Talk:Church of Alexandria (Coptic)
- I'm not so sure about this, but should the name change to "Coptic Orthodox Church" or "Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria"? In normal conversation, we don't usually say "Church of Alexandria (Coptic)". Just an idea. Thanks. ~ Troy 13:09, July 14, 2007 (PDT)
- See: OrthodoxWiki:Style Manual (Churches). —Fr. Andrew talk contribs 16:04, July 14, 2007 (PDT)
I feel like this particular section of the article is painting a picture of the OO faith through Byzantine lenses, not really understanding the Oriental faith for how it understands the terms it uses. Here is the section I am talking about:
"In terms of Christology the Oriental understanding is that Christ is "One Nature--the Logos Incarnate," of the full humanity and full divinity. The Byzantine understanding is that Christ is in two natures, full humanity and full divinity. (Just as all of us are of our mother and father and not in our mother and father, so too is the nature of Christ. If Christ is in full humanity and in full divinity, then He is separate in two persons as the Nestorians teach. Imagine your nature in your mother and your father; you are then two different people. If however your nature is of your mother and your father, then you are one person .)"
The problem I see is that in saying that the Orientals believe that Christ is of/from the full humanity and full divinity, it seems to betray the author still thinking of nature to refer to the common special sense of nature, rather than thinking of nature as inherently individual and subsistent as the Orientals do. In the Byzantine sense of nature, the Orientals really have not made clear whether they believe it appropriate to speak of one nature or two natures or neither or both. When they say that Christ is of/from two natures, they are not using nature in that Byzantine sense, but rather in the Alexandrian sense, meaning that Christ is from two individual instances of ousia. The one subsistent theanthropic nature that he is derived from the union of His humanity and His divinity. This also shows that the further reference to us being from our mother and father really falls flat in understanding, because the two natures that are spoken of as Christ being from are usually not the Word or the Holy Spirit and Mary, but rather the Word's individuated divinity and the Word's individuated humanity.
As such, I think the wording of this particular section definitely needs to be changed to reflect that Christ is not seen as of/from two ousia, this being the Byzantine/Chalcedonian understanding of nature, rather he is confessed as being consubtantial to the Father with respect to His divinity and consubstantial with us with respect to His humanity even after the union; and that rather Christ is seen as of/from an instance of divinity and an instance of humanity that otherwise would be two subsistent beings (subsistent being being the Alexandrian/Non-Chalcedonian understanding of nature), if it were not for the union, outside of which His humanity never existed, and theoretically can be conceived as such, in theory being the only manner in which two natures are ever conceived of in the Alexandrian/Non-Chalcedonian tradtion. Deusveritasest 22:31, October 30, 2009 (UTC)