Do Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians share the same Christology? [Archive]

Athanasius Abdullah

20-10-2005, 02:33 AM

Dearest to Christ Fr. Raphael Vereshack,

Peace and blessings be with you:

I believe that it requires more than simply God adopting a complete human nature per se to suffice in the effecting of our theosis; the very nature of such “adoption” is in fact crucial to the issue – hence why I believe my very statement regarding God’s experiential knowledge of humanity to be the corollary of my earlier points regarding the very nature of this “adoption” i.e. my points regarding kenosis, divine appropriation, and the hypostatic union.

The Incarnate Words' humanity not only had to be truly real and complete, but it had to truly be His very own i.e. it is not enough, nay, false, to merely state that the flesh adopted by the Incarnate Word was true and hence subject to true suffering; one must affirm more accurately that the Incarnate Word Himself truly experienced true suffering according to His true flesh; in, through, and never apart from the flesh; hence why the justification of communicato idiomatum in point 16 is consequential to point 14 (such a qualified divine impassibility is, I believe, the very nerve centre of the Gospel and the very heart of the paradox of the Incarnation. A paradox that is in itself a dogmatic truth we must seek to preserve, rather than attempt to resolve).

The implications that point 14 has for our deification is most significant: For God The Word must truly have experienced the passions, defects, and flaws of humanity; not that they might have a position of advantage and control in and over Him as they do in and over us, but rather, in order that when so aroused they might be thoroughly subdued by The Words’ power, such that our humanity may thus undergo a transformation with respect to the power struggle we experience daily (and even by the second, for wretched sinners as I).

Ultimately, by acquiring experiential knowledge of mankind through the appropriation of, and union with, a human essence, God made it possible for mankind to acquire experiential knowledge of Himself through our union with Him. We can understand this consequent experiential knowledge of God as the gnosis that St Clement of Alexandria talks so elaborately of in his work the Stromata; a gnosis or experiential knowledge that allows us to become exponents of a loftier sensibility and scrutineers of our inward states, inducing and assisting the effervescence of our spirit through a voluntary and conscious mortification of our weak and sinful flesh.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Fr Benjamin Henderson

20-10-2005, 10:54 AM

Regarding the faith of the non Chalcedonians or Copts, I enjoy discussing these issues with them. What harm can it be to approach them in dialogue, praying for a reunion. They need to know who we are and that we love them.

Here is an interesting correspondence I have had with a Coptic Deacon we know:

(This statement, which is what the Copts use against any arguments about the truthfulness of their faith, that we steadfastly adhere to St. Cyril's Christology which
is the base for all Orthodox Christology. In fact we summarize it in the confession that we recite at the end of the Coptic Liturgy (St. Basil's or St. Gergory's the Theologian) just before partaking in the Eucharist. The following is the statement of that confession:

"Amen, Amen, Amen. I believe, I believe, I believe and confess until my last breath, that This is the Life-giving Flesh that Thine Only-begotten Son - our Lord, God and Savior Jesus Christ - took from our Lady and Queen of us all the holy Theotokos the virgin Saint Mary. He made It one with His Divinity without mingling, without confusion and without alteration. He witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate. Of His own will, He gave It up for all of us on the Tree of the Cross. Amen, I believe that His Divinity parted not from His Humanity for a single moment nor for a blink of an eye; given up for us unto salvation, remission of sins and ever lasting eternal life to partakers. I believe, I believe, I believe that This is verily true, Amen."

"If you notice this confession dispels both the Eutycian (Monophysite) and the Nestorian heresies. By emphasizing that the union between His Divinity and His Humanity is "without mingling, without confusion and without alteration," we dispel the Eutycian heresy. By emphasizing that "His Divinity parted not from His Humanity for a single moment nor a blink of an eye," we are dispelling the Nestorian heresy.

"Another point that is often used against Dioscorus (and consequently against the Copts) is that he, at a point in time, has absolved Eutycus. The fact is (and this is recorded even in the Greek church records and can be found in the archives of the Athens University school of Theology) that Eutycus had deceived him at that point pretending that he (Eutycus) has repented his heresy and confessed the true faith. When it was discovered
that Eutycus was deceitful, he was re-anathemised and excommunicated and he still is in the Coptic church today.

For those who wish copies of the article (or any articles other) on the related question, and wish to examine for themselves some of the issues, Fr John Romanides' website has some articles of interest:

"Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Consultation" Geneva 1/11-6/11/1993, Leo of Rome's support of Theodoret Dioscorus of Alexandria's support of Eutyches and the lifting of the anathemas by John S. Romanides.

In ICXC,

varangian guard

M.C. Steenberg

20-10-2005, 11:02 AM

Dear all,

Alas, now we’re getting somewhere. Thank you, Athanasius, for your first post in this thread. I am unlikely to have time to respond in detail before the weekend (if then), but a few initial reactions to your comments. (I am using the current/revised version of your initial post; perhaps henceforth you could leave that text as-is for reference, making revisions/alterations in subsequent posts, so we can see how things develop in sequence.)

a) It is extremely helpful for you to have set out definitions of the terms you are using, as you use them—my thanks for that. I find some of these definitions confusing, however, particularly as regards the relationship of ‘hypostasis’ and ‘subsistent’. In a sense, there is a manner of tautology here: what is an hypostasis if not a subsisting reality? The word (for they are the Greek and Latin versions of essentially the same word) is not merely equatable to ‘individual’; literally it implies existential reality—a thing that existentially is (and thus, by extension, is an individual thing). This leads to what seems to me a problematic distinction of hypostases that are/are not subsistent, for the tautology of language makes this equivalent to declaring the existence of a non-hypostatic hypostasis. The very definition of ‘hypostatic’ must relate the existentially real; else it inadvertently becomes a type of homonym of nature/ousia. As such, the title ‘self-subsistent hypostasis’ becomes redundant, and ‘non-self-subsistent hypostasis’ an impossibility. (In ‘grass-roots logic’, this point can be made by considering, for example, a tree: there is the ‘nature’ of Tree common to all, and there are existential realities, hypostases, of tree subsisting in reality. But what would be a non-subsisting tree hypostasis?)

b) The definition of ‘person’ I think also needs to be fuller if it is going to lack ambiguity. Currently you are defining it as ‘a personal self-subsistent hypostasis’ (my problems with the tautology of ‘self-subsistent hypostasis’ remain as above); but this is a circular definition. What does ‘personal’ mean?

c) As to your point 6, regarding kenosis, this matter needs intense scrutiny and definition. When one speaks of the ‘voluntary self-emptying of the Word’, what is implied in this affirmation? [i]What is it that is ‘emptied’, and what does that emptying entail? This issue is of centrality in incarnational discussion, as the confession that the Son is homoousios with the Father means that the full divinity of the Father’s nature is also the full divinity of the Son’s (as you say), the consequence being that this full divinity qua divinity cannot be reduced. The Word cannot become ‘less Word’ or ‘less divine’ in the incarnation—i.e., this cannot be what ‘kenosis’ means. (I am not suggesting you argue that it is; only that mere affirmation of kenosis alone does not suffice. It must be explained and shown to integrate into the incarnational discussion.)

d) It is your point 7 that to me seems the most problematic: the affirmation of ‘the Word’s appropriation of a non-self-subsistent human essence, taken from the Virgin St Mary. This harks back to my questions over definitions, above; it also represents what I consider a major incarnational stumbling block (and one which I’ve spoken of before). An hypostasis subsists as hypostasis: it is nature subsisting. The declaration of ‘non-self-subsistent hypostasis’ simply doesn’t work, though it is worth recognising what this declaration is trying to achieve—namely, the prevention of a definition of personal or concrete reality to the humanity prior to the incarnational union, such that there is no question of concrete entities fusing, being merged, mixing, etc. Nonetheless, the problem with this manner of attempt is that it mandates the existence of a pre-incarnational, non-hypostatic hypostasis of human nature which the hypostatic hypostasis of the Word takes to himself in union. What is this pre-incarnational human ‘non-subsistent hypostasis’?

In a sense, this attempt at solving the difficulties of a compositional vision of the incarnation leaves one with the abiding problems that inspire it: there are to ‘things’ coming together—even if one is now being defined (problematically) as ‘non-self-subsistent’. As much as the language employed tries to speak of this incarnational vision as a ‘hypostatic union’, it is still rather a compositional union, with the bits in composition now being called ‘hypostases’ (rather than speaking of, e.g., a composition of ousiai). True hypostatic union must speak of the incarnation being an hypostatic event: the changing of a single hypostasis’ mode of hypostatisation; not a union with another hypostasis of any qualification, but the single hypostasis’ coming-to-hypostatise two natures rather than one.

INXC, Matthew

Fr Raphael Vereshack

20-10-2005, 02:34 PM

Dear Athanasius,

I still think the focus on God's experience of humanity is wrong. As you may know this word 'experience' comes with a lot of baggage in our western modern age. Chiefly it takes us far away from the profundity involved in communion between God & man.

As the Holy fathers explain God became man so that man could become like God. This is something far beyond "God experienced man so that man could experience God."

In any case when it comes to Christology and the communicato idiomatum we are talking about Christ's human nature illumined by His divine nature- of His human nature St. John of Damascus writes,

Moreover, the Word makes human things His own, because what is proper to His sacred flesh belongs to Him; and the things which are His own He communicates to His flesh. This is after the manner of exchange...

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Fr Aaron Warwick

20-10-2005, 03:12 PM

Fr. Raphael:

Bless! I offer the following quote from Hebrews 4 for your consideration:

"14 Seeing then that we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. 15 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. 16 Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need."

I think as Dr. Steenberg has mentioned many times in these discussions, we should avoid polarizing issues and turning things into black and white. My personal impression from Athanasius' post was that his point in question (i.e. God experiencing humanity) was entirely Orthodox. Furthermore, from his clarifications, he has shown that he, too, believes in God's incarnation leading to our deification. Regardless, the view originally expressed by Athanasius (i.e. that God experienced our humanity and is thus able to "sympathize" with our weaknesses and human experiences) does not exclude the fact that God transformed humanity. Our God is not a God who merely "empathizes" with us, but has "experienced" us. This is a beautiful part of the Incarnation, but certainly not the only aspect of the Incarnation.

Your prayers.
Aaron

Fr Raphael Vereshack

20-10-2005, 04:12 PM

Dear Aaron,

Your point about the sympathy of God for humanity is correct. The whole point of the Incarnation of Christ is so that through God's sharing the human condition humanity may be transformed.

Nevertheless our choice of words is very important. God shares in the human condition and in this sense has an experience of it. This is quite different however from claiming that the focus of the Incarnation is so that God may experience humanity. Even the addition of this small word -experience "of"- points to the depths of what the Holy Fathers are trying to explain in terms of the point of Christ's Incarnation.

God already knows His creation- beyond this though the Incarnation is the sharing of His Divinity through His dearest creation which is man- the microcosm of creation- so that this creation through man may be saved from death.

God does not experience man, rather through Christ He saves Him.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Fr Raphael Vereshack

20-10-2005, 04:14 PM

A correction to my last post.

"God does not experience man, rather through Christ He saves Him", should be "God does not experience man, rather through Christ He saves him." (ie humanity)

Athanasius Abdullah

20-10-2005, 05:35 PM

Dearest to Christ M.C. Steenberg,

Peace and blessings be with you:

I find some of these definitions confusing, however, particularly as regards the relationship of ‘hypostasis’ and ‘subsistent’. In a sense, there is a manner of tautology here: what is an hypostasis if not a subsisting reality? The word (for they are the Greek and Latin versions of essentially the same word) is not merely equatable to ‘individual’; literally it implies existential reality—a thing that existentially is (and thus, by extension, is an individual thing).

You will have to forgive me for another instance of sloppiness in my initial post. The problem this time is that I did not even complete typing out my definition of hypostasis! – this is evident from the fact I did not even end that which was written with a period mark as with the other definitions so completed. Hypostasis was in fact (as I recall) the last term on my list of definitions before I re-arranged them alphabetically; I must have been distracted prior to completing my definition of hypostasis, such that I subsequently went on to rearrange my definitions assuming that I had completed them all.

I will once again revise my initial post:

Hypostasis – An individual or particular subsistence.

This leads to what seems to me a problematic distinction of hypostases that are/are not subsistent, for the tautology of language makes this equivalent to declaring the existence of a non-hypostatic hypostasis.

A non-self-subsistent hypostasis (NSSH) is indeed a non-hypostatic hypostasis (NHH), though I do not find that there is anything problematic about this.

If X is a NSSH or a NHH, this simply means that it is not an independent self-sustaining individual subsistent reality i.e. it is not a hypostasis in and of itself – it cannot exist in its own right, but rather it receives its hypostatic value upon being hypostatized or individuated in a hypostatic union. Its hypostasis is thus contingent upon its union with a logically prior existing self-subsistent hypostasis (SSH).

(In ‘grass-roots logic’, this point can be made by considering, for example, a tree: there is the ‘nature’ of Tree common to all, and there are existential realities, hypostases, of tree [i.e. individual trees] subsisting in reality. But what would be a non-subsisting tree hypostasis?)

Since a tree is considered a simple SSH, it cannot be employed as the subject of an appropriate and relevant analogy in examining our understanding of NSSH and SSH, which apply strictly to composite SSH. A better analogy to consider is that of the union of body and soul to make up the individual man: Person Y’s body is a NSSH, for it only exists in union with Y’s soul, and most importantly it never has, and never will have its own independent existence apart from its unity with Y’s soul.

The definition of ‘person’ I think also needs to be fuller if it is going to lack ambiguity. Currently you are defining it as ‘a personal self-subsistent hypostasis’ (my problems with the tautology of ‘self-subsistent hypostasis’ remain as above); but this is a circular definition. What does ‘personal’ mean?

This is not a circular definition at all; it could be considered as such had I employed the term 'personal' to denote that which relates to or affects a person, however I was employing the term to denote that which is rational and self-conscious. It is what distinguishes for example, a human being from a rock being; for whilst they are both SSH, only the human being is a personal SSH by virtue of its SSH being self-conscious and rational, and hence a person.

c) As to your point 6, regarding kenosis, this matter needs intense scrutiny and definition. When one speaks of the ‘voluntary self-emptying of the Word’, what is implied in this affirmation? What is it that is ‘emptied’, and what does that emptying entail?

I think the problem here is that you are approaching my 17 points as a list of 17 independent statements as opposed to a set of 17 complementary statements. As you can see in the manner I laid down my 17 points, I connected and interrelated certain points to others in parenthesis, for the purpose of affirming and clarifying the implications and corollaries of those very points.

If you read points 7 and 14 for example, you will find that these two points relate back to point 6, and hence answer your questions. According to point 7, kenosis entails divine appropriation; according to point 14, kenosis - which entails divine appropriation - implies that God The Word gained experiential knowledge of humanity.

Thus, the purpose of point 6 was to affirm that the Word was the subject of kenosis, and that such kenosis was voluntary. The purpose of point 7 was to clarify what kenosis entails, and the purpose of point 14 was to elaborate upon the implications of kenosis and divine appropriation inter alia.

though it is worth recognising what this declaration is trying to achieve—namely, the prevention of a definition of personal or concrete reality to the humanity prior to the incarnational union...What is this pre-incarnational human ‘non-subsistent hypostasis’?

The declaration is in fact aimed at preserving the inseparable unity of the human and divine hypostases within the hypostatic union. Since the human hypostases is non-self-subsistent, it cannot exist in and of itself, but rather it receives its hypostatic value upon being hypostatized or individuated by the self-subsistent eternal hypostasis of The Word. As such it can never separate nor exist independently from His divinity i.e. the composite self-subsistent hypostasis of the Incarnate Word is irreducible.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Fr Aaron Warwick

20-10-2005, 05:37 PM

Fr. Raphael:

Forgive, but I have to ask if this quote is really accurate: "God does not experience man, rather through Christ He saves him (i.e. humanity)." I just don't think we can make a blanket statement saying that God did not experience man. Furthermore, I think that your statement is made more out of trying to emphasize the ultimate purpose of the Incarnation, which was to deify humanity, than to actually say that God did not experience man. If what St. Gregory said, "What was not assumed was not healed," then is it not necessary that God 'experience' man?

I apologize, but I personally would like some clarification on this issue to know the Orthodox understanding. Any outside comments or perspectives about this, especially from Dr. Steenberg, would be much appreciated.

Aaron

Athanasius Abdullah

20-10-2005, 05:46 PM

Dearest to Christ Fr Raphael Vereshack,

Peace and blessings be with you:

I still think the focus on God's experience of humanity is wrong.

Exclusive focus may be considered “wrong”, however focus per se certainly cannot be considered “wrong” in any sense of the word. As Mr. Warwick has rightfully pointed out on my behalf (and I warmly thank him for his input), I do not affirm God’s acquiring experiential knowledge of humanity to the exclusion or detriment of theosis, rather I consider it a fundamental aspect of our very deification.

As I attempted to argue in my previous post, The Word’s experiential knowledge of humanity was not simply for the sake of empathizing with us, but rather it was a practical corollary of a true incarnation and which served the soteriological purpose of transforming the manner in which we handle our very own human experiences.

In experiencing and consequently subduing and exercising providence over the temptations and weaknesses of His humanity as they became aroused, God consequently transformed our humanity, that we too may exercise such authority and control over the passions of our flesh, in order that we may consistently incline towards increasing participation in the uncreated goodness of God.

To further stress my point concerning the relevance of God’s experiential knowledge of humanity to our deification, and the causal relationship involved, I propose the following: In complementing St Gregory the Theologian’s maxim which states that “that which He has not assumed He has not healed”, I would affirm that “that which He has not experienced, the faculty of such experience has not been assumed.” What I am saying here may be demonstrated by a simple example: If Christ did not assume a human soul, then the human soul was not healed, and if Christ did not truly experience a human soul, then a human soul was not truly assumed, and hence a human soul was not healed.

As the Holy fathers explain God became man so that man could become like God. This is something far beyond "God experienced man so that man could experience God."

I would consider it the prior logical precedent of this expression, as opposed to one going “far beyond” it.

St Clement of Alexandria (one who specifically employed a modified form of the expression “God became man so that man may become god”), sets out his basic understanding of soteriology in his Trilogy (Protrepticus, Paidagogos, Stromata), whereby he argues that a fundamental stage in our theosis, is when we receive true gnosis – perfect knowledge of the divine things, after being elevated in union with God as a result of moral purification.

In any case when it comes to Christology and the communicato idiomatum we are talking about Christ's human nature illumined by His divine nature

I am sorry, but this is insufficient as far as I am concerned; communicato idomatum is two-way, not one-way - that was the dividing line on this issue between St Cyril of Alexandria and Theodore of Mopsuestia.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Eugene

20-10-2005, 06:17 PM

Dear Athanasius,

I think I understand you point concerning the importance of statement 14. This statement is true as long as we understand that God's experiental knowledge was a means of salvation of human nature, not the purpose. God doesn't lack any experience or knowledge, but He did it for us. He always experience what we experience, because we are all part of Him and exist in Him, although as created beings. However, the point is not just experience per se, but hypostatic assumption, experience and accomplishment, mutual sharing the salvific Divine life with human nature and sharing of suffering of human nature by Divine Hypostasis for the purpose of salvation of men. Well, I'm not sure I expressed it correctly, and sounds like we are going into a lenthy discussion around statement 14, which would be distracting. But I hope we all understand the point here.

In Christ,
Evgeny

Fr Raphael Vereshack

20-10-2005, 06:29 PM

Dear Aaron,

You wrote: "Furthermore, I think that your statement is made more out of trying to emphasize the ultimate purpose of the Incarnation, which was to deify humanity, than to actually say that God did not experience man."

Yes- that's exactly what I am trying to sayhttp://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif. Not that God does not share fully in the human situation (except for sin). Rather I am talking about the focus of the Incarnation. Certainly this purpose goes far beyond God having an experience of humanity in the sense that one could say of people, "I experienced that it is a cold day." This is radically different from the way in which God is present and abiding within His creation and also different from the way in which through the Incarnation Christ assumes human nature and deifies it.

So the sentence I wrote above is meant to read as a whole. "Christ's Incarnation is not merely to experience thirst; it is to save man from death." If Christ's Incarnation is only the experience of humanity its purpose seems more existentialist than soteriological.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Fr Raphael Vereshack

20-10-2005, 06:55 PM

Dear Athanasius,

I take your point but Who is it that 'experiences'? Is not the subject always the Pre-eternal Logos? So yes Christ suffers the blameless passions- He thirsts, He hungers, He recoils from death. This however does not define what salvation means nor is it at all clear what 'experience' would mean for Christ since it would have no shade of human sin in it. So Christ's experience of humanity is completely defined by His being the Pre-eternal Logos. And that is why I believe it is much better to keep to Patristic vocabulary such as, "shares in humanity" in order to avoid any connotation of existentialism; which I feel has subtly affected our modern Orthodox theology.

Have we somehow reversed roles here? You are the Antiochian and I am the Alexandrian? Well I am a monastic- you know what trouble they have caused before in the history of the Church- I've always loved St Cyril & Clement of Alexandria and St Dionysios the Areopagite (yes the real one, not his step-brother Pseudo-Dionysios)- what else can you expect?http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/blush.gif.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Eugene

20-10-2005, 07:54 PM

Dear Athanasius,

One more comment on the term "experience" in item 14, now from purely theological point of view. St. Gregory Palamas wrote: "God only acts by His energies, but not in such a way as to suffer by them". As far as I remember, Holy Fathers used to say that Christ Divininty did not suffer His passions, only His humanity suffered. Neither, I think, we can truly say that His Diviniy experienced the passions. Experiencing something means sertain change in the one who experiences, something that he acquires after experience that he did not have before this experience. But this wouldn't be true if applied to God, because there is no change in Him. So, although you rightly removed a word "before" from statement 14, the sentence "gained experiential knowledge of humanity that would have been known to him in a less direct" is still based on unexplicit assumption that this experiential knowledge caused some change in Him.

I wonder if we can turn the item 14 from "passive" (experiental) into "active" (acting) statement. You derived item 14 from 4-9, and items 4-9 are perfectly expressed as God's actions. Then suddenly in 14 you somehow turn His actions into His passive "experience".

You wrote:

"In experiencing and consequently subduing and exercising providence over the temptations and weaknesses of His humanity as they became aroused, God consequently transformed our humanity, that we too may exercise such authority and control over the passions of our flesh, in order that we may consistently incline towards increasing participation in the uncreated goodness of God."

Yes, it is very important point, but it is also important to understand that only His humanity experienced the passions, and similarly it is our humainty that experience our passions. The Divinity that He shares with us by His energies doesn not suffer, but only acts, as well as His Divinity did not suffer but only acted.

In Christ,
Evgeny

Fr Raphael Vereshack

20-10-2005, 10:06 PM

Evgeny wrote:

"Experiencing something means sertain change in the one who experiences, something that he acquires after experience that he did not have before this experience. But this wouldn't be true if applied to God, because there is no change in Him."

Yes you see the problem with this word & you put it more clearly than I. Isn't this why the Church through the Holy Fathers chose certain words about the Incarnation of Christ to describe His adoption of human nature at a specific point in time which yet do not impinge on His pre-eternal wisdom?

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Athanasius Abdullah

21-10-2005, 03:20 AM

Dearest to Christ Evgeny,

Peace and blessings be with you:

This statement is true as long as we understand that God's experiental knowledge was a means of salvation of human nature, not the purpose.

It is both a means of salvation, and the practical corollary of the very purpose of salvation. To succinctly reiterate my position: If God truly became man, then He must have truly experienced humanity (i.e. experience follows as the practical corollary of kenosis and divine appropriation), and through experiencing humanity He was able to transform our humanity, such that we in turn may have dominion over our own human experiences.

God doesn't lack any experience or knowledge, but He did it for us.

As point 14 explicitly asserts, God’s experiential knowledge was and is always perfect by virtue of His omniscience; He was never “lacking” in this sense; however, He could only acquire such experiential knowledge in a direct sense via the Incarnation.

This distinction can be defined in the following example: Although God understood human suffering perfectly according to His infinite divine Wisdom, we cannot say that God truly experienced suffering such that we could affirm that “God suffered”, unless He Himself acquired direct experiential knowledge of human suffering via the Incarnation.

He always experience what we experience, because we are all part of Him and exist in Him, although as created beings.

In light of what I have stated above, I cannot agree with this. He could only truly and directly experience what we experience by descending from His heavenly throne, assuming our humanity, and submitting to its limitations, defects, and weaknesses.

I did say from the outset that in submitting to the suggestions of M.C. Steenberg, I would not appeal to authority nor make reference to historical persons or events. But I think at this stage I will have to quote some authoritative support for point 14 since it has been the subject of much dispute.

St Cyril of Alexandria says:

“Even if it is appropriate for the Logos to know that which belongs to humans, he has not yet been called to gain experience of our weaknesses. But when he enclosed himself in our flesh he was 'tempted in every respect'. We obviously do not mean that he had been ignorant before, but rather that to the God-befitting knowledge that he already possessed was added the knowledge gained through temptation.” [Ad augustas, 29 (ACO 1. 1. 5. 47).]

As far as I remember, Holy Fathers used to say that Christ Divininty did not suffer His passions, only His humanity suffered. Neither, I think, we can truly say that His Diviniy experienced the passions.

The subject of Christ’s suffering was neither His divinity nor His humanity; rather it was His metaphysical person – The eternal Word - the very subject of Christ’s incarnation and consequent incarnate experiences (see points 6, 14, 15 and especially point 16).

Nonetheless, His humanity is the very and only instrument or means by which He could undergo such human experience (see points 13 and 17); He thus suffered in and through, though never apart from His humanity. His naked divinity was never subject to human experience (see points 3, 10, and 12): “God the Word became an example for us in the days of his flesh, but not nakedly (gumnos) or outside the limits of self-emptying.” (St Cyril of Alexandria, On the Unity of Christ, page 114, Translation by McGuckin).

It is in this sense that I can rightfully assert the great paradox: That the divine Word suffered in the flesh, though He suffered not.

What I have stated above cannot be compromised, for I understand all principles affirmed as dogmatic truths; the consequent paradox cannot be resolved, but rather it must be preserved.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Athanasius Abdullah

21-10-2005, 03:25 AM

Dearest to Christ Fr. Raphael Vereshack,

Peace and blessings be with you:

My above response to Evgeny addresses all the points you have raised in your last response.

Have we somehow reversed roles here? You are the Antiochian and I am the Alexandrian?

http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/sad.gif I don’t think so! I believe my position presents a strictly Alexandrian flavor; hopefully my response to Evgeny clears up any misunderstanding on this issue.

In IC XC
-Athansius

Athanasius Abdullah

21-10-2005, 05:46 AM

Dearest to Christ M.C. Steenberg,

Peace and blessings be with you:

I am just notifying you that I have edited the very last paragraph of my last response to you. I have done this, as opposed to posting the revision in a separate and subsequent post, for the sake of convenience and in order to save any confusion, as the original content of my last paragraph was written in response to a mis-reading of the quotation to which I was responding.

Forgive me for my negligence,

In IC XC
-Athanasius

M.C. Steenberg

21-10-2005, 12:16 PM

Dear Leandros,

Thank you for your recent posts, which I’ve found quite interesting. For the sake of time I’ll focus here just on your response to my earlier comments, as the bulk of the others at this stage are dealing with the question of ‘experience’, which I feel is important, but entirely secondary to the discussion over hypostatic language. In that regard, you wrote:

I will once again revise my initial post: Hypostasis – An individual or particular subsistence.

While this is fuller than your original definition, which I fully understand was incomplete as an error of computers (such things happen, I’m afraid), this new definition only heightens the problem of a severe confusion over ‘hypostasis’ and ‘subsistence’. This is right at the core of things, and I think is the foundation of an essential rift in Christological articulation. Your comment a few lines later in your post makes this point concrete: ‘A non-self-subsistent hypostasis is indeed a non-hypostatic hypostasis, though I do not find that there is anything problematic about this.’ The problem with this is that it is simply an impossibility. Hypostasis is subsistence, it is actuality. Non-extant existence, non-subsisting subsistence, non-hypostatic hypostasis—these are invented terms of logical impossibility. The problems here are highlighted in another comment:

If X is a [non self-subsistent hypostasis] or a [non-hypostatic hypostasis], this simply means that it is not an independent self-sustaining individual subsistent reality i.e. it is not a hypostasis in and of itself – it cannot exist in its own right, but rather it receives its hypostatic value upon being hypostatized or individuated in a hypostatic union. Its hypostasis is thus contingent upon its union with a logically prior existing self-subsistent hypostasis.

Again, this seems radically to confuse the character of hypostasis, to some degree here conflating it with natural reality. A reality that is not an hypostatic reality is an ousia, or physis, in definition; it is the reality of things which is hypostatised (i.e. actualised, made concrete) in the things, pragmata, themselves. As some of the earlier fathers are careful to point out, speaking of ‘an hypostasis’ as an entity is more fully to speak of a nature hypostatised as a specific pragma. The very term ‘hypostasis’ (hypo = sub, stasis = ‘sistence’) is built on this understanding. Hypostases are realities which subsist in their ‘self’.

The reason all this is so critical to Christological discussion is because it goes directly to the question of union. One of the main challenges of the early attempts at Christological articulation was conceiving of how two entities (two ‘sistences’) could come into union genuinely as one, without a mutation, and therefore ultimate destruction, of one or the other. In other words, how does one ‘unite’, in anything other than a nominal sense, two ‘natures’, without altering them? The difficulty of the question lay precisely in the compositional manner in which it was being conceived: as if there are compositional ‘parts’ that meet and enter into union. The development of articulation of an hypostatic union in the fifth century was precisely as a way of moving beyond this compositional means of approach, coming to speak of the union as ‘hypostatic’, as the change of the manner of being of the hypostasis of the Word such that instead of hypostatising one nature alone (the divine), the single hypostasis of the Word now hypostatised the divine and the human nature in his singular hypostatic reality. There is no compositional union at all.

The problem posed by the kind of language I am criticising here, is precisely that it inadvertently reverts ‘hypostatic union’ back into a compositional model, because it is willing to grant a ‘non self-subsistent’ status to the pre-incarnational human hypostasis of the Word. Despite the logical impossibilities of the terms themselves when thus used, the real problem lies in the fact that the incarnation is still seen as a union of composites—only now the ‘parts’ united are not concretely existing natures, nor prosopic ‘persons’; but ‘hypostases’. The attempt to re-define hypostases as self-subsistent / non-self-subsistent seems to me, as I said in a previous message, an attempt to eliminate the chief problems of a compositional understanding, namely two entities uniting and thus undergoing change in the union, by making one more concrete and one less/non-self concrete; but the problems abide.

While this post is getting longer than I like, I think this material is key to the discussion at hand, so perhaps you’ll forgive me going on a bit further. A specific analogy was offered, in response to my own concerning a tree:

Since a tree is considered a simple [self-sustaining hypostasis], it cannot be employed as the subject of an appropriate and relevant analogy in examining our understanding of [non-self-sustaining hypostasis] and [self-sustaining hypostasis], which apply strictly to composite [self-sustaining hypostasis]. A better analogy to consider is that of the union of body and soul to make up the individual man: Person Y’s body is a [non-self-sustaining hypostasis], for it only exists in union with Y’s soul, and most importantly it never has, and never will have its own independent existence apart from its unity with Y’s soul.

The problem with this example is precisely that the human body does have independent existence apart from its soul. This is exemplified in the imagery of Genesis, where the former is created first, and the latter breathed into it afterwards; it is confirmed in the present economy in the mystery of death, when the soul departs the body and subsists independently until the resurrection, etc. The human person does not have full existence in either the body or the soul in separation, but only in their union; but this is precisely because human personal reality is composite reality: to be a ‘person’ is to be body and soul in union with God. When Christ is made incarnate, the human nature he takes to himself is a composite nature—precisely the grounds on which so much debate was had as to whether he had a human soul, a human will, a human energy.

But this does not vitiate the question of incarnational union as hypostatic, and in fact only reinforces it precisely by showing that impossibility of defining anything as ‘non-hypostatic hypostasis’. The human individual is a composite being, formed of various subsistent elements (body, soul), and this composite reality is what human nature is when it is hypostatised. When the hypostasis of the Word comes in the incarnation to hypostatise also human nature, it does so humanly in the same composite manner of human existence as do all humans, whilst still remaining the full and unthwarted hypostatisation of the divine nature he always is. One hypostasis—this is the key. The very point of speaking of the incarnation in terms of hypostatic union is to declare that there is, was, and only ever will or can be a single hypostasis that Christ is. The divergence to which reflections on this point lead is best summed up in a paragraph at the end of your recent message:

The declaration is in fact aimed at preserving the inseparable unity of the human and divine hypostases within the hypostatic union. Since the human [hypostasis] is non-self-subsistent, it cannot exist in and of itself, but rather it receives its hypostatic value upon being hypostatized or individuated by the self-subsistent eternal hypostasis of The Word. As such it can never separate nor exist independently from His divinity i.e. the composite self-subsistent hypostasis of the Incarnate Word is irreducible.

Dare I say it (and I am sure I will be made to regret it), Cyril would call this Nestorian. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif There are not two hypostases in the Son; hypostatic union is not a compositional union of two hypostases, however these may be re-defined so as to work around the problems posed by composition. Jesus Christ does not have two hypostases, he has one. The reality of the incarnate Son has never involved a ‘human hypostasis’, but the Word’s hypostatisation of human nature.

INXC, Matthew

Athanasius Abdullah

21-10-2005, 03:31 PM

Dearest to Christ M.C. Steenberg,

Peace and blessings be with you:

I believe I have reached a break-through in my pursuit to understand Chalcedonian Christology, and have finally discovered through your last post, the subtle difference in our Christologies.

In reading your response however, it has occurred to me that my definition of hypostasis as it is to be understood in the context of my usage of it is in fact incorrect by virtue of the fact it can be misleading in application to certain usages of the term in certain contexts; this has lead you to a valid criticism of certain issues, which do not in fact apply to my actual position (which I have thus far been quite negligent and sloppy in attempting to convey). I thus wish to make one further and final revision:

Hypostasis: Actualized essence.

Consequently, a non-self-subsistent hypostasis is not synonymous to a non-hypostatic hypostasis as I previously affirmed (this equation that was previously made, arose from my inconsistent usage of the term hypostasis – according to my revised definition, Christ’s humanity is indeed hypostatic).

Before I respond to your last post, I’d like to ask if your response would have been any different, had you been aware of my final revisions. If not, I shall go on and respond. If so, I would like to give you the opportunity to revise your response if you so wish.

Again I apologize for the carelessness – it is quite embarrassing at this stage; I will try and make a conscious and focused effort to ensure it does not occur again.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Athanasius Abdullah

21-10-2005, 03:41 PM

http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/blush.gif This is going to sound unbelievable...however, I have further revised my definition of hypostasis for the sake of versatility:

Hypostasis: Actualised natural reality.

In IC XC
-An embarassed Athanasius

Fr Raphael Vereshack

21-10-2005, 04:48 PM

My point about experience is actually very similar to what Matthew is saying when he writes,

The difficulty of the question lay precisely in the compositional manner in which it was being conceived: as if there are compositional ‘parts’ that meet and enter into union. The development of articulation of an hypostatic union in the fifth century was precisely as a way of moving beyond this compositional means of approach, coming to speak of the union as ‘hypostatic’, as the change of the manner of being of the hypostasis of the Word such that instead of hypostatising one nature alone (the divine), the single hypostasis of the Word now hypostatised the divine and the human nature in his singular hypostatic reality. There is no compositional union at all.

Without this theological understanding of Christ either His human nature is completely subsumed by His divine nature or else we have a Christ Whose divinity precisely 'experiences' humanity as if the basis of salvation is God's sympathy for man. Again I would submit that without a Chalcedonian Christology this is exactly where we end up- humanity being 'saved' either from being in bondage to Christ or else because He can experience humanity in the sense that He can sympathise with us.

Mostly I speak from pastoral concern. I have seen how the Christology of Chalcedon translates pastorally to define what salvation actually means and it is this which I am so anxious as a priest to defend. Our temptation at the present does not seem so much in the 'bondage to Christ' direction as in Christ as 'sympathetic friend'. I object to this not to deny His love but precisely to explain that Chalcedon implies that the love of Christ for humanity is a roaring fire of Divinity & that He seeks to remake us in His image. Anything less than this or more 'human' does a terible disservice to our calling for it is literally to turn away from the incredible awesomeness of Christ's love for us.

Christ's Divine work of salvation for us is awesome beyond compare for it comes to reveal what humanity really is or should be. It is this which Chalcedon defines and that is why ultimately we have always defended its theological understanding. That is why for us it is simply a non-negotiable item for it defines what salvation means.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

M.C. Steenberg

21-10-2005, 05:22 PM

Dear Athanasius,

Thank you for your most recent messages. I would not be concerned over the need to refine definitions and usages in the course of a dialogue -- this is precisely what the task of discussing these things in this manner is for!

As to the specific definition to hand, namely that of 'hypostasis', your most recent revision is:

Hypostasis: Actualised natural reality.

In light of which you then add:

Consequently, a non-self-subsistent hypostasis is not synonymous to a non-hypostatic hypostasis as I previously affirmed (this equation that was previously made, arose from my inconsistent usage of the term hypostasis – according to my revised definition, Christ’s humanity is indeed hypostatic).

Before I respond to your last post, I’d like to ask if your response would have been any different, had you been aware of my final revisions. If not, I shall go on and respond. If so, I would like to give you the opportunity to revise your response if you so wish.

I'm glad to see that we're no longer claiming the possibility of a non-hypostatic hypostasis; but this definition only highlights the problem of still attempting to qualify hypostasis with the adjective 'subsistent'. Yes, hypostatisation does equate to the actualisation of a natural reality (and this phrase 'natural reality', which I use regularly, is a good way of providing for the possibility of that reality being expressed either as ousia or physis, rather than demanding one or the other); but it remains the case that a natural reality cannot be actualised in anything other than a subsistent manner. A non-subsisting natural reality, is defined as just that: a natural reality (i.e. a physis or an ousia); but precisely because it does not subsist, it cannot be called an hypostasis.

All of this sounds highly metaphysical and abstract, but it has direct bearing on the question of incarnational union. You wrote, for example, that 'according to my revised definition, Christ’s humanity is indeed hypostatic'. This is an acceptable claim only if it is made with reference to the single hypostasis of the Word now hypostatising two natures; but this is not how you are using it. You are suggesting that the Word 'self-subsists' as an hypostasis, and that the human natural reality is also an hypostasis, but one that does not self-subsist. As before, even if the impossibility of this concept is set aside, the root problem is that this conception of the incarnational union is compositional: it has two composite 'parts' coming together in union. The re-definition of these 'parts' as 'hypostases' with differing manners of subsistence seems to me a clear and perhaps creative attempt to overcome the problems of compositional union discovered in the articulations we now call 'Nestorian' and 'Apollinarian'; but doesn't actually avoid the root problem that leads to both -- that of a compositional sense of incarnational union.

Hypostatic union is something wholly different. There are no composite parts, however defined. Simply using the term 'hypostasis' does not equate to articulating hypostatic union.

INXC, Matthew

Athanasius Abdullah

21-10-2005, 07:17 PM

Dearest to Christ M.C. Steenberg,

Peace and blessings be with you:

It is becoming clear to me now where we both stand, and I think you will find that ultimately we are in fact proclaiming the same Christology, as I hope to prove in this post - though I am open to correction ofcourse if you beg to differ. Before I respond to your specific points however, I would like to bring up a most interesting point that has just struck me, and that should explain our present conflict, and also cast hope in our reaching a final agreement:

It has become clear to me, that our respective Christological languages are being shaped by two differing, though not contradicting traditions arising from two key figures: It is apparent to me that you are evidently following in the footsteps of Leontius of Byzantium, and his theory of en-hypostatisation, whereas I am following the footsteps of St Severus of Antioch from whom I in fact adopt the notion and language of Christ's humanity being a non-self-subsistent hypostasis. What is interesting, is that the article on St Severus as located on your website (http://www.monachos.net/patristics/christology/severus_chalcedon.shtml), states the following:

‘Severus’ human nature is not “hypostatic” but like the human nature of Leontius of Byzantium and John of Damascus ‘hypostatised’, received to the unity of the hypostasis of the Logos’

The author thus equates St Severus's understanding of Christ's humanity (the basis of my statements) with Leontius of Byzantium's (the apparent basis of yours). This equation may be considered true in the sense that St Severus may have rejected a hypostatic humanity according to Leontius's and St Johns' understanding of the term "hypostatic", however it is false in saying that St Severus did not affirm a hypostatic humanity - he simply understood it in an Orthodox sense.

Hopefully, this post will clarify the manner in which I understand Christ's humanity in following St Severus:

The problem with this is that it is simply an impossibility. Hypostasis is subsistence, it is actuality. Non-extant existence, non-subsisting subsistence, non-hypostatic hypostasis—these are invented terms of logical impossibility.

It would be a logical impossibility if I were to assert a thing to be a non-subsistent hypostasis (it would be like denying the subsistence of a subsistence), however I am very clearly using the term non-self-subsistent hypostasis. I am thus not denying the subsistence of the hypostasis per se – which would be an obvious logical contradiction – rather I am denying the self-supporting subsistence of the hypostasis; I am denying that that hypostasis subsists independently of a subsistence external to it.

Again, this seems radically to confuse the character of hypostasis, to some degree here conflating it with natural reality. A reality that is not an hypostatic reality is an ousia, or physis, in definition; it is the reality of things which is hypostatised (i.e. actualised, made concrete) in the things, pragmata, themselves.

I am sorry, but I am in no way confusing hypostasis with natural reality. A natural reality (such as physis in its generic sense, or ousia) is actualized or realised in a particular subsistence, however that particular subsistence is not necessarily self-subsisting. It may indeed well be, as is the case with Christ's humanity, that its very subsistence is contingent upon the subsistence of an independent subsisting actualisation of a differing natural reality.

The development of articulation of an hypostatic union in the fifth century was precisely as a way of moving beyond this compositional means of approach, coming to speak of the union as ‘hypostatic’, as the change of the manner of being of the hypostasis of the Word such that instead of hypostatising one nature alone (the divine), the single hypostasis of the Word now hypostatised the divine and the human nature in his singular hypostatic reality.

I agree with this 100%, however I understand it in the following terms: The self-subsisting Hypostasis of The Word had, since time eternity hypostatized His divinity. At the incarnation, He thence hypostatized a non-self-subsisting humanity, and thereof existed according to a compositional self-subsisting hypostasis.

There is no compositional union at all.

If you are rejecting a compositional union in the sense of two hypostases coming together to form a composite union, then I would have to agree with you. Christ’s humanity is not hypostatic in the sense that it is a person or an individual and independent subsistence actualizing the human essence and thence capable of uniting with a separate external hypostasis, but rather in the sense that it is a true reality actualized or instantiated by the self-subsisting hypostasis of The Word.

The problem posed by the kind of language I am criticising here, is precisely that it inadvertently reverts ‘hypostatic union’ back into a compositional model, because it is willing to grant a ‘non self-subsistent’ status to the pre-incarnational human hypostasis of the Word.

There is no pre-incarnational human hypostasis of the Word. The very qualifier of “non-self-subsistent” to Christ’s hypostatic humanity denies the very possibility of a pre-incarnational humanity, for it logically implies that the causal and self-sustained subsistence of Christ's actualized humanity was contingent upon the logically prior existence of the self-subsisting hypostasis of The Word.

the real problem lies in the fact that the incarnation is still seen as a union of composites—only now the ‘parts’ united are not concretely existing natures, nor prosopic ‘persons’; but ‘hypostases’.

There are no ‘parts’ united! We do not speak of a pre-incarnational human hypostasis uniting with the divine hypostasis, rather we speak of the hypostatic-ness of Christ’s humanity receiving its instantiation and reality at (and not prior to) the Incarnation; this hypostatic humanity is non-self-subsistent for its subsistence is contingent upon the logically prior subsistence of the self-subsistent hypostasis of the Word.

The problem with this example is precisely that the human body does have independent existence apart from its soul.

It may have physical existence, but not a vivified existence; without the soul, the body cannot perform or function humanly, and in due time it will return to the dust from which it was created. My analogy thus holds if we are to understand subsistence here in reference to a vivified subsistence rather than a mere physical one. However I can think of another analogy:

The relationship between the hair of my head and my head. The instantiation and reality of the essence of hair-ness is contingent upon the logically prior existence of my head. It is thus a non-self-subsisting hypostasis.

Dare I say it (and I am sure I will be made to regret it), Cyril would call this Nestorian.

Well I hope that upon understanding the terms according to which I understand Christ’s humanity to be hypostatic – as an affirmation of its reality and instantiation - that you do indeed regret making such a claim. As I have stressed, Christ’s humanity is not a hypostasis in and of itself, rather only insofar as it is hypostatized. St Cyril would have no problem at all with what I am saying; it is in fact an explicit denial and negation of Nestorius's precepts.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Fr Raphael Vereshack

22-10-2005, 04:49 PM

Dear Athanasius,

My sense is that you are still putting an interpretation onto the Patristic witness that I do not really think is there; as in your interpretation of St Cyril's words.

For example you write, "God’s experiential knowledge of humanity was the direct practical consequence of His truly becoming man."

But yet the quote from St Cyril does not speak of a direct practical consequence of experiencing humanity almost as if this was the purpose and means of salvation. The Incarnation is not first a means or way of experiencing the human condition for Christ as if by this experience we then can be saved. This would be to denigrate the basis of salvation to Christ having a sympathy for mankind.

Instead the focus of St Cyril and the other Holy Fathers is that through the Incarnation Christ adopts human nature & humanity is saved in virtue of the fact that Christ is God. I sense that to this Orthodox understanding of salvation has been added some other ideas about experience.

What St Cyril writes about Christ's experience of human nature is extremely important, "The passions of his flesh were aroused, not that they might have the upper hand as they do in us, but in order that when aroused they might be thoroughly subdued by the power of the Word dwelling in the flesh, the nature thus undergoing a change for the better.”

What Christ experiences is not identical to what we experience for our experience is affected not only by the blameless passions- hunger, fear of death, etc- but also is tainted by sin. Isn't this why when St Cyril refers to The Word being afraid (above) he couples this with human freedom from cowardice? Christ shares in the human condition free from sin personally- precisely then the focus of our salvation is on the Person of the Pre-eternal God/man Christ when we speak of His human nature. Otherwise we drift off into humanistic conceptions of the Incarnation. Thus we must be extremely careful about what we mean when we say that Christ has the experience of humanity. We obviously do not mean He experiences what is sinful although He fully (and much more than us) experiences the effects of sin. We do not mean that for the sake of the experience or by its means we can be saved- for this would imply the Incarnation was for the purpose of overcoming some lack in God or merely to sympathise with us (again this is just saying that God is trying to overcome some shortcoming in His knowledge.) So Christ's 'experience' of humanity is absolutely real (not docetic) and yet it is not identical to ours for our experience is tainted and distorted by sin. Ultimately then as with so many other things concerning God's providence this is a mystery beyond human conception in which our words suggest more than they describe.

Once again it is these things concerning God's providence which are so central to our salvation that Chalcedon addresses. In a real sense all of what the Church proclaimed from Christ to His Holy Apostles and then the Holy Fathers both theological & monastic lead up to Chalcedon. For us St Cyril's intent is fully Chalcedonian and indeed his inner strivings are fully fulfilled in that Council. In any case for us as Matthew explained these things for us are not metaphysics or abstractions. They are quite literally a matter of life in Christ.

My genuine prayer is that Christ also leads you and your brothers & sisters in Christ so that you can see that Chalcedon is no threat to your deepest strivings for the love of Christ. If these discussions can help achieve that even in some small degree then they were worth the effort involved.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

PS: In order to try to prevent unnecessary posts: from the posts of the past few months I do not dispute that in many ways you are trying to make the same theological points as we are. This is a great joy & cause for hope. But my sense is that you are trying to use another vehicle to get to the same destination we are. I think at this point it is more this question that is being discussed.

Athanasius Abdullah

22-10-2005, 08:04 PM

Dearest to Christ Fr Raphael Vereshack,

Peace and blessings be with you:

My sense is that you are still putting an interpretation onto the Patristic witness that I do not really think is there; as in your interpretation of St Cyril's words. For example you write, "God’s experiential knowledge of humanity was the direct practical consequence of His truly becoming man." But yet the quote from St Cyril does not speak of a direct practical consequence of experiencing humanity almost as if this was the purpose and means of salvation.

I’m sorry, but it is not I that am imposing an interpretation upon St Cyril, rather it you imposing an interpretation upon me. I’m sure this going to sound like a broken record by now, but I never claimed that The Word’s acquirement of experiential knowledge of humanity was “the” purpose and means of salvation; I simply affirmed that it does in fact possess soteriological significance. I have been quite explicit about this in my last few responses to you.

Thus, I have neither adopted this notion myself, nor imposed it upon St Cyril. St Cyril very clearly affirms that "God’s experiential knowledge of humanity was the direct practical consequence of His truly becoming man”:

“Even if it is appropriate for The Word to know that which belongs to humans, he has not yet been called to gain experience of our weaknesses. But when he enclosed himself in our flesh he was 'tempted in every respect'. We obviously do not mean that he had been ignorant before, but rather that to the God-befitting knowledge that he already possessed was added the knowledge gained through temptation.” [Ad augustas, 29 (ACO 1. 1. 5. 47)]

St Cyril implicitly equates being “tempted in every respect” with being called to “gain experience of our weaknesses”, and quite clearly states that this followed upon the antecedent of his being “enclosed…in our flesh.”

Instead the focus of St Cyril and the other Holy Fathers is that through the Incarnation Christ adopts human nature & humanity is saved in virtue of the fact that Christ is God.

That is all well and good, however again you miss my point regarding the fact that whether or not Christ truly experienced humanity has direct implications upon whether or not He truly became man in the first place.

This was the very heart of St Cyril’s debate with Nestorius. Since St Cyril advocated a real incarnation whereby God truly became (as opposed to merely entered) man; He could consequently thus speak of God suffering in the flesh, and being born of the Virgin. To Nestorius, ascribing such human experience to God was theopatheia – both a blasphemy and an absurdity. Nestorius held to a notion of unqualified divine impassibility, which consequently denied The Word’s human experiences, precisely because he denied a true Incarnation for the notion of God quantitatively dwelling in Christ at the highest degree and hence been conjoined to him via a moral union by good pleasure.

You cannot regard God’s becoming man, and God’s experiencing man as two separate and independent issues, for they are intrinsically interrelated; A denial of the latter is a denial of the former, and conversely an affirmation of the latter is an affirmation of the former.

Thus we must be extremely careful about what we mean when we say that Christ has the experience of humanity. We obviously do not mean He experiences what is sinful

I very explicitly negated the notion of Christ experiencing sin in point 9, so I really don’t believe I have been ambiguous or careless regarding what I mean with respect to Christ’s experiencing humanity. I mean exactly what St Cyril himself means in the two quotations provided in my previous post.

For us St Cyril's intent is fully Chalcedonian and indeed his inner strivings are fully fulfilled in that Council.

We would beg to differ. The only one who fulfilled the inner strivings of St Cyril for us, was his successor St Dioscorus. I find it hard to conceive how a council could fulfill the inner strivings of St Cyril by exonerating his arch-enemies and heretical opponents as well as their works presenting a Christology he fought so hard against, whilst doing away with his own formulas and expressions.

In any case for us as Matthew explained these things for us are not metaphysics or abstractions. They are quite literally a matter of life in Christ.

Ofcourse!

My genuine prayer is that Christ also leads you and your brothers & sisters in Christ so that you can see that Chalcedon is no threat to your deepest strivings for the love of Christ.

Chalcedon is not a threat; it is ancient history. I am willing to acknowledge that Chalcedon can be anachronistically interpreted in an Orthodox context, and in that case I would applaud the Orthodoxy of my Eastern Chalcedonian brethren, which I would view as being presently held in spite of Chalcedon as opposed to by virtue of it. Regardless of this, Chalcedon will by no means be considered an Ecumenical Council for a number of reasons that are not necessarily directly doctrinal – for example, its mistreatment of St Dioscorus alone suffices in justifying this rejection.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

M.C. Steenberg

26-10-2005, 11:41 AM

Dear Athanasius, Fr Raphael and others,

I continue to find this conversation extremely interesting, even after a few days of ‘calm’ to the posting routine. I’m a touch belated in responding to Athanasius’ continuation of our dialogue, but will try my best now.

The main brunt of our conversation has centred around the matter of hypostasis vis-à-vis ‘subsistence’, and how this relates to the incarnational union of natures in Jesus Christ. My abiding criticism has been that language of a ‘non-self-subsistent hypostasis’ is both logically inadequate, as countering the logic and meaning of hypostasis as itself ‘subsistence’; as well as incarnationally inadequate, since it appears to me a creative but ultimately insufficient way of accounting for the problems caused by compositional means of exploring that union. To this end, I might recapitulate a portion of our dialogue (that is, between Athanasius and myself), vis-à-vis ‘non-self-subsistent hypostasis’:

I wrote:The problem with this is that it is simply an impossibility. Hypostasis is subsistence, it is actuality. Non-extant existence, non-subsisting subsistence, non-hypostatic hypostasis—these are invented terms of logical impossibility.

To which you replied: It would be a logical impossibility if I were to assert a thing to be a non-subsistent hypostasis (it would be like denying the subsistence of a subsistence), however I am very clearly using the term non-self-subsistent hypostasis. I am thus not denying the subsistence of the hypostasis per se – which would be an obvious logical contradiction – rather I am denying the self-supporting subsistence of the hypostasis; I am denying that that hypostasis subsists independently of a subsistence external to it.

The difficulty I see in this kind of conceptualisation and language is that it divides and subcategorises ‘human nature’ into different means of reality. In the human life of everyday human persons, the miracle of birth equates to the hypostatisation of human natural reality (‘nature’, whether we call it ousia or physis). The hypostasis of this nature that the person thus is, has not pre-existed that birth in any means or manner: there was no ‘pre-’ version of the hypostasis, whether ‘self-subsisting’ or ‘non-self-subsisting’. Nor does the child’s subsistent reality depend on another hypostasis for its making real. The hypostatisation of the human nature subsists (i.e. self-subsists) fully in the child qua child. The hypostatisation of the human nature takes place at the conception / creation of the child. The ‘thing’ or ‘reality’ (pragma) that the child is, is the subsisting hypostasis (a tautology) of the nature (ousia/physis) of humanity. This is in fact the understanding of St Gregory of Nyssa far more than it is Leontius of Byzantium.

The difficulty with the language of ‘self-subsisting’ and ‘non-self-subsisting’ hypostases is that it creates a new category of human subsistence for Christ. Christ’s humanity, unlike that of every other human person, is ‘non-self-subsistent’, thus described in order to accommodate what I have yet to be convinced is not, at deepest level, still a compositional vision of the incarnational union. Were it not, there would simply be no need for this distinction of language and conceptuality, which hinders rather than helps the understanding of hypostatic union. This becomes clear for me in comments such as the following:

I agree with this 100%, however I understand it in the following terms: The self-subsisting Hypostasis of The Word had, since time eternity hypostatized His divinity. At the incarnation, He thence hypostatized a non-self-subsisting humanity, and thereof existed according to a compositional self-subsisting hypostasis.

Firstly (and this is in fact quite important), the eternal Christ does not ‘hypostatise his divinity’, he is the hypostatisation of the divine nature as Son. This may seem a harping on words (it is hard for this whole conversation not to seem as such! nonetheless, it is important), but the distinction is critical: the hypostasis is not a thing (a pragma) that serves to actualise a natural reality, but is the actualisation into subsistence of that reality. This goes precisely to the question of Christ’s human nature: the idea that Christ’s ‘hypostasis’, which has always hypostatised one nature, now takes to itself another, is a slight distortion: Christ is the hypostatisation of his divine reality, which in the incarnation hypostatised that divinity together with the fullness of human reality. True hypostatic union means that Christ’s manner of being has changed: he is the same One he has eternally been, but that divine one is now man.

The fact that we are not in fact saying the same thing (and indeed, the substance of my continuing view that language of ‘non-self-subsistent hypostasis’ maintains a compositional sense of the incarnation) comes out in another series of comments:

If you are rejecting a compositional union in the sense of two hypostases coming together to form a composite union, then I would have to agree with you. Christ’s humanity is not hypostatic in the sense that it is a person or an individual and independent subsistence actualizing the human essence and thence capable of uniting with a separate external hypostasis, but rather in the sense that it is a true reality actualized or instantiated by the self-subsisting hypostasis of The Word.

There is no pre-incarnational human hypostasis of the Word. The very qualifier of “non-self-subsistent” to Christ’s hypostatic humanity denies the very possibility of a pre-incarnational humanity, for it logically implies that the causal and self-sustained subsistence of Christ's actualized humanity was contingent upon the logically prior existence of the self-subsisting hypostasis of The Word.

There are no ‘parts’ united! We do not speak of a pre-incarnational human hypostasis uniting with the divine hypostasis, rather we speak of the hypostatic-ness of Christ’s humanity receiving its instantiation and reality at (and not prior to) the Incarnation; this hypostatic humanity is non-self-subsistent for its subsistence is contingent upon the logically prior subsistence of the self-subsistent hypostasis of the Word.

The logical progression from each of these paragraphs into the next is what grounds my point. To speak of an ‘hypostatic-ness’ of Christ’s not coming into being until the incarnation is a very good point: it eradicates the problem of two wholes attempting to be united (i.e. ‘Nestorianism’). The most obvious type of compositional vision is rebuffed. However, to claim that in the incarnational union, there is made hypostatic a nature in a non-self-subsisting manner, thus united to a nature eternally hypostatic in a self-subsisting manner (i.e. that of the eternal Word), is to make compositional the final product, even if the compositional elements are denied at a previous ‘stage’ in the incarnational reality. What one is left with is a Christ of two hypostases. The re-definition of one as self-subsistent and the other as non-self-subsistent, reliant on the other for subsistence, is a creative attempt at articulation, but does not make the final result any less compositional.

INXC, Matthew

Leandros Papadopoulos

26-10-2005, 03:18 PM

Dear friends, a specific “being” is essential/substantial in its specific configuration of its mode of being. Therefore a specific human being is defined by its “humanity” which is its mode of being, by its “hypostasis” which is the specific configuration of its mode of being, and by its “essence” which is the substantialness of “the specific configuration of the mode of being” of the specific human being.

So, the mode of being is common for all human beings and it is called humanity. The mode of being(humanity) is configured in a specific human being by a specific configuration that is named hypostasis/substance/person which defines it, therefore each specific configuration is found exclusively in the specific being whose mode of being configures. Each specific configuration is substantiated in a specific substantialness that is called the essence of the being, therefore each essence is exclusively owned and defined by the respective configuration of the mode of being, which is substantiated exclusively in what defines and owns. Therefore, while the mode of being of humans is one, each human being has each own exclusive hypostasis/person and its own respective essence. So, I can say that I, Leandros as a human being, I am of the same mode of being (nature) with every other human being but I am a distinct hypostasis(person) according to the specific exclusive configuration of the common mode of being as it is substantiated in my exclusive essence(ousia), therefore I am a human being.

But, the substantialness of a human being is created, that is the hypostasis of a created human being appropriates a created essential substantialness(both corporeal and incorporeal), which is not created by its respective hypostasis, but it is owned by it as its appropriate substantialness. So, neither the hypostasis nor its substantialness are pre-existing before the creation of the specific being, which they respectively define and substantiate, but they both come in being through its creation. Therefore the human being is not uncreated, but it is created, not as a composition of pre-existed components, but as a creature that is not self caused. Thus, the creation of Christ as human being is not a self caused creation(miaphysisism), neither a composition(nestorianism), nor an illusion(arianism) nor an transformation(monophysisism). The creation of Christ was caused by His Most Holy Virgin Mother’s substantialness, which Christ’s configuration of His divine mode of being(His Divine Hypostasis) appended as His own substantialness, therefore a new human being was created by them, which was not self caused.

The appropriation of Virgin’s substantialness by the Son of God, is not a composition, but a creation, therefore the specific configuration of mode of being of Jesus Christ is not mixing(monophysisism) neither co-being(nestorianism) nor phenomenological inhabitation(arianism) nor self creation(miaphysisism), but a creation of a non self created singularity which defines neither the mode of being human alone nor the mode of being God alone, nor a composite mode of being in a composite mode of being God and Man(because Christ is the only being of His kind, so His creation does not constitute a mode of being in an abstract formation which is to be found in individual substantialness, but His creation constitutes only Himself as a substantial singularity).

Jesus Christ is a Being that His configuration of being singularly defines univocally two distinct modes of being in two distinct substantialnesses, one Divine uncreated (the Son of God) and one human created (the Son of Man). The difference in His two substantialnesses regards the co-substantiality with two different “generator” substantialnesseses- one created and another uncreated. Regarding the Son of God, His uncreated co-substantiality with His Father substantiated Him, as a the Son of God, in the sameness of His uncreated substance with the uncreated substance of His Father that begot Him, and regarding the Son of Man, His created co-substantiality with His Most Holy Mother substantiated Him, as the son of (hu)Man, in the exclusiveness of His created substance apart from the created substance of His Mother that gave birth to Him. The uncreated birth and the created birth were both for Christ essential generations, distinct in their respective generators that generated Him and in the way of genesis, therefore He is without mother in the way that he was begotten as a Son of God and without Father in the way that he was born as a Son of Man.

The essential two births of Chirst which are both not self-caused are united in the pleasure of the Father, to begot His ONE Son in both substantialnesses, therefore both the uncreated and the created substantialities experienced the substantiality of the Son of the Father, in two distinct substantialnesses which are the Son Of God and the Son of Man. The one was by the virtue of His Image that was substantiated in the sameness of His Father's uncreated Essence and the other by the virtue of His image that was substantiated in the sameness of His mother's created essence. Therefore the same Image/Hypostasis was substantiated in both essences that the Word append as His own substantialness, which in either case was a proper substantiality caused by His Father, Who is the only un-caused Person.

The main problem of the miaphysis (non-Chalcedonian) doctrine is the misunderstanding of the role of the Virgin in the creation of Christ (which is the problem of all non-Chaldedonian doctrines – nestorianism/arianism/monophysisism), thus presenting a discontinuity in the Uncreated Work of God, in order to present Christ as self-created being, at least in His specific created human configuration of mode of being, as Godman.

I ask brother Athanasius Abdullah to present the role of the Most Holy Virgin Mother of Christ in Incarnation of Christ, as it is presented in the miaphysis doctrine, in order to give me the opportunity to clarify further the differences between the Chalcedonian and the non-Chalcedonian Christology, based on his authentic presentation of the non-Chalcedonian Christology.

May God bless us, all.

(Message edited by lpap on 26 October, 2005)

Athanasius Abdullah

26-10-2005, 03:35 PM

Dearest to Christ M.C. Steenberg,

Peace and blessings to you:

The difficulty I see in this kind of conceptualisation and language is that it divides and subcategorises ‘human nature’ into different means of reality.

I’m not sure exactly what you mean by this, but to put it accurately in my own language I would argue that such conceptualisation simply recognises different manners in which the natural human reality may be considered to be actualized:

In human beings, the natural human reality is actualized as an individual subsistence that does not in itself precede the actualization of this human reality (i.e. there is no logically prior subsistence that thence actualises the human natural reality, for all human subsistences are actualisations of the human natural reality in the first place), but rather is the product thereof.

This is the crux of the distinction between the actualisation of human reality in normal human beings and Christ's actualisation of human reality, for the individual subsistence of Christ – The hypostasis of The Word – had already eternally pre-existed the in-time hypostatisation of His human natural reality.

Were [the incarnational union] not [compositional], there would simply be no need for this distinction of language and conceptuality, which hinders rather than helps the understanding of hypostatic union.

I maintain that it is not compositional in the sense you inetrpret it (and I shall deal with this later on in this post); the language employed nonetheless serves as an effective and clear instrument in the emphasis of Christ's unity against a Nestorian dualism: It affirms that it was the eternal Word who actualized humanity in-time, and not any other independent individual subsistence (for e.g. "The Son of Man" as opposed to "The Son of God" as Nestorianism would lead), such that ultimately His humanity is inseparable from His divinity by virtue of its continued subsistence being contingent upon the hypostasis of The Word (for this very hypostasis constitutes the actualised divinity and humanity subsequent to the incarnation).

Firstly (and this is in fact quite important), the eternal Christ does not ‘hypostatise his divinity’, he is the hypostatisation of the divine nature as Son.

If you scroll up to the passage of yours to which I was responding, you will find that in stating that the hypostasis of The Word eternally “hypostatized” His divinity, I was in fact employing your very own language in an attempt to meet you on your own terms, for you yourself explicitly stated: “the hypostasis of the Word…instead of hypostatising one nature alone (the divine).” I understood this in terms of the fact that Christ’s subsistence always constituted His actualized divinity and that at the Incarnation it thence constituted an actualised divinity i{and} humanity; I in turn used your own terms upon this presumed interpretation of them.

the hypostasis is not a thing (a pragma) that serves to actualise a natural reality, but is the actualisation into subsistence of that reality.

The term “actualization” implies the process by which a natural reality is actualized (I am speaking here in mental contemplation alone – for there is obviously no actual process of actual duration by which such actualization occurs, rather it is instantaneous); thus it is not desirable language for me.

On the other hand, I do not speak of a hypostasis as some sort of a pre-existing “thing” that subsequently actualizes a natural reality, rather I speak of a hypostasis as the very actualized natural reality that constitutes the very subsistence (as stated in my definitions list of my initial post, to which you initially agreed) or synonymously the subsistence actualizing the natural reality.

True hypostatic union means that Christ’s manner of being has changed: he is the same One he has eternally been, but that divine one is now man.

Indeed. Yet this is the very corollary implication of the concepts that I am presenting to you in the language that I present them to you. So I must be missing something.

A person’s manner of being is determined by the natural reality actualized according to their subsistence. Since time eternity, Christ has subsisted according to a divine state of existence; at the incarnation, this very subsistence hypostatised a natural human reality also, such that the One Christ thence subsisted according to both divinity and humanity – two states (rather than two grounds) of being. His humanity is non-self-subsistent since its reality was instantiated at, and not before, the Incarnation, and dependent upon the logically prior existing hypostasis of The Word, as opposed to an independent hypostasis adopted or assumed by The Word.

However, to claim that in the incarnational union, there is made hypostatic a nature in a non-self-subsisting manner, thus united to a nature eternally hypostatic in a self-subsisting manner (i.e. that of the eternal Word), is to make compositional the final product, even if the compositional elements are denied at a previous ‘stage’ in the incarnational reality.

There are no concrete elements or parts constituting a final product (as if building blocks so to speak), for the "final product" has always existed since time eternity – the One hypostasis of The Word. The hypostasis of The Word - as a self-subsisting one - was never contingent upon the hypostatic union.

We thus affirm a composite union based on The Incarnate Words' hypostasis's "inclusion" or "possession" of humanity and divinity, though certainly not a synthetic union based upon the coming together of humanity and divinity constituting or forming the ultimate hypostasis of The Incarnate Word. The composite self-subsisting hypostasis of The Incarnate Word does not refer to some sort of a new hypostasis brought into existence via the union of the self-subsisting hypostasis of The Word with the non-self-subsisting hypostasis of The Word’s humanity; rather, it refers to the one and same self-subsisting hypostasis of The Word, which becomes “composite” as opposed to “simple” subsequent to the Incarnation, exclusively with respect to His possessing and actualising two distinct and continuing natural realities subsequent to the incarnation.

The logical consequence of a denial of the above affirmed understanding of the Incarnate Word's composite hypostasis subsequent to the incarnation, is monophysitism.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Athanasius Abdullah

26-10-2005, 03:54 PM

Dearest to Christ Leandros,

Peace and blessings be with you:

I am afraid your criticism of the Oriental Orthodox conception of Christ’s humanity constitutes a straw man attack. Christ’s humanity is not self-caused, it is simply self-appropriated. Please see points 4 and 7 of my initial post.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Athanasius Abdullah

26-10-2005, 03:58 PM

Athanasius Abdullah

26-10-2005, 03:58 PM

Athanasius Abdullah

26-10-2005, 04:01 PM

Forgive me for the thrice repeated response to Leandros - I am starting to have internet problems.

Eugene

26-10-2005, 04:31 PM

Dear Athanasius and Fr. Raphael,

I'd like to suggest something concerning the discussion on "experience". I find it quite usual that misunderstanding in theological discussion is often related to different understanding of terms. I can see now that this discussion returns to attempts to find a common understanding of basic terms such as hypostasis, subsistence etc. The same applies to the term "experience". The danger arise when we try to apply out human and earthly understanding and meaning of terms to the realm of Divine. The point is that the "experience" for the Word may mean a very different thing than "experience" for a human. We should try to understand what St. Cyryl really meant by saying Even if it is appropriate for The Word to know that which belongs to humans, he has not yet been called to gain experience of our weaknesses. But when he enclosed himself in our flesh he was 'tempted in every respect'. We can never fully understand what and how the Word experienced His incarnation, but it was certanily not the way we humans experience something. We can try to approach this mistery and strive to call to analogies. May be the English word "facing" would be more appropriate - facing the temptations directly in person by hypostasis of the Word made possible to conquer sin and devil. "Facing" does not mean gaining any experience or knowledge that He didn't have before, but it is an active rather that receptive/passive deed, a deed that accomplished something in creation. But this deed had to be done only in His Person, that is why it can be called "experience".

When we apply our human terms to God, such as love, justice, experience and many others, we have to use our human words and terms, because we simply don't have other means. But we should avoid the tempatation to implicitly apply all the aspects of humanly and earthly meanings of those words to the realm of Divine. We may use those earthly meanings as means and analogies in the attempt to understand the Divine meaning of the doctrine, but never assume that those meanings can be directly applied there.

This is a bit off-topic, but to me understanding of the true spiritual meaning of theological terms and doctrines is the biggest challenge and difficulty in understanding the Christian theology. Needless to say that this understanding can not be acquired through any rationale discource, the only way to gain this undestanding is to partake in Christ and in the life of His Body - the Church.

In Christ,
Evgeny

Leandros Papadopoulos

26-10-2005, 07:22 PM

Dear Athanasius Abdullah,

Your 7th point: “7) I affirm [consequentially from 6)] The Words’ appropriation of a non-self-subsistent human essence, taken from the Virgin St Mary.” is exactly the opposite of a non self-caused creation.

"the appropriation of a non-self-subsistent human essence" is a self-creation. It is a substantialness caused by the being which it substantiates, therefore it is a self creation, interpreting the "self" as the "being". You are saying that Christ's humanity was appropriated by His hypostasis, therefore I claim that you present the human being Christ to appropriate His substantialness by Himself in a hypostatical appropriation. Even if this appropriation took place in "no time" is nevertheless a self(hypostatic) creation of His humanity. It is an essentiality realized by its pre-existed hypostatic existentiality, thus it is self caused in the specific mode of its appropriation. The “self” of the being Christ in your 7th point, as the hypostasis of the Word, appropriates His human substantialness, therefore you present His human essence as non caused by itself but by His Human hypostasis. Christ suppositively operated on His own substantialness in order to cause Himself as Jesus the Man in a specific substantial realization. If the respective specific Hypostasis would had not appropriated its own substantialness, then He would not have become substantial at all. But the substantialness is not the result of its appropriation. The substantialness is not caused by the hypostasis which substantiates; they are both caused together by otherness(non-self), being created by otherness therefore they are born by otherness. The introduction of determinism between hypostasis and essence is unacceptable, by Chalcedon, for all beings, let alone Christ.

Christ as a human being was caused by otherness and was born in His complete mode of being human as a created being, that is in His hypostasis as well as His essence, therefore the Virgin is His mother because she gave birth to an essential hypostasis in a human mode of being, that was not present before his birth neither as a human essence nor as a human hypostasis. Christ is not a man because He has a human essence being God in His Hypostasis, but He is human both in His human essence as well as in His human hypostasis, which they were both conceived at once in the substantialness of the Virgin "as the Holy Spirit came upon her, and the power of the Highest overshadowed her" and the born human Child was the Son Of God, by the virtue of His Mother, yet she is all human having nothing divine in her humanity.

Please provide your confession regarding the Virgin's participation in the Incarnation, according to Miaphysis doctrine, and then I will present the differences between the Chalcedonian and the Miaphysis doctrines in a more vivid way.

May God bless us, all.

Athanasius Abdullah

27-10-2005, 04:00 AM

Dearest to Christ Leandros,

Peace and blessings be with you:

"the appropriation of a non-self-subsistent human essence" is a self-creation

Asserting something does not make it so. Appropriation has absolutely nothing to do with the cause, source, or creation of His humanity, so it cannot possibly have any implications with respect to whether the creation of His humanity is self-caused or self-created or not. You need to be more careful in what you're reading, because you too easily jump to absurd conclusions.

Appropriation has been defined in my initial post. To reject the concept of divine appropriation as I have defined and presented it, leads to Nestorianism as the logical consequence, for Christ's humanity is no longer individuated by The Word, rather it is an individual of The Word; it is no longer a state of existence of The Word, rather it is an independent ground of existence of The Word.

It is a substantialness caused by the being which it substantiates, therefore it is a self creation, interpreting the "self" as the "being".

I am really having trouble understanding how or why it is that you continue to read things into what I say, when they are neither explicit, nor implicit, nor even hinted at.

As is explicitly clear in points 4 and 7, in the context of everything else I have said in this thread thus far; His humanity is received from the Virgin St. Mary and was individuated by Him. The term “self” in “non-self-subsistent human essence” is a reference to the human essence in and of itself; the human essence in and of itself is precisely non-self-subsistent because it receives its reality and actualization at the Incarnation, and not prior to it, and because its continued subsisting reality is contingent upon the hypostasis of The Word that so appropriated and hypostatised it.

The rest of your post is once again a straw man attack.

I have already answered your question regarding the Holy Virgin’s role in the incarnation to a sufficient extent – she is the source and cause of the flesh that The Word instantaneously received and so appropriated. It is not created apart from or independently of her.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Athanasius Abdullah

27-10-2005, 04:10 AM

Dearest to Christ All,

Peace and blessings be with you all:

As I have my final year exams approaching, I think it would be wise to take a little 2.5 week holiday off from this forum until my final exam passes.

Thank you all for your patience and the good discussion; forgive me if I have upset any of you, and please pray that I succeed in my exams.

Looking forward to resuming these discussions soon,

In IC XC
-Athanasius.

Leandros Papadopoulos

27-10-2005, 12:51 PM

Dear Athanasius Abdullah,

I did not write that "the appropriation" is self-creation. I wrote that "the appropriation of a non-self-subsistent human essence" is self creation.

For what else creation of a being is, other than "the appropriation of a non-self-subsistent human essence" according to the specific hypostasis of the being that is substantiated by it? The problem in your statement is not in the actuality of the appropriation, but in who is the begetter of the appropriation, in who is the performer of the appropriation. You presented the appropriation to be performed by the actual hypostasis of the same being that is created through the appropriation. As you put it: "His humanity is received from the Virgin St. Mary and was individuated by Him".

This presentation has a circular pattern of creation of the being Christ. He "individuated" Himself. As Dr M.C. Steenberg already objected on this, this self individuation is unacceptable by Chalcedonians. You answered both to Dr Steenberg and to me that Christ operated on his humanity and not on His self, so it is not right to say that “His Self was individuated by Him”, rather the right thing to say is that “His humanity was individuated by Him”. But from the Chalcedonian point of view “His humanity” IS “His Self”, even in an abstract expression of “non-self-subsistent human essence”. For an essence is always “one’s essence” and it can not be an orphan essence(by "orphan" I mean non-self-subsistent, without a "parent" hypostasis) , other than an abstract be-less essence. Chalcedon proclaims that, what was Virgin’s essence became Christ’s essence and there was not an interstage of un-hypostatical essence that was individuated by a certain hypostasis, neither as time interval nor as essential actuality.

You present the essential actuality of an un-hypostatical essence in zero time, received by Christ from the Virgin and appropriated by Him, being thereafter God-man: “Virgin is the source and cause of the flesh that The Word instantaneously received and so appropriated” – “the human essence in and of itself is precisely non-self-subsistent because it receives its reality and actualization at the Incarnation, and not prior to it, and because its continued subsisting reality is contingent upon the hypostasis of The Word that so appropriated and hypostatised it”. There are two ontological paradoxes in this presentation: the actuality of the un-hypostatical essence is actualized by an orphan essence for zero time. Both the orphan essence and the zero time are ontologically unaccepted by Chalcedonian doctrine.

The Chalcedonian doctrine is that Christ was born from the Virgin’s essence subsistent according to her hypostasis appropriated according to Christ specific Hypostasis "as the Holy Spirit came upon her, and the power of the Highest overshadowed her". Thus, the to be appropriated essence, according to Christ's hypostasis, was not “non-self-subsistent”, but it was most certainly subsistent according to Virgin’s hypostasis appropriated "as the Holy Spirit came upon her, and the power of the Highest overshadowed her" in a certain time that the Virgin’s essence was substantial in and by itself, creating a new human being from and by Her, born as Mary’s Child, as the human being that essentially substantiated the Hypostasis of the Word.

The Chalcedonian doctrine is that Christ is the new born Virgin's Child, as a new born essence and newborn hypostasis both being the Word, the essense as His new born substantialness and the hypostasis as His new born configuration of being - if either is missing then the other is missing too and they both come in being instantaneously together. Yet, the created newborn hypostasis (Son of Man) is the uncreated hypostasis of Son of God and the created newborn essence of Son of Man is not the uncreated essence of Son Of God, but each essence substantiate in each own the one Son of the Father being in two substantialnesses. This is why the Virgin is God-mother and not Christ-Mother.

If your presentation that “Virgin is the source and cause of the flesh that The Word instantaneously received and so appropriated” was to be accepted, then she would have not been God-Mother, but only Christ-Mother as the mother of His flesh. But she is the Mother both of His flesh and of His hypostasis. The instantaneous reception and appropriation does not make her His mother presenting her offering only His flesh that Himself appropriated to be Himself, thus instead of having a mother, He is presented as the begetter of Himself by using Virgin as a donor of a body, thereafter adopted in His, regarding the cause of appropriation Christ-caused, substantiality.

So, do you see now how we differ in our Christology ?

May God bless us, all.

PS: I have also to pass three exams for a certification in my profession (computer engineer) during the coming month. I wish you success in your exams, and I have to offer for both of us a secure way for our success: there is an ancient Greek saying: "While the goddess Athena works for your success you should start using your hands”. Athena was the goddess of wisdom and of art, daughter of mighty pagan god Zeus. And the meaning of the saying is obvious: we should work our way for our success using the talents that God had put inside us, because as He does His work, we should also perform ours.

In our case the meaning of the ancient saying is clear: study, study, study.

(Message edited by lpap on 27 October, 2005)

Fr Aaron Warwick

27-10-2005, 07:56 PM

Leandros said: "If your presentation that (quoting Athanasius) 'Virgin is the source and cause of the flesh that The Word instantaneously received and so appropriated' was to be accepted, then she would have not been God-Mother, but only Christ-Mother as the mother of His flesh."

I personally fail to see how Athanasius' statement brings you to this conclusion. To me, Athanasius' statement is perfectly 'Chalcedonian' Orthodox. He is simply saying that the Virgin is the source of Christ's humanity, which was received instantaneously (presumably at the Annunciation). There are absolutely no implications that I can see that would logically lead to the conclusion that Athanasius believes Mary to be only Christ-Mother rather than Theotokos. In fact, that would be contradictory to what he has previously professed.

If anyone besides Leandros can please point out to me where I am mistaken in this regards, please do so because I cannot see how the above statement is not Orthodox.

Aaron

Theopesta

27-10-2005, 08:34 PM

as a non-chalchedonian: our faith in virgin mary is:

she is the laboratory for the union between the humanity and divinity that unite in her at the same moment of the incarnation she is the theotokos = mother of God as God the word take his humanity from her after the holy spirit purify her womb so, christ not heir the original sin from her she is not just a container (theodoxos) she is not mother of man as jesus as man as person not persent before the exact time of the incarnation in her body so the incarnated christ not two persona He is one persona because of the hypostatic union between his humanity and divinity

Athanasius Abdullah

28-10-2005, 07:25 PM

Dearest to Christ Leandros,

Peace and blessings to you:

I think I will post this one last response before I get down to my study.

I did not write that "the appropriation" is self-creation. I wrote that "the appropriation of a non-self-subsistent human essence" is self creation.

It doesn’t make a difference. Neither can be considered "self-creation".

The problem in your statement is not in the actuality of the appropriation, but in who is the begetter of the appropriation, in who is the performer of the appropriation.

The Word is the performer of the appropriation. If it were not The Word who hypostatized humanity – individuating it and making it His very own – then the hypostatic union cannot be said to have been brought about voluntarily.

He "individuated" Himself.

No. He individuated His humanity – His humanity is not His “self”. His “self” = His Person, not His essence.

As Dr M.C. Steenberg already objected on this, this self individuation is unacceptable by Chalcedonians.

I don’t recall where Dr Steenberg ever addressed the notion of individuation, let alone objected to it.

I would also like to take this opportunity to note, that the language pertaining to Christ "individuating His manhood" was language adopted by Fr. V.C. Samuel of the OOC in his article "One Nature of God The Word Incarnate"; this paper was reviewed by both Fr. Romanides and Fr. Meyendroff of the EOC - neither of whom objected to anything that was said therein.

I find it hard to reconcile your assertion of representing the Chalcedonian position, with the fact that actual authoritative representatives of the Chalcedonian position have no problem with the language you are objecting to, and certainly do not interpret them in the manner you are.

But from the Chalcedonian point of view “His humanity” IS “His Self”

If this is truly the Chalcedonian point of view (which I doubt it is), then I reject it as I do Nestorianism. His Self functions humanly and experiences humanity subsequent to His Self’s appropriation of humanity; however, His Self is the second person of the Trinity eternally begotten of the Father, and not “His humanity” – a created human essence appropriated at the Incarnation.

For an essence is always “one’s essence” and it can not be an orphan essence(by "orphan" I mean non-self-subsistent, without a "parent" hypostasis)

I have already explicitly told you that the source of Christ’s humanity is the Virgin St Mary – she is the “parent” hypostasis if you will.

It is precisely the Nestorian notion of the Virgin St Mary giving birth to a mere man – an independent subsistence actualizing the humanity so received from her that thence was indwelt by The Word via conjunction – that the qualification of “non-self-subsistent” refutes.

It has no implications regarding the obvious fact that the humanity of Christ, being the derived from the very humanity of His Mother, obviously must have subsisted according to her hypostasis; when we speak of Christ’s humanity being non-self-subsistent, we refer to the status of the humanity so possessed by Him post-conception, which has implications regarding the very nature of this “possession” and the unity of His person i.e. it affirms the fact that the humanity so appropriated became the humanity of The Word; its subsequent subsistence thence contingent upon Him such that His humanity did not, precisely because it possibly could not, separate from The Word to thence subsist as an individual human being apart from The Word as is the practical consequence of Nestorianism.

If your presentation that “Virgin is the source and cause of the flesh that The Word instantaneously received and so appropriated” was to be accepted, then she would have not been God-Mother, but only Christ-Mother as the mother of His flesh

Nonsense. The title “Mother of-” qualifies the subject of her conception – who is the eternal Word, who is God. She is rightfully called Theotokos in this respect. She is however neither the source nor cause of God, for God being eternal is uncaused and has no source. She is precisely the source of Christ’s created humanity alone, for she is, in your own terms the “parent hypostasis” of His human essence, however certainly not of the divinity nor the eternally begotten Person of The Word, though The Word was indeed beheld in her womb which became the means of His “second birth.” As is said in the statement of faith of our sixth century non-Chalcedonian Patriarch Anthimus I:

“For He who was begotten without time and without a body of God the Father, the same underwent a second birth in flesh, inasmuch as in an ineffable manner He became incarnate of a virgin mother; and, after she had borne Him, she continued in her virginity; and we justly confess her to be the Theotokos, and that He who was born of her in the flesh is perfect God and perfect man, the same out of two natures one Son, one Lord, and one Christ, and one nature of God the Word who became incarnate”

P.S. Best of luck in your exams, may the Lord grant you success and prosperity.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Athanasius Abdullah

28-10-2005, 07:59 PM

Dearest to Christ all,

Peace and blessings be with you all:

I had planned to re-continue this discussion after my exams, however, after discussing the matter with a few friends, I have realised that this discussion has come down to the point where arguments are being made for arguments sake - it is thus neither practical nor spiritually befitting in order to pursue discussion any further.

I adhere to, and affirm all that I have professed and proclaimed, as a more than sufficient representation of Orthodox Christology, and likewise a more than sufficient refutation of the heresies historically and even presently ascribed to my Church by her ecclesiastical opponents. I also do not personally find any substantial difference between our two Christological faiths; this is more apparently evident in the fact that in my responses to virtually all the criticisms I have received (particularly from M.C. Steenberg) I have in fact agreed with the validity of such criticisms in principle, though denying that they apply to the actual position held.

Thank you all for the good discussion nonetheless, best wishes to you all, and again I apologize for any negative feelings I may have aroused.

In IC XC
-Athanasius

Leandros Papadopoulos

29-10-2005, 02:02 AM

The Word is the performer of the appropriation. If it were not The Word who hypostatized humanity – individuating it and making it His very own – then the hypostatic union cannot be said to have been brought about voluntarily.

Dear Athanasius Abdullah,

You confuse the "result" with the "operation". Operation is the union and the result is the Incarnation. As St John of Damascus says: “Union, then, is one thing, and incarnation is something quite different. For union signifies only the conjunction, but not at all that with which union is effected. But incarnation (which is just the same as if one said “the putting on of man’s nature”) signifies that the conjunction is with flesh, that is to say, with man”.

No. He individuated His humanity – His humanity is not His “self”. His “self” = His Person, not His essence.

Leandros: «But from the Chalcedonian point of view “His humanity” IS “His Self»

If this is truly the Chalcedonian point of view (which I doubt it is), then I reject it as I do Nestorianism. His Self functions humanly and experiences humanity subsequent to His Self’s appropriation of humanity; however, His Self is the second person of the Trinity eternally begotten of the Father, and not “His humanity” – a created human essence appropriated at the Incarnation.

You confuse the uncreated Divine way of being of Son of God with the created way of being of Son of Man. I assure you, this is the pre-Chalcedonian, the Chalcedonian and the post-Chalcedonian point of view of the Orthodox Church. And Nestorianism has nothing to do with that. Nestorianism proclaimed that “His humanity was another Person”, Chalcedon proclaimed that “His humanity was His Self”. There can not be a self without an essence. A specific self is its essence and a specific essence substantiates the respective specific self and a specific hypostasis is a hypostasis of a specific essence, or else hypostasis is an illusion. Hypostasis operates always essentialy, but its operations can be found in otherness. There is no "I am" without essence. There is no "I work" without essence. Hypostasis can not operate by itself without essence, there is no such thing as non-essential hypostasis.

The title “Mother of-” qualifies the subject of her conception – who is the eternal Word, who is God.

For Chalcedonians the title “Mother of-” qualifies the Virgin herself, for she is a real mother of her Child. But the Child was God, therefore we call her: “Mother of God”. And as every real human mother does, she caused her Child’s birth as a newborn human Child, both as newborn human Hypostasis as well as newborn human essence(Body-Soul). And she did not caused her Child alone by herself, but "as the Holy Spirit came upon her, and the power of the Highest overshadowed her". And the newborn human hypostasis substantial in a human essence was no other than the uncreated Hypostasis of the Word substantial in His divine Essence. Thereafter the same Hypostasis had born twice in two substantialnesses, one created (from the essence of His human mother with no father in a specific time) and another uncreated (from the essence of His Divine Father with no mother before the ages).

I know that you named the Virgin as Theotokos- Mother of God, but the justification that you provide is unacceptable by Chalcedon. It reminds me the saying of Nestorius about the two persons, that he mistakenly supported was Jesus: "Through Him that bears I worship Him Who is borne". Likewise you present the Virgin as adopted mother of God rather than “Mother of God”, but you honour her as "Mother of" by the virtue of Whom she gave birth, which is a repetition of the theory of Nestorius in another form: Your proposal makes her a voluntary vehicle in His need for a mother, a kind of substitute mother which was not His real mother at all, but she deserved the title of "Mother of" for the sake of her pregnancy that born Him without qualifying her as His mother in reality, rather qualifying Him as God born by Her. Even then, you use the wrong term, the right term being "Vessel of God", instead of "Mother of God".

Our phraseology may be same or identical but its justification is not. I let you come to your own conclusions. As for me, I understand that we not only carry a different tradition but we still hold the same differences that were present in Chalcedon, which were not differences of semantics and the results of wilfulness, but they were real differences between us in the way that we worship God.

That does not make us enemies, neither excludes anyone from salvation. God’s paths are written in our hearts and He is the road.

Brother Athanasius, since you decided to leave the forum (if I understand you correctly) and this is probably the last time that I address you personally, I wish you to live in your life the authenticity of Life. Let me make a personal remark. In our discussions I had the feeling that you seek the validity and the rightness of the faith. Let me suggest that neither of these are important compared to the authenticity of the faith.

May God bless us, all.

katya the nurse-aid

29-10-2005, 03:51 AM

it is like try to KNOW GOD as HE IS...we cannot cannot, becuse we are NOT GOD...only HE can COMPLETELY KNOWS HIMSELF and this is MYSTERY...so beter do not try to eat that fruit...

katy the nurse-aid

29-10-2005, 04:12 AM

well... also my friend told me that she alawys wanted to know and was curious what God is? is this right conception? she made furtune a lot and other things from curiousity..i don't know.... HE can transform anything to the good, for good IF person loking for HIM..

my esxpirience is diferent, i wans't curious, i wanted to love and be loved, i fight for those who was accused or ignored, i felt pain...i never use my brain or try to be curious about..and i simply saw beaty around...HE also turned my life to HIM, to find what we are all is looking for...

why i'm saying this? just to show that using brain toward GOD it is like the same as use feelings toward math...will not work...will not help to know how much 7times 7 is? no meter how much you love you have toward math..untill you use your brain and memory, it willl not be solved..

thwe same with LOVE/HIM....untill you start use only heart, brain will not help!

M.C. Steenberg

29-10-2005, 11:45 AM

Dear Aaron, you wrote:

I personally fail to see how Athanasius' statement brings you to this conclusion. To me, Athanasius' statement is perfectly 'Chalcedonian' Orthodox. He is simply saying that the Virgin is the source of Christ's humanity, which was received instantaneously (presumably at the Annunciation). There are absolutely no implications that I can see that would logically lead to the conclusion that Athanasius believes Mary to be only Christ-Mother rather than Theotokos. In fact, that would be contradictory to what he has previously professed.

If anyone besides Leandros can please point out to me where I am mistaken in this regards, please do so because I cannot see how the above statement is not Orthodox.

No, you are not mistaken. I whole-heartedly agree (not that my agreement is any sort of litmus-test, mind you; it just happens to be the case that I do).

INXC, Matthew

M.C. Steenberg

29-10-2005, 11:51 AM

Dear Athanasius, Aaron, Theopesta and others,

I do not wish to let a very engaging conversation ‘die’ on account of being side-tracked into other realms. In that regard, I would hope we could get back to the previous focus, and not dwell too long over definitions such as this:

A specific “being” is essential/substantial in its specific configuration of its mode of being. Therefore a specific human being is defined by its “humanity” which is its mode of being, by its “hypostasis” which is the specific configuration of its mode of being, and by its “essence” which is the substantialness of “the specific configuration of the mode of being” of the specific human being.

This certainly does not work at all, and is not representative of Chalcedonian incarnational thought. The whole context in which it is articulated seems to me highly confused, and I think the subsequent posts have addressed that well.

Back to the matter at hand: At length I am coming to understand your distinction, Athanasius, of the non-pre-existence of the human in Christ, which you sum up in a recent response to one of my messages:

In human beings, the natural human reality is actualized as an individual subsistence that does not in itself precede the actualization of this human reality (i.e. there is no logically prior subsistence that thence actualises the human natural reality, for all human subsistences are actualisations of the human natural reality in the first place), but rather is the product thereof.

I’ve now been convinced that the language as you are using it is not in fact rendering compositional in the unitive process the ‘coming together’ of two realities. This had been a concern of mine, especially early on with some of the first definitions you were using (and I think it one of the inherent ‘risks-of-interpretation’ in speaking of Christ’s humanity as an ‘hypostasis’); but it has become clear as the dialogue has progressed that this is clearly not what you mean. I find that engagement a major step forward in mutual understanding.
I am also more and more of the suspicion that there is common ground in the conceptions of the realised union in the incarnate Christ that lie beneath the differing means of articulation we’ve been working with here. But I’m also convinced that authenticity warrants not simply professing that ‘we’re saying the same thing, really’, but hammering through the details to see why one is saying it the way one is, and the concerns met by the other in that language. It may be a slow process, but it seems to me fruitful in genuine dialogue.

Let me re-frame my concerns over the language of differing types of hypostatisation in the incarnate Christ, in the hope of getting to the heart of what I find problematic. If I may call upon Cyril very generally (and I realise we’re trying to speak in our own terms here, so I will keep this broad), his primary aim in speaking of the incarnation as a change in the hypostatic mode of being of the eternal Son, was to secure two realities: (1) that the single subjectivity of the Word was maintained, such that the subjective identity of the Son was not altered in the incarnational union such as to be other or different; and (2) to ensure that the full reality of the humanity was the Son’s, and that the Son as incarnate lived all things humanly since the fullness of human reality was fully and personally his, and not ‘proximately’ his (as Cyril would characterise Nestorius), or his in some diminished/mutated form (as per a reading of Apollinarius). Thus Cyril was convinced that the most authentic way to speak of this incarnation was as a change in the mode of hypostatisation: the one who is the hypostatisation of the divine is, in the incarnation, the hypostatisation of divine and human natures. It is the absolute insistence upon the continued reality of the single hypostasis, joined to no other but, rather, now hypostatising differently (two natures rather than one), that serves him to the above ends.

Now, that I may be absolutely clear, I am absolutely certain that you (Athanasius) maintain both these points and hold them as central, as is abundantly clear from your posts; so please do not feel as if I am in some way challenging that. My concern lies rather in the kind of language / conceptualisation one uses to express these realities; in whether such language maintains them effectively. It is in this regard that I struggle with the language of ‘non-self-subsisting hypostasis’ in reference to the human in the incarnate Christ, as I see it attempting to answer such concerns—but I am not sure it does not pose others. My reasoning here becomes clear in some of your comments:

His humanity is inseparable from His divinity by virtue of its continued subsistence being contingent upon the hypostasis of The Word (for this very hypostasis constitutes the actualised divinity and humanity subsequent to the incarnation)

A person’s manner of being is determined by the natural reality actualized according to their subsistence. Since time eternity, Christ has subsisted according to a divine state of existence; at the incarnation, this very subsistence hypostatised a natural human reality also, such that the One Christ thence subsisted according to both divinity and humanity – two states (rather than two grounds) of being. His humanity is non-self-subsistent since its reality was instantiated at, and not before, the Incarnation, and dependent upon the logically prior existing hypostasis of The Word, as opposed to an independent hypostasis adopted or assumed by The Word.

The first thing that is clear from these two quotations is in fact how closely you and I are speaking to the same ends: the language is very similar, and it is clear that we are concerned with the same matters. Yet it is the language of non-self-subsistence that concerns me (as you know), and from these quotations I can pin-point one specific source of that concern. As I mentioned in a previous post, there seems to me a differentiation in the realisation of human nature as it comes about in Christ, and in other humans: you differentiate between self-subsistent and non-self-subsistent, assigning the human in Christ the latter designation because ‘its reality was instantiated at, and not before, the Incarnation, and dependent upon the logically prior existing hypostasis of The Word’. But what of the reality of other human persons? Our human nature is instantiated at our conception, like Christ’s; but surely (as I am certain you would agree) our hypostatisation at all begins there, since we are not eternal beings. The concern here is that humanity is ‘real’ in one way for us, in another for Christ. Interestingly, what bothered the Cappadocian fathers about Apollinarius was not so much his thoughts on the soul of Christ, but his notion that the humanness of Christ was something different from the humanness of others, a ‘heavenly man’ as he at one point termed it. Clearly this is not what you wish to assert; but is there not the risk in this language of separating the way in which human nature is ‘real’ in Christ to the manner in which it is ‘real’ in us?

The fact that conceptions are close indeed is apparent to me from your following remark:

We thus affirm a composite union based on The Incarnate Words' hypostasis's "inclusion" or "possession" of humanity and divinity, though certainly not a synthetic union based upon the coming together of humanity and divinity constituting or forming the ultimate hypostasis of The Incarnate Word. The composite self-subsisting hypostasis of The Incarnate Word does not refer to some sort of a new hypostasis brought into existence via the union of the self-subsisting hypostasis of The Word with the non-self-subsisting hypostasis of The Word’s humanity; rather, it refers to the one and same self-subsisting hypostasis of The Word, which becomes “composite” as opposed to “simple” subsequent to the Incarnation, exclusively with respect to His possessing and actualising two distinct and continuing natural realities subsequent to the incarnation.

This seems to me a strong definition, clearly repudiating my earlier concern over compositional elements in ‘coming together’ (which you here call ‘synthetic union’—a good term). But I still find it challenged by what remains unstated: that the ‘composite hypostasis’ of the Word (to use your terms) who is the incarnate Jesus Christ exists as a union of self-subsisting hypostatisation of the Word and non-self-subsisting hypostatisation of humanity. Can we not say, rather, that the single hypostasis now realises/actualises two full and complete natures, admitting no qualification on either?

As an ending comment, I realise that you are studying for exams, so please feel no pressure in responding, though others may certainly wish to. The nice feature of on-line fora is the ability to come back to conversations at any time. http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

INXC, Matthew

Fr Aaron Warwick

29-10-2005, 03:39 PM

Dear Athanasius and others:

I have thoroughly enjoyed these discussions, though I must admit that much of the terminology being employed and the ideas being argued are simply 'over my head,' which is why I have made very few comments but have tried to sit back and learn from the discussions between Athanasius and Dr. Steenberg.

I must first of all say that I am very disappointed you are leaving, Athanasius, but I understand your reasoning. I must also say that you have given me much to think about regarding the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox. Quite frankly, I do not see any departure from the Orthodox faith on either side (i.e. Chalcedonian vs. non-Chalcedonian), at least as each side modernly interprets their language. Moreover, I can see, for example, the practical implications of the Papists departing from the faith in the modern debacle of Roman Catholicism. Simply put, this cannot be said of the Oriental Orthodox Communion. I cannot see, even if there is a slight difference in the language employed in our respective Christologies, any practical or real difference. As we are told, "you will know them by their fruits." I simply cannot see a different or defective fruit in the Oriental Orthodox Communion.

Finally, I have personally been disappointed with the Chalcedonian representation in this thread and the previous thread related to this subject. I think we all, myself included, need to remember that, as St. Isaac the Syrian said, if we were to take all of the virtues and pile them on one side of the scale and place silence on the other side, the latter would always outweigh the former. Please, let us leave deep theological discussions and refutations to those who are clearly capable of expressing our position.

Forgive.

Aaron

Theopesta

29-10-2005, 05:44 PM

the reverend DR. MATTH. and reverend MR. aaron

I am so highly appreciated your kind tendency on trying to understand us the non-chalchedonian and the royal words and language of dr. MAT

Can we not say, rather, that the single hypostasis now realises/actualises two full and complete natures, admitting no qualification on either?

I excuse Athanasius and all till Athanasius will come back after 2.5 weeks --his exams time as I understand

can I answer this question:

yea, we can say one hypostasis now realises/actualises two full and complete natures,
we not say 2 hypostasis we not say the 2 nature confuses or mixed or changed but each nature remain as it is {the natural desire and will of each nature remain in presence of the other with one harmony (existance or subsistence)so, finally one action and one will
thanks to give me chance to answer and I will be gratful more in case of correcting

in one christ
theopesta

Fr Raphael Vereshack

29-10-2005, 08:34 PM

For myself these discussions have helped me to see how theologically we are close but in a very important way why we are still separated. In a word I feel from these discussions that the non-Chalcedonians now indeed have a Christology that is more acceptable to us but in other ways (most of all the hesitancy about a complete acceptance of Chalcedon) still leave crucial matters unresolved.

It is not enough to only be trying to make the same theological point. It is extremely important that we also accept the Patristic context that this theology comes from. To say that one has an Orthodox Christology while not openly accepting (or even rejecting) Chalcedon is to try to claim the fruit while rejecting the tree & ultimately to disfigure theology into subjective abstractions. In any case it is this ambiguity of acceptance and non-acceptance by the non-Chalcedonians that I think has prevented a true reconciliation between us. Not that we have to have a triumphalist approach of all or nothing- past precedent shows that more than we think from the past can be overlooked or rather healed within a proper faith. But we must have a truly common faith in order for reconciliation to be true and not collapse as soon as the ink is dry on the paper of official agreements & talks.

Perhaps the temptation for us here is as much in our methodology as in anything else. Talk and discussion definitely can have their place. But we must not mistake one particular fruit on the tree for the whole tree. The Tree is the theological vision of the Church achieved through an Orthodox-ascetic life in the Holy Spirit. This vision is akin to that of Holy Scripture and is not of this world. The writings of the Holy Fathers and especially the Councils express this vision. That is why it is the known teaching of the Church that we also must have a life in Christ as our Holy Fathers do in order to understand what they are trying to say. The point specific to our discussion is that it is from within the experience and mind of the Church that we are able to speak with the voice of the Church and that discussion is not always identical to this. Often the logic of discussion proceeds in its own at times separate way- a way that can open doors of charity while forgetting about deeper unresolved issues. In any case any claim that implies that we can speak 'the same theology' while rejecting or not accepting the saints & councils who proclaimed this theology is walking on very thin ice indeed. Indeed such a statement is no longer actually theological in its proper sense.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

PS: Please note that I am speaking in a general way. I am very well aware that there are some posters here from among the non-Chalcedonians who after great effort have been able to accept Chalcedon without compromising their own tradition. This effort needs to be praised. But others have not been able to come to this point- presumably due to the same concern not to compromise their own tradition.

So I see this split of attitudes as being a microcosm of the situation facing us and again of why there is hope on the one hand but realistically not yet the opportunity for true reconciliation.

Theopesta

30-10-2005, 04:26 AM

dear all fathers and brothers:

just I need more clarification and also to what extant these thoughts orthodox, and how I can articulate them in orthoddox frame:

1- we not believe in pre-existence of the humanity of the incarnated Logos, but we believe in the everlasting persistency of the hypostatic union between humanity and divinity in the LOGOS hypostasis, this appear from what st. JN saw in the revelation:

" And I beheld, and, see, in the middle of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the middle of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain," REV 5: 6

now the logos with his humanity and divinty in their hypostatic union on the throne isn't that? or this is a mystery we not know?!!!

2- in the EUcharist: we take the true eternal life but we not take the divinity this never happen we take the flesh of incarnated LOGOS that HE take from theotokos also the humanity not sepertaed from devinity after the time of incarnation and for ever and ever. the hypostasis is subsistence of the ousia or nature according to my understanding we can not seperate the ousia from hypostasis may be in the contemplation realm only

now what I take in the EUCHARIST exactly ??

"It is the spirit that vivifies; the flesh profits nothing: the words that I speak to you, they are spirit, and they are life." Jn 6: 63

what I take in the EUCHARIST exactly ??

p.s. I hope you forgive me for imperfect language in between royal expressions

IN ONE CHRIST, theopesta

Fr Raphael Vereshack

30-10-2005, 04:57 AM

Dear Theopesta dem,

When we partake in the Eucharist we partake of the Deified Body & Blood of Christ.
Included in the Prayers Before Communion are these lines:

"Be awe-stricken, O mortal, beholding the deifying Blood;
For It is a fire that consumeth the unworthy.
The Divine Body both deifieth & nourisheth me.
It deifieth the spirit, and wondrously nourisheth the mind."

So the Mystery we share in is having true communion with the Incarnate Christ.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Fr Raphael Vereshack

30-10-2005, 05:17 AM

Theopesta Dem wrote:

1- we not believe in pre-existence of the humanity of the incarnated Logos, but we believe in the everlasting persistency of the hypostatic union between humanity and divinity in the LOGOS hypostasis, this appear from what st. JN saw in the revelation:

" And I beheld, and, see, in the middle of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the middle of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain," REV 5: 6

now the logos with his humanity and divinty in their hypostatic union on the throne isn't that? or this is a mystery we not know?!!!

Yes the Lamb always refers to the Incarnate Christ but of course set within the context of the Church in which He is surrounded by the saints and for whom He sacrifices His life.

A teaching of the Church we Orthodox often pay too little heed to is that at His Ascension Christ still remains fully Incarnate. Unconsciously almost many Christians think as if Christ's economy consists of adopting human nature upon His Incarnation and then setting this aside at His Ascension as if at this point His work among humanity is accomplished. This is very wrong: there is great significance in the fact that Christ does not lay aside the work of His Incarnation.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

Theopesta

30-10-2005, 10:14 AM

Excuse me all if I can not give the exact accurat expression. I do not want to repeate a privious expressions, but rather I want to progress in all fruitfull mutual understanding,
DR. Mat. previously more than one time give councel to us to study the theological issue of the council of chalcedon, reading the defintion of the faith in this link:

www.monachos.net/patristics/christology/chalcedon_definition (http://www.monachos.net/patristics/christology/chalcedon_definition)

I am not find any thing we can refuse it as oriental orthodox this is the faith as I am already learning till now. may be the only word differ present in this quot -- with all deeply respection to the principl here of not take quotions but we say our faith:

This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be in two natures

instead we say:

This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be out of two natures --out of two natures

the use of the prepostions ek or en here only the diferrence I do not know this difference is intrinsically important in the theological critical expressions or not??? but I know generally that: the prepostions in the greek language is very senstive and st.Basil has an essy in this issue. also, we all not believe that: the nature of the flesh and of the Godhead is all one. our dogma about the incarnated Logos form as a servant --his humanity, is that not other than ours but rather morfhn doulou (php2: 7)

morfh: mean not the external appearance or shape of man only but also, the enternal nature of the man --internal and external --, except the sin, so HE can redeem every thing in our nature external and enternal, from the consequences of the sin and death,

so, finally, the peculiar property of each nature remain as it is, this make the redemption actual and effective and limitless. i think the theological issue is the same between the 2 family as I am not find any thing I refuse it. also, when we say that: what happen in chalcedon is political not theological this mean we not refuse the theological issue,
I hope I am not leave the core of the thread

IN ONE CHRIST, Theopesta

M.C. Steenberg

30-10-2005, 02:30 PM

Dear friends,

Just as an update here (since I know Athanasius is busy and away for a time, preparing for his examinations): a misunderstanding of intention recently has been seen as that through a series of pleasant e-mails, and all should rest assured that there is intention to carry on with this interesting discussion. As so many have noted, it is a rare opportunity to be able to discuss such things in a creative environment.

INXC, Matthew

Athanasius Abdullah

31-10-2005, 12:56 PM

Dearest to Christ all,

Peace and blessings be with you all:

As Dr. Steenberg implied, I shall be returning to resume discussion after my exams, thanks to the loving kindness and support of many.

Till then, I beseech you all to remember the Copts of Egypt in your prayers, as they suffer in the wake of the recent events in Alexandria regarding the besieging of St George’s Church by thousands of Islamic radicals (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/008642.php). Since this event - that resulted in the stabbing of a Coptic nun (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/008639.php%20) – Coptic businesses and churches in Alexandria and elsewhere in Egypt have been burnt down or attacked by other means, and the blood of His Holiness Pope Shenouda III declared lawful by Jihadists (http://freecopts.blogspot.com/2005/10/muslim-radicals-threaten-to-kill-pope.html). The situation is so dramatic, that His Holiness Pope Shenouda III was brought to tears for his people in his speech to the congregation (http://www.rapidupload.com/dl.php?id=2443). His Holiness has always been regarded a man of strength, stamina and courage, and it was highly unusual to see him in the state shown in the afore-linked video clip (my father, who has been following His Holiness’ speeches and sermons for over 35 years, has never seen him like this before) - I cannot help but think that His Holiness (who has been known for clairvoyance) knows something beyond what we are able to deduce from the media reports.

The escalation of violence against the Copts in Alexandria, reminds me of the words of our previous Patriarch His Holiness St. Pope Kyrillos VI. When the plans for the development of St Menas monastery in the outer desert regions of Alexandria were being deliberated, Pope St Kyrillos ordered the design of a Cathedral. This Cathedral is really quite massive – probably one of the biggest Coptic churches in the world – and when he was asked why he requested that such an enormous Cathedral be built, especially in such a deserted region, he declared that there will be a day where Islamic terrorism in Alexandria will be so severe, that the Copts of Alexandria will be forced to abandon worship at their local Churches, and will migrate to the desert to worship at the cathedral of St Menas.

Sorry for distracting the discussion with this prayer request, but the Copts of Egypt truly need all the prayers they can get at the moment.

Looking forward to resuming discussion soon,

In IC XC
-Athanasius

M.C. Steenberg

13-11-2005, 10:33 AM

Dear Theopesta, Athanasius, Fr Raphael, Aaron and others,

I'm finally getting back to some of the posts in this conversation, having been away from the on-line world for a few weeks. I hope Athanasius' examinations went well; and I look forward to the continuing dialogue.

Theopesta wrote, regarding Chalcedon, that perhaps one of the few points of notable distinction was:

[Chalcedon says] This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be in two natures

instead we say:

This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be out of two natures -- out of two natures

the use of the prepostions ek or en here only the diferrence I do not know this difference is intrinsically important in the theological critical expressions or not???

This has traditionally been a highly controverted point, whether one uses 'in' (en) as was the preference of Chalcedon and Leo, but also Nestorius; or 'from/out of' (ek), as was preferred by Cyril, but also Eutyches. I actually think the focus of this particular thread (i.e. attempting to speak of the theological issues without direct reference to councils or specific teachings of specific fathers) will get us to this issue rather soon, as it's the logical 'next step' after the kinds of discussion we've been having over the past weeks.

I think it is in fact tied in with the central issue of some discussion: namely what constitutes the 'nature' of the human and the divine in Christ. Athanasius, I would be particularly curious to know what you would make of this particular question given the context of discussion on subsistent / non-self-subsistent hypostases.

INXC, Matthew

Theopesta

13-11-2005, 07:24 PM

Dear Rev. Dr. Mat,

Might I answer your question not instead of Athanasius, but just to learn.
the Q:

what constitutes the 'nature' of the human and the divine in Christ?

the nature of the incarnated hypostasis constitute of: the divine nature and the human nature, i.e self existence nature and non self existence nature, i.e uncreated nature and created nature. I think this is the right. but we can not say hypostasis instead of nature i.e: we can not say the incarnated hypostasis constitute of: the divine hypostasis and the human hypostasis i.e self existence hypostasis and non self existence hypostasis i.e
uncreated hypostasis and created hypostasis. this latter expressions is non-right

any expression indicate the presence of 2 hypostasis in christ not accuratly express the way of existence of the incarnated LOGOS, then not reflect the deep truth of union in the incarnation

if my language not good enough to express, forgive me
IN ONE CHRIST, theopesta

Michael Howard Lake

16-11-2005, 09:29 PM

Dearest Sister, Fathers, and Brothers in Christ,

How wonderful reading (and rereading) these posts has been for me! I have learned so much by observing your exchanges from the sidelines. Despite my admitted ignorance, the very language of Christology draws my heart up towards the ineffable. So from my poor perspective, dear Sister Theopesta, your language is always "good enough to express." Now as to whether these various verbal formulations accurately portray Christ's existential reality or not, I hope, as I grow in understanding, at last to be able to discern.

I want to thank all of you, however, for all you are teaching us through these discussions. God bless all of you!

Your brother in Christ,

Michael

M.C. Steenberg

20-11-2005, 12:20 PM

Dear Theopesta,

Thank you for your post (your no. 297) above. It is interesting that you use the language of 'constitute' for the reality of the divine and the human in Christ. Assuming that this does not imply a kind of composition, as we've discussed somewhat at length in the earlier conversation, it seems (to me) that this language would be more at home with the language of Christ 'in' (en) two natures, as was said by Leo and Chalcedon; rather than 'from' or 'out of' (ek) two natures, as was preferred (though not without caveats) by Cyril. This is interesting, as it harks back to your question about this very distinction of expression.

People often find it surprising to learn that the Chalcedonian Church as a whole has not simply ratified the 'in'/en language of Chaldeon. The second council of Constantinople in 553 (ecumenical) makes it quite clear that one should also speak of the two natures 'of (ek) which [Jesus] is composed'; and in fact anathematises those who do not believe that 'from (ek) the divine and human natures a union was made according to hypostasis'.

Theopesta

21-11-2005, 07:26 AM

dear Dr. Matth. and all friends of eastern orthodox members,

I know that I am less than all of you in knowledge, just not for objection but for learning more, I find these phrases about en and ek in thayer's lexicon:

page 190: II.3.
ek used of the material out of which a thing is made

page212: I.6.c.
en used of that in which other things are contained and upheld as their cause and origin.

this mean for me we can use en before the phrase "incarnated hypostasis" and use ek before we say two natures, en the incarnated hypostasis the nature constitutes of ek two natures.

I do not know I can make the correct expression or not.

but finally their is no deep difference touch the christology issue itself
IN ONE CHRIST, Theopesta

Mina Monir

25-11-2005, 09:15 PM

dear Dr.Mathew and Friends,

it so long time since I posted ... because of the continuos exams and struggle ... I really missed all of you.

I think it is a very interesting thread title... I wanted to talk on that point : as I stressed before , there is an official agreement between the both orthodox famillies declaring that the both famillies shared the same tradition and same faith for the 2000 years , that's why the orthodox greek church here in alexandria accepts our baptism and we do too, waiting this historic step from the rest of churches.. noting that the romanian church mentions the name of HH Pope Shenouda III in its liturgies from 1994 as an orthodox patriarche.. and we see team work in the WCC preparing for : i) one dyptiches for mutual usage between the famillies. ii)"Surprise!!" Coptic and Greek church will held two masses .. one in the St.Mark Cathedral in cairo and the other in greece .. in a great festival will be held to partake Communion together. we need intensive prays for that step to be taken soon. these new I got them from inside the Ecumenism office of the church and the WCC Journals .from this very positive intorduction I shall begin my words .

I don't want to interrupt the topic but I want to focus on the following : the story of 'of two natures' and 'from two natures' are both cyrillian terminologies , however Cyril used the second one more as it is more accurate. St.Cyril used these terms in his epistle to ksistos bishop of rome ( excuse me for the spelling as I translate) which is the epistle no.53 :"(2)... I know that nature of God is not painable and inchangeable , though it is through his Human nature , the Christ is one in two natures , and from two natures." here, we see him talking about the essences ... in the same time we see him talking in his epistle to succensus about Mia-Physis tou theologo sesarkomeni (and not sesarkomenu) .. here he talks about the one Hypostasis of the christ which is composed of two essences .. but one single simple person (prosopon ) ... refusing the Nestorian definition about prosopic union ... stressing on the physical union which is directly defined according to cyril as Hypostatic union. the epistle to Flavian (I think it is no.50) St.Cyril explained the concept that The two natures are still exist inseparably , and then he goes directly to explain the one 'incarnated' nature , and how it is accurate since the distinguish between the natures is in thought alone (Ty theoria Mony). Getting back to secondly , Why did the OO church and especially St.Dioscorus stress on the Mia-Physis terminology. I belive that there was very critical circumstances in that time , Nestour managed to spread his ignorant teachings through Theododret of cyrus and theodore of Mopsuista and others , Attilla the Hun was attacking Rome from the north ... all that needed A RIGID TERMINOLOGY TO CUT OFF THE WAY and finish this issue. St.Athanasius in his defence for the councils of italy and arminum mentioned that St.Ignatius (one of the apostolic fathers who took the teachings directly from the apostles) used the term One nature ... I think it is the oldest source of christology to find one like Ignatius talking about one nature (one hypostasis). all that pushed dioscorus to use this term as his previous fathers. in the same time, Eutiches appeared and deviated totally from the truth, and there must be a way to stop him... but facing the word by word not by Sword. Eutiches lied to the 449 ephisus council and deceived the attendants , Prof.John Romanides mentioned about flavian that it is strange to find flavian talking about consubstantiality that the christ is consubstantial with the Virgin (not with us) , and in the same time he accepted the writings of theodoret which were refused totally and were described as ignorant writnings by Cyril. in this time , a smart and clever political person became the bishop of Rome and unfortunatly he played the political and christological issues in one game .. egypt was the reward or payment of unity between constantinople and rome to face the barbarian monster Attilla ... and we saw leo dealing with attilla ... and accepting the refused writings of Theodoret to challenge alexandria .. the earthly force cut off the story for the sake of rome in the Council of Chalcedon. no addition in faith was added , no rigid terminology was produced, in contrary .. a definition and a group of laws opened the door for a bigger area of discussion ... and this generates a chain of objections . in the time dioscorus was stressing on (From two natures ) and refuses Eutiches and Nestour , Chalcedon opened the gate -Practically- for the nestorians to move freely when theodoret's writings were accepted . this massive error needed another council in 553 to condemn the Crypto-Nestorianism of Theodoret...AFTER A CENTURY ?! but what happened in that century? a good question. Leo prepared the way to accept the dogma of Roman papacy. the Encyclopaedia of Catholic new advent added the apologetic catholic writings... I read in the point of papacy how leo's writings supported it .. I remember a letter sent by him to dioscorus , telling him that the great pope of rome must accept the results of 449 and bless them as rome is the throne of Christianity. Bishop anatolius of Consantinople in the moments of Chalcedon Council declared it obviously that Dioscorus is Orthodox , but because he refused the tome of leo , we deposed (not condemned) him from his mission. in the modern ecumenical discussions , h.e Bishop Samuel OO bishop talked to romanides about the tome , and Romanides was clear in his answer saying that the Latin translation is not accurate , but the greek one is accurate!! besides , Chalcedon in the EO view cannot be understood separately from the other councils , but it must be interpretted IN THE LIGHT OF CYRIL'S CHRISTOLOGY AND THE COUNCIL OF 553 ... Chalcedon in my view point is like a youn chicken which need a chicken to nurse it . excuse me , It cannot be acceptable!! the roman Catholic church which is the church of papacy and the son of Leo reached a very shameful level of compromises on faith, they managed to put a christological agreement with the Assyrian Nestorian group (I can't say church) .. this Pushe H.E metropolitan Bishoy to leave the ecumenical meeting in the vatican and declared that the common christological agreement between the RCC and OOC is cancelled till they interpret their nestorian agreement with the assyrians. if there was a rigid terminology , the door would be closed early. that's why in the official agreement on the one faith of the EO and OO famillies , the 6th point mentioned that WE ACCEPT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE ROMAN ORTHODOX CHURCH . but sure not chalcedon! getting back to the century between chalcedon and constantinople, Egypt suffered from a great persecution reached a sea of blood to force the egyptians to accept the error of chalcedon (i.e. accepting the theodoret's Crypto-Nestorianism) , but because the gos said : blessed my people Egypt on Isaiah , we managed to survive and managed to bear the persecution of chalcedonians till the Conquest of the Arab Barbarians in 641 , Amr Ibn-EL-AAS the islamic leader did not find the coptic patriache , then he knew that the Chalcedon CRISTIANS kidnapped him to force him to accept Leo's tome , that's why the muslims always say that : we saved you from the byzantine chalcedonians!!! if some you (any EO ) put yourself in my position ... Honestly, what will u say?

Modern view : I'm one of the side who call to put a condition before unity , which is : the EO church must apologize for : 1) hundreds of years accusing us of monophysitism since they knew that they misunderstood us (i'm not convinced by the word misunderstood)
2) the blood of coptic martyrs. but since there is a positive steps from EO familly , I can accept unity which is based on the fact of one faith , because I remember how John of Antioch prisonned Cyril , and cyril did not put that as an obstacle on the way of unity between them in 433.

in one Christ .
Mina

Fr Raphael Vereshack

25-11-2005, 09:46 PM

Dear Mina,

It's good to see you back here and I hope your exams have gone well. There is some sort of special warmth in your posts which I really appreciate even if at times I might disagree with some things in them. Sometimes I feel I have to disagree almost just to keep such a tasty soup warm.

Anyway- your post has many interesting points. Could you explain more fully for us though what is the problem with Pope Leo? Do you mean you think his Christology is somehow Nestorian?

Also- are you saying that the false understanding of papal supremacy arises with him? Thanks for clarifying this.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

PS: You wrote: " Chalcedon in my view point is like a youn chicken which need a chicken to nurse it . excuse me , It cannot be acceptable!!"

Yes- but we all hope the older chicken doesn't have bird flu.http://www.monachos.net/mb/clipart/happy.gif

Mina Monir

26-11-2005, 01:52 PM

thanks very much fr.Rafael , I did -relatively- well in the exams , but this does not mean that I finished!! I still have so much struggle.. so, pleeeeeeeeeeeeease pray for me. what I wanted to say was : we have the same christology , Dioscorus and Leo have the same christology ... but they did not have the same targets.

I read very very well the tome of leo , my comment is : it has a lack of accuracy , however there is not a real problem in the meaning , but it cannot be taken as an official recource for christology. "one sustains pain and the other do miracle" ... I can't accept it separately. beside , I want to stress on two points :

A- the importance of presenting a RIGID terminology to close the door and cut off the way on sophistric discussion may lead to a bigger area generates problems and heresies. for example , I wont talk again about the Roman Catholic model which dealt with the Assyrians the nestorians because the catholics used to waste the faith ... they reached the highest level when they believed in puragtory and salvation of non-Believers. but the other example is the Protestants , they don't believe in tradition nor the Nicene creed of faith . so, they opened the door for freedom and multiplicity of thinking since we (they say) believe in trinity and deity of christ ... this multiplicity and liberation from A RIGID CREED led them to generate Adventists and Jehovah witnesses who don't believe in christ as god. Martin luthar began from Sola Scriptura (however I think he believed in Anti scritpura not sola scriptura) to Elin Hwait the prophet of the adventists!! there was no Bounds. that's why I prefer the concept of Rigid terminology. Mia Physis tou theologo sesarkwmeny closes the door on Nestor (mia-Hypostasis)and in the same time on eutiches by (sesarkwmeny) .. but multiplicity and liberation from this rigidity in leo's tome led the Chalcedonians to fall in the massive error of accepting theodoret's Crypto-Nestorianism ... may be some one asks : but the term Miaphysis did not protect dioscorus from Eutiches' in 449 , I tell him : If any one did not accept Eutiche's confess in 449 let be anathema ... he was clear and he apologized and refused his monophysitism and confessed the Nicene Creed.so, there is no falt on dioscorus.. but in 450 he got back to his ignorance and there was a local council in alexandria condemned him . on the other side , the free tome which did not include any rigid dogma and did not talk about the killing point which is the Hypostatic union opened the door to accept the Crypto nestorianism dogma . may be some one asks : and where is the difference between eutiches story with dioscorus and this story? I say : theodoret did not present any new writings to change the idea of the fathers towards him , he did not repend and the same writings accepted in 451 were refused in 553 ... what pushed the same people to condemn him? besides, forcing theodoret for refusing Nestor in 451 was not enough to condemn his nestorianism ... and the result was the massive error which needed a century for mentainance in 553 . why all that? the result :

1) crypto nestorian errors and errors in laws.
2) a sea of blood were shedd in egypt.

about Leo , he was not an innocent person who accepted terminological multiplicity and misunderstood dioscorus .. he was a clever political person , and all the historical books told us how he played the game to ally with constantinople to face Attilla the Hun ... and to show his supremacy as I'll explain later , but the conclusion is : 1)pope Leo was playing a political game , and it is unfair to talk about the accident of 451 from a christological side.

2)pope Leo was orthodox (I'm not very sure) , and the tome stressed on the concept of one person in christ and not two persons . (I hope he practised orthodoxy when he sent a patriarche to alexandria using the military to force copts to accept him and reject dioscorus who was tortured by Pulcharia and sent to Gangra where he died ... but we had one and one saint and patriarche dioscorus .. we made a revolution against the imperial forces and when dioscorus died god put Timothaus after him ... no sword will force god's people .. not the swords of leo nor muslims ... never) about papal Supremacy , I remember there was a thread here in Monachos opened my mind on that point . so , I searched and found it very clear in his writings , and the catholic Apologetics showed it very well by underlining the supercilious sentences he used with the others. I'll send them when it is possible . there is a site called newadvent , any one can find leo's writings there.
I belive this is my view point .

last note : in the time we try to differ between "ek" and "en " two natures , the Jehovah witnesses and mormons are attacking us. we need a direct apologetic trend to stop this western wave.

in christ,
Mina