Hypostatic union

[Christopher Dombrowski]

I'm really wondering recently what is the Byzantine understanding of the doctrine of the hypostatic union. Is it understood to be unity within one personality while humanity and divinity remain two distinct existential realities? Is it understood to be one composite existential reality with humanity and divinity remain distinct only in substance? Is it understood to be analogous to humanity in which two distinct realities (body and soul) come together and begin to operate and function as one reality? Or is is something entirely different?

I'm really wondering because I have an understanding of the hypostatic union that I have come to but I'm not sure if it is in line with the Byzantine Tradition.

[Christopher Dombrowski]

I'm trying to develop a study of Byzantine Christology on my own, but it would be really helpful if the folks here could give me some direction. Listening to the hymn "Only Begotten Son" in Liturgy this morning was illuminating. I'm wondering if anyone has any more helpful tidbits like that?

[M. P. Howland]

I have been studying Maximus the Confessor a lot recently. While i cant speak on behalf of your church body, i can speak to what i have come to realize from the teachings of Maximus who was central to the development of a Byzantine Christology.

When you say "one composite existential reality" and make a comparison to the soul/body of humans Maximus would disagree. For Maximus this "composite reality" is a destructive combination that threatens Trinitarian theology, Christology and soteriology. If this were the case Christ would not have been God consubstantial with the Father, nor man, consubstantial with humans. Furthermore the "composite nature" argument is anti-Chalcedonian.

Maximus noted that every composite nature out of two is marked by three basic traits: first, its parts are simultaneous, neither exists prior to the other, secondly, they come together unwillingly; and third, they result in a creature that complements the species of the universe. And as far as i have read according to Maximus none of these apply to Christ. Christ exists before his humanity and willingly becomes man for our salvation. Furthermore in man the stronger element of the soul is dependent on the weaker, the body which is not so in Christ. According to Maximus Christ has two full and distinct natures, and upon this he insisted that Christ also has two distinct natural wills and energies.

According to Maximus "Christ is not by hypostasis mortal and immortal, nor is he powerless and omnipotent, visible and invisible, created and uncreated, but he is the former by nature and the latter by hypostasis."

I can offer more, but i am rather tired right now.

Hopefully Helpfully,
Matt

[Michael Stickles]

Christopher,

Carl Tyneh's book Orthodox Christianity has a section titled "The Consequences of the Hypostatic Union of the Two Natures in Christ", which looks to me like it might have some useful thoughts. This section is included in full in the Google Books preview (http://books.google.com/books?id=clcAYIDSQnAC&pg=PA66&lpg=PA66&dq=%22hypostatic+union%22+(orthodox+OR+byzantine)&source=bl&ots=BQQoQj-XuG&sig=eT_LnnkacWDwsipu5rVkL75XStI&hl=en&ei=2wy1Sb3BA9TFtgfnhonqDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=8&ct=result#PPA67,M1) that I found online.

Also, a post on the Orthodox Christianity forum (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=1839.30;wap2) contains several quotes from St. Basil and the 5th Ecumenical Council regarding the hypostatic union.

St. Seraphim Orthodox Cathedral also has an online article on the hypostatic union (http://www.stseraphim.org/dcchapt6.html) with quotes from St. John of Damascus' Exact Exposition of the Christian Faith, plus other quotes from the Fathers.

I'm not sure what you've already read, but hopefully there will be some useful things in these.

In Christ,
Michael

[M.C. Steenberg]

Understanding what is meant by hypostatic union requires some sufficient background; simply exploring terms and single concepts in exclusion was at the heart of the disputes of the fifth century.

I might suggest starting with the Patristic Christology area (http://www.monachos.net/content/patristics/studies-themes/241-christology-study-area) here on Monachos.net, which can help set the patristic context. When one has read a bit, perhaps we can discuss some of the issues here. It could be a fruitful discussion.

INXC, Dcn Matthew

[Christopher Dombrowski]

I have been studying Maximus the Confessor a lot recently. While i cant speak on behalf of your church body, i can speak to what i have come to realize from the teachings of Maximus who was central to the development of a Byzantine Christology.

Well, I was mostly meaning from the perspective of the Chalcedonian tradition. And I used "Byzantine" as a substitute, though I realize that might not have been entirely fair. I tend to be a little skeptical of Western Christology, however, as a number of Western Christian Christologians appeared to have been inclined to the Nestorian heresy.




When you say "one composite existential reality" and make a comparison to the soul/body of humans Maximus would disagree.

That's rather unfortunate, seeing as how "one composite existential reality" is essentially the same thing as Cyril's "one composite hypostasis of God the Word Incarnate" and the body/soul analogy was used by Cyril himself, who is called "the Seal of all the Fathers", and a number of other Fathers.




For Maximus this "composite reality" is a destructive combination that threatens Trinitarian theology, Christology and soteriology.

It's well established that the meaning of hypostasis is the manifestated and individuated reality of an ousia. To deny that Christ is one composite hypostasis would be to essentially spit in the face of the Council of Ephesus.




If this were the case Christ would not have been God consubstantial with the Father, nor man, consubstantial with humans.

Both the Chalcedonian tradition and the Non-Chalcedonian tradition have maintained the dynamic continuation of humanity and divinity in Christ while affirming that they come together as one composite hypostasis.




Furthermore the "composite nature" argument is anti-Chalcedonian.

It can't be. "Mia physis" is a formula used both as 1st Ephesus and 2nd Constantinople.




Maximus noted that every composite nature out of two is marked by three basic traits: first, its parts are simultaneous, neither exists prior to the other, secondly, they come together unwillingly; and third, they result in a creature that complements the species of the universe.

To deny that adding God to the equation confounds the typical order of the Creation sounds like we're getting a little bit into Aquinian rationalism. If we were to apply the same logic across the board then we might as well assume that Christ has not risen from the dead because "it's never happened before".




According to Maximus "Christ is not by hypostasis mortal and immortal, nor is he powerless and omnipotent, visible and invisible, created and uncreated, but he is the former by nature and the latter by hypostasis."

Huh? Christ's divinity is hypostatic. Why would Maximus say that Christ's divine attributes are not inherited by hypostasis?

This is all very confusing to me. If perhaps you and Maximus and certain pockets of the Chalcedonian tradition are meaning very different things by "nature" and "hypostasis" then that's another issue. But so far your usages of these terms is not making sense to me...

[M. P. Howland]

Christopher,

As you may well know there is a bit of confusion on this subject because of the terms involved and the difference in our two traditions. First it would be helpful to identify that Cyril's Christology has by some been seen as leaning towards monophysitism. It is my belief that this characterization is false, i do believe however that his Christology is rather one-sided. Now as we should know, being one sided is not necisarilly the same as being false. In regard to my tradition, if you are unaware of Lutheran theology, it tends to be very systematic, while most of the fathers are not so easily systematized. I apologize if if have overstepped my boundaries in any way but i am doing my best with what limited understanding i may have. So in response to your post:



I tend to be a little skeptical of Western Christology, however, as a number of Western Christian Christologians appeared to have been inclined to the Nestorian heresy.
I am not quite sure which Western Theologians you speak of. You will recall that Nestorius was the Bishop of Constantinople until he was deposed at Ephesus I in 431. The Nestorian controversy was more widespread in the east as far as i know than it was in the west, as the Tome of Leo would attest. I could however be wrong on this point.



That's rather unfortunate, seeing as how "one composite existential reality" is essentially the same thing as Cyril's "one composite hypostasis of God the Word Incarnate" and the body/soul analogy was used by Cyril himself, who is called "the Seal of all the Fathers", and a number of other Fathers.
As i said before Cyril has been misread by many people, most notably his "Twelve Anathemas". The "one composite hypostasis of God the Word Incarnate" as far as i have seen is an Apollonarian term that was interpreted in an orthodox way by Cyril. I dont doubt the orthodoxy of Cyril, however the Apollonarian connotations associated with this formula display its inferiority to the Chalcedonian definition. While he did stress the unity of the two natures in Christ, he also maintained the distinction of the two natures. It would be important to note that his view dealt mainly with the natures after the union. In his Scholia de Incarnatione Unigeniti he writes "the natures remained without confusion" and "we know the difference of the natures and we keep them without confusion with each other".



It can't be. "Mia physis" is a formula used both as 1st Ephesus and 2nd Constantinople.
Cyril's composite nature formula was not conclusive and left the church in need of a better way to express the unity and distinction in Christ. This was what the Council of Chalcedon in 451 provided. The Chalcedonian view is distinctly characterized as one of dyophysitism which would seem to be counter to the Miaphysitism of the Oriental Orthodox.



To deny that adding God to the equation confounds the typical order of the Creation sounds like we're getting a little bit into Aquinian rationalism. If we were to apply the same logic across the board then we might as well assume that Christ has not risen from the dead because "it's never happened before".
Im not quite sure I understand what you are getting at here. I was simply stating that God the Logos eixisted prior to his humanity and that he took on this humanity willingly. This is true only of God the Logos, while our souls do not willingly take on our body, nor can they exist prior to the body, or without the body. They depend entirely on the body for their existence. The same cannot be said of Christ.



This is all very confusing to me. If perhaps you and Maximus and certain pockets of the Chalcedonian tradition are meaning very different things by "nature" and "hypostasis" then that's another issue. But so far your usages of these terms is not making sense to me...
Maximus follows the Cappadocian tradition in that nature is related to what is common, and hypostasis to the particular. Hypostasis is a purely ontological term that does not have anything to do with the existential domain. The humanity of Christ is not a hypostasis because it never subsited by itself. The union of Divine and Human in Christ is union according to hypostasis, this signifies the union of two essences that remain distinct in one hypostasis. Whatever "composite hypostasis" might mean, it most certainly does not mean the outcome of composition between the Logos and a human person. On the personal level, or the "who", the hypostasis in Christ is strictly identical with God the Logos. The composite hypostasis of Christ is not composed of two persons, but of two natures. Here hypostasis does not mean the person, but the one reality in which the two natures are united without division or confusion.

I am not sure if this helped, but i am still working through the writings of Maximus.