Orthodox Christians frequently complain about the way that our popular culture categorizes Christians as either "Catholic" or "Protestant." We hasten to point out that a third category (Orthodox) also exists. Yet, in using three categories, we do a disservice to the fourth "branch" of Christianity: the non-Chalcedonian churhces. These are the churches that reject the Council of Chalcedon, in 451 AD, which defined the Church's current language about the Incarnation.
I intend, at some point, to post some material from different scholars about the controversial actions of that council. In the mean time, I want to offer an overview for Orthodox Christians on what it is that separates our communion from the largest of the non-Chalcedonian communions: the Copts. The Coptic communion, which includes Armenians, Ethiopians and some Syrians, holds around 50 to 60 million members (about 60% as large as the worldwide Anglican communion). The majority of these (around 40 million) are Ethiopian. Of ALL the non-Orthodox communions, they are the closest to us and the most likely to be reunited to Orthodoxy within our lifetimes.
What is it that still separates us? Continue reading!
The language for the Incarnation upheld by the Coptic communion today is identical to that of St. Cyril of Alexandria, and St. Cyril's Christology is upheld within the Orthodox communion by the council of Chalcedon (5th c.) and the 5th ecumenical council (held in Constantinople in the 6th c. under the Emperor Justinian). St. Cyril's doctrine of the Incarnation held that Christ was / is ONE person, and possessed (therefore) one nature: that of the Incarnate-Logos. Both parts (Incarnate and Logos) were essential. Other (heretical) theologians from Alexandria would later overemphasize the Logos at the expense of Christ's humanity, and this is called "Eutycheanism" - it is a heresy in both the Coptic communion today AND the Orthodox communion. St. Cyril, in contrast, believed that Christ's Incarnate nature was fully human and fully divine. If you imagine a "nature" like a giant list of everything it means to be a given thing (so that "human nature" is everything it means to be human) then this can make sense. Natures are categories of things, not actual and real things. If you took the list of everything it meant to be human, and "copy-paste" it to the bottom of the list of everything it meant to be divine (the Divine Nature), then you have something approximating St. Cyril's way of talking about the Incarnation: One Person, therefore One Nature, but a nature of full humanity united to full divinity.
According to the 5th ecumenical council AND the council of Chalcedon (the 4th ecumenical council), the Orthodox Church affirms this language SO LONG as it is understood as St. Cyril understood it (and St. Cyril qualified his language heavily to protect both the transcendence of God AND the fullness of Christ's humanity).
So if both the Coptic and Orthodox communions affirm a common language about the Incarnation, what's the issue?
The issue is that Chalcedon also upheld Pope St. Leo's terminology, which talks of Christ as being from two natures and IN two natures (even after the Incarnation), so long as these two natures are seen as indivisable, inseparable, and wholly united.
To us, these seem to say the same thing: Christ is one person, fully human, fully divine. They go about it in different ways. St. Cyril wanted to say Christ was FROM (but not IN) two natures. St. Leo affirmed both FROM and IN - asserting that if the Incarnate Christ did not possess a full human nature and a full divine nature then He couldn't be fully human and fully divine.
So to us, we think each is saying the same thing. However, the Copts to this day reject St. Leo's doctrine. If it were accepted, there would be literally no difference between us. In other words, the Orthodox ALREADY recognizes (via ecumenical council) that there is no difference between us, and has since the 5th council. It is the Copts that hold out.
We affirm Christ as one person, fully God and fully man (and would permit the Copts to continue using its current language of the Incarnation, so long as they permitted St. Leo's phrasing as well); we affirm Mary as Theotokos, and affirm that God (in Christ) died on the cross and rose from the grave. These doctrines were the ones cited against us as reasons for rejecting Chalcedon (as we were accused of another heresy called Nestorianism that does reject Mary as Theotokos, the full unity of the Incarnation, etc.)
The issue isn't doctrinal. The Copts aren't monophysite, but they ARE Cyrillian-Fundamentalists (that is, unwilling to permit non-Cyrillian phrasing for the Incarnation). Unless our phrasing (Chalcedon + Constantinople) is heretical, this makes the Coptic communion schismatic for rejecting those two councils, as the only grounds for rejecting a council is heresy.
At this point, Copts generally turn to discussing one of their saints: Dioscorus (successor to the episcopal throne of Alexandria after St. Cyril). Dioscorus was condemned by Chalcedon, but they find his theology and life to be saintly - this is given as a barrier. Indeed, I think it may be the most difficult barrier to communion remaining (aside from the simple force of history keeping us apart).
On Dioscorus, he safeguarded the heretic Eutyches and was condemned alongside him as a heretic. The Copts, after that time, also rejected Eutyches, and Dioscorus' protection of him had more to do with methodology / politics, but the point stands that Dioscorus communed a heretic, and didn't repent of this (so far as I know). This is the real, given reason for his condemnation by Chalcedon.
At some point I'll do a more in depth look at Chalcedon, but for now that gives you a rough overview of the talking points. Its about how we speak about the Incarnation, and the doctrines and actions affirmed at Chacledon. Hope that helps!
In Christ,
Macarius
No comments:
Post a Comment