No attempt to clear a Church dispute that has lasted for 1500 years can hope to come to a conclusion in just two unofficial consultations lasting only a few days. What the two Vienna Consultations, the first from September 7-12, 1971, and the second from September 3-9, 1973 have accomplished can be seen, more as an opening up of the issues than as a settlement of the dispute. And for this timely opening up we are all very much indebted to the initiative of PRO ORIENTE, and are especially grateful to the Archbishop of Vienna, His Eminence Cardinal Koenig and also to the memory of the dear departed Mgr. Otto Mauer. The purpose of this paper is to delineate the area of agreement, so that future discussion can focus more accurately on the issues not yet clarified.

The late Mgr. Otto Mauer, in his report given at the “Second Vienna Consultation” on the results of the “First Vienna Consultation”1 spoke about: our common starting points in the Tradition of the Church, which was a shared tradition for
many centuries, and which remains still a common foundation. We share the Niceno-Constantinopolitan symbol, which is the common liturgical expression of our faith. The three great ecumenical councils of the fourth and fifth century are
also commonly acknowledged by us.

Behind all these of course stands our common faith in the Apostolic kerygma, our common fathers and doctors in the Church, our common commitment to the Trinitarian-Incarnational mystery of Christ, as witnessed to in the scriptures. Both sides agreed that the mystery of Christ cannot be adequately grasped in words and concepts, and that theological reflection and discussion can only help to clarify and illuminate a faith that is already there, rather than to generate a faith where none exists. Discussion can dispel misunderstandings. And often, where we had thought that we had disagreed, we may find an underlying layer of common understanding.

Already in the first meeting it became clear that both sides accept the full and perfect manhood of Christ, his full consubstantiality with us. We agreed that Christ incarnate is fully God and fully human. On this, of course, there never had been any real disagreement even in the fifth century. But it is good to reaffirm today, as we did at the first Vienna Consultation (1971), that

“We believe that our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, is God the Son Incarnate, perfect in His divinity and perfect in His Humanity. His divinity was not separated from His humanity for a single moment, not for the twinkling of an eye. His humanity is one with his divinity without commixture, without confusion, without division, without separation.”

It was extremely significant that at the First Vienna Consultation it was made quite clear that both sides reject both the Eutychian and the Nestorian heresies. 3 Once this is clearly seen, the enormous area of Christological agreement between the faith of the Roman Catholic Church and that of the ancient Oriental Orthodox Churches becomes evident. Both sides affirmed the Nicea-Constantinople-Ephesus line. The communique of the Second Vienna Consultation affirmed the common Father, St. Cyril of Alexandria, as the basic starting point for Christological understanding. We agreed, both at the First Vienna Consultation and at the second, that there is a possible interpretation of Chalcedon which is in agreement with the faith of the Church, which “affirms the unity of person and the indissoluble union of Godhead and Manhood in Christ despite the phrase ‘in two natures.’ ” 4

The second Vienna Consultation reaffirmed this basic consensus: “We all agree that our Lord, Jesus Christ, who is consubstantial with the Father in His Divinity Himself became consubstantial with us in His Humanity. He perfectly unites in Himself perfect Godhead with perfect Manhood without division, without separation, without change, without commixture.”5

There is thus no doubt that the area of Christological agreement between the Roman Catholic Church and the Ancient Oriental Orthodox Church is vast and substantially complete. It is this agreement that gives us confidence to go ahead to look at the areas of disagreement in a genuine spirit of love and brotherhood. We do not need any longer to accuse each other of Eutychianism or Nestorianism or even of Monophysitisrn (understood as affirming only one nature) or of Diophysitism (if this means a separation of the united natures).

The major area of disagreement which needs to be explored is that of terminology and its implications. We however, can no longer say that the Fathers of the Ancient Orthodox Church did not understand Greek very well (this was not true) or that they confused physis and hypostasis. Such comments spring from ignorance of the facts. We know now that those who use the terminology of one nature want to give centrality to the fact of union. What is united is one. We know also that those who speak of two natures do not thereby seek to deny the unity of person or the union of the natures. They are simply afraid that to speak of one nature may mean affirming only (memos) one of the two natures that were united. We know now that those who speak of two natures do not thereby deny the full and perfect humanity of Christ. We now know also that those who speak of two natures do not thereby mean that the humanity and divinity can exist separately or function one without the other.

Both sides affirm the double consubstantiality and the four adverbs which Chalcedon took from the authentic tradition -- and that covers most of the formal Christology. And yet the terminological difference should not be ignored or regarded as inconsequential. We will do well to pay careful attention not only to terminology, but also to the question of how what appears first to be (merely) a terminological difference, has consequences for the ethos of the spirituality and theology which develop on the basis of these different theologies.

One of the things that impressed the present writer in the second Vienna Consultation was Fr. Grillmeier’s agreement with the Oriental Orthodox that the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Symbol, as a liturgical and baptismal formula had a unique status not shared by the Chalcedonian formula. He agreed that the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Symbol was not to be altered or added to.6 Chalcedon has value only as interpretation of the NCS (Niceno-Constantinopolitan-Symbol). The NCS is the test for understanding the CF. (the Chalcedonian Formula), and if an interpretation of CF departs from the basic intent of NCS, then that interpretation is to be rejected. It is a fact acknowledged by both sides that Eutychianism and Nestorianism being post-Niceno-Constantinopolitan phenomena," there is need to face both heresies and to condemn them. The disagreement if any was on the issue whether such condemnation should be in the form of a new formula, which includes the creation of new terminology like “one hypostasis in two natures.” The Oriental Orthodox contention has been: .

a) the condemnation can be made without creating a new formula;
b) the new formula could lead to new misunderstandings and therefore should be avoided;
c) a new formula is expressly forbidden by Ephesus 431.

If on the other hand it is now acknowledged that the Chalcedonian Formula is not a credal statement, but only a theological affirmation on ‘the basis of NCS, created in order to counter the new heresies of Eutychianism and Nestorianism, then we are all agreed that the Chalcedonian formula as such need not be accepted as dogma, but can be regarded as a theological statement 'directed' against two possible heresies which arise in the Church from time to time. I am not sure whether our Orthodox brethren of the Constantinople communion are ready to accept this statement of the difference in status between the NCS and the CFI have reason to think that many of their theologians would agree that they are not on the same level, since the liturgical use of the NCS and the CF. are quite different from each other also in their tradition. This point is of immense importance in the reconciliation of the Churches which have so long been separated from each other. Is it true that Constantinople and Rome defended the CF as vehemently as they did, only in the light of Timothy of Alexandria’s vehement attacks‘ on it?

Clearly Timothy was as anti~Eutychian and anti-Nestorian as Chalcedon. Then we have to explain the real motivation behind the vehemence‘ of Rome-Constantinople against Timothy. Timothy affirmed the double consubstantility without accepting Chalcedon. Double consubstantiality belongs to the authentic tradition, with or without Chalcedon. As Fr. Grillrneier says: “Timothy lays even greater emphasis on this (double) consubstantiality of Christ with man than does Leo I. This is a clear illustration of the Oriental Orthodox position that the double consubstantiality does not need the affirmation of Chalcedon as its base. It belongs to the earlier tradition, integrated into the liturgical corpus of the Church. The Chalcedonian formula and decision add no clarification or new basis to this authentic article of our common faith.

On the question of terminology there are several questions remaining unsettled. Fr. Grillmeier argues that Cyril identified physis and hypostasis, while Chalcedon and the post-Chalcedonian tradition distinguishes between them, ascribing different meanings to the two terms.8 Fr. V. C. Samuel, on the other hand, contends Cyril did not so identify physis and hypostasis.” 9 In any case when the Oriental Orthodox affirm ‘mia physis, mia hoypostasis’ we are not engaging in tautology.

It may not be necessary for our purpose to agree on the question whether Cyril identified or distinguished the two terms. In the post-Chalcedonian discussion, the two sides agree in distinguishing rather than identifying. If John the Grammarian (later Archbishop of Caesaraea) was right that in common theological usage physis refers either to ousia or to hypostasis according to the context, 10" then it is not useful to point to one or two instances in which Cyril uses physis in the sense of hypostasis, to show that Cyril always identified the two.

The fact of the matter is that Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians are in fairly full agreement about the hypostatic union of the human and divine physis and we do not on either side today confuse physis and hypostasis. The position admirably Stated by the non-Chalcedonian Severus of Antioch, seems to be acceptable also to the Chalcedonian theologians today. Once both of us affirm that the humanity of Christ never had an existence not united to the hypostasis of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, we have come to a basic consensus. We agree on the following
points:

a) The hypostasis of the Incarnate Christ is one-- the same as the hypostasis of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity;
b) There is no separate“human Jesus” with a human hypostasis different from that of the hypostasis of God the Logos;
c) The physis of Christ is both human and divine, with all the properties of the two natures, and therefore Christ Incarnate has double consubstantiality;
d) The properties, of the human and divine natures are not mixed up or confused, nor are they separable or operative separately;
e) The incarnate physis of Christ is composite, composed of divine and human;
f) We are also agreed that the human and divine natures do not act separately. When Christ is hungry, it is the Person who is hungry not the human nature separately. When Christ performs miracles, it is the Person who performs them, not the divine nature independently.

Wherein then does the disagreement lie? It is not enough to say that the difference Is purely terminological. The fact that the two natures are hypostatically united, without division or separation, to us ancient Orthodox, makes them one. United means made one. The word Tewahdo used by our Ethiopian Orthodox brethren is most expressive-- “onified” if you want a barbaric neologism. Chalcedonians insist following the ancient tradition of the School of Antioch, that the divine and the human are not commingled (pace Gregory of Nyssa) or confused, but remain distinct and different. On the substance of this position the ancient Orthodox agree. But they do not think that this distinction justifies their being called two. Here there is a terminological disagreement on whether the natures which have been united should be called two rather than one after the union.

Does this terminological difference lead to any real consequence for spirituality and theology? If it does not, we can afford to recognize this difference as a fact of history, as a pluralistic pattern of conceiving the same reality, as an adiaphoron which can be left to the freedom of the individual theologian or of the particular tradition. Cyril’s mia physis tou Theou logou sesarkommene and Chalcedon’s mia hypostasis en duo physesein gnorizomené have different intentions -- the first is directed explicitly against Nestorianism and the second explicitly against Eutychanism. The Oriental Orthodox at the Second Vienna Consultation put forward the proposal that Cyril's mia physis formula, qualified by double consubstantiality and the four adverbs would be an adequate safeguard against both Eutychanism and Nestorianism.

(A page is missing)

I was listening to him and while reading some other Roman Catholic theologians who insist on the methodology of “starting with the human Jesus”, I could not quite figure out how they would ever get to the Second Person of the Trinity
through their highly phenomenological methodology. The question lingers in my mind whether some of these theologians are really interested in going anywhere Beyond their starting point, namely the human Jesus. All the pious talk about Jesus’ humanity being transparent to God leaves me with a suspicion of Arianism. I hope that this particular kind of Christology which has recently come into vogue in the European tradition will not triumph within Roman Catholic Theology. Perhaps my friends can reassure me that no such danger exists.

The second question also relates to methodology, but ultimately goes to the heart of the faith. I have great sympathy for those who feel an aversion for static or substantialist ontologies. I too feel that the mystery of Christ cannot be understood in static or substantialist terms. But is the only alternative to a static ontology a ‘functional’ or ‘operational’ account? In our tradition we are used to a dynamic ontology, and all of creation itself can be understood not as a fait accompli, but only as something in via from arché to telos -- from inception to fulfillment. The creation itself is in movement from Alpha to Omega, but we want to insist that the One who is our Redeemer is the same as the Alpha and the Omega. This is a way of confessing in all reverence the great mystery of “Christ in us, the hope of glory”, the one who will manifest himself on that great day in all his glory. To reject the Chalcedonian dispute as a puerile preoccupation with substantialist ontology seems to us a temptation that needs to be resisted. The attempt to solve the Chalcedonian problem in purely operationalist terms does not get us very far. Exclusively operationalist language can be no better than an exclusively substantialist language.

A third hesitation in my own thinking is again raised for the sake of receiving help in understanding. With whom or what are we united in Baptism-Chrismation? With Christ Himself in His divine-human nature, or only with the human nature of the Divine Logos? It seems that I have read some Roman Catholic soteriological statements which suggest the latter that is that union in baptism is with the human nature of Christ, but since it is the human nature that is united to the divine person and nature, it is salvific. I do not like this kind of separation of Christ’s human nature as something with which we can be united, while His divine nature as something with which only Christ's human nature can be united, but
not our human nature.

I don’t think we have discussed this question among ourselves as Oriental Orthodox. We need to talk about it, because soteriology, as Fr. Florovsky once said very wisely, is the crux of Christology. I hope we can discuss this question here. In that connection I hope we can also affirm here that the ‘nature’ is not the ‘subject’ of the operations of Christ because this is what we suspect Pope Leo said in his Tome. Can you affirm that it is the Hypostasis of the Logos with his divine-human nature who hungered and thirsted, who performed miracles, who died for us and rose again, and with whom we are united by faith and baptism?

These three questions which have to do with new Christological perspectives may need some discussion here, so that both sides can know and make clear where we stand. The area of agreement between us is too vast, and the achievements of the two Vienna conversations too precious, to be risked for the sake of a preoccupation with interesting methodological games of some theological professor. Christology is not metaphysics, but rather the salvation of the creation.

Notes and References

  1. L. Wort und Wahrheit, Dec. 1974, Supplementary Issue No. 2, pp. I6 ff.
  2. Wort und Wahrheit, Dec. 74, p. 177.
  3. ibid. p. 177.
  4. ibid. p. 175.
  5. ibid. p. 175.
  6. Wort und Wahrheit II pp. 28f.
  7. Grillmeier, op. cit. p. 33.
  8. op. cit. p. 34.
  9. op. cit. p. 41.
  10. V.C. Samuel, op. cit. p. 20.
  11. discussion at Second Vienna Consultation, p. .42 f.
  12. Mgr. Mauer‘s rernarks; op. cit. p. 43.