Do I have reading comprehension problems or do Roman Catholics refuse to own up to error?
The essence of Nestorianism:
“But being human, i.e., an instance of humanity, entails being a person.” — Mike Liccione
What’s wrong with this ordo? And why does it not work in this order in evaluating Chalcedonian Orthodoxy? Why is it then not hypocritical to say “From the fact that all human beings are persons, which I affirm, it does not follow that all human beings are human persons, which I deny (Mike Liccione)?
“There is something that each and every human person has in common, namely what may be called humanity. Call that “the human essence.” But being human, i.e., an instance of humanity, entails being a person. The same goes for being God: any x that is God must eo ipso be a person. That is part of what I mean by saying that the divine essence necessitates the divine persons.”
Notice that the analog here is not some category person which could be divine or human. Mike is prescriptive about what each essence has whether divine or human, and essence on his view necessarily entails person. That is the basis then on which he wants to make the analog work.
The analog fails because of the very order in which the questions are handled. If essence is prescriptive and entails having person, then Christ who has two natures, must also have two person’s that are prescriptive of those two essences (that’s logical order of his thinking). The union must be conjunctive.