Oh boy, here we go - this "Liberal" here trying to bring about indifferentism, trying to show that schism exists for "no reason", that there "never really were heresies" and other such "historical revisionism."
Hear me out.
So, the Oriental Orthodox use a formula called "One Incarnate Nature of the Word," which was a formula which we know - from my reading of several scholarly articles - comes from the heretic Apollinarius, the heretic who believed that Christ had a human body but one Divine Mind.
However, this formula was actually Saint Cyril of Alexandria's theological formula for explaining Christ - he took it, thinking that it came from Athanasius, and made it Orthodox, where "Incarnate nature" was understood to be "Incarnate Hypostasis" (One Incarnate Person, the Logos), or sometimes as "One Composite Nature," where the human nature and Divine Nature always remained distinct but in union with each other.
The Council of Chalcedon explicitly said that Christ was "in two natures," which is a reference to Essence / Substance / Ousia - however, this specific formula, while having origins in the older Church Fathers, was explicitly used by Nestorius to argue that there never was a union of the two natures in One Person, which meant that even there were two persons - Jesus the man and the Logos the God.
The Council of Chalcedon says the two natures were not-divisible and not-separable and came together in, "one Hypostasis and one Prosopon," and this was explicitly done to try to end the controversies between Nestorius and his followers and the Eutychians. However, many Bishops in the Church of Alexandria, the Armenians, and the Syriac Antiochians felt that the Council of Chalcedon went too far in trying to synthesize Nestorius and Cyril in an Orthodox sense, so a massive schism happened.
If you actually read Severus of Antioch, he says these things - that the Chalcedonians profess a belief in Nestorianism because saying "in two natures" meant Nestorianism, but they are contradictory when they then say "in one Hypostasis." It's a Council that contradicted itself according to Severus of Antioch.
Severus of Antioch also goes out of his way to clarify that yes - there is not a compromise between the two natures; the two natures still exist distinctly from each other, they never blend or mix together; to say they are like milk and coffee is heresy and blasphemy according to Severus of Antioch.
So it seems there's a lot of misunderstanding between the two communions about what each other actually believe, and the Chalcedonians actually
must believe that Cyril's One Incarnate Nature formula is Orthodox, because the 5th Ecumenical Council explicitly says that Cyril's formula is Orthodox, and anathematizes those who think that Cyril was a heretic.
But anyways, more than that - the
real concern seems to be a fear of Monothelitism.
For you see, during the controversy of the 6th Ecumenical Council, many Chalcedonian Bishops tried to pay lip service to "One Nature" and compromise by coming up with "Monothelitism," the belief that Christ only had One Will (Will being desire innate to one's nature - we have a will to eat, to sleep, whereas God has one to Love, to desire man's Salvation, etc.) - the Divine Will, but the Church found this to be a sneaky heresy which it condemned, formally believing there are two wills.
Here's the thing - while the Oriental Orthodox believe in "one will", many interpret it in much the same way as they do "One Incarnate Nature," where they profess a belief in "one theandric will," where although there is a distinction between the two wills, they are in full harmony with each other and are mystically one, because the Divine Will always willed what the human will willed in Christ, and the two never fell in conflict with each other.
And the Chalcedonians also believe in "one theandric will" as a legitimate expression as well.
Pope Shenouda III, who was the previous Pope of the Coptic Church, wrote a book about what the Coptic Church believes in in terms of Christology called "On the Nature of Christ," and he says this:
"Naturally, as long as we consider that this Nature is One, the Will and the Act must also
each be one. What the Divine nature Chooses is undoubtedly the same as that chosen
by the human nature because there is not any contradiction or conflict whatever
between the will and the action of both...
If this is said about those with whom and in whom God works, then how much more the
unity between the Son and His Own manhood would be in all that is related to the will,
the mind and the power to act! He, in Whom the Divine nature has united with the
human nature, a Hypostatic and Essential union without separation-not for a second nor
a twinkle of an eye...
If there was not unity between the Will of the Divine nature of Christ and His human
nature, this would have resulted in internal conflict. Far be it from Him! How then could
Christ be our guide and our example... to follow in His footsteps (1 Jn. 2:6)?.
The complete righteousness which marked the life of our Lord Jesus was due to
His Divine as well as His Human will."
Dr. Taylor Marshall has an article where he - more briefly - goes over what I similarly said:
https://taylormarshall.com/2015/03/meet-the-oriental-orthodox-christians-and-their-controversial-christology.htmlAnd in fact, if you want to read what the Coptic Church believes in, here's the book published by their Pope:
http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/theology/nature_of_christ.pdfSo, here's the question:
1. Do you think that the Coptic Church and Chalcedonian Churches believe in the same Christology using different words, or do they actually believe in different things? If the latter, what do you think is heretical with what they believe in?
2. Do you think that it's possible for the Chalcedonian and Oriental Orthodox to reconcile - because this is the only theological problem hindering communion, whether or not they have the same Christology or not? Or will the fact that both sides have Saints who died at the hands of each Church forever hinder full reconciliation?
