Yasen, this post violates two rules: 1) limiting posts in Christian New to discussion only and 2) containing debate/conflict. Please review the Rules section to avoid future warning points. I will move this post, as well. Thanks. --Ainnir
Hello. You say in your article ,,St.Severus and the Julianist controversy“ the following:,,Severus believed that the humanity of Christ is filled with divine energy, but that does not ignore the human energy. … Julian would criticize Severus that he becomes no different from Pope Leo of Rome and the Chalcedonians, but Severus would retort that the subject of the willing and acting is the Logos, which he would contest Pope Leo did not confess.“There is one name I am happy who is not in the list.
As for the names that are in the list, one in particular, Fr. John Paul, makes me even happier. He is a true scholar and is very close to Fr. George Dragas.
I pray this is a good and new future for the dialogue, as it seems more promising with better and more intelligent qualifications.
If, when referring to the time after the Incarnation, by ,,one subject“ we understand one Person/Hypostasis in Christ, it is right and it is true that the Hypostasis/Person of the Word which was one before the Incarnation, remained one after the Incarnation with the difference that the simple Hypostasis before the Incarnation became complex after the Incarnation in the sense that now two nature subsisted in it – divine and human. Will – divine or human, is a natural property and of course, its mode is always hypostatic because the Person/Hypostasis of Christ is one. But if we say that the subject of the human willing and acting after the Incarnation, is the Logos, the Logos Itself, the Word Itself, the Word alone, then comes an issue. This is because the expressions the Logos, the Logos Itself, the Word itself, the Word alone refer to the Person/Hypostasis of the Logos and to the divinity, to the divine nature and energy since the eternal Logos’ own nature and energy, i.e. the eternal nature and energy of the Logos, are only the divine nature and energy unlike the created human nature and energy which became His own nature and energy in addition to the eternal divine nature and energy after the Incarnation when the Logos assumed the created human nature and energy. That way, when we say that the Logos is the subject of the human willing and actions, since the human willing and the actions do not belong to the Hypostasis but belong to the human nature and proceed from the human energy, then it follows that the human willing and actions belong to His divine nature and so proceed from His divine energy. That would mean that his human nature does not have its own energy. Therefore, it would follow that after the Incarnation the divine nature and energy of Christ have changed as they would now have two wills and kinds of actions – divine and human, i.e. it would follow that God has changed which is impossible (James 1:17). Also, if the divine nature and energy have changed after the Incarnation, that would mean either that the divine nature and energy of Christ only have changed which would cause a split in the Trinity, or that since the divine nature and energy are common for the Three Persons, the divine nature and energy of all Three Persons have changed which would mean that the Three Persons have Incarnated. A split of the Trinity is impossible because God is One Being in Three Persons and it is not that the Three Persons have incarnated because only the Word that became flesh (John 1:14). So, the human willing and actions of Christ do not belong to the divine nature and proceed from the divine energy but instead belong to the human nature and proceed from the energy of the human nature, i.e. the created human nature of Christ has its own energy. Therefore, although it is true that the subject of the human willing and actions is the Person/Hypostasis of the Word because the Hypostasis before and after the Incarnation is one and so the mode of the wills is hypostatic as it was already said, it is wrong to say that it is the Logos which is the subject of the human willing and actions because the expression ,,the Logos“ refers to the divine nature and energy, except to the Hypostasis of the Logos, i.e. it does not refer to the assumed human nature and energy and that would suggest that there occured a change in God’s nature after the Incarnation of the Word and also that His human nature does not have its own energy. As it was shown, both suggestions are not true. As the eternal Logos’ own nature and energy, i.e. the eternal nature and energy of the Logos, are only the divine nature and energy, to say that after the Incarnation it is the Logos, i.e. the Logos Itself, that is the subject of both the divine and human willing and actions, means to confuse Hypostasis and nature – in this case the divine nature. It would be precise if we say that it is the Incarnate Logos or incarnate Word which is the subject of the divine and human willing and actions because those expressions – Incarnate Logos, incarnate Word, refer to both nature – divine and human as the word ,,incarnate“ refers specifically to the created human nature of Christ as St.Cyril explains on his second letter to Succensus. St.Leo says in his Tome the following which is rejected by Severus:,,For as “God” is not changed by the compassion [exhibited], so “Man” is not consumed by the dignity [bestowed]. For each “form” does the acts which belong to it, in communion with the other; the Word, that is, performing what belongs to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what belongs to the flesh; the one of these shines out in miracles, the other succumbs to injuries.“ Since the eternal Word’s own nature and energy, i.e. the eternal nature and energy of the Logos, are only the divine nature and energy, wherefore it is wrong to say that after the Incarnation it is the Word, i.e. the Word Itself, that is the subject of the human willing and actions because it would mean that since the human willing and actions belong to the nature, belong to the divine nature, St.Leo is right when he says that the Word, i.e. the Word Itself perfoms what belongs to the Word, i.e. only the divine actions. When he says that the flesh performs the human actions, he does not mean in a Nestorian sense but only in the sense that the human actions proceed from the human energy which is not the Word, i.e. the Word Itself Whose energy is only the divine energy from which there proceed only the divine actions.