Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Categories 13.8K
- General Category 10.9K
- General Announcements 184
- Faith Issues 3.4K
- Coptic Orthodox Church 2.5K
- Personal Issues 1.4K
- Prayer Requests 423
- Random Issues 1.8K
- Introductions 294
- Non-Orthodox Inquiries 232
- Youth Corner 606
- Hymns 2.5K
- Hymns Discussion 2.5K
- Technicial Difficulties 368
- Technical Topics 368
If I am OF two natures, can they be real if I am not also IN them?
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).
Comments
It all comes down to what do you mean by the words "nature", "hypostasis", "humanity", "divinity" and "essence". There are specific nuances in each language that is not transmitted or conceptualized universally.
If nature is understood as "the sum of all characteristics that describe its ontological source" (ie, very similar to essence), then we, as miaphysites easily understand there are two natures and Christ is IN two natures. Since this distinction only really matters in an abstract theoria, we don't like using this language. But it is nonetheless true and valid.
However, if nature is understood as "the characteristics of a single reality (very similar to hypostasis)" then it really makes no sense to say Christ is IN two natures. Rather both natures continue to exist but there is no longer any need for an abstract distinction and we are left with a miaphysis.
As you stated, the One Incarnate Logos is a composite hypostasis. But since he is a single reality FROM two natures (where both natures continue to exist without mingling, confusion, or separation), it makes no sense to say one reality is IN two natures. That doesn't mean we are unwilling to say it. We are willing to say "The Logos Himself is IN that nature which he has made his own" if we understand the word nature in the first definition, not the second. We would prefer to say "The Logos Himself took that nature which he made his own" but that's a different issue. The point is we are not denying the reality of his humanity in either definition.
The third paragraph you wrote illustrates this point. Of course you, as a full human, exist in a composite nature of body and soul and you will always continue as body and soul to be whole. This is the first definition. However, why make a distinction if we are talking about a single reality: you. Every action, every decision, every thought, everything about you is fully understood as coming from you, not your body and/or soul. You need to eat food, not just your body. If we say your body needs to eat, not your soul, we can easily see two distinct realities or subjects. If there are two distinct realities or subjects in you, then you will NOT be fully human.
So it's not a matter of miaphysites excluding chalcedonian language or vice versa. It is a matter of the nuances of each word and how we are to understand them.
Yes there is a great deal of misunderstandings among all saints. That is because each person used the word nature differently and refused to accept a plurality of nuances and meanings. As long as any miaphysite sees a Chalcedonian using the word nature meaning distinct properties and refuses to acknowledge that nature can mean the essence or characteristic of each part, then he/she will see it as heresy. The same is true in reverse. Hence why there is so much polemical fighting.
It's not a matter of tossing a coin. It is a matter of recognizing that at the metatheoretical and sublinguistic, philosophical framework, miaphysitism and dyophysitism are identical and there should be no reason to choose. As of now, most people remain in the morpho-semantic intermediary level, where the axioms of truth concerning Christ's natures are insufficient to achieve provability. (That's a nice way to say christological formulas cannot prove truth in themselves, but only express the truth of Christ's natures when they correspond to the metatheoretical Truth which is Christ Himself). In the end, all language fails to express the Truth of Christ because the Truth of Christ is Christ Himself. It's only when we go pass language and formulas that we understand who and what Christ is: the Truth.
Sorry for the complex language. Christology is not a simple topic. I know minasoliman will explain it much better than I can.
Use of Apollinarian forgeries are useless arguments, since by then one is using well-established and theologically accepted CYRILLIAN terminology. If the phrase originally came from Apollinarius, it has now become Orthodox, and it's pointless to think Apollinarian forgeries (if indeed they are, since all we got were Chalcedonian biases on these works) would hurt the Miaphysite cause or theology. In the same way, one can argue the phrase "in two natures" for its questionable origins as well.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3170655?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
That sounds like moving away from Cassian. Now if you could grant that Pope Leo was in fact innocently using the term "in two natures", there was a disconnect, and he ended up inadvertently condemning St. Cyril by being terminologically strict. Check out Fr. John Romanides' article on Pope Leo's alliance with the moderate Nestorian Theodoret of Cyrrhus:
http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.06.en.orthodox_and_oriental_orthodox_consultation.htm
Finally, St. John Cassian was also criticized for being oblivious of real Christology, and his works against Nestorius were considered very poor even by Roman Catholic scholars, compared to the eloquence of St. Cyril.
https://books.google.com/books?id=OFQVDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA222&lpg=PA222&dq=john+cassian+christology&source=bl&ots=TFyPZ40T9M&sig=3GzNS9J7nI0rEN33uDYfwFPNC8k&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjomO_wyJzQAhWDz4MKHae_CL8Q6AEIIDAD#v=onepage&q=john cassian christology&f=false
So technically, when Nestorius would read something like the Tome of Leo, if it was based on Cassian, then Cassian did a poor job refuting Nestorius, because Nestorius ended up praising the Tome in his Bazaar of Herecleides.
I'm not saying though that "in two natures" is unacceptable. I'm saying based on historical standards, if I were a devout follower of Cyril living in the fifth century, there are many reasons to hold Pope Leo in suspicion and to consider that those who taught him were misinformed in theology AT BEST. That's not pinning saints against one another. It's just recognizing the weaknesses based on the theological milieu of the time.
We are followers of the TRUTH, and between two different explications of the same truth it is inevitable that one be clearer and therefore preferred above others. Why not therefore subscribe to that which is clearer? I do not think that St. Cyril's terminology alone and in a vacuum is immune from misinterpretation, regardless of its intended meaning, and the Tritheists prove that. If every Hypostasis has its own physis and the Trinity is three Hypostases it therefore consists of three physis: bam, Tritheist heresy originating from a slavish adherence and application of philosophical terms.
Now I know of no Tritheist non-Chalcedonians today (although some Ethiopian iconography makes you think twice), and I know they all disclaim the heresies of Eutyches and the Aphthartodocetae, but isn't there something to be said for honoring St. Cyril by clarifying his own intended teachings with more precise terminology? Isn't the Church greater than individual fathers? Your ideas?
But history is much more complicated than this. Keep in mind the last paragraph of my last post. You have to put yourself within the context of history to empathize for the actions made at the time. There were suspicions, alliances that should not have made, and when the emperor intervenes to enforce a council, bloodshed and persecution. Put yourself in their shoes (anti-Chalcedonians or Chalcedonians), and think: "that council or that person was allied with that heretic, they wrote that phrase, their logic leads to this theological pitfall, and I have many fathers and bishops and people who died for this...they must be wrong and I must defend my tradition at all costs for the sake of the Church."
That was the mindset of both sides. The fog only began to clear up much later when it was already too late and the damage too deep. So, while you are grappling with these questions, you have to remember people in the earlier centuries did not think the way we are now. You may see Tri-theists later appear but we may see Nestorians, iconoclasts, and Monotheletes. We all had our heretics we fought against. That does not mean anything, and it only shows the increase of the fog more than anything.
The other issue is the "infalliblization" of councils. Once a council becomes imperial law like Chalcedon for a very long time, there will no admission to any mistakes made by it. So the issue goes both ways. The Church is greater than individual fathers yes...
...
... and individual councils too!
God bless!
FYI St. Severus's favorite Church fathers who got him to convert into Christianity were the Cappadocians. He could quote them better than scholars today to advance his theology. So the tired excuse of Chalcedonians claiming to use Cappadocian terminology is biased. Severus also used "Cappadocian" terminology, but only for Trinitarianism. The only difference is he also used "Cappadocian" logic as well, that terminology matters depending on the era and heresies one fights against (think of the ousia/hypostasis controversy), not on an inner metaphysical consistency, which is why he didn't feel compelled to do the same for Christology
The ultimate answer: no. He still insisted Chalcedon must be accepted, just as we insisted it be rejected for reasons of not giving the benefit of doubt back.
St. Severus also believed that the phrase "two natures" is perfectly Orthodox, but because of the mess up of Chalcedon, is now becoming inadequate.
A good student of history must take into account who's writing the history and finding what went on using the records available as middle of the road as possible. thank God at the very least we have the minutes of Chalcedon and we have both sides of history. So this gives you a good idea how to interpret the truth of the matter and not just follow mere hagiography.
As far as any scholar is aware, there is no proof that St. Timothy criticized St. Cyril for ANYTHING. I didn't even know Leontius was the one that provided alleged quotes of him. I thought it was a much later Chalcedonian, Anastasius of Sinai. But as far as I have researched, these quotes are fabricated. St. Timothy's writings which survived actually considers St. Cyril the pillar of Orthodoxy and hinges on his every word. So completely different attitude than what Leontius alleged.
"Building upon such analyses, Severus presents his Christology in the following terms : When the simple hypostasis of the Word of God, who is before all things, united manhood to himself, it is not possible that a specific prosopon could be ascribed to either the Godhead of the Word nor to the manhood which is united unchangeably to the Word. Both the Godhead and the manhood are only perceived in their composition, not as having concrete existence apart from each other. It is by the coming together, in a natural or hypostatic union, of the Godhead and manhood, each remaining without change or diminution, that the one composite hypostasis of the incarnate Word receives His prosopon. As Severus writes in ep.15:
'For those hypostases or natures, being in composition without diminution, and not existing separately and in individual existence, make up one prosopon of the one Lord and Christ and Son, and the one incarnate nature and hypostasis of the Word.'"
I guess whats hard for me to understand is how the Incarnate Christ is not the Prosopon of the Logos, but united to flesh, but the Prosopon of the Logos-united-to-humanity. The Logos is existing as a single Prosopon in a particular mode of existence. Kind of mind blowing and I can see why if you're not careful people would criticize it. Can you enlighten me more in this regard?
This was the linguistic method of St. Severus. Humanity and divinity both concretely exist, but after the incarnation, they don't exist apart from each other, and they come together in one concrete existence. Before the incarnation, it was only a simple existence of divinity. After the incarnation, it's a composite existence that is still one unit of existence, not two, composite because humanity still exists, but the existence is a result of the divine existence.
Prosopon is an external and self-independent existence. To say there is a composite prosopon was Nestorianism, because that means two people were united as one, like marriage. Severus rejected that very clearly:
"Accordingly the natural union was not of generalities, but of hypostases of which Emmanuel was composed. And do not think that hypostases in all cases have a distinct person assigned to them, so that we should be thought, like the impious Nestorius, to speak of a union of persons, and to run counter to the God-inspired words of the holy Cyril, who in the second letter to the same Nestorius speaks thus: ..."
Letter II
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/severus_coll_2_letters.htm
I believe the chalcedonians oppose composite because they see it as the creation of one thing out of two, where the existent reality is the new third thing. They use the term synthetic in the sense of One continuous and existant Hypostasis, the Logos, takes to himself and unites in his Hypostasis the humanity. They term this synthetic because they perceive it as not one out of two, but as one that has added to itself a second in unity.
Of course I understand this precisely to be what non-chalcedonians mean by composite, because this is the reality they describe. Can you comment on composite vs. synthetic?
Now, I grant this to some hair-splitters. This is a "synthetic" union. But they maintain that never did they confess "synthetic nature", that it's only correct to say "synthetic hypostasis". But let's deconstruct their argument against the term "synthetic nature".
They claim that if you say "synthetic nature", that means you create a hybrid nature that is neither consubstantial with man or consubstantial with God. Let us ignore the fact that this is a red herring. Let's examine the fact that Chalcedonians will only allow "synthetic hypostasis". Does that mean that the hypostasis of the Word Incarnate no longer becomes the hypostasis of the Word before incarnation? Think about that for a second. If "synthetic" means a change in that property of what is describing that it no longer is identified with what it was before or what is added to it, then the "synthetic hypostasis" no longer is Word nor a real existent human being.
Using the twisted logic of hair-splitting Chalcedonians that fish for any difference between themselves and us to justify their condemnation of us only puts their logic against themselves, and that's regardless of how you define "hypostasis". If "hypostasis" is mere concrete existence, then its existence is no longer the same as that as before. Then he no longer God or "made man" but a hybrid pseudo-uncreated-created existence that is neither uncreated nor created. But if "hypostasis" means "prosopon", then it no longer possesses the same identity of the Word, nor have a real identity of Jesus, but a new hybrid "Word-Jesus".
If you can tell that this makes no sense...I say exactly. Not only is the argument a red herring, but it is an argumentum ad absurdum in and of itself. It's plainly a stupid argument that only those who are desperate make against anti-Chalcedonians.
But we are confident that for St. Severus, "synthetic nature" is the exact same thing as the Chalcedonians' "synthetic hypostasis". The only difference is not theology, but whose terminology is more faithful to St. Cyril. That's it! It comes down to, "St. Cyril really meant this..." and you ended up having two sides interpreting/reinterpreting the writings of St. Cyril. But in the end, both St. Severus and Chalcedonians confess the same thing that they were conveying through their relative terminologies: Christ after the incarnation is a composite reality, from which there are two natures to be separated in thought alone, and in which there is a double consubstantiality, without any loss of integrity in both natures in this one composite reality. This was the intention of St. Cyril, whose intentions were carried on later by the likes of Leontius and Severus, even though they both did not see eye to eye on terminology and interpretation of Chalcedon.