Skip to the content
Icon of Christ
› ›

Christology and Chalcedon

2

Comments

  • metouro1
    Christ therefore has all the dynamic will and energy of humanity (one Ousia) and all the will and energy of Divinity (another Ousia)... umited in One Physis
  • metouro1
    We do not believe in one composite essence.
  • metouro1
    If we use English terms and avoid the word "nature" we can say that there are two essences in the One Person of Christ, by which He is co-essential with us and coessential with the Father.

    He is of one Substamce with the Father and of One substance with us, by which He is Consubstantial with us and consubstantial withe Father.


    Each of the two distinct substances with their distinct properties are are not mingled, confused, alteted, or separated by their union Hypostatically in the One Person of the Incarnate Logos.

    Can such a statement not be accepted by the non Chalcedonians as a point of Christological unity?
  • metouro1

    If we insist on saying "One from two" or "from two, One" why can we not drop the word "nature" and say from two essences One Hypostasis
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    edited January 2014
    Metouro,
    For future references, can you place all your comments in one post (assuming you haven't hit the maximum character limit)? It's really hard to follow and respond to your comments. 

    A few things.
    1. Outside of Fr. John Romindes, no one speaks of ousiai, as far as I can. In fact, ousiai is only connected to Aristotle's Categories, not any other philosophical work. This is why I wrote, that no one speaks of ousiai or natura in theological circles. The same is true of ousiai in philosophical discussions. 
    2. I was wrong. The plural of οὐσία is οὐσίαι. 
    3. You asked if I thought "Fr John Romindes analysis of the understanding of physis equaling ousia is wrong?" I would say that Fr John analysis does not equate the two as you describe. Ousia is not the same as physis as such we can't say One miaphysis from two distinct ousiai. In the article by Fr John that you quoted, he writes "Of course, this would be true if Physis meant Ousiai but this is not how Cyril used the term in this phrase. He could not and never does speak of One Ousia of God the Logos Incarnate. This paralleling of Cyril's One Physis with Incarnate in order to prove that Cyril speaks of Two Physeis in Christ was and is a mistake repeated by all Chalcedonians till today. The approach was and is a bad one since it could only lead to two Hypostases and Prosopa."  This is exactly what I said in Point #2 in my last response. Here you see Fr John does not believe St Cyril understood ousia as physis. I qualified it even further to say that if one were to say "one ousia out of two ousiai", then Chalcedonians will understand it as "one essence and two essences at the same time." The use of two ousiai leads to two hypostases and two prosopa. 
    4. I'm not sure people (Chalcedonian and Non-Chalcedonian) will agree that physis is a synonym for ousia, as you are advocating. Ousia usually has a theological understanding of essence or being, the being of Christ. Christ didn't have two beings. In that same Wikipedia article on ousia, it says, "The generally agreed-upon meaning of ousia in Eastern Christianity is "all that subsists by itself and which has not its being in another"[7] - in contrast to hypostasis, which is used to mean "reality" or "existence".[8]" Since we have evidence that Chalcedonians do not understand ousia as physis, it is much more difficult to have Chalcedonians understand one physis outside of St Cyril's writing. St Cyril never wrote one ousia from two ousia. Anything outside St Cyril or any agreed patristic writing is "playing with fire" as the saying goes. 
    5. We drop the word "nature" because that is how St Cyril writes. But in English when we drop the word nature, it opens the room for a wrong understanding of christology. "One [nature] from two [natures]" was important to explain the inadequacies of "One [nature] in two [natures]". But it does't mean "One [nature] from two" can become "One [ousia] from two [ousiai]". 
    6. You are correct, we do not believe in a composite essence. However, we do believe in the composite (miaphysis) nature of Christ. This is further evidence that ousia cannot be identical to physis.


  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    edited January 2014
    This is in response to Zoxsasi's comments concerning one will for the Trinity. I don't think it is proper to say the Trinity has one will. I believe each hypostasis of the Trinity had a will but it never existed in opposition to the other persons of the Trinity. I base this on the following reasons.

    1. Scriptures says that the Son and the Father have two wills. "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me." John 6:38. This verse would not make sense if each person of the Trinity shared one and only one will. One can argue that Jesus meant He came in the flesh to do the will of the Father, submitting his human will to the Father. But this borders on Nestorianism where the subject of the will is not the Logos but only the human will. 

    Concerning the Holy Spirit, the scriptures alludes to the same concept. In Acts 15:28, it says, "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things:" Here there is a clear allusion to the Spirit and man have their respective wills. If then the Holy Spirit has a will, how can we say that there is only one and only will for the Trinity? I know that this verse doesn't say the Holy Spirit has its own will but rather that the Holy Spirit is acting on the Father's will. But I think this is reading too much into. St Luke didn't say, "For it seemed good to the Trinity and to us, to lay...." or "For it seemed good to God and to us, to lay...." The subject of this sentence, describing a will not to lay greater burdens, belongs to both the Holy Spirit and the Apostles. The use of the subject "Holy Spirit" over God implies a greater specification of the subject (i.e., the particular hypostasis). Thus, it also implies a difference between each hypostasic "wills". I use the word "wills" despairingly because the language implies conflicting wills in the Trinity, which doesn't exist. 

    2. If there was only one will for the Trinity, and the Father is the source of that one will, it implies that the Son and the Holy Spirit are forced to act because they don't have their own individual will. This is different than saying each hypostasis of the Trinity submitted their respective will in infinite uniformity. 

    3. I think we can say the God has one will in His essence but each hypostasis must include a will to act on. I don't have any patristic evidence to support this. I hope Minasoliman, RO or anyone else can chime in to verify or correct this theory with patristic evidence.
  • childoforthodoxy
    http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2905.htm
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    childoforthodoxy,
    Can you elaborate on this passage by St Gregory of Nyssa? I do not see how it addresses the questions of will(s) of the Trinity.
  • metouro1

    Peace and grace to you Remnkemi,

    you stated that  "we do not believe in a composite essence. However, we do believe in the composite (miaphysis) nature of Christ. This is further evidence that ousia cannot be identical to physis."

    I fully agree with this.  I was not saying that Ousia  = Physis, only that modern (and maybe the ancient) Chalcedonians perceive that we are saying Mia Ousia when we say Miaphysis, when we say One compasite Nature.

    What I am espousing is that since this is so, it would go a long way with the Chalcedonians if we explicitly say that we do not mean a composite essence when we say Miaphysis.

    Does this not naturally then mean that we do believe that in Christ there are two distinct essences?

    Granted that they are united hypostatically without separation

    yet becasue they are without mingling, confusion, or alteration, they remain two

    Otherwise, how can we say that we do not belive in a composite essence and yet say that the essence is one?

    If the essence is not one composite essence that was formed by mixing, confusion or alteration, then there must be two essences in the One Hypostasis, or two essences in the One Miaphysis.

    The One Miaphysis (the One Nature) has all the properties of humanity (including natural human will and energy, one essence) and all the properties of Divinity united together without these two sets of properties ( essences)  mixing together, mingling together or being confused with each other.

    If this is true, then we believe the same thing as the Chalcedonians.  There are two Essences in Christ.

    One Set of Properties belonging to the Hypostasis of the Logos united without confusion, alteration, or mixing to another set of properties belonging to humanity  without confusion, alteration, or mixing = two distinct sets of properties united together without separation. 

    These two sets of properties exist in the One Physis of the Incarnate Logos.

     

  • metouro1
    This is equivalent to what the Chalcedonians mean by "two natures"
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    I still have a problem with saying two essences. I think all Chalcedonians would have a problem with the phrase and concept of two essences. Anyone who claims we mean miaousia when we say miaphysis is not correct and we should not see any need to placate them. 

    What confuses me more is that you say you agree that ousia does not equal physis, but then you wrote, "If this is true, then we believe the same thing as the Chalcedonians.  There are two Essences in Christ.."  Yes it is true that that the two natures of Christ remain intact, but we can't say there are two essences in Christ. I don't think the Chalcedonians would concede with the phrase "two essences" either.  

    "One Set of Properties belonging to the Hypostasis of the Logos united without confusion, alteration, or mixing to another set of properties belonging to humanity  without confusion, alteration, or mixing = two distinct sets of properties united together without separation. "
    What you have described here is the dyophysite Christology. We Oriental Orthodox take it on step further (because that is what St Cyril taught) that after the union, the distinction of the two natures exists but one cannot speak of a set of properties belonging to one nature over the other since the subject of all of Christ's properties and actions is always the Logos of God, the Second hypostasis incarnated with a human flesh. 

  • metouro1
    FROM A LETTER OF THE BLESSED DIOSCORUS THE ARCHBISHOP OF ALEXANDRIA, WRITTEN FROM EXILE IN GANGRA, TO THE MONKS OF THE HENNATON


    I am fully aware, having been educated in the Faith, respecting Him (Christ) that He was born of the Father, as God, and that the Same was born of Mary, as Man. Men saw Him as Man walking on the Earth and they saw Him, the Creator of the Heavenly Hosts, as God. They saw Him sleeping in the ship, as Man, and they saw Him walking upon the waters, as God. They saw Him hungry, as Man, and they saw Him feeding (others), as God. They saw Him thirsty, as Man, and they saw Him giving drink, as God. They saw Him stoned by the Jews, as Man, and they saw Him worshipped by the Angels, as God. They saw Him tempted, as Man, and they saw Him drive away the Devils, as God. And similarly of many (other) things. But in order not to make much din (trouble) in writing, I will leave the matter for the purpose of collecting testimonies of everyone of the heads together; and I mean to collect them, by the help of God, when a convenient opportunity bids me to it.

     

    We don't consider St. Dioscorus to be splitting Christ into two when he wrote this.  Chalcedonians would have no problem interpreting dioscorus Here as espousing two essences.

  • metouro1
    HI  Remnkemi,

    You stated that you

     

    "still have a problem with saying two essences."   

     

    and

     

    "Yes it is true that that the two natures of Christ remain intact, but we can't say there are two essences in Christ."

     

    What do you mean by "natures" ?  Physies? or Ousia?

     

    If the "natures" are unmingled, unmixed, unconfused that they remain in tact then they are both there.  What ever is not mixed, what is it and what is the "other" "thing" that it is not mixed with?  Can we say two unconfused substances?  There still has to be two of something that is in Christ or that continue in Him, if not Physis, or Essence or Substance, then what?  What are the two things that are unmixed in Christ?  Should we just say that Christ has Divnity and Humanity unmixed in Christ?  What is unmixed and remains distinctas a result of being unmmixed.?

     

     



    "One Set of Properties belonging to the Hypostasis of the Logos united without confusion, alteration, or mixing to another set of properties belonging to humanity  without confusion, alteration, or mixing = two distinct sets of properties united together without separation. "

    What you have described here is the dyophysite Christology. We Oriental Orthodox take it on step further (because that is what St Cyril taught) that after the union, the distinction of the two natures exists but one cannot speak of a set of properties belonging to one nature over the other since the subject of all of Christ's properties and actions is always the Logos of God, the Second hypostasis incarnated with a human flesh. 
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    St Dioscorus never used the word ousia here. He is not espousing two essences. He espouses two natures. No one person can have two essences without making himself plural. It's a logical impossibility. If St Dioscorus was espousing two essences, every time he wrote "They saw Him", it would need to change to "They saw them".

     As Fr John Romindes claimed that St Cyril does not speak of one ousia out of two, but one physis out of two. 

    I think at this point, we are simply repeating material. Normally I would say let's agree to disagree. But when it comes to theology and the core fundamental of the Orthodox faith, we cannot have conflicting truths. I believe you are conflating ousia and physis, even though you agreed that they are not synonyms. I also believe that Chalcedonians will not agree that ousia is synonymous with physis, as you are advocating.  Unless you can provide a specific claim or reference from any father (most preferably from St Cyril or St Athanasius) that says we believe in one ousia out of two ousiai, you need to reevaluate your stand on this. 
  • minasolimanminasoliman
    To be honest I'm having trouble following along the terminological issue here.  So perhaps I could help by putting forward definitions of terms and use, oh, a rock.

    Ousia--it's abstract, and it means the essence of something..."rock-ness"

    Hypostasis--it's the concrete form of the abstract; it's the actual specimen or existence of the essence, translated as "subsistence"..."this rock".  In Nicea 325, hypostasis became synonymous with ousia.  In Constantinople 381, hypostasis became concrete form of ousia.  In Chalcedon 451 (which we dissented from), hypostasis became prosopon.  In other words, if rock was intellectually alive and had a name, "Rocky" would be the "hypostasis/prosopon".

    Physis--can be either one or the other.  It's a very complicated terminology, and when St. Cyril was using it, it vacillated back and forth in meaning.  The issue here is not consistency in terminology, but the idea behind the terminology.  He wanted to be provocative in order to explain a paradoxical truth of the incarnation.

    This is the simplest way of putting it, but of course, starting out with this fundamental simplicity, one can then work his way up to see where all the debates lie.  As one can see, it's not just physis, but also the word hypostasis that also has non-Chalcedonians and Chalcedonians split.  Chalcedonians were concerned more about scientific consistency of terminology, whereas non-Chalcedonians were concerned about mystical experience and salvation, and allowed inconsistency in terminology to explain our salvation.  Chalcedonians were concerned about the "what" in Christ, while non-Chalcedonians were primarily concerned with "the Christ in us".  It is why the former always sees it in terms of the integrity of humanity and divinity whereas the latter sees it in terms of unity of humanity and divinity.  This is of course a gross generalization that has not touched on specifics yet that seems to get both sides into much debate, but this has been the gist of my debate with Chalcedonians.
  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    Thank you Mina. I was wondering when you were going to help us. A few questions.

    Using your specific example of a rock,
    1. Can a rock have two abstract essences? Can a specific rock have rockness and softness? Put another way, if we speak of rockness and softness, doesn't that necessarily mean we are speaking of two abstracts that can't be combined into one? This is the core of the debate metouro and I were having. While I believe he was using conflating different terms to mean the same thing, the question that concerns me is the use of ousiai (plural). Please share your thoughts.

    2. Can you explain why if a rock was intellectually alive and had a name, "Rocky", would that be exclusively a Chalcedonian formula? While I understand Rocky is the concrete form of rockness, what changed in Chalcedon? Do we object to prosopon per se? I know we object because the Chalcedonian formula equates hypostasis and prosopon as synonyms. But my question is how does prosopon differ from hypostasis in your example of the rock.

    3. Your last paragraph also corroborates my clam that I don't think the Chalcedonians would approve of one essence from two essences.

    4. Can you discuss your thoughts on the one will of the Godhead vs. one will of each hypostasis of the Trinity?  
  • metouro1

    Can we say their are two unmixed substances in the Miaphysis of Christ the incarnate logos?

     

  • metouro1

    Peace and grace to all

    Please fill in the blank in the following sentence.  You can use any word in English or Greek.

     

    The fact that He made His Humanity One with His Divinity without mingling, confusion or alteration

    means that there are still two distinct _________________ in Christ.

     

    a) Physies

    b) Ousiai

    c) Substances

    d) sets of properties

    e) other (please specify)

     

    Since we already agree that the Incarnate Logos is one United Physis and not two Physies, in St. Cyril's way of speaking, then what is it UNDERLYING that,  that remains TWO UNconfused, UNmixed, and UNaltered ?   Since whatever (___________) is, remains unconfused, unmixed, and unaltered, it can not be one and the same thing, and therefore must be more than one. 

     

    Please help and clarify.

     

  • metouro1
    edited January 2014

    Since we already agree that the Incarnate Logos is one United Physis and not two Physies, in St. Cyril's way of speaking, then what is it UNDERLYING that, that remains TWO UNconfused, UNmixed, and UNaltered ? Since whatever (___________) is, remains unconfused, unmixed, and unaltered, it can not be one and the same thing, and therefore must be more than one.  Otherwise they are the same thing and therefore mixed, altered or confused.  We know they are not two persons or hypostasis.

     

    X and Y 

    are not mixed, confused, or altered with each other to

    make 1

    X+Y = 1

    Humanity and Divinity = 1 Person or Hypostasis of the Logos Incarnate

     

    X is not Y and never will be, they are not confused or altered with each other.

     

    X and Y are (___________________) different categories and terms using Letters than the Number 1.

     

    "1" representes the MiaPhysis and the Hypostasis of the Logos Incarnate

    "X and Y" represent the Humanity and Divnity of Christ that were not changed, altered, or confused with each other.  They are called by a differnt category (Letters) than the Number 1

    What are we calling the Divinity and Humanity (two essences, substances?) that remain unconfused and unaltered and unmixed?

     

    If we say Complete Divnity and Complete Humanity are hypostatically united in the One Logos Incarnate then He is BOTH (two) of those (_____________) things, though He Himself is Only One Single Person before and After the Incarnation.

    What are we calling both of those unmixed and unaltered things?

    The Chalcedonians conceive of those "things" that are umixed are (_____________) "things" that the Logos possesses, they are not the Person Himself. 

     

  • metouro1
    edited January 2014

    Miaphysis does not mean that two sets of properties united together to make one new set of properties that is both, does it?  This would be a third new "nature" or Physis, which is what some Chalcedonians would accuse us of, which would be tantamount to mixing, confusion or alteration.

    That is why I dont' think that the above is what we mean when we say, "One Nature from two Natures"

    I suspect that in the phrase "One Nature from two Natures"  the first words must mean something different than the two sets of properties.. perhaps it coul mean from two sets of concrete realities one concrete reality... from an UNINcarnate Logos to an INcarnate Logos,

    not from two substantces one united substance, not from one esssence, one united essence, "Nature(s)" then must mean something other than just those things.

  • Tobit
    "A composite nature" or "One incarnate nature" without mixing or alteration
    I think we ought to leave this mystery as it is and only take from what the fathers have in their deep meditation and contemplation which they did through fasting, prayer and humility received as revelation from God in regards to their understanding of this deep theology.  
    In all our wranglings about words and semantics we can lose the adoration for the mystery or at least I begin to when I catch myself and sit back, attempting to understand even the spiritual and mystical significance of the incarnation, of a God taking on flesh and blood as Abouna Matta el Meskeen always advised his monks. Certainly getting terminology and theology is important but lets not forget the equally important endeavor. God bless you all.
  • metouro1

    What is a composite nature?

    If the humanity is not mixed or confused with the divine nature while united to it, how is it composite.  The PERSON must be composite of Dvinity and Humanity, but if the Divinity and Humanity are not mixed or confused with each other, then they are not composite, but two distinct things.... what are we calling those things?

     

  • metouro1

    Please fill in the bank...

    The fact that He made His Humanity One with His Divinity without mingling, confusion or alteration

    means that there are still two distinct _________________ in Christ.

    a) Physies

    b) Ousiai

    c) Substances

    d) sets of properties

    e) other (please specify)

    Since we already agree that the Incarnate Logos is one United Physis and not two Physies, in St. Cyril's way of speaking, then what is it UNDERLYING that, that remains TWO UNconfused, UNmixed, and UNaltered ? Since whatever (___________) is, remains unconfused, unmixed, and unaltered, it can not be one and the same thing, and therefore must be more than one.

    Please help and clarify.

    Since we already agree that the Incarnate Logos is one United Physis and not two Physies, in St. Cyril's way of speaking, then what is it UNDERLYING that, that remains TWO UNconfused, UNmixed, and UNaltered ? Since whatever (___________) is, remains unconfused, unmixed, and unaltered, it can not be one and the same thing, and therefore must be more than one. Otherwise they are the same thing and therefore mixed, altered or confused. We know they are not two persons or hypostasis.

    X and Y

    are not mixed, confused, or altered with each other to

    make 1

    X+Y = 1

    Humanity and Divinity = 1 Person or Hypostasis of the Logos Incarnate

    X is not Y and never will be, they are not confused or altered with each other.

    X and Y are (___________________) different categories and terms using Letters than the Number 1.

    "1" representes the MiaPhysis and the Hypostasis of the Logos Incarnate

    "X and Y" represent the Humanity and Divnity of Christ that were not changed, altered, or confused with each other. They are called by a differnt category (Letters) than the Number 1

    What are we calling the Divinity and Humanity (two essences, substances?) that remain unconfused and unaltered and unmixed?

    If we say Complete Divnity and Complete Humanity are hypostatically united in the One Logos Incarnate then He is BOTH (two) of those (_____________) things, though He Himself is Only One Single Person before and After the Incarnation.

    What are we calling both of those unmixed and unaltered things?

    The Chalcedonians conceive of those "things" that are umixed are (_____________) "things" that the Logos possesses, they are not the Person Himself.

  • RemnkemiRemnkemi
    metouro,
    I already asked you to consolidate your posts into one so we can follow. It should go without saying that repeating multiple posts is not acceptable. There needs to be some etiquette here. Out of love, please abide by what we are telling you. 

    The phrase is One nature out of two. Put in more common christological terms, One physis (miaphysis) out of two physis. Both natures with all their properties remain intact. This one nature united with the Logos so that the Logos remains one hypostasis. 

    I don't think ousiai is proper. Substances is inadequate and set of properties is only one part of the equation. The formula makes sense as St Cyril described: One out of two. (Contemporary English: One nature out of two natures)

    Finally, I think you're thinking too much about this. You're seeking unshakable definitions of something that is by definition a mystery. We are glad to answer any questions you may have but let's not overlook why Orthodoxy is more than religious science. 
  • metouro1
    edited February 2014

    What is the difference between the two terms "Physis" and "Ousia" ?

    We accept MiaPhysis but not Miaousia, therefore there mush be a difference.  What is it? 

    Do these two words mean the same thing to the Chalcedonians? 

    Did these two words mean differnt things to Sts. Cyril and Dioscorus?

  • minasolimanminasoliman
    Dear Rem,

    Sorry for the super late reply.

    1.  I guess one can say that there are two abstract essences.  But the use of St. Severus' terminology wanted not just mere abstract thought, but also real concrete existence.  He seemed to have seen ousia as the totality of abstract understanding.  All of humanity is "one ousia" so to speak.  To possess an "ousia" would be "unscientific" to him.  But perhaps you can say that if a rock has "softness and rockness", one can say that there are two ousiai in it, which is common to all that have rockness and softness, if each characteristic taken individually in thought. 

    Indian Orthodox priest, Fr. Timothy (then Tenny) Thomas, wrote an essay explaining how St. Severus used the terminologies:


    I suppose one can say that the rock is OF softness and rockness.  The question then becomes how does something abstract become real?  In this case, one can also say the softness is real, not just abstract, and the rockness is real, not just abstract, but OF both realities there is one reality in the Rock.

    2.  It's not exclusively Chalcedonian, but to equate hypostasis to prosopon in Chalcedon was rejected by non-Chalcedonians as a weak unity in Christology.  In Nestorianism, one can say that the Word of God and the man Jesus was two hypostases in one prosopon, that is the honor of the Son of God and Christ.  It is only an external unity, and no different than a unity we as saints receive.  In Chalcedon, the use of "in two natures" and "one hypostasis" in conjunction with supporters of the Christology of Theodore of Mopsuestia, made them suspect that they used the terminology to hide their Nestorianism.  It's not wrong to say there is "one prosopon" and "two natures", but it's not enough.

    With that said, "Rock" is the hypostasis and "Rocky" (a name) is the prosopon.  Prosopon means "mask".  It's something external.  If we take St. Peter for instance, the ousia is humanity, the hypostasis is human being, and the prosopon is Peter.  That's the difference.  I mentioned "intellectually alive" is because I wanted to emphasize inanimate objects do not possess prosopon, but they do possess hypostasis because they exist.

    3.  I agree!

    4.  As far as I know, it seems that the will usually is considered something connected to the characteristics of nature/ousia.  The will/energy/properties are all actualized in a hypostasis.  The Trinity has one will, because of the one nature of the Godhead.  The will of the Father is the will of the Son and the Holy Spirit.  The mode of the will (using Maximimian terminology) is 3, and at times one can use the "will willed" in this sense as belonging to hypostasis/prosopon.  But when I read from scholars concerning the Christology of St. Severus, he pretty much connected will to nature, not to hypostasis.  He used the analogy of the two natures of humanity as talking about the two wills, will of the soul and will of the flesh in thought, but in unity of the human nature, we talk about one human will.  Likewise with Christ.  Therefore, it's safe to say St. Severus is no different from Chalcedonians in defining the will as something natural, not hypostatic.  Not saying that the will of hypostasis is wrong, but it's used very seldom, until the will controversy of the 6th/7th Centuries.  I wish there was more research into the will-theology of our Church to comment more, but on Severian bases, we seem to be in agreement with Chalcedonians on this.
  • blessedtobeawitness
    Hello all!

    What a mind bending discussion... may God grant us all His mercy and wisdom as we try to grasp at such a mystery for the sake of preserving the faith delivered once for all.

    I think Remnkemi offered up some advice that is worth re-stating:
    "You're seeking unshakable definitions of something that is by definition a mystery."

    In fact, St. Gregory the Theologian offers much the same advice to the person he is speaking with in his Fifth Oration:
    "What then is ‘proceeding?’ You explain the ingeneracy of the Father and I will give you a biological account of the Son’s begetting and the Spirit’s proceeding, and let us go mad the pair of us for prying into God’s secrets."

    Orthodoxy embraces the mystery of the Holy Trinity and lives it's spiritual life according to the Economy of God's revelation. This is in part why our faith is unchanging, for it was received from God who is also unchanging.

    In my own weakness, please allow me to offer my own limited understanding in an attempt to answer the questions asked. 

    Dear brothers, be quick to correct me if I err.

    The terminology favored by our Church is that of St. Cyril the Great: "One Nature of the Logos Incarnate." 

    The word "Incarnate" is very important to understanding the intent of St. Cyril's terminology in my opinion. Prior to incarnation, it doesn't make any sense to discuss the nature of the Logos, for we know it to be singular in it's divinity; the mystery of our salvation is tied up in the reality of the Incarnation: God became man, that man might become god.

    So when we speak of these matters, we're speaking of an event that occurred in time and which endures throughout eternity; the incarnation of the Logos. 

    It is for this reason we tend to be wary of language that divides the nature of Christ after the incarnation. The union is real and enduring, and occurred at a moment in history; before which it is improper to speak of the Logos having humanity, and after which it is improper to speak of Logos as anything but the full union of humanity & divinity.

    This idea is enshrined in our liturgy, where the Anaphora of St. Basil reminds us that "His divinity parted not from His humanity for a single moment, nor a twinkling of an eye."

    Current Christological dialogues with the Eastern Orthodox actually required a stipulation on behalf of the Eastern Orthodox that the division implied in their formula is "in thought only" to avoid any implication that the division is real.

    There's another key point of terminology that often gets lost in translation; especially into English.

    The "one" of St. Cyril's terminology is not "mono" but "mia." 

    Mono signifies singular, alone, only. For this reason, the Coptic Church has always rejected the label "monophysite" as this would suggest mingling or confusion within the union of Christ's Divinity and His humanity. We actually see a theological use of Mono when we describe the Lord as the "only-begotten Son." This usage seems to firmly drive home the exclusive nature of this "one."

    Mia has a richer linguistic meaning, and it's usage in the Holy Scriptures shows senses that denote a composite whole. It can signify things such "agreement"  or "union" like to say "we are one in opinion." 
    This is the "one" of St. Cyril the Great; "miaphysis."

    With that, we can speak a little about the nature of the union, which is said to be a "hypostatic union." Hypostasis in Greek implies something real and existing, rather than something abstract. In this sense, we are simply affirming the union is "real" and not "in thought."

    The Fathers of our Church go on to stipulate that the union occurs without mingling or confusion, which may be why we're able to accept the "division in thought alone" which seems to have been anticipated by St. Cyril in some of his later writings on the matter.
  • blessedtobeawitness
    edited March 2014
    +++ I had to break this into two pieces because of the forums character limit. Please forgive me. +++

    As regards the difference between "Physis" and "Ousia" as the link posted by minasoliman demonstrates, an Ousia has Physis.

    In the example minasoliman provides regarding the rock, the properties of softness, brittleness, hardness, etc are components of the Physis of the rock. Other "things" may share some of these properties (bones immediately spring to mind), but the combination; that is the true Physis of the rock, leads us towards understanding the unique "Ousia" which is "rock."

    If we look at how the Fathers discuss these things regarding the Economy of our Salvation, we see that Ousia is said to be the Essence of a thing, while the Physis is the Nature of the thing. 

    Essence is in a sense the "identity" of a thing. To know a thing is to know it's essence. In this regard, God is unknowable. His Essence is beyond human comprehension.

    The Physis or Nature of a thing are the attributes which point back to or reveal the Essence. They are the properties which give rise to the "energies" or "work" of a thing.

    In this sense, God revealed Himself to humanity throughout history, culminating in the Incarnation of the Logos. The revelation which we have received is that the nature of God is Love. We experience this Nature through His energies or His Grace in the mysteries/sacraments... and yet He remains wholly unknowable because we only experience even His Nature in part.

    This is part of the beauty of the Incarnation of our Lord. The previously unseen God manifested Himself in the flesh, drawing infinitely closer to humanity, revealing even a small part of His Nature to us, hoping to draw us near into Eternal communion with him.

    May God forgive me & have mercy upon me for my errors. Dear brothers, please offer correction for the goodness of my soul and those who read these forums.

    +++ Edited to include some emphasis on the Incarnation +++
  • IoannesIoannes
    The schism was purely political and mostly caused by the theologically incompetent Leo the "great." 
  • cyril
    Here's an interesting observation by Daniel Keating on St Leo of Rome and St Cyril of Alexandria:


    "Like Cyril, Leo teaches that it is the mind guided by faith that recognizes a true distinction of natures in the one Christ. The reality of the Incarnate Christ is one, but faith recognizes the difference between the humanity and the divinity and the kinds of activities that pertain to each. Leo’s use here of the term ‘essence/being’ (essentia) to denote the humanity and divinity of Christ respectively is equivalent to, and interchangeable with, the terms ‘substance’ (substantia) and ‘nature’ (natura) that he uses elsewhere. In the Formula of Reunion, Cyril agrees (perhaps reluctantly) to this very manner of phrasing the distinction of activities in the one Christ, and as we have seen he readily employs this same kind of language in his biblical commentaries when distinguishing the activity of Christ as God from his activity as man. In fact, Leo’s presentation of Christ as acting in the ‘form of a servant’ and in the ‘form of God’ is equivalent to Cyril’s description of Christ acting ‘as man” and ‘as God’. This striking rapprochement between the two Christologies provides important evidence that Leo and Cyril, despite differences in terminology, share a fundamentally common conception of Christ.

    To avoid any misunderstanding, Leo insists that no sort of division ever arose between the divine and human aspects of Christ. Through the growth and changes of his body, ‘the actions were of one person the whole time’. With particular clarity we see here that in Leo’s view there is only one agency in Christ: all actions, human and divine, are of one person, and that person is the Word Incarnate. In order to preserve the full integrity of the humanity and divinity of Christ, however, Leo insists that the distinctive proper ties of each kind of action must not be confused.

    Leo then returns to the language of the two forms of Christ in order to secure the truth of the communicatio idiomatum, as he had done in the Tome. He concludes that it does not matter by which substance (substantia) Christ is spoken of, ‘since, the unity of his person inseparably remaining, he is at once both wholly Son of man according to the flesh and wholly Son of God according to his Godhead, which is one with the Father’ (Ep. 124. 7, Feltoe, 94).

    Appealing to Phil. 2: 5-7; John 1: 1, 14; and 2 Cor. 8: 9, Leo concludes his clarification of the Tome by describing how the Word became poor so that the human race might be made rich by means of receiving redemption in him.


    Leo’s Christology can be summarized in terms of the primary conceptions and concerns that govern it. Like Cyril, he presents a narrative Christology ordered to soteriology, using as his key texts Phil. 2, John 1, and the Creed. It is the Word’s assumption of flesh for the sake of human salvation that defines the context for Leo’s Christology. Furthermore, the notion of mediation is at the centre of his Christology, and this is why He insists that both Nestorius and Eutyches must be rejected. The former denies the Godhead in the flesh, the latter denies the flesh in the Godhead. For Leo, in order for Christ to be the mediator between God and man, he must be fully God and fully man at once. He follows Augustine and the Western tradition in his use of terms to describe this duality in unity, but he also reflects Cyril’s concern that it is the Word, fully human while remaining fully divine, who redeems us.

    As Cyril is particularly intent on defending the full divinity of Christ, so Leo is sensitive to the need to preserve the full humanity of Christ. Yet Leo’s own clarification in Ep. 124 of his teaching on Christ as found in the Tome adequately puts to rest the suspicion that he is tacitly Nestorian. For both Leo and Cyril, it is essential for salvation that the one Incarnate Word be both fully human and fully divine."

    From pages 258-260 in Appropriation of the Divine Life in St Cyril of Alexandria by Daniel Keating
Sign In or Register to comment.