interwiki, renameuser, Administrators
13,552
edits
Changes
no edit summary
:::I am happy to take this conversation to PM on Monachos.net if you like.
::: [[User:Ixthis888|Vasiliki]] 06:33, March 9, 2009 (UTC)
::::Well, aside from that fact that I really don't like using "person" as a translation of ''hypostasis'', I agree that it a much more accurate description of the union. To say that "there are two natures in (making up) the ''hypostasis'' of Christ" isn't really all that worrisome language, whereas saying the reverse "Christ is in two natures" is language that worries me significantly more. [[User:Deusveritasest|Deusveritasest]] 19:29, March 9, 2009 (UTC)
''Subsists'' can mean a lot of things. Indeed, if it is a sort of verbal form of ''hypostasis'', it's actually quite appropriate, i.e., to say that Christ is enhypostasized (another common term for the same thing) in two natures. In any event, this terminology is [http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=%22subsists+in+two+natures%22&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f quite common] in Chalcedonian Christological writing. —[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 19:07, March 9, 2009 (UTC)
:Father, I'm not quite sure what you mean that "Christ is enhypostasized in two natures". Could you please elaborate? [[User:Deusveritasest|Deusveritasest]] 19:29, March 9, 2009 (UTC)
:: I mean exactly what Chalcedon says, nothing more or less. In any event, ''in two natures'' is used everywhere in our hymnography. —[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 20:15, March 9, 2009 (UTC)
:::I do not think that the Council of Chalcedon used the term "enhypostasize". The only other time I have heard this word was when I was reading V.C. Samuel's "The Council of Chalcedon Re-Examined" and he mentioned it in his section on John of Damascus. Thus, the only time I have heard this term used in the Fathers is with John of Damascus. Given this, I don't see the connection between "what Chalcedon says" and what you have said. Not to say that there is no connection, just that it has not of yet been made apparent to me.
:::Also, I'm well aware that the phrase "in two natures" is used substantially in the EO Tradition. However, to my understanding the Council of Chalcedon did not use the phrase "subsists in two natures". Rather, it said Christ is to be "recognized in two natures", a phrase that the Second Council of Constantinople clarified as abstract and theoretical. 2nd Constantinople even went so far as to say that those who are not content accept the difference of the two natures merely in theory, as an abstraction, but wish to introduce a differentiation beyond this, they are anathematized. Thus I am not questioning any old form of "in two natures", rather specifically "subsists in two natures". [[User:Deusveritasest|Deusveritasest]] 20:31, March 9, 2009 (UTC)
:::: You asked what '''I''' meant, so I told you. I wasn't suggesting that Chalcedon used that term. When I used the term, I meant it to express the faith of Chalcedon.
:::: The truth is that no translation into English will fully express Chalcedonian theology (which doesn't end with Chalcedon). "Subsists in two natures" is clearly used quite often in Chalcedonian theology to express the faith of Chalcedon, even if not always limiting itself exclusively to the language of Chalcedon.
:::: Chalcedon clearly taught that Christ is a single hypostasis with or in two natures. To be "enhypostastized" refers to the state of a nature having being in a hypostasis. I can't recall a specific place where I've read that term, but I recall seeing it being used by multiple writers. Its main function is to indicate that natures have no being in themselves (which would essentially be Platonic), but that they are always in a hypostasis. —[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 22:02, March 9, 2009 (UTC)
:::::I still don't understand how it is orthodox to say "Christ subsists in two natures" or "Christ is a single hypostasis in two natures". Isn't the word "in" a reference to being? Aren't these phrases thus suggesting that Christ is a single personality who exists simultaneously in two distinct loci of being? [[User:Deusveritasest|Deusveritasest]] 23:20, March 9, 2009 (UTC)
:::::: That is one way of reading it. But in reading it that way, you're deriving a meaning which most writers clearly do not intend.
:::::: Remember that the purpose of an encyclopedia is not to develop or criticize theological language and terminology but simply to describe as best as we can in brief form what it is that theologians mean when they use certain terms. We may not like their terminology, but an encyclopedia is not the place to enter into theological debate. That is best accomplished elsewhere. —[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 02:19, March 10, 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Well, I was considering in the context of an encyclopedia that is EO themed with an explicitly claimed EO bias that is speaking about EO beliefs that the teaching of the Church should be represented in its articles. And to me "subsists in two natures" appeared to be doctrinally problematic in being Nestorianesque, thus betraying the EO Tradition. I suppose it's not really clear that this is the case, so I will simply back down from any practical objections to the content of the article.
:::::::I am definitely interested in continuing to discuss this matter, however. I am somewhat personally invested in the topic of the hypostatic union and am having issues of faith on this matter right now. I am wondering if you have any time/energy to continue this conversation with me outside of Orthodox Wiki? Maybe on Monachos? Or over e-mail? Or something of that sort? You seem more knowledgeable in the breadth of our Christological Tradition than myself and I've enjoyed talking with you so far. {{unsigned|Deusveritasest}}
To be honest, I don't think I'm really qualified. I do think it's a good idea to discuss it over at Monachos.net, however, where there are folks who can address such things far better than I. —[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 13:18, March 10, 2009 (UTC)
