--- In SOR-Forum@yahoogroups.com
"Brian Ingram" <Brian.Ingram@x>wrote:
Composite hypostasis is for Severus the same as composite
nature. Made up of body and soul, man may be said to be
'from two natures' or 'from two hypostases', because it
is not as ousiai that body and soul exist in man, but as
hypostases. The ousiai become individuated together in union,
so that man does not exist in two natures. The body and soul
in man, understood as dynamic realities, converge into the
formation of a composite hypostasis.
Severus' view of prosopon may be brought out more fully by referring
to the answer he offers to the question of why we cannot affirm
that Christ is 'from two prosopa'. He writes:
To me this definition of man leads to confusion. While it is apparent
that we have both a spiritual and physical part to our human nature
existing in as Severus says a hypostases or "underlying state",
or underlying substance it is still one human nature not two. The
Hypostases in Neoplatonist Metaphysics means "underlying state", or
underlying substance. In other words, that fundamental realitry that
supports all else. The reality in the Human Nature is that we have one
human nature with two aspects or fundamental realitry to it, a physical
and a spiritural. Each on their own cannot be considered as our human
nature but only part of it.
The phrase 'one incarnate nature of God the Word', therefore, emphasizes
(1) It was God the Word Himself who became incarnate, without undergoing
(2) In becoming incarnate, He was not assuming a manhood which had
already been formed in the womb of the Virgin. The manhood was formed
only in the union.
(3) The incarnate Word is one Person. He who is eternally 'simple'
took unto Himself concrete manhood and thus became 'composite'. 
ousia [ousia] Greek term for being or substance. In the trinity the
Son is of the same substance.
the outward appearance of inanimate things or person or persons Severus
admits that it is possible to find evidence in the works of the
earlier Fathers for the use of the 'two natures' formula adopted by the
Council of Chalcedon, but he argues that those Fathers employed it before
the outbreak of the Nestorian controversy. Since then the situation had
changed, and the imprecise expressions of the past had been given up in
favour of a theological tradition based on the Nicene Creed as confirmed
by the Councils of Constantinople and Ephesus . In this context, Leo
of Rome, without paying attention to the tradition established in the
Church, insisted on the 'in two natures' in his Tome, and on this basis
the Council of Chalcedon adopted it. This was, for Severus, a violation
of the established tradition of the Church. He points out that Church
Fathers, from Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus of Lyons to Cyril of
Alexandria, all teach Christ is a unity. He is one Person, God the Word
incarnate. The idea behind the phrase 'two natures after the union' or
the 'in two natures' of Chalcedon, argues Severus, is opposed to the
teachings of these Fathers. The real question at issue concerning Christ's
unity is for Severus the subject of the words and deeds recorded about Him
in the Gospels. The Fathers, he insists, have ascribed them to one Person,
and he writes:
Is Severus correct in his assumptions? Serverus seems to me to be severely
effected by the Nestorian heresy seeing in the Chalcedon Council and the
Tome of Leo an acceptance of this heresey or a form of it. His understanding
of the Greek hypostases had evolved in his mind to something different than
one in substance. For he in saying the two nature in Christ were in the
sense of the divine and the human natures converging into a unity, or of a
hypostatic union. For the Chalcedon Fathers what he is saying is the two
nature merged into one nature that isthey would see him as a monophysite'.
In the definition on the Trinity the three Divine Persons exist in one dvine
nature not three. As a comparson my Human nature is shared only by myself,
whereas the one divine nature is shared by the Three Divine Persons.
Leo Tome spelt out that the two nature were united not fused or confused
into one in the 2nd person of the blessed trinity..
--- End forwarded message ---