Matzpah
posted on Jan 21, 2009 - 08:12 AM
From petertheodore:Dear Meghalo05
These are good questions, though I will only answer here very briefly.
Of course any phrase can potentially be used to bear any meaning - with varying levels of confidence. I would not wish to suggest that most Eastern Orthodox do not satisfactorily confess that Jesus Christ is the Word of God incarnate to whom belong all the sufferings of his own humanity, as we do.
Nevertheless, when we consider how terms were used in the controversial period between say 430 and 550 it is clear that the terms you mention were usually used in two different and incompatible ways.
Nature in both cases stood for a individual instance, and it also stood for the innate natural quality of a thing. On the part of St Cyril and our own Fathers, the phrases that were used to describe our Christology were, as we know:
'union of two natures' and 'one incarnate nature of the Word'.
These phrases were to be understood as meaning that from two realities, and from two complete instances of humanity and Divinity, a union had taken place so that Christ was one being, not two, even though he was perfectly human and perfectly Divine. They also meant that the nature of the Word, his innate being as God, was now incarnate. The word 'of' stood for the fact that Christ is a union of diverse elements, but the word union, and the words 'one incarnate nature' teach us that Christ, the Word incarnate, is one, he is not two beings. And all of the properties of the humanity belong directly to the Word Himself, such that God the Word suffers and dies, in His own human experience.
Now on the other hand the heretics such as Theodore wished to deny that the Word had directly experienced any of the experiences of the humanity. As Nestorius said, 'I cannot accept that my God was a few days old'. They avoided this Cyrilline conclusion by insisting that the Word had united himself to a human, Jesus, and that the word Christ was the name of the union between these two persons or identities. They wished to say that when we see Christ we see the Word perfectly united to the man Jesus. The Word dwelt in the man Jesus in the same way as the Spirit dwelt in the prophets but in a much greater extent.
For Theodore, Theodoret, Ibas and those who followed them, Christ was 'in two natures' not because the humanity and Divinity remained complete in the union, but because they had their own personhood. They were two beings. And this is remarkably like the Tome of Leo which described how the Word received glory while the flesh received insults. Now if the Word does not also receive the insults then there is not an incarnation in the Cyrilline sense.
'Of two natures' stands for a true union of two diverse elements. It is a union of that which composes the union.
'In two natures' cannot describe a union at all. The two elements remain divided and are only united in an external sense.
That at least was how the controversy was understood.
'In two natures' is still heterodox if it is used in any sense which denies that it is the Word Himself who has become flesh and who himself experiences as his own all the experience of his own flesh. Those who deny this find it hard to say that 'God the Word died on the cross', just as they found it hard to say that 'Mary is the Mother of God'.
Those who taught that Christ was 'in two natures' could say that Mary was Mother of Christ, because that was the name they gave to the man Jesus who was assumed by the Word, or they could call her Mother of the man, because they considered that she was only the mother of that one of the two natures and divided them. In the same way they could only say that God the Word was in the man Jesus who died on the cross, and this again sounds a lot like the Tome of Leo - the Word receives glory while the flesh receives insults.
Dear Truth Seeker,
The first passage I quoted was from the Second Agreed Statement rather than from the Pastoral Agreement between the two Alexandrian churches. It would seem to me that this Second Agreed Statement has been accepted by all of the Oriental Orthodox Churches and by none of the Eastern Orthodox Churches - though some are more sympathetic than others.
I generally believe that the Eastern Orthodox have the same substance of Christology as us, I think that the greater challenges are the Imperialistic heritage, the infallibility granted to their councils, and the lack of reflection on our shared controversial history - I mean that few EO are willing to consider how their communion persecuted the OO.
It would seem to me that there are a variety of reasons why the EO have slowed up on the process of reconciliation - even while the local activity seems to be bearing more fruit - indeed just a few days ago I was invited to participate on a Serbian Orthodox forum.
Perhaps some of the reasons are:
i. Ignorance on the part of many EO bishops
ii. Many other things for EO bishops to worry about (how many Copts live in Russia for instance?)
iii. Various extreme groups resisting dialogue and causing instability in local EO churches
iv. Difficulty in EO churches acting together (one EO priest told me he did not accept the dialogue because the Antiocheans were involved)
v. EO has lost the sense and appreciation of diversity within Orthodoxy, having abolished all local liturgies
vi. There is fear, and sin.
vii. Some churches are under the control of their states
viii. There are indeed questions about saints, councils and anathemas
I am not sure that the theological issues are the most important. I believe that if you locked two sets of bishops up and told them that they weren't coming out till this division had been resolved then it should take no more than a few weeks.
I hope some of this helps
In Christ
Peter
Peter,
Thank you for your insightful post. You actually answered a question I posted as a new thread just moments ago. I agree with you that many Chalcedonian Christians find it difficult to say that God the Word died on the Cross. Yet, in my experience, they find it difficult to say, not because they reject the Incarnate Word, but because of their understanding that God, being divine, cannot suffer. If God the Son suffers in his own human experience, then what of the Father? Does He also suffer with His Son in that human experience?
By your saying that the nature of the Word, the innate being as God, is now incarnate, what does one then conclude about the ousia of the second person of the Trinity in relation to the ousia of the Father? Are they the same, similar, unlike?
The Incarnate Logos suffered "in the flesh" not in the divine essence: that's what I see as the position of the side in support of Chalcedon.
Sorry if I seemed confrontational. These are just questions that have come to me. Have a good evening.
_________________
Eastern Orthodox
Joined: Jul 05, 2005 | Posts: 49
).