What is the difference between the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church?

~Anastasia~

† Handmaid of God †
Dec 1, 2013
31,133
17,452
Florida panhandle, USA
✟922,745.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
Most of the bad attitudes on the part of orientals comes from patriotic members who hold that ethnicity. Pretty much every convert I've met in orientak orthodoxy believes we need to move on. But it's easy for us, we don't have heritage involved in this. At the time of Chalcedon my ancestors were likely running around naked chasing neighbouring nations women.

Sometimes I want the orientals to build a bridge and move on. But it will take time. From my readings, I can't tell the difference between the two definitions. However, some. Copts I know accept John of Antioch as orthodox, and even some now are starting to accept criticisms of St Cyril. There is even some who wish to try and reconcile with the Assyrians, although that's unlikely to happen until metropolitan Bishoy goes to jesus

Hello Sirlanky, and welcome to CF, and welcome to TAW! We are glad that you've joined us. I pray you will be blessed by being here.

I don't know anything about the sentiments you write about here, but it does tend to take Orthodox a looonnnnggggg time to get around to changing anything, doesn't it? ;)

I do hope you enjoy being here, and we look forward to hearing more from you. :)
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,469
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,676.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I would btw @ArmyMatt like to ask you where you read that, so that I can send them a letter to correct it.

and actually, as I looked, it was the Nestorian Church that openly refused the Formula, and a few splinters that thought St Cyril was selling out.
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
this begs me to ask then what is the issue with Chalcedon in light of Constantinople 2?

As far as I know, there isn't much of one. The fact that Constantinople 2 is a package deal with Chalcedon and the Tome is the problem. While I have not heard anything but good things about Constantinople 2 from every Coptic person I've met, we still will not accept the Tome. (The Copts and Ethiopians have the additional problem that we are particularly against the deposition of our father St. Dioscorus, but this is not a pan-OO position; the Armenian rejection of Chalcedon at the Council of Dvin in 506 had nothing to do with St. Dioscorus, who they have never venerated; rather, it was because the Orthodox Armenians in Persia were being harassed by the Nestorians who in the wake of Chalcedon claimed that the Greeks and Romans now agreed with them, and the Armenians were therefore not Orthodox anymore; HH Catholicos Babken II, writer of the two letters to the Orthodox in Persia that document the immediate history leading up to Dvin, had never heard of Chalcedon until the Nestorians started giving his people trouble in Persia, which gave him occasion to set up a council to examine the veracity of these claims. Upon examining the decisions of Chalcedon and the Tome it had accepted, they rejected it as being an unacceptable deviation from Orthodox Christology.)

So I'm sorry to disagree with wgw or others, but no, it's not about nationalism or ethnicity. The idea that non-Chalcedonianism is an ethnic or nationalistic revolt is simply not credible if you look at the reasons and contexts for the initial rejection, which included cultural differences (e.g., the different use of certain theological terminology in the Alexandrian tradition vs. the Antiochian) but was largely about theology, and what each side was willing to accept or not. Yes, as time passed this form of Christianity came to be associated with nationalism in the places where it predominated (Armenia, Ethiopia, Egypt), but the same is true of the EO communion. This is a point that your own Rev. John Erickson, of SVS, makes with regard to the rubric given for Cheesefare Sunday in your Church, which makes your church's consumption of meat and cheese while the Armenians fast from it a means of refuting the Armenians' "damnable heresy". Give a schism long enough without healing, and you can come up with all sorts of reasons why the other side are the devil's cabana boys.

This is something I see often from Coptic people who seem to like to pretend (or just don't know better...likely just don't know better) that all of our fathers wrote only in Coptic, that Greek was somehow imposed on us by the Byzantines, blahblahblah. It's hogwash of course, but these are explanations after the fact for the more complex reality on the ground (where Greek was a perfectly fine vehicle for spreading non-Chalcedonianism in Egypt for centuries after the schism, until the Copts gradually lost their ability to use it with the encroachment of Arabic), not anything that would have been recognized as true by the people who actually participated in the schism at the time or in its immediate aftermath (for several centuries, at least).
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,469
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,676.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I get your point and I agree with you that it is not political or linguistic, but WHY is Chalcedon not accepted on theological grounds? and I am not talking about petty stuff out there, but what about Chalcedon on theology is so wrong?
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
I'm not sure that I want to get into a protracted discussion on Chalcedon that is likely to get me in trouble or give everyone a headache (in fact, I'm quite sure I don't), but for one there is the question of how the Tome itself may be understood in light of the preexisting anathemas of St. Cyril that had been accepted by the Council of Ephesus. Our fathers saw the Tome as violating the Christological guidelines given there and hence violating Orthodoxy.

Again, I don't see this as a problem in our day, given subsequent corrections and clarifications issued by your church in later councils, but so long as Chalcedon and the Tome it accepted must be accepted too, that doesn't really mean much. I believe that this, not ethnic or national or linguistic differences, is the crux of our estrangement.
 
Upvote 0

Sirlanky

Active Member
Feb 28, 2016
26
10
34
Sydney, Australia
✟15,206.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I feel half way between dzheremi and armymatt. I have even asked my priests why for the sake of reunion don't we just accept chalcedon. But there is this point. If the orientals are fully orthodox In their theology WITHOUT Chalcedon, why do we need to accept the others?
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,469
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,676.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I'm not sure that I want to get into a protracted discussion on Chalcedon that is likely to get me in trouble or give everyone a headache (in fact, I'm quite sure I don't)

I don't think it would if it didn't get into insane detail.

but for one there is the question of how the Tome itself may be understood in light of the preexisting anathemas of St. Cyril that had been accepted by the Council of Ephesus. Our fathers saw the Tome as violating the Christological guidelines given there and hence violating Orthodoxy.

yeah, I know, hence me asking how. especially since Chalcedon begins with St. Cyril and his writings, and affirms that Nestorius as a heretic. so what about the Tome violates Cyrillian Christology (even if you only mention a few things)?

Again, I don't see this as a problem in our day, given subsequent corrections and clarifications issued by your church in later councils, but so long as Chalcedon and the Tome it accepted must be accepted too, that doesn't really mean much. I believe that this, not ethnic or national or linguistic differences, is the crux of our estrangement.

while I agree totally with your last point, I do have to ask what then about Chalcedon is such a big deal if you know that the subsequent Councils clarified what was perceived as wrong?
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,469
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,676.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
If the orientals are fully orthodox In their theology WITHOUT Chalcedon, why do we need to accept the others?

I don't think that is the right question to ask. St Ignatius of Antioch was fully Orthodox without Nicaea. the question is, is Chalcedon heretical or not? if it is, where is the heresy? if not, what reason is there not to accept it?
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
yeah, I know, hence me asking how. especially since Chalcedon begins with St. Cyril and his writings, and affirms that Nestorius as a heretic. so what about the Tome violates Cyrillian Christology (even if you only mention a few things)?

I want to make it clear here before I say anything that I am responding to the question as asked, not teaching against the faith of your church. (Just for anyone out there who might read this and want to argue that it is wrong because XYZ. I do not want to argue, and I will not argue. This is not the debate forum. Nobody is being asked to accept or reject anything they do not already.)

A passage commonly cited as problematic by non-Chalcedonian authors is when the Tome says: "For each form does the acts which belong to it, in communion with the other; the Word, that is, performing what belongs to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what belongs to the flesh; the one of these shines out in miracles, the other succumbs to injuries"

Meanwhile St. Cyril's anathemas say : "If anyone shall divide between two persons or subsistences those expressions which are contained in the Evangelical and Apostolical writings, or which have been said concerning Christ by the Saints, or by himself, and shall apply some to him as to a man separate from the Word of God, and shall apply others to the only Word of God the Father, on the ground that they are fit to be applied to God: let him be anathema."

This was seen by our fathers as an unacceptable division of the One Christ, in violation of what had already been accepted as Orthodox by the previous council.

while I agree totally with your last point, I do have to ask what then about Chalcedon is such a big deal if you know that the subsequent Councils clarified what was perceived as wrong?

Because it was wrong. It taught wrongly, We do not accept it as Orthodox.

Let me put it this way: If Rome were to repent of her errors in a new council which proved its faith as Orthodox to the satisfaction of the Eastern Orthodox, you'd accept it, right? After all, they are Orthodox now, where they were not before.

But what if Rome held such a council, and in approaching the EO about union subsequent to it made it a precondition that the EO accept previous councils from before they had held their error-ending council? I suspect you'd reject it. This is essentially where we are with Chalcedon. Constantinople 2 was your error-ending council. Chalcedon is still rejected, even as we have a much more positive appraisal of Constantinople 2.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Sirlanky

Active Member
Feb 28, 2016
26
10
34
Sydney, Australia
✟15,206.00
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I don't think that is the right question to ask. St Ignatius of Antioch was fully Orthodox without Nicaea. the question is, is Chalcedon heretical or not? if it is, where is the heresy? if not, what reason is there not to accept it?

From an oriental perspective Chalcedon was too open with definitions, and it took another 2 councils to further define things. By the time is was resolved, the schism was permanent
 
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,469
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,676.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
I want to make it clear here before I say anything that I am responding to the question as asked, not teaching against the faith of your church. (Just for anyone out there who might read this and want to argue that it is wrong because XYZ. I do not want to argue, and I will not argue. This is not the debate forum. Nobody is being asked to accept or reject anything they do not already.)

and I want to also second this, that I am asking for clarity, and not arguing either. I respect your honesty and think that this can actually bear some fruit, even if it is just between us fellas.

A passage commonly cited as problematic by non-Chalcedonian authors is when the Tome says: "For each form does the acts which belong to it, in communion with the other; the Word, that is, performing what belongs to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what belongs to the flesh; the one of these shines out in miracles, the other succumbs to injuries"

Meanwhile St. Cyril's anathemas say : "If anyone shall divide between two persons or subsistences those expressions which are contained in the Evangelical and Apostolical writings, or which have been said concerning Christ by the Saints, or by himself, and shall apply some to him as to a man separate from the Word of God, and shall apply others to the only Word of God the Father, on the ground that they are fit to be applied to God: let him be anathema."

This was seen by our fathers as an unacceptable division of the One Christ, in violation of what had already been accepted as Orthodox by the previous council.

this brings me to my next question (or the same only with more stuff for Chalcedon). I must again ask where is the heresy when St. Cyril, in his letter to John of Antioch, states that there is a difference between the two Natures, and that the Lord assumed sufferings in the Flesh while the divinity remained impassable, etc. I bring these up because St. Cyril makes a distinction between the humanity and Divinity, but no division. St. Leo in the Tome and the definition of Chalcedon also says that there is no division. it seems looking at the whole Tome, Leo is only making a distinction, and therefore not violating Cyril.

so again, I have to ask where is the heresy? simply put, since both affirm the distinction of Natures, singleness of Person, and that there is no division.

Let me put it this way: If Rome were to repent of her errors in a new council which proved its faith as Orthodox to the satisfaction of the Eastern Orthodox, you'd accept it, right? After all, they are Orthodox now, where they were not before.

But what if Rome held such a council, and in approaching the EO about union subsequent to it made it a precondition that the EO accept previous councils from before they had held their error-ending council? I suspect you'd reject it. This is essentially where we are with Chalcedon. Constantinople 2 was your error-ending council. Chalcedon is still rejected, even as we have a much more positive appraisal of Constantinople 2.

sure, but Constantinople 2 was not called to show that the error was ended, but rather that the error was never there.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,469
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,676.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
From an oriental perspective Chalcedon was too open with definitions, and it took another 2 councils to further define things. By the time is was resolved, the schism was permanent

no schism is permanent
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
and I want to also second this, that I am asking for clarity, and not arguing either. I respect your honesty and think that this can actually bear some fruit, even if it is just between us fellas.

Sure. May it be so, God-wllling

this brings me to my next question (or the same only with more stuff for Chalcedon). I must again ask where is the heresy when St. Cyril, in his letter to John of Antioch, states that there is a difference between the two Natures, and that the Lord assumed sufferings in the Flesh while the divinity remained impassable, among others. I bring these up because St. Cyril makes a distinction between the humanity and Divinity, but no division. St. Leo in the Tome and the definition of Chalcedon says that there is no division.

so again, I have to ask where is the heresy?

The problem is not in recognizing that there is a difference between the natures. Obviously humanity and divinity are not the same natures, and some things are appropriate to say of divinity (e.g., that it is impassible), and others of humanity. So we have no problem at all with what our father has written, in this letter or in others, concerning the need to distinguish between the two in so far as is healthy and necessary to do so. The problem then is that Chalcedon or rather Leo's Tome which it accepted goes too far in that direction by claiming, contravening the aforementioned anathemas, that this nature does this or receives this, while this nature does this or receives that. Natures do not work this way. As I have heard it put by some in our tradition, this is wrong because natures do not operate separately of the person. If I fall down, I am hurt -- humanity is not hurt. So to say "the flesh receives insults" or "the divinity receives glory" -- well, yes and no, right? Because those who insulted Him insulted not only the suffering servant or only the Lord of Glory, but both, because He is both at all times. There is not and cannot be any division into two within Him, as the union is a true union, wherein the two natures are united and it is no longer appropriate to speak of them separately in the manner in which the Tome does, saying that this form does this and the other does that -- no, it is the person who does this or that, even if the reason He does it is because He has needs or powers appropriate to one or the other (read: the Christ who raised Lazarus from the dead is the same Christ who wept). So to the Oriental mind, one very obvious problem with Chalcedonianism is that it messes with our conception of the incarnation and what happened at/by it. Of course, you are free to say that this is a wrong conception to begin with, but please remember that you asked for our view. This is it, as far as I understand it.

And because of this I suspect we can share many of the same fathers and agree on their writings even as we hold different understandings of the nature(s), because our fathers stressed this unity even when discussing the fact that some things are appropriate to humanity and others to divinity. So that is in our (OO) tradition, too. We just will not do as the Tome does and say that therefore, because humanity and divinity are not the same, those acts which are characteristic of one are done or received by that one (nature, rather than One person, Jesus Christ). St. Athanasius the Apostolic makes this point brilliantly when he writes in On the Incarnation "You must understand, therefore, that when writers on this sacred theme speak of Him as eating and drinking and being born, they mean that the body, as a body, was born and sustained with the food proper to its nature; while God the Word, Who was united with it, was at the same time ordering the universe and revealing Himself through His bodily acts as not man only but God."

I suspect that a Chalcedonian reading of this passage and others like it would see it as affirming the two natures formula that they affirm, but a non-Chalcedonian/OO reading likewise finds support in it, as our father stresses the union that is at the heart of our Christology as being manifested in the acts themselves (this is very much in keeping with the way we talk about Christ in our communion; Christ who is God and man did X; not the human or divine nature did X).

sure, but Constantinople 2 was not called to show that the error was ended, but rather that the error was never there.

As you see it, but again, you asked for an OO perspective. And that perspective is, traditionally, that Chalcedon as a council and the Tome of Leo as a document are erroneous. And I only brought that up as a hypothetical to say that you guys wouldn't do any different in that case than we do in the case of Chalcedon: If you have to accept error in order to have communion, then you're not going to do it. Neither will we. Again, if we were talking about a situation where we were asked to affirm Constantinople 2 but not Chalcedon, I really do suspect that we (or the majority of us) would go for it. But that is just not reality, according to the terms of communion that your own communion set down. We can no more accept Chalcedon than you guys can allow us not to accept it, even if we by and large do accept what came after it as correcting it or annulling it. (It's the aforementioned Henotikon problem all over again.)
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,469
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,676.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The problem then is that Chalcedon or rather Leo's Tome which it accepted goes too far in that direction by claiming, contravening the aforementioned anathemas, that this nature does this or receives this, while this nature does this or receives that. Natures do not work this way.

but St. Cyril said you cannot divide the Two Natures, which St Leo affirms in the Tome. St. Cyril says that He suffered in the Flesh, while His Divinity remained impassable in his letter to John of Antioch.

And because of this I suspect we can share many of the same fathers and agree on their writings even as we hold different understandings of the nature(s), because our fathers stressed this unity even when discussing the fact that some things are appropriate to humanity and others to divinity. So that is in our (OO) tradition, too. We just will not do as the Tome does and say that therefore, because humanity and divinity are not the same, those acts which are characteristic of one are done or received by that one (nature, rather than One person, Jesus Christ). St. Athanasius the Apostolic makes this point brilliantly when he writes in On the Incarnation "You must understand, therefore, that when writers on this sacred theme speak of Him as eating and drinking and being born, they mean that the body, as a body, was born and sustained with the food proper to its nature; while God the Word, Who was united with it, was at the same time ordering the universe and revealing Himself through His bodily acts as not man only but God."

we would agree here and hence my question because the Tome does not only bring up the distinction of natures, but the oneness of the Person and the true Union. he speaks just as much (if not more) of the One Person in Christ than he does the distinctiveness of the natures. remember he was Pope Celestine's Archdeacon and supported Cyril throughout Ephesus, and was the one who commissioned St John Cassian to write against the Nestorian heresy.

again, not arguing, just trying to see where the heresy is and bringing this up since this is not from a vacuum. I guess what I want is something concrete that shows St Leo actually dividing the Natures, and what sets the Tome apart from the earlier Fathers you mentioned who do make the distinction as well? because to there has to be a difference in the Tome and the earlier Fathers, where St Leo takes it a step farther than they did. because you yourself just posted clear distinction in your quote by St Athanasius (and I found a similar one in St Hippolytus of Rome).

I suspect that a Chalcedonian reading of this passage and others like it would see it as affirming the two natures formula that they affirm, but a non-Chalcedonian/OO reading likewise finds support in it, as our father stresses the union that is at the heart of our Christology as being manifested in the acts themselves (this is very much in keeping with the way we talk about Christ in our communion; Christ who is God and man did X; not the human or divine nature did X).

which is what I don't get, that union is at the heart of the Tome as well as mentioned earlier and is also in our language. we have never not affirmed that you can only make the distinction in theory or contemplation, and the Tome certainly does that as well, especially in light of the four apophatic statements.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
The union may be at the heart of your understanding of the Tome, hence why your church was able to approve of it. Our fathers did not see it that way, and frankly even re-reading it today (before I wrote that post), I still don't see it as sufficient in preserving the unity. I'm more than willing to believe that this is what Leo sought to do, and of course what your communion says he did, but this is not the same as agreeing with it. It is insufficient, and to the OO the fact that you guys had an entire subsequent council to sort out what exactly it means and what it doesn't mean proves that it is not sufficiently clear on its own. From the interactions between the Nestorians and the Armenians in Persia after Chalcedon (mentioned already in another post), we can tell that the Nestorians obviously felt it reflected or at least agreed with their Christology which we both (the churches which would later become known as the EO and OO) had already condemned at the previous council, even though obviously that is not the reaction that the Chalcedonians would welcome (given that Nestorius is also anathematized at Chalcedon, as you rightly point out). So there are shades here of the earlier formula of reunion of 433 too, in that its reception by the different peoples determined how suitable it would be to unify the conflicting parties. I do not think that Chalcedon or the Tome are anything to hinge communion on (again, they are too susceptible to misunderstanding, without the correctives issued later), but again, since they are a package deal for the EO (with the corrective council that we agree with), there's no point in even talking about any of this as though it will be any other way than it is.
 
Upvote 0

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,500
13,648
✟426,076.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
I feel that I should note here for the benefit of all reading that to answer ArmyMatt's request for "something concrete that shows St Leo actually dividing the Natures, and what sets the Tome apart from the earlier Fathers you mentioned who do make the distinction as well" would almost definitely push this into a polemical, anti-Chalcedonian thread/argument, which I openly said at the outset of this discussion I am not interested in and will not participate in (not because I'm not anti-Chalcedonian, but because I respect your church enough to not argue against its beliefs on your own board). I mean, it's kind of hard to get into the specifics of why we're anti-Chalcedonian without necessarily involving our beliefs, saints, and histories that in some sense disparage the Chalcedonian faith. It is enough for us that we read the Tome, see the passages about this nature doing this, this nature doing that, and say that this contravenes our understanding of the unity of our Lord Jesus Christ. That is how the Tome goes further than before -- not in recognizing or naming the natures, but in dividing them so that this nature does this and this nature does that. To quote St. Severus of Antioch in one of his letters, "For how will anyone divide walking upon the water? For to run upon the sea is foreign to the human nature, but it is not proper to the divine nature to use bodily feet. Therefore that action is of the incarnate Word, to whom belongs at the same time divine character and human, indivisibly." The Tome may also stress the unity of Christ, but because it does not just speak of some things being appropriate to one nature or the other, but of the natures themselves acting or receiving actions separately (the divinity does/receives X, while the humanity does/receives Y), it has been traditionally understood as going farther than we are comfortable with. Even in the earlier quote from St. Athanasius the Apostolic, the great saint says "the body, as a body, was born and sustained with food proper to its nature" -- it does not say "the humanity receives food" or "the humanity is fed", because again, humanity is a nature, not a person, and natures do not act on their own (how crazy would it sound to say "God's divinity created" or "Jesus' humanity wept"?). I'm not sure what to say if this difference is still not clear to you guys. Perhaps we just see things too differently.

So as to bow out from this discussion on an irenic note (in the sense of being less divisive, I hope), here are some thoughts by a priest of the Coptic Orthodox Church in Britain, Fr. Peter Farrington, on the Christiology of St. Severus, which make clear what we do and do not object to when speaking of the nature of Christ. I do not doubt that it will be agreeable to you as EO (at least in some aspects, if not totally), even if we continue to disagree on whether or not the Tome crosses the line:

"We should object, then, with Severus, to those who divide Christ and not those who name the natures of which Christ is. There is no error in stating that Christ is of
humanity and divinity, and that in union these differences persist. But there is error in setting up a humanity and a divinity with their own separate activities as though there
were Christ the man and the Word of God, each perfect in a simple humanity or divinity and only united in some external manner. Following Severus' argument we see that it is not the saying that Emmanuel has two natures which is condemned, but saying that he has these two natures and then describing their activities separately, as though there was God the Word acting as God in heaven and Christ the man acting as man on earth. Severus allows the naming of the natures. We can and must confess that Christ is human and divine, but we must not allow this Orthodox confession to be perverted such that we describe a man and the Word of God separately. It is God the Word who is this man Jesus."
 
Upvote 0

jckstraw72

Doin' that whole Orthodox thing
Dec 9, 2005
10,160
1,143
39
South Canaan, PA
Visit site
✟64,422.00
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Engaged
Politics
US-Republican
it's been a few years since i read the Tome, but IIRC, at the end it does sound like he is saying nature is the agent of activity rather than the Person, but earlier in the Tome he demonstrates a proper, orthodox understanding. Seeing as St. Leo was indeed capable of speaking with exactitude, i see no reason to not interpret the latter parts in accordance with the earlier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ArmyMatt
Upvote 0

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,469
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,676.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
The union may be at the heart of your understanding of the Tome, hence why your church was able to approve of it. Our fathers did not see it that way, and frankly even re-reading it today (before I wrote that post), I still don't see it as sufficient in preserving the unity. I'm more than willing to believe that this is what Leo sought to do, and of course what your communion says he did, but this is not the same as agreeing with it. It is insufficient, and to the OO the fact that you guys had an entire subsequent council to sort out what exactly it means and what it doesn't mean proves that it is not sufficiently clear on its own. From the interactions between the Nestorians and the Armenians in Persia after Chalcedon (mentioned already in another post), we can tell that the Nestorians obviously felt it reflected or at least agreed with their Christology which we both (the churches which would later become known as the EO and OO) had already condemned at the previous council, even though obviously that is not the reaction that the Chalcedonians would welcome (given that Nestorius is also anathematized at Chalcedon, as you rightly point out). So there are shades here of the earlier formula of reunion of 433 too, in that its reception by the different peoples determined how suitable it would be to unify the conflicting parties. I do not think that Chalcedon or the Tome are anything to hinge communion on (again, they are too susceptible to misunderstanding, without the correctives issued later), but again, since they are a package deal for the EO (with the corrective council that we agree with), there's no point in even talking about any of this as though it will be any other way than it is.

I will totally grant you that the language may have been insufficient for the more hardcore Cyrillians (obviously it was), but I just wanted to get a better understanding of where you all see the issue, especially if I interact with the Orientals. so thanks for this, you certainly helped clarify some things for me. and I agree to respect your POV here, and I don't wanna push.

I feel that I should note here for the benefit of all reading that to answer ArmyMatt's request for "something concrete that shows St Leo actually dividing the Natures, and what sets the Tome apart from the earlier Fathers you mentioned who do make the distinction as well" would almost definitely push this into a polemical, anti-Chalcedonian thread/argument, which I openly said at the outset of this discussion I am not interested in and will not participate in (not because I'm not anti-Chalcedonian, but because I respect your church enough to not argue against its beliefs on your own board). I mean, it's kind of hard to get into the specifics of why we're anti-Chalcedonian without necessarily involving our beliefs, saints, and histories that in some sense disparage the Chalcedonian faith.

and I will give you this. you were courteous to my questions, and your answers caused me to look into my books and such, which was what I wanted. so as not to turn this into anything polemical, I will not push any further.

"We should object, then, with Severus, to those who divide Christ and not those who name the natures of which Christ is. There is no error in stating that Christ is of
humanity and divinity, and that in union these differences persist. But there is error in setting up a humanity and a divinity with their own separate activities as though there
were Christ the man and the Word of God, each perfect in a simple humanity or divinity and only united in some external manner. Following Severus' argument we see that it is not the saying that Emmanuel has two natures which is condemned, but saying that he has these two natures and then describing their activities separately, as though there was God the Word acting as God in heaven and Christ the man acting as man on earth. Severus allows the naming of the natures. We can and must confess that Christ is human and divine, but we must not allow this Orthodox confession to be perverted such that we describe a man and the Word of God separately. It is God the Word who is this man Jesus."

and to end on a really happy note, I don't see any error in this statement, and I think that our Church (and St Leo) would agree.

see, we can get along
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ArmyMatt

Regular Member
Supporter
Jan 26, 2007
41,469
20,025
41
Earth
✟1,455,676.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
and for something concrete in the Tome or Chalcedon, and I don't think it would be polemical at all, feel free to PM me if you like (no worries if not). like I said, I think the discussion has been very courteous so far.
 
Upvote 0