Friday, April 27, 2012

Is Syriac Orthodox Church is Monophysite?


Introduction
The Church was established in AD 37 by St. Peter, the chief of apostles in Antioch. Syriac is the liturgical language of the Church. Syriac Orthodox Church occupies an important position among the ancient independent churches of the world. The Syriac Patriarchs of Antioch are successors of St. Peter and the head of the Syrian Orthodox church. It uses Syriac as its liturgical language and keeps the ancient liturgical tradition of the church of Antioch. In this article I would like to discuss the Christology of the Syrian Orthodox Church especially the two terms ‘Monophysitism’ and ‘Miaphysitism’.
Christological controversy in 451
Syriac Orthodox Church rejected the Fourth Ecumenical Council of AD 451 which is known as the Council of Chalcedon. This council was summoned by the bishops not to define Christology, but to fine tune it and to examine the extreme "monophysite" heresy of the Alexandrian Eutyches who took the Christology of St. Cyril to an extreme seeing in Christ a humanity which was lost, swallowed up in a see of divinity. The Syriac Orthodox Church Fathers (Not only Syriac orthodox church fathers, but also the all Oriental Orthodox Church fathers) rejected not only Eutyches, but also the definitions and acts of Chalcedon due primarily to the Tome of Leo, which "separated' the activities of Christ according to human or divine, thus tending strongly toward the dangers and errors of Nestorius.
The main reason of the controversy
The main reason for this controversy is the affirmation by the Chalcedonian (Eastern Orthodox Churches) of “two natures two wills and two energies hypostatically united in the one Lord Jesus Christ”. While the Syrian Orthodox church and other Oriental Orthodox Churches affirm “one united Divine-Human nature, will and energy in the same Christ without confusion, without change, without division and without separation from the very movement of His descent to the Virgin’s womb where He took to Himself from her a human body with a human rational soul and made Himself one with the manhood which He took from her as formulated by St. Cyril as “One Incarnate nature of God the Word”. Syrian Orthodox fathers and St. Cyril appeared to be an especially strong opponents of the council of Chalcedon.
Is Syriac Orthodox Church Monophysites?
Some non oriental orthodox peoples believe that the Syrian Orthodox Church subscribes to the Monophysite doctrine. (Greek word ‘mono’ means one, ‘physis’ means nature). This is incorrect. Monophysitism is a Christological heresy that originated in the 5th century A.D. Its chief proponent was the monk Eutyches, who stated that in the person of Jesus Christ the human nature was absorbed into the divine nature. Eutyches refused to confess that Christ partook of our humanity teaching that He was solely divine. The doctrine of Monophysites believes that “Jesus was not human, but exclusively divine, and God himself, therefore he could not have died.” And this doctrine is not Orthodox.
Miaphysite Christology of the Syriac Orthodox Church
Miaphysitism is the Christology of the Syriac Orthodox Church. Miaphysitism holds that in the one person of Jesus Christ, Divinity and Humanity are united in one "nature", the two being united without separation, without confusion, and without alteration. The Syrian Orthodox Church considered as central the Christology is Miaphysis. What is the difference between ‘mono’ and ‘mia’.? ‘Mono’ is one in the sense of a numerical one, whereas ‘mia’ is one in the sense of a united, or composite, one. The word "Miaphysite" was taken from St. Cyril's famous phrase "Mia Physis tou Theo Logos Sesarkomene," and thus this has been adopted by Syrian Orthodox Church Fathers along with its theological implications. The Syriac Orthodox Church abides by the formula "The one Incarnate Nature of God the Word", on which St. Cyril of Alexandria increasingly insisted upon, a formula which was accepted as correct by the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D and which, after the Council of Chalcedon, the Chalcedonian side in the East itself admitted. 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".
What is the Christology of Syrian Orthodox Church?
According to Church fathers, we can thus summarize the Christology of the Syriac Orthodox Church.
  • The belief of Syriac Orthodox Church is that "mia" one, but not "single one" or "simple one," but unity, one "out of two natures".
  • According to the non oriental orthodox Christians "one nature" of Christ means only one of two probabilities: the natures had been absorbed or confusion between the divine and human nature happened to produce one confused nature. But Syriac Orthodox Church confirmed that no confusion or absorption had occurred but a real unity.
  • The Word became truly man. He is at once God and man. The manhood of Jesus Christ was perfect. And he had a body and also a soul. Jesus Christ’s manhood was not formed before the incarnation. Moreover the manhood did not exist then the Godhead dwelt in it afterwards.
  • The Syrian Orthodox believe that, they receive the True Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Communion. These belong to man, humanity, and we know that Jesus Christ is God, the Divine.
  • Syrian Orthodox Church believe the Divinity and humanity of Christ are manifested, and the co-equality of Jesus Christ with God the Father.
  • Jesus Christ was at the same time perfect God and perfect man. This is the union of the natures in the Incarnation. Jesus Christ was no longer in two natures after the union and He is not two persons. But one Person, one incarnate Nature of God the Son, with one will, but being at once divine and human. The two natures became united into one nature without separation, without confusion and without change.
Conclusion
Syriac Orthodox are often mistakenly considered Monophysites by many Latin Catholics and Byzantine Orthodox. The Syriac Orthodox, being Miaphysite, reject the ecumenical council of Chalcedon, and anathematize Nestorianism, and thus accept Ephesus; they do not accept any other ecumenical councils but the first three. In recent times, the Pope of Rome has made progress in resolving doctrinal differences of the Roman Catholic Church with the Syriac Orthodox Church and other Oriental Orthodox Churches, and have together signed Joint Christological Statements saying we believe in the same thing about Christology expressed differently. This has greatly helped to overcome a disagreement that had been started over 1,500 years ago. Such dialogues and encounters fostered healthy situation of mutual understanding and recovery of the deeper spiritual communion based on the common faith in the nature of Jesus Christ that they have been given through the Gospel of Christ.
Bibliography
V.C. Samuel, The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined: A Historical Theological Survey; Indian Theological library, No.8, Christian Literature Society (C.L.S), Madras, India, 1977.British Orthodox Press, London, UK, 2003; Tadros Y Malaty, Introduction to the Coptic Orthodox Church, Alexandria, 1993;Robert Betts, Christians in the Arab East, Lycabbetus Press, Athens, 1978; John Binns. An Introduction to the Christian Orthodox Churches, Cambridge University Press, 2002; R. H. Charles, The Chronicle of John, Bishop of Nikiu: Translated from Hermann Zotenberg's Ethiopic Text., Evolution Publishing, 1916. Reprinted 2007; Stanley Harakas. The Orthodox Church; 455 Questions and Answers. Light and Life Publishing Company, 1988; Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Church. Penguin Books, 1997; Mebratu Kiros Gebru. Miaphysite Christology, Gorgias Press, 2010; Gorgorios, General Church History, Addis Ababa, 1978; Sirgiw Hable Sellassie, Ancient and Medieval Ethiopian History to 1270. Addis Ababa: united Printers, 1972; W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of the Monophysite Movement: Chapters in the History of the Church in the Fifth and Sixth Centuries, Cambrige University Press, Cambridge, 1979; John A. McGuckin, St. Cyril of Alexandria :The Christological Controversy, St. Vladimir's Press, Crestwood, 2004.

Visitors No