Author Topic: Chalcedon...  (Read 3240 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #90 on: September 09, 2017, 03:59:51 PM »
I also would warn you about drawing connections between the two natures. You might be right, but I want to avoid discussing this, because a similar train of thought is what led Sergei Bulgakov to believe that Mary's human nature was deified by the presence of God in her womb, a condemned heresy.

Don't worry, such heresy is so far away from us, it is hard to fall in such trap holes. Let us better beware the trap holes close to us, that we may not fall in them. Perfect manifestation of the Third Hypostasis? She herself? A creature, but also no longer a creature? Is the Holy Virgin uncreated? Can you grasp this, either by faith or by intellect? Nah, this is a bit too far, the actual theosis and theology of the Orthodox Church is much more decent than such. This is just out of topic.
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 312
  • Faith: Orthodox....kind of
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #91 on: September 09, 2017, 04:09:10 PM »
I think a problem however as it pertains to reunion would be the very Monophysite influenced writings of some of their saints (for example, Pope Dioscorus who is alleged to have written that it is blasphemy to say Christ had human blood.), which as such has had one could assume an influence on their theology.
Not to mention culture.

Although I doubt such statements have really come from Pope Dioscorus, the Incarnation, being the ultimate paradox allows that you may say anything crazy and still be right. For example:
As per communicato idiomatum, indeed, Christ doesn't have human blood, but that is in his divinity, not in his flesh (Again, it is just assigning roles of actions in thinking only to its proper natures that could be reasonable speaking, not actual Nestorianism here), for human blood, although it has become the property of a divine self-same person, is still proper to human nature when nature is understood in its essential way. For although Christ is one subsistence, if one wants, many crazy sounding things may be said and you are still right. Since Christ is a fully human person and he still fills all things in the universe as per his divine energies, being God, it could be said that the man Jesus fills everything in existence or that the man Jesus has created the first man on earth, and many stuff like this.

What about culture, though? I don't think there is anything wrong with that...

Another way to approach this statement could be that since blood is a symbol of human life in the Old Testament, at the Incarnation, the human blood that became God the Word's property is not human blood, merely, that is, but it was deified and though still human, it is sanctified by divine uncreated grace and light, thus deifying the life of the fallen human up until then and making his blood salvific, gaining divine properties while human essence remains what it is.

The quote in question is from Saint Emperor Justinian, who claimed that Dioscorus said in a letter from Gangros to Alexandria:


If this is a true letter, this is obvious heresy. However, we here have to trust Justinian.

I also would warn you about drawing connections between the two natures. You might be right, but I want to avoid discussing this, because a similar train of thought is what led Sergei Bulgakov to believe that Mary's human nature was deified by the presence of God in her womb, a condemned heresy.

Also, don't go Transubstantiation on us!

Sorry, but I don't think there is anything heretical about this, as long as understood in its proper way. As I said before, without thoroughly knowing Leo's way of expression and thinking, one can easily take him for a heretic. Even so it is with about anyone who embodies a complex, but beautifully expressed theology. Now, taking it part by part:

1. "...Unless the blood of Christ is by nature the blood of God and not of man, how will it differ from the blood of he-goats, young bulls, and heifers? These are earthly and corruptible, and the blood of men is also earthly and corruptible by nature..." As we have said, Christ is consubstantial with us in his humanity, it's just that ever since the first moment of the Incarnation, his humanity, his flesh and his soul are deified, not by change or mutation or transubstantiation, but by grace and glory. He is not merely a human, a mere man, even a Nestorian can tell you this. Christ is the self-same person just as before the Incarnation, even so after it, meaning that he is still the second person of the Holy Trinity, God the Word. That means that the flesh endowed with soul assumed in the Incarnation is fully God's property, so in virtue of this it is said that Christ's blood is God's blood and not merely an earthly blood. Simply put in words, he is just no longer only God, but fully God and fully man, perfect God and perfect man, but hat doesn't take his divinity away. Even the scriptures say:
"The first man was of the dust of the earth; the second man from heaven." (1 Corinthians 15:47)
2. "...And you have to be very careful here, which is why I don't even want to draw connections between the two natures." Nothing wrong here, and indeed, one has to be really careful with such matters.
3. "...But as for the blood of Christ, we will never say it belongs to one of those who is [earthly and corruptible] by nature." It's the same thing again, God the Word is by nature divine, since that is the nature he has eternally belonged to. In his divinity, God doesn't have blood, but rather the person and the subsistence of God that has become the subsistence of flesh has blood and that this is in his flesh, in his humanity. Yet pay attention when Pope Dioscorus says "it belongs to one of those who is..." so that he is not a mere sacrifice like those of the Old Testament. Plain and simple. I don't see heresy here, unless you want to see it purposefully, in healthy ignorance or in wickedness, otherwise I would dare say.

As for the transubstantiation thing, we are not the Roman Catholic, so please...


I'm so sorry, I accidentally added my own portion of the quote.


"Unless the blood of Christ is by nature the blood of God and not of man, how will it differ from the blood of he-goats, young bulls, and heifers? These are earthly and corruptible, and the blood of men is also earthly and corruptible by nature.  But as for the blood of Christ, we will never say it belongs to one of those who is [earthly and corruptible] by nature."

This is the original quote.

My own incompetence is to blame; ignore the original post. This is what his original quote was; he said nothing about being careful about the connection between the human nature and the Divine nature.

And immediately after this quote from Justinian, he calls it "blasphemy."

From Justinian:

"What could be harder to bear than this blasphemy of Dioscorus? For in denying that the blood of Christ is of the same essence as human nature, it is discovered that he does not confess the flesh of our Lord to be of the same essence as we, and he nullifies the salvation of man because he says the Logos' body is of the same essence as the Logos' divinity."

Once again, I don't know if Dioscorus said the original quote or not, but its from the testimony of Justinian.

But also, when I said "don't go Transubstantiation on us," I was more or less making a joke with the idea of the "essence changing" but the physical properties remaining the same in both the bread and the wine.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2017, 04:22:33 PM by LivenotoneviL »

Offline andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #92 on: September 09, 2017, 04:17:35 PM »
No problem, the answer will remain essentially the same, though.  :)
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 312
  • Faith: Orthodox....kind of
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #93 on: September 09, 2017, 04:50:18 PM »
Knowing my history of anecdotal evidence, I felt it interesting to bring up a quote from Saint Cyril of Alexandria, as it pertains to our conversation:

"Now, He says, is my soul troubled; and what shall I say? Father, save one from this hour: but for this cause came I unto this hour. See I pray you in these words again how the human nature was easily affected by trouble and easily brought over to fear, whereas on the other hand the Divine and ineffable Power is in all respects inflexible and dauntless and intent on the courage which alone is befitting to It. For the mention of death which had been introduced into the discourse begins to alarm Jesus, but the Power of the Godhead straightway subdues the suffering thus excited and in a moment transforms into incomparable boldness that which had been conquered by fear. For we may suppose that even in the Saviour Jesus Christ Himself the human feelings were aroused by two qualities necessarily present in Him. For it must certainly have been under the influence of these that He shewed Himself a Man born of woman, not in deceptive appearance or mere fancy, but rather by nature and in truth, possessing every human quality, sin only excepted."

Source of Quote:
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/cyril_on_john_08_book8.htm

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,709
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #94 on: September 09, 2017, 08:13:43 PM »
We have two writings preserved by St. Dioscorus of Alexandria as far as I am aware.
 
One purported to be a letter to Secundinus while in exile preserved by the historian Zacharias Rhetor (Book 3, Chapter 1):

Omitting many urgent matters, this I declare, that no man shall say that the holy flesh, which our Lord took from the Virgin Mary, by the operation of the Holy Spirit, in a manner which He Himself knows, was different to and foreign from our body. And, indeed, since this is so, they who affirm that Christ did not become incarnate for us, give the lie to Paul. For he has said, 'Not from angels did He take (the nature), but from the seed of the House of Abraham' ; to which seed Mary was no stranger, as the Scriptures teach us. And again,' It was right that in everything He should be made like unto His brethren,' and that word 'in everything' does not suffer the subtraction of any part of our nature : since in nerves, and hair, and bones, and veins, and belly, and heart, and kidneys, and liver, and lungs, and, in short, in all those things that belong to our nature, the flesh which was born from Mary was compacted with the soul of our Redeemer, that reasonable and intelligent soul, without the seed of man, and the gratification and cohabitation of sleep.

For if, as the heretics think, this was not so, how is He named 'our brother,' supposing that He used a body different from ours ? And how, again, is that true which He said to His Father, 'I will declare Thy name to My brethren ?' Let us not reject, neither let us despise, those who think in this way. For He was like us, for us, and with us, not in phantasy, nor in mere semblance, according to the heresy of the Manichaeans, but rather in actual reality from Mary, the Theotokos. To comfort the desolate and to repair the vessel that had been broken, He came to us new. And as Immanuel, indeed, He is confessed ; for He became poor for us, according to the saying of Paul, 'that we, by His humiliation, might be made rich.' He became, by the dispensation, like us ; that we, by His tender mercy, might be like Him. He became man, and yet He did not destroy that which is His nature, that He is Son of God ; that we, by grace, might become the sons of God. This I think and believe; and, if any man does not think thus, he is a stranger to the faith of the apostles.


And here's a link to the letter to the monks of the Hennaton while in exile.

I don't know where Emperor Justinian got the quote from.  Unless Justinian is misquoting St. Dioscorus, I would tend to believe St. Dioscorus was anti-Eutychian in theology.

As for Fr. Sergius Bulgakov's idea that the Theotokos was deified by the pregnancy, what's the problem with that?  This was not just his idea.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2017, 08:14:00 PM by minasoliman »
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 LivenotoneviL

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 312
  • Faith: Orthodox....kind of
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #95 on: September 09, 2017, 10:15:01 PM »
We have two writings preserved by St. Dioscorus of Alexandria as far as I am aware.
 
One purported to be a letter to Secundinus while in exile preserved by the historian Zacharias Rhetor (Book 3, Chapter 1):

Omitting many urgent matters, this I declare, that no man shall say that the holy flesh, which our Lord took from the Virgin Mary, by the operation of the Holy Spirit, in a manner which He Himself knows, was different to and foreign from our body. And, indeed, since this is so, they who affirm that Christ did not become incarnate for us, give the lie to Paul. For he has said, 'Not from angels did He take (the nature), but from the seed of the House of Abraham' ; to which seed Mary was no stranger, as the Scriptures teach us. And again,' It was right that in everything He should be made like unto His brethren,' and that word 'in everything' does not suffer the subtraction of any part of our nature : since in nerves, and hair, and bones, and veins, and belly, and heart, and kidneys, and liver, and lungs, and, in short, in all those things that belong to our nature, the flesh which was born from Mary was compacted with the soul of our Redeemer, that reasonable and intelligent soul, without the seed of man, and the gratification and cohabitation of sleep.

For if, as the heretics think, this was not so, how is He named 'our brother,' supposing that He used a body different from ours ? And how, again, is that true which He said to His Father, 'I will declare Thy name to My brethren ?' Let us not reject, neither let us despise, those who think in this way. For He was like us, for us, and with us, not in phantasy, nor in mere semblance, according to the heresy of the Manichaeans, but rather in actual reality from Mary, the Theotokos. To comfort the desolate and to repair the vessel that had been broken, He came to us new. And as Immanuel, indeed, He is confessed ; for He became poor for us, according to the saying of Paul, 'that we, by His humiliation, might be made rich.' He became, by the dispensation, like us ; that we, by His tender mercy, might be like Him. He became man, and yet He did not destroy that which is His nature, that He is Son of God ; that we, by grace, might become the sons of God. This I think and believe; and, if any man does not think thus, he is a stranger to the faith of the apostles.


And here's a link to the letter to the monks of the Hennaton while in exile.

I don't know where Emperor Justinian got the quote from.  Unless Justinian is misquoting St. Dioscorus, I would tend to believe St. Dioscorus was anti-Eutychian in theology.

As for Fr. Sergius Bulgakov's idea that the Theotokos was deified by the pregnancy, what's the problem with that?  This was not just his idea.

It was condemned as heresy by a synod (by Metropolitan Sergius I - so as to whether it is valid is a difficult question) as well as Saint John Maximovitch. Plus I think it goes too far, going beyond even the idea of Theosis - "I the Lord am your God. You shall not have any gods besides me."

As for that quote, one could argue that Justinian got his hands on a spurious text or Pope Dioscorus had Monophysite inclinations, which is why he would have supported Eutyches.

Much like a Tootsie Pop lick count, the world may never know.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2017, 10:21:22 PM by LivenotoneviL »

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 312
  • Faith: Orthodox....kind of
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #96 on: September 09, 2017, 10:25:29 PM »
2nd post
« Last Edit: September 09, 2017, 10:27:50 PM by LivenotoneviL »

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,153
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #97 on: September 09, 2017, 11:12:01 PM »
Are we using the word deified differently?
“There is your brother, naked, crying, and you stand there confused over the choice of an attractive floor covering.”- St. Ambrose of Milan

"Now one cannot be a half-hearted Christian, but only entirely or not at all." -Fr. Seraphim Rose

"He who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen." (1 John 4:20)

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,709
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #98 on: September 09, 2017, 11:15:20 PM »
But the latter "possibility" is not possible.  He didn't "support" Eutyches in the same way as coming to the rescue of a beloved brother, but as merely an unknown character who sounded like he was scapegoated by perceived, and here's the key word perceived, Nestorians.  He never kept close correspondence to Eutyches before or after the council of Ephesus II.

With that in mind, when presented with the possibility that Eutyches was not Orthodox, he responded in the minutes of Chalcedon itself: "If Eutyches holds what is contrary to the faith, not only should he be condemned, but deserves hellfire.  My concern is solely of the Orthodox faith, not of any person."

The successor to St. Dioscorus was a personal deacon of his, St. Timothy II (nicknamed "Aelurus").  He defended the memory and honor of the saint, successfully brought back his body from Gangra to be buried with great honor, AND condemned Eutyches with no reservations.

So once again, Justinian's quote is just Justinian's quote.  Wherever he may have gotten it, we don't know, and I don't care to speculate.  I prefer to go with what was preserved to us by the hands of St. Dioscorus himself.

As for the theosis of the Theotokos, before I comment further on the vagueness of what you are saying (because I think both EO and OO liturgical traditions teach her deification when the Holy Spirit came upon her, and if the Holy Spirit comes upon someone and divine power OVERSHADOWS someone, that's deification hands down), can you point me to more information about this "controversy"?

« Last Edit: September 09, 2017, 11:19:01 PM by minasoliman »
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 minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,709
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #99 on: September 09, 2017, 11:22:25 PM »
Are we using the word deified differently?

Hmmmm...just to clarify:

Deification does not mean I become consubstantial with God.  God is not deified because that implies He gains something that He doesn't have by nature.  Deification only happens to someone who is created, not the Creator.  God deifies; we become deified.

So to say the Theotokos was deified at the Annunciation seems quite appropriate and Orthodox, because it affirms the deity of the Holy Spirit and the Son incarnate.  That's the ULTIMATE point of the incarnation:  to deify all mankind...and He began with the Theotokos an an example.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2017, 11:23:32 PM by minasoliman »
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 rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,158
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #100 on: September 09, 2017, 11:40:57 PM »



I'm so sorry, I accidentally added my own portion of the quote.


"Unless the blood of Christ is by nature the blood of God and not of man, how will it differ from the blood of he-goats, young bulls, and heifers? These are earthly and corruptible, and the blood of men is also earthly and corruptible by nature.  But as for the blood of Christ, we will never say it belongs to one of those who is [earthly and corruptible] by nature."

This is the original quote.

My own incompetence is to blame; ignore the original post. This is what his original quote was; he said nothing about being careful about the connection between the human nature and the Divine nature.

And immediately after this quote from Justinian, he calls it "blasphemy."

From Justinian:

"What could be harder to bear than this blasphemy of Dioscorus? For in denying that the blood of Christ is of the same essence as human nature, it is discovered that he does not confess the flesh of our Lord to be of the same essence as we, and he nullifies the salvation of man because he says the Logos' body is of the same essence as the Logos' divinity."

Once again, I don't know if Dioscorus said the original quote or not, but its from the testimony of Justinian.

But also, when I said "don't go Transubstantiation on us," I was more or less making a joke with the idea of the "essence changing" but the physical properties remaining the same in both the bread and the wine.
It was likely common practice in patristic times to quote part of what a church opponent wrote and then discard the rest.
So for example, Origen quoted Celsus, but then Celsus' writing got lost.

Same thing with Marcion, cited by Tertullian. Probably Dioscorus had numerous writings on the topics he was involved in, like his rejection of Christ being in two natures, that have been lost.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2017, 11:41:15 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 564
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #101 on: September 10, 2017, 06:50:59 AM »
I have a simple question: do anti-chalcedonians agree and confess that after the incarnation, the one Lord Jesus Christ have two natures, two wills and two energies ?

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,709
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #102 on: September 10, 2017, 09:01:20 AM »
Well there's a simple answer: we confess one nature, one energy, one will, all theandric/composite.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2017, 09:02:09 AM by minasoliman »
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 rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,158
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #103 on: September 10, 2017, 12:28:11 PM »
Well there's a simple answer: we confess one nature, one energy, one will, all theandric/composite.
In Leo's Tome, Leo speaks of the "divine and human nature" of Christ in the singular, and this phrase expressing apparently a composite nature can be found in numerous EO writings, including current ones. So I personally don't see the idea of a single composite nature as a crucial or essential difference. Rather, the issue hasn't the issue long seemed to be over whether to answer the question Vanhyo asked in the affirmative (Chalcedon) or negative (Dioscorus and Ephesus ii)?
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #104 on: September 10, 2017, 12:51:39 PM »
Are you sure it is not just a bad or a careless translation from the original Latin or from its translated form in Greek and Leo really spoke of "the divine and human nature" and not of "the divine and human natures"? As for the question for the Oriental Orthodox, I think that they, by confessing two natures in thought only, can also affirm two natural wills and energies in thought only, without destroying the composite unity they so strictly adhere to. Also, as for us Chalcedonians, let's not act dumb and pretend that Dioscorus and Ephesus II really denied the double consubstantial Christ, God the Word incarnate. He was just, by thinking that everyone was using the word 'nature' in the same way as the Alexandrians that used it as 'hypostasis', found the 'two natures' thing unacceptable without proper qualification and abused by crypto-Nestorians. Either way, it's better for the Oriental Orthodox to answer since they know their stuff better than us that may want to ascribe to them our own biases...
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 564
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #105 on: September 10, 2017, 01:14:43 PM »
Well there's a simple answer: we confess one nature, one energy, one will, all theandric/composite.
In Leo's Tome, Leo speaks of the "divine and human nature" of Christ in the singular, and this phrase expressing apparently a composite nature can be found in numerous EO writings, including current ones. So I personally don't see the idea of a single composite nature as a crucial or essential difference. Rather, the issue hasn't the issue long seemed to be over whether to answer the question Vanhyo asked in the affirmative (Chalcedon) or negative (Dioscorus and Ephesus ii)?
After all this time busying yourself with this topic you still don't understand, do you ? When someone confess single will and single energy, that is the same as confessing one nature (which is a result of mixture)

If there were two natures before the incarnation and a single nature after the incarnation, this is the same as mixing of the natures. Infact it is no longer a hypostatic union, but a beginning of a new super-nature or a mixture into one nature.

Whether someone claims that this nature consist of 50%/50% composition or a 99% to 1% ratio, is irreverent, he is still confessing single nature.

There is no human/divine super nature, there is a human nature and a divine nature, which we confess to be united in the person of Christ.

Offline andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #106 on: September 10, 2017, 02:14:14 PM »
Well there's a simple answer: we confess one nature, one energy, one will, all theandric/composite.
In Leo's Tome, Leo speaks of the "divine and human nature" of Christ in the singular, and this phrase expressing apparently a composite nature can be found in numerous EO writings, including current ones. So I personally don't see the idea of a single composite nature as a crucial or essential difference. Rather, the issue hasn't the issue long seemed to be over whether to answer the question Vanhyo asked in the affirmative (Chalcedon) or negative (Dioscorus and Ephesus ii)?
After all this time busying yourself with this topic you still don't understand, do you ? When someone confess single will and single energy, that is the same as confessing one nature (which is a result of mixture)

If there were two natures before the incarnation and a single nature after the incarnation, this is the same as mixing of the natures. Infact it is no longer a hypostatic union, but a beginning of a new super-nature or a mixture into one nature.

Whether someone claims that this nature consist of 50%/50% composition or a 99% to 1% ratio, is irreverent, he is still confessing single nature.

There is no human/divine super nature, there is a human nature and a divine nature, which we confess to be united in the person of Christ.

Is someone talking about mixture and confusion in the union of natures in Christ? We know that a union of two natures occured in Christ and by still preserving the natural differences in the union, one reality and compound subsistence of the God the Word made flesh resulted from the Incarnation. Christ doesn't have two natures or hypostases before the Incarnation, that is just conceptual imagery used to describe how the union of God with the form of a slave took place. Also, no one of the Oriental Orthodox miaphysites ever spoke about a single nature, but of a composite nature. Although the interpretation rakovsky attributes to the Tome of Leo as if Leo speaks of one divine and human nature may be doubtful, when he said 'singular', he most assuredly meant that Leo spoke of the mia physis composite nature in one of his broken ways of elaboration, so anything about singularity of a nature in the truest sense or about a composite nature that involves confusion is completely out of the topic.
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 564
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #107 on: September 10, 2017, 02:49:13 PM »
Quote
Also, no one of the Oriental Orthodox miaphysites ever spoke about a single nature, but of a composite nature.
Will and energy doesn't come from a person but from that person's nature. A person refers to who wills/did it, or in other words a person acts though his/hers nature.

Let me give you an example, you are a single person with human nature, you will never naturally will to move your hands like a bird's wings in order to fly, because it is not part of your nature.

If someone will speak of one will and one energy, then this person is no longer speaking of "composite nature", but clearly defining nature in context, as the source of will and energy.

In this case, we can no longer speak of misunderstanding or language mistake.



 


Offline andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #108 on: September 10, 2017, 03:13:43 PM »
Quote
Also, no one of the Oriental Orthodox miaphysites ever spoke about a single nature, but of a composite nature.
Will and energy doesn't come from a person but from that person's nature. A person refers to who wills/did it, or in other words a person acts though his/hers nature.

Let me give you an example, you are a single person with human nature, you will never naturally will to move your hands like a bird's wings in order to fly, because it is not part of your nature.

If someone will speak of one will and one energy, then this person is no longer speaking of "composite nature", but clearly defining nature in context, as the source of will and energy.

In this case, we can no longer speak of misunderstanding or language mistake.

Indeed, natural willing is something to be ascribed as proper to nature, yet look at St. Maximus the Confessor's concepts of gnomic will or rather personal will and natural will. It's not like this is really relevant here, but this is to show that not all willing comes from nature although truly sometimes, willing may be proper to nature, as you showed in your example.
Yet, the Orientals speak of two faculties of willing, if you read their writings carefully, so that even though they speak of one compound will, or rather one theandric will, it is as a result of these two faculties of willing without separation and division and this will is 100% human and 100% divine at the same time, just like they confess one compound nature as 100% human and 100% divine. Simply put in words, this is just a way to show how Christ's willing is without disorders and with proper equilibrium.
Because the concepts of will and energy we are talking about are related to nature, so that we are talking about natural willing and natural energy/energies, it is proper for dyophysites to speak of two natural wills and energies without confusion, alteration, division or separation and it is also proper for miaphysites to speak of one theandric natural will and one theandric energy as a result of Christ having one compound nature.
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,158
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #109 on: September 10, 2017, 11:52:47 PM »
Are you sure it is not just a bad or a careless translation from the original Latin or from its translated form in Greek and Leo really spoke of "the divine and human nature" and not of "the divine and human natures"?
Yes. This issue shows up in the Russian translation of the Tome too, where he talks about the human and divine nature of Christ. Besides, like I said, you can find other times when even today EOs talk about how Christ's nature is both human and divine.

See e.g..:

Quote
The Divine and Human Nature of Christ | Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto ...
www.gometropolis.org › orthodox-faith
The Holy Scriptures speak of the divine nature and divinity of Christ in many places, but we will refer to only a few. Let us begin...
http://www.gometropolis.org/orthodox-faith/the-incarnation-of-the-logos/the-divine-and-human-nature-of-christ/

To give an analogy, I found a 2nd or 3rd Christian writing saying that a certain bad person has 2 natures, a human nature and a demonic nature. One could paraphrase this as saying that the person had a demonic and human nature. My understanding is that these are two ways of saying the same thing.

Quote
As for the question for the Oriental Orthodox, I think that they, by confessing two natures in thought only, can also affirm two natural wills and energies in thought only, without destroying the composite unity they so strictly adhere to.
The first instance I know where O.O theologians accepted Christ having two natures after the union, even in thought only, was in the 20th c. Ecumenical dialogues. My understanding is that classically the OOs rejected two natures being attributable to Christ after the union, as in the quote by Dioscorus that I posted earlier in the threads.

Quote
Also, as for us Chalcedonians, let's not act dumb and pretend that Dioscorus and Ephesus II really denied the double consubstantial Christ, God the Word incarnate. He was just, by thinking that everyone was using the word 'nature' in the same way as the Alexandrians that used it as 'hypostasis', found the 'two natures' thing unacceptable without proper qualification and abused by crypto-Nestorians.
Dear Andi, please have a look at the thread where I ask whether OOs teach that Christ has two essences after the union. I agree with what you said about it being helpful to hear. O.O answers about that:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,71012.0.html
« Last Edit: September 11, 2017, 12:01:46 AM by rakovsky »
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Remnkemi

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 359
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #110 on: September 11, 2017, 12:30:15 AM »
Well there's a simple answer: we confess one nature, one energy, one will, all theandric/composite.
In Leo's Tome, Leo speaks of the "divine and human nature" of Christ in the singular, and this phrase expressing apparently a composite nature can be found in numerous EO writings, including current ones. So I personally don't see the idea of a single composite nature as a crucial or essential difference. Rather, the issue hasn't the issue long seemed to be over whether to answer the question Vanhyo asked in the affirmative (Chalcedon) or negative (Dioscorus and Ephesus ii)?
After all this time busying yourself with this topic you still don't understand, do you ? When someone confess single will and single energy, that is the same as confessing one nature (which is a result of mixture)
No miaphysite ever confessed a single will and single energy. We are claiming a composite will and energy. It is not single. The distinction of two wills remain, but in the mind. These are the words of St Cyril, the same person whom Chalcedon claimed were the same as Leo's Tome. Either St Cyril and all miaphysites deny a single nature, will or energy (true monophysitism), or Chalcedon and Leo agrees with St Cyril that the distinction of the natures, will and energy exist in the mind only.

Quote
If there were two natures before the incarnation and a single nature after the incarnation, this is the same as mixing of the natures. Infact it is no longer a hypostatic union, but a beginning of a new super-nature or a mixture into one nature.
And that is the only possible interpretation of miaphysitism? Really? If I were to use that same line of thinking, I can say "If there are two natures before the incarnation and two natures after the incarnation, then there is no hypostatic union if the two things before the union continue as the same two things after the union? In fact, it is no longer a hypostatic union and therefore there must be two different hypostatses." Obviously, this is not how Chalcedonians think. Why don't you extend the same courtesy that miaphysitism is  a little more sophisticated than what you have claimed?

Quote
Whether someone claims that this nature consist of 50%/50% composition or a 99% to 1% ratio, is irreverent, he is still confessing single nature.
No this someone is claiming a composite, not single. Don't put words in that someone's mouth.

Quote
There is no human/divine super nature, there is a human nature and a divine nature, which we confess to be united in the person of Christ.
No one ever said there was a human/divine super nature. There is a composite nature. And if you don't know how that differs from a super nature, go back to St Cyril's specific writings on the matter.

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,158
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #111 on: September 11, 2017, 12:35:40 AM »
Well there's a simple answer: we confess one nature, one energy, one will, all theandric/composite.
In Leo's Tome, Leo speaks of the "divine and human nature" of Christ in the singular, and this phrase expressing apparently a composite nature can be found in numerous EO writings, including current ones. So I personally don't see the idea of a single composite nature as a crucial or essential difference. Rather, the issue hasn't the issue long seemed to be over whether to answer the question Vanhyo asked in the affirmative (Chalcedon) or negative (Dioscorus and Ephesus ii)?
After all this time busying yourself with this topic you still don't understand, do you ? When someone confess single will and single energy, that is the same as confessing one nature (which is a result of mixture)
No miaphysite ever confessed a single will and single energy. We are claiming a composite will and energy. It is not single. The distinction of two wills remain, but in the mind. These are the words of St Cyril, the same person whom Chalcedon claimed were the same as Leo's Tome. Either St Cyril and all miaphysites deny a single nature, will or energy (true monophysitism), or Chalcedon and Leo agrees with St Cyril that the distinction of the natures, will and energy exist in the mind only.

Can you please provide a quote by Cyril that the distinction is in mind only?

Because the quote by Cyril I posted elsewhere on this forum was that it is the division between the natures that is in thought alone.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2017, 12:36:41 AM by rakovsky »
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline Remnkemi

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 359
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #112 on: September 11, 2017, 12:38:38 AM »
Quote
Also, no one of the Oriental Orthodox miaphysites ever spoke about a single nature, but of a composite nature.

Let me give you an example, you are a single person with human nature, you will never naturally will to move your hands like a bird's wings in order to fly, because it is not part of your nature.
Funny. That is exactly how DaVinci envisioned human flying.

This is from here.
"The design for this invention is clearly inspired by the flight of winged animals, which da Vinci hoped to replicate. In fact, in his notes, he mentions bats, kites and birds as sources of inspiration.

Perhaps the inspiration of the bat shines through the most, as the two wings of the device feature pointed ends commonly associated with the winged creature. Leonardo da Vinci’s flying machine had a wingspan that exceeded 33 feet, and the frame was to be made of pine covered in raw silk to create a light but sturdy membrane.

The pilot would lie face down in the center of the invention on a board. To power the wings, the pilot would pedal a crank connected to a rod-and-pulley system. The machine also had a hand crank for increased energy output, and a head piece for steering. As the busy pilot spins cranks with his hands and feet, the wings of the machine flap. The inspiration of nature in the invention is apparent in the way the wings were designed to twist as they flapped."

I guess DaVinci didn't have a human nature but a winged animal's nature.

Offline Remnkemi

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 359
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #113 on: September 11, 2017, 12:45:34 AM »
Can you please provide a quote by Cyril that the distinction is in mind only?

Because the quote by Cyril I posted elsewhere on this forum was that it is the division between the natures that is in thought alone.
Second Letter of Cyril to Succensus 5

"This objection is yet another attack on those who say that there is one incarnate nature of the Son. They want to show that the idea is foolish and so they keep on arguing at every turn that two natures endured. They have forgotten, however, that it is only those things that are usually distinguished at more than a merely theoretical level which split apart from one another in differentiated separateness and radical distinction. Let us once more take the example of an ordinary man. We recognise two natures in him; for there is one nature of the soul and another of the body, but we divide them only at a theoretical level, and by subtle speculation, or rather we accept the distinction only in our mental intuitions, and we do not set the natures apart nor do we grant that they have a radical separateness, but we understand them to belong to one man. This is why the two are no longer two, but through both of them the one living creature is rendered complete. "
« Last Edit: September 11, 2017, 12:45:54 AM by Remnkemi »

Offline andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #114 on: September 11, 2017, 07:47:58 AM »
Are you sure it is not just a bad or a careless translation from the original Latin or from its translated form in Greek and Leo really spoke of "the divine and human nature" and not of "the divine and human natures"?
Yes. This issue shows up in the Russian translation of the Tome too, where he talks about the human and divine nature of Christ. Besides, like I said, you can find other times when even today EOs talk about how Christ's nature is both human and divine.

See e.g..:

Quote
The Divine and Human Nature of Christ | Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto ...
www.gometropolis.org › orthodox-faith
The Holy Scriptures speak of the divine nature and divinity of Christ in many places, but we will refer to only a few. Let us begin...
http://www.gometropolis.org/orthodox-faith/the-incarnation-of-the-logos/the-divine-and-human-nature-of-christ/

To give an analogy, I found a 2nd or 3rd Christian writing saying that a certain bad person has 2 natures, a human nature and a demonic nature. One could paraphrase this as saying that the person had a demonic and human nature. My understanding is that these are two ways of saying the same thing.

Quote
As for the question for the Oriental Orthodox, I think that they, by confessing two natures in thought only, can also affirm two natural wills and energies in thought only, without destroying the composite unity they so strictly adhere to.
The first instance I know where O.O theologians accepted Christ having two natures after the union, even in thought only, was in the 20th c. Ecumenical dialogues. My understanding is that classically the OOs rejected two natures being attributable to Christ after the union, as in the quote by Dioscorus that I posted earlier in the threads.

Quote
Also, as for us Chalcedonians, let's not act dumb and pretend that Dioscorus and Ephesus II really denied the double consubstantial Christ, God the Word incarnate. He was just, by thinking that everyone was using the word 'nature' in the same way as the Alexandrians that used it as 'hypostasis', found the 'two natures' thing unacceptable without proper qualification and abused by crypto-Nestorians.
Dear Andi, please have a look at the thread where I ask whether OOs teach that Christ has two essences after the union. I agree with what you said about it being helpful to hear. O.O answers about that:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,71012.0.html


Rakovsky, let me have my take on this and then please tell me if I am wrong, and I really apologise if so.

Firstly, as for the Tome of St.Leo, just because "the divine and human nature" thing shows up in more than one translation, that doesn't make it outright correct translation. Note carefully what I requested: that the original Latin or that at most, its translated form in Greek that was used in Chalcedon, if you can. Better than say that the Russian verson has the same translation as the English one, or something similar, wouldn't it be better to say that you don't know and we are all making assumptions while we don't use the original form and that's it? I am not saying that you definitely don't know what you are talking about, but that if you really cannot support something as you were asked, it would be better not to present it as THE answer of my question with great confidence, although I would still like to think as if my doubts could be wrong... Then again, it is not really about what some Chalcedonians or non-Chalcedonians say about the divine and human nature and the double consubstantiality of Christ more than what the persons we are currently speaking of say on this topic (Leo and Dioscorus). So even if some OO's speak of a divine-human essence, it isn't relevant to us right now what they say, more than what did firstly Dioscorus affirm regarding this, this for the simple reason that right now, we are talkig about him and not about others. If Dioscorus affirmed the double essence of Christ, that's it. What I want to say is that if we are talking about Dioscorus or about person X, let's first finish talking about him and then we may proceed, so that our discussion may be healthy an orderly. I don't want to be disrespectful, but the thing is I didn't ask what one or the other say more than what the church teaches dogmatically and doctrinally by the means of its Councils and main saints regarding a particular topic. For example, an EO saint could teach universalism, but just because he is orthodox, that doesn't always mean that all the orthodox must accept all of his ideas. This could very well be the case with the OO's. If one of them speaks of one essence and Dioscorus speaks of two essences, it is Dioscorus' opinion that will be taken as the official statement of orthodoxy. (Sorry, I could not find any better word than 'official')...

As for the OO's not speaking about two natures even in thought until recently, what about Severus of Antioch? Didn't he affirm two natures en theoria? He says that he doesn't depart from Cyril's words and he clearly shows in his own writings familiarity with the second letter of Cyrilto Succensus, which mentions the distincion of natures in thought. Severus may not be our saint but he is still an OO saint, so a saint in his way, meaning thaf I am to take his word for truth and his full accord with Cyril's line of thinking. If we are ignorant on these, at least let us not remain so... Yet I agree with you that both ways of speaking of two natures and the divine and human nature describe orthodoxy as long as proper clarifications are made (One person, one hypostasis, two natures spoken of as "one" to show their unity while their distictions are preserved and so on...)

Again forgive me if I didn't truthfully represent your ideas, rakovsky, the OO's ideas,, orthodoxy and anyone else. Even though this was my reply, you still have my thanks, rakovsky, for what helpfulnes you provided.
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,917
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #115 on: September 11, 2017, 09:29:07 AM »
It was condemned as heresy by a synod (by Metropolitan Sergius I - so as to whether it is valid is a difficult question) as well as Saint John Maximovitch. Plus I think it goes too far, going beyond even the idea of Theosis - "I the Lord am your God. You shall not have any gods besides me."

Having read Fr Sergius Bulgakov's position in his own words, I think it's fair to say that the denunciations are based on misinterpretation. Moreover, Fr. Sergius' own jurisdiction (Paris Exarchate/ EP) found nothing heretical in his writing.
Quote
“A goose to hatch the Crystal Egg after an Eagle had half-hatched it! Aye, aye, to be sure, that’s right,” said the Old Woman of Beare. “And now you must go find out what happened to it. Go now, and when you come back I will give you your name.”
- from The King of Ireland's Son, by Padraic Colum

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,709
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #116 on: September 11, 2017, 01:30:55 PM »
Quote
Also, no one of the Oriental Orthodox miaphysites ever spoke about a single nature, but of a composite nature.
Will and energy doesn't come from a person but from that person's nature. A person refers to who wills/did it, or in other words a person acts though his/hers nature.

Let me give you an example, you are a single person with human nature, you will never naturally will to move your hands like a bird's wings in order to fly, because it is not part of your nature.

If someone will speak of one will and one energy, then this person is no longer speaking of "composite nature", but clearly defining nature in context, as the source of will and energy.

In this case, we can no longer speak of misunderstanding or language mistake.

This last sentence shows your pre-conceived stereotype.  You jump to conclusion without investigating, without kindly asking, without clearing the air of confusion.  Andi.Zghaba here is defending Pope Leo, and I for one appreciate his research.  He has every right to do so, and he does it with respect, without accusatory language against us.  You on the other hand seem to have a problem controlling yourself, as usual.  But you write with no understanding, with no knowledge, and with no respect.

Anyway, Maximus the Confessor defended the "theandric will" of pseudo-Dionysius on the basis that he believed he was the real Dionysius.  Now, there's some unfortunate implications to this, but the essential and fortunate point is that he can see the Orthodoxy in the terminology.  Surely, you are no better than the teacher Maximus.

Furthermore, the terminology does not mean a mixture of "super-nature", but simply the reality in which both natures interpenetrating one another, communicating the properties to one another in a unified manner to bring salvation for mankind.  After all, we also are given the opportunity to interpenetrate ourselves into the divine nature, or rather it Christ who does this to us primarily.  Therefore, also our wills and energy become a part of that process.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2017, 01:39:28 PM by minasoliman »
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 minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,709
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #117 on: September 11, 2017, 01:46:52 PM »
Are you sure it is not just a bad or a careless translation from the original Latin or from its translated form in Greek and Leo really spoke of "the divine and human nature" and not of "the divine and human natures"?
Yes. This issue shows up in the Russian translation of the Tome too, where he talks about the human and divine nature of Christ. Besides, like I said, you can find other times when even today EOs talk about how Christ's nature is both human and divine.

See e.g..:

Quote
The Divine and Human Nature of Christ | Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Toronto ...
www.gometropolis.org › orthodox-faith
The Holy Scriptures speak of the divine nature and divinity of Christ in many places, but we will refer to only a few. Let us begin...
http://www.gometropolis.org/orthodox-faith/the-incarnation-of-the-logos/the-divine-and-human-nature-of-christ/

To give an analogy, I found a 2nd or 3rd Christian writing saying that a certain bad person has 2 natures, a human nature and a demonic nature. One could paraphrase this as saying that the person had a demonic and human nature. My understanding is that these are two ways of saying the same thing.

Quote
As for the question for the Oriental Orthodox, I think that they, by confessing two natures in thought only, can also affirm two natural wills and energies in thought only, without destroying the composite unity they so strictly adhere to.
The first instance I know where O.O theologians accepted Christ having two natures after the union, even in thought only, was in the 20th c. Ecumenical dialogues. My understanding is that classically the OOs rejected two natures being attributable to Christ after the union, as in the quote by Dioscorus that I posted earlier in the threads.

Quote
Also, as for us Chalcedonians, let's not act dumb and pretend that Dioscorus and Ephesus II really denied the double consubstantial Christ, God the Word incarnate. He was just, by thinking that everyone was using the word 'nature' in the same way as the Alexandrians that used it as 'hypostasis', found the 'two natures' thing unacceptable without proper qualification and abused by crypto-Nestorians.
Dear Andi, please have a look at the thread where I ask whether OOs teach that Christ has two essences after the union. I agree with what you said about it being helpful to hear. O.O answers about that:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,71012.0.html

Rakovsky,

I hesitate to argue this with you, but let me defer to your experiences with many writings you have read around you, especially in well-respected newspaper articles, popular textbooks, manuals for how to build things, etc.  While it may be rare, chances are you and I have stumbled a few grammatical errors.  Even Bible exegetes like Origen would argue the Scripture translations he has have some grammatical errors as well.

Now, if Pope Leo did intend it to be singular rather than plural, why is in the same Tome he condemns the use of "one nature" completely, solely believing it to be a heretical Eutychian phrase.  In fact, I know of nowhere in Pope Leo's writings where he shows adequate knowledge of Cyrillian "one nature" language.  His knowledge at best seems to rely on Latin theological resources, like Tertullian and St. Augustine, both known to confess "two natures".

Furthermore, is there any other letter or sermon by Pope Leo which confesses one incarnate nature?

As to the first instance, it's been said St. Severus of Antioch agreed that "two natures" do have an Orthodox past and can be used in an Orthodox manner.  Scholars have mentioned this in reading his writings, a lot of which have not been translated, especially writings against certain Chalcedonians like Nephalius and John the Grammarian.  His insistence on "one nature" ran primarily with what he perceived as Nestorians gaining the upper hand as well as not confessing a real communion between humanity and divinity.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2017, 01:52:19 PM by minasoliman »
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 andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #118 on: September 11, 2017, 03:57:22 PM »
Rakovsky,

I hesitate to argue this with you, but let me defer to your experiences with many writings you have read around you, especially in well-respected newspaper articles, popular textbooks, manuals for how to build things, etc.  While it may be rare, chances are you and I have stumbled a few grammatical errors.  Even Bible exegetes like Origen would argue the Scripture translations he has have some grammatical errors as well.

Now, if Pope Leo did intend it to be singular rather than plural, why is in the same Tome he condemns the use of "one nature" completely, solely believing it to be a heretical Eutychian phrase.  In fact, I know of nowhere in Pope Leo's writings where he shows adequate knowledge of Cyrillian "one nature" language.  His knowledge at best seems to rely on Latin theological resources, like Tertullian and St. Augustine, both known to confess "two natures".

Furthermore, is there any other letter or sermon by Pope Leo which confesses one incarnate nature?

As to the first instance, it's been said St. Severus of Antioch agreed that "two natures" do have an Orthodox past and can be used in an Orthodox manner.  Scholars have mentioned this in reading his writings, a lot of which have not been translated, especially writings against certain Chalcedonians like Nephalius and John the Grammarian.  His insistence on "one nature" ran primarily with what he perceived as Nestorians gaining the upper hand as well as not confessing a real communion between humanity and divinity.

If one was to be really scholastically correct (what a word I just used!), the Tome of Leo is not just a document that was prepared when the need for it arose, but passages and excerpts where taken from various writings, letters and most of all, sermons of Pope Leo. So the origin of the fragment in question is Leo's first sermon On the Lord's Resurrection.

“...In Him the properties of the Divine and Human Nature remained undivided, and we might in such sort know that the Word was not what the flesh is, as to confess God's only Son to be both Word and Flesh.” (On the Lord’s Resurrection I)

"...He showed the wound in His side, the marks of the nails, and all the signs of His quite recent suffering, saying, See My hands and feet, that it is I. Handle Me and see that a spirit has not flesh and bones, as you see Me have ; in order that the properties of His Divine and human nature might be acknowledged to remain still inseparable: and that we might know the Word not to be different from the flesh, in such a sense as also to confess that the one Son of God is both the Word and flesh. " (Tome of Leo)

Also there were these interesting passages:

"For the Word was not in any part of It turned either into flesh or into soul, seeing that the absolute and unchangeable nature of the Godhead is ever entire in its Essence, receiving no loss nor increase, and so beatifying the nature that It had assumed that that nature remained for ever glorified in the person of the Glorifier. [But why should it seem unsuitable or impossible that the Word and flesh and soul should be one Jesus Christ, and that the Son of God and the Son of Man should be one, if flesh and soul which are of different natures make one person even without the Incarnation of the Word: since it is much easier for the power of the Godhead to produce this union of Himself and man than for the weakness of manhood by itself to effect it in its own substance.] Therefore neither was the Word changed into flesh nor flesh into the Word: but both remains in one and one is in both, not divided by the diversity and not confounded by intermixture: He is not one by His Father and another by His mother, but the same, in one way by His Father before every beginning, and in another by His mother at the end of the ages" (Letter to Julian Bishop of Constantinople)

In here, Leo makes the analogy of body and soul while trying to explain the Incarnation in general terms, yet he doesn't look as flesh and soul as one human nature, as Cyril did, but as one person, or rather, as one reality, since Leo used 'person' in two ways: as the self-same prosopon of Christ and as manhood and the godhead forming one person, seen in the same letter, too.

Then, afterwards:

"David's Lord was made David's Son, and from the fruit of the promised branch sprang One without fault, the twofold nature joining together into one Person, that by one and the same conception and birth might spring our Lord Jesus Christ, in Whom was present both true Godhead for the performance of mighty works and true Manhood for the endurance of sufferings." (On the Feast of Nativity VIII)

"He that was born voluntarily shall die of His own free will. The Wise men, therefore, fulfill their desire, and come to the child, the Lord Jesus Christ, the same star going before them. They adore the Word in flesh, the Wisdom in infancy, the Power in weakness, the Lord of majesty in the reality of man: and by their gifts make open acknowledgment of what they believe in their hearts, that they may show forth the mystery of their faith and understanding. The incense they offer to God, the myrrh to Man, the gold to the King, consciously paying honor to the Divine and human Nature in union: because while each substance had its own properties, there was no difference in the power of either." (On the Feast of Epiphany I)

So far I've seen, this "twofold nature" and this "the divine and human nature in union" are the closest thing in the entirety of Leo's sermons to Cyril's mia physis, although it is utterly rare for Leo to speak like this, since his favorite way of understanding the Incarnation is always speaking of two natures united at least. Yet here is another excerpt from Leo that shows how he understood the divine and human nature Rakovsky presents as One nature and not as the divine nature and human nature according to Leo:

"The Lord had made it clear by the words of His sacred prayer that the Divine and the Human Nature was most truly and fully present in Him, showing that the unwillingness to suffer proceeded from the one, and from the other the determination to suffer by the expulsion of all frail fears and the strengthening of His lofty power, then did He return to His eternal purpose" (On the Passion VIII)

So in here, Leo speaks again of the divine and human nature in singular, even clearly, just for one moment, speaking as it (one nature) was, yet just after that, showing that they are still distinct by his way of talking...As for letters regarding this, I'll maybe find something  later, but as for now, there is nothing like this.

Therefore, if one would ask me personally, I honestly don't really think Pope St. Leo was speaking of one divine and human nature in the sense rakovsky makes it look like, although it is still an interesting perspective on this and there were other instances apart from his Tome that Leo comes even closer to that. Still, more than simply condemning the one nature completely, he simply shows his ignorance on St. Cyril's writings and his formula as he recognizes the one nature always in connection with Eutyches.

As for Severus, that is the whole thing: Chalcedon, although clarified by mention of one hypostasis and of the self-same person of Christ and usage of two natures clearly intended to mean being understood in their essential properties, with the 'in two natures' formula supported by Leo's Tome interpreted as in accord with Cyril's 12 anathemas (I won't mention the clarifications of the Fifth Council, since Severus had passed away by then), was still abused by crypto-Nestorians and the names of Ibas and Theodoret. So Severus really knew what he was doing and what he was saying, pretty sad he was misunderstood to be a Nestorian and Eutychian in the way he was...
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,158
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #119 on: September 11, 2017, 04:16:22 PM »
Can you please provide a quote by Cyril that the distinction is in mind only?

Because the quote by Cyril I posted elsewhere on this forum was that it is the division between the natures that is in thought alone.
Second Letter of Cyril to Succensus 5

"This objection is yet another attack on those who say that there is one incarnate nature of the Son. They want to show that the idea is foolish and so they keep on arguing at every turn that two natures endured. They have forgotten, however, that it is only those things that are usually distinguished at more than a merely theoretical level which split apart from one another in differentiated separateness and radical distinction. Let us once more take the example of an ordinary man. We recognise two natures in him; for there is one nature of the soul and another of the body, but we divide them only at a theoretical level, and by subtle speculation, or rather we accept the distinction only in our mental intuitions, and we do not set the natures apart nor do we grant that they have a radical separateness, but we understand them to belong to one man. This is why the two are no longer two, but through both of them the one living creature is rendered complete. "

Thank you for providing a text. However, Hans van Loon cites the Greek text on this point as using the root word "διαιρ--", which means "divide", rather than "distinguish". If that is true, I think the text should be corrected on the Joint Commission blog.

Quote
"those things which are usually divided (diareisthai) not just in contemplation, will split apart from each other fully... Let a man like us once again be an example to us. For also with respect to him do we consider two natures, one of the soul, another of the body. But, dividing them in mere thoughts and taking the difference as in subtle reflections or imaginations of the mind, we do not set the natures  apart, nor do we grant them the power of a radical separation..."

The Dyophysite Christology of Cyril of Alexandria, By Hans Van Loon
https://books.google.com/books?id=BVDsO6IbdOYC&pg=PA519&lpg=PA519&dq=letter+of+cyril+succensus&source=bl&ots=VOUzZ1yqKt&sig=Yh0PoNC6SzusUFu5B9RS6iy8-E4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnh5_T753WAhVCurwKHSy0BucQ6AEITDAG#v=onepage&q=letter%20cyril%20succensus%20distinction%20natures&f=false

(See also διαιρώ in: https://translate.google.com/#en/el/divide)

So while one may "contemplate" the difference between a body and a soul, this passage does not say that the distinction is only theoretical. Wouldn't you agree that there are real, practical distinctions between a body and a soul? Take for example Jesus' teaching in Matthew 10:28:
"And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul".
A body commonly dies while the soul survives the body's death, revealing a crucial practical difference between them.

In Contra Nestorium, Cyril writes:
Quote
I myself would also hold that the difference or the interval between humanity and divinity is vast, for other with respect to their mode of being and unlike each other are plainly the things that have been mentioned. But when the mystery regarding Christ is brought into our midst, the principle of the union does not fail to acknowledge the difference, but it puts aside the separation, not confusing the natures or mingling the natures...

See the book above, p. 218.

Cyril throughout his writing seems to emphasize that there is no separation between the two natures, divinity and humanity. But shouldn't we agree that he also emphasizes both the continuing distinction between Jesus' divinity and humanity and that there is no confusion between them?
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,158
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #120 on: September 11, 2017, 04:24:38 PM »


Rakovsky, let me have my take on this and then please tell me if I am wrong, and I really apologise if so.

Firstly, as for the Tome of St.Leo, just because "the divine and human nature" thing shows up in more than one translation, that doesn't make it outright correct translation. Note carefully what I requested: that the original Latin or that at most, its translated form in Greek that was used in Chalcedon, if you can.

" So again He showed the wound in His side, the marks of the nails, and all the signs of His quite recent suffering, saying, “See My hands and feet, that it is I. Handle Me and see that a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see Me have;” in order that the properties of His Divine and human nature might be acknowledged to remain still inseparable: and that we might know the Word not to be different from the flesh, in such a sense as also to confess that the one Son of GOD is both the Word and flesh."

LATIN AND GREEK TRANSLATION:
http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/main/leo/tome_of_leo_01.shtml

LATIN:
" ut agnosceretur in eo proprietas divinae humanaeque naturae individua permanere; "

Quote
As for the OO's not speaking about two natures even in thought until recently, what about Severus of Antioch? Didn't he affirm two natures en theoria?

He says that he doesn't depart from Cyril's words and he clearly shows in his own writings familiarity with the second letter of Cyrilto Succensus, which mentions the distincion of natures in thought.
Where did he specify that Christ was in two natures after the union in theory?
Both sides then and since have claimed to not depart from Cyril, despite their disagreements with each other on the topics he wrote about.

The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,158
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #121 on: September 11, 2017, 04:46:32 PM »
I hesitate to argue this with you, but let me defer to your experiences with many writings you have read around you, especially in well-respected newspaper articles, popular textbooks, manuals for how to build things, etc.  While it may be rare, chances are you and I have stumbled a few grammatical errors.  Even Bible exegetes like Origen would argue the Scripture translations he has have some grammatical errors as well.
Leo's Tome was translated into Greek for the councils and it says the same thing in Greek. Further, the idea that Christ's "nature" is both human and divine, humanity and divinity, the "dual human and divine nature of Christ" can be found in EO writings since then, so it's not a one time event made by Leo only.


Quote
Now, if Pope Leo did intend it to be singular rather than plural, why is in the same Tome he condemns the use of "one nature" completely, solely believing it to be a heretical Eutychian phrase.  In fact, I know of nowhere in Pope Leo's writings where he shows adequate knowledge of Cyrillian "one nature" language.
Let me answer your good question to me.

Flavian himself, as Fr. Romanides cited, accepted Cyril's formula Mia Physia at Ephesus II, while still rejecting Eutyches' profession of "Two natures before the union, but one afterwards."

The problem is the meaning and intention of Eutyches' pronouncement. Eutyches was well known before and after Ephesus II to be a monophysite teaching that Christ had only one nature, the divine nature, due to what Eutyches saw as the swallowing up of the human nature. Eutyches' statement was directed at contrasting his flawed Appollinarian belief of Christ having two natures before even the incarnation, with his flawed monophysite belief of Christ having only one nature, divinity, after the incarnation. So when the Eutyches made his statement "Christ has two natures before the union, one nature afterwards", he certainly intended and meant a belief of Christ having humanity and divinity before the incarnation, divinity only after the incarnation.

Further, it's clear also that this is how Leo and Flavian correctly understood Eutyches' declaration of his heresy. In their correspondence with each other about Eutyches, as I cited elsewhere on the forum, Leo and Flavian explain to each other that the two "natures" in question are specifically "humanity" and "divinity". When Eutyches says "two natures before the union; one nature afterwards", they correctly understand him to mean "humanity and divinity ('two natures') before the union; divinity ('one') afterwards."

This explains why Leo and Flavian both rejected Eutyches' declaration, despite Leo's speaking of Christ's divine and human nature and Flavian's open acceptance of Cyril's Miaphysia formula. They both correctly understood that Eutyches was declaring his belief in "Christ having two natures (even) before the union; one nature (divinity) afterwards", as the contrasting structure of that sentence alludes to.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2017, 04:56:30 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,709
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #122 on: September 11, 2017, 04:58:46 PM »
I knew this was going to be your answer, Rakovsky.  I just figured I'd give you a different perspective.

I also know you have a problem with the statement "Christ has two natures before the union, one nature afterwards," but this statement was interpreted differently because of the similarities it bore with St. Cyril's statement.  And before you tell me, I know it's not exactly the same statement, but the fact remains that the former statement "two natures before the union" was understood in an abstract sense by Orthodox.  I don't think even Eutyches believed the human nature of Christ "existed" before the incarnation.  So the phrase, as you and I have argued about before, I have no problem with.

In fact, just to make matters even more mind-twisting, I'm willing to be a bit conciliatory just to because I PERSONALLY have no problem with the words said on either side so long as they are "translated" properly:

So for an anti-Chalcedonian who says "Christ has two natures before the union, one nature afterwards", the translation:  "Christ was two natures en theoria apart from the incarnation, one nature within the act of the incarnation."  Or another slightly different translation could be "Christ was separate from human nature before the union (due to ancestral sin), but afterwards united"  Notice the soteriological emphasis.

For a Chalcedonian who says "Christ has one nature before the union, two natures afterwards", the translation:  "Before the incarnation, Christ was only divine, but afterwards, He assumed humanity in Himself."  I accept this too, and so do the ancient OO fathers, just not in that language.  Notice the emphasis solely concentrates on Christ, not on the economy Christ accomplishes.

So my issue is that I have not seen any scholar, even Chalcedonian, that would agree with you that Pope Leo knew or held any Miaphysite language.  In Latin, it's actually unheard of and blasphemous.  I would think therefore, there may be another reason for using the singular term for "nature" if in fact the singular was intended.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2017, 05:00:59 PM by minasoliman »
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 andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #123 on: September 11, 2017, 05:16:48 PM »
Rakovsky, first of all, thanks for seriously taking tbe effort to back up your argument of the divine and human nature in Latin. I appreciate it that you took my request in consideration. As for the rest, the thing is that body and soul, or even divinity an humanity for that matter are really different even after the union, but because after the Incarnation, Christ is really one, you cannot immediately recognize the difference of his flesh and his Godhead, without reasoning first that an x action is proper to humanity and another y action is proper to the godhead, but since they belong to one and the same reality, hypostasis, and since essential properties of the same hypostasis cannot be distinguished except in thought only, since such properties are inseperable and not united with simple connection, but with a complete compact and wholesome union of God the Word with his flesh, something even Leo admits in the numerous quotes provided in this thread with his own way of saying it, a real distinction is brought out in thought only. Even the strong denial of confusion of natures while using his prefered 'mia physis' formula shows Cyril guarding the meaningful salvific act of God the Word incarnate. Sorry to put it like this rakovsky, but like it or not, both the Oriental Orthodox with Severus of Antioch and the Eastern Orthodox with our Fifth Ecumenical Council admit that distinction of natures is in thought only while only the properties themselves of the natures being really different one from the other while also being without diision , separation or confusion. Now, if we want to talk about the EO's and OO's as wanting to heal the schism, we need to protect our common ground or then, otherwise one is trolling and mocking not only the Oriental's Orthodoxy, but also our own EO Orthodoxy. And suppose for a moment that the Orientals are heretics, that doesn't mean that everything they say is wrong. And definitely not the distinction of the natures themselves in thought only and not their properties of them differing still really.

The Book of Unity of Christ of St. Cyril or many other writings of his makes it clear that he distinguishes between natures intellectually. Even if I don'f find just one quote of Severus speaking of two natures in thought, he testifies that from Cyril's words he doesn't depart, being in FULL agreement with Cyril in Christology. So it isn't a real problem at all. Even if now, one is to say that Severus may have even denied two natures as Dioscorus did, Severus was first of all, following Cyril and then Dioscorus.

Also, another argument that could be raised up against the real distinction of soul and body as you show Christ do in your quote from the Scriptures is that somewhere in either of Cyril's letters to Succensus, Cyril says that such differences are noted as much as the eyes of the soul are able to see, whereas Christ is perfect God, knowing everything he created in ways incomprehensible to us so that since by virtue of his omniscience and by St. Cyril's criterion with the extent of ability pertaining to the 'eyes of the soul- of the rational intellect' he can really distinguish anything he wants, also this argument is invalidaded as not sustainable.

Sorry for my long prattling and please forgive me of anything wrong I may have said! Thanks to mina for explaining everything just right! Thanks again, I really learn a lot from your rich perspective! Rakovsky, at the very least thanks for you keeping and pursuing truth, if  that is indeed what motivates you, really. Thanks for the others too bearing with me.  God and his truth and his grace may be with you and with us all!
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline rakovsky

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,158
  • St. Mstislav I
    • The Old Testament Prophecies of the Messiah's Resurrection and Orthodox Christianity's roots in the Holy Land
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #124 on: September 11, 2017, 05:37:49 PM »
I knew this was going to be your answer, Rakovsky.  I just figured I'd give you a different perspective.
It's good that you are familiar with different ways of looking at this statement by Eutyches, since it is helpful when others can see the objections that EOs like myself have to it.

Quote
So my issue is that I have not seen any scholar, even Chalcedonian, that would agree with you that Pope Leo knew or held any Miaphysite language.  In Latin, it's actually unheard of and blasphemous.  I would think therefore, there may be another reason for using the singular term for "nature" if in fact the singular was intended.
I  read a scholar saying that Leo penned several letters in the years after the Tome to justify it, like "The Second Tome", referred to as Letter 165, as well as a "Letter to the Monks of Palestine". There, Leo explains more about which nature the monophysite Eutyches meant when Eutyches said that Christ has one nature after the union in comparison with the two natures before it:

Quote
But Eutyches also must be stricken with the same anathema, who, becoming entangled in the treacherous errors of the old heretics, has chosen the third dogma of Apollinaris [519] :  so that he denies the reality of his human flesh and soul, and maintains the whole of our Lord Jesus Christ to be of one nature, as if the Godhead of the Word had turned itself into flesh and soul:  and as if to be conceived and born, to be nursed and grow, to be crucified and die, to be buried and rise again, and to ascend into heaven and to sit on the Father's right hand, from whence
   He shall come to judge the living and the dead--as if all those things
   belonged to that essence only
which admits of none of them without the
   reality of the flesh:  seeing that the nature of the Only-begotten is
   the nature of the Father, the nature of the Holy Spirit, and that the
   undivided unity and consubstantial equality of the eternal Trinity is
   at once impassible and unchangeable.
https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.txt

Here, Leo explains that when Eutyches "maintains the whole of our Lord Jesus Christ to be of one nature," Eutyches means that "the Godhead of the Word had turned itself into flesh and soul", since Eutyches denied that Christ continued to have humanity. Hence, the flesh and soul remaining after the union must have been a "divine-only" flesh and soul. Leo explains that Eutyches talks "as if all those things belonged to that [divine] essence only", not to both two essences.

Thanks for the discussion.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2017, 05:45:13 PM by rakovsky »
The ocean, impassable by men, and the world beyond it are directed by the same ordinances of the Master. ~ I Clement 20

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,709
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #125 on: September 11, 2017, 06:01:40 PM »
Thank you both for this discussion as well.

I think that's a good last word for this, unless there are other clarifications necessary.
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 Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 564
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #126 on: September 14, 2017, 01:16:49 PM »
@andi.zhgaba3
Quote
if you read their writings carefully, so that even though they speak of one compound will, or rather one theandric will, it is as a result of these two faculties of willing without separation and division and this will is 100% human and 100% divine at the same time, just like they confess one compound nature as 100% human and 100% divine.
Quote
one theandric natural will and one theandric energy as a result of Christ having one compound nature.

I know what they claim, and it is wrong. This formula is simply incorrect, it creates mixture and confusion, and this can be easily demonstrated:

If there is a one theandric/will/energy, was Christ dying on the cross an theandric act ? but if the divine nature ceased to be(died), how was the universe held together ?

If our Lord had people's hair numbered before the incarnation due to His divine operation, does it follows then that all people born after the incarnation have their hair numbered through theandric means. Isn't that a mixture, isn't it confusion ?

How about this one - is Isaiah 40:22 an theandric act ?

@Remnkemi
Quote
No miaphysite ever confessed a single will and single energy. We are claiming a composite will and energy. It is not single. The distinction of two wills remain, but in the mind. These are the words of St Cyril, the same person whom Chalcedon claimed were the same as Leo's Tome. Either St Cyril and all miaphysites deny a single nature, will or energy (true monophysitism), or Chalcedon and Leo agrees with St Cyril that the distinction of the natures, will and energy exist in the mind only.

This is a very strange sentence, in our context - one and single is the same thing, i use the word single to underline your opposition to the two natures formula and your insistence in one will and one energy. I did not define the composition of this "single"

For that matter you can as easily say single compound nature, single theandric natural will and single theandric energy.
The word single here is to show that you oppose the Orthodox Formula of 2wills and 2energies and as a result end up mixing and confusing even though you claim not to be doing so.

Quote
And that is the only possible interpretation of miaphysitism? Really? If I were to use that same line of thinking, I can say "If there are two natures before the incarnation and two natures after the incarnation, then there is no hypostatic union if the two things before the union continue as the same two things after the union? In fact, it is no longer a hypostatic union and therefore there must be two different hypostatses." Obviously, this is not how Chalcedonians think. Why don't you extend the same courtesy that miaphysitism is  a little more sophisticated than what you have claimed?
That will be a straw man argument, nature and person are two different things, this can be easily demonstrated:
You don't go to a cafeteria to drink a coffee with the human nature, you go there to drink coffee with your friends (persons).






« Last Edit: September 14, 2017, 01:23:51 PM by Vanhyo »

Online Mor Ephrem

  • Take comfort in the warmth of the Jacuzzi of Oriental Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Protospatharios
  • *****
  • Posts: 32,618
  • Pope Pius XIII, play for us!
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: East
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #127 on: September 14, 2017, 01:29:31 PM »
I know what they claim, and it is wrong. This formula is simply incorrect, it creates mixture and confusion, and this can be easily demonstrated:

If there is a one theandric/will/energy, was Christ dying on the cross an theandric act ? but if the divine nature ceased to be(died), how was the universe held together ?

In which we learn that Vanhyo, despite claiming to "know what they claim", doesn't know.
The whole forum is Mor. We're emanations of his godlike mind.

Actually, Mor's face shineth like the Sun.

Offline Alpha60

  • The Confederate Flag Is Diabolical and Blasphemous
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,194
  • Faith: Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #128 on: September 14, 2017, 01:58:20 PM »
Quote
I know what they claim, and it is wrong. This formula is simply incorrect

St. Cyril didn't seem to think so.  Neither did the fathers of the third ecumenical council.

The Oriental Orthodox simply adhere to the first three ecumenical councils without the compromises and complexities that followed the problematic fourth council.

The Orthodoxy of the Oriental Church is proven by the fact that many heresies which subsequently swept through the Chalcedonian Church, such as Monergism, Iconoclasm, Barlaamism, the Filioque, Papal Supremacy, the East-West schism, Ethnophyletism, the Protestant schism, Calvinism, and so on, never happened in our cnurch.

Nor was there ever a schism in the Oriental Orthodox Church due to heavy handed bishops forcing an ill-advised liturgical change on all the people, something which has happened in Eastern Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism, and the Assyrian Church of the East.

There is no Oriental Orthodox equivalent of the Old Believers or Old Calendarists.

All of our schisms have been relatively short and primarily political in nature.

For me, the biggest proof of the Catholicity of the Oriental Orthodox Church is that it never embraced or had to contend on a major scale with iconoclasm.  The holy icons have always been a part of our worship. 

I also recognize the Eastern Orthodox as fully Orthodox, but the EO had to deal with and expound upon many issues and problems that simply never arose in the Oriental church.   Consider there are about 270 million Eastern Orthodox, and 80 million Oriental Orthodox, more or less.   We have always represented a large chunk of the Orthodox population.

The EO church did many invaluable services by fighting off heresies, but we managed to sidestep these.

I think the EO and OO churches have a symbiotic relationship.  The Oriental church gave the EO church the Liturgy of the Presanctified; the EO church gave us various liturgical rites.  Today, the Jesus Prayer and the mystical accomplish,ents of Eastern Orthodox monks are fusing sith the historic accomplishments of Coptic, Syriac and Ethiopian monks, to ensure a fresh vitality in our monasteries, and the Jesus Prayer has been a godsend for our laity.  The EO also run seminaries like St. Vladimirs, which function to produce well educated Oriental clergy who are able to avoid the traps set by the false doctrines of the Roman Church, and more importantly, who are able to resist the continuing and relentless efforts of Protestants to infiltrate and divide our communion.
"It is logical that the actions of the human race over time will lead to its destruction.  I, Alpha 60, am merely the agent of this destruction."

- The computer Alpha 60, from Alphaville (1964) by Jean Luc Godard, the obvious inspiration for HAL-9000 from 2001: A Space Odyssey. 

This signature is not intended to offend any user, nor the relatives of Discovery 1 deputy commander Dr. Frank Poole,  and crew members Dr. Victor Kaminsky, Dr. Jack Kimball, and Dr. Charles Hunter.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 312
  • Faith: Orthodox....kind of
  • Jurisdiction: Not even a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #129 on: September 14, 2017, 02:31:07 PM »
Quote
I know what they claim, and it is wrong. This formula is simply incorrect

St. Cyril didn't seem to think so.  Neither did the fathers of the third ecumenical council.

The Oriental Orthodox simply adhere to the first three ecumenical councils without the compromises and complexities that followed the problematic fourth council.

The Orthodoxy of the Oriental Church is proven by the fact that many heresies which subsequently swept through the Chalcedonian Church, such as Monergism, Iconoclasm, Barlaamism, the Filioque, Papal Supremacy, the East-West schism, Ethnophyletism, the Protestant schism, Calvinism, and so on, never happened in our cnurch.


Except Judaizers.....and Gnosticism....and Arianism....and Nestorianism.....and Monophysitism....and 4 of the 5 Orthodox Churches at once....and the vangate Oriental Orthodox Churches...and the schisms between the Oriental Orthodox churches now.....

Doing a debate about the number of historical schisms and heretics to determine the validity and soundness of doctrine is a flawed logic to follow, my friend.

I do hope that one day both the Oriental and the Eastern Churches will be One (although the Church right now IS One).
« Last Edit: September 14, 2017, 02:39:39 PM by LivenotoneviL »

Offline andi.zhgaba3

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 39
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church of Albania
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #130 on: September 14, 2017, 03:33:31 PM »
@andi.zhgaba3
Quote
if you read their writings carefully, so that even though they speak of one compound will, or rather one theandric will, it is as a result of these two faculties of willing without separation and division and this will is 100% human and 100% divine at the same time, just like they confess one compound nature as 100% human and 100% divine.
Quote
one theandric natural will and one theandric energy as a result of Christ having one compound nature.
I know what they claim, and it is wrong. This formula is simply incorrect, it creates mixture and confusion, and this can be easily demonstrated:

If there is a one theandric/will/energy, was Christ dying on the cross an theandric act ? but if the divine nature ceased to be(died), how was the universe held together ?

If our Lord had people's hair numbered before the incarnation due to His divine operation, does it follows then that all people born after the incarnation have their hair numbered through theandric means. Isn't that a mixture, isn't it confusion ?

How about this one - is Isaiah 40:22 an theandric act ?

@Remnkemi
Quote
No miaphysite ever confessed a single will and single energy. We are claiming a composite will and energy. It is not single. The distinction of two wills remain, but in the mind. These are the words of St Cyril, the same person whom Chalcedon claimed were the same as Leo's Tome. Either St Cyril and all miaphysites deny a single nature, will or energy (true monophysitism), or Chalcedon and Leo agrees with St Cyril that the distinction of the natures, will and energy exist in the mind only.

This is a very strange sentence, in our context - one and single is the same thing, i use the word single to underline your opposition to the two natures formula and your insistence in one will and one energy. I did not define the composition of this "single"

For that matter you can as easily say single compound nature, single theandric natural will and single theandric energy.
The word single here is to show that you oppose the Orthodox Formula of 2wills and 2energies and as a result end up mixing and confusing even though you claim not to be doing so.

Quote
And that is the only possible interpretation of miaphysitism? Really? If I were to use that same line of thinking, I can say "If there are two natures before the incarnation and two natures after the incarnation, then there is no hypostatic union if the two things before the union continue as the same two things after the union? In fact, it is no longer a hypostatic union and therefore there must be two different hypostatses." Obviously, this is not how Chalcedonians think. Why don't you extend the same courtesy that miaphysitism is  a little more sophisticated than what you have claimed?
That will be a straw man argument, nature and person are two different things, this can be easily demonstrated:
You don't go to a cafeteria to drink a coffee with the human nature, you go there to drink coffee with your friends (persons).

... Great! Let us start moving things all over again, then!

If they confess one theandric will/energy, how does it necessary follow up then that there must exist confusion or mixture in there? If the Oriental Orthodox, then, while talking about this, always confess that there is no confusion or mixture in the entire schema, who am I, or who are you to judge that?

You say that if the divine nature ceased to be(died), how was the universe held together ? Let me be a bit boring and repeat the always repeated things all over again. Natures do not die. It's simple enough. As for Christ dying on the cross, that is indeed a theandric act, for the divine nature, will, energy and the human nature, will, energy were without separation or division in all things. Yes, death is something proper to humanity and not to the impassible divinity, but that doesn't mean that they were separate in virtue of this, as if divinity slipped away from Christ in the last moments by magic. It was something that only the God-man could turn his own death on the cross in a work to achieve salvation, since human obedience to death on the cross and divine courage to take the cross for the salvation of mankind are done simultaneously, as if one two-folded act, an act of double character. One could talk about two energies or wills or acts without change, confusion, division, separation (Sixth Ecumenical Council), but one could do just fine with a theandric energy or will, as long as understood correctly. So you mention 'the numbering of hair' example as a counterattack against theandric energy? After the Incarnation, of course it is one act, just as it was before the Incarnation, but the act becomes a theandric act, yes. It is really something divine to be able to do that, but Christ is now also human, so one could say that since Christ the man is omniscient, though this being proper to divinity, he could store any information he wanted to in his human brain, so that the 'numbering of hairs' is something done in a theandric manner, both involving his humanity in his everything as much as he wants, willing anything he wants humanly to be done divinely and vice-versa, the act being one, the energies being two in nature, or seen as one energy with twofold character. I don't see anything wrong about the Isaiah verse, though, or rather I don't understand where the problem lies in here...

You also say that one and single are the same thing. Good. Tell me then, is Christ's hypostasis single or composite? Do you see the difference now? Or here is another, is Christ's person the self-same one as before the Incarnation or were there two persons forming one composite person in a way only God can do? Single person or composite person? See again? They don't oppose us, they simply have another way of talking about the same thing in a way they find comfortable. If they say that the theandric act is one and there is no confusion, change or alteration in this, how are they crypto-Nature-confusers (or whatever the word is about this) ? They simply admit what is true orthodoxy while also accepting the fact that not everything about the Incarnation is meant to be understood by our human lowliness, meaning that one simply speaks of one theandric act without confusion without understanding what that means. You simply know this. That's it.

In your last paragraph, you note your own faulty logic line of thinking one could be led to if we are to follow your argument solely. It is truly a helpful thing to distinguish between the concepts of person, hypostasis, nature and ousia so that we may give each its own place and understand orthodoxy correctly by their means, but that doesn't mean that the words can't be used in another way from how you do this. Sorry for being so blunt but, who are you to say that words are to be used only in the way you understand them to be? Who am I, for that matter, to force on you the meaning I'd like a word to have just because I would like so? Who am I to say that a cat is a dog and a dog is a cat because that is how I'd wanted it to? So let us not force unto them petty details such as these...

If OOs recognize our EO big "O" full Orthodoxy, doesn't that mean that they understand their mia physis, thelema, energeia as an embodiment of the same Orthodoxy as our 'en dyo physeis, etc.'?

I am really sorry if I said something false, if I made a wrong assumption of your opinion and a false criticism of you. Please forgive me, but I feel it a duty, with my broken way of explaining stuff to tell you, at least that we Orthodox shouldn't make hurried judgments (like saying confusion is a must for OOs, or anything alike). Please, I know my defects when I talk, I know how unskillful I am to put things properly in words, but at the very least, don't be like me in these, but take things in wide consideration, without being narrow-minded, not as if I am accusing you that you are now, but as a way to improve ourselves, creatures in need of salvation from our loving God full of truth and perfection. Don't be like me in my harsh unsuitable way of talking to others but please take what we are saying to you in your consideration. May God bless us with his truth!

P.S.: People, please correct me if I said anything wrong, I need to be careful with myself, too.
"God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of his own eternity. Death entered the universe only through the devil’s envy." Wisdom 2:23-24

"For God made not death: nor has he pleasure in the destruction of the living." Wisdom 1:13

"For you love all the things that are and hate nothing which you have made: for never would you have made any thing if you had hated it." Wisdom 11:24

"You spare all things, for they are yours, O Lord and lover of life." Wisdom 11:26

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,709
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #131 on: September 14, 2017, 03:58:28 PM »
Quote
You don't go to a cafeteria to drink a coffee with the human nature, you go there to drink coffee with your friends (persons).

I highly recommend St. Basil's "On the Holy Spirit"
« Last Edit: September 14, 2017, 03:58:48 PM by minasoliman »
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 minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,709
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #132 on: September 14, 2017, 04:49:46 PM »
Vanhyo,

I hope you can carefully judge for yourself without jumping to conclusions on our terminology.  If you want to know what we mean by something, rather than going by what you think we mean, I hope you have an open and loving heart to walk an extra mile in our shoes to see how we comprehend the term.

First, let's contemplate on this quote by St. Cyril of Alexandria:

While giving life as God by his all-powerful command, he also gives life by the touch of his holy flesh, demonstrating through both that the operation (Gk: energeia) was a single and cognate one. On another occasion as he approached a city called Nain, ‘a man who had died was being carried out, the only son of his mother’ (Lk. 7:12). Again he ‘touched the bier’ and said, ‘Young man, I say to you, arise’ (Lk. 7:14). He does not simply leave it to the word to effect the raising of the dead, but in order to show that his own body was life-giving, as we have already said, he touches the corpses, and by this act puts life into those who had already decayed. And if by the touch alone of his holy flesh he gives life to that which has decayed, how shall we not profit more richly from the life-giving Eucharist when we taste it? For it will certainly transform those who partake of it and endow them with its own proper good, that is, immortality. (Commentary on the Gospel of St. John, Book IV, Chapter II)

As this quote implies, to say "one energy" does not confuse the two, but shows that the two are always involved.

So, you bring up the death of Christ on the Cross.  If I die or you die on the Cross, does this death provide salvation to the whole cosmos?  No, of course not.  But when Christ died on the Cross, although He died in the same way with the same experience and pain on the Cross as anyone else would, His death was LIFE-GIVING.  That's what we mean when we say "one theandric energy and will".  It does not mean His divinity underwent agony and pain, but His humanity in undergoing agony and pain provided divine and uncreated comfort and healing to the cosmos.  That is done altogether in one action. 

I like these next two explanations:

He did not perform the human actions in a human way, because He was not a mere man, nor did He perform the  divine actions in a divine way only, because He was not just God, but God and man together. And just as we understand  both the union of the natures and their natural difference, so also do we understand that of the natural wills and operations. (John of Damascus, Exposition on the Orthodox Faith, Book 3, Chapter 19)

His human will was lifted up by the omnipotency of his divinity, and his divine will was revealed to men through his humanity. ... the propriety of each nature being kept intact. (Letter to Pope Agatho, from the Council of Constantinople 681)

That's what OOs believe when we say "one theandric energy and will," and I think it is a gross and deliberate misinterpretation to ASSUME when we say "one" that suddenly we created a new hybrid and super nature.

As for creation of the cosmos, well, that's a different topic, or maybe not.  I recommend you read Fr. John Behr's works about St. Irenaeus.  You'd be amazed at the mystical value St. Irenaeus places on the incarnation when it comes to the creation of the cosmos.  Also, your iconographic tradition seems to teach us something mystical that agrees with St. Irenaeus:









Here are some quotes by our Church father St. Severus of Antioch:

But [Christ's soul] was not without intelligence and imperfect, according to the statement of the proverbs of Apollinaris, but was in fact intelligent, as indeed the very term 'boy' and the fact that he was named 'man' is enough to show this same thing: for a boy's soul is not without reason, but it is reasonable because it is human. However this very same thing is also clearly shown even by the sacred writings of the gospel; for it said of him, “Then he began to be distressed and grieved, and to say, 'My soul is sorrowful, even unto death'”. But it is plain to everyone that distress and grief happen to a rational and intellectual soul. But, if they say that the Godhead of the Only one took the place of intellect, this is in truth a thing without intellect, for us to assign the passion of distress to the impassible nature of God. (Letter LXV, second question)

The words 'he scorned', and 'he did not obey', and this other, 'he chose', show us that the Word of God is united hypostatically not only to flesh, but still to a soul endowed with will and reason, for the purpose of making our souls, bent towards sinfulness, incline toward the choice of good and the aversion to evil. (Homily LXXXIII, Chesnut 26)

God the Word who brought us into being, through whom the Father made all things, when by his grace alone he willed to restore him who had fallen to the original order to give back to him who had fallen to the original order the grace of immortality, did not exercise force by using divine power.  On the contrary, in accordance with the word of justice, he made him who had fallen to fight again the battle. ... It was necessary for man to obtain the crown of victory over satan who had formerly deceived and defeated him. (La Polemique p. 36F, from Samuel 339)

The Lord suffered the vehement feeling of hunger, which arouses the yearning for food.  Therefore, the voluntary passions permitted by the Word were not without any operation; but there was in him the stirring up of operations.  These were, however, subjected to the power of the invincible God. (La Polemique p. 134, Samuel 341)

Even less is Christ divided into two natures. He is indeed one from two, from divinity and humanity, one person and hypostasis, the one nature of the Logos, become flesh and perfect human being. For this reason he also displays two wills in salvific suffering, the one which requests, the other which is prepared, the one human, the other divine. As he voluntarily took upon himself death in the flesh, which was able to take over suffering and dissolved the domination of death by killing it through immortality—which the resurrection had shown clearly to all—so in the flesh, whose fruit he could take over—it was indeed rationally animated—he voluntarily took upon himself the passio of fear and weakness and uttered words of request, in order through the divine courage to destroy the power of that fear and to give courage to the whole of humanity, for he became after the first Adam the second beginning of our race. (Contra Grammarian III.33, Hovorun 26)

To recap:  When we say "one will" we are NOT saying:
1.  The integrity of either humanity or divinity is lost, whether nature, will, or operation, or any property
2.  That there is a hybrid nature or super nature different from humanity and divinity separately

What we are saying:
1.  There is a communicato idiomatum
2.  There is a unity, where every action and will expressed by Christ involves both His humanity and divinity
3.  There is a unique manner in which Christ acts, whether it be something clearly human or divine in contemplation, the manner or mode still involves both.  He does not do divine miracles without involvement of His humanity and He does not do human things without them being filled with divinity and salvation to all humanity in the world.

Finally, a lesson in life:
The more you think you know, the more you lost all hope of learning.  The more you learn, the more you realize how much you do not know.
« Last Edit: September 14, 2017, 04:54:26 PM by minasoliman »
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 Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,080
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #133 on: September 15, 2017, 12:38:23 PM »
I don't recall an OO poster yet addressing the plain words of our Lord to his Father as recorded by St. Luke: πλήν μὴ τὸ θέλημά μου ἀλλὰ τὸ σὸν γενέσθω: "Yet, not the will of mine, no, but the [will] of yours must come to pass." There is a place for sophistication, for θεωρία, but if against the plain words of our Lord such loftiness is surely dangerous to men's souls.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline minasoliman

  • Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
  • Section Moderator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *****
  • Posts: 19,709
  • Pray for me Sts. Mina & Kyrillos for my interviews
  • Faith: Oriental Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Coptic
Re: Chalcedon...
« Reply #134 on: September 15, 2017, 02:26:17 PM »
I don't recall an OO poster yet addressing the plain words of our Lord to his Father as recorded by St. Luke: πλήν μὴ τὸ θέλημά μου ἀλλὰ τὸ σὸν γενέσθω: "Yet, not the will of mine, no, but the [will] of yours must come to pass." There is a place for sophistication, for θεωρία, but if against the plain words of our Lord such loftiness is surely dangerous to men's souls.

What that verse means is that He is expressing natural agony and fear from being killed or dying, as any human would express (and as I have shown St. Severus of Antioch said).  At the same time, this desire to remove the cup is overcome by the divine will of salvation of all mankind.  In fact, it is through that human fear and agony that we partake of divine courage and strength, which is how we would express the one theandric will of that passage; in that moment even the will to remove the cup is deified and filled with salvific effect.  Therefore, even in the human will of fear and agony, the divine will is also involved.

What the verse does NOT mean: Christ's humanity is in conflict with divinity.  That is heretical.
« Last Edit: September 15, 2017, 02:29:45 PM by minasoliman »
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.