Interesting, although I am not entirely sure that’s correct.
I want to ask our Coptic Orthodox friend
@dzheremi for input here. Now, my understanding of the Oriental Orthodox Christological formula, that originated with St. Cyril of Alexandria, that is to say, the miaphysite concept of the union of the human and divine natures into the one theandric nature of the incarnation, in which our incarnate Lord is from rather than of two natures as in the Chalcedonian model of Pope* Leo of Rome, is that in the Incarnation the humanity and divinity are united without change, confusion, separation or division, is that the phrase without change means that the humanity and divinity are not altered as a result of the union, contrary to the heresy of Eutyches, who was anathematized by Pope Dioscorus. However, I haven’t come across anything that is contrary to the widely accepted idea that when Christ rose from the dead, He had through His passion restored and glorified the human nature as the New Adam.
On this point my understanding is that Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox, or at least Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox doctrine, are identical** (I don’t know as much about the Armenian Apostolic Church and it is possible there are aspects to Armenian Christology that I am unaware of, although I was under the impression that all of the Oriental Orthodox churches believed basically the same thing. Likewise if I am more broadly mistaken, for example, if Eastern Orthodox doctrine is that our Lord in His resurrection was not different from before His crucifixion, hopefully
@prodromos or
@Ignatius the Kiwi or
@FenderTL5 or
@HTacianas might be able to bring some clarity. Unfortunately the Syriac Orthodox member we had a few months back from Malankara is not at present active, as far as I am aware.
*Technically Archbishop or Patriarch; while Leo was the first Bishop of Rome to adopt the style
pontifex maximus, it was not until the 6th century that the style of Pope was adopted by the Bishops of Rome; prior to that time the style had only been used by the Popes of Alexandria, such as Saints Athanasius, Cyril and Dioscorus.
** It is the case that the Eastern Orthodox church also uses the Christological formula of full humanity and full divinity without change, confusion, seperation or division, the main difference being the Eastern Orthodox believe that Jesus Christ abides in two natures, human and divine that are united in one hypostasis, whereas the Oriental Orthodox believe that he abides in a hypostatic and natural union from two natures, human and divine, but in either case, there is no change, confusion, division or separation as a result of the theandric union of humanity and divinity in the Incarnation of Christ our true God.
Additionally the Eastern Orthodox also use the hymn Ho Monogenes, following the Second Antiphon, like in the Armenian Patarag, and this same hymn opens the Syriac Orthodox Divine Liturgy (Qurbono Qadisho), and the Coptic Orthodox use it at the high point of their liturgy on Great and Holy Friday. I regard the hymn as a highly reliable test of Christological Orthodoxy, since a Nestorian or a Eutychian could not recite it with any degree of comfort; in this respect it is similiar to the Syriac Orthodox communion hymn Haw Nurone, which is a useful test of Eucharistic orthodoxy.
The words of Ho Monogenes are as follows:
Only-Begotten Son and Immortal Word of God,
Who for our salvation didst will to be incarnate of the holy Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary;
Who without change didst become man and was crucified;
Who art one of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit:
O Christ our God, trampling down death by death, save us
