Patristic theology, and traditional teachings of Orthodoxy from the Church fathers of apostolic times to the present. All forum Rules apply. No polemics. No heated discussions. No name-calling.
As many Oriental Orthodox theologians would assert, the difference is not in what we believe, but in how we choose to define our belief. That we believe that Jesus has one divine-human nature after the incarnation does not mean that we deny His humanity, nor that we confuse the human and the divine.
You are Chalcedon compliant. Congratulations, you're not a heretic. You believe that Jesus is truly God and truly man and like us in every respect, apart from sin. Officially approved in 451.
In common study of the Council of Chalcedon, the well-known phrase used by our common Father in Christ, St Cyril of Alexandria, mia phusis (or mia hypostasis) tou Theou logon sesarkomene (the one phusis or hypo-stasis of God's Word incarnate) with its implications, was at the centre of our conversations. On the essence of the Christological dogma we found ourselves in full agreement. Through the different terminologies used by each side, we saw the same truth expressed. Since we agree in rejecting without reservation the teaching of Eutychus as well as of Nestorius, the acceptance or non-acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon does not entail the acceptance of either heresy. Both sides found themselves fundamentally following the Christological teaching of the one undivided Church as expressed by St Cyril.
The Council of Chalcedon (451), we realize, can only be understood as reaffirming the decisions of Ephesus (431) and best understood in the light of the later Council of Constantinople (553). All councils, we have recognized, have to be seen as stages in an integral development and no council or document should be studied in isolation. http://www.paulosmargregorios.info/English%20Articles/
If I am not mistaken the "so-called" Oriental Orthodox are in fact non-Chalcedonians, that is, those religious groups that rejected and still reject the Council of Chalcedon (451) and all the ecumenical Councils thereafter.
If they are right --- if the last four ecumenical councils of the Church were mistaken in their christology and all subsequent counciliar decisions related to it --- then we "Eastern Orthodox" are wrong. The church of our fathers has been in error for more than fifteen hundred years. We are not the true Church; indeed, we are no church at all, for no church can exist with a false christology --- and, therefore, a false theology, ecclesiology, mystagogy, etc. The doctrine of Christ is the ground of all the Church's teachings.
If, on the other hand, we "Eastern Orthodox" are right, the non-Chalcedonians (Monophysites and Nestorians) are wrong. They are no church and have no right to employ --- to soil --- the name "Orthodox."
They are in the same boat with RC's and Protestants. Indeed, they have the form of the Christian religion, but none of its substance and power.
Any comment?
Let us assume the two natures of Christ are divided (Nestorian). What is the consequence? The Church is the Body of Christ; hence, her divine and human side are divided. For example, the Eucharist is the "mystical body" of Christ; hence, the visible and invisible dimensions of the Mystery are divided. Hence, the visible and finite dimension of these things is not conjoined with their invisible and infinite dimension of the Eucharist. The two dimenions are not bridged. The believer cannot participate in the divine; after all, the divine became human that the human might become divine. Christ became man that we might partake of the divine Nature (2 Pet. 1:4).
And the monophysite Eucharist? Its visible and finite dimension of the Eucharist become superfluous. The suggestion is that the human nature of Christ is superfluous. The humanity of Christ lost in His Divinity means that we too have lost our humanity. A la Buddhism, we have been absorbed into the divine Nature.
