Council,  Canon

 1   1    | maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than
 2   6    |         in brief, that “in the hypostasis of the God-man Logos each
 3   8    | adoration to the substance (or hypostasis) of the one therein painted.[
 4   8”,23|   divinity, but by denying the hypostasis of the Son and of the Spirit,
 5   8”,23|   being one which respects the hypostasis, yet in such a way as to
 6   8”,23|   being one which respects the hypostasis” denotes the fact that the
 7   8”,23|      contrary, with respect to hypostasis, and in the hypostasis of
 8   8”,23|      to hypostasis, and in the hypostasis of the God Logos. That is
 9   8”,23|        is why there is but one hypostasis of Christ composed of the
10   8”,23|     the one Christ divides the hypostasis (or, otherwise speaking,
11   8”,23|    that the word substance or (hypostasis) is also defined to denote
12   8”,23|       the union a substantive (hypostasis or substantial) union, on
13   8”,23|  Fathers.” Nor the idea that a hypostasis substantive union is superfluous,
14   8”,23|       he says: “Being a single hypostasis with two natures, the Divine
15   8”,23|  account of the oneness of the hypostasis.” (Taken from the Libellus
16   8”,23|       to and in respect of its hypostasis from the cause of it, i.e.,
17   8”,23|   respect to and in respect of hypostasis, or, more explicitly speaking,
18   8”,23|      point of imitation of the hypostasis, it is one with the original (
19   8”,23|        i.e., it is of the same hypostasis as the original). For the
20   8”,23|      as the original). For the hypostasis of the picture (or icon)
21   8”,23|        the fact that it is the hypostasis, and not the nature, that
22   8”,23|      name of the nature of the hypostasis, or, for instance, such
23   8”,23|    simply, but the name of the hypostasis, or, for instance, words
24   8”,23|         that is to say, of the hypostasis, and with respect to the
25   8”,23|       of the likeness of their hypostasis, and by reason of the name