But the Church continually and always has used the language of "two natures".  You need to be careful to not stray from that language.  They are united in the one Person of Christ, of course.  The Nestorians wanted to say that Christ Himself was two persons.  But you can't go so far as to say that the natures are lost in their unity among each other.  They do not create some third and new kind of nature.  They do not become one nature at all.  They remain two natures in Christ, just as there remained two distinct wills in Christ throughout His life. 
Of course I deny any Third or new nature or any confusion or Comingling.

The Problem is you are not listening to St. Cyril who is the Definitive Author on this topic. What he said is what the Church says, for the COuncil of Chalcedon sought to conform itself to the Teaching of Cyril.

Read what St. Cyril said in "That Christ is One."

OF Course Christ exists in Two natures. He exists in two natures that have come into a real full and perfect hypostatic union; of the humanity of his mother, and of the divinity of his father. And He continues as Both, But in the Unity of a single Composite Nature, The Nature of God-Man.

Christ is Not God/Man. And He is Not Godman. and he is not Mangod. He is God-man. See the subtleties?

Nestorius Would Say Christ is God/man. Conjunction. Heresy. The natures are not Conjoined in Christ, they are united. Some of the Nesotrianizing Chalcedonians wanted to say Christ is God Man. Separate, and distinct, and united, but there being no clear principle of union. The Eutychians (The only real monophysites were the followers of Eutyches, Not Dioscorus and Philoxenus and Severus. Their Christology is Orthodox, even if they hate Rome) WOuld say Christ was Godman, which is really the inversion of Arianism, saying Christ is Mangod. Eutychianism says Christ is similar to us, and was born of the virgin, but that his body was of heavenly origin. Later, Eutyches finally admitted that the Body of Christ was Consubstantial with his mother, but not with us. Yeah, figure that one out.  :pazzo: Arianism Says Christ is Trulyman, but that he is only similar to the father. So they are inversions of each other.

St. Cyril of Alexandria said Christ was God-man. In him the humanity and divinity were united as a single subsistent being. THis is called the hypostatic union.

However, since it is proper that a single being have only a single nature, Christ had one nature: But it was composite, Composed of the HUmanity and Divinity, Neither Being Changed, Confused, Divided or Separated. For Cyril this was necessary, because Christ died not only as man for us, but as God for us: Not That his Divinity suffered, But that He who is GOd offered his Flesh to the Trinity on our behalf. If Nestorius was right, Then only the humanity, The Man Jesus Died on the cross and would not be able to offer to the Father the Sacrifice of his blood OR extend it throughout time.

THerefore, St. Cyril INSISTED on the use of the Phrase: One Incarnate Nature of God the Word. And the Fathers and Councils accept this as Orthodox: That is, it does not consist of Confusion or Change.
(05-09-2011, 11:36 PM)Gregory I Wrote: OF Course Christ exists in Two natures.

(05-09-2011, 11:36 PM)Gregory I Wrote: However, since it is proper that a single being have only a single nature, Christ had one nature...

I see these two assertions as being contradictory.  Perhaps you could provide direct quotation from Constantinople II which shows the usage of a language of "one nature".
Dear Walty:

Please memorize the Saint Athanasius Creed and repeat it 3,000 times.  Thank you!
(05-10-2011, 03:05 AM)wulfrano Wrote: Dear Walty:

Please memorize the Saint Athanasius Creed and repeat it 3,000 times.  Thank you!

Thank you.  I am familiar with The Athanasian Creed.  Nowhere in it does it state the Christ has one nature.
Council of Chalcedon Wrote:We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach people to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable [rational] soul and body; consubstantial [co-essential] with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably...

Second Council of Constantinople Wrote:If anyone proclaiming one nature of the Word of God to be incarnate does not receive it as the Fathers taught, viz. that from the Divine and human natures (a union in subsistence having taken place) one Christ results, but endeavors from these words to introduce one nature or substance of the Divinity and flesh of Christ, let such a one be anathema.

Third Council of Constantinople Wrote:In accordance with what the Prophets of old taught us concerning Christ, and as He taught us Himself, and the Symbol of the Holy Fathers has handed down to us, we confess two natural wills in Him and two natural operations.

St. Thomas Wrote:Hence the sense is not that from two natures one results; but that the Nature of the Word of God united flesh to Itself in Person.

And, for what it's worth,
Wikipedia Wrote:Miaphysitism, the christology of the Oriental Orthodox churches, is considered by Chalcedonian churches as a variant of monophysitism...
All emphasis mine.

I maintain that, when using the language that the Church has laid down for us, Miaphysitism is a heresy.
The Church says you are wrong. The Oriental Orthodox have an Orthodox Christology, read the joint declarations.

Explain to me what UNION means in hypostatic union. It is not a hypostatic conjoining, but a UNION. Explain the difference.
(05-10-2011, 08:26 PM)Gregory I Wrote: The Church says you are wrong. The Oriental Orthodox have an Orthodox Christology, read the joint declarations.

Explain to me what UNION means in hypostatic union. It is not a hypostatic conjoining, but a UNION. Explain the difference.

Gregory, read the Councils.  Read the Doctors of the Church.

Are you a Roman Catholic?
@ Walty.

Now you know why schismatics are outside the Church (Denzinger 714).
Yes, I am a thoroughly Roman Catholic.

AND I have Read the saints and Doctors:

Read St. Cyril of Alexandria. You are not addressing exactly what he said and taught. Address this:

"B. Therefore (they say) consubstantial with the Word was His body, for thus and no otherwise will He be deemed One Only Son.

A. Yet how is not this now raving and clear proof of a mind wandering? for how can one behold in sameness of essence things so far removed one from another in respect of their nature? for one thing is Godhead, and another manhood. For of what do we say that the Union was made? for a person will not say that the things united are one in number, but either (it may be) two or more.

B. We must therefore sever (they say) the things named.

A. We must not sever (as I said) into a several diversity, in regard I mean to their being away from each other and apart, but must rather bring them together into an indissoluble union. For the Word has been made flesh, as John saith.

B. Have they therefore been confused and both become one nature?

A. But who will be thus distraught and unlearned as to |264 suppose that either the Divine Nature of the Word has been turned into what it was not, or that the flesh went over by way of change into the Nature of the Word Himself (for it is impossible)? but we say that One is the SON and One His Nature even though He be conceived of as having assumed flesh with a rational soul. For His (as I said) hath the human nature been made, and He is conceived of by us none otherwise than thus, God alike and man.

B. There will then be not two natures, of God and of man?

A.  Godhead and manhood are one thing and another, according to the mode [of being] existing in each, yet in Christ have they come together, in unwonted wise and passing understanding, unto union, without confusion and turning 18. But wholly incomprehensible is the mode of the Union.

B.  And how out of two things, Godhead and manhood, will One Christ be conceived of?

A.  In no other wise (I suppose) than that whereby the things brought together one to another unto a union indissoluble and above comprehension will be One.


B. But if we say that the Nature of the Son is One, even though He be conceived of as Incarnate, all need is there to confess that confusion and commixture take place 21, |266 the nature of man being lost as it were within Him. For what is the nature of man unto the excellency of Godhead?

A. In highest degree, my friend, is he an idle talker who says that confusion and commixture have place, if one Nature of the Son Incarnate and made man, is confessed by us: for one will not be able to make proof thereof by needful and true deductions. But if they set their own. will as a law to us, they devised a counsel which they cannot establish, for we must give heed, not to them but to the God-inspired Scripture: if they think that needs, on account of the nature of man being nothing compared to the Divine Excellency, must it be lost and consumed as they say, we again will say, Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God: for it were not impossible for God Who loves man to make Himself endurable to the measures of the manhood. And this He foresignified to us darkly, when initiating Moses and limning the mode of the Incarnation as yet in types, for He came in likeness of fire on the bush in the wilderness, and the fire kept playing on the shrub yet was it not consumed. And Moses marvelled at the sight. Yet how is not a tree a thing that has no alliance with fire? and how is the readily consumed wood patient of the onslaught of flame? But this matter was (as I said) a type of a mystery, which exhibited endurable to the measures of the human nature, the Divine Nature of the Word 22, at His Will, for to Him is nothing impossible.

B. Know well that they will not choose so to think.

A.  Their speech will be caught setting forth to us most undoubtedly two sons and two christs.

St. Cyril, The Criterion of Orthodox Christology has used and legitimately uses "One Nature of the Word Incarnate."

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)