Effects of the Filioque?

[Constantine the Sinner]

God is a Personal Trinity of hypostases of one Divine Nature. flesh is human nature. the flesh is not God, but God has flesh. what you are saying is not correct.



in the sense we are of one nature, yes.

The Eucharist is God made flesh.

Humans being of one nature doesn't mean one energy anymore than it means we have one soul.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

My apologies for interrupting, but I have a concern that there can be misunderstandings because of this.

I can't speak for your parish, but mine is Greek, and I've spoken to my priest several times to be sure I understand our position, and we are not in communion with the OO. I've also spoken to other priests of other jurisdictions, other Greek priests, Greek monastics, and with parishioners who had an issue with it.

Perhaps there are some extenuating circumstances in your parish, or something you are not aware of, or your priest is not aware of, or something else. We don't generally make it our business whether or not a particular person is receiving the Sacraments, or able to receive them. So I'm not saying there is any great transgression being committed by your parish. But I want to make it clear that it is not the position of the Greeks in general that we are in communion with the OO. To leave that statement without addressing it could cause misunderstand in those who read. I do apologize, as I don't wish to be argumentative, but I feel it important.

Peace to you.

It's by order of our archbishop. And we're right near a Coptic parish, so I don't think extenuating circumstances has anything to do with it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The Eucharist is God made flesh.

no, the Incarnation is God made flesh. the Eucharist is our participation in that Incarnate Lord. none of which is the flesh is God.

Humans being of one nature doesn't mean one energy anymore than it means we have one soul.

that is because we are created and finite, and therefore changeable. however, this does not change the fact that human energy is an aspect of human nature and not of our person

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

no, the Incarnation is God made flesh. the Eucharist is our participation in that Incarnate Lord. none of which is the flesh is God.



that is because we are created and finite, and therefore changeable. however, this does not change the fact that human energy is an aspect of human nature and not of our person

The Eucharist IS God incarnate. So to say the incarnation is God made flesh, but the Eucharist isn't, doesn't make sense to me. Do you believe Christ and Christ's flesh are wholly different subjects?

Souls are also an aspect of human nature. But also person in the sense each person has a different soul. If humans have one energy, that would mean Christ Crucified himself, since Crucifying Christ is a human energy

 

[ArmyMatt]

The Eucharist IS God incarnate. So to say the incarnation is God made flesh, but the Eucharist isn't, doesn't make sense to me. Do you believe Christ and Christ's flesh are wholly different subjects?

sorry, it's because you are using very confusing terminology. if you mean simply the Eucharist becomes the Body and the Blood, then yes, I agree and sorry for the confusion.

and only Christ is the subject, because He is the "Who." His humanity, not being a hypostasis, is not a subject. the subject is the Logos.

Souls are also an aspect of human nature. But also person in the sense each person has a different soul. If humans have one energy, that would mean Christ Crucified himself, since Crucifying Christ is a human energy

no, the hypostasis is not the soul. to say that it is is to be Apollinarian when referring to Christ. the hypostasis can, however, impose on the soul and the will. and I also said humans are created and finite. your human energy is an aspect of your human nature, common with my own but created at a different time and place.

and crucifying Christ is not a human energy, so I don't know where that comes from.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

sorry, it's because you are using very confusing terminology. if you mean simply the Eucharist becomes the Body and the Blood, then yes, I agree and sorry for the confusion.

"Made flesh" and "incarnate" are synonymous, aren't they?

I'm trying to stick to Saint Emperor Justian's understanding. According to the Fifth Ecumenical Council's seventh anathema, anyone who talks of Christ having two natures in any way but a "theoretical manner" is anathema; in Justinian's Confession of Faith, he says this means that Christ only has two natures in "thought and word," (Severus had expressed that there is nothing objectionable about saying Christ has two natures in this sense, so Justinian is clearly and consciously referencing him). That is, Christ is said to have two natures only as an expression that he is both completely human and divine, but that these two natures are not "insulated" from each other in any sense; the humanity is "enhypostized" by the Word. This poses a logical contradiction, of course, a paradox, and that was the fundamental controversy. You can read extensively about this in Meyendorff's Christ in Eastern Christian Thought.

and only Christ is the subject, because He is the "Who." His humanity, not being a hypostasis, is not a subject. the subject is the Logos.

A subject is "a person or thing that is being discussed, described, or dealt with."

So I ask again, in light of that definition, do you consider Christ and Christ's flesh to be wholly different subjects?

no, the hypostasis is not the soul. to say that it is is to be Apollinarian when referring to Christ. the hypostasis can, however, impose on the soul and the will. and I also said humans are created and finite. your human energy is an aspect of your human nature, common with my own but created at a different time and place.

I never said the hypostasis is the soul, but I do contend that souls are particular to hypostases. There is not one universal human soul as there is a universal human nature, but rather each hypostasis has its own soul.

and crucifying Christ is not a human energy, so I don't know where that comes from.

An energy is just Greek for "activity" or "work" or "operation". Since the Crucifixion was performed by humans, it was a human energy in that sense. But NOT a human energy in the sense of being innate to human nature; it is rather peculiar to the persons who performed it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

"Made flesh" and "incarnate" are synonymous, aren't they?

yes, they are, but this is not the same as saying God is flesh. not sure where you are going here.

I'm trying to stick to Saint Emperor Justian's understanding. According to the Fifth Ecumenical Council's seventh anathema, anyone who talks of Christ having two natures in any way but a "theoretical manner" is anathema; in Justinian's Confession of Faith, he says this means that Christ only has two natures in "thought and word," (Severus had expressed that there is nothing objectionable about saying Christ has two natures in this sense, so Justinian is clearly and consciously referencing him). That is, Christ is said to have two natures only as an expression that he is both completely human and divine, but that these two natures are not "insulated" from each other in any sense; the humanity is "enhypostized" by the Word. This poses a logical contradiction, of course, a paradox, and that was the fundamental controversy. You can read extensively about this in Meyendorff's Christ in Eastern Christian Thought.

I am aware. I referenced those points yesterday and I have some of St Justinian's writings.

A subject is "a person or thing that is being discussed, described, or dealt with."

So I ask again, in light of that definition, do you consider Christ and Christ's flesh to be wholly different subjects?

theologically thinking, there is only one subject since the only subject is Christ. Christ's flesh is not a different subject, since it is not a subject. when speaking of Christ, the only subject is Him.

I never said the hypostasis is the soul, but I do contend that souls are particular to hypostases. There is not one universal human soul as there is a universal human nature, but rather each hypostasis has its own soul.

no, because there is no soul in the Father or the Spirit. a hypostasis does NOT have to have a soul. because you have a unique hypostasis and your soul and body were created at a different time and place than mine, but soul is an aspect of nature, unique to you, because you are a creature as is your materiality.

An energy is just Greek for "activity" or "work" or "operation". Since the Crucifixion was performed by humans, it was a human energy in that sense.

then you can say He did in the sense that He walked to Golgotha, He chose to be silent before Pilate, He laid out upon the Cross. if you define energy that way, then yes. He humanly did those things.

But NOT a human energy in the sense of being innate to human nature; it is rather peculiar to the persons who performed it.

well, yeah. so in this sense you are right to say no because it sin and not innate to humanity.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

yes, they are, but this is not the same as saying God is flesh. not sure where you are going here.

By God I mean the Word.

theologically thinking, there is only one subject since the only subject is Christ. Christ's flesh is not a different subject, since it is not a subject. when speaking of Christ, the only subject is Him.

Then it is appropriate to say He is flesh.

no, because there is no soul in the Father or the Spirit. a hypostasis does NOT have to have a soul.

God's hypostases and human hypostases are two totally different things, they just share the same terms. It is like saying, "hands are appendages," and then getting the rebuttal of, "No they aren't, the Hand of God is not an appendage." Well, no it is not, but I'm presuming this discussion is not being framed in terms of univocity of being? Yes?

because you have a unique hypostasis and your soul and body were created at a different time and place than mine, but soul is an aspect of nature, unique to you, because you are a creature as is your materiality.

But particularized to my hypostasis. Basil the Great defines hypostasis as a particularized nature. So to have a soul is human nature, but to have a particular soul is ascribed to the hypostasis.

then you can say He did in the sense that He walked to Golgotha, He chose to be silent before Pilate, He laid out upon the Cross. if you define energy that way, then yes. He humanly did those things.

I don't think that qualifies as participating in His own killing.

so in this sense you are right to say no because it sin and not innate to humanity.

Did Judas give the Sermon on the Mount? Or was it just Christ's energy?

 

[ArmyMatt]

By God I mean the Word.

gotcha on this one.

Then it is appropriate to say He is flesh.

flesh is a what, not a He. it is appropriate to say He took on flesh, united to flesh, has flesh, became flesh. but not that He is flesh, I have not heard anyone say this one because God is a Person. the one adoration due Christ is because of His One Person.

God's hypostases and human hypostases are two totally different things, they just share the same terms. It is like saying, "hands are appendages," and then getting the rebuttal of, "No they aren't, the Hand of God is not an appendage." Well, no it is not, but I'm presuming this discussion is not being framed in terms of univocity of being? Yes?

yes, but we are different because we are created and He is not. that is the difference, which I keep saying.

But particularized to my hypostasis. Basil the Great defines hypostasis as a particularized nature. So to have a soul is human nature, but to have a particular soul is ascribed to the hypostasis.

so is your particular human body. that is just as particularized to you as your soul is. so I don't think Basil is defining it as you are. unless you want to say your particularized body, or will, or energy, or mind is also ascribed to the hypostasis. in Patristics we learn it's the hypostasis that is particular that can impose on the soul, will, mind, body, etc, which is what makes the particularity.

I don't think that qualifies as participating in His own killing.

it is by your definition of energy just now, unless I missed something.

Did Judas give the Sermon on the Mount? Or was it just Christ's energy?

no...Judas heard it. but yes, it was Christ's human energy, submitting to the Divine because of His Person, that spoke it. so Christ spoke it because He has a human energy and operation.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

gotcha on this one.



flesh is a what, not a He. it is appropriate to say He took on flesh, united to flesh, has flesh, became flesh. but not that He is flesh, I have not heard anyone say this one because God is a Person. the one adoration due Christ is because of His One Person.



yes, but we are different because we are created and He is not. that is the difference, which I keep saying.



so is your particular human body. that is just as particularized to you as your soul is. so I don't think Basil is defining it as you are. unless you want to say your particularized body, or will, or energy, or mind is also ascribed to the hypostasis. in Patristics we learn it's the hypostasis that is particular that can impose on the soul, will, mind, body, etc, which is what makes the particularity.



it is by your definition of energy just now, unless I missed something.



no...Judas heard it. but yes, it was Christ's human energy, submitting to the Divine because of His Person, that spoke it. so Christ spoke it because He has a human energy and operation.

"Became" in Greek means just "came to be". Is/be/being are simply different cases of the same word, in both Greek and English.

My definition of energy isn't my own, it's simply the definition in Greek. Not theologically, but period. Energies are particularized among humans by hypostasis, or else all would give the Sermon on the Mouunt, not just Christ

 

[ArmyMatt]

"Became" in Greek means just "came to be". Is/be/being are simply different cases of the same word, in both Greek and English.

yeah, but we are not looking at this in terms of grammar, but theology. God IS not flesh because He IS an eternal communion of Three Persons. God is not a "What" but rather a "Who." flesh, is not the "Who" when it comes to Christ, so it would be improper I think to say God is flesh, no matter what proper grammar would say.

My definition of energy isn't my own, it's simply the definition in Greek. Not theologically, but period.

well, if that is a sense, then yes, Christ did voluntarily go through suffering and death. even though His human will wanted to live, His human will perfectly followed the Divine Will, even unto death.

Energies are particularized among humans by hypostasis, or else all would give the Sermon on the Mouunt, not just Christ

I agree, I just said that above. I don't get how you conclude that everyone would have given the Sermon on the Mount if not, but whatevs.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

yeah, but we are not looking at this in terms of grammar, but theology.

I don't see how you can insulate theology from grammar when the basis of your theology here is grammatical consistency.

God IS not flesh because He IS an eternal communion of Three Persons. God is not a "What" but rather a "Who."

This, for instance, is a purely grammatical distinction. Not an actual one. There is no actual difference between man as a "what" and man as a "who" unless "man" is used to refer to men collectively. As the Fathers say, the difference between essence and hypostasis is only the difference between general and particular.

flesh, is not the "Who" when it comes to Christ, so it would be improper I think to say God is flesh, no matter what proper grammar would say.

"What" is a part of "who". "Who" is not distinct from "what". That's why "God" can be used to mean a nature or essence (species), but can also be used to refer to an individual specimen (hypostasiss) of that nature. As can the term "man". According to John of Damascus, the composite hypostasis of Christ "carries, according to the flesh, particular and distinctive characteristics distinguishing it from its mother and all other human beings". To distinguish these characteristics from flesh can only be done abstractly, not actually. He further says, "We also confess the single incarnate nature of the God-Word, because we say incarnate, and proclaim in this way the essence of the flesh." (This is, of course, how Severus meant it, but as per Meyendorff, Saint John of Damascus incorrectly believed Severus was a Eutychian, just as Severus incorrectly believed Chalcedon was Nestorian). The Word, in joining flesh to Himself, in cloaking Himself in it, did not keep it "external", but enhypostasized it. That is, the very Word was made flesh (since it would be improper to say flesh was made the Word, as Christ's flesh never existed in itself, but only as part of the Word). The Word's divinity and the Word's humanity are actually and functionally one nature, but are called abstractly, mentally, verbally, grammatically "two" purely for the purpose of preserving the doctrine of the integrity of both, in contrast with Eutychianism.

I agree, I just said that above. I don't get how you conclude that everyone would have given the Sermon on the Mount if not, but whatevs.

Because in Gregory of Nyssa's letter to Ablalius, the whole reason we don't refer to God's three hypostases as three Gods, whereas we refer to three human hypostases as three men, is because God's hypostases have a common energies, whereas human energies vary according to hypostasis. If humans shared one energy, they would have the same unity of action as the Trinity; no single hypostasis accomplished creation without the other two, or freed the Jews from Egypt, rather they did as one because their energies are common and one; though the Trinity is existentially three, He functions as One God, HE IS.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I don't see how you can insulate theology from grammar when the basis of your theology here is grammatical consistency.

This, for instance, is a purely grammatical distinction. Not an actual one. There is no actual difference between man as a "what" and man as a "who" unless "man" is used to refer to men collectively. As the Fathers say, the difference between essence and hypostasis is only the difference between general and particular.

except that we are talking about a Divine Who Who takes on a created what. there is a difference in Christ, since there is no human person in Christ.

"What" is a part of "who". "Who" is not distinct from "what". That's why "God" can be used to mean a nature or essence (species), but can also be used to refer to an individual specimen (hypostasiss) of that nature. As can the term "man". According to John of Damascus, the composite hypostasis of Christ "carries, according to the flesh, particular and distinctive characteristics distinguishing it from its mother and all other human beings". To distinguish these characteristics from flesh can only be done abstractly, not actually. He further says, "We also confess the single incarnate nature of the God-Word, because we say incarnate, and proclaim in this way the essence of the flesh." (This is, of course, how Severus meant it, but as per Meyendorff, Saint John of Damascus incorrectly believed Severus was a Eutychian, just as Severus incorrectly believed Chalcedon was Nestorian). The Word, in joining flesh to Himself, in cloaking Himself in it, did not keep it "external", but enhypostasized it. That is, the very Word was made flesh (since it would be improper to say flesh was made the Word, as Christ's flesh never existed in itself, but only as part of the Word). The Word's divinity and the Word's humanity are actually and functionally one nature, but are called abstractly, mentally, verbally, grammatically "two" purely for the purpose of preserving the doctrine of the integrity of both, in contrast with Eutychianism.

you are saying stuff I already agreed to. and this does not defend what I actually said. I have yet to read anyone who says God is flesh.

Because in Gregory of Nyssa's letter to Ablalius, the whole reason we don't refer to God's three hypostases as three Gods, whereas we refer to three human hypostases as three men, is because God's hypostases have a common energies, whereas human energies vary according to hypostasis. If humans shared one energy, they would have the same unity of action as the Trinity; no single hypostasis accomplished creation without the other two, or freed the Jews from Egypt, rather they did as one because their energies are common and one; though the Trinity is existentially three, He functions as One God, HE IS.

which is also what I said earlier considering our creation at different times, although I do see your point about Judas now.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

except that we are talking about a Divine Who Who takes on a created what. there is a difference in Christ, since there is no human person in Christ.



you are saying stuff I already agreed to. and this does not defend what I actually said. I have yet to read anyone who says God is flesh.



which is also what I said earlier considering our creation at different times, although I do see your point about Judas now.

Christ's person is composite.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Christ's person is composite.

composite due to the human nature He assumed, while not ceasing being Divine. NOT composite in that He assumed a human person or that His Natures merged into a third.

and I already said He is composite.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

composite due to the human nature He assumed, while not ceasing being Divine. NOT composite in that He assumed a human person or that His Natures merged into a third.

and I already said He is composite.

"The flesh is[...]an enhypostatized nature, a part of Christ's composite hypostasis"
-John of Damascus

 

[ArmyMatt]

"The flesh is[...]an enhypostatized nature, a part of Christ's composite hypostasis"
-John of Damascus

exactly, the hypostasis of the Word, which is Divine assumes the nature of man, unites to it, and makes it His own, which makes Christ a composite hypostasis. you are not refuting what I am saying

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

exactly, the hypostasis of the Word, which is Divine assumes the nature of man, unites to it, and makes it His own, which makes Christ a composite hypostasis. you are not refuting what I am saying

If the flesh is, as John says, part of Christ's person, then it is God in the sense that it is part of the Word

 

[ArmyMatt]

If the flesh is, as John says, part of Christ's person, then it is God in the sense that it is part of the Word

again, the human nature of Christ is united to the Divine Nature without the Divine undergoing any change or alteration. I don't think you are defining it as he did.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

again, the human nature of Christ is united to the Divine Nature without the Divine undergoing any change or alteration. I don't think you are defining it as he did.

The Word is a person, not a nature