Thus, by greeting Leo and Flavian and anathematizing himself, Nestorius fulfilled the decrees and appeals of the Council of Chalcedon.

What is the heresy of Nestorius, his personal guilt and responsibility? That "Nestorianism" is a definite Christological error and heresy does not constitute any question.

At first, Nestorius was understood and identified with Paul of Samosata. This is an obvious mistake. Nestorius affirmed the fullness of divinity in the God-Man unconditionally. Some accused him of affirming "two Sons, two persons in Jesus Christ." This deviation of the Antiochian authorities, Diodorus and Theodore, according to the testimony of Theodoret, is alien to both him and Nestorius. In the teaching about the Mother of God, Nestorius allowed a frivolous misunderstanding. But that was before the church formally approved the expression. Doubts about the accuracy of the term "Mother of God" are similar to the doubts of the "East" about the term "omoousios" after the Council of Nicaea.

Nestorius himself subscribed to the theology of Leo and Flavian. What then? Was there a misunderstanding in his identification with them? For Pope Leo himself and the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon declared their disagreement with Nestorius. The agreement was not denied in the formula "two natures," but the divergence was affirmed in the understanding of the "image of union" of these natures. How are they connected? As early as the time of the Council of Ephesus in 431, Nestorius recognized the two natures as united in one person. And Kirill is in one hypostasis.

All the Monophysites (there are many varieties of them) believed that they were correctly interpreting Cyril when, following him, they asserted that in Christ after union there remained only one nature, i.e. one hypostasis, i.e. one person.

The Diphysites, i.e. the Orthodox, believing that they were correctly interpreting Cyril, asserted (as it was in Chalcedon) that after union in Jesus Christ there are two natures, one hypostasis (as in Cyril) and one person.

The Nestorians (also Diphysites) asserted that in Christ after union there are two natures, two hypostases (contrary to Cyril and the Orthodox) and one person. Cyril is a Monophysite for them already because he affirms one hypostasis. This means that this is the knot of the dispute.

Of course, in this Cyril is inconsistent in himself, and in the signing of the agreement of 433 A.D. In the context of Cyril's writings, his Orthodox formula "one hypostasis" is illuminated by a false Monophysite light thanks to his submission to the false Orthodox poison of the Apollinarians. That is, all this is an unfortunate fake: "... the one nature of God the Word incarnate." Kirill both hides and preserves the spirit of this false formula in a term that is correct in itself – "one hypostasis". According to Cyril, this is unity by nature, similar to the unity of soul and body in man. Nestorius opposed such unity not to natural unity, but to personal unity and "by good will." This is in order for God the Word to avoid suffering according to human nature, just as the human soul suffers according to the body. For Nestorius, unity "hypostatic" is equivalent to unity of one nature. And this is Monophysitism.

In his Apology, Nestorius, clearing himself of crude accusations, himself clarifies to us, as if unwittingly, for what exactly he was condemned by everyone, including Theodoret. He thinks of the two natures as so complete and effective that he believes that each of them cannot but be both hypostatic and personal, so that a single person (prosopon) is obtained for him "from two natures, from two hypostases and from two persons (!), united into one, in free (free) communion." In the Treatise of Heraclides, Nestorius even invented a special term for this "compound person": "The Person of Unity (πρόσωπον της ενώσεως)", thereby emphasizing the hypostatic fullness of each nature, up to its special (given nature) person. It was for this division of nature that the Church of Nestorius' time rejected him. Nestorius, however, by his apology reconciles with himself personally and morally. He ends his writing with the words: "Rejoice with me, O wilderness, my friend, my refuge and comfort, and thou, O land of exile, my mother, who shall preserve my body until the day of resurrection." There were still enough friends of Nestorius in Constantinople to arrange a rather noisy demonstration in front of the palace after the news of his death, demanding that the remains of Nestorius be brought to the capital. The emperor ordered to disperse the demonstration, which was inappropriate after the Chalcedonian condemnation.

Халкидон (451 г.)

Что же именно уяснил для вселенского христианства Халкидон? Что сформулировал, чем залил пожар ересей, чем послужил церковному умиротворению, к чему свелось его догматическое достижение, его вселенское непреходящее значение?

Теперь, уже после полуторатысячного юбилея Халкидона, небезынтересно осмыслить наше живое отношение к его знаменитому, блестящему оросу, в котором взаимоотношение двух природ во Христе, Божественной и человеческой, выражено четырьмя отрицательными наречиями: "неслитно, непревращенно, неразделимо, неразлучимо". Как в математической формуле для непосвященного, тут не сказано ничего ясного. Но посвященные видят тут истинное чудо богословской премудрости, золотой ключ к сокровищнице тайн "благоразумия".

* * *