A refutation 🧵:

Our critic has, at last, tried his best from the valid and accepted homilies of St. Proclus (props to him for that) but unfortunately, he failed to prove the slightest of Chalcedonian dogma from these two quotes; here, we will address both quotes.

1/7 🧵.

https://twitter.com/scriptoriump/status/1961653418226774275

Homily 23: Homily 23 doesn't teach “in two natures after the union” as your own citations even lack that; moreover, two natures, created and uncreated, coming to be united under a single hypostasis is not a proof of anything. Per your own prior admissions that would be under a single individual substance (Latin “substantia” as equivalent of the Greek “hypostasis” and not Leo’s “persona”).

Moreover, the Syriac text you are relying on for Homily 23 says one “kyana (physis)”, that is to say, one “substance.” Migne has it as “persona” (the Syriac isn't “parsopa”) if it were one “hypostasis” (which your other texts attest) then he should have rendered it as “qnuma” and not “parsopa”; and in this case, “qnuma” is synonymous with “kyana” on the concrete level/at the level of substantia. Remember the equivalence of “economy,” “physis (kayan),” and “hypostasis (qnuma)” from my previous reply? Yeah.

The Syriac is as follows: “ܚܰܝܕ݂ܰܬ݂ ܬ݁ܪܶܝܢ ܟܝܳܢ̈ܶܐ ܒ݁ܚܰܕ݂ ܟܝܳܢܳܐ (ḥaydaṯ treyn kyone b-ḥad kyono).”

And its translation is as follows: “united two natures in one nature.”

Thus, Homily 23 doesn't prove “two natures after the union” or “in two natures” but “two natures” coming under “a single hypostasis” and in the Syriac under “a single kyana” which is “physis/nature.” This further matches with the prior admission of yours on how “hypostasis” was translated to Latin as “substantia.”

Thus, homily 23 remains a miaphysite homily.

2/7 🧵.
x.com/scriptoriump/s…