Tasbeha.org Community

A non-Copt Orthodox person has messaged me asking these questions. I have no idea how to answer such questions because I'm not really knowledgeable about these things. Can anyone help me on how I can reply to these questions?:

1. Can somebody explain 'Miaphysis' to me; the teaching that in Jesus Christ both God and man are in union please?
2. Is 'Miaphysis' a Coptic, as well as an Ethiopian, Syrian, and Armenian teaching?
3. Are the Coptic, Ethiopian, Syrian, and Armenian Churches all in communion?

Thank you.

Dyophseis is the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church that Christ has two distinct natures

No. They are miaphysites. Too tired to back this up, but calling them diaphysite, is as wrong as them calling us monophysites.

RO

This is the response that I gave the person:

1. Miaphysis is the correct term we are identified by as Oriental Orthodox. (monophysis being an inaccurate term). St. Cyril the Pillar of Faith explained the unity of Christ as one between iron (humanity) and fire (divinity). If you put a iron in fire the two become totally united. This is the Cyrilic Formula “The one united nature of Christ”.

2. 'Miaphysis' includes all Oriental Orthodoxes: Coptic, Ethiopian, Eritrean, Syrian, Armenian and Indian. (There are six).

3. We are all in communion! We accept each others' ordinations; we can intermarry and take communion at each others' churches, etc. Our priests (all OO) are usually vigilant, asking new comers which Bishop or Patriarch they follow, especially if they want to serve in the church or partake of the sacraments.

He replied to me with two more questions:

1.My background is Orthodox (Russian, though I have spent an equal amount of time worshiping in the Greek church). Is belief in miaphysis the only real difference between the Oriental Orthodox and the Orthodox Churches?

2. Is there a catechism for the coptic or armenian churches that I might read?

Any help with these two? Thank you.

As to the current argument, this is what wikipedia says about Dyophysite:

Dyophysite has also been used to describe Nestorianism, the doctrine ascribed to the Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople by his detractors, which asserted that Christ existed as two persons (hypostases): the human Jesus and the divine Logos. The use of it to describe those who supported the Chalcedonian position (who continued on as the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches) is tantamount to accusing them of being Nestorian, which they were not as they emphasised the complete and perfect unity of the two natures in one hypostasis. For the Chalcedonians the hypostasis was the centre of Jesus' unity (his divinity and humanity being described as natures) whereas those who rejected the Chalcedonian definition saw his nature as the point of unity. Many historical theologians and ecumenists believe it was and continues to be more a difference of terminology than actual belief.

Theophil,

If you have 20 mins of free time, I ask you to check out this podcast to get the EO position:

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/allsaints/chalcedonian_christology

Thanks Arsenios, the podcast was great! It seems to me that our faith is the same - the speaker used the same analogy that we use when we talk about the union of Christ (the fire and sword) and also quotes a part that we also have in our liturgy “without mingling, without confusion, without alteration”.

One would think! 

I am blessed to have entered the Church (EO) under a Priest who happens to be very sympathetic to the Coptic Church, and very friendly with the local Coptic Orthodox priest at the only Coptic church here in Denver.  My priest has told me on numerous occasions in conversation that "they", meaning the Copts, are definitely Orthodox, in every sense of the term.  He even blessed me to go to any of their services when I have the time.  I haven't had the chance yet, but I do plan on going sometime soon!  I would also like to spend some time at either St. Antony's Monastery in Newberry Springs, CA, or St. Moses & St. Mary Abbey in TX.

Likewise, I entered the Church hearing the same analogy of the sword being heated in the fire.  It was in the inquirers class I took when I was a catechumen that I first heard that analogy, so it only makes sense when I listen to podcasts like the one I posted that I agree with everything said.

Am I missing something? If our faith is the same why did we separate in the first place? And why is it taking so long, since the 70s, to be united together?

Unfortunately there is no uniform opinion on the oneness of our Christologies in the Eastern Orthodox Church.  Like I said, my priest seems to think we are on the same page.  And actually there are quite a few "higher ups" in the OCA that think we are, too.  Our former Metropolitan, Met. JONAH, once gave a talk at St. Nersess Seminary in New York on the Armenian Church.  He is also quoted, in one of the talks he gave when he was just an Archimandrite, as saying that an Orthodox Christian needs to go to whatever church he or she needs to if that's where they find the Father of Confession/Spiritual Father that they "click" with, whether it be Greek, Antiochian, SYRIAN, Russian, COPTIC, etc.  Yes, he did say Coptic and I believe he said Syrian too.  I actually went back and listened to the talk just to make sure because I remembered him saying that, and I just needed to find the exact spot where he said it.  I went back and listened and sure enough, that's what he said.

Likewise, the Archbishop of our diocese, who is about to be made Metropolitan I presume, is/was very friendly to the Copts in SoCal.  Fr. Kyrillos and some people from his parish in Irvine actually got a blessing to come and serve their Divine Liturgy in the church of the monastery I was staying at for 7 months.  I wasn't there at the time it happened, but I heard all about it.  I even got the blessing to be the "Coptic scholar" when I was living at the monastery.  It was even in the works to send me down to St. Antony's monastery in Newberry Springs, CA, for a while to see what I can learn about Coptic monasticism and spirituality.  Unfortunately, I never got the chance to do any of that since I am no longer at that monastery in Northern California, but since I am back in the "world," I have the opportunity to go whenever I manage to make it happen. :-)

On the other side of the coin, though, there were some at the monastery I was at who simply reacted negatively whenever I brought up the words "Coptic Orthodoxy".  Some monks there scoffed at the fact that we allowed Copts to come and serve liturgy in our church.  Some of them still stand by the belief that Non-Chalcedonians are "monophysites".  Whatever, I just ignored them.  *shrug*

So, it just depends where you go and who you talk to.  I would say it is a mixed bag within the EO communion in regards to the opinion of our Christology and whether it is the same as the Non-Chalcedonians or not.

On a side note - I think one thing is for certain:  A good amount if not most Eastern Orthodox people respect the Coptic Church for the martyrs and strugglers for the Faith it produces.  Also the simple and childlike faith that can be seen in many Coptic monks and priests just blows us EOs away.  We wish we had it, and we want it.

arsenios, i like yr post!
have u written any books yet?

Thank you!  And no, I haven't written any books yet.  Actually, I don't even work in the field of academia, but I did graduate university with a BA in theology.