THE DIALOGUE BETWEEN

THE EASTERN ORTHODOX AND

ORIENTAL ORTHODOX CHURCHES

Edited by
Christine Chaillot

Foreword by
His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew

Volos Academy Publications

Volos 2016
First Edition 2016 by Volos Academy Publications
Volos Academy Publications is an imprint of the
Volos Academy for Theological Studies
Melissiatika, P.O.B. 1308,
GR-38001 Volos, Greece

http://www.volosacademypublications.org
http://www.ekdotikidimitriados.org
E-mail: [email protected]
E-mail: [email protected]
Facebook: Volos Academy Publications
Telephones: +302421093553, +306957836737

ISBN: 978-618-81264-5-9
The rights of the Editor and the Publisher of this Work have been asserted by them
in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Copyright © Christine Chaillot & Volos Academy Publications

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher or a license permitting restricted copying.

Cover design by Eric Jabouille, based on a photograph by Olya Gluschenko.

View in a Coptic monastery in Egypt with the following symbolism: “The wooden gate
bears a cross. It is closed but capable of being opened for dialogue and for climbing the
steps towards unity, with knowledge, work, humility and love”.

The personal style of the authors in their articles was respected by the editing team.

Technical editing: Dr. Nikolaos Asproulis

(Volos Academy for Theological Studies)
Typesetting and Printing Supervision: Costis Drygianakis
(Volos Academy for Theological Studies)
Printed and bound in Greece
by Palmos Printing Company, Volos
“We neither separate nor divide the human nature in Christ from His divine nature, nor do we think
that the former was absorbed in the latter and thus ceased to exist (…) Those among us who speak of
two natures in Christ, do not thereby deny their inseparable, indivisible union; those among us who
speak of one united divine-human nature in Christ, do not thereby deny the continuing dynamic
presence in Christ of the divine and the human, without change, without confusion”.
Dialogue Between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox,
Meeting at St. Bishoy Monastery, Egypt, 1989

“In the light of our Agreed Statement on Christology as well as of the above common affirmations,
we have now clearly understood that both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic
Orthodox Christological faith, and the unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition, though they may
have used Christological terms in different ways”.
Dialogue Between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox,
Chambésy, Switzerland, 1990

“This is one of the most important dialogues of its kind because it confirms the sincere attempt of the
two sides for restoration of the unity of the Church, which is the aim of all the theological dialogues.
Specifically, it signifies the coming to unity of most of the Christians of the East (…)”
Metropolitan Damaskinos of Switzerland (1936-2011)

“As to the manner of the incarnation of the Only Begotten, then theoretically speaking (but only in so
far as it appears to the eyes of the soul) we would admit that there are two united natures, but only one
Christ and Son and Lord, the Word of God made man and made flesh”.
St. Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376-444)

“If one nature is said for the indissoluble and indivisible union and not for the confusion, and two
natures for being unconfused and immutable and not for the division, both are within the bounds of
orthodoxy”.
St. Nerses the Gracious, Catholicos of the Armenians (1171)

“(…) These are not another one and another one, but one substance and one person of two natures
united in one Christ with a union without confusion and without separation (…) to be one nature out
of two opposite natures and none of these natures loses its essence in the unity (…) as we confess the
two natures being one, and that in the union neither one of these two natures was lost, likewise for the
wills, we do not say one and another will, as if the divine will was opposed to the human will or the
human will to the divine will. But being out of one essence a double will, they act accordingly in
different times, i.e. sometimes acting the divine will when Christ wished to manifest the power of His
Godhead, and sometimes acting the human will when He wanted to reveal the humility of His
manhood”.
St. Nerses the Gracious, Catholicos of the Armenians (1171)

“The Copts are right. They, just as the Armenians, are not heretics, and should not be called
Monophysites in the sense of the coalescence or change of the two natures of Christ into one, because
they not only reject, but anathematize the coalescence and in accordance with the Universal Church
sincerely confess the union of the two natures and the formation from them of the one Hypostasis
without any change in their properties”.
Bishop Porfiriy Uspensky (1804-1885),
Vicar of the Eparchy of Kiev,
the Founder of the Russian Orthodox Mission in Jerusalem and Orientalist

“We sincerely accept the defence of our non-Chalcedonian brethren for their past. Our side can also
present a similar defence. If we take this line, the next step will be polemics. We say we are
individual theologians. I do not consider myself as such. My Church sent me here to speak on her
behalf –not for polemics, but for unity. I am here to find the common ground (…) We must look for
the ground of unity. The details can be worked out by a commission”.
Fr. Vitaly Borovoy (1981)

“Nous espérons sincèrement qu’avec l’aide de Dieu seront progressivement élucidés et écartés les
malentendus qui avaient surgi au cours de l’histoire, conséquence de l’action de maints facteurs non
théologiques et que (...) nous nous rapprocherons infailliblement de l’instant (…) d’une pleine
communion dans la foi (…)”
Metropolitan Nicodeme of Leningrad (1970)
 Table of Contents

Foreword 15
His All-Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew

General Introduction 17
Christine Chaillot

PART I: Eastern Orthodox Perspectives

A. The Theological Dialogue since 1985

The Theological Dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox 31

and the Oriental Orthodox Churches since 1985
Metropolitan Damaskinos of Switzerland (†)

B. Chalcedon and Patristics

St. Cyril of Alexandria’s Miaphysite Christology 39

and Chalcedonian Dyophysitism
Fr. John McGuckin

Severus of Antioch: An Orthodox View 55

Fr. Andrew Louth

Severus of Antioch: Eastern Orthodox 64

and Oriental Orthodox Perspectives
Fr. John Behr

C. Chalcedon and Theology

The Cyrillian Character 74

of the Chalcedonian Definition of Faith
Georgios Martzelos

Cyril of Alexandria’s Mia-physis Formula 94

in the Christological Debates of the Fifth and Sixth Centuries
Norman Russell

Controversial Aspects in Christology of Dioscorus of Alexandria 113

Ilias Kesmiris
The Issue of Wills and Energies in the Perspective of the Dialogue 134
between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox
Fr. Cyril Hovorun

Orthodoxy and Heresy of the Anti-Chalcedonians 147

According to St. John Damascene (676-749)
Georgios Martzelos

The Romanian Theologians and the Dialogue with 160

the Old Oriental Churches (or Oriental Orthodox Churches)
Fr. Vassile Răducă

D. The Oriental Orthodox and Iconology

The Role of Pictures, the Veneration of Icons and 186

the Representation of Christ in the Oriental Orthodox Churches
Christine Chaillot

E. Chalcedon and Anathemas

Anathema: An Obstacle to Reunion? 197

Fr. John Erickson

The Presuppositions for Restoring Ecclesiastical Communion 204

between the Orthodox Church and the Ancient Oriental Churches:
Lifting of Anathemas and Competent Ecclesiastical Authority
Vlassios I. Phidas

F. The Theological Dialogue: Questions and Proposals

Towards Unity

The Bilateral Dialogue Between the Eastern Orthodox 222

and the Oriental Orthodox Churches: Challenges and Future
Metropolitan Emmanuel Adamakis

The Development of the Eastern-Oriental Orthodox Dialogue: 237

The Experience of the Moscow Patriarchate
Metropolitan Hilarion Alfeyev

About the Dialogue between the Eastern Orthodox 241

and Oriental Orthodox Christians
Bishop Demetrios Charbak

Suggestions for Determining the Basic Cornerstones 253

Leading to Ecclesial Unity
Metropolitan Georges Khodr of Mount Lebanon
Which Orthodoxy, Whose Heresy? 256
An Eastern Orthodox Comment on the Breach between
Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches
Nikolaos Asproulis and Pantelis Kalaitzidis

PART II: Oriental Orthodox Perspectives

A. Articles on Christology by Oriental Orthodox

Coptic tradition

The Christology of the Coptic Orthodox Church 273

Fr. Shenouda M. Ishak and Dn. Anthony Bibawy

Syrian Orthodox tradition

Syrian Orthodox Christology and the Chalcedonian Definition of Faith 288

Metropolitan Mor Polycarpus Aydin

Armenian tradition

The Armenian Christological Tradition 301

Archimandrite Shahe Ananyan

St. Nerses the Gracious and Church Unity: 317

Armeno-Greek Church Relations (1165-1173)
Catholicos Aram I of Cilicia

Ethiopian tradition

The Christology of the Ethiopian Orthodox Täwaḥǝdo Church 329

Getatchew Haile

B. Articles on Liturgical Texts on Christology of the Oriental

Orthodox Churches

Coptic tradition

Christology in the Divine Liturgies, Prayers, 349

and Hymns of the Coptic Orthodox Church
Donna Rizk

Syrian Orthodox tradition

Christ in Syrian Orthodox Liturgy 363

Fr. Baby Varghese
 Armenian tradition

Christology and the Armenian Holy Sacrifice (Soorp Badarak) 378

Fr. Michael Daniel Findikyan

Ethiopian tradition

The Christological Faith of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church 387

as Reflected in its Liturgy
Getatchew Haile

PART III: Chalcedon and Practical Dialogue

Visits to Oriental Orthodox Monasteries 399

from Armenia to Ethiopia (1998-2014)
Fr. Antony Novitskiy

Liturgical Life, Dialogue and Encounters 401

Fr. Avksentii Delipapazov

Dialogue Between the Armenian Community 404

and the Eastern Orthodox Christians in Bulgaria
Kostadin Nushev

On Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Cooperation in Sweden 408

and the United States of America
Michel Hjälm

Practical Dialogue between the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo 415

Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church Family
Stanislau Paulau

Seeking United Orthodox Christian Witness through Mass Media 423

and Other Types of Exchanges
George Alexander

The Association “Dialogue between Eastern Orthodox 427

and Oriental Orthodox” in Paris
Christine Chaillot

PART IV: Appendices (with Statements and Texts)

A. Official Statements of the Theological Dialogue

Communiqué of the Joint Commission 435

Chambésy, Switzerland, 10-15 December 1985
Communiqué of the Joint Commission 436
St. Bishoy Monastery, Egypt, 20-24 June 1989

Agreed Statement of the Joint Commission 437

St. Bishoy Monastery, Egypt, 20-24 June 1989

Introduction of the Joint Commission 439

Chambésy, Switzerland, 23-28 September 1990

Second Agreed Statement and Recommendations to Churches 440

Chambésy, Switzerland, 23-28 September 1990

Recommendations on Pastoral Issues of the Joint Commission, 442

Chambésy, Switzerland, 23-28 September 1990

Communiqué of the Joint Commission 445

Chambésy, Switzerland, 1-6 November 1993

Communiqué Issued by the Inter-Orthodox Theological Committee for 447

Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches
Orthodox Centre of the Ecumenical Patriarchate,
Chambésy, Switzerland, 13 March 2005

Communiqué Issued by the Working Group of the Joint Commission 449

Athens, Greece, November 24-25, 2014

B. Joint Declarations, Agreements, Statements,

and Official Letters

Joint Declaration of the Patriarchs of the Middle East 451

St. Bishoy Monastery, Egypt, 16-19 November 1987
“On the Unity of the Faith between the Chalcedonians
and the non-Chalcedonian Churches”

Statement of the Coptic Orthodox Synod on the Theological Dialogue 453

Letter of Metropolitan Bishoy of Damiette
to Metropolitan Damaskinos of Switzerland
Egypt, November 1990

Statement of the Orthodox Church of Antioch, 454

Damascus, 12 November 1991
a. On the Relations between the Eastern and Syrian Orthodox Churches
b. A Synodal and Patriarchal Letter by Patriarch Ignatios IV Damascus

Statement of the Romanian Orthodox Church 456

on the Official Theological Dialogue
Decisions of the Holy Synod,
Bucharest, Romania, 8-9 December 1994
Statement of the Russian Orthodox Church 457
on the Official Theological Dialogue, December 1994

Statements of the Russian Orthodox Church 458

on the Official Theological Dialogue
Decisions of the Holy Synod, Moscow, Russia, February 1997

Pastoral Agreement Between 459

the Coptic Orthodox and Greek Orthodox Patriarchates of Alexandria,
signed by Patriarchs Petros VII and Shenouda III, 2001

C. Essential Writings on Theological Dialogue

The Epistle of Cyril of Alexandria to John of Antioch (433) 460

The Nature of Christ (extracts) 463

Pope Shenouda III

A Misnomer Used Against the Followers of Pope Dioscorus 464

that they are Monophysites
Metropolitan Bishoy of Damietta

Severus of Antioch: on Christology 465

(Extracts)

Severus of Antioch on “One Incarnate Nature of God the Word” 466

Fr. V. C. Samuel

Further Studies in the Christology of Severus of Antioch 467

Fr. V. C. Samuel

The Reply of Catholicos Saint Nerses 489

to the letter of Gir Manuel, the Great King of the Greeks,
on the true profession of faith of the Armenian Church

Confession of Faith by Emperor Claudius-Gelawdewos (1555) 493

(Extracts)

Statement of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church (1970) 494

(Extracts)

Confession of Faith by the Ethiopian Orthodox Patriarch Tewoflos (1970) 496

(Extracts)

Confession of Faith by the Ethiopian Orthodox Patriarch Pawlos (1992) 497

(Extracts)
Bishop Porfiriy Uspensky and the Ancient Oriental Churches 498
(For the Centenary of His Demise)
Archimandrite Avgustin Nikitin

In the Hope of Restoration of Communion 509

between the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches
Carrie Frederick Frost, Vigen Guroian,
Jennifer Haddad Mosher, Valerie G. Zahirsky

D. Short Chronology of the Dialogue between 511

the Eastern Orthodox and the Oriental Orthodox Churches

List of Contributors 515

The Christology of the Coptic Orthodox Church
Fr. Shenouda M. Ishak and Dn. Anthony Bibawy

1. Introduction
The Christology of the Coptic Orthodox Church is none other than the
Miaphysite Alexandrian Christology as expounded by its great theologians and
patriarchs, mainly Athanasius (20th) and Cyril of Alexandria (24th), and
defended thereafter by their successors, the most prominent being Dioscorus
(25th), Timothy II (Aelurus) (26th), and Theodosius (33rd). This Christological
tradition is based on the elucidation of several Scriptural passages, primarily John
1:14: “the Word became flesh”; as well as Philippians 2:5-8: “Let this mind be in
you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not
consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation (Gr.
ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν; lit: “emptied Himself”), taking the form of a bondservant, and
coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He
humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of
the cross”. According to such passages and in agreement with Nicene Orthodoxy,
in the understanding of these Egyptian Fathers the Logos, the Son, the Word, is
eternally begotten of the Father and equal to Him, being of the same essence
with Him (homoousios). Nevertheless, He is the same Word, Logos, and Son, who
took upon Himself a full humanity with body, soul, and spirit, and became
consubstantial with us therefore becoming Emmanuel, i.e. God with us. Thus, He
has a double consubstantiality, with the Father according to His divinity, and
with us in His humanity, forming “one composite nature and hypostasis” but
without mixing, confusion, or alteration.
For the Alexandrian Fathers, these were basic and necessary
understandings of the nature of Christ and no different than the Antiochenes,
but there was further elucidation needed as to the relationship between His
divinity and humanity. The debates with the Antiochenes and those sympathetic
to their Christology were founded upon different understandings of this
relationship between the divinity and humanity in the Person of Christ. For the
Alexandrians, Christ is one Lord, one Son, one nature, one hypostasis, one activity,
and one will, i.e. He is the “one incarnate nature of the divine Logos”. 1 As is
stated in the pre-communion confession at the end of the divine liturgies used in
the Coptic Orthodox Church: “Amen. Amen. Amen. I believe, I believe, I believe
and confess to the last breath; that this is the Life-giving Flesh that Your Only-
Begotten Son, our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ took from our lady, the
lady of us all, the holy Mother of God, Saint Mary. He made It One with His
divinity without mingling, without confusion, and without alteration (…) Truly, I

1
The appellation of “Miaphysites” is always used by the Oriental Orthodox Churches to express the
Orthodox formula of St. Cyril of Alexandria “One incarnate nature of the divine Logos”.
- 273 -
believe that His divinity departed not from His humanity for a single moment
nor the twinkling of an eye (...)”
This was not merely a misunderstanding and difference of semantics
based on differences of terminologies and definitions between the two
Christological schools, but it was based upon different ontological premises that
have serious implications on fundamental Trinitarian, soteriological, sacramental,
and anthropological Christian theologies. Unfortunately, these differences persist
until our day and time to varied degrees between the Chalcedonian and the non-
Chalcedonian Churches (Oriental Orthodox; Miaphysite) 2 in spite of ongoing
ecumenical dialogue among the two groups.
In the following sections, the contribution of some of these Egyptian
Fathers to the understanding of Coptic Orthodox Christology will be elaborated
in a chronological fashion beginning with Athanasius in the fourth century until
Theodosius in the sixth century at the time of Justinian I.

2. Athanasius
When Athanasius, the 20th Patriarch of Alexandria, wrote most of his works
discussing the nature of Christ, it was in the setting of the Arian controversy that
consumed the great majority of his patriarchate and life. The main focus of his
anti-Arian works was apologetic in responding to the attacks of the Arians
against the doctrine of the divinity of the Son and His equality with the Father.
However, his Christology was not limited to mere anti-Arian apologetics and
polemics. The depth of his understanding of the Person of Christ was much
more comprehensive and permeating into the divine economy for the salvation,
redemption, and restoration of humanity to immortality and incorruption.
The importance of the eternity of the Son and His equality with the
Father was not just an argument revolving around ontology, but equally so the
sufficiency of the Ransom of the Cross for all of humanity and the restoration of
the image of God in which man was created. The Ransom was sufficient because
He is the sinless God Who took flesh and offered Himself of His own will as the
pure and impeccable Sacrifice on behalf of Adam’s transgression and for the
forgiveness of sins. The Sacrifice was eternal because He is the eternal God, Son
of the Father, Who offered Himself up once for all. He is the only One Who is
able to restore the Image since He is God after Whose image man was created.
Since He is the Life and the Resurrection, only He can bring man back to
immortality and incorruption through His Resurrection.
The following quotes express these aspects of Athanasius’ Christology:
The Word perceived that corruption could not be got rid of otherwise than through death; yet
He Himself, as the Word, being immortal and the Father’s Son, was such as could not die. For
this reason, therefore, He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging
to the Word Who is above all, and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling,
might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the
resurrection. It was by surrendering to death the body which He had taken, as an offering and

2
The non-Chalcedonian, or Oriental Orthodox family of Churches includes the Coptic Orthodox,
Syrian Orthodox, Armenian Apostolic, Malankara Orthodox Syrian (Indian) Orthodox, Ethiopian
Orthodox Täwaḥǝdo, and Eritrean Orthodox Täwaḥǝdo Churches.
- 274 -
 sacrifice free from every stain, that He forthwith abolished death for His human brethren by
the offering of the equivalent. For naturally, since the Word of God was above all, when He
offered His own temple and bodily instrument as a substitute for the life of all, He fulfilled in
death all that was required. Naturally also, through this union of the immortal Son of God
with our human nature, all men were clothed with incorruption in the promise of the
resurrection. For the solidarity of mankind is such that, by virtue of the Word’s indwelling in
a single human body, the corruption which goes with death has lost its power over all. 3
What, then, was God to do? What else could He possibly do, being God, but renew His Image
in mankind, so that through it men might once more come to know Him? And how could this
be done save by the coming of the very Image Himself, our Saviour Jesus Christ? Men could
not have done it, for they are only made after the Image; nor could angels have done it, for
they are not the images of God. The Word of God came in His own Person, because it was He
alone, the Image of the Father, Who could recreate man made after the Image.
In order to effect this re-creation, however, He had first to do away with death and corruption.
Therefore He assumed a human body, in order that in it death might once for all be destroyed,
and that men might be renewed according to the Image. The Image of the Father only was
sufficient for this need.
He then proceeds to give his famous illustration of a stained portrait that
can only be re-drawn if the subject of the portrait comes and sits for it again. 4
Who was made the Ransom for the sins of all. 5
The clarity and scope of Athanasius’ Christological teaching is further
demonstrated in his Letter to Epictetus. From this Letter “we understand that
some heterodox groups, having proceeded on the assumption, incidentally
combated by Athanasius, that the Manhood of Christ was a Hypostasis or Person,
and since the Trinity is a trinity of Persons, not of Essences, they argued that if
Christ is truly man having a distinct personality from the Son then the Triad will
be a Tetrad. To avoid this, one class identified the Logos and the Man, either by
assuming that the Logos was changed into flesh, or that the flesh was itself non-
natural and of the Divine Essence. The other class excluded the Man Jesus born
of the Virgin from the Trinity, explaining His relation to God on the lines of the
heretics Marcellus and his pupil Photinus or the Nestorians”. 6
Thus he writes:
8. (…) Again, they will blush deeply who have even entertained the possibility of a Tetrad
instead of a Triad resulting, if it were said that the Body was derived from Mary. For if (they
argue) we say the Body is of one Essence with the Word, the Triad remains a Triad; for then
the Word imports no foreign element into it; but if we admit that the Body derived from Mary
is human, it follows, since the Body is foreign in Essence, and the Word is in it, that the
addition of the Body causes a Tetrad instead of a Triad.
9. When they argue thus, they fail to perceive the contradiction in which they involve
themselves. For even though they say that the Body is not from Mary, but is coessential with
the Word, yet none the less (the very point they dissemble, to avoid being credited with their
real opinion) this on their own premises can be proved to involve a Tetrad. For as the Son,

3
Athanasius, On the Incarnation, Tr. and ed. by a religious of C.S.M.V. (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s
Seminary Press, 1998), II. 9, 35.
4
Ibid., III. 13-14, 40-42.
5
Ibid., VI. 40, 73-74.
6
Shenouda M. Ishak, Christology and the Council of Chalcedon (Denver, CO: Outskirts Press, 2013), 19.
- 275 -
 according to the Fathers, is coessential with the Father, but is not the Father Himself, but is
called coessential, as Son with Father, so the Body, which they call coessential with the
Word, is not the Word Himself, but a distinct entity. But if so, on their own shewing, their
Triad will be a Tetrad. For the true, really perfect and indivisible Triad is not accessible to
addition as is the Triad imagined by these persons. And how do these remain Christians who
imagine another God in addition to the true one? For, once again, in their other fallacy one
can see how great is their folly. For if they think because it is contained and stated in the
Scriptures, that the Body of the Saviour is human and derived from Mary, that a Tetrad is
substituted for a Triad, as though the Body created an addition, they go very far wrong, so
much so as to make the creature equal to the Creator, and suppose that the Godhead can
receive an addition. And they have failed to perceive that the Word is become Flesh, not by
reason of an addition to the Godhead, but in order that the flesh may rise again. Nor did the
Word proceed from Mary that He might be bettered, but that He might ransom the human
race. How then can they think that the Body, ransomed and quickened by the Word, made an
addition in respect of Godhead to the Word that had quickened it? For on the contrary, a great
addition has accrued to the human Body itself from the fellowship and union of the Word
with it. For instead of mortal it is become immortal; and, though an animal body, it is become
spiritual, and though made from earth it entered the heavenly gates. The Triad, then, although
the Word took a body from Mary, is a Triad, being inaccessible to addition or diminution; but
it is always perfect, and in the Triad one Godhead is recognized. 7
Although the Nestorian controversy had not yet occurred, Athanasius
indirectly anticipates this particular weakness in Antiochene Christology
approximately a century earlier.

3. Cyril of Alexandria
Cyril of Alexandria, the 24th Patriarch of Alexandria, continued in the
Christological tradition of Athanasius. His earlier writings prior to the Nestorian
controversy were mostly exegetical but imbued with dogmatic teachings,
particularly Christological to continue answering the Arian factions still present
and active along with Jews and pagans in Alexandria. Once he got word of
Nestorius’ opposition to the title of “Theotokos”, 8 and felt that there was some
resulting disturbance within the monastic communities in Egypt, he wrote his
letter to the monks of Egypt in 429. Cyril’s concern was not that this was merely
an injustice to the Holy Virgin Mary, but much more significantly a heresy
against Emmanuel, the Son of God Who took flesh and was born from her.
From Nestorius’ sermons as well as his replies to the first two letters
written to him by Cyril, it became much more evident that Nestorius was
distinguishing the Son of God from the man Jesus such that they were not
unified in nature or hypostasis, but rather only by grace or conjunction. 9 This

7
A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church [NPNF], ed. Ph. Schaff, and
H. Wace (repr. Grand Rapids, 1951), second series, vol. 4, 573-574.
8
Nestorius’ preference for the title Christotokos is discussed in John A. McGuckin, St. Cyril of
Alexandria and the Christological Controversy (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004), 27-
29.
9
Nestorius preached a prosopic union with the understanding that prosopon could be used in two
different senses, either “subjectivity” or “person” similar to hypostasis, or “face; mask,” i.e. the
appearance of something or someone. The meaning of prosopic union for Nestorius was that Christ
was two prosopon (i.e. two subjects) that are interconnected so that the perception or appearance of
- 276 -
created the same concern and more so for Cyril than what Athanasius had
expressed in his Epistle to Epictetus. If the Word had not made that flesh His
own resulting in one Christ, one nature, and one hypostasis, then God is no longer
a trinity, but a quaternity with there being a fourth hypostasis, the Christ or the
man Jesus, worshiped along with the Holy Trinity. Furthermore, if the Word
had not suffered and died in the flesh then redemption was not fulfilled.
Consequently, if it is not the flesh of the Son of God that is partaken of in the
Eucharist, then that flesh is not life-giving, i.e. that of a mere man, making it
useless and we would thus not be granted immortality and incorruption by
partaking of it.
The following quotes from Cyril of Alexandria’s works should give a
fuller picture of the key aspects of his Christology.

3a. Double Consubstantiality

In his letter to Acacius of Melitene, St. Cyril explains:
(…) who was begotten before ages from the Father according to divinity and ‘in recent days’
for us and for our salvation was begotten of Mary, the Holy Virgin, according to His
humanity, that the same one is consubstantial with the Father according to His divinity and
consubstantial with us according to His humanity (…) He is the same before ages and ‘in
recent days’, and clearly that He is from God the Father as God, and from a woman according
to the flesh as man. For how might He be thought to be consubstantial with us according to
His humanity and yet begotten of the Father according to His divinity, I say, unless the same
one is thought to be and said to be God and man as well? 10
3b. Hypostatic Union
One of Cyril’s primary concerns was preserving the single-subjectivity of Christ
while maintaining the integrity of His divinity and humanity. He expressed this
in terms of a hypostatic union. “The person of the Logos is the sole personal
subject of all the conditions of his existence, divine or human. The Logos is,
needless to say, the sole personal subject of all his own acts as eternal Lord (the
creation, the inspiration of the ancient prophets, and so on), but after the
incarnation the same one is also the personal subject directing all his actions
performed within this time and this space, embodied acts which form the context
of the human life of Christ in Palestine. The phrase ‘the selfsame’ recurs time
and again in his writings as a way of insisting on this doctrine of single-
subjectivity as the keystone of the entire Christology debate”. 11
The hypostatic union (henosis kath’ hypostasin) means that, for Cyril, “the
union of two distinct levels of reality, Godhead and manhood, takes place
dynamically because there is only one individual subject presiding over both, the
one person of the incarnate deity. He was well aware, however, that hypostasis
had another technical meaning (…) connoting ‘concretely realized existence’ or

them in the end becomes one prosopon. For further discussion concerning Nestorius’ Christology, see
McGuckin, St. Cyril of Alexandria, 126-174.
10
Ishak, Christology and the Council of Chalcedon, 178f.
11
Cyril of Alexandria, On the Unity of Christ, trans. and ed. J. A. McGuckin (Crestwood, NY: St.
Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1995), 40-41.
- 277 -
simply ‘real’. He delights in running the two associations together in his use of
‘hypostatic union’; that is (a) the union is effected because there is only one
personal subject of the divine and human actions, the same one being at once
God and Man, and (b) the union is a real and concrete event, or as we might say
‘a substantive reality’ not a cosmetic exercise”. 12
In his Third Letter to Nestorius (par. 4), Cyril “talks of the hypostatic union
as a ‘natural union’, by which he means a radically concrete union ‘such as the
soul of man has with its own body’”. 13
In his Second Letter to Nestorius (paragraphs 4 and 6), Cyril proposed the
doctrine of hypostatic union to summarize his central objections to Nestorius’
theories:
Because the Word hypostatically united human reality to himself ‘for us and for our
salvation,’ and came forth from a woman, this is why He is said to have been begotten in a
fleshly manner (…) but if we reject this hypostatic union as either impossible or unfitting,
then we fall into saying that there are two sons.
The hypostatic union epitomizes Cyril’s key point about the Lord Christ
being one. It demands a clear affirmation that the Logos was the sole direct
subject of all the incarnate acts, and this was something Nestorius was loath to
admit so simply. Again, in his third letter, Cyril used the phrase to push him
towards such a view: “We reject the term conjunction (synapheia) as being
insufficient to signify the union (…) As we have already said, the Word of God,
hypostatically united to the flesh, is God of all and master of all” (parag. 5; cf.
Anathemas 2 and 3).

3c. Natural Union

The most celebrated Christological formula of Cyril is the Mia Physis “One
Nature”, from which the faithful followers of the true Cyrillian Orthodoxy derive
their name Miaphysites. It is a confession that our Lord Jesus Christ is “one
incarnate nature of God the Logos” (Gr. μία φύσις Θεοῦ Λόγου σεσαρκωμένη).
The Mia Physis formula, therefore, means “One Physis of God the Word made
flesh”. Cyril used the “natural union” along with the “hypostatic union” to make
clear that any dividing of the one Person, Jesus Christ, the Logos incarnate, is
altogether impossible.
In Cyril’s letter 17, the Third Letter to Nestorius, written on behalf of the
Synod which he held in Alexandria in late 430, the “natural union” (ἕνωσις
φυσική) is expressed in the following words:
4. (…) We do not say that the Word of God has dwelt in Him who was born of the Holy
Virgin, as if in an ordinary man, for this might imply that Christ was a God-bearing man.
Even though it is said that: ‘The Word dwelt among us’ (John 1:14) and ‘all the fullness of
the Godhead dwelt bodily’ in Christ (Colossians 2:9), nonetheless we understand that in terms
of His becoming flesh we must not define the indwelling in His case as if it were just the
same as the way He is said to dwell in the saints; for He was naturally united to, but not

12
McGuckin, St. Cyril of Alexandria, 212.
13
Ibid., fn. 66.
- 278 -
 changed into, flesh, in that kind of indwelling which the soul of man can be said to have with
its own body.
5. There is, therefore, One Christ and Son and Lord, not as though a man simply had a
conjunction with God as though in a unity of honour or sovereignty, for equality of honour
does not unite natures. Indeed Peter and John have equality of honour with one another since
they are both apostles and holy disciples, but these two are not one. We do not conceive the
manner of the conjunction in terms of juxtaposition (for this is not enough for a natural union,
nor indeed in terms of a relational participation in the way that ‘being joined to the Lord we
are one spirit with Him’ as it is written (1 Corinthians 6:17). In fact we reject the term
‘conjunction’ as being insufficient to signify the union. 14
The Third of the Twelve Anathematisms of Cyril and his synod,
subjoined to the above-quoted letter 17 rejects any separation of the two
subsistences (hypostases) after the union, since they are brought together in “a
natural union” (“ἕνωσιν φυσικήν”). Thus it states: “If anyone shall after the
[hypostatic] union divide the hypostases in the one Christ, joining them by that
connexion alone, which happens according to worthiness, or even authority and
power, and not rather by a coming together, which is made by natural union: let
him be anathema”. 15

3d. Four Adverbs

In his letter 39 written to John of Antioch, Cyril states what was understood later
on to be “the four adverbs”: 16
(...) for there is One Lord Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 8:6), even though we do indeed take
cognizance of the difference of natures out of which we say the ineffable union was formed.
9. Those who say that there was a mixture or confusion or blending of God the Word with the
flesh, let your Holiness think fit to stop their mouths, for such people are probably spreading
such rumours about me, as though I had thought or said this. But I am so far from thinking
anything of the kind that I consider that anyone who thinks there could ever be the shadow of
a change (James 1:17) in the divine nature of the Word must be completely mad. For he ever
remains what he is and does not change or undergo alteration. Moreover, all of us confess that
the divine Word is impassible, even if in his all-wise economy of the mystery he is seen to
attribute to himself the sufferings that befall his own flesh. What is more, the all-wise Peter
says: ‘And so Christ has suffered for us in the flesh,’ and not in the nature of the ineffable
deity (1Peter 4:1). He bears the suffering of his own flesh in an economic appropriation to
himself, as I have said, so that we may believe him to be the Saviour of all… 17
3e. Distinction “Only in Contemplation”
For Cyril, the hypostatic and natural union effected through the incarnation in the
one Christ and one Son no longer allows the language of “two natures” 18 or any

14
Ep. 17:4-5, quoted as trans. by McGuckin, St. Cyril of Alexandria, 269.
15
NPNF, second series, vol. 14, 211.
16
Ishak, Christology and the Council of Chalcedon, 255-285, cf. without commingling (or confusion)
(asyngchytos), without change (atreptos), without separation (achoristos) and without division
(adiairetos).
17
St. Cyril, letter 39, parag(s). 8-9, in McGuckin, St. Cyril of Alexandria, 346-347.
18
[Editor’s note:] St. Cyril admits the Orthodoxy of two nature language (under specific
qualifications excluding a sense of double personhood); see H. Van Loon, The Dyophysite Christology
of Cyril of Alexandria, Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae 96 (Boston: Brill, 2009); John A.
- 279 -
sort of duality even though He is fully divine and fully human. Any sort of
dualistic language after the union would suggest that a full union of natures had
not occurred. That being stated, he does allow for the mind to perceive only by
contemplation how the two can be joined together. Thus in his letter to Acacius
of Melitene, he writes (Ep. 40, paragraphs 12-14):
12. (…) when we have the idea of the elements of the one and unique Son and Lord Jesus
Christ, we speak of two natures being united; but after the union, the duality has been
abolished and we believe the Son’s nature to be one, since he is one Son, yet become man and
incarnate. Though we affirm that the Word is God on becoming incarnate and made man, any
suspicion of change is to be repudiated entirely because he remained what he was, and we are
to acknowledge the union as totally free from merger.
13. (...) we have written in the Chapters: ‘Whoever allocates the terms to two persons or
subjects and attaches some to the man considered separately from the Word of God, some as
divine to the Word of God the Father alone, shall be anathema’. By no manner of means have
we abolished the difference between the terms though we have caused their separate division
to a Son, the Word of the Father, and to a man thought of as a separate woman-born son, to be
discarded. The nature of the Word is, by general consent, one but we recognize that he is
incarnate and became man, as I have already stated.
14. (…) Accordingly when the mode of the incarnation is the object of curiosity the human
mind is bound to observe two things joined together in union with each other mysteriously
and without merger, yet it in no way divides what are united but believes and firmly accepts
that the product of both elements is one God, Son, Christ and Lord. 19
So no distinction was possible in reality as such. Only a purely rational
distinction can be made.

3f. One Activity and One Will

A Christology of hypostatic and natural union allows for only one will and one
activity in Christ whether it be His sayings, His suffering, His miracles, or any
other activity attributed to the one Incarnate Logos. One example of Cyril’s
teaching on this point is from his Quod Unus sit Christus (i.e. That Christ is One)
written c. 438 as a dialogue. Here are some selections from this dialogue by way
of dispute with Hermias represented by the letter “B” and St. Cyril’s reply
represented by the letter “A”:
“B. So in the case of the evangelical and apostolic preaching, one must not divide the words
or the acts in this way?”
“A. Certainly not, at least not as referring to two persons or two hypostases divided from one
another and completely diverging into distinct and separate spheres. For there is only one Son,
the Word who was made man for our sake. I would say that everything refers to Him, words
and deeds, both those that befit the deity, as well as those which are human”.

McGuckin, St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy. Its history, theology and texts,
Supplements, 23 to Vigiliae Christianae (Leiden-New York-Cologne: Brill, 1994; repr. Crestwood, NY:
St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2004) and articles in this volume (including note 25 in the article by
John A. McGuckin).
19
Cyril of Alexandria, Select Letters ed. and tr. by L. R. Wickham (Oxford, 1983) 49, 51; quoted in
Ishak, Christology and the Council of Chalcedon, 287-288.
- 280 -
 “B. So even if He is said to have been wearied by the journey (John 4:6), to have hungered
(Matthew 4:2), and to have fallen asleep (Matthew 8:24), would it be proper, tell me, to
attribute these things which are petty and demeaning to God the Word”?
“A. Such things would not be at all fitting to the Word, if we considered him nakedly, as it
were, not yet made flesh, or before He had descended into the self-emptying. Your thoughts
are right on this. But once He is made man and emptied out, what harm can this inflict on
Him? Just as we say that the flesh became His very own, in the same way the weakness of
that flesh became His very own in an economic appropriation according to the terms of the
unification. So, He is ‘made like His brethren in all things except sin alone’ (Hebrews 2:17).
Do not be astonished if we say that He has made the weakness of the flesh His own along
with the flesh itself. He even attributed to himself those external outrages that came upon Him
from the roughness of the Jews, saying through the voice of the Psalmist: ‘They divided my
garments among them, and cast lots for my clothes’ (Psalm 22:18), and again: ‘All those who
saw me sneered at me, they wagged their tongues, they shook their heads’ (Psalm 22:7). 20
A (…) Since He is God by nature, He is conceived of as beyond suffering, and then He chose
to suffer so that He might save those under corruption, and so became like those on earth in
all respects, and underwent birth from a woman according to the flesh. As I have said, He
made His very own a body capable of tasting death and capable of coming back to life again,
so that He Himself might remain impassible and yet be said to suffer in his own flesh. In this
way He saved what was lost (Matthew 18:11) and openly said: ‘I am the Good Shepherd. The
Good Shepherd lays down his own life for the sake of the sheep’. And again: ‘No one takes
my life from me; I lay it down of my own accord. I have the authority both to lay it down and
to take it up’ (John 10:11, 18). It does not pertain to any one of us, nor to any common man,
to have the authority to lay down his life and take it up again. Yet the Only-Begotten and True
Son has laid it down and taken it up again, thereby pulling us out of the snares of death. 21
3g. Formulary of Reunion (433)
The Formulary of Reunion was the letter of reconciliation sent by John of Antioch
with his Christological statement to Cyril to mend their split after the Council of
Ephesus, 431. Even though it stated a “union of two natures”, we think that the
language was ambiguous enough to allow for an Antiochene interpretation of
this phrase to mean that Christ remained “in two natures” after the Incarnation.
Therefore, Cyril in his Epistle 39 to John of Antioch accepted the Formulary with
some important addenda, primarily the phrase “the same”, to emphasize the
hypostatic and natural union in the one Christ and deter from any Antiochene
interpretation. Unfortunately, we think that this did not suffice in averting
criticism on both sides. The ardent anti-Nestorians criticized Cyril for accepting
the Formulary and the Antiochenes felt that Cyril had reneged on his previous
stance. Cyril had no choice but to clarify his position in letters to Acacius of
Melitene and Succensus of Diocaesarea restating his belief in the hypostatic and
natural union.
Over time, it became blatantly obvious that the Antiochenes were readily
willing to anathematize Nestorius (except Theodoret of Cyrrhus who only did so
under pressure in session VIII of the Council of Chalcedon) yet continue to
preach Nestorianism under the names of its founders, Diodore of Tarsus and
Theodore of Mopsuestia. Therefore, it appeared that the Formulary of Reunion

20
McGuckin, On the Unity of Christ, 107.
21
Ibid. 127f.
- 281 -
had no real effect in reconciling the two opposed Christologies of Alexandria and
Antioch. 22
Physis for the Alexandrians was understood as a double notion of
physical attributes and concurrently a concrete reality. Therefore, physis was in a
sense considered to be synonymous with hypostasis with the understanding that
hypostasis meant a concrete individual reality. 23
Therefore, as Timothy II (Aelurus) clarified in his Refutation of the Synod
of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo: “There is no nature (i.e. substantia) which has
not [its] hypostasis, and there is no hypostasis which exists without its prosopon; if,
then, there are two natures, there are of necessity two prosopa; but if there are
two prosopa, there are also two Christs, as these new teachers preach”. 24
This is what has separated the Antiochenes from Cyril and the Coptic
Orthodox Church since the fifth century until our day and time. We think that
the Formulary of Reunion did not provide a solution, because the “union of two
natures” for the Antiochenes meant a union of attributes and not concrete
realities in the fuller understanding of physis.
The sensitivity to this very point and the rejection of any manner of two-
nature Christology after the incarnation is expressed by Dioscorus and the
Second Council of Ephesus: According to the Acts of the Second Council of
Ephesus (449 A.D.), which was preserved and read in the first session of the
Council of Chalcedon (paragraphs 492-495): “492. Dioscorus bishop of
Alexandria said: ‘Do you allow this language—speaking of two natures after the
incarnation?’ 493. The holy council said: ‘Anathema to whoever says this!’ 494.
Dioscorus bishop of Alexandria said: ‘Since I need both your voices and a show
of hands, let anyone who is unable to cry out raise his hand.’ 495. The holy
council said: ‘Anathema to whoever says two’!”
“During the reading at Chalcedon some Oriental bishops tried to deny
this (I:496)”. The reaction was as follows: “(I:497) The most devout Egyptian
bishops said: “We said it then and we say it now”’. 25

4. Dioscorus (444-454)
In order to discuss the unjust condemnation of Dioscorus at the Council of
Chalcedon, (451), there would need to be a detailed discussion of the minutes of
the Home Synod of Constantinople, (448), the Second Synod of Ephesus, (449),
as well as the Council of Chalcedon. However, this discussion is beyond the

22
For a detailed discussion of the Formulary of Reunion, its Antiochene Dyophysite interpretation, and
its aftermath, see McGuckin, St. Cyril of Alexandria, 114-121; Ishak, Christology and the Council of
Chalcedon, 97-102, 587-606.
23
For further elucidation on the definitions and progression of understanding of ousia, physis,
hypostasis and prosopon, see McGuckin, St. Cyril of Alexandria, 138-145.
24
Ishak, Christology and the Council of Chalcedon, 591 quoting ed. Nau, Patrologia Orientalis xiii, fasc. 2,
228f., as quoted in, R. V. Sellers, The Council of Chalcedon (London: S.P.C.K., 1953), 260.
25
Ishak, Christology and the Council of Chalcedon, 590, quoting Richard Price and Michael Gaddis, The
Acts of the Council of Chalcedon vol. 1 (Liverpool, England: Liverpool University Press, 2005), 219.
- 282 -
scope of this article. 26 The focus here will be the exoneration of Eutyches at
Second Ephesus, Dioscorus’ conditional condemnation of Eutyches at the Council
of Chalcedon, as well as his Miaphysite Christology.
Leo of Rome had named the Second Council of Ephesus, (449),
latrocinium, the “Robber’s Council”, because his Tome was not read and Eutyches
was not condemned in accordance with the Christology that he had expressed in
that Tome. 27 Eutyches was even later condemned by both Chalcedonians and
non-Chalcedonian Fathers. Irrespective of Eutyches’ real faith, the faith that he
expressed at that Synod was considered Orthodox not only by Dioscorus, but by
almost the entire Synod. 28 When later scrutinized at the first session of the
Council of Chalcedon concerning his acceptance of Eutyches’ faith, Dioscorus
conditionally condemned him saying: “If Eutyches holds opinions contrary to
the doctrines of the Church, he deserves not only punishment but hell fire. For
my concern is for the catholic and apostolic faith and not for any human being.
My mind is fixed on the Godhead, and I do not look to any person nor care
about anything except my soul and the true and pure faith”. 29
The reality is that Dioscorus was not a Monophysite or Eutychian. He
was rather a staunch Miaphysite and Cyrillian who rejected the Antiochene
formulation of a two-nature Christology.
One of his letters was written to the monks of the Henaton, a monastery
situated nine miles from Alexandria, saying: “God the Logos, consubstantial with
the Father, at the end of the ages for our redemption became consubstantial with
man in the flesh, remaining what He was before”. 30
Also in his letter to Secundinus, Dioscorus says:
Omitting many urgent matters, this I declare: that no man shall say that the holy flesh which
our Lord took from the Virgin Mary by the operation of the Holy Spirit, in a manner which he
himself knows, was different from and foreign to our body (…) For Paul has said (…) ‘It was
right that in everything He should be made like unto his brethren’ (Hebrews 2:16, 17), and
that word, ‘in everything,’ does not suffer the subtraction of any part of our nature; (…) the
flesh which was born of Mary was compacted with the soul of the Redeemer, that reasonable
and intelligent soul, without the seed of man (…) For He was like us, for us, and with us, not
in phantasy, not in mere semblance, according to the heresy of the Manichaeans, but rather in
actual reality from Mary the ‘Theotokos’. To comfort the desolate, and to repair the vessel that
had been broken, He came to us new (…) He became by the dispensation like us, that we by
his tender mercy might be like Him. He became man (…) that we by grace might become the

26
For the English translation of the minutes of these councils with comments, please see Price, Acts
of the Council of Chalcedon. There is further commentary and discussion in the follow-up to these
volumes: Chalcedon in Context, Church Councils 400-700, ed. by Richard Price and Mary Whitby
(Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2011).
27
Leo’s Tome (Ep. 28) was a letter written to Flavian of Constantinople after the Home Synod in
Constantinople, 448 CE, discussing his Christology in light of the condemnation of Eutyches. For a
detailed discussion as to why the Oriental Orthodox family of Churches rejects the Tome of Leo,
please see Ishak, Christology and the Council of Chalcedon, 565-681, especially 565-573.
28
See discussion in Ishak, Christology and the Council of Chalcedon, 131-145.
29
Chalcedon, the first session, parag. 168 in Price, Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, vol. 1, 159.
30
Ishak, Christology and the Council of Chalcedon, 180.
- 283 -
 sons of God. This I think and believe; and if any man does not think this, he is a stranger to
the faith of the apostles. 31
Timothy II (Aelurus), Dioscorus’ successor, quotes from two of his letters
in few lines which represent the true faith. Thus Dioscorus writes: “My
declaration is that no man shall assert that the flesh, which our Lord took from
holy Mary, through the Holy Spirit, in a manner known only to Himself, is
different from or alien to our body”. 32
At the Council of Chalcedon, 451, where he was unjustly condemned, he
makes several comments as to his true miaphysite Orthodox faith:
We speak of neither confusion nor division nor change. Anathema to whoever speaks of
confusion or change or mixture. 33
Clearly Flavian was deposed for this reason, that he spoke of two natures after the union. But
I have quotations from the holy Fathers Athanasius, Gregory and Cyril saying in numerous
passages that one should not speak of two natures after the union but of one incarnate nature
of the Word. I am being cast out together with the Fathers. I stand by the doctrines of the
Fathers, and do not transgress in any respect. And I have these quotations not indiscriminately
or in a haphazard form but in books. As all have asked, I too request that the rest be read. 34
I accept ‘from two [natures]’; I do not accept ‘two’. I am compelled to speak brashly: my soul
is at stake. 35
Mark, this is what I object to: there are not two natures after the union. 36
The ‘valiant Dioscorus’, proclaiming to all hearers the oneness of the incarnate nature of
Christ with the homely and obvious example drawn from Christ at the Cana marriage-feast
became the type of the embattled ascetic leader proof against the intellectual pitfalls laid by
his adversaries. 37
Furthermore, Anatolius of Constantinople stated: “It was not because of
the faith that Dioscorus was deposed. He was deposed because he broke off
communion with the lord Archbishop Leo and was summoned a third time and
did not come”. 38

31
Ibid.
32
Ibid.
33
Price, op. cit., parag. 263, 185.
34
Ibid., parag. 299, 190.
35
Ibid., parag. 332, 194.
36
Ibid., parag. 341, 196.
37
W. H. C. Frend, Rise of the Monophysite Movement (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1972),
141; quoting the following, ibid, n. 4, 141-142: “Makarius of Tkou relates how at Chalcedon
Dioscorus put the argument to his accusers. ‘When our Saviour Jesus Christ was invited to the
marriage feast at Cana, was it in his quality as God or in his quality as man?’ ‘In his quality as man’,
they replied. ‘Very well’, said Dioscorus, ‘And when he changed the water into wine, did he do that
as God or as man?’ ‘Obviously as God’, replied the assembly again. ‘Well you see’, concluded
Dioscorus, ‘that his divinity was never separated from his humanity and thus the separation
proclaimed in the Tome of Leo was anathema’! See E. Amélineau, “Le Christianisme chez les anciens
Coptes,” Revue de l’histoire des religions 14 (1886): 308-345 at 324.
38
Price, Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, vol. 2, 198, session V, parag. 14. It should be noted that Leo
began with excommunicating Dioscorus at least six months prior to the Council of Chalcedon. For a
full discussion of this accusation against Dioscorus, see Ishak, Christology and the Council of Chalcedon,
480-483.
- 284 -
 He is moreoever supposed to have written to Juvenal of Jerusalem, still at
Chalcedon: “Cursed be anyone who assumes two natures in the Messiah after the
indivisible unity…! Cursed be anyone who assumes in the Messiah two
properties and two activities”. 39
Dioscorus is supposed to have written to Emperor Marcian: “How can
the rebellious Leo have dared to open his mouth and blaspheme the Most High
by saying: we must confess in the Messiah two natures and two characteristics
and [two] activities, since the holy church confesses one nature of the incarnate
God without mixing or change; [even in death] the divinity of my master was
not separated from his humanity, not even for a moment.” 40
He furthermore stresses that the Lord Jesus Christ has never been
divided in all his works. Thus, in the confession of faith which he is said to have
made at Chalcedon he declares: “The Lord Jesus, Emmanuel, our God, has never
been divided in all his works; but [he is] one only Lord, one only nature; he has
only one will; and Godhead has been united with manhood, as the soul is united
with the body. This is my declaration and confession—I, the least, Dioscorus, the
poor”. 41
Concerning the same point he also says: “I know full well, having been
brought up in the faith, that He has been begotten of the Father as God, and that
the Same has been begotten of Mary as man. See Him walking on the sea as
man, and Creator of the heavenly hosts as God; see Him sleeping in the boat as
man, and walking on the seas as God; see Him hungry as man, and bestowing
nourishment as God; see Him thirsty as man, and giving drink as God; see Him
stoned by the Jews as man, and worshipped by angels as God; see Him tempted
as man, and driving away the demons as God; and similarly of many
instances”. 42

5. Timothy Aelurus (454-477)

The repercussions of the Council of Chalcedon were devastating and longlasting.
Those who remained loyal to Dioscorus and the Cyrillian Miaphysite faith in
rejection of the two-nature Christology of the Chalcedonian definition and the
Tome of Leo were unjustly labeled Eutychian and Monophysite. In fact, when
real monophysites appeared in Egypt, Timothy II (Aelurus), the 26th Patriarch of
Alexandria and successor of Dioscorus, wrote against them condemning their
heresy just as he did the two-nature Christology of the Council of Chalcedon and

39
Aloys Grillmeier with T. Hainthaler, Christ in Christian Tradition, vol. II, part 4, tr. O. C. Dean
(London: WJK, 1996), 34, quoting from Nau, F., in Journal Asiatique X, 1, 278, with Syriac text, 64.
40
Grillmeier, Christ in Christian Tradition, quoting Nau, Patrologia Orientalis, 254, with Syriac text on
36.
41
This confession is found in a fragment of a lost work of Dioscorus in the Bohairic dialect of Coptic:
ed. and trans. by W. H. P. Hatch, Harvard Theological Review (1926): 19, 377-384. Sellers (32, fn. 3)
quoted this confession of Dioscorus with a comment saying: “if it is not his, it undoubtedly sums up
his point of view”.
42
Sellers, The Council of Chalcedon, 32; quoting Chron. Zacharias of Mitylene iii, I, trans. Hamilton and
Brooks, pp. 45f.; S.G.F. Perry, The Second Synod of Ephesus, 392.
- 285 -
the Tome of Leo. 43 This is further expressed in the Encyclical of Basiliscus which
he drafted along with Peter the Fuller of Antioch and which was accepted at the
Third Synod of Ephesus, 476, where 700 bishops attended and condemned the
Council of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo.

6. Theodosius (535-567)
The line of non-Chalcedonian patriarchs of Alexandria remained faithful to the
Cyrillian Miaphysite Christology and never accepted the Council of Chalcedon or
the Tome of Leo. One of these fathers, Theodosius (33rd Patriarch) stands out in
combination with Severus of Antioch and Anthimus of Constantinople who
together worked towards a reunification of the churches after the deep schism of
the Council of Chalcedon. This, unfortunately, never happened, 44 and his
rejection of the Council of Chalcedon and the Tome of Leo led to his exile by
Emperor Justinian to Constantinople until the end of his life.

7. Contemporary Ecumenical Movement

The Coptic Orthodox Church began its involvement in ecumenical interchurch
dialogue in the 1960s for the sake of healing the wounds of schism from which
it was severely persecuted over the centuries, particularly in the two centuries
between the Council of Chalcedon and the Islamic invasion of Egypt (641). The
Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria always desired reconciliation, but when
reconciliation was not on the table to be discussed, it underwent (at times)
persecution for the sake of the faith as shown by examples like Dioscorus,
Timothy II, and Theodosius.
The latest stage of this dialogue with the Orthodox Church (i.e. the
Eastern/Byzantine Orthodox family of churches) had led to the First Agreed
Statement in Egypt, 1989, and the Second Agreed Statement in 1990 at
Chambésy, Geneva, Switzerland; both Statemenst have been recognised by the
Holy Synod of the Coptic Orthodox Church. This Second Agreed Statement was
formally accepted by just a few churches in both families of Orthodoxy including
the Coptic Orthodox Church, not by all. Therefore, there has been a recent re-
initiation of the dialogue between the two families to finish what they started. 45

43
For discussion concerning Timothy II’s actions against the monophysites, see Ishak, Christology and
the Council of Chalcedon, 114-123. For discussion concerning Timothy II’s criticism of Leo’s first and
second Tomes, see ibid., 566-567.
44
Justinian I took action against these three Miaphysite leaders due to the influence of Pope
Agapetus I of Rome. For discussion concerning this history, see ibid., 521-523 and 667.
45
OCP Media Network “Joint Commission for the Dialogue between Eastern Orthodox and Oriental
Orthodox Churches Revamped: Communique Available”. Orthodoxy Cognate Page. November 26,
2014. http://theorthodoxchurch.info/blog/news/joint-commission-for-the-dialogue-between-eastern-
orthodox-oriental-orthodox-churches-revamped-communique-available/ (last accessed October 20,
2016).
- 286 -
 There has been less theological progress in the interchurch dialogue
between the Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox family of Churches. 46 In
fact, the matter of Christology has not yet been raised in formal dialogue.
Recently, the Anglican Church has signed a Christological agreed
statement with the Oriental Orthodox family of Churches. 47
The Coptic Orthodox Church continues to pray for the reunification of
the churches in its liturgical supplication: “Let the schisms of the church come to
an end”.

46
There was a Common Declaration signed between Pope Paul VI of Rome and Pope Shenouda III
of Alexandria in 1973 in Rome which has never been recognized by the Holy Synod of the Coptic
Orthodox Church. In 1988, there was also a Declaration of Agreement on Christology between the
Coptic Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church drawn up by the Joint commission and
unanimously accepted by the full membership of the commission. However, when the Common
Christological Declaration was signed between Pope John Paul II and the Catholicos Patriarch of the
Assyrian Church of the East, Khanania Mar Dinkha IV in 1994, the previous declarations of 1973
and 1988 could not bear any weight because it is impossible to reconcile Miaphysite and Nestorian
Christologies.
47
http://www.anglicancommunion.org/media/103502/Anglican-Oriental-Orthodox-Agreed-Statement-
on-Christology-Cairo-2014.pdf (last accessed May 28, 2015).
- 287 -