pseudo athanasius and miaphysis ?

I recently read an article on the christology  of St. Cyril of Alexandria and it said it came from a pseudo athanasius and that it was originally apollinarian.

 http://classicalchristianity.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/St.-Cyril-of-Alexandria’s-Miaphysite-Christology-and-Chalcedonian-Dyophysitism.pdf


this is a link to the article written by Fr. John Mcgunkin can anyone tell me if this is really true ? that we  supposedly got from an apollinarian source if so how can I disprove it. I'm only asking because I always assumed that our Christology was always used by the school of Alexandria.  



Comments

  • I'm just trying to find out if athanasius really used that terminology in describing Christ
  • Don't waste your time with this. The author of this page from Classical christianity is trying to claim we are not Orthodox and that St Cyril had a dyophysis theology when he used the term miaphysis. It is completely ridiculous.  Fr John McGunkin is very ecumenical. He believes we are very Orthodox. So this Classical christianity is not concerned with christology but it is hiding an anti-ecumenical view against us. 

    St Athanasius did not use the term miaphysis. St Cyril thought he did. But it comes from the Apollonarianism heresy. St Cyril "baptized" the term by showing how it applies in an Orthodox view. 
  • Oh so he purposefully baptized the only thing I don't understand about those people is that I feel they seem to not understand there own Christology and use St.Cyril miaphysis along with the chalcedonian formula at least that's what I got from what Fr. Mcgunkin wrote like I don't understand their logic they use miaphysis we use miaphysis with Chalcedon makes no sense
  • I meant the byzantines use both terminolgies together not us
  • edited August 3
    Unfortunately all we get is written sources of the term "Mia physis". So the first time we know of and have it recorded until today is Apollinarius. The question however is does that mean he was the first person to use it? No scholar I know really went ahead to investigate this. I have a hypothesis that Apollinarius didn't. In fact the way he used it was taken for granted.

    Furthermore, Apollinarius was not the original Apollinarian. His heresy if anything seems to have been quite common before he was even born. Check out Fr. John Behr's book "On the Way to Nicea" and you will find some fascinating stuff.

    My guess is "Mia Physis" is in fact an Alexandrian term. Maybe it was used by St. Athanasius, maybe not, but it was in our tradition nonetheless. St. Cyril didn't baptize it so much so as furthered its development into more sophisticated and better (even genius) theology.

    I think the Chalcedonian argument in trying to avoid Apollinarianism mirrors the pre-Chalcedonian arguments by Diodore. This is why we generally became quite anti-Chalcedonian, even though they have eventually condemned Diodore (and Theodore).
  • Can u show me I've been trying to find out where it was used in our tradition before Cyril the most I found was a letter of St.Athanasius to Epicentus where he says if u divide the humanity and divinity of Christ you essentially deny the incarnation but that's about it i know it's not exactly mia physis but in pretty sure based on that he probably was but I couldn't find the exact phrase
  • No I didn't say Athanasius used it. I said he may have used it considering that it's very likely an Alexandrian usage before Apollinarius. When Apollinarius wrote it, he seemed to have used it for granted.
  • oh okay i understand  i agree with you personally feel like maybe Cyril may have perfected our christology   
Sign In or Register to comment.