Chalcedon
#41
But read Constantinople II: THe distinction is only abstract, it is only in theory. After the union, there is no more two, but one. Yet this "one" is not a new, or comingled or confused "oneness." It is a real permanent and abiding unity. THat which is a unity is a union, and a union is two being made one.

THerefore, after the union of the natures in Christ, we do not speak any longer of two natures, but only of one incarnate nature of the Word made flesh.

THe Philosophical reason is that every individual form has an individual nature. Christ in his unity has united nature: BUt it is a union of composition, not fusion.

Yes, we distinguish the actions, but we do not attribute some to the humanity, and some to the divinity, rather, we are to treat ALL the actions of the incarnate Christ as Actions of one Theandric being-The God man.

Read "That Christ is one." by St. Cyril, and you will se that all this is set forth as true, and he presided in the place of Pope Celestine at Ephesus and was the Foundation of Christological Orthodoxy.
Reply
#42
(05-09-2011, 02:04 AM)Gregory I Wrote: But read Constantinople II: THe distinction is only abstract, it is only in theory. After the union, there is no more two, but one.

This is not what Constantinople II teaches.

"We think that God the Word was united to the flesh, each of the two natures remaining what it is."
(D.S. 430, N.D.620/8).
Reply
#43
Since Jesus is fully God and fully Human, Is God part human now, and before the incarnation of the Son into Mary God was only God with nothing human, so there has been a change in God  ???
Reply
#44
<<>>

<<< He is, moreover, said to grow in wisdom and age and grace, increasing in age indeed and through the increase in age manifesting the wisdom that is in Him ; yea, further, making men's progress in wisdom and grace, and the fulfilment of the Father's goodwill, that is to say, men's knowledge of God and men's salvation, His own increase, and everywhere taking as His own that which is ours. But those who hold that He progressed in wisdom and grace in the sense of receiving some addition to these attributes, do not say that the union took place at the first origin of the flesh, nor yet do they give precedence to the union in subsistence, but giving heed to the foolish Nestorius they imagine some strange relative union and mere indwelling, understanding neither what they say nor whereof they affirm. For if in truth the flesh was united with God the Word from its first origin, or rather if it existed in Him and was identical in subsistence with Him, how was it that it was not endowed completely with all wisdom and grace? Not that it might itself participate in the grace, nor share by grace in what belonged to the Word, but rather by reason of the union in subsistence, since both what is human and what is divine belong to the one Christ, and that He Who was Himself at once God and man should pour forth like a fountain over the universe His grace and wisdom and plenitude of every blessing. - John of Damascus, Exposition bk 3 Chpt.22 >>>

<<< The last discourse, dearly-beloved, of which we desire now to give the promised portion, had reached that point in the argument where we were speaking of that cry which the crucified Lord uttered to the Father: we bade the simple and unthinking hearer not take the words "My God, etc.," in a sense as if, when Jesus was fixed upon the wood of the cross, the Omnipotence of the Father's Deity had gone away from Him; seeing that God's and Man's Nature were so completely joined in Him that the union could not be destroyed by punishment nor by death. For while each substance retained its own properties, God neither held aloof from the suffering of His body nor was made passible by the flesh, because the Godhead which was in the Sufferer did not actually suffer. And hence, in accordance with the Nature of the Word made Man, He Who was made in the midst of all is the same as He through Whom all things were made. He Who is arrested by the hands of wicked men is the same as He Who is bound by no limits. He Who is pierced with nails is the same as He Whom no wound can affect. Finally, He Who underwent death is the same as He Who never ceased to be eternal, so that both facts are established by indubitable signs, namely, the truth of the humiliation in Christ and the truth of the majesty; because Divine power joined itself to human frailty to this end, that God, while making what was ours His, might at the same time make what was His ours. The Son, therefore, was not separated from the Father, nor the Father from the Son; and the unchangeable Godhead and the inseparable Trinity did not admit of any division. For although the task of undergoing Incarnation belonged peculiarly to the Only-begotten Son of God, yet the Father was not separated from the Son any more than the flesh was separated from the Word.  - Leo the Great, Sermon 61 >>>
Reply
#45
(05-09-2011, 01:56 PM)justlurking Wrote: Since Jesus is fully God and fully Human, Is God part human now, and before the incarnation of the Son into Mary God was only God with nothing human, so there has been a change in God  ???

Some resist upon being furnished with an explanation of the manner in which the Godhead was so united with a human soul and body as to constitute the one person of Christ, when it was necessary that this should be done once in the world's history, with as much boldness as if they were themselves able to furnish an explanation of the manner in which the soul is so united to the body as to constitute the one person of man, an event which is occurring every day. For just as the soul is united to the body in one person so as to constitute man, in the same way God united to man in one person so as to constitute Christ. - Augustine, Letter 137
Reply
#46
(05-09-2011, 02:19 AM)Walty Wrote:
(05-09-2011, 02:04 AM)Gregory I Wrote: But read Constantinople II: THe distinction is only abstract, it is only in theory. After the union, there is no more two, but one.

This is not what Constantinople II teaches.

"We think that God the Word was united to the flesh, each of the two natures remaining what it is."
(D.S. 430, N.D.620/8).

The two natures and two wills remain, in what is one of the greatest mysteries of our Faith; the Incarnation.
Reply
#47
The Credo of Saint Athanasius is dogmatic, that is... "de fide", that is... whoever denies it goes to hell.
Reply
#48
(05-09-2011, 02:20 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote:
(05-09-2011, 02:19 AM)Walty Wrote:
(05-09-2011, 02:04 AM)Gregory I Wrote: But read Constantinople II: THe distinction is only abstract, it is only in theory. After the union, there is no more two, but one.

This is not what Constantinople II teaches.

"We think that God the Word was united to the flesh, each of the two natures remaining what it is."
(D.S. 430, N.D.620/8).

The two natures and two wills remain, in what is one of the greatest mysteries of our Faith; the Incarnation.

Indeed.
Reply
#49
"Since Jesus is fully God and fully Human, Is God part human now, and before the incarnation of the Son into Mary God was only God with nothing human, so there has been a change in God "

God is Infinite.  He does not change.  Humanity changed when it was assumed by the Second Person of the Most Holy Trinity in a hypostatic union.  Read the Credo of Saint Athanasius.
Reply
#50
Okay, I accept the tome of Leo, but I think it is poorly worded. THere is a reason all the Nestorians accepted it as well, including Nestorius himself. Because there was a Nestorianizing Tendency in its interpretation, The second Council of Constantinople was called.

And yes, That council taught that we distinguish between the natures only abstractly speaking, because they are not separate, they have been made one in a hypostatic union. But this union is without confusion,change division or separation.

See:

Capitula VII.

"If anyone using the expression, "in two natures," does not confess that our one Lord Jesus Christ has been revealed in the divinity and in the humanity, so as to designate by that expression a difference of the natures of which an ineffable union is unconfusedly made, [a union] in which neither the nature of the Word was changed into that of the flesh, nor that of the flesh into that of the Word, for each remained that it was by nature, the union being hypostatic; but shall take the expression with regard to the mystery of Christ in a sense so as to divide the parties, or recognising the two natures in the only Lord Jesus, God the Word made man, does not content himself with taking in a theoretical manner(2) the difference of the natures which compose him, which difference is not destroyed by the union between them, for one is composed of the two and the two are in one, but shall make use of the number [two] to divide the natures or to make of them Persons properly so called: let him be anathema.(3)

The differences are real and to be distinguished, but only in theoria, in theory; For one Christ performs all the acts of Divinity and Humanity, the natures do not act independently. And it is proper for One person to have one nature, so we speak of one nature of the Word Incarnate: THat is, God-made-man Has one nature: The Nature of Divinity that has been ineffably united to the nature of humanity, but without fusion. The union is a true and real union that is hypostatic: That is, there are no longer two individuated subsistences, but only one subsistent being: The Word made Flesh.

Just as I am one man with one nature, that of Body and Soul, So there is one Christ from two natures that have come together into one being: The Word Incarnate.

This is classical Alexandrian Orthodoxy, Which Rome has accepted as just as Valid as the Tome of Leo.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)