New Modern Defenses for the Catholic Faith Based in the Understanding of St. Thomas Aquinas
A Visual Explanation of Dyophysitism
Asymmetrical Relationship of Dependence
The hypostatic union is the subsistence of one hypostasis in two distinct natures, preserving the integrity of both the divine and human natures by uniting them in a property common to both: hypostasis (individual subsistence). We will rely on Scotus’ theory for explanation: an asymmetrical relation of dependence. Relation, since it is the only accident (attribute) that has no intrinsic respect to essence, not only is used to distinguish divine hypostasis, but can also be used to unite diverse natures. The mode of relation determines whether relation unites or distinguishes. In the Trinity, relations are of opposition, while in the union of diverse natures, the relation is one of dependence:
Nature and hypostasis here are represented as the circle and the border respectively. The white circle represents divine nature and the red circle represents human nature. We begin with the divine hypoastases abstracted from the divine essence and assign the divine essence to the Son so that we know that the divine relates to human by virtue of one individual subsistence of that essence.
​
Nature is convertible with essence or substance in this context. Nature, however, differs from essence or substance in that it connotes motion. The definition of nature is “the principle of motion (movement; change) in a thing” and so it is often used in the context of operation (action). Hypostasis is individual subsistence. There is a difference between the subsistence of a thing itself (hypostasis) and that by which and how it subsists (essence or nature). Subsistence is distinguished by an individuated principle while nature or essence is distinguished by the capabilities and specific differences proper to the form of a thing:
Now the common hypostasis is proper to the Son (Word) since it is identical with the divine essence eternally. The dotted arrow represents a relation of dependence while the solid arrow represents a property. The Son possesses an individuating principle eternally prior to the man Jesus relating to that individuating principle:
The distinction between Jesus’ hypostasis as assumed by the Son and our own hypostasis is as follows. Each human person has his own individuating principle independent of the Word while the independence of individuation is negated in Christ and his individuation miraculously depends on the individuating principle of the omnipotent Word. This is why the red circle has been depicted without a border thus far:
The relationship is asymmetrical or unilateral, meaning that the human nature relates to the divine completely as dependent on it for individuation and the divine does not accrue any relation to the human nature following the incarnation lest we forfeit its immutability by saying that it gains a new relation intrinsically. The direction of the arrow represents this asymmetry:
There are two common errors associated with this theory. The first error is that of the monophysites and miaphysites: that Christ has one nature or one composite nature. Two mutually exclusive natures cannot compose one. Contraries cannot exist within one, unified nature. For example, something cannot be both a limited form and an unlimited form simultaneously by nature because these contraries are from differing principles. Nor can either of the two natures remain if they compose one. For either one dissolves in the other, or a third kind of nature results, which includes some of the mutually exclusive differences from both natures that it is derived from. A composite nature will be represented in pink. If one nature dissolves into another, it would have to be the human in the divine since the divine by nature is immutable, but then Christ would never have appeared to the senses since the divine nature is invisible. And this is absurd to the very notion of incarnation. If we say that a third kind of nature is produced, then Christ would not be human or divine. Such an idea treats the divine essence as if it is mutable. These errors often stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of the word “nature.” The forms of this error are depicted separately below:
The second error is an extension of the hypostasis of the Word. If individuation is supplied to the man Christ as an addition rather than a negation (subtraction), then the immutable essence, since it is identical as the hypostasis, would undergo an extension intrinsically to individuate the human nature. Instead, it is necessary to conclude that Christ’s human nature excludes an individuating principle intrinsically. The hypostasis is improper to the human nature. Below are two possible ways to depict this error:
Christ, has being in both the divine and human natures completely, lacking nothing that is proper to either. Consequently, He possesses two operations and therefore also two wills. By virtue of the relation of hypostatic dependence described, the human nature and its operations are perfectly subject to and working in perfect harmony with the divine nature and its operations. At the same time that He touches the blind man by the operation proper to human nature, He heals the blind man miraculously by the operation proper to divine nature.
The Reason for the Hypostatic Union
The Word imprinted Himself in the nature of man by uniting Himself to it in the only way possible, by what was common to both, individuation. By this, He perfected the general human nature that had deviated from its original perfection. Human nature was deified, healed, and sanctified. What we did not have access to, we now do: perfection which is holiness. By conforming our own human nature to His through study and discipline of the will, we also are united to the Divine person, not in hypostasis as is the man Christ, but in a similitude possessed in our own hypostasis. What He was by nature, a Son, we are by adoption: sons.
​
​
​
Written by Matthew Shuler