This is part of a series of posts exploring each of the views presented in The Incarnation Four Views edited by Andrew Hollingsworth and R.T. Mullins. This post is the second exploring Conciliar Christianity.

In the last post we began to unpack what counts as orthodox with a particular focus on conciliar Christology. This inquiry was inspired by questions that were raised in the book The Incarnation Four Views. Pawl makes adherence to conciliar Christology a benchmark for what should be considered “traditional, orthodox Christology” and challenged those models that failed to align with them. ¹

Do you want your novel Christology to prohibit the doctrine of God taught in the Council of Ephesus…? Wouldn’t it be better to have a model at least consistent with the faith of our forebears? I think so.²

But what does it mean for a Christological model to be consistent with the councils?

Fred Sanders observes that the study of conciliar Christology, which involves numerous developments over many centuries, has a tendency to go one of two different ways. There is a “multiplying [of] differences to divide unities” or there are attempts to construct “less convoluted metanarrative arcs” to suggest greater “coherence and unity.” ³

The challenge to anyone seeking to align what counts as orthodox with what was taught by the ecumenical councils is determining what counts as fidelity to these councils amid the rich history in which they occur.

Donald Fairbairn argues that Pawl has set a rather high bar in what constitutes the teaching of the councils, and thus what counts as orthodox. Quoting Pawl, he writes that conciliar Christology “includes their creeds, canons, expositions of faith, and anathemas,
as well as any documents accepted and endorsed in the previously listed sources.” ⁴ Fairbairn then reminds us that the goal of aligning with conciliar Christology “sits atop a mountain of historical and theological complexities.” ⁵ He suggests the need for “plausible summaries” to manage the vast amount of conciliar data. Theses summaries are often provided by scholars. But even then we are left with numerous summaries to consider as the historical events and theologies are variously understood and interpreted among scholars.⁶ How to define Christology based on what was accepted by the councils then is not merely asking which councils or which documents, but which interpretation of those documents and events that one should accept and work from.

What justifies treating one plausible summary of what the councils affirmed and rejected as the proper interpretation of conciliar teaching over others?

That is an important question if that decision is then to be treated as the baseline for orthodoxy? One approach to this question is to identify the boundaries the councils sought to establish, implicitly or explicitly, as they rejected various Christological theories and models. Focusing on the various anathemas, understood in their historical context, can help provide reasonable limits for any new Christological models that are proposed.

The Challenging Fifth Century
Cyril, writing to Nestorius, urged him to consider “what is meant by the Word of God being incarnate and made man.” ⁷ The competing answers to that question drew in a vast array of characters, prompted the calling of synods and councils, and generated an exchange of numerous letters over the next two decades. The controversy would culminate in the Council of Chalcedon in 451, whose definition of Christ contributed to a division within Christianity that eventually gave rise to the distinct Oriental Orthodox tradition.

The events surrounding the councils have been described as a “clash of politics and personalities.” ⁸ The behavior exhibited before, during and after the councils would cause one to wonder whether this era possessed serious men of great mind and character that Gregory of Nazianzus thought worthy of the tall task of philosophizing about God. ⁹

The actual theological positions of various participants are difficult to establish, particularly when much of the evidence comes from opponents’ writings framed in polemical terms. In many cases an argument against a position is often based on the author interpreting their opponent in the most negative way possible rather than seeking to understand what they were attempting to emphasize or protect.

Setting the stage
At the start of the 5th century the bishops of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria and Antioch along with the Imperial Court in Constantinople were among those with great influence over political and theological matters.¹⁰ These bishops oversaw large numbers of churches over great geographical areas included within the Roman Empire, which by that time was separated into the East and West. Most of these bishops were located in the East where Alexandria held considerable prestige. Compared to the other sees, the bishop of Constantinople had a limited jurisdiction at the time.

At the first council of Constantinople, held in 381, in addition to rejecting Apollinaris’ Christological theory, it was decided that “bishops are not to go beyond their … bounds.” ¹¹ They also held that the “Bishop of Constantinople … shall have the prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome.” ¹² This canon challenged the existing prestige of the bishop of Alexandria in the East and was not accepted by the bishops in Rome nor Alexandria.¹³ The eastern bishops, in elevating the prestige of the bishop of Constantinople, and calling Constantinople the “New Rome” created a general sense of animosity between those who would serve as a bishop in either city.¹⁴

Within a decade of that council their animosity would be on display as Theophilus, the bishop of Alexandria and predecessor of Cyril, bristled at the latest choice for bishop of Constantinople. It was made worse when he had to personally oversee the installation of John Chrysostom in 398. John was a popular and eloquent orator from Antioch who would find himself exiled in 404 at the instigation of Theophilus.¹⁵ Fast forward several years and we find Nestorius, also a popular and eloquent orator from the patriarchate of Antioch, installed as bishop of Constantinople in 428. His teaching and Cyril’s reaction to it would set in motion a series of events that would lead to a major schism in Christianity when the Oriental Orthodox began to break away rejecting the decisions made at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

The Nature of the Debate
With Apollinaris’ consideration of the single living subject that is Christ he sought a way to avoid “two complete self-moving principles” given Christ has two natures. His rejected theory proposed a unity in the subject of Christ by suggesting that the Logos operates in place of the human soul. ¹⁶

Thus Christ, on [Apollinarius’] theory, is an organic, vital unity, just as a man compounded of soul and body is a unity; there is a ‘unity of nature’ (ένωσις φυσική) between the Word and His body. As Apollinarius expresses it, ‘He is one nature (μια φύσις) since He is a simple, undivided Person (πρόσωπον); for His body is not a nature by itself, nor is the divinity in virtue of the incarnation a nature by Itself; but just as a man is one nature, so is Christ ¹⁷

Apollinaris’ theory was predicated on the established understanding that a nature (physis) was a concrete individual subsistence (hypostasis). ¹⁸ If a physis is a concrete individual (hypostasis), then a complete human nature is also a complete human individual. When the Logos assumes a complete human nature you have two subjects. After the council held in Constantinople the challenge was how to understand Christ within this framework so that He was fully divine and fully human without being seen as two subjects.

Under Christological theories that emphasized the Word as a single metaphysical subject it was easy to see how there was only one Son. Gregory of Nazianzus taught that Christ was “One made out of the Two” and that in Him there are “two Natures meeting in One”. ¹⁹ Gregory would also write that “both are God, that which assumed, and that which was assumed.” ²⁰ And it is from this same basic set of ideas that Cyril would argue that there is “One incarnate nature of the Word” after the union. ²¹ Cyril would make it clear that in the One there was a human rational soul avoiding the error of Apollinaris.

This was not the only Christological theory at the time. Other theories focused on what could properly be said of divinity and humanity rather than on a single metaphysical subject. Nestorius, studied in Antioch and would have been influenced by, even if he didn’t study under, Theodore of Mopsuestia.²² Theodore, like his teacher Diodore of Tarsus, focused on there being two distinct natures in Christ.²³ A phrase attributed to him is that “He Who assumed is God … he who was assumed, is man.” ²⁴ Contrast that with Gregory and we see that there are two different ways to articulate or emphasize Christ as fully divine and fully human.

To Cyril it would look like Nestorius was advocating for Two Sons. To Nestorius it would sound like Cyril was confusing or mixing the natures. These basic theories were not new in the fifth century, but the competing ideas and emphases collided when Cyril challenged Nestorius.

Mary the Bearer of God
Shortly after Nestorius was installed as bishop of Constantinople he preached a series of messages related to Mary and whether she was the “bearer of God” (θεοτόκος). ²⁵ The phrase Mary the “bearer of God” was widely used at the time. ²⁶ However, it was used in Antioch in a highly qualified sense as they understood Mary as carrying Jesus “the temple in which God dwelt.” ²⁷ Nestorius, as others did in Antioch, would emphasize the separateness of the divine and human natures and would carefully qualify any action that might be predicated of Christ since God could not be born, or suffer or die. ²⁸

Nestorius had posed the challenge: “You ask whether Mary may be called mother of God. Has God then a mother?” He answered no, God can’t be contained in a womb. Mary carried the man whom God assumed. ²⁹ Cyril would respond: “I am amazed if some should question at all whether the Holy Virgin should be called the Mother of God. For if our Lord Jesus Christ is God, how is the Holy Virgin who bore him not the Mother of God?” ³⁰

In his fourth anathema Cyril argued that one should not divide expressions (birth, suffering, death) about Christ so that one might “apply some to him as to a man separate from the Word of God, and … apply others to the only Word of God the Father, on the ground that they are fit to be applied to God.” ³¹ This was because there was only one subject. Nestorius is recorded as anathematizing those ascribing “suffering to the divine Word, both in the flesh and in the Godhead” or that “ventures to say that the form of a servant is equal with the Word of God, without beginning and uncreated.” ³²

Cyril would understand Nestorius as worshipping “a man together with the Word” which suggests a division such that there are “two sons sitting with” the Father. ³³ Nestorius would see Cyril’s view as incomprehensible asking “how will the union not make void the distinctions of the natures.” ³⁴

Neither theologian is denying the divinity of Christ nor His two natures. Neither taught that in Christ there were “Two Sons”. They each sought to understand Christ as both divine and human. However, each had differing views about whether a nature could be understood independent of the actual subject. They also had different ways of understanding the assumption of the human nature and the way two natures were joined in the single subject of Christ. They differed in how careful one had to be articulating various expressions about Christ. Garrett DeWeese reminds us that “the crucial terms” were ambiguous and thus contributed to the controversies of the fifth century. ³⁵ Understanding each other was a challenge made even more difficult due to the tensions between the bishoprics.

A series of unfortunate events
Before we tackle in any more detail the theological metaphysics and the questions brought about by how one might think about Christ as a single living entity formed from “two natures being brought together” we will summarize the major events surrounding the debate. ³⁶ A debate many consider clouded by stubborn, uncharitable bishops digging in their heels.

Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria, was jealous of Nestorius and many consider his subsequent actions “unscrupulous.” ³⁷ When Cyril died in 444, Theodoret, the bishop of Cyrrhus, who opposed Cyril during the council of Ephesus, wrote “a heavy stone [should be placed] on his grave so that he will not return when the dead tired of his malice.” ³⁸ Cyril earned this reputation, at least among his opponents, when he took Nestorius’ comments about Mary not being the “bearer of God” and used them to create division and eventually to have him removed from office.³⁹

Once Cyril heard about Nestorius’ sermons, the two started exchanging letters attacking and defending each other’s views.⁴⁰ These letters were shared with Celestine, the bishop of Rome, who was brought into the debate. Rather than patiently explaining his views to the Roman bishop, Nestorius was “over-confident” and “argumentative”. This didn’t help with how he was viewed by Celestine who was already aggravated by the harboring of Pelagians in Constantinople.⁴¹ In 430 a synod was held in Rome and those gathered ruled against Nestorius.⁴² They demanded that Nestorius recant or be deposed in ten days.⁴³ Cyril also held a synod in Alexandria that confirmed Rome’s decision and added Twelve Anathemas against Nestorius.⁴⁴

Emperor Theodosius II stepped in and called for a council to meet and discuss the theological differences suspending any actions against Nestorius.⁴⁵ Cyril was given the role of presiding over the council. John, the bishop of Antioch, Theodoret and others who agreed with Nestorius, were delayed in getting to Ephesus. Cyril started the council proceedings without them despite protests by the imperial commissioner. This resulted in separate rival meetings by the various subgroups when they arrived. The group led by Cyril deposed Nestorius and affirmed at least one of Cyril’s letters. ⁴⁶ The group aligned with Nestorius rejected Cyril’s Twelve Anathemas and voted to depose him.⁴⁷ Things were so contentious that at one point the Emperor treated both Cyril and Nestorius as deposed bishops and held them in prison. ⁴⁸ Given there were two opposing decisions it was left to the Emperor to decide which would prevail. Ultimately it was the group led by Cyril, who was joined by the Roman representatives, that was recognized and accepted as the official acts of the council.⁴⁹ Nestorius was removed from his role and allowed to return to Antioch. ⁵⁰

It should be clear that the events surrounding the council were divisive. It should also be no surprise that the tension continued after the council ended resulting in a divided empire. After the death of Celestine, the new bishop of Rome sought to bring the groups together which resulted in the Formula of Reunion in 433 AD.⁵¹ The drafting of the Formula is often credited to Theodoret. ⁵² The Formula helped bring together John in Antioch with Cyril in Alexandria and those in the West.⁵³ As part of the reconciling between the two parties the condemnation of Nestorius was upheld and Cyril’s Twelve Anathemas were set aside. ⁵⁴

The Formula held that the church confesses that the “Lord Jesus Christ … became a union of two natures. Wherefore we [also] confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord.” It also held that “we confess the holy Virgin to be Mother of God; because God the Word was incarnate and became Man, and from this conception he united the temple taken from her with himself.” ⁵⁵ With an emphasis on a union of two natures into one subject, it sounded like the views held by Cyril.

However, it also seemed to affirm the point Nestorius was making. It noted that some expressions about the Lord are said “as pertaining to the one person, and other things they divide as to the two natures, and attribute the worthy ones to God on account of the Divinity of Christ, and the lowly ones on account of his humanity.”⁵⁶

The Formula of Reunion is included in Cyril’s letter 39 and starts “Let the heavens rejoice, and let the earth be glad for the middle wall of partition has been taken away, and grief has been silenced, and all kind of difference of opinion has been removed.” ⁵⁷ Despite the optimistic opening supporters on both sides each challenged their leaders for signing it. Those in support of Cyril’s views objected to his acceptance of “two natures” language and the setting aside of the anathemas. This resulted in his writing to let others know that he never wavered from his view of “One incarnate nature of the Word”. On the other side John was criticized for accepting the deposition of Nestorius. Many, including Theodoret, were frustrated at the way Nestorius was treated throughout the process. ⁵⁸

The tensions boiled over again after Cyril’s death in 444. Dioscorus took his place as bishop of Alexandria and was focused on fighting against the “two natures” terminology mentioned in the Formula. ⁵⁹ It was Eutyches who found himself caught up in the middle of the ongoing debate as both sides sought to elevate their particular view. Advocating for views similar to Cyril, Eutyches found himself deposed by a synod in Constantinople, led by the bishop Flavian, in 448. ⁶⁰ Theodoret’s work Eranistes was written around this time and is understood to be directed against Eutyches as well. ⁶¹ Both sides communicated the matters to Leo, the bishop of Rome. Leo responded by writing a letter to Flavian telling him he was in favor of his actions. This letter would later be accepted at the council at Chalcedon and become known as Leo’s Tome. ⁶²

Amid the continuing tensions Emperor Theodosius II called for another council in Ephesus to have the bishops gather and discuss the situation. This council met in 449 and was even more tumultuous than the first. Dioscurus, the new bishop of Alexandria, presided. He supported Eutyches and worked to have him absolved. ⁶³ He also refused to have Leo’s Tome read. The Formula of Reunion was set aside and Flavian, Theodoret and Ibas were deposed.⁶⁴ Some accounts suggest that force was used to compel bishops and violence during the council resulted in Flavian dying due to his being beaten, exiled and jailed. ⁶⁵

The Council of Chalcedon
Theodosius II upheld the decisions of the council. But after his death in 450, the new Emperor, Marcian, eager for unity, called for yet another council. ⁶⁶ This would be held in Chalcedon in 451. The decisions at this council reversed most of the council held in 449, which would be known as the Robber Council. The bishops at Chalcedon condemned Eutyches and deposed Dioscorus. They judged Flavian to be orthodox. They also restored Theodoret after he was willing to affirm Leo’s Tome and accept the condemnation of Nestorius. ⁶⁷

The Definition of Faith of the Council of Chalcedon expressed its intent to uphold the creed written by those assembled in Nicaea and Constantinople.⁶⁸ It also listed several documents as authoritative including Cyril’s second letter to Nestorius, which was also affirmed at the council of Ephesus in 431. To that was added Cyril’s letter to John which included the Formula of Reunion and Leo’s Tome. ⁶⁹

The second session records that they considered Cyril and Leo to be orthodox and teaching the same theology:

The most reverend bishops cried out; This is the orthodox faith; this we all believe … Blessed Cyril so taught: this is the true faith: this is the holy faith: this is the everlasting faith … we all so believe: so believes Leo, the Pope: Cyril thus believed: Pope Leo so interpreted it. ⁷⁰

It is important to understand that Eutyches argued for one nature from the two but is variously understood as arguing that Christ’s humanity was either absorbed into the divinity or changed into something different in kind. That went beyond what Cyril was teaching. Leo’s Tome would rightly confess, against Eutyches, that “in the entire and perfect nature of very man was born very God, whole in what was his, whole in what was ours.” ⁷¹ It was clear that a full humanity must be confessed since “the Word does not withdraw from equality with the Father in glory, so the flesh does not abandon the nature of our kind.” ⁷²

However, Leo’s Tome would also confess that

it is as impious to say that the Only-begotten Son of God was of two natures before the Incarnation as it is shocking to affirm that, since the Word became flesh, there has been in him one nature only.⁷³

Many, both at the time as well as today, find that hard to reconcile with Cyril’s “One incarnate nature of the Word” after the union. ⁷⁴

Whether Leo and Chalcedon rightly understood Cyril, adopted views closer to Nestorius or should be understood as a synthesis of ideas is widely debated. ⁷⁵ Some scholars argue that the councils should be viewed as affirming Cyril as his letters and views were examined against Leo’s Tome during the council. Alignment was seen as essential for it being approved ⁷⁶

However many, particularly in Egypt and Syria, felt that the council had abandoned Cyril’s teaching, was too abstract in what it affirmed and was too close to affirming Nestorian theology.⁷⁷ As a result these churches, known as Oriental Orthodox, refused to accept the results of the council and began to breakaway.⁷⁸ Interestingly, Nestorius, himself is still living at this time and thought his views were being vindicated by Leo even if he wasn’t exonerated. ⁷⁹ Written sometime in 451 or 452, The Bazaar of Heracleides, explores what Nestorius considered his unjust condemnation while being content that the truth, as he understood it, triumphed with Leo’s Tome. ⁸⁰

Over 100 years later another council, the second council of Constantinople, would be held to try to reconcile the continuing schism. In 553 this council condemned Theodore of Mopsuestia and some of the writings of Theodoret of Cyrrhus and Ibas of Edessa. These works were considered Nestorian and were among those objected to by the Oriental Orthodox.⁸¹ Some see this as a move away from the more Nestorian understanding back to a more Cyrillian understanding of Christology. ⁸²

Some concluding thoughts
All of this history shows us that starting in the fifth century we find Christological terminology stretched to the breaking point. The political tension between the various bishops made it difficult to bring the various groups together for discussions that were “free from all external defilement or disturbance.” ⁸³

It is reasonable for Timothy Pawl to challenge those exploring Christology to consider which councils and which documents they received should “count” for being orthodox and to which a model should align.

why .. focus only on the creeds? The very same people … who accepted the creedal claims of Nicaea and I Constantinople, for instance, accept the teachings of Ephesus and Chalcedon, though neither of those councils produced a single creed.⁸⁴

But we must remember that it is not the very same people. It is true that all of the people involved in the fifth century debates, both those agreeing with Cyril as well as those agreeing with Nestorius, saw themselves as upholding the core truths of Nicaea and Constantinople I. But it is also true that the later councils were dealing with different questions, theories, emphases and terminology than what was considered during these earlier councils. Within the century of time that passes between Nicaea and Chalcedon we find a history that is far messier than what is often presented in cursory, even if plausible, summaries.⁸⁵ We also find one of the first major schisms among otherwise orthodox Christian groups.

Even if we accept as orthodox the major documents that were considered received at Chalcedon we immediately find disagreements over how to interpret them. Should we accept as more plausible the summary that Chalcedon was upholding Cyrillian theology rightly understood or find it more plausible that it was Nestorian leaning so much so that some adherents of Cyril rejected the council?

[To be continued]

---

The footnotes are a continuation from part one.

1. Four Views (p 31) ↩︎
2. Ibid 98 ↩︎
3. Sanders, Fred, Such a Thing as Conciliar Christology, The Scriptorium Daily
   (source: https://scriptoriumdaily.com/such-a-thing-as-conciliar-christology/) ↩︎
4. Fairbairn, Donald, Interpreting Conciliar Christology: An Overview in the
   Service of Analytic Theology, Journal of Analytic Theology, Vol. 10, Summer 2022 (p 363) ↩︎
5. Ibid ↩︎
6. Ibid (p 364) ↩︎
7. Cyril of Alexandria, Letter 4 to Nestorius (#4), Letters 1-50, Catholic University of America Press, translated by McEnerney, John
   This is the letter that was presented and received at the council of Ephesus and is available in Schaff’s Seven Ecumenical Councils
   (source: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.x.v.html) ↩︎
8. Kelly (p 310) ↩︎
9. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 27.3 and 28.1.
   Not to every one, my friends, does it belong to philosophize about God; not to every one; the Subject is not so cheap and low; and I will add, not before every audience, nor at all times, nor on all points; but on certain occasions, and before certain persons, and within certain limits. ↩︎
10. Prestige (p 259) ↩︎
11. Canon II from the First Council of Constantinople
    (source: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.ix.viii.iii.html)) ↩︎
12. Canon III from the First Council of Constantinople
    (source:https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.ix.viii.iv.html) ↩︎
13. Dioscurus, Catholic Encyclopedia
    (source: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Dioscurus)
    
    Note: the XXVIII canon at the Council of Chalcedon would affirm that Constantinople is New Rome. That the bishop of old Rome was “granted privileges because it was the royal city” and that “equal privileges” were given to New Rome at the council of Ephesus.
    (source: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxviii.html) ↩︎
14. Dioscurus, Catholic Encyclopedia; Schaff (p 178) ↩︎
15. Prestige (p 254-256) ↩︎
16. Kelly (p 293) ↩︎
17. Kelly (p 293) ↩︎
18. Kelly (p 313) ↩︎
19. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 37.2
    (source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310237.htm) ↩︎
20. Gregory, Oration 37.2 ↩︎
21. Cyril of Alexandria, Second Letter to Succensus (#46), Letters 1-50, Catholic University of America Press, translated by McEnerney, John ↩︎
22. Prestige (p 259-260); Nestorius entry in Britannica
    (source:https://www.britannica.com/biography/Nestorius) ↩︎
23. Kelly (p 302-305) ↩︎
24. Kelly (p 305) ↩︎
25. Kelly (p 311) ↩︎
26. Kelly (p 311); Schaff; History of the Christian Church
    (source: https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.xii.xxi.html) ↩︎
27. Schaff, History ↩︎
28. Ibid ↩︎
29. Ibid ↩︎
30. Cyril, Letter to monks in Egypt (#1), Letters 1-50, Catholic University of America Press, translated by McEnerney, John ↩︎
31. Schaff, Ecumenical Councils, Anathema 4
    (source:https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.x.ix.v.html) ↩︎
32. Schaff, Ecumenical Councils, Anathema 4 and also Anathema 6
    (source: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.x.ix.vii.html) ↩︎
33. Cyril, Letter to Nestorius (#4) Letters 1-50, Catholic University of America Press, translated by McEnerney, John. This is also referred to as the second letter to Nestorius. It is the one that was approved at the Council of Ephesus in 431 and again at Chalcedon in 451. ↩︎
34. Nestorius, Bazaar of Heracleides, translated by Driver & Hodgson, Book 2, Part 1
    (https://tertullian.org/fathers/nestorius_bazaar_4_book2_part1.htm) ↩︎
35. DeWeese, Garrett J., One Person, Two Natures: Two Metaphysical Models of the Incarnation appearing in Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective (p 120) ↩︎
36. Cyril’s Letter to Nestorius at the council of Ephesus
    (source:https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.x.v.html) ↩︎
37. Kelly (p 317-318); Prestige (p 318) ↩︎
38. Prestige (p 311) ↩︎
39. It should be noted that the debate over Mary being Theotokos was focused on what it predicated about Christ (not Mary). Nestorius sought to avoid any hint of Arianism or the idea that God had a mother or that He could be contained (Kelly 311). Some took him to be rejecting that Christ was truly God. (Prestige p 261). ↩︎
40. Prestige (p 264), Kelly (p 323-325) ↩︎
41. Kelly (p 234) ↩︎
42. Kelly (p 234) ↩︎
43. Kelly (p 234); Prestige (p 262-263) ↩︎
44. Kelly (p 324-325); Prestige (p 263-264) ↩︎
45. Prestige (p 265); Kelly (p 326-327) ↩︎
46. Schaff (p 199-200) ↩︎
47. Theodoret, Catholic Encyclopedia
    (source: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Theodoret) ↩︎
48. Prestige (p 268) ↩︎
49. Kelly (p 327); Prestige (p 266-268) ↩︎
50. Prestige (p 268) ↩︎
51. Kelly (p 328) ↩︎
52. Ibid; Grigoryan, Khachik, In quest of the meaning of Cyril of Alexandria’s letter to John of Antioch of 433 AD, Ankyunacar Research Centre (p 9) ↩︎
53. Theodoret, Catholic Encyclopedia ↩︎
54. Kelly (p 328) ↩︎
55. Schaff, Ecumenical Councils
    (source: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.xi.v.html) ↩︎
56. Ibid ↩︎
57. Cyril of Alexandria Letter to John of Antioch, Early Church Texts
    (source:https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/cyrilofalex_letter_to_john_of_antioch.htm) ↩︎
58. Kelly (p 330) ↩︎
59. Prestige (p 302); Kelly (p 331) ↩︎
60. Kelly (p 331). It should be noted that Eutyches view was eventually rejected for suggesting that the humanity of Christ was swallowed up by His divinity erasing even the distinctions that Cyril sought to keep. ↩︎
61. Theodoret, Eranistes, Oxford: Clarendon Press, translated by Ettlinger, Gerard H (p 4); Kelly (p 331-332) ↩︎
62. Kelly (p 334) ↩︎
63. Kelly (p 333-334); Prestige (p 302, 320) ↩︎
64. Kelly (p 334); Eranistes (p 4); Robber Council, Catholic Encyclopedia,
    (source: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Robber_Council_of_Ephesus) ↩︎
65. Robber Council; Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, Council of Chalcedon
    (source: https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/eng/mse/c/chalcedon-councils-of.html)   ↩︎
66. Kelly (p 338); Eranistes (p 4) ↩︎
67. Eranistes (p 4); Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature, Council of Chalcedon ↩︎
68. Kelly (p 339) ↩︎
69. Schaff, Definition of Faith
    (source: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.xi.xiii.html) ↩︎
70. Council of Chalcedon, Session 2
    (source: https://st-takla.org/books/en/ecf/214/2140304.html) ↩︎
71. Schaff, Ecumenical Councils, Leo’s Tome
    (source: https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214/npnf214.xi.vii.html) ↩︎
72. Ibid ↩︎
73. Ibid ↩︎
74. Coptic, Marz,The Formula of Reunion of 433 and the Miaphysite Reading of Cyril
    (source: https://marleygordon.substack.com/p/the-formula-of-reunion-of-433-and) ↩︎
75. Fairbairn, Interpreting Conciliar Christology (p 364-369) ↩︎
76. Fairbairn, Interpreting Conciliar Christology (p 376-377) ↩︎
77. Prestige (p 299) ↩︎
78. Kelly (p 341-342); Prestige (p 364-365) ↩︎
79. Prestige (p 270) ↩︎
80. Prestige (p 269-271, 297-298); Nestorius, Bazaar of Heracleides, translated by Driver & Hodgson, Introduction
    (source:https://www.tertullian.org/fathers/nestorius_bazaar_0_intro.htm) ↩︎
81. Schaff, Ecumenical Councils (p 299) ↩︎
82. Fairbairn, Interpreting Conciliar Christology (p 366-367) ↩︎
83. Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 27.3-4 ↩︎
84. Four Views (p 196) ↩︎
85. Prestige (p 322-327) ↩︎