Chalcedon
#31
(05-03-2011, 04:45 PM)Walty Wrote:
(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.

Hopefully I understood the Copt that told me this correctly.
Reply
#32
Hey guys, the Hypostatic Union is a UNION. A union of what? Natures. When a union of two objects is made, are they to remain regarded as one, or two?

Union means to make one. THe natures were made one: Not in the unity of fusion, change mixture or division: But WITHOUT Change, confusion division or separation, as the Coptics assert.

THis is the Position of St. Cyril of Alexandria, the ARCH-RIVAL of Nestorius. Read his book on "That Christ is One.":

"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.  As for example?

A.  Do we not say that a man like us is One and his nature one, although he has not simpleness [of nature] but is compounded out of two, I mean soul and body?

B.  We do.

A.  Does anybody, taking anew the flesh apart by itself, and sundering from it the soul that was united to it, divide a single person into two and not thereby destroy the right description of him?

B.  Yet the all-wise Paul writes, For even though our outward man perish yet is the inward renewed each day.

A. You said right: for he knew, he knew well from whence he is one, and makes the distinction [between the two] one to be grasped in idea only: he calls the soul, the inward man, and the flesh, the outward. For I call to mind |265 the holy Scriptures which sometimes signify to us the whole living thing from a portion, as when God says 19, I will pour forth of My Spirit upon all flesh, and Moses says to them of Israel, In seventy five souls did thy fathers go down into Egypt. And we shall find that this has been done in regard to Emmanuel Himself: for after the Union, I mean that with the flesh, if any call Him Only-Begotten and God from forth of God, he will be conceiving of Him as not apart from flesh or manhood, and if he say that He is man, he will not be excluding Him from being God and Lord 20.

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.

B.  Not two: they say that the Son by Nature, the Word from forth God the Father is One; he that is assumed is |267 a man by nature son of David 23, but is son of God by reason of his having been assumed by God the Word, and that by reason of God the Word dwelling in him hath ho come to this dignity and hath by grace the sonship.

A. Then wherever will they go as regards mind and understanding who thus think? or how do they say 'not a pair of sons,' when they are severing one from another man and God, if (according to them) the One has the sonship by Nature and truly, the other „ by grace and came „to this dignity, God the Word indwelling him?„ Hath he then ought greater than we? for He indwelleth in us too. And the most holy Paul confirms us in this, saying, For this cause bend I my knees to the Father from Whom every family in heaven and on earth is named, that He would give you according to the riches of His glory to be strengthened with might through His Spirit that Christ may dwell in your hearts: for He is in us through the Spirit wherein we cry Abba Father. Hence our position is in no wise inferior, if we have been vouchsafed the equal by God the Father (for by grace WE too are sons and gods): we have been surely brought unto this supernatural and marvellous dignity as having the Only-Begotten Word of God in-dwelling."

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefath...1_text.htm

Reply
#33
Again, check your theology.  Christ has two natures.  They are not totally separate, but they are still distinct and do not obliterate each other or coalesce to form something new.
Reply
#34
From the Second Council of Constantinople, to name just one source of our assurance of this dogma:

"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."
Reply
#35
Cyril was the benchmark for Chalcedon, not Leo's TOme. BEcause if you read the acts of the council, all the Bishops signed the TOme saying: "I acknowledge what is herein contained is in union with the Holy Fathers and is What Cyril Taught."

Cyril of Alexandria is the Christological benchmark of Orthodoxy. Not Pope Leos Tome. BUt I agree, Christ is from two natures that have been united hypostatically into one incarnate nature of the word.
Reply
#36
(05-07-2011, 12:25 PM)Gregory I Wrote: Cyril was the benchmark for Chalcedon, not Leo's TOme. BEcause if you read the acts of the council, all the Bishops signed the TOme saying: "I acknowledge what is herein contained is in union with the Holy Fathers and is What Cyril Taught."

Cyril of Alexandria is the Christological benchmark of Orthodoxy. Not Pope Leos Tome. BUt I agree, Christ is from two natures that have been united hypostatically into one incarnate nature of the word.

Yes, it was Cyril who lead Constantinople II.  I'm just saying that we have to be careful when talking about the unity of Christ's Person to not make His two natures an admixture.
Reply
#37
(05-07-2011, 06:13 PM)Walty Wrote:
(05-07-2011, 12:25 PM)Gregory I Wrote: Cyril was the benchmark for Chalcedon, not Leo's TOme. BEcause if you read the acts of the council, all the Bishops signed the TOme saying: "I acknowledge what is herein contained is in union with the Holy Fathers and is What Cyril Taught."

Cyril of Alexandria is the Christological benchmark of Orthodoxy. Not Pope Leos Tome. BUt I agree, Christ is from two natures that have been united hypostatically into one incarnate nature of the word.

Yes, it was Cyril who lead Constantinople II.  I'm just saying that we have to be careful when talking about the unity of Christ's Person to not make His two natures an admixture.

No, Cyril led the COuncil of Ephesus in  431. The Emperor Justinian called the Second Council of COnstantinople in the 6th Century to Conciliate the Eutychians. It was an attempt to show the Eutychians that we agree with St. Cyril
Reply
#38
1.) So the Church teachers that Christ is ONE person, with TWO natures, which are NEXT to each other, but NOT combined?
2.) maybe a new thread will help on what each council was called for and what it said?
Reply
#39
No, they are united, not conjoined, not next to each other. They are united in the one Divine person.
Reply
#40
(05-09-2011, 12:38 AM)Gregory I Wrote: No, they are united, not conjoined, not next to each other. They are united in the one Divine person.

Yes, united and yet distinct, much like the Three Persons in God.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)