Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

May Orthodox believe that Christ is in two natures and also has a united nature composed of them?

miaphysitism duophysitism

  • Please log in to reply
84 replies to this topic

Poll: May an Orthodox Christian believe that Christ's nature is a unity of His human nature and His divine nature? (6 member(s) have cast votes)

May an Orthodox Christian believe that Christ's nature is a unity of His human nature and His divine nature?

  1. Yes, this is viewpoint is correct. (1 votes [16.67%])

    Percentage of vote: 16.67%

  2. Yes, the Church allows for a range of opinions about this. (2 votes [33.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 33.33%

  3. No, one may only accept that Christ has two natures and may not consider Him to have a nature that is a whole unity of both. (3 votes [50.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 50.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 Lakis Papas

Lakis Papas

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 619 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 10 January 2014 - 08:28 AM

How do anti-Chalcedonians support the addition of the phrase “who was crucified for us” in the Trisagion hymn "Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us" and not be in conflict with Chalcedonians ? 



#22 Jack R.

Jack R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 141 posts

Posted 10 January 2014 - 04:22 PM

How do anti-Chalcedonians support the addition of the phrase “who was crucified for us” in the Trisagion hymn "Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us" and not be in conflict with Chalcedonians ? 

 

In the same way that we call St. Mary Theotokos. She is the Mother of God.

 

If St. Mary is the Mother of God, not just the mother of the Human Jesus Christ, then God the Logos experienced being born in the flesh.

 

If we Say St. Mary did not give birth to God the Logos, and we refuse to call her Mother of God, then we are Nestorians.

 

We don't only say, "Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal who was crucified for us, have mercy on us"  We also say, "Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal who was born of the Virgin, Have Mercy on us."   If we refuse to say this, or think this is wrong, then we are Nestorians because it is God the Eternal Logos Himself who took His Flesh and became Incarnate and was born of the Virgin Mary.

 

As St. Paul says, "Thy Crucified the Lord of Glory".

 

God was born of the Virgin St. Mary and Experienced the Separation of His Human Soul from His Human Body, without separation from His Divinity.

 

God experienced death in the Flesh when this happened.  It was God the Logos who was crucified in the flesh on the cross.

 

God did indeed become born of the Virgin, experienced curcifixion of HIs Flesh, and Rose from the Dead and Ascended into Heaven.  God the Logos did all these things while Incarnate.



#23 Lakis Papas

Lakis Papas

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 619 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 10 January 2014 - 05:06 PM

The Orthodox  interpretation is that the trisagion hymn "Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us" is directed to all three Persons of the divine Trinity, thus it is not appropriate to add the phrase "who was crucified for us".
 
More on this, can be found in this podcast: http://www.ancientfa..._prayers_part_2
 
According to Canon 81 of the Quinisext synod:
 

Whereas we have heard that in some places in the hymn Trisagion there is added after “Holy and Immortal,” “Who was crucified for us, have mercy upon us,” and since this as being alien to piety was by the ancient and holy Fathers cast out of the hymn, as also the violent heretics who inserted these new words were cast out of the Church; we also, confirming the things which were formerly piously established by our holy Fathers, anathematize those who after this present decree allow in church this or any other addition to the most sacred hymn; but if indeed he who has transgressed is of the sacerdotal order, we command that he be deprived of his priestly dignity, but if he be a layman or monk let him be cut off.

 


Edited by Lakis Papas, 10 January 2014 - 05:07 PM.


#24 Jack R.

Jack R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 141 posts

Posted 10 January 2014 - 06:32 PM

The Orthodox  interpretation is that the trisagion hymn "Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us" is directed to all three Persons of the divine Trinity, thus it is not appropriate to add the phrase "who was crucified for us".
 
More on this, can be found in this podcast: http://www.ancientfa..._prayers_part_2
 
According to Canon 81 of the Quinisext synod:
 

 

 

The Oriental Orthodox, in their tradition, address it to Christ.   The Oriental Orthodox do not consider themselves bound by the 5th or 6th coucnil and they do not confess their canonicity or ecuminical status so these Canons are not binding on the Oriental Orthodox.  Back then, it was felt that the 4th Ecumenical Council and parts of latter councils had much Crypto Nestorianism in them, starting from when Theodoret of Mopsuesta was so heavily supported by Pope Leo and because Nestorius accepted the phrase "In Two Physies" 

 

If somone objects on theological grounds that it is wrong to say that God was not born from St. Mary or that God did not experience death in the flesh, or that God did not rise from the dead, since Jesus is God.  St. Paul says in Romans 9:5:  "...Christ came, who is .. the eternally blessed God."  If Jesus is God, then God was born, died, rose from the dead and ascended into Heaven.  He did all this by being Incarnate.

 

 

"We are not playing the fools, you Greeks, when we report that God was born in the form of a Man"  Tatian the Syrian...

 

 

It is perfectly acceptablet to address it to the Holy Trinity without the words "Who was born of the Virgin... who was crucified for us... who rose from the dead and ascended into heaven", as is the Case with the Chalcedonian Churches adn to keep it that way.

 

It would be Nestorian, however, to say that God the Logos was not born of the Virgin St. Mary.  It would be Nestorian to say that God was no born of the Virgin Mary, or that He was not crucified, for "They curcified the Lord of Glory". 

 

So it is acceptable to address the Trisagion to Christ with the words, "who was born of the Virgin... have mercy on us..." etc.  It is also acceptable to address it to the Holy Trinity without these suffixes.


Edited by Jack R., 10 January 2014 - 06:37 PM.


#25 Jack R.

Jack R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 141 posts

Posted 10 January 2014 - 06:47 PM

Accorgint to Fr. Peter Farringon,

 

The Trisagion was first of all a hymn to Christ used in the See of Antioch. The Oriental Orthodox continue to use it in a Christological manner. We know that even strict Chalcedonian two-nature supporters also used it in a Christological sense in Antioch.

It began to be used in a Trinitarian sense in Constantinople, and when Constantinople came to dominate the Imperial Church it also insisted that its understanding and use of the Trisagion be accepted.

But the original use was as a Christological hymn. The Trinitarian use is a relative novelty. Not disqualified because of that, but a novelty none the less. Therefore the Chalcedonians do not have a leg to stand on when criticising the more traditional Christological use.

In this Christological sense there is no problem at all with any additions to the Trisagion. If the hymn is addressed to Christ then it is entirely reasonable to say '...who was crucified for us...'. Even strict Chalcedonians in Antioch used it in a Christological manner because this was how it was first used. So they added '..Christ the King, who was crucified for us..'

There is no reason for the Trisagion to be a point of controversy unless Chalcedonians choose to ignore the history of the use of the Trisagion outside of Constantinople - unfortunately they sometimes have. I don't sense that most Chalcedonians in the modern time do, not least because the history is clear.

The Chalcedonians have suggested that it was used first at Chalcedon, by angels even. But we know that it had already been in use in Syria for 100 years before that. Indeed the Syrian tradition is that it was heard as the song of the Angels waiting in the tomb of Christ."

 

 

also,

 

some say that

 

The Roman Catholic church tried to condemn any additions to the Trisagion also. But in the end they left the Melkite churches to use it as long as they give allegiance to the Pope of Rome.

The conclusion is that the Trisagion was probably originally a Christological hymn and the Chalcedonians changed it to a Trinitarian hymn, condemning anyone who added Christological statement. The Chalcedonians insist that it was originally a Trinitarian hymn and refuse to accept any tradition outside of Chalcedon

 

....

 

The Trisagion as a hymn to Christ and with the Christological addition, '..thou who wast crucified for us..' was used in Antioch during the episcopate of Eustathius (325-330), and therefore had a history of 140 years of use before the time of Peter the Fuller.

It is also the case that the Maronite Christians of the Lebanon, who are Chalcedonian and in communion with Rome, also used the Trisagion as a Christological hymn and with the Christological addition at least to the 16th century.

Ephraim of Amida, a Chalcedonian Patriarch of Antioch, writes that the people of Syria and Antioch address the hymn to Christ, with the Christological additions, while those of Constantinople address it to the Trinity. He says that it is permissible to address the hymn to Christ with the addition.

Indeed we even find Avitus, bishop of Vienne (d. 518) praising the singing of the Trisagion with the Christological addition.



 


Edited by Jack R., 10 January 2014 - 06:50 PM.


#26 Jack R.

Jack R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 141 posts

Posted 10 January 2014 - 06:55 PM

The Syrians and others have a tradition that the Trisagion with the words, "who was crucified for us" was given by an angel when Joseph and Nichodemus were burying Christ.

 

The bottom line is that if someone objects to it on theological grounds it tends to seem like they are espousing Nestoriansim because as Tatian the Syrian says, "... God was born in the form of a Man."



#27 Rdr Andreas

Rdr Andreas

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,039 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 10 January 2014 - 07:01 PM

Whereas we have heard that in some places in the hymn Trisagion there is added after “Holy and Immortal,” “Who was crucified for us, have mercy upon us,” and since this as being alien to piety was by the ancient and holy Fathers cast out of the hymn, as also the violent heretics who inserted these new words were cast out of the Church; we also, confirming the things which were formerly piously established by our holy Fathers, anathematize those who after this present decree allow in church this or any other addition to the most sacred hymn; but if indeed he who has transgressed is of the sacerdotal order, we command that he be deprived of his priestly dignity, but if he be a layman or monk let him be cut off. 

 

Canon LXXX1, Council of Trullo.



#28 H. Smith

H. Smith

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 200 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 10 January 2014 - 09:37 PM

Dear Kosta,

 

I don't know what assumption I am making that you consider incorrect.

 

But I want the conclusion you draw here about the Anathema - Canon 8 I believe you mean- to be correct:

Dear Smith,

 

Your assumption has certainly been rejected by the 3rd. 4th and 5th Ecumenical councils. It is also rejected by the miaphysites. Orientals simply want to safeguard the unity of the Person of Christ, they do not believe in any co-mingling of the natures, do not accept any increase or decrease in the divine Trinity. Orientals explain that the hypostatic union is the way the human nature is composed of a body, and soul in a true intimate union, the physical and spiritual remains distinct but there is no division or mixture instead both operate synergistically constituting the whole anthropos.

 

The canon 7 of the 5th council is simply upholding Cyrillic theology which the Orientals believe in. The whole point of the council was to reconcile with the miaphysites  so it clearly sanctioned the expression, what the canon anathemizes is eutychianism and apolinarianism.

 

 

The 8th Canon says:


IF anyone uses the expression "of two natures,"  confessing that a union was made of the Godhead and of the humanity, or the expression "the one nature made flesh of God the Word," and shall not so understand those expressions as the holy Fathers have taught, to wit: that of the divine and human nature there was made an hypostatic union, whereof is one Christ; [then he is anathematized]

 

but [if he] from these expressions shall try to introduce one nature or substance of the Godhead and manhood of Christ; let him be anathema.

 

Maybe you can please explain to me better how you see the anathema as allowing the idea of one nature of two natures?

 

As I understand it, and Jack can confirm this, the Miaphysites view Christ as having a nature that comes from two natures, and they interpret the phrase "of two natures" to mean one united nature "of two natures."

 

In the Canon it says one can use the phrase "of two natures" to mean a union of two natures in a person, but not to mean "one nature".

 

A few some Eastern Orthodox have pointed me to this Canon to prove that the Council did not allow people to talk of a united nature that is of two natures. While another Eastern Orthodox interprets this Canon to ban using "one nature" in the sense of "one essence". He takes "one nature or essence" to mean "one nature ie. one essence", not "either one nature or one essence".

 

What do you think?



#29 H. Smith

H. Smith

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 200 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 10 January 2014 - 09:47 PM

Hi Jack:

I have leaned not to speak using the word "nature" when speaking to others who may understand it differently because of the historical differences and the ambiguity of the word back then and now.  Almost, always, trying to understand each other will fail once two sides argue about One Nature Vs. Two Natures, because of the reasons sited in posts 6, 8, and 9 above.

 

One group says, One Nature, meaning One MiaPhysis... a concrete reality and person who as all the properties of divinity and humanity in One Person where thsoe properties have not been mixed or confused or altered

 

Another group says Two Natures, meaning Two Ousiai... to describe the same thing but thinking that they are disagreeing wiht those who speak about the Hypostatic Union in Cyrils language of "MiaPhysis to Theo Logo Sesrkomene" which in no way negates "two distinct essences or sets of properties"

 

When we talk about MiaPhysis we are affirming Two Ousiai, but our way of speaking and our Tradition does not have that kind of expression since the Thired Ecumenical Council, but the idea is exactly the same.

I am not sure I agree with either saying that physis/nature is exactly the same as essence / ouisia, nor do I really think nature can mean hypostasis or concrete reality.

 

The nature of the weather in Chicago can change from day to day, from cold to hot, but the weather's "essence" or "being" would not be said to change, I think.

For me, the words have different connotations. Water is a substance, but not a nature. For me, essence is more like an "ether", but a nature is more like a category of properties.

 

If I say that the book essentially means X, it means that we are talking about the book's basic meaning. If I say the book naturally says X, it means something that flows from its properties.

 

I am even more skeptical that a nature can be equated with a hypostasis or concrete reality. Can God in any sense be said to have one hypostasis? He has three. But God does certainly have one nature and only one nature in every sense- unless you mean God has a human nature too via Christ.

 

So Christ shares His nature with the Father, but He does not share a hypostasis with Him. I do not think Cyril in the theological discussions really equated them, although I know one Eastern Orthodox who thinks he did. When Cyril said "two natures in one hypostasis", I think he understood these were different ideas. (He did in fact use the words like that.)

 

Peace.


Edited by H. Smith, 10 January 2014 - 09:49 PM.


#30 Lakis Papas

Lakis Papas

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 619 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 11 January 2014 - 12:07 AM

In Orthodox Byzantine tradition the Trisagion is explicitly Trinitarian: “God” refers to the Father, “Strong” to the Son and “Immortal” to the holy Spirit. 
 
The controversial usage of the phrase "who was crucified for us" produced civil unrest, as it is described by Edward Gibbon in his work "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"  (Emperor Anastasius barely escaped from losing his throne and his life by allowing the addition). Also, the ambiguity of the addition forced at some time the advocates of the addition to prefix the words 'Christ, King' to remove the misunderstanding - but this was not accepted by the users of the addition.
 
I do not want to get into historical interpetations and issues of copyright and chronologies, because I think these discussions will provide no common ground in the conversation, as they can be interpreted differently. 
 
I believe, though, that if Chalcedonians and anti-Chalcedonias are to come in agreement then all Orthodox Councils have to be taken in account. Also, I think that since we are guests of "a web site dedicated to the study of Orthodox Christianity through its patristic, monastic and liturgical heritage" I can take the liberty to use, below, some Orthodox patristic quotations.
 
I understand your explanation of the Trisagion humn according to Christological context. This explanation was known in the past, but it was not enough to bridge the differences. In the letter "On the Trisagion" St. John Damascene asserts that the hymn applies not to the Son alone, but to each Person of the Blessed Trinity. Note that St John was Syrian, born in Damascus, and he lived as a monk at a monastery closed to Jerusalem - by that I mean St John was in proximity with anti-Chalcedonians, he knew their position on the issue. 
 
Protopresbyter Theodore Zisis, Professor at the University of Thessaloniki, in his article “St. John of Damascus and the ‘Orthodoxy’ of the Non-Chalcedonians”  provides the following quotation of St John, from the abovementioned letter: "He who restricts the Trisagion hymn to a single Person of the Holy Trinity “shares in the vulgar stupidity of the Fuller,” and contributes to “the outrage evilly introduced by the Fuller to destroy everyone utterly".
 
St Nicolas Cabasilas, in his book "Interpretation of the Divine Liturgy" writes: Finally we praise the Triune God Himself chanting “Holy God, Holy Strong, Holy Immortal, have mercy on us”. “Holy, Holy, Holy” is the hymn of the angels (Isaiah 6:3), and “God”, “strong”, “immortal” are words of prophet David: “My soul hath thirsted after the strong living God” (Psalm 41[42]:2). We chant the Thrice-Holy Hymn after the bringing in of the Gospels to proclaim that with the coming of Christ, angels and people are united and henceforth comprise one Church.
 
St Maximus the confessor writes about the use of the hymn in the Divine Liturgy: "The triple exclamation of the word "Holy" indicates our future union and equivalence with the intangible and intellectual angels. Thus, in accordance with the powers above, due to our future identification with their restlessness movement around God, human nature will learn to praise, with three sanctifying exclamations, the Triune yet one God."
 
I think that, by these patristic quotations is clear that the Trisagion hymn is something more that a tradition and a theological poem, it is a vital part of the liturgical life and indicates something that is of great importance. This is a very serious conflict on how we worship God, by saying the same words and giving a different meaning to them something profoundly different works in our hearts.

Edited by Lakis Papas, 11 January 2014 - 12:12 AM.


#31 Kosta

Kosta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,521 posts

Posted 11 January 2014 - 03:11 AM

Jack,

I've heard of this explanation of the Antiochan usage with the Theopaschite addition as being taught as early as the 4 th century. However this assertion which is spread on the second tier OC.net forum is illogical.

When the Trisagion appeared in the Liturgy at Constantinople, that church was basically of the tradition of Antioch. Proclus of Constantinople of whom we know knew of it, was the disciple of St John Chrysostom who was Antiochan. Nestorius was Antiochan, John of Antioch who initially supported Nestorios at Ephesus was espousing Antiochan theology which taught the categorizing of the 2 natures.. Antioch always emphasized the humanity of Christ thus the assertion that the Trisagion with the theopascite is virtually impossible. The hymn would have appeared as such in Constantinople if that was the original form.

It may be possible that the insertion was made by the Eustathian sect which was anathemized by the Church early on, but not in the mainstream imperial church of Antioch. In the 5th Council a Canon was passed approving the phrase , " one of the Trinity suffered in the flesh". This was a theopascite formula introduced by the scynthian monks in 512 AD as a compromise. Initially rejected if was recieved at the 5th Council in her canons but not to be included in the liturgical hymn.

Also I think you mean the syriac unia is allowed to use the hymn under the pope not the melkites.

#32 Kosta

Kosta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,521 posts

Posted 11 January 2014 - 10:30 AM

Dear Kosta,

 

I don't know what assumption I am making that you consider incorrect.

 

But I want the conclusion you draw here about the Anathema - Canon 8 I believe you mean- to be correct:

 

 

The 8th Canon says:


IF anyone uses the expression "of two natures,"  confessing that a union was made of the Godhead and of the humanity, or the expression "the one nature made flesh of God the Word," and shall not so understand those expressions as the holy Fathers have taught, to wit: that of the divine and human nature there was made an hypostatic union, whereof is one Christ; [then he is anathematized]

 

but [if he] from these expressions shall try to introduce one nature or substance of the Godhead and manhood of Christ; let him be anathema.

 

Maybe you can please explain to me better how you see the anathema as allowing the idea of one nature of two natures?

 

As I understand it, and Jack can confirm this, the Miaphysites view Christ as having a nature that comes from two natures, and they interpret the phrase "of two natures" to mean one united nature "of two natures."

 

In the Canon it says one can use the phrase "of two natures" to mean a union of two natures in a person, but not to mean "one nature".

 

A few some Eastern Orthodox have pointed me to this Canon to prove that the Council did not allow people to talk of a united nature that is of two natures. While another Eastern Orthodox interprets this Canon to ban using "one nature" in the sense of "one essence". He takes "one nature or essence" to mean "one nature ie. one essence", not "either one nature or one essence".

 

What do you think?

 

 

The canon says it is allowable if its interpreted like the Fathers did, that is as a 'hypostatic union' of the one Christ.  That is the hypostasis of the second person of the Trinity, the Logos came down from Heaven and assumed a rational soul and flesh and made it His very own, being found as the Child of the Theotokos.

 

In the ensuing decades after Chalcedon numerous formulas were introduced to reconcile a (fractured)Church and State. This included divisive formulations which spoke of 'one operation' , monoenergeia, etc. Basically that this hypostatic union created composite actions in Christ. The emperor in his Ecthesis banned any talk of single or dual operation or activity or energy in Christ (because of the disruptions it was having). Instead the formula proposed and promoted was that the unity of his humanity and resulted in one will, hence monotheletism,. This was rejected at the 6th council. Thus any talk of composite natures (which unfortunately is used in the ecumenist dialogues) should be tread on very cautiously.

 

No one accepted this compromise neither the chalcedonians or anti chalcedonians. All these formulas were attempts at compromise



#33 Kosta

Kosta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,521 posts

Posted 11 January 2014 - 10:56 AM

To understand what is meant by the hypostatic union, Here is a quote from St Cyrils epistle to Nestorius read at the 3rd ecumenical council:

 

..."But because the two natures being brought together in a true union, there is both one Christ and one Son; for the difference of the natures is not taken away by the union, but rather the divinity and humanity make perfect for us the one Lord Jesus Christ by their ineffable and inexpressable union."

 

St Cyril also explains alot in his epistle with anathemas at the council:

 

'For neither is he, the one and only Christ, to be thought of as a double, although of two and they diverse, yet He has joined them in an indivisible union, just as everyone knows that man is not double although made up of soul and body, but is one of both. Wherefore when thinking rightly, we transfer the human and divine to the same person.'


Edited by Kosta, 11 January 2014 - 11:06 AM.


#34 Jack R.

Jack R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 141 posts

Posted 11 January 2014 - 06:52 PM

To understand what is meant by the hypostatic union, Here is a quote from St Cyrils epistle to Nestorius read at the 3rd ecumenical council:

 

..."But because the two natures being brought together in a true union, there is both one Christ and one Son; for the difference of the natures is not taken away by the union, but rather the divinity and humanity make perfect for us the one Lord Jesus Christ by their ineffable and inexpressable union."

 

St Cyril also explains alot in his epistle with anathemas at the council:

 

'For neither is he, the one and only Christ, to be thought of as a double, although of two and they diverse, yet He has joined them in an indivisible union, just as everyone knows that man is not double although made up of soul and body, but is one of both. Wherefore when thinking rightly, we transfer the human and divine to the same person.'

 

Yes, indeed, the Oriental Orthodox/ Non-Chalcendonians fully agree with this.

 

In Engish though what exactly is meant by "Nature"?  And what exactly do we conceive is meant by St. Cyril's "Physis".

 

Sets of properties?  realities?  states, or modes of being? essences/Ousiai ?   any of these can be understood as "nature" "united nature" or "natures"


Edited by Jack R., 11 January 2014 - 07:02 PM.


#35 Jack R.

Jack R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 141 posts

Posted 11 January 2014 - 06:57 PM

While the Chalcedonian Fathers have the tradition of the Trisagion as unchangeably addressed to the Holy Trintiy only and this, for them can not change because of their Fathers and the latter councils; theologically, there are no grounds to object to it being applied to the Son when we say, "Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, who was born of the Virgin, have mercy on us."

 

Because the Incarnate Logos

 

is Holy

is God

is Mighty

is Immortal

was born

was crucified...

 

We can see why theologically Arius and Nestorius would refuse this theology, but not Orthodox Theology.


Edited by Jack R., 11 January 2014 - 06:59 PM.


#36 Kosta

Kosta

    Very Frequent Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,521 posts

Posted 11 January 2014 - 10:18 PM

[quote/) And what exactly do we conceive is meant by St. Cyril's "Physis".

Sets of properties? realities? states, or modes of being? essences/Ousiai ? any of these can be understood as "nature" "united nature" or "natures"[/quote]


I would say all of the above. Cyril did not want the identification of the one Christ to be grouped into properties, realities, states etc. He saw a danger in categorizing and dividing Christ into groups and subsets. Its better simply to speak of the person of Christ than to divide everything into columns where a slippery slope leads to two hypostasis. Two sons, etc

In his epistle to John of Antioch in their reconciliation of 433 AD, St Cyril acknowledged that some notable saints attributed the lower actions of Christ as pertaining to His humanity and the higher acts such as miracles to His divinity. In exchange for this concession the Antiochan party approved of the condemnation of Nestorios and they accepted the dogmatic title of Theotokos.

Edited by Kosta, 11 January 2014 - 10:22 PM.
Fixed quote tags


#37 Lakis Papas

Lakis Papas

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 619 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 12 January 2014 - 09:11 PM

I have a question for our EO friends. I will avoid using words nature, essense, person, hypostasis.
 
Ontology specifies that the moment my humanity is realized (starts to exist), as a specific "complete humanity" come into existence, at that moment, I am coming into existence as a man. A specific realization of humanity, produces a specific man. This is true for all men. This is obvious, but it produces the following theological problem. 
 
My question is: what does Eastern Orthodox mean by saying, "The Logos of the Father took Complete Humanity from the Virgin Theotokos and made it His Very Own"? I take the liberty to use the phrase as it was used by Jack R. in this thread. Where (I do not mean 'where' in space) can we find the specific man that was produced from the "Complete Humanity" that came into existence? Is it possible for a "complete humanity" to come into existence and not to produce a specific man?
 
One might answer that Christ is the produced man. This is not the right answer for reasons, which I think are trivial to be understood. Not only that, but the core of the problem is that the coming in existence of a "complete humanity" is indeed a specific man. This ontology is inviolable: when something come to exist, it produces by/from itself what the product of existence is - and the product of coming into existence is not just to exist, but to be what exists. In our case, the product of a specific "complete humanity" coming into existence is a specific man that exists.  
 
One can take something and make it his very own but that does not change the ontology of the acquired. If, at the instance of coming into existence of a "complete humanity", someone takes it and makes it his very own, then actually it is a man that is taken. Even, if there is no time interval between the coming into existence and the taking, what is taken is a specific man. But the incarnation doctrine defines that Christ did not took a man.
 
Then, what makes things more complex is that Logos took "Complete Humanity", a humanity that indeed was  complete. Therefore, the coming into existence of the "Complete Humanity" was a real existential event, not a fictional realization.
 
Also, if we consider that the coming into existence of the specific "complete humanity" was identified with no specific man and that Christ filled this void, by taking the position of the missing man, we actually question the existence of the "complete humanity" as an ontological fact. This is because ontological facts are self-identified as self-standing, or else they are about role playing instances.
 
I would appreciate an answer to the above question from our Eastern Orthodox friends, without using the words nature, essence, person, hypostasis.

Edited by Lakis Papas, 12 January 2014 - 09:20 PM.


#38 Lakis Papas

Lakis Papas

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 619 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 12 January 2014 - 11:31 PM

In the above post I meant ta address the question to Oriental Orthodox frieds. I am sorry for the mistake.

#39 Jack R.

Jack R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 141 posts

Posted 13 January 2014 - 08:10 PM

I have a question for our [EO] friends. I will avoid using words nature, essense, person, hypostasis.
 
Ontology specifies that the moment my humanity is realized (starts to exist), as a specific "complete humanity" come into existence, at that moment, I am coming into existence as a man. A specific realization of humanity, produces a specific man. This is true for all men. This is obvious, but it produces the following theological problem. 
 
My question is: what does [Oriental] Orthodox mean by saying, "The Logos of the Father took Complete Humanity from the Virgin Theotokos and made it His Very Own"? I take the liberty to use the phrase as it was used by Jack R. in this thread. Where (I do not mean 'where' in space) can we find the specific man that was produced from the "Complete Humanity" that came into existence? Is it possible for a "complete humanity" to come into existence and not to produce a specific man?
 
One might answer that Christ is the produced man. This is not the right answer for reasons, which I think are trivial to be understood. Not only that, but the core of the problem is that the coming in existence of a "complete humanity" is indeed a specific man. This ontology is inviolable: when something come to exist, it produces by/from itself what the product of existence is - and the product of coming into existence is not just to exist, but to be what exists. In our case, the product of a specific "complete humanity" coming into existence is a specific man that exists.  
 
One can take something and make it his very own but that does not change the ontology of the acquired. If, at the instance of coming into existence of a "complete humanity", someone takes it and makes it his very own, then actually it is a man that is taken. Even, if there is no time interval between the coming into existence and the taking, what is taken is a specific man. But the incarnation doctrine defines that Christ did not took a man.
 
Then, what makes things more complex is that Logos took "Complete Humanity", a humanity that indeed was  complete. Therefore, the coming into existence of the "Complete Humanity" was a real existential event, not a fictional realization.
 
Also, if we consider that the coming into existence of the specific "complete humanity" was identified with no specific man and that Christ filled this void, by taking the position of the missing man, we actually question the existence of the "complete humanity" as an ontological fact. This is because ontological facts are self-identified as self-standing, or else they are about role playing instances.
 
I would appreciate an answer to the above question from our [Oriental] Orthodox friends, without using the words nature, essence, person, hypostasis.

 

The answer, whatever it may be, would be the same as that from an Eastern Orthodox Perspective... avoiding all Nestorian connotations that would suggest two individuals.  The identity of the Man is that of the Logos.  One Identity and not two identities. 

 

"Great is the MYSTERY of godliness, God was manifested in the flesh".



#40 Lakis Papas

Lakis Papas

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 619 posts
  • Orthodox Christian Member

Posted 13 January 2014 - 08:27 PM

Jack R. thank you for your answer.

 

Honestly, I do not know if you are right about the agreement between EO and OO, I hope you're right. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users