I took this quote from the site Anglican referred us to:
STATMENT 1
Throughout our discussions we have found our common ground in the formula of our common Father, St. Cyril of Alexandria : mia physis hypostasis (he mia hypostasis) tou Theou Logou sesarkomene, and in the dictum that "it is sufficient for the confession of our true and irreproachable faith to say and to confess that the Holy Virgin is Theotokos" (Hom : 15, cf. Ep. 39
Does this mean taht the differences presented at the council of chalcedon have been resolved between the EOC and the COC?
It means that some prominent theologians and historians have agreed, and that the hierarchies in both Churches should be pressing forward; but, of course, you don't deal with 1600 years separation with a few meetings, so there is still a way to go.
But it does mean that the original differences have been shown to be based on misunderstandings. Some EO (and maybe some of us, but I have not seen anyone) object and say it must not be so - but if you press them they can usually only refer back to what their Fathers said after Chalcedon - which is not really the point; we know that in the past there were disagreements - that's why we are separated!
So let us pray for unity, and wherever we can in our humble way as simple believers, do what we can.
Aren't the GOC and the COC essentially the same? It's even to the point where Copts can mary Greeks without baptism and it can even take place once, instead of once in each church.
If the Greeks were only to change thier dogma...I bet we could even have communion there, and likewise, if that occurs!
If the Greeks do so, maybe the Russians will too, and we can all be called Orthodox! No Oriental, no Eastern, just Orthodox.
[quote author=Severus link=topic=5684.msg77300#msg77300 date=1190325661] Aren't the GOC and the COC essentially the same? It's even to the point where Copts can mary Greeks without baptism and it can even take place once, instead of once in each church.
If the Greeks were only to change thier dogma...I bet we could even have communion there, and likewise, if that occurs!
If the Greeks do so, maybe the Russians will too, and we can all be called Orthodox! No Oriental, no Eastern, just Orthodox.
Let us pray for the Church's unification.
The Greek Orthodox Church is not the problem. The Greek Orthodox Church is cooperative, but there is a monastery in Greece of devout religious monks of which were taught that during the Council of Chalcedon, where our Pope misinterpreted translations of words, they believed that we were dyophysites, while we are monophysites. (Monophysite means that Jesus was of two natures which became inseparable, Dyophysite means that Jesus's humanity and divinity were never together). Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches have too many different beliefs, and radical Eastern Orthodox believers are completely ignoring the fact that Ortiental Orthodox Churches are ready to unite with them. You are correct that Greek Orthodox spouses do not need to get baptized in the Coptic Church because it applies also to any Orthodox Church (Oriental or Eastern). I would also pray for the unification although I doubt it will be anytime soon, and I am not sure they will fit together.
[quote author=bballdude23 link=topic=5684.msg77313#msg77313 date=1190334069] The Greek Orthodox Church is not the problem. The Greek Orthodox Church is cooperative, but there is a monastery in Greece of devout religious monks of which were taught that during the Council of Chalcedon, where our Pope misinterpreted translations of words, they believed that we were dyophysites, while we are monophysites. (Monophysite means that Jesus was of two natures which became inseparable, Dyophysite means that Jesus's humanity and divinity were never together). Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches have too many different beliefs, and radical Eastern Orthodox believers are completely ignoring the fact that Ortiental Orthodox Churches are ready to unite with them. You are correct that Greek Orthodox spouses do not need to get baptized in the Coptic Church because it applies also to any Orthodox Church (Oriental or Eastern). I would also pray for the unification although I doubt it will be anytime soon, and I am not sure they will fit together.
1. Mount Athos is not a single monastery. It is a group of over 30 monasteries on the same self-goverened peninsula in Greece (i.e. Mount Athos).
2. Even the Patriarch of Constantinople - one of, if not the most ecumenical churches in the EO Church - has said the OO must accept as ecumenical all the 7 Councils the EO hold to be such.
3. The EO churches which have been involved in the EO-OO dialogue represent only a fairly small number of EO. The much larger churches (Russia in particular) have yet to give any definate view on the dialogue.
4. Even if the christological issues (i.e. all the monophysite, dyophysite, miaphysite stuff) were completely left aside, there are still the problems of ecclesiology and schism, mutual anathemas, acceptance and classification of councils, etc.
5. The charge against you by these monks is that you are monophysites, not dyophysites. The Coptic Church states that it is not monophysite, but miaphysite. Monophysitism is a heresy in the eyes of both churches.
[quote author=Severus link=topic=5684.msg77321#msg77321 date=1190334825] They believe in two seperate natures, but we believe in one nature composed of 2 essences, correct?
Well in Chalcedonian terminology, nature refers to essence, whereas in OO usage it is related more to hypostasis.
So Chalcedonians will speak of two natures (essences) united inseparably, and without confusion, in a single Person or Hypostasis.
Non-Chalcedonians will speak instead of one composite nature.
The difference is essentially one of semantics (although the importance of words should not be trivialised).
Yeah, thanks Orthodox11 for refreshing my memory. Though the Eastern Orthodox Church did not separate from the Catholics until way after us. Also, why would we believe in all of the Councils if one of them exiled our Church? That is completely hypocritical. Sorry about picking on you on almost all your posts Orthodox11, but I referred to the Confession and it says "never did His divinity separate from His humanity for a moment or a twinkling of an eye." So refer back to your definition of Chalcedonian and maybe try to revise it.
[quote author=bballdude23 link=topic=5684.msg77342#msg77342 date=1190345697] Yeah, thanks Orthodox11 for refreshing my memory. Though the Eastern Orthodox Church did not separate from the Catholics until way after us. Also, why would we believe in all of the Councils if one of them exiled our Church? That is completely hypocritical. Sorry about picking on you on almost all your posts Orthodox11, but I referred to the Confession and it says "never did His divinity separate from His humanity for a moment or a twinkling of an eye." So refer back to your definition of Chalcedonian and maybe try to revise it.
I was not telling anyone to believe in anything. Nor was what I wrote intended to argue in favour of either side.
I was simply clarifying some of the issues you had touched upon in your post.
The Coptic Church has never been Monophysite, and the Chalcedonians have never been Nestorian, although there have been those in both communions who have believed it of the other.
We both hold to the Cyrilline view that thought there were two natures before the union, we do not speak of two after it; we also hold, both, that there is no mingling or confusion of the two natures. In short, we both hold that Christ is the God-Man, the Incarnate Word who died and rose from the dead that we might have life eternal.
The Chalcedonians attempted to impose their views on the Non-Chalcedonians by force for a long time; indeed their persecutions helped weaken their own Empire, since it left it vulnerable to the Islamic invasions which first swept over Egypt and Palestine and Syria, but which would, in 1453, also see Constantinople itself fall to the Turks.
If even such catastrophes failed to help Christians come together, it is hard to see how their modern equivalents will do so. In the face of mounting secularist pressure to marginalise and privatise all religious practice; in the face of widespread legalized abortion; in the face of the rising tide of Islam, we do what we have done before - argue amongst ourselves about who is right.
Well, perhaps one day we will learn0 but the omens seem hardly very hopeful.
In my case I joined the Orthodox church after being a Roman Catholic. I joined the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad despite being warned by a Greek nun that they were schismatic. She said I shouldn't be re-baptised but should be chrismated, the normal practice in the Orthodox church; only the very strict including Athonite monks rebaptising those who have a form of baptism in their churches.
I was overjoyed to hear that the indigenous Russian church was uniting with the Russian Church Abroad.Unfortunately the monastery church I had been attending decided it couldn't stomach the union and joined a Greek schismatic body (the Greeks have a lot of these, all of whom anathemise each other). I was grief stricken but couldn't go along with what I see is a Puritan spirit.
The point of this is that there can only be one church and all these bodies believe, removing themselves from others whom they see as heretics. However they have made a scandal of the most unedifying kind, forgetting the parable of the wheat and the tares.
As regards the discussions about inter-communion Copts, like 'Eastern Orthodox' allow other Christians into membership usually by 'economy', Chrismation (anointing) as your church does.This does not (and cannot) imply that other 'baptisms' are valid.
So you have toe decide who is right. Either the 'Oriental Orthodox' churches are the true church or someone else is. Union if it happens cannot be through political wrangling like two businesses uniting for better trading purposes. Some Greek pastors allow Copts and others into Communion. I sympathise with them but I can't see how it can be right if there is one church.
[quote author=Anglian link=topic=5684.msg77394#msg77394 date=1190476067] We both hold to the Cyrilline view that thought there were two natures before the union
Can you please clarify this point? What do you mean there were "two natures" before the union? Before the union there was only one nature, as after it.
If one was to go back and look at history, it's not difficult to see that the Coptic Church is essentially the same as the Apostles left it. We don't really like change that much ;)
[quote author=Christ4Life link=topic=5684.msg77401#msg77401 date=1190489470] Can you please clarify this point? What do you mean there were "two natures" before the union? Before the union there was only one nature, as after it.
One has to be careful how one interprets this. The divinity of Christ was united with His humanity from the moment it came into being (i.e. from the moment the Theotokos conceived).
We do not believe in two separate natures that later united. That would be Nestorianism (actually, it would be a more severe form of it than Nestorius ever taught).
[quote author=Orthodox11 link=topic=5684.msg77410#msg77410 date=1190495172] [quote author=Christ4Life link=topic=5684.msg77401#msg77401 date=1190489470] Can you please clarify this point? What do you mean there were "two natures" before the union? Before the union there was only one nature, as after it.
One has to be careful how one interprets this. The divinity of Christ was united with His humanity from the moment it came into being (i.e. from the moment the Theotokos conceived).
We do not believe in two separate natures that later united. That would be Nestorianism (actually, it would be a more severe form of it than Nestorius ever taught).
I definitely agree with Orthodox11. Nestorianism wasn't as extreme as the two natures being there since creation.
While it would be heresy to speak of two separate natures that later united (Nestorianism), it is not wrong to say Christ is from two natures (humanity and divinity), which is the faith of our Fathers.
Before the Incarnation, as Severus (I'm referring to the poster) rightly said, there was but one nature: the divinity. It was not until the all-holly Theotokos was overshadowed with the Holy Spirit that Christ assumed also a human nature.
There was never a time that the humanity of Christ was separated from His divinity. The two natures are not the same - never confused - yet they are inseparably united in a single hypostasis of the Incarnate Word, so much so that St. Cyril refers not to two natures, but to one composite nature.
So, this Union occured when the Holy Spirit came to Mary and the Logos was placed in her womb, correct?
If this is wrong, what is the full explanation, from before conception to conception to death? What was the state of the 1 nature at our Lord's death? Did his divinity die with his humanity, and then was resurrected?
[quote author=Severus link=topic=5684.msg77438#msg77438 date=1190596922] Did his divinity die with his humanity, and then was resurrected?
While we can say that God truly died on the Cross, since He had become man, His divinity did not undergo death. However, His divinity remained inseparably united with His humanity even in death.
[quote author=Severus link=topic=5684.msg77440#msg77440 date=1190597863] So, the human aspects of our Lord were dead, but the divine aspects were alive?
I think Orthodox11 is trying to say that both natures would stay after that except the humanity would almost be as if a Christian would go to heaven on the last day. The humanity is still with the divinity until now. (That is at least how I understood it, so Orthodox11, you are free to correct me in any flaws).
[quote author=Severus link=topic=5684.msg77440#msg77440 date=1190597863] So, the human aspects of our Lord were dead, but the divine aspects were alive?
Death was an attribute of His humanity, not His divinity.
Death is the separation of the body and the soul. This too happened to our Lord. His most pure Body lay in the sepulcher, His soul descended into Hades. Yet His divinity remained united to both, which is why we can say that one of the Holy Trinity truly died on the Cross.
[quote author=Orthodox11 link=topic=5684.msg77435#msg77435 date=1190595257] While it would be heresy to speak of two separate natures that later united (Nestorianism), it is not wrong to say Christ is from two natures (humanity and divinity), which is the faith of our Fathers.
Before the Incarnation, as Severus (I'm referring to the poster) rightly said, there was but one nature: the divinity. It was not until the all-holly Theotokos was overshadowed with the Holy Spirit that Christ assumed also a human nature.
There was never a time that the humanity of Christ was separated from His divinity. The two natures are not the same - never confused - yet they are inseparably united in a single hypostasis of the Incarnate Word, so much so that St. Cyril refers not to two natures, but to one composite nature.
Two inseperable natures is a belief of the eastern orthodox church.. the oriental orthodox believes that the Lords Humanity and divinity form one nature, as St. Cyril taught... Therefore we cannot speak of them as two inseperable natures.
[quote author=Κηφᾶς link=topic=5684.msg77449#msg77449 date=1190643079] [coptic]+ Iryny nem `hmot>[/coptic]
As far as I'm concerned, the OO and EO have identical Christology. So everything Orthodox11 has said is in line with the Church's teaching.
The book The Nature of Christ by His Holiness Pope Shenouda III outlines the difference quite clearly in the first chapter [THE ORTHODOX CONCEPT REGARDING THE NATURE OF CHRIST, page 8-11].
The fact that there's a difference contradicts what you said..
And it wasn't really what Orthodox11 said.. more how he worded it. And that's how the difference came about in the first place.. just differences over words.. :)
[quote author=Hizz_chiilld link=topic=5684.msg77448#msg77448 date=1190633526] [quote author=Orthodox11 link=topic=5684.msg77435#msg77435 date=1190595257] While it would be heresy to speak of two separate natures that later united (Nestorianism), it is not wrong to say Christ is from two natures (humanity and divinity), which is the faith of our Fathers.
Before the Incarnation, as Severus (I'm referring to the poster) rightly said, there was but one nature: the divinity. It was not until the all-holly Theotokos was overshadowed with the Holy Spirit that Christ assumed also a human nature.
There was never a time that the humanity of Christ was separated from His divinity. The two natures are not the same - never confused - yet they are inseparably united in a single hypostasis of the Incarnate Word, so much so that St. Cyril refers not to two natures, but to one composite nature.
Two inseperable natures is a belief of the eastern orthodox church.. the oriental orthodox believes that the Lords Humanity and divinity form one nature, as St. Cyril taught... Therefore we cannot speak of them as two inseperable natures.
In case you didn't know, St. Cyril the Great made a little conversion mistake when he was saying this because he believed that the Greek word physis and the Latin word persona mean the same thing, while physis means nature and persona means person.
[quote author=bballdude23 link=topic=5684.msg77475#msg77475 date=1190680395] [quote author=Hizz_chiilld link=topic=5684.msg77448#msg77448 date=1190633526] [quote author=Orthodox11 link=topic=5684.msg77435#msg77435 date=1190595257] While it would be heresy to speak of two separate natures that later united (Nestorianism), it is not wrong to say Christ is from two natures (humanity and divinity), which is the faith of our Fathers.
Before the Incarnation, as Severus (I'm referring to the poster) rightly said, there was but one nature: the divinity. It was not until the all-holly Theotokos was overshadowed with the Holy Spirit that Christ assumed also a human nature.
There was never a time that the humanity of Christ was separated from His divinity. The two natures are not the same - never confused - yet they are inseparably united in a single hypostasis of the Incarnate Word, so much so that St. Cyril refers not to two natures, but to one composite nature.
Two inseperable natures is a belief of the eastern orthodox church.. the oriental orthodox believes that the Lords Humanity and divinity form one nature, as St. Cyril taught... Therefore we cannot speak of them as two inseperable natures.
In case you didn't know, St. Cyril the Great made a little conversion mistake when he was saying this because he believed that the Greek word physis and the Latin word persona mean the same thing, while physis means nature and persona means person.
No I didn't know.. But how does that affect the one/two nature difference?
Comments
STATMENT 1 Does this mean taht the differences presented at the council of chalcedon have been resolved between the EOC and the COC?
It means that some prominent theologians and historians have agreed, and that the hierarchies in both Churches should be pressing forward; but, of course, you don't deal with 1600 years separation with a few meetings, so there is still a way to go.
But it does mean that the original differences have been shown to be based on misunderstandings. Some EO (and maybe some of us, but I have not seen anyone) object and say it must not be so - but if you press them they can usually only refer back to what their Fathers said after Chalcedon - which is not really the point; we know that in the past there were disagreements - that's why we are separated!
So let us pray for unity, and wherever we can in our humble way as simple believers, do what we can.
In Christ,
Anglian
If the Greeks were only to change thier dogma...I bet we could even have communion there, and likewise, if that occurs!
If the Greeks do so, maybe the Russians will too, and we can all be called Orthodox! No Oriental, no Eastern, just Orthodox.
Let us pray for the Church's unification.
Aren't the GOC and the COC essentially the same? It's even to the point where Copts can mary Greeks without baptism and it can even take place once, instead of once in each church.
If the Greeks were only to change thier dogma...I bet we could even have communion there, and likewise, if that occurs!
If the Greeks do so, maybe the Russians will too, and we can all be called Orthodox! No Oriental, no Eastern, just Orthodox.
Let us pray for the Church's unification.
The Greek Orthodox Church is not the problem. The Greek Orthodox Church is cooperative, but there is a monastery in Greece of devout religious monks of which were taught that during the Council of Chalcedon, where our Pope misinterpreted translations of words, they believed that we were dyophysites, while we are monophysites. (Monophysite means that Jesus was of two natures which became inseparable, Dyophysite means that Jesus's humanity and divinity were never together). Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches have too many different beliefs, and radical Eastern Orthodox believers are completely ignoring the fact that Ortiental Orthodox Churches are ready to unite with them. You are correct that Greek Orthodox spouses do not need to get baptized in the Coptic Church because it applies also to any Orthodox Church (Oriental or Eastern). I would also pray for the unification although I doubt it will be anytime soon, and I am not sure they will fit together.
And, in fact, aren't they dyophysite? They believe in two seperate natures, but we believe in one nature composed of 2 essences, correct?
The Greek Orthodox Church is not the problem. The Greek Orthodox Church is cooperative, but there is a monastery in Greece of devout religious monks of which were taught that during the Council of Chalcedon, where our Pope misinterpreted translations of words, they believed that we were dyophysites, while we are monophysites. (Monophysite means that Jesus was of two natures which became inseparable, Dyophysite means that Jesus's humanity and divinity were never together). Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches have too many different beliefs, and radical Eastern Orthodox believers are completely ignoring the fact that Ortiental Orthodox Churches are ready to unite with them. You are correct that Greek Orthodox spouses do not need to get baptized in the Coptic Church because it applies also to any Orthodox Church (Oriental or Eastern). I would also pray for the unification although I doubt it will be anytime soon, and I am not sure they will fit together.
1. Mount Athos is not a single monastery. It is a group of over 30 monasteries on the same self-goverened peninsula in Greece (i.e. Mount Athos).
2. Even the Patriarch of Constantinople - one of, if not the most ecumenical churches in the EO Church - has said the OO must accept as ecumenical all the 7 Councils the EO hold to be such.
3. The EO churches which have been involved in the EO-OO dialogue represent only a fairly small number of EO. The much larger churches (Russia in particular) have yet to give any definate view on the dialogue.
4. Even if the christological issues (i.e. all the monophysite, dyophysite, miaphysite stuff) were completely left aside, there are still the problems of ecclesiology and schism, mutual anathemas, acceptance and classification of councils, etc.
5. The charge against you by these monks is that you are monophysites, not dyophysites. The Coptic Church states that it is not monophysite, but miaphysite. Monophysitism is a heresy in the eyes of both churches.
They believe in two seperate natures, but we believe in one nature composed of 2 essences, correct?
Well in Chalcedonian terminology, nature refers to essence, whereas in OO usage it is related more to hypostasis.
So Chalcedonians will speak of two natures (essences) united inseparably, and without confusion, in a single Person or Hypostasis.
Non-Chalcedonians will speak instead of one composite nature.
The difference is essentially one of semantics (although the importance of words should not be trivialised).
Yeah, thanks Orthodox11 for refreshing my memory. Though the Eastern Orthodox Church did not separate from the Catholics until way after us. Also, why would we believe in all of the Councils if one of them exiled our Church? That is completely hypocritical. Sorry about picking on you on almost all your posts Orthodox11, but I referred to the Confession and it says "never did His divinity separate from His humanity for a moment or a twinkling of an eye." So refer back to your definition of Chalcedonian and maybe try to revise it.
I was not telling anyone to believe in anything. Nor was what I wrote intended to argue in favour of either side.
I was simply clarifying some of the issues you had touched upon in your post.
We both hold to the Cyrilline view that thought there were two natures before the union, we do not speak of two after it; we also hold, both, that there is no mingling or confusion of the two natures. In short, we both hold that Christ is the God-Man, the Incarnate Word who died and rose from the dead that we might have life eternal.
The Chalcedonians attempted to impose their views on the Non-Chalcedonians by force for a long time; indeed their persecutions helped weaken their own Empire, since it left it vulnerable to the Islamic invasions which first swept over Egypt and Palestine and Syria, but which would, in 1453, also see Constantinople itself fall to the Turks.
If even such catastrophes failed to help Christians come together, it is hard to see how their modern equivalents will do so. In the face of mounting secularist pressure to marginalise and privatise all religious practice; in the face of widespread legalized abortion; in the face of the rising tide of Islam, we do what we have done before - argue amongst ourselves about who is right.
Well, perhaps one day we will learn0 but the omens seem hardly very hopeful.
In Christ,
Anglian
In my case I joined the Orthodox church after being a Roman Catholic. I joined the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad despite being warned by a Greek nun that they were schismatic. She said I shouldn't be re-baptised but should be chrismated, the normal practice in the Orthodox church; only the very strict including Athonite monks rebaptising those who have a form of baptism in their churches.
I was overjoyed to hear that the indigenous Russian church was uniting with the Russian Church Abroad.Unfortunately the monastery church I had been attending decided it couldn't stomach the union and joined a Greek schismatic body (the Greeks have a lot of these, all of whom anathemise each other). I was grief stricken but couldn't go along with what I see is a Puritan spirit.
The point of this is that there can only be one church and all these bodies believe, removing themselves from others whom they see as heretics. However they have made a scandal of the most unedifying kind, forgetting the parable of the wheat and the tares.
As regards the discussions about inter-communion Copts, like 'Eastern Orthodox' allow other Christians into membership usually by 'economy', Chrismation (anointing) as your church does.This does not (and cannot) imply that other 'baptisms' are valid.
So you have toe decide who is right. Either the 'Oriental Orthodox' churches are the true church or someone else is. Union if it happens cannot be through political wrangling like two businesses uniting for better trading purposes. Some Greek pastors allow Copts and others into Communion. I sympathise with them but I can't see how it can be right if there is one church.
In Christ Jesus
Aidan
We both hold to the Cyrilline view that thought there were two natures before the union
Can you please clarify this point? What do you mean there were "two natures" before the union? Before the union there was only one nature, as after it.
Can you please clarify this point? What do you mean there were "two natures" before the union? Before the union there was only one nature, as after it.
One has to be careful how one interprets this. The divinity of Christ was united with His humanity from the moment it came into being (i.e. from the moment the Theotokos conceived).
We do not believe in two separate natures that later united. That would be Nestorianism (actually, it would be a more severe form of it than Nestorius ever taught).
[quote author=Christ4Life link=topic=5684.msg77401#msg77401 date=1190489470]
Can you please clarify this point? What do you mean there were "two natures" before the union? Before the union there was only one nature, as after it.
One has to be careful how one interprets this. The divinity of Christ was united with His humanity from the moment it came into being (i.e. from the moment the Theotokos conceived).
We do not believe in two separate natures that later united. That would be Nestorianism (actually, it would be a more severe form of it than Nestorius ever taught).
I definitely agree with Orthodox11. Nestorianism wasn't as extreme as the two natures being there since creation.
Atleast, that's what I would say if I was in the position of arguing this point.
Before the Incarnation, as Severus (I'm referring to the poster) rightly said, there was but one nature: the divinity. It was not until the all-holly Theotokos was overshadowed with the Holy Spirit that Christ assumed also a human nature.
There was never a time that the humanity of Christ was separated from His divinity. The two natures are not the same - never confused - yet they are inseparably united in a single hypostasis of the Incarnate Word, so much so that St. Cyril refers not to two natures, but to one composite nature.
If this is wrong, what is the full explanation, from before conception to conception to death? What was the state of the 1 nature at our Lord's death? Did his divinity die with his humanity, and then was resurrected?
Did his divinity die with his humanity, and then was resurrected?
While we can say that God truly died on the Cross, since He had become man, His divinity did not undergo death. However, His divinity remained inseparably united with His humanity even in death.
So, the human aspects of our Lord were dead, but the divine aspects were alive?
I think Orthodox11 is trying to say that both natures would stay after that except the humanity would almost be as if a Christian would go to heaven on the last day. The humanity is still with the divinity until now. (That is at least how I understood it, so Orthodox11, you are free to correct me in any flaws).
So, the human aspects of our Lord were dead, but the divine aspects were alive?
Death was an attribute of His humanity, not His divinity.
Death is the separation of the body and the soul. This too happened to our Lord. His most pure Body lay in the sepulcher, His soul descended into Hades. Yet His divinity remained united to both, which is why we can say that one of the Holy Trinity truly died on the Cross.
While it would be heresy to speak of two separate natures that later united (Nestorianism), it is not wrong to say Christ is from two natures (humanity and divinity), which is the faith of our Fathers.
Before the Incarnation, as Severus (I'm referring to the poster) rightly said, there was but one nature: the divinity. It was not until the all-holly Theotokos was overshadowed with the Holy Spirit that Christ assumed also a human nature.
There was never a time that the humanity of Christ was separated from His divinity. The two natures are not the same - never confused - yet they are inseparably united in a single hypostasis of the Incarnate Word, so much so that St. Cyril refers not to two natures, but to one composite nature.
Two inseperable natures is a belief of the eastern orthodox church.. the oriental orthodox believes that the Lords Humanity and divinity form one nature, as St. Cyril taught... Therefore we cannot speak of them as two inseperable natures.
As far as I'm concerned, the OO and EO have identical Christology. So everything Orthodox11 has said is in line with the Church's teaching.
[coptic]+ Iryny nem `hmot>[/coptic]
As far as I'm concerned, the OO and EO have identical Christology. So everything Orthodox11 has said is in line with the Church's teaching.
The book The Nature of Christ by His Holiness Pope Shenouda III outlines the difference quite clearly in the first chapter [THE ORTHODOX CONCEPT REGARDING THE NATURE OF CHRIST, page 8-11].
And that contradicts what Orthodox11 has said how?
And it wasn't really what Orthodox11 said.. more how he worded it.
And that's how the difference came about in the first place.. just differences over words..
:)
+ God Bless
[quote author=Orthodox11 link=topic=5684.msg77435#msg77435 date=1190595257]
While it would be heresy to speak of two separate natures that later united (Nestorianism), it is not wrong to say Christ is from two natures (humanity and divinity), which is the faith of our Fathers.
Before the Incarnation, as Severus (I'm referring to the poster) rightly said, there was but one nature: the divinity. It was not until the all-holly Theotokos was overshadowed with the Holy Spirit that Christ assumed also a human nature.
There was never a time that the humanity of Christ was separated from His divinity. The two natures are not the same - never confused - yet they are inseparably united in a single hypostasis of the Incarnate Word, so much so that St. Cyril refers not to two natures, but to one composite nature.
Two inseperable natures is a belief of the eastern orthodox church.. the oriental orthodox believes that the Lords Humanity and divinity form one nature, as St. Cyril taught... Therefore we cannot speak of them as two inseperable natures.
In case you didn't know, St. Cyril the Great made a little conversion mistake when he was saying this because he believed that the Greek word physis and the Latin word persona mean the same thing, while physis means nature and persona means person.
[quote author=Hizz_chiilld link=topic=5684.msg77448#msg77448 date=1190633526]
[quote author=Orthodox11 link=topic=5684.msg77435#msg77435 date=1190595257]
While it would be heresy to speak of two separate natures that later united (Nestorianism), it is not wrong to say Christ is from two natures (humanity and divinity), which is the faith of our Fathers.
Before the Incarnation, as Severus (I'm referring to the poster) rightly said, there was but one nature: the divinity. It was not until the all-holly Theotokos was overshadowed with the Holy Spirit that Christ assumed also a human nature.
There was never a time that the humanity of Christ was separated from His divinity. The two natures are not the same - never confused - yet they are inseparably united in a single hypostasis of the Incarnate Word, so much so that St. Cyril refers not to two natures, but to one composite nature.
Two inseperable natures is a belief of the eastern orthodox church.. the oriental orthodox believes that the Lords Humanity and divinity form one nature, as St. Cyril taught... Therefore we cannot speak of them as two inseperable natures.
In case you didn't know, St. Cyril the Great made a little conversion mistake when he was saying this because he believed that the Greek word physis and the Latin word persona mean the same thing, while physis means nature and persona means person.
No I didn't know.. But how does that affect the one/two nature difference?