.

As to any division of the two natures, keeping in mind what we have earlier discussed regarding the OO Christology relating everything back to the Person, and therefore it not being wrong to say that He does some things befitting of His true humanity and others of His true divinity, we can also see what HH St. Cyril is saying when he address the 'Antiochian' tendency to underline the reality of these distinctions within the one Person of Christ:

"For we know the theologians make some things of the Evangelical and Apostolic teaching about the Lord common as per-raining to the one person, and other flyings they divide as to the two natures, and attribute the worthy ones to God on account of the Divinity of Christ, and the lowly ones on account of his humanity [to his humanity].

These being your holy voices, and finding ourselves thinking the same with them ("One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism,") we glorified God the Saviour of all, congratulating one another that our churches and yours have the Faith which agrees with the God-inspired Scriptures and the traditions of our holy Fathers."

In other words, you (John of Antioch) being of those who do attribute the action(s) according to which nature befits it [i.e., the 'Antiochian' school], we see nothing wrong with your having done so. You will hopefully note here that St. Cyril does not include himself among them, but says that we agree with them in this -- the implication being, to OO, that it is still something that can be done by virtue of the recognition of the true union of the two natures, even if our own language did not develop that specific way in the 'Alexandrian' school. If you want I can show you several examples from our own services where we do just that, such as the commentary for the second Sunday of Great Lent that is part of the Midnight Praises, which talks about our Lord Christ's becoming hungry during His fasting in the desert. It is just not explicitly talked about in terms of natures, because in our theological language as it has developed, we again always relate everything back to the Person.

That is what the reunion was, correct? St. Cyril saying "Yes, this is acceptable because it is fully Orthodox to say that He wept, ate, slept, etc. in accordance with His humanity (because He was truly incarnate as a real, living human being Who was like us in all things but sin, and hence He truly felt sorrow, hunger, tiredness, etc.), and raised the dead, walked upon the waters, etc. in accordance with His divinity (because He is truly God)." And John of Antioch for his part accepting the Christological truth proclaimed in the most glorious and holy of titles for the blessed mother of all Christians, the holy, ever-virgin Theotokos.

And had it stayed this way, then presumably we would still be one with you, and you with us. But as we both know, the reunion was short-lived. Lord have mercy.

That was the point of the reunion, which I think is contradictory of Severus of Antioch, who felt that the term "In Two Natures" in of itself implied a heretical theology, despite the fact that he felt the Reunion of 431 was legitimate, which recognizes that the term "In Two Natures" doesn't in of itself imply a heretical theology.
http://www.monachos.net/library/ind...s-to-the-council-of-chalcedon-a-re-assessment

But again, even without taking HH St. Severus' particular objections into account, "in two natures" is not in the actual letter. Though I agree with what is found at your link that the problem with "in two natures" is its liability to being read in a 'connective' fashion rather than a true union; we know that this indeed did happen in the immediate wake of Chalcedon, as the Nestorians took it as the ultimate victory of their Christology which is based around exactly that sort of idea. Interesting side note: this is precisely the context in which the Armenians rejected the Tome and the Council from which it came at their own Council in Dvin in 506. They had not had any representatives at Chalcedon, but when their patriarch, HH Catholicos Babgen II, had received numerous complaints from Armenians in Persia of harassment from the local Nestorians based on their claim that the Greek and Latin Churches now agreed with them, and so the Armenians were now the heretics, he was moved to eventually examine the Tome and the events of the Council (neither of which he had been aware of before then), and from the resulting examination in council the Armenians came to reject what they found in them. It is really interesting, because in the two surviving letters (both titled "To the Orthodox in Persia", by which HH of course meant the Armenians), you can really see the evolution of HH's understanding of the situation: in the first, he seems to brush the situation off, saying that the Nestorians are talking nonsense, as the Armenians, Greeks, and Latins all share the same holy faith. By the time of the second letter on the subject, however, he is becoming more aware of the basis of the Nestorians' claims, and hence resolves to straighten things out -- and he does, anathematizing not only those who profess the Tome, but also Eutyches (by name) and all who hold to similar opinions.

These letters are available in English translation in The Council of Chalcedon and the Armenian Church by HG Karekin Sarkissian (1965).

It is perhaps important or helpful to note here that as the Council that followed these letters was held in 506, it was significantly before the Chalcedonian Church would hold its own council to kick out the crypto-Nestorians and actual Nestorians who in one way or another had attached themselves to the Tome in hopes of finding in it vindication of their own views, which did not occur until 533. I point that out because I do not want this turn of events to be read in light of later polemics which boil down to "Chalcedonian = bad". This was a reaction in real time (or as close as it could be, given that it took some 50 years before this issue came to the attention of the Armenian Church leadership) to a situation that really wasn't settled at the time. In fact it wasn't until 536 that the last Patriarch to be recognized by both the Copts and the Greeks in Egypt was elevated to that position (to be shortly after replaced by a different man for/by the Chalcedonians, Acacius), HH Pope St. Theodosius I (d. 567). The EO over on TAW have informed me recently that the OO-EO split with regard to Antioch occurred a bit earlier, if my memory serves me in 518 or so. (Ask Fr. Matt about that, if you are curious, as I believe he was the one who told me that.)

And my point in quoting Leo and his readings is that his usage of Antiochian terminology, as well as his usage of snippets from Western Fathers like Saint Ambrose, who compared the properties of the Natures in the exact same way as Leo did, as my quote shows, doesn't mean he was a Nestorianizer.

Alright. I never claimed that he was. I think he was definitely less precise in his use of language than the faith deserves (some would say demands, but we are all fallible humans just the same), and I think he and all the Chalcedonians were and are wrong to attempt to force the Oriental Orthodox to betray our Orthodox Christology as a precondition for being accepted as Orthodox or even able to shepherd our own flock -- as at Chalcedon when HH St. Dioscorus was told to confess "in two natures" or lose his seat -- but that's all stuff that we've been working at ever since, from the Henotikon to the most recent meetings. May God grant our leaders wisdom, patience, and a spirit of irenic holiness and love as was manifest in the blessed words and actions of our common father HH St. Cyril, the pillar of Orthodoxy.

Of course, his association with Theodoret seems to be problematic, but I don't see how his association with Theodoret, based on his writings in the Tome, his letters after Chalcedon, and his Sermons after Chalcedon is sufficient in of itself to argue that Leo held (and thus tried to push on the whole Church) there was more than one hypostasis, which was my point in my quotes from not only the Tome, but also his Sermon on the Passion of Christ.

This is really above my pay grade (as you might imagine, I don't spend any time at all studying the mind of the architect of the Tome that has caused us such trouble), but as I remember Greek Orthodox priest Fr. John Romanides seemed to have some things to say about the associations of those on each side of the divide: https://orthodoxjointcommission.wordpress.com/2013/12/14/leo-and-theodoret-dioscorus-and-eutyches/

As you can read there, neither comes out completely clean with regard to the pedigrees of their friends, but also some of what has been received as history has more than ample reason to be reconsidered.

I'll return later to try to elaborate myself. Thanks for dealing with me.

It's a pleasure, my friend. I see you have posted a bit more after this, but I must have a good break from this heady topic to take care of dinner and other matters. I'll return to it as I can. As the Copts would say, Oujai khen Epchois ('Be safe in the Lord' ~ Take care)

 

[TheLostCoin]

Thank you for your time, and God bless you for your patience with someone who, quite frankly, can be immature many times.

Please pray for me, and I'll pray for you.

When you get the time, could you help: I thought that "in two natures" and "of two natures" were the same exact thing. Wasn't this "of two natures" / "in two natures" mentioned in the Formula of Reunion itself, in which - despite having not written it - Saint Cyril signed his name to it?

I could've sworn that in the Armenian book which you recommended (which I have bought and read most of), the book shows that both "of two natures" and "in two natures" were the same Greek, and that Dioscorus refused to admit "of two natures", only allowing "from two natures."

 

[dzheremi]

Thank you for your time, and God bless you for your patience with someone who, quite frankly, can be immature many times.

Again, it is my pleasure. I am likewise just a layman, but I will always respect a sincere inquirer who wants to know about us, even if you do end up going EO. I love the EO (even if they'd rather I didn't ). We all do. The division is a scandal and should have been healed a long time ago. In the meantime, the best that laypeople like you and I can do is remain on good terms, with both friendliness and honesty to the best of our abilities. People of much greater theological acumen than I such as Fr. Shenouda Maher Ishak, Fr. Peter Farrington, Fr. Tadros Y. Malaty, and others have all said in their own ways that the schism is solvable when we "look across the isle" so to speak and see not foreigners or enemies but ourselves. So in order to do that, we must try to understand one another -- not just EO understanding OO, but also us understading EO. It's part of the reason why I do spend time on TAW.

Please pray for me, and I'll pray for you.

Thank you, my friend. Sincerely, that is the best course to take in everything, and I appreciate it and value it beyond words and explanations, as limited and fallible as they are. Please pray for me. Thank you.

Through the prayers of our holy fathers St. Cyril, St. Basil, and St. Gregory, St. Athanasius the Apostolic, and all the saints who we hold in common who have pleased You since the beginning, and most of all the prayers and intercessions of the most holy, ever-virgin Theotokos St. Mary, O Lord, grant us the forgiveness of our sins. Fill us in our interactions and our thoughts and our minds and souls with Your heavenly peace, the peace by which the hosts of angels glorify You saying "Glory to God in the highest, peace on earth, and good will towards men." May we manifest Your holy peace in everything we do. Lord have mercy.

When you get the time, could you help: I thought that "in two natures" and "of two natures" were the same exact thing. Wasn't this "of two natures" / "in two natures" mentioned in the Formula of Reunion itself, in which - despite having not written it - Saint Cyril signed his name to it?

I thought I offered a link to the letter sent by St. Cyril to John? Or at least that is what it is specified as being on Monachos, the site from which I took it. "In two natures" is not in there. I am not aware of any part of St. Cyril's own writings where he uses that terminology, except for one fragment of a letter that is found in the works of a Chalcedonian polemicist, as I believe I mentioned earlier. (It is not corroborated anywhere else, so it seems to be part of a distinctly Chalcedonian, rather than pre-Chalcedonian, corpus.)

Did you have another piece of writing in mind? It very well may be present in the writings of John of Antioch himself, but I have not found it in HH St. Cyril.

I could've sworn that in the Armenian book which you recommended (which I have bought and read most of), the book shows that both "of two natures" and "in two natures" were the same Greek, and that Dioscorus refused to admit "of two natures", only allowing "from two natures."

I'd have to read it over. I do not know Greek, though I can read it (so I would be able to tell if they are different wordings, at least). Do you have a specific citation from HG Karekin's book where he talks about that? I don't recall reading it in there (though it is has been a little while; I have it in pdf only, so it's not my favorite source to have to consult because reading on the computer hurts my eyes; the only other sources of Armenian history I have are either pre-Chalcedonian like Agathangelos or Sebeos, or don't even deal with that, like the 8th century gospel commentaries of HG Stepanos Siwnetsi).

As for "of two natures" vs. "from two natures", as I recall HH asserted "from two natures" over "in two natures", though I would welcome correction on that. There is not a lot of writing available from HH St. Dioscorus, or even discussion on what he did or did not say and why that is not from his detractors, so it is entirely possible that there is something out there that I do not know about, because my tolerance for Chalcedonian anti-OO polemic is understandably not very high. Simply saying "he said this" is insufficient, not only because he is by no means the emperor of OO people (the Armenians do not even venerate him, and never have) -- as he himself said, the concern is with the faith and not one man -- but because our prayers allow it.

The fifth part of the Wednesday Theotokia is as follows (emphasis added):

A virginal feast today inspires our tongues to give praise to Mary the Theotokos.

+ On account of Him who was born for us in the city of David, our Savior Jesus Christ the Lord.

Come all you nations that we may bless her for she has become a mother and a virgin.

+ Hail to you O Virgin, the pure and incorrupt one, the Word of the Father came and took flesh from you.

Hail to the chosen vessel which is without blemish, that is of your true and perfect virginity.

+ Hail to the paradise, speaking for Christ, who became the second Adam, for the sake of Adam the first man.

Hail to the uniting place of the unparted natures, that came together in one place without ever mingling.

+ Hail to the bridal chamber, decorated in every way, for the true Bridegroom who united with humanity.

Hail to the soul of human nature, likened to the bush, which the fire of His divinity did not burn any of it.

+ Hail to the handmaiden and Mother, the Virgin and the heaven, who carried in the flesh He who sits upon the Cherubim.

For this we rejoice and sing with the holy angels, and we joyfully proclaim, “Glory to God in the Highest.

+ And on earth peace, goodwill towards men, for He who is glorified forever was pleased with you.”

The Father looked from heaven and found no one like you, He sent His only-begotten, who came and took flesh from you.

+++

It is neither exactly "of two natures" (as in the direct sequence of those three words) nor "from two natures", but it is closer to the former than the latter, and as the latter was itself already argued for from his mouth, I'd say that covers both.

But this is a bit of arcana (not in the occultic sense, but more in the "seems weird and inscrutable to the uninitiated" sense)...I would instead ask any person to look at the whole prayer there. Is it Orthodox? Obviously I believe it to be so, but the point is: does it say anything that you yourself would not? I don't get a lot of that kind of criticism from EO (sometimes regarding other things, sure), which is very telling to me.

Going back to the idea of seeing ourselves in the other, I think that if we can truly pray one another's prayers (even if we don't, because we have our own), that is a big step.

Lord have mercy. I hope my paltry musings are of some use to someone.

 

[TheLostCoin]

Okay, I was wrong in terms of the Formula of Reunion and the Chalcedonian Definition.

The Formula of Reunion says "επι δύο φύσεων" - "of two natures"

This part of the Formula of Reunion:

"We confess, then, our lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God perfect God and perfect man of a rational soul and a body, begotten before all ages from the Father in his godhead, the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the virgin, according to his humanity, one and the same consubstantial with the Father in godhead and consubstantial with us in humanity, for a union of two natures took place. Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the holy virgin to be the mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her. As to the evangelical and apostolic expressions about the Lord, we know that theologians treat some in common as of one person and distinguish others as of two natures, and interpret the god-befitting ones in connection with the godhead of Christ and the lowly ones with his humanity."

and the Chalcedonian definition says "εν δύο φύσεσι" - "in two natures."

My confusion stemmed from the liberty of translation people have; however, the terminology used in this latter portion was drawn up from the Antiochian school, as Fr. Florovsky explains.

"In form it recalls Nestorius’ definition. This, however, is but a philological similarity. One feels in the construction of this exposition of faith a different idea than we find in Theodore and Nestorius. First and foremost, this is the recognition of a single, unified subject, a single Person who is God-Man. The Lord is born of the Father and he himself — τον αυτόν — is born of the Virgin in these last days. This is what Nestorius did not want to recognize nor say. He deviated from tradition and the rules of faith not when he spoke of "two natures" but when he separated two subjects and distinguished two ontological centres of reference or subjects in Christ. And then the Divine Logos is directly confessed as the principle of unity in the Formula of Reunion, as the single centre of unity. It is true that this merely reproduces the logical scheme of the Nicene Creed, which did not exclude different interpretations. It is necessary to add that by itself the Formula of Reunion does not settle the question: it proposes a definition of terms and demands a theological commentary."


What also doesn't help is that people translate the Miaphysite terminology - "εκ δύο φύσεων" as "of two natures as well," although "of" doesn't mean "of" in terms of "composed of", but means (I don't know Greek, but this is what I could gather based on my multiple readings) "of" as in "out of" or "from."
For example, I live in America, but I'm of Israel
rather than
I'm of Israeli blood, but I live in America

So, it seems that John of Antioch didn't repudiate his own terminology to confirm Cyril's; rather, HH Cyril allowed John of Antioch's terminology insofar as there was a recognition of the Union of Two Natures.

That's what makes sense to me, given that the formula was specifically written with proponents of the Antiochian School in mind, like John of Antioch.

It's a shame that ethnocentrism and politics led way to the schism as it did, and I hope there is a legitimate, Holy Spirit inspired union between the two Churches, so this whole stupid issue can be put to rest.

 

[TheLostCoin]

But this is a bit of arcana (not in the occultic sense, but more in the "seems weird and inscrutable to the uninitiated" sense)...I would instead ask any person to look at the whole prayer there. Is it Orthodox? Obviously I believe it to be so, but the point is: does it say anything that you yourself would not? I don't get a lot of that kind of criticism from EO (sometimes regarding other things, sure), which is very telling to me.

As far as I can tell, this prayer is completely Orthodox. In fact, it seems to strikingly mirror the Akathist prayer to the Theotokos, not only in its structure, but also in some of the very words themselves.
https://www.goarch.org/-/the-akathist-hymn-and-small-compline

And once again, the formula "One Incarnate Nature of the Word" is without a doubt Orthodox, with the stipulation that there is no mixing of the Natures, something which the OO don't hold, and with the stipulation that the Natures don't compromise each other.

I personally think that the Pope of Alexandria and the Ecumenical Patriarch, with approval of each other's respective fellow patriarchs, should just meet in a Council, open up Saint Cyril's works, and come to an agreement using what Saint Cyril himself wrote as a base, even if it means coming up with a new formula that is consistent with both interpretations (Miaphysitism and Dyophysitism), and consistent with what Saint Cyril, Saint Athanasius, the Cappadocian Fathers, and the Western Fathers wrote. We both recognize that he was a Saint and a hero who held to Orthodox belief, and defended the Holy Theotokos; thus, given his books, there should be little reason why we can't come to an understanding with each other theologically (besides the fear of schism from some traditionalists on both sides, or a fear of proclaiming heresy; both of which are reasonable, but we aren't perfect humans and we should try our best).

 

[dzheremi]

Okay, I was wrong in terms of the Formula of Reunion and the Chalcedonian Definition.

The Formula of Reunion says "επι δύο φύσεων" - "of two natures"

This part of the Formula of Reunion:

"We confess, then, our lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God perfect God and perfect man of a rational soul and a body, begotten before all ages from the Father in his godhead, the same in the last days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary the virgin, according to his humanity, one and the same consubstantial with the Father in godhead and consubstantial with us in humanity, for a union of two natures took place. Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. According to this understanding of the unconfused union, we confess the holy virgin to be the mother of God because God the Word took flesh and became man and from his very conception united to himself the temple he took from her. As to the evangelical and apostolic expressions about the Lord, we know that theologians treat some in common as of one person and distinguish others as of two natures, and interpret the god-befitting ones in connection with the godhead of Christ and the lowly ones with his humanity."

and the Chalcedonian definition says "εν δύο φύσεσι" - "in two natures."

My confusion stemmed from the liberty of translation people have; however, the terminology used in this latter portion was drawn up from the Antiochian school, as Fr. Florovsky explains.

"In form it recalls Nestorius’ definition. This, however, is but a philological similarity. One feels in the construction of this exposition of faith a different idea than we find in Theodore and Nestorius. First and foremost, this is the recognition of a single, unified subject, a single Person who is God-Man. The Lord is born of the Father and he himself — τον αυτόν — is born of the Virgin in these last days. This is what Nestorius did not want to recognize nor say. He deviated from tradition and the rules of faith not when he spoke of "two natures" but when he separated two subjects and distinguished two ontological centres of reference or subjects in Christ. And then the Divine Logos is directly confessed as the principle of unity in the Formula of Reunion, as the single centre of unity. It is true that this merely reproduces the logical scheme of the Nicene Creed, which did not exclude different interpretations. It is necessary to add that by itself the Formula of Reunion does not settle the question: it proposes a definition of terms and demands a theological commentary."

This is wisely observed by the good father. We would say, in so far as I have heard OO priests talk about it, that the formula of reunion failed not due to a lack of agreement between the main parties involved (e.g., HH St. Cyril and John of Antioch), but precisely because some were able to take it and still adapt it to their own Christology which was not accepted by the signatories (cf. Ibas, discussed earlier). So Fr. Florovsky is correct, in that it does not settle the issue, or rather it only would if it is presumed that everyone understands the central terms within the boundaries of Orthodoxy, which was not the case. Some among the Antiochians did not, as they still professed the Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia. (I do not think Eutyches had risen by that point, as he was not accused of heresy until the synod of Constantinople in 448, some fifteen years later.)

What also doesn't help is that people translate the Miaphysite terminology - "εκ δύο φύσεων" as "of two natures as well," although "of" doesn't mean "of" in terms of "composed of", but means (I don't know Greek, but this is what I could gather based on my multiple readings) "of" as in "out of" or "from."

Yes. Our hymns affirm precisely this in exactly this language. From the second part of the Sunday Theotokia:

+ The ark overlaid, roundabout with gold, that was made, with wood that would not decay.

It foretold the sign, of God the Word, who became man, without separation.

+ One nature out of two, a holy divinity, co-essential with the Father, and incorruptible.

A holy humanity, begotten without seed, co-essential with us, according to the Economy.

So, it seems that John of Antioch didn't repudiate his own terminology to confirm Cyril's; rather, HH Cyril allowed John of Antioch's terminology insofar as there was a recognition of the Union of Two Natures.

Yes. And this is how we should like to proceed. Some of the EO have a different idea, however, which gets into the much more complicated and intractable matter of how OO and EO look at councils. That is where a very real difference lies. You will notice how we do not say "Orthodoxy = 3", but you can find many among the defenders of Chalcedonianism who will say "Orthodoxy = 7", even if some of their own theologians accept 8 or 9 (or more?). It points to a real difference in mindset which I personally believe colors much of our interactions, and broaches many matters of history, practice, and other things that are not resolved even if the past problems of Christology are.

But this is a topic for another conversation. This one is thorny enough!

That's what makes sense to me, given that the formula was specifically written with proponents of the Antiochian School in mind, like John of Antioch.

Yes, that seems fair.

It's a shame that ethnocentrism and politics led way to the schism as it did, and I hope their is a legitimate, Holy Spirit inspired union between the two Churches, so this whole stupid issue can be put to rest.

The claim of ethnocentrism must be made very carefully if it is to be made at all, as the old view of the Oriental Orthodox communion representing a kind of ethnic revolt of the at best semi-Hellenized people of the East is contradicted by period evidence and histories extending many centuries post-Chalcedon. NB: there were some Armenians who accepted Chalcedon [see, e.g., Hakobyan "The Orthodox-Chalcedonian Armenians from the Caucasus to the Balkans (An Outline of the History and Identity)" in Biliarsky et al. (Eds.) The Balkans and Caucasus: Parallel Processes on the Opposite Sides of the Black Sea, Cambridge Scholars Publishing 2012], and as Coptic historian Maged S.A. Mikhail points out in his book From Byzantine to Islamic Egypt, Greek remained a perfectly fine vehicle for expressing anti-Chalcedonian theology and polemic up until about the turn of the millennium; even after that there are Arab Muslim sources such as Al Maqrizi in the 15th century who reported finding Copts conversant in Greek in his own day.

This is not to say that we do not see an ethnic coalescence around being non-Chalcedonian at the same time, but instead that this is a portion of what that entails, and is after all occurring in parallel with everything else, rather than stemming from it as though Armenians were only really conscious of being Armenians after they 'became' non-Chalcedonian, even though their own historical records point to those things that are taken as the markers of their difference -- like their unique use of unleavened bread -- to be present in their tradition before Chalcedon ever happened.

Or, as Fr. John Erickson, dean of St. Vladimir's Orthodox Theological Seminary (EO), puts it:

One final example illustrates particularly vividly the ease with which a minor liturgical difference can be transformed into a symbol of division. In the Coptic, Syrian and Armenian liturgical traditions, a week of strict fasting - variously called the Fast of Heraclius, the Fast of Ninevah or the Forefast (Arachavorats) - preceeds the “Forty-Day” Great Fast of Lent. The same week in the Byzantine tradition calls only for abstinence from meat, not from dairy products. The historical development of the fasting practices of these various liturgical traditions is complex, but the differences between them were not the result of any dogmatic differences. [14] Yet in the context of church division, these differences came to be given a polemical explanation. Here is the rubric given in the Byzantine Triodion for Cheesefare Sunday, which introduces the week in question: “During this week the accursed Armenians fast from eggs and cheese, but we, to refute their damnable heresy, do eat both eggs and cheese for the entire week.” What one side does is enough to prompt the other to do the opposite! We see here the tragic way in which our sense of ecclesial identity has, in the context of division, been formed by opposition rather than by reference to a common faith. The characteristics by which we identify ourselves and our churches as “orthodox” all too often have been simply those extrinsic elements which make us different from others.​

Lord have mercy.