I don't really want to come across as a guy that is trying to "proselytize" or "crusade against the "heresy of "monophysitism,"" but there are still some elements in me trying to understand what happened in Chalcedon with this controversy, that I'm having trouble wrapping my mind around.
And that is the staunch opposition of Dioscorus, and later Severus of Antioch and other Oriental saints, to this phrase, said phrase which was famously in the Chalcedonian Definition.
It seems that these proponents argue that this phrase "en duo physeon" seems to imply in of itself heterodoxy, that perhaps there is really no union of the two natures or that there are two hypostases of Christ.
However, in light of the fact that this specific term was used by Orthodox proponents before - Saint John Cassian and Saint Ambrose for example - and was even accepted as legitimately Orthodox by Saint Cyril in the Reunion of 433, why do Oriental Orthodox feel that this phrase was worthy of schism?
I think Severus argued that although there may be Saints even recent who used the term, the Nestorian controversy gave it a whole new meaning, as the phrase was routinely used by the Nestorians. However, how can this be a legitimate argument, in light of the fact that DURING the Nestorian controversy, Saint Cyril agreed to the idea that it's an acceptable expression of the Faith - as long as there is a recognition that the Natures are united together, while still retaining each others' properties, but inseparable; and a recognition that the Word is fully God and fully man after the Incarnation?
If you’re wondering if Severus’ argument is legitimate, then have you considered precedent in other areas like whether the Trinity is one or three hypostases?
And “in” is not synonymous with “of” in the ancient world (and not today either for that matter).
I know that “ek” dyo physis (sorry don’t know Greek), which is a legitimate OO formula, is translated as “of Two Natures,” but the “of” here is different from what I mean. “Of” here means in the sense of origin, not composition.
For example, “I’m a plumber who is of Brooklyn.”
Considering that the purpose of the Formula of 433 was reunion with the Antiochians, wasn’t the “of” used here in reference to composition?
And what is different from this compositional “of” and “en dyo physis”?
If I’m missing something, I’d welcome an explanation.
“In” describes a strong distinction. Like One God in three persons. It may imply seperation at times, like there’s a little bit of love in the capulets and montagues. “Of” describes a composition, like this salad is made up of tomatoes and lettuce. It may imply confusion sometimes, like this alloy is a mingling of base metal and stainless steel.
each be one. What the Divine nature Chooses is undoubtedly the same as that chosen
by the human nature because there is not any contradiction or conflict whatever
between the will and the action of both.
The Lord Jesus Christ said: "My meat is to do the Will of Him that sent Me to finish His
work. " (Jn. 4:34). This proves that His Will is the same as that of the Father. In this
context, He said about Himself "The Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees
the Father do, for what things soever He does, these also does the Son likewise. " (Jn.
He does not seek for Himself a will that is independent of that of the Father.
Consequently He Says "Because I seek not Mine Own Will, but the Will of the Father,
who has sent Me. " (Jn. 6:38).
It is obvious that the Father and the Son in the Holy Trinity have One Will, for the
Lord Jesus Christ said: "I and My Father are One," (Jn. 10:30).
Hence, since He is one with Him in the Godhead, then He is essentially one with Him
concerning the Will. Again, the Son, in His Incarnation on earth, was fulfilling the Will of
the heavenly Father. Thus it must be that He Who united with the manhood had One
In fact, Sin is nothing but a conflict between man’s will and God’s.
But remember that our Lord Jesus Christ had no sin at all. He challenged the Jews
saying: "Which of you convicts Me of Sin?. " (Jn. 8:46). Therefore, His Will was that of
The Saints who are perfect in their behavior achieve complete agreement
between their will and the Will of God, so that their will becomes that of God, and
the Will of God becomes their will.
And St., Paul the Apostle said "But we have the mind of Christ. "(1 Cor. 2:16). He did
not say that our thoughts are in accord with the mind of Christ, but that "we have the
mind of Christ", and here the unity is stressed.
If this is said about those with whom and in whom God works, then how much more the
unity between the Son and His Own manhood would be in all that is related to the will,
the mind and the power to act! He, in Whom the Divine nature has united with the
human nature, a Hypostatic and Essential union without separation-not for a second nor
a twinkle of an eye,
If there was not unity between the Will of the Divine nature of Christ and His human
nature, this would have resulted in internal conflict. Far be it from Him! How then could
Christ be our guide and our example... to follow in His footsteps (1 Jn. 2:6)?.
The complete righteousness which marked the life of our Lord Jesus was due to
His Divine as well as His Human will.
1) the OO "Of two natures" means that they are from the same origin, not the same in composition (a man of America vs a man of flesh)
2) EO says that Christ is 2 natures in 1 hypostasis, being together but not the same at all times, while OO says that Christ is 1 nature made of 2 separate ones, that is, divinity and humanity
3) God the Son's will is separate but perfectly aligned with God the Father's will, and the same with both of them and the Holy Spirit. This perfect alignment between the will of the Father and Son is possible through the Christly nature/hypostasis of fully God and fully man, which in turn makes it impossible to sin, since sin is anything that is contrary to God's will or plan.
4) This whole matter is a very confusing mess that really needs to be solved quickly before a whole new issue arises
If anyone sees something wrong, please feel free to correct me- I'm still trying to learn all of this, and it would be terrible if I learned wrong.
Pray for me.