Author Topic: Question For Chalcedonians  (Read 9377 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Question For Chalcedonians
« on: October 29, 2014, 11:08:55 AM »
Question For Chalcedonians


Did both natures of Jesus suffer and die on the cross or just the human nature?


Thanks,

Tony
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 11:11:23 AM by TheLoveOfTheTruth »
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline vamrat

  • Vamratoraptor
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,468
  • Faith: Serbian Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of New Gracanica
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #1 on: October 29, 2014, 11:31:23 AM »
I'm not sure that natures suffer or die.  A nature is more of a concept than a quantifiable entity.  Just as you cannot change a person's humanity by any chemical or physical means, I don't think that crucifixion changed the fact that Christ was God and Man.  Whether our God Christ suffered on the Cross, I would have to guess yes, though I am not sure that humans can comprehend God's "emotions" anymore than a lobster or hamster could comprehend human emotions like disillusionment or zealousness.  Christ being fully man I am sure suffered on the Cross as executions tend to hurt.  I don't think the Word of God died on the Cross any more than a human soul dies after the body has been shot.  The Son of Man did die, as was verified by the Roman soldiers, but was able to raise Himself from the dead, as verified by the Apostles and Myrrh Bearing Women.

All things considered, this is WAY above my pay grade.
Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #2 on: October 29, 2014, 11:42:17 AM »
The last time I took a class on dogmatic theology was about five years ago, so I may be mistaken.

But I recall that the answer to this is that when we say "God died on the Cross", we can only do so by using "God" as a synecdoche for the the hypostatic union of God and Man, Jesus Christ. Thus only the human nature suffered and died.

Edit: I have spake heresy. Corrected.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 12:04:32 PM by Inquirer »
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline gueranger

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 332
  • Lord Jesus, have mercy on me. BVM, pray for me.
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #3 on: October 29, 2014, 11:55:21 AM »
I have a different question or observation that has always perplexed me.

Death is the soul separating from the body. The body and soul of Christ were/are both hypostaticly united to the divinity.

So when Christ died on the cross, I would assume, His body remained Divine.

Would that be orthodox or heretical or theologoumena?

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #4 on: October 29, 2014, 11:57:39 AM »
Christ died on the cross. I don't think you can any more say that His nature(s) died on the cross any more than you can say any other non-physical attributes died. Did His semitic culture die on the cross?  Did His nurturing by His mother die on the cross? Did His knowledge die on the cross?  I think the question is fundamentally illogical because non-physical attributes are not alive and therefore cannot die.
God bless!

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #5 on: October 29, 2014, 12:00:45 PM »
Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "Although Christ died as man, and His holy soul was separated from His spotless body, nevertheless His Godhead remained unseparated from both--from the soul, I mean, and from the body."

(Source: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4050.htm#article3)
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #6 on: October 29, 2014, 12:01:28 PM »
I have a different question or observation that has always perplexed me.

Death is the soul separating from the body. The body and soul of Christ were/are both hypostaticly united to the divinity.

So when Christ died on the cross, I would assume, His body remained Divine.

Would that be orthodox or heretical or theologoumena?

Athanasius says (Epist. ad Epict.): "In that body which was circumcised and carried, which ate, and toiled, and was nailed on the tree, there was the impassible and incorporeal Word of God: the same was laid in the tomb." Therefore it was the same body living and dead.

Source: ibid.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 12:01:49 PM by Inquirer »
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline gueranger

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 332
  • Lord Jesus, have mercy on me. BVM, pray for me.
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #7 on: October 29, 2014, 12:01:47 PM »
Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "Although Christ died as man, and His holy soul was separated from His spotless body, nevertheless His Godhead remained unseparated from both--from the soul, I mean, and from the body."

(Source: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4050.htm#article3)

Thanks!

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #8 on: October 29, 2014, 12:42:08 PM »
The point is did both the human part and second person of the Trinity part of Christ die on the cross, or was it only the human part?

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #9 on: October 29, 2014, 12:45:56 PM »
The point is did both the human part and second person of the Trinity part of Christ die on the cross, or was it only the human part?

Tony

I think the human nature died, but not the divine nature.
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #10 on: October 29, 2014, 01:01:32 PM »
Inquirer,

So you believe that the human part died but the divine part didn't. But your quote of Athanasius seems to say otherwise. At least that's how it speaks to me.

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline sakura95

  • Resident Philosonoob
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,437
  • Faith: Orthodox seeker
  • Jurisdiction: Deanery of Great Britain and Ireland
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #11 on: October 29, 2014, 01:02:05 PM »
The point is did both the human part and second person of the Trinity part of Christ die on the cross, or was it only the human part?

Tony

It is a Divine Person that died on the Cross and the Human part(Physical). This is why Jesus descended into Hades as the Nicene Creed proclaims. Only the dead shall go into Hades not the living. This is why both Human part and the Second Person of the Trinity died on the Cross. You don't get to venture or even perceive the otherworldly realms when you are "alive" only the dead could do so.

P.S This is not an official belief or statement from any of the Orthodox Churches. It is simply my two cents
My Lord, My Lord, give my worthless soul the illumination of Wisdom in your mercy

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #12 on: October 29, 2014, 01:04:06 PM »
I wish some theology expert could come in here to settle this. I have a B.A. in theology, but my expertise is in liturgy, so I'm basically saying everything from memory of when I was in college.

Inquirer,

So you believe that the human part died but the divine part didn't. But your quote of Athanasius seems to say otherwise. At least that's how it speaks to me.

Tony

Athanasius is saying here that when Christ died, the Godhead and human essence did not separate. However the Damascene quote clearly demonstrates that only the 'man' (body) died, not the divine essence.

Ibid. quotation:

Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "In Christ's death the soul was separated from the flesh: not one hypostasis divided into two: because both soul and body in the same respect had their existence from the beginning in the hypostasis of the Word; and in death, though severed from one another, each one continued to have the one same hypostasis of the Word. Wherefore the one hypostasis of the Word was the hypostasis of the Word, of the soul, and of the body. For neither soul nor body ever had an hypostasis of its own, besides the hypostasis of the Word: for there was always one hypostasis of the Word, and never two."
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 01:04:59 PM by Inquirer »
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #13 on: October 29, 2014, 01:07:06 PM »
The point is did both the human part and second person of the Trinity part of Christ die on the cross, or was it only the human part?

Tony
I think this is the problem though. You can't say there is a "human part" and a "God part" to Jesus. He is 100% God and 100% man. There is no way to separate the two.
God bless!

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #14 on: October 29, 2014, 01:09:15 PM »
The point is did both the human part and second person of the Trinity part of Christ die on the cross, or was it only the human part?

Tony
I think this is the problem though. You can't say there is a "human part" and a "God part" to Jesus. He is 100% God and 100% man. There is no way to separate the two.

I beg your forgiveness in saying so, but I do not believe this is accurate. That is monophysitism. The Orthodox belief is that Jesus is both God and man, and the two natures coexist without confusion or mixture in hypostatic union, but that the two natures are indeed separate.

One can say that "God died on the Cross" because Christ was God, but one cannot say "the divine nature of Jesus died on the Cross", because that implies the divine essence is mortal or bodily.
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #15 on: October 29, 2014, 01:14:51 PM »
No. Here is the Chalcedonian Creed:

Quote
Following, then, the holy Fathers, we all unanimously teach that our Lord Jesus Christ is to us
 
One and the same Son, the Self-same Perfect in Godhead, the Self-same Perfect in Manhood; truly God and truly Man; the Self-same of a rational soul and body; co-essential with the Father according to the Godhead, the Self-same co-essential with us according to the Manhood; like us in all things, sin apart; before the ages begotten of the Father as to the Godhead, but in the last days, the Self-same, for us and for our salvation (born) of Mary the Virgin Theotokos as to the Manhood; One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ; even as from the beginning the prophets have taught concerning Him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ Himself hath taught us, and as the Symbol of the Fathers hath handed down to us.
The creed says quite clearly that while they are two distinct natures, they are also indivisible and inseparable.
God bless!

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #16 on: October 29, 2014, 01:16:34 PM »
The hypostatic union is indivisible. However one can still *speak* of his human nature and his divine nature. That is why we say that the two natures coexist but are not confused with each other.

In other words. The creed "acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly", which is the opposite of "You can't say there is a "human part" and a "God part" to Jesus".
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 01:17:48 PM by Inquirer »
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #17 on: October 29, 2014, 01:19:35 PM »
I think we believe the same thing, we are merely disputing what kind of idioms one can use in verbally communicating the hypostatic union.
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #18 on: October 29, 2014, 01:19:53 PM »
I wish some theology expert could come in here to settle this. I have a B.A. in theology, but my expertise is in liturgy, so I'm basically saying everything from memory of when I was in college.

Inquirer,

So you believe that the human part died but the divine part didn't. But your quote of Athanasius seems to say otherwise. At least that's how it speaks to me.

Tony

Athanasius is saying here that when Christ died, the Godhead and human essence did not separate. However the Damascene quote clearly demonstrates that only the 'man' (body) died, not the divine essence.

Ibid. quotation:

Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "In Christ's death the soul was separated from the flesh: not one hypostasis divided into two: because both soul and body in the same respect had their existence from the beginning in the hypostasis of the Word; and in death, though severed from one another, each one continued to have the one same hypostasis of the Word. Wherefore the one hypostasis of the Word was the hypostasis of the Word, of the soul, and of the body. For neither soul nor body ever had an hypostasis of its own, besides the hypostasis of the Word: for there was always one hypostasis of the Word, and never two."

Okay, but that's another person that came a few hundred years later. Anyway, it seems to me right now that Athanasius quote is a little ambiguous so it might fit with what Damascene is saying. It might also fit with my belief which is the second person of the Trinity, the Divinity also died and rose again along with the human part. No matter though, since Damascene is a Chalcedonian I gather, it answers my question.

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #19 on: October 29, 2014, 01:20:14 PM »
By saying the human nature died while the divine nature did not, it is an attempt to separate the two. There is no action of the incarnate Christ that was undertaken that was not done by Him hypostatically.

I'll bet the miaphysites are laughing hysterically at this thread.  :laugh:
God bless!

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #20 on: October 29, 2014, 01:21:25 PM »
I wish some theology expert could come in here to settle this. I have a B.A. in theology, but my expertise is in liturgy, so I'm basically saying everything from memory of when I was in college.

Inquirer,

So you believe that the human part died but the divine part didn't. But your quote of Athanasius seems to say otherwise. At least that's how it speaks to me.

Tony

Athanasius is saying here that when Christ died, the Godhead and human essence did not separate. However the Damascene quote clearly demonstrates that only the 'man' (body) died, not the divine essence.

Ibid. quotation:

Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): "In Christ's death the soul was separated from the flesh: not one hypostasis divided into two: because both soul and body in the same respect had their existence from the beginning in the hypostasis of the Word; and in death, though severed from one another, each one continued to have the one same hypostasis of the Word. Wherefore the one hypostasis of the Word was the hypostasis of the Word, of the soul, and of the body. For neither soul nor body ever had an hypostasis of its own, besides the hypostasis of the Word: for there was always one hypostasis of the Word, and never two."

Okay, but that's another person that came a few hundred years later. Anyway, it seems to me right now that Athanasius quote is a little ambiguous so it might fit with what Damascene is saying. It might also fit with my belief which is the second person of the Trinity, the Divinity also died and rose again along with the human part. No matter though, since Damascene is a Chalcedonian I gather, it answers my question.

Tony

How can you say the divine essence died? This confuses Jesus' divinity with his humanity--bodily death is a biological trait. The Godhead has no body.

By saying the human nature died while the divine nature did not, it is an attempt to separate the two. There is no action of the incarnate Christ that was undertaken that was not done by Him hypostatically.

I'll bet the miaphysites are laughing hysterically at this thread.  :laugh:

See above. Also, it sounds like we are responding to a miaphysite's query.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 01:22:23 PM by Inquirer »
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline gueranger

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 332
  • Lord Jesus, have mercy on me. BVM, pray for me.
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #21 on: October 29, 2014, 01:24:41 PM »
By saying the human nature died while the divine nature did not, it is an attempt to separate the two. There is no action of the incarnate Christ that was undertaken that was not done by Him hypostatically.

I'll bet the miaphysites are laughing hysterically at this thread.  :laugh:


"As to the evangelical and apostolic expressions about the Lord, we know that theologians treat some in common as of one person and distinguish others as of two natures, and interpret the god-befitting ones in connexion with the godhead of Christ and the lowly ones with his humanity."
-Formula of Reunion 433


Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #22 on: October 29, 2014, 01:25:53 PM »
I'm not sure that natures suffer or die.

Indeed. Natures don't suffer, die or age, persons do.

The Godhead has no body.

It depends on what you mean with that. Remember, the Word became flesh.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 01:27:24 PM by Cyrillic »

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #23 on: October 29, 2014, 01:26:25 PM »
See above. Also, it sounds like we are responding to a miaphysite's query.

So you would say that which I just stated is the belief of Miaphysites?

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #24 on: October 29, 2014, 01:29:23 PM »
By saying the human nature died while the divine nature did not, it is an attempt to separate the two. There is no action of the incarnate Christ that was undertaken that was not done by Him hypostatically.

I'll bet the miaphysites are laughing hysterically at this thread.  :laugh:


"As to the evangelical and apostolic expressions about the Lord, we know that theologians treat some in common as of one person and distinguish others as of two natures, and interpret the god-befitting ones in connexion with the godhead of Christ and the lowly ones with his humanity."
-Formula of Reunion 433


I don't see where my statement contradicts that. If Scripture says that Jesus was hungry and desired food, that is an expression of His humanity, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a desire by the hypostatic Christ.  He wasn't a schizophrenic.
God bless!

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #25 on: October 29, 2014, 01:30:26 PM »
How can you say the divine essence died? This confuses Jesus' divinity with his humanity--bodily death is a biological trait. The Godhead has no body.

Though I only started this thread to ask questions, so I know what you Chalcedonians believe, not to debate, I will answer this briefly. "The Word BECAME flesh..." He didn't just put on flesh like a suit to wear but became a human. It also doesn't say, "The Word merged with flesh." It says, "BECAME."

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #26 on: October 29, 2014, 01:30:31 PM »
Quote
The Godhead has no body.

It depends on what you mean with that. Remember, the Word became flesh.

How can you say the divine essence died? This confuses Jesus' divinity with his humanity--bodily death is a biological trait. The Godhead has no body.

Though I only started this thread to ask questions, so I know what you Chalcedonians believe, not to debate, I will answer this briefly. "The Word BECAME flesh..." He didn't just put on flesh like a suit to wear but became a human. It also doesn't say, "The Word merged with flesh." It says, "BECAME."

Tony

The word "Godhead" refers to the divine essence of God. We can say "God has a body" because the Word became flesh. However the divine essence of Jesus, the Godhead, does not; otherwise you are saying that God had a body BEFORE the annunciation.

I have done a bit of quick research. The belief that the divine nature of Christ suffered and died on the Cross is called Theopassionism, or Theopaschism. It is actually a condemned heresy as a subset of Monophysitism.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 01:31:50 PM by Inquirer »
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline gueranger

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 332
  • Lord Jesus, have mercy on me. BVM, pray for me.
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #27 on: October 29, 2014, 01:33:54 PM »
By saying the human nature died while the divine nature did not, it is an attempt to separate the two. There is no action of the incarnate Christ that was undertaken that was not done by Him hypostatically.

I'll bet the miaphysites are laughing hysterically at this thread.  :laugh:


"As to the evangelical and apostolic expressions about the Lord, we know that theologians treat some in common as of one person and distinguish others as of two natures, and interpret the god-befitting ones in connexion with the godhead of Christ and the lowly ones with his humanity."
-Formula of Reunion 433


I don't see where my statement contradicts that. If Scripture says that Jesus was hungry and desired food, that is an expression of His humanity, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a desire by the hypostatic Christ.  He wasn't a schizophrenic.

I agree. I would only object to the idea that we can't distinguish. Distinguishing isn't always an attempt to compromise the union. (And I'm not saying you were opposing that.)

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #28 on: October 29, 2014, 01:37:35 PM »
Inquirer,

So basically what you are saying then is that the old husband didn't die, so that he didn't become a new man to have a new marriage, and thus the Old Covenant marriage contract is still binding on those who are in him (Romans 7:1-6).

And aren't Monophysites different from Miaphysites? So is it only Monophysites from where my belief comes from, or Miaphysites as well?

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #29 on: October 29, 2014, 01:39:36 PM »
Inquirer,

So basically what you are saying then is that the old husband didn't die, so that he didn't become a new man to have a new marriage, and thus the Old Covenant marriage contract is still binding on those who are in him (Romans 7:1-6).

I honestly haven't a clue what you are talking about. Nobody is saying that Christ did not die.

Quote
And aren't Monophysites different from Miaphysites? So is it only Monophysites from where my belief comes from, or Miaphysites as well?

There is controversy here. Some say that Monophysitism is the same as Miaphysitism. Miaphysites themselves argue that they are Dyophysites that are misunderstood. From what I can tell, the latter is true.
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #30 on: October 29, 2014, 01:42:23 PM »
There is controversy here. Some say that Monophysitism is the same as Miaphysitism. Miaphysites themselves argue that they are Dyophysites that are misunderstood. From what I can tell, the latter is true.

So according to the latter being true, do they or do they not believe that the divine person of the Son died like I do?

Tony
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 01:42:44 PM by TheLoveOfTheTruth »
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #31 on: October 29, 2014, 01:46:22 PM »
There is controversy here. Some say that Monophysitism is the same as Miaphysitism. Miaphysites themselves argue that they are Dyophysites that are misunderstood. From what I can tell, the latter is true.

So according to the latter being true, do they or do they not believe that the divine person of the Son died like I do?

Tony

I am not sure. Miaphysites say that their belief is based upon St. Cyril of Alexandria. I am currently skimming through his works to find out.
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #32 on: October 29, 2014, 01:49:59 PM »
Here is an interesting wikipedia article to further muddy the water.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theopaschite_controversy

Quote
Eventually, the emperor's support of the "Theopaschite formula" finally paved the way for its vindication at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, of which canon 10 reads: "If anyone does not confess that our Lord Jesus Christ who was crucified in flesh is true God and Lord of glory and one of the holy Trinity, let him be anathema".
God bless!

Offline TheLoveOfTheTruth

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 283
    • TheLove OfTheTruth
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: The Lord
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #33 on: October 29, 2014, 01:52:15 PM »
Anyway, I'm going to bed. I will wait for more replies. Mainly the point of this thread is to see if Chalcedonians believe that the divine part of Christ also died along with the human part, or only the human part. Seems the official belief is the human part though. I'm sure some authoritative experts will come in eventually to add their comments. So I'll wait on that.

As for what Miaphysites believe about this. Maybe I'll start a new thread just for them.

Thanks to everyone who has answered and will answer,

Tony
"TRUTH IS HATE TO THOSE WHO HATE THE TRUTH"

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #34 on: October 29, 2014, 01:52:28 PM »
That canon from Constantinople II does not solve anything. Nobody is denying that Jesus Christ, who is God, died on the Cross. The question is if both the human essence and the Godhead/divine essence died, or just the human essence.
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #35 on: October 29, 2014, 01:56:03 PM »
Aha, found a source. Miaphysites DO NOT believe that the divine essence died. See this post: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,7178.msg272042.html#msg272042

Quote
We say that He both suffered, and rose again, not meaning that the Word of God suffered in His own nature .... but in so far as that which had become His own body suffered, then He Himself is said to suffer these things, for our sake, because the Impassible One was in the suffering body.1

Source:  Saint Cyril Of Alexandria: Second Letter To Nestorius in:  John McGuckin: Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy p 203
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #36 on: October 29, 2014, 01:57:48 PM »
That canon from Constantinople II does not solve anything. Nobody is denying that Jesus Christ, who is God, died on the Cross. The question is if both the human essence and the Godhead/divine essence died, or just the human essence.
It does address the concept of theopaschism being a heresy. I have found patripassionism being condemned as a heresy, but not theopaschism.

How can you say God died on the cross if you deny that the divine nature was a part of that? That sounds as if it is saying that the Divinity of Christ left Him prior to His death.
God bless!

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 20,196
  • Pray for me St. Severus
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #37 on: October 29, 2014, 01:57:59 PM »
Inquirer,

So basically what you are saying then is that the old husband didn't die, so that he didn't become a new man to have a new marriage, and thus the Old Covenant marriage contract is still binding on those who are in him (Romans 7:1-6).

I honestly haven't a clue what you are talking about. Nobody is saying that Christ did not die.

Quote
And aren't Monophysites different from Miaphysites? So is it only Monophysites from where my belief comes from, or Miaphysites as well?

There is controversy here. Some say that Monophysitism is the same as Miaphysitism. Miaphysites themselves argue that they are Dyophysites that are misunderstood. From what I can tell, the latter is true.

Just a point of correction.  The OO Church does not say "we are Diophysites who are misunderstood".  We say "we are Orthodox who are misunderstood."
Vain existence can never exist, for "unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain." (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #38 on: October 29, 2014, 02:04:37 PM »
Inquirer,

So basically what you are saying then is that the old husband didn't die, so that he didn't become a new man to have a new marriage, and thus the Old Covenant marriage contract is still binding on those who are in him (Romans 7:1-6).

I honestly haven't a clue what you are talking about. Nobody is saying that Christ did not die.

Quote
And aren't Monophysites different from Miaphysites? So is it only Monophysites from where my belief comes from, or Miaphysites as well?

There is controversy here. Some say that Monophysitism is the same as Miaphysitism. Miaphysites themselves argue that they are Dyophysites that are misunderstood. From what I can tell, the latter is true.

Just a point of correction.  The OO Church does not say "we are Diophysites who are misunderstood".  We say "we are Orthodox who are misunderstood."

Eleison. What I meant to say was that Miaphysites claim their view of the Incarnation is Orthodox, i.e. does not conflict with Diophysitism albeit is expressed in different words. You are correct.

That canon from Constantinople II does not solve anything. Nobody is denying that Jesus Christ, who is God, died on the Cross. The question is if both the human essence and the Godhead/divine essence died, or just the human essence.
It does address the concept of theopaschism being a heresy. I have found patripassionism being condemned as a heresy, but not theopaschism.

How can you say God died on the cross if you deny that the divine nature was a part of that? That sounds as if it is saying that the Divinity of Christ left Him prior to His death.

No, Athanasius and Damascene both testify that when Christ died, his hypostatic union did not separate. That is why we can say "God died". But God died because the body, i.e. human essence, died. At the Resurrection, his human essence was brought back to life and restored to his body, after his soul returned from the harrowing of Hell. Yet the divine essence never died or separated from his soul.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 02:07:43 PM by Inquirer »
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #39 on: October 29, 2014, 02:10:23 PM »
I fail to see how that it not inter-contradictory. The union did not separate, but only half the union died.  ???
God bless!

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #40 on: October 29, 2014, 02:10:39 PM »
But God died because the body, i.e. human essence, died. At the Resurrection, his human essence was brought back to life and restored to his body, after his soul returned from the harrowing of Hell. Yet the divine essence never died or separated from his soul.

Something as abstract as "essence" can't die.

Offline gueranger

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 332
  • Lord Jesus, have mercy on me. BVM, pray for me.
  • Faith: Roman Catholic
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #41 on: October 29, 2014, 02:13:36 PM »
I fail to see how that it not inter-contradictory. The union did not separate, but only half the union died.  ???

Death is separation of body and soul. The body and soul, parts of the human nature, separated. The Divine nature remained hypostatically united to both. So the Divine Person died. His divine nature in and of itself cannot die, but the Divine Person died. We can say the Divine Person suffered and died according to his flesh. (I believe that is a Cyrilian expression.)

I really think everyone is on the same page, it's all semantics.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2014, 02:14:52 PM by gueranger »

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #42 on: October 29, 2014, 02:23:20 PM »
I fail to see how that it not inter-contradictory. The union did not separate, but only half the union died.  ???

Death is separation of body and soul. The body and soul, parts of the human nature, separated. The Divine nature remained hypostatically united to both. So the Divine Person died. His divine nature in and of itself cannot die, but the Divine Person died. We can say the Divine Person suffered and died according to his flesh. (I believe that is a Cyrilian expression.)

I really think everyone is on the same page, it's all semantics.
I'll go with you on this. Theological semantics are about the most abstract thing in the world.  :laugh:
God bless!

Offline Inquirer

  • Antihyperaphthartodocetist
  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 326
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #43 on: October 29, 2014, 02:24:08 PM »
But God died because the body, i.e. human essence, died. At the Resurrection, his human essence was brought back to life and restored to his body, after his soul returned from the harrowing of Hell. Yet the divine essence never died or separated from his soul.

Something as abstract as "essence" can't die.

Essence = life-force (for living beings) = soul = species = form = nature = Quiddity. All of these words are synonymous. When the body dies, the essence dies. So as you can see, there is an absurdity in saying the divine nature of Christ died on the Cross--literally speaking, death can only happen to bodily/mortal things.

I fail to see how that it not inter-contradictory. The union did not separate, but only half the union died.  ???

No, that is wrong. The union is not "half divine, half human". Jesus Christ is entirely human, entirely divine, inseparably and unconfused. When a person dies, their soul leaves the body. This is is what happened to Christ. The body dies, which means the human essence died. However the divine essence did not die, it was still part of his soul when he descended into Hell.
"[The Sacred Congregation of Rites'] decisions are made by a crowd of dirty little Monsignori at Rome in utter ignorance of the meaning or reason of anything. To the historian their decisions are simply disgusting nonsense, that people of my kind want simply to ignore." -- Fr. Adrian Fortescue

Offline TheTrisagion

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 17,814
  • All good things come to an end
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Question For Chalcedonians
« Reply #44 on: October 29, 2014, 02:39:32 PM »
 Essence (or Ousia) =/= Nature (or physis). 
God bless!