Dear Friends,

Every so often when the Oriental Orthodox (non-Chalcedonian) Churches come up, someone seems to think that we hold to the Monophysite heresy. Well, the following link is to a really great article discussing the Orthodox (yes, Orthodox :p ) Christology of Mar Severios of Antioch.

Here's the link:
http://www.quodlibet.net/farrington-severus.shtml

and a quote from the end of the article:

"...the Christology of St Severus is in every respect in accord with that of St Cyril. It is truly, deeply and completely Orthodox in the sense that it expresses perfectly the Christology of the Fathers of the Holy Councils of Nicaea, Constantinople and Ephesus. There is not one iota of justification for the anathemas historically raised against him by the Byzantine Orthodox, and these anathemas can only have been issued by those who had hardly read anything of his teachings. The Christology of the Oriental Orthodox Churches stands with St Severus and St Cyril in utterly repudiating any teaching in which the distinctions of the natures of divinity and humanity cease to exist in the incarnation, or any teaching which damages the complete and perfect reality of the humanity and divinity of which Christ is. But neither should we cease to steadfastly confess that in the incarnation, and for our salvation, the Word of God has deigned to unite, in a manner past understanding, humanity with his divinity such that even as there is no confusion or mixture, equally there is no division or separation, but we see 'One Christ' and 'One Lord' as the creed confesses. This is the meaning of 'one incarnate nature of the Word', and this must continue to be the heart of our Orthodox Christology."

Fantastic, don'tcha think?

Dear Catholicos,

Yes, actually . . .

There really WAS a Monophysite heresy, but this originated with Eutyches and is also called "Eutychianism" which the Oriental Orthodox Churches repudiate.

St Mar Dioscoros was actually the nephew of St Cyril of Alexandria and was never condemned for any heresy, but was censured for his "rough-housing" of the Byzantines.

(An Eastern Christian being rough on people, who would have thought . . .)

In his book the "Dictionary of Saints" the Roman Catholic author, Fr. Holweck, included all the Oriental Orthodox saints, including those involved in the theological controversies over Christology.

He refers to some saints not in communion with Rome as either "furious" or "spurious."

But in describing the Oriental Orthodox St. Philoxenus of Mabugh he says that this saint was a "Monophysite, a man of deep culture and the widest education."

But the value of Holweck's work is more in his Introduction where he shows that the lives of antipopes and of those implicated with heretical confessions were read and cherished by Catholics and Orthodox. Their feats of holiness and martyrdom were admired and extolled.

Today we know so much more about historical processes and contexts that we find that we are not only "closer" to those whom our liturgies have anathematized, but, in terms of dogma, are even one with them, though we have been separated unfortunately for over a millennium.

OCA Churches and individual parishes are now, as I understand, quietly dropped the anathemas against St Mar Severus and St Mar Dioscoros.

This is what I call having a head on one's shoulders . . .

Alex