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

Re: [ustav] Re: Enhypostatic

Expand Messages
  • Polychronios
    On 26 Dec 2001, at 17:10, stephen_r1937 wrote, [ustav] Re: Enhypostatic: [snip] ... By humanity, I take it that you mean human nature . I do not believe that
    Message 1 of 11 , Jan 2, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      On 26 Dec 2001, at 17:10, stephen_r1937 wrote, [ustav] Re: Enhypostatic:

      [snip]

      > That is to say, the
      > humanity of Christ is enhypostasized in the Person of the God the Son.

      By humanity, I take it that you mean "human nature". I do not believe
      that a nature can be enhypostasized, only an hypostasis can be
      enhypostasized.

      Your sentence above should read:

      The person of God the Son is enhypostasized in the humanity of Christ.

      ---------

      Also, I would take this opportunity to pose a question:

      Is it the one nature or the shared essence (or something else) that
      provides the unity of the Trinity?

      Perhaps I have been aware too long from the writings of the St.
      Maximos the Confessor and the Damascene on this, but the following
      comes to mind:

      We, as mankind, share a common nature and a common essence; but
      we differ in our hypostasis.

      While God, too, differs in hypostasis, we cannot conceive the Trinity as
      a "Godkind" because the divine hypostasis are enhypostasized in an
      single, indivisible nature (while our nature is divisible into "individuals").

      Have I lost the sense of this?

      Yours in Christ,

      Polychronios
    • stephen_r1937
      ... Son. ... believe ... Christ. ... No, I will stick to my guns here. Please see the excellent reply by Fr Michael Butler to the original inquiry about
      Message 2 of 11 , Jan 2, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In ustav@y..., Polychronios <upb_moniodis@o...> wrote:
        > On 26 Dec 2001, at 17:10, stephen_r1937 wrote, [ustav] Re:
        Enhypostatic:
        >
        > [snip]
        >
        > > That is to say, the
        > > humanity of Christ is enhypostasized in the Person of the God the
        Son.
        >
        > By humanity, I take it that you mean "human nature". I do not
        believe
        > that a nature can be enhypostasized, only an hypostasis can be
        > enhypostasized.
        >
        > Your sentence above should read:
        >
        > The person of God the Son is enhypostasized in the humanity of
        Christ.
        >
        > ---------
        No, I will stick to my guns here. Please see the excellent reply by
        Fr Michael Butler to the original inquiry about 'enhypostasia'. The
        point is that Christ's humanity has no existence outside of the
        hypostasis or identity of the Second Person of the Trinity--so one
        must allow that God was crucified and the Mary is Theotokos.

        Stephen Reynolds

        Stephen Reynolds
      • Polychronios
        ... Yes, I read it, but it was sufficiently qualified and did not go to this question. ... One does not follow from the other. A Nestorianistic view may allow
        Message 3 of 11 , Jan 3, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          On 3 Jan 2002, at 7:20, stephen_r1937 wrote, [ustav] Re: Enhypostatic:

          > --- In ustav@y..., Polychronios <upb_moniodis@o...> wrote:
          > > On 26 Dec 2001, at 17:10, stephen_r1937 wrote, [ustav] Re:
          > Enhypostatic:
          > >
          > > [snip]
          > >
          > > > That is to say, the
          > > > humanity of Christ is enhypostasized in the Person of the God the
          > > > Son.
          > >
          > > By humanity, I take it that you mean "human nature". I do not
          > > believe that a nature can be enhypostasized, only an hypostasis
          > > can be enhypostasized.
          > >
          > > Your sentence above should read:
          > >
          > > The person of God the Son is enhypostasized in the humanity of
          > Christ.
          > >
          > > ---------
          > No, I will stick to my guns here. Please see the excellent reply by Fr
          > Michael Butler to the original inquiry about 'enhypostasia'.

          Yes, I read it, but it was sufficiently qualified and did not go to this
          question.

          > The point is
          > that Christ's humanity has no existence outside of the hypostasis or
          > identity of the Second Person of the Trinity--so one must allow that God
          > was crucified and the Mary is Theotokos.

          One does not follow from the other. A Nestorianistic view may allow
          that God was crucified and that Mary is the Theotokos--without
          devoiding Christ of a human hypostasis.

          And, it is Monophysitic to hold that the human nature of Christ can be
          considered outside of the union "in theory only."

          God--taking *extant* human nature from the flesh of the Virgin Mary
          and His own divine nature--enhypostasically unified them in the Person
          of the Son.

          In Christ,

          Polychronios



          Polychronios
        • stephen_r1937
          ... the ... hypostasis ... by Fr ... this ... I thought it was pretty clear. ... or ... that God ... allow ... Would Nestorius have been condemned if he had
          Message 4 of 11 , Jan 3, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In ustav@y..., Polychronios <upb_moniodis@o...> wrote:
            > On 3 Jan 2002, at 7:20, stephen_r1937 wrote, [ustav] Re:
            Enhypostatic:
            >
            > > --- In ustav@y..., Polychronios <upb_moniodis@o...> wrote:
            > > > On 26 Dec 2001, at 17:10, stephen_r1937 wrote, [ustav] Re:
            > > Enhypostatic:
            > > >
            > > > [snip]
            > > >
            > > > > That is to say, the
            > > > > humanity of Christ is enhypostasized in the Person of the God
            the
            > > > > Son.
            > > >
            > > > By humanity, I take it that you mean "human nature". I do not
            > > > believe that a nature can be enhypostasized, only an
            hypostasis
            > > > can be enhypostasized.
            > > >
            > > > Your sentence above should read:
            > > >
            > > > The person of God the Son is enhypostasized in the humanity of
            > > Christ.
            > > >
            > > > ---------
            > > No, I will stick to my guns here. Please see the excellent reply
            by Fr
            > > Michael Butler to the original inquiry about 'enhypostasia'.
            >
            > Yes, I read it, but it was sufficiently qualified and did not go to
            this
            > question.

            I thought it was pretty clear.
            >
            > > The point is
            > > that Christ's humanity has no existence outside of the hypostasis
            or
            > > identity of the Second Person of the Trinity--so one must allow
            that God
            > > was crucified and the Mary is Theotokos.
            >
            > One does not follow from the other. A Nestorianistic view may
            allow
            > that God was crucified and that Mary is the Theotokos--without
            > devoiding Christ of a human hypostasis.

            Would Nestorius have been condemned if he had held that God was
            crucified and Mary Theotokos? Surely the issue here is that the one
            who was born of the Virgin Mary and died on the Cross was none other
            than God the Son, one of the Trinity. Nestorius fudged the issue by
            speaking of a 'person [prosospon] of the Union'--the common front, so
            to speak, put up by God the Son and Jesus.
            >
            > And, it is Monophysitic to hold that the human nature of Christ can
            be
            > considered outside of the union "in theory only."
            >
            > God--taking *extant* human nature from the flesh of the Virgin Mary
            > and His own divine nature--enhypostasically unified them in the
            Person
            > of the Son.

            The preexistent human nature was hypostasized in the person of the
            Theotokos. Normally, a new hypostasis takes human nature from a
            human father and a human mother--the process is sufficiently well
            known. The nature or essence can be considered 'in theory only'
            until it comes to existence in a hypostasis--in a sense, one can say
            that Christ's humanity existed from Adam on, since it comes from all
            the ancestors who preceded the Theotokos. But it never existed
            outside of some hypostasis, human before the Incarnation and divine
            after. Nor was it created ex nihilo for the purpose of the
            Incarnation; nor was it brought from heaven as some have thought. As
            the specific humanity of our Lord, it exists only within the
            hypostasis of the Second Person of the Trinity.
            >
            > In Christ,

            Stephen R.
          • Polychronios
            On 3 Jan 2002, at 20:38, stephen_r1937 wrote, [ustav] Re: ... So did I. Did you not read the part where he qualified his reply with his recollection and
            Message 5 of 11 , Jan 8, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              On 3 Jan 2002, at 20:38, stephen_r1937 wrote, [ustav] Re:
              Enhypostatic:
              > --- In ustav@y..., Polychronios <upb_moniodis@o...> wrote:
              > > On 3 Jan 2002, at 7:20, stephen_r1937 wrote, [ustav] Re:
              > Enhypostatic:
              > >
              > > > --- In ustav@y..., Polychronios <upb_moniodis@o...> wrote:
              > > > > On 26 Dec 2001, at 17:10, stephen_r1937 wrote, [ustav] Re:
              > > > Enhypostatic:
              > > > >
              > > > > [snip]
              > > > >
              > > > > > That is to say, the
              > > > > > humanity of Christ is enhypostasized in the Person of the God
              > > > > > the Son.
              > > > >
              > > > > By humanity, I take it that you mean "human nature". I do not
              > > > > believe that a nature can be enhypostasized, only an
              > > > > hypostasis can be enhypostasized.
              > > > >
              > > > > Your sentence above should read:
              > > > >
              > > > > The person of God the Son is enhypostasized in the humanity of
              > > > Christ.
              > > > >
              > > > > ---------
              > > > No, I will stick to my guns here. Please see the excellent reply
              > > > by Fr Michael Butler to the original inquiry about 'enhypostasia'.
              > >
              > > Yes, I read it, but it was sufficiently qualified and did not go to
              > > this question.
              >
              > I thought it was pretty clear.

              So did I. Did you not read the part where he qualified his reply with
              his "recollection" and that he asked that others "confirm his thoughts"?

              The "hypostasis" in the underlining basis of existence, made real via
              nature. It is at the center of existence, and "_a point at the center
              cannot move inward_".

              As you have it the Word did not incarnate or inhominate, but
              enhypostasized. Rather, it was the hypostasis that incarnated.

              A crude analogy may be made with the brain and the body. Assume,
              physically, that the brain is the center of man. If we conduct a
              transplant, have we done a) a brain transplant, or b) a body transplant?

              If the brain were truly the "underlying basis", the "core", then we have a
              body transplant, not a brain transplant.

              > > > The point is
              > > > that Christ's humanity has no existence outside of the hypostasis
              > > > or identity of the Second Person of the Trinity--so one must
              > > > allow that God was crucified and the Mary is Theotokos.

              The existence of the hypostasis is not a function of nature (as the
              Monophysites think), but sustains in itself.

              Your understanding above should be assessed in comparison to the
              concept of "transubstantiation" (whether it is believed or not for the
              Eucharist is another question).

              In this doctrine, the "bread & wine" continue to "ex-ists", (i.e.,
              outward), even though they no longer "subs-ists." (It seems that you
              may not be properly distinguishing between subs-istence and ex-
              istence.)

              (For some reason "transubstantiation" is translated into Greek as
              "metaousia" and not "metahypostasia", which may be a source of
              confusion).

              > > One does not follow from the other. A Nestorianistic view may
              > > allow that God was crucified and that Mary is the Theotokos--
              > > without devoiding Christ of a human hypostasis.
              >
              > Would Nestorius have been condemned if he had held that God was
              > crucified and Mary Theotokos?

              Yes--if his reasons were wrong. He *did* allow for the Virgin Mary to
              be called "Theotokos" and that "God was crucified" *if* properly
              understood (as he claimed). He thought not of a co-dependent union of
              man and God, but of an independent conjunction of man and God. And
              so, by distinction, the Virgin Mary could not be the maternal source of
              His Divinity but only of his human nature.

              Getting back to what you were saying:

              > > > Christ's humanity has no existence outside of the hypostasis
              > > > or identity of the Second Person of the Trinity-

              If you mean that "Christ" doesn't exist without "Christ" (the
              enhominized divine hypostasis), and you "personalize" a nature, then
              that is a truism, and doesn't warrant discussion. One could say with
              equal truth that Paul's nature without Paul would not exist. Though
              this is *not* what a nature is.

              > > And, it is Monophysitic to hold that the
              > human nature of Christ can be considered outside of the union "in theory
              > only." > > God--taking *extant* human nature from the flesh of the
              > Virgin Mary > and His own divine nature--enhypostasically unified them in
              > the Person > of the Son.
              >
              > The preexistent human nature was hypostasized in the person of the
              > Theotokos.

              It was *not* hypostasized in the person (=hypostasis) of the
              Theotokos, but in the human nature of the Theotokos (in accordance
              with her will), and not in her hypostasis.

              Normally, a new hypostasis takes human nature from a
              > human father and a human mother--the process is sufficiently well
              > known.

              Actually, how a new nature is formed is well known, how an hypostasis
              sustains a human nature is a mystery.

              The nature or essence can be considered 'in theory only'
              > until it comes to existence in a hypostasis--in a sense, one can say that
              > Christ's humanity existed from Adam on, since it comes from all the
              > ancestors who preceded the Theotokos.

              Exactly.

              But it never existed outside of
              > some hypostasis, human before the Incarnation and divine after.

              The nature of my grandchildren *exist* now (even though I have no
              grandchildren). Their entire nature exists within creation (and creation
              of nature was once, no new nature is added to the existing universe
              (and so the Damascene, et. al.). The fact that they do not exist as
              persons, doesn't mean that their nature does not exist now, but will be
              created at some later time. I can tell you what nature they'll have:
              human nature. Nature is not personalized.

              And, you are correct to say that nature does not exist without an
              hypostasis, but this is so for God as well. One cannot speak of the
              Divine Nature outside the Divine Hypostases.

              Nor was
              > it created ex nihilo for the purpose of the Incarnation; nor was it
              > brought from heaven as some have thought. As the specific humanity of our
              > Lord, it exists only within the hypostasis of the Second Person of the
              > Trinity.

              I don't know that we can speak of "specific" humanities, but of
              "specific" persons. And His human nature does not exist "within the
              hypostasis", but the other way around.

              What you do say that is correct is that Christ's hypostasis is the
              Second Person of the Trinity.

              In Christ,

              Polychronios
            • Polychronios
              ... In reading my post this should have read: Actually, how a new human (body) is formed... Polychronios
              Message 6 of 11 , Jan 8, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                On 8 Jan 2002, at 10:46, Polychronios wrote, Re: [ustav] Re: Enhypostatic:

                > Actually, how a new nature is formed is well known, how an hypostasis
                > sustains a human nature is a mystery.

                In reading my post this should have read:

                Actually, how a new human (body) is formed...

                Polychronios
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.