|
Answer:
Dr. Alexander Roman
alex@unicorne.org
There have been many positive discussions
between Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox theologians over the past two
decades especially on the issues that have divided those two families of
Churches since the Council of Chalcedon.
What the scholars discovered, to their pleasant surprise, was that their
two respective Churches held two different understandings of the word
"Physis" that originally divided them in the time of the Council of
Chalcedon.
On the Orthodox side, the term means "Nature" and if the Oriental Churches
maintained that in Christ there was only one Divine Nature of God the Word
Incarnate - then this was a denial of Christ's Humanity.
But the fruitful theological exchanges in recent times have demonstrated
that the Oriental Churches understand "Nature" to mean "Person."
The revelation came quite suddenly and in the heat of discussion . . . On
the level of theological understanding of the Person of Christ, there is
no longer any division or separation between those two families of
Orthodox Churches - although full ecclesial Communion has yet to be
restored.
Both the Copts and the Ethiopians, as Oriental Orthodox Churches,
earnestly condemn the heresy of Eutychianism which is the original theory
that all condemn as "Monophysitism."
Eutyches, as we know, was an Egyptian monk who refused to hold that Christ
was consubstantial with us - but he apparently admitted that Christ was
consubstantial with His Mother.
That whole issue is blurred and we don't know if Eutyches actually did
hold the latter view - in which case he was not an heretic.
What compounded the problem at the time was that Pope Dioscoros of
Alexandria, a Saint and Teacher of the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the
nephew of St Cyril of Alexandria, was a friend of Eutyches and defended
his belief in Christ's consubstantiality with His Mother as entirely
Orthodox.
Dioscoros later broke ties with Eutyches. In any event, Chalcedon never
censured Dioscoros for heresy - only for his refusal to appear before the
Council to explain his behaviour i.e. excommunicating Pope Leo of Rome.
The Oriental Churches always maintained the formula of St Cyril of
Alexandria: One Divine Nature of God the Word Incarnate. In this Union of
the Divine and Human Natures of Christ there is no "overtaking" of His
Human Nature - both are intact.
The term "Monophysite" is therefore a wrong term to describe the Oriental
Orthodox Churches and they are, in fact, "Miaphysite" - a term they are in
agreement with as well.
It is strange that these two families of Orthodox Churches have been
separated on the grounds of one word alone. But one word is also what
separated other Christians from each other in history.
There is still the matter of the Council of Chalcedon and the issue of
what kind of relationship the Oriental Churches could have to it. They
maintain that they should not be obliged to hold to the later four
Ecumenical Councils since their Churches were not represented at them and
the issues that caused those Councils to be called were matters affecting
the Roman-Byzantine West and were never problems in their jurisdictions.
There is also the matter of finding a "formula of reunion." Several
suggestions have been made, such as the mutual withdrawing of
excommunications of Saints and Teachers on both sides. That would be
sufficient, it is affirmed, to reestablish full ecclesial communion of
what we all hope will be one, holy, Orthodox, Catholic and Apostolic
Church in the near future!
|
