Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [SORForum] Severus of Antioch's Objection to Chalcedon - A Re-Assessment

Expand Messages
  • Brian Ingram
    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 ,
    Message 1 of 2 , Sep 15, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      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
      three ideas:

      (1) It was God the Word Himself who became incarnate, without undergoing any
      change.
      (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'. [20]
      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 [22]. 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..

      Brian
    • Steve Dennehy
      Brian, The human person is spirit-soul-body. Spirit is our I , or person/self,the created image of God each person is. Soul is thought-emotion, imagination,
      Message 2 of 2 , Sep 17, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Brian,

        The human person is spirit-soul-body. Spirit is our
        "I', or person/self,the created image of God each
        person is. Soul is thought-emotion, imagination,
        desire etc. Spirit and soul are NOT synaonymous
        terms.

        The distinction between Lord Jesus and all other human
        persons is that His Spirit (I) is God the Son, is
        eternal, not created. His sould and body are created
        at the Incarnation, the conecption of His human
        nature.
        From conception to Ascension He is One Person (God the
        Son) in 2 natures: Divine and human, not mingled nor
        separated. From His Ascension into Father, which is
        the deification of His human nature, He is One
        Personwith One Nature,a Divine-human nature.

        In Our Lord Jesus, Our God and Only Saviour,

        Steve
        --- Brian Ingram <Brian.Ingram@...> 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
        > three ideas:
        >
        > (1) It was God the Word Himself who became
        > incarnate, without undergoing any
        > change.
        > (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'. [20]
        > 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 [22]. 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..
        >
        > Brian
        >
        >
        > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
        >
        > ----------
        > "Let every man be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow
        > to anger."
        > (James 1:19)
        > Syriac Orthodox Resources: http://sor.cua.edu
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
        > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
        >
        >


        __________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
        http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.