Chalcedon
#61
(05-10-2011, 10:48 PM)Gregory I Wrote: Yes, I am a thoroughly Roman Catholic.

AND I have Read the saints and Doctors:

Read St. Cyril of Alexandria. You are not addressing exactly what he said and taught. Address this:

"B. Therefore (they say) consubstantial with the Word was His body, for thus and no otherwise will He be deemed One Only Son.

A. Yet how is not this now raving and clear proof of a mind wandering? for how can one behold in sameness of essence things so far removed one from another in respect of their nature? for one thing is Godhead, and another manhood. For of what do we say that the Union was made? for a person will not say that the things united are one in number, but either (it may be) two or more.

B. We must therefore sever (they say) the things named.

A. We must not sever (as I said) into a several diversity, in regard I mean to their being away from each other and apart, but must rather bring them together into an indissoluble union. For the Word has been made flesh, as John saith.

B. Have they therefore been confused and both become one nature?

A. But who will be thus distraught and unlearned as to |264 suppose that either the Divine Nature of the Word has been turned into what it was not, or that the flesh went over by way of change into the Nature of the Word Himself (for it is impossible)? but we say that One is the SON and One His Nature even though He be conceived of as having assumed flesh with a rational soul. For His (as I said) hath the human nature been made, and He is conceived of by us none otherwise than thus, God alike and man.

B. There will then be not two natures, of God and of man?

A.  Godhead and manhood are one thing and another, according to the mode [of being] existing in each, yet in Christ have they come together, in unwonted wise and passing understanding, unto union, without confusion and turning 18. But wholly incomprehensible is the mode of the Union.

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. 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.


St. Cyril, The Criterion of Orthodox Christology has used and legitimately uses "One Nature of the Word Incarnate."

This contradicts every council I have quoted above, all of which have infinitely more authority than the personal writing of St. Cyril.  He either is not employing the correct language of the Church, using the language of "nature" where we today use the language of "Person" or he has gone too far in his opposition to Nestorianism.  Either way, it is solemnly taught again and again that Christ had two natures.  Again, you're fighting against the Magisterium via the councils here.
Reply
#62
No, I ACCEPT the councils. I am in submission to them in my heart and mind.

But you are wrong to say there is no Orthodox understanding of "One incarnate Nature of the Word Incarnate."

THe Church clearly teaches there is.

So, why don't you explain to me the actual meaning of that phrase that is a legitimate expression of the Fathers as Constantinople II teaches.

Plus Explain to me what it means to distinguish between the natures "in theory" after their union.

Plus, what do you think the Hypostatic UNION is?

What has been united?

And what happens to two things that are united?
Reply
#63
(05-10-2011, 11:15 PM)Walty Wrote: This contradicts every council I have quoted above, all of which have infinitely more authority than the personal writing of St. Cyril.  He either is not employing the correct language of the Church, using the language of "nature" where we today use the language of "Person" or he has gone too far in his opposition to Nestorianism.  Either way, it is solemnly taught again and again that Christ had two natures.  Again, you're fighting against the Magisterium via the councils here.

Ya Walty, that's probably the issue.  St Cyril argued against two physeis because he took that to mean two personal natures.  He always made a distinction between the hypostatic union and the concept of physis, but when people try to use those terms interchangeably, it looks like he was taking things too far.
Reply
#64
(05-10-2011, 11:39 PM)Pheo Wrote:
(05-10-2011, 11:15 PM)Walty Wrote: This contradicts every council I have quoted above, all of which have infinitely more authority than the personal writing of St. Cyril.  He either is not employing the correct language of the Church, using the language of "nature" where we today use the language of "Person" or he has gone too far in his opposition to Nestorianism.  Either way, it is solemnly taught again and again that Christ had two natures.  Again, you're fighting against the Magisterium via the councils here.

Ya Walty, that's probably the issue.  St Cyril argued against two physeis because he took that to mean two personal natures.  He always made a distinction between the hypostatic union and the concept of physis, but when people try to use those terms interchangeably, it looks like he was taking things too far.

Yes, now that I'm thinking of this I remember learning it in my Trinitarian Theology class.

Gregory, Cyril's language is outdated.  Christ is ONE Person composed of TWO natures.  What Cyril meant by "nature" is actually "Person".
Reply
#65
@  Walty.

The Second Divine Person assumes a human nature.
Reply
#66
(05-10-2011, 11:56 PM)wulfrano Wrote: @  Walty.

The Second Divine Person assumes a human nature.

This having both the divine and human natures.
Reply
#67
So what is the UNION in the hypostatic union? What has been united, and how?
Reply
#68
(05-11-2011, 12:02 AM)Gregory I Wrote: So what is the UNION in the hypostatic union? What has been united, and how?

The two natures of Christ, each maintaining its own properties, in one Person.

Denzinger 148: "...for us and for our deliverance, one and the same Christ only begotten Son, our Lord, acknowledged in two natures,' without mingling, without change, indivisibly, undividedly, the distinction of the natures nowhere removed on account of the union but rather the peculiarity of each nature being kept, and uniting in one person and substance, not divided or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son only begotten God Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as from the beginning the prophets taught about Him and the Lord Jesus Himself taught us, and the creed of our fathers has handed down to us."
Reply
#69
(05-11-2011, 12:02 AM)Gregory I Wrote: So what is the UNION in the hypostatic union? What has been united, and how?

What Pheo said.
Reply
#70
Way to go, Pheo! :cheers:

"Denzinger 148: "...for us and for our deliverance, one and the same Christ only begotten Son, our Lord, acknowledged in two natures,' without mingling, without change, indivisibly, undividedly, the distinction of the natures nowhere removed on account of the union but rather the peculiarity of each nature being kept, and uniting in one person and substance, not divided or separated into two persons, but one and the same Son only begotten God Word, Lord Jesus Christ, just as from the beginning the prophets taught about Him and the Lord Jesus Himself taught us, and the creed of our fathers has handed down to us."



Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)