Dyophseis is the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church that Christ has two distinct natures
QuoteDyophseis is the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church that Christ has two distinct naturesNo. They are miaphysites. Too tired to back this up, but calling them diaphysite, is as wrong as them calling us monophysites. RO
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.
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?
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.
Quote1.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?
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”.
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?
arsenios, i like yr post!have u written any books yet?