265) de dos seres autonomos realmente existentes, en los cuales se enhypostasia
The employment of the christological term, enhypostasia, for pneumatology, with its trinitarian connotations as well, may offer some interesting insights.
The debate over anhypostasia and enhypostasia, resurrected in part by Piet Schoonenberg,(14) disputes the subject of personhood in the hypostatic union.
Schoonenberg's provocative thesis was to invert the enhypostasia by arguing for the "enhypostasia of God's Word or only Son in the human person of Jesus" (87).
A further general point that affects Larchet's understanding of Maximos is his use of the notion of enhypostasia
, both in relation to sixth-century Christology and to Maximos himself: in the former context, this has been discredited by an (alas, still unpublished) paper by Brian Daley, which is, however, amply summarized in vol.
Further, this theandric character enables us to appreciate better the role of the theology of enhypostasia (the doctrine that the human nature of Christ subsists in the hypostasis of the divine Word, and inversely that the divine Word subsists in the human nature) as a key, indeed in my view, the key to Christology.
To explain this point further it is necessary to discuss the enhypostasia, which I now address briefly.
The enhypostasia is the doctrine, long associated with the sixth-century theologian Leontius of Byzantium, that the concrete human nature of Christ does not subsist as an independent human hypostasis or person (which would be Nestorianism); nor is it simply without a hypostasis (anhypostasia, which would be Monophysitism, as such a nature would lack reality); but it subsists in the hypostasis of the divine Word (hence enhypostasia).
Then I trace the emergence of the terms anhypostasia and enhypostasia, which do not appear at all in Leontius or the other early Fathers to the late 16th- and 17th-century Protestant Scholastics.
Sellers explains that Leontius responded to the enemies of orthodoxy by bringing "forward his theory of enhypostasia."(14) Hans Stickelberger asserts that in describing the union of the natures in the hypostasis of the Christ Logos, Leontius "called this relation the enhypostasis of the human nature."(15) As I hope to prove, Leontius did no such thing.
According to Loofs, Leontius's original contribution was the theory of the enhypostasia of the human nature of Christ.
According to the neo-Chalcedonian teaching of enhypostasia
, the humanity of Jesus came into existence by subsisting in the very person (hypostasis) of the Word, or the eternal Son, who is pure receptivity and response to the Father in the Spirit.