I read pages 53 to 57 and haven't found an answer. Like someone said, "Cyril left the definition of certain terms fluid, so that they could be used in different ways in one context and others elsewhere." He said seemingly opposite things in different writings with the result that people with opposing views claim to follow him.
HH St. Cyril does indeed keep it open enough that both non-Chalcedonian and Chalcedonian can lay claim to him. Even more significantly, well before Chalcedon, during his conflict with John of Antioch, he receives John's confession as Orthodox, as John had demonstrated a good understanding of how to recognize both natures without dividing them within the person of Christ. We should like that it would have remained that way, but apparently others had other plans, and by the time we get to Chalcedon, HH St. Dioscorus is told to confess
in two natures or lose his seat. He does not do so, and we all know what happens as a result.
When I read Peter Farrigan's old posts, I didn't know that he was a priest.
His last name is Farrington, if that helps in finding his contact info. And you are absolutely right. I have referred to him as Fr. Peter because that is how I know him, but it seems possible (probable) that at the time of having written those posts on Monachos, he was not one (as he has been known as "Fr. Peter Farrington" online for years now, which makes me thinks that the "Peter Farrington" posts that don't bear this ecclesiastical title are from before his ordination; I don't know that for sure, though). He is one now, however.
"Except, in my own tradition from St Cyril, in the case of the incarnate Word, for in Him the humanity is real, that is hypostatic, but it belongs to the Word and does not have its own human person attached to it.
"The humanity is hypostatic, in our terms, that is it is a real instance of the human nature, but it is not an individual hypostasis with its own person. The person of the humanity is the Word.
If the union is to be a true union of Divinity and Humanity, then how is the Humanity as a nature to have its own separate hypostasis from that of the Divinity which assumed it? The God-man Jesus Christ only exists in true unity as
the God-man, not as a human-shaped vessel carrying separated 'forms' joined together as in a conjunction, nor as the divinity simply clothed in the appearance of a man. His flesh is true flesh, taken from the Theotokos St. Mary, and the union is a true union. If we take hypostasis as the individual manifestation, then it would make sense to insist that Christ is one in His hypostasis, would it not -- i.e., that He is not two people? (Two individuals)
That ends in a question mark as I'm not sure about Peter's (I will stop referring to him as "Fr." here, since we don't know if he was when he wrote these posts) use of "person" here (is this a translation of prosopon?), as that's not what we have thus far been dealing with in this conversation in this thread. So I don't quite know what to make of it. If he defines "persona" as what is the true "I" in man, then I don't really see what distinguishes this from ousia, as that is about essence but is possessed of the individual (hypostasis...) as something that is His own -- e.g., I share the essence (ousia) of humanity with all my fellow humans, but I am my own particular human being (hypostasis). Perhaps this is why hypostasis and ousia were treated more or less synonymously in the original 325 version of the Creed? I don't know. I would want more clarification as to just what is being said here.
"a particular instance of an ousia which has not yet had a person associated with it - since this is what the humanity is in Christ.
"a human individual without a human person?
'it is possible for a particular instance to be in two states, one without a prosopon of its own ousia, and more normally one with. This he also speaks of the humanity as being hypostatic - which means a real instance - without being an hypostasis.
'In Christ the humanity is a hypostasis that does not have a human self, but it has all the human attributes, both physical and rational.
'the humanity, a hypostasis that has no person of its own;"
If this is true orthodoxy, then I'd rather become Nestorian <g>.
Alright, alright...I see where this is going, and again, I have to say I'm not entirely sure what any of this means. To say that the humanity is a hypostasis that has no person of its own doesn't even really make sense to me: if we're talking about
the person of Christ, then is it just too obvious to say that the 'person' of the humanity is
Christ Himself, since it's HIS unique humanity, in the same way that we all share humanity as our shared essence, and yet are our own unique selves? Because again, to me, the unity of the Divinity and the Humanity finds its unique/sole manifestation in the person of Christ (He is the only one, the only person, the only
anything that is both), and since Christ is one person (not two), then it makes sense to say that, with the incarnation, the true union of the natures produces just one Son, Who is at all times both divine and man, without separation, confusion, mixture, or alteration.
I'm not sure I can read through Peter's posts, at least as you've presented them here, and say that
I'm without confusion from reading them. In the interest of charity I would say that we don't know whether or not he was actually a priest at the time of writing them, and I know from interacting with him elsewhere that he does not stand behind any error that may have manifested in his posting during his long time on the internet before his ordination. (I think he has a tag on all his posts in the signature line at OrthodoxChristianity.net that says something to that effect.) I know I wouldn't want to be held to represent my entire communion forever and ever as a layperson (or for that matter not as one, though I don't aspire to anything), since that's quite simply not what we're here for. We can try, as I'm trying here, but no one -- from Pope or Patriarch on down -- is completely immune from error. Lord have mercy.
We can go back to HH St. Cyril later, as I think that the different currents of thought to be found in the source are worth picking up (there's no confusion as to
his status within the Church when he wrote
On the Unity of Christ, and his words carry infinitely more weight; in fact to be honest with you I feel it is not appropriate to spend any more time than is absolutely necessary talking about Peter's posts, and I hadn't even noticed them in that thread on Monachos until you pointed them out, as I linked to that thread specifically for the post by the EO deacon about the new definition of theological terms at Chalcedon, which I believe was only the second post in the thread; I did not read the rest, so I'm a bit blindsided at the moment; and also let's remember it's an internet forum thread, not a declaration of the Holy Synod).