Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Copti
Yes - the hypostatic union and variants are both boggling and inane.
The simplicity scriptural teaching - there is one God - the Father - and one mediator between man and God - the man Christ Jesus - whom His God and Father - made Lord and Christ.
Just that simple when we stick with the plain texts of scripture.
Best,
Aner
Bino
While I appreciate your effort to refine and historically connect your christology, it remains to suffer from the egregious defect of denying the human person of Jesus Christ - the man Christ Jesus who is our only mediator with God. Thus in your Christology there is no legitimate mediator or savior - merely a god in a human puppet (nature). Not much hope for man-kind there.
Ask yourself a simple question - if that human "thing" in Mary developed on its own without being invaded by the Logos - would it be able to function independently?? No, you say?? Then you don't have the man Christ Jesus who is the only mediator between man and God.
Best,
Aner
Actually we believe in the doctrine about christological nature of our Lord Jesus Christ put forward by our venerated father, Cyril of Alexandria in the third council at Ephesus (431). We believe that when Word the God became flesh through Holy Spirit and Holy Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, divine nature of the Word hypostatically united with human nature at the time of incarnation to become one nature which is fully human and fully divine without change, confusion or seperation. Hence Jesus Christ had only one (theo-anthropic) nature and it is wrong to divide the natures of Christ. We know that when sugar is mixed with water it is impossible to differentiate which is which but we know both sugar and water are present in the same quantity without change in it, but it has become a single homogeneous sugar solution. Just like that any attempt to see Jesus Christ's nature into individual natures is impossible and wrong. But we know that he is fully divine so as to have same divine nature with Father and Holy Spirit and fully human in that he lived just like us and suffered like us. Since He is fully divine, it is perfectly justified to call Holy Virgin Mary, the Mother of God. Just as the three hypostases in the Holy Trinity remain together to have a single divine nature, two natures in Christ remain together in Him to have a single nature of Word the God. How it can remain single nature and at same time fully human and fully divine is a mystery that cannot be explained by human comprehension and we should not try to attempt it. We are accused of being monophysites but our view is that our position is that of "miaphysitism" and we reject the monophysite doctrine proposed by Eutyches in 449 AD.
Hence we feel that by accepting Pope Leo's Tome at Council of Chalcedon (451), church was almost going back to the same heresy for which Nestorius had been excommunicated at Council of Ephesus (431). We are of the view that church needn't have had to explain the nature of Christ from what St. Cyril had already done.
If you do indeed reject Monophysitism, then you reject the idea that Christ exists as one nature---but you then say, he has a fully human nature and fully divine, but one nature fused together. Sounds like semantics, this "nature" or fusing element, is simply person in catholic theology---two full natures, one person. your saying two full natures, yet use the same word, "nature' again to define. Maybe a different term would help express this, because it would seem you are saying Christ was a man was fully human with a soul and created, and the divine Logos took upon this human nature and unified it to himself to form one person.
While I say person, you are using the word NATURE....I would assume this is semantics
I guess you mean that the hypostasis of the incarnate Son in Jesus Christ is a 4th hypostasis. How do OO avoid this dilemma?Chalcedon is anathematised because the members of the council contradicted the faith of Nicaea, introducing a different nature into the Trinity by proposing a fourth hypostasis.
Thank you for the welcome. What does OP mean?Can you explain a bit more about what you mean about the incarnate Son in Jesus Christ being a fourth hypostasis?
Thank you for the detailed explanation.The OP is not around anymore to explain exactly what they mean(t).
I really prefer to stick with Greek terms since the English words 'nature' and 'person' have many different connotations.You will note here that ousia is used for the general (that which is shared by all members of the class, i.e., 'nature') while hypostases is used for the particular (one particular member of that class, i.e., 'person').
But this is not what Chalcedonies believe. The Chalcedonian definition is:two hypostases in one person makes it sound like He is two individuals/two 'people' in one person.
I don't see how this is any different from the Chalcedonian definition. The question I have though is whether the hypostasis of the Son _changed_ after the incarnation.I believe we would say that the incarnate Son is Himself the hypostasis, i.e., the individual manifestation in human flesh of the incarnate Word,
I reached this conclusion decades ago and never found any reason to change my mind.lest anyone reduce this all to some kind of power struggle between Leo and Dioscorus, which I suppose is tempting given their bad blood
But the OO never accepted the Second Council of Constantinople.I should note that this is by no means a common criticism of Chalcedonianism now, especially since the Chalcedonians dealt with the crypto-Nestorians among them in their subsequent council in Constantinople in 553
Thank you for the detailed explanation.
I really prefer to stick with Greek terms since the English words 'nature' and 'person' have many different connotations.
But this is not what Chalcedonies believe. The Chalcedonian definition is:
"One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather the properties of each Nature being preserved, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ;"
Sorry that the quoted passage has the same English terms I objected to <g>.
I don't see how this is any different from the Chalcedonian definition.
The question I have though is whether the hypostasis of the Son _changed_ after the incarnation.
I reached this conclusion decades ago and never found any reason to change my mind.
But the OO never accepted the Second Council of Constantinople.