If anyone, when speaking about the two natures, does not confess a belief in our one lord Jesus Christ, understood in both his divinity and his humanity, so as by this to signify a difference of natures of which an ineffable union has been made without confusion, in which neither the nature of the Word was changed into the nature of human flesh, nor was the nature of human flesh changed into that of the Word (each remained what it was by nature, even after the union, as this had been made in respect of subsistence); and if anyone understands the two natures in the mystery of Christ in the sense of a division into parts, or if he expresses his belief in the plural natures in the same lord Jesus Christ, God the Word made flesh, but does not consider the difference of those natures, of which he is composed, to be only in the onlooker's mind, a difference which is not compromised by the union (for he is one from both and the two exist through the one) but uses the plurality to suggest that each nature is possessed separately and has a subsistence of its own: let him be anathema.
This could have had the potential to bridge the gap..
of course, the immediately following anathema clearly is a dagger to reunion and even seems to the Oriental ears to contradict the previous quoted anathema..
If anyone confesses a belief that a union has been made out of the two natures divinity and humanity, or speaks about the one nature of God the Word made flesh, ... let him be anathema
I don't think you did so intentionally but quoting only a portion--and not even a full sentence at that--of the 8th anathema of the 5th Ecumenical Council is very misleading.
If anyone uses the expression “of two natures,” confessing that a union was made of the Godhead and of the humanity, or the expression “the one nature made flesh of God the Word,” and shall not so understand those expressions as the holy Fathers have taught, to wit: that of the divine and human nature there was made an hypostatic union, whereof is one Christ; but from these expressions shall try to introduce one nature or substance [made by a mixture] of the Godhead and manhood of Christ; let him be anathema. For in teaching that the only-begotten Word was united hypostatically to humanity we do not mean to say that there was made a mutual confusion of natures, but rather each remaining what it was, we understand that the Word was united to the flesh. Wherefore there is one Christ, both God and man, consubstantial with the Father as touching his Godhead, and consubstantial with us as touching his manhood. Therefore they are equally condemned and anathematized by the Church of God, who divide or part the mystery of the divine dispensation of Christ, or who introduce confusion into that mystery.
The anathema does not
apply simply to anyone who speaks of “the one nature made flesh of God the Word,” as the partial quote implies, but only to those who use the prhrase in a Eutychian sense involving a confusion of the two natures. So long as one uses it in the sense the Fathers (particularly and obviously in this case St. Cyril but also Patriarch Dioscorus whether the Fathers of Constantinople had him in mind or not) it is perfectly acceptable. Just as 'in two natures' is acceptable as long as, and only
as long as the speaker understands it without 'division'.
Quoted in full, the anathema in no way contradicts the one that proceeds, but is rather a matched pair (as the last sentence makes explicit)--'in two natures' is allowed as long as it not interpreted in a Nestorian way; 'of two natures' is allowed as long as it not interpreted in a Eutychian way. Either phrase is allowed so long as it is undertood in an Orthodox manner--undivided and unconfused.