09-29-2014, 12:05 AM
ScorpioSniper2 Wrote:What exactly is the difference between Chalcedonian Christianity and Nestorian Christianity? Sorry for using that, I know Assyrians hate it, just no better way to phrase it! Is it the level of distinction between the Qnomeh of Meshikha?
Hi ScorpioSniper2,
I'm still in contact with a few Assyrians to make a Facebook group similar to Ask About the Orthodox Faith and Ask an Orthodox Priest. My aim is to foster a better understanding between Roman Catholic, Eastern Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Church of the East. 2025 is the 1700 anniversary of Nicene faith, we all share one Nicene faith. I hope this group which we planned will be able to raise awareness of our common faith and help us to build full communion with one another as it was during time of the apostles. I hope Paul Younan would be willing to join us. His insight on Assyrian Christology is very helpful, I've been following him since 6 years ago in Assyrian forum which now no longer existed.
I'm willing to be corrected by Paul Younan in case I misrepresent Assyrian Christology. Based on my study of Mar Bawai Soro explanation on ACoE Christology. Parsopa is a concrete individualization of qnoma. Qnoma is an individuation (not individualized) of kyana. Kyana is equivalent with Greek ousia. To help you try Goggle Old Nicene myahypostasis Triadology vs Neo Nicene trihypostases Triadology. Assyrians Christology run along Old Nicene. In Old Nicene physis and hypostasis are synonym. Ousia and hypostasis are also synonym. You can read the original 325 Nicene faith where in the last paragraph they equated ousia to be identical with hypostasis. This is why when Nestorius was speaking about two hypostases he was actually thinking in term of Old Nicene. While St. Cyril was talking within the framework of Neo Nicene, because in 362 at Alexandria, St. Athanasius distinguished ousia from hypostasis. St. Cyril follows him closely. While Nestorius was following Theodore who follow Diodore who follow Lucian of Antioch. Antiochene School is following Old Nicene terminology. This was resolved by Sts Maximos the Confessor, John of Damascene, Leontius of Constantinople, and Leontius of Jerusalem. These four fathers used two hypostases terminology, reviving Antiochene Christology. Because of this Oriental Orthodox accused the Sixth Council in 681 for being Nestorians. So how two hypostases do not lead to two subjects? Because the human hypostasis can't subsist independently apart from being assumed by the divine hypostasis. If you want more detail, find me on Facebook.
Summary:
Assyrian/Chalcedon: One kyana/ousia of Godhead shared by qnoma/physis of the Father to qnome/physes of the Son and the Spirit. Only qnuma/physis of the Son incarnate. His divine parsopa/hypostasis assumed human parsopa/hypostasis at incarnation. His human parsopa/hypostasis exists dependently with His divine parsopa/hypostasis. St. Paul illustrated this with a man leaving behind his fleshly tent. The man exists independently from his flesh but his flesh exists dependently with the man. In fact this is the only illustration our Lord ever used in explaining His own Christology.
You can read Mar Bawai Soro explanation
On Nestorius' Christology
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070809175726/http://www.cired.org/east/0303_nestorius_of_constantinople.pdf">http://web.archive.org/web/200708091757 ... inople.pdf</a><!-- m -->
On Council of Ephesus
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20070413163608/http://www.cired.org/east/0306_lifting_anathema.pdf">http://web.archive.org/web/200704131636 ... athema.pdf</a><!-- m -->
Full communion with ACoE is almost impossible in EO and OO. It's only possible in Catholic. Because unlike EO and OO, Ecumenical Council for Catholic is not irreformable.