Dear Ignatius,

Your argument about nature and person is really highlighted by the Orthodox/Oriental ecumenical commission's work.

It was over this issue that the Churches separated way, way, way before your time .

They found that when the Orientals used the term "One Nature" they really meant "One Person."

Alex

Dear Brendan,

Do not your points raise the fundamental differences between Roman Catholic sanctification and Orthodox Theosis as Schmemann and Lossky discussed?

Alex

>>>Of course, that would have the added advantage of effectively mooting the Primacy/Supremacy issue, wouldn't it?<<<

Innocent III or Boniface VIII might have considered contesting the issue.

Hi Alex,

"However, it is a particular doctrine that teaches that Mary was preserved from the stain of Original Sin according to the soul. The premise for that doctrine is one that Orthodoxy would not agree with (right?) and so it cannot be applied to every human for that reason. It is something that is discarded by the East entirely (right?)."

These points are very well taken.

"With respect to the effects of Original Sin, our liturgical tradition denies that Mary suffered the pangs of birth-giving (an 'effect' of Original Sin), yet suffered greatly under the Cross."

Yes.

"She was most certainly sanctified to the nth degree by the Holy Spirit as the Mother of God, the Ark of the New Covenant etc."

Yes, yes, yes. In fact the hymnography for 25 March supports this as well:

'and He has gone to dwell in a virgin's womb that was sanctified beforehand by the Spirit.' Litija, Great Compline, Eve of Annunciation.

'The descent of the Holy Spirit has purified my soul and sanctified my body: it has made of me a Temple that contains God..." Matins of 25 March, Canon, Canticle 7.

"There is no dogmatic definition in the East here not only because there is no need for one, but also because of the mystical approach to such issues that are seen by the Christian East as properly belonging to the internal life of the Church."

Yes, and also because dogmas relate to God. There are no dogmas in Orthodoxy that do not relate to God (Dormition of the Theotokos is firmly believed and is not "optional", but is not a dogma).

Brendan

Alex --

"Rev.Fr. Prof. Bilaniuk uses the term "Inhominization" of the Divine Logos.

I like that term. Do you?"

What does it mean? I thought that the human nature was assumed into the pre-eternal Hypostasis of the Son, not that the Logos was "inhominized" ....? Or do they mean the same thing?

Brendan

Alex --

"Do not your points raise the fundamental differences between Roman Catholic sanctification and Orthodox Theosis as Schmemann and Lossky discussed?"

In part, it is related, but I personally probably wouldn't take it that far. The real issue there is whether grace is created or uncreated, and that's the difference between the understanding of sanctification, as I understand it.

Brendan

"Innocent III or Boniface VIII might have considered contesting the issue."

Perhaps! Remember, the Apostles were repeatedly bickering about Primacy while Christ walked among us ... plus ca change....

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

Yes, yes, and yes right back at y'a!

"Inhominization" is the same, then, as is "Incarnation," the Word bent the Heavens and came down etc.

I'd call you an "Orthodox Guru" but won't on the off chance that someone from St Gregory's Episcopal Church might want to get you on board!

And we ain't lettin' you go, Mister!

Alex

Brendan:
>>"Your position is that at some point there was a human nature that was not united to a person? I guess I don’t see how this is possible. While Christ is certainly a Divine Person His human nature has never existed apart from His Divine Nature. To say otherwise borders on Nestorianism."<<

>Not a human nature, but a human being whose flesh formed Christ's human nature. The flesh that the Word partook of when He was incarnated in the womb of the Theotokos existed before the Incarnation, right? That flesh was St. Mary's flesh. That flesh was in need of redemption, and was redeemed simultaneously upon the hypostatic union with the divine nature of the pre-eternal Logos -- so at no time did the divine-human person *Christ* have a human nature that was in need of redemption. Does that make things clearer?<

???No, not clearer.

There was a human BEING whose flesh formed Christ’s human nature? A human being is a human person. What happened to the person after the Incarnation?!?

>>"I’ll agree to this if you add the caveat that before en-hypostasization the flesh didn’t exist"<<

>No, the flesh exists -- it's Mary's flesh, not Christ's (yet). The human-divine person of Jesus Christ is born "of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary" -- the humanity of the divine-human person of Christ comes from the Virgin Mary -- that humanity, coming as it does from a post-Fall human being, is in need of redemption, and experiences that redemption simultaneously at the time of the en-hypostasization (or Incarnation). At no time at which there is a union between humanity and divinity in Christ is Christ's humanity unredeemed.<

It’s only Mary’s flesh in a sense. It’s really the human being’s flesh that you were talking about above.

Humanity doesn’t come from the human parents. It comes from the parents AND from God. The soul, for instance, is NOT a product of natural generation. It’s infused by God at conception.

>>"Once again, I’d agree with you if you also held that the human nature of Christ never existed apart from the hypostatic union"<<

>Yes, it wasn't Christ's human nature before the en-hypostisization. The Logos partook of Mary's human nature and, in the Holy Spirit, en-hypostasized it in the Incarnation, simultaneously redeeming it and making it perfect.<

OK, so it wasn’t Christ’s human nature before it was en-hypostisized. But this is because, as you stated above, it was a human being. My friend this opens up one HUGE can ‘o worms!

>>"Is this really the Orthodox position? How widely held is it? It just strikes me as really odd."<<

>Most people don't delve into these mysteries at all. Remember this came up as an offshoot to our discussion of the Immaculate Conception, because we found that issue related to broader issues about nature, the fall, Original Sin, etc. Having said that, the concept of Christ having assumed our total nature, including the fallen nature, is written in mainstream works like "The Orthodox Way" (as you can see above) and is fully supported by our hymnography for the Feast of Christmas (which, in Orthodoxy, forms a part of Holy Tradition).<

Let me clarify.

Is the position that Christ took His human nature from an already existing human being an accepted position in Orthodoxy.

Does anyone else see a problem with this or is it me? (And it definitely could be just me.)

Alex:
>Dear Ignatius,
Your argument about nature and person is really highlighted by the Orthodox/Oriental ecumenical commission's work.
It was over this issue that the Churches separated way, way, way before your time .
They found that when the Orientals used the term "One Nature" they really meant "One Person."<

Indeed. And thankfully the Catholic Church and the Armenian Orthodox Church have signed a joint declaration on this a few years ago stating that we do in fact hold the same faith about the nature of Christ.

However, Brendan’s position about a human being that becomes united to the eternal logos and become Christ’s human nature is extremely problematic. What happens to the human being? Is his personhood snuffed out of existence?

"I'd call you an "Orthodox Guru" but won't on the off chance that someone from St Gregory's Episcopal Church might want to get you on board!"

Then I'd have to take off my shoes and dance around the altar while I gaze at Malcolm X....come on, PEOPLE!

Brendan

Dear Brendan,

So I am to understand by this that you absolutely WON'T consider going over to St Gregory's?

Good . . .

Alex

Ignatius --

I think you're drastically misreading what I wrote. When I wrote "but a human being whose flesh formed Christ's human nature", I was referring to the Theotokos -- her flesh and human nature were partaken of by the Logos and enhypotisized into the divine-human person of Jesus Christ.

"There was a human BEING whose flesh formed Christ’s human nature? A human being is a human person. What happened to the person after the Incarnation?!?"

That's not what I'm saying at all. The Logos partook of St. Mary's flesh/human nature at the Incarnation. Where did I say it was a pre-existing human being? The flesh, however, comes from St. Mary, it is St. Mary's flesh, and that flesh is bound up with her human nature. Why is that controversial?

You're trying to drive a metaphysical wedge here where none need be driven. IMO.

All I am saying here is summarized quite well in the following hymnography:

'the Tabernacle of the human nature which the Lord took upon Himself, making divine the substance He assumed, is consecrated as a Temple of God' Litija, Great Compline for 25 March; [Note the reference to the human nature of the Theotokos that the Lord took upon Himself -- ie, enhypostasized into the eternal Hypostasis of the Logos]

and

''O Holy Virgin', replied the Angel, 'thou speakest to me of the customary manner whereby mortal men are born. But I tell thee of the birth of the true God. Beyond words and understanding, in ways that He alone knows, He shall take flesh of thee." Matins of 25 March, Canon, Canticle 8.

Here we see the Church openly confessing that the Logos takes flesh *and* human nature from the Theotokos. How that happens is a mystery not worth prying into any further, ISTM (and to the hymnographer, too!). I think we are prying into the Mystery here.

"Is the position that Christ took His human nature from an already existing human being an accepted position in Orthodoxy."

You read the hymns above. What do they say? The Logos took his flesh, his human nature, from the *Theotokos* in her womb, not from a pre-existing human being other than the Theotokos. Orthodoxy firmly confesses that, as you can clearly see in the above hymnography for 25 March, the feast of Christ's Incarnation, if you will.

Brendan


[This message has been edited by Brendan (edited 05-16-2001).]

Dear Ignatius,

I think it is you, my friend!

I have reread the posts here and nowhere does Brendan postulate what would be a Nestorian (i.e. heretical) notion about the union (or lack of) of the human and Divine natures of the One Christ.

I really don't want to get between you and Brendan on this because I probably won't understand what you guys are going on about (since I just don't understand youth today . . . ).

The Eastern Church understands the Incarnation of the Son of God in this way, that the Word "bent the heavens" as the Psalms say and took on flesh, our human nature, from the Most Holy Mother of God. At no time was there ever some sort of depersonalized humanity that the Son of God "entered into." That comes very close to Nestorianism as it posits to "prosopa" or persons.

You are right, my friend, in your argument about Person and Nature.

Christ is a composite Being, a Divine Person with a Divine Nature and a Human Nature "like us in all things save sin."

Since Mor Ephrem is studying for his exam tomorrow, we won't disturb him. But I want to borrow from his tradition where it says that the Divine and Human Natures of Christ were never separated, "not for a twinkling of an eye."

The very moment or "twinkling" that Jesus was conceived in the Womb of His Mother as the God-Man was the moment of his "Inhominization." At no time was Jesus' Human Nature separate from His Divine.

To follow through on your logical point, to posit a humanity for Jesus that preceded him is to posit a separate "prosopon" for it or a person which is what Nestorianism does.

Christ's Humanity is distinct from His Divinity, but to treat it as separate can only be done on the level of theory.

I don't see either Brendan or you as Nestorians, although St Dioscoros of Alexandria might disagree . . .

Am I missing something? The two of you agree.

The only thing new that I got out of this interesting discussion is how to get Brendan's ire up. Just mention St Gregory's Episcopal Church .

So, Ignatius, let's join together in singing "Ad Multos Annos" for our friend, Brendan on the eve of his Nameday, St Brendan the Navigator which is tomorrow!

How about it?

Alex

Brendan:
>Ignatius --
I think you're drastically nmisreading what I wrote.<

This is certainly possible, although I have been trying to follow your argument.

>>"There was a human BEING whose flesh formed Christ’s human nature? A human being is a human person. What happened to the person after the Incarnation?!?"<<

>That's not what I'm saying at all, and you know it.<

No, I did NOT know it. First you said it was not a human nature. Then you said it was a human being. In common parlance a human being is a human person. THIS is why I couldn’t see how you could possibly reconcile your view with the Incarnation.

>The Logos partook of St. Mary's flesh/human nature at the Incarnation. Where did I say it was a pre-existing human being?<

Well, today at 1:23 PM you stated: “Not a human nature, but a human being whose flesh formed Christ's human nature. The flesh that the Word partook of when He was incarnated in the womb of the Theotokos existed before the Incarnation, right?”

Here you state that it just wasn’t a human nature that existed, but a human being, i.e., person.

This morning at 10:33 AM you said: “At the point of conception in the womb of the Theotokos, that flesh was perfected by the act of its hypostatic union with the pre-existent Word and Son of God.”

And again, you said: “He is perfect man because human nature became perfect when it was en-hypostasized into the person of the divine Logos.”

These last two quotes at least imply that there was a time when Christ’s human nature wasn’t united to His Divine Nature.

>The flesh, however, comes from St. Mary, it is St. Mary's flesh, and that flesh is bound up with her human nature. Why is that controversial?<

Apart from the fact that Our Lady was Immaculately Conveived by the merits of Christ, you mean?

This isn’t controversial as long as “human being” is understood in some way other than human person (which I have never seen).

>You're trying to drive a metaphysical wedge here where none need be driven. IMO.<

Nope. Just trying to understand what you’re saying.

>All I am saying here is summarized quite well in the following hymnography:<

>How that happens is a mystery not worth prying into any further, ISTM (and to the hymnographer, too!). I think we are prying into the Mystery here.<

Uh, well everything we talk about that has to do with God or the faith is a mystery.

By the way, I won’t even begin to ask what the term “substance” means in the first hymn you quoted

As for taking flesh from Our Lady and Our Lady alone, well the Y-chromosome had to come from SOMEWHERE (even if it was created ex nihilo ). Really Brendan, I never denied that Christ’s human nature (there’s that pesky term again) was taken from Our Lady in as much as was possible.

>>"Is the position that Christ took His human nature from an already existing human being an accepted position in Orthodoxy."<<

>You read the hymns above. What do they say? The Logos took his flesh, his human nature, from the *Theotokos* in her womb, not from a pre-existing human being other than the Theotokos. Orthodoxy firmly confesses that, as you can clearly see in the above hymnography for 25 March, the feast of Christ's Incarnation, if you will.<

Well, then it seems that either I have misunderstood what you said or you have explicated two different views (I lean towards the later as I have endeavored to show why above).

Alex:
>Dear Ignatius,
I think it is you, my friend!
I have reread the posts here and nowhere does Brendan postulate what would be a Nestorian (i.e. heretical) notion about the union (or lack of) of the human and Divine natures of the One Christ.<

>Am I missing something? The two of you agree.<

This is certainly possible. It just struck me as really odd when Brendan began talking about the human being that existed before the hypostatic union. I sure didn’t see any caveat about theoretical, and when I asked Brendan about this he denied it. So…