The second hour focused on the heresy of patripassianism. We situated patripassianism in relation to more generic terms such as monarchianism, sabellianism and modalism, and took up the accepted definition: in Jesus, God the Father himself became incarnate, suffered and saved mankind. We briefly touched on the various forms of patripassianism, in Noët, who identifies the Father and the Son, Cleomenes, who maintains that the Father and the Son are but modes of the same divinity, and Praxeas, who maintains that "Christ suffers", while the "Father sympathizes". We then moved on to the Middle Ages, beginning with a study of Incarnation theories in Pierre Lombard's Sentences, Book III, Distinction VI. We analyzed the three "opinions" evoked: the theory of " homo assumptus " (attributed by some to Hugues de Saint-Victor); the theory of compound sustenance (attributed to Gilbert de Poitiers); and the theory of "vêtement" orhabitus (attributed - wrongly - to Pierre Lombard himself and to Abélard). Special attention was paid to the latter theory, which presents the union of soul (rational) and flesh (human) with the Word, in his nature or person, as extrinsic and accidental - both being merely the "vestment",indumentum, habit, used by the Word to "appear" to sight, to make himself "visible" to creatures. We examined the Lombard source: question 73 of Augustine's 83 Questions and the exegesis of Philippians 2:7: " et habitu inventus ut homo ". We presented the Augustinian theory ofhabitus, and evoked, in digression, one of the questions raised by Augustine and taken up by Lombard: could God become incarnate in a woman?
18:00 - 19:00
