Is the Assyrian Church of the East really Nestorian?

[spiridon]

in a simple way, - some of us are simple laity who dont understand a milllion theological words scholarly written to either impress or cause confusion to simple minded people...Not Giving Mary the Title Theotokos is such a disaster, the a great stumbling block occurs and will Rightfully always divide the 2, there isnt anyway around it...
you either Believe she is the Mother of God or you dont...until you can Say with your own words and believe Truthfully in your own Heart Mary is the Theotokos, then nothing else can be discussed with you or the others who have caused this uproar with simple people, we know what we Believe and what Our holy Fathers have believed to be Truth, some have been Scholars and others simple peasants- all in all we Believe as One- in the TRIUNE GOD , with one of the his Natures he walked amongst the Apostles, and by way of The Theotokos he was Born...
May The Theotokos forgive me for running to place myself in front of any attacks made at her, it is only right as she has so many times rescued me from pain,misery and attacks...
Oh Most Holy THEOTOKOS SAVE US

[Pensees]

or at least would have been understood as such by St. Cyril and the Council of Ephesus.

I think you need to give St Cyril and the Fathers of Ephesus a little more credit than that......

To the Alexandrine fathers, "nature" was of the same meaning as "person." Therefore, to say that Christ is in two natures rather than of two natures is understood as claiming that there are two Sons. This is the very reason that St. Cyril and the Council of Ephesus excommunicated Nestorius as a heretic.

The Alexandrian position could not at all be accused of being "Monophysite" because neither the humanity nor the deity of Christ are denied, but rather they exist within the composite incarnate nature of God the Word. The humanity and the deity are not separated, and neither are they mixed or altered.

Again, one should not forget that Nestorius' supporters, who had previously been condemned, were pardoned by the Council of Chalcedon.

Peace.

[George Australia]

In typical fashion, you have chosen the cowardly way out by attempting to engage me in this thread after the administrator said:

Please, let us keep this thread to discussing Nestorians & Nestorianism and let us discuss Monophysites, Monophysitism, & Chalcedon at the current active thread about this at http://EuphrosynosCafe.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7275

So I will not answer you here. Repeat your post in the other thread (if you dare) and I'll answer you there.
George

[ioannis]

Christos Anesti wrote:

Are you telling me that according to Chalcedonian Christology, God does not suffer, only the human nature does? So you divide Christ between two subjects; one subject is human nature, the subject of suffering, and the other subject is God who is not subject to suffering? …Humanity is not the subject of suffering, it is the means by which God the Word—the Personal Subject and Eternal Hypostasis of Christ—suffered.

What you say above is the Theopaschite Heresy, that the divine nature, the divinity of Christ, suffered on the cross. This was condemned as a heresy in c. 450AD along with the Monophysites that were teaching it.

Furthermore, we do not divide Christ into two subjects, but we make distinctions between Christ's human nature and His Divine nature. Perhaps similiar to how you are one person composed of both your soul and body, each having its own nature distinct from the other, and will be one day resurrected together. Or do you think Christ-God fell asleep at any time?

Christ's human nature fell asleep because He was tired, but at no time did his divine nature become tired or need sleep. Therefore we say these two natures were united yet remained distinct. Pain, and by extension suffering, is attributable only to the flesh, just like sleep. Christ's divine nature did not suffer on the Holy Cross any more than his divine nature became "sleepy" at any time.

[George Australia]

What you say above is the Theopaschite Heresy, that the divine nature, the divinity of Christ, suffered on the cross. This was condemned as a heresy in c. 450AD along with the Monophysites that were teaching it.

And what is really ironic is that the Fathers condemned it using the dictum of the very same St. Cyril whom the so-called "Miaphysites" claim as their own!
Namely, that "One of the Trinity Suffered in the flesh."
Here are St. Cyril's own words in his Epistle to John of Antioch:
"I also consider them wholly to rave who think a shadow of change could occur concerning the Nature of the Word of God. For He remains that which He always was, and has not been changed, nor can He ever be changed, nor is He capable of change. For we all confess in addition to this, that the Word of God is impassible, even though when He dispenses most wisely this mystery, He appears to ascribe to Himself the sufferings endured in His own Flesh. To the same purpose the all-wise Peter also said when he wrote of Christ as having "suffered in the flesh," and not in the Nature of His ineffable godhead. In order that He should be believed to be the Saviour of all, by an economic appropriation to Himself, as just said, He assumed the sufferings of His own Flesh."

If the Word of God is "impassible" yet "suffers in the flesh", then either St. Cyril agrees with us that the Two Natures are distinct, or he is a Docetist who holds that Christ's body was a phantasm and He merely appeared to suffer in the flesh. My money is on the former explanation. And I would add that St. Cyril is ours, not theirs.

[ioannis]

George,

I never saw that qoute before, which further shows your qoute is a good one...

"As long as it depends on Monothelitism, then Miaphysitism is nothing but a variant of Monophysitism."

This is very good. Most people don't realize this and are stupefied when a Monophysite says they believe in St. Cyrils formula. They are also left speechless when Monophysites say they condemned Eutyches, just like the council of chalcedon. But what they don't realize is that they condemned him c. 490, so it is nothing new, the Holy Fathers knew this. It is important to realize that there are dozens of different versions of Monophysitism. The Monothelytes of St. Maximos' time were even willing to give up the phrase "One Nature" altogher.

[Pensees]

What you say above is the Theopaschite Heresy, that the divine nature, the divinity of Christ, suffered on the cross. This was condemned as a heresy in c. 450AD along with the Monophysites that were teaching it.

This is what he actually believes:

Certainly not. Nevertheless, God certainly suffered.

According to Oriental Orthodox Christology, God the Word eternally subsisted according to Divinity consubstantial with the Father. At the Incarnation, God the Word hypostatised Humanity consubstantial with mankind. He thence subsisted according to Perfect Divinity and Perfect Humanity. The practical result of the Hypostatic Union was that the attributes and properties of both Humanity and Divinity were actualised by the One Hypostasis of God the Word; hence the One Incarnate Nature of God the Logos. As a result of this Divine Appropriation of the attributes and properties of Human Nature, Human experience could thence be ascribed to God the Word; thus, the Holy Apostle Paul speaks of the Jews "crucifying the Lord of Glory" (1 Cor. 2:8).

Nevertheless, although God suffered, we must be precise in defining the means by which He suffered. It was due to His hypostatisation and hence appropriation of Human Nature that His suffering was possible, hence we speak of Him suffering in or according to the flesh, as opposed to in or according to His Divinity.

[center]St. Cyril of Alexandria: “God the Word became an example for us in the days of his flesh, but not nakedly or outside the limits of self-emptying.” (On the Unity of Christ) [/center]

[center]St. Cyril of Alexandria: "If anyone does not confess that the God the Word suffered in the flesh and was crucified in the flesh and tasted death in the flesh and became the first born of the dead, although as God he is life and life-giving, let him be anathema." (12th Anathema)[/center]

There is no heresy in our position.

Peace.