3 Natures in Christ
#21
Gregory, I agree with much of what you say, but not that there is One Incarnate Nature - not in the language the Church has used after St. Cyril or earlier saints.

AS TO THE REST OF THIS: I'm just quoting the Church.  I'm removing all my own comments from my past post. This has nothing to do with my personal opinions or misunderstandings.  Don't think about me.  Concretely address just what the Councils and Popes say here about the Two Natures of Christ and the Hypostatic Union.
(07-30-2011, 12:10 AM)Doce Me Wrote:
Quote:COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON 451
Ecumenical IV (against the Monophysites)
Definition of the Two Natures of Christ *

DNZ 148 Therefore, following the holy fathers, we all teach that with one accord we confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in human nature, truly God and the same with a rational soul and a body truly man, consubstantial with the Father according to divinity, and consubstantial with us according to human nature, like unto us in all things except sin, [cf. Heb. 4:15]; indeed born of the Father before the ages according to divine nature, but in the last days the same born of the virgin Mary, Mother of God according to human nature; 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.

Therefore, since these have been arranged by us with all possible care and diligence, the holy and ecumenical synod has declared that no one is allowed to profess or in any case to write up or to compose or to devise or to teach others a different faith.

Quote:ST. AGATHO 678-681
ROMAN COUNCIL 680
The Hypostatic Union *

[From the dogmatic epistle of Agatho and the Roman
Synod "Omnium bonorum spes" to the Emperors *]

288 We acknowledge (indeed) that one and the same our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, from two and in two substances subsists, unconfusedly without change, indivisibly, inseparably [see n.148], never the difference of natures destroyed on account of the union, but rather the property of each nature preserved and concurring in one person and in one subsistence; not shared or divided in a duality of persons, nor fused into one composite nature; but we acknowledge, even after the subsistential union, one and the same only begotten Son, the Word God, our Lord Jesus Christ [see n. 148], neither each in a different way, nor the one and the other, but the very same in two natures, that is, in the Godhead and in the humanity, because neither has the Word been changed into the nature of the flesh, nor has the flesh been transformed into the nature of the Word; for each remains what by nature it was; indeed in contemplation alone do we discern a difference of the united natures in that from which unfusedly, inseparably, and incommutably it was composed; for one from both and each through one, because at the same time there arc present both the dignity of the Godhead and the humility of the flesh, each nature, even after the union, preserving without defect its own property, "and each form doing with the mutual participation of the other what it holds as its own (work); the Word doing what is of the Word, and the flesh accomplishing what is of the flesh, the one of which shines forth in miracles, the other subnuts to injuries." * Thus, it follows that as we truly confess that [b]He has two natures or substances, that is, the Godhead and the humanity, unfusedly, indivisibly, incommutably, ]so also He has both two natural wills and two natural operations, since the rule of piety instructs us that perfect God and perfect man is one and the same Lord Jesus Christ [/b]see n. 254-274], because it is shown that the apostolic and evangelical tradition and the teaching of the holy Fathers, whom the holy, apostolic, and Catholic Church and the venerable Synods accept, have taught us this.
Reply
#22
I Deny none of that. I simply take THE NEXT STEP with St. Cyril and say that all of this is true BEFORE THE UNION and during and after. But AFTER the union, we speak of one incarnate nature, as the 5th ecumenical council teaches. The 5th Ecumenical COuncil Taught that the phrase "One incarnate nature" was acceptable, if understood the way the Fathers explained it, i.e. St. Cyril.

Also, in the book "An exact exposition of the orthodox Faith" By St. John of Damascus, this is what he wrote concerning "One incarnate nature."

"Wherefore we confess Him, even after the incarnation, the one Son of God, and likewise Son of Man, one Christ, one Lord, the only-begotten Son and Word of God, one Lord Jesus. We reverence His two generations, one from the Father before time and beyond cause and reason and time and nature, and one in the end for our sake, and like to us and above us; for our sake because it was for our salvation, like to us in that He was man born of woman(4) at full tithe(5), and above us because it was not by seed, but by the Holy Spirit and the Holy Virgin Mary(6), transcending the laws of parturition. We proclaim Him not as God only, devoid of our humanity, nor yet as man only, stripping Him of His divinity, nor as two distinct persons, but as one and the same, at once God and man, perfect God and perfect man, wholly God anti wholly man, the same being wholly God, even though He was also

flesh and wholly man, even though He was also most high God. And by "perfect God" and "perfect man" we mean to emphasize the fulness and unfailingness of the natures: while by "wholly God" and "wholly man" we mean to lay stress on the singularity and individuality of the subsistence.

And we confess also that there is one incarnate nature of God the Word, expressing by the word "incarnate(7)" the essence of the flesh, according to the blessed Cyril(8). And so the Word was made flesh and yet did not abandon His own proper immateriality: He became wholly flesh and yet remained wholly uncircumscribed. So far as He is body He is diminished and contracted into narrow limits, but inasmuch as He is God He is uncircumscribed, His flesh not being coextensive with His uncircumscribed divinity.

He is then wholly perfect God, but yet is not simply(9) God: for He is not only God but also man. And He is also wholly(1) perfect man but not simply(2) man, for He is not only man but also God. For "simply(2)" here has reference to His nature, and "wholly(1)" to His subsistence, just as "another thing" would refer to nature, while "another(3)" would refer to subsistence."


"Union, then, is one thing, and incarnation is something quite different. For union signifies only the conjunction, but not at all that with which union is effected. But incarnation (which is just the same as if one said "the putting on of man's nature") signifies that tile conjunction is with flesh, that is to say, with man, just as the heating of iron(6) implies its union with fire. Indeed, the blessed Cyril himself, when he is interpreting the phrase, "one nature of God the Word Incarnate," says in the second epistle to Sucensus, "For if we simply said 'the one nature of the Word' and then were silent, and did not add the word 'incarnate.' but, so to speak, quite excluded the dispensation(7), there would be some plausibility in the question they feign to ask, 'If one nature is the whole, what becomes of the perfection in humanity, or how has the essence(8) like us come to exist?' But inasmuch as the perfection in humanity and the disclosure of the essence like us are conveyed in the word 'incarnate,' they must cease from relying on a mere straw" Here, then, he placed the nature of the Word over nature itself. For if He had received nature instead of subsistence, it would not have been absurd to have omitted the "incarnate." For when we say simply one subsistence of God the Word, we do not err(9). In like manner, also, Leontius the Byzantine(1) considered this phrase to refer to nature, and not to subsistence. But in the Defence which he wrote in reply to the attacks that Theodoret made on the second anathema, the blessed Cyril(2) says this: "The nature of the Word, that is, the subsistence, which is the Word itself." So that "the nature of the Word" means neither the subsistence alone, nor "the common nature of the subsistence," but "the common nature viewed as a whole in the subsistence of the Word."
Reply
#23
(07-19-2011, 01:57 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: I am confused as to how we draw the concept of two natures in Christ. For when we describe man, we say he has to natures, soul and body, that are one person. But as Christ is Divine and Man, should he not then consist of the Divine Nature as well as natures of the human soul and body as proper to man? Hence he would have three natures.

Thank you.

Let's simply go back to the Athanasian Creed.
Reply
#24
SImple is not the solution buddy. THe heretics like simple, so they have room to be vague and promote unorthodox ideas. I say, move forward into concrete and specific definitions!

I agree with Doce in everything he has said except one thing: He thinks that the use of "One incarnate nature of the word" is illegitimate. I say, it is totally legitimate, and backed by the Church Fathers, Ecumenical councils, and the ordinary magisterium. SO long as you stay within the interpretation provided by the fathers, i.e. St. Cyril.

And HE SAID...Read all of "On the oneness of Christ."
Reply
#25
(07-31-2011, 03:48 AM)Gregory I Wrote: SImple is not the solution buddy. THe heretics like simple, so they have room to be vague and promote unorthodox ideas. I say, move forward into concrete and specific definitions!

I agree with Doce in everything he has said except one thing: He thinks that the use of "One incarnate nature of the word" is illegitimate. I say, it is totally legitimate, and backed by the Church Fathers, Ecumenical councils, and the ordinary magisterium. SO long as you stay within the interpretation provided by the fathers, i.e. St. Cyril.

And HE SAID...Read all of "On the oneness of Christ."

I dare not go into that.  Only saints dare venture into those Trascendent Mysteries.
Reply
#26
(07-31-2011, 03:28 AM)wulfrano Wrote:
(07-19-2011, 01:57 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: I am confused as to how we draw the concept of two natures in Christ. For when we describe man, we say he has to natures, soul and body, that are one person. But as Christ is Divine and Man, should he not then consist of the Divine Nature as well as natures of the human soul and body as proper to man? Hence he would have three natures.

Thank you.

Let's simply go back to the Athanasian Creed.

I also like the Toledo Creed.
Reply
#27
(08-01-2011, 12:12 AM)UnamSanctam Wrote:
(07-31-2011, 03:28 AM)wulfrano Wrote:
(07-19-2011, 01:57 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: I am confused as to how we draw the concept of two natures in Christ. For when we describe man, we say he has to natures, soul and body, that are one person. But as Christ is Divine and Man, should he not then consist of the Divine Nature as well as natures of the human soul and body as proper to man? Hence he would have three natures.

Thank you.

Let's simply go back to the Athanasian Creed.

I also like the Toledo Creed.

UnamSanctam has said:

"I am confused as to how we draw the concept of two natures in Christ. For when we describe man, we say he has to natures, soul and body, that are one person. But as Christ is Divine and Man, should he not then consist of the Divine Nature as well as natures of the human soul and body as proper to man? Hence he would have three natures. "

Man has a single nature.  Human nature.  That is, a personal composite of body and soul.  Christ the Person has a divine nature and He assumes a human nature (body and soul).  Therefore He is both God and Man. Therefore he has two natures, one divine, one human.
Reply
#28
(08-01-2011, 12:42 AM)wulfrano Wrote:
(08-01-2011, 12:12 AM)UnamSanctam Wrote:
(07-31-2011, 03:28 AM)wulfrano Wrote:
(07-19-2011, 01:57 PM)UnamSanctam Wrote: I am confused as to how we draw the concept of two natures in Christ. For when we describe man, we say he has to natures, soul and body, that are one person. But as Christ is Divine and Man, should he not then consist of the Divine Nature as well as natures of the human soul and body as proper to man? Hence he would have three natures.

Thank you.

Let's simply go back to the Athanasian Creed.

I also like the Toledo Creed.

UnamSanctam has said:

"I am confused as to how we draw the concept of two natures in Christ. For when we describe man, we say he has to natures, soul and body, that are one person. But as Christ is Divine and Man, should he not then consist of the Divine Nature as well as natures of the human soul and body as proper to man? Hence he would have three natures. "

Man has a single nature.  Human nature.  That is, a personal composite of body and soul.  Christ the Person has a divine nature and He assumes a human nature (body and soul).  Therefore He is both God and Man. Therefore he has two natures, one divine, one human.

Then three substances. For man is one person of body and soul. Christ is fully man and therefore body and soul of man. Christ is divine and therefore divine and human, consisting of soul, body and divinity.
Reply
#29
Body and soul/spirit are not natures but substances.  It is the nature of God and the angels to have one spiritual substance.  It is the nature of plants and animals to have one bodily or physical substance.  And the nature of humanity is to be the kiss of the substances of body and soul.
Reply
#30
(08-01-2011, 01:52 PM)Walty Wrote: Body and soul/spirit are not natures but substances.  It is the nature of God and the angels to have one spiritual substance.  It is the nature of plants and animals to have one bodily or physical substance.  And the nature of humanity is to be the kiss of the substances of body and soul.

So you are agreeing that we could say that Christ has three substances, two natures, and one person?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)