|
0 members (),
327
guests, and
24
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,219
Posts415,299
Members5,881
| |
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,208 Likes: 11
Member
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,208 Likes: 11 |
It seems that the traditional dogmatic constructions in Greek and Latin do not provide us the specific form using < physis ousia > as in < human being > and even (?) < divine being > in formulating a Christology. While not the clearest construction (perhaps that's why it was not used) can it still be inferred? Words present in the above text did not display in the original post. As such it didn't make much sense. Hopefully the above version and the form below with the words now displayed in italics, has better meaning (the non-displaying words were originally also enclosed in the characters < and > but without a space after the < and before the >). It seems that the traditional dogmatic constructions in Greek and Latin do not provide us the specific form using physis ousia as in human being and even (?) divine being in formulating a Christology. While not the clearest construction (perhaps that's why it was not used) can it still be inferred? The question is whether the terms divine being and human being are just concise ways of saying what Chalcedon expresses. That is, the intent and proper use of the words is: divine being = ὁμοούσιον τῷ πατρὶ κατὰ τὴν θεότητα, consubstantial [coessential]{ὁμοούσιος} with the Father according to the Godhead, and human being = ὁμοούσιον τὸν αὐτὸν ἡμῖν κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα, consubstantial {ὁμοούσιος} with us according to the Manhood.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2 |
consubstantialem Patri secundum deitatem, consubstantialem nobis eundem secundum humanitatem [ ccel.org] Thus for example Zizioulas in “. . . St Athanasius makes it clear that hypostasis did not differ from ousia, both terms indicating ‘being̓ or ‘existence̓. The Cappadocians changed this by dissociating hypostasis from ousia and attaching it to prosopon... the Cappadocians suggested that ousia (substance) or physis (nature) in God should be taken in the sense of the general category which we apply to more than one person. With the help of Aristotelian philosophy they illustrated this by a reference to the one human nature or substance which is general and is applied to all human beings, and to the many concrete human beings (e.g. John, George, Basil) who are to be called hypostases (plural), not natures or substances. The bold face portion of Zizioulas' text highlights my point exactly, which is that the term "human being" refers to the concrete subject, i.e., to the human person, and so its use in translations of Christological texts is inappropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2 |
human being = ὁμοούσιον τὸν αὐτὸν ἡμῖν κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα, consubstantial {ὁμοούσιος} with us according to the Manhood. The term "human being" refers not to essence ( ousia) in an abstract sense, but to the concrete existing being ( einai) who gives reality to the essence. Ultimately, for the Eastern tradition it is hypostasis that gives existence (i.e., being) to essence.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2 |
human being = ὁμοούσιον τὸν αὐτὸν ἡμῖν κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα, consubstantial {ὁμοούσιος} with us according to the Manhood. As I said in an earlier post, if "human being" means "human nature" or "human essence" then its use in Christological texts cannot supplant the term man. Mary did not give birth to a human nature (or human essence); instead, she gave birth to the divine person of the Word made man.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,208 Likes: 11
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,208 Likes: 11 |
Thus for example Zizioulas ... “. . . St Athanasius makes it clear that hypostasis did not differ from ousia, both terms indicating ‘being̓ or ‘existence̓. The Cappadocians changed this by dissociating hypostasis from ousia and attaching it to prosopon... the Cappadocians suggested that ousia (substance) or physis (nature) in God should be taken in the sense of the general category which we apply to more than one person. With the help of Aristotelian philosophy they illustrated this by a reference to the one human nature or substance which is general and is applied to all human beings, and to the many concrete human beings (e.g. John, George, Basil) who are to be called hypostases (plural), not natures or substances. The bold face portion of Zizioulas' text highlights my point exactly, which is that the term "human being" refers to the concrete subject, i.e., to the human person, and so its use in translations of Christological texts is inappropriate. Not necessarily so. That statement did give me pause too when I was quoting it, but Zizioulas strongly identifies the general as "being qua being," substance=ousia, and nature. Only person=persona=prosōpon=hypostasis is in the particular category. Thus immediately preceding the bold faced portion, he says: ...the Cappadocians suggested that ousia (substance) or physis (nature) in God should be taken in the sense of the general category which we apply to more than one person... Thus for me the question still remains.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,208 Likes: 11
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,208 Likes: 11 |
human being = ὁμοούσιον τὸν αὐτὸν ἡμῖν κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα, consubstantial {ὁμοούσιος} with us according to the Manhood. The term "human being" refers not to essence ( ousia) in an abstract sense, but to the concrete existing being ( einai) who gives reality to the essence. This for me is still in question and not a forgone, unchallenged conclusion. Again, I am sympathetic to the viewpoint and concerns with ambiguity --- but objectively? Ultimately, for the Eastern tradition it is hypostasis that gives existence (i.e., being) to essence. I hesitated to say this myself since I thought it might meet with objections that would divert the focus on "human being." I don't recall if anyone has said it outright, but the inference is that in the Christian understanding/synthesis, person=hypostesis is the ultimate ontological category. But given that, conditioned by that understanding, for me it then makes saying that the Son (Jesus) became a human being ( link) less problematic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,208 Likes: 11
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,208 Likes: 11 |
human being = ὁμοούσιον τὸν αὐτὸν ἡμῖν κατὰ τὴν ἀνθρωπότητα, consubstantial {ὁμοούσιος} with us according to the Manhood. As I said in an earlier post, if "human being" means "human nature" or "human essence" then its use in Christological texts cannot supplant the term man. Mary did not give birth to a human nature (or human essence); instead, she gave birth to the divine person of the Word made man. Yes, the if is the issue. And yes, as a different category - typologically, ontologically, theologically -- it should never replace man in the equation Adam=anthrōpos=man.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2 |
It is unlikely we are going to agree on this issue.
The use of the term "human being" (the word "being" indicates the connatural act of existence in a human nature, which makes one a human person) in liturgical translation is truly Nestorian because the term posits a connatural act of human existence (i.e., a human hypostasis) along with the nature assumed by the Logos.
Nevertheles, if I were to accept the erroneous viewpoint that "human being" means human essence (or nature) a different problem arises, because the use of term "human being" in modern liturgical translations is substituting for the concrete word "man," which means -- if essence or nature is intended by the term -- that the translations are saying nonsensical things, e.g., the phrase "The Theotokos gave birth to the savior as man" would mean "The Theotokos gave birth to the savior as human nature," but mother's do not give birth to natures, they give birth to persons, and in the case of the Theotokos, she gave birth to the eternal and uncreated person of the Logos.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2 |
The term "human being" is theologically objectionable, while the the word "human" instead of "man" -- as infelicitous and as grammatically odd sounding as it is -- does not carry the same Christological problems. In other words, the word "human" taken alone is not Nestorian.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,208 Likes: 11
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,208 Likes: 11 |
It is unlikely we are going to agree on this issue. I am not at war over this issue but I am at odds. My instinct is wanting to agree with your conclusion; objectivity, rigor, is cautioning otherwise. Traditional dogmatic language avoids the expression directly and uses instead two natures, one divine person, true God and true Man, consubstantial (homoousios) with Father/us according to divinity/humanity, etc. The dilemma can be illustrated by considering examples of the use of Jesus is a human being type expression. Here are two. The first, homiletic, pastoral yet presumably well informed and even authoritative. World Youth Day 2002, Mass of Welcome Homily by Cardinal Ambrozic: Whenever I pray, I pray, whether I advert to it consciously or not, "through him, with him and in him." This does not make my intellectual and spiritual horizon narrower; it offers it, in fact, its greatest expansion and depth. For when I am with Jesus I am in contact with the truest, the most real and genuine human being and I am in direct contact with God Himself.
1) Jesus is a totally genuine human being...
2) But Jesus is not only a human being, made eternal in his resurrection and ascension. He is also God. ..Yes, Jesus is a human being; but far more than that, he is God, God with us, God made tangible and observable. [ ewtn.com] And the second, metaphysical, ontological, scholarly (even scholastic) and worthwhile reading in full: ...the Thomist school that says there is one subsistence, that of the Word, in Christ, and there is but one existence of the Word which holds Christ’s human nature in existence while depriving it of its own existence... Maritain refines this view by asking on what grounds St. Thomas says, "The human nature of Christ has no subsistence of its own." ...This allows Maritain to preserve the oneness of the person of Jesus while giving his human nature a created existence.3
But if, as I have suggested, subsistence is no longer necessary in a deeper and more existential view of the relationship between essence and existence, will this deeper view dislocate our classical Christological understanding? I hope not, and I think there is a way to preserve the essentials of it.
Person in this classical tradition is not what we mean by personality today, and it is fair to say that Jesus had a human personality, for he was a true human being...
"Past theology neglected to treat in concrete terms the human personality of Jesus, and thus accentuated his divinity. We need to redress the balance and see Jesus as a real live human being who lived in a particular time and place."
-------------
3. # Etienne Gilson, for his part, could not conceive the need for a created existence. He felt that if the human nature of Jesus had an esse distinct from that of the divine person, it would be another being. He couldn’t see how a single being could have two existences. Prouvost, Étienne Gilson, Jacques Maritain, Deux approches de l’être, Correspondance (1923-1971). p. 241-3. [ innerexplorations.com] With the quote from Aquinas and note 3 in mind, it appears that I am (tending to be) the Maritain to your Gilson, and that you are the purer Thomist.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2 |
Human being either means human person or it means human essence (or nature).
That said, Nestorian is the result if it means the former, while nonsense is the result if it means the latter.
I believe that human being means a distinct existing human, i.e., a human person, and so Nestorianism is the result of most of these modern English translations. I really have never seen human being in a text in English mean "human nature"; now perhaps there is a case where it has been used that way, but I have never seen it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2 |
With the quote from Aquinas and note 3 in mind, it appears that I am (tending to be) the Maritain to your Gilson, and that you are the purer Thomist. I wonder if I should take offense at that comment.  As funny as it sounds, when I read Thomas' Summa, I tend to see him – as I see many other Westerners – as a quasi-Nestorian, because he lacks the distinctions of essence, energy, and hypostasis.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,838 Likes: 2 |
As far as quoted note #3 is concerned: 3. # Etienne Gilson, for his part, could not conceive the need for a created existence. He felt that if the human nature of Jesus had an esse distinct from that of the divine person, it would be another being. He couldn’t see how a single being could have two existences. Prouvost, Étienne Gilson, Jacques Maritain, Deux approches de l’être, Correspondance (1923-1971). p. 241-3. Nestorius believed that Christ was one prosopon (i.e., one face, mask, or countenance) and two hypostaseis (i.e., two concrete existences), and that is why the decree of Chalcedon insists that Christ is one prosopon and one hypostasis.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,208 Likes: 11
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,208 Likes: 11 |
Human being either means human person or it means human essence (or nature) I'm looking at the term human being in relation to the parallelism of the Symbol of Chalcedon (SC) and inquiring about the implications of that construction: [Consubstantial/homoousios] to the [Father/us] according to [divinity/humanity=manhood], that association having the categories same-[being] as [person] according to [nature] Human being denoting then that human is to physis/nature as being is to ousia/being, and thus connoting through the SC an ousia con-homo-same with the person/nature~Father/divinity AND an ousia con-homo-same with the persons/nature~us/humanity. To this according to (my reading of) the quoted footnote (repeated below) and its context, Aquinas and Gilson say no, only one divine substance; and Maritain says yes, one can speak of Jesus as a divine being and a human being; both views purporting fidelity to and conformity with the SC, and that Jesus is a divine person and not a human person. 3. # Etienne Gilson, for his part, could not conceive the need for a created existence. He felt that if the human nature of Jesus had an esse distinct from that of the divine person, it would be another being. He couldn’t see how a single being could have two existences. Prouvost, Étienne Gilson, Jacques Maritain, Deux approches de l’être, Correspondance (1923-1971). p. 241-3. [I venture to say on the basis of my reading that Maritain and Gilson were the two most eminent, respected, orthodox Catholic Thomists of their time.] ------------------------- ...the decree of Chalcedon insists that Christ is one prosopon and one hypostasis. We all agree on this.
|
|
|
|
|
