OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 23, 2014, 11:53:56 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   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: St. Athanasius and a "Union of Persons" in Christ?  (Read 2000 times) Average Rating: 5
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


St. Severus of Antioch, Crown of the Syrians

Partisangirl
WWW
« on: October 17, 2011, 09:06:40 PM »

Another user posted this quote from Leontius of Byzantium a few years ago, which says:

We likewise give testimony in advance that it's often possible to find names that change in case of misuse-names for nature, essence, hypostasis, and person in the Incarnation-for they aren't always properly applied. The great Athanasius confidently affirms a "union of persons" in Christ, and Proclus one of "hypostases". The blessed Cyril said "if anyone divides the hypostases after the union...". If, then, our opponents suppose that these expressions are used in the literal sense, then notice what follows: the Nestorians are right when they always use these texts as a defense against us, asserting a union of hypostases and persons in the Incarnation. But how could the father Cyril have used this expression in their sense, since he says in his fourth anathema "If anyone apportions sayings to two persons or hypostases...", and so on, though in the Letter to the Emperor Theodosius, but also to John of Antioch, he says: "We recognize that theologians hold some evangelical and apostolic texts about the Lord to be common, as concerning one person, but distinguish others of them, as concerning two natures."

Now, I know why St. Cyril speaks of "a union of hypostases" in Christ because St. Severus of Antioch explains the meaning of the word "hypostasis" in the Cyrillian christology (see this), but did St. Athanasius really teach "a union of persons" like Leontius claims he does? I find that hard to believe.
« Last Edit: October 17, 2011, 09:08:49 PM by Severian » Logged


In solidarity with the "Nasara" (i.e. Christians) of Iraq & Syria

On hiatus from posting. PM me if you wish to contact me. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact

NOTE: Some of my older posts may not reflect my current views
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,758


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2011, 09:09:55 PM »

"Union of persons" may be a wonky translation of "Prosopic union".
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"Simply put, if you’re not willing to take what is dearest to you, whether plans or people, and kiss it goodbye, you can’t be my disciple."
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


St. Severus of Antioch, Crown of the Syrians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2011, 09:15:51 PM »

"Union of persons" may be a wonky translation of "Prosopic union".
Even if that were the case, the "prosoponic union" is the heretical teaching of Nestorius.
Logged


In solidarity with the "Nasara" (i.e. Christians) of Iraq & Syria

On hiatus from posting. PM me if you wish to contact me. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact

NOTE: Some of my older posts may not reflect my current views
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #3 on: October 17, 2011, 10:08:00 PM »

"Union of persons" may be a wonky translation of "Prosopic union".
Even if that were the case, the "prosoponic union" is the heretical teaching of Nestorius.

I thought some used hypostasis and ousia interchangeably. Not that we EO do now. OO, I don't know. But, at least what I understand by hypostatic union is the hypostasis of the Word took on human nature, uniting the nature, the soul and body to his hypostasis, so his hypostasis did not join to another hypostasis. I thought both EO and OO held this notion.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #4 on: October 17, 2011, 11:31:13 PM »

"Union of persons" may be a wonky translation of "Prosopic union".
Even if that were the case, the "prosoponic union" is the heretical teaching of Nestorius.

I thought some used hypostasis and ousia interchangeably. Not that we EO do now. OO, I don't know. But, at least what I understand by hypostatic union is the hypostasis of the Word took on human nature, uniting the nature, the soul and body to his hypostasis, so his hypostasis did not join to another hypostasis. I thought both EO and OO held this notion.

Yes. Even if St. Athanasius did use the phrase 'union of prosopons', one would want to look at the full context. My understanding is that prior to the Nestorian controversy, 'prosopon' and 'hypostases' were largely synonyms. It was only with the Christological controversies of the 4th-7th centuries that theologians started to make a distinction in their usage and they did so specifically so that they could clearly express the difference between Orthodox belief and Nestorianism, semi-Nestorianism, Monophysitism (literally defined) etc. Reading our (either EO or OO) post-Ephesus/Chalcedon/Constantinople II understanding of the terms back into an Athanasian text would be completely anachronistic. For St. Athanasius 'union of prosopons' and 'union of hypostases' might very well have meant the same thing--and anyone who's read 'On the Incarnation' knows that whatever phrase he used, what he meant by it is the Orthodox teaching.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,758


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #5 on: October 18, 2011, 02:10:37 AM »

"Union of persons" may be a wonky translation of "Prosopic union".
Even if that were the case, the "prosoponic union" is the heretical teaching of Nestorius.
It became associated with Nestorius because of his use of prosopon to mean a mask or manifestation rather than a real being. But it was not always so, especially in the west, which used "Persona" to refer to persons of the Trinity.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"Simply put, if you’re not willing to take what is dearest to you, whether plans or people, and kiss it goodbye, you can’t be my disciple."
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


St. Severus of Antioch, Crown of the Syrians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #6 on: October 18, 2011, 06:28:54 AM »

"Union of persons" may be a wonky translation of "Prosopic union".
Even if that were the case, the "prosoponic union" is the heretical teaching of Nestorius.

I thought some used hypostasis and ousia interchangeably. Not that we EO do now. OO, I don't know. But, at least what I understand by hypostatic union is the hypostasis of the Word took on human nature, uniting the nature, the soul and body to his hypostasis, so his hypostasis did not join to another hypostasis. I thought both EO and OO held this notion.

Yes. Even if St. Athanasius did use the phrase 'union of prosopons', one would want to look at the full context. My understanding is that prior to the Nestorian controversy, 'prosopon' and 'hypostases' were largely synonyms. It was only with the Christological controversies of the 4th-7th centuries that theologians started to make a distinction in their usage and they did so specifically so that they could clearly express the difference between Orthodox belief and Nestorianism, semi-Nestorianism, Monophysitism (literally defined) etc. Reading our (either EO or OO) post-Ephesus/Chalcedon/Constantinople II understanding of the terms back into an Athanasian text would be completely anachronistic. For St. Athanasius 'union of prosopons' and 'union of hypostases' might very well have meant the same thing--and anyone who's read 'On the Incarnation' knows that whatever phrase he used, what he meant by it is the Orthodox teaching.
I realize that. And even St. Eustathius of Antioch seems to hold to a "two persons united" theology, but he was of the Antiochene school. But I was curious if St. Athanasius used the phrase "a union of prosopons". Being that he held an Alexandrian Christology, I find it hard to believe.
Logged


In solidarity with the "Nasara" (i.e. Christians) of Iraq & Syria

On hiatus from posting. PM me if you wish to contact me. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact

NOTE: Some of my older posts may not reflect my current views
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #7 on: October 18, 2011, 10:30:53 AM »

"Union of persons" may be a wonky translation of "Prosopic union".
Even if that were the case, the "prosoponic union" is the heretical teaching of Nestorius.

Heresy is in the meaning, not the words. Words change in meaning over time. People use clunky expressions to express true meanings. Sometimes they even use expressions that sound heretical, and/or make us cringe. The question is, in context, what do they mean? Yes, words are important, and yes, there is an interplay between the words we use and our understanding of the meaning. But do you really think Athanasius meant the same thing as Nestorius? No. Got to get past this verbofundamentalism.
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
JLatimer
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Posts: 1,202



« Reply #8 on: October 18, 2011, 10:32:38 AM »

"Union of persons" may be a wonky translation of "Prosopic union".
Even if that were the case, the "prosoponic union" is the heretical teaching of Nestorius.

I thought some used hypostasis and ousia interchangeably. Not that we EO do now. OO, I don't know. But, at least what I understand by hypostatic union is the hypostasis of the Word took on human nature, uniting the nature, the soul and body to his hypostasis, so his hypostasis did not join to another hypostasis. I thought both EO and OO held this notion.

Yes. Even if St. Athanasius did use the phrase 'union of prosopons', one would want to look at the full context. My understanding is that prior to the Nestorian controversy, 'prosopon' and 'hypostases' were largely synonyms. It was only with the Christological controversies of the 4th-7th centuries that theologians started to make a distinction in their usage and they did so specifically so that they could clearly express the difference between Orthodox belief and Nestorianism, semi-Nestorianism, Monophysitism (literally defined) etc. Reading our (either EO or OO) post-Ephesus/Chalcedon/Constantinople II understanding of the terms back into an Athanasian text would be completely anachronistic. For St. Athanasius 'union of prosopons' and 'union of hypostases' might very well have meant the same thing--and anyone who's read 'On the Incarnation' knows that whatever phrase he used, what he meant by it is the Orthodox teaching.
I realize that. And even St. Eustathius of Antioch seems to hold to a "two persons united" theology, but he was of the Antiochene school. But I was curious if St. Athanasius used the phrase "a union of prosopons". Being that he held an Alexandrian Christology, I find it hard to believe.

Here I think what Isa likes to say needs to be said. Athanasius held an Orthodox Christology.
Logged

1 Samuel 25:22 (KJV)
So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #9 on: October 18, 2011, 02:15:07 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!



I thought some used hypostasis and ousia interchangeably. Not that we EO do now. OO, I don't know.

In the language contemporary to Saint Athanasius this very well may have some merit to it.  I would honestly suppose that this is just a misinterpretation and also one that may be simply biased from a Chalcedonian perspective.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #10 on: October 18, 2011, 02:35:54 PM »

"Union of persons" may be a wonky translation of "Prosopic union".
Even if that were the case, the "prosoponic union" is the heretical teaching of Nestorius.

Identical words does not equal identical teaching.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


St. Severus of Antioch, Crown of the Syrians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #11 on: October 18, 2011, 02:36:31 PM »

"Union of persons" may be a wonky translation of "Prosopic union".
Even if that were the case, the "prosoponic union" is the heretical teaching of Nestorius.

Heresy is in the meaning, not the words. Words change in meaning over time. People use clunky expressions to express true meanings. Sometimes they even use expressions that sound heretical, and/or make us cringe. The question is, in context, what do they mean? Yes, words are important, and yes, there is an interplay between the words we use and our understanding of the meaning. But do you really think Athanasius meant the same thing as Nestorius? No. Got to get past this verbofundamentalism.
I do not think I was resorting to "verbofundamentalism". Of course I do not think St. Athanasius was a Nestorian! I was simply remarking how odd it would have been should an Alexandrian theologian speak of "a union of persons", assuming that St. Athanasius actually did.

We don't even know if St. Athanasius ever did teach a union persons. All we have is Leontius' word for it and he doesn't provide a reference.
Logged


In solidarity with the "Nasara" (i.e. Christians) of Iraq & Syria

On hiatus from posting. PM me if you wish to contact me. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact

NOTE: Some of my older posts may not reflect my current views
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


St. Severus of Antioch, Crown of the Syrians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #12 on: October 18, 2011, 02:38:35 PM »

"Union of persons" may be a wonky translation of "Prosopic union".
Even if that were the case, the "prosoponic union" is the heretical teaching of Nestorius.

Identical words does not equal identical teaching.
Good point. When I called "prosopic union" heretical I meant Nestorius' take on the phrase, not St. Athanasius' (alleged?) use of it.

But does St. Athanasius speak of a "prosopic union" or a "union of persons"? I do wish Leontius provided a source.
Logged


In solidarity with the "Nasara" (i.e. Christians) of Iraq & Syria

On hiatus from posting. PM me if you wish to contact me. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact

NOTE: Some of my older posts may not reflect my current views
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


St. Severus of Antioch, Crown of the Syrians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #13 on: October 18, 2011, 02:49:01 PM »

It became associated with Nestorius because of his use of prosopon to mean a mask or manifestation rather than a real being. But it was not always so, especially in the west, which used "Persona" to refer to persons of the Trinity.
True. If St. Athanasius used the word "prosopon" to mean "entity" or "individuation" (much like the way Sts. Cyril, Severus, and -it would seem- Proclus use the word hypostasis) rather than "identity/mask" then his concept of a "prosopic union" could be comparable to St. Severus' "non-self-subsistent human hypostasis" theory or the "en-hypostasia" theory of John Damascene.

St. Cyril condemns those who "divide the hypostases" in Christ (cf. third anathema to Nestorius). He also says "the natures or hypostases continued to subsist unchanged (after the union)" (cf. Scholion on the Incarnation). But for St. Cyril "hypostasis" meant "particular existence" and not "mask/identity". So perhaps St. Athanasius uses the word "prosopon" the same way St. Cyril uses "hypostasis".
« Last Edit: October 18, 2011, 03:01:32 PM by Severian » Logged


In solidarity with the "Nasara" (i.e. Christians) of Iraq & Syria

On hiatus from posting. PM me if you wish to contact me. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact

NOTE: Some of my older posts may not reflect my current views
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #14 on: October 18, 2011, 03:31:22 PM »

Leontius says προσωπων ενωσιν.

I am trying to see where he might have taken Athanasius as saying this.
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


St. Severus of Antioch, Crown of the Syrians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #15 on: October 19, 2011, 06:37:20 PM »

--bump--
Logged


In solidarity with the "Nasara" (i.e. Christians) of Iraq & Syria

On hiatus from posting. PM me if you wish to contact me. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact

NOTE: Some of my older posts may not reflect my current views
Severian
God save Egypt, Syria & Iraq
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Coptic/Egyptian Orthodoxy
Posts: 5,039


St. Severus of Antioch, Crown of the Syrians

Partisangirl
WWW
« Reply #16 on: October 20, 2011, 09:21:59 PM »

--bump--
Logged


In solidarity with the "Nasara" (i.e. Christians) of Iraq & Syria

On hiatus from posting. PM me if you wish to contact me. Forgive me if my posts have lacked humility or tact

NOTE: Some of my older posts may not reflect my current views
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #17 on: October 21, 2011, 04:27:27 AM »

Lol!

Unless it is possible to determine what Leontius was reading when he understood St Athanasius to refer to a union of persons then it is difficult to add more.

It is certainly the case that terms have been used very loosely to describe different things and it is not usually wise to assume that the same term is always used in the same way. It would be possible for St Athanasius to speak of a personal union (not likely a union of persons), but as this became contaminated by the views of the Easterns it was less useful to speak in such a way.

Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #18 on: October 21, 2011, 10:17:41 AM »

Lol!

Unless it is possible to determine what Leontius was reading when he understood St Athanasius to refer to a union of persons then it is difficult to add more.

It is certainly the case that terms have been used very loosely to describe different things and it is not usually wise to assume that the same term is always used in the same way. It would be possible for St Athanasius to speak of a personal union (not likely a union of persons), but as this became contaminated by the views of the Easterns it was less useful to speak in such a way.
Well said, Father.

Of course, it can be well said elsewhere as well.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Father Peter
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: British Orthodox Church within the Coptic Orthodox Patriarchate
Posts: 2,605



WWW
« Reply #19 on: October 21, 2011, 10:28:58 AM »

It can surely be said everywhere, and ignoring the fact has led to a great many misunderstandings and misrepresentations.

I don't mind someone choosing a heresy if they really must, but it would be a bad thing for me to insist on them being heretics, and acting accordingly, if in fact their heresy was a matter of misrepresentation based on a failure to comprehend (and on the other hand to explain) the substance of what was believed.

I say that especially with regard to relations with the Catholic Church and even the Church of the East.
Logged

Lord have mercy upon me a sinner
http://www.orthodoxmedway.org

My blog - http://anorthodoxpriest.blogspot.co.uk

The poster formerly known as peterfarrington
Tags: St. Athanasius Christology 
Pages: 1   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 0.096 seconds with 46 queries.