Re: CHAT: Homo Sapiens (was: fiery spirits)

Isidora Zamora scripsit:

> I can understand why you grouped them together, but it's really better not
> to.  We believe that they're heretics, and they believe that we're
> heretics, and we have not been in communion with each other for
> approximately the last millenium and a half.  (No hard feelings intended
> if there are any Monophysites/Non-Chalcedonians on the list.  I just know
> that the truth is that you think I'm wrong as much as I think you are.)
In fact, both sides have now agreed that the disagreement was
verbal, not substantive, as a result of joint declarations in 1989,
1990, and 1993.  An English translation is available online at
http://www.uk-christian.net/boc/2church.shtml .  This does not amount
to restored communion, of course, but I think the term "heretics" is no
longer appropriate.

Here's the central paragraph (7) of the 1990 statement:

        7.  The Orthodox agree that the Oriental Orthodox will
        continue to maintain their traditional Cyrillian terminology
        of "one nature of the incarnate Logos" ("mia fusij tou qeou
        Logou sesarkwmenh"), since they acknowledge the double
        consubstantiality of the Logos which Eutyches denied.
        The Orthodox also use this terminology.  The Oriental
        Orthodox agree that the Orthodox are justified in their use
        of the two-natures formula, since they acknowledge that
        the distinction is "in thought alone" (th qewria monh).
        Cyril interpreted correctly this use in his letter to John
        of Antioch and his letters to Acacius of Melitene (PG 77,
        184-201), to Eulogius (PG 77, 224-228) and to Succensus
        (PG 77, 228-245).

--
John Cowan                                   jcowan@reutershealth.com
        "You need a change: try Canada"  "You need a change: try China"
                --fortune cookies opened by a couple that I know

Reply