[message removed]

Umm...I may be wrong, but St. Cyril, the original champion of the Monophysite position, repented of that position and accepted the two natures of Christ; hence, I tend to think there is more than just mere misunderstanding going on between the Chalcedonians and the Non-Chalcedonians.

This account has been removed.

It\'s all well and good to say that now it is just division for division\'s sake--I have heard (and made) that argument many times. I would like to add that I am not at all opposed to union with the Orientals...I just think that we ought to be more circumspect about what we\'re saying. Frankly, there is a difference in confessing \\"One person in two natures\\" and \\"One person from two natures\\"--and while it may be a subtle, seemingly tedious bit of nit-picking, surely we cannot say that it is any less important than that other word that separates us so profoundly from that other major body of Christians (i.e. \'filioque\'). Having read the summaries of the Eastern Orthodox-Oriental Orthodox summits from the preceding 40 years, I\'m aware (to the best of my abilities) of the scope of the discussion and its reasoned outcome. But there is more to it than just lifting anathemas--there is a problem of competing saints, who taught that our saints were heretics. With that in mind, can all of them, their saints and ours, be part of the same body of Christ? I confess my own ignorance, and inability to grasp how it could be possible. While the spirit of brotherhood and the dialog toward unity is admirable, even, I believe, desirable--we should not let the warm rush of finding allies against the rising tides of secular-liberal and Mohammadean barbarism cause us to ignore historical fact. And, the fact is, St. Cyril of Alexandria did reconcile with John of Antioch, and did accept the Chalcedonian formula; the fact the majority in his local church, and in local churches elsewhere on the Byzantine frontiers did not, may have much to do with politics of the day, but it also represents a spiritual reality. Unity cannot be just about mutual need; it has to come from making the same confession of Faith. If we begin to accept the reasoning that we can believe the same thing, but say it two different ways, where does that road lead? Again, I am not trying to say that the Orientals are not our brothers--I fully believe that they are--but there are more difficulties to this situation than many who rush to proclaim restoration of communion are often willing to admit. If it were that easy, the union would\'ve come about in the 1990s, when the fanfare and support for union on both sides was still very strong; the fact that it has not materialized after about 15 years of \\"formal agreement\\" about the disputed theology, is itself very telling.

I\'ll also add that no one will be cheering louder than me the day that an Eastern Orthodox bishop concelebrates a Syrian liturgy.

From what I understand, we say that XC is One Person, with One fully human Nature and One fully Divine Nature. They say that XC is One Person, with One Nature, but that that Nature is 100% Human and 100% Divine. Sounds like semantics to me. Am I right, wrong, whatever? MY main concern, if I were EP, and that is indeed the difference, would be the Saints issue.