St. Cyril and the Apollinarians

[ialmisry]

What does Maximus have to say about St. Severus, specifically? Years ago I remember Symeon saying that Maximus claimed that Severian Christology was a fount of monotheletism. My only explanation for this was that he probably misunderstood/misrepresented our tradition.

BTW, nice to see you around, CopticDeacon.

Yes...that's exactly what Maximus thought.  As usual with any theologian on either side of the divide, he was terminlogically strict, especially to try to dissociate himself from Severus.  When Pseudo-Dionysius says it, Maximus interprets it the same way St. Severus would, in an Orthodox manner.  But when St. Severus says it, Maximus assumed he probably either created a new nature or confesses an incomplete humanity.

Something like Pope St. Cyril using the works of Pope St. Athanasius which had been interpolated by Apollinarians?

 

[Severian]

I have yet to see any concrete evidence that "mia physis" is of Apollinarian origin, but even if it were this did not preclude St. Cyril from using it in an Orthodox manner as indeed he did. Even St. Gregory Theologus uses similar terminology in his works against Apollinarius. The term "homoousian" was of gnostic origin, and following the Great St. Athanasius and the Fathers of Nicea, both our Churches use that term to describe Christ's relation to both the Father and man.

 

[Severian]

Actually, I am going to request concrete evidence "mia physis" is of Apollinarian origin.

 

[Severian]

Actually, I am going to request concrete evidence "mia physis" is of Apollinarian origin.

I'm waiting...

*crosses arms, taps foot against floor*

 

[peterfarrington]

Leontius said he found it in Appolinarian writings. I have always taken the view that this shows that it was a term current in Alexandria, and therefore likely to be used by St Cyril, and that it may well have been used by St Athanasius and/or his circle.

I could easily say that "in two natures" is a Theodorean phrase and entirely compromised and that anyone who uses it is promoting the error of Theodore of Mopsuestia and his disciples.

 

[Severian]

Leontius said he found it in Appolinarian writings. I have always taken the view that this shows that it was a term current in Alexandria, and therefore likely to be used by St Cyril, and that it may well have been used by St Athanasius and/or his circle.

I could easily say that "in two natures" is a Theodorean phrase and entirely compromised and that anyone who uses it is promoting the error of Theodore of Mopsuestia and his disciples.

+1

 

[rakovsky]

Leontius said he found it in Appolinarian writings. I have always taken the view that this shows that it was a term current in Alexandria, and therefore likely to be used by St Cyril, and that it may well have been used by St Athanasius and/or his circle.

I could easily say that "in two natures" is a Theodorean phrase and entirely compromised and that anyone who uses it is promoting the error of Theodore of Mopsuestia and his disciples.

Fr. Peter,
Can you please explain more why you find "in two natures" to be so easily compromised? Is it because you perceive that if one says that something is "in two natures" it must imply that it must be divided into two entities?

But is that really the case, Fr. Peter?

For example:

A "PARTICIPLE is the mood of verbs that take part in two natures, at times verbs, at times adjectives."
http://www.philosophical-investigations.com/tag/grammar/
Words like "burned" or "working" can be either in the nature of a verb or in the nature of an adjective. (eg.: I burned wonderful incense vs. The burned incense is wonderful)

The words are the same, but they can have different meanings, depending on whether the same word is in the nature of a verb or the nature of an adjective.

"Schopenhauer is quite explicit that the world is only to be understood in two natures: namely, representation and will.
https://jordanalexanderhill.wordpress.com/91-2/
Yet Schopenhauer is not speaking of two worlds.

"The exam paper of IB ACIO exam 2012 written test will held in two natures i.e 1.Objective 2.Subjective"
(Source: "Syllabus of IB ACIO-II exam?" May, 2011, entrance-exam.net/forum)
There is one exam, but it is in the form of two natures: An Objective nature and a Subjective nature.

A multiple choice exam is much more objective than an oral exam. However, perhaps even a multiple choice exam can be subjective depending on how the questions are worded.

Do you think that it's possible, Fr. Peter, that the view of one thing being in two natures that we Eastern Orthodox hold may be an acceptable and understandable view, and that the unfortunate difficulty may have been one of a perception that is not actually necessary that for something to be in two natures it must therefore really be two separate entities and not form a whole?

In saying this, I am not polemicizing, but seeking to show compatibility.

 

[ialmisry]

Actually, I am going to request concrete evidence "mia physis" is of Apollinarian origin.

I'm waiting...

*crosses arms, taps foot against floor*

My, aren't we demanding.

I was wondering what happened to this post.

I wasn't thinking only or even exclusively of "mia physis." It's not the only matter in question.

Thank you Fr. Peter for answering in my absence.

As for Theodore, Archbishop St. Proclus of Constantinople solved the issue in his Tome to the Armenians, in which he quoted without naming Theodore (who was dead), and called for the athematization of the quotes and their dogma.

 

[Severian]

Actually, I am going to request concrete evidence "mia physis" is of Apollinarian origin.

I'm waiting...

*crosses arms, taps foot against floor*

My, aren't we demanding.

Mother and father always did say I was too opinionated and divisive for my own good. ;D

FTR, that demand was not directed at you, necessarily. I am open to any sort of concrete evidence (preferably from primary sources) that shows the supposed Apollinarian origin of this formula.

In Him

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Fr. Peter,
Can you please explain more why you find "in two natures" to be so easily compromised? Is it because you perceive that if one says that something is "in two natures" it must imply that it must be divided into two entities?

But is that really the case, Fr. Peter?

LOL.  Why not give him a chance to respond before implying an answer from him and then asking more questions based on an opinion he never expressed? 

In saying this, I am not polemicizing, but seeking to show compatibility.

Uh huh.

 

[peterfarrington]

"In two natures" is the language of condemned heretics. That was the point I was making. You can explain how it is acceptable, but that wasn't my point and I don't object to the phrase properly understood.

But that is in fact the whole point. You use a phrase which originates among heretics and want to explain, reasonably, that it is irrelevant where it came from, what matters is what it means. That is pretty much what the OO say as well, but I am not sure that the argument is allowed in our case. Let's assume Apollinarius coined the phrase, I am not sure he did. But let's say he did. That does not mean, as you properly wish to insist for the phrase "in two natures", mean that it can never be used in a theologically correct manner.

We use it in a theologically correct manner, and Leontius was disingenuous, since he must have known that his own preferred phrase also originated with heretics.

Indeed there are a limited number of phrases. Are we to reject the Creed - We believe in one God - since that seems to have echoes of Judaism and Islam?

It is always best to ask people what they mean, rather than assume we know. Unfortunately this has not taken place through much of Church History. Even a week or so ago I was harangued by an EO priest who said he did not care what I believed or have much idea, but he knew I was a heretic!

 

[Severian]

"In two natures" is the language of condemned heretics. That was the point I was making. You can explain how it is acceptable, but that wasn't my point and I don't object to the phrase properly understood.

But that is in fact the whole point. You use a phrase which originates among heretics and want to explain, reasonably, that it is irrelevant where it came from, what matters is what it means. That is pretty much what the OO say as well, but I am not sure that the argument is allowed in our case. Let's assume Apollinarius coined the phrase, I am not sure he did. But let's say he did. That does not mean, as you properly wish to insist for the phrase "in two natures", mean that it can never be used in a theologically correct manner.

We use it in a theologically correct manner, and Leontius was disingenuous, since he must have known that his own preferred phrase also originated with heretics.

Indeed there are a limited number of phrases. Are we to reject the Creed - We believe in one God - since that seems to have echoes of Judaism and Islam?

It is always best to ask people what they mean, rather than assume we know. Unfortunately this has not taken place through much of Church History. Even a week or so ago I was harangued by an EO priest who said he did not care what I believed or have much idea, but he knew I was a heretic!

+1