OO and EO

[DavidBryan]

Double post

 

[Grigorii]

But isn't it true that St. Cyril spoke of the "two natures" of Christ in a letter to John of Antioch?

St. Cyril approved a confession of Faith sent by John of Antioch (probably composed by Theodoret of Cyrus) where he approved two nature Christology once he was satisfied that a single subject was affirmed (something St. Leo of Rome did not clearly accomplish in his infamous Tome). Note that he never adopted two nature christology himself. The only concession is that one can think of a divine nand human nature in Christ in abstract analytical thought but never as such. As such there is only one nature of God the Word Incarnate. The letter you mention is probably The Formula of Reunion of 433.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grigorii
To St. Cyril the two natures of Christ (divine and human) are so closely knitted together that we cannot speak of two natures, but we must speak of one nature consisting of an intact human and an intact divine nature. Humanity and divinity continue to exist in their own properties and are not mixed.

The emphasized part makes no sense to me, and is the reason I'm perfectly satisfied with and totally supportive of the Chalcedonian statement, and why Non-Chalcedonian terminology--and, yes, I know it's based solely on the terminology of Ss. Cyril and Athanasius--makes me nervous.

There really is no reason to be nervous here. Chalcedon only approved of St. Leo's two nature christology after comparing it and checking using St. Cyril's one nature christology as a rule of Orthodoxy. Chalcedon, I suggest, should be read through a Cyrillian lense. St. Cyril's Second Letter to Nestorius and his Third Letter to Nestorius it will clear up a lot.

We can't speak of two ousia in an hypostasis, but we can speak of one ousion that has two separate ousia?? And all that's in the one hypostasis??

I am not sure what you mean. Please elaborate? Thanx

Gregorios

 

[DavidBryan]

St. Cyril approved a confession of Faith sent by John of Antioch (probably composed by Theodoret of Cyrus) where he approved two nature Christology once he was satisfied that a single subject was affirmed (something St. Leo of Rome did not clearly accomplish in his infamous Tome).

Yes, the whole, "The Flesh does this, while the Logos does this" terminology was problematic and needed to be amended. Still, if St. Cyril was comfortable with a two nature christology when expressed in this way, what's the problem with NCs accepting it, since it's well known that that's what we mean?

There really is no reason to be nervous here. Chalcedon only approved of St. Leo's two nature christology after comparing it and checking using St. Cyril's one nature christology as a rule of Orthodoxy. Chalcedon, I suggest, should be read through a Cyrillian lense.

My issue is not with the decision at Chalcedon at all. Chalcedon makes all the sense in the world to me, in that there is one subject--the Logos, the second person of the Trinity--who has two separate natures, one consubstantial with the Father, the other consubstantial with us. My contention is that the statement that “one nature consisting of an intact human and an intact divine nature” Is redundant. How can a nature consist of two natures? Is it not the person who possesses the two natures? Don’t we say that Christ is an hypostasis with two ousia? Why add the unnecessary layer of Christ having one ousia which consists of two ousia which are within the one hyspostasis or the one prosopon?

It seems to confuse the (forgive the pun) "nature" of what ousia means.

Forgive me if I’ve butchered the Greek terms; I’m sure there are many TAW-ers who are much more familiar with and capable of wielding these words and definitions than I, but it seems that the Chalcedonian statement, when taken in light of both the two-nature Christology of Ss. John and Leo, and of the one-subject Christology of St. Cyril, provides a simple balance that avoids any confusion of terms concerning what a prosopon, an hypostasis, and an ousia is.

 

[KATHXOYMENOC]

Yes, the whole, "The Flesh does this, while the Logos does this" terminology was problematic and needed to be amended. Still, if St. Cyril was comfortable with a two nature christology when expressed in this way, what's the problem with NCs accepting it, since it's well known that that's what we mean?


My issue is not with the decision at Chalcedon at all. Chalcedon makes all the sense in the world to me, in that there is one subject--the Logos, the second person of the Trinity--who has two separate natures, one consubstantial with the Father, the other consubstantial with us. My contention is that the statement that “one nature consisting of an intact human and an intact divine nature” Is redundant. How can a nature consist of two natures? Is it not the person who possesses the two natures? Don’t we say that Christ is an hypostasis with two ousia? Why add the unnecessary layer of Christ having one ousia which consists of two ousia which are within the one hyspostasis or the one prosopon?

It seems to confuse the (forgive the pun) "nature" of what ousia means.

Forgive me if I’ve butchered the Greek terms; I’m sure there are many TAW-ers who are much more familiar with and capable of wielding these words and definitions than I, but it seems that the Chalcedonian statement, when taken in light of both the two-nature Christology of Ss. John and Leo, and of the one-subject Christology of St. Cyril, provides a simple balance that avoids any confusion of terms concerning what a prosopon, an hypostasis, and an ousia is.

So, is St. Paul's mind-flesh dichotomy/battle in Romans 7 an example of one person with two natures?

Although he identifies with his mind, there is still the "I" that can differentiate between what his mind wills and what his flesh wills, so he is not his mind; rather, he is who he is - i.e., one person whose mind and flesh are in conflict.

 

[DavidBryan]

Yes, I think this is the case.

 

[DavidBryan]

The point I always come back to is this: If Christ is truly consubstantial with the Father in His divine nature (or "divinity," as the NCs term it) and with humanity in his human nature (or "humanity," as they say), then the reality of the concrete distinction between His natures is more than just one of "thought" or "theory." And if Christ is one Person with two natures, Who works (the person, now, not the natures) through different natures at various times to perform certain works, and if it is always God the Son who is doing things in His human nature and/or His divine nature...then what, exactly, is the reason for rejecting the minutes of Chalcedon, when they are what defines St. Leo's Tome, and not the other way around?

 

[Grigorii]

Yes, the whole, "The Flesh does this, while the Logos does this" terminology was problematic and needed to be amended. Still, if St. Cyril was comfortable with a two nature christology when expressed in this way, what's the problem with NCs accepting it, since it's well known that that's what we mean?

St. Cyril of Alexandria writes:

Anathema 3. If anyone divides in the one Christ the hypostases after the union, joining them only by a conjunction of dignity or authority or power, and not rather by a coming together in a union by nature, let him be anathema.

A statement St. Cyril undergirded by the catchphrase one incarnate nature of God the Word. Terminology which for us is as much the touchstone of Orthodoxy as it is the Oriental Orthodox. Moving on to the following anathema he wrote:


Anathema 4. If anyone distributes between the two persons or hypostases the expressions used either in the gospels or in the apostolic writings, whether they are used by the holy writers of Christ or by him about himself, and ascribes some to him as to a man, thought of separately from the Word from God, and others, as befitting God, to him as to the Word from God the Father, let him be anathema.

This is precisely the problem with Leo's Tome. Though weakly affirming that it is the one Logos who is the subject of the Incarnation, there is much stress on two subjects of attribution drawn from the gospels so that humanity and Divinity are attributed with particular properties separately. It is worthy of notice, as Fr. John Romanides points out, Leo's Tome is not Chalcedon's touchstone of Orthodoxy. St. Cyril's Epistles (including the twelve anathemas) are. The Tome is accepted aftre heated debate concerning its Orthodoxy, whereas Cyril's is unquestioned and is the rule against which Leo's must be measured.

The Oriental Orthodox insist that proper christological terminology must be strictly Cyriline, whereas we, the Eastern Orthodox take into account the compromise of Cyril with John of Antioch. Cyril's compromise was for the sake of the unity of the Church not because he was comfortable with John's christology. He was satisfied with John confessing that:
1) Mary is properly called Theotokos
2) Jesus is consubstantial with us concerning His humanity, yet consubstantial with the Father concerning His Divinity.
Which safeguards the core principle of Cyril's christology. What he did not do is make John's two-nature christology his own, nor did he incorporate it.

Chalcedon is an attempt to expand the re-union formula of 433. For its attempts to unite the opposing christological traditions of Antioch and Alexandria by circumscribing them in apophatic terminology:

Chalcedonian Definition
Following the holy Fathers we teach with one voice that the Son [of God] and our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the same [Person], that he is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, very God and very man, of a reasonable soul and [human] body consisting, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood; made in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of his Father before the worlds according to his Godhead; but in these last days for us men and for our salvation born [into the world] of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to his manhood. This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be in two natures, (1) unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably [united], and that without the distinction of natures being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Prophets of old time have spoken concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ hath taught us, and as the Creed of the Fathers hath delivered to us.

The Chalcedonian definition is apophatic and leaves open ground for Antiochene terminology of in two natures such as used by Nestorius, Theodoret, John and Leo of Rome; but within the confines of these apophatic terms a Cyriline insistence on one nature (subsistence) is also possible. Chalcedon is an attempt at reconciliation between Antioch and Alexandria by allowing both traditions, and granting them equal status as equally Orthodox. This is is the one step beyond the Formula of Re-union of 433 that Cyril did not go, and the Oriental Orthodox have (until recently) have refused themselves. Which is a justifiable refusal given the status we both accord to Cyril's anathemas, in particulat the fourth one.

It is my understanding that the most objectionable thing about Chalcedon is precisely the Tome of Leo and its conflict with Cyril's 4th anathema, not the Chalcedonian definition itself. The Oriental Orthodox have misunderstood Leo for a Nestorian (which, given his actions toward Theodoret and his Tome, are very reasonable) and refused to accept anything other than Cyril's christological terminology. A christology that remains our common Orthodox belief. The break between Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox does not have its origins in dogma but in Church discipline and can be (somewhat anachronistically) qualified as an issue of parasynagogue rather than heresy or schism (in St. Basil's categories). A division within the one Church.

My issue is not with the decision at Chalcedon at all. Chalcedon makes all the sense in the world to me, in that there is one subject--the Logos, the second person of the Trinity--who has two separate natures, one consubstantial with the Father, the other consubstantial with us.

And it is precisely the word separate that troubles me here. For the natures are not separate they are united according to a natural union. This is both Cyril's and the Chalcedonian Father's contention. Even Pope Leo, when read in the context of other writings of his, would agree. The natures remain intact but they are not separate.

My contention is that the statement that “one nature consisting of an intact human and an intact divine nature” Is redundant.

Then I can see why St. Cyril's christology makes you nervous. It could not do otherwise.

How can a nature consist of two natures? Is it not the person who possesses the two natures?

That depends upon what word we wish to translate as person. For the closest thing to person at that time is the word prosopon. And we would therefore end up professing a prosopic union of sorts which is Nestorius' rival theory to Cyril's hypostatic or physical union (he used both terms physis and hypostasis). Hypostasis at this point in time is a concretized ousia (essence) and Cyril sometimes uses the word physis as a synonym for hypostasis. In a natural union therefore we have one prosopon because we have one nature. Whereas in a prosopic union we have two natures united in one prosopon. The locus of union for the two is different. For Nestorius the locus of union is prosopon while for Cyril (and Chalcedon) it is nature (hypostasis/physis). So that yes, there is one person, but only because there is one nature; iow there is one prosopon because there is one hypostasis in Christ which consists of two hypostaseis united in the Incarnate state of Jesus Christ. This is why Oriental Orthodox theologians speak of 'one composite nature' to indicate that the one nature is not simple (monos) but united (mia). The elegance of St. Severus (who coined this idea) is very compattible to the elegance of Chalcedon, so that in reality the dogmatic Faith between Severians (Oriental Orthodox) and Chalcedonians (Eastern Orthodox) is the same.

Don’t we say that Christ is an hypostasis with two ousia?

We could say that, as long as we understand that the Divine ousia is not limited or 'contained' withing Christ's humanity. I'de rather stick with the patristic formulations of Chalcedon and Cyril.

Why add the unnecessary layer of Christ having one ousia which consists of two ousia which are within the one hyspostasis or the one prosopon?

I am afraid you have mistakenly assumed that nature means ousia, I have used that term as the equivalent of hypostasis and physis (according to Cyril).

It seems to confuse the (forgive the pun) "nature" of what ousia means.

Perhaps that has been cleared up now.

Forgive me if I’ve butchered the Greek terms; I’m sure there are many TAW-ers who are much more familiar with and capable of wielding these words and definitions than I, but it seems that the Chalcedonian statement, when taken in light of both the two-nature Christology of Ss. John and Leo, and of the one-subject Christology of St. Cyril, provides a simple balance that avoids any confusion of terms concerning what a prosopon, an hypostasis, and an ousia is.

Chalcedon provides a balance in the sense that it attempts to unite both opposing kataphatic christologies of Antioch and Alexandria, in an apophatic definition allowing room for both based upon a common dogmatic minimum. Namely the core of the Formula of Re-union of 433.

Gregorios

 

[DavidBryan]

Thanks for summarizing it, Grigorii; I just wanted to correct myself, as you're right in being troubled by my statement that Christ is "the Logos, the second person of the Trinity--who has two separate natures," when of course the natures are not separate but rather distinct from each other. My apologies for that. However, the reluctance on the part of the Non-Chalcedonians to call the two natures "two natures" seems to me to blur the line in confusing two very distinct natures.

Does there, then, need to be a dialogue (there probably already has been one) determining common definitions in this day and age of hypostasis, physis, ousia and prosopon ?

 

[KATHXOYMENOC]

Is all this parsing of words what Jesus meant we'd have to do when He said that "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and Truth"? Is the precise definition of the Son a requirement to know what Jesus meant when He said, "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life"?

Are these precise formulations of the nature of the Godhead and the Son of God - and the nature of what is NOT the Godhead or the Son of God - the rightful and culminative (new wordform I made up) expressions of the religion of Israel and the worship of YHWH?

Is knowing which side of the ousia one is supposed to come down on the be-all and end-all of orthodox (or Orthodox) religion?

We bifurcate everything into what it is and what it is not. I suppose we have no choice(s) in this matter, as that is how we're wired and how we approach everything.

And while on the one hand the case can be made, and indeed is made all the time - the existence of the multitude of fora at CF testifies to that - for the inescapable need to be precise regarding who God is and who He is not, sometimes I just want to walk away from it all.

Part of it is being intimidated by all this language and knowledge (i.e., the Chalcedonian talk), about which I only know the rudiments. Yet I recognize that we need chemists and physicists and mathematicians, for even if I don't understand quantum theory or moon orbits or how to make a silicon chip, it is important and critical, both directly and indirectly, in many aspects of my life that those who know these things get them right.

But sometimes it seems that when you consider that EOCs and OOs and RCCs - and you can add Protestants to that, too, and I guess Mormons and JWs, et al - are seemingly for the most part convinced by their church's arguments, and it's the minority who become convinced otherwise and switch to another side, after which they then adopt the arguments that support their new faith - one can wonder if any of us can know what is true and right, and if any of us can know when we are mistaken as to what is true or right.

And based on what we know or think we know at the time, we choose to commune or not commune with each other. We let our ideas and teachings about God decide for us who can eat from His body and drink from His blood and who is thereby our brother and our sister. Because we think Christ has entrusted the care and safekeeping of His body and blood to us, we determine who may receive Him, and who we ourselves may receive.

I find myself more and more perplexed by both the church and by Christ. Who is He and what did He say and what did He mean? Matthew, Mark and Luke clearly place the Last Supper as a Passover meal. John clearly places it as NOT a Passover meal. The church is divided on this, because the Gospels are divided on this. The ramifications for the quartodecimans and what kind of bread to use and whether the bread and wine are His body and blood or just represent His body and blood cuts right down the middle of this. There was variety about some of these things in the early church, esp. the quartodeciman and I think the type of bread issues. Nevertheless, they communed with each other - or did initially, I think. No more, though. The line has been drawn in the sand, with appropriate anathemas. The church has spoken, and those that speak with a different voice are not the church.

As I said, it seems to me that some of the problems are inherent in the Scriptures themselves. What I mean by that is ... the foods at the Passover were clearly representative and memorialist. If the Last Supper was a Passover meal, the memorialist view of communion seems to be the one that is most in line. Even the sacrificial nature of the language of 1 Corinthians 10 does not necessarily imply eating the body and blood of deity, though it does discussing communing with deity (and demons - not to mention the fact that 1 Corinthians 10 seems to reverse some of what was said in 1 Corinthians 8). So we have the Anglican Dom Gregory Dix asserting it most likely wasn't a Passover Seder, and we have the Lutheran Joachim Jeremias concluding that it was a Passover meal (THE EUCHARISTIC WORDS OF JESUS - but being a Lutheran, he believes in the real presence, even though I think a Passover Seder setting somewhat argues against it). We have scholars on both sides of the issue, all versed in the patristic literature and church traditions, and they can't achieve a consensus. No big deal, except it impacts the central rite of the church.

(I don't mean to get off the topic of EOC vs. OO into the topic of real presence vs. memorialism; it was just an example that came to mind of what I sometimes struggle with.)

Sign me confused, and please forgive any displays of ignorance in what I wrote above.

 

[copticorthodoxy]

DO the EO consider Saint Cyril as a Saint and doctor of the Church ??

 

[orthodoxy]

If the so-called Oriental "Orthodox" were really only separated from the ACTUAL Orthodox Church by "politics and semantics", you would rejoin the Orthodox in a heartbeat. We would certainly welcome you back Home. 1500 years is plenty of time for you to square your teachings with ours. We don't share communion with you because you do not share the Orthodox Faith, and we are NOT THE SAME.

I tend to agree with this for the reason the Roman Catholics say the "filoque" is "politics and semantics" in a way that appears to mean the "Eastern Orthodox" are to stupid to figure it out and we are "hard headed". Plainly it is patronizing and insulting to say we need to "compromise" because the OO says it is just a matter of "politics and semantics".

Plainly Jesus Christ has a full human nature because he "slept" and did the things of humanity. Plainly He is God for He healed and forgave sins. What is more plain than this? Jesus Christ = the Godman.

Like the Roman Church, I say to them, if this is the case why are they making such a big deal out of it and why not "return" to what has always been understood and taught by the Church?

the unworthy,

kyril

 

[copticorthodoxy]

We see ourselves the Orthodox Church and the others should return to us , to the truth

and the EO believe that about themselves too

 

[orthodoxy]

We see ourselves the Orthodox Church and the others should return to us , to the truth

and the EO believe that about themselves too

With all due respect,

Just as the Roman Church sees itself the "one Church" thus the division between the EO and OO.

Personally, I cannot accept that the humanity of Jesus Christ was "absorbed" or over shadowed by His divine nature. He has two natures, one is fully divine and one is fully human with no confusion in the person. Just as He has fully a individualized will unto Himself and yet is willing to submit His will to that of His Father.

I believe these things are quite plain and it is those that "muddy the waters" that reject what was handed down in the faith thus walk away in protest and rebellion.

Thus I believe this is true.... One must take great care to hold as true that which has been BELIEVED EVERYWHERE, ALWAYS, AND BY ALL.

It is in the assembly of the Church, the common unity of believers, unanimous in love, one in doctrine and faith, one mind and one judgment, throughout space and time that determines what we believe as Christians then we if part of this one body, the Church, MUST submit and obey to it's judgements or all is subject to phantasy and "new and improved" innovations.

the unworthy

kyril

 

[copticorthodoxy]

With all due respect,

Just as the Roman Church sees itself the "one Church" thus the division between the EO and OO.

Personally, I cannot accept that the humanity of Jesus Christ was "absorbed" or over shadowed by His divine nature. He has two natures, one is fully divine and one is fully human with no confusion in the person. Just as He has fully a individualized will unto Himself and yet is willing to submit His will to that of His Father.


kyril

With all due respect

from what you said it seem that you don't know anything about the Oriental Orthodox Church

Who told you that we believe that the humanity of Jesus Christ is obsorbed or over shadowed by his divinity ??!!!!!!!

we Anathematise Eutachy by the way and what you said is Eutachy 's theology and we refuse it

you should study more about the Orthodox Church ( OO )

 

[KATHXOYMENOC]

One must take great care to hold as true that which has been BELIEVED EVERYWHERE, ALWAYS, AND BY ALL.

But that is not exactly what St. Vincent of Lerins said. He admitted that it wasn't believed everywhere, always and by all. Rather, he wrote:

[6.] Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.​

Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. XI. Sulpititus Severus, Vincent of Lerins, John Cassian. (132). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.

"EVERYWHERE" = "which the whole Church throughout the world confesses" - i.e., what it now confesses; no mention is made of what it has confessed at times in the past.

"ALWAYS" = "were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers" - but the word "always" is not used in this more specific restatement.

"BY ALL" = "at the least of almost all priests and doctors" - an admission that not all was believed by "all."

 

[Grigorii]

Personally, I cannot accept that the humanity of Jesus Christ was "absorbed" or over shadowed by His divine nature. He has two natures, one is fully divine and one is fully human with no confusion in the person. Just as He has fully a individualized will unto Himself and yet is willing to submit His will to that of His Father.

Great! That is precisely what the Oriental Orhtodox believe in common with us. Monophysitism is a heresy to them too.[/quote]

Gregorios

 

[ClementofRome]

Everybody, take a deep breath....

This is an excellent thread and I have enjoyed following it.

May we continue with a brotherly love.

Forgive me.

Clement

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

With all due respect,

Just as the Roman Church sees itself the "one Church" thus the division between the EO and OO.

Personally, I cannot accept that the humanity of Jesus Christ was "absorbed" or over shadowed by His divine nature. He has two natures, one is fully divine and one is fully human with no confusion in the person. Just as He has fully a individualized will unto Himself and yet is willing to submit His will to that of His Father.

I think you're referring to Eutychian monophysitism?

If so, please refer to the Confession in the Coptic liturgy:

Confession

 

[orthodoxy]

In tonights Orthodox Church in America Vespers service in the hymns of "Lord I call upon the hear me" we sang this in the 8th tone "the one Son born of the virgin, the perfect God and the perfect Man in the One person"

We sing what we believe. We believe what we sing.

the unworthy

kyril

 

[orthodoxy]

With all due respect

from what you said it seem that you don't know anything about the Oriental Orthodox Church

Who told you that we believe that the humanity of Jesus Christ is obsorbed or over shadowed by his divinity ??!!!!!!!

we Anathematise Eutachy by the way and what you said is Eutachy 's theology and we refuse it

you should study more about the Orthodox Church ( OO )

Then why the split?

I know what the orthodox Church believes.

So why is the Oriental Orthodox Church not considered in the Eastern Church. Explain the division since I am ignorant and need edumication.

the unworthy and unedumicated

kyril