History of the church S3 E05: The Heresy of Eutyches

[@gbmtmas]

Interesting to listen to. As a Chalcedonian-Orthodox, I fully agree with the image/analogy of the iron-and-fire and agree with the "without confusion, without mingling, and without change/alteration" to depict the unity of Christ. I think the key differences are 1) terminological and 2) political. 1) Terminological: The Alexandrians regarded Hypostasis and Physis as basically synonymous or interchangeable to signify what we would today call a "Subject" or "Agent." The Antiochenes also regarded them as synonymous but did not view either Hypostasis or Physis as a Subject or Agent, but viewed them more in terms of "nature" or "make-up" (characteristics held in common between multiple subjects). Chalcedon would agree with Cyril's definition of Hypostasis and agree with the Antiochene definition of Physis to form its definition of "One and the Same" Hypostasis in two Physes. What is meant by that formula is that "One and the Same Subject/Agent" Who Is (the "I Am") before all ages, the Immortal Logos, One of the Trinity, the Self-Same became incarnate of the Most-Holy Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary and assumed whole human nature (except for sin). Thus this "One and the Same" Subject/Agent is Fully God (homoousios with the Father and Holy Spirit) and Fully Man (homoousios with us). Remember that St. Kyrilos of Alexandria and John of Antioch signed a Christological agreement that confessed Theotokos and the Unity of the Subject in Antiochene terms w/o having to use the "mia physis" formula. This is one of the reasons why I believe the differences between us are more a combination of discomfort with each others' terminology (rather than real substantial/internal differences) and political. 2) Political: The Alexandrians and Constantinopolitans were mean to each other. When I read the history of how different men (on both sides of each camp) behaved towards each other and the political shenanigans that each did to each other, it seems a LOT of what Abouna briefly referred to as bishops wanting power and influence. That's a whole other discussion... Chalcedonians and Non-Chalcedonians both agree in accepting Ephesus 431 AD as Ecumenical. We don't probably see "eye-to-eye" on the Ephesine council of 449 presided by Dioscoros or that of Chalcedon in 451. We are probably not comfortable personally with each others language. When I studied--in depth--the history (both theological and the actions of people), I am reminded of how important it is to try to go beyond the meanings of terminology and try to get to the intent and meaning behind such concepts. It's important for all of us to grasp that not everyone shares the identical definitions of the same terms. If I defined "physis" as a "Subject," then I would join the Alexandrians in confessing "Mia Physis." However, since I define "physis" not as a "Subject" but as a "Nature" (that which is held in common between Subjects--like "human nature" held in common between multiple people), I join with the Chalcedonian formula "One Hypostasis in Two Physes" which translates to "One Subject/Agent (that of God the Logos) in two commonalities "without confusion," "without mixture," "without separation," and "without division." It's so important for all of us, Chalcedonians, Non-Chalcedonians, and yes, Antiochenes, to really work to understand what we each mean behind our terminology and then discern whether we can and do find strong agreement on the internal ideas. Otherwise, we run the risk of continuing the mistakes of the past and talk past each other and repeating the same cycle over and over again. PS: Thank you for clarifying that you believe that Eutyches was a heretic!

[@AdamRTNewman]

Interesting video. But that horrid loud sound at 2:58 could really do with being edited out.

[@marlondelrosario635]

Therefore Christ has two natures in one person. Divinity and Humanity.

[@keshiafewerki]

Thank you so much CYC.I wait for the council of Chalcedon.proud to be Coptic Orthodox

[@dorianlelong]

Informative, but background music is silly.

[@TheGreekCatholic]

So we are in east west meaning the same thing explained differently?

[@LifeScriptures]

would be nice if you stop the music, personallyu it's distractive

[@jonathangeorge7417]

There is no scripture says that christ had two natures. romans 7 does not apply to christ. Christ never needed redemption. Mankind was the one who was born in sin with a nature of sin, but christ came with a nature that we must put on. we To die to self(first nature) to be married to christ nature. this is what romans 7 explains. christ only had one nature.