I am not sure how it could be interpretted as Nestorian
Quite easily if you were to understand the historical circumstances of the time, thereby judging the council in its immediate historical context.
We must also remember that what constitutes “Nestorianism” isn’t as clear cut as many think. For example, popular belief regarding this heresy surrounds the understanding that Nestorius preached “two sons”, such that it requires one to positively affirm two sons, or two persons in Christ in order to profess anything akin to Nestorianism. The fact of the matter is however, Nestorius himself was able to promote Nestorianism, whilst affirming one Son, and one person of Christ, and in fact openly repudiated any notion of “two sons.” This is not to say that his Orthodox opponents, such as the blessed St Cyril, misrepresented or misunderstood him; they merely attributed to him the corollary of the faulty and nonetheless heretical Christology that he was affirmatively proclaiming.
In any event, the point of my last post did not surround the question of whether or not Chalcedon could
be interpreted as Nestorian, but rather the historical fact that it was
interpreted as Nestorian by a very significant and large portion of the Orthodox Church. On the contrary, the Chalcedonians did not start accusing the non-Chalcedonian Church of monophysitism until about century later.
as Theodret explicitly said "Anathema to Nestorius, and to whoever refuses to call Mary the Holy Theotoke and whoever divides the one and only-begotten Son.”
The admission of Theodoret is one aspect amongst many which distorted any apparent Orthodoxy at Chalcedon from the perspective of those who rejected it.
ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢ The first issue to be considered is that he was admitted into Chalcedon before anathematising Nestorius (a fact Leo of Rome was aware of), and thus un-canonically (and hence only apparently, as opposed to actually, from an Orthodox perspective) restored to the Church, hence his presence at Chalcedon. As soon as St Dioscorus and the Alexandrian Saints noticed Theodoret’s presence, they immediately rebuked the Council, which was said to have essentially rejected St Cyril by admitting St Cyril’s arch-enemy, who had yet to renounce his heresies (and in fact never really did) and who was yet to anathematize Nestorius.
ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢ Second, it must be noted that his anathematization of Nestorius was performed rather hesitantly; the question then arises as to whether he was merely paying lip service to those at Chalcedon; seeing Nestorian theology vindicated at Chalcedon (as Nestorius himself did upon reading the Tome of Leo), he may have decided that despite the paradox in affirming a certain theology whilst anathematising its frontline proponent, he would give the Chalcedonians the satisfaction by going ahead with the anathematization nonetheless, seeing that theology was the more important factor in any event.
ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚Â¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢ The third issue to be considered is the undoubtedly Nestorian writings of Theodoret that were exonerated at Chalcedon (and in fact later condemned).
I stress however, that these above issues surrounding Theodoret are not exclusive factors constituting the reasonable perception of Chalcedon as a Nestorian council. There are still issues surrounding Ibas, the Tome of Leo, the Chalcedonian definition of faith etc.
Also, the "misunderstanding view" seems to have a fatal flaw: it puts guilt on both sides. It makes both parties guilty for division, but Christ cannot be divided. Therefore, even if one is right and the other wrong, both are in fact wrong. Doesn't seem to add up.
I believe the above is loaded on so many levels; however, as the direct and substantial cause of the schism was not essentially doctrinally related, it is irrelevant whether or not there was a misunderstanding on a doctrinal level anyway. This direct and substantial cause was the ex-communication of St Dioscorus. The fact of the matter is that St Dioscorus’ ex-communication and the actions that took place leading up to it (i.e. his initial deposition after the first session), were either right or wrong; his ultimate ex-communication was either just, warranted and hence valid, or it was a legalistic and abusive application of canon law and hence invalid.
+Irini nem ehmot