I think you may have misunderstood me. By "alienated" I meant that many of Cyril's patriarchate were discontented with the Symbol of Union.
I have already given clear evidence that St Dioscorus praised the re-union, employed its expressions, and adhered to the doctrinal principles advocated therein. You simply have absolutely no evidence of the blessed St Dioscorus being “discontent” with the Formulary. The only thing St Dioscorus was “discontent” with, and justifiably so, is the extremist Antiochene movement headed by Theodoret that attempted to spread and promote crypto-Nestorianism upon an anti-Cyrillian interpretation of the Formulary.
Furthermore, as I have repeated, the Formulary despite being acceptable did not possess dogmatic or authoritative status. St Dioscorus could accept the fact that the language of moderate Antiochenes expressed the same Alexandrine theology of St Cyril, and hence his support for the re-union with John of Antioch’s party; however, being faithful to the Normative Tradition of his day, he would not accept the notion of one being obligatorily subject to it, for it simply did not possess that status in the Orthodox Church; rather, it was the Formulary that was subject to Ephesus 431 and the Holy 12 anathemas Conciliarly and formally approved therein.
What St Dioscorus was discontent with therefore, is your faulty Theodoretan/anti-Cyrilline understanding of the Formulary, and hence a fictional conception of it, and not the Formulary of history i.e. the Formulary that St Cyril actually consented to.
Over time, Dioscorus moved to align himself with these malcontents. This movement was culminated in his betrayal of the Symbol of Union at the Robber Synod.
The Holy Council of Ephesus II (449) was consonant with The Holy Council of Ephesus I (431). Claiming that there was a “betrayal” of the Formulary, is not only a groundless claim not based upon either fact, or even an honest interpretation of this document, however it also implicitly presupposes a faulty conception of the document by use of the word “betrayal.” Such rhetoric is not helpful when you are yet to even properly establish your case that the Formulary ever possessed an authority to be “betrayed” in the first place.
An implicit problem in your reasoning is in fact the same problem that occurred at Chalcedon, whereby an honest examination of the Holy Council of Ephesus II against the theological background of the time was evaded.
It is interesting to note, that even though EO priest and scholar, Fr. John Romanides, adopts the erroneous belief that The Holy Council of Ephesus II “set aside” the Formulary, he nonetheless justifies this alleged reaction in light of the theological background of the day. In commenting with respect to the insurgence of Nestorianism in the East subsequent to St Cyril’s death, Fr. Romanides states:
“It was undoubtedly his exasperation with this type of Antiochene Christology [which, according to Fr. Romanides was crypto-Nestorian Christology] more than anything else which goaded Dioscoros into setting aside Cyril's act of 433 and returning to what may be called Alexandrine exclusiveness as the only sure means of uprooting the new form behind which Nestorianism hid itself.”Therefore, even granting the presumption that The Holy Council of Ephesus II "set aside" the Formulary, Fr. Romanides is nonetheless capable of examining this alleged move in its historical context, and not merely in the abstract. His implicit justification thereof consequently implies that the Holy Council of Ephesus II was not dogmatically bound by the Formulary in any event; nay, the Formulary was in fact subject to The Holy Council of Ephesus II.
Until you are able to refer me to the Ecumenical Council that ratified the Formulary as an Ecumenically Authoritative document whereby the Universal Church was bound to its terms, you have no case. No one was bound to its terms — not even Eutyches. And I stress, this is all granting the baseless presumption that the Formulary was neglected in the first place.
That's not the case for the reference to the "duality of natures" which I mentioned in my last post. The phrase is, "...but distinguish others in view of the duality of natures..." (os epi dhio physeon).
Let’s have a look at the statement in context, in order to stress the baselessness of your presumed equation of this expression in the Formulary and the statement pertaining to Christ existing “in two natures”:
The entire sentence reads:
‘And with regard to the evangelistic and apostolic sayings concerning the Lord’, it said, ‘we know that theologians make some common, as relating to one person and distinguish others, as relating to two natures, interpreting the God-befitting ones to be of the Godhead of Christ, and the lowly ones of his humanity.’As Fr. V.C. Samuel notes:
“Intended obviously to mitigate the difficulty which the Antiochenes felt about the fourth anathema, the sentence does not in fact contradict the position of Cyril. For it affirms only that theologians distinguish matters pertaining to our Lord in three ways. A very guarded statement, it does not say that Christ existed in three centres of being and activity, but only that the words and deeds of Christ are possible to be differentiated in three ways…Cyril himself had worked out a theory which would grant this possibility. In his view, as we contemplate on Christ, we can in our minds recognize some words and deeds of Christ as divine and some as human.” (Samuel. V.C., Chalcedon Re-Examined, page 16)
The expression therefore, simply pertains to how theologians may categorise certain sayings or activities of Christ, according to His divinity and humanity, in contemplation alone. Therefore, regardless of the interpretation you choose to retrospectively impute upon “in two natures” the fact of the matter is that such an expression pertains to the nature of Christ’s existence — it does not refer to contemplatively and theologically theorizing a distinction between Christ’s names, rather it refers to conceiving the reality and actuality of Christ’s incarnate existence.
Although St Dioscorus explicitly recognised this principle of distinguishing between human and divine sayings of Christ in contemplation, it was not the subject of the 448. vs. 449 controversey, and hence it is irrelevant to the discussion nonetheless.
The fact that Dioscorus originally supported it
There is no basis to believe that St Dioscorus ever changed his mind with respect to the Formulary. He accepted it upon the basis that St Cyril accepted it, and continued to do so till his death. We have a document written by him to his blessed monks before his death whilst in exile, which most explicitly employs the afore-explained principle of the Formulary whereby the activities of Christ may be distinguished in contemplation according to either Christ’s divinity or His humanity.
only shows that he was ignoring its obvious concessions to the Antiochene way of thinking,
You need to quit presuming what you are yet to prove. The Formulary was not a concession to Antiochene way of thinking; it was a form of recognition regarding the fact that moderate Antiochene language was compatible with the Alexandrine Tradition vindicated at Ephesus 431.
St Dioscorus remained faithful to a proper Cyrillian understanding of both the theology and status of the Formulary. As Fr. And Professor Romanides of EOC admits, St Dioscorus was merely opposed to the
“resurgence of a Nestorianism hiding behind the formulary of reunion and Theodoretan Christological double-talk.” St. Cyril, after the acceptance of the Symbol, continues to prefer "mia physis" language. That much is true. However, by the acceptance of the Symbol, he also acknowledged the validity of the moderate Antiochene position
You are being equivocative. The acceptance of the Formulary acknowledges the “validity” of the moderate Antiochene position only insofar that it was recognised that such language could be compatible with an Orthodox Alexandrine Christology, but not in the sense that it constituted a concession or submission to Antiochene language in compromise of St Cyril’s Alexandrine position that was the Orthodox Standard of The Church.
The main issue here therefore, is that since St Cyril clearly did not accept the Formulary in the sense of it abrogating Alexandrine mia physis Christology (by virtue of his continued defence of mia physite Christology), then there was no justification for the insistence of Constantinople 448 to either dogmatically impose “in two natures” upon Eutyches, nor to command him to anathematize the mia physis formula. Even if falsely presuming the Formulary to be the standard criterion by which Eutyches’ Orthodoxy was to be measured.
Regarding the former, Jalland comments that the condemnation of Eutyches on the basis that he did not accept the formula of ‘in two natures’, was one that made Flavian “guilty of undue haste.” “Flavian had exceeded his authority in demanding subscription to a formula for which as yet no Oecumenical sanction could be claimed” (The Life and Times of St. Leo the Great, (S. P.C. K., l941), pp. 216-7)
Regarding the latter, even Fr. John Romanides of the EO church admits that Eutyches was “quite defendable in his refusal to anathematize those who teach One Nature Incarnate of the Logos, since, as he said, he could not anathematize the Fathers of the Church.”
Therefore, the Conciliarly actions of The Holy Council of Ephesus II regarding the ex-communication of Eutyches’ condemners was indeed justified.
The Antiochians, whatever their views of Cyril himself, made many concessions in the Symbol, as did Cyril himself.
St Cyril did not made concessions, and he clearly proved this in his defence of those who accused him of doing so. The Formulary was not a concession; it was simply a form of recognition.
In fact, his own preference for the language was in part derived from the mistaken belief that it held the authority of St. Athanasius.
Actually the only sources which constitute the basis of the argument that St Cyril was somehow so ignorant of St Athanasius that he mistakenly considered an Apollinarian document as being authored by St Athanasius, are those based on baseless post-Chalcedonian polemics. It is quite shameful that the proponents of Chalcedon had to resort to implicitly accusing the very successor of St Athanasius of being ignorant.
In any event, the source per se of a particular expression is irrelevant, as you already pointed out yourself with reference to the homoousios formula.
To this day, the Orthodox church does not view "mia physis" language as heretical, so long as the one using it also acknowledges the propriety of the Two Natures language of the Latin fathers, as St. Cyril did.
To this day, the Orthodox Church expresses and maintains the distinct reality between Christ’s two natures to the very extent and manner that St Cyril did, and not beyond it to the very border of Nestorianism, as Nestorius, Theodoret, Constantinople 448 and Chalcedon 451 did — albeit to differing extents.
This isn't an either/or issue, and it is the insistence of the Copts, both then and now, on thinking in either/or rather than both/and terms, that has led them into schism.
You misinterpret the reason why The Orthodox Church ex-communicated your fathers and their council, and why your fathers essentially ex-communicated themselves, because you are unable to approach history actually and objectively.
St Dioscorus and the Holy Council of Ephesus II were not opposed to the moderate form of Antiochene Christology which St Cyril recognised as being compatible with the Alexandrine Orthodox Tradition. They were opposed to a crypto-Nestorian movement that attempted to hide behind the Formulary as Fr. Romanides, a scholar of your own church admits. As such, and against this historical background, the Holy Council of Ephesus II maintained an Alexandrine exclusiveness for the sake of preserving the faith against this insurgence of Nestorianism threatening the church through the dogmatic assertion of an extremist Antiochene interpretation of the Formulary.
By doing so, they were not in fact compromising or rejecting the Formulary, for a) they were not subject to the authority of the Formulary in any event by virtue of its possessing no authority in the first place, and b) the theology of the Formulary as correctly understood was not opposed to the theological position of St Dioscorus.
As such, the Conciliar actions and decisions of The Holy Council of Ephesus II were justified against the Antiochene extremists. As Chalcedon failed to justly or properly investigate this issue (by virtue of its adoption of unwarranted presumptions from the outset, and the political agendas of some including Rome’s attempt to assert its supremacy) and as it thence proceeded to exonerate heretics and their writings, and to falsely ex-communicate His Holiness Pope St Dioscorus, then it was consequently a divisive council; a council of schism.
St. Cyril specifically recognized, in epistle 40, that it was possible to speak of two natures without dividing Christ, although of course he preferred not to do so.
The specific expressions pertaining to “two natures” that were recognised by St Cyril are limited, and were never objected to by St Dioscorus. Again, please deal with the facts. 1) “
in two natures”, was never accepted by St Cyril. 2) “
in two natures” had a Nestorian reputation — stop presuming that it is self-evidently synonymous with any of the relevant Formulary expressions 3) Any Orthodox re-interpretation of this Nestorian expression had no dogmatic authority and hence no one was obliged to confess it, since it was not grounded in Church Tradition, but more appropriately in Nestorian tradition.
This whole line of thought is legalistic
No, it is ecclesiological. Conciliar Tradition vindicates expressions and doctrines to the status of dogmatic, especially if such councils possess an Ecumenical authority. When something is elevated to being dogmatic, that doctrine or expression thence becomes the established Norm. A document merely recognizing that someone else’s language is not necessarily heretical and even compatible with Orthodox dogma is not itself a dogmatic document. Since it possesses no dogmatic authority, Orthodox Christians are not obligatorily subject to it.
Anyway, St. Cyril never gave any indication whether he personally thought the Union Symbol should be seen as dogmatic, and his own preference for the language he was accustomed to using is immaterial.
First of all, let us put aside the most relevant fact that there is absolutely no indication that St Cyril ever assigned any dogmatic authority to it. This is more or less an open admission to the fact that you do not have an argument. The Formulary was subject to Ephesus 431 and the Holy 12 Anathemas Conciliarly approved therein. The Formulary was not binding, rather it was bound.
Furthermore, the fact St Cyril pursued miaphysite language subsequent to his acceptance of the Formulary is quite material to the point in question, for if as the Nestorian heretics and yourself imply, St Cyril made concessions to the Formulary as a dogmatically authoritative document, then he would have been bound by its language and hence forced to discontinue using mia physite language. However, he wasn’t; no one was; certainly no Orthodox Christian.
In condition to the consideration I've already mentioned above, seeing a statement as authoritative when it is not does not make one a heretic, even if he is wrong.
Actually it can, because in elevating it to that status over and above actual authority and hence essentially to the exclusion of it, one can thence push forth an abusively extreme crypto-Nestorian Antiochene Christology disguised behind the non-authoritative Formulary. This is what happened with Theodoret and his party as Fr. Romanides of the EO church admits.
Who is the schismatic, the one who, already acknowledging the Council of Ephesus, also acknowledges the christology of the holy fathers Sts. Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, and others, both eastern and western, who spoke of two natures
The issue was never about “acknowledging” different Christology’s, so you have merely set up a straw man. St Dioscorus was never falsely ex-communicated for not “acknowledging” an Orthodox form of moderate Antiochene Christology (indeed, as has been explicitly proven, he happily praised the Formulary).
The schismatic is the one that fails to examine the Holy Council of Ephesus II against the established and normative Orthodox Tradition of the time, which though having had nothing to do with the Formulary, went further and even presumed an Antiochene interpretation of the formulary. The Formulary was a document recognizing that another form of language was compatible with THE Tradition, but it was not a concession to that form of language as being representative of THE Tradition.
or the one who insists that the language of Alexandria, one among many Orthodox regions and theological traditions, and Alexandria alone, is justified?
First of all, you cannot point to forms of undeveloped Christology as representative of Orthodox Christological Tradition. Alexandrian Christology was that which was vindicated at an Ecumenical Council - the highest form of authority in the Church — which defines Tradition (and your later distinction between “specific points” and the whole “system” of Alexandrine Christology is superfluous — the very key distinctive and fundamental elements of Alexandrine Christology rejected by a majority of the Antiochenes were vindicated at Ephesus).
Second of all, St Dioscorus’ problem was not with “other forms” of Christology per se, for in praising the reunion so highly he implicitly acknowledged that the Alexandrian Christological Tradition that was vindicated at the highest level of Authority — an Ecumenical Council — was indeed compatible with other legitimate forms of Christology. What St Dioscorus, and the entire Holy Council of Ephesus II, evidently had beef with, is the fact that an evidently influential crypto-Nestorian movement hiding behind the Formulary apparently attempted to climax at Constantinople 448 which tried to forcefully assert Antiochene Christology in compromise of Alexandrian Christology, when a strictly Antiochene expression that had never been employed by St Cyril, was never in the Formulary, and had a Nestorian reputation, was put forth as if it were the standard Criterion of Orthodoxy, such that if one failed to confess it, then one was worthy of ex-communication.
Again, you're elevating St. Cyril's idiosyncratic choice of language
Actually, I was simply putting St Cyril into context against a one-sided depiction of his post-Ephesus Christology as if he had compromised or conceded his initial position, which he most definitely had not.
Furthermore, since the only dogmatic authority concerning Orthodox Christology at the time was the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus 431, it is primarily our understanding of this council that is relevant to the discussion. As St Cyril was the God-appointed Patriarch to preside over the proceedings of the Holy Ecumenical Council, and as his God-approved Christology presented in his God-elected documents that were vindicated at this council constituted the Norm of Orthodox Tradition, therefore it is more than reasonable for one to consult the very works of St Cyril himself for contextual purposes. This includes the Formulary, but not exclusively, nor primarily, for the Formulary was not St Cyril conceding to a another Christological language and elevating it to the standard by which one’s Orthodoxy is to be measured, it was simply St Cyril’s way of saying: “Yes, I can agree that what you are saying in your own language is consonant with the Alexandrine Tradition, and hence is Orthodox”, it was not his way of saying “I accept your terms as authoritative, and may anyone who does not subject themselves to or admit this be ex-communicated or anathema”
but merely pointing out that he was its leading voice and the one who, by force of his commanding personality and presence, set the agenda for it. Because of this, for better or for worse, he must bear the heaviest load of responsibility for the council's decisions.
This is a load of nonsense. St Dioscorus was not the sole president, let alone the leading voice of the council. The council acted and spoke unanimously; had the council disagreed with St Dioscorus, then the decisions made would never have been made. Fortunately however, the Council was capable of making true and valid judgments in unity. As for the position of presidency exercised by those of the Council including St Dioscorus, such a position was not held by virtue of their agenda to impose their authority, but rather by virtue of their dignity according to their Patriarchal See, and the Imperial Command of St Theodosius II.
The fact St Dioscorus was exclusively discriminated, even apart from his co-presidents explicitly reveals a clear personal agenda.
Of course "in two natures" was susceptible to Nestorian interpretation, but "in one nature" was susceptible of Apollinarian, or even Docetic. Again, no language was completely "clean".
The difference between “in two natures” and “one nature” is really quite simple. It is the difference between an expression used to convey heresy, and an expression which conveys Orthodoxy but is nonetheless compatible with heresy. To say that Christ was “in two natures” was to say that Christ existed in his divine nature, and in his human nature, such that His divine nature and human nature constituted two grounds of being i.e. two hypostases. The expression one nature was used to express the fact that the totality of properties and attributes of the natural qualities so hypostatized, belonged to the one hypostasis, by virtue of that one hypostasis being the actualization of both divinity and humanity. This is perfectly Orthodox in and of itself. The only problem with the Apollinarians is that they did not admit a human soul as one of those properties of the natural human reality so hypostatized, however the mia physis expression had no direct implications with respect to this.
Furthermore, you again choose to approach the subject retrospectively. At the time of the particular controversy in question, One Nature was being propagated and promoted within the Orthodox Church, most notably by the Doctor of Orthodox Christology, St Cyril himself. The “in two nature” formula on the other hand was strongly asserted by The Orthodox Church’s Nestorian opponents in opposition; this was the reputation it had, and it could not come clean until receiving Ecumenical clarification and sanction.
There was as yet no Ecumenical Council to prevent abuse of "one nature" language,
There is no evidence that such an abuse ever took place; do a proper study of history and you will see that the only abuses taking place at the time, regardless of Ephesus 431, were abuses of the Formulary for the purpose of propagating Nestorianism, as your own Eastern Orthodox scholar admits.
and the polemics of Theodoret surely demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt
Theodoret wrote polemical works against the blessed St Cyril himself charging him with abusing mia physis Christology and being an Apollinarian, and yet you appeal to this very same Theodoret to discern whether others had been abusing it also?
Unbelievable! Mia physis
per se was an abuse in and of itself according to Thedooret — he never recognised an Orthodox understanding of it, in order to reliably report alleged abuses of it.
The extents you will go to in order to defend this heretic, are nothing short of incredible.
He wasn't obliged to recognize the language as fully authoritative, but he would not even recognize it as permissible,
a) By praising the Formulary St Dioscorus recognized the “permissibility” of such language. In employing the expressions and adopting the doctrinal principles of the Formulary whereby names could be distinguished between Christ’s natures, he also clearly expressed this “permissibility”
b) By ex-communicating the condemners of Eutyches, he was recognizing that such language was not “fully authoritative” and hence Eutyches was not obliged to confess it. Since therefore it was Eutyches’ inability to confess the Antiochene expression, and his inability to anathematize the Alexandrine language that had him ex-communicated in the first place, the reciprocal action of the Holy Ephesine (II) Council was warranted.
Theodoret here opposes the Symbol to the Twelve Chapters, not to the Council of Ephesus.
Are you kidding me here?
Fact 1) The Holy Twelve Chapters constitute “The Council of Ephesus”, for they were formally approved in their entirety by the Council.
Fact 2) Theodoret not only blasphemously interprets the Formulary contrary to the 12 Chapters, but he also interprets them contrary to
“their teaching…that there was an union of hypostasis, and that the combination in union was of nature, and that God the Word was the first-born from the dead.” Are you telling me that the hypostatic union of Christ’s divine and human nature was also independent from the Council of Ephesus?
Fact 3) You are the one who initially referenced us to St Cyril’s acceptance of the Formulary in order to validate it as a document; well I refer you to his interpretation of the Formulary in order validate the charge that as Theodoret understood the Formulary contrary to St Cyril, then he understood it heretically. As Fr. Romanides of your own church states:
“It is impossible to accept the opinion of many that Cyril laid aside his Twelve Chapters for the sake of reconciliation with John. As an individual he had no authority whatsoever to modify the decisions of an Ecumenical Council and there is no evidence to substantiate this supposition.”The Twelve Chapters were read, but not canonized, at the Council
This is what happens when one appeals to scholarship to the very detriment of their position. Allow me to paste you quotes from reputable Church historians, and a scholar of your own church regarding the untenability of this Protestant argument from silence that you advocate:
From The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. XIV, The Third Ecumenical Council.; The Council of Ephesus,
Historical Introduction to St. Cyril's Anathematisms:
“There has been some difference of opinion among the learned as to whether St. Cyril's Synodal letter which has at its end the anathemas against Nestorius, which hereafter follow, was formally approved at the Council of Ephesus. The matter is one only of archeological and historical interest for from a theological point of view the question is entirely uninteresting, since there is no possible doubt that the synod endorsed St. Cyril's teaching and for that express reason proceeded at their first session to excommunicate Nestorius.
…the historical question is one of some interest, and I shall very briefly consider it. We have indeed the "Acta" of this council, but I cannot but agree with the very learned Jesuit Petavius and the Gallican Tillemont in thinking them in a very unsatisfactory condition. I am fully aware of the temerity of making such a suggestion, but I cannot help feeling that in the remarks of the Roman representatives, especially in those of the presbyter-legate, there is some anachronism. Be this as it may, it is a fact that the Acts do not recite that this letter of Cyril's was read, nor do they state that the Anathemas were received. I would suggest, however, that for those who defend John of Antioch, and criticise the action of St. Cyril, it is the height of inconsistency to deny that the Council adopted the Anathemas. If it was the bitterly partisan assembly that they would have us believe, absolutely under the control of Cyril, there is nothing that, a priori, they would have been more sure to do than adopt the Anathemas which were universally looked upon as the very fulcrum on which the whole matter turned.” Hefele,
Hist. of Councils. Vol. III., p. 48, note 2:
“We were formerly of opinion that these anathematisms were read at Ephesus, but not expressly confirmed, as there is hardly anything on the subject in the Acts. But in the Fifth Ecumenical Council (collatio vj.) it is said: "The holy Council at Chalcedon approved this teaching of Cyril of blessed memory, and received his Synodical letters, to one of which are appended the xij. anathemas" (Mansi, t. ix., p. 341; Hardouin, t. iij., p. 167). If, however, the anathematisms of Cyril were expressly confirmed at Chalcedon, there was even more reason for doing so at Ephesus.
And Ibas, in his well-known letter to Maris, says expressly that the Synod of Ephesus confirmed the anathematisms of Cyril, and the same was asserted even by the bishops of Antioch at Ephesus in a letter to the Emperor.”
Petavius,
De Incarnatione, Lib. VI., cap. Xvij:
“The Acts do not tell us what judgment the Synod of Ephesus gave with respect to the third letter of Cyril, and with regard to the anathemas attached to it.
But the Acts in other respects also have not come down to us in their integrity.
That that third letter was received and approved by the Ephesine Council there can be no doubt, and this the Catholics shewed in their dispute with the Acephali in the Collation held at Constantinople under the Emperor Justinian in the year of Christ 811. For at that memorable meeting some-tiring was shewn forth concerning this letter and its anathemas, which has a connexion with the matter in hand, and therefore must not be omitted. At that meeting the Opposers, that is the Acephali, the enemies of the Council of Chalcedon, made this objection against that Council: "The [letter] of the Twelve Anathemas which is inserted in the holy Council of Ephesus, and which you cannot deny to be synodical, why did not Chalcedon receive it?" etc., etc.”
“
From this it is evident that the prevailing opinion, then as now, was that the Twelve Anathemas were defined as part of the faith by the Council of Ephesus.” (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. XIV, The Third Ecumenical Council.; The Council of Ephesus, Historical Introduction to St. Cyril's Anathematisms)
From Ibas ad Marim Persam and from the minutes of the Johannine Council of Ephesus, we learn that the Antiochenes rejected the Cyrillian Council of Ephesus and damned Cyril because the heretical Twelve Chapters had been accepted. (Mansi, rv 1265 ff.; .vii, 244-245.)
It was prudent on the part of the Council not to canonize them.
It is prudent on your part not to shoot yourself in your own foot via a blind approach to faulty scholarship.
Anyway, whatever Theodoret's personal feelings, he was at peace (even if it was an uneasy peace) with Cyril when the latter died.
This is absurdity. I just quoted for you Theodoret calling St Cyril a villain on his deathbed, and celebrating his death. Theodoret likewise celebrated St Cyril’s death in a letter to Leo of Rome, where he even stated that he would like to see a large rock on St Cyril’s grave to prevent him from ever coming back.
These are words of hatred and contempt for St Cyril. Any alleged peace you are referring to is shallow and absolutely meaningless. As world renowned church historian and scholar Phillp Schaff notes, even though some have observed that Theodoret temporarily “entered into friendly correspondence with Cyril”, the fact remains that “
the truce was hollow. Cyril was indignant to find that Theodoret still maintained his old opinions.”
Theodoret hated St Cyril. Theodoret wrote blasphemies against St Cyril during and after his life. Theodoret was a heretic by virtue of this very opposition, and he is anathema by virtue of St Cyril’s 12 anathemas - they’re not called “anathemas” for nothing; Double anathema times 12 to Theodoret for rejecting and attacking all 12 of them.
And I'm saying that Theodoret was not, and never was, a Nestorian.
The only ones who would agree with you on this, are the Nestorians themselves, and certain contemporary protestant scholars who adopt a non-patristic approach to ecclesiastical history. Theodoret was anathema by virtue of his resistance to and blasphemous attacks against St Cyril’s Ecumenically authoritative 12 chapters alone, and was justly ex-communicated by the Holy Council of Ephesus II in response. Evidence beyond this exists, but is superfluous in the dialogue between two who recognise Ephesus 431 as Ecumenically binding, and St Cyril of Alexandria as an Authoritative Father on Orthodox Christology.
He altered his terms in the course of the Nestorian dispute, as the controversy made clear that some of his past statements had been ill-judged.
As Fr. And Professor John Romanides of the Chalcedonian church states:
“Theodoret learned to modify some of his opinions without, however, changing his basic vision and presuppositions…. On the basis of this crypto-Nestorianism Theodoret could continue his attacks on Ephesus and Cyril, and especially on the Twelve Chapters.”As for Theodore, the issues regarding him had not yet been made clear, and although I consent to the judgment of Constantinople that he was a heretic, it was only after great analysis that this determination was made; it's unfair to judge Theodoret by his attitude to a figure who had not yet been judged by the Church.
Theodore was judged by The Church accordingly and righteously by the Holy Council of Ephesus II (449) which condemned the three chapters — a decision undermined by Chalcedon, and consequently ratified by your Constantinople 533.
Regardless of the authorities you personally recognise towards the condemnation of Theodore, the fact remains that he was always a heretic, no matter how slow your church was in recognizing this obvious fact. Since Theodoret always held Theodore in high esteem as an Orthodox teacher of the faith, therefore Theodoret always upheld heresy as Orthodox. This he did when he defended Theodore in his blasphemous writings subsequent to St Cyril’s death, and when he implicitly yet clearly declared the Orthodoxy of Theodore at Chalcedon.
This explains why Chalcedon was subject to such an obvious Theodorean-Nestorian interpretation. Not only by the “non-Chalcedonian” Orthodox Church, and not only by the Nestorian Church and Nestorius himself, but even by Chalcedonians themselves as Salpy’s posts have proven.
If there's one thing Christians should know, claiming as we do to be followers of Jesus, it's that there is "economy" for every "law", and an exception for every rule.
Economy is motivated by good reason, moral judgement, and a sense of justice, and is nonetheless within certain limits with respect to how it is carried out. A legitimate imperially sanctioned Orthodox council ex-communicated Theodoret upon the basis of his continued resistance to St Cyril and Ephesus 431 (regardless of the lip service he may have paid Ephesus, we have already proven that he essentially disregarded it) evident in his actions subsequent to St Cyril’s death; the Bishop of Rome had neither the authority, nor purpose of economy to un-canonically restore that figure to the church. That such was performed, even with disregard to whether or not the condemned heretic anathematized the central proponent of the heresy for which he was condemned, only exasperates the situation.
Theodoret was a Nestorian heretic, and Leo was more or less guilty by association.
Chalcedon was concerned primarily with the person of Ibas, who appeared at the council and showed himself to the Orthodox, while Constantinople focussed specifically on one letter of his. There's no contention between the two.
Actually, there is contention, for the person of Ibas was deemed Orthodox by Chalcedon upon reading the very letter that was later condemned at Constantinople 533.
But that's clearly not the drift or meaning of Leo's Tome or the Chalcedonian confession.
Clearly, to you, in retrospect, maybe, but not clearly to the Orthodox Church that rejected Chalcedon, the Nestorian church that recognised Chalcedon as a vindication of its theology, nor to those Chalcedonians who interpreted Chalcedon as having authorised the three chapters later condemned.
The safeguards against Nestorianism you allege do indeed negate an extremist Nestorian two-son type Christology, but they do not negate the crypto-Nestorianism with which the council was charged — a form of Nestorianism that could easily have been negated by a clarification and definition of the hypostatic union, as well as the inclusion of Alexandrine formulas to guarantee the “balanced Christology” that is anachronistically claimed for it.
As for Leo’s tome, I wouldn’t suggest ambiguity as that with which I charge the definition of faith, but rather I would suggest inconsistency. To support this I appeal to three Greek Orthodox Professors and clergymen (Fr. Florovsky, Fr. Romanides, and Bishop Methodios) who recognise and understand the legitimacy of its being interpreted as Nestorian, albeit defending it in light of Leo’s subjective intentions.
My point about the Symbol was simply that, just as it had spoken the truth without the phrase "hypostatic union", Chalcedon did the same.
A document of re-union does not serve the same purpose as an Ecumenical Council. That you can make such an analogy is absurd to say the least. If Chalcedon was the Ecumenical council that it is alleged to be by the Chalcedonian church, then it would not have been ambiguous to the extent of allowing itself susceptible to a more than reasonable and plausible interpretation of it as a Nestorian council, not only by the Orthodox, but also by the Nestorian church, and Chalcedonians themselves. If Chalcedon was truly effecting the balance anachronistically claimed of it, then it would have affirmed the central and fundamental key dogma to Orthodox Alexandrine Christology — the hypostatic union.
Secondly, Nestorius himself was always more muddled than fundamentally heretical. While Ephesus was perfectly justified in condemning him for statements he had made to that point
I’ve argued with a lot of Chalcedonians in my short lifetime, but never have they stooped to the level of denying the heretical teachings of the arch-heretic Nestorius for the sake of defending Chalcedon. That you can deny that Nestorius was a heretic to yet then go on to justify his condemnation at Ephesus 431 is beyond me. Nestorius never changed his position post-Ephesus 431, and even the scholars that advocate the whole “Nestorius was not a heretic” nonsense do not perceive him as ever having changed his position. Nestorius himself maintained that such a position was that which he had maintained all along.
The heresy he presents in the Bazaar is the same heresy that lead to his condemnation at The Holy Council of Ephesus 431. You undermine this council by attempting to upgrade Nestorius from arch-heretic to “muddled” Orthodox.
Is this your Church’s position on Nestorius? Maybe the EO church has more hope for re-intercommunion with the Nestorian church of Assyria then it does with the Orthodox Church.
it has never struck me as unusual that he would agree to Leo's Tome
We can at least agree on that.
No, it was a few specific points which had their basis in Alexandrine christology. It was not the whole system to the exclusion of all others.
Alexandrine Christology is a theological tradition that is centered around the Word being the subject of the Incarnation and consequent Incarnate experiences, and His hypostatically uniting humanity to Himself. This Christological tradition was vindicated as The Tradition — and yes, to the exclusion of others. Which Antiochene formulas and expressions, or central dogmatic points did God choose to elevate to Ecumenical authority? Sorry, I am unaware of any.
The legitimate concerns of both Antiochene and Latin christology had not yet been formalized by a council.
And that is the crux of the case. As they had not been formalized by a council, they possessed no authority in and of themselves, even if they were capable of being recognized as conveying the very Christology that had in fact been formalized by an Ecumenical Synod, and hence capable of being understood as Orthodox. As such Constantinople 448 condemned itself by imposing an Antiochene exclusiveness, Ephesus II was justified in ratifying an Alexandrine exclusiveness (not out of a non-recognition of the validity of the language of moderate Antiochene Christology, but as an apologetic in the face of an extremist Antiochene movement), and Chalcedon schismed in its failure to properly investigate the matter, its false deposition of an Orthodox Patriarch, and the ambiguity with which it presented itself, making itself prone to Nestorian interpretation by the Orthodox, a majority of pre-Constantinople Chalcedonians, and the Nestorians.
+Irini nem makarismos
