DOCSLIB.ORG

Theological Equipping Class Christological Heresies February 21, 2021

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Theological Equipping Class Christological Heresies February 21, 2021 Theological Equipping Class Christological Heresies February 21, 2021 Recap: What are Heresies? "a doctrine that ultimately destroys, destabilizes, or distorts a mystery rather than preserving it" (Alistair McGrath) Trinity: unity, plurality, equality, mystery - how do Trinitarian heresies "minimize the mystery"? Christology: humanity, deity – how do Christological heresies tend to "minimize the mystery"? Major Heresies of the First Two Centuries of the Church: legalism and dualism Major Heresies of the Next Two Centuries: Trinitarian heresies (Arianism, adoptionism, & modalism) Five Christological Heresies to consider today: 1. Apollinarianism 2. Nestorianism 3. Eutychianism 4. Monophysitism 5. Monothelitism Context and Significance Political jockeying for preeminence Emphases of Alexandria and Antioch Why does this really matter? ● Does God actually save man? Well, in order to do so, God must become man. So if Jesus isn't God or isn't man, that doesn't happen! ● When it comes to Trinitarian heresies, we established that it is truly God who comes down. But today we will address the question of whether He comes down far enough. Does the Son of God actually incarnate, unite Himself to humanity; or does He just come part of the way? Is He only partly human and thus we are only partly saved. 1 Apollinarianism ● Apollinaris (sometimes Apollinarius) of Laodicea (360s & 370s) ● What is humanity? Spirit + flesh/body o the immaterial logos was simply clothed with physicality ● So Christ possessed a human body, but not a human soul or mind or emotions, or, as it would be called in Greek, a "rational soul." ● Is Jesus fully human? o God in a man suit ● What drives Apollinaris? o Fear that if Christ is truly and fully human with a human mind and soul, then that will somehow compromise or taint Christ. o Presupposition: humanity itself is weak and sinful o Original vs. fallen humanity ● What's the big deal? Why does it matter if Jesus had a human soul or not? o Well, if Jesus was only half human, then we are only half saved. o He only redeems what He assumes. o "If any believe in Jesus Christ as a human being without human reason, they are the ones devoid of reason (mic drop), and unworthy of salvation. For that which he has not taken up he has not saved (in other words, he only redeems what he assumes or could also be translated as the unassumed is unhealed). He saved that which he joined to his divinity. If only half of Adam had fallen, then it would be possible for Christ to take up and save only half. But if the entire human nature fell, all of it must be united to the Word in order to be saved as a whole Let them not grudge us our total salvation, or endue the Savior only with … the bones and nerves and mere appearance of humanity." (Gregory of Nazianzus) ● Apollinarianism was officially condemned by the Council of Constantinople in 381 and Apollinaris died the next year, in 382. 2 Nestorianism ● Key proponents: o Diodore, bishop of Tarsus o Theodore, bishop of Mopsuestia o Nestorius, (386-450), who became the archbishop of Constantinople in 428 and whose name has been forever linked with this heresy known as Nestorianism. o They hated Apollinarianism. ● Solution: divide the two natures of Jesus into 2 persons and ask "to whom should we ascribe the different events in Christ's life." o Human Jesus vs. divine Son ● Complete deity and humanity, but divided! o Analogy of the indwelling Spirit ● Mary, theotokos? o Christotokos? o Not about Mary, but about the Son ● What drove the Nestorians? What were they afraid of? Why were they seeking to minimize the mystery? o Fear that if we speak of deity and humanity as being joined in one person that the deity would overwhelm the humanity and we would lose sight of the true humanity. ● Rebuke: Cyril of Alexandria. o Nestorianism compromises the gospel! Who actually dies? o In Nestorianism, you don't have God becoming man, you have God coming alongside a man. o "Nestorianism ends up making too little of Jesus and too much of us." (Kevin deYoung) ● Church's complicated response (talk about next week) 3 rd o Nestorius was deposed at the 3 ​ ecumenical council at Ephesus in 431 and spent the rest of ​ his life in exile, dying in 450, only one year before his views were formally condemned at th the 4 ​ council at Chalcedon in 451. ​ ● Side note: Nestorianism today Eutychianism ● Eutyches (about 380-486) - monastic leader in Constantinople ● Hated Nestorianism o Whereas Nestorianism promoted two persons and two natures, Eutyches swung the pendulum the other way. He said that not only are there not two persons, but there aren't two natures. Instead, the divine and human natures merge to form a new nature. o "I confess that our Lord was of two natures before the union but after the union one nature " (Eutyches) … ● Confusion or mixture of natures o Acids and bases o Yellow and blue o Donkeys and horses ● Church's complicated response (to discuss next week) th o formally condemned by the language of the 4 ​ ecumenical council at Chalcedon in 451. ​ 4 Next Two Heretical Views are Variations on the Above Monophysitism ● Like Eutychianism o Monos: one, physis: nature. o But not all monophysites were Eutychian. ● Historical context and Armenia ● Old Oriental Orthodox Churches: don't embrace later ecumenical councils and have a completely different hierarchy than Eastern Orthodox churches and are not in formal communion with Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism. ● Bottom line, monophysitism is a heresy that denies that Christ has two natures and thus mingles or confuses the deity and humanity. Its expressed clearest historically in Eutychianism, but there are other forms as well. Monothelitism ● monos: one, thelema: will ● Promoted by Sergius I, patriarch of Constantinople from about 610-638 ● As the name suggests, this view promoted the idea that Jesus didn't possess two wills, a human will and a divine will, but rather one will. ● Which previous heresy does this resemble? o If Christ didn't possess a human will, then neither did He save the human will. He only redeems what He assumes. o Christ descends, but not far enough and thus we aren't actually saved. We are partially saved, but there is still some aspect of our being that remains perpetually unreconciled. ● Church's Response led by Maximus the Confessor (580-662) o Is the will located in the nature or the person? th o Monotheletism was condemned at the 6 ​ ecumenical council at Constantinople 680-1. ​ 5 Conclusion ● Counterfeits and doppelgangers o "For if the incarnation was a phantasm, so too is salvation a phantasm." (Cyril of Jerusalem, th ​ ​ 4 ​ century) ​ o "It is necessary that the self-same Person who is to make this satisfaction [for sin] be perfect God and perfect man, since He cannot make it unless He be really God, and He ought not to th make it unless He be really man." (Anselm of Canterbury, 11 ​ century) ​ 6 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Continuity and Tradition: the Prominent Role of Cyrillian Christology In
    Jacopo Gnisci Jacopo Gnisci CONTINUITY AND TRADITION: THE PROMINENT ROLE OF CYRILLIAN CHRISTOLOGY IN FIFTEENTH AND SIXTEENTH CENTURY ETHIOPIA The Ethiopian Tewahedo Church is one of the oldest in the world. Its clergy maintains that Christianity arrived in the country during the first century AD (Yesehaq 1997: 13), as a result of the conversion of the Ethiopian Eunuch, narrated in the Acts of the Apostles (8:26-39). For most scholars, however, the history of Christianity in the region begins with the conversion of the Aksumite ruler Ezana, approximately during the first half of the fourth century AD.1 For historical and geographical reasons, throughout most of its long history the Ethiopian Church has shared strong ties with Egypt and, in particular, with the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria. For instance, a conspicuous part of its literary corpus, both canonical and apocryphal, is drawn from Coptic sources (Cerulli 1961 67:70). Its liturgy and theology were also profoundly affected by the developments that took place in Alexandria (Mercer 1970).2 Furthermore, the writings of one of the most influential Alexandrian theologians, Cyril of Alexandria (c. 378-444), played a particularly significant role in shaping Ethiopian theology .3 The purpose of this paper is to highlight the enduring importance and influence of Cyril's thought on certain aspects of Ethiopian Christology from the early developments of Christianity in the country to the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Its aim, therefore, is not to offer a detailed examination of Cyril’s work, or more generally of Ethiopian Christology. Rather, its purpose is to emphasize a substantial continuity in the traditional understanding of the nature of Christ amongst Christian 1 For a more detailed introduction to the history of Ethiopian Christianity, see Kaplan (1982); Munro-Hay (2003).
    [Show full text]
  • A Complete Course
    A Complete Course Forum Theological Midwest Author: Rev.© Peter V. Armenio Publisher:www.theologicalforum.org Rev. James Socias Copyright MIDWEST THEOLOGICAL FORUM Downers Grove, Illinois iii CONTENTS xiv Abbreviations Used for 43 Sidebar: The Sanhedrin the Books of the Bible 44 St. Paul xiv Abbreviations Used for 44 The Conversion of St. Paul Documents of the Magisterium 46 An Interlude—the Conversion of Cornelius and the Commencement of the Mission xv Foreword by Francis Cardinal George, to the Gentiles Archbishop of Chicago 47 St. Paul, “Apostle of the Gentiles” xvi Introduction 48 Sidebar and Maps: The Travels of St. Paul 50 The Council of Jerusalem (A.D. 49– 50) 1 Background to Church History: 51 Missionary Activities of the Apostles The Roman World 54 Sidebar: Magicians and Imposter Apostles 3 Part I: The Hellenistic Worldview 54 Conclusion 4 Map: Alexander’s Empire 55 Study Guide 5 Part II: The Romans 6 Map: The Roman Empire 59 Chapter 2: The Early Christians 8 Roman Expansion and the Rise of the Empire 62 Part I: Beliefs and Practices: The Spiritual 9 Sidebar: Spartacus, Leader of a Slave Revolt Life of the Early Christians 10 The Roman Empire: The Reign of Augustus 63 Baptism 11 Sidebar: All Roads Lead to Rome 65 Agape and the Eucharist 12 Cultural Impact of the Romans 66 Churches 13 Religion in the Roman Republic and 67 Sidebar: The Catacombs Roman Empire 68 Maps: The Early Growth of Christianity 14 Foreign Cults 70 Holy Days 15 Stoicism 70 Sidebar: Christian Symbols 15 Economic and Social Stratification of 71 The Papacy Roman
    [Show full text]
  • Trinity in History: How Not to Be a Heretic
    Page 1 of 4 Bruce A. Ware THE TRINITY IN HISTORY: HOW NOT TO BE A HERETIC I. Introduction: The Twin Pillars of Trinitarian Doctrine: Distinction and Equality; Difference and Identity. E.g., John 1:1 – “with God” (distinction), “was God” (equality) The Christian faith affirms that there is one and only one God, eternally existing while fully and simultaneously expressed in three Persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Each member of the Godhead is equally God, each is eternally God, and each is fully God—not three gods but three Persons of the one Godhead. Each Person is equal in essence as each possesses eternally, simultaneously, and fully the identically same and undivided divine nature. Yet each is also an eternal and distinct personal expression of that one undivided divine nature. Because of this, what distinguishes each Person of the Godhead from each other Person is not and cannot be the divine nature, since the identically same one and undivided divine nature is the full and eternal possession of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. So, what distinguish each Person of the Godhead from each other Person are the relationships that each has with each of the other Persons and his particular roles in relation to the others. In light of both the equality of essence yet differentiation of relationships and roles that exist among the Persons of the Godhead, we consider now just how the church came to affirm these truths about the Trinity and how those Trinitarian relationships and roles are expressed within the Trinity of Persons.
    [Show full text]
  • Monenergism Monothelitism Versus Dyenergism
    CHAPTER THREE ‘IMPERIAL’ MONENERGISMMONOTHELITISM VERSUS DYENERGISMDYOTHELITISM In this section, I shall explore simultaneously (to the degree that existing sources allow) the ‘imperial’ or ‘Chalcedonian’ Monenergism- Monothelitism and Dyenergism-Dyothelitism, with the objective of clarifying the similarities and diff erences between the two oposing doctrines. 3.1. Key notions 3.1.1. Th e oneness of Christ Owing to a common neo-Chalcedonian background, adherents of both Monenergite-Monothelite and Dyenergite-Dyothelite doctrines accepted the oneness of Christ as a fundamental starting point. Monenergists- Monothelites, however, placed more emphasis on this oneness. In the relatively brief Alexandrian pact, for example, the oneness of Christ is referred to more than twenty times. All statements about the single energeia and will were normally preceded by a confession of Christ’s oneness.1 Dyenergists-Dyothelites also began their commentaries on energeia and will by postulating the oneness, though not as frequently or as insistently as their opponents. In one of the earliest Dyenergist- Dyothelite texts, the encyclical of Sophronius, a statement of faith on the two energeiai and wills begins with a reference to Christ’s oneness .2 In these and many other ways, both parties demonstrated their adherence to the Christological language of Cyril of Alexandria. 1 2 5–6 See the Pact of the Alexandrian union (ACO2 II 598 ), Sergius ’ letter to Pope 2 6–7 29–31 Honorius (ACO2 II 542 ), Ecthesis (ACO2 I 158 ). 2 1 17–18 ACO2 II 440 . 104 chapter three 3.1.2. One hypostasis and two natures Th e followers of the Monenergist-Monothelite doctrine as it emerged in the seventh century, were Chalcedonians who felt it necessary to make a clear distinction between Christ’s hypostasis and his nature.
    [Show full text]
  • The Chalcedonian Christology of St John Damascene : Philosophical Terminology and Theological Arguments
    Durham E-Theses The Chalcedonian Christology of St John Damascene : philosophical terminology and theological arguments Metallidis, George How to cite: Metallidis, George (2003) The Chalcedonian Christology of St John Damascene : philosophical terminology and theological arguments, Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/1085/ Use policy The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details. Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk 2 UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM DEPARTMENT OF THEOLOGY GEORGE METALLIDIS The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without his prior written consentand information derived from it should be acknowledged. The Chalcedonian Christology of St John Damascene: Philosophical Terminology and Theological Arguments PhD Thesis/FourthYear Supervisor: Prof. ANDREW LOUTH 0-I OCT2003 Durham 2003 The ChalcedonianChristology of St John Damascene To my Mother Despoina The ChalcedonianChristology of St John Damascene CONTENTS Page ABBREVIATIONS 7 ACKNOWLEDGMENT 12 INTRODUCTION 14 CHAPTER ONE TheLife of St John Damascene 1.
    [Show full text]
  • The Development of Marian Doctrine As
    INTERNATIONAL MARIAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON, OHIO in affiliation with the PONTIFICAL THEOLOGICAL FACULTY MARIANUM ROME, ITALY By: Elizabeth Marie Farley The Development of Marian Doctrine as Reflected in the Commentaries on the Wedding at Cana (John 2:1-5) by the Latin Fathers and Pastoral Theologians of the Church From the Fourth to the Seventeenth Century A Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctorate in Sacred Theology with specialization in Marian Studies Director: Rev. Bertrand Buby, S.M. Marian Library/International Marian Research Institute University of Dayton 300 College Park Dayton, OH 45469-1390 2013 i Copyright © 2013 by Elizabeth M. Farley All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Nihil obstat: François Rossier, S.M., STD Vidimus et approbamus: Bertrand A. Buby S.M., STD – Director François Rossier, S.M., STD – Examinator Johann G. Roten S.M., PhD, STD – Examinator Thomas A. Thompson S.M., PhD – Examinator Elio M. Peretto, O.S.M. – Revisor Aristide M. Serra, O.S.M. – Revisor Daytonesis (USA), ex aedibus International Marian Research Institute, et Romae, ex aedibus Pontificiae Facultatis Theologicae Marianum, die 22 Augusti 2013. ii Dedication This Dissertation is Dedicated to: Father Bertrand Buby, S.M., The Faculty and Staff at The International Marian Research Institute, Father Jerome Young, O.S.B., Father Rory Pitstick, Joseph Sprug, Jerome Farley, my beloved husband, and All my family and friends iii Table of Contents Prėcis.................................................................................. xvii Guidelines........................................................................... xxiii Abbreviations...................................................................... xxv Chapter One: Purpose, Scope, Structure and Method 1.1 Introduction...................................................... 1 1.2 Purpose............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Paradigm of Chalcedonian Christology in Richard Hooker's Discourse on Grace and the Church
    22 I The Paradigm of Chalcedonian Christology in Richard Hooker's Discourse on Grace and the Church W J Torrance Kirby For as much as there is no union of God with man without that meane betweene both which is both, it seemeth requisite [to] consider how God is in Christ, then how Christ is in us. (Lawes 5.50.3) In the dedicatory preface to the fifth book of his treatise Of the Lawes of Ecclesiastical/ Politie, Richard Hooker remarks that 'the weightiest conflicts the Church hath had were those which touched the head, the person of our Saviour Christ, and the next of importance those questions which are at this date [ie the period of the Reformation and its aftermath] betweene us and the Church of Rome about the actions of the body of the church of God ... ' (FLE 2:2.15-19). The great actions of the church disputed in the sixteenth century have to do principally with the manner and the means of our participation in God's own life. The communication of God's grace to humanity was opened up to rigorous scrutiny in Luther's formulation of the doctrine of justification by faith alone. The doctrine of the church was radically recast as a logical consequence of the rethinking of the doctrine of salvation. Both the soteriology and the ecclesiology of the Reformation are intimately linked to that weightier conflict touching the manner of the union of God and man in one Christ. Indeed Chalcedonian christological orthodoxy provides a governing paradigm for the reformers in their fundamental approach to these questions.
    [Show full text]
  • “Oriental Orthodox” Monophysite Formula by W
    Against the “Oriental Orthodox” Monophysite Formula By W. J. Whitman During the Nestorian controversy, St. Cyril of Alexandria used the following formula: the person of Christ is “one nature (physis) of the Word of God Incarnate.” Additionally, Cyril used the terms physis and hypostasis interchangeably. The Cyrilline Monophysites considered this terminology to be part of sacred tradition. However, the Orthodox faction believed no such thing. It is not the terminology of St. Cyril that we must believe, but the spirit of what he taught. Fr. John Romanides writes: “Thus, in order to understand the Fathers properly, we must know not only the expressions that they used, in other words, what they said and taught, but we must also know the corresponding concepts.”1 The Orthodox found it necessary to reformulate the linguistic expressions of Cyril‟s Christology in the midst of new controversies. The Monophysite faction resisted any refinement of theological terminology. After Cyril‟s time, a heretic named Eutyches adopted this same formula; but Eutyches‟ interpretation of it was diametrically opposed to Cyril‟s. Eutyches taught that the two natures (physeis) in Christ—the divinity and the humanity—were united into one nature (physis) in such a way that the humanity was virtually annihilated through absorption. The Cyrilline Monophysites, who clung to the words of Cyril, were willing to accept Eutyches as one of their own: for he used the “right” phrases and terms. It did not matter much to them that what Eutyches taught was entirely wrong. The Monophysites sided with Eutyches against the rest of Christendom at the Second Council of Ephesus in 449AD.
    [Show full text]
  • St.-Thomas-Aquinas-The-Summa-Contra-Gentiles.Pdf
    The Catholic Primer’s Reference Series: OF GOD AND HIS CREATURES An Annotated Translation (With some Abridgement) of the SUMMA CONTRA GENTILES Of ST. THOMAS AQUINAS By JOSEPH RICKABY, S.J., Caution regarding printing: This document is over 721 pages in length, depending upon individual printer settings. The Catholic Primer Copyright Notice The contents of Of God and His Creatures: An Annotated Translation of The Summa Contra Gentiles of St Thomas Aquinas is in the public domain. However, this electronic version is copyrighted. © The Catholic Primer, 2005. All Rights Reserved. This electronic version may be distributed free of charge provided that the contents are not altered and this copyright notice is included with the distributed copy, provided that the following conditions are adhered to. This electronic document may not be offered in connection with any other document, product, promotion or other item that is sold, exchange for compensation of any type or manner, or used as a gift for contributions, including charitable contributions without the express consent of The Catholic Primer. Notwithstanding the preceding, if this product is transferred on CD-ROM, DVD, or other similar storage media, the transferor may charge for the cost of the media, reasonable shipping expenses, and may request, but not demand, an additional donation not to exceed US$25. Questions concerning this limited license should be directed to [email protected] . This document may not be distributed in print form without the prior consent of The Catholic Primer. Adobe®, Acrobat®, and Acrobat® Reader® are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Adobe Systems Incorporated in the United States and/or other countries.
    [Show full text]
  • The Concept of “Sister Churches” in Catholic-Orthodox Relations Since
    THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA The Concept of “Sister Churches” In Catholic-Orthodox Relations since Vatican II A DISSERTATION Submitted to the Faculty of the School of Theology and Religious Studies Of The Catholic University of America In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree Doctor of Philosophy © Copyright All Rights Reserved By Will T. Cohen Washington, D.C. 2010 The Concept of “Sister Churches” In Catholic-Orthodox Relations since Vatican II Will T. Cohen, Ph.D. Director: Paul McPartlan, D.Phil. Closely associated with Catholic-Orthodox rapprochement in the latter half of the 20 th century was the emergence of the expression “sister churches” used in various ways across the confessional division. Patriarch Athenagoras first employed it in this context in a letter in 1962 to Cardinal Bea of the Vatican Secretariat for the Promotion of Christian Unity, and soon it had become standard currency in the bilateral dialogue. Yet today the expression is rarely invoked by Catholic or Orthodox officials in their ecclesial communications. As the Polish Catholic theologian Waclaw Hryniewicz was led to say in 2002, “This term…has now fallen into disgrace.” This dissertation traces the rise and fall of the expression “sister churches” in modern Catholic-Orthodox relations and argues for its rehabilitation as a means by which both Catholic West and Orthodox East may avoid certain ecclesiological imbalances toward which each respectively tends in its separation from the other. Catholics who oppose saying that the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are sisters, or that the church of Rome is one among several patriarchal sister churches, generally fear that if either of those things were true, the unicity of the Church would be compromised and the Roman primacy rendered ineffective.
    [Show full text]
  • Saint Pulcheria
    Saint Pulcheria Virgin, Empress of the Eastern Roman Empire In 399 AD, in the city of Constantinople, Aelia to have bishops reinstated who had been unjustly Pulcheria was born to the Easter Roman Emperor Flavius dismissed. Arcadius, and his wife Aelia Eudoxia. Arcadius was a In 421 AD, when Bishop Atticus reported the week and easily controlled emperor, reigning during a persecution of Christians by the Sasanian King Bahram V time when the empire was being invaded by various after the destruction of a Zoroastrian temple, Pulcheria Gothic armies comprised primarily of Arian-Christians influenced her brother to send troops to defend the who believed Jesus Christ, the Son, was a creation of the Christians in the Sassanid Empire. After a successful Father, rather than of one substance with the Father. campaign which Theodosius attributed to his sisters piety Pulcheria had an older sister who had passed away young. and virginity, Christians were allowed to return to In 400 AD, her sister Arcadia would be born, followed by Sassanid. During this time, Theodosius married a pagan Theodosius II and Mariana in 401 AD. In 402 AD, who took the name Aelia Eudocia, and converted to Arcadius went on to declare his one year old son Christianity. Theodosius II to be his co-Emperor. In 431 AD, the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus Despite the fact that Pulcheria’s family were was called to address an issue with the Nestorius of Nicene-Christians and accepted the reality of the Trinity, Constantinople, who denied Mary as the Theotokos, the her mother Eudoxia was in constant conflict with the “God-bearer.” Pulcheria supported Cyril of Alexandria, Patriarch of Constantinople, Saint John Chrysostom.
    [Show full text]
  • Coptic Interpretations of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon
    1 1 Coptic interpretations of the Fourth Ecumenical Council Table of contents 1 The Chalcedon Crisis and Monophysitism 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Misunderstanding 1.3 Common Declaration 1.4 Monophysitism and the Council of Chalcedon 1.5 Two Different Traditions 1.6 Mia Physis 1.7 Mia Physis and Soteriology 1.8 Common Faith 1.9 Recent Efforts for Unity 1.10 Conclusion 2 Agreed Official Statements on Christology with the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches 2.1 Eastern Orthodox Opponents of the Chambesy Union 3 Article by Fr. John S. Romanides 4 Chalcedon (An Analysis) 5 After Chalcedon - Orthodoxy in the 5th/6th Centuries 6 Pope Saint Dioscorus I of Alexandria (Coptic POV) 6.1 Related Saint: St. Timothy Aelurus of Alexandria 6.1.1 The Consecration of St. Timothy 6.1.2 The Murder of Proterius 6.1.3 The Exile of St. Timothy 6.1.4 The Return of St. Timothy from Exile 6.1.5 The Christology of St. Timothy of Alexandria 6.2 Related Event: The Martyrdom of Thirty Thousand Christians in Alexandria 6.3 Related Saint: St. Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople 6.4 Pope Timothy III of Alexandria, Empress Theodora, and Patriarch Anthimus I of Constantinople 7 The Orthodox Christology of St. Severus of Antioch 8 The Humanity of Christ (What Oriental Orthodox Believe) 9 The One Will and the One Act, By HH Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria 10 Additional/Miscellaneous Notes 2 2 The Chalcedon Crisis and Monophysitism Monophysitism: Reconsidered Mia-Physis By Fr. Matthias F. Wahba St. Antonius Coptic Orthodox Church Hayward, California USA Introduction The Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, in which I am a priest, is one of the Oriental Orthodox Churches.
    [Show full text]