One divine person in Jesus

[Theophilus Agapee]

Prayers to the Virgin Mary and the saints are part of the teaching of our Church. What exactly do you have complaints about Catholics?

This is not part of our discussion in this thread. I was just replying to Valletta's objection.

Our Church (denomination) needs reformation.

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

Orthodox understanding of hypostasis is an individual nature. Christ was not only out of two common natures, but also out of two individual natures, since Christ accepted individual properties of humanity. And in the union there is one simple person, one composite hypostasis and one composite nature.

Let's read together what is the Orthodox understanding of Hypostasis, and let's see if we, Miaphysites, believe Christ is a composite Hypostasis out of two Hypostases, or the same Divine Hypostasis of the Logos assumed Human Essence and united It to His Divine Essence in ONE composite Nature. The following excerpt is from the First Agreed Statement (1989) of the Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches which includes official representatives of the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East, the Supreme Catholicosate of All Armenians at Etchmiadzin, the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia, the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church of the East and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church from the Oriental Orthodox family; the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, the Russian Patriarchate, the Romanian Patriarchate, the Serbian Patriarchate, the Bulgarian Patriarchate, the Georgian Patriarchate, the Church of Cyprus, the Church of Greece, the Church of Albania, the Czechoslovakian Orthodox Church, the Polish Orthodox Church and the Finnish Orthodox Church from the Byzantine Orthodox family.

Let's read this excerpt from the text of this First Agreed Statement (1989):

"When we speak of the one composite (synthetos) hypostasis of our Lord Jesus Christ, we do not say that in Him a divine hypostasis and a human hypostasis came together. It is that the one eternal hypostasis of the Second Person of the Trinity has assumed our created human nature in that act uniting it with His own uncreated divine nature, to form an inseparably and unconfusedly united real divine-human being, the natures being distinguished from each other in contemplation (theoria) only.​

​

The hypostasis of the Logos before the incarnation, even with His divine nature, is of course not composite. The same hypostasis, as distinct from nature, of the Incarnate Logos, is not composite either. The unique theandric person (prosopon) of Jesus Christ is one eternal hypostasis Who has assumed human nature by the Incarnation. So we call that hypostasis composite, on account of the natures which are united to form one composite unity. It is not the case that our Fathers used physis and hypostasis always interchangeably and confused the one with the other. The term hypostasis can be used to denote both the person as distinct from nature, and also the person with the nature, for a hypostasis never in fact exists without a nature.​

​

It is the same hypostasis of the Second Person of the Trinity, eternally begotten from the Father Who in these last days became a human being and was born of the Blessed Virgin. This is the mystery of the hypostatic union we confess in humble adoration – the real union of the divine with the human, with all the properties and functions of the uncreated divine nature, including natural will and natural energy, inseparably and unconfusedly united with the created human nature with all its properties and functions, including natural will and natural energy. It is the Logos Incarnate Who is the subject of all the willing and acting of Jesus Christ."​

​

This is why I am telling you: we need to reform our terminology in order to avoid confusion. Your whole Semi-Nestoriaan theory is caused by such a confusion.

 

[Tigran1245]

Let's read together what is the Orthodox understanding of Hypostasis, and let's see if we, Miaphysites, believe Christ is a composite Hypostasis out of two Hypostases, or the same Divine Hypostasis of the Logos assumed Human Essence and united It to His Divine Essence in ONE composite Nature. The following excerpt is from the First Agreed Statement (1989) of the Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches which includes official representatives of the Coptic Orthodox Church, the Syrian Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and All the East, the Supreme Catholicosate of All Armenians at Etchmiadzin, the Armenian Catholicosate of Cilicia, the Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church of the East and the Ethiopian Orthodox Church from the Oriental Orthodox family; the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Alexandria, the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch, the Russian Patriarchate, the Romanian Patriarchate, the Serbian Patriarchate, the Bulgarian Patriarchate, the Georgian Patriarchate, the Church of Cyprus, the Church of Greece, the Church of Albania, the Czechoslovakian Orthodox Church, the Polish Orthodox Church and the Finnish Orthodox Church from the Byzantine Orthodox family.

Let's read this excerpt from the text of this First Agreed Statement (1989):

"When we speak of the one composite (synthetos) hypostasis of our Lord Jesus Christ, we do not say that in Him a divine hypostasis and a human hypostasis came together. It is that the one eternal hypostasis of the Second Person of the Trinity has assumed our created human nature in that act uniting it with His own uncreated divine nature, to form an inseparably and unconfusedly united real divine-human being, the natures being distinguished from each other in contemplation (theoria) only.​

​

The hypostasis of the Logos before the incarnation, even with His divine nature, is of course not composite. The same hypostasis, as distinct from nature, of the Incarnate Logos, is not composite either. The unique theandric person (prosopon) of Jesus Christ is one eternal hypostasis Who has assumed human nature by the Incarnation. So we call that hypostasis composite, on account of the natures which are united to form one composite unity. It is not the case that our Fathers used physis and hypostasis always interchangeably and confused the one with the other. The term hypostasis can be used to denote both the person as distinct from nature, and also the person with the nature, for a hypostasis never in fact exists without a nature.​

​

It is the same hypostasis of the Second Person of the Trinity, eternally begotten from the Father Who in these last days became a human being and was born of the Blessed Virgin. This is the mystery of the hypostatic union we confess in humble adoration – the real union of the divine with the human, with all the properties and functions of the uncreated divine nature, including natural will and natural energy, inseparably and unconfusedly united with the created human nature with all its properties and functions, including natural will and natural energy. It is the Logos Incarnate Who is the subject of all the willing and acting of Jesus Christ."​

​

This is why I am telling you: we need to reform our terminology in order to avoid confusion. Your whole Semi-Nestoriaan theory is caused by such a confusion.

You cite a document where the word "hypostasis" is used in the Chalcedonian sense as a person or independent existence. We recognize that the Person, ontology, and independent existence, the being of Christ, belong only to the Second Person of the Trinity and were not added. We also believe that Christ did not take on another human hypostasis in time, since the flesh of Christ was never separate from the Word.

We have an Orthodox Interpretation of 1989 agreements. Coptic Metropolitan Bishoy, who participated in this commission, wrote an interpretation of this statement: H E Metropolitan Bishoy Official WebSite And his interpretation exposes the heresy that you want to attribute to our Church. I quote several fragments from the interpretation of Metropolitan Bishoy:

It is well known to both sides that the term hypostatic union (enosis kath hypostasin) cannot mean the union of two persons since this is the Nestorian heresy. Saint Kyrill spoke about “Hypostatic Union” and refused completely the term “Prosopic Union” …

We do not believe in Nestorian heresy of Personal Union of Christ, but only in the Hypostatic Union. You mix these terms and confess Personal union. Because the Hypostasis is:

The question now is to interpret the difference between the term “prosopon” (person) and the term “hypostasis” for Saint Kyrill. The term hypostasis for Saint Kyrill meant always the personalised nature i.e. the person together with the nature he possessed.

So, hypostasis is personal or individual nature, as I said. And we confess hypostatic union out of two individual natures=hypostatses:

The union of natures of the incarnate Word of God are the union of individualized nature, or more precisely the union of personalized natures which are forming one composite hypostasis of the Incarnate Logos.

One composite hypostasis is out of two personalized natures=hypostases.

You read a document with compromise terminology and did not understand it correctly when it was necessary to open the interpretation of the document.

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

You cite a document where the word "hypostasis" is used in the Chalcedonian sense as a person or independent existence. We recognize that the Person, ontology, and independent existence, the being of Christ, belong only to the Second Person of the Trinity and were not added. We also believe that Christ did not take on another human hypostasis in time, since the flesh of Christ was never separate from the Word.

We have an Orthodox Interpretation of 1989 agreements. Coptic Metropolitan Bishoy, who participated in this commission, wrote an interpretation of this statement: H E Metropolitan Bishoy Official WebSite And his interpretation exposes the heresy that you want to attribute to our Church. I quote several fragments from the interpretation of Metropolitan Bishoy:

It is well known to both sides that the term hypostatic union (enosis kath hypostasin) cannot mean the union of two persons since this is the Nestorian heresy. Saint Kyrill spoke about “Hypostatic Union” and refused completely the term “Prosopic Union” …

We do not believe in Nestorian heresy of Personal Union of Christ, but only in the Hypostatic Union. You mix these terms and confess Personal union. Because the Hypostasis is:

The question now is to interpret the difference between the term “prosopon” (person) and the term “hypostasis” for Saint Kyrill. The term hypostasis for Saint Kyrill meant always the personalised nature i.e. the person together with the nature he possessed.

So, hypostasis is personal or individual nature, as I said. And we confess hypostatic union out of two individual natures=hypostatses:

The union of natures of the incarnate Word of God are the union of individualized nature, or more precisely the union of personalized natures which are forming one composite hypostasis of the Incarnate Logos.

One composite hypostasis is out of two personalized natures=hypostases.

You read a document with compromise terminology and did not understand it correctly when it was necessary to open the interpretation of the document.

I didn't just quote "a document", as if it were a simple document made by some kids or beginners in theology. I quoted an official agreement between both Orthodox families, made by high level theologians from both sides. And they didn't compromise: they clearly explained what Hypostasis meant in the writings of their Fathers, and they explained things in a way to clarify the orthodox Christology which they both believe as they clearly said. They clearly said that there are NOT two Hypostases, and that the natures are distinguished in contemplation (theoria) only. And the interpretation which you quoted fully agrees with this.

So you have nothing new to say to defend your Semi-Nestorian heresy.

 

[Valletta]

Yes, Roman Catholics give Mary part of the Glory that belongs to Christ Alone, i.e. to God Alone.

Please don't make such false accusations against Catholics or any other Christians.

 

[Theophilus Agapee]

QUESTION: How could the second person operate separately in Jesus in light of the doctrine of the inseparability of the distinct persons and that “the whole divine economy is the common work of the three divine persons … it has only one and the same operation” (CCC 258)?

This was the original question. The right answer was given by ViaCrucis as follows:

Jesus is the Second Person. And Jesus didn't operate separately from the Father or the Son. For example, the Lord continually refers to the role, power, and work of His Father in and through Him.

The Son uniquely became flesh; but the Son is not and never separate from the Father and the Spirit. So while Jesus is the Son, and only the Son, the Son is not alone. Jesus is never alone, the Father and the Spirit are in, with, through Him; for there is always the eternal Perichoresis of the Trinity.

-CryptoLutheran

Thank God for the Western Reformation! As you see, ViaCrucis understood the orthodox Christology of the Church: Christ is the Second Person. So whatever Christ does, it is done by the whole Trinity. Though only the Son was incarnated, but the Son was never separated from the Father and from the Holy Spirit. Nestorians and Semi-Nestorians imagine some actions in Christ that are called human, as if we can separate the Humanity of Christ from His Divinity (as if they are not UNITED in ONE Nature), and thus for them there are things that Christ does which are NOT done by the Trinity. Indeed, they have two "Christs", and not One and the Same Christ who was incarnated. And in practice, though not in confession, they got a fourth Hypostasis added to the Trinity.

And as ViaCrucis understands the orthodox doctrine about Christ, so he realizes that the difference between the Miaphysites and the Chalcedonians is in formulation, and not in the doctrine itself; he says:

Both Diaphysites and Miaphysites reject the confusion of the Divinity and Humanity; it's the semantic use of "nature" that differentiates the Miaphysite and Diaphysite formulations, not material doctrine.

This is what I have been saying all the time here, and this is what I taught my students at the Reformation School. And this is also what the Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches said:

In the light of our Agreed Statement on Christology as well as of the above common affirmations, we have now clearly understood that both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and the unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition, though they have used Christological terms in different ways. It is this common faith and continuous loyalty to the Apostolic Tradition that should be the basis for our unity and communion.


- Second Agreed Statement (1990)

Indeed, both families of Orthodox believe that the Same Person of the Logos is Divine and Human at the same time, i.e. simultaneously. Nestorianism teaches that the Hypostasis of the Son was added to a human hypostasis born of the Blessed Virgin, and thus we got a 100% Divine Christ and a 100% Human Christ. Semi-Nestorians claim that these Hypostases are united, but in fact they believe the Logos added to Himself a body and soul, and that He didn't UNITE His Divine Essence to the Human Essence in a way that He is ONE Christ, the Same Second Person of the Trinity. Thus Semi-Nestorianism also has two Christs.

Again, ViaCrucis says:

I am not fully immersed in Oriental Orthodox language, though in the Chalcedonian perspective we confess that the Divine Person of the Son is fully united with humanity--He is a DIvine Person who is also human by way of union, i.e. Hypostatic Union--hence when we speak of the Divinity and Humanity as two natures (δύο φύσεων), we are merely referring to the Humanity and the Divinity as real and distinct. The union of the Divine with the human is therefore understood as a Personal or Hypostatic union--the assumption of the human by the Divine. So that Christ is, as He always was, the Eternal Divine Son and Word; and in no less way is also the real flesh and blood Child of Holy Mary, by which virtue she is rightly called Theotokos and mother of God (Luke 1:43). And in this way the flesh and human hand of Christ is, indeed, the hand of God; the blood spilled upon Calvary is the blood of God (Acts 20:28). The Divine Person is human, because of the union of the (so we Chalcedonians say) natures.

In the ancient and tragic and wrongful divide between the Diaphysites and Miaphysites this has, at its core, been a semantic issue. The issue is fundamentally the difference by what we mean by "nature"; Diaphysites use "nature" to refer to Divinity and Humanity respectively, united indivisibly and unconfusedly in the one Hypostasis and Person. Miaphysites, as I have long understood it, use "nature" to describe the one undivided Person and Hypostasis; thus two natures vs one united nature (both of which firmly reject the errant formulations and theologies of Nestorian and Eutyches).

Of course the one Person of Christ is Theanthropos (God-Man), but the Chalcedonian approach is to speak of the Divine Person assuming, being united witg, humanity; and thus Christ is what He has always been (and always is and always will be, the Divine Son and Word, Eternal God) and simultaneously is also human by way of the Incarnation. The Divine Person became human (ἐνανθρωπήσαντα). The One that always has been, Son and Word of the Father, the One who is homousian with the Father, out of love and for us human beings and our salvation became one of us, is one of us, human and flesh, suffered and died and rose again.

-CryptoLutheran

Amen! We also believe this same truth, but we express it with a different terminology. Wheras Nestorians and Semi-Nestorians say Chalcedonians have a false doctrine.

We Miaphysites, together with Chalcedonians, we have declared the following:

First Agreed Statement (1989):

"When we speak of the one composite (synthetos) hypostasis of our Lord Jesus Christ, we do not say that in Him a divine hypostasis and a human hypostasis came together. It is that the one eternal hypostasis of the Second Person of the Trinity has assumed our created human nature in that act uniting it with His own uncreated divine nature, to form an inseparably and unconfusedly united real divine-human being, the natures being distinguished from each other in contemplation (theoria) only.​

​

The hypostasis of the Logos before the incarnation, even with His divine nature, is of course not composite. The same hypostasis, as distinct from nature, of the Incarnate Logos, is not composite either. The unique theandric person (prosopon) of Jesus Christ is one eternal hypostasis Who has assumed human nature by the Incarnation. So we call that hypostasis composite, on account of the natures which are united to form one composite unity. It is not the case that our Fathers used physis and hypostasis always interchangeably and confused the one with the other. The term hypostasis can be used to denote both the person as distinct from nature, and also the person with the nature, for a hypostasis never in fact exists without a nature.​

​

It is the same hypostasis of the Second Person of the Trinity, eternally begotten from the Father Who in these last days became a human being and was born of the Blessed Virgin. This is the mystery of the hypostatic union we confess in humble adoration – the real union of the divine with the human, with all the properties and functions of the uncreated divine nature, including natural will and natural energy, inseparably and unconfusedly united with the created human nature with all its properties and functions, including natural will and natural energy. It is the Logos Incarnate Who is the subject of all the willing and acting of Jesus Christ."​

​

This, indeed, is why the Blessed Virgin is called Theotokos:

"He is true God and true Man at the same time, perfect in His Divinity, perfect in His humanity. Because the one she bore in her womb was at the same time fully God as well as fully human we call the Blessed Virgin Theotokos." (First Agreed Statement 1989)​

Indeed, here is what we say in the Confession of the Orthodox Faith:

"Հաւատամք զմինն յերից Անձանց [Armenian equivalent of the Greek Hypostasis] զԲանն Աստուած` ծնեալ ի Հօրէ նախ քան զյաւիտեանս. ի ժամանակի իջեալ յԱստուածածին [Armenian for Theotokos] կոյսն Մարիամ, առեալ յարենէ նորա` միաւորեաց ընդ իւրում Աստուածութեանն [The Second Hypostasis took from the flesh of the Virgin and united it to His Divinity; He didn't unite Himself to the flesh, but He united the flesh taken from the Virgin to His Divinity!], իննամսեայ ժուժկալեալ յարգանդի անարատ կուսին. և եղև Աստուածն կատարեալ` մարդ կատարեալ հոգւով և մտօք և մարմնով [the Perfect God became perfect Man in spirit and mind and body]. մի անձն [equivalent of the Greek Hypostasis], մի դէմ [equivalent of the Greek Prosopon] և միաւորեալ մի Բնութիւն [one united Physis]: Աստուածն մարդացեալ առանց փոփոխման և առանց այլայլութեան. անսերմն յղութիւն և անապական ծնունդ. որպէս ոչ է սկիզբն Աստուածութեան նորա` և ոչ վախճան մարդկութեան նորա, (զի Յիսուս Քրիստոս երէկ և այսօր` նոյն և յաւիտեան):"

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE:
In this Confession, when we use the Armenian Անձ for the Greek Hypostasis, it is the equivalent of the term Hypostasis as used in a technical way by the Cappadocian Fathers for the Persons of the Trinity, not as the equivalent of the Greek term Hypostasis in its original simple Greek meaning which is Essence and which is almost equivalent to the Greek Ousia. In Hebrews 1:3 we read:

"And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature [Hypostasis], and upholds all things by the word of His power." (Hebrews 1:3 NASB1995)

As you see, the NASB translators translated the Greek Hypostasis as Nature (though the exact equivalent of the Greek term would be Essence and not Nature), unlike the KJV and NKJV that wrongly translates it as Person. The Armenian Version translated Hebrews 1:3 very well with the exact equivalent of the Greek Hypostasis:

«որ է լոյս փառաց եւ նկարագիր էութեան [Eyoutioun or Eyoutyoun, the exact equivalent of the Greek Hypostasis] նորա, որ կրէ զամենայն բանիւ զօրութեան իւրոյ, սրբութիւն մեղաց մերոց արարեալ՝ նստաւ ընդ աջմէ Մեծութեանն ի բարձունս»։

In the Van Dyck-Boustany version also, which is the most widely used Arabic version, Hypostasis is translated as جوهر (Jawhar = Essence).

This is why, in the work of the Eastern/Oriental Reformation, we need to reform the usage of the Greek terms in order to avoid the ambiguities that led to the Chalcedonian misunderstanding within the One Church of Christ.

Grace be with you!