Coptic Christianity and The Council of Chalcedon

Council of Chalcedon, Statement on Christology, 451 AD:
We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent,
teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord
Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also
perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a
reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-
essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and
consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all
things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of
the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter
days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary,
the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and
the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be
acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably,
indivisibly, inseparably; (ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀσυγχύτως,
ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως – in duabus naturis
inconfuse, immutabiliter, indivise, inseparabiliter) the
distinction of natures being by no means taken away by
the union, but rather the property of each nature being
preserved, and concurring in one Person (prosopon) and
one Subsistence (hypostasis), not parted or divided into
two persons, but one and the same Son, and only
begotten God (μονογενῆ Θεὸν), the Word, the Lord
Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning [have
declared] concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ
Himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers
has handed down to us.
First words of the Nicene Creed:
Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν

PistEvo is Ena theO
We believe in one God
(compare with Deuteronomy 6:4 --

Sh'ma Yis'ra'eil YHWH Eloheinu YHWH echad /
Hear O Israel, Yahweh Is Our Elohim, Yahweh Is One)
The Cappadocian Father’s formula: (also attributed to Didymus

the Blind of Alexandria, but certainly derived from the work of Tertullian)
mia ousia treis hypostaseis

1 essence 3 sub-stances or subsistences or
underlying realities
commonality vs. distinctness within Divinity
St. Cyril’s formula: [from "Against Nestorius," I, 1, 6, 33]
μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη

mía phýsis toû theoû lógou sesarkōménē
one nature of God Logos incarnate
note: St. Cyril of Alexandria used both the expressions

“Mia Physis tou Theou Logou sesarkomene” and “Mia
Hypostasis tou Theou Logou sesarkomene”, since
hypostatic union for him always meant natural union.
Positions on the Son’s “ousia” & the Holy Spirit’s “ousia”,
in relation to the Father’s “ousia”:
homoousia = same essence

homoiousia = similar essence
heteroousia = different essence
Positions on Jesus Christ’s

hypostasis (subsistence) & prosopon (person):
-- Chalcedonians see two natures united in one person

and one subsistence (εἰς ἓν πρόσωπον καὶ μίαν
ὑπόστασιν, eis hèn prósōpon kaì mían hypóstasin) =
Hypostatic Union
-- OO see one composite or synthetic (synthetos) nature,
one composite hypostasis and one composite prosopon =
True Union
-- Nestorians see two natures, two hypostases, two
prosopons = Dis-Union
Positions on Jesus Christ’s nature or “physis”:
Chalcedonians Heretics OO
Dyophysitism Monophysitism Miaphysitism
2 natures 1 single nature 1 composite nature
from two natures
Chalcedonian position = en duo phusesin = in two natures
OO position = ek duo phuseon = from/out of two natures
view of Christ’s nature affects view of His will and action:
Dyo- vs Mono- vs Mia- thelitism & energism
OO position:
Jesus Christ is of one theandric (or theanthropic / divine-human) nature,
having one theandric will & one theandric action
= miaphysitism, miathelitism, miaenergism
(vs 2 natures, 2 wills, 2 actions Christology of RC&EO)
Christians agree that the two natures, distinct yet unified, participate in
some sort of exchange. However, there remains disagreement in the exact
dynamic of this incarnational union. Those leaning toward an Antiochene
Christology stress the distinction of natures and therefore a more tightly
regulated communication of properties; those of the Alexandrian
Christology persuasion underscore the unity of Jesus Christ and therefore
a more complete communication of properties. -- WIKIPEDIA
communicatio idiomatum (exchange of properties):

A term associated with Alexandrian Christology that describes how
because of Christ's unity of person, the attributes of the divine and human
natures can be predicated of each other. Thus we can speak of God being
born of Mary or dying on the cross.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The expression "One Nature" does not indicate the Divine nature alone nor
the human nature alone, but it indicates the unity of both natures into One
Nature which is "The Nature of the Incarnate Logos"... St. Cyril the Great
taught us not to talk about two natures after their unity... A Union, actually,
cannot be separated into two... The belief in the One Nature of the
Incarnate Logos is essential, necessary and fundamental for redemption.
Redemption requires unlimited propitiation sufficient for the forgiveness of
the unlimited sins of all the people through all ages. There was no solution
other than the Incarnation of God the Logos to offer this through His Divine
Power. -- HH Pope Shenouda III, The Nature of Christ
“He [Jesus Christ] made It [His body] One with His divinity without
mingling, without confusion, and without alteration... Truly, I believe that His
divinity parted not from His humanity for a single moment nor a twinkling of
an eye”. -- from The Prayer of Confession, Liturgy of St. Basil
Trinity Prayer, by Fr. Richard Rohr, OFM:
God for us, we call You Father,

God alongside us, we call You Jesus,
God within us, we call You Holy Spirit.
You are the Eternal Mystery

that enables, enfolds, and enlivens all things,
even us, and even me.
Every name falls short of your

Goodness and Greatness.
We can only see who You are in what is.
We ask for such perfect seeing.

As it was in the beginning, is now,
and ever shall be.
Amen.
In May 1973 H.H. Pope Shenouda III of Alexandria visited
H.H. Pope Paul VI of Rome. Their Common Declaration:
"In accordance with our apostolic traditions transmitted
to our Churches and preserved therein, and in conformity
with the early three ecumenical councils, we confess one
faith in the One Triune God, the divinity of the Only
Begotten Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy
Trinity, the Word, of God, the effulgence of His glory and
the express image of His substance, who for us was
incarnate, assuming for Himself a real body with a rational
soul, and who shared with us our humanity, but without
sin. We confess that our Lord and God and Savior and
King of us all, Jesus Christ, is perfect God with respect to
His Divinity, perfect man with respect of His humanity. In
Him His divinity is united with His humanity in a real and
perfect union without mingling, without confusion, without
alteration, without division, without separation. His divinity
did not separate from His humanity for an instant, not for
the twinkling of an eye. He who is God eternal and
invisible, became visible in the flesh, and took upon
Himself the form of a servant. In Him are preserved all the
properties of the divinity and all the properties of the
humanity, together in a real, perfect, indivisible and
inseparable union.
We venerate the Virgin Mary, Mother of the True Light, and
we confess that she is ever Virgin, the God-bearer, she
intercedes for us, and, as the Theotokos, excels in her
dignity all angelic hosts."
First Agreed Statement of the EO & OO (1989)
We have inherited from our fathers in Christ the one
apostolic faith and tradition, though as Churches we have
been separated from each other for centuries. As two
families of Orthodox Churches long out of communion with
each other we now pray and trust in God to restore that
communion on the basis of the common apostolic faith of
the undivided church of the first centuries which we
confess in our common creed. What follows is a simple
reverent statement of what we do believe on our way to
restore communion between our two families of Orthodox
Churches.
Throughout our discussions we have found our common
ground in the formula of our common Father, St. Cyril of
Alexandria : mia physis hypostasis (he mia hypostasis) tou
Theou Logou sesarkomene, and in the dictum that "it is
sufficient for the confession of our true and irreproachable
faith to say and to confess that the Holy Virgin is
Theotokos" (Hom : 15, cf. Ep. 39).
Great indeed is the wonderful mystery of the Father, Son
and Holy Spirit, one True God, one ousia in three
hypostases or three prosopa. Blessed be the Name of the
Lord our God, for ever and ever.
Great indeed is also the ineffable mystery of the
Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, for us and for our
salvation...
We agree in condemning the Nestorian and the Eutychian
heresies. We neither separate nor divide the human
nature in Christ from His divine nature, nor do we think
that the former was absorbed in the latter and thus ceased
to exist.
The four adverbs used to qualify the mystery of the
hypostatic union belong to our common tradition - without
commingling (or confusion) (asyngchytos), without change
(atreptos), without separation (achoristos) and without
division (adiairetos). Those among us who speak of two
natures in Christ, do not thereby deny their inseparable,
indivisible union; those among us who speak of one united
divine-human nature in Christ do not thereby deny the
continuing dynamic presence in Christ of the divine and
the human, without change, without confusion.
Our mutual agreement is not limited to Christology, but
encompasses the whole faith of the one undivided church
of the early centuries. We are agreed also in our
understanding of the Person and Work of God the Holy
Spirit, Who proceeds from the Father alone, and is always
adored with the Father and the Son.
HE Metropolitan Bishoy of our Coptic Church:
The Non-Chalcedonian side had wished to discard

Nestorianism by confirming the doctrine of the one nature
of God the Word incarnate, of two natures without
intermixing or fusion or change. The expression ‘the one
nature’ is the truest expression on ‘the natural union’ which
Saint Cyril had taught in his third letter to Nestorius, and
which was approved by both the Council of Ephesus and
the Council of Chalcedon.
The Chalcedonian side wished to discard Eutychism by
confirming the doctrine and expression of the two natures,
non-separated, or non-partitioned, in order to affirm the
continuance of the existence of the two natures and that
they were not annihilated in the union, and to affirm the
non-annihilation of the distinction in the attributes of the
two natures due to the union.
Perhaps each of the two sides was complementary to
the other in its expression of the one truth. For those who
professed one incarnate nature of two natures have added
“without mixture or change” in order to refute Eutychism.
And those who professed two natures added “without
separation or partition” in order to refute Nestorianism.
Both sides spoke of one truth that the Lord Jesus Christ is
one divine-human being, i.e. they spoke of one being of
two essences united in the one Christ.
Those who used the expression ‘one incarnate nature’
had meant to express the state of existence; those who
used the expression 'two natures' had meant to express
the reality of the continuance of the existence of the two
natures.
In other words, some have spoken about the state of
existence, and some have spoken about the reality of the
existence, and because they both used the same word
'nature', they clashed.
Those who meant the ‘state of existence’ said “one
nature”, and those who meant the ‘reality of existence’
said “two natures”. The proof is that both sides have
together accepted that there can be no distinction between
the two natures except in thought alone. This means that
there can be no actual distinction between them in reality,
but rather in imagination and contemplation. This does not
mean abolishing the reality of their existence, but
abolishing the state of their existence not in union. Unity is
the truest expression of the 'natural union'.

Coptic Christianity and The Council of Chalcedon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Coptic Christianity and The Council of Chalcedon

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Coptic Christianity and The Council of Chalcedon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Council of Chalcedon, Statement on Christology, 451 AD:

Πιστεύομεν εἰς ἕνα Θεὸν

(compare with Deuteronomy 6:4 --

The Cappadocian Father’s formula: (also attributed to Didymus

mia ousia treis hypostaseis

St. Cyril’s formula: [from "Against Nestorius," I, 1, 6, 33]

μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη

note: St. Cyril of Alexandria used both the expressions

homoousia = same essence

Positions on Jesus Christ’s

-- Chalcedonians see two natures united in one person

Positions on Jesus Christ’s nature or “physis”:

communicatio idiomatum (exchange of properties):

God for us, we call You Father,

You are the Eternal Mystery

Every name falls short of your

We can only see who You are in what is.

We ask for such perfect seeing.

The Non-Chalcedonian side had wished to discard

You might also like