- Nov 28, 2003
- 23,815
- 14,270
- 60
- Country
- Australia
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
"Nature" is a human term. It can be defined many different ways here. The way the Cappadocian Fathers used and defined it is a category. John of Damascus further refined the term to mean a species that cannot be divided into other species. I might remind you that species is just an abstract concept, not an actual reality; actual reality is only specimens. A hypostasis is a reality, a nature is something that must be realized as hypostasis. A non-realized nature would be an imaginary nature.
God overturns nature by becoming a man. According to you, God does not become a man, he rather just attaches abstract manliness to him like a tumor, but keeps his divinity firmly insulated from it.
I've quoted John of Damascus saying over and over and over that Christ's hypostasis is human and divine, that his flesh is part of his hypostasis. Your only response as been that he uses terms different than I do, but you have never specified which terms or how he uses them differently.
Hopefully it will help you see how the Coptic schism is largely based on semantics and reification rather than differences on the teachings of Christ and the Apostles.My brain hurts.
I get this and agree with you.
no, those are your words. I never said that. I said He united human nature to Himself and made it His own many times. His Divinity is not firmly isolated from it because the Divine Person is the basis for the union. I also in other threads have said the mutual exchange of properties. so let's not put words in my mouth that are not there please.
I have said that once, maybe twice on here. St John says His Person is composite, which I have agreed to. St John also says that His Two Natures belong to the One Person and the One Subsistence of the Word of God, and in the very same Person AS EXISTS BEFORE THE AGES. my first seminary paper in Dogmatics was on the Exact Exposition. the duality in Christ is the Nature, not the Person. read St Cyril of Alexandria. he harps that the only Person is the Divine Logos, and there is no human person in Christ.
Can you please explain the difference between something being human vs. something being human in nature?
That's what I thought.nothing.
You're saying his human nature has no existence. Which makes it purely figment. A nature by itself, without hypostasis, is nonexistence, non hypostatic. Gremlin nature, Klingon nature, and so on. I have a Klingon nature if I care to imagine it, only it is non hypostatic, that is, nonexistent.saying that, He has a full human nature
You're saying his human nature has no existence. Which makes it purely figment. A nature by itself, without hypostasis, is nonexistence, non hypostatic. Gremlin nature, Klingon nature, and so on. I have a Klingon nature if I care to imagine it, only it non hypostatic, that is, nonexistent.
Yeah, I'm now completely convinced that the Oriental-Eastern schism started from a misunderstanding, and only persists today because of either fanatics or convoluted semantic minutiae that makes the gnats Pharisees strain at look like elephants.no, I am saying His human nature has a hypostasis, which is the Divine Hypostasis of the Logos, not a human hypostasis.
Yeah, I'm now completely convinced that the Oriental-Eastern schism started from a misunderstanding, and only persists today because of either fanatics or convoluted semantic minutiae that makes the gnats Pharisees strain at look like elephants.
The only thing this discussion has done for me is reinforce why only those who have acheived advanced purification and illumination should involve themselves in such.Hopefully it will help you see how the Coptic schism is largely based on semantics and reification rather than differences on the teachings of Christ and the Apostles.
well, the ones that I know would agree with the points I made, as I have been to school with a few of them. the issue we have been discussing is not what has ever divided us.
I apologize for that, please forgive me, but this entire issue almost outrages me. In the past, when the understanding of our Christologies weren't so clear or even uniform on both sides, it was understandable, but today, when there are Copts being martyred so frequently, to maintain a division over a semantic dispute that, let's face it, 99% of people on both sides can't even follow, is a serious sin.and there is no need to be snarky.
There's nothing wrong with that, and I hardly hold you accountable for the schism. I'm more concerned with the jamming of artificial difference between our Christologies, almost for the sake of justifying our separation and maintaining it. Differences that are totally dependent on the reification fallacy (a fallacy that engendered the Filioque).For my own part in contributing to the upset, please understand that I myself am not advocating denial of communion. It's very simply not my call to make. This is for the bishops and hierarchs.
Let's just say that if I knew of a Coptic of other non-EO Orthodox receiving the Eucharist in an EO parish, I would consider it none of my business and "report" to no one. Nor would I be offended.
But when the conversations concerns, in a theoretical sense, what the official stance is, or common practice, I simply wished to point out what those may be.
But I have learned it is an extremely touchy issue, and believe me, I have been involved with individuals touched by this issue and am very sympathetic to them as individuals.
But it is absolutely not my place to judge or undermine the bishops. I'm not saying you are. Merely pointing out what the situation is and my unimportant little place in it. So if I inadvertently offended or angered you in that, please just understand that I am not of any importance in this to be offended over.
Peace to you.
It's actually exactly what divided us. From a Coptic perspective, saying Christ had two natures was not meaningfully different from saying he had two hypostases, because they didn't distinguish between Christ being human in nature from human in hypostasis. But Severus did say one can call Christ of two natures in theoria (and, reasonably, he went so far as to say you can even call Christ two hypostases, so long as it is purely an intellectual duality, not meant to be an actual one).
I apologize for that, please forgive me,
but this entire issue almost outrages me.
In the past, when the understanding of our Christologies weren't so clear or even uniform on both sides, it was understandable, but today, when there are Copts being martyred so frequently, to maintain a division over a semantic dispute that, let's face it, 99% of people on both sides can't even follow, is a serious sin.
If I'm upset, it is not for you disagreeing with me, but because people advocated denying Communion on the basis of this. Yes, I strongly disagree with your Christology, since it rules out out Theosis of the person, which I find completely irreconcilable with our logoi being divine,
disagreeing with Christology based on purely semantic disputes of itself doesn't upset me, it's maintaining a major schism over it.
Christ and the Apostles never, ever taught anything remotely like the difference between being human in nature and being human in hypostasis, this is an entirely, entirely academic development, no saint ever taught that.
I seriously doubt you yourself can define the distinction, you only espouse it.
well, no. I have been to school with them (still going to school with them), and none have ever said that you can say Christ is human in His Person. they do distinguish between Person and Nature, they just don't think one can distinguish the natures after the union as strongly as Chalcedon did, which they felt was more than just in theory or thought.
I get my Christology here from John of Damascus, and I can't see how he could be interpreted any other way. Hypostasis means "reality", I find it objectionable to say there is no human reality in Christ. But we're talking about realities that can't really be put into words, since the reality of God is not at all the same as the reality of man, an ox and a rose share a much more similar reality. So let's just end on that by agreeing that Christ has a fully human enhypostaton.my issue with what you have been saying is that there is a human Person in Christ, which no Father ever said, and a Non-Chalcedonian would rightly reject (as do we).
Our nature is certainly impaired by the fall, but sin is nonetheless accomplished individually, alone. And these incur personal fall. It is not our nature which is judged, but our person. And God's nature is never participated except personally, God is only know personally, and God only exists personally.no, because in the Fathers, it was our nature that fell, which is what Christ came to heal. mind, nous, will, energy, etc are all aspects of the nature, which Christ has humanly or Divinely. what I said says nothing of the logoi or anything to do with the theosis of the Person, since theosis is participation in God's nature.
I'm afraid they don't know what they're talking about, at least when it comes to Coptic terminology, which has nature and person as interchangeable terms when referring to particularizations. That is often how Saint Cyril often used them, which is why they objected to Chalcedon. Not only do Meyendorff and Alfeyev explicitly attest to this, but Justinian does as well, stating that because Saint Cyril often used nature as interchangeably with hypostasis, it is acceptable to say Christ is one incarnate nature.
It is quite clear that official Coptic documents use "nature" to mean subject:
He that came down from heaven is the Son's "hypostasis", meaning the Divine nature.
The Divine nature (God the Word) was united with the human nature
The expression "One Nature" does not indicate the Divine nature alone nor the human nature alone, but it indicates the unity of both natures into One Nature which is "The Nature of the Incarnate Logos".
Although man is formed of these two natures [body and soul], we never say that he is two, but one person. All man’s acts are attributed to this one nature and not to the soul alone or to the body alone.
Similarly, all the acts of Christ were attributed to Him as a whole and not to His Divine nature alone (independently) or to His human nature alone.
The One Nature of the Incarnate Logos: It is One Nature (one entity) but has all the properties of two natures: It has all the properties of the Divine nature and all those of the human nature.
I get my Christology here from John of Damascus, and I can't see how he could be interpreted any other way. Hypostasis means "reality", I find it objectionable to say there is no human reality in Christ. But we're talking about realities that can't really be put into words, since the reality of God is not at all the same as the reality of man, an ox and a rose share a much more similar reality. So let's just end on that by agreeing that Christ has a fully human enhypostaton.
Our nature is certainly impaired by the fall, but sin is nonetheless accomplished individually, alone. And these incur personal fall. It is not our nature which is judged, but our person. And God's nature is never participated except personally, God is only know personally, and God only exists personally.
I don't think the Alexandrians were reading the Latin translation of the council, so I am unsure as to why you are bringing that up.that is because physis, at the time could mean hypostasis (and technically still can, as you rightly point out), but substantia in Latin, which directly translates to hypostasis, means nature at Chalcedon. so when Chalcedon spoke of two substances, it came across as Two Persons. however, the word personae in Latin was always used to mean the single Person of the Lord which is Divine.
and even this definition does not say there is a human person in Christ.
and St John also says the Person of the Word did not change.
this is because we don't ignore Chalcedonian, Latin, or Antiochian Christology. St Cyril is also very clear that the Person of the Word is unchanging, and there is no human person in Christ. remember hypostasis directly translates to substance,
so we agree that there is a human reality in Christ, just not in His Persona. it was Chalcedon which equated (thanks to the Cappadocians) ouisia = essence = nature = substance, and person = hypostasis.
physis is generally used in the former, but can be used in the latter as you correctly asserted.
however, again, nowhere does St John or anyone say there is a human person in Christ.
every one of my professors said no, as well as every non-Chalcedonian I have come across (even on here). and my profs here studied under Elder Sophrony, Met Kallistos, Fr John Romanides, Fr Hopko, Fr Meyendorff, etc.
As you can see from the Coptic document I quoted, which uses nature interchangeably with person and say Christ's is both human and divine, that is absolutely not the Coptic position.even an OO I discussed Chalcedon with agreed that the Person of the Word is only Divine. that is not what separates us, historically or today.
For me, hypostasis just means concrete existence, and my friend's is literally in my grasp if I grab her. It doesn't appear you are using hypostasis in that way, so I would appreciate it if you elaborated on what you mean by this term.and we know that Personal God, and are defied by Him through grace, which is an aspect of nature. the Person of anyone, even another human, is forever unknown according to St Gregory Palamas. but every person becomes known through participation in those energies, which are grace when we speak of God. so I will forever be growing in knowledge of you, or my best friend, or my dad, etc through their energies, yet their person is forever outside of my grasp. same is absolutely true with God.
I don't think the Alexandrians were reading the Latin translation of the council, so I am unsure as to why you are bringing that up.
Yes, if you use physis as a synonyms for person, and say Christ's physis is human, it means there is a human person in Christ. In a sense.
But then he also says the person did change. So it really depends on how you're definition "change" here. If you define "change" to include becoming flesh, the Word obviously changed. Most generally though it means changing in fundamental characteristics which define the Word as God. The Word, for instance, did not change from being uncreated to a created hypostasis, BUT the Word's hypostatsis did incorporate a new component (enhypostaton) which is created.
Not in theology is sure doesn't, that was cleared up in Saint Athanasius's time. Latins translated ousia (being), not hypostasis, as substance. Hypostasis was translated either as person or subsistence, and Saint Augustine defined person as a "rational subsistence".
No, ousia being equated with substance started with Nicaea.
It can also be used to mean "energies," which is how Saints Athanasius and Peter use it.
No, because he would consider it proper to say there is a composite God-human person in Christ. But that Christ's humanity is part of his person, he reiterates over and over.
That's not really surprising, Meyendorff was a exponent of this Christology you are espousing, which he seems to have taken primarily from Leontius of Jerusalem, who explicitly formulated it. Meyendorff interestingly enough says that it's absolutely incoherent (to say Christ is human in nature but not in person) unless the definition of nature is radically changed from that the Cappadocian Fathers used, which he says is "inadequate". Meyendorff posits that nature and person are both concrete and "ontologically different," which the Cappadocian Fathers wouldn't say (which he freely admits, saying that they are lacking). This new definition of nature does not have any Patristic basis that I can find, although Meyendorff maintains it was introduced at Chalcedon (that is his understanding, not something elaborated as Chalcedon). Meyendorff reads John with this definition, but looking as John's definition of nature, John clearly doesn't subscribe to it so it is not really appropriate to read him through that lens. I know this approach has been popular since at least the Paris School, but from my perspective it is based on philosophy more than theology.
As you can see from the Coptic document I quoted, which uses nature interchangeably with person and say Christ's is both human and divine, that is absolutely not the Coptic position.
For me, hypostasis just means concrete existence, and my friend's is literally in my grasp if I grab her. It doesn't appear you are using hypostasis in that way, so I would appreciate it if you elaborated on what you mean by this term.
because the Tome of St Leo was in Latin I believe, hence the controversy
And still does among the Oriental Orthodox, as it did with Severus. This is why they rejected Chalcedon.yes, physis meant more akin to Person than Nature in Alexandria,
I meant the direct translation sub in Latin is hypo in Greek, stansia in Latin is stasis in Greek.
No, but there was an official Latin translation of the Creed long before Chalcedon, and substance was used for ousia in it.I don't think they used Latin at Nicaea.
That hardly changes the fact that your drawing of an ontological distinction between nature and hypostasis comes 100% from the Paris School, and is totally foreign to the Cappadocian Fathers (as was well known to the Paris School).good thing I mentioned others like Elder Sophrony and Fr Romanides, both of whom are critical of the Paris school.
Yes, that's right, the Copts use nature and hypostasis interchangeably. So when they're using "nature" that way, and say Christ's nature is both human and divine, it means they are saying his hypostasis is.probably using physis, which could also mean hypostasis.
no, I am using it like Palamas, Maximos the Confessor, and the more mystical theology since the tragic break. for them, your concrete "who" as you are is forever unknown, yet we can come to know your concrete "who" through your energy and operation and action.
So you agree that a hypostasis is nothing more than a composite of these elements animated by God? And that hypostasis is not a something distinct from that?now of course, any distinction is made in thought only and not in reality, because you are composite of mind, body, and soul and your parts cannot be divided.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?