| The Oriental Orthodox Churches: Keepers of the Alexandrian Christological Tradition: |
In 451 Pope Leo of Rome sent a delegation of legates into the city of
Chalcedon with orders to issue his Tome and allow no compromise
regarding its complete acceptance. The council of bishops assembled there
had a choice: accept the Tome without debate or face the prospects of a
divided Church. Pope Leo knew that the Emperor would accept nothing
short of a united Church and an end to the controversy plaguing the empire.
The bishops of the Antiochene Christological tradition welcomed Rome's
ultimatum and support. Yet one third of the Church did not buckle under
Roman & Imperial pressure.
These Churches were committed to the Alexandrian Christology which
was officially endorsed at the Council of Ephesus, the Third Ecumenical
Council. The Tome of Leo sought to reconcile and rehabilitate the
Antiochene Christology which had been brought into question at Ephesus.
The Antiochene school of Christology emphasized a sharp distinction
between Christ's divinity and humaninty. The Alexandrian school taught a
Christology which emphasized the complete unity of divinity and humanity,
"without confusion, change, separation or division" in the one nature and
person of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Pope Leo's attempt at a new theological formula was seen as an offense
to the Church's official Christology as taught by St. Cyril of Alexandria and
the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus. Questions also arose due to the fact
that Nestorians (& Nestorius himself) were claiming victory as a result of
Leo's Tome and the Chalcedonian definition. Although the next two Councils
(Constantinople II and III) attempted to find a middle ground between
Ephesus and Chalcedon, this ancient wound to the unity of the Church is only
being healed in our day.
The Oriental Orthodox (consisting of the Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian,
Eritrean, Indian and Syrian Churches) did not accept the Council of
Chalcedon. These Churches rather upheld the original three Ecumenical
Councils and were in turn falsely accused of following the heresy of
Monophysitism.
Monophysites taught that Christ is solely Divine: His humanity was
"swallowed up" by His Divinity. Oriental Orthodox are Mia-physites
-following St. Cyril of Alexandria and, before him, St. Athanasius the Great,
who taught the "one nature (mia physis) of the Word of God incarnate."
While the prefix "mono" connotes numerical oneness, "mia" conveys our
doctrine of Christ's composite oneness. We are thus Orthodox
Miaphysites rather than heretical Monophysites.
While the Latin Catholic and Byzantine Orthodox Churches upheld the
Antiochene Christology, Oriental Orthodox have maintained the historic
Alexandrian Christology. Chalcedonians teach Christ is in two natures.
Oriental Orthodox teach that Christ's one composite nature is from two
natures.
Modern ecumenical dialogue between our ancient Churches has
revealed that the two respective Christologies, Ephesian (i.e., from the
Council of Ephesus) and Chalcedonian -if properly understood- are
orthodox and compatible. Theologically, this 1500 year old schism has been
settled in our day through the official Christological Statements between
the Latin Catholic Church and Oriental Orthodox Churches as well as the
landmark Agreed Statement on Christology between the Byzantine and
Oriental Orthodox Churches in which we state:
"We have now clearly understood that both families have always
loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith,
and the unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition, though they
have used Christological terms in different ways. It is this common
faith and continuous loyalty to the Apostolic Tradition that should be
the basis for our unity and communion."
This was discovered long ago by the 12th century Armenian Church
Patriarch St. Nersess the Gracefilled who wrote in his Pontifical Letter,
"If one says 'one nature' in the sense of the indissoluble and indivisible union
and not in the sense of confusion, and if one says 'two natures' as being
without confusion, alteration or signifying division, then both positions are
within the orbit of orthodoxy."
Chalcedon with orders to issue his Tome and allow no compromise
regarding its complete acceptance. The council of bishops assembled there
had a choice: accept the Tome without debate or face the prospects of a
divided Church. Pope Leo knew that the Emperor would accept nothing
short of a united Church and an end to the controversy plaguing the empire.
The bishops of the Antiochene Christological tradition welcomed Rome's
ultimatum and support. Yet one third of the Church did not buckle under
Roman & Imperial pressure.
These Churches were committed to the Alexandrian Christology which
was officially endorsed at the Council of Ephesus, the Third Ecumenical
Council. The Tome of Leo sought to reconcile and rehabilitate the
Antiochene Christology which had been brought into question at Ephesus.
The Antiochene school of Christology emphasized a sharp distinction
between Christ's divinity and humaninty. The Alexandrian school taught a
Christology which emphasized the complete unity of divinity and humanity,
"without confusion, change, separation or division" in the one nature and
person of our Lord Jesus Christ.
Pope Leo's attempt at a new theological formula was seen as an offense
to the Church's official Christology as taught by St. Cyril of Alexandria and
the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus. Questions also arose due to the fact
that Nestorians (& Nestorius himself) were claiming victory as a result of
Leo's Tome and the Chalcedonian definition. Although the next two Councils
(Constantinople II and III) attempted to find a middle ground between
Ephesus and Chalcedon, this ancient wound to the unity of the Church is only
being healed in our day.
The Oriental Orthodox (consisting of the Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopian,
Eritrean, Indian and Syrian Churches) did not accept the Council of
Chalcedon. These Churches rather upheld the original three Ecumenical
Councils and were in turn falsely accused of following the heresy of
Monophysitism.
Monophysites taught that Christ is solely Divine: His humanity was
"swallowed up" by His Divinity. Oriental Orthodox are Mia-physites
-following St. Cyril of Alexandria and, before him, St. Athanasius the Great,
who taught the "one nature (mia physis) of the Word of God incarnate."
While the prefix "mono" connotes numerical oneness, "mia" conveys our
doctrine of Christ's composite oneness. We are thus Orthodox
Miaphysites rather than heretical Monophysites.
While the Latin Catholic and Byzantine Orthodox Churches upheld the
Antiochene Christology, Oriental Orthodox have maintained the historic
Alexandrian Christology. Chalcedonians teach Christ is in two natures.
Oriental Orthodox teach that Christ's one composite nature is from two
natures.
Modern ecumenical dialogue between our ancient Churches has
revealed that the two respective Christologies, Ephesian (i.e., from the
Council of Ephesus) and Chalcedonian -if properly understood- are
orthodox and compatible. Theologically, this 1500 year old schism has been
settled in our day through the official Christological Statements between
the Latin Catholic Church and Oriental Orthodox Churches as well as the
landmark Agreed Statement on Christology between the Byzantine and
Oriental Orthodox Churches in which we state:
"We have now clearly understood that both families have always
loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith,
and the unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition, though they
have used Christological terms in different ways. It is this common
faith and continuous loyalty to the Apostolic Tradition that should be
the basis for our unity and communion."
This was discovered long ago by the 12th century Armenian Church
Patriarch St. Nersess the Gracefilled who wrote in his Pontifical Letter,
"If one says 'one nature' in the sense of the indissoluble and indivisible union
and not in the sense of confusion, and if one says 'two natures' as being
without confusion, alteration or signifying division, then both positions are
within the orbit of orthodoxy."
| -CHALCEDON- The Council disputed by one third of the catholic Church |
| The Coptic Patriach of Alexandria His Holiness Pope Shenouda III |
| The Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch: His Holiness Moran Mor Ignatius Zakka I |
| The Supreme Patriarch and Catholicos of all Armenians His Holiness Karekin II |
Links on Oriental Orthodoxy and the Council of Chalcedon
- The Contemporary Relationship b/t the Catholic & Oriental Orthodox Churches
- Common Declaration on Christology -by H.H. John Paul II and H.H. Karekin I
- On the Christolgy of the Monk Eutyches
- Orthodox Unity -An Oriental Orthodox website promoting unity among Orthodox
- The Christological Controversy -by the Byzantine Orthodox Monachos website
- Severus of Antioch's Objection to Chalcedon -from the same website
- Armenian Church History and Doctrine -by Fr. Shenork Souin -Armenian Orthodox
- The Oriental Orthodox Churches -by Fr. Ronald Roberson, Latin Catholic
- Problems of Consensus in Christology: The Function of Councils
by Archbishop Tiran Nersoyan, Armenian Orthodox
- Monophysitism Reconsidered -by Fr. Matthias F. Wahba, Coptic Orthodox
- St. Nersess Theological Review -Containing excellent essays by theologians of both
Orthodox traditions on the topic of consensus in Orthodox Christology
- The Monophysite Heresy -by Veronica Der-Ghazarian -Armenian Orthodox
- The Contemporary Relationship b/t the Catholic & Oriental Orthodox Churches
- Common Declaration on Christology -by H.H. John Paul II and H.H. Karekin I
- On the Christolgy of the Monk Eutyches
- Orthodox Unity -An Oriental Orthodox website promoting unity among Orthodox
- The Christological Controversy -by the Byzantine Orthodox Monachos website
- Severus of Antioch's Objection to Chalcedon -from the same website
- Armenian Church History and Doctrine -by Fr. Shenork Souin -Armenian Orthodox
- The Oriental Orthodox Churches -by Fr. Ronald Roberson, Latin Catholic
- Problems of Consensus in Christology: The Function of Councils
by Archbishop Tiran Nersoyan, Armenian Orthodox
- Monophysitism Reconsidered -by Fr. Matthias F. Wahba, Coptic Orthodox
- St. Nersess Theological Review -Containing excellent essays by theologians of both
Orthodox traditions on the topic of consensus in Orthodox Christology
- The Monophysite Heresy -by Veronica Der-Ghazarian -Armenian Orthodox
"Soorp Asdvadz, soorp yev huzor, soorp yev anmah, vor khachetsar vasun mer, voghormya mez." "Holy God, holy and mighty, holy and immortal, Who was crucified for us, have mercy on us." -The traditional Trisagion of the Armenian Church sung to the Second Person of the Holy Trinity |
| Hymn of the Only-Begotten, (Monogenes, Gk.- Meeyadzeen, Arm) A credal formula composed by St. Justinian the Emperor "Only-begotten Son and Word of God and Being immortal, Who deigned to take body through the holy Mother of God and Ever-Virgin. You, the unchangeable One, became man and you were crucified, O Christ our God, and you trampled down death by death. You, one of the Holy Trinity, are equal in glory with the Father and the Holy Spirit; save us." -A credal formula composed by St. Justinian the Emperor, written to heal the schism over Chalcedon; it was accepted by all Orthodox Churches |
- The Council of Chalcedon: Re-Examined -by Fr. V.C. Samuel, Indian Orthodox
A detailed historical account of the proceedings of the Chalcedonian Council.
A detailed historical account of the proceedings of the Chalcedonian Council.
| St. Athanasius and Cyril Holy Fathers of the Alexandrian Christological Tradition |