OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 01, 2014, 10:30:07 PM *
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  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Battle Royale  (Read 14715 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Rustaveli
Constant In Opal... Ultramarine
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Eastern Church
Posts: 126


Saint Shota Rustaveli


« Reply #90 on: June 21, 2004, 12:39:34 AM »

.. I still am unsure about how "will"-words and proof-texts relate to the wider discussion, which should perhaps be silence in awe of the Incarnational Mystery...

Well, "so long, and thanks for all the fish"...

Peace - out, ya'll!!!

« Last Edit: June 21, 2004, 12:40:01 AM by Rustaveli » Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #91 on: June 21, 2004, 04:11:18 AM »

O.K., I can see that [limiting EO-OO virtual "fisticuffs"]... there's enough conflict in that arena without opening new doors!  Cool

I did make the unexpected discovery that the Greek text of St. Matthew 26:39 does not seem to contain the term for "Will" (Thelo, long final "o"; sorry that my font and diacritical marks are lacking from the computer I am using...) except for the fist initial mention (relating to the Father, cf. prior posts above)...

It still seems to me that a two-will definition can't be based on this text alone,  in translation. [nor a single one; I wouldn't suggest that, as it may derive from the sentence structure in koine Greek, or one of a thousand other variables...]

... but your exposition is most helpful; as also the recommendation of the "Pyrrhus" text -  

I'll look into it!

Thanks for sharing your knowledge & insights.

Not a Monothelite, just seeking understanding...,

Rustaveli

Rustaveli,
I am not sure of exactly what you are trying to say above, but +++¦++-ë (the/lo) was one of the first words I learned in Greek as a tyke, and it has always meant in my understanding "I want" as in the active volition sense of will. There are other words to say "I want"(am in need of) or "I want"(simple statement of lack).

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #92 on: June 21, 2004, 04:30:11 AM »

Demetri,

Read the agreed statement at Chambesy and see what would appear to some to be a waffling on the issue.

anastasios

anastasios,

The statement and conference you reference in are prior to H.A.H. Bartholomeos I's elevation to partriarch by three to four years. He has since stated 7 Councils must be recognized, and so the "waffling" really seems to be this EP making a definitive statement about the previous patriarch's "waffling".

Don't get me wrong; it's obvious that he wants re-union, but he's set the requirement at exactly where Linus7 sees it. I haven't read that he has changed his mind from his original 1994 statement.

Demetri
« Last Edit: June 21, 2004, 04:30:43 AM by +æ-ü+¦-â-ä+++¦+++«-é » Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #93 on: June 21, 2004, 09:38:43 AM »

Elisha,

Quote
I think everyone here, and most especially Linus could do with a good dose of Fr. Seraphim Rose.  I'm no disciple - I just appreciate his love for everyone.  To quote him, "I myself fear the cold hearts of the "intellectually correct" far more than any errors you might find (in Augustine).  I sense in these hearts a preparation for the work of the Antichrist (whose imitation of Christ must also extend to
"correct theology".  I feel in Augustine the love of Christ."  (from a letter of his in 1981)

Of course, to be fair, Fr.Seraphim (of blessed memory) could say this while at the same time recognizing that those who have built entire theologies upon St.Augustine's more peculiar speculations/imprecisions (Roman Catholics and certain confessional Protestant groups) have now found themselves outside of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.  I also have my doubts that he would have communed non-Chalcedonians.

Does this make Fr.Seraphim a hypocrite?  No, and for some simple reasons...

Whatever his errors, St.Augustine reposed in the peace of the Church, and had he been confronted with the seriousness of them, would undoubtedly have recanted.  This is not only the opinion of the Orthodox consensus throughout the ages (in particular the consensus of other Fathers, liturgical calendars of both the Western and Eastern Orthodox Churches), but manifest in the apologetical qualifications of St.Augustine himself, who was actually careful to submit all he wrote to the judgement of the Church.

On the other hand, unfortunately, this is not the case of the non-Chalcedonians.  Their "imprecision" (if we use the major miaphysite/monophysite position as the object of our consideration in dialogues/debates like this, and not it's more extreme manifestations, like Eutycianism which I understand the non-Chalcedonians themselves reject) has set itself at odds with the judgement of the Church, and her theological symbols.

Like anyone of good will, I really would like to see the separation of the non-Chalcedonians from the Orthodox Church be resolved - but not at any price.  Without a formal acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon and later Oecumenical Synods, there will be no real union, but simply more schisms.

For the "Eastern" Orthodox who equivocate on this subject, or propose a union lacking a clear confession of the faith of Chalcedon and subsequent Oecumenical Synods, I ask the following - what would such do to our belief in the inspiration/propriety of our Church's dogmatic statements in general?  On what basis can we really say to the Roman Catholics "we love you, but you err and you must rectify this before we can share the same Chalice", if we treat Orthodox symbols and undisputedly Oecumenical Synods with such contempt?

I fear that the answer is actually already manifest in our day - though not quite as popular, the phenomenon of obfuscating "agreed statements", concelebrations and open communion toward Roman Catholics is already quite alive and well in many parts of the Orthodox world, particularly in the west where it has quite a scholarly sounding apologia attached to it (though the statements themselves tend to be a little more moderate than the consequences they have at the parish level.)

Frankly, some are creating a "church" without any authority - or at least, without any authority save for what happens in the present moment (a sort of legal positivism perhaps?).

Logged
Rustaveli
Constant In Opal... Ultramarine
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Eastern Church
Posts: 126


Saint Shota Rustaveli


« Reply #94 on: June 21, 2004, 09:47:33 AM »

Rustaveli,
I am not sure of exactly what you are trying to say above, but +++¦++-ë (the/lo) was one of the first words I learned in Greek as a tyke, and it has always meant in my understanding "I want" as in the active volition sense of will. There are other words to say "I want"(am in need of) or "I want"(simple statement of lack).

Demetri

An excellent point!

I'm therefore unsure of using such a text as a proof-text of the theological definition of the "diophysite" & / or "diothelyte" school...

(although, the root "+++¦++-ë (the/lo)" is clearly used in the latter...)

Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #95 on: June 21, 2004, 11:41:17 PM »

An excellent point!

I'm therefore unsure of using such a text as a proof-text of the theological definition of the "diophysite" & / or "diothelyte" school...

(although, the root "+++¦++-ë (the/lo)" is clearly used in the latter...)

Huh?

If I understood Aristokles correctly, he just said that word means "will."

Those verses, Matthew 26:39 and John 5:30, definitely show our Lord Jesus deferring to the Father's will over His own. Since in His divinity He shares the divine will with the Father, Jesus must have been speaking of some will of His other than the divine will.

That could only be His human will.

[divine] will + [human] will = 2 wills
« Last Edit: June 21, 2004, 11:44:07 PM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Rustaveli
Constant In Opal... Ultramarine
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Eastern Church
Posts: 126


Saint Shota Rustaveli


« Reply #96 on: June 22, 2004, 10:38:19 AM »

Huh?

If I understood Aristokles correctly, he just said that word means "will."


... oops, you're right...

I misread Aristokles's post!  :blushing:

mea culpa!

 Cool
« Last Edit: June 22, 2004, 10:39:10 AM by Rustaveli » Logged
Raouf
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 97



« Reply #97 on: June 22, 2004, 11:49:05 AM »


[divine] will + [human] will = 2 wills

It seems here Linus confesses that Christ is in two hypostases. You say that the Will is associated with Nature. Therefore was Christ's human will the will of the entire human nature? Just as Christ's Divine Will is the common Will of the Godhead, so then you must believe that the human will is the common Will of the whole human race!

If on the other hand Christ's human will was His own unique instance of a human will, then that human will must be hypostatic.  If Christ's human will is hypostatic and you say Christ is IN TWO WILLS, then He must be in TWO hypostases.

Is this really what EO believe?

In Christ who is One,
Raouf

« Last Edit: June 22, 2004, 11:50:16 AM by Raouf » Logged

Flog your enemies with the Name of Jesus and let the remembrance of Jesus be present with each breath. - St. John Climacus
Ben
Unabashedly Pro-Life
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,260



« Reply #98 on: June 22, 2004, 05:47:02 PM »

Christ has two natures and two wills, that is othodox teaching, the teaching of the Ecumenical Councils.
Logged

"I prefer to be accused unjustly, for then I have nothing to reproach myself with, and joyfully offer this to the good Lord. Then I humble myself at the thought that I am indeed capable of doing the thing of which I have been accused. " - Saint
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #99 on: June 22, 2004, 05:51:52 PM »

It seems here Linus confesses that Christ is in two hypostases. You say that the Will is associated with Nature. Therefore was Christ's human will the will of the entire human nature? Just as Christ's Divine Will is the common Will of the Godhead, so then you must believe that the human will is the common Will of the whole human race!

If on the other hand Christ's human will was His own unique instance of a human will, then that human will must be hypostatic.  If Christ's human will is hypostatic and you say Christ is IN TWO WILLS, then He must be in TWO hypostases.

Is this really what EO believe?

In Christ who is One,
Raouf



Welcome back and PEACE Raouf,

I will post later a definition of "hypostasis" ( or a link to one) in the classical Greek sense that will help clear this definition bottle-neck.

Demetri
« Last Edit: June 22, 2004, 05:53:07 PM by +æ-ü+¦-â-ä+++¦+++«-é » Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Raouf
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 97



« Reply #100 on: June 22, 2004, 06:14:56 PM »

Welcome back and PEACE Raouf,

I will post later a definition of "hypostasis" ( or a link to one) in the classical Greek sense that will help clear this definition bottle-neck.

Demetri

Hello Demetri,

I can't yet say it's good to be back but we'll see! Smiley

I am not sure a definition of hypostasis will help us...I think you need to better define "physis".

The EO confess that Christ is IN two physis and IN two Wills. It seems you link "physis" with "ousia". "Ousia" is that which is common, like the Divine Essence or Human Nature.  Ousia does not conotate an individuated instance. So if you say Christ is in two ousia and two wills then He must have the entire human nature and human will within Him. But if Christ's human will is His own human will then it must be hypostatic. If so, then to say Christ is IN two wills must leave room for an interpretation that He is IN two hypostases.

I know that is not what EO say they believe but it is a perfectly logical extension and example of the limitations of language and terminology.  As such, I think the expression Christ is OF two natures and OF two wills (without confusion, alteration, separation, etc...) is much better!

It seems the WHOLE point of all our formulas and terminologies is to reject certain heresies...those being Eutychianism and Nestorianism.  As long as we keep on insisting on a single formula to the exclusion of all others, we will never get anywhere.

Consider St. Cyril, our common Father, who wrote the following AFTER the formula of reunion:

[Cyril] We say there is one Son, and that He has one nature even when he is
considered as having assumed flesh endowed with a rational soul. As I have
already said, He has made the human element His own. And this is the way,
NOT OTHERWISE, that we must consider that the same one is at once God and
man.

[Questioner] Then he does not have two natures? that of God and that of man?

[Cyril] Well, Godhead is one thing, and manhood is another thing, considered
in the perspective of their intrinsic beings, BUT in the case of Christ they
came together in a mysterious and incomprehensible union without confusion
or change. The manner of this union is entirely beyond conception.

[Questioner] But how from these two things, that is Godhead and manhood, can
we envisage a single Christ?

[Cyril] I think in no other way than as things which come together with each
other in an indivisible union beyond all conception, as I have already said.

[Questioner] Such as what?

[Cyril] Well, do we not say that a human being like ourselves is one, and
has a single nature, even though he is not homogenous but really composed of
two things, I mean soul and body?

[Questioner] We do.

[Cyril] And if someone takes the flesh on its own, separating its unity with
its own soul, and divides what was one into two, have they not destroyed the
proper conception of man?

[Questioner] But if we say that the Son (even considering his as
incarnate)has a single nature surely in is inevitable that we must admit a
confusion and a mixture here, as if he had hidden away a human nature in
Himself. For what would the nature of man be in the face of the pre-eminence
of the Godhead?

[Cyril] My friend, if anyone says that when we speak of the single nature of
God the Word incarnate and made man, we imply that a confusion or mixture
has occurred, then they are talking utter rubbish. No one could convict us
of saying this by the force of proper arguments...

St. Cyril "On the Unity of Christ (SVS Press)

I just don't understand how the EO can consider St. Cyril a great saint and Father of the Church and yet insist that his Christology is heretical and that his terminology ceased to be Orthodox in 451 AD.

In Christ,
Raouf
« Last Edit: June 22, 2004, 06:16:35 PM by Raouf » Logged

Flog your enemies with the Name of Jesus and let the remembrance of Jesus be present with each breath. - St. John Climacus
Raouf
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 97



« Reply #101 on: June 22, 2004, 06:19:26 PM »

Christ has two natures and two wills, that is othodox teaching, the teaching of the Ecumenical Councils.

Dear Ben,

No offense but if you don't have much to reply to, then better not! I don't see how what you said above advances our discussion in any way. I posted a question that showed a logical conclusion to the EO formula "IN two wills" and your reply was meant to say what???

In Christ,
Raouf
Logged

Flog your enemies with the Name of Jesus and let the remembrance of Jesus be present with each breath. - St. John Climacus
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #102 on: June 22, 2004, 08:42:55 PM »

Raouf,
At the risk of confusing these defintions further the link below to a post by Hieromonk Andrew Kostadis gives a good treatment of "hypostasis". I say confusion because his post is addressing the Trinity rather than Christology, but I have always felt the use of 'hypostasis' here or at least it's intended meaning was not understood by all -and that means some from both 'sides' Smiley

http://www.euphrosynoscafe.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1882&highlight=hypostasis+seraphim&sid=df67a4989a62b3c312de9dd072f84fcb

You bring up -å-à -â++ and +Ö will have to ponder what you're saying when I'm not so tired. Perhaps tomorrow morn.

Demetri
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Raouf
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 97



« Reply #103 on: June 23, 2004, 01:34:30 PM »

Dear Demetri,

I read the text at the link you provided. It seems to confirm my use of these terms in relation to Chalcedonian usage.

Did Christ carry within Him the Will of the entire/common human nature, or was His human Will his very own unique Will?  I assume you will answer the latter.

Then, if Christ is IN two physis (by which you mean ousia), and yet His will is His own, which means it must be hypostatic (otherwise He has the will and nature of all humanity), then your formula could be read that Christ is IN two Hypostases.

If our Fathers saw that there is no unhypostatic physis, then do you blame them for rejecting "IN two physis"? Did they misunderstand the Chalcedonians use of these terms? If you say yes, then is it POSSIBLE that the Chalcedonians also didn't QUITE understand the use of these terms by the Non-Chalcedonians?  Is the terminology holy and sacred or the truth being expressed?  What truth do the NC reject?  All Chalcedon has shown is a rejection of terms not truth.

Why do you reject "from two natures" or "of two natures" as being unorthodox? Or "one incarnate nature" as used by our common Father, St. Cyril - and not only our common Father but one precisely known for his great Christological contributions to the Church?

Why did Chalcedon reject these existing formulas and insist that the NEW formula is the ONLY Orthodox expression?

Can we today explain both these forumulas in a way that is Orthodox to both sides, in a way that fully rejects ALL forms of Eutychianism and Nestorianism?

If so, why is that a BAD thing? Do you believe the Holy Spririt is still active in the Church? Not is a way to introduce new doctrines or conflicting doctrines but in a way to help us preserve and understand what was always believed - although in a new time and in a new place?

In Christ,
Raouf
« Last Edit: June 23, 2004, 01:35:50 PM by Raouf » Logged

Flog your enemies with the Name of Jesus and let the remembrance of Jesus be present with each breath. - St. John Climacus
Rustaveli
Constant In Opal... Ultramarine
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Eastern Church
Posts: 126


Saint Shota Rustaveli


« Reply #104 on: June 23, 2004, 02:14:23 PM »

I've just received a copy of Fr. V.C. Samuel's volume The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined, which was quite highly recommended in another thread.

     Hee, hee![/b]    Cheesy

Should be a good read...
Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #105 on: June 23, 2004, 11:28:23 PM »

Raouf -

Does any human being possess a human nature that is "the nature of all humanity" (in the sense of "every last individual, concrete human nature")?

He possesses a human nature, which is a set of qualities common to all human beings, but he possesses it in concrete reality: in other words, it is his uniquely. He shares the natural qualities with all other human beings, but his possession of them makes them his.

Our Lord Jesus possesses a human nature in the same way.

If the will must be hypostatic, then surely there are three wills in the Holy Trinity, right?

These questions were dealt with by St. Maximus the Confessor in his Disputation with Pyrrhus, which is available here.

« Last Edit: June 24, 2004, 12:07:18 AM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Rustaveli
Constant In Opal... Ultramarine
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Eastern Church
Posts: 126


Saint Shota Rustaveli


« Reply #106 on: June 23, 2004, 11:41:02 PM »

By the way, Raouf -

I have very much been well-instructed by your intelligent and well-phrased presentation of the Coptic / Oriental Orthodox Christology, particularly in your inclusion of the teachings of Our Holy Father, St. Cyril.

Thanks, and do keep it up!

Your contributions are of great benefit to myself, who am a theological neophyte, and I wager to say to many who view this site ...  Cool

Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #107 on: June 23, 2004, 11:56:01 PM »

Quote
Raouf: Why did Chalcedon reject these existing formulas and insist that the NEW formula is the ONLY Orthodox expression?

Because "one nature" is incorrect.

Our Lord is one Divine Person and Hypostasis with two natures, human and divine.

To speak of one nature from two implies mixture or confusion, despite protests to the contrary.

To say "it is impossible to speak of two natures after the union" implies a "before the union" for the humanity of Christ, a thing which in effect tears our Lord in two.

There was no "before the union" for our Lord's human nature. How could there be?

The humanity of our Lord came into being as a result of the hypostatic union. Its existence is due to it; its center and subject is the One Person and Hypostasis of the Word.

For our Lord's human nature there is nothing but "after the union."

Thus, if it is impossible to speak of our Lord's human nature after the union, then it is impossible to speak of our Lord as a human being at all.

"One nature" is also incorrect in terms of Trinitarian theology.

Our Lord Jesus, as the Second Person of the Trinity, shares His divine nature with the Father and the Holy Spirit. How could he make that nature divino-human in His case alone without rendering himself different in essence from the other two Persons of the Holy Trinity?

The answer is that our Lord united the two natures in His Hypostasis, that which is unique to Himself in His Person.

The two natures are inseparably united in the One Divine Person of our Lord Jesus Christ, but they remain unmixed and unconfused: in other words, distinct.

They have not disappeared or dissolved in solution.

The Christology of Chalcedon was not new, as you claim. Its language had been anticipated by both Tertullian and St. Augustine in the West.

It was a further and correct development of what St. Cyril meant and should have said.

If, as Peter Farrington has written repeatedly, Non-Chalcedonians really mean hypostasis when they say nature, then how is one to avoid the conclusion that they believe our Lord is one Hypostasis from two hypostases?

If nature=hypostasis, then "one nature from two natures" = one hypostasis from two hypostases.



« Last Edit: June 23, 2004, 11:57:36 PM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #108 on: June 24, 2004, 12:27:56 AM »

Dear Linus,

First of all I would like to say that this is exactly the kind of posting style I envisioned as "polite and respectful yet firm."  Thank you for making the effort--I am sure it will go a long way to helping foster sincere dialogue.

here are some thoughts I threw together for discussion, and a disclaimer: I don't know if this is what I believe actually but I am tryign to sort out this confusing terminology, etc.

Quote
Because "one nature" is incorrect.

Our Lord is one Divine Person and Hypostasis with two natures, human and divine.

Right, but that's because the Fathers at Chalcedon chose that vocabulary: they could have chosen another.

Quote
To speak of one nature from two implies mixture or confusion, despite protests to the contrary.

I don't know if this is so; I think it suggests that the Logos took flesh to himself, and this assumed flesh is the same "substance" as the Logos before the incarnation.  If there were two natures, I could see how one might think that there was a change in the Godhead at the incarnation, but if there is one incarnate nature that seems to protect this.  Disclaimer: I am a Chalcedonian and think Chalcedon is fine, but I am just trying to see this from the Non-Chalcedonian point of view.

Quote
To say "it is impossible to speak of two natures after the union" implies a "before the union" for the humanity of Christ, a thing which in effect tears our Lord in two.

On the one hand, St Cyril would never say there was a "before the union" because Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God, the eternal God-man.  On the other hand, at a certain point according to the economy, the Logos took flesh. So in a sense there was a before chronologically but not in the sense of identity.

Quote
There was no "before the union" for our Lord's human nature. How could there be?

I think you are on to something here.  Jesus Christ is the creator of the world, not the "disincarnate Logos."  While the incarnation happened in time at a specific location and time, it was an eternally-prefigured event (lest there be a change in the Godhead).

Quote
The humanity of our Lord came into being as a result of the hypostatic union. Its existence is due to it; its center and subject is the One Person and Hypostasis of the Word.

Not sure we can go there.  The humanity of the Word always existed, but in a prefigurement.  We can't think about this in a chronological way, lest we introduce change into the Godhead.  

Quote
For our Lord's human nature there is nothing but "after the union."

But the human nature is dependent on the divinity, and is of the same "thing" because there is only one subject. So I could see one nature here, one incarnate nature, that is.

Quote
Thus, if it is impossible to speak of our Lord's human nature after the union, then it is impossible to speak of our Lord as a human being at all.

The Neo-Chalcedonians would make this very assertion, as did Fr John Meyendorff: The Logos took FLESH, the flesh of mankind, not an inviduated HUMAN BEING.  I don't necessarily agree, but it comes from Leontius of Byzantium, an influential Church writer of the 6th century.

Quote
"One nature" is also incorrect in terms of Trinitarian theology.

Our Lord Jesus, as the Second Person of the Trinity, shares His divine nature with the Father and the Holy Spirit. How could he make that nature divino-human in His case alone without rendering himself different in essence from the other two Persons of the Holy Trinity?

Because he took flesh, a flesh into which was imputed his already-existing properties as Jesus Christ, the eternal God-man.  Look at any icon of the creation of Adam: it's Jesus Christ creating him.

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Rustaveli
Constant In Opal... Ultramarine
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Eastern Church
Posts: 126


Saint Shota Rustaveli


« Reply #109 on: June 24, 2004, 12:35:21 AM »

I like this right here, ya'll...


[Cyril] Well, Godhead is one thing, and manhood is another thing, considered
in the perspective of their intrinsic beings, BUT in the case of Christ they
came together in a mysterious and incomprehensible union without confusion
or change. The manner of this union is entirely beyond conception.

Ah, but for a sense of mystery beyond mortal conception!!

Saint Cyril, pray for us!

Logged
Linus7
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,780



« Reply #110 on: June 24, 2004, 01:07:05 AM »

I've just received a copy of Fr. V.C. Samuel's volume The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined, which was quite highly recommended in another thread.

     Hee, hee![/b]    Cheesy

Should be a good read...

You might want to balance that read by checking out the following articles:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05019a.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05495a.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03555a.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05633a.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06098c.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10489b.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14597a.htm

The primary source documents for the articles are generally listed at the bottom of the page.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2004, 01:08:23 AM by Linus7 » Logged

The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
- Pope St. Hormisdas
Anastasios
Webdespota
Administrator
Merarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Old Calendarist
Posts: 10,440


Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Florina

anastasios0513
WWW
« Reply #111 on: June 24, 2004, 01:19:28 AM »

Disclaimer: Anything in the Catholic Encyclopedia is outdated (from 1913) and does not reflect the 81 years of serious scholarship that has occurred since then.  This is the encyclopedia that claims that St Photios died out of communion with Rome, for instance, which was only disproved in 1948 by Fr Francis Dvornik. So use with caution.  I read the Catholic Encyclopedia online for "beginner's level" stuff but you really need to read the stuff published since then by serious academic folks.

anastasios
Logged

Met. Demetrius's Enthronement

Disclaimer: Past posts reflect stages of my life before my baptism may not be accurate expositions of Orthodox teaching.

I served as an Orthodox priest from June 2008 to April 2013, before resigning for personal reasons
Rustaveli
Constant In Opal... Ultramarine
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Eastern Church
Posts: 126


Saint Shota Rustaveli


« Reply #112 on: June 24, 2004, 10:43:25 AM »

... Not to mention that such a source gushes forth from the Seven-Headed Beast Which Sits Upon The Hills of Rome!

 Wink

... just playin', Brethren and Sistrums...  Grin

Thanks for the references and advisement, Linus and Anastasios.
Logged
mourad
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 49


Mia, not mono!


« Reply #113 on: June 24, 2004, 10:52:35 AM »

the spirit of this forum is becoming quite quite enjoyable and pleasant, may God keep hearing the prayers of all those praying and working to make it a more profitable experience to all who visit.

God keep you all.
Logged
Raouf
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 97



« Reply #114 on: June 24, 2004, 11:37:04 AM »

Linus,

Rather than a line by line commentary, I believe the following addresses all of your points. Please let me know if I missed anything:

Hypostatic Union

St. Cyril insisted in the “hypostatic union”. What does it mean? It means a perfect and natural union between the Hypostasis of the Word and human nature. That is, the human nature was united to the Divine Hypostasis of the Word in a natural union.  The humanity became His own, or as we say in our Liturgy, “He made it ONE with His divinity”, not that humanity ceased to be humanity, but it is ONLY in the union that the humanity of Christ came to be.  There is no concept of Christ’s humanity apart from the hypostatic union.  Therefore, St. Cyril insisted that after the union, there can be no speak of two in Christ, since the union (the hypostatic, natural union) removes all division in Christ, although the properties of humanity and divinity are never confused. As such to say Christ IS two natures or IN two natures, according to St. Cyril goes directly against the concept of the hypostatic union.  FROM or OF two natures does NOT imply a time before the union but only speaks of the union itself - it is a union OF or FROM two natures, a hypostatic union. As such, since the two have come together into a hypostatic union, a natural union, then we can only speak of the one incarnate hypostasis of Christ or His one Incarnate nature.  

Again, “from” two does not imply in any way a pre-existent humanity in Christ.  There is no separate humanity in Christ either before OR after the unionGǪthere is no humanity in Christ APART from the union.  As such, how can we separate the two and speak of them independently when in reality such does not exist apart from the union?  Again, for St. Cyril the union abolishes all talk of separation.

Consider St. Severus' words:

"
Quote
Enough has, I think, been said about essence and hypostasis. But the name 'nature' is sometimes taken in place of essence', sometimes in place of hypostasis. For even the whole of mankind we call comprehensively 'nature', as it is indeed written: -½For all natures of beasts and of birds, and of reptiles and of things that are in the water are subjected and are made subject to human nature-+: and again we speak of one nature in reference to a single man, Paul for example or Peter, or maybe James. Where therefore we name all mankind one nature, we use the name 'nature' generically in place of 'essence'; but, where we say that there is one nature of Paul, the name 'nature' is employed in place of 'individual hypostasis'. So also we call the Holy Trinity one nature, employing the term 'nature' in place of the general designation 'essence'; as Gregory the Theologian the bishop of Nazianzus also said in the sermon on the Holy Pentecost: -½Confess the Trinity to be of one Godhead, my friends; or, if you like, of one nature; and we will ask for you from the Spirit the expression 'God'-+. But, when we say 'one incarnate nature of God the Word', as Athanasius the prop of the truth and the apostolic faith said in the books on the Incarnation of the Word, we use 'nature' in place of 'individual designation', denoting the one hypostasis of the Word himself, like that of Peter also or of Paul, or of any other single man. Wherefore also, when we say 'one nature which became incarnate', we do not say it absolutely, but by adding 'one nature of the Word himself clearly denote the one hypostasis. But the very men who blasphemously call the one Christ two natures use the name 'nature' in place of 'individual designation', saying that the Word of God is one nature, and the man as they say from Mary another. For they do not reach such a height of fatuity as to say that they are using the name 'natures' in place of 'general designation', I mean in the same sense as essence: for, if the Holy Trinity is one nature, and all mankind one nature, in the same sense as anything which is shown to be so on this principle, the Holy Trinity will be found (to say a very absurd thing) to have become incarnate in all mankind, that is the human race."

and again:

Quote
"Do you call the flesh possessing an intelligent soul, which God the Word voluntarily united to himself hypostatically without any change, a specimen or a generality, that is one soul-possessing hypostasis, or the whole human generality? It is manifest that, if you wish to give a right-minded answer, you will say one soul-possessing body. Accordingly we say that from it and the hypostasis of God the Word the ineffable union was made: for the whole of the Godhead and the whole of humanity in general were not joined in a natural union, but special hypostases. And the holy and wise Cyril plainly witnesses to us in that in the third chapter or anathema he spoke thus: -½Whoever divides the one Christ into hypostases after the union, associating them in association of honour or of authority only, and not rather in junction of natural union, let him be anathema-+. And again in the Scholia the same says: -½Hence we shall learn that the hypostases have remained without confusion-+. Accordingly the natural union was not of generalities, but of hypostases of which Emmanuel was composed. And do not think that hypostases in all cases have a distinct person assigned to them, so that we should be thought, like the impious Nestorius, to speak of a union of persons, and to run counter to the God-inspired words of the holy Cyril, who in the second letter to the same Nestorius speaks thus: -½But that it should be so will in no way help the right principle of faith, even if some men spread about a union of persons. For the Scripture did not say that God the Word united to himself the person of a man, but that he became flesh-+. When hypostases subsist by individual subsistence, as for instance, those of Peter and of Paul, whom the authority of the apostleship united, then there will be a union of persons and a brotherly association, not a natural junction of one hypostasis made up out of two that is free from confusion. For this is what those who adhere to the foul doctrines of Nestorius are convicted of saying with regard to the divine Humanization also. They first make the babe exist by himself separately, so that a distinct person is even assigned to him, and then by attaching God the Word to him impiously introduce a union of persons into the faith. This Gregory the Theologian also rejected by saying in the great letter to Cledonius: -½Whoever says that the man was formed, and God afterwards crept in is condemned: for this is not a birth of God, but an escape from birth-+. But, when hypostases do not subsist in individual subsistence, as also in the case of the man among us, I mean him who is composed of soul and body, but are without confusion recognised in union and composition, being distinguished by the intellect only and displaying one hypostasis made out of two, such a union none will be so uninstructed as to call one of persons. Though the hypostasis of God the Word existed before, or rather  was before all ages and times, being eternally with God both the Father and the Holy Spirit, yet still the flesh possessing an intelligent soul which he united to him did not exist before the union with him, nor was a distinct person assigned to it. And the great Athanasius bears witness, who in the letter to Jovinian the king says: -½As soon as there is flesh, there is at once flesh of God the Word; and, as soon as there is soul-possessing and rational flesh, there is at once soul-possessing rational flesh of God the Word: for in him also it acquired subsistence-+. And the holy Cyril also testifies, addressing the impious Diodorus as follows: -½My excellent man, I say that you are shooting forth unlearned words much affected with what is abhorrent. For the holy body was from Mary, but still at the very beginning of its concretion or subsistence in the womb it was made holy, as the body of Christ, and no one can see any time at which it was not his, but rather simple as you say and the same as this flesh of other men-+. Following these God-inspired words of the holy fathers, and confessing our Lord Jesus Christ to be of two natures, regard the distinct hypostases themselves of which Emmanuel was composed, and the natural junction of these, and do not go up to generalities and essences, of the whole of the Godhead and humanity in general: for it is manifest that the whole of the Godhead is seen in the Trinity, and humanity in general draws the mind to the whole human race. How therefore is it anything but ridiculous and impious for us to say that the Trinity was united in hypostasis to the race of mankind, when the holy Scriptures say more plainly than a trumpet, -½The Word became flesh and dwelt in us-+, that is that one of the three hypostases who was rationally and hypostatically united to soul-possessing flesh? But neither do we deny, as we have also written in other letters on different occasions, that we often find men designating hypostases by the name of essence. Hence Gregory the Theologian named hypostatic union union in essence in the letter to Cledonius which we have just mentioned, speaking thus: -½Whoever says that he worked by grace as in a prophet, but not that he was united and fashioned together with him in essence, may he be bereft of the excellent operation, or rather may he be full of the contrary-+. And the wise Cyril in the second letter to Succensus calls the manhood which was hypostatically united to God the Word essence, saying: -½For, if after saying 'one nature  of the Word' we had stopped and not added 'incarnate', but set the dispensation as it were outside, they would perhaps in a way have a plausible argument when they pretend to ask, 'Where is the perfection in manhood? or how was the essence after our model made up?' But, since the perfection in manhood and the characteristic of our essence has been introduced by the fact that we said 'incarnate', let them be silent, since they have leaned upon the staff of a reed-+"

Our Human Nature

I am a union of flesh and soul and both are unique ousias, but it is in their union, a natural union, that I am a person.  It is MY flesh and MY soul, and as such it would be ridiculous to speak of two, since I am one hypostasis OF or FROM two natures.  Both my flesh and my soul become hypostatic in the union since they are MINE.  In the same way the humanity of Christ became His own!  It became His own, however, only in the union with the Hypostasis of the Word.  If physis means ousia and ousia only refers to the common not the personal then how can Christ be one divine hypostasis IN two ousia, humanity and divinity?  How then has the ousia of the Christ’s humanity become His own humanity, there by becoming the Flesh of the Hypostasis of the Word?  Again, this terminology is weak in confessing the “hypostatic union” which was for St. Cyril crucial to Christ’s unity and our salvation.

The Trinity

There is only One Divine Ousia, which belongs to the Godhead and as such the three hypostasis of God each share the One Will of the Divine Essence. But there is no Divine Essence apart from the three Hypostasis of the Godhead. There is no divine ousia apart from Father, Son and Holy Spirit. In the case of humanity however, the ousia of the flesh does not exist apart from its union with the soul and in this union, every human being becomes a hypostasis with his own will.  There can be no human ousia apart from a human hypostasis. So if you say Christ is in the ousia of man and in the ousia of God, you are implying the Christ is in two hypostasis since Christ’s humanity was flesh endowed with a rational soul, including a human will. How then can we speak of Christ’s humanity apart from its natural union with His divinity without implying two hypostases?  Rather, Christ’s humanity is made one with His divinity and only in the union does Christ’s humanity become hypostatic, in its union with the hypostasis of the Word.  From two natures does not imply a time before the union or a pre-existent hypostatic humanity of Christ (hence your objection), but rather quite the contrary, it implies that the union is a hypostatic union, a union of (or from) the hypostasis of the Word, pre-existing in all eternity, with a flesh endowed with a rational soul, in the womb of the Holy Theotokos!  In that very union, Christ’s humanity becomes HIS humanity and is therefore a real and hypostatic humanity, that is, not a generic humanity, but His very own, the flesh of God!  If then, the two have come together in a perfect hypostatic and natural union, that how can we separate the one Christ and say He is two or operating in two?

In Christ,
Raouf
« Last Edit: June 24, 2004, 11:41:50 AM by Raouf » Logged

Flog your enemies with the Name of Jesus and let the remembrance of Jesus be present with each breath. - St. John Climacus
Tags: Chalcedon Chalcedon polemics cheval mort 
Pages: « 1 2 3  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 0.121 seconds with 52 queries.