Chalcedon
#11
Thanks everybody!! I find it funny that the OO are...whatever Pope Dioscurus of Alexandria was....but they say they're the same faith as the Orthodox and want to reunite with them. They (the schismatic east) never give up their lies, do they.
Reply
#12
(04-26-2011, 05:20 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(04-26-2011, 04:26 PM)Melkite Wrote: I like miaphysitism, that's not contrary to Catholicism, is it?  I asked my priest about about miaphysitism once, and all he said was 'Jesus is God, he is man, and he is one.'  I think that about sums it up.  Everything else is scholastic.

It's good to be scholastic.

As long as it's tempered by mysticism.  Scholasticism without mysticism is like an anchor without a boat - and vice versa.
Reply
#13
(04-27-2011, 01:15 AM)Melkite Wrote:
(04-26-2011, 05:20 PM)Resurrexi Wrote:
(04-26-2011, 04:26 PM)Melkite Wrote: I like miaphysitism, that's not contrary to Catholicism, is it?  I asked my priest about about miaphysitism once, and all he said was 'Jesus is God, he is man, and he is one.'  I think that about sums it up.  Everything else is scholastic.

It's good to be scholastic.

As long as it's tempered by mysticism.  Scholasticism without mysticism is like an anchor without a boat - and vice versa.

We need more monks.  Both mysticism and scholasticism, fostered by an increased monastic tradition, would do much to reinforce orthodoxy within the Church - to say nothing of all the good done by large numbers of monks who "pray without ceasing".
Reply
#14
(04-26-2011, 05:27 PM)Resurrexi Wrote: Accept Chalcedon or take a beatin'.

Reply
#15
(04-26-2011, 05:25 PM)Walty Wrote: Miaphysitism is just another form of Monophysitism and is thus a heresy.

I don't think it's that clearly the case. As you said in your previous post (and as I mentioned in mine), physis and hypostasis are equivalent to them and therefore believing in one "nature" is the same as believing in one person from their point of view. They also condemn the monophysitism of Eutyches whereas the divinity swallows up the humanity. Their problem is that they cannot understand how one can "divide" Christ into distinct natures after the union and not be Nestorian. They affirm that Christ is both truly God and truly man, but they see trying to explain the union as peering in where man is not meant to look.
Reply
#16
(04-27-2011, 10:54 AM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(04-26-2011, 05:25 PM)Walty Wrote: Miaphysitism is just another form of Monophysitism and is thus a heresy.

I don't think it's that clearly the case. As you said in your previous post (and as I mentioned in mine), physis and hypostasis are equivalent to them and therefore believing in one "nature" is the same as believing in one person from their point of view. They also condemn the monophysitism of Eutyches whereas the divinity swallows up the humanity. Their problem is that they cannot understand how one can "divide" Christ into distinct natures after the union and not be Nestorian. They affirm that Christ is both truly God and truly man, but they see trying to explain the union as peering in where man is not meant to look.

Bah.  As far as I see it, that's just a lot of spiritual talk which, in the end, comes out to nothing except that they do not accept that Christ has two natures which is an infallible teaching of the Church.
Reply
#17
SaintSebastian Wrote:They affirm that Christ is both truly God and truly man, but they see trying to explain the union as peering in where man is not meant to look.

Strictly speaking, as God is immaterial, He cannot eat, sleep, suffer nor die.  It was the hypostatic union which gave Christ's Passion its infinite value; we can attribute what He did as man to His person, even though His divine nature could neither suffer nor die.  I think philosophy, or rather Scholastic theology, is necessary to be clear on what is meant, and so prevent confusion (although that might not always work perfectly - heretics always try to be clever).
Reply
#18
(04-27-2011, 05:50 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
SaintSebastian Wrote:They affirm that Christ is both truly God and truly man, but they see trying to explain the union as peering in where man is not meant to look.

Strictly speaking, as God is immaterial, He cannot eat, sleep, suffer nor die.  It was the hypostatic union which gave Christ's Passion its infinite value; we can attribute what He did as man to His person, even though His divine nature could neither suffer nor die.  I think philosophy, or rather Scholastic theology, is necessary to be clear on what is meant, and so prevent confusion (although that might not always work perfectly - heretics always try to be clever).

This seems dangerously close to Nestorianism to me.
Reply
#19
Walty Wrote:This seems dangerously close to Nestorianism to me.

How so?  I had the Baltimore Catechism in mind when I wrote it:

"Since the actions proceeding from a nature are truly the actions of the person possessing that nature, all the actions proceeding from the human nature of Jesus Christ are truly the actions of God, the second Person of the Holy Trinity.  Thus we can correctly say: God walked on earth, God suffered, God died" (Baltimore Catechism and Mass, No. 3, p. 51).

The catechism teaching follows what Ott wrote: "Christ's Divine and Human characteristics and activities are to be predicated of the one Word Incarnate. (De fide.)" (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 160 ).

What I was pointing out in my original post was: "Christ's human nature was passible. (De fide.)" (p. 173).

http://jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm

My apologies for any misunderstanding.
Reply
#20
(04-27-2011, 07:43 PM)SouthpawLink Wrote:
Walty Wrote:This seems dangerously close to Nestorianism to me.

How so?  I had the Baltimore Catechism in mind when I wrote it:

"Since the actions proceeding from a nature are truly the actions of the person possessing that nature, all the actions proceeding from the human nature of Jesus Christ are truly the actions of God, the second Person of the Holy Trinity.  Thus we can correctly say: God walked on earth, God suffered, God died" (Baltimore Catechism and Mass, No. 3, p. 51).

The catechism teaching follows what Ott wrote: "Christ's Divine and Human characteristics and activities are to be predicated of the one Word Incarnate. (De fide.)" (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 160 ).

What I was pointing out in my original post was: "Christ's human nature was passible. (De fide.)" (p. 173).

http://jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm

My apologies for any misunderstanding.

I just don't like the way that this is worded.  Christ did walk the earth as God otherwise the Incarnation isn't truly complete.  He didn't suffer only as man, but as a Godman, and this is why the suffering was so efficacious.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)