View Full Version : Chalcedon: 'One composite will'?
Martin Paul
04-01-2007, 06:46 PM
PostChalcedonianism accepts the phrase that Christ is "one composite nature." (When nature is interpreted to mean concrete existence.) But I wonder: does it permit the phrases "one composite will" and "one composite action." I know that "theadric activies" is used. But what about referring to them as "one composite will" and "one composite action"? Is this acceptable to Chalcedonians? THANKS.
Gregorios
04-01-2007, 08:47 PM
PostChalcedonianism accepts the phrase that Christ is "one composite nature." (When nature is interpreted to mean concrete existence.) But I wonder: does it permit the phrases "one composite will" and "one composite action." I know that "theadric activies" is used. But what about referring to them as "one composite will" and "one composite action"? Is this acceptable to Chalcedonians? THANKS.
It is to me.
Gregorios
Seda S.
04-10-2007, 01:24 PM
“.... For just as in the case of natures we recognise both their union and their natural difference, so is it also with the natural wills and energies.”
St John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith (Book III, Chapter 19)
Kosta
11-10-2007, 05:03 AM
PostChalcedonianism accepts the phrase that Christ is "one composite nature." (When nature is interpreted to mean concrete existence.) But I wonder: does it permit the phrases "one composite will" and "one composite action." I know that "theadric activies" is used. But what about referring to them as "one composite will" and "one composite action"? Is this acceptable to Chalcedonians? THANKS.
Excuse me for my ignorace but whats a "post-chalcedonian".
Excuse me for my ignorace but whats a "post-chalcedonian".
I believe it refers to present day Chalcedonians - i.e. us.
Kosta
12-10-2007, 12:54 AM
I believe it refers to present day Chalcedonians - i.e. us.
Since when do we believe Christ is one composite nature? Having read the definition of the chalcedonian council many times the word "composite" was never used, in fact such a term is in exact opposition to it.
Chalcedon speaks of: NOT confusing the two natures, without transmutation. That the two "concur" in the One person of Christ. There is nothing composite about it. We believe the two natures are inseperable but distinct. That God came down from Heaven and united with a human nature in the Child of Mary but this incarnation is not one of being composite , he is not a demi-god. The One Lord conserves fully both aspects without mixture.
From this i will have to assume that post chalcedonians are those EO AND OO'S who have decided to come up with a brand new definition to unify themselves around. After all isnt that website about "Orthodoxy Unity" (under the british Orthodox) an attempt to re-write history and come up with a new definition, one which sidesteps both Cyril's and Leo's beliefs?
Chalcedon speaks of: NOT confusing the two natures, without transmutation. That the two "concur" in the One person of Christ. There is nothing composite about it. We believe the two natures are inseperable but distinct. That God came down from Heaven and united with a human nature in the Child of Mary but this incarnation is not one of being composite , he is not a demi-god. The One Lord conserves fully both aspects without mixture.
From this i will have to assume that post chalcedonians are those EO AND OO'S who have decided to come up with a brand new definition to unify themselves around. After all isnt that website about "Orthodoxy Unity" (under the british Orthodox) an attempt to re-write history and come up with a new definition, one which sidesteps both Cyril's and Leo's beliefs?
Chalcedon did not use such terminology (that is not to say it was rejected). The 5th Ecumenical Council, however, upheld the christological formula used by St. Cyril the Great of Mia fusiV tou Qeou Logou sesarkomenh, the "mia physis" being translated as one composite nature.
I believe this is what the original poster was refering to.
Kosta
12-10-2007, 01:40 AM
Chalcedon did not use such terminology (that is not to say it was rejected). The 5th Ecumenical Council, however, upheld the christological formula used by St. Cyril the Great of Mia fusiV tou Qeou Logou sesarkomenh, the "mia physis" being translated as one composite nature.
I believe this is what the original poster was refering to.
I doubt it. the word composite is an innovation invented at one of those ecumenical dialogues. Mia physis simple means one nature , one composite nature is what eutyches believes
Michael Stickles
12-10-2007, 02:04 AM
Mia physis simple means one nature , one composite nature is what eutyches believes
"Mia" is not the same as "mono". A simple, solitary oneness would be "mono", which is why those who claimed Christ had only a divine nature were called "monophysites".
"Mia" can refer to a composite, combined or united (or whatever similar adjective you prefer) oneness. For example, when marriage is described as "the two shall become one flesh", the word for "one" is "mia".
I'd guess that we would really need to know how, precisely, the phrase "one composite nature" is understood by those who use that terminology (and by implication how that understanding does or does not match up with an Orthodox understanding) before we could say whether or not "one composite will" and "one composite action" are acceptable usages. I'm not certain on this, though, since I'm still weak on some of the details of Orthodox Christology.
In Christ,
Mike
John Charmley
12-10-2007, 11:33 AM
After all isnt that website about "Orthodoxy Unity" (under the british Orthodox) an attempt to re-write history and come up with a new definition, one which sidesteps both Cyril's and Leo's beliefs?
No, it simply seeks to make available on line the texts of the discussions between OO and EO theologians; a reading of it would certainly dispel the notion that 'mia' and 'mono' mean the same thing.
In Christ,
John
Anthony
12-10-2007, 02:52 PM
Without wanting to stir things up here, I can't help wondering if some people are making too much of this terminological distinction between "mono-" and "mia-", when used as a prefix.
having one wife - monogamous
having one God - monotheist
having one wheel - monocycle
having one atom of oxygen - monoxide
having one tone - monotonous
having one horn - monoceros (Greek)
having one nature - ??
Michael Stickles
12-10-2007, 05:30 PM
Without wanting to stir things up here, I can't help wondering if some people are making too much of this terminological distinction between "mono-" and "mia-", when used as a prefix.
Depends. I don't know of any other terms offhand which use "mia-" as a prefix, so I don't have any points for comparison. But in the case of "miaphysite" and "monophysite" as they are used in practice, there are clear distinctions in meaning, with "monophysite" referring to a single nature (normally, as applied to Christ, the divine nature) and "miaphysite" referring to the divine and human natures combining into one nature made up of both parts.
The Chalcedonean definition was as follows, according to Schaff's The Seven Ecumenical Councils:
Following the holy Fathers we teach with one voice that the Son [of God] and our Lord Jesus Christ is to be confessed as one and the same [Person], that he is perfect in Godhead and perfect in manhood, very God and very man, of a reasonable soul and [human] body consisting, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood; made in all things like unto us, sin only excepted; begotten of his Father before the worlds according to his Godhead; but in these last days for us men and for our salvation born [into the world] of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God according to his manhood. This one and the same Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son [of God] must be confessed to be in two natures, unconfusedly, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably [united], and that without the distinction of natures being taken away by such union, but rather the peculiar property of each nature being preserved and being united in one Person and subsistence, not separated or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and only-begotten, God the Word, our Lord Jesus Christ, as the Prophets of old time have spoken concerning him, and as the Lord Jesus Christ hath taught us, and as the Creed of the Fathers hath delivered to us.
So, monophysitism is definitely out. But does this definitely rule out miaphysitism? Looking at it one way, I can see miaphysitism as contradicting the Chalcedonean definition; looked at another way, it seems instead to comply with it. For now, I'll gladly leave that question to haunt the theological musings of those more knowledgable and experienced in the faith than myself.
In Christ,
Mike
So, monophysitism is definitely out. But does this definitely rule out miaphysitism?
Well if miaphysitism refers to the adherance of the Cyrilline formula quoted above then it is certainly not ruled out since his formula was upheld by all the subsequent Ecumenical Councils and therefore designates a correct (though not the only) expression of EO Christology.
Anthony
12-10-2007, 06:49 PM
I understand the distinction that is intended, and am not questioning the legitimacy of making it. I am just wondering whether too much weight is being put on the word "monophysite" (which until recently, many non-Chalcedonian web sites were using with pride). After all, the Fathers and their opponents both knew their own language.
I understand the distinction that is intended, and am not questioning the legitimacy of making it. I am just wondering whether too much weight is being put on the word "monophysite" (which until recently, many non-Chalcedonian web sites were using with pride). After all, the Fathers and their opponents both knew their own language.
I don't think the topic of this thread was concerned with how we lable the non-Chalcedonians. Rather it was whether the Church, having accepted miaphysitism (I use the term with reference to St. Cyril's formula, not any schismatic body), also accept mia (or "one composite" as the original poster said) will and energy in Christ.
If we are trying to convince ourselves that monophysitism emerged merely from semantic misunderstandings, then how come they can not get over these semantics now? I.e why can't they come up now with a statement of faith that is verbatim of the formula of Chalcedon?
The expression PostCalcedonianism (that is mentioned in this thread, but the definition of which was left unexplained) is an ambiguous and misleading expression that confuses things because it implies a certain distancing and revision of our traditional and illustrious Orthodox past. The Chalcedonian Formula is a Universal Formula, since it was issued by an Universal Oecumenical Council. According to the Canons of the Orthodox Church only a council of higher status can revise and edit the decisions of another council. Why cannot this happen in a "Post-Calcedonianism era"? For two simple reasons. Because there is no higher council than an Oecumenical Council. Second, there has not been an Oecumenical Council since the previous millennium. Therefore we are Chalcedonian and not post-chalcedonians.
Mia and mono are foreign to the terminology of Chalcedonian Formula when speaking specifically about the two natures of Christ. Engaging in this case with mono and mia, it means escaping the real heart of the matter, which is theological.
Bratislav
12-10-2007, 08:39 PM
... "miaphysite" referring to the divine and human natures combining into one nature made up of both parts.
Perhaps I am a dunce, but this would almost seem worthy of the title triphysite.
If we are trying to convince ourselves that monophysitism emerged merely from semantic misunderstandings, then how come they can not get over these semantics now? I.e why can't they come up now with a statement of faith that is verbatim of the formula of Chalcedon?
The expression PostCalcedonianism (that is mentioned in this thread, but the definition of which was left unexplained) is an ambiguous and misleading expression that confuses things because it implies a certain distancing and revision of our traditional and illustrious Orthodox past. The Chalcedonian Formula is a Universal Formula, since it was issued by an Universal Oecumenical Council. According to the Canons of the Orthodox Church only a council of higher status can revise and edit the decisions of another council. Why cannot this happen in a "Post-Calcedonianism era"? For two simple reasons. Because there is no higher council than an Oecumenical Council. Second, there has not been an Oecumenical Council since the previous millennium. Therefore we are Chalcedonian and not post-chalcedonians.
Mia and mono are foreign to the terminology of Chalcedonian Formula when speaking specifically about the two natures of Christ. Engaging in this case with mono and mia, it means escaping the real heart of the matter, which is theological.
These are all valid points. However, the original question did not have anything to do with monophysites, non-Chalcedonians, ecumenical dialogue, mono vs. mia, etc. The question was whether the Orthodox Church (the Church of the Seven Councils) accepts the notion of "one composite" will and energy given Her acceptance of "one composite" nature (mia physis).
Forgive me if I've misunderstood what you were saying.
These are all valid points. However, the original question did not have anything to do with monophysites, non-Chalcedonians, ecumenical dialogue, mono vs. mia, etc. The question was whether the Orthodox Church (the Church of the Seven Councils) accepts the notion of "one composite" will and energy given Her acceptance of "one composite" nature (mia physis).
Forgive me if I've misunderstood what you were saying.
The question was not about what the Orthodox Church accepts, for the Orthodox Church is Chalcedonian.
The question was about post-Chalcedonians, and I explained the ramifications of the term and the ramifications of the confusing statements.
Because:
Who are the Post-Chalcedonians? Which Oecumenical Council made them Post-Chalcedoinians? Where are such statements of Post-Chalcedonians stated? Quotations? In what context?
Because obviously since the question starts as:
PostChalcedonianism accepts the phrase that Christ is "one composite nature."
And ends as:
Is this acceptable to Chalcedonians? THANKS.
That implies Post-Chalcedonians are different from the Chalcedonians according to the original question of the thread (although you say it is us - but we are not).
The reason that I elaborated theologically in my post what seems at first glance unrelated to the thread, is because the term "one composite nature" resembles the old monophysitic adage that by the word "physis" back then they meant "hypostasis"; hence "one composite nature". Therefore I said:
If we are trying to convince ourselves that monophysitism emerged merely from semantic misunderstandings, then how come they can not get over these semantics now? I.e why can't they come up now with a statement of faith that is verbatim of the formula of Chalcedon?
And as Anthony rightly states:
After all, the Fathers and their opponents both knew their own language.
Michael Stickles
12-10-2007, 09:23 PM
I don't think the topic of this thread was concerned with how we lable the non-Chalcedonians. Rather it was whether the Church, having accepted miaphysitism (I use the term with reference to St. Cyril's formula, not any schismatic body), also accept mia (or "one composite" as the original poster said) will and energy in Christ.
True, but I think it was good to get the semantics out of the way at the start, so we at least are using the same words in the same way (hopefully). And it's good to clarify the starting point before moving into the point in question.
So, what is being asked is, if the Chalcedonian understanding of Christ's union of two distinct yet inseparable natures can indeed be legitimately called "miaphysite" or "one composite nature", then can Christ be understood to in the same way have "one composite will" (miathelete) and "one composite energy" (miaenerge? - not sure of the proper ending)? Seda's quote from St. John of Damascus would seem to answer that in the affirmative, but I'd feel more comfortable if someone with more knowledge in this area weighed in. My ignorance in this topic far outweighs my knowledge and/or experience, and semantic subtleties can carry great import.
Also, it might help if Martin could clarify what he means by the use of the term "PostChalcedonianism", if it really is synonymous with "Chalcedonianism" or if it refers to some other belief set.
In Christ,
Mike
True, but I think it was good to get the semantics out of the way at the start, so we at least are using the same words in the same way (hopefully). And it's good to clarify the starting point before moving into the point in question.
So, what is being asked is, if the Chalcedonian understanding of Christ's union of two distinct yet inseparable natures can indeed be legitimately called "miaphysite" or "one composite nature", then can Christ be understood to in the same way have "one composite will" (miathelete) and "one composite energy" (miaenerge? - not sure of the proper ending)? Seda's quote from St. John of Damascus would seem to answer that in the affirmative, but I'd feel more comfortable if someone with more knowledge in this area weighed in. My ignorance in this topic far outweighs my knowledge and/or experience, and semantic subtleties can carry great import.
Also, it might help if Martin could clarify what he means by the use of the term "PostChalcedonianism", if it really is synonymous with "Chalcedonianism" or if it refers to some other belief set.
In Christ,
Mike
“.... For just as in the case of natures we recognise both their union and their natural difference, so is it also with the natural wills and energies.”
St John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox (http://monachos.net/library/Orthodox_Dictionary#Orthodox) Faith (Book III, Chapter 19)
St. John of Damascus means two natures, two wills which have distinct qualities (each of them) within one hypostasis. There is no difference between the statement above from St. John of Damascus and the Chalcedonian Formula.
P.S The book of St. John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith is accessible on line at:
http://www.orthodox.net/fathers/exactidx.html
where he states very clearly:
<- (http://www.orthodox.net/fathers/exactIII.html#BOOK_III_CHAPTER_XII) BOOK III CHAPTER XIII -> (http://www.orthodox.net/fathers/exactIII.html#BOOK_III_CHAPTER_XIV)
Concerning the properties of the two Natures. Confessing, then, the same Jesus Christ, our Lord, to be perfect God and perfect man, we hold that the same has all the attributes of the Father save that of being ingenerate, and all the attributes of the first Adam, save only his sin, these attributes being body and the intelligent and rational soul; and further that He has, corresponding to the two natures, the two sets of natural qualities belonging to the two natures: two natural volitions, one divine and one human, two natural, energies, one divine and one human, two natural free-wills, one divine and one human, and two kinds of wisdom and knowledge, one divine and one human. For being of like essence with God and the Father, He wills and energises freely as God, and being also of like essence with us He likewise wills and energises freely as man. For His are the miracles and His also are the passive states.
Even more:
Moreover, one cannot speak of one com-
pound thing made of two wills in the same way as a subsistence is a composition of two natures. Firstly because the compositions are of things in subsistence (hypotasis), not of things viewed in a different category, not in one proper to them(6): and secondly, because if we speak of composition of wills and energies, we will be obliged to speak of composition of the other natural properties, such as the uncreated and the created, the invisible and the visible, and so on. And what will be the name of the will that is compounded out of two wills? For the compound cannot be called by the name of the elements that make it up. For otherwise we should call that which is compounded of natures nature and not subsistence. And further, if we say that there is one compound will in Christ, we separate Him in will from the Father, for the Father's will is not compound. It remains, therefore, to say that the subsistence of Christ atone is compound and common, as in the case of the natures so also in that of the natural properties.
<- (http://www.orthodox.net/fathers/exactIII.html#BOOK_III_CHAPTER_II) BOOK III CHAPTER III -> (http://www.orthodox.net/fathers/exactIII.html#BOOK_III_CHAPTER_IV)
Concerning Christ's two natures, in apposition to those who hold that He has only one(2).
For the two natures were united with each other without change or alteration, neither the divine nature departing from its native simplicity, nor yet the human being either changed into the nature of God or reduced to non-existence, nor one compound nature being produced out of the two. For the compound nature(3) cannot be of the same essence as either of the natures out of which it is compounded, as made one thing out of others: for example, the body is composed of the four elements, but is not of the same essence as fire or air, or water or earth, nor does it keep these names. If, therefore, after the union, Christ's nature was, as the heretics
hold, a compound unity, He had changed from a simple into a compound nature(4), and is not of the same essence as the Father Whose nature is simple, nor as the mother, who is not a compound of divinity and humanity. Nor will He then be in divinity and humanity: nor will He be called either God or Man, but simply Christ: and the word Christ will be the name not of the subsistence, but of what in their view is the one nature.
We, however, do not give it as our view that Christ's nature is compound, nor yet that He is one thing made of other things and differing from them as man is made of sold and body, or as the body is made of the four elements, but hold(5) that, though He is constituted of these different parts He is yet the same(6). For we confess that He alike in His divinity and in His humanity both is and is said to be perfect God, the same Being, and that He consists of two natures, and exists in two natures(7). Further, by the word "Christ" we understand the name of the subsistence, not in the sense of one kind, but as signifying the existence of two natures. For in His own person He anointed Himself; as God anointing His body with His own divinity, and as Man being anointed. For He is Himself both God and Man. And the anointing is the divinity of His humanity. For if Christ, being of one compound nature, is of like essence to the Father, then the Father also must be compound and of like essence with the flesh, which is absurd and extremely blasphemous(8).
How, indeed, could one and the same nature come to embrace opposing and essential differences? For how is it possible that the same nature should be at once created and uncreated, mortal and immortal, circumscribed and uncircumscribed?
But if those who declare that Christ has only one nature should say also that that nature is a simple one, they must admit either that He is God pure and simple, and thus reduce the incarnation to a mere pretence, or that He is only man, according to Nestorius. And how then about His being "perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity"? And when can Christ be said to be of two natures, if they hold that He is of one composite nature after the union? For it is surely clear to every one that before the union Christ's nature was one.
But this is what leads the heretics(9) astray, viz., that they look upon nature and subsistence as the same thing(1). For when we speak of the nature of men as one(2), observe that in saying this we are not looking to the question of soul and body. For when we compare together the soul and the body it cannot be said that they are of one nature. But since there are very many subsistences of men, and yet all have the same kind of nature(3): for all are composed of soul and body, and all have part in the nature of the soul, and possess the essence of the body, and the common form: we speak of the one nature of these very many and different subsistences; while each subsistence, to wit, has two natures, and fulfils itself in two natures, namely, soul and body.
But(4) a common form cannot be admitted in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ. For neither was there ever, nor is there, nor will there ever be another Christ constituted of deity and humanity, and existing in deity and humanity at once perfect God and perfect man. And thus in the case of our Lord Jesus Christ we cannot speak of one nature made up of divinity and humanity, as we do in the case of the individual made up of soul and body(5). For in the latter case we have to do with an individual, but Christ is not an individual. For there is no predicable form of Christlihood, so to speak, that He possesses. And therefore we hold that there has been a union of two perfect natures, one divine and one human; not with disorder or confusion, or intermixture(6), or commingling, as is said by the God-accursed Dioscorus and by Eutyches(7) and Severus, and all that impious company: and not in a personal or relative manner, or as a matter of dignity or agreement in will, or equality in honour, or identity in name, or good pleasure, as Nestorius, hated of God, said, and Diodorus and Theodorus of Mopsuestia, and their diabolical tribe: but by synthesis; that is, in subsistence, without change or confusion or alteration or difference or separation, and we confess that in two perfect natures there is but one subsistence of the Son of God incarnate(8); holding that there is one and the same subsistence belong-
ing to His divinity and His humanity, and granting that the two natures are preserved in Him after the union, but we do not hold that each is separate and by itself, but that they are united to each other in one compound subsistence. For we look upon the union as essential, that is, as true and not imaginary. We say that it is essential(9), moreover, not in the sense of two natures resulting in one compound nature, but in the sense of a true union of them in one compound subsistence of the Son of God, and we hold that their essential difference is preserved. For the created remaineth created, and the uncreated, uncreated: the mortal remaineth mortal; the immortal, immortal: the circumscribed, circumscribed: the uncircumscribed, uncircumscribed: the visible, visible: the invisible, invisible. "The one part is all glorious with wonders: while the other is the victim of insults(1)."
Moreover, the Word appropriates to Himself the attributes of humanity: for all that pertains to His holy flesh is His: and He imparts to the flesh His own attributes by way of communication(2) in virtue of the interpenetration of the parts(3) one with another, and the oneness according to subsistence, and inasmuch as He Who lived and acted both as God and as man, taking to Himself either form and holding intercourse with the other form, was one and the same(4). Hence it is that the Lord of Glory is said to have been crucified(5), although His divine nature never endured the Cross, and that the Son of Man is allowed to have been in heaven before the Passion, as the Lord Himself said(6). For the Lord of Glory is one and the same with Him Who is in nature and in truth the Son of Man, that is, Who became man, and both His wonders and His sufferings are known to us, although His wonders were worked in His divine capacity, and His sufferings endured as man. For we know that, just as is His one subsistence, so is the essential difference of the nature preserved. For how could difference be preserved if the very things that differ from one another are not preserved? For difference is the difference between things that differ. In so far as Christ's natures differ from one another, that is, in the matter of essence, we hold that Christ unites in Himself two extremes: in respect of His divinity He is connected with the Father and the Spirit, while in respect of His humanity He is connected with His mother and all mankind. And in so far as His natures are united, we hold that He differs from the Father and the Spirit on the one hand, and from the mother and the rest of mankind on the other. For the natures are united in His subsistence, having one compound subsistence, in which He differs from the Father and the Spirit, and also from the mother and us.
From the book of St. John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith:
http://www.orthodox.net/fathers/exactidx.html
M.C. Steenberg
12-10-2007, 10:45 PM
The basic discussion following Chalcedon focussed on the relationship of will to nature, to the ultimate determination that since the will is spoken of as having its origin / reality in the nature, what can be said of the possession of natures must be said also of wills. Hence as one confesses two natures, one confesses two wills.
The nuance of 'composite' is difficult. The phrase mia physis doesn't actually translate as 'one composite nature' - this is a gloss brought into discussions in order to explain how the so-called Cyrilline confession (hardly just Cyril's) can be distinguished from an emphasis on a solitary nature excluding or absorbing the other. Cyril's mia physis was also paired on an understanding of the one nature as ek duo physesein - from two natures. While Chalcedon embraced Cyril's later language (found in others: John, as one notable example) of in two natures, it is important to remember that later ecumenical councils also ratified the language of of. The primary language of the Church became the identification of the union with person, rather than nature; but this is not absolutely uniform. To speak of a 'composite nature' can be deeply misleading - and hence it is not often used; but the way it moves to articulate the natural union in Christ is not unknown in the Church.
The question of whether one can speak of a 'composite will' would probably fall under the same heading. The Church tends not to speak in these terms. Identifying the union most often not in terms of physis but person, attempts to explain how nature can be dual yet singular are to a degree avoided by a careful distinction of these terms. So one would speak of one person in two natures, of two wills. One person in two wills avoids the difficulty of figuring out how to say 'one will of two wills', again by relegating the unity to the person, not to the nature or its aspects (i.e. the will).
INXC, Dcn Matthew
Robert Hegwood
13-10-2007, 12:01 AM
Clarification might be useful, but based on the context of the previous posts it seems all that is meant by "postchalcedonian" is the era that has followed in the wake of the Council of Chalcedon....basically "after Chalcedon". To me too much is trying to be read into this expression, but then perhaps there is merit in being sure.
Frankly if by miaphysite one is afirming that Christ is both fully God in all respects and fully man in all respects and is at the same time a single person in whom these natures meet in complete but unconfused union and by saying "miaphysite" one is emphasising the personal unity of Christ then the differece between that and the standard Chalcedonian expression concerning Christ's two natures seems thin enough to shave a gnat with...essentially a slight difference of emphasis.
Granted I could be wrong and not understand what all is implied by miaphysite at all, but if I'm not wrong then I would think the fundamental question of seperation between our two communions has its core cause resolved. If not mistaken I believe a follow up session a few years later cleared up the intended meaning of certain passages of the Chaledonian canons to hedge them against a nestorian interpretation...which was a large part of the problem non-chalcedonians had with the original council's decrees. So if that follow up session delt with the concerns of the non chalcedonians and the non-chalcedonians affirm the theolgy of Chalcedon if not its Christological language, and if miaphysite language is not at odds with Chalcedon...then why we cannot find a way to heal what can only be described as a fundamentally administrative schism and not a theological one is beyond me.
So to reiterate the only differnece I see between nonchalcedonian groups like the Copts and the Syrians and the Orthodox is reducable to essentially a matter of emphasis (and a tiny one at that) and not a matter of differing beliefs. But until our bishops with the support of our monastics can see their way clear to reunite I shall have to remain confused as to the point of our continued seperation. It may well be in my ignornace I've missed many important points that mitigate against my personal sentiments.
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ea_mono.aspx
This also might be helpful:
post- (pōst)
after in time, later (than), following postnatal, post-obit
after in space, behind postcava
coming after in time, often as a rejection of or in reaction to postmodernism
http://www.yourdictionary.com/post-prefix
Unless we receive an explanation on what was meant, it can be between the first and the third meanings. The first connotes the time immediately after an event - as in postnatal. When a person is 20 years old we can not refer to it as the postnatal period of this person's life. Anthony can contribute more than I here.
However, the third meaning, can not stand because according to the Canons of the Orthodox Church, only an Oecumenical Council can reject, or react to another Oecumenical Council. And as this site truly states: we are Chalcedonian.
Kosta
13-10-2007, 09:11 AM
The non-chalcedon churches like to refer to themselves as miaphysites and pre-chalcedonian. If one is an eastern Orthodox christian then he is Chalcedonian. Post-chalcedonian can only refer to those people of both sides who so want reunion there willing to create a new schism to accomplish it, a third group. According to the dialogues held by the EO and OO they came up with the innovation of "composite nature of Christ"
In fact it quite easy to see the heretical nature of these documents. Simply read resolutions #3, 4, 6. : http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state02.html
Whats even scarier is resolution #6 no longer allows for laymen or clergy to uphold the definitions of the 4-6th councils, if it means coming to an opposite conclusion (the logical conclusion) of the above "agreed upon statment"!!!!!! This the ecumeniical agreement supercedes the ecumenical council!.
Since the EO has never been occupied with studying the theology of the miaphysites, we have always been busy with rebuking Rome, we are ill prepared to challenge them.
The OO tend to rely on the writings of Severus, one whose writings are basically orthodoxy but was loyal to the miaphysite definition. On the other hand Dioscorus thinking was similar to Eutyches, (and thats why his writings are hard to come by). Dioscorus is a great saint in the Coptic tradition, but in Orthodoxy he is not only a heretic but a murderer, being responsible for the beating recieved by St Flavian the Martyr at the robber council of Ephesus which he was president of. In this council Dioscourus reinstated the heretic monophysite Eutyches. This is the reason the fourth council anathemized him , yet the council summoned him to give him a chance to appear and explain his actions at the ephesian robber council.
Secondly the explanation that the miunderstanding is over semantics is disproved in the Coptic Lives of the Saint for Dioscorus.
Scroll down to paragraph 3, the terminology was well known:
http://www.copticchurch.net/synaxarium/1_7.html#1
Another words different miaphysites during history held to a more or less heretical view. Severus of Antioch basucally held to an Orthodox view but simply didnt like the chalcedonian definition. On the other hand the Antiochan Patriarch Peter the Fuller was a full monophysite who introduced the phrase "who was crucified for us" after the trisagion hymn. This also touches upon sabellanism.
The bottom line is, how does one expect for unity to take place when saints in one church are heretics in another (and even murderers!)
John Charmley
13-10-2007, 11:20 AM
If we look at what the passages cited, but not quoted, by Kostas say we read:
3. Both families agree that the Hypostasis of the Logos became composite (sunqetoj) by uniting to His divine uncreated nature with its natural will and energy, which He has in common with the Father and the Holy Spirit, created human nature, which He assumed at the Incarnation and made His own, with its natural will and energy.
4. Both families agree that the natures with their proper energies and wills are united hypostatically and naturally without confusion, without change, without division and without separation, and that they are distinguished in thought alone (th qewria monh). 20
....
6. Both families agree in rejecting interpretations of Councils which do not fully agree with the Horos of the Third Ecumenical Council and the letter (433) of Cyril of Alexandria to John of Antioch.
I am unclear which of these Kostas, speaking as a Chalcedonian, finds objectionable.
In Christ,
John
M.C. Steenberg
13-10-2007, 12:11 PM
Dear all,
We're not getting into another EO/OO context again. The topic of this thread is whether / how a concept of 'composite' union might apply to the two-wills discussions post-Chalcedon. Please either focus on this topic, constructively, or move along to another thread.
INXC, Dcn Matthew
Kosta
13-10-2007, 02:46 PM
If we look at what the passages cited, but not quoted, by Kostas say we read:
I am unclear which of these Kostas, speaking as a Chalcedonian, finds objectionable.
In Christ,
John
Article 3:
The Hypostasis of the Logos became composite by uniting to his divine uncreated nature.......
Lets stop right there. The Logos is the second Hypostasis of the Trinity, unaltered after the incarnation. The second person of the Trinity has not morphed into a composite hypostasis after the union.
A truly Orthodox statement would read: God the Son came down from Heaven and united himself with a human nature and made it his very own in the womb and Child of Mary the Theotokos.
Article 4:
They are distinguished in thought alone"... Since when are the two wills and energies distinguished in thought alone? Or is this simply a vague assertion?
The Fathers did distinguish. When Christ prayed saying, "o my Father if it is possible let this cup pass from me, nonetheless not as I will but as You will." Matt 26.39
A truly Orthodox statement on the last line would read: Christ's human and divine natures are distinct but inseperable, His human will without confusion voluntarily submits to the divine will as if it were one, thus our Lord voluntarily went to the cross, the same way as we are asked to submit voluntarily to the divine will of our Father.
Article 6:
...Reject the interpretation of ecumenical councils which do not fully agree with the definition of Ephesus and the letter of Cyril to John.
Which interpretations do not agree with Ephesus? Are the councils now contradictory? Who is to judge what is contradictory? Perhaps the ecumenists who have penned these "agreed upon statements" are the judges on how things should be interpreted. These same people who innovated a "composite nature", perhaps can reinterpret these later councils and conclude that the Fathers didnt say what they said.
Does this also mean that the 4-6th councils are somewhat less that the first three? Who do they have in mind that believe the 4-6th council annuls/contradicts the third council and the letter of sts Cyril to John?
Sorry if this derailed the OP, but i cant see how a Composite Nature or Will or Hypostasis is Apostolic Tradition. And i still would like to get to the bottom of which group of lovey dovey ecumenists coined the term "post-chalcedonian"
John Charmley
13-10-2007, 05:45 PM
Dear Kostas,
Thank you for your response, and I hope we can reassure Matthew that this is not some attempt to resurrect the old EO/OO arguments, but a real attempt to understand one of the main issues which led to what happened at Chalcedon; if trying to do that goes against the TOU, then we shall, no doubt, stand corrected.
With admirable clarity Kostas tells us:
A truly Orthodox statement would read: God the Son came down from Heaven and united himself with a human nature and made it his very own in the womb and Child of Mary the Theotokos.
As we all know, at the heart of the problem lie (mis)understandings of difficult, technical terms such as physis, ousia, hypostasis, person. Antiochene understandings, and employment of these words differed from that of Alexandria; moreover, just to complicate things nicely, the fifth century witnessed a change in the way in which the words physis and hypostasis were being used
Theodore and Nestorius preferred to use the word prosopon for what St. Cyril called hypostasis - but St. Cyril's own use of the words hypostasisand physis is sometimes inconsistent. Sometimes he uses physis as a synonym of hypostasisbut at others as though it were a synonym for ousia.
When Cyril writes about ‘The single Physis of the Incarnate Word’ (Mia Physis tou Theou Legou Sesarkomene) he meant the one concrete subject of the Incarnate Word. Nestorius thought he meant the one physical composite of the Word in an Appolinarian sense of a mixture of fusion of the two natures. What Cyril actually meant was that the single individual reality of the Word of God, and no other, was the one who had been incarnated; i.e. the sole personal subject of the Incarnation was the Eternal Word, and that there was no human personal subject alongside God in the Incarnate Lord. In writing in this way Cyril was in the Alexandrian tradition, but after Chalcedon the word Physis tended to be restricted to the physical constituents of a thing; indeed, in the formula of reunion with the Antiochenes Cyril himself seems to have realised that Physis could no longer be used to refer to the subject of a thing.
For St. Cyril the idea of two hypostases/physeis after the union is tantamount to declaring the presence of two existing/subsistent realities (i.e. hypostases), which is what he understood Nestorius to be saying.
Against this he posits a singular hypostatic reality - the incarnate Christ’s one physis. For St. Cyril there is only one hypostasis of the Son (pre-existing the Incarnation and following the resurrection); here there is a mystery, which Cyril never tired of proclaiming:this hypostasis is known always in its incarnate reality
St. Cyril's own love of paradox led him to proclaim that the incarnate Christ was ‘out of two natures’ but existed as ‘one nature’; but his own slippery use of physis and hypostasis created problems with those such as Nestorius who understood these concepts in a different way. St. Cyril meant that there was ‘a single hypostatic reality hypostatising two natural realms/natures’; but you can see why Nestorius read him as meaning that the Son was ‘of two hypostases that merged into one’ - which would have been Appolinarian.
All of which is by way of saying that the phrase Kostas sees as heretical is, properly understood, identical with his own impeccably Orthodox statement - which is no doubt why the EO people involved in the discussions used it.
It seems unhelpful to apply sarcastic comments to 'ecumenism' wholesale; no doubt some of it is a search for the lowest common denominator, but as we have discussed elsewhere so many times, some of it is not. This last seeks to find ways of understanding what may have been misunderstood and seeks to follow the spirit of this comment, made long ago, by one here whom we all respect:
Of all those Christians divided through the centuries it seems that we and the Oriental Orthodox in more recent times have come closest to having a meeting of heart & mind as far as what the Faith means. And considering the remarkable & ancient piety of your people we certainly would be enriched by being in communion once more.
In Christ,
John
Fr Raphael Vereshack
13-10-2007, 07:55 PM
John Charmley wrote:
When Cyril writes about ‘The single Physis of the Incarnate Word’ (Mia Physis tou Theou Legou Sesarkomene) he meant the one concrete subject of the Incarnate Word. Nestorius thought he meant the one physical composite of the Word in an Appolinarian sense of a mixture of fusion of the two natures. What Cyril actually meant was that the single individual reality of the Word of God, and no other, was the one who had been incarnated; i.e. the sole personal subject of the Incarnation was the Eternal Word, and that there was no human personal subject alongside God in the Incarnate Lord. In writing in this way Cyril was in the Alexandrian tradition, but after Chalcedon the word Physis tended to be restricted to the physical constituents of a thing; indeed, in the formula of reunion with the Antiochenes Cyril himself seems to have realised that Physis could no longer be used to refer to the subject of a thing.
I would suggest that beyond what either St Cyril or those in the Antiochene tradition meant in a specific sense by certain formulations was a deeper discussion/argument which centred on the reality of Who Christ is as Incarnate.
Neither denied the Divine and human in Christ. But for deeper theological and anthropological reasons each saw the manner of this union in Christ in a very different way. For St Cyril the focus is on the Person Who is the pre-eternal Logos precisely because it is through the Divine Person that Christ's humanity achieves its original fulfillment. For Nestorius and to varying degrees those who follow the Antiochene vision an actual union between Christ as Pre-eternal Logos & His humanity would have resulted in the effective denial of the reality of the latter; thus the union of Christ as Divine & human is based on a conjunction not real union of these two realities.
The language used to describe these two realities is obviously not irrelevant. But if we focus only on this language we can end up thinking that both are saying essentially the same thing only in different ways since both maintain the critical point of the Divine/human reality of Christ. This overlooks however the actual & critical point made by each and which ultimately concerns the nature of God's communion with man.
In Christ- Fr Raphael
John Charmley
13-10-2007, 08:40 PM
Dear Fr. Raphael,
You write:
if we focus only on this language we can end up thinking that both are saying essentially the same thing only in different ways since both maintain the critical point of the Divine/human reality of Christ. This overlooks however the actual & critical point made by each and which ultimately concerns the nature of God's communion with man.
Indeed, which is why it is significant that it was only when those assembled at Chalcedon were sure that Leo's Tome was Cyrilline that they accepted it.
The point, of course, being that the language which Kostas thinks heretical is, understood aright, Orthodox.
In Christ,
John
Fr Raphael Vereshack
13-10-2007, 10:42 PM
Granted I have my own tack in this particular discussion but still I think there's an interesting point in how the Church's theology was worked out.
In my present reading of St Athanasius the familiar point of God's stability in relationship to the inherent instability of creation comes out. This is one of St Athanasius' main points in the purpose of the Incarnation and describes why he is determined to describe Christ as fully divine.
An interesting point however which relates to this discussion is that taken in itself out of St Athanasius' actual context, it could be argued that humanity is thus inherently liable to fall along with the whole creation. Christ's Incarnation would then compensate for this inherent falleness but only insofar as it become one with His will for it. Again this is obviously not St Athanasius' intent nor do these comments point to a weakness really in his presentation. But it does point to a needed further step in terms of how the union between Divine & human was understood in Christ.
Thus in St Cyril we do I think see a step forward in how this union is conveyed. For example in one passage from On the Unity of Christ and similar to many others in this work, we read:
Just as we say that the flesh became his very own, in the same way the weakness of the flesh became his very own in an economic appropriation according to the terms of unification.
Even though intended against Nestorius' dividing of the Person of Christ it's interesting that St Cyril's view implies through Christ's appropriating of 'the weakness of the flesh' the full adoption of humanity in its integrity. Of course the full implications for human will is not drawn out yet. But yet his view hardly is credible unless one takes into account the integrity of that human will.
Thus one can see in another way here the steps the Church took to get to its theological presentation later on. Like a man who crosses a pond by picking out various rocks along the way and uses them to step across the water, the rock he presently has reached is connected as a path with those which came before.
In Christ- Fr Raphael
Symeon P.
02-01-2008, 05:45 AM
Even though intended against Nestorius' dividing of the Person of Christ it's interesting that St Cyril's view implies through Christ's appropriating of 'the weakness of the flesh' the full adoption of humanity in its integrity. Of course the full implications for human will is not drawn out yet. But yet his view hardly is credible unless one takes into account the integrity of that human will.
St. Cyril also wrote in his Commentary on John (and this was cited by the Sixth Ecumenical Council), "For as the Substance is one the Will also is one..." He was here commenting about the Trinity. Since St. Cyril of course believed that there were two essences/substances in Christ, it follows that there are two wills as well.
Christopher Dombrowski
21-11-2008, 12:12 AM
Since when do we believe Christ is one composite nature? Having read the definition of the chalcedonian council many times the word "composite" was never used, in fact such a term is in exact opposition to it.
Chalcedon speaks of: NOT confusing the two natures, without transmutation. That the two "concur" in the One person of Christ. There is nothing composite about it. We believe the two natures are inseperable but distinct. That God came down from Heaven and united with a human nature in the Child of Mary but this incarnation is not one of being composite , he is not a demi-god. The One Lord conserves fully both aspects without mixture.
From this i will have to assume that post chalcedonians are those EO AND OO'S who have decided to come up with a brand new definition to unify themselves around. After all isnt that website about "Orthodoxy Unity" (under the british Orthodox) an attempt to re-write history and come up with a new definition, one which sidesteps both Cyril's and Leo's beliefs?
Both the First Council of Ephesus (for Chalcedonians the 3rd Ecumenical Council) and the Second Council of Constantinople (for Chalcedonians the 5th Ecumenical Council) lay out a particular understanding of "one incarnate (composite) nature" that is understood to be Orthodox. So unless you are willing to admit that the EOC Ecumenical Councils contradict each other, then no, one composite nature is not contradictory to the Definition of Chalcedon.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.5 Copyright © 2012 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.