www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Do you view the Orthodox Churches as Heretical?

Thanos, you wrote:


A couple of weeks ago in our parish college youth meeting I made an interesting exercise with the youth just to demonstrate how complex the Christological issues are/were.

First, we discussed four terms:

ousia
physis
hypostasis
prosopon

After doing our best to understand what each of those terms meant, I then asked the youth to tell me how many of each did Christ have (using the Greek - we avoided the English terms "nature" and "person").

As I suspected, out of a group of about 15, only one ended confessing a faith consistent with Non-Chalcedonian Miaphysis. One confessed the Chalcedonian christology and I think the rest were all major heretics of some kind!

We had a good laugh over it - not because the subject is to be taken lightly - but just because it proved my point of how complex the issues have been throughout history.

God bless,
Fr. Kyrillos

Fr. Kyrillos

Darned I wish I had been there. That would have been a fun exercise. I think your 87% "heretical" number is probably about right for any group of Catholics or Orthodox.

I recently read a book on the ecumenical councils in which I thought the author made an interesting point. In modern usage we generally connote significant evil intent with heresy. An evil or ill-informed person who deliberately professes a distorted or false belief that is contrasted with a generally accepted and well established truth.

However, the classic heresies that the Councils were called to address do not generally fit this description. There was no well established and generally accepted truth in those early days of the Church. Men were honestly trying to understand and explain the faith in an environment inhabited by a broad spectrum of possible explanations. Arius was only a heretic after the Councils agreed he was a heretic. And then only after a quite long time.

A crass way of putting it is "to the victors go the spoils." We believe the guidance of the Holy Spirit was instrumental in deciding who won but just the same, the game was not up until the Councils had made their decisions and then only after those decisions became universally, or almost so, accepted. If there is any evil intent here it is as a result of the unwillingness of the losers to accept the outcome of the test.

Dear Fr. Kyrillos,

This is a wise exercise. I agree. As Christians, we don't limit God according to our understanding. We simply accept what was revealed to us. Of course Theology isn't the easiest subject. How can it be? How can we even begin to describe the indescribable?

Even Saint Gregory the Theologian says that Theology is not for everyone.

The Church, since the 3rd century, underwent many attacks from heresies. Some heretics were unwittingly going against scripture, and some had their own agendas (e.g. Arius). But the Church never said "OK.. Listen up everyone, so no one gets left out, we're going to combine all these heresies and make one creed".

This didn't happen. The Church really insisted on holding onto the truth despite the costs.

You know Fr: If I was going to INVENT God, in order to avoid any misunderstandings and to limit him according to my own mental ability to understand His Nature, I'd have made a creed that sounded like this:

"THERE IS NO OTHER GOD BUT GOD"

That's simple enough, isn't it?!

Maybe I'd have added:

"THERE IS NO OTHER GOD, BUT GOD, and THANOS IS HIS PROPHET".

We don't take God, and limit him according to our understanding like certain religions I care not to mention.

People like Arius had an agenda and they HAD to be refuted and removed from the Church. Otherwise, I think we really should be cautious whom we call a heretic.

The essentials that bind us with each other and Protestants is one main Truth:
* Jesus Christ is God Incarnate, and He died for our sins.
* He died to give us life.
* He died to free us from the slavery of sin.
* His Divinity never departed His Humanity

These are the BASIC truths that we all share.

However, if I said something snazzy like:

* "He took what was ours in order to give us what was His".

I'm 110% sure that a protestant who agreed with every other statement I mentioned above, would burst out, without reservation and call me a heretic.

We need to patient with these people, and patient with each other.

Ah, but Evagrios of Pontus said, "A theologian is one who truly prays, and if you pray truly, you are a theologian".

Most blessed and awesome brother in Christ StuartK,

Dude, I think what Saint Gregory the Theologian meant was that it is not easy to understand the Divine Nature itself.

Perhaps what Evagrios meant was that we know God more through prayer. That's true also.

You win.

I'm a heretic.

Please forgive me and accept me back. (I want to be sure I'm eligible for the next Church tombola).

I am not a theologian - just an ordinary Catholic layman - so I
cannot and do not declare anyone to be a heretic. And, I know
that the Catholic Church has signed Christological agreements
with some of the Oriental Orthodox Churches as well as the
Church of the East. However, I am confused about the status of
a publication by the current Pope of the Coptic Orthodox
Church, His Holiness Shenouda III:

http://www.bishopantony.org/resources/books/pope-shenouda-books/Natofchr.pdf

Is this the official position of the Coptic Orthodox Church?
Is this monophysite Christology?

I believe that the Pope Shenouda III's book is a wonderful synopsis of Oriental Orthodox Christology.

It is important to note that His Holiness condemns (and so do all The Oriental Orthodox Churches) moniphysitism when he condemns Eutyches as herectical. The teaching of Eutyches is classical moniphtsitism which from my understanding is that in the Union of Christ the Divinity and the humanity are mingled and absorbed into one nature.

The Oriental Orthodox profess Miaphysite Christology based on St. Cyril of Alexandria. I think if you search Miaphysite on the forum there was a discussion some time ago on it. Also, I am sure Fr. Kyrillos or another one of our Oriental Orthodox or Catholics can explain Miaphysite Christology better than I.
All I do know know is that the Catholic Church and Coptic Church has signed joint statments recognizing each others Christology as Orthodox (as well as the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches have done the same)

To the best of my knowledge no Orthodox Churches have made such statements on the Christology of the Oriental Orthodox. The meetings which have occurred between the Churches have been kind of low level (the Russians send a hieromonk or abbot, the Serbs send a lay professor) and the documents produced have not been ratified by any Orthodox Church. Maybe I am wrong? Maybe the Holy Synod of Antioch has ratified them?

Here is information from a positive site:

http://www.orthodoxunity.org/

Dear Fr. Ambrose,

I cannot say how binding or authoritative the following is, but I believe what Nelson is referring to is here:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p..._pc_christuni_doc_19730510_copti_en.html

Most important to the issue of Christology is the following:



It is a Joint Statement between Pope Paul VI and Pope Shenouda III.

Also I have heard that the Romanian Church did ratify the Joint Agreements between the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches though at this point I don't know that this means much since I doubt any single church would reestablish communion without their fellow sister churches.

In Christ,
Fr. Kyrillos

I cannot say for sure, but most of the books of HH Pope Shenouda are actually transcripts of talks he gave to laypeople during his weekly Wednesday meetings. As Patriarch of almost 40 years now, he is a prolific and active public preacher and many of his sermons and talks were put into book form.

I don't think this particular book is intended as a formal doctrinal exposition or the official final word on Oriental Orthodox Christology. It's intent more PASTORAL, to explain the faith to common laypeople, many who are not educated in theology or educated at all!

However, I realize that opponents of the orthodoxy of the Oriental Churches will attempt to pick at this document to find something they can hang their hats on.

The history of events leading to Chalcedon and the aftermath both in terms of history and theology are very complex and no single book will provide what you need to understand the use of the terms that were contentious during that time.

God bless,
Fr. Kyrillos

What is interesting to me regarding the Joint Statement between the Catholic and Coptic Churches regarding Christology is that reference is made to the first three ecumenical councils without regard to Chalcedon.

In other words, I take it to mean that the Catholic Church accepts that agreement on Christology does not require acceptance of Chalcedon as an ecumenical council.

While there are other issues that divide the Catholic and Oriental Orthodox Churches, it seems the issue of Christology may already be resolved without reference to Chalcedon. The issue of acceptance/non-acceptance of Chalcedon seems much more critical in the EO and OO discussions.

It raises and interesting question about the Church's power to bind and loose.

In Christ,
Fr. Kyrillos

This is what caught my eye...

"(as well as the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches have done the same)"

Hello,

What makes you think this is "monophysite Christology"? Its Miaphysite.

I read this book many times. He is refuting the heresy of monophysism.

I think perhaps you may have misunderstood something here:

Monophysism means SINGLE nature of Christ: either His Divinity consumed His Humanity, or His Humanity consumed His Divinity. Either , or: One SINGLE Nature.

Miaphysism means UNITED Nature.

Now, no ONE (absolutely NO ONE) who says they are a Christian believes in monophysism. Why? Because those who worship a Triune God know very well that the Word of God became flesh.

Christ is MIAphysite.

However, after the incarnation, we do not talk about TWO natures - we cannot. We talk about the ONE Nature in the person of Christ. To talk about two natures would lead to heresies suggesting that these two natures are divided or separated from each other. But they are NOT separated.

if they are NOT separated, and have NEVER been separated - EVER, in the person of Christ, then why talk about them as if they are two natures for? Such talk leads to Duophysism which was viewed as a heresy ages ago.

Duophysism means that Christ had 2 distinct natures, and at certain times in His life, he exhibited properties of each nature. We do not accept this. We say that at EVERY event in His Life, Christ acted with the ONE Nature: the MIAphysic nature where His Divinity was ALWAYS united with His Humanity. There was NO separation, No Confusion, NO change, No alteration between them.

I think this is a brilliant book, it explains it better than me at least.

So, let's recap:

Monophysism is where Christ is said to have ONE nature only (either Man or God, but not both)

Miaphysism is where Christ is said to have a UNITED nature of Divine and Human. There was no confusion between both natures. The human nature did not change, and the Divine Nature did not change (i.e. become more human).

Duophysism: is where Christ is said to have two natures, and each nature is independent of the other and manifests itself at different times.

Of course for anyone to accuse us of monophysism is ludicrous!!

We really ought now to capitlize on the information age we are in and iron out any misunderstandings. We are not in the 3rd century where we could found language a problem or dissemination of correct doctrine a problem.

let's iron out all these issues, and pray for Unity!! Please!!

Of course, its needless to say that if someone was Duophysite, yet their belief was miaphysite, yet they used the term Duophysite to express what they knew was miaphysism, then reconciliation can be very easy.

I think this is now why the Churches are all in accordance.

The Eastern Orthodox Church accused the Coptic Orthodox Church of Monophysism. I think its pretty clear that the Coptic Church was never monophysistic. Ever. If God's Divinity did NOT unite with our humanity, then we'd never have received salvation. Its basic, 101 theology.

It would be useful if everybody could read Meyendorff's Christ in Eastern Christian Thought, which deals with the various schools of Christology in an objective, even-handed manner that stresses the fundamental compatibility of the mainstream of each, as well as the distortions and excesses of extremists in each camp, which necessitated a synthesis encompassing at least four of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Christology did not stop at Chalcedon. Just as Chalcedon answered certain monophysite distortions of Cyrilian Christology, so Constantinople II and III (and some would say Nicaea II) were needed to counter diphysite (not duophysite) distortions of Chalcedon. But at the end of the day, the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, and the Church of the East, all believe exactly the same thing about the nature of the God-Man Jesus Christ.

Which is, of course, the abiding tragedy of it all.