www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Miaphysitism

Simply providing the formula "mia physis..." is not enough to prove that the non-Chalcedonians are orthodox. They are not monophysites of the Eutychian variety- that much is true. But to conclude from there that their doctrine is compatible with the faith expressed at Chalcedon is a tremendous and unwarranted leap.

First of all, there really is no "Oriental Orthodox" church. The churches that fall under that name are very loosely bound together- what they have in common is acceptance of the first three ecumenical councils and a rejection of Chalcedon. Beyond that, things are pretty murky. Where can one find an authoritative exposition of the "miaphysite" doctrine?

The Pope Shenouda text quoted above is funny. During an online discussion with a Copt, I pointed out that the Pope teaches monothelitism. He responded by saying that I shouldn't rely on Pope Shenouda, but rather read Severus of Antioch. The Copts revere Severus as a saint. To the Armenians and Syrians, however, he's a heretic. In fact, the Armenians demanded that the Syrian church denounce Severus as a heretic before entering communion with them. How exactly do these churches relate to each other? This would be an important question to answer before even considering union with the "Oriental Orthodox."

Supposing that there is a unified "miaphysite" doctrine somewhere, the problems don't end there. The joint theological dialogues seem to carry the assumption that, as long as we can hammer out a "miaphysite" exposition that is compatible with Chalcedonian doctrine, the matter is settled, but this doesn't even touch the problems of monoenergism and monothelitism. In fact, the Armenian and Coptic Churches both accepted monoenergism in official agreements with the hierarchs of Constantinople who were promoting this heresy at the time. The monoenergists and monothelites, of course, claimed to be in agreement with Chalcedon.

Maybe all of this is just misunderstanding too, maybe it's semantics, but the fact that these issues aren't even being discussed is deeply problematic.

Which ones? There is no ecumenical council condemning the Coptic Church, the Armenian Church, etc., as heretical. Dioscorus was condemned at Chalcedon for convening a council unlawfully, not for heresy. I would of course agree that the Orthodox bishops describing the non-Chalcedonians as "fellow Orthodox" are misguided and engaging in wishful thinking, but doing so is far from a clear violation of the councils.

The Oriental churches were not, as a whole, condemned at Chalcedon; rather, it was the Oriental churches which chose to reject Chalcedon. I don't think it's possible to generalize about all of them, but the Copts certainly insist that there was no semantic misunderstanding. Regardless of what certain high-level joint statements may say, the Copts still consider Chalcedon to either have been Nestorian or to have been compromised by Nestorian tendencies. The only reason they might be willing to enter communion with the Orthodox is that they believe we have since re-interpreted Chalcedon to mean something different. In other words, the Church did in fact lapse into Nestorian heresy but then corrected itself at the fifth ecumenical council. That, in my opinion, is an entirely unacceptable basis for union.

If you haven't already, I would recommend reading Pope Shenouda's The Nature of Christ, available online. While it does not express monophysitism of the Eutychian sort, it is monothelite and monoenergist.

On a side note, for those Catholics who are considering uniting with both the non-Chalcedonians and the Nestorians, I'm afraid you have a very tough road ahead. The Copts will absolutely not accept any union that does not uphold Ephesus and the theology of St. Cyril as the standard of orthodoxy. They will never accept union with a church that upholds Nestorius as a standard-bearer of orthodoxy. The following statement is worth reading: http://www.lacopts.org/news/dialogu...s-effect-the-dialogue-the-roman-catholic


Erring as they may be, none of the Orthodox bishops would dare relegate Ephesus and Chalcedon to the level of "local council." None of the Orthodox bishops, as far as I know, has even hinted at repudiating these councils. As Fr. Ambrose pointed out, the joint statements tend to have a very nebulous character; this is necessary, because the theologies of the two communions are really not as close as many would like to think.


I think the Royal Path of the Fathers was expressed very well in the ecumenical councils they gathered in. I don't presume to know better than the Fathers of the Church. As an Orthodox Christian, I believe in One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. The oneness of the Church is expressed visibly in communion and it is therefore impossible for two or more sections of the Church to be divided from one another for 1000 years or more. I was under the impression that the Catholic Church thought the same, but perhaps I was mistaken.

[quote=Nelson Chase][quote]So Orthodox can disagree on if the Oriental Churches are "heretical" and still be in communion with one another. This of course contradicts Ecumenical Councils. [/quote]

We could as well apply this line of reasoning to the Roman Catholic Church. For 1,600 years it has seen the Oriental Churches as heretical because of their Christology.

Only in recent years has the Vatican started to investigate if they got it right 1,600 years ago when they expelled the Copts from their communion.

Now the Orthodox Churches have commenced the same line of investigation as the Vatican is pursuing. They need to determine if the ancient break with these Churches of the East was because of genuine heresy or because of a misunderstanding in theological semantics (this is the conclusion reached under John Paul II by the Catholic Church.)

It is probably not useful and not beneficial to the unity which we strive for to condemn us as contradicting the Ecumenical Councils. We *must* travel through this necessary period of theological investigation of Oriental Christology and some Orthodox Churches will do it at a different pace to others.