Thus, you can see the organic unity of the fine arts of Orthodoxy. They have the same point of origin: they all spring from and are used to communicate the Orthodox Faith and make it apprehensible to the believer through the senses. The iconography, hymnody, music, and architecture of the Byzantine tradition are trying to convey the same thing. The architecture of the Orthodox church is a very important element of the totality in other words, all of these arts are organically interrelated, though using different media. Architecture has its own tradition, particularly recognizable in the dome, in the round arch, and by the surfaces that are used for the wall paintings, which other kinds of architecture, such as the Gothic, do not provide. About the Church’s arts, for example… iconography addresses itself to our sense of sight, while music addresses itself to our sense of hearing, but both seek to express the same essence, the Orthodox Faith. Schemamonk Father Constantine (Cavarnos) 1918-2011Įverything is organically related. Hagia Sophia Imperial Gate Mosaic from wikimedia commons But He was born male, as Isaiah says, from “the prophetess” (Is. He would also be without the difference of sex.
Therefore, if Christ were uncircumscribable, as being without a body. Maleness and femaleness are sought only in the forms of bodies, since none of the differences which characterize sexes can be recognized in bodiless beings. But if He was not only conceived without humiliation, but even born as an infant, then He is circumscribed without shame. If Christ is not circumscribed, as you say, because He would be diminished in glory, then He was not conceived in the Virgin’s womb either, because He would have endured humiliation. But if He is of two natures, how can He avoid having the properties of those whose natures He has? For circumscribability is characteristic of humanity. If Christ is not circumscribable, He is not of two natures, divinity and humanity, since He does not have the property of each. But if something should be seen and pointed out, then it would be within circumscription.
1:29) For that which is seen is not uncircumscribable, not to mention that which is pointed out with the finger. If Christ is uncircumscribable, how can the Forerunner say, “See the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world?” (Jn. To believe these words is to confess the circumscription. 21:16-17)? For that which is uncircumscribable does not have a nature to be pierced, nor to have its bones numbered. If Christ is uncircumscribable, how can He Himself say, “They have pierced My hands and My feet they have numbered all My bones” (LXX Ps. But if He is of two natures, He is therefore also of two properties: otherwise, by the removal of circumscription, the nature of humanity would also be removed. For things which have the same properties also have one nature. If Christ is uncircumscribable, as you say, not only in respect to His divinity, but also in respect to His humanity, then His humanity is also divinity. But He is able to suffer, as the Scriptures say. If Christ cannot be circumscribed, neither can He suffer for impassibility is equivalent to uncircumscribability. If He is only one or the other, He is of only the one essence of which He has the property - which is heretical. If, therefore, Christ is from both essences, He must be both uncircumscribable and circumscribed. It is proper to humanity to be circumscribed, tangible, and three-dimensional. It is proper to divinity to be uncircumscribable, bodiless, and formless. If things do not have the same properties, then their essences are different. How would it not be blasphemous to say that He is uncircumscribed in body as well as spirit, since if His circumscription were removed His human nature would be removed also? If uncircumscribability is characteristic of God’s essence, and circumscription is characteristic of man’s essence, but Christ is from both: then He is made known in two properties, as in two natures.
0 kommentar(er)
