Hi Guys,
A small question. Can anyone here update me on the situation between us and the Greek Orthodox? How close are we now to becoming one Church?
In the news last week, there was a report that 70,000 Iraqi's had converted from Islam to Christianity. I think a large percentage of those conversions were into the Baptist/Catholic segment.
What I'm trying to say is that by being divided too long like this, we don't do ourselves nor others much good.
Thanks for any input on this.
Comments
Since a lot of the theological heavy weights seem to have abandoned Tasbeha could I suggest you have a look at the Oriental Church threads on www.OrthodoxChristianity.net.
There are also some interesting posts from Roman Catholics. Everyone is concerned about Christian unity.
Christ is Risen
Aidan
They call Discorus (a contemporary of St. Cyril, which we both venerate) a heretic.
Isn't Diascorus a saint in our Church?
pray for me
joe
Dyophysite (not duophysite) is the belief of the Chalecodonian Churches - they believe that Christ had two natures both Divine and human, and that they were seperate
pray for me
joe
Miaphysite means that we believe that Christ had one nature (physis) - which consisted of his Divinity and his humanity being united without separation.
Dyophysite (not duophysite) is the belief of the Chalecodonian Churches - they believe that Christ had two natures both Divine and human, and that they were seperate
pray for me
joe
When they say that these two natures were "separate" - what do they mean??
It really is an issue, if we were to compare the two explanations in the original Greek, as that language is pretty complex and it is easy to get lost in it, so to speak. We shouldn't let this small issue come between our brothers of the Eastern Orthodox faith - they, after all, have the True Faith as well. We have made several agreements with them, and we even are as far as recognizing the Greek Orthodox Church's marriages to our members as valid and vice versa. We shouldn't let such an issue divide us any longer. We should always be praying for unity between the two Orthodox groups.
Dyophysite (not duophysite) is the belief of the Chalecodonian Churches - they believe that Christ had two natures both Divine and human, and that they were seperate
This is not true.
The definition of Chalcedon states very clearly that Christ is "recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation."
[quote author=QT_PA_2T link=topic=6661.msg89082#msg89082 date=1212347693]
Dyophysite (not duophysite) is the belief of the Chalecodonian Churches - they believe that Christ had two natures both Divine and human, and that they were seperate
This is not true.
The definition of Chalcedon states very clearly that Christ is "recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation."
First and foremost Orthodox11, welcome back. We've all missed u very much. Since u've been away, we didnt know what to do and were just wasting time talking about Shoubra. Even we were so bored, we changed someone's birth place from Mansoura to Shoubra.
Now the definition of Christ's Nature in the Council of Chalcedon seems to be really very similar (heck,as far as I can see, literally the same) as our definition of Miaphysite. So then what's the difference??
Secondly, what's with the catholics? are they the same as Dyophysite or what? what's the definition of the nature of Christ with respect to their faith??
And finally, if we are similar (Chalcedonian & Non-Chalcedonian) then why even have a council of Chalcedon if what was previously on offer was just as good. U know the verse: "If its not broken, don't fix it".
Thanks
(NB: the entire christian cyberworld is waiting for u to post something in the End of the World Thread).
Dyophysite (not duophysite) is the belief of the Chalecodonian Churches - they believe that Christ had two natures both Divine and human, and that they were seperate
Joe, just want to add, the belief of christ's 2 separate natures was of Nestorian origin and it was vehemently repudiated by both the Eastern asnd Western churchs as heretical. Not only that, Nestor's writings were burnt all over the place. Since the term "dyophysite" is Greek, Orthodox11 has the sovereign upper hand in defining it anyway he wishes:-)
We belive Christ (Miaphistic) nature was 100% divine and 100% human simultaneously, without change, sepration or anything else.
our greek/catholic brothers belive in (Diaphystisim) which would lead people to believe that Christ's nature was 50% human and 50% divine, also simultaneously, without change or seperation.
Now to the logical scientifc thinker, the idea of Diaphysitism is clearly more rational, however we can not forget that we are talking about God, who our feeble minds can not even start to comprehend.
I have never heard the term "Diaphystisim".What does it mean? There are so many similar and confusing terms.
Mia - Coptic and Other Oriental Churches
Dia - Eastern Orthodox/ Catholic Churches
Mya(Mia)phistism as explained means he was ONE whole with FULL Humanity and Divinity being present at once, never seperating, changing, or lacking of one another.
Dya (Dia) states relevantly the same thing "that he was both human and divine" at once w/o seperation or change, but doesnt quiet stress the important of "Fullness," or so i understand from what i've picked up.
[quote author=josephgabriel link=topic=6661.msg89081#msg89081 date=1212346538]
Dyophysite (not duophysite) is the belief of the Chalecodonian Churches - they believe that Christ had two natures both Divine and human, and that they were seperate
Joe, just want to add, the belief of christ's 2 separate natures was of Nestorian origin and it was vehemently repudiated by both the Eastern asnd Western churchs as heretical. Not only that, Nestor's writings were burnt all over the place. Since the term "dyophysite" is Greek, Orthodox11 has the sovereign upper hand in defining it anyway he wishes:-)
Listen, I know Ortho11 - he's not Greek. He's Norwegian. He speaks English, Norwegian and Rastafarian fluently. We, however, should know Greek. We sing it often in our mass and tasbeha.
Those are the terms each of the respective church uses to describe their belief:
Mia - Coptic and Other Oriental Churches
Dia - Eastern Orthodox/ Catholic Churches
Mya(Mia)phistism as explained means he was ONE whole with FULL Humanity and Divinity being present at once, never seperating, changing, or lacking of one another.
Dya (Dia) states relevantly the same thing "that he was both human and divine" at once w/o seperation or change, but doesnt quiet stress the important of "Fullness," or so i understand from what i've picked up.
Yes, but in the council of Chalcedon, the "unseparated nature" was underlined and confirmed, so it really amounts to Miaphysite.
What a silly way to get ex-communicated from one another. Honestly... the bishops/patriarchs who ex-communicated each other over this should really have been more careful.
It seems to be literally semantics.
I know there is a faith, not sure which one, but I do believe it could be the catholics that USED to be believe in the two natures, but not as "one" nature. i..e. Christ had 2 natures.. and whenever He performed a miracle, it was the Divine Nature manifesting himself, yet when he suffered, it was His Human Nature that suffered... (This doesn't make sense... you cannot separate His Natures!).
DOn't u think its really careless that our Churches are separated over this???
Being separated from the Catholics - OK.. its bad, but its understandable... in fact, modern day catholics really try to use the same definitions as us. They talk about a composite nature now.
They even talk less and less about purgatory. Moreover, they talk less about limbo. lol - in fact, i think that got cancelled a few years ago. 1st they believed in limbo, then they didn't.
I hope they do to purgatory what they've done to limbo and get rid of it.
Another thing is Dioscorus was a successor of St. Cyril; and I think he would describe his position as most faithful to the words of St. Cyril formula "one incarnate nature of the Word". But as formulas go, I do not think that both formulas when pursued with the intent of the council amounted to heresy? But I am an amateur theologian at best, and would rather have Theologians assess the validity of each other formulas. However, since we have made common declarations, I would think that that has already been done?
But we must note, that the present crisis has been allowed by God, and that this effort is a reaction. Whether it is the right reaction, that I leave with spiritually minded folk, but nevertheless, in past times I do not think that the need to unify is as strong as it is today in the pluralistic world- where thousands of sects are justifying their own philosophy-religion hybrid as spiritually inspired! Paganism and heresy of every kind is available again today. We need to be a unified kingdom- if indeed we belong to the same King?
red is editing
pray for me
joe
Now the definition of Christ's Nature in the Council of Chalcedon seems to be really very similar (heck,as far as I can see, literally the same) as our definition of Miaphysite. So then what's the difference??
The difference - which many people, including senior hierarchs regard as semantics - is whether it is appropriate to speak of two natures after the union. Miaphysites saw any talk of "two natures" as implying separation, whereas Chalcedonians, while not rejecting the term "mia physis", saw the refusal to speak of two natures as implying confusion. But separation or confusion of the humanity and divinity of Christ is something both sides regard as heresy and reject completely.
One must also take into account the way the two sides used the term nature (physis). EO have always used it to refer to essence (ousia), whereas the OO equated it with hypostasis. Hence the EO speak of two natures (essences) in one hypostasis, whereas the OO speak of one composite nature (hypostasis).
There's more to it than that of course, but that's the gist of it. The purpose of a Council has never been to create something new, but to uphold what the Church already believes. Whether or not the Council of Chalcedon did that effectively is one of the dissagreements between the EO and OO.
[quote author=Hezekiel link=topic=6661.msg89186#msg89186 date=1212443580]
Since the term "dyophysite" is Greek, Orthodox11 has the sovereign upper hand in defining it anyway he wishes:-)
I'm Greek/Byzantine/Eastern Orthodox, but I've never suggested I was ethnically Greek.
[quote author=gregorytheSinner link=topic=6661.msg89188#msg89188 date=1212447861]
We belive Christ (Miaphistic) nature was 100% divine and 100% human simultaneously, without change, sepration or anything else.
our greek/catholic brothers belive in (Diaphystisim) which would lead people to believe that Christ's nature was 50% human and 50% divine, also simultaneously, without change or seperation.
The Eastern Orthodox Church, and indeed the Council of Chalcedon, holds that Christ is fully (i.e. 100%) divine and fully (i.e. 100%) human.
[quote author=clay link=topic=6661.msg89254#msg89254 date=1212476369]
The Chalcedonian Church had to revise their doctrine in a latter council because of on going controversy and a predilection to Nestorianism, as I understand it.
While the Council of 553 is certainly more in line with OO thinking than Chalcedon was, it nevertheless upheld all the declerations and canons of Chalcedon and cannot be seen as a doctrinal revision.
Good to see u again on here!
So, from your response, basically we are in schism over nothing. You agree with us, and we agree with u, so why are we separated? U agree then that its just careless for us to be apart.
The Greek Orthodox have really good food, and Coptic people who love eating a lot of food (like this one: http://tasbeha.org/content/community/index.php?topic=6387.0) are missing out from such divisions when we could all be enjoying eating Greek Food at the end of the mass.
What then is the problem from keeping us separated??
The purpose of a Council has never been to create something new, but to uphold what the Church already believes. Whether or not the Council of Chalcedon did that effectively is one of the dissagreements between the EO and OO.
There was also politics and misunderstandings involved in the council, which on top of theological disputes caused the schism. Some bishops present at the council misunderstood Pope Dioscorus' explanation: "One incarnate nature of God the Word" as being terminology being employed by Eutyches (a heretic), and this added with Pope Leo I's wish to rid himself of his biggest opponent in the East, Pope Dioscorus, led to the EO branding him a heretic, and refusing him to speak at the council (although some sources state that they (Pope Dioscorus, Juvenal of Jerusalem, Eusebius of Ancrya, Eutathius of Berytus, Basil of Seleucia, Thalassius of Caesarea - all men who were responsible for the Second Council of Ephesus) were not deemed heretics, but rather they were deposed purely on a political agenda from Rome. They misundertanding thus, of the OO by the EO churches (they were dubbed monophsites, despite Pope Dioscoros excommunicating Eutyches after the Council of Chalcedon) was further cause to the rift.
pray for me
joe
Also, my ask Orthodox11 or anyone else, if it is reasonable to believe that Dioscorus would have thought that Pope Leo's Tome had Nestorian overtones?
Also my understanding was that Pope Leo pardoned Eutyches first, and requested Pope Dioscorus to forgive him? Ironic.
Hi Clay,
I heard about this story. Its extremely hurtful what happened. You wouldn't have thought such behaviour from men of God...