www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology What is this?

"There is only one person--a divine person--in Jesus Christ. The human acts of Jesus are also attributed to his divine person."

Can anyone give me a label for this?

My first reaction is that it is monophysitism.

Bob

Yes this seems to be Monophysitism. This would be rejected by both Oriental Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, and Catholics. IMHO.

Monophysitism is rejected, but not for the reason given. Christ is one divine person, but with two natures, not one. "Phusis" is the Greek word for "nature." I think that the heresy was condemned by the Council of Chalcedon (450 A.D.?). The Nestorians held that Christ was two persons--that also was rejected by the Church. Mary truly is the "Mother of God" because she gave birth to a baby (person) not a nature. The person to whom she gave birth was in fact, Divine.

Im:

This is given as the teaching of the Council itself. It seems to me to be either Eutychianism or Appollinarianism with its emphasis on the human acts being the product of the Divine nature rather than the communion of the two natures that is orthodox teaching: One Person with two natures.

???

Bob

I don't understand what you are saying in response to my post. A person acts through a nature. Since Christ is only a Divine Person, even when He acts through His human nature, it is truly a Divine Person who acts. When He acts through His Divine Nature, e.g., through a miracle, it is also a Divine Person who acts, but then through His Divine Nature.

IM:

Ahh. Well it may be that I don't understand and am in error in looking at this sentence. I don't fully understand the way that the two natures work together.

Thanks.

Bob

Well, I think it's because of the union of the natures in the one person that Christ redeems mankind. As God, he is immutable. As man he can suffer and die for us men! God can suffer and die because of his human nature!

Im:

I understand the communion of the two natures in One Person--I just thought that the way this was stated was not quite correct.

Thanks.

Bob

Also a close cousin to Docetism.

Hmmm.... perhaps I am beginning to see your difficulty, but it seems that a person acts through a nature. So all of Christ's acts, human or divine are indeed attributed to the Divine Person, because there isn't any other person. There is only a Divine One. Through the human nature with its human intellect and will, the Divine Person does human acts or acts humanly, through the Divine Nature, the Divine Person acts, well, Divinely. I think that this is the orthodox faith.

I would call this Chalcedonian Orthodoxy.

Bob,

it sounds more like communicatio idiomatum, which is not the same as monophysitism. Though I would not phrase it as "the human acts of Jesus are also attribted to his divine person," but as the properties of the man Jesus can be predicated of the Divine Logos and the properties of the Divine Word can be ascribed to the man Jesus. Thus one could speak of God who was born of the Virgin Mary or one could say the Lord of Glory was crucified.

I agree with what everyone is saying but seeing this statement by itself could lead one down a road that is not Orthodox in understanding. At first glance I thought it was heretical.


I would have worded it- "Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man but is yet one person- The God-man." Everything else flows from this reality that Jesus is fully God and fully man.

Thanks to each of you for helping me with this. I guess at first glance it just "clunked" in my head because I usually see this sort of thing "fleshed out" a bit more and in slightly different terms. This statement was printed in a catechism and was supposed to be the total summation of the teaching of Council #5 of Constantinople. I'm a little leary of language since it can be misunderstood. But you've all helped me get back to sources I haven't visited for some time.

Bob

This seems perfectly Orthodox to me. Christ is one divine person who has assumed human nature, but I don't think a nature acts. A person acts. Hence, all of Christ's actions are attributed to the divine person. There is no other person to act.
I also agree that it would be better if it included a statement that Christ has both a divine and a human nature. As written (or excerpted), I can see how it could be misunderstood as monophysitism: however, as long as the distinction between nature and person is kept in mind, this is completely consistent with Chalcedon.

Gregg