The way he dealt with this is part of the reason I have quite a bit of respect for him. He told them he wasn't but it was clear they were going to keep believing it, so he didn't make a big deal out of denying it but used his influence with them to tell them not to leave Jamaica for Africa until they fixed their own issues there (Rasta kind of started in the Back to Africa movements), but he invited a hundred or so Rastas to live on his land in Ethiopia and sent Ethiopian Orthodox priests to Jamaica to convert. Unfortunately I don't believe they made a lot of progress. Apparently they converted Bob Marley not long before he died but I don't know if that's confirmed.
Very unfortunate he was deposed.
Jeremiah Ortiz
Whoah.
Landon Lee
Cyril of Alexandria was miaphysite the fifth council affirmed miaphysitism as legitimate.
Nathaniel Campbell
What is the actual difference between the two? How does mia not violate the Chalcedonian definition but mono does? If Cyril of Alexandria says it's acceptable I'm not going to dismiss that, but the nuance really does escape me.
St Cyril of Alexandria spoke of "the one incarnate nature of the Word of God". Early on, what he meant by this was that the divine nature of the Logos really took upon human flesh. He compares the relationship of Jesus's humanity and His divinity to the relationship between our body and our soul. Later on, he would rather understand this "one nature" as being a nature that is 100% divine and 100% human, paradoxically, without separation or confusion. Because "one person" must have "one nature". But elsewhere he defends dyophysitism, as long as it is understood in the sense he himself meant "one nature" - Jesus is 100% God and 100% man, without separation or confusion.
The Oriental Orthodox claim to follow the theology of Cyril of Alexandria, yet they refuse to accept the "two natures" expression, even though Cyril defended it. Therefore they fall into a kind of monophysitism that is closer to the heresy of Eutyches than to the doctrine of Cyril (even though they anathematize Eutyches). It's similar to how Filioquists, by going too far into trying to follow Augustine, fall into a kind of semi-Sabelliaism even though they anathematize Sabellius.
So genuine, non-heretical miaphysitism is just another way of wording the hypostatic union?
John Carter
Right. The mystery of Christ is far deeper than anything we can comprehend, it would be foolish to say that "two natures in one person" is the sole way to express the truth. One can speak of "one nature" in an orthodox way, as St Cyril did. And one can say the Holy Spirit proceeds "from the Father and the Son" as well, in an orthodox manner. We disagree where schismatics have taken those expressions to, though, and they have made themselves heretics as well - the Oriental Orthodox by rejecting the Council of Chalcedon, the Catholics by claiming their Council of Florence is ecumenical. I'm sorry for bringing up the Catholics but I think the comparison with the Oriental Orthodox situation is relevant.
Jesus is 100% man and 100% God. Not a man and a God cohabitating in Jesus (this is the heresy of Nestorius), and not a man-God hybrid thing (with the logical conclusion being that the divinity swallows up the humanity and so Jesus is not really human at all - this is the heresy of Eutyches), but 100% a man and 100% the Word of God. This is important because otherwise we cannot be saved: Jesus takes upon our humanity to give us His divinity and reconcile us to God the Father (see 2 Corinthians 8:9) but if His humanity and divinity are too separate, then He does not really reconcile both ends, and if His humanity and divinity are too mingled, then He is neither truly God or truly man (and when we are united to Him, we lose our humanity as well). St Leo puts this paradox on the level of the person of Jesus: He is one person, with two natures, a divine and a human. St Cyril puts this paradox on the level of the nature of Jesus: He is one person, with one nature, but this nature is fully man and fully God. Both mean to express the same Biblical truth: Jesus becomes a man so that He can give us God. Two sayings the Fathers like are "God became man so that man may become god", and "What is not assumed is not redeemed".
