72
edits
Changes
no edit summary
::::::::: As such, "claiming" ''Miaphysitism'' for Chalcedonian Orthodoxy would seem to remove the useful distinction that the term along with ''Dyophysitism'' yields—namely, that there are two different theological streams. I'm not sure that it's terribly useful to try to include one in the other by definition. —[[User:ASDamick|<font size="3.5" color="green" face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">Fr. Andrew</font>]] <sup>[[User_talk:ASDamick|<font color="red">talk</font>]]</sup> <small>[[Special:Contributions/ASDamick|<font color="black">contribs</font>]] <font face="Adobe Garamond Pro, Garamond, Georgia, Times New Roman">('''[[User:ASDamick/Wiki-philosophy|THINK!]]''')</font></small> 22:07, March 9, 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::Well, in terms of what is most "theologically helpful", I don't really think using the word "physis" in the first place is ideal. This is because it was used to mean two different entirely distinct words by different groups in the early Church. The Antiochene theologians tended to use it to mean ''ousia'' whereas the Alexandrian theologians tended to use it to mean ''hypostasis''. This caused a fair amount of the confusion involved in the latter Christological controversies. And given that "dyo physis" is true in terms of ''ousia'' and "mia physis" is true in terms of ''hypostasis'', I don't see why we don't just drop "physis" altogether and just start using ''ousia'' or ''hypostasis'' instead.
::::::::::However, I don't agree that "dyo physis" elaborates on Orthodox theology better than "mia physis". If anything, the former contains one bit of information while the latter contains two. "Dyo physis" simply means "two natures". Hopefully it is a reference to ''ousia''. But even if it is, it still leaves us not knowing anything about ''hypostasis''. For all we know, someone claiming the "dyo physis" language could very well be a Nestorian speaking of one ''prosopon'' of Christ composed of two ''ousia'' and existing in two ''hypostases''. "Mia physis", on the other hand, establishes two pieces of information. It's meaning is more complex, that being "one composite nature". "One" is a reference to the united ''hypostasis'' that Christ subsists in. "Composite" is a reference to Christ being made up of various ''ousia'' (corporeal, noetic, divine, etc.), rather than made up of one simple ''ousia''. The "composite" part of "mia" that distinguishes it from "mono" thus actually does establish Christ being composed of two ''ousia'' before any explicit mention is even made of "in two natures". Thus, I think it clear that "mia physis" on it's own is a better defense even for the Chalcedonian Christology.
::::::::::Finally, from my experience, I must say that I do not think it correct to say "Miaphysitism as a system of theological thought only has any sort of existence among the Orientals". I have found quite a number of bright (amateur) theologians within the EOC who claim what they called "post-Chalcedonianism". This means interpreting the Council of Chalcedon in light of all Byzantine Tradition, both before and after Chalcedon. These fellows recognize the legitimacy of Cyrilline Miaphysitism as a legitimate stream of thought in the EO Tradition that started at 1st Ephesus, was defined further at 2nd Constantinople, and has received even further definition in the recent ecumenical talks with the Orientals. [[User:Deusveritasest|Deusveritasest]] 23:12, March 9, 2009 (UTC)