OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 21, 2014, 12:10:45 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Personhood of Christ in relation to the Theotokos  (Read 8589 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #45 on: January 04, 2011, 05:51:05 PM »

As for me and my house, we shall serve the true Orthodox ACOE which never said God suffered like a pagan would.

Ok, I didn't realize you were ACOE until just now. Please note that the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that the person of Jesus Christ is both human and divine, and that Mary gave birth to both his human and divine nature (in one person), which is why she is given the title "Birthgiver of God" or Theotokos, not merely Christotokos.

Personally, I don't think it makes sense to say that the Theotokos gave birth to the Logos' divine nature in the context of the way you guys use the term nature. I think it would only make sense to say that Mary is Theotokos because she gave birth to a theanthropic hypostasis.
Seems right to me.
Does a Divine Hypostasis undergo change?

Before you guys go much further you really ought to give some thought to how you are defining:

1) Nature:  human and divine

2) Personhood: human and divine

Till you go back to the Fathers and begin to sort all of that out, you are not going to get very far in any amount of logical detail to make your case.
Logged

Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #46 on: January 04, 2011, 07:53:14 PM »

Christ is in principle of course a higher authority than Mary, and so all Christians serve only one master: Christ. If Christ and Mary contradicted, we would serve Christ and not Mary.

However the will of Christ and the will of Mary are in eternal and perfect union, so that to serve Mary is always identical with serving Christ.
Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #47 on: January 04, 2011, 07:54:18 PM »

Does Eastern Orthodoxy teach that the Divine Nature suffered on the cross?

No one teaches that the Godhead suffered on the Cross
(no matter how much Rafa would like you to believe otherwise). Both the EO & OO teach that the Logos suffered on the Cross.


AHEM (for you and Minas) :

Quote
Later Severus, Patriarch of Antioch (deemed heterodox by those who recognise the Council of Chalcedon), wrote to prove the correct ascription of the hymn to the Son of God, and made the use of the emended version standard in his diocese. It is this form Holy God, Holy and Strong, Holy and Immortal, crucified for us, have mercy on us that is in use in the Oriental Orthodox Churches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trisagion#Modifications_in_history


Quote
However the will of Christ and the will of Mary are in eternal and perfect union, so that to serve Mary is always identical with serving Christ.

That's a horrible thing to say, you are basically saying that Mary never sinned (by supposedly always being of one accord with Christ, not true- she lost Christ in Egypt as the Gospels say meaning her focus was not on Christ when this happened, this is not his will, and no he did not lose himself) and thus she did not need a saviour which of course is not true.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2011, 08:01:34 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #48 on: January 04, 2011, 08:07:35 PM »

Quote
That's a horrible thing to say, you are basically saying that Mary never sinned (by supposedly always being of one accord with Christ, not true- she lost Christ in Egypt as the Gospels say meaning her focus was not on Christ when this happened, this is not his will, and no he did not lose himself) and thus she did not need a saviour which of course is not true.

It is true that Mary never sinned, though it is not true that she did not need a savior. Sin requires an agency of the will, so losing Christ was not a sin. She was preserved immaculate by the agency of God from before her existence. Either way it wouldn't matter now, because now Mary is in Heaven. The souls of the saved in heaven are always in perfect union with God, ergo to serve Mary would always be to serve Christ, as it would be for anyone who is in heaven.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2011, 08:09:53 PM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #49 on: January 04, 2011, 08:10:59 PM »

Quote
That's a horrible thing to say, you are basically saying that Mary never sinned (by supposedly always being of one accord with Christ, not true- she lost Christ in Egypt as the Gospels say meaning her focus was not on Christ when this happened, this is not his will, and no he did not lose himself) and thus she did not need a saviour which of course is not true.

It is true that Mary never sinned, though it is not true that she did not need a savior.

She lost focus of Christ in that marketplace. That is not his will. We cannot say he lost himself either. We know she fell asleep, the only ones saying she never fell asleep are the RCC . Nothing in Eastern tradition (where her relatives served in the Church) suggesting her ascending to heaven. Also, If she fell asleep she sinned  since death is a consequence of sin.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #50 on: January 04, 2011, 08:30:02 PM »

I know this:

1) She needed a Saviour.
2) The Eastern Church (ACOE) never taught her ascending to heaven and never dying.



The ACOE teaches the following concerning the virgin birth :

And I replied to his Majesty in the following manner: "That He was born without breaking the virginal seals of His mother we have evidence from Book and nature. From Book there is the example of Eve who was born from the side of Adam without having rent it or fractured it, and the example of Jesus Christ who ascended to Heaven without having torn and breached the firmament. In this way He was born of Mary without having broken her virginal seals or fractured them. This can also be illustrated from nature: all fruits are born of trees without breaking or tearing them, and sight is born of the eye while the latter is not broken or torn, and the perfume of apples and all aromatic substances is bora of their respective trees or plants without breaking and tearing them, and the rays are bora of the sun without tearing or breaking its spheric form. As all these are bora of their generators without tearing them or rending them, so also Christ was born of Mary without breaking her virginal seals; as His eternal birth from the Father is wonderful, so also is His temporal birth from Mary."
-Timothy I, Apology for Christianity

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/timothy_i_apology_01_text.htm
« Last Edit: January 04, 2011, 08:31:10 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #51 on: January 04, 2011, 08:31:45 PM »

The Catholic Church does not teach that she did not need a savior. Both the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church teach that she lived her life free from sin.
Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #52 on: January 04, 2011, 08:36:26 PM »

The Catholic Church does not teach that she did not need a savior. Both the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church teach that she lived her life free from sin.

If sin is to willfully resist, disobey or not cooperate with the will of God, why was her will at odds with that of her Son in the marketplace when she lost focus on him ? Christ is truly sinless- he did his Father's will until the end. I'm sorry if I question too much, just that I finished reading a summary of John of the Ladder's method of prayer and it seems to me that the Virgin Mary sinned by losing focus of Christ when that is something God never discourages.

I invite you to prove me wrong though...
« Last Edit: January 04, 2011, 08:38:05 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #53 on: January 04, 2011, 08:37:53 PM »

I don't think that not knowing what Christ's physical location is at a given moment is the same thing as losing spiritual focus on God. If that were the case, she'd have to literally physically follow Him around wherever He went while on Earth, always be in the same room as Him, etc.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2011, 08:38:22 PM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #54 on: January 04, 2011, 08:40:27 PM »

I don't think that not knowing what Christ's physical location is at a given moment is the same thing as losing spiritual focus on God. If that were the case, she'd have to literally physically follow Him around wherever He went while on Earth.

She lost him as scripture says. She went to the market, lost focus on him and placed it on the worldly (the market), but regained the focus by entering the Father's House where he was.  The New Testament lesson is obvious- focus on God.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2011, 08:46:32 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #55 on: January 04, 2011, 08:43:32 PM »

If Christ reprimanded her for anything, it was coming to take him from the Temple. The focus of the story is to present Christ as confounding the Jewish teachers on The Law and so attest to his holiness. The Church, east nor west, has never presented it as a sin on the part of Mary that she lost him. There's nothing wrong with taking that lesson from the story, it's a good lesson, but there's no need to impute sin to Mary.
Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #56 on: January 04, 2011, 08:48:35 PM »

If Christ reprimanded her for anything, it was coming to take him from the Temple. The focus of the story is to present Christ as confounding the Jewish teachers on The Law and so attest to his holiness. The Church, east nor west, has never presented it as a sin on the part of Mary that she lost him. There's nothing wrong with taking that lesson from the story, it's a good lesson, but there's no need to impute sin to Mary.

Can you be of one will with Christ if you need a reprimand ?

By the way, I'm more interested in the lesson on the need to focus on Christ than on whether the Virgin Mary commited a sin or not. It is taught in the East that this narrative is in large part about this.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2011, 09:00:56 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #57 on: January 04, 2011, 10:00:12 PM »

If Christ reprimanded her for anything, it was coming to take him from the Temple. The focus of the story is to present Christ as confounding the Jewish teachers on The Law and so attest to his holiness. The Church, east nor west, has never presented it as a sin on the part of Mary that she lost him. There's nothing wrong with taking that lesson from the story, it's a good lesson, but there's no need to impute sin to Mary.

Can you be of one will with Christ if you need a reprimand ?

By the way, I'm more interested in the lesson on the need to focus on Christ than on whether the Virgin Mary commited a sin or not. It is taught in the East that this narrative is in large part about this.


Focusing on Christ to clarify.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,635



« Reply #58 on: January 04, 2011, 10:50:39 PM »

Ah, Nestorianism rears it's ugly head... Roll Eyes

This is what makes me really sick of ecumenists attempting to acquit the East Syrian church of heresy.
Do you mean the ecumenists in the anti-Chalcedonian churches?
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #59 on: January 04, 2011, 11:59:55 PM »

As for me and my house, we shall serve the true Orthodox ACOE which never said God suffered like a pagan would.

Ok, I didn't realize you were ACOE until just now. Please note that the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that the person of Jesus Christ is both human and divine, and that Mary gave birth to both his human and divine nature (in one person), which is why she is given the title "Birthgiver of God" or Theotokos, not merely Christotokos.

Personally, I don't think it makes sense to say that the Theotokos gave birth to the Logos' divine nature in the context of the way you guys use the term nature. I think it would only make sense to say that Mary is Theotokos because she gave birth to a theanthropic hypostasis.
Seems right to me.

This is really quite an unusual engagement where I, an Anti-Chalcedonian, am clarifying Anti-Synousiast theology to a Chalcedonian.  Undecided
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #60 on: January 05, 2011, 12:04:36 AM »

As for me and my house, we shall serve the true Orthodox ACOE which never said God suffered like a pagan would.

Ok, I didn't realize you were ACOE until just now. Please note that the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that the person of Jesus Christ is both human and divine, and that Mary gave birth to both his human and divine nature (in one person), which is why she is given the title "Birthgiver of God" or Theotokos, not merely Christotokos.

Personally, I don't think it makes sense to say that the Theotokos gave birth to the Logos' divine nature in the context of the way you guys use the term nature. I think it would only make sense to say that Mary is Theotokos because she gave birth to a theanthropic hypostasis.
Seems right to me.
Does a Divine Hypostasis undergo change?

Not exactly, because, as Saint Severus of Antioch clarified, there are two senses of term hypostasis, one addressing objective realities and one addressing self-subsistence. The Godhead and humanity of the Logos remain distinct on the former level, while on the latter the self-subsistence of the Logos took on humanity and united it to Himself. So, on the former level, the divinity hypostasis of the Logos remains distinct and unchanged by the union with His humanity.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #61 on: January 05, 2011, 12:07:14 AM »

As for me and my house, we shall serve the true Orthodox ACOE which never said God suffered like a pagan would.

Ok, I didn't realize you were ACOE until just now. Please note that the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that the person of Jesus Christ is both human and divine, and that Mary gave birth to both his human and divine nature (in one person), which is why she is given the title "Birthgiver of God" or Theotokos, not merely Christotokos.

Personally, I don't think it makes sense to say that the Theotokos gave birth to the Logos' divine nature in the context of the way you guys use the term nature. I think it would only make sense to say that Mary is Theotokos because she gave birth to a theanthropic hypostasis.
Seems right to me.
Does a Divine Hypostasis undergo change?

Before you guys go much further you really ought to give some thought to how you are defining:

1) Nature:  human and divine

2) Personhood: human and divine

Till you go back to the Fathers and begin to sort all of that out, you are not going to get very far in any amount of logical detail to make your case.

If we are to go back to the Fathers, we can be using much more accurate terminologies than "nature" and "person". Simply translating "hypostasis" as "person" is rather unfortunate because person is a much more complicated terminology, which, in another of its senses, can be used instead for "prosopon".
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #62 on: January 05, 2011, 12:14:32 AM »

Does Eastern Orthodoxy teach that the Divine Nature suffered on the cross?

No one teaches that the Godhead suffered on the Cross
(no matter how much Rafa would like you to believe otherwise). Both the EO & OO teach that the Logos suffered on the Cross.


AHEM (for you and Minas) :

Quote
Later Severus, Patriarch of Antioch (deemed heterodox by those who recognise the Council of Chalcedon), wrote to prove the correct ascription of the hymn to the Son of God, and made the use of the emended version standard in his diocese. It is this form Holy God, Holy and Strong, Holy and Immortal, crucified for us, have mercy on us that is in use in the Oriental Orthodox Churches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trisagion#Modifications_in_history

*yawn*

The very quotation you provided answers your objection.

The hymn was traditionally interpreted as Christological rather than Triadological both in Alexandria and Antioch.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #63 on: January 05, 2011, 12:16:13 AM »

As for me and my house, we shall serve the true Orthodox ACOE which never said God suffered like a pagan would.

Ok, I didn't realize you were ACOE until just now. Please note that the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that the person of Jesus Christ is both human and divine, and that Mary gave birth to both his human and divine nature (in one person), which is why she is given the title "Birthgiver of God" or Theotokos, not merely Christotokos.

Personally, I don't think it makes sense to say that the Theotokos gave birth to the Logos' divine nature in the context of the way you guys use the term nature. I think it would only make sense to say that Mary is Theotokos because she gave birth to a theanthropic hypostasis.
Seems right to me.
Does a Divine Hypostasis undergo change?

Not exactly, because, as Saint Severus of Antioch clarified, there are two senses of term hypostasis, one addressing objective realities and one addressing self-subsistence. The Godhead and humanity of the Logos remain distinct on the former level, while on the latter the self-subsistence of the Logos took on humanity and united it to Himself. So, on the former level, the divinity hypostasis of the Logos remains distinct and unchanged by the union with His humanity.


pssst:

Quote
Later Severus, Patriarch of Antioch (deemed heterodox by those who recognise the Council of Chalcedon), wrote to prove the correct ascription of the hymn to the Son of God, and made the use of the emended version standard in his diocese. It is this form Holy God, Holy and Strong, Holy and Immortal, crucified for us, have mercy on us that is in use in the Oriental Orthodox Churches.

As for the Church of Persia, as it was under the domination of the Magians, it was had nothing else to oppose.  Although some scandals arose, these scandals, however, were not allowed to grow, because from the first the Lord repressed them.  So while these things were going thus from apostolic times to the reign of the last Khosro 5, our Saviour, to whom everything is clear even before it happens, saw how much we had lost during this long peace and to what evils we were led by the interference of Christian kings who wanted us to say that this nature above to all suffering suffered  -- something even the demons have not dared to put forward...




...The accursed heretics who received such assistance for the present time, instead of evangelizing and baptizing the heathen, as required by the ecclesiastical law, undertook a contrary evangelization, perverting to their sacrilegious (faith) almost all the churches of Rome, and revived and rebuilt what had already been abolished.  As a result, most Westerners have always used (the addition to the Trisagion): “… immortal, who was crucified for us.”  All the churches of (these countries) became like a wasteland.

-Mar John bar Penkaye, Summary of World History (Rish melle)
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 12:27:03 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #64 on: January 05, 2011, 12:16:40 AM »

Also, If she fell asleep she sinned  since death is a consequence of sin.

Oh great. I sense a Julianism debate coming on:

Christ Himself died. Death is a consequence of sin that can be transmitted to descendants without sin itself being transmitted.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #65 on: January 05, 2011, 12:19:32 AM »

Also, If she fell asleep she sinned  since death is a consequence of sin.

Oh great. I sense a Julianism debate coming on:

Christ Himself died. Death is a consequence of sin that can be transmitted to descendants without sin itself being transmitted.

I plead guilty to not being sure about whether sin and death follow each other like I mentioned above. Apologies. Still she fell asleep and did not ascend to Heaven since nobody in the East ever heard of such a thing as an "Ascension of Mary".
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 12:21:50 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #66 on: January 05, 2011, 12:20:20 AM »

I know this:

1) She needed a Saviour.
2) The Eastern Church (ACOE) never taught her ascending to heaven and never dying.



The ACOE teaches the following concerning the virgin birth :

And I replied to his Majesty in the following manner: "That He was born without breaking the virginal seals of His mother we have evidence from Book and nature. From Book there is the example of Eve who was born from the side of Adam without having rent it or fractured it, and the example of Jesus Christ who ascended to Heaven without having torn and breached the firmament. In this way He was born of Mary without having broken her virginal seals or fractured them. This can also be illustrated from nature: all fruits are born of trees without breaking or tearing them, and sight is born of the eye while the latter is not broken or torn, and the perfume of apples and all aromatic substances is bora of their respective trees or plants without breaking and tearing them, and the rays are bora of the sun without tearing or breaking its spheric form. As all these are bora of their generators without tearing them or rending them, so also Christ was born of Mary without breaking her virginal seals; as His eternal birth from the Father is wonderful, so also is His temporal birth from Mary."
-Timothy I, Apology for Christianity

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/timothy_i_apology_01_text.htm


If the one born from the Mary was also truly eternally born/begotten from the Father, as this Timothy fellow indicates, then logically that necessitates the one being born from Mary being God, and thus ascribing the title of Theotokos to her being accurate.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #67 on: January 05, 2011, 12:21:34 AM »

Also, If she fell asleep she sinned  since death is a consequence of sin.

Oh great. I sense a Julianism debate coming on:

Christ Himself died. Death is a consequence of sin that can be transmitted to descendants without sin itself being transmitted.

I plead guilty to not being sure about whether sin and death follow each other like I mentioned above. Apologies. Still she fell asleep and did not ascend to Heaven since nobody in the East ever heard of such a thing as an "Ascesion of Mary".

The standard teaching within "Eastern Christianity" is that the Theotokos died, was resurrected three days later, and was assumed with her resurrected body into Heaven by the power of Christ and the angels.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #68 on: January 05, 2011, 12:22:46 AM »

The Catholic Church does not teach that she did not need a savior. Both the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church teach that she lived her life free from sin.

Actually, very few of us would deny that the Theotokos inherited the condition called ancestral sin.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #69 on: January 05, 2011, 12:25:36 AM »

Ah, Nestorianism rears it's ugly head... Roll Eyes

This is what makes me really sick of ecumenists attempting to acquit the East Syrian church of heresy.
Do you mean the ecumenists in the anti-Chalcedonian churches?

Not exactly. If anything the modern phenomenon of acquitting the East Syrians of heresy is really only highly popular among Western Christians. However, with regard to its indications of the situation of ecumenism overall, I was speaking in a very general sense, and indeed the situation is very bad in the OO churches.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,635



« Reply #70 on: January 05, 2011, 12:29:57 AM »

Hopefully you'll set things straight when you join them.
Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #71 on: January 05, 2011, 12:33:17 AM »

I know this:

1) She needed a Saviour.
2) The Eastern Church (ACOE) never taught her ascending to heaven and never dying.



The ACOE teaches the following concerning the virgin birth :

And I replied to his Majesty in the following manner: "That He was born without breaking the virginal seals of His mother we have evidence from Book and nature. From Book there is the example of Eve who was born from the side of Adam without having rent it or fractured it, and the example of Jesus Christ who ascended to Heaven without having torn and breached the firmament. In this way He was born of Mary without having broken her virginal seals or fractured them. This can also be illustrated from nature: all fruits are born of trees without breaking or tearing them, and sight is born of the eye while the latter is not broken or torn, and the perfume of apples and all aromatic substances is bora of their respective trees or plants without breaking and tearing them, and the rays are bora of the sun without tearing or breaking its spheric form. As all these are bora of their generators without tearing them or rending them, so also Christ was born of Mary without breaking her virginal seals; as His eternal birth from the Father is wonderful, so also is His temporal birth from Mary."
-Timothy I, Apology for Christianity

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/timothy_i_apology_01_text.htm


If the one born from the Mary was also truly eternally born/begotten from the Father, as this Timothy fellow indicates, then logically that necessitates the one being born from Mary being God, and thus ascribing the title of Theotokos to her being accurate.

The one born was the humanity of Christ, not the Divinity. God is not a person obviously, In the ACOE there is no mention of "Divine persons"- EVER. Only Qnume. This also proves the allegations of "nestorianism" wrong since nobody ever taught "two persons in Christ". Mar Nestorius was persecuted for the Truth.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #72 on: January 05, 2011, 12:35:40 AM »

I know this:

1) She needed a Saviour.
2) The Eastern Church (ACOE) never taught her ascending to heaven and never dying.



The ACOE teaches the following concerning the virgin birth :

And I replied to his Majesty in the following manner: "That He was born without breaking the virginal seals of His mother we have evidence from Book and nature. From Book there is the example of Eve who was born from the side of Adam without having rent it or fractured it, and the example of Jesus Christ who ascended to Heaven without having torn and breached the firmament. In this way He was born of Mary without having broken her virginal seals or fractured them. This can also be illustrated from nature: all fruits are born of trees without breaking or tearing them, and sight is born of the eye while the latter is not broken or torn, and the perfume of apples and all aromatic substances is bora of their respective trees or plants without breaking and tearing them, and the rays are bora of the sun without tearing or breaking its spheric form. As all these are bora of their generators without tearing them or rending them, so also Christ was born of Mary without breaking her virginal seals; as His eternal birth from the Father is wonderful, so also is His temporal birth from Mary."
-Timothy I, Apology for Christianity

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/timothy_i_apology_01_text.htm


If the one born from the Mary was also truly eternally born/begotten from the Father, as this Timothy fellow indicates, then logically that necessitates the one being born from Mary being God, and thus ascribing the title of Theotokos to her being accurate.

The one born was the humanity of Christ, not the Divinity. God is not a person obviously, In the ACOE there is no mention of "Divine persons"- EVER. Only Qnume. This also proves the allegations of "nestorianism" wrong since nobody ever taught "two persons in Christ". Mar Nestorius was persecuted for the Truth.

What you are saying is not compatible with the fact that at the end of your quote, he speaks of the same subject both being eternally born of the Father and then being temporally born of Mary.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #73 on: January 05, 2011, 12:36:50 AM »

Hopefully you'll set things straight when you join them.

If that ever even happens.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #74 on: January 05, 2011, 12:42:16 AM »

Hopefully you'll set things straight when you join them.

If that ever even happens.

Maybe it is the will of God that you stay in the Eastern Orthodox Church (a good Church) ?

Quote
What you are saying is not compatible with the fact that at the end of your quote, he speaks of the same subject both being eternally born of the Father and then being temporally born of Mary.

He's saying the Logos is begotten of the Father (ie: the Son is uncreated) and the humanity is born of the Virgin.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 12:45:18 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
augustin717
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: The other ROC
Posts: 5,635



« Reply #75 on: January 05, 2011, 12:50:08 AM »

Speaking of ecumenism:
http://news.assyrianchurch.com/syria’s-acoe-and-melkite-churches-congregate-for-holy-eucharist/984
Logged
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #76 on: January 05, 2011, 12:55:07 AM »

Maybe it is the will of God that you stay in the Eastern Orthodox Church (a good Church)?

I could see how that would make sense to you as a Branch Theorist, but for someone who holds to the traditional Cyprianite ecclesiology ratified by numerous Eastern Christian Fathers, it makes no sense.

He's saying the Logos is begotten of the Father (ie: the Son is uncreated) and the humanity is born of the Virgin.

That is technically impossible given the language. Read the pronouns:

"as His eternal birth from the Father is wonderful, so also is His temporal birth from Mary."

The repetition of only the same pronoun as the subject indicates referring to the same subject.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #77 on: January 05, 2011, 12:56:00 AM »


Nice. A deacon I know tell's me that there are many joint services in his Church, including with the miaphysite churches. Everybody is invited to the Qurbana (Eucharist) in the ACOE provided they are baptized validly (in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 01:02:05 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #78 on: January 05, 2011, 12:56:41 AM »


Ick.  Sad
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #79 on: January 05, 2011, 01:09:08 AM »

He's saying the Logos is begotten of the Father (ie: the Son is uncreated) and the humanity is born of the Virgin.

That is technically impossible given the language. Read the pronouns:

"as His eternal birth from the Father is wonderful, so also is His temporal birth from Mary."

The repetition of only the same pronoun as the subject indicates referring to the same subject.
Yes, it is the fact that the incarnate Logos is a single divine subject (i.e., one divine hypostasis) that makes it possible for us to refer to the Virgin Mary by the conciliar title "Theotokos."
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #80 on: January 05, 2011, 01:14:22 AM »

He's saying the Logos is begotten of the Father (ie: the Son is uncreated) and the humanity is born of the Virgin.

That is technically impossible given the language. Read the pronouns:

"as His eternal birth from the Father is wonderful, so also is His temporal birth from Mary."

The repetition of only the same pronoun as the subject indicates referring to the same subject.
Yes, it is the fact that the incarnate Logos is a single divine subject (i.e., one divine hypostasis) that makes it possible for us to refer to the Virgin Mary by the conciliar title "Theotokos."


Read this, it will clear up some things :

http://nestorian.org/book_of_marganitha_part_iii.html#part3chap4
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #81 on: January 05, 2011, 01:20:40 AM »

He's saying the Logos is begotten of the Father (ie: the Son is uncreated) and the humanity is born of the Virgin.

That is technically impossible given the language. Read the pronouns:

"as His eternal birth from the Father is wonderful, so also is His temporal birth from Mary."

The repetition of only the same pronoun as the subject indicates referring to the same subject.
Yes, it is the fact that the incarnate Logos is a single divine subject (i.e., one divine hypostasis) that makes it possible for us to refer to the Virgin Mary by the conciliar title "Theotokos."


Read this, it will clear up some things :

http://nestorian.org/book_of_marganitha_part_iii.html#part3chap4
I have no problem with a person making a mental distinction (tei theoria monei) between the divine and human natures in Christ; instead, the difficulty arises when a person denies that Mary is Theotokos because they have failed to accept that she is the mother of the eternal and uncreated hypostasis of the Logos made man.  Christ, as Chalcedon taught, is one hypostasis and one prosopon in two natures.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 01:30:41 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #82 on: January 05, 2011, 01:40:04 AM »

Everybody is invited to the Qurbana (Eucharist) in the ACOE provided they are baptized validly (in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

That's a very Augustinian Sacramentology for someone who expresses such virulent hatred for the man.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #83 on: January 05, 2011, 01:41:18 AM »

He's saying the Logos is begotten of the Father (ie: the Son is uncreated) and the humanity is born of the Virgin.

That is technically impossible given the language. Read the pronouns:

"as His eternal birth from the Father is wonderful, so also is His temporal birth from Mary."

The repetition of only the same pronoun as the subject indicates referring to the same subject.
Yes, it is the fact that the incarnate Logos is a single divine subject (i.e., one divine hypostasis) that makes it possible for us to refer to the Virgin Mary by the conciliar title "Theotokos."

*nods*  Smiley

Though the subject becomes divine and human as a consequence of the Incarnation, no?
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Jetavan
Argumentum ad australopithecum
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Science to the Fourth Power
Jurisdiction: Ohayo Gozaimasu
Posts: 6,580


Barlaam and Josaphat


WWW
« Reply #84 on: January 05, 2011, 01:46:26 AM »

If the Second Person of the Trinity was "born" (not "created" or "generated") of the Virgin Mary, then would that not mean that the Second Person of the Trinity could be limited in terms of space?
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 01:47:10 AM by Jetavan » Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.
Extra caritatem nulla salus.
In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness".
सर्वभूतहित
Ἄνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας
"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas Gandhi
Y dduw bo'r diolch.
deusveritasest
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Jurisdiction: None
Posts: 7,528



WWW
« Reply #85 on: January 05, 2011, 01:54:01 AM »

If the Second Person of the Trinity was "born" (not "created" or "generated") of the Virgin Mary, then would that not mean that the Second Person of the Trinity could be limited in terms of space?

Yes, it is generally agreed upon by those who uphold the doctrine of the hypostatic union that with respect to His humanity the Logos became circumscribed. Some have even seemed to suggest that the kenosis (self-emptying) involved a willful circumscribing of His divinity. But that doesn't seem orthodox to me. So I say that He was simultaneously circumscribed with regard to His humanity, with the Godhead dwelling in it in a unique manner, but also still uncircumscribed with regard to His divinity.
Logged

I stopped posting here in August 2011 because of stark disagreement with the policies of the administration and moderating team of the forums. If you desire, feel free to PM me, message me on Facebook (link in profile), or email me: cddombrowski@gmail.com
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #86 on: January 05, 2011, 02:02:04 AM »

He's saying the Logos is begotten of the Father (ie: the Son is uncreated) and the humanity is born of the Virgin.

That is technically impossible given the language. Read the pronouns:

"as His eternal birth from the Father is wonderful, so also is His temporal birth from Mary."

The repetition of only the same pronoun as the subject indicates referring to the same subject.
Yes, it is the fact that the incarnate Logos is a single divine subject (i.e., one divine hypostasis) that makes it possible for us to refer to the Virgin Mary by the conciliar title "Theotokos."


Read this, it will clear up some things :

http://nestorian.org/book_of_marganitha_part_iii.html#part3chap4
I have no problem with a person making a mental distinction (tei theoria monei) between the divine and human natures in Christ; instead, the difficulty arises when a person denies that Mary is Theotokos because they have failed to accept that she is the mother of the eternal and uncreated hypostasis of the Logos made man.  Christ, as Chalcedon taught, is one hypostasis and one prosopon in two natures.

read the link I gave :

Quote

...From this time commenced the division of the Church; some followed Nestorius, whilst others went astray after Cyril, both parties mutually anathematizing each other; thereby causing divisions, slaughter, exile, imprisonment, and persecution of the Fathers, more than ever before, as is fully recorded in the histories of Irenaeus, Bishop of Tyre. After this, tumult and discord went on increasing until the zealous and CHRIST-loving Marcian undertook to convene the great Council of the six hundred and thirty two in the town of Chalcedon, and commanded that both parties should be examined and judged, and that whosoever did not follow the truth and faith as declared by Ecumenical Councils should be expelled from the Church, in order that the Church might be in one accord in all matters of faith. This Council confirmed the confession, that there are two natures in CHRIST each distinct in its attributes, and also two wills, and anathematized all who should speak of mixture, which destroys the two natures. But because in Greek there is no distinction between Qnuma (hypostasis) and person, they confessed but one Qnuma in CHRIST. And when the party of Cyril was not satisfied with the expression “two Natures “, and the party of Nestorius with the expression “one Qnuma” an imperial edict was issued declaring all who did not consent to this doctrine degraded from their orders. Some were made to submit through compulsion; but the remainder maintained their own opinions.

Christianity thus became divided into three confessions
; the first confessing One Nature and One Qnuma in CHRIST, which is held by the Copts, Egyptians, and Abyssinians, after the tradition of Cyril their Patriarch; and this is called the Jacobite sect, from a certain Suryaya doctor called Jacob who laboured zealously to spread the doctrines of Cyril among the Suryaye and the Armenians.[/u]

 The Second sect are those who confess the doctrine of two Natures and one Qnuma in CHRIST, and these are called “Malkaye” (Royalists) because it was imposed forcibly by the king. This is the doctrine which is received by the Romans called Franks, and by the Constantinopolitans who are Greeks and by all the northern peoples such as the Russians, Alani, Circassians, Assai, Georgians and their neighbours. But the Franks differ from the rest of these in maintaining that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and in their use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist. These two sects also accepted the appelation “Mother of God”; but the Jacobites have added to the canon; “Holy God”, etc., “who was crucified for us.”

 The Third confession
which professes in Christ two Natures, two Qnume, one will one sonship, one authority; is called Nestorian. As to the Easterners, however, because they would not change their true faith, but kept it as they received it from the Apostles, they were unjustly styled “Nestorians”, since Nestorius was not their Patriarch, neither did they understand his language; but when they heard that he taught the doctrine of the two Natures and two Qnume, one will, one Son of God, one CHRIST, and that he confessed the orthodox faith, they bore witness to him, because they themselves held the same faith. Nestorius, then, followed them, and not they him, and that more especially in the matter of the appel­ation “Mother of CHRIST”. Therefore when called upon to excommunicate him, they refused, maintain­ing that their excommunication of Nestorius would be equivalent to their excommunication of the Sacred Scriptures and the holy Apostles, from which they received what they professed, and for which we are censured together with Nestorius, as shall appear in the following chapters.

 

Note:      Qnuma in Greek is called hypostasis, namely, that which underlies the essence, by which the nature is known. And Parsoopa: the Greeks call prosopon: We Easterns, there­fore, profess that M’shikha (Messiah) Our Lord is in two Natures in one person. But the question of the Godhead and humanity is brought into discussion in order so as to distin­guish the natural properties of each Nature, then of necessity we are led to the discussion of Qnuma (the essence or under­lying substance) by which the Nature is distinguished. These facts, therefore, lead us to the indisputable evidence of the existence of two Qnume which are the underlying properties of these (two) Natures, in one person of the Son of God.

http://nestorian.org/book_of_marganitha_part_iii.html#part3chap4


Your use of the term hypostasis  is not accepted in the East .
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 02:03:30 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #87 on: January 05, 2011, 02:06:29 AM »

He's saying the Logos is begotten of the Father (ie: the Son is uncreated) and the humanity is born of the Virgin.

That is technically impossible given the language. Read the pronouns:

"as His eternal birth from the Father is wonderful, so also is His temporal birth from Mary."

The repetition of only the same pronoun as the subject indicates referring to the same subject.
Yes, it is the fact that the incarnate Logos is a single divine subject (i.e., one divine hypostasis) that makes it possible for us to refer to the Virgin Mary by the conciliar title "Theotokos."


Read this, it will clear up some things :

http://nestorian.org/book_of_marganitha_part_iii.html#part3chap4
I have no problem with a person making a mental distinction (tei theoria monei) between the divine and human natures in Christ; instead, the difficulty arises when a person denies that Mary is Theotokos because they have failed to accept that she is the mother of the eternal and uncreated hypostasis of the Logos made man.  Christ, as Chalcedon taught, is one hypostasis and one prosopon in two natures.

read the link I gave
I read the link, but I disagree with it.  I reject Nestorius' views as heretical.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #88 on: January 05, 2011, 02:07:12 AM »

Quote
That's a horrible thing to say, you are basically saying that Mary never sinned (by supposedly always being of one accord with Christ, not true- she lost Christ in Egypt as the Gospels say meaning her focus was not on Christ when this happened, this is not his will, and no he did not lose himself) and thus she did not need a saviour which of course is not true.

It is true that Mary never sinned, though it is not true that she did not need a savior.

She lost focus of Christ in that marketplace. That is not his will. We cannot say he lost himself either. We know she fell asleep, the only ones saying she never fell asleep are the RCC . Nothing in Eastern tradition (where her relatives served in the Church) suggesting her ascending to heaven. Also, If she fell asleep she sinned  since death is a consequence of sin.

You are absolutely wrong about the first point.  The Catholic Church does teach that she ended her life-span in the normal way, which is death.  A large portion of the dogmatic constitution for the Assumption is taken up with recounting the long tradition of the Catholic Church with respect to the falling asleep of the Mother of God.  So you and others who say that is not true really don't know what the dickens you are talking about.  I'll chalk it up to ignorance.

As for the second point which draws into question any tradition in Orthodoxy concerning whether or not the Mother of God is taken up bodily into heaven...That is not my problem and I don't really care what you believe at this point.  I never get the same answer twice so I quit askin'.

As to your third point, you are absolutely correct.  If death is the ONLY wage for sin then, by God, there is not sinless Mother of God.  That is the box that modern Orthodox believers have constructed for themselves and you are all more than welcome to it...but it is the ONLY logical conclusion to the idea that the only stain of original sin is death.
Logged

Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,388


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #89 on: January 05, 2011, 02:08:58 AM »

Your use of the term hypostasis  is not accepted in the East .
I follow the Cappadocians in holding that hypostasis means subsistence.  That said, the incarnate Christ is one person (prosopon) and one subsistence (hypostasis), and Mary gave birth to the divine person and subsistence of the eternal Logos, who assumed human nature from her.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 02:10:01 AM by Apotheoun » Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Tags: Assyrian Church of the East 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.176 seconds with 71 queries.