It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Had the Chalcedonian terminology been
"MiaPhysis, DyoOusiai" perhaps the divisions that ensued due to the fourth council might have been averted.
True. There was no controversy over such terms as Dyoousiai. That lack of controversy is what contributed to the split. This is becasue we understood Physis to mean Hyostasis whereas the EO understood it to mean Ousiai, as per Fr. J. Romanides.
What I am saying is that if at Chalcedon they clearly spoke of Two Ousiai in the One Hypostasis in Christ instead of Two Physeis and explicitly noting that Physis and Ousia mean different things to each party, the split may not have occured as it it did.
I imaging Dioscorus may have been more amenable to accepting that Christ is in One Miaphysis, "Dyoousiai" if such a term had come into use with a clearer distingction between both parties, as there is today that Ousia is not Physis.
What is the hinderance in doing so today among the theolgians on both sides. I wonder if there would be any hinderance in doing so today?
Because He is Constubstantial/Coessential/of One Essence with the Father and also of One Essence with us, He therefor has Two Essences united in one Miaphysis.
We are often accused of confusing "nature" with "person" and are afraid to admit that the Person of the Logos took upon Himself a Human Nature and Made it One with His Person, not one and the same as His Divine Nature.
Is this accusation true?
When we say, from two natures, one. What do we mean? What WHAT? One person or one Nature?
If we replace the word Nature with the word essence, should we not admit that the One Person in His Divine Essence united Himsef with a Human Essence and that this person has 1 Essence that is the same as the Fathers and another 1 completely different, distinct essence that is the same as humanity's? Though united in One Person Incarnate (Miaphysis) without separtation, alteration or confusion, they are still two esences and not one?
1) When reading the book the Nature of Christ, I read a statement to the effect that
"both become one in essence and in nature, so we say that this is one nature and one person."
I am wondering if this is a mistranslation from the Arabic. Although the Author is making an analogy here between the unity of fire and iron with that of the Incarnation, the statement seems to be saying that the Divine Essence and the Human Essence became One Essence in Christ, and the statmenet distinguishes essence from "nature" so that it is not just Miaphysis but, on a deeper level, MiaOusiai, whic is not possible or acceptable as a thought in Christology because the two essences did not mingle or mix or become one essence, but they united in teh One Physis or Hypostasis fo the Logos Incarnate.
can anyone clarify this statement? Is it a mistranslation?
We can find that on page 7 here http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/theology/nature_of_christ.pdf
Between the things performed and done by the one Christ, the difference is great. Some of the acts are befitting the divinity, while the others are human…Yet the one Word performed the latter and the former, … Because the things performed are different, we shall [not however] on this account rightly define two natures or forms operating.
The Word of God is united hypostatically not only to flesh, but also to a soul endowed with will and reason, for the purpose of making our souls bent towards sinfulness incline towards the choice of good and the aversion of evil.
Christ does indeed have two distinct essences that continue to exist in Him
without mixture, without alteration, without mingling together. They Unitiy is in One Person, One Hypostasis, One Physis.
The two essences make His Physis a MiaPhysis.
But to say that Christ is One Essence is not what we believe.
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.
(You'd think the above was written by Pope Leo of Rome! It sounds line the Tome of Leo!, but this was written by Dioscorus)
It is clear that Christ is consubstantial with the Father and Consubstantial with us at the same time without his "substances" being mixed with each other, comingled with each other or changed by each other, or being alterned, and without them being separated from their unity after the incarnation. But they are distinct and not one and the same. Both "substances" or "essences", each "ousia" remains distinct.
The two concrete realities of St. Cyril, in my understanding, that is the two Physies of Godhead and Humanity are disntinguished in thought alone so that Christ is never two but One Incarnate Logos. This is different , I think, that stating that there are two Ousiai in Christ.
The Holy Trinity (Three Hypostasis) has One Divine Nature (Ousiai) Only.
In the Hypostasis of the Christ the One Divine Nature (ousia) was united to the human nature (Ousia).
Regarding the will of Christ, Christ has all the natural will and energy of humanity and all the natural will and energy of Divinity united in Him.
In this sence He has two wills, united together.
But we speak of One Will in Christ the Incarnate Logos who wills and acts. It is this One Will that makes decisions in Christ.
Fr. Peter Farrington speaks of a will in Christ in terms of instinct- for example- he is hungry and wants to eat.... this is a human will an not a divine will because divinity or the divine essence has no desire or or need to eat. But the human insintct (will) of Christ needs to eat. together, His Human Will freely submitting to and in accord with His Divine Will, together acting as one will make a decision to eath or to fast.
Fr. John Romanides writes
"To speak about two natures in Christ would be somewhat equivalent to a Chalcedonian speaking about two Hypostases in Christ. In this respect 'a Chalcedonian would accept and does accept everything Cyril says but would use Cyril's One Hypostasis of God the Logos Incarnate, since for him Physis means Ousia."
in his paper often used by non-chalcedonians to better understand each other, called ST. CYRIL'S "ONE PHYSIS OR HYPOSTASIS OF GOD THE LOGOS INCARNATE" AND CHALCEDON
He also used the Term Ousiai.
"As we shall see he assailed even those who could accept One Nature of the Logos Incarnate, but who preferred to speak of two Physeis which to them meant two ousiai."
Is Fr. John Romides analisis of teh underatnding of physis equaling Ousia wrong?
He also in multiples places used the wourd "Ousiai" as plural for Ousia.
According to Wikipedia, Aristotle defined protai ousiai, or “primary substances..." Using Ousiai as plural for Ousia.
Its been said that
"in Orthdox theology there must be a consistency between Christology and Trinitarian theology. In any case one crucial aspect of this consistency is that will always goes with nature. Otherwise the Most holy Trinity is three gods, not one. In other words in Orthodox theology these two go together- Holy Trinity- one nature- one will; Christ- two natures- two wills. Just as the one nature of the holy Trinity does not deny the Three Persons, so the two natures of Christ do not deny that He is one Person. This however is not a reality in reflection of human reason (as anyone can see) but of a basic theological reality without which neither the Trinity nor Christ as One of the Holy Trinity is capable of saving anyone. I say this not to make a polemical point, but only rather to say what is fundamental to Orthodox theology so that we are actually speaking of a Christ Who saves mankind."