Is a "Miaphysite Catholic" an oxymoron?

[Gregory_I]

I hope I do not over simplify these definitions, but if anyone thinks I am wrong, please school me!

1. Hypostasis- An individually existing substance, an individual subsistence, that which exists in itself. A Chair has an hypostasis, man has an hypostasis, it is the integrated essence of the whole of any individual creature. But the emphasis is on the slightly more abstract side, while the concrete vision of the creaturely reality is second. Hypostasis would not be the term to refer to individual elements of a composite unity, like a chair, because the emphasis IS THE UNITY OF THE ELEMENTS.
2. Prosopon- Also, it can be synonymous with hypostasis, it is an individually existing substance that has COME INTO BEING. In a sense, it is an hypostasis that has had its FACE Put on it. THe emphasis here is on the Real and concrete existence, and less on the Abstract. It is more like the FInished product.
   
   aside- That is why Nestorius preferred it in his Christology because in his time he was fighting the Apollinarians who were saying that the Word dwelt in flesh, but replaced the soul and will of the manhood. Nestorius was insisting on the complete INDIVIDUAL realities of the natures in Christ. But he insisted so much on one reality, he began to jeapordize others, just like Apollinarius of Laodicea who was fighting the Arians in insisting on the full Divinity of the Enfleshed Word. Read the “Bazaar of Heraclides” by Nestorius himself.
3. Ousia- This one is harder- It is basically essence, nature, being, substance and subsistence. It is purely abstract. Every chair has an ousia, the nature of a chair, yet every individual component of the chair has an ousia, metal, wood and glue. SO ousia can be seen as hypostasis and vice versa. Confusingly, it can also replace prosopon, as long as we understand nature and being to comprise a complete entity fully and really existing in time. SO, it is the vaguest of these four big terms.
4. Physis- This is the one that has bent so many 6th century theologians out of shape. It basically is exactly the same as hypostasis. While being also being exactly the same as Ousia. This word is a bridge between terms expressing composite unity, like hypostasis, and elemental unity, like ousia. Its emphasis is the complete being of the thing in question. I would translate this word as “Being” and nothing else. So, a chair is one physis. It is one complete being existing as a composite unity without change, confusion division or separation. ANd this term also can describe the components of that unity! The wood of the Chair is a Physis. The screws are a Physis. THe glue is a physis. BUt after their assembly, there is only one physis, not three, because we are speaking of united being.

Now gather a council of hundreds of bishops in a contentious era speaking about 4 major distinct languages.

It was bound to explode. But it’s sort of hard to see how chalcedon expressed the consensus of the Church when it alienated about 1/3 of its bishops…

 

[Fr_Kyrillos]

Part 1

Dear all,

The contributions to this thread have been excellent thus far and I am not sure what I can add. However, I wanted to stress what other previously brought up that the Alexandrian tradition was staunchly Cyrillian and perceived the Council of Chalcedon as being very one-sided against this tradition in favor of the Antiochian Christological school. Not only that, but there was a great distrust at this time in the aftermath of Ephesus I (431 AD) and the Formula of Reunion (433 AD) between various figures and the two “schools.” Certainly, many Cyrillians saw that the “two natures” formula was accepted by the followers of Nestroianism as being consistent with their Christology.

If I may take an extremely simplistic approach, the Christology of St. Cyril and Alexandria would focus on the fact that Christ is “God become Man” while the Antiochian School would say in Christ there is “God and Man.” The Alexandrian’s insisted on the Hypostatic Union…that is that the eternally Divine Hypostasis of the Word took to Himself a real human nature and made it one with His Divinity without confusion, mixture or alteration. I would like to show this consistency throughout the Alexandrian tradition with Cyril and those after him in order to illustrate that at no time did the Alexandrian tradition ever deny the full and complete humanity of Christ and His consubstantiality with us. Nor did this union ever imply a mixture or confusion.

It was, as Gregory I above noted, impossible for St. Cyril and his followers to perceive as “physis” being only general (like “ousia”) but rather it followed that physis implied individuation or a subject. Thus to say that after the Incarnation Christ was “in two physis” had to imply two subjects! The Tome of Leo with the quote noted above by Marduk would only accentuate this in the eyes of St. Dioscorus and his followers in Alexandria.

Some quotes for illustration:

Here is a portion from the book “On the Unity of Christ” which is a diologue between Cyril and another:

[Cyril] We say there is one Son, and that He has one nature even when he is
considered as having assumed flesh endowed with a rational soul. As I have
already said, He has made the human element His own. And this is the way,
NOT OTHERWISE, that we must consider that the same one is at once God and
man.

[Questioner] Then he does not have two natures? that of God and that of man?

[Cyril] Well, Godhead is one thing, and manhood is another thing, considered
in the perspective of their intrinsic beings, BUT in the case of Christ they
came together in a mysterious and incomprehensible union without confusion
or change. The manner of this union is entirely beyond conception.

[Questioner] But how from these two things, that is Godhead and manhood, can
we envisage a single Christ?

[Cyril] I think in no other way than as things which come together with each
other in an indivisible union beyond all conception, as I have already said.

[Questioner] Such as what?

[Cyril] Well, do we not say that a human being like ourselves is one, and
has a single nature, even though he is not homogenous but really composed of
two things, I mean soul and body?

[Questioner] We do.

[Cyril] And if someone takes the flesh on its own, separating its unity with
its own soul, and divides what was one into two, have they not destroyed the
proper conception of man?

[Questioner] But if we say that the Son (even considering his as
incarnate)has a single nature surely in is inevitable that we must admit a
confusion and a mixture here, as if he had hidden away a human nature in
Himself. For what would the nature of man be in the face of the pre-eminence
of the Godhead?

[Cyril] My friend, if anyone says that when we speak of the single nature of
God the Word incarnate and made man, we imply that a confusion or mixture
has occurred, then they are talking utter rubbish. No one could convict us
of saying this by the force of proper arguments…

Here is a chronological view of Alexandrian Christology through some quotes of prominent Alexandrian/Non-Chalcedonian Fathers after Chalcedon:

DIOSCORUS OF ALEXANDRIA
First Letter of St. Dioscorus to his Monks:

“I know Him, and with faith I transcend. He was born God of the Father, and
I know Him to be born man from the Virgin. I see Him walking as a man on
earth and behold to heavenly Angels as God. I envisage Him sleeping in the
ship as a man and He himself walks on the water as God. As a human He
experiences hunger, and as God He feeds. He, as human, was stoned by the
Jews and He himself is worshipped by the Angels as God. He was tempted as a
human, but expels devils as God…I confess He is one; while He Himself is
God and Savior, he became man because of His goodness…”

and

“No one dare say that the Holy body taken from the Virgin by our Lord is not
consubstantial with ours, as it is known, and as it is so.”

and

Letter to Secundinus:

"The phrase is “in everything”. It does not exclude any part of our nature
at all . It includes nerves, hair, bones, veins, belly, heart, kidneys,
liver, and lungs. That flesh of our Savior, which was born of Mary and which
was ensouled with a rational soul, was constituted of every element of which
we are composed, but through male seed, sleep, and sensual
gratification…For He was with us, like us, and for us. "

 

[Fr_Kyrillos]

Part 2

TIMOTHY OF ALEXANDRIA

“On the fact that one must assert as one our Lord and God Jesus Christ with
his flesh and must assign everything to Him, what is divine and what is
human, and that he became consubstantial with us according to the body but
also remained God, and that it is godless to separate Him into two
[natures].”

and

“I have written this upon hearing that certain persons are opposed to
obeying the tradition of the holy fathers who taught Christ’s fleshly
consubstantiality with us. Such persons the fathers also anthematized. For
we believe, in accordance with the traditions of the fathers, that our Lord
Jesus Christ was consubstantial in flesh with us…and one with his own
flesh.”

and

“I promised that if they refrained from heterodoxy and confessed that our
Lord was consubstantial in flesh with us and that he was not of a different
nature, I would maintain them in their former honor and would grasp then
with the same love as before.”

and

“…to inform everyone, naming the above mentioned Isaiah and Theophilus as
persons who, by asserting that our Lord and God Jesus Christ is of an alien
nature from us and that He was not consubstantial in flesh with them and
that He was not really human, have alienated themselves from communion with
the holy fathers and with me and give warning that no man henceforth should
hold communion with them.”

and

“These antichrists neither acknowledge that Jesus Christ has come into the
world in human flesh, nor believe that God the Word became man while
remaining God unchanged.”

and

“For they are now preaching the evil doctrines of the Phantasiasts’ heresy
by saying that the body of our Lord and God Jesus Christ is uncreated, that
body which was constituted of created manhood. They are asserting that God
the Word was not ineffably incarnate from the Virgin, Theotokos, sharing
blood and flesh in our likeness - so as to be made wholly like us, sin
excepted, so that in becoming truly man, he could be seen by earthly men
revealed in human flesh for our salvation…”

and

“He gave up His spirit when we committed it, that is Hi soul, into the hands
of the Father, when He wanted to do this. He proved thereby that the
precious body of Christ was endowed with a rational soul; he became a human
being and truly died…”

THEODOSIUS OF ALEXANDRIA (566)

“The hypostatic union did not falsify the distinction of natures that marks
the united and also left no place for division and separation; rather, for
us it created from two the one and indivisible Emmanuel; one is His nature
or composite hypostasis; this means the same as when we say: the nature of
the God-Logos Himself and His hypostasis has become flesh and perfectly
human being…”

and

“This perfidious and damnable synod taught unlawfully among its other
blasphemies that Christ is be known in two natures, and against the best
valid canones it set up a different definition of faith and called the Tome
of Leo a pillar of Orthodoxy, which openly affirmed the godless teachings of
Nestorius and two natures and hypostases, as well as two forms and
activities and characteristics …”

“…He who is one of the Holy Trinity, the hypostatic Logos of God the
Father, united to himself hypostatically a flesh homoousios with us, and
like us, capable of suffering.”

and

“There was not a union of ousias and natures which are generic and common,
that is, of the nature which contains the Trinity of the divine hypostases,
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and of the nature which includes the entire
human race of all men - but there was merely a union of God the Logos and
His own flesh, endowed with a rational and intellectual soul , which he
united to Himself in a hypostatic way.”

 

[Fr_Kyrillos]

Part 3

THEODORE OF ALEXANDRIA (587)

“…who is like us and at the same time over us, since He is one from two,
divinity and humanity, which are perfect in their respects, consubstantial
with the Father in the divinity and the same one consubstantial with us in
the humanity, who is not divided into those of which he consists and not
separated into the duality of natures or mixed through any kind of
transformation or metamorphosis of natures; rather, after he was
hypostatically united to an animated body, He was born as man from woman,
and without having abandoned His nature, He became like us, but the same one
is God and man, that is God has become man…”

SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH

“In regard to the one prosopon and one nature that is hypostasis, when those
out of which He is and is naturally composed are thought of, reason brings
them together, recognizing Him as one, not to be divided into two.”

and

“For we do not say either that God the Word was changed over to man, made up
of soul and body. But we confess that while remaining what He is, He was
united hypostatically to the flesh possessing a rational soul.”

and

“When the Fathers spoke of “one incarnate nature of God the Word,” they made
it clear that by becoming incarnate the Word did not abandon His nature, but
that He remained in His perfection without change and deviation; for he did
not undergo any loss or diminution in His hypostasis. When they said that He
“became incarnate”, they affirmed that the flesh was nothing but flesh, and
that it did not come into being by itself apart from union with the Word.
Therefore, it is just to say that the Word was simple, not composite, before
the ages. When He willed to assume our likeness without sin, the flesh was
brought into being, but not separately. While signifying the lofty union,
the words “became incarnate” refer to the assumption of the flesh from the
Virgin, which was not separate by itself; so that from two natures, namely
Godhead and manhood, one Christ came forth from Mary. The same is known to
be at once God and man; He is of the same substance with the Father in the
Godhead and He Himself is of the same substance with us men in the manhood.”

and

“The thought of union does not permit a division into two, though those from
which is the union remain without diminution and without change. They came
to be in composition, and not in specific concretion, and therefore they
cannot be counted two. From both there is complete one nature and one
hypostasis of the Word incarnate. For it is not of “simple” objects alone
that the word “one” is spoken, but it is used also of beings that came
together in composition.”

and

“When we think of the Emmanuel and contemplate Godhead and manhood, we shall
see that each of them is not only different from the other, but that they
are remote from each other and sharply distinct. Moreover, when the union of
both is confessed, the difference signifying the natures of which is the one
Christ does not disappear, though by reason of the hypostatic union division
is discarded.”

and

“When we anethematize those who affirm of the Emmanuel two natures after the
union and their operations as well as properties, it is not for speaking of
natures or operations or properties that we place them under condemnation;
but for saying two natures after the union and assigning the operations and
properties to each of them, thereby dividing them between the natures.”

The point being, in the Alexandrian tradition, the focus is “the one Incarnate Hypostasis or nature” and after the union, we can not in any way separate the two. There is no human existence of Christ apart from the union with the Divine Hypostasis which is why our Fathers refused to speak of TWO after the union. There is no two after, except as St. Cyril would say “in theoria” or “in contemplation”. That is, in theory or contemplation, we could say that some things of Christ are befitting of humanity (for example eating) and some are befitting divinity (for example commanding the seas and wind to be calm). But in actuality, it is never the one or the other that eats and performs miracles, but the One incarnate hypostasis who does both. The person does, not the nature!

A couple of books I would recommend for more study:

The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined
By Father V.C. Samuel
lulu.com/product/paperback/the-council-of-chalcedon-re-examined/194480

Orthodox Christology
By Father Peter Farrington
lulu.com/product/paperback/orthodox-christology/10969273

Sorry for the long post!

In Christ,
Fr. Kyrillos

 

[Ghosty]

Let me just say that this was a wonderful and enlightening series of posts by Fr. Kyrillos, and I am very grateful to have priestly representative of the Coptic tradition here on these forums!

Peace and God bless!

 

[MoreCoffee]

Forgive me, an ignoramus, for intruding into your very helpful and very informative thread. I found something in The Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church that seems apropos the topic. Specifically:
“Jesus Christ was conceived by the power
of the Holy Spirit, and was born of the Virgin Mary”

85. Why did the Son of God become man?
456-460

For us men and for our salvation, the Son of God became incarnate in the womb of the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit. He did so to reconcile us sinners with God, to have us learn of God’s infinite love, to be our model of holiness and to make us “partakers of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4).

86. What does the word “Incarnation” mean?
461-463
483

The Church calls the mystery of the wonderful union of the divine and human natures in the one divine Person of the Word the “Incarnation”. To bring about our salvation the Son of God was made “flesh” (John 1:14) and became truly man. Faith in the Incarnation is a distinctive sign of the Christian faith.

87. In what way is Jesus Christ true God and true man?
464-467
469

Jesus is inseparably true God and true man in the unity of his divine Person. As the Son of God, who is “begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father,” he was made true man, our brother, without ceasing to be God, our Lord.

88. What does the Council of Chalcedon (in the year 451) teach in this regard?
467

The Council of Chalcedon teaches us to confess “one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, perfect in his humanity, true God and true man, composed of rational soul and body, consubstantial with the Father by his divinity, and consubstantial with us by his humanity, ‘like us in all things but sin’ (Hebrews 4:15), begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity, and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary, the Virgin and Mother of God, as to his humanity.”

89. How does the Church set forth the Mystery of the Incarnation?
464-470
479-481
The Church confesses that Jesus Christ is true God and true man, with two natures, a divine nature and a human nature, not confused with each other but united in the Person of the Word. Therefore, in the humanity of Jesus all things - his miracles, his suffering, and his death - must be attributed to his divine Person which acts by means of his assumed human nature.

 

[Aramis]

That Rome sees no conflict with the teachings of the modern Miaphysite position is why a good many priests, and a few bishops, of the Coptic church found the early Fathers’ teachings to require the Pope of Rome as head of the church. They came to realize the only erroneous beliefs taught by the Coptic Church are those taught about the Roman Church’s teachings.

Enough decided as a group that it was important enough to break from the Coptic Synod over, and approach Rome. And the Coptic Catholic Church was born.

As one frequent poster around here notes, the only thing he had to give up of his coptic faith to become Catholic was the errors in his understanding of what the Catholic Church actually requires and teaches.

 

[Gueifu]

Yeah same here…
We have the same issues…Maple Story US Mesos
MapleStory US Mesos
If there’s anybody out there who share something with regards to this please post it here and share…
Thanks…
Maple Story NX Cash Card