Why did St. Cyril abandon his efforts to have Diodore and Theodore condemned?

[Salpy]

http://books.google.com/books?id=MEuKcfOrIqQC&pg=PA112&dq=through+the+Tome+of+Proclus+the+Armenian+church+would+reject+forever%22&hl=en#v=onepage&q=through%20the%20Tome%20of%20Proclus%20the%20Armenian%20church%20would%20reject%20forever%22&f=false

It's too bad this book is too expensive for a regular person like me to buy.     Fortunately, it's on Google books and we can read parts of it.

The above linked chapter goes into how after Ephesus I, Theodore and his writings became controversial because those partial to his and Nestorius' Christology used him to keep that heresy alive.

What surprises me is that St. Cyril, who wanted to have Theodore and Diodore condemned, abandoned that effort. (page 122)  The author speculates as to why he did that, but it doesn't make sense to me.  Didn't he realize that as long as Nestorius' old heresy was still thriving in parts of the empire under Theodore's name, that eventually that would lead to further battles and schism later on?

And as a side-note, I have to point out to certain people who don't believe Theodoran is a real word, or that Theodoranism is something that ever existed, the author on page 123 refers to the Armenians as "anti-Theodoran."   

[Shanghaiski]

It is much easier and more usual to condemn someone who actually causes trouble. Not that heresy itself doesn't cause trouble, but Nestorius, unlike Theodore and Diodore, was foisting his heresies upon the Constantinopolitan Church and disturbing the peace thereof. Theodore and Diodore, to my knowledge, never left the confines of the Antiochian Patriarchate. I think they would've been dealt with in due time locally, but Nestorius forced the issue.

[ialmisry]

http://books.google.com/books?id=MEuKcfOrIqQC&pg=PA112&dq=through+the+Tome+of+Proclus+the+Armenian+church+would+reject+forever%22&hl=en#v=onepage&q=through%20the%20Tome%20of%20Proclus%20the%20Armenian%20church%20would%20reject%20forever%22&f=false

It's too bad this book is too expensive for a regular person like me to buy.     Fortunately, it's on Google books and we can read parts of it.

The above linked chapter goes into how after Ephesus I, Theodore and his writings became controversial because those partial to his and Nestorius' Christology used him to keep that heresy alive.

What surprises me is that St. Cyril, who wanted to have Theodore and Diodore condemned, abandoned that effort. (page 122)  The author speculates as to why he did that, but it doesn't make sense to me.  Didn't he realize that as long as Nestorius' old heresy was still thriving in parts of the empire under Theodore's name, that eventually that would lead to further battles and schism later on?

And as a side-note, I have to point out to certain people who don't believe Theodoran is a real word, or that Theodoranism is something that ever existed, the author on page 123 refers to the Armenians as "anti-Theodoran."   

I never said that Theodoran wasn't a modern word: the problem is that it isn't an ancient one.  Nor does the concept of said heresy, seperate from Nestorianism, exist except in the pages of modern theological journals.  And the internet.

[Father Peter]

Strange then that St Cyril should write against the heresies of Theodore and Diodore.

[ialmisry]

Strange then that St Cyril should write against the heresies of Theodore and Diodore.

Why, Father?  After all, he wrote against the heresy of Nestorianism.

[Father Peter]

He clearly writes against the heresy of Theodore so it is entirely reasonable to call the teaching of Theodore which he condemns - Theodoreanism.

[ialmisry]

He clearly writes against the heresy of Theodore so it is entirely reasonable to call the teaching of Theodore which he condemns - Theodoreanism.

You could Father, but why wouldn't you use the word he (and patristic heresiographies) used:Nestorianism?

[Salpy]

He clearly writes against the heresy of Theodore so it is entirely reasonable to call the teaching of Theodore which he condemns - Theodoreanism.

You could Father, but why wouldn't you use the word he (and patristic heresiographies) used:Nestorianism?

Fr. Peter can answer for himself, of course, but I always thought that the term Theodoran was appropriate because Nestorius got his heresy from Theodore and it was in Theodore's name that the heresy continued after Nestorus' condemnation.

It was, after all, the writings of Theodore, not Nestorius, that the Armenians presented to Proclus for his judgement, and that was the center of the ruckus we are discussing now.  That is why the author referred to the Armenians at that time as "anti-Theodoran," rather than "anti-Nestorian."  It was Theodore they were really dealing with, not Nestorius.

In other words, Nestorius was gone, but his heresy lived on in the name of his teacher.

[ialmisry]

He clearly writes against the heresy of Theodore so it is entirely reasonable to call the teaching of Theodore which he condemns - Theodoreanism.

You could Father, but why wouldn't you use the word he (and patristic heresiographies) used:Nestorianism?

Fr. Peter can answer for himself, of course, but I always thought that the term Theodoran was appropriate because Nestorius got his heresy from Theodore and it was in Theodore's name that the heresy continued after Nestorus' condemnation.

It was, after all, the writings of Theodore, not Nestorius, that the Armenians presented to Proclus for his judgement, and that was the center of the ruckus we are discussing now.  That is why the author referred to the Armenians at that time as "anti-Theodoran," rather than "anti-Nestorian."  It was Theodore they were really dealing with, not Nestorius.

In other words, Nestorius was gone, but his heresy lived on in the name of his teacher.

Evidently not, as every one called it Nestorianism (except for the Nestorians.  They called it Catholicism and Orthodoxy).

Btw, both Thedore and Diodore were gone before Nestorius.

The author referred to the Armenians.  The Armenians did not.

Btw, it is debatable that Nestorius got his heresy directly from Theodore (whom, IIRC he met only a few days), or from the School of Antioch of which Theodore was a member.

[Severian]

The author suggests that St Cyril stopped seeking to condemn these men so as to not further create schism in Antioch, where Diodore and Theodore were highly revered. St. Cyril did however write against Theodore and Diodore, and his work(s) against them can be read on the Internet.

Do you think that perhaps that St. Cyril figured because he already condemned Nestorius (who derived his teachings from these two impious men) he decided condemning Theodore and Diodore would be superfluous, especially considering the fact that the Antiochenes whom he re-united with greatly venerated them?

Btw, is Patr. Proclus of Constantinople a Saint in the OO Churches?

(I edited my post)

[ialmisry]

The author suggests that St Cyril stopped seeking to condemn these men so as to not further create schism in Antioch, where Diodore and Theodore were highly revered. St. Cyril did however write against Theodore and Diodore, and his work(s) against them can be read on the Internet.

Do you think that perhaps that St. Cyril figured because he already condemned Nestorius (who derived his teachings from these two impious men) he decided condemning Theodore and Diodore would be superfluous, especially considering the fact that the Antiochenes whom he re-united with greatly venerated them?

Btw, is Patr. Proclus of Constantinople a Saint in the OO Churches?

(I edited my post)

yes.

Another difference between Nestorius and Theodore and Diodore was that Nestorius was living, and the other two had died at peace with the Church.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)) > Topic: Why did St. Cyril abandon his efforts to have Diodore and Theodore condemned?