Киприан Шахбазян (kiprian_sh) wrote,
Киприан Шахбазян
kiprian_sh

Просьба.

Дорогие друзья!
Прошу помочь в переводе текста из Фомы Аквинского ST III q. 4 a. 5:

Sed contra est quod Damascenus dicit, in III libro, quod filius Dei non assumpsit humanam naturam quae in specie consideratur, neque enim omnes hypostases eius assumpsit.

Respondeo dicendum quod non fuit conveniens quod humana natura in omnibus suis suppositis a verbo assumeretur. Primo quidem, quia tolleretur multitudo suppositorum humanae naturae, quae est ei connaturalis. Cum enim in natura assumpta non sit considerare aliud suppositum praeter personam assumentem, ut supra dictum est; si non esset natura humana nisi assumpta, sequeretur quod non esset nisi unum suppositum humanae naturae, quod est persona assumens. Secundo, quia hoc derogaret dignitati filii Dei incarnati, prout est primogenitus in multis fratribus secundum humanam naturam, sicut est primogenitus omnis creaturae secundum divinam. Essent enim tunc omnes homines aequalis dignitatis. Tertio, quia conveniens fuit quod, sicut unum suppositum divinum est incarnatum, ita unam solam naturam humanam assumeret, ut ex utraque parte unitas inveniatur.
Интересует прежде всего вот это предложение: Cum enim in natura assumpta non sit considerare aliud suppositum praeter personam assumentem, ut supra dictum est; si non esset natura humana nisi assumpta, sequeretur quod non esset nisi unum suppositum humanae naturae, quod est persona assumens.

Интересует прежде всего вот это предложение: Cum enim in natura assumpta non sit considerare aliud suppositum praeter personam assumentem, ut supra dictum est; si non esset natura humana nisi assumpta, sequeretur quod non esset nisi unum suppositum humanae naturae, quod est persona assumens.
С остальным, вроде, разобрался, но если уточнится, то буду рад.

Есть англ. перевод, но и он не вполне мне помог:
On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii, 11) that the Son of God "did not assume human nature as a species, nor did He assume all its hypostases.
I answer that, It was unfitting for human nature to be assumed by the Word in all its supposita. First, because the multitude of supposita of human nature, which are natural to it, would have been taken away. For since we must not see any other suppositum in the assumed nature, except the Person assuming, as was said above (Article 3), if there was no human nature except what was assumed, it would follow that there was but one suppositum of human nature, which is the Person assuming. Secondly, because this would have been derogatory to the dignity of the incarnate Son of God, as He is the First-born of many brethren, according to the human nature, even as He is the First-born of all creatures according to the Divine, for then all men would be of equal dignity. Thirdly, because it is fitting that as one Divine suppositum is incarnate, so He should assume one human nature, so that on both sides unity might be found.
Tags: Просьба, Сущность и ипостась, Фома.
Subscribe

  • БОЖЕ, БОЖЕ ВОЗВРАТИСЬ НА УКРАИНУ....

    Посмотрел выступление Зеленского "російською мовою", где он объяснял закрытие трех телеканалов. И как-то вдруг вспомнил песню, которую…

  • Объявление от Аббатуса и мое сообщение.

    "Не сысоевцы, а шахбазяновцы! После мученической смерти о.Даниила Сысоева разные маргиналы пытаются прикрыться его именем, мол, мы – его…

  • РАШКА — НА ВИХІД!

    Исполняющая обязанности министра здравоохранения Украины Ульяна Супрун в ходе выступления на 72-й сессии Всемирной ассамблеи здравоохранения в Женеве…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 3 comments