Orthodox Unity Organization of Easterners & Orientals

Logos · Post by **Logos** » Sat 8 February 2003 2:14 pm

Orthodox Unity is an organisation of Eastern and Oriental Orthodox
Christians which seeks to make available positive information about the
dialogue between the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches.

What is the Joint Commission

For almost 40 years a dialogue has been taking place between the Eastern
and Oriental Orthodox Churches. This now has an official status and a Joint
Commission of bishops and theologians has been studying the issues which
have caused the separation of our Churches.

Our Mission

The Joint Commission urges a process of education and information to take
place. We hope to be a small part of that process by sharing information,
news and documentation about the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches on
this site.

http://www.orthodoxunity.org/

I would encourage everyone to check out this site. My question goes to the ROCOR members of this board, how do you feel about this?

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Sat 8 February 2003 2:39 pm

This "dialogue of falsehood" is a major reason I am turning to a more traditional body (ie. ROCOR). Justin of Serbia said, last century, that: "there can be no 'dialogue of love' without the dialogue of truth." From what I have read and seen with my own eyes, there is no dialogue of truth here; and what's more, things have gone way beyond a simple "dialogue": there is intercommunion, concelebration, etc. with the monophysites. I do not say that this--as yet--constitutes heresy or even a great fall; some are certainly on the edge of the cliff, though.

Logos · Post by **Logos** » Sat 8 February 2003 4:35 pm

Articles regarding Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy
One Physis or Hypostasis of God the Logos Incarnate

Discussion about Father John Romanides' Paper

FATHER MEYENDORFF: I am glad that Father Romanides speaks this time in this positive way about the Tome of Leo, and I hope the non-Chalcedonians will read him in this light. The praises of Leo in the Acts of Chalcedon should be seen as a conciliatory move in the light of the anti-Roman bias of the Chalcedonian Canons.

FATHER ROMANIDES: It is my opinion that the adoption of Trinitarian terms in Christology was in the beginning rather accidental. At the Council of Alexandria in 362, presided over by St. Athanasius the Great it was decided to adopt the Cappadocian manner of distinguishing between hypostasis and ousia When speaking about the Holy Trinity. No decision was made concerning the term physis which, until the Cappadocian distinction hypostasis and ousia. The outcome of this was that the Cappadocian tradition ended up by equating physis with ousia, while the Alexandrian tradition equated physis with hypostasis. The accidental nature of this equating of pbysis with either hypostasis or ousia must be taken seriously into consideration in order to understand the history of the Christological debates between 448 and 451 as described in my paper. In the self-justifying heat of polemics after 451 each side claimed a monopoly of understanding of the precise meaning of the term physis which from the point of view of the history of dogma is untenable. Failure to realize this can only lead us back to the ridiculous debate concerning the superiority of one s own Fathers over the Fathers of the other side. We must be very clear about the fact that the Chalcedonians means two ousiai when they speak of two physeis after the union, whereas the non-Chalcedonians, as pointed out very clearly by Father Samuel's paper also, do not mean one ousia when they speak of one physis after the union.

FATHER MEYENDORFF: Physis was seen by all as signifying concrete being. The Antiochene Christology insisted upon the idea that the concrete actions of Christ can be variously ascribed to humanity and divinity, the subject being one-the Christ.

FATHER ROMANIDES: But Cyril would attribute everything to the Logos in the flesh, not simply to the Christ as is done by the Nestorianizers and pointed out in my paper.

FATHER VERGHESE: What do we mean by Christ being in two ousiai after the union ?

FATHER ROMANIDES: In both the Cappadocian and Alexandrian traditions the ousia of God is beyond all categories of thought in a radical manner and therefore not only beyond definition of any kind, but also beyond the predication of any name whatsoever, to such an extent that God is hyper-onymos, hyper-ousios and even hyper-theos. Within this Biblical tradition the ousia of man also remains a mystery. Only the energies and rowers of both God and man can be known. In this sense the term ousia is used not in the Greek philosophical sense of the definable and knowable immutable inner reality of a thing, but as concrete unknowable reality known only in its acts. In contrast to the Antiochene and Latin tradition (the Augustinian one), the term ousia as applied to the Holy Trinity by the Cappadocian and Alexandrian Fathers is neither a platonic superstratal genus, nor an Aristotelian substratal material in which the hypostases or persons of the Holy Trinity participate. Therefore, Christ being in two ousiai could only mean that our Lord, the Only-Begotten Son of God, exists in two concrete, yet undefinable and perfect and complete realities, each of which is by nature proper to Himself and distinguishable in the union in thought alone. The term in two natures is of Latin provenance and was translated by the Cappadocian oriented Fathers of Chalcedon by the phrase in two physeis. Under more normal conditions the Alexandrians might have accepted the term in their own theological language as in two ousiai. It is only in this anti-Eutychian sense that the non-Chalcedonians must understand the term in two physeis whose only intent is to preclude one ousia after the union.

FATHER SAMUEL: I am quite pleased with this paper of Father Romanides from several points of view. First, I am pleasantly surprised that Theodoret is not defended by the paper. Secondly, Ephesus (449) is not condemned outright. The paper is much fairer at this point than most Western church historians. Some difficulties remain for anyone reading the minutes of the Council. They do not give me the same impression as they give Father Romanides. Take, for instance, the Third Letter of Cyril to Nestorius with the Twelve Anathemas. At Chalcedon it was not read. The imperial commissioners referred to the two canonical letters of Cyril read and approved at Ephesus in 431. But the letters of Cyril read at Chalcedon were only his Second Letter to Nestorius and his Letter to John of Antioch, or the Formulary of Reunion of 433. So from the point of view of reading, the Third Letter with the Anathemas was passed over in silence. There were two references to it at Chalcedon. One: the intervention of Atticus of Nicopolis who wanted to compare the Tome of Leo with the Twelve Anathemas. And two, the Chalcedonian Formula includes it, by implication, among the documents of the Faith.

How, then, can Father Romanides say that the Twelve Chapters of Cyril were in the mind of the Council when it accepted the Tome of Leo?

FATHER ROMANIDES: Father Samuel is correct in saying that the Third Letter of St. Cyril to Nestorius containing the Twelve Chapters was at first passed over in silence. However, after the reading of Leo's Tome the successful demand, was made that it be compared with the Twelve Chapters of St. Cyril in order to see whether or not it was Orthodox. We should not overlook the fact that the overwhelming majority of bishops at Chalcedon were Cyrillians and so were able to force the issue of the Twelve Chapters as the criterion of Leo' s faith. After Chalcedon even Leo attempted to calm his enemies with the claim that he himself was absolutely Cyrillian (see e.g. his Ep. cxvli, 3). I think one should simply check the references to the minutes in my paper for documentation of the evaluations made.

FATHER SAMUEL: I am glad to hear you say that the Twelve Chapters were accepted by Chalcedon, though this is far from clear in the minutes. In the matter of lbas, for instance, the Roman delegates said that they had read his letter to Maris the Persian and that in spite of it they considered him Orthodox.

FATHER ROMANIDES: But Ibas was reinstated on the basis of his formal acceptance, sincere or not, of the Twelve Chapters.

FATHER SAMUEL: Besides, if l may continue, there is no basis for the statement that Dioscorus accepted Eutyches into communion if by this a serious charge is intended to be made against Dioscorus. There are several difficulties here. In the first place, we have to clarify the meaning of the word "communion' or koinonia. It can mean either Eucharistic communion or simply friendship and support. What is to be proved, if it can be raised as a charge, is that between the Home Synod of Constantinople in 448 and the second Council of Ephesus in 449 Dioscorus offered Eutyches Eucharistic communion. Do we have any evidence for it? Secondly, in none of the petitions against Dioscorus presented to the Council of Chalcedon was this mentioned. The only reference to it is found in the declaration against Dioscorus made by the Roman delegation. They said that Dioscorus had offered koinonia to Eutyches before the latter was rehabilitated at Ephesus in 449, without specifying what they meant by the word koinonia. Thirdly, while stating why Dioscorus had been condemned, Anatolius of Constantinople did not mention this as a charge against Dioscorus. Thus if at all one has to take the words of the Roman delegation seriously, they mean only that Dioscorus supported Eutyches.

But we appreciate your paper and its general trend.

FATHER ROMANIDES: In this regard the only point I wish to make in my paper is that Dioscorus supported Eutythes as one who accepts the double consubstantiality of the Only-Begotten Son of God. Only this can explain why Dioscorus Orthodoxy was upheld at Chalcedon. On the other hand, Dioscorus was deposed for excommunicating Leo and also for acting uncanonically. I was not concerned specifically with the type of support Eutyches received from Dioscorus, although this is in itself of great importance.

BISHOP SARKISSIAN: In our new effort which aims at a deeper and more adequate understanding of the Council of Chalcedon than what we have been accustomed to in the past, we must not overlook the whole emotional, psychological climate in which the Council evolved and the political factors and tensions which were operative elements in the course of the Council. As the great majority of the bishops were Cyrillians in their theological thinking, it was strange that the Tome of Leo was taken as a standard formulation of Christology. There are several other aspects in the minutes of the Council which need to be taken into consideration in a well-balanced presentation and evaluation of the spirit and the content of the Council. In this paper, some important aspects, such as the, role of Leo's Tome, the rehabilitation of Theodoret and Ibas are overlooked and only the positive elements and aspects have been taken into account. We need a fuller evaluation of the Council as a historical event.

FATHER ROMANIDES: I am surprised at some of the claims of oversight, since much of my paper is devoted to the role of Leo' s Tome, the Christology of Theodoret and its relation to Leo' s Christology, and the manner in which Theodoret and Ibas were rehabilitated at Chalcedon. I am also amazed that at this point in our conversations Leo' s Tome is still referred to as a standard formulation of Christology at Chalcedon. It is easy for you to use the Latin interpretation of Chalcedon as a stick against us, but if we are to get anywhere you will have to take the Greek Chalcedonian interpretation of the place of Leo's Tome at the Fourth Council more seriously.

DR. KHELLA: In interpreting the Acts of Chalcedon it is unrealistic to expect agreement on our two sides. This paper is historically more or less accurate in, what it says, but the data have been chosen from a particular perspective. As Bishop Sarkissian said, we need a more balanced study of the Acts. As for a few inaccuracies, e.g. on page 83, it is not true to say that Severus was the first to agree on two natures "in thought." Timothy Aelurus was just as correct in this regard, also Peter the Iberian and others. On pages 87-90, I feel that the role of Leo at Chalcedon should be clarified. The numbers given of bishops at Chalcedon are often legendary. Perhaps there were more than 360 bishops in fact, of whom only 7 were from the West. Two North Africans who were fleeing from the invasions were by accident at Chalcedon. There was also the Apocrisarius of Leo in Constantinople. Two others from the West spoke no Greek. These were the ones who wanted the Tome of Leo to be read.

The letter was read in a smaller committee in which only 23 bishops were present. Latin Acts have different numbers from the Greek Acts; but the Tome was not read in the second session. The session of l3th October is difficult to regard as a full session.

FATHER BOROVOY: I was afraid of this entry into the jungle of details from which there may be no easy way out. I wanted rather to count on my fingers the achievements of this day. Father Meyendorff' s last two points in his paper are a definite achievement. When I heard Father Samuel saying "we are not monophysites," this was another achievement. When Bishop Sarkissian spoke of the communicatio idiomatum this was another achievement again. When finally I heard Professor Karmiris I felt we were very close to each other. It seems we should be able on this basis to find a uniting formula. Perhaps we are too enthusiastic and we should speak a little bit as Professor Florovsky did (as advocatus diabolus). I would continue in that negative line. Is there a dialogue here, or a dual monologue? We sincerely accept the defense of our non-Chalcedonian brethren for their past. Our side can also present a similar defense. If we take this line, the next step will be polemics. We say we are individual theologians. I consider myself as such. My Church sent me here to speak on her behalf- not for polemics, but for unity. I am here to find the common ground as suggested in Professor Karmiris paper. All contributions on the Chalcedonian side bear an ecumenical spirit. They seek a meeting point, and even perhaps went further. The spirit of Cyril is strong. We are not against him. But we are the Church, but not the church of Cyril or Leo or Theodoret or anybody else. The Church is above them all. We need not accept everything of Cyril. His fundamental Christology is important; but no need to reject Leo and Theodoret in their positive contributions.

Historically, we should not seek to defend our own sides. History has no angels of light, nor purely dark devils. In history we find men acting, holy men, to be sure, but still men. Even in Nestorius there are many positive aspects. We must recognize both the merit and the weakness of both sides. The Holy Spirit works in the Church as a whole.

We must look for the ground of unity. The details can be worked out by a commission.

PROFESSOR ROMANIDES: There is no doubt, as Bishop Sarkissian and Professor Khella point out, that my paper is written from a certain point of view. It only happens that this point of view is that of the overwhelming majority of the Council which accepted Leo' s Tome only in the light of St. Cyril's Twelve Chapters. That this should be the normal outcome at Chalcedon cannot be surprising when one takes seriously the historical fact that the Latins and Antiochenes, who were the only ones who unconditionally supported the Tome, were a small minority at the Council.

I am very happy to hear that Severus was not the first one on the non-Chalcedonian side who could accept two natures tei theoriai monei after the union. There are no indications from the minutes of the Ephesine Council of 449 that Dioscoros could accept this. Nevertheless, I should like to point out that I was not asked to write a book on Chalcedon, but only ten pages which became seventeen. The purpose of the paper did not include any discussion of such technical problems concerning the number of sessions, bishops, etc. I Cannot accept the idea that Session II could have debated Leo' s Tome without it having first been read. The cruciality of the debate over Leo' s Tome at Session II can be seen in the fact that the bishops were given five days in which to examine St. Leo' s faith in the light of St. Cyril's Twelve Chapters. Session IV continue the discussion and the acceptance of Leo's Tome only in the light of St,. Cyril is clearly seen in the recording opinions of the bishops and reflected in the Chalcedonian definition itself. These are incontrovertible facts and no manipulation of the minutes can mitigate their importance.

I think a very basic difficulty which we Chalcedonians of the Greek tradition face is that there is a peculiar theological alliance between the Latin (including Protestant) and non-Chalcedonian scholars in regard to Chalcedon. For the same reasons that the Westerners can accept Chalcedon, the non-Chalcedonians reject Chalcedon. Both sides try to prove that Chalcedon rejected the Twelve Chapters of St. Cyril and accepted Leo' s Tome either as a correction (so say the Westerners) or as a distortion (so say the non-Chalcedonians) of Cyrillian Christology. Contrary to both these approaches (which do not represent the central tradition of Chalcedon) the Chalcedonian Greeks read the documents of Chalcedon in the light of Ephesus I (431) and Constantinople II (553). The usual Latin and non-Chalcedonian picture whereby our Illyrian, Thracian, Asian, Pontian, Cappadocian, Palestinian, and Egyptian Fathers are presented as capitulating before a few Latin and Antiocliene bishops is caricature and not history.

In regard to the welcome remarks of Father Borovoy I would like to add that my paper is not a defense of Chalcedon, whose short comings I try to indicate, nor is it a defense of the non-Chalcedonian position. Rather it is an attempt to understand how the two traditions survived the complexities of history while always maintaining essentially the same Orthodox faith. Such a study so obviously calls for the tracing in history of the common central intuition of faith and doctrine which could not be distorted by the tragedies of our respective histories. This fact is living testimony to the meaning of continuity in truth which is not imposed by any external authority but which is the fruit of communion with the source of truth. To try to avoid the complexities of history when dealing with each other can lead only to a false sentimentalism which can never and will never lead to unity and can be no more effective than an ostrich burying her head in the earth to solve her immediate problems. Whether we like it or not we are christologically the Church of Cyril because Cyril's Christology is that of the Bible, the Fathers, and the Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils. The anti-Cyrillian works of Theodoret on Christology were condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council and Leo' s Tome was never accepted as a definition of faith. Cyril's Twelve Chapters are definitions of faith.

Justin Kissel · Post by **Justin Kissel** » Sat 8 February 2003 5:05 pm

Father John Romanides also writes about this elsewhere. As I wrote on the Orthodox "Indiana List," I really can't say much about it. (In fact, I had written a response to an editorial article on Orthodox News last week on the subject of these reunion attempts, but in the end re-emailed them and asked them not to publish it. It's not really my place to be making discourses about this subject). However, now that I've said at least something (in the above post), I should clarify why I had such a strong reaction. From what I've read, if and when the groups "come together," the monophysite representatives have let it be known that:

They will not accept Orthodox saints (such as Saint Leo) as being orthodox saints. They will, at best, not call them heretics in public.
They will not reject the monophysite heretics that they currently count as Church Fathers and saints.
They will not accept the Ecumenical Councils that the Orthodox Church accepts, and they especially and most assuredly will not accept the Council of Chalcedon.

I'm not against seeking communion with them-- in fact, being in actuality (ontologically) the God of love, the Church by nature is open to reconciliation. It has to be a reconciliation of love and truth though, for where the truth is lacking, there can be no true love (or true reconciliation) either.

Logos · Post by **Logos** » Sat 8 February 2003 5:42 pm

You make some good points Paradosis. I guess I am leary of re-unification in general, especially when many of the people who support them are the same ones that talk about the ordination of women or using economia to excess. Another interesting thing I have noticed is that many Non-chalcedonians are saying that they have never been monophysites and that the Non-chalcedonians have been misunderstood all along.

Monophysitism: Reconsidered
Code: Select all
                        Fr. Matthias F. Wahba
                 St. Antonius Coptic Orthodox Church
                         Hayward, California
                                 USA
Introduction:

The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, in which I am a priest, is one of
the Oriental Orthodox Churches. These churches are the Coptic, Armenian,
Syrian, Ethiopian, and the Malankara Indian Churches. The common element
among them is their non-acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon of AD

Accordingly they prefer to be called "Non-Chalcedonian Orthodox
Churches."

The Council of Chalcedon caused a big schism within the church which lasted
until the present. In addition, after the Arab invasion in the seventh
century, the churches lost communication with each other. Through this long
period, the non-Chalcedonians were accused of Eutychianism, and called
"Monophysites", meaning that they believe in one single nature of our Lord
Jesus Christ. They never accepted this idea considering it a heresy. The
purpose of this paper is to reconsider the issue.

Misunderstanding

Several publications reflect such an attitude. In The Oxford Dictionary of
Byzantium, for instance, Alexander Kazhdan shows monophysitism as a
"religious movement that originated in the first half of the 5th C. as a
reaction against the emphasis of Nestorianism on the human nature of the
incarnate Christ." The Encyclopedia of the Early Church caries an entry on
"monophysitism" where Manlio Simonetti writes, "The term monophysites
indicates those who admitted a single nature in Christ, rather than two,
human and divine, as the Council of Chalcedon (451) sanctioned." Then he
gives examples of Apollinarius and Eutyches, and goes on to mention St. Cyril
the Great as having a "Monophysite Christology". Furthermore, in the Coptic
Encyclopedia, W.H.C. Frend defines monophystism as a doctrine:
Code: Select all
  opposed to  the orthodox doctrine  that He (Christ) is one person
  and has two natures.....  The monophysites hold....  that the two
  natures  of Christ were united at  the Incarnation in  such a way
  that  the one Christ  was  essentially divine although He assumed
  from  the  Virgin Theotokos   the  flesh and  attributes  of man.
Now, what is the actual belief of the Church of Alexandria and the other
non-Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches on the nature of the Lord Jesus Christ?

Common Declaration:

In May 1973 H.H. Pope-Shenouda III of Alexandria visited H.H. Pope Paul VI of
Rome. Their Common Declaration says:
Code: Select all
   We confess that our Lord and God and Savior and King of us all,
   Jesus  Christ,  is perfect  God  with  respect to His divinity,
   perfect man  with respect to His humanity.  In Him His divinity
   is united  with His humanity  in a  real, perfect union without
   mingling, without  commixtion, without  confusion,      without
   alteration, without division, without separation.
After fifteen centuries, the two prelates declare a common faith in the
nature of Christ, the issue which caused the schism of the church in the
Council of Chalcedon. This will lead us to throw some light on that council.

Monophysitism and the Council of Chalcedon

1- According to some Scholars, there, was no need for it, but politics played
a big role. "It was only under constant pressure from the Emperor Marcian
that the Fathers of Chalcedon agreed to draw a new formula of belief."

2- The different expressions of the one faith are due in large part to
non-theological issues, such as "unfortunate circumstances, cultural
differences and the difficulty of translating terms." It is debated whether
the opposition to Chalcedon was out of a Christological issue or an attempt
to assert Coptic and Syrian identity against the Byzantine.

3- Ecclesiastical politics had been very confused ever since the legislation,
in the Council of 381, of a primacy of honor for Constantinople, the New
Rome," second only to that of the old Rome. It seems that both Rome and the
Emperors used the Council of Chalcedon to carry out their respective plans:
Rome for asserting its claim for primacy over the Church and the Emperors for
trying to bring the entire Church in the East under the jurisdiction of the
See of Constantinople.

4- No one can deny the disadvantages of the imperial interventions in the
dispute. Most probably, Chalcedon's decisions and terms would have been
different if the Emperor Marcian and his wife Pulcheria had not intervened.
Since 450, they were gathering signatures for the Tome of Leo, the bishop of
Rome. Many bishops of Chalcedon approved it only as a concession to the
bishop whom the imperial authority supported.

5- The definitions of the Tome were composed in a way that it could be
interpreted by different persons, each in his own way. It is known that
Nestorius, who was still alive in 451, accepted the Tome of Leo, while the
Alexandrines rejected it.

6- The Council of Chalcedon, which is believed to have condemned Eutyches,
did not deal with him but with Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alexandria. Eutyches
himself was not present at the council. Scholars state that Dioscorus was
deprived of office on procedural grounds and not on account of erroneous
belief. At Chalcedon Dioscorus strongly declared, "If Eutyches holds notions
disallowed by the doctrines of the Church, he deserves not only punishment
but even the fire. But my concern is for the catholic and apostolic faith,
not for any man whomsoever." The evidence is sufficient for us to look for
other reasons for his condemnation. Rome was annoyed by the extraordinary
vitality and activity of the Church of Alexandria and its patriarch.

7- As soon as the members of the council had assembled, the legates of Rome
demanded that Dioscorus be banished on account of the order of the bishop of
Rome whom they called, "the head of all churches". When the imperial
authorities asked for a charge to justify the demand, one of the legates said
that he "dared to conduct a council without the authorization of the
apostolic see, a thing which has never happened and which ought not to
happen." As a matter of fact, the Council of 381 had been held without the
participation, not to say the authorization, of the bishop of Rome, and the
Council of 553 against his wishes. It is evident that the delegates intended
by the words, "the head of all churches" to assert the claim of Rome of
ecumenical supremacy over the church.

8- Chalcedon rejected the Council of 449, and Leo of Rome considered it as
latrocinium, a council of robbers, a title which "has stuck for all time."
This may uncover the intention behind such an attitude. A council which
ignored Rome's authority, robbing its claim of supremacy, was not for Leo a
church council but a meeting of robbers. The Council of Chalcedon, without
even examining the issue, denounced the Council of 449, putting the entire
responsibility for its decrees exclusively on Dioscorus. Only one hundred and
four years later, the decision, not of Chalcedon, but of the so called
latrocinium was justified. The Council of Constantinople in 553 anathematized
Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas of Edessa, and condemned
their Three Chapters. It is remarkable that the desire of the Emperor
Justinian to reconcile the non-Chalcedonian churches was behind the decree.

Two Different Traditions

Dioscorus, then, was not a heretic. The majority of the bishops who attended
the Council of Chalcedon, as scholars indicate, believed that the traditional
formula of faith received from St. Athanasius was the "one nature of the Word
of God." This belief is totally different from the Eutychian concept of the
single nature (i.e. Monophysite). The Alexandrian theology was by no means
docetic. Neither was it Apollinarian, as stated clearly. It seems that the
main problem of the Christological formula was the divergent interpretation
of the issue between the Alexandrian and the Antiochian theology. While
Antioch formulated its Christology against Apollinarius and Eutyches,
Alexandria did against Arius and Nestorius. At Chalcedon, Dioscorus refused
to affirm the "in two natures" and insisted on the "from two natures."
Evidently the two conflicting traditions had not discovered an agreed
theological standpoint between them.

Mia Physis

The Church of Alexandria considered as central the Christological mia physis
formula of St. Cyril one incarnate nature of God the Word". The Cyrillian
formula was accepted by the Council of Ephesus in 431. It was neither
nullified by the Reunion of 433, nor condemned at Chalcedon. On the contrary,
it continued to be considered an orthodox formula. Now what do the
non-Chalcedonians mean by the mia physis, the "one incarnate nature?". They
mean by mia one, but not "single one" or "simple numerical one," as some
scholars believe. There is a slight difference between mono and mia. While
the former suggests one single (divine) nature, the latter refers to one
composite and united nature, as reflected by the Cyrillian formula. St. Cyril
maintained that the relationship between the divine and the human in Christ,
as Meyendorff puts it, "does not consist of a simple cooperation, or even
interpenetration, but of a union; the incarnate Word is one, and there could
be no duplication of the personality of the one redeemer God and man."

Mia Physis and Soteriology

"The Alexandrian Christology", writes Frances Young, "is a remarkably clear
and consistent construction, especially when viewed within its soteriological
context. Mia physis, for the Alexandrians, is. essential for salvation. The
Lord is crucified, even though His divinity did not suffer but His humanity
did. The sacrifice of the Cross is attributed to the Incarnate Son of God,
and thus has the power of salvation.

Common Faith

It is evident that both the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians agree on the
following points:

1- They all condemn and anathematize Nestorius, Apollinarius and Eutyches.

2- The unity of the divinity and humanity of Christ was realized from the
moment of His conception, without separation or division and also without
confusing or changing.

3- The manhood of Christ was real, perfect and had a dynamic presence.

4- Jesus Christ is one Prosopon and one Hypostasis in real oneness and not
mere conjunction of natures; He is the Incarnate Logos of God.

5- They all accept the communicatio idiomatum (the communication of idioms),
attributing all the deeds and words of Christ to the one hypostasis, the
Incarnate Son of God.

Recent Efforts for Unity

In recent times, members of the Chalcedonian and non-Chalcedonian Orthodox
Churches have met together coming to a clear understanding that both families
have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological
faith.

In 1964 a fresh dialogue began at the University of Aarhus in Denmark. This
was followed by meetings at Bristol in 1967, Geneva in 1970 and Addis Ababa
in 1971. These were a series of non-official consultations which served as
steps towards mutual understanding.

The official consultations in which concrete steps were taken began in 1985
at Chambesy in Geneva. The second official consultation was held at the
monastery of Saint Bishoy in Wadi-El-Natroun, in Egypt in June 1989. The
outcome of this latter meeting was of historical dimensions, since in this
meeting the two families of Orthodoxy were able to agree on a Christological
formula, thus ending the controversy regarding Christology which has lasted
for more than fifteen centuries.

In September 1990 the two families of Orthodoxy signed an agreement on
Christology, and recommendations were presented to the different Orthodox
Churches, to lift the anathemas and enmity of the past, after revising the
results of the dialogues. If both agreements are accepted by the various
Orthodox Churches, the restoration of communion will be very easy at all
levels, even as far as sharing one table in the Eucharist.

As for its part, the Coptic Orthodox Church Synod, presided by HH Pope
Shenouda III, has agreed to lift the anathemas, but this will not take place
unless this is performed bilaterally, possibly by holding a joint ceremony.

Conclusion

I conclude that the term "monophysitism" does not reflect the real belief of
the non-Chalcedonians. They prefer not to be called "monophysites," as far as
the term may be misunderstood. They believe in one nature "out of two", "one
united nature", a "composite nature" or "one incarnate nature and not a
"single nature". There is no evidence that the term was used during the fifth
century. Most probably it. was introduced later in a polemic way on behalf
of the Chalcedonian Churches. However, considering the past, the
non-Chalcedonians are better to be called "mia-physites" than
"monophysites." Recently, in so far as they are coming to be understood
correctly, they are to be called simply "orthodox", the same belief with
their brothers the Chalcedonian Orthodox Churches. This could be an imminent
fruit of the unity of all Orthodox Churches.

Nektarios14 · Post by **Nektarios14** » Sat 8 February 2003 11:19 pm

2. They will not reject the monophysite heretics that they currently count as Church Fathers and saints.

My spiritual father (a very Traditional Greek priest) told me that in this case the people in questions could be placed in the same catagory as blessed Augustine...not fully condemned heretics but only certain teachings. I don't personally understand the difference and hopefully if I remember (being a new Orthodox gives one SO many questions!) I'll ask him for a fuller explination.