Byzantine Stance in Relation to Nestorianism

by Peter Theodore

The mainstream of Eastern Orthodoxy do not teach the heresy of Nestorius. I have come across just one or two extremists who are in communion with no-one and who run so far from the teaching of St Cyril out of a misplaced fear of the Oriental Orthodox that they find themselves in the shadier regions of Christology. They are not representative. Neither should we give undue heed to the misrepresentations of our Oriental Orthodox Christology by those who have not studied it at all. We must make every effort to work with people like Constantine, sympathetic people who are committed to Orthodoxy but also desire to do what is possible for unity based on truth as well as love.

The differences between Eastern Orthodoxy and Nestorianism are great. Or at least, since Nestorianism also shares roots in the same Apostolic tradition as the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, let us say that in the area of Christology the differences are great and significant for our salvation.

Our own fathers in these days have accepted the Second Agreed Statement in Holy Synod, and therefore it is part of the teaching of our Coptic Orthodox Church that:

"we have now clearly understood that both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and the unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition, though they have used Christological terms in different ways."

Indeed this Second Agreed Statement shows clearly in what respects the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox, as described and defined in these days is both substantially the same as our own, and equally and significantly different from that ascribed to Nestorius and his followers. Let me draw out a few of the points, as the whole text is on www.orthodoxunity.org.

1. Both families of Churches call the Virgin Mary Theotokos and thereby safeguard the doctrine that it is God Himself, the Second Person of the Trinity, who is incarnate.

2. "Both families condemn the Nestorian heresy and the crypto-Nestorianism of Theodoret of Cyrus. They agree that it is not sufficient merely to say that Christ is consubstantial both with His Father and with us, by nature God and by nature man; it is necessary to affirm also that the Logos, Who is by nature God, became by nature Man, by His Incarnation in the fullness of time."

3. Both families confess that the hypostasis of the Word is composite, while also rejecting any idea of confusion or mixture.

4. Both families reject any interpretations of any councils which contradict the Horos of the Third Council.

5. The Eastern Orthodox also accept the validity of St Cyril's 'mia phyis......'

6. The Oriental Orthodox, and in our holy bishops all Copts, also accept that the Eastern Orthodox may use the phrase 'in two natures' since:

"they acknowledge that the distinction is 'in thought alone' "

So the Eastern Orthodox confess one hypostasis, that is one concrete reality in Christ. They acknowledge that it is the one hypostasis of the Logos incarnate who wills and acts. They do not teach two hypostases, that is two concrete realities, but they do confess with us that both the Divinity and the humanity of Christ are real and are hypostatic. They confess that the humanity and Divinity are only distinguished in thought alone and by careful contemplation, but with us they confess that the humanity and Divinity, though perfectly and hypostatically united are not confused, divided, mixed or separated. Humanity remains humanity, Divinity remains Divinity, but in Christ these two are united in one hypostasis.

This does not take away the historical problems we face. And it is reasonable to conclude both that Eastern Orthodox now as we discuss these things believe the same faith as us, even while we may also conclude that in the historical period there were those who accepted Chalcedon and failed to confess the right faith.

Chalcedon is not the same faith as Nestorius because the Eastern Orthodox do not interpret in such a way and our bishops have concluded that the Eastern Orthodox are indeed Orthodox. Now we may criticise Chalcedon from a historical perspective, and even suggest that the Eastern Orthodox understanding of Chalcedon has changed in the 5th and 6th centuries. But it seems to me, both out of respect for our fathers, and out of personal conviction, that we cannot say that what is described now as Chalcedonianism is anything other than in accord with our own Orthodox faith.

The key doctrinal difficulty that we OO have with Chalcedon is the phrase 'in two natures'. And we may still conclude that for many at that council it did indeed mean something a lot closer to Theodore of Mopsuestia and Nestorius' own opinions. But that is separate to the discussion we have between two groups of people here and now who have discovered that what they believe is substantially the same. What matters in this instance is how do Eastern Orthodox now, the ones we are talking with, how do they interpret 'in two natures', and the answer is that they take this to describe the continuing reality of humanity and Divinity in Christ, and not to stand for any separation, or even worse, for the establishment of two hypostases. Our bishops have accepted in Synod that this interpretation of Chalcedon is acceptable and in accord with our own faith since the EO also teach that the humanity and Divinity are distinguished in thought alone.

The Tome of Leo is read and understood in the same manner by EO. In the Tome Leo is taken as describing the continuing reality of the humanity and Divinity and not establishing separation. On this basis we accept the EO position as being Orthodox.

Now it must be fairly well known that I have historical problems with the Tome and with Chalcedon. But I agree wholeheartedly with our bishops that if we have accepted that the EO have maintained the Orthodox faith while separated from us for all of these centuries then we must accept that their interpretation of Chalcedon is coherent and Orthodox. In a sense we must accept that their acceptance and understanding of Chalcedon is Orthodox even while we do not consider that council to be ecumenical. We are saying that the Tome and Chalcedon can and have been accepted in an Orthodox manner even while we reject them. We have therefore modified our historic position that Chalcedon can never be acceptable, and it may now be perhaps explained that we can understand that others might interpret it in an Orthodox manner and be Orthodox but we do not necessarily share that interpretation. This does not take away our opinion that some have held heretical opinions while confessing Chalcedon, or that Chalcedon was a mistake. But we may not say that those who accept Chalcedon are necessarily heretical. Constantine most certainly does not hold to any Christological heresy yet he accepts both the Tome and Chalcedon. Indeed he interprets, and has been taught to interpret them, in an Orthodox manner and not in any way that is in accord with the teaching of Nestorius. Interpretation is everything, look at how the heretics have mishandled the scriptures and the teachings of the fathers.

So as for the Tome. I believe it says A, B and C and that C is error. Yet I need not say that the Tome is explicitly heretical, I may, as I do, suggest that it is ambiguous and badly written in places. EO theologians such as Father John Romanides of blessed memory have said the same. Now if Constantine believes it says A, B and D then he may quite happily confess it as Orthodox. And I might talk to him and agree that if it did say A, B and D then it would be free from error. So I then discover that Constantine and I, who both believe A, B and D, find no substantial difference in our own faith. We disagree however in whether the Tome teaches C or D. It is the same with Chalcedon. Our bishops have agreed in Synod that both our Church and the Eastern Orthodox do indeed teach A, B and D while we may still disagree as to whether any historical events or synods taught C, D or indeed E.

We are united in our faith, we differ in our understanding of history.