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

#81 Jack R.

Jack R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 141 posts

Posted 09 February 2014 - 09:38 PM

Jack,

...

 

Maybe they are saying: You cannot talk about one nature because then you would be confusing the natures?.

 

...

 

 

 

 

You certainly can not talk about Monophysis, but neither St. Cyril nor the Oriental Orthodox speak about Monophysis.

 

St. Cyril et al.  speak of a Miaphysis.

 

Neither the 4th or any latter council rebuked or condemned St. Cyril's "Miaphysis" so it can not be that the intent of the anatheas were to overturn St. Cyril.    If the intent of the 5th council was to rebuke or anathematize St. Cyril's "Miaphysis to Theo Logou Sesarkomene" then obviously that would be another reason why the Oriental Orthodox can not agree on the new byzantine terminology, but that was not its intent.



#82 Jack R.

Jack R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 141 posts

Posted 09 February 2014 - 10:09 PM

Jack,

 

...  my worry is that my fellow Orthodox and the 5th Council might not understand Cyril correctly. When some of them read Cyril's words "one nature", I think some of them believe Cyril is only talking about one of the two natures. When Cyril says "one nature of the Word incarnate", I think some Orthodox believe Cyril is not talking about a composite nature, but that Cyril is talking about the Divine nature having become incarnate. So He does not have a composite, united nature, but (1) a divine nature that has flesh,

 

I do not agree with this idea, but my worry is that the 5th Council was banning you from saying "one nature" that is "of two natures" because the writers thought that this would mean you are confusing the natures.

 

By the way, Jack, I would prefer if you were correct in your interpretation of the anathema, because I do think there is a composite nature. I am just having a hard time seeing this in the anathema.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I see your point and I agree with you.  But Sts Cyril, Dioscorus, and Severus cannot be blamed for the false accusation of Monophysitsm because it is abundantly and objectively clear from their writings that they consistently confess the continuing distinction between the Humaity and Divinity of Christ, the lack of mixture or confusion between them while emphasizing their true hypostatic unity.

 

In addition they spoke of a "MIA"physis, not a monophysis.  And they were not speaking about Ousia per se, which is, I suspect, what the Eastern Orthodox are thinking when they think of a "combined" or confused substance.

 

Sts Cyril and Severus say...

It is not right that we should make a division into an independent diversity, so that they should become separate and apart from each other; rather we ought to bring them together to undivided union. For the Word became flesh, according to the words of John.

This independent diversity is what we should reject. Not the fact of the diversity of the natures, the humanity and Divinity, which are completely other and different from each other. The heart of our Orthodox Christology, is that these two distinct and different natures have been united in a union that has no division even whilst their is no confusion.

 

"IN TWO NATURES" implies division for the Oriental Orthodox.

 

Sts Cyril and Severus, again...

We do not refuse to confess the difference, God forbid! But we flee from this, that we should divide the one Christ in a duality of natures after the union. For if he is divided, the properties of each one of the natures are divided at the same time with him, and what is its own will cling to each one of them. But when a hypostatic union is professed, of which the fulfilment is that from two there is one Christ without confusion, one person, one hypostasis, one nature belonging to the Word incarnate.

What Severus, and Cyril, strive so hard to prevent is a division of Christ such that there is a human and a God. This is the essence of Nestorianism. In this passage  shows the strength of his feeling that we must absolutely confess that the humanity and Divinity of Christ are different things. There is no room for a Eutychian confusion of humanity and Divinity.

 

This recognition of the difference of the nature is not what we object to. What we object to is creating a duality of natures, which does not mean the destruction of the difference between them, rather it means setting up two independent centres of existence, the humanity and the Divinity, and these independent centres of existence destroy the union. It is a hypostatic union that ensures the real union of these different natures. This passage makes clear that firstly, a hypostatic union does not introduce confusion between the humanity and the Divinity; secondly, that 'MiaPhysis' [NOT ONE OUSIA] belonging to the Word Incarnate' does not mean either a confused divine/human nature nor does it mean that the humanity is swallowed up by the Divinity; thirdly, the passage makes plain that the union is one in which the different natures have their differences preserved but within one concrete existence, that of the Incarnate Christ, and not preserved independently as the Son of God and a man united in some external manner.

 

The 'duality of natures' which is rejected is not the reality of the humanity and Divinity, but a division between them which destroys the union.


Edited by Jack R., 09 February 2014 - 10:13 PM.


#83 Jack R.

Jack R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 141 posts

Posted 09 February 2014 - 10:40 PM

Jack,

...

 

Maybe they are saying: You cannot talk about one nature because then you would be confusing the natures?.

 

...

 

You certainly can not talk about Monophysis, but neither St. Cyril nor the Oriental Orthodox speak about Monophysis.

 

St. Cyril et al. speak of a Miaphysis.

 

Neither the 4th or any latter council rebuked or condemned St. Cyril's "Miaphysis" so it can not be that the intent of the anatheas were to overturn St. Cyril. If the intent of the 5th council was to rebuke or anathematize St. Cyril's "Miaphysis to Theo Logou Sesarkomene" then obviously that would be another reason why the Oriental Orthodox can not agree on the new byzantine terminology, but that was not its intent.

 

 

 

From the OO side, we would respond and say that you cannot talk about "in two natures" because then you would be dividing the natures and not really describing a hypostatic union, which is why St. Cyril specifically stated...

 

"We must understand not two natures, but one incarnate nature of the Word of God";

 

and St. Athanasius stated,

 

"as the rational soul and the flesh together form the human nature, so God and man together form
a certain one nature"

 

But again, there is no talk of Ousia, here, whether one, mono, or mia.



#84 Jack R.

Jack R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 141 posts

Posted 09 February 2014 - 10:46 PM

at the end of the day, both the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, as Kosta stated, are saying the same thing.

 

Both the complete Humanity and Divinity of Christ continue in him as one without separation, division, mixture, confusion, or alteration. He is One Person who is the Incarnate Logos who wills and acts and is worshipped.



#85 Jack R.

Jack R.

    Regular Poster

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 141 posts

Posted 09 February 2014 - 11:09 PM

"This paralleling of Cyril's One Physis with Incarnate in order to prove that Cyril speaks of Two Physeis in Christ was and is a mistake repeated by all Chalcedonians till today. The approach was and is a bad one since it could only lead to two Hypostases and Prosopa"

 

"the anathema pronounced in the definition on those who say two natures before the union and one after the union was intended for anyone with Eutyches who denied that Christ is consubstantial with us. There is no doubt that the definition should have contained the phrase or ousia as one finds after the phrase one physis in the eighth and ninth anathemas of the Fifth Ecumenical  Council. This would have avoided much misunderstanding.

 

It perhaps was not done at the Fourth because possibly Cyril's One Nature of God the Logos was
taken as equivalent to One Ousia and the word Incarnate as equivalent to a second ousia or physis. "

 

-The Late Rev. Father J. Romanides, a Chalcedonian

 

Physis and Ousia meant different things to different people in diffierent cultures.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users