Council,  Canon

 1   3    |      abrogated on account of the union, but rather that the two
 2   3    |          again, if we forego the union with respect to substance
 3   3    |          wherein was wrought the union of the two natures, the
 4   4    |        natures on account of the union, but rather on the contrary
 5   4”,17|     throne to which the catholic union of Orthodox Christians situated
 6   6    |          and an energy after the union. For if the peculiarities
 7   7”,60|     light with darkness? or what union has the temple of God with
 8   7”,73|       the banqueters to love and union), on the occasion of the
 9   7”,97|      takes by way of matrimonial union any woman betrothed to another
10   8”,23|          took place, being their union with Him through (i.e.,
11   8”,23|        another, and another. The union with respect to substance,
12   8”,23|         thing as saying that the union, with respect to substance,
13   8”,23| inconflatably united. Concerning union with respect to substance,
14   8”,23|      deified as a result of that union and assumption, and attained
15   8”,23|         the Orthodox belief, the union, I mean, with respect to
16   8”,23|          essentially united, the union being one which respects
17   8”,23|     power, or any other relative union (such as Nestorius used
18   8”,23|  substratum. The expression “the union being one which respects
19   8”,23|       any kind on account of the union, but, on the contrary, the
20   8”,23|        but, on the contrary, the union is one which is preserved
21   8”,23|    wherever the fathers call the union of the two natures in connection
22   8”,23|         connection with Christ a union with respect to nature or
23   8”,23|   respect to nature or a natural union, they are not employing
24   8”,23|         any implication that the union of the humanity, or human
25   8”,23|          make it clear that this union truly and actually and really
26   8”,23|    inenarrable and inconceivable union. For in his third Anathematization
27   8”,23|          real natures) after the union, by conjoining them with
28   8”,23|         resulting from a natural union, let him be anathema.” After,
29   8”,23|          effect that the natural union he had spoken of denotes
30   8”,23|         true and actual and real union: and in illustration of
31   8”,23|           interpret this natural union as being intended to mean
32   8”,23|      hypostatic, or substantive, union, on the basis of a conception
33   8”,23|      used to say that before the union, true enough, there were
34   8”,23|         in Christ, but after the union only one. Wherefore they
35   8”,23|          two natures, before the union, that is to say, but not
36   8”,23|        in two natures, after the union, that is to say. And it
37   8”,23|        that “Theodoret calls the union of the God Logos with the
38   8”,23|       the human being a relative union (or a relational union),
39   8”,23|  relative union (or a relational union), and anathematizes those
40   8”,23| anathematizes those who call the union a substantive (hypostasis
41   8”,23|       hypostasis or substantial) union, on the alleged ground that
42   8”,23|         a hypostasis substantive union is superfluous, and all
43   8”,23|       because of the substantial union therewith of the life-producing
44   8”,23|        priest must make a second union (i.e., mixture) in the chalice,
45   8”,23|    happens to forget to make the union, and covers the chalice
46   8”,23|         he must at once make the union on the holy table, and read
47   8”,23|          commune, he must make a union, and say the prayer of the
48   8”,23|         in order that, after the union was effected, he might administer