Topic: Themistius and the Agnoetae

[zekarja]

Certainly when He says in the Gospel concerning Himself in His human character, ‘Father, the hour is come, glorify Thy Son,’ it is plain that He knows also the hour of the end of all things, as the Word, though as man He is ignorant of it, for ignorance is proper to man, and especially ignorance of these things. Moreover this is proper to the Saviour’s love of man; for since He was made man, He is not ashamed, because of the flesh which is ignorant, to say ‘I know not,’ that He may shew that knowing as God, He is but ignorant according to the flesh. And therefore He said not, ‘no, not the Son of God knows,’ lest the Godhead should seem ignorant, but simply, ‘no, not the Son,’ that the ignorance might be the Son’s as born from among men. - St Athanasius the Great

[NicholasMyra]

Certainly when He says in the Gospel concerning Himself in His human character, ‘Father, the hour is come, glorify Thy Son,’ it is plain that He knows also the hour of the end of all things, as the Word, though as man He is ignorant of it, for ignorance is proper to man, and especially ignorance of these things. Moreover this is proper to the Saviour’s love of man; for since He was made man, He is not ashamed, because of the flesh which is ignorant, to say ‘I know not,’ that He may shew that knowing as God, He is but ignorant according to the flesh. And therefore He said not, ‘no, not the Son of God knows,’ lest the Godhead should seem ignorant, but simply, ‘no, not the Son,’ that the ignorance might be the Son’s as born from among men. - St Athanasius the Great

What I like is that St. Athanasius stops his explanation right where it should end. He doesn't try to parse it out too close to the bone, thus preserving the incomprehensible truths of the incarnation.

[zekarja]

Now why it was that, though He knew, He did not tell His disciples plainly at that time, no one may be curious where He has been silent; for ‘Who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been His counsellor?’ but why, though He knew, He said, ‘no, not the Son knows,’ this I think none of the faithful is ignorant, viz. that He made this as those other declarations as man by reason of the flesh. For this as before is not the Word’s deficiency, but of that human nature whose property it is to be ignorant. And this again will be well seen by honestly examining into the occasion, when and to whom the Saviour spoke thus. Not then when the heaven was made by Him, nor when He was with the Father Himself, the Word ‘disposing all things,’ nor before He became man did He say it, but when ‘the Word became flesh.’ On this account it is reasonable to ascribe to His manhood everything which, after He became man, He speaks humanly. For it is proper to the Word to know what was made, nor be ignorant either of the beginning or of the end of these (for the works are His), and He knows how many things He wrought, and the limit of their consistence. - St Athanasius the Great

[NicholasMyra]

When Christ said "nor the Son", he must've coughed "(en theoria in his humanity)" under his breath, but St. John didn't hear him.  

Once again, St. Athanasius says it better than OC.net.

[orthonorm]

What you are saying is NOT what the Fathers say.

There are lots of mental games we can play wondering about this and that. But as Orthodox we begin and end our considerations with the instruction of the Fathers, and they say clearly that Christ had all knowledge and that he did know the hour.

Are you saying that you think the Fathers are wrong?

So are you now willing to debate? You didn't want to earlier. Or do you just want to accuse Nick's of lacking your "Patristic Mind".

Again, you've consistently shown a pattern in argumentation that lacks much substance other than quote mining.

I would like to discuss the assumptions you bring to the table. And the assumptions the Fathers brought to the table.

And that the Fathers are not infallible.

And no one "begins and ends" anywhere or with anything, this is naive right from the get go.

Again, I would love to discuss your hermeneutic. It needs some serious working out.

[Father Peter]

Orthonorm, why don't you start your own thread rather than take over this one?

I find it odd that several people want to have debates without reference and submission to the Fathers. Really odd.

Why would I want to elevate my own opinions above the Fathers? Why would anyone who is Orthodox?

Anyhow, if you want a patristic free thread then go ahead and start one.

[zekarja]

I've found that Sts Athanasius, John Chrysostom, and Basil the Great , besides those posted by Father Peter, all agreed that God the Word knew the hour.

[NicholasMyra]

I've found that Sts Athanasius, John Chrysostom, and Basil the Great , besides those posted by Father Peter, all agreed that God the Word knew the hour.

Yes, but they affirm more.

[Father Peter]

St Severus says that he begins and ends with the thought of St Cyril, and remains rooted in his words like a ship to an anchor.

[Father Peter]

What more do you think they affirm?

[zekarja]

I've found that Sts Athanasius, John Chrysostom, and Basil the Great , besides those posted by Father Peter, all agreed that God the Word knew the hour.

Yes, but they affirm more.

What do you mean by "more"?

[orthonorm]

Orthonorm, why don't you start your own thread rather than take over this one?

I find it odd that several people want to have debates without reference and submission to the Fathers. Really odd.

Why would I want to elevate my own opinions above the Fathers? Why would anyone who is Orthodox?

Anyhow, if you want a patristic free thread then go ahead and start one.

Not really addressing any of my post, which rhetorically was just to point out you didn't want to have a discussion here outside the merits of your collecting witnesses and making translations for your edification and others.

I understood that earlier and think it is wonderful. Really, I wish you would gloss more of the Fathers as has been mentioned many of the versions in English translation read horribly. And what you have translated or found read quite well.

However, the rhetorical point I am making is that you seem to be OK waving your Patristic stick at Nick (I won't start rhyming) even to the point of in an unrelated thread of asking about whether he discussed Christology with his Priest upon hearing he was becoming a Catechumen this weekend rather than congratulating him.

If you had legitimate pastoral concerns for his understanding Christology as the Church teaches it, which I can understand, you two obviously are in disagreement over more than a few salient issues, you could have PM'd him. Instead you took the chance of the ostensibly joyous new not to do much more than to take a shot and a rather cheap one at him.

And I saw the back and forth between Nick and zekarja and was underwhelmed.

Once you threw your hat into the ring, I thought perhaps the rules here had changed, but I was wrong. Rather than looking for a legitimate debate not frame entirely by how you would choose to do so, your question to Nick was merely rhetorical.

I got the picture now.

Again your rhetoricals show you ought to start that thread. Cause your understanding of understanding could use some help.

Till then.

Oh wait . . . you are in debate . . . but not here.

It is confusing.

I've made my point.

[NicholasMyra]

I've found that Sts Athanasius, John Chrysostom, and Basil the Great , besides those posted by Father Peter, all agreed that God the Word knew the hour.

Yes, but they affirm more.

What do you mean by "more"?

St. Athanasius doesn't stop his discourse with "Yeah, God the Word knew the hour." He goes on to explain that it is acceptable to say he was ignorant in some sense, but not in other senses.

[orthonorm]

St Severus says that he begins and ends with the thought of St Cyril, and remains rooted in his words like a ship to an anchor.

A lovely simile, although a bit confused given the earlier clause. And certainly an exuberant embellishment.

You do know that is figurative language.

And if his thought truly began and ended with St. Cyril. Why write a single word?

[zekarja]

More St Athanasius from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxi.ii.iv.vi.html :

And concerning the day and the hour He was not willing to say according to His divine nature, ‘I know,’ but after the flesh, ‘I know not,’ for the sake of the flesh which was ignorant3133, as I have said before; lest they should ask Him further, and then either He should have to pain the disciples by not speaking, or by speaking might act to the prejudice of them and us all. For whatever He does, that altogether He does for our sakes, since also for us ‘the Word became flesh.’ For us therefore He said ‘No, not the Son knoweth;’ and neither was He untrue in thus saying (for He said humanly, as man, ‘I know not’), nor did He suffer the disciples to force Him to speak, for by saying ‘I know not’ He stopped their inquiries.
[...]
The Son then did know, as being the Word; for He implied this in what He said,—‘I know but it is not for you to know;’ for it was for your sakes that sitting also on the mount I said according to the flesh, ‘No, not the Son knoweth,’ for the profit of you and all. For it is profitable to you to hear so much both of the Angels and of the Son, because of the deceivers which shall be afterwards; that though demons should be transfigured as Angels, and should attempt to speak concerning the end, you should not believe, since they are ignorant; and that, if Antichrist too, disguising himself, should say, ‘I am Christ,’ and should try in his turn to speak of that day and end, to deceive the hearers, ye, having these words from Me, ‘No, not the Son,’ may disbelieve him also.

[orthonorm]

More St Athanasius from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxi.ii.iv.vi.html :

And concerning the day and the hour He was not willing to say according to His divine nature, ‘I know,’ but after the flesh, ‘I know not,’ for the sake of the flesh which was ignorant3133, as I have said before; lest they should ask Him further, and then either He should have to pain the disciples by not speaking, or by speaking might act to the prejudice of them and us all. For whatever He does, that altogether He does for our sakes, since also for us ‘the Word became flesh.’ For us therefore He said ‘No, not the Son knoweth;’ and neither was He untrue in thus saying (for He said humanly, as man, ‘I know not’), nor did He suffer the disciples to force Him to speak, for by saying ‘I know not’ He stopped their inquiries.
[...]
The Son then did know, as being the Word; for He implied this in what He said,—‘I know but it is not for you to know;’ for it was for your sakes that sitting also on the mount I said according to the flesh, ‘No, not the Son knoweth,’ for the profit of you and all. For it is profitable to you to hear so much both of the Angels and of the Son, because of the deceivers which shall be afterwards; that though demons should be transfigured as Angels, and should attempt to speak concerning the end, you should not believe, since they are ignorant; and that, if Antichrist too, disguising himself, should say, ‘I am Christ,’ and should try in his turn to speak of that day and end, to deceive the hearers, ye, having these words from Me, ‘No, not the Son,’ may disbelieve him also.

How do you all read these without getting an immediate headache? srsly?

[zekarja]

More St Athanasius from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxi.ii.iv.vi.html :

And concerning the day and the hour He was not willing to say according to His divine nature, ‘I know,’ but after the flesh, ‘I know not,’ for the sake of the flesh which was ignorant3133, as I have said before; lest they should ask Him further, and then either He should have to pain the disciples by not speaking, or by speaking might act to the prejudice of them and us all. For whatever He does, that altogether He does for our sakes, since also for us ‘the Word became flesh.’ For us therefore He said ‘No, not the Son knoweth;’ and neither was He untrue in thus saying (for He said humanly, as man, ‘I know not’), nor did He suffer the disciples to force Him to speak, for by saying ‘I know not’ He stopped their inquiries.
[...]
The Son then did know, as being the Word; for He implied this in what He said,—‘I know but it is not for you to know;’ for it was for your sakes that sitting also on the mount I said according to the flesh, ‘No, not the Son knoweth,’ for the profit of you and all. For it is profitable to you to hear so much both of the Angels and of the Son, because of the deceivers which shall be afterwards; that though demons should be transfigured as Angels, and should attempt to speak concerning the end, you should not believe, since they are ignorant; and that, if Antichrist too, disguising himself, should say, ‘I am Christ,’ and should try in his turn to speak of that day and end, to deceive the hearers, ye, having these words from Me, ‘No, not the Son,’ may disbelieve him also.

How do you all read these without getting an immediate headache? srsly?

I suffer from headaches daily.

[orthonorm]

More St Athanasius from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxi.ii.iv.vi.html :

And concerning the day and the hour He was not willing to say according to His divine nature, ‘I know,’ but after the flesh, ‘I know not,’ for the sake of the flesh which was ignorant3133, as I have said before; lest they should ask Him further, and then either He should have to pain the disciples by not speaking, or by speaking might act to the prejudice of them and us all. For whatever He does, that altogether He does for our sakes, since also for us ‘the Word became flesh.’ For us therefore He said ‘No, not the Son knoweth;’ and neither was He untrue in thus saying (for He said humanly, as man, ‘I know not’), nor did He suffer the disciples to force Him to speak, for by saying ‘I know not’ He stopped their inquiries.
[...]
The Son then did know, as being the Word; for He implied this in what He said,—‘I know but it is not for you to know;’ for it was for your sakes that sitting also on the mount I said according to the flesh, ‘No, not the Son knoweth,’ for the profit of you and all. For it is profitable to you to hear so much both of the Angels and of the Son, because of the deceivers which shall be afterwards; that though demons should be transfigured as Angels, and should attempt to speak concerning the end, you should not believe, since they are ignorant; and that, if Antichrist too, disguising himself, should say, ‘I am Christ,’ and should try in his turn to speak of that day and end, to deceive the hearers, ye, having these words from Me, ‘No, not the Son,’ may disbelieve him also.

How do you all read these without getting an immediate headache? srsly?

I suffer from headaches daily.

Well, I am glad you able to smile about it. It would drive me bananas. I'd rather read stuff with my effort in an original language than in a poor version in English translation.

The former is just frustrating and makes me feel dumb.

The latter seriously hurts.

[zekarja]

More St Athanasius from http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf204.xxi.ii.iv.vi.html :

And concerning the day and the hour He was not willing to say according to His divine nature, ‘I know,’ but after the flesh, ‘I know not,’ for the sake of the flesh which was ignorant3133, as I have said before; lest they should ask Him further, and then either He should have to pain the disciples by not speaking, or by speaking might act to the prejudice of them and us all. For whatever He does, that altogether He does for our sakes, since also for us ‘the Word became flesh.’ For us therefore He said ‘No, not the Son knoweth;’ and neither was He untrue in thus saying (for He said humanly, as man, ‘I know not’), nor did He suffer the disciples to force Him to speak, for by saying ‘I know not’ He stopped their inquiries.
[...]
The Son then did know, as being the Word; for He implied this in what He said,—‘I know but it is not for you to know;’ for it was for your sakes that sitting also on the mount I said according to the flesh, ‘No, not the Son knoweth,’ for the profit of you and all. For it is profitable to you to hear so much both of the Angels and of the Son, because of the deceivers which shall be afterwards; that though demons should be transfigured as Angels, and should attempt to speak concerning the end, you should not believe, since they are ignorant; and that, if Antichrist too, disguising himself, should say, ‘I am Christ,’ and should try in his turn to speak of that day and end, to deceive the hearers, ye, having these words from Me, ‘No, not the Son,’ may disbelieve him also.

How do you all read these without getting an immediate headache? srsly?

I suffer from headaches daily.

Well, I am glad you able to smile about it. It would drive me bananas. I'd rather read stuff with my effort in an original language than in a poor version in English translation.

The former is just frustrating and makes me feel dumb.

The latter seriously hurts.

Some translations are so wooden and hard to understand without going back 5 times.

[Father Peter]

Nicholas, it is indeed Orthodox to say that the humanity of Christ, considered 'en theoria' is subject to natural ignorance in the sense that all knowledge is acquired and not innate.

But considering the Word Incarnate, hypostatically united to his own humanity, we must say that his own humanity lacks no knowledge because all knowledge is innate to God and is not acquired and the humanity 'acquires' all knowledge through the hypostatic union with the Word.

[Severian]

NVM!

[orthonorm]

Nicholas, it is indeed Orthodox to say that the humanity of Christ, considered 'en theoria' is subject to natural ignorance in the sense that all knowledge is acquired and not innate.

But considering the Word Incarnate, hypostatically united to his own humanity, we must say that his own humanity lacks no knowledge because all knowledge is innate to God and is not acquired and the humanity 'acquires' all knowledge through the hypostatic union with the Word.

So are you debating or just here to tell Nick what you think is true?

If the former:

In virtue of what does a "nature" have knowledge?

[minasoliman]

To respect the wishes of the OP, we can continue here:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,40542.msg668012.html#msg668012

[zekarja]

Please forgive me. I do accept the patristic view. I was just trying to understand it better.

[NicholasMyra]

Bump.

It's been a while.

I think this thread of thought is ripe for further analysis.

Hopefully good minds like Romaios will contribute.

Where in the Ecumenical Councils, or in any authoritative text, is it declared that the incarnate Logos could not learn as a man, growing in wisdom as in stature?

For I see no place.

From now on, if anyone refers to, or quotes, a half-translation, it will be de-garbled, re-quoted, and offered for approval to the original quoter. Ultra scrutiny is in play.

If this thread would be better served in Faith Issues, by all means, move it.

[Romaios]

Hopefully good minds like Romaios will contribute.

I do have an idle mind.   But such praise obliges, so I'll do my best to contribute, even if this means just digging more quotes from the Fathers and the Enchiridion of Denziger (which has a very nice index, btw).

Where in the Ecumenical Councils, or in any authoritative text, is it declared that the incarnate Logos could not learn as a man, growing in wisdom as in stature?

I sort of agree with you that this is a Mystery and should be best left alone. But in the long and tortuous battle with heresy, the Fathers were forced to deal with it and the Patristic consensus is that, by virtue of his divine nature and the hypostatic union, Our Lord had perfect wisdom - unlike any other human - from the very beginning of his life among us:

How does he who is Wisdom receive understanding? “Jesus advanced in wisdom and age and grace before God and men.” This means not so much that the Son was instructed by the Father but that his human nature was instructed by his own divinity. There is the seer’s prophecy of him who blossomed from the root of Jesse, “The spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him: a spirit of wisdom and of understanding.

This the Latins call "infused" knowledge and distinguish it from "acquired knowledge" (scientia acquisita).

St. Epiphanius also condemns the opinion that Christ ignored the Day of judgement (or anything else, for that matter) in Ancoratus, chapter 18:

If somebody thinks that the Son ignores the Day, let the ignorant learn and not blaspheme! I offer him knowledge and he shall know. Tell me, beloved - I call you beloved, for I hate no one, except the devil and the works of the devil and bad faith (kakopistia). I pray for you that you come to the truth of God and you do not destroy yourself by blasphemy against God... [The Greek is quite straightforward - I don't have the patience to translate right now; if there is interest, I might later. Basically, the argument is that if the Son knows the Father, this knowledge is greater than that of a detail such as the day of Judgement, so he can't have ignored that either.]  

εἰ δέ τις νομίζει τὸν υἱὸν ἀγνοεῖν τὴν ἡμέραν, μαθέτω ὁ ἀμαθὴς καὶ μὴ βλασφημείτω. προτείνω γὰρ αὐτῷ γνῶσιν καὶ γνώσεται. λέγε μοι, ὦ ἀγαπητέ,  – ἀγαπητὸν γάρ σε καλῶ· οὐδένα γὰρ μισῶ ἢ μόνον τὸν διάβολον καὶ τὰ ἔργα τοῦ διαβόλου καὶ τὴν κακοπιστίαν· ἐπὶ σοὶ δὲ εὔχομαι, ἵνα ἔλθῃς εἰς τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ἀλήθειαν καὶ μὴ σεαυτὸν ἀπολέσῃς ἐν τῇ εἰς θεὸν βλασφημίᾳ. βαθέα γάρ εἰσι τὰ ῥήματα τοῦ ἁγίου θεοῦ, πνεύματι δὲ ἁγίῳ <ἡ γνῶσις> διὰ τῶν χαρισμάτων δίδοται.

«ᾧ μὲν γάρ» φησί «δίδοται λόγος σοφίας, ᾧ δὲ λόγος διδασκαλίας» καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς, «τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα τὸ διαιροῦν ἑκάστῳ ὡς βούλεται», ἵνα σοι δείξῃ καὶ τὴν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος αὐθεντίαν. ὅταν γὰρ τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα πᾶσι τὰ χαρίσματα δίδωσιν ὡς βούλεται, τοίνυν παρακάλεσον τὸν πατέρα, ἵνα ἀποκαλύψῃ σοι τὸν υἱόν, καὶ παρακάλεσον τὸν υἱόν, ἵνα ἀποκαλύψῃ σοι τὸν πατέρα, καὶ πάλιν παρακάλεσον τὸν πατέρα, ἵνα σοι δῷ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ ἀποκαλύψῃ σοι τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα καὶ δῴη σοὶ αὐτὸ ἔχειν ἐν σοί, ἵνα δοθὲν ἐν σοὶ <τὸ> ἅγιον πνεῦμα ἀποκαλύψῃ σοι τὴν πᾶσαν γνῶσιν πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος, ἵνα μάθῃς ὅτι ἐν τῷ υἱῷ οὐκ ἔνι οὐδεμία ἀγνωσία οὐδὲ ἐν τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι.
        
εἰ γὰρ καὶ ἄγγελοι λείπονται τῆς μείζονος ἐξουσίας καὶ γνώσεως, μὴ γένοιτο καὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τὸ ἅγιον αὐτοῦ πνεῦμα λείπεσθαι. πνευματικῶς δὲ λέγει ὁ υἱός, ὁ ἀπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐλθὼν πρὸς ἡμᾶς ἅγιος Λόγος· οἱ δὲ ψυχικοὶ ἀνακρίνονται μὴ νοοῦντες τοῦ υἱοῦ τὴν σοφίαν, μᾶλλον δὲ τῆς σοφίας τὸν λόγον – ἐπερωτῶ σε, καὶ λέγε μοι· τίς μείζων ἐστὶν ὁ πατὴρ ἢ ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνη περὶ ἧς λέγει; οὐ τολμήσεις λέγειν μὴ εἶναι τὸν πατέρα μείζονα. εἰ τοίνυν μείζων ὁ πατὴρ καὶ τῆς ἡμέρας καὶ τῆς ὥρας καὶ πάντων τῶν ὑπ' αὐτοῦ γεγενημένων καὶ γενηθησομένων καὶ οὐδεὶς αὐτὸν ἐπιγινώσκει εἰ μὴ ὁ υἱός, ποῖον ἄρα μεῖζον τὸ τὸν πατέρα γινώσκειν ἢ ἐκείνην τὴν ἡμέραν; εὔδηλον ὅτι τὸ τὸν πατέρα γινώσκειν. πῶς οὖν ὁ τὰ μείζω εἰδὼς τῶν ἐλαττόνων ὑστερεῖ; εἰ γινώσκει τοίνυν τὸν πατέρα, γινώσκει πάντως καὶ τὴν ἡμέραν καὶ οὐδέν ἐστιν οὗ λείπεται κατὰ γνῶσιν ὁ υἱός.

ἀλλ' ἐρεῖς ὅτι μείζων ὢν ὁ πατὴρ πάντων ἔχει τὴν γνῶσιν, ὁ δὲ υἱὸς οὐδαμῶς, καθὼς καὶ αὐτὸς λέγει «ὁ πατήρ μου μείζων μού ἐστιν». ἀλλὰ τοῦτο τιμῶν τὸν πατέρα λέγει ὁ υἱὸς ὡς ἔπρεπε, μειζόνως τετιμημένος ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός. ἔδει γὰρ ἀληθῶς τὸν γνήσιον υἱὸν τιμᾶν τὸν ἴδιον πατέρα, ἵνα δείξῃ τὴν γνησιότητα. πῶς δὲ σὺ νομίζεις μείζονα εἶναι αὐτόν; περιφερείᾳ ἢ ὄγκῳ ἢ χρόνῳ ἢ καιρῷ ἢ ἀξίᾳ ἢ θεότητι ἢ ἀθανασίᾳ ἢ ἀιδιότητι; μὴ ταῦτα νόμιζε. οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐν τῇ θεότητι ἄνισον ὑπάρχει πρὸς τὸν υἱόν, ἀλλὰ καθὸ πατὴρ ὁ πατήρ ἐστι καὶ καθὸ <ὁ υἱὸς> υἱὸς γνήσιος, τιμᾷ τὸν ἑαυτοῦ πατέρα. οὔτε γὰρ ὄγκῳ φέρεται τὸ θεῖον, ἵνα ὑπέρογκος τοῦ υἱοῦ ᾖ ὁ πατήρ, οὐδὲ χρόνῳ ὑποπίπτει, ἵνα ὑπέρχρονος ὁ πατὴρ γένηται τοῦ υἱοῦ, οὔτε τῷ ὕψει μερικῶς τάττεται ὁ πατήρ (πάντα γὰρ περιέχει, αὐτὸς ὑπ' οὐδενὸς περιεχόμενος), ἵνα ὁ υἱὸς ὑπερβεβηκὼς νοοῖτο. ἐκάθισε γὰρ ἐν δεξιᾷ τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ οὐκ εἶπεν, εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν πατέρα, ἵνα Σαβέλλιον παραλύσῃ καὶ Ἄρειον καθέλοι τῆς αὐτοῦ βλασφημίας.

[Romaios]

The Condemnation of the errors of Nestorius about the Humanity of Christ

DS 419 Si quis unum Iesum Christum verum Dei et eundem verum hominis Filium futurorum ignorantiam aut diei ultimi iudicii habuisse dicit et tanta scire potuisse, quanta ei deitas quasi alteri cuidam inhabitans revelabat, anathema sit.

If somebody says that the one Jesus Christ, the true Son of God and true Son of Man, ignored the future or the day of the Last Judgement and could only know as much, as the Godhead would reveal to some other indwelt by it, let him be anathema.

[minasoliman]

Well, technically, because the title is about an Oriental Orthodox issue, that's why it's here.  All other quotes given, whether pre-Chalcedonian, OO, or EO only is an adjunct to the original subject at hand, whether to confirm whether Themistius was with the mind of the fathers as well as other contemporaries, including the "opposing Chalcedonians", or whether he was right after all.

So perhaps if we keep the subject related to him and his beliefs in the context of conciliar and patristic quotes, that would be appreciated.

And I'm not saying no one is doing that.  So far, Romaios provided very valuable information, and I don't see why this should be moved to the faith issues, since it looks relevant to the original OO subject.

[Romaios]

ST. GREGORY I, THE GREAT 590-604

(But) concerning that which has been written: That neither the Son, nor the angels know the day and the hour [cf. Mark 13:32], indeed, your holiness has perceived rightly, that since it most certainly should be referred not to the same son according to that which is the head, but according to his body which we are . . . . He [Augustine] also says . . . that this can be understood of the same son, because omnipotent God sometimes speaks in a human way, as he said to Abraham: Now I know that thou fearest God [Gen. 22:12], not because God then knew that He was feared, but because at that time He caused Abraham to know that he feared God. For, just as we say a day is happy not because the day itself is happy, but because it makes us happy, so the omnipotent Son says He does not know the day which He causes not to be known, not because He himself is ignorant of it, but because He does not permit it to be known at all.

Thus also the Father alone is said to know, because the Son (being) consubstantial with Him, on account of His nature, by which He is above the angels, has knowledge of that, of which the angels are unaware. Thus, also, this can be the more precisely understood because the Only-begotten having been incarnate, and made perfect man for us, in His human nature indeed did know the day and the hour of judgment, but nevertheless He did not know this from His human nature. Therefore, that which in (nature) itself He knew, He did not know from that very (nature), because God-made-man knew the day and hour of the judgment through the power of His Godhead. . . . Thus, the knowledge which He did not have on account of the nature of His humanity-by reason of which, like the angels, He was a creaturethis He denied that He, like the angels, who are creatures, had. Therefore (as) God and man He knows the day and the hour of judgment; but On this account, because God is man.

But the fact is certainly manifest that whoever is not a Nestorian, can in no wise be an Agnoeta. For with what purpose can he, who confesses that the Wisdom itself of God is incarnate say that there is anything which the Wisdom of God does not know? It is written: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . All things were made by him [John 1:13]. If all, without doubt also the day of judgment and the hour. Who, therefore, is so foolish as to presume to assert that the Word of the Father made that which He does not know? it is written also: Jesus knowing, that the Father gave him all things into his hands [ John 13:3]. If all things, surely both the day of judgment and the hour. Who, therefore, is so stupid as to say that the Son has received in His hands that of which He is unaware?

De eo ..., quod scriptum est, quia 'diem et horam neque Filius neque angeli sciunt' (cf. Mc 13, 32), omnino recte vestra sanctitas sensit, quoniam non ad eundem Filium iuxta hoc quod caput est, sed iuxta corpus eius quod nos sumus, est certissime referendum. Qua de re multis in locis Augustinus eo sensu utitur. Dicit quoque et aliud, quod de eodem Filio possit intelligi, quia omnipotens Deus aliquando more loquitur humano, sicut ad Abraham dicit: 'Nunc cognovi, quia times Deum (cf. Gn 22, 12), non quia se Deus tunc timeri cognoverit, sed quia tunc eundem Abraham fecit agnoscere, quia Deum timeret. Sicut enim nos diem laetum dicimus, non quod ipse dies laetus sit, sed quia nos laetos facit, ita et omnipotens Filius nescire se dicit diem, quem nesciri facit, non quod ipse nesciat, sed quia hunc sciri minime permittat.

Unde et Pater solus dicitur scire, quia consubstantialis et Filius ex eius natura, qua est super angelos, habet ut hoc sciat, quod angeli ignorant. Unde et hoc intelligi subtilius potest, quia incarnatus Unigenitus factusque pro nobis homo perfectus in natura quidem humanitatis novit diem et horam iudicii, sed tamen hunc non ex natura humanitatis novit. Quod ergo in ipsa novit, non ex ipsa novit, quia Deus homo factus diem et horam iudicii per deitatis suae potentiam novit. ... Itaque scientiam, quam ex humanitatis natura non habuit, ex qua cum angelis creatura fuit, hanc se cum angelis, qui creaturae sunt, habere denegavit. Diem ergo et horam iudicii scit Deus et homo; sed ideo, quia Deus est homo.

Res autem valde manifesta est, quia quisquis Nestorianus non est, Agnoita esse nullatenus potest. Nam qui ipsam Dei Sapientiam fatetur incarnatam, qua mente valet dicere esse aliquid, quod Dei Sapientia ignoret ? Scriptum est : 'In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum. Omnia per ipsum facta sunt' (Jn 1,13). Si omnia, procul dubio etiam dies iudicii et hora. Quis ergo ita desipiat, ut dicere praesumat, quia Verbum Patris fecit quod ignorat? Scriptum quoque est: Sciens Iesus, quia omnia dedit ei Pater in manus (Jn 13,3). Si omnia, profecto et iudicii diem et horam. Quis ergo ita stultus est, ut dicat, quia accepit Filius in manibus quod nescit?

[Romaios]

Conciliari nequit sensus naturalis textuum evangeliorum cum eo, quod nostri theologi docent de conscientia et scientia infallibili Jesu Christi.

The natural sense of the evangelical texts cannot be reconciled with that which our theologians teach about the consciousness and the infallible knowledge of Jesus Christ.

Evidens est cuique, qui praeconceptis non ducitur opinionibus, Jesum aut errorem de proximo messianico adventu fuisse professum, aut majorem partem ipsius doctrinae in Evangeliis synopticis contentae authenticitate carere.

It is evident to everyone, who is not influenced by preconceived opinions, that either Jesus professed an error concerning the immediate coming of the Messias, or the greater part of the doctrine contained in the Synoptic Gospels is void of authenticity.

Criticus nequit asserere Christo scientiam nullo circumscriptam limite nisi facta hypothesi, quae historice haud concipi potest quaeque sensui morali repugnant, nempe Christum uti hominem habuisse scientiam Dei et nihilominus noluisse notitiam tot rerum communicare cum discipulis ac posteritate.

The critic cannot ascribe to Christ knowledge circumscribed by no limit, except on the supposition which can by no means be conceived historically, and which is repugnant to the moral sense, namely, that Christ as man had the knowledge of God, and nevertheless was unwilling to share the knowledge of so many things with His disciples and posterity.

Christus non semper habuit conscientiam suae dignitatis messianicae.

Christ did not always have the consciousness of His Messianic dignity.

When the question was proposed by the Sacred Congregation on Seminary and University Studies, whether the following propositions can be safely taught:

I. It is not established that there was in the soul of Christ while living among men the knowledge which the blessed and the comprehensors have [cf. Phil. 3:12,13 ].

II. Nor can the opinion be called certain which has established that the soul of Christ was ignorant of nothing, but from the beginning knew all things in the Word, past, present, and future, or all things that God knows by the knowledge of vision.

III. The opinion of certain more recent persons on the limited knowledge of the soul of Christ is to be accepted in Catholic schools no less than the notion of the ancients on universal knowledge.

The Most Eminent and Reverend Cardinals, general Inquisitors in matters of faith and morals, the prayer of the Consultors being held first, decreed that the answer must be: In the negative.


Quaestio: Utrum tuto doceri possint sequentes propositiones:

1. Non constat, fuisse in anima Christi inter homines degentis scientiam, quam habent beati seu comprehensores.

2. Nec certa dici potest sententia, quae statuit, animam Christi nihil ignoravisse, sed ab initio cognovisse in Verbo omnia, praeterita, praesentia et futura, seu omnia quae Deus scit scientia visionis.

3. Placitum quorumdam recentiorum de scientia animae Christi limitata, non est minus recipiendum in scholis catholicis, quam veterum sententia de scientia universali.

Responsio (Confirmata a Sancto Pontifice, 6 Iunii): Negative.

[Romaios]

He is said to have progressed in wisdom and age and grace, because he did increase in age and by this increase in age brought more into evidence the wisdom inherent in him further. By making what is ours altogether his own, he made his own the progress of people in wisdom and grace, as well as the fulfillment of the Father’s will, which is to say, people’s knowledge of God and their salvation. Now, those who say that he progressed in wisdom and grace in the sense of receiving an increase in these are saying that the union was not made from the first instant of the flesh’s existence. Neither are they holding the hypostatic union, but, misled by the empty-headed Nestorius, they are talking falsely of a relative union and simple indwelling, “understanding neither the things they say, nor whereof they affirm.” For, if from the first instant of its existence the flesh was truly united to God the Word—rather, had existence in him and identity of person with him—how did it not enjoy perfectly all wisdom and grace? It did not share the grace, and neither did it participate by grace in the things of the Word. Rather, because the human and divine things had become proper to the one Christ by the hypostatic union, then, since the same was at once God and man, it gushed forth with the grace and the wisdom and the fullness of all good things for the world.

[Romaios]

Δέκατον αὐτοῖς ἐστιν ἡ ἄγνοια, καὶ τὸ μηδένα γινώσκειν τὴν τελευταίαν ἡμέραν ἢ ὥραν, μηδὲ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτόν, εἰ μὴ τὸν πατέρα. καίτοι πῶς ἀγνοεῖ τι τῶν ὄντων ἡ σοφία, ὁ ποιητὴς τῶν αἰώνων, ὁ συντελεστὴς καὶ μεταποιητής, τὸ πέρας τῶν γενομένων; ὁ οὕτω τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ γινώσκων, ὡς τὸ πνεῦμα τοῦ ἀνθρώπου τὰ ἐν αὐτῷ; τί γὰρ ταύτης τῆς γνώσεως τελεώτερον; πῶς δαὶ τὰ μὲν πρὸ τῆς ὥρας ἀκριβῶς ἐπίσταται, καὶ τὰ οἷον ἐν χρῷ τοῦ τέλους, αὐτὴν δὲ ἀγνοεῖ τὴν ὥραν; αἰνίγματι γὰρ τὸ πρᾶγμα ὅμοιον, ὥσπερ ἂν εἴ τις τὰ μὲν πρὸ τοῦ τείχους ἀκριβῶς ἐπίστασθαι λέγοι, αὐτὸ δὲ ἀγνοεῖν τὸ τεῖχος· ἢ τὸ τῆς ἡμέρας τέλος εὖ ἐπιστάμενος, τὴν ἀρχὴν τῆς νυκτὸς μὴ γινώσκειν· ἔνθα ἡ τοῦ ἑτέρου γνῶσις ἀναγκαίως συνεισάγει τὸ ἕτερον. ἢ πᾶσιν εὔδηλον, ὅτι γινώσκει μέν, ὡς θεός, ἀγνοεῖν δέ φησιν, ὡς ἄνθρωπος, ἄν τις τὸ φαινόμενον χωρίσῃ τοῦ νοουμένου; τὸ γὰρ ἀπόλυτον εἶναι τοῦ υἱοῦ τὴν προσηγορίαν καὶ ἄσχετον, οὐ προσκειμένου τῷ υἱῷ τοῦ τίνος, ταύτην ἡμῖν δίδωσι τὴν ὑπόνοιαν, ὥστε τὴν ἄγνοιαν ὑπολαμβάνειν ἐπὶ τὸ εὐσεβέστερον, τῷ ἀνθρωπίνῳ, μὴ τῷ θείῳ, ταύτην λογιζομένους.

Εἰ μὲν οὖν οὗτος αὐτάρκης ὁ λόγος, ἐνταῦθα στησόμεθα, καὶ μηδὲν πλέον ἐπιζητείσθω· εἰ δὲ μή, τό γε δεύτερον, ὥσπερ τῶν ἄλλων ἕκαστον, οὕτω δὲ καὶ ἡ γνῶσις τῶν μεγίστων ἐπὶ τὴν αἰτίαν ἀναφερέσθω τιμῇ τοῦ γεννήτορος. δοκεῖ δέ μοί τις, μηδ' ἂν ἐκείνως ἀναγνούς, ὡς τῶν καθ' ἡμᾶς φιλολόγων τις, μικρὸν ἐννοῆσαι, ὅτι οὐδὲ ὁ υἱὸς ἄλλως οἶδε τὴν ἡμέραν ἢ τὴν ὥραν, ἢ ὡς ὅτι ὁ πατήρ. τὸ γὰρ συναγόμενον ὁποῖον; ἐπειδὴ ὁ πατὴρ γινώσκει, διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ὁ υἱός, ὡς δῆλον, ὅτι μηδενὶ γνωστὸν τοῦτο μηδὲ ληπτόν, πλὴν τῆς πρώτης φύσεως.

Their (the Arians') tenth objection is the ignorance, and the statement that Of the last day and hour knows no man, not even the Son Himself, but the Father. And yet how can Wisdom be ignorant of anything-that is, Wisdom Who made the worlds, Who perfects them, Who remodels them, Who is the Limit of all things that were made, Who knows the things of God as the spirit of a man knows the things that are in him? For what can be more perfect than this knowledge? How then can you say that all things before that hour He knows accurately, and all things that are to happen about the time of the end, but of the hour itself He is ignorant? For such a thing would be like a riddle; as if one were to say that he knew accurately all that was in front of the wall, but did not know the wall itself; or that, knowing the end of the day, he did not know the beginning of the night-where knowledge of the one necessarily brings in the other. Thus everyone must see that He knows as God, and knows not as Man;-if one may separate the visible from that which is discerned by thought alone. For the absolute and unconditioned use of the Name "The Son" in this passage, without the addition of whose Son, gives us this thought, that we are to understand the ignorance in the most reverent sense, by attributing it to the Manhood, and not to the Godhead.

XVI. If then this argument is sufficient, let us stop here, and not enquire further. But if not, our second argument is as follows:-Just as we do in all other instances, so let us refer His knowledge of the greatest events, in honour of the Father, to The Cause. And I think that anyone, even if he did not read it in the way that one of our own Students did, would soon perceive that not even the Son knows the day or hour otherwise than as the Father does. For what do we conclude from this? That since the Father knows, therefore also does the Son, as it is evident that this cannot be known or comprehended by any but the First Nature.

Source of the translation

[NicholasMyra]

Romaios,

Do these statements, when interpreted to mean that the Logos did not become so much like us as to condescend to learn as a man, trouble you?

[NicholasMyra]

Well, technically, because the title is about an Oriental Orthodox issue, that's why it's here.  All other quotes given, whether pre-Chalcedonian, OO, or EO only is an adjunct to the original subject at hand, whether to confirm whether Themistius was with the mind of the fathers as well as other contemporaries, including the "opposing Chalcedonians", or whether he was right after all.

So perhaps if we keep the subject related to him and his beliefs in the context of conciliar and patristic quotes, that would be appreciated.

Perhaps it should be moved to faith issues then.

[Salpy]

This thread was started by an OO priest, presumably to analyze the issues with a primarily OO audience.  Maybe if you want a broader discussion, you can start a thread in Faith issues.   

[NicholasMyra]

This thread was started by an OO priest, presumably to analyze the issues with a primarily OO audience.  Maybe if you want a broader discussion, you can start a thread in Faith issues.   

Can you split it or duplicate some of Romaios's posts? They'd be a valuable resource in the Faith Issues thread as well.

[Salpy]

Maybe you can reference, or copy and paste, some of his posts in the new thread?  Would that be too difficult?  I hate splitting up an original thread unless it has clearly broken into different tangents.

[NicholasMyra]

That's fine. Thank you Salpy.

[Romaios]

Περὶ δὲ τῆς ἡμέρας ἐκείνης καὶ τῆς ὥρας οὐδεὶς οἶδεν, οὐδὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι τῶν οὐρανῶν, οὐδὲ ὁ Υἱὸς,  εἰ μὴ ὁ Πατήρ. Τῷ μὲν εἰπεῖν, οὐδὲ οἱ ἄγγελοι, ἐπεστόμισεν αὐτοὺς, ὥστε μὴ ζητῆσαι μαθεῖν ὅπερ ἐκεῖνοι οὐκ ἴσασι· τῷ δὲ εἰπεῖν, οὐδὲ ὁ Υἱὸς, κωλύει οὐ μόνον μαθεῖν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ζητῆσαι. (…)

Αὐτὸ τῷ Πατρὶ αὐτοῦ ἀνατίθησι, καὶ φοβερὸν τὸ πρᾶγμα ποιῶν, καὶ ἐκείνων ἀποτειχίζων τῇ πεύσει τὸ εἰρημένον· ἐπεὶ εἰ μὴ τοῦτό ἐστιν, ἀλλ' ἀγνοεῖ, πότε εἴσεται; Ἆρα μεθ' ἡμῶν; καὶ τίς ἂν τοῦτο εἴποι; Καὶ τὸν μὲν Πατέρα οἶδε σαφῶς, καὶ οὕτω σαφῶς, ὡς ἐκεῖνος τὸν Υἱόν· τὴν δὲ ἡμέραν ἀγνοεῖ;

Διὰ τοῦτο οὐ λέγει αὐτοῖς, ἵνα γρηγορῶσιν, ἵνα ἀεὶ ἕτοιμοι ὦσι· διὰ τοῦτό φησιν, ὅτε οὐ προσδοκᾶτε, τότε ἥξει, ἐναγωνίους εἶναι βουλόμενος, καὶ διαπαντὸς ἐν ἀρετῇ. Ὃ δὲ λέγει, τοιοῦτόν ἐστιν· Εἰ ᾔδεσαν οἱ πολλοὶ πότε ἀποθανοῦνται, πάντως ἂν κατ' ἐκείνην τὴν ὥραν ἐσπούδασαν.

“But of that day and hour no man knows, not the angels of heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.” By saying, not the angels, He stopped their mouths, that they should not seek to learn what these angels know not; and by saying, “neither the Son,” He forbids them not only to learn, but even to inquire.

Therefore He refers it to His Father, both to make the thing awful (awe inspiring), and to exclude that of which He had spoken from their inquiry. Since if it be not this, but He is ignorant of it, when will He learn it? Will it be together with us? But who would say this? And the Father He knows clearly, even as clearly as He knows the Son; and of the day is He ignorant?

For this intent He tells them not, in order that they may watch, that they may be always ready; therefore He says “when you do not expect, then He will come”, desiring that they should be anxiously waiting, and continually in virtuous action. But His meaning is like this: if the common sort of men knew when they were to die, they would surely strive earnestly at that hour.

Dicam et aliud mirabilius, ne eum putes in phantasmate nasciturum: cibis utetur infantiae, butyrum comedet et lac. Et haec licet post saecula de eo evangelista testetur: Puer autem proficiebat sapientia et aetate et gratia apud Deum et homines (Lc. 2, 52), et hoc dicatur ut veritas humani corporis approbetur, tamen adhuc pannis involutus et butyro pastus ac melle habebit boni malique iudicium, ut reprobans mala eligat bona. Non quod haec fecerit, aut reprobaverit, vel elegerit; sed quod scierit reprobare et eligere, ut per haec verba noscamus infantiam humani corporis divinae non praeiudicasse sapientiae.

I will say something even more wonderful, lest you should think he would be born only apparently: he uses the foods of infancy, he eats butter and milk. And this even though the Evangelist would testify centuries later: "And the child advanced in wisdom, and age, and grace before God and men" (Luke 2:52). This is said in order to prove the truth of the human body, although - even while wrapped in swaddling clothes and fed with butter and honey - he will have the discernment of good and evil, so that rejecting evil, he should choose what is good. Not that he would do this, or he would reject and choose (at that age); but that he would know how to reject and choose, so that by these words we should understand that the infancy of the human body did not prejudice divine wisdom.