The Tomos of Leo, Pope of Rome

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
EkhristosAnesti said:
I have acknowledged that Leo uses the term “Word” to refer to the divine nature in the context of his tome. This is irrelevant to the point im making. Leo says that the flesh PERFORMS human acts. St Cyril anathemizes anyone who does not acknowledge that the personal subject of Christ (which St Cyril identifies as “the Word”) is the one who performs human acts “In” or “According to” his flesh.
This may come as a surprise to you, but in fact human flesh does perform human acts.
The nails and spear pierced Christ's created flesh.
Christ's created flesh required sleep- His Divine Nature didn't.
Christ's created flesh needed to eat and drink- His Divine Nature didn't.
Christ's created flesh needed to go to the toilet- His Divine Nature didn't.
So you see, human flesh does perform human acts.
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Messages
2,743
Reaction score
0
Points
0
This may come as a surprise to you, but in fact human flesh does perform human acts.
Ozgeorge, we are really running in circles now. Let me make it clear; it is a simple and fundamental metaphysical principle that acts are exercised by intellectual hypostasis, or in other words personal subjects. This is why for example, a human being by virtue of being a human being (which essentially entails the possession of a rational human soul, and hence self/ego/person) can perform functions, but a rock by virtue of its being a rock, for example does not. You do not see a rock rolling itself along a road, or jumping up into the air, or breaking through a glass window. When you do see a rock do these things, it is doing so NOT because it chose to perform these functions, but rather because an external force was applied to it — the rock itself does not perform a function since it possesses no rational principle by which it can do so.

Another simple example which clearly demonstrates this point, is the manner in which we as human beings speak about our performance of certain functions. We say “ozgeorge typed up a response” or “Ozgeorge sat down on a chair” — It is “ozgeorge” who is the subject of these actions. Now the question is what does the name “Ozgeorge” denote? It’s very simple - the name ozgeorge is no more than a reference to your self, your ego, or your person — it says nothing about your essential nature.

Likewise, The divine person of The Word is the subject of all Christ’s actions, which he performs by means of His natures. However His natures do not perform those actions since they lack personality.

Christ's created flesh required sleep- His Divine Nature didn't.
The Word required sleep by virtue of His possession of a human nature, and consequently slept according to this human nature.

Christ's created flesh needed to eat and drink- His Divine Nature didn't.
The Word needed to eat and drink by virtue of His possession of a human nature, and consequently ate and drank in the flesh, or according to his human nature.

I am wording my expressions according to St Cyril’s 12th anathema, you are wording yours according to Leo’s tome.

We will have to agree to disagree here; I will stick with my form of expression, and you can stick with yours, but I will certainly not compromise the language of St Cyril the pillar of faith (which was not only the standard of Orthodoxy, but is metaphysically sound), for that employed by Leo of Rome (which is metaphysically unsound and inconsistent). Period. That’s my last response on this issue.

Peace.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
EkhristosAnesti said:
Ozgeorge, we are really running in circles now.
I knew that several posts ago!

EkhristosAnesti said:
Let me make it clear; it is a simple and fundamental metaphysical principle that acts are exercised by intellectual hypostasis, or in other words personal subjects. This is why for example, a human being by virtue of being a human being (which essentially entails the possession of a rational human soul, and hence self/ego/person) can perform functions, but a rock by virtue of its being a rock, for example does not. You do not see a rock rolling itself along a road, or jumping up into the air, or breaking through a glass window. When you do see a rock do these things, it is doing so NOT because it chose to perform these functions, but rather because an external force was applied to it — the rock itself does not perform a function since it possesses no rational principle by which it can do so........Another simple example which clearly demonstrates this point, is the manner in which we as human beings speak about our performance of certain functions. We say “ozgeorge typed up a response” or “Ozgeorge sat down on a chair” — It is “ozgeorge” who is the subject of these actions. Now the question is what does the name “Ozgeorge” denote? It’s very simple - the name ozgeorge is no more than a reference to your self, your ego, or your person — it says nothing about your essential nature......Likewise, The divine person of The Word is the subject of all Christ’s actions, which he performs by means of His natures. However His natures do not perform those actions since they lack personality.
You see, this is where you've gone wrong- in three major ways.
The assumption that " it is a simple and fundamental metaphysical principle that acts are exercised by intellectual hypostasis, or in other words personal subjects" is wrong. A rock is performing acts- it exerts force, it occupies space, it breaks the ocean's waves, all without external forces acting on it. In the same way, trees and plants which lack souls and intellects also perform acts- they spread fragrance, grow roots and leaves, provide shade, and some even eat insects , all on their own without the need for external forces, or even the existence of ego/self/person...........need I go on with more examples? You are assuming that "act" and "voluntary act" are the same thing- they are not. You perform acts every day involuntarily. Your autonomic nervous system makes you breath, makes your heart beat, makes you perspire/salivate etc all without the involvement of your will. These are the "functions of the flesh" St. Leo is talking about.
Which leads me to your second big mistake: you are assuming that St. Leo is only talking about the voluntary acts of Christ when he speaks of "performing what belongs to the flesh". Look at the sentance which you have fixated on and the paragraph it belongs to:
"For the selfsame who is very God, is also very man; and there is no illusion in this union, while the lowliness of man and the loftiness of Godhead meet together. 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."

The flesh of Christ "succumbed to injury" by His Own, voluntary Divine Will. This in no way contradicts what St. Leo has said, in fact it is exactly what he is saying.

Thirdly, and most importantly, what you are saying is that "act" is a function of personhood only, based on the two false premises that (a) all acts are voluntary, and (b)" Person" does not exist without self/ego. But "self" and "ego" are merely illusions- they are mental constructs only, and not realities. You are applying human mental contructs onto the Divine Personhood. To demonstrate this is simple. Point to your body and say "I own this body"...... Now tell me, where is this "I" that owns your body, can you point to it? Are you pointing to your body again? But isn't this the object that your "I" owns?
There is no "I" for us humans in reality. When we say "I", we simply mean "this organism" rather than "that organism". Only God has an "I". This is why God has revealed Himself to Moses as "I AM", because He is "He Who Is", and I am "He Who Is Not", and this is also why the Blessed Apostle says that "In Him we live and move and have our being", and again: "I live, but rather, not I, but Christ lives in me."
The main cause of the neuroses plaguing modern men, women and children can often be traced back to the false belief that "I", "ego", "self" is a reality which exists. "Egoism" and "selfishness" are both the idolatory of this false "I". The word "I" is simply a "map" showing a territory- the map is not the territory.
You are also confusing "Hypostasis" and "Person" in what you are saying, and although it is often translated as "Person", Hypostasis does not mean "Person". "Hypo-stasis" literally means "under-footing" like the latin "sub-stance". You have become confused by translating it as "person", then making assumptions about what makes a human a "person" and then applying this to God- it doesn't work, and can only lead to heresy.

Finally, as an aside, if Christ did not have a human will, then He was not "a man like us in all things except sin". If Christ did not have a human will, the temptations He experienced in the desert (and elswhere) were not real temptations. If Christ did not have a human will, then He did not have to struggle like us to align it with the Divine Will. Therefore, if Christ did not have a human will, He was not truly human, but merely had the appearance of one as the Docetists claimed.






 
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Messages
2,743
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The assumption that " it is a simple and fundamental metaphysical principle that acts are exercised by intellectual hypostasis, or in other words personal subjects" is wrong. A rock is performing acts- it exerts force, it occupies space, it breaks the ocean's waves, all without external forces acting on it.
Wrong. That a rock occupies space, and that it passes through substances less dense than it, concern the nature of that rock’s being as it is defined by its essence — i.e. that it possesses a particular mass and density; these are NOT however “performances” of a rock. The same principle applies to the rest of your examples.

Professor Bittle, in his book The Domain of Being: Ontology says:

"Actions belong to the person or hypoastasis. The ‘nature’ of a being is the principle of all that being's actions. But the nature of an individual, concrete being, as it actually exists...is always a hypostasis and, if it is rational, a person. This fact is clearly expressed in our judgments and statements about certain things. We seldom refer our actions to the faculties or parts from which they proceed immediately, but rather to the ultimate possessor of the nature. We thus say ‘I see, I digest, I think, or I drive the car,’ even though
it's the eyes that see, and the stomach that digest, and the intellect that thinks, and the hands that steer the wheell. Actions are thus
ascribed to the hypostasis or person. The hypostasis or person is the very principle which (principium quod) performs the actual action, whilst the nature is simply the ultimate principle by means of which (principium quo) the hypostasis or person performs that very action" (1939, page 271)

Which leads me to your second big mistake: you are assuming that St. Leo is talking about the voluntary acts of Christ when he speaks of "performing what belongs to the flesh".
Well now that I’ve shown that it has nothing to do with voluntary vs. involuntary, but rather the fact that a person or hypostasis experiences and performs acts according to the nature of being defined by the very attributes corollary of that being’s essence; the rest of your post is a straw man.

Thirdly, and most importantly, what you are saying is that "act" is a function of personhood only, based on the false premise that Person does not exist without self/ego.
The person IS the self/ego my friend:

Professor Bittle continues:

"These functions and mental states are phenomena, accidents; and as such they must inhere in an Ego, which is the ultimate reality within man, identical and permanent amidst all changes. The Ego is, thus, a subsisting substance, which exists in itself as a subject and not in another....the Ego is a rational hypostasis. 'Rationale' or ‘Intellectuality’ is the very difference between man and
God, and the lower forms of plant, brute and inorganic body. A ‘person,’ thus, is an intellectual/rational hypostasis." (ibid. 274)

But "self" and "ego" are merely illusions- they are mental constructs only, and not realities.
Wrong!

Point to your body and say "I own this body"...... Now tell me, where is this "I" that owns your body, can you point to it? Are you pointing to your body again? But isn't this the object that your "I" owns?
Come on ozgeorge, just because my person/self/”I” possesses no being per se (such that I can point to it as you request), this does not negate the fact that it is a REAL and intrinsic principle/aspect of my being constituting my very being. Your conclusion is simply a non-sequitor. Existence and reality are two different categories my friend, do not get them confused.

There is no "I" for us humans in reality. When we say "I", we simply mean "this organism" rather than "that organism". Only God has an "I". This is why God has revealed Himself to Moses as "I AM"
What you are saying is completely absurd; everyone has an “I” by which they recognize their self throughout history. The “I” principle is the only intellectual principle of our being that remains constant amid all changes. “I” the 19 year old, who is a 1 m 69 cm tall, slim, university student, am the same “I” who was a chubby little 9 year old in primary school. Exodus 3:14 has NOTHING to do with God’s personhood; but rather the nature of the existence of His being per se. I refer you to St Augustine, St Hilary of Potiers, and Origen’s commentary of this passage; it is to do with his being the eternally uncaused self-existent cause of all existence. This is irrelevant to His personhood, since personhood is a principle of being and not a being per se.

You are also confusing "Hypostasis" and "Person" in what you are saying, and although it is often translated as "Person", Hypostasis does not mean "Person".
Actually I didn’t, and I’d like you to quote my statement in which I regarded person and hypostasis as interchangeable equivalents according to their definitions - and not according to how they apply to a particular subject in which I may have regarded them equivalently, for that is another matter. A person is simply an intellectual/rational hypostasis; such that every person is a hypostasis, but not every hypostasis is a person. This is why human being’s are persons, yet plants are not, though both plants and humans are both hypostases.

Professor Bittle in pondering the question as to what it is that gives a being "Person", continues:

"It cannot be materiality; for God is not a material being, though man obviously has a material body. It cannot be life; for plants possess life, but they are certainly not ‘persons.’ It cannot be the simplicity of nature; for God is simple in nature, however man is aÂÂ compound of body and soul; yet both are ‘persons.’ ...It cannot be substance, essence, nature or subsistenc; for all individual existences, from inorganic bodies to God Himself, possess these degrees of reality. What then, is it? The only discoverable principle or element which is distinctive to God, Spirits and man yet which is lacking in all other beings below the level of man, is rationale/intellectuality." (ibis. page 269)

Finally, as an aside, if Christ did not have a human will….
I never denied that Christ had a human will, so I don’t see what the problem is. I just believe that Christ’s human will was both expressed and actualized by His hypostasis through His person. St Athanasius said that what Christ assumed was healed. If Christ did not assume a real human will, then the doctrine of theosis is a fallacy. Christ had a natural human will and a natural divine will, yet ultimately He possesses one personal will, by which he willed "humanly" and willed "divinely", but ultimately it was The Word who willed, and since The Word is one - His hypostasis/person One, therefore this personal will was one.

Peace.
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Messages
2,743
Reaction score
0
Points
0
You know what ozgeorge, I don’t even know why I bothered delving into metaphysics, when I already proved that St Cyril settled this matter by the Holy Spirit about 1600 years ago.

St Cyril the pillar of faith, in contrast to Leo of Rome, understands “The Word” as a title designating Christ’s person/hypostasis and not His divine nature, and thus according to the 12th of the 12 anathemas vindicated at Ephesus 431 (in accordance with the traits of Athanasian Christology), St Cyril states that he who does not affirm that the divine person/hypostasis of Christ (The Word) is the subject of His incarnate experiences (suffering, death, hunger etc.), then let him be anathema, simple as that.

St Cyril says that the person/hypostasis of Christ suffered in the flesh (performed according to his human nature), yet according to Leo of Rome, the flesh suffered (the human nature performed).

If you want to call St Cyril a gnostic monophysite or an arian, or whatever you wish, just to vindicate the tome, then that is your issue, and in that case there is no further room for discussion.

Peace.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
EkhristosAnesti said:
Wrong. That a rock occupies space, and that it passes through substances less dense than it, concern the nature of that rock’s being as it is defined by its essence — i.e. that it possesses a particular mass and density; these are NOT however “performances” of a rock. The same principle applies to the rest of your examples.
Huh? So are you (and Prof. Bittle) saying that "Dionaea muscipula" or the "Venus Fly Trap" has personhood despite being a plant since it traps and digests insects?

EkhristosAnesti said:
Well now that I’ve shown that it has nothing to do with voluntary vs. involuntary, but rather the fact that a person or
hypostasis experiences and performs acts according to the nature of being defined by the very attributes corollary of that being’s essence;
Doesn't a rock have being and essense?

EkhristosAnesti said:
Come on ozgeorge, just because my person/self/”I” possesses no being per se (such that I can point to it as you request), this does not negate the fact that it is a REAL and intrinsic principle/aspect of my being constituting my very being. Your conclusion is simply a non-sequitor. Existence and reality are two different categories my friend, do not get them confused.What you are saying is completely absurd; everyone has an “I” by which they recognize their self throughout history. The “I” principle is the only intellectual principle of our being that remains constant amid all changes. “I” the 19 year old, who is a 1 m 69 cm tall, slim, university student, am the same “I” who was a chubby little 9 year old in primary school. Exodus 3:14 has NOTHING to do with God’s personhood; but rather the nature of the existence of His being per se. I refer you to St Augustine, St Hilary of Potiers, and Origen’s commentary of this passage; it is to do with his being the eternally uncaused self-existent cause of all existence. This is irrelevant to His personhood, since personhood is a principle of being and not a being per se.
Enjoy the illusion.
If I said that I was Napolean Bonaparte (someone who actually existed)- you'd have me commited. Yet if I say that I am an "I" (which even you say doesn't exist), I'm considered sane.

EkhristosAnesti said:
and I’d like you to quote my statement in which I regarded person and hypostasis as interchangeable equivalents according to their definitions - and not according to how they apply to a particular subject in which I may have regarded them equivalently, for that is another matter.
No, it's not "another matter", it's the same matter. It is your claim that "act" is only a function of "person", not nature, therefore (you claim) act is a function of the Hypostasis of Christ, not His Natures.

EkhristosAnesti said:
Professor Bittle in pondering the question as to what it is that gives a being "Person", continues:
"It cannot be materiality; for God is not a material being, though man obviously has a material body. It cannot be life; for plants possess life, but they are certainly not ‘persons.’ It cannot be the simplicity of nature; for God is simple in nature, however man is aÂÂ compound of body and soul; yet both are ‘persons.’ ...It cannot be substance, essence, nature or subsistenc; for all individual existences, from inorganic bodies to God Himself, possess these degrees of reality. What then, is it? The only discoverable principle or element which is distinctive to God, Spirits and man yet which is lacking in all other beings below the level of man, is rationale/intellectuality." (ibis. page 269)
It's stupid claims such as this which make me furious! Does a child born anacephalic lack personhood because it lacks a brain? Do severely brain damaged individuals who's brains can only sustain their breathing and heartbeat cease to be persons since they lack rationale/intellectuality? Prof. Bittle is dribbling rubbish. We can't even define what human hypostasis consists of- and you presume to define what Divine Hypostasis consists of! This is exactley where I said you went wrong in your logic. Person cannot be defined by intellect, and even if it could, we cannot use this to define the three Hypostasese of the Trinity because they share One Essense (and therefore, one intellect/rationale as this stupid Prof. Brittle puts it).
Do you want a hint where Hypostasis may lie? It exists somewhere in the area of relationship. God is a Trinity of Three Hypostese Who relate to One Another in Eternity- the Father Eternally begets the Son and is the Source of the Eternal Procession of the Spirit- The Perfect Community..

EkhristosAnesti said:
never denied that Christ had a human will, so I don’t see what the problem is. I just believe that Christ’s human will was both expressed and actualized by His hypostasis through His person. St Athanasius said that what Christ assumed was healed. If Christ did not assume a real human will, then the doctrine of theosis is a fallacy. Christ had a natural human will and a natural divine will, yet ultimately He possesses one personal will, by which he willed "humanly" and willed "divinely", but ultimately it was The Word who willed, and since The Word is one - His hypostasis/person One, therefore this personal will was one.
So Christ now has three distinct wills: a divine will, a human will, and a personal will? Or does he only have one personal will which is a "co-mingling" of His Divine and Human Wills to produce a third?  Oh what knots these non-chalcedons tie themselves in!
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
EkhristosAnesti said:
St Cyril says that the person/hypostasis of Christ suffered in the flesh (performed according to his human nature), yet according to Leo of Rome, the flesh suffered (the human nature performed).
If you want to call St Cyril a gnostic monophysite or an arian, or whatever you wish, just to vindicate the tome, then that is your issue, and in that case there is no further room for discussion.
Oh these circles!
Once again, let me repeat: the fifth Ecumenical Counci Declared that "One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh". And what does S. Cyril say?
EkhristosAnesti said:
St Cyril says that the person/hypostasis of Christ suffered in the flesh (performed according to his human nature)
Isn't this the same thing?

EkhristosAnesti said:
St Cyril the pillar of faith, in contrast to Leo of Rome, understands “The Word” as a title designating Christ’s person/hypostasis and not His divine nature, and thus according to the 12th of the 12 anathemas vindicated at Ephesus 431 (in accordance with the traits of Athanasian Christology), St Cyril states that he who does not affirm that the divine person/hypostasis of Christ (The Word) is the subject of His incarnate experiences (suffering, death, hunger etc.), then let him be anathema, simple as that
Oh good! So we agree then- St. Cyril and St. Leo used the word "Word" differently in one instance- therefore St. Leo is not a heretic and does not fall under St. Cyril's anathema, and they are saying the same thing - (just as the Fathers of Chalcedon said) and they are enjoying one another's company in Heaven.
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Messages
2,743
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Huh? So are you (and Prof. Bittle) saying that "Dionaea muscipula" or the "Venus Fly Trap" has personhood despite being a plant since it traps and digests insects?
Let’s have a quick look at what Prof. Bittle had to say concerning the act of digestion:

“We thus say…I digest…even though it’s…the stomach that digests” 

The venus fly trap, just like my stomach, is “the ultimate principle by means of which (principium quo) the hypostasis or person performs that very action" In this case, the venus fly trap is a hypostasis not a person. The nature does not perform ozgeorge, it simply defines the operative capacity by which the hypostasis/person performs/operates. PERIOD.

Doesn't a rock have being and essense?
Yes, but its being or essence is not “the principle which (principium quod) performs the actual action.”

Enjoy the illusion.
The irony couldn’t be any more obvious right now my friend.

If I said that I was Napolean Bonaparte (someone who actually existed)- you'd have me commited. Yet if I say that I am an "I" which even you say doesn't exist, I'm considered sane.
What on earth are you talking about? The existence of Napolean Bonaparte’s metaphysical person is as lacking as the existence of anyone’s metaphysical person throughout the history of mankind. All the metaphysical terms we have thus far employed: essence, nature, substance, hypostasis, person, are ALL principles of being; REAL aspects of a being, and NOT being’s in and of themselves.

According to Professor McGlyn and Professor Farley in their book A Metaphysics of Being and God:

“When one considers an individual, existing being, and its perfection and limitation, one is obviously not going to find 2 “things” composing that very being (which would make it 2 beings, that are in some way held together). Rather, whatever composition exists must be a composition of “principles of being.” A “principle of being” is something which makes up that very being, however, which can’t itself exist as a being. Some easily comprehended examples of this are metaphysical “accidents” such as warmth, whiteness and so forth."

The learned men then list all the other metaphysical co-principles of being alongside accident: existence, essence, nature, substance, hypostasis, person, potency, act etc. and they state:

“These metaphysical co-principles of being, constitute finite beings; not as physical parts, but rather as ultimate intrinsic principles. They are’nt “things” in themselves, but rather, principles of things that are incapable of existing apart, yet truly distinct from one another…” (ibid. 65)

We’d have you committed for claiming to be Napolean because you are claiming to possses the same self as the self which constituted an ultimate metaphysical principle of an independent existence from that of yours, and which experienced and performed things according to that independent existence.

It is your claim that "act" is only a function of "person", not nature, therefore (you claim) act is a function of the Hypostasis of Christ, not His Natures.
Since Christ’s hypostasis is rational/intellectual, His hypostasis is hence personal. When I attribute an act to His hypostasis therefore, I am attributing this act to His person and vice versa.

Do severely brain damaged individuals who's brains can only sustain their breathing and heartbeat cease to be persons since they lack rationale/intellectuality?
If a particular being discontinues to recognize its self as a result of physical damage; that particular being thus lacks personhood. However, since as Christians we believe in the eternal continuance of the soul regardless of the nature of one’s existence here on earth (whether they be alive, sick, or dead), the metaphysical person of that being continues i.e. His self doesn’t cease; it is simply no longer manifest, experiencing or performing through that being that you see lying on the hospital bed. Where it is, and what it’s doing, only God knows.

Prof. Bittle is dribbling rubbish.
He makes sense to me, and im sure he makes sense to St Cyril as well. You’re not doing a very good job of undermining his credibility or authority either.

Person cannot be defined by intellect
Well, they are.

and even if it could, we cannot use this to define the three Hypostasese of the Trinity because they share One Essense (and therefore, one intellect/rationale as this stupid Prof. Brittle puts it).
This one intellect/rationale is manifest through three differing centers of consciousness. God’s intellect/rationale is One according to the fact that the intellect/rationale possessed and employed by the three persons of the Godhead, are of the same infinite quality and capacity, as a result of the fact that all three persons are consubstantial with each other. God is One mind in three minds so to speak. Intellect is a corollary of personhood, as is self-awareness, will, and act. These are attributes possessed by each person of the Godhead. They are distinct in reality, not independent in existence.

So Christ now has three distinct wills: a divine will, a human will, and a personal will? Or does he only have one personal will which is a "co-mingling" of His Divine and Human Wills to produce a third? 
Christ’s personal will is of a different category to his divine and human will which we classify as “natural”. To argue 1 + 2 = 3 is to commit a categorical fallacy as is the argument that 1 + 1 = 1. We have natural will ‘a’ and personal will ‘b’. Christ possesses 2a + b.

Let me give you an analogy:

Bob possess one natural will according to his one nature, and a personal will according to his one person. When Bob is fasting from food for example, he may hunger and yearn for food according to his natural will. He may make a statement such as “I am so hungry, I want to eat”, and by doing so he vocally manifests his natural human will. However, despite the inclinations of his natural will, he may choose to abstain from food nonetheless — this sir, is Bob’s personal will, and hence he ultimately he states “I am so hungry, I want to eat (x), however I will continue to fast nonetheless (y)”. In such a statement he has revealed his natural human will (x) as well as his personal will to continue abstaining from food regardless of his human inclinations (y).

Likewise, Christ according to His human nature possessed a natural human will, and according to His divine nature possessed a natural divine will, yet according to His one person/hypostasis, possessed one personal will which is simply and plainly: to do the will of the Father, which is in conformity with the natural divine will common to them both. Christ thus voluntarily aligns and submits His personal will which is challenged by His humanity (in the same manner that Bob’s personal will not to eat is challenged by his natural will for food to satisfy his hunger) to follow the divine will of the Father. Christ in contrast to man, manages to voluntarily submit his personal will to the divine; perfectly and consistently, in contrast to Bob for example, who although ultimately willing to abstain from food on one occasion, may fall and submit his personal will to his human will and choose to eat and satisfy his hunger during the next fast.

Oh these circles!
Once again, let me repeat: the fifth Ecumenical Counci Declared that "One of the Trinity suffered in the flesh". And what does S. Cyril say?
Now this is just a red herring. When did I say I have a problem with the fifth council? The fifth council is fine by me, no problems with it; it filled in all the gaps of Chalcedon and corrected all its errors. We are speaking about the tome, not the fifth council — what I have said remains intact.

So we agree then- St. Cyril and St. Leo used the word "Word" differently in one instance- therefore St. Leo is not a heretic and does not fall under St. Cyril's anathema
I never claimed that Leo of Rome was a heretic, it has been shown elsewhere that he affirmed that the divine was the subject of the Incarnation. I am claiming that his tome is confused, inconsistent and contradictory. That Leo uses the term “Word” differently to St Cyril is irrelevant to my point. That Leo understands the natures as centers of action, is a contradiction to other aspects of his tome which seem to suggest that the divine is the subject of His incarnate experiences, and in contradiction to St Cyril who without a doubt understands the divine personal subject as the centre of action; functioning according to His natures.

Peace.
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Messages
2,743
Reaction score
0
Points
0
I wasted a whole day on forums today...

ozgeorge, if i dont respond to you by July, don't take it personally. I need to put this computer away for good to control myself.

Peace.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
She Enrompi to my Coptic friends.
To everyone else, Happy Sunday (similar meaning really).

I see an uncontrollable system of Venn Diagrams in these arguments. Yet, in Venn Diagrams we seem to overlap and agree, even if we don't see it.

Someone mentioned "voluntary" and "involuntary." In plain english, yes, the body can perform things, but once my spirit (or soul) leaves my body, it can no longer perform these things, unless you quickly hook it up to a machine. But even then, you give the machine the role of a "person" that allows the body to perform its functions.

It's that simple. Forget about rocks, plants, or animals for one second. If a human is in a coma, who is there to take care of the body? DOCTORS AND NURSES, who use IV machines and so forth to sustain the body of this guy until his person snaps out of the coma.

We are then getting into the debate of subsistence. A spirit of any man is self-subsistent, while his body and soul is non-self-subsistent. The only exception is Christ, whose subsistence relies on the divinity, since the Word has always been of divine nature. The human part of Christ, spirit, soul, and body, are all non-self-subsistence, which is why we can never seperate His humanity from His divinity, or this would be true death to salvation.

So now, what is more powerful? To say that the human nature performs on its own, or to say that the Word performs through the human nature. To say that the "human nature performs" is empty, void of any powerful theological language and only puts things down, as we see here, to a metaphysical analysis. But to say that the "Word performs through the flesh or in the flesh" is much more powerful. Not only is it metaphysically correct, but it's theologically poetic, or it gives it somewhat of a song. Otherwise, we would be saying that St. Mary is nothing more than the mother of a human nature. But it's much more POWERFUL and BEAUTIFUL to say that the Word was born of the Virgin THEOTOKOS St. Mary in the flesh. For a human nature cannot perform anything without the prosopon of the Word giving it subsistence, whether it be voluntary or involuntary. And neither does the phrase "the human nature performs" have subsistence unless you allow the Word to be introduced in it.

This is the beauty behind the theology of St. Cyril, that which was preserved by the OO's without going further into meaningless metaphysical analysis.

Finally, the debate of "voluntary" vs. "involuntary" should not have been stressed here. Now, we have claims of whether Leo talked about the "involuntary" acts only or not. Are you really going that far to defend Leo's Tome? Then what happened to the voluntary acts of the humanity? Who performed those voluntary acts? Ya sure, the human nature's bowels moved, but did the human nature move Christ's skeletal muscles or did the Christ/Word move them?

"Thelete" as the Catholic Encyclopedia says may mean "desire." Therefore, all those actions, such as temptation, pain, agony, growing in wisdom, not knowing the end of days, FREE WILL, are not those voluntary? Did the human nature perform them on their own, or did the Word perform them according to humanity? The whole issue behind St. Maximus the Confessor, the most important will in humanity that he wanted to study was the free will of the humanity in Christ. That was ALL that mattered. Sure all other voluntary and involuntary wills existed, but why did we get into the debate on voluntary vs. involuntary? In that case, you make a new circle for no reason whatsoever, and for what, to defend Leo's Tome.

And what is this "Gnostism" "Docetism" attack? Have we not proved that St. Cyril holds a certain terminology over another? Have we not also shown that other factors, not just the wording of the Tome, but we went through in Chalcedon and outside of Chalcedon, affected our further rejection of it?

The original question was "Why do we reject the Tome?" I personally do not say that the Tome is wrong, but what the Tome is lacking should be a key in understanding both our Orthodox traditions. Fr. John Romanides admitted that the Tome can be interpreted in a semi-Nestorian fashion, but he defends that it should be understood in the light of the Council of Ephesus and St. Cyril. This to me is a very sincere way of reconciliation. First, he admitted the ambiguities of the Tome (which only one or two non-OO's here have), and second, he promises that the Tome is not binding on its own, but must receive its approval in interpretation through St. Cyril. In that case, I will assume "one and the same" both died and was incapable of death is the same as saying the Word died according to the flesh and the Word is incapable of death according to the Divinity.

God bless.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
minasoliman said:
So now, what is more powerful? To say that the human nature performs on its own, or to say that the Word performs through the human nature. To say that the "human nature performs" is empty, void of any powerful theological language and only puts things down, as we see here, to a metaphysical analysis. But to say that the "Word performs through the flesh or in the flesh" is much more powerful. [
You mean like St Leo says when he says in his Tome: "Accordingly, He who, as man, is tempted by the devil's subtlety, is the same to whom, as God, angels pay duteous service."?

What is becoming increasingly apparent to me is that no matter how many "Ven Diagrams" there are, and no matter how misunderstood St. Leo is- there will be no Communion between us until we reject St. Leo. The old "my enemy's enemy is my friend" mentality.



 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
What is becoming increasingly apparent to me is that no matter how many "Ven Diagrams" there are, and no matter how misunderstood St. Leo is- there will be no Communion between us until we reject St. Leo. The old "my enemy's enemy is my friend" mentality.
I didn't think anyone said that you should reject the Tome of Leo for reunion, neither do we say that we should accept the Tome of Leo either. We only like to show where he interpret its faults and we want you to understand the circumstances behind the Tome that lead us to a conviction that we reject it as an Orthodox document. Fr. John Romanides wasn't ready to reject anything in the EO tradition, except in regards to anathemas, in which he agrees that they may be lifted. You can keep your councils, but we are not bound by it. We unite as Orthodox, not as Byzantine or Oriental, not Chalcedonian or non-Chalcedonian.

As to your question, whether how something is said is a worthy reason for a schism, the answer in my opinion is "No."

God bless.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
minasoliman said:
I didn't think anyone said that you should reject the Tome of Leo for reunion, neither do we say that we should accept the Tome of Leo either. We only like to show where he interpret its faults and we want you to understand the circumstances behind the Tome that lead us to a conviction that we reject it as an Orthodox document.ÂÂ
This only makes it worse! So for us to be in Communion, we must say that Chalcedon is an Unorthodox Council proclaiming unorthodox dogma based on unorthodox documents?
minasoliman said:
Fr. John Romanides wasn't ready to reject anything in the EO tradition, except lifting up of anathemas. You can keep your councils, but we are not bound by it. We unite as Orthodox, not as Byzantine or Oriental.
So not only must we say that Chalcedon does not proclaim Orthodox doctrine-, we must now also say that none of the Ecumenical Councils after it proclaim Orthodox doctrine either..... It just just gets better doesn't it? ;)
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
And you still haven't answered my original question:

minasoliman said:
So now, what is more powerful?  To say that the human nature performs on its own, or to say that the Word performs through the human nature.  To say that the "human nature performs" is empty, void of any powerful theological language and only puts things down, as we see here, to a metaphysical analysis.  But to say that the "Word performs through the flesh or in the flesh" is much more powerful. [
Do you mean like St Leo says when he says in his Tome: "Accordingly, He who, as man, is tempted by the devil's subtlety, is the same to whom, as God, angels pay duteous service."?
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
This only makes it worse! So for us to be in Communion, we must say that Chalcedon is an Unorthodox Council proclaiming unorthodox dogma based on unorthodox documents?
Okay, tell me exactly where I said this because I know I didn't.  I said you are not obligated to reject the Tome or Chalcedon.  However, the Tome or Chalcedon is not necessary for us to accept as a reunion.  What is necessary is the lifting of anathemas.  We are ready to lift anathemas of Leo et al, just as you would lift anathemas from Dioscorus et al.  The faith and doctrines stay THE SAME, as has always been.

So not only must we say that Chalcedon does not proclaim Orthodox doctrine-, we must now also say that none of the Ecumenical Councils after it proclaim Orthodox doctrine either..... It just just gets better doesn't it?
No, I did not say that.  Again, where did I say that?  Please don't put words in my mouth.  The Agreed Statements state that it is not necessary to accept the additional councils for communion.  Nowhere does it say that this or that council should be rejected either.  We've also believed that the last four EO councils have no difference in its Orthodox interpretation of faith as our OOxy after careful and objective studies on both our traditions.  We will be glad to defend its Orthodoxy, but these councils are not necessary to accept for reunion between both our families.

Do you mean like St Leo says when he says in his Tome: "Accordingly, He who, as man, is tempted by the devil's subtlety, is the same to whom, as God, angels pay duteous service."?
Yes, I would interpret it as Orthodox, since the fruits of EOxy is true faith, and since this is, as I've read in Leo's other letters, that Leo's intention is Orthodox.  But I must stress, nowhere in this sentence does it state that the Word in prosopon did both.  It only says that the man and God are both the same "He".  Slight difference in terminology, and can be misconstrued as Nestorian, as Nestorius gladly agreed, since he believed that the two prosopa of Christ are the "same Image".  I suggest you read the "Bazaar of Heracleides" by Nestorius.

God bless you.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
minasoliman said:
Yes, I would interpret it as Orthodox, since the fruits of EOxy is true faith, and since this is, as I've read in Leo's other letters, that Leo's intention is Orthodox. But I must stress, nowhere in this sentence does it state that the Word in prosopon did both. It only says that the man and God are both the same "He". Slight difference in terminology, and can be misconstrued as Nestorian, as Nestorius gladly agreed, since he believed that the two prosopa of Christ are the "same Image". I suggest you read the "Bazaar of Heracleides" by Nestorius.
Dear Friend,
Nestorius could just as easily twist the Pre-Incarnate and Incarnate Word as two prosopa of Christ that are the same image. If you have anathemised St. Leo because you think his teaching can be misunderstood, then you must also anathamise St. Cyril for the same reason.

minasoliman said:
What is necessary is the lifting of anathemas.
Agreed. The Anathemas must be lifted for there to be Communion between us.

minasoliman said:
We are ready to lift anathemas of Leo et al, just as you would lift anathemas from Dioscorus et al. The faith and doctrines stay THE SAME, as has always been.
But why was Dioscorsus anathemized
The Seventh Ecumenical Council says:
"Anathema to those who spurn the teachings of the holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church, taking as a pretext and making their own the arguments of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, that unless we were evidently taught by the Old and New Testaments, we should not follow the teachings of the holy Fathers and of the holy Ecumenical Synods, and the tradition of the Catholic Church."

Unless we all follow the Ecumenical Synods, there can be no Communion.




 

Stavro

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 24, 2003
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Dear EA,
I apologize sincerely for the confusion on my part. I intended to reply to a statement by a Chalcedonian about the Ephesus II, yet I was not careful to quote the complete post and the post looked like a criticism to yours, which cannot be my intention in any case. I will modify the post accordingly. I fully agree with your statements and posts. 
Peace. 
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Nestorius could just as easily twist the Pre-Incarnate and Incarnate Word as two prosopa of Christ that are the same image. If you have anathemised St. Leo because you think his teaching can be misunderstood, then you must also anathamise St. Cyril for the same reason.
Dearest Ozgeorge,

I have shown you the reasons and factors to which we rejected the Tome. Perhaps, there may have not been a schism if:
1. Theodoret and Ibas were not associated with Leo
2. The Roman Legates that represented Leo did not say that Theodore of Mopsuestia was a "doctor of the Church"
3. If discussion and debate was allowed with Imperial authorities threatening sides
4. If Imperial authorities did not house arrest St. Dioscorus
5. If we weren't persecuted for not accepting the Tome

These are the factors to which we proceeded to call the Tome heretical. Yes, it can be misunderstood, but if the first four of the five factors really did never happen, perhaps the brotherhood in Chalcedon could have given certain consideration for Orthodoxy in Chalcedon rather than the violence and yelling that erupted there.

For example, THEORETICALLY SPEAKING, if St. Cyril was associated with Apollinarians and sent legates that represented him that said Appollinarius was a "doctor of the Church," then shouldn't I proceed with caution to read any of St. Cyril's Tome as probably not Orthodox since he associates himself with heretics?

But why was Dioscorsus anathemized...
etc. etc. etc.
By asking this question and making other statements after it, you imply a couple of things:
1. By lifting anathemas, you expect us to condemn our own Orthodox fathers.
2. By lifting anathemas, you expect us to accept councils that condemn our own Orthodox fathers.
3. You assume that St. Dioscorus et al were heretics.

If these are not what you assumed then you shouldn't have asked that last question.

So now that I assume I know what you believe, let us talk about St. Dioscorus. Why was St. Dioscorus anathematized?
The answer: because he did not come to the council after a triple summons. Nowhere in the Council of Chalcedon in its sentences and definitions does it accuse St. Dioscorus of heresy. It's only a tradition in your Church that Leo, who wasn't present to hear St. Dioscorus' defenses, call him a Eutychian, while never even have met the man himself, and his legates took Leo's words as words of infallibility, and thuse became an EO tradition. Meanwhile, we called Leo a Nestorian and have not met Leo himself to know what he actually believes. While there were factors into our suspicions to him, today since we have the internet, and sources in reading all his letters, I know he is Orthodox in Christology (but that goes also the same way St. Dioscorus. Read his stuff, and you'll find it DRENCHED with Orthodoxy).

So far, I'm speaking objectively.

Second Answer: Because imperial authorities hate Alexandria. It's obvious with the house arrest and the persecutions we suffered through. Is it right to force someone to be Chalcedonian? That's no different from being a Muslim in the Islamically ruled countries, to accept Islam or to die (or pay Jizya, but that wasn't even offered from the CHRISTIAN Imperial authorities).

Now, that I've answered your question, I like to ask you and Augustine and others:

Do you think that St. Dioscorus et al were all heretics? If so, can you quote for us the source of their heresy from their own writings and sayings?

I can assure you that what you and your councils accuse St. Dioscorus et al of is the same heresy that St. Dioscorus et al all have condemned themselves.

Let us then look objectively at what your councils said. I can tell you honestly that the Holy Spirit at least worked through you to uphold the Orthodox faith, but you did not heed the Holy Spirit's call that certain men you condemn were not the heretics you think they were. Your and our councils have had councils for good intentions of condemning heresies, but if the supposed persons you've condemned did not hold these heresies, then theoretically, it is not wrong to lift anathemas against us, since they never even believed in the heresy you condemned them with. (this statement not only holds for you only, but us as well)

It is right to uphold the faith, but it is wrong to say that St. Dioscorus erred from the faith. I challenge you to read the OO fathers and find anything heretical, and we can challenge it here. Perhaps, we should create a thread on why you reject St. Dioscorus, now that we have discussed and exhausted the Tome of Leo.

God bless you.
 

Anastasios

Merarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
10,556
Reaction score
7
Points
38
Location
Reston, VA
Website
www.anastasioshudson.com
I believe that St John Chrysostom also once publicly called Theodore of Mopsuestia "my teacher" since he died in communion with the Orthodox Church and was actually a big influence on St John Chrysostom.  I will have to ask my former patristics professor though if he can give me the citation for that.  At any rate, it just goes to show that before a person is officially condemned, people can have varying opinions about him, such as how St. Basil the Great called Origen his teacher and edited his works (the first Philokalia).

Anastasios
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
minasoliman said:
For example, THEORETICALLY SPEAKING, if St. Cyril was associated with Apollinarians and sent legates that represented him that said Appollinarius was a "doctor of the Church," then shouldn't I proceed with caution to read any of St. Cyril's Tome as probably not Orthodox since he associates himself with heretics?
Yes, I wouldn't blame you for proceeding with caution. But circumspection is one thing, and "finding" heresy where there is no heresy is quite another.
Why the non-chalcedon insistence on accusing St. Leo of confusing the issue when he clealy does not? For example:
minasoliman said:
But I must stress, nowhere in this sentence does it state that the Word in prosopon did both.
The sentence in question reads: "Accordingly, He who, as man, is tempted by the devil's subtlety, is the same to whom, as God, angels pay duteous service."
St. Leo says that "He...is the same..."
"He" is a personal pronoun and can only possibly refer to an hypostasis/prosopon/person, not a nature. St. Leo clearly says He did both. Why do the non-chalcedons insist that this is not what he says?

In the same way, not everything Origen said was heresy, not everything Nestorios said was heresy. We treat Origen's works with caution, but we do not reject everything he says, and more importantly, we do not accuse him of heresy in the Orthodox things that he said.

minasoliman said:
So now that I assume I know what you believe, let us talk about St. Dioscorus. Why was St. Dioscorus anathematized?
The answer: because he did not come to the council after a triple summons.ÂÂ
No, he was anathemised for rejecting the teachings of an Ecumenical Council. I repeat (ojectively):
"The Seventh Ecumenical Council says: "Anathema to those who spurn the teachings of the holy Fathers and the tradition of the Catholic Church, taking as a pretext and making their own the arguments of Arius, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Dioscorus, that unless we were evidently taught by the Old and New Testaments, we should not follow the teachings of the holy Fathers and of the holy Ecumenical Synods, and the tradition of the Catholic Church."

minasoliman said:
So far, I'm speaking objectively.
So am I, so I will not give you my subjective opinion on the rest of your questions.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
Sigh,

I have talked enough about Leo.  The point is that I agree we misunderstood Leo's intentions, but because of one or two vague sentences, and more because of what we suffered through unjustly, we just rejected the whole thing.  We made that mistake, and you made the mistake of taking things out of context on our side as well.  We were persecuted by Imperial authorites and we put this as if Leo was with the authorities.  Later on, saints like Maximus in the EO were being persecuted by Imperial authorities and as a result we were somewhat to blame.  We misunderstood one another.  The discussion was supposed to be open-hearted and not just to criticize one another.  For that, we can go in circles and show you how your councils were wrong in condemning St. Dioscorus for taking him out of context as well and misunderstanding his words.  Can you believe it?  Orthodoxinfo.com states that St. Dioscorus was condemned for saying "from two natures" and not "of two natures."  I ask, what's the difference?  See how much they take things out of context to justify their claims of heresy against St. Dioscorus.

Nothing is truly justified if that is what you're getting at.  You are right, we must examine everything, and not every heretic's writing we just reject because it was written by a heretic.  But because of certain political situations, both sides took things out of context.  I am not proving that Chalcedonians are wrong and that they should repent.  I am only showing how we interpreted things.

I hope this is the end of it for the Tome of Leo.

Next, why is that you write "objectively" like me?  Is it really "objective" what you wrote or are you just joking?

No, he was anathemised for rejecting the teachings of an Ecumenical Council.  I repeat (ojectively):
With all due respect there is nothing objective in what you quoted.  I asked you to show me from St. Dioscorus' writings where he erred, and you have not done so.  Instead you quote an "ecumenical" council for me.  I can use the same "objective" tactic and quote Ephesus III and say that "Chalcedon and Leo erred from the faith of the Apostolic Fathers".

If this was a joke, please add a "j/k" because I'm bad at jokes and usually don't get them.

So now that we have proven that Leo was Orthodox, and that his Tome was misunderstood, I also ask you to show the same courtesy of our OO fathers, including St. Dioscorus, for he was also Orthodox and misunderstood.  Do not quote from your sources, but quote from our sources and show us where we've erred.  So far, we have not quoted from our councils to prove that Leo was a heretic.  I ask you, truly objectively with no joke, to do the same.

God bless you and good night.

I'll post tomorrow if necessary.
 

minasoliman

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
May 24, 2004
Messages
20,198
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
NJ
One more thing:

But circumspection is one thing, and "finding" heresy where there is no heresy is quite another.
I like this, and I very much agree.  I contend that this goes the same with St. Dioscorus.

God bless and good night.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
minasoliman said:
 Orthodoxinfo.com states that St. Dioscorus was condemned for saying "from two natures" and not "of two natures." I ask, what's the difference? ..... I also ask you to show the same courtesy of our OO fathers, including St. Dioscorus, for he was also Orthodox and misunderstood. Do not quote from your sources, but quote from our sources and show us where we've erred. So far, we have not quoted from our councils to prove that Leo was a heretic. I ask you, truly objectively with no joke, to do the same.
The Coptic Synaxarion for Tout 7 quotes Discorus as saying:"The Hypostatic Union of the Word of God with the flesh is like the union of the soul with the body and like the union of fire and iron: even as they are of two different natures, by their union they became one. Likewise, our Lord Christ is one Messiah, one Lord, and one Nature."
Dioscorus says that Christ's Two Natures, by virtue of their union become "One Nature".
"our Lord Christ is one Messiah, one Lord, and one Nature".... Just like "One Lord, one Faith, one baptism".  In Christ, Two Natures become One Nature, (not two) according to Dioscorus. How else can this be interpreted? Since, according to Dioscorus, the Two Natures become One in the Hypostasis of the Incarnate Christ, this must have taken place at the instant of His Incarnation. Therefore, according to Dioscorus, the Incarnate Christ never had Two Natures, He only ever had One Nature. Whether he knew it or not, Dioscorus was teaching monophysitism.
 

Stavro

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 24, 2003
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
0
Points
36
ozgeorge said:
Hmmm.........
Perhaps, in actual fact, "the Spirit has spoken through Stavro."
No, it was mistake and a misunderstanding on my behalf, and my reply was in fact directed to you in your reference to St.Dioscoros, yet I misplaced a quote. ÂÂ
 

Stavro

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Sep 24, 2003
Messages
1,358
Reaction score
0
Points
36
our Lord Christ is one Messiah, one Lord
You emphasized one Messiah and one Lord .....
Do you contest the fact that Christ is one Lord and one Messiah? Be aware that you are falling in the worst possible form of Nestorianism, the" two-son " or "two-person" heresy, if you reject this clear Orthodox teaching.
Two Natures become One Nature, (not two) according to Dioscorus
The text out of the synaxerium reads "one incarnate nature", and we might excuse you based on possible poor translation.  As such, St.Dioscoros is faithful to his teacher, St.Cyril, in case the latter still means anything to Chalcedonians. This is the expression St.Cyril used throughout his writings.
In addition, while Leo of Rome was clear about separation of the natures of Christ and falling into Nestorianism, there is no single hint of any confusion or mingling between the divine and human nature in the person of Christ in this text. Where is monophysicism expressed exactly ?

St.Dioscoros was not charged with such heresy in Chalcedon, he was excommunicated because he could not go to the council while under house arrest by the council leading figures recommendations to the imperial court, as others explained. If St.Dioscoros was never charged with heresy, and Anatolius of Constantinople - a Chalcedonian leader - expressed it clearly in his reply to the emperial officer who resided over the council, it does not make sense to accuse St.Dioscoros of such heresy. This accusation surfaced later to counter the fact that Chalcedon was received as a Nestorian council by the East.


 
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Messages
2,743
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ozgeorge,

This is too easy:

Dioscorus says that Christ's Two Natures, by virtue of their union become "One Nature"………………..

………. Whether he knew it or not, Dioscorus was teaching monophysitism.
Here is what the blessed St Cyril convicts you of concerning the conclusion you have drawn with regards to the blessed St Dioscorus:

"For not only in the case of those who are simple by nature is the term ‘one’ truly used, but also in respect to what has been brought together according to a synthesis, as man is one being, who is of soul and body. For soul and body are of different species and are not consubstantial to each other, but united they produce one Physis of man, even though in the considerations of the synthesis the difference exist according to the nature of those which have been brought together into a unity. Accordingly they are speaking in vain who say that, if there should be one incarnate Physis ÂÂ ‘of the Word’ in every way and in every manner it would follow that a mixture and a confusion occurred as if lessening and taking away the nature of man.’

Please; if you want to commit the obvious and common Chalcedonian logical fallacy of non-sequitor in order to dishonestly label the blessed and holy St Dioscorus a monophysite by virtue of his affirming the One physis of Christ after the union; then at least be consistent in your inept reasoning and do likewise for St Cyril, otherwise you are not only logically incapable, but you are dishonest also.

St Dioscorus in affirming the One Physis of God the Logos incarnate does not deny the continuing reality of the two natures of Christ anymore than St Cyril does; rather the both of them are affirming the individual state of Christ’s existence after the hypostatic union, due to the very en-hypostasization of Christ's humanity by the hypostasis of The Word. Therefore, as the blessed St Cyril accuses you ozgeorge, then so do i: You speak in vain.

St Dioscorus also stated:

“God the Logos, consubstantial with the Father, at the end of the ages for our redemption became consubstantial with man in the flesh, remaining what he was before.” (Sellers, R.V. The Council of Chalcedon p31. n1. S.P.C.K. 1953)

Clearly therefore, St Dioscorus did not deny the continuing reality of the two natures of Christ after the union. The above quotation could not be any more explicit. St Dioscorus also says:

“I know full well, having been brought up in the faith, that he has been begotten of the Father as God, and that the Same has been begotten of Mary as man. See Him walking on the sea as man, and Creator of the heavenly hosts as God; see him sleeping in the boat as man, and walking on the seas as God; see Him hungry as man, and bestowing nourishment as God; see him thirsty as man, and giving drink as God; see him stoned by the Jews as man, and worshipped by angels as God; see him tempted as man, and driving away the demons as God; and similarly of many instances.” (Sellers, R.V. The Council of Chalcedon p32. S.P.C.K. 1953)

On behalf of the great St Cyril, I urge you ozgeorge: do not speak in vain.

Peace.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
EkhristosAnesti said:
Clearly therefore, St Dioscorus did not deny the continuing reality of the two natures of Christ after the union.
From the Coptic Synaxarion

Tout 7

The Departure of St. Dioscorus, 25th Pope of Alexandria.
On this day of the year 451 A.D., the blessed father and the great champion of Orthodoxy, Saint Dioscorus, 25th Pope of Alexandria, departed. His departure took place on the island of Gagra after he had fought the good fight defending the Orthodox faith.

When he was summoned to the Council of Chalcedon by the order of Emperor Marcianus, he saw a great assembly of 630 bishops. Saint Dioscorus asked, "In whom is the faith lacking that it was necessary to gather this great assembly?" They told him, "This assembly has been convened by the emperor's command." He replied, "If this assembly has been convened by the command of our Lord Jesus Christ I shall stay and speak with what God may give me to say; but if this assembly has been convened by the emperor's command, let the emperor manage his assembly as he pleases."

When he saw that Leo, Archbishop of Rome, was teaching that Christ has two natures and two wills after the Union, he took the charge to refute this new belief. He stated that our Lord Jesus Christ is one, He who was invited to the wedding as a man and changed the water into wine as a God, and that the two natures were not separated in all of His works. Quoting Pope Cyril, he said, "The Hypostatic Union of the Word of God with the flesh is like the union of the soul with the body and like the union of fire and iron: even as they are of two different natures, by their union they became one. Likewise, our Lord Christ is one Messiah, one Lord, and one Nature." .......
Source: http://www.copticchurch.net/classes/synex.php?month=1&day=7&btn=View&lang=
If Dioscorus was not holding to monophysitism, why does your own synaxarion say that he "refuted" this "new" teaching of the "Two Natures" and "Two Wills" after union? Because Dioscorus held that Christ had only One Nature after union as he himself puts it: "even as they are of two different natures by their union they became one.... Likewise, our Lord Christ is one Messiah, one Lord, and one Nature." .......
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Messages
2,743
Reaction score
0
Points
0
If Dioscorus was not holding to monophysitism, why does your own synaxarion say that he "refuted" this "new" teaching of the "Two Natures" and "Two Wills" after union
Because this was understood by the blessed St Dioscorus as a teaching of Christ’s being existent in two independent states of existence; capable of being separated according to action and will, yet also capable of uniting again according to a prosopic union; which is a Nestorian teaching. The expression "in two natures" was an expression unheard of in Orthodox Christology at the time; it was employed exclusively by the Antiochene school which had heretical tendencies, and it was specifically employed by Nestorius and Nestorians in general, to convey the Nestorian heresy. This is the context of St Dioscorus' rejection of this expression.

Ozgeorge, you basically ignored my whole post, in which I quoted for you ST CYRIL’S very explicit statement regarding the matter of One physis; AS WELL AS DIRECT QUOTES FROM ST DIOSCORUS HIMSELF concerning Christ’s acting certain acts according to His divinity (which he affirmed is consubstantial with the Father) and acting other acts according to his humanity (which He affirmed is consubstantial with mankind.)

If you want to remain blissfully and voluntarily ignorant to everything I quoted for you in my previous post; if YOU want to undermine the authority of St Cyril and ridicule him and the letter of his which I quoted for you in which essentially argues that to conclude monophysitism from a declaration of Christ’s One physis is a classic non-sequitor; then this is your problem from here on. The issue is no longer between you and I, or you and minasoliman, or even you and the authoritative professors of metaphysics which you struggled and failed to undermine. This is now between you and your conscious.

I have nothing further to say; im not going to repeat myself over and over again as if I’m speaking to a kid.

St Cyril the great:
“Accordingly they [i.e. ozgeorge] are speaking in vain who say that, if there should be one incarnate PhysisÂÂ ‘of the Word’ in every way and in every manner it would follow that a mixture and a confusion occurred as if lessening and taking away the nature of man.’”

Peace.
 

alexp4uni

Elder
Site Supporter
Joined
Dec 12, 2004
Messages
329
Reaction score
0
Points
0
When he was summoned to the Council of Chalcedon by the order of Emperor Marcianus..."In whom is the faith lacking that it was necessary to gather this great assembly?" They told him, "This assembly has been convened by the emperor's command." He replied, "If this assembly has been convened by the command of our Lord Jesus Christ I shall stay and speak with what God may give me to say; but if this assembly has been convened by the emperor's command, let the emperor manage his assembly as he pleases."
Also another point is It seems Dioscorus has a bit of arrogance when he responds to the message of the Emperor. Doesn't a council need to be deemed by a ruler to bring together not of specific of Christ to the individual but of the Holy Spirit under of one group of people to decide? So this is to say that many people under Byzantium have been irritated by Emperors ruling factor in the decision making. (I don't know of what decision they have declared perhaps someone can say some thought on the deciding factors of a Council when it comes to the result)
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
EkhristosAnesti said:
St Cyril the great:
“Accordingly they [i.e. ozgeorge] are speaking in vain who say that, if there should be one incarnate PhysisÂÂ ‘of the Word’ in every way and in every manner it would follow that a mixture and a confusion occurred as if lessening and taking away the nature of man.’”
From St. Cyril's Epistle to John of Antioch.
"With regard to the Evangelical and Apostolic expressions concerning the Lord, we know that men who are skilled in theology make some of them common to the one Person, while they divide others between the two Natures, ascribing those that are fitting to God to Divinity of Christ, and those that are lowly to His Humanity. On reading these sacred utterances of Yours, and finding that we ourselves think along the same lines—for there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism—, we glorified God the Saviour of all"

St. Cyril clearly neither espouses monophysitism, nor what you would call "miaphysitism".
So you see EA, the only "anathema" I am under is Dioscorus' who anathemised all who confess the Two Natures (and, possibly, your anathema).

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Messages
2,743
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ozgeorge,

It seems that you’ve gone bankrupt.

John of Antioch was initially a supporter of Nestorius and in direct opposition to St Cyril and the Council of Ephesus. St Cyril being the righteous saint that he is, and thus a peacemaker, decided to develop the reunion formula which incorporated the Antiochene concerns and hence brought John of Antioch back into the Orthodox fold upon his acquiescence of it. There was still a large faction of the Antiochene’s who were not satisfied, even with the re-union formula; especially the Nestorians - the "in two natures" expression was dominant in their school of thought. Obviously you are unable of having due regard or consideration for the historical circumstances at the time; it seems you would rather do a kindergarten historical analysis by considering the historical actions/reactions or sayings of a figure in a vacuum, ripped out of their historical context.

St Cyril affirmed One Physis. Period. Are you going to deny this? If you are not going to deny this, then are you going to call St Cyril a monophysite? If you are not going to call St Cyril a monophysite, then why do you do the same concerning his lawful successors St Dioscorus and St Timothy; especially when it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that they affirm One physis after the union in faithful adherence to their predecessors' Christololgy, and in the same context , for in the same breath they declare the very consubstantiality of Christ to mankind, which directly contradicts the notion of a co-mingling or confusion of the two ousias.

In short, Miaphysis Christology is not in contradiction to a two nature Christology PER SE when the term physis is understood according to different contexts - two natures according to the reality of Christ's existence, and One nature according to the state of Christ's existence. To affirm that there is a contradiction is to commit the categorical fallacy: http://www.flipsideshow.com/IIF1--LogicalFallacyList.htm Please study this list of logical fallacies, so that you may refrain from falling into any again. I don’t want to keep correcting you.

So you see EA, the only "anathema" I am under is Dioscorus' who anathemised all who confess the Two Natures (and, possibly, yours).
How many times do we have to run around in circles? The anathema placed on Leo and all those who adhere to his Christology, is done so according to the assumption that Leo’s two nature Christology was a crypto-Nestorian one; an affirmation and understanding of Christ’s two natures in the sense that they are two independent states of existence. Though we have been arguing that this assumption may have been an objectively reasonable one to make, our hierarchs being the honest and righteous men of God that they are, have affirmed that they are ready to lift the anathemas upon recognition, that in the context of the subsequent councils to Chalcedon, the subjective intentions of the Eastern Church have been clarified such that in the context of these latter councils, no form of Nestorianism can even be objectively interpreted.

LIKEWISE, ozgeorge mr. double standards, YOU and YOUR church will have to recognize that the assumption upon which the blessed St Dioscorus confessor of the Orthodox faith, was anathemized, was likewise a FALSE ASSUMPTION. I have proven this to you; you cannot deny what is written in black and white; the quotes of St Dioscorus which I pasted for you were even taken from a pro-Chalcedonian textbook!

I repeat through the words of St Cyril; your attempt to derive monophysitism from a mere declaration of the One physis of Christ after the union is IN VAIN, it is a NON-SEQUITOR. Period. I am not calling you names any more than St Cyril is; we are simply declaring a fact.

Peace.
 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
EkhristosAnesti said:
I am not calling you names
Really? Then I must have misunderstood you when you accused me of :

EkhristosAnesti said:
kindergarten historical analysis.....you’ve gone bankrupt
and called me:
EkhristosAnesti said:
mr. double standards
all in the same post and placed me under St. Cyril’s anathema in your previous one.

Why should anyone believe your arguments when you can't you even tell the truth in the face of contemporary facts? You are calling me names EA, despite your denial. (A bit like your denial that St. Cyril pre-emptively affirmed the Faith of Chalcedon.)

EkhristosAnesti said:
John of Antioch was initially a supporter of Nestorius and in direct opposition to St Cyril and the Council of Ephesus. St Cyril being the righteous saint that he is, and thus a peacemaker, decided to develop the reunion formula which incorporated the Antiochene concerns and hence brought John of Antioch back into the Orthodox fold upon his acquiescence of it. There was still a large faction of the Antiochene’s who were not satisfied, even with the re-union formula; especially the Nestorians - the "in two natures" expression was dominant in their school of thought. Obviously you are unable of having due regard or consideration for the historical circumstances at the time;
Oh, I see. So you are saying that St. Cyril was only making concessions to the Nestorians when he agrees in his letter to St John of Antioch that Christ has Two distinct Natures with different attributes….St. Cyril is not pre-emptively affirming the faith of Chalcedon in his letter, he is simply agreeing with Nestorians…….
Give me a break! Sounds like a bit of a "kindergarten historical analysis" to me.

EkhristosAnesti said:
ozgeorge,
This is too easy:
Really? then why the need for all the mental acrobatics and resorting to your own unsubstantiated version of historical contexts. The statement "this is too easy" has as much basis in fact as "I am not calling you names mr. double standards".

The Truth will set you free.
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Messages
2,743
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Really? Then I must have misunderstood you when you accused me of :
Quote from: EkhristosAnesti on Today at 05:15:47 AM
kindergarten historical analysis.....you’ve gone bankrupt
Applying metaphors which appropriately and reasonably describe the nature of one’s failed arguments; arguments which have been employed in a vain attempt to prove that The One Holy Universal and Apostolic Orthodox Church (“non-chalcedonian church”) ever ascribed to any sort of heresy, is not the same as name calling. It’s not like I called you an idiot. There was no reference made to your person sir; I accused you of double standards and shoddy research; this does not classify as ad hominem for I have the right to point out and prove the fallacies of anothers argument.ÂÂ

In kindergarten I doubt they expect you to take historical context into consideration; likewise you felt the need to rip the mere affirmation of “One physis” and the rejection of “two physis”; not only out of its historical context, but its Christological, and linguistic context. Since in a particular context, physis was understood by St Cyril and his legitimate successors in a hypostatic sense, I could likewise rip your affirmation of two physis out of context and conclude exclusively from that, that your fathers were affirming two hypostasis in Christ; and by doing so I would be doing nothing more than arguing consistently with your flawed approach to this whole issue.

Oh, I see. So you are saying that St. Cyril was only making concessions to the Nestorians when he agrees in his letter to St John of Antioch that Christ has Two distinct Natures with different attributes….
First of all, I never said that St Cyril was making concessions to the Nestorians. It seems like putting words into the mouths of others is common for you. Not only have you done it to me before, but minsasoliman rebuked you for doing it to him previously also. The Antiochene’s stressed the two natures of Christ beyond what is reasonable. St Cyril made concessions for their concerns that the unity of Christ was being over-stressed; not for their abuse of a two-nature Christology.

That St Cyril agrees with the fact that Christ possesses two distinct natures with different attributes per se is not an issue. I agree with this, my Church agrees with this, as did St Dioscorus. If St Dioscorus did not agree that there were to two distinct natures in Christ, he would not and most importantly COULD NOT have affirmed that Christ was consubstantial with the Father and mankind simultaneously, for the corollary of this is that Christ possesses a complete and perfect divine nature and a complete perfect human nature simultaneously. In your vain attempt to discredit the blessed St Dioscorus, you overlooked a particular sentence in the synaxarium:

“He [St Dioscorus] stated…the two natures were not separated in all of His works.” In order to declare that the two natures could not be separated in all of His works, is to first presuppose the possession of two natures. St Cyril stressed many times that two natures were to be spoken of in contemplation/thought alone; those who were faithful to his Christology were sensitive with regards to the manner in which one declares two natures after the union; not because of a denial that Christ possessed a complete divine and complete human nature, but because the unity of Christ was the Orthodox emphasis, and the only appropriate emphasis according to the historical period in question when Nestorianism was still influential and an immediate threat to the Church.

His affirmation of One physis after the union simply entails (as it did with St Cyril) that these two distinct natures constituted one individual concrete state of existence in Christ, once the distinct humanity of Christ was en-hypostasized by the hypostasis of The Word.

A bit like your denial that St. Cyril pre-emptively affirmed the Faith of Chalcedon.)
If you think St Cyril’s affirmation of two natures per se (which he affirmed WITH AN AFFIRMATION OF ONE PHYSIS) automatically entails an acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon, then……no comment — I’ll rub things in when I have the time for it....Its funny how you have to resort to wild unwarranted speculations. I suggest you do a study of St Cyril's Christology and compare it side by side with the Tome of Leo and the Nestorian Three Chapters; both documents which were vindicated at Chalcedon.

I realise that ever since I proved a few posts ago, that your manner of expressing the actions of Christ falls under the 12th anathema of St Cyril, that you've been getting a bit defensive, and this has distorted your ability to be reasonable. I will promise to make a stop here, I don't want to upset you further. Be happy with Chalcedon; I am happy without it - It was a superflous historical error. I don't need a council of schism to affirm the two essences/natures of Christ which constitue His Mia Physis, my Church adopted these principles before Chalcedon and maintained them without it.

Peace.

 

ozgeorge

Hoplitarches
Site Supporter
Joined
Mar 2, 2004
Messages
16,379
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Age
54
Location
Australia
Website
www.greekorthodox.org.au
EkhristosAnesti said:
Applying metaphors which appropriately and reasonably describe the nature of one’s failed arguments; arguments which have been employed in a vain attempt to prove that The One Holy Universal and Apostolic Orthodox Church (“non-chalcedonian church”) ever ascribed to any sort of heresy, is not the same as name calling. It’s not like I called you an idiot. There was no reference made to your person sir; I accused you of double standards and shoddy research; this does not classify as ad hominem for I have the right to point out and prove the fallacies of anothers argument.
Yes, and you have the right to call me names, just admit that you are doing it! "mr. double standards" is name-calling. I don't care what you call me, just don't say things like "I'm not name calling" and then call people names, and then deny that you are doing it! This is called denial, and denial stands for:
Don't
Even
Notice
I
Am
Lying

EkhristosAnesti said:
That St Cyril agrees with the fact that Christ possesses two distinct natures with different attributes per se is not an issue. I agree with this, my Church agrees with this, as did St Dioscorus.
So why did he deny it when asked at the Council of Chalcedon?

EkhristosAnesti said:
If St Dioscorus did not agree that there were to two distinct natures in Christ, he would not and most importantly COULD NOT have affirmed that Christ was consubstantial with the Father and mankind simultaneously, for the corollary of this is that Christ possesses a complete and perfect divine nature and a complete perfect human nature simultaneously. In your vain attempt to discredit the blessed St Dioscorus, you overlooked a particular sentence in the synaxarium:“He [St Dioscorus] stated…the two natures were not separated in all of His works.”
And you have overlooked the fact that although he says Christ has Two Natures, they became One Nature. So his statement that "the two natures were not separated in all of His works" simply reaffirms his belief that the One Nature operated in all His works. The same sort of non-committal stuff I hear in the dialogues between the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians: "of course we believe the faith as expressed in the Seven Ecumenical Councils, but we refuse to aknowledge them or submit to them." Is this mere politics, or do we in fact not share the same faith?


EkhristosAnesti said:
In order to declare that the two natures could not be separated in all of His works, is to first presuppose the possession of two natures.
I think you'll find I've aknowledged this in all my posts.......Let me repeat again, Dioscorsus said the Two Distinct Natures became one nature and functioned as one nature....what you now call "miaphysis".

EkhristosAnesti said:
St Cyril stressed many times that two natures were to be spoken of in contemplation/thought alone;
.
Of course he did, because we are talking about ineffable mysteries. He was trying to prevent people from taking things literally and applying their own mental concepts on to Divine Truths (a bit like you trying to tell me earlier in this threadr that "Personhood" is defined by "intellect/rationale".)

EkhristosAnesti said:
His affirmation of One physis after the union simply entails (as it did with St Cyril) that these two distinct natures constituted one individual concrete state of existence in Christ, once the distinct humanity of Christ was en-hypostasized by the hypostasis of The Word.
......
Which he calls "One Nature" or "miaphysis"....
I know.....how many times do I have to tell you? This is exactly why your Synaxarion says he refuted the faith of Chalcedon, because (as he himself said) there is only One Nature. This is why you consider him a confessor for your faith- because he refuted the "new" dogmas of Chalcedon as your Synaxarion puts it. He denied that Christ has Two Natures and Two Wills. Let me again repeat what your Synaxarion says about him:
"When he saw that Leo, Archbishop of Rome, was teaching that Christ has two natures and two wills after the Union, he took the charge to refute this new belief. " Do you see what your Synaxaion says? He refuted the dogma of the Two Wills and the Two Natures.

EkhristosAnesti said:
If you think St Cyril’s affirmation of two natures per se (which he affirmed WITH AN AFFIRMATION OF ONE PHYSIS) automatically entails an acceptance of the Council of Chalcedon, then……no comment — I’ll rub things in when I have the time for it....
Shaking in my boots.

EkhristosAnesti said:
I realise that ever since I proved a few posts ago, that your manner of expressing the actions of Christ falls under the 12th anathema of St Cyril, that you've been getting a bit defensive,
How uncannily like Ahmed Deedat this sounds who said "I can smell your fear"..........it's almost as if.....
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Messages
2,743
Reaction score
0
Points
0
"mr. double standards" is name-calling. I don't care what you call me, just don't say things like "I'm not name calling" and then call people names
It is not a reference to your person; a "double standard" is not an adjective that can qualify one's person, it is a noun denoting a logical fallacy. Simple as that. Take it as you wish, i realise you're desparate for anything you can get at the moment. I have the patience for you my friend, believe me.

So why did he deny it when asked at the Council of Chalcedon?
Do you even read my posts?

Quote
If Dioscorus was not holding to monophysitism, why does your own synaxarion say that he "refuted" this "new" teaching of the "Two Natures" and "Two Wills" after union
Because this was understood by the blessed St Dioscorus as a teaching of Christ’s being existent in two independent states of existence; capable of being separated according to action and will, yet also capable of uniting again according to a prosopic union; which is a Nestorian teaching. The expression "in two natures" was an expression unheard of in Orthodox Christology at the time; it was employed exclusively by the Antiochene school which had heretical tendencies, and it was specifically employed by Nestorius and Nestorians in general, to convey the Nestorian heresy. This is the context of St Dioscorus' rejection of this expression.
And you have overlooked the fact that although he says Christ has Two Natures, they became One Nature.
Round and round we go:

And you have overlooked the fact that a) St Cyril affirmed that after the union Christ possessed One physis and that b) St Dioscorus affirmed Christ’s mia physis IN THE SAME CONTEXT AS ST CYRIL DID, alongside an affirmation of the consubstantiality of Christ to mankind and the Father and hence the ultimate corollary of that; i.e. that Christ possesses a complete humanity and complete divinity.

a) St Cyril says:

"For not only in the case of those who are simple by nature is the term ‘one’ truly used, but also in respect to what has been brought together according to a synthesis, as man is one being, who is of soul and body. For soul and body are of different species and are not consubstantial to each other, but united they produce one Physis of man, even though in the considerations of the synthesis the difference exist according to the nature of those which have been brought together into a unity. Accordingly they are speaking in vain who say that, if there should be one incarnate NATURE/PHYSIS ‘of the Word’ in every way and in every manner it would follow that a mixture and a confusion occurred as if lessening and taking away the nature of man.’

b) “God the Logos, consubstantial with the Father, at the end of the ages for our redemption became consubstantial with man in the flesh, remaining what he was before.” (Sellers, R.V. The Council of Chalcedon p31. n1. S.P.C.K. 1953)

and:

“I know full well, having been brought up in the faith, that he has been begotten of the Father as God, and that the Same has been begotten of Mary as man. See Him walking on the sea as man, and Creator of the heavenly hosts as God; see him sleeping in the boat as man, and walking on the seas as God; see Him hungry as man, and bestowing nourishment as God; see him thirsty as man, and giving drink as God; see him stoned by the Jews as man, and worshipped by angels as God; see him tempted as man, and driving away the demons as God; and similarly of many instances.” (Sellers, R.V. The Council of Chalcedon p32. S.P.C.K. 1953)

The affirmation of Mia physis in the context of St Cyril and St Dioscorus concerns the state of Christ’s existence, the nature of the hypostatic union. St Cyril says to ozgeorge: "Accordingly [ozgeorge is] speaking in vain who say that, if there should be one incarnate NATURE/PHYSIS ‘of the Word’ in every way and in every manner it would follow that a mixture and a confusion occurred as if lessening and taking away the nature of man."

Let me repeat again, Dioscorsus said the Two Distinct Natures became one nature and functioned as one nature....what you now call "miaphysis".
In His letter to Succensus Bishop of Diocaesarea in Isauria, Saint Cyril of Alexandria wrote: “…and as the holy Fathers have said, there is one nature/physis of the Word (of God) made flesh.”

Let me repeat again:

a) St Cyril affirmed that after the union Christ possessed One physis and that b) St Dioscorus affirmed Christ’s mia physis alongside an affirmation of the consubstantiality of Christ to mankind and the Father and hence the ultimate corollary of that; i.e. that Christ possesses a complete humanity and complete divinity.

a) St Cyril states:

"For not only in the case of those who are simple by nature is the term ‘one’ truly used, but also in respect to what has been brought together according to a synthesis, as man is one being, who is of soul and body. For soul and body are of different species and are not consubstantial to each other, but united they produce one Physis of man, even though in the considerations of the synthesis the difference exist according to the nature of those which have been brought together into a unity. Accordingly they are speaking in vain who say that, if there should be one incarnate PhysisÂÂ ‘of the Word’ in every way and in every manner it would follow that a mixture and a confusion occurred as if lessening and taking away the nature of man.’

b) “God the Logos, consubstantial with the Father, at the end of the ages for our redemption became consubstantial with man in the flesh, remaining what he was before.” (Sellers, R.V. The Council of Chalcedon p31. n1. S.P.C.K. 1953)

and:

“I know full well, having been brought up in the faith, that he has been begotten of the Father as God, and that the Same has been begotten of Mary as man. See Him walking on the sea as man, and Creator of the heavenly hosts as God; see him sleeping in the boat as man, and walking on the seas as God; see Him hungry as man, and bestowing nourishment as God; see him thirsty as man, and giving drink as God; see him stoned by the Jews as man, and worshipped by angels as God; see him tempted as man, and driving away the demons as God; and similarly of many instances.” (Sellers, R.V. The Council of Chalcedon p32. S.P.C.K. 1953)

The affirmation of Mia physis in the context of St Cyril and St Dioscorus concerns the state of Christ’s existence, the nature of the hypostatic union.

I know.....how many times do I have to tell you? This is exactly why your Synaxarion says he refuted the faith of Chalcedon, because (as he himself said) there is only One Nature.
This is under the assumption that Chalcedon’s affirmation of two natures pertains to the state of his existence; one that can be read into Chalcedon as a result of it’s ambiguity as has been shown to you already. Remmeber....your conception of the flesh as the subject of Christ's action...talk that was anathemized in St Cyril's 12th chapter, when he declared that he who does not affirm the Divine Person as the subject of Christ's incarnate experiences, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA?

The same synaxarium which you quote from, proves that St Dioscorus did not deny the continuing reality of the two natures; he simply affirmed ALONG WITH ST CYRIL that their union constitutes mia physis which is similar to affirming one hypostasis after the union, yet in terminology that is understood explicitly by Nestorius, the heretic who had a party over your council. The faith which the synaxarium assumes he refutes, is not the affirmation of two natures in its essentialistic sense, but the understanding of two natures in its dynamic sense which has the corollary implications that Christ's humanity possessed hypostatic qualities, in and of itself.

Again I remind you of St Cyril’s Christology. Here is quote of St Cyril from another letter:

In His letter to Succensus Bishop of Diocaesarea in Isauria, Saint Cyril of Alexandria wrote: and as the holy Fathers have said, there is one NATURE/physis of the Word (of God) made flesh.”

How uncannily like Ahmed Deedat this sounds who said "I can smell your fear"
Again, you find it necessary to put words into my mouth. I understand your position. I never mentioned fear - I said you were getting defensive. I simply made an observation which I believe can be verified by anyone for themselves; that from the moment I proved that St Cyril anathemized your heretical speech, you have had a change in tone, and strenuously tried to pick out anything and everything to respond to, even to the point where I have to repeat myself such that consequently you end up looking.....(now if i had completed THAT sentence, then we could have called it "name-calling")

........it's almost as if.....
Almost as if what ozgeorge? As if I and ahmed_deedat are a team? Or maybe I'm pschizophrenic, an Orthodox Christian one day, and an Orthodox muslim under the name of Deedat another day, such that I argue against myself without even knowing it! Now thats what I call spiritual warfare! Oooh the conspiracy theories ozgeorge! You are onto something my friend...

Now you've turned from defensive --> desparate and delusional. Nice, what's next? Can't wait to find out...

Peace.
 

Doubting Thomas

High Elder
Joined
Jul 17, 2003
Messages
887
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
49
Location
Georgia
ozgeorge said:
Dear Friend,
Nestorius could just as easily twist the Pre-Incarnate and Incarnate Word as two prosopa of Christ that are the same image. If you have anathemised St. Leo because you think his teaching can be misunderstood, then you must also anathamise St. Cyril for the same reason.
And this was my point exactly.  (I've been out of town--I'll try to respond to EA and Stavro's responses to my last post later on today if I can).
 
Joined
Aug 8, 2004
Messages
2,743
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Ozgeorge,

Wasn’t it you that recommended the following article: http://www.romanity.org/htm/rom.08.en.st._cyrils_one_physis_or_hypostasis_of_god_the_log.htm

In which it states:

Dioscoros, however, claimed that Flavian contradicted himself by accepting two natures after the union. The strange thing is that both were correct, since for Flavian physis meant ousia, whereas for Dioscoros it meant hypostasis.
So according to this article which you espouse, St Dioscorus’ stress on the One physis after the union, pertains to the fact that after the hypostasis of The Word assumed humanity; the ultimate result was ONE hypostasis, since the humanity of Christ was not a separate hypostasis added to the hypostasis of The Word, but was rather en-hypostasized by the hypostasis of the Word. This is the context to St Dioscorus' affirmation of One in contrast to two physis after the union, which you insist on deceptively and dishonestly disregarding as you have done so for the past 5 posts. Shame on you.

Do I have to do ALL your homework for you, including the reading of your OWN articles? And if you DID read this article and DO espouse it, then WHY do you keep insisting that St Dioscorus' stress of the Cyrillian forumula is heretical?

What a joke…

Peace.
 
Top