VISUAL CHRISTOLOGIES

All right. So this morning here in East

Asia and for all of you there in the

evening in the United States, I am going

to present something that I've been

working on for quite a long time. Uh a

session entitled visual christoologgies.

How divergent christoologgies in the

ancient church resulted in a fractured

communion. So this is the result of many

years of experience in the Assyrian

Church of the East and uh a wonderful

relationship that I've had long term

with the COPs and with the Armenians uh

two churches in the Oriental Orthodox

Communion that I love very much and have

had a lot of good interaction with and

uh the necessity to clarify things

because in the orthosphere there's quite

a lot of vitrol poured out constantly

upon these other communions uh without a

lot of understanding. And so I think

that if you're going to make a principal

decision, if you're going to decide that

someone else is in the wrong and you're

in the right, you should understand

clearly uh inside and out what the

issues are. And so with that in mind, we

are going to open in the name of the

father, the son, and the holy spirit.

Amen. Almighty and everlasting God, who

did send thine only begotten son to take

our nature upon him, being very God and

very man and one undivided person, grant

us grace, we beseech thee, to rightly

and and duly confess the mystery of his

holy incarnation, to hold fast the faith

once delivered to the saints and to

speak to to those sacred things with

humility, charity, and reverence that

guarded with confusion,

guarded from confusion and division, we

may adore for with one heart the same

Lord Jesus Christ who liveth and reignth

with thee and the Holy Ghost one God

world without end. Amen.

So today as we review the historical

diagrams

uh of these theological taxonomies we

are confronting the most consequential

narratives in Christian history. The

claim that divergent christoologgies

fracture the communion in the ancient

church. Modern pymics whether Roman,

Bzantine, oriental or Protestant, often

assert that Christologology was the

decisive fault line of division in the

church. According to this narrative, uh

the incompatible metaphysical systems

inevitably led to schism.

Need to make sure I'm letting everyone

in that comes in.

I think we let him in. Okay.

So, there are many different ways

to put this argument. You see various

different pmical

slides online.

Uh the

classic one here is showing a

crossshaped divide between uh the

various different schools of

Christologology. So on the top you have

quote unquote netorianism which

emphasizes integrity and separateness of

Jesus's human human and divine aspects.

There on the bottom you have the human

divine nature as posited by what we

would call mopices but in this diagram

classically are called monopices that

emphasizes the unity of Jesus's human

and divine aspect the Alexandrian school

then you have the emphasis on Jesus's

divinity apollinarianism dosatism these

are the very strong heresies of the

first few centuries that tried to say

that Jesus was spirit or that the flesh

that we saw Paul was uh in some way an

illusion and that Jesus was completely

divine. On the other side you have um

the position of the Ebianites which is

that Jesus is only a human. He was

adopted. He economically became the son

of God. Um but he was as the Messiah a

prophet um very similar to the Muslim

claims. And then we have Jesus first

among all created beings which is

Aryanism which um there's this position

and there's also a semi-aran position.

So both of these positions show um

that Jesus is uh in some way a a created

person who's assumed into the work of

the Messiah. So,

we have here

all right brothers. I'm going to move

all this around. We have here a classic

what I would call uh calcedonian

comparison. Uh this is what I was taught

in seminary. Uh many of you have seen

this uh this is not original to me. um

this kind of diagram in which you see

the cerillion Alexandrian position here

on the left and the netorian

uh the antioin position here on the

right. So we have um basically exactly

the same categories on both sides and

this is what I argue in this

presentation is not correct because the

categories are actually different. The

terminology that's used in the Syriak is

different than the terminology that's

used by the cops in Alexandria and by

the Calcedonians in the west. And so

this is a a different um kind of

presentation and we need to understand

that. Now scripture um surrounding the

christoologgical mystery. Can you please

mute yourselves brothers? Um I'm I'm

hearing either feedback or another

conversation going on.

Let me see if I can if I can do that on

this side.

No, I can't mute you on this side. So,

anyway, here we go.

The scriptures are

very clear but also um extremely broad.

So, in John 1:14, the word was made

flesh. In Philippians 2 6-8 we see the

kotic descent, the self-mping descent

that Jesus undertook. In Hebrews we see

uh Christ's solidarity with humanity. Uh

that he is um our great high priest that

he is our mediator that he stands

between God and man. And then in

Colossians we see cosmic reconciliation

taking place through um the incarnation

of our Lord. So the scripture doesn't

give us any metaphysical

uh mechanization whereby we may

understand the incarnation and that's

strategic. That's important to

understand that the revelation of God to

us through the divine word uh written is

not trying to give us some kind of

mathematical formula whereby we can

understand all of this. It's giving us

something that is definitely true,

definitely revealed, definitely

powerful, definitely transformative to

the world and to us. But at the same

time, it is not giving us um a

philosophical metaphysical exposition of

how this happened or um how it's

accomplished in the created world other

than it is through God's divine will. So

the texts always firmly assert that

Jesus is fully divine. uh Jesus himself

asserts this that he is fully human that

he is the son of man and that as such he

plays the role that was given to him

from the beginning of the world as the

son of Adam and the fulfillment of Eve

and the one who had crushed the head of

the serpent and then he is personally

unified. We know that because Jesus is

not uh in conversation with himself like

a schizophrenic. uh Jesus is a unified

person. His personality is one and

whole. And so we know that from

scripture, from the evidence presented

in scripture that Jesus is fully divine.

He's fully man. He's fully human. And

he's also one person. So they do not

declare how this unity functions

metaphysically. The apostolic witness is

doxological before it is analytical. So

it explains right faith and belief and

uh does this in a communal and lurggical

way before it does any kind of

metaphysical analysis. And this is

crucial because the church's doctrinal

language emerges not from philosophical

curiosity but from the need to defend

worship to defend our worship of Jesus.

Uh because if he is just a man then to

worship him as the Muslims posit is

idolatry. But to worship him as God

means that we're making a cosmological

statement, a very significant statement

that we have to defend. And that's

always been the case throughout history.

So modern pymics claim Christologology

was the decisive fault line of

communion. Non-caledonian traditions are

often framed as doctrinally defective.

Historical evidence shows multiple

christoologgies coexisted in communion

as long as basic terms were used. And

this is very important. Uh we're going

to talk about this in depth later. The

christoologgical debate was often

political, linguistic, and cultural. And

this is the thing that bothers people so

much when they read about uh this debate

in the early church is that it was so

entwined with politics and political

aspirations and um competition between

uh various different archbishops. Uh

later on we would call them

patriarchates. And in all of this, we

discover uh a great fault line uh

between our human weakness and frailty,

our brokenness, and even um the sins

that various different saints committed.

Uh St. Sirill of Alexandria is a is a

wonderful example. you know, on one

hand, bribing the Byzantine court with

two tons of gold, um, extremely corrupt

in so many ways, and yet also incredibly

devoted to Christ as one, to Christ as

God, um, incredibly devoted to trying to

defend Jesus um, as the object of our

veneration and worship. And so, you

know, on one hand, a saint, on the other

hand, a sinner. And it's very hard for

people when they start examining this

historical evidence uh to be able to

parse through that. And that is

definitely the great challenge uh of

examining these ancient conflicts and

controversies. You start to actually

come into contact with the true nature

of the church which is we are being

saved. The church on earth is not the

church triumphant. We are the church

that is struggling and we need each

other. Uh and we need to humble

ourselves to each other just like we're

going to do this next Sunday as we ask

one another to forgive us and and and

try uh to make amends for all the ways

that we offend our brother. And as we

move through the history of the church,

uh it really is no different. Churches

constantly go through situations that

need repentance. And so we see that in

the christoologgical debates as well.

So

the alle alleged fault line leads to

this the councils as guardians of

mystery. Uh Nika, Constantinople,

Ephesus, Calcedon. These are all various

meetings that the church had. And for

those of you who are just starting out

in postulency or in seminary, um you'll

be focusing a lot on this on the

ecumenical councils. In these ecumenical

councils, the nature of Christ is up

front and center. It's the most

important thing. So they're debating

with the Aryans um at Nika,

Constantinople. They're debating with

semi-arans and debating about the nature

of uh the Holy Ghost. And then at

Ephesus, they're debating the nature of

the Virgin Mary. Um whether or not she

can be called Theotocos. Um something

that was very hard to say in Aramaic, uh

was easily said in Greek and in Latin

because they had um generic words for

God that came from outside of the

Christian tradition. And then at

Calcidon you have a very clear

exposition of um dioit dio fisitism

which is two natures held in one person.

Um the tome of Leo and some of these

other things that we're going to talk

about. Uh the creeds are confessional.

They're not philosophical systems. They

try to build a wall around the mystery.

Calcedon used both Sirill and Leo's

terminology. And so it was trying to

strike a balance between uh the various

different positions that were emerging

in the church. And so in many ways it's

called the Calcedonian compromise. Uh

four adverbs act as guard rails in this

council. They're not explanations. So

when they're talking about the nature of

Christ in his incarnation, they're not

giving us a mechanism whereby it is

accomplished. They're just telling us

that it is united. it's it's uh

undivided but at the same time it's not

confused and um it's not mixed in a way

that would uh undermine our salvation.

Later Leonius of Constantinople tried to

balance calcedon through cerillion

terminology creating something called

the neocaledonian system and reuniting

the oriental orthodoxist to the Roman

church but this was ultimately not

successful. So you have neocaledonianism

that was a major thrust uh during the

reign of Justinian and Justinian himself

is a picture of this kind of motivation

because his wife Theodora

if you listen to the Syriak Orthodox

narrative on this uh you know she was uh

the daughter of a priest. If you listen

to the Caledonian detractors you know

she was a prostitute but either way she

was oriental Orthodox. did not stand

with the Caledonians and she uh

therefore represents in many ways the

the picture of what was going on at that

time in the Byzantine Empire in the

Eastern Roman Empire. And it was very

important for the Greekspeaking

Romans to try to reunite the empire by

trying to bring all the sister churches

out there in uh you know the Syriak and

Armenian and Coptic and Ethiopian worlds

back into one fold. So St. Maximus

confessor reframes the antiocian numa as

the inhypostaton thesis and brings back

the antio Antiocian school in an obvious

way. So this is an important thing. You

have to realize that there's there's

logic to the Antiochian position that

the Antiocian position the school had

developed something that was primarily

focused on biblical language not on

Greek platonic metaphysical language and

they used arisatilian categories to do

that rather than platonic categories.

And so uh they were trying to explain

the same mystery but in a different way

using different terminology and it was

actually very effective at explaining

some things about the incarnation that

the Greek platonic language was weak in.

And so therefore St. Maximus Confessor

um in his understanding of the

inhypostatization,

the um the

the incarnation of Christ, the word in

one hypothesis and the physi the

physical being of Christ and the nature

of humanity and all of those things

being within the hypothatic

um being of logos of God, the word that

that actually brings brings together

um an element that was missing before

which is where is the hypoatic being of

Christ? How do you understand um a being

without a substantial and actual

outworked um incarnation? Uh and so this

is how St. Maximus confessor actually

brings together the entire field and

he's created a bridge as well for those

who follow the antioin school um as

Marawa and um father Ephraim Alkas um

focused the last decade on uh bringing

this inhypostadon thesis um through

antioin terminology into uh the context

of Assyrian theology. You can see so the

Byzantine Greek christologology is

rooted in the capidosian and Alexandrian

metaphysics and its emphasis is on

theosis participation in divine life

salvation as an onlogical process of

healing not a jeritical pardon and

lurggical and iconographic theology is

central. So this is the position that

most of you are used to because this is

the position that the defenders of

Eastern Orthodoxy memeify. So those of

you who are used to kind of orthob,

those of you who are, you know,

constantly uh looking at orthodox reels

on Instagram, this is what you're going

to think of as the orthodox position.

And this is the emerging orthodox

position. uh what is very characteristic

now of the Greek and Byzantine world. Um

however for a thousand years it was in

communion with the Roman or Latin

Christologology and that had a different

emphasis. It had a different way of

understanding and framing the whole

picture. And uh these two were not in um

contrast or at odds. They just simply

existed in two different spheres in two

different linguistic and cultural

spheres. and it was held to be

completely legitimate even though there

were very marked differences. The strong

emphasis was on original sin and the

fallen will. This doesn't just arise

with the Protestants. This arises um in

the works of Augustine and then Christ

the new Adam restoring moral and legal

order. This had a lot to do with the

fact that the Roman world was much more

law oriented than the Greek world. The

Greek world of course as we've talked

about in previous clericus um was more

involved in philosophical parsing and

trying to understand metaphysical

existence ontolog ontological existence

where whereas the Latin world was very

much more focused on the practical moral

legal aspects of things and going back

to the 12 tablets of Rome uh definitely

kind of a constitutional way of

understanding society and the atonement

framed jeridically and sacrificially

So the atonement was always framed in

this way. Um you see the western early

western fathers talking very much about

um satisfaction um even though it would

take almost a thousand years uh to get

to Anom of Canterbury um to where you

have all of those aspects sewn together

so that they create an actual heavenly

legal system. And then the Latin lacked

Greek metaphysical precision. This is

something we've been talking about a lot

in the St. James prayer book because uh

we have things like usia essence in the

creed translated as substantia in Latin

substantia implies there's a thingness

uh whereas the Greek does not imply such

and so there's um an important

difference between the various terms

that arose and those different terms

gradually develop into very different

perspectives of theology.

So there were two different perspectives

of christologology that developed and

were held in tension in one communion

for over a thousand years. Roman

Bzantium differed metaphysically and

sati and satiologically. They were very

much focused on two very different ways

of communicating the same thing. Um

there was no requirement of uniform

conceptual language. Uh we have this in

the letters back and forth when the

various different bishops were sending

out their letters of consecration

uh after they were consecrated uh to

various other bishops in order to be

commemorated within the diptics. There

are many places where the theology

disagrees slightly and still they

consider themselves in one communion.

It's very interesting now because

everything is pardoned to such an extent

in the Eastern Orthodox world that

there's an assumption of absolute

solidarity on every issue and in the

historic church that was not the case.

You don't see exactly the same formulas

being used. You don't see exactly the

same emphasis always being had. And so,

uh, now today we have very much an

artificially, um, constructed feeling of

unity where people must use the same

formulas for everything. Um, and that is

considered orthodoxy. Where whereas in

the first 10,000 years of the church,

you don't have that. Um, you have

substantially different formulations,

substantially different languages, and

they all consider themselves within the

church because they all celebrated the

same sacraments. They all had the same

apostolic succession. uh you know coming

from the apostles, they all had that

apostolic authority and so therefore

they were keeping each other

accountable. They were keeping each

other uh informed but at the same time

uh there was a lot more um dynamic

tension. And so, you know, we've been

talking a lot about that dynamic tension

within various other um cleric sessions

where we've been talking about how um

that practical pastoral concern always

has to mitigate the metaphysical and and

philosophical as well. So, that

communion was broken debatably in 1054.

Um some people point out the fact that

it wasn't a complete break and that um

over time it healed a bit and then it

was broken again. Decisively it broke in

1204 um when the Venetians conquered

Constantinople. After the conquest of

the Constantinople by the Latins, um the

east never considered Rome ever again to

be in communion with itself

is as much a cultural reaction as it is

a metaphysical one.

And then unity preserved through shared

mystery and worship was the norm. So

this is not a liberal thing. This is not

an Anglican thing. This is not the panh

heresy of accuminism thing. this is just

how the church actually worked. If you

start to read through history and you

start to understand the implications of

what you're reading, and it takes a

while, you start to see that um there is

an allowable degree of divergence

between cultures and between rights and

between formulations. But there are

boundaries to this, the boundaries of

orthodoxy, which we're going to talk

about at the end of this session. And

these boundaries are what the churches

have always agreed was central from the

beginning.

So differing visions of the one Christ.

The Romans had a very clear from the

beginning view of Christ that was

suffering and crucified and focused on

fulfilling the legal mandate of God's

will. Um the Coptic or the Alexandrian

position was very much focused on Christ

as a humble good shepherd as

compassionate but very much focused on

his divinity and very much focused on

the fact that through communion with

Christ that we are divonized as well.

That divonization theosis view is very

strong in the Coptic theology that we

inherit from the early church. And then

in the Ethiopian um we have the royal

and apocalyptic messiah idea. This idea

is very strong throughout their messmer,

their himnography. It's very strong

through their iconography. It's very

strong through their cultural practice

of Christianity. We have several

Ethiopians here uh with us in East Asia.

And it's really amazing how much they

connect this royal kingship and the uh

the iconographic role of the king with

Jesus in his uh messianic apocalyptic

kingship. And then it's uh shown over

here in the Byzantine approach, the

pentacrer, the ruler of everything. He's

the cosmic king, the transformative one

who lives and breathes through creation,

but at the same time uh is transforming

everything by his holy fire into that

which is to come. the East Syriak. Uh

what I very much appreciated uh when I

was with the Assyrians in Modesto was

the way that they approached Jesus as

teacher and healer as as a um a very

personable, close, loving God man who

was

present for all of our needs and who was

easily accessible at the same time. Um

his divine aspect was never forgotten.

But that that very kind of um that warm

and close nature of Jesus Christ is very

much featured in in the East Syriak

tradition. And then uh within all of the

research that we've been doing recently

and all of the work that I have

published about Far Eastern Christianity

uh from the 600s um all the way through

the 1500s um the Chinese always

approached Jesus as the perfect

philosopher and foretold sage. Um that's

something that um and as we speak of it,

he's coming in. That's something that

subdeacon Jeremy is very focused on uh

as he works through the various

lurggical rights of the ancient Chinese

church and something that Dr. Todd has

worked on uh and has written a wonderful

book about um just showing how Christ

fits into those um kind of stereotypes

within the culture.

So the other ancient christoologgical

traditions the antioin emphasizes the

real humanity and history that Christ

was an individual man and that he

fulfilled both the moral and prophetic

roles of the messiah and the

metaphysical roles of the heavenly high

priest and mediator and the ultimate

sacrifice. The netorian quote unquote is

showing a position of what's called

proopic union. Uh becomes the mechanism

for incarnation. While hard arisatilian

categories preserve distinction between

divinity and humanity according to

seriatic categories that the Greeks did

not recognize. We'll talk about that

here in a second. The mapicite or the

monopite position always focuses on the

language of St. Siril himself. One

incarnate nature united from two.

Sirill's terminology became the one and

only standard and all else is judged to

be heresy. So if you can say uh with

full conviction the cerillion formula

then the oriental orthodox consider that

to be orthodox and so therefore it's a

very simple almost like the shahada of

oriental orthodoxy. You can say that uh

with conviction then you're definitely

oriental orthodox in their estimation.

um you know the Caledonians because of

um our understanding of uh Leonius of

Constantinople and Neoedonianism we

interpret the uh whole Caledonian schema

through this and so um it also is not at

odds uh with the neocaledonian position

and then adoptionism. This was the

position of Jewish Christians called

Ebianites who were a significant Jewish

following of Christ even into the 4th

century. It is proposed that there is

only one God, one person and one source

of divinity and that Christ was raised

in honor to the position of God's

representative without dividing this

essential unity. This is also what you

see in the book of Enoch. Um it's kind

an oian messiahship. Um, so there's a

there's a paradigm already there uh in

the ancient Jewish apocalyptic material.

This was rejected by the church fathers

as unorthodox. It was untenable because

it contradicts what Jesus said himself

and may have been the reason for the

explosive popularity of Aryanism which

gave this old position a new Greek

defined plausibility. It was very

quickly that the world woke up and found

itself aranist. St. St. Athanasius of

Alexandria said after several hundred

years of repression by imperial

Christianity the same basic heresy

emerged again as Islam and once again

converted many of the Syriak, Eastern

Greek, Egyptian and Northern African

Christians. Uh this is important to

remember. Islam even though it did use

the sword as a mechanism for conversion

overwhelmingly

uh greeted confused Christians uh who

were not metaphysically clear about all

the various different conflicts the

church was going through. And uh as they

became more successful, more and more

people apostasized to them. And so it

wasn't just through the sword. It was

also because people were very confused

about this issue regarding the

incarnation. So the real causes of

schism we see are language barriers. Uh

Greek is very precise metaphysically.

Latin is very precise legally. Syriak is

very precise in its devotional and

revealed language. uh it being a direct

offshoot of the ancient biblical

revelation of the Old Testament and then

Coptic being um very well cosmologically

and culturally separate from all the

rest even though it was heavily

influenced by Greek and the imperial

enforcement of theological conformity

created friction between apostolic

communities with real theological and

lurggical differences creating a secular

sacred divide and enforced

Constantinople as the center of Melkite

quote unquote or imperial quote unquote

Christianity. This is important. When

you use force against your enemies, you

always lose. Uh because when you use

force, you ensconce those that you're

trying to convince in the conviction

that not only are you a bad person and

probably not even a Christian, um but

you can actually um harden the

perspective that your enemies have

towards something. And so that's what

you see here. And it was over very

little. It became extremely big. And as

we talk about at the end of this

session, um you know, it was used to

justify genocide and abuse and slavery

and all kinds of things. And it really

does still today create a gulf that is

just too far to bridge. So the

patriarchal rivalry and ambition clouds

historical conflicts as each tries to

become ultimate. This is what Alexandria

was trying to do. Uh why there was such

a conflict between Alexandria and

Constantinople. uh because

Constantinople was basically an upstart

and was trying to push Alexandria down.

Alexandria was offended um because its

honor was denied and then based upon

that you have lots and lots of conflict.

And then human sin, pride, fear and

violence is justified by being right and

churches assume infallibility and

justified war which leads to permanent

schism.

So, we're going to talk a little bit

about um the

incredibly central ideas of the antioin

school.

And it was in reaction to these ideas

that serial Alexandria

he uh writes his letters to Netorius and

then uh calls a council to be held and

then single-handedly convenes that

council in Ephesus with bishops that he

brought from Alexandria and then um gets

into a huge conflict with John of

Antioch who was the archbishop of

Antioch who was really more concerned

with um the fast and loose way that

Sirill was playing with the canonical

process of the church. Uh wasn't as con

concerned with the christoologgical uh

differences within various different

confessions uh because he could see that

they were easily balanced. um but was

very personally affronted by how uh

Sirill

uh pulled the whole thing off and it's

really central to the way that this

whole conflict unfolded and so as we

look at the Antiocin school

we're going to see that there are terms

here that are not present within our

Caledonian model. So there are two

complete realities. And when I mean

complete, I mean complete. They are

whole. And all of these terms that we

see here that we're not familiar with,

they're all trying to communicate that

they're united at the level of proapon.

So they're united at the level of

person. So the person of Jesus Christ is

united together and alltogether fit. And

the hypotoases

remains distinct and strict antio

trajectories. So there are two natures

and those two natures have two real

beings. So hypoatic beings meaning

hypothesis of course means what is

standing under. So that's you know a

metaphysical category for a complete and

full evil. And then the divine cana and

the human cana are united without

division. Now the kuma is a very

important category that we don't have in

western theology. Kuma was

it was explained to me by Marawa as

being um

in this this is always weird to me

because I have to change gears. The

canuma

is the reality

the thing that is observed from the

outside and also the internal energy

that exists within the inside. So this

is the kuma of uh the thing itself is

like a uh outside observable

existence. Whereas the kiana is the

internal nature. This is the nature

itself. Okay. So you have a nature and

then you have the observable outer

energetic manifestation of that nature.

So kunuma is an important aspect that

can't be denied. You can't say that

something exists without the kuma. So

there is a nature and then there's the

full manifestation of that nature. that

full outward observable thing that must

exist in order for the internal reality

to exist and those things cannot be

denied. It is mistaken by the west to be

the hypostasis that it's the underlying

nature and this is what the east has

constantly argued that it is not exactly

the same. It's not exactly the same

quality. So they are incredibly

important in the way that the east

Syriak formulate and understand the

incarnation and they don't even have

terminology in the western formulas for

this for this position. So it's not

exactly um translatable. So what we have

in the divine and human cana is that

they are united without division in the

person of Jesus Christ. that these two

things are whole. They're complete.

They're actual. They're ontologically

separate. They have two different

sources of beings, two different

modalities, two different origins. And

they are united without division in the

person.

You can see the way that this

incarnational formula is laid out. The

father, son, and holy spirit.

Uh these are all

united in the level of kuma. They all

have um they all have their one divine

nature and then the the kuma of the son,

the kuma of the father, kuma of the holy

spirit and then um those are worked out

in the traditional way that we would

understand um the substance or the usa

um then reflected in the in the persons

of the trinity. And then you have uh

here the divine kunuma of the son united

with the human kunuma that was given by

Mary.

Father Michael trying to get in. Um and

then

uh these are united in the one persona.

So the person is understood to be much

more significant and substantial in the

eery understanding than in the Greek

understanding. In the Greek

understanding, the persona uh the p the

the proapon is a mask. It's an

appearance. So it's not an actual

substantial thing. And uh I remember

about 15 years ago when I was talking

with father Ephraim about a paper that

he was presenting at Siri. Um this was

one of the things that we were talking

about that the person in the Syriak

approach is much more substantial. It is

it is an actual being. So the person is

a compound of you know whatever came

before all the various different causes

that led up to it as an effect and it

contains within it all those things that

led up to it and that in that way it is

um it is possible to compound a person

but that that person is in the end one

substance one thing something that is um

substantially different than any other

thing and that is a metaphysical

reality. So in this way uh we have to

remember that the way that the terms

were used between the various different

schools were indeed different. They

didn't mean the same thing. And this is

what you see in the letters going back

and forth um between various parties in

this controversy. They were using uh

feces um or feces um the nature very

differently. They were using it

interchangeably with hypothesis. Uh they

were using it interchangeably

um in some ways with us uh with with uh

with the Greek word for substance.

They're using it interchangeably. And

these words in council were hammered

out, but they were not originally used

in the philosophical tradition in the

way that they were used by the church

fathers either. And so the various

different schools coming into conflict

was necessary because the words they

were using themselves didn't have strict

definitions. And as those definitions

became over time more and more clear, as

they became more and more hammered out

by consensus and by compromise, you see

a stable position emerging. So the

inevitability of the conflict that we

see is is often times understated. A lot

of people say, you know, it was it's

tragedy that it happened. You know, why

did um the early church have to do

things like this? And in so many ways,

it's just inevitable when you're with

smart people working through difficult

issues and you have to constantly be,

you know, talking about what your words

mean, how how to define these things.

So,

are there any questions about this

schema or any comments? I know we have

Father Dimmitri on who is an Assyrian

priest. Um, any comments or any other

things that you want to add to this

before we move on to the Oriental

Orthodox position?

your your grace. I I know with the I'll

I'll save this for when we depending on

how it goes with the oriental, but is

there any um

syllogism or image that is used by the

um by the Syriak East to kind of

understand this and describe this in

some kind of way or

this this formula that I have here, this

like um incarnational tree that you're

looking at is really the closest that

I've gotten to understanding it from the

position of um the Assyrian Church of

the East. Um I remember when this was

being drawn out for me, uh this was

actually the first time that this kind

of formula was drawn out for me in this

way. And the one of the reasons why I

endeavored to draw out the other

formulas in the same way. So they were

trying to basically show me the position

of the church in a way that I could

understand uh back you know maybe 15

years ago now. Um and in the process of

learning it in this way I started to try

to diagram out the Byzantine the Roman

the uh you know the oriental perception

of how this would also be laid out. And

so I think in the contrast it will

actually help to see as we move through.

Um but there's also I iconography. The

iconography is very distinct and I have

an icon here in just a second we're

going to look at.

>> Awesome.

>> Okay.

>> Uh Bishop.

>> Yeah. I was wondering um what what I

guess I need a little bit of

clarification and maybe this is a

question too for you and anybody also

Father Demetri too maybe could jump in

on this. So the Kiana I was thinking um

it sounded a little bit almost like

hardware you know and then like uh kama

might be like software

>> or maybe like like maybe the counter

might like be DNA and like the um kana

might be like like what happens like the

actual flesh of a creature you know

versus like

>> abstract

>> is it something like that perhaps

>> when I was talking about this um with

Mawa extensively. He he kept focusing on

the fact that

there's always an internal and an

external reality that the internal

reality is not observable. The external

reality is observable and it's using

kind of the same analogies that the

Capidosian fathers used uh from the sun.

you know that the internal essence of

the sun is beyond our comprehension but

we understand through the light which is

you know expressed energy of the sun um

that the kuma is that expressed outward

reality that's observable and that was I

think the closest I got to what you're

talking about um this kind of in inward

outward um dichotomy of reality that we

always see uh in any subject object and

I think that is what they're trying to

express here which is the fact that

there's always

a real outward observable

ontological

process that's processing from this this

this onto this reality right there's

this there's this observable outward

expression and that is what um I was led

to believe the kuma is kuma is is a very

strange capacity. Some people say that

it actually went into um the late Jewish

metaphysical

um speculation that was done in Babylon

that was done in Mesopotamia and then it

was brought over into the Christian um

in in the Christian world. It's not

terminology that was ever used in the

west. So you know this terminology the

reason people have such conceptual

difficulty with it is there's really

nothing to hang it on. There's very

little in our tradition that we can say,

you know, kuma is related to. So Kiana,

if you want to say it's the nature, it's

the feces, that makes sense. You know,

you can say, oh, it's the it's the

nature, it's just a one to one. Um,

that's why the west was tempted to say

the kuma was um exactly the same as

hypothesis. Um because, you know, that

makes the the the closest sense when

you're trying to do an equivocation.

Father Dmitri, do you have any uh I know

we were very concerned about making sure

that this was communicated well. Do you

have anything that you could add to this

to clarify?

>> I don't know if you're able to see my

comments that I've

>> I'm trying I'm trying to look.

Well, basically it was this that um

Kiana is best thought of as an abstract

nature, something that we all share in

common, whereas guma is a very concrete

nature. So you and I have different kuma

even if we share the same kana.

>> So that type of possibility.

So the definity

um of one word over another is dependent

upon how we understand kenuma in

relationship to kiana. Kiana might be

the human nature whereas ponuma is

Christ specific nature or

in the case of um

the trinity

is the divinity and the kuma is the

individual persons of the trinity.

>> Yes.

>> Yeah.

So that makes

a better handle for understanding the

Syriak mentality on this and usage and

it's very consistent with the way it is

used

>> not only in discussion of

Christologology but in poetic

uh understanding that we find from

Maropram St. Ephraim.

Could I throw in something else?

>> Yes, go for it.

>> Just because, you know, I don't get to

talk about this stuff every day. Um

>> um you know, Maximus the Confessor comes

in and tries to um make a synthesis like

a hundred years later.

>> Uhhuh.

>> And um it's just I have a very

rudimentary understanding of this, but

you know, ChachiPT is quite kind of

amazing, you know, with these things. Um

you know, he he and I'm just looking at

right now some stuff I was looking at

earlier today. um he will say that like

unity belongs to the hypothesis

hypothesis right so there's this so like

um the orientals don't like uh the tomb

of Leo which I don't really understand

why but they but I but I think they

think that it doesn't preserve Sirill's

like oneness well enough right

>> but and and so you get Leontis Leant

Leantius right of Constantinople

>> um his synthesis

did did went a little further but But

Maximus takes it even further and he has

this idea like that the hypostasis is

the person and the nature's um they they

they reside in the hypothasis and so

that way you cut out this like

distinction these like diaphotism.

Right.

>> Yeah. And I I wondered if like if anyone

had ever thought like maybe um what

Maximus said about the it all resting in

this hypoasis could that could the

hypothesis be like the persona because

this had of joining them right

>> yeah that was that was father Ephraim's

whole thesis in his doctoral that DSPT

his doctoral dissertation that he did

there at Berkeley that was his whole

thesis his whole thesis was that that

the BrOA and the the maximian

um hypoasis were the same thing that

that was okay

>> that was exactly you know they were that

they were equal with one another in all

senses and all definitions so he he was

very wellreceived Mawa featured him and

then later on um you know he delivered

that lecture at Siri uh you can still

see it online I think um I'll I'll look

and see if I can find it but that was

the whole thing. Um, and what Mawa

officially put his whole weight behind

was that there was a one to one um kind

equivocation between St. Maximus

Confessor's resolution of the issue and

the the antio position. And I think I

think it is tenable even though it's

it's a pretty revolutionary position.

It's a it's a position that um I still

think hasn't gotten a lot of

consideration or traction from the

Eastern Orthodox side. Um definitely uh

the the Catholic side has already

thought about this very deeply and you

know is is is fine with that you know

because of their um joint statement the

1994 um statement on Christologology or

whatever. they've they've kind of come

to terms with that already um without

having to um use Maximus as the bridge.

But I think I think using Maximus

definitely is the bridge. That's 100%

where I fall on this whole issue having

kind of cut my teeth on um observing

this whole thing from you know the

relationships I've had with with both

father Efraim and with Marawa um and now

with Father Dmitri. I what I what I see

is that there is there's continence

between all these things rather than

divergence.

>> Very interesting.

>> There is an underlying truth.

>> Yeah. Very interesting.

>> Yeah. Any other comments before we move

on? We're going to go next to the

Alexandrian position.

>> It see it seems like without um

foreshadowing too terribly much, it

seems like that almost because there's

no distinction of Kiana and Kenuma in

the broader west of the Byzantines and

the Romans. Um, that the distinctions

you that might explain why the

distinction between the Byzantines and

the Latins has gone un

discussed for so long because it does

seem like

>> the Kiana is emphasized by the

Byzantines overly much. H

yeah that that is that is interesting

and we were talking about that uh before

father we're going to see that here in

in the incarnational tree as we compare

between the Byzantines and the Romans

but there definitely is a difference

there's a difference in priority there's

also a difference in understanding of

how things fit together all right so

let's let's move to the next

slide so the tbukta of Marbawe the great

one is Christ the son of God worshiped

by all in two natures in his godhead

begotten of the father without beginning

before all time in his humanity born of

Mary in the fullness of time in a body

united neither his godhead is of the

nature of the mother nor his humanity of

the nature of the father the natures are

preserved in their kumas outward reality

of inward nature this is what Mawa had

me insert but uh I think father Dmitri

just gave a very very good analysis And

we can um maybe insert that here. But in

one person in one sunship. And as the

godhead is three substances in one

nature. Likewise the sunship of the son

is in two natures, one person. So the

holy church has taught. This is a hymn

and uh it was given to me posited as the

solution to all of the various different

um conflicts that the west has imposed

upon eiology

uh back you know 15 years ago when I was

starting to study this and and starting

to write about it.

So

the antio quotes that are pertinent to

all of this. We do not say two sons but

one and the same. Theodore Mapso estia

one Christ not double. Netoriius and the

bizar of Heraclites. We worship the same

one. Netoriius again and bizarre of

Heraclites. The two natures are united

without confusion without division in

one proapon of the son. Marbawi the

great in the book of union. uh this is

something that father Dimmitri has

worked on for a while and uh he could

even give us a session about but the

book of union is very important to

understanding how all this fits together

and then one is Christ the son of god

worshiped by all in two natures the

natures are preserved in their konome in

one person and one of one sunship that's

from the tushbukta we just read the

divinity did not suffer nor was the

humanity transformed but one son was

manifested in both marbaw

And then we confess one son of God,

perfect in divinity and perfect in

humanity. Uh that is from the cenoticon

oriental. Uh a very important book. It's

all in uh French but uh you know with

the ease of translation now you should

download it. Um the natures are distinct

in their kome yet in one person. one of

the again cenodal definitions and then

they they say not two sons but one son

and two kome so that's philanos of

mabbok uh philosanis is very important

because he's a west sriak bishop who

wrote extensively about the other

churches around him and the various

different um expressions of

christologology and liturgy and uh we've

we've looked at several west Syrian

fathers in uh the process of trying to

understand the East Syriak tradition

because they give a contemporary witness

and often very fair which is unusual.

So this is the the famous Rotunda of the

apes um in uh online it says that this

is

uh in the Middle East I think actually

father is this is this in San Diego? Is

this with the the Calaldanss there in in

the

the San Diego church?

>> Anyway, I can't I can't find where this

is. I've I've looked I tried to do a

reverse image search and uh what it it

came out as two different locations. But

anyway, this is a this is a Calaldian

icon and you can see it's using the

Estrangil

um the

the old script here and you have the Yah

and the halo which I love and then the

the alop and the tal is the alpha and

the omega and he is indeed God. Um but

you have this very important expression

of um the incarnation of our Lord

through iconography and it is often

overlooked that iconography first came

from Adessa that iconography first came

from the Syriak expression of

Christianity and then it later on flowed

into all other forms of apostolic

Christianity. So it is important because

it's a focus on the incarnation, the

actual in fleshment of our Lord and God

as a man and that that man had a

particular body and that that man uh is

sitting at the right hand of the father

uh from whence he shall return to rule

and reign forever. And so the

incarnation is affirmed uh very strongly

by the antioin position and it's obvious

in their ancient iconography that they

are holding a position that is consonant

with uh the position that later on was

accepted by all the churches.

So the Alexandrian uh cerillion

understanding is as follows and this is

something um father Duncan can help me

explain here in a second because he's

been spending a lot of his time in the

Coptic world. So the logos is the acting

subject one incarnate nature of God the

word. Humanity is assumed and united in

one incarnate composite reality. So you

have again the trinity and the logos

expressed the sun expressed here and

then a divine nature and human nature

together in one incarnate composite

reality. Now this is a very simple graph

and um in the more complex graphs that I

worked through to try to understand how

I should depict it um I showed it as

nested realities. So the the human is

nested within the divine. So the divine

is the defining observable

um kind of out outward-f facing reality

and then the human is within that uh

divine nature. It's a composite reality.

So it is the miacs

or the one nature. So that combined

composite um nature is very important

for the Coptic church, the Armenian

church, the West Syriak church, uh the

Ethiopian church. It's very important

for them because they feel like any

other prerogative, any other way of

picturing it or understanding it would

undermine Christ's divinity and it would

make him lesser than what he truly is.

And so they're very focused on trying to

defend that and they believe that the

best way to do it is just through the

language of St. Serial of Alexandria

without adding anything more to it or

working towards cenotal definitions of

it. They just focus on that as a very

important uh phrasiology that safeguards

orthodoxy. And I think that

approach to uh the fathers is very

different than the western approach

because the western approach has this

very consilier give and take back and

forth kind of uh consilier cenodal

process that's thought of as getting at

the truth. Whereas uh in the oriental

church there's much more of a you know

this was revealed by the fathers and

this is just accepted by us kind of

position. So it's it's much more

relevatory in a way um than how the west

sees the codonal process and therefore

you know you'll have the precedence of

the sayings of these great fathers above

the sayings of councils themselves. So

um there's clarifications here. There's

no fusion. There's no third nature.

Humanity is real and complete. It's

there. Um there's one incarnate concrete

reality. Jesus is uh an observable human

being as shown by their um iconography.

The the very severe forms of like

uticianism, they were also an iconic.

They were against icons because uh they

believed that you couldn't depict the

divinity and so they were therefore

against icons. That's not the position

of the Oriental Orthodox Church which

does use iconography and does see an

important aspect of the of the concrete

physical reality of Jesus Christ and the

logos is always the subject. So what

does this mean? This means that there um

is just one subject and that there is no

other subject that can be mentioned that

can be talked of. And so um in this way

they safeguard the divinity of Christ.

Um, I'm trying to see.

Dr. Todd is saying, "The Alexandrians

made great monks into prophets. Maybe

this is playing a role here." Yes, this

is this is absolutely playing a role.

This is playing a role in a way that it

didn't in other churches.

All right. So, Father Duncan, do you

have anything else you want to add to

this? Because this is important and this

is also something you've been working

through a lot in the last few weeks.

>> Yeah, definitely. So I think and the

serial is definitely the base that they

refuse to in his words of course in

miacs that's where mapisite

>> comes from but um also I think the

import the other important there there

are a couple others Timothy

patriarch Timothy a something I have it

in my head but I can't say it correctly

so I'm not going to um but al and

philoxinus in my book and also seis of

Antioch especially seis and I think his

clarifications are two twofold are

actually very helpful to show why it's

actually orthodox and a matter of

language not feature because he

definitely says is one Christ is in one

feces one in one nature

>> but he he is from two natures

in two natures that cannot without

mixing his his language specifically is

without mixing and I that is on the edge

of it for sure. But I think when you

look at the specific metaphor he uses of

the body and the soul being from two

natures but in one nature I think that

that is really where the crux of the

language is is that it's this unity of a

single

subject and I like the body and the

soul. We don't have two though sometimes

it feels like

>> No. Okay. That's really good. All right.

So that that is the the

common way that my oriental orthodox

friends have talked about it. Um unity

of body and soul. Um you know as an

analogy. You can't take that of course

literally because then that would get

into heresy again. But you know it's

it's a it's a kind of a language of

unity that they're concerned in

preserving.

So, I mean, what you can see here is

they're definitely not worried about

trying to preserve the outward reality

of nature. They're more concerned about

preserving the approach to the divinity

through Jesus Christ. So the the common

assertion by the Antiocian school is

that the Alexandrian approach minimizes

the the actual physical the actual human

the actual inherited connection with the

the blessed virgin Mary. And then you

know from the position of the

Calcedonians

they after Leontius of Constantinople

synthesis they really didn't understand

why it was important to cling so

strongly to the wording of St. Serial

when all the points that St. Sirill

makes are compensated for. You know that

all of those are present within our

understanding of calcedon. why do you

have to cling so so so strongly um to

this you know to this particular

definition and I think what um Dr. Todd

was mentioning is actually what you're

seeing here which is you know this is a

is a revelatory process you know these

are great prophetic um monastic saints

in the tradition and they've spoken on

this and you know we need to receive

this word like we receive you know the

the ten commandments from Moses on the

mountain and so um there's there's a

kind of devotional aspect to all of it

um that is really lacking in the way

that the west approached it now now the

west definitely uh the eastern orthodox

definitely approach it in the same way.

You know, they're approaching their

their holy fathers and saints and the

kind of devotional uh posture that was

common, I think, at this time in the

Alexandrian school. But you can see very

clearly um there is a a difference in

posture. There's a difference in in in

formulation and understanding.

So

we can see

in serial's formulas one incarnate

nature of God the word in the second

letter to succensus um a union according

to hypotheses made from two natures

third letter to notorious not by

confusion of natures but rather by

ineffable union second letter to

notorious one and the same son second

letterus if anyone divides the one

Christ into two persons Let them be

anathema. This actually occurs twice in

in Sirill's writings and in anathema 4.

And we acknowledge two natures after the

union and the reunion formula of 433

between Siriel and John of Antioch. So,

you know, he definitely is the defining

character in all of this. Um, just like

Lutheran follow Luther and Calvinists

follow Calvin. Um it's very hard to you

know get around the fact that St.

Sirill's um thinking and and and

metaphysical approach were just so

absolutely c central in the way that the

oriental orthodox conceive of this whole

thing and um you know for for us who

have come to understand consiliarity as

very important um it's a little bit

offputting so when I read through um

Coptic material that talks about St.

serial constantly, you know, I'm just

constantly thinking, you know, where are

the other fathers? Where are the other

voices on this? And um it can lead to

imbalance when we focus on just one

saint because as we know and

specifically we know about St. Sirill's

life, you know, they're not perfect. So

the saints struggled, the saints had

sin, the the saints had, you know,

various different personality problems

and uh St. Serial was one of them. And

we love St. cereal and we commemorate

him and we keep his feast day. But at

the same time, you know, we remember the

things that he he did during his life.

Some of them very regrettable. Some of

the things that he did were um were not

ethical. And so, you know, we have to

learn from the lives of the saints just

as much uh from the things that they did

that were bad as that were good. So we

ask the Lord to have mercy on the whole

church and help restore it after it's

gone through some traumatic split and

schism because of over focusing on

individual fathers. So you can see here

again pantrator icon but this is a

glorious pantr icon. You see everything

is just full of gold, full of light. And

this is tends to be the Alexandrian

uh position understanding the

incarnation that the divinity which is

this um transcendent quality is

definitely the focus of the lurggical

being. the lurggical uh commemoration,

the lurggical um center is very much

focused on this um outpouring of

divinity, glory and you know the energy

of God, the energy of the Holy Spirit.

uh even though they don't follow later

Palomite developments which is very

interesting and uh really warrants an

entirely different session but you know

um they've they've only recently started

to toy with hessicasm and um to work

through uh the various different uh

stages of Byzantine monasticism. Uh and

that's just a very very recent thing.

That's something that's only happened

here in the last 90 years.

So we're going to talk about the

Byzantine

model, the Byzantine in hypoatic

calcedonian model. So this is the final

version. Uh there are actually three

different versions of this. Uh you have

the original Calcedonian version, you

have the modified Leonian version, and

then you have this which is the Maxmian

version. And the Maxmian version is the

final version that's authoritative

within the Byzantine East. So there's

one hypotheses of the logos. There are

two natures. Human nature has no

independent hypothatic existence.

There's no ontos um outside of the

divine hypothatic essence and being. And

then the inhypostized

being is in the logos. So the logos is

providing that which the human nature

would otherwise have. So here we have a

simple formula trinity again and then

the hypostosis of the logos son and then

within that you have the divine nature

is one in essence with the father and he

shares the common usia and then the

human nature which is that which he's

inherited from the blessed virgin Mary

which is in inhypostized

with no independent existence outside of

the logos itself. So how this could

happen is a miracle because

uh it doesn't exist in nature right each

each of us um are not constructed in

this way and so therefore there is a

unique construction here to Christ

and in this way uh we also get around

the problem of of uh needing a nature

needs a hypothesis right so we get

around the the problem of not having

hypothesis with with the nature. So the

hypostosis precedes incarnation.

Humanity subsists in the logos. There's

no second hypothesis and two natures

remain distinct. The two natures are

separate but they're unified in just one

what they call hypoatic union just in

one hypothatic existence. Now,

this

actually

shows qualities of both the Alexandrian

school that we just looked at and of the

Antiocin school because he's trying to

deal with the internal reality and the

external observable um reality in the

same way that the Antiocin school is

trying to deal with um internal external

hard and abstract as Father Dmitri was

was saying um differences in this

metaphysical existence.

What he comes to conclude here is that

the logos forms

the hypoatic reality of the human nature

of Jesus Christ.

And this is 100%

orthodox.

There's no problem with it. It does have

a difficulty in that if you're taking

the hard platonic or aristoilian

categories. It is a modification of

those categories and doesn't actually

philosophically make any sense. You just

have to you have to appeal to miracle.

By miracle, you know, the logos is the

hypoatic reality of the human nature. Is

the logos the reality of our human

nature? No, it's not. So in in a way it

kind of does what uh the immaculate

conception in the west does which is it

introduces a new uh set of categories

and qualities in order to um place

the debate kind of beyond human

comprehension and affirmation. It places

it back within the realm of mystery. We

don't know how it could be. um there is

a difference between Christ and us but

in at the same time that difference does

not affect our ability to receive

salvation from Christ. And so um this is

a very interesting thing that I remember

at DSPT we were talking about quite a

lot. Um the the one hypoatic

um existence of Christ

is not necessarily necessary. It's not

an absolutely necessary position. It

wasn't held um by early Christianity.

The Orientals and the Assyrians don't uh

receive it in this kind of formulation.

Anyway, it it's trying to get it's

trying to get around all the things that

are blocked by council or by

metaphysical

um consensus within the church. And it

does that very beautifully. It gets

around all of those issues and creates

um a category that really places it

again beyond the pale of metaphysical

analysis back into the area of mystery.

So

we see uh St. Maximus's synthesis here

clearly stated the mystery of Christ is

the universal mystery. In him all the

ages and all that exists in them have

received their beginning and their end.

For Christ recapitulates in himself the

whole creation, uniting the divided and

bringing all things in harmony. Ambigua

41. Christ is the embodiment of all

humanity, gathering into himself the

whole human race and restoring it in

unity. Ambiguous 7. Christ assumes the

whole of humanity and the whole creation

within the incarnation. Ambigu 42. And

the human nature does not possess its

own hypothesis in Christ but is in in

hypothesized in the logos. So it doesn't

possess um the human nature does not

possess its own substantial

un underlining um

undergirling existence but is um instead

receiving its entire undergirling

existence from the logos itself. So this

is the pentacr icon uh in the common uh

judgment Sunday rendition. It shows

Christ in his glory, the uncreated glory

of God shining in the the arol around

him and then it's experienced by the

saints on one hand as um the uncreated

energies of the heavenly bliss and on

the other hand it's experienced as uh

the fires of hell. And this actually

comes from the Syriak father um the the

great St. Isaac of Nineveh. So he is the

one who posited that the experience of

heaven and hell is actually the

experience of of God's light or fire uh

depending on our inward disposition

towards it.

And then the Roman and the last uh

scholastic calcedonian model that we're

going to discuss today. Uh one person is

a sup.

Uh so the supetum is is one

um

one being. It's not uh divisible. And

then two complete natures and the person

as metaphysical center of the

predication. So the trinity again here

in exactly the same formula that we just

saw one divine person um and then that

one divine person the sun has the divine

nature which is complete in its

operations divine acts and its human

nature complete and its operations human

acts. So you have divine acts and human

acts that all can be attributed to

Christ in his one indivisible person.

Now this is interesting because the tome

of Leo and um all the other great

fathers we have um you know Augustine's

extremely important um contemplation on

the mystery of the incarnation um we

have many other um fathers that talked a

lot about various aspects of this. we

basically have um a very simplistic

model that was extremely solid

throughout the whole of the Latin

church's um existence that isn't really

changing or redefining itself even

according to the latest controversies

and problems that we experience in the

east. So whereas the east was working on

defining and redefining incarnational

categories in the west they're basically

saying and this is why the tome of Leo

is celebrated by the antiocinian

tradition they're basically saying there

is one person he is an indivisible

person this indivisible person is the

metaphysical subject the natures are

defined by their operation and their

observable energies their faculties so

the things that can be seen and can be

said of Christ are both divine and human

the acts of both God and the acts of man

and then the emphasis is on the action

on the will on the intellect and so

there's no independent human positum

there is no independent human existence

outside of this union between logos and

humanity and so it basically stops

metaphysical speculation there's not

much else you can do with it and The

categories that it assumes are oriented

towards action, are oriented towards

revelation, what Christ is shown to be

and do. And it's very much dismissive of

kind of the Platonic, neoplatonic or

overly aristoilian understanding of how

all of this fits together. Now later on

that changes because you have St. Thomas

Aquinas in the Suma Theologica in which

he talks about these same categories but

in much more refined terms in much more

detail. And so then you get

scholasticism which continuously um

turns out very very fine minute

theological definitions um but that

comes later and that's effectively after

the split between east and west. And so

in uh conflict with the uh

predisposition of the Byzantine Greeks,

the Latin West is much more conservative

and less speculative through the entire

1,000 years of being in communion with

the east. Uh and you can see these are

very different formulations. If we want

to look back at the contrast,

here's the Byzantine model as seen

through St. Maximus Confessor.

Here's the Roman model. So, they're very

different in their overall focus and

thrust. Uh the only

christoologgical formula that focuses on

acts on the action, the activity is the

Roman model. And the Roman model in that

way is very unique and very important.

Um I would I would posit that it's

actually very similar um in its impulse

to the eastak because you're trying to

define you know what is outwardly

visible. Um it's just like the whole uh

discussion about what the kuma is. You

know, you're trying to make sure that

there's a concrete um definable outward

um onto there's a there's a outward um e

existence that's able to be defined.

So the Latin fathers on the salvific

nature of the incarnation. Uh for each

form does what is proper to it in

communion with the other. The word

performing what belongs to the word and

the flesh carrying out what belongs to

the flesh from the tome of St. Leo. No

one can make satisfaction except one who

is God and man. St. Anel in Christ there

is one person and two natures. St.

Thomas Aquinas operation follows nature.

Again, St. Thomas Aquinas. Christ is the

universal mediator through whom all

things are led back to God. St.

Bonaventure. In Christ the divine and

human natures concur in one person. St.

Bonaventure again. The divine person

assumed human nature into unity of the

sympositum. Blessed John Don Scottus

Duncotus. And then the human will of

Christ was perfectly conformed to the

divine will. Again, Duncotus.

So

here very practical, not concerned too

much with uh cosmological implications

like St. Maximus confessor was not very

concerned um about anything other than

salvation. How does the incarnation

assure our uh salvation? And here this

is a very typical icon. You have Christ

on the cross doing that activity which

unifies both uh God and man, the two

wills. And that activity is demonstrated

here in this heavenly

liturgy through which grace, salvific

grace is given to the world. So God

through Christ is saving the world um

through this salvific act.

So there was a great conflict and we've

talked about it now um almost in every

slide between the antioin and the

Alexandrian positions in 433. we have um

that you know incredible confluence of

events that led to the ecumenical

council of Ephesus and uh the various

difficulties that were between Antioch

and Alexandria

moderated mostly through the emperor but

also um you know others weighing in.

After the council of Ephesus in 431,

Alexandria and Antioch remain divided.

Two theological emphasis stood in

tension. Alexandrian stress on unity and

of subject and the Antiochian stress of

distinction of natures. The church

sought restoration of communion not

doctrinal capitulation. The agreed

confession in AD 433. St. Siriel of

Alexandria and John of Antioch jointly

confessed. We confess our Lord Jesus

Christ, the only begotten son of God,

perfect God and perfect man,

conssubstantial with the father

according to divinity and consubstantial

with us according to humanity. From the

formula of reunion, the decisive

clarification, we confess that a union

has occurred from two natures. And

further, the difference of the natures

was not taken away by the union. So this

is the the crux of the whole matter.

Okay. There's still preserved uh

diversity within the unity. There's the

difference between God and man. It's

preserved. Um so those two natures are

are still within Christ. And the

theological meaning this affirms the

union is real and hypoatic. The union is

from two natures. The distinction of

natures remains. The subject of the

union is one and the same son.

Alexandria did not deny distinction and

Antioch did not deny unity. The formula

of reunion demonstrates reconciliation

before Calcidon. So it anticipates

Calcidon's language and Shambis's

reunion later on and shows communion

across conceptual diversity. So it

didn't force um a unified terminology

uh as later councils and later fathers

would would find necessary. And so it

shows that there was a diversity within

the church that was that was sincere. So

in calcedon in 451 it did not invent new

Christologology but codified an already

reconciled confession in a middle point

between antioin and Alexandrian

formulations. So this shows the

historical continuity of all of it. The

cerillion reunion calconstantinople

3 shambis. So this is uh what we hold as

a church to be um the progression of

definition uh that doesn't change any uh

essentials but that continues to uh

allow us to understand the outside world

and other various different uh

communions. Unity and distinctions are

always preserved together within the one

holy orthodox Catholic and apostolic

church. So we have here an icon that

shows what we're talking about. The

glory of God shining off of Christ the

man. You have the fullness of the

Godhead bodily.

So the dioensis

uh synthesis is important here.

Constantinople 3 the necessary

clarifications of calcedon. After the

controversies following Calcidon, the

church clarified Christ possesses two

natures, two natural wills, two natural

operations, one acting subject. This is

the definition of the synthesis of

Antiochian distinctions and Alexandrian

unity. The consiliar definition, we

proclaim in him two natural wills and

two natural operations without division,

without change, without separation,

without confusion. Third council,

Constantinople. Um now it's very

interesting because when I was uh

talking about east Syriak theology I

discovered that there is

a common understanding within East

Syriak theology that there is one

compound will in Christ that the will of

God and the will of man are together in

one. And that's an interesting aside. Um

it basically uh is saying the same thing

but the same way that the maficites say

that uh the two natures are together is

the way that the Assyrians say that the

two wills are together. Um so this is

not a represent representation of the

Antiocian school um as it developed the

school of Adessa the school of Nissus um

and into the Assyrian church. Um this is

what the calcedonian world came to came

to conclude and came to see. So St.

Maximus the confessor says the human

will of Christ is not abolished but

freely deified and harmonized with the

divine will. So it's invisible. You

can't see Christ's um human will except

for in Gethsemane when he's um saying

not my will but thine be done. And the

human will is real. The divine will is

real. They are not opposed. They are

united in one hypothatic union. The

theological meaning will follows nature.

And then since Christ has two natures,

he has two wills. And the willing

subject is one. The logos. There are not

two persons willing. There is one son

who wills humanly and divinely. Now,

this is where it starts to get into

great speculation. You can say how

that's never really addressed. And um

one of the reasons why I think um the

other churches have some really kind of

cutting criticisms on this issue is

because um it basically does the same

thing that the Mapisites and the

Assyrians are trying to do. Um it's just

doing it here on the nature of will. So

why this matters? Um in the Caledonian

system, this resolves the Antiocian

concern, the preservation of the full

humanity of Christ. In the Alexandrian

concern, the unity of the subject. So

diiothalatism is the metaphysical hinge

of orthodoxy as per maximus's synthesis.

It is the bridge between the east and

the west and the way forward uh for

orthodox unity according to what we'll

see here in a minute the shamaya

agreement. So serial calidon maximus

this is how the eastern orthodox world

understands their synthesis. Um in

general it's saying the same things that

the other churches want to say. It's

saying it in a very distinct way. But

the icon that is used to explain uh the

human will and the divine will of Christ

is here in Gethsemane. This is where we

see Christ expressing uh human aversion

to the things that he must undertake and

divine submission to the will of the

father.

So this is a chart. You can look at it

later. It's basically everything that

we've gone through. Um just comparing

the different categories. It's very

small. We're running out of time. So,

the non-negotiable boundaries of

orthodoxy across all historical

expressions, the ancient church

maintained these absolutes. One and the

same son, not two sons, not two

subjects, not two objects of worship,

one and the same. As St. Sir Alexandria

said, and then the full divinity, Christ

is consubstantial with the father, not a

creature, not semi- divine, not

subordinate. his full humanity. Christ

possesses a rational soul, a human body,

a human will, human mind. What is not

assumed is not healed as St. Gregory of

Manzanis says and this is true of uh the

issue of the incarnation. Christ

undertakes our entire being and restores

it back to God. And then the real union,

the union is hypothatic, personal and

irreversible, not moral conjunction

alone, not indwelling only, not

symbolic. It's not adoptionism. It's not

as the Ebianite said say it's a place of

honor. It's an actual thing. So no

confusion, no division. The natures are

not mixed, not blended, not fused and

yet not separated, not divided, not

operating independently. And then the

shared core whether expressed as one

incarnate nature of the word as Sirill

says, two natures and one hypotheses as

Calon says, two konom and one proopan as

as Bai says, one person and two natures

as Aquinus says. The ancient church

confessed the eternal logos truly became

man, conssubstantial to us and his

humanity and consubstantial to the

father and his divinity. Conclusion, the

historical language varied, and we've

seen a lot of the variation today.

Metaphysical models developed. They did

change quite a lot. It's very hard um

for those who say that orthodoxy is

always the same because orthodoxy has

definitely used different modalities and

different linguistic structures and

different formulations to try to

approach the same mystery. The political

context shifted and this complicates the

whole thing with with very bad blood and

and and and horrible repercussions of

our human brokenness. But the core

confession remained. Jesus Christ is

true God and true man, one and the same

son. So the early church tolerated real

christoologgical diversity. We can see

between the east and western Roman

expressions and in some cases between

Eastern and Western Rome maintained it

for millennia. Communion was sustained

without metaphysical metaphysical

uniformity. These were different um

metaphysical schema that were conceived

of um throughout you know platonist and

arisatilian formulas in very different

ways. Schism arose from politics and

pride not from the mystery of Christ

incarnation. The mystery of Christ

incarnation is never broached by any of

these formulations. We create a wall. We

put a consilior wall around the mystery.

We cannot define it. we we cannot truly

express the mystery and the reunion

requires recovering consil humility.

This is the most important thing is

remembering all of our history and this

is why uh we as a church we focus so

much in the federation on the importance

of the shamisa agreement. The shamisa

agreement helps us to understand that

all of these things can be balanced.

They can be um seen through all these

ancient apostolic bodies as one and the

same. they can be uh appreciated uh in

their difference but also in the fact

that they are doing exactly what we just

talked about maintaining the mystery and

putting a wall around what is accepted

by all churches and understood to be

orthodox by all. So the oriental

orthodox agree to accept the calcedon

the calcedonian decision through the

language of St. Serial agreeing in

spirit to the seven ecumenical councils

while maintaining their own apostolic

traditions and disciplines. Hardliners

within the oriental church resist

because of historic oppression of the

oriental churches by the Byzantines,

including multiple genocides and

hundreds of years of slavery. Thus, they

prove that the Byzantines are not truly

Christian. So that's bad blood um

towards the oriental orthodox from the

Eastern Orthodox and it still continues

to color the whole discussion today. And

the Eastern Orthodox recognized the

authority of the councils in reception,

not in declaration. So this has nothing

to do with the authority of

Constantinople, nothing to do with um

various different presumed canonical

loai of development, but rather that

they're true in as much as they're

received by all and the equality of all

ancient patriarchates and the

recognizable orthodoxy of the oriental

communion, which preserves a faithful

representation of the ancient church.

This is strongly resisted now because of

the fact that hardliners approach this

as a repudiation of the Byzantine church

because it somehow undermines the cons

custodianship that they have over God's

saving grace. So the exclusionary vision

of Eastern Orthodoxy has become stronger

and stronger over time. um you know the

idea that everyone else is damned and

going to hell and the only arc of

salvation is within the canonical

structure of the Eastern Orthodox Church

regardless of the historical problems

with that um that's now the faith of

many that the canonical structure of the

church is that which saves. So it's the

ark of salvation based upon canonical

recognition. And so uh because of that

kind of hardliner stance that fund that

uh canonist fundamentalism um that's

come to define a lot of eastern

orthodoxy a lot through uh very

delotterious um focus on monasticism up

and against uh parochial life. what you

find is that there is uh definitely now

a a very strong desire to resist uh

things like the agreement of shambis as

the quote unquote panh heresy of

accuminism. So in Rome, the joint

christoologgical agreement with the cops

and the Assyrians shows the Latin

metaphysics and categories are not

definitive and that Assyrian

formulations as stated above is orthodox

and not quote unquote netorian and that

there is no incompatibility with

cerillion language. Hardliners within

the Roman church resist because this

negates the absolute authority and

infallibility of the pope and the

magisteria in ages past and also implies

that there is complete fidelity to the

apostolic deposit outside of Rome. So

that's the reason why on the Roman side

even though they have these joint

agreements and have been able to bridge

the gap between these ancient churches

why they still are very hesitant uh to

move forward in that way.

So uh brothers

I know this is long session there's a

lot of language here that's hard um to

digest. We have Irenaeus with us who's

just waiting into these deep waters. uh

there are many of us who have struggled

with various uh parts of this whole

exposition of historical incarnational

theology. But are there any thoughts or

amendments,

questions, criticisms, things that you

would like to add here at the end? Uh

open floor to all of you.

What I think is really interesting that

I just noticed when you're talking about

the Latin um model in a comparison and a

contrast with the uh Coptic is that the

lat they both focus on Christ as the

savior as how he saves humanity. But the

Latin seems to focus on his action

whereas the Coptic focuses on and then

this is somewhat to match interaction

but participation has been and and

that's

>> when you read Sierra as a whole and and

this includes his before the council

works participation is the biggest thing

that he was concerned about in the

Eucharist in the holy with the Holy

Spirit with with the son participation

and inter us being able to participate

in God and be divonized and participate

in Christ and be saved is the most

important thing to his theology.

>> That that's so it's so interesting to me

because that is kind of the the locust

of the difference between east and west.

In the east, if it's, you know, Coptic

or Byzantine or or what have you, it's

very much like how are we interacting

with Christ? And in the west it's very

much Christ as the active

the the the hero. It's Christ as as the

great you know um

>> prototypical archetypal hero who

descends into the world of chaos and who

orders all things rightly and procures

our salvation. So very much the the

power and the activity is all with

Christ. And I mean that's very clear in

kind of um the whole kind of monergistic

thrust of western theology um being so

you know focused on God as the active

one within uh the the dynamic of our

salvation, right? He's he's the one

undertaking our salvation and we kind of

submit to him um rather than kind of

have this um interactive

um kind of theosis focused um vision of

our salvation. And that's that's very

clear I think from very early on. It's

not a it's not a later thing. Um the

neopetricistic synthesis and the you

know uh Loski Florovski Floreski um they

focus on the west kind of falling from

grace. the West falling from orthodoxy,

the West losing um a true understanding

of what the Greek fathers always had.

And I think that's not actually

historically factual. I think that the

Latin uh vision of all of this is fairly

consistent from the very beginning. Um

and the Greek vision is fairly

consistent from the beginning and they

just gradually come to conclude that the

differences are not allowable. So for

the first 10,000 years or so they're

tolerant of the differences. You know

that's just being Greek or that's just

being Latin. Um it comes to be a great

heresy and then in that uh understanding

of the divergence be being heresy then

there's absolutely no quarter given. You

know there's no toleration at all

extended uh for the difference in

modality for the difference in approach.

Um so that's why I started off with that

slide showing the differences of

modality within the ancient churches

because they all do have very different

modalities the different visions of

Christ um fulfilling their cultural

archetypes. And so, you know, from the

very beginning, we have Christ received.

On one hand is, you know, the patricer

king. On the other hand, he's, you know,

the universal cosmological um lynchpin.

On another side, you know, the Chinese

side that we brought up, you know, he's

the great sage. You know, he's the one

who um demonstrates all perfection um

and leads us into all truth, you know,

through this this kind of benign

discourse. um different cultures

approached the different uh aspects of

Christologology differently from the

outset and I think that's important for

us to remember um rather than seeing it

as like a a narrative falling from grace

which is not accurate and even you know

I was talking to

um uh Kil Hovu uh in 2015 about this the

neopreistic synthesis is demonstrabably

ahistorical it's demonstr ably um

fighting against the reality of the of

the first 10,000 years of of

intercomunion between the churches um by

introducing aspects of like for instance

making a part of the ancient tradition

and then you know the west not adopting

as a way that it lost the grace of the

holy spirit I mean rejecting the fact

that was only defined in the 1400s so um

there's a lot of this that's very

important for us as an arch dascese to

fully comprehend and to grapple with and

to understand because most of the

information that's out there online

that's now in the form of memes and now

in the form of um you know popular

videos now in the form of of of popular

discourse most of that is inaccurate.

It's inaccurate substantially in a way

that's actually um disingenuous and

politically motivated rather than

theologically motivated by the truth. So

we we we do need to be very clear about

this in our own minds.

All right. Uh, any other comments or

questions?

>> I think this kind of motivates me to go

finish the bazaar or as father Dimmitri

says, it's not actually called the

bazaar. It's a mistransation of the

name.

>> So in in the west it's been promulgated

as the bazaar of Heracites.

But I think this helps me understand it

better because I remember my first time

reading the bazaar. I was just what is

going on in here?

>> Well, we we talked about the fact that

netorius is not is not always using the

same definition all the time

>> with with the words that he uses. So

this is this is the problem

>> um with the early fathers writing on the

incarnation because they're using for

instance feces and hypotheses

interchangeably. So it it is very very

hard uh to nail down exactly what they

mean because in this place they could be

using that definition and in that place

they could be using this definition. So

it's it's it's very difficult to um to

parse through all of this material when

you take the kind of flowing nature of

the distinctions uh you know as as a as

a real part of the miscommunication

that's going on

>> and the fact that that translation is

old and in an older it's such an old

style that gives

>> it's in Victorian English right it's in

Victorian English it's very very hard to

to follow all gives me mental.

>> Yes. And uh I think after that I should

go tackle the book of union that I

downloaded

>> which is in English. Thank god somebody

did that.

I also sub

>> also subd deacon if you're reading the

bizaar I'd say probably focus on the

second book first because I think if

you're missing the context of his

opinion on Ephesus on how he views the

events at Ephesus I think it'll be more

confusing

>> I think I I might be there already I'm

not sure I'll check

>> so this is not meant to rehabilitate any

old heresies

What this is meant to do

>> is to show like there is such a thing as

netorianism. You can hold that there are

two subjects in Christ and that is

wrong. The Assyrian church would not

agree with a modern-day Protestant

netorian that there are two subjects in

Christ. So, you know, there it's

important to remember that this is not

some underhanded way, you know, you

know, with the panh heresy of ecumenism

to try to confuse everyone and get them

to receive heresies. Instead, what we

have to do is we have to realize the

actual context of the debate, realize

the actual scope and breadth of the

divergence and difference between

various different local churches. And we

have to do what that um penultimate

slide was doing which is basically

showing the boundaries of orthodoxy.

What was received by all churches and

believed and kept because that is where

authority lies. Authority lies in

reception not in declaration. Authority

lies in the agreement between all the

apostolic churches not in the divergence

between the various different churches.

It is very important to do that ventian

approach where we are looking at what

was believed by all in every place at

all times. So the most important thing

about our orthodoxy is to have that

consensus patrum that comes from that

which was received by all. So having an

orthodoxy based on that rather than on

presumed jeritical legalistic authority

um you know as you know contemporary

orthodoxy has now gone deeper and deeper

into this neopalism which believes that

things are true because they were said

by certain people in a certain position

of power. Um that always leads to

schism, always leads to division, always

leads to problems. But if we receive

that which is always believed by

everyone in every place and we come to

that consensus pumrum as the definition

of our authority then we have a very

solid place from which we can understand

and navigate orthodoxy. So that's that's

the vision that I would like to

communicate uh this evening for those of

you in the states and this morning for

all of you here in Asia that we do not

base our opinion on declaration alone.

Uh there were many councils that thought

of themselves as ecumenical that were

later on um not received as ecumenical.

There are many things and acts that were

made um that were received at the time

as local that were later on received as

ecumenical like the council of Gangra.

Council of Gangra is very very important

and it was declared ecumenical at the

council of Calcidon. In it we see the

anathematization of those who would hold

marriage of the clergy to be impure or

anathema in any way. And we see that uh

the bishops and the priests were all um

judged on the same criterion for

understanding who could be a bishop or a

priest. Um and that their marriages were

considered sacred and unbreakable. And

later on we have councils uh that tried

to undermine those kinds of positions

like Trulo and uh that weren't received

by all churches as being definitive or

authoritative and were rejected by

Sylvester the first of Rome and rejected

by the Antiocian patriarch. And in the

end what do we what do we have? We have

people picking and choosing how they

interpret the cannons based on what they

want as the ultimate end. And so instead

of being uh deceived by that kind of um

legalism, what we have to do is have the

entire history before us understanding

how it all fits together and then we

have to make principal decisions based

on the fact that the older is more

authoritative than the newer. The older

is always the ground of authority upon

which everything else is built. So for

instance when people say oh you know we

don't do this or that uh now in the

church because this you know recent

council decided this or that if that

contradicts or undermines what was

received by all the churches and is the

foundation of apostolic authority then

we can't receive it we can't apply it in

that way and so that's why we reject the

balsamon and his idea that

constantinopolitan political power as

the ultimate interpreter of all cannons

that's why we reject his understanding

of the first uh canon of the council of

Nika. Uh that the uh standards of the

church of Constantinople are the

standards for the entire church and all

other churches must bend to the to to

its own you know uh self-perception. um

these things are not correct, not true

and canonically indefensible and they

have become a part of an accreted system

that does have to be challenged. And so

that's why instead of making you guys

into orthob bros and just giving you an

easy pathway to a supposed holiness and

superiority, why I'm challenging you to

learn all these things, why you have to

do the actual work and read the fathers

and read the actual history and

understand how it all fits together so

that you're not deceived. Because right

now the young men who are converting to

orthodoxy are becoming political pawns

um in a kind of Christian ISIS movement

where they're radicalized online out of

complete ignorance. They have no idea

what they're talking about and yet

they're assuming this church or that

church is the ultimate dispenser of

God's grace and the the ultimate meaning

of of salvation, which is which is

wrong. So we do need to challenge that

and why we're going to continue to do

these sessions and why we're going to

continue um to try to um expand your

horizons and allow you to understand how

these things fit together so that we can

do that. So we have over here um oh

father Dmitri gave a wonderful resource

here uh an historian collection of

christoologgical text. You can download

that and look at it. Um, we have Cade

saying, "Ephesphosis and Calcidon

operated on the same mindset. To pave a

way forward, we must look backward at

the wisdom of the church." Amen. Okay.

So, anything else that you would all

like to say before we end the session?

It's gone long this time. I apologize.

Supposed to be an hour and a half. It's

now past the twoour mark.

Nothing else. Okay. So let us end

with a prayer I composed last night for

the ending of this session. In the name

of the father, the son and the holy

spirit. Amen.

Oh Lord Jesus Christ, eternal word of

the father, who for us men and for our

salvation did become flesh and dwell

among us, keep thy church steadfast in

the true confession of thy divinity and

thy humanity, preserving her from pride

and contention, and uniting all who bear

thy name in the bonds of peace and

impurity of doctrine, that worshiping

thee as one and the same son, perfect in

godhead and perfect in manhood, we may

at length behold thee in glory, where

thou livest and reignth with the Father

and the Holy Ghost, ever one God, world

without end. Amen.

So, thank you brothers for sticking with

me through all the technical

difficulties. A very happy Chinese New

Year to all of you who celebrate it. Uh

we're coming to the end of Chinese New

Year and uh we are now beginning our

great and holy Lent. Uh may all of you

have a wonderful triode on Sunday uh and

the beginning of our fast. Uh we are

looking forward to seeing all of you

during this season and uh trying to

arrange to come to Singapore here soon

so that we can see all of you there. Um

the Lord is with us. Uh we struggle with

all manner of things but God has not

abandoned us. He loves us and has shown

us his grace. God bless all of you.

We'll see you soon.