The Mystery of the Incarnation: Towards a Reconciliation of Cyril and Nestorius (original) (raw)
Independent , 2023
This article explores the Christological controversy between Cyril of Alexandria and Nestorius of Constantinople in the fifth century and its impact on the Byzantine Empire. It highlights the political and religious tensions surrounding the doctrinal disagreement over the nature of the incarnation. The article acknowledges the challenges of studying this controversy from a Western perspective and aims to examine it from an Eastern viewpoint, specifically focusing on Nestorius' Christological thought. The goal is to gain a more accurate understanding of Nestorius' theology within the context of traditional orthodoxy. The article also delves into the historical background of Nestorius, his ecclesiastical reforms, and the events that led to his excommunication. Furthermore, it discusses the divergent views of Cyril and Nestorius regarding the hypostasis and prosopon, shedding light on their different interpretations and the resulting conflict. The article provides a comparison of the arguments made by Cyril and Nestorius and concludes with the significance of the controversy in shaping Christological theology.
The evolution of fundamental Christological elements in the works of St. Cyril of Alexandria
2014
A close study of the early works of St. Cyril shows that the anti-Nestorian struggle was not just a kind of specious trump card in a suspected ecclesio-political rivalry between Alexandria and Constantinople, but rather that fundamental theological ideas of Christology, sacramentology and soteriology had clarified themselves and were present even in the earliest works St. Cyril. In this article we mark out a five elements of St Cyril's Christology which was not changed during his theological activity. This because it was all built on the same soteriological foundation.
Scottish Journal of Theology, 2003
Was Cyril of Alexandria a theopaschite? In order to resolve this controversial issue, this paper will look at Cyril's Christology with Nestorius's eyes. The charge of theopatheia appears from the very beginning in Nestorius's correspondence with Cyril and retains its central place in Nestorius's work Liber Heraclidis. The paper discusses Nestorian arguments against Cyril's position and Cyril's countercharges. The conclusion is reached that Nestorius asserted unqualified divine impassibility. Cyril, in contrast, held a qualified view of the divine impassibility and maintained that neither divinity suffered alone, apart from humanity (in which case the assumption of humanity would be superfluous), nor humanity suffered alone, apart from and in sharp contrast to the impassible divinity (in which case the reality of divine involvement in the incarnation would be put at risk).
"Chalcedon was a stumbling block-and still is. It has been said that present day theology has put chalcedon in the dock. It is not difficult to find many utterances among contemporary theologians both Protestant and Catholic,"-- W. Kasper, Theology and the Church,1989, p. 95 Knowing the Christ No one knows who the Son is but ... the Father, or who the Father is but the Son, and those to whom the Son may choose to reveal Him (Luke 10:22). If so, those who knew Him starting with Simon the righteous taking the child Jesus in his arms saying; "Master, now dismiss your servant in peace, for my eyes have seen your salvation," (Luke 2:29,30) to the amazement of Mary His mother. How did Mary so firmly believe in her born as Lord Messiah, and thus asked him an early miracle in the wedding of Kana Galilee, even before He intended to start His charismatic healing ministry? Now the disciples having experienced Christ in his true humanity (without sin) confessed with Peter, "You are the Christ, Son of God," told by Jesus that this revelation is from God, and cannot be experienced through the flesh. Who do they say that I AM? Our lord asked His disciples (Luke 9:18), anticipating the debate of the unknowing, fighting among themselves on his 'nature,' or the functional relation of his humanity in regard to the Logos. Schismatic kept dissecting Almighty manifested in the flesh (1Ti 3:16), as St. Paul taught us, because some never really believed in the salvific love of the Father (John 3:16) who transcended through His only begotten to teach us the way of salvation. But, Who do you say that I, AM? Jesus is asking you, once you become a disciple, do you really know Him? Have you ever encountered Him in person, anytime, anywhere? The Samaritan woman met Him midday at the well, Zacchaeus had to climb the tree that afternoon to have a good look at Him, and the born blind begged him his sight, just hearing Him passing bye. But, did any of these know his person then? What about the Magdaline in the garden, after His resurrection, or the two on route to Emmaus, and the disciples near the shore, Peter and John on their fishing boat, did any of them identify him? To follow Jesus you have to know him, seeing Him with the eyes of your heart. To confess Him as Lord you have to believe in Him. To believe in Him you have to believe in the Salvific power of the Father demonstrated in the Sotereological grace of the redeemer. Miaphysite Christology The Christology of Alexandria was centered around soteriology, the saving act of Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Logos. Athanasius stated; "God became man, in order that man might become god in Him," The notion of salvation through participation in divine life (Deification) was the anchor point in Cyril defense of the unity of the Person of Christ, in the Hypostatic (natural concrete) union of Divinity and humanity in Christ, the Pansoter (Universal Redeemer). Cyril spoke of both one hypostasis and of a "united incarnate nature of the Logos" to make it plain that Christ was a single personal being, countering the Antiochene term prospon with the "hypostatic union." Since hypostasis and nature were used synonymously, he often spoke of a united nature in Christ. His formula "united incarnate nature of the God-Word" was a genuine Alexandrine expression, used and vindicated by Athanasius, even if borrowed also by his friend Apollinarius, who studied in Alexandria. Therefore, the Fathers of the Church Affirmed that Jesus Christ is fully God and truly human, emphasizing that His Divinity is "indivisibly united" with His humanity in a "hypostatic, Personal" union that began at His conception and will continue ever after, as preserved in the Eucharistic confession of Alexandrian Orthodox Christology. The Hypostatic union Cyril spoke of both one hypostasis and of a "united incarnate nature of the Logos" to make it plain that Christ was a single personal being. Since hypostasis and nature were used synonymously, he often spoke of a united nature in Christ. His terminology seemed limiting the role played by Christ's humanity in salvation. Cyril did not deny a real full existence of the human nature of Christ, nor did he believe that the incarnate Logos was an admixture of Divine and the human, of a human nature being integrated with certain particulars of the Divine nature. Union after the Anathemas Meyendroff writes; "The great Alexandrian bishop refrained from demanding that the Antiochenes should adopt his terminology." The importance of Cyril's toil was the preservation of the real unity of Christ and accordingly the soteriological concept that Christ's humanity, appropriated by the Word, constituted the Alexandrine doctrine of deification (Athanasius) for all who are in Christ. Two years later, in 433, he signed the text of the agreement that restored unity between the two great Churches. Cyril remained the only criterion of Orthodoxy for the judges as for the accused, as proven in the synods of Constantinopolis (Eutyches), and in Chalcedon, no one challenged his absolute authority. Present Eastern Orthodox salvation by theosis of man by participation in God, is an impossibility under the Antiochene Christology, and became deficient in the Chaledonian complex nature, where man could at most cooperate with God for his salvation. Cyril's Ecumenical Christology - "Let the heavens rejoice, and the earth be glad" for the partition wall has been taken away, and grief has been silenced, and all kind of difference of opinion has been removed; Christ the Savior of us all having awarded peace to his churches,"-- Cyril to John of Antioch - In "Nicene Christianity", David Yeago quotes St. Maximus the confessor words; "in the passion of the Father's reign that overcomes Jesus' fear in the garden of Gethsemane, we see human will and desire, formed and moved, by divine love with the sin of the world. It is precisely this fidelity, achieved against the grain of fear and horror, within the frailty of the flesh that the Son of God has truly made his own, that redeems the world." - In the recent ecumenical reproach the Armenian Catholicos stated;" We said that the well known Cyrillic formula of "One united nature of the Incarnate Word" has constituted the basis, the crux of our Christologies, for us the Oriental Orthodox, it was very important to put the emphasis on the fact that it was the Logos who assumed humanity. We always put the emphasis on the divinity of Christ and this is in line with the Alexandrian Christology. We also say "two natures" in theoria -- because we cannot speak about "two natures" after the "unity," after the incarnation. So, even though there are some differences of emphasis, essentially we are saying the same thing. Chalcedon Christology Today The definition of faith of Chalcedon led Dr. Albert Schweitzer to conclude that "its doctrine of the two natures dissolved the unity of the person, and thereby cut off the last possibility of a return to the historical Jesus... He was like Lazarus of old, bound hand and foot with grave-clothes; the grave-clothes of the dogma of the Dual Nature"-- J. Pelican, Credo - "Chalcedon was a stumbling block-and still is. It has been said that present day theology has put chalcedon in the dock. It is not difficult to find many utterances among contemporary theologians both Protestant and Catholic, which tend in the same direction. (of A. von Harnack) Almost everywhere we hear about the aporia, the impossible deadlock, presented by the so-called doctrine of the two natures -- in Tillich, in Rahner, in Pannenberg, in Schoonenberg, Kung, Wieerkehr and many others."--W. Kasper, Theology and the Church A thorn in the flesh! Cardinal W. Kasper, for many years professor of systematic theology at the university of Tubingen, writes in his book, "Theology & The Church," pp. 98, 99, following statement, "The brilliant investigations of Andre Halleux has put judgments about the council of Chalcedon on a new footing. ... On the basis of detailed analysis of the texts and sources (accepted by Grillmeier, Ritter and Abramowski) , Halleux has shown that the council's definition really contains no more than two word-for-word quotations from Leo's tome, a Leonine 'thorn in the flesh." http://willgwitt.org/the-christology-of-cyril-of-alexandria/ https://www.academia.edu/9847230/Christology\_after\_Chalcedon\_and\_the\_Transformation\_of\_the\_Philosophical\_Tradition