A quick question:
Is it really controversial to affirm that the One Incarnate Logos is One Hypostasis that continues in two natures if we FIRST say: HE the One Logos incarnate is of the humanity taken from his mother, and of his own divinity?
But because the self-same Incarnate Logos is FROM both, and both are real and complete and are HIS OWN, then it follows that the ONE Incarnate Logs must indwell those natures which he possesses as his own, therefore he must be in two natures, composed as one, BECAUSE he, being composite, is OF two natures. Can we fully affirm the reality of his humanity if we are unwilling to say that the Logos himself is IN that nature which he has made his own?
Can I be fully human without existing in my own composite nature of body and soul? Do I MYSELF not fully penetrate my own flesh to where I identify all my parts as my own and am in them? Do I not fully identify my soul as my own when I recognize that I am in some sense in my own intellect and in my own will? Therefore, my unity is truly a composite of one out of two, but is it not also true that I must continue in the two composed as one to be whole?
Or would it be totally acceptable to say "Christ is in two natures" if we were to add "which are a composite unity"?
I ask because I am a fan of union and Miaphysis, but don't feel compelled to give up Chalcedon just yet. There is also a great deal of misunderstanding especially on the Syrian Orthodox side in the writings of (St.) Philoxenus of Mabburg in his treatment of Chalcedon.
It's sort of discouraging to realize that NEITHER side has really been fair to the other. Makes a person like me who is trying to convert to Orthodoxy unsure of what to do and who to trust and how to distinguish facts from hagiography, lol. You almost want to just coin toss it (but not really).