Nestorian?

The issue of the Monophysites is that they said that Christ had a single divine nature, but no human nature.

The Oriental Orthodox believe that Christ has a single divine-human nature, like a hybrid (Miaphysitism).

Naturally in the translating of theology there was a bit of a mix up. We believed they were Monophysites, they believed we were Nestorians all because of some translation issues. In fact that Council of Chalcedon actually said that Miaphysitism was considered okay, but again, translations and politics.

<<but I think it's important to point out that it does not matter as much why you deviated from the faith, but that you deviated.>>

So you assert that the formula of Chalcedon is the absolute, infallibly and precisely accurate, revelation of exactly how the human and divine natures exist in Christ; that mortal men have achieved 100% accuracy and precision in the description of the Incarnate Word and any deviation from the exact definition of Chalcedon places one outside the Christian faith. Is that correct?

What happens when one's native tongue is not ancient Greek and there are no exact translations of the words or concepts used by the council? Does any deviation or shade of meaning brought about be translation into another language render the translation heresy to be anathematized?

Is the modern Tagalog rendering identical in meaning to the ancient Greek? How about a modern Japanese or Finnish rendering? The fact that those languages are not Indo-European languages essentially renders it impossible to identically duplicate the formula of Chalcedon from the ancient Greek into any of them.

Do we mortals really believe that we can confidently state with absolute accuracy and precision exactly what is and is not the Word Incarnate?

I am skeptical of such a notion.

And the idea that we should anathematize others because of their best efforts at describing the hypostatic union of human and divine is not exactly, word for word and concept by concept, identical to Chalcedon is IMO, hubris.

What makes the Chalcedon definition more accurate than the OOC's definition? The OCC find Chalcedon too Nestorian.

Does God require such mathematical precision of language or is it simply something to fight about?

Do we not err in dividing the Body of Christ in direct rebellion against the will of Christ Whom we profess to so precisely define because of shades of meaning used to describe that which we are incapable of accurately describing?

1Co 1:11-12 My brothers and sisters, some from Chloe&#8217;s household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. What I mean is this: One of you says, &#8220;I follow Paul&#8221;; another, &#8220;I follow Apollos&#8221;; another, &#8220;I follow Cephas&#8221;; still another, &#8220;I follow Christ.&#8221;

jim

Our separation from the Oriental Orthodox is really sad. Personally, I believe they are Orthodox but until both hierarchies can re-establish communion, we cannot share the Eucharist. I do not believe communion between us will be restored in this world.

I would like to add that it is probably a nightmarish task for both hierarchies to try to reconcile centuries of past differences.

Jim,

I think you went off on a tangent. As for me , I reject the modern notion that it had to do with semantics. The tome of Leo was written in Latin. At one point the Ilyrian bishops shouted that the Romans are nestorians during the Council. Afterwards there was a closed door meeting at the patriarchal quarters as those bishops wanted clarification on certain Latin Terminology.

Everything else was in greek. The Alexandrians just like the Antiochan bishops were native greek speakers. Even if one says they spoke coptic that language is nothing more than a greek dialect. The problem was more of traditions between the various regions. Be very careful with the modern ecumenical dialogues, their intent is more on finding loopholes in order to bypass the difficult issues.

The Council accepted the letter of agreement between Cyril of Alexandria and John of Antioch as canonical, recognizing two distinct tradition. In that conciliatory letter John agreed to accept the dogmatic title of Theotokos and Cyril acknowledged that theologians have attributed the lower acts of Christ to his humanity and the higher ones to his divinity.

Any Council can be misinterpreted, that's why there was a 5th ecumenical council to try to reconcile the non -chalcedonian by giving reassurances to them, striking down the the chapters among other things.

So you assert that the formula of Chalcedon is the absolute, infallibly and precisely accurate, revelation of exactly how the human and divine natures exist in Christ; that mortal men have achieved 100% accuracy and precision in the description of the Incarnate Word and any deviation from the exact definition of Chalcedon places one outside the Christian faith. Is that correct?

Click to expand...

yes

What happens when one's native tongue is not ancient Greek and there are no exact translations of the words or concepts used by the council? Does any deviation or shade of meaning brought about be translation into another language render the translation heresy to be anathematized?

Click to expand...

if it ends in the refusal to accept an ecumenical council, then yes.

Is the modern Tagalog rendering identical in meaning to the ancient Greek? How about a modern Japanese or Finnish rendering? The fact that those languages are not Indo-European languages essentially renders it impossible to identically duplicate the formula of Chalcedon from the ancient Greek into any of them.

Click to expand...

you are only showing why you need to be in THE Body of Christ, which goes beyond language.

Do we mortals really believe that we can confidently state with absolute accuracy and precision exactly what is and is not the Word Incarnate?

Click to expand...

as far as that Word has shown us? yes we can.

Does God require such mathematical precision of language or is it simply something to fight about?

Click to expand...

clearly it is, since our hymns and the lives of the saints reflect this

Do we not err in dividing the Body of Christ in direct rebellion against the will of Christ Whom we profess to so precisely define because of shades of meaning used to describe that which we are incapable of accurately describing?

Click to expand...

we have not divided anything. the OO have fallen away. the doors are always open for their return, just like they were for me when I converted.

E.C. said:

The issue of the Monophysites is that they said that Christ had a single divine nature, but no human nature.

The Oriental Orthodox believe that Christ has a single divine-human nature, like a hybrid (Miaphysitism).

Naturally in the translating of theology there was a bit of a mix up. We believed they were Monophysites, they believed we were Nestorians all because of some translation issues. In fact that Council of Chalcedon actually said that Miaphysitism was considered okay, but again, translations and politics.

Click to expand...

I'm thankful for the ways conversation has allowed for there to be understandings in where language played huge roles and ideas got lost in translation. And even as it concerns unification, on the ground level, it has already happened essentially without it being official on the large scale of things (more shared in #10 and #43 /#223 /#224 #225 #233 /#241 ).

On one of the best places to go on the issue where documentation has already taken place for sometime:

• Official Statements « Orthodox Unity (Orthodox Joint Commission)

I'm thankful for the work of unification being documented in-depth so that others can be encouraged - as seen in Ecclesiology and the Dialogues Between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches « Orthodox Unity (Orthodox Joint Commission). Outside of that, continuity in tradition is a very complicated issue since other Oriental Orthodox have long noted that the term "monophysite" (often used by those supporting Chalcedon) is something that doesn't really reflect what they've always believed, as Ethopian Orthodox would prefer to be called tewahido (made one) - although even they have had issues of communication with other members of the OO world (as is the case with the Eritrean Church, the youngest member of the OO world). But indeed, Ethiopian Orthodox reject Eutyches, who is believed to have taught that in Christ the human Nature was absorbed by the divine Nature....but Dioscorus, whom the Council of Chalcedon deposed, is accepted (as the Council of 451 did not believe that Dioscorus was a heretic at that point and Dioscorus did not deny the continuance of Godhead and manhood in the One Christ after their union ) - for the Ethiopian Orthodox, Tewahido" is the Ethiopian term (meaning "made one") which is the best expression conveying the faith of the Church, since it emphasizes the inseparable unity of the Godhead and manhood in the Person of Christ.

And that's just one camp within the world of the OO. At the bottom line, in their mindset, misunderstandings occurred more so over not understanding what another meant and then carrying that misunderstanding further over the years. Yet even in the disagreements, there was still much fruit.

It is attitudes like yours that will keep the Body of Christ divided.

Jim Parker said:

It is attitudes like yours that will keep the Body of Christ divided.

Click to expand...

Well, this thread sort of ended on a sour note.

Rejoice! The Body of Christ is not divided.

buzuxi02 said:

Even if one says they spoke coptic that language is nothing more than a greek dialect.

Click to expand...

Very odd linguistics.

I am against bilateral ecumenical dialogues with the OO. Any speak of lifting anathemas need to include the Assyrians. These dialogues should be trilateral. In the 5th council Theodore of Mopsuestia was condemned posthumously to appease the Cyrillians, a highly controversial act. This alienated many in the east syrian tradition (and at the time the entire diocese of Aquilea and Milan). It would be disingenuous to lift anathemas on Leo, Dioscorus, Severus, but on none of the syrian theologians.

Also trilateral dialogues will lay everything on the table, no loopholes to save face in breaking the impasse.

Mockingbird0 said:

Very odd linguistics.

Click to expand...

I know a person whose mother is an Alexandrian greek and her father is a Coptic Egyptian. Even though she was born in America, she is fluent in greek. She is able to read and understand coptic inscriptions found on icons and other church literature. Her egyptian cousins are astonished that she can read "ancient egyptian" (as they put it). She humorously tells them, "its all greek to me".

Anyhow to expand on my previous post the only group that can blame semantics is the Assyrians. The 'melkites' and 'miaphysites' were both speaking greek, what was there not to understand??? On the other hand the Mesopotamian church was using (and still does) use an unusual aramaic word for 'nature'. It also seems to be of the aramaic dialect of persia. Obviously such a word would be foreign to those Christians within the empire.

Jim Parker said:

It is attitudes like yours that will keep the Body of Christ divided.

Click to expand...

there is no such thing. a Divided Body of Christ does not exist. there is the Body, and those not in the Body. and this is not my attitude, but it is what has been shown in the lives of saints and the hymns of the Church.

You quote Fr, Schmemann. Here's another one for you:

From Schmemann's Of Water & the Spirit: The first experience of the church is not that of an abstraction or an idea, but that of a real and concrete unity of persons who, because each one of them is united to Christ, are united to one another, constitute one family, one body, one fellowship.
And this gathering is sacramental because it reveals, makes visible and "real" the invisible unity in Christ, His presence among those who believe in him, love him, and in him love one another; and also because this unity is truly new unity, the overcoming by Christ of "this world," whose evil is precisely alienation from God and therefore disunity, fragmentation, enmity, separation. (p.118)

Your stance, to me, seems more of "this world" than of the Kingdom since the council of Chalcedon, in fact, deemed the miaphysitism of the Copts and OOCs to be acceptable. The rejection of miasphysitism appears to be the subordination of Christ's will to man's tradition. (Chalcedon being the conclusion of the Church which accepted both views and man's tradition being the rejection of Chalcedon's conclusion in favor of one of the two acceptable views.)

From: “Beyond Dialogue: The Quest for Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Unity Today”
Rev John H Erickson, Dean, St. Vladimir’s Seminary


"The question at this point is whether we really desire unity more than our present disunity. Will we continue to be divided simply by the power of division itself? Certainly at the present time we seem to prefer the disunity of the status quo. Our cherished anathemas and preferred formulas give us a sense of security. Without them, our very identity seems threatened. Of course, much of Christian doctrine arose precisely because of the need to define the truth in opposition to heresy. But the words in which the truth are expressed are not the same as the truth itself. Failure to recognize this can lead to the kind of situation described by St. Gregory of Nazianzen. He notes how, when we try to lift a handful of water to our lips, some can be found slipping through our fingers:


In the same way, there is a separation not only between us and those who hold aloof in their impiety, but also between us and those who are most pious - a separation in regard both to such doctrines as are of small consequence and to expressions intended to bear the same meaning.



Certainly this is the situation in which the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox find themselves today. ...

i think you mean the 5th Council deemed their language acceptable. and the question then is - why was the 5th Council not enough? if their faith is so obviously the same as ours, then they should have accepted the 5th and returned to the Church long ago.

<<they should have accepted the 5th and returned to the Church long ago.>>

They never left the church.

Jim Parker said:

<<they should have accepted the 5th and returned to the Church long ago.>>

They never left the church.

Click to expand...

the saints and hymns say otherwise. and there is no such thing as a divided Body of Christ. if the OO is the Church, the EO is not and every EO should reject the Chalcedon and return to the OO. if the EO is the Church, every OO should accept Chalcedon and return to the EO. either one or neither is the True Church, but they both cannot be the Church. the body of Christ is not divided.

<< a Divided Body of Christ does not exist>>

On this planet it does.

it's historical fact that the Orientals set up a separate hierarchy

<<it's historical fact that the Orientals set up a separate hierarchy>>

right.

They're still part of the body of Christ but have been separated by man's acts.

Jim Parker said:

<<it's historical fact that the Orientals set up a separate hierarchy>>

right.

They're still part of the body of Christ but have been separated by man's acts.

Click to expand...

what is in bold is an impossibility