დათიკოყველაფერში გეთანხმები - ერთი პატარა შესწორებით -
რაც დაწერე, ეგ არის, უბრალოდ, ნესტორიანელობის, მონოფიზიტობის, მათ შორის, ევტიქის ერესის და მონოთელიტიზმის განმარტებები, მაგრამ შენ არსად გითქვამს, რომ ორიენტული მართლმადიდებლები მაქედან რომელიმეს აღიარებენ - მიაფიზიტიზმი მაქედან არცერთს აღიარებს და არცერთს ემხრობა, რაც შენს მთელ პოსტს ამ თემაში, უბრალოდ, ოფტოპიკად აქცევს.
ორიენტული მართლმადიდებლობა, ანუ, მიაფიზიტიზმი, აღიარებს და სცნობს მხოლოდ პირველი სამი ეკუმენური საბჭოს დადგენილებებს, რომელთაც, აგრეთვე, სრულად სცნობენ ქალკედონური ეკლესიის თანამედროვე შტოები - ანუ, სხვა სიტყვებით, ქალკედონური ქრისტიანობა აღიარებს და სცნობს ყველაფერს, რასაც აღიარებს და სცნობს არაქალკედონური ქრისტიანობა, მაგრამ, ამავე დროს, არაქალკედონური ქრისტიანობა არ აღიარებს და არ სცნობს ყველაფერს, რასაც აღიარებს და სცნობს ქალკედონური ქრისტიანობა.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenical_councilThe creed became standard orthodox doctrine, while the church of Alexandria dissented, holding to Cyril's formula of the oneness of Christ’s nature as the incarnation of God the Word. This church felt that this understanding required that the creed should have stated that Christ be acknowledged "from two natures" rather than "in two natures." This miaphysite position, often erroneously known as "Monophysitism", formed the basis for the distinction from other churches of the Coptic church of Egypt and Ethiopia and the "Jacobite" churches of Syria and Armenia (see Oriental Orthodoxy). Over the last 30 years, however, the miaphysite position has been accepted as a mere restatement of orthodox belief by Patriarch Bartholomew I of the Eastern Orthodox Church and by Pope John Paul II of the Roman Catholic Church.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalcedonian_CreedApollinaris of Laodicea was the first to use the term hypostasis in trying to understand the Incarnation.[6] Apollinaris described the union of the divine and human in Christ as being of a single nature and having a single essence - a single hypostasis.
Theodore of Mopsuestia went in the other direction, arguing that in Christ there were two natures (human and divine) and two hypostases (in the sense of "essence" or "person") that co-existed.[7]
The Chalcedonian Creed agreed with Theodore that there were two natures in the Incarnation. However, the Council of Chalcedon also insisted that hypostasis be used as it was in the Trinitarian definition: to mean "person," not nature (as with Apollinarius). Thus, the Council declared that in Christ there are two natures; each retaining its own properties, and together united in one subsistence and in one single person
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_unionThe Council of Nicaea defined that Jesus was fully divine and also human. What it did not do was make clear how one person could be both divine and human, and how the divine and human were related within that one person. This led to the Christological controversies of the fourth and fifth centuries of the christian era.
The most important event in these controversies was the Council of Chalcedon, held in 451 CE. The Council promulgated a Christological doctrine known as the hypostatic union. In short, this doctrine states that two natures, one human and one divine, are united in the one person of Christ. The Council further taught that each of these natures, the human and the divine, was distinct and complete. This view is sometimes called Dyophysite (meaning two natures) by those who rejected it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChristologyMiaphysitism (sometimes called henophysitism) is the christology of the Oriental Orthodox Churches. Miaphysitism holds that in the one person of Jesus Christ, Divinity and Humanity are united in one "nature" ("physis"), the two being united without separation, without confusion, and without alteration.
Miaphysitism has often been considered by Chalcedonian Christians to be a form of monophysitism, but the Oriental Orthodox Churches themselves reject this characterization, a position which the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches have begun to take more seriously.
Miaphysitism evolved as a response to Nestorianism. As Nestorianism had its roots in the Antiochene tradition and was opposed by the Alexandrian tradition, it took hold in Syria among those who wanted to distance themselves from the extremes of Nestorianism, and in Egypt, among those who wished to uphold the integrity of their theological position.
The theology of miaphysitism is based on an understanding of the nature (Greek φύσις physis) of Christ: divine and human. After steering between the heresies of docetism (that Christ only appeared to be human) and adoptionism (that Christ was a man chosen by God), the church began to explore the mystery of Christ's nature further. Having agreed that Christ is both divine and human, the first difficulty was Nestorianism, which was perceived as stressing the two natures of Christ to such an extent that it appeared, to opponents, that two persons were living in the same body.
The reaction to this was monophysitism, which stressed that Christ has but one, single nature that is both divine and human (at its most extreme, this was called eutychianism). Both of these positions were seen as heretical, but the church remained divided on how best to formulate a response to these. Cyril of Alexandria's works were the basis of the stance of miaphysitism. he spoke of the "one (mia) nature of the Word of God incarnate" (μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη mia physis tou theou logou sesarkōmenē) and a "union according to hypostasis" (ἕνωσις καθ' ὑπόστασιν henōsis kath' hypostasin), or hypostatic union. The distinction of this stance was that the incarnate Christ has one nature, but that nature is of the two natures, divine and human, and retains all the characteristics of both. However, opponents of those who took this stance regarded it as nothing more than monophysitism. The alternative response, which eventually became Byzantine dogma, was dyophysitism. This states that Christ has two natures, but emphasizes that they are not separated: Christ is fully one person (ὑπόστασις hypostasis). The miaphysites regarded this as verging on Nestorianism.
The Council of Chalcedon (451) is often seen as a watershed for christology, as it adopted dyophysitism. However, as large portions of the church in Syria and Egypt, who held to miaphysitism, rebelled against the decision, the controversy became a major socio-political problem for the Byzantine Empire. There were numerous attempts at reunion between the two camps (including the Henoticon in 482), and the balance of power shifted several times. However, the decision at Chalcedon remains the official teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church and traditional Protestants. The anti-Chalcedonian churches are usually grouped together as Oriental Orthodox. Over recent decades, leaders of the various churches have spoken about the differences between their respective christologies as not being as extreme as was traditionally held.
Much has been said about the difficulties in understanding the Greek technical terms used in these controversies. The main words are ousia (οὐσία, 'essence'), physis (φύσις, 'nature'), hypostasis (ὑπόστασις, 'concrete reality/person') and prosopon (πρόσωπον, 'mask/person'). Even in Greek, their meaning can overlap somewhat. These difficulties became even more exaggerated when these technical terms were translated into other languages. In Syriac, physis was translated as kyānâ (ܟܝܢܐ) and hypostasis was qnômâ (ܩܢܘܡܐ). The shades of meaning are even more blurred between these words, and they could not be used in such a philosophical way as their Greek counterparts. Thus, it has been suggested that miaphysitism came about due to a grounding of language in the fact that someone's person and nature are a verisimilitude.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MiaphysitismThe schism between Oriental Orthodoxy and what would become the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches occurred in the 5th century. The separation resulted in part from the refusal of Pope Dioscorus, the patriarch of Alexandria, to accept the Christological dogmas promulgated by the Council of Chalcedon, which held that Jesus has two natures — one divine and one human. This was not because the council stated that Christ has two natures, but because the council's presiders refused to confess that the two natures are inseparable and united. Pope Dioscorus would accept only "of or from two natures" but not "in two natures."
To the hierarchs who would lead the Oriental Orthodox, this was tantamount to accepting Nestorian-flavored terminology, according their definition of Christology, which was founded in the Alexandrine School of Theology that advocated a formula that stressed unity of the Incarnation over all other considerations.
The Oriental Orthodox churches were therefore often called Monophysite churches, although they reject this label, which is associated with Eutychian Monophysitism, preferring the term "non-Chalcedonian" or "Miaphysite" churches. Oriental Orthodox Churches reject the heretical Monophysite teachings of Eutyches, the heretical teachings of Nestorius and the Dyophysite definition of the Council of Chalcedon.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_OrthodoxyMonothelitism was officially condemned at the Third Council of Constantinople (the Sixth Ecumenical Council, 680-681 c.e.). The churches condemned at Constantinople include the Oriental Orthodox churches and the Maronite church, although they now deny that they ever held the Monothelite view (they describe their own Christology as Miaphysite).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monothelitism'The confusions and schisms that occurred between their Churches in the later centuries, they realize today, in no way affect or touch the substance of their faith, since these arose only because of differences in terminology and culture and in the various formulae adopted by different theological schools to express the same matter. Accordingly, we find today no real basis for the sad divisions and schisms that subsequently arose between us concerning the doctrine of Incarnation. In words and life we confess the true doctrine concerning Christ our Lord, notwithstanding the differences in interpretation of such a doctrine which arose at the time of the Council of Chalcedon.'
From the common declaration of Pope John Paul II and HH Mar Ignatius Zakka I Iwas, June 23, 1984
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oriental_Orthodoxyაგრეთვე იხილე -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestorianshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutycheshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monophysitehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyophysitism This post has been edited by Guardian on 28 Jun 2007, 16:11
გრიგორიანობა, უწმინდესი გარეგინის მრევლი
