If the Fathers of Chalcedon say that St. Leo is saying the same thing as St. Cyril
The Fathers of the OO church say that Leo’s Christology objectively conflicts with that of St Cyril. I think the evidence supports them, and I believe ive sufficiently proven that. Leo adopted an exclusively Antiochene trait which divides the actions of Christ between two subjects: “The Word” and “the flesh”. St Cyril in following the great St Athanasius attributes ALL the actions of Christ to ONE subject: “The Word”.
The flesh does not suffer; THE WORD suffers according to HIS flesh. The former expression is compatible with Nestorianism whilst the latter is not.
"5. In what way the Word of God is said to have been emptied.
God the Word full by nature and in every way Perfect, and distributing out of His own Fullness His own goods to the creature, we say was emptied: in no wise wronged in His own Proper Nature, nor changed so as to become otherwise, nor made in ought inferior, for inconvertible and unchangeable is Himself also even as He Who begat Him, and never may He be capable of passion. But when He was made Flesh, i.e. Man, He made (as He said, I will pour forth of My Spirit upon all flesh) the poverty of human nature His own; first, in that He was once made man, albeit He remained God; next in that He took the form of a servant, Who is in His own Nature free, as Son, and while He is Himself the Lord of glory He is said to receive glory: Himself Life, He is said to be quickened: and receives power over all, Himself King of all and with God, and Ho was obedient to the Father, suffered the Cross and so on. But these things befit the measure of the human nature, yet He makes them His own with flesh and fulfils the economy, remaining what He was."
" yet we do not say that Jesus Christ was mere man 8, nor do we conceive of God the Word apart from His human nature but, we say that He was made One out of both, as God made Man, the Same begotten Divinely out of the Father as Word, and humanly out of woman as Man: not as though called to a second beginning of being then when He is said to have been born after the flesh: but begotten indeed before all ages, yet when the time came wherein He must fulfil the economy, born also of a woman after the flesh. "
"Hence the union of the Word with the human nature may be not unaptly compared with our condition. Foras the body is of other nature than the soul, yet is one man |194 produced and said to be of both; so too out of the Perfect Person of God the Word, and of manhood perfect in its own mode, is One Christ, the Same God and Man in the Same. And the Word (as I said) makes its own the sufferings of Its own Flesh, because Its own is the Body and not another's: and It shares with Its own Flesh the operation of the God-befitting might that is within It; so that it should be able both to quicken the dead and to heal the sick."
"Alone God the Father. He is said to have been sanctified through the Spirit and moreover to sanctify 39 those who come to Him; He was baptized according to the Flesh and was baptizing in the Holy Ghost; how then doth the Same both sanctify and is sanctified, baptizeth and is baptized? After one manner and another; for He is sanctified humanly, and thus is He baptized: He sanctifies Divinely and baptizeth in the Holy Ghost.
Himself raising the dead was raised from the dead, and being Life by Nature is said to quicken. And how again? After one manner and another. For the Same was raised from the dead and is said to be quickened after the Flesh, yet quickens and raises the dead as God. He suffers and does not suffer 40, after one manner and another: for He |229 suffers humanly in the Flesh as Man, He is impassible Divinely as God."http://www.ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/cyril_scholia_incarnation_01_text.htm#C36
Cyril of Alexandria, Scholia on the incarnation of the Only-Begotten. LFC 47, Oxford (1881) pp.185-236.
433: St. Cyril explicitly accepts two natures after the hypostatic union in his "Epistle to John of Antioch" (the Agreements of 433):
"With regard to the Evangelical and Apostolic expressions concerning the Lord, we know that men who are skilled in theology make some of them common to the one Person, while they divide others between the two Natures, ascribing those that are fitting to God to Divinity of Christ, and those that are lowly to His Humanity. On reading these sacred utterances of Yours, and finding that we ourselves think along the same lines—for there is one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism—, we glorified God the Saviour of all" [John Karmiris, Dogmatic and Creedal Statements of the Orthodox Church, Vol. 1 [Athens:1960]. p. 154], quoted in The Non-Chalcedonian Heretics, p 11]
451: The Fourth Ecumenical Synod adopts all the teachings of St. Cyril, and condemns those who selectively choose some of them and reject others as heretical. St. Flavian is vindicated and the Robber Synod Annulled.
457: Timothy Ailouros (another Monophysite "saint") condemns Saint Cyril on account of the agreements:
"Cyril... having excellently articulated the wise proclamation of Orthodoxy, showed himself to be fickle and is to be censured for teaching contrary doctrine: after previously proposing that we should speak of one nature of God the Word, he destroyed the dogma that he had formulated and is caught professing two Natures of Christ" [Timothy Ailouros, "Epistles to Kalonymos," Patrologia Graeca, Vol LXXXVI, Col. 276; quoted in The Non Chalcedonian Heretics, p. 13].http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/mono_history.aspx
The History of the Persistant Monophysite Rejection of St. Cyril of Alexandria's Teaching on the Two Natures of Christ