4.16 The Heresies-Eutyches and Monophysitism: A Drop in the Ocean | Way of the Fathers
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 вер 2024
- The pendulum swings one more time as Eutyches overreacts against Nestorius, and emphasizes the union of the two natures in Christ, to the point of blurring the distinction between them. In this conception of the Person of Christ, the divine nature so overwhelms the human nature that Jesus’ humanity is absorbed and cancelled out like a drop of oil in the ocean. This solution corrected Nestorius’ separation of the two natures, but it went too far and compromised the integrity of his human nature and, even more than Apollinarius before him, described a Jesus who was not really fully human.
LINKS
To listen to Mike Aquilina’s episode 46 on Cyril of Alexandria: www.catholiccu...
To listen to Mike Aquilina’s episode 48 on Leo the Great: www.catholiccu...
To listen to Mike Aquilina’s episode 2.5 on The Council of Chalcedon: www.catholiccu...
To read the Tome of Leo (Letter to Flavian): www.catholiccu...
To listen to the audiobook of the Tome of Leo: www.catholiccu...
To read Cyril of Alexandria’s On the Unity of Christ: www.tertullian...
For more on the christological controversies in context, see the book: Reading the Church Fathers: A History of the Early Church and the Development of Doctrine: sophiainstitut...
SIGN UP for Catholic Culture’s Newsletter: www.catholiccu...
DONATE at: www.catholiccul...
To connect with Dr. James Papandrea, On UA-cam - The Original Church: / @theoriginalchurch
Join the conversation in the Original Church Community on Locals: theoriginalchu...
Dr. Papandrea’s Homepage: www.jimpapandre...
Theme Music: Gaudeamus (Introit for the Feast of All Saints), sung by Jeff Ostrowski. Courtesy of Corpus Christi Watershed: www.ccwatershe...
Thank you for your time and effort in providing this excellent content. Every Christian needs to watch this video.
Fabulous content ❤
Very good
Thanks!
Sharing, great epilogue
Excellent!!! Thank you for this .
It can really be confusing,if we are in union with the oriental orthodox and Assyrian church of East,yet we are not in communion,though they are still slightly holding unto this heresies of their forefathers. Is there no differences against!what of the primacy of the pope,which all the eastern orthodox churches,whether coptic,oriental, Assyrian etc.
Prayers continue for unity of all Christians 🙏🥰
It is complicated, and requires understanding the nuance - Eutyches and monophysitism is still a heresy, but the Oriental Orthodox communions are not considered heretics today because they agree that Eutyches was a heretic, and they are not monophysites, but hold to a miaphysite christology. To be precise, we are not exactly "in union" with the non-chalcedonian communions, but we recognize them as legitimate Christians, though they are "separated brethren" - somewhat the same as the Protestants, except that non-chalcedonian communions are ancient traditions and do have a claim to apostolic succession.
What's the intro chant?
Link is in the description
Peace of Christ.
I’m just starting to learn this, so please forgive me I had some notes below.
1. Christ is from 2 natures however is 1 nature after the incarnation. That one nature after the union is both full human and fully God. The incarnate God. The GodMan. Without mingling, confusion, alteration or separation .
2. Dioscorus believes that the Logos became consubstantial with humanity, so how can he be labeled as a Monophysite. He also excommunicated Eutyches until he repented only to be excommunicated again, by the Coptic church. Dioscorus never agreed with Eutyches christology.
3. You say the Oriental Coptic view is leaning more into Cyril of Alexandria’s language and the Catholic/EO view is like the marriage analogy.
Why would the Catholics and EO deny the council of Ephesus and Cyril’s language, and describe it in a new terminology.
And also Christ Himself uses the word “Mia” in Greek to describe the union of marriage.
Mathew 19:6.
4. Dioscorus asked for the Tome of Leo to be read twice at the council in 449, however Juvenal of Jerusalem was asked about this and answered priority was given to the letter of Theodosius II. Also Leo’s Tome and Cyril’s 12 Anathemas don’t agree with each other, Leo refers to 2 separate entities, one for miracles and one for suffering, however Cyril notes “if you don’t believe that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, let them be anathema.”
I'll try to respond to each point...
1. What you've described here is pretty close to miaphysite christology, although the miaphysites would say "one COMPOSITE nature" (both in one) to distinguish from monophysite, which is just one nature (only one). Miaphysite christology is not a heresy (like monophysite is) but it's also not exactly what we as Catholics would say. Miaphysites, like the Coptics, would say that theirs is a better interpretation of Cyril of Alexandria, and it's true that Cyril says some things like this. But Catholics would say that Christ is not "from" two nature, but "in" two natures, not one composite nature but two natures. The rest is the same for us.
2. Dioscorus may claim that he believed that Christ is consubstantial with humanity, but to the extent that he supported (followed) Eutyches, his christology would contradict that, in the sense that Eutyches' monophsysite christology describes a Christ in which the humanity is all but cancelled out. I suspect that Dioscorus didn't really follow Eutyches whole-heartedly, but supported him for political reasons. In any case, what's important is that the Coptics and other Oriental Orthodox do not follow Eutyches.
3. The Catholics and Eastern Orthodox do not deny the Council of Ephesus. ALL Christians (by definition) accept all three of the first three ecumenical councils. I would argue that anyone who does not accept Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus, cannot legitimately call themselves a Christian. Although we as Catholics would nuance our understanding of Cyril slightly differently than the Oriental Orthodox, we all agree that Cyril is not a heretic. Your point about Christ using the word "mia" supports the fact that both Catholic/Orthodox diophysite christology and miaphysite christology are within the bounds of orthodoxy (in the sense of correct teaching, not heresy).
4. I'm not sure what your point is regarding these details. There is room for slightly different perspectives, or slightly different ways of expressing the truth.
I am a Copt Orthodox , I think there is a huge misunderstanding , you accusing us by being Monophysite , meanwhile we believe in One person with Two natures .
Actually I think that I was quite clear that Coptic Orthodox today are not monophysite, but miaphysite. Did you listen to the whole podcast? I did affirm that Coptic Christians do understand Christ in terms of the hypostatic union, one Person in two natures.