Chalcedon
#91
In other words, he means, if God became a man, he feels it would be he gave up his Godhood? but if you say He assumed man into God that the hypostatic union took place?
Reply
#92
Going back many pages in the discussion, the suspicion against "peering into" the Godhead that the miaphysites evince goes back well before the Christological controversies.  It was one of the characteristic attitudes of the early orthodox Syriac Fathers, Aphrahat and especially Ephrem.  Ephrem's position was that we cannot "define" God because we are of an infinitely lower "order" of being, and a higher order cannot properly be defined by a lower.  Besides this problem, Ephrem, while enthusiastically embracing the Nicene faith, felt that peering into issues we cannot understand did little but cause divisions in the Church.  This is probably the reason that Ephrem's most important work was done in poetry.

Also, as regards St. Cyril's imprecision in his use of "one nature" terminology, it should be remembered that he derived the phrase "one nature of the Word of God incarnate" from a letter he believed to have come from St. Athanasius, which, alas, was discovered in the 6th century to have been written by Apollinaris.  We certainly believe that he meant it in an orthodox way, and his insistence on "one nature" terminology stems from his obsession with combatting Nestorianism; he does mention in other places that speaking of "two natures" is acceptable.  Additionally, the fluidity of the relevant terms prior to Chalcedon is a complicating factor, not only in that the terms were used in various senses, and even synonymously, before the council, but that the non-Greek-speaking parts of the Roman oikumene had translated theses terms into Syriac and other languages, which then became the theological language in those lands.  What particular sense they had in mind for each Greek word is not always clear, and then the baggage carried by the Syriac words used to translate these words additionally clouds the issues.

I honestly believe that the Chalcedonian-"Nestorian"-Miaphysite split has its origins mostly in linguistic difficulties and intemperate polemics, and in the case of the eventual separation of the "Nestorian" Church, political rivalry between Rome and Persia.  Real differences have emerged as a consequence of living apart for centuries, and even though the doctrines condemned at Ephesus and Chalcedon are heretical, I do think they are of a different kind than Arianism.  The latter unapologetically asserted that the Logos was not of the same kind of divinity as the Father–which is flatly contrary to the Catholic Faith.  In the case of the Christological controversies, all three sides are agreed that Christ is fully human and fully divine, but we have grave reservations about the adequacy of each other's ways of explaining this union.  This is also complicated by the fact that the positions we ascribe to the other churches are usually straw man versions of what they actually believe.
Reply
#93
Well, the MIaphysites and Chalcedonians at least agree on one important fact: THe communication of idioms.

THe Nestorianism put forth by Babai the great in his book "The book of the union" refuses to acknowledge a communication of idioms: THey Cannot say "God died." Rome and Alexandria can. They cannot say "Mother of God." Rome and Alexandria can.

Ironically, Nestorius did not disapprove of Theotokos because he thought it was inaccurate. He disagreed with it because he knew Christ was a unity of Man and GOd, and to say that Mary was the Mother of DIvinity divided Christ. Ironic in how he defended it. He believed that Christ was one, and to say mary was the mother of God was to say mary was mothe of a PART of Christ, and not the whole Christ.

It shows how he kept the unity of Being in Christ separated into different categories, when indeed, the natures were made one in the unity of a single being.
Reply
#94
(05-29-2011, 03:18 AM)randomtradguy Wrote: In other words, he means, if God became a man, he feels it would be he gave up his Godhood? but if you say He assumed man into God that the hypostatic union took place?


The Second Divine Person assumed a human body and a human soul.
Reply
#95
....that would mean Christ had two souls....right?
Reply
#96
Jesus Christ is true God and true Son of God.
Christ assumed a real body, not an apparent body.
Christ assumed not only a body but also a rational soul.
Christ was truly generated and born of a daughter of Adam, the Virgin Mary.
The Divine and human natures are united hypostatically in Christ, that is, joined to each other in one Person.
In the hypostatic union each of the two natures of Christ continues unimpaired, untransformed, and unmixed with each other.
Each of the two natures in Christ possesses its own natural will and its own natural mode of operation.
The hypostatic union of Christ's human nature with the Divine Logos took place at the moment of conception.
The hypostatic union was effected by the three Divine Persons acting in common.
Only the second Divine Person became Man.
Not only as God but also as man Jesus Christ is the natural Son of God.
The God-Man Jesus Christ is to be venerated with one single mode of worship, the absolute worship of latria which is due to God alone.
Reply
#97
(06-03-2011, 11:54 AM)randomtradguy Wrote: ....that would mean Christ had two souls....right?

A soul is the form of the body.  God does not have a body.  Therefore God does not have a soul.  He is the Creator of the human soul.  God is beyond his created creatures.  He is beyond all souls, He is Divine, He is Infinite. He is Who Is.  He is Being Itself. He is the Principle of Life.  He is Eternal.
Reply
#98
(06-03-2011, 06:34 PM)wulfrano Wrote: A soul is the form of the body.  God does not have a body.  Therefore God does not have a soul.  He is the Creator of the human soul.  God is beyond his created creatures.  He is beyond all souls, He is Divine, He is Infinite. He is Who Is.  He is Being Itself. He is the Principle of Life.  He is Eternal.

What?  Christ absolutely has a soul...hence things like the Anima Christi and the fact that we receive His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Blessed Sacrament.

And I'm sure there's a much more direct reference, but this, from The Anathematisms of the Emperor Justinian, asserts that Christ has a soul:
"If anyone says or thinks that the soul of the Lord pre-existed and was united with God the Word before the Incarnation and Conception of the Virgin, let him be anathema."

ETA: unless you were trying to clarify the concept of two souls.  I apologize if I misunderstood your post.
Reply
#99
(06-03-2011, 06:43 PM)Pheo Wrote:
(06-03-2011, 06:34 PM)wulfrano Wrote: A soul is the form of the body.  God does not have a body.  Therefore God does not have a soul.  He is the Creator of the human soul.  God is beyond his created creatures.  He is beyond all souls, He is Divine, He is Infinite. He is Who Is.  He is Being Itself. He is the Principle of Life.  He is Eternal.

What?  Christ absolutely has a soul...hence things like the Anima Christi and the fact that we receive His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Blessed Sacrament.

And I'm sure there's a much more direct reference, but this, from The Anathematisms of the Emperor Justinian, asserts that Christ has a soul:
"If anyone says or thinks that the soul of the Lord pre-existed and was united with God the Word before the Incarnation and Conception of the Virgin, let him be anathema."

ETA: unless you were trying to clarify the concept of two souls.  I apologize if I misunderstood your post.

Dear Pheo:  When I say simply "God" I mean The Most Holy Trinity as a Divine Entity.  When St. Ignatius says "Soul of Christ" he means the human soul of the Second Divine Person Incarnate. In the Blessed Sacrament we receive Christ's human soul.  Indeed,  the Lord assumed his human soul upon Incarnation-Conception in the womb of Mary Most Holy. 
Reply
I guess I am wrong but I always assumed that God was soul. S. John says God is Spirit; I always assumed that when man was made in the image of God, that that meant that people had free will, intellect, and love, and that was because we had the life-breath of God in us, which I would call the soul. So animals can't have complete free will, or love, because they have no soul, or life-breath of God. So I always thought of it as Christ was pure soul and took a body. Now this contradicts S. Athanasius as well as it sounds tewahido (what the Copts believe, miaphysite...I think)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)