As promised, I have more carefully read through the Maronite priest's (I incorrectly identified him earlier as a Patriarch) review of the Catechism, and sat in his seat for awhile.

Actually, he is a Byzantine priest ... my 'Maronite' references seem to be posing confusion. No problem actually, since both are Eastern Rite; the differences are only in the liturgy.

Except one, and that is only because I cannot make sense of it: "hypostasis". Help?

You are probably referring to this paragraph from "Eastern Catholic View of the Catechism".

"From the Greek East have come the two most fundamental dogmas of Christianity: God as a Trinity of three Persons sharing a single nature, namely, divinity; and the hypostatic unionof two natures, human and divine, in the divine Person of God's Son, the Word-made-flesh (no. 422-86)

From the Catholic Encyclopedia ...

Hypostatic Union

A theological term used with reference to the Incarnation to express the revealed truth that in Christ one person subsists in two natures, the Divine and the human. Hypostasis means, literally, that which lies beneath as basis or foundation. Hence it came to be used by the Greek philosophers to denote reality as distinguished from appearances (Aristotle, "Mund.", IV, 21). It occurs also in St. Paul's Epistles (II Cor., ix, 4; xi, 17; Heb., i, 3:iii, 14), but not in the sense of person. Previous to the Council of Nicæa (325) hypostasis was synonymous with ousia, and even St. Augustine (De Trin., V, 8) avers that he sees no difference between them. The distinction in fact was brought about gradually in the course of the controversies to which the Christological heresies gave rise, and was definitively established by the Council of Chalcedon (451), which declared that in Christ the two natures, each retaining its own properties, are united in one subsistence and one person (eis en prosopon kai mian hpostasin) (Denzinger, ed. Bannwart, 148). They are not joined in a moral or accidental union (Nestorius), nor commingled (Eutyches), and nevertheless they are substantially united. For further explanation and bibliography see: INCARNATION; JESUS CHRIST; MONOPHYSITISM; NATURE; PERSON.

Look on the bright side of this discussion. Your Greek vocabulary has grown significantly, in the one week since you posted this thread. All of this underscores the profound heritage of faith that has been passed down to us through the centuries. This is yet one more example of the error in 'sola scriptura' . To understand the Bible, it is necessary to understand its 'source code', i.e., the languages of those periods in history. The Orthodox and Catholic Churches have spent 2,000 years developing that understanding. How truly awesome is "our" heritage!

What you have posted is correct, but the priest whose writings you posted was referring to the hypostasia of the Trinity as the same relates to the filioque controversy. What you are referring to relates to the Monophysite controversy about the nature of Christ (God/Man or God and Man) The Council of Chalcedon resolved that question (which we have recently pretty much decided was about a linguistic distinction without a difference) for what are now the Orthodox Churches and the Roman Church. The Christians who did not accept the Council of Chalcedon are called "Non Chalcedonian Churches". The Copts and the Armenians are examples of Non Chalcedonian Churches. Today, Orthodox priests are authorized to give the Eucharist to Non Calcedonian Christians and they are authorized to present themselves, with Fear, Faith and Love as the priest says , for Communion.