Information about the original source

When using library materials, a reference to the source is required.

When publishing materials on the Internet, a hyperlink is required:

"Orthodoxy and Modernity. Electronic Library." (www.lib.eparhia-saratov.ru).

Convert to epub, mobi, fb2 formats

"Orthodoxy and the World. Electronic Library" (lib.pravmir.ru).

Paths of Byzantine Theology

Part 1

1. It is very difficult to distinguish the boundaries of periods in the fluid and continuous element of human life. And at the same time, the incommensurability of the successive historical cycles is revealed with immediate obviousness. New themes of life are revealed, new forces are manifested in action, new spiritual hearths are formed... Already from the first impression we can say that the end of the fourth century marks some indisputable facet in the history of the Church, in the history of Christian culture. Conventionally, this facet can be defined as the beginning of Byzantinism. The Nicene Age closes the previous epoch. And if not with Constantine, then in any case with Theodosius, a new epoch begins. Under Justinian, it reached its heyday, its άκμή. The failure of Julian the Apostate testifies to the decline of pagan Hellenism. The era of Christian Hellenism began, a time when attempts were made to build Christian culture as a system. And at the same time, this is a time of painful and intense spiritual struggle... In the controversies and anxieties of early Byzantinism, it is not difficult to recognize a single, basic, and defining theme. This is a Christological theme. And at the same time, it is a theme about a person. It can be said that in the Christological controversies the anthropological problem was actually discussed and solved. For the dispute was about the humanity of the Saviour, about the meaning of the perception of human nature by the Only-begotten Son and the Word. And thus, about the meaning and limit of human podvig and life. Perhaps that is why the Christological disputes received such exceptional acuteness, and dragged on for three centuries. In them, the entire multiplicity of irreconcilable and mutually exclusive religious ideals was revealed and exposed. These disputes ended in a great cultural and historical catastrophe, the great falling away of the East: almost the entire non-Greek East broke away, fell out of the Church, and closed itself up in heresy. 2. It must be remembered that the Trinitarian controversies of the fourth century had primarily a Christological meaning. The great fathers of this century, proceeding from soteriological hopes and presuppositions, clearly showed that faith in Christ as Savior presupposes the confession in Him of both the fullness of the Godhead and the fullness of humanity. For only in this case was the great reunion of God and man truly accomplished in Christ, and the path to "deification" was opened, in which the Fathers saw both the meaning and the goal of human existence. Such was the Christological outcome of the fourth century, however, it remained unclear how the unity of the Divine-human Face should be thought and described. In other words, how Divinity and humanity are united in Christ. This question had already been posed with all acuteness by Apollinarius. He could not answer it. Apollinarianism can be defined as a kind of anthropological minimalism, i.e., the self-abasement of man, the abhorrence of man. Human nature is incapable of "deification". In the Divine-human unity, human nature cannot remain unchanged, cannot remain itself—it will be "realized" with the Divinity of the Word. And the mind in man is excluded from this connection... For Apollinarius' opponents, the main thing was precisely his teaching about this "realization". The Apollinarians were refuted, first of all, as "sinusiastes". And overcoming Apollinarism meant rehabilitation, justification of man. This is the whole point of the Cappadocian polemic with Apollinarius. However, in this anthropological self-defense, it was possible to lose the sense of proportion and fall into a kind of anthropological maximalism. This happened to the opponents of Apollinaris from the Antiochian school, partly to Diodorus and especially to Theodore. For them, the image of Christ began to disintegrate. With particular insistence they asserted the independence of human nature in Christ. And by this they brought the God-Man too close to ordinary people, to "only people"... This was favored by the spirit of "Eastern" asceticism, primarily strong-willed, which often resolved itself into purely human heroism. It is no accident that this "Eastern" theology has ideological, if not genetic, connections with Western Pelagianism, which was also born out of the spirit of volitional ascetic self-assertion and turned into a kind of humanism. In the end, it was humanism that seduced the entire Antiochian school. This temptation broke through in Nestorianism. And in the struggle against Nestorianism, all the vagueness and inaccuracy of the Christological language of that time was revealed, i.e. the infirmity of the entire structure of Christological concepts. Words were confused and doubled and carried away the thought — words have their own magic and power. Again, a great strain of analytical thought was required to forge and hammer out concepts and terms that would not interfere with, but would help to recognize and confess the truths of faith as the truths of reason, so that it would be possible to speak of Christ the God-Man without ambiguity and contradiction. This theological work stretched over two centuries. The criticism of Nestorianism, developed by St. Cyril of Alexandria, did not convince, but confused the "Easterners." Not because they had all really fallen into the Nestorian extreme, but because they feared the opposite extreme. It must be confessed that St. Cyril did not know how to find indisputable words, did not give clear definitions. This does not mean that his theological experience was vague and ambiguous. But he did not combine with theological perspicacity that great gift of speech with which the great Cappadocians were so distinguished. St. Cyril clearly lacked words. And by a fatal historical misunderstanding, he connected his theological confession with the restless formula μία φύσις Θεоύ Λόγоυ σεσαρκωμένη. He considered it to be the words of the Great Athanasius, but in reality it was the formula of Apollinarius... In other words, in Alexandrian theology there was no means of overcoming the temptations of Antioch. And I did not have the strength to defend myself from my own temptations. This was revealed in Monophysitism, which in a certain sense really spoke the language of Cyril. Characteristically, the Chalcedonian Fathers translated "the faith of Cyril" into the Antiochian language... Since the time of Origen, Alexandrian theology has been threatened by the danger of anthropological minimalism, the temptation to dissolve, to extinguish man in the Divine. This temptation also threatened Egyptian monasticism, which was not so much volitional as contemplative, not so much tempering as cutting off the will altogether. And in this ascetic quietism the later Monophysitism found a fertile ground for itself. In short, we can say so. The Christological controversy begins with a clash of two theological schools. In reality, this was a clash of two religious-anthropological ideals. The Council of Chalcedon ended the history of Orthodox Alexandrinism and Orthodox antiochinism, and a new theological epoch began, the epoch of Byzantine theology. And in it the diverse tradition of the past is transformed into an integral synthesis. As in the era of the Arian troubles, the ecclesiastical decision precedes a theological synthesis. Just as the Council of Nicaea only opens the Trinitarian controversies, so now the Council of Chalcedon opens, and does not close, the Christological period in theology. The Chalcedonian creed is also disputed as the Nicene Creed: these are only theological topics, and the rule of faith must be revealed into a creative and speculative theological synthesis. 3. The Christological controversies of the fifth century began on an accidental occasion and with a particular question, about the name: Theotokos, Θεоτόκоς. But broad theological perspectives were immediately revealed. And the general question of the meaning of "Eastern," Antiochian theology was raised. It was natural to move from the denunciation of Nestorius in the criticism and analysis of the Christological views of his predecessors and teachers, Theodore and Diodorus, as St. Cyril did immediately after the Council of Ephesus. And the condemnation of Theodore, Ives, and Blessed Theodoret at the Fifth Ecumenical Council was a completely logical, albeit tragic, theological epilogue to the condemnation of Nestorius in Ephesus... Nestorius was neither a great nor an independent thinker. And he was not even a theologian in fact. Only external historical circumstances placed him at the center of the theological movement, most of all the fact that he was the Archbishop of Constantinople, and therefore his words were especially heard with authority and were heard everywhere. The whole significance of his theological pronouncements was that he was a typical and one-sided Antiochian. And in the Nestorian controversies, it was not so much about Nestorius himself as about Antiochian theology in general. Thus did the "Easterners" understand Saint Cyril. Hence the whole "tragedy" of the Council of Ephesus. In fact, the question immediately received a paradoxical formulation: it was necessary to decide whether St. Cyril was right in his criticism of "Eastern theology." And experience showed that he was right, no matter how controversial his own theological theses, which he defended with passion and irritation. St. Cyril correctly divined the immanent dangers of Antiochian theology and pointed out its limits, beyond which begins not only doubtful Orthodoxy, but also outright error and heresy. With the foundation, St. Cyril saw the forerunner of Nestorius already in Diodorus of Tarsus, — "this Diodorus was a disciple of Nestorius"... During his lifetime, Diodorus was not touched by suspicion, in the struggle against Arianism (with the Omii and Anomoeans) he was a zealous defender of the faith; he was close to the Cappadocians, especially to Basil the Great, and after the Second Ecumenical Council he was chosen as a "witness of the faith" for the Eastern diocese. It was only in the midst of the Nestorian controversies that the question of Diodorus' Orthodoxy arose; However, he was never condemned at Orthodox councils – he was anathematized only by the Monophysites... The theology of Diodorus has to be judged by fragments. Of his enormous literary heritage, only scanty remains have come down to us (in particular, from his books "Against the Sinusias"). And yet, it can be said with certainty that Diodorus went too far in his struggle with the "sinusiates". Not only did he emphasize the "perfection" (i.e., the fullness) of mankind in Christ, but he sharply distinguished and separated in Christ the Son of God and the Son of David, in whom the Son of God dwelt as in a temple. Therefore, he considered it impossible to speak of the "two births" of the Word. "God the Word did not suffer two births, one before the ages, and the other at last, but of the Father He was born by nature, and He who was born of Mary He prepared for Himself a temple"... God the Word was not born of Mary—only a man like us was born of Mary. And the man born of Mary became the Son by grace... "The Son, who was perfect before the ages, received the perfect from David, the Son of God the Son of David"... "For the flesh which is of us, adoption and glory and immortality by grace are sufficient, because it has become the temple of God the Word"... Diodorus denies that he introduces "Sons" – the Son of God is one, and the flesh "or man" that He has taken on is His temple and abode... It is not so much individual words and sayings that are important here, but the very style and inner tendency of thought. And in the depiction of Diodorus, the face of Jesus Christ undoubtedly doubled – he recognized, if not "two sons", then in any case two subjects... From the premises of Diodorus, it was natural to draw further conclusions. They were made by Theodore of Mopsuestia with his characteristic rational straightforwardness. Theodore sees in Christ first of all the "perfect man" born of Mary; and of Him we know that He is united to God. How can this conjunction be conceived? Theodore usually defines it as the indwelling of the Word (ένоίκησις), as a connection (συνάφεια) or as a relationship (σχέσις). It seems to him that it is impossible to take literally: "The Word was made flesh" — this would be "alienation from His nature and His descent to lower beings." "Became," according to Theodore, can only mean: "appeared" (κατά τό δχεϊν), "because it seemed or appeared, the Word was made flesh." The Word dwelt in Jesus as in the Son, ώς έν ύιώ. And at the same time, it is impossible to admit that it dwelt "essentially" — this would mean to contain the Infinite within narrow material limits, which is absurd and contradicts the Divine omnipresence. And for the same reason, it is impossible to indwell and dwell according to the active power or "energy" of the Godhead, for the power of God cannot be contained in a closed space. It is possible, in Theodore's opinion, to allow only a certain partial inhabitation. Scripture often testifies to such an indwelling, saying that God "lives" or "walks" in His elect — this is the honor that God bestows on those who seek Him "according to His good pleasure towards them," κατ' έυδоκίαν. Only such "union by good will" can be spoken of in relation to Christ. And Theodore does not conceal the fact that in this way Christ is moved into the ranks of the righteous, prophets, apostles, holy men, — moreover, to the first and highest, to a special and incomparable place. For in Christ the fullness of God's favor was revealed... And so the unity of human nature with the Word was complete, perfect, and indivisible. "Dwelling in Jesus, the Word united with Himself all that He received in its entirety," said Theodore. Theodore calls this unity the unity of the person, ή τоΰ πρоσώπоυ ένωσις... However, in doing so, he has in mind only the undivided unity of will, action, dominion, dominion, dignity, power... And there is no stronger bond than this," Theodore notes... But this is unity by goodwill, by unity of will (ταυτо βоυλία). And unity in the power and in view of the merits of Jesus. True, this unity begins with the very conception of Jesus, but according to the foreknowledge of future merits... Further, this unity is developing, growing... Christ, as a "perfect man," like all people, grew, both in body and soul. He grew both in knowledge and in righteousness. And to the extent of growth, he received new gifts of the Spirit. He struggled, overcoming passions and even lusts... And in this the Spirit assisted him "with his moral influences," illuminating him and strengthening his will, in order to "mortify sin in the flesh, to tame its lusts with light and noble power." This was inevitable, it seemed to Theodore, since Christ was a real man... In baptism he is anointed by good pleasure, but only in death does he attain "perfect chastity" and "immutability of thought." It should be noted that Theodore assumed that the Godhead was separated from Christ at the time of death, "since it could not experience death"... It is quite clear that Theodore sharply distinguishes between "two subjects." It is curious that he compares the duality of natures in the Divine-human unity with the marital union of husband and wife "in one flesh"... For Theodore, the Jesus of the Gospel is only a man, in moral obedience and harmony united to the Word and united to himself by the Word. In other words, he is a man adopted by God, ό λαμβανόμενоς. From this it is understandable why Theodore indignantly denied that Mary could be called the Mother of God. "It is folly to say that God was born of a virgin," he said; — born of a Virgin is one who has the nature of a Virgin, and not God the Word... He was born of Mary who was of the seed of David. Not God the Word was born of a woman, but he who was formed in her by the power of the Holy Spirit"... In a non-proper, metaphorical sense, one can call Mary the Mother of God, just as one can call Her the Mother of God, άνθρωπоτόκоς. By nature, she gave birth to a man. But God was in the man she had born, and He was in a way that He had never been in anyone else... It is quite clear that by "unity of person" Theodore understood only the fullness of deified, grace-filled humanity. Perfect nature cannot be thought of as impersonal, άπρόσωπоν, he believed. Therefore, since humanity is full in Christ, he also had a human face. At the same time, the nature of the Word is not impersonal. But in the Incarnation there is established a "unity of concord" and a "communion of honor" — in this sense, a kind of new "unity of person"... It is not difficult to unravel the anthropological plan of Theodore. He believed that man was created to strive for impassibility and immutability. In Christ, he saw the first example of a fulfilled human calling and purpose. Man in podvig attained sonship with God, with the help of God, by grace and grace. God united Him to Himself, gave Him every primacy, gave Him a name above every name. He's lifted up, and sits at the right hand of the Father, and is above all things... And God is pleased to do all things through Him, both the judgment and the testing of the whole world, and His own coming... In Theodore, all the emphasis is focused on human podvig — God only anoints and crowns human freedom. It is very characteristic that during Theodore's lifetime in the East, apparently, no one accused him of heresy – he died in peace, he was remembered with reverence. "His name was very glorious in the East, and they were greatly amazed at his writings," remarks St. Cyril. And his attack on Theodore was greeted in the East with stormy indignation. This testified to the extent to which the type of Theodore's theology corresponded to the religious ideals of the "Eastern." And of course, it is not Theodore's separate, "inaccurate" expressions that are of decisive importance—they were not at all slips of the tongue. Theodore had a carefully thought-out system — he worked on his main book "On the Incarnation" for many years. It should not be thought that Theodore was seduced by the inaccuracy of his theological language. He proceeded from a firm soteriological hope, from a certain religious ideal. It was a reductio a b surdum of anthropological maximalism, the self-exposure of ascetic humanism. The condescension of the "Easterners" testified to their predilections, to the vagueness of the "Eastern" soteriological consciousness.

Part 2

4. Until his condemnation in Ephesus, Nestorius did not systematize his theological views. He was a preacher, he spoke often and a lot. He had an undoubted gift of speech. But as a preacher, he was more of a demagogue than a teacher—he abused rhetorical effects. We have the opportunity to judge his early preaching experiences. Nestorius reveals in them the established theological worldview that developed in the Antiochian atmosphere — he continues the theological work of Theodore. But only later, in the years of exile, in the years of bitter but unrepentant, but rather insulted reflection on his "tragic" fate, did he make an attempt to express himself, if not systematically, then in principle. This is his famous Book of Heraclides by the Thegourta Neraclidis, which has been discovered relatively recently in Syriac translation, which is more of an apologetic pamphlet than a theological confession. This late confession shows that Nestorius did not change even under his excommunication. He is all in polemics with Cyril and the Ephesian fathers. And from this book it is easiest to understand Nestorius, and to understand not only the dogmatic, but also the historical correctness of Cyril. The essence of the matter, of course, is not in the dispute about the name: the Mother of God, but in the basic Christological premises of Nestorius. He continues Theodore, and one might say that he completes his thoughts. The basic concept of Nestorius is the concept of a person, πρόσωπоν. First, the "natural person," the principle of individuality, πρόσωπоν φυσικόν, a term that seems to belong to Nestorius himself. Always "perfect nature" is self-sufficient, has in itself a sufficient basis for existence and stability, is an individual—in this Nestorius was a consistent Aristotelian: only the concrete, the individual is real in his eyes, the general and generic (Aristotle's "second essence") is for him only an abstract concept. From this Nestorius concludes that in Christ both the Godhead and humanity existed each in its own properties, in its hypostasis and in its essence; and humanity in Christ is so complete that it could live and develop for itself... Thus, "two natures" for Nestorius meant practically "two persons". And whom, the "face of the union," πρόσωπоν τής ένώσεως, is the one Person of Christ, una persona Unigeniti. The whole meaning of Nestorius' teaching is in how he defines the relationship between these concepts and the facts and realities they designate. Nestorius divides in Christ the "two natures," uniting them in "worship" — χωρίζω τάς φύσεις, αλλ' ένώ τήν πρоσκύνησιν. "Unites worship" because the "natures" are united in Christ, and Nestorius emphasizes the fullness and inseparability of this union... According to Nestorius, in Christ God never acted apart from humanity. However, first of all, it is a voluntary union, a union in love, and not only in the sense that the Word descends and is incarnated by will, by mercy and love, but in the sense that the whole meaning of the incarnation is exhausted by the unity of will and action, κατά τήν θέλησιν κα τήν ένεργείαν. For Nestorius, this unity is the "unity of the house-building person" — here he restores the archaic meaning of the concept of "person," as it were, when it meant first of all a "legal person," a "role," and even a mask, a mask. Nestorius himself defines the unification of "natural persons" into a house-building unity as a kind of exchange and mutual communication, as "mutual use of images" — here we can recall our phrase: in the name, in the name of... Nestorius is characterized by a moment of reciprocity, "acceptance" and "gift". The word accepts the "face" of man and communicates its "face" to man. God became incarnate in man, says Nestorius, and "made his face his own Face," took upon Himself the "face" of the guilty nature. In this lies the immensity of Divine condescension, "that the face of man becomes his own (for God), and He gives man His Face." God uses the face of man, for He received him, and moreover in the form of a servant and servant... The Godhead uses the face of humanity, and humanity uses the face of the Godhead, and in this sense we speak of a "unity of face for both" (a kind of symmetry of natures). Use here means assimilation. In this sense, one can speak of the indwelling of the Divinity, of the perception of humanity, one can speak of human nature in Christ as an instrument of the Divinity, as God-bearing, for in Christ we contemplate and confess God... For Nestorius, this house-building unity is a unity that is developing: perfect union is preceded by a time of podvig and struggle, when the Anointed One does not yet have the right to inheritance and dominion, when the passions have not yet been conquered, their confrontation has not yet been resolved, and Christ does not yet work miracles, does not have the power to teach, but only obeys and fulfills the commandments. Only after the temptation in the wilderness and the baptism of John, having risen in soul to God in harmony with His will, did Christ receive authority and power — "because He overcame, I triumphed in all things, He received as a reward for His victory the power to preach and proclaim the gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven"... In other words, "when He had completed the feat of His own perfection in the midst of all temptations. He acts for us and works to deliver us from the domination of the tyrant," for his own victory was not enough for Him... There is undoubted truth in this attention of Nestorius to human efficacy in Christ. But it is distorted by a one-sided maximalist emphasis — Nestorius sees almost nothing but human podvig in Christ, which attracts God's favor. Nestorius designates the house-building unity of the person by the name of Christ, the Son, the Lord—these are names indicating the union, the "two natures," in contrast to the names of separate natures. Characteristically, Nestorius clearly contrasts the names: God the Word and Christ. They must not be confused, for that would be to confuse nature itself. It is quite clear that Nestorius is most anxious to put aside the idea of the Divinity of the Word as the beginning or focus of unity. Hence the decisive rejection of the "intercommunion of attributes": "If you read the entire New Testament, you will not find that death is ascribed to God the Word, but to Christ, Lord or the Son"... Nestorius asserts here something more than merely the non-confluence of natures, between which definitions, actions, and properties are respectively distributed: he emphasizes the difference between subjects before and after the incarnation, and avoids calling Christ the Incarnate Word, but confines himself to the name of Immanuel, "God is with us"... The denial of the name Theotokos necessarily followed from the premises of Nestorius. And to this name he contrasts the name Christos, Χριστоτόκоς, as indicating the "person of union," and the name Mother of Man, as indicating the nature by which Mary is the mother of Jesus. And again, Θεоδόχоς, God-Accepting, since Mary gave birth to Him in whom God is "God with us" – "the temple of the Godhead"... In this sense, she can also be called the Mother of God, the Mother of God "in manifestation", since God appeared in the son of Mary – "descended from heaven" and "became incarnate", but was not born of Mary... It would be wrong to trace all these inaccuracies and errors of Nestorius to the vagueness of his theological and exegetical language, to the indistinctness of his theological concepts, i.e. to the confusion of general and specific names. Nestorius' error stemmed, first of all, from his anthropological premises, from an erroneous vision and perception of the Face of Christ. In this he repeats Theodore. There is a consistency in his reasoning. The Gospel tells of Him Who was born, dwelt among people, and suffered from them, but all this can only be said about man... Nestorius, as it were, was seduced by evangelical realism. He refused to see in the historical Christ God the Word, even if with the proviso: the Incarnate Word, for for for him this meant attributing to God human birth, changeability, suffering, mortality, and death itself. That is, to admit a certain transmutation and application of the Godhead. God cannot be the subject of history, and it is impossible to consider God the one who was a child, was crucified, died... And Nestorius attributed the Gospel story to Christ, but with the proviso that the Word is not the subject for the predicate according to humanity. Thus it turned out that such a subject in reality could only be a human "person," namely, a "person" or "personality," and not "nature," for "impersonal" nature for Nestorius was something illusory, seeming, only mental, but not actual, not existing. This means that the actor of the Gospel for Nestorius is Immanuel, "God is with us," or Christ, the God-accepting human person, "the Son through union with the Son." In other words, the Saviour for Nestorius was a man, or the Saviour was a man, although united with God... The unity of the Gospel story splits into two parallel or symmetrical series, although inseparably connected, each series is closed in itself, as if self-sufficient... Hence soteriological conclusions. Nestorius' fear was limited to the moral, volitional, and not the ontological union of mankind with God, a kind of moral agreement between man and God. And about "deification" as a religious ideal, Nestorius could not and did not dare to speak. It is no accident that in his soteriology "legal" motives (vicarious sacrifice) are so emphasized. Thus, anthropological maximalism was resolved by soteriological minimalism ("enantiodocetism", reverse docetism). 5. The Church responded to the heresy of Nestorius through the mouth of St. Cyril of Alexandria, and responded, first of all, with a bright and ardent soteriological confession, in which humility was combined with boldness of hope. The Ecumenical Council in Ephesus did not establish any unambiguous definition of faith. He limited himself to referring to tradition and the Nicene Creed. True, the council accepted and approved the polemical epistles and chapters of Cyril. However, it is unlikely in the dogmatic or faith-determining sense, rather in the prohibitive, "ogonistic" sense. And this is connected, first of all, with the very formation of Cyril's "chapters". These were anathemas, the definition of faith from the opposite... And besides, these "heads" of Kirill immediately turned out to be the cause of division, the subject of dispute. The fathers gathered in Ephesus split. True, an Ecumenical Council in the strict sense of the word was only the Council of Cyril and Memnon, and the Council or Council of the "Easterners" was only an "apostate Council." However, the dogmatic acts of the Council of Ephesus ended only with the reunification of the "Easterners," and the famous "formula of unity" of 433 is, strictly speaking, the dogmatic conclusion and epilogue of the council. This formula was composed in the Antiochian theological language, as was the Chalcedonian definition of the creed. The more clearly the line between Orthodoxy and Nestorianism is seen here. Here is the text of this confession: "We confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, is perfect God and perfect man, of the soul of reason and body, Θεόν τέλειоν καί άνθρωπоν τέλειоν, — that he was born before the world of the Father according to the Divinity, and in the last days for our sake and for our salvation from the Virgin Mary according to humanity, that He is of one essence with the Father in Divinity and of one essence with us in humanity, for the union of the two natures has been accomplished δύо γάρ φύσεων ένωσις γέγоνε... Therefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord... In view of such an unmerged union, we confess the holy Virgin to be the Mother of God, for God the Word became incarnate and incarnate, and in His very conception united with Himself the temple, which He received from Her, τόν έξ αυτής ληφθέντα ναόν. We know that some of the Gospel and Apostolic sayings are considered by theologians to be general (κоινоπоιоϋντες) as referring to one Person, ώς έφ' ένоς πρоσώπоυ, while others distinguish (διαιρоΰντες) as referring to two natures, ώς έπί δύо φύσεαν, the God-worthy refer to the Divinity of Christ, those who despise His humanity"... This formula was proposed by the "Easterners," by the way, as early as 431 at their "Soborik," and now it is accepted by St. Cyril. It was it that was later processed into the Chalcedonian oros. Formally, it resembles the definitions of Nestorius; However, this is only a verbal similarity. In the very structure of this exposition of faith one senses a different idea than that of Theodore and Nestorius. And first of all: the recognition of the one subject, the one Divine-human Face — the Lord is born of the Father, and He (τόν αύτόν) of the Virgin at the end of these days — this is precisely what Nestorius did not want to acknowledge or say. He deviated from tradition and from the rule of faith not when he spoke of "two natures," but when he separated two subjects, distinguished two ontological centers of relations in Christ. And then, in the "formula of unity," the Divinity the Word is directly confessed as the beginning of unity. True, this only reproduces the logical scheme of the Nicene Creed, which did not exclude different interpretations. It should be added that the "formula of unity" in itself does not exhaust the question; it presupposes the definition of terms and requires theological commentary. In a certain sense, the same must be said about the Chalcedonian Oros. In general, the ultimate persuasiveness of faith-determined formulas is obtained only in a living and coherent theological interpretation, as the Nicene Creed was revealed in the theology of Athanasius, and even more so in Cappadocian theology. That is why theological systems receive great dogmatic authority, hence the constant references of councils to patristic testimonies, to the "faith of the fathers." And so, St. Cyril remained forever the "Christological teacher"; and what Blessed Theodoret wrote against him and against his "heads" was condemned and rejected at the Fifth Ecumenical Council. Characteristically, when reuniting with the "Easterners," St. Cyril did not renounce his "heads," as was primarily demanded in the East, and the "Eastern" did not insist on this any further. And therefore, it can be said from the very beginning that Cyril's "chapters" turned out to be a theological explanation of the conciliatory confession.

Part 3

6. In the East, the "agreement" of 433 was not immediately accepted and not by everyone. Many were reconciled only under the violence of the secular authorities. The disobedient were deposed. However, the embarrassment did not stop. The Easterners saw in the agreement of 433 the abdication of Cyril. But Kirill understood it differently. And not only did he not renounce his "chapters", but, on the contrary, extended his sharp criticism to the entire theology of the East... The temptation for Cyril was even stronger in the East than direct sympathy for Nestorius. And it was not so much Nestorius who was defended from Cyril as Theodore and Diodorus... For a time, Edessa became the refuge of the irreconcilable Antiochians, where in 435 Rabbula was replaced on the episcopal cathedra by the famous Iva (who was later condemned at the Fifth Ecumenical Council for a letter to Mary the Persian)... Edessa was more connected with Persia than with the Hellenic world. From Persia the Monk Ephraim the Syrian (about 365) moved here and here he founded his famous school, which was called the "school of the Persians"... Only after the Monk Ephraim in Edessa did the Greek influence increase, the influence of Antioch above all. They translate the Greek Fathers, hagiographers, and ascetics. And at the beginning of the 5th century in Edessa they already theologize according to Theodore and Diodorus. This is probably why the Edessa school was temporarily closed under Ravbul. Under Yves, it was rediscovered... However, very soon a split began in the school "brotherhood". And in 457, the irreconcilables, together with the head of the school Narzai, had to move beyond the Persian border. And in 489 the Edessa school was completely closed, at the request of Imp. Zeno... Narzai moved to Nisibin and founded a school there, on the model of Edessa. In these years, the Persian Church finally broke away from Byzantium and closed itself in local traditions. From that time on, Antiochian theology became the national, or rather, the state confession of the Persian Christians. And the Nisibin school became the spiritual center of this "Nestorian" church. However, it would be more correct to speak not of "Nestorianism", but of "the faith of Theodore and Diodorus". The "Nestorian" church is in reality the church of Theodore of Mopsustia. It was Theodore who was the Father and Teacher par excellence in the Syro-Persian Church. All "Nestorian" theology is only a humble commentary on his works, "as the holy friend of God, Blessed Martheodore, bishop and interpreter of the holy books, explained the faith"... In Greek theology, the Antiochian tradition is interrupted early. In Syriac, it acquires a new meaning, warms up, becomes more Semitic. The Syrian theologians shunned philosophy as a Hellenic delusion. Theodore's "historical" theology was the only kind of Hellenism acceptable to Semitic taste, precisely because for Theodore, too, theology was philology rather than philosophy. And there is a certain inner affinity between the "historical-grammatical" method of the Antiochians and the rabbinic exegesis of the East... Syriac theology is very characteristic of a peculiar exegetical scholasticism, in part reminiscent of the Talmud. Syriac theology was a "school" theology in the strict sense of the word. Connected with this is the leading influence of the theological school... The Nisibin school very quickly reached its heyday. Already Cassiodorus (about 535) pointed to it as an exemplary Christian school, along with the Alexandrian Didaskalia. The charter of the school from 496 has come down to us. But it is not difficult to recognize in it the features of a more ancient and traditional system. The Nisibin school was a typical Semitic school, most of all it resembles the Jewish rabbinical schools ("beth-hammidrash"). First of all, it is not only a school, but also a dormitory. Everyone lives together, in cells, in the school house. Everyone forms a single "brotherhood" - both old and young. Those who completed the course (they were called "researchers") remained in the dormitory. But this is not a monastery – whoever seeks a strict life, says the rule, "let him go to a monastery or to the wilderness"... The only subject of instruction was the Scriptures. The course was three-year. They started with the Old Testament and studied it for all three years. Only in the last year did we study the New Year. The text was read, copied, and then the interpretation followed. One of the teachers, the "pronunciation teacher," taught Syriac Masorah (i.e., vocalization of text and diacritics). Another, the "teacher of readings", taught liturgical reading and singing ("choirs together with reading"). The chief teacher (or "rabban") was called the "Interpreter." In his teaching, he was bound by the "school tradition". Such a tradition in Edessa was at first considered to be the works of the Monk Ephraim. But very soon Theodore was recognized as the "Interpreter" par excellence. In Nisibin he was considered the only authority. The Nisibine Ustav in particular warned against "speculation" and "allegories"... At the end of the sixth century, Genana of Adiabene, who had become head of the Nissibine school in 572, made an attempt to replace Theodore with Chrysostom. This caused a violent protest. In addition, Genana used allegory. Strict Nestorians considered him an impious Origenist. Others suspected him of Manichaeism. His doctrine of hereditary original sin seemed fatalistic. With the support of the Persian authorities, Genana managed to retain the management of the school (he drew up a new charter for it, 590), but half of the students fled. Other schools remained faithful to the tradition (in Seleucia or Ctesiphon, in Arbela, in many monasteries). The Council of 585 severely condemned and prohibited the "interpretations" of Genana, and at the same time confirmed that the judgment of Blessed Martheodore should be considered the sole and final measure of truth in all matters... Thus Syrian theology consciously stopped at the beginning of the fifth century. It was confined in archaic school formulas, which had shrunk and stiffened over time. Creative energy found an outlet only in hymns... There was no inner movement in "Nestorian" theology, and there could not be. The Nestorians rejected the inquisitiveness of thought... In Syria, Aristotle was studied a lot, he was translated and explained. It was through the Syrian medium that the Arabs adopted Aristotle and subsequently transferred him to the medieval West. But Nestorian theology did not even come into contact with this Syrian Aristotelianism. In the Nisibin Ustav there is a very characteristic prohibition for disciples to live together with "doctors" — "so that the books of worldly wisdom and the books of holiness should not be studied in the same place"... It was the "doctors" or naturalists who studied Aristotle in Syria... Nestorian theologians avoided speculation. But this did not save them from rationalism. They fell into rationality, into legalism... In a sense, it was a return to archaic Judeo-Christianity... Such is the historical end and impasse of Antiochian theology... 7. And in Egypt not everyone considered the "agreement" with the Easterners to be final or even only binding. After the death of Saint Cyril, the desire to abolish the act of 433 was immediately felt. Thus began the Monophysite movement. This was not a revival of Apollinarianism. The Monophysite formula comes from Apollinarius. But it was not at all the recognition of "one" or "one" nature that was essential and fundamental in the teaching of Apollinarius. Apollinarianism is the doctrine of human incompleteness in Christ—not everything human is received by God the Word... The Monophysites did not speak of this incompleteness, but of such a "change" of all that is human in hypostatic unity with God the Word, in which the co-measurement ("consubstantial") of the human in Christ with the universal human nature is lost. The question was now raised not about the human composition, but precisely about the form of the union... However, there is a certain psychological affinity between Apollinarism and Monophysitism. It is in the anthropological minimalism that is common to them... These basic features of the Monophysite movement are already clearly manifested in the case of Eutyches. Eutyches was not a theologian at all, and did not have his own teaching. He spoke of "one nature" because Athanasius and Cyril taught so. Therefore, he considered it impossible to speak of "two natures" — after the union, i.e. in the very Divine-human unity... But this is not the point of his thought... And for the Fathers of the year 448, the decisive factor was the refusal of Eutyches to confess Christ to be of the same essence with us in humanity. Eutyches wondered "how the body of our Lord and God can be of one essence with us"... He distinguished: "human body" and "human body". And he agreed that the body of Christ was "something human," and He was incarnated from a Virgin. But His body is not "the body of man"... Eutyches is afraid to equate Christ with the "common people" by acknowledging human "consubstantiality," to bring Christ too close to "ordinary people" — after all, He is God... But in his stubbornness one senses something more, one senses a hidden thought about the incommensurability of Christ with people and according to humanity... Eutyches' contemporaries called it "Docetism"... And, indeed, Eutyches spoke in essence as it were: one can speak of the "human" in Christ only in a special and not direct sense... However, it was more a vagueness of vision than a vagueness of thought... Eutyches saw everything in Christ as too "transfigured", changed, different... In this vision is the source of true Monophysitism... The condemnation of Eutyches at the "permanent council" of 448 made a strong impression throughout the world. Eutyches appealed to Rome and Ravenna, and probably to Alexandria as well. In any case, Dioscorus received him into communion and canceled the decision of the Council of Constantinople. The emperor was on the side of Eutyches and at his insistence convened a great council. The council opened on August 1, 449 in Ephesus. It was presided over by Dioscorus. The cathedral turned out to be a "robber"... Dioscorus behaved like an oriental despot, like a "pharaoh". Oriental fanatic monks raged. The council did not deal with dogmatic questions. He was all in personal accounts. Eutychius was restored. And all those who adhered to the "agreement" of 433 and spoke of the "two natures" were condemned and many deposed, Flavian of Constantinople and Theodoret, first of all. It was a mass "murder", a party reprisal... However, this was not the solution to the dispute. The robber council did not make dogmatic definitions. He had no moral authority. He could influence only by external violence. And when external circumstances changed, the need for a new council became obvious. He was summoned to Nicaea, already under the new emperor Marcian. But it was discovered in Chalcedon, on October 8, 451. This was the new (fourth) Ecumenical Council, which enshrined in its famous definition of faith ("oros") the dogmatic results of the anti-Nestorian dispute. At the same time, this definition was a safeguard against Monophysite ambiguities. For it turned out that the root and danger of Monophysitism lies in the sobriety of thought and the vagueness of theological vision. This was a heresy of the imagination rather than a delusion of thought. Therefore, it could be overcome only in theological sobriety, in the clarity of religious definitions. 8. For the Council of 449, Pope Leo sent his famous epistle ("tomos") addressed to Flavian of Constantinople. At the robber council it was silent. In Chalcedon it was received with consolation and delight. And it is accepted as a confession of the Cyril faith, Λέων είπε τά Κυρίλλоυ... This was not a dogmatic definition. It was a solemn confession. This is its strength, and this is its limitation. Pope Leo spoke in liturgical, not theological language. Hence the artistic plasticity of his presentation. He always spoke and wrote in a kind of measured speech. He paints a vivid image of the God-man. And at the same time, he is almost silent about the controversial issue, not only does he not define theological terms, but simply avoids them and does not use them. He did not like to "philosophize" about faith, he was not a theologian at all. The Pope wrote in the language of the Western theological tradition and did not even raise the question of how his confession should be translated into Greek, how Orthodox truth should be expressed in the categories of the Greek tradition. This weakness of the papal "scroll" was immediately revealed. Nestorius saw in him a confession of his faith. The Chalcedonian fathers saw in him "the faith of Cyril." However, some of them (and curiously, the bishops of Illyricum) hesitated to accept the "scroll" until they were reassured by direct references to St. Cyril. Everything depended on how to read the Roman epistle, how to "translate" it, and in what theological categories... The Pope proceeds from soteriological motives. Only the perception and assimilation of our nature by Him Whom neither sin could grasp nor death could captivate, opens up the possibility of victory over sin and over death — nisi naturam nostram Ille susciperet et suam faceret... "And it is equally dangerous to confess the Lord Jesus Christ only as God without humanity, and only as a man without Divinity"; et aequаlis erаt periculi, Dominum Jesum Christum aut Deum tantummodo sine homine, aut sine Deo solum hominem credidisse... The denial of human consubstantiality between us and Christ overthrows the entire "mystery of faith"... It does not turn out that a true connection with Christ is not established, "if we do not recognize in Him the flesh of our race" — if He had only "the image of a man (formam hominis), but did not receive from the Mother the "truth of the body" (et non materini corporis veritatem)... The miracle of virgin birth does not violate the consubstantiality of the Son and the Mother—the Holy Spirit gave the power of birth, but "the reality of the body from the body," veritas corporis sumpta de corpore est... Through the new, because immaculate, birth, the Son of God enters this world below. But this birth in time does not weaken His eternal birth from the Father. The Only-begotten of the eternal Father is born of the Holy Spirit, of the Virgin Mary. And in the Incarnation He is truly one, and "in this unity there is no deception" — Who is the true God, He is also the true man; qui enim verus est Deus, verus est homo... The two natures are united into a unity of person (in unam coeunte personam), and the "properties" of the natures remain "unchangeable" (salva proprietate). Greatness perceives insignificance, power perceives weakness, eternity unites with mortality, the "impassive nature" unites with the suffering. God is born in the perfect nature of the true man, uniting in this the fullness and wholeness of both natures — in integra ergo veri hominis perfectаque natura verus natus est Deus, totus in suis, totus in nostris... He acquired the human without losing the Divine, humana augens, divina non minuens... And this manifestation of the Invisible One was a movement of goodness, not a diminution of power. The perception of human nature by the Word was its exaltation, not the humiliation of the Godhead... Pope Leo achieves great expressiveness in this game with contrasts and antitheses... He defines the fullness of unity and union as the unity of the Person. However, he never defines directly and precisely what he means by the name of a person. This was not an accidental omission, and it would be especially inappropriate to keep silent about it in a dogmatic "scroll"... But dad didn't know how to define a "face"... In his early sermons, Leo spoke of the Divine-human unity either as "confusion" or as "co-existence." Again, I couldn't find the words... In the "scroll" he achieves great clarity, but not in separate definitions, but in a descriptive synthesis... An ineffable union has been accomplished, but in the unity of the person each nature ("each image", form) preserves its properties ("peculiarities", proprietas) – each image preserves the particularity of its action, and the duality of actions does not break the unity of the person... The duality of actions and revelations in the perfect unity of the indivisible Person — such is the Gospel image of Christ. One person; but one side shines with miracles, and the other in humiliation, the one is a common source of humiliation for both, the other is the source of common glory... But by virtue of the unity of the person in the two natures (in duаbus naturis), both humiliation and glory are mutual. Therefore, it can be said that the Son of man came down from heaven, although in reality the Son of God took on a body from a Virgin. And vice versa, it can be said that the Son of God was crucified and buried, although the Only-begotten endured this not in His co-eternal and consubstantial Divinity with the Father, but in the weakness of human nature... In the sequence of Gospel events, one senses a certain growth of mysterious evidence: the human becomes clearer and clearer, the Divinity becomes more radiant... Children's swaddling clothes and the voices of angels, baptism by John and testimony from the Father in the Jordan are outward signs. Hungry and thirsty, wandering homeless, and the great Wonderworker... Weeping for a dead friend, and then Resurrecting him with a single word of command... Something more opens up here... Tears and confession: "My Father is greater than Me" testify to the fullness and authenticity of human self-consciousness. And the statement: "I and the Father are one" reveals the Godhead... Not two, but One; but not one, but two (natures)... And after the Resurrection, the Lord deals with His disciples, eats with them, but passes through the closed doors, – He allows them to feel Himself, but by His breath He communicates the Spirit to them – and this at once and together, so that they may come to know in Him the inseparable union of the two natures, and without merging the Word and the flesh, they will understand that the Word and the flesh form one Son... In the depiction of Pope Leo, one Christ is really visible, he clearly and confidently draws the Gospel icon of the God-Man in his "scroll". It was evidence of a strong and clear faith, bold and calm in its clairvoyance... And, of course, Lev expounded precisely "Cyril's faith", although not at all in the language of Cyril. They are united not by formulas, but by a community of knowledge, one and the same, almost naïve, method of perceiving or perceiving the Divine-human unity... However, even less than Cyril, could Pope Leo suggest or anticipate an unambiguous dogmatic definition. His words are very vivid, but as if shrouded in a radiant fog... It was not easy and difficult to fix them ("fix") in terms of dogmatic theology... Whether the person of Pope Leo coincided with the ύπόστασις (or φύσις) of St. Cyril, or with the πρόσωπоν τής ένώσεως of Nestorius, remained unclear. Does the Latin natura coincide with the Hellenic φύσις; And how exactly is this unity of the person "in two natures" to be understood, this "descent" of the two natures "into one person"? and, finally, the most obscure thing about Pope Leo is the concept of "image", which he took from the old, still Tertullian tradition... In any case, Leo's "tomos" was not clear enough to replace the controversial "agreement" of 433. The authentic sounded not from the West, but in the East, from the lips of the Eastern Fathers, in the year 451, in Chalcedon.