Chalcedon
#21
The sufferings of Our Lord are the sufferings of a divine Person, and this is why they have infinite value.  It is also true, however, that only His human nature could suffer (His divine nature cannot suffer because it is not subject to change).  From the Eleventh Council of Toledo, we read:

"In this form of assumed human nature we believe according to the truth of the Gospels that He was conceived without sin, born without sin, and died without sin, who alone for us became sin [2 Cor. 5:21], that is, a sacrifice for our sin.  And yet He endured His passion without detriment to His divinity, for our sins, and condemned to death and to the cross, He accepted the true death of the body; also on the third day, restored by His own power, He arose from the grave" (Exposition of Faith against the Pricillianists, A.D. 675: Denz. 286 - My emphasis).

http://www.catecheticsonline.com/SourcesofDogma3.php

All that Our Lord did, however, may be said to have been done of a divine Person.  The hypostatic union, besides giving His suffering infinite value (because He's God), also allowed Him to suffer on behalf of mankind (for He was and is truly man).
Reply
#22
I always understood that if Christ wasn't God, His passion would be worthless, since as God, His love is infinite, and the fruits of the Passion (salvation) can be applied to all.
Walty, what IS Nestorian then? To say that Christ was 'two separate people'? (which I don't believe.)
This topic is interesting to me.
Reply
#23
(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.
:thumb:
Reply
#24
(04-27-2011, 04:50 PM)Walty Wrote: 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.

The Eutychian proposition would be that the divine nature swallowed up the human nature leaving only the one. As far as the miaphysites, in the best light we are talking about the same thing using different phraseology, and in the worst possible light they are asserting that the natures are no longer distinct or inconfused, but are some sort of new "huvine" (my made up word) nature. Granted, I've never spoken with any OO bishops or real authorities, but in my experience with lay folks they don't seem to hold to this latter idea.

Reply
#25
A Coptic theology student once explained miaphysitism to me like this: Christ is fully God and fully Man.  The one aspect neither hides nor diminishes the other.  However, since Christ is one, in him the two aspects are so inextricably linked that the two can not be seperated.  Just as you can not remove hydrogen from oxygen and still have water, you cannot remove human from divine and still have Christ.  And because of this, it is as if Christ has one nature. 

I don't really see how that is incompatible with Catholicism.  I don't see how one could disagree with it and not be at least semi-Nestorian.
Reply
#26
(05-03-2011, 12:51 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(04-27-2011, 04:50 PM)Walty Wrote: 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.

The Eutychian proposition would be that the divine nature swallowed up the human nature leaving only the one. As far as the miaphysites, in the best light we are talking about the same thing using different phraseology, and in the worst possible light they are asserting that the natures are no longer distinct or inconfused, but are some sort of new "huvine" (my made up word) nature. Granted, I've never spoken with any OO bishops or real authorities, but in my experience with lay folks they don't seem to hold to this latter idea.

But that's heretical.  Christ was not some new hybrid nature.  He was truly two distinct, but united natures.  This has always been the Catholic position.
Reply
#27
(05-03-2011, 04:16 PM)Walty Wrote:
(05-03-2011, 12:51 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(04-27-2011, 04:50 PM)Walty Wrote: 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.

The Eutychian proposition would be that the divine nature swallowed up the human nature leaving only the one. As far as the miaphysites, in the best light we are talking about the same thing using different phraseology, and in the worst possible light they are asserting that the natures are no longer distinct or inconfused, but are some sort of new "huvine" (my made up word) nature. Granted, I've never spoken with any OO bishops or real authorities, but in my experience with lay folks they don't seem to hold to this latter idea.

But that's heretical.  Christ was not some new hybrid nature.  He was truly two distinct, but united natures.  This has always been the Catholic position.

That is heretical, but that's not exactly what miaphysitism is.  I don't think saintsebastian is understanding it correctly.
Reply
#28
(05-03-2011, 04:43 PM)Melkite Wrote:
(05-03-2011, 04:16 PM)Walty Wrote:
(05-03-2011, 12:51 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(04-27-2011, 04:50 PM)Walty Wrote: 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.

The Eutychian proposition would be that the divine nature swallowed up the human nature leaving only the one. As far as the miaphysites, in the best light we are talking about the same thing using different phraseology, and in the worst possible light they are asserting that the natures are no longer distinct or inconfused, but are some sort of new "huvine" (my made up word) nature. Granted, I've never spoken with any OO bishops or real authorities, but in my experience with lay folks they don't seem to hold to this latter idea.

But that's heretical.  Christ was not some new hybrid nature.  He was truly two distinct, but united natures.  This has always been the Catholic position.

That is heretical, but that's not exactly what miaphysitism is.  I don't think saintsebastian is understanding it correctly.

Your last post (#24) is a lot more acceptable in my view.  I don't find anything wrong with it, if that's what you're truly saying miaphysitism is.
Reply
#29
(05-03-2011, 04:43 PM)Melkite Wrote: That is heretical, but that's not exactly what miaphysitism is.  I don't think saintsebastian is understanding it correctly.

Sorry for the confusion. I was intending to show that as the worst light it could be put in (what would actually make it heretical) and which is why there has been historically some apphrehension about it. I also noted that, like you, the OO lay people I have spoken to don't seem to view it that way, but rather in a way that seems compatiable with orthodoxy.
Reply
#30
(05-03-2011, 04:47 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote:
(05-03-2011, 04:43 PM)Melkite Wrote: That is heretical, but that's not exactly what miaphysitism is.  I don't think saintsebastian is understanding it correctly.

Sorry for the confusion. I was intending to show that as the worst light it could be put in (what would actually make it heretical). I also noted that, like you, the OO lay people I have spoken to don't seem to view it that way, but rather in a way that seems compatiable with orthodoxy.

Oh, haha, sorry, I must have missed that part. :)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)